Foreign Money, Nonprofits, and a Grand Jury

Documents labeled Lawsuit with glasses on top.

A little-known tech billionaire and the husband of Code Pink’s founder is now at the center of a federal grand jury probe into a $278 million funding network that investigators say may have broken tax and foreign agent laws.

Story Snapshot

A federal grand jury in Manhattan is investigating Neville Roy Singham’s complex funding network for possible wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering.
Prosecutors are tracking about $278 million that reportedly flowed from Shanghai through donor-advised funds and shell companies into U.S. nonprofits and activist groups, including Code Pink.
Singham’s wife, Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, is also reportedly a target of subpoenas as Congress pushes claims of Chinese Communist Party influence.
The case fits a broader pattern of foreign money using U.S. tax and nonprofit rules to push propaganda and disrupt politics, raising doubts about whether federal watchdogs can be trusted to police both the left and the right fairly.

Federal Grand Jury Targets Singham’s Money Network

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have empaneled a grand jury to dig into the finances of Neville Roy Singham, an American-born tech multimillionaire now living in Shanghai. The investigation, first revealed in late June reporting, was authorized by senior Justice Department leaders and is being run by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, whose office usually handles major Wall Street and financial crime cases. Subpoenas for bank records and other documents are already going out as prosecutors test whether Singham’s network crossed the line from aggressive political funding into wire fraud, bank fraud, or money laundering.

Reporting says the grand jury probe grew from earlier congressional work that flagged Singham as a key funder of hard-left protest groups and media outlets. Lawmakers claim his grants helped drive campaigns that support Beijing’s talking points and fuel unrest in American cities. For many Americans, the fact that it took years for authorities to move from warnings to a real investigation only deepens the feeling that the system responds slowly when powerful players bend the rules.

Following a $278 Million Trail Through Goldman Sachs and Nonprofits

At the core of the case is a thick money trail that investigators say runs from Shanghai through Wall Street into dozens of tax-exempt groups. A Fox News Digital investigation, later echoed by other outlets, reported that Singham used donor-advised funds at a Goldman Sachs philanthropic vehicle and shell companies to route about $285 million that then flowed into U.S. nonprofits, media projects, and activist networks. Of that total, roughly $278 million is believed to have landed in American-based organizations since 2017, spread across hundreds of transactions.

Donor-advised funds let wealthy people park money with a big institution, claim tax benefits, and then recommend grants while staying mostly out of public view. Testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee said Singham “exploited donor-advised funds—most prominently the Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund—to move extraordinarily large sums of money through U.S. tax-exempt infrastructure while severing traceability between donor and recipient.” This tactic is not unique to one ideology; other reports have shown foreign charities using similar tools to push climate, legal, and election battles from the shadows. Many readers on both left and right will see this as one more sign that the tax and nonprofit systems have become playgrounds for global elites.

Code Pink, Jodie Evans, and Alleged Foreign Agent Issues

The story hits closer to home for U.S. politics because Singham is married to Jodie Evans, co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink. According to a Fox-linked social media briefing, federal subpoenas are not only targeting Singham but also Evans herself. Congress has already raised alarms that Code Pink and related organizations shifted their tone on China after receiving significant funding tied to Singham, with one analysis stating that about a quarter of Code Pink’s budget came from him. Those claims feed growing demands for tougher enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which forces anyone acting as an agent of a foreign power to register and report their activities.

In a 2025 letter, the Ways and Means Committee chair argued that The People’s Forum, another Singham-backed nonprofit, had “acted as a foreign agent of the Chinese Communist Party” while enjoying tax-exempt status. If the Justice Department finds that any of these groups were effectively spreading propaganda or lobbying on behalf of foreign principals without proper registration, they could face criminal exposure and loss of nonprofit privileges. For liberals worried about dark money on the right, and conservatives angry about left-wing “astroturf” activism, the idea that foreign-backed messaging may be hiding inside U.S. charities cuts directly to shared fears about whether ordinary citizens are getting straight facts or crafted narratives.

Part of a Bigger Crackdown on Foreign Money in U.S. Nonprofits

Even though the Singham case stands out because of the dollar amount and links to China, it is not happening in a vacuum. Over the past two years, Congress has held a string of hearings on foreign influence in American nonprofits, tracing almost $2 billion in overseas funding from European and other charities into U.S. groups that shape policy, litigation, and protests. Witnesses warned that donor-advised funds and complex nonprofit webs can be used by foreign players to hide who is really paying for marches in the streets, lawsuits in court, or ads online.

At the same time, the Justice Department has stepped up pressure on nonprofits that took federal pandemic aid or other government money but failed to follow the rules, using the False Claims Act and other tools. Progressive icons like the Southern Poverty Law Center have faced grant suspensions and legal threats in this broader sweep. Put together, these moves suggest Washington is finally paying attention to how charities and foundations can be bent to serve the interests of the powerful, not the public. But because the targets so far lean left, many liberals see partisan payback, while many conservatives still wonder why conservative megadonors and corporate interests seem to escape the same level of scrutiny. That gap only fuels the wider belief that the “deep state” protects its friends and punishes its enemies instead of applying the law fairly.