
Sam Bankman-Fried could face years in prison over FTX’s $32 billion meltdown — if the U.S. ever gets around to arresting him
More Videos
Published
2 years agoon
By
adminFTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried attends a press conference at the FTX Arena in downtown Miami on Friday, June 4, 2021.
Matias J. Ocner | Miami Herald | Tribune News Service | Getty Images
Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced former CEO of FTX — the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange that was worth $32 billion a few weeks ago — has a real knack for self-promotional PR. For years, he cast himself in the likeness of a young boy genius turned business titan, capable of miraculously growing his crypto empire as other players got wiped out. Everyone from Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalists to A-list celebrities bought the act.
But during Bankman-Fried’s press junket of the last few weeks, the onetime wunderkind has spun a new narrative – one in which he was simply an inexperienced and novice businessman who was out of his depth, didn’t know what he was doing, and crucially, didn’t know what was happening at the businesses he founded.
It is quite the departure from the image he had carefully cultivated since launching his first crypto firm in 2017 – and according to former federal prosecutors, trial attorneys and legal experts speaking to CNBC, it recalls a classic legal defense dubbed the “bad businessman strategy.”
At least $8 billion in customer funds are missing, reportedly used to backstop billions in losses at Alameda Research, the hedge fund he also founded. Both of his companies are now bankrupt with billions of dollars worth of debt on the books. The CEO tapped to take over, John Ray III, said that “in his 40 years of legal and restructuring experience,” he had never seen “such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here.” This is the same Ray who presided over Enron’s liquidation in the 2000s.
In America, it is not a crime to be a lousy or careless CEO with poor judgement. During his recent press tour from a remote location in the Bahamas, Bankman-Fried really leaned into his own ineptitude, largely blaming FTX’s collapse on poor risk management.
At least a dozen times in a conversation with Andrew Ross Sorkin, he appeared to deflect blame to Caroline Ellison, his counterpart (and one-time girlfriend) at Alameda. He says didn’t know how extremely leveraged Alameda was, and that he just didn’t know about a lot of things going on at his vast empire.
Bankman-Fried admitted he had a “bad month,” but denied committing fraud at his crypto exchange.
Fraud is the kind of criminal charge that can put you behind bars for life. With Bankman-Fried, the question is whether he misled FTX customers to believe their money was available, and not being used as collateral for loans or for other purposes, according to Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor and trial attorney who has represented clients in derivative-related claims and securities class actions.
“It sure looks like there’s a chargeable fraud case here,” said Mariotti. “If I represented Mr. Bankman-Fried, I would tell him he should be very concerned about prison time. That it should be an overriding concern for him.”
But for the moment, Bankman-Fried appears unconcerned with his personal legal exposure. When Sorkin asked him if he was concerned about criminal liability, he demurred.
“I don’t think that — obviously, I don’t personally think that I have — I think the real answer is it’s not — it sounds weird to say it, but I think the real answer is it’s not what I’m focusing on,” Bankman-Fried told Sorkin. “It’s — there’s going to be a time and a place for me to think about myself and my own future. But I don’t think this is it.”
Comments such as these, paired with the lack of apparent action by regulators or authorities, have helped inspire fury among many in the industry – not just those who lost their money. The spectacular collapse of FTX and SBF blindsided investors, customers, venture capitalists and Wall Street alike.
Bankman-Fried did not respond to a request for comment. Representatives for his former law firm, Paul, Weiss, did not immediately respond to comment. Semafor reported earlier that Bankman-Fried’s new attorney was Greg Joseph, a partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson.
Both of Bankman-Fried’s parents are highly respected Stanford Law School professors. Semafor also reported that another Stanford Law professor, David Mills, was advising Bankman-Fried.
Mills, Joseph and Bankman-Fried’s parents did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
What kind of legal trouble could he be in?
Bankman-Fried could face a host of potential charges – civil and criminal – as well as private lawsuits from millions of FTX creditors, legal experts told CNBC.
For now, this is all purely hypothetical. Bankman-Fried has not been charged, tried, nor convicted of any crime yet.
Richard Levin is a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, where he chairs the fintech and regulation practice. He’s been involved in the fintech industry since the early 1990s, and has represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Congress. All three of those entities have begun probing Bankman-Fried.
There are three different, possibly simultaneous legal threats that Bankman-Fried faces in the United States alone, Levin told CNBC.
