Supreme Court Petition Challenges Meaning of Government Property Under 18 U.S.C. § 641

Federal criminal defense attorney Michael J. Petro filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of his client, Tangtang Zhao, challenging an important question concerning what constitutes government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641.

The petition was filed on September 18, 2025, following Zhao’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The case presented an important question under the federal theft statute: When property purchased by the federal government is transferred to a private business, what level of federal supervision and control is necessary for that property to remain “property of the United States” under § 641?

The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition for certiorari on November 10, 2025. Although the Court did not review the case, the legal issue raised by the petition remains important in federal prosecutions involving property distributed by the government to private organizations.

The Federal Government Property Charge

Tangtang Zhao was a pharmacist employed by Walgreens in Chicago during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal government supplied blank CDC COVID-19 vaccination record cards to Walgreens and other private vaccine providers for distribution to individuals receiving vaccinations.

Zhao was charged with twelve counts of theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641 based on allegations that he took blank vaccination cards from Walgreens and sold them.

A jury convicted Zhao of the charges.

The central issue was not whether the federal government originally purchased the cards. The disputed legal question was whether the cards remained the property of the United States after they had been distributed to Walgreens, a private company.

What Is Government Property Under 18 U.S.C. § 641?

Section 641 is a federal criminal statute addressing the theft, conversion, sale, or unauthorized disposition of property belonging to the United States.

But determining whether something remains federal property can become complicated after the government transfers possession of the property to a private person, company, organization, or other third party.

Federal courts have examined the degree of supervision and control retained by the federal government when determining whether transferred property continues to have a federal character.

That issue became central to Zhao’s prosecution.

The Government’s Supervision and Control of the Vaccine Cards

At trial, the government argued that the blank vaccination cards remained federal property even after they were delivered to Walgreens.

The defense argued that the government had relinquished sufficient supervision and control over the physical cards that they were no longer property of the United States within the meaning of § 641.

The evidence concerning the government’s actual control over the cards, therefore, became particularly important.

The defense maintained that during the relevant period there were no individualized barcodes, inventory requirements, return requirements, or audits tracking the blank vaccination cards.

The question was whether the government’s broader regulation of the vaccination program was enough to establish that the individual cards remained federal property.

The Jury Asked What Sufficient Supervision and Control Means

The issue became particularly significant during jury deliberations.

The jury asked the district court for guidance concerning what constituted sufficient supervision and control by the federal government.

The district court did not provide the jury with a specific definition or list of factors for making that determination.

The jury ultimately convicted Zhao.

That question became one of the issues presented during the subsequent appellate proceedings.

The Seventh Circuit Affirmed the Conviction

Zhao appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The appellate court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s determination that the federal government retained supervision and control over the vaccination cards.

The court pointed to evidence that the government controlled the permitted use and distribution of the cards, retained certain access rights for quality assurance purposes, and possessed authority to terminate Walgreens’ participation in the vaccination program for failure to comply with the provider agreement.

The Seventh Circuit therefore concluded that a jury could find that the cards retained their federal character for purposes of § 641.

Attorney Petro Petitioned the United States Supreme Court

Following the Seventh Circuit decision, Attorney Michael J. Petro filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review Zhao’s case.

The petition was filed on September 18, 2025, and docketed by the Supreme Court as Tangtang Zhao v. United States, No. 25-333.

The petition asked the Supreme Court to address the legal standard for determining whether property remains property of the United States after the federal government distributes it to a private third party.

The defense argued that a clearer and more objective standard was necessary to determine when the government retains sufficient supervision and control for property to remain federal property under § 641.

Why the Section 641 Issue Matters

The question extends beyond COVID-19 vaccination cards.

The federal government distributes money, equipment, supplies, benefits, and other property through private organizations and institutions in numerous programs.

Potential examples can involve:

• Healthcare programs
• Disaster relief programs
• Educational programs
• Federal grants
• Government contractors
• Private healthcare providers
• Businesses participating in federal programs
• Other federally funded activities

When property moves from the federal government into private hands, determining whether it continues to constitute federal property can determine whether § 641 applies.

That distinction can be critical because § 641 is a criminal statute.

The Supreme Court Denied Certiorari

On November 10, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied Zhao’s petition for writ of certiorari.

A denial of certiorari does not constitute a Supreme Court decision approving or rejecting the legal reasoning of the lower court. It means the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit’s decision affirming Zhao’s conviction remained in place.

The Supreme Court’s denial also meant that it did not use Zhao’s case to establish a nationwide standard defining the extent or type of federal supervision and control required for property transferred to a private party to remain government property under § 641.

Why Clear Standards Matter in Federal Criminal Cases

Federal criminal statutes should provide meaningful standards that allow individuals to understand what conduct is prohibited.

When criminal liability depends on whether property remains “of the United States” after entering private hands, the nature of the government’s retained interest can become critically important.

The Zhao petition argued for objective indicators of continued federal control, including considerations such as:

• Rights to recover or recall property
• Tracking requirements
• Inventory controls
• Auditing requirements
• Restrictions on use
• Government approval requirements
• Termination rights
• Other mechanisms demonstrating continuing control

The broader legal issue is where federal ownership ends when government property enters private channels.

Federal Criminal Defense Under 18 U.S.C. § 641

Federal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 641 can involve allegations concerning theft, embezzlement, conversion, sale, or possession of government property.

A defense may require careful analysis of several questions, including:

• Whether the property actually belonged to the United States
• Whether the government retained a sufficient property interest
• Whether the government maintained supervision and control
• Whether the defendant knowingly converted or disposed of the property
• Whether the government can establish the required criminal intent
• Whether the government can prove the value of the property
• Whether the evidence satisfies every element of § 641 beyond a reasonable doubt

Cases involving property transferred to private entities can present particularly difficult questions concerning whether the property retained its federal character.

Experienced Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

Michael J. Petro has more than 35 years of criminal defense experience representing individuals charged with serious federal offenses.

His representation of Tangtang Zhao included a federal jury trial, an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Federal criminal cases involving 18 U.S.C. § 641 and government property can raise complex questions about ownership, supervision, control, intent, and the scope of federal criminal jurisdiction.

If you are under investigation or have been charged with theft, conversion, or unauthorized disposition of federal government property, consulting an experienced federal criminal defense attorney can help identify the legal and factual issues that may affect the government’s case.

Contact Michael J. Petro to discuss your federal criminal case.