I nu CLEna's Us on'I'RIci' cm JRT eons 'fet JAN 21333 fr snow- Iran UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNTTEDSTATESOFAMERICA SUPERSEDING I I - against - Cr No 18-457 AMD HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD T 18 U S C 371 HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC 982 a 1 982 a 2 982 b 1 1343 SKYCOM TECH CO LTD 1344 1349 1512 k 1956 h 2 and WANZHOU MENG 3551 e T 21 U S C 853 p T also known as Cathy Meng and 28 U S C 2461 0 T 50 U S C Sabrina Men 1702 1705 a and 1705 0 Defendants THE GRAND JURY CHARGES INTRODUCTION At all times relevant to this Supersedin Indictment unless otherwise indicated I The Defendants 1 The defendant I-IUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD was a global networking telecommunications and services company headquartered in Shenzhen Guangdong in the People s Republic of China HUAWEI was owned by a parent company I-Iuawei Parent an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury registered in Shenzhen Guangdong in the PRC As of the date of the ling of this I Superseding Indictment HUAWEI was the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world 2 HUAWEI operated numerous subsidiaries throughout the world including in the United States One U S subsidiary was the defendant HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC whose headquarters were in Plano Texas 3 The defendant SKYCOM TECH CO LTD was a corporation registered in Hong Kong whose primary operations were in Iran SKYGOM functioned as Iran-based subsidiary As of 2007 Huawei Parent owned SKYCOM through a subsidiary Huawei Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury In or about November 2007 Huawei Subsidiary transferred its shares of SKYCOM to another entity Huawei Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury and which was purportedly a third party in the transaction but was actually controlled by HUAWEI Following this transfer of SKYCOM shares from Huawei Subsidiary 1 to Huawei Subsidiary 2 HUAWEI falsely claimed that SKYCOM was one of local business paralers in Iran as opposed to one of subsidiaries or af liates 4 The defendant WANZHOU MENG also known as Cathy Meng and Sabrina Meng was a citizen of the PRC From at least in or about 2010 NIENG served as Chief Financial Of cer of HUAWEI Between approximately February 2008 and April 2009 MENG served on the SKYCOM Board of Directors More recently WNG also served as Deputy Chairwoman of the Board of Directors for HUAWEI II The Victim Financial Institutions 7 Financial Institution 1 an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was a multinational banking and nancial services company which operated subsidiaries throughout the world including in the United States and in Eurozone countries Its United States based subsidiary Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was a federally chartered bank the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company Among the services offered by Financial Institution 1 to its clients were U S dollar clearing through U S Subsidiary 1 and other nancial institutions located in the United States and Euro clearing through Financial Institution 1 subsidiaries and other financial institutions located in Eurozone countries Between approximately 2010 and 2014 Financial Institution 1 and US Subsidiary I cleared more than $100 million worth of transactions related to SKYCOM through the United States In or about 2017' Financial Institution 1 verbally communicated to HUAWEI representatives that it was terminating its banking relationship with HUAWEI 8 Financial Institution 2 an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was a multinational banking and financial services company which operated subsidiaries throughout the world including in the United States and in Eurozone countries Among the services offered by Financial Institution 2 to its clients were U S -dollar clearing through a Financial Institution 2 subsidiary and other nancial institutions located in the United States and Euro clearing through Financial Institution 2 subsidiaries and other nancial institutions located in Eurozone countries 9 Financial Institution 3 an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was a multinational banking and nancial services company which operated subsidiaries throughout the world including in the United States and in Eurozone countries Among the services offered by Financial Institution 3 to its clients were U S dollar clearing through Financial Institution 3 subsidiaries and other nancial institutions located in the United States and Euro clearng through Financial Institution 3 subsidiaries and other nancial institutions located in Eurozone countries 10 Financial Institution 4 an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was a multinational banking and nancial services company operating subsidiaries throughout the world including in the United States and in Eurozone countries Among the services offered by Financial Institution 4 to its clients were U S dollar clearing through Financial Institution 4 subsidiaries and other nancial institutions located in the United States and Euro clearing through Financial Institution 4 subsidiaries and other nancial institutions located in Eurozone countries A subsidiary of Financial Institution 4 Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was a nancial institution organized in the United States offering banking and nancial services throughout the world US Subsidiary 4 offered HUAWEI and its affiliates banking services and cash management services including for accounts in the United States The SKYCOM Fraud Scheme 