Hastie Updated Indictment

8/9/2019 Hastie Updated Indictment

1/23

hl,

GBK

SK

UNI'TED

ST'A'I'ES

T}F AMERICA

v.

KIMBERLY

SMTTH

HAST}E,

RAMONA

MCARDLE

YEAGER,

and

JOHN

MELVIN

HASTIE

JR.

F/IED

/A1

rnr._,,*^,,

'

' :

\l

{-,(

}t

tti,

IJAfi

2

s

2.8t5

L,i:t;

;

i.

,

;1.4i1,,

,,..

r

;r.;

"r

i;1.

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COUITT

FOR

THE

SOUTHERN

DISTRICT

OF

ALABAMA

SOUT}IBRN

DIVISION

)

CRIMII\AL NO.:

14-00291-CG

)

)

Yiolatioers:

l8

rj.s.c.

$

1349

18

U.S.C.

$

1343

18

U.S.C.

S

131r

18

U.S.C.

$

resl{a}

l8

Lr.s.c.

$

r0{il

l8

U.S.C.

$

2721(a)

18 U.S.C.

$

37r

STJPNRSNDING

INI}ICTMIINI'

THtr

GRAND JLTRY CHARGES:

At all times relevant

to this Sunersedins Indictrnent:

on*r'ui*'"

ol

Mobil"

courrtn Gno*rr,**rrt

1.

Mobile County' is

a

ccrurty

in Mobile.

Alabama in

the

Southern

District

o{

Alabarna.

fufobile County

roceir,es

funding

frorn,

among

other

sources,

the

citizens

of

Mobile

County through

taxes ancl

l'ees.

2.

Molrile

County

is

governed

by the

Mobile

County C'omrnission,

an

agency that

provides

general

administlation

and

other

services

to the

citizens o1'Mobile

CoLlnty

(the

"County

Conrmission"). As

part

of its responsibilities,

tlre County

Comnrission

oversees

the

management

and

distribution o1'cor:nty lunds.

The County

Comrnission is

cornprised

nf three

comrnissioners

who

are

electeci

b,v

the

citizens

of

l\4clrile

Countv and u.{ro

each represent

a

district

in

Mobile

Countv.

Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 23


2/23

3.

"fhe

Mobile

Ccunty

Administrator's

Of1lce

is responsible for

coordinating

with

the County Clommission

and other elected

county officials to

provide

services

to

the citizens

of

Mobile

Cormty

(the

"Administrator's Otfice").

4.

Mobile

Counly

is

further

sen'ed

by

various depafiments, which include

the

Molrile County

Revenue Cornmissicln antl the Mobile County

License

Commission

(respectively,

the

"Revenue

Commission"

ancl

the "License Commission").

5.

The llevenue Commission

is

responsible

lor

rnapping. apirriris;rls,

assessments,

and

the collection

of ad

valorem taxes

in

N4obile

Clountv.

The Revenue

Coinmission is led and

managed

by

an

elected

Revenue

Commissioner.

6.

The License Clommission is responsible for

vehicle registration

in Mobile

Clounty

as

rvell

as

overseeing business

licenses,

sales and

Lrse

taxes,

ancl other services. The License

Commission

is led and manased bv

an

elected License Commissioner.

7.

In

the

course of conducting

gclvernment

business,

the

Lioense

Commission

sutrmits

invoices to the County Commission for

payinent.

After

these invoices are

reviewed

by

the

{)ounty

Cornrnissicln

and

the

Administrator's

Office, the

County

Commission

initiates

payments

through the distribution of county lunds.

Defendanfs

in

this Case

8.

KIMFERLY

SPIITH

TIASTIE

("rlASTlE")

is

currentl_v

the

L,icense

Comlnissioner

fbr

Mobile

County. She

was

elected License

Comrnissioner

on or

about

November 4. 2008 and

begern

her

term

an

or

about January

19.

2009.

HASTIE

r.vas

reelected

as

License Commissioner on or

abclut

November

6"2012.



3/23

9.

R.AMON,,

MCARDLE

YEAGER

("YEAGER")

is

currently

the Deputy

License Clornmissioner for hulobile Countv.

She sen

ed

as

the

Chief

Clerk of the

License

Commission

from

in

or ilbout

1992

or

1993

to

in or

about

March

2Al4,

when she

became

the

Deputy License

Commissioner.

10. JOHN MELVIN HASTIB

JR.

("HASTIE

JTt.") is

HASTIE's

spouse.

Individuals

Related

to this

Case

I

l. Victor

T'.

Craudrrd

("Crawfbrd")

is

an

at-will

contract

employee

of'the

Counf

Commissiott.

Crar.vford mallages

a

company that

provides

infbrmation

technology

services

to

the

License

Commissiott.

Crarvfbrd

has served

the

License Commission

on

an ongoing

basis

since in

or about

1991.

The

County Comrnission

compensates Crawforcl

in

exchange

lor

his

services.

CC}UNT ONE

r8tj.s.c.$1349

Conspiracy

12.

The

Grancl

Jur-v

realleges

and

incorporates

numbered

paragraphs

1-11

of this

Sr4rerseding

Indictment

as if

fully

set

fbrth

herein.

13. From in

or about l:u/ry

2AD

drrough in

or

about

July

2074,

in

the Southem

District

of Alabama,

Southern

l)ivision,

and elsewhere.

the

defbndants,

KIMBER],Y

SMITH

HASTIE

and

ITAMOI'{A M{]ARDI,E

YNAGNII,

did willlully, knowingly

and unlawlllly

combine,

conspire,

con{'ederate,

and

agree together

with

eaclr other and other

persons,

botJr

l


4/23

to,

having

devised :rnd intending

to

devise

a

scheme ancl artifice to

defraucl.

and

lbr

obtaining money

and

property

by

means of

lzrlse

and

lraudulent

pretenses,

representations,

and

promises,

transmit and

cause

to

be transmitted

by

means

of

wire, radio,

and

television

corntnunication

in interstate and

foreign

colxmerce,

writings,

signs, signals.

pictures,

and

sounds

for the

purpose

of executing

such

scheme

and ar1ifice,

in

violation

of Title

18,

United

Stales Code"

Section

1343

(wire

fraud); and

to,

having devised and intending

to devise

a

scheme

ancl artifice to

clefraucl,

and

fbr

obtaining

mone.v

and

prr:perty

by

means

of {alse

and

li'audr"rlent

pretenses,

representations, and

promises.

for

the

purpose

of

exeouting

such

scheme

and

artifice and attempting so to do,

place in

any

post

office

and authorized

depository

fbr mail matter,

any

matter

and

thing

whatever

to be sent

and delivered by

the

Postal Sen,ice, and deposit

and cause

to

be depositecl

a

mattel

and thing whatever

to

be

sent and delivered by

any

private

and

con:mercial interstate

carrier, and

takes and receives therefrom,

any such matter

and

thing,

and

knowingly

cause

to

be

clelivered by

mail

and such

carrier according

to

the

direction

thereon,

and

at

the

place

at i.vhich it is directed to

be delir.ered

by the

person

to rvhom

it

is

addressed,

an.v such matter and

thing.

in

violation

of Title 18,

United

States Clode.

Section

1341

(mail

fraud).

Obiective

of the

Consrlirncy

14.

'l'he

objective

of

the conspiracy

was to

trick

and deceive

the

County

Commission

and

the

citizens of

Mobile

CoLrnty

by

falsi$ring invoices

and rnisappropriating

lunds,

and

to

obtain

political

lotrbying and consuhing

services and personal

bencfits

without

the

knowledge

and

oversight of the

County Commission

and at the e.xpense

of h4obile

County

taxpa),er

dollars.

Manner

and Means

15.

HASTIE

aird

YEAGER

shared a common

plan

and

purpose

to hide

and disguise

expeirditur:es and

payments

from

the

County Conrmission.

16.

