People's Bank v. Hampton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
PEOPLES BANK OF MONITEAU COUNTY, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
DAVID HAMPTON, )
Serve at: )
26779 Highway 179 )
California, MO 65018 )
)
and )
)
SHERRY HAMPTON )
Serve at: )
26779 Highway 179 ) Case No.: _______________
California, MO 65018 )
) Jury trial requested.
and )
)
ANGELA L. FLIPPIN, )
Serve at: )
21304 Highway 179 )
Jamestown, MO 65046 )
)
and )
)
RUSSELL PHILBERT, )
Serve at: )
6511 Route M )
Jefferson City, MO 65101 )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff Peoples Bank of Moniteau County, by and through its
undersigned counsel, and for its cause of action against Defendants David Hampton, Sherry
Hampton, Angela L. Flippin, and Russell Philbert, states as follows:
Nature of Case
1. This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, a state-chartered Missouri bank,
045799/091703-63599764.5
Case 2:18-cv-04099-WJE Document 1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 47
against the Defendants, who include the former President/Chief Executive Officer, and former
Vice President/Chief Operations Officer who embezzled funds, and fraudulently and improperly
disbursed funds to themselves and others totaling at least $930,815.80 .
2. This action is brought pursuant to Section 1030(g) of The Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g); the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 - § 1965; for common law fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; money had and
received; unjust enrichment; violation of the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, §
428.005, et seq. RSMo.; for injunctive relief, for a prejudgment Writ of Attachment pursuant to §
521.010, et seq. RSMo. as applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64; for an
accounting; and for appointment of a receiver under the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act,
§ 515.500 et seq. RSMo.
Jurisdiction
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and
(c); 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g); and 28 U.S.C. §1331, providing jurisdiction over federal questions.
The Defendants are residents of, or entities organized and operating in, the State of Missouri, in
the Western District of the United States District Court.
Venue
4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all defendants reside in this judicial district and are
residents of the State of Missouri.
5. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this
judicial district, and all or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is
2
045799/091703-63599764.5
situated in this judicial district.
Parties
6. Plaintiff Peoples Bank of Moniteau County (hereinafter the “Bank" or
“Plaintiff”) is a Missouri chartered bank organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of Missouri and is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the
“FDIC”).
7. Defendant David Hampton (hereinafter “D. Hampton”) is an individual residing
in Moniteau County, Missouri, and was formerly the President/Chief Executive Officer of the
Bank.
8. Defendant Sherry Hampton (hereinafter “S. Hampton,” and together with D.
Hampton, collectively, the “Hamptons”) is an individual residing in Moniteau County,
Missouri, and is the wife of D. Hampton, and was formerly an employee of the Bank.
9. Defendant Angela L. Flippin (hereinafter “Flippin”) is an individual residing in
Moniteau County, Missouri, and was formerly the Vice President and Chief Operations Officer
of the Bank. Flippin is the daughter of D. Hampton.
10. Defendant Russell Philbert (hereinafter “Philbert”) is an individual residing in
Cole County, Missouri.
11. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert are collectively referred to herein as the
“Defendants.”
General Allegations
12. Flippin began employment at the Bank on February 1, 1993 as a computer
operator.
13. Within a few years, Flippin was promoted to Vice President and Chief Operations
3
045799/091703-63599764.5
Officer of the Bank.
14. Flippin also served as Board Secretary for the Bank.
15. D. Hampton was named as President of the Bank on May 1, 1990.
16. D. Hampton’s title was later changed to Chief Executive Officer and President,
but his responsibilities remained the same.
17. Flippin is D. Hampton’s and S. Hampton’s daughter.
18. Flippin and Philbert are, or were at all relevant times herein, romantic partners.
19. Flippin’s responsibilities at the Bank included human resources, payroll,
insurance arrangements and payments, compliance, and information technologies and operations.
20. In these capacities, Flippin had full access to the Bank’s accounting and computer
systems, which included the ability to post payments, make changes, make journal entries, and
process payment reimbursements.
21. Prior to July 2015, Flippin provided the hours and payroll information to the
Bank’s outside accounting firm, which handled the Bank’s payroll. Beginning in July, 2015,
Flippin posted the payroll of the Bank internally using a posting sheet provided by the Bank’s
outside accounting firm.
22. After July, 2015, Flippin continued to have significant input in the payroll cycle,
including providing necessary information and direction to the Bank’s third-party payroll
provider.
23. Flippin had unfettered access and control to the accounting, computer, and human
resource systems for the Bank.
24. Flippin’s employment with the Bank was terminated on February 17, 2017.
25. D. Hampton’s employment with the Bank was terminated on February 21, 2017.
4
045799/091703-63599764.5
Forensic Accounting Report
26. The Bank engaged BKD, LLC (“BKD”), an independent accounting firm, to
conduct a forensic investigation of the transactions made by the Defendants that give rise to this
action.
27. In conducting their investigation, BKD reviewed numerous Bank records,
including, but not limited to, bank accounts, loan accounts, time sheets, computers, cell phones,
and other records.
28. On May 24, 2017, BKD produced a Forensic Accounting Investigation Report
(the “Forensic Accounting Report”) that revealed and reported that the Defendants conducted
numerous transactions at the Bank that enabled them to receive improper payments and
disbursements, and other unauthorized benefits, including, but not limited to, the transactions
summarized below.
Unauthorized Compensation Time Disbursements
29. During the time that Flippin and D. Hampton were employed by the Bank, the
Bank had a policy of allowing additional compensation (“Comp Time”) for employees who
worked more than 40 hours a week, regardless of whether the employees were salaried or hourly
employees.
30. This Comp Time included additional hours worked over 40 hours a week.
31. The Bank’s employees were required to track overtime hours on a time sheet form
provided by the Bank. Employees recorded their own overtime hours on those time sheets.
32. However, Flippin and D. Hampton, as salaried executive officers of the Bank,
were not entitled to Comp Time payments.
33. D. Hampton and Flippin improperly collected unauthorized Comp Time payments
5
045799/091703-63599764.5
during their employment with the Bank.
34. At the request of state examiners, Flippin provided her timesheets for 2016 and
2017.
35. Flippin did not provide time sheets for any other years in which she was
employed by the Bank.
36. Additionally, Flippin improperly inflated her Comp Time during her employment
with the Bank.
37. Flippin and D. Hampton hid from the Board of Directors of the Bank the fact that
they were paying themselves Comp Time by funding the payment of the Comp Time from the
Bank’s employee benefits insurance account.
38. The Board of Directors of the Bank set the annual salary of Flippin and D.
Hampton, but they were unaware that they were receiving unauthorized and inflated Comp Time.
39. The timesheets provided by Flippin and the Bank’s records show that Flippin had
a pattern of abuse of the Bank’s Comp Time system.
40. Despite medical and other issues that kept Flippin away from work for significant
stretches of time in 2014, Flippin received Comp Time pay totaling $110,982.29 in addition to
her authorized salary in 2014.
41. Despite passing off a significant amount of work in 2015 and decreasing the
number of hours worked, Flippin received Comp Time pay totaling $126,307.40 in addition to
her authorized salary in 2015.
42. Flippin’s 2016 timesheet showed Comp Time for practically every day of the year
including 8 hours of Comp Time on Christmas Eve (Saturday), and 9 hours of Comp Time on
Christmas Day (Sunday).
6
045799/091703-63599764.5
43. Flippin’s 2016 timesheet also showed Comp Time for a day that does not exist –
September 31st.
44. Flippin’s 2016 timesheet showed total Comp Time of 3,322 hours, however, the
Bank records show that Flippin paid herself the equivalent of 4,221 hours in Comp Time in
2016, totaling $148,546.69 in addition to her authorized salary.
45. In 2017, Flippin was employed by the Bank for approximately six weeks prior to
her termination. Flippin’s 2017 timesheet showed total Comp Time of 398 hours, however, the
Bank’s records show that it paid out the equivalent of 443 hours of Comp Time to Flippin in
2017, totaling $16,576.02 in addition to her authorized salary.
46. From 2013 through 2016, Flippin’s total authorized pay was approximately
$275,000.00.
47. During the same period, 2013 through 2016, Flippin received improper
disbursements related to Comp Time totaling approximately $473,700.00, in addition to her
authorized pay.
48. Altogether, for the years 2010 through 2017, Flippin received improper Comp
Time disbursements totaling at least $637,120.06.
49. Flippin and D. Hampton also made improper Comp Time disbursements to D.
Hampton for the years 2010 through 2017.
50. Altogether, for the years 2010 through 2017, D. Hampton received improper
Comp Time disbursements totaling at least $164,028.95.
51. All of the payments were effected by Flippin through her unauthorized and
improper access to the Bank’s computer systems.
7
045799/091703-63599764.5
Improper Disbursements Into Flippin’s Personal Accounts
52. Starting in March of 2014, Flippin began making disbursements, typically on
payroll disbursement dates, that had nothing to do with payroll.
53. On March 14, 2014, Flippin set up recurring transactions for $3,303.00 and
$1,150.00.
54. These amounts were outside of payroll and did not relate to payroll activity.
55. The amounts were set up to be transferred to two separate personal savings
accounts, Account #XX00), and Account #XXXX06 (collectively, the “Flippin Personal
Accounts”), respectively.
56. Account #XX00 was a savings account; Philbert and Flippin were the named
parties on the account.
57. Account #XXXX06, was also a savings account; Flippin, Mark Flippin, and
Kamden Flippin were the named parties on the account.
58. On March 30, 2014, the $3,303.00 recurring transactions were cancelled.
59. On April 15, 2014, Flippin edited the recurring $1,150.00 transaction, changing
the amount to $1,750.00 and changing the account it was to be deposited into Account #XX00.
60. Also on April 15, 2014, Flippin set up an additional $1,758.00 disbursement to be
deposited into Account #XXXX06.
61. These $3,508.00 in deposits continued as recurring, automatic, semi-monthly
disbursements until February 2015.
62. In February of 2015, Flippin changed the amount of deposits into the Flippin
Personal Accounts to a total of $1,808.00.
63. On March 13, 2015, Flippin changed the total amount deposited into the Flippin
8
045799/091703-63599764.5
Personal Accounts to $2,608.00.
64. On March 31, 2015, Flippin changed the total amount deposited into the Flippin
65. On April 30, 2015, Flippin changed the total amount deposited into the Flippin
66. On May 15, 2015, Flippin changed the total amount deposited into the Flippin
67. These recurring, semi-monthly, automatic transactions continued until June 30,
2015, when the Bank began using an outside payroll company rather than its outside accounting
firm to handle payroll.
68. All of the recurring semi-monthly payments were effected by Flippin through her
unauthorized and improper access to the Bank’s computer systems.
69. Flippin and D. Hampton were aware of, and conspired to make, the foregoing
unauthorized payments.
Improper Reimbursement of Personal Expenses
70. Flippin conducted several improper transactions relating a Bank debit card
assigned to Flippin in 2015.
71. This Bank debit card was tied to a Bank expense account.
72. In May of 2015, Flippin traveled to Nebraska for business, and claiming that her
personal debit card had been compromised, received permission from the Bank to use the Bank’s
debit card for personal usage for which she indicated that she would reimburse the Bank.
73. These expenses were personal in nature.
74. The Bank’s regulators discovered Flippin’s unauthorized and improper use of the
9
045799/091703-63599764.5
debit card.
75. Flippin reached an agreement with the Bank to repay nearly $9,000, plus 10%
interest, related to the improper personal transactions.
