Score:   1
Docket Number:   CD-CA  2:19-cr-00193
Case Name:   USA v. Chu
  Press Releases:
          LOS ANGELES – A federal grand jury returned an indictment yesterday against two corporate executives for their roles in a scheme involving defective and dangerous consumer products, the Department of Justice announced.

          Simon Chu, 63, of Chino Hills, California, and Charley Loh, 60, of Arcadia, California, were charged with a multiple-object conspiracy to commit wire fraud, to fail to furnish information under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), and to defraud the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In addition to the conspiracy charge, the indictment also charges both defendants with one count of wire fraud and one count of failure to furnish information under the CPSA.

          According to the indictment, Simon Chu was part owner and chief administrative officer of two corporations in City of Industry, California, that imported, distributed, and sold to retailers for consumer purchase dehumidifiers that were made in China. The indictment further states that Loh was part owner and chief executive officer of the same two corporations.

          The Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers, importers, and distributors of consumer products to report “immediately” to the CPSC information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. This duty also applies to the individual directors, officers, and agents of those companies. The indictment alleges that as early as September 2012, Chu, Loh, and their companies received multiple reports that their Chinese dehumidifiers were defective, dangerous, and could catch fire. They also allegedly knew that they were required to report this product safety information to the CPSC immediately. Despite their knowledge of consumer complaints of dehumidifier fires and test results showing problems with the dehumidifiers, the indictment alleges that Chu and Loh failed to disclose their dehumidifiers’ defects and hazards for at least six months while they continued to sell their products to retailers for resale to consumers.

          “The importation, distribution, and sale of defective consumer products have real-world consequences, including serious injury or death,” said Nicola T. Hanna, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. “This indictment sends a clear message: If you plan to profit from selling defective products, you should also plan to face justice.”

          “When corporate executives delay reporting defective consumer products to the CPSC, it puts consumers at needless risk for injury or even death,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “This prosecution reflects the Department of Justice’s commitment to enforcing product safety laws that protect consumers from product hazards. We will seek to hold accountable corporate executives who value profits over the safety of consumers by failing to immediately report their dangerous products.”

          The indictment further alleges that as part of their scheme, Chu and Loh deliberately withheld information about the defective and dangerous Chinese dehumidifiers from the retail companies that bought the dehumidifiers; the insurance companies that paid for damage caused by the fires resulting from the dehumidifiers; and the CPSC. Loh and Chu allegedly continued to sell the Chinese dehumidifiers to retailers with false certifications that the products met safety standards; caused a company employee to solicit materials that would falsely portray to an insurance company that the dehumidifiers were safe and not defective; and sent an untimely report to the CPSC that falsely stated that the dehumidifiers were not defective or hazardous.

          “Inferior goods represent a serious threat to the integrity of the consumer product supply chain that the public needs to rely on with confidence,” said Joseph Macias, Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Los Angeles. “Dangerous products like these pose a serious threat to consumers who mistakenly assume the products are safe and reliable. HSI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to aggressively target and investigate those who would do harm to the public safety of our citizens.”

          According to the indictment, Chu, Loh, and their companies continued to sell the defective and dangerous dehumidifiers through April 2013, and sought to avoid, reduce, and delay the costs of recalling the products. If convicted, Loh and Chu face a term of up to five years in prison for each of the conspiracy and the failure to furnish information counts. They both face up to 20 years’ imprisonment for the wire fraud charge. If convicted, the defendants are also subject to forfeiture and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss for each count.

          In September 2013, the CPSC announced a recall of 2.2 million dehumidifiers, including Chinese dehumidifiers allegedly sold by Loh’s and Chu’s companies between September 2012 and April 2013.

          An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          This case is being prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel Allan Gordus and Trial Attorney Natalie Sanders of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant United States Attorneys Joseph Johns and Dennis Mitchell of the Central District of California, with the assistance of Patricia Vieira of the CPSC Office of General Counsel. The case was investigated by U.S. Homeland Security Investigations in the Department of Homeland Security.

          Additional information about the Consumer Protection Branch and its enforcement efforts may be found at http://www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch. For more information about the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, visit its website at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11UXzqke5GTFrcZeaXZc2ZY2jxm9dm4GJ-i1AmNbgQnI
  Last Updated: 2024-04-10 22:01:32 UTC
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: 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 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 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 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E