{"id":"court_ctb_3602_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3602,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-10-01","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"受托人出售房产及屋内物品动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3602（2024-10-01立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 提请法院批准出售位于新泽西州马瓦市的豪宅（675 Ramapo Valley Road）及其屋内所有动产与附着物，理由是每季度约 30 万美元的维持成本难以为继，该动议仍须受后续关于聘请经纪人、具体出售条款及收益分配的裁定约束。","summary_en":"Trustee's Motion to Authorize Sale of Real Property and Contents — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #3602 (filed 2024-10-01). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins moved for an order authorizing the sale of the Mahwah, New Jersey mansion (675 Ramapo Valley Road) and its contents, citing unsustainable quarterly carrying costs of approximately $300,000, subject to further orders regarding broker retention, sale terms, and proceed distribution.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x                                            |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                                                                                        |\n| :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)                                                                           |\n| :<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)                                                                            |\n| -------------------------------------------------------<br>x<br>:<br>:<br>Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05017<br>: |\n| :                                                                                                           |\n| :<br>:<br>:                                                                                                 |\n| :<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:                                                                                       |\n| :<br>:<br>-------------------------------------------------------<br>x                                      |\n|                                                                                                             |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING TRUSTEE TO SELL MAHWAH MANSION AND ITS CONTENTS, SUBJECT TO ENTRY OF FURTHER ORDERS, INCLUDING AS TO RETENTION OF BROKER, TERMS OF SUCH SALES, AND PARTIES' ENTITLEMENT TO SALE PROCEEDS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby respectfully\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202), and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever Debtors is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nsubmits this motion (the \"Motion\"), pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Cival Rules\"), as made applicable through Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), and the Court's *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 47]<sup>2</sup> (as modified, the \"PI Order\")<sup>3</sup> entered in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), requesting entry of an order, substantially in the form of the Proposed Order attached hereto as **Exhibit 1** (the \"Proposed Order\"), authorizing the Trustee to sell (a) the real property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 (the \"Mahwah Mansion\") and (b) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (the \"Contents\"), subject to further orders of this Court (i) approving the Trustee's retention of real estate brokers and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate such sales, (ii) authorizing the terms and conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (iii) determining the parties' entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales. In support of the Motion, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\n\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Defendants' continued violation of their clear obligations under the PI Order and other orders of this Court has put the Trustee in the unsustainable position of having to fund the enormous carrying cost—in the amount of approximately \\$300,000 each quarter—of the Mahwah Mansion, even though such property has yet to be determined to be property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (the \"Estate\"). This significantly prejudices the Trustee because, in the likely event that the Court determines that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents are property of the Estate, the Trustee will have no recourse to recover these carrying costs from the\n\n<sup>2</sup> \"Adv. ECF No.\" refers to documents filed in the Adversary Proceeding.\n\n<sup>3</sup> Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the PI Order.\n\nDefendants because the Defendants have already told the Court they have no ability to pay such costs.<sup>4</sup> Accordingly, the enormous costs of maintaining the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents will serve to reduce the net value ultimately to be realized by the Estate. The only way to reduce this burden is to authorize the Trustee now to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, thereby shortening the period over which such costs will have to be incurred.\n\n2. Defendants will suffer no prejudice from an order authorizing the Trustee to sell these assets now, subject to further orders of the Court concerning the terms of such sales and the parties' respective entitlements to the net sale proceeds. The Defendants have never controlled or occupied the Mahwah Mansion and have no current possessory interest in the mansion, nor is the mansion occupied by anyone else at this time. In fact, in July 2024, the Defendants discontinued paying the maintenance costs after they apparently recognized—following the Debtor's conviction in the Criminal Case—that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents would become either property of the Estate (if the Trustee prevails in this Adversary Proceeding) or subject to the Government's forfeiture proceedings in the Criminal Case. For these reasons, unlike other situations involving real estate, the sale of the Mahwah Mansion will not cause irreparable harm to its purported owner. Moreover, the net cash proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion and personal property located within it will be available to the Defendants if they prevail, and such proceeds are a perfectly acceptable substitute for the assets themselves.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Trustee is also seeking an order in this Adversary Proceeding that Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego, such that all of its property is the Estate's property. If the Court grants this relief, the Trustee will be unable to recover the carrying costs from Taurus Fund for the additional reason that any claim for such costs would necessarily have to be asserted against assets the Estate already owns by virtue of the alter ego ruling. The only scenario in which the Trustee would be able to obtain reimbursement for the carrying costs from the Defendants is in the unlikely event that the Court were to conclude that the Mahwah Mansion is not property of the Estate, in which case the Trustee would have a reimbursement claim secured by the value of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n3. The relief requested in this Motion is also justified as sanctions for the Defendants' clear and continued violation of this Court's orders.<sup>5</sup> Among other things, the PI Order required the Defendants to: (a) not impair, in any way, any asset or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion and any personalty and/or fixture in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion; (b) file proof of insurance for (i) all assets and property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and (ii) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion; and (c) employ the Security Services. The Defendants are in breach of all of these obligations, as they failed to obtain insurance, failed to fund the Security Services, and failed to pay real estate taxes or other charges with respect to the Mahwah Mansion. As noted, the Defendants' actions have forced the Trustee to take on the obligation to pay for the Security Services and other maintenance expenses, including utilities and real estate taxes, to preserve the value of these assets. In addition, as further detailed below, the Defendants are also in clear violation of this Court's order requiring them to (a) explain why they are no longer complying with the PI Order and (b) identify an individual who as the authority to make decisions for the Defendants.\n\n4. Under these circumstances, the Trustee submits that authorizing him now to proceed with a sale of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents is an appropriate form of sanctions for the Defendants' continued noncompliance with this Court's orders. Merely imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendants would not be an effective remedy because the Defendants have taken the position that they do not have the resources to fund the carrying costs in the first place (a dubious position given that the Defendants were perfectly capable of paying such costs until the Debtor was convicted in his criminal trial). That said, if the Defendants were to fund\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Trustee previously made clear, and the Court recognized, that he reserved his right to seek relief against the Defendants for their continuing violation of the PI Order and other orders.\n\nthe carrying costs for the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, the Trustee would be prepared to stand down and not seek the relief requested in this Motion.\n\n5. To be clear, the Trustee does not seek a blank check to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. To the contrary, the Trustee recognizes that he will need to come back to this Court to retain a broker and/or auctioneer to market and/or facilitate the sale of such assets, as well as for approval of the terms of one or more such sales to prospective buyers. Pending an order determining the parties' entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales, the Trustee will hold such net proceeds in escrow, with all parties' rights thereto fully preserved.<sup>6</sup>\n\n6. Finally, the Trustee acknowledges that, in theory, an alternative remedy could be authorize him to *market* the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, leaving the question as to his authority to *sell* such assets for another day. However, such alternative relief would be ineffective here, because, absent a grant of authority to sell these assets, no serious broker or prospective buyer would expend time and resources engaging with the Trustee on the sale or sales of such significant assets.\n\n7. In sum, given the Defendants' clear and continuing violation of the PI Order and other orders, the only avenue to mitigating the harm caused by the Defendants' noncompliance is to minimize the period during which the Estate is compelled to pay for the carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents and authorize the Trustee now to commence a sale process. The Trustee therefore respectfully submits that this Motion should be granted.\n\n<sup>6</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee's security interest in the Mahwah Mansion for the amount of Mahwah expenses advance by the Estate in accordance with the Funding Order (as defined below) shall continue in the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **I. Adversary Proceeding**\n\n8. The Mahwah Mansion is one of the largest mansions in the United States, a 21 bedroom, 50,000 square foot, castle-styled private residence with 12.5-acre grounds located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The Debtor purchased the Mahwah Mansion through Taurus Fund LLC (\"Taurus Fund\") in December 2021 for \\$26.5 million for his personal and family use, employing Taurus Fund and his associates to conceal his ownership of the property.\n\n9. On July 11, 2024, the Trustee commenced this Adversary Proceeding by filing his *Complaint* [Adv. ECF No. 1] (the \"Complaint\") against Taurus Fund, and Scott Barnett and Taurus Management LLC as trustees of Taurus Fund (together with Taurus Fund, collectively, the \"Defendants\"), seeking (a) a declaratory judgment that: (i) the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Mahwah Mansion; (ii) the Debtor is the equitable owner of Taurus Fund; and (iii) Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego; and (b) on these respective bases, an order under 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, and 544 requiring turnover to the Estate and delivery to the Trustee of: (i) the Mahwah Mansion and all fixtures and personal property inside the Mahwah Mansion; (ii) any membership interest or other ownership interest in Taurus Fund; and (iii) all Taurus Fund's assets.\n\n10. Together with the Complaint, the Trustee filed his Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 4] (the \"PI Motion\").\n\n11. On August 1, 2023, the Court entered its *Order Granting in Part* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order* [Adv. ECF No. 17] and, pursuant thereto, on August 14, 2023 held a hearing on the PI Motion, including evidence and argument from the Trustee and the corporate Defendants.\n\n12. On August 24, 2023, the Court entered its PI Order. The PI Order determined, among other things, that it is more likely than not that: (a) the Debtor is the beneficial owner of and controls the Mahwah Mansion (PI Order at p. 16); and (b) Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego and/or is beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor (*id.* at 20). The PI Order further determined \"the Mahwah Mansion is being made available to myriad individuals who are members of entities other than Taurus Fund\" (*id.* at 10), and that:\n\n> absent a preliminary injunction, Taurus Funds' assets are likely to be damaged and/or dissipated by the Defendants and/or the NFSC, the Whistleblower Movement, and/or the Himalaya \"farms\" and/or other parties affiliated with the Individual Debtor's interests. Damage to the Mahwah Mansion is particularly concerning given that, as established by Exhibit 10, it is on the National Register of Historic Places and must be maintained and repaired according to applicable standards.\n\n(*Id.* at 11.)\n\n13. In order to preserve the value of the Mahwah Mansion, the PI Order provided, among other things, that access to the Mahwah Mansion shall be restricted and that the Defendants \"shall employ [Security Services] for the Mahwah Mansion,\" which Security Services must:\n\n> (i) log all persons entering and exiting grounds, interior, and all property of the Mahwah Mansion; (ii) supervise visitors to the grounds, interior, and all property of the Mahwah Mansion; (iii) secure and safeguard any and all assets or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and/or any and all any and all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion; and (iv) notify the Defendants and the Trustee of any damage or dissipation of any assets or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and/or any personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion\n\n(*Id.* at 24.)\n\n14. The PI Order required that, on or before 4:00 p.m. on August 28, 2023, the\n\nDefendants file proof of insurance for (i) all assets and property of Taurus Fund, including the\n\nMahwah Mansion; and (ii) all personalty and/or fixtured in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (\"Proof of Insurance\"). (*Id.* at 47.)\n\n15. The Defendants failed to file Proof of Insurance by the deadline set by the Court, nor have they filed any Proof of Insurance since that time. The Trustee understands that the Mahwah Mansion and its contents remain uninsured, which makes the Security Services particularly critical to preserve the value of this property.\n\n16. On August 31, 2023, in light of the Defendants' failure to insure the property, the Court entered its *Order Granting Emergency Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 58] (the \"PI Mod. Order\"), restricting access to the Mahwah Mansion solely to:\n\n> (a) the Security Services; (b) the Trustee and his representatives and/or professionals; (c) the United States Department of Justice and its employees and representatives; (d) the FBI and its employees and representatives; (e) other federal, New Jersey state, or Mahwah municipal law enforcement agencies and their employees and representatives; (f) any other persons expressly authorized by the Trustee in writing (which can include email); and (g) any other person expressly authorized by the United States District Court for the Southern District for New York or this Court\n\n(PI Mod. Order at 2-3.)\n\n17. The PI Order (as modified by the PI Mod. Order) remains in full force and effect.\n\n## **II. Settlement Agreement with Government and Debtor's Criminal Trial**\n\n18. The United States of America (the \"Government\") in its criminal case against the Debtor [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Case\") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has asserted forfeiture claims, including with respect to the Mahwah Mansion. To avoid risk to the Estate based on the outcome of forfeiture proceedings as to the resources expended prosecuting the Adversary Proceeding and preserving the value of the Mahwah Mansion, the Trustee entered into the *Stipulation Between Chapter 11 Trustee and United States of America* (the \"Settlement Agreement\") with the Government, which the Court\n\nhas authorized and approved in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019. *See Order Approving, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee Regarding Settlement with United States of America* [ECF No. 2849 in Case No. 22-50073] (the \"Settlement Order\").<sup>7</sup>\n\n19. The Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, for any \"expenses to ensure safekeeping and custody of the [Mahwah Mansion] (including security service at or around the premises)\" incurred by the Estate to be paid from the proceeds of the eventual sale of the Mahwah Mansion. (Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 2, 3.) The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Government \"shall not oppose . . . any effort by the Trustee to obtain control of and/or sell the [Mahwah Mansion].\" (Settlement Agreement ¶ 1.)\n\n20. On July 16, 2024, following the trial (the \"Criminal Trial\") in the Debtor's Criminal Case, the Debtor was convicted of nine felony counts, *i.e.*, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud in connection with the Farm Loan Program, securities fraud in connection with the Farm Loan program, wire fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, securities fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, and wire fraud in connection with the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n21. During the Criminal Trial, the Government offered extensive evidence that the Debtor, through his agents and network of shell companies, funded the purchase and renovation of the Mahwah Mansion for himself and his family, including (a) causing, through his agents, the transfer of funds to purchase the mansion, (b) selecting furnishings and artwork for the mansion, and (c) directing multi-million-dollar renovations to its floor plan. In addition, Defendant Scott Barnett testified, among other things, that he had accepted the role of managing member of\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Settlement Agreement is appended to the Settlement Order.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 10 of 500\n\nTaurus Fund without knowing what Taurus Fund was or what his position entailed, thinking \"they just meant [for Mr. Barnett] to manage the property and install the security services.\" (*See* Criminal Trial Transcript, July 8, 2024, at 5514:5-16, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit 2**.) Mr. Barnett further testified that he became managing member of the Taurus Fund after Aaron Mitchell (the Debtor's personal attorney) asked him to sign some paperwork. Mr. Barnett did not understand what he was signing, and when he later realized \"[t]hey put me down as the owner of [Taurus Fund] [it] took me a little bit by surprise . . . .\" (*See* Ex. 2 at 5515:5-12, 5516:4-15.)<sup>8</sup>\n\n### **III. Defendants Violate PI Order by Refusing to Fund Security Services**\n\n22. On July 28, 2024, a representative of Taurus Fund contacted the manager of the Security Services via email erroneously stating that, because of the verdict following the Debtor's Criminal Trial, the \"Mahwah Mansion belong[s] to the Gover[n]ment\" and further stating that \"[s]ince July 29, 2024, the security service costs can [n]o longer be paid.\"<sup>9</sup> This violated the PI Order, which requires the Defendants to employ the Security Services. Although the statement that the Mahwah Mansion belongs to the Government is erroneous, the email conveyed loud and clear the message from the Kwok enterprise that it makes no sense to fund the costs of the Mahwah Mansion because he will not end up occupying it.\n\n23. As discussed at a status conference held in the Adversary Proceeding on July 30, 2024, the Trustee has assured payment of the Security Services and other necessary expenses of the Mahwah Mansion to preserve the value of this asset while the Trustee addresses the\n\n<sup>8</sup> In the PI Order, the Court found that Taurus Fund's Articles of Organization had listed its managers and/or managing members as Taurus Management and Mr. Barnett and that Mr. Barnett had signed the articles as \"Manager\" or \"Member.\" (PI Order at 19.) The Court further found that Mr. Barnett \"is or was the … Debtor's chauffeur and bodyguard.\" (*Id.* at 20.) Mr. Barnett failed to appear at the PI Hearing personally or through counsel. (*Id.* p. 4.)\n\n<sup>9</sup> A true and accurate copy of this email is attached hereto as **Exhibit 3**.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 11 of 500\n\nDefendants' violation of the PI Order with the Court. In fact, this Court observed that \"if these payments aren't made, then they're going to be in violation of an existing order and they could be subject to sanctions, including jail.\" (*See* Transcript, July 30, 2024, at 18:18-30, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit 4**; *see also id.* at 19:9-12.) Moreover, the Court warned the Defendants that it \"can issue orders that are supplemental to orders that are already in existence in this adversary proceeding.\" (*Id.* at 30:14-15.)\n\n24. Following this status conference, at which the Defendants' counsel offered no explanation for the email by Taurus Fund's representative and could not assure that the Defendants would fund the Security Services or other expenses (including real estate taxes) of the Mahwah Mansion going forward, the Court ordered:\n\n> [A]t or before 5:00 p.m. on August 1, 2024, the Defendant shall file on the docket of this adversary proceeding a Statement regarding whether the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding including, but not limited to, paying all expenses of the Defendant due and owing to Hawk Eye Security and all real estate taxes due and owing, including those due and owing on August 1, 2024. The Statement shall include the name, home and business addresses, and position of the individual who holds the authority to decide whether the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding and pay all expenses of the Defendant.\n\nDocket Entry Order [Adv. ECF No. 108] (July 30, 2024) (the \"Disclosure Order\").\n\n25. On August 1, 2024, the Defendants' counsel filed the *Fourth Amended Response re: Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 109] (the \"Response to Disclosure Order\"), which states that Defendant Taurus Fund will not pay for the Security Services or real estate taxes for the Mahwah Mansion, because Taurus Fund purportedly does not have funds to make such payments. (Response to Disclosure Order at 3.) In that response, counsel also stated that there is no individual associated with Taurus Fund who can make decisions as to compliance with court orders. (*Id.* (\"there is no individual affiliated with a Defendant who has the authority to\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 12 of 500\n\ndecide 'whether' the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding and pay all expenses of the Defendant\").)\n\n26. At this time, the cost of the Security Services is approximately \\$14,200 per week, and the cost of the real estate taxes for the Mahwah Mansion is approximately \\$70,000 per quarter. In addition, utilities, including electricity, gas, and internet, cost approximately \\$6,300 per month. In the aggregate, these expenses alone<sup>10</sup> amount to more than \\$280,000 per quarter.\n\n# **IV. Trustee's Emergency Motion to Approve Estate Funding to Maintain Mahwah Mansion**\n\n27. On August 5, 2024, the Trustee filed his *(I) Reply to Defendants' Fourth Amended Response re: Preliminary Injunction and (II) Emergency Motion Pursuant to Sections 363(b) and 105(a) of Bankruptcy Code to Approve Estate Funding to Maintain Mahwah Mansion* [Adv. ECF No. 113] (the \"Initial Funding Motion\"). The Initial Funding Motion discussed why the Response to Disclosure Order did not comply with the Disclosure Order and why the excuses in that response are not credible, and the Initial Funding Motion further requested the Court to approve the Trustee's funding of the expenses of the Mahwah Mansion while the Trustee addresses the Defendants' conduct with the Court.\n\n28. On August 7, 2024, the Trustee filed an amended motion [ECF No. 3381 in Case No. 22-50073] (the \"Amended Funding Motion\") supplementing and amending the Initial Funding Motion. As detailed in the Amended Funding Motion, the Trustee requested that the Court authorize the Trustee to fund the reasonable and necessary expenses of the Mahwah Mansion, including, without limitation, payment of the Security Services, the utilities, and any real estate taxes owing with respect to the property (the \"Mahwah Expenses\"), up to the\n\n<sup>10</sup> The enumerated expenses do not include other costs that may need to be incurred to maintain the Mahwah Mansion, including pool maintenance and landscaping, or to bring it to a condition necessary to make it suitable for sale.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 13 of 500\n\nmaximum amount of three hundred thousand dollars (\\$300,000.00) (the \"Expenses Cap\") until further order of the Court. The Amended Funding Motion further requested that, to the extent the outcome of the Adversary Proceeding does not result in the entry of a judgment confirming that the Mahwah Mansion is property of the Estate (because it is beneficially owned by the Debtor and/or because Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego), the Trustee (for the benefit of the Estate) shall then have a claim against Taurus Fund in the amount of the Mahwah Expenses advanced by the Estate secured by the value of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n29. Taurus Fund filed a response to the Amended Funding Motion [ECF No. 3392 in Case No. 22-50073], but did not object to the relief requested in the Amended Funding Motion.\n\n30. As counsel for the Trustee made clear at the August 13, 2024 hearing on the Amended Funding Motion, the Trustee reserved its right to seek further relief in regard to the Defendants' violation of the PI Order. (*See* Transcript, Aug. 13, 2024, at 84:23-85:2, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit 5**.) The Court acknowledged that \"the trustee is not pressing any issues with the preliminary injunction at this time.\" *Id.* at 87:13-14.\n\n31. On August 15, 2024, the Court entered an order [ECF No. 3422 in Case No. 22- 50073] (the \"Funding Order\") granting the relief requested in the Amended Funding Motion. Among other things, the Funding Order confirmed that nothing therein \"shall relieve the defendants in the Adversary Proceeding of their obligations under the [PI Order] or the [Disclosure Order], which remain in full force and effect.\" Funding Order ¶ 5.\n\n### **V. Trustee's Summary Judgment Motion**\n\n32. On September 11, 2024, the Trustee filed its motion for summary judgment in the Adversary Proceeding [Adv. ECF No. 124] (the \"Summary Judgment Motion\") as well as his related memorandum of law (the \"Memo of Law\"), the *Declaration of Douglass E. Barron in Support of Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho*\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 14 of 500\n\n*Wan Kwok for Summary Judgment*, and the *Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts*, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.\n\n33. As detailed in the Memo of Law and the related filings, the evidence, including the evidence submitted at the Debtor's criminal trial, establishes that there is no dispute of material fact with respect to the Trustee's claims in the Adversary Proceeding and the Trustee is entitled to a summary judgment ruling that the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor is the equitable owner of Taurus Fund, and Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego. The Trustee's filings detail the evidence uncovered since entry of the PI Order which confirms and strengthens the Trustee's claims against the Defendants.\n\n- 34. For example, as detailed in the Memo of Law and the related filings:\n\t- Like all of his other valuable assets, the Debtor hid the Mahwah Mansion under the ostensible ownership of a shell company nominally managed by a trusted confidant—in this case, his bodyguard, Scott Barnett (the purported manager of Taurus Fund and a co-defendant in this Adversary Proceeding).\n\t- As revealed by a voicemail the Government presented to the jury during the Criminal Trial, in late November 2021, the Debtor instructed his personal counsel, Aaron Mitchell, to negotiate the purchase of the Mahwah Mansion. Thereafter, through his agents, the Debtor caused funds purportedly belonging to G Club Operations LLC (\"G Club\") one of the Debtor's *alter egos* and one of the key instruments of his criminal enterprise—to be transferred to Hamilton Opportunity Fund another entity he controlled—to complete the mansion's purchase.\n\t- Upon acquiring the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor picked out furnishings and artwork and directed multi-million-dollar renovations to its floor plan, including plans to build a wing for each of himself, his wife, his daughter, and his son.\n\t- Until his arrest, the Debtor used the Mahwah Mansion as one of his residences, as shown by his personal belongings found strewn throughout the property, including a large collection of \\$10,000 Brioni suits in the master bedroom closet labeled \"Brioni for Miles Kwok\" on the inside pocket.\n- During questioning in the Criminal Trial, the Debtor's own counsel referred to the Debtor as the buyer of the mansion.\n- No evidence has surfaced that Taurus Fund (or anyone else) is the mansion's true beneficial owner. Barnett is the only one who could theoretically provide testimony in support of Taurus Fund, but he offered no testimony in the criminal trial to refute the Debtor's ownership of the Mahwah Mansion. Indeed, he testified that he knew nothing at all about Taurus Fund's assets and business operations.\n- When asked how he became the manager of Taurus Fund, Barnett admitted he simply signed paperwork that Aaron Mitchell told him to sign, and he was surprised when he later learned of his supposedly prominent role at Taurus Fund.\n- Like many other individuals in the Debtor's orbit—such as his wife, his son, his daughter, and his daughter's boyfriend, among others—Barnett was a mere puppet for the Debtor who served no purpose other than to hold nominal title to the Debtor's assets.<sup>11</sup>\n- 35. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Summary Judgment Motion has been\n\nset for October 16, 2024. (*See* ECF No. 133.) However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to\n\nwait until the outcome of that matter to proceed with marketing the Mahwah Mansion and the\n\nContents for sale.\n\n# **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n36. By this Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order authorizing the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents for the benefit of the Estate, subject to further orders of this Court (i) approving the Trustee's retention of a real estate broker and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate such sales, (ii) authorizing the terms and\n\n<sup>11</sup> No one other than Barnett could credibly provide testimony to support Taurus Fund's position, either. As noted above, Taurus Fund's counsel informed the Court that there is no individual associated with Taurus Fund who can make decisions as to compliance with court orders. This is not surprising given that the real owner and decision-maker of Taurus Fund—the Debtor—is behind bars and will likely be for a long time.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 16 of 500\n\nconditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (iii) determining the parties' entitlement to the net proceeds from such sales.<sup>12</sup>\n\n37. For the avoidance of doubt, pending any order concerning the parties' entitlement to such net sale proceeds, such proceeds shall be held by the Trustee in escrow, with the rights of all parties to such proceeds fully preserved.<sup>13</sup>\n\n38. The Motion requests an expansion of the injunctive relief granted in the PI Order pursuant to Civil Rule 65, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7065, given the Defendants' continued non-compliance with the Court's orders.\n\n## **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASIS**\n\n39. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.<sup>14</sup> This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n40. The statutory basis for the relief requested herein is Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable through Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n41. The Trustee should be authorized now to conduct a sale of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. While the Trustee recognizes that such relief is perhaps unusual prior to entry\n\n<sup>12</sup> Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the PI Order.