76. As part of her repayment obligation to the Bank, Flippin made two payments from
one of her personal checking accounts on April 7, 2015 for $2,511.92 and $232.04.
77. Instead of paying the remaining reimbursements from her own accounts, Flippin
improperly and without authorization used the Bank’s computer systems to effect a transfer of
money between the Bank’s general ledger, employee benefits account (the “Employee Benefits
Account”), a Bank seminars account, and a Bank mileage expense account, with no other money
coming from personal accounts under Flippin’s control or ownership.
78. This scheme amounted to the Bank paying itself for Flippin’s personal expenses.
79. On several occasions, Flippin caused the Bank to reimburse her and Philbert’s
personal checking accounts for personal expenses unrelated to her employment with the Bank.
80. On several occasions, D. Hampton and Flippin caused the Bank to reimburse D.
Hampton’s personal checking account for personal expenses unrelated to their employment with
the Bank.
81. On certain occasions, D. Hampton and Flippin also transferred funds from the
Employee Benefits Account to D. Hampton’s Account #XXXX80. These included a transfer on
May 13, 2016 in the amount of $2,347.45, and a transfer on December 19, 2016 in the amount of
$2,424.92.
82. Flippin also received various other improper reimbursements for personal
expenses unrelated to her employment with the Bank.
83. These payments were effected by Flippin through her unauthorized and improper
10
045799/091703-63599764.5
access to and use of the Bank’s computer systems.
84. Flippin, D. Hampton, and Philbert were aware of, and conspired to conduct and
make, the foregoing unauthorized payments and transactions.
Improper Repayment of Personal Loan From the Bank
85. In 2010, Flippin obtained a $90,000.00 personal loan from the Bank’s
correspondent Bank, Midwest Independent Bank (“MIB”).
86. Funding for the 2010 personal loan came through the Bank’s correspondent
account with MIB (the “Correspondent Account”).
87. The funds for the 2010 personal loan were disbursed to Flippin’s personal
checking accounts on May 17, 2010.
88. Flippin made the monthly payments for this personal loan by crediting money to
the Correspondent Account.
89. On one or more occasions, Flippin made the payments to the Correspondent
Account by improperly transferring money directly from the Bank’s Employee Benefits
Account.
91. Flippin and D. Hampton were aware of, and conspired to make and conduct, the
foregoing unauthorized payments and transactions.
Improper Reimbursement and Rebates for Insurance Premiums
92. The Bank, as part of its compensation package, pays 100% of the insurance
premiums for its full-time employees.
93. It is the Bank’s policy that employees of the Bank are required to pay for
11
045799/091703-63599764.5
coverage for dependents, if such coverage was elected by the employee.
94. From 2013 through 2016, in violation of the Bank’s policy, Flippin caused the
Bank to pay for health, dental and vision insurance for Philbert. Although Philbert did perform
some work for the Bank, he was not a full-time employee of the Bank, and was never set up
through the Bank’s payroll as an employee.
95. The Bank paid a total of approximately $24,781.18 on Philbert’s behalf for health
insurance premiums from 2013 to 2016.
96. Neither Philbert nor Flippin reimbursed the Bank for the insurance premiums paid
on Philbert’s behalf.
97. The Bank, in connection with the health insurance it provided to its employees,
received rebates related specifically to those employees listed in the plan, which erroneously
included Philbert.
98. Philbert, despite not being an employee of the Bank, received rebate checks in
connection with the Bank’s health insurance coverage in 2014 and 2015.
99. Altogether, the above and foregoing improper disbursements into personal
accounts, improper Comp Time disbursements, improper reimbursements of personal expenses,
improper repayments of personal loans from the Bank, and improper reimbursements and rebates
of insurance premiums (collectively, the “Unauthorized Payments”) resulted in Unauthorized
Payments totaling $645,069.09 to Flippin, $166,164.25 to D. Hampton, and $33,583.30 to
Philbert, for a total of at least $845,816.64 in Unauthorized Payments.
101. Flippin also received various other improper reimbursements for personal
12
045799/091703-63599764.5
expenses unrelated to her employment with the Bank.
102. The Unauthorized Payments are summarized in the Forensic Accounting Report.
Additional Improper Disbursements to D. Hampton
103. D. Hampton also received unauthorized reimbursements from the Bank for
personal expenses (the “D. Hampton Reimbursements”) unrelated to his employment.
104. In January of 2017, D. Hampton received reimbursement from the Bank into his
personal account for laptops in the amount of $3,365.98.
105. D. Hampton failed to provide any documentation for the laptops and the Bank
does not have any newly purchased laptops in its possession.
106. D. Hampton also received reimbursement to his personal account for the purchase
of a tent in the amount of $969.98.
107. D. Hampton failed to provide any documentation for the tent and the Bank does
not have the tent in its possession.
108. Altogether the D. Hampton Reimbursements totaled $4,335.96.
109. These payments were effected by Flippin and D. Hampton through their
unauthorized and improper access to and use of the Bank’s computer systems.
Additional Unauthorized Health Insurance-Related Disbursements
110. In addition to the above improper disbursements and D. Hampton
Reimbursements, Flippin and D. Hampton received unauthorized payments (the “Premium
Savings Payments”) related to the Bank’s health insurance policy.
111. From 2007 through 2015, the Bank had a policy of paying employees one-half of
the Bank’s savings in health insurance premiums if the employee elected not to receive coverage
under the Bank’s health insurance plan (the “Reimbursement Policy”).
13
045799/091703-63599764.5
112. The Bank terminated the Reimbursement Policy in 2015.
113. From 2013 to 2015, Flippin received payments under the Reimbursement Policy
despite electing to be covered under the Bank’s health insurance plan and failing to qualify for
the Reimbursement Policy.
114. Although the Bank terminated the Reimbursement Policy in 2015, Flippin
continued to receive payments from the Bank under the now terminated policy from 2015 to
2017.
115. In all, Flippin received $29,400.00 in unauthorized payments from the Bank under
the Reimbursement Policy.
116. From January of 2007 through June of 2010, D. Hampton, despite electing to
receive health insurance under the Bank’s plan and not qualifying for the Reimbursement Policy,
received payments totaling $32,438.40.
117. Further, although the Reimbursement Policy was terminated in 2015, D. Hampton
received improper and unauthorized payments from the Bank totaling $18,824.80 between 2015
and 2017, under the Reimbursement Policy.
118. The Premium Savings Payments totaled at least $80,663.20.
119. Altogether, the Unauthorized Payments, D. Hampton Reimbursements, and
Premium Savings Payments (collectively, the “Improper Disbursements”) totaled at least
$930,815.80.
Improper Disbursements to S. Hampton
120. Flippin and D. Hampton also made improper disbursements to S. Hampton.
121. S. Hampton was an account holder on at least four (4) savings, checking, and loan
accounts with D. Hampton, each of which received improper disbursements, and from which she
14
045799/091703-63599764.5
benefitted.
122. S. Hampton also received unauthorized direct payments made at various times by
Flippin or D. Hampton from Bank funds, including, but not limited to, a disbursement made by
D. Hampton of $100.00 on August 3, 2016.
123. Upon information and belief, S. Hampton received regular unauthorized direct
payments made at various times by Flippin or D. Hampton, based on statements made by Flippin
in text messages to S. Hampton.
124. S. Hampton was aware of these unauthorized direct payments.
125. Flippin, D. Hampton, and S. Hampton were aware of, and conspired to make, the
foregoing unauthorized payments.
126. These payments were effected by Flippin and D. Hampton through their
unauthorized and improper access to and use of the Bank’s computer systems.
Computer Fraud and Fraudulent Alteration of Data
127. On at least one occasion, Flippin intentionally altered the transaction detail for
Account #XXXX80 of D. Hampton and S. Hampton for the time period July 1, 2016 through
February 6, 2017 by printing the bank statement for that Account to a PDF file, transferring the
document to a Word document, and then changing the transaction entries to show fewer
transactions and lower amounts deposited than had actually occurred.
128. The differences between the actual Account entries and the fraudulently altered
Account entries included the following:
• The original version had 42 total transactions and the revised version contained 24
total transactions.
• The original version had a total of $26,430.65 deposited during the statement
period; the revised version contained a total of $17,143.71.
15
045799/091703-63599764.5
• The ending balance was the same between both versions. However, as noted
above, this indicated more funds were available to withdraw (and were
withdrawn) by D. Hampton.
• Items listed as “Credit memo” on the original version were changed to “Deposit”
on the revised version.
129. Flippin’s fraudulent alteration of these bank statements concealed the actual
number of transactions and the actual amount of deposits and withdrawals by D. Hampton and S.
Hampton with regard to Account #XXXX80.
130. Flippin provided these fraudulently altered bank statements to Missouri state bank
examiners, but did not advise them that she had fraudulently altered the statements.
131. Flippin, D. Hampton, S. Hampton, and Philbert were aware of, and conspired to
make and conduct the Improper Disbursements.
132. Flippin, D. Hampton, S. Hampton, and Philbert concealed the Improper
Disbursements and transactions from the Bank.
133. These Improper Disbursements were effected by Flippin through her unauthorized
and improper access to and use of the Bank’s computer systems.
134. The Bank was unaware of the Improper Disbursements. All of the above and
foregoing actions of the Defendants are collectively referred to herein as the “Fraudulent
Actions.”
Count I
(COMPUTER FRAUD AND
ABUSE ACT – 18 U.S.C. § 1030(G))
COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, and for its cause of
action on Count I against Defendants D. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as follows:
135. Plaintiff herewith re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 134, above, as
though fully set forth herein.
16
045799/091703-63599764.5
136. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. 1030 is a cyber-
security law that outlaws conduct that uses computer systems to cause a loss or damage to others.
137. Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA provides that it is a crime for any person to
“knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or
exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains
anything of value.”
138. Subsection 1030(b) of the CFAA also makes it a crime to attempt or conspire to
commit any of these offenses.
139. Computers used by or for a financial institution are included as a “protected
computer” under Section 1030(e)(2)(A) of the CFAA.
140. The Bank is a “financial institution” as defined and protected under Section
1030(e)(4)(A) of the CFAA because it is “an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.”
141. Section 1030(g) of the CFAA provides in relevant part that “(a)ny person who
suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against
the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief.”
142. Under Section 1030(e)(12), the Bank is a “person” entitled to bring a civil action
under the CFAA for the recovery of any loss caused by the Defendants.
143. Section 1030(e)(11), in relevant part, defines “loss” broadly to include “any
reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a
damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior
to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred. . . .”
144. Flippin’s and D. Hampton’s actions in accessing the Bank’s computers enabled
17
045799/091703-63599764.5
them to conduct the Fraudulent Actions and make the Improper Disbursements.
145. The Defendants’ Fraudulent Actions in connection with the Improper
Disbursements are and were a violation of the CFAA and constitute a felony under state and
federal law.
146. As a direct and proximate result of the Fraudulent Actions of the Defendants in
connection with the Improper Disbursements, the Bank suffered direct monetary losses totaling
at least $930,815.80 (the “Direct Losses”)
connection with the Improper Disbursements, the Bank also suffered consequential damages that
are recoverable under Section 1030(e)(11) of the CFAA, including, but not limited to the
following (collectively, the “Consequential Losses”):
a. The cost of responding to and investigating the Defendants’ fraudulent and
