United States v. Zheng, 23-6070

Xiaoqing Zheng, a U.S. citizen born in China and engineer at GE Power, misappropriated trade secrets related to GE's turbine technology while launching businesses in China focused on similar technology.
Zheng concealed and transferred GE files using encryption and steganography, emailing them to himself and a co-conspirator in China.
He sought partnerships and funding from Chinese governmental bodies and universities, aligning his businesses with China's state-driven industrial policy.
Zheng was charged and ultimately convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit economic espionage under 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)(5), but acquitted or hung on several other substantive counts.
The district court sentenced Zheng to 24 months in prison (downward from the guideline range), and he appealed on sufficiency, jury instructions, and sentencing guidelines interpretation.

Issue	Zheng's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 1831(a) requires proof of coordination by a foreign government	Requires proof of foreign government sponsored/coordinated activity	Only requires intent to benefit foreign government/instrumentality	No such requirement under §1831(a)
Sufficiency of evidence of intent to benefit a foreign government/instrumentality	Evidence shows intent to benefit himself, not PRC	Sufficient evidence of intent to benefit PRC/instrumentalities	Sufficient evidence supports verdict
Jury instruction: intent and belief about trade secrets	Instruction should require Zheng 'firmly believed' info were trade secrets and proof of PRC involvement	Standard is Zheng's reasonable belief and no need for PRC sponsorship	Instruction was correct
Sentencing: calculation of intended vs. actual loss under Guidelines	Post-Kisor, commentary requiring 'intended loss' isn't authoritative	Stinson still controls; commentary is authoritative	Guidelines commentary/intent loss applies

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sets sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard: could any rational trier of fact find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (defines ‘willfully’ as acting with knowledge that conduct was unlawful)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (sentencing guidelines commentary is binding unless it violates the Constitution or statute)
United States v. Hasan, 586 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2009) (review of guidelines interpretation is de novo)
United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011) (§1831 criminal liability established by defendant’s intent alone)