IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

YANJUN XU 

(a/k/a Xu Yanjun and Qu Hui) 

Case No. 1:18-CR-0043 

Judge Timothy S. Black 

UNITED STATES’ MOTION 

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF 

ACQUITTAL 

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Assistant United States 

Attorneys Timothy Mangan and Emily Glatfelter and Trial Attorney Matthew McKenzie, 

respectfully submitting this Response in Opposition to the defendant’s Motion for Judgment of 

Acquittal for the Court’s consideration. For the reasons stated below, the defendant’s motion is 

meritless and should be denied. 

The Court Should Deny Defendant Xu’s Motion for Acquittal 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to move for a judgement of 

acquittal after the government closes its evidence, and provides that a court must enter such 

judgment as to any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. F.R.C.P 

29(a). The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is “whether, after viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 

319 (1979). “In addressing a Rule 29 motion, the Court may not make credibility determinations, 

and may not weigh the evidence.” United States v. Salaam, 2021 WL 2217066 at 1* (S.D. Ohio 

2021) (quoting United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 869 F. Supp. 1285, 1290 (S.D. Ohio 1994) (citing 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 2759
2 

United States v. Davis, 981 F.2d 906, 908 (6th Cir. 1992)). It is well established that “a defendant 

claiming insufficiency of the evidence bears a very heavy burden.” United States v. Graham, 622 

F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2010). And, “‘circumstantial evidence alone can defeat a sufficiency 

challenge.’” United States v. Brooks, 987 F.3d 593, 603 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. 

Maya, 966 F.3d 493, 500 (6th Cir. 2020)). 

The defendant essentially offers two arguments as to why his motion for an acquittal should 

be granted: 1) there is no evidence that he joined a conspiracy to steal trade secrets with respect to 

Counts One and Two; and 2) there is no evidence that he intended to steal trade secrets with respect 

to Counts Three and Four. Both arguments fail under the weight of the evidence produced at trial, 

particularly when viewed in the light most favorable to the government. As a result, defendant’s 

motion should be denied. 

1. There is ample evidence that the defendant conspired with others to steal trade 

secrets.

Count One alleges that the defendant conspired to commit economic espionage in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1831, and Count Two alleges that the defendant conspired to commit trade secret 

theft in violation of 18 U.SC. § 1832. It is well-established that to prove a conspiracy the 

government need not present direct evidence of an agreement. See, e.g., United States v. 

Thompson, 533 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1976). An agreement “may be inferred from 

circumstantial evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as participation in a common plan,” 

United States v. Ellzey, 874 F.2d 324 at 328 (6th Cir. 1989) or “from acts done with a common 

purpose.” United States v. Frost, 914 F.2d 756, 762 (6th Cir. 1990). 

The defendant contends that no rational juror could find the defendant joined a conspiracy 

to steal information the conspirators believed to be a trade secret. However, the record simply 

belies the defendant’s contention. Relevant here, “trade secret” is simply technical or engineering 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 2760
3 

information, designs, techniques, or processes that “the owner thereof has taken reasonable 

measures to keep such information secret” and “the information derives independent economic 

value” from not being generally known. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). The record is replete with evidence 

that the defendant agreed with others to illicitly acquire such information. 

Over the past two weeks, the government has presented substantial evidence from which a 

juror could conclude that the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy to commit economic 

espionage and commit theft of trade secrets. First, the government provided a framework, through 

the testimony of Dr. Mulvenon, of how the PRC Government functions and that it tasks its primary 

intelligence agency, the Ministry of State Security (MSS), with illicitly acquiring foreign 

technology. Mulvenon explained how the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology works 

with various state owned enterprises (SOEs) to identify gaps in PRC technology. The MSS—

particularly the 6th Bureau of the MSS and its regional affiliates such as the JSSD—then works 

with experts from the SOEs to identify and obtain the missing information and provides it to the 

SOEs. Through the testimony of Rizwan Ramakwadala, the jury learned that the Chinese 

government, via its SOEs, has been trying to manufacture a gas turbine engine with composite fan 

blade technology – the same one manufactured by GE Aviation – for years. The government then 

produced evidence of what amounted to a case study in PRC economic espionage to obtain aviation 

technology. 

Specifically, the government produced evidence of the defendant and individuals, such as 

Chai Meng and Xu Heng – who any rational juror could conclude to be fellow members of the 

MSS/JSSD – engaging in communication and taking actions against aviation companies between 

approximately 2013 and 2018 that demonstrated their conspiratorial objective. For example, the 

government presented evidence that in approximately 2014, the defendant his MSS colleagues first 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 2761
4 

hacked the French aviation company Safran, using company insiders that they had recruited.1 

Special Agent Adam James testified that he analyzed the Safran-issued hard drive that Mr. Hascoet 

took to China in January 2014. James confirmed that malware was installed on the hard drive on 

January 15, 2014 – a date which coincided with messages between the defendant and the assets he 

had recruited inside the company discussing the “planting” of a “horse.” From the 

communications between the defendant, the company insiders, and the defendant’s MSS 

colleagues, such as Chai Meng, a rational juror could conclude that the internet intrusion was 

conducted by the defendant and his colleagues for the benefit of China. (E.g. Gov. Ex. 110, p. 6 

(“Do they think China is hacking them?”).) Moreover, a juror could conclude from the 

communications paired with the testimony of Mr. Hascoet – the Safran employee whose computer 

was infected with malware when he visited a plant assembling LEAP engine parts – that the 

defendant and his colleagues were conspiring to obtain secret technology about the LEAP engine. 

Conducting an internet intrusion against Safran is consistent with designing an intelligence 

operation to obtain information that is not publicly available. The defendant’s conduct in 

managing human sources inside Safran, along with his communications with MSS colleagues 

speaks volumes about the conspiratorial agreement that he knowingly joined. 

The government also presented evidence that approximately a year after the Safran 

hacking, the defendant, posing as “Qu Hui,” attempted to recruit a Boeing IT project manager for 

an exchange about network security. (Gov. Ex. 92.) The Boeing IT manager explained how, prior 

to becoming a project manager, he had been responsible for data retention, meaning all of the 

design, testing and flight data related to individual Boeing aircrafts. The defendant aggressively 

pursued the Boeing IT manager, even after the Boeing manager explained that network security 

1

 The evidence at trial demonstrated that Safran has a joint venture with GE Aviation to produce the 

LEAP engine, which contains a composite fan blade and containment system.

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 2762
5 

was not his expertise. The Boeing manager finally agreed to meet with “Qu Hui” and two 

colleagues, one of which was “Chai” when he returned to China to visit family. They met in a 

hotel lobby for 15-30 minutes, after which Qu Hui insisted on reimbursing the Boeing IT 

manager’s travel expenses. When the Boeing IT manager declined reimbursement, which he 

viewed as unethical, Qu Hui contacted him more than five times about payment, even referencing 

that he had contacted the manager’s father. Id. 

The government also presented evidence that in 2017, the defendant and his MSS 

colleagues invited Arthur Gau for a presentation in a hotel room in China with three engineers. 

The jury heard evidence that Gau worked as an engineer for Honeywell and Honeywell is a U.S.-

based company that manufacturers engines components. Gau testified that along with Xu, Chai 

Meng was present for the meeting. The defendant paid Gau $10,000 for the presentation -- $5000 

the year before and $5000 after the presentation, in addition to the airfare. After Gao left the room, 

a transcript captures the defendant and his conspirators discussing options for recruiting and using 

Gau in the future. (Gov. Ex. 86c.) During the meeting, the defendant acknowledges that using 

insiders to take “large batches of information” might be difficult because the “security” is tight at 

those companies. (Id. at 4-5.) After the meeting, Xu called Chai Meng and chided him form using 

an alias with Gau that did not make sense. (Gov. Ex. 86d.) 

