Skip to main content

Chinese honey importer arrested for allegedly evading US import duties

CHICAGO - A Chinese business agent for several honey import companies was arrested in Los Angeles Tuesday on federal charges filed in Chicago for allegedly conspiring to illegally import Chinese-origin honey that was falsely identified to avoid U.S. anti-dumping duties. The charges resulted from an investigation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Shu Bei Yuan, 44, was arrested in Los Angeles Feb. 15 for allegedly conspiring between 2004 and 2006 to illegally import Chinese-origin honey that was falsely identified as originating in South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand to avoid U.S. antidumping duties. Yuan appeared late Wednesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Yuan, aka "Kathy Yuan," of the Republic of China, was an employee of Blue Action Enterprise Inc., a California-based honey import company. She was also employed at other related companies - including 7 Tiger Enterprises Inc. and Honey World Enterprise Inc., which are now defunct - which she allegedly used to fraudulently import Chinese-origin honey into the United States.

According to the indictment, Yuan worked with Hung Ta Fan, aka Michael Fan, who owned and operated Blue Action, 7 Tiger, and Honey World, to fraudulently import Chinese honey into the United States. Fan was arrested on April 1, 2010. He pleaded guilty in federal district court in Chicago in August 2010 to conspiring to illegally import Chinese honey to avoid more than $5 million in U.S. anti-dumping duties. Fan was sentenced to 30 months in prison in November 2010.

Between March 2005 and June 2006, the indictment alleges that Yuan and others allegedly caused Blue Action and 7 Tiger to fraudulently import about six shipments of Chinese honey falsely declared as originating in South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. The six honey shipments had a total declared value of about $290,464, and avoided anti-dumping duties applicable to Chinese honey totaling about $533,872. In total, the indictment charges Yuan with five criminal counts.

"Ms. Yuan allegedly mislabeled Chinese honey shipments to avoid paying import tariffs, in essence defrauding the U.S. government of hundreds of thousands of dollars," said Gary Hartwig. "The stability of our domestic honey industry is potentially threatened when importers illegally dump low-cost Chinese honey into the U.S. marketplace. ICE HSI will continue to aggressively investigate importing schemes that circumvent government regulations and put law-abiding businesses at a disadvantage."

According to the indictment, the charges against Yuan relate to an ongoing investigation of the honey importing practices of Alfred L. Wolff Inc. (ALW), and other corporate affiliates of Wolff & Olsen, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, including ALW Germany, ALW Honey, ALW Beijing, and ALW Hong Kong. In September 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in Chicago indicted 10 ALW executives and five ALW companies in an $80 million honey fraud importation ring. In total, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago has charged 20 individuals and companies following the honey-related investigations.

In December 2001, the U.S. Commerce Department determined that Chinese honey was being sold in the United States at artificially low prices and imposed anti-dumping duties. Between June 2004 and October 2005 anti-dumping duties on Chinese-origin honey was about 183 percent. In June 2006, the rate changed to about 212 percent. However, honey originating in South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand was not subject to any anti-dumping duties.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew S. Boutros and William R. Hogan Jr., Northern District of Illinois, are prosecuting this case.

If convicted, the most serious charge in the indictment carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The Court, however, determines a reasonable sentence to be imposed under the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

The public is reminded that a complaint contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...