FILED

AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint

Aug 20 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SUSANY. SOONG
for the CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Northern District
__________ DistrictofofCalifornia
__________ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO
United States of America )
v. )
BERNARD CURRAN and RODRIGO SANTOS
) Case No. 3-21-mj-71315 MAG
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s)

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On or about the date(s) of February 13, 2019 in the county of San Francisco in the
Northern District of California , the defendant(s) violated:

Code Section Offense Description

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 Honest Services Wire Fraud

Maximum Penalties: 20 years in prison; a fine equal to the greater of

$250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss; 3 years of supervised release; $100
special assessment per count; restitution; forfeiture; possible deportation for
non-citizens.

This criminal complaint is based on these facts:

Please see the attached affidavit of FBI Special Agent Allison Lopez.

✔ Continued on the attached sheet.

’

S/
Complainant’s signature
Approved as to form _______________
/s/ Special Agent Allison Lopez, FBI
AUSA __________
Casey Boome
Printed name and title

Sworn to before me by telephone.

Date: 8/20/2021
Judge’s signature

City and state: San Francisco, CA Joseph C. Spero, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Printed name and title
 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

I, Allison Lopez, Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly

sworn, state:

INTRODUCTION

1. This affidavit is presented in support of a criminal complaint and application for

summonses and arrest warrants for Bernard CURRAN (“CURRAN”) and Rodrigo

SANTOS (“SANTOS”) for their honest services wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

1343 and 1346.

2. CURRAN was a Senior Building Inspector at the Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

in San Francisco, California, where CURRAN worked since 2005. On May 20, 2021,

CURRAN was placed on paid administrative leave pending the findings of an

investigation by the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office into unreported income and

gifts. After being placed on leave, CURRAN resigned from his position at DBI.

3. SANTOS is a prominent structural engineer in San Francisco, California. SANTOS was

the principal and co-founder of SANTOS & Urrutia Structural Engineers, Inc. (“S&U”), a

structural engineering company based in the Mission neighborhood. Over the last two

decades, SANTOS has received several political appointments related to his engineering

work. For example, Mayor Willie Brown appointed SANTOS to the San Francisco

Building Inspection Commission (BIC) in 2000. In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newson

appointed SANTOS as BIC President. In 2012, Mayor Ed Lee appointed SANTOS to the

City College Board of Trustees in San Francisco. SANTOS’ day-to-day work consists of

providing engineering services to clients and working with project owners and other

1
 contractors through his structural engineering company. This includes work obtaining

building permits from local municipalities, including San Francisco.

4. I submit that there is probable cause to find that CURRAN and SANTOS committed honest

services wire fraud. As set forth in greater detail below, SANTOS knew that CURRAN

supported and participated in activities at the San Francisco Golden Gate Rugby

Association, a non-profit organization where CURRAN volunteers and where one of

CURRAN’s children plays rugby. SANTOS leveraged CURRAN’s affinity for the

organization to influence CURRAN’s official duties as a DBI inspector. Specifically,

SANTOS urged his clients to make charitable contributions to the Golden Gate Rugby

Association, and in exchange for the stream of benefits flowing to the charity, CURRAN

gave SANTOS’ clients favorable official treatment. In at least two instances, CURRAN

gave final inspection approval on permits for SANTOS’ clients without the work

necessary to comply with the permit ever being completed. Most of the projects for which

CURRAN gave approval for SANTOS’ donor-clients were outside of the district to which

CURRAN was assigned with DBI, and as such, the inspections should have been the

responsibility of another Senior Building Inspector or their subordinates.

AFFIANT BACKGROUND

5. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and have been since January

2016. I received approximately 20 weeks of training at the FBI Academy in Quantico,

Virginia. During that time, I received training in various areas including evidence

collection, interviewing, legal procedure and process, source management, investigative

technology, firearms and tactical training, and defensive tactics. I am currently assigned

to the Public Corruption squad of the FBI’s San Francisco Field Division. I am

2
 responsible for investigating, among other things, violations concerning bank and wire

fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, and extortion. Prior to my work in Public

Corruption, I was assigned to the Violent Crimes Against Children squad. I have a

master’s degree in Forensic Psychology, and I am a certified Crisis Negotiator.

6. I am an “investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States” within the meaning

of Section 2510(7) of Title 18, United States Code, that is, an officer of the United States

who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, and to make arrests for, offenses

enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516. The contents of this affidavit

are based upon the following: my own investigation; information obtained from other law

enforcement agencies; my review of documents and computer records related to this

investigation; oral and written communications with others who have personal knowledge

of the events and circumstances described herein; review of public information, including

information available on the Internet; review of records received via legal process; and my

experience and background as a special agent of the FBI. Statements made by witnesses

and other individuals referenced in this affidavit have been paraphrased. Since this

affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of securing an arrest warrant and order,

I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation. I have

set forth only the facts that I believe are necessary to establish probable cause to believe

that violations of United States laws occurred.

APPLICABLE LAW

7. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and l346, prohibit honest services wire fraud.

The elements of the offense are as follows:

3
 1. The defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud the

public of its right to the honest services of a public official through bribery or

kickbacks in breach of the official’s fiduciary duty;

2. The defendant did so knowingly and with an intent to defraud, that is, the intent to

deceive or cheat the public of honest services;

3. The scheme or artifice to defraud involved a deception, misrepresentation, false

statement, false pretense, or concealment that was material; and

4. The defendant used, or caused to be used, an interstate or foreign wire

communication to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the

scheme.

