Former Fort McMurray basketball coach charged in fraud case
Saleem Farhat faces charges in a fraud case involving fake investment deals and youth basketball programs; the case is undecided.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 7:17 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 7:23 a.m. ET
Wood Buffalo RCMP charge Saleem Farhat with fraud and false pretenses
Saleem Farhat, 36, has been charged with 10 counts of fraud over $5,000 and two counts of false pretenses, according to Wood Buffalo RCMP. The charges stem from an investigation by Wood Buffalo RCMP and Airdrie RCMP.
The government alleges Farhat took money from families, colleagues and other residents through fake investment deals and paid youth basketball programs between 2022 and 2024. The allegations have not been proven in court, and Farhat is presumed innocent unless and until found guilty.
The charges were announced on September 9, 2026. The case is at the charging stage, and no trial date has been reported.
Sep 9, 2026, 7:17 a.m. ETFirst report
Former Fort McMurray basketball coach charged in $160,000 fraud case
Saleem Farhat, 36, has been charged with 10 counts of fraud over $5,000 and two counts of false pretenses, Medicine Hat News reported on September 9, 2026. The charges stem from an investigation by Wood Buffalo RCMP and Airdrie RCMP.
The government alleges Farhat took money from families, colleagues and other residents through fake investment deals and paid youth basketball programs between 2022 and 2024. These allegations are undecided, as the case is only at the charging stage and has not been resolved in court. Farhat is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 11:23current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 11:17current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 11:52current
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.