MEMORANDUM & ORDER Ying Lin (“Defendant”) is charged by a second superseding indictment (“S-2″) with: (1) acting as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to the Attorney General in violation of 18 U.S.C. §951(a) (“Count One”); (2) conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349 (“Count Two”); (3) obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1512(c)(2) and 2 (“Count Three”); (4) conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512(k) (“Count Four”); and (5) structuring financial transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§5324(a)(3), 5324(d)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §2 (“Count Five”). See S-2, Dkt. Entry No. 87.On August 22, 2018, Defendant moved to sever Counts One and Two of S-2 from Counts Three, Four, and Five (the “Severance Motion”). See Mem. in Support of Mot. for Separate Trial (“Severance Mot.”), Dkt. Entry No. 130. The government opposed the Severance Motion on September 21, 2018. See Mem. in Opp. to Severance Mot. (“Opp.”). Defendant replied on October 4, 2018. See Reply, Dkt. Entry No. 147. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is denied.BACKGROUNDOn November 23, 2015, an Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) grand jury returned an indictment, charging Defendant with one count of structuring financial transactions. Indictment, Dkt. Entry No. 10. On August 31, 2016, an EDNY grand jury returned a superseding indictment (“S-1″), charging Defendant with smuggling, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in addition to the previously charged structuring financial transactions count. See S-1, Dkt. Entry No. 40. Defendant moved to dismiss the smuggling charge, as well as the obstruction of justice and the conspiracy to obstruct justice charges in S-1. See Mot. to Dismiss S-1, Dkt. Entry No. 62. The Court dismissed the smuggling charge with prejudice and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the obstruction of justice charges. See United States v. Ying Lin, 270 F. Supp.3d 631 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).On December 6, 2017, an EDNY grand jury returned S-2, charging Defendant with acting as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to the Attorney General (Count One) in addition to the previously charged counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count Two), obstruction of justice (Count Three), conspiracy to obstruct justice (Count Four), and structuring financial transactions (Count Five). See S-2, Dkt. Entry No. 87. Defendant moved to dismiss Count One of S-2. See Mot. to Dismiss Count One, Dkt. Entry No. 92. The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count One. See United States v. Ying Lin, 2018 WL 3416524 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018).The Court presumes familiarity with the background of this case. See generally, Id.; see also, United States v. Ying Lin, 270 F. Supp.3d 631 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). The Court reiterates the following facts as they relate to the Severance Motion. According to S-2, Defendant worked as a counter agent at John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK Airport”) for an international air carrier (the “Carrier”) headquartered in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). See S-2 2. Defendant is charged with using her position as a counter agent to smuggle items onto Carrier flights departing from JFK Airport to the PRC and to carry out other tasks at the direction and control of PRC agents working at the PRC Mission and PRC Consulate in exchange for benefits beyond her compensation as a Carrier employee. Id. at 5. Specifically, S-2 alleges that Defendant received benefits from the PRC Mission and the PRC Consulate, including tax-exempt purchases of discounted liquor and electronic devices worth tens of thousands of dollars, as well as free contracting work done at the Defendant’s personal residence by PRC construction workers employed by a PRC-based construction business (the “Construction Business”). Id. 12. The PRC construction workers obtained diplomatic visas that permitted them to perform work only on PRC establishment facilities in the United States, but did not permit them to perform private contracting work at non-PRC facilities, such as Defendant’s residence. See Id. The government intends to introduce evidence at trial that will demonstrate that: “(1) the Construction Business maintained offices in the PRC Mission and/or the PRC Consulate in New York City, and (2) U.S.-based representatives of the Construction Business were often accredited diplomats stationed at PRC establishments in the United States.” See Opp. at 3.S-2 further alleges that Defendant’s close associate, described as the “Confederate,” a “PRC national who visited the United States beginning in approximately August 2015,” was a subject of an ongoing investigation. See S-2 32. According to S-2, Defendant assumed responsibility for renovating and furnishing the Confederate’s residence in Long Island, NY. Id. The government expects to introduce evidence at trial that will demonstrate that Defendant coordinated with the principals of the Construction Business, including a PRC diplomat, to arrange for contracting work at the Confederate’s residence. See Opp. at 4. S-2 alleges that, after the federal government interviewed Defendant’s daughters regarding the Confederate’s activities, Defendant warned the Confederate about the federal government’s interest in the Confederate’s activities and instructed him to flee the United States immediately. Id.
