> they defrauded investors and lenders by fabricating "virtually all" of the now-bankrupt company's customer relationships and revenue.
> According to the indictment, the defendants used forged sham contracts to make it seem that iLearning's customers were real, and used "round trip" transfers of investor and lender funds -- meaning they sent money to purported customers, who then returned it to iLearning -- to manufacture revenue.
> At least 90% of iLearning's $421 million of reported revenue in 2023 was fabricated, the indictment said.
> The company went public in April 2024, and its market value on the Nasdaq peaked at $1.5 billion before a prominent short-seller questioned its reported revenue.
For the record the short sellers who blew up the fraud were Hindenburg Research. This is the second AI company they've discovered that is a scam, the other being Super Micro with their chip-selling scam: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2026/03/20/super-mic...
> used "round trip" transfers of investor and lender funds -- meaning they sent money to purported customers, who then returned it to iLearning -- to manufacture revenue.
They should’ve instead “bought stake” in the customer companies and then asked them to use that money to buy their “product” like the normal trillion dollar companies do.
After you watch the entire season if you are into the behind the scenes there were some pretty good interviews with the creators and performers talking about it - stop reading now and come back cause even the text in the links is spoilery
There is probably some phrase for describing this type of business activity. "If it's sophisticated it's actually legal" (no fault settlement). As a limited legalist this is actually the way it works and it's somewhat normal. A better lawyer provides better advice and steers company activity towards more defensible practice. If all the major ai players want to set money on fire for totally unmaintainable hobbies then so be it.
> "round trip" transfers of investor and lender funds -- meaning they sent money to purported customers, who then returned it to iLearning -
I thought a lot of public, high profile, AI adjacent sales were seller financed or financed by the seller investing in the purchaser. Is that the same thing?
No. If I sent you $100 you'd probably send that $100 back, since you didn't expect then and have no reason to accept money from me. If I now go to a third party and don't tell them about how I sent you money, I have a legitimate transfer receipt for you sending me $100.
Its both a fraud on the third party, whom I have provided incomplete information. But also on you, who have become an unwitting accomlish in my scam, at least from the point of view of the third party.
That's what they meant by "round trip" transactions? Literally sending them a check and waiting for them to return it? And no other business relationship? And then lying about it using the received check?
That must be one of the least helpful new sentences I've read in a while. I thought it just meant they were seller financing all their customers by loaning them the money and they had gotten zero real revenue.
Well in this case it looks like it was just regular double sided fraud. They opened bank accounts in fake names and bought their own product to boost revenue. Much less interesting.
> an associate of Chidambaran, who previously worked as an iLearning vice president, incorporated and opened bank accounts in the names of several purported iLearning customers. Over the course of several years, the defendants transmitted millions of dollars from iLearning to an account controlled by this individual. This individual then sent those funds to other accounts he controlled in the names of other entities, before ultimately sending the money back to iLearning. The aggregate value of these round-trip transactions exceeded $144 million.
There was a similar case in Japan recently: alt.ai
This company purported to sell AI transcription service. Raised capital from notable local VCs. Did IPO in Oct 2023.
It turned out that more than 90% of its sales were fake. The CXOs were arrested and the company was liquidated last month.
Personally I never get the appeal of going public on fake sales. By design, the amount you need to fake grows bigger and bigger over time. So the collapse is inevitable.
iLearningEngines .. hindenburg did some research ILearningEngines: An AI SPAC with Artificial Partners and Artificial Revenue (2 years ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41390619
Hindenburg Research is great. They also did the Nikola expose (that bunch of shysters who claimed to have electric truck technology where their truck couldn't even move under its own power so they filmed it rolling down a gentle slope).
For anyone wanting to get into the weeds about detecting accounting fraud, the book "Financial Shenanigans" has lots of historical examples of ways company executives have cooked the books to make their public company financial statements appear more appealing to investors than they actually are.
It's a real problem at this point. People still say "nobody went to jail for the GFC" even though over 200 people did in the US; it's just it took a decade and nobody actually paid attention a decade later when they went to jail.
> It's a real problem at this point. People still say "nobody went to jail for the GFC" even though over 200 people did in the US; it's just it took a decade and nobody actually paid attention a decade later when they went to jail.
Did over 200 people in the US go to jail for the GFC? I just tried looking and I only see 1 person in the US. Iceland had about 25.
Highest Profile Individuals Convicted
Kareem Serageldin (Credit Suisse): Widely recognized as the only high-level Wall Street executive to serve prison time directly related to the GFC.
No that's still about a decade out of date. TARP jailed IIRC 30 bank CEOs, it's just the cases took until 2017 or so and the meme had already implanted itself in people's brains. DoJ got so tired of people saying this that they put a database of all their convictions up but unfortunately it got DOGEd last year.
