{"id":"court_ctb_250_16","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":250,"sub_number":16,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-03-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 16 Declaration of Ho Wan Kwok, dated March 20, 2022, and filed on the docket in this matter as ECF No. 107","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 16**\n\nDeclaration of Ho Wan Kwok, dated March 20, 2022, and filed on the docket in this matter as ECF No. 107\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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 2 of 109\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X In re: Chapter 11 Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) Debtor. --------------------------------------------------------------------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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 m Shandong Province, China. I currently reside in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Road, with my wife of37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 ofiicials 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 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\nNancy Tartaglione, *Chinese Create \\$800lvf Fund* Tu *Invest In Global, Local Entertainment,* Deadline, February 6, 2012 (http /deadline.com/2012/02/chinese-create-800m-fund-to-invest-in-entertainment-companies-report-226260/).\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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 threaten, and silence me. <sup>3</sup>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<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 COVJD Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown, Stanford Internet Observatory,* June 17, 2020 (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 l 9-\n\n<sup>12/</sup>Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?Versionid=TRGkGXh8FPY 5KXLSc 4SfDUy7 sMfNkw0) (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\n\n<sup>06/</sup>Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall 1.pdf?VersionTd=ZzW5dlyg1OOgG5m9oHj 9DWsjgt XD6TCA) (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 COVJD,* Reuters, September 9, 2021 (http -09-08/) (reporting that security experts at FireEye and Alphabet's Google have observed a coordinated, misinformation campaign on social media in support of Chinese govermuent 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<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 A1eans to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says,* Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2022 (http 1647 455520?mod=article inline).\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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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. <sup>4</sup> 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<sup>4</sup>*See* Aruna Viswanatha, *Steve Wynn lvfay Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman,* Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021 (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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 9 of 109\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me), 5 lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, 6 and former DOJ official George Higginbotham, <sup>7</sup>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<sup>5</sup>  United States Department of Justice Press Release: Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop lMDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National, October 20, 2020 (https ://www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/ elliott-broidy-pleads-guilty-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop-1 mdbinvestigation-and) (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<sup>6</sup>  United States Department of Justice Press Release: Hawaii Businesswoman Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop lMDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China, August 31, 2020 (https ://www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/hawaii-businesswoman-pleads-guilty-facilitating-back-channel-lobbyingcampaign-drop-1 mdb) (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<sup>7</sup>  United States Department of Justice Press Release: Fonner Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, November 30, 2018 (https ://www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/former-justice-department-employee-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-deceive-usbanks-about-millions) (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 com1try 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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. <sup>8</sup>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<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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 11 of 109\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China. <sup>9</sup>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*<sup>9</sup> See* Arona Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts,* Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2020 (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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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. <sup>10</sup>\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<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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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<sup>11</sup>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<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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 14 of 109\n\nand vanous co-defendants, including GTV and its parent entity Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\"). I believe that those claims are without merit. <sup>12</sup>\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<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, ofGTV 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 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<sup>13</sup>On October 12, 2020, GeneverUS 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 ,i 6.0l(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 **,i** 8.0l(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. Obiectives 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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\n53. **Motion to Authorize Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the Ordinary Course.** I am a named plaintiff or named defendant in numerous cases pending at the state and federal levels in the United States, as well as in foreign jurisdictions. In connection with these litigations and certain ongoing government investigations, prepetition, I retained various law firms, accountants, and other non-attorney professionals (together, my \"Ordinary Course Professionals\"), which rendered services in connection with my prepetition litigation and provided other services in a variety of matters unrelated to this Chapter 11 case. I intend to use the DIP Financing, subject to the Court's approval, to continue employing and compensating these Ordinary Course Professionals because they each have a great deal of knowledge, expertise, and familiarity with my affairs (prepetition) and my pending litigation, much of which has been ongoing for years.\n\n54. Among the reasons I am seeking emergency interim relief for the **DIP** Financing is to ensure that the professionals representing me continue working. Certain professionals may withdraw from representing me unless I am able to assure them that they will be paid for their prepetition and post-Petition Date work. Such a withdrawal, depending on the status of the case and the services provided by the applicable professional, could cause cause me and my estate clear and irreparable harm. The UBS, Clark Hill, and other pending litigation claims are assets that I anticipate relying on to help formulate and potentially confirm a plan of reorganization. Any disruption to my prosecution of these claims would undoubtedly be value destructive.\n\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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 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 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 26 of 109\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true\n\nand correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\nDated: March 20, 2022 Greenwich Connecticut\n\n**lly ~5-s;.**  arne: Ho Wan Kwok , f\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 26 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 27 of 109\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 28 of 109\n\n### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n) ) ) ) ) )\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERJCA )\n\nCRIMINAL NO.\n\n**v. Count l: 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\nI. **At** all times relevant to this Information:\n\n2. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 20 I 8 ELLIOTf\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 C'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 (' I MOB\"), a strategic investment and development company who lly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their effo1ts, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that BROJDY was acting on behalf ofForeign National A. Ultimately, BROIDY, Davis, and Person *i\\* were unsuccessfu l in their efforts to have the 1 MDB matters dropped or otherwise favorably resolved for Foreign National A.\n\n3. During the same approximate 12eriod, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 29 of 109\n\nof China (\"PRC\") National A-a citizen of the PRC living in the United States- all on behalf of Foreign National A. This involved among mher things, advocating for meetings between PRC Minister A and United States government officials. Here too, BROIDY, Davis. and Person A were ultimately unsuccessfu I.\n\n4. To furth er the interests ofForeign National A, BROIDY, aided by Davis and Person A. attempted io fac ilitate 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\nS. BROIDY, Davis and Person A also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that BROIDY assisted b 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 certa in 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 fa il to register, and to make\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 30 of 109\n\nfalse and misleading statements or mciterial omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. Th,e purpose of r ARA is ro 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 ofindividuals 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 regi. trant receives from the forergn 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 Chait 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 h.is role as Deputy Finance Chair, BROIDY maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking official in the Administration, 'inclllding 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 wlth BROJDY and Person A. On August 31 , 2020, Davis pieaded guilty in the United States District Com1 for the District of Hawaii to a onecount lnfonnation charging aiding and abetting a violation of FARA.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 31 of 109\n\n10. Person A was and is a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ti s, 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 1 MDB..\n\n12. Company A was a Jimited liability company formed by Person A 1o 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 i,, 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 Finn A was a law finn operated by Person C and controlled by BROlDY 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 Foreig\\_n National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds oflhe I MOB embezzlement scheme. ln 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, OOJ 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 Con·upt 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 Fo.reign Principal)**\n\n- I 7. Paragraphs I through 16 are realleged -and incorporated herein by reference.\n- 18. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 2018 the defondant,\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 princi11al. specificall , Forci n National A with respect to the I MDB matters and the removal of PRC National A, without re islering with the Attorney General, in violation of 22 U .S.C. *§§* 612 and 618.\n\n#### **Obiects of the Conspiracy**\n\n19. 1t was an ob·ect of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis Person A and Foreign\n\nNational A to orchestrate back-channel unregistered campaigns to lobby the Administration and\n\nDOJ to: (I) end the 1 MDB matters or otherwise resolve the matters favorab l for Foreign National\n\nA; and 2 remove PRC National A from the United States and send him back to the PRC.\n\n20. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROJDY, Davis, and Person A to make mill ions of dollars by leveraging B ROJDY' 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 BROlDY'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### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 33 of 109\n\n#### **Manner and Means of the Conspiracy**\n\n22. The manner and means by which BR0JDY 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 Nationai A, PRC Minister A. and others to negotiate and discuss the arrangement by which BR0lDY 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 faci litated 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 PR Minister A and Foreign National A.\n\n*25.* BR0lDY, 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 oflicials to formally request favorable governmental action. including the favorable resolution of the I MDB matters and the removal of PRC National A.\n\n#### Concealmenl\n\n26. **BROIDY,** Davis, and Person A agreed to conceal BR0IDY'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 BR0JDY's financial arrangement with and payments fi-om\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 34 of 109\n\nForeign National A. In extensive contacts, communications and documents drafted in furtherance 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, BROlDY 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, BROJDY and others committed the followin g overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.\n\n#### **J. Campaign to Resolve l MDB Civil Forfeiture Cases**\n\n#### **A. BROIDY Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer**\n\n28. Tn 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 BROJDY that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could use help witb 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, 20 I 7, BROlDY'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 BROIDY's close access to the Administration:.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 35 of 109\n\n30. On or about March 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Are you in la to meet on lhc 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 lo discuss Forecgn National A and I MOB. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to BROIDY, and asked if BROJDY could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with oreign National A about the possibility ofBROJDY 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 Finn A and Foreign National A so that Person A could present the agreement to Foreign Natrona I 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 'I MOB forfeiture proceedings. BROTDY, 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 Administratiort 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 fore ign principal, at no time did BROrDY, Davis, or Persoh A register with the FARA Unit regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 36 of 109\n\n#### **B. BROJDY, 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 \\$ I million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds. BROIDY was assured that Person A would personally pay \\$ I 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 Fi1m A.]\" That same day, Davis responded. ''Okr.r-\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, \"CalJ me when u can talk[.]''\n\n37.. On or about May 1, 20 17, 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 on line and I will forward.' That same day, Davis separately emailed Person A telling him to book a roorn at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation . Person A responded , '[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later fol lowed up with, ''Also send me Ell iott'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 BROJDY stating in part, 'Since u land earlier - [Person A 1 a~d I wil l see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here s to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure! \"\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 37 of 109\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 I MDB matters. BROJDY 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 MOB 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 shortl thereafter, Davis and BROIDY discussed the possibility of assisting in getting PRC National A removed from the United States. With respect to payment. BROIDY 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 BROIDYand others. BROIDY, Person A and Davis agreed thatthe money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to BROIDY through Law Finn A. BROJDY 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 perfonn any such review. BROIOY 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 Finn A\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 38 of 109\n\nfrom the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Finn A account at Person A's direction bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to\\$] 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 ofBROtDY's business accounts.\n\n41. On or about May&, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY. \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your otlice 20 minutes ago -\" . Davis then added, \"702 total cashier checkr.]\"\n\n42. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from al long Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A. On ot about May 18, 2017, Law Finn A transferred \\$600,000 to one of BROlDY'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 ofBROJOY's business accounts. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one ofBROIDY's business accounts.\n\n43. On or about May 17, 20 17, 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 Wiclcr[.] 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\n#### Case 22-90ase 1:Flbcr10021&i©Kl-03/00~ elit7terE«Jt8\\$S.<mY:;ll:39aeJ1= 1~ 38 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 39 of 109\n\nadded in part, \"A sum ing second 3 is in and confinnation 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 20 L 7, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A lo Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which BROJDY and Foreign National A agreed in return for BROIDY's assistance with the 1 MDB civil forfeiture cases. *That* sah1e 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 Fi11n 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 of BROIOY's business accounts.\n\n#### **D. BROIDV 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, 20 17 BROIDY texted Person D, a political consultant and fonner 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 \"Nat!onal A. Among those messages, Davis wrote, \"Please call before ll 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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 40 of 109\n\n47. On or about June 15, 2017, at Person *A* s request, Davis texted BRQJDY, \"Hey he'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" Davis added, ' 'Prindpal \", 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. Jn or about June 2017, BROJDY 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 MDB 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 li nk to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A 's office criticizing the I MOB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n*50.* On or about June 29, 20 17, BROJDY 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 1 mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with LMalaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for geiting 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 AJ and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister Aj.'' Later that day, BROlDY followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed hoging we can get these items com leted today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 41 of 109\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 LMalaysian Prime Minister A] that he would h.ave the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, Elliott.\" Later that day, BROlDY texted Person E again: \"[Person E], rm 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, \"lt's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I' m sure it will get donef .]\"\n\n54. On or about Juiy 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 co11tinued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - 1 '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. Thxl.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a high-ranking official on the National Security Cot1ncil.\n\n#### Case 22-90ase 1:Flkr10021&i©M.l-03/00~ elinterEdJt833SOOY:;n:39~ 1~ 41 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 42 of 109\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, BROJDY lexted 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' 11 check now again[.J 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 1exted Davis, \"Working on gerting meetings for tomorrow.'\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person *A* on behalf of Forei n National A Davis texted BROIDY, \"[Person EJ needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.J\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Mala sian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. l3ROIDY responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[J\"\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. H'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 res~onded, \"Calling [Person EJ now[.]\" Davis replied in part,\n\n#### Case 22-50M8 1:00<cr'.l:O0218+@KIQ3/00Wmefit1l m@IOO!l:([})'A2W:IB:3f3atie 1~ 142 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 43 of 109\n\n' Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person OJ 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 J 1, Davis texted BROlDY in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President,' Secondly we need lhis date bad[.]\" BROIDY responded the following day ''Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about Jilly 21 , 2017, BROIDY texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Persorl E], The Malaysians have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] in late July or earJy 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. Ln stead 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, BROlDY texted Person D, \"Received golf date .in NJ in Sept. Sal 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 confinned by tile NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" BROIDY replied,' 'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to !Person Hl by [Person E].\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017 BROtDY lexted Person D «Just checked again with Malaysians. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, Elliott.\" BROlDY followed up with, \"Hi [Person D]- Can you call NSA for me re MaJaysians 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\n#### Case 22-90ase1 1:~r10021&i©MJ03/00ia.BTieli11terEdJta33Lm>'.ooY~:39~ 1~ 43 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 44 of 109\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 BROJDY 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[.J\" BROIDY responded, ''May be two nHgs. 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 ah upcoming meeting between the United States Secretary of State and Malaysian Prime Min ister A. Davis had received the 1alking points from Person A- who provided them on behalf of Foreign Nationaf A-and Davis relayed them to BROlOY. The talking points mentioned among other things, BROIDY'.s ongoing relationship and work with Malaysia, and identified I MOB as a \"[p]riority[.]' The talking points noted the lack of haim caused by IMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American r sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]''.\n\n67. On or about August 7, 2017, BROJOY 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 me.eting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 45 of 109\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 format meetings but wi II work to get a plug during their conversations.''\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017 F'oreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 miUioo to Company A. Person A theo 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 Fi1111 A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with Davis. In the ensuing days, Law Finn A transferred hundreds of thousands of do11ars 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, BROJDY 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 1 am working on it. Might have to go to (Person I) directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing go! f.\" BROJDY responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add Lime to meetings. *l* would like to discuss details with you. Please Jet me know what is best. ' Person J was then a highranking official at the White House.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 46 of 109\n\n72. On or about August 31 , 2017, BROIDY drafted and sent an email to Person 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 BROJDY to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President and provided the letter to BROJDY. 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 Presldent 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 lo 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, 20 18, BROfDY drafted talking points related to lMDB Lo demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that BRO LOY 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 I MOB in Malaysia. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resoll1tion to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney genera l [] who has the oversight for the Malaysia case. She is\n\n#### Case 22-90ase l:l'locr10021&i©KK>3/00ia.BTieli11terEdJta33Lm1.<mY:;ll:39~ 2~ 46 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 47 of 109\n\na [presidential] appointee and can be helpful. ... J. As l informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that **l** take his lead but will continue to communicate the impo11ance of this issue.;' These representations were false.\n\n### **ll. 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 triR 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 arran~ments and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong\\_, The same day Davi also emailed BROJDY and Person C banking information for Davis's comQany.\n\n79. On or about May I 8, 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 s oke 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 bein 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### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 48 of 109\n\nB. BROIDY Lobbies Top U.S. Officials for the Removal of PRC National A\n\n80. On or about May 20, 20 I 7 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\n8 I. On or about May 21 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \" Person DJ- Just returned . Hug\\_e opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at lhotelj? 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 reg\\_uest into Attorney General] for mJg.\"\n\n83. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooi1eration between US and China[.J' BROIDY attached to the email a memorandum from BROIDY addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the me,norandum 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. UQon receiRt BROIDY and Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n84. In the memorandum, BROJDY mischaracterized the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. BROIDY 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 mil lion that he had been paid by Foreign National A. BROIDY also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respec.t to PRC National A were at least in art, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could eotentially result in additional payment.\n\n85. In the memorandum, BROIDY stated \"I was told b).' [PRC Minister A] that China would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect lo 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 Chin~ 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 AJ, the one request China will make is that [PRC National A] who China alleges has cons ired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of China (including kidnappino and significant financial crimes be deru:,rted (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Inter ol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your referenceJ as soon as possible from the US to China so he can be charged with these violations and go through regular criminal roceedings in China with regard to tht!se allegations.\n\nBROIDY agpended 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[.J\" Person D responded \"Elliott- lener was delivered yesterday. Pis see the final version with chan 1 es. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on rcdc e tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" BROlDY responded, \"Great. Thank you LJ, 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 res anded ''[W]aiting to hear from\n\nDoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC MinisLer A . let me know when you are free and we can meet ur, to o over other issues. thank .\n\n87. On or about May 24 2017, Person D texted BROlDYi \"Just got a call from [Attorney General] office and he cannot do tonight. BuL I got a text back from him directl 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 I 0:00 am this morning. Then FBI and OHS tomorrow. Perha s I could tell my contact to get there IO min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with O one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see Attorney GeneraU first thing today. Reall important that we pull it off. I need to speak with my contact this morning. Thank you. E{J\" 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 textcd Person D, \"Detail is thar the 3 things in my memo are only for Attorney General]. [PRC Minister **AJ** wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister AJs boss wants confirmation that Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.]'\" Later that da)'. Person D responded \"E- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney Generill]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thank .''\n\n89. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, BROIDY lexted Person D, ''IO am head of ICE 11 :30 FBI Perhaps a ~lay at OHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I . The three items can be shared.'' BROJDY followed up with. \"Please call me'' and ··J'm trying to do damage control and need to sQeak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person LJ.\" Person I was a senior official in OHS at the time.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 51 of 109\n\n90. On or about May 28, 2017, after Davis transcribed correspondence to BROIDY, BROIDY emailed Perso=C>-'·t..\\_ranscribed correspondence to and from the Attorney Genera!] and the Chinese Ambassador to the US.'' BROIDY noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney GenernlJ 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 discll5s the email and its content.\n\n91. On or about May 30 2017 Davis texted BROIDY with res ect to PRC Minister\n\nA ·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 reinstatedL.J\"\n\n92. In or about May 2017, Davis, at Person A's request, asked BROIDY to meet with\n\nPRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n93. On or about May 30, 2017, BROIDY met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in\n\nWashington D.C. BRO I DY also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange\n\nmeetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n94. On or about May 31 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 peo le 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 IJ. He is hap1;1y meeting with [Person l] .... 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 bi 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 rnins.\" BROIDY replied,\n\n·'Jf you et the meeting can we have the olitical WH liaison meet the VM at OHS? He can\n\nmention my name. Also try to get [Person U to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed. '\n\n96. On or about May 31, 2017, Davis texted BROJD with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meetin with, Person I, \"In principal [Person !] 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 ass along my good wishes to the VM. Wa it a little while longer.'' Davis responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.'' BROIDY replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and f Attorney Genera!] what happened.\" Davis then textcd. \"Isn't Person U scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" BROIDY responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did (Attorney General peoQle[ .. , Davis responded, \"It's on the OHS website . He's there for the aftemoonl] Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying . \" BROIDY res anded. \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Nonnally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster fl\\*]ck.'' Davis re lied, aWickr.\"\n\n97. On or about June 9, 2017, Davis tcxted B ROIDY a news article titled \"chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled lycoon-[PRC National A. '\n\n98. On or about June 27, 2017, BROJDY texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. BROJDY knew that Person 11, an internationally successful businessman and fre uent contributor to political cam aigns with close access to the Presiden had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY textcd 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 romorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the [J Hotel! Regards. Elliott!.]\" BROlDY later continued:\n\nHi Li, [Person U] asked me to send this information to you via text. J have a number of items I will be sending to ou regard in the fugitive is PRC National . 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 OHS no fly list. ... This order would need to come from the very top as PRC National AJ is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. [fhe 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 [I'RC National AJ. ... 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 mel 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 LPRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National AJ'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 OHS no fly list? LPRC Minister A] is very concerned that f 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 rateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, ' This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They arc working on this.''\n\nI 00. On or about June 29, 20 17, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY textcd, \"Js rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" Davis responded, \" 1 have no idea.\" BROIDY re lied. ' Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing? no in writing[?]\" Davis res ondcd, \"Yes[J Check Wickr[J\"\n\n#### I Case 22-5~ **11JO€C1002lfEU@:Ka3/D})t0mam~ re1Bil~8/a0/0S/2B:3F.altJ.e** 2¥>8{Je!E3 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 54 of 109\n\nIO I. 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, textcd BROIDY, \"Wickr. You arc 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[J\" BROIDY responded, \"I am going to slam until ifs donc[J\" Davis replied \"Let's make sure part I happens today. And date for mLJ Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" BROIDY responded, \"Agree.\" Davis continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confinning 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 4lJ After other hase 2- we can do the 60 take backLJ\" BROlDY responded \"Sounds good. [ Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.''\n\nI 02. On or about June 30. 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. BROIDY texted, \"Heard from [Person **H** . He reiterated to POTUS. \" BROIDY followed u with. \"SeQarately, [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 I, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis \"Spoke to Person E] 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, BRO I DY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public reporting. Davis texted, ' 1 There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with President of the PRCJ about n Korea. He can ask and confinn about 12acka e. He can even say he heard from [Person **H.** '\"\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 55 of 109\n\nI 05. On or about July 3 2017, again based on public reporting, Davis texted BROIDY: '' Presiden!] leaves D.C. Wedne.sda for Europe[J\" Davis then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w President of the PRC]t.]'\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\nI 07. In or about July 20 I 7, Person A requested that Higginbotham meet with the PRC Ambassador to the United States at the PRC Embassy in Washingto . 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 gs:ivemment officials were working on the extradition of PRC National A and that there would be additional infunnation 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 infonn Foreign National A. Person A later told Higginbotham that Foreign National A was happy with the meeting and that it had iven foreign National A credibility with the PRC.\n\nI 08. On or about Ju\\_!y 18, 20 17, BROIDY emailed Davis the contact information for Person H. Davis connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person H in furtherance of the lobbying campaig\\_,n 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 messag s Davis wrote, \"Really need confim1 it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says no[.]\" BROIDY\n\nresponded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[J\" BROIDY later added. \"Called Person E . Seeing Person HJ in an hour.\"\n\n110. On or about July 26. 20 17, BROIDY texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washin\\_gton, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: ''Hi (Person H • I understand from staff that you ·re in DC, as am L staying at the {!lotelJ. Would ou like to have a cu 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 reviously thank ou[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Hi Q, You are referring to [PRC National A or PRC Minister A]? Best, ElliottLJ\" Person H's spouse rep lied, \"[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(J\"\n\n112. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis several times. Among those messages BROIDY wrote ·'Urgent. Call me. Good newsL.]\" BROIDY later added, '\"im with Person H . have break thru o portwiityL I\"\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\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 57 of 109\n\n114. On or about September 13 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[J\" That same day avis texted BROIDY links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n115 . n 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 AJ involved in funding Dem oliticians, ... ASAPLJ\"\n\nAll in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.\n\n#### **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\nL. The allegations contained in Count One of this- lnfom,ation are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference fur the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).\n\n2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98 l(a)(I )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c) upon conviction of Count One in violation of Title 18, Unhed States Code, Section 371 the defendant, ELLIOTT BROJDY, shaJl 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 BROlDY 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\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 58 of 109\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 TEO: September \\_lQ\\_\\_\\_, 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 Scan F. Mulryne Deputy Director Election Crimes Branch Nicole R. Lockhart James C. Mann\n\nTrial Attorneys\n\nPublic Integrity Section\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 58 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 59 of 109\n\n# **EXHIBITB**\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 60 of 109\n\nFILED NTHE UNllED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII Aug 17, 2020, 10:23 Michelle Rynne, Clerk of Court\n\nKE n M. PRIC # 10523 United State Attorney District of Hawaii\n\nKE so Assistant . . Attorney Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg. 3 00 Ala Moan a Boulevard Honolulu Hawaii 96850 Telephone: (808) 541-2850 Facsimile: (808) 541-2958 Email: ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\n**COREY R. AMUNDSO**  Chief Public Integrity ection United tates Department of Justice\n\nJOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nE F.MULRYNE Deputy Director, Election Crime ICOL R. LOCKHART JAMES C. Trial Attorneys Public Integrity ection\n\n# THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT\n\n# FOR THE DISTRICT OF HA WAIT\n\nUNIT D STATE OF AMERICA, ) CR. o. **20-00068 JAO**  ) Plaintiff ) INFORMATIO ) vs. ) [18 .. C. § 2 and 22 U. .c. § CK.IE MALI LUM DA VIS, ) ) Defendant. )\n\n) 612 and 618(a)]\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 2017 to at least in or about January 2018,\n\nICKIE LUM DAVIS agreed with Persons and B to act as agents of Foreign\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 61 of 109\n\nationa l A in exchange fo r million of dollars in undisclosed w1re trans ers originating from foreign accounts associated with Foreign ational A. DA VIS specifically agreed to facilitate Person B 's lobby ing of the President of the United States (\"the President'), his Administration and the United States Department of Justice ( 'DOJ\") to drop the investigation of Fore ign National A for his role in the emb zzlement of bi llions of doll ars from l Malaysia D velopment Berhad ( ' lMDB' a strategi investment and deve lopment company wh lly wn d by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, the defendant and Person B willfully fai led to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officia ls that Person B was acting on behalf of Foreign N ational A. Ultimately, DA VIS and Persons A and B were unsucce ful in their efforts to have the l MDB investigation dropped.\n\n3. During the same a roximate period, DAVIS 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 Peo !e's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A- a dissident of the PRC living in the United States- at the re uest of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A. Here too DA VIS and Persons A and B were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To fwther the interests of Foreign National A DAVIS aided Person B in facilitating a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lhe President in\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 62 of 109\n\nSeptember 2017 in part to allo Malaysian Prime Minister A to rai e the resolution of the HvlDB matter with the President.\n\n*5.* DA VIS, Person A, and Person B also met with PRC Min rster *A* in the PRC and agreed that Person B, assisted by DA VIS, would lobby the Administration to return PRC ational A to the PRC. DA VlS, Person A, and Person B, for the express u r ose of providing PRC Minister A an qpportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attem ted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and to officials at DOJ and the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"OHS\" ), during PRC Min ister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal at\" Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA ), 22 U.S. . ~ 61 1 er *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 w ith the Attorn y Gene ral in connection, ith certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the fore ign prin ipal. Such regi\\_strations are made to the NationaJ Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit('' ARA Unit') with in DOJ. ft. .i a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make false and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the ARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 63 of 109\n\n7. The purpose f FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign pnn ipals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the tatements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principal . Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a r gistrant perform 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 politicaJ campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant wa acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n# **RE LEV ANT PARTIES & ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, ICKlE MALI LUM DA VIS, was and 1s a nited States citizen, businesswoman and consultant with personal and business relationships with Person A and **8.**\n\n9. Person A was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\nI 0. Person B served a Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately April 20 16 to Apri I 2018. In that capacity, Person B raised large political contributions from donors organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategie with the campaign of a candidate for the Offic of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. After\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 64 of 109\n\nthe election, Person B continued in his role as D eputy inance 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 internationa l businesses and worked as a political consultant.\n\n11. Foreign ational A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and e ·ecuting a multibill ion-dollar embezzlement scheme from IMDB.\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 20 19 H igginbotham pleaded gu ilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy t make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. La Firm A was a law firm operated by Person B's spouse Person C.\n\nl 5. PRC ational 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\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 65 of 109\n\n16. In late 20 l 6 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the 1MDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complain seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with lMDB laundered proceeds. On ovember 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\nl 7. ln or about March 2017. DAVIS told Person B that she bad 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]. Trnsts Ask to ile Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits,' and texted Person B, '•Your email has the court filing(.]\" Person B responded \"Thx. Will review.' DA VJS replied. :.Call me when u can- thank you[,r' Person B responded again Yes. 5 min[.r\n\n19. Person A requested that DAVIS send him Person B's biography describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Adminisb·ation\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 66 of 109\n\nand photographs of Person B and the President. On or about March 7, 2017 Person B s assistant at DA VJS'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 DA VIS texted Person B~ ' Are you in 1a 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 VTS sent Person B additional text messages to set up the meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n2 1. At the direction of Person B, on or about March 13 , 2017 DA VI forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services between aw Firm A and Foreign ational A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement' stipulated that Foreign ational 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 tl1e matter'' referred to the lMDB forfeitur proceedings. [n actua1ity, Person A, Person B Law Firm A, DAVIS and Person C provided no litiga6on services or legal advice to Foreign ationa1 A. The true purpose of the r tention agreement was to secur Person B' services to lobby the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 67 of 109\n\nAdministration and DOJ on f oreign National A behalf based on Person B ' political connections.\n\nOn or about March 13 \\_017, Per on B met with Person A and DAVI to discuss Foretgn National A and his legal issu s. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to Person B, and asked jf Person 8 could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign ational A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign ational A about the possibility of Person B helping with tbe civil forfeiture cases. That same day Person B texted DA VTS in part • I m e cited about our business prospects.\n\n23. nor about March 15, 2017 in reference to Foreign National A Person B texted DAVIS 'Anything new on ... [Person A 's] A ociate? Tbat same day. DAVI responded, '[Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the 'promoter' and they hope to travel within the ne t few week[.]'