11 Even though the US Department of the Treasury s Of ce of Foreign Assets Control s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations 31 C F R Part 560 prescribed the export ofU S origin goods technology and services to Iran and the Government of Iran HUAWEI operated SKYCOM as an unof cial subsidiary to obtain otherwise prohibited U S -origin goods technology and services including banking services for Iran based business while concealing the link to HUAWEI HUAWEI could thus attempt to claim ignorance with reSpect to any illegal act committed by SKYCOM on behalf of HUAWEI including violations of the ITSR and other applicable US law In addition contrary to US law SKYCOM on behalf of HUAWEI employed in Iran at least one US citizen Employee whose identity is known to the Grand Jury 12 Since in or about July 2007 HUAWEI repeatedly misrepresented to the US government and to various victim nancial institutions including Financial Institutions 1 2 3 and 4 and their US and Eurozone subsidiaries and branches collectively the I Victim Institutions that although HUAWEI conducted business in Iran it did so in a manner that did not violate applicable US law including the ITSR In reality HUAWEI conducted its business in Iran in a manner that violated applicable US law which includes the ITSR I 13 For example in or about July 2007 agents with the Federal Bureau of 1 Investigation interviewed the founder of HUAWEI whose identity is known to the Grand Jury in New York New York Individual-1 stated in sum and substance that he was willing to provide information about HUAWEI 14 During the interview amongst other things Individual-d falsely stated in substance and in part that IWAWEI did not conduct any activity in violation of US export laws and that HUAWEI operated in compliance with all US export laws Individual 1 also falsely stated in substance and in part that HUAWEI had not dealt directly with any Iranian company Individual-1 further stated that he believed HUAWEI had sold I equipment to a third party possibly in Egypt which in turn sold the equipment to Iran 15 Additionally HUAWEI repeatedly misrepresented to Financial Institution 1 that HUAWEI would not use Financial Institution 1 and its af liates to process any transactions regarding Iran based business In reality HUAWEI used U S Subsidiary and other nancial institutions operating in the United States to process US - dollar clearing transactions involving millions of dollars in furtherance of Iran based business Some of these transactions passed through the Eastern District of New York 16 In or about late 2012 and early 2013 various news organizations including Reuters reported that SKYCOM had sold and attempted to sell embargoed origin goods to Iran in violation of U S law and that HUAWEI in fact owned and operated SKYCOM In December 2012 Reuters published an article purporting to contain a HUAWEI of cial statement addressing and denying these allegations In January 2013 published a second article purporting to contain a HUAWEI of cial statement again addressing and denying the Iran allegations The purported statements by HUAWEI in these articles were relied on by the Victim Institutions in determining whether to continue their banking relationships with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries 17 Following publication of the December 2012 and January 2 13 lie mtg articles various HUAWEI representatives and employees communicated to the Victim Institutions and to the public that the allegations regarding ownership and control of SKYCOM were false and that in fact HUAWEI did comply with applicable US law which includes the ITSR Based in part on these false representations the Victim Institutions continued their banking relationships with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries and af liates 18 For example in or about June 2013 the defendant WANZHOU MENG requested an in person meeting with a Financial Institution 1 executive the Financial Institution 1 Executive whose identity is known to the Grand Jury During the meeting which took place on or about August 22 2013 NIENG spoke in Chinese relying in part on a PowerPoint presentation written in Chinese Upon request by the Financial Institution 1 Executive MENG arranged for an English language version of the PowerPoint presentation to be delivered to Financial Institution 1 on or about September 3 2013 19 In relevant part the PowerPoint presentation included numerous misrepresentations regarding ownership and control of SKYCOM and compliance with applicable US law including that HUAWEI operates in Iran in strict compliance with applicable laws regulations and sanctions of UN US and 2 engagement with SKYCOM is normal business cooperation 3 the defendant WANZHOU participation on the Board of Directors of SKYCOM was to help HUAWEI to better understand nancial results and business - performance and to strengthen and monitor compliance and 4 subsidiaries in sensitive countries will not open accounts at Financial Institution nor have 'business transactions with Financial Institution These statements were all false 20 In early 2014 several months after the meeting with Financial Institution 1 Executive the defendant WANZHOU MENG traveled to the United States arriving at John F Kennedy International Airport which is located in the Eastern District of New York When she entered the United States MENG was carrying an electronic device that contained a file in unallocated space indicating that the le may have been deleted1 containing the following text SuggestedTalking Points The core of the suggested talking points regarding Huawei s