California Man Sentenced to 36 Months for Defrauding Former Employer Optum
Karan Gupta was sentenced to 36 months in prison for wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy in a scheme that defrauded Optum, Inc. of more than $950,000.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 3:48 p.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 25, 2026, 1:08 p.m. ET — checked 6h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 3:48 p.m. ETFirst report
California Man Sentenced to 36 Months for Defrauding Former Employer Optum
MINNEAPOLIS – On August 25, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota announced that Karan Gupta, 48, of Walnut Creek, California, was sentenced to 36 months in prison for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, ten counts of wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The sentencing occurred on August 24, 2026, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Gupta, a former senior director at Optum, Inc., was found guilty by a jury on February 17, 2026, following a six-day trial. Court documents and trial evidence showed that between 2015 and 2020, Gupta created a no-show job for his friend Shangraf Kaul, 45, of East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, as a data engineering manager, and received about 60% of Kaul's salary as kickbacks. The fraud totaled more than $950,000, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Kaul pleaded guilty on February 26, 2025, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and is awaiting sentencing. The case was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew D. Forbes and Rebecca E. Kline.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 19:52current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 19:48current
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.