Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
\/hl,
F/IED
/A1 rnr._,,*^,,
'
IJAfi
GBK
SK
v.
2 s 2.8t5
L,i:t; ; i. ;1.4i1,,
,
r
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'
1.
o{
Alabarna. fufobile County roceir,es funding frorn, among other sources, the citizens of Mobile
County through taxes ancl l'ees.
2.
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
who are electeci b,v the citizens of l\4clrile Countv and u.{ro each represent a district in Mobile
Countv.
;r.;
,,..
"r i;1.
3.
the County Clommission and other elected county officials to provide services to the citizens of
4.
the
Molrile County Revenue Cornmissicln antl the Mobile County License Commission (respectively,
the "Revenue Commission" ancl the "License Commission").
5.
6.
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
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.
8.
Comlnissioner
currentl_v
the
Comrnissioner on
L,icense
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.
9.
is
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.
spouse.
l.
in or about 1991. The County Comrnission compensates Crawforcl in exchange lor his
services.
CC}UNT ONE
r8tj.s.c.$1349
Conspiracy
12.
The Grancl Jur-v realleges and incorporates numbered paragraphs 1-11 of this
Sr4rerseding Indictment as
13.
if fully
From in or about
l:u/ry
to, having devised :rnd intending to devise a scheme ancl artifice to defraucl. and
lbr obtaining money and property by means of lzrlse and lraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of
wire, radio, and television corntnunication in interstate and foreign colxmerce,
writings, signs, signals. pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such
scheme and ar1ifice, in violation of Title 18, United Stales Code" Section 1343
(wire fraud); and
to, having devised and intending to devise a scheme ancl artifice to clefraucl, and
fbr obtaining mone.v and prr:perty by means of {alse and li'audr"rlent pretenses,
representations, and promises. for the purpose of exeouting such scheme and
artifice and attempting so to do, place in any post office and authorized depository
fbr mail matter, any matter and thing whatever to be sent and delivered by the
Postal Sen,ice, and deposit and cause to be depositecl a mattel and thing whatever
to be sent and delivered by any private and con:mercial interstate carrier, and
takes and receives therefrom, any such matter and thing, and knowingly cause to
be clelivered by mail and such carrier according to the direction thereon, and at the
place at i.vhich it is directed to be delir.ered by the person to rvhom it is addressed,
an.v such matter and thing. in violation of Title 18, United States Clode. Section
1341 (mail fraud).
Obiective of the Consrlirncy
14.
and the citizens of Mobile CoLrnty by falsi$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.
15.
HASTIE
aird
16.
In or about July 2012, HASTIil and YEAGER sought to retain services liorn
political consuiting firm and to conceai the firm's $10,500.00 retainer fee fronr the County
Cotntnission. Ou or
f{AST'I}i
abor-rt Augr"rst
liom Cranfbrd, even thor"rgh Crawford had neither benefitted fi"om nor sought out the finn's
sen'ices, nor even palticipated
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,
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
\,\rere
Social Media Expenses" as stated in his invoice and was being instructed b-v HASTIE and
Clrar.vford complied
he did not
comlrly. Crawfbrd
invoice to YEAGER. HASTIE signed and approved the invoice on or about August 22,2012.
YE,AGER sutrmittecl the false invoice to the
invoice was
1-alse
CJor-rnty
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
I{ASTIE
and
18.
f-ear
YEACER's instructions.
Commencing in or about January or Febluary 2014, HASTIB and YEAGER
as Revenue Commissiouer
2415.
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
supported the nrerger. flrawford responded "yes" because he was tbarful that
seek to terminate his employment
24.
environment
if
if
he
IIASTIE would
he said "no."
Crarvfbrd's
to
to complv
with
HASTIE's requests.
21.
to
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
HAS'IIE would
22.
iuto a BBV;\ Compass Batrk account ending in 2808. I{ASTIE used the morley providecl
Crai.r'forcl
to submit her qualifying fbe t<l run ftlr Revenue Commissioner. HASTIE dicl not
t)
b,v-
use
23.
in or
ancl
services
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
invoices.
24.
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
and Revenue
Commissions. HASTIE arranged to pay the lobbying firm rvith rnoney from a
account
segregated
Commission's
25.
b"v
the
A$2Afi-292
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
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,
of
$10,000.00 checl< to the lobbying firm as oompensation for its services to HASTIE to further her
political agenda. HASTIE was a\ryare of Act 2013-292 ancl knorvingl-v violated its provisions by
instructing the cornptroller to r,vithdraw anci spend lnoney finm the acsount to pay the lobbying
finn.
The firm's sen ices were not f<lr any of the purposes enurnerated in Act 2An-292. Rather.
the lobbying lirm's services nere fbr f'urthering HASTIE's aspirations of'sombining the ofhces
of the l,icense
lobbying llrm to the l,icense Clommission, the firm"s description of sewices for HASTIE
21.
caused to
provided to
HAS:I'ili,
even though she knew Crawford had not beneirted from or sought out services from
the consulting
firm.
