Former Booster Club Treasurer Answers Wire Fraud Charges in Alleged $400,000 Diversion
Julie Hanway Molina, 56, has responded to four counts of wire fraud alleging she diverted about $400,000 from a booster club for personal expenses, according to NBC Los Angeles.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 4:52 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 4:52 p.m. ETFirst report
Former Booster Club Treasurer Charged With Wire Fraud Over Alleged $400,000 Diversion
A former high school football booster club treasurer has been charged with four counts of wire fraud, the Department of Justice said, according to NBC Los Angeles. The case is at the charging stage and remains undecided.
The department alleges that Julie Hanway Molina, 56, diverted about $400,000 from the booster club to pay for her home mortgage, credit card bills and other personal expenses, and sent emails with false treasurer reports to cover up the unauthorized payments, NBC Los Angeles reported.
The charge is an allegation. No finding or plea has been reported, and the matter has not been resolved.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 20:53current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 20:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.