Undercover cop accused of paying for X-rated act at SF massage parlor claims visit was police sting

An undercover San Francisco cop has been accused of paying for an X-rated act at a city’s massage parlor but claimed the visit was all part of a police sting.

In June 2025, an alleged undercover operation at the Richmond Serenity Spa, involving San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Robert Glenn, found illegal prostitution was allegedly taking place.

The spa owners, Jing Huang and Liyan Wang, have appealed the city’s decision to revoke their massage license for 5 years, accusing Glenn of “outrageous” conduct and calling into question the alleged sting.

In a police report obtained by The California Post, Glenn wrote that in 2025 he was part of an undercover operation “to see if there was illegal prostitution taking place” at the spa.

Glenn said that he entered the spa, asked for a massage, was told it would be $50 and then walked back to a room where he waited for his masseuse, per the report.

He said he asked the masseuse if he was supposed to get naked, who then informed him to undress. He wrote that he then laid nude on the massage table under a blanket where she began the massage.

At one point, Glenn said he rolled over to the front and that was when the masseuse solicited him, signaling that she would give him a hand job. He asked how much, offered to pay an extra $60 and she said yes, per the report.

She then went to get oil, and returned starting to give him a hand job, before he said he stopped her, gave her “the $50 remaining dollars,” and left. 

Glenn said the whole incident was recorded along with photographs from the operation.

In July, the Department of Public Health (DPH) issued a $7,500 in administrative fines against the spa “for solicitation of lewd conduct or prostitution and engaging in lewd conduct or performing sex acts.”

In court documents, the owner’s attorney Paul Horcher questioned Glenn’s account of events. He wrote that the permit revocation should be dismissed based on the officer “who allegedly allowed a rogue masseuse to rub his penis with hot oil – conduct which,” in his client’s view, “constituted police overtime pay abuse.”

The owners also alleged that Glenn “made no detentions, arrests, did not identify the rogue masseuse or other witnesses, and did not notify the owners of the incident, thereby depriving Ms. Huang and Ms. Wang or their ability to investigate and mount a defense to counter DPH’s allegations,” only learning about a month later.

The owners initally requested a hearing to dispute the revocation of their permit in August. In November a director’s hearing upheld the earlier decision that they had violated the health code which “prohibits lewd conduct and prostitution by massage practitioners, including fondling the anus or genitals of another human” and that their license would be revoked for 5 years.

In a letter from City Attorney David Chu last week — calling on the appeals board to uphold the November decision — the city pointed out that the owners didn’t even “introduce testimony of the masseuse to contradict the officer.”

It also said the owners claims of police misconduct in the case were “unsupported by fact or law.”

It is not the first time the spa has gotten in trouble. In 2021, SFPD raided the spa, accusing them of similar allegations, when the spa was located across the street.

Records show, hearing officer Tinnetta Thompson, an attorney now with the Department of Police Accountability, said the owners were “not liable for the violations.”

Court documents also show that Richmond Serenity Spa appears on several adult websites.

The owners have denied that anything questionable is happening at their spa.

On Wednesday the hearing went before the San Francisco Board of Appeals who agreed that they needed to hear Glenn’s police recording and get a transcript themselves.

“The city has stated that the department has not listened to the underlying audio recording. And neither has the city’s attorney office,” Board member John Trasviña said during the hearing. 

“This suggests to me, while it may be important to the defense of the proprietor…the fact that they have not listened to it, suggests that they are solely relying on the incident report.”

The board agreed that they need to either read or hear the audio before they can make a decision. They also said they wanted more time to get a revised accurate transcript of the November hearing because what they have been presented so far is unclear and “filled with inaccuracy,” Rebecca Saroyan said. 

The board voted to continue the hearing until May. 

The California Post has reached out to the San Francisco PD and the owner’s attorney for further comment.