Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00882
Case Name:   USA v. Kim
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-In-Charge for the New York Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), and Timothy W. Dumas, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (“DSS”) of the U.S. Department of State, announced today that KWANG KYU KIM, a/k/a “Kevin,” HYUN KYUNG HAN, a/k/a “Jay Hee,” HONG NAE YI, a/k/a “Diane Yi,” BEIRNE LOWRY, a/k/a “Michael,” TIEN CHIH WANG, and ZHENGYI LU, a/k/a “Allen,” were charged with money laundering and conspiring to commit money laundering in connection with a scheme to provide financing and other support services to brothels in the New York metropolitan area.  The defendants were arrested this morning and were presented before a U.S. Magistrate judge in federal court in Manhattan this afternoon.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “These individuals allegedly offered support to independent owners of illegal brothels in the form of financing, website maintenance, and other administrative assistance to help the brothels function.  By allegedly offering their support, they contributed to the commercial sex industry, an industry notorious for heinous victimization of young women.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “As alleged in the complaint, the suspects thought they could hide their crimes by laundering their illicit proceeds using money orders and other financial instruments; but their tricks were uncovered when they underestimated the resolve of law enforcement to follow the trail of money no matter where it leads.  Postal Inspectors and their law enforcement partners are doing their part to, ‘turn off the red light,’ on the sex trafficking trade.”

DSS Special Agent in Charge Timothy W. Dumas said:  “DSS continues to disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations seeking to profit from the entry and illicit activities of vulnerable foreign nationals.  This investigation demonstrates the global reach of the Diplomatic Security Service.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint unsealed today[1]:       

Since 2012, the Diplomatic Security Service, United States Postal Inspection Service, United States Customs and Border Protection, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York have been investigating money laundering in connection with a network of Korean brothels that are located in the New York metropolitan area.

These brothels, which are independently owned and operated, receive financing and advertising from common sources.  KWANG KYU KIM, a/k/a “Kevin,” HYUN KYUNG HAN, a/k/a “Jay Hee,” and HONG NAE YI, a/k/a “Diane Yi,” provide financing for several brothels in Manhattan, including by issuing loans with high interest rates to Korean brothel owners and employees.  KIM and YI also operate rotating credit associations in which individuals, who are often involved in the commercial sex industry, contribute a fixed amount each month and then receive the lump sum on a rotating basis.  KIM, HAN, and YI have collectively provided or assisted in providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance new and existing brothels in Manhattan.

BEIRNE LOWRY, a/k/a “Michael,” TIEN CHIH WANG, and ZHENGYI LU, a/k/a “Allen,” provide advertising services to Korean brothels in Manhattan.  LOWRY, WANG, and LU create and maintain individual websites for brothels, which include sexually suggestive photographs and coded language for specific commercial sex activities.  LOWRY also registered and promoted a website that aggregated information and advertising for brothels in the New York metropolitan area.  WANG and LU further coordinated online reviews for the brothels’ commercial sex services and facilitated the brothels’ purchase of commercial sex advertisements on third-party websites. 

 *          *          *

The defendants, KWANG KYU KIM, a/k/a “Kevin,” 62, of Queens, New York, HYUN KYUNG HAN, a/k/a “Jay Hee,” 49, of Queens, New York, HONG NAE YI, a/k/a “Diane Yi,” 59, of Queens, New York, BEIRNE LOWRY, a/k/a “Michael,” 59, of Manhattan, New York, TIEN CHIH WANG, 44, of Queens, New York, and ZHENGYI LU, a/k/a “Allen,” 35, of Queens, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiring to commit money laundering and one count of committing money laundering.  Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Nathan Rehn, Danielle Sassoon, and Elinor Tarlow are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZNb1LvW7zetz8R0OeA89-N5kBbfj4vFddZ2z_1pqxNE
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 14:30:20 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: 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 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
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-mj-08695
Case Name:   USA v. Kim et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-In-Charge for the New York Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), and Timothy W. Dumas, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (“DSS”) of the U.S. Department of State, announced today that KWANG KYU KIM, a/k/a “Kevin,” HYUN KYUNG HAN, a/k/a “Jay Hee,” HONG NAE YI, a/k/a “Diane Yi,” BEIRNE LOWRY, a/k/a “Michael,” TIEN CHIH WANG, and ZHENGYI LU, a/k/a “Allen,” were charged with money laundering and conspiring to commit money laundering in connection with a scheme to provide financing and other support services to brothels in the New York metropolitan area.  The defendants were arrested this morning and were presented before a U.S. Magistrate judge in federal court in Manhattan this afternoon.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “These individuals allegedly offered support to independent owners of illegal brothels in the form of financing, website maintenance, and other administrative assistance to help the brothels function.  By allegedly offering their support, they contributed to the commercial sex industry, an industry notorious for heinous victimization of young women.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “As alleged in the complaint, the suspects thought they could hide their crimes by laundering their illicit proceeds using money orders and other financial instruments; but their tricks were uncovered when they underestimated the resolve of law enforcement to follow the trail of money no matter where it leads.  Postal Inspectors and their law enforcement partners are doing their part to, ‘turn off the red light,’ on the sex trafficking trade.”

DSS Special Agent in Charge Timothy W. Dumas said:  “DSS continues to disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations seeking to profit from the entry and illicit activities of vulnerable foreign nationals.  This investigation demonstrates the global reach of the Diplomatic Security Service.”

According to the allegations contained in the Complaint unsealed today[1]:       

Since 2012, the Diplomatic Security Service, United States Postal Inspection Service, United States Customs and Border Protection, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York have been investigating money laundering in connection with a network of Korean brothels that are located in the New York metropolitan area.

These brothels, which are independently owned and operated, receive financing and advertising from common sources.  KWANG KYU KIM, a/k/a “Kevin,” HYUN KYUNG HAN, a/k/a “Jay Hee,” and HONG NAE YI, a/k/a “Diane Yi,” provide financing for several brothels in Manhattan, including by issuing loans with high interest rates to Korean brothel owners and employees.  KIM and YI also operate rotating credit associations in which individuals, who are often involved in the commercial sex industry, contribute a fixed amount each month and then receive the lump sum on a rotating basis.  KIM, HAN, and YI have collectively provided or assisted in providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance new and existing brothels in Manhattan.

BEIRNE LOWRY, a/k/a “Michael,” TIEN CHIH WANG, and ZHENGYI LU, a/k/a “Allen,” provide advertising services to Korean brothels in Manhattan.  LOWRY, WANG, and LU create and maintain individual websites for brothels, which include sexually suggestive photographs and coded language for specific commercial sex activities.  LOWRY also registered and promoted a website that aggregated information and advertising for brothels in the New York metropolitan area.  WANG and LU further coordinated online reviews for the brothels’ commercial sex services and facilitated the brothels’ purchase of commercial sex advertisements on third-party websites. 

 *          *          *

The defendants, KWANG KYU KIM, a/k/a “Kevin,” 62, of Queens, New York, HYUN KYUNG HAN, a/k/a “Jay Hee,” 49, of Queens, New York, HONG NAE YI, a/k/a “Diane Yi,” 59, of Queens, New York, BEIRNE LOWRY, a/k/a “Michael,” 59, of Manhattan, New York, TIEN CHIH WANG, 44, of Queens, New York, and ZHENGYI LU, a/k/a “Allen,” 35, of Queens, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiring to commit money laundering and one count of committing money laundering.  Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Nathan Rehn, Danielle Sassoon, and Elinor Tarlow are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L37liQC0DHbJtan5B-ZGNl6g0xnx2v4LG-4fySpYz9k
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 14:24:51 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: 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 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