Court filing

Defendant’s Proposed Verdict Form — United States v. He (Dkt. 151, E.D. Cal.)

Summary

This 12-page filing is Defendant's Proposed Verdict Form in United States of America v. David He, Case 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG (Document 151, E.D. Cal.), filed April 14, 2026 before Hon. Dale A. Drozd by attorney Anthony P. Capozzi (SBN: 068525), with an April 21, 2026, 9:00 a.m. caption date. It provides Not Guilty and Guilty verdict lines on Counts One through Twelve of the Superseding Indictment, starting with Count One for wire fraud conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1349) from August 2020 through March 2023. Counts Two through Nine cover wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343) involving wires to UMI bank accounts ending in 9664 and 9345 (among them $12,000, $275,000, $49,000, two of $24,500, $43,000, and $36,000) from August 2020 to January 2022, while Counts Ten to Twelve cover adulterated and misbranded medical devices (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(2)) and false statements (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2)).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Filed April 14, 2026 in David He; one of 8 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Filed	2026-04-14

Cite this document

“Defendant’s Proposed Verdict Form — United States v. He (Dkt. 151, E.D. Cal.).” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:23-cr-00219, Doc. 151, filed 2026-04-14. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-jia-bei-zhu/2026-04-14-defendant-s-proposed-verdict-form-dkt-151/, SHA-256 d19958840f326b0c6792846c2bc91f91220c754b69df9a47a0559cabe2abb0cd.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26            Page 1 of 12

      ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI, SBN: 068525
      THE LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI
  N   1233 WEST SHAW AVENUE, SUITE 102
      FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711
      Telephone: (559) 221-0200
      Facsimile: (559) 221-7997
      E-Mail: anthony@capozzilawoffices.com
      www.capozzilawoffices.com

 oo Dn On HR WD N e
      Attorney for Defendant,
      DAVID HE

                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10                                           a 2 os oe 2 ok

1]
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG

12
                      Plaintiff,
                                                        DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED
13
            v.                                               VERDICT FORM

14
      DAVID HE,
                                                  Date: April 21, 2026
15
                      Defendant.   —              Time: 9:00 a.m.
                                                  Honorable Dale A. Drozd
16

17

18          COUNT ONE:         Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

19                              1343 and 1349, from in or around August 2020 through in or

20                             around March 2023.

21

22          We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT ONE of the Superseding Indictment that the

23   Defendant is:

24

25

26                         Not Guilty                      Guilty

27

28

                                              -l-
                             USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
                                      PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

a

oO CO I HN MN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT TWO:

Defendant is:

Gase 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of12

Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about August
11, 2020, wiring transmission of monies in the amount of $12,000,
originating from Company One’s bank account to UMI’s bank

account ending — 9664.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT TWO of the Superseding Indictment that the

Not Guilty Guilty

-2-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


oO CO Ss DH

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Clase 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 3of12

COUNT THREE: Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about

December 15, 2020, wiring transmission of monies in the amount
of $100,00, originating from Company Two’s bank account to
UMI’s bank account ending — 9664.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT THREE of the Superseding Indictment that

the Defendant is:

Not Guilty Guilty

-3-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


oH NAN Bo A FF WY WN

\o

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT FOUR:

Defendant is:

Clase 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 4of12

Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about
December 24, 2020, wiring transmission of monies in the amount
of $275,000, originating from Company Two’s bank account to

UMI’s bank account ending — 9664.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT FOUR of the Superseding Indictment that the

Not Guilty Guilty

4.
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-002 19-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


oO Se NN DBD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT FIVE:

Defendant is:

pse 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page5of12

Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about January
13, 2022, wiring transmission of monies in the amount of $49,000,
originating from Company Four’s bank account to UMI’s bank

account ending — 9345.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT FIVE of the Superseding Indictment that the

Not Guilty Guilty

-5-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-002 19-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Giase 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 6of12

COUNT SIX: Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about January
14, 2022, wiring transmission of monies in the amount of $24,500,
originating from Company Four’s bank account to UMI’s bank

account ending — 9345.
We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT SIX of the Superseding Indictment that the

Defendant is:

Not Guilty Guilty

-6-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


ao ns SN

\o

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

clase 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page /7of12

COUNT SEVEN: Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about January

the Defendant is:

14, 2022, wiring transmission of monies in the amount of $24,500,
originating from Company Four’s bank account to UMI’s bank

account ending — 9345.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT SEVEN of the Superseding Indictment that

Not Guilty Guilty

-7-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-002 19-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


So Fe NN DBD AW BR WO YP &

NO NO BN NO BDO DN KN RO RO wm ee le
oO NN OO FR YD NY YF DT OO Se SN BDO A BR WY NYO KF CO

the Defendant is:

Case 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 8of12

COUNT EIGHT: Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about January

19, 2022, wiring transmission of monies in the amount of $43,000,
originating from Company Four’s bank account to UMI’s bank

account ending — 9345,

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT EIGHT of the Superseding Indictment that

Not Guilty Guilty

-8-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-002 19-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


ay

Co SS NIN DN Ww

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT NINE:

Defendant is:

Clase 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 9of12

Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, on or about January
26, 2022, wiring transmission of monies in the amount of $36,000,
originating from Company Two’s bank account to UMI’s bank

account ending — 9664.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT NINE of the Superseding Indictment that the

Not Guilty Guilty

-9.
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


che 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page 10 of 12

1 COUNT TEN: Distribution of Adulterated and Misbranded Medical Devices, in
2 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), on or about January
3 15, 2022.

5 We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT TEN of the Superseding Indictment that the
Defendant has distributed adulterated and misbranded medical devices on or about January 15,

2022:

Oo CO I DW

10 ____ Not Guilty «Guilty
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-10-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM


Chse 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151_ Filed 04/14/26 Page11of 12

1 COUNT ELEVEN: _ Distribution of Adulterated and Misbranded Medical Devices, in

2 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2), on or about January
3 26, 2022.

5 We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT ELEVEN of the Superseding Indictment that
the Defendant has distributed adulterated and misbranded medical devices on or about January

26, 2022:

oOo CO JT DW

10 Not Guilty Guilty

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-ll-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-002 19-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

mene cmeertan ocean cinta mete nana nner ian cert ea ten aeea ecm neem mene eae nan aeaneeatetaaeenes trian nanimeamisinsnsnmaeneneaasamnamnneaenan em sieenaeen a meandimatnnpannene eee en ne antneie ian eenenesisipnnmaniinimmmemanens


bh WY NN

oO SO NN DB WN

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cfse 1:23-cr-00219-DAD-EPG Document151- Filed 04/14/26 Page 12 of 12

COUNT TWELVE: False Statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), on or

about May 2, 2023 and May 3, 2023.

We the jury unanimously find as to COUNT TWELVE of the Superseding Indictment that

the Defendant willfully and knowingly made a false statement that:

. He was not defendant ZHU aka Jesse Zhu and was instead Qiang He aka David He;

Not Guilty Guilty

. He was hired by UMI as a COVID-19 consultant in 2021;

Not Guilty Guilty

. He was hired by PBI just a couple of weeks prior to speaking with the FDA officials to

coordinate the company’s interactions with government agencies;

Not Guilty Guilty

. He did not know the manufacturing and distribution histories for UMI or PBI; and

Not Guilty Guilty

. He did not have access to UMI or PBI’s distribution records, financial records, or

ownership records.

Not Guilty Guilty

-12-
USA V. DAVID HE, CASE NO.: 1:23-CR-00219-DAD-EPG
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

File and source

File: 151.pdf
Size: 233,765 bytes
SHA-256: d19958840f326b0c6792846c2bc91f91220c754b69df9a47a0559cabe2abb0cd
Our copy: 151.pdf