C21-453 VC

Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 10

United States District Court

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENUE: SAN FRANCISCO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

V.
FILED
Nov 16 2021

BERNARD CURRAN and

RODRIGO SANTOS, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO

DEFENDANT(S).

INDICTMENT

86&††DQG±&RQVSLUDF\WR&RPPLW+RQHVW6HUYLFHV:LUH)UDXG
86&††DQG±+RQHVW6HUYLFHV:LUH)UDXG
86&††D&DQG86&†±)RUIHLWXUH$OOHJDWLRQ

A true bill.

V*UDQG-XU\)RUHSHUVRQ
Foreman

Filed in open court this __________

WK day of

U


1RYHPEHU
_________________________________.
__________________

___
___________
____
___
______
__ ___
___ _ Ada Means
____________________________________________
__ ________
___
Clerk
____________________________________________
__
_____
_________________________
__
____

1R3URFHVV
Bail, $ _____________
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 10

1 STEPHANIE M. HINDS (CABN 154284)

FILED
Acting United States Attorney
2 Nov 16 2021
3

4 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN FRANCISCO
6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. CR21-453 VC

)
13 Plaintiff, ) VIOLATIONS:
) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346, and 1349 – Conspiracy to
14 v. ) Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud;
) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 – Honest Services Wire
15 BERNARD CURRAN and ) Fraud;
RODRIGO SANTOS, ) 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982; 28 U.S.C. § 2461 –
16 ) Forfeiture Allegation
Defendants. )
17 )
) SAN FRANCISCO VENUE
18

19 INDICTMENT

20 The Grand Jury charges:

21 Introductory Allegations

22 At all times relevant to this Indictment:

23 1. Defendant Bernard CURRAN was a Senior Building Inspector at the San Francisco

24 Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”) where CURRAN had been employed since 2005.

25 2. Defendant Rodrigo SANTOS was a California licensed civil and structural engineer

26 operating primarily within the City and County of San Francisco, in the Northern District of California.

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

28 structural engineering company based in San Francisco. SANTOS and his company provided

INDICTMENT
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 3 of 10

1 engineering services to clients and worked with project owners and contractors. This included work

2 obtaining building permits from local municipalities, primarily San Francisco.

3 3. The San Francisco Golden Gate Rugby Association (“SFGGR”) was a non-profit

4 organization located in San Francisco, California. SFGGR was also referred to as the “San Francisco

5 Golden Gate Rugby Club” or the “San Francisco Golden Gate Rugby Foundation.” SFGGR ran adult

6 and youth rugby leagues, among other rugby-related activities. CURRAN volunteered at SFGGR and

7 one of his children previously participated in the club’s activities.

8 4. SFGGR maintained a checking account at JPMorgan Chase Bank (“Chase”). Chase used

9 data servers in either Michigan, Delaware, or New Jersey to process all checks deposited at ATMs, in
10 bank branches, and via mobile devices.

11 The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection

12 5. DBI was the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing the enforcement of building,

13 electrical, plumbing, disability access, and housing codes for commercial and residential buildings in the

14 City and County of San Francisco. DBI was a public agency established to serve the City and County of

15 San Francisco and the general public.

16 6. DBI’s enforcement of building codes was often complex, and as such, most real property

17 owners seeking to build or renovate in San Francisco relied on professionals to navigate the system on

18 their behalf—usually a contractor, engineer, and/or permit expediter.

19 7. A property owner seeking to build or renovate in San Francisco was first required to

20 obtain a permit from DBI. The permitting process was designed to ensure that the proposed project

21 complied with all applicable codes and ordinances. To obtain a permit, the property owner (“sponsor”)

22 or the sponsor’s representative (such as a contractor, engineer, or expediter) was required to apply for a

23 permit by completing a permit application and submitting other necessary paperwork to DBI. If the

24 project was sufficiently broad in scope, the sponsor was required to submit plans along with the permit

25 application. If DBI determined that the application and plans complied with all applicable codes, DBI

26 formally issued a building permit authorizing the project to commence according to the approved scope
27 of work and plans. The project sponsor was not authorized to make any material changes to the property

28 until DBI issued a building permit.

INDICTMENT 2
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 4 of 10

1 8. Many projects required physical inspection by a DBI building inspector. The purpose of

2 such inspections was to verify that the job had been completed according to the scope of work and plans

3 authorized by the permit. A given project could require multiple inspections, depending on the scope of

4 work. Normally, a DBI inspector with responsibility over the district where the property was located

5 conducted the inspection. According to DBI procedures, line inspectors conducted most inspections

6 while the senior building inspectors supervised line inspectors and weighed in on unusual issues, usually

7 at the request of a line inspector. Under normal circumstances, it was unusual and inconsistent with DBI

8 procedures for senior building inspectors to conduct inspections outside of their assigned districts. It

9 was also unusual and inconsistent with DBI procedures for project sponsors to schedule inspections
10 directly with a senior building inspector, rather than with the line inspector assigned to the district where

11 the property was located.

12 9. According to DBI practices and procedures, during a typical final inspection, a DBI

13 inspector would go to the subject property with the project sponsor or the sponsor’s representative, who

14 would provide the inspector with the approved permit and plans. The inspector would examine the

15 permit and plans to determine whether the work had been properly completed. If the work had been

16 completed according to the approved plans, the inspector would “final” the permit and, if applicable,
17 issue a certificate of final completion and occupancy (“CFC”), which gave the sponsor the legal

18 authority to begin using the property for its approved purpose (i.e., residential, office, retail, or other

19 use). If the project had not been completed according to the permit and plans, the inspector would note

20 the discrepancies and instruct the sponsor to remedy the issue before “finaling” the permit and issuing a

21 CFC.

22 The Conspiracy and Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

23 10. Beginning no later than May of 2017 and continuing until at least April of 2020,

24 CURRAN and SANTOS engaged in a conspiracy and scheme and artifice to defraud (“scheme”), as

25 described in more detail below.

26 11. As part of the scheme, SANTOS knew that CURRAN supported and participated in

27 activities at SFGGR. SANTOS asked his clients to make charitable contributions to SFGGR intending

28 that those donations would influence CURRAN in the performance of his official duties. CURRAN

INDICTMENT 3
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 5 of 10

1 knew about the SFGGR donations from SANTOS’ clients and understood that SANTOS had facilitated

2 those donations. In exchange for the stream of donations flowing to SFGGR from SANTOS’ clients,

3 CURRAN gave SANTOS’ clients favorable official treatment in his capacity as a senior DBI inspector.

4 12. As part of the scheme, SANTOS typically solicited donations from his clients by

5 suggesting that a SFGGR donation from the client would influence an official action by CURRAN (e.g.,

6 coming to the client’s property for an inspection, issuing final inspection approval, or issuing a CFC).

7 For instance, on January 20, 2019, SANTOS informed a client via text message “Drop off a check

8 payable to Golden Gate Rugby Association for $500. This will smooth the inspection with the Senior

9 DBI Inspector.” When referencing SFGGR in communications with his clients, SANTOS typically
10 attributed the organization to CURRAN by referring to SFGGR as “Bernie Curran’s club” or “Bernie’s

11 favorite non-profit.” SANTOS’ regular practice was to direct his clients to write checks to SFGGR and

12 deliver the checks to him. SANTOS then personally delivered the checks to CURRAN, ensuring that

13 CURRAN knew that SANTOS had arranged the donation.

14 13. As part of the scheme, SANTOS took additional steps to ensure that CURRAN knew

15 about the SFGGR donations from his clients and to ensure that CURRAN understood that the donations

16 were intended to influence CURRAN’s official actions. SANTOS often sent text messages to
17 CURRAN stating that SANTOS’ clients had written checks or made SFGGR donations in connection

18 with specific projects. In several instances, SANTOS informed CURRAN about donations while also

19 asking CURRAN to take an official action for the benefit of SANTOS’ client. One such instance

20 occurred on April 16, 2018, when SANTOS asked CURRAN via text message, “Can we schedule a final

21 for [the 900 block of] South Van Ness? Client has given me his SF GG Rugby contribution.”

22 CURRAN agreed to inspect the property, and on April 20, 2018, CURRAN gave final inspection

23 approval and issued a CFC for the property.

24 14. As part of the scheme, CURRAN provided corrupt benefits to SANTOS’ clients. On at

25 least two occasions, CURRAN gave final inspection approval for SANTOS’ clients on projects where

26 work had not been completed in accordance with the permit or plans. At a property on the 1300 block
27 of Utah Street, CURRAN gave final approval for a permit that required the removal of two partition

28 walls even though the project sponsor had not removed the walls. One of the sponsors of the project on

INDICTMENT 4
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 6 of 10

1 the 1300 block of Utah Street authorized a $1,500 check from a charitable gift fund to SFGGR. The

2 sponsor sent SANTOS a screenshot confirming that the donation had been sent, but the check was never

3 cashed because it was not deposited within the maximum time period allowed by the fund

4 administrator’s policy. At a separate property on the 1400 block of Church Street, CURRAN gave final

5 approval for a permit that required the installation of fire safety sprinklers in an accessory dwelling unit

6 even though the project sponsor never installed the sprinklers. The sponsor of the project on the 1400

7 block of Church Street made a $500 SFGGR donation via check, which SFGGR deposited into its Chase

8 checking account on February 13, 2019. Both properties were located outside of CURRAN’s assigned

9 districts.
10 15. As part of the scheme, SANTOS’ solicitations resulted in 13 clients writing checks to

11 SFGGR, with one client writing two checks. SFGGR donations from SANTOS’ clients totaled $9,600

12 from May 2017 through April 2019. CURRAN took at least one official action, including performing

13 inspections and/or issuing a CFC, for all 13 of the donor-clients.

14 16. As part of the scheme, CURRAN and SANTOS concealed the donations from DBI

15 management. Their concealment of the scheme allowed it to continue because if DBI had known about

16 the SFGGR donations from SANTOS’ clients, CURRAN would not have been permitted to inspect
17 properties associated with SANTOS. Between January 2020 and April 2020, CURRAN further

18 attempted to conceal the scheme by deleting text messages with SANTOS from his (CURRAN’s) cell

19 phone.

20 17. As part of the scheme, SFGGR donation checks from SANTOS’ clients were deposited

21 into SFGGR’s Chase checking account in the Northern District of California.

22

23 COUNT ONE: (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346, and 1349 – Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire

24 Fraud)

25 18. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Indictment are re-alleged and

26 incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

27 19. Starting at a date unknown to the Grand Jury, but by no later than May of 2017, and

28 continuing until at least April of 2020 as to both defendants, in the Northern District of California and

INDICTMENT 5
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 7 of 10

1 elsewhere, the defendants,

2 BERNARD CURRAN
and
3 RODRIGO SANTOS,

4 did knowingly and willfully conspire and agree with each other to devise and participate in a material

5 scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco of their

6 intangible right to the honest and faithful services of BERNARD CURRAN, through bribery and the

7 concealment of material information, said scheme being carried out using interstate wire transmissions,

8 all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 1349.

9
10 COUNT TWO: (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 – Honest Services Wire Fraud)

11 20. The factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Indictment are re-alleged and

12 incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

13 21. On or about February 13, 2019, in the Northern District of California and elsewhere, the

14 defendants,

15 BERNARD CURRAN
and
16 RODRIGO SANTOS,

17 having knowingly, and with intent to defraud, devised, intended to devise, and participated in a material

18 scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco of their

19 intangible right to the honest and faithful services of BERNARD CURRAN, through bribery and the

20 concealment of material information, did transmit, and cause to be transmitted, a writing, sign, signal,

21 picture, and sound by means of wire communication in interstate commerce for the purpose of executing

22 such scheme and artifice, specifically, the processing by Chase (through data processing servers located

23 outside of California) of a $500 check from a SANTOS client deposited into SFGGR’s Chase account in

24 the Northern District of California, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and

25 1346.

26
27 FORFEITURE ALLEGATION: (18 U.S.C. §§ 981(a)(1)(C) and 982; 28 U.S.C. § 2461)

28 22. Upon conviction of the offense alleged in Counts One and Two of this Indictment, the

INDICTMENT 6
 Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 8 of 10

1 defendants,

2 BERNARD CURRAN
and
3 RODRIGO SANTOS,

4 shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and

5 982(a) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461, any property, real and personal, which

6 constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation, including but not limited to a

7 forfeiture money judgment in the amount of such proceeds.

8 23. If, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant, any of said property

9 a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

10 b. has been transferred or sold to or deposited with a third person;

11 c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

12 d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

13 e. has been commingled with other property, which cannot be divided without difficulty;

14 the United States shall, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) (as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1) and 28

15 U.S.C. § 2461(c)), seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the

16 forfeitable property described above.

17 24. All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C) and 982; Title 28,

18 United States Code, Section 2461(c); and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.

19

20 DATED: November 16, 2021 A TRUE BILL.

21

22 /s/ Foreperson
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON
23
STEPHANIE M. HINDS
24 Acting United States Attorney

25
/s/ Casey Boome
26
CASEY BOOME
27 KYLE F. WALDINGER
Assistant United States Attorneys
28

INDICTMENT 7
AO 257 (Rev. 6/78) Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 9 of 10

DEFENDANT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION - IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FILED

BY: COMPLAINT INFORMATION INDICTMENT Name of District Court, and/or Judge/Magistrate Location
Nov 16 2021
SUPERSEDING NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OFFENSE CHARGED
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343 and1346 - Honest Services Wire Petty CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Fraud NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Minor DEFENDANT - U.S SAN FRANCISCO
18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 - Honest Services Wire Fraud
Misde-
meanor
Bernard Curran
Felony
DISTRICT COURT NUMBER
PENALTY: Maximum Penalties for Each Count: 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;
CR21-453 VC
forfeiture; possible deportation for non-citizens.

