United States

Money Laundering Exposure — 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–1957 (US)

Reasonable Inference Where criminally derived funds (proceeds of straw donor violations or identity fraud) are transmitted through ActBlue to candidate accounts, laundering charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 are available. FECA violations are listed as specified unlawful activity under § 1956(c)(7)(D), enabling this theory. Citations Presidential Memorandum, “Investigation into Unlawful ‘Straw Donor’ and Foreign Contributions

Money Laundering Exposure — 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–1957 (US) Read More »

Wire Fraud Exposure — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Up to 20 Years Per Count) (US)

Reasonable Inference Where fraudulent contributions are submitted via ActBlue’s internet platform, each electronic transmission constitutes a potential wire fraud predicate under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which broadly covers any scheme to obtain money or property by false pretenses transmitted “by means of wire . . . communication in interstate or foreign commerce.” Wire fraud carries

Wire Fraud Exposure — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Up to 20 Years Per Count) (US) Read More »

DOJ Prosecution of Foreign-Connected Campaign Finance Violations (US)

Established Fact Foreign-connected campaign finance violations have resulted in federal criminal charges. In United States v. Michel, No. 1:19-cr-00148 (D.D.C.), prosecutors charged that fugitive Malaysian financier Jho Low’s funds were funneled through straw donors into federal campaign committees supporting a presidential candidate, in violation of FECA’s prohibition on foreign national contributions and the straw-donor ban.

DOJ Prosecution of Foreign-Connected Campaign Finance Violations (US) Read More »

Employer-Reimbursed Contribution Scheme Conviction (US)

Established Fact The Ninth Circuit affirmed conviction under § 30122 for orchestrating a scheme where an employer reimbursed employees for political contributions made in the employees’ names — directly analogous to third-party actors making contributions in victims’ names without authorization. Citations United States v. Whittemore, No. 13-10515 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2015) , “Whittemore distributed

Employer-Reimbursed Contribution Scheme Conviction (US) Read More »

Knowing Acceptance / Willful Blindness Standard — United States v. Danielczyk (VA)

Established Fact The Eastern District of Virginia affirmed that the straw donor prohibition under § 30122 requires knowing acceptance by the receiving committee for criminal liability on the committee’s part, but that ‘knowing’ may be inferred from willful blindness — the Global-Tech standard. Citations United States v. Danielczyk, 788 F. Supp. 2d 472, 479–481 (E.D.

Knowing Acceptance / Willful Blindness Standard — United States v. Danielczyk (VA) Read More »

Straw Donor Liability of Recipient Committees — FEC v. Weinsten (US)

Established Fact The Southern District of New York held that contributions made through straw donors violate § 30122 regardless of whether the ultimate recipient campaign was aware of the straw arrangement, establishing strict-liability principles for receiving committees. Citations FEC v. Weinsten, 462 F. Supp. 243, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (denying motion to dismiss FEC complaint alleging

Straw Donor Liability of Recipient Committees — FEC v. Weinsten (US) Read More »

Chargeback and Dispute Records — Recoverable Evidence of Unauthorized Transactions (US)

Established Fact Where named donors disputed unauthorized charges through their financial institutions, chargeback records held by card networks (Visa, Mastercard) and issuing banks constitute recoverable evidence of confirmed unauthorized use — directly corroborating victim complaints. Citations Visa Operating Regulations § 11.2 (chargeback rights) Mastercard Rules § 13.1 records held by issuing banks and acquirers subpoena

Chargeback and Dispute Records — Recoverable Evidence of Unauthorized Transactions (US) Read More »

Merchant Processing Agreements — Critical Gap; Not Publicly Available (US)

Disputed Fact ActBlue’s agreements with payment processors (reportedly including Stripe and WePay) governing CVV/AVS requirements, chargeback policies, and fraud reporting obligations are not publicly available and have not been produced to investigators. These documents are essential to establishing platform-level fraud control decisions.  Citations Stripe Developer Documentation, https://stripe.com/docs/radar/rules reported processor relationship: industry sources actual ActBlue-specific agreements

Merchant Processing Agreements — Critical Gap; Not Publicly Available (US) Read More »

No Completed FEC Audit of ActBlue for 2020 Cycle Published (US)

Established Fact The FEC Audit Division’s public records show no completed audit of ActBlue for the 2020 election cycle as of March 2026. The FEC has statutory authority to compel such an audit under 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b) but has not done so for this period. Citations FEC, Audit Division — Completed Audits, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/enforcement/audit-case-documents/

No Completed FEC Audit of ActBlue for 2020 Cycle Published (US) Read More »

FEC Public Contribution Database — Primary Evidentiary Source (US)

Established Fact ActBlue files regular itemized contribution schedules (FEC Form 3X) with donor name, address, employer, occupation, date, and amount for all contributions ≥$200. These public records constitute the primary evidentiary base for pattern analysis and victim identification. Citations FEC.gov, Bulk Data Download — Contributions by Individuals, https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=bulk-data

FEC Public Contribution Database — Primary Evidentiary Source (US) Read More »