\n\n24. nor about March 22, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person Band his a sistant about erting up another meeting among Person B Person A and DA VIS.\n\n25. At all relevant times DAVI , Pers n A, and Person B were aware of FARA and it prohibition on unregistered representation of foreign principals.\n\n26. Despite their kno ledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign prin ipal, at no time did DAVI , Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their ork as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 68 of 109\n\n# **B. Person A, Person B, and DA VIS Meet Foreign National A in Bangkok**\n\n27. ln or about April 2017, Person A asked Person B to travel to Bangkok Thailand to meet with Foreign ational 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 1 'untainted funds.\n\n28. On or aboutApril 28 2017 Person B texted DA VIS advising,' I would like the funds to go to [Law Finn A.]\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \"Ok[.)\"\n\n29. On or about April 29 2017, Person B and DAVIS e ·changed re ' l messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, Person B asked in reference to oreign National A. · Does the principal want us in a pa1iicular hote l in either location?\" DA V[S responded, '·Cal I me when u can talk[.] '\n\n30. On or about April 30. 20 17, DAVI emailed Person B 's assistant regarding a flight itinerary for travel *to* Bangkok. In th email DA VIS wrote in pat1: \"Please call me if you have questions -- Its 2 one way tickets - since we need to leave from a different country[.] We don't need to worry about hotels yet ... '\n\n3 l. On or about May 1, 2017, DAVlS emailed Person Band his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That ame day DAVIS mailed Person A tel ling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded ·'[Foreign ational A] is booking om hotel,>' and later followed\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 69 of 109\n\nup with, ''Also send me [Person B's] wire info.' DA VIS replied by providing the wire in.formation for an account in the name of Law Firm A. The same day, in response to a question from Person B' assistant about whether she should cancel Person B s hotel room reservation, DAV[ 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, ·' ince u land earlier- [Person A] and I will see you at arrival ... . Thanks and bon voyage - here s to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!'\n\n33. On or about May 2 20 17 DAVIS, Person A, and Person B arrived in Bangkok. During the trip DAVIS Person A and Person B met with Foreign ational A in a hotel suite. Person Band For ign ational A poke about the l.MDB investigation and civil forfeiture actions. Person B agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign ational A agreed to pay Person B an \\$8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General ofthe United States to get DOJ to drop the lMDB matter. Person B agteed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result fi r For ign ational 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 ational A and should be ''clean.\" Foreign ational A id ntified a friend who could pay Person B and others. Person B, Person A and DA VIS agreed that\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 70 of 109\n\nthe money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person Band DA VIS agreed that Person B would pay DA VI thirty percent of what Person B received. Person A also agreed to pa DA V [S a percentage of th funds that Person A received. Person A told Person Band DAVI 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 Receive \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; Person B**  is **Paid \\$6 Million; DAVIS** i **Paid \\$1.7Million**\n\n34. Following the meeting with Foreign ational A in Thailand on or about May 81 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 accoant. Also that same day a third-party compan transferred \\$250 000 to the Law . irm A accottnt at Person A s direction bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several day appro imately 900,000 of the 1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 201 7 was transferred from the Law Finn A account to one of Person B business accounts.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 71 of 109\n\n35. On or about May 8, 2017 DA VlS texted Person B, \"Both wires in lLa 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\n36. On or about May 9, 201 7 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, ore,gn ational A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. hat 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 te 't message regarding the payments from Foreign ational A to Person B through Person A and Person B's payment of a percentage to DA V1 . Among the text messages. DA VIS asked ·•Did you get it?\" Person B responded ·• es. Sent you Wickr[.] ending 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 pait \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent Please ask [Person B s assistant].\"\n\nL\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 72 of 109\n\n39. On or about May 18, 2017 Law Firm A n·ansferred \\$500 000 to one of Person B's business accounts and \\$900,000 to a business account controlled b DA VIS. Within approximately one week Law Film A n·ansferred 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, 2017, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which Per on B and Foreign National A agreed in return for Person B s lobbying the Administration and the DOJ to drop the IMDB civil forfeiture cases and any related investigations. That same day \\$600 000 was transferr d from Law Firm A ' account to a business accow1t associated with DAVIS.\n\n# **D. Per on B Facilitates Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lobbies to Resolve the IMDB** Cases\n\n41 . On or about May 18 201 7, Person B texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and request d that Person D work with the Administration to set up a vi it for Malaysian Prime Mini ter A: \"Hi [Person DJ- Please work on Asian country visit. Date in July.\"\n\n42. On or about June 5, 2017 Person B texted P rson D again regarding d1e visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.''\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 73 of 109\n\n43. The same day, at the request of Person A DAVIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, DA VI 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[.] ' Per on B responded,' Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Fore ign National A] and Asian country[.]\n\n44. On or about June J 5 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Hey he d like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" DA VIS added 'Principal , which was a reference to Foreign ational A. That same day, Person B responded, •·Ye [.]'\n\n45. On or about June 16, 2017, P rson B and DA VIS xchanged text messages regarding I MDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associat d with Foreign National A.\n\n46. On or about June l 7, 20 I 7, Person Band DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister . In or about June 2017, Person Basked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said and DAVIS believed that this would please Foreign ational A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the l MDB matter. Person B also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Mini ter A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 74 of 109\n\n47. On or about June I 9, 2 0 17, DAVIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysi an Prime M inister A 's office criticizing the IMDB fotfeit ure action in the Un,ited States.\n\n48. On or about June 25, 2017 DAVI texted Person B a link to an article about Malaysian Prime M inister A and the lMDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \" W ird articfe. What can we do? DA VIS repli ed 'Call pis. Got news[.]\" DA VIS followed up stating that she had sent Person Ba 'What's app request.\"\n\n49. On or about June 29, 201 7, Person B sent a text message to a high ranki ng official in the W hite House in an effort to arrange a go lf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: 'Hi [Person E] As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a ro und of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with lMalaysian Prime M inister A]. Th ank you ve1y much fo r getting back to me with the date. Al o 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 go lf outing: '\"Ho e we can speak this morning on PRC National AJ and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A .\" Later that day, Person B followed u with, ·· Person E , as discussed ho ing we can et these items com leted today. Please call me anytime.'·\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 75 of 109\n\n51. On or about July 3, 2017, Person B again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malays·ian 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 [Malaysjan Prime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is gJad 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! Regard • []. Later that day, Person B texted Person E agajn: ; [Per ·on ] 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~ DA VIS texted Persor1 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 outmg. Among other messages, Person B te ted, ''[Person E],just left you a message. It's been a week.. Can you end me the date today? Best, [r 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 V1 texted Person 8 ~wickr[.] lt1 s 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. Wejre getting killed.' These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 76 of 109\n\nA 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[.r 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. eed now[.]\" DA VIS responded, 'Done[.]\" Person **8** responded, \"Got it. hx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]'1 Person F was then a highranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. nor about JuJy 13, 2017 DAVIS texted Person B, \"'Please call wh n u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pls pis go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I wi ll keep u company if u wony about being lonely!\"\n\n56. n or about July 13 - 017, Person 8 texted Person E again regarding tbe 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 roday? 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* l5 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 behaJf ofForei\\_gn National A. DA VIS texted Person B, ''[Person EJ needs to give u this date now and ask him for u date on other thing. We look im otentl. \" This text referred both to setting u a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. Person B res anded, ''A ree. Hammering away . ' '\n\n59. On or about July 18 20 17, Person B and DAV IS 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, DAVI wrote \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me an day w this. Hes panicking[.]\" DAVIS followed up with, ·'This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A Foreign ational A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. Person B responded, ··calling [Person BJ now[.] DA VIS replied in part, Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Persoh G] too. We need this today[.]' Person G was an administrative assistant to the Pr sident. Person B repl ied, \"Doing it now.'\n\n60. On or about July 19 2017, DA VIS texted Per on B in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \" econdly w need this date bad[.]\" Person B responded the following day ' P lease bear with me. Getting some info on mtg( . ]\"\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 78 of 109\n\n6 J. On or about July 21 , 2017, Person B texted Person E regarding the golf outing: ·'[Person E], [Malaysia] have heard nothing from C. POTUS said he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minist r A in late July or early August. POTUS said he was bappy 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. hank you! [].\n\n62. On or about *July* 24 - 017, Per on B texted Person D, 'Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. i• ally! Crossed off my list! Thanl 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 r about July 27, 2017, Person B te>..ied Person D, \"Just checked agajn 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 SA ti r me re [MaJaysia] receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to [Malaysia] Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, O\" Person D responded \" [] will call again this morning. Talked to D briefly yesterday .... Will call sho11ly.\"\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 79 of 109\n\n64. On or about July 29, 2017 relaying in: ormation that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A , DAVIS te ·ted Person B in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, 'They were told 12 sept is mtg. ThaCs day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? o golf??\" DA VIS immediately followed by texting \"Wickr[ ,J\" Person B responded, \"May be tw mtgs. Amb shouJd 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 Secretru:y 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 t:MDB as a \" [p]riority[.] The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by IJMDB, ahd specified that \"'[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessaiy tension American [sic], and c uld cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.l''\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\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 80 of 109\n\nof a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the ecretary of State: \"Hi [Person DJ; When is [Secretary of State] mtg?; Already] 1 :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 \"[l- here i the marked up version I am going to forward to [Secreta1y of State] s office. He heads to Bangkok today and then to [Malaysia]. Let me know if you have any other changes. Thanks.B\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. Jt wiU not likely be pa1t 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 e ecuted an agreement between another of Person A 's companies and a representative of Foreign ational A *pro* iding for·' trategic Communication 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 t transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 mil li n t Law Firm A . Person A also transferred \\$833 333 to a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 81 of 109\n\nbusiness account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DA VT .\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 VlS exchanged te t messages to set up a meetjng and a phone call. Among the messages, DAVIS 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 messag s setting up a phone call. Among the messages DA VIS wrote, 1 ·Call me pf s. [Person A] wants to conference in[.]\"\n\n73. On or about August 19, \\_Q l 7, Person B te 'ted Person D, 'Any update on [Malaysia]? Person D responded \"A 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.' Per on **B**  responded,' Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person **J]**  deputies or [Person l]. 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\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 82 of 109\n\n74. nor 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 \\_o 17 Foreign National A directed the transfer of approximately \\$10 mi Ilion 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 mil Ii n. Based on the prevailing exchange rate on August 24 201 7 UR 8.4 million converted to appro 'imately \\$10 million.\n\n76. On r 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 's meeting with the President. The letter included veral positive developments in the relationship between Mala sia 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 prut to the assistance provided by DA VI for Person B s effo1is 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 ffi cial meeting no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 83 of 109\n\n78. On or about October 6 2017, Person B met with the President at the White House. Person B represented to Person A DA VI and Foreign ational 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 l.MDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Per on B had undertaken on his behaJf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \" I . *We*  are working with the DoJ to counter th previous Administration~s case against I MOB in [Malaysia]. 1 have put a strategy in place to contact patties 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 i 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 wh asked Person B for a loan. Person A told Per on B that Person A s friend was ' checking on\" the money they l1ad received from Foreign ational A and \"helping to keep *it*  lean.''\n\n**11. 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\n8 1. In or about May 2017, following the tri to Banokok, Person 8 agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, DA VIS and Person B discussed that jr was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The pmpose of the trip to Hong Kon° was to meet with Foreign National A and a fore ion government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n82. On or about May I 5. 20 I 7, DA VIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, DA VIS also emailed Person 8 and Person C bankin information for DAVIS's com2any.\n\n83 . On or about May 18, 2017, Person A, Person 8, and DA VIS traveled to Hong Kong and were transp01ted to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Forei <sup>0</sup> n National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A ~oke 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 g\\_overnment officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiling 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. ·'J' II try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.]\"\n\n85. On or about Ma 21, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign ational A and PRC Minister A: \" [Person DJ- Just returned. Huge o ~ortunity. 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 · 1 will need to meet with [Attorney General asa . We will discuss.\" Person B followed u with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney GeneralJ for mtg.\"'\n\n87. On or about Ma 22, 201 7, Person B sent an email to Person D with the subject, '\"O\\_gpo11unity for Si <sup>0</sup> nificantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and the PRC [.)' Person B attached to the email a memorandum from Person B addressed to the Attorney Genera( 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 tri to China where the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. U on recei t, Person Band Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n88. In the memorandum, Person B misre resented the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meetin\\_g with PRC Minister A. Person B\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 86 of 109\n\nconcealed his contact with Foreign National A and concealed Foreign ational A ·s role in setting u the meeting between Person Band PRC Minister A. Person B also concealed the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Forei n National A over the two weeks receding 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\n\n89. In the memorru1dum, Person B stated, ·'I was told by [PRC Minister A] that [the PRC would like to significantly increase bi-lateral coo eration 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 dele\\_gation lanned to meet with several hi h-ranking United States ovemment 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 lthe PRC alleges has cons ired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of the PRC} including kidna Qing 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 ossible from the US to [the PRC so he can be charged with these\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 87 of 109\n\nviolations and go through regular criminal roceedings in Lthe PRCJ with regard to these al legations.\n\nPerson B ap ended an Inter ol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n90. On or abom May 23. 2017, Person B texted Person D, '\"Hi [J Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General ? Please update Thanks Q[J' Person D res onded, '·[Person B]- letter was delivered yesterday. Pl 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 ton ight. But 1 got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n9\\_, On or about May 25, 20 17 Person B texted Person D \"The meetings are at Justice at I 0:00 am this morn in . Then FBI and OHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there l O min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with Done on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first th ing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 88 of 109\n\nmy contact this morning. Thank you. . \" Person D res onded \"[ J- 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 m memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] want to tell [Attomey General directly . Mine is le itimate back channel. [PRC Minister A 's boss wants confirmation that Attorney General] heard the 3 thing which really he! US[.]\" Later that day Person D responded, \" - actually just got off the hone with lAttomey Generaij. ot 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 b [Person IJ. The three items can be shared.\" Person B followed u with, ··Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with Person f .\" Person 1 was a senior official in OHS at the time.\n\n94. On or about May 28, 2017, Per on B emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and [the PRC s] Ambassador to the US. i Person B noted, ··I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Aaorney 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 da 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\n\nand Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetin s with United States Government\n\nofficials, DAVIS texted, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" Person B\n\nresponded, --ves. All set . \" DAVJS re lied, \"He ot his Mtgs reinstated[J\"\n\n96. In or about May 2017 DA VIS, at Person A's request, asked Person B\n\nto meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n97. On or about May 30, 20 I 7, Person B met with PRC Minister A at a\n\nhotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could hel\n\nPRC Minister A arrange me tings with high-ranking United States government\n\nofficials.\n\n98. On or about May 3 L 2017, Person B teA'ted 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 eo le and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His su eriors told him to come home unless meeting with Attorney General or [Person IJ He is ha y meeting with Person I]. . ... So far he has delivered a regnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will acce t 60 Chinese Nationals for de ortation but only if he has a pro er ''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 spec ifi cs. Thank you.\n\n99. Person D responded, ' '[]-got the info. l wil l call in a few mins.\" Person\n\nB replied \"If ou et the meeting can we have the olitical WH liaison meet the\n\nVM at OHS? He can mention m name. Also try to get Person IJ to warm u situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.~'\n\nI 00. On or about May 31 , 2017 DA VIS texted Person B with respect to PRC Minister A 's purported meeting with Person I ''In rincipal Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" Person B res onded, ' '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 res anded, ''Yes, I'm telling him that.\" Person B replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what ha\\_Qpened.\" DA VIS then texted, ··Jsn '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[.]\" DAVIS responded, \" It's on the DHS website[J He's there for the aftemoonl-J Just s oke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[J'' Person B responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster \\* ck.\" DAVIS replied, ·'Wickr.''\n\nIO I. On or about June 9 2017 DA V[S texted Person Ba news article titled \"'[the PRC -cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A .J\"\n\nI 02 . On or about June 2 7 201 7. Person *B* and DA VlS exchanged several text messages regarding PRC National A.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 91 of 109\n\n103. On or about June 27, 20 I 7, 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 fre uent contributor to political cam aigns with close access to the President. had immediate access to and int7uence with the President and could be effective in seek.in the removal of PRC National A. Person B texted Person H's s ouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with Person H tomorrow morning and on im ortant and sensitive matter. Is there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the [J Hotel! Regards, 0[.)' 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 sta 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 OHS no fly list. .. . The order would need to come from the very top as l PRC National A is well connected with former FBI who are on his private securi 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 re uested hel with regard to PRC National A]. . .. He promised to return certain US citizens held hostaoe b the PRC and would accept a ve1y large number of [the PRC illegal immigrants for deJJ011ation back to the PRC . Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n104. On or abou t June 28, 20 17, Person B met with Person Hand his spouse\n\nat a social gathering. After the meeting, Person B exchanged text messages with\n\nPerson H's spouse regarding [PRC National A]: \"Hi[], it was great to see you and\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 92 of 109\n\n[Person H] tonight! l just heard from PRC Minister AJ a<sup>0</sup> ain. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A 's V1SA 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 ver concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confinn and move to dep011ation. This will be an incredible ste for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.'' Person H's s ouse res Jonded, ·'This is with the hi hest leve ls of the state de artment and the defense department. They are workin° on this.'·\n\nI 05. On or about June 29 20 I 7, Person B and DA VIS exchan°ed text messages regardin PRC National A's visa a12 lication. Person 8 texted, \"Is rejection or acce tance letter already generated?'' DAVIS responded, \"I have no idea.\" Person B replied \"'Sorry always generated. In others words each aJ2r2licant 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 goin°\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 93 of 109\n\nto slam until it's done[.]\" DAVIS re lied \"Let's make sure part 1 hap ens today. And date for m[J Don 't leave that dude until we do it.\" Person B 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 oenerate that Jetter) then we will get the *2* Americans home by July 4[J After other hase 2- we can do the 60 take back[. '' Person B res onded, ' 4 Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.''\n\nI 07. On or about June 30. 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, ·'Heard from [Person H . He reiterated to POTUS.\" Person B followed up with \"Separately, [Person E texted me that he got tied *up* but is on to of it.'' That same date, DA VlS 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. ·'S oke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you can[.]\" Person B did nots eak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa a plication. Similar to the re resentations Person B made in the memorandum that he re ared for the Attorney General and his communications with Person ll Person B did not disclose the h·ue nature of his relationshi with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n109. On or about July 2. 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 94 of 109\n\nreporting DA VIS texted, \"There is a cal I cheduled for today unday with [President of the PRCJ 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 ubJic re 011ing, DAVI texted Person B: \"[Pre.sident leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe .]\" DAV[S then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\nl l l. On or about July 18, 2017 Person B emailed DA VIS the contact information for Person H. DAVIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person H in furtherance of the lobbying cam aion to remove PRC National A.\n\n1 12. On or about July 26, 2017 Person B and DA VfS exchanged texL 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 noL]\" Person B responded, '·Asked 3 different people to follow up . \" Person B later added '·Called Person E]. Seein [Person HJ in an hour.\"\n\nI 13. 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 H1 l understand from staff that you re in DC, as am I, staying at the lhotel . Would you like to have a cu <sup>J</sup> of coffee toda ? Regards, LI- ' Later the same day, Person H's s ouse texted Person\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 95 of 109\n\nB \"Hi []. Can you text me the details again of the [the PRCJ man you texted previously thank you[.]' Person B responded 'Hi [], You are referring to [PRC ational A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best [JI.]\" Person H 's pause re lied., ··[PRC ational A .\" Person B then resent the messa e that he reviously sent on June 27.\n\n1 l4. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B and DAV1S exchanged text messa es regarding PRC National A. DAVIS texted Person B. \"Any word on em bass *·?T'* DA VIS later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" Person B res onded, \"I'm dealing with people in N 'C. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[J··\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[J \" Person B later added \"im with [Person H]. have break thru opportunity[J ·\n\n1 16. On or about August 19, 2017 Person B met with Person H on Person H' yacht. Durin their time together Person 8 asked Person H about the matter involvin PRC National A, and Person H suggested lhat they call the President. Person B and Person H then called the President, asking aboul PRC National A' status within the United States.\n\n117. On or about Se tember 13, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, --Please text me asylum a1ticle . And other articleLJ' That same day, DA VIS texted Person B links to a11icles about PRC National A.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 96 of 109\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 ational 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\nl 20. From in or about no later than May 201 7 to at least in or about January 2018 within the District of Hawaii and elsewhere, the d fendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DA VIS, knowingly and wil lfully without registering with the Attorne General as required by law aided and abetted Person A and Person B in their actions as agents of a foreign principal to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the 1 t\\IDB investigation favorably for Foreign ational A and to return PRC National A to the PRC, all on behalf of Foreion National A and PRC Minister A and the Government of the PRC.\n\nAJI in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U .. C. §§ 612 and 6 I 8(a)( I).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 97 of 109\n\n# **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n12 l . The allegations contained in Count I of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfoitmes pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code Section 2461(c).\n\n122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (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)(1 ), the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DA VJS, shall forfei t to the United States of America a sum of money representing property, real or personaJ, 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 prope1ty described in this paragraph.\n\n123. If any of the property describe.d above, as a result of any act or omission\n\nof 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 paiiy;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n- has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty~\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 98 of 109\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21 nited States Code Section 853(p) as incorporated by Title 28 United States Code Section 246l{c)\n\nDATED: A ugust 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.\n\n*Isl Kenii M Price*  KENTI M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\n**d'ml~**\n\n*Isl Kenneth* 1\\11. *Sorenson*  KENNETH M. SORENSO Chief National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUND 0 Chief Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*Isl John D. Keller*\n\nJOHN D. KELLER Principal. Deputy Chief\n\nS ANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LO KHART JAM SC. MANN Tria I Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nUnited States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No. \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ \\_\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 98 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 99 of 109\n\n# **EXHIBITC**\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 100 of 109\n\n### **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,     | )<br>) |\n|-------------------------------|--------|\n| vs.                           | )      |\n| GEORGE BIGGINBOTR~            | )<br>) |\n| ---------------<br>Defendant. | )<br>) |\n|                               | )      |\n\n**Criminal Number:**\n\n18-343 (CKK)\n\n#### **FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEA**\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure **11** the Unjted States and the defendant, George HIGGINBOTHAM stipulate and agree that the following facts fairly and accurately describe the defendant s conduct in the offen e to which he is pleading guilty. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense and related conduct. This statement is being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist to establish that the defendant committed the offense to wruch he is pleading guilty. The defendant knowingly voluntarily, and truthfully admits the facts set forth below.\n\n#### The Conspiracy\n\nl. and elsewhere, HIGGINBOTHAM and others n -0f m:il-lie dollar frem fer i:gn aeeeunt t-0-varieu fi d rnlly in med financial in titution . he United\n\n#### Case 2~ 7:13:1~~3-Ei!OO a3lfilu/'11ent8nlerleideel3l'.1m 021.ms: axa:@1 2 olPage 100 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 101 of 109\n\nIndividuals Involved in the Conspiracy\n\n2. the United States Department of Justice. HIGGINBOTHAM, was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer. o-conspirator B, a foreign national and associate of Co-conspirator A, wa a wealthy businessper on living in East Asia who was alleged to have orchestrated a multi-billion dollar embezzlement and bribery scheme from I Malaysia Development Berbad (\"l MDB ') a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia.\n\nSource and Purposes of International Fund Transfers\n\n3. or about Jul 2016, the United States D artment of Justice \"DOJ\" filed conspirator B was named in the complaints as one of the primary architects of the embezzlement scheme.\n\n4. In or about March 2017, Co-conspirator A asked HIGGINBOTHAM to assist with identifying someone with political influence who could resolve Co-conspirator B's issues surrounding the 1 MDB forfeiture matters and the DOJ's investigation thereof. HIGGINBOTHAM introduced Co-conspirator A to a law firm recruiter who recommended two different law firms, but Co-conspirator B ultimately selected Per on I. non-lawyer business owner, political fundraiser, and financier with political connection at high level of the United State government, to lobby government officials to resolve the lMDB matters. HIGGINBOTHAM had no involvement in introducing Person I to Co-conspirator A or Co-conspirator B.\n\n#### Case 2~ 7:13:1~ 3-Ei!OO a3lfilli'11ent8Qlerleideel3l'.lm021.ms: axa:@1 3 olPa.ge 101 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 102 of 109\n\n5. ccording to Co-conspirator A, Person l ilia not want to be paia directly oy Co-Wll \\_piI:ator B becau e he. did n t want to b linked to o-con pirator B A o-con pir..ator A· or payments tl.iiougli pass-tl.iiougli entities to chstance Co-conspirator ano anonyrmze o-conspua or e ansac 10n. According to the written agreements, Coconspirator B would pay tens of millions of dollars to Person l through various intermediaries and entities as compensation for Person 1 s efforts to lobby United States government officials to drop all civil and/or criminal matters related to l MDB. According to Co-conspirator A, as part of the lobbying campaign, Person l agreed to try to influence a potential nominee for a federal position that would have authority over the I MDB civil forfeiture matters. That person ultimately was not nominated.\n\n6. In or about Ma 2017, Co-cons irator A informed HIGGINBOTHAM that Coonsp1rator o-conspira or \\_ ..., \\_ \\_,,\\_\\_w\\_ho was livin *in* the United States on a tem~orary visa and who back o Coun ry Q. 1'\\ccording to Co-conspirator 'N., Person I an onnections to lobb United States overnment officials to have ForeigQ ational l removed from States.\n\n7. or about July 2017, Co-conspuator A requestecl that HIGGINBOTHAM meet with Country Q's ambassador to the United States at Country Q's embassy in Wasnington, D.C. IGGINBOTHAM agreed and on or about July 16, 2017, HIGGTNBOTHAM went to Countr Q's embassy in Washington D.C. and met with the ambassador. HIGGINBOTHAM informed\n\n#### Case 2~ 7l3:1~€01Drn3-Effl{:J CDlRillruentOOerleite03l'.lffi021.ffi5:~ 4 aPa.ge 102 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 103 of 109\n\nem assy staff and ountry Q s am assaaor at e was there m liis persona capacity an not as a epresentat1ve o DOJ. GGINBOTHA message during the meeting: Uruteil States government o 1cia s were wor mvolving Foreign National 1 and there would be additional information in the future concemin he logistic etu:ming -oreign ational 1 to ollowing the mee in , HIGGINBOTHAM re orted to Co-cons irator A what had occurred. Co-cons irator A informed GINBOTl'IAM that, oasecl on o-conspira or A s conversations with o-conspirator B, o\n\n8. d I ars were o-consp1Tator GG1NBOTID o lnbb Uni-red tare govemm:en offirtah; 0 (I) resolve the 1 MOB matters, and nave ore1gn ati n I I rem a fr m the nite Stat and nt ba k t0 Goun\n\n9. o make the international fund tran fer itimate HIGGINBOTHAM uect:Jon of Co-con pirator A. :!'he documents were in the name of everal foreign and domestic shell companies that concealed Co-conspirator B\"s involvement in the transaction . \\_T\\_h\\_e-\"-.......,. acumen s was o prov1cle a cover tory m ca e or otner au tbe true urce and-purp s he nd . HIGG BOTHAM understood that Co-conspirator A and Co-conspirator B were concerned that financial institutions in the United\n\n#### Case 2~ 7l3:1~€01Drn3-Effl{:J CDlRillruentOOerleite03l'.lffi021.ffi5:~ 5 aPa.ge 103 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 104 of 109\n\nState would refuse to execute transactions involving any funds identified as being as ociated with Co-conspirator B.\n\nMeeting with Co-conspirator B in Country 0\n\n10. eques JllG..GlliB.OIHAM travelled to Country Q with Co-cons\\_P.irator A and others to meet with Co-cons\\_P.irator B Over the course of several days, HIGGIN BOTHAM met with Co-conspirator B, Co-conspirator A, and others. During these meetings, Co-conspirator B, Co-conspirator A and others · scussed strate ies or secretly funneling more of Co-conspirator B's money into ttie Uniteo States to fiirtner toe o ymg campaign, me u mg commg up wit cover stones to exp am t e movement o money ml ro onceal th facnhanJre money wa assodaredwith o-comptraror . hey also discussed the strictness of the United States banking system in the wake of the events of September 11 , 2001 . Co-conspirator B stated that he wanted to send the money in smaller installments over a longer period of time in order to avoid scrutiny.\n\n· IGGINBOTHAM Rower of attorney over the a sets of Forei@ ComRany R, another enti!)'. formed in Country Q and pufROrtedly owned b)' an associate of Co-conspirator B. coula sell Company ompany R' -a se -to ompen at -thoseinvolvedin1he lobbying arnpatgn. A INBOTHAM signed ni m untf:Y Q purp 1tin t g-iv HIGGINBO H M--c0ntrol--e F Campany R aml its a ets.\n\n# Case 2~ 7:13:1~~3-Ei!OO a3lfilu/'11ent8nlerleideel3l'.1m 021.ms: axa:@1 6 olPage 104 of . 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 105 of 109\n\n12. Upon returning to the United States, HIGGINBOTHAM and Co-conspirator A learned that Per on l and others involved in the lobbying campaign were dissatisfied with Coconspirator B's proposal and the fact that the trip to CoW1try Q had not resulted in additional funds being sent to the United States. In or about October 2017, Co-conspirator A and HIGGINBOTHAM agreed that the additional funds that Per on 1 and his associates were see.king from Co-conspirator B could instead be deposited into HIGGINBOTHAM's attorney escrow account pending resolution of the issue concerning Foreign National 1.\n\n13 . b\\_Qu Octob . HIGGINBOTHAM, at Co-cons irator A s direction, di bur ed several million dollar for one Co-conspirator A's cut for helping get the money into the United States and acting as an intermediary between Co-conspirator B and the individuals engaged in the lobbying campaign. ¼rtuall all of the remain.in funds were laced in a certificate of de osit at Co-cons irator A's eques e loobying campaign wanteo rhe money to oe secure. BOTHAM believed 1batthe1Und would b wa\n\nFalse Statements to Financial lnstitutions\n\n14. 017 ancl in or abou furtherance of the cons~iracy, HIGGINBOTHAM made and cau ed to be made fal e tatement Forei <sup>0</sup> n Com an L and Foreign Com an R to accounts in the United State to finance Co-\n\n#### Case 2~ 7:13:1~~3-Ei!OO a3lfilu/'11ent8nlerleideel3l'.1m 021.ms: axa:@1 7 olPage 105 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 106 of 109\n\nonsprrato B s lobbyin campaign HIGGINBOTHAM understood that Co-conspirator B's publicly known status as one of the primary architects of the IMDB embezzlement and bribery scheme created significant barriers to moving Co-conspirator B s money through United States financial institutions. HIGGINBOTHAM Co-conspirator A, and Co-conspirator B, therefore agreed that Co-conspirator B's connection to the funds ent to the United States for the lobbying campaign would be concealed from United States financial institutions and the true purpose of the funds would be misrepresented to the financial institution .\n\n15. inanc1a nst1tution institution with accounts insured by the Federal De osit Insurance Co oration FDIC sent 01.rr and urp dollar in tr-an fir from for . ign t t ore1gn Company mance Co-conspirator A ·s ''entertainment matters,'' and also to retain a law firm to assi t Foreign Company r.:: to 're olve a highly complex civil litigation matter. ' e letter made no mention of ational l removed from the United State . In addition, HIGGINBOTHAM attached one of the fake consulting contracts to his response to Financial Institution X as a cover story for some of the money Co-conspirator B had transferred to Co-conspirator A business accounts in the United States. On or about September 28, 20 l 7, Financial Institution X informed Co-conspirator A that all of his business account would be closed on or before October 28, 2017, and that effective\n\n#### Case 2~ 7:13:1~~3-Ei!OO a3lfilu/'11ent8nlerleideel3l'.1m 021.ms: axa:@1 8 olPage 106 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 107 of 109\n\nimmediately wires into the accounts would no longer be accepted \"due to insufficient information received regarding the source of funds on previous wire .\" Financial Institution X subsequently issued cashier's checks totaling approximately \\$37 million for the remaining balance, which were deposited with Financial Institution Ya short time later.\n\n16. Financial Institution Y was a broker-dealer registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that had arrangements with federally insured banks for offering certain account services. In or about October 2017, Co-conspirator A and HIGGINBOTHAM opened bu iness accounts with Financial lnstitution Y that provided separate cash accounts with an affiliate FDIC in ured bank, where some of the funds from Foreign Company L (which had previously been with Financial Institution X) were maintained. Between in or about October and November 2017, as part of its due diligence in connection with the account openings inancial lnstttut10n Y repeateclly inquire o Co-conspirator A an -- lbout the source and purpose of the tens of millions o dollars in Co-conspirator A s busmess a eounts lliat l:iaa previou ly oeen wiili Financial Institution X. ln order to influence Financial Institution Y s actions with re pect to maintaining the accounts, Co-conspirator A claimed to a representative of Financ · al titution Y that the money wa from a foreign inve tor in Coconspirator A 's entertainment projects. In addition, on or about ovember 6 2017 at Coconspirator A's direction, HIGGINBOTHAM responded to the representatives question about whose money was in the accounts by falsely claiming \"The funds originated with [Foreign Company L] (incorporation documents attached) who is an investor in a slate of projects the [sic] are currently under review and subject to further discussion.\" IGGINBOTHAM mentioned Co-cons irator B or the cam ai n to influence the I MDB matters or about November 2017,\n\n#### Case 2~ 7l3:1~€01Drn3-Effl{:J CDlRillruentOOerleite03l'.lffi0flffi5:~ 9 aPa.ge 107 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 108 of 109\n\nFinancial Institution Y closed Co-conspirator A's bu iness account and disbur ed the remaining funds, including those from the cash accounts, to Co-conspirator A.\n\nl 7. 1 n or about December 2017, Financial Institution Z, an FDIC insured bank wher Be>THAM maintained an attome scrow ac-c-oun , ·nquire HI GINBOTHAM aboo G.GJNBOIHAM's count from Eoreign Company R. In order to influence Financial Institution Z's due diligence with respect to the funds, HI GINBOTHAM re onded that the rnone was an investment from Foreign Company R in music and entertainment projects for one of his clients 1 not mention o-consptrator or t e campaign to ave F, reign afional remove\n\n18. On or about May 9, 2017 HIGGINBOTHAM ubmitted a \\$20,000 invoice t Coconspirator A for work related, at least in part to the conduct described above for Co-conspirator A. On or about August 11 , 2017 conspirator A and his money manager for work related, at least in part to the conduct described above for Co-conspirator A. nvo1ces. ~\n\nBy:\n\nA ALOUTIROL\n\nohn Keller Deputy Chief Ryan Ellersick James Mann SeanMulryne icole Lockhart Trial Attorney Public Integrity Section 1400 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-141 2\n\n#### Case 2l;a00]318-IDD©OM3-G™Kd (]lli1!Wffl2nt IEBltelFEBecOl ffi'00l28..5~110 <M'~ 108 of · 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 109 of 109\n\n#### **DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE**\n\nThe preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpo e of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and becau e I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence ofanything that could impede my ability to understand this Factual Basis for Plea fully.\n\nI have read every word of thi Factual Basis for Plea or have had it read to me. Pursuant to\n\n#### **ATTOR EY'S ACKNOWLEDGME T**\n\nI have read th is Factual Basis for Plea, and have reviewed it with my client fu lly. I concur in my client's desire to adopt and stipulate to this Factual Basis for Plea as true and accurate.\n\nDat /1+--/t\\_q+----'-/t~J- , ' Christopher Mead\n\nLance Robinson For the Defendant","body_zh":"附件 PAX 16\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于 March 20, 2022 作出的声明，并以 ECF No. 107 记载于本案案卷\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 1 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 2 of 109\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院） DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区） BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n关于：                                                  Chapter 11\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），                                 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\nHO WAN KWOK 先生支持 Chapter 11 案件及若干动议的声明\n\n本人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经依法宣誓，声明并陈述如下：\n\n1. 于 February 15, 2022，本人启动上述标题所示的 Chapter 11 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，以及导致本人启动本 Chapter 11 案件的情况说明。本人在本声明中作出一定程度的详细说明，以就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 Chapter 11 案件的原因提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文更充分论述，本人提交本 Chapter 11 案件，以：(a) 建立一个单一的审理平台，以有序处理针对本人提出的各种相互竞争的债权；(b) 鉴于本人认为在该等事项上存在误解，为利害关系人提供有效机会，以调查本人的资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，并进而可供向获准债权持有人分配；并且，希望 (d) 达成共识\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 2 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 3 of 109\n\n与本人的债权人就根据 Chapter 11 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 Chapter 11 案件及准备本声明时，本人知悉法院可能对 Ostrager 法官于 February 9 作出的藐视法庭命令（定义见下文）、PAX（亦定义见下文）就本人作出的不利陈述，以及甚至本人曾公开表达的政治观点存有疑虑。当然，每一件事都有两个或更多方面，而本声明将提出本人的观点。基于将会明确的原因，本人因公开批评 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）（“CCP”）的腐败及侵犯人权行为，而持续担心遭受其报复。多年来，本人一直遭受由 CCP 及其代理人和代表资助、在美国法院系统中提起的毫无根据诉讼的持续攻击。本人本 Chapter 11 案件仅能处理 CCP 试图向本人及本人家人施加的财务损害。但是，CCP 希望对本人造成的，远不止财务损害及公众羞辱。本人相信，如本人遭监禁、引渡，或如本人家人再也无法为本人提供人身安全保障，CCP 将会在最早可能的机会刺杀本人。本人并不主张法院或任何利害关系方现即接受本人对基础案件事实的观点。恰恰相反，预期本 Chapter 11 案件将由一项无担保的申请后贷款获得充足资金支持，该贷款的偿还优先顺位低于所有申请前债权人——从而允许进行公平调查，并允许利害关系人作为通常 Chapter 11 程序的一部分，提出其认为适当的任何可采证据。换言之，本破产程序旨在允许对所有相关且可证明的案件事实进行合理审查，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”而在付款优先顺位上跃居前列，则在该范围内例外，因为这对某些人必然不公平。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 3 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 4 of 109\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，包括对本人资产及负债的概述。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。本人现与结婚 37 年的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志诺）居住于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州） Greenwich（格林尼治）373 Taconic Road。我们于 March 2020 从 New York（纽约）Sherry-Netherland 的一套公寓搬至康涅狄格州的现址。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 London（伦敦）。本人女儿名为 Mei Guo（郭美），其时间分别在 New York City（纽约市）和康涅狄格州两地度过。\n\n7. 本人及家人出身贫困。本人和七名兄弟努力工作，并将收入合并——本人的收入来自一家无线电维修店，兄弟们的收入来自各自的小型企业——用于投资房地产开发。在 1989 年支持民主的 Tiananmen Square（天安门广场）抗议活动之后，本人因向学生抗议者提供资金支持而被监禁约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。本人被捕时二十岁出头。同时，本人目睹两名警察——CCP 的代理人——枪击本人的弟弟并任其死亡的暴行。本人弟弟遭杀害，以及本人被捕后在狱中遭受酷刑，对本人产生了深刻影响。在狱中，本人与许多其他良心犯建立了有意义的个人联系，他们同样因支持 Tiananmen Square 亲民主运动而被监禁。我们共同怀有在中国追求自由的热忱，本人于 1991 年出狱后继续维持这些关系。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 4 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 5 of 109\n\n8. 大约于 1991 年，中国政府开始放宽规范社会的某些规定，包括使普通公民能够开始在中国取得某种“准私有”不动产所有权的规定。虽然本人的大家族从该变化中受益，但本人因先前基于政治动机的逮捕和拘留而无法亲自受益。以本人名义登记的任何中国资产都很可能被 CCP 没收。本人的大家族利用其积累的财富支持本人，且该支持持续至今。\n\n9. 本人的大家族开始与 Yuda Property Company（裕达置业公司）（“Yuda”）合作，该公司专注于中国 Henan Province（河南省）的商业房地产开发。郭氏家族与 Yuda 共同开发了 Henan Yuda Hotel（河南裕达酒店），此后又在河南省省会 Zhengzhou（郑州）开发了 Yuda International Trade Center（裕达国际贸易中心）。这些均为成功项目，使郭氏家族开始积累大量财富。此后，本人家族在中国开发了其他物业，包括 Beijing（北京）的 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）——一座七星级酒店、会议中心及住宅公寓综合体。美国人可能将 Pangu Plaza 认作 2008 和 2022 年北京奥运会的主要背景建筑。\n\n10. 郭氏家族通过多元化投资持续增加财富，投资于金融、科技及其他商业领域。尤其是本人儿子，通过设立及管理投资机会，包括将全球奢侈品牌引入中国和 Hong Kong（香港），在扩大家族财富方面发挥了关键作用。因此，本人儿子本身是一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 本人于大约 2000 年离开中国大陆前往 Hong Kong（香港），并成为香港公民。当大家族仍在中国持续积累巨额财富时，根据中国法律，作为香港公民，本人既不能保留中国国籍，也不获准在中国拥有资产。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 5 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 6 of 109\n\n12. 本人大家族的财务成功并未逃过 CCP 的注意。于 2002 年，本人大家族在北京购得大面积土地；当中国被指定为 2008 Olympics（2008 年奥运会）主办国后，该等土地的价值显著增加。CCP 官员试图为其个人利益侵占该等土地，本人遂向更高级别的政府官员举报该等试图侵占的行为。经过长期斗争后，该等土地得以收回，从而使 Pangu Plaza 得以开发。\n\n13. 大约于 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。于 January 10, 2015，Wu Zheng（吴征）（亦称“Bruno Wu（布鲁诺·吴）”）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 的登记外国代理人；其媒体公司曾与 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 Hollywood（好莱坞）制片厂；1 而且，他本人正代表 CCP 为众多原告针对本人的诉讼工作提供资金支持。2015 年初，Bruno Wu 代表 CCP 高级成员致电本人，转达称若本人停止公开揭露 CCP 腐败，本人的家人将获释放，并威胁称，如本人不服从，将对本人及本人儿子发出 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. 于 2017 年，本人通过利用社交媒体及美国新闻媒体作为平台，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\nNancy Tartaglione（南希·塔塔格里奥内），Chinese Create \\$800lvf Fund Tu Invest In Global, Local Entertainment，Deadline，February 6, 2012（http /deadline.com/2012/02/chinese-create-800m-fund-to-invest-in-entertainment-companies-report-226260/）。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 6 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 7 of 109\n\n本人公开揭露 CCP 腐败的陈述在美国及海外获得广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更便捷且更广泛地揭露 CCP 腐败外，本人还向美国当局提供了有关 CCP 官员及其犯罪行为的信息。由于担心生命安全，本人于 September 2017 在美国申请政治庇护保护，本人的庇护申请仍在审理中。\n\n15. 为报复本人的揭发行为，CCP 发起了一场多方面行动，试图取得对本人的筹码、诋毁2、威胁并使本人噤声。3 下文所述的这些行为最终使本人进入本破产案件。例如，于 April 19, 2017，本人原计划接受 Voice of America（美国之音）（“VOA”）采访，期间本人拟揭露\n\nStanford 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运动中的主要目标，该运动由 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，Sockpuppets Spin COVJD Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown，Stanford Internet Observatory，June 17, 2020（http）；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren 和 Elise Thomas，Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests，October 2019（htt l 9-\n\n12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?Versionid=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc4SfDUy7sMfNkw0）（表明中共（CCP）针对本人的虚假信息宣传活动始于2017年4月）；Dr. Jake Wallis（杰克·沃利斯博士）、Tom Uren（汤姆·尤伦）、Elise Thomas（伊莉斯·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），Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor（《穿越防火长城的转推：一个持续且未受遏制的威胁行为者》），2020年6月（https://www.aspi.org.au/report/retweeting-through-great-firewall?VersionId=ZzW5dlyg1OOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgtXD6TCA）（展示的数据反映，“一场与中国国家行为者有关、持续且大规模的Twitter和Facebook影响力宣传活动……主要针对中国大陆以外的中文受众（Twitter在中国大陆被屏蔽）……其意图是影响人们对……Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的看法”）；Joseph Menn（约瑟夫·门恩），Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID（《亲华社交媒体宣传活动波及新国家，将COVID归咎于美国》），Reuters（路透社），2021年9月9日（http -09-08/）（报道称，FireEye（火眼公司）和Alphabet's Google（Alphabet旗下的谷歌）的安全专家观察到，一场协同的社交媒体虚假信息宣传活动支持中国政府利益，并以本人为目标）。如这些独立来源所证实，世界上没有任何人比本人遭受更多来自中共社交媒体战的攻击。\n\n中共针对本人——一名居住在美国的中国异议人士——所采取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，如有必要即使用暴力，以终结一名候选人的国会竞选，并指示他‘打他，直到他无法参选。’”参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），Chinese Agent Proposed Violent Means to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says（《司法部称，中国特工曾提议以暴力手段终止异议人士的国会竞选》），Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2022年3月16日（http 1647 455520?mod=article inline）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 7 页，共 108 页　案件 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 8 页，共 109 页\n\n中共对HNA Group Co.（海航集团）的所有权权益。中共采取了多项行动，试图阻止本人和VOA（美国之音）继续进行该采访。第一，在本人预定接受VOA采访前两天——且正如Bruno Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——中共基于捏造的刑事指控，促使国际刑警组织（INTERPOL）发布一项寻求逮捕本人并将本人引渡至中国的“红色通报”。第二，中共威胁称，若VOA继续进行对本人的采访，将对VOA及其驻华记者实施报复，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（PAG的子公司）在纽约以违约为由对本人提起了一项毫无根据的诉讼。本人继续接受了采访，但VOA（屈从于中共的压力）命令提前中止采访。\n\n16. 在中共早期使本人噤声的努力失败后，其转而试图将本人引渡至中国，而本人将在那里被杀害。FBI（美国联邦调查局）的一项调查显示，2017年夏季，本人成为中共在美国游说活动的目标；中共利用一名腐败政府官员及若干知名人士，包括澳门赌场所有人Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利），直接游说President Trump（特朗普总统）及其政府将本人引渡至中国。4 中共的计划导致共和党全国委员会（Republican National Committee）前财务主席Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）（其后亦如Bruno Wu一样，为其他当事人针对本人的诉讼提供资金）、说客Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·林·戴维斯）及美国司法部（DOJ）前官员George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）遭联邦起诉并作出认罪答辩；所有这些人均承认，收取报酬以换取游说美国政府高级官员将本人引渡。中国的这项行动包括贿赂和腐化一名美国司法部总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现近$75 million，使其成为美国司法部历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中共还自同年起以各种其他方式针对本人，包括：于2017年9月入侵提交本人庇护申请的律师事务所服务器，从该申请中提取本人的高度敏感信息，继而在互联网上公开传播；对本人提起并资助（其中数起通过Bruno Wu）大量虚假诉讼，其中一些至今仍在进行；以及拘押、酷刑折磨和监禁本人的多名家属及前同事。\n\n4 参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔），Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman（《史蒂夫·永利可能因参与中国驱逐商人的行动而面临司法部行动》），Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2021年5月26日（http）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 8 页，共 108 页　案件 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 9 页，共 109 页\n\n为其他当事人针对本人的诉讼提供资金），说客Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·林·戴维斯），6 以及美国司法部前官员George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆），7 所有人均承认，收取报酬以换取游说美国政府高级官员将本人引渡。中国的这项行动包括贿赂和腐化一名美国司法部总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现近$75 million，使其成为美国司法部历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中共还自同年起以各种其他方式针对本人，包括：于2017年9月入侵提交本人庇护申请的律师事务所服务器，从该申请中提取本人的高度敏感信息，继而在互联网上公开传播；对本人提起并资助（其中数起通过Bruno Wu）大量虚假诉讼，其中一些至今仍在进行；以及拘押、酷刑折磨和监禁本人的多名家属及前同事。\n\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National（《Elliott Broidy就旨在撤销1MDB调查并遣返一名中国外国国民的幕后游说活动作出认罪答辩》），2020年10月20日（https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/elliott-broidy-pleads-guilty-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop-1mdb-investigation-and）（载明，“Broidy还同意代表Foreign National A和People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A，游说政府和司法部，以安排PRC National A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异议人士——被遣离并返回”；本人即“PRC National A”）。有关Elliott Broidy的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉书）”副本作为证据A附于本文件之后。\n\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：Hawaii Businesswoman Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China（《夏威夷女商人就协助旨在撤销1MDB调查并将一名外国国民遣返中国的幕后游说活动作出认罪答辩》），2020年8月31日（https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hawaii-businesswoman-pleads-guilty-facilitating-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop-1mdb）（载明，“Lum Davis和其他人还同意代表Foreign National A和People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A，游说政府和司法部，以安排PRC National A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异议人士——被遣离并返回”；本人即“PRC National A”）。有关Nicki Lum Davis的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉书）”副本作为证据B附于本文件之后。\n\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds（《司法部前雇员就共谋欺骗美国银行有关数百万美元外国游说资金一事作出认罪答辩》），2018年11月30日（https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-justice-department-employee-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-deceive-us-banks-about-millions）（载明，“Higginbotham进一步承认，该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外国国民——其当时持临时签证居住在美国——遣离美国并送回其原籍国”；本人即该“另一名外国国民”）。有关George Higginbotham的“Factual Basis for Plea（认罪答辩的事实依据）”副本作为证据C附于本文件之后。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 9 页，共 108 页　案件 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 10 页，共 109 页\n\n17. 自2017年以来，中共还冻结并没收了本人在中国和香港的家庭资产及所谓资产，使本人甚至无法维持一个银行账户。8 中共已将摧毁本人所创造的一切并阻止本人与金融机构打交道作为其使命。本人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，包括揭露中共腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。本人家人，尤其是本人儿子，负担本人的生活所需。在申请日之前，本人儿子的家族办公室Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司，下称“GSNY”或“家族办公室”）购买了本人的衣物、食物和日用品等众多物品。本人无法使用GSNY信用卡或GSNY银行账户。除本人的衣物和手机外，本人家人保有本人使用的几乎所有物品的所有权。本人不拥有位于康涅狄格州格林尼治的住所；该住所由本人妻子通过Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）持有。本人为本人儿子以信托方式持有Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）公寓的权益。\n\n18. 本人家人向本人提供贷款（部分有文件证明，其他没有），以支付本人的重大诉讼费用，使本人得以在中共提起或授意提起的大量诉讼中为自己辩护。截至申请日，GSNY已向本人提供约$21 million的贷款，以支付本人的诉讼费用。如以下所述并如本人的Statement of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明书，下称“SOFA”）所载，本人是美国及国外30余宗未决诉讼中的被告和/或申索人。众所周知，中共利用其代理人\n\n8 2018年10月23日，High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭，下称“香港高等法院”）作出日期为2018年10月18日的Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere（《禁止处分香港及其他地方资产的限制令》，下称“香港限制令”）。香港限制令针对据称属于本人的、存放于Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司，HSBC Bank）的HK$3.7 million资金。另有数十亿资金和财产，包括香港的不动产，属于据香港限制令所称受本人“有效控制”的个人和实体，也被冻结和/或没收。香港限制令禁止被点名的“答辩人”（其中包括本人）处分任何资产。任何人在香港限制令作出后接收本人的资产，据称均违反该命令，并将被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 10 页，共 108 页　案件 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 11 页，共 109 页\n\n提起诉讼，甚至在美国法院提起诉讼，以迫使因政治原因被追查的个人返回中国。9 与此类诉讼有关而聘请律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的费用极其高昂。\n\nII. 本人的负债\n\n19. 据本人所知，本人已在已提交的Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（资产与负债清单，下称“清单”）和SOFA中反映本人负债的当前状况。家族办公室协助本人准备这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey律师事务所）亦提供协助；该所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如以下进一步所述，本人在21宗诉讼中被列为被告，并欠付大量诉讼费用。\n\nA. PAX诉讼。\n\n20. PAX（一家香港投资基金，其母公司PAG（太盟投资集团）与中共代理人Bruno Wu的媒体公司合作购买了一家好莱坞制片厂）在纽约和British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，下称“BVI”）对本人提起诉讼。如本人此前所述，PAX在New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的诉讼于2017年4月18日提出，即本人为揭露中共腐败而接受VOA采访的前一天。PAX的主张主要涉及追收一笔有争议债务。\n\n21. 2008年，PAX向一家名为Spirit Carter（斯皮里特·卡特）的中国实体提供了一笔$100 million贷款（下称“PAX贷款”）。该笔$100 million贷款分两期发放：(1) 由本人提供个人保证担保的首笔$30 million贷款；以及(2) 由最终成为Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地/开发项目所有公司49%权益担保的第二笔$70 million贷款。\n\n9 参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts（《中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院》），Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2020年7月29日（http）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 11 页，共 108 页　案件 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 12 页，共 109 页\n\n22. 2009年，PAX收到$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经履行。PAX对是否实际发生了“和解与清偿”提出异议，现根据一份日期较后的伪造个人保证向我提出索赔。在向我出示该保证之前，我先前的诉讼代理律师已将其提交法院，以支持若干动议。其后当我得知该文件的存在时，我表示我认为该文件系伪造；但法院裁定，鉴于其先前已被提交，我不再有权质疑其真实性。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，也未在陪审团前进行证据审判。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为$125 million。我已及时向New York Appellate Division（纽约上诉分院）对该判决提出上诉，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限制令”）。PAX在执行该判决时，主要关注一艘名为“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。该游艇的维护费用一直由我儿子支付。尽管如此，2021年3月16日，Ostrager法官命令我于2021年5月15日前将该游艇返还纽约，否则该游艇每在该司法管辖区外停留一天，我将面临$500,000的巨额每日罚款。我确实可以使用该游艇，但我无权命令其返还纽约。Lady May从未返回纽约，截至今年早些时候，累计的藐视法庭罚款已超过作出有利于PAX的判决金额，并为该游艇所述价值的五至六倍。我无力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的财产清单包括一项针对我长期诉讼代理律师的潜在专业失职索赔。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 12 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 13 页，共 109 页\n\n24. 2022年2月9日，Ostrager法官对我作出民事藐视法庭最终命令（“2月9日藐视法庭命令”）。在2月9日藐视法庭命令中，Ostrager法官认定我对Lady May享有受益权益并对其实施控制，并命令我在五个营业日内向PAX支付$134 million罚款，否则将面临因民事藐视法庭而被监禁的风险。我认为2月9日藐视法庭命令系被错误地对我作出，并已另行向上诉分院对该命令提出上诉。无论如何，我均无力履行该命令。我坚信中国共产党（CCP）正在策划PAX案件。迄今为止，PAX诉讼是中国共产党持续不断针对我的行动中为数不多的成功之一，因为该诉讼使我面临潜在监禁11，并迫使我进入破产程序。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 在七起与我推销一家名为GTV Media Group, Inc（GTV）的公司所发行证券，以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币销售有关的诉讼中，我被列为被告。除两个拟议投资者集体外，数名个人投资者还就其在所谓投资后遭受的损失向我提出索赔。这些诉讼中的原告通常主张，我参与了一项违反适用美国证券法、向缺乏经验的投资者出售未注册证券的计划。这些起诉书合计向我及包括GTV及其母公司Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca）在内的多名共同被告索赔超过$100 million损害赔偿。我认为这些索赔毫无依据。12\n\n11 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.要求作出命令，确认自动中止不适用，或备选地，根据《破产法》第362(D)(2)条免除自动中止的动议 [Docket No. 57]（“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，并对我的财产及其债权人造成实质性不利影响。正如PAX在解除中止动议中所示，执行2月9日藐视法庭命令可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性损害我实现本第11章案件目标的能力。最主要的是，如被监禁，我将无法充分、适当地管理我的财产，参与本破产案件，与债权人谈判，在本法院出庭并陈述意见，与律师协商并指示律师，调查并归集财产资产，或制定并协商第11章计划。此外，我认为PAX错误地相信，如我面临被监禁的风险，我的家人将向PAX支付赎金；我的家人不会这样做。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 13 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 14 页，共 109 页\n\nC. 诽谤索赔。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直非常活跃于社交媒体，并发布批评中国共产党、其代理人及其影响范围内其他人士的内容。在此背景下，若干据称在我的社交媒体内容中被指认的人士已向我提出诽谤索赔。如我的财务状况说明书（SOFA）所列，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（吴征）资助；其是中国共产党公认的代理人，也是PAX母公司的商业伙伴。这些诉讼中的原告合计主张了巨额损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资成本。\n\n27. 我为取得金钱救济而提起索赔的费用，由根据诉讼融资协议（“诉讼融资协议”）提供的贷款资助。在我必须对索赔进行抗辩的情形下，家族办公室（Family Office）向我预支贷款以支付我的诉讼费用。在任何一种情形下，贷款所得款项均直接支付给由我聘用的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日，GSNY已向我预支约$21 million，用于诉讼相关费用。\n\n28. 在存在诉讼融资协议的情形下，如我最终成功主张并收回我的索赔，GSNY有权获得溢价，并已就我的若干诉讼回收款主张担保权益，以担保该等偿还及投资回报。\n\n12 这些事项涉及某项已和解的执法程序。具体而言，2021年9月，GTV和Saraca就美国证券交易委员会（SEC）关于GTV发行违反Section 506 of the 33 Act的主张，达成了公开宣布的“不承认亦不否认”和解（“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）达成了一项平行和解。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 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 14 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 15 页，共 109 页\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据告知，在我的第11章案件启动时，已形成一项财产，其中包括截至提交日我在任何地点、由任何人持有的财产所享有的所有法定或衡平法权益。据进一步告知，我的财产及其所有资产均受本法院的管辖和监督。当然，我接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的财产清单中列明。这些资产主要是衣物、食品及其他少量家居物品，以及诉讼索赔。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物和其他日用品。我能够使用的其他一切物品——包括车辆、我的住所（过去和现在）、家具、艺术品和电子设备（但不包括我的手机）——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，我无权处置任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我也是数起在美国、英国和瑞士待决案件中的索赔人。该等诉讼的具体情况已在我的Statements of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明书）中披露。其中两起诉讼值得在此特别提及：\n\na. UBS索赔。在United Kingdom Royal Courts of Justice（英国皇家司法法院），我和若干共同原告对UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团伦敦分行）（“UBS”）提出索赔，要求获得超过$500 million的损害赔偿，该索赔涉及UBS就我试图促成收购并收购一家中国金融机构Haitong（海通）所发行若干股份时作出的过失性虚假陈述和建议，时间为2015年。就在2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁定，确定英国法院对我针对UBS的索赔拥有管辖权——而非UBS所主张的瑞士。鉴于UBS对管辖权提出异议，必须同时在瑞士Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔市民事法院调解机构）提起平行诉讼，以确保在英国被认定缺乏管辖权的情况下该诉讼仍可继续进行（英国并未被认定缺乏管辖权）。瑞士的该诉讼目前处于中止状态，等待UBS就该管辖权问题向英国Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提出的上诉结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill索赔。此外，我已对Clark Hill PLC（克拉克希尔公共有限公司）及其一名成员Thomas K. Ragland（托马斯·K·拉格兰）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出索赔。该诉讼目前正在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）审理。我就Clark Hill违反其法律代理职责，要求其赔偿$50 million补偿性损害赔偿以及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿。具体而言，由于Clark Hill未能充分保护我的庇护申请中包含的高度敏感信息，中国共产党于2017年9月期间入侵了Clark Hill的服务器，提取了该等高度敏感信息，随后将其散布于互联网。更糟的是，Clark Hill屈服于中国共产党黑客的威胁，辞去我的移民代理律师职务。因此，我已遭受并仍在遭受损害。\n\n33. 另外两项并非我所有的资产值得特别说明：(a) Lady May；以及(b)位于纽约市Sherry-Netherland（谢里-荷兰人酒店）的一套公寓（“该公寓”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 16 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 17 页，共 109 页\n\n- a. Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）。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 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令中作出了认定，但指示 Lady May 留在纽约或返回纽约并非我力所能及。\n\n- b. Sherry-Netherland Apartment（Sherry-Netherland 公寓）。该 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的合作公寓股份由 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。13 Genever US 的成员权益继而由 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（“信托日期”），我为 Bravo Luck Limited（“公寓所有人”）的利益而以信托方式持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有公寓所有人的股权。在信托日期当日或前后，公寓所有人以购买该公寓的价款向 Genever US 提供资金。该等资金来自我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。还应指出，Justice Ostrager（Ostrager 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英属维尔京群岛正在进行的诉讼或 Genever US 的破产程序。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我认为 Justice Ostrager、PAX 以及或许其他人认为，我的财力大于本文件及我的附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，而不属于我。但是，如上所述，\n\n13于 October 12, 2020，Genever US 在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提出 Chapter 11 申请（Case No. 20-12411）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 17 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 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在破产财产中经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\nIII. 拟议 DIP 融资\n\n35. 如我的附表所载，我没有自己的资源来支付本 Chapter 11 案件的费用。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意资助本 Chapter 11 案件的某些费用。具体而言，GSNY 提议按照随批准 DIP 融资动议附具的 DIP 融资信贷协议（“DIP 信贷协议”）所载条款，向破产财产出借 \\$8 million（“DIP 融资”）。DIP 融资将用于支付的事项包括破产财产所聘专业人士的费用（包括我所聘请的专业人士，以及正式无担保债权人委员会和/或审查员如获指定时其所聘请的专业人士）以及 United States Trustee Office（美国受托人办公室）征收的季度费用。在 \\$8 million 的预算中，最高 \\$4 million 将用于资助正式债权人委员会和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY 提议以无担保方式提供该贷款，其偿还优先顺位从属于所有获准确认的一般无担保债权。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，并且在所有获准确认的申请前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会从破产财产资产中偿还。因此，该贷款不会使我的债权人付出任何代价，并为调查我的事务提供了公平机会。我不认为任何其他贷款人提供的贷款会有更优越的条款。因此，取得该贷款符合我的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而设立的独立存款账户（“债务人账户”）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 18 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 19 页，共 109 页\n\nV&L（定义见下文）的 Craig Jalbert 将是唯一获授权的签字人。债务人账户的付款将仅在 V&L 的指示下作出，仅限于支付 DIP 预算中列明的项目所必需的范围内，并须经拟议 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）授权。\n\n38. DIP 信贷协议中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：破产法院须在 DIP 信贷协议获临时批准之日起 45 天内，最终批准拟议 DIP 融资命令。见 DIP 信贷协议第 ¶ 6.01(a) 段。DIP 信贷协议中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即法院作出命令，准许 PAX 解除自动中止，以便在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。见 DIP 信贷协议第 ¶ 8.01(e) 段。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是根据 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准予该等救济，我将无法有意义地指导并参与有序的债权解决和计划程序。在此情况下，我的儿子——通过 GSNY——将无意继续资助本 Chapter 11 案件的费用。\n\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，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、使其通过由 DIP 融资支付费用的受托代表进行尽职调查并表达意见后，通过审慎且合理的对话实现这一结果。我希望我的债权人将仅以促成有效债权的偿还为动机，并放弃将诉讼作为限制我的言论自由及我对政治滥用行为批评的手段。我还希望，如债权人进行深思熟虑的参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人在计划下获得公平的清偿。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 19 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 20 页，共 109 页\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要是诉讼请求，我相信这些请求具有实质性依据并且有价值（或许价值足以向所有债权人全额清偿）。但是，再次强调，所有利益相关方都将获得公平机会对其进行调查。\n\n41. 我理解，我的 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个审理平台，以最终确定哪些其他资产可能构成我的破产财产。我的某些债权人指称，我拥有一些我认为由我的家庭成员或其关联实体拥有和控制的资产。我不认为作出有关我对 Lady May “受益”所有权及控制权命令的 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾经认定我对该船拥有实际法定所有权，或认定该船现为我 Chapter 11 破产财产的一项资产。这些问题将被直接且公平地提交本法院，以获得适当解决。\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，由我的儿子拥有和控制的 GSNY 已向我出借数百万资金，以支付我的抗辩费用。本 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，以一劳永逸地确定针对我的破产财产获准确认的债权范围。债权人将获得机会向我的 Chapter 11 破产财产主张债权，而该程序应当使破产财产中的任何资产在所有处境相同的债权人之间得到公平分配（例如，不允许 PAX 在同一债权人类别中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，我希望获得一项理性、价值最大化的计划，使我摆脱诉讼，并有助于依《破产法》实现“重新开始”。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 20 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 21 页，共 109 页\n\n第二部分——动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅下列各项动议，据我所知、所获信息及所信，动议中陈述的事实均真实且正确。\n\n45. 批准 DIP 融资的动议。DIP 融资对于支付与 Chapter 11 案件相关的费用，并为我在能力卓越、经验丰富的顾问协助下协商并实现重整计划确认提供足够的时间，是必要的。\n\n46. 鉴于正是我与债权人之间的对抗性和诉讼性关系，尤其是与 PAX 之间的关系，促使我寻求 Chapter 11 救济，我要求 GSNY 也同意，DIP 融资将惠及破产财产的所有专业人士，而不施加任何可能损害我的债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP 融资以无担保方式提供，从属于我的申请前债权人的权利，且不附带任何行政偿还权或其他优先偿还权。我的理解是，DIP 贷款当且仅当我的所有其他债权人均获得全额清偿时才应予偿还。鉴于这些慷慨的条款，我认为，任何试图从另一来源按有竞争力或类似条款获得融资的行为，都将浪费破产财产资源并且徒劳无功。\n\n47. 此外，如上文及我的附表所载，我预计，在我作为原告的诉讼中获得的追偿款或和解款将用于资助 Chapter 11 计划。如无法使用 DIP 融资，我将无法继续聘用并补偿目前代表我提起诉讼的律师。同样，如我无法对这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论是在本程序中，还是在准许解除中止后于其他审理地），我的负债可能大幅增加。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 21 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 22 页，共 109 页\n\n48. 基于上述理由，我认为，拟议 DIP 融资是善意提供的，不损害我任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我的破产财产的最佳利益，因此应予批准。\n\n49. 聘用 Stretto, Inc. 作为债权及通知代理人的申请。在 Chapter 11 案件存续期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人，协助向破产财产的债权人和利害关系方发出通知。我已选择 Stretto, Inc.（“Stretto”）担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto 在全美国各地的各种 Chapter 11 案件中担任债权及通知代理人方面拥有丰富经验，包括在本辖区内。Stretto 已同意提供下列咨询服务：(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、计划征询、投票、票数统计、付款，以及为编制资产负债附表和财务状况说明提供行政支持；以及 (c) 就本 Chapter 11 案件按需要提供其他行政服务。\n\n50. 关于聘任 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。我需要具备高度能力和丰富经验的重组法律顾问，就我退出第 11 章程序提供建议并协助构建方案，该方案可能采取经确认的重组计划形式。我已选择 Brown Rudnick LLP（“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 章规定的债务人和债权人权利及重组领域拥有丰富经验和知识，其曾在本巡回区、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、正式及非正式委员会和其他重要当事方。Brown Rudnick 亦熟悉我的事务及将在本第 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、应答及其他法律文书，包括可能必要的审判准备工作；\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 22 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 23 页，共 109 页\n\n在必要时；(b) 为批准披露说明书及确认重组计划而准备并采取必要行动；以及 (c) 在第 11 章案件审理期间提供可能必要的所有其他法律服务。\n\n51. 在申请提交日前，Brown Rudnick 分别于 February 14, 2022 和 February 15, 2022 收到 $500,000 的预付聘用费。该等合计 $1 million 的预付聘用费（“BR 预付聘用费”）来源于 Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp”），该公司由我儿子所有。Lamp 以无担保方式向我贷款 $1 million，而我指示 Lamp 将该贷款所得款项直接汇付给 Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick 从 BR 预付聘用费中抵扣了申请提交日前的费用及支出 $51,835.20，使 Brown Rudnick 持有的申请提交日前 BR 预付聘用费余额为 $948,164.80。此后，我已要求 Brown Rudnick 从 BR 预付聘用费中抵扣其获准的费用及支出，直至 BR 预付聘用费余额为 $250,000；此后，Brown Rudnick 将通过债务人占有融资（DIP Financing）的所得款项向我请求支付其获准的费用及支出。\n\n52. 关于聘任 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所）担任财务顾问的申请。我需要一家财务顾问公司，编制、审查及分析《破产法》要求的必要财务披露，以及第 11 章案件审理期间持续进行的月度和季度报告要求。我已选择 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V & L”）担任我的财务顾问。V & L 在与陷入困境的个人第 11 章债务人合作方面拥有丰富经验，并提供定制服务，包括但不限于财务咨询、顾问、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) 编制及审查我的财务状况说明书（SOFA）和财产清单（Schedules），以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，并在必要时进行支付，以及对所有现金活动进行会计核算；\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 23 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 24 页，共 109 页\n\n(d) 债权审查及管理；(e) 重组计划的拟定及审查；(f) 提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及 (g) 就第 11 章案件审理期间可能出现的任何其他事项和任务提供一般咨询及协助。\n\n53. 关于授权聘用并支付在日常业务过程中使用的专业人士的动议。我是在美国州级和联邦级法院以及外国司法管辖区审理的众多案件中的具名原告或具名被告。就该等诉讼及某些正在进行的政府调查而言，我在申请提交日前聘用了多家律师事务所、会计师及其他非律师专业人士（合称“我的日常业务专业人士”），其就我的申请提交日前诉讼提供服务，并就与本第 11 章案件无关的多项事项提供其他服务。在法院批准的前提下，我拟使用 DIP Financing 继续聘用并支付该等日常业务专业人士的报酬，因为他们各自对我的事务（申请提交日前）及我的待决诉讼拥有大量知识、专业能力和熟悉程度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我寻求就 DIP Financing 获得紧急临时救济的原因之一，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，他们将就其申请提交日前及申请提交日后的工作获得报酬，否则他们可能退出对我的代理。该等退出代理，视案件的状态及相关专业人士提供的服务而定，可能对我和我的破产财产造成明确且不可弥补的损害。UBS、Clark Hill 及其他待决诉讼请求权是我预计将依赖以协助拟定并可能确认重组计划的资产。对我推进该等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 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 24 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 25 页，共 109 页\n\n55. 总而言之，如无我的日常业务专业人士就其申请提交日前工作所具备的知识、专业能力和熟悉程度，我的破产财产将为培训及聘任保全并可能继续推进该等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，继续聘用我的日常业务专业人士符合本破产财产、我的债权人及其他利害关系方的最佳利益。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 25 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 26 页，共 109 页\n\n依据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，我在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明，据我所知，上述内容真实\n\n且正确。\n\n日期：March 20, 2022　格林尼治，康涅狄格州\n\n签名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 26 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 27 页，共 109 页\n\n附件 A\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 28 页，共 109 页\n\n美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA）\n\n) ) ) ) ) )\n\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA）\n\n刑事案号\n\n诉　罪名项 1：18 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内：\n\n2. 自不晚于 March 2017 起至至少约 January 2018 止，ELLIOTT BROIDY 同 Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）及 A 某人达成协议，作为外国国民 A 的代理人行事，以换取数百万美元但未予披露的报酬。BROIDY 具体同意游说美国总统行政当局（“Administration”）和美国司法部（“DOJ”），以撤销或以其他方式有利地解决其针对外国国民 A 的案件，该外国国民 A 涉及从 1 Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）挪用数十亿美元；1MDB 是一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和开发公司。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某人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 某人未能使 1MDB 事项被撤销或以其他方式有利地解决外国国民 A 的问题。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某人还同意游说行政当局和 DOJ，以代表外国国民 A 安排将中华人民共和国（“PRC”）国民 A——居住在美国的中华人民共和国公民——遣送并送返中华人民共和国。这包括倡议安排中华人民共和国部长 A 与美国政府官员会晤等事项。在此方面，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某人最终亦未成功。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 29 页，共 109 页\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民 A 的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 某人的协助下，试图促成马来西亚总理 A 于 September 2017 与总统会晤，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 某人还在中华人民共和国会见了中华人民共和国部长 A，并同意 BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 某人的协助下，将游说行政当局把中华人民共和国国民 A 送返中华人民共和国。为使中华人民共和国部长 A 有机会与美国高级官员讨论移除中华人民共和国国民 A 一事，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 某人还同意并试图促成中华人民共和国部长 A 在 May 2017 访问美国期间与 DOJ 和美国国土安全部（“DHS”）行政当局高级官员会晤。\n\n作为外国委托人或政府代理人行事的刑事禁止规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去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，就某些类型的活动向司法部长登记，例如代表外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或游说。该等登记须向 DOJ 内国家安全司的《外国代理人登记法》部门（“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未登记，以及根据该法规定向 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\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 30 页，共 109 页\n\n7. FARA 的目的在于防止外国委托人进行秘密影响。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从事的活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在担任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 April 2018 期间担任一个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 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，得以接触并联系行政当局的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，BROIDY 拥有并经营数家国内及国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis（尼基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）曾是且现为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与BROIDY（布罗伊迪）及Person A（A某人）存在个人和商业关系。2020年8月31日，Davis在United States District Court for the District of Hawaii（夏威夷联邦地区法院）就一份指控其协助和教唆违反FARA（外国代理人登记法）的单项罪名项信息书作出认罪答辩。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 31 页，共 109 页\n\n10. Person A曾是且现为美国公民、商人及演艺人士，并具有国际关系，包括与Foreign National A（外国国民A）的关系。\n\n11. Foreign National A是在东亚居住的一名富有商人，因其在策划和实施一项从1MDB挪用数十亿美元的计划中所起作用，已被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是一家为Person A设立的有限责任公司，用于接收来自Foreign National A的电汇款项，并被Person A用于向BROIDY、Davis及其他人为其游说活动支付报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是Person A的同事，且是一名受雇于DOJ（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）就一份指控其共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项罪名项信息书作出认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由Person C（C某人）经营并由BROIDY和Person C控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中国国民A）是一名持临时签证居住在美国的中华人民共和国公民。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挪用计划洗钱所得有关的Foreign National A交易。2016年7月，DOJ提起多项民事没收诉讼，请求没收据称以1MDB洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ提交刑事起诉书，指控Foreign National A及其他人共谋洗白从1MDB挪用的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚和阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）官员行贿而违反Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（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. 现重新主张并以引用方式并入第1至第16段。\n\n18. 至迟自2017年3月起，直至至少约2018年1月，被告人\nELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）\n\n明知而与其他已知及未知人员共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地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，而未向司法部长登记，违反22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n\n共谋目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的之一，是由BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Foreign National A策划非公开、未经登记的行动，以游说政府及DOJ：（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从美国遣返中华人民共和国。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一，是由BROIDY、Davis和Person A利用BROIDY与总统及其政府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，是由BROIDY、Davis和Person A隐瞒BROIDY与Foreign National A的接触及从其收取的款项，以维持BROIDY在美国官员中的可信度，并推进该非法倡议计划。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 33 页，共 109 页\n\n实施该共谋的方式和手段\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前往国外会见外国委托人及政府官员\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Higginbotham以各种组合前往泰国、马来西亚和中华人民共和国，目的是会见Foreign National A、PRC Minister A及其他人，以谈判和讨论由BROIDY通过官方渠道之外游说政府和DOJ、换取数百万美元的安排。\n\n与美国官员的会面和接触\n\n24. BROIDY直接并通过中间人促成及试图促成会面和其他旨在影响美国政府最高层级官员（包括总统和司法部长）的行动，以使PRC Minister A和Foreign National A受益。\n\n25. BROIDY直接并通过中间人与美国政府高级官员联系，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，包括有利地解决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，包括以其个人身份及作为PRC Minister A的中间人进行游说。BROIDY、Davis和Person A未向且同意不向美国政府官员和公众披露BROIDY与Foreign National A之间的财务安排及从其收取的款项。在为推进该计划而进行的广泛接触、通信和起草的文件中，提及Foreign National A。进一步地，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在就Foreign National A和PRC National A进行沟通时，经常使用加密应用程序，以隐瞒其行为及其与Foreign National A的联系。最后，BROIDY、Davis和Person A默示或明示地同意不依FARA登记，以隐瞒其与Foreign National A之间的安排。\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方实施了以下公开行为及其他行为。\n\nJ. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的行动\n\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，试图寻找一名与政府关系密切的人士，以协助一名外国客户。Davis继而告诉BROIDY，她有一名可能来自马来西亚、可能需要协助处理没收事项的客户。\n\n29. 约于2017年3月7日，Person A要求Davis向其发送BROIDY的个人简介，该简介描述BROIDY与政府高级官员的关系，并附有BROIDY与总统的照片。约于2017年3月7日，应Davis要求，BROIDY的助理通过电子邮件向Davis发送了展示BROIDY与总统的照片。Person A称，他想要这些照片，以便向Foreign National A突出展示BROIDY与政府的密切接触渠道。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 35 页，共 109 页\n\n30. 约于2017年3月8日，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“你16日会在洛杉矶吗，在[Person A]那个周末前往亚洲之前与他会面？”BROIDY回复：“我想会。稍后再谈。”\n\n31. 约于2017年3月13日，BROIDY与Davis及Person A会面，讨论Foreign National A和1MDB。在该会面中，Person A向BROIDY描述了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问BROIDY是否能够协助处理涉及Foreign National A的民事没收案件。Person A称，他将与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：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约于2017年3月13日，Davis向Person A转发了Law Firm A与Foreign National A之间的“Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services（聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务）”，以便Person A将该协议提交给Foreign National A。该“Retainer and Fee Agreement”规定，Foreign National A将预先支付$8 million聘用费，如“事项”在180天内解决，另支付$75 million成功费；如“事项”在365天内解决，则另支付$50 million。协议草案包括附件A，其中说明“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A和Person C未向Foreign National A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于BROIDY的政治关系，为取得BROIDY代表Foreign National A游说政府和DOJ的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉作为外国委托人代理人须登记的要求，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案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 36 页，共 109 页\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要求BROIDY前往泰国曼谷会见Foreign National A的请求。BROIDY告诉Davis，告知Person A，只有在其获得$1 million报酬的情况下才会前往，并且他希望Person A以“无污点”资金支付该款项。BROIDY获得保证，Person A将亲自支付$1 million，以换取BROIDY前往曼谷。\n\n35. 约于2017年4月28日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信称：“我希望款项汇至[Law Firm A]。”同日，Davis回复：“好的。”\n\n36. 约于2017年4月29日，BROIDY与Davis就其即将与Foreign National A和Person A会面一事交换短信。在这些短信中，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香格里拉酒店的链接，并在邮件中部分写道：“一旦你在线取得Elliott房间和我的房间的酒店确认，请发给我，我将转发。”同日，Davis另行通过电子邮件告知Person A为其在香格里拉酒店预订房间并向她发送确认信息。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A]正在预订我们的酒店”，后又补充称：“也请把Elliott的电汇信息发给我。”Davis回复并提供了以Law Firm A名义开设账户的电汇信息。\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]和我会在抵达处见你……谢谢，一路顺风——愿这是一次令人兴奋且繁荣的冒险之旅的开始！”\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 录入日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 37 页，共 109 页\n\n39. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 2 日，BROIDY（布罗迪）、Davis（戴维斯）和 Person A（A某）抵达曼谷。旅途中，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 在一家酒店套房内与 Foreign National A（外籍人士A）会面。BROIDY 和 Foreign National A 谈及 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 同意帮助 Foreign National A 尝试解决该事项。Foreign National A 同意向 BROIDY 支付 $8 million 的预聘费，并希望 BROIDY 联系 Attorney General of the United States（美国司法部长），以促使 DOJ（美国司法部）撤销 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 同意游说政府和 DOJ，以为 Foreign National A 取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其正代表 Foreign National A 工作这一事实。在该会面期间或不久之后，Davis 和 BROIDY 讨论了协助促成 PRC National A（中国籍人士A）被遣离美国的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY 表示，该笔资金不应直接来自 Foreign National A，且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A 指认了一名可向 BROIDY 及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A 和 Davis 同意，该笔资金将首先经由 Person A 转付，随后通过 Law Firm A（A律师事务所）支付给 BROIDY。BROIDY 和 Davis 同意，BROIDY 将向 Davis 支付其所收款项的一定比例。Person A 还同意向 Davis 支付 Person A 所收资金的一定比例。Person A 告知 BROIDY 和 Davis，Person A 的朋友 Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实该等资金的合法性。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 收取 $6 Million；Davis 收取 $1.7 Million\n\n40. 在大约 2017 年 5 月 8 日于泰国与 Foreign National A 会面后，Company A（A公司）收到由 Foreign National A 指示从一家香港实体汇出的约 $2.8 million 电汇款项。同日，Person A 从 Company A 账户取得一张以 Law Firm A 为收款人的 $702,000 银行本票，该款项随即记入 Law Firm A 的账户。Person A 还从 Company A 账户向 Law Firm A 另行电汇 $48,000。同日，一家第三方公司依 Person A 的指示向 Law Firm A 账户转入 $250,000，使存入 Law Firm A 账户的总金额达到 $1 million。数日内，大约在 2017 年 5 月 8 日转入 Law Firm A 账户的 $1 million 中约 $900,000，从 Law Firm A 账户转入 BROIDY 的一个商业账户。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 38 页，共 109 页\n\n41. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 8 日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“[Law Firm A] 内的两笔电汇均来自 [Person A]。剩余余额于 20 分钟前送至你的办公室——”。Davis 随后补充道：“银行本票总计 702[.]”\n\n42. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 17 日，Foreign National A 促使一家香港公司向 Company A 发出一笔国际电汇。同日，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入 $3 million。大约在 2017 年 5 月 18 日，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入 $600,000，并向与 Davis 有关联的一家商业实体账户转入 $900,000。大约在 2017 年 5 月 18 日，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入 $500,000。约一周内，Law Firm A 通过两笔单独转账，向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户额外转入 $950,000。\n\n43. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 17 日，BROIDY 和 Davis 就 Foreign National A 经由 Person A 向 BROIDY 付款，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 回应道：“是。已向你发送 Wickr[.] 明早向你电汇。”Wickr 是一款允许端到端加密和内容过期的消息应用程序。BROIDY 随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”Davis 回应道：“亚洲开市后……至少现在正在一步一步向前推进。”BROIDY 回应道：“是。逼他们发出接下来的两笔电汇。”BROIDY 随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔 3 已到账，并确认最后两笔正在发送。请询问 [BROIDY 的助理]。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 39 页，共 109 页\n\n44. 大约在 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。大约在 2017 年 5 月 26 日，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入 $2 million，作为对 BROIDY 和 Foreign National A 就 BROIDY 协助处理 1MDB 民事没收案件而约定的 $8 million 预聘费的部分履行。同日，$600,000 从 Law Firm A 的账户转入与 Davis 有关联的一个商业账户。大约在 2017 年 5 月 26 日，Law Firm A 向 Person C（C某）控制的一个账户转入 $1 million。大约在 2017 年 6 月初，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. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 5 日，BROIDY 向 Person D（D某）发送短信；Person D 是一名政治顾问及总统的前竞选助理。BROIDY 请求 Person D 与政府合作，为 Malaysian Prime Minister A 安排访问：“亚洲国家非常希望举行 7 月会面。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，以获得关于如何应对政府事务的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，BROIDY 和 Davis 就 Foreign National A 交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis 写道：“请在我睡觉前打电话……[Foreign National A] 一直打电话询问消息[.]”BROIDY 回应道：“是。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往 D.C.，处理 [Foreign National A] 和亚洲国家的事情[.]”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 40 页，共 109 页\n\n47. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 15 日，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”，系指 Foreign National A。同日，BROIDY 回应道：“可以[.]”\n\n48. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 17 日，BROIDY 和 Davis 讨论了 Malaysian Prime Minister A。大约在 2017 年 6 月，BROIDY 询问 President（总统）是否愿意与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 打高尔夫球。BROIDY 和 Davis 相信，这会令 Foreign National A 满意，并使 Malaysian Prime Minister A 能够尝试解决 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 还希望与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的政府获得更多业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 19 日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送了一个有关 Malaysian Prime Minister A 办公室批评美国 1MDB 没收诉讼的文章链接。\n\n50. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 29 日，BROIDY 向 White House（白宫）的一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统进行高尔夫活动：“嗨，[Person E（E某）]，如我所述，POTUS（美国总统）已同意于 7 月下旬或 8 月初在 DC 或 Bedminster 与 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 打一轮高尔夫。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，数周前已向 State Dept.（国务院）致函，要求举行会面。”\n\n51. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 30 日，BROIDY 就高尔夫活动向 Person E 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 打高尔夫的日期通话。”当日晚些时候，BROIDY 跟进称：“[Person E]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能办妥这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 41 页，共 109 页\n\n52. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 3 日，BROIDY 再次就 Malaysian Prime Minister A 和总统的高尔夫日期向 Person E 发送短信：“早上好，[Person E]。如果你今天能与 POTUS 确认 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 的高尔夫日期，这将对我极有帮助。POTUS 告诉我，他很乐意在 Bedminster 或 DC 打球。我们交谈后，我告诉 [Malaysian Prime Minister A]，他上周会收到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当日晚些时候，BROIDY 再次向 Person E 发送短信：“[Person E]，我正在跟进。请将 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 与 POTUS 打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 5 日，BROIDY 与 Person E 就高尔夫活动交换消息。在其他消息中，BROIDY 发送短信称：“[Person E]，刚给你留了言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott[.]”Person E 回应道：“这事在 NSC（国家安全委员会）那里[.] 他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成的[.]”\n\n54. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 11 日，Davis 转达 Person A 的消息，向 BROIDY 发送短信：“Wickr[.] 现在是下午 5 点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们正被压得喘不过气。”这些消息是指确认 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及 Foreign National A 因尚未确认日期而表示不满。Davis 继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我正被消息淹没[.]”BROIDY 回应道：“看 Wickr[.]”次日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“在 Wickr 上给我发短信。我正要起飞，得去 WH（白宫）[.] 正要起飞。现在就需要[.]”Davis 回应道：“办好了[.]”BROIDY 回应道：“收到了。谢谢[.] 正试图让 [Person F（F某）] 尽快通话[.]”Person F 当时是 National Security Council 的一名高级官员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 42 页，共 109 页\n\n55. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 13 日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“请在你方便时打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以请你务必去 D.C.，并在 WH 坐等，直到你办成。如果你担心孤单，我会陪你！”\n\n56. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 13 日，BROIDY 再次就高尔夫日期向 Person E 发送短信：“嗨，[Person E]，已经两周了。再次询问 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 与 POTUS 打高尔夫的日期。你今天能将日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliott[.]”Person E 回应道：“我现在会再查一次[.] 这些事情要经过一个程序——”。BROIDY 回应道：“非常感谢！！”Person E 回复道：“NSC 正在处理并协调[.]”BROIDY 回应道：“我们今天能得到日期吗？”Person E 回复道：“他们正直接与马来西亚人合作。NSC 正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 15 日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 17 日，Davis 转达 Person A 代表 Foreign National A 表达的紧迫性，向 BROIDY 发送短信：“[Person E] 现在需要给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的最新情况。我们看起来很无能[.]”该短信既指安排总统与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的会面，也指涉及 PRC National A 的事项。BROIDY 回应道：“同意。正在持续施压[.]”\n\n59. 大约在 2017 年 7 月 18 日，BROIDY 和 Davis 就安排总统与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 会面交换了数条短信。在这些消息中，Davis 写道：“你能查看 Wickr 吗[.] 真的、真的需要那个日期。这件事让我一整天都忙得不可开交。他正恐慌[.]”Davis 随后称：“今天必须确定这个日期——我们正被彻底压垮。”据 Person A 称，Foreign National A 正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。BROIDY 回应道：“现在给 [Person E] 打电话[.]”Davis 部分回复道：\n\n“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你气疯了[。]也给[Person OJ（OJ人士）]打电话。我们今天就需要这个[,]”Person G（G人士）是总统的行政助理。BROIDY（布罗伊迪）回复：“现在就办。”\n\n60. On or about July 19, 2017，Davis（戴维斯）就安排马来西亚（马来西亚）总理A（马来西亚总理A）与总统会面日期一事向BROIDY发短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[。]”BROIDY于次日回复：“请耐心等候。我正在获取一些关于会面[。]的信息。”\n\n61. On or about July 21, 2017，BROIDY就高尔夫活动向Person E（E人士）发短信：“[Person E]，马来西亚方面没有从NSC（国家安全委员会）听到任何消息。POTUS（总统）说他会在7月底或8月初与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打高尔夫球。POTUS说他很乐意这样做。你说会在一两天内安排。现在已经是第4周了。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常有耐心了。这现在非但没有带来积极影响，反而正在给我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017，BROIDY向Person D（D人士）发短信：“已收到9月在NJ（新泽西州）的高尔夫日期。UN General Assembly（联合国大会）之前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你的帮助！”Person D回复：“让我们跟进，并确保该日期得到NSC确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的这个日期？”BROIDY回复：“谢谢你！！太棒了。由[Person E]提供给[Person H（H人士）]。”\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017，BROIDY向Person D发短信：“刚刚再次与马来西亚方面核实。他们驻美大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快核实。致意，Elliott。”BROIDY随后又发：“嗨，[Person D]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事替我致电NSA（国家安全顾问）？NSC仍未就会面一事联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”Person D回复：“E——今天上午会再打电话。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 44 页，共 109 页\n\n64. On or about July 27, 2017，BROIDY向National Security Council（国家安全委员会）的一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间的一场高尔夫球赛。\n\n65. On or about July 29, 2017，Davis就马来西亚总理A与总统会面一事向BROIDY发短信：“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？？？？没有高尔夫球？？？”Davis紧接着发短信说：“Wickr[。]”BROIDY回复：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。周六在Bedminster（贝德明斯特）打高尔夫，周二在WH（白宫）？”\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017，BROIDY向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points Final”的电子邮件，其中载有马来西亚总理A拟用于即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会面的所谓谈话要点。Davis从Person A（A人士）处收到该谈话要点——Person A代表Foreign National A（外国国民A）提供该要点——并由Davis转交给BROIDY。该谈话要点提及了包括BROIDY与马来西亚持续进行的关系和工作在内的事项，并将1MDB认定为“[优先事项][。]”该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并具体说明，“[美国检察官的介入已造成不必要的紧张美国[原文如此]，并可能引起马来西亚人的负面反应[。]”\n\n67. On or about August 7, 2017，BROIDY还将这些谈话要点发送给Person D，紧接着发送一条说明信息：“上述内容是马来西亚总理的谈话要点附件。你可以与[为国务卿工作的职员助理]分享。”BROIDY还试图获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面时间的详情。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 45 页，共 109 页\n\n68. Later on or about August 7, 2017，BROIDY向Person D发送信息：“[Secretary of State（国务卿）]于8日会见[Malaysian Prime Minister A]，于9日会见副总理。让我们替我提一下名字。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出Circinus（赛辛纳斯）的名称。谢谢！”Person D回复：“让这一联系建立起来绝对很重要。这可能不会成为正式会面的组成部分，但会努力在他们的谈话中提一下。”\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A（A公司）转移约$12.8 million。Person A随后向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转移$3 million。这是向BROIDY作出的最后一笔付款。BROIDY共获得$9 million付款。On or about次日，Law Firm A向与Davis有关联的一个商业账户转移$900,000。在随后的数日内，Law Firm A向属于BROIDY的账户转移了数十万美元。\n\n70. On or about August 10, 2017，BROIDY就马来西亚总理A与国务卿会面一事向Person D发短信：“从马来西亚获悉：会面进展非常顺利。他们对[Secretary of State]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有提一下。;- . ..”\n\n71. On or about August 19, 2017，BROIDY向Person D发短信：“马来西亚方面有任何更新吗？”Person D回复：“截至目前，将在DC（哥伦比亚特区）举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫球，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找[Person I（I人士）]，并利用他们两人一起打过高尔夫球的过往。”BROIDY回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给[Person I]的一名副手或[Person I]打电话。还需要把Lime加入会面。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我什么方式最好。”Person J（J人士）当时是White House（白宫）的一名高级官员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 46 页，共 109 页\n\n72. On or about August 31, 2017，BROIDY起草并向Person发送了一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间的一场高尔夫球赛。\n\n73. On or about September 11, 2017，Davis起草了一封拟由BROIDY发送给总统的信，以预期马来西亚总理A与总统的会面，并将该信交给BROIDY。该信包含马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未交给总统。\n\n74. 在BROIDY反复努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A进行高尔夫球赛之后，马来西亚总理A于On or about September 12, 2017在White House与总统会面。尽管BROIDY联系了政府内的高级官员，试图除正式会面外另行安排总统与马来西亚总理A进行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未举行高尔夫球赛。\n\n75. On or about October 6, 2017，BROIDY在White House与总统会面。BROIDY在会面期间未提出1MDB事项，但向Davis表示，他理解Davis会将该信息传达给Person A和Foreign National A。\n\n76. On or about January 5, 2018，BROIDY起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向Foreign National A展示BROIDY代表其所采取的行动。除其他事项外，该谈话要点规定：“1. 我们正在与DoJ（司法部）合作，反制前任政府在马来西亚针对1MDB的案件。我已制定一项策略，以联系DoJ和NSC的相关方，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[]会面。她是总统任命者，可以提供帮助。……3. 如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺解决这一问题。重要的是我应遵循他的指引，但将继续传达这一问题的重要性。”这些陈述是虚假的。\n\nII. 将PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A）移出美国的行动\n\nA. BROIDY前往中国会见PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长A）\n\n77. In or about May 2017，在前往Bangkok（曼谷）的行程之后，BROIDY同意前往Hong Kong（香港）再次会见Foreign National A。行程之前，Davis与BROIDY讨论过，对Foreign National A而言，将PRC National A驱逐出美国十分重要。前往香港的目的，是会见Foreign National A和一名PRC外国政府官员，以讨论PRC National A。\n\n78. On or about May 15, 2017，Davis就前往Hong Kong的旅行安排和行程向BROIDY的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis还向BROIDY和Person C（C人士）发送了Davis公司（Davis公司）的银行信息。\n\n79. On or about May 18, 2017，BROIDY、Davis和Person A前往Hong Kong，并被送往Shenzhen（中国深圳），他们在那里的一间酒店套房内会见了Foreign National A和PRC Minister A。PRC Minister A向BROIDY谈及PRC National A及其被指控的罪行，并表示PRC政府希望将PRC National A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移出美国并送回PRC。他们还讨论了让当时被PRC关押的美国人返回美国的可能性。PRC Minister 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\n案件 22-50073 文档 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 登记于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 48 页，共 109 页\n\nB. BROIDY游说美国高级官员，将PRC National A移出美国\n\n80. On or about May 20, 2017，在从中国返程途中，BROIDY向Davis发短信：“我会努力让这一周成为我们与[the Attorney General（司法部长）]的重要一周。”\n\n81. On or about May 21, 2017，BROIDY就其与Foreign National A和PRC Minister A的会面向Person D发短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大的机会。我们能否周一上午9:30在[hotel（酒店）]会面？Elliott。”\n\n82. On or about May 22, 2017，BROIDY向Person D发短信：“我需要尽快与[Attorney General]会面。我们会讨论。”BROIDY随后又发：“我正在给你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”当日稍后，Person D回复：“已向[Attorney General]提出会面请求。”\n\n83. On or about May 22, 2017，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在电子邮件中附上了一份由BROIDY致Attorney General的备忘录，意图由Person D随后将该备忘录交给Attorney General。该备忘录的内容由Davis提供给BROIDY，而该内容源自PRC Minister A和Foreign National A。在收到后，BROIDY和Person C修订了该备忘录。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY歪曲了其前往中国的原因以及促成其与PRC Minister A会面的情况。BROIDY未披露其与Foreign National A的联系，也未披露Foreign National A在安排BROIDY与PRC Minister A会面中所起的作用。BROIDY还未披露Foreign National A已向其支付的$4 million。BROIDY还未披露，其就PRC National A开展的游说活动至少部分是依据其与Foreign National A的财务安排，并可能导致额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）称：“据 [PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）] 告知，中国希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”BROIDY 写到 [PRC Minister A] 即将赴 Washington, D.C. 访问，届时 [PRC Minister A] 及其代表团计划会见数名美国政府高级官员。BROIDY 表示，司法部长（Attorney General）与 [PRC Minister A] 会面将富有成效。BROIDY 还指出，据 [PRC Minister A] 称，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 补充道：\n\n根据我与 [PRC Minister A] 的谈话，中国将提出的唯一请求是，遣返或引渡 [PRC National A（中国国民 A）] 至中国，且应尽快进行，以便其因这些违法行为被起诉，并在中国就这些指控接受正常刑事诉讼程序。中国指称，[PRC National A] 曾与其他已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑事法律的人共谋实施犯罪，包括绑架及重大金融犯罪；其签证将在下个月左右到期；或者，可将其引渡（国际刑警组织（Interpol）已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）。\n\nBROIDY 在该备忘录中附上了针对 [PRC National A] 的国际刑警组织红色通报。\n\n86. 在 May 23, 2017 前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发短信：“嗨，[]，明天的会面安排好了吗？我的备忘录已发送给 [Attorney General] 吗？请更新。谢谢。Elliott[]。”Person D 回复：“Elliott——信昨天已送达。请查看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。今天晚些时候给你打电话。我今晚坐红眼航班，这样可以早些返回 DC。”BROIDY 回复：“太好了。谢谢，[]。另外，尽量确定他的会面是否已安排，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在 Alabama 进行。”次日，即 May 24, 2017 前后，Person D 回复：“正在等待 DoJ（司法部）就会面——我们的以及 [PRC Minister A] 的——作出回复。告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n87. 