USA v. Chi Kuok

Filing

FILED OPINION (HARRY PREGERSON, JAY S. BYBEE and GLEN H. DAVIDSON) REVERSED AND REMANDED., Judge: JSB Authoring, FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [8032558]

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 1 of 31

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHI TONG KUOK, AKA Yoko
Chong, AKA Eddy, AKA Yoko
Kawasaki, AKA Edison Kuok,
AKA James Kuok,
Defendant-Appellant.




No. 10-50444
D.C. No.
3:09-cr-02581BEN-1
OPINION



Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
October 13, 2011—Pasadena, California
Filed January 17, 2012
Before: Harry Pregerson and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges,
and Glen H. Davidson, Senior District Judge.*
Opinion by Judge Bybee

*The Honorable Glen H. Davidson, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

291

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 2 of 31

295

COUNSEL
Todd W. Burns, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San
Diego, California, for the appellant.
Peter Ko, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, California, for
the appellee.

OPINION
BYBEE, Circuit Judge:
Chi Tong Kuok was convicted after a jury trial on four
counts of conspiracy and attempt to export defense articles
without a license, money laundering, and conspiracy and
attempt to smuggle goods from the United States. Kuok raises
a variety of challenges to his conviction and sentence. We

Case: 10-50444

296

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 3 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

first conclude that venue was proper in the Southern District
of California. We disagree with Kuok that the Arms Export
Control Act violates the nondelegation principle. We next
conclude that Kuok’s conviction on count three must be
vacated as a matter of law, because attempting to cause an
export of a defense article is not a federal crime. Likewise,
Kuok’s conviction on count four must be vacated for lack of
jurisdiction. Finally, because the district court should have
allowed Kuok to present evidence of duress to the jury, we
reverse and remand for a new trial on counts one and two.
Given this disposition, we do not reach Kuok’s arguments
regarding his sentence.
I
Kuok is a citizen of Macau, a special administrative region
of the People’s Republic of China and, until recently, a colony
of Portugal. For roughly a decade, Kuok engaged in efforts to
import protected defense articles from the United States into
China, without the licenses required by law. In the summer of
2009, his activities caught up with him, and Kuok was
arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) agents at the Atlanta airport. The indictment, filed in
July 2009, charged, in count one, conspiracy to export items
on the U.S. Munitions List without the required license and
conspiracy to buy items knowing they were intended for
export in violation of law. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 554(a); 22
U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2). Count two charged Kuok with buying a
KG-175 Taclane encryptor knowing that it was “intended for
exportation contrary to . . . law.” 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). Count
three charged Kuok with attempting to export the encryptor
from the United States without the required license. 22 U.S.C.
§ 2778(b)(2); 22 C.F.R. § 127.1(a)(1). Count four charged
Kuok with transmitting $1700 in funds with the intent to promote the carrying on of “specified unlawful activity”: the
smuggling and the export offenses charged in counts two and
three. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A).

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 4 of 31

297

At trial, the government presented evidence that, over the
course of a two-and-a-half year period between 2006 and
2009, Kuok tried to purchase from vendors in the United
States various types of communication equipment commonly
used by the U.S. military. The government’s investigation
began in December 2006 when Kuok approached a British
company to obtain materials for a device used to transfer data
to and from aircraft. Kuok’s contact at the company referred
the case to ICE, who proceeded to investigate Kuok via
undercover agents. As part of the investigation, ICE subpoenaed Kuok’s eBay records and discovered that Kuok had purchased two-way radios from a Los Angeles seller. After
raiding the seller’s home, undercover ICE agents took over
and continued to discuss transactions for similar equipment
with Kuok. Kuok eventually grew suspicious of the undercover agents, and broke off negotiations. ICE continued in
this vein, opening several other investigations into Kuok’s
eBay activity and tracking him via undercover agents until
Kuok broke off communications.
The crux of the government’s case lies in the encryptor
described in the indictment—a device called the KG-175
Taclane Encryptor offered for sale on eBay by an Arizona
company. Kuok’s attempts to purchase the device prompted
another investigation by undercover ICE agents, who pretended to be willing to sell this device to Kuok. Kuok
arranged for a money order transfer to pay for the encryptor.
The encryptor never showed up, and the undercover agent
claimed it had been confiscated in customs in Alaska. Despite
Kuok’s repeated suspicions that he was dealing with law
enforcement, he arranged to meet the agent in Panama to
obtain the encryptor. Kuok promptly informed his contact that
he would be traveling through Atlanta to get to Panama,
which—unsurprisingly—resulted in his arrest in the Atlanta
airport.
At trial, Kuok did not dispute the facts described above, nor
the government’s evidence that the items Kuok purchased or

Case: 10-50444

298

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 5 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

attempted to purchase required a license to export them from
the United States—a license which Kuok did not possess.
Kuok also did not dispute that he knew his actions violated
U.S. law. Rather, Kuok’s entire defense strategy rested on a
theory of duress.
Defense counsel raised the issue of duress in his opening
statement. He described the facts supporting the duress
defense to the jury, explaining that Kuok had lived in Macau
all his life. Kuok started his own business in 2000, installing
and maintaining building management systems. A few years
before he opened this business, Kuok developed contacts with
a businessman who identified himself as a Chinese cultural
official, Kung Pen Zheng. Zheng began asking Kuok to buy
items from abroad that could not be obtained in China, and
Kuok cooperated in order to develop this business contact.
The items were available on eBay, and Kuok generally had no
problems acquiring them, but troublingly, it would often take
a long time for Zheng to pay Kuok back.
According to Kuok’s counsel, what started out as a friendly
relationship turned serious at one business dinner, when
Zheng—after encouraging Kuok to drink to excess—
pressured Kuok into signing a note promising to locate and
purchase certain items that could not be obtained in China.
The next day, Kuok realized that he might be in a bad situation and attempted to back out by telling Zheng that his wife
was ill and work needed his attention. Zheng reminded Kuok
that he had signed the contract promising to find these items.
Zheng then contacted Kuok’s wife, who was surprised to hear
that she was supposed to be ill. Kuok—who had never given
Zheng his home telephone number—was unhappy when he
heard about Zheng’s phone call to his wife, and spoke to
Zheng again later that day. Zheng asked Kuok why he had
lied, and Kuok asked Zheng not to call his wife again. Zheng
replied: “Why? Are you afraid we’re going to hurt her?”
Kuok interpreted this as a clear threat to harm his family, but
by that point he knew that the threat was coming from the

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 6 of 31

299

Chinese government itself and that he could not go to the
local police, who were under the Chinese government’s control.
According to counsel, Kuok’s situation only escalated from
there: he was presented with reports detailing his wife’s
comings-and-goings, and her employer’s name and address.
Kuok was shown reports of this type for the next several
years, as well as photos of himself with his wife and child out
in public, with the clear implication that his family was being
tracked. Zheng even sent Kuok a gift after the birth of his son,
although Kuok had never told Zheng that his wife was pregnant.
Around 2002, Zheng stopped being subtle. He explained to
Kuok that others were doing the same things Kuok was being
made to do, and if they refused, a family member would be
arrested and held in a “black jail”—where the Chinese government sends people to “take [them] off the grid.” In 2005,
Kuok first learned that his actions could violate U.S. export
laws. He went to Zheng again and asked to stop. Zheng
refused to let him out of the deal, instead telling Kuok that he
had no choice. In 2007, Kuok was diagnosed with a tumor
and hospitalized for a week, again begging to be let out of
Zheng’s schemes, but still Zheng refused.
After opening statements concluded, Kuok made a Brady
request for any materials in the government’s possession that
would support his duress defense. The government objected
to the Brady request, and the district court denied it as untimely.1
The government also objected to the duress defense on the
1

The government had no notice of the duress defense, and the request
would have entailed a continuance of the trial. See United States v. Hayes,
120 F.3d 739, 743 (8th Cir. 1997) (“The defendants offered no good cause
for waiting six months [two days after the start of their trial] to request this
alleged Brady material.”). We express no opinion, however, on the merits
of the issue should a timely request occur on remand.

Case: 10-50444

300

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 7 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

grounds that Kuok should have given notice of his defense
before trial.2 The district court ordered the parties to brief the
duress issue. The government argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the duress defense, and the district
court agreed. Kuok filed a motion to reconsider, which contained a more detailed proffer of the defense case. For
instance, he claimed that Zheng told Kuok that if his wife
were taken to a black jail, she would be harmed and might not
ever return. Kuok also asserted that he had attempted to tell
the ICE agents at the airport that he had been forced to act.
Finally, Kuok added details explaining how he knew that
Zheng and the other officials worked for the Ministry of State
Security, China’s equivalent of the CIA.
The district court denied the motion for reconsideration.
The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Kuok guilty
on all counts. Prior to sentencing, Kuok served another Brady
request on the government, asking for evidence to support an
imperfect duress defense. The district court denied the
request. At sentencing, the district court calculated the applicable Guidelines range to be 63 to 78 months. The district
court varied upward and sentenced Kuok to 96 months on
counts two through four, and 60 months on count one, to run
concurrently. This appeal followed.
II
We first address Kuok’s claims common to all counts: that
venue in the Southern District of California was improper,
and the statutory export control regime violates the nondelegation doctrine.3 Our review of both claims is de novo, United
2

On appeal, the government does not brief the claim that the duress
defense should be excluded because pretrial notice was not given.
3
Although Kuok raises the nondelegation argument in the context of
count three, it is clear that this argument is common to all counts, which
arise under or depend in some way on the validity of the Arms Export
Control Act.

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 8 of 31

301

States v. Bozarov, 974 F.2d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 1992) (nondelegation doctrine); United States v. Ruelas-Arreguin, 219
F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2000) (venue), and we reject
Kuok’s arguments.
A
[1] Kuok challenges venue on counts two through four,
which are based on Kuok’s purchase of the Taclane encryptor.4
The Constitution requires that venue lie in the state and district where a crime was committed. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,
cl. 3; U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 18.
“The burden of establishing proper venue by a preponderance
of the evidence rests with the government.” Ruelas-Arreguin,
219 F.3d at 1060. The government argues that venue was
plainly proper in the Southern District of California, because
the undercover ICE agent withdrew funds in a San Diego
bank from Kuok’s money transfer.
4
At the close of the government’s case, Kuok made a general motion for
a judgment of acquittal, which the district court kept under submission.
Kuok only explicitly raised the venue issue in briefing following the jury’s
verdict. The government raises a non-frivolous argument that Kuok has
therefore waived his challenge to venue. This turns out to be a complex
issue, given the state of the law in this circuit. See United States v. RuelasArreguin, 219 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[V]enue objections made
at the close of the government’s case-in-chief are timely if the defect in
venue is not apparent on the face of the indictment.”); United States v.
Powell, 498 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[V]enue may be waived, and
where, as here, the objection was not raised until after the jury had
returned its verdict of guilty, we find that waiver did in fact occur.” (citation omitted)); Gilbert v. United States, 359 F.2d 285, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)
(general motion for acquittal, when “specifically limited” to grounds other
than venue, does not preserve a timely venue objection); Hanson v. United
States, 285 F.2d 27, 28-29 (9th Cir. 1960) (holding that venue must be
raised before the close of the government’s case, and disagreeing with the
appellant’s contention that a “timely motion for a directed verdict of
acquittal” preserved the challenge). Because we think that Kuok’s venue
objection is easily disposed of on the merits, we do not deal with the
waiver issue.

