I nu CLEna's Us. on'I'RIci' cm JRT eons. 'fet? JAN 21333 "fr snow-(Iran UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNTTEDSTATESOFAMERICA SUPERSEDING I I - against - Cr. No. 18-457 (AMD) HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO, LTD., (T. 18, U.S.C., 371, HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC, 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2), 982(b)(1), 1343, SKYCOM TECH CO. LTD., 1344, 1349, 1512(k), 1956(h), 2 and WANZHOU MENG, 3551 e; T. 21, U.S.C., 853(p); T. also known as ?Cathy Meng" and 28, U.S.C., 2461(0); T. 50, U.S.C., ?Sabrina Men 1702, 1705(a) and 1705(0)) Defendants. THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: INTRODUCTION At all times relevant to this Supersedin Indictment, unless otherwise indicated: I. The Defendants 1. The defendant I-IUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO, LTD. was a global networking, telecommunications and services company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, in the People?s Republic of China HUAWEI was owned by a parent company (?I-Iuawei Parent?), an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, registered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, in the PRC. As of the date of the ?ling of this I Superseding Indictment, HUAWEI was the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world. 2. HUAWEI operated numerous subsidiaries throughout the world, including in the United States. One U.S. subsidiary was the defendant HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC. whose headquarters were in Plano, Texas. 3. The defendant SKYCOM TECH CO. LTD. was a corporation registered in Hong Kong whose primary operations were in Iran. SKYGOM functioned as Iran-based subsidiary. As of 2007, Huawei Parent owned SKYCOM through a subsidiary (?Huawei Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury. In or about November 2007, Huawei Subsidiary transferred its shares of SKYCOM to another entity (?Huawei Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, and which was purportedly a third party in the transaction but was actually controlled by HUAWEI. Following this transfer of SKYCOM shares from Huawei Subsidiary 1 to Huawei Subsidiary 2, HUAWEI falsely claimed that SKYCOM was one of local business paralers in Iran, as opposed to one of subsidiaries or af?liates. 4. The defendant WANZHOU MENG, also known as ?Cathy Meng? and ?Sabrina Meng,? was a citizen of the PRC. From at least in or about 2010, NIENG served as Chief Financial Of?cer of HUAWEI. Between approximately February 2008 and April 2009, MENG served on the SKYCOM Board of Directors. More recently, WNG also served as Deputy Chairwoman of the Board of Directors for HUAWEI. II. The Victim Financial Institutions 7. Financial Institution 1, an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a multinational banking and ?nancial services company, which operated subsidiaries throughout the world, including in the United States and in Eurozone countries. Its United States?based subsidiary Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a federally chartered bank, the deposits of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company Among the services offered by Financial Institution 1 to its clients were U.S.?dollar clearing through U.S. Subsidiary 1 and other ?nancial institutions located in the United States, and Euro clearing through Financial Institution 1 subsidiaries and other financial institutions located in Eurozone countries. Between approximately 2010 and 2014, Financial Institution 1 and US. Subsidiary I cleared more than $100 million worth of transactions related to SKYCOM through the United States. In or about 2017', Financial Institution 1 verbally communicated to HUAWEI representatives that it was terminating its banking relationship with HUAWEI. 8. Financial Institution 2, an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a multinational banking and financial services company, which operated subsidiaries throughout the world, including in the United States and in Eurozone countries. Among the services offered by Financial Institution 2 to its clients were U.S.-dollar clearing through a Financial Institution 2 subsidiary and other ?nancial institutions located in the United States, and Euro clearing through Financial Institution 2 subsidiaries and other ?nancial institutions located in Eurozone countries. 9. Financial Institution 3, an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a multinational banking and ?nancial services company, which operated subsidiaries throughout the world, including in the United States and in Eurozone countries. Among the services offered by Financial Institution 3 to its clients were U.S.?dollar clearing through Financial Institution 3 subsidiaries and other ?nancial institutions located in the United States, and Euro clearng through Financial Institution 3 subsidiaries and other ?nancial institutions located in Eurozone countries. 