Going After Charitable-Solicitation Violators: Then and Now

The 1590s in England were a period of severe “social stress: plague, poverty, inflation, malnutrition, property crimes, riots and – of course – religious upheaval.”

For that matter, the entire sixteenth century was a turbulent enough time that more than a few “privileged Englishmen” over those decades “tinkered around with ways to help” the marginalized and suffering members of society.

By the closing years of the reign of Elizabeth I (who died in 1603), the circumstances were ripe for the birth of the modern law of philanthropy. It happened in 1597, when Parliament enacted the Poor Laws, following up soon after with the landmark Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. This seminal legislative package – a public/private partnership – was surprisingly progressive. It was designed to spur broader and more generous private-sector charitable giving (along with new government aid) while keeping an eye on the problems caused by “opportunistic fiduciaries.”

Indeed, the “oft-quoted Preamble to the Poor Laws made clear” that people of that era were well aware that “…[c]haritable funds have been and are still likely to be most unlawfully and uncharitably converted to the lucre and gain of some few greedy and covetous persons, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the givers and disposers thereof.”

The 1601 law “expressed the English government’s desire to replace the whim of patronage with legally enforceable adherence to principle in philanthropic action.” More fundamentally, it embodied the feudal common-law doctrine of “parens patriae”; namely, that the sovereign is not only authorized but obliged “to act on behalf of those who are incapable of acting for themselves, such as charitable beneficiaries.”

An indispensable element of these newly codified charitable-trust laws was meaningful oversight that included investigative authority and adequate procedures. Queen Elizabeth I entrusted that duty to the Crown Attorney General.

That was five hundred years ago and an ocean away, but it remains relevant today.

It’s the source of an unbroken line of the Anglo-American common law of philanthropy. It’s why the modern-day attorneys general of each U.S. state, commonwealth, and territory have the power to oversee charitable funds and assets, organizations, and solicitation in their jurisdictions.

Modern-Day American Counterparts

“When the charitable-trust form crossed the Atlantic, the Attorneys General of the colonies and then the several States inherited this trust-protection responsibility from their Crown counterpart …. The model of an attorney general with responsibility to protect the interests of the general public in connection with charitable trusts, assets, and solicitations is now “firmly rooted” in each and every state, territory and the District of Columbia, according to the National Association of Attorneys General. “While the IRS and the FTC play valuable roles, State Attorneys General remain the chief custodians of the public’s trust in the nonprofit sector.”

In some jurisdictions, the charity-oversight and registration/reporting requirements are doled out in part to one or more other state agencies or departments. The most common division of labor in these “bifurcated” jurisdictions is with the secretary of state.

Report of State Charity Officials

State charity officials from around the nation recently participated in the  NAAG/NASCO Annual Charities Conference (October 7-9, 2025). There,  along with “… nonprofit organizations, and their professional colleagues,” the regulators came together to share insights and discuss the latest issues in the charitable sector. This is the only event of its kind, offering a unique opportunity for networking, learning, and collaboration.”

The National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) just released the Annual Report on State Regulation and Enforcement (Sept. 2024 – Sept. 2025). It includes “examples of what charities regulators are prioritizing, the tools they are using in investigations and settlements, and the guidance they are providing.”

More specifically, the Report consists of representative examples – not an inclusive list – of state-by-state activities in the following areas:

• Enforcement cases in these areas: solicitations, governance, trusts, estates, and restricted funds
• Registration and registration enforcement
• Transactions and dissolutions
• Outreach including:  guidance issued, other significant outreach and training activities
• Regulations/legislation.   a. published or adopted regulations;   b. legislation adopted

For this first-in-series post on the current agendas of  the nation’s state charity regulators, we’ll focus on the initial item – “solicitations” – in the first category titled “enforcement cases.”

Charitable donations back in Elizabethan days were sometimes “… most unlawfully and uncharitably converted to the lucre and gain of some few greedy and covetous persons.” The Poor Laws of 1597 and the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601 were designed to (a) thwart fraudulent fundraising schemes that were never intended at all to aid the needy or (b) to disrupt the diversion of charitable funds that were on the road to their intended recipients.