Case: 10-50444

302

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 9 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Kuok argues that venue is not proper because the government manufactured venue in the Southern District of California by its own activities. This argument fails. Kuok cites two
cases in support of his argument, neither of which even mention the word “venue.” See United States v. Coates, 949 F.2d
104, 106 (4th Cir. 1991) (“‘[M]anufactured jurisdiction’ cannot form the basis for a federal prosecution.”); United States
v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670, 681 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Whatever Congress may have meant by [18 U.S.C.] § 1952(a)(3), it certainly did not intend to include a telephone call manufactured
by the Government for the precise purpose of transforming a
local bribery offense into a federal crime.”). Both cases deal
with manufacturing jurisdiction for a crime, which is a distinct question from the manufacturing of venue. In fact, the
Fourth Circuit has distinguished Coates on this very ground:
“There is no such thing as ‘manufactured venue’ or ‘venue
entrapment.’ ” United States v. Al-Talib, 55 F.3d 923, 929
(4th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. RodriguezRodriguez, 453 F.3d 458, 462 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that the
entrapment doctrine does not apply to venue, and that the
proper remedy for prosecutorial forum shopping is Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b)).
[2] Although we have not yet adopted a similar holding
rejecting manufactured venue in this circuit, we need not
decide the issue today. We have noted that Archer “cannot
offer . . . generally applicable principles” and that it has been
limited to cases involving “extreme” law enforcement tactics.
United States v. Bagnariol, 665 F.2d 877, 898 n.15 (9th Cir.
1981). We find nothing “extreme” about an ICE undercover
operation, based in San Diego, deciding to cash Kuok’s
money order in a bank in San Diego. Therefore, because part
of the conduct that formed the offense occurred in the Southern District of California, even if that conduct was performed
by an undercover government agent, venue there was proper.

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 10 of 31

303

B
Kuok argues that the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”),
22 U.S.C. § 2778, invalidly delegates legislative authority.
Section 2778(a)(1) of Title 22 provides:
In furtherance of world peace and the security and
foreign policy of the United States, the President is
authorized to control the import and the export of
defense articles and defense services and to provide
foreign policy guidance to persons of the United
States involved in the export and import of such articles and services. The President is authorized to designate those items which shall be considered as
defense articles and defense services for the purposes of this section and to promulgate regulations
for the import and export of such articles and services. The items so designated shall constitute the
United States Munitions List.
22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1); see 22 C.F.R. § 121.1 (setting forth
the U.S. Munitions List). Section 2778(b)(2) provides that “no
defense articles or defense services designated by the President [on the U.S. Munitions List] may be exported or
imported without a license.” 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2). Any person who violates § 2778(b)(2), or “any rule or regulation
issued under th[at] section,” may be fined not more than
$1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Id. § 2778(c). Kuok argues that Congress, in enacting the
AECA, failed to “clearly delineate[ ] the general policy, the
public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this
delegated authority.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361,
372-73 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The argument is easily answered. The Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 1. From this language and first principles of separation of

Case: 10-50444

304

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 11 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

powers, the Supreme Court has announced a nondelegation
principle: “Congress may not constitutionally delegate its legislative power to another branch of Government.” Touby v.
United States, 500 U.S. 160, 165 (1991). Accordingly, when
“Congress confers decisionmaking authority upon agencies
Congress must ‘lay down by legislative act an intelligible
principle to which the person or body authorized to act is
directed to conform.’ ” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc.,
531 U.S. 457, 472 (2001) (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co.
v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928)).
[3] The AECA authorizes the President to maintain the
United States Munitions List, which consists of “those items
which shall be considered as defense articles and defense services.” 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1). Although the defining principle for “articles” and “services” has not been set forth with
particularity, it is intelligible: the President is to designate
those articles or services “which shall be considered as
defense articles and defense services.” Id. Articles or services
that are not regarded as belonging to defense may not be so
designated. Furthermore, Congress prefaced the delegation to
the President by referring to its shared interest in the “furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the
United States.” Id. The “[d]elegation of foreign affairs authority is given even broader deference than in the domestic
arena.” Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d
1431, 1438 (9th Cir. 1996).
[4] The Supreme Court rejected a similar nondelegation
challenge in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299
U.S. 304 (1936). Congress had authorized the President to
prohibit the sale of “arms and munitions of war in the United
States to those countries now engaged in armed conflict in the
Chaco.” Id. at 312 (internal quotation marks omitted). Congress made it a criminal act to violate the President’s prohibition. The Supreme Court recognized that it was “dealing not
alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion
of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 12 of 31

305

delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the
sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” Id. at 319-20. The Court commented on the
“unwisdom of requiring Congress in this field of governmental power to lay down narrowly definite standards” and
declined to “condemn[ ] legislation like that under review as
constituting an unlawful delegation of legislative power.” Id.
at 321-22; see id. at 329 (“[T]here is sufficient warrant for the
broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether
the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect
upon the re-establishment of peace . . . .”). This logic applies
with equal force to the present case. The AECA does not violate the constitutional prohibition on delegation of legislative
power.
III
We next address Kuok’s argument that the district court
lacked jurisdiction over count four of the indictment, which
arises under the money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956.5
We review jurisdictional questions de novo. See United States
v. Moncini, 882 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1989).
[5] Section 1956(a)(2) of Title 18 prohibits the transmission of funds from a place outside the United States to a place
inside the United States with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity. The government’s theory at trial was that Kuok violated this provision by
transmitting funds in exchange for the Taclane encryptor, in
order to promote the violation of export control laws and antismuggling laws. Section 1956 comes with its own restriction
on any assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It provides:
5

Kuok also contends that count four, as charged, presents a merger
problem. See United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008). Because we
agree with Kuok on the jurisdictional issue, we do not reach the merger
issue.

Case: 10-50444

306

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 13 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct
prohibited by this section if—
(1) the conduct is by a United States citizen
or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the
United States; and
(2) the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.
18 U.S.C. § 1956(f).
[6] At trial, the government established that the relevant
conduct occurred in part in the United States. But the government did not establish that the transaction involved funds of
a value exceeding $10,000. Rather, the evidence established
—and the government concedes—that the transaction
involved a total value of only $5,400.
The government attempts to bypass subsection (f) entirely
by arguing that subsection (f) is only invoked when the case
involves purely extraterritorial conduct. The government
argues that Kuok’s case, because it involves conduct that
occurred in part in the United States, does not invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction at all, arguing that the issue of “extraterritorial jurisdiction” arises only if no part of the offense
occurred in the United States.
[7] The government’s argument would render subsection
(f) a nullity. If the government were correct that subsection (f)
can only be invoked in cases that involve conduct taking place
entirely outside of the United States, the second part of subsection (f)(1) would be meaningless, and proscribe no possible set of conduct. That is, if “extraterritorial jurisdiction”
only need be invoked when prohibited conduct by a non-U.S.
citizen occurred entirely outside the United States, the state-

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 14 of 31

307

ment in § 1956(f)(1) (“There is extraterritorial jurisdiction
over the conduct prohibited by this section if . . . in the case
of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in
the United States”) could never be invoked. We presume that
Congress did not intend to enact a literally meaningless statute. Because the government failed to satisfy the amount-incontroversy requirement of § 1956(f)(2), Kuok’s conviction
on count four must be vacated for lack of jurisdiction.
IV
We now turn to Kuok’s conviction on count three. Count
three arises under the AECA and its implementing regulations, specifically 22 C.F.R. § 127.1(a)(1). The government
charged Kuok with violating the AECA by asking the undercover agent to send him the Taclane encryptor in exchange for
a $1700 wire transfer. Kuok challenges his conviction on the
grounds that the AECA and its implementing regulations do
not create liability for attempting to cause another person to
violate the AECA.6 We review de novo. See United States v.
Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622, 624-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
[8] Section 127.1(a)(1) makes it unlawful “[t]o export or
attempt to export from the United States . . . by a U.S. person
of any defense article . . . or by anyone of any U.S. origin
defense article . . . for which a license or written approval is
required . . . without first obtaining the required license.” 22
C.F.R. § 127.1(a)(1). Kuok notes that the government’s evidence did not establish that he exported or attempted to export
the Taclane encryptor. Rather, the government’s theory was
that he attempted to cause an undercover ICE agent to export
the encryptor. Kuok then argues that § 127.1(a)(1) does not
make it illegal to cause a “U.S. person” to “export or attempt
to export” a defense article. In response, the government
points to 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), which states: “Whoever willfully
6

Because of our resolution, we do not reach Kuok’s other arguments
pertaining to count three.

Case: 10-50444

308

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 15 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him
or another would be an offense against the United States, is
punishable as a principal.”
[9] By overlaying § 2(b) on 22 C.F.R. § 127.1(a)(1), it
becomes clear that § 2(b) prohibits causing an export or an
attempted export: an export or an attempted export is an “act
. . . which if directly performed by [Kuok] would be an
offense against the United States.” However, the government’s case at trial did not establish that Kuok caused an
attempt to export: it established that he attempted to cause an
export. That is, Kuok attempted to cause the undercover ICE
agent to export the encryptor without a license. Neither an
export nor an attempted export occurred: the ICE agent did
not form the mens rea sufficient for an illegal export or an
attempt, because he was an undercover agent working for the
government the whole time. Kuok, for his part, intended to
import the device into Macau, not export it from the United
States. See 22 C.F.R. § 120.17(a)(1) (defining “export” as
“[s]ending or taking a defense article out of the United States
in any manner”). Rather, there was an attempt to cause an
export: Kuok tried to get the undercover agent to export the
encryptor.
[10] We have long recognized that “[t]here is no general
federal ‘attempt’ statute. A defendant therefore can only be
found guilty of an attempt to commit a federal offense if the
statute defining the offense also expressly proscribes an
attempt.” United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102, 1104 (9th
Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Joe, 452 F.2d 653, 654
(10th Cir. 1972) (“[I]t is well settled that the only attempts to
commit crimes which are made Federal crimes are those specifically so proscribed by Federal law.”); United States v.
Padilla, 374 F.2d 782, 787 n.7 (2d Cir. 1967) (“[U]nlike
many state criminal codes, federal criminal statutes contain no
general attempt provision. An attempt to commit a federal
crime is punishable only where the section defining the crime
specifically includes an attempt within its proscription.” (cita-

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 16 of 31

309

tions omitted)). For the government’s theory to be viable,
therefore, either 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) would have to contain an
attempt provision, or 22 C.F.R. § 127.1 would have to contain
an attempted causation provision. Since neither statute does
so, Kuok cannot be convicted on this count based on the government’s evidence at trial. The government’s argument that
attempt should rationally be read into § 2(b) fails in light of
the rule against reading an attempt into a criminal statute that
does not explicitly include it.
The government cites to United States v. Giese, in which
we approved an indictment charging that the defendant “conspired ‘to commit and cause to be committed certain offenses
against the United States.’ ” 597 F.2d 1170, 1179-80 (9th Cir.
1979). The reasoning in Giese is not analogous here because,
unlike for attempt, there does exist a general federal statute
for conspiracy. See 18 U.S.C. § 371. Thus, for example, conspiracy to cause an export or attempted export would be a federal crime.
The United States also points to cases from the Sixth and
Eighth Circuits which approve of an “attempt to cause” theory. In United States v. May, the defendant placed a call to a
retired general, asking him to destroy certain records. 625
F.2d 186, 194 (8th Cir. 1980). The general attempted to do so
by calling a friend, but the attempt failed when his friend
refused. Id. May was then charged with “ ‘unlawfully attempt(ing) to cause to have concealed, obliterated, or destroyed’
government records” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Id. We
do not find May persuasive on this issue, because, while the
indictment may have charged “attempting to cause,” it is clear
that May’s actions in that case actually constituted “causing
an attempt”: that is, May caused the retired general to attempt
to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071. The May court correctly characterized May’s position as arguing that “ ‘causing’ an attempt
is not prohibited by the statute,” and relied on § 2(b) to reject
this proposition, noting that “section 2(b), like section 2(a), is
applicable to the entire criminal code.” Id. (internal quotation

