A former senior federal prosecutor faces a criminal referral to the Justice Department over alleged false statements to the FBI about her role in a Silicon Valley fraud case.
A lawyer retained by tech founder Abraham Shafi sent the referral on Tuesday, asking federal authorities to examine whether Jina Choi misled agents about her involvement in the investigation of IRL, the social-media startup Shafi co-founded.
Fox News Digital reported the referral first, detailing internal communications and FBI interview records that Shafi’s side says contradict Choi’s account. As of publication, Choi has not been charged with any crime or disciplined for professional misconduct tied to the Shafi case.
Choi joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California in late 2023. Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey soon tapped her to lead the Corporate and Securities Fraud Section. Before she entered government, she had represented IRL as outside counsel.
That prior work created an obvious conflict risk. Prosecutors said she was screened and walled off from the federal probe involving IRL and Shafi. The defense now argues the wall failed.
IRL shut down in 2023 after a board-directed investigation concluded that 95% of its users were likely bots. Shafi disputed that finding. Prosecutors later alleged he had raised about $170 million from investors. The federal investigation into the company began before Choi arrived at the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Shafi was indicted in 2025 on federal fraud and obstruction charges, including wire fraud and securities fraud. The charges came a few months after Choi left the office. His defense has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Choi’s conduct created a conflict that taints the prosecution. No judge has ruled that any conflict warrants dismissal.
The separate criminal referral focuses on what Choi told the FBI. Agents interviewed her in July about her role in the IRL investigation. According to the referral, she told agents she did “not have any kind of role in the investigation.”
Shafi’s lawyer points to internal messages that paint a different picture. In one message described in the referral, Choi wrote: “I talked to [her predecessor] and I wanted to see if it would be ok to add [him] to the IRL team to help move it along.”
The referral also claims Choi told agents she was not aware “who was assigned to the case team,” yet admitted keeping a written case tracker on which “the SHAFI investigation was listed.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office has described that tracker as privileged internal work product and has not turned it over.
Government filings have pushed back on parts of the defense narrative. Prosecutors denied that Choi tried to steer authorities toward targeting Shafi in order to shield other stakeholders. They acknowledged she advocated that the firm itself not be targeted, but disputed any claim that she wanted the government to go after Shafi personally. Underlying email exhibits were filed under seal or as sealed exhibit slip sheets.
Criminal investigation referrals aimed at prosecutors are uncommon. Heritage Foundation legal fellow and former federal prosecutor Cully Stimson told Fox News Digital the defense claims raise serious process questions if they hold up.
Stimson said:
"Here, the defense's allegations are troubling if true, because if their allegations end up being true, there was spillage,"
He added:
"And that would mean some other members of that office are therefore conflicted, and it could result in the entire office being conflicted if a judge found that the taint was so bad that it permeated the whole office."
Stimson also cautioned against treating the episode as a broad indictment of the prior administration, noting that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices operate with significant independence. The Justice Department generally has no obligation to respond to referrals of this kind. The FBI declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital. Choi did not respond to a request for comment.
Accountability fights over alleged false statements to federal investigators have surfaced in other high-profile settings, including cases where an ex-prosecutor faces DOJ criminal referral on similar themes.
Federal offices screen former counsel from matters involving old clients for a simple reason: public trust collapses when prosecutors appear to work both sides of the same dispute. If Choi remained involved after the claimed wall-off, through emails, staffing inquiries, press clips, or a live case tracker, the screening process failed in practice, not just on paper.
Shafi’s defense has a clear incentive. Proving improper involvement by a senior prosecutor who once represented the company could support dismissal or force a special counsel arrangement. That does not make the allegations true. It does mean the Justice Department now has a documented claim that a former section chief understated her role to FBI agents while internal records suggested continued contact with the matter.
Similar pressure for outside scrutiny has appeared when courts and litigants push DOJ to examine local law-enforcement leaders, including episodes in which a federal judge refers a district attorney for criminal investigation.
The Northern District of California handles major corporate and securities cases across the Bay Area and Silicon Valley. When a conflict claim reaches the point of a criminal referral, the stakes are not limited to one defendant. If a judge later finds the taint spread through the office, other matters can face delay, recusal fights, or worse.
Key dates remain fuzzy in public reporting. The referral landed on a Tuesday, without a full calendar date attached in the initial account. The July FBI interview year is not specified in the same reporting. Choi’s exact departure date from the office is also unclear beyond the fact that Shafi’s charges followed a few months later.
The full unredacted content of the sealed email exhibits and the case tracker has not been released. DOJ has not publicly said whether it will open a formal inquiry, decline the referral, or take another path. No docket number or full case caption for the underlying Shafi prosecution appears in the initial Fox News Digital account.
Those gaps matter. A referral is not a charge. An allegation is not a finding. But the core contradiction is now on the table: a claimed total lack of role, set against messages about staffing the IRL team and a tracker that listed the Shafi investigation.
Public integrity cases often turn on whether officials told investigators the whole story when the spotlight hit. Parallel fights over alleged false statements and obstruction have driven other referrals, including matters where a judge sent a DA to DOJ over perjury claims.
Broader DOJ scrutiny of powerful figures has also kept grand juries busy in recent cycles, from intelligence-community veterans to political-legal battles in which figures such as John Brennan faced a Florida grand jury subpoena in a conspiracy probe.
Leadership changes inside sensitive DOJ inquiries can reshape those fights as well, as seen when Joe diGenova stepped down from a conspiracy probe aimed at political targets.
For now, the Shafi prosecution continues without a judicial finding that Choi’s prior representation and later conduct require dismissal. The criminal referral sits with the Justice Department. Choi faces no pending charge and no announced professional discipline connected to the case.
Taxpayers fund these offices on the promise that prosecutors follow the same truth-telling rules they enforce against everyone else. When a senior lawyer who once represented the target later appears in the paper trail of the investigation, the public deserves a straight answer, not a sealed exhibit and a shrug.
