FBI Director Kash Patel is facing fresh scrutiny after a delayed disclosure revealed that he bought a six-figure stake in a crypto-linked company with millions of dollars in federal contracts — including contracts connected to the Justice Department.

The transaction itself was not hidden forever.

But the timing is now at the center of a growing ethics controversy.

According to federal financial records first reported by NOTUS, Patel purchased between $100,001 and $250,000 worth of stock in MicroStrategy — now known as Strategy, a company heavily tied to bitcoin holdings — on November 21. The purchase was not disclosed to federal ethics officials until May 26, more than six months later.

That delay matters because the STOCK Act requires certain senior government officials to report stock transactions over $1,000 within 45 days.

A watchdog official said the timeline leaves little room for interpretation.

“That’s violating the law—no other way to put it,” Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette of the Project On Government Oversight told NOTUS.

Patel’s amended filing reportedly said that he had “inadvertently omitted” the transaction from an earlier disclosure. The FBI said the mistake was corrected after it was discovered, and that the amended report was approved by a Justice Department ethics official.

But the disclosure has raised uncomfortable questions because of the company involved.

Strategy is not simply another publicly traded stock. The bitcoin-focused company has received millions of dollars in contracts from federal agencies over the years, including the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI. That connection has intensified criticism from ethics advocates, who argue that senior law-enforcement officials should be especially careful to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

The controversy comes as Patel, 46, already faces pressure over the public perception of his leadership at the FBI. Now, critics say, the delayed filing risks adding another question mark over the bureau’s independence.

Federal ethics disclosures are designed to make sure the public can see when powerful officials buy and sell individual stocks. They are also meant to help watchdogs identify potential conflicts before they become larger problems.

In Patel’s case, the transaction was eventually reported — but only after the reporting deadline had passed by months.

The usual consequence for a first-time late STOCK Act filing is a $200 penalty. Yet according to reporting cited by multiple outlets, no fine had been issued as of July 2.

The Justice Department would ultimately be responsible for determining whether Patel faces that penalty.

That has created another layer of tension.

The official whose agency includes the FBI is now caught in a disclosure controversy involving a company that has done business with the same department. Deputy Assistant Attorney General William Taylor defended Patel in a May 28 letter to the Office of Government Ethics, saying he believed the FBI director remained in compliance with applicable conflict-of-interest laws and regulations.

Taylor also described the omission as stemming from a “miscommunication,” although reports noted that Patel’s own letter did not provide that specific explanation.

For Patel’s defenders, the episode is a paperwork mistake that was acknowledged and corrected.

For critics, it is something more serious.

The issue is not simply whether Patel made money on the stock. In fact, reports indicate Strategy’s shares have fallen sharply since the purchase. The question is whether one of the country’s most powerful law-enforcement officials followed the transparency rules designed to protect public trust.

That trust is especially important at the FBI.

The bureau investigates financial crimes, corruption, fraud and national-security threats. Its director is expected to operate above even the appearance of personal financial entanglements with companies that intersect with government business.

And while the delay may carry only a modest statutory fine, the political consequences could be far larger.

The episode has revived calls from watchdog groups and lawmakers for stricter limits on individual stock trading by top federal officials. More than 30 members of Congress were also late with STOCK Act disclosures over the previous year, according to NOTUS, underscoring that Patel’s case is part of a wider transparency problem in Washington.

Still, Patel’s role makes the story particularly explosive.

He is not a backbench lawmaker. He is the director of the FBI.

And now, a delayed stock filing has become a test of whether the rules on paper will be enforced when they apply to one of the government’s most powerful figures.