NYC man acted as foreign agent at secret Chinese police station: court verdict ⁠44%

By John Annese⁠59%

5/13/2026, 5:47:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Indoctrination, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 34.2% saturation with 201 hits. Analysis detected 1,061 faulty-reasoning hits from 588 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (12,248 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.00% of the article peer group.

A New York man who opened what federal prosecutors called a secret Chinese police station in lower Manhattan has been convicted of acting as a foreign agent and obstruction of justice. 
Jurors in Brooklyn Federal Court needed one day to come to a split verdict in the trial of Lu Jianwang, 64, also known as Harry Lu, finding him guilty of two of the three counts against him, but acquitting on a charge of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent. 
Prosecutors in Brooklyn accused Lu, of the Bronx, of opening the secret “overseas police service station” on East Broadway in Chinatown in early 2022, at the behest of China’s Ministry of Public Security, to track and harass Chinese dissidents living in the U.S. 
A secret police station, dubbed the “Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station,” operated out of a Chinatown office on the third floor of 107 E. 
Broadway in early 2022. 
The building is pictured here on April 17, 2023. 
(Luiz C. 
Ribeiro for New York Daily News) 
He also deleted WeChat messages between him and his Chinese government handler after learning the FBI was looking into the police station, prosecutors said. 
His lawyer, John Carman, said the East Broadway office was no secret police station. 
Rather, he said, it was a place where Chinese citizens living in the U.S. could renew their Chinese driver’s licenses remotely, and where members of the Chinese community could play ping-pong and mahjong. 
Lu, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and a second man, Chen Jianping, who pleaded guilty prior to the trial, were the leaders of a nonprofit organization founded in 2013 that described its mission as a “social gathering place for Fujianese people.” 
The jurors saw a large blue banner, seized from the site, that read “Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station,” as well as photos of Lu with Chinese Communist Party officials, plus a text message between Lu and a Chinese security officer asking him for information about a dissident living in California. 
“Just help me verify if this person exists, thanks,” the security officer texted him. 
“A friend is looking for him for a personal matter, no need to contact him directly, just verify his existence and that’s it.” 
“A police station operating in New York City at the direction of the Chinese government has been exposed, its sinister purpose disrupted, and its founder held accountable for blatantly disregarding the law and our country’s sovereignty,” U.S. 
Attorney Joseph Nocella said. 
Prosecutors in Brooklyn accused Lu of opening the secret “overseas police service station” on East Broadway in Chinatown in early 2022, at the behest of China’s Ministry of Public Security, to track and harass Chinese dissidents living in the U.S. 
(DOJ) 
Lu remains free on bond until his sentencing, a date for which has not yet been set. 
“Obviously, we’re disappointed by the verdict today,” Carman, his attorney, said outside the courthouse. 
“The cautionary tale, I think, here is that if you’re a member of a community that originated in another country, be very, very, very careful how you deal with people from your country…. 
This is true most especially in Chinese-American communities.” 
Carman maintained that Lu was prosecuted for failing to fill out a form saying he was doing work for the Chinese government renewing driver’s licenses. 
“This is not espionage, this is not spying, this is not intelligence gathering,” the defense attorney said. 
“I said no good deed goes unpunished, because Harry’s motives were pure.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.0%John Annese: 3.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%John Annese: 3.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 6.8%John Annese: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.2%John Annese: 6.2%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect34.2%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%John Annese: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 2.0%John Annese: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias2.0%This article: 30.4%John Annese: 15.9%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias30.4%This article: 11.1%John Annese: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%John Annese: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias7.0%This article: 1.4%John Annese: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 3.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.5%John Annese: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.7%John Annese: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.7%This article: 2.9%John Annese: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.0%John Annese: 2.9%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization7.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.7%John Annese: 9.4%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 2.0%John Annese: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.0%John Annese: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 2.9%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.4%John Annese: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.4%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%John Annese: 4.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 8.7%John Annese: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.7%This article: 2.2%John Annese: 5.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 13.3%John Annese: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination13.3%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Annese: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

588 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers27%attributed speech427writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Carman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Carman • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Nocella • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDOJ • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Carman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Carman • 33 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Carman • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Carman • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Carman • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Carman • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Carman

100%flagged-word coverage
156 attributed words97% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+17.6 ptsWriter: 8.7%John Carman: 26.3%26.3%Quote-first Misdirection-11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%John Carman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%John Carman: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%John Carman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.