10. Financial Institution 4, an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a multinational banking and ?nancial services company operating subsidiaries throughout the ,world, including in the United States and in Eurozone countries. Among the services offered by Financial Institution 4 to its clients were U.S.?dollar clearing through Financial Institution 4 subsidiaries and other ?nancial institutions located in the United States, and Euro clearing through Financial Institution 4 subsidiaries and other ?nancial institutions located in Eurozone countries. A subsidiary of Financial Institution 4 Subsidiary an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, was a ?nancial institution organized in the United States offering banking and ?nancial services throughout the world. US. Subsidiary 4 offered HUAWEI and its affiliates banking services and cash management services, including for accounts in the United States. The SKYCOM Fraud Scheme 11. Even though the US Department of the Treasury?s Of?ce of Foreign Assets Control?s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations 31 C.F.R. Part 560, prescribed the export ofU.S.?origin goods, technology and services to Iran and the Government of Iran, HUAWEI operated SKYCOM as an unof?cial subsidiary to obtain otherwise prohibited U.S.-origin goods, technology and services, including banking services, for Iran?based business while concealing the link to HUAWEI. HUAWEI could thus attempt to claim ignorance with reSpect to any illegal act committed by SKYCOM on behalf of HUAWEI, including violations of the ITSR and other applicable US. law. In addition, contrary to US. law, SKYCOM, on behalf of HUAWEI, employed in Iran at least one US. citizen (?Employee whose identity is known to the Grand Jury. 12. Since in or about July 2007, HUAWEI repeatedly misrepresented to the US. government and to various victim ?nancial institutions, including Financial Institutions 1, 2, 3 and 4, and their US. and Eurozone subsidiaries and branches (collectively, the I?Victim Institutions? that, although HUAWEI conducted business in Iran, it did so in a manner that did not violate applicable US. law, including the ITSR. In reality, HUAWEI conducted its business in Iran in a manner that violated applicable US. law, which includes the ITSR. I 13. For example, in or about July 2007, agents with the Federal Bureau of 1 Investigation interviewed the founder of HUAWEI whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, in New York, New York. Individual-1 stated, in sum and substance, that he was willing to provide information about HUAWEI. 14. During the interview, amongst other things, Individual-d falsely stated, in substance and in part, that IWAWEI did not conduct any activity in violation of US. export laws and that HUAWEI operated in compliance with all US. export laws. Individual?1 also falsely stated, in substance and in part, that HUAWEI had not dealt directly with any Iranian company. Individual-1 further stated that he believed HUAWEI had. sold I equipment to a third party, possibly in Egypt, which in turn sold the equipment to Iran. 15. Additionally, HUAWEI repeatedly misrepresented to Financial Institution 1 that HUAWEI would not use Financial Institution 1 and its af?liates to process any transactions regarding Iran?based business. In reality, HUAWEI used U.S. Subsidiary and other ?nancial institutions operating in the United States to process US.- dollar clearing transactions involving millions of dollars in furtherance of Iran? based business. Some of these transactions passed through the Eastern District of New York. 16. In or about late 2012 and early 2013, various news organizations, including Reuters, reported that SKYCOM had sold and attempted to sell embargoed origin goods to Iran in violation of U.S. law, and that HUAWEI in fact owned and operated SKYCOM. In December 2012, Reuters published an article purporting to contain a HUAWEI of?cial statement addressing and denying these allegations. In January 2013, published a second article purporting to contain a HUAWEI of?cial statement, again addressing and denying the Iran allegations. The purported statements by HUAWEI in these articles were relied on by the Victim Institutions in determining whether to continue their banking relationships with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries 17. Following publication of the December 2012 and January 2?13 lie?mtg articles, various HUAWEI representatives and employees communicated to the Victim Institutions and to the public that the allegations regarding ownership and control of SKYCOM were false and that, in fact, HUAWEI did comply with applicable US. law, which includes the ITSR. Based in part on these false representations, the Victim Institutions continued their banking relationships with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries and af?liates. 18. For example, in or about June 2013, the defendant WANZHOU MENG requested an in?person meeting with a Financial Institution 1 executive (the ?Financial Institution 1 Executive?), whose identity is known to the Grand Jury. During the meeting, which took place on or about August 22, 2013, NIENG spoke in Chinese, relying in part on a PowerPoint presentation written in Chinese. Upon request by the Financial Institution 1 Executive, MENG arranged for an English?language version of the PowerPoint presentation to be delivered to Financial Institution 1 on or about September 3, 2013. 19. In relevant part, the PowerPoint presentation included numerous misrepresentations regarding ownership and control of SKYCOM and compliance with applicable US. law, including that HUAWEI ?operates in Iran in strict compliance with applicable laws, regulations and sanctions of UN, US and (2) engagement with SKYCOM is normal business cooperation?; (3) the defendant WANZHOU participation on the Board of Directors of SKYCOM was to ?help HUAWEI to better understand ?nancial results and business - performance, and to strengthen and monitor compliance?; and (4) subsidiaries in sensitive countries will not open accounts at [Financial Institution nor have 'business transactions with [Financial Institution These statements were all false. 20. In early 2014, several months after the meeting with Financial Institution 1 Executive, the defendant WANZHOU MENG traveled to the United States, arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport, which is located in the Eastern District of New York. When she entered the United States, MENG was carrying an electronic device that contained a file in unallocated space?indicating that the ?le may have been deleted1 containing the following text! SuggestedTalking Points The core of the suggested talking points regarding Huawei?s operation in Iran comports with the laws, regulations and sanctions as required by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union. The relationship with Skycom is that of normal business cooperation. Through regulated trade organizations and procedures, Huawei requires that Skycom promises to abide by relevant laws and regulations and export controls. Key information 1: In the past ceased to hold Skycom shares 1, With regards to cooperation: Skycoin was established in 1998 and is one of the agents for Huawei products and services. Skycom is mainly an agent for Huawei. Other text in the same file appeared to refer to a document announcing the appointment of Huawei employees that was ?signed by MENG Wanzhou,? the defendant. 21. Based in part on the false representations made by the defendant WANZHOU IVIENG and others, Financial Institution 1 continued its banking relationship with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries and af?liates. 22. Had the Victim Institutions known about repeated violations of the ITSR, they would have reevaluated their banking relationships with HUAWEI, including the provision of U.S.-dollar and Euro clearing services to HUAWEI. IV. Continued Scheme to Defraud Financial Institutions 23. In or about 2017, Financial Institution 1 decided to terminate its global relationship with HUAWEI because of risk concerns regarding business practices. During a series of meetings and communications, Financial Institution 1 repeatedly communicated to HUAWEI that the decision to terminate its banking relationship with HUAWEI had been made by Financial Institution 1 alone, and was not a mutual decision with HUAWEI. 24. After learning of Financial Institution 1?s decision to terminate its I relationship with HUAWEI, HUAIVEI took steps to secure and expand its banking relationships with other ?nancial institutions, including US. Subsidiary 4. In doing so, I-IUAWEI employees made material misrepresentations to U.S. Subsidiary 4, among other ?nancial institutions, regarding the reason for the termination of its relationship with Financial Institution 1 and the party responsible for the termination, claiming that HUAWEI, not Financial Institution 1, had initiated the termination. Speci?cally, in meetings and correspondence with representatives of US. Subsidiary 4, HUAWEI employees,- falsely represented that HUAWEI was considering terminating its relationship with Financial Institution 1 because HUAWEI was dissatis?ed with Financial Institution 1?s level of service. misrepresentation that it had decided to terminate its relationship with Financial Institution 1 was communicated to various components of US. Subsidiary 4, ineludin in New York City. 25. Based in part on these false representations and omissions made by the defendants among other HUAWEI employees, U.S. Subsidiary 4 undertook to expand its banking relationship with HUAWEI 10 and its subsidiaries-and af?liates, and continued to maintain its existing banking relationship with HUAWEI globally, including in the United States. Had the defendants told U.S. Subsidiary 4 the truth about Financial Institution 1?s decision to terminate its relationship with HUAWEI, U.S. Subsidiary 4 would have reevaluated its relationship with HUAWEI and its subsidiaries and af?liates. V. The Scheme to Obstruct Justice 26. In or about-2017, HUAWEI and HUAWEI USA became aware of the US. government?s criminal investigation of HUAWEI and its af?liates. In response to the investigation, HUAWEI and HUAWEI USA made efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about Iran?based business to the PRC, and beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and to destroy and conceal evidence in the United States of Iran-based business. . COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud) 27. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. 28. In or about and between November 200'? and May 2015, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI, SKYCOM and WANZHOU WNG, also known as "Cathy Meng? and ?Sabrina Meng,? together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to execute a scheme and arti?ce to defraud U.S. Subsidiary 1, a ?nancial institution, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of said ?nancial institution, by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent 11 pretenses, representations and promises, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551 e_t COUNT TWO (ConSpiracy to Commit Bank Fraud) 29. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 25 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. .30. In or about and between August 2017 and the date of the ?ling of this Superseding Indictment, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to. execute a scheme and artifice to defraud U.S. Subsidiary 4, a ?nancial institution, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits and other property owned by and under the custody and control of said ?nancial institution, by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551 e_t s_eq.) COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud) 31. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. 32. In or about and between November 2007 and May 2015, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI, SKYCOM and WANZHOU MENG, also known as ?Cathy Meng? 12 and ?Sabrina Meng,? together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Victim Institutions, and to obtain money and property from the Victim Institutions, by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and arti?ce, to transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 3551 _e_t COUNT FOUR (Bank Fraud) 33. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. 34. In or about and between November 2007 and May 2015, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI, SKYCOM and WANZHOU MENG, also known as ?Cathy Meng? and ?Sabrina Meng,? together with others, did knowineg and intentionally execute a scheme and artifice to defraud US. Subsidiary 1, a ?nancial institution, and to obtain moneys, ?inds, credits and other property owned by, and under the custody and control of said ?nancial institution, by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344, 2 and 3551 e_t 13 COUNT FIVE (Bank Fraud) 35. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 25 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. 36. In or about and between August 2017 and the date of the ?ling of this Superseding Indictment, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants others, didknowingly and intentionally execute a scheme and arti?ce to defraud U.S. Subsidiary 4, a ?nancial institution, and to obtain moneys, hands, credits and other property owned by, and under the custody and control of said ?nancial institution, by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344, 2 and 3551 gt COUNT SIX (Wire Fraud) 37. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. 38. In or about and between November 2007 and May 2015, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI, SKYCOM and WANZHOU IVIENG, also known as ?Cathy Meng? and ?Sabrina Meng,? together with others, did knowingly and intentionally devise a scheme and arti?ce to defraud the Victim Institutions, and to obtain money and property from the Victim Institutions, by means of one or more materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and arti?ce, did 14 transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, to wit: the defendants SKYCOM and MENG, together with others, made, and caused to be made, a series of misrepresentations through email communications, written communications otherwise conveyed through the wires, and oral made with knowledge that the oral communications would be memorializcd and subsequently transmitted through the wires, about, among other things, the relationship between HUAWEI and SKYCOM, compliance with US. and UN. laws and regulations, and the kinds of ?nancial transactions in which HUAWEI engaged through the Victim Institutions; and as a result of the misrepresentations, caused a series of wires to be sent by financial institutions from outside of the United States through the United States. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 2 and 3551 e_t geg.) COUNT SEVEN (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States) 39. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 26 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. - 40. In or about and between July 2007 and the date of the ?ling of this Supersedmg Indictment, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM, together with others, did knowingly and conspire to defraud the United States by impairing, impeding, obstructing and defeating, through deceit?rl and dishonest means, the lawful governmental functions and operations of OFAC, an agency of the United States, in the 15 enforcement of economic sanctions laws and regulations administered by that agency and the issuance by that agency of appropriate licenses relating to the provision of ?nancial services. 41. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objects, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAXVEI and together with others, committed and caused to be committed, among others, the following: OVERT ACTS a. On or about July 11, 2007, Individualnl stated to FBI agents that I-IUAWEI did not conduct any activity in violation of U.S. export laws, that operated in compliance with all U.S. export laws, that HUAWEI had not dealt directly with any Iranian comp any and that he believed HUAWEI had sold equipment to a third party, possibly in Egypt, which in turn sold the equipment to Iran. b. On or about September 13, 2012, a Senior, Vice President of HUAWEI testi?ed before U.S. Congress that business in Iran had not ?violated any laws and regulations including sanction-related requirements.? c. On or about September 17, 2012, the Treasurer of HUAWEI met with a principal of U.S. Subsidiary 4, an individual whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, in New York, New York, and informed U.S. Subsidiary 4 that HUAWEI and its global affiliates did not Violate any applicable U.S. law. d. On or about July 24, 2013, SKYCOM caused U.S. Subsidiary 1 to process a U.S.?dollar clearing transaction of $52,791.08. c. On or about July 24, 2013, SKYCOM caused a bank located in the Eastern District of New York (?Bank an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to process a U.S.-dollar clearing transaction of $94,829.82. 