FirstAlerts

Former Linqto CEO Responds to Criminal Fraud Charges

William Sarris has answered allegations in the criminal case against him, which remains at the charging stage.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 3, 2026, 3:21 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 3, 2026, 3:11 p.m. ETWritten Sep 3, 2026, 3:24 p.m. ET
William Sarris, the former CEO of Linqto, has responded to the fraud charges filed against him, according to wealthmanagement.com. The case, brought by the , remains at the charging stage in district court, and no finding has been made. Sarris was previously in a case, as reported by wealthmanagement.com. The and the specific allegations have not been detailed in the available record.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 3, 2026, 3:21 p.m. ETFirst report

    Former Linqto CEO Charged in Criminal Fraud Case

    William Sarris, the former CEO of Linqto, has been charged in a criminal case, the Justice Department said in a litigation release, as reported by wealthmanagement.com. The case is pending in district court.

    The charges are only allegations at this stage, and the matter is undecided. Sarris has not been found guilty, and the case has not been resolved. Further details about the alleged conduct were not provided in the available reporting.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 13 Sept 2026, 19:24current

    First published.

  2. Version 13 Sept 2026, 19:21current

    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.