Given how legal filings work, unless they have good evidence that the expert wasn't deceived they should not say that.

Besides, the filing only says that this Chinese person allegedly tried to convince the expert to commit a crime, hell it even seems likely that this expert is the one that called the FBI to intervene.

Frankly, I think they should not even publicly imply this person did anything until they have a conviction, and after that only of the things that the person was actually convicted of.

Reading the indictment, it sure sounds like the victim company employee was in on it. I wonder why "Employee 1" is not also charged. The press release makes it sound like the Chinese spy was soliciting company insiders to give talks where maybe they can learn something, whereas the indictment alleges that he was brazenly asking the insiders to send copies of confidential designs. And in this case it seems the insider did exactly that, and was hand over of a big dump of valuable data was imminent when US authorities decided to move in. It seems to be more than mere conspiracy, they were actually committing espionage.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I wonder if "Employee 1" is a Chinese national and was under some pressure, or if there was a big payout on offer that isn't mentioned. Otherwise I can't understand why anyone would betray their employer for a few grand of travel expenses.

Please note that the indictment is the opinion of one prosecutor, who got the story secondhand (or worse), and writes with the express purpose (and bias) to get a conviction.

You should read it like it is SCO's legal description of the damage inflicted by IBM's Linux on SCO. Because that's exactly what it is.