Many of the TARP convictions (the ones that involved the SEC) can still be found here, though:
The TARP investigations jailed people for that; that was it's main purpose. Taking the funding window required an audit, and people either lied on the audit (and got busted for that) or admitted to illegal lending or valuation on it (and got busted for that)
If they arrest everyone who does a wash transaction to generate the appearance of revenue there aren't going to be many founders left standing in 2026.
It appears what really ended their little scam was the $421 million of reported revenue based on complete lies.
Because lying to investors about product hasn't been really an issue lately, even Intel ~5 years ago did some presentations that were a complete fantasy back when they were desperate to keep their stock value but could not produce a chip smaller than 14nm.
If they prosecute CEOs based on lies to investors other than accounting, almost all AI startups would go down.
68 comments
> they defrauded investors and lenders by fabricating "virtually all" of the now-bankrupt company's customer relationships and revenue.
> According to the indictment, the defendants used forged sham contracts to make it seem that iLearning's customers were real, and used "round trip" transfers of investor and lender funds -- meaning they sent money to purported customers, who then returned it to iLearning -- to manufacture revenue.
> At least 90% of iLearning's $421 million of reported revenue in 2023 was fabricated, the indictment said.
> The company went public in April 2024, and its market value on the Nasdaq peaked at $1.5 billion before a prominent short-seller questioned its reported revenue.
For the record the short sellers who blew up the fraud were Hindenburg Research. This is the second AI company they've discovered that is a scam, the other being Super Micro with their chip-selling scam: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2026/03/20/super-mic...
> used "round trip" transfers of investor and lender funds -- meaning they sent money to purported customers, who then returned it to iLearning -- to manufacture revenue.
They should’ve instead “bought stake” in the customer companies and then asked them to use that money to buy their “product” like the normal trillion dollar companies do.
If you are not into the UK dance scene, this explains some of the music choices https://www.gq.com/story/how-industry-curated-the-best-sound...
https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/industry-season-4-episode-7...
https://www.avclub.com/industry-interview-myhala-and-marisa-...
https://www.avclub.com/surreal-watching-industry-epstein-fal...
https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/industry-seaso...
Some things will never change
https://worldstats.io/clock
>Super Micro with their chip-selling scam
"Scam"
They sold chips to someone the government is mad at. Thats not really on the same level.
> "round trip" transfers of investor and lender funds -- meaning they sent money to purported customers, who then returned it to iLearning -
I thought a lot of public, high profile, AI adjacent sales were seller financed or financed by the seller investing in the purchaser. Is that the same thing?
Its both a fraud on the third party, whom I have provided incomplete information. But also on you, who have become an unwitting accomlish in my scam, at least from the point of view of the third party.
That must be one of the least helpful new sentences I've read in a while. I thought it just meant they were seller financing all their customers by loaning them the money and they had gotten zero real revenue.
> an associate of Chidambaran, who previously worked as an iLearning vice president, incorporated and opened bank accounts in the names of several purported iLearning customers. Over the course of several years, the defendants transmitted millions of dollars from iLearning to an account controlled by this individual. This individual then sent those funds to other accounts he controlled in the names of other entities, before ultimately sending the money back to iLearning. The aggregate value of these round-trip transactions exceeded $144 million.
This company purported to sell AI transcription service. Raised capital from notable local VCs. Did IPO in Oct 2023.
It turned out that more than 90% of its sales were fake. The CXOs were arrested and the company was liquidated last month.
Personally I never get the appeal of going public on fake sales. By design, the amount you need to fake grows bigger and bigger over time. So the collapse is inevitable.
For anyone wanting to get into the weeds about detecting accounting fraud, the book "Financial Shenanigans" has lots of historical examples of ways company executives have cooked the books to make their public company financial statements appear more appealing to investors than they actually are.
> It's a real problem at this point. People still say "nobody went to jail for the GFC" even though over 200 people did in the US; it's just it took a decade and nobody actually paid attention a decade later when they went to jail.
Did over 200 people in the US go to jail for the GFC? I just tried looking and I only see 1 person in the US. Iceland had about 25.
Highest Profile Individuals Convicted Kareem Serageldin (Credit Suisse): Widely recognized as the only high-level Wall Street executive to serve prison time directly related to the GFC.
Many of the TARP convictions (the ones that involved the SEC) can still be found here, though:
https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releas...
Fun read.
These scams are all too frequent today, and putting these guys and others like them in prison would act as a deterrent.
We'll see if our system can actually hold any white collar criminals accountable though...
Because lying to investors about product hasn't been really an issue lately, even Intel ~5 years ago did some presentations that were a complete fantasy back when they were desperate to keep their stock value but could not produce a chip smaller than 14nm.
If they prosecute CEOs based on lies to investors other than accounting, almost all AI startups would go down.