1. Overview
This narrative condenses three years of lease documentation, payments, and communications into a single factual sequence. It explains how a performing tenancy evolved into an eviction dispute despite complete payment records and why the evidence was forwarded to law enforcement for review. The purpose of this page is clarity: to show the relationship between the evidence and the applicable laws without advocacy or speculation.
2. Contract Formation and Performance
The residential lease began in 2022 and was renewed in April 2023 through a signed DocuSign extension. All rent obligations were met electronically or by certified mail [June 2024] . Wells Fargo bank confirmations e-deposits to owner 24 months, postal receipts, and written acknowledgments in email and text prove continuous payment on or before the first of each month. The tenants maintained the property and completed minor repairs when management failed to respond.
3. Management Transition and Payment Confusion
During spring 2024 the managing agent Hanson Le of Berkshire resigned and directed tenants to communicate directly with ownership. The lease, however, still required payments to the agent at the management office. The May 30 payment was delivered to that office and signed for by "H" USP certified signed; a text message from ownership confirmed receipt [" I texted Hanson he got the check"]. Despite this, a three-day notice was posted on June23 by the owner to pay out side the contract a additional sum in excess of $5,000 with no instrument of debit between parties. Subsequent month followed the same pattern: rent paid, receipt documented, but no credit applied [July 2024 e-deposit to owner]..
4. Escalation to Legal Proceedings
By June 2024 a new agent relationship starts Anna Ly and a private personal bank account demand by owner after payment caused duplicate payment requests. When the tenants declined to bypass the written contract, an unlawful-detainer action was filed on June 21. The check used as the alleged “missed payment” was later verified by the bank as never cashed. Nevertheless, the eviction proceeded, and the property was re-listed as a short-term rental before the court hearing—approximately 54 percent higher in price and without short-term-rental permits on record as an Airbnb in Huntington Beach.
5. Evidence Delivery and Law-Enforcement Timeline
- July 3 2025 – Hard-copy and digital evidence delivered to Huntington Beach PD (five DVDs + hard drive).
- July 24 2025 – Identical packet received by the Orange County District Attorney, Public Integrity Division.
- August 2025 – Electronic copies sent to FBI Los Angeles Field Office for record protection.
- Current: Superior Court under Judge M. Hernandez reopened; case under review.
6. Statutory Framework (Plain Language)
The facts touch multiple statutes:
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343 – Mail and Wire Fraud: using postal or electronic systems to obtain property by false representation.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – Bank Fraud: diverting or concealing rent funds in transit.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) – RICO: pattern of at least two related fraud acts within ten years forming an enterprise.
- Cal. Pen. Code § 518 – Extortion: obtaining property through threat or misuse of authority.
- Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5 – Retaliatory Eviction: removing tenants who have exercised legal rights or reported issues.
- Cal. Civ. Code § 3345 – Elder/Senior Enhancement: authorizes treble damages where the victim is over 65 or dependent.
7. Damages Summary
The provable economic loss equals approximately $90 000 in prepaid rent and $60 000 in permanent property losses. Relocation, storage, and health impacts add roughly $50 000. Under California and federal treble-damage provisions, base losses can lawfully expand to the $900 000–$1.2 M range, with punitive exposure in the $8 M–$42 M window if a RICO pattern is confirmed. All amounts are supported by accounting worksheets and inspection reports contained in the digital portal.
8. Public-Interest Consideration
The concern extends beyond a single tenancy. If documented payments can be ignored in the eviction process, similar cases could recur across the county. Grand-jury and agency review ensure accountability in the handling of rental payments, property management, and the judicial process that enforces them. The question is systemic: how verified digital evidence can be lost in paper-based enforcement.
9. Current Status and Next Steps
All materials remain under chain-of-custody seal. The submitter seeks a coordinated review among the District Attorney, law enforcement, and the FBI to confirm statutory violations and recommend corrective or prosecutorial action. Future filings will focus on restitution, RICO pattern analysis, and policy recommendations for transparent evidence reconciliation in housing cases.