A Wall Street analyst who found financial discrepancies at the Obama administration-preferred General Electric before its stock tanked during the 2008 financial crisis now claims that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has several irregularities in its tax records and could be in violation of state laws.

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, longtime financial advisor Charles Ortel says he has spent the past 15 months looking into the Clinton Foundation’s public records, state-and-federal tax filings and donor disclosures. Those include records fro a number of the foundation’s subsidiaries like the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Health Access Initiative – as well as foreign subsidies.

Ortel’s reports note that contributor disclosures from the Clinton Foundation don’t match with individual donors’ records, the WFB noted, while he further argued that the foundation is out of compliance with some state laws pertaining to fundraising registration, auditing rules and disclosure requirements.

In recent days Ortel began releasing his findings in the first of a planned 40 reports on his website. Of the foundation, Ortel alleges, “this is a charity fraud.”

“Starting almost 20 years ago in 1997, the Clinton Foundation spread its activities from Little Rock, Arkansas, to all U.S. states and to numerous foreign countries without taking legally required steps to function and solicit as a duly constituted public charity,” wrote Ortel, in a letter posted on his website.

Though Ortel has often served as a commentator for conservative news and media outlets, his findings may be difficult for authorities to ignore. After decades working in mergers and acquisitions at some of the top firms on Wall Street, he has been an early whistleblower on irregularities within the financial sector including companies like AIG and GE.

But also, what Ortel has allegedly discovered could influence the current FBI investigation into Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as President Obama’s secretary of state.

As Fox News reported exclusively in January:

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record [said].

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.

In other words, besides examining whether Clinton violated laws governing the handling of classified materials, FBI investigators are analyzing whether she used her office as the top U.S. diplomat as a fundraising vehicle for her and her family’s foundation.

Fox News said that development followed press reports for the past year hinting there could have been an overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work and whether or not donors to the foundation benefitted by getting greater access to the Obama administration and to Hillary Clinton – who may have been telegraphing that she planned to run for the White House in 2016.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data in January.

In April, the Washington Examiner reported that one Clinton Foundation donor, Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi national, received $13 million in grants from the State Department during Clinton’s tenure, while groups associated with Yunus through business relationships received an additional $11 million.

As for Ortel, he began looking into the Clinton Foundation’s finances and other dealings in February 2015.

“I decided, as I did with GE, let’s pick one that’s complicated,” said Ortel. “The Clinton Foundation is complicated, but it’s really very small compared to GE.”

When he tried to match the foundation’s tax filings with disclosure reports from major donors, he said he began to find “discrepancies.”

“I decided it would be fun to cross-check what their donors thought they did when they donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that’s when I got really irritated,” he said. “There are massive discrepancies between what some of the major donors say they gave to the Clinton Foundation to do, and what the Clinton Foundation said what they got from the donors and what they did with it.”