Former Crazy Eddie CFO turned forensic accountant. From Wall Street criminal to fraud investigator.
New York, NY
Joined December 2008
- Tweets108K
- Following1.7K
- Followers85K
- Likes255K
Pinned Tweet
NEW INVESTIGATION: Did Soros Foundation Money Travel Through Charities Into the 2024 Presidential Race?
Full investigation with receipts
🔗whitecollarfraud.com/2026/06…
Money you can deduct on your taxes is supposed to fund charity, not campaigns. Here's a trail that runs from a tax-deductible donation to a presidential super PAC — entirely on public IRS returns.
The rule it tests is simple. A 501(c)(3) charity takes deductible dollars but can't spend on politics. A 501(c)(4) can spend on politics but offers no deduction. So when charitable money passes from a (c)(3), through intermediary charities, into a (c)(4) that spends it on campaigns, a tax-deductible dollar has been turned into political spending. That is the line §4955 of the tax code exists to police — and the intermediaries here are two charitable networks, Arabella and Tides.
Here's where the returns say the money went. Two George Soros private foundations sent $92,465,850 to the Arabella charities — New Venture, Hopewell, and Windward. Those same charities moved $343,967,196 to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501(c)(4) political arm.
On a separate path, a Soros foundation routed money through the Tides Foundation, which sent $842,000 directly across the charitable-to-political line into that same fund.
Two further routes added more: Open Society Policy Center, a Soros-affiliated 501(c)(4), gave $68,150,000 directly, and Tides Advocacy, another Soros-linked political fund, added $4,169,700. In all, $417,128,896 reached the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
Now the last step. The Sixteen Thirty Fund and an affiliated political fund sent $13,739,642 to a federal super PAC — about 59% of its itemized receipts. The PAC spent $19,799,415 naming federal candidates, including $12,718,076 supporting the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.
That closes the chain: charity → charity → political fund → super PAC → the presidential race. A tax-deductible foundation dollar at the top. Federal campaign spending at the bottom. Every rung on a public return.
Every step is permissible in isolation. A foundation may grant to a charity; a charity may grant to a 501(c)(4); a 501(c)(4) may spend on politics. But assembled from the returns, the sequence shows tax-deductible foundation dollars moving step by step toward candidate-directed federal spending.
The question the rules exist to answer: were charitable assets, in substance, converted into political campaign spending? Only the IRS can see the grant agreements and donor records that settle it — and the findings have been referred there.
I'm a forensic accountant and a registered Democrat. I follow the documents, not the politics. Every figure here is from the organizations' own IRS returns.
Full chain, line by line, with sources:
🔗whitecollarfraud.com/2026/06…
ALT Flow diagram tracing four documented funding routes into the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501(c)(4) political organization. Two routes pass through intermediary charities: Foundation to Promote Open Society and Open Society Institute, both 501(c)(3) Soros foundations, fund the Tides Foundation and the Arabella charities (New Venture, Hopewell, and Windward), which in turn grant to the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Two further routes go directly: Open Society Policy Center/OSAF and Tides Advocacy, both 501(c)(4) organizations, fund the Sixteen Thirty Fund without an intermediary. The Sixteen Thirty Fund, together with its sibling North Fund, contributed to Your Community PAC, which spent $19.8 million on independent expenditures naming federal candidates, including $12,718,076 supporting Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. All flows are documented from the organizations' own IRS Form 990 filings and Federal Election Commission disclosures.
Our Crazy Eddie fraud cost investors hundreds of millions of dollars.
If these NYC DAs had been my federal prosecutors, maybe I could’ve gotten my felonies knocked down to petit larceny.
Apparently, I had the wrong immigration status.
NYC district attorneys go silent when confronted over alleged orders to downgrade charges against illegal immigrants nypost.visitlink.me/CpMvYA
.@GovKathyHochul, does that “final say” also apply to homeless shelters and so-called “safe injection” sites where people shoot up?
Will you give residents the same right to reject those facilities in their neighborhoods?
I consider their impact on neighborhood safety and quality of life a far bigger concern than a data center.
You said “final say.” Does that mean residents can say NO, or only when you agree with them?
New Yorkers deserve the final say in whether a data center gets built in their community.
And they shouldn’t have to worry about higher electric bills or threats to their clean air and water.
We’re proudly leading the nation in setting rules that put our communities first as AI develops.
Thank you, @AOC, for joining me in this fight.
. @SenGillibrand, remember Obama promising Americans they could keep the health insurance they liked?
When that promise fell apart, you went on ABC and said: “He should have just been more specific.”
Asked whether Obama had misled you, your answer was: “No, we all knew.”
You defended replacing inadequate policies by arguing they should never have been offered. That wasn’t what Americans had been promised.
Now you’re posting clips about “empty promises.” Post your own interview, too. Let people watch you explain away a broken health care promise when it came from a president you supported.
Sam E. Antar retweeted
During that time my blind daughter was excluded from regular activities, therapies and after school activities in NYC Schools, because NYC robbed valuable years from our children and made online learning mandatory.
Eventually like myself she was deemed a dirty disease spreader and when the schools finally opened she was still unable to participate fully.
It was the furthest thing from a nurturing environment as over 10,000 teachers who were also deemed dirty disease spreaders were fired or forced out.
Only so much I could take as a parent who was also forced from my career and unable to go to movies, eat in restaurants, attend plays, the zoo etc, so like other refugees I moved my children to a nurturing environment rather than stay in Nazi NYC.
That piece of shit @ericadamsfornyc could have ended all of it on day 1 but he actually not only made it much worse, he held on to that for over a year.
New: NYC will pay the teachers’ union $8.7 million for “building positive nurturing environments” during the COVID pandemic in 2020-2022 under a RETROACTIVE contract approved last night by the Panel for Educational Policy. The DOE refused to specify what labor the UFT provided, or explain why the city is funding it SIX YEARS LATER.
Agenda item #3:
Hey NYC Comptroller @MarkLevineNYC, your report discusses affordability. Why leave out what parents told the city about schools and crime?
NYCPS’s April 2025 survey asked former public-school families who moved out of New York City why they left. Among those respondents:
64% wanted a better environment to raise their children.
50% cited concerns about schools.
50% wanted more housing space.
42% cited concerns about crime.
36% cited cheaper housing options.
Respondents could select multiple reasons. Schools and crime were each cited more frequently than cheaper housing among those respondents.
Your report leaves the survey out altogether.
Your own website says your office employs over 700 professional staff members, including auditors, economists and researchers. With those resources, how does a publicly available NYCPS survey get left out of a report on declining enrollment?
You want a “long overdue conversation” about families leaving? The city already asked these parents. Their answers deserve examination.
A shrinking student population does not explain what drove families to leave. Your report finds room to discuss affordability. Where is the examination of the school and crime concerns these parents reported?
You’re the comptroller. Investigate the uncomfortable answers, too. Start acting like an independent watchdog instead of a political flack.
Today my office has released a major new report on student enrollment in NYC.
We found that k-12 enrollment in our public schools has fallen by 187k since 2013, with a projected decline of an additional 128k students by 2034.
As total enrollment declines, NYCPS is serving a student population with growing needs. The number of students with disabilities is increasing. In the most recent school year, approximately 73% of students were in poverty and 14% were homeless or living in temporary housing.
Our report finds the drop in enrollment is driven by declining births and families with children leaving NYC, with a particularly notable drop in public-school enrollment as students transition from elementary to middle school.
These trends have massive implications for our schools that we have only barely begin to grapple with. My hope is that this report will spur a long overdue conversation about what the era of falling student enrollment means for NYC, and what we can do to reverse or slow it. 🧵
I was the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie. We had audited financial statements and outside accountants examining our records. We still committed a massive fraud. What the auditors missed didn’t disappear because they missed it.
That’s why citing a few voter-fraud prosecutions doesn’t settle the question. Before using detected cases to draw conclusions about undetected misconduct, you need to establish how effectively the system catches it.
I never sign my name exactly the same way twice. Telling me “they check signatures” as if that ends the discussion is bullshit. How reliably can someone distinguish my signature variations from an impersonator’s? Show me the testing.
New York issues standard driver’s licenses regardless of citizenship or lawful immigration status. People here illegally can obtain them. Those licenses are not proof of citizenship.
