Elon Musk is probed by DOJ over Tesla perks, including using company resources on secret home project, that he received since 2017

The Justice Department is investigating the benefits Elon Musk received from Tesla since 2017, further than expected, as part of a criminal investigation.

Tesla resources may have been used in secret plans to build a glass mansion for the CEO. This is one of the allegations the DOJ is investigating.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York also requested information about transactions between Tesla and other Musk-related entities, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The investigation’s expanded timeline and scope suggests federal prosecutors have a broader interest in Musk and the electric car maker than previously thought.

The Securities and Exchange Commission also has opened a civil investigation into the construction project and is seeking similar information from the company, officials said.

Dubbed “Project 42” and described inside the company as a mansion for Musk, the plans involved a spectacular glass-walled building near Tesla’s gigafactory in Austin, seen above.

Dubbed “Project 42” and described inside the company as a mansion for Musk, the plans involved a spectacular glass-walled building near Tesla’s gigafactory in Austin, the Journal previously reported.

Following an order for specialty glass worth millions of dollars, Tesla board members quietly investigated whether company resources were misused on the project and whether Musk himself had played a role.

Musk wrote on his social media platform, officially on Twitter, earlier this month, “there is no glass house (metaphors don’t count lol) built, under construction or planned! I’m not building a house of any kind anywhere. Period.’

According to a recently released authorized autobiography, tech billionaire Musk last year considered building a home on a horse farm across the Colorado River from the Giga Texas factory.

He even met with an architect to think about projects, but he postponed construction,” wrote Walter Isaacson.

Musk suggested the design could incorporate a shard of glass emerging from a lake, the book says.

A Tesla spokesperson did not immediately respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment.

An SEC spokesperson previously told DailMail.com: “The SEC does not comment on the existence or non-existence of a potential investigation. »

SEC rules require public companies to disclose any perks or other personal benefits worth more than $10,000 paid to top executives, including the CEO.

The regulatory agency has recently filed a number of civil lawsuits against publicly traded companies for failing to disclose executive benefits, including Hilton Worldwide and Stanley Black & Decker.

The SEC also requires public companies to notify investors of any transactions greater than $120,000 in which a related party, such as an executive, has a material interest.

One rendering depicted the building as a glass cube similar to the Apple Store on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue (seen above), while another showed it as a “twisted hexagon.”

Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Tesla company funds were improperly used for secret projects to build a glass house for CEO Elon Musk, according to a new report.

At Tesla, information about the alleged glass mansion leaked intermittently for more than a year.

Plans for Austin’s glass building have evolved over time, but at least some of the renderings appeared to show a residential neighborhood with bedrooms, bathrooms and a kitchen, the Journal reported last year.

One rendering depicted the building as a glass cube similar to the Apple Store on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, while another showed it as a “twisted hexagon” next to a body of water with the Tesla factory in the background, according to the report.

Other renderings depicted a waterfall as part of the landscaping, and some Tesla employees speculated that the project could include some sort of museum.

The building in question has not been constructed and Telsa insiders said they were unsure of the status of the project or the results of the board’s investigation.