In a candid interview Soham Parekh, an Indian tech professional, confessed to holding multiple full-time positions at different US companies concurrently. The practice, often referred to as moonlighting, has stirred significant controversy, particularly among Y Combinator-backed startups and early-stage founders.

Parekh acknowledged that he lied about his location and employment status to secure overlapping jobs, saying, “I’m not proud of what I’ve done. That’s not something I endorse either. But no one really likes to work 140 hours a week. I had to do it out of necessity.”

Explaining his mindset, Parekh added, “I’m not a very people person. I don’t share much about what’s going on in my life. So I just thought: if I work multiple places, maybe I can elevate myself out of the situation faster.”

He claimed that the only thing he did throughout the day was work, often coding for up to 140 hours per week. “I was decent enough, a good enough engineer, to work at three places. Some of these companies I worked at were before the Co-Pilot boom. There was no AI-assisted programming,” he said, reflecting on the pre-AI tools era he said in TBPN’s show.

How the scam surfaced

The alleged scheme came to light when Suhail Doshi, co-founder of Mixpanel and Playground AI, publicly warned other founders via X (formerly Twitter), writing:

“PSA: there's a guy named Soham Parekh (in India) who works at 3–4 startups at the same time. He's been preying on YC companies and more. Beware. He hasn't stopped a year later. No more excuses.”

Doshi’s post triggered a flood of responses from startup CEOs and hiring managers, many of whom said they discovered Parekh’s dual (or triple) employment only after weeks or months of onboarding, losing valuable time, trust, and operational progress.

Industry reaction

The incident has reignited the debate around remote work ethics, employee vetting, and the risks of global hiring in the startup ecosystem. Several executives noted that remote hiring, especially across borders, has created opportunities for both flexibility and exploitation.

While some in tech circles sympathised with Parekh’s financial situation, others stressed that deliberate deception—particularly at small, early-stage companies—can cause severe damage.

What lies ahead

It remains unclear whether any of the affected companies plan to pursue legal action against Parekh. In the interview, he did not disclose names of companies involved or whether settlements had occurred.

The case also highlights a growing need for stricter compliance checks, transparent employment disclosures, and better systems to track moonlighting abuse across the tech industry—especially in a post-pandemic world where remote work has become the norm.