{"id":"court_ctb_107_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":107,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":"2020-10-06","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |              | ----------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                            |\n|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---|----------------------------|\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n| In re:       |                                                                       | : | Chapter 11                 |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n| Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | : | Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM) |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n|              | Debtor.                                                               | : |                            |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                            |\n\n# **DECLARATION OF MR. HO WAN KWOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CHAPTER 11 CASE AND CERTAIN MOTIONS**\n\nI, Ho Wan Kwok, being duly sworn, depose and say:\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, I commenced the above-captioned Chapter 11 case. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify.\n\n2. I submit this Declaration to provide the Bankruptcy Court and all parties-in-interest background information about me and a description of the circumstances leading up to the commencement of my Chapter 11 case. I go into some length in this Declaration to provide context for the nature of the claims against me, my unique financial circumstances, and the reasons I commenced this Chapter 11 case.\n\n3. As discussed more fully below, I filed this Chapter 11 case to: (a) create a single forum to orderly address the various competing claims asserted against me; (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate my assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what I perceive to be misunderstandings in that regard; (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims; and, hopefully (d) reach consensus\n\nwith my creditors on a fair and equitable resolution of claims and distribution of assets pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan.\n\n4. In filing this Chapter 11 case and preparing this Declaration, I am cognizant that the Court may have concerns over Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order (defined below), adverse statements made about me by PAX (also defined below), and perhaps even the political views that I have expressed publicly. There are, of course, two or more sides to every story, and this Declaration will offer my views. For reasons that will become clear, I live in continuous fear of retribution by the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\") for my outspoken criticism of its corruption and human rights abuses. Over the years, I have endured relentless attacks through meritless litigation in the United States court system funded by the CCP and its proxies and agents. My Chapter 11 case can only address the financial harm the CCP seeks to exact upon me and my family. But, the CCP wants to cause me far more than just financial harm and public embarrassment. I believe the CCP would have me assassinated at the earliest possible opportunity if imprisoned, extradited, or if my family could no longer provide me with physical security. I do not suggest that the Court or any party-in-interest now accept my views about the underlying case facts. To the contrary, this Chapter 11 case is expected to be sufficiently funded by an *unsecured* post-petition loan *with repayment priority below all prepetition creditors* – to allow a fair investigation and stakeholders to present whatever admissible evidence they deem appropriate, as part of the typical Chapter 11 process. This bankruptcy is, in other words, intended to allow a reasoned vetting of all pertinent demonstrable case facts, without prejudicing any creditor's economic rights – except to the extent that any unsecured creditor hoped to jump ahead in payment priority via a \"race to the courthouse\" which would be necessarily unfair to some.\n\n5. This Declaration is in two parts. Part I provides background information about me, including a summary description of my assets and liabilities. Part II provides testimonial support for certain motions.\n\n## **PART I – BACKGROUND**\n\n## **I. My Background**\n\n6. I was born in Shandong Province, China. I currently reside in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Road, with my wife of 37 years, Hing Chi Ngok. We moved from an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York to the current address in Connecticut in March 2020. My wife and I have two adult children. My son's name is Qiang Guo and he lives in London. My daughter's name is Mei Guo and she splits her time between New York City and Connecticut.\n\n7. My family and I grew up poor. My seven brothers and I worked hard and combined our earnings – mine from a radio repair shop and my brothers' from their own small businesses – to invest in real estate development. Following the pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, I spent approximately twenty months in jail, where I was tortured, for providing financial support to student protestors. I was in my early twenties at the time of my arrest. At the same time, I witnessed the brutality of two policemen – agents of the CCP – as they shot my younger brother and left him to die. The murder of my brother, and my arrest and torture in prison affected me profoundly. While in jail, I developed many meaningful personal connections with other prisoners of conscience who had similarly been jailed for supporting the Tiananmen Square prodemocracy movement. We shared the same passion for pursuing freedom in China and I continued to maintain these relationships after my release from prison in 1991.\n\n8. In or around 1991, the Chinese government began to loosen certain rules governing society, including rules enabling private citizens to start to achieve a sort of \"quasi-private\" ownership of real property in China. While my extended family benefitted from this change, I personally could not due to my prior politically motivated arrest and detention. Any assets in China listed under my name would likely have been seized by the CCP. My extended family used the wealth it amassed to support me, which has continued to this day.\n\n9. My extended family began working with Yuda Property Company (\"Yuda\"), a company focused on commercial real estate development in the Henan Province of China. Together, the Guo family and Yuda developed the Henan Yuda Hotel and, thereafter, the Yuda International Trade Center in Henan Province's capital city of Zhengzhou. These were successful ventures that allowed the Guo family to start amassing significant wealth. My family then developed other properties in China, including the Pangu Plaza – a 7-star hotel, convention center, and residential apartment complex in Beijing. Americans may recognize the Pangu Plaza as the primary backdrop to the 2008 and 2022 Olympics in Beijing.\n\n10. The Guo family's fortune continued to grow through diversification, as it invested in finance, technology, and other business sectors. My son, in particular, played a key role in expanding the family's wealth by establishing and managing investment opportunities, including the introduction of global luxury brands to China and Hong Kong. My son is, as a result, an independent, successful, and wealthy entrepreneur in his own right.\n\n11. I left mainland China for Hong Kong in or around 2000, and became a Hong Kong citizen. While the extended family was continuing to accumulate great wealth in China, under Chinese law, as a citizen of Hong Kong, I could neither keep my Chinese citizenship, nor would I have been permitted to own assets in China.\n\n12. My extended family's financial success did not go unnoticed by the CCP. In 2002, my extended family acquired large tracts of land in Beijing, which became significantly more valuable when China was named the host country for the 2008 Olympics. CCP officials attempted to appropriate this land for their own personal benefit, and I reported the attempted seizure to higher-up government officials. After a lengthy fight, the land was recovered, enabling the development of the Pangu Plaza.\n\n13. In or around 2015, I began to more publicly criticize and expose the CCP's corruption, and the CCP retaliated against me as a result. On January 10, 2015, Wu Zheng (a/k/a \"Bruno Wu\") advised me that my brothers, my wife, and my daughter had all been arrested in China. Brunu Wu is closely associated with top CCP officials and is a registered foreign agent of the CCP; his media companies partnered with Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\") – the parent company of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\") – on the attempted purchase of a significant Hollywood studio; [1](#page-4-0) and he is personally bankrolling (on behalf of the CCP) the litigation efforts of numerous plaintiffs against me. In early 2015, Brunu Wu, speaking on behalf of senior members of the CCP, called me to relay that my family would be released if I stopped publicly exposing CCP corruption and threatened that, if I did not comply, INTERPOL \"Red Notices\" would be issued for both me and my son and that I would be killed. I rejected the CCP's attempt, through Brunu Wu, to silence me and continued to speak out against the CCP.\n\n14. In 2017, I significantly increased my anti-CCP campaign by using social media and U.S.-based news outlets as platforms to expose the corruption of certain high-level CCP officials.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Nancy Tartaglione, *Chinese Create \\$800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment*, Deadline, February 6, 2012 [\\(http](http)[226260/\\)](http).\n\nMy public statements exposing the corruption of the CCP received widespread coverage, in the United States and abroad. In addition to using social media to more readily and pervasively expose CCP corruption, I also provided information to U.S. authorities regarding CCP officials and their crimes. Out of fear for my life, I filed for political asylum protection in the United States in September 2017, and my asylum application remains pending.\n\n15. In retaliation for my whistleblowing, the CCP unleashed a multifaceted campaign to try to gain leverage over, discredit, [2](#page-5-0) threaten, and silence me.[3](#page-5-1) Those actions, described below, ultimately have driven me into this bankruptcy case. For example, on April 19, 2017, I was scheduled to do an interview with Voice of America (\"VOA\") during which I planned to expose\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Stanford University and the Hoover Institute, the NGO Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), and Alphabet's Google have all separately reported that I have been a primary target of the CCP in its global social media disinformation campaign, driven by CCP agents and thousands of China's state-controlled websites and social media accounts. *See* Carly Miller, Vanessa Molter, Isabella Garca-Camargo, Rene DiResta, David Thiel and Alex Zaheer, *Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown, Stanford Internet Observatory*, June 17, 2020 [\\(http)](http); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, and Elise Thomas, *Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests*, October 2019 [\\(htt](htt)[2.amazonaws.com/2019-](htt)\n\n[<sup>12/</sup>Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\\\_4SfDUy7](htt) [sMfNkw0\\)](htt) (indicating that the CCP's disinformation campaign against me began in April 2017); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, Elise Thomas, Albert Zhang, Dr. Samantha Hoffman, Lin Li, Alex Pascoe and Danielle Cave, *Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor*, June 2020 [\\(htt](htt)[southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-](htt)\n\n[<sup>06/</sup>Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt](htt) [XD6TCA\\)](htt) (presenting data reflecting \"a persistent, large-scale influence campaign linked to Chinese state actors on Twitter and Facebook . . . [which] largely targeted Chinese-speaking audiences outside of the Chinese mainland (where Twitter is blocked) . . . with the intention of influencing perceptions on . . . Guo Wengui\"); Joseph Menn, *Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID*, Reuters, September 9, 2021 [\\(http](http)[covid-2021-09-08/\\)](http) (reporting that security experts at FireEye and Alphabet's Google have observed a coordinated, misinformation campaign on social media in support of Chinese government interests targeting me). As these independent sources confirm, no person in the world has been the target of more attacks by the CCP's social media warfare.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> The abusive tactics employed by the CCP against me, as a Chinese dissident living in the United States, are not unqiue. Recently, federal prosecutors alleged that \"[a] Chinese spy hired a private investigator to use violence if necessary to end a candidate's run for Congress, instructing him to 'beat him until he cannot run for election.'\" *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *Chinese Agent Proposed Violent Means to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says,* Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2022 [\\(http](http)[with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\\\_inline\\)](http).\n\nthe CCP's ownership interest in HNA Group Co. The CCP took a number of actions to try to prevent me and VOA from proceeding with the interview. First, two days before my scheduled VOA interview – and just as Brunu Wu threatened – the CCP had an INTERPOL \"Red Notice\" based upon fabricated criminal charges issued seeking my arrest and extradition to China. Second, the CCP threatened retaliation against VOA and its reporters in China if VOA proceeded with my interview, asserting that the interview constituted interference in China's internal affairs. Third, the day before the interview, PAX (a subsidiary of PAG) filed a meritless lawsuit against me in New York for breach of contract. I proceeded with the interview, but VOA (succumbing to the pressures of the CCP) ordered it be cut short.\n\n16. When the CCP's early efforts to silence me failed, it resorted to trying to get me extradited to China, where I would be killed. An FBI investigation revealed that during the summer of 2017, I was the target of lobbying attempts by the CCP in the United States, utilizing a corrupt government official and a number of prominent individuals, including Macao casino owner Steve Wynn, to directly lobby President Trump and his administration to extradite me to China. [4](#page-6-0) The CCP's scheme resulted in the federal indictments and guilty pleas of the former Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee Elliot Broidy (who has since, like Brunu Wu,\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha, *Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman*, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021 [\\(http](http)[mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103\\)](http).\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me), [5](#page-7-0) lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, [6](#page-7-1) and former DOJ official George Higginbotham,[7](#page-7-2) all of whom admittedly took payments in exchange for lobbying top U.S. government officials for my extradition. China's campaign included the bribery and corruption of a senior DOJ Headquarters official (George Higginbotham) who was found with almost \\$75 million in bank accounts that he controlled – making it one of the biggest espionage and corruption scandals in DOJ history. The CCP also targeted me in various other ways starting that same year, including by: hacking the server of the law firm that filed my asylum application in September 2017, extracting my highly sensitive information from that application, and then publicly disseminating it across the internet; bringing and funding (including several through Brunu Wu) numerous spurious litigations against me, some of which remain active today; and detaining, torturing, and imprisoning many of my family members and former colleagues.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National, October 20, 2020 [\\(http](http)[investigation-and\\)](http) (stating that \"Broidy also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A – a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Elliott Broidy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span><sup>6</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Hawaii Businesswoman Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China, August 31, 2020 [\\(http](http)[campaign-drop-1mdb\\)](http) (stating that \"Lum Davis and others also agreed to lobby the Administration and Justice Department on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A — a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Nicki Lum Davis is attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span><sup>7</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, November 30, 2018 [\\(http](http)[banks-about-millions\\)](http) (stating that \"Higginbotham further admitted that another purpose of the lobbying campaign was an attempt to persuade high-level U.S. government officials to have a separate foreign national, who was residing in the United States on a temporary visa at the time, removed from the United States and sent back to his country of origin\"; I am that \"separate foreign national\"). A copy of the \"Factual Basis for Plea\" as to George Higginbotham is attached hereto as Exhibit C.\n\n17. Since 2017, the CCP has also frozen and seized family assets and purported assets in China and Hong Kong, making it impossible for me even to maintain a bank account.[8](#page-8-0) The CCP has made it its mission to destroy anything I create and to block me from dealing with financial institutions. I spend much of my time serving as an unpaid informal advisor or spokesperson to various entities, including entities that expose the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses. My family, and particularly my son, provides for my needs. Prior to the Petition Date, my son's family office, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\" or the \"Family Office\"), purchased, among many other things, my clothing, food, and sundries. I do not have access to a GSNY credit card or to a GSNY bank account. My family retains ownership of nearly everything I use, aside from my clothing and mobile phones. I do not own the Greenwich, Connecticut residence; it is owned by my wife through Greenwich Land, LLC. I hold the interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment in trust for my son.\n\n18. My family has advanced me loans (some documented, others not) to fund my significant litigation costs which allows me to defend myself against the many suits initiated by, or at the behest of, the CCP. As of the Petition Date, GSNY has extended to me approximately \\$21 million in loans to pay for my litigation costs. As discussed below and described in my Statement of Financial Affairs (the \"SOFA\"), I am a defendant and/or claimant in over 30 lawsuits pending in the United States and abroad. It is publicly known that the CCP utilizes its proxies to\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> On October 23, 2018, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance (the \"HK High Court\"), entered the *Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere* (the \"HK Restraint Order\"), dated October 18, 2018. The HK Restraint Order targeted HK\\$3.7 million of funds on deposit at the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC Bank) allegedly belonging to me. Billions more of funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong, of individuals and entities purportedly subject to my \"effective control\" (according to the HK Restraint Order) were also frozen and/or seized. The HK Restraint Order prohibits all dispositions of assets by the named \"respondents\" (which includes me). Anyone coming into receipt of my assets following entry of the HK Restraint Order is supposedly in violation of it and is subject to fines and imprisonment.\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China.[9](#page-9-0) The cost of retaining lawyers, experts, vendors, interpreters, and other professionals in connection with such litigations has been extraordinary.\n\n# **II. My Liabilities**\n\n19. I have, to the best of my knowledge, reflected the current state of my liabilities in my filed Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (the \"Schedules\") and SOFA. The Family Office assisted me in preparing these documents, as did Verdolino & Lowey, P.C., an independent financial advisory firm with considerable experience preparing bankruptcy schedules and statements of financial affairs. As reflected in those documents and described further below, I am named as a defendant in 21 lawsuits and owe considerable amounts for litigation costs.\n\n## **A. PAX Litigation.**\n\n20. PAX, a Hong Kong investment fund – whose parent PAG partnered with CCP agent Brunu Wu's media companies to purchase a Hollywood studio – commenced actions against me in New York and the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\"). As I mentioned before, PAX's New York Supreme Court action was filed on April 18, 2017, the day before my VOA interview to expose CCP corruption. PAX's claim principally concerns collection on a disputed debt.\n\n21. In 2008, PAX made a \\$100 million loan (the \"PAX Loan\") to a Chinese entity called Spirit Carter. The \\$100 million loan came in two tranches: (1) a \\$30 million initial loan secured by a personal guaranty made by me, and (2) a second \\$70 million dollar loan secured by a 49% interest in the company that owns the land/development that eventually became the Pangu Plaza.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts*, Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2020 [\\(http](http)[fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112\\)](http).\n\n22. In 2009, PAX received repayment of \\$100 million, acknowledged satisfaction of the loan, and further acknowledged that my obligation under the 2008 personal guaranty had been satisfied. PAX disputes that an \"accord and satisfaction\" actually occurred, and now asserts claims against me under a subsequent-dated personal guaranty that is a forgery. Prior to showing me this guaranty, my prior litigation counsel submitted it to the court in support of certain motions. When I subsequently learned of the document's existence, I stated that I believe it to be a forgery; but the court ruled that, by its prior submission, I no longer had the ability to challenge its authenticity. Consequently, on September 15, 2020, the court entered summary judgement in PAX's favor, without either allowing me to testify or conducting an evidentiary trial before a jury. The judgment, with interest, amounts to approximately \\$125 million as of today. I timely appealed this judgment to the New York Appellate Division, and that appeal remains pending.[10](#page-10-0)\n\n23. A few weeks later (on October 15, 2020), the Court issued a restraining order respecting my assets (the \"NYS Restraining Order\"). PAX, in enforcement of the judgment, focused primarily on a yacht named the \"Lady May,\" which is described further below. I do not own the Lady May; it is owned by my daughter. The boat's maintenance has always been paid for by my son. Nevertheless, on March 16, 2021, Justice Ostrager directed *me* to return the boat to New York by May 15, 2021 or face a massive daily fine of \\$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside the jurisdiction. I did have access to the boat, but I did not have the authority to order it back to New York. The Lady May never returned to New York and, as of earlier this year, the accrued contempt fine exceeded the amount of the judgment that had been entered in PAX's favor and was five or six times the stated value of the yacht. I have no ability to pay this fine.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>10</sup> My Schedules include a potential malpractice claim against my historical litigation counsel.\n\n24. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a *Final Order of Civil Contempt* (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") against me. In the February 9 Contempt Order, Justice Ostrager found that I hold a beneficial interest in and control the Lady May and ordered me to pay a \\$134 million fine to PAX within five business days or risk incarceration for civil contempt. I believe that the February 9 Contempt Order was wrongfully issued against me and have separately appealed this order to the Appellate Division. Regardless, I do not have the means to satisfy the order. I firmly believe the CCP is orchestrating the PAX case. The PAX litigation, so far, has been one of the CCP's few successes in its relentless campaign against me, by exposing me to potential imprisonment[11](#page-11-0) and forcing me into bankruptcy.\n\n# **B. Securities Litigation.**\n\n25. I am named as a defendant in seven actions related to my promotion of the sale of securities in a company called GTV Media Group, Inc (\"GTV\") and virtual currency referred to as \"G Coin\" and \"G Dollar.\" In addition to two putative investor classes, several individual investors have asserted claims against me related to losses they allegedly suffered following their alleged investments. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that I participated in a scheme to sell unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors in violation of applicable U.S. securities laws. The complaints, in the aggregate, are seeking more than \\$100 million in damages from me\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>11</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion Of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry Of An Order Confirming The Inapplicability Of The Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant To Section 362(D)(2) Of The Bankruptcy Code* [Docket No. 57] (the \"Lift Stay Motion\"). I believe that granting the relief requested by the Lift Stay Motion would cause me significant harm and materially prejudice my estate and its creditors. As indicated by PAX in the Lift Stay Motion, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order could result in my imprisonment in New York, which would materially impair my ability to achieve the objectives of this Chapter 11 case. Chiefly, if incarcerated, I will be unable to adequately and appropriately administer my estate, participate in this bankruptcy case, negotiate with creditors, appear and be heard before this Court, consult with and direct counsel, investigate and marshal the assets of the estate, or formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan. Further, I believe that PAX is under the misplaced belief that my family will pay PAX's ransom if I face the risk of incarceration; my family will not.\n\nand various co-defendants, including GTV and its parent entity Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\"). I believe that those claims are without merit.[12](#page-12-0)\n\n# **C. Defamation Claims.**\n\n26. Since 2017, I have maintained a very active social media presence and posted content that is critical of the CCP, its agents, and others within its sphere of influence. Against this backdrop, certain people allegedly identified in my social media content have asserted defamation claims against me. As identified in my SOFA, I am currently named as a defendant in several defamation suits, a number of which are being funded by Brunu Wu, an admitted CCP agent and business partner of PAX's parent company. The plaintiffs in these actions have alleged, in aggregate, substantial damages.\n\n# **D. Litigation Funding Costs.**\n\n27. The costs of my prosecution of claims with monetary relief have been funded through loans provided pursuant to litigation funding agreements (the \"Litigation Funding Agreements\"). In the instances where I have to defend claims, the Family Office has advanced me loans to cover my litigation costs. In either case, the loan proceeds were directly disbursed to the law firms and service providers retained by me. Through the Petition Date, GSNY has advanced approximately \\$21 million to me for litigation-related expenses.\n\n28. In the instances in which a Litigation Funding Agreement is in place, GSNY is entitled to a premium if I am ultimately successful in asserting and recovering on my claim and\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>12</sup> These matters related to a certain settled enforcement proceeding. Specifically, in September 2021, GTV and Saraca entered into publicly announced \"no admit/no deny\" settlements with the SEC regarding the SEC's contention that the GTV offering ran afoul of Section 506 of the 33 Act (the \"SEC Entity Settlements\"). *In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al*., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021). A parallel settlement involving GTV and Saraca was also reached with the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, *In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents* (Sept 13, 2021).\n\nhas asserted a security interest against certain of my litigation recoveries to secure that repayment and return on investment.\n\n## **III. My Assets**\n\n29. I am advised that, upon the commencement of my Chapter 11 case, an estate was formed consisting of all legal or equitable interests that I have in property as of the filing date, wherever located and by whomever held. I am also advised that my estate and all property of my estate is subject to the Court's jurisdiction and oversight. I, of course, accept that.\n\n30. My assets, to the best of my knowledge, are identified in my Schedules. These assets are principally clothing, food, and other minor household goods, along with litigation claims.\n\n31. As noted earlier, my family has long supported me. My family has furnished me with clothing and other sundries. Everything else I have access to – including vehicles, my residences (past and current), furniture, artwork, and electronics (except for my mobile phones) – are owned by my family members. I have use of these assets, with their permission, but I do not have any authority to dispose of any material assets without their permission.\n\n32. I am also a claimant in several cases pending in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The particulars of such litigation are disclosed in my Statements of Financial Affairs. Two pieces of litigation are worthy of note here:\n\n> a. **UBS Claims**. Before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom, I and certain co-plaintiffs have asserted a claim against UBS AG (London Branch) (\"UBS\") seeking more than \\$500 million of damages related to negligent misrepresentation and advice by UBS in connection with my attempt to cause the acquisition of, and acquire certain shares issued by, a Chinese financial institution,\n\nHaitong, back in 2015. As recently as February 9, 2022, I received a favorable ruling establishing the jurisdiction of my claims over UBS before the courts of the United Kingdom – and not Switzerland, as advocated by UBS. Given that UBS disputed jurisdiction, a parallel litigation had to be brought before the Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority, in Switzerland, to ensure that the litigation could proceed in the event that jurisdiction was found to be lacking in the United Kingdom (it was not found to be lacking). That action in Switzerland is currently stayed pending the outcome of UBS's appeal to the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom on this jurisdictional issue.\n\nb. **Clark Hill Claims**. In addition, I have asserted claims against Clark Hill PLC and one of its members, Thomas K. Ragland (together, \"Clark Hill\"). This lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I am seeking \\$50 million in compensatory damages, and additional punitive damages, against Clark Hill for breach of its duties of legal representation. Specifically, as a result of Clark Hill's failure to adequately protect the highly sensitive information contained in my asylum application, the CCP hacked Clark Hill's server during September 2017, extracted that highly sensitive information, and then disseminated it across the internet. To make matters worse, Clark Hill succumbed to the CCP hackers' threats and withdrew as my immigration counsel. As a result, I have suffered and continue to suffer harm.\n\n33. Two other assets that I do not own warrant special discussion: (a) the Lady May; and (b) an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York City (the \"Apartment\").\n\n- a. **Lady May**. As mentioned above, I do not own the Lady May, though I did have permission to board and enjoy the vessel. My daughter, through HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, owns and controls the yacht. Despite the state court's findings in the February 9 Contempt Order, it was not within my power to direct the Lady May to stay in, or return to, New York.\n- b. **Sherry-Netherland Apartment**. Cooperative shares in the Sherry-Netherland apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC ( \"Genever US\"). [13](#page-15-0) The membership interests in Genever US are, in turn, held by Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\"). My son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded Genever US with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by my son and not from me. It also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered, by Justice Ostrager, to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or the Genever US bankruptcy.\n\n34. As mentioned at the beginning of this Declaration, I believe that Justice Ostrager, PAX, and perhaps others believe I have greater financial wherewithal than is reflected here and in my Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs. The wealth they believe is mine, however, actually belongs to my son, daughter, wife, and extended family, not me. But, as also noted above,\n\n<span id=\"page-15-0\"></span><sup>13</sup> On October 12, 2020, Genever US filed Chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 20-12411).\n\nthis bankruptcy will allow parties-in-interest to investigate that assertion and present any countervailing evidence. Importantly, and as discussed below, the adversarial process will be funded in such a way as to avoid harm to any creditor's economic interest in the estate.\n\n## **III. Proposed DIP Financing**\n\n35. As set forth in my Schedules, I do not have resources of my own to fund the expenses of this Chapter 11 case. However, my son has expressed a willingness to fund certain costs of this Chapter 11 case. Specifically, GSNY is proposing to lend the estate \\$8 million (the \"DIP Financing\") on the terms set forth in the DIP Financing credit agreement (the \"DIP Credit Agreement\") attached to the motion to approve the DIP Financing. The DIP Financing will be used to pay for, among other things, the costs of the estate's retained professionals (both mine, and the professionals retained by an official committee of unsecured creditors and/or an examiner, if appointed) and the quarterly fees assessed by the Office of the United States Trustee. Of the \\$8 million budget, up to \\$4 million would be made available to fund the work of an Official Creditors Committee and/or Examiner.\n\n36. GSNY is offering to extend this loan on an unsecured basis, with repayment priority subordinated to all allowed general unsecured claims. Stated differently, the DIP Financing is not secured by any assets of the estate, does not require an administrative or priority claim, and will not be repaid from estate assets until all allowed prepetition claims are fully paid. This loan thus costs my creditors nothing and provides a fair opportunity for an investigation into my affairs. I do not believe that any loan provided by another lender would be on superior terms. Accordingly, obtaining this loan is in the best interest of my estate.\n\n37. I will not be given access to any of the borrowed funds. All of the DIP Financing proceeds will be deposited into a segregated deposit account (the \"Debtor Account\") established\n\nfor the estate's benefit. Craig Jalbert of V&L (as defined below) shall be the sole authorized signatory. Disbursements from the Debtor Account will only be at the direction of V&L, solely to the extent necessary to pay the items set forth in the DIP Budget, and as authorized in the proposed DIP Financing orders, the DIP Financing documents, and other relevant orders of the Court (including orders approving professional fee applications).\n\n38. There is only one \"milestone\" covenant in the DIP Credit Agreement: Bankruptcy Court final approval of the proposed DIP Financing order within 45 days of the date that the DIP Credit Agreement is approved on an interim basis. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 6.01(a). There is only one atypical Event of Default in the DIP Credit Agreement, which is the entry of an order granting PAX relief from the automatic stay to pursue litigation against me outside of this Court. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 8.01(e). The only purpose of such litigation would be to seek my incarceration under the February 9 Contempt Order. Obviously, if such relief is granted, then I will not be able to meaningfully direct and participate in an orderly claims resolution and plan process. In such as case, my son – through GSNY – has no interest in continuing to fund the costs of this Chapter 11 case.\n\n## **IV. Objectives of My Chapter 11 Case**\n\n39. My ultimate objective is to arrive at a fully consensual Chapter 11 plan that finally resolves all issues with my creditors. I hope to achieve this outcome through reasoned and reasonable dialogue, after providing creditors a fair opportunity to conduct diligence and present their views through fiduciary representatives paid for by the DIP Financing. I hope that my creditors will be solely motivated to effect repayment of valid claims, and that they will put aside the use of litigation as a means of restricting my free speech and criticisms of political abuse. I further hope that, if there is thoughtful creditor engagement, my family will be willing to contribute funding to ensure a fair recovery for creditors under a plan.\n\n40. My assets, as discussed above, are principally litigation claims and I believe those claims have substantial merit and are valuable (perhaps valuable enough to pay all creditors in full). But, again, all stakeholders will be given a fair opportunity to investigate them.\n\n41. I understand that my Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to conclusively determine which other assets potentially comprise my bankruptcy estate. Certain of my creditors have alleged that I own assets that I believe are owned and controlled by my family members or their affiliated entities. I do not believe that the New York Supreme Court, which issued an order regarding my \"beneficial\" ownership and control of the Lady May, ever determined that I have actual legal title to the vessel or that it is now an asset of my Chapter 11 estate. These issues will be presented squarely and fairly to this Court for appropriate resolution.\n\n42. I have been defending myself against litigation brought by purported creditors for years. As noted above, GSNY – owned and controlled by my son - has lent me millions to fund my defense costs. This Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to determine, once and for all, the extent of allowed claims against my estate. Creditors will be afforded an opportunity to assert claims against my Chapter 11 estate, and the process should yield a fair allocation of whatever assets are in the estate across all equally situated creditors (without, for example, PAX jumping ahead of others in the same creditor class). I will work with my professionals to achieve an appropriate claims reconciliation process.\n\n43. In the end, I hope for a rational, value-maximizing plan that frees me of litigation and will help facilitate a \"fresh start\" under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **PART II –BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOTIONS**\n\n44. I have reviewed each of the following motions and the facts set forth in them are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.\n\n45. **Motion to Approve DIP Financing**. The DIP Financing is necessary to fund the costs associated with the Chapter 11 case and to provide sufficient runway for me, with the aid of my highly capable and experienced advisors, to negotiate and achieve confirmation of a plan of reorganization.\n\n46. Given that it was the adversarial and litigious relationship with my creditors, most notably PAX, that drove me to seek chapter 11 relief, I requested, and GSNY agreed, that the DIP Financing would be for the benefit of all estate professionals, without imposing any lien or priority rights that could potentially prejudice the interests of my creditors. The DIP Financing is offered on an unsecured basis, subordinated to the rights of my prepetition creditors, and without any administrative or other priority repayment rights. My understanding is that the DIP Loan shall be repaid if and only if all of my other creditors are paid in full. Given these generous terms, I believe that any attempt to obtain financing from another source on competitive or similar terms would be a waste of estate resources and would be futile.\n\n47. Also, as set forth above and in my Schedules, I anticipate that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will be used to fund a Chapter 11 plan. Without access to the DIP Financing, I will be unable to retain and compensate the counsel currently prosecuting actions on my behalf. Similarly, my liabilities may substantially increase if I am unable to defend, settle, and/or litigate these claims (either within this proceeding or, if stay relief is granted, in other venues).\n\n48. For these reasons, I believe that the proposed DIP Financing is extended in good faith, does not prejudice any of my creditors' rights or interests, is in the best interests of my estate, and should therefore be approved.\n\n49. **Application to Retain Stretto, Inc. as Claims and Noticing Agent**. I need a claims and noticing agent to help provide notice to the estate's creditors and parties-in-interest throughout the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Stretto, Inc. (\"Stretto\") to serve as my claims and noticing agent. Stretto has substantial experience serving as a claims and noticing agent in various chapter 11 cases throughout the United States, including in this District. Stretto has agreed to render consulting services to: (a) serve as the noticing agent to mail notices to the estate's creditors and other parties-in-interest; (b) maintain an electronic platform for filing proofs of claim, plan solicitation, balloting, tabulation of votes, disbursements, and administrative support in preparation of schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs; and (c) provide other administrative services, as necessary, with respect to this Chapter 11 case.\n\n50. **Application to Retain Brown Rudnick LLP as Restructuring Counsel**. I need highly capable and experienced restructuring counsel to advise and help structure my exit from Chapter 11, potentially in the form of a confirmed plan of reorganization. I have chosen Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") as my restructuring counsel for the Chapter 11 case. Brown Rudnick has extensive experience and knowledge in the fields of debtors' and creditors' rights and reorganizations under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, having represented debtors, official and unofficial committees and other prominent parties in many Chapter 11 cases in this Circuit, this District, and other districts across the country. Brown Rudnick also has familiarity with my affairs and the legal issues to be contested in the Chapter 11 case, and has agreed to: (a) prepare all necessary motions, responses, answers and other legal papers, including trial preparation as may\n\nbe necessary; (b) prepare and take action as necessary for approval of a disclosure statement and confirmation of a plan of reorganization; and (c) perform all other legal services as may be necessary during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n51. Prior to the Petition Date, on each of February 14, 2022 and February 15, 2022, Brown Rudnick was paid a retainer of \\$500,000. The source of the \\$1 million in retainer payments (the \"BR Retainer\") was Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\"), which is a company owned by my son. Lamp loaned me \\$1 million on an unsecured basis, and I directed Lamp to remit the proceeds of the loan directly to Brown Rudnick. Brown Rudnick applied \\$51,835.20 in pre-Petition Date fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer, leaving Brown Rudnick with a prepetition BR Retainer Balance of \\$948,164.80. Going forward, I have asked Brown Rudnick to apply its allowed fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer until the BR Retainer balance is \\$250,000, after which Brown Rudnick will seek payment of its allowed fees and expenses from me through the proceeds of the DIP Financing.\n\n52. **Application to Retain Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as Financial Advisor**. I need a financial advisory firm to prepare, review, and analyze the necessary financial disclosures mandated under the Bankruptcy Code and the ongoing monthly and quarterly reporting requirements during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\") to serve as my financial advisor. V&L has extensive experiencing working with distressed individual chapter 11 debtors, and provides tailored services, including, but not limited to, financial advisory, consulting, accounting services, tax, and other related services. V&L has agreed to render services regarding: (a) the preparation and review of my SOFA and the Schedules and other periodic reporting requirements; (b) the preparation and/or review of cash flow and related budget projections; (c) maintaining the DIP account, and effectuating disbursements when necessary and providing accounting of all cash activity; (d) claims review and administration; (e) plan of reorganization formulation and review; (f) the rendering of any necessary litigation support; and (g) the providing of general consulting and assistance with any other matters and tasks that may arise during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n53. **Motion to Authorize Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the Ordinary Course**. I am a named plaintiff or named defendant in numerous cases pending at the state and federal levels in the United States, as well as in foreign jurisdictions. In connection with these litigations and certain ongoing government investigations, prepetition, I retained various law firms, accountants, and other non-attorney professionals (together, my \"Ordinary Course Professionals\"), which rendered services in connection with my prepetition litigation and provided other services in a variety of matters unrelated to this Chapter 11 case. I intend to use the DIP Financing, subject to the Court's approval, to continue employing and compensating these Ordinary Course Professionals because they each have a great deal of knowledge, expertise, and familiarity with my affairs (prepetition) and my pending litigation, much of which has been ongoing for years.\n\n54. Among the reasons I am seeking emergency interim relief for the DIP Financing is to ensure that the professionals representing me continue working. Certain professionals may withdraw from representing me unless I am able to assure them that they will be paid for their prepetition and post-Petition Date work. Such a withdrawal, depending on the status of the case and the services provided by the applicable professional, could cause cause me and my estate clear and irreparable harm. The UBS, Clark Hill, and other pending litigation claims are assets that I anticipate relying on to help formulate and potentially confirm a plan of reorganization. Any disruption to my prosecution of these claims would undoubtedly be value destructive.\n\n55. In sum, without my Ordinary Course Professionals' knowledge, expertise, and familiarity in connection with their prepetition work, my estate will incur substantial additional and unnecessary expenses in educating and retaining replacement professionals necessary to preserve, and potentially continue prosecuting these valuable litigation claims. Accordingly, I believe that the continued retention of my Ordinary Course Professionals is in the best interests of this estate, my creditors, and other parties-in-interest.\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n# **UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**\n\n) ) ) ) ) )\n\n**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA** )\n\n**CRIMINAL NO.**\n\n**v. Count 1: 18 u.s.c.** § **371 (Conspiracy)**\n\n**ELLIOTT BROIDY,**\n\n**Defendant.**\n\n## **CRIMINAL INFORMATION**\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\n- l. At all times relevant to this Information:\n- 2. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 20 I 8, ELLIOTT\n\nBROIDY agreed with Nickie Lum Davis and Person A to act as agents of Foreign National A in exchange for millions of dollars which was not disclosed. BROIDY specifically agreed to lobby the Administration of the President of the United States (\"Administration\") and the United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop or otherwise favorably resolve its matters against Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from I Malaysia Development Berhad (\"IMDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that BROIDY was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the l MDB matters dropped or otherwise favorably resolved for Foreign National A.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a citizen of the PRC living in the United States-all on behalf of Foreign National A. This involved, among other things, advocating for meetings between PRC Minister A and United States government officials. Here too, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, BROIDY, aided by Davis and Person A, attempted to facilitate a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the 1 MOB matter with the President.\n\n5. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that BROIDY, assisted by Davis and Person A, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials in the Administration, at DOJ, and at the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"OHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make\n\nfalse and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the United States government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n## **RELEVANT PARTIES** & **ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, ELLIOTT BROIDY, served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately 2017 to April 2018. BROIDY raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. In his role as Deputy Finance Chair, BROIDY maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration, including the President himself. Over the same period, BROIDY owned and operated several domestic and international businesses.