Available activity
Review activity made available through connected sources, with details such as date, amount, and description when supplied.
A Miami Beach condominium was preparing for a 40-year recertification project. A board member noticed a check, asked whether the stated permit work had happened, and the question led to a broader investigation.
According to the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s February 2026 newsletter, a Euclid East director saw a $25,000 check to JLH Repair LLC for permit processing and submission, then learned from the Miami Beach Building Permits Office that no permits had been pulled by the named person or company. The State Attorney later announced charges against the former condominium manager and a maintenance worker. The descriptions below are prosecutors’ allegations.
May 2024–May 2025
Prosecutors say the association paid about $370,000 to JLH Repair LLC during this period while the condominium faced its 40-year recertification work. Their account says the worker and company did not hold contractor licenses.
State Attorney newsletter2025
The State Attorney says that inquiry found no permits pulled by the named contractor. The newsletter describes that as the start of deeper scrutiny, not as a final adjudication.
State Attorney newsletterFebruary 2026
The State Attorney charged Francisco Obispo with organized scheme to defraud and 13 kickback counts, and charged Jose Luis Hernandez with organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. Prosecutors allege identified transfers and kickbacks; the charges remain allegations.
State Attorney newsletter$25,000The check that prompted the reported permit question. The State Attorney’s newsletter also describes approximately $370,000 in payments to JLH Repair LLC. These figures are part of the prosecution’s account, not an independent Bylaw Ledger audit.
A check alone cannot show whether the vendor had the right license, whether a permit was necessary or obtained, whether the work matched the scope, or whether a conflict was disclosed. Those answers may be in contracts, board records, permits, invoices, inspections, and the community’s own rules.
Questions a board may need answered
Who was selected, and what qualification did the project require?Vendor · License · Scope
What permit, inspection, or recertification record supports the invoice?Permit · Evidence
Who approved the selection and payment, and what did they review?Decision · Approval
Were conflicts and changes visible to the people authorized to ask?Disclosure · Access
Transparency Product brings available financial activity and connected records into one organized view for people authorized by the community. For a project payment, board members can review available activity alongside connected bids, contracts, permits, invoices, and decision records. That shared context makes it easier to see what was recorded and which project details to follow up on. This product context describes support for financial review; the case findings remain those reported in the cited public records.
Review activity made available through connected sources, with details such as date, amount, and description when supplied.
Open supporting information the community has connected or shared alongside an activity item.
Authorized people see the information the community permits for their role.
Bring the available context together so residents and board members can understand what they are reviewing and what question to ask next.
According to the Miami-Dade State Attorney's February 2026 account, a Euclid East board member noticed a $25,000 check for recertification permit processing and called the Miami Beach permitting office. The office reportedly found no permits pulled by the named business or person. Investigators later described approximately $370,000 paid to that business over a year and alleged kickbacks tied to the project. The charges are allegations, not findings of guilt.
This is why an HOA or condo vendor review cannot end at the invoice. For a recertification project, the board needs to know what work the association authorized, who was qualified to perform it, whether permits were actually submitted, and whether payments match completed milestones. Those are different questions, and each points to a different source: contract, license record, permit office, inspection record, payment, and approval.
The State Attorney described this as a condominium matter. Florida Chapter 718 and the condominium documents are the legal starting points for this association; Chapter 720 governs a different type of community. A general page cannot determine which competitive bidding, conflict, or recertification provision applied to this project without the contracts and governing record.
No. The board member in the public account checked directly with the permitting office. Independent verification can answer a question the invoice cannot.
No. Chapters 718 and 720 apply to different association types and can set different requirements. The governing documents and project facts also matter.
A shared financial view can put payment activity beside connected bids, contracts, invoices, permits, and decision records. That gives board members a clearer reference as they review project details and follow up with the relevant source.
The available primary source is a prosecution announcement. It reports charges and allegations, not a judicial finding. Bylaw Ledger has not independently audited the condominium’s records.