Case: 10-50444

310

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 17 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

marks omitted). This reasoning, however, is not helpful for
purposes of the present case: even if § 2(b) is applicable to the
entire criminal code, there is no general federal attempt provision that would be applicable to § 2(b).
Similarly, United States v. Zidell affirmed the defendant’s
conviction on the charge of “attempt[ ] to cause the possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,” but it is
clear that this case also deals with causing an attempt, rather
than attempting to cause. 323 F.3d 412, 424-25 (6th Cir.
2003) (emphasis removed) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Zidell, the defendant, living in Texas, received a visit from
his co-conspirators from Tennessee. He distributed methamphetamine to both of them, and sent them on their way back
to Tennessee. Id. at 421-22. As the court explained, “[t]his
conduct gave rise to an attempt charge, as opposed to a charge
of a completed drug distribution offense, when [the coconspirators] were stopped by the police before they reached their
intended destination.” Id. at 422. In other words, the defendant caused his coconspirators to attempt to commit a drug
distribution crime. Moreover, the defendant in Zidell did not
even raise a challenge to this language in the indictment:
rather, his argument was that venue in Tennessee was
improper. Id. at 421-25.
Therefore, both May and Zidell are factually inapposite to
Kuok’s case: whereas Kuok’s attempt to cause illegal activity
failed because he was working with an undercover law
enforcement officer, the defendants in May and Zidell successfully caused an attempt because the coconspirators in
those cases had each formed the mens rea necessary to charge
them with attempt, had the government so chosen. And to the
extent May and Zidell stand for the proposition advanced by
the government based on the wording of the indictments, we
disagree.
[11] We hold that attempting to cause an export of defense
articles without a license is not a violation of U.S. law, and
vacate Kuok’s conviction on count three.

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 18 of 31

311

V
[12] Kuok challenges his conviction on count two because
he argues that the government did not satisfy all of the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 554, which criminalizes smuggling
goods into or out of the United States. This count is based on
Kuok’s purchase of the Taclane encryptor. We do not agree
with Kuok’s interpretation of the statute, and decline to vacate
his conviction on count two.
The relevant section states:
Whoever fraudulently or knowingly exports or sends
from the United States, or attempts to export or send
from the United States, any merchandise, article, or
object contrary to any law or regulation of the
United States, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in
any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise, article or object,
prior to exportation, knowing the same to be
intended for exportation contrary to any law or regulation of the United States, shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 554(a).
Kuok argues, first, that he never took physical possession
of the encryptor, thus making it impossible for the government to satisfy the element that he “bought” it; second,
because both Kuok and the undercover ICE agent lacked the
intent to export the encryptor, the encryptor was not “intended
for exportation”; and third, that since the encryptor was not
exported, the government could not satisfy the statutory
requirement that the conduct occur “prior to exportation.”
These arguments present issues of statutory construction,
which we review de novo. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d at 624-25.

Case: 10-50444

312

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 19 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

A
[13] The indictment charged Kuok with “buy[ing]” the
encryptor, but Kuok only wired money to the undercover
agent and never actually received the encryptor, since it was
never sent. The parties point to two different definitions of the
word “buy” that support their respective cases. Kuok cites to
one definition of the word indicating that “buy” entails
obtaining possession of the item paid for. See Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary 316 (5th ed. 2002) (defining “buy” as to
“[g]et possession of by giving an equivalent, usu. in money;
obtain by paying a price”). The government cites to another
definition of the word “buy,” which includes “to get possession or ownership of by giving or agreeing to give money in
exchange.” See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
306 (2002) (emphasis added). Kuok argues that competing
definitions render the statutory text ambiguous and require
application of the rule of lenity. See United States v. Santos,
553 U.S. 507, 513-14 (2008).
[14] We think the government has the better argument.
Whatever ambiguity appears after consulting dictionaries
fades when we construe the statute as a whole. Section 554(a)
applies to anyone who “receives, [or] conceals, [or] buys, [or]
sells” any merchandise, article, or object contrary to law. If
we were to adopt Kuok’s definition of “buy”—requiring
receipt or possession—then the term “receive” would become
superfluous. See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31
(2001). To avoid interpreting one phrase so as to render
another superfluous, we accept the government’s interpretation of the statute.7
7

In reply, Kuok argues that “buy” and “receive” are not superfluous
because “ ‘buy’ means to pay for something and obtain possession of it,
and ‘receive’ means to take delivery of something.” We do not see the relevance of the difference between obtaining possession and taking delivery
of something. Especially in the context of exports from the United States
into a foreign country, it can hardly be expected that one could obtain possession of an export without taking delivery of it.

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 20 of 31

313

B
[15] Kuok argues that § 554(a) requires proof of his “intent
to export.” The statutory language actually requires that a person buy an item “knowing the same to be intended for exportation contrary to any law or regulation.” 18 U.S.C. § 554(a).
The mens rea requires only “knowing” the item is intended
for export, rather than an “intent to export.” Because of the
passive construction of the phrase “intended for exportation,”
no specific actor need form the intent to export the item.
Thus, although Kuok was not doing the exporting himself (his
scheme involved receiving an import, not sending an export),
he certainly intended that another actor (the undercover agent)
intend to export the item. In other words, the government’s
case need not establish that the defendant intended to export
the encryptor, because Congress did not specify who must
form the intent to export the item, only that the defendant
know that the item was intended for export contrary to U.S.
law.
C
Kuok argues that since the statute applies to “[w]hoever . . .
buys . . . such merchandise, article or object, prior to exportation, knowing the same to be intended for exportation contrary to” law, id., the government must prove that the item
was actually exported, or else the condition “prior to exportation” cannot be satisfied. The government responds that “prior
to exportation” simply limits prosecutions to purchases that
Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code lends support to our interpretation: it defines the term “buyer” as “a person that buys or contracts
to buy goods,” U.C.C. § 2-103(1)(a) (emphasis added), and the term “receipt of goods” as “taking physical possession of goods,” id. § 2-103(1)(l).
The U.C.C. therefore adopts neither Kuok’s definition of “buy” nor his
proposed distinction between receiving goods and obtaining possession of
those goods.

Case: 10-50444

314

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 21 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

occurred during or before exportation. This is not superfluous
with the phrase “knowing the same to be intended for exportation contrary to any law,” the government argues, because
while the latter phrase does exclude prosecutions from taking
place after the exportation has been completed, it does not
exclude prosecutions against one who buys an item while it
is in transit, whereas the former phrase does.
Alternatively, the government argues that superfluity is not
always to be avoided: the “hesitancy to construe statutes to
render language superfluous does not require [courts] to avoid
surplusage at all costs. It is appropriate to tolerate a degree of
surplusage rather than adopt a textually dubious construction
that threatens to render the entire provision a nullity.” United
States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 137 (2007).
Kuok replies that the portion of § 554(a) under which he
was charged lacks an attempt provision, and the government’s
efforts to charge him under this statute, without proving that
an export actually took place, constructively read an attempt
provision into it. We do not agree with Kuok, but we do note
that the statutory text is challenging to parse. The operative
phrase states:
Whoever fraudulently or knowingly exports or sends
from the United States, or attempts to export or send
from the United States, any merchandise, article, or
object contrary to any law or regulation of the
United States, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in
any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise, article or object
....
18 U.S.C. § 554(a) (emphasis added). The emphasized “or”
above divides this statute into two clauses: the first applying
to exporters, and the second to buyers. This might lend support to Kuok’s reading; that is, the attempt provision can be
read only as far as the “or,” and thus applies uniquely to

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 22 of 31

315

exporters, not buyers. On the other hand, the reference to
“such merchandise” could be read as incorporating the entire
exporters clause; that is, “such” merchandise is “merchandise” that has been the object of an “export[ing] or send[ing]
from the United States, or attempt[ed] . . . export[ing] or send[ing] from the United States . . . contrary to any law or regulation.” The latter interpretation is persuasive because there is
no other phrase in the exporters clause indicating the type of
merchandise at issue (“contrary to any law or regulation of the
United States” is an adverbial clause modifying the verbs “exports” and “attempts to export,” not an adjectival clause modifying the noun “merchandise”). Without a phrase that limits
or defines the merchandise, the second clause’s use of the
word “such” is meaningless.8
[16] We find that the attempt provision spans the “or.”
There is no extratextual reason to interpret the statute in a
manner that treats exporters and buyers differently, and there
are strong intratextual reasons for treating them similarly.
Kuok’s interpretation of “prior to exportation” “render[s] the
entire provision a nullity,” and we reject it. Cf. Atl. Research
Corp., 551 U.S. at 137. In sum, we have considered Kuok’s
objections to count two, and have found them without merit.
VI
Kuok brings multiple challenges to the jury instructions
given in this case. We review “de novo whether the jury
instructions accurately define the elements of a statutory
offense.” United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 687 (9th
Cir. 2001).
First, Kuok argues that the jury instructions with respect to
count two were improper for the same reasons that he argued
8

“Such” in this context means “of the sort or degree previously indicated or implied.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2283
(2002).

Case: 10-50444

316

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 23 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

his conviction on count two must be vacated. Because we
have rejected his arguments and concluded that Kuok’s conviction under § 554(a) need not be vacated as a matter of law,
we disagree that the jury instructions were improper.
Second, Kuok argues that the instructions with respect to
count one are invalid because they allowed the jury to convict
based on the “attempt to cause an export” theory of count
three. Instruction 21, relating to count three, states in full:
Count 3 of the Indictment charges the defendant
with attempted export of a defense article without a
license. In order for the defendant to be found guilty
of that charge, the government must prove each of
the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, on or about April 29, 2009, the defendant
intended to commit the crime of willfully causing the
export of a KG-175 Taclane Encryptor which was
designated on the United States Munitions List,
without first obtaining a license or written approval
from the Department of State, Directorate of Defense
Trade Controls, and,
Second, the defendant did something which was a
substantial step toward committing the crime, with
all of you agreeing as to what constituted the substantial step.
Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward
committing the crime of exporting defense articles
without a license.
An act is done “willfully” if it is voluntarily committed with the knowledge that it was prohibited by
law and with the purpose of disobeying or disregarding the law. While the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 24 of 31

317

intended to violate the law, it is not necessary for the
government to prove that the defendant had read,
was aware of, or had consulted the specific regulations governing his activities. In other words, in this
case, while the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to violate the law, the government is not required to prove
that the defendant had read or consulted the United
States Munitions List or the specific export licensing
requirements of the Arms Export Control Act.
As discussed above, we vacate Kuok’s conviction on count
three because there is no crime of attempting to cause an
export contrary to U.S. law. Kuok argues that his conviction
on count one was “tainted” by this invalid offense theory
because the instruction on count one refers to the same substantive offense as that in count three (exporting without a
license). Instruction 16, relating to count one, states in full:
As mentioned, Count 1 of the Indictment alleges
two possible criminal objects of the conspiracy.
The elements of the crime of buying merchandise,
articles, or objects prior to exportation, knowing they
would be exported contrary to the laws and regulations of the United States are:
First, the defendant knowingly bought merchandise, articles, and objects, prior to exportation, and
Second, at that time, the defendant knew the same
to be intended for exportation contrary to any law or
regulation of the United States.
The elements of the crime of exporting defense
articles without a license are:

