We created a database to understand the China Initiative. Then the government changed its records.

The Department of Justice itself did not come. As we explain in our article a large part, DOJ officials have so far failed to provide a clear definition of the China Initiative case, or how many cases it has filed. This ambiguity has made it impossible to fully understand what the China Initiative is, what it has achieved, and the costs that have been costly to the people most affected.

“I would like to see a supporting document,” said Jeremy Wu, who held senior positions in the US government before establishing a treaty. APA Justice Task Force, one of the only members of the China Initiative. What did we gain? How many spies did we catch, compared to the damage it did [been] not only for humans, but also for the future of the American science and technology? ”

Also our database is not a sheet sheet. But it is an important part of answering some of the questions that Wu asks – questions that, to date, the US government has not answered. On the contrary, it has only added to the confusion: two days after we asked for comment, the Justice Department radically changed its page, removing charges that did not match its fair trial.

The way we did it

This year, we began researching all the documents that were linked to the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, followed by more in August. We then pulled out thousands of federal court documents relating to each case and used this information to form our archive.

We also looked at other court documents and public statements from FBI and DOJ officials to find cases that were removed from the website or that were not included. We then added this by interviewing attorneys, relatives of the defendants, co-investigators, former U.S. attorneys, human rights activists, legislators, and foreign experts who had learned anything. We found a number of cases left out of the DOJ list but may have been clearly identified as part of the initiation process or similar to what students gain by hiding ties with Chinese institutions, terrorists who claim to work for the Chinese government, or who are accused of transferring illegal technology. .

Our goal was to build the China Initiative as much as we could. We know that there can be more, and our database can grow as we confirm the existence of additional cases. If you have any information on the China Initiative case, please email us at tips@technologyreview.com.

Our investigation became more complicated in June, when the Department of Justice stopped revising the China Initiative. The move coincides with the resignation of John Demers, the assistant attorney general who was overseeing the country’s security services.

After creating an aggressive repository and analyzing the content, we compared the notes with Wu, the APA Justice Task Force, and the Asian American Advancing Justice | AJC, another human rights organization is pursuing lawsuits, and we shared our findings with a small group of lawmakers, representatives of human rights organizations, and experts and asked for their comments.

What the Department of Justice changed

On November 19-two days later MIT Technology Review went to the Department of Justice with questions about the process, including many cases that we believe were omitted or incorrectly compiled — the department radically changed the China Initiative’s web page.

The change was significant, but it did not eliminate the major disruption to the process. In fact, in some ways they made it worse.

On the left is the DOJ China Initiative website as seen on Nov. 18, and to the right is the November 19 page, after the MIT Technology Review reached the questions. The yellow objects were removed, while the blue ones were added. See the details for details on Webarchive.org.

Although he did not respond to our specific questions, Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the DOJ’s National Security Division, told us via email that his colleagues “were in the process of redesigning our site to reflect some of the changes, updates, and dismissals.”

They also shared departmental numbers. “Since November 2018, we have brought or resolved nine cases of financial espionage and seven cases of theft of trade secrets and alliances with the PRC. We have also brought 12 cases of fraud to universities and / or financial institutions,” he wrote.

We found more than 12 cases of integrity – but only 13 of the 23 cases of integrity are in our archives listed on this page. (One of those cases was settled before the trial.) 6 of those cases ended in litigation. Seven are still waiting.

Seven of the eight investigative cases of dismissal that resulted in dismissal or dismissal were included on this page, but the DOJ has now removed them from its list.

Our review revealed 12 cases that have filed lawsuits for theft of business secrets or financial intelligence since November 2018. Ten were listed on the Department of Justice’s website. (Two were involved in the case, although they were charged separately.) Of those 10, seven were charged. only theft of trade secrets and not espionage espionage allegations. One was charged with money laundering and the theft of trade secrets. The other two were fraudulent charges – one was for economic intelligence, and the other was for theft of trade secrets.

The Ministry of Justice did not respond to a number of requests for specific details.

Our subsequent review revealed that the DOJ dismissed 17 cases and 39 defendants on its China Initiative, adding two cases[withallthedefendantsinthecaseandthecaseinwhichtheyhadbeenheld[withatotaloffivedefendantsandupdatedexistingcaseswithsentencingandtrialinformationwhereavailable)[ndioimbidwaasanuonsendikukonzansomilanduyomweidakhalapondizigamulondizidziwitsongatizilipo[withatotaloffivedefendantsandupdatedexistingcaseswithsentencingandtrialinformationwhereavailable

Hornbuckle did not respond to a subsequent request to explain what the removal refers to.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *