backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by kayronjm.. on Nov 23 at 2:31 PM

A naturalized citizen faces 25 years in prison for his role in sending rocket information to China

A naturalized Chinese physicist accused of exporting space launch technical data and other classified information to China has pleaded guilty in federal court.  

Shu Quan-Sheng, 68, admitted in a U.S. District Court that he copied the design of liquid hydrogen tanks to a Chinese space official, which is a violation of the Arms Export Control Act.  

The accused December 2003 violation reportedly was vital for China's current moon exploration program that has seen growing success.  China's first man went into space in 2003, which was followed by a two-man Chinese astronaut mission two years later in 2005.

The People's Liberation Army also is overseeing the construction of a space launch facility in China designed to hold liquid-propelled launch vehicles, which will be used to send astronauts into orbit.

The case had nothing to do with espionage or treason, but was done for monetary gain, Shu's attorney said.

Shu, president of AMAC International, decided to plead guilty so his wife wouldn't face charges for helping him.  AMAC works with NASA, Department of Energy, along with assisting companies export their products to China.

Prosecutors believe Shu had several employees falsify documents so he could send the information to China.

He came to the United States in 1983 and later became a naturalized citizen in 1998.

In addition to sending liquid hydrogen tanks to China, Shu admitted he bribed Beijing officials $189,300 to award a $4 million contract to a French company.  He received $386,000 after helping secure the contract, although the money will now be forfeited to the U.S. government.

Shu faces up to 25 years in federal prison and fines of up to $2.5 million USD.  He's scheduled to be sentenced in April.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

25 - Is that all?
By bobcpg on 11/18/2008 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 1
He should be put to death.




RE: 25 - Is that all?
By Ringold on 11/18/2008 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. 68 + 25 = 93 = probable death sentence, but this way will just be more expensive.

At least he spared his wife from being ensnared in his troubles.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 2:10:52 PM , Rating: 3
He's a physicist. Use his ass and don't pay him, while keeping him detained and under close watch.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By ebakke on 11/18/2008 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
He's already proven he isn't trustworthy. You'd have to verify all of his work, at which point, you might as well just hire someone else.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 1
Just threaten him of jailing his wife if he screws it all up. He seems to want to protect her enough.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By paydirt on 11/19/2008 10:00:47 AM , Rating: 3
People that give secrets to foreign countries should be sentenced to death... along with folks that help arrange such things, including former top politician(s).


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By kayronjm on 11/23/2008 2:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Most of us physicists view physics as shades of grey, at least I do. Any discovery or research is ok because it just aids our knowledgebase regardless. Anyway, my point is that I'd like to think that we are also completely disinterested in race, nationality and age. In the end, it's inconvenient for HUMANITY for two countries, two sets of divided humans, to research the same thing. Surely progress would be made faster if both co-operated their research and went even further!?
I just hate how politics gets mixed up into pure scientific research. Makes you just want to work for pure academic research so that you can freely publish anything new, for everyone, not just for your political encapsulation!


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By watermark0n on 11/18/2008 3:07:17 PM , Rating: 1
You are a disgusting barbarian.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By Ringold on 11/18/2008 3:24:18 PM , Rating: 5
He knew what he was doing, and should've known if it wasn't outright treason it was close. From wiki: In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.

What's been the historic punishment for treason? Death. As it should be; he sold out the security of his neighbors for money.

That said, we've got far more serious offenders only doing life sentences, so 25 years isn't a surprise.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By bobcpg on 11/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: 25 - Is that all?
By MrBlastman on 11/18/2008 4:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
They should use him to conduct a physics experiment in the honor of the great India. Strap him in a capsule and launch it into the side of the moon at 3100 mph and see how it all works out. I think that is fair, and would be in the name of science too!


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By pxavierperez on 11/18/2008 4:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, I don't get why the government aren't treating as treason.


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By homebredcorgi on 11/18/2008 4:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't treason because it is a violation of ITAR, which is not classified information. Think of ITAR information as somewhere in between public knowledge and classified knowledge. It can generally have defense uses, but can also have practical commercial uses. Rather than outright ban it for commercial use in the USA, we try to limit who can use it. Certain countries are banned outright, but exceptions can and are made regularly for some of our better allies.
Had he been found to divulge classified information, he would be charged with treason.

The fact that this man divulged this information knowingly and willfully is why he is getting a lot of jail time. If it was purely accidental, it would probably only have been a year or two of jail time (still a big no-no, but a far cry from doing it on purpose...like the difference between 1st degree murder and involuntary manslaughter).

Industrial espionage is a huge market. R&D costs a TON of money...you'd be surprised what countries steal the most technical knowledge from us....


RE: 25 - Is that all?
By Jedi2155 on 11/19/2008 12:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
Which country might that be?


Idea for NBC
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/18/2008 2:01:16 PM , Rating: 4
They should do a Dateline special with Chris Hansen "To Catch a Predator Style" and change it to "To Catch a Chinese Spy".

Chris Hansen: Wait, don't leave... SO, why did you come here??
Random Dude: Umm well I thought, well that maybe the Chinese scientists might be lonely and I was going to take them out for ice cream.
Chris Hansen: Oh really?!? Well what are all those documents in your pocket and that booze you brought in your pocket. Or this... (pulls out printed page)

"I will bring you lots of documents, Mr. Ambassador. I will bring you lots of long hard documents."

Explain that one now!!

(Cops bust in and slam the guy to the ground)




RE: Idea for NBC
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/18/2008 2:06:22 PM , Rating: 1
Addendum: Every episode must feature Hansen saying:
"Why don't you have a seat over there."


RE: Idea for NBC
By DASQ on 11/20/2008 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
So you're comparing espionage to pedophilia. You're always clasy.


RE: Idea for NBC
By DASQ on 11/20/2008 11:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Classy*


RE: Idea for NBC
By JonnyDough on 11/20/2008 8:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
DISAGREED!


chinese spy
By quantum759 on 11/18/2008 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 1
the patriotic idiot that said he should be put to death doesn't realize that the U.S. could trade him in a spy trade.
killing spies will encourage other countries to do the same to our spies
i know he is not technically a spy but close enough




RE: chinese spy
By heffeque on 11/18/2008 4:40:18 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, killing goes against that funny paper called Universal Declaration of Human Rights that some people prefer to ignore (and so do their governments). I say "funny" because most people think that it's a joke, otherwise I don't know why anyone would think that ignoring it is an ok thing.

Just a reminder:
"Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person."

It's not that complicated to understand.


RE: chinese spy
By rcc on 11/21/2008 10:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, so what would you have everyone do with their criminals?


25 years?
By Ordr on 11/18/2008 5:17:28 PM , Rating: 4
How is this not punishable by death?
I don't care what his lawyer says; selling state secrets to a foreign country is treasonous.




No biggie
By Lifted on 11/18/2008 1:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
As long as they prevent Rick Moranis from selling them the blueprints to this shrink ray we shouldn't have much to worry about.




I am kind of surprised
By rudy on 11/19/2008 1:55:49 AM , Rating: 1
That the chinese bother stealing this information? I mean is it really that hard to build a solution with all the people and money they have working on it? Or are they really that stupid that they cannot figure it out? And why dont they just buy the information from the russians.




not too suprising
By Suntan on 11/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 2:16:42 PM , Rating: 1
Kind of why you don't see anyone Chinese working at the NSA. Literally, you will not find a single Chinese person working at the NSA.


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 1:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
And you have hard evidence of this? I have been considered for a job at the NSA and FBI with my background in Forensics and I'm Chinese-American. What do you make of that? I don't know how people feel this kind of statement can be modded up.


RE: not too suprising
By an0dize on 11/19/2008 8:41:43 AM , Rating: 3
Considered for a job at the NSA and working at the NSA are to completely different things. Why were you considered but not employed?


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 11:51:51 AM , Rating: 1
who the fuck keeps rating you people up for such statements? So it's ok to exclude people despite their qualifications and clean backgrounds (but clean backgrounds don't always tell you their intent)?


RE: not too suprising
By an0dize on 11/19/2008 1:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you were denied employment for one reason or another...


RE: not too suprising
By SigmundEXactos on 11/18/2008 2:22:49 PM , Rating: 5
As a naturalized US citizen born in China with a top secret security clearance, I have to say "racist bullsh*t"!

1) There are plenty of Chinese people working for the NSA and other "three letter agencies".
2) 99.99% of people are honest and care about the security of this country.
3) 0.001% are either greedy or lack morals and, given enough incentives (i.e., blackmail or $$$), will sell secrets.
4) Some percentage of those are Chinese (see point #1).

It's like saying, "well, white people have a history of oppression and violence towards non-whites, and I have yet to work with a white colleague that had any issue with oppression/violence......but I wouldn't be surprised if they did one day."


RE: not too suprising
By frankenso on 11/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: not too suprising
By vxmqzz on 11/18/2008 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
B/c a lot of tech are legal to be exported to Europe but not China

China has the moeny but can't buy anything high tech from US


RE: not too suprising
By BruceLeet on 11/18/2008 3:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
An armchair "physitist" eh?

"sledom", http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071...


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 3:38:47 PM , Rating: 3
Being a physicist doesn't mean you have to major in English. Course it helps when writing papers on your theories.

Not that it matters for majority of physicists as any work they come out with is owned by whoever they're hired by. So not many papers are gonna be written.


RE: not too suprising
By lennylim on 11/18/2008 3:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, other than two typos, his English looks fine. So being a physicist just means you're too busy to type carefully. But not too busy to post on Internet forums.


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 3:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
When they aren't inventing shrink rays and laser cannons, they're reading/posting at DailyTech.


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 1:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
Look back on history. During WW2 there were a number of German and British spies stealing tech secrets and there are probably spies still operating for Russia.


RE: not too suprising
By EODetroit on 11/19/2008 10:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
LOL yeah, why did Stalin yawn when we told him about the atomic bomb we were developing? Because he had so many spies in our famed Manhattan Project that not only did he already know about it, they had a much-more secret nuclear project of their own.


RE: not too suprising
By Suntan on 11/18/2008 2:35:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's like saying, "well, white people have a history of oppression and violence towards non-whites, and I have yet to work with a white colleague that had any issue with oppression/violence......but I wouldn't be surprised if they did one day."


The difference is that my comments were not generalizations. It was a truthful statement based directly on my experiences.

I’ve worked closely with 4 different individuals over on 18 month visas. At one point or another, we had to sit each one of them down and explain to them why we would not institute something that they proposed because it either broke a US law, an international law or a commonly accepted industry practice.

Things like intending to stamp products with a UL or CE stamp when the product would not pass without modification. Or implementing a design that was patented by another company.

Sorry, but that has been my experience. As I said, I hope it is just bad luck, but from my experiences (both working closely on a daily basis with these 4 for a period of time, and working as general business acquaintances with many people at the factories in Shenzhen) my observation is that these things are relatively common practice.

-Suntan


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: not too suprising
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 9:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another point is companies all over bend or break rules or policies all the time.


I have yet to have an American colleague seriously suggest that we intentionally break a law as a viable solution for a problem on a project. The same can not be said for my Chinese colleagues.

-Suntan


RE: not too suprising
By The0ne on 11/18/2008 2:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Your 3rd point is much much too low. As a family or individual the percentage might be lower but as a group (society, government, company, etc.) greed, morals and what have you are 90% lacking.

I travel for business their annually and while I have good friends I know they won't lift a finger to help a stranger on the street. That's not to say they are bad people. I find the same mentality amongst Chinese families here as well, although not all of them. There was a time when a few of us went to shelters, kids hospitals and what not during Christmas to sing and give out gifts.

Companies, well...we don't have to go there. And a government that censors what people inside/outside should know, I say this is pretty bad. US has them but they're not as prevalent or apparent (which could be good and bad) as China.

There is no "fixing" what China is doing anytime soon. I worry the country will be so devastated it won't be livable.


RE: not too suprising
By Shadowself on 11/18/2008 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%.

I used to work for the Defense Nuclear Agency (one of those three letter agencies you mentioned). For a couple years I actually worked side by side with a nuclear chemist who was a citizen of the People's Republic of China -- and this was during the Reagan era! She was here on a student visa and had not even been here long enough to even apply for a green card.

Ethics and morals vary person by person. To state otherwise (e.g., it is race, ethnicity or country of birth related) is pure bigotry.


RE: not too suprising
By Suntan on 11/18/2008 2:52:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ethics and morals vary person by person. To state otherwise (e.g., it is race, ethnicity or country of birth related) is pure bigotry.


Yes and no.

The fact is, some things that a certain subset of people find appalling another subset will see nothing wrong with (which is basically what ethics is.) Further, someone’s location and area they live in can influence this heavily. Making generalizations based on this tendency is just that, making generalizations.

Would it be bigotry to say that a person who grew up in a strongly Catholic region of Ireland is more likely to drink than a person who grew up in a strongly Baptist region of Southern USA?

As to the topic at hand, my comments were not generalizations at all.

-Suntan


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 3:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Have to look at what your doing too. China already has nukes. They've had them since the 50s. Hell,they've almost got a 1000 nukes. No real reason to steal info you don't need.

quote:
Ethics and morals vary person by person. To state otherwise (e.g., it is race, ethnicity or country of birth related) is pure bigotry.


Values do differ from person to person. But you cannot tell me that race, ethnicity, or country of birth may play a part on this. Let's take something like Japan for example. 2 Japanese children. One in Japan and one in the US. Raise the exact same why by the exact same family. You're going to tell me that their values, morals, ethics won't be vastly different?

Friends, families, teachers, surroundings, etc will play a major part on the person's morals, ethics, values, etc. It's not pure bigotry, it's simply not being ignorant.


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 2:54:08 PM , Rating: 5
The NSA has had a butt ton of issues with Chinese spies.

Listening outposts contracted to Chinese company. Whoops, make that a nice little spy company.

Chinese translators hired to translate documents. Whoops, those documents ended up being copied and sent to China.

Over and over again, the NSA gets hit by Chinese spies that they simply don't hire anyone Chinese anymore. It's called lawful discrimination.

Also racist bullshit? Umm...I'm 100% Laotian. I also have clearance. TS SCI DCID 1/4.

1. More like none for the NSA. Other agencies like FBI, CIA, etc do have Chinese employees. Those agencies aren't in charge of creating crypto keys for the US government.

2. Highly doubt it'd be anywhere near that.

3. If 99.99% care about the country, then that'd leave 00.01%. Either way, highly doubtful. Many ppl out there will rat out their mom for a large sum of money.
4. umm...okay.

It's racial profiling. If majority of your security incidents happen to be caused by one type of race, you'll aim at strictly monitoring them or simply get rid of the possibility of any more security incidents. When the nation is on the line, you want to minimize the risk as much as possible.


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 1:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
If we have learned anything from history such people still slip through and many times be the person you would least suspect.


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/19/2008 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
And? What, do you expect to just get rid of all security measures, since someone will slip through anyways.


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
No but discriminating based on ethnicity isn't always the solution. For such a high profile employer you'd think they'd be able to keep tabs on their employees.


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
Besides it sucks when the average Joe stumbles across statements like yours and look at all Chinese people like me with distrust.


RE: not too suprising
By rcc on 11/19/2008 1:04:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also racist bullshit? Umm...I'm 100% Laotian. I also have clearance. TS SCI DCID 1/4.


Hmm, if it's a USG clearance, are you aware that your rating, or the fact that you have it is Confidential information, and you just posted it on a forum??


RE: not too suprising
By InsaneGain on 11/18/2008 2:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are right of course, but every time I hear about sensitive U.S. technology being stolen and sent to China, it is stolen by a "naturalized US citizen born in China" working in a research lab. The spy’s motivation isn't greed or lack of morals; it is always patriotism to their mother country and a desire to make China a world super power. The risk of imprisonment doesn't seem to be an effective deterrent in this case. A particularly dangerous technology that was stolen by the Chinese was the miniaturized nuclear warhead, with the intent of creating a submarine deployable missile that can hit the United States from Chinese territorial waters. This would give China more leverage against the U.S. over the Taiwan issue. There is no doubt that China has a massive industrial/technology espionage program in effect all over the western world, and I would think it would be prudent for the U.S. to take that into account with regards to employees in sensitive technological fields.


RE: not too suprising
By Ringold on 11/18/2008 3:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a naturalized US citizen born in China with a top secret security clearance, I have to say "racist bullsh*t"!


Are you even supposed to say you've got top security clearance? I looked through just the application process for the CIA once, and you don't have to get very far at all before they tell you to keep it under wraps, and you've just declared to the public that the person behind your handle supposedly has top secret security clearance? Not the most logical move ever. I do know some people who work for NASA, and I never even knew they had secret knowledge until I asked about a navigation program of some sort they were helping to write. "I can't talk about that." And that was the only thing he'd say.


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/18/2008 4:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
Saying you have a security clearance isn't a big deal. Majority of government employees have some sort of clearance.

Either way saying it on Dailytech doesn't exactly mean much of anything. Who registers with their real name or their actual email they constantly use?


RE: not too suprising
By Jedi2155 on 11/19/2008 12:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
But they can be traced back to a site of origination thus providing an interested party of where this person is. By knowing that you have Top Secret clearance automatically makes you a possible target for examination by an interested party.

With enough effort you'll have to eventually start worry about all that stuff you throw in your trash etc.

Basically its a bad idea to tell the world what your clearance level is/was going to be etc.


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/19/2008 11:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
They can get an ip, trace it back to your ISP, and be stuck there. Then they'd have to hack their data and figured out who owns that ISP. Hell of a lot harder to do than just hang outside of a military base and randomly kidnap someone when they're going home.


RE: not too suprising
By homernoy on 11/18/2008 5:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
"I have to say "racist bullsh*t"!"

I don't like what he is saying, but what he said is not racist, as Chinese is not a race, but a nationality with a strong culture. I should add my wife is Asian, and came here to the U.S. at the age of 8, and she bleeds red, white and blue.


RE: not too suprising
By arrowspark on 11/18/2008 11:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
How do you have Top Secret Clearance when you are a naturalized citizen? I thought only natural born citizens (I'm natural Born ABC) are given Top Secret Clearances.


RE: not too suprising
By afkrotch on 11/19/2008 11:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
Top secret clearances can be had by natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, or even non-citizens.


RE: not too suprising
By littleprince on 11/18/2008 4:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
I have yet to work with an American colleague who actually did any work instead of just standing around the water cooler drinking coffee, pretending to look busy, and playing office politics instead of getting work done.

In fact my racist boss is out now banging a tranny whore on the companies dime... Go figure.

-Ching


RE: not too suprising
By A5un on 11/19/2008 1:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
So, based on your observation of a sample size (the randomness of the sample group aside) of just a handful of people, you make a assumption / conclusion about the rest of the population? Statistically, that's an absurd statement.


RE: not too suprising
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 8:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
Jeez dude, take the post for what it was. As you said yourself, it is my observation. I didn’t say that I’ve personally worked with all 1 billion of them. I said the ones I have worked closely with.

I made my opinion based on the individuals I’ve had direct and prolong contact with, it has been reinforced by less direct interaction of many more Chinese that I have had extended business relations with at the factories over there.

In life you can choose to form your opinions one of two ways. First is to form them based on your own personal experiences, the second is to base them off of other people telling you what to think. I choose the former. You choose whichever way you want.

-Suntan


RE: not too suprising
By A5un on 11/20/2008 3:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I did say: "statistically."


RE: not too suprising
By Omega215D on 11/19/2008 1:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
The same can be said of any other ethnic background. Russians, Germans and people from countries where Islam is the main religion.

If that's the case then I have yet to be around black or Hispanic people that are serious about their classwork being from the inner city.


RE: not too suprising
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 8:55:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The same can be said of any other ethnic background. Russians, Germans


Not in my experience. I’ve worked with Germans and (former soviet block) Czech Republicans, they do not share the same laze fare attitude towards safety standards/patents/corporate secrets. If anything, the Germans are more for it than America. And just fyi, neither of those are an ethnicity, they are countries.

quote:
and people from countries where Islam is the main religion.


I really wouldn’t know. I don’t think I’ve worked with any. Psst – that’s a religion, not an ethnicity.

-Suntan


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki