01
Financial Distress Confession
CONFESSION
MOTIVE
ARM LOAN ADMISSION
Tran Discloses Adjustable Rate Mortgage — Financial Distress — May 11, 2024
Saturday, May 11, 2024 · 8:20 AM · From: Phat Tran · To: Michael Gasio
Tran Text — May 11, 2024 — ARM Loan Admission
"As you know I still have a adjustable mortgage loan on the property, rate increase crazy lately, I have to wait for the rate to go down so I can refinance the loan."— Phat Tran, text message to Michael Gasio, May 11, 2024
Legal Significance
Tran self-discloses the financial instrument driving the eviction scheme. An adjustable rate mortgage in a rising rate environment — he explicitly states he cannot refinance until rates decline. The Brynn Ct. property's protected rent of $5,000/month was insufficient to service the escalating debt. The only path to adequate cash flow was eviction and conversion to Airbnb at an uncapped rate. This is the motive statement, written by the defendant himself, 53 days before the UD was filed.
18 U.S.C. §1962
RICO — financial motive for enterprise activity documented by principal
CC §1942.5
Retaliatory eviction — financial motive corroborates retaliation presumption
WIC §15610.30
Elder financial abuse — calculated financial scheme against 72-year-old tenant
02
CPI Knowledge — He Knew the Law
SMOKING GUN
TPA VIOLATION PROVEN
PREMEDITATION
Tran Admits He Knows CPI Law — Never Raised Rent — Planned to Evict
Saturday, May 11, 2024 · 8:20 AM — Continuation
Tran Text — CPI Knowledge & 3-Year Rent Freeze Admission
"I'm renting my practice since 2003, my landlord increase my rent every year 4 to 5% base on CPI. This year they increase to 6% because of the inflation. You lease this property 3 years now and I never increased the rent for 3 years! Normally the rent should increase minimum 3% yearly base on CPI. Hope you understand the situation."— Phat Tran, May 11, 2024
What This Proves
This single text destroys any claim of ignorance. Tran:
1. Knows CPI-based rent increase law — he experiences it personally as a tenant since 2003.
2. Admits he never raised rent in 3 years — his own words confirm the Gasios were protected under AB 1482 the entire tenancy.
3. States his intent to collect "missed" increases — he believed he was owed cumulative raises he never applied. California's Tenant Protection Act does not permit retroactive increases. His remedy was a lawful prospective increase, not eviction.
4. Sent this text 53 days before the UD was filed — establishing premeditation beyond any reasonable doubt.
1. Knows CPI-based rent increase law — he experiences it personally as a tenant since 2003.
2. Admits he never raised rent in 3 years — his own words confirm the Gasios were protected under AB 1482 the entire tenancy.
3. States his intent to collect "missed" increases — he believed he was owed cumulative raises he never applied. California's Tenant Protection Act does not permit retroactive increases. His remedy was a lawful prospective increase, not eviction.
4. Sent this text 53 days before the UD was filed — establishing premeditation beyond any reasonable doubt.
AB 1482 / CC §1947.12
TPA cap: 5% + CPI or 10% max — Tran's "missed" increases cannot be retroactively collected — eviction is not a remedy for unpaid increases
CC §1942.5
Retaliatory eviction presumption — financial motive stated in writing within 180 days of habitability complaint
PC §118
Perjury — Tran testified no rent was received while this text proves financial motive for manufactured default
03
Property Manager Cover Story — April 1 vs May 11
FALSE PRETEXT
TIMELINE CONTRADICTION
Tran's "Too Busy" Story — Manufactured 5 Weeks After Le Already Operating
Monday, April 1, 2024 · 10:04 PM & Saturday, May 11, 2024 · 8:20 AM
April 1, 2024 — Tran introduces property manager concept
May 11, 2024 — Tran gives "too busy" explanation — AFTER Le already operating
"Hi Michael, I'm very busy with my practice, one of my associate just delivered a baby and another one is moving to Texas. I feel I don't have time to take care of my tenant therefore I have to hire a property manager to help me."— Phat Tran, May 11, 2024 — 5 weeks AFTER Le was already texting Michael daily
The False Timeline Exposed
On April 1, 2024 at 10:04 PM, Tran announces he is hiring a property manager. By April 4, he names Hanson Le. By April 17, Le is already texting Michael about lease terms and requesting his bank account number.
On May 11 — five weeks after Le is fully operational — Tran sends the "too busy with my practice" explanation as if the decision is new. This is not an explanation. It is a retroactive cover story manufactured after the payment redirect mechanism was already in place.
