April–July Rent Payments — Fraud & Extortion Summary (Counts 1–4)

After the owner confirmed in writing that we would remain as tenants, we proceeded in good faith and made the April 19 payment to start the third year of the lease. What follows is a four-count sequence of bank fraud, mail fraud, wire/bank-instrument fraud, and extortion, all documented by bank records, USPS receipts, contract language, and court testimony. These four events are the non-negotiable core of the case.

1. Count 1 — April 19 Payment for May Rent (Bank Fraud / Concealment)
   On April 19, $5,000 was deposited directly into the landlord’s personal bank account, exactly as it had been for approximately the prior 24 months. This payment was made in reliance on the owner’s written statement that he intended to “keep” us as tenants. Later, the landlord concealed this payment from the court and claimed it was never made, despite the bank record showing the deposit. This constitutes deliberate bank-instrument fraud and concealment of tendered rent.
2. Count 2 — May 30 Payment for June Rent (Mail Fraud / Bank-Instrument Fraud)
   Under the fully executed contract signed by all parties, I was directed to make payment to the agent, Hanson Le. In compliance with that written instruction, I mailed the next payment using the United States Postal Service, and it was delivered to the Berkshire Hathaway, Huntington Beach office on May 30.
   
   At the same time, the owner knew that a $1,000 dishwasher had been installed in the property, constituting partial satisfaction of the rent obligation. From that moment forward, the only possible dispute could be the amount of rent, not a claim of no payment. The mailed payment was concealed from the court, and the owner continued to assert non-payment while enjoying the benefit of the new appliance and the funds. This pattern reflects mail fraud (use of USPS to handle a rent instrument that was then concealed) and bank-instrument fraud.
3. Count 3 — Off-Contract Demand and Threat (Extortion)
   After confirming that his agent had a live check in hand, the landlord telephoned me and demanded that I pay him again outside of the written lease and payment channel, into his private bank account, as a condition to remain in the home. This demand was made after he knew: (a) the April 19 deposit had already funded his personal account, and (b) the May 30 mailed payment was in his agent’s possession.
   
   By leveraging our need to stay housed and insisting on an additional, off-contract payment into his private account, under threat of eviction, the landlord’s conduct constitutes extortion (e.g., California Penal Code § 518 — obtaining money from another with consent induced by wrongful use of fear or under color of authority).
4. Count 4 — July Payment Misrepresentation (Wire / Bank-Instrument Fraud + Extortion Context)
   Following the off-contract demand, I made an additional payment electronically into the landlord’s bank account (for the July period). Instead of returning these electronic funds through any of the normal banking methods available to him, the landlord later represented to the court that he had “returned the check” by mail through the United States Post Office.
   
   In reality, the electronic funds remained in his account. He knew, or should have known, that any alleged mailed “return” would be untracked, unsigned for, and effectively lost, while he retained the benefit of the money. This creates a fourth count of wire / bank-instrument fraud, layered on top of the earlier extortion scenario in which he forced payment into his private account and then proceeded to evict us anyway.

These four counts — April 19 deposit, May 30 USPS-delivered payment to the agent, the off-contract/extortionate demand, and the retained July electronic funds falsely described as “returned by mail” — form a closed evidentiary loop. Bank records, USPS proof of delivery, the signed contract directing payment to the agent, the installed $1,000 dishwasher, and the landlord’s own statements to the court collectively demonstrate an unbroken pattern of fraudulent concealment of payments and extortionate demands for additional funds.