Filed 4/27/21 P. v. Li CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN LI,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A161321 

 (San Francisco City & County

 Super. Ct. Nos. 232039-03,

19005419)

Defendant Juan Li appeals from a postjudgment restitution order 

requiring her to pay restitution to five victims. Appellate counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not 

been able to identify any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel asks this court 

to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Defendant has been 

notified by her counsel she had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with the 

court. No supplemental brief has been received. Having independently 

reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further 

briefing and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Juan Li and three other Chinese women were accused of 

taking part in a “Maoming blessing scam,” an affinity scam usually involving 

four suspects who target elderly female Chinese immigrants and take 
2

advantage of their superstitions. Li, who the victims never saw, played the 

role of an “overwatch” who would look out for law enforcement while the 

other women directly interacted with the victims and carried out the scam. 

The overwatch also provides counter surveillance when necessary, 

communicates with middlemen, handles the delivery and exodus of the group, 

and provides general protection for the group while the scam is being 

presented to the victim.

Li and her accomplices were accused of perpetrating the scam on five 

Chinese victims and using similar scheming methods on each victim. The 

scam begins with the first perpetrator approaching the victim, who is usually 

an elderly Chinese-speaking woman alone in public. The first perpetrator 

asks the victim if she knows where a particular doctor or a particular herb 

can be found, explaining a family member has a major health issue and needs 

the herb. A second perpetrator then approaches the two women, pretending 

to be a stranger who overheard their conversation. She tells the two women 

she knows where to find the doctor or herb, that the location is nearby, and 

suggests they all walk there together. The victim follows the two 

perpetrators to the location, and on the way there, the perpetrators ask the 

victim personal questions to learn information about her. A third accomplice 

waits at the designated location, and when the two perpetrators arrive with 

the victim, the third accomplice tells them the doctor is too busy to see them, 

but she can call the doctor for advice. She calls the doctor, who makes 

targeted claims about the first perpetrator and her family health issues. The 

claims make the doctor appear powerful. 

The third accomplice then tells the victim that the doctor says a major 

calamity or curse will befall the victim’s family. When the victim asks why, 

the third accomplice tells her the doctor saw that she unknowingly stepped 
3

on the blood of a pregnant woman killed in a traffic accident. They tell the 

victim that the pregnant woman’s unborn child wants to marry the victim’s 

youngest family member and that the ghost of the pregnant woman will kill 

the young family member to carry out the marriage. The threat of a ghost 

physically harming a family member is a strong cultural belief in Chinese 

culture. 

The third accomplice then tells the victim the only way to lift the curse 

is to gather all her valuables, including cash and jewelry, wrap them in 

newspaper, put them in a bag, and bring the bag back to her so the doctor can 

lift the curse. When the victim returns with the bag of valuables, the 

perpetrators tell her to transfer the items to a bag the perpetrators have with 

them. They tell the victim to close her eyes, spin around, and repeat a 

rhyme. The perpetrators perform a “blessing,” tell the victim to leave the 

scene without looking back, not to speak to anyone, and not to open the bag 

for a period of time—anywhere from several days to a year—or the curse will 

come true. When the victim finally opens the bag, the valuables are gone. 

Witness Y.W. testified under a grant of use immunity that defendants paid 

him to drive them around the Bay Area. He identified Li as one of the 

defendants and stated she was the one who generally paid him. Police 

searched Li’s room in a Los Angeles County residence and found blessing 

scam scripts during the search. 

Li and her codefendants were charged in a consolidated information

with the following 17 felony counts: three counts of elder fraud (Pen. Code,1

§ 368, subd. (d)(1)); four counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)); five counts of 

extortion (§ 520); one count of conspiracy to obtain property by false 

pretenses (§ 182, subd. (a)(4)); and four counts of conspiracy to commit any 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
4

crime (§ 182, subd. (a)(l)). Li was also charged with the following 

misdemeanors and enhancements: elder fraud (§ 368, subd. (d)(2)); petty theft 

(§ 484, subd. (a)); and a white-collar crime enhancement (§ 186.11, subd. 

(a)(l)). 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Li pled guilty to one count of elder fraud 

(§ 368, subd. (d)(1)), a felony, with a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 754 to the remaining counts. Li requested a restitution hearing.

At the contested restitution hearing, the district attorney relied on the 

victims’ preliminary hearing testimonies and the probation department’s 

report to determine the amount of money and value of the jewelry defendants 

took from the victims. The trial court ordered Li to pay victim restitution 

jointly and severally with her codefendants to the five victims. The total 

victim restitution ordered was $237,590.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have examined 

the entire record to see if any arguable issue is present. A trial court’s 

restitution award is not subject to reversal on appeal unless there is no 

factual and rational basis for it. (People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 

467.) We conclude the record before us does not warrant disturbance of the 

court’s award and therefore agree with Li’s counsel that no issues are 

present.

DISPOSITION

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
5

MARGULIES, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BANKE, J.

SANCHEZ, J.

A161321

People v. Li