C)n
Crarvfbi'd and stated: "Cood morning. Kim Hastie provicle fsic] us your contact ad fsic,l billing
information and it is my understanding that you u'ill be assisting her with payment. Attached is
contact me anytime." Crarn'lord paid the consuiting company's invoice out of personal fuirds
because he feared that
HASTIE
pa-vment.
28.
On or about April 23, 2474, TIASTIIE had a meeting in her oflice rvith Crawfbrd
and YEAGER u'here HASTIE explained that the Strateco invoices had to be changed because
"if it's
it."
r,r,hen Crarn'ford
billed the License Commission. HAST'III explained whirt changes she wanted rnade to the
Strateco invoices.
29.
On or about May 6, 2A14" YEAGER notified Crawford that HASTIE did not
amount
of
invoice.
C'rarvforcJ resubmitted
like the
the
ancl
Tr4ay 19"
2414. The Corurty Commission paicl APL invoice #LC20I404 on or about \4ay 23,2014, vra
check #2q3880.
30.
Strateccr
invoice #250 to Crawtbrcl to submit u'ith his lv{ay services invoice. Invoice #250 lvas dated
April 22,2014 fix' $2"500.00 and had the fbllowing changes: (1) the bill was changed fiom
"Mobile County License Commission" to "Bienville Rock Software," and (2) the itern
descr:iption rvas changed
Social Media Management." Crawford attached the falsifiecl Strateco invoice #25A
Softu,,are Engineering invoice #LC201404 tor May 2014 services
and submitted
it to IIASTIE
anei
his APL
ancl
YEAGIIR
approved
APL invoice #LC201404 on or about June 1A,2014. The County Commission paicl APL
Sollurare $39,514.00 r,ia check l+294764 on or about June 17. 2014.
caused
Mobile C'ounty govemment checks to be processecl and delivered by mail and commercial
delivery in the Southern District of'Alabama. Specificall,v.
o1r
ol
HASTIE
and YtrAGER caused the County Commission to rnail a cireck payable to API- Softrn'are
Engineering in the approximirte amount of'$37,53I.25.
In riiolation of Title 18. United States Clode. Section 1349.
32.
Superseding Indictment as if
33.
From in or about Febnrary 2014 through in or about July 2014, in the Southern
t0
willfully and knor.vingly did execute and attempt to execute a schenrc and artifice to defraud
Mobile County by means of lalse and fraudr:lent pretenses, representations and
prornises,
knowing at the tirne that the pretenses, representations and promises \ /ere and q,ould be false
rvhen made. HASTIE and YEAGER talsified invoices and misrepresented to the County
to the Couuty
consulting firm to
falsifi and alter their invoices and have them contain false
political
and misleading
statements. HASTIE and YEAGER disguised the true nature of services provided by the firrn
and disguised the true recipients of the services.
false
invoices, knr:wing that they r.vere I'alse and inaccurate. HASTIE and YEAGER submitted thlse
invoices to the County Clornnrission. which relied on the false and fraudulent representations in
the invnices and pnid the invoices.
I'or the purpose of executing this scheme and artifice to defraud Mobile
HASTIE
and
YEACER
Clounty,
Count Tlvo
Count Three
Count F'our
Count Five
l1
consulting firm.
Count Six
In violation of
"f
iirm.
34.
The Grand Jury realleges and incoqrorates numbered paragraphs 1-11 of this
35.
From in or about February 2014 through in or about July 2014" in the Southern
willfully
County by means of false and llaudulent pretenses. representations and promises. HASTIE and
sen
ices that
YIIAG[fll
approved the false invoices, knor.r'ing that they u'ere false ancl
inaccurate. IIASTIE and YEAGER submitted l'alse invoices to the County Commission, which
relied on the false and fraudulent representations in the invoices and paid the invoices.
12
For the purpose of executing such scheme ancl artiflce to defiaud and for obtaining
money and services, HASTIE and YEAGER caused Mobile County goverrunent checks to be
processecl a"nd delivered by
Alabama, to-wit:
Count Seven
C'.ount
Eight
Count Nine
36.
The Grand Jur,v realleges and incorpr:rates numbered paragraphs 1*11 of this
37.
did
u,as not
rvas provided in
return for official acts under color of official right. HASTIE used her position of public office
lbl
personetl
threats
and intimidation,
Crarvlbrd to pay HASTIE's quali$'ing fee to run for Revenue C)ommissioner. But for such
threats and intimiciaticln. Crar,l'forcl i.vould not have provided HASTIIT gifls and a payment. tor,vit:
Count'Ien
Clount
llleven
Count'fwelve
Count Thirteen
Counl l.ourteen
Count Filteen
COUNT SIXTEEN
18 LJ.S.C. $ 1001
False Statement to a Fecleral Agency
38.
