Nevin Shetty’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Rejected in Fraud Case Over Crypto Investment
On Monday, September 9, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a ruling in the case of United States v. Nevin Shetty, denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence related to a wire fraud investigation. The court determined that the affidavit supporting the search warrant for Shetty’s residence did not contain any false or misleading statements regarding his actions as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Commerce Fabric Inc.
The case stems from Shetty’s management of a $35 million investment in cryptocurrency made by Commerce Fabric in April 2022, which violated the company’s investment policy. Following the investment’s failure, Shetty was terminated from his position. The government subsequently initiated an investigation, leading to the issuance of a search warrant for Shetty’s residence.
The court’s opinion noted that Shetty’s investment decisions were not authorized under the company’s investment policy, which explicitly prohibited investments in cryptocurrency. The court found that the affidavit accurately represented the policy’s terms and did not misinterpret or omit material facts related to Shetty’s authority.
In its findings, the court stated that Shetty failed to demonstrate that the affiant, who applied for the search warrant, had acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The court ruled that the omission of certain statements from a Fabric employee regarding Shetty’s practices did not negate the probable cause for the search warrant. Moreover, the court concluded that the defendant did not establish a substantial preliminary showing to warrant a Franks hearing, which allows defendants to challenge the validity of a warrant based on alleged falsehoods in the supporting affidavit.
The affidavit, submitted by Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Krista Beckley, cited Shetty’s transfer of funds into a cryptocurrency account, stating that this investment violated Commerce Fabric’s policy. The ruling emphasized that the investment policy, adopted shortly before the transfers, outlined specific approved investment types and procedures for exceptions, none of which included cryptocurrency.
During the proceedings, the court clarified that a CFO’s authority to manage company funds does not exempt them from adhering to established investment guidelines. The court pointed out that Shetty’s argument that he was exempt from these guidelines was not supported by the policy’s plain language.
In its decision, the court also addressed Shetty’s claims that the affidavit falsely stated he had received a notice of termination prior to making the investment. The ruling noted that there was a lack of evidence to support Shetty’s assertion that the affiant had intentionally misstated this fact.
The court’s order denied Shetty’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant, allowing the government to proceed with its case. The judge asserted that the warrant affidavit was presumptively valid and that the defendant’s arguments did not meet the required legal standards to challenge its validity.
Shetty’s legal team has been actively contesting the government’s allegations, arguing that the investment was made within the bounds of his authority and that the affidavit misrepresented key facts. However, the court found that the evidence presented did not undermine the validity of the warrant.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
