A sweeping federal prosecution in the Southern District of New York alleges that 11 people participated in a nationwide and international scheme that arranged more than 1,000 sham marriages to help foreign nationals—primarily citizens of China—obtain lawful permanent resident status in the United States.

The indictment, unsealed August 12, 2026, charges all 11 defendants with two federal conspiracy offenses. Prosecutors allege that the network operated from at least 2016 through July 2026, generated tens of millions of dollars, and relied on recruiters, marriage officiants, immigration paperwork, fabricated evidence and coached immigration interviews.

Who are the defendants?

The indictment names:

• Amy Cheng, also known as “Amy Zhou,” 72, of Brooklyn
• Xiao Mei Chan, also known as “Carmen,” 64, of Queens
• Christine Lu, also known as “Lily,” 52, of Queens
• Jing Yan Ye, also known as “Serene,” 43, of Staten Island
• Xiao Yan Chen, also known as “Anna,” 48, of Brooklyn
• Gang Zheng, also known as “Michael” and “Mike,” 61, of Queens
• Anthony Cheng, 47, of Staten Island
• Michelle Duenas, 35, of Staten Island
• Angela Duenas, 26, of Staten Island
• Sigrid Cetino, 32, of Peekskill
• Erika Johnson, 43, of Ossining

The Justice Department says 10 of the defendants were arrested on August 12 and were expected to be arraigned in federal court in White Plains.

The indictment describes different alleged roles within the organization. Amy Cheng, Xiao Mei Chan, Christine Lu, Xiao Yan Chen and Gang Zheng are identified as facilitators who allegedly arranged matches between foreign nationals and U.S. citizens. Jing Yan Ye is described as an assistant who coordinated services and immigration filings. Xiao Yan Chen and Anthony Cheng allegedly also served as marriage officiants, while Michelle Duenas, Angela Duenas, Sigrid Cetino and Erika Johnson are identified as recruiters of U.S. citizens willing to participate in sham marriages.

What prosecutors allege happened?

According to the indictment, foreign nationals seeking U.S. immigration status paid facilitators as much as approximately $100,000 for assistance arranging a sham marriage and applying for a Green Card. The U.S. citizens recruited for the marriages allegedly could receive as much as approximately $30,000, while recruiters could receive commissions of up to approximately $5,000 per recruited citizen.

The alleged process went well beyond arranging a marriage license.

Prosecutors say participants often met for the first time shortly before obtaining a marriage license and then participated in staged wedding ceremonies. They allegedly created photographs and other evidence intended to make the marriages appear genuine. Afterward, the participants allegedly opened joint bank, utility and mobile-phone accounts, filed joint tax returns, purchased insurance policies and assembled other documentation for submission to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The indictment further alleges that participants were coached before USCIS interviews about questions they might be asked and the answers they should give. Prosecutors say the network ultimately caused hundreds of fraudulent Green Card applications and supporting documents to be submitted.

Although the operation was principally based in New York City, prosecutors allege that the marriages extended to Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Vanuatu and China. The indictment specifically alleges that approximately 100 sham marriages were orchestrated in Connecticut between 2020 and 2023 and that Gang Zheng later orchestrated dozens more there.

Count One: Conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and immigration document fraud

The first count charges all 11 defendants with conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and immigration document fraud.

The indictment identifies two underlying federal offenses. The first is 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c), the federal marriage-fraud statute. It makes it a crime to knowingly enter into a marriage for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration laws. The statute provides for up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

The second is 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), which addresses fraud and misuse involving visas, permits and other immigration documents. Among other conduct, the statute prohibits knowingly making or presenting immigration applications or other required documents containing materially false statements. The statute also reaches documents procured through fraud.

The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to use sham marriages to evade immigration restrictions and to fraudulently obtain lawful permanent resident cards. It specifically alleges that participants made false representations that sham marriages were bona fide marriages and submitted supporting immigration documents containing false information.

Because Count One is charged as a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the Justice Department states that it carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

An important distinction is that the indictment does not charge each defendant with hundreds or thousands of separate marriage-fraud counts. Instead, the government has charged a single overarching conspiracy encompassing the alleged conduct described in Count One.

Count Two: Conspiracy to encourage unlawful residence

The second count alleges a conspiracy to violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).

That provision makes it unlawful to encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States when the person knows, or recklessly disregards, the fact that the alien’s coming, entry or residence would violate the law. The indictment alleges that the defendants assisted foreign nationals in obtaining Green Cards through sham marriages and fraudulent financial-support documentation.

The conspiracy provision cited in the indictment is 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). The indictment alleges that the defendants knowingly combined and agreed to violate the underlying unlawful-residence provision.

The Justice Department says Count Two carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. That enhanced maximum is significant because § 1324 provides a higher penalty where the unlawful-residence offense is committed for private financial gain. The Supreme Court has likewise recognized the distinction between the ordinary five-year maximum under § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) and the 10-year maximum where the offense is undertaken for private financial gain under § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i).

The government’s allegation of a commercial, fee-based enterprise is therefore central to understanding why the second count carries a potential 10-year maximum.

The alleged operation in practice

The indictment paints a picture of an organized enterprise rather than isolated instances of people entering fraudulent marriages.

The alleged facilitators marketed immigration services, located foreign-national customers and paired them with U.S. citizens. Recruiters allegedly supplied potential U.S. spouses and collected personal and financial information about them. Other participants allegedly arranged wedding ceremonies and immigration paperwork.

The indictment describes one operational hub in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, where Jing Yan Ye allegedly coordinated services, immigration petitions and interactions among participants and service providers. It also alleges that facilitators and recruiters helped couples manufacture the appearance of a genuine marital relationship after the wedding.

The alleged financial structure was also tied to immigration milestones. According to the indictment, U.S. citizens could receive payments after the marriage and Green Card application, after a conditional Green Card was issued, and after the foreign national obtained permanent status.

That alleged arrangement is important to the government’s theory because it connects the sham marriages directly to the procurement of immigration benefits and to the financial motive behind the operation.

Potential forfeiture

The indictment also contains forfeiture allegations.

For Count One, the government seeks forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6) of property used to commit the offense, property derived from or traceable to its proceeds, and property used or intended to facilitate the offense.

For Count Two, the indictment invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) as well as 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461. The government seeks, among other things, proceeds of the alleged offense and property used to facilitate it. The indictment also contains a substitute-assets provision that could permit the government to seek other property up to the value of forfeitable assets if the original property cannot be located or has otherwise become unavailable.

What happens next?

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jake Sidransky and Reyhan Watson are handling the prosecution. The investigation involved Homeland Security Investigations, the FBI, USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office and other federal law-enforcement offices.

The allegations are extensive, but an indictment is not a conviction. The government will have to prove the charged conspiracies beyond a reasonable doubt. The Justice Department expressly states that the charges are accusations and that all 11 defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The case is nevertheless notable for the scale alleged: more than 1,000 sham marriages, hundreds of allegedly fraudulent immigration applications, activity spanning multiple states and countries, and a network that prosecutors say generated tens of millions of dollars. The two-count indictment uses conspiracy statutes to connect the alleged participants to a common enterprise involving marriage fraud, immigration-document fraud and the allegedly unlawful facilitation of immigration status.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced federal criminal defense attorney. If you have been accused of marriage fraud by federal law enforcement agents, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss his legal services.