chinese espionage group compatible with systems

(One of those cases was settled before charges could be filed.) Six of those cases ended in guilty pleas. We found significantly more than 12 research integrity cases-but only 13 of the 23 research integrity cases included in our database are currently on the website.

We also have brought 12 matters involving fraud on universities and/or grant making institutions,” he wrote. “Since November 2018, we have brought or resolved nine economic espionage prosecutions and seven theft of trade secrets cases with a nexus to the PRC. He also shared the department’s own numbers.

While he did not respond to our specific questions, Wyn Hornbuckle, the spokesperson for the DOJ’s National Security Division, informed us by email that staff “have been in the process of updating our webpage to reflect some of the changes, updates, and dismissals.” Items in yellow were deleted, while items in blue were added. 19, after MIT Technology Review reached out for questions. 18, and on the right is the webpage on Nov. On the left is the DOJ China Initiative webpage as it appeared on Nov. In fact, in some ways they made it worse. These changes were extensive, but they didn’t really clear up much of the confusion around the initiative. On November 19-two days after MIT Technology Review approached the Department of Justice with questions about the initiative, including a number of cases we believed to have been omitted or erroneously included-the department made major revisions to the China Initiative webpage. Once we had built a rough database and analyzed the data, we compared notes with Wu, of the APA Justice Task Force, and with Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, another civil rights group tracking cases, and we shared our initial findings with a small group of lawmakers, civil rights organization representatives, and scholars and asked for their comments. That timeframe roughly coincides with the resignation of John Demers, the assistant attorney general who had been in charge of the national security division overseeing the initiative. Our tracking efforts were made harder in June, when the Department of Justice stopped updating its China Initiative webpage.

If you have more information on China Initiative cases, please reach out to us at. We know there may be more, and our database may grow as we confirm the existence of additional cases. Our goal was to create as comprehensive a database of China Initiative prosecutions as possible.

We found more cases that had been left out of the DOJ’s public list but either were publicly described as part of the initiative or fit the general fact pattern of academics charged with hiding ties to Chinese institutions, hackers alleged to be working for the Chinese government, or those accused of illicit technology transfers. Then we supplemented this information with interviews with defense attorneys, defendants’ family members, collaborating researchers, former US prosecutors, civil rights advocates, lawmakers, and outside scholars who have studied the initiative. We also combed through additional court documents and public statements by FBI and DOJ officials to find cases that had been removed from the webpage or that had never been included. Then we pulled thousands of pages of federal court records pertaining to each case and used this information to build our database. This spring, we began searching through all the press releases then linked on the Department of Justice’s China Initiative webpage, followed by another scrape of its data in August. Rather, it has added to the confusion: two days after we reached out with a request for comment, the Justice Department made major updates to its webpage, removing cases that do not support its narrative of a successful counterintelligence effort. But it is an important step toward answering some of the questions Wu poses-questions that, to this point, the US government has not answered.

Chinese espionage group compatible with systems