Franklin Feng Tao, a Chinese-born associate professor of chemistry at the University of Kansas, was convicted in federal court of illegally hiding work in China while conducting US-funded research.
The outcome marks the second courtroom conviction within four months of a university scientist in the Trump-era crackdown on research ties with China, and it comes just one month after the Biden administration promised to abandon the initiative, having concluded that it was counterproductive.
Dr Tao was found guilty after a 12-day trial and less than two hours of deliberations by a jury that convicted him on four counts of wire fraud and acquitted him on four additional counts of wire fraud and making false statements.
The conviction came, however, despite the lack of evidence that Dr Tao received any pay from China, raising hope within his defence team that the case ultimately will be recorded as another example of a biased and failed government prosecution.
That confidence, said Dr Tao’s chief defence lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, was based on indicators that include the federal grant agencies that funded Dr Tao’s work describing themselves as fully satisfied with his work, and the judge in the case expressing concern over the verdict.
“We do not believe the conviction can possibly stand, as they received the benefit of their bargain,” Mr Zeidenberg said, referencing the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US Department of Energy.
The dozens of cases in the Trump-era crackdown have rarely alleged actual espionage. They instead have centred on allegations that the accused scientists did not properly fill out disclosure forms that university leaders and other experts have described as ambiguous or confusing.
Dr Tao was charged with accepting NSF and Department of Energy grants without telling the agencies that he also was getting paid by Fuzhou University in China. Dr Tao denied the pretext, explaining that he only took steps towards formalising a job at Fuzhou, never completed the hiring process, and never was paid.
Federal prosecutors offered no evidence of payments from Fuzhou or the Chinese government, but contended that he deceived the University of Kansas and the federal funding agencies by not disclosing his anticipation of Chinese funding.
The Trump-era crackdown is understood to have prompted hundreds of Chinese researchers to leave the US, even though the prosecutions have largely failed. The only major conviction of an academic scientist prior to Dr Tao was that of Charles Lieber, the former Harvard University chemistry department chair, who admitted that he did actively hide some payments he had received in China, reportedly out of concern over the charged political atmosphere.
After another trial in the series – involving former University of Tennessee researcher Anming Hu – a federal judge ordered the charges dropped, concluding that Dr Hu had worked in China but had struggled with the reporting requirements and had made no attempt to deceive anyone over it.
The federal judge in Dr Tao’s case, Julie Robinson, or an appeals court judge, likely will reach a similar conclusion, Mr Zeidenberg said.
The defence lawyer suggested that Judge Robinson already was leaning in that direction, as she noted in court after the verdict that she saw multiple significant problems with the government’s case, ordered a briefing on those issues, and did not set a sentencing date.
Dr Tao faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years on the wire fraud counts, although any actual sentence was expected to be far less.
US university leaders had long been divided over the Trump crackdown, often acknowledging real threats from China but expressing concern about the US government’s pursuing unfounded accusations and alienating a country that is their largest foreign supplier of students and scientists. Over time, however, academic leaders have grown more outspoken about the downsides of the dozens of investigations and prosecutions.
The US Justice Department’s top national security prosecutor, in a speech in late February, called the initiative an overall failure, saying it had created a perception of anti-China bias that on balance harmed national security.
