MERS/MAXIMUS High-tech robbery
ENDLESS DEFAULT FEES OWED TO FMEP/MAXIMUS/WELFARE QUEENS IN FLORIDA/CALGARY
ENDLESS DEFAULT FEES OWED TO FMEP/MAXIMUS/WELFARE QUEENS IN FLORIDA/CALGARY
Missing assignments or multiple assignments of the same instrument filed in the public records are a direct result of multi-pledging and the use of the same collateral, the mortgage loan, to poolinto securities or pledge for other financing and should be viewed as an overt act of fraud when encountered.
multi-pledging and the use of the same collateral,
the use of the same collateral, the mortgage loan, to pool into securities or pledge for other financing
2007
VICTORIA BC
TITLE EG56733
2009
NEW WESTMINISTER
TITLE EG56733
NEW WESTMINISTER
TITLE EG56733
SALE CONVEYANCE OR TRANSFER OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY
1-PAT FIELD- CONFLICT OF INTEREST/MASTERMIND
LEGAL AID-LEGAL AID/CONTRACT UNDER ASSIGNMENT TO THE MINISTER OF GAINS
INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE/INCOMPETENCE
1988-ORIGINAL TRANSFER OF MATRIMONIAL ESTATE AS JOINT TENANTS FOR $45,0000
329. (1) Husband Or Wife � Subject to subsection (2), no husband or wife, during cohabitation, commits theft of anything that is by law the property of the other. (2) Theft by spouse while living apart � A husband or wife commits theft who, intending to desert or on deserting the other or while living apart from the other, fraudulently takes or converts anything that is by law the property of the other in a manner that, if it were done by another person, would be theft. (3) Assisting or receiving � Every one commits theft who, during cohabitation of a husband and wife, knowingly (a) assists either of them in dealing with anything that is by law the property of the other in a manner that would be theft if they were not married, or; (b) receives from either of them anything that is by law the property of the other and has been obtained from the other by dealing with it in a manner that would be theft if they were not married. . . . . .
COUNT 1-CC CODE
127. (1) Disobeying Order of Court � Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. (2) Attorney General of Canada may act � Where the order referred to in subsection (1) was made in proceedings instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government, any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene that order may be instituted and conducted in like manner. . . . . .
COUNT 2-CC CODE
COUNT CC CODE-3
278. Spouse May Be Charged � A husband or wife may be charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of his or her spouse, whether or not the spouses were living together at the time the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge occurred.
COUNT 4-CC CODE
423. (1) Intimidation � Every one who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he has a lawful right to abstain from doing, (a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his spouse or children, or injures his property, (b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or a relative of his, or that the property of any of them will be damaged, (c) persistently follows that person about from place to place, (d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of them or hinders him in the use of them, (e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway, (f) besets or watches the dwelling-house or place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or (g) blocks or obstructs a highway, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) Exception � A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section. . . . . .
COUNT 5-CC CODE
810. (1) Where Injury or Damage Feared � An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or child or will damage his or her property. (2) Duty of justice � A justice who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division. (3) Adjudication � The justice or the summary conviction court before which the parties appear may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for his or her fears, (a) order that the defendant enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behavior for any period that does not exceed twelve months, and comply with such other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance, including the conditions set out in subsections (3.1) and (3.2), as the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the defendant; or (b) commit the defendant to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if he or she fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance. (3.1) Conditions � Before making an order under subsection (3), the justice or the summary conviction court shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person, to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant be prohibited from possessing any firearm or any ammunition or explosive substance for any period of time specified in the recognizance and that the defendant surrender any firearms acquisition certificate that the accused possesses and, where the justice or summary conviction court decides that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person, for the defendant to possess any of those things, the justice or summary conviction court may add the appropriate condition to the recognizance. (3.2) Idem � Before making an order under subsection (3), the justice or the summary conviction court shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the informant, of the person on whose behalf the information was laid or of that person�s spouse or child, as the case may be, to add either or both of the following conditions to the recognizance, namely, a condition (a) prohibiting the defendant from being at, or within a distance specified in the recognizance from, a place specified in the recognizance where the person on whose behalf the information was laid or that person�s spouse or child, as the case may be, is regularly found; and (b) prohibiting the defendant from communicating, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, with the person on whose behalf the information was laid or that person�s spouse or child, as the case may be. (4) Forms � A recognizance and committal to prison in default of recognizance under subsection (3) may be in Forms 32 and 23, respectively. (4.1) Modification of recognizance � The justice or the summary conviction court may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance. (5) Procedure � The provisions of this Part apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to proceedings under this section. 1991, c. 40, s. 33; 1994, c. 44, s. 81; 1995, c. 22, s. 8. 