Members-Only Article
There now appear to be multiple federal investigations of George Santos. This is in addition to a number of investigations in New York state. The one we learned about today is based on the truly hideous story in which Santos used his sham charity to raise $3,000 for life-saving surgery for a disabled vet’s service dog and then pocketed the money and let the dog die.
You can read the story here, if you haven’t already. It’s almost cartoonish in its horribleness.
Today Politico reported that the FBI has been in contact with the late dog’s owner to get text messages from his dispute with Santos. The article quotes a trial lawyer from the jurisdiction who speculates that the government may be pursuing this case as a first bite at the Santos apple. Santos is being investigated for other potential crimes which carry greater potential penalties. But those cases are more complicated. This case may be relatively simple to charge.
Said Eastern District trial lawyer Joshua Schiller: “I think there is an urgency here because Santos is currently in a position to make laws. I can think of examples where the government used a lesser indictment to seize assets and try to cause the defendant to plea to a deal before bringing a second or third indictment on more serious charges, and I bet that is the case here.”
I note this because I suspect it may not be pocketing the $3,000 that gets Santos, or not only that. People probably get into disputes about GoFundMe fundraisers about relatively small sums of money all the time. But this scam happened as part of Santos’s sham charity, Friends of Pets United. Before all his lies were exposed, Santos’ purported role founding and running this 501(c)(3) charity was a major part of his campaign bio. But it wasn’t a 501(c)(3). As best we can tell it didn’t actually exist at all. It appears to have been a potemkin charity, as it were, to lure in people like Richard Osthoff, the aggrieved dog owner, and to fill out Santos’ campaign resumé.
Claiming you’re a 501(c)(3) when you’re not is a big no-no. Raising money as a 501(c)(3) when you’re not is a very big no-no. There are interrelated issues. If you take money as a charity and then you’re not a charity, do you report the income as wage and salary income? Do you pay taxes on it?
This is why you don’t want to raise money with a sham 501(c)(3) and pocket the money. Because there’s no legal way to account for the money.
When I first read the dog story, what struck me was that, in the text messages Osthoff shared with reporter Jacqueline Sweet, Santos specifically claimed he was running a 501(c)(3). He told Osthoff “we are audited like every 501c3 and we are with the highest standards of integrity.” He didn’t imply they were a tax exempt charity. He said it in writing, and claimed somehow, with Santosian logic, that those “high standards of integrity” meant he had to pocket the money and let the dog die.
It’s hard to imagine being able to live with yourself after acting with such crass and casual disregard for the well-being of others. But that’s not against the law. Falsely claiming to run a charity, fraud and probable tax evasion are against the law.