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

F/IED

/A1 rnr._,,*^,,
'

' : !\l {-,( tti,
}t

IJAfi

GBK
SK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUITT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUT}IBRN DIVISION
UNI'TED ST'A'I'ES T}F AMERICA

)

v.

)

2 s 2.8t5
L,i:t; ; i. ;1.4i1,,
,
r

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}

KIMBERLY SMTTH HAST}E,
RAMONA MCARDLE YEAGER, and
JOHN MELVIN HASTIE JR.

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.

;r.;

,,..

"r i;1.

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 23

"fhe Mobile Ccunty Administrator's Of1lce is responsible for coordinating with

3.

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

Comlnissioner

fbr Mobile County. She was elected License

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.

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 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

13.

if fully

From in or about

set fbrth herein.

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<noi.vn and unknor.vn to the Grand .Inry, to commit celtain
ofl'enses agaiirst the United States, to-lvit:

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 23
I

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
f{AST'I}i

abor-rt Augr"rst

fcrr the retainer

21, 2072, the consulting lirm sr:brnitted an invoice to

fce. HASTIE instructed the consulting firm to
A,

seek paymenl of the fee

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 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.
he l'eared that

Clrar.vford complied

HASTIE would retaliate against hinr if

he did not

with the instructions because

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
invoice was

1-alse

CJor-rnty

Commission. Not knou"ing that Crawiord's

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

I{ASTIE

and

18.

f-ear

of consequences of'not fulfilling

YEACER's instructions.
Commencing in or about January or Febluary 2014, HASTIB and YEAGER

sought to have the County Clommission turknowingly finance

HASTIf,'s aspirations of serving

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 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
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."

During her tenure as License Clommissioner. HASTIE cultivated a work

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

HAS'IIE would

of providing services to the License

seek to terminate his employment

Cornmission. Clrar.dord believed

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
Crai.r'forcl

to submit her qualifying fbe t<l run ftlr Revenue Commissioner. HASTIE dicl not

any of her own ftinds to pay 1br her qualilying fee.

t)

b,v-

use

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 7 of 23

23.

From in or about February 2014 to

in or

about July 2414, HASTIE

YEACER sought to falsity invoices and misrepresent to the County Comrnission
pr"ovided

ancl

services

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
account

of the License Commissioir. I{ASTIE, YBAGER, and the l,icense

segregated

Commission's

comptroIler have signature irr"rthority on the segregatecl account.

25.

Enacted on or about Ma.v 20,2013,

of a segregated account, wfiich is funded

b"v

the

A$2Afi-292

describes the purpose and scope

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

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 8 of 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< 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

ancl Revenue Commissions. According

to invoice #21A6 provided by the

lobbying llrm to the l,icense Clommission, the firm"s description of sewices for HASTIE

included: "fC]ommunications consulting, rnanagement of bill drafting, meeting with legislators.
coordination of political efTi:rts. I{eview of research ancl delivery of legislation fbr introduction."

21.

At tirnes cluring their conspiracy. HASTIE and YEAGEI{ knorvingly

caused to

be transmitted e*mail communications conc-erning the payment o{ invoices of political
consultanls. In or about February 2414. HASTIE sought the services of a political consulting
company ro promore her political ambitions of merging the License and Revenue Commissions.

I-IASTfE iirstructed the consulting company to

bill Clrawtbrd tbr services it

provided to

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 9 of 23

HAS:I'ili,

even though she knew Crawford had not beneirted from or sought out services from

the consulting

firm.

C)n

or about February 2I, 2014, a representative of the company e-mailed

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

our consulting retainer f'ee fbr February.

If you have any cpiestions at all, please f-eel fiee to

contact me anytime." Crarn'lord paid the consuiting company's invoice out of personal fuirds
because he feared that

HASTIE

r.voulcl seek to terminate his emplovment

if he did not make the

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

going tcl say my name, I need to pay

it."

HASTII1 instructed Crawfbrd on hclr.v to firlsify

his APL Sollware Engineering invoice to include l-alsified Strateco irrvoices

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

approve his APL Sollware Engineering invoice "l+l,C:2AAA4

amount

of

invoice.

$37,531.25 because HASTIE clid riot

C'rarvforcJ resubmitted

like the

his invoice with

tor April 2014 services in

the

correspondence shclr,vn on the

I'alsifiecl Stlateco invoices #225

#234. HAS'I'IE and YEAGER approved APL invoice #LC,201404 on or about

ancl

Tr4ay 19"

2414. The Corurty Commission paicl APL invoice #LC20I404 on or about \4ay 23,2014, vra
check #2q3880.

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 10 of 23

30.

On or about Miiy 12, 2014. YBAGER knowingly providecl falsified

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

fiom "Kim Hastie Consulting Retainer" to "Digital Mar:keting and

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

b

his APL

in the amount of $39.514.00

YtrAGER for approval. I{ASTIE

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.

31. At times during their conspiracy.

HASTIE and YEAGER. knor.vingly

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

ab<lut Ma.v 23. 2014

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.

COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIX
18 U.S.C. $ r343
Wire Fraud

32.

'l'he Grand.h-rry realleges ancl incorporates numberecl paragraphs i*11 of this

Superseding Indictment as if

33.

fully set forth herein.

From in or about Febnrary 2014 through in or about July 2014, in the Southern

District of Alabama, Southern Division" and

e.lser.vhere, the defenelants,

t0

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 11 of 23

KIWIBERLY SVIITH IIASTIE and
RAMONA MCARDLE YEAGNR,

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

Comntission services that political consultants provided
Unbeknorvnst

to the Couuty

consulting firm to

to the i,icense Cornnrission.

Cornmission. ItrASTIE and YB,AGER instructed

falsifi and alter their invoices and have them contain false

a

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.

HASTIn and YEAGEI{ approved the

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,

caused to be transmitted in interstate commerce, cerlain signs. signals,

and sounds by means of wire comnrnnication, to-u.it:

Count Tlvo

Count Three

Count F'our

Count Five

,t\n e-mail communication to crai.vlbrd on or about February 2l,2al4 thal was
transmitted in interstate commerce and concerned the payment of a political
consultins finn.
An e-mail communication to Crar.vfbrcl 0n 0r about March 24,2014 that was
transmitted in interstate cominerce and concerned the payment of a political
consuitins firm.
An e-mail comnunication to Crarvford on or about April 21 ,2A74 that rvas
transmitted in interstate commerce and concerned the pavment of a political
consulting firrn.
An e-mail communication to Crar.vford on or about April 23, 2014 that u'as
transmitted in interstate commerce and concerned the payment of a political

l1

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 12 of 23

consulting firm.
Count Six

An e-mail communication to Crawford on or about .Tune 13, 20i4 that r.vas
transmittecl in interstate oommerce and concerned the payment of'a political
consr-rltinq

In violation of

"f

iirm.

itle i 8, Ljnited States Code, Section 1343.
COTJNTS SNVTN TfiRO{.]GH NINA
18 U.S.C. $ 1341
Mail Fraud

34.

The Grand Jury realleges and incoqrorates numbered paragraphs 1-11 of this

Superseding Indictment as if fully set forth herein.

35.

From in or about February 2014 through in or about July 2014" in the Southern

District of Alabarna, Southern Division, and elseq.here, the defendants,

KIMIIERLY SNII'IH HASTII{i and
RAMONA MCARDLS YEAGER,

willfully

ancl knou,'ingly devised and intended

to clevise a soheme and artiflce to defraucl Mobile

County by means of false and llaudulent pretenses. representations and promises. HASTIE and

YEAGER falsiflect invoices ancl misrepresented to the Countl' Comnrission

sen

ices that

political consultants providecl to the License Commission. Unbeknownst to the Coturty
Commission, HASTIE and YEAGER instructed a political consulting firrn to falsif,v and alter
their invoices and have them contain l'alse and misleading statements. I{ASTIE and YEAGER
disguised the tnte nature of services providecl by the flrm and clisguiseci the true recipients olthe

services. FIAS'I'II and

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

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 13 of 23

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

mail and commercial delivery service within the Souther"n District of

Alabama, to-wit:

Count Seven
C'.ount

Eight

Count Nine

Clreck #293880 clated May 23,2014, payable to APL Softi.vare Engineering in
the amount of $37,531.25.
Check #294764 dated .Tune 17, 2014, payable to API- Softu,are Engineering in
the amount of $39"514.00.
Check # 295643 dated .Iuly i l, 2014, payable to .r\PL Sollware Engineering in
the amorurl of $37.412.50.

In violation of Title 1 8, Unitecl States C'ode, Section 1341 .
COT"INTS TEN T}trROTICH FITTEEN
18 U.S.C. $ 19s1(a)
liobbs Act Hxtortion under Color of Official ltight

36.

The Grand Jur,v realleges and incorpr:rates numbered paragraphs 1*11 of this

Superseding Indictnrent as ilt-ully sct farth herein.

37.

From in or aboul December 2010 through in or abor:t February 2014, in the

Southem District of Alabama. Southern Division, and elsewhere, the defendant.

KIMBERTY SMITI{ HASTIE.

did

l<norn'ingly obstruct, dela5,, and affect con'lmerce and

the rnovernent of- articles ancl

comrnodities in commerce by e.xtortion. HASTIE engaged in a course of threatening condr-rct to

obtain property fiom Cralvford r,l'ith lris consent.
lar.vlully due HASTIE and her

l"lAs'tln knew that such property

ofiice. HASTIE also knerv that the propert;,'

u,as not

rvas provided in

return for official acts under color of official right. HASTIE used her position of public office

lbl

personetl

benellt. She cultivated a culture ol'intimidation u,ithin the License Commission.

IIASTXil repeatedly threatencd to seek to ternrinate Crar,vford's employment. 't'hrough
1a
l-)

threats

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

and intimidation,

HASTIE coerced Crarvfbrd to purchase gifts fbr HASTIB

ancl fufther coerced

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

On or about December 16" 2010. Crarvftrrd paid approximately $536.80 for
a42-inch Vizio LCD TV.
On or about Decemtrer 9,2011. Crawford paid approximately Xl38l.49 fbr a
40-inch LCD 1'V.
C)n crr about Deoember' 5,2A12" Crar.viord paid approxin'rately $505.98 tilr a
Kindle Fire and a 39-inch LCD TV.
On or abor:t December 11.2A13, Crawftird paid approximately $153.99 {br
a Kinclle Fire.
On or about Decenrber 11, 2013, Cran'ford paid approxirnately 5741.?7 for
tr 37-inch LED TV and an iPacl.
On nr about February 5, ?074, HASTIE deposited a $1,800.00 check
provided by Crawford into a BBVA Clompass Bank account ending in 2808.

In violation of Title 18, lJnited States Code. Section 1951(a).

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.

On or about .luly 16, 2414" in the Southern District of Alabama.

Southern

l)ir.i sioir, the defbnclant,

K{MBERI,Y SMITH HASTIE.
dicl knor,l'ingly ancl

willfully make a materially fblse, flctitious, and frauclulent statement

and

representation in a matter r,r'ithin the jurisdiction of the executive branch nf the Government of

the llnitecl Stiites. by stating

to

Special Agent Ketrick Kelley

of the Fecleral Bureau of

lnvestigatiou thart she did not instruct Crawford to bill for work not performed for the License
1A
IT

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

Commission in order tcl cover the cost
Clommission Christrnas

of gilts

party. HASTIE

she tolcl Crar.viurcl to purchase fbr a License

made this staternent at the License Commission's

ofiices located at 3925-F Michael Boulevarcl. Mobile,
representation was false because" as
Crar.r'forcl to

AL 36609. The statement

IIASTIE then and there kneu,, she did in

and

t'act instruct

bill fbl work not performed as described above.

In i,'iolation of Title 18, Unitecl States Code, Section 1001.

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

Superseding Indictment as if full_v set lbrth herein.

41.

In or abclut August TAn, in the Southern District of Alabama, Southern I)ivision,

and elser.vhere, the detbndant,

KIMBERLY SMITH HASTIE.
knorvingly disclosecl aucl otherwise made available to persons and entities. both lanor,vn and
unknorvn to the Grand Jury, personal infbrmation. as defined

in

18 II.S.C. 5 2725{3), about

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

belou', IJASTIE orchestrated a scheme to disclose the e-rnail adclresses
resiclents, without their consent or prior knou,ledge, to a

of tviobile

Clount-v

political consulting firm fbr a political

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

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 16 of 23

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

course of business. Such i:ersonal information includes e-mail acldresses.

44.

On or about Augusl 22,2013" HAS:I'IE, YEAGAR, ancl other inclividuals known

to the Grand Jury rnet with a License Ciommission employee at the License Commission.
HAS'I'IE

instr"ucted the employee

to e-mail everyone rryithin Mobile's cif, limits a statement

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.

Accordingly, HASTIE directed the ernployee

to

instead retrieve ancl clownloarl the e-mail

of Mobile Counly residents onto a data storage device cornmonly kno*,n

as a flash

drive. Feiiring retribution fTom HASTIE if he did not comply rvith her recluest, the

emplo.vee

addresses

searched the I-icense Comrrissiott's sen'er for all e-rnail addresses

It)

of individuals within the citv

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 17 of 23

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,

HASTIE's statement eirdcrsing the mayoral

to an individual r.vho maintained a website fbr the

candiclate

in order tirr

that

individual to send a mass e-mail to the residents of Mobile Clount-v.

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-

mail rvas sent "On Behalf of'Kim Hastie,"
contained a picture

r,r'as labeled

"A

Message

fiom Kim Hastie," and

of FIASTIE supporling the mayoral canclidate. The e-mail

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.

In violation of Title 18, Unitecl States L'ocle, Section 2721(a)(I).
COLTNT SIGI{TEEN

l8 Lr.s.c.

$ 371

Conspiracy to Defiaucl the United States

46.

'fhe Grand Jury realleges ancl incorporates numbered paragraphs l-11 of'this

Supersecling Indictment as

if ftilly

set forth herein.

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 18 of 23

47.

From in or about August 2009 through in ot about.Tanuary 2015, in the Southern

District of Alabama, Southern Division, and elsewhere, the defendants,

KIMBERLY SMITH HASTIE and
JOHN MELVIN HASTIE JR.,
did willfuily, lcnowingly and unlar.vfull,v combine, conspire, confederate. and agree together with
each other and other persons. both known and unknown to the Grand Jury. to deliaud the Llnited
States.

Obiective of the Conspirncy

48.

'l'he objective of the conspiracy was to achieve personal firiancial gain through tax

evasion.

Manner and Means

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

of the Treasury ("Treasury Department") in the ascefiainrnent, computation,

assessntent. and collection

of income taxes. HASTIA and HASTIA JR. engaged in deceit, craft,

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

{iorn timber cutting and land clearing

llASTIll JIt. filed fi'audulent

ser"r,,ices. .As

part of their conspirac,v. HASTIE and

federal income tax returns ald fraudulently diverted and attempted

to dived income eamed by HASTIE JR.. to their daughter. all in an attempt to rlisguise
shie ld income fi'orn the IILS and

lower FIAST'Iti and HASltIl-tr JR.'s tax liabilities.

50. As part of the conspiracy,
Hconornic lnterests F'ornrs

and

HASTIE also submitted two lblse Statenent of

to the Aiabama Hthics C]ommission (the "llthics flommission").
18

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 19 of 23

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:

I have read and completecl this Statement of Economic Interests

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"

this form beconre a part of this public record.

0verf Acts

51.

Prior to August 14,2009, HASTIE

.Ilt.

madc a verbal agreement tvi{lh J./,.,

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

to acqriire fi'om a third part1, in C'larke County, Alabama.

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

HASTtrll JIt. in the amount of $l8.40ti.00.
T9

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 20 of 23

55.

On or about January 7,2070, HASTIE.IR. deposited check #2355 into account

#xxxxxx7945, s,4rich he jointly held with HASTIE at Regions Bank.

56. On or about April

15,2010" HASTIE electronicall-v filed

a

Statement of

llconomic Interests Form fbr filing year 2009. Despite the fbrm's requirements that she disclose

all

income that she and her spouse received

in

2AA9, HAS'I'IE d:id mrt disclose the

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

$20.000.00 income that they received in 2009.

58. On or about

April 27,2011. ItrAST'IE electronically filed a Statement of

Iconomic Interests Form lbr liling year 2010. Despite the form's requirements that she disclose

all

income that she and her spouse received

in

2A10, HASTIE clid not clisclose the

aforementioned $18,400.0C) income that she and ItrASTIE JR. received in 2010.

59.

On or about

April I 8, 201 I, HASTI$

and

HASTIII Jtt.

elec,tronicall,v and jointl-v

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

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 21 of 23

61.
by N.M..

On or about December 16,2014, HASTIE JR. proviclecl a copy of a letter written

r.r,hose nalne

is known to the Grand Jury, to HASTIE JR..'s employer. The letter

authclrized pa)'rnent b.v HASTIE .IR.'s employer
renclered errtirely by

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.

On or about January 7.2015, HAS:IIE JR. authorizecl a check request from

HASTIE JR.'s employer to pay his daughter $5,232.66 for selices renclered entirely by
HASTIE JR.

64.

C)n

or about .lanuary 8, 2015, TIASTIE JR.'s employer provided HASTIE JR.

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.

In vioiation of Title 18. ljnited States Code. Section 371.

FORFEITURE NOTICI1

65.

The allegations contained in Counts 1 through 15 and 17 through 18 of this

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

 Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-B Document 45 Filed 01/29/15 Page 22 of 23

KINIBBRLY SIVIITH HASTIE,
RAMONA VICARDLE YEAGER, and
JOHN MEI,VIN HASTIE ;IR.,
shall forf-eit to the lInited States of America, pursuant to Title 18, lJnited States Code,
981(aX1XC) and Title 28, Llnited States Cjode. Section 246I, any propefiy. real or personal, that
constitutes or is derived frora proceeds traceable tcl the oflbnse.
67

.

If

any of the property described above" as a result of any act or omission of the

defendant:

a.

cannot be located upon the exeroise ofdue diligence;

b.

has been transfbrred or sold to, or deposited rvith, a third party;

c.

has been placed beyond the

d.

has been substantially dirninished in value; or

e.

has been cr:rmrningled r,l4th other property rvhich cannot be divided
u.ithout difficulty,

jurisdiction of the courq

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

by'l'itle 28, Llnited

States Clode. Section

246r&\.

All pursuant to 18 U.S.CI. $ 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C,

A

]l{IlE

$ 2461.

BIt.],,

FOREMAN LINITED STATES GRAND JLTRY
SOUTHERN DIS'TRICT OF ALABAMA

22

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

I(i']NYHN I{.. BROWN
{INITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:

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