16 f. On or about August 20, 2013, SKYCUM caused Bank 1 to process a U.S.?dollar clearing transaction of $14,835.22. g. On or about August 28, 2013, SKYCOM caused Bank 1 to process a U.S.-dollar clearing transaction of $32,663.10. h. On or about April 11, 2014, SKYCOM caused a bank located in the United States (?Bank an entity whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, to process a U.S.-dollar clearing transaction of $118,842.45. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 3551? e_t COUNT EIGHT (Conspiracy to Violate IEEPA) 42. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 are realleged and incorporated as if set forth fully in this paragraph. 43. Through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act the President of the United States was granted authority to address unusual and extraordinary threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. 50 U.S.C. 1701(a). Under EEPA, it was a. crime to willfully Violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation or prohibition issued pursuant to the statute. 50 U.S.C. 1705(a) and 1705(c). 44. To respond to the declaration by the President of a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to IEEPA, which was most recently continued in March 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 11,393 (Mar. 14, 2018)), OFAC issued the ITSR. Absent permission from OFAC in the form of a license, these regulations prohibited, among other things: 17 a. The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply from the United States, or by a US. person, wherever located, of any goods, technology or services to Iran and the Government of Iran (31 CPR. 560.204); b. Any transaction by a U.S. person, wherever located, involving goods, technology or services for exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran (31 C.F.R. 560.206); and c. Any transaction by a U.S. person, or within the United States, that evaded or avoided, had the purpose of evading or avoiding, attempted to violate, or caused a violation of any of the prohibitions in the C.F.R. 560.203). 45-. The ITSR prohibited providing ?nancial services, including U.S. dollar-clearing services, to Iran or the Government of Iran. 31 C.F.R. 560.204, 560.427. In addition, the prohibition against the eXportation, reexportation, sale or supply of services applied to services performed on behalf of a person in Iran or the Government of Iran, or where the bene?t of such services was otherwise received in Iran, if the services were performed in the United States by any person; or outside the United States by a United States person, including an overseas branch of an entity located in the United States. 31 C.F.R. 560.410. 46. In or about and between November 2007 and November 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM, together with others, did knowingly and willfully conspire to cause the export, reexplort, sale and supply, directly and indirectly, of goods, technology and services, to. wit: banking and other ?nancial services from the United States to Iran and the Government of Iran, without having ?rst obtained the required OFAC 18 license, contrary to Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 560.203, 560.204 and 560.206. (Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1705(a), 1705(c) and 1702; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3551 e_t COUNT NTNE (IEEPA Violations) 47. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 48. In or about and between November 2007 and November 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM, together with others, did knowingly and willfully cause the export, reexport, sale and supply, directly and indirectly, of goods, technology and services, to wit: banking and other ?nancial services from the United States to Iran and the Government of Iran, without having ?rst obtained the required OFAC license, contrary to Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Seetions 560.203, 560.204 and 560.206. (Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1705(a), 1705(c) and 1702; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 3551 at am.) I COUNT TEN (Conspiracy to Violate IEEPA) 49. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are reallcged and incorporated as if ?illy set forth in this paragraph. 50. In or about and between 2008 and 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants 19 HUAWEI and SKYCOM, together with others, did knowingly and will?illy conspire to cause the export, recxport, sale and supply, directly and indirectly, of goods, technology and services, to wit: telecommunications services provided by Employee 1, a US. citizen, to Iran and the Government of Iran, without having ?rst obtained the required OFAC license, contrary to Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 560.203, 560.204 and 560.206. (Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1705(a), 1705(c) and 1702; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3551 gt COUNT ELEVEN (IEEPA Violation) . 51. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 52. In or about and between 2008 and 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM, together with others, did knowingly and willfully cause the export, reexport, sale and supply, directly and indirectly, of goods, technology and services, to wit: telecommunications services provided by Employee a US. citizen, to Iran and the Government of Iran, without having ?rst obtained the required OFAC license, contrary to Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 560.203, 560.204 and 560.206. (Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1705(3), 1705(c) and 1702; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2 and 3551 e_t sing.) I COUNT TWELVE (Money Laundering Conspiracy) 53. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 43 through 45 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 20 54. In or about and between November 2007 and November 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI and SKYCOM, together with others, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to transport, transmit and transfer monetary instruments and funds, to wit: wire transfers, from one or more places in the United States to and through one or more places outside the United States and to one or more places in the United States from and through one or more places outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of speci?ed unlawful activity, to wit: conspiracy to violate IEEPA, in violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 1705, all contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A). (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) and 3551 e_t id.) COUNT THIRTEEN (Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice) 55. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through 22 and 26 are realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 56. In or about and between January 2017 and the date of the filing of this Superseding Indictment, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the defendants HUAWEI and HUAWEI USA, together with others, did knowingly, intentionally and conuptly conspire to obstruct, in?uence and impede an of?cial proceeding, to wit: a Federal Grand Jury investigation in the Eastern District of New York, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2). (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(k) and 3551 e_t 21 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX 57. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts One through Six that, upon their conviction of such offenses, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(2), which requires any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses. 58. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants: a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; d. has been substantially diminished in value; or c. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without dif?culty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation. - (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(2) and 982(b)(1); Title 21, United States Code, Section 353(p)) 22 CRIMTNAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNTS EIGHT THROUGH ELEVEN AND THIRTEEN 59. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Counts Eight through Eleven and Thirteen that, upon their conviction of such offenses, the government will seek forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(0), which require any person convicted of such offenses to forfeit any property, real or personal, constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses. 60. If any of the above-described forfeitable'property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants: a. cannot be located upon the escrcise of due diligence; b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (1. has been substantially diminished in value; or c. has been cornmingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation. (Title 18, United States Code, Section Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p); Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)) 23 CRIMINAL ORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT TWELVE 61. The United States hereby gives notice to the defendants charged in Count Twelve that, upon their conviction of such offense, the government will seelt forfeiture in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), which requires any person convicted of such offense to forfeit any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property. 62. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants: a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (1. has been substantially diminished in value; or c. has been commingied with other property which cannot be divided without dif?culty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(1)), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1), to seek forfeiture of any 24 other property of the defendants up to the value of the forfeitable property described in this forfeiture allegation. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(1) and 982(b)(1); Title 2?1 United States Code, Section 853(1)? A TRUE BILL FOREPERSON RICHARD P. DONOGP UNITED STATES ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEBORAH L. CONNOR CHIEF MONEY LAUNDERING AND ASSET RECOVERY SECTION CRIMINAL DIVISION US. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JAY I. BRATT CHIEF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND EXPORT CONTROL SECTION NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE F. a: 2017a05903 FORM man-34 ND 111x. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN Diairicr YORK DIVISION THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO, LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC, SKYCOM TECH CO. LTD, WANZHOU MENG, also known as ?Cathy Meng? and ?Sabrina Meng," Defendants. SUPERSEDING (T. 18, U-S.C., 371, 982(a)(1), 982(a)(2), 982(b)(1)1343, 1344, 1349, 1512(k), 1955(h), 2 and 3551 gt T. 21, U.S.C., 853(1)); T. 28, use, 24610:); T, 50, U.S.C., 1702, 1705(a) and 170502)) A We bill. Alexander A. Salomon, David K. Kessler, Julia Nestor, and Sarah Evans, Assistant US. Attamqu (718) 254-7000