Sun Wen’s involvement in the foreign agent case adds money laundering charges.

On February 11th, in the Eastern District Federal Court of Brooklyn, a status conference was held regarding the case of Linda Sun, the former deputy chief of staff for the New York governor who is accused of illegally acting as an agent for the Chinese Communist Party. Following the prosecution’s submission of a 65-page superseding indictment last Tuesday, the defense has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The court did not delve into the debate over Sun’s previous motion to dismiss the case; instead, a preliminary date of April 23rd was set for the next status conference.

The new superseding indictment (S-1) submitted by the prosecution on February 4th largely mirrors the previous 64-page version, with additional charges against Linda Sun’s husband Chris Hu related to three bank transactions in 2020 totaling $1.5 million. The indictment maintains the existing charges against Linda Sun and includes minor modifications in the factual descriptions. For instance, in the allegation that Linda Sun obstructed a meeting between Taiwanese representatives and top New York officials, the revised description notes that past and present governors did not have an official policy regarding Taiwan recognition, implying no specific policies or practices for such meetings or communications within their offices.

According to the indictment, representatives from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECO) had regular meetings with high-ranking U.S. officials, but since 2016, at the request of the Chinese Consulate General in New York, Linda Sun actively restricted contacts between Taiwanese officials and the governor’s office.

Compared to the original version, the modification only altered the term “policy” to “policy or practice” and added a January 2019 incident as supplemental evidence. In an email chain, the chief of staff of the then-governor listed representatives from various organizations, including two officials from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, seeking any concerns or alerts (flags). This email was forwarded to Linda Sun, who flagged the Taiwanese representatives as “not our friends.” When asked if they might disrupt the event, Linda Sun responded, suggesting it was a political issue related to China-Taiwan relations and the potential political statements that might be made if the Taiwanese representatives attended the event.

In response to these amendments, Linda Sun’s defense attorney Jarrod L. Schaeffer stated in a letter to the court on the 10th that the S-1 superseding indictment does not weaken Linda Sun’s motion to dismiss the case as it explicitly acknowledges the lack of an official policy recognizing Taiwan by the two political figures mentioned. The defense argues that the new examples only document Linda Sun’s internal discussions, indicating she merely provided political advice in line with the U.S. policy of non-recognition of Taiwan.

The defense firmly asserts that these actions by the government aim to criminalize routine political advice since the added content fails to demonstrate that Linda Sun received specific instructions or commands from the Chinese consulate. The defense’s primary argument for dismissal remains the prosecution’s failure to prove that Linda Sun’s actions violated federal or state diplomatic policies without any evidence of direct instructions from the consulate.

Historically, the defense criticized the vagueness of the prosecution’s allegations, claiming they vaguely asserted Linda Sun “followed Chinese instructions” without providing concrete evidence such as the source of the instructions, timing, location, manner, or specific content. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and 18 U.S.C. §951, even if directives are merely “requested” or “guided,” it constitutes agency without the need for explicit orders or contractual proof. In the Rafiekian case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that direct evidence might be hard to obtain as savvy operators could cover their tracks, leading the prosecution to rely on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences to establish agency relationships.

Additionally, in the tenth charge of the S-1 indictment, two new statutory charges related to money laundering conspiracies, including violations of FARA and section 200.00 of the New York State Penal Law (involving bribery of public officials), were added. The defense argues that these new charges lack necessary details, creating additional legal controversies, thus requesting ten days to submit supplementary information to respond.

Furthermore, in a letter on the 10th, the defense also requested three weeks to file a motion attempting to suppress some government evidence and proposed a hearing to release frozen assets of Linda Sun and her husband, ensuring they have adequate funds for legal defense costs.

Currently, Judge Brian Cogan has approved Linda Sun’s submission of an updated motion to dismiss but has yet to render a decision. Given the complexity of the case, the next status conference is scheduled for April 23rd.