United States v. Guanghua

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JIN GUANGHUA, Criminal Action No. 23-91-2 (CKK)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 26, 2025)

On July 1, 2025, the Government filed a Motion in Limine regarding the procedure for

admitting co-conspirator statements at trial. Gov’t’s Mot., ECF No. 101. Specifically, the

Government requested that the Court allow the introduction of co-conspirator statements at trial

“subject to connection.” Id. at 1. Jin objected to this procedure. Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 116. On

August 22, 2025, the Court, in line with Circuit precedent and District practice, granted the

Government’s motion to admit co-conspirator statements subject to connection. Mem. Op. &

Order, ECF No. 152 at 5–6.

The Government rested its case on September 24, 2025. During its case, the Government

introduced a variety of statements that required a hearsay exception or exclusion for admission.

The Government now proffers that some of the statements it introduced at trial are admissible

under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as statements of co-conspirators. Accordingly, the

Court must determine whether the Government met its burden of ‘connecting’ the conspiracy at

trial. “If the connection is not proven, the court must either strike the testimony and instruct the

jury to disregard it, or, if that is not enough protection, must grant a mistrial.” United States v.

White, 116 F.3d 903, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

1 To determine whether the Government has met its burden of connection, the Court “must

determine whether the [Government] has introduced sufficient independent evidence of the

existence of the conspiracy and of [Jin’s] participation therein that the hearsay statements of his

co-conspirators may be admitted against the defendant as equivalent to his own admissions.”

United States v. Jackson, 627 F.2d 1198, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 1980). As it relates to this case, the

Court must determine whether the Government has proven the existence of, and Jin’s participation

in, a conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions, commit bank fraud, and commit money laundering. The

existence of the conspiracy and Jin’s participation “must be proved by substantial independent

evidence.” Jackson, 627 F.2d at 1219.

The Court concludes that the Government has introduced “substantial independent

evidence” sufficient to support the existence of a conspiracy and Jin’s participation therein.

Jackson, 627 F.2d at 1219. Five categories of evidence led the Court to this conclusion, each of

which will be summarized below.

First, the Government admitted emails and attachments recovered from two email accounts

linked to Jin’s co-defendant Han Linlin. This evidence supports a finding that that Han was a

manager of the Winney businesses and served in a subordinate role to Jin and Jin’s co-defendant

Qin Guoming. This evidence also suggests that Han facilitated business on behalf of Winney,

including with North Korean entities and Cooperativa de Tabacaleros de Jujuy (“CTJ”). The

second, and related, category consists of independent evidence regarding Jin’s co-defendant Qin

Guoming. Independent evidence shows that Jin and Qin were the two equal shareholders of the

Winney businesses. Furthermore, this evidence involved instances of Han, mentioned above,

sending the personal documents of both Jin and Qin.

2 The third category of independent evidence that supports the existence of a conspiracy is

made up of evidence recovered from an email account connected to Jin and statements made by

Jin. This evidence shows that Jin was the “General Manager” of the Winney businesses. This

evidence also included emails from Winney employees reporting significant details about the

weekly operations of the business to Jin. For instance, there were reports about specific

transactions with the North Korean company Naegohyang Tobacco Joint Venture Company, as

well as progress reports that mentioned difficulties in trading with North Korea and international

sanctions. Jin also received emails relating to transactions with North Korean banks. Finally, this

independent evidence revealed that Jin conducted numerous internet searches and accessed

numerous internet articles related to U.S. sanctions against North Korea.

Fourth, independent evidence recovered from email accounts and iCloud accounts linked

to co-defendant Sim Hyon-Sop support finding a connection between Sim Hyon-Sop, the Foreign

Trade Bank, and the Winney businesses—of which Jin was the general manager. This evidence

shows that Sim was a North Korean national working for the Foreign Trade Bank during the course

of the conspiracy. It also included instances of Sim using coded language to have payments made

to Winney for goods Winney sold to the Naegohyang Tobacco Joint Venture Company.

Furthermore, this evidence suggested that Sim was aware of and involved in the $220,000 payment

to CTJ in March 2019. Finally, this evidence shows that Sim maintained a ledger that contained

multiple payments to two different Winney entities in U.S. Dollars.

The fifth and final source of independent evidence comes from the undercover operation.

During the undercover operation, Han stated that Winney had previously made payments to CTJ

using other company names. This evidence also shows that, when the undercover agents suggested

to Han that Winney pay a bribe, Han said he would have to discuss it with his “boss;” about a

3 month later, Han sent undercover agents the "personal email" of his "boss," which was the

aforementioned email connected to Jin. Finally, this evidence shows that Jin flew to Argentina

and met with CTJ representatives and undercover agents to resolve payment issues.

As summarized above, the evidence from these five categories, taken together, provides

"substantial independent evidence" sufficient to find the existence of a conspiracy. Jackson, 627

F.2d at 1219. Furthermore, this evidence is sufficient to establish Jin's participation in that

conspiracy. Accordingly, the record would support a finding that certain hearsay statements

admitted at trial under separate hearsay exceptions or exclusions could also be admitted as

statements of co-conspirators under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).

Dated: September 26, 2025

COLL�Ltk1%E�� United States District Judge