unauthorized actions in connection with the Improper Disbursements;
b. The cost and fees incurred in conducting a damage assessment, including,
but not limited to, the BKD forensic accounting;
c. The adverse effects on the Bank’s reputation, standing, and ratings by and
among federal and state regulators as a result of the Improper Disbursements;
d. The loss of capital that would have otherwise been available to the Bank
for lending purposes;
e. Attorneys’ fees and related costs in connection with the response to and
investigation the Defendants’ Fraudulent Actions in connection with the Improper
Disbursements;
f. The cost of restoring the data and information that were fraudulently
18
045799/091703-63599764.5
manipulated and altered by the Defendants in the commission of their Fraudulent Actions
in connection with the Improper Disbursements; and
g. The lost time and cost of wages and salaries of Bank employees who were
required to investigate and respond to the Defendants’ actions in connection with the
Improper Disbursements.
WHEREFORE, the Bank prays this honorable Court for a judgment against Defendants
D. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, jointly and severally, in the total sum of at least $930,815.80 ,
together with interest thereon at the judgment rate, and together with attorneys' fees and costs of
collection such as are on account with the undersigned counsel for the Bank at the time of entry
of judgment hereon; and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Count II
(RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS ACT – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 - § 1965)
action on Count II against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
149. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§
1961-68 (“RICO”) permits claimants in a civil action to recover treble damages for “any person
injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
150. Section 1962(c) of RICO makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or
associated with any enterprise” to “conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of
such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
19
045799/091703-63599764.5
151. RICO defines a “pattern of racketeering activity” as requiring “at least two acts of
racketeering activity” within ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Racketeering activity is defined in
18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B) to include wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
152. The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 prohibits anyone from “devising any
scheme” to “defraud” to obtain “money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire” for the
“purpose of executing such scheme.”
153. The money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 prohibits conducting a financial
transaction with the proceeds of specified unlawful activity “knowing that the transaction is
designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the
ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.”
154. RICO defines “enterprise” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, or other
legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. 1961(4).
155. At all relevant times, the Defendants associated in fact with each other as a family
and with others so as to constitute an “Enterprise” (“RICO Enterprise”) within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(c).
156. At all times relevant, the RICO Enterprise was engaged in, and its activities
affected, interstate and foreign commerce that involved Bank transactions that were processed
through interstate, and were subject to federal regulatory authorities outside of the State of
Missouri.
157. The RICO Enterprise had as its common purpose the making of the Improper
Disbursements to themselves and each other for their own benefit, separate and apart from their
20
045799/091703-63599764.5
association with each other at the Bank.
158. The RICO Enterprise had an ascertainable structure which functioned separate and
apart from the Fraudulent Actions. If the predicate acts ceased, the relationship of the Defendants
would remain intact.
159. The Defendants associated with the RICO Enterprise through their personal
involvement in the underlying racketeering offenses as well as through the continuous
concealment and promotion of the RICO Enterprise’s activities and their Fraudulent Actions.
160. In furtherance of the RICO Enterprise, the Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert,
committed numerous overt and predicate acts that included their Fraudulent Actions that were a
violation of federal and state laws, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S. Code § 656 (theft,
embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee); Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA
(committing a fraud by knowingly accessing a protected computer without authorization or
exceeding authorized access); Section 570.030 RSMo. (misapplication of funds of a financial
institution by officer or employee); and Section 570.030 RSMo. (stealing).
161. The principal purpose of the racketeering conspiracy was to generate money for
each other and pay their own unauthorized expenses through the operation of the RICO
Enterprise and various criminal activities, including wire fraud and money laundering.
162. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert, and others agreed to engage in a pattern of
racketeering activity using various locations including, but not limited to, the Bank’s offices
located in Moniteau County, Missouri, to further the objectives of the RICO Enterprise.
163. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert, knowingly conducted or participated,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the RICO Enterprise within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
21
045799/091703-63599764.5
164. Furthermore, these Defendants were “employed by or associated with” the RICO
Enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
165. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert, directed and managed the RICO
Enterprise’s activities, as more fully alleged throughout this Complaint, through a pattern of
racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1961(5), and 1962(c).
166. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert, conducted and participated in the RICO
Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§
1961(1), 1961(5), and 1962(c).
167. In the course of conducting and participating in their fraudulent schemes and
RICO Enterprise, these Defendants executed numerous predicate acts of racketeering activity,
including the Fraudulent Actions, which are indictable under provisions of the U.S. criminal
code enumerated in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1)(B), as more specifically alleged herein.
168. As described throughout this Complaint, these Defendants engaged in a pattern of
related and continuous predicate acts over a substantial period of time.
169. The unitary scheme began sometime in or around 2010 and continued until
Flippin and D. Hampton were terminated in February of 2017.
170. The predicate acts demonstrated a variety of unlawful activities, including the
Fraudulent Actions, each conducted in furtherance of the RICO Enterprise and the common
purpose to defraud Plaintiff and other victims and obtain in excess of one million dollars.
171. The predicate acts also had the same or similar results, participants, victims, and
methods of commission. The predicate acts are related and are not isolated events.
172. The predicate acts all had the purpose of diverting and misappropriating monies
from the Bank.
22
045799/091703-63599764.5
173. The predicate acts were committed or caused to be committed by these
Defendants, and were interrelated in that they involved using the Bank’s funds.
174. Further, on information and belief, these Defendants’ misappropriation repeatedly
involved diversion of funds for their personal benefit, and concealing their payments,
distributions, diversions of funds, and withdrawals at the Bank, to conceal the theft and
embezzlement of the Bank’s funds pursuant to their scheme.
175. By virtue of the Hamptons’, Flippin’s, and Philbert’s violation of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c), the Bank has sustained substantial injury and losses.
176. The Fraudulent Actions of the Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert in violation of
RICO were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of the Bank’s damages, which would not have
occurred without their conduct.
177. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert profited from their Fraudulent Actions and
used some proceeds to further their RICO Enterprise.
178. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert as alleged throughout the Complaint,
knowingly conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the
RICO Enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by conducting the Fraudulent
Actions, and by participating in the transfer of the Bank’s funds, making the Improper
Disbursements, preparing false bank records intended to conceal their illegal use and transfer of
funds, and knowingly accepting payments of funds for their own benefit and profit.
179. The Hamptons, Flippin, and Philbert knowingly conducted or participated,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the RICO Enterprise and the Fraudulent
Actions within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
180. At all relevant times herein, the Bank was unaware of the Fraudulent Actions of
23
045799/091703-63599764.5
these Defendants.
connection with the Improper Disbursements, the Bank suffered the Direct Losses and the
Consequential Losses, among other damages and losses.
plus threefold the damages sustained and attorneys' fees and costs of collection such at the time
of entry of judgment hereon pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1964, together with interest thereon; and
for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Count III
(FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT)
action on Count III against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
183. “To sustain a claim for false concealment in Missouri, the plaintiff must prove the
defendant’s knowledge of material facts, a duty on behalf of the defendant to make those facts
known, the defendant’s successful concealment of those facts, the defendant’s intent to induce
reliance upon its silence, actual and reasonable reliance on behalf of the plaintiff, and injury to
the plaintiff.” Margolies v. Matthew Headley Holdings, LLC, No. 05-2122, (8th May 19, 2006),
citing Keefhaver v. Kimbrell, 58 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
184. At all relevant times, the Defendants concealed their Fraudulent Actions and their
Improper Disbursements from the Bank.
24
045799/091703-63599764.5
185. The Defendants’ concealment of their Fraudulent Actions and their Improper
Disbursements constitute a fraudulent omission and a misrepresentation and fraud on the Bank
by omission.
186. The Fraudulent Actions of the Defendants and their omission and concealment of
their Fraudulent Actions and Improper Disbursements constituted ongoing false representations
to the Bank (the “Representations”).
187. The Representations were false in all respects.
188. The Defendants were aware that their Representations were false.
189. The Defendants had a duty to make the facts concerning the falsity of the
Representations and their Fraudulent Actions and Improper Disbursements known to the Bank.
190. The Defendants successfully concealed these facts.
191. The Defendants intended that the Bank rely on their Representations, and induced
the Bank to rely on the Representations.
192. At all relevant times when D. Hampton and Flippin were employed by the Bank,
the Bank was unaware of the falsity of the Representations.
193. The Bank relied on the Defendants’ Representations and the understanding that D.
Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert would not embezzle, convert, divert, or misappropriate the
Bank’s funds, or otherwise make Improper Disbursements, transfers, and transactions.
194. The Bank was reasonable in relying on the Representations.
195. As a direct and proximate result of the Fraudulent Actions and Improper
Disbursements of D. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, the Bank sustained the Direct Losses and
Consequential Losses.
25
045799/091703-63599764.5
Count IV
(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES)
action on Count IV against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
196. Plaintiff herewith re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 147 above, as
197. “In Missouri, a claim for breach of fiduciary duty has four elements: (1) the
existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties; (2) a breach of that fiduciary duty; (3)
causation; and (4) harm.” Lafarge North America, Inc. v. Discovery Group, L.L.C., No. 08-2210
(8th Cir. July 27, 2009), citing Koger v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 28 S.W.3d 405, 411 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2000).
198. D. Hampton and Flippin had a fiduciary relationship with the Bank, and owed
fiduciary duties to the Bank.
199. Defendants D. Hampton and Flippin also owed fiduciary duties to the Bank in
their capacity as executive officers of the Bank.
200. The Defendants’ fiduciary duty included a duty to notify the Bank of the
Fraudulent Actions and Improper Disbursements, and the falsity of their Representations.
26
045799/091703-63599764.5
202. The Defendants’ concealment of their Fraudulent Actions and their Improper
Disbursements constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties to the Bank.
203. The Representations were false in all respects.
204. The Defendants intended that the Bank rely on their Representations.
205. At all relevant times when D. Hampton and Flippin were employed by the Bank,
the Bank was unaware of the falsity of the Representations.
206. The Bank relied on the Defendants’ Representations and the understanding that D.
Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert would not embezzle, convert, divert, or misappropriate the
Bank’s funds, or otherwise make Improper Disbursements, transfers, and transactions.
207. The Bank was reasonable in relying on the Representations and the observance by
the Defendants of their fiduciary duties to the Bank.
Disbursements of D. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, and their breach of fiduciary duties, the
Bank sustained the Direct Losses and Consequential Losses.
D. Hampton and Philbert, jointly and severally, in the total sum of at least $930,815.80 , together
with interest thereon at the judgment rate, and together with attorneys' fees and costs of
27
045799/091703-63599764.5
Count V
(MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED)
action on Count V against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
209. Plaintiff herewith re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 147 above, as
210. In Missouri, “(a)n action for money had and received is ‘based . . . on equitable
principles permitting recovery of money from defendant that, in all justice and fairness, the
evidence shows defendant should not keep.’” Kubley v. Brooks, 141 S.W.3d 21, 29 (Mo. banc
2004).
211. “An action for money had and received is proper where the defendant received
money from the plaintiff under circumstances that in equity and good conscience call for
defendant to pay it to plaintiff.” Palo v. Stangler, 943 S.W.2d 683, 684 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997).
213. As a result, the Defendants received the Improper Disbursements and the benefit
of the Improper Disbursements from the Bank under circumstances that in equity and good
conscience call for the Defendant to repay them to the Bank.
Disbursements to D. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, the Bank sustained the Direct Losses and
28
045799/091703-63599764.5
Count VI
(UNJUST ENRICHMENT)
action on Count VI against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
216. “There are three elements to a claim of unjust enrichment under Missouri law.
First, a plaintiff must confer a benefit and enrich a defendant. Second, the enrichment must be at
the expense of the plaintiff. Finally, the Court must determine that it would be unjust for the
defendant to retain the benefit.” Hawkins v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 4:17CV205 HEA (Mo.
E.D. Feb. 7, 2018), citing Miller v. Horn, 254 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Mo. App. 2008).
217. The Improper Disbursements conferred a benefit on the Defendants and enriched
the Defendants.
218. The Improper Disbursements and enrichment of the Defendants was at the
expense of the Bank.
219. It would be unjust for the Defendants to retain the Improper Disbursements and
the benefit of the Improper Disbursements.
Disbursements of D. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, the Bank sustained the Direct Losses and
29
045799/091703-63599764.5
Count VII
(CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO)
action on Count VII against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
222. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) prohibits conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) makes it “unlawful to conspire to violate”
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Hence, § 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to conduct the affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity that violates § 1962(c).
223. A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) intentionally omits two elements of § 1962(c),
the requirement that the defendant participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs
of the enterprise, and the requirement that the defendant participated in the enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity by committing at least two racketeering (predicate) acts.
224. A conspiracy to violate RICO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) is established if: (1)
an enterprise existed; (2) the enterprise affected interstate or foreign commerce; (3) the defendant
associated with the enterprise; and (4) the defendant objectively manifested an agreement to
participate in the affairs of the enterprise.
30
045799/091703-63599764.5
225. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to conduct the affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO defines “enterprise” to include any
“group of individuals associated in fact.” 18 U.S.C. 1961(4). “The essence of an ‘association in
fact’ is that it is not a legitimate business or other entity operating in the public eye.” U.S. v.
Lemm, 680 F.2d 1193, 1200 n. 7 (8th Cir. 1982).
226. The Fraudulent Actions of the Defendants were a violation of federal and state
laws, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S. Code § 656 (theft, embezzlement, or misapplication
by bank officer or employee); Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA (committing a fraud by
knowingly accessing a protected computer without authorization or exceeding authorized
access); Section 570.030 RSMo. (misapplication of funds of a financial institution by officer or
employee); and Section 570.030 RSMo. (stealing).
Disbursements of D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, the Bank sustained the Direct
Losses and Consequential Losses.
D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, jointly and severally, in the total sum of at least
$930,815.80 , together with interest thereon at the judgment rate, and together with attorneys'
fees and costs of collection such as are on account with the undersigned counsel for the Bank at
the time of entry of judgment hereon; and for such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
31
045799/091703-63599764.5
Count VIII
(COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY
TO EMBEZZLE BANK FUNDS
AND BREACH FIDUCIARY DUTIES)
action on Count VIII against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states
as follows:
229. The elements of a claim for conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty are (1) an
agreement or understanding by the defendants to do an unlawful act; (2) the performance of the
unlawful act pursuant to the agreement or understanding; and (3) resulting damage to the
plaintiff. See Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Midwest Inv. Advisory Services, Inc., 706
F. Supp. 708, 717 (E.D. Mo. 1989); see also Brock v. McClure, 404 S.W.3d 416, 421 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2013)
230. At all relevant times, the Defendants had an agreement or understanding to do
unlawful acts that included the making of the Improper Disbursements to themselves and each
other.
231. The unlawful acts of the Defendants included their Fraudulent Actions that were a
violation of federal and state laws, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S. Code § 656 (theft,
embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee); Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA
institution by officer or employee); and Section 570.030 RSMo. (stealing).
232. The Defendants performed the unlawful acts pursuant to their agreement and
32
045799/091703-63599764.5
understanding.
Disbursements of D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, the Bank sustained the Direct
Losses and Consequential Losses.
D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, jointly and severally, in the total sum of at least
$930,815.80 , together with interest thereon at the judgment rate, and together with attorneys'
fees and costs of collection such as are on account with the undersigned counsel for the Bank at
the time of entry of judgment hereon; and for such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Count IX
(ATTACHMENT)
action on Count IX against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
235. Section 521.010 RSMo. provides for the issuance of a Writ of Attachment against
property of a defendant. In relevant part, it provides:
521.010. Attachment, when issued — parties to — causes for. — In any court having
competent jurisdiction, the plaintiff in any civil action may have an attachment against
the property of the defendant, or that of any one or more of several defendants, in any one
or more of the following cases:
...
(12) Where the damages for which the action is brought are for injuries arising from
the commission of some felony or misdemeanor, . . .
...
33
045799/091703-63599764.5
(14) Where the debt sued for was fraudulently contracted on the part of the debtor.
236. The Defendants’ Fraudulent Actions in connection with the Improper
Disbursements are and were a violation of the CFAA and constitute a felony under state and
federal law, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S. Code § 656 (theft, embezzlement, or
misapplication of funds by a bank officer or employee); Section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA
institution by an officer or employee); and Section 570.030 RSMo. (stealing).
237. An attachment against the property of the Defendants is now appropriate because
the damages for which this action is brought are for injuries arising from the commission of
felonies by the Defendants, and because the debt sued for was fraudulently contracted on the part
of the Defendants by their fraudulent use of the Comp Time policies and Reimbursement Policy.
238. The Defendants own certain real and personal properties that should now be
subject to attachment. These include, among other assets, the real and personal properties
(collectively, the “Properties”) identified in the list attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit 1.
239. For all of the above reasons, the Properties should now be subject to a Writ of
Attachment.
WHEREFORE, the Bank prays this honorable Court for its Order directing the Clerk of
the Court to issue a Writ of Attachment as to the Properties identified herein, preventing the
Defendants from transferring, concealing, or disposing of any of the Properties without first
obtaining an Order of this Court, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
34
045799/091703-63599764.5
Count X
(APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER)
action on Count X against Defendants D. Hampton, S. Hampton, Flippin, and Philbert, states as
follows:
241. Section 515.500 et seq. of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, known as the
“Missouri Commercial Receivership Act” (the “Act”) provides for the appointment of a receiver
under the circumstances and based on the grounds set forth in the Act.
242. Pursuant to § 515.510.1(7) of the Act, this Court has the power to appoint a
receiver “(u)pon attachment of real or personal property if the property attached is . . . in danger
of waste, impairment, or destruction or if a debtor has absconded with, secreted, or abandoned
the property, and it is necessary to collect, conserve, manage, control, or protect it, or to dispose
of it promptly, or if the court determines that the nature of the property or the exigency of the
case otherwise provides cause for the appointment of a receiver.”
243. Additionally, pursuant to § 515.510.1(9) of the Act, this Court has the power to
appoint a receiver in an action against any entity if that person is insolvent or is not generally
paying the entity's debts as those debts become due unless they are the subject of bona fide
dispute;
244. Additionally, pursuant to § 515.510.1(14) of the Act, this Court has the power to
appoint a receiver to prevent irreparable injury to the person or persons requesting the
appointment of a receiver with respect to the debtor’s property.
245. Additionally, pursuant to § 521.300 RSMo., the Bank is also entitled to the
35
045799/091703-63599764.5
appointment of a receiver in connection with the writ of attachment sought in Count IX, above,
to take charge of the Defendants’ properties. Section 521.300 provides in relevant part as
follows:
521.300. Receiver appointed, by whom — oath and bond required — who

may sue on bond. — The court, or in vacation the judge, may in a proper case,
on the application of the plaintiff, appoint a receiver, who shall take an oath
faithfully to discharge his duty, and shall enter into bond to the state of Missouri,
in such sum as the court or judge may direct, and with security approved by the
court or judge, for the faithful performance of his duty as receiver, and that he
will pay over all money and account for all property which may come into his
hands by virtue of his appointment, at such times and in such manner as the court
may direct. . . .
246. The Writ of Attachment sought in Count IX, above, justifies the appointment of a
Receiver because the damages for which this action is brought are for injuries arising from the
commission of felonies by the Defendants, and because the debt sued for was fraudulently
contracted on the part of the Defendants by their fraudulent use of the Comp Time policies and
Reimbursement Policy.
247. The appointment of a Receiver to enforce a Writ of Attachment is also the least
intrusive method of preserving the Properties because the Receiver and Writ of Attachment
merely prevent the Defendants from transferring the Properties without the Receiver’s and
Court’s approval, the Defendants can continue to use the Properties, and the Receiver can take
direction from the Court on any disposition of the Properties.
248. Additionally, irreparable harm will be caused to the Bank if the Defendants are
permitted to transfer their Properties.
249. By reason of the foregoing facts, the Bank is entitled to the appointment of a
limited receiver by Order of this Court to protect and preserve the Properties so as to preserve
them for execution upon the entry of a judgment for money damages in favor of the Bank, as
36
045799/091703-63599764.5
authorized and mandated under the Act.
250. The Bank has no adequate remedy at law (other than under § 515.500 et. seq.
RSMo., Missouri Supreme Court Rule 68.02, and § 521.300 RSMo) and is in need of this
Court’s Order Appointing a Receiver to protect its interests in the Properties and to keep,
preserve, and maintain the Properties.
251. The appointment of a limited receiver pursuant to RSMo. § 515.515, Missouri
Supreme Court Rule 68.02, and § 521.300 RSMo. is appropriate for the foregoing purposes, with
the power to take all actions of a limited receiver as defined in Section 515.515, and with the
enumerated powers set forth below.
252. The Bank seeks the appointment of Charles A. Pierce as a limited receiver (the
“Receiver”). The Receiver is suitable and capable, with knowledge of the management of real
and personal properties. A true copy of a resume of the Receiver is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 2.
253. The Bank has separately filed its Motion for Appointment of Receiver and
proposed Order Appointing Receiver, and the same are herewith incorporated by reference in
this Petition.
WHEREFORE the Bank herewith prays this honorable Court for its Order providing that
Charles A. Pierce be appointed to act and serve as a limited receiver for the Properties and the
supervision of business operations and income with respect to the Properties, and specifically
providing for the following:
A. The Receiver shall have all of the powers and authority granted to
receivers under RSMo. § 515.500, et seq. (the Act) and the full power and authority to:
37
045799/091703-63599764.5
i. Assemble, take exclusive control and possession of, collect,
manage, and liquidate the Properties, and take any and all actions deemed
reasonable and appropriate by the Receiver to preserve the Properties and enforce
all rights in the Properties;
ii. Take any and all actions the Receiver deems reasonable and
appropriate to prevent waste to and to operate the business of and preserve,
secure, manage, maintain and safeguard the Properties;
iii. Enjoin all persons, firms, or corporations, and any persons acting
under their direction, or any persons or entities controlling any part of the
Properties, from in any manner disturbing the Receiver’s possession and
disposition of the Properties, or any other properties that are the subject of the
Court’s order, and ordering that such persons and entities are prohibited and
restrained from disposing of, dissipating, mishandling or misappropriating the
Properties, all until further order of the Court;
iv. Communicate with any persons on any matters related to the
Properties, and enter into any contracts, agreements, consent orders, memoranda,
or other documents as the Receiver may determine appropriate with respect to the
Properties.
v. Gain access to the books and records and all information necessary
to collect, manage and preserve the Properties;
vi. If requested by the Receiver, require all persons managing or
controlling the Properties and their agents and contractors to turn over and deliver
possession to the Receiver all of the Properties subject to this Order, without any
38
045799/091703-63599764.5
right of offset or recoupment, including: (1) all contracts and other documents
relating to the Properties, leases, and all communications and correspondence
pertinent thereto; (2) all deposits, including security deposits, and all other sums
relating to the Properties, leases, and any accountings of any of the foregoing; (3)
any and all documents pertaining to ongoing or potential litigation; (4) any and all
documents pertinent to the licenses maintained in connection with the Properties,
leases, and all communications and correspondence pertinent thereto; and (5) all
other books, records, contracts, accounts, papers and other such items of
information as will enable the effective conservation, operation and management
of the Properties;
vii. Institute, prosecute, defend, compromise, or intervene in or
become a party to such actions or proceedings in state or federal court relating to
the Properties, leases, and those necessary to recover or dispose of the Properties,
for the carrying out of the terms and provisions of the Court’s order appointing
the Receiver, and/or to defend against any action brought against the Receiver
acting in such capacity;
viii. Retain, hire, or discharge such managers, property managers,
agents, employees, servants, accountants and attorneys as may in the Receiver’s
judgment be advisable or necessary in the management, conduct, control or
custody of the Properties;
ix. Retain legal counsel to enforce the Receiver’s duties, which
counsel may be the same as counsel representing the Bank, and to retain such
other legal counsel as may be necessary to protect its interests;
39
045799/091703-63599764.5
x. Retain any other person, firm, or corporation that the Receiver
deems necessary to carry out his duties to collect or manage the Properties, or
assist in the operation of the business on the Properties, or to dispose of or
liquidate the Properties;
xi. Make such payments and disbursements, in the ordinary course of
business, as may be necessary or proper for the preservation of the Properties;
xii. Negotiate, execute, and issue, any letters of intent, lease term
sheets, commitments, and other such documents needed in connection with the
Leases.
xiii. Negotiate, execute, or obtain any disbursement agreements, title
commitments, title policies, receipts, and other such documents needed in
connection with the Properties;
xiv. Negotiate and execute any service contracts, maintenance
agreements, and similar agreements needed in connection with the Properties;
xv. Prepare and file any federal and state income, payroll, sales, real
and personal property, and similar tax returns that may be needed in connection
with the Properties and their operations, or retain any accountants or tax preparers
for this purpose, except that this authorization shall not impose any duty on the
Receiver to prepare or file any such tax returns, and the obligation to do so shall
remain with the entity or entities ordinarily responsible for doing so;
xvi. Negotiate and enter into any other new contracts with respect to
the Properties; modify existing contracts in the ordinary course of business or as
necessary to preserve, protect, manage, liquidate or dispose of the Properties; pay
40
045799/091703-63599764.5
all expenses and other obligations secured by or which may give rise to liens, and
all other outstanding obligations to suppliers and servicers in the ordinary course
of business, including obligations incurred prior to the commencement of the
receivership so long as the Receiver has determined that it is prudent to do so in
order to maintain business relationships that are beneficial to the conduct of the
receivership; make repairs necessary to the maintenance of the Properties in order
to preserve the Properties; and comply with all requirements and regulations
applicable to the Properties;
xvii. Marked and sell, dispose of or otherwise liquidate some or all of
the Properties free and clear of all liens, claims and encumbrances, incur such
expenses as may be necessary or advisable in connection therewith, and remit the
net sums to the Bank upon the entry of a judgment in favor of the Bank in this
action;
xviii. Undertake all actions specifically set forth in this Petition, as well
as to exercise the usual and customary powers afforded to a receiver under
Missouri law (except as otherwise limited by any order of this Court), until further
order of this Court.
B. All persons, firms, and corporations holding any records concerning the
Properties shall immediately turn over to the Receiver the Properties, all files, documents,
records, and instruments related to the Properties and any proceeds therefrom.
C. Pursuant to RSMo. § 515.575, immediately upon entry of the Order
appointing the Receiver, the Defendants and their, employees, managers, and all other
persons interested in the Properties are enjoined and stayed from:
41
045799/091703-63599764.5
i. Commencing or continuing (including issuing, employing, or
serving process) any judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against
the Properties, or its business operations, that was or could have been commenced
before the entry of the Order appointing the Receiver;
ii. Enforcing against the Defendants or the Properties any judgment
or order obtained before the Order appointing the Receiver;
iii. Any act to obtain possession of the Properties from the Receiver,
or to interfere with, or exercise control over, the Properties, other than the
ordinary use of the Properties as the residences of the Defendants;
iv. Any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien or claim against the
Properties except by exercise of a right of setoff, to the extent that the lien secures
a claim against the Defendants or the Properties that arose before the entry of the
Order appointing the Receiver; or
v. Any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the
Defendants or the Properties that arose before the entry of the Order appointing
the Receiver.
D. All persons who have come into possession of money paid in satisfaction
of the Properties, or any part thereof shall yield and deliver possession of the same to the
Receiver immediately upon its request thereof.
E. For all purposes the Receiver appointed by this Order shall be considered
a receiver appointed by this Court with the same rights, duties and obligations thereof and
with the same relationships to the Court and to the parties to this litigation. The
appointment of the Receiver pursuant to the request of the Bank shall in no way cause the
42
045799/091703-63599764.5
Bank to be considered the owner, manager, or otherwise responsible for the business of
the Defedants.
F. From the date of this Order, the Properties under the jurisdiction of this
Court and all persons and/or entities except the Receiver are hereby enjoined from
prosecuting suits or claims, and transferring, conveying or encumbering the Properties
without the consent of the Receiver or Order of this Court.
G. In light of the appointment of the Receiver as a limited receiver under
RSMo. § 515.515, the Receiver shall have no obligations to file such monthly reports
with the Court that are ordinarily required of a general receiver under RSMo. § 515.570.
H. The Receiver may apply at any time to the Court, with notice to all other
parties in this case, for further instruction and for further power necessary to enable the
Receiver to properly fulfill his duties.
I. No person or entity may file suit against the Receiver, in his capacity as
Receiver, unless otherwise authorized in advance by this Court.
J. When the Properties have been collected, liquidated and applied to the
indebtedness owed to the Bank, when this case has been dismissed by the Plaintiff, or
when Plaintiff consents to the Receiver’s discharge, the Receiver may request that he be
discharged from his duties in this case and the Receiver shall be so discharged by further
order of the Court.
K. The Order appointing the Receiver shall be in effect until terminated by
order of this Court and the authority granted to the Receiver shall be self-executing unless
the action specifically requires approval.
43
045799/091703-63599764.5
L. That the Receiver serves with the same bond as the Court may set in
connection with a Writ of Attachment as to the Properties.
M. Entry of the Court’s Order appointing the Receiver shall not in any
manner affect, impair or prejudice any of the other rights and remedies of the Bank or
any of the obligations and liabilities of the Defendants to the Bank under applicable law
or equity.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all matters that can be tried by a jury.
Respectfully submitted,
POLSINELLI PC
By:/s/ Michael A. Campbell ________________