In

or

about

July 2012,

HASTIil

and

YEAGER

sought

to

retain

services

liorn

a

political

consuiting

firm and

to conceai

the

firm's

$10,500.00

retainer

fee

fronr

the

County

Cotntnission. Ou

or abor-rt Augr"rst

21,

2072,

the

consulting

lirm

sr:brnitted

an invoice

to

f{AST'I}i fcrr

the retainer fce.

HASTIE instructed

the consulting

firm

to

seek

paymenl

of the

fee

A,



5/23

liom

Cranfbrd, even

thor"rgh

Crawford had neither

benefitted

fi"om

nor

sought

out the

finn's

sen'ices, nor

even

palticipated

in

any manner

in

the

selices. I{ASTIE tildrer

instructed

Clarvfbrd to

pay

the

f'ee. even

though

the

consulting firm

harl

done

no work fbr

clr

witl"r

Crarvford.

On

or

about

August 27, 2A12"

the

political

consulting

lirrn

e-mailed its

invoice

to

Crawford.

17,

ln or

about

August 2A12,

HASTIE reviewed

the consulting firm's

invoice.

She

instructed

YEAGBIT

to

clisguise

and falsity

the

firm's

retainer

fbe.

In

a meeting r.vith

Crawfbrd,

TIASTIE

and YEAGER

directed him

to

falsify his

invoice

and

adcl

an item called "Web

&

Social Media

Expenses"

to

Crau'forcl's

invoice.

HASTIII

and

YEAGER

directed Crawfclrd to

lalsely

state

that

such expenses \,\rere

$10.500.00.

In

truth, Cran'fr:rd

did not

incur

"Web

&

Social

Media

Expenses" as stated

in

his

invoice

and

was

being instructed

b-v

HASTIE

and

YIIAGER

to

pay

their

political

ccnsulting

bill.

Clrar.vford complied

with the instructions

because

he l'eared that HASTIE

would

retaliate

against

hinr

if

he

did not

comlrly.

Crawfbrd

sent the

fhlse

invoice to YEAGER.

HASTIE

signed and

approved the invoice

on or about

August

22,2012.

YE,AGER

sutrmittecl

the false invoice to the

CJor-rnty Commission.

Not knou"ing

that Crawiord's

invoice was 1-alse

and

actually

in

part

represented

services

sought

by

HASTIE

and YEAGER"

the

Corurty

Cournrission mailed

a

check

tcl

Crawfbrd

on

or

about September

5,2012

as

pa_vment

for

lris

services

lbr

July

2012.

On

or about

September

7,

2012, Clravrfbrd paid

the consulting

firm's

$10,500.00

retainer

fbe

from personal

funds

due to

f-ear

of

consequences

of'not fulfilling

I{ASTIE

and

YEACER's

instructions.

18.

Commencing

in or

about January

or Febluary

2014,

HASTIB

and YEAGER

sought

to

have

the County

Clommission

turknowingly

finance

HASTIf,'s

aspirations

of

serving



6/23

as Revenue

Commissiouer in

a

merged

License /

Revenue

Commission

in

or about

October

2415.

19. In

or

about

February 7014,

HAST'III,

YEAGER.

Crawfbrcl,

and

the

License

Commission's

comptroller met at

the License

Corrmission to

discuss

a

potential

merger

of

the

License

and

lLevenue Commissiclns.

During

the

meeting,

HASTIE

asked

Crawford

if

he

supported the

nrerger.

flrawford

responded

"yes"

because

he was tbarful

that

IIASTIE

would

seek to terminate his

employment

if

he said "no."

24. During

her tenure

as

License

Clommissioner.

HASTIE

cultivated

a work

environment

of

intimidation at the

otl'rce

ancl

repeatedly

threatened

to

terminirte Crarvfbrd's

employment

as

u.ell

as the employment

of

several

License L'ommission

employees.

On repeated

occasions, HAS'I'IE led

Crar,vford

to belier.,e

that he

had

nei

choice

but to

complv

with

HASTIE's

requests.

21.

Specifically.

HAS'IIE

sought

to

have

Crarvfbrcl

pay

HASTIE's

$1,800.00

qualilying

fee to run

for

Revenue

flomrnissioner.

C)rawiord

gave

I{ASTIE

a

$1,800.00 check i1

or

about January

or

lrebruary

2014.

Based

on Clrawforcl's

numerous

interactions

rvith

I{ASTIE

and

his

experience

of

providing

services

to the

License

Cornmission.

Clrar.dord

believed

HAS'IIE

would

seek

to terminate his

employment

if he

did

nclt

provide

HASTIE

the check

fur

her

qualif1.'ing

1be.

22.

On or

about Febnrary

5,2014, HASTIE

deposited

Crawforcl's

$1,800.00

check

iuto

a

BBV;\

Compass

Batrk

account

ending

in 2808.

I{ASTIE

used

the morley

providecl

b,v-

Crai.r'forcl

to

submit

her

qualifying

fbe

t


7/23

23.

From in

or

about

February 2014 to

in

or

about

July

2414,

HASTIE

ancl

YEACER sought

to

falsity invoices and misrepresent

to

the

County

Comrnission

services

pr"ovided

to

the

License

Commission.

HASTIE

requestecl

the

services of consultants

and

lobbyists to support her

plan

to

merge the License

and

Revenue Llommissions.

tlnbeknownst to

the

County Commission,

HASTIE and

YEAGEI{ instructed a

politic;rl

consulting firm

to

falsify

their invoices and

have them contain false and misleading statements. Specificali-v, HASTIE

ancl

YEAGER

signed

riff on the

faise invoices. knou'ing

they

contained lies

to trick the County

Commission.

The

defendants

submitted the false invoices to the County Commission,

u,'hich

unknowiugly

reliecl

on the false invoices

signecl

b"v

IIASTIE

and

YEAGER

and then

paid

the

invoices.

24.

In

or about

May

2014,IIASTIE

had.

unbeknownst

to

the

County Commission,

directed

the License t'ommission's cornptroller

to

pa-y

a

lobbying firm rvith

unauthorized

funds

in know'ing

violation

of

Mobile County

law,

Act

2A13-292,

as clescribed

below.

The

firm

rvorked for

IIASTIE

to draft legislation

in

support

of

her

plair

to merge

the l-icense

and

Revenue

Commissions.

HASTIE

arranged to

pay

the

lobbying

firm

rvith

rnoney from

a

segregated

account

of

the

License

Commissioir.

I{ASTIE, YBAGER,

and the l,icense

Commission's

comptroIler

have

signature

irr"rthority on

the segregatecl

account.

25. Enacted on or about

Ma.v

20,2013,

A$2Afi-292

describes

the

purpose

and

scope

of

a

segregated

account, wfiich

is

funded b"v

the

public.

'l'he

lalr,'states that money

in

the account

shall come

from

"a

special

issuance

fee

not

to

exceed

five

dollars ($5)

to

be collected

by

the

l,icsnse

Commissioner

of

Mobile

County on each motor vehicle registratiou,

boat

rener,val

or

registration.

manufacturecl home registration,

business license application.

or other

instrument



8/23

registered

or

application applied

for in the offioe of

the license commissioner." The

License

Clonrmissioner

may spend

nioney

in

the accoutlt

only

as

authorized

by

Act

2013-292, namely,

when such spending

is

"fi:r the

preservation

and

storage

of records r:elating to motor vehicle

registration, boat

registration, ancl business

licenses

as

prescribed

by

the

Department

of

Examiners

of

Public

Accounts

and ftrr

the

purchase,

installation, improvement, development,

upgrading.

and mairitenance

of equipment ancl technology

in the

office

of

the

License

Comrnissioner

of Mobile Ceiunty."

26. f)n

or

about ,}.4ay

29, 2014"

the

License C)ommission comptroller

provided

a

$10,000.00

checl

Hastie Updated Indictment

Documents

Transcript of Hastie Updated Indictment