After Researcher's Conviction on Some Counts, Attorney Chides Universities, Sees 'No Harm'

Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA)
Contact

Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA)

Report on Research Compliance 19, no. 5 (May, 2022)

In an address at George Mason University in February, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen said the government had “heard concerns from the civil rights community that the ‘China Initiative’ fueled a narrative of intolerance and bias.”[1] Olsen was referring to the prosecution of dozens of individuals of mostly Chinese descent, many of them university professors, for allegations of grant fraud, undisclosed foreign ties and undeclared conflicts of interest.

The complaints, which weren’t just from the civil rights community, had prompted a review that convinced Olsen, as he put it, “this initiative is not the right approach.” Yet, despite being widely interpreted as a move by the government to abandon the China Initiative, there have been no discernable changes, attorney Peter Zeidenberg, who represents accused scientists, told RRC.

An indication of a shift would have been dismissal of charges against Zeidenberg’s client Feng “Franklin” Tao before trial, he said, and against those in other “pending grant fraud cases that [don’t] involve any national security interests.” Instead, the government went forward with the prosecution of Tao, a University of Kansas (KU) associate professor of chemical engineering, on eight charges.

After a 12-day trial featuring more than 30 witnesses for the prosecution (and three for Tao), the jury deliberated a day-and-a-half and, on April 7, announced a split verdict: guilty on four of eight counts—three for wire fraud and one for making a false statement—and not guilty on three other charges for wire fraud and one of making a false statement. The charges each carry from 10 to 25 years in prison and fines from $250,000 to $500,000.

Yet Tao remains hopeful Julie A. Robinson, senior district judge for the District of Kansas, will reverse the jury’s verdict, Zeidenberg said. He also told RRC universities need to start standing up to the government to thwart the criminalization of what he termed “trivial documentation errors.”[2] Research institutions also need to step up their training of principal investigators (PIs) on completing disclosure forms, he added.

In its announcement of the verdict, the Department of Justice (DOJ) didn’t mention Tao’s acquittal on half the charges.[3] It said the jury found Tao “concealed that he was also employed by a government-affiliated university in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), while working on U.S. government funded research at KU.” The government contended Tao “accepted a position with Fuzhou University in China that designated him as a Changjiang Scholar Distinguished Professor,” but did not disclose this to KU. Tao had funding from the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, which, per usual policy, is awarded to KU.

In the complicated case, Tao was the subject of a total of three indictments rendered by separate grand juries as the government tinkered with the charges. The first indictment was in August 2019.[4] Ten charges were whittled to eight. But the central allegations didn’t change. In his defense, Zeidenberg and other attorneys for Tao contended, among other arguments, that disclosure wasn’t required because his activity did not rise to the definition of being a significant financial interest nor constitute a time commitment.

His time at Fuzhou in the spring of 2019 had been properly authorized by KU and he had been “granted a buyout,” his defense team said. Robinson ruled for the prosecution that Tao’s attorneys could not introduce evidence that he was targeted as a suspected spy for China, and the China Initiative itself was not allowed to be discussed with the jury.

No new developments in Tao’s case are expected for several months. Robinson did not set a sentencing date because she wants to hear motions. Under the schedule Robinson established, the motion for acquittal Zeidenberg told RRC he intends to file (and any others) is due by May 9; the government’s response is due June 8. Tao’s attorneys may react to the government’s filings by June 22, according to court documents.

Zeidenberg’s motion will be based on a lack of evidence to support the charges.

[View source.]

Written by:

Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA)
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA) on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide