The Chinese woman who claimed that JD.com founder Richard Liu raped her in Minnesota, is suing the billionaire for more than $50,000. 21-year-old, University of Minnesota student, Jingyao Liu, alleged that Richard forced himself on her after he pressured her to drink back in August of last year, reports Yahoo. Richard was arrested on August 31, 2018, but was released after a few hours. Richard maintains his innocence. Jingyao Liu and Richard Liu are not related.
Richard Liu, 46, was in Minnesota on a University of Minnesota’s doctor of business administration China program last year. During this time he met Jingyao Liu, a Chinese national student who was volunteering in the program. The lawsuit claims that Charlie Yao, an executive in the program, asked Jingyao to join Richard for dinner at a Japanese restaurant called Origami. She thought it was an event to honor the volunteers but she found herself to be the only volunteer there. She said that she was surrounded by Richard Liu and other powerful executives who pushed her to drink alcohol.
Jingyao then claimed that Richard pulled her into his limousine where he made passes at her. She texted a friend, “I begged him to stop but he didn’t listen,”
Afterward, she said that Richard followed her into her apartment, ripped off her clothes, and raped her. She texted her friend again in Mandarin. “I didn’t do it willingly. I want to escape,” she wrote.
“How could I know that Qiangdong Liu would come to mess with me. I’m just a normal girl. I’m not eyeing anyone’s deep pocket. I repeatedly begged him not to touch me.”
Jingyao Liu told investigators, “We were battling against each other on the bed and finally I escaped from him and went back to the living room and put the bra back on again. Finally he just threw me onto the bed. He was on me. He was heavy. I tried to push him away. But he was on top of me and then he raped me. He is going to exercise his power. You underestimate him.”
An investigation was launched, but in December of last year, prosecutors said that they would not pursue Richard Liu. They cited they could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the case had “profound evidentiary problems.”