8. While I submit that the evidence set forth below demonstrates that SANTOS facilitated a

stream of benefits to CURRAN’s favorite charity in exchange for official action, honest

services wire fraud does not require the bribe or kickback be completed, or that official

action was actually taken, because the criminal act is the creation of a “scheme” to

defraud. See Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 371(2005) (“the wire fraud

statute punishes the scheme, not its success”) (citations quotations omitted); Schreiber

Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1400 (9th Cir. 1986) (for mail and

wire fraud, it is not necessary to show that the scheme was successful or that the intended

victim suffered a loss or that the defendants secured a gain); see also United States v.

Kimbrew, 944 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 2019) (ability for bribery of a public official, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A), “does not depend on an outcome; the offense is

complete at the moment of agreement, and that agreement need not even be accompanied

by the bribe recipient’s genuine intentions to follow through”). In addition, “anyone who

4
 knowingly and intentionally participates in the execution of [a] fraudulent scheme comes

within the prohibition of the mail and wire fraud statutes regardless of whether the

defendant devised the scheme.” United States v. Holden, 908 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir.

2018) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1645 (2019).

THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION

9. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) is the regulatory agency

responsible for overseeing the enforcement of building, electrical, plumbing, disability

access, and housing codes for commercial and residential buildings in the City and County

of San Francisco. DBI’s enforcement of building codes is complex, and as such, most

property owners seeking to build or renovate in San Francisco rely on professionals to

navigate the system on their behalf—usually a contractor, engineer, and/or permit

expediter.

10. The first hurdle that a property owner must clear to shepherd a project from inception to

completion is to obtain a permit from DBI. The permitting process is designed to ensure

that the proposed construction or renovation project will comply with all applicable codes

and ordinances. To obtain a permit, the property owner (“sponsor”) or the sponsor’s

representative (contractor, engineer, or expediter) must apply for a permit by completing a

permit application and submitting other necessary paperwork to DBI. If the project is

sufficiently broad in scope, the sponsor must submit plans along with the permit

application. Depending on the “scope of work” described in the application, the

plans/permit may require review by one or more specialized departments, including the SF

Housing Authority, Fire Safety, Plumbing, or Electrical. If DBI determines that the

application and plans comply with all applicable codes, DBI will formally issue a building

5
 permit authorizing the project to commence according to the approved scope of work and

plans. The project sponsor is not authorized to make any material changes to the property

until DBI issues a building permit and the sponsor pays any fees associated with the

permit (usually calculated as a percentage of the total project costs).

11. Another critical regulatory hurdle is a physical inspection of the work by a DBI building

inspector. The purpose of the inspection is to verify that the job has been completed

according to the scope of work and plans authorized by the permit. Normally, a DBI

inspector with responsibility over the district where the property is located will conduct

the inspection.1 According to DBI procedures, line inspectors conduct most inspections

while the senior building inspectors supervise line inspectors and weigh in on unusual

issues, usually at the request of a line inspector. A given project may require multiple

inspections, depending on the scope of work. For instance, a bathroom addition may

require an interim inspection to confirm that all pipes and plumbing components have

been properly installed before the contractor covers the pipes with drywall (called an “ok

to cover” inspection).

12. According to a DBI Official (“DBI Official-1”), during a typical final inspection, a DBI

inspector should go to the subject property with the project sponsor or the sponsor’s

representative, who should provide the inspector with the approved permit and plans. The

inspector should examine the permit and plans to determine whether the sponsor

completed the work properly. If the work has been completed according to the approved

plans, the inspector should “final” the permit and, if applicable, issue a certificate of final

1
Each line DBI building inspector is assigned to one of 18 geographic districts in the City. Each inspector has
primary responsibility for conducting building inspections in his/her district. Senior building inspectors are assigned
to supervise multiple districts and the line supervisors assigned to those districts.

6
 completion and occupancy (“CFC”), which gives the sponsor the legal authority to begin

using the property for its approved purpose (e.g., residential, office, retail, or other use). If

the project has not been completed according to the permit and plans, the inspector should

note the discrepancies and instruct the sponsor to remedy the issue before “finaling” the

permit and issuing a CFC.

13. DBI maintains a public-facing online database, the “Permit Tracking System” or “PTS”,

which contains approval and inspection information for each permit issued in San

Francisco. According to DBI procedure, building inspectors must log property inspections

in PTS, including the date, purpose, inspector’s name, and findings.

FACTS SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE

SANTOS solicited donations from his clients intending to use them to influence CURRAN.

14. As set forth in the paragraphs below, text messages found on SANTOS’ cell phone (which

was searched and seized pursuant to a federal search warrant) show that SANTOS

solicited individuals for donations to the San Francisco Golden Gate Rugby Association

while attributing the charity to CURRAN.2 As demonstrated by the messages below,

SANTOS most often requested a donation from his clients immediately after discussing an

official action by CURRAN (e.g. issuing final inspection approval, coming to the client’s

property for a final inspection, or issuing a CFC). As will be discussed in greater detail

below, on several occasions SANTOS informed his client’s that checks written to the

rugby association were intended to help influence CURRAN, but SANTOS deposited

2
On numerous occasions, when directing his clients to write checks to the organization, SANTOS incorrectly stated
the name of the organization. However, the charity still deposited these checks and many others like them, despite
the “pay to the order” line of the check often having a variation on the name of the charity (e.g. “Golden Gate Youth
Rugby Association” or “Golden Gate Rugby Foundation”), rather than the correct name.

7
 those checks into his own person checking account instead of passing them along to

CURRAN.

900 Block of Guerrero Street

15. On June 8, 2017, SANTOS and “Client-1”3 exchanged the following text messages about

permitting issues related to Client-1’s renovation project:

Client-1 (to SANTOS): Some mortgage brokers are concerned that their lenders

won’t close if there is only a TCO4. Can we get a CO by July 1?

SANTOS (to Client-1): Yes. Write a check payable to San Francisco Golden

Gate Rugby association for $1,500.00 (Bernie Curran’s club). Curran will issue

the CFC.

Client-1 (to SANTOS): Okay. Should I drop it by tomorrow?

SANTOS (to Client-1): Yes please.

16. Between June and October 2017, SANTOS and Client-1 continued to exchange text

messages relating to the project on the 900 block of Guerrero Street. SANTOS told

Client-1 on numerous occasions that any problems with the project would be fixed soon

and that CURRAN would issue the CFC shortly. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and

complaint tracking system for the project on the 900 block of Guerrero Street, San

Francisco, California showed CURRAN as the final approver on October 13, 2017, for

two building permits related to property.

3
Throughout this affidavit, “Client” refers to property owners or their agents working with SANTOS on the projects
discussed herein.
4
DBI defines “TCO” on its website as “Temporary Certificate of Occupancy,” which is normally issued to property
owners who request permission to occupy their property before all work allowed under a building permit has been
finished, and for which a CFC is required.

8
 17. A review of a JP Morgan Chase account belonging to the Golden Gate Rugby Association

was conducted and a check for $1,500.00 written by Client-1’s company dated June 9,

2017 was deposited into the account.

1000 Block of Alabama Street

18. On January 29, 2018, SANTOS and Client-2, the contractor for the project, exchanged the

following text messages about the remodel and structural upgrade project in which they

discussed CURRAN conducting a final inspection at the property.

SANTOS (to Client-2): Bernie Curran will meet me at the site in twenty minutes.

Please allow access.

Client-2 (to SANTOS): I’ll be there in 5

SANTOS (to Client-2): Two checks One payable to Santos and Urrutia for $3k

One payable to Golden Gate Youth Rugby Association for $1k

Client-2 (to SANTOS): I’ll pass it on

SANTOS (to Client-2): Thanks. We are done!

Client-2 (to SANTOS): Thank you for all the help!

19. On January 29, 2018, SANTOS and Client-3, the property owner for the Alabama Street

project, exchanged the following text messages in which SANTOS informed Client-3 that

CURRAN had just finaled the permit for Client-3’s project:

SANTOS (to Client-3): The eagle has landed! Two checks One to Santos and

Urrutia for $3k and one for Golden Gate youth rugby association for $1k

Client-3 (to SANTOS): Hallelujah and thanks so much. Will come by your

office tomorrow morning.

9
 20. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system for the property located

on the 1000 block of Alabama Street, San Francisco, California showed CURRAN as the

final approver on January 29, 2018 for a permit related to the property.

21. A review of DBI’s website showed that the property on the 1000 block of Alabama Street

was in DBI’s Building Inspection Division district eight. Per a DBI organizational chart

effective October 23, 2017, a DBI Senior Building Inspector other than CURRAN was the

senior building inspector with authority over district eight.

22. A check from Client-3 dated February 1, 2018 for $1,000 was deposited into a JP Morgan

Chase account belonging to the Golden Gate Rugby Association.

700 Block of Wisconsin Street

23. On April 24, 2018, SANTOS and Client-4 exchanged the following text messages

regarding permitting for Client-4’s project:

Client-4 (to SANTOS): Please don’t forget the job card

SANTOS (to Client-4): I have it with me. Write a check for $500 payable to

Golden Gate youth Rugby association.

Client-4 (to SANTOS): All ready did

SANTOS (to Client-4): Thank you.

24. On May 4, 2018, SANTOS and CURRAN exchanged the following text messages:

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Dear Senior: Any assistance of the CFC for [the

address on the 700 block of] Wisconsin will be greatly appreciated. [Client-4’s]

permit expires tomorrow.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): I will write it this afternoon when I get back at three

25. On May 4, 2018, SANTOS and Client-4 exchanged the following text messages:

10
 SANTOS (to Client-4): CFC will be ready this afternoon. Write a check payable

to Golden Gate Rugby Association for $300.

Client-4 (to SANTOS): No problem When can I see it online?

SANTOS (to Client-4): I will pick up the CFC this afternoon after 3:30 pm.

Drop off the check at my office before 2 pm.

Client-4 (to SANTOS): That’s fine. I will come back for the CFC after 3:30. I

don’t want to wait until Monday.

26. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system showed permit related to

the property on the 700 Block of Wisconsin Street received pre-final approval from

CURRAN on May 4, 2018 and a final inspection approval and issuance of CFC from

CURRAN on August 3, 2018.

27. A review of DBI’s website showed the property on the 700 block of Wisconsin Street was

in DBI’s Building Inspection Division district eight. Per a DBI organizational chart

effective February 20, 2018, a Senior Building Inspector other than CURRAN had

authority over district eight.

28. A review of the Golden Gate Rugby Association’s JP Morgan Account was conducted and

a check for $300.00 written by Client-4 dated May 4, 2018, was present in the account.

The memo line of the check read, “thank you”.

3900 Block of 24th Street

29. SANTOS and Client-5, who works in construction in San Francisco, worked on several

projects together, including one located on the 3900 block of 24th Street, San Francisco,

California. On January 20, 2019, SANTOS and Client-5 exchanged the following text

messages in reference to the project on the 3900 block of 24th Street:

11
 SANTOS (to Client-5): Drop off a check payable to the Golden Gate Rugby

Association for $500. Bernie’s favorite nonprofit.

