Judge West sets aside the verdicts, citing a reasonable inference that Yusuf's brother acted without his knowledge
Sarah S. WestHennepin County district judge ruling on Yusuf's post-verdict motion after presiding over his trial
West concludes that the State's circumstantial evidence leaves a reasonable inference that Yusuf's brother, Mohamed Yusuf, committed the fraud without his knowledge. She finds the evidence insufficient to sustain the six aiding-and-abetting theft-by-swindle counts and grants the motion for a judgment of acquittal.
“While the Court is troubled by the manner in which fraud was able to be perpetuated at Promise, the State’s evidence did not exclude other reasonable, rational inferences that are inconsistent with Mr. Yusuf’s guilt.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Minnesota appeals court orders Yusuf's Medicaid fraud verdicts reinstated
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a post-verdict acquittal and ordered reinstatement of six aiding-and-abetting theft-by-swindle verdicts against Abdifatah Yusuf. According to the appellate opinion, the trial court had found it reasonable to infer that his brother carried out the fraud without Yusuf's knowledge or assistance. The panel concluded that this explanation was unreasonable when the circumstantial evidence was considered as a whole.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Judge Sarah S. West's November 20, 2025 order grants Yusuf's post-verdict motion and enters a judgment of acquittal on counts 2 to 7. Its attached memorandum sets out the trial history and her findings. The order is available through Minnesota Court Records Online under court file 27-CR-24-13734.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The memorandum's conclusion finds a reasonable, rational inference that Yusuf owned Promise on paper while his brother committed the fraud and ran the business without his knowledge or involvement. It notes that a conviction resting on circumstantial evidence stands only if no other reasonable inference is inconsistent with guilt.
After the quotation
The order then says the State overstated the fraud in its investigation and presentation and failed to tie Yusuf to his brother's activities. It finds the evidence insufficient for the six counts and grants the motion.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to reinstating the jury's verdicts, the order takes the opposite view: it finds the evidence insufficient to sustain the six counts and sets the verdicts aside. The label records opposition to the verdicts standing, not a view of the fraud itself, which the order calls troubling.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEllison defends the evidence and the appeal of Yusuf's acquittal
“we presented more than ample evidence at trial of Yusuf’s guilt”Read statement
Court of Appeals panel finds sufficient evidence to reinstate the verdicts
“Because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of respondent’s guilt, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of the jury’s verdicts.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Judge West sets aside the verdicts, citing a reasonable inference that Yusuf's brother acted without his knowledge
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7171-west-concludes-that-the-state-s-circumstantial-evidence
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Judge West sets aside the verdicts, citing a reasonable inference that Yusuf's brother acted without his knowledge". First published: 2026-10-29. Last updated: 2026-10-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/7171-west-concludes-that-the-state-s-circumstantial-evidence