810.1 (1) Where fear of sexual offence � Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence under section 151, 152, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), section 170 or 171, subsection 173(2) or section 271, 272 or 273, in respect of one or more persons who are under the age of fourteen years, may lay an information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared that the offence will be committed are named. (2) Duty of provincial court judge � A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before the provincial court judge. (3) Adjudication � The provincial court judge before whom the parties appear may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, order the defendant to enter into a recognizance and comply with the conditions fixed by the provincial court judge, including a condition prohibiting the defendant from engaging in any activity that involves contact with persons under the age of fourteen years and prohibiting the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of fourteen years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground or community centre, for any period fixed by the provincial court judge that does not exceed twelve months. (3.1) Refusal to enter into recognizance � The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance. (4) Judge may vary recognizance � The provincial court judge may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance. (5) Other provisions to apply � Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section. 1993, c. 45, s. 11; 1997, c. 18, s. 113(2). 810.2 (1) Where fear of serious personal injury offence � Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in section 752, may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared that the offence will be committed are named. (2) Duty of provincial court judge � A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before the provincial court judge. (3) Adjudication � The provincial court judge before whom the parties appear may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behavior for any period that does not exceed twelve months and to comply with any other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance, including the conditions set out in subsection (5) and (6), that the provincial court judge considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the defendant. (4) Refusal to enter into recognizance � The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance. (5) Conditions � firearms � Before making an order under subsection (3), the provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person, to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant be prohibited from possessing firearm or any ammunition or explosive substance for any period of time specified in the recognizance and that the defendant surrender any firearms acquisition certificate that the defendant possesses, and where the provincial court judge decides that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or any other person, for the defendant to possess any of those things, the provincial court judge may add the appropriate condition to the recognizance. Conditional Amendment On the later of the coming into force of s. 810.2(5) of the Code as enacted by 1997, c. 17, s. 9 and ss. 810(3.1) - (3.12) of the Code as enacted by 1995, c. 39, s. 157, s. 810.2(5) is replaced by the following: (5) Conditions � firearms � Before making an order under subsection (3), the provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person, to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for any period specified in the recognizance, and where the provincial court judge decides that it is so desirable, the provincial court judge shall add such a condition to the recognizance. (5.1) Surrender, etc. � Where the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (5) to a recognizance order, the provincial court judge shall specify in the order the manner and method by which (a) the things referred to in that are in the possession of the defendant shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with; and (b) the authorization, licences and registration certificates held by the defendant shall be surrendered. (5.2) Reasons � Where the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (5) to a recognizance order, the provincial court judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding the condition. 1997, c. 17, s. 9(2). Not in force at date of publication. (6) Conditions � reporting and monitoring � Before making an order under subsection (3), the provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant report to the correctional authority of a province or to an appropriate police authority, and where the provincial court judge decides that it is desirable for the defendant to so report, the provincial court judge may add the appropriate condition to the recognizance. (7) Variance of conditions � The provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, of the Attorney General or of the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance. (8) Other provisions to apply � Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to recognizance made under this section. 1997, c. 23, s. 9(1). Not in force at date of publication.
COUNT 6 CC CODE-ON PAPER
290. (1) Bigamy � Every one commits �bigamy� who (a) in Canada, (i) being married, goes through a form of marriage with another person, (ii) knowing that another person is married, goes through a form of marriage with that person, or (iii) on the same day or simultaneously, goes through a form of marriage with more than one person; or (b) being a Canadian citizen resident in Canada leaves Canada with intent to do anything mentioned in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii) and, pursuant thereto, does outside Canada anything mentioned in those subparagraphs in circumstances mentioned therein. (2) Matters of defence � No person commits bigamy by going through a form of marriage if (a) that person in good faith and on reasonable grounds believes that his spouse is dead, (b) the spouse of that person has been continuously absent from him for seven years immediately preceding the time when he goes through the form of marriage, unless he knew that his spouse was alive at any time during those seven years, (c) that person has been divorced from the bond of the first marriage, or (d) the former marriage has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. (3) Incompetency no defence � Where a person is alleged to have committed bigamy, it is not a defence that the parties would, if unmarried, have been incompetent to contract marriage under the law of the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. (4) Validity presumed � Every marriage or form of marriage shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be valid unless the accused establishes that it was invalid. (5) Act or omission by accused � No act or omission on the part of an accused who is charged with bigamy invalidates a marriage or form of marriage that is otherwise valid.
