Local pharmaceutical exec gets nearly 4 years for defrauding company; has to give up Seaport condo, Mercedes, 2-carat engagement ring and deposit on a downtown wedding venue

A federal judge this week sentenced Priya Bhambi of Brookline to 46 months in federal prison and allowed the government to seize numerous assets in a bid to recoup the more than $2.5 million she admitted embezzling from Takeda Pharmaceuticals of Lexington, where she worked as a senior technology executive

Bhambi, 40, had pleaded guilty in June to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three counts of wire fraud. Her boyfriend, Samuel Montronde, who had been indicted alongside her last year, faces trial in US District Court on Dec. 2, the US Attorney's office reports.

Prosecutors charge the two set up a fake "change management" consulting firm that Montronde would allegedly run - in fact, he provided no services at all - while Bhambi would arrange payments from Takeda for the consulting he did not actually provide. The two managed to extract some $2.5 million over the course of ten months in 2022 before somebody at Takeda became suspicious about all the payments, according to court records. But this was not Bhambi's first Takeda extraction effort: Prosecutors say that in 2018, she had a friend set up another fake consulting firm that she got Takeda to pay for more than $285,000 in services it didn't provide because it didn't exist.

Bhambi, a Brookline High School graduate who also owned a home in West Roxbury, and Montronde used the money - in addition to Bhambi's $500,000 annual salary - to purchase a $1.9-million, 19th-floor, 2-bedroom condo at Echelon Seaport on Seaport Boulevard that Montronde moved into from Brockton and a 2019 Mercedes Class E sedan purchased at Mercedes of Westwood according to court records. Montronde also bought Bhambi a "two-carat round diamond, six prong platinum ring."

US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor said the government, which had earlier moved to seize all of that, can now keep it, along with $355.246.14 seized from bank accounts Bhambi or the couple maintained. Also now government property: The $49,985 deposit the couple had paid to the State Room, 60 State St. downtown, for their wedding, which did not take place.

In a sentencing memorandum calling for 6 1/2 years in prison, assistant US Attorney Leslie Wright argued Bhambi must be made to pay for her greed.

Bhambi did not steal in order to support an addiction or to repay financial debts, and while neither would excuse her conduct, this sets her apart from other embezzlement defendants. She was earning an annual salary of nearly $500,000 - more money than most can fathom. But that was not enough. The defendant wanted to become a millionaire and retire, and live lavishly in the meantime. Her crime was fueled by greed, full stop.

Moreover, the defendant's scheme came to an end only because she got caught. Her conduct makes clear that she was committed both to continuing her scheme and to keeping it hidden indefinitely. At every point during this ten month period, Bhambi sought to promote and prolong her fraud. If Takeda had not caught on, there would have been more fraudulent invoices, up to the full amount of the purchase order, if not additional statements of work and purchase orders, and possibly even new sham companies to follow in Evoluzione's [the company with her boyfriend's] footsteps. Bhambi consistently chose to do the wrong thing – to steal over and over again, and to lie over and over again when questioned about her theft. These factors underscore the serious nature of the defendant's crime and weigh in favor of a meaningful prison sentence

Bhambi's attorney, Robert Goldstein, argued for a sentence of just one year, saying that, while, sure, his client was guilty, there were mitigating circumstances, including previously undiagnosed trauma stemming from her father's death from cancer in 2002, when she was a month from graduating Brookline High, intense pressures to succeed and especially to get married and as a member of Indian-American society.

Plus, he wrote, she is a first-time offender and somebody who had spent a lifetime helping and caring for others - outside the limelight, which reveal her true character as somebody deserving of a break for one admittedly grievous wrong, especially since Montrade deserves a good part of the blame for the crime. In fact, he wrote, Bhambi, who met Montrade on a dating app, was trying to bring him up in the world, to create an environment in which he, too, could succeed - even if that meant Montrade first had to " 'fake it until he 'make[s] it for real.' "

While Ms. Bhambi fully accepts responsibility for her role in the criminal conduct at issue in this case ... the defense respectfully submits it is also important to consider her intent and the context for it. Priya wanted the project to succeed, and she wanted, desperately, for her family to see Sam as a proper fit for her.

Plus, he continued, she has already suffered a punishment for her crime:

She is now unemployable in the corporate world and will need to forgo a corporate career and support herself some other way. ...

[I]n terms of general deterrence, to the extent this case provides a warning to anyone in the greater community, there are several worthy messages to be issued by the sentencing in this case, all of which would be delivered by a sentence of 12 months. While Priya's family and some friends remain steadfastly behind her, the remainder of her life is in tatters. Though she spent a lifetime building a reputation of character, honesty, humility and generosity, that reputation has been destroyed. Though she spent a lifetime of hard work to earn her place in the corporate world, all of that is now gone too. She faces an uncertain future, along with the prospect of huge restitution and forfeiture orders in this case. The bottom line is that any citizen paying even an iota of attention to this case would be adequately deterred from the events to date: no rational human being would intentionally endure the pain and devastation inflicted upon her and her family. Certainly, to the extent any further deterrent is required, a sentence of 12 months incarceration would be sufficient.

Government sentencing recommendation (202k PDF).
Defense sentencing recommendation (1.2M PDF).
Forfeiture ruling (1.2M PDF).