CAMBRIDGE, MA – The former Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department was indicted today on charges of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his participation in China’s Thousand Talents Program.

Dr. Charles Lieber, 61, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of making false statements and will be arraigned in federal court in Boston at a later date.  Lieber was arrested on Jan. 28, 2020, and charged by criminal complaint.

According to charging documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, specializing in the area of nanoscience. Lieber’s research at the Lieber Research Group has been funded by more than $15 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD).  Among other things, these grants required the disclosure of all sources of research support, potential financial conflicts of interest and all foreign collaboration.

It is alleged that, unbeknownst to Harvard University, beginning in 2011, Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China.  He later became contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from at least 2012 through 2015.  China’s Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese talent recruitment plans designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security.  According to court documents, these talent recruitment plans seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China, and they often reward individuals for stealing proprietary information.  Under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT allegedly paid Lieber a salary of up to $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1 million Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT.  In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT “not less than nine months a year” by “declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of [WUT].”

It is alleged that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied to federal authorities about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and his affiliation with WUT. On or about April 24, 2018, during an interview with federal investigators, it is alleged that Lieber falsely stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but that he “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him.  In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard about whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan.  Lieber allegedly caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber “had no formal association with WUT” after 2012, that “WUT continued to falsely exaggerate” his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber “is not and has never been a participant in” China’s Thousand Talents Plan.

The charge of making false statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.  Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers; U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; and Philip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General made this announcement.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason Casey and Benjamin Tolkoff of Lelling’s National Security Unit are prosecuting this case with the assistance of Trial Attorney David Aaron of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

PORTLAND, WA – The Department of Justice today filed a statement of interest in a Washington State federal court supporting the First Amendment religious freedom claims of a Pierce County church, explaining how a recent Supreme Court decision, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (May 29, 2020), supports the church’s claim.

The statement of interest explains that Washington’s preferable treatment of secular gatherings such as restaurants, taverns, and outdoor protests compared to the restrictions imposed on indoor and outdoor religious services triggers heightened scrutiny under the Constitution.

The statement of interest is part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s April 27, 2020 initiative directing Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Eric Dreiband, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, to review state and local policies to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are enduring, and we must be vigilant in making sure that governments do not unlawfully infringe upon the rights that they protect. First among these rights is the First Amendment’s guarantee that no government in this country may prohibit the free exercise of religion,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “The Constitution’s protections are especially critical during times of crisis. The United States must remain committed at all times to the right of all people to worship and pray and follow the dictates of their conscience in a manner that respects others and the public health and safety. By doing so, our nation honors the legacy of countless patriots who worked, struggled, fought, suffered, and died to protect our freedom. The Department of Justice will continue its efforts to secure the Constitutional rights of all people in this nation.”

“The department will continue to be vigilant in protecting religious liberty when states and localities exceed constitutional limits,” said Matthew Schneider, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, who, with Assistant Attorney General Dreiband, is overseeing the Justice Department’s effort to monitor state and local polices relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“At a time of uncertainty and anguish in our community, the ability to gather to express one’s faith and seek comfort is a fundamental right,” said U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran for the Western District of Washington. “Just as we have seen peaceful protestors gathered together and exercising their First Amendment rights, so too must we protect the right of religious institutions such as churches, mosques and temples to gather together and express their faith.”

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding California’s reopening plan in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (May 29, 2020).  By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court declined to temporarily block California’s rules. In their opinions explaining the result, however, each Justice who wrote agreed that even during the COVID-19 pandemic the Constitution requires states to treat houses of worship equally with comparable secular businesses. Chief Justice Roberts concluded that, on the facts of the California case, California “exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”  He also noted that the “precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement,” which, when within constitutional bounds is entrusted to the “politically accountable officials of the states.” Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch would have “grant[ed] the Church’s requested [relief] because California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses.”

In its statement of interest filed today in Haborview Fellowship v. Inslee, the United States explains that the State of Washington “exempts or treats more leniently” precisely the types of activities that Chief Justice Roberts said are appropriate comparators for religious gatherings—specifically, activities that involve people “congregat[ing] in large groups [ ]or remain[ing] in close proximity for extended period,” such as restaurants, taverns, and protests. Because those activities are permitted with social distancing and hygiene measures, the church must be treated the same unless the state can persuasively show that there are material differences between gathering for an extended period in a restaurant or tavern and a house of worship, or between an outdoor protest and an outdoor worship service.

Washington currently permits various restaurants and taverns to operate at 50% of capacity with no total cap on number of patrons, so long as they observe 6-foot social distancing and various hygiene measures.  Places of worship, however, are limited to a hard cap of 50 people or 25% of capacity, whichever is less. Outdoor worship services are limited to 100 people. As detailed in the statement of interest, Governor Inslee has placed no limit on total numbers for outdoor protests, only requesting that participants  “be safe for themselves and the people around them” by “wearing a mask and . . . distancing as much as you can.”

Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash