According to federal prosecutors, 42-year-old Jasveen Sangha, known as the “Ketamine Queen,” has agreed to plead guilty to five federal charges, including providing the ketamine that they say caused Perry’s death. Newly released court documents are painting a clearer picture of the time leading up to actor Matthew Perry’s death from an overdose of the drug ketamine. Prosecutors have been sending a message that doctors who recklessly prescribe drugs could be held criminally responsible.

A Hollywood actor is found unresponsive inside his own home, and within hours the news spreads across the world. But almost immediately, investigators begin asking a different question: not just what happened, but who supplied the ketamine? And that’s when one name starts to surface: Jasveen Sangha. Online, she would later be called the “Ketamine Queen.” But according to prosecutors, this wasn’t just about one person. They say it was a network—five people, each playing a different role, from supply to access to delivery.

As investigators dug deeper, they didn’t just uncover what happened in the days leading up to his death. They found something else: a prior case, one that raised even more questions about how long this had been going on. Now, years later, a judge has made a decision. But what came out in court is what’s changing how this entire case is understood.

It begins in Los Angeles in October 2023, when first responders are called to a private residence after reports of an unresponsive individual. When they arrive, they find Matthew Perry. Despite efforts at the scene, he is pronounced dead. Almost immediately, the news spreads across television, social media, and headlines around the world. This isn’t just another breaking story. This is someone millions recognize, someone whose life and struggles had been publicly followed for years.

At first, the situation appears to be another tragic loss. But as investigators begin looking closer, the focus starts to shift. This isn’t just about what happened inside that home. It’s about how it happened. Specifically, how ketamine entered the picture. A substance that is typically administered in controlled medical settings now becomes central to the investigation. And that raises a critical question: how was it obtained?

That question becomes the starting point for everything that follows. Because as authorities begin tracing the source, they aren’t just looking at a single moment. They’re looking at a chain, a series of decisions, a path that leads outside the home and toward other people. As that path begins to take shape, one name starts to come up again. Not publicly yet, not in headlines, but within the investigation itself. A name that would soon become central to the entire case: Jasveen Sangha.

At that point, the story begins to change. It’s no longer just about what happened. It’s about who was behind it. As investigators begin tracing how the ketamine was obtained, the case quickly expands beyond a single source. What they find doesn’t point to one individual or one moment. It points to multiple people, each connected in different ways. According to prosecutors, this was not a one-time transaction, but part of a broader system—a network involving five individuals, each playing a specific role in how the substance was accessed, transferred, and ultimately delivered.

Authorities allege that this network included two medical professionals, an intermediary, Matthew Perry’s personal assistant, and Jasveen Sangha as a primary supplier. Each person, according to court filings, contributed to a chain that moved step by step, from supply to coordination to final delivery. That structure is what begins to change how investigators understand the situation. This is no longer viewed as isolated or accidental, but as something more organized.

One of the most unexpected details involves someone much closer to Perry himself: his assistant. According to prosecutors, that individual played a role in obtaining and administering substances in the time leading up to his death. That detail adds another layer to the case, because it brings the situation from the outside in. It’s no longer just about external supply. It’s about access within close proximity.

As investigators continue reviewing messages, transactions, and timelines, a clearer picture begins to form—one that suggests coordination rather than coincidence. Multiple steps, multiple people, and a system that appears to have been used more than once. As that picture sharpens, the focus tightens, not just on who was involved, but on how the entire system functioned and what was happening in the days leading up to everything.

According to prosecutors, this was not a one-time situation. They allege that ketamine was being obtained repeatedly through coordinated efforts involving multiple individuals. And at the center of that supply, they say, was Jasveen Sangha. Authorities describe Sangha as operating out of a residence in North Hollywood, a location investigators believe functioned as a distribution point. According to court documents, she allegedly supplied ketamine in bulk, including multiple vials in the period leading up to Perry’s death.

