A foreign-based entrepreneur’s online “investment guru” persona collides with an FBI investigation amid allegations that he defrauded American investors of hundreds of thousands of dollars
[USA HERALD] – A federal civil fraud lawsuit was already moving through court. Now, according to a verified source familiar with the matter, federal law enforcement has entered the picture.
USA Herald has confirmed through a verified source that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened an investigation into Bruno Bajrami and Bajrami Group, Inc. The existence of an investigation does not constitute criminal charges, and no indictment has been announced. However, the development marks a significant escalation beyond the civil litigation previously reported.
As readers will recall, Daniel Austin, a Texas resident, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that Bajrami Group, Inc. solicited and received $450,000 for a purported overseas real estate investment that, according to the complaint, never materialized. Those allegations remain unproven in court. But the factual framework described in that filing — interstate wire transfers, cross-border misrepresentations, and alleged shifting explanations regarding the disposition of funds — falls squarely within the statutory architecture of federal wire fraud law.
Under 18 U.S.C. §1343, wire fraud occurs when a person devises or intends to devise a scheme to defraud and uses interstate or foreign wire communications to execute that scheme. Each separate wire transmission may constitute a separate criminal count. The statute carries a maximum penalty of twenty years per count, or thirty years if a financial institution is affected, along with substantial fines under 18 U.S.C. §3571.
While sentencing ultimately depends on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and judicial discretion, loss calculations exceeding $250,000 significantly elevate advisory guideline ranges under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1. Additional enhancements may apply if investigators were to conclude that sophisticated means were employed or that a vulnerable victim was targeted.
The cross-border dimension adds another layer of exposure. Federal jurisdiction extends to schemes executed through interstate or foreign wires, even when an individual operates from abroad under the umbrella of a U.S.-registered corporation. If funds were transmitted overseas or converted into foreign currency as alleged in the civil complaint, those movements would not diminish federal jurisdiction; they may, in fact, strengthen it. Conspiracy provisions under 18 U.S.C. §1349 and aiding-and-abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. §2 could also become relevant depending on investigative findings.
If the FBI investigation were to result in formal charges and an arrest warrant, operational consequences would follow quickly.
Federal warrants are entered into the National Crime Information Center database. In parallel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection may enter what is formally known as a TECS Lookout Record. A TECS lookout flags an individual at ports of entry, triggers mandatory secondary inspection, and alerts officers to coordinate with law enforcement. In practical terms, this is what many colloquially describe as being “flagged” at the border. If an active warrant exists, CBP officers may detain the individual pending confirmation from federal authorities.
Should a defendant be physically outside the United States at the time charges are filed, extradition procedures governed by 18 U.S.C. §3184 and applicable bilateral treaties would come into play. Wire fraud is generally considered an extraditable offense under modern treaties, provided dual criminality requirements are satisfied. Extradition is not automatic, but it is a well-established mechanism in federal prosecutions involving cross-border financial crimes.
The statute of limitations is also central to any criminal analysis. For wire fraud, the default limitations period is five years under 18 U.S.C. §3282(a). That clock typically begins running from the date of the last overt act, often the final wire transmission or material misrepresentation.
However, under 18 U.S.C. §3293, if the offense affects a financial institution, the statute of limitations may extend to ten years. If the conduct described in the Austin complaint continued into 2025, the five-year window would extend into 2030. Moreover, if additional victims are identified and more recent transactions are uncovered, separate counts could carry their own limitations timelines.
Immigration consequences could also be significant if charges were ever filed and a conviction obtained. Wire fraud is commonly treated as a crime involving moral turpitude under federal immigration law. Conviction can trigger grounds of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2) and removal provisions under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2). Visa revocation authority exists under 8 U.S.C. §1201(i). In practical terms, a fraud conviction can carry consequences extending far beyond incarceration.
It bears repeating that no criminal charges have been filed at this time, and an investigation does not predetermine an outcome. Federal investigations often take months or years to develop. Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secrecy. Evidence is tested. Witnesses are interviewed. Financial records are traced. Only if prosecutors conclude that probable cause exists would formal charges be sought.
Still, the shift from civil allegations to confirmed federal investigation materially changes the landscape. Discovery in the civil case may continue in parallel. Subpoenas, bank records, and communications could become central not only to the civil dispute but to any broader inquiry into financial representations made to investors.
What remains unclear is whether the Austin lawsuit represents an isolated dispute between two parties — or the first public filing in a wider investigative picture.
USA Herald will continue to report verified developments as they occur.
