Text Message – New Contract Payment Instructions to Hanson Le

Summary

This April 2024 message confirms that the new Berkshire Hathaway contract—signed by Michael Gasio, Yulia Gasio, Hanson Le, and the owner Phat Tran—contained a unilateral change in payment routing. Unlike prior agreements requiring direct deposit to the owner’s Wells Fargo account, the new document ordered that rent be paid directly to Hanson Le, a licensed real-estate agent acting as intermediary. This directive created a conflict between the previously verified banking channel and a newly introduced private account, effectively altering a financial instrument without consent.

Legal Context

• California Civil Code §1550 & §1567 – A valid contract requires mutual consent; unilateral modification voids the altered term.
• California Business & Professions Code §10176(a) – Prohibits dishonest dealing by a real-estate licensee, including diversion of client funds.
• California Penal Code §470 & §476 – Forgery and fraudulent use of written instruments encompass altered payment instructions tied to bank transactions.
• 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Wire Fraud) – Use of electronic communication to misrepresent payment routing or ownership of funds constitutes federal wire fraud.
• 18 U.S.C. §1344 (Bank Fraud) – Defrauding or attempting to obtain money under custody of a federally insured institution through false pretenses or diversion of deposits.

Evidence Findings

• The contract term directing payment to Hanson Le was never disclosed during negotiation and lacked owner signature authorization for such redirection.
• Tenants were compelled to follow the new instruction to remain “in compliance,” even though it contradicted prior banking terms and removed escrow safeguards.
• This created exposure for bank fraud and conversion of trust funds under both state and federal law.

Implications

By forcing rent deposits into the agent’s private control instead of the landlord’s verified account, the signatories effectively manufactured a new payment instrument and induced compliance through coercion. Such conduct violates California Civil Code §1710 (fraudulent deceit) and forms part of a continuing scheme to misappropriate funds via electronic banking systems. The tenants’ adherence under protest does not cure the illegality of the modification or waive their rights under AB 1482 and federal wire-fraud statutes.