United States v. Feng Tao

United States v. Feng Tao

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant Feng Tao was a highly respected and acclaimed chemistry and engineering professor at the University of Kansas ("KU") when he received the coveted Changjiang Scholar award from the Peoples Republic of China at Fuzhou University, the sponsoring institution. Tao did not disclose this to KU. Tao obtained a "buy-out" of his teaching responsibilities at KU for the spring semester of 2019, and without KU's knowledge, [*2]  spent most of the first eight months of 2019 at Fuzhou University ("FZU"), preparing to build a research lab there, applying for funding for that research, and recruiting graduate students to join his research team.

Tao was charged with multiple counts of wire fraud for concealing his affiliation with FZU from KU, and from two federal agencies, Department of Energy ("DOE") and National Science Foundation ("NSF") that had previously awarded KU grant funding for Tao's ongoing research at KU. Tao was also charged with making false statements in certified forms that Tao submitted to KU, within the jurisdiction of DOE and NSF, in that these federal agencies required KU to implement and manage conflict-of-interest policies concerning the federal grant funds.

After a two-week jury trial, Tao was convicted of three counts of wire fraud and one count of making a false statement. Now before the Court is Tao's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (Docs. 286, 290). The motion is fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the Court finds that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient [*3]  to support Tao's wire fraud convictions. Though Tao was deceptive in not disclosing his activities at FZU, there was no evidence that Tao obtained money or property through the alleged scheme to defraud, as required under the wire fraud statute. During the time period of the alleged scheme to defraud, Tao continued to rightfully receive his salary from KU for his services and continued to successfully perform the research required by DOE and NSF under their research grants. But there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdict on the false statement count. Tao made a false statement in certifying to the truth and completeness of the September 2018 Institutional Responsibilities form he submitted to KU. Further, there is no basis for a new trial on the false statement count. So, after a careful and thorough review of the trial record and arguments presented, the Court grants in part and denies in part Tao's motion.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.