But the case isn’t just about supply. It’s about how the system operated as a whole. Prosecutors point to communications between individuals involved in the network—messages that, according to authorities, outlined pricing, urgency, and coordination. Requests being made, arrangements being set, and deliveries being organized. Each step building on the one before it, creating a chain that moved from supplier to intermediary to final access.

What stands out to investigators is the structure of that chain. According to prosecutors, this wasn’t random or isolated. It showed signs of repetition and familiarity, a system that appeared to function with consistency. And that’s what led investigators to begin asking a deeper question: not just what happened in those final days, but how long this may have been going on.

As investigators continued reviewing the evidence, they came across something that didn’t just add detail. It changed the context of the entire case. According to prosecutors, this wasn’t the first time Jasveen Sangha had been connected to a situation like this. They pointed to a prior incident dating back to 2019, a case involving ketamine and a fatal outcome. Details from that earlier case were not presented as the same charge, but as something that raised serious concerns.

According to authorities, Sangha had been made aware of what happened in that earlier situation. She knew the risks. She knew the potential consequences. And yet, prosecutors allege, the activity continued afterward. That detail becomes one of the most significant moments in the entire case because it shifts how everything is viewed. What might have initially been seen as a single tragic event now raises the possibility of something more—a pattern that may have existed years earlier.

By the time the case reaches federal court, the focus shifts from investigation to accountability. Jasveen Sangha is no longer just a name in reports. She is now at the center of a legal proceeding that will determine her role in everything that unfolded. According to court records, Sangha enters a guilty plea to federal charges related to ketamine distribution, including distribution resulting in death. With that plea, key parts of the case are no longer being debated. They are being acknowledged.

In court, prosecutors outline what they say was happening behind the scenes. They describe a system that was not isolated, but ongoing. Transactions that were not one-time, but repeated. Decisions that, according to authorities, continued even after the risks were known. They point to the volume of ketamine involved, the coordination between individuals, and the timeline leading up to Matthew Perry’s death—a sequence of events that they argue connects the supply directly to the outcome.

At the same time, Sangha addresses the court. She expresses remorse for her role in the situation and acknowledges the seriousness of what happened. But even in that moment, the broader picture remains. This is not just about one person standing in court. It’s about everything that led to that point: the network, the pattern, the prior warning signs, all of it now part of the official record.

In April 2026, the case reaches a turning point. After months of investigation, court proceedings, and public attention, a judge delivers the decision. Jasveen Sangha is sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the charges, including distribution resulting in death, and marks one of the most significant developments in the case.

But even with that decision, the story doesn’t simply end. Because while Sangha’s role has now reached a legal conclusion, the broader case is still unfolding. According to prosecutors, she was not the only person involved. Several others connected to the network, including individuals with access, intermediaries, and those involved in obtaining substances, have already been sentenced or are still awaiting sentencing.

That means parts of the story are still being written. There are still proceedings ahead, still outcomes that have yet to be determined, and still details that may emerge over time. What began as a single incident has now been laid out as something much larger—a system, a pattern, a chain of events that didn’t happen all at once, but built over time.

For now, what’s clear is that a central figure in the case has been sentenced, a network has been identified, and a high-profile investigation has reached one of its most critical stages. But what remains to be seen is how the rest of it unfolds, and whether anything changes as a result.

This case may have reached a major decision, but it’s not the end of the story. Because while one person has now been sentenced, the bigger picture is still coming into focus. Cases like this don’t unfold in a single moment. They develop over time, through decisions, connections, and systems that aren’t always visible at first. And when everything is finally laid out, it raises questions that go beyond just one case—questions about responsibility, oversight, and how something like this can build step by step before anyone fully understands what’s happening.

As more information comes out—whether it involves others connected to the case, additional court decisions, or new details from the investigation—we’ll continue following it. Because stories like this don’t just end. They evolve. And sometimes, what happens after the sentencing matters just as much as everything that came before.