Sadly, the problem of fraud in the solicitation – and in the delivery – of charitable funds persists. If anything, it’s exponentially worse now in the internet era of rapid-fire communications, of the dark web, of technology that can transmit money electronically or make it disappear forever.

Examples: Solicitations 

• No. 1:  (Maryland); DMV Futures, Inc.

Maryland officials received complaints from the public about a 501(c)(3) organization called DMV Futures, Inc., that drives “groups of children into neighborhoods” across the entire Washington, D.C. metropolitan region “to engage in unsupervised door-to-door solicitation of charitable contributions and sale of candy.”

A state investigation showed that the organization claims “to offer a menu of supposedly charitable and educational youth programs and services as well as part-time jobs, scholarships, and other financial benefits to children.” The probe revealed that the organization does none of these activities.

Further, the inquiry established that the organization “directed charitable contributions into the personal accounts of its officers with no accounting controls or board oversight and failed to submit required annual reports and fees to the Office of the Secretary of State, causing its registration status to be non-compliant.”

The Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly issued a Cease and Desist Order against DMV Futures and its president, Marcus Smith. The terms of that Order require that the organization, that Mr. Smith, and “all of DMV Futures, Inc.’s officers, agents, and directors” stop all charitable soliciting including door-to-door.” See Attorney General Brown and Secretary of State Lee Order Youth Charity to Cease Fundraising (May 22, 2025) Press Release, oag.maryland.gov

“DMV Futures, Inc. misrepresented its charitable impact so its officers could make money off generous Marylanders who just wanted to help young people get a job or pay for school,” said Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. He called for “anyone who has been solicited by DMV Futures, Inc.,” or for “ parents of youth asked to engage in door-to-door solicitations …” to contact named state investigators to continue the investigation.

See also: Baltimore-based youth charity ordered to halt fundraising amid allegations of fraud (May 22, 2025) Dominick Philippe-Auguste, ABC News 2, WMAR, Baltimore;  DMV Futures Charity Ordered to Cease Solicitations (May 23, 2025) Franklin County Free Press.

• No. 2:  (Minnesota); David Singleton and five nonprofits.

Minnesota charity regulators had received complaints from several government agencies about a man named David Singleton and five affiliated nonprofit organizations in which he was listed as president. Each organization had a name that suggested a connection with government, although no such relationship had ever existed. Examples include: Minnesota Civilian Public Safety Commission, Inc.; League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions; and Minnesota Police Reserve Officers Association.

The Charities Division of the Office of MN Attorney General Keith Ellison probed the matter under the state’s civil nonprofit corporation, charitable solicitation, and consumer fraud laws. In late January 2025, officials filed a lawsuit in Ramsay County state court against Mr. Singleton and the five nonprofits “for using names, verbiage and images to create the false appearance of government affiliation.” Officials more generally sought to stop him from continuing to engage in a “deceptive pattern of behavior by founding or taking over nonprofits with government sounding names to sow confusion for his own profit.”

The lawsuit has been settled. Terms include (a) dissolution of the five nonprofits and (b) bans against David Singleton from either incorporating or acquiring nonprofits. See Attorney General Ellison sues nonprofits and their president for violations of Minnesota law arising out of a pattern of ongoing disruptive and deceptive conduct (January 30, 2025) Office of MN Attorney General, Press Release.

There were additional allegations in this probe and lawsuit against Mr. Singleton and his for-profit legal services business. He does not have a license to practice law in Minnesota or in any other state; nevertheless, he allegedly used one of his nonprofits to “direct Minnesotans to” this entity. Under the settlement, the for-profit legal services entity was ordered dissolved. David Singleton and this business were also banned permanently from  “advertising that they can provide legal services of any kind.”

Conclusion

These two examples of modern-day charitable-solicitations shenanigans are not particularly clever or well-hidden. They are transparently and intentionally fraudulent. There is no plausible defense that the perpetrators didn’t understand that what they were doing was wrong. You might think – therefore – that these are outliers.

They are not. The challenge for government regulators is formidable, if only in terms of the sheer quantity of cases.

Next up in this series will be examples from the “Enforcement Cases: Governance” category of the NASCO Report.

– Linda J. Rosenthal, J.D., FPLG Information and Research Director