Former Linqto CEO Pleads Guilty in Pre-IPO Fraud Case
William Sarris, 75, admitted to securities fraud and other charges; his co-defendant Joseph Endoso, 66, has not pleaded guilty.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 11, 2026, 12:28 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 11, 2026, 12:32 a.m. ET
Two Former Linqto CEOs Charged in Pre-IPO Fraud Scheme
Two former Linqto CEOs have been charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, broker-dealer fraud and conspiracy, wsau.com reported on Sept. 2, 2026.
The defendants are William Sarris, 75, and Joseph Endoso, 66, according to wsau.com. The case is at the charging stage, and the charges are allegations; the accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Sarris allegedly imposed high double-digit percentage markups, and sometimes markups exceeding 200%, though his lawyers told him repeatedly it was illegal, wsau.com reported.
No trial date or further court schedule was included in the fact set.
Sep 11, 2026, 12:28 a.m. ETFirst report
Two Former Linqto CEOs Charged in Pre-IPO Fraud Scheme
Federal charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, broker-dealer fraud and conspiracy were announced on September 2, 2026 against two former Linqto CEOs, William Sarris, 75, and Joseph Endoso, 66, according to wsau.com. The proceeding is at the charging stage; the case has not been resolved and remains undecided.
Sarris allegedly imposed high double-digit percentage markups, and sometimes markups exceeding 200%, though his lawyers told him repeatedly it was illegal, wsau.com reported.
The charges are allegations. No trial has taken place, and both defendants are presumed innocent. The matter remains undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 04:32current
First published.
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 04:28current
First published.
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 04:38current
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.