The indictment of Super Micro’s co-founder exposes not only a $2.5 billion scheme, but also a system that was never designed to stop such a scheme.
Somewhere in a rented warehouse in Southeast Asia, a man was using a hairdryer on a server box. Do not dry. To loosen the adhesive on a serial number sticker so that it could be carefully peeled off and pressed onto another machine, a machine that was never plugged in, never powered up, and never intended to reach its declared destination.
The real servers, which contain Nvidia’s most advanced AI accelerator chips, had already been repackaged in unmarked boxes and shipped to China. The doll, dressed in borrowed labels, waited for the examiners.
This scene, reconstructed from surveillance footage cited in a federal indictment unsealed on March 19, 2026, is the most accurate picture we have yet of how America’s semiconductor export controls actually work in practice. Not in theory, but in practice. It turns out the answer comes down to a hairdryer.
TNW City Coworking Space – Where your best work happens
A workspace designed for growth, collaboration and endless networking opportunities at the heart of technology.
Three men are charged in the indictment: Yih-Shyan “Wally” Liaw, 71, Co-Founder, Board Member and Senior Vice President of Business Development the super microcomputer; Ruei-Tsang “Steven” Chang, 53, general manager of the company’s Taiwan office; and Ting-Wei “Willy” Sun, 44, a contractor described by prosecutors as a “fixer.”
Between 2024 and 2025, they are said to have orchestrated the redirection of servers worth around $2.5 billion, many of which were assembled in the USA and integrate Nvidia GPUs, to customers in China via a front company in Southeast Asia.
At least $510 million in hardware was shipped during a single six-week window in spring 2025. Liaw and Sun were arrested. Chang, a Taiwanese citizen, remains a refugee.
The charges include conspiracy to violate the Export Controls Reform Act, conspiracy to smuggle goods out of the United States and conspiracy to defraud the government. These crimes are punishable by a total maximum prison sentence of 30 years.
Super Micro, the publicly traded San Jose company that makes the hardware at the center of the scheme, was not named as a defendant. It placed Liaw and Chang on administrative leave and ended their relationship with Sun. It said it had cooperated with investigators and maintained a “robust compliance program.”
This sentence deserves to stay with you for a moment.
According to the indictment, the defendants and their co-conspirators communicated using encrypted messaging applications to coordinate what quantities of servers to order, which locations in China to ship them to and, crucially, how to hide the plan from the company’s own compliance team.
When an internal audit was planned, they deployed thousands of non-functioning server replicas in a warehouse rented by the front company. When a U.S. Department of Commerce inspector arrived to inspect the same facility, he used the same props and used heat guns to exchange labels and serial numbers before the visit.
The inspector, the indictment says, did not see the actual servers because they had already been sent to China. According to the public prosecutor’s office, an auditor from the company who should have been on site for a separate inspection was “outside the company and having fun at the expense of the fake company.”
The gap that was never a secret
The transshipment route through Southeast Asia is not a discovery. It is a well-known, documented and repeatedly highlighted feature of the export control architecture – one that U.S. trade analysts, think tanks and the Commerce Department itself have been warning about for years. Countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Thailand have historically, as East Asia Forum analysts noted earlier this month, “lacked the enforcement infrastructure or political will to strictly monitor re-exports.”
According to an analysis published by The Diplomat, between April and July 2025, Vietnamese authorities intercepted more than 2,000 shipments that were falsely labeled as “Made in Vietnam” but were traced to Chinese factories. Malaysian tech hubs in Penang and Johor were reported for similar diversion practices.
DeepSeek, the Chinese AI lab that became a household name after releasing its model in January 2025, was accused in a report by Tom’s Hardware of setting up “ghost” data centers in Southeast Asia to pass exams and then passing on the GPUs.
According to an investigation by the Financial Times, China secured around $1 billion in advanced AI processors in the three months immediately following the last major tightening of U.S. export controls.
In other words, the pattern is not deviant. It’s structural. Controls are primarily enforced at the point of sale and at first shipment and are based almost entirely on the buyer’s declared end use and the downstream compliance of each intermediary in the chain. When the incentive to lie is hundreds of millions of dollars, there are limits to the honor system.
The company that survives itself
The appearance of Super Micro in this case is not a surprise, to say the least. The company has amassed a regulatory history that would be notable in isolation, but upon closer inspection suggests something more systemic.
In 2018, the company was temporarily delisted from Nasdaq for failing to file financial statements. In 2020, the company paid a $17.5 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission for what the agency called “widespread accounting violations”: more than $200 million in misrecorded revenue and understated expenses, which artificially inflated sales and profit margins.
The co-founder now facing federal charges, Wally Liaw, resigned from the company during this period. He returned as an advisor in 2021, was named senior vice president in 2022, and rejoined the board at the end of 2023.
In 2024, short seller Hindenburg Research released a report alleging new accounting irregularities, undisclosed related-party transactions, and, most notably, violations of U.S. export controls.
Ernst & Young, the company’s auditor, resigned shortly thereafter, saying it could no longer vouch for the accuracy of management’s financial representations. Super Micro has commissioned an independent special commission to review; No evidence of fraud was found.
Despite all this, Super Micro remained in the S&P 500. Sales in the last quarter were $12.7 billion.
There is a legitimate question in this number: At what point does the sample become a product? The compliance errors keep occurring. The managers involved always return. The stock continues to recover. The hardware keeps moving.
Whether Super Micro’s board and remaining leadership can provide a credible answer to this question will be of enormous importance not only to investors, but also to its credibilityThe possibility of the entire export control regime that they allegedly helped to circumvent.
Enforcement when the wind eases
The irony of this week’s indictment lies in its timing. The Trump administration in recent months has quietly relaxed export control stances that made shipping the hardware in question illegal.
In December 2025, the White House announced it would allow certain chips to be sold directly to approved customers in China.
In January 2026, the Bureau of Industry and Security released revised licensing rules that allow for case-by-case review rather than acceptance of denial for exports of previous generation AI hardware to mainland China.
A rule known as the “Affiliates Rule,” intended to close loopholes surrounding Chinese subsidiaries, was suspended for a year almost immediately after it was published.
This creates a strange political geometry. The Justice Department is prosecuting men for sending chips, which US policy is beginning to allow at the same time.
There is a version of the story in which this tension resolves smoothly: the government enforces the current rules while adapting them to the future, and the two paths do not contradict each other.
There is another version in which enforcement becomes selective, a tool to signal toughness while the underlying architecture quietly weakens. Which version actually unfolds is a question worth watching closely.
Congress was watching, and not quietly. The BIS received a 23% budget increase for fiscal year 2026, with bipartisan support and explicit funding for semiconductor law enforcement. Several lawmakers have sought congressional oversight of export permits, frustrated by what they say is inconsistent executive authority.
What none of this solves is the fundamental architecture of the problem. Export controls enforced at the point of sale, based on declared end use and monitored by corporate compliance teams who can be fooled with a hairdryer and a rented warehouse, are ultimately not a system designed for the scale of economic incentives currently in play. The chip war has raised the stakes far beyond the level the honor system was intended for.
The servers have already arrived. The stickers have been carefully reapplied. The dummy machines were ready for inspection. And somewhere in a data center in China, the real hardware is running, training models, refining weights, closing the gap.
The inspectors are still on the way.
