ILNews

Ex-Dow Agro scientist receives 7 years for economic espionage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge on Wednesday sentenced a former Dow AgroSciences researcher to more than seven years in prison for sending trade secrets worth millions of dollars to China and Germany.

Kexue Huang, 46, had pleaded guilty in October.

Federal sentencing guidelines called for Huang to spend 70 months to 87 months in prison, but prosecutors argued in an earlier court filing that he should receive a sentence at the “high end” of the guidelines. Judge William T. Lawrence of U.S. District Court in Indianapolis issued the maximum sentence, 87 months.

Huang entered the courtroom wearing a green jumpsuit and with shackles on his ankles and wrists.

Before the sentencing, he addressed the court in broken English and asked his family and friends for forgiveness.

“I’m am very sorry,” he said. “Please forgive me for what I did.”

Huang maintained he did not hurt anyone or cause any damage but wanted access to the trade secrets to compete with Dow and “possibly make money.” He attributed his decision to arrogance.

Lawrence said he will recommend Huang serve his sentence as close to Boston as allowed. He and his family moved to Massachusetts in 2009.

Huang worked as a researcher for Dow AgroSciences from January 2003 until his firing in February 2008.

He was indicted in 2010 on 12 counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets to benefit a foreign government or instrumentality, along with transportation of stolen property.

This story originally ran on IBJ.com Dec. 21, 2011.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT