FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Rye Man Pleads Guilty in International Fraudulent Market Survey Scheme

Frank Nappo, 56, of Rye, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, admitting to participating in an international scheme to sell fabricated market survey data.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 3:16 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 31, 2026, 3:22 p.m. ET
CONCORD – Frank Nappo, 56, of Rye, guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud on August 31, 2026, admitting to participating in an international scheme to sell fabricated market survey data, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Hampshire. U.S. District Judge Landya B. McCafferty scheduled sentencing for December 17, 2026. According to the public record, Op4G and Slice were market research companies based in New Hampshire and Illinois, respectively. Clients hired the companies to conduct market research surveys. As part of their business model, Op4G and Slice maintained “panels” of individuals potentially eligible to take surveys. Nappo was the Chief Executive Officer of Op4G. In 2014, conspirators decided to increase Op4G revenues by generating fabricated survey data, and Nappo joined the conspiracy. To execute the scheme, the conspirators recruited “ants,” who pretended to be legitimate survey takers but were paid a nominal fee for completing surveys that produced false market research data. Some conspirators even served as “ants” and fraudulently took large quantities of surveys themselves, receiving significant payments. To evade detection, the conspirators exchanged instructions on how to answer survey screener questions, provided parameters on how long “ants” should remain on surveys, and encouraged the use of virtual private network (VPN) services to conceal real IP addresses. Conspirators later spun off the fraudulent operations to a new company, Slice. Nappo provided bookkeeping and payroll-related services for the conspiracy and made payments for the “ants.” The charging statute provides a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, up to 3 years of supervised release, and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes. The FBI led the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen is prosecuting the case. Co-defendants Frank Hayden, Daniel Harriman, and Ryan Stoudt guilty on February 2, 2026, February 24, 2026, and March 5, 2026, respectively. Co-defendants Katarina Grubljesic, Strahinja Grubljesic, and Arvind Iyer, a/k/a S. Aravindan, remain international fugitives.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 31, 2026, 3:16 p.m. ETFirst report

    Rye Man Pleads Guilty in International Fraudulent Market Survey Scheme

    CONCORD – Frank Nappo, 56, of Rye, pleaded guilty on August 31, 2026, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, admitting to participating in an international scheme to sell fabricated market survey data, U.S. Attorney Erin Creegan announced. U.S. District Judge Landya B. McCafferty scheduled sentencing for December 17, 2026.

    According to the public record, Op4G and Slice were market research companies based in New Hampshire and Illinois, respectively. Clients hired the companies to conduct market research surveys. As part of their business model, Op4G and Slice maintained “panels” of individuals potentially eligible to take surveys. Nappo was the Chief Executive Officer of Op4G. In 2014, conspirators decided to increase Op4G revenues by generating fabricated survey data, and Nappo joined the conspiracy.

    To execute the scheme, the conspirators recruited “ants,” who pretended to be legitimate survey takers but instead were paid a nominal fee for completing surveys that produced false market research data. Some conspirators even served as “ants” and fraudulently took large quantities of surveys themselves, receiving significant payments. To evade detection, they exchanged instructions on how to answer screener questions, provided parameters on how long “ants” should remain on surveys, and encouraged the use of virtual private network (VPN) services to conceal real IP addresses. Conspirators later spun off the fraudulent operations to a new company, Slice. Nappo provided bookkeeping and payroll-related services for the conspiracy and made payments for the “ants.”

    The charging statute provides a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, up to 3 years of supervised release, and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes governing the determination of a sentence in a criminal case. The FBI led the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen is prosecuting the case.

    Co-defendants Frank Hayden, Daniel Harriman, and Ryan Stoudt pleaded guilty on February 2, 2026, February 24, 2026, and March 5, 2026, respectively. Co-defendants Katarina Grubljesic, Strahinja Grubljesic, and Arvind Iyer, a/k/a S. Aravindan, remain international fugitives.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 131 Aug 2026, 19:22current

    First published.

  2. Version 131 Aug 2026, 19:16current

    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.