#

Continuing the trend out of Attorney General John Formella’s office, Geno Marconi’s criminal co-defendant, Bradley Cook, is entering into a plea deal that will keep him out of jail.

It’s been just over a year since Marconi, Cook, and Marconi’s wife, New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, were indicted on felonies for their alleged roles in a scandal involving Marconi’s actions as director of the Division of Ports and Harbors.

But in the last month, both Marconi and Hantz Marconi walked away with plea deals that imposed minimal punishment. Hantz Marconi even got to keep her law license and has returned to her job on the Supreme Court.

Cook, the former chairman of the Division of Ports and Harbors Advisory Council, was indicted last year on one Class B felony charge of perjury, as well as two counts of Class A misdemeanor false swearing, as part of the case against former Ports Director Geno Marconi.

Tuesday afternoon, Cook’s lawyer, Anthony Naro, filed notice of an intent to enter into a plea agreement. Under the deal, Cook will plead guilty to one Class B misdemeanor for obstructing government administration. He won’t serve any jail time, but he will pay a $1,200 fine.

Cook allegedly accepted copies of Pease Development Authority Vice Chair Neil Levesque’s vehicle registrations from Marconi. Last week, Marconi pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for violating the Driver Privacy Act as part of his plea agreement. Marconi paid $2,000 and received a 30-day suspended jail sentence.

Marconi’s deal came two weeks after Hantz Marconi agreed to plead no contest to a Class B misdemeanor for allegedly trying to get Gov. Chris Sununu involved in the investigation. Her punishment was a fine and a rapid return to the court.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office reportedly investigated Marconi for years. It has emerged from court filings that investigators were looking into allegations that Marconi took illegal kickbacks and engaged in COVID relief fraud. They also reportedly looked at a 20-year-old embezzlement case involving other former Ports employees.

What do those accusations all have in common?  Investigators never produced evidence to charge Marconi.

Geno Marconi may be a free man after Friday’s plea deal let him off with a $2,000 fine, but Pease Development Authority Vice Chair Neil Levesque said the truth is Marconi ran an “organized criminal conspiracy” as New Hampshire’s ports director.

Marconi pleaded guilty to one Class A misdemeanor count of violating the Driver Privacy Act for allegedly obtaining Levesque’s vehicle registration and sharing it with Bradley Cook, the former chair of a harbor advisory committee. Levesque said he is the victim of retaliation because he helped uncover Marconi’s various criminal schemes.

“I was but one witness who uncovered what I believe to be vast wrongdoing by the defendant. I was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury to testify to what I knew, and I complied with my duty to provide that testimony,” Levesque said in a prepared statement. “I was subsequently the victim of retaliation as I, and others, worked to disclose what I believe to be a sophisticated, organized criminal enterprise run by the defendant.”

Levesque did not respond to NHJournal’s request that he elaborate on the accusations, which Marconi’s defense attorney, Richard Samdperil, called baseless.

“After four and a half years of investigation, including going through his personal finances, his family’s finances, his computer and phone, and months of interviews and similar proceedings, the state has never charged him with a criminal conspiracy or enterprise. It’s a baseless accusation,” Samdperil told NHJournal.

According to Samdperil, the state agreed to drop five criminal charges, including two felonies, that Attorney General John Formella originally brought against Marconi. The one charge to which Marconi agreed to plead guilty stems from his attempts to determine if Levesque had a conflict of interest, Samdperil claimed.

“He now acknowledges the Driver Privacy Act does not allow that,” Samdperil said.

Marconi told Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff that he is taking responsibility for his actions by pleading to the misdemeanor. The deal includes the fine, a 30-day jail sentence suspended for a year, and the stipulation that Marconi resign his post as ports director.

Marconi and Levesque were at odds for years before the charges were brought, as Levesque raised concerns about Marconi’s management at Rye Harbor, among his other responsibilities. The PDA conducted a third-party investigation into operations, which did not result in any criminal charges.

Levesque claims he feared for his safety after crossing Marconi.

“When it became clear that the defendant abused his power to spy on me, I was advised by the Attorney General’s Office to be physically careful because the actual physical safety of me and my family could be at risk. I have spent the past four years looking over my shoulder as a result. It is difficult to express the degree to which this kind of fear occupies the mind and interferes with the activities of daily life,” Levesque said.

Levesque hopes the full story will soon come out, with evidence to back up his claims that Marconi was operating a criminal conspiracy.

Marconi was placed on leave in April 2024 when the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office opened an investigation. But Samdperil said the investigation started in early 2021. At the time, two people who worked at the ports complained about Marconi to Formella, who was then Gov. Chris Sununu’s counsel, according to court records. Formella was nominated to be Sununu’s attorney general later in the spring of 2021.

Court records reveal the state wanted to introduce evidence that Marconi was investigated for allegedly taking kickbacks and engaging in COVID relief fraud. He was never charged with any crimes related to those inquiries. Instead, the charges were all connected to Marconi sharing Levesque’s vehicle registrations, which are considered private records under the law. Cook, who received the documents, has his own trial set for early next year.

This month, Ruoff ruled that even vehicle registrations submitted as part of an official application are documents covered by the Driver Privacy Act. Levesque submitted copies of his car and boat registrations for his pier permit application, which Marconi oversees, according to court records. In a motion filed two weeks ago, Samdperil pointed out that the PDA itself continues to make car and boat registrations for pier permits public documents as part of the board’s regular meeting proceedings.

Formella said in a statement that Marconi’s guilty plea shows the law applies to public servants, no matter how powerful.

“Public service is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right. Every public official must be held to a high standard and comply with the law,” said Formella. “This case demonstrates that accountability applies equally to all, regardless of position or relationship. The Department of Justice will continue to enforce the law fairly and independently to protect the public’s trust in its state government.”

Formella issued a similar statement after Marconi’s wife, New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz, agreed to plead no contest to a single count of abuse of office in the wake of his investigation into her behavior regarding her husband’s case.

Hantz Marconi faced prison time for allegedly trying to get Sununu to intervene in her husband’s investigation last year. But Hantz Marconi’s plea deal allowed her to plead no contest to one Class B misdemeanor and pay a $1,200 fine.

She was back on the Supreme Court bench a week after her sentencing.

In both cases, the Marconis will not serve any jail time, and both are eligible for their state pensions.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office wants to tell jurors about allegations of “covert ops,” kickbacks, and COVID fraud in Geno Marconi’s upcoming trial.

Only one problem: Those aren’t the charges he’s facing.

The former state ports director is a month away from trial on charges of illegally obtaining the private driving records of Pease Development Authority Vice Chair Neil Levesque and destroying a voicemail connected to the investigation. It’s a case that has seemed curiously thin from the beginning.

But new filings from the Attorney General’s Office made public this week reveal that Marconi was originally under investigation for “improprieties” involving Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding. He was also suspected of taking money from a contractor who did work at Rye Harbor.

Marconi was placed on leave last April as the Attorney General’s Office began its investigation into multiple allegations of illegal activity. Even though those allegations did not result in criminal charges, prosecutors now want to introduce them as evidence at trial.

According to Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham’s motion filed in Rockingham County Superior Court, Marconi was tipped off about the COVID and kickback investigations by witnesses, giving him time to destroy evidence and frustrate the probe.

Cheri Patterson, chief of marine fisheries for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, called Marconi after her office received a subpoena for documents in the CARES Act investigation, according to Fincham. After speaking with Marconi, Patterson told investigators they should look at documents beyond those sought through the subpoena.

Similarly, contractor Greg Bauer called Marconi after investigators started asking him questions about any payment agreements he had with Marconi.

“Bauer’s older brother is also friends with the defendant. Bauer had performed various work at the harbor by permission of the defendant and had previously gotten permission from the defendant for the storage of construction items in the past. Bauer has performed work at the harbor for approximately 40 years,” Fincham wrote in his motion.

Marconi allegedly deleted voicemails from Bauer and Patterson, according to Fincham.

Fincham also wants to introduce evidence that Marconi and Levesque were in conflict over then-Rye Harbormaster Leo Axtin. Levesque complained about Axtin’s management, which resulted in an internal investigation. Marconi was upset by the investigation and sought to retaliate against Levesque, according to Fincham.

Marconi allegedly texted Rye Harbormaster Mandy Huff and asked about Levesque’s pier permit.

[Marconi]: “Has Neil gotten his pier use permit yet?”
Huff: “Yes.” “Would you like a copy?” “Revoke?”
[Marconi]: “Yes, please. With a copy of the boat reg and Fish and Game license and his car reg.”
Huff: “OK.”
[Marconi]: “Covert op.”

Marconi emailed the documents to Bradley Cook, then chairman of the Harbor Advisory Committee, with the message: “Captain Cook, as requested. We can discuss later.”

Cook is charged with receiving the documents and is scheduled for trial early next year.

Marconi, for his part, is including Attorney General John Formella on the list of witnesses he intends to call at trial. The Attorney General’s Office is fighting to quash Formella’s subpoena, and Marconi’s legal team has not given a reason for why they want to put Formella on the stand.

Marconi’s wife, Supreme Court Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, pushed to force Formella to testify at her criminal trial. Hantz Marconi was accused of trying to get Gov. Chris Sununu to stop the investigation into her husband. In her case, the Attorney General’s Office was accused of trying to hide the fact that Formella instigated the investigation into the sitting justice.

A ruling on whether Formella would be forced to testify was pending when the case suddenly resolved with a plea agreement. The fully negotiated deal allowed Hantz Marconi to plead no contest to a misdemeanor, pay a $1,200 fine, and keep her job on the Supreme Court. And now, there is no possibility Formella must take the witness stand — at least not for Hantz Marconi.

Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi can now resume her duties on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, two days after her no-contest plea deal ended the criminal case against her, instigated by Attorney General John Formella.

Hantz Marconi cleared the final hurdle Thursday when the Supreme Court issued an order reinstating her law license. The court agreed with the Attorney Discipline Office that since Hantz Marconi is not guilty of a “serious crime,” there is no reason to withhold her license.

“We conclude that criminal solicitation (misuse of position) is not a ‘serious crime’ because it does not include, as a necessary element, interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, or theft. Accordingly, we lift the respondent’s interim suspension and reinstate her to the practice of law, effective immediately,” the court ruled.

Under the state’s attorney discipline rules, Hantz Marconi’s license would have been in jeopardy if she were convicted of a serious crime. But the deal the Attorney General’s Office signed off on required a prosecutor to state in court that her no-contest plea to a Class B misdemeanor did not count as a conviction for a “serious crime.”

Confronted on Wednesday with news that the woman he prosecuted would likely be back on the bench 48 hours later, Formella said, “It’s not a decision we were aware would happen.”

Hantz Marconi agreed to an interim suspension last year when she was first indicted on two felonies and five Class A misdemeanors for allegedly trying to get Gov. Chris Sununu and Pease Development Authority Chair Steve Duprey to interfere with or stop the criminal investigation into her husband, former Ports Director Geno Marconi. At the time, she was also placed on administrative leave from her job on the court.

The plea deal she reached this week required prosecutors to dismiss all seven original indictments and bring one new misdemeanor count alleging she tried to get Sununu to improperly review her husband’s investigation during a June 6, 2024, conversation. She reportedly made an appointment to speak with Sununu about what she viewed as the political nature of the case against her husband and the fact that it was preventing her from doing her job. Hantz Marconi had been recusing herself from cases involving the Department of Justice for several months while her husband was under investigation.

Hantz Marconi denied wrongdoing during her no-contest plea hearing but acknowledged prosecutors could likely prove their case at trial. Before meeting with Sununu, Hantz Marconi said Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald told her she had every right to discuss her situation with the governor.

Sununu reportedly told Formella he saw nothing improper about the conversation. But the attorney general launched his own investigation into the judge, asking witnesses whether Hantz Marconi had told Sununu she thought he was “weak” and “very political,” according to court records.

Moments after her plea on Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing her to return to work once her law license is reinstated. On Wednesday, the Attorney Discipline Office agreed with her attorney, Richard Guerriero, that the license should be reinstated. Thursday’s order from the court was the final hurdle.

Hantz Marconi still faces possible sanctions or a reprimand from either the Attorney Discipline Office or the Judicial Conduct Committee. But thanks to the plea deal from Formella’s office, Hantz Marconi has regained both her law license and her seat on the bench.

Thursday’s order was issued by five substitute judges, all from the Superior Court, who were assigned to act in place of the regular Supreme Court justices for matters related to Hantz Marconi. That arrangement was necessitated last year when the four other Supreme Court justices recused themselves from her case. Hantz Marconi had been fighting for the right to call her Supreme Court colleagues as witnesses in the trial that had been scheduled to start Nov. 4.

It is not clear whether Hantz Marconi will continue to recuse herself from cases involving the Department of Justice for the remainder of her term. She is required to retire in February when she turns 70.

A day after Attorney General John Formella’s prosecution of Supreme Court Justice Barbara Hantz Marconi fizzled into a single misdemeanor charge, the state’s top law enforcement officer suffered another setback as the courts cleared the way for her return.

Formella was asked about the court’s decision during a State House press event on Wednesday, announcing the Ayotte administration’s new plan to increase highway safety.

“As to the decision that the court made to rescind the orders putting her on leave, that’s not a decision we expected. It’s not a decision we were aware would happen,” Formella said.

In fact, Formella’s office played a key role in fast-tracking Hantz Marconi’s swift return to the state’s highest court. A stipulation in her negotiated plea deal required prosecutors to state on the record, in court, that she did not commit a “serious crime,” as defined by the rules governing the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office.

That opened the door for her defense attorney, Richard Guerriero, to seek Supreme Court approval to reinstate her law license on Wednesday.

After Formella’s office indicted Hantz Marconi last year on seven criminal charges — two felonies and five Class A misdemeanors — she was immediately placed on leave from the court and agreed to an interim suspension of her law license.

But moments after the case was resolved, with the attorney general dropping all previous charges and Hantz Marconi pleading no contest to a single Class B misdemeanor, the Supreme Court issued an order allowing her to return to work once her license was reinstated.

Guerriero then filed a motion with the Supreme Court late Wednesday in which Attorney Discipline Office General Counsel Brian Moushegian agreed that Hantz Marconi should get her license back, because she did not commit a “serious crime.”

“Moushegian specifically authorized (Guerriero) to represent the assent of his office to this motion to vacate the (2024) order suspending Justice Hantz Marconi from the practice of law on an interim basis and to reinstate that right,” Wednesday’s motion states.

Guerriero was unavailable for comment.

Several Granite State attorneys told NHJournal on background that they were surprised by Formella’s handling of the case — particularly his final move, which is allowing Hantz Marconi to return to the bench.

“Saying ‘I didn’t know this would happen’ is ridiculous. They had to know this was a strong probability when they agreed to the plea deal,” one veteran attorney told NHJournal. “There’s a reason the defense attorneys put the attorney general’s declaration of ‘no serious offense’ in the negotiations.”

There are also questions in the legal community about whether Hantz Marconi will actually return, with at least one potential hurdle remaining: the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO).

The ADO will still conduct its own investigation into Hantz Marconi, but that review can take place while she serves on the court, attorney Tony Soltani told NHJournal. And because Formella agreed to the “serious crime” declaration, the most the ADO could impose is a formal censure or reprimand — not removal from the bench.

“There’s nothing to stop her from going back to work,” Soltani said.

When WMUR’s Adam Sexton asked Formella about the court’s actions, he tried to put on a brave face, insisting that justice had been done.

“We ultimately charged the case because we felt that Justice Hantz Marconi had violated the law … by asking Gov. (Chris) Sununu to secure privileges for her that she wasn’t entitled to, and ultimately she was convicted of that conduct,” Formella said.

“I think I would say that from the perspective of the DOJ, we’re disappointed in (the court’s) decision, but it’s not our decision to make. That’s a decision for the court to make.”

Formella’s office did not respond to NHJournal’s inquiries on Wednesday about the likelihood of Hantz Marconi’s license being reinstated. But Hantz Marconi and her legal team appear to be following the path they negotiated with the Attorney General’s Office in her plea agreement.

Soltani likened the entire affair to Tom Wolfe’s novel “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” in which an overzealous prosecutor plays a central role.

“Ever since day one, this whole thing stunk to high heaven,” Soltani said.

Hantz Marconi’s prosecution is already having a chilling effect on lawmakers, Soltani added. A former Republican state representative, he said legislators have told him they are now wary of contacting state officials with constituent complaints.

“They don’t want to get indicted,” Soltani said. “I don’t think the AG did any favors for anybody in this state.”

“The state likely spent a small fortune investigating and prosecuting Hantz Marconi, brought seven indictments against her as a tactic to overwhelm her defense, and hobbled the New Hampshire Supreme Court for more than a year. Then they pled this thing down to aggravated jaywalking with a fine, and agreed it wasn’t a serious offense,” Soltani said.

“The Supreme Court was firing at 80 percent horsepower for over a year now, and for what? I still don’t know what her crime was. … This should never have gone as far as it did.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Tony Soltani has represented reporter Damien Fisher in previous, unrelated 91A court cases. 

Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi isn’t planning to leave the New Hampshire Supreme Court just because she pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor count of attempting or soliciting improper influence from former Gov. Chris Sununu.

Moments after her plea and sentencing hearing Tuesday in Merrimack County Superior Court, Hantz Marconi’s legal team issued a defiant press release declaring her intent to remain on the state’s highest court for the rest of her term.

“Justice Hantz Marconi is very comfortable that she has made the best decision for herself, her family, and the State of New Hampshire. She looks forward to getting back to work,” the statement read.

The high court moved quickly to welcome her back, issuing an order late Tuesday lifting her administrative leave. Hantz Marconi will be allowed to resume serving on the Supreme Court if, as expected, the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office reinstates her law license. She voluntarily suspended her license last year when she was first indicted.

Meanwhile, Attorney General John Formella was notably absent from the courthouse on Tuesday. Despite his central role in the investigation—and the high stakes for his office—Formella was nowhere to be found.

Formella’s office indicted Hantz Marconi last October for allegedly attempting to involve Sununu in the criminal case against her husband, retired Portsmouth Ports Director Geno Marconi. She has been on administrative leave from the court since the controversial conversation with Sununu in June 2023.

Overall, Hantz Marconi’s no-contest plea represents a surprising victory for the embattled justice. It does not require her to resign from the Court or surrender her law license. She faces no jail time, and prosecutors agreed not to bring additional charges connected to the case — essentially, preemptive immunity. That is significant given the ongoing case against her husband, which could theoretically reveal evidence implicating her in his case.

It’s an embarrassing outcome for the Attorney General’s Office, several Granite State attorneys told NHJournal.

“Formella got outlawyered,” one Concord attorney said on background. “Then again, Bobbi (Marconi) had very good lawyers.”

Despite the plea resulting in a guilty finding, Hantz Marconi maintains her innocence.

