Roth Hit With New Allegations : Inquiry: O.C. supervisor is accused of litany of felonies as judge orders his bank records released to prosecutors.

Local prosecutors, leveling their most serious accusations to date against one of Orange County’s most powerful politicians, disclosed Monday that they suspect Supervisor Don R. Roth of perjury, theft of public funds, campaign money laundering, obstruction of justice and other possible felonies.

The litany of allegations came in an affidavit that prosecutors filed to secure access to Roth’s personal bank records. Authorities served the warrants on two Orange County banks Monday morning, demanding copies of records that may shed light on Roth’s financial relationship with at least five companies that have had business before the Board of Supervisors.

Approached outside his office, Roth told a reporter that “I have nothing to say” about the affidavit.

One of Roth’s attorneys, Dana Reed, characterized the allegations in the court filing as “highly inflammatory language” used to gain access to the supervisor’s bank records. “It clearly isn’t accurate. Obviously, there’s no substance to any of it,” Reed said.

Roth has denied any wrongdoing in the past, and prosecutors--now into their ninth month of an influence-peddling probe prompted by articles in The Times last spring--have not formally charged the 71-year-old supervisor with any crimes.

Monday’s 27-page affidavit, however, offers a powerfully worded blueprint for criminal charges that authorities may ultimately pursue in the high-profile case. The affidavit escalates the case against Roth from an investigation of misdemeanor reporting and conflict-of-interest violations to possible felonies involving his private and public affairs.

In asserting the need to obtain information from Roth’s savings and checking records at California Federal Bank in Santa Ana and American Commerce National Bank in Anaheim, prosecutors detailed a host of questionable transactions by Roth that have been disclosed publicly in recent months.

These include Roth’s double-billing of a trip to Europe, funded by a bistate transportation agency; his apparent acceptance of landscaping work, company stock, and other unreported gifts from local business people; and his alleged backdating of a rental agreement now critical to the probe.

Prosecutors recounted their interviews and evidence on the backdating issue under the heading of “conspiracy to obstruct justice.”

The court documents also raise one previously undisclosed allegation: that Roth falsified a home mortgage loan application, claiming that he made $4,000 a month as a consultant. In the affidavit, the district attorney’s office said it has found no evidence that Roth actually received such a fee but implied that he may have made the claim to meet minimum income loan requirements.

If Roth did receive the consulting fee, as claimed in his application to the American Commerce Mortgage Co., authorities said he might then be in violation of other state and federal laws because the income did not show up on either his tax returns or on his state-required political disclosure statements.

Authorities, working with the Orange County Grand Jury, have been trying to determine whether Roth engaged in a pattern of influence peddling, trading political favors for thousands of dollars in trips, flight upgrades, home improvements, an $8,500 interest-free loan and other unreported gifts.

A former mayor of Anaheim, Roth is widely considered one of the most influential politicians in Orange County, with a strong base of support built around Disneyland and its home city. He has made pro-business positions a cornerstone of his career, arguing with vehemence that fewer regulations on business will mean a better economy for Orange County.

But it is Roth’s ties to local businesses that have now drawn prosecutors’ scrutiny, threatening the political career and future of a man once deemed a virtual certainty for reelection to the county’s highest board in 1994.

Roth’s own attorney has acknowledged that the supervisor may have inadvertently failed to report some gifts and then voted on matters affecting the donors. Under state law, such violations can be prosecuted as misdemeanors.

But the potential crimes raised Monday--including money laundering, theft of public funds, perjury, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion--can be prosecuted as felonies. That would mean stiffer potential penalties and a greater likelihood of expulsion from office for a politician if convicted.

Assistant Dist. Atty. Wallace J. Wade, overseeing the case, said prosecutors sought the search warrant “to seek evidence that one or more crimes may have been committed. . . . These are areas (in the affidavit) that we’re looking at, and clearly that’s why we want the bank records.”

In an interview, Wade said the office has not yet reached any conclusions on whether or not to file charges in the case, but he said he hopes that a decision will come “fairly quickly.”

That could change, however, if Roth’s bank records lead investigators in “other directions,” he said. Authorities expect the two banks to turn over the records in batches as they are collected in coming days, Wade said.

The affidavit alleged that Roth:

* “Laundered” money through an Anaheim travel agency owned by a friend, Jim Ort, who arranged a tour of European train technology for Roth and a delegation of local business people in 1990. Roth double-billed the trip to both the California--Nevada Super-Speed Train Commission, a publicly funded agency, and to his own campaign, documents have shown.

Prosecutors maintained that Roth’s bank records will not only verify the double-billing, “but will also tend to establish Roth’s intent to defraud the SST Commission (and) misuse his campaign funds for personal gain.”

The affidavit noted that Roth paid the money back to his campaign in June, 1992, soon after the double-billing was first disclosed in The Times.

“It is my belief that Supervisor Don Roth made this payment in an attempt to cover up his wrongdoing in obtaining over-reimbursement from his own campaign funds and from the SST Commission,” investigator Douglas S. Miller wrote in the affidavit.

* Perjured himself repeatedly on forms that the state requires politicians to submit on their economic interests and receipt of gifts. The reporting is designed to guard against conflict-of-interest abuses in government.

The affidavit alleged that Roth failed to report that the Baldwin Co., a major Orange County developer, gave him free landscaping at his Anaheim Hills home in 1990; that Harvey Englander, a prominent political consultant who has received $1 million in campaign funds from Roth for campaign work, gave him a 2% stake in a fledgling sunscreen company in 1990, or that he received what amounted to an $8,500 interest-free loan from the Dougher family of Laguna Beach.

* Conspired to “obstruct justice” in his dealings with the Dougher family by backdating a rental agreement that he held with them.

After the breakup of his marriage in mid-1990, Roth moved into a Dougher trailer park in Anaheim but did not pay any rent until he moved out, about 17 months later. The total debt amounted to $8,500.

Roth has maintained that he always intended to pay rent, and he offered as evidence an agreement--dated Aug. 15, 1990--that stipulated he would pay $500-a-month rent after moving out.

But Donald J. Dougher has acknowledged to The Times that this document was actually signed more than a year later, after questions first surfaced about Roth’s relationship with the Dougher family. A handwritten note indicates that Roth was the one who initiated the backdating.

In the affidavit, prosecutors said the backdated document “may constitute evidence of an attempt by Supervisor Don Roth to conspire with others to obstruct justice by manufacturing evidence.”

A few days before the agreement was backdated, Roth voted with his fellow supervisors to overturn a Planning Commission decision and approve a $5-million condominium project on land owned by the Doughers, who had contributed to his political campaigns.

Roth had also discussed the vote with the Doughers on at least one of three trips to Catalina Island that the family hosted for him, according to accounts of the trip in Dougher business records.

The search warrant executed Monday came only after a breakdown in talks between prosecutors and Roth’s lawyers over granting investigators access to Roth’s bank records.

Reed vowed publicly in November that Roth would voluntarily turn over bank records in his possession to assist in the investigation against him.

Investigators gave Roth a release to sign for access to the records. But neither Roth nor his lawyers ever returned the release, investigators said in the affidavit. That prompted authorities to go to Superior Court Judge John J. Ryan Saturday to ask him to sign a search warrant ordering the search.

Attorney Reed said the district attorney’s request was too broad.

Prosecutors “basically asked Don to voluntarily waive his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and Don’s attorneys--myself included--recommended that he not do that,” Reed said.

Reed dismissed the strong allegations raised in the affidavit as “highly inflammatory language” used by prosecutors to get into Roth’s bank records. “If they didn’t exaggerate and use highly inflammatory language, the judge wouldn’t have granted the search warrant,” he said.