As of Oct. 16, 2026, Amit Patel was about two and a half years into a federal prison sentence for stealing more than $22 million from the Jacksonville Jaguars, but his legal troubles in Florida are far from over. His attorneys filed a motion on Oct. 9 asking a Duval County judge to throw out the state grand theft charges still pending against him, arguing the prosecution amounts to little more than payback.
According to News4JAX, Patel’s lawyers claim someone in a position of power felt the federal judge’s 78-month sentence was “too light,” and that Florida’s decision to pursue its own charges stripped Patel of any chance at a state sentence running concurrently with his federal one. Patel, 32, is a former Jaguars accounting employee who pleaded guilty in December 2023 to federal wire fraud and money laundering charges. A federal judge sentenced him in March 2024 to 78 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and also ordered him to pay more than $21 million in restitution.
Florida prosecutors filed their response on Oct. 13, and the station reports they say none of the defense arguments hold up. They describe the state case as a legitimate exercise of Florida’s own law enforcement interest, not retaliation, and argue that federal guilty pleas do not shield defendants from facing state charges for the same conduct.
How the Scheme Unfolded
Federal prosecutors said Patel used virtual credit cards belonging to the Jaguars to drain the team’s bank accounts over three years, spending most of the stolen money on online gambling platforms including FanDuel and DraftKings, per the same account relayed by News4JAX. Florida prosecutors did not charge Patel until more than a year after his federal sentencing, obtaining an arrest warrant that led to his transfer from a minimum-security federal prison camp in Montgomery, Alabama, to the Duval County Jail in July 2025. That same month, Florida charged him with organized scheme to defraud, a charge that can carry up to 30 years in state prison.
Defense Raises Timing and Investigator Concerns
Patel’s lawyers argue the delayed state charges deprived him of any opportunity to negotiate a single plea deal covering both his federal and state exposure, and they note that time spent in the Duval County Jail does not count toward his federal sentence. The defense also says Florida investigators took part in the original joint investigation and had agreed to let federal prosecutors handle the case, only for the state to revive charges later. The motion further raises concerns that former state investigators went on to work in private security for the Jaguars.
Florida prosecutors counter that the speedy-trial clock does not start when investigators first learn of a crime but when a defendant is formally arrested or charged, and they say Patel’s arrest and state charges in July 2025 mean no speedy-trial violation occurred. The state also points to fraud committed against a Jacksonville employer and Florida’s organized-fraud statutes as independently justifying prosecution, separate from whatever happened in federal court.
State and Federal Cases at the Center of the Dispute
The motion centers on whether Florida may pursue its own charges after Patel’s federal case. Prosecutors oppose dismissal, arguing that the state has an independent law enforcement interest in bringing its case.
Mounting Financial Exposure
Beyond the criminal case, a federal judge ordered Patel to pay more than $21 million in restitution, and the Jaguars also sued him in Duval County Circuit Court. Damages were reported at $66.6 million by The Athletic and at $66.7 million by Jacksonville.com. That civil complaint alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and civil theft, and sought triple the stolen amount under a Florida law allowing theft victims to recover three times their losses.
Patel remains in the Duval County Jail, and his first pretrial hearing on the state charges is currently scheduled for Oct. 30, 2025, according to Action News Jax. It will fall to a Duval County judge to decide whether the dueling arguments over timing, jurisdiction and precedent are enough to let the state’s grand theft case move forward or shut it down entirely.
