U.S. Drops Charges That Professor Shared Technology With China

2015-09-1122:34149105www.nytimes.com

All charges against the Temple University professor were dropped after it became apparent the Justice Department had misinterpreted a key piece of evidence.

Xi Xiaoxing, the chairman of Temple University’s physics department, at his home in Penn Valley, Pa. The Justice Department dropped all charges against Mr. Xi on Friday.
Xi Xiaoxing, the chairman of Temple University’s physics department, at his home in Penn Valley, Pa. The Justice Department dropped all charges against Mr. Xi on Friday.Credit...Mark Makela for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — When the Justice Department arrested the chairman of Temple University’s physics department this spring and accused him of sharing sensitive American-made technology with China, prosecutors had what seemed like a damning piece of evidence: schematics of sophisticated laboratory equipment sent by the professor, Xi Xiaoxing, to scientists in China.

The schematics, prosecutors said, revealed the design of a device known as a pocket heater. The equipment is used in superconductor research, and Dr. Xi had signed an agreement promising to keep its design a secret.

But months later, long after federal agents had led Dr. Xi away in handcuffs, independent experts discovered something wrong with the evidence at the heart of the Justice Department’s case: The blueprints were not for a pocket heater.

Faced with sworn statements from leading scientists, including an inventor of the pocket heater, the Justice Department on Friday afternoon dropped all charges against Dr. Xi, an American citizen.

It was an embarrassing acknowledgment that prosecutors and F.B.I. agents did not understand — and did not do enough to learn — the science at the heart of the case before bringing charges that jeopardized Dr. Xi’s career and left the impression that he was spying for China.

“I don’t expect them to understand everything I do,” Dr. Xi, 57, said in a telephone interview. “But the fact that they don’t consult with experts and then charge me? Put my family through all this? Damage my reputation? They shouldn’t do this. This is not a joke. This is not a game.”

The United States faces an onslaught from outside hackers and inside employees trying to steal government and corporate secrets. President Obama’s strategy to combat it involves aggressive espionage investigations and prosecutions, as well as increased cyberdefenses.

But Dr. Xi’s case, coming on the heels of a similar case that was dismissed a few months ago in Ohio, raises questions about whether the Justice Department, in its rush to find Chinese spies, is ensnaring innocent American citizens of Chinese ancestry.

A spokeswoman for Zane D. Memeger, the United States attorney in Philadelphia who brought the charges, did not elaborate on the decision to drop the case. In court documents, the Justice Department said that “additional information came to the attention of the government.”

The filing gives the government the right to file the charges again if it chooses. A spokesman for John P. Carlin, the assistant attorney general who is overseeing the crackdown on economic espionage, had no comment on whether Justice Department officials in Washington reviewed the case.

The science involved in Dr. Xi’s case is, by any measure, complicated. It involves the process of coating one substance with a very thin film of another. Dr. Xi’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, said that despite the complexity, it appeared that the government never consulted with experts before taking the case to a grand jury. As a result, prosecutors misconstrued the evidence, he said.

Mr. Zeidenberg, a lawyer for the firm Arent Fox, represented both Dr. Xi and Sherry Chen, a government hydrologist who was charged and later cleared in the Ohio case. A longtime federal prosecutor, Mr. Zeidenberg said he understood that agents felt intense pressure to crack down on Chinese espionage, but the authorities in these cases appeared to have been too quick to assume that their suspicions were justified.

In Dr. Xi’s case, Mr. Zeidenberg said, the authorities saw emails to scientists in China and assumed the worst. But he said the emails represented the kind of international academic collaboration that governments and universities encourage. The technology discussed was not sensitive or restricted, he said.

“If he was Canadian-American or French-American, or he was from the U.K., would this have ever even got on the government’s radar? I don’t think so,” Mr. Zeidenberg said.

The Justice Department sees a pernicious threat of economic espionage from China, and experts say the government in Beijing has an official policy encouraging the theft of trade secrets. Prosecutors have charged Chinese workers in the United States with stealing Boeing aircraft information, specialty seeds and even the pigment used to whiten Oreo cookie cream.

