DA32 – Forged Renewal & Lease Substitution Scheme

Gasio v. Tran et al. – Orange County DA Submission

This page establishes intent and execution of a false renewal process led by Hanson Le and Phat Tran to override the original contract and fabricate a basis for future eviction. Communications, forged signatures, lack of proper notice, and conflicting contract terms show the scheme was executed with forethought and financial motive.

Summary:
Hanson Le and Phat Tran orchestrated a bait-and-switch lease maneuver after receiving payment for the renewal period, falsely presenting the tenant as a new applicant and issuing a second "contract" while suppressing the original signed lease. This led to a 3-day notice and eventual eviction based on fraudulent lease terms and altered rental obligations.
Lease application used after payment

Hanson Le issues a rental "renewal application" and conceals that the lease had already been signed to California and payment received under the original terms he designed one at $5,000 and eleven at $5,350. This constitutes willful misrepresentation.

 

Signed document - payment already processed

Evidence of full rent payment prior to the issuance of the 3-day notice. The amount and account match statements already disclosed in Page DA26 and DA27.

Renewal bait: lease without confirmation

Tenant was told to submit a "renewal application" but was unaware that this would be used to substitute the valid ongoing lease agreement. No proper disclosure or cancellation of the prior agreement was made.

Criminal and Civil Violations Supported:
Conclusion:
The renewal process was not a legitimate contract execution but a tool for coercion. The tenant paid under the original terms, was misled into a second document submission, and never received a valid copy of any legally compliant lease acknowledgment from Berkshire Hathaway or its agents.