The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Babajide Adefusi can be prosecuted for wire fraud, despite a previous plea agreement that he believed protected him from further charges. The court found that the agreement only applied to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas and did not prevent other jurisdictions from pursuing charges. This decision affects Adefusi, who is currently serving a 24-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
The case, United States v. Babajide Adefusi, was decided on July 2, 2026, and stems from Adefusi's earlier conviction for aiding and abetting passport fraud in 2018. The ruling highlights the complexities of plea agreements and their limitations across different jurisdictions.
Background
Babajide Adefusi entered a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas in 2018. He pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting passport fraud, which involved using counterfeit passports to open bank accounts and facilitate fraudulent wire transfers. The scheme resulted in a loss of approximately $2.2 million.
As part of the plea agreement, Adefusi was assured that he would not face additional charges related to the passport fraud scheme. However, in March 2023, he was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Central District of Illinois for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which involved defrauding a pharmacy services company. This indictment led Adefusi to argue that the Illinois prosecution violated his earlier plea agreement.
The Ruling
The court ruled against Adefusi, stating that the plea agreement he signed with the Southern District of Texas was clear in its limitations. The agreement explicitly stated that it only bound the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas and did not prevent other U.S. Attorneys from pursuing charges.
The court stated, "the plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, and it does not bind any other United States Attorney."
Judges Easterbrook, Ripple, and Pryor presided over the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Adefusi's motion to dismiss the indictment, agreeing that the plea agreement was unambiguous and did not prohibit the Central District of Illinois from prosecuting him.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the scope of plea agreements and their enforceability across different jurisdictions. It emphasizes that defendants cannot assume that a plea deal in one district will protect them from prosecution in another. The decision could have broader implications for individuals involved in multi-jurisdictional criminal activities, as it sets a precedent that plea agreements are often limited to the specific U.S. Attorney’s Office that negotiated them.
Adefusi’s case serves as a cautionary tale for those entering plea agreements, highlighting the importance of understanding the full extent and limitations of such agreements. It also underscores the need for clear language in legal documents to avoid potential misunderstandings.
What's Next
Adefusi has already entered a conditional plea of guilty, which allows him to appeal the decision. It is unclear if he plans to pursue further legal action, but the ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court effectively upholds his current conviction and sentence.