operation in Iran comports with the laws regulations and sanctions as required by the United Nations the United States and the European Union The relationship with Skycom is that of normal business cooperation Through regulated trade organizations and procedures Huawei requires that Skycom promises to abide by relevant laws and regulations and export controls Key information 1 In the past ceased to hold Skycom shares 1 With regards to cooperation Skycoin was established in 1998 and is one of the agents for Huawei products and services Skycom is mainly an agent for Huawei Other text in the same file appeared to refer to a document announcing the appointment of Huawei employees that was signed by MENG Wanzhou the defendant 21 Based in part on the false representations made by the defendant WANZHOU IVIENG and others Financial Institution 1 continued its banking relationship with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries and af liates 22 Had the Victim Institutions known about repeated violations of the ITSR they would have reevaluated their banking relationships with HUAWEI including the provision of U S -dollar and Euro clearing services to HUAWEI IV Continued Scheme to Defraud Financial Institutions 23 In or about 2017 Financial Institution 1 decided to terminate its global relationship with HUAWEI because of risk concerns regarding business practices During a series of meetings and communications Financial Institution 1 repeatedly communicated to HUAWEI that the decision to terminate its banking relationship with HUAWEI had been made by Financial Institution 1 alone and was not a mutual decision with HUAWEI 24 After learning of Financial Institution 1 s decision to terminate its I relationship with HUAWEI HUAIVEI took steps to secure and expand its banking relationships with other nancial institutions including US Subsidiary 4 In doing so I-IUAWEI employees made material misrepresentations to U S Subsidiary 4 among other nancial institutions regarding the reason for the termination of its relationship with Financial Institution 1 and the party responsible for the termination claiming that HUAWEI not Financial Institution 1 had initiated the termination Speci cally in meetings and correspondence with representatives of US Subsidiary 4 HUAWEI employees - falsely represented that HUAWEI was considering terminating its relationship with Financial Institution 1 because HUAWEI was dissatis ed with Financial Institution 1 s level of service misrepresentation that it had decided to terminate its relationship with Financial Institution 1 was communicated to various components of US Subsidiary 4 ineludin in New York City 25 Based in part on these false representations and omissions made by the defendants among other HUAWEI employees U S Subsidiary 4 undertook to expand its banking relationship with HUAWEI 10 and its subsidiaries-and af liates and continued to maintain its existing banking relationship with HUAWEI globally including in the United States Had the defendants told U S Subsidiary 4 the truth about Financial Institution 1 s decision to terminate its relationship with HUAWEI U S Subsidiary 4 would have reevaluated its relationship with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries and af liates V The Scheme to Obstruct Justice 26 In or about-2017 HUAWEI and HUAWEI USA became aware of the US government s criminal investigation of HUAWEI and its af liates In response to the investigation HUAWEI and HUAWEI USA made efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about Iran based business to the PRC and beyond the jurisdiction of the U S government and to destroy and conceal evidence in the United States of Iran-based business COUNT ONE Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud 27 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 28 In or about and between November 200' and May 2015 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI SKYCOM and WANZHOU WNG also known as Cathy Meng and Sabrina Meng together with others did knowingly and intentionally conspire to execute a scheme and arti ce to defraud U S Subsidiary 1 a nancial institution and to obtain moneys funds credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of said nancial institution by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent 11 pretenses representations and promises contrary to Title 18 United States Code Section 1344 Title 18 United States Code Sections 1349 and 3551 e_t COUNT TWO ConSpiracy to Commit Bank Fraud 29 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 25 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 30 In or about and between August 2017 and the date of the ling of this Superseding Indictment both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants others did knowingly and intentionally conspire to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud U S Subsidiary 4 a nancial institution and to obtain moneys funds credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of said nancial institution by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses representations and promises contrary to Title 18 United States Code Section 1344 Title 18 United States Code Sections 1349 and 3551 e_t s_eq COUNT THREE Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud 31 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 32 In or about and between November 2007 and May 2015 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI SKYCOM and WANZHOU MENG also known as Cathy Meng 12 and Sabrina Meng together with others did knowingly and intentionally conspire to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Victim Institutions and to obtain money and property from the Victim Institutions by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses representations and promises and for the purpose of executing such scheme and arti ce to transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce writings signs signals pictures and sounds contrary to Title 18 United States Code Section 1343 Title 18 United States Code Sections 1349 and 3551 _e_t COUNT FOUR Bank Fraud 33 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 34 In or about and between November 2007 and May 2015 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI SKYCOM and WANZHOU MENG also known as Cathy Meng and Sabrina Meng together with others did knowineg and intentionally execute a scheme and artifice to defraud US Subsidiary 1 a nancial institution and to obtain moneys inds credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of said nancial institution by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses representations and promises Title 18 United States Code Sections 1344 2 and 3551 e_t 13 COUNT FIVE Bank Fraud 35 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 25 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 36 In or about and between August 2017 and the date of the ling of this Superseding Indictment both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants others didknowingly and intentionally execute a scheme and arti ce to defraud U S Subsidiary 4 a nancial institution and to obtain moneys hands credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of said nancial institution by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses representations and promises Title 18 United States Code Sections 1344 2 and 3551 gt COUNT SIX Wire Fraud 37 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 38 In or about and between November 2007 and May 2015 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI SKYCOM and WANZHOU IVIENG also known as Cathy Meng and Sabrina Meng together with others did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and arti ce to defraud the Victim Institutions and to obtain money and property from the Victim Institutions by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses representations and promises and for the purpose of executing such scheme and arti ce did 14 transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce writings signs signals pictures and sounds to wit the defendants SKYCOM and MENG together with others made and caused to be made a series of misrepresentations through email communications written communications otherwise conveyed through the wires and oral made with knowledge that the oral communications would be memorializcd and subsequently transmitted through the wires about among other things the relationship between HUAWEI and SKYCOM compliance with US and UN laws and regulations and the kinds of nancial transactions in which HUAWEI engaged through the Victim Institutions and as a result of the misrepresentations caused a series of wires to be sent by financial institutions from outside of the United States through the United States Title 18 United States Code Sections 1343 2 and 3551 e_t geg COUNT SEVEN Conspiracy to Defraud the United States 39 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 26 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph - 40 In or about and between July 2007 and the date of the ling of this Supersedmg Indictment both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM together with others did knowingly and conspire to defraud the United States by impairing impeding obstructing and defeating through deceit rl and dishonest means the lawful governmental functions and operations of OFAC an agency of the United States in the 15 enforcement of economic sanctions laws and regulations administered by that agency and the issuance by that agency of appropriate licenses relating to the provision of nancial services 41 In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objects within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAXVEI and together with others committed and caused to be committed among others the following OVERT ACTS a On or about July 11 2007 Individualnl stated to FBI agents that I-IUAWEI did not conduct any activity in violation of U S export laws that operated in compliance with all U S export laws that HUAWEI had not dealt directly with any Iranian comp any and that he believed HUAWEI had sold equipment to a third party possibly in Egypt which in turn sold the equipment to Iran b On or about September 13 2012 a Senior Vice President of HUAWEI testi ed before U S Congress that business in Iran had not violated any laws and regulations including sanction-related requirements c On or about September 17 2012 the Treasurer of HUAWEI met with a principal of U S Subsidiary 4 an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury in New York New York and informed U S Subsidiary 4 that HUAWEI and its global affiliates did not Violate any applicable U S law d On or about July 24 2013 SKYCOM caused U S Subsidiary 1 to process a U S dollar clearing transaction of $52 791 08 c On or about July 24 2013 SKYCOM caused a bank located in the Eastern District of New York Bank an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury to process a U S -dollar clearing transaction of $94 829 82 16 f On or about August 20 2013 SKYCUM caused Bank 1 to process a U S dollar clearing transaction of $14 835 22 g On or about August 28 2013 SKYCOM caused Bank 1 to process a U S -dollar clearing transaction of $32 663 10 h On or about April 11 2014 