Other researchers and academics are being closely watched. The F.B.I. is investigating a Chinese-American mapping expert who abruptly resigned from Ohio State University last year and disappeared while working with NASA, The Columbus Dispatch reported this week. In May, the Justice Department charged a Chinese professor and others with stealing acoustics equipment from American companies.

About a dozen F.B.I. agents, some with guns drawn, stormed Dr. Xi’s home in the Philadelphia suburbs in May, searching his house just after dawn, he said. His two daughters and his wife watched the agents take him away in handcuffs on fraud charges.

“Unfortunately I think this is influenced by the politics of the time,” he said. “But I think it’s wrong. We Chinese-Americans, we contribute to the country, to the national security, to everything.”

Temple University put him on administrative leave and took away his title as chairman of the physics department. He was given strict rules about who at the school he could talk to. He said that made it impossible for him to continue working on a long-running research project that was nearing completion.

Dr. Xi, who came to the United States in 1989 and is a naturalized citizen, was adamant that he was innocent. But it was only when he and his lawyers reviewed the government’s evidence that they understood what had happened. “When I read it, I knew that they were mixing things up,” Dr. Xi said.

His lawyers contacted independent scientists and showed them the diagram that the Justice Department said was the pocket heater. The scientists agreed it was not.

In a sworn affidavit, one engineer, Ward S. Ruby, said he was uniquely qualified to identify a pocket heater. “I am very familiar with this device, as I was one of the co-inventors,” he said.

Last month, Mr. Zeidenberg delivered a presentation for prosecutors and explained the science. He gave them sworn statements from the experts and implored the Justice Department to consult with a physicist before taking the case any further. Late Friday afternoon, the Justice Department dropped the case “in the interests of justice.”

“We wish they had come to us with any concerns they had about Professor Xi prior to indicting him, but at least they did listen,” Mr. Zeidenberg said.

Dr. Xi choked back tears as he described an ordeal that was agonizing for his family. “I barely came out of this nightmare,” he said.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By hackuser 2015-09-1123:375 reply

    The key point of the article: The government discovered that the head of Temple's physics department had transferred to China schematics for a 'pocket heater', which is used for semiconductor research and for which he had signed some sort of NDA (I don't know with whom). The FBI arrested him, handcuffed him, led him away; and the U.S. attorney charged him. You can imagine the effect on his job, reputation, etc. We pick up the story here:

    But months later, long after federal agents had led Dr. Xi away in handcuffs, independent experts discovered something wrong with the evidence at the heart of the Justice Department’s case: The blueprints were not for a pocket heater.

    Faced with sworn statements from leading scientists, including an inventor of the pocket heater, the Justice Department on Friday afternoon dropped all charges against Dr. Xi, an American citizen.

    My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

    • By CamperBob2 2015-09-1123:552 reply

      The key point of the article, to me, is really not in the article at all but in one of the comments.

         Tobin    Worcester    22 minutes ago
      
         Once again, the government is demonstrating that we 
         cannot trust it to wisely use the evidence that it is 
         collecting on us.
      
      It just goes to show how we as private citizens are accountable to our government, but the reverse is never true. Rest assured no heads will roll over this. No lawsuits will be won or even be permitted. No elections will be lost, no careers ruined. The prosecutor's office will continue to run 100% open-loop, as usual.

      • By cariaso 2015-09-120:54

      • By Asbostos 2015-09-122:196 reply

        That's because you'll continue to vote for the same party that's responsible for it. You can blame the government all you want, but almost everybody in America is to blame for either voting for it or not voting for anyone else.

        • By loceng 2015-09-1213:17

          Those good people who want to change the system in a big way seem to get assassinated or wait until the end of their term to voice the concerns they've had to the public - though couldn't touch the policy for. Alternatively they don't get into power because the for-profit systems can pay much more to lobbies and then the better way people don't have the same marketing power.

        • By PhasmaFelis 2015-09-125:533 reply

          Which party do you think hasn't promoted widespread surveillance without accountability?

        • By shalmanese 2015-09-1211:291 reply

          Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

          • By a3n 2015-09-1213:40

            And I voted for None of the Above, i.e. third party.

