{"id":1801,"date":"2015-12-29T09:58:06","date_gmt":"2015-12-29T14:58:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/?p=1801"},"modified":"2016-01-26T02:08:46","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T07:08:46","slug":"a-web-based-resource-on-china-related-federal-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/?p=1801","title":{"rendered":"A Web-Based Resource on China-Related Federal Prosecutions of Economic Espionage and Trade Secrets"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"pl-1801\"  class=\"panel-layout\" >\n<div id=\"pg-1801-0\"  class=\"panel-grid panel-no-style\" >\n<div id=\"pgc-1801-0-0\"  class=\"panel-grid-cell\" >\n<div id=\"panel-1801-0-0-0\" class=\"so-panel widget widget_sow-editor panel-first-child panel-last-child\" data-index=\"0\" >\n<div\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tclass=\"so-widget-sow-editor so-widget-sow-editor-base\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t><\/p>\n<div class=\"siteorigin-widget-tinymce textwidget\">\n<h3><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>A Web-Based Resource on China-Related Federal Prosecutions of Economic Espionage and Trade Secrets<\/strong><\/span><\/h3><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The number of Asian Americans who are subject to or affected by federal espionage and trade secret investigations and prosecutions is a matter of growing concern.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Three recent failed prosecutions involving four Chinese American scientists highlight the significant void of a one-stop information resource to understand the historical trend and the current status.\u00a0 As the accused and their families suffer emotional stress and financial, professional and reputational ruin from the false accusations, concern and fear spread in the Chinese American community about the apparent pattern of profiling and discrimination by the U.S. government.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">How many similar cases are there?\u00a0 Are there other unjustified cases?\u00a0 What has been the trend and pattern in law enforcement? \u00a0Is there disparate treatment?\u00a0 Are there lessons that the community can learn and act on as a result?\u00a0 Should the government take a different approach?\u00a0 Without basic facts and reliable statistics, even simple questions become difficult to address.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The government has so far not provided a satisfactory response to the many calls for explanation, apology and independent investigation.\u00a0 \u00a0A fact-based resource has now been created to enhance community understanding, promote transparency, hold the government accountable, and ensure fairness in the American justice system.<\/span><\/p>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Economic Espionage and Theft of Trade Secrets<\/strong><\/span><\/h4><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Laws currently used by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute violations of economic espionage and trade secrets generally fall under three categories.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">First, the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) was enacted in 1996 to provide two offenses:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1831 applies to <strong><em>economic espionage<\/em><\/strong> with knowledge or intent to benefit a foreign nation<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832 applies to <strong><em>theft of trade secrets<\/em><\/strong> with knowledge or intent that will injure the owner of trade secret<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Second, export enforcement and embargoes are usually covered by:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><em>AECA<\/em><\/strong>, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><em>IEEPA<\/em><\/strong>, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, used to extend the regulations of the Export Administration Act of 1979 covering export items for commercial and dual military purposes<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><em>ITAR<\/em><\/strong>, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations covering export items for military purposes<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Third, there is a wide set of alternative or additional charges that the U.S. Attorneys may apply, depending on the individual case.\u00a0 Among the U.S. Code coverage are: Unauthorized Disclosure of Government Information, Including Trade Secrets, by a Government Employee; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Fraud Scheme; Unauthorized Obtaining of Information; Intrusion; Mail\/Wire Fraud; Foreign\/Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property; Money Laundering; False Statement; Obstruction Of Justice; and Forfeiture.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The U.S. government intensified its efforts on economic espionage and theft of trade secrets in 2012 with the enactment of:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">the <strong><em>Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act<\/em><\/strong>, which increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage under section 1831<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">the <strong><em>Trade Secrets Clarification Act<\/em><\/strong>, which expanded the scope of trade secrets covered under section 1832<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The National Security Division (NSD) was created in the U.S. Department of Justice in March 2006 to combat terrorism and other threats to national security.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In a nationwide television broadcast (CBS 60 Minutes) on January 17, 2016, DOJ claimed that China&#8217;s \u201ccorporate espionage constitutes a national security emergency, with China targeting (thousands of U.S. companies in) virtually every sector of the U.S. economy, and costing American companies hundreds of billions of dollars in losses &#8212; and more than two million jobs.