\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with BROIDY and Person A. On August 31, 2020, Davis pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii to a onecount Information charging aiding and abetting a violation of FARA.\n\n10. Person A was and is a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multi-billion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company fanned by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A, and was used by Person A to pay BROIDY, Davis, and others for their lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law finn operated by Person C and controlled by BROIDY and Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a citizen of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the I MDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with I MOB laundered proceeds. On November I, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder\n\nbillions of dollars embezzled from I MOB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices\n\nAct by paying bribes to various Malaysian and United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") officials.\n\n## **COUNT ONE**\n\n# **18 u.s.c.** § **371**\n\n## **(Conspiracy to Serve as an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)**\n\n- 17. Paragraphs **J** through J 6 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.\n- 18. From no later than March 20 I 7 to at least in or about January 2018, the defendant,\n\n## **ELLIOTT BROIDY,**\n\nknowingly conspired with others known and unknown, to:\n\na. knowingly and willfully act as an agent of a foreign principal, specifically, Foreign National A with respect to the 1 MDB matters and the removal of PRC National A, without registering with the Attorney General, in violation of22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618.\n\n## **Objects of the Conspiracy**\n\n- 19. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Foreign National A to orchestrate back-channel, unregistered campaigns to lobby the Administration and DOJ to: (I) end the IMDB matters or otherwise resolve the matters favorably for Foreign National A; and (2) remove PRC National A from the United States and send him back to the PRC.\n\t- 20. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to make\n\nmillions of dollars by leveraging BROIDY's access to and perceived influence with the President and his Administration in order to secure payments from Foreign National A.\n\n21. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to conceal BROIDY's contacts with and payments from Foreign National A to maintain BROIDY's credibility with United States officials and to further the illegal advocacy scheme.\n\n## **Manner and Means of the Conspiracy**\n\n22. The manner and means by which BROIDY and others carried out the conspiracy included, but were not limited to, the following:\n\n### International Travel to Meet with Foreign Principals and Government Officials\n\n23. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham, in various combinations, traveled to Thailand, Malaysia, and the PRC for the purpose of meeting with Foreign National A, PRC Minister A, and others to negotiate and discuss the arrangement by which BROIDY would lobby the Administration and DOJ--outside of official channels-in exchange for millions of dollars.\n\n### Meetings and Contacts with United States Officials\n\n24. BROIDY, both directly and through intermediaries, facilitated and attempted to facilitate meetings and other efforts to influence officials at the highest levels of the United States government, including the President and the Attorney General, for the benefit of PRC Minister A and Foreign National A.\n\n25. BROIDY, both directly and through intermediaries, contacted high-level officials in the United States government to arrange meetings for foreign government officials, including PRC Minister A and the Malaysian Prime Minister A, to provide opportunities for these foreign officials to formally request favorable governmental action, including the favorable resolution of the IMDB matters and the removal of PRC National A.\n\n## Concealment\n\n26. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed to conceal BROIDY's agreement to lobby on behalfofForeign National A, in his individual capacity and as an intermediary for PRC Minister A. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A did not disclose and agreed not to disclose to United States government officials and the public BROIDY's financial arrangement with and payments from\n\nForeign National A. In extensive contacts, communications, and documents drafted in furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham were secretive and anonymized references to Foreign National A. Further, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A often used encrypted applications when communicating about Foreign National A and PRC National A to conceal their conduct and connection to Foreign National A. Finally, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed, implicitly or explicitly, not to register under FARA to conceal their arrangement with Foreign National A.\n\n## **Overt Acts**\n\n27. In furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY and others committed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.\n\n## I. **Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases**\n\n### **A. BROIDY Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer**\n\n28. In or about March 2017, Person A contacted Davis in an effort to locate someone with close ties to the Administration to help a foreign client. Davis in tum told BROIDY that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could use help with a forfeiture matter.\n\n29. On or about March 7, 2017, Person A requested that Davis send him BROIDY's biography describing BROJDY's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration and photographs of BROIDY and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, BROIDY's assistant, at Davis's request, emailed photographs to Davis featuring BROIDY and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight for Foreign National A BROJDY's close access to the Administration.\n\n30. On or about March 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" BROIDY responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\"\n\n31. On or about March 13, 2017, BROIDY met with Davis and Person A to discuss Foreign National A and 1 MOB. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to BROIDY, and asked if BROIDY could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of BROIDY helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, BROIDY texted Davis in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n32. On or about March 13, 2017, Davis forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A so that Person A could present the agreement to Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee if the \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MOB forfeiture proceedings. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, Law Firm A, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure BROIDY's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on BROIDY's political connections.\n\n33. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did BROIDY, Davis, or Person A register with the FARA Unit regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n## **B. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis Meet Foreign National A in Bangkok**\n\n34. In or about April 2017, Davis relayed Person A's request for BROIDY to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. BROIDY told Davis to tell Person A that he would go only if he were paid \\$1 million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds. BROIDY was assured that Person A would personally pay \\$1 million in exchange for BROIDY traveling to Bangkok.\n\n35. On or about April 28, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, Davis responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n36. On or about April 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, BROIDY asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" Davis responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.]\"\n\n37. On or about May I, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok, and wrote, in part, \"Please send me the hotel confirmation for both Elliott's room and mine once you get it online and I will forward.\" That same day, Davis separately emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed up with, \"Also send me Elliott's wire info.\" Davis replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 2, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] a!].d I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n39. On or about May 2, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. BROIDY and Foreign National A spoke about the IMDB matters. BROIDY agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay BROIDY an \\$8 million retainer and wanted BROIDY to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the I MDB matter. BROIDY agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. During the meeting or shortly thereafter, Davis and BROIDY discussed the possibility of assisting in getting PRC National A removed from the United States. With respect to payment, BROrDY stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay BROIDY and others. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis agreed that the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to BROIDY through Law Firm A. BROIDY and Davis agreed that BROIDY would pay Davis a percentage of what BROIDY received. Person A also agreed to pay Davis a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told BROIDY and Davis that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review. BROIDY never met or spoke with Higginbotham.\n\n## **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; BROIDY is Paid \\$6 Million; Davis is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n40. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on or about May 8, 2017, was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n41. On or about May 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago -\". Davis then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n42. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$600,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts and \\$900,000 to an account for a business entity associated with Davis. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of BROIDY's business accounts. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n43. On or about May 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to BROIDY through Person A and BROIDY's payment of a percentage to Davis. Among the text messages, Davis asked, \"Did you get it?\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. BROIDY later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" Davis responded, \"When Asia opens .. . . Baby steps at least moving forward now.'' BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires. \" BROIDY later\n\nadded in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [BROIDY's assistant].\"\n\n44. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2. 7 million. On or about May 26, 2017, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which BROIDY and Foreign National A agreed in return for BROIDY's assistance with the **1** MDB civil forfeiture cases. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with Davis. On or about May 26, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$1 million to an account controlled by Person C. In or about early June 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$650,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts.\n\n## **D. BROIDY Facilitates and Attempts to Facilitate Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Efforts to Resolve the lMDB Cases**\n\n45. On or about June *5,* 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\" Pursuant to a consulting agreement, BROIDY had agreed to pay Person D \\$25,000 per month for advice and guidance with respect to navigating the Administration.\n\n46. The same day, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, Davis wrote, \"Please call before u go to bed ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n47. On or about June 15, 2017, at Person A's request, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Hey he'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" Davis added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, BROIDY responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n48. On or about June 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 2017, BROIDY asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. BROIDY and Davis believed that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the I MOB matter. BROIDY also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n49. On or about June 19, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the IMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n50. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n51 . On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, BROIDY followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n52. On or about July 3, 2017, BROIDY again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Pr\\_ime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, Elliott.\" Later that day, BROIDY texted Person E again: \"[Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, BROIDY exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, BROIDY texted, \"[Person E], just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Davis continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize- I'm getting inundated[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" Davis responded, \"Done[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a high-ranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pis pis go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely! \"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E), It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A) with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, Elliot[.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process-\". BROIDY responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, ''NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with the Malaysians. NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. BROIDY responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" Davis followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. BROIDY responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" Davis replied in part,\n\n\"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. BROIDY replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 20 I 7, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" BROIDY responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21 , 2017, BROlDY texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], The Malaysians have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! Elliott.\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" BROIDY replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Just checked again with Malaysians. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, Elliott.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Hi [Person DJ- Can you call NSA for me re Malaysians receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to Malaysian Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, Elliott.\" Person D responded, \"E- will call again this morning.\"\n\n64. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY emailed a high-level official from the National Security Council in an attempt to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n65. On or about July 29, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" Davis immediately followed by texting \"Wickr[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*\", which contained the purported talking points of Malaysian Prime Minister A intended for an upcoming meeting between the United States Secretary of State and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Davis had received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and Davis relayed them to BROIDY. The talking points mentioned, among other things, BROIDY's ongoing relationship and work with Malaysia, and identified 1 MOB as a \" (p ]riority[. ]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\".\n\n67. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY also sent these talking points to Person D, immediately followed by a message explaining, \"Above is attachment from Malaysian PM of his talking points. You can share with [staff assistant who works for the Secretary of State].\" BROIDY also sought to obtain details about the timing of a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State.\n\n68. Later on or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY messaged Person D, \"[Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize Circinus name. Thank you!\" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. This was the final payment made to BROIDY. In total, BROIDY was paid \\$9 million. On or about the next day, Law Fim1 A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with Davis. In the ensuing days, Law Firm A transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts belonging to BROIDY\n\n70. On or about August I 0, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from Malaysia that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Any update on Malaysia? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a highranking official at the White House.\n\n72. On or about August 31 , 20 I 7, BROIDY drafted and sent an email to Person l attempting to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n73. On or about September 11 , 2017, Davis typed a letter to be sent from BROIDY to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President and provided the letter to BROIDY. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n74. Following BROIDY's repeated efforts to schedule a golf game between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House on or about September 12, 2017. Although BROIDY contacted high-ranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n75. On or about October 6, 2017, BROIDY met with the President at the White House. BROIDY did not raise the I MDB matters during the meeting but represented to Davis that he had, understanding that Davis would communicate that information to Person A and Foreign National A.\n\n76. On or about January 5, 2018, BROIDY drafted talking points related to 1 MDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that BROIDY had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \"1. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against lMDB in Malaysia. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the Malaysia case. She is\n\na [presidential] appointee and can be helpful. . .. 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" These representations were false.\n\n# II. **Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States**\n\n### **A. BROIDY Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n77. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, BROIDY agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, Davis and BROIDY discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n78. On or about May 15, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, Davis also emailed BROIDY and Person C banking information for Davis's company.\n\n79. On or about May 18, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to BROIDY about PRC National A and his alleged crimes, and stated that the PRC government wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC M,inister A asked BROIDY to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. They also discussed the potential return to the United States of Americans then being held prisoner by the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n## **B. BROIDY Lobbies Top U.S. Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n80. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, BROIDY texted Davis, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.]\"\n\n81. On or about May 21, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \"[Person D]- Just returned . Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]? Elliott.\"\n\n82. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n83. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and China[.]\" BROIDY attached to the email a memorandum from BROIDY addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to BROIDY by Davis, and the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, BROIDY and Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n84. In the memorandum, BROIDY mischaracterized the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. BROlDY did not disclose his contact with Foreign National A and did not disclose Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between BROIDY and PRC Minister A. BROIDY also did not disclose the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A. BROIDY also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n85. In the memorandum, BROIDY stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that China would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" BROIDY wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several highranking United States government officials. BROIDY indicated that it would be productive for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. BROIDY also noted several items that China, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and China. BROIDY then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request China will make is that [PRC National A], who China alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of China (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to China so he can be charged with these violations and go through regular criminal proceedings in China with regard to these allegations.\n\nBROIDY appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n86. On or about May 23, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Hi [] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks Elliott[.]\" Person D responded, \"Elliott- letter was delivered yesterday. Pis see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" BROIDY responded, \"Great. Thank you []. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \"[W]aiting to hear from\n\nDoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n87. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted BROIDY, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General] office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n88. On or about May 25, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and OHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there IO min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with [] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with my contact this morning. Thank you. E[.]\" Person D responded, \"E- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.]\" Later that day, Person D responded, \"E- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n89. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, BROIDY texted Person D, \"IO am head of ICE 11 :30 FBI Perhaps a play at OHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in OHS at the time.\n\n90. On or about May 28, 2017, after Davis transcribed correspondence to BROIDY, BROIDY emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and the Chinese Ambassador to the US.\" BROIDY noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, BROIDY and Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n91. On or about May 30, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's meeting with United States government officials, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. All set[.]\" Davis replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]\"\n\n92. In or about May 2017, Davis, at Person A's request, asked BROIDY to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n93. On or about May 30, 20 l 7, BROIDY met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. BROIDY also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n94. On or about May 3 I, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [Attorney General] or [Person I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I] ... . So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only ifhe has a proper \"short meeting\". This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics. Thank you.\n\n95. Person D responded, \"E-got the info. I will call in a few mins.\" BROIDY replied, \"If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the VM at OHS? He can\n\nmention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.\"\n\n96. On or about May 31, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with, Person I, \"In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" BROIDY responded, \"Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A].\" BROIDY later continued, \"Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer.\" Davis responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" BROIDY replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" Davis then texted, \"lsn 't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" BROIDY responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General] people[.]\" Davis responded, \"It's on the OHS website[.) He's there for the afternoon[.) Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster fT\\*)ck.\" Davis replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n97. On or about June 9, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a news article titled \"chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]\"\n\n98. On or about June 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY texted Person H's spouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with [Person HJ tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. ls there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, Elliott[.]\" BROIDY later continued:\n\nHi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive is [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice ... . The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 30th. It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list. . . . This order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. [The President of the PRC] mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A] .... He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by China and would accept a very large number of Chinese illegal immigrants for deportation back to China. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n99. On or about June 28, 2017, BROIDY met with Person Hand his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, BROIDY exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding PRC National A: \"Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person H] tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]'s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n100. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY texted, \"ls rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" Davis responded, \" l have no idea.\" BROIDY replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" Davis responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[. ]\"\n\nI\n\nI 01. On or about June 30, 2017, Davis, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of PRC National A and the potential return of United States citizens held in the PRC, texted BROIDY, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" Davis replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.J Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" BROIDY responded, \"Agree.\" Davis continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.J After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n102. On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. BROIDY texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Separately, [Person EJ texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, Davis replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" Davis later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n103. On or about July 1, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Spoke to [Person EJ at length. Call me when you can[.]\" BROIDY did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n104. On or about July 2, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public reporting, Davis texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H.J\"\n\nI 05. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, Davis texted BROIDY: \" [President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" Davis then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\nI 06. On or about July I 0, 2017, Person A emailed himself copies of the Red Notice for PRC National A, images of PRC National A's passport and identity card, and other documents related to PRC National A and the alleged crimes committed by PRC National A.\n\n107. In or about July 2017, Person A requested that Higginbotham meet with the PRC Ambassador to the United States at the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to convey a message to the PRC Ambassador about PRC National A. On or about July 16, 2017, Higginbotham went to the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. and met with the Ambassador. During the meeting, Higginbotham told the Ambassador that United States government officials were working on the extradition of PRC National A and that there would be additional information in the future concerning the logistics of the extradition. Following the meeting, Higginbotham reported to Person A what had occurred, and Person A said he would inform Foreign National A. Person A later told Higginbotham that Foreign National A was happy with the meeting and that it had given Foreign National A credibility with the PRC.\n\n108. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY emailed Davis the contact information for Person H. Davis connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n109. On or about July 26,2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Really need confinn it was officially transmitted. At this point- he says no[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" BROIDY later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person HJ in an hour.\"\n\n110. On or about July 26, 2017, BROIDY texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, Elliott.\" Later the same day, Person H's spouse texted BROIDY, \"Hi Elliot. Can you text me the details again of the Chinese man you texted previously thank you[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" BROIDY then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n111. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. Davis texted BROIDY, \"Any word on embassy??\" Davis later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" BROIDY responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n112. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis several times. Among those messages, BROIDY wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" BROIDY later added, \"im with [Person HJ. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n113. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, BROIDY asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A. Person H, in BROIDY's presence, then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n114. On or about September 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, Davis texted BROIDY links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n115. On or about October 2, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis a link to article about PRC National A.\n\n116. On or about January 5, 2018, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\nAll in violation of **18** U.S.C. § 371.\n\n## **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n1. The allegations contained in Count One of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).\n\n2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), upon conviction of Count One, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, the defendant, ELLIOTT BROIDY, shall forfeit to the United States of America any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against BROIDY for a sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n3. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n\ne. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title\n\n21, United States Code, Section 853(p ), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section\n\n2461 (c).\n\nDA TED: September 30 , 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*ls/John D. Keller*  By: John D. Keller Principal Deputy Chief Sean F. Mulryne Deputy Director, Election Crimes Branch Nicole R. Lockhart James C. Mann Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\nFILED NTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII Aug 17, 2020, 10:23a M ichelle Rynne, Clerk of Court\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #10523 United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON Assistant U.S. Attorney Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg. 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Telephone: (808) 541-2850 Facsimile: (808) 541 -2958 Email: ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\nJOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE Deputy Director, Election Crimes NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\n# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n# FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAW Aii\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | )           | CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO                               |\n|---------------------------|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| Plaintiff,                | )<br>)      | INFORMATION                                        |\n| vs.                       | )<br>)<br>) | (18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§<br>612 and 618(a)] |\n| NICKIE MALI LUM DA VIS,   | )<br>)      |                                                    |\n| Defendant.                | )           |                                                    |\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n# **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. At all times relevant to this Information:\n\n2. From no later than March 201 7 to at least in or about January 2018, NICKIE LUM DAVIS agreed with Persons A and B to act as agents of Foreign National A in exchange for millions of dollars in undisclosed wire transfers originating from foreign accounts associated with Foreign National A. DAVIS specifically agreed to facilitate Person B's lobbying of the President of the United States (\"the President\"), his Administration, and the United States Depa1tment of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop the investigation of Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from !Malaysia Development Berhad (\"lMDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, the defendant and Person B willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that Person B was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, DAVIS and Persons A and B were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the lMDB investigation dropped.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, DA VIS also agreed with Persons A and B to aid their efforts to lobby the Administration and the DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a dissident of the PRC living in the United States-at the request of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A. Here too, DA VIS and Persons A and B were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, DAVIS aided Person B in facilitating a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in  September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the lMDB matter with the President.\n\n5. DAVIS, Person A, and Person B also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that Person B, assisted by DA VIS, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. DA VIS, Person A, and Person B, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials at DOJ and the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"DHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make false and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n### **RELEVANT PARTIES & ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with Persons A and B.\n\n9. Person A was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n10. Person B served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately April 2016 to April 2018. In that capacity, Person B raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. After  the election, Person B continued in his role as Deputy Finance Chair and maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration of the President, including the President. Over the same period, Person B owned and operated several domestic and international businesses and worked as a political consultant.\n\n11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multibillion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company formed by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A to pay Person B for his lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law firm operated by Person B's spouse, Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a dissident of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the lMDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1 MDB laundered proceeds. On November 1, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from lMDB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying bribes to various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials.\n\n# I. Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases\n\n# A. Person B Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer\n\n17. In or about March 2017, DAVIS told Person B that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could \"use help with the forfeiture.\"\n\n18. On or about March 5, 2017, at the request of Person B, DAVIS emailed Person B a copy of a civil forfeiture complaint related to lMDB. That same day, DAVIS emailed Person B a Bloomberg article titled \"[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits,\" and texted Person B, \"Your email has the court filing[.]\" Person B responded, \"Thx. Will review.\" DAVIS replied, \"Call me when u can- thank you[.]\" Person B responded again, \"Yes. 5 min[.]\"\n\n19. Person A requested that DA VIS send him Person B's biography describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration\n\nand photographs of Person B and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, Person B's assistant, at DAVIS's request, emailed photographs to DAVIS featuring Person B and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight Person B's close access to the Administration.\n\n20. On or about March 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" Person B responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\" Later that same day, DA VIS sent Person B additional text messages to set up the meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n21. At the direction of Person B, on or about March 13, 2017, DAVIS forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee ifthe \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MDB forfeiture proceedings. In actuality, Person A, Person B, Law Firm A, DAVIS, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure Person B's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on Person B's political connections.\n\n22. On or about March 13 , 2017, Person B met with Person A and DA VIS to discuss Foreign National A and his legal issues. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to Person B, and asked if Person B could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of Person B helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, Person B texted DAVIS in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n· 23. On or about March 15, 201 7, in reference to Foreign National A, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Anything new on ... [Person A's] Associate?\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \" [Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the 'promoter' and they hope to travel within the next few week[.]\"\n\n24. On or about March 22, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant about setting up another meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n25. At all relevant times, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B were aware of FARA and its prohibition on unregistered representation of foreign principals.\n\n26. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did DA VIS, Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n# **B. Person A, Person B, and DA VIS Meet Foreign National A m Bangkok**\n\n27. In or about April 2017, Person A asked Person B to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. Person B said he would go only if he were paid **\\$1** million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds.\n\n28. On or about April 28, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n29. On or about April 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, Person B asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" DA VIS responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.] \"\n\n30. On or about April 30, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding a flight itinerary for travel to Bangkok. In the email, DA VIS wrote in part: \"Please call me if you have questions -- It's 2 one way tickets - since we need to leave from a different country[.] We don't need to worry about hotels yet ... \"\n\n31. On or about May 1, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That same day, DA VIS emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed\n\nup with, \"Also send me [Person B's] wire info.\" DAVIS replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A. The same day, in response to a question from Person B's assistant about whether she should cancel Person B's hotel room reservation, DA VIS emailed Person B's assistant, \"Yes all rooms are booked by [Person A] already.\"\n\n32. On or about May 2, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] and I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n33. On or about May 2, 2017, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. Person Band Foreign National A spoke about the lMDB investigation and civil forfeiture actions. Person B agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay Person Ban \\$8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the lMDB matter. Person B agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. With respect to payment, Person B stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay Person B and others. Person B, Person A, and DA VIS agreed that  the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person B and DA VIS agreed that Person B would pay DA VIS thirty percent of what Person B received. Person A also agreed to pay DAVIS a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told Person Band DAVIS that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review.\n\n### **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; Person B is Paid \\$6 Million; DAVIS is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n34. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 201 7, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 2017 was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n3 5. On or about May 8, 2017, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago-\". DA VIS then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n36. On or about May 9, 2017, Person A caused Company A to transfer \\$250,000 to a company controlled by a family member of DA VIS for the benefit of DAVIS.\n\n37. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 17, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to Person B through Person A and Person B's payment of a percentage to DAVIS. Among the text messages, DA VIS asked, \"Did you get it?\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. Person B later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" DAVIS responded, \"When Asia opens .... Baby steps at least moving forward now.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires.\" Person B later added in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [Person B's assistant].\"\n\n39. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of Person B's business accounts and \\$900,000 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n40. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2.7 million. On or about May 26, 201 7, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which Person B and Foreign National A agreed in return for Person B's lobbying the Administration and the DOJ to drop the lMDB civil forfeiture cases and any related investigations. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with DAVIS.\n\n### **D. Person B Facilitates Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lobbies to Resolve the lMDB** Cases\n\n41. On or about May 18, 2017, Person B texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Hi [Person D]- Please work on Asian country visit. Date in July.\"\n\n42. On or about June 5, 2017, Person B texted Person D again regarding the visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\"\n\n43. The same day, at the request of Person A, DA VIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, DA VIS wrote, based upon information conveyed to her by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, \"Please call before u go to bed in ISRAEL if possible ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n44. On or about June 15, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Hey he 'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" DAVIS added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n45. On or about June 16, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding lMDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associated with Foreign National A.\n\n46. On or about June 17, 2017, Person Band DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 201 7, Person B asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said, and DA VIS believed, that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the 1 MDB matter. Person B also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n4 7. On or about June 19, 201 7, DA VIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the lMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n48. On or about June 25, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba link to an article about Malaysian Prime Minister A and the lMDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Weird article. What can we do?\" DAVIS replied, \"Call pls. Got news[.]\" DA VIS followed up stating that she had sent Person B a \"What's app request.\"\n\n49. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n50. On or about June 30, 2017, Person B sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, Person B followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n51. On or about July 3, 2017, Person B again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, [].\" Later that day, Person B texted Person E again: \" [Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n52. On or about July 4, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Call me asap\" and then \"Clear your phone - erase messages[.]\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, Person B exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, Person B texted, \"[Person E],just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, []\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DA VIS continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated[.]\" Person B responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" DAVIS responded, \"Done[.]\" Person B responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a highranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pls pls go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely!\"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, Person B texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E], It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A] with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, [][.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process -\". Person B responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, \"NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" Person B responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with [Malaysia.] NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. Person B responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, relaying information from Person A, DA VIS wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" DAVIS followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. Person B responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" DA VIS replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. Person B replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" Person B responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21, 2017, Person B texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], [Malaysia] have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! [].\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" Person B replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Just checked again with [Malaysia]. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, [].\" Person B followed up with, \"Hi [Person D]- Can you call NSA for me re [Malaysia] receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to [Malaysia] Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, []\" Person D responded,\"[] will call again this morning. Talked to [] briefly yesterday .... Will call shortly.\"\n\n64. On or about July 29, 2017, relaying information that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" DA VIS immediately followed by texting \"Wicla[.]\" Person B responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n65. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*,\" with talking points intended for an upcoming meeting between the Secretary of State of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A. DA VIS received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and relayed them to Person B, knowing that Person B would then provide them to the Secretary of State as background for the meeting. The talking points mentioned, among other things, Person B's ongoing relationship and work with [Malaysia], and identified lMDB as a \"[p]riority[.]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B also sent the talking points document to Person D for his review and edits and to obtain details about the timing\n\nof a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Hi [Person D]; When is [Secretary of State] mtg?; Already 11 :00 am Monday in [Malaysia]. Can you expand and send me final version?\" Person D responded by sending a revised version of the talking points to Person B and stating, \" []- here is the marked up version I am going to forward to [Secretary of State]'s office. He heads to Bangkok today and then to [Malaysia]. Let me know if you have any other changes. Thanks.\"\n\n67. Later, on or about August 7, 2017, Person B messaged Person D, \" [Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize [my company's] name. Thank you! \" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n68. Also on or about August 7, 2017, Person A executed an agreement between another of Person A's companies and a representative of Foreign National A providing for \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" in exchange for approximately EUR 8.4 million to be paid on or before August 16, 2017.\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. Person A also transferred \\$833,333 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DA VIS.\n\n70. On or about August 10, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from [Malaysia] that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 16, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages to set up a meeting and a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \" [Person A] really wants to see u today if possible since u leave Friday[.]\"\n\n72. On or about August 18, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages setting up a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Call me pls. [Person A] wants to conference in[.]\"\n\n73. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Any update on [Malaysia] ? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a high-ranking official at the White House.\n\n74. On or about August 21 , 2017, DAVIS wired \\$375,000 in funds she received as a commission from Person A, to Person C, the spouse of Person B.\n\n75. On or about August 24, 2017, Foreign National A directed the transfer of approximately \\$10 million to Person A's separate company that had entered into the \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" agreement with a representative of Foreign National A for EUR 8.4 million. Based on the prevailing exchange rate on August 24, 2017, EUR 8.4 million converted to approximately \\$10 million.\n\n76. On or about September 11 , 2017, DA VIS typed a letter at Person B's direction to be sent from Person B to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n77. On or about September 12, 2017, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House, due in part to the assistance provided by DA VIS for Person B's efforts to facilitate the meeting. Although Person B contacted highranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n78. On or about October 6, 2017, Person B met with the President at the White House. Person B represented to Person A, DAVIS, and Foreign National A that he raised the lMDB investigation with the President during the meeting.\n\n79. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B drafted talking points related to lMDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Person B had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \" l. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against 1 MDB in [Malaysia]. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the [] case. She is a [presidential] appointee and can be helpful ... . 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" Person B greatly exaggerated his efforts regarding the lMDB investigation.\n\n80. On or about January 6, 2018, Person B met with Person A, who asked Person B for a loan. Person A told Person B that Person A's friend was \"checking on\" the money they had received from Foreign National A and \"helping to keep it clean.\"\n\nII. Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States\n\n# **A. Person B Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n81. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, Person B agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, DAVIS and Person B discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n82. On or about May 15, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, DAVIS also emailed Person Band Person C banking information for DAVIS's company.\n\n83. On or about May 18, 201 7, Person A, Person B, and DA VIS traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to Person B about PRC National A and his alleged crimes and stated that the PRC wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC Minister A asked Person B to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n# **B. Person B Lobbies Top** U.S. **Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n84. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, Person B texted DA VIS, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.] \"\n\n85. On or about May 21 , 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \" [Person DJ- Just returned. Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]?[].\"\n\n86. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" Person B followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n87. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and [the PRC][.]\" Person B attached to the email a memorandum from Person B addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to Person B by DA VIS, who received it from Person A during the May 2017 trip to China where the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, Person Band Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n88. In the memorandum, Person B misrepresented the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. Person B\n\nconcealed his contact with Foreign National A and concealed Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between Person B and PRC Minister A. Person B also concealed the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A over the two weeks preceding the meeting in Shenzhen with PRC Minister A. Person B also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n89. In the memorandum, Person B stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that [the PRC] would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" Person B wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several high-ranking United States government officials. Person B advocated for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. Person B also noted several items that the PRC, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and the PRC. Person B then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request [the PRC] will make is that [PRC National A], who [the PRC] alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of [the PRC] (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to [the PRC] so he can be charged with these\n\nviolations and go through regular criminal proceedings in [the PRC] with regard to these allegations.\n\nPerson B appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n90. On or about May 23, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Hi[] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks[][.]\" Person D responded, \" [Person BJ- letter was delivered yesterday. Pls see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" Person B responded, \"Great. Thank you[]. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \" [W]aiting to hear from DoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n91. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted Person B, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General]'s office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n92. On or about May 25, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and DHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there 10 min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with[] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with\n\nmy contact this morning. Thank you. [ . ]\" Person D responded, \" [ ]- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, Person B texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.] \" Later that day, Person D responded,\"[]- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n93. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, Person B texted Person D, \" 10 am head of ICE 11:30 FBI Perhaps a play at DHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" Person B followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in DHS at the time.\n\n94. On or about May 28, 2017, Person B emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and [the PRC's] Ambassador to the US.\" Person B noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, Person Band Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n95. On or about May 30, 2017, relaying information from PRC Minister A and Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetings with United States Government officials, DA VIS texted, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. All set[.]\" DAVIS replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]\"\n\n96. In or about May 2017, DAVIS, at Person A's request, asked Person B to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n97. On or about May 30, 2017, Person B met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n98. On or about May 31 , 2017, Person B texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [Attorney General] or [Person I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I]. .... So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only if he has a proper \"short meeting\" . This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics. Thank you.\n\n99. Person D responded, \" []-got the info. I will call in a few mins.\" Person B replied, \"If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the\n\nVM at DHS? He can mention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.\"\n\n100. On or about May 31, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with Person I, \"In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" Person B responded, \"Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A].\" Person B later continued, \"Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer.\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" Person B replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" DA VIS then texted, \"Isn't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" Person B responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General']s people[.]\" DA VIS responded, \"It's on the DHS website[.] He's there for the afternoon[.] Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]\" Person B responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster f]ck.\" DA VIS replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n101. On or about June 9, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba news article titled \"[the PRC]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]\"\n\n102. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages regarding PRC National A.\n\n103. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. Person B knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. Person B texted Person H's spouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with Person H tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. Is there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, [][.]\" Person B later continued:\n\nHi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice .... The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 3Qt<sup>11</sup> • It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list. .. . The order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. The President of the PRC mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A]. ... He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by [the PRC] and would accept a very large number of [the PRC] illegal immigrants for deportation back to [the PRC]. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n104. On or about June 28, 2017, Person B met with Person H and his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, Person B exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding [PRC National A]: \"Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person HJ tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]' s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n105. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. Person B texted, \"Is rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" DA VIS responded, \"I have no idea.\" Person B replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[.]\"\n\n106. On or about June 30, 2017, DAVIS, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of Foreign National Band the potential return of United States citizens held in Country B, texted Person B, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" Person B responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" DA VIS replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.] Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" Person B responded, \"Agree.\" DA VIS continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" Person B responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n107. On or about June 30, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" Person B followed up with, \"Separately, [Person E] texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, DA VIS replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" DA VIS later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n108. On or about July 1, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Spoke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you can[.]\" Person B did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. Similar to the representations Person B made in the memorandum that he prepared for the Attorney General and his communications with Person H, Person B did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n109. On or about July 2, 201 7, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public\n\nreporting, DA VIS texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H].\"\n\n110. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, DAVIS texted Person B: \"[President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" DAVIS then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\n111. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B emailed DAVIS the contact information for Person H. DA VIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n112. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Really need confirm it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says no[.]\" Person B responded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" Person B later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person H] in an hour.\"\n\n113. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, [].\" Later the same day, Person H 's spouse texted Person B, \"Hi []. Can you text me the details again of the [the PRC] man you texted previously thank you[.]\" Person B responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, [][.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" Person B then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n114. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. DAVIS texted Person B, \"Any word on embassy??\" DAVIS later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" Person B responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n115. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS several times. Among those messages, Person B wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" Person B later added, \" im with [Person H]. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n116. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, Person B asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A, and Person H suggested that they call the President. Person B and Person H then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n117. On or about September 13 , 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, DAVIS texted Person B links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n118. On or about October 2, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS a link to an article about PRC National A.\n\n119. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\n# COUNT ONE 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612 (Aiding and Abetting & Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)\n\n120. From in or about no later than May 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, within the District of Hawaii and elsewhere, the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, knowingly and willfully, without registering with the Attorney General as required by law, aided and abetted Person A and Person Bin their actions as agents of a foreign principal, to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the lMDB investigation favorably for Foreign National A and to return PRC National A to the PRC, all on behalf of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A and the Government of the PRC.\n\nAll in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(l).\n\n# **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n121. The allegations contained in Count 1 of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).\n\n122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c), upon conviction of Count 1, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 2, and Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, shall forfeit to the United States of America a sum of money representing property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against DA VIS for this sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n123. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n- e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\n\nDA TED: August 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.\n\n*Isl Kenji M Price*  KENn M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\n~~\n\n*Isl Kenneth M Sorenson*  KENNETH M. SORENSON Chief, National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*Isl John D. Keller*  JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nUnited States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No. ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n\n# **EXHIBIT C**\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |  |\n|---------------------------|--|\n| VS.                       |  |\n| GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM,      |  |\n| Defendant.                |  |\n|                           |  |","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：　：　第11章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　：　案号 22-50073\n（JAM）\n\n债务人。　：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）先生为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作声明\n\n本人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经依法宣誓后，陈述如下：\n\n1. 于February 15, 2022，本人提起上述标题所示第11章案件。本人已年满18岁，具备作证能力。\n\n2. 本人提交本声明，旨在向破产法院及所有利害关系方提供有关本人的背景资料，并说明导致本人提起第11章案件的情形。本人在本声明中作出较为详尽的说明，以便为针对本人的债权性质、本人独特的财务状况以及本人提起本第11章案件的原因提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文更详尽所述，本人提起本第11章案件是为了：(a) 创建一个单一审理平台，以有序处理针对本人提出的各种相互竞争的债权主张；(b) 鉴于本人认为在该等事项上存在误解，为利益相关方提供高效机会，以调查本人的资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，并进而可供向获准债权持有人分配；以及，希望(d) 根据第11章计划，就公平合理地解决债权主张及分配资产，与本人的债权人达成共识。\n\n4. 在提起本第11章案件并准备本声明时，本人知悉本院可能对Ostrager法官于February 9作出的藐视法庭命令（定义见下文）、PAX（亦定义见下文）就本人作出的不利陈述，甚至本人公开表达的政治观点存有疑虑。当然，任何事件均有两个或更多方面，本声明将提出本人的看法。由于本人直言不讳地批评中国共产党（以下简称“CCP”）的腐败和侵犯人权行为，本人持续生活在遭受CCP报复的恐惧之中；其原因将逐渐明朗。多年来，本人遭受了由CCP及其代理人和代表资助、通过美国法院系统提起的毫无根据诉讼的持续攻击。本人第11章案件只能处理CCP企图施加于本人及本人家人的财务损害。但CCP意图对本人造成的，远不止财务损害和公开羞辱。本人相信，如本人被监禁、被引渡，或本人的家人不再能够为本人提供人身安全保障，CCP将在最早可能的机会将本人暗杀。本人并非主张本院或任何利害关系方现即接受本人对基础案件事实的看法。恰恰相反，预计本第11章案件将通过一项无担保的申请后贷款获得充足资金，该贷款的偿还优先顺位低于所有申请前债权人——从而允许进行公平调查，并使利益相关方作为通常第11章程序的一部分，提交其认为适当的任何可采证据。换言之，本破产程序旨在允许对所有相关且可证实的案件事实进行理性审查，同时不损害任何债权人的经济权利——但任何无担保债权人若希望通过“抢先起诉”而在付款优先顺位上领先，则属例外，因为这必然会对某些人不公平。\n\n5. 本声明分为两部分。第一部分提供有关本人的背景资料，包括对本人资产和负债的概述。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n第一部分——背景资料\n一、本人背景\n\n6. 本人出生于中国山东省。本人目前与结婚37年的妻子Hing Chi Ngok居住于康涅狄格州格林尼治市373 Taconic Road。于March 2020，我们从纽约Sherry-Netherland的一套公寓搬至目前位于康涅狄格州的地址。本人和妻子育有两名成年子女。本人儿子名为Qiang Guo（郭强），居住在伦敦。本人女儿名为Mei Guo（郭美），其时间分居于纽约市和康涅狄格州。\n\n7. 本人及家人自幼贫困。本人和七个兄弟努力工作，并将收入合并——本人的收入来自一家无线电维修店，兄弟们的收入来自各自的小型企业——投资于房地产开发。1989年支持民主的天安门广场抗议活动之后，本人因向学生抗议者提供财政支持而被监禁约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。本人被捕时二十出头。与此同时，本人目睹两名警察——CCP的代理人——残暴地枪击本人的弟弟，并任其死亡。弟弟遭杀害，以及本人在狱中的被捕和受酷刑经历，对本人造成了深刻影响。在狱中，本人与其他因支持天安门广场民主运动而同样被监禁的良心犯建立了许多有意义的人际联系。我们同样热衷于在中国追求自由；本人于1991年获释后，继续维持这些关系。\n\n8. 大约在1991年，中国政府开始放宽管理社会的某些规定，包括使普通公民能够在中国开始取得某种“准私有”房地产所有权的规定。尽管本人的大家族从这一变化中获益，但本人由于先前出于政治动机的被捕和拘留而无法获益。任何以本人名义登记的中国资产，都很可能已被CCP没收。本人的大家族利用其积累的财富支持本人，此种支持一直延续至今。\n\n9. 本人的大家族开始与Yuda Property Company（裕达地产公司，以下简称“Yuda”）合作；该公司专注于中国河南省的商业房地产开发。Guo家族与Yuda共同开发了河南裕达酒店，之后又在河南省省会郑州市开发了裕达国际贸易中心。这些成功项目使Guo家族开始积累大量财富。此后，本人的家族在中国开发了其他房地产项目，包括北京的盘古大观——一座7星级酒店、会议中心及住宅公寓综合体。美国人或许会认出盘古大观，因为它是北京2008年和2022年奥运会的主要背景建筑。\n\n10. Guo家族的财富通过多元化继续增长，其投资涉及金融、科技及其他商业领域。特别是本人的儿子，通过设立和管理投资机会，在扩大家族财富方面发挥了关键作用，其中包括将全球奢侈品牌引入中国和香港。因此，本人的儿子本身是一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 大约在2000年，本人离开中国大陆前往香港，并成为香港公民。在大家族继续在中国积累巨额财富之际，根据中国法律，作为香港公民，本人既不能保留中国国籍，也不被允许在中国拥有资产。\n\n12. 本人大家族的财务成功并未逃过CCP的注意。于2002年，本人的大家族在北京获得大面积土地；当中国被指定为2008年奥运会主办国时，该等土地的价值显著增加。CCP官员企图为其个人利益侵占该等土地，本人向更高级别的政府官员举报了该企图侵占行为。经过长期斗争，该等土地得以收回，从而使盘古大观得以开发。\n\n13. 大约在2015年，本人开始更公开地批评和揭露CCP的腐败，因此CCP对本人实施报复。于January 10, 2015，Wu Zheng（吴征，亦称“Bruno Wu”）告知本人，本人的兄弟、妻子和女儿均已在中国被捕。Bruno Wu与CCP高级官员关系密切，并且是CCP登记在案的外国代理人；其媒体公司与Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，以下简称“PAG”）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）的母公司——合作，试图收购一家重要的好莱坞制片厂；[1] 并且，他本人（代表CCP）正在资助众多原告针对本人的诉讼活动。2015年初，Bruno Wu代表CCP高级成员致电本人，转告称如果本人停止公开揭露CCP腐败，本人的家人将获释；并威胁称，如本人不服从，本人和本人的儿子都将被发布国际刑警组织“红色通缉令”，且本人将被杀害。本人拒绝CCP通过Bruno Wu使本人噤声的企图，并继续公开批评CCP。\n\n14. 于2017年，本人通过使用社交媒体和设在美国的新闻媒体作为平台，揭露某些CCP高级官员的腐败，大幅加强了反CCP运动。\n\n1 Nancy Tartaglione，《Chinese Create $800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment》，Deadline，February 6, 2012 [\\(http][226260/\\)]。\n\n本人揭露CCP腐败的公开陈述，在美国及国外均获得广泛报道。除使用社交媒体更便捷且更广泛地揭露CCP腐败外，本人还向美国当局提供有关CCP官员及其犯罪行为的信息。由于担心自身生命安全，本人于September 2017在美国申请政治庇护保护；本人的庇护申请仍在审理中。\n\n15. 为报复本人的举报行为，CCP发动了一场多层面的行动，试图获得对本人的制约、诋毁本人，[2] 威胁并使本人噤声。[3] 下文所述的该等行为最终迫使本人进入本破产案件。例如，于April 19, 2017，本人原定接受Voice of America（美国之音，以下简称“VOA”）采访，在该采访中本人计划揭露\n\n2 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）和Hoover Institute（胡佛研究所）、非政府组织Australian Strategic Policy Institute（澳大利亚战略政策研究所，以下简称“ASPI”）以及Alphabet旗下的Google（谷歌），均分别报告称，本人是CCP全球社交媒体虚假信息活动的主要目标；该活动由CCP代理人以及数以千计受中国国家控制的网站和社交媒体账户推动。参见Carly Miller、Vanessa Molter、Isabella Garca-Camargo、Rene DiResta、David Thiel和Alex Zaheer，《Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown》，Stanford Internet Observatory，June 17, 2020 [\\(http)]；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren和Elise Thomas，《Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests》，October 2019 [\\(htt][2.amazonaws.com/2019-]\n\n[12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\\\_4SfDUy7] [sMfNkw0\\)]（表明CCP针对本人的虚假信息活动始于April 2017）；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren、Elise Thomas、Albert Zhang、Dr. Samantha Hoffman、Lin Li、Alex Pascoe和Danielle Cave，《Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor》，June 2020 [\\(htt][southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-]\n\n[06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt] [XD6TCA\\)]（提出数据，反映“与中国国家行为体有关、持续且大规模地在Twitter和Facebook上开展的影响活动……[其]主要针对中国大陆以外的中文受众（当地Twitter被屏蔽）……意图影响对……Guo Wengui的看法”）；Joseph Menn，《Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID》，Reuters，September 9, 2021 [\\(http][covid-2021-09-08/\\)]（报道FireEye和Alphabet旗下Google的安全专家观察到一场协调一致、支持中国政府利益并以本人为目标的社交媒体虚假信息活动）。如这些独立来源所证实，世界上没有任何人曾成为CCP社交媒体战更多攻击的目标。\n\n3 中国共产党（CCP）对我这名居住在美国的中国异议人士所采用的滥用手段并非独有。近日，联邦检察官指称，“一名中国间谍雇用了一名私家侦探，如有必要可使用暴力终止一名候选人的国会竞选，并指示他‘把他打到无法参选为止。’”见 Aruna Viswanatha 和 Kate O'Keeffe，《司法部称，中国特工提议以暴力手段终止异议人士的国会竞选》，Wall Street Journal，March 16, 2022 [\\(http][with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\\\_inline\\)]。\n\n中国共产党在 HNA Group Co. 的所有权权益。中国共产党采取了多项行动，试图阻止我和 VOA 继续进行该访谈。第一，在我预定接受 VOA 访谈的两日前——且正如 Brunu Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——中国共产党根据捏造的刑事指控发布了一份要求逮捕我并将我引渡至中国的 INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“Red Notice（红色通报）”。第二，中国共产党威胁称，如 VOA 继续进行对我的访谈，将对 VOA 及其在中国的记者进行报复，并声称该访谈构成对中国内政的干涉。第三，访谈前一天，PAX（PAX）——PAG（PAG）的子公司——在纽约以违约为由对我提起了一项毫无根据的诉讼。我继续进行了访谈，但 VOA（屈从于中国共产党的压力）命令缩短该访谈。\n\n16. 当中国共产党早期试图使我噤声的努力失败后，其转而试图将我引渡至中国，在那里我将被杀害。FBI（联邦调查局）的一项调查显示，在 2017 年夏季，中国共产党在美国试图对我进行游说，利用一名腐败政府官员及多名知名人士，包括澳门赌场所有人 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利），直接游说 President Trump（特朗普总统）及其政府将我引渡至中国。[4] 中国共产党的计划导致 Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）前财务主席 Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）的联邦起诉书和认罪答辩（其后，正如 Brunu Wu 一样，\n\n4 见 Aruna Viswanatha，《史蒂夫·永利可能因其在中国推动驱逐商人行动中所扮演的角色而面临司法部行动》，Wall Street Journal，May 26, 2021 [\\(http][mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103\\)]。\n\n资助其他当事人对我提起诉讼）、游说者 Nicki Lum Davis（尼基·拉姆·戴维斯）[6]，以及 DOJ（司法部）前官员 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）[7]的联邦起诉书和认罪答辩；他们均承认收取报酬，以换取游说美国政府高级官员将我引渡。中国的行动包括对一名司法部总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）的贿赂和腐蚀；该官员控制的银行账户中发现近 \\$75 million——这使其成为司法部历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中国共产党还自同年起以各种其他方式针对我，包括：于 September 2017 入侵为我提交庇护申请的律师事务所服务器，从该申请中提取我的高度敏感信息，然后在互联网上公开传播该等信息；对我提起并资助（其中数起通过 Brunu Wu）大量虚假诉讼，其中部分至今仍在进行；以及拘留、酷刑折磨和监禁我的许多家属及前同事。\n\n5 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Elliott Broidy 就旨在终止 1MDB 调查并驱逐一名中国外国国民的秘密渠道游说行动认罪》，October 20, 2020 [\\(http][investigation-and\\)]（其中称，“Broidy 还同意代表 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）和 People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A），游说政府及 DOJ，安排驱逐并遣返 PRC National A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异议人士”；我是“PRC National A”）。关于 Elliott Broidy 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉信息）”副本作为附件 A 随附于此。\n\n6 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《夏威夷女商人就协助旨在终止 1MDB 调查并将一名外国国民驱逐至中国的秘密渠道游说行动认罪》，August 31, 2020 [\\(http][campaign-drop-1mdb\\)]（其中称，“Lum Davis 和其他人还同意代表 Foreign National A 和 People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A，游说政府及 Justice Department（司法部），安排驱逐并遣返 PRC National A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异议人士”；我是“PRC National A”）。关于 Nicki Lum Davis 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉信息）”副本作为附件 B 随附于此。\n\n7 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《司法部前雇员就串谋就数百万美元外国游说资金欺骗美国银行一案认罪》，November 30, 2018 [\\(http][banks-about-millions\\)]（其中称，“Higginbotham 进一步承认，游说行动的另一目的，是试图说服美国政府高级官员将另一名当时持临时签证居住在美国的外国国民驱逐出美国，并遣返其原籍国”；我是该“另一名外国国民”）。关于 George Higginbotham 的“Factual Basis for Plea（认罪事实依据）”副本作为附件 C 随附于此。\n\n17. 自 2017 年以来，中国共产党还冻结并扣押了我在中国和香港的家族资产及据称资产，致使我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。[8] 中国共产党已将摧毁我所创造的一切并阻止我与金融机构打交道作为其任务。我大部分时间均作为无偿的非正式顾问或发言人，为包括揭露中国共产党腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体在内的各类实体服务。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，满足我的生活所需。在 Petition Date（申请日期）之前，我儿子的家族办公室 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）（“GSNY”或“Family Office（家族办公室）”）除其他许多物品外，购买了我的衣物、食品和日常用品。我无权使用 GSNY 信用卡或 GSNY 银行账户。除衣物和移动电话外，我使用的几乎所有物品均由我的家人保有所有权。我不拥有位于 Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林尼治）的住所；该住所由我妻子通过 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）持有。我为我儿子以信托形式持有 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）公寓的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人已向我预支贷款（部分有书面记录，部分没有），以资助我数额巨大的诉讼费用，使我能够就中国共产党发起或授意发起的众多诉讼为自己辩护。截至 Petition Date，GSNY 已向我提供约 \\$21 million 的贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如以下所述及我的 Statement of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明书）（“SOFA”）所载，我是美国和国外超过 30 宗未决诉讼中的被告和/或请求人。众所周知，中国共产党利用其代理人\n\n8 On October 23, 2018，High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭）（“HK High Court（香港高等法院）”）作出了日期为 October 18, 2018 的《Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere（禁止处分香港及其他地区资产的限制令）》（“HK Restraint Order（香港限制令）”）。香港限制令针对据称属于我的、存放于 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited（汇丰银行有限公司）（HSBC Bank（汇丰银行））的 HK\\$3.7 million 资金。根据香港限制令，据称受我“effective control（有效控制）”的个人和实体的更多数十亿资金和财产，包括香港的不动产，亦被冻结和/或扣押。香港限制令禁止被点名的“respondents（答辩人）”（包括我）处分任何资产。任何人在香港限制令作出后接收我的资产，据称均违反该限制令，并可被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n提起诉讼，即使是在美国法院，也旨在强迫因政治原因被追捕的个人返回中国。[9] 就该等诉讼聘请律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的费用极为高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在已提交的 Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（资产和负债清单）（“Schedules”）及 SOFA 中反映了我负债的当前状况。家族办公室协助我编制该等文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey 律师事务所）亦提供了协助；该公司是一家在编制破产清单和财务状况说明书方面具有丰富经验的独立财务咨询公司。如该等文件所反映及下文进一步所述，我在 21 宗诉讼中被列为被告，并欠付数额巨大的诉讼费用。\n\nA. PAX 诉讼。\n\n20. PAX 是一家香港投资基金——其母公司 PAG 曾与中国共产党特工 Brunu Wu 的媒体公司合作购买一家好莱坞制片厂——其在纽约和 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）（“BVI”）对我提起诉讼。如我先前提到，PAX 的 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）诉讼于 April 18, 2017 提起，即我接受 VOA 访谈以揭露中国共产党腐败的前一天。PAX 的请求主要涉及追收一项存在争议的债务。\n\n21. In 2008，PAX 向一家名为 Spirit Carter（Spirit Carter）的中国实体提供了 \\$100 million 贷款（“PAX Loan（PAX 贷款）”）。该 \\$100 million 贷款分两笔发放：(1) 由我提供个人保证担保的 \\$30 million 初始贷款，以及 (2) 由最终成为 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地/开发项目所属公司 49% 权益担保的第二笔 \\$70 million 贷款。\n\n9 见 Aruna Viswanatha 和 Kate O'Keeffe，《中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院》，Wall Street Journal，July 29, 2020 [\\(http][fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112\\)]。\n\n22. In 2009，PAX 收到 \\$100 million 的还款，确认该贷款已清偿，并进一步确认我在 2008 年个人保证项下的义务已经履行。PAX 对“accord and satisfaction（和解及清偿）”是否实际发生提出异议，并现根据一份日期较后的、系伪造的个人保证向我提出请求。在向我出示该保证之前，我先前的诉讼律师已将其提交法院以支持某些动议。当我随后得知该文件的存在时，我表示相信其系伪造；但法院裁定，由于其先前已被提交，我已无权再质疑其真实性。因此，on September 15, 2020，法院作出了有利于 PAX 的简易判决，既未允许我作证，也未在陪审团面前进行证据审理。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为 \\$125 million。我及时向 New York Appellate Division（纽约上诉分庭）就该判决提起上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。[10]\n\n23. 数周后（on October 15, 2020），法院就我的资产作出了一项限制令（“NYS Restraining Order（纽约州限制令）”）。PAX 在执行该判决时，主要针对一艘名为“Lady May（五月花女士号）”的游艇，下文将对其作进一步说明。我不拥有 Lady May；其由我的女儿所有。该船的维护费用一直由我的儿子支付。尽管如此，on March 16, 2021，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）命令我须于 May 15, 2021 前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每在管辖区外停留一日，我将面临 \\$500,000 的巨额每日罚款。我确实可以使用该船，但我无权命令其返回纽约。Lady May 从未返回纽约，截至今年早些时候，累积的藐视法庭罚款已超过作出的有利于 PAX 的判决金额，并为该游艇标称价值的五至六倍。我无力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的 Schedules 包括一项针对我历任诉讼律师的潜在失职请求。\n\n24. 2022年2月9日，Ostrager法官（Justice Ostrager）对我作出了民事藐视法庭最终命令（以下简称“2月9日藐视法庭命令”）。在2月9日藐视法庭命令中，Ostrager法官认定我对Lady May享有受益权益并对其实施控制，并命令我在五个营业日内向PAX支付$134 million罚款，否则将面临因民事藐视法庭而被监禁的风险。我认为，2月9日藐视法庭命令被错误地对我作出，并已另行向上诉分庭（Appellate Division）就该命令提起上诉。无论如何，我均无力履行该命令。我坚信，中国共产党（CCP）正在策划PAX案件。迄今为止，PAX诉讼是CCP持续不断地针对我开展的行动中为数不多的成功之一，其使我面临潜在监禁[11]，并迫使我进入破产程序。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 在与我推介出售一家名为GTV Media Group, Inc（GTV传媒集团股份有限公司，以下简称“GTV”）的公司证券，以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币有关的七起诉讼中，我被列为被告。除两个拟议投资者集体外，数名个人投资者亦就其在据称进行投资后所遭受的损失向我提出索赔。这些诉讼中的原告通常主张，我参与了一项计划，违反适用的美国证券法，向缺乏经验的投资者出售未经注册的证券。这些起诉状合计向我及包括GTV及其母公司Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团股份有限公司，以下简称“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告请求超过$100 million的损害赔偿。我认为这些索赔毫无根据。[12]\n\n11. 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了其《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）关于作出命令确认自动中止不适用，或备选地，根据《破产法》第362(D)(2)条解除自动中止的动议》[Docket No. 57]（以下简称“解除中止动议”）。我认为，准许解除中止动议所请求的救济将对我造成重大损害，并对我的破产财产及其债权人造成实质性不利影响。如PAX在解除中止动议中所示，执行2月9日藐视法庭命令可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性损害我实现本第11章案件目标的能力。最主要的是，如被监禁，我将无法充分、适当地管理我的破产财产，参与本破产案件，与债权人谈判，在本院出庭并陈述意见，与律师协商并向其作出指示，调查并归集破产财产资产，或制定并协商第11章计划。此外，我认为PAX错误地相信，如果我面临被监禁的风险，我的家人将支付PAX的赎金；我的家人不会这样做。\n\nC. 诽谤索赔。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直积极活跃于社交媒体，并发布批评CCP、其代理人及其影响范围内其他人士的内容。在此背景下，某些据称在我的社交媒体内容中被指认的人士已对我提出诽谤索赔。如我的财务状况声明（SOFA）所载，我目前在数起诽谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中若干诉讼由Brunu Wu（吴布鲁努）资助；其为公认的CCP代理人及PAX母公司的商业伙伴。这些诉讼中的原告合计主张了巨额损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼资金成本。\n\n27. 我提起请求金钱救济的索赔所产生的费用，系通过依据诉讼融资协议（以下简称“诉讼融资协议”）提供的贷款予以资助。在我必须就索赔进行抗辩的情形下，家族办公室（Family Office）向我预支贷款，以支付我的诉讼费用。无论何种情形，贷款款项均直接支付给由我聘用的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日（Petition Date），GSNY已向我预支约$21 million，用于与诉讼有关的费用。\n\n28. 在已订立诉讼融资协议的情形下，如我最终成功提出并收回我的索赔，GSNY有权获得溢价，并已就我的部分诉讼追偿款主张担保权益，以确保该等偿还及投资回报。\n\n12. 这些事项涉及某项已和解的执法程序。具体而言，2021年9月，GTV和Saraca就美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的主张达成了公开宣布的“不承认/不否认”和解；SEC主张GTV发行证券违反了《1933年法案》第506条（以下简称“SEC实体和解”）。In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021)。GTV和Saraca还与纽约州总检察长办公室（New York State Office of the Attorney General）达成了平行和解。Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents (Sept 13, 2021)。\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据向我提供的意见，在我的第11章案件开始时，已形成一项破产财产，其中包括截至申请日我在任何地点、由任何人持有的财产中享有的一切法律或衡平权益。据向我提供的意见，我的破产财产及其中的所有财产均受本院管辖和监督。当然，我接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的资产清单中列明。这些资产主要为衣物、食品及其他少量家庭用品，以及诉讼索赔。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物及其他日常用品。除我可使用的车辆、我的住所（过去及目前）、家具、艺术品和电子产品（我的手机除外）之外，我可以接触的一切其他物品均归我的家庭成员所有。经其许可，我可以使用这些资产，但未经其许可，我无权处分任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我亦是数起在美国、英国和瑞士待决案件中的索赔人。该等诉讼的具体情况已在我的财务状况声明中披露。其中两项诉讼值得在此特别说明：\n\na. UBS索赔。在英国皇家法院（Royal Courts of Justice），我与若干共同原告已对UBS AG（London Branch）（瑞银集团伦敦分行，以下简称“UBS”）提出索赔，请求超过$500 million的损害赔偿，该等赔偿与UBS就我于2015年试图促成收购并收购一家中国金融机构Haitong（海通）所发行的若干股份时作出的疏忽性失实陈述及建议有关。直至2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁决，确认英国法院对我针对UBS的索赔具有管辖权，而非如UBS所主张的瑞士法院。鉴于UBS对管辖权提出异议，为确保如英国被认定缺乏管辖权时诉讼仍可继续进行（英国并未被认定缺乏管辖权），必须在瑞士巴塞尔城市民事法院调解机构（Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority）提起平行诉讼。瑞士的该诉讼目前处于中止状态，等待UBS就该管辖权问题向英国上诉法院（Court of Appeal）提起的上诉结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill索赔。此外，我已对Clark Hill PLC和其一名成员Thomas K. Ragland（托马斯·K·拉格兰德）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出索赔。该诉讼目前在哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Columbia）待决。我因Clark Hill违反其法律代理义务，向其请求$50 million补偿性损害赔偿及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿。具体而言，由于Clark Hill未能充分保护我的庇护申请中所含的高度敏感信息，CCP于2017年9月期间入侵Clark Hill的服务器，提取了该等高度敏感信息，随后在互联网上传播。更糟的是，Clark Hill屈服于CCP黑客的威胁，辞去我的移民律师职务。因此，我已遭受并持续遭受损害。\n\n33. 另有两项并非由我所有的资产值得特别说明：(a) Lady May；以及(b)位于纽约市Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰酒店）的公寓（以下简称“该公寓”）。\n\na. Lady May。如上所述，我并不拥有Lady May，尽管我确曾获准登船并享用该船。我的女儿通过HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）拥有并控制该游艇。尽管州法院在2月9日藐视法庭命令中作出了认定，但命令Lady May留在纽约或返回纽约并非我力所能及。\n\nb. Sherry-Netherland公寓。Sherry-Netherland公寓的合作社股份由Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“Genever US”）持有。[13] Genever US的成员权益则由Genever Holdings Corporation（以下简称“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。然而，根据日期为2015年2月17日的信托声明及协议（以下简称“信托日期”），我为Bravo Luck Limited（以下简称“公寓所有人”）信托持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有公寓所有人的股权。在信托日期当日或前后，公寓所有人向Genever US提供了购买该公寓的价款。该等资金来自由我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。还应注意的是，Ostrager法官已命令将我在Genever BVI中享有的任何权益交付给PAX，但以该等交付不干扰英属维尔京群岛待决诉讼或Genever US破产程序为条件。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我相信Ostrager法官、PAX以及可能的其他人士认为，我拥有比此处以及我的资产清单和财务状况声明所反映的更强财力。然而，他们认为属于我的财富实际上属于我的儿子、女儿、妻子及大家庭成员，而非我本人。但是，如上所述，本破产程序将使利害关系方能够调查该项主张，并提出任何相反证据。重要的是，如下文所述，对抗程序将以避免损害任何债权人在破产财产中的经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\n13. 2020年10月12日，Genever US在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）申请第11章破产（Case No. 20-12411）。\n\nIII. 拟议DIP融资\n\n35. 如我的资产清单所载，我没有自己的资源为本第11章案件的费用提供资金。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意为本第11章案件的某些费用提供资金。具体而言，GSNY拟按照附于批准DIP融资动议的DIP融资信贷协议（以下简称“DIP信贷协议”）所载条款，向破产财产出借$8 million（以下简称“DIP融资”）。DIP融资将用于支付包括破产财产聘用的专业人士费用（包括我聘用的专业人士，以及正式无担保债权人委员会和/或审查员如获指定而聘用的专业人士费用）以及美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）征收的季度费用在内的款项。在$8 million预算中，最多$4 million将可用于资助正式债权人委员会和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY 提供将以无担保方式发放该贷款，其偿还顺位从属于所有获准的一般无担保债权。换言之，DIP 融资不以破产财产的任何资产作为担保，不要求享有行政费用债权或优先债权，且在所有获准的申请日前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会以破产财产资产偿还。因此，该贷款不会使我的债权人付出任何代价，并为调查我的事务提供了公平的机会。我不认为任何其他贷款人提供的贷款会具有更优的条款。因此，获得该贷款符合我的破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将无法获得任何借入资金。全部 DIP 融资所得款项将存入为破产财产利益而设立的独立存款账户（“债务人账户”）。V&L（定义见下文）的 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）将是唯一获授权签字人。债务人账户的付款仅可依 V&L 的指示作出，仅限于支付 DIP 预算中列明的项目所必需的范围内，并须经拟议的 DIP 融资命令、DIP 融资文件及法院其他相关命令（包括批准专业人员费用申请的命令）授权。\n\n38. DIP 信贷协议中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：破产法院须在 DIP 信贷协议获临时批准之日起 45 天内最终批准拟议的 DIP 融资命令。见 DIP 信贷协议第 ¶ 6.01(a) 条。DIP 信贷协议中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即作出命令准许 PAX 解除自动中止，以便在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。见 DIP 信贷协议第 ¶ 8.01(e) 条。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是依据 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准许该等救济，我将无法有意义地指导并参与有序的债权解决及计划程序。在该等情况下，我的儿子——通过 GSNY——将无意继续资助本 Chapter 11 案件的费用。\n\n第四部分——我的 Chapter 11 案件的目标\n\n39. 我的最终目标是达成一项完全协商一致的 Chapter 11 计划，最终解决与我的债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在通过由 DIP 融资支付费用的受托代表向债权人提供公平的尽职调查和陈述意见机会后，通过理性且合理的对话实现这一结果。我希望我的债权人将仅以实现有效债权的偿还为动机，并搁置将诉讼作为限制我言论自由及对政治滥用进行批评的手段。我还希望，如债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人在计划下获得公平的回收。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要是诉讼请求权，我相信这些请求权具有实质性理由并且有价值（其价值或许足以全额清偿所有债权人）。但再次强调，所有利益相关方都将获得公平机会对其进行调查。\n\n41. 我理解，我的 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，以最终确定哪些其他资产可能构成我的破产财产。我的某些债权人主张，我拥有我认为由我的家庭成员或其关联实体拥有和控制的资产。我不认为曾就我对 Lady May（梅夫人号）的“受益”所有权和控制权作出命令的 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾认定我对该船舶拥有实际法定所有权，或者该船舶现为我的 Chapter 11 破产财产的资产。这些问题将被直接且公平地提交本法院，以作出适当裁决。\n\n42. 多年来，我一直在为自称债权人提起的诉讼进行抗辩。如上所述，由我儿子拥有和控制的 GSNY 已向我出借数百万资金，以支付我的抗辩费用。本 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，一劳永逸地确定针对我的破产财产的获准债权范围。债权人将有机会就我的 Chapter 11 破产财产提出债权，该程序应当使破产财产中的任何资产在所有处于同等地位的债权人之间得到公平分配（例如，不允许 PAX 在同一债权人类别中先于其他人获得清偿）。我将与我的专业顾问合作，以实现适当的债权核对程序。\n\n43. 最终，我希望达成一项理性、价值最大化的计划，使我摆脱诉讼，并有助于根据《破产法》实现“重新开始”。\n\n第二部分——动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅以下各项动议，并且据我所知、所获信息及所信，动议中陈述的事实真实且正确。\n\n45. 批准 DIP 融资的动议。DIP 融资对于支付与 Chapter 11 案件相关的费用是必要的，并可为我提供充足的时间和资金空间，使我在能力卓越、经验丰富的顾问协助下，协商并实现重整计划的确认。\n\n46. 鉴于与我的债权人，尤其是 PAX，之间的对抗性和诉讼性关系促使我寻求 chapter 11 救济，我要求且 GSNY 同意，DIP 融资将为所有破产财产专业人员的利益而提供，不施加任何可能损害我债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP 融资以无担保方式提供，其顺位从属于我的申请日前债权人的权利，且不享有任何行政费用或其他优先偿还权。我的理解是，DIP 贷款当且仅当我的所有其他债权人均获全额清偿时方应偿还。鉴于这些优厚条款，我相信，任何试图从其他来源以竞争性或类似条款获得融资的做法都将浪费破产财产资源且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上所述及我的清单中所载，我预计我作为原告的诉讼中获得的追偿或和解款项将用于资助一项 Chapter 11 计划。如无法获得 DIP 融资，我将无法聘用并支付目前代表我推进诉讼的律师的报酬。同样，如我无法对这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论在本程序内进行，或在准许解除中止后于其他审理地进行），我的负债可能会大幅增加。\n\n48. 基于这些理由，我相信拟议的 DIP 融资系出于善意提供，不损害我任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我的破产财产的最佳利益，因此应予批准。\n\n49. 聘用 Stretto, Inc.（Stretto，公司）担任债权及通知代理人的申请。在 Chapter 11 案件存续期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人，协助向破产财产的债权人及利害关系方提供通知。我已选择 Stretto, Inc.（“Stretto”）担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto 在美国各地的多宗 chapter 11 案件中担任债权及通知代理人方面拥有丰富经验，包括在本地区。Stretto 已同意提供咨询服务，以：(a) 担任通知代理人，向破产财产的债权人及其他利害关系方邮寄通知；(b) 维护一个电子平台，用于提交债权证明、计划征询、投票、计票、付款，以及为编制资产和负债清单及财务状况说明书提供行政支持；以及 (c) 就本 Chapter 11 案件按需要提供其他行政服务。\n\n50. 聘用 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）担任重组律师的申请。我需要能力卓越、经验丰富的重组律师，就我退出 Chapter 11 的安排提供建议并协助构建该安排，其可能采取获确认重整计划的形式。我已选择 Brown Rudnick LLP（“Brown Rudnick”）担任我在 Chapter 11 案件中的重组律师。Brown Rudnick 在债务人和债权人权利以及《破产法》chapter 11 下的重整领域拥有广泛的经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本地区及全国其他地区的众多 Chapter 11 案件中代表债务人、官方及非官方委员会和其他重要当事人。Brown Rudnick 亦熟悉我的事务以及将在 Chapter 11 案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：(a) 编制所有必要的动议、答复、答辩及其他法律文件，包括可能必要的审判准备；(b) 为批准披露声明及确认重整计划进行准备并采取必要行动；以及 (c) 在 Chapter 11 案件存续期间提供可能必要的所有其他法律服务。\n\n51. 在申请日之前，Brown Rudnick 于 2022 年 2 月 14 日及 2022 年 2 月 15 日各获支付一笔 \\$500,000 的预付聘金。该等预付聘金共计 \\$1 million 的资金来源（“BR 预付聘金”）是 Lamp Capital LLC（Lamp Capital 有限责任公司，“Lamp”），该公司由我儿子拥有。Lamp 以无担保方式向我出借 \\$1 million，我指示 Lamp 将贷款所得款项直接汇付给 Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick 已从 BR 预付聘金中抵扣 \\$51,835.20 的申请日前费用及支出，Brown Rudnick 因而持有 \\$948,164.80 的申请日前 BR 预付聘金余额。此后，我已要求 Brown Rudnick 将其获准的费用及支出从 BR 预付聘金中抵扣，直至 BR 预付聘金余额为 \\$250,000；此后，Brown Rudnick 将通过 DIP 融资所得款项向我寻求支付其获准的费用和开支。\n\n52. 聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺与洛伊专业公司，“V&L”）担任财务顾问的申请。我需要一家财务顾问公司，以编制、审阅和分析《破产法》规定的必要财务披露，以及在 Chapter 11 案件存续期间持续进行的月度和季度报告要求。我已选择 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”）担任我的财务顾问。V&L 在与陷入困境的个人 chapter 11 债务人合作方面拥有丰富经验，并提供量身定制的服务，包括但不限于财务顾问、咨询、会计服务、税务及其他相关服务。V&L 已同意就以下事项提供服务：(a) 编制和审阅我的财务状况说明书及清单和其他定期报告要求；(b) 编制和/或审阅现金流及相关预算预测；(c) 维护 DIP 账户，并在必要时实施付款及对所有现金活动进行核算；(d) 债权审阅和管理；(e) 重整计划的拟定和审阅；(f) 提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及 (g) 就 Chapter 11 案件存续期间可能出现的任何其他事项和任务提供一般咨询和协助。\n\n53. 批准在日常业务中聘用和支付专业人士的动议。我是在美国州级和联邦级法院以及外国司法管辖区待决的众多案件中列名的原告或列名的被告。在破产申请前，就这些诉讼及某些正在进行的政府调查而言，我聘请了多家律师事务所、会计师及其他非律师专业人士（合称我的“常规业务专业人士”），其就我申请破产前的诉讼提供服务，并就与本第11章案件无关的多种事项提供其他服务。我拟在获得法院批准的前提下使用DIP Financing（债务人占有融资），继续聘用并支付这些常规业务专业人士的报酬，因为他们每一位均对我的事务（申请破产前）及我待决的诉讼具有丰富的知识、专门技能和熟悉程度，其中大部分诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我为DIP Financing寻求紧急临时救济的理由之一，是确保代表我的专业人士继续工作。除非我能够向某些专业人士保证其申请破产前及破产申请日后所从事工作的报酬将获支付，否则其可能退出对我的代理。此类退出代理，视案件状态及相关专业人士所提供的服务而定，可能对我及我的破产财产造成明确且不可弥补的损害。UBS（瑞银集团）、Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）及其他待决诉讼请求均为我预期将依赖以协助制定并可能确认重组计划的资产。对我推进这些请求的任何干扰无疑都会损害价值。\n\n55. 总而言之，若无我的常规业务专业人士就其申请破产前工作所具备的知识、专门技能及熟悉程度，我的破产财产将为培训和聘用为保存并可能继续推进这些有价值诉讼请求所必需的替代专业人士而产生大量额外且不必要的费用。因此，我认为，继续聘用我的常规业务专业人士符合本破产财产、我的债权人及其他利害关系方的最佳利益。\n\n证据附件A\n\n哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA）\n\n) ) ) ) ) )\n\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA） )\n\n刑事案号\n\n诉 第1项罪名：18 u.s.c. § 371（共谋）\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY（艾略特·布罗迪），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事起诉书\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本起诉书相关的所有时期内：\n\n2. 自不晚于2017年3月起至至少2018年1月20日前后，ELLIOTT BROIDY（艾略特·布罗迪）同Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）及A某人（Person A）达成协议，作为外国国民A（Foreign National A）的代理人行事，以换取数百万美元的未披露报酬。BROIDY具体同意游说美国总统政府班子（“政府班子”）及美国司法部（United States Department of Justice，“DOJ”），以撤销或以其他有利方式解决其针对外国国民A的事项，该等事项涉及其在挪用1Malaysia Development Berhad（1Malaysia发展有限公司，“1MDB”）数十亿美元资金中所起的作用；1MDB是一家由马来西亚政府（Government of Malaysia）全资拥有的战略投资与发展公司。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis及A某人故意未向政府班子及DOJ官员披露BROIDY正代表外国国民A行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis及A某人未能促使有关1MDB的事项被撤销或以其他有利方式为外国国民A解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间内，BROIDY、Davis及A某人还同意代表外国国民A游说政府班子及DOJ，安排将中华人民共和国（People's Republic of China，“PRC”）国民A——一名居住于美国的PRC公民——移除并遣返回PRC。这尤其包括倡导安排PRC部长A（PRC Minister A）与美国政府官员会面。在此方面，BROIDY、Davis及A某人最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民A的利益，BROIDY在Davis及A某人的协助下，试图促成马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）于2017年9月与总统会面，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理A能够向总统提出解决1MDB事项的问题。\n\n5. BROIDY、Davis及A某人还在PRC与PRC部长A会面，并商定BROIDY将在Davis及A某人的协助下游说政府班子，将PRC国民A遣返PRC。为明确向PRC部长A提供与美国高级官员讨论移除PRC国民A的机会，BROIDY、Davis及A某人还同意并试图促成PRC部长A于2017年5月访问美国期间，与政府班子、DOJ及美国国土安全部（United States Department of Homeland Security，“DHS”）高级官员会面。\n\n禁止作为外国委托人或政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agents Registration Act，“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去和现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人代理人”行事的人员，就某些类型的活动向司法部长登记，例如代表外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或游说。此类登记向DOJ内国家安全司外国代理人登记法部门（Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit，“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未进行登记，以及根据该法规定向FARA Unit提交的文件中作出虚假或误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA的目的在于防止外国委托人的秘密影响。根据该法规适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估担任外国委托人代理人的个人所作陈述及活动。除其他事项外，FARA登记会披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间所作的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告ELLIOTT BROIDY于约2017年至2018年4月期间担任某全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。BROIDY从捐赠人处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在2016年选举周期内与一名美国总统候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。BROIDY担任财务副主席期间，能够接触并联系政府班子中的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，BROIDY拥有并经营数家国内及国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）过去和现在均为美国公民、女企业家及顾问，与BROIDY及A某人具有个人和商业关系。2020年8月31日，Davis在夏威夷联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Hawaii）就一项指控协助和教唆违反FARA的单项刑事起诉书认罪。\n\n10. A某人过去和现在均为具有国际联系的美国公民、商人及演艺人士，其中包括与外国国民A的联系。\n\n11. 外国国民A是一名居住于东亚的富有商人，已因其策划并实施从1MDB挪用数十亿美元资金的计划所起作用而被另案起诉。\n\n12. A公司（Company A）是一家由A某人成立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国国民A的电汇，并由A某人用于支付BROIDY、Davis及其他人为其游说活动的报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是A某人的同事，亦是一名受DOJ雇用的持证律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham在哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Columbia）就一项指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项刑事起诉书认罪。\n\n14. A律师事务所（Law Firm A）是一家由C某人（Person C）经营、并由BROIDY及C某人控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC国民A是一名PRC公民，以临时签证居住于美国。PRC政府，包括PRC部长A及PRC主席，正寻求将PRC国民A从美国移除并遣返PRC。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ积极调查据称与1MDB挪用计划所得洗钱收益有关的外国国民A交易。2016年7月，DOJ提起多项民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称以1MDB洗钱收益购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ提交刑事起诉书，指控外国国民A及其他人共谋洗钱从1MDB挪用的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚及阿拉伯联合酋长国（United Arab Emirates，“UAE”）官员支付贿赂而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n第一项罪名\n\n18 u.s.c. § 371\n\n（共谋担任未经登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 兹再次主张并以引用方式纳入第1至16段。\n\n18. 自不晚于2017年3月起至至少2018年1月前后，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY明知地与已知及未知的其他人共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地担任外国委托人的代理人，具体为就1MDB事项及移除PRC国民A而言担任外国国民A的代理人，而未向司法部长登记，违反22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n\n共谋目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的在于，BROIDY、Davis、A某人及外国国民A策划秘密渠道、未经登记的活动，以游说政府班子及DOJ：（1）终止1MDB事项，或以其他方式有利地为外国国民A解决该等事项；以及（2）将PRC国民A从美国移除并遣返PRC。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的在于，BROIDY、Davis及A某人利用BROIDY接触总统及其政府班子的渠道和被认为具有的影响力，以从外国国民A获得付款，从而赚取数百万美元。\n\n21. 该共谋的目的在于，BROIDY、Davis及A某人隐瞒BROIDY与外国国民A的联系及其从外国国民A获得的付款，以维持BROIDY在美国官员中的可信度，并进一步推进该非法游说计划。\n\n共谋的方式与手段\n\n22. BROIDY及其他人实施该共谋的方式和手段包括但不限于以下各项：\n\n前往国外会见外国委托人及政府官员\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、A某人及Higginbotham以各种组合前往泰国、马来西亚及PRC，目的是会见外国国民A、PRC部长A及其他人，以谈判和讨论BROIDY将如何在官方渠道之外游说政府班子及DOJ，以换取数百万美元的安排。\n\n与美国官员会面及联系\n\n24. BROIDY直接并通过中间人促成和试图促成与美国政府最高层级官员——包括总统及司法部长——的会面及其他影响其决定的活动，以使PRC部长A及外国国民A受益。\n\n25. BROIDY（布罗伊迪）直接并通过中间人联系美国政府高级官员，为包括PRC Minister A（中国部长A）和Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）在内的外国政府官员安排会晤，为这些外国官员正式请求有利的政府行动提供机会，包括有利解决1MDB事项及将PRC National A（中国籍人士A）驱逐出境。\n\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis（戴维斯）和Person A（A某人）同意隐瞒BROIDY以个人身份及作为PRC Minister A中间人代表Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）进行游说的协议。BROIDY、Davis和Person A未向且同意不向美国政府官员和公众披露BROIDY与Foreign National A之间的财务安排及其收取的款项。在为推进该共谋而起草的大量接触、通信和文件中，BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）对Foreign National A的提及均予以保密并作匿名处理。此外，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在就Foreign National A及PRC National A进行沟通时，经常使用加密应用程序，以隐瞒其行为及其与Foreign National A的关联。最后，BROIDY、Davis和Person A明示或默示同意不依照FARA登记，以隐瞒其与Foreign National A的安排。\n\n公开行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，BROIDY及其他人在District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）及其他地点实施了下列公开行为及其他行为。\n\nI. 推动解决1MDB民事没收案件的活动\n\nA. BROIDY同意以$8 Million预付聘用费代表Foreign National A进行游说\n\n28. 约于2017年3月，Person A联系Davis，试图寻找一名与政府当局关系密切的人士，以协助一名外国客户。Davis随后告诉BROIDY，她在马来西亚有一名可能需要就一项没收事项获得帮助的客户。\n\n29. 约于2017年3月7日，Person A要求Davis向其发送BROIDY的个人简介，其中描述BROIDY与政府当局高级官员的关系，以及BROIDY与总统的合影。约于2017年3月7日，应Davis要求，BROIDY的助理通过电子邮件向Davis发送了BROIDY与总统的合影。Person A表示，其想要这些照片，以便向Foreign National A突出BROIDY与政府当局之间的密切接触渠道。\n\n30. 约于2017年3月8日，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“你16号会在洛杉矶与[Person A]会面吗？他那个周末将前往亚洲。”BROIDY回复：“我想会的。晚点再谈。”\n\n31. 约于2017年3月13日，BROIDY与Davis及Person A会面，讨论Foreign National A和1MDB。会上，Person A向BROIDY描述了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问BROIDY能否协助处理涉及Foreign National A的民事没收案件。Person A表示，其将与Foreign National A讨论由BROIDY协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约于2017年3月13日，Davis向Person A转发了一份Law Firm A（A律师事务所）与Foreign National A之间的“聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务”，以便Person A将该协议提交给Foreign National A。“聘用及费用协议”规定，Foreign National A须预先支付$8 million聘用费；如该“事项”在180日内解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费；如该“事项”在365日内解决，则支付$50 million成功费。该协议草案包括附件A，说明该“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A及Person C（C某人）均未向Foreign National A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于BROIDY的政治关系，取得BROIDY代表Foreign National A向政府当局和DOJ（司法部）进行游说的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人代理人的要求，BROIDY、Davis和Person A从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人的工作向FARA部门登记。\n\nB. BROIDY、Person A和Davis在曼谷会见Foreign National A\n\n34. 约于2017年4月，Davis转达了Person A提出的请求，即要求BROIDY前往泰国曼谷会见Foreign National A。BROIDY告诉Davis，告知Person A其只有在获得$1 million报酬的情况下才会前往，并且其希望Person A以“无污点”资金向其付款。BROIDY获保证，Person A将亲自支付$1 million，以换取BROIDY前往曼谷。\n\n35. 约于2017年4月28日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信，称：“我希望款项汇入[Law Firm A]。”同日，Davis回复：“好的。”\n\n36. 约于2017年4月29日，BROIDY和Davis就其即将与Foreign National A及Person A举行的会面交换短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY就Foreign National A询问：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点入住特定酒店？”Davis回复：“你能说话时给我打电话。”\n\n37. 约于2017年5月1日，Davis通过电子邮件向BROIDY及其助理发送曼谷Shangri-La Hotel（香格里拉酒店）的链接，并部分写道：“你们在线预订后，请将Elliott的房间和我的房间的酒店确认信息发给我，我会转发。”同日，Davis另行通过电子邮件告知Person A，要求其预订香格里拉酒店的房间，并将确认信息发送给她。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A]正在预订我们的酒店”，之后又补充道：“还请把Elliott的电汇信息发给我。”Davis回复并提供了Law Firm A名下账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 约于2017年5月2日，Davis通过电子邮件向BROIDY发送邮件，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A]和我会在到达处见你……谢谢，祝一路顺风——为激动人心且繁荣的冒险之旅的开始干杯！”\n\n39. 约于2017年5月2日，BROIDY、Davis和Person A抵达曼谷。在该次行程期间，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在一间酒店套房内会见Foreign National A。BROIDY和Foreign National A谈及1MDB事项。BROIDY同意协助Foreign National A尝试解决该事项。Foreign National A同意向BROIDY支付$8 million聘用费，并希望BROIDY联系美国总检察长，以促使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。BROIDY同意代表Foreign National A向政府当局和DOJ游说，以为Foreign National A取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其正在代表Foreign National A工作的事实。在会面期间或会面后不久，Davis和BROIDY讨论了协助将PRC National A驱逐出美国的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY称，该笔款项不应直接来自Foreign National A，且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A确认了一名可以向BROIDY及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A和Davis同意，该笔款项将首先经由Person A转付，之后通过Law Firm A支付给BROIDY。BROIDY和Davis同意，BROIDY将向Davis支付其所收款项的一定比例。Person A还同意向Davis支付Person A所收资金的一定比例。Person A告诉BROIDY和Davis，Person A的朋友Higginbotham正在核实资金的合法性。Higginbotham实际上并未进行任何此类审查。BROIDY从未与Higginbotham会面或交谈。\n\nC. Person A从Foreign National A收取$8.5 Million；BROIDY获支付$6 Million；Davis获支付$1.7 Million\n\n40. 在泰国会见Foreign National A后，约于2017年5月8日，Company A（A公司）收到由Foreign National A指示、从香港一实体汇来的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，Person A从Company A账户取得一张以Law Firm A为收款人的$702,000银行本票，该款项随即记入Law Firm A账户。Person A还从Company A账户向Law Firm A另行电汇$48,000。同日，按Person A指示，一家第三方公司向Law Firm A账户转账$250,000，使存入Law Firm A账户的总金额达到$1 million。数日内，约于2017年5月8日转入Law Firm A账户的$1 million中约$900,000，从Law Firm A账户转入BROIDY的一家公司账户。\n\n41. 约于2017年5月8日，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“[Law Firm A]收到的两笔电汇均来自[Person A]。剩余款项20分钟前已送至你的办公室——”。Davis随后补充道：“银行本票总计702。”\n\n42. 约于2017年5月17日，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A发送国际电汇。同日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转账$3 million。约于2017年5月18日，Law Firm A向BROIDY的一家公司账户转账$600,000，并向一家与Davis有关联的商业实体账户转账$900,000。约于2017年5月18日，Law Firm A向BROIDY的一家公司账户转账$500,000。约一周内，Law Firm A又通过两笔单独转账，向BROIDY的一家公司账户转账$950,000。\n\n43. 约于2017年5月17日，BROIDY和Davis就Foreign National A通过Person A向BROIDY付款，以及BROIDY向Davis支付一定比例款项，交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis问道：“你收到了吗？”BROIDY回复：“是。已给你发Wickr。明早给你汇款。”Wickr是一款可实现端对端加密及内容到期消失的即时通讯应用程序。BROIDY随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”Davis回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正一步一步向前推进。”BROIDY回复：“是。就接下来的两笔电汇催他们。”BROIDY随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已经到账，并确认最后两笔正在发送。请问[BROIDY的助理]。”\n\n44. 约于2017年5月25日，Foreign National A促使向Company A进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。约于2017年5月26日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转账$2 million，作为对BROIDY和Foreign National A商定的$8 million聘用费的部分履行，该聘用费系为换取BROIDY协助处理1MDB民事没收案件。同日，$600,000从Law Firm A账户转入与Davis有关联的商业账户。约于2017年5月26日，Law Firm A向Person C控制的账户转账$1 million。约于2017年6月初，Law Firm A向BROIDY的一家公司账户转账$650,000。\n\nD. BROIDY为Malaysian Prime Minister A促成并试图促成会晤，以及为解决1MDB案件所作的努力\n\n45. 约于2017年6月5日，BROIDY向Person D（D某人）发送短信；Person D是一名政治顾问，也是总统的前竞选助理。BROIDY要求Person D与政府当局合作，为Malaysian Prime Minister A安排访问：“亚洲国家非常希望就7月会晤采取行动。希望我们能够尽快确认日期等事项。”根据一项咨询协议，BROIDY同意每月向Person D支付$25,000，以获取有关如何应对政府当局的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，BROIDY和Davis就Foreign National A交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis写道：“你睡前请打电话……[Foreign National A]不断打电话询问消息。”BROIDY回复：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿特区，为[Foreign National A]和亚洲国家开展工作。”\n\n47. 在或约于June 15, 2017，应Person A（人物A）的要求，Davis（戴维斯）向BROIDY（布罗伊迪）发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你能吗？”戴维斯补充道：“Principal”，这是指Foreign National A（外国国民A）。同日，布罗伊迪回复：“可以[。]”\n\n48. 在或约于June 17, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯讨论了Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）。在或约于June 2017，布罗伊迪询问总统是否愿意与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。布罗伊迪和戴维斯认为，这将取悦外国国民A，并使马来西亚总理A得以尝试解决1MDB事项。布罗伊迪还希望与马来西亚总理A的政府获得更多业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 在或约于June 19, 2017，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送了一篇关于马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。\n\n50. 在或约于June 29, 2017，布罗伊迪向一名White House（白宫）高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行一次高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[Person E（人物E）]，如我所述，POTUS同意于7月底或8月初在DC或Bedminster与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢你回复我日期。另外，几周前已致函state dept.，要求举行会议。”\n\n51. 在或约于June 30, 2017，布罗伊迪就该高尔夫球活动向人物E发送另一条短信：“希望我们今早能就[PRC National A（中国国民A）]以及POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球的日期通话。”当天晚些时候，布罗伊迪又跟进称：“[人物E]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n52. 在或约于July 3, 2017，布罗伊迪再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫球日期向人物E发送短信：“早上好，[人物E]。如果你今天能向我确认POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫球日期，这对我将极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很高兴在Bedminster或DC打球。我们谈过之后，我告诉[马来西亚总理A]，他上周就会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当天晚些时候，布罗伊迪再次向人物E发送短信：“[人物E]，我正在跟进。请把[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 在或约于July 5, 2017，布罗伊迪与人物E就该高尔夫球活动交换信息。在其他信息中，布罗伊迪发短信称：“[人物E]，刚给你留了信息。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott[。]”人物E回复：“这事在NSC（国家安全委员会）那里[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成[。]”\n\n54. 在或约于July 11, 2017，戴维斯转达人物A的信息，向布罗伊迪发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们被打得很惨。”这些信息指的是确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及外国国民A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。戴维斯继续称：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被信息淹没了[。]”布罗伊迪回复：“看Wickr[。]”次日，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发信息。我正要起飞，需要去WH（白宫）[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯回复：“完成[。]”布罗伊迪回复：“收到了。谢[。]正试图让[Person F（人物F）]尽快打电话[。]”当时，人物F是National Security Council（国家安全委员会）的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 在或约于July 13, 2017，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以快快去D.C.，在WH待着，直到你办成为止。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 在或约于July 13, 2017，布罗伊迪再次就高尔夫球日期向人物E发送短信：“嗨，[人物E]，已经2周了。再次查询[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliot[。]”人物E回复：“我现在再查一次[。]这些事情要经过一个流程——”布罗伊迪回复：“谢谢！！”人物E回复：“NSC正在处理并协调[。]”布罗伊迪回复：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”人物E回复：“他们正直接与马来西亚方面合作。NSC正在协调一个日期。”\n\n57. 在或约于July 15, 2017，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 在或约于July 17, 2017，戴维斯转达人物A代表外国国民A表达的紧迫性，向布罗伊迪发送短信：“[人物E]现在需要把这个日期给你，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来无能为力[。]”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面，也指涉及中国国民A的事项。布罗伊迪回复：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 在或约于July 18, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了数条短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“你能查一下Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。这件事让我一整天都忙疯了。他正在恐慌[。]”戴维斯跟进称：“今天必须确定这个日期——我们被打得很惨。”据人物A称，外国国民A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。布罗伊迪回复：“现在给[人物E]打电话[。]”戴维斯部分回复道：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[。]也给[Person G（人物G）]打电话。我们今天需要这个[。]”人物G是总统的一名行政助理。布罗伊迪回复：“现在就在办。”\n\n60. 在或约于July 19, 2017，戴维斯就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期向布罗伊迪发送短信：“其次，我们迫切需要这个日期[。]”次日，布罗伊迪回复：“请耐心等待。我正在获取有关会议的一些信息[。]”\n\n61. 在或约于July 21, 2017，布罗伊迪就该高尔夫球活动向人物E发送短信：“[人物E]，马来西亚方面尚未从NSC得到任何消息。POTUS说他将在7月底或8月初与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球。POTUS说他很乐意这样做。你说一两天内就会安排。现在已是第4周。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常耐心了。这现在不但没有带来积极影响，反而正在给我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将非常感激。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. 在或约于July 24, 2017，布罗伊迪向Person D（人物D）发送短信：“收到9月在NJ的高尔夫球日期。UN General Assembly（联合国大会）前的星期六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”人物D回复：“让我们跟进，确保该日期由NSC确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给了他这个日期？”布罗伊迪回复：“谢谢！！太棒了。由[Person E（人物H）]给到[人物E]。”\n\n63. 在或约于July 27, 2017，布罗伊迪向人物D发送短信：“刚再次向马来西亚方面核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长均未收到任何消息。请尽快查一下。致意，Elliott。”布罗伊迪跟进称：“嗨，[人物D]——你能就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事替我给NSA打电话吗。NSC仍未就会面事宜联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”人物D回复：“E——今天早上会再打电话。”\n\n64. 在或约于July 27, 2017，布罗伊迪向National Security Council（国家安全委员会）的一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球。\n\n65. 在或约于July 29, 2017，戴维斯就马来西亚总理A与总统的会面向布罗伊迪发送短信：“他们被告知12 sept是会议日期。那天是un general assembly开始的日子——是星期二？？？？不打高尔夫球？？”戴维斯紧接着发送短信称：“Wickr[。]”布罗伊迪回复：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。星期六在Bedminster打高尔夫球，星期二在WH？”\n\n66. 在或约于August 7, 2017，布罗伊迪向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points Final”的电子邮件，其中载有据称由马来西亚总理A为即将举行的United States Secretary of State（美国国务卿）与马来西亚总理A之间的会面准备的谈话要点。戴维斯从人物A处收到该谈话要点——人物A代表外国国民A提供了该要点——戴维斯将其转交给布罗伊迪。该谈话要点除其他事项外，提及布罗伊迪与马来西亚正在进行的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“优先事项[。]”。该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并明确称：“美国检察官的介入已造成不必要的美国方面紧张局势[原文如此]，并可能引起马来西亚民众的负面反应[。]”。\n\n67. 在或约于August 7, 2017，布罗伊迪还将这些谈话要点发送给人物D，紧接着发送信息解释道：“以上是马来西亚总理谈话要点的附件。你可以与[为国务卿工作的助理人员]分享。”布罗伊迪还试图获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面时间的细节。\n\n68. 在或约于August 7, 2017稍后，布罗伊迪向人物D发送信息：“[国务卿]将于8日与[马来西亚总理A]会面，并于9日与副总理会面。让我们以我的名义插一句。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出Circinus这个名称。谢谢！”人物D回复：“务必让这种联系建立起来。这可能不会成为正式会议的一部分，但会努力在他们交谈期间插一句。”\n\n69. 在或约于August 9, 2017，外国国民A使一家Hong Kong（香港）公司向Company A（公司A）转账约$12.8 million。随后，人物A向Law Firm A（律师事务所A）转账$3 million。这是向布罗伊迪支付的最后一笔款项。布罗伊迪共获得$9 million付款。在或约于次日，律师事务所A向与戴维斯有关联的一个商业账户转账$900,000。在随后数日内，律师事务所A向属于布罗伊迪的账户转账数十万美元。\n\n70. 在或约于August 10, 2017，布罗伊迪就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会面向人物D发送短信：“听马来西亚方面说，会面进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有插话。;- ……”\n\n71. 在或约于August 19, 2017，布罗伊迪向人物D发送短信：“马来西亚方面有任何更新吗？”人物D回复：“截至目前，将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫球，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找[Person I（人物I）]，并利用他们两人曾一起打过高尔夫球的经历。”布罗伊迪回复：“是。如果你认为有帮助，我可以直接给人物I的一名副手或人物I打电话。还需要增加会面时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最合适。”当时，人物I是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n72. 在或约于August 31, 2017，布罗伊迪起草并向人物I发送一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球。\n\n73. 在或约于September 11, 2017，戴维斯起草了一封拟由布罗伊迪发送给总统的信，预期马来西亚总理A将与总统会面，并将该信交给布罗伊迪。该信包括马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未交给总统。\n\n74. 在布罗伊迪反复努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球之后，马来西亚总理A在或约于September 12, 2017于白宫会见了总统。尽管布罗伊迪联系政府内的高级官员，试图在正式会面之外安排总统与马来西亚总理A举行高尔夫球会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球比赛。\n\n75. 约在 2017 年 10 月 6 日，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）在 White House（白宫）会见了总统。BROIDY 在会面期间没有提出 1MDB 事项，但向 Davis（戴维斯）表示他已提出该事项，明知 Davis 会将该信息传达给 Person A（A 某）和 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）。\n\n76. 约在 2018 年 1 月 5 日，BROIDY 起草了与 1MDB 有关的谈话要点，以向 Foreign National A 表明 BROIDY 已代表其作出的努力。除其他事项外，该谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正在与 DoJ（司法部）合作，以应对前一届政府在马来西亚针对 1MDB 的案件。我已制定一项策略，与 DoJ 和 NSC（国家安全委员会）的相关方联系，以寻求解决该问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的官员，可能会有所帮助。……3. 如我先前告知您的，在我与总统讨论时，他承诺将解决该问题。重要的是，我要遵循他的指示，但将继续传达该问题的重要性。”这些陈述均属虚假。\n\nII. 将 PRC National A（中国国民 A）从美国遣离的行动\n\nA. BROIDY 前往中国会见 PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）\n\n77. 约在 2017 年 5 月，在曼谷之行后，BROIDY 同意前往香港再次会见 Foreign National A。出行前，Davis 与 BROIDY 讨论称，将 PRC National A 从美国驱逐出境对 Foreign National A 至关重要。前往香港的目的，是会见 Foreign National A 和一名中华人民共和国外国政府官员，讨论 PRC National A。\n\n78. 约在 2017 年 5 月 15 日，Davis 就赴香港行程的旅行安排和行程单向 BROIDY 的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis 还向 BROIDY 和 Person C（C 某）发送了 Davis 公司账户的银行信息。\n\n79. 约在 2017 年 5 月 18 日，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，在那里他们于一家酒店套房内会见了 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A。PRC Minister A 向 BROIDY 谈及 PRC National A 及其被指控的犯罪行为，并表示中华人民共和国政府希望 PRC National A 被送回中华人民共和国。PRC Minister A 请求 BROIDY 利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，推动将 PRC National A 遣离并送回中华人民共和国。他们还讨论了当时被中华人民共和国拘押的美国人可能返回美国一事。PRC Minister A 还称，他很快将访问 Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），但难以安排与某些美国政府高级官员会面。\n\nB. BROIDY 游说美国高级官员遣离 PRC National A\n\n80. 约在 2017 年 5 月 20 日，在从中国返程途中，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“我会努力让这成为我们与[司法部长]取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n81. 约在 2017 年 5 月 21 日，BROIDY 就其与 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A 的会面向 Person D（D 某）发送短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否于周一上午 9:30 在[酒店]会面？Elliott。”\n\n82. 约在 2017 年 5 月 22 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们会讨论。”BROIDY 随后又称：“我正在向你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，Person D 回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n83. 约在 2017 年 5 月 22 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送了一封主题为“美中两国之间大幅加强执法合作的机会[。]”的电子邮件。BROIDY 在该邮件中附上了一份由 BROIDY 致司法部长的备忘录，意图让 Person D 随后将该备忘录交给司法部长。该备忘录的内容由 Davis 提供给 BROIDY，该内容源自 PRC Minister A 和 Foreign National A。收到后，BROIDY 和 Person C 对该备忘录进行了修改。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY 歪曲了其赴中国之行的原因及其与 PRC Minister A 会面的背景情况。BROIDY 未披露其与 Foreign National A 的联系，也未披露 Foreign National A 在安排 BROIDY 与 PRC Minister A 会面中所起的作用。BROIDY 还未披露其从 Foreign National A 获得的 \\$4 million 款项。BROIDY 还未披露，其就 PRC National A 所作的游说努力至少部分是依据其与 Foreign National A 之间的财务安排，并可能导致获得额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY 称：“[PRC Minister A]告诉我，中国希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”BROIDY 写及 PRC Minister A 即将前往 Washington, D.C. 的行程，届时 PRC Minister A 及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。BROIDY 表示，司法部长与 PRC Minister A 会面将富有成效。BROIDY 还指出，依 PRC Minister A 所述，中国愿意采取若干措施，以改善美国与中国之间的执法关系。BROIDY 随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[PRC Minister A]的谈话，中国将提出的一项请求是，[PRC National A]——中国称其曾与他人共谋，而该等他人已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑事法律（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）——应在尽快的情况下从美国被驱逐出境（其签证将在约下个月到期）或被引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发出红色通报，随附供您参考）至中国，以便其可因该等违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在中国接受正常刑事程序。\n\nBROIDY 将一份关于 PRC National A 的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n86. 约在 2017 年 5 月 23 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会面定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[司法部长]了吗？请更新。谢谢，Elliott[。]”Person D 回复：“Elliott——信昨天已送达。请参阅附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会打给你。我今晚坐红眼航班，以便能尽早回到 DC。”BROIDY 回复：“太好了。谢谢[]。还请尽力确定他是否已安排会面，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在 Alabama（阿拉巴马州）会面。”次日，约在 2017 年 5 月 24 日，Person D 回复：“正在等待 DoJ 关于会面的消息——我们的和[PRC Minister A]的。请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n87. 约在 2017 年 5 月 24 日，Person D 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我刚刚直接收到他的短信，他说稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 约在 2017 年 5 月 25 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“会面今天上午 10:00 在 Justice（司法部）举行。然后明天是 FBI（联邦调查局）和 OHS。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前 10 分钟到场，并进行一次简短会面。然后再与[]一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请尽力今天第一时间见到[司法部长]。我们成功办成此事非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。E[。]”Person D 回复：“E——正在办理。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“具体情况是，我备忘录中的三项内容仅供[司法部长]知悉。[PRC Minister A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我的是合法后渠道。[PRC Minister A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]听到了这三项确实有助于美国的内容[。]”当天稍后，Person D 回复：“E——刚刚和[司法部长]通完电话。不是好消息。你有空时告诉我，以便交谈。谢谢。”\n\n89. 约在 2017 年 5 月 26 日，BROIDY 就 PRC Minister A 的会面向 Person D 发送短信：“上午 10 点 ICE（美国移民和海关执法局），11:30 FBI。或许在 OHS 采取行动可以挽救局面。与[Person I（I 某）]商量一下。三项内容可以分享。”BROIDY 随后又称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正在努力控制损害，需要与你交谈。最好是把[Person I]拉到一旁交谈。”当时，Person I 是 OHS 的高级官员。\n\n90. 约在 2017 年 5 月 28 日，在 Davis 将通信内容转录给 BROIDY 后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送电子邮件：“与[司法部长]及中国驻美国大使往来通信的转录文本。”BROIDY 指出：“我认为，[司法部长]有绝佳机会进一步推进美国利益。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？另有一项重要事项应让 AG（司法部长）知悉。”同日稍后，BROIDY 与 Person D 互发电子邮件，安排讨论该电子邮件及其内容的时间。\n\n91. 约在 2017 年 5 月 30 日，Davis 就 PRC Minister A 与美国政府官员会面一事向 BROIDY 发送短信：“查 Wickr——现在一切都已明确，可以会面[。]”BROIDY 回复：“是。一切就绪[。]”Davis 回复：“他的会面恢复了[。]”\n\n92. 约在 2017 年 5 月，应 Person A 的请求，Davis 要求 BROIDY 在 Washington, D.C. 与 PRC Minister A 会面。\n\n93. 约在 2017 年 5 月 30 日，BROIDY 在 Washington, D.C. 的一家酒店与 PRC Minister A 会面。BROIDY 还询问 Person D，Person D 是否能帮助 PRC Minister A 安排与美国政府高级官员会面。\n\n94. 约在 2017 年 5 月 31 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：\n\n我昨晚会见了 VM。他今天下午搭乘 4 pm 的航班返回。FBI 安排他与级别很低的人员会面，并让原本应与他会面的人员改为与 Vietnam（越南）会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[司法部长]或[Person I]会面，否则就回国。他很乐意与[Person I]会面……到目前为止，他已交付一名孕妇，接下来的 2 人将很快被送出。他将接受 60 名中国国民被驱逐出境，但前提是他能获得一次适当的“短暂会面”。这对政府而言是一项可公开宣传的重大胜利。这是两位总统在 Mar-a-Lago 会面取得的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n95. Person D 回复：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY 回复：“如果你能安排到会面，我们能否让 White House（白宫）的政治联络官在 OHS 与 VM 会面？他可以提及我的名字。还请设法让[Person I]缓和局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n96. 约在 2017 年 5 月 31 日，Davis 就 PRC Minister A 据称与 Person I 会面一事向 BROIDY 发送短信：“原则上[Person I]同意——只是日程问题？”BROIDY 回复：“只是临时通知导致的日程问题。接下来一小时左右仍可能会有消息。[PRC Minister A]不存在任何问题。”BROIDY 随后又称：“请代我向 VM 致意。再稍等一会儿。”Davis 回复：“是的，我正在告诉他。”BROIDY 回复：“告诉他，我正在把发生的情况告诉 WH 和[司法部长]。”随后 Davis 发送短信：“[Person I]不是今天下午安排在 Haiti（海地）吗？”BROIDY 回复：“日程安排人员没提到这个？？你确定吗？[司法部长]的人也没有提到[。]”Davis 回复：“OHS 网站上有[。]他下午在那里[。]刚和 VM 交谈过，他听起来像是在哭[。]”BROIDY 回复：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真他妈一团糟。”Davis 回复：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 约在 2017 年 6 月 9 日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送了一篇题为“chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]”的新闻文章。\n\n98. 约于2017年6月27日，BROIDY（布罗迪）就遣返PRC National A（中国籍A某）一事向Person H（H某）的配偶发送短信。布罗迪知道，H某是一名在国际上取得成功的商人、政治竞选活动的经常捐款人，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触并对总统施加影响，并且可能有效地寻求遣返中国籍A某。布罗迪向H某的配偶发送短信：“另有一事，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与[Person H]会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者共进午餐？期待在[ ]酒店见到您！致意，Elliott[。]”布罗迪随后继续说道：\n\n嗨，[ ]，[Person H]让我通过短信向您发送这些信息。我将向您发送若干有关逃犯[PRC National A]的材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报……极其时间敏感的问题是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证将于6月30日到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单……该命令需要来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与曾任职于FBI、目前担任其私人安保人员的人关系密切。[The President of the PRC（中华人民共和国主席）]在Mar-A-Lago向[the President（总统）]提到，他希望[PRC National A]被遣返。[PRC Minister A（中国部长A）]与我会面，并请求就[PRC National A]一事提供帮助……他承诺释放被中国扣作人质的某些美国公民，并将接收大量被遣返回中国的中国非法移民。最后，他提出就朝鲜问题提供新的协助。\n\n99. 约于2017年6月28日，布罗迪在一次社交聚会上与H某及其配偶会面。会面后，布罗迪与H某的配偶就中国籍A某交换短信：“嗨，[ ]，今晚见到您和[Person H]真是太好了！我刚刚再次收到[PRC Minister A]的消息。他想知道[PRC National A]签证的状态，因为时间紧迫。——签证是否已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]已被列入DHS禁飞名单？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手遣返。这将是我们两国之间不可思议的一步。[PRC Minister A]说他们感谢您的帮助。”H某的配偶回复道：“此事正由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在办理此事。”\n\n100. 约于2017年6月29日，布罗迪与Davis（戴维斯）就中国籍A某的签证申请交换短信。布罗迪发送短信：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”戴维斯回复：“我不知道。”布罗迪回复：“抱歉，始终会生成。换句话说，每个申请人最终都会收到书面的是或否[？]抱歉，收到书面的是或否[？]”戴维斯回复：“是[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月30日，戴维斯提及他们为促成遣返中国籍A某以及可能使被扣押在中华人民共和国的美国公民返回而作出的努力时，向布罗迪发送短信：“Wickr。你现在是个大人物。他们会在今年7月4日之后，就你将为这个国家完成的事情，授予你总统自由勋章[。]”布罗迪回复：“在完成之前，我会全力以赴[。]”戴维斯回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。还有m的日期[。]在我们办成之前，别离开那个人。”布罗迪回复：“同意。”戴维斯继续说道：“告诉他——如果我们今天在营业结束前拿到确认拒绝的信（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们将在7月4日前让那两名美国人回家。之后第二阶段——我们可以接收那60人[。]”布罗迪回复：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会回电给我。正在通话。”\n\n102. 约于2017年6月30日，布罗迪与戴维斯就中国籍A某交换了数条短信。布罗迪发送短信：“收到[Person H]的消息。他向POTUS（美国总统）重申了此事。”布罗迪接着说道：“另外，[Person E（E某）]发短信告诉我，他被其他事情耽搁了，但正在处理此事。”同日，戴维斯回复：“我们今天能否获得有关撤销的证明？”戴维斯后来具体说明：“来自[Person E]？”\n\n103. 约于2017年7月1日，布罗迪向戴维斯发送短信：“与[Person E]进行了长时间交谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”布罗迪并未与E某交谈，而是就中国籍A某的签证申请与其交换了短信。布罗迪未向E某披露其与中国部长A之间关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约于2017年7月2日，布罗迪与戴维斯就中国籍A某及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，戴维斯发送短信：“今天周日与[President of the PRC]就朝鲜问题安排了一次通话。他可以询问并确认有关事项。他甚至可以说他听说了[Person H]的消息。”\n\n105. 约于2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，戴维斯向布罗迪发送短信：“[President]周三离开D.C.前往欧洲[。]”戴维斯随后补充道：“7月5日。安排与[President of the PRC]亲自会面[。]”\n\n106. 约于2017年7月10日，Person A（A某）向其本人发送了中国籍A某红色通报的副本、中国籍A某护照和身份证件的图像，以及其他与中国籍A某和据称由中国籍A某实施的犯罪有关的文件。\n\n107. 约于2017年7月，A某要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的PRC Embassy（中华人民共和国驻美国大使馆）与PRC Ambassador to the United States（中华人民共和国驻美国大使）会面。此次会面的目的是向中国驻美大使转达一则有关中国籍A某的信息。约于2017年7月16日，希金博瑟姆前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的中华人民共和国驻美国大使馆，并与该大使会面。在会面期间，希金博瑟姆告诉大使，美国政府官员正在办理引渡中国籍A某事宜，并且未来将有关于引渡后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，希金博瑟姆向A某报告了所发生的情况，A某表示他将通知Foreign National A（外国籍A某）。A某后来告诉希金博瑟姆，外国籍A某对此次会面感到高兴，并且该会面使外国籍A某在中华人民共和国面前获得了可信度。\n\n108. 约于2017年7月18日，布罗迪通过电子邮件向戴维斯发送了H某的联系信息。为推进遣返中国籍A某的游说活动，戴维斯接通了中国部长A与H某之间的多次通话。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月26日，布罗迪与戴维斯就中国籍A某及其从美国被遣返至中华人民共和国一事交换短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式传达。截至目前——他说没有[。]”布罗迪回复：“已请3名不同的人跟进[。]”布罗迪后来补充道：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n110. 约于2017年7月26日，布罗迪向H某发送短信，约其在Washington, D.C.的一家酒店会面，以讨论中国籍A某：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员那里得知您在DC，我也是，住在[hotel]。您今天想喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott。”同日稍后，H某的配偶向布罗迪发送短信：“嗨，Elliot。你能否再把你先前发短信提到的那名中国男子的详情发给我，谢谢[。]”布罗迪回复：“嗨，[ ]，您指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A]？致意，Elliott[。]”H某的配偶回复：“[PRC National A]。”布罗迪随后重新发送了他此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n111. 约于2017年7月27日，布罗迪与戴维斯就中国籍A某交换短信。戴维斯向布罗迪发送短信：“大使馆有消息吗？？”戴维斯后来补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有什么更新吗？”布罗迪回复：“我正在与NSC（国家安全委员会）的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n112. 约于2017年8月19日，布罗迪多次向戴维斯发送短信。在这些短信中，布罗迪写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”布罗迪后来补充道：“我与[Person H]在一起。有突破机会[。]”\n\n113. 约于2017年8月19日，布罗迪在H某的游艇上与H某会面。在共同相处期间，布罗迪询问H某有关涉及中国籍A某的事项。H某随后在布罗迪在场的情况下致电总统，询问中国籍A某在美国境内的状态。\n\n114. 约于2017年9月13日，布罗迪向戴维斯发送短信：“把庇护文章发给我。还有另一篇文章[。]”同日，戴维斯向布罗迪发送了有关中国籍A某的文章链接。\n\n115. 约于2017年10月2日，布罗迪向戴维斯发送了一篇有关中国籍A某的文章链接。\n\n116. 约于2018年1月5日，布罗迪向戴维斯发送短信：“尽快向我发送更多有关[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 本信息书中罪名项一所载的指控，现为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)提出没收指控之目的而再次主张，并以引用方式并入本文。\n\n2. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，在因违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 371的罪名项一被判有罪后，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY应向美利坚合众国没收任何构成或源自可追溯至所述违法行为所得收益的不动产或动产。现进一步通知，在被判有罪后，美利坚合众国拟寻求针对布罗迪作出一项金钱判决，金额相当于本段所述财产。\n\n3. 如上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为而：\n\na. 经尽职调查后无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给第三方，或存放于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 其价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他无法在不造成困难的情况下分割的财产混同，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权根据经Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)并入的Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部公共廉正科科长\n\n/s/John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副科长\nSean F. Mulryne（肖恩·F·马尔林）\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNicole R. Lockhart（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJames C. Mann（詹姆斯·C·曼恩）\n公共廉正科出庭律师\n\n附件B\n\n已提交\n美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\nAug 17, 2020, 10:23a\nMichelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩），法院书记官\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #10523\n夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON\n助理联邦检察官\nRoom 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg.\n300 Ala Moana Boulevard\nHonolulu, Hawaii 96850\n电话：(808) 541-2850\n传真：(808) 541-2958\n电子邮件：ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\n美国司法部公共廉正科科长\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副科长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n公共廉正科出庭律师\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），　CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO\n\n原告，　\n\n诉　\n\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯），　\n\n被告。　\n\n信息书\n\n（18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§\n612 and 618(a)）\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本信息书有关的所有时期：\n\n2. 自不晚于2017年3月至至少约2018年1月期间，NICKIE LUM DAVIS（尼基·卢姆·戴维斯）同人员A和人员B达成协议，作为外国国民A的代理人，以换取来自与外国国民A有关联的境外账户、未予披露的数百万美元电汇款项。DAVIS尤其同意协助人员B游说美国总统（“总统”）、总统政府班子以及美国司法部（“DOJ”），以撤销对外国国民A因其在从马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资与发展公司1Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）侵吞数十亿美元中所起作用的调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告和人员B故意未向政府班子和DOJ官员披露人员B系代表外国国民A行事。最终，DAVIS以及人员A和B未能促成撤销1MDB调查。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，DAVIS还同人员A和B达成协议，协助其游说政府班子和DOJ，以应外国国民A和中华人民共和国（“PRC”）部长A的请求，安排将居住在美国的PRC异见人士PRC国民A遣送回PRC。在此方面，DAVIS以及人员A和B最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为推进外国国民A的利益，DAVIS协助人员B促成马来西亚总理A与总统于2017年9月举行会晤，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理A能够向总统提出解决1MDB事项。\n\n5. DAVIS、人员A和人员B还在PRC与PRC部长A会面，并同意由人员B在DAVIS协助下游说政府班子，将PRC国民A遣返PRC。DAVIS、人员A和人员B还明确为向PRC部长A提供与美国高级官员讨论遣送PRC国民A事宜的机会，同意并试图促成PRC部长A于2017年5月访问美国期间，与DOJ和美国国土安全部（“DHS”）高级官员举行会晤。\n\n作为外国委托人或政府代理人行事的刑事禁止规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去和现在均是一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人员，就某些类型的活动向总检察长登记，例如代表外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或进行游说。此类登记向DOJ内国家安全司外国代理人登记法处（“FARA处”）办理。明知且故意未登记，以及就根据该法规定提交给FARA处的文件作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA的目的在于防止外国委托人进行秘密影响。依该法规进行适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估作为外国委托人代理人的个人所作出的陈述和开展的活动。除其他事项外，FARA登记披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得的报酬来源和金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（尼基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）过去和现在均为美国公民、女商人和顾问，与人员A和B存在个人及业务关系。\n\n9. 人员A是一名具有国际联系的美国公民、商人和艺人，其中包括与外国国民A的联系。\n\n10. 人员B自约2016年4月至2018年4月担任全国性政治委员会的副财务主席。以该身份，人员B从捐赠者处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在2016年选举周期内与一名美国总统候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。选举后，人员B继续担任副财务主席，并保持接触总统政府班子中的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，人员B拥有并经营若干国内和国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. 外国国民A是一名居住在东亚的富商，已因其策划和实施从1MDB侵吞数十亿美元计划中所起的作用而另案被控。\n\n12. 公司A是一家由人员A设立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国国民A的电汇款项，以支付人员B的游说工作。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是人员A的关联人士，也是受雇于DOJ的持证律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一份指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的一项罪名起诉信息书认罪。\n\n14. 律师事务所A是由人员B的配偶人员C经营的一家律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC国民A是一名PRC异见人士，持临时签证居住在美国。PRC政府，包括PRC部长A和PRC主席，正寻求将PRC国民A从美国遣送回PRC。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ一直积极调查据称与1MDB侵吞计划洗钱所得有关的外国国民A交易。2016年7月，DOJ提交多份民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称以1MDB洗钱所得购置的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ提交刑事起诉书，指控外国国民A及其他人共谋洗白从1MDB侵吞的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚和阿布扎比官员行贿而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n一、解决1MDB民事没收案件的行动\nA. 人员B同意以$8 million预付聘金代表外国国民A进行游说\n\n17. 约在2017年3月，DAVIS告诉人员B，她在马来西亚有一名潜在客户，可能“需要有关没收方面的帮助”。\n\n18. 约在2017年3月5日，应人员B要求，DAVIS通过电子邮件向人员B发送了一份与1MDB有关的民事没收诉状副本。同日，DAVIS通过电子邮件向人员B发送一篇彭博社文章，题为“[外国国民A]信托请求获准在没收诉讼中逾期提出请求”，并向人员B发送短信：“你的电子邮箱里有法院提交文件[。]”人员B回复：“谢谢。会审阅。”DAVIS回复：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[。]”人员B再次回复：“好的。5分钟[。]”\n\n19. 人员A要求DAVIS向其发送人员B的个人简介，其中描述人员B与政府班子高级官员的关系，以及人员B与总统的照片。约在2017年3月7日，应DAVIS要求，人员B的助理通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了展示人员B与总统的照片。人员A称，他想要这些照片，以便突出人员B与政府班子的密切接触渠道。\n\n20. 约在2017年3月8日，DAVIS向人员B发送短信：“你会在16日到洛杉矶，在[人员A]于那个周末前往亚洲之前与其会面吗？”人员B回复：“我想会。我们稍后再谈。”同日稍后，DAVIS向人员B发送额外短信，以安排人员B、人员A和DAVIS之间的会面。\n\n21. 根据人员B的指示，约在2017年3月13日，DAVIS向人员A转发了一份律师事务所A与外国国民A之间的“聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务”。该“聘用及费用协议”规定，外国国民A应预先支付$8 million聘用费，并在“事项”于180天内解决时额外支付$75 million成功费，或者在“事项”于365天内解决时支付$50 million。协议草案包括附件A，说明“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。实际上，人员A、人员B、律师事务所A、DAVIS和人员C均未向外国国民A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于人员B的政治关系，取得人员B代表外国国民A游说政府班子和DOJ的服务。\n\n22. 约在2017年3月13日，人员B与人员A和DAVIS会面，讨论外国国民A及其法律问题。会上，人员A向人员B描述了其与外国国民A的关系，并询问人员B能否协助处理涉及外国国民A的民事没收案件。人员A称，其将就人员B协助处理民事没收案件的可能性与外国国民A交谈。同日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 约在2017年3月15日，就外国国民A而言，人员B向DAVIS发送短信：“……[人员A]的关联人士有什么新消息吗？”同日，DAVIS回复：“[人员A]明天将与‘推广人’亲自会面，他们希望在未来几周内出行[。]”\n\n24. 约在2017年3月22日，DAVIS通过电子邮件向人员B及其助理发送信息，讨论安排人员B、人员A和DAVIS之间的另一次会面。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、人员A和人员B均知悉FARA及其关于未经登记代表外国委托人的禁止规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须作为外国委托人代理人进行登记的要求，DAVIS、人员A或人员B从未就其作为外国国民A代理人的工作向DOJ的FARA处登记。\n\nB. 人员A、人员B和DAVIS在曼谷会见外国国民A\n\n27. 约在2017年4月，人员A要求人员B前往泰国曼谷会见外国国民A。人员B称，其仅在获得$1 million报酬的情况下才会前往，并且希望由人员A以“未受污染”的资金向其付款。\n\n28. 约在2017年4月28日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信，告知：“我希望资金支付给[律师事务所A。]”同日，DAVIS回复：“好[。]”\n\n29. 约在2017年4月29日，人员B和DAVIS就其即将与外国国民A和人员A举行的会面交换短信。在这些短信中，人员B就外国国民A询问：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点入住特定酒店？”DAVIS回复：“你能说话时给我打电话[。]”\n\n30. 约在2017年4月30日，DAVIS就前往曼谷的航班行程通过电子邮件联系人员B的助理。在电子邮件中，DAVIS部分写道：“如有问题请给我打电话——这是两张单程票——因为我们需要从不同国家离开[。]我们暂时无需担心酒店…… ”\n\n31. 约在2017年5月1日，DAVIS通过电子邮件向人员B及其助理发送了曼谷香格里拉大酒店的链接。同日，DAVIS通过电子邮件告知人员A预订香格里拉大酒店的房间，并向她发送确认信息。人员A回复：“[外国国民A]正在预订我们的酒店”，并随后跟进\n\n并附带说：“也请把[Person B（B某）]的电汇信息发给我。”DAVIS（戴维斯）回复并提供了一个以Law Firm A（A律师事务所）名义开立的账户的电汇信息。同日，针对B某的助理询问其是否应取消B某的酒店客房预订，戴维斯向B某的助理发送电子邮件称：“是的，所有房间均已由[Person A（A某）]预订。”\n\n32. 约于May 2, 2017，戴维斯向B某发送电子邮件，部分内容如下：“由于你较早抵达——A某和我将在抵达处见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——为这场激动人心且繁荣的冒险之旅的开始干杯！”\n\n33. 约于May 2, 2017，戴维斯、A某和B某抵达曼谷。旅行期间，戴维斯、A某和B某在一间酒店套房内与Foreign National A（A外国公民）会面。B某和A外国公民谈及1MDB调查及民事没收诉讼。B某同意帮助A外国公民尝试解决该事项。A外国公民同意向B某支付$8 million聘用费，并希望B某联系Attorney General of the United States（美国司法部长），使DOJ（司法部）放弃1MDB事项。B某同意为A外国公民争取政府当局和司法部作出有利结果，同时隐瞒其正在代表A外国公民工作的事实。关于付款，B某表示，该笔款项不应直接来自A外国公民，并应当是“干净的”。A外国公民确定了一名可以向B某及其他人付款的朋友。B某、A某和戴维斯同意，该笔款项将首先经由A某转付，然后通过A律师事务所支付给B某。B某和戴维斯同意，B某将向戴维斯支付其所收款项的百分之三十。A某还同意向戴维斯支付A某所收资金的一定比例。A某告诉B某和戴维斯，A某的朋友Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实该等资金的合法性。希金博瑟姆实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. A某从A外国公民处收取$8.5 Million；B某获付$6 Million；戴维斯获付$1.7 Million\n\n34. 在泰国与A外国公民会面后，约于May 8, 2017，Company A（A公司）收到一笔由A外国公民指示、从一家香港实体汇来的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，A某从A公司账户取得一张金额为$702,000、收款人为A律师事务所的银行本票，该款项随即记入A律师事务所账户。A某还从A公司账户向A律师事务所另行电汇$48,000。同日，第三方公司按照A某的指示向A律师事务所账户转入$250,000，使存入A律师事务所账户的总额达到$1 million。在数日内，May 8, 2017转入A律师事务所账户的$1 million中约$900,000从该账户转入B某的一个商业账户。\n\n35. 约于May 8, 2017，戴维斯向B某发送短信：“进入[Law Firm A]的两笔电汇都来自[Person A]。余额已于20分钟前送到你的办公室——”。戴维斯随后补充道：“本票合计702[。]”\n\n36. 约于May 9, 2017，A某促使A公司向一家由戴维斯家庭成员控制的公司转入$250,000，以使戴维斯受益。\n\n37. 约于May 17, 2017，A外国公民促使一家香港公司向A公司发出国际电汇。同日，A某从A公司向A律师事务所转入$3 million。\n\n38. 约于May 17, 2017，B某和戴维斯就A外国公民经由A某向B某付款，以及B某向戴维斯支付一定比例款项交换了短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯问道：“你收到了吗？”B某回复：“是。给你发了Wickr[。]早上向你电汇。”Wickr是一款支持端到端加密和内容过期的即时通信应用程序。B某随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”戴维斯回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正一步一步向前推进。”B某回复：“是。催他们发接下来的2笔电汇。”B某随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已到账，并确认最后2笔正在发送。请问[Person B's assistant（B某的助理）]。”\n\n39. 约于May 18, 2017，A律师事务所向B某的一个商业账户转入$500,000，并向一个由戴维斯控制的商业账户转入$900,000。在约一周内，A律师事务所又分两笔向B某的一个商业账户转入$950,000。\n\n40. 约于May 25, 2017，A外国公民促使向A公司进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。约于May 26, 2017，A某从A公司向A律师事务所转入$2 million，作为对B某和A外国公民约定的$8 million聘用费的部分履行；作为回报，B某将游说政府当局和司法部放弃1MDB民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，$600,000从A律师事务所账户转入一个与戴维斯有关联的商业账户。\n\nD. B某为A马来西亚总理安排会面并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 约于May 18, 2017，B某向Person D（D某）发送短信。D某是一名政治顾问，曾任总统竞选助手。B某请求D某与政府当局合作，为Malaysian Prime Minister A（A马来西亚总理）安排访问：“嗨，[Person D]——请着手安排亚洲国家访问。日期在7月。”\n\n42. 约于June 5, 2017，B某再次就A马来西亚总理的访问向D某发送短信：“亚洲国家对7月会面非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同日，应A某的请求，戴维斯就A外国公民向B某发送短信。在这些短信中，根据A某代表A外国公民向其传达的信息，戴维斯写道：“如有可能，请在你于ISRAEL（以色列）睡觉前致电……[Foreign National A]一直打电话询问消息[。]”B某回复：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），为[Foreign National A]和亚洲国家处理事情[。]”\n\n44. 约于June 15, 2017，戴维斯转达A某的信息，向B某发送短信：“嘿，他想今晚和你谈谈。你方便吗？”戴维斯补充道：“Principal（委托人）”，这是指A外国公民。同日，B某回复：“好的[。]”\n\n45. 约于June 16, 2017，B某和戴维斯就1MDB及从一名与A外国公民有关联的人士处扣押珠宝一事交换了短信。\n\n46. 约于June 17, 2017，B某和戴维斯讨论了A马来西亚总理。约于June 2017，B某询问总统是否愿与A马来西亚总理打高尔夫球。B某称，并且戴维斯相信，这将使A外国公民高兴，并将使A马来西亚总理能够尝试解决1MDB事项。B某还希望与A马来西亚总理的政府获得额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n47. 约于June 19, 2017，戴维斯向B某发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及A马来西亚总理办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n48. 约于June 25, 2017，戴维斯向B某发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及A马来西亚总理及牵涉A外国公民的1MDB没收诉讼。同日，B某回复：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”戴维斯回复：“请打电话。收到消息[。]”戴维斯随后表示，她已向B某发送了“What's app（WhatsApp）请求”。\n\n49. 约于June 29, 2017，B某向一名White House（白宫）高级官员发送短信，试图安排A马来西亚总理与总统进行高尔夫活动：“嗨，[Person E（E某）]，如我所提及，POTUS（美国总统）已同意于7月下旬或8月初在DC或Bedminster（贝德明斯特）与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打一轮高尔夫。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，数周前曾向state dept.（国务院）发函要求会面。”\n\n50. 约于June 30, 2017，B某就高尔夫活动向E某发送另一条短信：“希望今天上午我们能就[PRC National A（A中国公民）]以及[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期通话。”当日稍后，B某补充道：“[Person E]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n51. 约于July 3, 2017，B某再次就A马来西亚总理和总统的高尔夫日期向E某发送短信：“早上好，[Person E]。如果你今天能够与POTUS确认[Malaysian Prime Minister A]的高尔夫日期，这对我将极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很乐意在Bedminster或DC打球。我们谈过后，我向[Malaysian Prime Minister A]提到，他上周会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当日稍后，B某再次向E某发送短信：“[Person E]，我正在跟进。请把[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约于July 4, 2017，戴维斯向B某发送短信：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又称：“清理你的手机——删除信息[。]”\n\n53. 约于July 5, 2017，B某与E某就高尔夫活动交换信息。在其他信息中，B某发送短信：“[Person E]，刚给你留了语音。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，[]”E某回复：“这由NSC（国家安全委员会）处理[。]他们协调并谈判——我相信会办成的[。]”\n\n54. 约于July 11, 2017，戴维斯转达A某的信息，向B某发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他方面。我们正被打得很惨。”这些信息指的是确认A马来西亚总理与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及A外国公民因尚未确认日期而感到不满。戴维斯转达A某的紧迫性，继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被信息淹没了[。]”B某回复：“看wikr[。]”次日，B某向戴维斯发送短信：“在wikr上给我发短信。我正要起飞，需要去WH（白宫）[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯回复：“已完成[。]”B某回复：“收到了。谢谢[。]正尝试让[Person F（F某）]尽快打电话[。]”F某当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约于July 13, 2017，戴维斯向B某发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们必须处理这件事，所以请，请去D.C.，并在WH坐等，直到你拿到它。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 约于July 13, 2017，B某再次就高尔夫日期向E某发送短信：“嗨，[Person E]，已经2周了。再次询问[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，[][。]”E某回复：“我现在再查一下[。]这些事情都要经过一个程序——”B某回复：“谢谢你！！”E某回复：“NSC正在处理并协调[。]”B某回复：“今天能拿到日期吗？”E某回复：“他们正直接与[Malaysia（马来西亚）]合作。NSC正在协调一个日期。”\n\n57. 约于July 15, 2017，B某向戴维斯发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约于July 17, 2017，戴维斯转达A某代表A外国公民表达的紧迫性，向B某发送短信：“[Person E]现在需要把这个日期给你，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来很无能[。]”该短信既指安排总统与A马来西亚总理会面，也指涉及A中国公民的事项。B某回复：“同意。正在不断催促[。]”\n\n59. 约于2017年7月18日，B某人与DAVIS就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了数条短信。在转述A某人所提供信息的短信中，DAVIS写道：“能查看一下Wickr[.]吗？真的、真的需要那个日期。我今天一整天都因这件事忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌[.]”DAVIS随后写道：“这个日期今天必须确定——我们正被狠狠打压。”据A某人称，外国国民A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。B某人回复：“现在给[E某人]打电话[.]”DAVIS部分回复道：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[.]也给[G某人]打电话。我们今天就需要这个[.]”G某人是总统的一名行政助理。B某人回复：“正在做。”\n\n60. 约于2017年7月19日，DAVIS就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期向B某人发送短信：“其次，我们非常急需这个日期[.]”B某人于次日回复：“请耐心等我一下。我正在获取有关会面的信息[.]”\n\n61. 约于2017年7月21日，B某人就高尔夫活动向E某人发送短信：“[E某人]，[马来西亚]没有从国家安全委员会（NSC）得到任何消息。美国总统（POTUS）说，他将在7月底或8月初与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。总统说他很乐意这样做。你说会在一两天内安排。现在已经是第4周。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常有耐心。事态如今非但没有向积极方向发展，反而正在对我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约于2017年7月24日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“收到9月在新泽西州（NJ）打高尔夫球的日期。联合国大会前的那个星期六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”D某人回复：“让我们跟进，并确保该日期获得国家安全委员会确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的日期？”B某人回复：“‘谢谢！！太棒了。由[E某人]给[H某人]的。’”\n\n63. 约于2017年7月27日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“刚刚又向[马来西亚]核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快核实。致意，[]。”B某人随后写道：“嗨，[D某人]——你能否就[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事替我致电国家安全顾问（NSA）。国家安全委员会仍未就会面事宜联系[马来西亚]大使。谢谢。致意，[]”D某人回复：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天与[]简短谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约于2017年7月29日，DAVIS转述其代表外国国民A从A某人处收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统的会面对B某人发送短信：“他们被告知会面是在9月12日。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——星期二？？？？没有高尔夫球？？”DAVIS随即发送短信：“Wickr[.]”B某人回复：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。星期六在贝德明斯特打高尔夫，星期二在白宫（WH）？”\n\n65. 约于2017年8月7日，B某人向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中载有供即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会面使用的谈话要点。DAVIS从A某人处收到该谈话要点——A某人系代表外国国民A提供该文件——并将其转交给B某人，明知B某人随后会将其提供给国务卿，作为该次会面的背景材料。该谈话要点尤其提及B某人与[马来西亚]之间持续的关系及工作，并将1MDB列为“[优]先事项[.]”。该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害甚少，并明确称：“[美]国检察官的介入造成了不必要的紧张关系，美国[原文如此]，并可能引发马来西亚人之间的负面反应[.]”\n\n66. 约于2017年8月7日，B某人还将谈话要点文件发送给D某人，以供其审阅和修改，并获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面时间的细节：“嗨，[D某人]；[国务卿]何时会面？；[马来西亚]已经是星期一上午11:00。你能扩充并把最终版本发给我吗？”D某人向B某人发送了一份修订后的谈话要点版本，并表示：“[]——这是我将转交给[国务卿]办公室的修订标注版本。他今天前往曼谷，然后前往[马来西亚]。如有其他修改，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n67. 此后，约于2017年8月7日，B某人向D某人发送消息：“[国务卿]于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，于9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出[我公司的]名称。谢谢！”D某人回复：“促成这一联系肯定很重要。这不太可能成为正式会面的组成部分，但会设法在他们交谈期间提及此事。”\n\n68. 同样约于2017年8月7日，A某人代表其另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表签署了一项协议，约定以不迟于2017年8月16日支付约EUR 8.4 million为对价，提供“战略传播与危机管理”服务。\n\n69. 约于2017年8月9日，外国国民A使一家香港公司向A公司转移约\\$12.8 million。随后，A某人向A律师事务所转移\\$3 million。A某人还向DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转移\\$833,333。约于2017年8月10日，A律师事务所向与DAVIS关联的一个商业账户转移\\$900,000。\n\n70. 约于2017年8月10日，B某人就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会面向D某人发送短信：“从[马来西亚]获悉，会面进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]感到满意。没有提及我的名字——没有提及此事。;- ……”\n\n71. 约于2017年8月16日，B某人与DAVIS交换短信，以安排一次会面和电话通话。在这些短信中，DAVIS写道：“如果可能，[A某人]今天真的想见你，因为你星期五就离开[.]”\n\n72. 约于2017年8月18日，B某人与DAVIS交换短信，安排一次电话通话。在这些短信中，DAVIS写道：“请给我打电话。[A某人]想加入电话会议[.]”\n\n73. 约于2017年8月19日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“[马来西亚]有任何更新吗？”D某人回复：“截至目前，将在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区（DC）举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫球，但我正在努力。可能不得不就此直接找[I某人]，并利用他们两人曾一起打高尔夫球的历史。”B某人回复：“是的。如果你认为有帮助，我可以直接给[I某人]的一名副手或[I某人]打电话。还需要增加会面时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”I某人当时是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 约于2017年8月21日，DAVIS将其作为佣金从A某人处收到的\\$375,000资金电汇给C某人，即B某人的配偶。\n\n75. 约于2017年8月24日，外国国民A指示向A某人的另一家独立公司转移约\\$10 million；该公司已与外国国民A的一名代表就EUR 8.4 million签订“战略传播与危机管理”协议。根据2017年8月24日的现行汇率，EUR 8.4 million折合约\\$10 million。\n\n76. 约于2017年9月11日，DAVIS应B某人指示起草了一封由B某人致总统的信函，预期马来西亚总理A将与总统会面。该信函包括马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信函从未提供给总统。\n\n77. 约于2017年9月12日，马来西亚总理A在白宫会见总统，部分原因是DAVIS为B某人促成该会面所作努力提供的协助。尽管B某人联系政府内高级官员，以在正式会面之外安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A进行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球赛。\n\n78. 约于2017年10月6日，B某人在白宫会见总统。B某人向A某人、DAVIS和外国国民A表示，他在会面期间向总统提及了1MDB调查。\n\n79. 约于2018年1月5日，B某人起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A展示B某人代表其所作的努力。该谈话要点尤其规定：“1. 我们正与美国司法部（DoJ）合作，以反制前届政府针对[马来西亚]1MDB的案件。我已制定策略，联系司法部和国家安全委员会的相关方，以解决该问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督[]案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的官员，并能提供帮助……3. 正如我早先告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺将解决该问题。重要的是，我应遵循他的指示，但会继续传达该问题的重要性。”B某人极大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80. 约于2018年1月6日，B某人与A某人会面，A某人向B某人请求贷款。A某人告诉B某人，A某人的朋友正在“核查”他们从外国国民A处收到的钱，并“协助保持其清白”。\n\n二、将中华人民共和国国民A移出美国的行动\nA. B某人前往中国会见中华人民共和国部长A\n\n81. 约于2017年5月，在曼谷之行后，B某人同意前往香港再次会见外国国民A。在此次行程之前，DAVIS与B某人讨论称，将中华人民共和国（PRC）国民A驱逐出美国对外国国民A而言很重要。前往香港的目的，是与外国国民A及一名中华人民共和国外国政府官员会面，讨论中华人民共和国国民A。\n\n82. 约于2017年5月15日，DAVIS就前往香港行程的旅行安排和行程表向B某人的助理发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向B某人和C某人发送了DAVIS公司银行账户信息。\n\n83. 约于2017年5月18日，A某人、B某人和DAVIS前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，在一家酒店套房内与外国国民A及中华人民共和国部长A会面。中华人民共和国部长A向B某人谈及中华人民共和国国民A及其被指控的犯罪行为，并表示中华人民共和国希望将中华人民共和国国民A送回中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国部长A要求B某人利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将中华人民共和国国民A移出美国并送回中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国部长A还表示，他很快将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，并且难以安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会面。\nB. B某人游说美国高级官员移除中华人民共和国国民A\n\n84. 约于2017年5月20日，在从中国返程期间，B某人向DAVIS发送短信：“我会努力让本周成为我们与[司法部长]的大好一周。”\n\n85. 约于2017年5月21日，B某人就其与外国国民A及中华人民共和国部长A的会面向D某人发送短信：“[D某人]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否在星期一上午9:30于[酒店]会面？[]。”\n\n86. 约于2017年5月22日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们将讨论。”B某人随后写道：“我正在给你发送一份备忘录。我们将讨论。”同日稍后，D某人回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87．在 May 22, 2017 前后，Person B（B某）向 Person D（D某）发送了一封电子邮件，主题为“美国与[the PRC（中华人民共和国）]之间大幅加强执法合作的机会[。]”。Person B在该电子邮件中附上了一份由其致司法部长（Attorney General）的备忘录，意图由Person D随后将该备忘录提供给司法部长。该备忘录的内容由DAVIS（戴维斯）提供给Person B；DAVIS在2017年5月前往中国期间从Person A（A某）处收到该内容，而该内容源自PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国A部长）和Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）。收到后，Person B和Person C（C某）修订了该备忘录。\n\n88．在该备忘录中，Person B虚假陈述了其前往中国的原因以及促成其与PRC Minister A会面的情况。Person B隐瞒了其与Foreign National A的联系，并隐瞒了Foreign National A在安排Person B与PRC Minister A会面中所起的作用。Person B还隐瞒了在其与PRC Minister A于深圳会面前两周内，Foreign National A向其支付的$4 million。Person B还未披露，其就PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A某）所作的游说努力，至少部分是根据其与Foreign National A之间的财务安排而进行，并可能导致额外付款。\n\n89．在该备忘录中，Person B称：“[PRC Minister A]告诉我，[the PRC]希望在包括网络安全在内的执法事务方面，大幅加强与US（美国）的双边合作。”Person B写及PRC Minister A即将前往Washington, D.C.，届时PRC Minister A及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。Person B主张司法部长应与PRC Minister A会面。Person B还指出，据PRC Minister A所述，中华人民共和国愿意采取若干措施，以改善美国与中华人民共和国之间的执法关系。随后，Person B补充道：\n\n根据我与[PRC Minister A]的谈话，[the PRC]将提出的一项请求是，将[PRC National A]尽快从美国驱逐出境（其签证将在未来一个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织（Interpol）已就其发布红色通报，现附上供您参考）至[the PRC]，因为[the PRC]指称其与已被逮捕并被控违反[the PRC]多项刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人士共谋，以便其能够因这些违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在[the PRC]接受正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nPerson B将一份有关PRC National A的Interpol红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n90．在 May 23, 2017 前后，Person B向Person D发送短信称：“嗨[]，明天的会面定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[Attorney General]了吗？请更新。谢谢[][。]”Person D回复称：“[Person B]——信昨天已经送达。请查看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚正乘坐红眼航班，这样我可以早些回到DC。”Person B回复称：“太好了。谢谢[]。还请设法确定他是否已安排会面，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在Alabama举行会面。”次日，即 May 24, 2017 前后，Person D回复称：“正在等待DoJ（司法部）关于会面的消息——我们自己的和[PRC Minister A]的。请告知我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n91．在 May 24, 2017 前后，Person D向Person B发送短信称：“刚接到[Attorney General]办公室的电话，他今晚无法参加。但我直接收到他回复的短信，说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92．在 May 25, 2017 前后，Person B向Person D发送短信称：“今天上午10:00在司法部举行会面。然后明天与FBI（联邦调查局）和DHS（国土安全部）会面。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到那里，这样可以进行简短会面。然后再安排一对一会面以讨论更多细节。请设法今天一早见到[Attorney General]。我们务必办成此事。我今天上午需要与我的联系人谈话。谢谢。[。]”Person D回复称：“[]——正在处理。[Attorney General]今天上午不在办公室，但正设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，Person B向Person D发送短信称：“具体情况是，我备忘录中的三项内容仅供[Attorney General]知悉。[PRC Minister A]希望直接告诉[Attorney General]。我的渠道是正当的非正式渠道。[PRC Minister A]的上级希望确认[Attorney General]听到了这三项确实有助于美国的内容[。]”当日稍后，Person D回复称：“[]——实际上刚刚与[Attorney General]通完电话。消息不太好。请告知你何时方便通话。谢谢。”\n\n93．在 May 26, 2017 前后，就PRC Minister A的会面而言，Person B向Person D发送短信称：“上午10点与ICE（美国移民及海关执法局）负责人会面，11:30与FBI会面。或许在DHS采取行动可以挽回局面。让[Person I（I某）]过目。这三项内容可以分享。”Person B随后又称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正在努力控制损害，需要与你谈谈。最好单独与[Person I]谈。”当时，Person I是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n94．在 May 28, 2017 前后，Person B向Person D发送电子邮件，主题为“[the Attorney General]与[the PRC]驻美国大使之间往来信函的文字记录”。Person B指出：“我相信，[the Attorney General]有极好的机会进一步推进美国利益。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？另有一项值得关注的事项，应使AG（司法部长）知悉。”同日稍后，Person B与Person D交换电子邮件，以安排讨论该电子邮件及其内容的时间。\n\n95．在 May 30, 2017 前后，DAVIS转达PRC Minister A和Person A关于PRC Minister A与美国政府官员会面的信息，发送短信称：“查看Wickr——现在所有会面都已获准[。]”Person B回复称：“是的。一切就绪[。]”DAVIS回复称：“他的会面已恢复安排[。]”\n\n96．在2017年5月前后，DAVIS应Person A的请求，请Person B在Washington, D.C.与PRC Minister A会面。\n\n97．在 May 30, 2017 前后，Person B在Washington, D.C.的一家酒店与PRC Minister A会面。Person B还询问Person D，Person D能否帮助PRC Minister A安排与美国政府高级官员会面。\n\n98．在 May 31, 2017 前后，Person B向Person D发送短信称：\n\n我昨晚与这位副部长（VM）会面。他今天下午乘坐4 pm航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人员会面，并让原本应与其会面的人改为与Vietnam会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[Attorney General]或[Person I]会面，否则就回国。他很乐意与[Person I]会面。……到目前为止，他已交出一名孕妇，接下来的两人将很快被送交。他将接受60名Chinese Nationals（中国国民）被驱逐出境，但前提是他能有一次适当的“简短会面”。这是本届政府的一大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两国总统在Mar-a-Lago会面的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99．Person D回复称：“[]——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”Person B回复称：“如果你促成会面，我们能否让政治WH（白宫）联络官在DHS与这位VM会面？他可以提及我的名字。还请设法让[Person I]缓和局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n100．在 May 31, 2017 前后，就PRC Minister A据称与Person I的会面，DAVIS向Person B发送短信称：“原则上[Person I]可以——只是日程问题？”Person B回复称：“只是临时通知的日程安排问题。下一小时左右仍可能有消息。[PRC Minister A]没有任何问题。”Person B随后继续称：“请代我向这位VM致以良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”DAVIS回复称：“好的，我正在告诉他。”Person B回复称：“告诉他，我正在向WH和[Attorney General]说明发生的情况。”随后DAVIS发送短信称：“[Person I]今天下午不是安排在Haiti吗？”Person B回复称：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[Attorney General]的人也没有提到[。]”DAVIS回复称：“DHS网站上有[。]他下午在那里[。]刚刚与VM谈过，他听起来像是在哭[。]”Person B回复称：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常应由他们的大使处理。这真他妈一团糟。”DAVIS回复称：“Wickr。”\n\n101．在 June 9, 2017 前后，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇题为“[the PRC]-加大对流亡大亨-[PRC National A]施压”的新闻文章。\n\n102．在 June 27, 2017 前后，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A交换了数条短信。\n\n103．在 June 27, 2017 前后，Person B就遣离PRC National A一事向Person H（H某）的配偶发送短信。Person B知道，Person H是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，频繁向政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触并影响总统，并可能有效地寻求遣离PRC National A。Person B向Person H的配偶发送短信称：“另外，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与Person H会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者或许共进午餐？期待在[] Hotel见到你！致意，[][。]”Person B随后继续称：\n\n嗨[]， [Person H]要求我通过短信向你发送这些信息。我将向你发送若干有关逃犯[PRC National A]的材料。第一份是Interpol红色通报……极其紧迫的事项是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证将于 June 30th 到期。至关重要的是，必须立即拒绝其新的签证申请。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单。……该命令必须来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与曾在FBI任职、现担任其私人安保人员的人士关系密切。中华人民共和国主席在Mar-A-Lago向[the President（总统）]提到，他希望[PRC National A]被送回。[PRC Minister A]与我会面，并请求就[PRC National A]一事提供帮助。……他承诺将释放若干被[the PRC]扣为人质的美国公民，并将接受大量[the PRC]非法移民被驱逐出境返回[the PRC]。最后，他提出将在North Korea（朝鲜）问题上提供新的协助。\n\n104．在 June 28, 2017 前后，Person B在一次社交聚会上与Person H及其配偶会面。会面后，Person B与Person H的配偶就[PRC National A]交换短信：“嗨[]，今晚见到你和[Person H]真是太好了！我刚刚再次收到[PRC Minister A]的消息。他想知道[PRC National A]签证的状态，因为时间紧迫。——签证已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]已被列入DHS禁飞名单？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能确认此事并着手驱逐出境。这将是我们两国之间不可思议的一步。[PRC Minister A]说，他们感谢你的帮助。”Person H的配偶回复称：“此事已交由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在办理。”\n\n105．在 June 29, 2017 前后，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A的签证申请交换短信。Person B发送短信称：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”DAVIS回复称：“我不知道。”Person B回复称：“抱歉，函件总会生成。换言之，每名申请人最终都会以书面形式收到批准或拒绝[？]抱歉，收到书面批准或拒绝[？]”DAVIS回复称：“是[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n106. 约在2017年6月30日，DAVIS 就其为促成遣返外国国民B以及可能遣返被关押在B国的美国公民所作的努力，向人员B发送短信称：“Wickr。你现在就是关键人物。在你于今年7月4日为这个国家所完成的事情之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章[。]”人员B回复：“我会全力以赴，直到办成[。]”DAVIS回复：“我们务必确保第一部分今天办成。还有m的日期[。]在我们办成之前，不要离开那家伙。”人员B回复：“同意。”DAVIS继续称：“让他知道——如果我们今天在下班前拿到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员出具该信函），那么我们将在7月4日前让那2名美国人回国[。]在第二阶段之后——我们可以让那60人接回去[。]”人员B回复：“听起来不错。[人员H]很快会给我回电话。正在通话。”\n\n107. 约在2017年6月30日，人员B和DAVIS就PRC国民A交换了数条短信。人员B发短信称：“收到[人员H]的消息。他向POTUS重申了此事。”人员B随后称：“另外，[人员E]给我发短信说他被别的事缠住了，但正在处理此事。”同日，DAVIS回复：“我们今天能拿到有关撤销的证明吗？”DAVIS随后具体说明：“从[人员E]那里？”\n\n108. 约在2017年7月1日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信称：“与[人员E]进行了长谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”人员B并未与人员E交谈，但曾就PRC国民A的签证申请与其交换短信。与人员B在其为总检察长准备的备忘录中所作的陈述及其与人员H的通信类似，人员B未向人员E披露其与PRC部长A关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约在2017年7月2日，人员B和DAVIS就PRC国民A及其签证申请交换了短信。根据公开报道，DAVIS发短信称：“今天周日安排了与[PRC总统]就朝鲜问题进行的通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的事。他甚至可以说他从[人员H]那里听说了此事。”\n\n110. 约在2017年7月3日，同样基于公开报道，DAVIS向人员B发送短信：“[总统]周三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲[。]”DAVIS随后称：“7月5日。安排与[PRC总统]当面会晤[。]”\n\n111. 约在2017年7月18日，人员B通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了人员H的联系信息。DAVIS为推进旨在遣返PRC国民A的游说活动，接通了PRC部长A与人员H之间的多次通话。\n\n112. 约在2017年7月26日，人员B和DAVIS就PRC国民A及将其从美国遣返至PRC一事交换了短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“非常需要确认该事项已被正式传达。到目前为止——他说没有[。]”人员B回复：“已请3名不同的人跟进[。]”人员B随后补充称：“给[人员E]打了电话。一小时后见[人员H]。”\n\n113. 约在2017年7月26日，人员B向人员H发送短信，约其在华盛顿特区的一家酒店见面讨论PRC国民A：“您好，[人员H]，我从工作人员处得知您在华盛顿特区，我也在，住在[酒店]。您今天愿意喝杯咖啡吗？此致，[ ]。”当日稍后，人员H的配偶向人员B发送短信称：“您好，[ ]。您能否再给我发一次您此前发短信提及的[PRC]男子的详情，谢谢[。]”人员B回复：“您好，[ ]，您指的是[PRC国民A]还是[PRC部长A]？此致，[ ][。]”人员H的配偶回复：“[PRC国民A]。”随后，人员B再次发送了其此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n114. 约在2017年7月27日，人员B和DAVIS就PRC国民A交换了短信。DAVIS向人员B发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？”DAVIS随后补充称：“嘿，有关正式通知有什么更新吗？”人员B回复：“我正在与国家安全委员会的人交涉。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n115. 约在2017年8月19日，人员B多次向DAVIS发送短信。在这些信息中，人员B写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”人员B随后补充称：“我和[人员H]在一起。有突破的机会[。]”\n\n116. 约在2017年8月19日，人员B在人员H的游艇上与人员H会面。在二人相处期间，人员B询问人员H有关PRC国民A的事项，人员H建议他们给总统打电话。随后，人员B和人员H致电总统，询问PRC国民A在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n117. 约在2017年9月13日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信称：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有另一篇文章[。]”同日，DAVIS向人员B发送了有关PRC国民A的文章链接。\n\n118. 约在2017年10月2日，人员B向DAVIS发送了有关PRC国民A的一篇文章链接。\n\n119. 约在2018年1月5日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信称：“把更多有关[PRC国民A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息发给我，……尽快[。]”\n\n第一项罪名 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612（协助和教唆及未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不晚于约2017年5月至至少约2018年1月期间，在夏威夷地区及其他地点，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 明知且故意地，未按法律要求向总检察长登记，协助和教唆人员A及人员B以外国委托人代理人的身份实施行为，即代表外国国民A、PRC部长A及PRC政府，实施秘密渠道游说活动，以有利于外国国民A地解决lMDB调查，并将PRC国民A遣返至PRC。\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(1)。\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)主张没收，现再次提出并通过援引纳入本起诉书第一项罪名所载指控。\n\n122. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，如第一项罪名成立，即违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 2，以及Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(1)，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 应向美利坚合众国没收一笔款项，该款项代表构成或源自可追溯至上述违法行为所得的动产或不动产。兹进一步通知，如被定罪，美利坚合众国拟就代表本段所述财产的该笔款项向DAVIS申请判决。\n\n123. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，上述任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已转让、出售给或存放于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 其价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混同，且无法在不造成困难的情况下予以分割，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权根据Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，并经Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)纳入适用，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020年8月17日，于夏威夷州檀香山。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price  KENJI M. PRICE 夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\n~~\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson  KENNETH M. SORENSON 国家安全事务主管\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON 公共廉政处主管 美国司法部\n\n/s/ John D. Keller  JOHN D. KELLER 首席副主管\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN 审判律师 公共廉政处\n\n美利坚合众国诉Nickie Mali DAVIS 起诉书 刑事案号 ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n\n附件C\n\n美利坚合众国，\n\n诉\n\nGEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM，\n被告。","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","GTV","Guo","Saraca","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","853(p)"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":13,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":27300,"status":"published","published_at":"2020-10-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2020-10-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:17:29"}