Her lead attorney, Richard Guerriero, said in court that the charge alleged she improperly sought privileged information about the investigation into her husband through Sununu. She disputes the allegation, but by pleading no contest, she acknowledged prosecutors had sufficient evidence to proceed.

“We’re not contesting that the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she solicited Gov. Sununu to seek information regarding the investigation of Geno Marconi,” Guerriero said. “We’re not agreeing with those allegations, but we agree the state could make an offer of proof that would show she was soliciting Gov. Sununu to seek information into the investigation.”

Even with a misdemeanor conviction, Hantz Marconi emerged with a favorable outcome. Prosecutors dropped seven felony indictments that collectively carried up to 20 years in prison. Instead, she pleaded no contest to a single Class B misdemeanor, resulting in a $1,200 fine and $288 in court costs.

Prosecutors also stipulated in court that the misdemeanor does not qualify as a “serious crime” when reviewed by the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office. That makes it more likely Hantz Marconi will keep her law license and return to the bench.

Despite dropping all the original charges, Formella insisted that justice had been served.

“This is a sad and unfortunate case that reflects a serious breach of the public trust. Justice Hantz Marconi was an associate justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court when she arranged for a private meeting with the governor and then sought to obtain special treatment regarding an active criminal investigation involving her husband,” Formella said in a prepared statement.

“That conduct was unlawful and unethical, and it undermines confidence in our criminal justice system. Today’s conviction holds her accountable under the law.”

While Formella did not appear in court, Deputy Attorney General James Boffetti attended, accompanied by Public Integrity Unit prosecutors Dan Jimenez and Joe Fincham, during the plea and sentencing hearing.

Afterward, Fincham and Jimenez denied that the dismissal of the original indictments—or Formella’s absence—signaled any concession that Hantz Marconi had been correct in alleging bias. Jimenez said the deputy attorney general’s presence merely showed support for the line prosecutors—an unusual move, but not unprecedented.

There has been little standard procedure in the prosecution of Hantz Marconi for her conversation with Sununu last June. Both Sununu and a witness to the conversation, Rudolf Ogden, told investigators they did not believe she made any improper requests. Neither did witness Steve Duprey, chair of the Pease Development Authority, which oversees Geno Marconi’s work.

Hantz Marconi was initially charged with allegedly trying to get Duprey to intervene on her husband’s behalf, but those charges were dropped as part of the plea deal.

This summer, Guerriero accused prosecutors of trying to obscure Formella’s central role in the investigation. Evidence that Formella acted as the initial—and possibly sole—investigator was withheld from the defense for months, Guerriero said. Although the case was later reassigned to the Public Integrity Unit, Guerriero noted that no written complaint had been filed to open the PIU case, as is typically required for such cases.

Formella’s handling of the matter was expected to be a central issue at trial. The defense had subpoenaed him to testify and was pursuing motions to dismiss the charges and to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office entirely. Judge Martin Honigberg had not yet ruled on those motions when the plea deal was announced.

Interestingly, prosecutors suggested over the summer that if Formella were removed from the case, his deputy, Boffetti, could still oversee the prosecution. That is essentially what occurred—without any formal court order.

The trial would have featured a lineup of high-profile witnesses, including Sununu, Formella, Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, and potentially all associate justices of the Supreme Court. Ogden, Sununu’s former counsel and now a Superior Court judge, was also expected to testify.

In her press release, Hantz Marconi said she sought to avoid a trial that could have forced top state officials to take the stand.

“Justice Hantz Marconi entered a no contest plea because she continues to disagree with the attorney general’s characterization of her actions,” the statement read. “She also sought to bring the case to an end without the spectacle and possible damage of a trial involving testimony by New Hampshire Supreme Court justices and other state officials.”

Geno Marconi is scheduled to go on trial in February. He is accused of illegally accessing private driving records and destroying evidence. It is unclear whether the resolution of his wife’s case will affect his upcoming trial.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi plans to end the criminal case against her with a negotiated “no contest” plea that keeps her out of prison—and potentially on the court.

On Monday afternoon, Hantz Marconi’s attorney, Richard Guerriero, filed a motion indicating her intent to enter a no-contest plea on Tuesday in Merrimack Superior Court in Concord. According to the plea documents, the state is dropping all original indictments against Hantz Marconi. Instead, she will plead no contest to a new charge: a single Class B misdemeanor count of criminal solicitation (misuse of position).

“Justice Hantz Marconi’s counsel will state at the time of the entry of the no-contest plea that she is not contesting that the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she solicited Gov. [Chris] Sununu to seek information regarding the investigation of Geno Marconi,” the plea document states.

Guerriero declined to comment on the planned plea, and the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office also did not respond to inquiries about it.

Hantz Marconi’s no-contest plea will not result in jail time, but she will pay a $1,200 fine under the terms of the deal. The fully negotiated plea does not require her to step down from the Supreme Court, nor does it address her currently suspended law license.

In other words, it is possible the 69-year-old Hantz Marconi could remain on the state’s highest court until her age-mandated retirement on her birthday in February.

Under New Hampshire law, defendants who enter no-contest pleas in criminal cases do not admit guilt. In such cases, the presiding judge generally enters findings of guilt for no-contest defendants, who are considered to have been convicted of the crime. However, people who enter no-contest pleas cannot be held liable for their conduct in any related civil litigation.

Hantz Marconi agreed to have her law license suspended last year when she was first charged. Her fate as a lawyer and as a member of the Supreme Court now moves to the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office and the Judicial Conduct Committee, respectively.

Possibly beneficial for Hantz Marconi, the plea stipulates that the state will not consider the charge against her a “serious crime” under the court system’s attorney-discipline rules. That means she will not automatically have her license suspended once the plea becomes official and could theoretically continue practicing law pending the outcome of the ADO and JCC processes.

So-called “serious crimes” under the court system’s rules that earn automatic suspensions include felonies or other crimes involving “interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a ‘serious crime.’”

In another sign of how significant the deal is for Hantz Marconi—and a setback for the state—prosecutors have agreed not to bring any new charges against her if evidence arises during the process of bringing her husband, Geno Marconi, to trial in Rockingham Superior Court.

Geno Marconi is facing felony charges of falsifying evidence and witness tampering, as well as several misdemeanor charges. He is in far greater legal jeopardy than his wife ever was, according to sources familiar with the case.

Hantz Marconi was set for trial next month on several charges alleging she tried to enlist Sununu, as well as Pease Development Authority Chair Steve Duprey, to intervene in the criminal investigation of her husband. The charges were questioned from the start, as the state provided few public details to show that any crime had actually occurred. Both Duprey and Sununu told investigators that they did not believe Hantz Marconi had broken any laws.

The case became further complicated when Hantz Marconi’s lawyers alleged in court that Attorney General John Formella, nominated for the job by Sununu, was the original investigator in the case, calling into question his office’s independence. (New Hampshire is one of the few states where attorneys general are nominated by the governor.)

Hantz Marconi was pushing to have all original indictments against her dismissed and to have Formella disqualified from the case.

Judge Martin Honigberg has yet to rule on Hantz Marconi’s motions regarding Formella and the indictments. As part of the plea, Formella’s office is effectively conceding to Hantz Marconi’s concerns by dropping all original indictments. The office also filed a document on Friday indicating that Deputy Attorney General James Boffetti will represent the state.

In a previous objection to Hantz Marconi’s motion to disqualify Formella, prosecutors stated that if Formella were biased and could not fairly oversee the prosecution, state law allows Boffetti to take over.

On Monday, Department of Justice spokesman Michael Garrity declined to explain why Boffetti is stepping into the case. “(Formella) has not taken himself off the case,” Garrity said.

After Hantz Marconi’s plea hearing Tuesday afternoon, attention will turn to her husband’s case, now set for trial next year. The former ports director is accused of violating privacy laws by obtaining and sharing private driving records of a man identified as “N.L.” He is also charged with destroying evidence in the investigation by allegedly deleting a voicemail.

It has been widely reported that “N.L.” is PDA Vice Chair Neil Levesque. Geno Marconi’s defense claims the private records in question are copies of Levesque’s car and boat registrations. Around the time of the alleged crime, Levesque was applying for a pier permit, which would have required sending copies of his vehicle registrations to Geno Marconi’s office.

Bradley Cook, a boat captain and former chair of a ports advisory committee, is also charged in the alleged scheme involving Levesque’s private records. Cook’s committee is also involved in the pier permit application process.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office says no laws were broken when state and local officials worked with China-based Nongfu Spring ahead of the company’s controversial $67 million purchase of a Nashua property.

But Gov. Kelly Ayotte says she’s deeply concerned about a company tied to China’s communist regime making a major infrastructure investment in the Granite State.

“Foreign adversaries like China should not be doing business in New Hampshire, and I am taking action today to ensure it,” Ayotte said in a statement released minutes after the report went public. “In addition to a new law banning these types of land purchases, I will issue executive orders to ensure the Chinese Communist Party and other hostile groups are not doing business with our state government.”

Nongfu Spring is owned by Zhong Shanshan, China’s richest man and a billionaire with documented ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party. As a large private business in China, Nongfu operates under Chinese regulatory systems. That means it must comply with national standards and oversight by government authorities.

On Monday, Attorney General John Formella’s office released its report on the Nongfu Spring purchase. While no laws were broken, the report faulted an unnamed Department of Business and Economic Affairs (BEA) employee for failing to disclose the company’s Chinese ownership to supervisors for several months after the process began.

Mike Bergeron

The BEA business development manager in question has worked at the agency since 1997. Public records show Mike Bergeron, one of three BEA business development managers and the only one with that tenure, matches that description. NHPR has also identified Bergeron as the manager in question.

Bergeron did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

According to the report, Bergeron did not inform his supervisors about the pending transaction until December 2024 and did not disclose that the buyer was Chinese-owned until January 2025—despite knowing as early as June 2024 that Zhong was connected to Nongfu. That summer, Bergeron helped organize a tour of the Nashua site for Zhong and his entourage, coordinating with local officials including Nashua Administrative Services Director Tim Cummings.

Formella’s report, requested by Ayotte amid mounting controversy over Nongfu’s operations in Nashua, clears Bergeron, BEA, and Nashua officials of any lawbreaking. At the time, there was no law preventing a Chinese-based company from purchasing property in New Hampshire.

Nongfu’s representatives told Bergeron they were seeking approval from the U.S. Treasury’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), but Formella said he could not confirm the status of that review. His report also notes the FBI is currently investigating Nongfu and its plans in New Hampshire.

And the report concludes that the nature of the deal, along with evolving legal standards in Washington, D.C., indicate that CFIUS review is warranted.

“On Dec. 9, 2024, the Department of Treasury’s Office of Investment Security published a final rule that expanded CFIUS’s ability to review certain real estate transactions by foreign persons. CFIUS review of the Nongfu Spring transaction thus would have been advisable in the context of the Nashua property’s proximity to Joint Base Cape Cod, which is listed as 87 miles from the purchase site,” according to the report.

“A CFIUS analysis as a matter of course should have been conducted and documented prior to the completion of the transaction.”

Since the Nongfu purchase became public, state lawmakers have passed legislation banning companies from “hostile” nations — including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran — from acquiring property in New Hampshire.

On Monday, Ayotte went further, signing two executive orders: one prohibiting the sale of state-owned land to entities from those countries, and another banning the state from purchasing technology from companies based there.

“China, Russia, Iran and other countries like them should not be doing business in the state of New Hampshire — it’s as simple as that,” Ayotte said. “We must do everything we can to protect our state from foreign adversaries, and it starts with making sure they cannot access sensitive data, do business, or purchase property here. Under my administration, New Hampshire will always do our part to keep America safe.”

Formella’s report also addressed one lingering question: Why did Nongfu pay $67 million for 80 Northwest Blvd., a property valued at about $15 million?

“According to a number of individuals interviewed for this report, the selling price is not widely regarded as exceeding market value,” the report stated. “In fact, the property was reportedly one of the few structures of its size in New England available at the time that was capable of meeting the bottling company’s structural and technical requirements.”

Nongfu initially proposed a $200 million investment in the Nashua facility, promising to create hundreds of jobs. But according to the report, the company halted all activity in May, emailing Nashua’s planning office to announce a “pause” in development.

“Due to evolving global trade and investment conditions, our client is conducting a broader reassessment of project feasibility and associated costs. As part of this review, they have decided to pause all entitlements and permitting activities,” the email stated.

The pause may have more to do with Washington, D.C., than Concord. President Donald Trump reignited his economic confrontation with China earlier this year, triggering tariff swings between 145 percent and 30 percent on Chinese imports. His administration also began arresting Chinese nationals studying at U.S. colleges, moves that further strained relations between Washington and Beijing.

New Hampshire prosecutors are asking for breathing room as they prepare to try one of the most unusual double dockets in state history: the simultaneous criminal cases of former Ports Director Geno Marconi and his wife, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi.

The two trials are scheduled to begin just one day apart in November—his in Rockingham County Superior Court on Nov. 3, hers in Merrimack County Superior Court on Nov. 4. But Senior Assistant Attorney General Dan Jimenez and Assistant Attorney General Joe Fincham, the Public Integrity Unit prosecutors handling both matters, told Judge David Ruoff this week that the back-to-back schedule is unworkable.

“Simply put, the State’s attorneys cannot try the cases, and the witnesses cannot testify, simultaneously in concurrent prosecutions in the two venues,” the prosecutors wrote in their motion.

They are asking Ruoff to delay Geno Marconi’s trial until after his wife’s case is resolved.

Prosecutors argue that Justice Hantz Marconi’s case should take precedence, noting that she is currently suspended from the New Hampshire Supreme Court and her law license is suspended pending the outcome of the trial.

Her indictment includes allegations that she attempted to improperly influence the investigation into her husband. Witnesses could include some of the most powerful figures in New Hampshire politics and law, including Gov. Chris Sununu and Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald.

By contrast, Geno Marconi—who retired earlier this year while on paid administrative leave—faces felony charges of tampering with evidence and witness intimidation, as well as misdemeanors tied to obstructing government administration and misuse of state motor vehicle records.

His case is serious, prosecutors say, but less urgent to the functioning of state government.

Geno Marconi’s attorney, Richard Samdperil, has signaled his opposition to any delay but has not yet filed a formal response. Samdperil has already indicated he will challenge the admissibility of evidence and argue for dismissal of the charges.

Meanwhile, Justice Hantz Marconi’s defense team is pressing its own motions, including an effort to have Attorney General John Formella disqualified from the case. Her lawyers say Formella could be called as a witness regarding her alleged efforts to intervene in the probe. Merrimack Superior Court Judge Martin Honigberg has yet to rule on those requests.

The dual prosecutions are already burdened with pending motions, evidentiary fights, and questions of judicial conflict. Judge Ruoff, who was assigned Geno Marconi’s case in July, has not yet scheduled hearings on the defense motions there.

And whatever rulings are issued in either case could themselves trigger a cascade of appeals. Either side can ask for reconsideration or appeal to the state Supreme Court, where Hantz Marconi once served and where her former colleagues would be asked to decide.

The scheduling fight highlights the strain on the Attorney General’s Office as it navigates two high-profile prosecutions involving a retired senior state official and a sitting Supreme Court justice.

If prosecutors prevail, the first trial to unfold will be Hantz Marconi’s—an unprecedented moment in New Hampshire history, with a member of the state’s highest court defending against felony charges from the very justice system she once helped oversee.

Judge Ruoff has not yet set a hearing date on the state’s request to postpone Geno Marconi’s trial.

Prosecutors want jurors to hear about Geno Marconi’s long and colorful — some say “controversial” — history when he goes on trial this fall, even though the former Ports Director has never been convicted of a crime.

Marconi, who ran New Hampshire’s Division of Ports and Harbors for decades, is at the center of a political scandal that has ensnared his wife, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi. It’s also created headaches for former Gov. Chris Sununu, Attorney General John Formella, and Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald.

On Thursday, Marconi’s attorney, Richard Samdperil, filed a motion in Rockingham Superior Court objecting to the state’s plan to introduce evidence of “prior bad acts” during the November trial.

Prosecutors had notified the defense in a recent letter that they intended to present jurors with a “history lesson” on Marconi’s past conduct. Samdperil said that would be improper and irrelevant.

“In this matter, the State does not offer evidence of criminal convictions, as the defendant has none,” Samdperil wrote. “Rather, the State seeks to introduce other extrinsic acts for some as yet unspecified purpose.”

Under New Hampshire law, so-called “404(b)” evidence cannot be used simply to paint a defendant as a bad character. It can only be admitted if it is directly relevant to the current charges and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Samdperil argued prosecutors have not met that standard.

Marconi’s years as port director were often accompanied by controversy.

In 2006, he faced an internal investigation after complaints that he accepted gifts from ship captains and made racially insensitive jokes. He was never charged, but apologized for slurs reportedly aimed at a Middle Eastern ship captain and others. Among them, calling a ship captain of Middle Eastern descent a “sand n*gger,” a “camel jockey,” and a “towel head.” He was also accused of calling someone else a “New York Jew with the chink wife.”

He later underwent mandatory sensitivity training.

The same probe detailed allegations that Marconi used his state-issued truck for personal errands, stored his private boat at a state dock, and accepted lobsters, pheasants, and other gifts from people who did business with the port. Pease Development Authority officials said at the time that Marconi’s actions did not violate agency rules.

There were also darker moments. A year after the 2006 inquiry, longshoreman Bill Roach — one of the employees who complained about Marconi — reported that shots had been fired at his Rye home. Investigators later found a fake headstone with Roach’s initials at the port and a cage of dead rats outside his house. Despite three separate police investigations, no one was charged. Marconi denied involvement.

Today, Marconi faces felony charges of witness tampering and falsifying evidence, as well as misdemeanor charges for alleged violations of the Driver Privacy Act. Prosecutors say he improperly obtained private driving records for “N.L.” — a reference to Pease Development Authority Vice Chair Neil Levesque — and shared them with Bradley Cook, then chair of the port’s advisory council.

Levesque had butted heads with Marconi for years.

Marconi is also accused of deleting a voicemail that investigators said could have been used as evidence against him. Cook faces his own trial on related charges.

At the time, Levesque was applying for a pier permit, a process that already required vehicle registration records to be submitted to the port. That has fueled debate about whether Marconi’s actions truly broke the law.

The Marconi case has expanded well beyond the Portsmouth waterfront.

Justice Hantz Marconi is on paid leave from her Supreme Court position and is facing a trial of her own, accused of trying to pressure Sununu to intervene in her husband’s case. Sununu told investigators he didn’t believe she did anything wrong, but Attorney General Formella — who initiated the probe — has been named as a potential witness and is seeking to avoid testifying.

With both a former port director and a sitting Supreme Court justice under indictment, the case has drawn in some of New Hampshire’s most prominent political figures and raised questions about conflicts of interest at the highest levels of state government.