Hanson Le was never a property manager. He held no property management license. He was a BHHS associate broker brought in specifically to execute the fraudulent lease with the redirected payment clause. His first act upon introduction was to ask for Michael's personal bank account number to redirect rent away from the owner. That is not property management. That is the wire fraud instrument activating.
On May 11 — five weeks after Le is fully operational — Tran sends the "too busy with my practice" explanation as if the decision is new. This is not an explanation. It is a retroactive cover story manufactured after the payment redirect mechanism was already in place.
Hanson Le was never a property manager. He held no property management license. He was a BHHS associate broker brought in specifically to execute the fraudulent lease with the redirected payment clause. His first act upon introduction was to ask for Michael's personal bank account number to redirect rent away from the owner. That is not property management. That is the wire fraud instrument activating.
18 U.S.C. §1343
Wire fraud — Le positioned as payment channel controller before lease execution
BPC §10176(a)
Agent misrepresentation — Le presented as property manager when he was a sales agent
18 U.S.C. §1962
RICO — Le's introduction was a planned enterprise role, not a management decision
04
Le — First Contact & Introduction
ENTERPRISE ACTIVATION
HANSON LE DRE #01358448
Hanson Le Introduces Himself — "New Property Manager for Phat Tran"
April 2024 — After April 4 Named Introduction by Tran
Hanson Le First Text — "Hi Michael! I am Hanson, a new property manager for Phat Tran."
"Hi Michael! I am Hanson, a new property manager for Phat Tran. Good to connect with you!"— Hanson Le, first text to Michael Gasio
Who Le Actually Was
Le identified himself as a "property manager" — a misrepresentation. His DRE license #01358448 is an associate broker license, not a property management license. He was affiliated with Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties as a sales agent.
Michael's response documents the critical context: "Thank you, we were waiting for a DocuSign to extend the lease another year. I told the doctor that I also own properties..." — Michael disclosed his own landlord experience immediately, establishing that he understood the lease extension had already been agreed in writing with Tran on April 2, 2024.
Le's subsequent actions were not property management. They were lease execution, payment redirection, and deposit extraction — the three functions of the wire fraud instrument.
Michael's response documents the critical context: "Thank you, we were waiting for a DocuSign to extend the lease another year. I told the doctor that I also own properties..." — Michael disclosed his own landlord experience immediately, establishing that he understood the lease extension had already been agreed in writing with Tran on April 2, 2024.
Le's subsequent actions were not property management. They were lease execution, payment redirection, and deposit extraction — the three functions of the wire fraud instrument.
BPC §10176(a)
Agent misrepresentation — "property manager" title when Le held no PM license
CC §2332
Agent knowledge imputed to BHHS — Le acted under BHHS brand and email
05
Le Redirects Rent — Day One of Contact
WIRE FRAUD PREDICATE
BPC §10138 VIOLATION
PERSONAL ACCOUNT
Le Asks for Michael's Bank — April 17 — Before Any Lease — Before Any Management
Wednesday, April 17, 2024 · 11:37 AM · From: Property Manager (Hanson Le)
April 17 — Le asks for Michael's bank to provide his personal account number
Le: "I can provide you my bank account number to transfer monthly rent to me instead of to the owner"
"Also what bank do you use? So I can provide you my bank account number to transfer monthly rent to me instead of to the owner. Thank you Mr Gasio!"— Hanson Le, April 17, 2024 — first substantive communication
The Fraud Mechanism Activates
Before any lease was signed, before any management agreement was executed, before any fiduciary relationship was established — Le's first substantive act was to ask for Michael's bank so he could redirect rent to his personal account.
California Business and Professions Code Section 10138 requires all trust funds collected by a real estate licensee to be deposited into a licensed broker trust account — not a personal bank account. Le's request was illegal on its face the moment he made it.
This was not an operational question. It was the activation of the payment redirection scheme. The lease had not been signed. The management relationship had not been formalized. There was no lawful basis for Le to be collecting rent at all — let alone into a personal account.
California Business and Professions Code Section 10138 requires all trust funds collected by a real estate licensee to be deposited into a licensed broker trust account — not a personal bank account. Le's request was illegal on its face the moment he made it.
This was not an operational question. It was the activation of the payment redirection scheme. The lease had not been signed. The management relationship had not been formalized. There was no lawful basis for Le to be collecting rent at all — let alone into a personal account.
BPC §10138
Trust account requirement — all collected funds must go to licensed broker trust account — personal account is per se violation
18 U.S.C. §1343
Wire fraud — interstate electronic communication to advance payment redirection scheme
BPC §10176(a)
Licensee misconduct — directing client funds to personal account for personal use
06
Wire Confirmation — $5,000 — April 19, 2024
18 U.S.C. §1344
PAYMENT PROVEN
FEDERAL RECORD
Wells Fargo Wire Confirmation — $5,000 — Sent to Tran — Denied Under Oath
Friday, April 19, 2024 · 11:51 AM · Wells Fargo Confirmation OW00004382456864
Wells Fargo Wire Confirmation — $5,000 — 04/19/2024 at 11:51 AM Pacific Time — Payee: Landlord
"You successfully submitted your wire on 04/19/2024 at 11:51 am Pacific Time. To: Landlord. Amount: $5,000.00."— Wells Fargo Confirmation, sent to Phat Tran by Michael Gasio
Payment 1 of 4 — Denied Under Oath
This wire transfer — Confirmation No. OW00004382456864 — was transmitted on April 19, 2024 at 11:51 AM from Michael Gasio's Premier Checking account ending in 0732 (available balance $10,167.16 at time of wire).
Michael photographed the Wells Fargo confirmation and sent it directly to Tran in this same text thread. Tran replied: "We are filling out new paperwork understand one at old lease 5000 then new payment 5350 I want keep paying early..." — confirming receipt of the wire in writing.
Tran subsequently testified under oath in court that no rent payment had been received. That testimony was perjury. The wire confirmation is a federal banking record. It cannot be undone.
Michael photographed the Wells Fargo confirmation and sent it directly to Tran in this same text thread. Tran replied: "We are filling out new paperwork understand one at old lease 5000 then new payment 5350 I want keep paying early..." — confirming receipt of the wire in writing.
Tran subsequently testified under oath in court that no rent payment had been received. That testimony was perjury. The wire confirmation is a federal banking record. It cannot be undone.
18 U.S.C. §1344
Bank fraud — wire payment received and denied under oath
PC §118
Perjury — false testimony re: non-payment while wire confirmation exists
PC §127
Subornation of perjury — Silverstein permitted known false testimony
07
Blank Fields — Forgery Precursor — April 26
PC §470 FORGERY
OBJECTION ON RECORD
PRE-SIGNATURE DISPUTE
Michael Objects to Blank Fields Before Signing — Le Promises to Fix — Never Does
Friday, April 26, 2024 — Before Gasio Signatures April 28
Michael: "I have the contract open now on my computer and I do not see those funds on the contract we're signing today"
"I have the contract open now on my computer and I do not see those funds on the contract we're signing today the old contracts have expired. The owner needs to transfer those funds to you so they show up on my new contract I don't see them you can call."— Michael Gasio to Hanson Le, April 26, 2024
"I can have it transferred and showed in our new agreement, no problem. Anything else?"— Hanson Le response — acknowledged blanks — promised to fill them — never did
The Forgery Predicate
Michael objected to blank material terms before signing. Le acknowledged the blanks existed. Le promised to correct them. Le never corrected them.
The contract was executed with terms Michael had not agreed to. Any terms appearing in the executed document that were not present when Michael reviewed it on April 26 were inserted without consent — that is forgery under PC §470.
Le's exact words — "I can have it transferred and showed in our new agreement" — are a confession that the contract terms were not final at the time of his own signature on April 26. He signed a document he acknowledged was incomplete and promised to alter afterward. That promise was never honored.
The contract was executed with terms Michael had not agreed to. Any terms appearing in the executed document that were not present when Michael reviewed it on April 26 were inserted without consent — that is forgery under PC §470.
Le's exact words — "I can have it transferred and showed in our new agreement" — are a confession that the contract terms were not final at the time of his own signature on April 26. He signed a document he acknowledged was incomplete and promised to alter afterward. That promise was never honored.
PC §470
Forgery — material term inserted into legal instrument without consent of signatory
18 U.S.C. §1343
Wire fraud — fraudulent instrument transmitted interstate via Authentisign
PC §115
Filing false instrument — executed lease with false/incomplete terms submitted to BHHS platform
08
Dishwasher — Le Claims to Help — Called Worthless
CC §1941.1 VIOLATION
HABITABILITY DOCUMENTED
Le Unable to Resolve Dishwasher — Michael Calls Out the Pretense
April–May 2024 — Property Manager Thread
Michael to Le: "I own rentals. I would never let someone have a stinky dishwasher for 2 weeks. I'm going to contact the owner and tell them that you're worthless."
"I don't care about the towel bars I own rentals I would never let someone have a stinky dishwasher for 2 weeks so don't tell me how much you're trying to help me. I'm going to contact the owner and tell them that you're worthless."— Michael Gasio to Hanson Le
Le's Role Exposed by His Inaction
A legitimate property manager with fiduciary duties to a tenant would resolve a broken dishwasher within days. Le — who claimed to represent both the owner and tenant — could not or would not resolve a basic habitability defect that had been outstanding since move-in in 2022.
Michael's response identifies exactly what Le was: a salesman, not a manager. His role was to execute the lease and redirect the payment. Habitability was never his concern because it was never his job. The pretense of property management collapsed the moment a real management task was required.
Michael's response identifies exactly what Le was: a salesman, not a manager. His role was to execute the lease and redirect the payment. Habitability was never his concern because it was never his job. The pretense of property management collapsed the moment a real management task was required.
CC §1941.1
Landlord obligation to maintain appliances — dishwasher failure predates and continues through tenancy
BPC §10176(a)
Agent misrepresentation — Le held out as property manager with no management capacity
09
The Lease — Core Fraud Instrument
CORE FEDERAL EXHIBIT
DUAL AGENCY VIOLATION
TRUST ACCOUNT VIOLATION
AUTHENTISIGN #46CC8725
CAR Form RLMM — Executed April 26–28, 2024 — Three Wire Events — Rent to Personal Account
Authentisign ID: 46CC8725-F703-EF11-96F5-6045BDD68161 · April 26–28, 2024
Page 1 — Payment clause: Wells Fargo, Name: Hanson Le, Account #3312943297
Page 2 — Move-in costs: Rent payable to Hanson Le. Deposits payable to Owner.
Page 8 — Le signed as BOTH tenant broker AND housing provider broker — undisclosed dual agency
Core Fraud Finding — Three Elements on One Document
Element 1 — Personal Account Redirect: Page 1 directs all rent to "BANK: WELLS FARGO, NAME: HANSON LE, ACCOUNT #: 3312943297" — Le's personal account. BPC §10138 requires a licensed broker trust account. This clause is illegal on its face.
Element 2 — Split Payees: Page 2 shows rent payable to Hanson Le personally while deposits are payable to Owner. This separation creates the mechanism by which Tran could later claim no rent was received — it was being paid to Le's account, not Tran's.
Element 3 — Undisclosed Dual Agency: Page 8 shows Le signed as agent for both the tenant's brokerage firm AND the housing provider's brokerage firm — both listed as Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties. His DRE license number 01358448 appears on the housing provider side but is blank on the tenant side. This is BPC §10176(d) undisclosed dual agency — a per se violation requiring license revocation.
Element 2 — Split Payees: Page 2 shows rent payable to Hanson Le personally while deposits are payable to Owner. This separation creates the mechanism by which Tran could later claim no rent was received — it was being paid to Le's account, not Tran's.
Element 3 — Undisclosed Dual Agency: Page 8 shows Le signed as agent for both the tenant's brokerage firm AND the housing provider's brokerage firm — both listed as Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties. His DRE license number 01358448 appears on the housing provider side but is blank on the tenant side. This is BPC §10176(d) undisclosed dual agency — a per se violation requiring license revocation.
BPC §10138
Trust account — rent directed to personal account on face of BHHS-branded lease
BPC §10176(d)
Undisclosed dual agency — Le signed for both sides — per se DRE violation
PC §470
Forgery — blank terms at review, completed terms at execution
18 U.S.C. §1343
Wire fraud — three interstate Authentisign transmissions carrying fraudulent payment clause
CC §2332
BHHS bound by Le's conduct — corporate email, platform, and license number used throughout
10
Authentisign Wire Chain — Three Federal Counts
3 WIRE FRAUD COUNTS
BHHS CORPORATE EMAIL
CHAIN OF CUSTODY INTACT
Three Authentisign Transmissions — April 26 & 28, 2024 — Three Separate 18 U.S.C. §1343 Counts
From: hansonle@bhhsCAprops.com via secure@authentisign.com
Wire Event 1 — April 26, 2024 at 11:03 AM — Signing invitation sent from hansonle@bhhsCAprops.com via Authentisign
Wire Event 2 — April 28, 2024 at 10:36 AM — Signing complete confirmation to Michael Gasio
Wire Event 3 — April 28, 2024 at 10:36 AM — Signing complete confirmation to Yulia Gasio
1
Wire Event
April 26, 2024 · 11:03 AM PDT
Signing invitation transmitted
From: BHHS corporate email
Subject: "Your signature is requested"
Signing invitation transmitted
From: BHHS corporate email
Subject: "Your signature is requested"
2
Wire Event
April 28, 2024 · 10:36 AM PDT
Completion confirmation — Michael
From: secure@authentisign.com
Subject: "Signing complete"
Completion confirmation — Michael
From: secure@authentisign.com
Subject: "Signing complete"
3
Wire Event
April 28, 2024 · 10:36 AM PDT
Completion confirmation — Yulia
From: secure@authentisign.com
Subject: "Signing complete"
Completion confirmation — Yulia
From: secure@authentisign.com
Subject: "Signing complete"
Each transmission carried the fraudulent payment clause directing rent to Le's personal Wells Fargo account in violation of BPC §10138. Under 18 U.S.C. §1343, each use of interstate wire communications to advance a scheme to defraud constitutes a separate count. Three transmissions. Three federal felony counts. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. The chain of custody is unbroken — BHHS corporate email authentication, Authentisign digital certificates, and Yahoo Mail receipt timestamps confirm every event.
