Court upholds conviction of Chinese businessman linked to Hunter Biden

A federal appeals court upheld the criminal convictions against Patrick Ho, a Chinese businessman and think tank leader linked to President-elect Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
When Ho, one of Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming’s lieutenants, was charged by the Justice Department in 2017, the first call he reportedly made after his arrest was to Joe Biden’s brother, James, who has said he thought the call was meant for Hunter Biden.
Ho was indicted and convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for his role in a global money laundering and bribery scheme aimed at government officials in Africa.
The Justice Department also accused Ho of helping with Iranian sanctions evasion and working to use the Chinese company’s connections to sell weaponry to Chad, Libya, and Qatar. Ho was sentenced to three years in prison in March 2019 and was deported to Hong Kong in June.
Ho had tried reaching out to Joe Biden's son for help because he agreed to represent Ho as part of his efforts to work out a liquefied natural gas deal worth tens of millions of dollars with CCP-linked CEFC China Energy leader Ye, who has since disappeared in China.
Ho unsuccessfully appealed his convictions for conspiracy, money laundering, and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act after a December 2018 jury trial.
The appeals court judges noted that Ho claimed that “the evidence was insufficient to support his FCPA conviction,” that “the wires at issue in his money laundering conviction did not go ‘to’ or ‘from’ the United States as required to convict,”
and that “the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence at trial.” The judges said that “we reject each of Ho’s arguments and affirm the district court’s judgment in all respects.”
A Senate Republican report from September concluded that “Ye raised concerns with Hunter Biden that one of his associates, Patrick Ho, was under investigation by U.S. law enforcement” in 2017 and “Hunter Biden subsequently agreed to represent Ho.”
In August 2017, CEFC Infrastructure Investment “wired $5M to the bank account for Hudson West III,” linked to Hunter Biden, and “the same day the $5M was received, through Sept. 25, 2018, Hudson West III sent frequent payments to Owasco, Hunter Biden’s firm.”
Those payments “were described as consulting fees” and reached $4.79 million in just over a year. In addition, in March 2018, a $1 million payment was sent from Hudson West III to Owasco with a memo line for “Dr Patrick Ho Chi Ping Representation.”
The report stated that “in his alternative explanation, Hunter Biden indicated that the misdirected $1 million was related to his representation of Ye’s associate, Patrick Ho.”

It is not clear what legal work Hunter Biden provided to Ho.

More from Jewhadi™

More from Politics

You May Also Like

Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x