Document fraud is being combatted on a massive scale in the United States, and fraudsters are turning to translation as an alternative. If you’re not familiar with document fraud, there are millions of cases in the United States alone where someone presents a fake ID or other falsified document to wrongfully obtain something of value. This often involves manipulating or altering documents and uses can be quite varied, from stealing or laundering money to getting visas. The method, however, carries a very high risk, so clever but dishonest bilingual lawyers have found a loophole to get around automated document fraud detection: using document laundering mills to create subtly manipulated but wrongful translations that fly through the system undetected.
A good example of how this works in practice is the 2026 docketed trial of USA v. Huawei and the related USA v. Meng Wanzhou case. In USA v. Huawei, a translation company produced “know your company” regulatory documents for a client of HSBC, Huawei. According to prosecutors, a word in the document—“cooperation” in English—implied that Huawei’s relationship with the company Skycom was strictly third-party. However, the Chinese word for “cooperation” can include a third party, affiliate, or even someone on your team.
In Chinese, the term team cooperation (团队合作) is universally translated as “teamwork” in dictionaries. HSBC processed thousands of transactions based on the “cooperation” phrasing, which even appears all over publicly filed documents. So, what was going on here? The subtle manipulation of one single word by clever lawyers in coaching these translators allowed massive money laundering through HSBC. Shortly thereafter, HSBC did admit to money laundering crimes.
If you’ve read about the “Panama Papers” scandal, you know that law firms are very skillful in manipulating the system to protect nefarious actors. Previously, this was my job! When I was back in law practice, I worked on a number of FCPA, anti-money laundering, and import/export compliance cases. These typically involved white-collar crime actors often later connected to very serious allegations, with defendants ending up on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. During these cases, I noticed how some defense attorneys preferred to use ATA member translation companies operating out of places like Panama or India. These companies were offshore but used virtual offices and claimed to have offices in many US cities. One would assume that, if you cared for quality, these would not be the best choices for highly sophisticated corporate work… unless the lawyers were coaching and manipulating them to achieve Panama Papers-type results.
The basic reason for using these translation companies is that they are very easily manipulated by lawyers due to the aggressively inverted internal professional hierarchies. These are the kinds of companies where if a client is dissatisfied or has a complaint, the translator will be denied payment, even if totally innocent. That’s how little authority a translator with these companies has; they primarily exist to give the illusion that a neutral third party is involved in producing the document. In these cases, a lawyer representing a white-collar criminal, whether in defense or compliance, could simply dictate to the translator what the “correct” translation should be, i.e., whatever best serves their clients’ desires, and confidently expect the desired translation to come back with a certificate of accuracy attached.
The translators hired in such schemes are typically the cheapest available, those lacking self-confidence and easily intimidated and pushed around. So, you are often looking at a $500/hour lawyer directing a $5/hour translator on what to sign. The translator could earn more at McDonald’s but remains in this line of work to accommodate caregiving or other constraints requiring at-home employment. This is how the game works.
In most cases, the translation is pre-determined; the law firm already has its required translation ready to go. The translation is provided and the translator’s role is limited to signing off and providing a false statement on its accuracy. There isn’t really any competition among translators for such assignments, because the authority on the translation rests entirely on whoever is heading up compliance or defense in these cases. The translation company usually facilitates the scheme by using and enforcing NDA or non-solicitation provisions that keep the client’s identity hidden from the translator.
As a result, the person translating the documents is likely unaware of the legal context, the involvement of law firms or suspicious-looking clients, or any other potential red flags. In other words, it’s perfect blindness to complicity.
How Courts & Regulators Should React
I recommend that US courts and regulators working with translation adopt the following rule for all certifications and include references to such rules on any certification forms. The point of the rule is to prevent clever lawyers from falsifying evidence and proffering fraud upon the courts. I’ve seen stooge translators heavily involved in the most serious human rights crimes without regulators even noticing. Often, the same regulators and politicians are later caught taking bribes. Thus, putting such a rule out in the open can help transform subsistence-wage criminal facilitation stooges into proper, well-trained, and competent professional translators:
Rule: Have translators sign a standard certification of truth for a translation prepared by a third party (especially an attorney). However, advocating as an expert witness with disclosure of one’s role is acceptable, and certifications should be revised to match the translator’s actual role. Statements of the translator’s ability, with truthful disclosures such as any lack of demonstrated language competency, are also necessary. Suggestions or corrections by the client must be disclosed and fall outside the translator’s statement of ability. Agencies or courts must, to the fullest extent possible, require demonstrated and adequate competence to know.
The rule is very narrow and has two key requirements: (1) a translation produced by the client itself; and (2) a statement of truth certification that is not misleading.
Foregoing such a rule would only serve to better white-collar criminals and their lawyers while applying it would benefit the general public and certified translators. The reason lawyers would be better off is that if the lawyer’s skill in language is what ensures a document is accurate, then the client will pay for the lawyer’s expertise, not a linguist’s. Conversely, with such a rule in place, the translator’s skills will be essential to achieving good results with legal translation, making their expertise more valued by the market.
Lawyers have legitimate concerns about translator competence and may seek to control the translation process to reduce translator incompetence. Therefore, the best solution is to pay premium rates for premium services, rather than inducing a translator to claim they translated a document and know whether the translation is true.
A crucial public interest arises when an unfriendly nation’s organizations have a dispute in US courts and manipulated translations are used. In China’s case, the foreign public would see a different set of facts than what the US public sees in English. This discrepancy is highlighted in USA v. Huawei (see federal evidence docx). Even if the parties involved are satisfied with the translations, a foreign public may conclude that US courts do not treat them fairly, which fuels support for conflict with the United States to protect their legal rights more directly. The Huawei case appears to be one in which bogus translations were used to support money laundering, and these were subsequently seized upon to bring a prosecution. The Chinese versions look innocent, whereas the English translations are incriminating.
Additionally, under the principles of collective marks recognized by US Trademark law and in branding practice, the ATA certification seal could be positioned as a high-value public trust mark. This mark would signal that “you can trust this premium product!” and encourages third parties doubting a counterparty’s translation to request an ATA-sealed translation. The upcoming USA v. Huawei case could present an opportunity for an amicus brief highlighting the importance of the ATA’s ethics practices, emphasizing that such sophisticated corporations are aware (or should be aware) of these ethics.
Addressing Lawyers’ Concerns
Many lawyers may be concerned that they could be forced into using translations by incompetent translators. In fact, this is the main reason cited by every lawyer I’ve spoken with regarding why they would feel the need to take direct control of translations. However, once direct control over the narrative and facts is possible, it becomes hard for a lawyer to resist temptation. Therefore, this is not a great solution overall. A subset of this, and a second reason, is that translators often don’t understand the case and context, thus preventing them from providing an adequate rendering of the facts.
The translator incompetence issue is really a result of dishonesty by translation companies that market their services to clients as superior, guaranteed by the company’s brand. However, many within the industry prioritize and advocate for using the cheapest freelance translators possible. Often, translation companies will use superior, competent translators to start and later employ bait-and-switch tactics. Law firms, unfamiliar with industry practices, are therefore victims of fraud and deception.
In Chinese-to-English translation, for example, there are about 200,000 translators who speak pidgin English, while a small group of about 20 highly credentialed translators talk with the fluency of Harvard English professors, despite being from China and only immigrating as adults. Who are the law firms hiring? Mostly casual workers with little to no competence who earn $4/hour.
The case context issue is partly the fault of law firms and partly the fault of translation companies. Law firms are at fault for not reading the book Legal Translation Outsourced, which explains how law firms send legal translators nothing more than a purchase order, despite having an ethical obligation to provide relevant information as part of the translator’s engagement. On the other hand, translation agencies’ standard operating procedure is to block translator-to-lawyer communication and limit it to bare-bones purchase orders. The rationale is that an LSP cannot provide the level of service required in all languages, and secondly, project managers lack law-specific training and don’t know whether the client will respond favorably to any requests. Lastly, project managers in these agencies may need to push something like 2,000,000 words per year. Therefore, a project manager who invests time in this kind of service risks being unprofitable, as KPIs like that mean that a 600-word project, for example, should get no more than 15-20 minutes of attention—barely enough time to fill out a purchase order.
Law firms, as organizational purchasers, cannot reasonably be expected to know all of this. The American Bar Association has published rule interpretations requiring lawyers to competently handle such situations but has found the rule basically unenforceable because the profession struggles to distinguish between legal translator and lawyer roles. Rather, I believe that “just-in-time training” for lawyers is a better approach. Disclosures should be required for legal matters involving translations submitted to a regulator or court. These disclosures should describe the ethical obligations lawyers have to adequately prepare expert witnesses (translators), use competent assistance by verifying credentials, and disclose any kind of corrections or suggestions sent to the translator.
While this may seem burdensome, it would improve both lawyer and linguist livelihoods because the social disconnect occurring here causes a lot of monetary damage and waste for everyone involved. This damage and waste create an ideal opportunity for Panama Papers-type white-collar crime, and shutting it down will only hurt criminals, not legitimate professionals.
