DOJ Ends 15-Year-Old Economic Espionage Case—With Prejudice
In a surprising development, on July 13, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed with prejudice its landmark economic espionage prosecution against Pangang Group Company, Ltd. and its subsidiaries—a Chinese state-owned enterprise accused of stealing DuPont trade secrets for the benefit of the Chinese government. The dismissal came just one week after trial began, bringing to an end one of the longest-running and most consequential prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act.
Although the case itself is over, its legal legacy remains. Over more than a decade of litigation, the prosecution produced significant rulings on service of process, foreign sovereign immunity, and the treatment of foreign state-owned enterprises under the Economic Espionage Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Those decisions, together with amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4 prompted by the litigation, will continue to shape future prosecutions.
Sidley Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory Reinforcing Constitutional Venue Protections
Sidley secured a significant victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for Ahmad Abouammo in a case addressing the constitutional limits on where federal criminal prosecutions may be brought. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Abouammo should not have been charged and tried in the Northern District of California for crimes which occurred elsewhere. The case is one of the most important recent decisions regarding venue: the Court’s ruling reinforces the Constitution’s venue protections and limits the government’s ability to prosecute defendants in forums disconnected from their alleged conduct.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction in United States v. Bolandian, holding that the trial court failed to properly investigate a juror who admitted he was “not sure” he could remain impartial. The case involved a Los Angeles trader accused of profiting from confidential merger tips, resulting in a conviction and 24-month sentence. But on appeal, the court found plain error in allowing the uncertain juror—who ultimately served as foreperson—to remain without further inquiry. Emphasizing the court’s independent duty to ensure juror impartiality, the decision underscores that even without a defense objection, unresolved bias concerns can mandate a new trial—offering both a cautionary note and a safeguard for defense counsel.