Case: 10-50444

318

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 25 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

First, the defendant exported, or caused to be
exported, from the United States an item or items
designated on the United States Munitions List;
Second, the defendant did not obtain a license or
written approval from the Department of State to
export the item or items; and
Third, the defendant acted willfully.
The term “willfully” is defined in Court’s Instruction 21.
To willfully “cause” an act to be done means to
intentionally bring it about, with knowledge that it is
prohibited by law and with the purpose of disobeying or disregarding the law.
There is no taint here. Instruction 21 is invalid because it
allowed the jury to convict on an “attempt to cause an export”
theory, but instruction 16 allowed the jury to convict on a
“conspiracy to cause an export” theory. We have already concluded that because of the existence of a general federal conspiracy statute, a conspiracy to cause an act to be undertaken
is prohibited by U.S. law in a way that an attempt to cause an
act to be undertaken is not. See Giese, 597 F.2d at 1179-80;
see also 18 U.S.C. § 371. The cross-reference for the definition of “willfully” does not alter this analysis, as the meaning
of the term “willfully” is entirely irrelevant to the question of
whether instruction 21 is invalid. This cross-reference does
not incorporate the “attempt to cause an export” theory.
Kuok’s third argument fails for the same reason. He challenges the correctness of the phrase in instruction 16 indicating that a possible object of the conspiracy for count one was
that “the defendant exported, or caused to be exported” a
defense article. Kuok argues both that a “causation” theory
was not charged in the indictment, and that no authority sup-

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 26 of 31

319

ports the causation theory in the context of conspiracy liability. We disagree. “[A]n indictment need not specifically
charge . . . ‘causing’ the commission of an offense . . . to support a jury verdict based upon a finding of [causation].”
United States v. Armstrong, 909 F.2d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). And as discussed
above, conspiracy to cause an export is a valid offense theory.
See Giese, 597 F.2d at 1179-80; see also 18 U.S.C. § 371.
VII
Because we hold that the government’s theory on counts
one and two is viable as a matter of law, we finish by considering Kuok’s claim that he should have been permitted to
present evidence of duress to the jury. We review the district
court’s decision to exclude the duress defense de novo.9
United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798, 802 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Duress is not a statutory defense, but a common-law
defense that allows a jury to find that the defendant’s conduct
is excused, even though the government has carried its burden
of proof. See Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 12-14 & n.9
(2006). To establish duress, the burden of proof is on the
defendant to show that: (1) he was under an immediate threat
of death or serious bodily injury, (2) he had a well grounded
fear that the threat would be carried out, and (3) he had no
reasonable opportunity to escape. United States v. Shapiro,
669 F.2d 593, 596 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Dixon, 548 U.S.
at 7; United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 409-10 (1980).
9

After the district court first precluded Kuok’s duress defense, Kuok
filed a motion to reconsider, which included additional detail and a proffer
of his entire defense case. Motions to reconsider are reviewed for abuse
of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Because we conclude that the duress defense
should have been sent to the jury on the basis of the facts presented to the
district court before the motion to reconsider, we limit this discussion to
those facts and review the legal issue de novo.

Case: 10-50444

320

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 27 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

“Factfinding is usually a function of the jury, and the trial
court rarely rules on a defense as a matter of law.” United
States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 1984).
Because we consider this defense as a matter of law, we must
accept Kuok’s proffer as true in its entirety. Here, the parties’
dispute concerns the first and the third elements.10
A
The threat to Kuok’s family was both immediate and serious. According to his counsel’s opening statement, Zheng
made it clear to Kuok that his family was being monitored,
through Zheng’s actions in giving Kuok reports on his wife’s
daily activities, calling her at the family’s home phone number, and sending Kuok various pictures of his wife and his son
taken in public. When Kuok attempted to get out of his dealings with the government, Zheng explicitly threatened to send
Kuok’s wife to a “black jail,” and told Kuok that this was
“somewhere where we take people off the grid if they don’t
do what we ask them to do.”
Our decision in United States v. Contento-Pachon is most
similar to the present case. In Contento-Pachon, a taxi driver
was lured into a meeting with a drug dealer when the drug
dealer promised him a job driving a private car. 723 F.2d at
693. What the drug dealer actually wanted was a mule to
smuggle drugs into the United States. Id. The defendant protested, but capitulated in the face of threats to his family. Id.
The drug dealer revealed that he knew private details about
the defendant’s life—details that the defendant had never
mentioned to the drug dealer. Id. We held that this evidence
supported a defense of duress because
[the drug dealer] had gone to the trouble to discover
that Contento-Pachon was married, that he had a
10

The government does not challenge the sufficiency of Kuok’s proffer
with respect to the second element of duress.

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 28 of 31

321

child, the names of his wife and child, and the location of his residence. These were not vague threats
of possible future harm. According to the defendant,
if he had refused to cooperate, the consequences
would have been immediate and harsh.
Id. at 694; see also id. (“Contento-Pachon contends that he
was being watched by one of [the drug dealer]’s accomplices
at all times during the airplane trip.”).
The government contends that the threats to Kuok’s family
were not “immediate” because Kuok could not demonstrate
that “someone was present to enforce the threat immediately
during the entire criminal conduct.” United States v. Sawyer,
558 F.3d 705, 712 (7th Cir. 2009) (coercion over a year-long
period was insufficient to prove duress because defendant
could not show that someone was present at all times the
defendant was involved in illegal activity).
The government cites United States v. Becerra in support
of its position. 992 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1993). In that case, the
defendant believed that his family was threatened when an
undercover agent said he would “take care” of the defendant’s
family if the defendant did not go through with various drug
transactions. Id. at 964. We found that this was not enough,
because the threat was not “immediate,” even though the
undercover agent was “almost constantly” around the defendant. Id. The government argues that this indicates that surveillance must rise above the level of “almost constant,” but
we think this confuses “constant surveillance” with “specificity.”
Our case law makes it clear that to be immediate, a threat
must be specific: “A veiled threat of future unspecified harm
will not satisfy this requirement.” Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d
at 694 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted).
To that effect, we rejected the defense in Becerra, where the
threat to “take care” of the defendant’s family did not include

Case: 10-50444

322

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 29 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

a specific time frame, and lacked detail. 992 F.2d at 964. In
United States v. Karr, we found that no evidence supported
the duress defense when the defendant testified only that
“Harry threatened his daughter, his mother and himself.” 742
F.2d 493, 497 (9th Cir. 1984). Similarly, in United States v.
Moreno, we rejected the defense where, “[d]uring [a] three
week period, Moreno saw Joker on only three occasions. No
one else made any threats or appeared to follow Moreno.
Joker did not know Moreno’s address, or where in the ‘westside’ his daughters could be located.” 102 F.3d 994, 997 (9th
Cir. 1996). Put simply, vague and undetailed threats will not
suffice.
[17] Kuok’s case is close, but we find that the threats
against his family were not vague. Kuok was told his wife
would be arrested and disappear into a secret prison if he
refused to cooperate. Immediacy is demonstrated by the fact
that Zheng clearly indicated that harm to Kuok’s wife would
be the specific and direct consequence of refusing to obey the
government’s commands. It is further supported by the fact
that Zheng knew his family’s movements and other intimate
details that demonstrated that his family was regularly monitored. Kuok believed that Zheng represented the Chinese
intelligence service, whose capacity to carry out its threats
would be far greater than the run-of-the-mill criminal organization. The vivid detail in Zheng’s threat distinguishes it from
threats in cases rejecting the duress defense when the defendant received only generic threats against himself or his family.
B
[18] Kuok argues that he had no reasonable opportunity to
escape his situation because the government was monitoring
him and his family, because he could not turn to the local
police for help, and because even if he could leave the country
on his travels and seek help from U.S. law enforcement, his
family would have remained vulnerable. This issue should

Case: 10-50444

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

Page: 30 of 31

323

have been submitted to the jury. We have held that the inability to seek help from the local police is a relevant factor in
assessing the opportunity to escape. In Contento-Pachon, the
defendant believed that the police were corrupt and paid off
by drug traffickers. 723 F.2d at 693. We held that the case had
to be submitted to the jury for it to “decide whether one in
Contento-Pachon’s position might believe that some of the
Bogota police were paid informants for drug traffickers and
that reporting the matter to the police did not represent a reasonable opportunity of escape.” Id. at 694. Here also, a jury
should decide whether Kuok, who claims the government
itself was threatening him, could not seek aid from local
authorities.
Furthermore, the possibility of packing up and moving out
of the dangerous environment, abandoning one’s work and
displacing one’s entire family, does not necessarily present a
reasonable opportunity for escape. Again, Contento-Pachon is
instructive: “To flee, Contento-Pachon, along with his wife
and three year-old child, would have been forced to pack his
possessions, leave his job, and travel to a place beyond the
reaches of the drug traffickers. A juror might find that this
was not a reasonable avenue of escape.” Id. Here, Kuok might
have been able to escape Macau, but it is less clear that he
could have reasonably escaped with his wife and son, and it
was their safety that been threatened.11
The government contends that if Kuok had an opportunity
to notify U.S. law enforcement about his situation, he was
required to do so. However, the cases the government cites
are inapposite. First, we have not held that a defendant must
surrender to authorities after reaching a place of safety, except
11

There is some evidence in the record that Kuok did, in fact, take multiple trips outside Macau, including family vacations. Given the other evidence Kuok proferred, we think this is evidence a jury should consider in
assessing the reasonableness of Kuok’s duress defense, rather than evidence that precludes his duress defense as a matter of law.

Case: 10-50444

324

01/17/2012

ID: 8032558

DktEntry: 39-1

Page: 31 of 31

UNITED STATES v. KUOK

in prison escape cases. See Bailey, 444 U.S. at 412-13. Second, the cases upon which the United States relies involve
seeking the help of local police. For example, in Moreno, we
noted that “[u]nlike the defendant in Contento-Pachon, . . .
Moreno presented no evidence that he could not flee from his
gang’s reach, or that he could not seek help from local law
enforcement agencies because they were corrupt and controlled by gang members.” 102 F.3d at 997; see also United
States v. Sixty Acres in Etowah Cnty., 930 F.2d 857, 861 (11th
Cir. 1991) (holding that the duress defense was insufficient
because the defendant did not show he had no reasonable
opportunities to inform the police); United States v. Charmley, 764 F.2d 675, 676-77 (9th Cir. 1985) (same); Shapiro,
669 F.2d at 596-97 & n.4 (same). In any event, the government’s suggestion that Kuok should have cooperated with the
authorities immediately upon landing in the Atlanta airport
may be unreasonable, given that Kuok knew his family was
still in danger of being jailed by Chinese government officials
beyond the control of U.S. authorities. See United States v.
Otis, 127 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The government
argues that . . . [the defendant] could have escaped by cooperating with the American authorities. We do not see how protection would have protected his father in Colombia.”).
[19] In short, the ultimate factfinders may or may not
accept Kuok’s story, but he has alleged facts sufficient to
present his defense to the jury.
VIII
[20] We vacate Kuok’s convictions on counts three and
four. We remand to the district court for a new trial on counts
one and two, with instructions to allow Kuok to present evidence of duress to the jury.
REVERSED; REMANDED.