Guilty of Arson & Fraud on Public
GoFundMe Request Based on Fake Claim of Racial Animus
Posted on October 2, 2025 by Barry Zalma
Post 5199
You’re reading from the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling until you reach the paywall. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button above.
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g6ZFjpA5 and at https://lnkd.in/gEz-ykmS
An Attempt to Profit the Public by Setting Fire to his Own Food Truck Fails
Avonte Ahikim Hartsfield burned down his own food truck and falsely reported that he was the victim of arson in October 2021. He then created a GoFundMe campaign titled “Rebuilding After a Series of Hate Crimes,” claiming he was a victim of hate crimes and arson. The campaign raised $102,276 from more than 2,000 donors.
In The People v. Avonte Ahikim Hartsfield, D084114, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division (September 24, 2025) affirmed the conviction.
FACTS
Investigation and Evidence:
Hartsfield’s claims of being a victim of hate crimes were found to be false.
Legal Proceedings:
Hartsfield was charged with arson, insurance fraud, presenting a false claim to insurance, presenting false information supporting an insurance claim, and grand theft. He was convicted of all charges and sentenced to five years and four months in prison.
LAW
Grand Theft by False Pretenses:
To prove theft by false pretenses the prosecution must show that the misrepresentation must materially influence the owner to hand over the property, but it does not need to be the only reason for the transfer.
Substantial Evidence Supported the Conviction for Grand Theft by False Pretenses
The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the reasonable inference that donors gave money to Hartsfield in reliance on his false representations about being a victim of arson and a hate crime.
The appellate court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support a reasonable inference that donors transferred funds in reliance on Hartsfield’s misrepresentation that he was an arson victim.
Because there was substantial evidence to support the reasonable inference that donors gave money to Hartsfield in reliance on his false representations about being a victim of arson and a hate crime.
ZALMA OPINION
Arson is a violent form of fraud. Firefighters and nearby people are injured and die in arson fires. Mr. Hartsfield defrauded the public by claiming he was the victim of a hate crime and not only sought to profit the value of his food truck from his insurer he begged the public to pay him as the victim of racists when, in truth, he actually set the fire himself. He will serve the full sentence rendered and be required to pay restitution to those he defrauded.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.