Former OpenAI Engineer Pleads Not Guilty Over Hidden Device in Executive Meeting Room

A former OpenAI engineer accused of planting a covert recording device in an executive meeting room at the artificial intelligence company pleaded not guilty in a San Francisco federal court on Friday, November 6.

Abdulrahman Alfozan, a 35-year-old Saudi national, entered the plea before Magistrate Judge Peter Kang. His lawyer, David Rizk, waived a formal reading of the indictment before entering the plea on his client’s behalf. Alfozan was returned to custody after the brief hearing and is due back in court on November 17.

The case has drawn close attention across the AI industry, where companies guard their internal discussions about models, strategy and personnel with unusual care. It also arrives as Washington’s scrutiny of the sector intensifies: Nvidia’s board opened its own investigation into its chief executive this week, and AI companies have faced growing scrutiny over how they protect sensitive information.

The plea in San Francisco

Alfozan faces a single federal count of interception of oral communications. A grand jury indicted him on October 27, and he has been held without bail since his arrest on October 9. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and three years of supervised release.

Alfozan worked at OpenAI as an engineering lead focused on AI agents and the company’s data platform, according to his professional profile. He was also a venture partner at Raed Ventures, a Saudi Arabian venture capital firm. He was dismissed from OpenAI after his arrest.

He has pleaded not guilty, and the allegations against him have not been established in court. He is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

What prosecutors allege

Prosecutors allege that Alfozan placed a sophisticated recording device in an executive conference room at OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters on September 28, in an attempt to capture sensitive conversations involving senior personnel and executives. The Hacker News reported that the device was hidden behind a television in the room and plugged into a USB port, and that OpenAI discovered it around September 30.

Court filings allege that Alfozan had no permission to enter the room, and that he went to considerable lengths to build bespoke, encrypted recording devices for meetings involving senior OpenAI staff. Prosecutors have described him in court documents as an insider threat.

The filings also allege that Alfozan was in frequent contact via WhatsApp with a member of the Saudi Royal Family. Prosecutors have not charged him with espionage, and the single count against him concerns the alleged interception of oral communications, not the passing of information to a foreign government. OpenAI has not publicly confirmed whether any confidential information was disclosed.

A flight risk, prosecutors say

The government argued successfully that Alfozan should be held without bail, calling him a flight risk. He was arrested on October 9, three days before he, his wife and his son were scheduled to fly from San Francisco to Riyadh on a one-way ticket.

Prosecutors said his wife and son left the United States without him. Rather than wait for the October 12 flight as booked, they initially planned to fly to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on October 11, on a one-way ticket booked and paid for by the Saudi government, prosecutors said. That flight was cancelled, and they instead flew business class to Doha, Qatar, on October 10, on a ticket prosecutors said was booked and paid for by a member of the Saudi military. They departed San Francisco about 36 hours after Alfozan was arrested.

What happens next

Alfozan’s next court appearance is scheduled for November 17. No trial date has been set, and his defence has not yet publicly presented its account of the events. His lawyer declined to comment after Friday’s hearing.

The case is a reminder of how the contest for talent and secrets in the AI industry now reaches into the courtroom. OpenAI is one of the world’s most valuable private companies, and its internal discussions about technology, safety and strategy are closely watched by rivals and governments alike. Whatever the outcome of the criminal case, the episode has already prompted questions inside the industry about how companies protect their most sensitive meetings.