Opinion ID: 2982422
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trade Secrets Conspiracy

Text: As to conviction for conspiracy to steal trade secrets, Defendants raise the same intent argument as they do for the substantive conviction—that the government failed to show an underlying intent to convert trade secrets. (Du First Br. at 54; Qin First Br. at 51–52.) Du and Qin committed conspiracy to steal a trade secret if they intended to commit a violation of § 1832(a)(3) together and took a substantial step towards commission of the crime, regardless of whether the information obtained included trade secrets or if they completed the crime. 18 U.S.C. 1832(a)(5); United States v. Yang, 281 F.3d 534, 543–544 (6th Cir. 2002). Given the evidence outlined above, the government presented sufficient evidence to support this conviction, as well.