For nearly three years, homeowners across New Hampshire's Seacoast handed over deposits to a contractor they believed would renovate their kitchens, replace their roofs, and improve their homes. Instead, prosecutors say, Gerard Thibault of Stratham took their money to the casino.

On January 20, 2026, the Rockingham County Superior Court sentenced Gerard Thibault, age 54, to 10 to 30 years in the New Hampshire State Prison. <cite index="1-4">He previously pleaded guilty to 23 counts of Class A Felony Theft by Unauthorized Taking for stealing from victims in both Rockingham and Strafford County.</cite> <cite index="1-2,1-3">Thibault owned and operated "Thibault's Handyman & Renovation Service, LLC" and "TR-Roofing LLC," and his renovation business was also known as "Thibault's Renovation Services."</cite>

The scale of the loss was substantial. <cite index="2-1">An investigation by the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau found that Thibault accepted a total of over $2.4 million in advance installment payments from 23 victims without performing the work he promised to perform.</cite>

What Happened

The case began years before the sentencing. <cite index="3-1">Thibault is alleged to have collectively taken over $2.4 million in consumer deposits from twenty-three victims for home improvement projects he promised to complete from October 2020 through September 2023.</cite>

In October 2024, grand juries returned a sweeping set of charges. <cite index="12-2">Attorney General John M. Formella announced that the Rockingham County and Strafford County Grand Juries had returned a total of thirty-six Class A Felony indictments against Gerard R. Thibault of Stratham, New Hampshire.</cite> <cite index="12-4,12-5">Twenty-one of the Rockingham County indictments alleged that Thibault committed Theft by Unauthorized Taking or Transfer and twelve alleged that he committed Theft by Deception; of the Strafford County indictments, two alleged Theft by Unauthorized Taking or Transfer and one alleged Theft by Deception.</cite>

The central detail that set this case apart was where the money went. According to the Attorney General's office, <cite index="14-4,14-5,14-6">operating under several business names, Thibault accepted advance payments from his victims without performing the home renovation work that he promised, and "he repeatedly gambled with such payments shortly after receiving them. In several instances, Mr. Thibault solicited payments while actively gambling."</cite>

He repeatedly gambled with such payments shortly after receiving them. In several instances, Mr. Thibault solicited payments while actively gambling.— New Hampshire Attorney General's Office news release, quoted by the New Hampshire Union Leader, January 20, 2026

Why It Was So Easy

The mechanics of the fraud were simple, and that is precisely the problem. Home improvement work in most states relies on trust and cash flow: a homeowner pays a deposit up front, and the contractor is expected to use it to buy materials and begin work. Once that money leaves the homeowner's hands, there is often nothing structurally stopping the contractor from spending it on something else entirely.

That vulnerability is not unique to New Hampshire, and it is widespread. According to escrow-industry data citing federal figures, <cite index="21-3,21-4">in 2023 there were about 83,000 home improvement scam complaints, around one in ten Americans reported experiencing a contractor scam, and victims lose an average of $2,426, often due to upfront payments for work that's never started or completed.</cite> More recent federal data shows the trend continuing: <cite index="28-2">the FTC's most recent fraud data shows consumers filed 81,925 home improvement-related complaints in 2024, while separate Better Business Bureau data found the median loss from a home improvement scam was approximately $1,800.</cite>

Thibault's case, at more than $2.4 million across 23 victims, dwarfs those typical losses. Prosecutors alleged he actively deepened the trap: <cite index="3-4">he is alleged to have created or reinforced false impressions by offering certain consumers additional, reduced-cost, or free goods or services in exchange for early or additional funds.</cite> In other words, victims were encouraged to pay more, sooner — the exact opposite of what protects a homeowner.

What the Investigation Found

The case was handled entirely at the state level. <cite index="4-6">The case against Thibault was investigated and prosecuted by the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau of the state Department of Justice.</cite> That bureau's review established both the total taken and the pattern of gambling that followed each payment.

At sentencing, the court imposed a layered penalty. <cite index="6-9,6-10">On 11 of the theft charges, Thibault was sentenced to 7.5 to 15 years in the New Hampshire State Prison, stand committed, with 2.5 years suspended from the minimum term for 20 years after his release; on the remaining 12 theft charges he received an identical sentence, to be served consecutively.</cite>

The court also addressed the money and the behavior directly. <cite index="1-7,1-8,1-9">In addition to his prison term, Thibault is ordered to repay each of his 23 victims in full, in the total amount of $1,532,961.54; he is prohibited from gambling until he pays this restitution amount in full; and he is also ordered not to accept any advance payment for any goods or service.</cite>

What Escrow Would Have Changed

The single structural weakness that made Thibault's scheme possible was that homeowners' deposits went straight into his own accounts, where he had unrestricted control over them. Escrow removes that control. <cite index="24-4,24-5,24-6">Putting construction funds in escrow means placing funds in a secure account managed by a neutral third party; the money remains in the account until both the homeowner and the contractor fulfill the terms of the contract, protecting the homeowner from paying for work that isn't finished or done incorrectly.</cite>

Under a milestone-based escrow arrangement, money is released only as verifiable work is completed. <cite index="23-1,23-2">The total project budget is deposited into a secure escrow account, and funds are released only when specific milestones are completed — framing, plumbing, tilework, and so on.</cite> <cite index="21-8,21-9,21-10">As the project progresses, a licensed inspector or project manager verifies the completion of each stage, and once confirmed, a portion of the funds is released to the contractor, which guarantees payments are tied to real progress.</cite> Had Thibault's victims paid into escrow, there would have been no lump sum available to carry to a casino, and no funds released for work he never intended to perform.

Some states already build this protection into law. In New York, for example, <cite index="20-2,20-3">any payment made on behalf of the homeowner to the contractor in excess of the cost of materials prior to the completion of the project must be deposited into an escrow account, and any contractor who fails to do so is subject to a specific penalty under Article 36-A of the state's General Business Law.</cite> Because such a deposit must sit untouched, <cite index="26-1">a homeowner can ask the contractor to name the account, and one who can't — or who has already spent it — has handed over evidence of a violation.</cite>

Escrow does not eliminate every risk, but it targets the exact failure at the heart of this case: the moment a homeowner's money becomes a contractor's to gamble. For 23 New Hampshire households, that moment cost more than $2.4 million. A neutral account holding those funds — releasing them only against completed, inspected work — is the difference between a stalled project and a life savings lost.

Sources