United States v. Chi Tong Kuok
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 928
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Kuok, a Macau citizen, was prosecuted in the Ninth Circuit for conspiracy and export/related offenses involving a KG-175 encryptor; indictment charged counts for conspiracy to export without a license, buying the encryptor, attempting to export without a license, and money laundering via a $1700 funds transmission.
- The government’s evidence showed Kuok sought to purchase U.S. military-grade equipment and attempted to transfer funds to a seller; undercover ICE agents conducted the key transactions in San Diego and Atlanta.
- Kuok’s defense was duress, arguing coercion by a Chinese official threatening his family, which the district court limited and eventually denied advancing the duress defense; Kuok moved for reconsideration with additional proffers.
- The district court denied Brady requests related to the duress defense; trial proceeded with Kuok convicted on all counts, and sentencing varied above guideline range.
- On appeal Kuok challenges venue, the AECA nondelegation issue, jurisdiction over count four, sufficiency of count three, the count two interpretation of smuggling, jury instructions, and the denial of the duress defense; the court reverses on counts three and four and remands for new trial on counts one and two with duress evidence admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in the SD California was proper | Kuok contends venue was manufactured by the government | Relying on manufactured venue theory to avoid SD California venue | Venue proper in SD California |
| AECA nondelegation validity | AECA delegates too much legislative power to the President | Nondelegation challenge lacks merit; broad executive designation permitted | AECA does not violate nondelegation principles |
| Count four jurisdiction under money laundering statute | § 1956(f) requires $10,000+ and extraterritorial reach | Transaction value insufficient; extraterritoriality not satisfied | Count four vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
| Count three liability for attempting to cause export | § 127.1(a)(1) creates liability for attempting to export via causing others | There is no general federal attempt provision; cannot convict for attempting to cause export | Count three vacated; no crime for attempting to cause export under cited authorities |
| Duress defense and jury admission | Duress evidence not admissible as matter of law | Duress should be presented to jury based on immediacy and escape opportunities | Evidence of duress should have been presented to jury; counts one and two remanded for new trial with duress |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ruelas-Arreguin, 219 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2000) (venue burden and proper venue analysis)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1991) (nondelegation principle for Congress to provide intelligible principle)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001) (concept of intelligible principle in delegations)
- Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp. v. United States, 299 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1936) (broad presidential authority in international relations; delegation upheld)
- United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1979) (conspiracy/causation theories regarding export offenses)