Hanson Le

Real Estate Agent (Berkshire Hathaway) — Payment Interceptor — Central Witness to Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, Contract Fraud, Evidence Suppression, and Conspiracy.

I. Summary of Role

Hanson Le was the pivotal intermediary in the civil and criminal events of Gasio v. Tran et al. He operated as the payment interceptor for Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, the primary handler of tenant funds, and the individual who physically received and signed for the certified rent check that later became the centerpiece of the fraudulent eviction narrative.

His conduct shows knowledge of payment receipt, suppression of material evidence, coordination with owner Phat Tran, withdrawal from his role to avoid accountability, and statements contradicting his later silence before law enforcement.

II. Identity & Relationships

Name: Hanson Le
Role: Berkshire Hathaway Agent / Property Manager for Tran
Affiliation: Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Huntington Beach
Family/Business Links: Connected socially to Tran’s daughter; involved with Sand Dune cluster
Legal Status: Resigned during investigation; took Fifth Amendment when contacted by HBPD

III. Timeline of Conduct

2022–2023: Acts as leasing agent; communicates with tenant regarding payments and maintenance.
April 2024: Confirms receipt of June/July payments; acknowledges that lease is active.
May 28–30, 2024: Signs for USPS-certified check at BHHS (“H.”); does not deliver to owner or tenant.
Early June 2024: Stops responding to tenant inquiries; evidence suppression begins.
June 2024: Le resigns: “I no longer represent you… do not contact me.”
July 2024: Owner false narrative begins: “No payment arrived.”
August 2024: During HBPD inquiry, Le invokes Fifth Amendment.
2025: Fails to return documents requested by HBPD Lt. Randall.

IV. Evidence Relevant to This Actor

Evidence tying Le to mail fraud, wire fraud, and document suppression includes:

USPS Proof of Delivery: Signature “H.” at BHHS front desk.
Text Admission from Owner: “Hanson has the check.”
Resignation Note: “I no longer represent you,” sent immediately after receiving payment.
Lack of Return: No evidence the certified check was ever returned or forwarded.
Communication Logs: Missing conversations; failure to respond to legitimate inquiries.
Failure to Assist Investigation: Did not comply with police request for documentation.

These items collectively demonstrate knowledge, possession, and concealment of tenant funds.

V. Statutory Exposure (State & Federal)

A. California Penal Code

PC § 470 — Forgery (Accessory): Participation in forged/altered contract chain.
PC § 487 — Grand Theft: Concealment and conversion of certified payment.
PC § 518 — Extortion (Indirect): Payment threats via owner after concealment.
PC § 532 — False Pretenses: Misleading parties regarding receipt of funds.
PC § 135 — Destroying/Concealing Evidence: Failure to return documents to HBPD.
PC § 182 — Criminal Conspiracy: Coordinated effort with owner/agent/attorney.

B. Federal Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 1341 — Mail Fraud: Receipt and concealment of USPS-certified instrument.
18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud: Electronic communications misrepresenting payment status.
18 U.S.C. § 1344 — Bank Fraud: Misrepresentation of check handling and disposition.
18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Evidence Tampering: Withholding material during investigation.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 — RICO Predicate: Facilitated enterprise through payment interception.

VI. Misconduct Pattern

Interception and concealment of certified payment.
Failure to deliver or notify tenant of check receipt.
Termination of relationship immediately after receiving funds.
Withholding evidence despite police inquiry.
Invoking Fifth Amendment to avoid disclosure.
Instrumental role in creating false arrears narrative.

VII. Enterprise Connections

To Phat Tran: Primary payment conduit; concealed funds; acted as shield between tenant and owner.
To Anna Ly: Communicated regarding lease and repairs; overlapping document chain.
To BHHS Corporate: Operated inside their office; used corporate address for payment interception.
To LY Construction: Timing of concealment linked to fraudulent repairs and move-out scheme.
To Silverstein: His concealment enabled attorney’s false filings.

VIII. Notes for Investigators

USPS signature is indisputable evidence of custody of funds.
Le is a central witness for payment chain reconstruction.
His resignation immediately after receiving funds indicates consciousness of guilt.
His refusal to speak with HBPD or provide documentation undermines any good-faith explanation.
He is likely to cooperate if subpoenaed once criminal exposure is explained.