A federal judge ordered Thao Duong of Garland, Texas, to forfeit more than $1.5 million and serve three months in federal prison for running an online business that distributed unapproved veterinary drugs and unregistered pesticides smuggled from Mexico between 2011 and 2022. Her husband, Lam Mai, received two years of probation for his role in shipping the products nationwide.

What did the court order?

The U.S. Department of Justice detailed the scheme in a public release. Duong launched the website in approximately 2011 and directed sales primarily to customers involved in rooster fighting. She held no veterinary license and did not require buyers to furnish a prescription before checkout. Between 2018 and 2022, co-conspirators moved approximately $2.4 million worth of smuggled drugs and pesticides from California into the couple's Texas operation. Mai managed the warehouse and shipping, and the orders traveled nationwide through the U.S. Postal Service and private carriers.

What products moved through the pipeline?

The catalogue carried three veterinary drugs manufactured in Mexico and not approved by the FDA for use in the United States:

• Cipio Vet
• Baytril Max
• Caterrol

In 2017, Duong expanded the catalogue with two pesticides, neither of which carried EPA registration for sale or use in the country:

• Taktic
• Bovitraz

What are the regulatory stakes?

The FDA classifies the veterinary drugs as misbranded and unapproved animal drugs. The EPA classifies the pesticides as unregistered products containing amitraz, an acaricide the agency lists as toxic to honeybees. Residues from Taktic and Bovitraz can persist in honey, honeycomb, and beeswax. The EPA also documented neurological effects associated with amitraz exposure in humans and animals.

The case carries three distinct veterinary implications. For food-animal and apiary practice, amitraz contamination of honey, honeycomb, and beeswax raises residue and food-safety questions for commercial apiarists whose products enter the human food chain. For companion-animal and backyard-poultry medicine, unprescribed online sales of antimicrobials to rooster-fight customers create a residue and resistance pathway outside any veterinarian's oversight. For public-health practice, the neurological effects documented in amitraz-exposed humans and animals sit alongside the broader concern that unprescribed veterinary antimicrobials drive resistance outside any veterinary oversight.

Who investigated the case?

The case drew personnel from the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, the EPA, Homeland Security Investigations, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Jonathan Lamb, special agent in charge of the FDA's Kansas City Office of Criminal Investigations, framed the prosecution as a defense of the veterinary-drug approval system.

"The FDA is charged with ensuring that veterinary drugs meet rigorous safety standards," Lamb said. "When individuals smuggle and distribute misbranded and unapproved veterinary drugs, they jeopardize the health of animals. We will continue to pursue and bring to justice those who distribute misbranded and unapproved animal drugs unlawfully."

What changes at the exam table or in the barn?

Veterinary practices that source drugs or pesticides from online distributors should confirm FDA approval status and EPA registration numbers before dispensing, administering, or recommending any product. The Garland conviction, with $2.4 million in documented product flow and $1.5 million in forfeiture, establishes a measurable precedent for civil and criminal exposure when sourcing decisions bypass the approval chain. The Department of Justice has not announced additional defendants. The forfeiture, the prison term, and the multi-agency investigative footprint together set a baseline the FDA and EPA will likely reference as they pursue the next online seller of unapproved veterinary drugs or unregistered pesticides.