Thank you, @BobbyChesney, for pointing to this affidavit against Professor Gang Chen, of MIT, prepared by the Special Agent Matthew McCarthy, of the Department of Homeland Security.

https://www.wwlp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/01/Chen-Gang-criminal-complaint.pdf

In this thread, this document will be called

The McCarthy Document. https://twitter.com/BobbyChesney/status/1350460207177084929

The McCarthy Document is the basis for the arrest of Professor Gang Chen.

This arrest is an act of a Government against an Individual.

The power asymmetry between a government and an individual is ENORMOUS.

We the people should do everything to ensure no abuse of power.

I have read The McCarthy Document several times from beginning to end.

If I were a reviewer of this paper, I would indicate Major Revision. The author may have something to say, but many statements are puzzling.

For such a consequential paper, let us all scrutinize it.

The McCarthy Document is not rocket science. Much of it is written in plain English, and is readable to everyone.

We the people are reviewers.

To facilitate this collective review, I post each piece of the McCarthy Document in a tweet.

Please comment and forward to others.

Here comes the cover page of

The McCarthy Document

1. Special Agent McCarthy states his qualifications.

2. Special Agent McCarthy further states his qualifications.

3. After a brief introduction of Professor Gang Chen, McCarthy states the charge "for several violations of federal law, including wire fraud..."

4. A summary of findings made by the Special Agent McCarthy:

-overseas expert
-review expert
-failed to disclose other appointments...
-failed to disclose at least one PRC-based account

All these findings will be detailed later in the McCarthy Document.

5. McCarthy claims that Gang Chen "devis[ed] a scheme to defraud" DOE, and "willfully fail[ed] to file" an FBAR.

The Government is required to prove that Chen had a specific intent to defraud.

Where is the evidence?

See DOJ on wire fraud: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud

6. On the contrary, The McCarthy Document establishes a lack of willful intent.

Chen failed to file the FBAR for a bank account in 2018, but did file for the same account in other years. See para. 38 and 42.

These findings indicate an honest mistake, rather than willful action.

7. McCarthy states his sources, and singles out a particular source: "CHEN's electronic devices."

How did McCarthy get hold of Chen's electronic devices?

Para 25-27 states that the devices were seized at Logan Airport, on 22 January 2020, without warrant.

8. The law sets a high bar for the charge of wire fraud.

See DOJ on elements of wire fraud: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud

9. As we noted on paragraph 6:

The McCarthy Document illustrates a LACK of willful intent.

Chen failed to file the FBAR for a bank account in 2018, but did file for the same account in other years. See para. 38 and 42.

10. McCarthy repeats himself. No new information is added.

I repeat myself: see DOJ on elements of wire fraud. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud

Also see Wikipedia on mail and wire fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud

11-14. The McCarthy Document reminds us of a fact: Professor Gang Chen, of @MIT, is an exceptionally distinguished researcher.

I add

-Professor Gang Chen's papers are highly cited: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YLB6tnwAAAAJ&hl=en

-He is a member of the US National Academy of Engineering @theNAEng

15. We are reminded that Professor Chen is an exceptional fundraiser.

Context:

-All research funding goes through the University.

-Funding does NOT enrich the researcher.

-The SUSTech funding is NOT for his own research group, but for a Center @MIT. https://news.mit.edu/2018/centers-mechanical-engineering-research-education-mit-sustech-0619

16. Professor Chen serves on an advisory committee of a young university.

Context:

-Distinguished researchers are called to serve on committees, with and without pay.

-The role on these committees is usually unrelated to their research.

17. McCarthy reads Professor Chen's emails, WeChat messages, and documents on his computer, and selects items to substantiate that Chen has and undisclosed interactions with China. McCarthy will detail these instances in later paragraphs.

18. McCarthy reminds us that China also wishes to invest in science, and that Professor Chen is a researcher in nanotechnology.

Context
-Researchers publish papers in international journals, for all to read. Their work is not exclusive to any country.

19. McCarthy reads an email. Chen notes to himself that China wants to invest in science, and brainstorms ways to promote collaboration between MIT and China.

Why is this email relevant?

Wishing to promote scientific collaboration is not a crime and is unrelated to the charges.

20. i. McCarthy repeats himself, but then makes a crucial mistake.

I repeat myself. The funding raised from SUSTech is NOT for his own research group, but is for a Center @MIT, on behalf of MIT, and signed by the MIT officials.

See announcement online https://news.mit.edu/2018/centers-mechanical-engineering-research-education-mit-sustech-0619

20.ii. McCarthy believes Chen reviewed proposals for the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Context
-A US researcher is routinely invited to peer-review proposals for agencies in Europe, Asia, etc.
-Typical pay is 0, or much lower than a professor's hourly rate.

20.iii. Professor Chen serves as a "ZDG Overseas Strategic Scientist". ZDG is an organization funded by Beijing Municipal Government.

20.iv. Chen was appointed as a consultant and advisor to the "Outstanding Talent Plan" at the Chongqing No. 2 Foreign Language School.

McCarthy calls it "a state-owned school managed by local PRC government officials".

In the US, we call this a "public high school".

21. Professor Chen became a "4th Overseas Expert Consultant".

The McCarthy does not hide a fact: he picks Chen's interactions with China and with China alone.

An active researcher, Chen interacts with other countries.

Does the McCarthy Document cherry-pick evidence?

22. CHEN recommended several students to receive the “Chinese Government Award for Outstanding Students Abroad.”

Context
-A professor constantly recommends people for jobs and awards.
-If McCarthy reports all the recommendations on Chen's devices, he will write a thick book!

23. Professor Chen receives more awards. One award "permitted him to establish a thermal energy storage company in Wuhan."

Then McCarthy says, "Based upon the investigation to date, I am not aware of any records indicating that CHEN, in fact, established this company."

24. "between 2016 and 2019, CHEN made nineteen trips to the PRC and spent a total of approximately 188 days in the PRC."

Remember the SUSTech collaboration signed by the MIT officials?

How many days did Chen travel to other centuries?

Context
Researchers travel a lot.

25-27.

22 Jan 2020, at Logan Airport, Chen's devices were "detained".

8 Mar 2020, "the Government applied for, and obtained, a Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 search warrant."

18 Mar 2020, McCarthy "applied for and obtained a search warrant for the contents of CHEN’s electronic devices."

28. Professor Chen submitted a proposal to DOE.

"...grant proposals are officially submitted by a researcher’s institution to the federal funding agency. If the grant is approved, the federal agency disburses the money to the institution named in the grant application."

29. In submitting a proposal to DOE, the PI must state conflict of interest, and fill various forms. This para provides this background, and does not mention Professor Chen.

Context
-In recent years, COI report has been changing and confusing.

30. McCarthy believes "that CHEN devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud DOE".

The basis for his belief is a list of advisory positions not disclosed in a DOE form.

Even with access to Chen's private communications, he cannot find actual evidence of any intent.

30.a. The presumption should be that this nondisclosure is an honest mistake, not a scheme to defraud.

Disclosure requirements are complicated, and advisory positions are often explicitly *excluded* from them. See the NSF guidelines: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappg18_1/pappg_9.jsp

31. McCarthy states "CHEN also hid most of these affiliations from MIT."

Context:
Professors are required to disclose positions involving payment or substantial time commitment. No evidence is provided that the affiliations listed meet those thresholds.

32. McCarthy asserts that DOE would have rejected or inquired further had they known about these advisory positions.

This assertion is not backed by evidence. Context:
- Almost all professors have advisory positions, and get government funding without issue.

33. McCarthy finds another form where "CHEN failed to disclose" positions that "appear to have entitled CHEN to cash payments".

See my commentary on paragraphs 30–32.

34. Another progress report.

35. McCarthy finds that Professor Chen writes papers with people outside his group.

Context:
Co-authorship on a paper is often serendipitous. Co-authorship does not mean transfer of funding between research groups.

36. McCarthy claims that had DOE learned about this co-authorship, they would have reconsidered their grant.

Let's hear from @doescience. The idea that co-authorship would affect funding decisions would surprise most researchers.

37. McCarthy explains how FBAR works.

This paragraph does not mention Professor Gang Chen.

38. McCarthy finds that Professor Chen failed to file FBAR for the tax year 2018, but did file for the tax years 2012 and 2013.

As noted in my comments on Para 6, these findings indicate a LACK of willful intent.

Rather, these findings indicate an honest mistake.

39. McCarthy finds the evidence that Professor Gang Chen should file the FBAR for the tax year 2018, but did not.

40. Professor Chen indicated on his 2014 and 2015 Schedule B that he was required to file FBAR, but he did not.

41. Chen indicated on his 2017 and 2018 Schedule B that he was not required to file FBAR.

McCarthy "believes these answers were false." He provides evidence for 2018, but not for 2017.

Lawyers, please illuminate how serious such an offense is, if proven true.

42. McCarthy reports that Chen filed FBAR for the tax year 2019. The deadline for filing was 15 April 2020, but Chen filed on 23 June 2020.

Lawyers, how serious an offense is this late filing?

McCarthy says again that Chen did not file FBAR for the tax year 2018.

43. The criminal complaint consists of three offenses:

A. Wire fraud
B. Failing to File FBAR
C. Making False Statements to DOE

Evidence for B rests on not filing FBAR for tax year 2018.

Do you find evidence for A and C?

This concludes my study notes.

I hope to see yours.