Andrew Do, the former Orange County supervisor, has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for his role in a bribery scheme involving COVID-19 relief funds. Do took over $550,000 intended to help needy, elderly residents buy meals during the pandemic. U.S. District Judge James Selna expressed his frustration that the law only allowed for a five-year sentence, stating that public corruption causes harm beyond just financial loss.
Do, who fled Vietnam as a child, had built a significant political career in Southern California. He was once a prominent figure in the Vietnamese American community and served on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. However, his political career came to an abrupt end when a scandal broke in 2023. An investigation revealed that he funneled more than $10 million in federal pandemic funds to a nonprofit that allegedly provided meals to vulnerable residents but failed to deliver on its promises.
The investigation, initially reported by LAist, showed that Do approved contracts worth millions without disclosing that his daughter was involved with the nonprofit. His daughter, Rhiannon, was identified as the nonprofit’s president or vice president, raising serious ethical concerns. As accusations against him grew, Do initially claimed he was the victim of slander and pushed back against media coverage.
In the face of mounting evidence, Do resigned from his position and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. Prosecutors alleged that the nonprofit employed his daughter and funneled money to his other daughter through an air conditioning company. The judge noted that Do’s actions took advantage of vulnerable people during a national emergency.
Current Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen commented on the case, saying that Do benefited while many suffered. She mentioned that the county is conducting an audit to understand how such a scheme could happen. Meanwhile, Rhiannon Do has faced her own legal challenges but is currently in a diversion program, which has raised questions about fairness.
Do’s defense team argued that he was motivated by a desire to help his daughters and expressed remorse for his actions. They requested a lighter sentence, pointing to his community work, but the judge emphasized the seriousness of the crime.
The case has broader implications, as it highlights the need for accountability in government and raises concerns about public trust. As Do prepares to serve his sentence, many in the community are left reflecting on the impact of his actions during a time of crisis.