[gralx]

> ... The defendant turned over the data before his resignation ...

The FBI affidavit contends Tan deleted the confidential data before leaving the U.S. company, not that he turned the thumb drive over to them. The charges suggest Tan kept the drive after leaving the company, though the article doesn't say so explicitly.

Correction: The affidavit does say Tan turned the drive over to them, and of his own initiative, after he was escorted from the company's premises. See paragraph 17 of the affidavit that user baybal2 links to below.

[baybal2]

No, he gave up the drive and everything he had from company's IT for review. They are very purposefully avoiding mentioning that, but logically you can't conceive of how they can review the thumb drive without him willingly giving it to them first, nor that he had authorised access to such data in the first place. The charge says nothing about his accessing the data unlawfully, other than saying that he had "no reason" to access it, and it being outside of his immediate responsibility.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1122851/downl...

[perennate]

I think you're misunderstanding the process in a criminal case.

The affidavit that you linked to explicitly states:

> This affidavit is intended to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does not set forth all of my knowledge about this matter.

The full evidence will come out in a court case, and a decision on whether or not he is guilty will be made based on that full evidence. He has only just been charged and the court case has not started yet.

[gralx]

Fair enough. I assumed the parent's source was OP's article.