COUNT 7-CC CODE
264. (1) Criminal harassment � No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. (2) Prohibited conduct � The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family. (3) Punishment � Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (4) Factors to be considered � Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened (a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or (b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a) (5) Reasons � Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision. R.S. 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 37; 1993, c. 45, s. 2; 1997, c. 16, s. 4; c. 17, s. 9(3).
COUNT 8-CC CODE
264.1 (1) Uttering Threats � Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person. (2) Punishment � Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. (3) Idem � Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S. 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16. . . . . .
COUNT 10 CC-CODE
172. (1) Corrupting Children � Every one who, in the home of a child, participates in adultery or sexual immorality or indulges in habitual drunkenness or any other form of vice, and thereby endangers the morals of the child or renders the home an unfit place for the child to be in, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. (2) [Repealed R.S. 1985, c. 19 (3d Supp.), s. 6] (3) Definition of �child� � For the purposes of this section, �child� means a person who is or appears to be under the age of eighteen years. (4) Who may institute prosecutions � No proceedings shall be commenced under subsection (1) without the consent of the Attorney General, unless they are instituted by or at the instance of a recognized society for the protection of children or by an officer of a juvenile court. R.S. 1985, c. 19 (3d Supp.), s. 6. . . . . .
COUNT 11 -CC CODE
215. (1) Duty of Persons to Provide Necessaries � Every one is under a legal duty (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years; (b) as a married person, to provide necessaries of life to his spouse; and (c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life. (2) Offence � Every one commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to perform that duty, if (a) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (l)(a) or (b), (i) the person to whom the duty is owed is in destitute or necessitous circumstances, or (ii) the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed, or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be endangered permanently; or (b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently. (3) Punishment � Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (4) Presumptions � For the purpose of proceedings under this section, (a) evidence that a person has cohabited with a person of the opposite sex or has in any way recognized that person as being his spouse is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that they are lawfully married; (b) evidence that a person has in any way recognized a child as being his child is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the child is his child; (c) evidence that a person has left his spouse and has failed, for a period of any one month subsequent to the time of his so leaving, to make provision for the maintenance of his spouse or for the maintenance of any child of his under the age of sixteen years is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he has failed without lawful excuse to provide necessaries of life for them; and (d) the fact that a spouse or child is receiving or has received necessaries of life from another person who is not under a legal duty to provide them is not a defence. 1991, c. 43, s. 9, Schedule, item 2. . . . . .
High-tech robbery ring soars, then unravels
A gang of Asian mobsters hits West Coast electronics companies before tripping up
Sunday, December 26, 1999
By Mark Larabee of The Oregonian staff
They planned the hit for months.
As darkness fell on Oregon's Silicon Forest, an unsuspecting janitor unlocked a door for three sharply dressed, smiling job applicants.
Then, the smiles turned to screams.
Anne Yan Mak, a ruthless 19-year-old, and two cohorts waved high-powered, semi-automatic pistols at the janitor, ordering him to find the manager.
It was after business hours Oct. 4, 1995, at Supercom Electronics in Beaverton. The three had used the same lie to get into the building before, to get a lay of the land, eliminate surprises.
They forced the janitor and manager into the back room and tied them up as four other gunmen scoured the building for security guards. They needed time, and they didn't want anyone tripping them up by calling police or setting off the alarm.
By the time the building sweep was complete, about a half-dozen other gang members were filling Rubbermaid tubs with new computer parts. The robbers backed a truck up to the loading dock and, for more than an hour, looted the company of assorted hardware.
Their getaway was clean.
Supercom was one of about 30 West Coast electronics company robberies from 1994 to 1996 that, according to federal indictments, were tied to a gang of Asian mobsters controlled by John That Luong. It was the gang's only Oregon robbery and eventually led the FBI to Luong's front door, cracking his entire network.
More importantly, the case alerted the Justice Department to the fact that Portland and the lucrative Silicon Forest are potential targets for organized criminals.
Federal prosecutors say Luong was puppet master of a loosely knit organized crime family made up of roving groups of thugs.
They called themselves "The Company," and their trade was brutal strong-arm robberies, mostly of computer-parts manufacturers and distributors, according to a federal indictment filed in San Francisco. They also dealt heroin, shipping it from California to street dealers in Massachusetts and New York City, the indictment states.
It took government agents more than a year to figure out that the robberies -- from San Diego to Portland and as far as Minnesota -- were done by the same outfit.
Information about Luong was taken from federal indictments and interviews with prosecutors. His San Francisco attorney did not return numerous telephone calls.
Prosecutors said Luong and his gang began the robberies in mid-1994. They hit three Silicon Valley computer-makers in the last half of the year, and in January 1995 they hit three more.
Like other Asian crime gangs nationwide, Luong was tapping into a growing black market for computer parts -- especially expensive memory chips -- which are difficult, if not impossible, to trace.
The robbers followed a similar and potentially dangerous pattern. They would pick a target and go in under false pretenses to figure out security systems and building layouts. Then for the robbery, a small group would enter with guns after most of the employees had gone home, secure the place and let the rest of the robbery crew inside to move merchandise.
In March 1995, they robbed four companies. As word spread among California law enforcement that the robberies were becoming more frequent, Luong branched out of Silicon Valley.
On May 16, 1995, his gang took over Centon Electronics in Irvine, Calif., south of Los Angeles and filled two U-Haul trucks with $10 million worth of memory chips, said Chris Johnson, an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.
A botched robbery
A month later, Mak, Polo Sok and another Asian man, all carrying guns, entered Maximus Computers, a computer parts distributor in Monrovia, Calif., in north Los Angeles County. They hadn't even finished tying up the employees when police, alerted by a silent alarm, arrived. According to court records, Sok and Mak took an employee hostage to escape. The hostage was released unharmed.
By the end of summer, Luong's soldiers had robbed more than a dozen firms, prosecutors said.
Computer companies are but one target of Asian crime syndicates. Many similar groups are operating nationwide, officials say.
"These guys are entrepreneurs," said Special Agent Peter Won, who heads the FBI's Asian organized crime squad in San Francisco. The sophisticated gangs are into software piracy, loan sharking, drugs, bank fraud, protection rackets and home invasion robberies.
"They'll go into anything that will make them a profit," Won said. "Some groups their color is red, some their color is blue. Asians, their color is green."
To combat the growing organized crime problem, the U.S. Justice Department designated strike-force cities so investigators and prosecutors would specialize in organized crime, eliminate duplicate efforts and better communicate to keep everyone informed.
Portland's strike force was put in place in March 1999, mostly in response to Supercom. "This case was an eye-opener for law enforcement in Oregon," said Fred Petti, an assistant U.S. attorney in Portland who oversees the strike force. It includes two federal prosecutors and a Justice Department trial attorney, who are supported by FBI agents and police agencies throughout the state.
In Oregon, federal agents feed on a steady diet of Asian and Russian mob activity, and Mexican, Central and South American drug trafficking, said Special Agent Dan Wright, who heads the FBI's organized crime and drug squad in Portland.
Coming to Portland
By mid-1995, with the FBI turning up the heat in California, Luong and his lieutenants looked to the Northwest. They knew Portland, with its own growing technology industry, wasn't getting much attention from the U.S. Justice Department's organized crime section, Petti said.
After the botched Maximus job, during which gang members took hostages to escape, Luong sent Sok, 21, and Kha Khiev, 26, to Portland to lie low and scout another big score. When they arrived in July 1995, the two were flush with cash, some of it their take from Centon and some seed money from Luong to get set up, Petti said.
Sok had been in and out of jails his whole life, and both he and Khiev were longtime gangbangers and notorious troublemakers. "If any of these guys was destined for this, it was Kha Khiev," Petti said.
In Portland, Sok and Khiev hooked up with Thinh Duy Nguyen, a Luong associate. Nguyen, 28, had a job at a computer company and was married with children. As the local contact, he acted as the gang's travel agent. He booked hotel and airplane reservations for crew members. He rented the truck and a safe house in the 6700 block of Southeast Kelly Street in Portland, and he helped find the guns used in the robbery, according to a federal indictment.
But Sok and Khiev were in no hurry. They were young men with a lot of cash, more interested in meeting women and partying, Petti said. They did a few home-invasion robberies to make ends meet while they planned the Supercom robbery.
"They're real smart; they took their time; they had a safe house; they invested money into the project," Petti said.
Robbery day
But after two months, Luong sent a lieutenant, Michael Huynh, 33, to Portland to get things rolling, upset that Sok and Khiev hadn't picked a robbery target.
Huynh and his chief deputy cased Supercom after picking it at random. They bought guns off the street, saw that a moving truck was rented and had everything set by late September for Luong's soldiers to fly to Portland.
Mak, who had gone underground after the Maximus kidnapping, was called to help.
Mak was an unlikely member for a gang of strong-arm robbers. Just 19, she was a straight-A student in a Stockton business school when she was recruited through a friend. She had just broken up with her boyfriend and was devastated, according to investigators, and wanted to show him that she was tougher than he was.
Luong knew of the heightened awareness among high-tech companies that they were potential targets, federal prosecutors said. He wanted Mak to help the gang enter the buildings, figuring a woman would look less suspicious. By now she'd done two robberies in California, and with each, she got braver and braver.
"She was just a bad, bad girl," said Dawn King, one of the Portland FBI agents who investigated the Supercom robbery. "The witnesses described her as very cool."
The morning of the Supercom robbery, the gang, with Huynh in charge, met at the Kelly Street safe house. They set up a makeshift altar, lit candles and prayed for prosperity, King said.
Huynh watched the robbery from a car across the street. By the time Mak and the first entry crew smiled their way past the janitor, Mak was fully into playing the part. "She had never handled a gun in her life when she goes in with a loaded 9 mm and points it at this woman's face," Petti said.
The robbery went off without a hitch. But after so many months of planning, Luong and his top operatives were disappointed, Petti said. They hoped for another haul of millions, but instead of lucrative memory chips, they wound up with $350,000 worth of hard drives and other hardware that wasn't so valuable. This robbery certainly didn't measure up to the $10 million Centon job.
Still, Luong already had a buyer, an independent computer retailer. The two arrived in Portland a few days after the robbery. They agreed on a price, loaded the stuff into four vehicles and headed to Stockton, Calif., where Luong based his West Coast operations.
Blockbuster bust
In late 1995 King was assigned to run down a tip in a narcotics case the FBI was working in California.
Before Luong was tied to the robberies, the FBI was investigating him for heroin trafficking and had installed a wiretap on his telephone. There was a lot of talk about various drug transactions, according to the indictment. But an agent reviewing recordings of the calls overheard talk about a robbery in Oregon and a guy named "Paulo."
King, now 38 and retired, had been an FBI agent for five years and was working in Portland on Squad 5 -- organized crime and drugs -- after several years as a part-time FBI airplane pilot.
Because the Supercom robbery had gone down just days before, investigators figured a guy named Paulo was involved.
That wasn't much to go on, but a few days after the robbery, Beaverton police received a tip from an employee at a truck rental company that a truck had been returned with computer parts inside.
It was the break the agents needed. Thinh Duy Nguyen, Luong's Portland connection, had rented the truck in his own name. Utilities records also showed he was paying for power at two Portland addresses, one a rental property on Kelly Street.
King set up surveillance. There was a lot of traffic at the house, but she and the other agents weren't sure what they were looking for. On a day no one was home, the homeowners gave the agents permission to search the garbage.
"We went through it piece by piece, and another agent pulled up a Blockbuster Video card," King recalled. "It said Polo Sok. We were like, 'Bingo! We got it!' "
Polo was the Paulo they were looking for. Suddenly it made sense.
Sok was wanted on $1 million bond for the Monrovia kidnapping. The FBI and Portland police put the Blockbuster store under surveillance on a tip from the manager that Sok came in every Friday night to rent movies. He showed up as usual, but this time he was arrested. Then he started talking.
The unraveling
The case ballooned from there. Sok told the FBI about the robbery network and named names. The focus of the investigation quickly shifted from drugs to a major organized crime syndicate. It was dubbed "Operation Bytes Dust."
"At first they were using the computer robberies to fund some of the drug operations, but that was so lucrative they started getting heavy into it," King said.
The FBI interrogated Sok. Agents subpoenaed phone records, hotel receipts, bank deposits and records of money transfers. They tracked purchases of homes, cars and a swimming pool. They tied robbers with specific crimes and the crimes with the larger network, with Luong at the top.
"We had voluminous phone records, which tied them all together," King said. "The paper. That's our biggest evidence. It's like a jigsaw puzzle."
The robberies continued, but the robbers got sloppy. On Nov. 11, 1995, Mak and three armed men were arrested at Solomon Technology, a computer parts distributor in Los Angeles, after an employee tripped a silent alarm.
They talked, too. Mak was especially good with details, King said. One by one, the Supercom robbers fell into the government's net.
King arrested Eoung Oeur using old-fashioned police work. The gang knew him only as "Snoop"; no one knew his real name.
