The elected official in Marshall County who was arrested in mid-June and charged with several felony charges is scheduled for a bond modification hearing today at 3 p.m. before Circuit Court Judge Jeff Cramer.
Marshall County Assessor Eric Buzzard currently faces seven felony counts of fraud, and investigators said in June that the state’s probe would continue and that more charges are possible. At this time, the elected official is accused of operating a scheme involving a local auto dealership and a number of vehicle purchases, according to the press release distributed on June 13 by the Marshall County Sheriff’s Office.
The State Auditor’s Office Fraud Unit began investigating the case after receiving a tip about questionable expenditures from the Property Valuation Commission (PVC) Account, a fund primarily used for purchasing vehicles for the Assessor’s Office. The report states Buzzard had access to the account during the entire period in question.
During a bond modification hearing in West Virginia, a defendant – or their attorney – usually makes a formal request that a judge change the terms of their bail or bond conditions. In this case, Buzzard’s attorney, William Ihlenfeld, has filed a motion that, if granted, would allow the elected official to resume performing his duties as Assessor.
Buzzard, a resident of Moundsville, was elected in 2021 and re-elected in 2024.
The original press release stated:
On Monday, December 30, 2024, the complainant was made aware of allegations of possible financial criminal acts involving the Marshall County Assessor, Eric Buzzard, the defendant. The complainant was advised there had been numerous questionable purchases for an extended period of time in reference to the Assessor’s Property Valuation Commission (PVC) Account, an account utilized largely for the purchase of vehicles.
The defendant has had access the account mentioned above since he was first elected as Assessor in January, 2021, and his access continued upon re-election in 2024. The West Virginia Auditor’s Office conducted a general audit of the Assessor’s Office prior to the complainant being informed and multiple questionable expenditures had been revealed. Due to this, the West Virginia Auditor’s Office Fraud Department initiated an investigation into the Marshall County Assessor’s Office and revealed multiple vehicle purchases by the defendant, on behalf of the Marshall County Assessor’s Office, from a local car dealership owner on behalf of the local dealership which is located within Marshall County, West Virginia.
The complainant was provided with multiple vehicle sale invoices completed by the local dealership and endorsed by both the dealership owner and the defendant. The complainant then made contact with the WV DMV Investigation Unit and requested a sale history of all the vehicles bought from the local dealership by the defendant on behalf of the Marshall County Assessor’s Office. Upon receiving the requested information from the WV DMV it appeared as though the local dealership purchased vehicles from a separate dealership before selling them to the Marshall County Assessor’s Office. In addition, the Auditor’s Office Fraud Unit advised the complainant there were some instances where even though there is evidence of the Marshall County Commission paying for a vehicle purchase there is no record of a vehicle ever being obtained. In this case, a Kelly Blue Book vehicle value was assigned to a vehicle to compare to what the Marshall County Commission paid.
Each initial dealership the local dealership purchased a vehicle from within this situation was contacted and the vehicle sale documents were provided to the WV Auditor’s Office Fraud Unit. The complainant was advised the sale price on the invoice from the initial dealership to the local dealership did not match the price the local dealership sold each vehicle to the Marshall County Assessor’s Office. Each sale price from the local dealership was higher than the price of the sale between the local dealership and the initial dealership.
On Wednesday, April 16, 2025, the WV Auditor’s Office Fraud Unit conducted non-custodial interviews with both the defendant and the dealership owner. During each interview the above information was discussed and, per the Auditors, neither the defendant nor the dealership owner could provide relevant answers which justified the vehicle sale process.
Per the WVAuditor’s Office Fraud Unit, the following are multiple examples of the fraudulent scheme described above:
A 2022 Ford Edge bought from Shultz Ford for $42,162.50 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $46,599.20 (a difference of $4,436.70); a 2022 Ford Edge bought from Shultz Ford for $40,352.50 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $45,751.20 (a difference of $5,398.70); a 2022 Ford Ranger bought from-Shultz Ford for $43,117.50 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $46,811.20 (a difference of $3,693.70); a 2023 Ford Edge bought from Donnel Ford & Lincoln for $39,740.00 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $46,599.20 (a difference of $6,859.20); a 2024 Ford Edge bought from Bordman Ford for $34,620.00 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $49,342.00 (a difference of $14,722.00); a 2024 Ford Escape bought from Bordman Ford for $30,620.00 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $42,422.00 (a difference of $11,802.00); a 2023 Chevrolet Silverado bought from Power GM for $47,525.00 by the local dealership owner who then sold the vehicle to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant for $63,770.00 (a difference of $16,245.00).
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025, the complainant conducted a Mirandized interview of the local dealership owner regarding the above information. The local dealership owner admitted he did purchase all the vehicles mentioned above due to the defendant’s request to make the purchase for the Marshall County Commission. The local dealership owner also admitted he then sold each vehicle mentioned above to the Marshall County Commission by way of the defendant.
When asked why the price increased during each sale of the vehicle to Marshall County, the local dealership owner admitted the defendant would contact him and direct him regarding a sale price to mark up each vehicle and they agreed to then split the difference of each marked up sale price between the two (2). The local dealership owner stated he would write the defendant a personal check for his half of this “50/50.” The local dealership owner admitted there was a “kickback” check written to the defendant regarding each vehicle mentioned above. Regarding the vehicles and prices listed above, the local dealership owner and the defendant split at least approximately $63,157.30 between the two (2) as part of these “kickback” fraudulent schemes meaning the defendant made a personal profit of approximately $31,578.65 as a result of the agreement between the two (2).
The local dealership owner stated the personal checks written to the defendant during these schemes were from either his personal banking accounts or his business accounts for the dealership.
The complainant executed multiple search warrants regarding the local dealership owner’s personal and business accounts to due the above information. The search warrant returns revealed multiple personal checks written to the defendant which appear consistent with the local dealership’s owner claim.
The complainant obtained a Marshall County Commission Vouchers Payable History Report which revealed all the vehicles mentioned within this complaint were purchased by the Marshall County Commission between the dates of June 26, 2022- September 19, 2024.
Due to there being seven (7) vehicle purchases discussed within this narrative, the complainant, respectfully, requests seven (7) felony warrants for the crime of Fraudulent Schemes for the defendant’s role in this incident.
Here is a copy of the motion filed by Buzzard’s attorney, William Ihlenfled:
