Danish Researcher Pleads Guilty to Stealing CDC Grant Money
Poul Thorsen, a Danish researcher, pleaded guilty to wire fraud for diverting over $1 million in CDC grant funds intended for autism research.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 1, 2026, 3:17 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 1, 2026, 3:17 p.m. ETFirst report
Danish Researcher Pleads Guilty to Stealing CDC Grant Money
ATLANTA — Poul Thorsen, a Danish researcher who had been a fugitive for more than a decade, pleaded guilty on September 1, 2026, to wire fraud for stealing CDC grant money intended for autism research, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. He faces up to 14 years in prison.
From 2000 to 2009, the CDC awarded over $11 million in grants to two Danish governmental agencies for research on autism and vaccines, cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and childhood development and fetal alcohol exposure. Thorsen, who had worked as a visiting scientist at the CDC, became the principal investigator in 2002. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, from February 2004 through June 2008, he submitted fraudulent invoices with a forged CDC signature, causing Aarhus University to transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts he controlled. In total, he diverted more than $1 million, using the money to buy a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and vehicles, among other expenses.
Thorsen, 65, was arrested in Germany on June 4, 2025, and extradited to the United States on May 7, 2026. He has been in U.S. Marshals custody since then. Sentencing is scheduled for December 1, 2026, before U.S. District Judge J. P. Boulee. The case is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen H. McClain.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 19:23current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 19:17current
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.