KEYSTONE HEIGHTS – A Florida Ethics Commission investigation has ended in an order that former State Rep.e Charles Van Zant Sr. (R-19) and his wife Katherine pay $2,250 in fines for failure to disclose closely-held businesses, homes and bank accounts in financial forms for the last four years.

The Ethics Commission will hold a final action hearing Jan. 27, the culmination of a five-month investigation.

According to Ethics Commission documents, Charles Van Zant, who served in the Florida House of Representatives for eight years, failed to disclose bank accounts and businesses on disclosure forms since 2013, including an engineering firm.

The omissions accounted for a net worth discrepancy of between $10,000 and $50,000 as his net worth climbed each year, and although Van Zant amended these forms in September 2016 after the first complaint was filed in August, the commission still found that “the public was deprived of access to information” it is entitled to in the original forms.

Documents show Charles Van Zant also failed to disclose his ownership of a condominium at 218 Kettering Ct. in Orange Park.

In the Ethics Commission ruling, Charles Van Zant stated he did not read the form’s instructions every year, which led to his omissions.

Katherine Van Zant, meanwhile, faces a $500 fine for failure to list the Kettering Court residence in disclosure forms submitted when she tried to reclaim her husband’s seat after he was term limited out last year. Rep. Bobby Payne(R-19) of Palatka defeated Katherine Van Zant’s bid in August Republican primaries by a 10 percent margin.

According to court documents, Katherine Van Zant said her husband filled out her disclosure documents for her.

The five-month investigation comes after complaints from Katherine’s Republican opponent Leslie Dougher of Middleburg and Putnam County District 2 Commissioner Chip Laibl.

Laibl said the search started after Charles spurred a state investigation into Palatka and Putnam County finances, which he compared to Hampton’s, a Bradford County town once labeled “the most corrupt city in America” over government fraud. Charles Van Zant was widely viewed as having a vendetta against the town of Hampton and its police chief.

“He said he saw smoke over Hampton and on his investigation found fire, and that the same thing would take place in Putnam County,” Laibl said. “I decided to pretty much check Van Zant’s house at that point – and I found fire.”

“I simply found seven properties that were not disclosed as well as four businesses that were not disclosed,” said Dougher, a former chair of the Republican Party of Florida. “That’s why the Ethics Commission is there, to make sure we hold our elected officials accountable to a high standard. They are representing us and we want to make sure they’re held to a standard of disclosure and high ethics.”

By Florida law, legislators must attend four hours of ethics training every year before the legislative session opens in March. The classes cover many topics relating to best ethical practices for constitutional officers, as well as how to fill out financial disclosure forms and the importance of them, according to Senator Rob Bradley (R-Fleming Island.)

“You can’t say ‘I didn’t know how to do it,’” Bradley said, not referencing the Van Zant’s ethics investigation. “It’s a requirement of law.”

This isn’t the first time Charles has been investigated for fraud. In August, he paid $8,716.28 in unpaid property taxes and interest levied by the Bradford County Property Appraiser after an investigation found the Van Zants had claimed a homestead exemption on a house in which they did not live.

The Van Zants listed the home at 127 SE 35th St. in Keystone Heights – the Bradford County side of the city – on their financial disclosure forms although the home remained vacant and falling into disrepair. The investigation found the Van Zants have been receiving a homestead exemption since 2008, the same year voters elected Van Zant to represent them in the House.

In an August statement, Katherine vowed to appeal the property appraiser’s decision at the county’s Value Adjustment Board. The Van Zants dropped their appeal a month later, citing in a form they did not agree with the appraiser’s decision, but no longer sought to appeal it.