MICHAEL A. CAMPBELL MO (#35392)
mcampbell@polsinelli.com
DANIEL STUART (#65216)
dstuart@polsinelli.com
100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63102
(314) 889-8000
Fax No.: (314) 231-1776
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PEOPLES BANK OF MONITEAU COUNTY
44
045799/091703-63599764.5
Exhibit 1
(PROPERTIES TO BE ATTACHED)
1. Real and personal properties owned by Defendants David Hampton and Sherry
Hampton:
(a) 150 shares of stock in Jamestown Bancshares, Inc. (the holding company
for the Bank) owned by the Hamptons, bearing Certificate Nos. 22 and 106.
(b) 55 shares of stock in Jamestown Bancshares, Inc. owned by D. Hampton
and Flippin, bearing Certificate No. 93.
(c) Real estate owned by the Hamptons located at 26779 Highway 87,
California, Missouri 65018, and more particularly described as:
All that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
lying East of Highway No. 87. And all that part of the North Half of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (except a strip of land 98 yards in
width off the South end thereof), lying East of said Highway No. 87, as surveyed
and located by the State of Missouri, all in Section 1, Township 45, Range 15.
EXCEPT All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 1, Township 45 North, Range 15 West of the 56' P.M., Moniteau County,
Missouri, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 4" iron pipe
post at the Southeast corner of Panhandle Eastern property and the Westerly right-
of-way line of Missouri Route "87" Highway; thence along the Westerly right-of-
way of said highway, S 11°27'11" W, 1011.05 feet; thence N 87°30'39" E, 82.43
feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Highway 87, and the true place of
beginning; thence continue N 87°30'39" E, 279.27 feet; thence S 2°38' W, 155.10
feet to the Northerly line of a tract of land recorded and described in Book 116,
Page 172, Moniteau County Recorder's Office; thence with said line S 88°15'33"
W, 302.83 feet to the Northwest corner of said tract described in Book 112, Page
775, said point being on the Easterly line of Missouri Route "87" Highway,
aforesaid; thence with said line. N 11°27'11" E, 155.10 feet to the place of
beginning. Containing a total of 1.04 acres, mere or less.
(d) Real estate owned by the Hamptons and Taylor J. Hampton located at 417
N. Elmwood Ave., Springfield, Missouri 65802-2434, and more particularly described as:
All of Lot eight (8), Block “E”, in Glenwood Village, a Subdivision in Greene
County, Missouri.
45
045799/091703-63599764.5
(e) A certain Note, Disclosure, and Security Agreement secured by real
property pledged to the Hamptons by Lance E. Hampton and Shelly J. Hampton under a
Deed of Trust dated April 7, 2003, located at 26855 Highway 87, California, Missouri
65018, and more particularly described as:
All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1,
Township 45 North, Range 15 West of the 5th P.M., Moniteau County, Missouri,
more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 4" iron pipe post at the
Southeast corner of Panhandle Eastern property and the Westerly right-of-way
line of Missouri Route "87" Highway; thence along the Westerly right-of-way of
said highway, S 11 degrees 27’11"W, 1011.05 feet; thence N 87 degrees 30'39"
E, 82.43 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Highway 87, and the true
place of beginning; thence continue N 87 degrees 30'39" E, 279.27 feet; thence S
2 degrees 38' W, 155.10 feet to the Northerly line of a tract of land recorded and
described in Book 116, Page 172, Moniteau County Recorder's Office; thence
with said line S 88 degrees 15'33" W, 302.83 feet to the Northwest corner of said
tract described in Book 112, Page 775, said point being on the Easterly line of
Missouri Route "87" Highway, aforesaid; thence with said line, N 11 degrees
27'11" E, 155.10 feet to the place of beginning.
(f) Properties described in a Commercial Security Agreement dated July 20,
2011 between D. Hampton, S. Hampton, and the Bank:
Equipment: All equipment including but not limited to, machinery, vehicles,
furniture, fixtures, manufacturing equipment, farm machinery and equipment,
shop equipment, office and record keeping equipment, parts, and tools. The
Property includes any equipment described in a list or schedule Debtor gives to
Secured Party, but such a list is not necessary to create a valid security interest in
all of Debtor’s equipment.
Farm Products and Supplies: All farm products including, but not limited to, all
poultry livestock and their young, along with their produce, products, and
replacements; all crops, annual or perennial, and all products of the crops; and all
feed, seed, fertilizer, medicines, and other supplies used or produced in Debtor’s
farming operations.
Specific Property Description: The Property includes, but is not limited by, the
following (if required, provide real estate description): ALL CATTLE AND
EQUIPMENT NOW OWNED AND HEREAFTER ACQUIRED.
2. Real and personal properties owned by Defendant Angela Flippin:
46
045799/091703-63599764.5
(a) Real property located at 21304 Highway 179, in Moniteau County,
Missouri, to wit:
All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10,
Township 46 North, Range 14 West of the 5th P.M., Moniteau County, Missouri,
which is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point where
the centerline of Missouri State Highway Number 179 crosses the North boundary
line of said Quarter; thence West along the North line of said Quarter 7.60 chains;
thence Southerly parallel with the centerline of said Highway 5.00 chains; thence
Easterly in a line parallel with the North line of said Quarter to the centerline of
said Highway; thence Northerly along the centerline to the PLACE OF
BEGINNING. EXCEPT land conveyed to the State of Missouri for Highway
purposes.
(b) 55 shares of stock in Jamestown Bancshares, Inc. owned by D. Hampton
and Flippin, bearing Certificate No. 93. The advertised sale price of the stock would
indicate a value of no more than $137,500.00.
3. Real property owned by Defendant Russell Philbert:
BEG 340 S OF CENTER SEC 1 S 240 TO RT M NE ALONG M 372 NW 160 SW 253

