The Indictment Said He Signed a Thousand Talents Contract in 2012

DOCUMENTED

Documented (charging instrument): the June 9, 2020, indictment in United States v. Lieber charged that on or about April 24, 2018, Lieber told Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigators he was never asked to participate in China’s Thousand Talents Program and that he “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him, when in fact representatives of Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) had asked him to participate and, in or about July 2012, he signed a three-year contract with WUT entitled “Employment Contract of ‘One Thousand Talent’ High Level Foreign Expert.”

The December 21, 2021, Department of Justice conviction release states that, unbeknownst to Harvard, Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at WUT and later a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from at least 2012 through 2015, and that the Lieber Research Group received more than $15 million in federal research grants between 2008 and 2019. The same release describes contract terms the government alleged: salary of up to $50,000 per month, living expenses of up to $150,000, and more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT.

Participation in Thousand Talents or a WUT affiliation was not itself the crime of conviction. The jury convicted on false statements, false returns, and FBAR failures. See the conviction post.

Sources

Indictment PDF, United States v. Lieber, June 9, 2020 (DOJ hosted). www.justice.gov (primary)

DOJ OPA, “Harvard University Professor Convicted of Making False Statements and Tax Offenses,” 2021-12-21. www.justice.gov (primary)

CourtListener docket, United States v. Lieber, 1:20-cr-10111 (D. Mass.). www.courtlistener.com (primary)

National Review, “Charles Lieber Case: Why American Scientists Take Chinese Money,” 2020-02 (commentary). www.nationalreview.com (commentary)

Opinion

The following is commentary by this site. It is not a finding of fact and not a legal conclusion.

Compiler take

China wrote a contract. He signed it. Then, the indictment says, he told investigators he had not been asked. The statute is about the statement, not the lab coat.