Bail denied to scientist who allowed China to steal US technology

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, Mar 28, 2020.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,507
    Likes Received:
    11,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Charles M. Lieber, the chair of the chemistry department at Harvard University, was arrested on January 28, 2020.

    It looks like he was charged with "fraud" because he accepted a generous amount of money from China to agree to allow visiting Chinese scientists to take part in a program at the university, and he did not inform the university of this agreement.

    The main reason he was charged seems to be that the US is not happy about China trying to steal US technology. The research in question had to do with carbon nanotubes for batteries for electric vehicles.

    He was also charged with making a false statement to a US agency, because when he acknowledged the collaboration with the Chinese university, he allegedly denied that he was being paid.

    Bail was initially set at the amount of $1 million, but then on January 28 that decision was reversed and bail was denied, on the supposed grounds he could be a "flight risk". He is now sitting in prison. The judge who denied bail is Marianne Bowler, of the US District Court for Massachusetts.

    https://cen.acs.org/research-integrity/misconduct/Harvard-chemist-Charles-Lieber-charged/98/i5
     
    Jkca1 likes this.
  2. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,236
    Likes Received:
    4,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, and your objective in posting this is?
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,507
    Likes Received:
    11,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You'll notice that he didn't clearly break any laws.

    The lawyer is using a questionable legal interpretation of the word "fraud".

    As for the alleged false statement, that is sort of irrelevant if there wasn't a law broken to investigate in the first place, and it could be debatable whether he even did make a false statement; that could be an interpretation too.

    Additionally, it also demonstrates how easily judges can decide to deny bail. This was a defendant who is not actually accused of stealing any money, or anything physical of value. Even if he is eventually found not guilty, he will likely have been in prison over a year.

    Many people might argue the initial bail amount was very excessive (though he did not even end up getting that opportunity).

    This just shows how laws can be interrpetted in very questionable ways, that are not straightforward.

    Yes, one could argue what that man did was wrong, and that he should be punished for it. But the thing is, the law did not clearly say that what he did was illegal.

    It's not actually illegal to enable China to steal technology from the US (and even if there was such a law, there likely wasn't solid enough evidence to try him for that), so it appears they did a workaround and are charging him under other laws.

    They're obviously taking it very hard on him for a reason that doesn't have to do with the actual laws he broke (or is alleged to have broke).

    I don't think you have to be a genius to realize how all these things can set a concerning legal precedent.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
  4. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope it wasn't weapons...

    ... or biogerm warfare!
     
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,507
    Likes Received:
    11,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it wasn't. You obviously didn't bother to read through the opening post.
     
  6. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,006
    Likes Received:
    62,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is the problem, China steals our stuff, it should be a crime to buy anything from them that violates us copyright or patent laws
     
    waltky and modernpaladin like this.
  7. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it wasn't. You obviously didn't bother to read through the opening post.

    Granny says yer nasty!
     
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    4,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure which lawyer used the word fraud. It's in the article you quoted but I think misused. The linked legal document only refers to the "making false statements" charge (which I doubt falls under fraud).

    Rubbish. There doesn't have to be a law broken for lying to law enforcement to be illegal. After all, someone could lie to make a false accusation.

    I could be debated whether he actually made false statements (though the criminal complaint seems fairly clear cut) and that "debate" can happen in court. That is, after all, the whole point of the court system.

    I'm not sure about "easy". The prosecutes apparently requested, presumably with good reason and his defence would have the right to challenge that but they either didn't or failed. I assume the bail ruling could still be appealed if they feel it is unjustified.

    It is potentially illegal to secretly accept money in return for granting favourable access to university resources. It might only be a civil offence against the university but if there was federal funding involved, it could also be a criminal offence.

    I'm not sure the fact it involved China is the most significant. It's not unlike the recent case of university administrators taking bribes from wealthy parents to manipulate the admission process for their children.
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,507
    Likes Received:
    11,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is true. But what about from a Constitutional standpoint?
    And from the standpoint of justice, and civil liberties. This could be a whole other debate we could go down.

    I was just saying there's not really a law specifically against that.

    Though of course any prosecutor could construe it to be against some law. (But they can also do the same thing with many things that are legal )

    Oh please, so the federal government has its tentacles in everything because it funds so many things.

    "Power of the purse", I suppose.

    "Presumably"? According to you.

    But it all comes back to the judge. And if they want to appeal and go before another judge, it could take months.

    How do you define "good" reason. You are trusting the judgement of a government official with a huge long stack of caseloads, and who may not particularly care. They can make a decision for the most flimsy of excuses (presented to them by the prosecutor), and never face any personal repercussions for it.

    Personal bias exists all the time, if they don't like what the defendant is accused of, even if that particular thing they don't like happens not to be illegal.​
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2020
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,507
    Likes Received:
    11,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, you obviously didn't.

    Sorry, I was frustrated. But you can understand my frustration. The OP really wasn't that long, and it said exactly what the technology was.
     
    waltky likes this.
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,507
    Likes Received:
    11,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I really don't understand why people have trouble seeing why this is a troubling legal precedent.

    I mean, what the man did is obviously wrong. But the legal reasons they are charging him are for something that is not obviously wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2020
    waltky likes this.
  12. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I really don't understand why people have trouble seeing why this is a troubling legal precedent.

    I mean, what the man did is obviously wrong. But the legal reasons they are charging him are for something that is not obviously wrong.


    I remember when I was a kid...

    ... we couldn't go swimmin'...

    ... `cause dey was afraid we would all get polio!
     
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,813
    Likes Received:
    4,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too true, and it's clearly a waste of time trying to cut through yours. You have a conclusion and you obviously have no interest in even considering anything that might question it.
     

Share This Page