DEFENDANT
PROCEEDING IS NOT IN CUSTODY
Has not been arrested, pending outcome this proceeding.
Name of Complaintant Agency, or Person (& Title, if any) 1) If not detained give date any prior
FBI Special Agent Allison Lopez
summons was served on above charges 
person is awaiting trial in another Federal or State Court, 2) Is a Fugitive
give name of court
3) Is on Bail or Release from (show District)

NDCA (3-21-mj-71315-MAG)
this person/proceeding is transferred from another district
per (circle one) FRCrp 20, 21, or 40. Show District
IS IN CUSTODY
4) On this charge
this is a reprosecution of

}
charges previously dismissed 5) On another conviction
which were dismissed on motion SHOW Federal State

}
of: DOCKET NO.
6) Awaiting trial on other charges
U.S. ATTORNEY DEFENSE
If answer to (6) is "Yes", show name of institution

this prosecution relates to a

}
Yes If "Yes"
pending case involving this same Has detainer
give date
defendant MAGISTRATE been filed? No filed

}
CASE NO.
prior proceedings or appearance(s) DATE OF
ARREST
Month/Day/Year
before U.S. Magistrate regarding this
3-21-mj-71315-MA
defendant were recorded under Or... if Arresting Agency & Warrant were not

Month/Day/Year
Name and Office of Person
Furnishing Information on this form Stephanie M. Hinds
DATE TRANSFERRED
TO U.S. CUSTODY

U.S. Attorney Other U.S. Agency

Name of Assistant U.S. This report amends AO 257 previously submitted

Attorney (if assigned) Casey Boome
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS
PROCESS:
SUMMONS NO PROCESS* WARRANT Bail Amount:
If Summons, complete following:
Arraignment Initial Appearance * Where defendant previously apprehended on complaint, no new summons or
warrant needed, since Magistrate has scheduled arraignment
Defendant Address:

Date/Time: Before Judge:

Comments:
AO 257 (Rev. 6/78) Case 3:21-cr-00453-VC Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 10 of 10 FILED
DEFENDANT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL ACTION - IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Nov 16 2021
BY: COMPLAINT INFORMATION INDICTMENT Name of District Court, and/or Judge/Magistrate Location
SUPERSEDING NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OFFENSE CHARGED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343 and1346 - Honest Services Wire Petty NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Fraud
Minor
SAN FRANCISCO
DEFENDANT - U.S
18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 - Honest Services Wire Fraud
Misde-
meanor
Rodrigo Santos
Felony
DISTRICT COURT NUMBER
PENALTY: Maximum Penalties for Each Count: 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; CR21-453 VC
forfeiture; possible deportation for non-citizens.

DEFENDANT
PROCEEDING IS NOT IN CUSTODY
Has not been arrested, pending outcome this proceeding.
Name of Complaintant Agency, or Person (& Title, if any) 1) If not detained give date any prior
FBI Special Agent Allison Lopez
summons was served on above charges 
person is awaiting trial in another Federal or State Court, 2) Is a Fugitive
give name of court
3) Is on Bail or Release from (show District)

NDCA (CR 21-268-SI) and (3-21-mj-71315-MAG)

this person/proceeding is transferred from another district
per (circle one) FRCrp 20, 21, or 40. Show District
IS IN CUSTODY
4) On this charge
this is a reprosecution of

}
charges previously dismissed 5) On another conviction
which were dismissed on motion SHOW Federal State

}
of: DOCKET NO.
6) Awaiting trial on other charges
U.S. ATTORNEY DEFENSE
If answer to (6) is "Yes", show name of institution

this prosecution relates to a

}
Yes If "Yes"
pending case involving this same Has detainer
give date
defendant MAGISTRATE been filed? No filed

}
CASE NO.
prior proceedings or appearance(s) DATE OF
ARREST
Month/Day/Year
before U.S. Magistrate regarding this
3-21-mj-71315-MA
defendant were recorded under Or... if Arresting Agency & Warrant were not

Month/Day/Year
Name and Office of Person
Furnishing Information on this form Stephanie M. Hinds
DATE TRANSFERRED
TO U.S. CUSTODY

U.S. Attorney Other U.S. Agency

Name of Assistant U.S. This report amends AO 257 previously submitted

Attorney (if assigned) Casey Boome
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS
PROCESS:
SUMMONS NO PROCESS* WARRANT Bail Amount:
If Summons, complete following:
Arraignment Initial Appearance * Where defendant previously apprehended on complaint, no new summons or
warrant needed, since Magistrate has scheduled arraignment
Defendant Address:

Date/Time: Before Judge:

Comments: