Deceased/Not Found IL - Yingying Zhang, 26, Urbana, 9 June 2017 #4 *Arrest*

[darring21]

I believe the first reference is what makes this a Federsl Case at this point, but it was discussed previously quite extensively here. You can find that discussion in thread #3, around post# 650+ ( http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Zhang-26-Urbana-9-June-2017-3-*Arrest*/page14 )

(1) kidnapping in which the victim is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce;.

if you read the official Conplaint document, they reference interstate or foreign commerce several times.

Further from the Justice Department

Conviction for the offense of kidnapping requires proof of transportation in interstate commerce, of an unconsenting person, who is held for ransom or reward or otherwise, where the accused's acts were knowingly and willfully committed. See United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 (5th Cir. 1995). See also United States v. Crosby, 713 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir.); cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1001 (1983). Proof is not required that the accused carried out the kidnapping for personal financial gain. See United States v. Childress, 26 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 115 S. Ct. 1115 (1995). Situations falling within the "or otherwise" language of the statute have included those where the purpose of the kidnapping was to silence a potential witness, see United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984), on remand, 599 F. Supp. 958, cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 (1985), and kidnapping for the purpose of sexual gratification, see United States v. McBryar, 553 F.2d 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 862 (1977). Section 2A4.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission's guidelines governs kidnapping offenses.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1033-kidnapping-18-usc-1201-1202

If you look at United States v. McBryar - the victim was transported across state line. So, they must have evidence they crossed state lines or they plan to replace the federal charges with state charges and this was just a method to get him in custody.

 

[sherpa14]

Federal jurisdiction over kidnapping extends to the following situations: (1) kidnapping in which the victim is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce; (2) kidnapping within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; (3) kidnapping within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; (4) kidnapping in which the victim is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1116(b); (5) kidnapping in which the victim is a Federal officer or employee designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114; and (6) international parental kidnapping in which the victim is a child under the age of 16 years.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1034-kidnapping-federal-jurisdiction

I don't see anywhere where all kidnapping is assumed to cross state lines.

per the criminal complaint, the defendant used a means of interstate commerce in his phone, the internet, and his car. this is literally what they used to justify federal jurisdiction. it doesnt mean he crossed state lines, just that he used a *means* of doing so.

everyone who is interested in this case should read the criminal complaint

 

[Spellbound]

darring, I am just as confused, but maybe this explains why it is still a federal case:

https://www.federalcharges.com/kidnapping-laws-charges/
Kidnapping Laws (snipped)
For example, first degree kidnapping is often considered kidnapping used to obtain ransom, interfere with political functions, terrorizing the victim, and more. Second degree kidnapping is similar, but lacks some of the more serious aspects of the crime such as intent to terrorize or harm. No matter which type of kidnapping is found to be used, felony charges are almost always placed against the suspect.
Federal laws are somewhat different, and are governed by the Lindbergh Act of 1932. Federal laws will focus more on the transportation between state lines of the individual being kidnapped. Under this law, if a victim isn’t released within 24 hours a court can assume that the victim has been taken across state lines and, as a result, federal law could apply.

 

[darring21]

I believe the first reference is what makes this a Federsl Case at this point, but it was discussed previously quite extensively here. You can find that discussion in thread #3, around post# 650+ ( http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Zhang-26-Urbana-9-June-2017-3-*Arrest*/page14 )

(1) kidnapping in which the victim is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce;.

if you read the official Conplaint document, they reference interstate or foreign commerce several times.

I read the earlier thread and if the federal jurisdiction is because he used a car (or other methods of interstate commerce, such as mail), it will get tossed from federal court. The cases cited all involve the victim being transported across state lines. I'm guessing they think he took her across state lines (cell phone pings) and they're just trying to find additional evidence (body).

 

[roche.analisa]

I recall the discussion, I just do not recall that it was resolved.

ETA: any experts here? Looks to me like the Lindberg law says the FBI can step in IF the kidnappers cross state lines. I don't see anything about it being assumed: www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Federal_Kidnapping_Act

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct. My apologies.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Webthrush]

Just to confuse matters further my recollection of the earlier discussion is that someone with legal knowledge said that once the body is found (as almost surely it will be?) and this becomes a murder case, it would revert back to state court (out of Federal jurisdiction; though another possibility was different charges being tried in different courts)... I'm sure though someone will disagree with my memory or interpretation.

 

[MomminIt]

They may have taken so long to arrest because they were watching to see if he would lead them to yz dead or alive or if he might confess to murder or yield enough evidence for a murder charge, which there isn't one yet sad to say. Maybe the reason to arrest was the threat he made against the witness and pointing out victims at the vigil. They had to pull the plug on the surveillance at that point or risk having more victims. There's no way they could've watched him forever.

 

[crhedBngr]

Further from the Justice Department

Conviction for the offense of kidnapping requires proof of transportation in interstate commerce, of an unconsenting person, who is held for ransom or reward or otherwise, where the accused's acts were knowingly and willfully committed. See United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 (5th Cir. 1995). See also United States v. Crosby, 713 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir.); cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1001 (1983). Proof is not required that the accused carried out the kidnapping for personal financial gain. See United States v. Childress, 26 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 115 S. Ct. 1115 (1995). Situations falling within the "or otherwise" language of the statute have included those where the purpose of the kidnapping was to silence a potential witness, see United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984), on remand, 599 F. Supp. 958, cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117 (1985), and kidnapping for the purpose of sexual gratification, see United States v. McBryar, 553 F.2d 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 862 (1977). Section 2A4.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission's guidelines governs kidnapping offenses.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1033-kidnapping-18-usc-1201-1202

If you look at United States v. McBryar - the victim was transported across state line. So, they must have evidence they crossed state lines or they plan to replace the federal charges with state charges and this was just a method to get him in custody.

RBBM

I see it's less than 50 miles from Champaign to the Indiana border. He could have easily driven that distance, possibly on the same day he kidnapped YYZ.

 

[LoremIpsum]

I must have missed that about the size of his arms, they look normal size to me. I was actually surprised that he supposedly works out as much as he does. I wonder what is meant by a creepy walk, all I can envision is a zombie walk, lol .

I agree. He is strong and fit but not obviously muscular. "He must workout" is NOT something you'd think if you saw him.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Skigirl]

I read the earlier thread and if the federal jurisdiction is because he used a car (or other methods of interstate commerce, such as mail), it will get tossed from federal court. The cases cited all involve the victim being transported across state lines. I'm guessing they think he took her across state lines (cell phone pings) and they're just trying to find additional evidence (body).

I wondered if all involved wanted to keep the FBI in the lead of the investigation for now because of their expertise and resources but the FBI needed an official reason, so they stuck in the stuff about the car being manufactured out of state and the phone and computers being useful in interstate commerce, with the intention of turning things back to the state once they have completed the investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darring21]

per the criminal complaint, the defendant used a means of interstate commerce in his phone, the internet, and his car. this is literally what they used to justify federal jurisdiction. it doesnt mean he crossed state lines, just that he used a *means* of doing so.

everyone who is interested in this case should read the criminal complaint

This would be a violation of the commerce clause and is largely thought to be unconstitutional. That's why prosecutors won't use this as a reason for federal charges at least in taking them to court. You won't find one kidnapping case that went to federal court using the "offender-use" provision of this law.

 

[darring21]

I wondered if all involved wanted to keep the FBI in the lead of the investigation for now because of their expertise and resources but the FBI needed an official reason, so they stuck in the stuff about the car being manufactured out of state and the phone and computers being useful in interstate commerce, with the intention of turning things back to the state once they have completed the investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps. Or they were worried about getting a grand jury indictment (I'm not sure if a grand jury is necessary in IL) or they wanted to delay the clock being started on state charges.

 

[Russian Blue]

Are you sure about that? That kidnapping automatically gives the FBI jurisdiction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if the word automatically applies, but if they don't know where the victim is or a body hasn't been found the FBI's involvement lets them go across states / jurisdictions. The FBI is notified for all suspected kidnappings. Whether they step in is most likely their call. I am not sure on this, but a little research would most likely clarify.

This does not mean all missing persons cases, but kidnapping is a federal offense. Not that it cannot be tried as a local offense. If I am wrong I hope some more knowledgeable sleuths will enlighten us. This stems from a law that came out of the Lindbergh baby case many years ago.

 

[Ghoulina25]

My husband says it wouldn't be obvious to him that BC works out. (He works out at the same gym as BC and comes in at the same time every morning.) My husband's arms are 3 times the size of BC's.

 

[Spellbound]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/kidnapping-lawyers.html
[h=2]Is Kidnapping a State or Federal Offense?[/h]Under federal law, kidnapping can be a serious felony offense, with prison sentences of 20 or more years depending on the felon's criminal history. Kidnapping can be a state or federal offense depending upon the circumstances:

• State - Kidnapping charges vary from state to state. For example, in some locations, kidnapping occurs where the victim is compelled to remain against his or her will. In other locations, a person commits kidnapping where a victim is moved a specific distance by force.
  
  
  https://www.federalcharges.com/kidnapping-laws-charges/
• Federal - Kidnapping that crosses state lines is automatically considered a federal felony. Under the Federal Kidnapping Statute, the FBI may get involved in a kidnapping case.

Federal laws are somewhat different, and are governed by the Lindbergh Act of 1932. Federal laws will focus more on the transportation between state lines of the individual being kidnapped. Under this law, if a victim isn’t released within 24 hours a court can assume that the victim has been taken across state lines and, as a result, federal law could apply.

 

[liltexans]

[video=twitter;884453933221117952]https://twitter.com/ui7news/status/884453933221117952[/video]

 

[Shin Masamura]

Sorry, very late to the party.. I tried to catch up as much as I could since being on vacation. According to his Facebook page, his vehicle he purchased last year posted May 6, 2016 is not the same car that picked her up. What is the back story to how he got that car.. thanks

 

[crhedBngr]

Here is a link that gives a bit more info. on kidnapping in the U.S.: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1201

 

[sherpa14]

This would be a violation of the commerce clause and is largely thought to be unconstitutional. That's why prosecutors won't use this as a reason for federal charges at least in taking them to court. You won't find one kidnapping case that went to federal court using the "offender-use" provision of this law.

afaik those are not related concepts and, considering that is literally written in the criminal complaint by a highly trained fbi agent, ill keep believing the expert opinion on this one

 

[LadyL]

perhaps they were hoping he would lead them to her body or a trophy of sorts ... (ugh I hated typing that)

Yes, that delay in arrest seems very peculiar... I've assumed all along that FBI has much more forensic evidence than they've divulged -- but then why not arrest earlier? The circumstantial case they've released publicly is weak (in the hands of a good defense attorney). They need a body and a lot more physical evidence... I still assume they have it, but am getting more nervous about it!