{"id":"court_ctb_245_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":245,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":"2022-03-20","title":"Exhibit UCC-1 Debtor's Declaration in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit UCC-1\n\nDebtor's Declaration in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 1 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 2 of 109\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |             |                            |\n|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|----------------------------|\n|              |                                                                       | :           |                            |\n| In re:       |                                                                       | :           | Chapter 11                 |\n| Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM) |\n|              |                                                                       | :           |                            |\n|              | Debtor.                                                               | :<br>:      |                            |\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 2 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 3 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 3 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 4 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 4 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 5 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 5 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 6 of 109\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-5-0) 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-5-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 6 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 7 of 109\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-6-0) threaten, and silence me.[3](#page-6-1) 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-6-0\"></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-6-1\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 7 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 8 of 109\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-7-0) 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-7-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 8 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 9 of 109\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me), [5](#page-8-0) lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, [6](#page-8-1) and former DOJ official George Higginbotham,[7](#page-8-2) 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-8-0\"></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-8-1\"></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-8-2\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 9 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 10 of 109\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-9-0) 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-9-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 10 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 11 of 109\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China.[9](#page-10-0) 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-10-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 11 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 12 of 109\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-11-0)\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-11-0\"></span><sup>10</sup> My Schedules include a potential malpractice claim against my historical litigation counsel.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 12 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 13 of 109\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-12-0) 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-12-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 13 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 14 of 109\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-13-0)\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-13-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 14 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 15 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 15 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 16 of 109\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# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 16 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 17 of 109\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-16-0) 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-16-0\"></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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 17 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 18 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 18 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 19 of 109\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\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 19 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 20 of 109\n\nfurther 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# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 20 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 21 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 21 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 22 of 109\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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 22 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 23 of 109\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\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 23 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 24 of 109\n\nnecessary 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\n# 53. **Motion to Authorize Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the**\n\n**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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 24 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 25 of 109\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# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 25 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 26 of 109\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, \"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\n\n## Case 1i20-cr-00210-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 29 of 31 Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 55 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 245-1 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 15:07:47 Page 56 of 109\n\nresponded, \"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\n109\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>)<br>) | INFORMATION                                        |\n| vs.                       | )<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\n\nNational 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\n\nSeptember 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\n\nthe 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\n\nAdministration 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\n\nofficials.\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":"附件 UCC-1\n\n债务人为支持第 11 章案件及若干动议所作的声明\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 于 03/20/22 提交，于 03/20/22 15:39:01 登记 第 1 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 245-1 于 04/22/22 提交，于 04/22/22 15:07:47 登记 第 2 页，共 109 页\n美利坚合众国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：　：　第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　：\n：\n：　案号 22-50073\n(JAM)\n\n债务人。　：\n\nHO WAN KWOK 先生为支持第 11 章案件及若干动议所作的声明\n\n本人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经正式宣誓，声明并陈述如下：\n\n1. 2022 年 2 月 15 日，本人启动了上述标题所列的第 11 章案件。本人已年满 18 周岁，并具备作证能力。\n\n2. 本人提交本声明，以向破产法院及所有利害关系方提供有关本人的背景资料，并说明导致本人启动第 11 章案件的情况。本人在本声明中作了较为详尽的说明，以便为针对本人的债权性质、本人独特的财务状况，以及本人启动本第 11 章案件的理由提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文进一步讨论，本人提交本第 11 章案件是为了：(a) 建立一个单一的审理平台，有序处理针对本人提出的各项相互竞争的债权；(b) 鉴于本人认为在这方面存在误解，为利益相关方提供有效机会调查本人的资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，继而可向获准债权持有人分配；并且，希望能够 (d) 达成共识\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 于 03/20/22 提交，于 03/20/22 15:39:01 登记 第 2 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 245-1 于 04/22/22 提交，于 04/22/22 15:07:47 登记 第 3 页，共 109 页\n\n与本人的债权人就根据第 11 章计划公平且衡平地解决债权及分配资产达成共识。\n\n4. 在提交本第 11 章案件并准备本声明时，本人知悉，法院可能对 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）于 2 月 9 日作出的藐视法庭裁定（定义见下文）、PAX（定义亦见下文）就本人作出的不利陈述，以及甚至本人公开表达的政治观点有所关切。当然，每个故事均有两面或多面，本声明将提出本人的观点。基于将会明晰的理由，本人因公开批评中国共产党（“CCP”）（中国共产党）的腐败和侵犯人权行为，而持续担心遭到其报复。多年来，本人在美国法院系统中遭受了由 CCP 及其代理人和代表资助的、毫无根据的诉讼的不断攻击。本人的第 11 章案件只能处理 CCP 试图向本人及本人家人施加的经济损害。但是，CCP 想要对本人造成的远不止经济损害和公开羞辱。本人相信，如本人被监禁、被引渡，或本人的家人无法再为本人提供人身安全保护，CCP 会在最早可能的机会刺杀本人。本人并非建议法院或任何利害关系方现在接受本人对案件基本事实的看法。恰恰相反，预计本第 11 章案件将由一笔无担保的申请后贷款充分资助，该贷款的偿还顺位低于所有申请前债权人——以便在典型的第 11 章程序中进行公平调查，并让利益相关方提出其认为适当的任何可采纳证据。换言之，本破产程序旨在允许对所有相关且可证明的案件事实进行理性审查，而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”而在偿还顺位上抢占先机，则在该范围内除外，因为这必然对某些人不公平。\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 于 03/20/22 提交，于 03/20/22 15:39:01 登记 第 3 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 245-1 于 04/22/22 提交，于 04/22/22 15:07:47 登记 第 4 页，共 109 页\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\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（邢志若）居住在康涅狄格州格林尼治市 373 Taconic Road。2020 年 3 月，我们从纽约 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）的一套公寓搬至康涅狄格州现址。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），在纽约市和康涅狄格州两地居住。\n\n7. 本人及家人出身贫寒。本人和七位兄弟努力工作，并汇集我们的收入——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——投资房地产开发。1989 年发生支持民主的天安门广场抗议活动后，本人因向学生抗议者提供经济支持而被监禁约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。本人被捕时年仅二十岁出头。同时，本人目睹了两名警察——CCP 的代理人——的残暴行径：他们枪击本人的弟弟，并任其死亡。弟弟遭谋杀，以及本人在狱中被捕并遭受酷刑，对本人产生了深刻影响。本人在狱中与许多其他良心犯建立了重要的私人联系；他们同样因支持天安门广场民主运动而遭监禁。我们对于在中国追求自由怀有同样的热情，并且本人在 1991 年出狱后继续维持这些关系。\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 于 03/20/22 提交，于 03/20/22 15:39:01 登记 第 4 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 245-1 于 04/22/22 提交，于 04/22/22 15:07:47 登记 第 5 页，共 109 页\n\n8. 大约在 1991 年，中国政府开始放宽若干规管社会的规则，其中包括允许普通公民开始在中国取得某种“准私有”房地产所有权的规则。尽管本人的大家庭受益于此项变化，本人因先前出于政治动机而遭逮捕和拘留，个人无法从中受益。任何以本人名义登记的中国资产都很可能被 CCP 没收。本人的大家庭利用其积累的财富支持本人，并一直持续至今。\n\n9. 本人的大家庭开始与 Yuda Property Company（裕达地产公司）（“Yuda”）合作，该公司专注于中国河南省的商业房地产开发。郭氏家族与 Yuda 共同开发了河南裕达酒店，随后又在河南省省会郑州开发了裕达国际贸易中心。这些成功的项目使郭氏家族开始积累巨额财富。此后，本人家族在中国开发了其他物业，包括北京的 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）——一座 7 星级酒店、会议中心及住宅公寓综合体。美国人可能会认出盘古大观，因为其是北京 2008 年和 2022 年奥运会的主要背景地标。\n\n10. 郭氏家族的财富通过多元化继续增长，其投资于金融、科技及其他商业领域。尤其是，本人的儿子通过建立和管理投资机会，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. 本人大约于 2000 年离开中国大陆前往香港，并成为香港公民。当大家庭继续在中国积累巨额财富时，根据中国法律，作为香港公民，本人既不能保留中国国籍，也不会获准在中国拥有资产。\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 于 03/20/22 提交，于 03/20/22 15:39:01 登记 第 5 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 245-1 于 04/22/22 提交，于 04/22/22 15:07:47 登记 第 6 页，共 109 页\n\n12. 本人大家庭的财务成功并未逃过 CCP 的注意。2002 年，本人的大家庭在北京取得了大面积土地；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 官员试图为了其个人利益侵占该等土地，本人遂向上级政府官员举报该企图。经过长期斗争，该土地得以收回，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并揭露 CCP 的腐败，CCP 因此对本人进行报复。2015 年 1 月 10 日，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 高层官员关系密切，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）（“PAG”）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金）（“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，他个人正代表 CCP 为众多原告针对本人的诉讼活动提供资金。2015 年初，Bruno Wu 代表 CCP 高层成员致电本人，转达称，如本人停止公开揭露 CCP 腐败，本人的家人将被释放；并威胁称，如本人不服从，本人和本人的儿子均将被发布 INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“Red Notices（红色通报）”，且本人将被杀害。本人拒绝 CCP 通过 Bruno Wu 使本人噤声的企图，并继续公开反对 CCP。\n\n14. 2017 年，本人通过利用社交媒体和总部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，大幅加强了本人的反 CCP 运动。\n\n1 Nancy Tartaglione，《中国设立 $800M 基金投资全球及本地娱乐业》，Deadline，February 6, 2012 [（http）][226260/]。\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 于 03/20/22 提交，于 03/20/22 15:39:01 登记 第 6 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 245-1 于 04/22/22 提交，于 04/22/22 15:07:47 登记 第 7 页，共 109 页\n\n本人公开揭露 CCP 腐败的言论，在美国及海外获得广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更容易且更广泛地揭露 CCP 腐败外，本人还向美国当局提供了有关 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 2017 年 9 月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 发起了一项多方面的行动，试图对本人取得控制力、诋毁[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，2017 年 4 月 19 日，本人原定接受 Voice of America（美国之音）（“VOA”）采访，期间本人计划揭露\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）（ASPI），以及 Alphabet（字母公司）的 Google（谷歌）均分别报告称，本人一直是 CCP 在其全球社交媒体虚假信息宣传活动中的主要目标；该活动由 CCP 代理人以及数千个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，《虚假账号编造 COVID 故事：对归因于中华人民共和国的 2020 年 6 月 Twitter 清理行动的分析》，Stanford Internet Observatory（斯坦福互联网观察站），June 17, 2020 [（http）]；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren 和 Elise Thomas，《穿越防火长城发推文：对与中华人民共和国有关联的、针对香港抗议活动的信息行动的初步分析》，October 2019 [（htt）][2.amazonaws.com/2019-]\n\n[12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\\\_4SfDUy7] [sMfNkw0\\)]（表明中共针对我的虚假信息宣传活动始于 April 2017）；Dr. Jake Wallis（杰克·沃利斯博士）、Tom Uren（汤姆·尤伦）、Elise Thomas（伊莉丝·托马斯）、Albert Zhang（张艾伯特）、Dr. Samantha Hoffman（萨曼莎·霍夫曼博士）、Lin Li（李琳）、Alex Pascoe（亚历克斯·帕斯科）和 Danielle Cave（丹妮尔·凯夫），《穿越防火长城的转推：一个持续且不屈不挠的威胁行为者》，June 2020 [\\(htt][southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-]\n\n[06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt] [XD6TCA\\)]（提供的数据反映了“一场与中国国家行为者有关、持续且大规模的、在 Twitter 和 Facebook 上开展的影响力宣传活动……[其]主要针对中国大陆以外的中文受众（该地区屏蔽 Twitter）……意图影响对……郭文贵的看法”）；Joseph Menn（约瑟夫·门恩），《亲华社交媒体宣传活动波及新国家，指责美国应对 COVID 负责》，Reuters（路透社），September 9, 2021 [\\(http][covid-2021-09-08/\\)]（报道称，FireEye（火眼公司）和 Alphabet（字母表公司）旗下 Google（谷歌）的安全专家观察到一场经协调的、支持中国政府利益并以我为目标的社交媒体虚假信息宣传活动）。正如这些独立来源所证实，世界上没有任何人比我遭受过更多来自中共社交媒体战的攻击。\n\n3 中共针对我这一居住在美国的中国异见人士所采用的滥用手段，并非独有。最近，联邦检察官指称，“[一]名中国间谍雇用了一名私家侦探，如有必要便使用暴力终止一名候选人的国会议员竞选活动，并指示他‘把他打到无法参加选举为止。’”参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和 Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《美国司法部称，中国特工提议以暴力手段终止异见人士的国会竞选》，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），March 16, 2022 [\\(http][with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\\\_inline\\)]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 7 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 8 页，共 109 页\n\n中共在 HNA Group Co.（海航集团有限公司）中的所有权权益。中共采取了一系列行动，试图阻止我和 VOA（美国之音）继续进行该访谈。第一，在我预定接受 VOA 采访前两天——正如 Brunu Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——中共基于捏造的刑事指控，发布了一份寻求逮捕我并将我引渡至中国的 INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“红色通缉令”。第二，中共威胁称，如 VOA 继续进行对我的采访，将对 VOA 及其驻中国记者进行报复，并声称该采访构成对中国内政的干涉。第三，在采访前一天，PAX（一家 PAG 的子公司）以违约为由在纽约对我提起了毫无根据的诉讼。我继续进行了采访，但 VOA（屈服于中共的压力）命令缩短采访。\n\n16. 中共早期使我噤声的努力失败后，便转而试图将我引渡至中国，在那里我将被杀害。FBI（美国联邦调查局）的一项调查显示，在 2017 年夏季期间，我是在美国境内由中共实施游说活动的目标；中共利用一名腐败政府官员和多名知名人士，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，要求将我引渡至中国。[4] 中共的计划导致 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）（此后与 Brunu Wu 一样，\n\n4 参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔），《因参与中国驱逐商人的行动，史蒂夫·永利可能面临司法部追责》，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），May 26, 2021 [\\(http][mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103\\)]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 8 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 9 页，共 109 页\n\n为其他当事人资助针对我的诉讼）、说客 Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）[6]以及前 DOJ（美国司法部）官员 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）[7]受到联邦起诉并作出有罪认罪答辩；他们均承认收受报酬，以换取游说美国政府高级官员将我引渡。中国的行动包括贿赂和腐蚀一名 DOJ 总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现了近 \\$75 million，使此事成为 DOJ 历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。同年起，中共还以多种其他方式针对我，包括：在 September 2017 入侵提交我的庇护申请的律师事务所的服务器，从该申请中提取我的高度敏感信息，随后在互联网上公开传播；对我提起并资助（其中数起通过 Brunu Wu）大量无根据诉讼，其中一些至今仍在进行；以及拘留、酷刑折磨和监禁我的许多家庭成员和前同事。\n\n5 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Elliott Broidy 就通过秘密渠道开展游说活动以撤销 1MDB 调查并移除一名中国外籍人士作出有罪认罪答辩》，October 20, 2020 [\\(http][investigation-and\\)]（称“Broidy 还同意代表外籍人士 A 和中华人民共和国（PRC）部长 A 向政府和 DOJ 进行游说，以安排移除并遣返 PRC 国民 A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异见人士”；我即为“PRC 国民 A”）。关于 Elliott Broidy 的“刑事起诉信息书”副本附于本文件，作为附件 A。\n\n6 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《夏威夷女商人就促成通过秘密渠道开展游说活动以撤销 1MDB 调查并将一名外籍人士移送中国作出有罪认罪答辩》，August 31, 2020 [\\(http][campaign-drop-1mdb\\)]（称“Lum Davis 及其他人还同意代表外籍人士 A 和中华人民共和国（PRC）部长 A 向政府和司法部进行游说，以安排移除并遣返 PRC 国民 A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异见人士”；我即为“PRC 国民 A”）。关于 Nicki Lum Davis 的“刑事起诉信息书”副本附于本文件，作为附件 B。\n\n7 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《前司法部雇员就共谋欺骗美国银行有关数百万美元外国游说资金事宜作出有罪认罪答辩》，November 30, 2018 [\\(http][banks-about-millions\\)]（称“Higginbotham 进一步承认，游说活动的另一目的，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籍人士驱离美国，并送回其原籍国”；我即为该“另一名外籍人士”）。关于 George Higginbotham 的“认罪事实依据”副本附于本文件，作为附件 C。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 9 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 10 页，共 109 页\n\n17. 自 2017 起，中共还冻结并没收了在中国和香港的家庭资产及所谓资产，使我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。[8] 中共将摧毁我所创设的一切并阻止我与金融机构往来作为其任务。我将大部分时间用于担任多个实体的无偿非正式顾问或发言人，其中包括揭露中共腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，为我提供生活所需。在 Petition Date（申请日）之前，我儿子的家族办公室 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“GSNY”或“家族办公室”）购买了包括我的衣物、食品和日用品在内的诸多物品。我无法使用 GSNY 信用卡或 GSNY 银行账户。除衣物和手机外，我所使用的几乎所有物品均归我的家人所有。我并不拥有位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林威治）的住所；该住所由我的妻子通过 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）持有。我以信托形式为我儿子持有 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）公寓中的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人已向我提供贷款（其中一些有文件记载，另一些没有），以资助我数额巨大的诉讼费用，使我能够就中共发起或授意发起的众多诉讼为自己辩护。截至申请日，GSNY 已向我提供约 \\$21 million 的贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如以下所讨论并在我的 Statement of Financial Affairs（“SOFA”，财务状况说明书）中所述，我是美国及国外超过 30 起未决诉讼中的被告和/或索赔人。众所周知，中共利用其代理人\n\n8 于 October 23, 2018，High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（“HK High Court”，香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭）作出了日期为 October 18, 2018 的《禁止处分香港及其他地方资产的限制令》（“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（HSBC Bank，香港上海汇丰银行有限公司）的 HK\\$3.7 million 资金。更多数以十亿计的资金和财产，包括据称受我“有效控制”（依香港限制令所称）的个人和实体在香港的房地产，也被冻结和/或没收。香港限制令禁止被点名的“被申请人”（包括我）处分任何资产。任何人在香港限制令作出后取得我的资产，均被认为违反该命令，并可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 10 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 11 页，共 109 页\n\n提起诉讼，即使是在美国法院，以胁迫因政治原因被追查的个人返回中国。[9] 与该等诉讼有关的聘请律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的费用极其高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在所提交的 Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（“Schedules”，资产和负债清单）及 SOFA 中反映了我负债的当前状况。家族办公室协助我编制这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（维尔多利诺与洛伊专业公司）也提供了协助；该公司是一家独立财务顾问公司，在编制破产清单和财务状况说明书方面拥有丰富经验。如该等文件所反映并在下文进一步所述，我在 21 起诉讼中被列为被告，并负有数额巨大的诉讼费用债务。\n\nA. PAX 诉讼。\n\n20. PAX（一家香港投资基金）——其母公司 PAG 曾与中共特工 Brunu Wu 的媒体公司合作购买一家好莱坞制片厂——在纽约和 British Virgin Islands（“BVI”，英属维尔京群岛）对我提起诉讼。如我此前提及，PAX 在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的诉讼于 April 18, 2017 提起，即我接受 VOA 采访以揭露中共腐败的前一天。PAX 的索赔主要涉及追收一笔有争议债务。\n\n21. 在 2008，PAX 向一家名为 Spirit Carter（斯皮里特·卡特）的中国实体提供了 \\$100 million 贷款（“PAX Loan”）。该 \\$100 million 贷款分两期发放：(1) 一笔 \\$30 million 的初始贷款，由我提供的个人保证作担保；以及 (2) 第二笔 \\$70 million dollar 贷款，由最终成为 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地/开发项目所属公司 49% 的权益作担保。\n\n9 参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和 Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《中国追查逃犯的新工具：美国法院》，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），July 29, 2020 [\\(http][fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112\\)]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 11 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 12 页，共 109 页\n\n22. 2009年，PAX收到了$100 million的偿还款，确认该贷款已获清偿，并进一步确认我在2008年个人保证项下的义务已获履行。PAX对是否实际发生了“和解与清偿”存有争议，并现依据一份日期更晚、系伪造的个人保证向我主张权利。在向我出示该保证之前，我先前的诉讼代理律师曾将其提交法院，以支持若干动议。其后我得知该文件的存在时，我表示相信其系伪造；但法院裁定，由于先前已提交该文件，我已无权质疑其真实性。因此，2020年9月15日，法院作出有利于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。我已及时向New York Appellate Division（纽约州上诉分庭）对该判决提起上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。[10]\n\n23. 数周后（2020年10月15日），法院就我的资产发布了一项限制令（“NYS Restraining Order（纽约州限制令）”）。PAX在执行该判决时，主要聚焦于一艘名为“Lady May”的游艇，详见下文。我并不拥有Lady May；该游艇归我女儿所有。该船的维护费用一直由我儿子支付。尽管如此，2021年3月16日，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）命令我在2021年5月15日前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每在该管辖区外停留一日，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，截至今年年初，累计的藐视法庭罚款已超过作出有利于PAX的判决金额，且为该游艇所述价值的五至六倍。我无力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的清单中包括一项针对我历任诉讼代理律师的潜在失职索赔。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交 03/20/22 登记 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 12 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 245-1 提交 04/22/22 登记 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 13 页，共 109 页\n\n24. 2022年2月9日，奥斯特拉格法官对我作出民事藐视法庭最终命令（“February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令）”）。在2月9日藐视法庭命令中，奥斯特拉格法官认定我对Lady May享有受益权益并控制该船，并命令我在五个营业日内向PAX支付$134 million罚款，否则可能因民事藐视法庭而被监禁。我认为2月9日藐视法庭命令系错误地对我作出，并已就该命令另行向上诉分庭提起上诉。无论如何，我均无能力履行该命令。我坚信，中国共产党（CCP）正在策划PAX案件。迄今为止，PAX诉讼是中国共产党针对我不懈行动中为数不多的成功之一，使我面临可能被监禁的风险[11]，并迫使我破产。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 我在七起诉讼中被列为被告，该等诉讼与我推介销售一家名为GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司，“GTV”）的公司的证券，以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币有关。除两个推定投资者类别外，数名个人投资者亦就其据称投资后蒙受的损失向我主张权利。这些诉讼中的原告一般主张，我参与了一项向缺乏经验的投资者出售未注册证券的计划，违反了适用的美国证券法。各项起诉书合计要求我及包括GTV及其上级实体Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司，“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告赔偿超过$100 million的损害赔偿。我认为这些主张毫无根据。[12]\n\n11 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）请求作出命令确认自动中止不适用，或者备选地，根据《破产法》第362(D)(2)条解除自动中止的动议》[Docket No. 57]（“Lift Stay Motion（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Chapter 11案件目标的能力。尤其是，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，在本法院出庭并陈述意见，与律师协商并指导律师，调查并归集破产财产资产，或制定并协商Chapter 11计划。此外，我认为PAX错误地相信，如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\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交 03/20/22 登记 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 13 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 245-1 提交 04/22/22 登记 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 14 页，共 109 页\n\nC. 诽谤主张。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直在社交媒体上十分活跃，并发布批评中国共产党、其代理人以及处于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主张。如我的Statement of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明书，“SOFA”）所示，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，后者是一名自认的中国共产党代理人，也是PAX母公司的商业伙伴。这些诉讼中的原告合计主张了数额巨大的损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资成本。\n\n27. 我提起寻求金钱救济的主张所产生的费用，系通过根据诉讼融资协议（“Litigation Funding Agreements（诉讼融资协议）”）提供的贷款筹措。在我必须应诉的情况下，Family Office（家族办公室）向我垫付贷款，以支付我的诉讼费用。无论何种情形，贷款所得均直接支付给我聘请的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日，GSNY已向我垫付约$21 million，用于诉讼相关费用。\n\n28. 在存在诉讼融资协议的情况下，如我最终成功主张并收回我的索赔，GSNY有权获得溢价，并已就我的部分诉讼回收款设定担保权益，以担保该等偿还及投资回报。\n\n12 这些事项涉及某一已和解的执法程序。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，即GTV发行违反1933年法案第506条，达成了公开宣布的“不承认、不否认”和解（“SEC Entity Settlements（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New York State Office of the Attorney General（纽约州总检察长办公室）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\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交 03/20/22 登记 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 14 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 245-1 提交 04/22/22 登记 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 15 页，共 109 页\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据告知，在我的Chapter 11案件启动时，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所享有的一切法定或衡平权益。据进一步告知，我的破产财产及其所有财产均受法院管辖和监督。当然，我接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的清单中列明。这些资产主要是衣物、食品和其他少量家居用品，以及诉讼主张。\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和其他日常用品。除此之外，我可以使用的一切财产——包括车辆、我的住所（过去及目前）、家具、艺术品和电子设备（我的手机除外）——均归我的家庭成员所有。我经其许可使用这些资产，但未经其许可，我无权处分任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我也是数起在美国、英国和瑞士待决案件中的权利主张人。该等诉讼的详情已在我的财务状况说明书中披露。以下两项诉讼值得在此说明：\n\na. UBS主张。在英国Royal Courts of Justice（皇家法院），我和若干共同原告已对UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团伦敦分行，“UBS”）提出主张，寻求超过$500 million的损害赔偿，该主张涉及UBS就我试图促成收购并取得一家中国金融机构Haitong（海通）于2015年发行的若干股份所作的过失性失实陈述和建议。截至2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁定，确认英国法院对我针对UBS的主张享有管辖权——而非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，必须在瑞士Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔城市民事法院调解机构）提起平行诉讼（英国未被认定缺乏管辖权）。瑞士的该案目前中止审理，等待UBS就该管辖权问题向英国Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提起的上诉结果。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交 03/20/22 登记 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 15 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 245-1 提交 04/22/22 登记 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 16 页，共 109 页\n\nb. Clark Hill主张。此外，我已对Clark Hill PLC（克拉克·希尔专业有限公司）及其一名成员Thomas K. Ragland（托马斯·K·拉格兰德）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出主张。本诉讼目前在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）待决。我正就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未能充分保护我庇护申请中所含的高度敏感信息，中国共产党于2017年9月期间侵入Clark Hill的服务器，提取该等高度敏感信息，继而在互联网上传播。更糟的是，Clark Hill屈从于中国共产党黑客的威胁，退出担任我的移民代理律师。因此，我已遭受并持续遭受损害。\n\n33. 另有两项并不归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（雪莉-荷兰人酒店）的一套公寓（“Apartment（该公寓）”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交 03/20/22 登记 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 16 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 245-1 提交 04/22/22 登记 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 17 页，共 109 页\n\na. Lady May（“五月夫人号”）。如上所述，我并不拥有 Lady May，尽管我确实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 February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令）中作出认定，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 Apartment（Sherry-Netherland 公寓）。Sherry-Netherland 公寓的合作社股份由 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。[13] Genever US 的成员权益则由 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有 Genever BVI 的全部股权。然而，根据日期为 February 17, 2015 的《信托声明及协议》（“Trust Date”），我为 Bravo Luck Limited（“Apartment Owner”）信托持有该等股权。我的儿子持有 Apartment Owner 的股权。在 Trust Date 当日或前后，Apartment Owner 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，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）已命令将我在 Genever BVI 中可能拥有的任何权益移交给 PAX，但前提是该等移交不干扰在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）待决的诉讼或 Genever US 的破产程序。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我相信 Justice Ostrager、PAX 以及可能的其他人认为，我拥有的财力大于此处以及我在资产负债表和财务状况说明中所反映的财力。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，而非属于我。但是，如上文亦已说明，\n\n13. On October 12, 2020，Genever US 在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）申请 Chapter 11 破产保护（案号 20-12411）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 已提交 03/20/22 已录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 17 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文书 245-1 已提交 04/22/22 已录入 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 18 页，共 109 页\n\n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，对抗性程序将以避免损害任何债权人对破产财产所享有经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\nIII. 拟议的 DIP 融资\n\n35. 如我的资产负债表所载，我没有自己的资源来支付本 Chapter 11 案件的费用。然而，我的儿子表示愿意为本 Chapter 11 案件的某些成本提供资金。具体而言，GSNY 提议按照附于批准 DIP 融资动议的 DIP 融资信贷协议（“DIP Credit Agreement”）所列条款，向破产财产出借 \\$8 million（“DIP Financing”）。DIP 融资将用于支付，包括但不限于，破产财产所聘请专业人士的费用（包括我聘请的专业人士，以及无担保债权人官方委员会和/或审查员如获任命后所聘请的专业人士的费用）以及 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）征收的季度费用。在 \\$8 million 的预算中，最多 \\$4 million 将可用于资助 Official Creditors Committee（官方债权人委员会）和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY 提议以无担保基础提供该笔贷款，其偿还优先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担保，不要求行政债权或优先债权，并且在所有获准的破产申请前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会从破产财产资产中获得偿还。因此，该笔贷款不会使我的债权人承担任何成本，并为调查我的事务提供公平机会。我不认为任何其他贷款人提供的贷款会具有更优的条件。因此，取得该笔贷款符合我破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将不会获准使用任何借入资金。所有 DIP 融资所得款项将存入为破产财产利益设立的独立存款账户（“Debtor Account”）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 已提交 03/20/22 已录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 18 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文书 245-1 已提交 04/22/22 已录入 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 19 页，共 109 页\n\nV&L（定义见下文）的 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）应为唯一获授权签字人。仅可在 V&L 指示下，且仅在支付 DIP 预算中列明项目所必需的范围内，并依照拟议的 DIP 融资命令、DIP 融资文件及法院其他相关命令（包括批准专业人士费用申请的命令）所授权，从 Debtor Account 支付款项。\n\n38. DIP Credit Agreement 中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：在 DIP Credit Agreement 获临时批准之日起 45 天内，由 Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）最终批准拟议的 DIP 融资命令。见 DIP Credit Agreement 第 ¶ 6.01(a) 条。DIP Credit Agreement 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 Credit Agreement 第 ¶ 8.01(e) 条。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是依据 February 9 Contempt Order 寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准许该等救济，我将无法实质性地指导并参与有序的债权解决及计划程序。在此种情况下，我的儿子——通过 GSNY——无意继续为本 Chapter 11 案件的费用提供资金。\n\nIV. 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，以最终解决与我的债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在向债权人提供公平机会进行尽职调查并通过由 DIP 融资支付费用的受托代表提出其意见后，通过审慎且合理的对话实现该结果。我希望我的债权人将仅以实现有效债权的偿还为动机，并且搁置将诉讼作为限制我言论自由及对政治滥用行为批评的手段。我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 已提交 03/20/22 已录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 19 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文书 245-1 已提交 04/22/22 已录入 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 20 页，共 109 页\n\n还希望，如债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意出资，以确保债权人根据计划获得公平清偿。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要为诉讼请求权，我相信该等请求权具有实质性依据且具有价值（其价值或许足以全额偿付所有债权人）。但是，再次重申，所有利益相关方均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。我不认为作出关于我对 Lady May “受益性”所有权及控制权命令的 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）曾经认定，我对该船舶拥有实际法定所有权，或该船舶现为我 Chapter 11 破产财产的资产。这些问题将以直接且公平的方式提交本法院，以作出适当解决。\n\n42. 多年来，我一直在为所谓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 已向我出借数百万美元，以资助我的抗辩费用。本 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，以一劳永逸地确定对我破产财产所享有获准债权的范围。债权人将获给予机会对我的 Chapter 11 破产财产主张债权，该程序应当使破产财产中无论存在何种资产，均在所有处境相同的债权人之间获得公平分配（例如，不允许 PAX 在同一债权人类别中抢先于其他人获得清偿）。我将与我的专业人士合作，以实现适当的债权核对程序。\n\n43. 最终，我希望制定一项理性、价值最大化的计划，使我摆脱诉讼，并有助于根据 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法》）实现“重新开始”。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 已提交 03/20/22 已录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 20 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文书 245-1 已提交 04/22/22 已录入 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 21 页，共 109 页\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，动议中载明的事实均真实且正确。\n\n45. 批准 DIP 融资动议。DIP 融资对于支付与 Chapter 11 案件有关的成本是必要的，并且将为我在能力卓越、经验丰富的顾问协助下谈判并实现重整计划确认提供充足的时间和资源。\n\n46. 鉴于与我的债权人，尤其是 PAX，之间存在对抗性和诉讼性的关系，促使我寻求 Chapter 11 救济，我要求且 GSNY 同意，DIP 融资应当惠及所有破产财产专业人士，而不施加可能损害我债权人利益的任何留置权或优先权利。DIP 融资以无担保基础提供，从属于我的破产申请前债权人的权利，且不具有任何行政或其他优先偿还权利。我的理解是，DIP Loan 仅在且仅在我的所有其他债权人均获全额清偿时方予偿还。鉴于这些慷慨条件，我相信，试图从其他来源以有竞争力或类似条件取得融资将会浪费破产财产资源，并且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上所述及我的资产负债表所载，我预计，我作为原告的诉讼中获得的追偿或和解所得款项将用于资助 Chapter 11 计划。如无法获得 DIP 融资，我将无法继续聘用并支付目前代表我推进诉讼的律师。同样，如我无法就这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论是在本程序内，还是在准许解除中止的情况下在其他审理地），我的负债可能会大幅增加。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 已提交 03/20/22 已录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 21 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文书 245-1 已提交 04/22/22 已录入 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 22 页，共 109 页\n\n48. 基于上述理由，我相信，拟议的 DIP 融资是善意提供的，不损害我任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我破产财产的最佳利益，因此应予批准。\n\n49. 申请聘用 Stretto, Inc.（“Stretto”）担任债权及通知代理人。我需要一名债权及通知代理人，以协助在 Chapter 11 案件审理期间向破产财产的债权人及利害关系方发出通知。我已选定 Stretto 担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto 在美国各地的各类 Chapter 11 案件中，包括在本辖区内，担任债权及通知代理人方面具有丰富经验。Stretto 已同意提供以下咨询服务：(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、计划征集、投票、计票、付款，以及为编制资产负债表和财务状况说明提供行政支持；以及 (c) 就本 Chapter 11 案件在必要时提供其他行政服务。\n\n50. 聘用 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）担任重组法律顾问的申请。我需要能力卓越且经验丰富的重组法律顾问，就我退出第 11 章破产程序事宜向我提供建议并协助制定架构，该退出方式可能采取经确认的重组计划形式。我已选定 Brown Rudnick 担任本第 11 章案件的重组法律顾问。Brown Rudnick 在《破产法》第 11 章项下债务人和债权人权利及重组领域拥有丰富的经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本地区以及全国其他地区的众多第 11 章案件中代理债务人、官方及非官方委员会和其他重要当事方。Brown Rudnick 亦熟悉我的事务以及将在本第 11 章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：（a）准备所有必要的动议、答复、应诉书及其他法律文书，包括可能\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 录入日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 22 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 23 页，共 109 页\n\n所需的审判准备工作；（b）为批准披露声明和确认重组计划而准备并采取必要行动；以及（c）在第 11 章案件待决期间提供可能必要的所有其他法律服务。\n\n51. 在破产申请日之前，Brown Rudnick 分别于 2022 年 2 月 14 日和 2022 年 2 月 15 日收取了 \\$500,000 的预付聘金。该等共计 \\$1 million 的预付聘金付款（“BR 预付聘金”）来源于 Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp 资本有限责任公司”），该公司由我儿子所有。Lamp 在无担保基础上向我提供了 \\$1 million 贷款，而我指示 Lamp 将贷款所得直接汇给 Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick 从 BR 预付聘金中抵扣了 \\$51,835.20 的破产申请日前费用和垫付款，使 Brown Rudnick 持有 \\$948,164.80 的破产申请日前 BR 预付聘金余额。今后，我已要求 Brown Rudnick 将其获准的费用和垫付款从 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 融资所得向我请求支付其获准的费用和开支。\n\n52. 聘用 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（弗尔多利诺与洛伊专业公司）担任财务顾问的申请。我需要一家财务顾问公司，以编制、审查和分析《破产法》规定的必要财务披露，以及在第 11 章案件待决期间持续进行的月度和季度报告要求。我已选定 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第 11 章债务人合作方面拥有丰富经验，并提供量身定制的服务，包括但不限于财务咨询、顾问服务、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）编制和审查我的 SOFA、财产清单及其他定期报告要求；（b）编制和/或审查现金流及相关预算预测；（c）维护 DIP 账户，并在\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 录入日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 23 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 24 页，共 109 页\n\n必要时执行付款，并对所有现金活动进行核算；（d）债权审查和管理；（e）重组计划的制定和审查；（f）提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及（g）在第 11 章案件待决期间，就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. 授权聘用和支付在正常业务过程中使用的专业人士费用的动议。我是在美国州级和联邦级待决的众多案件，以及外国司法辖区待决案件中的具名原告或具名被告。就这些诉讼及某些持续进行的政府调查而言，在破产申请日前，我聘用了多家律师事务所、会计师及其他非律师专业人士（统称为我的“正常业务过程专业人士”）；该等人士就我的破产申请日前诉讼提供服务，并就与本第 11 章案件无关的多种事项提供其他服务。我拟在法院批准的前提下，使用 DIP 融资继续聘用并支付该等正常业务过程专业人士的报酬，因为他们每一位均对我的事务（破产申请日前）及我的待决诉讼拥有大量知识、专业技能和熟悉程度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我就 DIP 融资寻求紧急临时救济的理由之一，是确保代理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破产申请日前及破产申请日后的工作将获得报酬，否则他们可能退出对我的代理。此类退出代理，视案件状况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）、Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）及其他待决诉讼请求权均为资产，我预计将依赖这些资产协助制定并可能确认重组计划。对我推进这些请求权的任何干扰无疑都会损害其价值。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 录入日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 24 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 25 页，共 109 页\n\n55. 总之，若无我的正常业务过程专业人士就其破产申请日前工作所具备的知识、专业技能和熟悉程度，我的破产财产将为培训和聘用保全并可能继续推进这些有价值诉讼请求权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，我相信继续聘用我的正常业务过程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案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 录入日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 25 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 245-1 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 15:07:47 第 26 页，共 109 页\n\n附件 A\n\n哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n美利坚合众国\n\n刑事案号\n\n诉 第 1 项罪名：18 U.S.C. § 371（共谋）\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪），\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. 在与本起诉书有关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于 2017 年 3 月起至至少约 2018 年 1 月期间，ELLIOTT BROIDY 与 Nickie Lum Davis（尼基·拉姆·戴维斯）及 A 某约定，作为外国国民 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行政当局（“行政当局”）和美国司法部（“DOJ”），撤销或以其他方式有利地解决其针对外国国民 A 因其侵吞 1 Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）数十亿美元资金所涉事项；1MDB 是一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某故意未向行政当局和 DOJ 官员披露 BROIDY 正代表外国国民 A 行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某未能使有关 1MDB 的事项被撤销，或以其他方式为外国国民 A 获得有利解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某亦同意代表外国国民 A 游说行政当局和 DOJ，以安排将中华人民共和国（“PRC”）国民 A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 公民——移除并遣返回 PRC。这包括但不限于倡导安排 PRC 部长 A 与美国政府官员会晤。在此方面，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民 A 的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 某协助下，试图促成马来西亚总理 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 事项的问题。\n\n5. BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某还在 PRC 与 PRC 部长 A 会面，并同意 BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 某协助下将游说行政当局把 PRC 国民 A 遣返回 PRC。BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某还同意并试图促成 PRC 部长 A 与行政当局、DOJ 及美国国土安全部（“DHS”）的高级官员举行会晤，其明确目的在于为 PRC 部长 A 在其于 2017 年 5 月访问美国期间提供机会，与美国高级官员讨论移除 PRC 国民 A 的事宜。\n\n禁止作为外国委托人或政府代理人行事的刑事规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及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，例如代表该外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或进行游说。该等登记向 DOJ 内国家安全司的《外国代理人登记法》部门（“FARA 部门”）提交。明知且故意未进行登记，以及就依该法规定提交给 FARA 部门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的隐蔽影响。依该法规进行适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估担任外国委托人代理人的个人所作的陈述和活动。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及金额，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相关当事人和实体\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 从捐款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 作为财务副主席，能够接触并联系行政当局的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同期，BROIDY 拥有并经营数家国内和国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis 曾经并现为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与 BROIDY 和 A 某具有个人及商业关系。2020 年 8 月 31 日，Davis 在夏威夷地区美国联邦地区法院就一份单项刑事起诉书认罪答辩，该起诉书指控其协助和教唆违反 FARA 的行为。\n\n10. A 某曾经并现为美国公民、商人及演艺人员，并具有国际联系，包括与外国国民 A 的联系。\n\n11. 外国国民 A 是一名居住在东亚的富有商人，因其策划和实施从 1MDB 侵吞数十亿美元的计划而被另行起诉。\n\n12. A 公司是一家由 A 某设立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国国民 A 的电汇，并被 A 某用于支付 BROIDY、Davis 及其他人为游说活动所获的报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是Person A（A人士）的关联人，并且是一名受雇于DOJ（美国司法部）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单项罪名起诉书作出认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由Person C（C人士）经营并受BROIDY和Person C控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中国公民A）是中华人民共和国公民，持临时签证居住在美国。中华人民共和国政府，包括PRC Minister A（中国部长A）和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将PRC National A从美国遣返至中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ一直积极调查据称与1MDB挪用公款计划洗钱所得有关的Foreign National A（外国公民A）的交易。2016年7月，DOJ提起多项民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称使用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Foreign National A及其他人共谋清洗从1MDB挪用的数十亿美元资金，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚和阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）官员支付贿赂，违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n罪名项一\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n（共谋担任未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 兹重述并援引第1至16段。\n\n18. 至迟自2017年3月起至至少约2018年1月期间，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）明知而与其他已知及未知人员共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地，在未向司法部长登记的情况下，担任外国委托人的代理人，具体而言，就1MDB事项及遣返PRC National A事宜担任Foreign National A的代理人，违反22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n\n共谋的目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis（戴维斯）、Person A和Foreign National A策划秘密、未登记的活动，以游说Administration（政府行政当局）和DOJ，从而：(1) 终止1MDB事项，或以其他方式使该等事项获得对Foreign National A有利的解决；以及(2) 将PRC National A从美国遣返至中华人民共和国。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis和Person A利用BROIDY与总统及其Administration的接触渠道和被认为具有的影响力，从Foreign National A取得付款，以赚取数百万美元。\n\n21. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis和Person A隐瞒BROIDY与Foreign National A的接触及其从Foreign National A获得的付款，以维持BROIDY在美国官员中的信誉，并推进该非法游说计划。\n\n共谋的方式和手段\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内容：\n\n前往国际地点会见外国委托人和政府官员\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Higginbotham以不同组合前往泰国、马来西亚和中华人民共和国，会见Foreign National A、PRC Minister A及其他人，就BROIDY将如何在官方渠道之外游说Administration和DOJ以换取数百万美元进行谈判和讨论。\n\n与美国官员的会面和联系\n\n24. BROIDY直接并通过中间人，为影响美国政府最高层官员（包括总统和司法部长）以使PRC Minister A和Foreign National A获益的会面及其他努力提供便利，并试图提供便利。\n\n25. BROIDY直接并通过中间人联系美国政府高级官员，为包括PRC Minister 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面，使这些外国官员有机会正式请求有利的政府行动，包括以有利方式解决1MDB事项及遣返PRC National A。\n\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis和Person A同意隐瞒BROIDY代表Foreign National A进行游说的协议，包括其以个人身份以及作为PRC Minister A中间人的身份进行游说。BROIDY、Davis和Person A未向美国政府官员及公众披露，并同意不披露BROIDY与Foreign National A之间的财务安排及其从Foreign National A获得的付款。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对Foreign National A采取保密措施并使用匿名指称。此外，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在就Foreign National A和PRC National A进行通信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明示或默示地同意不依照FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）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及其他人在哥伦比亚特区及其他地点实施了以下公开行为以及其他行为。\n\nI. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的活动\nA. BROIDY同意以$8 Million预付聘金为Foreign National A游说\n\n28. 约于2017年3月，Person A联系Davis，试图寻找一名与Administration关系密切、能够帮助一名外国客户的人。Davis继而告诉BROIDY，她在马来西亚有一名可能需要就没收事项获得帮助的潜在客户。\n\n29. 约于2017年3月7日，Person A要求Davis向其发送BROIDY的简历，其中说明BROIDY与Administration高级官员的关系，并附上BROIDY与总统的照片。约于2017年3月7日，应Davis的要求，BROIDY的助理通过电子邮件向Davis发送了BROIDY与总统的合影。Person A称，其希望取得这些照片，以便向Foreign National A突出BROIDY与Administration的密切接触渠道。\n\n30. 约于2017年3月8日，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“你会在16日于LA与[Person A]会面吗？他该周末将前往亚洲。”BROIDY回复：“我想会。我们晚些时候再谈。”\n\n31. 约于2017年3月13日，BROIDY与Davis和Person A会面，讨论Foreign National A和1MDB。在会面中，Person A向BROIDY说明了其与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称，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，其中部分内容为：“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约于2017年3月13日，Davis向Person A转发了一份Law Firm A与Foreign National A之间的“聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务”，以便Person A向Foreign National A出示该协议。“聘用及费用协议”约定，Foreign National A将预先支付$8 million聘金；如“事项”在180天内解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费；如“事项”在365天内解决，则支付$50 million。协议草案附有附件A，说明“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A和Person C均未向Foreign National A提供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游说Administration和DOJ的服务。\n\n33. 尽管明知须登记为外国委托人的代理人，BROIDY、Davis或Person A从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人的工作向FARA Unit（《外国代理人登记法》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，除非其获得$1 million报酬，否则不会前往，且其希望Person A使用“未受污染”的资金向其付款。BROIDY得到保证，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：“我希望资金汇入[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和Person A举行的会面互发短信。其中，BROIDY提及Foreign National A时询问：“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及其助理发送了曼谷Shangri-La Hotel（香格里拉酒店）的链接，并部分写道：“你们在线预订后，请把Elliott的房间和我的房间的酒店确认函发给我，我将转发。”同日，Davis另行发送电子邮件给Person A，告诉其预订Shangri-La Hotel的房间并向她发送确认函。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A]正在预订我们的酒店”，随后又补充道：“也把Elliott的电汇信息发给我。”Davis回复并提供了一个以Law Firm A名义开立的账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 约于2017年5月2日，Davis向BROIDY发送电子邮件，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，旅途愉快——祝愿一场令人兴奋而繁荣的冒险之旅开始！”\n\n39. 约于2017年5月2日，BROIDY、Davis和Person A抵达曼谷。在该次行程中，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在酒店套房内会见了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聘金，并希望BROIDY联系美国司法部长，以使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。BROIDY同意为Foreign National A游说Administration和DOJ以取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其正代表Foreign National A工作的事实。在会面期间或其后不久，Davis和BROIDY讨论了协助将PRC National A从美国遣返的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY称，款项不应直接来自Foreign National A，并且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A指认了一名可以向BROIDY及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A和Davis同意，款项将先经由Person A转入，然后通过Law Firm A支付给BROIDY。BROIDY和Davis同意，BROIDY将向Davis支付BROIDY所收取款项的一定比例。Person A还同意向Davis支付Person A所收取资金的一定比例。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. 在泰国与 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）会面后，于2017年5月8日前后，Company A（A 公司）收到一笔由 Foreign National A 指示、来自香港一家实体的约$2.8 million 电汇。同日，Person A（A 某）从 Company A 账户取得一张以 Law Firm A（A 律师事务所）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 单独电汇$48,000。同日，第三方公司依 Person A 的指示向 Law Firm A 账户转入$250,000，使存入 Law Firm A 账户的总额达到$1 million。数日内，于2017年5月8日前后转入 Law Firm A 账户的$1 million中，约$900,000从 Law Firm A 账户转入 BROIDY（布罗伊迪）的一个商业账户。\n\n41. 于2017年5月8日前后，Davis（戴维斯）向 BROIDY 发送短信：“[Law Firm A] 中的两笔电汇均来自 [Person A]。剩余余额于20分钟前送至你的办公室——”。Davis 随后补充道：“银行本票总额702[.]”\n\n42. 于2017年5月17日前后，Foreign National A 安排由一家香港公司向 Company A 发送一笔国际电汇。同日，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入$3 million。于2017年5月18日前后，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入$600,000，并向与 Davis 关联的一个商业实体账户转入$900,000。于2017年5月18日前后，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入$500,000。约一周内，Law Firm A 分两笔另向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入$950,000。\n\n43. 于2017年5月17日前后，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 Foreign National A 经由 Person A 向 BROIDY 支付款项，以及 BROIDY 向 Davis 支付一定比例款项一事交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis 问道：“你收到了吗？”BROIDY 回答：“收到了。给你发了 Wickr[.] 早上给你汇款。”Wickr 是一种允许端到端加密及内容到期消失的通信应用程序。BROIDY 后来补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”Davis 回答：“亚洲开市时……至少现在正逐步向前推进。”BROIDY 回答：“是。就接下来的2笔电汇向他们施压。”BROIDY 后来部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已经到账，并确认最后的2正在发送。请询问 [BROIDY's assistant]。”\n\n44. 于2017年5月25日前后，Foreign National A 安排向 Company A 作出第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。于2017年5月26日前后，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入$2 million，以部分履行 BROIDY 与 Foreign National A 因 BROIDY 协助处理1MDB民事没收案件而约定的$8 million聘用费。同日，$600,000从 Law Firm A 账户转入与 Davis 关联的一个商业账户。于2017年5月26日前后，Law Firm A 向由 Person C（C 某）控制的账户转入$1 million。于2017年6月上旬前后，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入$650,000。\n\nD. BROIDY 为 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）促成并试图促成会面，以及解决1MDB案件的努力\n\n45. 于2017年6月5日前后，BROIDY 向 Person D（D 某）——一名政治顾问及总统的前竞选助理——发送短信，请求 Person D 与政府合作，为 Malaysian Prime Minister A 安排访问：“亚洲国家对于7月会面非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”根据一项咨询协议，BROIDY 已同意每月向 Person D 支付$25,000，以获得有关如何应对政府事务的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 Foreign National A 交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis 写道：“你睡觉前请打电话……[Foreign National A] 一直打电话询问消息[.]”BROIDY 回答：“好。会打给你。我今晚正前往 D.C. 处理 [Foreign National A] 和亚洲国家的事[.]”\n\n47. 于2017年6月15日前后，应 Person A 的请求，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”Davis 补充道：“Principal”，指的是 Foreign National A。同日，BROIDY 回答：“可以[.]”\n\n48. 于2017年6月17日前后，BROIDY 与 Davis 讨论 Malaysian Prime Minister A。于2017年6月前后，BROIDY 询问总统是否愿与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 打高尔夫球。BROIDY 和 Davis 认为，这会使 Foreign National A 满意，并使 Malaysian Prime Minister A 得以尝试解决1MDB事项。BROIDY 还希望从 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的政府获得额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球能进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 于2017年6月19日前后，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n50. 于2017年6月29日前后，BROIDY 向白宫一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统进行高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[Person E]，如我所述，POTUS 同意于7月下旬或8月初在 DC 或 Bedminster 与 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，数周前已向国务院发送一封信，要求举行会面。”\n\n51. 于2017年6月30日前后，BROIDY 就高尔夫球活动向 Person E（E 某）发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就 [PRC National A] 和 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 与 POTUS 的高尔夫球日期通话。”当天晚些时候，BROIDY 又跟进道：“[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\n52. 于2017年7月3日前后，BROIDY 再次就 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统的高尔夫球日期向 Person E 发送短信：“早上好，[Person E]。如果你今天能向 POTUS 确认与 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 的高尔夫球日期，对我将极有帮助。POTUS 告诉我，他乐意在 Bedminster 或 DC 打球。我们通话后，我向 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 提到他将在上周得到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当天晚些时候，BROIDY 再次向 Person E 发送短信：“[Person E]，我正在跟进。请把 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 与 POTUS 打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 于2017年7月5日前后，BROIDY 与 Person E 就高尔夫球活动交换信息。在其他信息中，BROIDY 发送短信：“[Person E]，刚给你留言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott[.]”Person E 回答：“这事在 NSC 那里[.] 他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成[.]”\n\n54. 于2017年7月11日前后，Davis 转达 Person A 的信息，向 BROIDY 发送短信：“Wickr[.] 现在是下午5点……我认为我们得采取行动。日期和其他事项。我们正被打得很惨。”这些信息是指确认 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及 Foreign National A 因尚未确认日期而感到不满。Davis 继续道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我正被信息淹没[.]”BROIDY 回答：“看 wikr[.]”次日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“在 wikr 上给我发短信。我正要起飞，需要去 WH[.] 正在起飞。现在就需要[.]”Davis 回答：“完成了[.]”BROIDY 回答：“收到了。谢谢[.] 正试图让 [Person F] 尽快打电话[.]”Person F（F 某）当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 于2017年7月13日前后，Davis 向 BROIDY 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 pis pis 去 D.C.，坐在 WH 直到你办成。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 于2017年7月13日前后，BROIDY 再次就高尔夫球日期向 Person E 发送短信：“嗨，[Person E]，已经2周了。再次询问 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 与 POTUS 打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliot[.]”Person E 回答：“我现在再查一下[.] 这些事情需要经过流程——”BROIDY 回答：“谢谢！！”Person E 回复：“NSC 正在处理和协调[.]”BROIDY 回答：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”Person E 回复：“他们正直接与马来西亚方面合作。NSC 正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 于2017年7月15日前后，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“正在努力争取明天的会面。”\n\n58. 于2017年7月17日前后，Davis 转达 Person A 代表 Foreign National A 表达的紧迫性，向 BROIDY 发送短信：“[Person E] 现在必须给你这个日期，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 Malaysian Prime Minister A 会面，也指涉及 PRC National A 的事项。BROIDY 回答：“同意。正在不断施压[.]”\n\n59. 于2017年7月18日前后，BROIDY 与 Davis 就安排总统和 Malaysian Prime Minister A 会面交换数条短信。在这些信息中，Davis 写道：“你能查看 Wikr 吗[.] 真的、真的需要那个日期。我一整天都因这件事忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌[.]”Davis 跟进道：“今天必须得到这个日期——我们正被彻底击垮。”据 Person A 称，Foreign National A 正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。BROIDY 回答：“现在给 [Person E] 打电话[.]”Davis 部分回复道：“给每个人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[.] 也给 [Person G] 打电话。我们今天需要这个[.]”Person G（G 某）是总统的行政助理。BROIDY 回复：“现在就在办。”\n\n60. 于2017年7月19日前后，Davis 就安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统会面的日期向 BROIDY 发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[.]”BROIDY 次日回答：“请耐心等待。我正在获取一些有关会面的信息[.]”\n\n61. 于2017年7月21日前后，BROIDY 就高尔夫球活动向 Person E 发送短信：“[Person E]，马来西亚方面尚未从 NSC 得到任何消息。POTUS 说他会在7月下旬或8月初与 [Malaysian Prime Minister 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。我们已进入第4周。我知道你很忙，也必须遵守程序，但我一直非常耐心。这件事不但没有带来积极影响，现在反而正在对我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将万分感激。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. 于2017年7月24日前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“收到9月在 NJ 的高尔夫球日期。联合国大会前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”Person D 回答：“让我们跟进并确保日期得到 NSC 确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的日期？”BROIDY 回复：“谢谢你！！太棒了。由 [Person E] 给 [Person H] 的。”\n\n63. 于2017年7月27日前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“刚刚再次与马来西亚方面核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长均未听到任何消息。请尽快查一下。致意，Elliott。”BROIDY 跟进道：“嗨，[Person D]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事替我给 NSA 打电话。NSC 仍未就会面与马来西亚大使联系。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”Person D 回答：“E——今天上午会再打电话。”\n\n64. 于2017年7月27日前后，BROIDY 向国家安全委员会一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统进行高尔夫球活动。\n\n65. 于2017年7月29日前后，Davis 就 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统的会面向 BROIDY 发送短信：“他们被告知12 sept 是会面日期。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二？？？？没有高尔夫球？？”Davis 随即发送短信：“Wickr[.]”BROIDY 回答：“可能是两场会面。大使应该问问。周六在 Bedminster 打高尔夫球，周二在 WH？”\n\n66. 2017年8月7日前后，BROIDY（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，其中载有据称为 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）拟用于即将与 United States Secretary of State（美国国务卿）举行会晤的谈话要点。Davis（戴维斯）从 Person A（A 人）处收到该等谈话要点——Person A 代表 Foreign National A（外国籍人士 A）提供了这些要点——随后 Davis 将其转交给 BROIDY。该等谈话要点除其他事项外，提及 BROIDY 与马来西亚持续存在的关系及其为马来西亚开展的工作，并将 1MDB 确定为“一项优先事项”。该等谈话要点指出 1MDB 所造成的损害不足，并具体说明：“美国检察官的介入造成了不必要的美国[sic]紧张情绪，并且可能在马来西亚人中引发负面反应。”\n\n67. 2017年8月7日前后，BROIDY 还将这些谈话要点发送给 Person D（D 人），紧接着发送了一条信息，解释称：“以上是马来西亚总理附上的其谈话要点。你可以与[为国务卿工作的助理人员]分享。”BROIDY 还试图获得有关马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿在马来西亚举行会晤时间安排的详情。\n\n68. 2017年8月7日稍后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发信息称：“[国务卿]于8日与[马来西亚总理 A]会面，于9日与副总理会面。让我们以我的名义作个介绍。他们知道我的名字，但可能不会立即认出 Circinus 的名字。谢谢！”Person D 回应称：“促成这种联系肯定很重要。这不太可能成为正式会晤的一部分，但会努力在他们交谈期间作个介绍。”\n\n69. 2017年8月9日前后，Foreign National A 促使一家香港公司向 Company A（A 公司）转账约 \\$12.8 million。随后 Person A 向 Law Firm A（A 律师事务所）转账 \\$3 million。这是向 BROIDY 支付的最后一笔款项。BROIDY 共计获得 \\$9 million。约在次日，Law Firm A 向与 Davis 有关联的一个商业账户转账 \\$900,000。在随后的数日内，Law Firm A 向属于 BROIDY 的账户转账数十万美元。\n\n70. 2017年8月10日前后，BROIDY 就马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿的会晤向 Person D 发送短信：“从马来西亚获悉，会谈进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有作介绍。;- ....”\n\n71. 2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“马来西亚有任何更新吗？”Person D 回应称：“截至目前，活动将在 DC 举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫球，但我正在努力安排。可能必须就此直接找[Person I（I 人）]，并利用他们两人一起打高尔夫球的过往经历。”BROIDY 回应称：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接致电[Person I]的一名副手或[Person I]。还需要在会晤中增加时间。我想与你讨论细节。请告知何种方式最佳。”Person I 当时是 White House（白宫）的一名高级官员。\n\n72. 2017年8月31日前后，BROIDY 起草并向 Person I 发送了一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理 A 与 President（总统）进行一场高尔夫球赛。\n\n73. 2017年9月11日前后，Davis 为 BROIDY 起草了一封拟发送给总统的信函，以备马来西亚总理 A 与总统会晤，并将该信函交给 BROIDY。该信函载有马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信函从未交给总统。\n\n74. 在 BROIDY 多次努力安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 进行一场高尔夫球赛后，马来西亚总理 A 于2017年9月12日前后在白宫与总统会晤。尽管 BROIDY 联系了政府内的高级官员，试图在正式会晤之外安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 进行高尔夫会晤，但马来西亚总理 A 与总统之间并未举行高尔夫球赛。\n\n75. 2017年10月6日前后，BROIDY 在白宫与总统会晤。BROIDY 在会晤期间没有提出 1MDB 事项，但向 Davis 表示其已提出该等事项，明知 Davis 会将该信息传达给 Person A 和 Foreign National A。\n\n76. 2018年1月5日前后，BROIDY 起草了与 1MDB 有关的谈话要点，以向 Foreign National A 展示 BROIDY 代表其所作的努力。除其他事项外，该等谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正与 DoJ（司法部）合作，以反制前一届政府在马来西亚针对 1MDB 提起的案件。我已制定一项策略，以联系 DoJ 和 NSC（国家安全委员会）双方的有关人士，寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长[]举行会晤。她是一名[总统]任命的官员，并且可以提供帮助。……3. 如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺会解决这一问题。重要的是我应遵循其指示，但将继续传达此问题的重要性。”这些陈述均属虚假。\n\nII. 将 PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民 A）从美国移除的活动\n\nA. BROIDY 前往中国与 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A）会面\n\n77. 2017年5月前后，在曼谷之行后，BROIDY 同意前往香港再次与 Foreign National A 会面。出行前，Davis 和 BROIDY 讨论称，PRC National A 被驱逐出美国对 Foreign National A 而言十分重要。香港之行的目的是与 Foreign National A 及 PRC 的一名外国政府官员会面，讨论 PRC National A。\n\n78. 2017年5月15日前后，Davis 就前往香港之行的旅行安排和行程向 BROIDY 的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis 还将 Davis 公司（戴维斯公司）的银行信息通过电子邮件发送给 BROIDY 和 Person C（C 人）。\n\n79. 2017年5月18日前后，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，在当地一间酒店套房内与 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A 会面。PRC Minister A 向 BROIDY 谈及 PRC National A 及其被指控的罪行，并称 PRC 政府希望 PRC National A 被送回 PRC。PRC Minister A 要求 BROIDY 利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将 PRC National A 移除并送回 PRC。他们还讨论了当时被 PRC 监禁的美国人可能返回美国一事。PRC Minister A 还称其不久将访问 Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），且难以安排与某些美国政府高级官员举行会晤。\n\nB. BROIDY 游说美国高级官员，以移除 PRC National A\n\n80. 2017年5月20日前后，在从中国返程途中，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“我会尝试让本周成为我们与[司法部长]的重要一周。”\n\n81. 2017年5月21日前后，BROIDY 就其与 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A 的会晤向 Person D 发送短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否周一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？Elliott。”\n\n82. 2017年5月22日前后，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。”随后 BROIDY 又称：“我正通过电子邮件向你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，Person D 回应称：“已向[司法部长]提出会晤请求。”\n\n83. 2017年5月22日前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送了一封主题为“美中之间大幅加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。BROIDY 在该电子邮件中附上一份由 BROIDY 致司法部长的备忘录，意图使 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，且该内容源自 PRC Minister A 和 Foreign National A。收到后，BROIDY 和 Person C 修订了该备忘录。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY 歪曲了其中国之行的原因以及导致其与 PRC Minister A 会面的情形。BROIDY 没有披露其与 Foreign National A 的联系，也没有披露 Foreign National A 在安排 BROIDY 与 PRC Minister A 会面中所起的作用。BROIDY 还没有披露 Foreign National A 已向其支付的 \\$4 million。BROIDY 还没有披露，其就 PRC National A 所作的游说努力至少部分是依照其与 Foreign National A 的财务安排进行的，并且可能导致额外付款。\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，显著加强与美国的双边合作。”BROIDY 写及 PRC Minister A 即将前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的行程，PRC Minister A 及其代表团计划在该行程中会见若干美国政府高级官员。BROIDY 表示，司法部长与 PRC Minister A 会面将富有成效。BROIDY 还指出，根据 PRC Minister A 的说法，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。随后 BROIDY 补充称：\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]——中国指称其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋——应在尽快从美国被驱逐出境（其签证将在未来一个月左右到期）或被引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至中国，以便其因这些违法行为被起诉，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. 2017年5月23日前后，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 回应称：“Elliott——信函昨天已经递送。请查看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会晤，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会打给你。我今晚正在乘坐红眼航班，以便能早些返回 DC。”BROIDY 回应称：“很好。谢谢[]。还请设法确定他的会晤是否已定，或者我们是否可以安排在周四，或周五或周六在 Alabama（阿拉巴马州）举行。”次日，即2017年5月24日前后，Person D 回应称：“正在等待 DoJ 就会晤——我们的和[PRC Minister A]的——作出回复。请告知你何时有空，我们可以会面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n87. 2017年5月24日前后，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。但我直接收到了他的回复短信，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 约于2017年5月25日，BROIDY向D某人发送短信：“今天上午10:00在司法部开会。然后明天与FBI和DHS开会。也许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到那里，并可进行一次简短会面。然后安排与[]一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请今天一早设法见到[Attorney General（司法部长）]。我们办成此事确实非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。E[.]”D某人回复：“E——正在处理。[Attorney General]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”当日稍后，BROIDY向D某人发送短信：“细节是，我备忘录中的三件事仅供[Attorney General]知悉。[PRC Minister A（中国部长A）]希望直接告诉[Attorney General]。我的渠道是合法的幕后渠道。[PRC Minister A]的上级希望确认[Attorney General]听到了这三件确实有利于美国的事情[。]”当日稍后，D某人回复：“E——实际上刚刚与[Attorney General]通完电话。消息不太好。你有空谈话时告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n89. 约于2017年5月26日，就为PRC Minister A安排会面一事，BROIDY向D某人发送短信：“上午10点ICE负责人，11:30 FBI。也许在DHS采取行动能够挽回局面。与[Person I（I某人）]简短碰面。这三项内容可以分享。”BROIDY随后又说：“请给我打电话”和“我正在设法控制损害，需要和你谈谈。最好是与[Person I]单独谈谈。”当时，I某人是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n90. 约于2017年5月28日，在Davis将通信内容转录给BROIDY之后，BROIDY向D某人发送电子邮件：“已转录与[the Attorney General]及美国驻华大使之间往来的通信。”BROIDY指出：“我认为[the Attorney General]有一个绝佳机会可进一步促进美国利益。我在下方添加了意见。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件[Attorney General]应当知悉的重要事项。”当日稍后，BROIDY和D某人交换电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n91. 约于2017年5月30日，就PRC Minister A与美国政府官员的会面而言，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“查看Wickr——现在会面事项一切都已明确[。]”BROIDY回复：“是的。一切就绪[。]”Davis回复：“他的会面已恢复安排[。]”\n\n92. 约于2017年5月，应A某人的请求，Davis请BROIDY在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）与PRC Minister A会面。\n\n93. 约于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D某人能否协助PRC Minister A安排与美国政府高级官员会面。\n\n94. 约于2017年5月31日，BROIDY向D某人发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与该副部长会面。他今天下午乘坐下午4点的航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人会面，并且让原本应与他会面的人改为与Vietnam（越南）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，他已移交一名孕妇，接下来的2人将很快送来。他将接收60名中国籍人员以供遣返，但前提是他有一次适当的“简短会面”。这是政府的一大胜利，可以予以宣传。这是两国总统在Mar-a-Lago（海湖庄园）会晤的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n95. D某人回复：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY回复：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在DHS与该副部长会面？他可以提到我的名字。还要设法让[Person I]缓和一下局面。也提到我。谢谢！祈祷一切顺利。”\n\n96. 约于2017年5月31日，就PRC Minister A据称与I某人的会面，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“原则上[Person I]可以——只是日程安排问题？”BROIDY回复：“只是临时通知的日程安排问题。大概在接下来一小时左右仍会有消息。[PRC Minister A]没有任何问题。”BROIDY随后继续说道：“请转达我对该副部长的良好祝愿。再稍等一会儿。”Davis回复：“是的，我正在这样告诉他。”BROIDY回复：“告诉他，我正在向白宫和[Attorney General]说明发生了什么。”随后，Davis发送短信：“[Person I]今天下午不是安排在Haiti（海地）吗？”BROIDY回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这件事？？你确定吗？[Attorney General]的人也没有提到[。]”Davis回复：“这在DHS网站上[。]他下午在那里[。]刚刚与副部长通话，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。通常应由他们的大使处理。这真他妈一团糟。”Davis回复：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 约于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（中国籍人士A）]”的新闻文章。\n\n98. 约于2017年6月27日，BROIDY就将PRC National A驱逐出境一事向H某人的配偶发送短信。BROIDY知道，H某人是一名在国际上颇为成功的商人、经常向政治竞选活动捐款的人士，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触并影响总统，且可能有效地寻求将PRC National A驱逐出境。BROIDY向H某人的配偶发送短信：“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，或者也许共进午餐？期待在[]Hotel（酒店）见到您！致意，Elliott[。]”BROIDY随后继续说道：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H]让我通过短信将这些信息发送给您。我将向您发送若干关于逃犯[PRC National A]的材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报……高度紧急的事项是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证于6月30日到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝，这至关重要。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单。……该命令须来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与曾任FBI人员的人士关系密切，而这些人负责其私人安保。[The President of the PRC（中国国家主席）]曾在Mar-A-Lago向[the President（总统）]提到，他希望[PRC National A]被送回。[PRC Minister A]曾与我会面，并请求我就[PRC National A]提供协助……他承诺将被中国扣为人质的某些美国公民送回，并将接收数量极大的中国非法移民遣返回中国。最后，他提出将在North Korea（朝鲜）问题上提供新的协助。\n\n99. 约于2017年6月28日，BROIDY在一次社交聚会上与H某人及其配偶会面。会面后，BROIDY就PRC National A与H某人的配偶交换短信：“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]在DHS禁飞名单上？[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推进遣返。这将是我们两国之间令人难以置信的一步。[PRC Minister A]说，他们感谢您的帮助。”H某人的配偶回复：“这件事已交由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在办理。”\n\n100. 约于2017年6月29日，BROIDY和Davis就PRC National A的签证申请交换短信。BROIDY发送短信：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”Davis回复：“我不知道。”BROIDY回复：“抱歉，总是会生成。换句话说，每名申请人最终都会书面收到同意或拒绝[？]抱歉，书面收到同意或拒绝[？]”Davis回复：“是[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月30日，Davis提及他们为促成PRC National A被驱逐出境以及可能让被关押在中国的美国公民返回所作的努力，向BROIDY发送短信：“Wickr。你现在是关键人物。在你于这7月4日为这个国家完成这些事情之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章[。]”BROIDY回复：“我会全力以赴，直到完成为止[。]”Davis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，不要离开那个人。”BROIDY回复：“同意。”Davis继续说道：“告诉他——如果我们今天在营业结束前收到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成该信函），那么我们将在7月4日前让那2名美国人回国[。]之后，在第二阶段——我们可以接收那60人[。]”BROIDY回复：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会给我回电话。正在通话。”\n\n102. 约于2017年6月30日，BROIDY和Davis就PRC National A交换了数条短信。BROIDY发送短信：“收到[Person H]的消息。他向POTUS重申了。”BROIDY随后说道：“另外，[Person E（E某人）]向我发短信说他被耽搁了，但正在处理此事。”同日，Davis回复：“今天能否取得关于撤销的证明？”Davis随后具体说明：“来自[Person E]的？”\n\n103. 约于2017年7月1日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“与[Person E]长时间交谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”BROIDY实际上没有与E某人交谈，但曾就PRC National A的签证申请与其交换短信。BROIDY未向E某人披露他与PRC Minister A关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约于2017年7月2日，BROIDY和Davis就PRC National A及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，Davis发送短信：“今天星期日安排与[President of the PRC]通话，讨论North Korea问题。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他听到了[Person H]的消息。”\n\n105. 约于2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“[President]周三离开D.C.前往Europe（欧洲）[。]”Davis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，A某人向自己发送了PRC National A的红色通报副本、PRC National A护照和身份证的图像，以及与PRC National A和PRC National A涉嫌实施的犯罪有关的其他文件。\n\n107. 约于2017年7月，A某人要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在Washington, D.C.的PRC Embassy（中国驻美国大使馆）与中国驻美国大使会面。该会面的目的是向中国大使转达有关PRC National A的信息。约于2017年7月16日，Higginbotham前往Washington, D.C.的PRC Embassy并与大使会面。会面期间，Higginbotham告诉大使，美国政府官员正在处理引渡PRC National A一事，并且今后将有关于该引渡后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，Higginbotham向A某人报告了所发生的情况，A某人说他会通知Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）。A某人随后告诉Higginbotham，Foreign National A对该次会面感到高兴，而且该会面使Foreign National A在中国面前获得了可信度。\n\n108. 约于2017年7月18日，BROIDY通过电子邮件向Davis发送了H某人的联系信息。Davis为PRC Minister A和H某人接通了多次电话，以推进将PRC National A驱逐出境的游说活动。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月26日，BROIDY和Davis就PRC National A及其从美国被驱逐至中国一事交换短信。其中，Davis写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式传送。到目前为止——他说没有[。]”BROIDY回复：“已请3名不同的人跟进[。]”BROIDY随后补充道：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n110. 约于 2017 年 7 月 26 日，BROIDY（艾略特·布罗伊迪）向 Person H（H 人士）发送短信，约其在 Washington, D.C.（哥伦比亚特区华盛顿）的一家酒店会面，以讨论 PRC National A（中国籍人士 A）：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知你在 DC，我也在，住在[酒店]。你今天想一起喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott。”同日稍后，Person H 的配偶向 BROIDY 发送短信：“嗨，Elliot。你能否再给我发送一次你之前发短信提到的那名中国男子的详情，谢谢[。]”BROIDY 回应道：“嗨，[]，你指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）]？致意，Elliott[。]”Person H 的配偶回复：“[PRC National A]。”随后，BROIDY 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，BROIDY 与 Davis（戴维斯）就 PRC National A 互发短信。Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？？ ”Davis 随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”BROIDY 回应道：“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，BROIDY 多次向 Davis 发送短信。在这些信息中，BROIDY 写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”BROIDY 随后补充道：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破性机会[。]”\n\n113. 约于 2017 年 8 月 19 日，BROIDY 在 Person H 的游艇上与 Person H 会面。在他们共处期间，BROIDY 向 Person H 询问涉及 PRC National A 的事项。随后，Person H 在 BROIDY 在场的情况下致电总统，询问 PRC National A 在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n114. 约于 2017 年 9 月 13 日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“请给我发送庇护文章。以及其他文章[。]”同日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送了有关 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n115. 约于 2017 年 10 月 2 日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送了一篇有关 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n116. 约于 2018 年 1 月 5 日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“尽快给我发送更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\n\n以上行为均违反 18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 为依据《美国法典》第 18 编第 981(a)(1)(C) 条及第 28 编第 2461(c) 条主张没收之目的，现重述并通过援引纳入本起诉书第一项罪名中的指控。\n\n2. 根据《美国法典》第 18 编第 981(a)(1)(C) 条及第 28 编第 2461(c) 条，如被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 被判第一项罪名成立，即违反《美国法典》第 18 编第 371 条，则其应向 United States of America（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。兹进一步通知，美利坚合众国拟在定罪后寻求作出针对 BROIDY 的金钱判决，金额相当于本段所述财产的价值。\n\n3. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，致使上述任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给第三方，或交由第三方保管；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖权之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减损；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依据经《美国法典》第 28 编第 2461(c) 条纳入的《美国法典》第 21 编第 853(p) 条，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020 年 9 月 30 日\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部\n公共廉正处处长\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副处长\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公共廉正处\n审判律师\n\n附件 B\n\n已提交至美国夏威夷联邦地区法院\n2020 年 8 月 17 日上午 10:23\n书记官 Michelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩）\n\nKENIT M. PRICE（肯尼特·M·普赖斯）#10523\n夏威夷地区\n联邦检察官\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼斯·M·索伦森）\n助理联邦检察官\nPJKK 联邦大楼 6-100 室\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（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部\n公共廉正处处长\n\nJOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE（肖恩·F·马尔林）\n选举犯罪副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJAMES C. MANN（詹姆斯·C·曼恩）\n公共廉正处\n审判律师\n\n美国夏威夷联邦地区法院\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），　)　刑事案号 20-00068 JAO\n\n原告，　)\n)\n)　起诉书\n诉　)\n)　（18 U.S.C. § 2 和 22 U.S.C. §§\n612 和 618(a)）\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯），　)\n)\n被告。　)\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本起诉书有关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于 2017 年 3 月起至至少约 2018 年 1 月，NICKIE LUM DAVIS 与 Person A（A 人士）及 Person B（B 人士）达成协议，作为 Foreign National A（外国籍人士 A）的代理人行事，以换取源自与 Foreign National A 有关联的外国账户、数额达数百万美元的未披露电汇款项。DAVIS 具体同意协助 Person B 游说 President of the United States（美国总统）（“总统”）、其政府以及 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）（“DOJ”），以撤销对 Foreign National A 因其在从 1Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）——一家由 Malaysian Government（马来西亚政府）全资拥有的战略投资与发展公司——挪用数十亿美元中所起作用的调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告与 Person B 故意未向政府和 DOJ 官员披露 Person B 正代表 Foreign National A 行事。最终，DAVIS 以及 Persons A 和 B 未能成功使 1MDB 调查被撤销。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，DAVIS 还与 Persons A 和 B 达成协议，协助其游说政府和 DOJ，以应 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A 的请求，安排将居住在美国的中国异见人士 PRC National A 移除并送回中国。在此方面，DAVIS 以及 Persons A 和 B 最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为进一步实现 Foreign National A 的利益，DAVIS 协助 Person B 促成 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）与总统于 2017 年 9 月举行会面，部分是为了让 Malaysian Prime Minister A 能够向总统提出解决 1MDB 事项。\n\n5. DAVIS、Person A 及 Person B 还在中国与 PRC Minister A 会面，并同意由 Person B 在 DAVIS 的协助下游说政府，将 PRC National A 送回中国。DAVIS、Person A 及 Person B 还同意并试图促成 PRC Minister A 于 2017 年 5 月访美期间与 DOJ 和 United States Department of Homeland Security（美国国土安全部）（“DHS”）高级官员会面，明确目的在于为 PRC Minister A 创造机会，使其可与美国高级官员讨论移除 PRC National A。\n\n禁止作为外国委托人或政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. Foreign Agents Registration Act（《外国代理人登记法》）（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人士，就某些类型的活动向 Attorney General（总检察长）登记，例如代表外国委托人进行政治或公共关系活动，或游说。该等登记须向 DOJ 内 National Security Division（国家安全司）的 Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit（《外国代理人登记法》处）（“FARA Unit”）提交。明知且故意未登记，以及在依照该法规定向 FARA Unit 提交的文件中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隐蔽影响。根据该法规进行适当登记，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所从事活动。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 过去及现在均为美国公民、女商人和顾问，与 Persons A 和 B 存在个人和业务关系。\n\n9. Person A 为美国公民、商人和艺人，具有国际联系，包括与 Foreign National A 的联系。\n\n10. 自约 2016 年 4 月至 2018 年 4 月，Person B 担任一个全国性政治委员会的副财务主席。以该身份，Person B 向捐款人筹集大额政治捐款，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，Person B 继续担任副财务主席，并维持接触及联系总统政府高级官员的渠道，包括总统。在同一期间，Person B 拥有并经营数家美国国内和国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. Foreign National A 是居住在东亚的一名富有商人，因其策划和实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元的计划所起作用，已被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A 公司）是一家由 Person A 设立的有限责任公司，用于接收 Foreign National A 的电汇款项，以支付 Person B 的游说活动费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是 Person A 的关联人，且是一名受雇于 DOJ 的持牌律师。2019 年 11 月 20 日，Higginbotham 在 United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一项指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的起诉书罪名认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A 律师事务所）是一家由 Person B 的配偶 Person C（C 人士）经营的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A 是一名中国异见人士，持临时签证居住在美国。中国政府，包括 PRC Minister A 和中国国家主席，正寻求将 PRC National A 从美国移除并送回中国。\n\n16. 自 2016 年末至 2019 年，DOJ 正积极调查被指与 1MDB 挪用计划洗钱所得收益有关的 Foreign National A 交易。2016 年 7 月，DOJ 提起多项民事没收诉讼，寻求没收被指以 1MDB 洗钱所得收益购买的数百万美元资产。2018 年 11 月 1 日，DOJ 提起刑事起诉书，指控 Foreign National A 及其他人共谋清洗从 1MDB 挪用的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向马来西亚和 Abu Dhabi（阿布扎比）的多名官员行贿而违反 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（《反海外腐败法》）。\n\n一、解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的活动\n\nA. Person B 同意以 $8 Million 预付聘金为 Foreign National A 进行游说\n\n17. 约于 2017 年 3 月，DAVIS 告知 Person B，她在马来西亚有一名可能的客户，可能“需要有关没收方面的帮助”。\n\n18. 约于 2017 年 3 月 5 日，应 Person B 的要求，DAVIS 通过电子邮件向 Person 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 Person B 发送了一篇 Bloomberg（彭博社）文章，标题为“[Foreign National A]信托请求在没收诉讼中逾期提出请求”，并向 Person B 发送短信：“你的电子邮件里有法院提交文件[。]”Person B 回应道：“谢谢。会审阅。”DAVIS 回复：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[。]”Person B 再次回应道：“好的。5 分钟[。]”\n\n19. Person A（A某）要求DAVIS（戴维斯）向其发送Person B（B某）的个人简介，该简介描述了Person B与政府高层官员的关系，以及Person B与总统的合影。约在2017年3月7日，应DAVIS要求，Person B的助理通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了Person B与总统的合影。Person A称其希望获得这些照片，以便突出Person B与政府的密切接触。\n\n20. 约在2017年3月8日，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“你是否会在洛杉矶，于16日在Person A于该周末赴亚洲旅行前与其会面？”Person B回复：“我想会的。我们晚点再谈。”同日晚些时候，DAVIS又向Person B发送短信，以安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的会面。\n\n21. 根据Person B的指示，约在2017年3月13日，DAVIS向Person A转发了Law Firm A（A律师事务所）与Foreign National A（外国籍A某）之间的一份“聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务”。该“聘用及费用协议”规定，Foreign National A将预先支付$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，则另行支付$50 million。协议草案包括附件A，说明该“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。实际上，Person A、Person B、Law Firm A、DAVIS及Person C（C某）均未向Foreign National A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真正目的，是基于Person B的政治关系，取得Person B代表Foreign National A游说政府和DOJ（司法部）的服务。\n\n22. 约在2017年3月13日，Person B与Person A及DAVIS会面，讨论Foreign National A及其法律问题。在该次会面中，Person A向Person B描述了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问Person B能否协助处理涉及Foreign National A的民事没收案件。Person A称，其将与Foreign National A讨论由Person B协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 约在2017年3月15日，就Foreign National A而言，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“……[Person A]的关联人有什么新消息吗？”同日，DAVIS回复：“[Person A]明天将与‘推介人’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向Person B及其助理发送电子邮件，讨论安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的另一次会面。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、Person A及Person B均知悉FARA（外国代理人登记法）及其关于未经登记代表外国委托人的禁止性规定。\n\n26. 尽管其知悉须登记为外国委托人的代理人，但DAVIS、Person A及Person B从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人的工作向DOJ内的FARA部门登记。\n\nB. Person A、Person B及DAVIS在曼谷会见Foreign National A\n\n27. 约在2017年4月，Person A要求Person B前往泰国曼谷与Foreign National A会面。Person B称，除非获得$1 million报酬，否则其不会前往，并且其希望由Person A使用“无污点”资金向其付款。\n\n28. 约在2017年4月28日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信称：“我希望资金汇入[Law Firm A]。”同日，DAVIS回复：“好的。”\n\n29. 约在2017年4月29日，Person B与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，Person B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：“你可以通话时给我打电话。”\n\n30. 约在2017年4月30日，DAVIS就前往曼谷的航班行程向Person B的助理发送电子邮件。DAVIS在电子邮件中部分写道：“如有问题，请给我打电话——这是两张单程票——因为我们需要从另一个国家离开。我们暂时不必担心酒店……”\n\n31. 约在2017年5月1日，DAVIS向Person B及其助理发送了一条通往曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接。同日，DAVIS向Person A发送电子邮件，要求其在香格里拉酒店预订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”，随后又补充道：“另外，把[Person B]的电汇信息发给我。”DAVIS回复并提供了一个以Law Firm A名义开立账户的电汇信息。同日，针对Person B的助理询问其是否应取消Person B的酒店房间预订，DAVIS向Person B的助理发送电子邮件称：“是的，所有房间均已由[Person A]预订。”\n\n32. 约在2017年5月2日，DAVIS向Person B发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A]和我将在抵达区见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——为一段激动人心且繁荣的冒险之旅的开始干杯！”\n\n33. 约在2017年5月2日，DAVIS、Person A及Person B抵达曼谷。旅行期间，DAVIS、Person A及Person B在一间酒店套房内与Foreign National A会面。Person B和Foreign National A谈及1MDB调查及民事没收诉讼。Person B同意协助Foreign National A试图解决该事项。Foreign National A同意向Person B支付$8 million聘用费，并希望Person B联系美国总检察长，以使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。Person B同意代表Foreign National A游说政府和DOJ，以争取对Foreign National A有利的结果，同时隐瞒其正代表Foreign National A工作的事实。关于付款，Person B称，该笔资金不应直接来自Foreign National A，并且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A确定了一名可以向Person B及其他人付款的朋友。Person B、Person A及DAVIS同意，资金将首先经由Person A转付，然后通过Law Firm A向Person B付款。Person B和DAVIS同意，Person B将向DAVIS支付其所收取款项的百分之三十。Person A还同意向DAVIS支付Person A所收取资金的一定比例。Person A告知Person B和DAVIS，Person A的朋友Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实资金的合法性。Higginbotham实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. Person A从Foreign National A收取$8.5 Million；Person B获支付$6 Million；DAVIS获支付$1.7 Million\n\n34. 在泰国与Foreign National A会面后，约在2017年5月8日，Company A（A公司）从一家香港实体收到由Foreign National A指示汇出的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，Person A从Company A账户取得一张金额为$702,000、收款人为Law Firm A的银行本票，该款项立即记入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，第三方公司根据Person A的指示向Law Firm A账户转入$250,000，使存入Law Firm A账户的总额达到$1 million。数日内，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Person B的一个商业账户。\n\n35. 约在2017年5月8日，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[Law Firm A]中的两笔电汇均来自[Person A]。余额已于20分钟前送至你的办公室——”DAVIS随后补充道：“银行本票共计702。”\n\n36. 约在2017年5月9日，Person A促使Company A向一家由DAVIS的家庭成员控制的公司转账$250,000，以使DAVIS受益。\n\n37. 约在2017年5月17日，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A发送一笔国际电汇。同日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转账$3 million。\n\n38. 约在2017年5月17日，Person B与DAVIS就Foreign National A经由Person A向Person B付款，以及Person B向DAVIS支付一定比例款项交换短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS询问：“你收到了吗？”Person B回复：“是的。已在Wickr上发给你。早上向你汇款。”Wickr是一种允许端对端加密和内容到期失效的即时通信应用程序。Person B随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”DAVIS回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正在逐步推进。”Person B回复：“是的。催他们发接下来的两笔电汇。”Person B随后部分补充道：“假设第二笔3已到账，并确认最后两笔正在汇出。请问一下[Person B的助理]。”\n\n39. 约在2017年5月18日，Law Firm A向Person B的一个商业账户转账$500,000，并向由DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转账$900,000。约一周内，Law Firm A又分两笔向Person B的一个商业账户转账$950,000。\n\n40. 约在2017年5月25日，Foreign National A促使向Company A作出第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。约在2017年5月26日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转账$2 million，作为对$8 million聘用费的部分支付；该聘用费系Person B和Foreign National A商定，作为Person B游说政府和DOJ撤销1MDB民事没收案件及任何相关调查的对价。同日，$600,000从Law Firm A账户转入与DAVIS有关联的一个商业账户。\n\nD. Person B为马来西亚总理A安排会面并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 约在2017年5月18日，Person B向Person D（D某）发送短信；Person D是一名政治顾问，也是总统的前竞选助理。Person B要求Person D与政府合作，为马来西亚总理A安排访问：“嗨，[Person D]——请推进亚洲国家访问事宜。日期在7月。”\n\n42. 约在2017年6月5日，Person B再次就马来西亚总理A的访问向Person D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Person A要求，DAVIS向Person B发送有关Foreign National A的短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS根据Person A代表Foreign National A向其传达的信息写道：“如有可能，请在你于以色列上床前打电话……[Foreign National A]一直打电话询问消息。”Person B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\n44. 约在2017年6月15日，DAVIS转达Person A的信息，向Person B发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”DAVIS补充道：“委托人”，系指Foreign National A。同日，Person B回复：“可以。”\n\n45. 约在2017年6月16日，Person B与DAVIS就1MDB以及从一名与Foreign National A有关联的人士处扣押珠宝一事交换短信。\n\n46. 约在2017年6月17日，Person B与DAVIS讨论马来西亚总理A。约在2017年6月，Person B询问总统是否愿意与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。Person B称，并且DAVIS相信，此举将取悦Foreign National A，并将使马来西亚总理A能够试图解决1MDB事项。Person B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\n47. 约在2017年6月19日，DAVIS向Person B发送了一条关于马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。\n\n48. 约于2017年6月25日，DAVIS向人物B发送短信，附上了一篇关于马来西亚总理A和涉及外国国民A的1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。同日，人物B回复：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”DAVIS回复：“请打电话。有消息[。]”DAVIS随后表示，她已向人物B发送了一项“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 约于2017年6月29日，人物B向白宫（White House）一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间的一次高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[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。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，几周前已向国务院发送信函，要求举行一次会面。”\n\n50. 约于2017年6月30日，人物B就该高尔夫球活动向人物E发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[PRC国民A]以及POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期交谈。”当日稍后，人物B又发送：“[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\n51. 约于2017年7月3日，人物B再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫日期向人物E发送短信：“早上好，[人物E]。如果你今天能够向我确认POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期，将对我极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很高兴在Bedminster或DC打球。我们交谈后，我向[马来西亚总理A]提到，他上周会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当日稍后，人物B再次向人物E发送短信：“[人物E]，我在跟进。请向我发送[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期和时间。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约于2017年7月4日，DAVIS向人物B发送短信：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又发送：“清空你的手机——删除信息[。]”\n\n53. 约于2017年7月5日，人物B与人物E就该高尔夫球活动交换信息。在信息中，人物B发送：“[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，[]”人物E回复：“这事在NSC[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成[。]”\n\n54. 约于2017年7月11日，DAVIS转达人物A的信息，向人物B发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期以及其他事项。我们正遭受重创。”这些信息涉及确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫的日期，以及外国国民A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。DAVIS转达人物A的紧迫要求后继续说：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被各种事情淹没了[。]”人物B回复：“看Wickr[。]”次日，人物B向DAVIS发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发信息。我正在起飞，需要到WH[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”DAVIS回复：“完成[。]”人物B回复：“收到了。谢[。]正试图让[人物F]尽快打电话[。]”当时，人物F是国家安全委员会（National Security Council）的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约于2017年7月13日，DAVIS向人物B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，所以请务必去D.C.，在WH一直待到你办成。我会陪着你，如果你担心孤单的话！”\n\n56. 约于2017年7月13日，人物B再次就高尔夫日期向人物E发送短信：“嗨，[人物E]，已经两周了。再次询问POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，[][。]”人物E回复：“我现在再查一下[。]这些事情都要经过流程——”人物B回复：“谢谢你！！”人物E回复：“NSC正在处理并协调[。]”人物B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]合作。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约于2017年7月15日，人物B向DAVIS发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约于2017年7月17日，DAVIS转达人物A代表外国国民A表达的紧迫要求，向人物B发送短信：“[人物E]现在需要给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来毫无能力[。]”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面，也指涉及PRC国民A的事项。人物B回复：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 约于2017年7月18日，人物B和DAVIS就安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面交换了数条短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS转达人物A的信息，写道：“你能查一下Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。我今天整天都因这事忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌[。]”DAVIS随后又说：“这个日期今天必须确定——我们正遭受惨重打击。”据人物A称，外国国民A因尚未安排任何会面而感到恐慌。人物B回复：“现在给[人物E]打电话[。]”DAVIS部分回复称：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[。]也给[人物G]打电话。我们今天就需要这个[。]”人物G是总统的一名行政助理。人物B回复：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 约于2017年7月19日，DAVIS提及安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期，向人物B发送短信：“第二，我们非常需要这个日期[。]”人物B于次日回复：“请耐心等我。正在获取一些关于会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 约于2017年7月21日，人物B就该高尔夫球活动向人物E发送短信：“[人物E]，[马来西亚]没有从NSC得到任何消息。POTUS说，他会在7月底或8月初与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫。POTUS说他很乐意这么做。你说会在一两天内安排好。现在已经是第四周。我知道你很忙，也有程序需要遵循，但我已经非常有耐心了。这现在非但没有带来积极效果，反而正在对我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将万分感谢。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约于2017年7月24日，人物B向人物D发送短信：“收到NJ九月份的高尔夫日期。在联合国大会前的那个星期六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你的帮助！”人物D回复：“让我们跟进，并确保日期由NSC确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的这个日期？”人物B回复：“‘谢谢！！太好了。由[人物E]给了[人物H]。”\n\n63. 约于2017年7月27日，人物B向人物D发送短信：“刚刚再次与[马来西亚]确认。他们驻美大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快查明。致意，[]。”人物B随后又说：“嗨，[人物D]——你能否就[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事替我打电话给NSA？NSC仍未就会面联系[马来西亚]大使。谢谢。致意，[]”人物D回复：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天曾与[]简短交谈……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约于2017年7月29日，DAVIS转达她从人物A处代表外国国民A收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统之间的会面向人物B发送短信：“他们被告知9月12日是会面日期。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二？？？？没有高尔夫？”DAVIS随即又发送短信：“Wickr[。]”人物B回复：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。星期六在Bedminster打高尔夫，星期二在WH？”\n\n65. 约于2017年8月7日，人物B向其助理发送一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中载有供美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A即将举行会面使用的谈话要点。DAVIS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；DAVIS继而将其转交给人物B，并知晓人物B随后会将其作为会面背景资料提供给国务卿。该谈话要点尤其提及人物B与[马来西亚]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所造成的损害不足，并明确称：“[美]国检察官的介入造成了不必要的美国[原文如此]紧张局势，并可能引起马来西亚人的负面反应[。]”\n\n66. 约于2017年8月7日，人物B还将该谈话要点文件发送给人物D，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举行会面的时间安排的细节：“嗨，[人物D]；[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？”人物D向人物B发送了修改后的谈话要点版本，并表示：“[]——这是我将转发给[国务卿]办公室的标注版本。他今天前往Bangkok，然后前往[马来西亚]。如有其他修改，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n67. 随后，约于2017年8月7日，人物B向人物D发送信息：“[国务卿]于8日与[马来西亚总理A]会面，于9日与副总理会面。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！”人物D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一部分，但我会努力让他们在谈话中提及。”\n\n68. 同样于约2017年8月7日，人物A签署了一份由人物A的另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表订立的协议，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促使一家香港公司向公司A转账约\\$12.8 million。随后，人物A向律师事务所A转账\\$3 million。人物A还向DAVIS控制的一个企业账户转账\\$833,333。约于2017年8月10日，律师事务所A向与DAVIS有关联的一个企业账户转账\\$900,000。\n\n70. 约于2017年8月10日，人物B就马来西亚总理A与国务卿之间的会面向人物D发送短信：“听[马来西亚]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——没有提及。;-…… ”\n\n71. 约于2017年8月16日，人物B和DAVIS交换短信，以安排一次会面和一次电话通话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“如果可能，[人物A]真的想今天见你，因为你星期五离开[。]”\n\n72. 约于2017年8月18日，人物B和DAVIS交换短信，安排一次电话通话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“请给我打电话。[人物A]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 约于2017年8月19日，人物B向人物D发送短信：“[马来西亚]有什么进展吗？”人物D回复：“截至目前，会面将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难安排高尔夫，但我正在努力处理。可能不得不就此直接找[人物I]，并利用他们二人曾一起打高尔夫的经历。”人物B回复：“是的。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。我想与你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样做最好。”当时，人物I是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 约于2017年8月21日，DAVIS将其从人物A处收取的作为佣金的\\$375,000资金电汇给人物C，即人物B的配偶。\n\n75. 约于2017年8月24日，外国国民A指示向人物A另一家独立公司转账约\\$10 million；该公司此前已与外国国民A的一名代表订立“战略传播与危机管理”协议，约定金额为EUR 8.4 million。根据2017年8月24日的当时汇率，EUR 8.4 million折合约\\$10 million。\n\n76. 约于2017年9月11日，DAVIS应B某人的指示起草了一封信，拟由B某人寄给总统，以备马来西亚总理A与总统会晤之用。该信列举了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\n77. 约于2017年9月12日，马来西亚总理A在White House（白宫）会见总统，部分原因在于DAVIS为B某人促成该会晤的努力提供了协助。尽管B某人联系政府中的高级官员，除正式会晤外还安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A举行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未举行高尔夫比赛。\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和外国籍A陈述，他在会晤期间向总统提及了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，以向外国籍A表明B某人代表其所作出的努力。其中，谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正在与DoJ（司法部）合作，应对前届政府针对[马来西亚]1MDB的案件。我已制定策略，联系DoJ和NSC（国家安全委员会）的有关方面，以寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督该[]案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的官员，能够提供帮助……。3. 如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺解决这一问题。我必须遵循他的指示，但将继续传达这一问题的重要性。”B某人严重夸大了其就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，后者向B某人提出借款请求。A某人告诉B某人，A某人的朋友正在“核查”他们从外国籍A处收到的款项，并“协助保持其干净”。\n\n二、将中国公民A从美国遣送离境的活动\nA. B某人前往中国会见中国部长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籍A。行前，DAVIS与B某人讨论称，中国公民A被遣送出美国一事对外国籍A十分重要。前往香港的目的是与外国籍A及中华人民共和国（PRC）的一名外国政府官员会面，讨论中国公民A事宜。\n\n82. 约于2017年5月15日，DAVIS就前往香港的行程安排和行程表向B某人的助手发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向B某人和C某人发送了DAVIS公司的银行信息。\n\n83. 约于2017年5月18日，A某人、B某人和DAVIS前往香港，后被送至中国深圳，并在一家酒店套房内会见了外国籍A和中国部长A。中国部长A向B某人谈及中国公民A及其被指控的犯罪行为，并表示PRC希望将中国公民A遣返回PRC。中国部长A要求B某人利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将中国公民A遣离并送返PRC。中国部长A还表示，他不久将访问Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），且难以安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\nB. B某人游说美国高级官员遣离中国公民A\n\n84. 约于2017年5月20日，在从中国返程途中，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]取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n85. 约于2017年5月21日，B某人就其与外国籍A和中国部长A的会面向D某人发送短信：“[D某人]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否周一上午9:30在[酒店]见面？[]”\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。我们会讨论。”B某人随后发送：“我正向你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日晚些时候，D某人回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 约于2017年5月22日，B某人向D某人发送一封主题为“美国与[PRC]之间大幅加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。B某人在电子邮件中附上了一份由B某人致司法部长的备忘录，意图由D某人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B某人；DAVIS在2017年5月中国之行期间从A某人处收到该内容，而该内容源自中国部长A和外国籍A。收到后，B某人和C某人修改了该备忘录。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，B某人虚假陈述了其前往中国的原因及其与中国部长A会面的经过。B某人隐瞒了其与外国籍A的接触，并隐瞒了外国籍A在安排B某人与中国部长A会面中的作用。B某人还隐瞒了在深圳与中国部长A会面前两周内外国籍A向其支付的$4 million。B某人亦未披露，其就中国公民A开展的游说活动至少部分是依据其与外国籍A之间的财务安排，且可能导致获得额外付款。\n\n89. 在该备忘录中，B某人称：“[中国部长A]告诉我，[PRC]希望在执法方面，包括网络安全方面，大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”B某人写及中国部长A即将前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的行程，期间中国部长A及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。B某人倡导司法部长与中国部长A会面。B某人还列举了若干事项，据中国部长A称，PRC愿意采取这些措施以改善美国与PRC之间的执法关系。B某人随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，[PRC]将提出的一项请求是，将[中国公民A]——[PRC]指称其与已被逮捕并被控违反[PRC]多项刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋——尽快从美国遣送（其签证将在下个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至[PRC]，以便其因上述违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在[PRC]经历正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nB某人将一份关于中国公民A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n90. 约于2017年5月23日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会面定了吗？我的备忘录是否已发送给[司法部长]？请更新，谢谢[]。”D某人回复：“[B某人]——信昨天已送达。请查看含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。今天晚些时候我会给你打电话。我今晚乘红眼航班，以便能尽早返回DC。”B某人回复：“很好。谢谢[]。还请确定他的会面是否已定，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在阿拉巴马州安排。”次日，即约于2017年5月24日，D某人回复：“正在等待DoJ就会面——我们的以及[中国部长A]的——作出回复。请告知你何时有空，我们可以会面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n91. 约于2017年5月24日，D某人向B某人发送短信：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到了他的短信回复，说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 约于2017年5月25日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“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分钟到达，从而可以进行一次简短会面。然后再与[]一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请今天第一时间设法见到[司法部长]。我们办成此事确实很重要。今天上午我需要与我的联系人通话。谢谢。[。]”D某人回复：“[]——正在办。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法确认他何时返回。请等待。”同日晚些时候，B某人向D某人发送短信：“具体情况是，我备忘录中的三项内容仅供[司法部长]知悉。[中国部长A]想直接告诉[司法部长]。我的渠道是合法的秘密渠道。[中国部长A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]已听到这三项确实有助于美国的内容。”当日稍后，D某人回复：“[]——我刚刚与[司法部长]通完电话。消息不太好。请告知你何时有空通话。谢谢。”\n\n93. 约于2017年5月26日，B某人提及为中国部长A安排的会面，向D某人发送短信：“上午10点与ICE（移民和海关执法局）负责人会面，11:30与FBI会面。或许在DHS采取行动能挽救局面。与I某人短暂会面。这三项内容可以分享。”B某人随后发送：“请给我打电话”以及“我正试图控制损害，需要与你通话。最好是单独与I某人交谈。”当时，I某人是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 约于2017年5月28日，B某人向D某人发送电子邮件：“与[司法部长]及[PRC]驻美大使之间往来函件的转录文本。”B某人指出：“我认为[司法部长]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？另有一项利益攸关事项，应使司法部长知悉。”同日晚些时候，B某人与D某人互发电子邮件，安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n95. 约于2017年5月30日，DAVIS转达中国部长A和A某人关于中国部长A与美国政府官员会面的信息，发送短信：“查看Wickr——现在会面已全部获准[]。”B某人回复：“是的。都已安排妥当[]。”DAVIS回复：“他的会面已恢复[]。”\n\n96. 约于2017年5月，DAVIS应A某人的请求，要求B某人在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区会见中国部长A。\n\n97. 约于2017年5月30日，B某人在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店会见中国部长A。B某人还询问D某人，D某人是否可以协助中国部长A安排与美国政府高级官员会面。\n\n98. 约于2017年5月31日，B某人向D某人发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与副部长会面。他今天下午4点乘飞机返程。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改为与越南会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[司法部长]或[I某人]会面，否则就回国。他很愿意与[I某人]会面。……到目前为止，他已移交一名孕妇，接下来两人将很快被送来。他将接收60名被遣返的中国公民，但前提是他能得到一次适当的“短暂会面”。这对政府而言是一项重大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两国总统在Mar-a-Lago会面所取得的成果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99. D某人回复：“[]——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”B某人回复：“如果你能安排会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络员在DHS会见副部长？他可以提及我的名字。也请设法让[I某人]缓和局面。也提及我。谢谢！祝好运。”\n\n100. 约于2017年5月31日，DAVIS就PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国A部长）据称与Person I（I某）的会面向Person B（B某）发送短信称：“原则上，[I某]对我们没问题——只是日程安排问题？”B某回复：“只是临时通知的日程安排问题。仍可能在接下来一小时左右收到消息。[中华人民共和国A部长]没有问题。”B某随后继续称：“请代我向副部长（VM）致以良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”DAVIS回复：“是的，我正这样告诉他。”B某回复：“告诉他，我正在把发生的事情告诉白宫（WH）和司法部长（Attorney General）。”DAVIS随后发送短信称：“[I某]不是安排在今天下午去海地吗？”B某回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？司法部长的人也没有提到[。]”DAVIS回复：“这在国土安全部（DHS）网站上[。]他下午会在那里[。]刚刚和副部长通话，他听起来像是在哭[。]”B某回复：“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（Amb）会处理。这真是一场他妈的灾难。”DAVIS回复：“Wickr。”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月9日，DAVIS向B某发送了一篇题为“[中华人民共和国]-加大对流亡大亨-[中华人民共和国国民A]施压力”的新闻文章。\n\n102. 约于2017年6月27日，B某与DAVIS就PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A）互发数条短信。\n\n103. 约于2017年6月27日，B某就将中华人民共和国国民A移除一事向Person H（H某）的配偶发送短信。B某知道，H某是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，常向政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切且可直接接触总统，并对总统具有影响力，能够有效寻求将中华人民共和国国民A移除。B某向H某的配偶发送短信称：“另有一事，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与H某会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者午餐时也可以？期待在[ ]酒店见到您！致意，[ ][。]”B某随后继续称：\n\n“您好，[ ]，H某让我通过短信将此信息发给您。关于逃犯[中华人民共和国国民A]，我将向您发送若干材料。第一份是国际刑警组织（Interpol）红色通报……高度时间敏感的事项是，[中华人民共和国国民A]留在美国的签证将于June 30th到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入国土安全部禁飞名单……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为[中华人民共和国国民A]与联邦调查局（FBI）的前人员关系密切，而这些人担任其私人安保人员。[中华人民共和国主席（President of the PRC）]在Mar-A-Lago向总统提到，他希望[中华人民共和国国民A]被遣返。[中华人民共和国A部长]与我会面，并请求我就[中华人民共和国国民A]一事提供帮助。……他承诺遣返被[中华人民共和国]扣作人质的若干美国公民，并接受大量[中华人民共和国]非法移民被驱逐出境并遣返[中华人民共和国]。最后，他提出在朝鲜问题上提供新的协助。”\n\n104. 约于2017年6月28日，B某在一次社交聚会上与H某及其配偶会面。会面后，B某与H某的配偶就[中华人民共和国国民A]互发短信：“您好，[ ]，今晚见到您和[H某]真是太好了！我刚刚再次收到[中华人民共和国A部长]的消息。他想知道[中华人民共和国国民A]签证的状态，因为时间至关重要。该签证是否已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[中华人民共和国国民A]已被列入国土安全部禁飞名单？[中华人民共和国A部长]非常担心[中华人民共和国国民A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并推进遣返。这将是我们两国令人难以置信的一步。[中华人民共和国A部长]称，他们感谢您的帮助。”H某的配偶回复：“此事已交由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在办理此事。”\n\n105. 约于2017年6月29日，B某与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A的签证申请互发短信。B某发送短信称：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”DAVIS回复：“我不知道。”B某回复：“抱歉，总会生成。换言之，每名申请人最终都会收到书面的是或否[？]抱歉，收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]”DAVIS回复：“是[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n106. 约于2017年6月30日，DAVIS提及他们为促成将Foreign National B（外国国民B）移除，以及可能使被Country B（B国）扣押的美国公民获释所作的努力，向B某发送短信称：“Wickr。你现在是关键人物。在你今年July 4th为这个国家完成的事情之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章[。]”B某回复：“在完成之前，我会全力以赴[。]”DAVIS回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。并确定会面的日期[。]在我们做到之前，不要离开那个人。”B某回复：“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生成该信函），那么我们将在July 4前让那两名美国人回家[。]在之后的第二阶段——我们可以完成接收那60人的事[。]”B某回复：“听起来不错。[H某]很快会给我回电话。我正在通话。”\n\n107. 约于2017年6月30日，B某与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A互发数条短信。B某发送短信称：“收到[H某]的消息。他向POTUS（美国总统）重申了此事。”B某随后称：“另外，[Person E（E某）]给我发短信说他被别的事耽搁了，但正在跟进此事。”同日，DAVIS回复：“我们今天能拿到关于撤销的证据吗？”DAVIS随后具体说明：“来自[E某]？”\n\n108. 约于2017年7月1日，B某向DAVIS发送短信称：“与[E某]进行了长时间交谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”B某并未与E某交谈，但曾与其就中华人民共和国国民A的签证申请互发短信。与B某在其为司法部长准备的备忘录中所作的陈述以及其与H某的沟通相类似，B某没有向E某披露其与中华人民共和国A部长关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月2日，B某与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A及其签证申请互发短信。根据公开报道，DAVIS发送短信称：“今天星期日安排了与[中华人民共和国主席]就朝鲜问题通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他从[H某]那里听说了此事。”\n\n110. 约于2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，DAVIS向B某发送短信称：“[总统]周三离开D.C.前往欧洲[。]”DAVIS随后称：“July 5。安排与[中华人民共和国主席]当面会面[。]”\n\n111. 约于2017年7月18日，B某通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了H某的联系信息。DAVIS为中华人民共和国A部长与H某接通了多次电话，以推进将中华人民共和国国民A移除的游说活动。\n\n112. 约于2017年7月26日，B某与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A及将其从美国移送至中华人民共和国一事互发短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS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[。]”B某回复：“已请3个不同的人跟进[。]”B某随后补充称：“给[E某]打了电话。一小时后见[H某]。”\n\n113. 约于2017年7月26日，B某向H某发送短信，约其在Washington, D.C.的一家酒店会面讨论中华人民共和国国民A：“您好，[H某]，我从工作人员处得知您在DC，我也在DC，住在[酒店]。您今天想喝杯咖啡吗？致意，[ ]。”同日稍后，H某的配偶向B某发送短信称：“您好，[ ]。您能否再向我发送一次您此前发短信提到的那位[中华人民共和国]人士的详细信息，谢谢[。]”B某回复：“您好，[ ]，您指的是[中华人民共和国国民A]还是[中华人民共和国A部长]？致意，[ ][。]”H某的配偶回复：“[中华人民共和国国民A]。”随后，B某重新发送了其此前于2017年6月27日发送的信息。\n\n114. 约于2017年7月27日，B某与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A互发短信。DAVIS向B某发送短信称：“大使馆那边有消息吗？？”DAVIS随后补充称：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”B某回复：“我正在与国家安全委员会（NSC）的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。正在等待回复[。]”\n\n115. 约于2017年8月19日，B某数次向DAVIS发送短信。在这些短信中，B某写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”B某随后补充称：“我和[H某]在一起。有突破机会[。]”\n\n116. 约于2017年8月19日，B某在H某的游艇上与H某会面。在他们相处期间，B某向H某询问了涉及中华人民共和国国民A的事项，H某建议他们给总统打电话。随后，B某和H某致电总统，询问中华人民共和国国民A在美国境内的状态。\n\n117. 约于2017年9月13日，B某向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B某发送了有关中华人民共和国国民A的文章链接。\n\n118. 约于2017年10月2日，B某向DAVIS发送了一篇有关中华人民共和国国民A的文章链接。\n\n119. 约于2018年1月5日，B某向DAVIS发送短信称：“尽快向我发送更多有关[中华人民共和国国民A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\n\n第一项罪名 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612（帮助及教唆与未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不晚于约2017年5月起至至少约2018年1月止，在District of Hawaii（夏威夷地区）及其他地点，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（尼基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）明知且故意地，未依法律要求向司法部长登记，帮助及教唆A某和B某以外国委托人代理人的身份采取行动，即代表外国国民A、中华人民共和国A部长和中华人民共和国政府实施秘密渠道游说活动，以有利于外国国民A的方式解决1MDB调查，并将中华人民共和国国民A遣返中华人民共和国。\n\n以上行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(l)。\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c)主张没收，现将本起诉书第一项罪名中的指控重新主张，并援引纳入本没收指控。\n\n122. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c)，如被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS因违反Title 18 United States Code, Section 2，以及Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(l)的第一项罪名被定罪，其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所述违法行为收益的不动产或动产。另行通知，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申请判决书。\n\n123. 如上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为：\n\na．经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb．已被转让或出售给，或存放于第三方；\n\nc．已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd．价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne．已与其他难以分割的财产混同，\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：August 17, 2020，地点：Honolulu, Hawaii。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price\nKENJI M. PRICE\n夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\n~~\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson\nKENNETH M. SORENSON\n国家安全事务主任\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n公共廉政处主任\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\nJOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副主任\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE（肖恩·F·马尔林） NICOLE R. LOCKHART（妮科尔·R·洛克哈特） JAMES C. MANN（詹姆斯·C·曼恩） 审判律师 公共廉正处\n\nUnited States（美国）诉 Nickie Mali DAVIS（尼基·马利·戴维斯） 检察官起诉书 刑事案号 ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n附件 C\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n诉。\nGEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM（乔治·希金博瑟姆），\n被告。","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","Je","GTV","Guo","Saraca","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","853(p)"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":13,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28011,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:20:50"}