Judge dismisses theft by swindle charges against Harding Smith, but allows case against his nonprofit
Hennepin County District Judge Juan Hoyos has granted a motion to dismiss the "theft by swindle" charges against Harding Smith, according to court documents, while allowing the case against Smith's nonprofit to move forward.
Smith was initially charged by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office in May 2025, after prosecutors claimed he failed to pay the employees of his nonprofit, Minnesota Acts Now, the required wages.
Minnesota Acts Now provides violence intervention services. According to court documents, in June 2023, several of Smith's employees told WCCO that Smith was withholding wages and coercing or threatening them into volunteering their hours.
The City of Brooklyn Park investigated Smith in 2023, and found no payroll issues with its contract, but a separate criminal investigation based on the employee complaints identified alleged discrepancies between the required wages for employees under a contract with Hennepin County and the amounts actually paid.
According to court documents filed in May, the initial trial was set for March; however, in February, the prosecution requested a continuance from the judge. At the same time, Smith filed a demand for a speedy trial. The continuance was granted but was limited to 60 days; otherwise, it would violate Smith's demand.
Court documents state the defense argued that the cases "must be dismissed because the prosecution has deliberately and in bad faith acted in a manner to evade Mr. Smith's speedy trial rights and the Court's previous ruling that the case had to proceed to trial on April 27, 2026."
This week, Hoyos found the state's April 27 dismissal-and-refiling amounted to an unnecessary delay of Smith's trial, rejecting the state's stated reasons — an unavailable witness and a prosecutor's own unpreparedness — as insufficient given the court's earlier warning.
Hoyos denied the motion to dismiss the case against Smith's nonprofit organization on Wednesday, ruling the nonprofit hadn't shown the charge against it was retaliatory. That case is set to move forward.
