EXCLUSIVE: The Charter Flight Mystery—Where Are Letitia James' Travel Records?

State law requires complete records for all travel expenditures, but our Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request hit a wall of silence. The New York Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) responded to our demand for flight manifests, travel authorizations, and justification documents with just a bare-bones spreadsheet and the stunning claim they have “no further responsive records.”

This spreadsheet—containing transaction dates, invoice numbers, and voucher numbers—proves the OSC tracked these expenses in their financial system but somehow possesses none of the legally mandated supporting documentation that would explain who traveled, where they went, or why charter services were necessary. This systematic absence of accountability records for all six charter flights authorized by Attorney General Letitia James’ office raises alarming questions—particularly as federal investigators examine her financial disclosures in an expanding criminal inquiry.

On April 14, 2025, U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte formally referred Letitia James to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation of potential mortgage fraud based on her sworn declarations regarding property occupancy. The timing of these missing flight records—which by law should still be available—could not be more suspicious.

When official records that should exist by law cannot be located, only two realistic possibilities exist:

Administrative failure: The records were never properly created or filed
Improper records disposition: The records were created but subsequently removed from the system

Neither explanation is benign. These aren’t just missing paperclips—they’re legally required documents supporting $41,807 in premium-priced air travel during a period when James’ campaign was simultaneously conducting travel to the same destinations.

The Legal Requirements and Documentation Gap

According to the New York State Archives’ Retention and Disposition Schedules and state procurement guidelines, these charter flight expenditures should be accompanied by:

Documented justification for why premium charter service was necessary
Travel authorization forms with stated business purpose
Passenger manifests documenting who utilized the service
Receipts and vouchers detailing specific services rendered
Comparative pricing or sole-source justification if competitive bidding wasn’t used

New York State Finance Law §163 further requires that state agencies maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.

The systematic absence of this documentation for all six flights represents a significant departure from standard procurement practices. If standard documentation was consistently not created for these high-dollar expenditures, it represents not just an administrative oversight but a substantial deviation from required state financial controls—particularly concerning for the office responsible for enforcing the state’s laws.

The Charter Flight Timeline

On March 23, 2025, our investigation identified six payments made by the Attorney General’s Office to Venture Jets, Inc. between 2020 and 2021 through the New York State Comptroller’s OpenBookNY transparency portal. My April 8, 2025 FOIL request explicitly asked for documentation on “passenger manifests, flight plans, and travel authorizations” as well as “travel justification forms, necessity documentation, or exemption authorizations that permitted the use of private charter flights instead of commercial transportation options.” The OSC provided the following spreadsheet data in response to our FOIL request, but tellingly, not a single page of supporting documentation:

The official records categorize these payments as “Travel – Airplane.” However, every single piece of information that would typically accompany such expenditures is conspicuously absent: no passenger manifests, no travel authorization forms, no destination details, and no justifications for why commercial flights couldn’t meet the office’s needs. Our FOIL request specifically sought “any documentation showing competitive bidding processes, vendor selection criteria, or sole source justifications for the selection of Venture Jets Inc.” and “internal communications, emails, or memoranda regarding the authorization, necessity, or approval of these private charter flights”—yet the OSC produced none of these required records.

Perhaps most astoundingly, the OSC couldn’t even produce the “internal policies or procedures governing the use of private charter transportation by the Office of the New York State Attorney General” that we explicitly requested. This means either no policies exist for spending tens of thousands in taxpayer dollars on private jets—a shocking governance failure—or these policies exist but have somehow disappeared along with all other accountability documentation. This is particularly troubling because the OSC’s own spreadsheet confirms these transactions were processed through their Statewide Financial System (SFS) with assigned voucher numbers—yet somehow all the legally required supporting documentation has vanished.

A review of James’ campaign finance records shows that several of these dates align closely with campaign expenditures. For example:

The August 10, 2021 charter payment ($7,015.45) occurred on the same day James’ campaign reported paying $2,000 for a Martha’s Vineyard house rental.
The November 8, 2021 payments (totaling $13,246.15) coincided with the SOMOS conference in Puerto Rico, where James was reportedly engaged in campaign activities.

While temporal proximity alone doesn’t establish that these taxpayer-funded flights were used for campaign purposes, the absence of documentation makes it impossible to verify the official nature of these travels. A search of campaign finance records reveals no reimbursements from the campaign to the state for any portion of these flights.

The Exclusive Provider

A comprehensive review of state expenditure records raises additional questions about the vendor relationship. Venture Jets appears to have an exclusive arrangement with the Attorney General’s office—no other New York State agency utilized this charter service during this period. Not the Governor’s Office, not the State Police, and not any other elected official’s office shows payments to this vendor in the state’s transparency database.

This exclusivity becomes more notable when considering that in May 2022, after the office stopped using taxpayer funds for charter services, James’ campaign reported paying the same vendor $12,049 for “Transportation” according to Board of Elections filings—suggesting a relationship that transitioned from public to campaign functions.

The Public Accountability Gap

According to the New York State Procurement Guidelines and the Office of the State Comptroller’s Travel Guidelines, expenditures of this magnitude typically require:

A documented justification for the expense
Comparative pricing or a sole-source justification if competitive bidding wasn’t used
Travel authorization forms with stated business purpose
Passenger manifests documenting who utilized the service
Receipts and vouchers detailing the specific services rendered

The complete absence of these documents from the state’s records system—while maintaining basic transaction data—represents a striking deviation from standard procurement practices. The OSC’s spreadsheet proves they processed and tracked these payments, assigning them voucher numbers and recording them in their financial system. Yet somehow, all the accountability documentation that should accompany these transactions has disappeared.

For context, New York State Finance Law §163 requires that state agencies maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The OSC’s production of transaction data without any supporting documentation appears to be a textbook example of selective record-keeping—maintaining financial tracking while eliminating accountability records.

Questions That Demand Answers

This investigation raises several important questions:

Why were charter flights necessary when commercial options were readily available at a fraction of the cost?
Who traveled on these flights, and to what destinations?
What official business justified the expense to taxpayers?
How can the Comptroller’s office have detailed transaction records with voucher numbers but claim to have none of the legally required supporting documentation?
Was there a formal competitive process for selecting this particular charter service?
If these flights were for official state business, why were they scheduled on dates that coincide with campaign activities?
How does the Attorney General’s office approve and monitor private jet usage without any internal policies or procedures?

The public deserves answers to these questions. The spreadsheet data proves the flights occurred and were paid for with taxpayer funds—yet every single document that would explain who flew, where they went, and why they needed private jets has mysteriously vanished from the state’s record-keeping system.

What’s Next

A separate FOIL request to the Attorney General’s Office for the same records is due for response by May 14, 2025. The response to this request may provide additional insight into whether proper documentation exists and whether appropriate procurement procedures were followed.

If both agencies fail to produce the documentation required by state finance law and procurement guidelines, while maintaining the transaction records in their financial systems, it would represent not just a breakdown in accountability but a concerning pattern of selective record-keeping—preserving payment data while eliminating records that would explain who traveled and why.

Under New York Public Officers Law §87, state agencies are required to maintain and provide access to records related to their official functions. The OSC’s spreadsheet confirms these charter flights were official transactions in the state’s system—making the absence of all supporting documentation all the more troubling.

This is Part 1 of this investigation. The next installment will report on the Attorney General’s FOIL response and what it reveals about transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayer funds for premium travel arrangements.

Written by,

Sam Antar