Two individuals charged in a federal fraud case involving a former Loretto Hospital executive are seeking to have the charges against them dismissed, citing possible misconduct by federal prosecutors, according to a motion filed on May 27. The legal challenge comes amid fallout from the recent collapse of the “Broadview Six” case, which involved similar allegations of prosecutorial impropriety.
Mahmood Sami Khan and Suhaib Ahmad Chaudhry were charged in June 2025 with participating in an alleged scheme alongside former Loretto Chief Financial Officer Anosh Ahmed to defraud the federal government out of nearly $900 million through fake COVID-19 testing. Their trial is scheduled for early July.
The motion filed Tuesday argues that a federal prosecutor accused of misconduct during grand jury proceedings in the Broadview protesters’ case also engaged in similar conduct before the same grand jury when seeking indictments against Khan and Chaudhry. Attorneys Patrick Blegen and Gabrielle Sansonetti wrote that they were informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Friday, one day after the Broadview case collapsed due to misconduct allegations, that there may be an issue involving improper vouching before their grand jury. Vouching occurs when an attorney offers improper guarantees about a case.
The defense attorneys said they received transcripts from those proceedings for review. In their motion, Blegen and Sansonetti said their review found repeated instances of vouching, inflammatory characterizations such as name-calling, and mischaracterization of evidence and legal principles. They noted that the same grand jury was used for both cases.
The prosecutor is not named in court documents; however, Sheri Mecklenburg is identified as having worked on both cases and previously led another investigation into alleged embezzlement at Loretto Hospital. Mecklenburg could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday, nor could representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
According to Blegen and Sansonetti’s motion, prosecutors plan to seek a superseding indictment “to cure any potential taint associated with” conduct by the unnamed prosecutor. The attorneys acknowledged that dismissing an indictment due to grand jury misconduct is not typical, but argued that “this is not a typical case.”
