Document 2: Second-Year Fraud, Unauthorized Fee Demands & Unlicensed Agent Conduct

Gasio v. Tran et al. – Submission to Orange County District Attorney

This section documents the criminal misconduct during the second year of tenancy at 19235 Brynn Court. Evidence confirms that the landlord and agent Anna Ly issued lease extensions, imposed unauthorized fees, and unilaterally changed payment terms in direct violation of California contract law. These actions were enforced through electronic communications, qualifying under federal statutes for wire fraud and bank fraud.

Exhibit: Unauthorized Fee Demand

Email showing contract may not be unilaterally changed

The tenants reaffirmed that the lease could not be modified without agreement from all parties. Despite this, owner and agent imposed a $500 fine and altered payment timelines.

Exhibit: Lease Extension Offer

Tenant offer to renew lease at same terms

Tenant email confirms intent to renew at same rate, with no discussion of new terms or fees. Offer was made in good faith, expecting contract continuity.

Exhibit: Second-Year Lease Issued

Second year lease allegedly issued via DocuSign

Agent sends lease renewal via DocuSign under same name used in year one. Tenants later discovered no lease was legally finalized. Despite this, owner imposed fee structures and payment changes.

Exhibit: Lease Document - Year 2

The lease document image includes metadata proving it was issued from the same email as the original lease and was intended to mislead the tenant into accepting a unilateral modification.

Exhibit: Unlicensed Activity Verified

DRE database showing no active license for Anna Ly in Newport Beach

Screenshot from the California Department of Real Estate website confirms that Anna Ly was not legally licensed to operate in Newport Beach. Despite this, she acted as agent, issued contracts, demanded payments, and sent binding communications.

 

Conclusion

All five exhibits show a pattern of deception by unlicensed agent Anna Ly and landlord Phat Tran. Tenants were financially coerced into paying early, outside the lease terms, and under threat of credit damage or fees. These actions meet the thresholds for fraud, bank fraud, and extortion, and constitute a serious violation of California tenant protection law and federal wire statutes.