11
Master Timeline — Premeditation to UD Filing
PREMEDITATION DOCUMENTED
94 DAYS BEFORE UD
Complete Chronology — April 1 Through July 3, 2024
All dates confirmed by timestamped text records and federal wire instruments
Premeditation Timeline — Tran & Le — April–July 2024
APR 1, 2024
10:04 PM
10:04 PM
Tran texts Michael announcing property manager — "I just decided to hire a manager" — 10:04 PM on April Fools Day, late night⚠ 94 days before UD filing
APR 2, 2024
Tran texts: "Please do not think we're looking new lessee" — written confirmation of continuing tenancy⚠ Perjury predicate — contradicts later court testimony
APR 3, 2024
Michael: "I don't have a text or message — give me this person's number" — Le has not yet made contact despite Tran's April 1 announcement
APR 4, 2024
2:46 PM
2:46 PM
Tran names Le: "The name of the manager is Hanson Le, he will contact you soon Michael"
APR 17, 2024
11:37 AM
11:37 AM
Le's first substantive text: announces renewal terms AND immediately asks for Michael's bank to redirect rent to his personal account⚠ Wire fraud mechanism activates — BPC §10138 violated on first contact
APR 18, 2024
7:52 AM
7:52 AM
Michael emails Le documenting all outstanding habitability issues — dishwasher, mold, loose switches, windows, roof — prior to signing
APR 19, 2024
11:51 AM
11:51 AM
$5,000 wire sent to Tran — Wells Fargo Confirmation OW00004382456864 — screenshot sent to Tran — Tran acknowledges receipt in text⚠ Later denied under oath — perjury
APR 25, 2024
Le texts: "Hello Mr Gasio, Please forward to me your rental application" — treating existing 3-year tenant as a new applicant
APR 26, 2024
11:03 AM
11:03 AM
Wire Event 1 — Authentisign invitation sent from hansonle@bhhsCAprops.com — lease with personal account redirect clause transmitted interstate⚠ 18 U.S.C. §1343 Count 1
APR 26, 2024
AFTERNOON
AFTERNOON
Michael reviews contract — objects to blank fields — "I do not see those funds on the contract we're signing today" — Le responds: "I can have it transferred and showed in our new agreement, no problem"⚠ PC §470 Forgery predicate — Le acknowledges incomplete terms
APR 27, 2024
Tran signs — Date: 04/27/2024 — Email: kyphat@yahoo.com
APR 28, 2024
10:36 AM
10:36 AM
Wire Events 2 & 3 — Michael and Yulia sign — Authentisign completion confirmations transmitted⚠ 18 U.S.C. §1343 Counts 2 & 3
MAY 11, 2024
8:20 AM
8:20 AM
Tran sends financial distress/CPI confession — five weeks after Le is already operating — fabricated retroactive justification for Le's introduction⚠ Motive documented by defendant — 53 days before UD
MAY 28, 2024
$5,350 cashier's check mailed USPS certified to BHHS Huntington Beach — signed for by "H." — Hanson Le — never deposited — never returned — Fifth Amendment invoked⚠ 18 U.S.C. §1341 Mail Fraud
JUN 25, 2024
Tran texts: "I want you to default on it" — written confession of manufactured default⚠ CC §1942.5 retaliation — 36 days after habitability complaint
JUL 3, 2024
Silverstein files UD — Case 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC — 94 days after Tran's April 1 property manager announcement⚠ Premeditation: 94 days of documented preparation