Federal prosecutors in the Middle District of Florida indicted Meade Lewis, 32, of Temple Terrace, on five counts of wire fraud for allegedly defrauding investors of more than $7 million through mIQroTech, Inc., a company he founded and led as chief executive officer [1]. The U.S. Attorney's Office filed the indictment on May 26, 2026, alongside a civil forfeiture complaint targeting proceeds of the alleged scheme [1]. Each wire fraud count carries a statutory maximum of 20 years in federal prison [1].
According to the indictment, Lewis made materially false and misleading representations to investors about mIQroTech's financials, customer base, and product capabilities [1]. The company held itself out as a technology firm serving the oil and gas industry [1]. Lewis allegedly diverted investor funds for personal use rather than deploying them to build the business [1]. The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, requires proof that a defendant used interstate wire communications in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and prosecutors have paired the criminal charges with a civil forfeiture action, a procedural tool that allows the government to pursue recovery of ill-gotten assets on a lower burden of proof than the criminal case demands [1].
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Tampa field office [1]. U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe oversees the Middle District of Florida office bringing the prosecution [1]. The parallel civil forfeiture complaint signals that the government is pursuing both punishment and disgorgement of the alleged fraud proceeds, a dual-track approach that has become standard in complex financial fraud cases.
Lewis has not entered a plea. The indictment is a charging instrument, not a finding of guilt, and Lewis is presumed innocent unless convicted. No trial date has been publicly announced. The civil forfeiture proceeding will advance on its own schedule, and claimants with an interest in the targeted assets have an opportunity to contest the government's action in that parallel docket. Given the five-count structure and the forfeiture complaint, the case is positioned for extended pre-trial litigation over both the criminal charges and the disposition of assets.