Former Baldwin Park and Compton Councilmen Sentenced to 18 Months for Bribery
Ricardo Pacheco and Jacob Galvan each received 18-month federal prison sentences for bribery schemes involving cash payments and marijuana permits.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 3:26 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 3:26 p.m. ETFirst report
Former Baldwin Park and Compton City Councilmen Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bribery Schemes
Two former city councilmen from Baldwin Park and Compton were each sentenced to 18 months in federal prison on August 24, 2026, for corrupt acts committed while in office, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.
Ricardo Pacheco, 63, of Baldwin Park, who served on the city council from 1997 until his resignation in 2020, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II, who also fined him $10,000 and ordered forfeiture of $219,755. Pacheco pleaded guilty in June 2020 to federal program bribery, admitting he accepted $37,900 in bribes from a Baldwin Park police officer working at the FBI's direction in exchange for supporting the police union's contract. The payments included a $20,000 cash bribe delivered in a coffee shop.
Isaac Jacob Galvan, 39, of Compton, who served on the Compton City Council from 2013 to 2022, was also sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $323,557 in restitution. Galvan pleaded guilty in December 2025 to federal program bribery and tax evasion, admitting he paid $70,000 in bribes to Pacheco to secure votes for marijuana permits for W&F International Corp., a client he had recruited. Galvan also failed to report approximately $560,525 in income for tax years 2017 through 2020, causing a $115,816 loss to the Treasury.
A third defendant, Yichang Bai, 52, of Arcadia, owner and operator of W&F, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery and was sentenced on July 6 to 20 months in prison and fined $3,000. The FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the cases, which were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kedar S. Bhatia and Neil P. Thakor.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 19:26current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 00:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.