A federal grand jury in Brooklyn unsealed an indictment on June 30, 2026, charging former NBA players Malik Beasley and Ed Davis, along with four co-conspirators, including NBA agent Paolo Zamorano, with wire fraud conspiracy, bribery in sporting contests, honest services wire fraud conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy [1]. The charges allege that Beasley agreed to manipulate his on-court performance during at least four Milwaukee Bucks games in the 2023-24 season in exchange for bribes, while Davis and others placed hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent proposition bets using insider information derived from the scheme [1][2].
The indictment invokes federal statutes governing bribery in sporting contests and wire fraud, both of which carry substantial prison exposure. Co-conspirators named in the charging document include Rob Gorodetsky, Ernesto Plascencia, William Brown, and Joseph Nocella Jr. [1]. Zamorano's presence as a defendant is notable because the allegations extend the criminal exposure beyond players to the agent community, broadening the scope of individuals subject to prosecution for conduct that prosecutors characterize as corrupting the integrity of professional competition [2][3].
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York is leading the prosecution, with investigative support from the FBI [1]. The indictment is part of a multi-year federal probe that has now produced charges against more than three dozen defendants, including current and former players and coaches across the league [2][3]. The NBA has not publicly commented on the specific charges, but the league has previously cooperated with federal authorities in connection with the broader investigation.
The defendants' arraignment schedules and initial plea postures had not been publicly confirmed as of the indictment's unsealing. Defense counsel for Beasley and Davis have not issued public statements. Given the number of co-defendants and the complexity of the financial transactions alleged, pre-trial litigation over discovery scope and evidentiary issues is probable. The money laundering counts, which require prosecutors to trace proceeds through financial channels, typically generate significant motion practice and can extend timelines well beyond those of simpler fraud cases. Further superseding indictments remain possible if the investigation continues to develop [1][2].