San Francisco rental scams drew renewed attention after a prospective tenant toured a real apartment but later discovered that online messages were coming from an impersonator. The report involving nurse Lauren Rice connects to an earlier $18,600 loss reported by renter Alvin Tran. Their experiences show why rental contacts require independent verification.
Key Takeaways
- Lauren Rice toured a genuine Forest Knolls rental but received application requests from a false contact.
- Contact information in Rice’s October case matched details linked to an $18,600 transfer by Alvin Tran.
- Tran attended a real Duboce Triangle open house before wiring money to a person impersonating the landlord.
- The FTC reported approximately $65 million in nationwide rental scam losses from January 2020 through June 2025.
An October 28, 2026, report by The San Francisco Standard documented how a real Forest Knolls apartment showing became part of a landlord-impersonation attempt. The renter was preparing to start work at UCSF.
Lauren Rice noticed instructions that conflicted with the owner’s directions. The contact information matched details previously associated with Alvin Tran, who wired $18,600 during a July rental search.
The connection concerns contact details. Reporting has not established the identity of the person or people responsible for both incidents.
A Real Forest Knolls Tour Led to False Rental Messages
Rice answered a Craigslist advertisement for a $6,000-a-month, two-bedroom apartment on Crestmont Drive. The online contact used the name Bob Hall, according to The Standard.
Rice met the actual owner, Babak Suzani, who showed her the unit and directed her to apply through Zillow. She complied.
Later, the Craigslist contact claimed there was a problem accessing the Zillow applications and directed Rice to a different email address. A response attributed to Adapt California requested proof of address, pay statements and a credit report. The attached form also asked for a Social Security number, driver’s license information and bank balances.
A $20 processing fee was another discrepancy. Suzani had told Rice that he would not charge an application fee. Rice searched the contact information and recognized its connection to earlier reporting on Tran’s experience.
“I seriously could have ended up like that guy,” Rice told The Standard.
Rice and Suzani then compared their messages. They found communications falsely attributed to each of them, suggesting that an intermediary had relayed information while impersonating both parties. Suzani said he had never advertised the apartment on Craigslist.
Rice ultimately signed a lease directly with Suzani. The account did not report that she lost money to the false contact. Her search took place amid rising San Francisco rental costs, although the reported deception depended on conflicting identities rather than an unusually low advertised price.
An Earlier $18,600 Loss Followed a Genuine Open House
Tran’s experience began in July 2026, when he and a prospective roommate considered a $6,200-a-month apartment in Duboce Triangle. He found matching advertisements on Zillow and Craigslist, attended an open house on July 25 and met the owner and manager, Jim Basuino.
KQED, NBC Bay Area and the San Francisco Chronicle also documented Tran’s case. Tran continued communicating through the Craigslist contact, believing the person was connected to the owner he had met. He received acceptance paperwork and a lease, then wired $18,600 to cover two months of rent and a security deposit. Tran and his roommate later split the loss.
When Tran arrived for the keys, nobody met him. Basuino subsequently told him that he had not placed the Craigslist advertisement or received the payment. The apartment had already been rented to someone else.
The new Forest Knolls episode resurfaced the same phone and email contact information, according to The Standard’s October 28 report. That overlap links the reported communications, but does not by itself establish that the same individual controlled them.
These were not listings promising unusually cheap apartments. Both advertised two-bedroom homes at monthly rents exceeding $6,000. While lower-cost San Francisco housing options have drawn attention amid affordability concerns, these cases involved copied information from ordinary apartment listings.
Tran reported the suspected fraud to police and federal authorities. Subsequent reporting said efforts to recover the wire transfer had been unsuccessful at that point.
San Francisco Rental Scams Expose a Contact Verification Gap
The Federal Trade Commission’s December 2025 analysis recorded nearly 65,000 reported rental scams nationwide, involving approximately $65 million in losses, from January 2020 through June 2025. The figures describe reports received during that period, not a count of San Francisco cases or all incidents.
The FTC identifies copied advertisements as a common method. A fraudulent post may reuse authentic photographs, descriptions and addresses while replacing the owner’s contact details. In other instances, advertisements describe properties that are unavailable or do not exist.
The FTC cautions that a tour does not verify who may collect documents or funds. Both cases involved genuine properties, but later communications came through disputed contacts.
StopScams SF, a program run through the San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector’s Office, includes rental listing scams on its public tracker. It advises residents to ask for proof that the person requesting payment owns the property or is authorized to rent it.
Photo Credit: Unsplash.com
The FTC recommends searching the property address and comparing listings across websites. Different contact names or prices for the same property can signal a problem. People communicating with a management company can independently locate the company’s contact information rather than relying only on the advertisement.
For a privately owned unit, the agency suggests checking local property records and confirming the identity of the owner. Applicants can also confirm the application process and payment instructions directly with the person verified as responsible for the rental.
Requests for Social Security numbers, driver’s license images, pay statements and other sensitive records require particular care. Legitimate applications may involve financial screening, but the FTC warns against supplying sensitive information to unverified contacts or paying for a credit-check service through an unfamiliar link.
The FTC cautions that wire transfers, gift cards and cryptocurrency can be hard to recover. Someone who has paid a suspected scammer can promptly request help from the bank or payment provider.
Suspected San Francisco rental scams can be reported to the advertising platform, local law enforcement and the FTC’s ReportFraud service. The San Francisco Police Department recommends keeping documents, receipts and payment records when reporting financial crimes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a real apartment tour be part of a rental scam?
Yes. The two reported San Francisco cases involved genuine apartments, but communications after the showings came from contacts who lacked the owners’ authorization.
How were the Forest Knolls and Duboce Triangle cases connected?
According to October 28 reporting, the phone number and email address used in Rice’s case matched contact details associated with Tran’s earlier loss. That does not establish who operated the accounts.
What should renters verify before sending a deposit?
The FTC recommends checking the property address, the owner’s or manager’s identity, and the payment instructions through independent sources. An in-person viewing does not replace those checks.
Where can suspected San Francisco rental scams be reported?
San Francisco rental scams can be reported to the hosting platform, the FTC and local law enforcement. StopScams SF maintains a public tracker of scams affecting city residents.
