Judge skeptical of economic espionage charges in ex-Google engineer’s AI secrets case

A federal judge in San Francisco has expressed skepticism about economic espionage convictions against Linwei Ding, a former Google engineer accused of stealing artificial intelligence trade secrets. Ding was convicted on January 2024 of seven counts of theft of trade secrets and seven counts of economic espionage after a two-week trial.

The judge's reservations signal potential problems with the prosecution's case on the espionage charges, which carry substantially heavier penalties than simple trade secret theft. Economic espionage under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and 18 U.S.C. section 1831 requires proof that a defendant acted with intent to benefit a foreign government or foreign instrumentality. Theft of trade secrets under section 1836 requires only proof of unauthorized taking.

The distinction matters enormously for sentencing. Espionage convictions can trigger decades of imprisonment, while trade secret theft typically results in shorter sentences. The judge's skepticism suggests the evidence may not have clearly demonstrated that Ding intended to benefit a foreign entity, even if the jury found him guilty on all counts.

Ding allegedly downloaded proprietary Google files related to AI technology before leaving the company. Prosecutors must prove Ding's actions benefited or were intended to benefit a foreign state, entity, or instrumentality to sustain the espionage convictions. If the judge finds the evidence insufficient on that element, conviction reversal or sentence reduction could follow.

The case reflects growing federal attention to intellectual property theft and national security concerns in the technology sector. The Justice Department has prioritized prosecution of suspected technology theft benefiting China and other adversaries. However, the judge's skepticism reveals the challenge prosecutors face in proving the foreign benefit element beyond trade secret misappropriation.

Ding's defense likely argued he acted for personal financial gain rather than to benefit any foreign government. The judge's apparent doub