Minnesota Judge Sparks Controversy by Overturning $7.2 Million Medicaid Fraud Conviction

Legal experts and lawmakers are questioning a rare judicial decision in Minnesota after Hennepin County Judge Sarah West overturned a unanimous jury verdict in a significant Medicaid fraud case, potentially worth $7.2 million in stolen public funds.

The ruling, issued last month, has drawn heightened scrutiny as Minnesota battles multiple welfare and human services fraud scandals that have already attracted national attention and congressional inquiry. Critics say the decision may undermine the state’s ability to prosecute white-collar and welfare fraud at a time when billions in taxpayer dollars remain vulnerable.

University of Minnesota law professor JaneAnne Murray expressed surprise at the ruling, noting its exceptional nature. “It is highly unusual for a judge to reject a jury’s verdict in any case, much less a white-collar one, where issues of intent will almost always be circumstantial,” Murray told media outlets.

The case involved Abdifatah Yusuf, who was found guilty by a jury on six counts of aiding and abetting theft. Prosecutors alleged that Yusuf and his wife stole $7.2 million from Minnesota’s Medicaid program while operating a home healthcare business that reportedly existed primarily “out of a mailbox” rather than maintaining legitimate offices.

According to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, evidence suggested Yusuf used the fraudulently obtained funds to finance a “lavish lifestyle,” including shopping sprees at luxury retailers such as Coach, Canada Goose, Michael Kors, Nike, and Nordstrom.

Despite the jury’s unanimous verdict, Judge West vacated the conviction, ruling that the state’s case relied too heavily on circumstantial evidence and failed to eliminate all reasonable alternative explanations for Yusuf’s involvement.

“There is a reasonable, rational inference that Mr. Yusuf was the owner… but that his brother, Mohamed Yusuf, was committing the fraud… without Mr. Yusuf’s knowledge or involvement,” West wrote in her decision.

What makes this case particularly notable is Minnesota’s uniquely stringent circumstantial evidence standard, which requires prosecutors to “exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” This standard, currently under review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, gives judges broader authority to vacate convictions if they determine that alternative explanations for a defendant’s conduct remain plausible.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy characterized the ruling as extraordinary, saying it “seems untenable” and goes “far beyond what trial judges are normally permitted to do.”

“The judge is only permitted to vacate a guilty verdict if it is obviously irrational and against the full weight of the evidence,” McCarthy explained. “The fact that a case is circumstantial — meaning there is no central witness who saw the crime — is not a reason to overturn it. Very often, circumstantial cases are much stronger than cases that rise or fall on the testimony of witnesses of dubious credibility.”

Ben Walfoort, who served as the jury foreperson, told local media he was “shocked” by West’s decision to overturn what he described as a straightforward verdict. “It was not a difficult decision whatsoever,” Walfoort stated, suggesting the jury found the evidence against Yusuf compelling.

The decision has sparked political backlash as well. Minnesota Republican Senator Michael Holmstrom criticized West as a “true extremist” and has formally requested that she unseal key exhibits and the entire case record, arguing that “the public must know what is happening in their courts and in their welfare programs.”

West, who was appointed to the bench in 2018 by then-Governor Mark Dayton, previously served as a public defender and handled juvenile and child protection cases in Hennepin County. She also held leadership positions with the Hennepin County Bar Foundation, which funds legal aid and community justice programs.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has filed an appeal of West’s decision. Legal experts note that because West waited until after jury deliberations to overturn the verdict, the state retains the ability to challenge her ruling—a procedural avenue that would not have been available had she dismissed the case before it reached the jury.

The case continues to draw attention as Minnesota grapples with broader concerns about fraud in its public assistance programs, with estimates of fraudulent activity reaching into hundreds of millions of dollars across multiple schemes.