Court Filings in U.S. Mirror Tactics Documented by The Bureau, Illustrating Covert PRC Playbook in Canada

 Indicted counter-rally leader in Boston affiliated with same United Front bodies and operations revealed in Toronto and Vancouver evidence

BOSTON, Mass. — In a significant revelation illustrating how the Chinese government implants and directs transnational influence networks, U.S. court filings reveal that an alleged Beijing proxy in New England helped establish a Taiwan “reunification” organization on American soil. According to investigative findings by The Bureau, this development mirrors alleged interference operations and tactics seen among elite PRC-linked diaspora groups in Vancouver and Toronto—groups that researchers have found hold significant social ties to the fundraising and election-organizing networks of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party.

Federal prosecutors allege that the Boston man, identified as Litang Liang, co-founded the New England Alliance for a Peaceful Reunification of China under direct guidance from Chinese consular officials and the Taiwan Affairs Office—an agency mandated to promote the “reunification” of Taiwan with the mainland, a top strategic priority for Beijing.

These charges—laid out in a recent indictment related to Beijing’s targeted attacks on Frances Hui, a student leader placed under a HK$1-million bounty in Hong Kong who recently testified in Canadian Parliament—offer unprecedented insight into how Beijing allegedly organizes, co-opts, and controls community groups in North America. The aim, prosecutors and analysts say, is ultimately to influence elected officials on policies aligned with Beijing’s geopolitical and national security objectives.

While Hui has raised alarms in Ottawa about Beijing’s transnational repression, The Bureau’s investigations reveal that Prime Minister Trudeau and his trade minister, Mary Ng, have met with and even expressed support for Beijing-affiliated community leaders in Toronto who share direct linkages to the same United Front and consulate-controlled networks, operations, and tactics attributed to Liang in Boston.

According to The Bureau’s analysis, Liang’s modus operandi—captured by U.S. counterintelligence investigations—aligns precisely with patterns of Chinese state interference identified in other countries, including Canada. There, PRC-linked networks affiliated with Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal Party participated in similar “counter-HK democracy” activities in fall 2019 and pandemic-related medical equipment procurement operations in early 2020. These Canadian networks have also faced scrutiny for allegedly attempting to influence recent Canadian elections.

The Boston revelations now provide some of the most concrete court evidence of how a foreign power can operate covertly among diaspora communities to shape opinions, marginalize dissent, and quietly advance Beijing’s strategic goals. A federal judge denied a motion to dismiss charges against Liang this year, allowing what experts and analysts view as a landmark case to proceed. 

The government contends that Liang acted as an unregistered foreign agent, surveilling and intimidating pro-democracy activists, funneling community intelligence to Chinese officials, and orchestrating efforts to counter U.S. support for Hong Kong’s democratic movement and Taiwan’s autonomy.

The Jamestown Foundation—led by former CIA analyst Peter Mattis—reported in 2019 that chapters of the Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China (CPPRC) have proliferated across at least 91 countries or territories, including major North American cities. In the United States, they operate in states from California to Massachusetts, New York and Texas, as well as Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam. The largest and most active chapters tend to be in urban areas with significant ethnic Chinese populations, providing fertile ground for influence campaigns.

Court documents suggest Liang’s ties to PRC officials extended beyond Beijing’s highest-priority national security objectives surrounding Taiwan, to more mundane activities. In July 2018, he informed a PRC official about a Boston resident accused of damaging Chinese flags in Chinatown. A month later, at the request of the PRC Consulate in New York, he asked an associate about the “political standing” of a local lawyer—an indication of Beijing’s intent to identify and potentially silence influential professionals on U.S. soil.

By September 2018, Liang was allegedly helping organize events attended by senior PRC officials and sharing attendee information with Beijing’s representatives. In October, he passed along photographs and names of individuals tied to pro-Taiwan groups, laying the groundwork for sustained efforts to track, categorize, and undermine organizations viewed as sympathetic to Taipei’s autonomy.

In late 2018, Liang traveled twice to the PRC, solidifying his alleged role. He communicated with multiple officials, including those in the United Front Work Department (UFWD)—the CCP entity dedicated to influencing foreign societies—and the Taiwan Affairs Office. On October 24, 2018, while in China, a PRC official requested information on Chinese nationals in Boston and more details about the pro-Taiwan group there. Liang complied, forwarding the request through his network.

By November 2018, Liang was not only informing PRC contacts of his travel plans but also detailing which conferences and meetings he would attend, including sessions at the UFWD and Taiwan Affairs Office. According to The Bureau, such gatherings often serve as both reward and reinforcement—offering tangible benefits and ideological validation—for cooperative diaspora figures. Similar trips by PRC proxies in Toronto with direct ties to elected officials in Trudeau’s government suggest a well-honed strategy of deepening ties and energizing operatives upon their return.

Indicating Liang’s prominence in Beijing’s transnational networks, a central focus of the indictment is his role in setting up the New England Alliance for a Peaceful Reunification of China. In December 2018, Liang worked with “PRC Official 5” from the Taiwan Affairs Office to establish the group, aimed at “peaceful reunification” of China—a euphemism for subsuming Taiwan. By January 2019, NEAPUC was formed, with Liang serving as Vice President.

NEAPUC’s creation spotlights the brazen sophistication of Beijing’s approach under Xi Jinping, who has dramatically increased resources and cadres involved in overseas United Front operations, according to Canadian court findings. Rather than merely co-opting existing groups, Xi’s United Front now founds entirely new ones to advance its narrative. Through NEAPUC, Liang connected with other U.S.-based reunification organizations, touting strict membership standards and a “core team” of local association chairmen. Experts say this reflects the UFWD’s broader strategy of reshaping the diaspora landscape to ensure overseas voices align with the Party’s desired messaging.

Throughout late 2018 and early 2019, Liang reportedly supplied PRC officials with membership lists, community data, and leadership details of pro-Taiwan organizations. This granular intelligence-gathering aligns with The Bureau’s findings in Vancouver, Toronto, and Australia: a global effort to stifle support for Hong Kong’s democracy movement and limit positive engagement with Taiwan. The Boston case appears to be one local front in a vast transnational campaign that adapts to local contexts while serving a unified international strategy, according to Frances Hui.

Litang Liang “was also one of the individuals behind a coordinated global campaign against rallies worldwide supporting the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong,” Hui testified in Ottawa recently. “This repression is carried out by multiple people under the direction of the United Front.”

In August 2019, global rallies supporting Hong Kong’s anti-extradition demonstrators inspired a Boston march from the Massachusetts State House to Chinatown. Court documents depict Liang’s alleged response: working closely with PRC officials via calls, WeChat messages, and voice memos to plan a counter-protest. Hours before the event, Liang urged NEAPUC members and others to confront “Hong Kong independence activists,” coordinate flags, and ensure a prominent pro-Beijing turnout.

WeChat communications show Liang as a central coordinator, receiving links from PRC Official 5, forwarding them to allies, and adapting plans as new data emerged. According to The Bureau, this tactic echoes similar incidents in other cities, where pro-Beijing groups rapidly mobilize to outnumber or intimidate democracy advocates—suggesting a well-rehearsed blueprint for swift, targeted action.

Following the August 18, 2019 rally, Liang spoke with PRC Official 1 for eight minutes, sending photos and videos of the counter-protesters. He boasted to allies about providing the Chinese flag and cautioned them against failing to align with him. Liang also messaged “PRC Official 6,” a high-ranking Chinese diplomat in the U.S., bragging that a pro-democracy dissident had been “berated by the crowd.”

The human toll of these operations was made starkly clear in November 2024, when Hui—an outspoken Hong Kong pro-democracy activist living in the United States—testified before the Canadian Parliament’s Subcommittee on International Human Rights. Pointing to Liang’s indictment, Hui described how he meticulously monitored her activities in the Boston area and relayed information to Chinese police and United Front officials. Between 2018 and 2022, she said, he spied on leaders of Boston-area Chinese family associations, community organizations, and anti-PRC dissidents.

According to Hui, he also organized counter-protests specifically designed to drown out pro-democracy voices with violence and intimidation. “In one incident, he mobilized hundreds to harass us,” she told Canadian lawmakers. “I was followed home and had to call the police. I regularly receive phone calls from men speaking Chinese.” Hui revealed chilling threats against her, including calls to “shoot her in the face.”

Diaspora members in Vancouver informed The Bureau that they encountered similar threats from the same networks, including United Front proxies who took photographs of Hong Kong Christians who had gathered in a Vancouver church after aggressive pro-Beijing protesters surrounded them.

Also, in Greater Toronto in August 2019, open-source records show a prominent Liberal Party fundraiser—examined in Ottawa’s ongoing foreign interference inquiry in relation to a national security warrant delayed by Canada’s Public Safety Minister’s office in 2021—attended an event aligned with leaders of a Toronto community association involved in a similar anti-Hong Kong democracy rally in Markham, Ontario.

Like Boston, where alleged coordination with the PRC consulate and UFWD officials occurred, in Toronto a man named Wei Chengyi, a prominent business figure who attended UFWD meetings with President Xi Jinping in 2019, headed up counter-rallies against Hong Kong democracy supporters. His group even garnered support from Canadian officials after the August 2019 counter-rally. At a PRC 70th-anniversary event on September 29, 2019—organized by Wei Chengyi’s Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations and attended by Chinese consulate officials—then Liberal Party candidate Mary Ng praised the Confederation’s role in helping Chinese immigrants settle and maintain cultural traditions. “The people-to-people ties between Canada and China are rooted in tradition, history, and mutual respect,” Ng said, according to a copy of the speech reviewed by The Bureau.

Ng, now trade minister for Trudeau’s government, has denied any implication in Chinese interference in Canada’s October 2019 federal election.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also met with leaders of the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations repeatedly, according to photographs, also sitting for a private “dim sum” meeting with Wei Chengyi and the group’s leaders and a future Liberal Party candidate in 2014, a year before Trudeau led his party to victory in a federal election defeat of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

In September 2019, Liang was invited back to China for the PRC’s 70th-anniversary celebrations. He met with UFWD and other agencies, calling a reunification conference he attended “very successful” and pledging to let it guide his “direction of work.” The Bureau’s research suggests such visits serve both to validate and train operatives, connecting them more closely with overseas counterparts and reaffirming their mission.

Demonstrating interconnectivity with PRC objectives in Vancouver and Toronto—where consulates directed personal protective equipment (PPE) collection efforts at the onset of the pandemic, according to The Bureau—NEAPUC’s website states: “More than 50 Chinese American associations in New England united to support China in fighting COVID-19. The Alliance was rapidly formed to collect donations and send the urgently needed medical supplies to the hospitals in China. Most medical supplies were sent to the temporary hospitals, and permanent hospitals in Wuhan, the city that suffered most in China.”

This humanitarian veneer can be seen as a United Front operation to shift PPE to China, while Beijing continued to cover up the extent of the virus’s lethality. Documents reviewed by The Bureau reveal that related United Front Work Department networks in Toronto and Vancouver also undertook the same operations, in conjunction with Chinese Consulate officials.

And there is sound evidence that the “Peaceful Reunification” associations sprawled across 91 nations and territories, and started in Boston by the indicted Litang Liang, sit atop Beijing’s global influence and interference operations.

As the Jamestown Foundation report emphasizes, “Front organizations such as the CPPRC represent one of the primary mechanisms employed by the CCP in its patient, long-term campaign to undermine the democratic norms and open debate—not only within China itself, but internationally.” The report calls for democratic societies “to take renewed efforts to defend themselves—through measures such as the reform of campaign finance laws, more stringent enforcement of foreign agents registration requirements, and exposure through independent media of front organizations and covert lobbying directed at political policymakers.”

https://www.thebureau.news/p/court-filings-in-us-mirror-tactics?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1444443&post_id=152667949&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email