\u201d<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) reported that the number of economic espionage and trade secret cases increased by more than 60% from fiscal year (FY) 2009 to the end of FY 2013.\u00a0 There was again a reported 53% increase in these cases from 2014 to 2015. The precise number of cases is classified, but it is quoted to be \u201cin the hundreds.\u201d<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In addition to the FBI, economic espionage and theft of trade secret cases are also investigated by more than 10 federal agencies, including the Homeland Security Investigations [formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement], the Department of Commerce&#8217;s Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Pentagon&#8217;s Defense Criminal Investigative Service.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">With the stepped-up efforts by the U.S. government to address alleged economic espionage activities by China, innocent Asian Americans, particularly Chinese Americans, have been affected by the sheer number and aggressive nature of the investigations and prosecutions, causing serious damage to the careers, reputations and financial situations of the persons involved.\u00a0 They also cause rippling effects in the Chinese American communities, setting off many calls and petitions for DOJ to explain its approach and conduct independent investigations about the failed prosecutions and its policies. \u00a0There has not yet been a satisfactory response.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">While we all support the government\u2019s effort to prosecute violators of economic espionage and theft of trade secrets laws, it is equally important that the American justice system protects innocent individuals and provides balanced fact-based information to the public.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>FedCases Webpage\u00a0and Preliminary Results<\/strong><\/span><\/h4><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">As a community service, a new information resource has been created in the form of a webpage. \u00a0The inaugural version of FedCases (<span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff;\" href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/FedCases\">http:\/\/bit.ly\/FedCases<\/a><\/span>) is a complete collection of all known China-related EEA prosecutions of Asian Americans and Chinese Nationals since the enactment of EEA in 1996.\u00a0 There are 50 cases in the current collection, covering the period of 1996 to January 2016, with 3 cases in 2006, 2008 and 2009 respectively yet to be fully confirmed for addition.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Preliminary results based on these 50 cases are presented below.\u00a0 They are subject to further interpretation, verification, validation, and refinement by additional experts, professionals, and the public.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">While the following five sets of descriptive statistics do not immediately answer all the questions raised in the introduction of this blog, it is hoped that they will stimulate discussions for the next level of development and analysis and lead to some answers.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0<\/span>Number of Cases by Type of Charges<\/strong>. According to the type of charges made, the 50 EEA cases are placed into four categories in the following table:<\/span><\/p><p><a href=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases1-2.jpg\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-2223\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2223 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases1-2.jpg\" alt=\"FedCases1\" width=\"684\" height=\"125\" srcset=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases1-2.jpg 684w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases1-2-300x55.jpg 300w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases1-2-400x73.jpg 400w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 684px) 100vw, 684px\" \/><\/a><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>2.\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Number of Cases by Year<\/strong>. The chart below shows that the number of cases has increased from the annual range of 0-3 cases during 1997-2008 to the annual range of 4-6 cases for 2009-2015.<\/span><\/p><p><a href=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases2-3.jpg\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-2224\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2224 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases2-3.jpg\" alt=\"FedCases2\" width=\"728\" height=\"524\" srcset=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases2-3.jpg 728w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases2-3-300x216.jpg 300w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases2-3-400x288.jpg 400w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px\" \/><\/a><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The exclusive use of alternative charges instead of section 1831 or 1832 by DOJ, while publicly describing them to be espionage and theft of trade secret that benefit China, appears to be a recent trend since 2012 according to these 4 cases:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2015 \u2013 Temple University professor Xiaoxing Xi; U.S. citizen; accused of wire fraud for the benefit of China; case dropped by the government prior to trial<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2014 \u2013 National Weather Service hydrologist Sherry Chen; U.S. citizen; accused of theft of U.S. Government property, accessing restricted U.S. Government files to benefit China, and making false statements; case dropped by the government prior to trial<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2013 \u2013 Medical College of Wisconsin research scientist Huajun Zhao; Chinese National; accused of stealing cancer data for China and making false statement; he pleaded guilty to accessing a computer without authorization and was sentenced to time served<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2012 \u2013 Sandia Laboratory nanotechnology scientist Jianyu Huang, U.S. citizen; accused of taking unauthorized government property (containing no classified information) to China and making false statement; he lost his job, and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>3.\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Disposition of Cases by Year<\/strong>. Among the 50 EEA-related cases, 13 are still active. Two (2) of these active cases in 2010 and 2011 involve a total of 3 fugitives although the remaining defendants have pleaded guilty or were convicted.\u00a0 Two other active cases were featured by the CBS 60 Minutes Program on January 17, 2016:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2014 \u2013 PLA Cyber Espionage Against U.S. Corporations and a Labor Organization<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2013 \u2013 Theft Of AMSC Trade Secrets<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Of the remaining 35 cases that are closed, 9 (25.7%) were dropped prior to trial, acquitted and dismissed during or after trial, or had a finding of not guilty; 3 (8.6%) were reduced to lesser or other charges no longer related to trade secrets; and 23 (65.7%) were either guilty pleas or full or partial convictions.\u00a0 A case deemed \u201cclosed\u201d here may still be under appeal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Two (2) out of the 50 EEA-related cases dating back to 1998 and 2001 have disposition which are not yet known.\u00a0 As previously mentioned, up to three cases may still be added to the total number of 50 cases upon confirmation.<\/span><\/p><p><a href=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases3-2.jpg\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-2225\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2225 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases3-2.jpg\" alt=\"FedCases3\" width=\"728\" height=\"498\" srcset=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases3-2.jpg 728w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases3-2-300x205.jpg 300w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases3-2-400x274.jpg 400w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px\" \/><\/a><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>4. Number of Cases by State<\/strong>. The Northern District of California, covering the Silicon Valley, has by far the highest number of cases at 9.<\/span><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><a href=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases4-4.jpg\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-2227\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2227 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases4-4.jpg\" alt=\"FedCases4\" width=\"769\" height=\"292\" srcset=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases4-4.jpg 769w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases4-4-300x114.jpg 300w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases4-4-768x292.jpg 768w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases4-4-400x152.jpg 400w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 769px) 100vw, 769px\" \/><\/a><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>5.\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Distribution by Number of Defendants<\/strong>. The 50 EEA cases covered a total of 92 individuals and 9 firms. \u00a0Thirty one (31) cases had only one defendant.\u00a0 One case has as many as 7 defendants; another case has 5 defendants and a group of 5 firms.<\/span><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><a href=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases5-2.jpg\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-2228\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2228 alignleft\" src=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases5-2.jpg\" alt=\"FedCases5\" width=\"764\" height=\"317\" srcset=\"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases5-2.jpg 764w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases5-2-300x124.jpg 300w, https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/FedCases5-2-400x166.jpg 400w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 764px) 100vw, 764px\" \/><\/a><\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p>\u00a0<\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">FedCases is created as a fact-based resource for research and analysis.\u00a0 It is a work in progress and a labor of love.\u00a0 Efforts will continue to add new cases, complete entries, update status, and improve its content.\u00a0 Community participation and crowd contribution are also invited.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A complete list of references and sources of information used to create FedCases is given in <span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff;\" href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/AAProfiling\">http:\/\/bit.ly\/AAProfiling<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Acknowledgements and Disclaimer<\/strong><\/span><\/h4><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Special thanks to these and other unnamed contributors of the webpage: Steven Aftergood, Albert Chang, Alice S. Huang, George Koo, Thomas J. Nolan, Daniel Olmos, Aryani Ong, Navdeep Singh, Peter J. Toren, Cheuk-Yin Wong, and Peter Zeidenberg.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">This is a personal blog not associated with any organizations. \u00a0Neither the contributors nor I can totally assure or be responsible for the specific contents of the website.\u00a0 They are based on best efforts and publicly available information that are shared as a resource.<\/span><\/p>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Appendix: Process to Create FedCases<\/strong><\/span><\/h4><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The creation of the inaugural version of FedCases began with these primary information sources:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Publicly available \u201cfact sheets\u201d issued by NSD since 2006. The most recent version is dated August 2015<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">An analysis of 137 federal prosecutions under the EEA from 1996 to July 1, 2015, conducted by Mr. Thomas J. Nolan of Nolan, Barton, Bradford and Olmos LLP (the Nolan list; <span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><a style=\"color: #0000ff;\" href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/NolanList\">http:\/\/bit.ly\/NolanList<\/a><\/span>)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Online press releases by the 94 offices of U.S. Attorneys, FBI announcements, media reports, public access systems, and similar announcements and electronic sources<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The Nolan list of 137 cases is reported to be the result of an exhaustive search of all known prosecutions under section 1831 or 1832 since the inception of EEA in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system for all 94 U.S. District Courts.\u00a0 An earlier version of the Nolan list with 122 cases was included as part of the comments by the Federal Defender Sentencing Guidelines Committee to the United States Sentencing Commission on The Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The process of creating FedCases followed these basic steps:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Cases that appear to be related to China, Chinese Nationals or Asian Americans are extracted from the NSD \u201cfact sheets,\u201d which present select export enforcement, economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions since 2006. The latest available version is August 2015<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">An electronic search of the press releases and announcements of the 94 offices of the U.S. Attorneys was made to identify similar cases available at the end of 2015<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A similar approach is used to extract EEA-only prosecutions from the Nolan list covering the period of 1996 to July 1, 2015<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">These results are matched and analyzed to yield 37 cases in common. According to the identification number used in the Nolan list, they are: 1, 12, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 44, 47, 57, 64, 65, 67, 68, 77, 83, 85, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127, 135, 136 and 137<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Three (3) EEA cases announced after July 1, 2015 are added, including the GSK Biopharmaceutical case on January 20, 2016<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Four (4) cases are added, as discussed previously, for their exclusive use of alternative charges as economic espionage. Their First Date identifications in FedCases are 2012\/06\/05, 2013\/04\/02, 2014\/10\/20, and 2015\/05\/21<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Six (6) cases prior to July 1, 2015, but do not appear in the Nolan list, are added. Their First Date identifications in FedCases are 2006\/05\/10, 2006\/12\/13, 2012\/09\/04, 2014\/05\/19, 2014\/12\/09, and 2015\/05\/08<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The collection of 37+3+4+6 = 50 cases is then integrated to create FedCases. Three (3) cases in the Nolan list have not yet been added because of potential entry errors or lack of confirming information at this time.\u00a0 Their identification numbers are 9, 76, and 107<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Substantial efforts have been made to verify and validate these cases, including the identification of confirming sources and relevant links, such as<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">An analysis of 124 federal prosecutions under the EEA from 1996 to September 1, 2012, conducted by Mr. Peter J. Toren of Weisbrod, Matteis & Copley<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The February 2013 White House Report \u201cAdministration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Online media reports, official announcements, public access systems, and similar electronic means<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Comments and contributions by individuals and community organizations such as the Committee of 100 and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Among the 50 EEA cases, only 19 (38%) have been mentioned in the NSD \u201cfact sheets.\u201d\u00a0 Most of the cases not included in the NSD \u201cfact sheets\u201d but derived from independent sources either date prior to 2006, or more recent (since August 2015), or involve acquittals, dismissals, finding of not guilty, or reduced charges no longer covering trade secrets.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The overlap between EEA cases and illegal exports appears to be relatively small at 3 out of 50 cases (6%).<\/span><\/p>\n<h4>\u00a0<\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A Web-Based Resource on China-Related Federal Prosecutions of Economic Espionage and Trade SecretsThe number of Asian Americans who are subject to or affected by federal espionage and trade secret investigations [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2220,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1801"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1801\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2229,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1801\/revisions\/2229"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2220"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jeremy-wu.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}