The government presented other evidence regarding the communications and tactics of the 

defendant and his MSS colleagues in using tradecraft to acquire foreign aviation technology. For 

example, the government presented evidence of instructions that the defendant had received from 

his conspirators on the specific types of technological information to obtain (E.g. Gov. Ex. 43(e) 

(conversation regarding which Boeing documents to obtain); Gov. Ex. 6e (list of collection 

requirements recovered from Belgium phone); Gov. Ex. 69 (list of “domestic requirements”); and 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 2763
6 

Gov. Ex. 89 (Gau tasking list from 2017), and then saw evidence or heard testimony that the 

defendant tried to obtain such information from the employees of foreign aviation companies. 

Based on the defendant’s deception in using aliases with these employees, the evidence 

surrounding the defendant’s meetings with these foreign employees, and the defendant’s cash 

payments to these employees in exchange for the information, the jury could infer that the 

defendant was seeking non-public foreign technology that the defendant otherwise could not 

obtain. 

Additionally, the combination of WeChat communications and the defendant’s calendar 

entries, showed clandestine tactics employed by the defendant and his MSS colleagues against 

aviation engineers visiting China. Specifically, a section of MSS would steal information from 

the electronic devices of visiting engineers while such engineers were being entertained away from 

their hotel rooms. (Gov. Exs. 44a and 45a.) The jury also saw communications between the 

defendant and engineers at AVIC using codes to discuss foreign aviation technology (Gov. Exs. 

41b and 42b); the defendant instructing conspirators to only let the targets of his tradecraft know 

his alias and cover job (Gov. Ex. 43e (“The guest doesn’t know our identity. I’ve approached him 

with the name of Hui Qu, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Science and Technology 

Association”); evidence that the defendant represented himself as working for two cover 

organizations – a provincial Science and Technology Association and Nanjing Loute (id; Gov. Ex. 

11c (French visa records); see also Gov. Ex. 56b (dossier providing fictitious positions and 

background of Nanjing Loute)); and a conspicuous lack of evidence indicating that the defendant 

worked for either cover organization – particularly in comparison to substantial records indicating 

that the defendant was actually a Deputy Directory in the MSS (Gov. Ex. 21b (cadre application). 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 2764
7 

With respect to GE Aviation, the government presented, among other things, emails about 

collections requirements (Gov. Ex. 69) and a tasking sheet (Gov. Ex. 6e), which Nick Kray, a 

senior GE Aviation engineer who has worked on composite technology for thirty years, testified 

contained terms about composite fan blade and containment systems – one of the key technologies 

that GE Aviation seeks to protect from disclosure. And, Eric Ritter, GE Aviation’s Vice President 

of Cyber Security, explained that GE Aviation takes substantial measures to protect key 

technologies, and described how the type of file directory requested by the defendant, revealed 

significant information about GE Aviation files and how it would be beneficial for those posing 

an external threat to the company. Additionally, the government introduced evidence in the form 

of testimony, recordings, emails, and messages regarding the defendant’s attempts to meet 

Employee 1 under false pretenses in Belgium and to induce GE Employee 1 to bring a hard drive 

containing the contents of his GE Aviation work computer — which the jury could infer the 

defendant had every reason to believe contained trade secrets after seeing a directory of the 

contents of said computer approximately a month earlier. Moreover, based on communications 

with Employee 1, the defendant knew that GE Aviation took steps to protect this electronic data 

from disclosure. (Gov. Exs. 67-77) 

The defendant did not act alone on his mission to obtain these trade secrets in Belgium, 

and the circumstances of his arrest with Xu Heng (whom a reasonable juror could conclude was a 

co-conspirator) provides additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s intent and his 

knowledge and participation in the conspiratorial objective. The defendant arrived at the planned 

meeting location (one which he believed would be safe from the observation of Employee 1’s 

colleagues) with Xu Heng, travelled together under falsified visas (which a reasonable juror could 

conclude involved the help of additional co-conspirators). (See Gov. Ex. 11b). Xu Heng carried 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 2765
8 

the defendant’s passport, along with $7000 in U.S. currency, and a backpack full of equipment 

used to read, copy, and store large amounts of data. The defendant and Xu Heng carried four 

phones between them, one of which was wiped remotely after Xu Heng was arrested with the 

defendant. 

