Feds bust California-Pittsburgh marijuana ring
A federal grand jury last week indicted 20 people on drug and money laundering charges for distributing more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, according to court records unsealed Wednesday.
All the defendants are charged with drug conspiracy. Jennifer Chau Chieu and Philong Hau Chuong are also charged with money laundering conspiracy.
The indictment charges 11 Pennsylvania residents and nine California residents with participating in the drug ring. One person is identified only as 'Tuan' who is also known as 'Fat Boy' with an unknown address in California. The other 19 people indicted are:
- Jennifer Chau Chieu, 35, Scott
- Tom Ich Chieu, 33, Lower Lawrenceville
- Ngoc Phu Dinh, aka Phu or Crazy Phu, 52, Homestead
- Toron Brooks-Chapman, 34, East Liberty
- CaQuaine McGriff, aka Christy, 39, East Liberty
- Michael A. Fazio, 24, Lower Lawrenceville
- John Balistreiri, 29, Bloomfield
- Joseph Parker, 22, Garfield
- Christopher McNutt, 42, White Oak
- Dong Van Tran, 39, White Oak
- Richard Tran, 20, McCandless
- Han Tran, aka Henry, 41, San Lorenzo, Calif.
- Philong Hau Chuong, aka Phi or The Old Man, 48, San Leandro, Calif.
- Stanley Van Bach, aka Ah Ping, 43, Oakland, Calif.
- Quynh Tran, 28, San Jose, Calif.
- Kiet Quoc Son, 42, San Jose, Calif.
- Poi Tran, aka Ah Poi, 28, Oakland, Calif.
- Peter Tat, aka Cuong or Keung, 49, San Leandro, Calif.
- Jenny Kiu Say Truong, 48, Alameda, Calif.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.