This week’s indictment against Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, and his wife Margaret capped two years of investigation by federal authorities and reveals in relentless detail the scope of the investigation into how they allegedly converted $250,000 in campaign contributions to their personal use.

The indictment filed in San Diego federal court is full of eye-popping details on expenditures — using campaign funds to pay for cross-country air travel for a pet rabbit, family vacations in Italy and Hawaii, even mundane items like workout shorts, frozen yogurt and fast food.

But it also shows the daunting task ahead for Hunter and his lawyers, as federal prosecutors framed the case in a powerful and advantageous way.

On Thursday both Hunters pleaded not guilty to the charges outlined in the indictment — conspiracy, bank fraud, falsifying records to obstruct justice and illegally using campaign contributions. Hunter and his lawyer, former U.S. Attorney in San Diego Gregory Vega, have not responded specifically to any of the improper spending allegations but instead have attacked the prosecution as a politically motivated attack by Department of Justice prosecutors and “deep state” operatives opposed to Republicans.


Legal experts said it’s a challenge to win these kinds of cases at trial, no matter how salacious the allegations or voluminous the evidence. At its core the indictment against the Hunters is a white-collar fraud case, one that will rely heavily on documentary evidence like bank statements, money movements and communications.

“It’s tough to convict people on any kind of white-collar case,” said Jeremy Warren, a San Diego criminal defense lawyer. “You’re always going to have some people who have a sense that the government is out to get the defendant.”

Even given that, he said, the indictment lays out a compelling case.

“It’s really strong,” he said.


The bulk of the indictment is the conspiracy count, one that takes up 31 pages of the 47-page indictment. Prosecutors detail 200 separate overt acts — actions the Hunters allegedly took in furtherance of the overall conspiracy.

That section of the indictment also reveals the breadth of the two-year investigation into the Hunters, lawyers said. Each overt act involves some kind of documentary evidence that had to be obtained and verified, and many also likely involved interviewing individuals who were witnesses to the alleged misspending.

Laying out information in such detail serves a couple of purposes, said Timothy Perry, a former federal prosecutor in San Diego, now in private practice. Perry was the initial prosecutor who indicted Mexican tycoon Jose Susumo Azano Matsura for illegal campaign contributions to the 2012 San Diego mayor’s race — charges he was ultimately convicted for.

“There’s a tactical advantage in showing the charged defendants and any other witnesses who may be questioning how cooperative to be, that resistance is futile,” Perry said. “But it’s also a way of demonstrating the importance of the case.


“Imagine if only one overt act had been charged. Prosecutors would be open to the claim this was a technical case, or a picayune matter. This helps show this wasn’t a technical crime,” Perry said, adding that the alleged acts “are not one-offs. He deceived his own campaign pervasively, and in a real way turned his congressional office into a money machine to support a certain lifestyle.”

White-collar cases generally rely on three elements: documentary evidence, information from cooperating witnesses who may have agreed to help because they face some kind of potential criminal exposure and testimony from neutral witnesses who aren’t in legal jeopardy.

The charges outlined in the document include numerous references to emails sent by the Hunters or those working for them, such as campaign treasurers or office staffers, as well as text messages and financial records such as credit card charges and debit card bank records.

It’s not known at this time if there were any cooperating witnesses who helped investigators in exchange for not being charged. However the indictment references 20 people, identified in the indictment as “Individual 1,” “Individual 2” and so on up to “Individual 17” who were present for the alleged illegal spending of campaign funds — as guests at meals, golfing partners or companions.


That list includes three fellow members of Congress who are not identified.

It is quite likely investigators interviewed most, if not all, of those individuals, said Michael Lipman, a former chief of the fraud unit of the San Diego U.S. Attorney’s Office, who is a longtime white-collar criminal defense attorney and not involved in this case.

“Based only on the indictment, it looks to me like the government has a reasonably good case,” he said. “There is a lot of detail that is probably all substantiated by both documents and witness testimony regarding what the funds were actually used for.

“And it looks like they have one or more witnesses, who were with the campaign and who will testify what the expenditures were for.”


Prosecutors charged the couple with filing false campaign finance reports from 2013 to 2016, using a law that is part of the arsenal of obstruction of justice statutes in the federal criminal code. The law makes it a crime to “impede, obstruct or influence” the investigation or “proper administration” of any federal agency — even if there is no actual or even pending investigation at the time.

Though the Federal Election Commission did not question the reports until 2016, this charge alleges the couple — by filing fraudulent reports years ago — prevented the agency from doing its job of regulating proper campaign finances, Perry said.

“It criminalizes a broad range of behavior,” he said. “It’s hard to defend against.”

While daunting, there are defenses available to white-collar defendants.The Hunters could claim they were relying on the expertise of campaign treasurers. Or simply say that campaign rules are complicated.


But the indictment seems to foreclose even that option. It includes numerous instances in which campaign treasurers questioned expenses or warned Hunter that using campaign funds for lifestyle expenses “could be a serious problem.” At one point as far back as 2010, one treasurer said he might resign over Margaret Hunter’s repeated improper use of the campaign credit card, the indictment said.

Previously: Hunter

Duncan Hunter Videos × On Now Hunter indictment sheds light on 'personal relationships' for congressman On Now Rep. Duncan Hunter leads by 8 points despite indictment On Now Duncan Hunter arraigned at federal court On Now Issa discusses Hunter indictment On Now Rep. Duncan Hunter and wife plead not guilty to charges of fraudulent campaign spending 2:41 On Now Editorial's Opinion on Duncan Hunter's plea 13:50 On Now Duncan Hunter arraigned On Now Video: Festival of Books preview: Scott Miller On Now Video: Rep. Duncan Hunter enters federal court On Now Rep. Duncan Hunter responds to indictment charges 8:53


Twitter: @gregmoran

greg.moran@sduniontribune.com