TO POB
Parcel ID No. 1401010004004003
47
045799/091703-63599764.5
Missouri Western Civil Cover Sheet Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev 09/10)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CIVIL COVER SHEET
This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in
September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The
information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required
by law. This form is authorized for use only in the Western District of Missouri.
The completed cover sheet must be saved as a pdf document and filed as an attachment to the
Complaint or Notice of Removal.
Plaintiff(s): Defendant(s):
First Listed Plaintiff: First Listed Defendant:
People's Bank of Moniteau County ; David Hampton ;
County of Residence: Outside This District County of Residence: Moniteau County
Additional Defendants(s):
Sherry Hampton ;
Angela L. Flippin ;
Russell Philbert ;
County Where Claim For Relief Arose: Moniteau County
Plaintiff's Attorney(s): Defendant's Attorney(s):

Michael A Campbell ( People's Bank of Moniteau County)
Polsinelli PC
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1000
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Phone: 314-552-6805
Fax:
Email: mcampbell@polsinelli.com
Daniel A. Stuart ( People's Bank of Moniteau County)

Polsinelli PC
900 West 48th Place, Suite 900
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Phone: 816-753-1000
Fax: 816-753-1536
Email: dstuart@polsinelli.com
Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)
Citizenship of Principal Parties (Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff: N/A
Defendant: N/A
Case 2:18-cv-04099-WJE Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 2

