Complainant, a special agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), has investigated the facts and circumstances of this offense and believes the following establishes probable cause: At times relevant to this complaint, Defendant HARDING NAZALY SMITH [DOB REDACTED] was the president of a Minnesota nonprofit corporation called Minnesota Acts Now (MAN). In and after August 2021, MAN was under contract with local government entities (including, as relevant here, Hennepin County) to provide violence intervention services.
In May and June 2023, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office received wage theft complaints from former MAN employees. A subsequent Minnesota Commerce Fraud Bureau (now part of the BCA) criminal investigation determined that between August 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, Defendant was representing to Hennepin County that he paid MAN’s employees $35 per hour, as budgeted under the parties’ contract, but actually paid them less. In total, Defendant paid MAN’s employees approximately $150,000 less than he reported to Hennepin County during that time period.
MAN used the excess funds it received from Hennepin County for purposes not approved under the contract. On August 18, 2021, Defendant on behalf of MAN electronically signed a “Human Services and Public Health Department Provider Agreement” (the “Agreement”) with Hennepin County. The Agreement had effective dates between August 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, and generally implemented a proposal that Defendant had submitted to Hennepin County staff on behalf of MAN in July 2021. As Defendant had proposed, the contract budget provided for unpaid volunteer labor from Defendant as MAN’s president and for a $35 hourly wage for all other MAN workers under the Agreement.
The original Agreement provided that Hennepin County would reimburse MAN for total costs (including payroll) not to exceed $258,900. The Agreement was amended in writing on three occasions during its term to add compliance requirements and to adjust the budget for various purposes, including adding a $35 hourly wage for Defendant himself beginning in October 2021. Each amendment was electronically signed by Defendant on behalf of MAN. The final not-to-exceed reimbursement amount of the Agreement, as amended, was $559,049; Hennepin County ultimately paid a total of $538,842.90 to MAN through periodic payments that were issued based on the Agreement and on invoices submitted by MAN and signed by Defendant.
Although the Agreement budget contemplated that MAN’s employees would be paid $35 per hour for their work, Complainant obtained documentation (including from payroll processing firm ADP) showing that most employees were paid $20 or, in a few cases, $25 or $30 per hour. The only two employees who were paid $35 per hour were Defendant’s spouse and Defendant himself (after the Agreement was amended to provide for a wage for his work). But the invoices MAN submitted to Hennepin County for reimbursements calculated the reimbursement request, in part, by multiplying all hours worked by all MAN employees by $35. Based on a review of payroll records and timesheets, investigators calculated that MAN reported total payroll expenses (including wages and tax) of $495,547.90 to Hennepin County, but in fact incurred aggregate total payroll expenses of only $346,209.31. Complainant obtained evidence that Defendant was intentionally deceiving Hennepin County about the payroll expenses MAN was incurring, including: -As noted above, before the Agreement was executed, Defendant submitted to Hennepin County a written proposal dated July 19, 2021, for “MAN Intervention Work in Brooklyn Park.” Defendant’s proposal stated that MAN’s workers would have an “hourly pay of $35 per hour” (with the exception of Defendant himself, who was “committed to working as a full-time unpaid employee, dedicating his time to the city”). -Defendant’s initial proposal included that Hennepin County would fund MAN’s purchase of “one used 2 ••-CR-••-•••• Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 4/29/2026 vehicle.” In response to the proposal, a Hennepin County staffer in an email to Defendant indicated that a vehicle purchase might not be an eligible use of the available funding, and the budget ultimately included with the Agreement did not include a line item for a vehicle purchase.