The FBI knew only that "Snoop" had flown from Portland to the Bay Area after the Supercom robbery. So they subpoenaed hundreds of passenger names from the airlines for every flight from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 1995, between Portland and the Bay Area.
They narrowed it to a few Asian names and matched them with DMV photos, which they showed gang members. All identified Eoung Oeur as "Snoop."
Paying the price
All but one of the Supercom robbers has been captured and pleaded guilty to various charges in the case or the larger conspiracy. After pleading guilty and cooperating, Khiev is serving 6? years for his role in Supercom. Ten other Supercom robbers cooperated as well, which is unheard of in organized crime circles. The information they shared helped bring down a multistate crime network.
"They're people who made a business decision somewhere along the line, and now they're at a crossroads" Petti said.
Mak, Sok and Huynh have pleaded guilty to various charges and await sentencing. They have agreed to serve a minimum of 20 years, reduced penalties for their crimes, in exchange for their testimony against Luong.
Luong and 18 others face federal racketeering, robbery, drug trafficking and weapons charges in San Francisco. He and several others also are charged in Sacramento with money laundering, bank fraud, witness tampering and killing a jewelry store owner during a robbery. Trial begins Jan. 18.
You can reach Mark Larabee at 503-294-7664 or by e-mail at [email protected].
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/12/st122602.html
A gang of Asian mobsters hits West Coast electronics companies before tripping up
Sunday, December 26, 1999
By Mark Larabee of The Oregonian staff
They planned the hit for months.
As darkness fell on Oregon's Silicon Forest, an unsuspecting janitor unlocked a door for three sharply dressed, smiling job applicants.
Then, the smiles turned to screams.
Anne Yan Mak, a ruthless 19-year-old, and two cohorts waved high-powered, semi-automatic pistols at the janitor, ordering him to find the manager.
It was after business hours Oct. 4, 1995, at Supercom Electronics in Beaverton. The three had used the same lie to get into the building before, to get a lay of the land, eliminate surprises.
They forced the janitor and manager into the back room and tied them up as four other gunmen scoured the building for security guards. They needed time, and they didn't want anyone tripping them up by calling police or setting off the alarm.
By the time the building sweep was complete, about a half-dozen other gang members were filling Rubbermaid tubs with new computer parts. The robbers backed a truck up to the loading dock and, for more than an hour, looted the company of assorted hardware.
Their getaway was clean.
Supercom was one of about 30 West Coast electronics company robberies from 1994 to 1996 that, according to federal indictments, were tied to a gang of Asian mobsters controlled by John That Luong. It was the gang's only Oregon robbery and eventually led the FBI to Luong's front door, cracking his entire network.
More importantly, the case alerted the Justice Department to the fact that Portland and the lucrative Silicon Forest are potential targets for organized criminals.
Federal prosecutors say Luong was puppet master of a loosely knit organized crime family made up of roving groups of thugs.
They called themselves "The Company," and their trade was brutal strong-arm robberies, mostly of computer-parts manufacturers and distributors, according to a federal indictment filed in San Francisco. They also dealt heroin, shipping it from California to street dealers in Massachusetts and New York City, the indictment states.
It took government agents more than a year to figure out that the robberies -- from San Diego to Portland and as far as Minnesota -- were done by the same outfit.
Information about Luong was taken from federal indictments and interviews with prosecutors. His San Francisco attorney did not return numerous telephone calls.
Prosecutors said Luong and his gang began the robberies in mid-1994. They hit three Silicon Valley computer-makers in the last half of the year, and in January 1995 they hit three more.
Like other Asian crime gangs nationwide, Luong was tapping into a growing black market for computer parts -- especially expensive memory chips -- which are difficult, if not impossible, to trace.
The robbers followed a similar and potentially dangerous pattern. They would pick a target and go in under false pretenses to figure out security systems and building layouts. Then for the robbery, a small group would enter with guns after most of the employees had gone home, secure the place and let the rest of the robbery crew inside to move merchandise.
In March 1995, they robbed four companies. As word spread among California law enforcement that the robberies were becoming more frequent, Luong branched out of Silicon Valley.
On May 16, 1995, his gang took over Centon Electronics in Irvine, Calif., south of Los Angeles and filled two U-Haul trucks with $10 million worth of memory chips, said Chris Johnson, an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.
A botched robbery
A month later, Mak, Polo Sok and another Asian man, all carrying guns, entered Maximus Computers, a computer parts distributor in Monrovia, Calif., in north Los Angeles County. They hadn't even finished tying up the employees when police, alerted by a silent alarm, arrived. According to court records, Sok and Mak took an employee hostage to escape. The hostage was released unharmed.
By the end of summer, Luong's soldiers had robbed more than a dozen firms, prosecutors said.
Computer companies are but one target of Asian crime syndicates. Many similar groups are operating nationwide, officials say.
"These guys are entrepreneurs," said Special Agent Peter Won, who heads the FBI's Asian organized crime squad in San Francisco. The sophisticated gangs are into software piracy, loan sharking, drugs, bank fraud, protection rackets and home invasion robberies.
"They'll go into anything that will make them a profit," Won said. "Some groups their color is red, some their color is blue. Asians, their color is green."
To combat the growing organized crime problem, the U.S. Justice Department designated strike-force cities so investigators and prosecutors would specialize in organized crime, eliminate duplicate efforts and better communicate to keep everyone informed.
Portland's strike force was put in place in March 1999, mostly in response to Supercom. "This case was an eye-opener for law enforcement in Oregon," said Fred Petti, an assistant U.S. attorney in Portland who oversees the strike force. It includes two federal prosecutors and a Justice Department trial attorney, who are supported by FBI agents and police agencies throughout the state.
In Oregon, federal agents feed on a steady diet of Asian and Russian mob activity, and Mexican, Central and South American drug trafficking, said Special Agent Dan Wright, who heads the FBI's organized crime and drug squad in Portland.
Coming to Portland
By mid-1995, with the FBI turning up the heat in California, Luong and his lieutenants looked to the Northwest. They knew Portland, with its own growing technology industry, wasn't getting much attention from the U.S. Justice Department's organized crime section, Petti said.
After the botched Maximus job, during which gang members took hostages to escape, Luong sent Sok, 21, and Kha Khiev, 26, to Portland to lie low and scout another big score. When they arrived in July 1995, the two were flush with cash, some of it their take from Centon and some seed money from Luong to get set up, Petti said.
Sok had been in and out of jails his whole life, and both he and Khiev were longtime gangbangers and notorious troublemakers. "If any of these guys was destined for this, it was Kha Khiev," Petti said.
In Portland, Sok and Khiev hooked up with Thinh Duy Nguyen, a Luong associate. Nguyen, 28, had a job at a computer company and was married with children. As the local contact, he acted as the gang's travel agent. He booked hotel and airplane reservations for crew members. He rented the truck and a safe house in the 6700 block of Southeast Kelly Street in Portland, and he helped find the guns used in the robbery, according to a federal indictment.
But Sok and Khiev were in no hurry. They were young men with a lot of cash, more interested in meeting women and partying, Petti said. They did a few home-invasion robberies to make ends meet while they planned the Supercom robbery.
"They're real smart; they took their time; they had a safe house; they invested money into the project," Petti said.
Robbery day
But after two months, Luong sent a lieutenant, Michael Huynh, 33, to Portland to get things rolling, upset that Sok and Khiev hadn't picked a robbery target.
Huynh and his chief deputy cased Supercom after picking it at random. They bought guns off the street, saw that a moving truck was rented and had everything set by late September for Luong's soldiers to fly to Portland.
Mak, who had gone underground after the Maximus kidnapping, was called to help.
Mak was an unlikely member for a gang of strong-arm robbers. Just 19, she was a straight-A student in a Stockton business school when she was recruited through a friend. She had just broken up with her boyfriend and was devastated, according to investigators, and wanted to show him that she was tougher than he was.
Luong knew of the heightened awareness among high-tech companies that they were potential targets, federal prosecutors said. He wanted Mak to help the gang enter the buildings, figuring a woman would look less suspicious. By now she'd done two robberies in California, and with each, she got braver and braver.
"She was just a bad, bad girl," said Dawn King, one of the Portland FBI agents who investigated the Supercom robbery. "The witnesses described her as very cool."
The morning of the Supercom robbery, the gang, with Huynh in charge, met at the Kelly Street safe house. They set up a makeshift altar, lit candles and prayed for prosperity, King said.
Huynh watched the robbery from a car across the street. By the time Mak and the first entry crew smiled their way past the janitor, Mak was fully into playing the part. "She had never handled a gun in her life when she goes in with a loaded 9 mm and points it at this woman's face," Petti said.
