By Frank Parlato
Arraignment Timed With Trump Inauguration
On January 17, 2025, on the last day of the Biden administration, the Biden-appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of California unsealed the indictment against David Duong, the recycling king of the Bay Area, his son Andy Duong, and former, recently-ousted, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, and her partner, Andre Jones.
The charges were conspiracy, bribery, attempted bribery, and mail and wire fraud.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, an Obama appointee, arraigned them in federal court. All pleaded not guilty.
Judge Rogers imposed travel restrictions on David Duong, with one notable exception: She permitted him to attend the inauguration of President Donald Trump – on the very same day.
Duong had once backed Obama, then Biden, then Trump, donating more than $450,000 to PACS supporting Trump.
The venue is Oakland, California. Woke, blue, loud. And into that world, he sent checks to support Trump, six-figure checks in the middle of woke-a-palooza. He thought he’d return to building recycling trucks and developing a housing company he had hoped would help solve California’s homeless crisis.
Perhaps he believed that business transcended politics. But you don’t write six-figure checks to the man the local machine hates and expect nothing to snap back. In Oakland, California, land of protests, pronouns, and perfectly filtered rage, if you donate to Trump, you’d better hire a defense lawyer.
$170,000 Alleged Bribe
At the heart of the federal case is an alleged $170,000 bribe paid to former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who served from 2023 to 2024.
Her official removal came through a recall election. Opponents gathered enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot. Days later, the FBI raided her home and the home of businessman David Duong. The headlines followed. Public support collapsed. The recall vote occurred in November. The electorate responded—just as expected.
But the indictment didn’t come until January—two months after her ouster—when the alleged facts finally emerged. And what it revealed was this: the case was remarkably weak.
The alleged bribe was paid in two installments—one before Thao’s election in 2022, and another in 2023 after she took office.
The indictment concedes that Thao never performed any official acts in return for the payment. It alleges that Duong intended to bribe her, and that she agreed—but it does not claim she followed through on any promises.
The alleged payments included $75,000 spent on campaign mailers before the election, and $95,000 in checks to Thao’s boyfriend for what prosecutors describe as a “no-show” job.
In return, the indictment claims, Mayor Thao was expected to extend Duong’s curbside recycling contract beyond 2034, facilitate a $90 million city purchase of modular housing for the homeless, secure a land lease for Duong at the Port Authority, and appoint individuals he recommended to positions at City Hall. for the homeless, secure a land lease for Duong at the Port Authority, and appoint individuals he recommended to positions at City Hall.
Duong received nothing in return for the alleged bribe. The indictment concedes this. The public record confirms it.
Oakland never extended Duong’s recycling contract. No homeless housing deal was executed. The Port Authority lease never materialized. Thao made no appointments.
The Man Who Got Away
The case relies on Mario Roberto Juarez—Coconspirator #1.
No one else was there. No cameras. No wires. No other witnesses. Juarez claimed there was a bribery plan. His reward? Immunity.
Prosecutors allege that David Duong provided $75,000 to Juarez to fund mailers supporting Mayor Sheng Thao’s 2022 campaign—as part of the bribe.
But Juarez’s checks to the printer bounced. He withdrew $32,500 the same day he wrote the checks, leaving just $215 in the account. The printer filed a complaint for criminal fraud.
In January 2024, the Alameda County District Attorney charged Juarez with felony check fraud.
They say Duong paid for the mailers? Bullshit. The check bounced. The guy who wrote it—Juarez—emptied the account first. It should’ve ended there: a bounced check, a fraud complaint, felony charges.
Juarez was cornered.
Then Juarez ran to the feds and offered them something they wanted. And the bribe that was never paid became the cornerstone of a federal case.
You know how you can tell this whole thing’s a joke? The star witness—the guy who supposedly passed along Duong’s bribe? He bounced the check.
The mailers got printed. Nobody got paid. And that’s your foundation for a federal bribery case? Bullshit, ladies and gentlemen—with a capital everything. The federal government struck a bargain with the man who wrote the lie.
Imagine how absurd this is: a bribe that got nothing in return. A check that bounced. A fraud charge against the government’s main witness—filed by the state, then erased. And the man who walked away from it all is narrating the entire case.
No Power, No Action, No Crime
None of the alleged official acts tied to the $170,000 in purported bribes ever occurred.
And here’s the problem: the mayor couldn’t have delivered them even if she wanted to.
Under the Oakland City Charter, the mayor lacks unilateral authority over contracts, expenditures, or most appointments. Major decisions—including modular housing purchases and recycling contract extensions—require approval from the eight-member city council. The mayor doesn’t vote, not even to break a tie.
The recycling contract in question—a 20-year agreement with Duong’s company—was signed in 2014, nine years before Thao’s taking office. It remains unmodified. The only personnel action cited in the indictment was a failed attempt to promote Larry Gallegos. The promotion never happened; Gallegos was reassigned.
So let’s be clear: the mayor didn’t award a contract, didn’t sell land, didn’t hire anyone. She couldn’t. And this is the government’s case? Alleged “favors” that were legally impossible—and never occurred?
Rent, Rumor, and the Man Who Wasn’t Charged
But even if the first half of the alleged bribe—the campaign mailers—was never actually paid, federal prosecutors argue that Mayor Sheng Thao still benefited from the second half: a $95,000 payment to her boyfriend, Andre Jones.
According to the indictment, Thao and Jones had previously split living expenses. But after the payments began in January 2023, Jones started contributing more toward rent, utilities, and phone bills.
She paid the rent. Then they split it. Then he did. She lived with a man. That man got a check. He helped with the bills. And somehow, that made her guilty.
The check came with a contract. The job had a title. Duong had hired Jones to promote modular housing for the homeless to various California cities—an initiative aimed at reducing both human suffering and public cost. There is nothing illegal about hiring the partner or relative of an elected official.
Consider Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the longtime congressmember who represents San Jose and much of Silicon Valley. Her daughter, Sheila Lofgren, has worked as an attorney at Google. At the same time, Rep. Lofgren has repeatedly voted on legislation that directly and beneficially impacts Big Tech, including bills related to privacy, antitrust, and content moderation.
Or former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. One daughter, Alison Schumer, worked in public policy at Meta (Facebook). His other daughter, Jessica Schumer, has worked as a lobbyist for Amazon. Schumer regularly votes on legislation affecting the tech industry—including bills on antitrust enforcement, internet regulation, and labor protections.
And yet—according to the government—Sheng Thao is guilty because her boyfriend helped pay the phone bill.
Despite the modest size of the alleged bribe—roughly one-tenth the cost of a Bay Area condo—and the absence of any executed city contracts, the case has drawn extraordinary federal involvement. The DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspectors, and the IRS have all been mobilized—all for a boyfriend and a bounced check.
All narrated by a man named Mario—who somehow walked away clean.
Missing Homes to Missing Charges
The modular housing plan began as a business pitch by Mario Juarez to the Duongs. In 2022, Juarez proposed repurposing shipping containers to house Oakland’s growing homeless population. He entered into a contract with David and Andy Duong to deliver 50 units for $1 million. He took the money—but delivered only two.
Juarez failed to pay the workers in Tijuana who built the first two units.
When the Duongs questioned him about the housing units he never delivered, Juarez allegedly threatened them—claiming he had cartel associates ready to retaliate.
The federal indictment of David Duong rests on a man with every incentive to lie.
But conviction isn’t always the goal. For honest businessmen like Duong, the indictment alone is punishment—it freezes operations, destroys reputations, and shifts public opinion, regardless of outcome.
The government gave Juarez immunity because he gave them something more valuable than evidence: a political target. They didn’t need to win. They needed Duong punished for backing the wrong man.
They took a crooked witness, offered him a deal, and allowed him to accuse someone they wanted to destroy. Duong supported Trump in California. That was the crime.
The government gave immunity to the only guilty party. They struck a deal with a liar to ruin a man whose association with Trump made him dangerous. They knew the case was weak. That’s why they waited until the last day of the Biden administration.
Duong gave to Trump. For that, he was to be made an example.
They Gave the Case to a Con Man
By June 2024, Mario Juarez had secured federal immunity. Local felony charges were dropped. A state investigation into Jaurez’s mortgage fraud involving more than $3.3 million was quashed. His current fraud was not the only thing the feds decided to sweep past. Juarez has decades of fraud, domestic abuse, bankruptcy, and criminal diversion.
This is how the federal justice system works. You got a dirtbag with bounced checks, unpaid loans, mortgage fraud, and violence—and the feds make him their star witness.
You think they care if they lose this case? No. They got what they wanted. Trump donor. Indictment and all the ruin that means.
Any decent prosecutor knows: you don’t build a case on a serial liar. But if you don’t care about justice, if you want headlines, damage, a spectacle, a warning, you use Mario Juarez—deep in debt, out of options—about to go to prison for years. Whether he holds up under cross-examination is irrelevant.
This was a warning. Better not donate to the wrong man. The indictment was the hit job. And Trump, not Duong, or Thao, was the true target.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
