LOS ANGELES – A federal grand jury today returned a 19-count felony indictment charging two men with participating in a scheme where nine residential homes in San Bernardino County were purchased, mostly with money wired from China, and then the homes were converted into illegal marijuana grow houses.
Lin Li, a.k.a. Aaron Li, 37, of Chino, the U.S.-based coordinator of the alleged scheme, and Jimmy Yu, 44, of Pasadena, an alleged grow house caretaker, have been charged with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and to maintain a drug-involved premises. Li and Yu are scheduled to be arraigned on the charges on April 4 in United States District Court.
According to the indictment, unindicted co-conspirators wired millions of dollars from China to bank accounts controlled by Li, a real estate agent. Li allegedly then used straw buyers, shell companies, straw tenants, fake utility subscribers, and phony leases to disguise the properties’ illegal purpose of housing commercial marijuana grows.
For example, in relation to one of the homes, an affidavit filed with a criminal complaint in the case describes how a straw buyer purchased a Chino Hills residence for $782,000 in 2015. The straw buyer was named as chief executive officer of a Li-established limited liability company, and that LLC received a $1 million wire transfer from a Hong Kong-based investment group. The vast majority of the purchase price of the house was then wired from the LLC’s bank account, the affidavit states. Li allegedly received a commission check as the realtor for the sale and also served as the home’s property manager. In early 2018, a neighbor complained to law enforcement about the “overwhelming” smell of marijuana coming from the Chino Hills home and how no one seemed to live there, court papers state.
Li also has been charged with nine counts of knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute marijuana plants – 4,342 marijuana plants in total – and nine counts of knowingly maintaining a place for the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana. Yu faces five counts of possession with intent to distribute marijuana plants and five counts of maintaining a place for the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana. Ben Chen, 42, of Alhambra, who also allegedly took care of the marijuana grows, is being charged separately. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of eight properties – five in Chino, two in Chino Hills, and one in Ontario – that allegedly were used in the marijuana grow house scheme.
If convicted, each defendant faces a statutory maximum sentence of life in federal prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This matter is the result of a 14-month investigation initiated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department which later was joined by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Carley Palmer of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Section and Jonathan Galatzan of the Asset Forfeiture Section.
LOS ANGELES – Three men were arrested this morning on federal charges alleging they took part in a scheme that used millions of dollars wired from China to purchase seven residential homes in San Bernardino County that were converted into illegal marijuana grow houses.
The three defendants arrested today pursuant to a federal criminal complaint are:
Lin Li, a.k.a. Aaron Li, 37, of Chino, the U.S.-based coordinator of the alleged scheme;
Ben Chen, 42, of Alhambra, who allegedly took care of the marijuana grows; and
Jimmy Yu, 44, of Pasadena, a second alleged grow house caretaker.
The complaint charges the three defendants with one count of manufacturing, distributing, and possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana. The three men are expected to make their initial appearances this afternoon in United States District Court in Los Angeles.
In conjunction with the arrests, law enforcement executed search warrants at Li’s home and seven marijuana grow houses in Chino, Ontario and Chino Hills. As a result of the searches, authorities seized approximately 1,650 marijuana plants from several grow houses, as well as cash at Li’s house currently estimated to be at least $80,000.
Today’s takedown is the result of a 14-month investigation that was initiated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and soon after was joined by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
In relation to the criminal charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in coordination with the HSI’s Asset Identification and Removal Group, has begun the process to forfeit the seven homes where marijuana was being grown. The properties are cumulatively worth more than $5 million.
According to a 120-page affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Li, a real estate agent, orchestrated a scheme that purchased residential properties through transactions designed to conceal the homes’ true owners, converted the houses to marijuana grow operations, and trafficked marijuana, with most of the processed marijuana being sold to customers in California and Nevada.
After receiving financing from sources in China, Li “acted as the realtor for the purchase of [seven residences], which he then converted into illegal marijuana grow houses,” the affidavit states. “Li coordinated the purchase of the properties, managed them after purchase, paid their utilities and taxes, and established shell companies for the purpose of managing the properties’ finances.”
Investigators believe Li attempted to distance himself from the conspiracy by using Chen and Yu to manage day-to-day operations at the grow houses, to help with out-of-state distribution of the marijuana, and to return marijuana sale proceeds. Li also used bypasses to physically divert electricity directly from power lines, thus stealing power from the electric companies, hiding the grow houses’ high power usage from law enforcement, and creating fire risks in neighborhoods. According to the affidavit, Li’s attempts to insulate himself from culpability went as far as creating fake leases for some of the properties, documents that included fake tenants, forged electronic signatures, and special clauses that purported to prohibit the fake tenants from cultivating marijuana at the homes.
“In states that have decriminalized marijuana, we have seen an influx of foreign money used to establish grow operations, with much of the marijuana being destined for out-of-state consumers,” said United States Attorney Nick Hanna. “By establishing illegal drug operations in residential neighborhoods, the defendants increased the risks to law-abiding homeowners, caused neighborhood blight, and stole power from utilities.”
“HSI, together with our law enforcement partners, will continue to target transnational criminal organizations that think they can use our neighborhoods as locations for criminal activity,” said Joseph Macias, Special Agent in Charge for HSI Los Angeles. “Today’s arrests and searches, coordinated jointly with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department and the U.S. Attorney’s office, are the next step in shutting down criminals who would trash our communities for their own greed.”
“Deputies and detectives from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department assisted HSI with multiple narcotic search warrants. We assist our federal law enforcement partners regularly when requested,” said Sheriff John McMahon. “Our county does not support criminal operations like this and will make every effort to eliminate these threats to our local communities.”
According to the affidavit, down payments for most of the grow houses were traced back to wire transfers from China, and several of the properties were bought by “straw buyers” who actually had nothing to do with the transaction. The titles for most of the homes were transferred, shortly after they were purchased, to limited liability companies associated with Li, who served as the homes’ property manager.
For example, in relation to one of the homes, the affidavit describes how a straw buyer purchased a Chino Hills residence in 2015 for $782,000. The purported buyer was named as chief executive officer of an LLC that Li had established, and that LLC received a $1 million wire transfer from a Hong Kong-based investment group. The vast majority of the purchase price of the house was then wired from the LLC’s bank account. Li received a commission check as the realtor for the sale and also served as the home’s property manager, the affidavit alleges. In early 2018, a neighbor complained to law enforcement about the “overwhelming” smell of marijuana coming from the Chino Hills home and how no one seemed to live there, court papers state.
The total purchase price for the seven homes, which were bought between July 2013 and September 2017, was $4,067,882, according to the affidavit.
In June 2018, deputies and HSI agents executed a search warrant and seized 1,038 marijuana plants at an eighth grow house in Chino Hills believed to be part of the same criminal scheme.
A complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This matter is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Carley Palmer of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Section and Jonathan Galatzan of the Asset Forfeiture Section.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year