First is criminal action from the U.S. Department of Justice, for potential “criminal violations of securities laws, bank fraud laws, and wire fraud laws,” Levin said.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.
Securing a conviction is always challenging in a criminal case.
Mariotti, the former federal prosecutor is intricately familiar with how the government would build a case. He told CNBC, “prosecutors would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bankman-Fried or his associates committed criminal fraud.”
“The argument would be that Alameda was tricking these people into getting their money so they could use it to prop up a different business,” Mariotti said.
“If you’re a hedge fund and you’re accepting customer funds, you actually have a fiduciary duty [to the customer],” Mariotti said.
Prosecutors could argue that FTX breached that fiduciary duty by allegedly using customer funds to artificially stabilize the price of FTX’s own FTT coin, Mariotti said.
But intent is also a factor in fraud cases, and Bankman-Fried insists he didn’t know about potentially fraudulent activity. He told Sorkin that he “didn’t knowingly commingle funds.”
“I didn’t ever try to commit fraud,” Bankman-Fried said.
Beyond criminal charges, Bankman-Fried could also be facing civil enforcement action. “That could be brought by the Securities Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and by state banking and securities regulators,” Levin continued.
“On a third level, there’s also plenty of class actions that can be brought, so there are multiple levels of potential exposure for […] the executives involved with FTX,” Levin concluded.
Who is likely to go after him?
The Department of Justice is most likely to pursue criminal charges in the U.S. The Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ and the SEC were both probing FTX’s collapse, and were in close contact with each other.
That kind of cooperation allows for criminal and civil probes to proceed simultaneously, and allows regulators and law enforcement to gather information more effectively.
But it isn’t clear whether the SEC or the CFTC will take the lead in securing civil damages.
An SEC spokesperson said the agency does not comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible investigation. The CFTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The question of who would be taking the lead there, whether it be the SEC or CFTC, depends on whether or not there were securities involved,” Mariotti, the former federal prosecutor, told CNBC.
SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, who met with Bankman-Fried and FTX executives in spring 2022, has said publicly that “many crypto tokens are securities,” which would make his agency the primary regulator. But many exchanges, including FTX, have crypto derivatives platforms that sell financial products like futures and options, which fall under the CFTC’s jurisdiction.

“For selling unregistered securities without a registration or an exemption, you could be looking at the Securities Exchange Commission suing for disgorgement — monetary penalties,” said Levin, who’s represented clients before both agencies.
“They can also sue, possibly, claiming that FTX was operating an unregistered securities market,” Levin said.
Then there are the overseas regulators that oversaw any of the myriad FTX subsidiaries.
The Securities Commission of The Bahamas believes it has jurisdiction, and went as far as to file a separate case in New York bankruptcy court. That case has since been folded into FTX’s main bankruptcy protection proceedings, but Bahamian regulators continue to investigate FTX’s activities.
Court filings allege that Bahamian regulators have moved customer digital assets from FTX custody into their own. Bahamian regulators insist that they’re proceeding by the book, under the country’s groundbreaking crypto regulations — unlike many nations, the Bahamas has a robust legal framework for digital assets.
But crypto investors aren’t sold on their competence.
“The Bahamas clearly lack the institutional infrastructure to tackle a fraud this complex and have been completely derelict in their duty,” Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter told CNBC. (Carter was not an FTX investor, and told CNBC that his fund passed on early FTX rounds.)
“There is no question of standing. U.S. courts have obvious access points here and numerous parts of Sam’s empire touched the U.S. Every day the U.S. leaves this in the hands of the Bahamas is a lost opportunity,” he continued.
Investors who have lost their savings aren’t waiting. Class-action suits have already been filed against FTX endorsers, like comedian Larry David and football superstar Tom Brady. One suit excoriated the celebrity endorsers for allegedly failing to do their “due diligence prior to marketing [FTX] to the public.”
FTX’s industry peers are also filing suit against Bankman-Fried. BlockFi sued Bankman-Fried in November, seeking unnamed collateral that the former billionaire provided for the crypto lending firm.
FTX and Bankman-Fried had previously rescued BlockFi from insolvency in June, but when FTX failed, BlockFi was left with a similar liquidity problem and filed for bankruptcy protection in New Jersey.
Bankman-Fried has also been sued in Florida and California federal courts. He faces class-action suits in both states over “one of the great frauds in history,” a California court filing said.
The largest securities class-action settlement was for $7.2 billion in the Enron accounting fraud case, according to Stanford research. The possibility of a multibillion-dollar settlement would come on top of civil and criminal fines that Bankman-Fried faces.
But the onus should be on the U.S. government to pursue Bankman-Fried, Carter told CNBC, not on private investors or overseas regulators.
“The U.S. isn’t shy about using foreign proxies to go after Assange — why in this case have they suddenly found their restraint?”
What penalties could he face?
Wire fraud is the most likely criminal charge Bankman-Fried would face. If the DOJ were able to secure a conviction, a judge would look to several factors to determine how long to sentence him.
Braden Perry was once a senior trial lawyer for the CFTC, FTX’s only official U.S. regulator. He’s now a partner at Kennyhertz Perry, where he advises clients on anti-money laundering, compliance and enforcement issues.
Based on the size of the losses, if Bankman-Fried is convicted of fraud or other charges, he could be behind bars for years — potentially for the rest of his life, Perry said. But the length of any potential sentence is hard to predict.
“In the federal system, each crime always has a starting point,” Perry told CNBC.
Federal sentencing guidelines follow a numeric system to determine the maximum and minimum allowable sentence, but the system can be esoteric. The scale, or “offense level,” starts at one, and maxes out at 43.
A wire fraud conviction rates as a seven on the scale, with a minimum sentence ranging from zero to six months.
But mitigating factors and enhancements can alter that rating, Perry told CNBC.
“The dollar value of loss plays a significant role. Under the guidelines, any loss above $550 million adds 30 points to the base level offense,” Perry said. FTX customers have lost billions.
“Having 25 or more victims adds 6 points, [and] use of certain regulated markets adds 4,” Perry continued.
In this hypothetical scenario, Bankman-Fried would max out the scale at 43, based on those enhancements. That means Bankman-Fried could be facing life in federal prison, without the possibility of supervised release, if he’s convicted on a single wire fraud offense.
But that sentence can be reduced by mitigating factors – circumstances that would lessen the severity of any alleged crimes.
“In practice, many white-collar defendants are sentenced to lesser sentences than what the guidelines dictate,” Perry told CNBC, Even in large fraud cases, that 30-point enhancement previously mentioned can be considered punitive.
By way of comparison, Stefan Qin, the Australian founder of a $90 million cryptocurrency hedge fund, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison after he pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud. Roger Nils-Jonas Karlsson, a Swedish national accused by the United States of defrauding over 3,500 victims of more than $16 million was sentenced to 15 years in prison for securities fraud, wire fraud and money laundering.

Bankman-Fried could also face massive civil fines. Bankman-Fried was once a multibillionaire, but claimed he was down to his last $100,000 in a conversation with CNBC’s Sorkin at the DealBook Summit last week.
“Depending on what is discovered as part of the investigations by law enforcement and the civil authorities, you could be looking at both heavy monetary penalties and potential incarceration for decades,” Levin told CNBC.
How long will it take?
Whatever happens won’t happen quickly.
In the most famous fraud case in recent years, Bernie Madoff was arrested within 24 hours of federal authorities learning of his multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. But Madoff was in New York and admitted to his crime on the spot.
The FTX founder is in the Bahamas and hasn’t admitted wrongdoing. Short of a voluntary return, any efforts to apprehend him would require extradition.
With hundreds of subsidiaries and bank accounts, and thousands of creditors, it’ll take prosecutors and regulators time to work through everything.
Similar cases “took years to put together,” said Mariotti. At FTX, where record keeping was spotty at best, collecting enough data to prosecute could be much harder. Expenses were reportedly handled through messaging software, for example, making it difficult to pinpoint how and when money flowed out for legitimate expenses.
In Enron’s bankruptcy, senior executives weren’t charged until nearly three years after the company went under. That kind of timeline infuriates some in the crypto community.
“The fact that Sam is still walking free and unencumbered, presumably able to cover his tracks and destroy evidence, is a travesty,” said Carter.
But just because law enforcement is tight-lipped, that doesn’t mean they’re standing down.
“People should not jump to the conclusion that something is not happening just because it has not been publicly disclosed,” Levin told CNBC.
Could he just disappear?
“That’s always a possibility with the money that someone has,” Perry said, although Bankman-Fried claims he’s down to one working credit card. But Perry doesn’t think it’s likely. “I believe that there has been likely some negotiation with his attorneys, and the prosecutors and other regulators that are looking into this, to ensure them that when the time comes […] he’s not fleeing somewhere,” Perry told CNBC.
In the meantime, Bankman-Fried won’t be resting easy as he waits for the hammer to drop. Rep. Maxine Waters extended a Twitter invitation for him to appear before a Dec. 13 hearing.
Bankman-Fried responded on Twitter, telling Waters that if he understands what happened at FTX by then, he’d appear.
Correction: Caroline Ellison is Bankman-Fried’s counterpart at Alameda. An earlier version misspelled her name.

You may like
Technology
Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund closes $4.6 billion growth fund
Published
14 hours agoon
April 11, 2025By
admin
Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, Palantir Technologies, and Founders Fund, holds hundred dollar bills as he speaks during the Bitcoin 2022 Conference at Miami Beach Convention Center on April 7, 2022 in Miami, Florida.
Marco Bello | Getty Images
Founders Fund, the venture capital firm run by billionaire Peter Thiel, has closed a $4.6 billion late-stage venture fund, according to a Friday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The fund, Founders Fund Growth III, includes capital from 270 investors, the filing said. Thiel, Napoleon Ta and Trae Stephens are the three people named as directors. A substantial amount of the capital was provided by the firm’s general partners, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Axios reported in December that Founders Fund was raising about $3 billion for the fund. The firm ended up raising more than that amount from outside investors as part of the total $4.6 billion pool, said the person, who asked not to be named because the details are confidential.
A Founders Fund spokesperson declined to comment.
Thiel, best known for co-founding PayPal before putting the first outside money in Facebook and for funding defense software vendor Palantir, started Founders Fund in 2005. In addition to Palantir, the firm’s top investments include Airbnb, Stripe, Affirm and Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
Founders Fund is also a key investor in Anduril, the defense tech company started by Palmer Luckey. CNBC reported in February that Anduril is in talks to raise funding at a $28 billion valuation.
Hefty amounts of private capital are likely to be needed for the foreseeable future as the IPO market remains virtually dormant. It was also dealt a significant blow last week after President Donald Trump’s announcement of widespread tariffs roiled tech stocks. Companies including Klarna, StubHub and Chime delayed their plans to go public as the Nasdaq sank.
President Trump walked back some of the tariffs this week, announcing a 90-day pause for most new tariffs, excluding those imposed on China, while the administration negotiates with other countries. But the uncertainty of where levies will end up is a troubling recipe for risky bets like tech IPOs.
SpaceX, Stripe and Anduril are among the most high-profile venture-backed companies that are still private. Having access to a large pool of growth capital allows Founders Fund to continue investing in follow-on rounds that are off limits to many traditional venture firms.
Thiel was a major Trump supporter during the 2016 campaign, but later had a falling out with the president and was largely on the sidelines in 2024 even as many of his tech peers rallied behind the Republican leader.
In June, Thiel said that even though he wasn’t providing money to the campaign for Trump, who was the Republican presumptive nominee at the time, he’d vote for him over Joe Biden, who had yet to drop out of the race and endorse Kamala Harris.
“If you hold a gun to my head, I’ll vote for Trump,” Thiel said in an interview on stage at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “I’m not going to give any money to his super PAC.”
WATCH: Anduril founder Palmer Luckey talks $32 billion government contract

Technology
Meta adds former Trump advisor to its board
Published
16 hours agoon
April 11, 2025By
admin
From left, U.S. President Donald Trump, Senator Dave McCormick, his wife Dina Powell McCormick and Elon Musk watch the men’s NCAA wrestling competition at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 22, 2025.
Brendan Smialowski | Afp | Getty Images
Meta on Friday announced that it was expanding its board of directors with two new members, including Dina Powell McCormick, a part of President Donald Trump’s first administration.
Powell McCormick served as a deputy national security advisor to Trump from 2017 to 2018. She is also married to Sen. Dave McCormick, a Republican from Pennsylvania who took office in January.
“He’s a good man,” Trump said of McCormick in an endorsement last year, according to the Associated Press. Powell McCormick and her husband were photographed in March beside Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a current advisor to the president, at a wrestling championship match in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Additionally, Powell McCormick was assistant Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice in President George W. Bush’s administration.
Besides her political background, Powell McCormick is vice chair, president and head of global client services at BDT & MSD Partners. That company was founded in 2023 when the merchant bank BDT combined with Michael Dell’s investment firm MSD. Powell McCormick arrived at the firm after 16 years at Goldman Sachs, where she had been a partner.
Her appointment represents another sign of Meta’s alignment with Republicans following Trump’s return to the White House.
In January, the company announced a shift away from fact-checking and said it was bringing Trump’s friend Dana White, CEO of Ultimate Fighting Championship, onto the board. The changes follow Trump dubbing the company behind Facebook and Instagram “the enemy of the people” on CNBC last year.
Also on Friday, Meta said Patrick Collison, co-founder and CEO of payments startup Stripe, was also elected to the board. Stripe was valued at $65 billion in a tender offer last year.
“Patrick and Dina bring a lot of experience supporting businesses and entrepreneurs to our board,” Meta co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement.
Zuckerberg visited the White House last week, after attending Trump’s inauguration in Washington in January. Politico last week reported that the Meto CEO paid $23 million in cash for a mansion in the nation’s capital.
Powell McCormick and Collison officially become directors on April 15, Meta said.
WATCH: Mark Zuckerberg lobbies Trump to avoid Meta antitrust trial, reports say

Technology
UnitedHealth is making struggling doctors repay loans issued after last year’s cyberattack
Published
20 hours agoon
April 11, 2025By
admin
UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty testifies before the Senate Finance Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 1, 2024.
Kent Nishimura | Getty Images
Following the massive cyberattack on UnitedHealth Group’s Change Healthcare unit last year, the company launched a temporary funding assistance program to help medical practices with their short-term cash flow needs, offering no-interest loans with no added fees.
A little over a year later, UnitedHealth is aggressively going after borrowers, demanding they “immediately repay” their outstanding balances, according to documents viewed by CNBC and providers who received funding. Some groups have been asked to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of days.
Optum, UnitedHealth’s financial, pharmacy and care services arm, is telling borrowers that it reserves the right to “begin offsetting claims payable” to the practices, meaning the company will withhold separate funds until it recoups the loan.
It’s a significant change in posture for the company, which suffered a cyberattack in February 2024 that compromised data from around 190 million Americans, the largest reported health-care breach in U.S. history. The ensuing disruption caused severe fallout across the health-care system, leaving many providers temporarily unable to get paid for their services. Some dipped into their personal savings to keep their practices afloat.
During a Senate hearing about the attack in May, UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty said providers would only be required to repay the loans when “they, not me, but they confirm that their cash flow is normalized.”
Several doctors who took advantage of the financing told CNBC that they can’t meet the company’s new demands. Dr. Christine Meyer, an internist who started a practice in Exton, Pennsylvania, received a letter from Optum earlier this month telling her to immediately submit her organization’s payment.
“We are not in any position to start repaying this loan,” Meyer, who started her practice about 20 years ago, told CNBC. She has been a vocal critic of UnitedHealth following the breach.
“I’m just looking at all my legal options at this point,” Meyer said. “But repaying them $750,000 in five days is obviously not going to happen.”

UnitedHealth didn’t comment on specific cases, but a spokesperson for Change Healthcare confirmed that the company has started recouping the loans.
“Now, more than one year post the event and with services restored, we have begun the process of recouping the interest-free funding we provided to providers,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
The company said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services took the same approach last year “under its own cyber-attack lending program.” HHS launched a separate funding assistance program through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services last March. CMS said it would automatically recoup payments from Medicare claims, and providers could accrue interest, according to a release.
“We continue to work with providers on repayment and other options, and continue to reach out to those providers that have not been responsive to previous calls or email requests for more information,” the Change Healthcare spokesperson said.
Providers were told that UnitedHealth reserved the right to withhold future payments when they signed up for the funding assistance program, the company added. CNBC independently reviewed a copy of a loan agreement for the program and confirmed this statement.
Change Healthcare, which offers payment and revenue cycle management tools, was acquired by Optum in 2022.
After discovering the breach last year, UnitedHealth said it isolated and disconnected the impacted systems. The company paid out more than $9 billion to providers in 2024, and more than $4.5 billion has already been repaid, according to the company’s fourth-quarter earnings report in January. UnitedHealth said providers would receive an invoice once standard payment operations resumed, and that they would be subject to a repayment period of 45 business days.
“Change Healthcare will notify the recipient that the funding amount is due after claims processing or payment processing services have resumed and payments impacted during the service disruption period are processed,” the website says.
Dwindling deposits, lost revenue
While the vast majority of Change Healthcare’s services have been restored over the course of the last year, three products are still listed as “partial service available,” according to UnitedHealth’s cyberattack response website.
And doctors are still reeling.
Meyer said that when the breach took place, she watched her practice’s daily deposits shrivel from the range of $60,000 to $80,000 to about $150 “overnight.” She applied for Optum’s temporary funding assistance program, and after some difficulty and back and forth with the company, she ultimately received a total of $756,900 in financial assistance.
Former Senator Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., shared Meyer’s story during the congressional hearing in May. He asked Witty about the company’s approach to the repayment process.
“I’d like to absolutely confirm to you and Dr. Meyer that we have no intention of asking for loan repayment until after she determines that her business is back to normal,” Witty told lawmakers. “Even then, we would not look for repayment until 45 business days – 60 calendar days – after that and there would be no interest and no fee associated with that loan.”
“So it would be a determination she makes?” Casey asked.
“That’s absolutely right,” Witty said.
Meyer said that’s not what happened.
UnitedHealth Group Inc. headquarters stands in Minnetonka, Minnesota, U.S.
Mike Bradley | Bloomberg | Getty Images
She received a notice from Optum on Jan. 24, which was viewed by CNBC, that requested repayment since “the service disruption has ended for most clients.” Meyer said she called and told the company she was “not in any position to pay.”
Meyer claims that her practice lost more than $1 million in revenue due to the Change Healthcare cyberattack. She told CNBC the figure was based on a forensic financial analysis her practice carried out by comparing its charges against payments over recent years. The $1.2 million figure accounts for losses across all its insurers, not just UnitedHealthcare, Meyer said.
On April 1, Meyer received another notice requesting immediate repayment within five business days. The letter was addressed to Meyer. But the name of the practice on the letter, Insight Counseling, as well as the total amount due, $925,200, were incorrect.
Meyer said she called Optum again and was told the company made a mistake, but that she had five days to repay her actual total of $750,000. At that point, the company would start withholding her UnitedHealthcare payments, which she described as a “shakedown.”
Meyer said her practice typically receives annual claims payments of about $150,000 to $200,000 from UnitedHealthcare.
“I guess I’ll just let them take those payments back for the next three years until they get their money back,” she told CNBC.
In a post on LinkedIn on Thursday, Meyer wrote that she and her team “made a plan to leave the least amount of money in the account set up to receive payments from UnitedHealthcare. If it isn’t there, they can’t get it.”
‘Very frustrating experience’
Dr. Purvi Parikh, an allergist and immunologist with a private practice in New York, shared a similar story.
Parikh’s practice received about $440,000 in funding assistance after the breach. She said she started getting repayment notices late last year, and that Optum was threatening to offset claims payable to the practice.
“We were already hit very hard by the Change Healthcare hack,” Parikh said in an interview. “Now on top of that, they’re asking for all of this money back or they’re going to hold future payments ransom. It’s just been a very frustrating experience dealing with Optum.”
Parikh’s practice requested a one-month extension on its final payment of $101,650 in January to try and keep UnitedHealth from withholding other payments. In the email request, Parikh’s colleague wrote that “it has been quite difficult to recover financially.”
Optum granted Parikh’s practice the extension.
“People don’t just have that amount of money just sitting around,” Parikh said. “We’ve paid everything back, but it wasn’t without hardship.”
A physician who runs a pediatric practice in New Jersey said UnitedHealth has already started withholding payments from the organization. The practice received more than $500,000 in funding assistance following the Change Healthcare breach.
The doctor, who asked not to be named due to the sensitive nature of the situation, said the practice began receiving phone calls and emails from Optum requesting repayment beginning late last year. The group indicated that it didn’t have the money, but would set up a payment plan and had begun the process.
But the doctor said its billing department noticed that UnitedHealth had already started holding back claims payments. In its explanation of benefits, which details what an insurer will cover, the doctor said the company has a line that reads, “UnitedHealthcare is withholding payment for Optum.”
WATCH: Health and Human Services Department opens probe into hack at UnitedHealth’s Change Healthcare

Trending
-
Sports2 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway