That can help explain what led to him deciding to cheat, but no it doesn't make him a victim. People have to be responsible for their actions rather than being labeled a victim of their own choices.

I would personally agree that it is possible he is a victim of advanced psy-op technology. I don't personally believe we have nearly as much 'choice' or 'free will' as NA culture of the past 40+ years has led most people to believe.

At a deeper level we do get to choose our overall environment and what kinds of things we are exposed to frequently, the recurring patterns of life can be consciously managed and shaped. But in the moment, we are more like an LLM doing a forward pass on next token. If a specific weight relating to refusal has been abliterated, it's not realistic to expect the next token to somehow still come out to refusal.

We can control our training better than we can control our inference. We have ego-ideals and specific mental makeup that can be exploited if identified.

The "advanced psy-op technology" of feigning physical attraction to a sexagenarian billionaire.

I kind of see where you're coming from, but people are still responsible for their actions. McDonald's employs psychologists and spends millions if not billions of dollars per year to abliterate my weights in regards to their restaurant, and yet I still refuse. And it would be my choice if I gave in. As pointed out elsewhere in the comments, Huang had to make many decisions to end up in his current situation, and each one is a failure for someone leading a company of that size and influence.

Also, other reporting has well established that extramarital activity is the relative norm for ultrawealthy men in business. Are we to believe that every time one of these guys enters a sexual relationship with a younger woman, it was an attack leveled by some psy-witch harpy on a hapless CEO? It seems more likely to me that Huang was participating in normal behavior for men in his position, and in this case it may have actually had consequences.

And if he was a gambler and she offered him money to pay his debts, would you say he is a victim? Come on man.

There are other ways to compromise a target that do not involve infidelity. These “techniques” just facilitate the process for an at least somewhat willing and/or interested target.

So, no, he’s not a victim, his existing personal potential for infidelity was exploited. It worked because he would have done the same thing if the right non-spy were to arrive on the scene. The spy takes advantage of that.

What if she wasn't a trained spy but someone naturally gifted in psychological manipulation and seduction? No longer victim but participant? Even though the effect he faced was the same?

He's married... he made an oath, signed a social contract to another person, his wife, that he made the conscious choice to break.

Its clear his wealth generated a level of narcissism here that rose to a level that permitted him to invalidate the feelings of his wife, who, again, he made a vow to.

It does not matter if some hot chinese spy tried to get into his pants. He still let it. For a loooooong time.

I'm personally so tired of excusing infidelity. He is a big boy. He can make big boy decisions.

That's generally true if the victim is a laymen, but somewhere between being a college pool-boy, to the president of a nation, to running a company that is more powerful than many nations... there arises an obligation to defend against such foreseeable attacks.