SKYCOM caused a bank located in the United States Bank an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury to process a U S -dollar clearing transaction of $118 842 45 Title 18 United States Code Sections 371 and 3551 e_t COUNT EIGHT Conspiracy to Violate IEEPA 42 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph 43 Through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act the President of the United States was granted authority to address unusual and extraordinary threats to the national security foreign policy or economy of the United States 50 U S C 1701 a Under EEPA it was a crime to willfully Violate attempt to violate conspire to violate or cause a violation of any license order regulation or prohibition issued pursuant to the statute 50 U S C 1705 a and 1705 c 44 To respond to the declaration by the President of a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to IEEPA which was most recently continued in March 2018 83 Fed Reg 11 393 Mar 14 2018 OFAC issued the ITSR Absent permission from OFAC in the form of a license these regulations prohibited among other things 17 a The exportation reexportation sale or supply from the United States or by a US person wherever located of any goods technology or services to Iran and the Government of Iran 31 CPR 560 204 b Any transaction by a U S person wherever located involving goods technology or services for exportation reexportation sale or supply directly or indirectly to Iran or the Government of Iran 31 C F R 560 206 and c Any transaction by a U S person or within the United States that evaded or avoided had the purpose of evading or avoiding attempted to violate or caused a violation of any of the prohibitions in the C F R 560 203 45- The ITSR prohibited providing nancial services including U S dollar-clearing services to Iran or the Government of Iran 31 C F R 560 204 560 427 In addition the prohibition against the eXportation reexportation sale or supply of services applied to services performed on behalf of a person in Iran or the Government of Iran or where the bene t of such services was otherwise received in Iran if the services were performed in the United States by any person or outside the United States by a United States person including an overseas branch of an entity located in the United States 31 C F R 560 410 46 In or about and between November 2007 and November 2014 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM together with others did knowingly and willfully conspire to cause the export reexplort sale and supply directly and indirectly of goods technology and services to wit banking and other nancial services from the United States to Iran and the Government of Iran without having rst obtained the required OFAC 18 license contrary to Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 560 203 560 204 and 560 206 Title 50 United States Code Sections 1705 a 1705 c and 1702 Title 18 United States Code Sections 3551 e_t COUNT NTNE IEEPA Violations 47 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph 48 In or about and between November 2007 and November 2014 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM together with others did knowingly and willfully cause the export reexport sale and supply directly and indirectly of goods technology and services to wit banking and other nancial services from the United States to Iran and the Government of Iran without having rst obtained the required OFAC license contrary to Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations Seetions 560 203 560 204 and 560 206 Title 50 United States Code Sections 1705 a 1705 c and 1702 Title 18 United States Code Sections 2 and 3551 at am I COUNT TEN Conspiracy to Violate IEEPA 49 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are reallcged and incorporated as if illy set forth in this paragraph 50 In or about and between 2008 and 2014 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants 19 HUAWEI and SKYCOM together with others did knowingly and will illy conspire to cause the export recxport sale and supply directly and indirectly of goods technology and services to wit telecommunications services provided by Employee 1 a US citizen to Iran and the Government of Iran without having rst obtained the required OFAC license contrary to Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 560 203 560 204 and 560 206 Title 50 United States Code Sections 1705 a 1705 c and 1702 Title 18 United States Code Sections 3551 gt COUNT ELEVEN IEEPA Violation 51 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph 52 In or about and between 2008 and 2014 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM together with others did knowingly and willfully cause the export reexport sale and supply directly and indirectly of goods technology and services to wit telecommunications services provided by Employee a US citizen to Iran and the Government of Iran without having rst obtained the required OFAC license contrary to Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 560 203 560 204 and 560 206 Title 50 United States Code Sections 1705 3 1705 c and 1702 Title 18 United States Code Sections 2 and 3551 e_t sing I COUNT TWELVE Money Laundering Conspiracy 53 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph 20 54 In or about and between November 2007 and November 2014 both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM together with others did knowingly and intentionally conspire to transport transmit and transfer monetary instruments and funds to wit wire transfers from one or more places in the United States to and through one or more places outside the