FAYETTEVILLE -- Attorneys for former University of Arkansas, Fayetteville professor Simon Ang are seeking to prevent testimony about Chinese government "talent plans" from being heard at his trial on wire fraud and other charges.
The flurry of court filings ahead of Ang's trial, which is scheduled to begin Feb. 7 in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville, reveal sharp divisions between the prosecution and defense attorneys over what sort of testimony and evidence is relevant to Ang's case.
The longtime electrical engineering professor faces 55 counts of wire fraud, most related to his pursuit of NASA and U.S. Air Force research grants. Prosecutors in court documents have stated that Ang failed to disclose to government funding agencies -- and to UA -- ties to China and Chinese companies.
FBI Director Christopher Wray in a 2020 talk described Chinese talent programs as a government effort "to entice scientists to secretly bring our knowledge and innovation back to China."
Ang "was a participant in the 'Thousand Talent Program,'" states a motion filed by his attorney on Jan. 3.
But while the U.S. Department of Justice in recent years has pursued economic espionage charges against some researchers working in the U.S., no such charges have been filed against Ang.
The motion filed by Ang's attorney, Drew Ledbetter, asks the court to specifically block any reference to the Thousand Talents Program.
Ang's motion states that "it is anticipated" that prosecutors intend to use his "affiliation with the program with nefarious, prejudicial, inflammatory and/or politicized purposes, only."
Ledbetter, based in Fayetteville, did not respond to questions from a reporter about the filings, but he said Ang is 64 years old and has been a U.S. citizen since 1986. Ang is Malaysian by birth, Ledbetter said.
In November, prosecutors filed a notice with the court that they may call as an expert witness Emily Weinstein, described as an independent consultant on "talent programs" sponsored by the People's Republic of China, sometimes referred to as the PRC.
Ang's motion goes on to state: "There are no allegations in the Superseding Indictment that by Defendant's participation in the program, he committed a crime."
However, the court document listing charges against Ang -- filed in July as a superseding indictment -- states that Ang "received large sums of money" from the People's Republic of China as "part of the scheme and artifice to defraud."
The indictment filed by prosecutors states that Ang "saved a document on a portable hard drive he controlled which stated in Chinese 'I have received the one-time 'Thousand Talents Program' expert's grant of 1 million yuan from the central finance department.'"
Based on current exchange rate information, that works out to about $150,000.
The indictment also states that Ang in 2018 was part of an ownership group for a China-based company making glass coating materials for car windshields and solar panels, with payments from the company going to a limited liability company formed by Ang.
In addition to charges related to Ang's pursuit of U.S. research grants, other counts of wire fraud relate to the limited liability company said to have been set up by Ang and also university salary payments made to him, according to the indictment.
The wire transactions listed in the indictment add up to $515,548 in NASA grant money, $1,074,811 in Air Force grants, $31,830 in UA salary paid to Ang and $88,000 in payments made to Ang's limited liability company.
Ang also has been charged with two counts of making a false statement in application and use of a passport, as well as two counts of making a false statement.
The indictment against Ang states that he told an FBI agent in May 2020 he was not the holder of Chinese patents, but the court document states that Ang is listed as the inventor for "numerous" patents in China.
Ang has formally denied all charges in his court plea.
PROSECUTOR'S MOTIONS
Prosecutors, in their own court filing, are seeking to block Ang's defense team from arguing that he is being selectively prosecuted.
"Throughout the pretrial litigation in this case, the Defendant has made numerous unsupported statements suggesting that the government's prosecution of the Defendant is motivated by the Defendant's race and national origin," states the motion from Clay Fowlkes, interim U.S. attorney.
Through a spokesman, Fowlkes declined to respond to questions from a reporter asking about the case.
In his motion, Fowlkes asked the court to block references to a wider U.S. Department of Justice effort, referred to in court documents as the "China Initiative," which has involved the prosecution of various researchers.
The U.S. Department of Justice publishes a compilation of China-related prosecutions on its website, a list that includes the Ang case.
Last month, a Harvard professor, Charles Lieber, was found guilty after a jury trial of two counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of failing to file reports for a foreign bank account in China.
Earlier, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville professor, Anming Hu, was acquitted on federal criminal charges by way of a judge's order after a June mistrial. Jurors had deadlocked over charges of wire fraud and making false statements, according to The Associated Press.
The Justice Department initiative has its critics, with hundreds of academics signing onto letters asking U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to end the effort.
One letter from a group of professors at Stanford -- a letter also endorsed by faculty members at Princeton and the University of California, Berkeley, among others -- states that "we believe the China Initiative raises concerns of racial profiling and is harming the United States' research and technology competitiveness."
Fowlkes, in his motion, asked the court to "preclude any claim, questioning, or argument relating to the 'China Initiative,' because any suggestion that the Defendant was prosecuted as a result of this initiative is simply another form of arguing selective prosecution, and should be excluded for the same reasons."
A footnote to Fowlkes motion states: "The Department of Justice's China Initiative reflects the strategic priority of countering national security threats posed by the People's Republic of China."
Ang joined UA's faculty in 1988 and led the university's High Density Electronics Center, or HiDEC, at the time of his arrest in May 2020. The university suspended Ang without pay after his arrest and then fired him less than two months later.
The motion filed by Ang to block reference to the Thousand Talents Program also refers to UA's policy for disclosing participation in the program.
But a UA spokesman, in response to a question from a reporter, disputed how Ang's motion characterized university policy.
The motion by Ang states that "it was not until June 7, 2021, that the University of Arkansas required disclosure participation in the program."
Mark Rushing, a UA spokesman, said in an email that UA policy "has consistently required disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment."
While the university's policy has been recently updated, Rushing said "a program involving incentives and support from a foreign entity in connection with research activities would fall within that even before recent updates."
Rushing said such disclosures under UA policy are to be made in writing and reviewed by a faculty member’s supervisory chain, including a dean, as well as reviewed by the university’s Office of Research Integrity and Compliance.
Several other motions have been filed in the case, including one from Ang seeking to allow some witness testimony via video chat services such as Zoom. The motion cites the cancellation of many flights due to the covid-19 pandemic and the emergence of the omicron coronavirus variant.
U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks is presiding over the case.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incompletely described the review process at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville for faculty members with a possible conflict of interest. Written disclosures of possible conflicts are to be reviewed by a faculty member’s supervisory chain, including a dean, as well as reviewed by the university’s Office of Research Integrity and Compliance.