Hearing Of Former NH Senator Case Accused of Fraud Postponed

Andy Sanborn, a former New Hampshire Senator and owner of Concord Casino, continues his legal fight against allegations of fraud related to COVID-19 relief funds. Recently, his defense asked for a delay in his hearing with the New Hampshire Lottery Commission. Sanborn’s lawyer, Zachary Hafer, cited medical reasons, explaining that his client was “very sick,” asking the hearing to be delayed by two months. Additionally, the attorney explained that the investigation against his client had been going on for months and that he would need more time to familiarize himself with the case.

Now, as announced by NHPR, the Lottery Commission agreed to postpone the hearing for two months. This would enable the defense to prepare better. The hearing would determine whether Sanborn is suitable for a license in the state, and it comes ahead of its expiry set for the end of this year. With his license at stake, Sanborn’s defense will have until December when the hearing will take place and ultimately decide if he will keep his license.

Allegations against the former Senator came after an eight-month investigation. He is alleged to have used improperly some $844,000 in COVID-19 relief funds. Those funds were allegedly obtained fraudulently and used for personal expenditures, including purchasing expensive sports cars for himself and his wife. Accusations against Sanborn claim the COVID-19 relief funds were obtained fraudulently after he submitted a different name in the application and listed its business as miscellaneous, avoiding the rule that prohibits casinos from such benefits.

John Conforti, the Lottery’s chief compliance officer, submitted a 260-page statement explaining why the former Senator should not be suitable for a gaming license. Additionally, he wrote: “The apparent abuse of federal funds is part of an ongoing pattern of disregard for legal requirements.”

Legal Case Is Yet to Unravel

Allegations against the former Senator claimed that he had less than $1,000 in his account when he purchased a $50,000 Porsche last year. At the court hearing on Monday, Hafer disputed those accusations, calling the investigation “sloppy, at best.” He explained: “If someone wants to buy a car with their own money that they had at the time the loan came in, that’s very different than if they took and spent the (loan) money. And that’s going to come out when we have this hearing.”

According to the attorney, an unnamed third party gave advice to his client on the topic. Hafer added that while the state might not like the advice his client received this doesn’t prove that they acted in “bad faith.” Finally, Hafer confirmed that the defense is ready to meet the allegations head-on.