在 May 24, 2017 前后，Person D 向 BROIDY 发短信：“刚接到 [Attorney General] 办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到了他的短信，他说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 在 May 25, 2017 前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发短信：“今天上午 10:00 am 在 Justice（司法部）举行会面。之后明天与 FBI（联邦调查局）和 DHS（国土安全部）会面。也许我可以告诉我的联系人提前 10 分钟到达，这样可以进行一次简短会面。然后再与 [Attorney General] 一对一会面，讨论更多细节。请尽力今天一早见到 [Attorney General]。我们必须办成，这一点非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。E[]。”Person D 回复：“E——正在处理。[Attorney General] 今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法确认他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发短信：“详情是，我备忘录中的三项事项仅供 [Attorney General] 知悉。[PRC Minister A] 希望直接告诉 [Attorney General]。我的属于正当的非正式沟通渠道。[PRC Minister A] 的上级希望确认 [Attorney General] 已听到那三项事项，这些事项确实有助于美国。”同日稍后，Person D 回复：“E——刚刚和 [Attorney General] 通完电话。消息不太好。告诉我你何时有空通话。谢谢。”\n\n89. 在 May 26, 2017 前后，BROIDY 提及为 [PRC Minister A] 安排的会面，向 Person D 发短信：“10 am ICE（移民及海关执法局）负责人，11:30 FBI。也许在 DHS 露面可以挽回局面。顺道会见 [Person I]。三项事项可以分享。”BROIDY 随后又说：“请给我打电话。”以及“我正设法控制损害，需要和你谈谈。最好与 [Person I] 私下交谈。”当时，Person I 是 DHS 的一名高级官员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 于 04/22/22 提交 于 04/22/22 16:59:37 登记 第 51 页，共 109 页\n\n90. 在 May 28, 2017 前后，在 Davis（戴维斯）向 BROIDY 转录通信内容后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送电子邮件：“随附与 [Attorney General] 及中国驻美大使之间往来通信的转录内容。”BROIDY 指出：“我相信，[Attorney General] 有一个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？另有一项事项值得 AG（司法部长）知悉。”同日稍后，BROIDY 与 Person D 交换电子邮件，安排讨论该电子邮件及其内容的时间。\n\n91. 在 May 30, 2017 前后，Davis 就 [PRC Minister A] 与美国政府官员的会面向 BROIDY 发短信：“查看 Wickr（加密通信应用）——现在会面都已获准。”BROIDY 回复：“是。都安排好了。”Davis 回复：“他的会面恢复了。”\n\n92. 在 May 2017 前后，应 Person A 的请求，Davis 请 BROIDY 在 Washington, D.C. 与 [PRC Minister A] 会面。\n\n93. 在 May 30, 2017 前后，BROIDY 在 Washington, D.C. 的一家酒店与 [PRC Minister A] 会面。BROIDY 还询问 Person D 是否能够协助 [PRC Minister A] 安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n94. 在 May 31, 2017 前后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发短信：\n\n我昨晚见了这位副部长（VM）。他今天下午搭乘 4 pm 的航班返回。FBI 安排他会见级别很低的人员，并让原本应与他会见的人改去会见 Vietnam。他的上级让他回国，除非与 [Attorney General] 或 Person I 会面。他很愿意与 [Person I] 会面。……到目前为止，他已交付一名孕妇，另外两人很快将被送出。他将接受 60 名中国国民被遣返，但前提是他能进行一次适当的“简短会面”。这对本届政府而言是一次重大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两位总统在 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. Person D 回复：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY 回复：“如果你能安排会面，我们能否让白宫（WH）的政治联络人到 DHS 与这位副部长会面？他可以提到我的名字。也请设法让 [Person I] 缓和局面。也提到我。谢谢！祈祷成功。”\n\n96. 在 May 31, 2017 前后，Davis 就 [PRC Minister A] 据称与 Person I 的会面向 BROIDY 发短信：“原则上 [Person I] 没问题——只是日程问题？”BROIDY 回复：“只是临时通知的日程问题。接下来一小时左右仍可能收到消息。[PRC Minister A] 没有任何问题。”BROIDY 随后继续说：“请代我向这位副部长致以良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”Davis 回复：“是，我正这样告诉他。”BROIDY 回复：“告诉他，我正在把发生的情况告知 WH 和 [Attorney General]。”Davis 随后发短信：“Person I 今天下午不是安排去 Haiti 吗？”BROIDY 回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[Attorney General] 的人员也没有提到。”Davis 回复：“DHS 网站上有。他今天下午在那里。刚和这位副部长谈过，他听起来像是在哭。”BROIDY 回复：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底，不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真是一团烂摊子。”Davis 回复：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 在 June 9, 2017 前后，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送了一篇题为“china-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled-tycoon-[PRC National A]”的新闻文章。\n\n98. 在 June 27, 2017 前后，BROIDY 就将 [PRC National A] 驱逐出境一事向 Person H 的配偶发短信。BROIDY 知道，Person H 是一名在国际上成功的商人，频繁向政治竞选活动捐款，并与总统关系密切、能够直接接触并影响总统，因此可能有效促成对 [PRC National A] 的驱逐。BROIDY 向 Person H 的配偶发短信：“顺便说一下，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，或者午餐时间？期待在 [] Hotel 见到您！致意。Elliott[]。”BROIDY 随后继续说：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person I] 请我通过短信向你发送这些信息。我将向你发送若干有关逃犯 [PRC National A] 的事项。第一项是国际刑警组织红色通报。……高度紧急的事项是，[PRC National A] 在美国停留的签证将于 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 DHS 禁飞名单。……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为 [PRC National A] 与前 FBI 人员关系密切，这些人员属于其私人安保团队。[PRC 总统] 曾在 Mar-A-Lago 向总统提到，他希望 [PRC National A] 被送回。[PRC Minister A] 与我会面，并请求我就 [PRC National A] 提供协助。……他承诺归还被中国扣为人质的某些美国公民，并接受数量非常庞大的中国非法移民被遣返回中国。最后，他还提出就 North Korea（朝鲜）提供新的协助。\n\n99. 在 June 28, 2017 前后，BROIDY 在一次社交聚会上与 Person H 及其配偶会面。会面后，BROIDY 与 Person H 的配偶就 [PRC National A] 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] 签证的状况，因为时间至关重要。签证已经签发，还是我们已拒绝？我们能确认 [PRC National A] 已被列入 DHS 禁飞名单吗？[PRC Minister A] 非常担心 [PRC National A] 本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手驱逐。这将是我们两国之间令人难以置信的一步。[PRC Minister A] 表示，他们感谢您的帮助。”Person H 的配偶回复：“这件事已经交由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在办理。”\n\n100. 在 June 29, 2017 前后，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 [PRC National A] 的签证申请交换短信。BROIDY 发短信：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”Davis 回复：“我完全不知道。”BROIDY 回复：“抱歉，总是会生成。换句话说，每位申请人最终都会以书面形式收到批准或拒绝？书面拒绝？”Davis 回复：“是。查看 Wickr。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 250-16 于 04/22/22 提交 于 04/22/22 16:59:37 登记 第 54 页，共 109 页\n\n101. 在 June 30, 2017 前后，Davis 提及他们促成驱逐 [PRC National A] 的努力，以及可能使被 PRC 扣留的美国公民获释一事，向 BROIDY 发短信：“Wickr。你现在真是关键人物。在你于这个 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。”BROIDY 回复：“我会坚持到底，直到办成。”Davis 回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天完成。还有 [Person L] 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：“让他知道——如果我们今天在营业结束前拿到确认拒签的信函（因为需要工作人员生成该信函），那么我们将在 July 4th 前让那两名美国人回家。之后第二阶段——我们可以接收那 60 人。”BROIDY 回复：“听起来不错。[Person H] 很快会回电给我。正在通话。”\n\n102. 在 June 30, 2017 前后，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 [PRC National A] 交换数条短信。BROIDY 发短信：“收到 [Person H] 的消息。他向 POTUS（美国总统）重申了。”BROIDY 随后说：“另外，[Person E] 发短信告诉我，他被事情缠住了，但正在处理。”同日，Davis 回复：“我们今天能拿到撤销的证明吗？”Davis 随后具体说明：“来自 [Person E] 的？”\n\n103. 在 July 1, 2017 前后，BROIDY 向 Davis 发短信：“与 [Person E] 长谈过。你能通话时给我打电话。”BROIDY 并未与 Person E 通话，但曾就 [PRC National A] 的签证申请与其交换短信。BROIDY 未向 Person E 披露其与 [PRC Minister A] 关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 2017年7月2日前后，BROIDY（布罗迪）与Davis（戴维斯）就PRC National A（中国籍人士A）及其签证申请互发短信。根据公开报道，戴维斯发短信称：“今天星期日，与PRC（中华人民共和国）总统就朝鲜问题安排了一通电话。他可以询问并确认该案。他甚至可以说他从[Person H（H某人）]那里听说过。”\n\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第55页，共109页\n\n105. 2017年7月3日前后，同样根据公开报道，戴维斯向BROIDY发短信称：“总统于星期三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲。”随后，戴维斯又称：“7月5日。安排与PRC总统亲自会面。”\n\n106. 2017年7月10日前后，Person A（A某人）向其本人发送了PRC National A的红色通报副本、PRC National A的护照和身份证图像，以及与PRC National A及其被指控实施的犯罪有关的其他文件。\n\n107. 2017年7月前后，Person A要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在位于华盛顿特区的PRC大使馆与PRC驻美国大使会面。该会面的目的是向PRC大使转达有关PRC National A的信息。2017年7月16日前后，希金博瑟姆前往华盛顿特区的PRC大使馆并与大使会面。在会面期间，希金博瑟姆告诉大使，美国政府官员正在推进对PRC National A的引渡，并且日后将有关于引渡后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，希金博瑟姆向Person A报告了所发生的事情，Person A表示其将通知Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）。Person A后来告诉希金博瑟姆，Foreign National A对该次会面感到满意，且该会面使Foreign National A在PRC面前获得了可信度。\n\n108. 2017年7月18日前后，BROIDY通过电子邮件向戴维斯发送了Person H的联系方式。戴维斯为推进将PRC National A移走的游说活动，安排PRC Minister A（PRC部长A）与Person H之间进行了多次通话。\n\n109. 2017年7月26日前后，BROIDY与戴维斯就PRC National A及将其从美国移送至PRC一事互发短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“确实需要确认已被正式转达。到目前为止——他说没有。”BROIDY回复：“已请三名不同的人跟进。”BROIDY后来又称：“给Person E（E某人）打了电话。一小时后见Person H。”\n\n110. 2017年7月26日前后，BROIDY向Person H发短信，约其在华盛顿特区的一家酒店见面，以讨论PRC National A：“你好，Person H，我从工作人员那里得知你在华盛顿特区，我也在，住在该酒店。你今天想喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott。”当天晚些时候，Person H的配偶向BROIDY发短信称：“你好，Elliot。你能否再给我发一次你之前发短信提到的那名中国男子的详细情况，谢谢。”BROIDY回复：“你好，Q，你指的是[PRC National A还是PRC Minister A]？致意，Elliott。”Person H的配偶回复：“[PRC National A]。”BROIDY随后重新发送了其先前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n111. 2017年7月27日前后，BROIDY与戴维斯就PRC National A互发短信。戴维斯向BROIDY发短信称：“大使馆那边有消息吗？”戴维斯后来又称：“嘿，关于正式通知有什么更新吗？”BROIDY回复：“我正在与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. 2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY多次向戴维斯发短信。在这些信息中，BROIDY写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息。”BROIDY后来又称：“我与Person H在一起。有突破机会。”\n\n113. 2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY在Person H的游艇上与Person H会面。二人在一起期间，BROIDY询问Person H有关PRC National A的事项。随后，Person H当着BROIDY的面致电总统，询问PRC National A在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第57页，共109页\n\n114. 2017年9月13日前后，BROIDY向戴维斯发短信称：“请把庇护文章和另一篇文章发给我。”同日，戴维斯向BROIDY发送了有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n115. 2017年10月2日前后，BROIDY向戴维斯发送了一篇有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n116. 2018年1月5日前后，BROIDY向戴维斯发短信称：“尽快向我发送更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息。”\n\n均违反18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收主张\n\n1. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)主张没收之目的，现再次主张并以引用方式并入本起诉书第一项罪名中的指控。\n\n2. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，在就违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 371的第一项罪名作出有罪判决后，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY应向美利坚合众国没收任何构成或源自可追溯至该等违法行为所得收益的不动产或动产。进一步通知，在有罪判决后，美利坚合众国拟寻求针对BROIDY作出金钱判决，其金额代表本段所述财产。\n\n3. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，上述所述的任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后无法找到；\n\nb. 已转让、出售给第三方，或已存放于第三方；\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\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第58页，共109页\n\ne. 已与其他财产混合，以致难以分割，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权依据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：September 10, 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部公共廉政处处长\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）\n\n出庭律师\n\n公共廉政处\n\n案号22-50073，文件107，于03/20/22提交，于03/20/22 15:39:01登记，第58页，共108页；案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第59页，共109页\n\n附件B\n\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第60页，共109页\n\n已提交于美国联邦地区法院夏威夷地区\nAug 17, 2020, 10:23\nMichelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩），书记官\n\nKENJI M. PRICE（肯吉·M·普赖斯）# 10523\n美国联邦检察官\n夏威夷地区\n\nKEN SORENSON（肯·索伦森）\n助理美国联邦检察官\nRoom 6-100，PJKK Federal Bldg.\n300 Ala Moana Boulevard\nHonolulu, Hawaii 96850\n电话：(808) 541-2850\n传真：(808) 541-2958\n电子邮箱：ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\n公共廉政处处长\n美国司法部\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n出庭律师\n公共廉政处\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\n\n美利坚合众国，　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　刑事案号20-00068 JAO\n原告，　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　起诉书\n诉　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　[18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §\nNICKIE MALIE LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯），　612 and 618(a)]\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时间内：\n\n2. 自不晚于2017年3月起至至少2018年1月前后，NICKIE LUM DAVIS同Person A和Person B（B某人）达成协议，以Foreign National A的代理人身份行事，以换取来自与Foreign National A有关联的外国账户、数额达数百万美元且未披露的电汇款项。DAVIS明确同意协助Person B游说美国总统（“总统”）、总统政府和美国司法部（“DOJ”），以停止对Foreign National A在从1Malaysia Development Berhad（1MDB）——一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和开发公司——侵吞数十亿美元中所涉作用的调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告和Person B故意未向总统政府和DOJ官员披露Person B正代表Foreign National A行事。最终，DAVIS、Person A和Person B未能促使停止1MDB调查。\n\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第61页，共109页\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，DAVIS还与Person A和Person B达成协议，协助其游说总统政府和DOJ，依Foreign National A和PRC Minister A的请求，安排将居住在美国的PRC异见人士PRC National A移送并送回PRC。在此事上，DAVIS、Person A和Person B最终也未能成功。\n\n4. 为推进Foreign National A的利益，DAVIS协助Person B促成马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）与总统于2017年9月举行会面，部分目的是使马来西亚总理A能够向总统提出解决1MDB事项的问题。\n\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第62页，共109页\n\n5. DAVIS、Person A和Person B还在PRC与PRC Minister A会面，并同意Person B将在DAVIS协助下游说总统政府，将PRC National A送回PRC。DAVIS、Person A和Person B还同意并试图促成PRC Minister A在2017年5月访问美国期间与DOJ及美国国土安全部（United States Department of Homeland Security，以下简称“DHS”）官员会面，其明确目的在于让PRC Minister A有机会与美国高级官员讨论移送PRC National A事宜。\n\n以外国委托人或外国政府代理人身份行事的刑事禁止规定\n\n6. 《Foreign Agents Registration Act》（外国代理人登记法，以下简称“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国境内以外国委托人代理人身份从事某些类型活动的人，就政治或公共关系活动，或代表该外国委托人进行游说等活动，向总检察长登记。该等登记须向DOJ内国家安全司的Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit（“FARA Unit”）提交。明知且故意不登记，以及在依该法规定向FARA Unit提交的文件中作出虚假或误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n案号22-50073，文件250-16，于04/22/22提交，于04/22/22 16:59:37登记，第63页，共109页\n\n7. FARA的目的在于防止外国委托人的秘密影响。依该法规适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估担任外国委托人代理人的个人所作的陈述和活动。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数额，以及登记人在担任该外国委托人代理人期间所作的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告NICKIE MALIE LUM DAVIS过去及现在均为美国公民、女商人及顾问，并与Person A和Person B存在个人及商业关系。\n\n9. Person A为美国公民、商人及艺人，具有国际联系，包括与Foreign National A的联系。\n\n10. Person B（B某）自约 2016 年 4 月至 2018 年 4 月担任某全国政治委员会的财务副主席。以该身份，Person B 从捐赠者处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在 2016 年选举周期内与一名美国总统候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。选举后，Person B 继续担任财务副主席，并保持接触和联系总统政府的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，Person B 拥有并经营数家美国国内及国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 64 页，共 109 页\n\n11. Foreign National A（外国国民 A）是一名居住在东亚的富有商人，因其在策划和实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元资金计划中所起的作用而被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是由 Person A（A某）设立的一家有限责任公司，用于接收 Foreign National A 的电汇，以支付 Person B 的游说工作报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是 Person A 的一名同事，且是受雇于 DOJ（美国司法部）的持牌律师。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）就一份指控其共谋向金融机构作虚假陈述的单项起诉信息书认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由 Person B 的配偶 Person C（C某）经营的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民 A）是一名中华人民共和国异议人士，持临时签证居住在美国。中华人民共和国政府，包括 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A）和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将 PRC National A 从美国遣返中华人民共和国。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 65 页，共 109 页\n\n16. 自 2016 年末至 2019 年，DOJ 一直积极调查据称与 1MDB 挪用资金计划洗钱所得有关的 Foreign National A 交易。2016 年 7 月，DOJ 提起多项民事没收起诉状，寻求没收据称以 1MDB 洗钱所得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 及他人共谋洗白从 1MDB 挪用的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向马来西亚及阿布扎比的多名官员支付贿赂而违反 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（《反海外腐败法》）。\n\n一、解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的行动\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（戴维斯）告诉 Person B，她在马来西亚有一名可能需要就没收事宜获得帮助的潜在客户。\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 有关的民事没收起诉状副本。同日，DAVIS 通过电子邮件向 Person B 发送了一篇彭博社文章，标题为“[Foreign National A] 的信托请求在没收诉讼中迟延提出索赔”，并向 Person B 发送短信：“你的电子邮件中有法院提交文件[。]”Person B 回应：“谢谢。将审阅。”DAVIS 回应：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[。]”Person B 再次回应：“好的。5 分钟[。]”\n\n19. Person A 要求 DAVIS 向其发送 Person B 的履历，其中描述了 Person B 与政府高级官员的关系，以及 Person B 与总统的照片。约于 2017 年 3 月 7 日，应 DAVIS 的要求，Person B 的助理通过电子邮件向 DAVIS 发送了展示 Person B 与总统的照片。Person A 表示，其想要这些照片，以便 Person A 能够突出 Person B 与政府的密切接触。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 66 页，共 109 页\n\n20. 约于 2017 年 3 月 8 日，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信：“你会在 16 日于其当周末前往亚洲之前，在洛杉矶与 [Person A] 会面吗？”Person B 回应：“我想会。我们晚些时候谈。”同日稍后，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送额外短信，以安排 Person B、Person A 和 DAVIS 之间的会面。\n\n21. 在 Person B 的指示下，约于 2017 年 3 月 13 日，DAVIS 向 Person A 转发了一份“Law Firm A 与 Foreign National A 之间的诉讼服务预付聘金及费用协议”。该“预付聘金及费用协议”规定，Foreign National A 应预先支付 $8 million 聘金，并在该“事项”于 180 日内解决的情况下支付额外 $75 million 成功费，或在该“事项”于 365 日内解决的情况下支付 $50 million。协议草案包括附件 A，说明该“事项”是指 1MDB 没收程序。实际上，Person A、Person B、Law Firm A、DAVIS 和 Person C 均未向 Foreign National A 提供诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真正目的，是基于 Person B 的政治关系，获得 Person B 代表 Foreign National A 向政府和 DOJ 游说的服务。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 67 页，共 109 页\n\n22. 约于 2017 年 3 月 13 日，Person B 与 Person A 和 DAVIS 会面，讨论 Foreign National A 及其法律问题。会上，Person A 向 Person B 描述了其与 Foreign National A 的关系，并询问 Person B 是否能够就涉及 Foreign National A 的民事没收案件提供帮助。Person A 表示，其将与 Foreign National A 商讨 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：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 约于 2017 年 3 月 15 日，关于 Foreign National A，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送短信：“……[Person A] 的同事有什么新消息吗？”同日，DAVIS 回应：“[Person A] 明天将与‘推广人’亲自会面，他们希望在接下来几周内出行[。]”\n\n24. 约于 2017 年 3 月 22 日，DAVIS 通过电子邮件联系 Person B 及其助理，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 和 Person B 均知悉 FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）及其对未经登记代表外国委托人的禁止规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人代理人的要求，DAVIS、Person A 或 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\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 68 页，共 109 页\n\nB. Person A、Person B 和 DAVIS 在曼谷会见 Foreign National A\n\n27. 约于 2017 年 4 月，Person A 要求 Person B 前往泰国曼谷与 Foreign National A 会面。Person B 表示，只有在获得 $1 million 报酬的情况下才会前往，并且其希望 Person A 从“未受污染的资金”中向其付款。\n\n28. 约于 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 回应：“好的[。]”\n\n29. 约于 2017 年 4 月 29 日，Person B 和 DAVIS 就其即将与 Foreign National A 和 Person A 会面交换了多条短信。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某一家特定酒店？”DAVIS 回应：“你方便谈话时给我打电话[。]”\n\n30. 约于 2017 年 4 月 30 日，DAVIS 就前往曼谷的航班行程通过电子邮件联系 Person B 的助理。DAVIS 在该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，因为我们需要从不同国家离开[。]我们暂时不需要担心酒店……”\n\n31. 约于 2017 年 5 月 1 日，DAVIS 通过电子邮件向 Person B 及其助理发送了曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接。同日，DAVIS 通过电子邮件告诉 Person A 为其在香格里拉酒店预订房间，并向她发送确认信息。Person A 回应：“[Foreign National A] 正在自行预订酒店”，随后补充道：“还请向我发送 [Person B] 的电汇信息。”DAVIS 随即提供了以 Law Firm A 名义开立账户的电汇信息。同日，就 Person B 的助理询问她是否应取消 Person B 的酒店房间预订一事，DAVIS 通过电子邮件回复 Person B 的助理：“是的，所有房间均已由 [Person A] 预订。”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 69 页，共 109 页\n\n32. 约于 2017 年 5 月 2 日，DAVIS 通过电子邮件告知 Person B，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A] 和我将在抵达处见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——愿这段激动人心且繁荣的冒险之旅有一个开始！”\n\n33. 约于 2017 年 5 月 2 日，DAVIS、Person A 和 Person B 抵达曼谷。在该次旅行期间，DAVIS、Person A 和 Person B 在一间酒店套房内会见了 Foreign National A。Person B 和 Foreign National A 谈及 1MDB 调查和民事没收诉讼。Person B 同意协助 Foreign National A 尝试解决该事项。Foreign National A 同意向 Person B 支付 $8 million 聘金，并希望 Person B 联系美国司法部长，以促使 DOJ 放弃 1MDB 事项。Person B 同意在隐瞒其代表 Foreign National A 工作这一事实的同时，代表 Foreign National A 向政府和 DOJ 游说，以取得有利结果。关于付款，Person B 表示，该笔资金不应直接来自 Foreign National A，且应为“干净的”。Foreign National A 指定了一名可向 Person B 和其他人付款的朋友。Person B、Person A 和 DAVIS 同意，资金将先经由 Person A 转入，随后通过 Law Firm A 支付给 Person B。Person B 和 DAVIS 同意，Person B 将向 DAVIS 支付 Person B 所收款项的百分之三十。Person A 还同意向 DAVIS 支付 Person A 所收资金的一定百分比。Person A 告知 Person B 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。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 70 页，共 109 页\n\nC. Person A 从 Foreign National A 收到 $8.5 Million；Person B 获支付 $6 Million；DAVIS 获支付 $1.7Million\n\n34. 在约 2017 年 5 月 8 日于泰国与 Foreign National A 会面后，Company A 收到一笔由 Foreign National A 指示、从一家香港实体汇出的约 $2.8 million 电汇。同日，Person A 从 Company A 账户取得一张以 Law Firm A 为收款人的 $702,000 银行本票，该款项随即记入 Law Firm A 的账户。Person A 还从 Company A 账户向 Law Firm A 另行电汇 $48,000。同日，一家第三方公司按 Person A 的指示向 Law Firm A 账户转入 $250 000，使存入 Law Firm A 账户的总金额达到 $1 million。在数日内，2017 年 5 月 8 日转入 Law Firm A 账户的 1 million 中约 900,000，已从 Law Firm A 账户转入 Person B 的一个企业账户。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 71 页，共 109 页\n\n35. 约于 2017 年 5 月 8 日，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信：“汇入 [Law Firm A] 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：“702 总额银行本票[。]”\n\n36. 约于 2017 年 5 月 9 日，Person A 促使 Company A 向一家由 DAVIS 家庭成员控制的公司转入 $250,000，以使 DAVIS 受益。\n\n37. 约于 2017 年 5 月 17 日，Foreign National A 促使一家香港公司向 Company A 发出一笔国际电汇。同日，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入 $3 million。\n\n38. 约于 May 17 2017，B某人（Person B）与DAVIS（戴维斯）就外国国民A（Foreign National A）经由A某人（Person A）向B某人付款，以及B某人向戴维斯支付一定比例款项一事交换了短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯问道：“你收到了吗？”B某人答道：“收到了。已给你发Wickr[.]，明早向你汇款。”Wickr是一款允许端到端加密及内容到期删除的消息应用程序。B某人随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”戴维斯答道：“亚洲开市后……至少现在正逐步向前推进。”B某人答道：“是。催他们办理接下来的2笔汇款。”B某人随后部分补充道：“假设第二笔3已到账，并确认最后2笔正在汇出。请询问[B某人的助手]。”\n\nL\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 72 页，共 109 页\n\n39. 约于 May 18, 2017，A律师事务所（Law Firm A）向B某人的一个商业账户转入$500 000，并向由戴维斯控制的一个商业账户转入$900,000。约在一周内，A律师事务所又分两笔向B某人的一个商业账户转入额外$950,000。\n\n40. 约于 May 25, 2017，外国国民A促成向A公司（Company A）进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。约于 May 26, 2017，A某人从A公司向A律师事务所转入$2 million，作为B某人与外国国民A同意的$8 million聘用费的一部分清偿；该聘用费的对价是B某人游说Administration（政府）和DOJ（司法部）撤销1MDB（一马发展公司）民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，$600 000从A律师事务所的账户转入一个与戴维斯有关联的商业账户。\n\nD. B某人为马来西亚总理A安排会见并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 约于 May 18 2017，B某人向D某人（Person D）发送短信；D某人是一名政治顾问，曾任总统竞选助手。B某人请求D某人与政府合作，为马来西亚总理A安排一次访问：“你好，[D某人]——请着手安排亚洲国家访问。日期在七月。”\n\n42. 约于 June 5, 2017，B某人再次就马来西亚总理A的访问向D某人发送短信：“亚洲国家对七月会晤非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 73 页，共 109 页\n\n43. 同日，应A某人的请求，戴维斯就外国国民A向B某人发送短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯根据A某人代表外国国民A向其转达的信息写道：“如果可以，请在你于以色列上床睡觉前打电话……[外国国民A]一直打电话询问消息[.]”B某人答道：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，处理[外国国民A]和亚洲国家的事[.]”\n\n44. 约于 June 15 2017，戴维斯转达A某人的信息，向B某人发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你方便吗？”戴维斯补充道：“Principal”，这是指外国国民A。同日，B某人答道：“好的[.]”\n\n45. 约于 June 16, 2017，B某人与戴维斯就1MDB以及从一名与外国国民A有关联的人处扣押珠宝一事交换了短信。\n\n46. 约于 June 17, 2017，B某人与戴维斯讨论了马来西亚总理A。约在 June 2017，B某人询问总统是否会与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。B某人表示，且戴维斯相信，这将取悦外国国民A，并将使马来西亚总理A能够尝试解决1MDB事项。B某人还希望获得马来西亚总理A政府的额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 74 页，共 109 页\n\n47. 约于 June 19, 2017，戴维斯向B某人发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n48. 约于 June 25, 2017，戴维斯向B某人发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及马来西亚总理A以及涉及外国国民A的1MDB没收诉讼。同日，B某人答道：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”戴维斯答道：“请打电话。收到消息[.]”戴维斯随后表示，她已向B某人发送了一个“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 约于 June 29, 2017，B某人为安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间的高尔夫活动，向一名白宫高级官员E某人（Person E）发送短信：“你好，[E某人]，如我所提到，POTUS（总统）同意于七月底或八月初在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区或Bedminster（贝德明斯特）与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，数周前已向国务院发函，要求举行会面。”\n\n50. 约于 June 30, 2017，B某人就高尔夫活动向E某人发送另一条短信：“希望我们今早能就[中国国民A]和[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期谈谈。”当日稍后，B某人补充道：“E某人，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\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 75 页，共 109 页\n\n51. 约于 July 3, 2017，B某人再次就马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期向E某人发送短信：“早上好，[E某人]。如果你今天能向POTUS确认与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球的日期，对我将极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很乐意在Bedminster或华盛顿哥伦比亚特区打球。我们谈过后，我向[马来西亚总理A]提到，他会在上周拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当日稍后，B某人再次向E某人发送短信：“[E某人]，我正在跟进。请向我发送[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期和时间。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约于 July 4 2017，戴维斯向B某人发送短信：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又写道：“清空你的手机——删除信息[.]”\n\n53. 约于 July 5 2017，B某人与E某人就高尔夫活动交换了信息。在其他信息中，B某人发短信称：“[E某人]，刚给你留了留言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，[ ]。”E某人答道：“此事由NSC（国家安全委员会）负责。他们协调并谈判——我相信会办成的[.]”\n\n54. 约于 July 11, 2017，戴维斯转达A某人的信息，向B某人发送短信：“Wickr[.] 现在下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们正遭受重创。”这些信息指的是确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及外国国民A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。戴维斯转达A某人的紧迫要求，继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我正被信息淹没[.]”B某人答道：“看Wickr[.]”次日，B某人向戴维斯发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发短信。我正起飞，需要去白宫[.] 正在起飞。现在需要[.]”戴维斯答道：“已办妥[.]”B某人答道：“收到了。谢谢[.] 正努力让F某人（Person F）尽快打电话[.]”F某人当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 76 页，共 109 页\n\n55. 约于 July 13, 2017，戴维斯向B某人发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们必须处理此事，所以请去华盛顿哥伦比亚特区。坐在白宫，直到你办成此事。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 约于 July 13, 2017，B某人再次就高尔夫日期向E某人发送短信：“你好，[E某人]，已经2周了。再次询问[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期发短信给我吗？谢谢。致意，[]。”E某人答道：“我现在会再查一下[.] 这些事情要经过程序——”。B某人答道：“谢谢！！”E某人答道：“NSC正在处理并协调[.]”B某人答道：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”E某人答道：“他们正直接与[马来西亚]合作。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约于 July 15 2017，B某人向戴维斯发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约于 July 17, 2017，戴维斯转达A某人代表外国国民A表达的紧迫要求，向B某人发送短信：“[E某人]现在需要给你这个日期，并向他索要另一件事的日期。我们看起来很无能。”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面，也指涉及中国国民A的事项。B某人答道：“同意。正在全力推进。”\n\n59. 约于 July 18 2017，B某人与戴维斯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。在这些转达A某人信息的短信中，戴维斯写道：“你能查一下Wickr吗[.] 真的、真的需要那个日期。今天我一直因这事忙得发疯。他正在恐慌[.]”戴维斯随后写道：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们正被打得很惨。”据A某人称，外国国民A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。B某人答道：“现在给[B某人]打电话[.]”戴维斯部分答道：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你极为愤怒[.] 也给G某人（Person G）打电话。我们今天需要这个[.]”G某人是总统的一名行政助理。B某人答道：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 约于 July 19 2017，戴维斯就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期向B某人发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[.]”B某人于次日答道：“请耐心一点。