--- title: "Deel, Alba Basha and Keith O’Brien: what the payment records establish" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/deel/payment-evidence/ as_of: 2026-10-13 keywords: ["Deel","Rippling","Atlantic Money","payments","ownership","employment","litigation"] --- # Deel, Alba Basha and Keith O’Brien: what the payment records establish **Question.** What did the disclosure and affidavit rulings decide about the alleged payment chain? **Answer.** A court order identifies the two-step payment chain in records produced by Revolut. It permits disclosure with privacy redactions, while the purpose of the payments and truth of the competing accounts remain disputed. ## A documented payment chain is not a verdict - Analysis: The November 17, 2025 order concerns records supplied by non-party Revolut Technologies Inc. It identifies a payment from LETS DEEL LTD to Alba Basha followed by a corresponding payment from Basha to O’Brien. It also identifies Basha as the spouse of Deel executive Dan Westgarth. These facts explain why the records matter to the litigation. The order concerns confidentiality and disclosure, however; it does not decide that the transfers were bribes or that the bank participated in wrongdoing. [s-d94] - Documented: The 17 November 2025 federal confidentiality order identifies a payment from LETS DEEL LTD to Alba Basha followed by a corresponding payment from Basha to O’Brien in records produced by Revolut Technologies Inc. It identifies Basha as Westgarth’s spouse. [s-d94] - Qualification: The order resolves disclosure, not whether the payment was a bribe. Revolut is a non-party records provider, and its role is not an allegation of wrongdoing. The court preserved confidentiality of account and routing numbers and the specific home address; these are not published here. - Analysis: The court preserved protection for account and routing numbers and a specific home address. Those details are not needed to explain the business relationship and are excluded here. The graph represents a payment and an onward payment, with their procedural context, rather than silently converting the records into an adjudicated espionage scheme. [s-d94] ## The affidavit remained available for testing - Analysis: Deel sought to strike O’Brien’s affidavit and limit related discovery because of objections invoking the Fifth Amendment. The September 2026 order rejected those requests after counsel assured the parties that O’Brien was not withholding responsive information on that basis. The court also criticised the rushed motion and the failure to pursue a scheduled discussion. Keeping evidence in the case permits it to be tested; it does not amount to judicial approval of every assertion in it. [s-d123] - Documented: On 25 September 2026, Judge Charles Breyer denied Deel’s requests to strike O’Brien’s affidavit, reopen the earlier dismissal ruling and curtail related discovery. [s-d123] - Qualification: The court relied on counsel’s assurance that O’Brien was not withholding responsive discovery under the Fifth Amendment and criticised the premature motion. It did not certify every statement in the affidavit as true. - Analysis: The underlying narratives remain opposed. Rippling describes a paid information-gathering operation. Deel describes unsolicited information and attacks the circumstances in which O’Brien later agreed to cooperate with Rippling. The court’s decision about access to testimony should be read alongside both accounts, rather than used to erase either the allegations or the response. [s-d123] - Attributed: People Center, Inc., trading as Rippling, alleges in the Northern District of California that Deel, Alex Bouaziz, Philippe Bouaziz and Dan Westgarth participated in corporate espionage using former Rippling employee Keith O’Brien. The allegations concern confidential material, directions to obtain it and payments. [s-d123] - Qualification: These are allegations recited as background in a procedural order. They are not a finding that the alleged scheme occurred. - Response: Deel disputes the account. Its counterclaims say O’Brien supplied unsolicited information while exploring a consulting relationship, and allege that Rippling used pressure and financial benefits to obtain false testimony. - Outcome: The September 2026 order recalls that most Rippling claims, including its RICO claim, survived a February 2026 pleading challenge. Plausible pleading is not a verdict. - Attributed: Deel’s counterclaims allege that Rippling used Brett Johnson and a Quandary Insights account to obtain its documents, and coordinated with Globalization Partners. Deel also challenges O’Brien’s cooperation arrangements, which included legal-cost support, indemnification and a potential €150,000 consequence for breach. [s-d123] - Qualification: The order recounts each side’s pleading. It does not determine that the alleged infiltration, coercion or bribery occurred. - Outcome: Claims concerning Johnson’s platform use were sent to arbitration, and both Deel RICO counterclaims were stayed in their entirety pending that process. ## Reported criminal scrutiny has a separate evidentiary status - Analysis: A January 2026 report, itself attributing the account to another news investigation, described federal prosecutors examining the alleged spying and issuing grand-jury subpoenas. Deel replied that it was unaware of a criminal investigation and would cooperate with valid inquiries, while describing the allegations as a competitor’s campaign. The retained report is not a charging document or a final outcome. The existence and progress of civil claims cannot substitute for an official criminal disposition. [s-d81] - Attributed: January 2026 reporting, attributing its account to another news investigation, said federal prosecutors were examining the alleged spying and had issued grand-jury subpoenas. [s-d81] - Qualification: The retained item is reporting, not an official charging document. It does not establish a criminal conviction or the final outcome of an inquiry. - Response: Deel said it was unaware of a criminal investigation, would cooperate with valid inquiries, and regarded the claims as part of a competitor’s campaign. ## The reported Irish surveillance admission and denial - Analysis: June 2025 reporting of an Irish hearing records Deel’s counsel acknowledging that the company commissioned discreet surveillance after earlier correspondence said it had no knowledge of the activity. Counsel denied any instruction to intimidate, said a further subcontractor had been engaged without Deel’s knowledge and agreed to no further surveillance. The report also says the case against occupants of one vehicle was being discontinued because they were not involved. These qualifications belong with the admission; a report of the hearing does not establish a final intimidation finding. [s-d162] - Attributed: June 2025 reporting of an Irish hearing states that Deel’s counsel acknowledged commissioning discreet surveillance of O’Brien after earlier correspondence said the company knew nothing of it. [s-d162] - Qualification: This is a report of submissions and judicial remarks, not a final finding of intimidation. The case against occupants of one vehicle was being discontinued after counsel said they were not involved. - Response: Counsel denied instructing covert or intimidatory conduct, said another person had been subcontracted without Deel’s knowledge, and stated Deel was agreeable to no further surveillance. ## The Irish procedural reports have their own limits - Analysis: April 2025 reporting says the Irish court allowed Alex Bouaziz and lawyers Asif Malik and Andrea David Mieli to be joined. It recounts allegations that the lawyers directed false regulatory reports, which Deel denied. The retained material is a report and a pleading, not the Irish order itself or a final merits judgment. Joinder puts an allegation into a proceeding; it does not determine whether the allegation is true. [s-d160] [s-d258] - Attributed: April 2025 reporting states that the Irish High Court allowed Alex Bouaziz, Asif Malik and Andrea David Mieli to be added to the Rippling case. It reports allegations that the lawyers directed O’Brien to make false regulatory reports, which Deel denied. [s-d160] [s-d258] - Qualification: The retained source is a hearing report and a party pleading, not the Irish joinder order or a merits determination. The shared Malik office appointment provides context but does not independently prove the alleged directions. - Outcome: Joinder permits allegations to be litigated; it is not a finding that they are true. No final Irish merits judgment is established in the retained evidence. - Analysis: The same reporting describes the judge declining contempt punishment over O’Brien’s destruction of his phone while criticising the breach and crediting his subsequent cooperation and distress. That mixed procedural outcome belongs beside the criticism. It neither authenticates every part of his account nor establishes liability for the defendants. [s-d258] - Attributed: The April 2025 Irish hearing report says the judge declined to impose contempt punishment on O’Brien over destruction of his phone, while criticising his breach and crediting subsequent cooperation and personal distress. [s-d258] - Qualification: Reported procedural leniency is not an endorsement of every assertion in the affidavit or a determination of Deel’s liability. ## Sources - [s-d94] Court record concerning Deel or an identified participant, US Government Publishing Office judicial records - [s-d123] Court record concerning Deel or an identified participant, US Government Publishing Office judicial records - [s-d81] Media source · s-d81 - [s-d162] Media source · s-d162 - [s-d160] Court record source · s-d160 - [s-d258] Media source · s-d258