FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Bridgewater Couple Faces New Fraud Charges Over MassHealth Benefits

Rachel Kadis and Brian Ferreira are accused of fraudulently obtaining more than $267,000 in benefits.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 27, 2026, 8:27 p.m. ETWritten Aug 27, 2026, 8:41 p.m. ET
Rachel Kadis, 32, and Brian Ferreira, 34, have been with multiple counts of fraud and related offenses, according to the Plymouth County District Attorney's office as reported by boston.com. The charges include three counts of larceny over $1,200 by single scheme, one count of public assistance fraud, one count of false statement for medical assistance, one count of publishing a false financial statement, three counts of forgery, three counts of uttering, one count of perjury, four counts of making a false statement under the penalties of perjury, one count of receiving stolen property over $1,200, one count of misleading a criminal or civil investigation, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the MassHealth program. The government alleges that the couple fraudulently obtained more than $267,000 in state and federal safety-net benefits by falsely presenting Kadis as an unmarried single mother living alone with her children and without support from Ferreira, forging a lease, and making false statements about their income and living arrangements, according to boston.com. The case is at the charging stage, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The charges are allegations, and the matter has not been decided in court.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 128 Aug 2026, 00:41current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.