        • By rhizome 2015-09-123:232 reply

          How in the world are you able to interpret this as a partisan issue?

          • By bpodgursky 2015-09-124:032 reply

            Uh, because the actions of the Justice department are a direct function of whatever the Executive branch wants to focus on.

            The Attorney General is nominated by the president. They decide who the federal government prosecutes. It is absolutely political.

            • By mistermumble 2015-09-124:342 reply

              The surveillance state machinery has been a long time building, under the aegis of both parties. I think the Republicans push this with more vigor than the Democrats, but Democratic administrations such as the current one keep the machinery running.

              • By WildUtah 2015-09-1210:42

                Both parties are bad on DoJ operations because both parties' insiders and base voters like an abusive DoJ. Vote for Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders in the primary and -- if enough fellow Americans agree -- you could change that. If candidates like that start getting votes, others will follow along on better DoJ operation.

                It is entirely the responsibility of intellectuals and opinion leaders -- including ordinary smart people like HN readers -- that Americans haven't been educated to care and vote on the issue. We appear ready to continue voting for it to get worse.

              • By bpodgursky 2015-09-125:003 reply

                This is not a greater debate about the vague idea of a surveillance state, it's about a very concrete case the federal government could either choose to prosecute or choose to drop. The current administration chose to prosecute.

                That decision was a decision entirely up to the executive branch, which is entirely up to the electorate. Making (not well supported) assertions about "republican adminstrations pushing a surveillance state" does not change those facts.

                • By trentlott 2015-09-1210:081 reply

                  So which party or candidate has made dismantling the DoJ their key issue? Because a president really only gets one or two Big Things plausibly accomplished.

                  The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.

                  • By 13thLetter 2015-09-1216:33

                    Then vote third party, and when your friends tell you to vote for Hillary! explain to them exactly why you're not doing it: that she will do nothing to tear down the Bush/Obama surveillance state that went after people like Xi and Schwartz, and indeed will probably expand it.

                    Third parties do change things, even if it's just the major parties co-opting their positions after getting a scare in the election. "Hey, Party X took ten percent of the vote simply by opposing mass surveillance. Maybe we should get some of that action."

                • By nitrogen 2015-09-127:12

                  Most of the people who work at the DoJ are not elected or appointed, and they probably have a fair amount of influence on what is visible to the AG.

                • By a3n 2015-09-1213:51

                  It would have likely gone the same way with any other administration.

                  My CEO doesn't watch what I do on a daily or ever basis. I have my assignments and my evaluation criteria, and that criteria does not change when the CEO changes.

                  Personnel at the working level don't change much with new administrations, and the personnel rules and evaluation criteria likely don't change at all. Agents have to investigate and arrest, prosecutors have to prosecute and win.

                  I'm sure the President and AG had no hand in deciding whether to start and continue this investigation.

            • By rhizome 2015-09-125:021 reply

              Law enforcement does have politics involved, but individual administrations don't have as much control over it as you describe. The Justice Department's priorities transcend election cycles, because not everybody -- in fact, hardly anybody, all told -- is replaced every term. A person can work their entire career for the Feds; there are multigenerational traditions and political momentums operating there that no President can counteract.

              • By wbl 2015-09-1210:462 reply

                US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

                • By drchase 2015-09-1213:34

                  Sure, but the people who work for the US Attorneys, where do they come from? And what is the pool of people from which the president chooses US Attorneys? This is an organizational/cultural thing.

                • By rhizome 2015-09-1217:50

                  There are only 210 appointments in the Department of Justice, which has over 110,000 employees. The FBI itself has over 35,000 employees.

          • By a3n 2015-09-1213:431 reply

            Are you sure it was a partisan comment? Which party was he talking about? Maybe he was talking about the party, the Republican/Democrat establishment? (I don't know, but that's possible)

            • By rhizome 2015-09-1220:32

              Yes, saying that a problem can be solved by voting different people into office is a partisan argument. The problem is bigger than the voting cycle.

        • By mindslight 2015-09-122:542 reply

          Yes yes, voting for that other faction of the Party will totally help.

          Sorry to be the one to tell you - the only boxen left are the ammo box and the s-box.

          • By Frondo 2015-09-124:022 reply

            I suspect you've never tried to be involved in politics.

            It's actually pretty easy to effect change, especially at a local level, because so few people put in the time to try it; it's a lot easier, I guess, to sit around on the internet posting about "ammo box" recourse.

            Try volunteering on a campaign in your home town, you'll be surprised at the people you meet and the outcomes you can play a role in.

            • By nitrogen 2015-09-127:151 reply

              I've helped with, and seen others fight for, various local political causes, none of which went the way any of us wanted. You can effect change, but only if the change you want is already going to happen anyway, and your opposition will vandalize your property and slander your name.

            • By mindslight 2015-09-1321:14

              At the even more local level, you can effect changes to things in your own living space quite easily.

              Something clearly does not scale up.

              A major point to the rule of law is to protect assorted minority interests from the majority. The larger the group, the stronger the groupthink.

        • By CamperBob2 2015-09-123:23

          It's almost as if it's the very nature of government that leads to this condition.

          But if you point that out, you get told to move to Somalia if you don't like it.

    • By smtddr 2015-09-120:043 reply

      >>My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

      There should be a minimum $500k USD awarded to anyone who's arrested by USgov but then found innocent. Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you. And as we know, the law is so complicated that chances are if USgov looks hard enough they can find dirt on anyone. So... as much as I wish they were held accountible, the pain they'd put you through to make sure they're not found in the wrong makes me hesitant to levy anything on them.

      I want it to be much easier for them to admit being wrong than going forward with pressing charges.

      • By jrs235 2015-09-121:582 reply

        "Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you."

        No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions. The officers and officials don't have to pay, they have "endless" funds. Individual actors need to be held accountable. The DoJ is now focusing on criminally charging executives at companies, not just the companies themselves, for breaking laws. Government officers and officials should also be held accountable.

        • By MaulingMonkey 2015-09-122:34

          > No the problem with that is tax payers are punished for shitty government official decisions.

          Which would hopefully motivate the tax payer to hold their government officials accountable while helping restore those harmed. Hopefully...

          > Individual actors need to be held accountable.

          Agreed.

        • By SapphireSun 2015-09-125:40

          Guess who is ultimately responsible for shitty government decisions in a representative democracy... If the people are technically the source of government power, the people as a whole should bear the responsibility of ensuring that good government is elected. Punishing the taxpayers broadly ensures accountability from the top (the people).

      • By AnthonyMouse 2015-09-123:48

        > Of course the problem this will cause is that if USgov arrests you... they will try their hardest to find any kind of violation on you.

        So require them to pay you for everything they charge you with but don't convict you of. At a minimum it would put a good sized dent in prosecutorial overcharging.

      • By ctchocula 2015-09-128:301 reply

        I think this would incentivize people who don't make anywhere close to $500k USD to make themselves appear shady in a gamble to later get off years later with the payout.

    • By a3n 2015-09-1213:361 reply

      > My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

      Never worked in the FBI, but just based on how rabid the US govt appears to be over prosecuting and winning, threatening people with ruin so that they can get any win ...

      No, not a single head will roll. At most, relevant supervisors will console the investigators and prosecutors. "Well, bad break kid, the guy was innocent."

      I really don't think it's about enforcing the law, or protecting the public or the Constitution, it's about annual reviews and advancement.

      We are resources for law enforcement.

      • By mig39 2015-09-134:42

        No, they won't say "the guy is innocent" -- they'll say "bad break kid, the guy got off ... on a technicality."

    • By dylanjermiah 2015-09-121:131 reply

      >My concern is, do heads roll at the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office after a failure like that? Is there accountability?

      Who's going to hold them accountable? Those who fund them have no choice in the matter, so it's naive to expect accountability in the first place.

      • By Gibbon1 2015-09-129:132 reply

        A small change I would make would be to allow appellate courts to ban prosecutors and police officers. A ban meaning they can't bring cases before the court or testify. Bans could be temporary or permanent.

        • By Beltiras 2015-09-1212:37

          Yellow and Red cards, just like soccer. This idea actually has some merit.

        • By neltnerb 2015-09-1216:38

          wow... this is really clever. personal accountability and an incentive to not pursue any charges not clearly backed up by the facts.

    • By downandout 2015-09-1217:45

      Nothing will roll. In fact, Dr. Xi won't even receive an apology or acknowledgement that something wrong happened here. He probably can and should sue in this case, as they destroyed his reputation over a "mistake". The government either a) brought these charges due to extreme negligence, or b) brought the case in bad faith, knowing that their case was fatally flawed from the beginning and were looking to use the charges to extort Dr. Xi into cooperating against his Chinese counterparts. Either way, the government is liable for the damages its actions caused.

  • By gluejar 2015-09-125:441 reply

    I used to work in the same research field as Xi. A very nice guy, did some very excellent work. It's outrageous what's happened to him.

    You might be asking, what's the FBI looking at his emails for?

    So here's a random fact. Xi was a Professor of Physics and Materials Science and Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University up to 2009. Guess who was a graduate student in the Materials Science and Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University from 2006 to 2008, had Xi on his thesis committee, and attracted a huge amount of attention from the FBI. Yep. Ross Ulrecht. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/9710/4335 The idiots at the FBI must have been looking for Chinese links to Silk Road! Because isn't that in China?

  • By cantrevealname 2015-09-123:032 reply

    So many obvious questions are unanswered in the article:

    1. What does a pocket heater do in general terms? (Saying that it has something to do with "coating one substance with a very thin film of another" is pretty thin.)

    2. Why did they target him, and how did they get his emails?

    3. So the blueprints weren't of a pocket heater. Then what were they blueprints of?

    The story would be much better if they explained those. If the New York Times doesn't know, they should at least say something like, "We asked the prosecutors, but they refused to tell us".

    • By natch 2015-09-128:273 reply

      Yes unanswered, and as you suggest later, even unasked... if even the NYT is this pathetic then that just underscores that journalism is still ripe for disruption.

      Also it's bizarre they don't mention the case of Wen-Ho Lee, who earlier became a scapegoat for leaks at US nuclear sites, in part due to shoddy reporting by the NYT itself, which they later unwound in a still misstatement-ridden long article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/04/us/the-making-of-a-suspect...

      /vent

      • By wfo 2015-09-1215:01

        I agree with you about the quality of this article, but I find it odd that for many people here and in SV culture, the moment anything in any industry behaves in a way which you don't approve of or don't understand it's immediately "ripe for disruption". Maybe journalism is just genuinely hard and there are plenty of very smart people working hard at NYT but it isn't always perfect, and "disrupting" the industry -- a weasel word which means nothing except "I am a libertarian and I support new things so long as they completely exterminate a non-libertarian established power structure" -- isn't smart, possible, helpful, or in fact any of the three.

      • By PhasmaFelis 2015-09-134:441 reply

        > * if even the NYT is this pathetic then that just underscores that journalism is still ripe for disruption.*

        As far as I can tell, "disruption" is about doing things faster, punchier, shinier, on tighter margins and with a shorter turn-around time. Do you think that's going to produce better journalism?

        There are worse things that the sometimes-slipshod NYT. I'm frightened of what comes next for journalism.

        • By natch 2015-09-1317:24

          Having had a very up-close view of some stories NYT covered, I'd say they are doing horse-trading with the government in selected cases, where they pull certain punches in exchange for access. This is the kind of thing I would expect from them, but not from a player like firstlook.org / The Intercept, for example. Sure they are a special case because they have some deep pocket backers, but that's at least one example of better.

      • By cinquemb 2015-09-1213:24

        That's the high quality NYT for you… I hope we see more high quality investigative journalism like this on HN!

        /sarc

        I think the only good thing about these type of whitewash pieces on HN (of which I don't even bother to click on) are the comments here that do the work of the journalists… but NYT history is pretty suspect when it comes to things surrounding corporate and government reporting so that's not surprising.

    • By tdaltonc 2015-09-123:16

HackerNews