Key Allegations
- A Texas investor has accused a New York-based company of soliciting $450,000 for a specific overseas real-estate deal that, according to court filings, never existed.
- The complaint repeatedly describes conduct carried out “through its principal, Bruno Bajrami,” while strategically naming only the corporate entity as a defendant.
- With the lawsuit now filed, the case enters discovery—where subpoenas, bank records, and sworn testimony could determine whether the investment narrative was real or a façade.
[USA HERALD] – When a federal civil complaint lands in court already reading like a forensic roadmap, seasoned litigators tend to notice. That is precisely what happened on December 31, 2025, when Daniel Austin, a Texas resident, filed suit against Bajrami Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The complaint does not name Bruno Bajrami personally as a defendant. Yet his name appears throughout the pleading, attached to nearly every material representation alleged to have induced the transfer of $450,000—a choice that appears less like omission and more like strategy.
According to the complaint, the case “arises from Defendant’s solicitation of $450,000 from Plaintiff for a specific investment, Defendant’s receipt of those funds, and Defendant’s subsequent failure to invest the money as represented or return it upon demand” (Complaint ¶1, p. 1)
From the opening paragraphs, the pleading frames a narrative not of a failed investment, but of an investment that allegedly never existed at all.
The Alleged Scheme, As Pleaded
Between mid-2024 and mid-2025, the defendant company— “acting through its principal, Bruno Bajrami”—is alleged to have repeatedly changed its explanation for what happened to Austin’s money (Complaint ¶2, p. 1)
The complaint alleges a progression of shifting stories: first a real-estate development in Tirana, Albania, then an oil or diesel transaction, followed by a tobacco venture purportedly connected to Philip Morris, and finally a claim that the funds had been converted to cash and handed to a third party overseas known only as “Duka” (id.).
Critically, the pleading alleges that throughout this entire period, the defendant “acknowledged that Plaintiff was owed the full $450,000,” claimed it was not liquid enough to repay him, and returned only about $2,000 total after more than a year (Complaint ¶3, p. 1; ¶¶59–60, p. 9)
