Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Daniel Harriman
Date: 02-27-2026
Case Number: 25-cr-00031
Judge: Landya B. McCafferty
Court: United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Merrimack County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Concord
Defendant's Attorney: Peter Callaghan
Description:
Concord, New Hampshire, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with international scheme to sell fraudulent market survey data to commit wire fraud.
Op4G and Slice were market research companies based in New Hampshire and Illinois, respectively. Clients would hire the companies to conduct market research surveys. As part of their business model, Op4G and Slice maintained “panels” consisting of individuals potentially eligible to take surveys. Stoudt initially worked for Op4G before moving over to Slice.
In 2014, several conspirators, including Daniel Harriman, 39,, decided to increase company revenues by generating fabricated survey data. To execute the scheme, the conspirators recruited “ants”, who pretended to be legitimate survey takers but instead were paid a nominal fee for completing surveys that produced false market research data. Some of the conspirators even served as “ants” and fraudulently took large quantities of surveys themselves, receiving significant payments.
To evade detection, the conspirators exchanged instructions with each other and the “ants.” These instructions included directions on how to answer survey screener questions, provided parameters on how long “ants” should remain on surveys, and encouraged the use of virtual private network (VPN) services to conceal real IP addresses.
Between 2014 and the beginning of 2025, Op4G and Slice billed over $10 million to clients for work tainted with fraudulent survey data. In more recent years, false market research data was used to generate approximately 90% of Op4G and Slice’s revenues.
The charging statute provides a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, up to 3 years of supervised release, and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.
The FBI led the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen is prosecuting the case.
Co-defendant Frank Hayden pleaded guilty on February 2, 2026 and is scheduled to be sentenced on May 12, 2026.
Op4G and Slice were market research companies based in New Hampshire and Illinois, respectively. Clients would hire the companies to conduct market research surveys. As part of their business model, Op4G and Slice maintained “panels” consisting of individuals potentially eligible to take surveys. Stoudt initially worked for Op4G before moving over to Slice.
In 2014, several conspirators, including Daniel Harriman, 39,, decided to increase company revenues by generating fabricated survey data. To execute the scheme, the conspirators recruited “ants”, who pretended to be legitimate survey takers but instead were paid a nominal fee for completing surveys that produced false market research data. Some of the conspirators even served as “ants” and fraudulently took large quantities of surveys themselves, receiving significant payments.
To evade detection, the conspirators exchanged instructions with each other and the “ants.” These instructions included directions on how to answer survey screener questions, provided parameters on how long “ants” should remain on surveys, and encouraged the use of virtual private network (VPN) services to conceal real IP addresses.
Between 2014 and the beginning of 2025, Op4G and Slice billed over $10 million to clients for work tainted with fraudulent survey data. In more recent years, false market research data was used to generate approximately 90% of Op4G and Slice’s revenues.
The charging statute provides a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, up to 3 years of supervised release, and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.
The FBI led the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander S. Chen is prosecuting the case.
Co-defendant Frank Hayden pleaded guilty on February 2, 2026 and is scheduled to be sentenced on May 12, 2026.
Outcome:
The Defendant elected to plead guilty.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Daniel Harriman?
The outcome was: The Defendant elected to plead guilty.
Which court heard United States of America v. Daniel Harriman?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Merrimack County), NH. The presiding judge was Landya B. McCafferty.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Daniel Harriman?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Concord. Defendant's attorney: Peter Callaghan.
When was United States of America v. Daniel Harriman decided?
This case was decided on February 27, 2026.