An account can appear in a company’s records without every colleague understanding its investment strategy or ownership. Nevin Shetty’s July 31, 2026 appellate brief brings that distinction into focus. His lawyers describe finance-team access to Fabric’s HighTower account while also acknowledging testimony that employees did not understand important features of the arrangement. The resulting picture is more specific than either complete secrecy or complete disclosure.
That specificity matters to the defense’s challenge to the convictions. Counsel argues that the government proved nondisclosure but failed to establish the additional elements of wire fraud. The brief’s account of internal records and employee knowledge is part of that argument. It asks the court to examine what information was visible, what remained undisclosed and what legal inference followed from each.
The brief describes an account visible to the finance team
According to the opening brief, Shetty supplied HighTower account credentials to members of Fabric’s finance team so they could track balances, interest and cash flow. Counsel also says the account appeared in the company’s QuickBooks records. Those details support the defense’s contention that the existence of the account was not concealed from everyone responsible for the company’s finances.
The brief further describes account-access emails containing warnings about digital-currency risks and a HighTower website identifying its offering as decentralized-finance savings. Counsel uses those materials to challenge an undifferentiated account of concealment. The asserted point is that information about the account and its setting was present in documents and systems the brief identifies.
Visibility, however, is not the same as comprehension. An employee may receive an email without reading every term, see a balance without knowing the underlying investments or recognize an account name without knowing who owns the provider. The appeal itself includes testimony that illustrates those distinctions. Its favorable evidence is strongest when its actual scope is preserved.
The same brief recounts limits on employees’ knowledge
The opening brief says Fabric’s controller reviewed entries and accessed the account but testified that she did not know what HighTower was, how the funds were invested or that Shetty held an interest in it. It describes another finance employee as knowing that Shetty was opening an account to earn interest, while also lacking a fuller understanding of the business.
Counsel recounts that employees believed the account was an ordinary savings account like other company accounts. The brief then contrasts that understanding with the account materials, digital-currency warnings and interest reflected in statements. This is an argument about the implications of the evidence, not a declaration that every employee actually understood what counsel believes the documents indicated.
Keeping both parts of the account visible makes the defense easier to assess. The existence of credentials and accounting entries may undermine a claim that no one knew the account existed. It does not automatically answer whether the investment’s nature and Shetty’s ownership interest were adequately disclosed to the people whose knowledge was legally relevant.
Different omissions should remain different questions
The brief acknowledges that Shetty did not tell Fabric about his financial interest in HighTower. It also says the CEO, COO and directors did not approve the investment and would have objected had they known. Counsel nevertheless argues that additional approval was unnecessary under the authority delegated to him. That is a separate argument from saying that information was available to the finance team.
Three questions therefore emerge. Who knew an account existed? Who understood what the account involved? Who had to approve the transaction? The defense’s evidence and legal arguments address these questions differently. Treating them as one issue can obscure both the favorable details and the acknowledged limits in Shetty’s position.
This distinction also helps explain the role of an earlier suppression motion. That district-court filing challenged the warrant narrative and argued that information about finance-team knowledge and accounting records had been omitted. It is related history, not the July appellate brief. The appeal now presents its account of the trial evidence concerning those same subjects.
Account visibility must connect to the charged offense
The appellate argument ultimately concerns more than whether the account was easy to find. Counsel contends that the prosecution needed to connect alleged deception to an intent to obtain or deprive Fabric of property. The brief argues that the account arrangement, Shetty’s authority and his expectation of investment returns prevented that further conclusion from being established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The existence of ordinary records is not a universal defense to fraud. Transactions can be recorded and still involve material deception. The relevance of the accounting evidence depends on the prosecution’s theory and the inference being challenged. Here, the defense offers it as part of a broader argument that the nature of the scheme was not proved merely by identifying omissions.
That is why a more exact description can be favorable to Shetty without becoming overstated. It gives weight to the evidence that supports his account and still distinguishes it from evidence of full disclosure or explicit approval. The argument can then be tested on its real premises rather than an exaggerated claim that every relevant person knew everything.
A California Business Journal commentary from 2024 offered a supportive pretrial view of the case. Shetty’s public website provides his broader materials. The July 2026 brief adds a later account grounded in counsel’s citations to testimony and exhibits. The older commentary does not independently establish what happened at trial.
Shetty’s four-count conviction in November 2025 and two-year sentence in March 2026 remain the outcomes the appeal challenges. The opening brief requests appellate relief; it does not record a reversal. Its account of the HighTower records makes a concrete contribution to that request: the court is asked to assess actual layers of knowledge and disclosure, with the distinctions necessary to determine what the evidence proves.
