Two Southern California residents sentenced for Apple fraud scheme
Wenhui Huang and Yang Song were sentenced to federal prison for a counterfeit iPhone and iPad scheme that caused at least $16.2 million in losses.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 9:45 p.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 28, 2026, 10:08 p.m. ET — checked 1h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 9:45 p.m. ETFirst report
Two Southern California residents sentenced for Apple fraud scheme
Two Southern California residents have been sentenced in connection with a scheme to defraud Apple Inc., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Wenhui Huang, 41, of Chino Hills, was sentenced to six years and six months in federal prison, while Yang Song, 39, of Corona, received just under five years, as reported by kesq.com.
The government alleged that Huang and Song participated in a scheme in which counterfeit iPhones and iPads were imported from China and exchanged at Apple stores for genuine devices, causing at least $16.2 million in losses, according to kesq.com. The charges included conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods, engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from specified unlawful activity, wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, as reported by kesq.com.
The sentencing was reported by kesq.com on August 28, 2026.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 01:45current
First published.
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 01:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.