Former Executives of 'Pre-IPO' Platform Charged in $450 Million Fraud Scheme
Federal prosecutors announced charges against the founder of Linqto and a guilty plea from his former second-in-command in connection with an alleged scheme that defrauded investors of over $450 million. The case against the founder is ongoing and has not been resolved.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan announced on September 2, 2026, the unsealing of an indictment charging William Sarris, the founder of Linqto Inc., a "pre-IPO" investment platform, with securities fraud, broker-dealer fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy charges. The charges are allegations, and Sarris is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been adjudicated; no trial date has been set.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, from 2020 through 2025, Sarris allegedly defrauded customers by exploiting the lack of pricing transparency in private securities, manufacturing false scarcity, manipulating pricing models, and imposing markups that sometimes exceeded 200%. The scheme allegedly drew in over $450 million from more than 13,000 customers before Linqto collapsed into bankruptcy in mid-2025.
Sarris, 75, of Monterey, California, was arrested and is to be presented in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. His former second-in-command, Joseph Endoso, 66, of Ross, California, pleaded guilty on August 27, 2026, to securities fraud, broker-dealer fraud, and conspiracy charges, and is cooperating with the government. Endoso's guilty plea resolves the charges against him, but Sarris's case remains pending and undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 19:23current
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.