The voter-registration form uses DMV information to help verify identity and separately requires applicants to swear they are citizens. So explain what independently verifies that declaration. A signature under penalty of law is a safeguard whose effectiveness can be examined. Criminals sign false statements.
Brad Lander’s July 2024 NYC Comptroller audit identified 484 duplicate voter records. It also reported that the Board of Elections claimed safeguards against unauthorized absentee ballots but “refused to share information about these safeguards with auditors.”
Try that during a financial audit: We have controls. You can’t examine them. Trust us.
Public companies undergo independent financial audits without anyone first proving massive fraud. Documented weaknesses justify deeper examination.
New York’s voting-machine audits address whether recorded totals match paper ballots. That does not independently establish that registrations are accurate or that each ballot was legitimately cast.
That’s why I raised the potential for massive voter fraud and called for forensic audits. Establishing the scale requires examining how widespread the weaknesses are, whether other controls prevent exploitation, and whether anyone exploited them. Prosecution totals alone don’t answer those questions.
Test the controls and investigate the discrepancies. Publish the findings. Verify that the problems were corrected.
I’m a registered Democrat. I don’t owe election officials blind trust.
Calling me an “election denier” isn’t an answer.
🚨 Sam Antar on Election Integrity issues.
He states - "My son, who died in 2021, is STILL registered to vote"
He points out that he could potentially cast a ballot in his name. He says voter-roll gaps must be addressed, calling for serious audits of key jurisdictions.
He acknowledges he has no evidence of widespread fraud, but argues that vulnerabilities should be investigated before they can be exploited.
@SamAntar
.@RoKhanna, you call Netanyahu’s fraud allegations “racist” and “undemocratic.” Then answer this: do you support independent examination of specific election complaints, regardless of which party is involved?
The public companies listed in your financial disclosures undergo independent annual audits. Nobody has to prove fraud before auditors examine the books. Verification is part of the system.
Voters deserve that same principle. Transparent procedures. Independent checks. Specific allegations examined against actual records.
An audit doesn’t establish guilt. It establishes that “trust me” isn’t enough.
And your “moral test” for Israel? You’re entitled to want Netanyahu out. That political preference doesn’t settle a single factual question about the election.
You also said “anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.” Before lecturing Israelis about whom they must include, explain why Democratic leadership requires passing your AIPAC test. Are Democrats who reject that demand disqualified, regardless of what our voters want?
Support the scrutiny and accept what the evidence shows. Whoever benefits. And explain your own rules for exclusion before handing out lectures about inclusion.
. @BernieSanders, will you condemn the antisemitic garbage in Rebellion PAC’s ad supporting Abdul El-Sayed? It blames Americans’ grocery bills on aid to Israel and even suggests we’re paying for Israel’s universal health care.
You’re demanding answers from Trump. Here’s one for you: Does scapegoating the Jewish state become acceptable when the ad ends with “Abdul El-Sayed is for you”?
Condemn it by name. You shouldn’t need to check who benefits before deciding whether bigotry disgusts you.
. @SenWarren, we’re the United States, the world’s leading power. Britain hosts state banquets in Buckingham Palace’s ballroom. France has the Élysée’s Salle des Fêtes. Hosting foreign leaders is part of running a country.
“His” ballroom? It will belong to the United States and serve presidents of both parties long after Trump leaves. He doesn’t get to take it to Mar-a-Lago.
You’re talking about a permanent White House facility as though taxpayers are building an addition to his private home. That’s bullshit.
“Protect every vote,” @GavinNewsom?
You campaigned for Proposition 50 to replace California’s independently drawn congressional maps with politicians’ maps favoring Democrats. Your own attorney general said you advanced it for “explicitly partisan reasons.”
That admission is on YOUR website.
You pushed a partisan gerrymander and now you’re lecturing everyone about protecting democracy. Apparently, putting your party’s thumb on the scale qualifies as public service.
Sam E. Antar retweeted
NEW INVESTIGATION: Hochul Refunded Donors. Her Party Reported Matching Gifts and Sent Her $16.5 Million. Did the Money Make a Round Trip?
Her campaign had to give money back to donors.
Then those donors gave the same money to her party. Same names. Same amounts. Usually the same day.
Then the party gave Hochul $16.5 million.
Follow the money.
New York caps what a donor can give a candidate for governor at $9,000 per election. Hochul had no primary opponent, so the primary money had to go back. Her campaign reported $4.7 million in refunds.
But there’s no limit on what the state Democratic Party can give her. And a donor can give the party up to $138,600 a year.
So here’s the path: the campaign refunds you, you give to the party, and the party gives to Hochul.
That’s what the records show:
💰 $2.38 million in Hochul refunds matched gifts to the party from the same donors, down to the name, street address, ZIP code and penny.
💰 The party then sent Hochul $16.5 million: 94% of everything it transferred to other campaigns and committees this year.
💰 In 2022, her last race? $0 in direct transfers to her.
It gets stranger.
🔎 ONE CHECK NUMBER. DOZENS OF REFUNDS.
On July 10, Hochul’s campaign reported 33 refunds, all under ONE check number: 1373. The same day, the party reported gifts from those same donors. Every entry says check No. 1373. Same total to the penny: $141,565.88.
Was that one check from the campaign straight to the party, booked as refunds on one side and donor gifts on the other?
🔎 SAME LIST. SAME ORDER.
On July 7, the campaign reported 47 refunds under one check number. Three days later, the party reported 47 wires from the same donors, for the same amounts, in the SAME ORDER. Who made the list?
🔎 SAME TOTAL. RECORDED TWICE?
On Oct. 19, the party booked $372,519.98 as coming from Hochul’s campaign. It also booked the exact same $372,519.98 as gifts from 55 donors. Hochul’s books show no payment to the party.
🔎 THE DONORS’ OWN WORDS.
One PAC called its refund “redirected to NYSDC.” Another described its party gift as a “Redirection of funds from returned Friends of Hochul Contribution.”
🔎 THE CAMPAIGN’S OWN WORDS.
The campaign told New York Focus it contacted refunded donors, asked them to support Democrats “up and down the ballot,” and gave those who agreed a form directing their “reimbursed funds” to the party.
So the redirects started with the campaign.
Now look at where the party’s money went.
The party’s direct transfers and contributions this year to every other New York Democratic candidate and committee: about $128,000.
To Hochul: $16.5 million.
That’s not up and down the ballot. That’s a piggy bank.
And the cash tells the same story. On July 12, the party had $15.9 million, enough to cover everything else it spent through Oct. 16 four times over. The only reason it needed new money: the $16.5 million for Hochul.
Each transaction can look innocent on its own. Put them together and you see the substance.
I ran the same tests on Hochul’s Republican opponent Bruce Blakeman, Attorney General Letitia James and her Republican opponent Saritha Komatireddy. None showed this pattern. Only Hochul.
The filings can’t show which dollars came back to Hochul. Bank records, the donor forms and campaign-party communications can.
So release them.
If money a campaign has to give back can flow into the party that funds the campaign, what does the limit actually limit?
New York Focus first reported on Oct. 15 that refunded donors were giving matching amounts to the party. My investigation took that analysis substantially further, using official NYS Board of Elections filings covering transactions through Oct. 19.
Full investigation, charts and sources: link in reply 👇
ALT Hochul’s campaign reported $2,376,625.36 in refunds that match gifts the state Democratic Party reported from the same donors; the party sent Hochul $16.5 million. A dashed line marks a possible direct payment from the campaign to the party, which remains an open question.
Sam E. Antar retweeted
HILARIOUS MUST WATCH NEW ABDUL AD: This is the ad Abdul El-Sayed Al-Jihadi & his Jew-hating supporters really meant to run. It's not what you think. Well done. @AbdulElSayed
.@bradlander, Arab citizens of Israel vote, elect members of the Knesset, and an Arab party, Ra’am, joined the governing coalition in 2021.
Palestinians haven’t had a presidential election since 2005 or a legislative election since 2006. Twenty years without a national vote.
You’re busy telling Israelis which parties they must put in their government. What exactly are you demanding of Palestinian leaders about letting their own people choose a government? Give us the democracy lecture for them.
If Gadi Eisenkot and the opposition bloc are remotely serious about getting rid of Netanyahu, and about Israel’s democratic future, they’ll do the obvious, strategic, and non-racist thing of forming a government with the Arab parties.
A Jewish-Arab political partnership is necessary to meet this political moment, and for any shared future.
haaretz.com/israel-news/haar…
Alex, while you’re telling everyone Annie Andrews can win South Carolina, how about mentioning your family’s funding of the outside groups helping her?
Soros-funded Democracy PAC gave $1 million to Government That Works PAC and $4 million to AB PAC this election cycle. Through October 24, those two committees reported a combined $3.53 million in outside spending supporting Andrews or opposing her opponent.
That doesn’t make every dollar they spent Soros money. But your family is funding groups working to elect the candidate you’re promoting.
You found room for the poll. Include the funding connections, too, @AlexanderSoros.
The New Republic should read the report it links before accusing Todd Blanche of coaching a witness.
Your article moves from an allegation that Trump sexually assaulted a minor into Maxwell’s discussion of “Jane,” blurring two different women.
The report identifies the Maxwell trial witness as “Jane Doe 1” on pages 21–23. The separate assault allegation belongs to “Jane Doe 4” on page 31, where the committee explicitly says it could not independently verify her claims against Trump. Your own source distinguishes them.
The quoted interview concerns Jane’s age and Maxwell’s knowledge of Epstein’s conduct. It does not show Maxwell starting to disclose that separate assault allegation against Trump.
I’ve sharply criticized Blanche over the Letitia James mortgage-fraud investigation. My December 8, 2025 article was titled “Is Todd Blanche Undermining the Letitia James Prosecution?” My criticism is on the record.
So is your reporting. Before lecturing readers about a cover-up, try keeping the witnesses straight. Will you correct the article?
Todd Blanche Basically Coached Ghislaine Maxwell in Epstein Interview trib.al/nv5mFOx
Hey @RoKhanna, have you visited any mothers whose children were murdered by illegal immigrants?
Allyson Phillips, Laken Riley’s mother. Patty Morin, Rachel Morin’s mother. Tammy Nobles, Kayla Hamilton’s mother.
Their daughters’ killers all entered this country illegally. All three were convicted of murder.
You’re talking about a “favorable environment for Democratic candidates.” Have you sat down with these mothers and listened to what they lost? What did you tell them?
Sam E. Antar retweeted
She won a huge Court victory against @BOENYC today. They can no longer stop her from observing,great work, from Jimmy Wagner, Esq. for securing this historic victory in NYC. We need to make 2026 to big to rig in NY! Vote for @NassauExec & Republicans down the line.
#Votingscetchy #countthevote #midterms if we are going to save NY we need to expose #KathHochul cheating she did it in 2022 she is doing it now!
Hey @SenSchumer, you’re lecturing us about efforts to “steal the election.” Have you read today’s New York Times investigation into Democrats’ efforts to recruit spoiler candidates in Alaska, including another Dan Sullivan?
You called the DOJ lawsuit an “outrage.” What do you call the conduct the Times reported?
In June, your spokesperson denied that you or any of your associates were involved in the second Sullivan’s campaign. Do you stand by that denial? Will you condemn the reported scheme?
You’ve got plenty to say about election integrity. Apply that standard to your own party.
Trump’s efforts to steal the election have once again failed. A California court has rejected his efforts to remove American citizens from the voter rolls and sow chaos in the midterm elections.
Trump should realize that we are a country where the rule of law prevails and that his efforts to upend the electoral process will fail. We will continue to fight him all the way.
.@GovPritzker, let’s look at Hyatt, the hotel company your family controls.
In the second quarter of 2026, average daily rates at comparable U.S. Hyatt hotels rose 5.7% from a year earlier (to $228.28). Hyatt’s adjusted net income increased from $66 million to $108 million.
How much of Hyatt’s price increase do you attribute to “failed leadership in Washington,” and how much to the company’s own pricing decisions?
You’re willing to explain why everybody else’s prices went up. Explain your family’s hotel business. (Source: Hyatt Hotels Corp. Q2 2026 earnings release, July 30, 2026)
Parents are working hard to make sure their kids have the support they need, but families are being squeezed by inflation driven by failed leadership in Washington.
