A former senior prosecutor in the Biden administration faces a criminal probe referral. The Justice Department must decide if she lied to federal agents. This move is rare in the world of federal prosecutions. It highlights a growing clash over how the government handles corporate crimes.
Jina Choi joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in late 2023. She led the Corporate and Securities Fraud Section. Before this job, she worked as outside counsel for IRL. IRL was a social media startup co-founded by Abraham Shafi. The company claimed to connect people through local events. It shut down in 2023 after an internal probe found most users were bots.
Shafi was later indicted on federal fraud and obstruction charges. Prosecutors allege he misled investors about user growth. They claim he used paid ads to fake organic growth while raising $170 million. He also allegedly spent investor money on travel and wedding costs. But a new legal referral focuses on Choi’s conduct rather than Shafi’s alleged crimes.
The referral was sent by a lawyer representing Shafi. It alleges that Choi made false statements to the FBI. Federal agents interviewed Choi in July to question her role in the IRL investigation. She reportedly told agents she had no role in the matter. However, defense lawyers claim internal emails show a different picture.
One message allegedly shows Choi asking to help move the case along. Another document suggests she inquired about the FBI agent working on the case. She also reportedly shared press coverage of the case with other prosecutors. Yet during her interview, she claimed she did not know who was assigned to the case team.
Prosecutors have argued that Choi was screened off from the IRL investigation. They say this was done because of her prior work for the company. They insist she was walled off from any active involvement. The Justice Department generally has no obligation to respond to such referrals. But this case draws attention to potential conflicts of interest.
Cully Stimson, a former federal prosecutor, noted that criminal referrals against prosecutors are rare. Usually, defense teams attack prosecutors through standard legal motions. This referral asks for a criminal look into her conduct. It raises questions about transparency and accountability within the Department of Justice.
The documents cited in the referral are not fully public. Some emails were filed under seal by the government. This prevents the public from independently verifying the full context. Choi’s office refused to turn over a case tracker she kept. They called it privileged internal work product.
No court has yet ruled that Choi operated under a conflict of interest. Shafi’s defense argues that her prior representation created a bias. They claim she tried to shield other stakeholders at the firm. The government denies she wanted to target Shafi specifically. She advocated that the firm itself not be targeted, they say.
The investigation into IRL predated Choi’s arrival at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The referral challenges the official narrative of her detachment. It suggests she remained informed and engaged despite screening orders. The FBI declined to comment on the developing story. The Justice Department has not announced any formal action yet.