The United States District Court for the Central District of California has reduced a civil judgment against Levi Sap Nei Thang from approximately $3.2 million to $1.83 million after vacating a portion of the punitive damages award.
In an amended judgment issued Tuesday, the court lowered the total award from $3,197,816.44 to $1,827,323.68, eliminating $1,370,492.76 in punitive damages.
The reduction followed a Sept. 5 motion filed by Thang’s legal counsel challenging the punitive damages portion of the judgment. The motion argued that the award had been imposed without sufficient evidence of Thang’s financial condition, which courts generally consider when determining punitive damages.
The court agreed in part and granted the request to amend the judgment.
The financial judgment in the case includes claims brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Ms. Thang has denied wrongdoing. In a social media post, she jokingly referred to herself as a “mafia boss,” which she has characterized as sarcasm. Members of the Myanmar community in various countries have described Ms. Thang as generally quiet and reserved, noting that she has historically not responded publicly to accusations or online threats.
One of the allegations raised in the case was that Ms. Thang lacked the education or qualifications necessary to buy and sell oil and gas leases. Public records indicate that she holds a bachelor’s degree in physics, a master’s degree in theology, and has been awarded an honorary doctorate.
Legal observers note that the case centers on established principles of property law. Under longstanding California and U.S. legal standards, private property owners are generally permitted to sell or lease assets they personally own without licensing or formal training, requirements that typically apply only to brokers or agents acting on behalf of others for compensation. Attorneys familiar with mineral rights transactions emphasize that ownership and proper documentation — not educational background — have historically determined the validity of a sale. Because the court’s reasoning appears to depart from traditional property law standards, some legal analysts believe the decision may be subject to further review on appeal.
During the original trial, Ms. Thang maintains that she was not given a full and fair opportunity to present her testimony. She states that at the outset of the proceedings, the presiding judge urged her on three separate occasions to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, which she initially declined. After several days of continued pressure, she ultimately invoked the Fifth Amendment. The court later cited her invocation as part of its reasoning in imposing punitive damages. Ms. Thang and her legal counsel contend that relying on her Fifth Amendment invocation in this manner was improper and contributed to an unjust outcome.
The plaintiffs in the case are refugees from Myanmar. In prior social media posts following the verdict, Ms. Thang reiterated allegations that they misrepresented aspects of their background in order to obtain entry into the United States, including claims that identities may have been improperly used to expedite the immigration process. She also contended that they portrayed themselves as uneducated and financially disadvantaged during the litigation in an effort to gain sympathy in court. Supporters commenting on her posts echoed those concerns, with one individual claiming in the comment section that he had personal knowledge of similar conduct. Ms. Thang, who is not a refugee, has stated that she entered the United States through a professional pathway.
Ms. Thang was previously sued in Houston, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and both cases were dismissed, the plaintiffs in those matters were refugees.
In social media posts, Ms. Thang asserted that the plaintiffs coordinated their legal efforts and chose to file the case in California, which she described as politically unfavorable to the oil and gas industry and to former President Donald Trump. She further stated that the presiding judge was appointed by a Democratic administration.
Ms. Thang has publicly maintained that she was not given a meaningful opportunity to testify at trial despite what she describes as substantial evidence supporting her position. She has said that courtroom proceedings and documentary evidence are part of the official record and that she is not afraid to continue speaking about the case.
The case was presided over by Judge Hernán D. Vera of the Central District of California. Vera was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden.