Data scarcity and unreliable self-reporting -- such as concealment or exaggeration -- pose fundamental challenges to psychiatric intake and assessment. We propose a multi-agent synthesis framework that explicitly models patient deception to generate high-fidelity, publicly releasable synthetic psychiatric intake records. Starting from DAIC-WOZ interviews, we construct enriched patient profiles and simulate a four-role workflow: a \emph{Patient} completes self-rated scales and participates in a semi-structured interview under a topic-dependent honesty state; an \emph{Assessor} selects instruments based on demographics and chief complaints; an \emph{Evaluator} conducts the interview grounded in rater-administered scales, tracks suspicion, and completes ratings; and a \emph{Diagnostician} integrates all evidence into a diagnostic summary. Each case links the patient profile, self-rated and rater-administered responses, interview transcript, diagnostic summary, and honesty state. We validate the framework through four complementary evaluations: diagnostic consistency and severity grading, chain-of-thought ablations, human evaluation of clinical realism and dishonesty modeling, and LLM-based comparative evaluation. The resulting corpus spans multiple disorders and severity levels, enabling controlled study of dishonesty-aware psychiatric assessment and the training and evaluation of adaptive dialogue agents.