Former aerospace employee admits military leave pay fraud

What happened

Omar Naziry, a former employee of a global security and aerospace company, pleaded guilty to mail fraud in federal court in San Jose, California, on 18 June 2025 over false claims for military leave pay.

The US Department of Justice announcement, which is the source of this report, identified Naziry as a 40-year-old resident of Mountain View. It did not name his former employer.

According to his plea agreement, Naziry received pay supplements and other employment benefits between August 2016 and April 2022 by claiming he was away on military deployment. He acknowledged that he had never belonged to the US armed forces.

His first application, in August 2016, included fabricated deployment orders and a military document showing supposed earnings and leave information. The company approved the payments.

In July 2017, Naziry sought to continue receiving the supplement, presenting further false orders and claiming that his deployment would last another four years. The employer also approved that request.

A further application in June 2021 failed because he had exhausted the company's five-year allowance for the payments. In January 2022, he tried to obtain more money using a false identity.

The company challenged the authenticity of his deployment paperwork in a letter sent in March 2022. Naziry replied by post, maintaining that the documents were genuine and that he was serving in the Middle East, in an attempt to secure further payments.

The background

The benefit was designed to protect employees from losing income while undertaking military service. It covered the gap between their military earnings and their company salary, a payment known as differential pay.

According to the indictment, the employer introduced the arrangement after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and subsequently widened eligibility to include every type of military leave.

The case concerns misuse of an employment benefit, rather than an allegation of stolen aerospace information or interference with security systems. Its relevance to insider risk lies in an employee using false supporting documents to obtain money through an established workplace process.

That differs from cases in which an employee controls the payment process itself. In an earlier Georgia charity embezzlement case, an employee used her payroll and expenses responsibilities to divert funds, according to the Department of Justice. The distinction matters when assessing whether a risk comes from dishonest applications, misuse of administrative authority, or both.

Naziry also acknowledged a separate fraud involving federal housing support. Between January 2021 and October 2022, he received $35,093 from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development after deliberately reporting income substantially below his actual earnings, according to the plea agreement.

A federal grand jury indicted him on 24 July 2024. The June 2025 announcement records a guilty plea to one mail fraud count; it describes the housing fraud as a separate admission within the plea agreement, rather than announcing a second guilty plea.

What people are saying

The Department of Justice said Naziry acknowledged that his conduct cost the employer between $250,000 and $550,000. The announcement gave a range rather than a single loss figure.

US Attorney Craig H. Missakian and John Helsing, acting head of the Western Field Office of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, announced the plea. The department attributed the investigation to that service and the housing department's Office of Inspector General.

The announcement identified Assistant US Attorney Ryan Arash Rezaei as the prosecutor, supported by Kevin Costello and Lynette Dixon.

What happens next

At the time of the announcement, Naziry remained free on bond. His sentencing was scheduled for 24 September 2025 at 10:00 before US District Judge P. Casey Pitts; the supplied release does not report the outcome of that hearing.

The offence carries a maximum prison term of 20 years. The department also listed a potential fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain from the offence.

Those figures are statutory ceilings, not a prediction of the punishment. The court would determine the sentence after considering federal sentencing guidelines and the factors required by US sentencing law.