FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Maryland Man Pleads Guilty in Technical-Support Fraud Scheme

Priyanshu Walia admitted to wire fraud in a scheme that caused losses between $5 million and $15 million, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 31, 2026, 4:11 p.m. ET
A Maryland man guilty in federal court on August 31, 2026, to charges related to his role in a technical-support fraud scheme, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. Priyanshu Walia, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, and Cleveland, Ohio, guilty to wire fraud. According to his plea, from April 2017 through November 2021, Walia and co-defendants Kapil Gulati, 52, of Glen Burnie, Maryland, and Amit Ahuja, 42, of Westminster, Maryland, conspired to defraud individuals, including older adults, by tricking them into paying for unnecessary computer security services. The scheme involved pop-up windows, unsolicited phone calls, and calls to numbers found online. Victims were falsely told their devices were compromised and were directed to call toll-free numbers staffed by the conspirators, who claimed to offer security software. Walia and his co-defendants processed payments, formed shell companies, and opened bank accounts to receive victims' payments. The scheme caused losses of more than $5 million but less than $15 million, affecting more than 1,000 victims. Walia personally received at least $80,000. Walia faces up to 20 years in prison. Ahuja and Gulati previously guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and are awaiting sentencing. The U.S. Attorney's Office announced the plea with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and Homeland Security Investigations.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 131 Aug 2026, 20:11current

    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.