我正在获取有关会面的信息[.]”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 78 页，共 109 页\n\n61. 约于 July 21, 2017，B某人就高尔夫活动向E某人发送短信：“[E某人]，[马来西亚]没有从C那里听到任何消息。POTUS说他会在七月底或八月初与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。POTUS说他很乐意这样做。你说会在一两天内安排好。我们现在已经进入第4周。我知道你很忙，也适用相关程序，但我已经非常有耐心了。这件事非但没有产生积极效果，现在反而给我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约于 July 24 2017，B某人向D某人发送短信：“收到九月在新泽西州打高尔夫球的日期。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！”D某人答道：“让我们跟进，并确保该日期得到NSC确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的日期？”B某人答道：“谢谢！！太棒了。由E某人交给H某人（Person H）。”\n\n63. 约于 July 27, 2017，B某人向D某人发送短信：“刚刚再次向[马来西亚]核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快核查。致意，[]。”B某人随后补充道：“你好，[D某人]——你能为我给SA打电话，询问[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事吗。NSC仍未就会面事宜联系[马来西亚]大使。谢谢。致意，[]。”D某人答道：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天简短地和D谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 记录日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 79 页，共 109 页\n\n64. 约于 July 29, 2017，戴维斯转达其从A某人处代表外国国民A收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统之间的会面向B某人发送短信：“他们被告知会面是在9月12日。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二？？？？没有高尔夫球？？”戴维斯随即又发送短信：“Wickr[,]”B某人答道：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。周六在Bedminster打高尔夫球，周二在白宫会面？”\n\n65. 2017年8月7日前后，B某（Person B）向其助理发送了一封电子邮件，主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”，其中载有供美国国务卿（Secretary of State）与马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）即将举行的会议使用的要点材料。DAVIS从A某（Person A）处收到该等要点材料——A某系代表外国国民A（Foreign National A）提供该材料——并将其转交给B某，明知B某随后会将其作为该会议的背景材料提供给国务卿。该等要点材料尤其提及B某与马来西亚正在进行的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“[p]riority[.]”。该等要点材料指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并具体说明：“‘[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]’”\n\n66. 2017年8月7日前后，B某还将该要点材料发送给D某（Person 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会面时间的细节：“嗨，[D某]；[国务卿]何时开会？马来西亚现在已是星期一凌晨1:00。你能扩充并给我发送最终版本吗？”D某回复称，其向B某发送了经修订的要点材料版本，并表示：“这是我将转交给[国务卿]办公室的标注版本。他今天前往曼谷，然后去[马来西亚]。如有其他修改，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 80 页，共 109 页\n\n67. 2017年8月7日稍后，B某向D某发送信息：“[国务卿]于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，于9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，但可能不会立即认出[我公司的]名称。谢谢！”D某回复：“务必促成这层联系。这很可能不会成为正式会议的一部分，但会设法让他们在交谈时提及此事。”\n\n68. 同样在2017年8月7日前后，A某代表其另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表签署了一项协议，约定提供“战略沟通和危机管理”，交换条件为于2017年8月16日或之前支付约EUR 8.4 million。\n\n69. 2017年8月9日前后，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向A公司（Company A）转账约$12.8 million。A某随后向A律师事务所（Law Firm A）转账$3 million。A某还向由DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转账$833,333。2017年8月10日前后，A律师事务所向与DAVIS相关联的一个商业账户转账$900,000。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 81 页，共 109 页\n\n70. 2017年8月10日前后，B某就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会面向D某发送短信：“从[马来西亚]获悉，会议进展非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]很满意。没有提到我的名字——没有提及。;- ……”\n\n71. 2017年8月16日前后，B某与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，[A某]今天确实想见你，因为你周五离开[。]”\n\n72. 2017年8月18日前后，B某与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。[A某]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 2017年8月19日前后，B某向D某发送短信：“关于[马来西亚]有什么最新消息？”D某回复：“截至目前，将在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫，但我正在推进。可能必须就此直接找[I某]，并利用他们二人曾一起打高尔夫的经历。”B某回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接致电[J某]的一名副手或[I某]。还需要为会面增加时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”当时，I某（Person I）是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 82 页，共 109 页\n\n74. 2017年8月21日前后，DAVIS将其作为佣金从A某处收到的$375,000资金电汇给B某的配偶C某（Person C）。\n\n75. 2017年8月24日前后，外国国民A指示向A某的另一家独立公司转账约$10 million；该公司曾与外国国民A的一名代表就EUR 8.4 million签订“战略沟通和危机管理”协议。根据2017年8月24日的现行汇率，EUR 8.4 million折合约$10 million。\n\n76. 2017年9月11日前后，DAVIS依B某指示起草了一封由B某发给总统的信，以备马来西亚总理A与总统会面。该信载有马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未提供给总统。\n\n77. 2017年9月12日前后，马来西亚总理A在白宫会见总统，部分原因在于DAVIS为B某促成该会面所作努力提供的协助。尽管B某联系了政府中的高级官员，以便除正式会面外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与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球赛。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 83 页，共 109 页\n\n78. 2017年10月6日前后，B某在白宫会见总统。B某向A某、DAVIS和外国国民A表示，其在该次会面期间向总统提出了1MDB调查。\n\n79. 2018年1月5日前后，B某起草了与1MDB有关的要点材料，以向外国国民A展示B某代表其所作的努力。该等要点材料尤其载明：“1. 我们正在与司法部（DoJ）合作，以反制前一届政府在[马来西亚]针对1MDB的案件。我已制定策略，联系司法部和国家安全委员会（NSC）的有关方面，以寻求解决该问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督该案件的助理总检察长举行会面。她是[总统]任命的人员，能够提供帮助……3. 如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺将解决该问题。重要的是我应遵循他的指示，但我将继续传达该问题的重要性。”B某极大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80. 2018年1月6日前后，B某会见A某，A某向B某请求借款。A某告诉B某，A某的朋友正在“核查”他们从外国国民A处收到的资金，并“帮助保持其‘清洁’”。\n\n11. 将中国国民A（PRC National A）从美国遣离的行动\n\nA. B某前往中国会见中国部长A（PRC Minister A）\n\n81. 2017年5月前后，在前往曼谷之行后，B某同意前往香港，再次会见外国国民A。在此行之前，DAVIS与B某讨论称，对外国国民A而言，中国国民A被从美国遣返至关重要。前往香港的目的，是会见外国国民A和一名中华人民共和国（PRC）外国政府官员，以讨论中国国民A。\n\n82. 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B某的助理发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向B某和C某发送了DAVIS公司的银行信息。\n\n83. 2017年5月18日前后，A某、B某和DAVIS前往香港，并被运送至中国深圳，在那里他们于一间酒店套房内会见了外国国民A和中国部长A。中国部长A向B某谈及中国国民A及其被指控的犯罪，并表示中华人民共和国希望将中国国民A送回中华人民共和国。中国部长A请求B某利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将中国国民A遣离并送回中华人民共和国。中国部长A还表示，其不久将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，并且难以安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\nB. B某游说美国高级官员将中国国民A遣离\n\n84. 2017年5月20日前后，在从中国返程途中，B某向DAVIS发送短信：“我会努力让这一周成为我们与[司法部长]取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n85. 2017年5月21日前后，B某就其与外国国民A和中国部长A的会面向D某发送短信：“[D某]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否于星期一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？”\n\n86. 2017年5月22日前后，B某向D某发送短信：“我需要尽快会见[司法部长]。我们将讨论。”B某随后补充道：“我正在给你发送一份备忘录。我们将讨论。”同日稍后，D某回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 2017年5月22日前后，B某向D某发送一封电子邮件，主题为“美中大幅加强执法合作的机会[。]”B某在电子邮件中附上一份由B某致司法部长的备忘录，意图让D某随后将该备忘录提供给司法部长。该备忘录的内容由DAVIS提供给B某；DAVIS在2017年5月赴中国期间从A某处收到该内容，而该内容源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，B某和C某修订了该备忘录。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，B某歪曲了其赴中国之行的原因以及其与中国部长A会面的背景。B某隐瞒了其与外国国民A的联系，并隐瞒了外国国民A在安排B某与中国部长A会面中所起的作用。B某还隐瞒了在深圳与中国部长A会面前两周内，外国国民A向其支付的$4 million。B某还未披露，其就中国国民A所作的游说努力至少部分是根据其与外国国民A之间的财务安排进行，且可能\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 86 页，共 109 页\n\n89. 在该备忘录中，B某表示：“据[中国部长A]告知，[中华人民共和国]希望大幅加强与美国在执法方面的双边合作，包括网络安全。”B某写及中国部长A即将前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区访问；届时，中国部长A及其代表团计划会见数名美国政府高级官员。B某主张司法部长应会见中国部长A。B某还列举了若干事项，即据中国部长A所称，中华人民共和国愿意采取这些措施以改善美国与中华人民共和国之间的执法关系。B某随后补充道：\n\n“根据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，[中华人民共和国]将提出的唯一请求是，[中国国民A]——[中华人民共和国]称其与已被逮捕并被控违反中华人民共和国多项刑法者共谋，包括绑架和重大金融犯罪——应在其签证于约下个月到期时被遣返，或在可能的情况下尽快从美国引渡至[中华人民共和国]（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通缉令，随附供您参考），以便其能够因这些\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 250-16 提交日期 04/22/22 登记日期 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 87 页，共 109 页\n\n违规行为，并就这些指控在 [the PRC（中华人民共和国）] 接受正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nPerson B 在备忘录中附上了一份针对 PRC National A 的 Interpol（国际刑警组织）红色通报。\n\n90. 约于 May 23. 2017，Person B 向 Person D 发送短信称：“嗨，[J] 明天的会面安排好了吗？我的备忘录已发送给 [Attorney General（司法部长）] 吗？请更新情况，谢谢 Q[J]。”Person D 回应称：“[Person B]- 信件昨天已送达。请查看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。今天晚些时候我会给你打电话。我今晚正乘坐红眼航班，以便能早点回到 DC。”Person B 回应称：“太好了。谢谢你[]。也请试着确定他是否已安排会面，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在 Alabama（阿拉巴马州）会面。”次日，约于 May 24 2017，Person D 回应称：“正在等待 DoJ（司法部）关于会面的消息——我们的和 [PRC Minister A] 的。告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n91. 约于 May 24, 2017，Person D 向 Person B 发送短信称：“刚接到 [Attorney General] 办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到了他的短信回复，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 约于 May 25, 2017，Person B 向 Person D 发送短信称：“今天上午 10:00 在 Justice（司法部）开会。然后明天与 FBI（联邦调查局）和 DHS（国土安全部）开会。也许我可以告诉我的联系人提前 10 分钟到达，这样就可能举行一个简短会面。然后再与 Done 会面，讨论更多细节。请尽力今天第一件事就是见到 [Attorney General]。我们办成此事确实非常重要。我需要在今天上午与\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 88 of 109\n\n我的联系人谈话。谢谢。。”Person D 回应称：“[J]- 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回来。请等待。”当天晚些时候，Person B 向 Person D 发送短信称：“细节是，我备忘录中的三件事仅供 [Attorney General] 知悉。[PRC Minister A] 想直接告诉 [Attorney General]。我的渠道是合法的幕后渠道。[PRC Minister A] 的上司想确认 [Attorney General] 已听到这三件事，这确实有助于我们[。]”当天晚些时候，Person D 回应称：“- 我刚刚与 [Attorney General] 通完电话。不是好消息。你有空谈话时告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n93. 约于 May 26, 2017，就 [PRC Minister A] 的会面而言，Person B 向 Person D 发送短信称：“上午 10 点与 ICE（移民和海关执法局）负责人会面，11:30 与 FBI 会面。也许在 DHS 的一次安排能够挽救局面。由 [Person I] 出面。三项事项可以分享。”Person B 随后称：“请给我打电话”，以及“我正在努力控制损害，需要与你谈话。最好是与 Person I 单独谈谈。”Person I 当时是 DHS 的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 约于 May 28, 2017，Person B 向 Person D 发送电子邮件称：“与 [the Attorney General] 和 [the PRC’s] Ambassador to the US（驻美国大使）之间的通信记录。”Person B 指出：“我相信 [the Attorney General] 有一个绝佳机会进一步促进美国利益。我已在下方添加评论。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件应使 AG（司法部长）知悉的有关事项。”当天晚些时候，Person B 和 Person D 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 May 30 2017，转述 [PRC Minister A] 和 Person A 有关 [PRC Minister A] 与 United States Government（美国政府）官员会面的信息时，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信称：“查看 Wickr（加密通信应用）——现在会面一切已清除[。]”Person B 回应称：“是的。都安排好了。”DAVIS 回应称：“他让他的会面恢复了[。]”\n\n96. 约于 May 2017，DAVIS 应 Person A 的请求，请 Person B 在 Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）与 [PRC Minister A] 会面。\n\n97. 约于 May 30, 2017，Person B 在 Washington, D.C. 的一家酒店与 [PRC Minister A] 会面。Person B 还询问 Person D 是否能够帮助 [PRC Minister A] 安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n98. 约于 May 31, 2017，Person B 向 Person D 发送短信称：\n\n我昨晚与 VM 会面。他今天下午乘坐 4 pm 的航班返回。FBI 让他与级别非常低的人员会面，并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，他已交付一名孕妇，接下来的 2 人将很快被送来。他将接受 60 名 Chinese Nationals（中国公民）被遣返，但前提是他有一次适当的“简短会面”。这是政府的一大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两国总统在 Mar-a-Lago（海湖庄园）会面的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99. Person D 回应称：“[]- 收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”Person B 回应称：“如果你能安排到会面，我们能否让政治 White House（白宫）联络官在 DHS 与 VM 会面？他可以提及我的名字。也请尽力让 Person I 缓和局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷成功。”\n\n100. 约于 May 31, 2017，就 [PRC Minister A] 所称与 Person I 的会面，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信称：“原则上 Person I 认为可以——只是日程问题？”Person B 回应称：“只是临时通知造成的日程问题。大约一小时内仍可能有消息。与 [PRC Minister A] 没有任何问题。”Person B 随后继续称：“请转达我对 VM 的良好祝愿。再稍等一会儿。”DAVIS 回应称：“是的，我正在告诉他。”Person B 回应称：“告诉他，我正在把发生的事情告诉 WH（白宫）和 [Attorney General]。”随后 DAVIS 发送短信称：“Person I 今天下午不是安排在 Haiti（海地）吗？”Person B 回应称：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？Attorney General 的人员也没有提到[。]”DAVIS 回应称：“这在 DHS 网站上[。]他整个下午都在那里[。]刚和 VM 谈过，他听起来像是在哭[。]”Person B 回应称：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真是一场他妈的混乱。”DAVIS 回应称：“Wickr。”\n\n101. 约于 June 9 2017，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送了一篇题为“[the PRC]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A]”的新闻文章。\n\n102. 约于 June 27 2017，Person B 和 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 交换了数条短信。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 91 of 109\n\n103. 约于 June 27, 2017，Person B 就遣返 PRC National A 一事向 Person H 的配偶发送短信。Person B 知道，Person H 是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，也是政治竞选活动的经常捐助者，与 President（总统）关系密切，能够立即接触并影响总统，因此能够有效寻求遣返 PRC National A。Person B 向 Person H 的配偶发送短信称：“另外，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与 Person H 会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者午餐时如何？期待在 [J] Hotel（酒店）见到你！致意，0[。]”Person B 后来继续称：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H] 要求我通过短信将此信息发给你。我将向你发送若干有关逃犯 PRC National A 的事项。第一项是一份 Interpol 红色通报。……高度紧迫的事项是，PRC National A 在美国停留的签证将于 June 30th 到期。其新的签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入 DHS 禁飞名单。……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为 [PRC National A] 与曾在其私人安保团队任职的前 FBI 人员关系密切。PRC 的 President 在 Mar-A-Lago 向 [the President] 提到，他希望 [PRC National A] 被遣返。[PRC Minister A] 与我会面，并请求就 [PRC National A] 提供帮助。……他承诺归还被 PRC 扣为人质的某些美国公民，并将接受大量 [the PRC] 非法移民被遣返至 PRC。最后，他还提出就 North Korea（朝鲜）提供新的协助。\n\n104. 约于 June 28, 2017，Person B 在一次社交聚会上与 Person H 及其配偶会面。会面后，Person B 与 Person H 的配偶就 [PRC National A] 交换了短信：“嗨，[]，今晚见到你和 [Person H] 真是太好了！我刚刚再次收到 [PRC Minister A] 的消息。他想知道 [PRC National A] 的 VISA（签证）状态，因为时间至关重要。VISA 是否已经签发，还是我们拒绝了它？我们能否确认 [PRC National A] 已列入 DHS 禁飞名单？[PRC Minister A] 非常担心 [PRC National A] 本周将逃离美国。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。[PRC Minister A] 称他们感谢你的帮助。”Person H 的配偶回应称：“此事正在由 State Department（国务院）和 Defense Department（国防部）的最高层处理。他们正在处理此事。”\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 92 of 109\n\n105. 约于 June 29 2017，Person B 和 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 的签证申请交换了短信。Person B 发送短信称：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”DAVIS 回应称：“我不知道。”Person B 回应称：“抱歉，总会生成。换言之，每名申请人最终都会收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]抱歉，收到书面的批准或拒绝？”DAVIS 回应称：“是[。]查看 Wickr[。]”\n\n106. 约于 June 30, 2017，DAVIS 提及其为促成遣返 Foreign National B（外国国民B）以及可能使被 Country B（B国）扣押的美国公民返回而作出的努力时，向 Person B 发送短信称：“……Wickr。你现在真是个厉害人物。在你于这个 July 4th 为这个国家完成的事情之后，他们会授予你 President’s Medal of Freedom（总统自由勋章）。”Person B 回应称：“我会全力冲刺，直到完成[。]”DAVIS 回应称：“让我们确保第 1 部分今天发生。还有给我的日期[。]在我们完成之前，不要离开那家伙。”Person B 回应称：“同意。”DAVIS 继续称：“让他知道——如果我们今天在营业结束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 2 名美国人回国[。]在之后的第 2 阶段——我们可以完成接收 60 人[。]”Person B 回应称：“听起来不错。[Person H] 很快会回电话给我。正在通话。”\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 93 of 109\n\n107. 约于 June 30, 2017，Person B 和 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 交换了数条短信。Person B 发送短信称：“收到 [Person H] 的消息。他向 POTUS（美国总统）重申了此事。”Person B 随后称：“另外，[Person E] 给我发短信称他被耽搁了，但正在处理此事。”同日，DAVIS 回应称：“我们今天能拿到撤销的证明吗？”DAVIS 后来具体说明称：“来自 [Person E] 的？”\n\n108. 约于 July 1, 2017，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送短信称：“与 [Person E] 长谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”Person B 并未与 Person E 交谈，但曾与其就 PRC National A 的签证申请交换短信。与 Person B 在其为 Attorney General 准备的备忘录中所作陈述以及其与 Person H 的通信相似，Person B 未向 Person E 披露其与 [PRC Minister A] 关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约于 July 2, 2017，Person B 和 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 及其签证申请交换了短信。根据公开报道，DAVIS 发送短信称：“今天 Sunday（星期日）将与 [President of the PRC] 就 Korea（朝鲜半岛）通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他听说过 [Person H] 的事。”\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 250-16 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 94 of 109\n\n110. 约于 July 3, 2017，同样根据公开报道，DAVI 向 Person B 发送短信称：“[President] 周三离开 D.C. 前往 Europe（欧洲）。”DAVIS 随后称：“July 5。安排与 [President of the PRC] 当面会面。”\n\n111. 约于2017年7月18日，Person B 通过电子邮件向 DAVIS（戴维斯）发送了 Person H 的联系信息。戴维斯为 PRC Minister A 与 Person H 接通了多次电话，以推进将 PRC National A 移除的游说活动。\n\n112. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 及将其从美国移送至 PRC 一事交换了短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS 写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式转达。截至目前——他说没有[。]”Person B 回应道：“让3个不同的人跟进[。]”Person B 随后补充道：“给 Person E 打了电话[。]一小时后会见 Person H。”\n\n113. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B 向 Person H 发送短信，约其在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店会面，以讨论 PRC National A：“嗨，Person H，我从工作人员处得知你在华盛顿特区，我也是，住在该酒店。你今天想喝杯咖啡吗？致意，L[。]”同日稍后，Person H 的配偶向 Person B 发送短信：“嗨，[ ]。你能否再次给我发一下你此前发短信提及的那个[PRC]男子的详情，谢谢[。]”Person B 回应道：“嗨，[ ]，你是指 PRC National A 还是 PRC Minister A？致意，[J]。”Person H 的配偶回复道：“PRC National A。”随后，Person B 再次发送了其此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 95 页，共 109 页\n\n114. 约于2017年7月27日，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 交换了短信。DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？”DAVIS 随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有什么更新吗？”Person B 回应道：“我正在与纽约市的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[J]。”\n\n115. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B 多次向 DAVIS 发送短信。在这些短信中，Person B 写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[J]。”Person B 随后补充道：“我和 Person H 在一起。有突破机会[J]。”\n\n116. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B 在 Person H 的游艇上与 Person H 会面。在共同相处期间，Person B 向 Person H 询问了涉及 PRC National A 的事项，Person H 建议他们给总统打电话。随后，Person B 和 Person H 给总统打电话，询问 PRC National A 在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n117. 约于2017年9月13日，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送短信：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有其他文章[J]。”同日，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送了有关 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 96 页，共 109 页\n\n118. 约于2017年10月2日，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送了一篇有关 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n119. 约于2018年1月5日，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送短信：“尽快给我发更多有关 [PRC National A] 涉及资助民主党政治人物的信息……”\n\n第一项罪名\n18 U.S.C. § 2 和 22 U.S.C. § 612\n（帮助和教唆及未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不晚于约2017年5月起至至少约2018年1月止，在夏威夷地区及其他地方，被告 NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）明知且故意地，未按法律要求向 Attorney General（总检察长）登记，帮助和教唆 Person A 和 Person B 作为外国委托人的代理人所实施的行为，即代表 Foreign National A、PRC Minister A 及 Government of the PRC（中华人民共和国政府），开展秘密渠道游说活动，以有利于 Foreign National A 的方式解决 1MDB 调查，并将 PRC National A 送回 PRC。\n\n上述行为均违反 18 U.S.C. § 2 和 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(1)。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 97 页，共 109 页\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 为依据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) 及 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) 提出没收指控之目的，现再次主张并以引用方式纳入本 Information（起诉信息）第一项罪名所载的指控。\n\n122. 根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) 及 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，如因违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 2，以及 Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(1)，而被判第一项罪名成立，被告 NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 应向美利坚合众国没收一笔款项，该款项代表构成或源自可追溯至所述违法行为所得的财产，不论该财产为不动产或动产。进一步通知：如被判有罪，美利坚合众国拟就代表本段所述财产的该笔款项，向戴维斯申请判决书。\n\n123. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，任何上述所述财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或存放于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他难以分割的财产混合；\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 98 页，共 109 页\n\n美利坚合众国有权根据经 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) 纳入的 Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020年8月17日，夏威夷州檀香山。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price\nKENJI M. PRICE（健二·M·普赖斯）\n夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼斯·M·索伦森）\n国家安全部门主管\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部公共廉正处主管\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\nJOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副主管\n\nSANE MULRYNE\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n公共廉正处审判律师\n\n美利坚合众国诉 Nickie Mali DAVIS 起诉信息，刑事案号：____________\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 107，提交于 03/20/22，录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01，第 98 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 99 页，共 109 页\n\n附件 C\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 100 页，共 109 页\n\n哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国，　)\n)\n诉　)\nGEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM（乔治·希金博瑟姆），　)\n)\n被告。　)\n)\n)\n\n刑事案号：\n\n18-343 (CKK)\n\n认罪答辩事实依据\n\n根据 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第11条），美利坚合众国与被告 George HIGGINBOTHAM 约定并同意，下列事实公正且准确地描述了被告在其拟认罪的罪行中的行为。这些事实并不构成双方就被控罪行及相关行为所知悉的全部事实。本陈述旨在证明存在足够事实以确立被告实施了其拟认罪的罪行。被告明知、自愿且如实地承认下列事实。\n\n共谋\n\n1. 在其他地方，HIGGINBOTHAM 及其他人从外国账户向多家联邦受保存款机构转移数百万美元。美利坚合众国\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 101 页，共 109 页\n\n参与共谋的个人\n\n2. 美国司法部。HIGGINBOTHAM 是美国公民、商人及艺人。共同共谋者 B 是外国国民，也是共同共谋者 A 的关联人；其为居住在东亚的富有商人，据称曾策划从 1 Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）实施数十亿美元的侵吞和贿赂计划。1MDB 是一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资与开发公司。\n\n国际资金转移的来源及目的\n\n3. 约于2016年7月，美国司法部（“DOJ”）提交了诉状。共同共谋者 B 在诉状中被列为侵吞计划的主要策划者之一。\n\n4. 约于2017年3月，共同共谋者 A 请求 HIGGINBOTHAM 协助确定一名具有政治影响力、能够解决共同共谋者 B 围绕 1MDB 没收事项及 DOJ 对其调查所涉问题的人。HIGGINBOTHAM 将共同共谋者 A 介绍给一家律师事务所招聘人员，该人员推荐了两家不同的律师事务所；但共同共谋者 B 最终选择了 Person I——一名非律师的企业主、政治筹款人和金融家，其与美国政府高层有政治联系——游说政府官员解决 1MDB 事项。HIGGINBOTHAM 未参与将 Person I 介绍给共同共谋者 A 或共同共谋者 B。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 102 页，共 109 页\n\n5. 根据共同共谋者 A 的说法，Person I 不希望由共同共谋者 B 直接向其付款，因为其不希望与共同共谋者 B 产生关联。共同共谋者 A 安排通过中转实体付款，以掩盖共同共谋者 A 并使共同共谋者 B 的交易匿名化。根据书面协议，共同共谋者 B 将通过各种中间人和实体向 Person I 支付数千万美元，作为 Person I 游说美国政府官员撤销与 1MDB 有关的一切民事及／或刑事事项的报酬。根据共同共谋者 A 的说法，作为游说活动的一部分，Person I 同意试图影响一名联邦职位的潜在被提名人，该职位将对 1MDB 民事没收事项拥有权限。该人最终未获提名。\n\n6. 约于2017年5月，共同共谋者 A 告知 HIGGINBOTHAM，共同共谋者 B 的共同共谋者——居住在美国、持有临时签证且希望返回 Country Q 的 Person I——根据共同共谋者 A 的说法，Person I 有关系可游说美国政府官员，将 Foreign National I 从美国移除。\n\n7. 约于2017年7月，共同共谋者 A 请求 HIGGINBOTHAM 前往位于华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的 Country Q 大使馆，与 Country Q 驻美国大使会面。HIGGINBOTHAM 同意，并于约2017年7月16日前往 Country Q 驻华盛顿哥伦比亚特区大使馆，与大使会面。HIGGINBOTHAM 告知\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 103 页，共 109 页\n\n大使馆工作人员及 Country Q 大使，其是以个人身份到场，而非作为 DOJ 的代表。HIGGINBOTHAM 在会面期间传达的信息为：美国政府官员正在处理涉及 Foreign National I 的工作，未来将有关于将 Foreign National I 送回 Country Q 的后勤安排的进一步信息。会面后，HIGGINBOTHAM 向共同共谋者 A 报告了所发生的事情。共同共谋者 A 告知 HIGGINBOTHAM，根据共同共谋者 A 与共同共谋者 B 的谈话，\n\n8. 数百万美元将被用于共同共谋者 A、HIGGINBOTHAM 及其他人游说美国政府官员，以：(1) 解决 1MDB 事项；以及使 Foreign National I 被从美国移除并送回 Country Q。\n\n9. 为使国际资金转移看似合法，HIGGINBOTHAM 应共同共谋者 A 的指示制作了文件。这些文件以若干外国及国内空壳公司的名义制作，隐瞒了共同共谋者 B 参与该交易的情况。这些文件旨在提供一个掩护说法，以防有任何审计发现资金的真实来源和目的。HIGGINBOTHAM 了解到，共同共谋者 A 和共同共谋者 B 担心，美国的金融机构\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 250-16，提交于 04/22/22，录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37，第 104 页，共 109 页\n\n会拒绝执行涉及任何被认定与共同共谋者 B 有关联资金的交易。\n\n与共谋者B在Q国会面\n\n10. HIGGINBOTHAM（希金博瑟姆）与Co-conspirator A（共谋者A）及其他人前往Country Q（Q国），与Co-conspirator B（共谋者B）会面。在数日内，希金博瑟姆与共谋者B、共谋者A及其他人会面。在这些会面期间，共谋者B、共谋者A及其他人讨论了秘密将更多共谋者B的资金转入United States（美国）、以进一步推进游说活动的策略，包括编造掩饰性说法，以解释资金流动并掩盖该资金与共谋者B有关。他们还讨论了2001年9月11日事件后美国银行体系的严格程度。共谋者B表示，其希望在较长时间内分批汇出较小金额的资金，以避免受到审查。\n\n11. 希金博瑟姆对Foreign Company R（外国公司R）的资产拥有授权委托书；外国公司R是另一家在Q国成立且据称由共谋者B的一名关联人士拥有的实体。希金博瑟姆可以出售外国公司R的资产，以补偿参与游说活动的人员。于Q国签署的一份文件声称授予希金博瑟姆对外国公司R及其资产的控制权。\n\n12. 返回美国后，希金博瑟姆和共谋者A得知，Person 1（人员1）及其他参与游说活动的人员对共谋者B的提议，以及前往Q国的行程未导致额外资金被汇入美国这一事实，感到不满。约于2017年10月，共谋者A和希金博瑟姆商定，人员1及其同伙正向共谋者B寻求的额外资金，可以先存入希金博瑟姆的律师托管账户，等待有关Foreign National 1（外国国民1）问题的解决。\n\n13. 约于2017年10月，在共谋者A的指示下，希金博瑟姆支付了数百万美元，作为共谋者A协助将资金转入美国及充当共谋者B与从事游说活动人员之间中介人的报酬。几乎所有剩余资金均应共谋者A的要求存入了存款证，因为游说活动希望该资金得到妥善保管。希金博瑟姆相信该资金将被用于……\n\n向金融机构作出虚假陈述\n\n14. 于2017年及其前后，为推进该共谋活动，希金博瑟姆就从Foreign Company L（外国公司L）和外国公司R向美国账户转移资金以资助共谋者B的游说活动一事，作出并促使他人作出虚假陈述。希金博瑟姆明白，共谋者B作为IMDB侵占和贿赂计划主要策划者之一的公开身份，对经由美国金融机构转移共谋者B的资金造成了重大障碍。因此，希金博瑟姆、共谋者A和共谋者B同意，对美国金融机构隐瞒共谋者B与为游说活动汇入美国的资金之间的关联，并向金融机构虚假陈述该资金的真实用途。\n\n15. Financial Institution X（金融机构X）是一家其账户由Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation（联邦存款保险公司，FDIC）承保的金融机构。希金博瑟姆向金融机构X发送了一封信，说明来自外国公司L和外国公司R的数百万美元电汇资金，将用于资助共谋者A的“娱乐事务”，并聘请一家律师事务所协助外国公司R“解决一项高度复杂的民事诉讼事项”。该信未提及Foreign National 1被移出美国一事。此外，希金博瑟姆在其对金融机构X的答复中附上了一份虚假的咨询合同，作为共谋者B已转入共谋者A在美国的企业账户的部分资金的掩饰性说法。约于2017年9月28日，金融机构X告知共谋者A，其所有企业账户将于2017年10月28日或之前关闭，并且即刻起不再接受汇入该等账户的电汇资金，“原因是此前电汇的资金来源信息不足”。随后，金融机构X就剩余余额开具了总额约为$37 million的银行本票，该等款项不久后存入Financial Institution Y（金融机构Y）。\n\n16. 金融机构Y是一家在United States Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）注册的经纪交易商，并与由联邦保险承保的银行达成安排，以提供某些账户服务。约于2017年10月，共谋者A和希金博瑟姆在金融机构Y开设了企业账户；该等账户在一家关联的FDIC承保银行提供独立现金账户，外国公司L的部分资金（此前存放于金融机构X）存放在该处。约于2017年10月至11月期间，作为与开户有关的尽职调查的一部分，金融机构Y多次向共谋者A和希金博瑟姆询问此前存放于金融机构X的共谋者A企业账户内数千万美元的来源及用途。为影响金融机构Y就维持该等账户所采取的行动，共谋者A向金融机构Y的一名代表声称，该资金来自一名对共谋者A娱乐项目进行投资的外国投资者。此外，约于2017年11月6日，在共谋者A的指示下，希金博瑟姆答复该代表关于账户中资金属于何人的问题时，虚假声称：“该等资金源自[Foreign Company L]（随附成立文件），该公司系一批目前正在审查并有待进一步讨论的项目的投资者。”希金博瑟姆未提及共谋者B或旨在影响IMDB事项的游说活动。约于2017年11月，金融机构Y关闭了共谋者A的企业账户，并将包括现金账户内资金在内的剩余资金支付给共谋者A。\n\n17. 约于2017年12月，Financial Institution Z（金融机构Z）是一家由FDIC承保的银行，希金博瑟姆在该行维持一个律师托管账户。金融机构Z就希金博瑟姆从外国公司R收到的资金向其询问。为影响金融机构Z对该资金进行的尽职调查，希金博瑟姆答复称，该资金是外国公司R对其一名客户的音乐和娱乐项目的投资。其未提及共谋者B或将外国国民移出的活动。\n\n18. 约于2017年5月9日，希金博瑟姆向共谋者A提交了一张$20,000发票，所涉工作至少部分与上述为共谋者A实施的行为有关。约于2017年8月11日，希金博瑟姆向共谋者A及其资金管理人提交了一张发票，所涉工作至少部分与上述为共谋者A实施的行为有关。\n\n签署人：\n\nA. ALOUTIROL\n\nJohn Keller（约翰·凯勒） 副主管\nRyan Ellersick（瑞安·埃勒西克）\nJames Mann（詹姆斯·曼恩）\nSean Mulryne（肖恩·马尔赖恩）\nNicole Lockhart（妮可·洛克哈特） 出庭律师\nPublic Integrity Section（公共廉政科）\n1400 New York Ave. NW\nWashington, DC 20005\n(202) 514-1412\n\n被告人接受声明\n\n上述陈述系为向法院提供本人就所受指控作出有罪认罪答辩的事实依据而作的摘要。该陈述并未包括本人就该犯罪所知悉的全部事实。本人在知情、自愿且事实上确实犯有所受指控罪行的情况下作出本陈述。本人未受到任何威胁，亦未受任何可能妨碍本人充分理解本《认罪事实依据》的事物影响。\n\n本人已阅读本《认罪事实依据》的每一个字，或已由他人为本人宣读。根据\n\n律师确认声明\n\n本人已阅读本《认罪事实依据》，并已与本人的当事人充分审阅该文件。本人同意本人的当事人希望采纳并约定本《认罪事实依据》真实且准确的意愿。\n\n日期 /1+--/t\\_q+----'-/t~J-，Christopher Mead（克里斯托弗·米德）\n\nLance Robinson（兰斯·罗宾逊） 代表被告人","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","Je","GTV","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","853(p)","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":31864,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:34:22"}