In sum, the circumstantial evidence that the defendant entered into a criminal conspiracy 

is overwhelming. The defendant’s contention to the contrary – which invites the Court to 

impermissibly weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses – should be rejected. 

2. There is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find the defendant intended to 

steal trade secrets with respect to Counts III and IV. 

The defendant next argues that there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to 

conclude that the defendant intended to steal trade secrets with respect to Counts III and IV, which 

specifically involve GE Aviation. 

The record is clear that GE Aviation spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars 

researching and developing the trade secrets used in the manufacture composite fan blade and 

containment system technology and took reasonable measures to protect these trade secrets, such 

as physical and cyber security. The evidence is also clear that the defendant attempted to illicitly 

obtain this secret information from GE Aviation, knowing that the information was protected. (Ex. 

67c, p. 34 (“Is it possible to dump it to a portable hard drive or USB drive from work computer in 

advance?”) and page 36 (“Since there’s still time, download more data and bring them. Anything 

design related will would work.”).) 

Much of the same evidence highlighted above, provides sufficient evidence from which a 

jury could infer the defendant’s intent. In addition to the above-described attempts by the 

defendant to entice GE Employee 1 to bring the contents of the GE Aviation hard drive and the 

tasking sheet which called for answers which would have been trade secrets, the government also 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 2766
9 

produced additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilty intent: his overwhelmingly 

suspicious behavior. The defendant’s use of an alias and multiple cover jobs to hide the fact that 

he worked as an intelligence officer of the MSS/JSSD—not to mention his direct involvement in 

the hacking of an aviation employee’s computer—simply do not jibe with the argument that the 

defendant was merely seeking open source information. One does not need a fake name or fake 

job or the use of a sophisticated remote access trojan and compromised company employees to 

install that malware to read scientific journals, conduct internet searches, or network with 

academics or experts in the field. Indeed, a rational juror could reasonably conclude, that these 

are the actions of a spy intent on stealing what is not publicly available: valuable trade secrets. 

The defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing and unpersuasive. In addition to 

ignoring the statutory definition of “trade secret,” which includes technical, design, testing, other 

forms of information, the defendant focuses this Court on a strained reading of a few pieces of 

evidence in isolation, while excluding other highly relevant evidence.2

 And, again, the defendant 

asks this Court to do what it cannot – weigh the evidence. 

Conclusion 

In sum, there is sufficient evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

government, for a reasonable juror to find the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 

the defendant is guilty of all four counts in the indictment. As a result, the defendant’s motion 

should be denied. 

2

 For example, the defendant points to a statement in Exhibit 67c on p.9, where he states, 

“Teacher, as for now, there’s nothing you need to prepare from my end.” But the defendant 

ignores his statement on two days before (p. 8: “’ll touch base with the scientific research 

department to see what technology is desired and I will let you know what to prepare”) and 

subsequent statements where he sought answers to the domestic requirements, the directory list, 

and the downloading of the computer. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 2767
10 

Respectfully submitted, 

 VIPAL J. PATEL 

 Acting United States Attorney 

s/Timothy S. Mangan 

 TIMOTHY S. MANGAN (0069287) 

 EMILY GLATFELTER 

Assistant United States Attorney 

 221 East Fourth Street, Suite 400 

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

 Office: (513) 684-3711 

 E-mail: timothy.mangan@usdoj.gov 

 

MATTHEW J. MCKENZIE 

 Trial Attorney 

 National Security Division 

 Department of Justice 

 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

 Washington, DC 20530 

 Office: (202) 514-7845 

 Email: matthew.mckenzie@usdoj.gov 

 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 2768
11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically served via electronic 

mail upon defense counsel, this 2nd day of November, 2021. 

s/Timothy S. Mangan 

 TIMOTHY S. MANGAN (0069287) 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 171 Filed: 11/02/21 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 2769