United States and to one or more places in the United States from and through one or more places outside the United States with the intent to promote the carrying on of speci ed unlawful activity to wit conspiracy to violate IEEPA in violation of Title 50 United States Code Section 1705 all contrary to Title 18 United States Code Section 1956 a 2 A Title 18 United States Code Sections 1956 h and 3551 e_t id COUNT THIRTEEN Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice 55 The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 26 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph 56 In or about and between January 2017 and the date of the filing of this Superseding Indictment both dates being approximate and inclusive within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere the defendants HUAWEI and HUAWEI USA together with others did knowingly intentionally and conuptly conspire to obstruct in uence and impede an of cial proceeding to wit a Federal Grand Jury investigation in the Eastern District of New York contrary to Title 18 United States Code Section 1512 c 2 Title 18 United States Code Sections 1512 k and 3551 e_t 21 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX 57 The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts One through Six that upon their conviction of such offenses the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18 United States Code Section 982 a 2 which requires any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses 58 If any of the above-described forfeitable property as a result of any act or omission of the defendants a cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence b has been transferred or sold to or deposited with a third party c has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court d has been substantially diminished in value or c has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without dif culty it is the intent of the United States pursuant to Title 21 United States Code Section 853 p as incorporated by Title 18 United States Code Section 982 b 1 to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation - Title 18 United States Code Sections 982 a 2 and 982 b 1 Title 21 United States Code Section 353 p 22 CRIMTNAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS EIGHT THROUGH ELEVEN AND THIRTEEN 59 The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Eight through Eleven and Thirteen that upon their conviction of such offenses the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18 United States Code Section 981 a 1 C and Title 28 United States Code Section 2461 0 which require any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property real or personal constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses 60 If any of the above-described forfeitable'property as a result of any act or omission of the defendants a cannot be located upon the escrcise of due diligence b has been transferred or sold to or deposited with a third party c has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court 1 has been substantially diminished in value or c has been cornmingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty it is the intent of the United States pursuant to Title 21 United States Code Section 853 p to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation Title 18 United States Code Section Title 21 United States Code Section 853 p Title 28 United States Code Section 2461 c 23 CRIMINAL ORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT TWELVE 61 The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Count Twelve that upon their conviction of such offense the government will seelt forfeiture in accordance with Title 18 United States Code Section 982 a 1 which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any property real or personal involved in such offense or any property traceable to such property 62 If any of the above-described forfeitable property as a result of any act or omission of the defendants a cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence b has been transferred or sold to or deposited with a third party c has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court 1 has been substantially diminished in value or c has been commingied with other property which cannot be divided without dif culty it is the intent of the United States pursuant to Title 21 United States Code Section 853 1 as incorporated by Title 18 United States Code Section 982 b 1 to seek forfeiture of any 24 other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation Title 18 United States Code Sections 982 a 1 and 982 b 1 Title 2 1 United States Code Section 853 1 A TRUE BILL FOREPERSON RICHARD P DONOGP UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEBORAH L CONNOR CHIEF MONEY LAUNDERING AND ASSET RECOVERY SECTION CRIMINAL DIVISION US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JAY I BRATT CHIEF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND EXPORT CONTROL SECTION NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION U S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE F a 2017a05903 FORM man-34 ND 111x 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN Diairicr YORK DIVISION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC SKYCOM TECH CO LTD WANZHOU MENG also known as Cathy Meng and Sabrina Meng Defendants SUPERSEDING T 18 U-S C 371 982 a 1 982 a 2 982 b 1 1343 1344 1349 1512 k 1955 h 2 and 3551 gt T 21 U S C 853 1 T 28 use 24610 T 50 U S C 1702 1705 a and 170502 A We bill Alexander A Salomon David K Kessler Julia Nestor and Sarah Evans Assistant US Attamqu 718 254-7000