The Grand Jury realleges aucl incorporates numbered paragraphs 1-11 of this
Superseding indictment as
39.
if fully
set
fbrth herein.
Southern
and
representation in a matter r,r'ithin the jurisdiction of the executive branch nf the Government of
to
lnvestigatiou thart she did not instruct Crawford to bill for work not performed for the License
1A
IT
of gilts
party. HASTIE
and
t'act instruct
COUNT SEVENTBTN
18 U.S.C. $ 2721(a)
Prohibited Release and LIse of Personal Infbrmation from State iMotor Vehicle Records
40.
The Grand Jury realleges ancl incorporates numbered paragraphs 1*11 of tlris
41.
in
ir:dividuals obtained by the License Cornmission in connection with rnotol vehicle records. Such
disclosure and use r.vas not for a purpose authorized by 18 U.S.C. $ 2721(b). As clescribed
of tviobile
Clount-v
ptupose. namely, to publicize her support for a mayoral candidate prior to Mobile's ma.voral
election held on cir about Ausust 27 " 2AB.
l5
42.
Per the l)river's Privacy Protection Act of'1994. the License Commission is
obligated to protect the privacy r:f personal information of individuals who transact with the
License Comtnission. IJnder the "Policies, Regulations. and Eligibility lLequirements" section of
its r,r'ebsite concerning online tag renervals, the License Cornmission notes:
The Fecleral Driver's Privacy Protection Act of'1994 went into eflbct September
1997. This law u,as enacted to protect the interest of individuals in their personal
privacy by prohibiting the clisclosure and use of personal information contained in
their motor vehicle registration and title records, except as authorized by such
indivich-rals or by law. Personal inforraaticln is defined as "infbrmirtion that
identilies a person, including an individual's social security number, name, and
address." The Mobile County License flomrnission's number one concern is the
security and privacy of your transactions. All requirements have lreen nrade to
adclress your privacy concerns and provide secure service to you the taxtrrayer.
43.
The License Clommission regularly acquires and stores the personal information
of Mobile County
resider:ts rvho transact u,ith the License Commissicln during the ordinary
44.
to the Grand Jury rnet with a License Ciommission employee at the License Commission.
HAS'I'IE
endorsing a Mobile mayoral candidate. The employee tcld HASTIE that such an e-mail u,ould
be improper, cautioning heL that since the email would originate fiom a License Commission
address the e-rnail's recipients wouid know that the e-mail came fi'om the License Commission.
to
as a flash
drive. Feiiring retribution fTom HASTIE if he did not comply rvith her recluest, the
emplo.vee
addresses
It)
lim:its of Mobile. The ernployee retrieved approximately 30,853 e-mail addresses and placed
them onto a ilash drive. HASTIE wanted the infonnation on the tlash drive to be provided to
certain persons not entployed Lry the License Commission, namely, represenlatives of a politicnl
cr:rnsulting
firm uzorking fbr the aforemeniioned mayoral candidate. Per HASTIE's instructions.
the firm's representatives later receivecl the infirrmation on the flash clrive ancl gave the e-mail
addresses contained on the tlash drive, along r.i'ith
candiclate,
candiclate
in order tirr
that
45.
On or about Ar"rgust 26" 2013, a clay before h4obile's mayoral election. the
individual rvho rnaintained the mayolal candidate's website sent a mass e-mail to the e-rnail
adciresses taken
from the infbrmation on the flash drive. The e-miril outlined HASTIE's
endorsement of the mayoral candidate and encouraged voters to rrote tbr the candidate. The e-
r,r'as labeled
"A
Message
r,r,as sent at
FIASTIE's behest. rvithout the consent or prior knor.vledge of the Mobile Count.v residents n'ho
rxete the intended recipients of the e-rnail and ll'hose personal infonnation lvas, unbeknotvnst to
them, used to generate the e-mail.
l8 Lr.s.c.
$ 371
46.
'fhe Grand Jury realleges ancl incorporates numbered paragraphs l-11 of'this
Supersecling Indictment as
if ftilly
47.
48.
'l'he objective of the conspiracy was to achieve personal firiancial gain through tax
evasion.
49.
In pursuit of linancial gain. HASTIE and HASTIE JR. conspired to impede and
otrstruct the larvful government functions of the hrternal Revenue Service ("lRS") of the lJnited
States Department
and triokery to defraud the Treasury Depailment. They conspired to conceal liom the IRS
approxirnately $58,632.66 in income that the-v received lrom brokering land transactions and
ser"r,,ices. .As
to dived income eamed by HASTIE JR.. to their daughter. all in an attempt to rlisguise
shie ld income fi'orn the IILS and
and
H,,ISTIE sought to conceal $38,400.00 earned in 2009 and 2010 froln the Ethics Commission
and lrom the citizens of Mobile County. Per Ala. Code $ 36-25-14,
HASTlt,
nr.ust annually
file
a Statentent of Ecouomic Interests Fr:rm u,'hile seling as an elected public ofTicial. The fbrm
requires income iuformation about the declarant and the declarant's spolise. When filed, the
fbrm becomes a public record available fur review on the Ethics Commission's r.r,'ebsite. Section
9 of the form, entitled "Declaration of Reporting Person," states that the declarant sigirs the form
under oath:
Form anel do
(or affirm) that the inforntation contained in said Statement of Hconornic
Interests is true and corect. I fully unclerstand that anyone who violates the
disclosure provisiotr of'this Act shall be sr-rbject to a fine of $10.00 a day'not to
exceed $1.000 annually. I also understand that any attachments that I place with
srveal"
0verf Acts
51.
.Ilt.
whose name is known to the Crand Jury. J.Z. agreed to pay HASTIE JR" a f'ee of 2o/o of the
purchase price
of land that
.1.2. sought
52. On or about August 14, 2009, J.'1.. acquired the land for apptoximately
$1,920,000.00. HASTIE JR. asked LZ. ta pa,v HASTIE JR.'s fee, approxirnately $38,400.00.
w.hich .l.7,.|ater did in tra,'o installments. one check fbr $20,000.00 and one check for $1 8,400.00.
53. On or about October 8, 2A09, J.Z. provided HASTIE JR. check #2337
addressed to HASTI A JR. in the amount of $20,000,00.
54. On or about January 4, 2A10. J.Z. provided HASTIE JR. check #.2355
addressed to
55.
Statement of
llconomic Interests Form fbr filing year 2009. Despite the fbrm's requirements that she disclose
all
in
aforementioned $20"000.00 income that she ancl ILdSTIE JR. received in 2009.
57.
On or about June 2?. 201A. FIASTIE ancl HASTtrE JR., jointl.v filed a federal
incotne tax retutn and relateei schedules lbr the 2009 tax _v"ear. ln these disclosures, rvhich are
signec{ under penalty
of perjury" HASTIE and HASTIE JR. did not include the afbrementioned
58. On or about
Iconomic Interests Form lbr liling year 2010. Despite the form's requirements that she disclose
all
in
aforementioned $18,400.0C) income that she and ItrASTIE JR. received in 2010.
59.
On or about
and
HASTIII Jtt.
filed a fecleral income tax return and related schedules for the 2010 tax year. In
these
disclosures. rvhich are signed under penaity of perjury, HASTIE ancl HASTIE JR. did not
include the afbrerneirtionecl $18,400.00 income that the,v receited in 2010.
60.
On or about August 6,2014. J.Z. provicled HAS'ITE and HASTIE Jll..'s claughter
clreck #3091. rvhich r.l'as acldressed to HASTIE JR.'s daughter in the amount of $10,000.00.
The check r,r'as delri:sited in trIASTIE and IIASTIE's daughter's joint Regions Bemk account fbr
services rendeled entirely by FIASTIE JR.
2A
61.
by N.M..
r.r,hose nalne
62.
to HASTIE JR.'s
daughter
for
services
HASTIE JR.
On or about Janualy 7,2015, J.Z. provided HASTIE JIL" check #3073. which
rvas acldressed
to I{ASTIE JR. in the amount of $5,000.00. T}re check inas deposited into
HAS'|IB and HASTIE JR.'s joint l{egions Bank account firr services
rendered entirely
b1,
HAST'IE JIT.
63.
HASTIE JR.'s employer to pay his daughter $5,232.66 for selices renclered entirely by
HASTIE JR.
64.
C)n
check #131 187, r.vhioh rvas addressed to HASTIE .IlL.'s daughter in the amount of $5,232.66 for
services rendered entirelv
bi'I-IASTIE JR.
FORFEITURE NOTICI1
65.
Superseding Indictrnerrt are her:eby r:ealleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose
of
alleging fbrfeitures pursuantto Title 18, lln:ited States Code. Section 981(aXlXC) and Title 28.
Unitecl States Code, Section 2461.
66.
lJpon conviction of'the ofl-enses set forth in this SLrperseding inclictment, the
defendants.
ll
If
any of the property described above" as a result of any act or omission of the
defendant:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
the Llnited States of Arnerica shall be entitled to ibrl'eiture of substitute property pursuant to Title
21" Llnitcd States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated
246r&\.
]l{IlE
$ 2461.
BIt.],,
22
JANIJARY 2015
'denkircher
nited States Attorne,v
/"n
.'tt'
\.
/,.ur 4u
Assistant
,'/
lfiited
/urr,ct t
States
lL,
Attcrney
,'/
Assistant United States Attorney
Cllriel Crirninal Division