. We need to preserve that. Also meta description.
Let's translate carefully.
Title: "DOJ Indicts Few and Far Founder Over $10M NFT Fund Spend" -> "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड खर्च के लिए आरोप लगाए" but we need to keep it natural. Maybe "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का आरोप लगाया" but title is "Indicts" so "अभियोग लगाया" or "आरोप लगाया". Let's do: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड खर्च के लिए अभियोग लगाया" but that's long. Maybe "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का अभियोग लगाया" - but "fund spend" means spending of funds. So "फंड खर्च" is okay. Alternatively "10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के खर्च" but we can simplify: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का आरोप लगाया" - but that's "misuse" not exactly "spend". The original says "Fund Spend" meaning the spending of the fund. So we can say "फंड खर्च" but it might be ambiguous. I'll go with: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड खर्च के लिए अभियोग लगाया" - that's literal. But better to rephrase: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड को खर्च करने के लिए अभियोग लगाया" - that's "spending" as verb. But title is noun phrase. I'll do: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का अभियोग लगाया" - but that changes meaning slightly. Let's see: "Indicts ... Over $10M NFT Fund Spend" means he is indicted for the spending of the fund. So "फंड खर्च" is fine. I'll use: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड खर्च के लिए अभियोग लगाया" - but "खर्च" is noun. Better: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के खर्च के लिए अभियोग लगाया" - that's fine.
Alternatively, we can say "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड को निजी खर्चों में उड़ाने का अभियोग लगाया" - but that's too specific. I'll stick with a literal translation.
Let's do: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड खर्च के लिए अभियोग लगाया" - but that's a bit awkward. I'll rephrase: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का अभियोग लगाया" - that's more natural. But the original says "spend" not "misuse". However, the article says he spent it on gambling, crypto, personal expenses, so it's misuse. I'll go with "दुरुपयोग" (misuse) but to be accurate, "खर्च" is fine. Let's decide: I'll use "खर्च" but with "के लिए" meaning "for". Actually "Indict over" means "for" so "के लिए" works.
I'll write: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड खर्च के लिए अभियोग लगाया" - that's okay.
But we need to keep it concise. The title in Hindi should be natural. Maybe "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का आरोप लगाया" - but "आरोप" is less formal than "अभियोग" (indictment). I'll use "अभियोग" to match.
I'll go with: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड के दुरुपयोग का अभियोग लगाया" - but that's "misuse" not "spend". Alternatively, "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड को खर्च करने का अभियोग लगाया" - that's "spending" as verb. I'll use that.
Let's do: "डीओजे ने फ्यू एंड फार के संस्थापक पर 10 मिलियन डॉलर के एनएफटी फंड को खर्च करने का अभियोग लगाया" - that's clear.
Now the content: We need to translate each paragraph, preserving HTML tags.
Original content:
The U.S. Department of Justice unsealed an indictment on August 5 against Taj Tarsha, founder of the NFT project Few and Far, accusing him of raising more than $10 million from 67 investors and then spending the money on gambling, cryptocurrency, and personal expenses. The charges follow a collapse in the project's FAR token, which has plunged more than 99% in value.
The allegations
Federal prosecutors say Tarsha solicited funds from dozens of investors for an NFT venture, then diverted the proceeds for his own use. The indictment does not specify which gambling platforms or crypto exchanges received the money, but the government alleges the spending was personal, not business-related.
The case is the latest in a string of crypto fraud prosecutions where founders are accused of treating investor funds like a personal checking account. Tarsha has not yet entered a plea, and the court docket does not list a defense attorney.
What happened to the FAR token
Few and Far's native token, FAR, has lost more than 99% of its value, wiping out retail holders who bought in after the project's initial hype. The token's collapse predates the indictment but accelerated in the weeks before the DOJ announcement.
Blockchain data shows large transfers out of project wallets around the time the alleged spending occurred, though the
The U.S. Department of Justice unsealed an indictment on August 5 against Taj Tarsha, founder of the NFT project Few and Far, accusing him of raising more than $10 million from 67 investors and then spending the money on gambling, cryptocurrency, and personal expenses. The charges follow a collapse in the project's FAR token, which has plunged more than 99% in value.
The allegations
Federal prosecutors say Tarsha solicited funds from dozens of investors for an NFT venture, then diverted the proceeds for his own use. The indictment does not specify which gambling platforms or crypto exchanges received the money, but the government alleges the spending was personal, not business-related.
The case is the latest in a string of crypto fraud prosecutions where founders are accused of treating investor funds like a personal checking account. Tarsha has not yet entered a plea, and the court docket does not list a defense attorney.
What happened to the FAR token
Few and Far's native token, FAR, has lost more than 99% of its value, wiping out retail holders who bought in after the project's initial hype. The token's collapse predates the indictment but accelerated in the weeks before the DOJ announcement.
Blockchain data shows large transfers out of project wallets around the time the alleged spending occurred, though the
