The charges against Rep. George Santos: Here's what to know
Rep. George Santos (R-Nassau/Queens) leaves the federal courthouse in Central Islip as reporters rush toward him after his arraignment on Wednesday. Credit: James Carbone
The tall tales Rep. George Santos told about being Jewish, a volleyball star, a college graduate and a 9/11 orphan might have outraged his constituents and the public at large.
But the 13-count indictment against the freshman Republican was triggered by mundane-sounding items found in any run-of-the-mill criminal probe: Bank records, signed statements, texts and emails -- even an unemployment application.
It’s a pile of document-based evidence experts called a “clear-cut paper trail” that likely builds a strong case against the embattled congressman.
Santos is accused of wire fraud, money laundering, lying to Congress and theft of public funds to benefit his own pocketbook, prosecutors said.
“Obviously, these are just allegations, but this looks like a very simple straightforward criminal case. This is not a complex scheme at all,” said Kate Cassidy, a white-collar criminal defense lawyer based in Manhattan.
“If the allegations are true,” Cassidy said, “It’s an easily provable criminal scheme and not what we expect to see from someone who has the sophistication and means to be elected to Congress.”
Here’s what to know about the Santos indictment.
Three categories of charges
The bulk of the charges — wire fraud and money laundering — deal with what prosecutors say was a scheme to persuade two wealthy donors to contribute not to a legitimate campaign account but to a secretive company Santos controlled. Santos transferred the money to his own bank account and used it for buying designer clothes and paying personal debts, such as for his car, prosecutors alleged.
The company allegedly used for the transaction is identified in indictment only as “company #1,” which prosecutors said was formed on Nov. 1, 2021. That's the same day that RedStone Strategies LLC was formed in Florida with Santos listed as one of two agents, according to the Florida Department of State.
The New York Times identified the donors as Raymond Tantillo, a Suffolk County car dealer, and Andrew Intrater, a Manhattan investor.
The second category of charges — false statements — refers to financial disclosure statements required to be filed with the U.S. House of Representatives. Investigators say the congressman lied about his income (claiming $750,000/year) and values of his checking (at least $100,000) and savings (at least $1 million) accounts.
Santos’ disclosure and campaign statements had been scrutinized by many news reports for months.
Unemployment insurance fraud
The final charge surprised observers.
Prosecutors alleged Santos illegally claimed and received nearly $25,000 in unemployment benefits after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. All the while, he’d held a $120,000-a-year job with an investment firm, the indictment says.
He stated he’d been out of work since March 2020, roughly when the pandemic hit; he collected unemployment benefits till April 2021.
“The unemployment insurance fraud charge — that’s about stealing from all New Yorkers,” James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, said. “If it’s true, he was running to represent the people of the state from which he’s stealing. It’s chutzpah that’s breathtaking.”
Following the 'paper trail'
Each category of charge — wire fraud, money laundering, false statements, false unemployment — is built on a paper trail, according to prosecutors.
They said they have emails and texts showing a Santos associate — an unnamed political consultant from Queens — solicited donations asserting the money was needed to bankroll television ads in the 2022 campaign. Prosecutors said donors wired money to “company #1,” then the funds were transferred to Santos’ own bank accounts.
They say they have an unemployment application; the congressional financial disclosure statements Santos signed are publicly available.
There generally are two types of evidence: testimonial and documentary/physical. Documents often are stronger in court, said Diane Peress, a law professor at John Jay College and a former federal and state prosecutor.
“With documents, you have no issues about credibility. It’s there in black and white,” Peress said. Ticking off the documents listed in the indictment, she said: “These are clear-cut paper trails.”
Experts said Santos would have an “uphill battle” to prove he had no knowledge of the campaign solicitations, the false disclosure statements and the unemployment application.
Meat and potatoes of criminal cases
Santos drew public scorn when his many fabrications were revealed: That he was Jewish, that his grandparents fled the Holocaust, that his mother died in the 9/11 attacks, that he worked for Citigroup, that he graduated from Baruch College where he was a volleyball star, and more.
That sparked outrage — a Newsday poll found 78% of voters in the 3rd Congressional District want him to resign — as well as scrutiny, but it’s not what drove the indictment. Instead, it was the stuff of routine criminal probes.
“The public is upset about the lies and deceit,” Peress said. “But the meat and potatoes of the case is the documents and the flow of money and … what the money was for.”
