Independent public-source research Read our evidence standard
ChinaSteals Search
Menu
← All case files CS-004 / Last reviewed Aug 23, 2026 Jump to sources ↓

Energy & advanced manufacturing / 2012–2024

A trusted coatings chemist copied seven companies' BPA-free formulas for a China venture

Limited access at Coca-Cola and Eastman exposed a chemist to suppliers' protected formulas; she copied files to personal storage while pursuing a government-supported coatings business in China.

Finding

A federal jury convicted Xiaorong You of economic espionage, trade-secret offenses, and wire fraud. The Sixth Circuit affirmed every conviction but vacated the original sentence because the loss calculation was flawed.

01 / Executive brief

Executive summary

Coca-Cola invited coatings suppliers to share protected BPA-free formulas so it could test safer linings for beverage cans. Xiaorong You was one of the few customer employees permitted to see those competitors' submissions—a legitimate evaluation role that concentrated seven companies' confidential chemistry in one trusted account. S1S2

As she pursued a coatings venture in China, You copied supplier and Eastman files to personal cloud and removable storage. Grant materials portrayed the planned company as possessing technology capable of breaking an international market monopoly. A jury convicted her; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions but rejected the original sentencing-loss calculation, and a district court later recalculated intended loss at $30.45 million. S1S2S3

Identification photograph of Xiaorong You displayed against a federal courthouse background
portrait

Xiaorong You, also known as Shannon You, whose convictions and 14-year sentence arose from the theft of BPA-free coating trade secrets. WCYB published this identification image with its sentencing coverage.

WCYB / Caleb Perhne · Editorial use; all rights remain with WCYB / Sinclair
Close-up view of the opened top and interior edge of an aluminum beverage can
technology

A beverage can's thin internal coating separates the drink from the metal. The case concerned proprietary BPA-free coating formulations shared for customer testing. Contextual image; not evidence from the prosecution.

Adodge · Public domain

02 / The vignette

What happened

A customer's test program became an aggregation point

Coatings makers disclosed formulations to Coca-Cola under nondisclosure agreements so the beverage company could compare BPA-free alternatives. You's testing position gave her rare access across multiple suppliers. The case illustrates a recurring risk: a neutral customer, integrator, or evaluator can become the only place where several competitors' secrets sit side by side. S1S2

Blocked copying shifted to personal channels

Near the end of her Coca-Cola employment, You attempted to move protected files and, after one transfer path was blocked, uploaded material to a personal Google Drive account and copied it to removable storage. She later took Eastman information as well, retaining the combined portfolio while developing a separate China-based coatings business. S2

The venture advertised a shortcut

You worked with Weihai Jinhong Group and pursued Chinese national, provincial, and city support. Venture materials claimed advanced BPA-free capability that could break a foreign market monopoly. Her convictions remain intact, but the penalty record needs precision: the appellate court vacated the original sentence for a flawed loss calculation, and the reviewed sources do not establish a final amended prison term after the $30.45 million recalculation. S1S2S3

03 / Anatomy

How access became transfer

This chain reconstructs the sequence supported by the cited record. It does not imply that every legitimate relationship follows the same path.

  1. 01

    Relationship established

    Supplier testing role

    Coatings companies shared formulas with Coca-Cola under nondisclosure agreements so the beverage company could test BPA-free alternatives. S1S2

  2. 02

    Sensitive access gained

    Rare formula access

    You was among a small group of Coca-Cola employees allowed to review the suppliers' protected formulations and later gained access to Eastman information. S1S2

  3. 03

    Information acquired

    Cloud and USB copying

    After a blocked transfer attempt, You uploaded files to a personal Google Drive account and copied them to removable storage; she later copied Eastman files as well. S2

  4. 04

    Assets moved

    China venture prepared

    You pursued a coatings company with Weihai Jinhong Group and sought national, provincial, and city support while retaining the files. S1S2

  5. 05

    Technology put to use

    Technology marketed in grant plans

    Grant materials represented that the planned company possessed advanced BPA-free technology capable of breaking an international market monopoly. S2

  6. 06

    Competitive harm

    Convictions affirmed

    The appellate court affirmed the convictions but ordered resentencing; the district court later set intended loss at $30.45 million. S2S3

04 / Evidence boundary

What is established—and what is not

Established in the record

  • You's convictions establish unauthorized possession of seven companies' protected coating information and an economic-espionage conspiracy; the convictions were affirmed on appeal. S1S2
  • The scheme exploited a customer's legitimate testing access to multiple suppliers' secrets, then carried those files into a separate commercial plan. S1S2
  • Chinese national, provincial, and city grant support was part of the venture record considered at trial. S2

Uncertain, limited, or unresolved

  • The reviewed public materials document the 2024 intended-loss ruling but not the final amended prison judgment; this file therefore does not present the original 168-month term as current. S2S3
  • The nearly $120 million development-cost figure described at the first sentencing is not a finding of actual loss, and the appellate court rejected the original intended-loss calculation. S1S2

Subject response / procedural context

  • You argued on appeal that trial testimony was racially prejudicial, that the jury instructions misstated the required knowledge, and that the loss analysis was improper. The court rejected the trial challenges but agreed that the sentencing calculation was clearly erroneous. S2

05 / Sequence

Timeline

  1. Coca-Cola access begins

    You began testing BPA-free can-coating technologies and obtained access to suppliers' protected formulas. S2

  2. Files moved to personal storage

    Near the end of her Coca-Cola employment, You copied protected coating files to personal cloud and removable storage. S2

  3. Jury conviction

    A federal jury convicted You of economic espionage, trade-secret, and wire-fraud offenses. S1

  4. Initial sentence

    The district court imposed 168 months in prison, supervised release, and a fine. S1

  5. Convictions affirmed; sentence vacated

    The Sixth Circuit upheld all convictions but found clear error in the intended-loss calculation and remanded for resentencing. S2

  6. Loss recalculated

    On remand, the district court estimated intended loss at $30.45 million for sentencing purposes. S3

06 / People and institutions

Who appears in the public record

Xiaorong You

Former Coca-Cola and Eastman chemist

Outcome: Convicted on all counts; convictions affirmed; original sentence vacated for resentencing

Weihai Jinhong Group

Proposed Chinese corporate partner in the coatings venture

Originator / affected institution

AkzoNobel, BASF, Dow, PPG, Sherwin-Williams, ToyoChem, and Eastman

Owners of the protected BPA-free coating formulations and related information

Originator / affected institution

The Coca-Cola Company

Testing customer entrusted with suppliers' formulas and You's employer during the initial access period

07 / Consequences

Documented and attributed harm

Court finding

The sentencing court's post-remand estimate of intended pecuniary loss was $30.45 million; it was not an actual-loss award. S3

Documented record

The copying exposed the research investments and formulas of seven coating companies through one trusted customer and one employee. S1S2

08 / Hindsight analysis

Where leadership could have seen risk

These are our analytic judgments based on the public record, not court findings. They are framed to improve controls without treating nationality as a risk factor.

A customer became an aggregation point

Coca-Cola legitimately held competing suppliers' formulas. Concentrating multiple firms' crown jewels in one testing environment magnified the impact of one insider.

A blocked copy was an escalation signal

The first transfer attempt was stopped, but the same objective was achieved through personal cloud storage. Controls needed correlation across channels, not a single blocked event.

Outside venture signals were disconnected

Grant applications and a planned competing company were relevant to the employee's access risk but were not surfaced to the organizations holding the formulas.

09 / Apply the lesson

Actions leaders can take

  1. companies

    Partition supplier-confidential data

    Keep each supplier's formulas in separate workspaces, restrict cross-project search and export, and require named, time-limited access tied to a testing purpose.

  2. both

    Correlate blocked exfiltration

    Treat a blocked bulk copy as an investigation trigger across cloud uploads, removable media, printing, messaging, and nearby account activity rather than as a completed control.

  3. companies

    Reconcile outside ventures

    Require periodic disclosure of relevant ownership, grant applications, consulting, and commercialization plans, then compare them with sensitive-access roles using counsel-approved criteria.

10 / Source record

Sources

Links point to the public record reviewed for this file. Government releases can summarize court proceedings but remain government-authored sources; the source note identifies those limits.

  1. S1

    Ph.D. Chemist Sentenced to 168 Months for Economic Espionage and Trade-Secret Offenses ↗

    U.S. Department of Justice · Published May 9, 2022 · Retrieved Aug 23, 2026

    Original sentencing summary; the prison sentence was later vacated and is not presented as the final term.

    government release
  2. S2

    United States v. You, 74 F.4th 378 ↗

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Published Jul 11, 2023 · Retrieved Aug 23, 2026

    Published opinion affirming every conviction, vacating the sentence, and describing the access, copying, grant, and defense record.

    court record
  3. S3

    United States v. Xiaorong You, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Intended Loss ↗

    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee via GovInfo · Published Sep 11, 2024 · Retrieved Aug 23, 2026

    Post-remand ruling estimating intended loss at $30.45 million before resentencing.

    court record