In Illinois, they saved $11.4 million with our back-to-school sales tax holiday. decaturradio.com/2026/10/27/…
Sam E. Antar retweeted
The @GovKathyHochul scam is exposed! She pretends to return donor money but gets it funneled back, she pretends to care for workers but hires 15k nursing scabs, she pretends to care about cost of living but raises electric prices 40 times! #staywoke
NEW INVESTIGATION: Hochul Refunded Donors. Her Party Reported Matching Gifts and Sent Her $16.5 Million. Did the Money Make a Round Trip?
Her campaign had to give money back to donors.
Then those donors gave the same money to her party. Same names. Same amounts. Usually the same day.
Then the party gave Hochul $16.5 million.
Follow the money.
New York caps what a donor can give a candidate for governor at $9,000 per election. Hochul had no primary opponent, so the primary money had to go back. Her campaign reported $4.7 million in refunds.
But there’s no limit on what the state Democratic Party can give her. And a donor can give the party up to $138,600 a year.
So here’s the path: the campaign refunds you, you give to the party, and the party gives to Hochul.
That’s what the records show:
💰 $2.38 million in Hochul refunds matched gifts to the party from the same donors, down to the name, street address, ZIP code and penny.
💰 The party then sent Hochul $16.5 million: 94% of everything it transferred to other campaigns and committees this year.
💰 In 2022, her last race? $0 in direct transfers to her.
It gets stranger.
🔎 ONE CHECK NUMBER. DOZENS OF REFUNDS.
On July 10, Hochul’s campaign reported 33 refunds, all under ONE check number: 1373. The same day, the party reported gifts from those same donors. Every entry says check No. 1373. Same total to the penny: $141,565.88.
Was that one check from the campaign straight to the party, booked as refunds on one side and donor gifts on the other?
🔎 SAME LIST. SAME ORDER.
On July 7, the campaign reported 47 refunds under one check number. Three days later, the party reported 47 wires from the same donors, for the same amounts, in the SAME ORDER. Who made the list?
🔎 SAME TOTAL. RECORDED TWICE?
On Oct. 19, the party booked $372,519.98 as coming from Hochul’s campaign. It also booked the exact same $372,519.98 as gifts from 55 donors. Hochul’s books show no payment to the party.
🔎 THE DONORS’ OWN WORDS.
One PAC called its refund “redirected to NYSDC.” Another described its party gift as a “Redirection of funds from returned Friends of Hochul Contribution.”
🔎 THE CAMPAIGN’S OWN WORDS.
The campaign told New York Focus it contacted refunded donors, asked them to support Democrats “up and down the ballot,” and gave those who agreed a form directing their “reimbursed funds” to the party.
So the redirects started with the campaign.
Now look at where the party’s money went.
The party’s direct transfers and contributions this year to every other New York Democratic candidate and committee: about $128,000.
To Hochul: $16.5 million.
That’s not up and down the ballot. That’s a piggy bank.
And the cash tells the same story. On July 12, the party had $15.9 million, enough to cover everything else it spent through Oct. 16 four times over. The only reason it needed new money: the $16.5 million for Hochul.
Each transaction can look innocent on its own. Put them together and you see the substance.
I ran the same tests on Hochul’s Republican opponent Bruce Blakeman, Attorney General Letitia James and her Republican opponent Saritha Komatireddy. None showed this pattern. Only Hochul.
The filings can’t show which dollars came back to Hochul. Bank records, the donor forms and campaign-party communications can.
So release them.
If money a campaign has to give back can flow into the party that funds the campaign, what does the limit actually limit?
New York Focus first reported on Oct. 15 that refunded donors were giving matching amounts to the party. My investigation took that analysis substantially further, using official NYS Board of Elections filings covering transactions through Oct. 19.
Full investigation, charts and sources: link in reply 👇
ALT Hochul’s campaign reported $2,376,625.36 in refunds that match gifts the state Democratic Party reported from the same donors; the party sent Hochul $16.5 million. A dashed line marks a possible direct payment from the campaign to the party, which remains an open question.