Client-5 (to SANTOS): Will do

SANTOS (to Client-5): Drop off the Bernie check first thing this morning please.

Client-5 (to SANTOS): Will be in around 7

SANTOS (to Client-5): Sounds good. Will be bringing Bernie Curran to the site

on Friday.

30. Client-6 was the owner of the property on the 3900 block of 24th Street. On January 20,

2019, SANTOS sent the following message to Client-6:

SANTOS (to Client-6): Drop off a check payable to Golden Gate Rugby

Association for $500. This will smooth the inspection with the Senior DBI

Inspector.

31. Client-6 later told the FBI, that he consulted his attorney about SANTOS’ request for a

donation to the Golden Gate Rugby Association to “smooth the inspection with the Senior

DBI Inspector” and was advised by his attorney it was a line he did not want to cross.

Client-6 did not make out the check to Golden Gate Rugby Association as requested by

SANTOS. Client-6 told SANTOS to leave him out of anything related to the Rugby

Association and to do the plans the right way. Client-6 reported to the FBI that he did not

feel there were any negative consequences for his decision with respect to the project.

32. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system showed multiple permits

for Client-6’s property located on the 3900 block of 24th Street, San Francisco, California.

None of these permits had been completed and therefore none have required final

inspection approval at this stage.

12
CURRAN was aware of the donations and understood their purpose in the scheme to defraud.

33. On numerous occasions, SANTOS sent text messages to CURRAN stating that SANTOS’

clients had written checks or made donations to the Golden Gate Rugby Association in

connection with specific projects. In several instances, SANTOS informed CURRAN

about donations made by his clients while also asking CURRAN to take some official

action for the benefit of the client.

900 Block of South Van Ness

34. Client-7 is member of the trust that owns the property located on the 900 block of South

Van Ness Ave. On April 16, 2018, SANTOS and CURRAN exchanged the following text

messages about the property in which SANTOS asked CURRAN to conduct an inspection

immediately before notifying CURRAN about the client’s donation:

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Can we schedule a final for [the 900 block of] South

Van Ness? Client has given me his SF GG Rugby contribution.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Let me check it this morning

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Thank you Senior. I am five minutes away from the

site.

35. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system showed a permit related

to the property on the 900 block of South Van Ness Avenue received a final inspection

approval and issuance of CFC from CURRAN on April 20, 2018.

36. The property located on the 900 block of South Van Ness Avenue was located in DBI’s

Building Inspection Division’s district eight. Per a DBI organizational chart effective

February 20, 2018, an individual other than CURRAN was the Senior Building Inspector

in district eight.

13
700 Block of Wisconsin Street

37. On May 4, 2018, SANTOS and CURRAN exchanged the following text messages in

which CURRAN agreed to do an inspection at the project located on the 700 block of

Wisconsin Street (discussed above at ¶¶ 23-28) and SANTOS informed CURRAN about

the client’s donation:

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Dear Senior: Any assistance of the CFC for [the

address on the 700 block of] Wisconsin will be greatly appreciated. [Client-4’s]

permit expires tomorrow.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): I will write it this afternoon when I get back at three

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Thank you Senior. She [Client-4] will make an

additional contribution to the good cause.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): That’s not necessary she has done more than enough

2000 Block of Bryant Street

38. On December 6, 2018, SANTOS and Client-8 exchanged the following text messages

shortly after CURRAN, Client-8, and SANTOS had met at the property to discuss a code

violation and the work and permit required to remedy the violation.5

SANTOS (to Client-8): Please have [Client-8’s employer] write a check for $500

payable to the ‘San Francisco Golden Gate Rugby Association’.

Client-8 (to SANTOS): It’ll likely be from me. Is that cool?

SANTOS (to Client-8): Sure

39. On December 7, 2018, SANTOS and Client-8 exchanged the following text messages:

5
This property on the 2000 block of Bryant Street was adjacent to a building being constructed by Client-8’s
employer and his company. Client-8 was an employee of this company her responsibilities included interfacing with
the neighbors.

14
 Client-8 (to SANTOS): I see he [CURRAN] closed out the permit but how do we

close out the complaint

SANTOS (to Client-8): Bernie will be abating the complaint.

Client-8 (to SANTOS): Can I just mail in check or should I give directly to him?

SANTOS (to Client-8): Give it to me and I will deliver it to Bernie.

Client-8 (to SANTOS): K cool

40. On December 13, 2018, SANTOS exchanged the following text messages with

CURRAN:

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Hey Rodrigo do you have a contact phone number for

[Client-8] I want to call and thank her for her donation

SANTOS (to CURRAN): I will forward her phone number to you shortly.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Yeah make sure she’s OK with it.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Whatever that attachment was you sent did not come

through

SANTOS (to CURRAN): She is absolutely okay with it.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Great, thank you.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Don’t forget to send me Client-8’s number if it was in

an attachment you sent earlier it did not come through.

SANTOS (to CURRAN): [SANTOS provides CURRAN with Client-8’s name

and telephone number]

41. An image of a check written to “SFGG Rugby Foundation” by Client-8 was found on

CURRAN’s personal cell phone during a search of the device pursuant to a search warrant

issued in the Northern District of California. Information stored in CURRAN’s phone

15
 shows that CURRAN’s phone captured the picture, indicating that CURRAN was in

possession of the check from Client-8.6

42. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system for the property located

on the 2000 block of Bryant Street showed that a Notice of Violation (NOV) related to the

property was abated (i.e., resolved) on December 6, 2018, with the following comment,

“[2000 block of Bryant permit] has been issued and completed to comply with this

complaint. b.curran.” This permit related to the property on the 2000 block of Bryant

Street showed in DBI’s on-line system as final inspection/approved by CURRAN with a

date of December 6, 2018.

6
During an interview with Client-8, she told me that the check she wrote was from an account that had issued her
checks that had printing error on them and therefore, the check, had it been deposited, would have bounced. Client-
8 contacted SANTOS and asked him to tell CURRAN not to deposit the check for this reason. In January 2019,
Client-8 wrote a second check to the Golden Gate Rugby Association, but this check was never cashed.

16
 43. The property located on the 2000 of Bryant Street is located in DBI Building Inspection

Division district eight. Per a DBI organizational chart effective December 18, 2018, an

individual other than CURRAN was the Senior Building Inspector for district eight.

44. Consistent with SANTOS’ instruction to Client-8 (i.e. “Give [the check] to me and I will

deliver it to Bernie.”), it was SANTOS’ regular practice to direct clients to write checks to

the Golden Gate Rugby Association and deliver the checks to him. SANTOS would then

deliver the checks to CURRAN, ensuring that CURRAN would know that SANTOS had

arranged the donation. For instance, SANTOS often directed clients to drop off a check

payable to the Golden Gate Rugby Association along with a check payable to S&U. This

was the case on April 26, 2018, when SANTOS sent the following text message to Client-

7:

SANTOS (to Client-7): Please drop off a check for $500 payable to SF Golden

Gate Rugby Association and a check payabke [sic] to Santos and Urrutia for $2K

for 1475 Church Street.

45. SANTOS’ January 29, 2018, exchange with his Client-3 provides another example:

SANTOS (to Client-3): The eagle has landed! Two checks One to Santos and

Urrutia for $3k and one for Golden Gate youth rugby association for $1k

Client-3 (to SANTOS): Hallelujah and thanks so much. Will come by your

office tomorrow morning.

CURRAN provided corrupt benefits to SANTOS’ clients in exchange for the stream of donations

46. I submit that the evidence shows that CURRAN was aware of the donations to the Golden

Gate Rugby Association that SANTOS solicited from his clients and took official actions

based on those donations. On several occasions, CURRAN gave final inspection approval

17
 for SANTOS’ clients on projects where work had not been completed in accordance with

the permit or plans.

1300 Block of Utah Street

47. Between September 25 and September 27, 2017, SANTOS exchanged the following text

message with Client-9, an individual working on behalf of the owners of the property

located on the 1300 block of Utah Street in San Francisco, California. In the following

conversation, the issue discussed is the need to resolve several building code violations

contained in several Notices of Violation (“NOV”) at the property by obtaining new

permits for the work required to abate the violations.

Client-9 (to SANTOS): System still shows violations

SANTOS (to Client-9): Going to DBI this morning to talk to Bernie Curran. I

will report back.

SANTOS (to Client-9): I mus [sic] sent you an email from Curran. No violation

on [an address on a perpendicular street address provided by SANTOS]. What is

the Utah address?

Client-9 (to SANTOS): [Client-9 provides SANTOS with the Utah Street address

and informs SANTOS that the violation was from 2015]

SANTOS (to Client-9): I will forward the address to Curran. He will abate it.

SANTOS (to Client-9): Please drop off a check payable to Golden Gate Youth

Hockey Association for $1k. Bernie’s nonprofit,

Client-9 (to SANTOS): With pleasure

SANTOS (to Client-9): Golden Gate Youth Rugby Association.

SANTOS (to Client-9): Please drop off the Bernie check this morning.

18
 Client-9 (to SANTOS): thank you for suggesting.

48. Client-9 sent a screenshot of a donation confirmation to SANTOS on September 27, 2017,

indicating that Client-9 had directed a charitable gift fund to send a $1,500 donation to the

“Golden Gate Youth Rugby Foundation.” Client-9’s text message to SANTOS

accompanying the screenshot stated, “made the donation and it is being sent today”. This

donation, sent as a bank transfer from the charitable gift fund, was never deposited by the

Golden Gate Rugby Association. The donation was returned to the fund as it was not

deposited within a certain period of time per the fund administrator’s policy.

49. On December 7, 2017, CURRAN gave final inspection approval on a permit related to the

property on the 1300 block of Utah Street. The scope of work for this permit, according to

DBI’s permit tracking site, was to abate the 2015 NOV by removing partition walls

installed without a permit and reverting the property to its last approved floor layout from

2003. Since the 2003 floor layout did not include the two partition walls, the removal

both walls was required to complete the work authorized by the permit.

50. The FBI obtained images of the interior of the property located on the 1300 block of Utah

Street taken in September 2017 during an insurance appraisal. The images show the two

aforementioned walls that the owners were required to remove to resolve the violations.

In August 2020, FBI Special Agents were given access to the property on the 1300 block

of Utah Street. During this visit, Special Agents took photographs of the interior of the

building and compared them to the photos taken in 2017 by the insurance company. The

partition walls, which should have been removed under the permit referenced in the

previous paragraph, were still intact.

19
 51. DBI Official-1 stated that inspectors are required to physically visit the site of a project to

give final inspection approval. The inspector would need to review the permit and the

plans associated with the permit. The plans for the project on the 1300 block of Utah

Street clearly showed that two partition walls needed to be removed. He also stated that

since the partition walls had not been removed, there could be no legitimate reason that

the permit should have been given final approval by CURRAN. DBI Official-1 also noted

that DBI did not issue the permit for the work required to resolve the violations until

December 7, 2017, the same day that CURRAN claimed that he inspected the property

and finaled the permit. Since property owners are not authorized to begin work until a

permit is issued, it would have been nearly impossible for all work to be completed the

same day that the permit was issued.

52. The property located on the 1300 block of Utah Street is located in DBI Building

Inspection Division district eight. Per a DBI organizational chart effective April 17, 2017,

an individual other than CURRAN was the Senior Building Inspector for district eight.

1400 Block of Church Street

53. This property provides another example of CURRAN ignoring non-compliance with a

permit by SANTOS’ client. SANTOS and Client-7 had obtained a permit authorizing the

construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The permit required the installation of

a sprinkler system for fire safety under a separate permit number. SANTOS and his client,

however, never obtained the sprinkler permit. Text messages between SANTOS and

CURRAN show that CURRAN knew about the requirement and ignored it. Client-7

made a $500 donation to the Golden Gate Rugby Association on January 31, 2019.

20
54. Between February 8 and February 11, 2019, SANTOS and CURRAN had a conversation

about the inspection of the property located on the 1400 block of Church Street:

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Hey Rodrigo where is the sprinkler permit that is

supposed to be done in conjunction with the ADU I don’t see it online.

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Should I have CPB correct the issue?

CURRAN (to SANTOS): Yes

SANTOS (to CURRAN): I will take care of your request ASAP

CURRAN (to SANTOS): I have also entered in inspection for Church Street with

a pre-final stating that sprinklers have to be verified

55. A review of the DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system for property located

on the 1400 block of Church Street, showed no permit relating to sprinklers was ever

applied for or issued.

56. A review of DBI’s on-line permit and complaint tracking system for property located on

the 1400 block of Church Street showed that a permit related to the property received a

final inspection approval from CURRAN on May 9, 2018. CURRAN put a note into the

DBI system when he entered his final inspection indicating that a future permit would be

applied for to deal with the sprinklers for the building. According to DBI Official-1,

CURRAN did not have the authority to approve that permit without a permit for sprinklers

having been applied for, issued, and completed. A complaint regarding this issue was

opened at DBI on July 30, 2021. An inspection was completed by employees of the fire

department who confirmed that the ADU did not have sprinklers or any fire safety

systems.

21
 57. The property located on the 1400 block of Church Street is located in DBI Building

Inspection Division district 16. Per a DBI organizational chart effective February 20,

2018, an individual other than CURRAN was the Senior Building Inspector in district 16.

58. A check for $500.00 written by Client-7 dated January 31, 2019, was deposited into the JP

Morgan Chase bank account belonging to Golden Gate Rugby Association on February

13, 2019.

900 Block of South Van Ness Avenue

59. On February 27 and February 28, 2018, SANTOS and CURRAN exchanged the following

text messages in which SANTOS and CURRAN took extraordinary steps to ensure that

CURRAN, and not the inspector assigned to the district where the property is located,

conducted the necessary inspections:

SANTOS (to CURRAN): [900 block of] South Van Ness soft story inspection has

been scheduled with [District Inspector-1] between 9 and 12 am

CURRAN (to SANTOS): What day

SANTOS (to CURRAN): TOMORROW morning

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Let me know the time (this morning) for [the 900 block

of] South Van Ness with [District Inspector-1]

CURRAN (to SANTOS): I have reassigned it to [District Inspector-2] but there is

no inspection history out there

SANTOS (to CURRAN): I will meet [District Inspector-2] at [the 900 block of]

South Van Ness. Thank you Senior

CURRAN (to SANTOS): [District Inspector-3] is coming and I have instructed

him on how to proceed.

22
60. DBI records show that a final inspection was scheduled for February 28, 2018 at the South

Van Ness property. The documents indicate in the instructions/comment section that

“This inspection has been reassigned from [District Inspector-1]” and reassigned to

District Inspector-3. I received a copy of District Inspector-1’s schedule for February 28,

2018. DBI Official-1 reviewed the schedule and explained that District Inspector-1 was

not busy on this date and would have had time in his day to complete this inspection.

District Inspector-1 was the district inspector for this property and therefore, was the

person who should have handled the inspection, unless he indicated that he was unable to

do so. DBI Official-1 indicated that a Senior Building Inspector taking an inspection

away from the district inspector and reassigning to someone else for no apparent reason it

is unusual and discouraged.7

61. On February 28, 2018, in the DBI permit tracking system, District Inspector-3 wrote that

the inspection status was “no entry/no progress.” According to DBI Official-1, “no

entry/no progress” should be used as the status when the inspector is unable to access the

project site. This should not have been the case here, because an inspection had been

scheduled for that day and SANTOS was listed as the contact person. In several text

messages, SANTOS told CURRAN that his office was only five minutes from the

property located on the 900 block of South Van Ness Avenue, and he was aware that an

inspection was meant to take place on that date because he had discussed the inspection

7
It had been discussed at a January 11, 2018 DBI staff meeting that “Building Inspectors are regularly asked by
Seniors to assist in coverage of Districts. This is due to District Building Inspector not being available or busy.
Please understand that these assignments and reassignments are the responsibility of a Supervisor. The Building
Inspector may not conduct inspections outside of their assigned District without first informing a Supervisor.”
CURRAN frequently frustrated district inspectors by performing inspections on properties in their districts
without informing them. On at least one occasion, CURRAN failed to tell the district inspector that he had done
an inspection on a property and the district inspector arrived for a scheduled inspection, only to find CURRAN
had already completed it.

23
 with CURRAN that morning. I believe that when CURRAN stated to SANTOS “[District

Inspector-3] is coming and I have instructed him on how to proceed,” CURRAN was

informing SANTOS that he had reassigned the inspection to an inspector who would

follow CURRAN’s instructions to enter a status of “no entry/no progress.” This would

ensure that CURRAN could do the inspection himself at a later date.

62. On March 13, 2018, SANTOS cancelled another inspection on the property that was

assigned to District Inspector-1. On March 14, 2018, SANTOS sent the following text

messages to CURRAN:

SANTOS (to CURRAN): I cancelled the inspection for [the 900 block of] South

Van Ness. We will create an inspection report and narrative for your use. Thank

you Senior.

SANTOS (to CURRAN): I dropped off the inspection report for [the 900 block

of] South Van Ness. Please let us know if you will require additional

documentation. Thank you Senior

63. On March 21, 2018, an individual believed to be an S&U employee scheduled two

inspections at the property, one for “reinforcing steel”, and one for “ok to cover”.

“Reinforcing steel” refers to the pouring of a foundation over the top of steel that has been

installed. “Ok to cover” refers to hanging drywall that will cover plumbing, electrical, or

other building work that has been completed inside the walls of the project. The employee

listed his contact phone number as one registered to S&U. On March 22, 2018, SANTOS

and CURRAN exchanged the following text messages:

24
 SANTOS (to CURRAN): Dear Senior: Any time today will work for [the 900

block of] South Van Ness inspection. Our office is s five minutes away from the

site.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): I already put an inspection in the computer yesterday.

64. A review of the DBI on-line permit and complaint tracking system showed that on March

21, 2018, CURRAN gave approval for reinforcing steel. The fact that CURRAN stated

that he had “put an inspection in the computer” indicated that CURRAN did not actually

visit the property or inspect the work that had been done, but rather entered an inspection

in the DBI Permit tracking system without any legitimate inspection.

65. On April 2, 2018, SANTOS and CURRAN exchanged the following text messages:

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Dear Senior Building Inspector Bernie Curran: When

can we schedule a final inspection for [the property on the 900 block of] South

Van Ness? Our office is five minutes away from the site. Any day and time will

work.

CURRAN (to SANTOS): We need to put in the rough OK to cover appointment

SANTOS (to CURRAN): Thank you Senior.

66. These text messages indicate that SANTOS was trying to schedule a final inspection,

which would require that all work at the project site was complete. However, CURRAN

pointed out that the inspection that would authorize the owner to cover the walls with

drywall had yet to be completed.

67. On April 16, 2018, SANTOS requested an inspection with CURRAN for the “okay to

cover” the walls, and also told CURRAN that “Client [Client-7] has given me his SF GG

Rugby contribution.” CURRAN approved the “okay to cover” on the same date. Four

25
 days later, on April 20, 2018, SANTOS requested that CURRAN meet him at the site for a

final inspection. CURRAN gave final inspection approval and issued the CFC on April

20, 2018.

Out-of-District Inspections

68. According to DBI Official-1, CURRAN often did inspections outside of his district, which

caused problems with the inspectors who were assigned to those districts and who did not

want CURRAN doing inspections in their territory. It became contentious enough that in

April 2014, a supervising employee at DBI created an assignment flow chart that dictated

how inspections should be reassigned if the district inspector was unavailable and then if

subsequent inspectors were also unavailable:

1. District Inspector

2. Floating Inspector

3. Inspector with availability on their schedule

4. Spread Inspection to Inspectors where schedule is not completely full

5. Adjacent District Building Inspector

6. Building Inspector from other Districts

7. Senior Building Inspector

69. There were 14 properties where SANTOS’ clients either made donations or wrote checks

that were never cashed. Of these 14 properties, 12 were outside of CURRAN’s assigned

districts. Based on my review of text messages between CURRAN and SANTOS, it

appears that CURRAN typically disregarded DBI guidance by unilaterally assigning

inspections for SANTOS’ clients to himself.

26
Check Tracking

70. A review of SANTOS’ phone pursuant to a federal search warrant revealed that he

solicited checks for the Golden Gate Rugby Association or some variation on that name,

from 19 different clients. There are also three additional clients with whom SANTOS

discussed both their building projects and Bernie CURRAN but did not make a direct

solicitation for rugby association checks. Nevertheless, a review of bank records shows

that checks from these individuals were deposited into the Golden Gate Rugby

Association Bank account around the time that their projects received approvals from

CURRAN as documented in the DBI permit tracking system.

71. SANTOS’ solicitations resulted in 12 clients writing checks to the rugby association, with

one client writing two checks. Solicitations from SANTOS resulted in donations to the

rugby club totaling $9,600 from May 2017 through April 2019.

72. CURRAN was involved in abating an NOV, abating a complaint, giving demolition

permission, or giving final inspection approval for all 12 of the donor-clients.

73. In addition to the checks that were deposited into the Golden Gate Rugby Association’s

bank account, SANTOS solicited several Golden Gate Rugby Association donations from

his clients that SANTOS stole by depositing them into his personal bank account without

the permission of his client or the Association. For instance, SANTOS solicited checks

made out to Golden Gate Rugby Association from Client-1 in connection with Client-1’s

project on the 900 block of Guerrero Street (discussed above in paragraph 15-17) on

September 28, 2017, and October 16, 2017, calling the association “Bernie’s nonprofit

organization”. According to records from a Bank of America account belonging to

SANTOS and his wife, two checks from Client-1’s company written pay to the order of

27
 Golden Gate Youth Rugby Association were deposited into the account (check 1671 dated

October 17, 2017, for $1,000 and check 1031 dated February 13, 2018, for $500.00).

74. On July 1, 2021, Rodrigo SANTOS was charged in Indictment No. CR 21-268-SI, which

alleges 10 counts of Bank Fraud, one count of Obstruction of Justice, and two counts of

Aggravated Identity Theft. That indictment alleges a scheme in which SANTOS stole

more than $775,000 from his clients between November 2012 and March 2019 by

requesting checks payable to City agencies (mostly DBI and the Department of Public

Works) and other construction-related companies and individuals. SANTOS then

deposited the checks into his personal bank account without authorization from the client

or the payee on the check. Between July 2, 2017 and February 13, 2018, SANTOS

deposited 10 checks totaling $9,000 that his clients had written to the Golden Gate Rugby

Association in connection with projects that CURRAN inspected. This $9,000 in checks

to the Golden Gate Rugby Association is included in the approximately $775,000 total

alleged in Indictment CR 21-268-SI.

Material Concealment of the Scheme to Defraud

75. CURRAN and SANTOS attempted to conceal their scheme using DBI’s online inspection

system. For instance, on November 9, 2018, CURRAN sent SANTOS a text message

regarding SANTOS’ request that CURRAN conduct a final inspection at a property on the

3000 block of 23rd Street. CURRAN stated, “Rodrigo can you do me a favor and put 23rd

St. on the schedule then I can move it to myself and it won’t look funny”. I believe that

CURRAN was asking SANTOS to schedule an inspection through DBI’s online

inspection platform. This was a departure from CURRAN and SANTOS’ regular practice

whereby SANTOS would ask CURRAN to inspect a property (usually outside of

28
 CURRAN’s assigned district) and CURRAN would schedule the inspection himself.

According to the message above, CURRAN believed that their scheme was beginning to

“look funny” since project sponsors are normally required to request and schedule

inspection using DBI’s online system. Notably, the 3000 block of 23rd Street was outside

of CURRAN’s district in November of 2018. The property owner, Client-10, donated

$1,500 to the Golden Gate Rugby Association in January ($1,000) and October ($500) of

2018.

76. Also, regarding concealment of the scheme to defraud, on March 3, 2020, the FBI seized

SANTOS’ cell phone and conducted a search of the device pursuant to a search warrant

issued in the Northern District of California. The search included a review of text

messages found on the device. During this review, 444 text messages between SANTOS

and CURRAN were identified. On April 9, 2020, the FBI seized CURRAN’s cell phone

and conducted a search of the device pursuant to a search warrant issued in the Northern

District of California. The search included a review of text messages found on the device,

which was the same device that CURRAN used during the aforementioned text messages

with SANTOS. CURRAN identified this device as his personal cell phone. The phone

contained no text messages between CURRAN and SANTOS. However, there were text

messages with other parties during the same time period as the CURRAN/SANTOS texts

identified on SANTOS’ phone. The absence of known text messages with SANTOS on

CURRAN’s phone indicates that CURRAN deleted his texts with SANTOS before the

FBI seized his phone.

77. DBI Official-1 told the FBI that CURRAN conducting inspections for properties where

people connected to the project had made donations to an organization linked to

29
 CURRAN would constitute a conflict of interest. DBI Official-1 indicated that, had DBI

known about the donations from SANTOS’ clients, CURRAN would not have been

allowed to inspect these properties because of the possibility that the donations could

influence his inspections. In addition, had DBI Official-1 learned about the scheme

described in this affidavit before CURRAN left his position at DBI, disciplinary action

would have been taken against CURRAN.

Interstate Wire

78. On April 16, 2021, I interviewed two subject matter experts employed by JP Morgan

Chase Bank, identified here as Employee-1 and Employee-2. Employee-1 is a subject

matter expert regarding how ATM and teller transactions are processed. Employee-2 is a

subject matter expert regarding how electronic deposits are processed. Both experts

confirmed that Chase utilizes data processing centers outside the state of California to

process all checks deposited at ATMs, in bank branches through bank tellers, and for

electronic deposits made from an account holder’s electronic device. Therefore, when the

Golden Gate Rugby Association deposited checks into its JP Morgan Chase bank account,

JP Morgan Chase bank sent an electronic image of the deposited check via a wire

communication to its data processing servers in either Michigan, Delaware, or New

Jersey. The data processing center determines if the check should be approved or declined

within 5 to 10 seconds. If the check is approved, the transaction is considered complete

by the bank. These wire communications facilitate the check clearing process by ensuring

that the appropriate accounts are debited and credited.

30
 79. As alleged in the complaint, a check for $500.00 written by SANTOS’ client Client-7

dated January 31, 2019 was deposited into the JP Morgan Chase bank account belonging

to Golden Gate Rugby Association on February 13, 2019.

CONCLUSION

80. Based on the foregoing facts and my training and experience, I respectfully submit

there is probable cause to believe that CURRAN and SANTOS committed honest services

wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346. I therefore

respectfully request the issuance of the attached criminal complaint, as well as summonses

and arrest warrants for CURRAN and SANTOS.

S/
ALLISON LOPEZ
Special Agent
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Sworn to before me over the telephone and signed by me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(d) and
20TH
4.1 on this ___ day of August 2021.

HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

31