FirstAlerts

Suffolk Sheriff Tompkins Answers Federal Extortion Charges

Steven Tompkins has responded to allegations that he pressured a businessman for stock and repayment, as his federal corruption trial moves forward.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 1, 2026, 3:18 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 31, 2026, 6:50 p.m. ETWritten Sep 1, 2026, 3:23 p.m. ET
Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins has answered the allegations in his federal corruption trial, which now proceeds as a case, according to WBUR. Tompkins faces extortion charges. Prosecutors allege that Tompkins, as sheriff, pressured Perullo to sell him $50,000 of stock before Perullo’s company, Ascend Wellness Holdings, went public. When the stock value plummeted, Tompkins allegedly demanded the full amount of the investment back rather than eat the loss, WBUR reported. The trial is being held in district court. The case is at the stage, meaning Tompkins has responded to the allegations.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 1, 2026, 3:18 p.m. ETFirst report

    Suffolk Sheriff Tompkins Faces Federal Extortion Trial

    The federal corruption trial of Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins has begun, with prosecutors alleging he used his position to pressure businessman Joseph Perullo into selling him $50,000 of stock in Ascend Wellness Holdings before the company went public, according to WBUR. When the stock value plummeted, Tompkins allegedly demanded the full amount of the investment back rather than accept the loss.

    Tompkins faces extortion charges in the case, which is being heard in district court. The proceedings are contested, and the allegations are as reported by WBUR. The trial is ongoing, and no verdict has been reached.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 11 Sept 2026, 19:23current

    First published.

  2. Version 11 Sept 2026, 19:18current

    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.