http://webutils.mow.uscourts.gov/JS-44/cvcover.html 5/18/2018
Missouri Western Civil Cover Sheet Page 2 of 2
Origin: 1. Original Proceeding
Nature of Suit: 470 Civil RICO Actions

Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(g) Section 1030(g) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(CFAA) 18 U.S.C. Section 1961-1965 the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Section 428.005, et seq. RSMo. Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act Section 521.010, et seq.
RSMo. Writ of Attachment as applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 section 515.500, et
seq. RSMo. for appointment of a receiver under Missouri Commercial Receivership Act
Requested in Complaint
Class Action: Not filed as a Class Action
Monetary Demand (in Thousands): 1017477.
Jury Demand: Yes
Related Cases: Is NOT a refiling of a previously dismissed action
Signature: Michael A. Campbell
Date: 05/18/2018
If any of this information is incorrect, please close this window and go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form to make the correction and
generate the updated JS44. Once corrected, print this form, sign and date it, and submit it with your new civil action.
Case 2:18-cv-04099-WJE Document 1-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 2

http://webutils.mow.uscourts.gov/JS-44/cvcover.html 5/18/2018

People&#39;s Bank v. Hampton

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

People&#39;s Bank v. Hampton

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

PEOPLES BANK OF MONITEAU COUNTY, )

Hampton, Angela L. Flippin, and Russell Philbert, states as follows:

1. This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, a state-chartered Missouri bank,

disbursed funds to themselves and others totaling at least $930,815.80 .

§ 515.500 et seq. RSMo.

the Western District of the United States District Court.

residents of the State of Missouri.

5. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

6. Plaintiff Peoples Bank of Moniteau County (hereinafter the “Bank" or

7. Defendant David Hampton (hereinafter “D. Hampton”) is an individual residing

8. Defendant Sherry Hampton (hereinafter “S. Hampton,” and together with D.

Hampton, collectively, the “Hamptons”) is an individual residing in Moniteau County,

9. Defendant Angela L. Flippin (hereinafter “Flippin”) is an individual residing in

of the Bank. Flippin is the daughter of D. Hampton.

10. Defendant Russell Philbert (hereinafter “Philbert”) is an individual residing in

Cole County, Missouri.

12. Flippin began employment at the Bank on February 1, 1993 as a computer

14. Flippin also served as Board Secretary for the Bank.

15. D. Hampton was named as President of the Bank on May 1, 1990.

but his responsibilities remained the same.

17. Flippin is D. Hampton’s and S. Hampton’s daughter.

19. Flippin’s responsibilities at the Bank included human resources, payroll,

process payment reimbursements.

outside accounting firm.

resource systems for the Bank.

27. In conducting their investigation, BKD reviewed numerous Bank records,

and other records.

Unauthorized Compensation Time Disbursements

were not entitled to Comp Time payments.

employed by the Bank.

with the Bank.

Bank’s employee benefits insurance account.

a pattern of abuse of the Bank’s Comp Time system.

her authorized salary in 2014.

her authorized salary in 2015.

Christmas Day (Sunday).

2016, totaling $148,546.69 in addition to her authorized salary.

2017, totaling $16,576.02 in addition to her authorized salary.

disbursements related to Comp Time totaling approximately $473,700.00, in addition to her

Time disbursements totaling at least $637,120.06.

Hampton for the years 2010 through 2017.

Comp Time disbursements totaling at least $164,028.95.

improper access to the Bank’s computer systems.

52. Starting in March of 2014, Flippin began making disbursements, typically on

payroll disbursement dates, that had nothing to do with payroll.

parties on the account.

Kamden Flippin were the named parties on the account.

deposited into Account #XXXX06.

61. These $3,508.00 in deposits continued as recurring, automatic, semi-monthly

disbursements until February 2015.

Personal Accounts to a total of $1,808.00.

Personal Accounts to $3,308.00.

Personal Accounts to $3,501.56.

Personal Accounts to $4,301.56.

firm to handle payroll.

unauthorized and improper access to the Bank’s computer systems.

Improper Reimbursement of Personal Expenses

assigned to Flippin in 2015.

73. These expenses were personal in nature.

interest, related to the improper personal transactions.

coming from personal accounts under Flippin’s control or ownership.

Employee Benefits Account to D. Hampton’s Account #XXXX80. These included a transfer on

People's Bank v. Hampton

People's Bank v. Hampton