A federal criminal case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has pulled back the curtain on what investigators describe as a large scale, long running scheme to exploit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. The case centers on two small retail stores operating out of the same building at 1549 Blue Hill Avenue in Mattapan, Massachusetts, and alleges that their owners trafficked food stamp benefits for cash and other prohibited items while presenting their businesses as legitimate neighborhood grocery stores.
At the heart of the case are Antonio Bonheur, owner of Jesula Variety Store, and Saul Alisme, owner of Saul Mache Mixe Store. Federal investigators allege that both men knowingly participated in SNAP benefit trafficking, a crime that undermines a program designed to help low income families purchase food and maintain basic nutrition.
Jesula Variety Store began accepting SNAP benefits in September 2021. On paper, it was approved as a grocery retailer, but investigators say the physical reality of the store told a very different story. According to inspections and surveillance, the store measured approximately 150 square feet in total retail space. It had a single cash register, no barcode scanners, no shopping carts or baskets, and no refrigeration units. The store did not sell refrigerated meat, seafood, dairy products, milk, eggs, or fresh produce. Its SNAP eligible inventory consisted mostly of dry goods such as rice, beans, flour, and spices, stocked in limited quantities.
Despite these constraints, transaction data revealed that Jesula Variety Store was redeeming extraordinary amounts of SNAP benefits. Over a period of several years, the store allegedly redeemed more than six million dollars in SNAP funds. Monthly redemptions regularly exceeded three hundred thousand dollars, figures that investigators say are wildly inconsistent with the store’s size, inventory, and capacity to sell eligible food items.
Federal agents compared Jesula Variety Store’s SNAP activity with that of other grocery stores in the same zip code and classification. Comparable stores, which averaged nearly two thousand square feet of retail space and carried extensive inventory including refrigerated and frozen foods, typically redeemed around sixteen thousand dollars per month in SNAP benefits. In those stores, the vast majority of transactions were under forty dollars, reflecting normal grocery shopping patterns. By contrast, at Jesula Variety Store, more than ninety percent of SNAP transactions exceeded ninety five dollars, and over seventy percent exceeded one hundred fifty dollars. Investigators concluded that such patterns are commonly associated with benefit trafficking rather than legitimate food sales.
Surveillance footage further deepened suspicions. Pole camera video reviewed by investigators showed customers entering Jesula Variety Store and completing SNAP transactions worth hundreds of dollars, then leaving with no visible groceries or with a single small plastic bag. On multiple days reviewed in detail, not a single customer was observed exiting the store with bags consistent with the size and value of the transactions processed inside. This pattern repeated over and over, reinforcing investigators’ belief that SNAP benefits were being exchanged for cash rather than food.
The case against Antonio Bonheur goes beyond store operations. Investigators allege that Bonheur himself applied for and received SNAP benefits beginning in 2022 while falsely claiming that he had no income and failing to disclose his ownership of Jesula Variety Store. In his application, Bonheur reportedly stated that he lived alone, had no earned income, and had minimal funds in the bank. Based on those representations, he was approved for benefits and ultimately received more than ten thousand dollars in SNAP assistance.
What raised further red flags was that every SNAP transaction Bonheur conducted in 2025 occurred at his own store. Investigators allege that Bonheur effectively used the SNAP program on both sides of the transaction, receiving benefits as a recipient while simultaneously redeeming millions as a retailer. Authorities maintain that had his true income and business ownership been disclosed, he would not have qualified for any SNAP assistance.
Saul Mache Mixe Store followed a similar trajectory, though on a smaller scale and over a shorter period. Owned by Saul Alisme, the store began accepting SNAP benefits in or around May 2025. The retail space measured approximately five hundred square feet and, like Jesula Variety Store, featured a single register, no scanners, no carts or baskets, and limited SNAP eligible inventory. While it did contain a refrigerator and freezer, investigators noted that the selection of eligible food items was minimal and insufficient to support high dollar transactions.
Within months of opening, Saul Mache Mixe Store allegedly trafficked more than one hundred twenty thousand dollars in SNAP benefits. Store inspections documented a lack of meat, seafood, eggs, and substantial dairy products, despite claims made in the SNAP authorization application that the store carried multiple varieties across required food categories. Investigators believe those representations were false or grossly exaggerated.
Undercover transactions conducted by law enforcement played a critical role in building the case. Investigators allege that during these operations, SNAP benefits were exchanged for cash, liquor, and other items explicitly prohibited under program rules. These transactions formed the basis for the criminal charges filed in October 2025 against both Bonheur and Alisme.
Both defendants are charged with unauthorized use, transfer, acquisition, or possession of SNAP benefits valued at more than one hundred dollars but less than five thousand dollars. Federal authorities have made clear, however, that these charges reflect only a portion of the alleged conduct. The broader investigation references potential wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses tied to the flow of SNAP funds into bank accounts associated with the stores.
Beyond the legal implications for the defendants, the case highlights how SNAP fraud investigations are built. Rather than relying on a single red flag, investigators combined transaction data analysis, store inspections, undercover purchases, surveillance footage, and application records to establish a pattern that they argue could not plausibly be explained by legitimate business activity.
At a time when SNAP plays a vital role in supporting millions of households across the country, cases like this underscore the federal government’s focus on protecting the integrity of public assistance programs. Prosecutors argue that trafficking schemes not only defraud taxpayers but also erode trust in systems designed to safeguard the health and well being of vulnerable communities.
As the case moves forward in federal court, it is expected to raise broader questions about oversight, enforcement, and how such extensive activity was able to continue for years before intervention. The outcome will likely serve as a warning to retailers who view SNAP as a revenue stream rather than a responsibility, and as a reminder that even the smallest storefronts can come under intense scrutiny when the numbers no longer add up.
