Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Counterfeit Electronics
⚖️ I. Introduction
Counterfeit electronics are fake or unauthorized copies of electronic components (e.g., semiconductors, microchips, circuit boards) that are fraudulently represented as genuine products of a legitimate manufacturer. They threaten:
National security (military or aerospace systems compromised)
Consumer safety (medical, automotive electronics)
Economic interests (IP theft, lost revenues)
Supply chain integrity
Prosecutions usually proceed under U.S. federal statutes such as:
18 U.S.C. § 2320 – Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services
18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire fraud
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud
18 U.S.C. § 545 – Smuggling goods into the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False statements
Trademark Act (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, § 1125) – Civil counterpart to §2320
🧩 II. Notable Federal Cases
Below are detailed case discussions showing how counterfeit electronics crimes are prosecuted and punished.
1. United States v. Shih (U.S. District Court, C.D. California, 2019)
Facts:
Shih and his co-conspirators imported counterfeit semiconductors from China and resold them to U.S. defense contractors. The chips were falsely marked as produced by legitimate manufacturers like Xilinx and Intel.
Charges:
Conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
Trafficking in counterfeit goods (18 U.S.C. § 2320)
Smuggling (18 U.S.C. § 545)
Outcome:
Shih was convicted and sentenced to over 7 years in prison. The court emphasized that counterfeit microchips endangered national defense systems because the fake parts could fail in critical military equipment.
Significance:
Demonstrated how counterfeit electronics implicate national security risks.
Highlighted coordination between the Department of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Reinforced that “knowledge” of counterfeit nature is a key element of §2320.
2. United States v. Chowdhury (N.D. Texas, 2014)
Facts:
Mohammad Chowdhury and others sold counterfeit integrated circuits (ICs) falsely labeled as genuine Texas Instruments and Motorola parts. The defendants imported these from China and resold them through online platforms.
Charges:
Trafficking in counterfeit goods (§2320)
Mail and wire fraud (§1341, §1343)
Outcome:
Chowdhury was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment and ordered to forfeit over $250,000 in profits. The government proved intent by showing that defendants deliberately removed identifying marks and re-labeled parts.
Significance:
Clarified evidentiary standards: even if a buyer is unaware, seller’s intent governs the criminal liability.
Shows how supply chain manipulation and online resale are central to modern counterfeit crimes.
3. United States v. Kuo (E.D. California, 2012)
Facts:
Kuo and associates operated “J.J. Electronics” importing counterfeit microchips from China, marked as parts from Microchip Technology Inc. and National Semiconductor. Some parts were destined for U.S. Navy systems.
Charges:
Conspiracy to traffic counterfeit goods (§371, §2320)
Smuggling (§545)
Trafficking in counterfeit military goods (§2320(a)(3))
Outcome:
Kuo was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment and over $200,000 restitution.
The court found aggravating circumstances since the parts were used in military applications.
Significance:
First major application of §2320(a)(3), added by the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, targeting counterfeit goods “intended for military use.”
Reinforced national defense as an aggravating factor for sentencing.
4. United States v. Fan (S.D. Florida, 2016)
Facts:
Defendant Fan shipped counterfeit Cisco network components from China to the U.S., disguising them as “refurbished” items. The products often failed testing and were sold to public institutions.
Charges:
Wire fraud (§1343)
Trafficking in counterfeit goods (§2320)
Smuggling (§545)
Outcome:
Fan received 6½ years imprisonment and forfeiture of millions in assets. Evidence showed deliberate cover-up — defendants even used fake Cisco holograms and documentation.
Significance:
Illustrates corporate identity fraud within tech components.
Demonstrates that counterfeiting of networking gear (routers, switches) is treated with the same severity as microchips.
Cited in later DOJ reports as a model for cross-border enforcement.
5. United States v. Upchurch (S.D. Texas, 2017)
Facts:
Upchurch’s company resold counterfeit semiconductors imported from Hong Kong as “military-grade” components. Evidence showed he ignored repeated warnings from suppliers about authenticity concerns.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (§1349)
Trafficking in counterfeit military goods (§2320(a)(3))
False statements to federal investigators (§1001)
Outcome:
Convicted on all counts; sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized reckless disregard for truth as equivalent to knowing conduct.
Significance:
Expanded the interpretation of “knowledge” under §2320 to include willful blindness.
Established that fake certifications and testing reports can be used as proof of intent.
6. United States v. Khan (D. Arizona, 2020)
Facts:
Defendant Khan ran a small distribution business supplying counterfeit microcontrollers labeled as Texas Instruments and Microchip products. They were used in medical and automotive applications.
Charges:
Trafficking in counterfeit goods (§2320)
Mail fraud (§1341)
Outcome:
Khan was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment and forfeiture of all profits.
The court highlighted the public safety risk, since counterfeit parts in medical devices can cause patient harm.
Significance:
Recognized consumer safety as a sentencing enhancement factor.
Reinforced that the harm is not only economic but life-threatening.
⚖️ III. Legal Themes and Enforcement Trends
National Security & Military Use
– Courts impose heavier penalties for counterfeit parts in defense or aerospace supply chains.
Mens Rea (Intent)
– Knowledge or willful blindness to the counterfeit nature satisfies the intent requirement.
Forfeiture & Restitution
– Courts routinely order forfeiture of proceeds and restitution to defrauded buyers.
Inter-Agency Coordination
– Enforcement involves ICE-HSI, DOJ, DoD, FBI, and CBP.
Corporate Responsibility
– Companies are expected to verify suppliers; negligent procurement can lead to administrative sanctions even if not criminally prosecuted.
🧾 IV. Conclusion
Prosecution of counterfeit electronics crimes blends intellectual property law, fraud, and national security regulation.
Courts treat these offenses as serious felonies because they endanger lives, undermine technological trust, and threaten defense readiness.
Recent cases show that federal prosecutors pursue both direct counterfeiters and reckless distributors, setting strong deterrent precedents.
RELATED Blog
comments