Judge keeps former OpenAI engineer jailed over alleged Saudi flight risk

A federal judge in San Francisco denied home confinement on 19 October for Abdulrahman Alfozan, the former OpenAI engineer charged in a conference-room recording-device case. The ruling keeps him detained while the prosecution continues. It does not determine whether the underlying accusation is true.

The Justice Department says Alfozan was arrested on 9 October and charged with using or attempting to use a device to intercept oral communications. Its account of the complaint says OpenAI personnel discovered a concealed audio recorder on 30 September, inserted into a USB port behind a television in an executive conference room at one of the company's San Francisco buildings.

The detention fight introduced a sharper foreign-government question without answering it. AP reports that prosecutors alleged Alfozan was days from leaving for Saudi Arabia, that Saudi officials bought replacement tickets for his wife and child after his arrest, and that he was communicating with a Saudi royal family member who sought to recruit him for an artificial-intelligence venture.

Defense lawyer William Pernik offered a different account. According to AP, he said the family trip had been arranged for Alfozan's roughly two-month paternity leave, pointed to his 15 years in the United States and pending naturalization interview, and offered about $1 million held in a U.S. investment account as bond. Pernik expressed disappointment after the judge rejected release.

The public record reviewed here does not establish that Alfozan acted for Saudi Arabia or intended to give recordings to anyone. AP reports that prosecutors have not said what he planned to do with any recordings. The filed charge concerns alleged interception of oral communications, not acting as an unregistered foreign agent or committing economic espionage. Reuters reported that the Saudi government media office did not immediately respond to its request for comment.

The case therefore has two separate questions: whether the recording-device allegation can be proved, and whether the travel and recruitment evidence shows a flight risk. The judge ruled on detention, not guilt. The defense account, the absence of a stated use for any recordings and the limited charge must remain attached to any account of the government's allegations.