Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-CA  3:18-cr-03677
Case Name:   USA v. Hunter et al
  Press Releases:
Kelly Thornton (619) 546-9726

CLICK HERE for Plea Agreement

NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – June 13, 2019

SAN DIEGO – Margaret E. Hunter admitted in federal court today that she and her husband, U.S. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, knowingly and willfully used campaign funds as their personal bank account for years, spending lavishly on things they could not otherwise afford, such as expensive trips to Italy, Las Vegas, Laguna Beach, Disneyland and elsewhere, plus golf outings, a bachelor party, private school for their children, dinners in Del Mar and Coronado, and even plane tickets for their family pet, Eggburt the rabbit.

Margaret Hunter’s plea agreement indicates that she has agreed to provide “substantial assistance to the United States in the investigation and prosecution of others” and to “tell everything (she) knows about every person involved” in the crime.

U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan set Ms. Hunter’s sentencing for September 16, 2019 at 9 a.m.  The Hunters both remain free on bond.  A motions hearing relating to defendant Duncan Hunter is scheduled for July 1, 2019, and his trial is scheduled to begin on September 10, 2019.

As detailed in her plea agreement, beginning no later than 2010 and continuing up to and including at least 2016, Margaret and Duncan Hunter agreed to knowingly use campaign funds for their own personal benefit and enjoyment, and for that of friends and family.  Throughout this period, the Hunters both recognized that many of their personal outings with family or friends (including trips to Del Mar, dinners or drinks with friends, family and “couples” vacations, golf outings, and a bachelor’s party) should not have been paid for with campaign funds. Nevertheless, Ms. Hunter admitted that the Hunters continued to improperly use campaign funds on these and many other occasions.

Among the improper expenses, Margaret Hunter acknowledged that the Hunters improperly spent $2,448.27 in campaign funds in August 2011 on a personal “couples” Las Vegas vacation in Las Vegas, Nevada, and concealed the personal expenditures by falsely reporting to the campaign treasurer that the expenses were all  “campaign related.” Similarly, later that same month, knowing that their family bank account had a negative balance, the Hunters improperly used $113.73 in campaign funds to pay their half of the bill during another couples’ “date night” out with good friends at Jake’s Del Mar; improperly used $156.22 in campaign funds during a “couples” day at the Del Mar Racetrack; and improperly used $511.03 in campaign funds at the Hotel del Coronado to celebrate their child’s birthday. They once again falsely told the campaign treasurer that all the charges were “campaign related.”

Ms. Hunter acknowledged in her plea agreement that these types of improper expenses went on for years and included: (1) the Hunters’ improper use of $371.51 in campaign funds on September 2, 2012 at the Loew’s Resort in Coronado for a family lunch in connection with their child’s Irish Dance competition; (2) the Hunters’ improper use of $100.69 in campaign funds on November 16, 2013 at Casa De Pico in La Mesa to take their family and close friends out to dinner before attending a sporting event featuring one of the Hunters’ children; (3) the Hunters’ improper use of $1,489 in campaign funds on June 28, 2014 to treat their good friends to dinner at the Studio restaurant in the Montage Laguna Beach resort, and for room service, drinks, and meals the next day for the Hunters by themselves; (4) the Hunters’ improper use of campaign funds on September 26, 2015 for a family trip to Disneyland, in which Ms. Hunter used Duncan D. Hunter’s campaign card to spend $229.44 in campaign funds at Disneyland’s Star Trader shop for gifts for the Hunters’ children, including two Minnie Mouse ear headbands, a Star Wars droid knit beanie, and a raglan-sleeve black-and-gray Star Wars girls T-shirt; and (5) the Hunters’ improper use of $669.07 in campaign funds on March 27, 2016 at the Hotel del Coronado for a family Easter Sunday brunch in the Crown Room that the Hunters recognized was well outside their budget.

In her plea, Ms. Hunter also admitted improperly using campaign funds on a number of family vacations, including: (1) a July 2014 vacation to Washington, D.C. and a resort in Pennsylvania (which included personal items and activities such as purchasing cigarettes, $399 for ziplining for Hunter and two of his children, and $250 in airline travel charges for the family’s pet rabbit, Eggburt); (2) a February 2015 family trip to Minnesota, during which they improperly paid for personal family expenses including $250 in airline travel charges for Eggburt, and $132 in Uber rides to take the Hunter family to the Mall of America; (3) a June/July 2015 family vacation involving Hunter’s cousin’s wedding in Boise, Idaho, and a stopover in Las Vegas on the way there in which the Hunters, among other things, spent $205.62 in campaign funds for personal items at the North Face store, which included a new pair of sunglasses for Duncan Hunter and a T-shirt; and (4) a November 2015 family vacation to Italy, in which the Hunters improperly used more than $10,000 in campaign funds, and attempted to justify the impermissible use of these funds by setting up a one-day tour of a U.S. Navy facility in Italy.

Margaret Hunter also admitted communicating with Hunter and with the campaign treasurer about the fact that it was only appropriate to pay expenses with campaign funds when an outing or event was for a bona fide campaign or political purpose. Nevertheless, Ms. Hunter admitted that she and her husband both knowingly violated these restrictions and other rules the treasurer implemented to track legitimate expenses (such as instructing the Hunters not to purchase gas using campaign funds, instructing the Hunters that withdrawing cash from ATMs and using “petty cash” required records of how money was spent, and requiring receipts which listed the names of donors and volunteers with whom the Hunters claimed to be spending campaign funds). 

Ms. Hunter also acknowledged that she and Duncan Hunter both were aware that the other spent, and could spend, campaign funds on personal activities and purchases without having to inform one another about the nature of specific “campaign” expenses.  According to Ms. Hunter, this understanding allowed the Hunters to spend campaign funds on certain personal matters they wished to conceal from the other.  For example, she hid from Duncan Hunter certain purchases she made with campaign funds for items like children’s school lunches.

On the other hand, when they improperly spent funds when they were together, they both recognized that campaign funds were being spent on personal activities. For example, after returning home from their personal Boise and Las Vegas vacation, Duncan Hunter and Ms. Hunter discussed how the campaign card had been declined as the family had “racked up a $600 minibar…and more charges at Caesars…” as well as a $200 family breakfast, the “kids room service” and pool drinks, and gift shop vacation expenses. 

Even after Duncan Hunter’s chief of staff questioned several expenses the Hunters had made using campaign funds, Ms. Hunter admitted that the Hunters falsely insisted to campaign staff and on public reports that the personal expenses were in fact appropriate campaign-related charges.  Moreover, Ms. Hunter acknowledged that she and Duncan Hunter continued using campaign funds to secretly make thousands of dollars in improper personal purchases (including family vacations, household goods and groceries, restaurants and bar tabs, a bachelor party, gas, fast food, retail shopping, cash withdrawals, a garage door, and personal Uber rides, among others) which they continued to disguise as campaign-related expenses.

DEFENDANTS                                            Case Number 18cr3677-W                          

Margaret E. Hunter                                         Age: 44                       Alpine, CA

SUMMARY OF CHARGE

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 371

AGENCY

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Kelly Thornton, Director of Media Relations (619) 546-9726

NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – August 21, 2018

SAN DIEGO – U.S. Rep. Duncan D. Hunter and his wife, Margaret E. Hunter, were indicted by a federal grand jury today on charges that they converted more than $250,000 in campaign funds to pay for personal expenses and filed false campaign finance records with the Federal Election Commission.   

A 48-page indictment details scores of instances beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2016 in which the Hunters illegally used campaign money to pay for personal expenses that they could not otherwise afford.  The purchases included family vacations to Italy, Hawaii, Phoenix, Arizona, and Boise, Idaho; school tuition; dental work; theater tickets; and domestic and international travel for almost a dozen relatives. The Hunters also spent tens of thousands of dollars on smaller purchases, including fast food, movie tickets, golf outings, video games, coffee, groceries, home utilities, and expensive meals.

To conceal their personal spending, the Hunters mischaracterized the purchases in FEC filings as “campaign travel,” “dinner with volunteers/contributors,” “toy drives,” “teacher/parent and supporter events,” “gift cards” for charitable donations, and “gift basket items,” among other false descriptions.  Family dental bills paid with campaign funds were characterized as a charitable contribution to “Smiles for Life.” Theater tickets were mischaracterized as “holiday gift certificates.”  Tickets for the family to see Riverdance at the San Diego Civic Theater became “San Diego Civic Center for Republican Women Federated/Fundraising.”  And to disguise their children’s tuition payments to Christian Unified Schools in El Cajon, the Hunters provided a number of conflicting explanations, including that the payments were charitable contributions. 

The Hunters’ improper use of campaign funds for personal expenses occurred despite numerous warnings about the prohibition against using campaign funds for personal expenses and repeated inquiries from Duncan Hunter’s campaign treasurer about questionable purchases. According to the indictment, the Hunters knew that many of their desired purchases could be made only by using campaign funds, since they did not otherwise have sufficient personal funds to pay for their purchases.  The criminal investigation began in June of 2016, two months after the Federal Election Commission and the San Diego Union-Tribune questioned some of Hunter’s campaign expenses as potentially personal.

“The indictment alleges that Congressman Hunter and his wife repeatedly dipped into campaign coffers as if they were personal bank accounts, and falsified FEC campaign finance reports to cover their tracks,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Braverman. “Elected representatives should jealously guard the public’s trust, not abuse their positions for personal gain.  Today’s indictment is a reminder that no one is above the law.”

The Hunters are scheduled to be arraigned on the indictment on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo. They are charged with Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the United States, Wire Fraud, Falsification of Records and Prohibited Use of Campaign Contributions.

This case was investigated by the San Diego Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Phillip Halpern, Emily Allen and Mark Conover.  The United States Attorney’s Office would like to thank the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, Election Crimes Branch for their assistance in this matter.\

Indictment Document (click HERE)

DEFENDANTS                                            Case Number 18cr3677                               

Duncan D. Hunter                                           Age: 41                       Alpine, CA

Margaret E. Hunter                                         Age: 43                       Alpine, CA

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the United States – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 371

Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1343

Falsification of Records – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1519

Prohibited Use of Campaign Contributions – Title 52 U.S.C., Secs. 30109(d) and 30114(b)

Aiding and Abetting – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 2

AGENCY

Federal Bureau of Investigation

*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 

Docket (5 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12EKwTJZQX3uithx9ZlnwuatFfcYxT0j9fVMhMf5d-Dg
  Last Updated: 2023-10-12 07:49:05 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E