The robbery went off without a hitch. But after so many months of planning, Luong and his top operatives were disappointed, Petti said. They hoped for another haul of millions, but instead of lucrative memory chips, they wound up with $350,000 worth of hard drives and other hardware that wasn't so valuable. This robbery certainly didn't measure up to the $10 million Centon job.
Still, Luong already had a buyer, an independent computer retailer. The two arrived in Portland a few days after the robbery. They agreed on a price, loaded the stuff into four vehicles and headed to Stockton, Calif., where Luong based his West Coast operations.
Blockbuster bust
In late 1995 King was assigned to run down a tip in a narcotics case the FBI was working in California.
Before Luong was tied to the robberies, the FBI was investigating him for heroin trafficking and had installed a wiretap on his telephone. There was a lot of talk about various drug transactions, according to the indictment. But an agent reviewing recordings of the calls overheard talk about a robbery in Oregon and a guy named "Paulo."
King, now 38 and retired, had been an FBI agent for five years and was working in Portland on Squad 5 -- organized crime and drugs -- after several years as a part-time FBI airplane pilot.
Because the Supercom robbery had gone down just days before, investigators figured a guy named Paulo was involved.
That wasn't much to go on, but a few days after the robbery, Beaverton police received a tip from an employee at a truck rental company that a truck had been returned with computer parts inside.
It was the break the agents needed. Thinh Duy Nguyen, Luong's Portland connection, had rented the truck in his own name. Utilities records also showed he was paying for power at two Portland addresses, one a rental property on Kelly Street.
King set up surveillance. There was a lot of traffic at the house, but she and the other agents weren't sure what they were looking for. On a day no one was home, the homeowners gave the agents permission to search the garbage.
"We went through it piece by piece, and another agent pulled up a Blockbuster Video card," King recalled. "It said Polo Sok. We were like, 'Bingo! We got it!' "
Polo was the Paulo they were looking for. Suddenly it made sense.
Sok was wanted on $1 million bond for the Monrovia kidnapping. The FBI and Portland police put the Blockbuster store under surveillance on a tip from the manager that Sok came in every Friday night to rent movies. He showed up as usual, but this time he was arrested. Then he started talking.
The unraveling
The case ballooned from there. Sok told the FBI about the robbery network and named names. The focus of the investigation quickly shifted from drugs to a major organized crime syndicate. It was dubbed "Operation Bytes Dust."
"At first they were using the computer robberies to fund some of the drug operations, but that was so lucrative they started getting heavy into it," King said.
The FBI interrogated Sok. Agents subpoenaed phone records, hotel receipts, bank deposits and records of money transfers. They tracked purchases of homes, cars and a swimming pool. They tied robbers with specific crimes and the crimes with the larger network, with Luong at the top.
"We had voluminous phone records, which tied them all together," King said. "The paper. That's our biggest evidence. It's like a jigsaw puzzle."
The robberies continued, but the robbers got sloppy. On Nov. 11, 1995, Mak and three armed men were arrested at Solomon Technology, a computer parts distributor in Los Angeles, after an employee tripped a silent alarm.
They talked, too. Mak was especially good with details, King said. One by one, the Supercom robbers fell into the government's net.
King arrested Eoung Oeur using old-fashioned police work. The gang knew him only as "Snoop"; no one knew his real name.
The FBI knew only that "Snoop" had flown from Portland to the Bay Area after the Supercom robbery. So they subpoenaed hundreds of passenger names from the airlines for every flight from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 1995, between Portland and the Bay Area.
They narrowed it to a few Asian names and matched them with DMV photos, which they showed gang members. All identified Eoung Oeur as "Snoop."
Paying the price
All but one of the Supercom robbers has been captured and pleaded guilty to various charges in the case or the larger conspiracy. After pleading guilty and cooperating, Khiev is serving 6? years for his role in Supercom. Ten other Supercom robbers cooperated as well, which is unheard of in organized crime circles. The information they shared helped bring down a multistate crime network.
"They're people who made a business decision somewhere along the line, and now they're at a crossroads" Petti said.
Mak, Sok and Huynh have pleaded guilty to various charges and await sentencing. They have agreed to serve a minimum of 20 years, reduced penalties for their crimes, in exchange for their testimony against Luong.
Luong and 18 others face federal racketeering, robbery, drug trafficking and weapons charges in San Francisco. He and several others also are charged in Sacramento with money laundering, bank fraud, witness tampering and killing a jewelry store owner during a robbery. Trial begins Jan. 18.
You can reach Mark Larabee at 503-294-7664 or by e-mail at [email protected].
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/12/st122602.html