\n\n<sup>13</sup> As noted, the Trustee's security interest in the Mahwah Mansion for the amount of Mahwah expenses advance by the Estate in accordance with the Funding Order shall continue in the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n<sup>14</sup> While the Defendants have filed a motion to withdraw the reference [Adv. ECF No. 116], this Court retains jurisdiction over this Adversary Proceeding pending a ruling on that motion.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 17 of 500\n\nof summary judgment in favor of the Trustee, the Trustee respectfully submits that such relief is appropriate under the extraordinary circumstances of this case.\n\n42. As an initial matter, the Trustee submits that the relief requested in this Motion should be viewed as supplementing and enforcing the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted by the Court in the PI Order.<sup>15</sup> Such supplementation and enforcement is appropriate here given the Defendants' willful and continuing noncompliance with the clear mandates of the PI Order and the Disclosure Order and given the lack of any other effective remedy and/or sanctions to enforce compliance with this Court's orders.\n\n### **I. Relief Sought in Motion Is Appropriate Expansion of PI Order**\n\n43. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish (i) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (ii) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, (iii) the balance of equities is in its favor, and (iv) an injunction is in the public interest. *Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council*, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008); *see also In re Motors Liquidation Co.*, 513 B.R. 467, 479 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). As detailed below, the relief requested in the Motion satisfies each of these requirements.\n\n### A. Trustee Will Likely Succeed on Merits\n\n44. A party seeking injunctive relief need only show a likelihood of success on the merits of at least one of its claims. *In re Homaidan*, 640 B.R. 810 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2022) (citing *3M Co. v. CovCare, Inc.*, 2021 WL 7162292, at \\*2 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 7, 2021)). A plaintiff need not show that success is an absolute certainty; he need only make a showing that the\n\n<sup>15</sup> As noted above, the Court cautioned Defendants at the July 30, 2024 status conference that it had the authority to issue \"orders that are supplemental to order that are already in existence in this adversary proceeding.\" (July 30, 2024 H'g Tr. at 30:14-15.)\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 18 of 500\n\nprobability of his prevailing is better than fifty percent. *Id.* (citing *Home It, Inc. v. Wen*, 2020 WL 353098, at \\*5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)).\n\n45. Here, the Court has already determined, for the reasons set forth in the PI Order, that the Trustee is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims against the Defendants. (PI Order at 22.) Since entry of that order, the evidence in support of the Trustee's claims (including evidence introduced in the Debtor's Criminal Trial) has grown considerably, establishing beyond any doubt that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents are property of the Estate.\n\n### B. Debtor's Estate Is Likely to Suffer Irreparable Harm\n\n46. The Estate will likely suffer irreparable harm unless the Trustee is authorized to commence, as soon as possible, the process of selling the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. The carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion are enormous. In light of Defendants' failure to comply with their obligations under the PI Order, the Estate is incurring approximately \\$300,000 each quarter to maintain the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents—and this assumes there are no other unforeseen expenses in connection with maintaining these assets (which, as the Court is well aware, remain uninsured). Worse, at this time, the Trustee is incurring these costs with respect to assets that are not property of the Estate—although, as noted, the Trustee submits that such assets will very likely be determined to be property of the Estate. In the interim, however, the Trustee is expending an enormous amount of Estate resources. Only by authorizing the Trustee now to commence a sale process will the Trustee be able to shorten the period over which such costs will be incurred.\n\n47. Moreover, while the Trustee would be able to seek reimbursement of these carrying costs from Taurus Fund in the unlikely event that the Court were to conclude that the Mahwah Mansion is not property of the Estate (with such reimbursement claim secured by the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 19 of 500\n\nvalue of the Mahwah Mansion), he will have no ability to recover these costs in the far more likely event that the Trustee prevails in this Adversary Proceeding. Such costs would simply reduce the net proceeds to be realized by the Estate upon a successful sale or sales of such assets.\n\n### C. Balance of Equities Favors Trustee\n\n48. The balance of equities strongly favors granting the requested relief. As shown above, the passage of time will cause irreparable harm to the Estate. On the other hand, there is no prejudice to the Defendants from permitting the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, subject to further order of this Court as to the terms of such sales and the parties' respective entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales. The net cash proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion and personal property located within it will be available to the Defendants if they prevail, and such proceeds are a perfectly acceptable substitute for the assets themselves. As noted, the parties' rights to such net cash proceeds would be fully preserved.\n\n49. Notably, the Defendants have never controlled or occupied the Mahwah Mansion and have no current possessory interest in the mansion, nor is the mansion occupied by anyone else at this time. In fact, in July 2024, the Defendants discontinued paying the maintenance costs after they apparently recognized—following the Debtor's conviction in the Criminal Case—that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents would become either property of the Estate (if the Trustee prevails in this Adversary Proceeding) or subject to the Government's forfeiture proceedings in the Criminal Case. Thus, unlike other situations involving real estate, the sale of the Mahwah Mansion will not cause irreparable harm to its purported owner.\n\n## D. Public Interest Favors Injunction\n\n50. Finally, the public interest favors expanding the injunction as requested, because doing so will help maximize the net proceeds to be realized from the sale of assets that are very\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 20 of 500\n\nlikely to be determined to be property of the Estate, thereby maximizing the recovery by the Debtor's creditors. This objective can only be accomplished by minimizing the period over which the Estate will be forced to incur the enormous carrying costs associated with these assets, which, in turn, requires the Trustee to commence the sale process as soon as possible.\n\n## **II. Requested Relief Is Appropriate as Sanction for Violation of Court Orders**\n\n51. The relief requested in this Motion is also justified as an appropriate form of sanction for the Defendants' clear and continuing violation of the PI Order and the Disclosure Order. As noted, the Trustee previously reserved its right to seek sanctions for the Defendants' violations of these orders, and the Court acknowledged that it had the authority to issue sanctions for such violations.\n\n### A. Defendants Are in Violation of PI Order and Disclosure Order\n\n52. This Court has the express authority to compel compliance with its orders. *See*\n\n*U.S. Lines, Inc. v. GAC Marine Fuels, Ltd. (In re McLean Indus.)*, 68 B.R. 690, 695 (Bankr.\n\nS.D.N.Y. 1986) (\"The duty of any court to hear and resolve legal disputes carries with it the power to enforce the order.\"); *Milner v. Duncklee*, 460 F. Supp. 2d 360, 375 (D. Conn. 2006) (\"[A] court has the power, under appropriate circumstances, to enforce its own orders . . . .\").\n\n- 53. Among other things, the PI Order required the Defendants to\n\t- not impair, in any way, any asset or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and any personalty and/or fixture in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (PI Order at 22-23);\n\t- file proof of insurance for (i) all assets and property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion; and (ii) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (*id.* at 23); and\n\t- employ the Security Services (*id.* at 24).\n\n54. At this time, the Defendants are in clear breach of the PI Order, having failed to continue to fund the carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion—most notably the Security Services\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 21 of 500\n\nand real estate taxes—thereby forcing the Trustee to pay approximately \\$300,000 per quarter to maintain an asset that the Court has not (yet) determined to be property of the Estate.\n\n55. In addition, the Defendants are also in violation of the Disclosure Order. The Defendants' response to that order is evasive, incomplete, and noncompliant. Notably, it fails to explain why the Defendants are no longer complying with the PI Order and does not identify any individual who as the authority to make decisions for the Defendants.\n\n### B. Issuing of Sanctions Is Appropriate\n\n56. A bankruptcy court has the ability under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to \"issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code].\" 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Pursuant to section 105(a), the Court has the authority to hold a party in contempt, which \"inherently include[s] the ability to sanction a party.\" *In re Dickerson*, No. 08-33071, 2009 WL 4666457, at \\*9 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8 2009) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek), 544 F.3d 34, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2008)); *see also In re Chauteaugay Corp.*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990); *In re Ditech Holding Corp.*, No. 19-10412 (JLG); 2021 WL 3716398, at \\*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021); *In re Bambi*, 492 B.R. 183, 191 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). In addition, Bankruptcy Rule 9020 expressly contemplates that a bankruptcy court may issue an order of contempt under the appropriate circumstances.\n\n57. A party \"may be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with a court order if (1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. It need not be established that the violation was willful.\" *Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Medical Sys. Info. Technologies, Inc.*, 369\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 22 of 500\n\nF.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sanctions for civil contempt \"may be imposed both to coerce future compliance with a court order issued for another party's benefit and to 'compensate for any harm that previously resulted' from the noncompliance.\" *In re 1990's Caterers Ltd. d/b/a Vina de Villa Caterers*, 531 B.R. 309, 319 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting *In re Chief Executive Officers Clubs, Inc.*, 359 B.R. 527, 534 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)). The sanctions a bankruptcy court may impose in response to civil contempt are \"many and varied.\" *In re Vaso Active Pharms.*, Inc., 514 B.R. 416, 423 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014) (citation omitted).\n\n58. Here, the terms of the PI Order and the Disclosure Order are clear and unambiguous. There can also be no serious dispute that the Defendants are in violation of these orders. Nor have the Defendants diligently attempted to comply in any reasonable manner. While the Defendants have asserted that they do not have the resources to comply with the PI Order, *see* Response to Disclosure Order at 3, no explanation has been given as to why resources allegedly dried up only after the Debtor had been convicted in the Criminal Case—instead, the Defendants have placed blame on asset seizures by the Government. Response to Disclosure Order at 2 (contending two affiliates of Taurus Fund, *i.e.*, Hamilton Taurus Fund SP and G Club International Ltd. BVI (\"G-Club International\"), have had their assets frozen by the Government).) But as the Government's *Superseding Indictment* of the Debtor makes clear, the Government's seizures of cash occurred mostly in September and October of 2022 and at the latest in March 2023—well before the PI Order entered in August 2023 and the funding of the Security Services and other expenses that has occurred in the ensuing year.<sup>16</sup> Thus, it is apparent\n\n<sup>16</sup> A true and accurate copy of the Superseding Indictment [S.D.N.Y. Case No. 23-cr-118 ECF No. 307] is attached hereto as **Exhibit 6**. The Government's seizure of G-Club International's cash account is described on p. 42 and the seizure of various accounts of \"Hamilton\" entities is described on pp. 41-44.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 23 of 500\n\nthat the Government's seizures are not the real reason the Defendants have terminated funding for the Security Services as required by the PI Order. The reason for such termination is that the Debtor will not occupy the Mahwah Mansion following the guilty verdict in his Criminal Case.\n\n59. Moreover, the Response to Disclosure Order does not disclose the identity of the individual principal who has authority to decide what payments Taurus Fund does or does not make (or otherwise exercises management authority with respect to this entity). The Response instead evasively claims that \"there is no individual affiliated with a Defendant who has the authority to decide 'whether' the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding and pay all expenses of the Defendant.\" (Response to Disclosure Order at 3.)\n\n60. Finally, the Trustee submits that the requested form of sanction (*i.e.*, authorizing the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents) is appropriate under the circumstances. Alternatives, such as imposing monetary sanctions—whether in the amount of the carrying costs or some greater amount—would be utterly pointless under the circumstances, as the Defendants are taking the position that they do not have the resources to fund any such payments in the first place. *If the Defendants did have the ability to fund the carrying costs and agreed to do so, the Trustee would not seek the relief in this Motion.*\n\n61. The only avenue to mitigating the harm caused by the Defendants' noncompliance with the PI Order and the Disclosure Order (namely, forcing the Estate to fund the carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents) is to minimize the period during which the Estate is compelled to pay for such costs by authorizing the Trustee to commence a sale process now.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 24 of 500\n\n62. To be clear, the Trustee, in theory, would be content with merely seeking authorization to *market* the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, and leaving the question as to his authority to *sell* such assets for another day. However, such more limited relief would be ineffective here because, absent a grant of authority to sell these assets, no broker or prospective buyer would expend time and resources engaging with the Trustee on any such sale or sales.\n\n63. Finally, as noted, the Trustee is not seeking blanket authority to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. Any such sale or sales would remain subject to further orders of the Court (a) authorizing the retention of a real estate broker and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate the sale of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, (b) authorizing the terms and conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (c) determining the parties' entitlement to the net proceeds from such sales. Moreover, the Trustee is not seeking, at this time, authorization to retain a real estate broker and/or auctioneer to market and/or facilitate any such sales.\n\n64. For all these reasons, the Court should grant the relief requested in this Motion as sanctions for Defendants' non-compliance with the PI Order and the Disclosure Order.\n\n### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n65. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\n66. For all these reasons, the Trustee submits that the Court authorize the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, subject to terms of the Proposed Order.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank*.]\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order granting\n\nthe relief requested herein and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and\n\nproper.\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut\n\nDated: October 1, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 alexbongartz@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 26 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|               |          | 500            |                           |            |\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| :<br>In re:<br>:<br>Chapter 11<br>:<br>1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)<br>:<br>Debtor.<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)<br>-------------------------------------------------------<br>x<br>:<br>LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee,<br>:<br>:<br>Plaintiff,<br>:<br>:<br>v.<br>:<br>:<br>TAURUS FUND LLC,<br>:<br>SCOTT BARNETT, as trustee of TAURUS<br>: | ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                            |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                             |                              |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                             |                              |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                             |                              |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                             | Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05017 |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                             |                              |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                                             |                              |\n| TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC, as trustee<br>:<br>of TAURUS FUND LLC,<br>:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | FUND LLC, and                                               | :                            |\n| :<br>Defendants.<br>:<br>-------------------------------------------------------<br>x                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |                                                             |                              |\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that the date hereof, the foregoing Motion was electronically filed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") and adversary proceeding (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"). Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the Chapter 11 Case and Adversary Proceeding by operation of the Court's\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202), and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever Debtors is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nelectronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's\n\nCM/ECF system.\n\nDated: October 1, 2024 By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n**(Proposed Order)**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n| 1                                                           | :      |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :<br>x |                         |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER AUTHORIZING TRUSTEE TO SELL MAHWAH MANSION AND ITS CONTENTS, SUBJECT TO ENTRY OF FURTHER ORDERS, INCLUDING AS TO RETENTION OF BROKER, TERMS OF SUCH SALES, AND PARTIES' ENTITLEMENT TO SALE PROCEEDS**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\"),<sup>2</sup> filed Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), requesting entry of an order, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Cival Rules\"), as made applicable through Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), and the PI Order entered in this Adversary Proceeding, authorizing the Trustee to sell (a) the real property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 (the \"Mahwah Mansion\") and (b) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (the \"Contents\") for the benefit of the Estate, all as detailed in the Motion; and the Court having found that (a) the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; (b) this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); (c)\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Motion.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 30 of 500\n\nvenue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and (d) good and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given; and no other or further notice being required and the Court having found and determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and it appearing that the relief requested by the Motion, as modified by the terms of this Order is in the best interest of the Debtors' estates and creditors; and upon all of the proceedings had before the Court and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby\n\n### ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is GRANTED as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Trustee is authorized to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents subject to the terms of this Order.\n\n3. Any sale or sales of the Mahwah Mansion or the Contents shall be subject to further orders of this Court (a) authorizing the retention of any real estate brokers and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate the sale of such assets, (b) authorizing the terms and conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (c) determining the parties' entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales.\n\n4. The net proceeds from such sales shall be held in escrow, with all parties' rights as to their entitlement to such proceeds preserved. For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee's security interest in the Mahwah Mansion for the amount of Mahwah Expenses (as defined in the Funding Order) advanced by the Estate shall continue in the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 31 of 500\n\n5. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order shall relieve the Defendants of their obligations under the PI Order or the Disclosure Order, which remain in full force and effect.\n\n6. Nothing in this Order shall modify the terms of the Settlement Order, which remains in full force and effect.\n\n7. The Trustee is authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.\n\n8. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.\n\n9. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\n# **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n**Criminal Trial Transcript, July 8, 2024**\n\n5285 O78VGUO1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 23 Cr. 118 (AT) MILES GUO, Defendant. Trial ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. July 8, 2024 9:00 a.m. Before: HON. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge -and a Jury-APPEARANCES DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MICAH F. FERGENSON RYAN B. FINKEL JUSTIN HORTON JULIANA N. MURRAY Assistant United States Attorneys SABRINA P. SHROFF Attorney for Defendant PRYOR CASHMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU MATTHEW BARKAN JOHN KILGARD ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: E. SCOTT SCHIRICK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 33 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>500<br>O78VGUO1 | Page 34 of<br>5286 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| 1  | Also Present:                                                                               |                    |\n| 2  | Isabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO                                                   |                    |\n| 3  | Robert Stout, Special Agent, FBI<br>Jorge Salazar, Defense Paralegal                        |                    |\n| 4  | Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)<br>Shi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin)                       |                    |\n| 5  | Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin)<br>Barbara Robertson, Interpreter (Mandarin)           |                    |\n| 6  | Tuo Hung, Interpreter (Mandarin)<br>Peter Ginsberg, Attorney for Witness Jianhu Yi          |                    |\n| 7  |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 8  |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 9  |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 10 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 11 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 12 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 13 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 14 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 15 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 16 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 17 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 18 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 19 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 20 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 21 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 22 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 23 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 24 |                                                                                             |                    |\n| 25 |                                                                                             |                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 35 of<br>5287<br>500<br>O78VGUO1 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (Trial resumed; jury not present)                                                                                 |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Good morning.                                                                                       |\n| 3  | Please make your appearances.                                                                                     |\n| 4  | MR. HORTON:<br>Good morning, your Honor.                                                                          |\n| 5  | Justin Horton, Micah Fergenson, Juliana Murray, and                                                               |\n| 6  | Ryan Finkel, for the United States.                                                                               |\n| 7  | MR. SCHIRICK:<br>Good morning, your Honor.                                                                        |\n| 8  | Scott Schirick, Sidhardha Kamaraju, and Matthew                                                                   |\n| 9  | Barkan, for the defendant, Mr. Guo, together at counsel's table                                                   |\n| 10 | with Mr. Guo.                                                                                                     |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.                                                                                   |\n| 12 | On June 25, 2024, the parties submitted their proposed                                                            |\n| 13 | revisions and additions to the Court's draft jury charge.                                                         |\n| 14 | Yesterday, July 7, 2024, the government filed a letter                                                            |\n| 15 | requesting additional revisions.<br>I also received a letter from                                                 |\n| 16 | the defense at 12:13 a.m. today.                                                                                  |\n| 17 | I will address each of the parties' proposed edits in                                                             |\n| 18 | the order they appear in the jury charge that my law clerks                                                       |\n| 19 | have just provided to you.                                                                                        |\n| 20 | Starting on page 6, in the first paragraph of the                                                                 |\n| 21 | burden of proof and presumption of innocence section — this                                                       |\n| 22 | also applies to page 14 in the first paragraph of the summary                                                     |\n| 23 | of indictment section.<br>The government requests that the Court                                                  |\n| 24 | add language stating that the government is not required to                                                       |\n| 25 | prove every allegation in the indictment, but instead only the                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                   |\n\n#### 5288 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 36 of 500\n\nelements of the charges. The defense does not oppose the addition of this language. I will add the requested language to the burden-of-proof and presumption-of-innocence section, but I will not repeat it in the summary of the indictment section.\n\nOn page 13, in the second paragraph of the section titled \"Government as a Party,\" the government asks that I add the words \"United States\" to the sentence beginning \"This case is important to the government,\" which I will do.\n\nIn the following paragraph, which begins with \"The fact that the prosecution,\" the government requests that I include the following language: \"This prosecution was lawfully brought by the United States of America, and the decision to bring this case was in no way influenced by the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party.\" I do not believe these sentences are necessary. The evidence thus far has not left the jurors with the impression that the prosecution was unlawful or influenced by the CCP.\n\nOn page 14, in the first paragraph under 14, summary of the indictment, the government requests that next to the defendant's name, I include that he is also known as Ho Wan Kwok, Guo Wengui, Brother 7, The Principal, and Boss. I will include that Miles Guo is also known as Ho Wan Kwok and Guo Wengui.\n\nIn the last paragraph on page 14, which begins with\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n#### 5289 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 37 of 500\n\n\"The indictment contains,\" and on page 15 in the second paragraph, which begins with \"In a moment,\" the defense requests that I include the words \"against the defendant\" after \"12 counts.\" Because the indictment contains one count against Mr. Je alone, I will include the defense's language.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nOn page 15, paragraph 1, the government requests that the phrase \"lifestyle membership company known as G/CLUBS\" be revised to \"purported online membership club known as G/CLUBS.\" The government states that this tracks the language in the indictment. At this point I do not believe that the additional descriptors are necessary and shall simply state \"in connection with G/CLUBS.\"\n\nPage 15 contains a sentence in paragraph 2 stating: \"Each count constitutes a separate crime.\" I grant the defense's request to add the word \"alleged\" in between \"separate\" and \"crime.\"\n\nOn page 16, in the second paragraph, under \"16. Elements of Wire Fraud,\" in the last full sentence which begins with \"Count Nine,\" the government requests that the phrase \"how their membership dues would be used\" be revised to the more neutral description \"how the money individuals sent to G/CLUBS would be used.\" I will make this revision.\n\nIn the same paragraph, in a subsequent sentence, the government requests that the phrase \"how the funds raised would be used\" be revised to \"how the money sent to the Himalaya 23 24 25\n\n#### 5290 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 38 of 500\n\nExchange or spent on its credits would be used.\" The clause beginning with the word \"or\" is duplicative, so I will state: \"How the money sent to the Himalaya Exchange would be used.\"\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nOn page 17, the third full paragraph, and page 19, paragraphs 5 and 6, the government contends that \"willfully\" is not an element of the wire fraud statute and requests its omission throughout. As authority, the government cites Judge Oetken's decision in United States v. Middledorf, 18 Cr. 36, as well as an Eastern District of New York case.\n\nBut in Middledorf, although Judge Oetken rejected the instruction from the Sand treatise, he still gave a willfulness instruction; other judges in this district have done the same. See United States v. Bankman-Fried, 22 Cr. 673; United States v. Avenatti, 19 Cr. 374; and United States v. Constanzo Recio, 22 Cr. 281. The Second Circuit has not explicitly disavowed the willfulness element. See United States v. Petrossi, 786 F. App'x 286, 289 (2d Cir. 2019).\n\nHowever, the definition of \"willfully\" in my first draft of the charge implies that the defendant needed to know that his action was \"unlawful\" as opposed to, more generally, \"wrong.\" Accordingly, I will amend the definition which appears on page 19 in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the section titled \"b. Second Element: Knowledge and Intent to Defraud\" to state: \"To act 'willfully' means to act voluntarily and with a wrongful purpose. An act is done 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5291 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 39 of 500\n\nknowingly and willfully if it is done purposefully and deliberately.\" This accords with the more limited instructions that other judges in this district have used, as well as the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556, 567-68 (2d Cir. 2010). 1 2 3 4 5\n\nOn page 17, in the first paragraph under \"a. First Element: Scheme to Defraud,\" the defense asks that I state that a scheme or artifice is a \"plan to accomplish a fraudulent objective.\"\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\nThe proposed addition of \"fraudulent\" is incorrect and I will not include it. 10 11\n\nIn the last paragraph on page 17, the defense asks in addition to stating that a statement \"is fraudulent if it was made with intent to deceive,\" that I also state that \"the intent to deceive must exist at the time the statement was made.\"\n\nThis addition is not necessary because it is redundant and I will not include it. 17 18\n\nOn page 17, after the first full paragraph in the section titled \"a, First Element: Scheme to Defraud,\" the government asks that I include a paragraph stating: \"It is not necessary that a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise be made prior to a victim's decision to part with money or property; rather, if after having obtained money or property the defendant devises or participates in a fraudulent 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5292 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 40 of 500\n\nscheme to keep that money or property by making a subsequent false or fraudulent representation as to a material fact, that is sufficient to establish the existence of a scheme to defraud.\"\n\nI do not agree that this instruction is necessary or helpful and will not include it.\n\nOn page 17, after the last full paragraph, the defense requests that I include a paragraph stating: \"Fraud requires more than simply proof that a promise was made and then not fulfilled. Failing to maintain a promise or to abide by a term in a contract or other document is not by itself fraudulent. Instead, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, at the time they made the statement or promise, never intended to honor. A subsequent decision by a defendant not to abide by the terms of a promise, contract, or document, even one that is willful, cannot be the basis for a conviction.\"\n\nI do not agree that this instruction is necessary or helpful and will not include it.\n\nOn page 18, paragraph 1, the third sentence states: \"That means that if you find that a particular sentence was false, you must determine whether that statement was one that a reasonable person might have considered important in making his or her decision.\"\n\nThe defense requests that \"might\" be changed to\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n21 22 23\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n25\n\n#### 5293 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 41 of 500\n\n\"would.\" I will make this change.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nAfter the third \"that,\" the defense also requests that I include the clause \"was capable of influencing the decision.\" The addition of that language would confuse the jury and I will not include it.\n\nOn page 18, before the paragraph that begins with \"in determining whether a scheme to defraud exists,\" the defense requests the insertion of a new paragraph that states: \"To establish a scheme to defraud, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant contemplated depriving another of money or property. It is not enough that some other person or company could have acquired money or property. To prove the scheme to defraud element, a defendant must have contemplated actual harm would befall victims due to his deception. A scheme to defraud need not be shown by direct evidence, but may be established by the circumstances and facts in the case.\"\n\nThis paragraph duplicates the intent element and I will not include it.\n\nOn page 19, in the second-to-last full paragraph, the defense requests that I rephrase the intent to defraud definition as follows: \"Put differently, to find specific intent to defraud or fraudulent intent, you must find that the defendant had the intent to cheat or steal money from others at the time the misrepresentation or false promise was made.\" 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5294 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 42 of 500\n\nI do not believe that this rephrasing adds clarity and will not include it. 1 2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nOn page 20, the government requests that I include two instructions stating that: One, a defendant's belief that no ultimate harm would result is not a defense to fraud; and that, two, a defendant need not be solely motivated by fraud. I agree that these two instructions offer important clarification and shall include them.\n\nI will state at the end of the second full paragraph on page 20: \"Additionally, it is not necessary for the government to prove that the defendant was motivated solely by improper considerations. The defendant may have the required intent to defraud even if the defendant was motivated by other lawful purposes as well.\"\n\nAlso on page 20, in the last paragraph, in the instruction on good faith, I will state: \"However, in considering good faith, the fact that a defendant believes, rightly or wrongly, that he will ultimately be able to work things out so that no individual suffers a loss, is no excuse for the real and immediate loss resulting from the defendant's fraudulent conduct.\"\n\nThe government requests the addition of the following language to the no-ultimate-harm instruction, arguing that it is necessary to address testimony about the Himalaya Exchange. They would like me to state: \"Nor is it a defense\n\n#### 5295 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 43 of 500\n\nthat certain people were offered or received refunds. Whether any of the companies involved continued to operate is also not a defense.\"\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nI believe that the no-ultimate-harm instruction is sufficient as is and will not include the proposed language.\n\nThe government requests that the Court add the following language at the end of the final paragraph on page 20: \"All of that said, you have heard evidence that Miles Guo and certain of the entities in this case had lawyers. A lawyer's involvement with an individual entity or transaction does not itself constitute a defense to any charge in this case. The defense has not claimed and it cannot claim that the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct as charged in the wire fraud counts was lawful because he engaged in such conduct in good faith reliance on the advice of lawyers.\"\n\nI'm going to add a new section under \"V. Final General Instructions,\" titled \"31. Involvement of the Lawyers.\" The section will read as follows:\n\n\"You have heard evidence that the defendant and certain entities were represented by attorneys. A lawyer's involvement with an individual or entity does not make that individual or entity's actions legal.\"\n\nFollowing the final paragraph on page 20, the defense requests an additional paragraph stating: \"If you find that the defendant was not a knowing and willful participant in the 23 24 25\n\n#### 5296 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 44 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nscheme or lacked the required intent to defraud at the time of the operative false statement or false promise, then you should find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt not only the first element, namely, the existence of the scheme to defraud, but also the second element, that the defendant was a knowing participant and acted with specific intent to defraud, then you should proceed to the third element.\"\n\nI do not agree that this paragraph is necessary and will not include it.\n\nOn page 21, in the \"Third Element\" section, the government asks for a clarification that a wire communication can be made after the relevant funds were obtained. The government requests this specific language: \"A wire communication can also include a communication made after an individual's funds were obtained if the communication was designed to lull that person into a false sense of security to postpone his or her complaint to the authorities or to keep the money obtained from the scheme.\"\n\nI shall include a portion of this language. But I do not believe that the examples cited by the government are necessary. Accordingly, I will state at the end of the second full paragraph on page 21: \"A wire communication can also include a communication made after an individual's funds were obtained.\" 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5297 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 45 of 500\n\nOn page 24, the defense asks that I include at the end of the first paragraph in the materiality subsection the following sentence: \"Expressions of corporate optimism and puffery are not material.\"\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nI reject this addition as confusing and unhelpful to the jury.\n\nOn page 24, after the second paragraph in the materiality subsection, the defense requests that I include: \"However, you may not assess materiality from the perspective of hindsight, nor is a misrepresentation material simply because it may have been important to an investor.\"\n\nAs to the sentence regarding hindsight, I will instead add the following sentence at the end of the first full paragraph on page 24: \"Materiality is judged as of the time the information was disclosed.\"\n\nThe second proposed sentence, which aims to distinguish between importance and materiality, is needlessly confusing and I will not include it. The definition of materiality is sufficient and does not equate materiality with mere importance.\n\nOn page 24, in the charge's definition of a security, the defense proposes the addition of a paragraph that provides a separate definition of a security if the government takes the position that the farm loans and G CLUB memberships are themselves securities.\n\n#### 5298 O78VGUO1 I do not understand the government to be taking this 1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 46 of 500\n\nposition. Am I correct? 2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\nMR. HORTON: If I can have one second your Honor. THE COURT: Yes.\n\n(Counsel conferred)\n\nMR. HORTON: That's right, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Going to page 25.\n\nIn the \"in connection with\" section, the defense requests the addition of the following paragraph after paragraph 2: \"However, the 'in connection with' element is not met simply because an alleged fraud happens to involve the sale of securities; it requires something more. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the deceptive conduct coincided with particular securities sales, and that the deceptive conduct was material to the investors' decision to buy particular securities. If the alleged deceptive conduct did not coincide with the particular sale of the securities, then the 'in connection with' requirement is not satisfied. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\n\"In addition, if the defendant's alleged misrepresentations did not concern the value, nature, or investment characteristics of the securities, then the 'in connection with' requirement is not satisfied. Moreover, alleged misrepresentations that occurred after a security sale cannot have coincided with such purchase or sale and, therefore, cannot have been material to such sale.\" 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5299 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 47 of 500\n\nO78VGUO1\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nI reject the proposed language, first finding that \"deceptive conduct coincided with particular securities sales,\" is only one way of finding that deceptive conduct \"touches upon\" a securities transaction. The addition of this sentence would be confusing and could limit the definition, when the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have \"espoused a broad interpretation\" of the phrase \"in connection with.\" Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 (2006). The remainder of the proposed paragraph imports aspects of the materiality inquiry into the \"in connection with\" definition.\n\nOn page 25, in the first paragraph of the \"in connection with\" section, the government requests the addition of the following sentence: \"It is not necessary that any actual securities be sold or delivered so long as purported securities were offered as an inducement to transact, and promises that someone will receive stock in the future constitute a sufficient connection with a purchase or sale of securities.\"\n\nBased upon this proposed addition, the Court will add the following sentence before the last sentence in the first paragraph: \"Nor is it necessary that any security was ever issued or sold.\" 20 21 22 23\n\nOn page 26, in the first paragraph, the defense requests the addition of the following sentence: \"Therefore, 24 25\n\n#### 5300 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 48 of 500\n\nhowever misleading or deceptive a plan may be, it is not fraudulent if it was devised or carried out in good faith. This includes the defendant's honest belief in the truth of the representations made by the defendant.\"\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nI will not include this language but, instead, after the first sentence of that paragraph, I will repeat the following definition of \"good faith\" that I provided earlier in the wire fraud section: \"A defendant acts in good faith when he honestly believed at the time that the representations he was making were true, even if they turned out to be inaccurate or false.\"\n\nAlso on page 26, after the first paragraph, the government requests the addition of the following paragraph: \"In considering whether a defendant acted in good faith, however, you are instructed that a belief by the defendant — if such belief existed — that ultimately everything would work out so that no investors would lose any money does not necessarily constitute good faith. No amount of honest belief on the part of a defendant that the scheme will ultimately make a profit for the investors will excuse fraudulent actions or false representations by him.\"\n\nI will not include the proposed language, but will repeat the following instruction that I provided in the wire fraud section: \"However, the fact that a defendant believes, rightly or wrongly, that he will ultimately be able to work 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5301 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 49 of 500\n\nthings out so that no individual suffers a loss is no excuse for the real and immediate loss resulting from the defendant's fraudulent conduct.\"\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\nThe government at the end of that same paragraph again requests an instruction regarding lawyers' involvement with the defendant and related entities. Because I have now added the involvement of lawyers instruction, I will not include the instruction here.\n\nOn page 34, in the \"Second Element: Participation\" section at the bottom of the page, at the end of the paragraph that begins with \"it is not necessary for the government,\" the defense asks that I add the following two sentences: \"If you find that the defendant did not have a financial interest in the outcome of the scheme, that is also a factor you may properly consider in determining whether or not the defendant was a member of the conspiracy. Ultimately, the defendant's participation in the conspiracy must be established by independent evidence of his own acts or statements.\"\n\nI will add the following sentence to the end of that paragraph: \"Conversely, if you find that the defendant did not have a financial interest in the outcome of the scheme, that is also a factor you may properly consider in determining whether or not the defendant was a member of the conspiracy.\"\n\nOn page 36, paragraph 1, I grant the defense's request to omit the word \"also\" before \"co-conspirators of the 24 25\n\n#### 5302 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 50 of 500\n\ndefendant,\" in the second pull paragraph.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nOn page 50, the government asks that I refrain from characterizing the RICO count as \"complicated,\" which I will do.\n\nOn page 51, in the second paragraph of the subsection titled \"a. First Element: Racketeering Enterprise,\" the defense asks that I delete the sentence: \"Of course, proof that the objective of the conspiracy was accomplished, if you find that it was, may be most persuasive evidence or the most persuasive evidence of the existence of the conspiracy.\"\n\nThis is a standard conspiracy instruction that I believe is helpful to the jury, so I will not omit it.\n\nOn page 52, in the final two paragraphs, and page 58, paragraph 1 of \"i, Enterprise v. Pattern of Racketeering Activity,\" the defense asks that I specify that \"G Enterprise\" is a term used by the government, which I will do.\n\nIn the final paragraph on page 52, the defense asks that I rephrase the first component of finding a RICO enterprise to state \"a common purpose to conduct a racketeering enterprise\" instead of only \"a common purpose.\"\n\nI do not agree that that is a correct statement of the law. So that edit is rejected; however, I shall rephrase the last clause to state that: \"Then you may find that the first element of a racketeering conspiracy has been satisfied\" rather than suggesting that the whole crime has been proven.\n\n#### 5303 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 51 of 500\n\nIn that same paragraph, the government asks that I include the phrase \"during a substantial period within the time frame charged in the indictment\" after \"a continuing unit.\" The charge already includes substantially similar language on page 52 in the first full paragraph on that page, and I do not agree that the additional language is necessary.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nOn page 55, in the first paragraph under \"Fourth Element: Pattern of Racketeering Activity,\" the defense asks that I move the sentence beginning \"The government must prove that the defendant agreed\" to earlier in the paragraph. I will do so.\n\nIn that same sentence on page 55, the government asks that I clarify that the defendant is also responsible for the acts of agents committed within the scope of their agency.\n\nThe government's proposed sentence reads:\n\n\"The government must prove that the defendant agreed to participate in the enterprise with the intent that he or another member or members of the conspiracy or their agents commit two or more racketeering acts which I will describe.\" I believe that this instruction will confuse the jury and I will not add it.\n\nOn page 56, in the third full paragraph which begins with \"First,\" the government asks that I give examples of types of racketeering crimes after the underlined sentence. I think that this is helpful and will add the government's suggested 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5304 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 52 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nlanguage to the end of that paragraph.\n\nOn page 57, at the start of the second full paragraph, the government asks that I delete the statement that \"a substantial period of time is at least two years.\" I will omit the \"two years\" language, which although the circuit has never approved a shorter period of time, is not a bright-line rule. However, the government's suggested language is also likely to confuse the jurors. I will follow the model of other RICO conspiracy charges and omit an explanation of \"substantial period\" in the charge.\n\nThe defense asks that I delete the conscious avoidance instruction. This instruction may only be given if there is evidence that, one, the defendant asserts the lack of some specific aspect of knowledge required for conviction; and two, there's evidence that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the fact in dispute and consciously avoided confirming that fact. United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145, 154 (2d Cir. 2000). I find that these requirements have not been met and I will omit the instruction.\n\nThe defense asks that I add a \"multiple conspiracies\" instruction. I will not include such an instruction. The multiple conspiracies charge is designed to assist the jury in determining whether or not a particular charged conspiracy was truly a single conspiracy, not to remind them separately to consider each charged conspiracy. United States v. Aguilar,\n\n#### 5305 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 53 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n352 F. App'x 522, 525 (2d Cir. 2009). It appears that the defense wants me to emphasize that the conspiracies charged in Counts One through Four should be considered separately. I believe that a multiple conspiracy instruction would confuse the jury. The charge states on page 15 that the jury \"must consider each count of the indictment separately,\" which I find sufficient. Therefore, I will not add the multiple conspiracies charge.\n\nOn page 62, in the \"28. Law Enforcement and Government Witnesses\" instruction, the defense asks that I add a sentence stating that: \"It is perfectly appropriate for defense counsel to attempt to attack the credibility of such a witness on the ground that his or her testimony may be colored by a personal or professional interest in the outcome of the case.\"\n\nI find that this is duplicative of the existing credibility of witnesses instruction and I will not include it.\n\nThe defense asks that I delete the accomplice/cooperating witness testimony, immunized witness, and similar acts instructions as inapplicable. The government does not object and I agree that they should be excluded.\n\nOn page 64, the defense asks that I add language to the \"nonprosecution agreements\" instruction, stating that a witness testifying under an NPA should be closely scrutinized. I will omit the sentence that states: \"It may not be\n\n#### 5306 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 54 of 500\n\nused by you in any way for or against the defendant,\" which I agree may be confusing. And I will add a sentence to the end of that paragraph stating: \"Of course, you may consider whether the fact that the witness entered into this agreement affects the credibility of their testimony.\" 1 2 3 4 5\n\nThe defense requests an instruction that \"the fact that the charges in this case may have involved large sums of money does not mean that the defendant is held to a greater standard of conduct.\"\n\nI do not agree that this instruction is necessary or helpful and will not include it. 10 11\n\nThe defense also asks for an instruction that the jury may not consider Saraca's settlement with the SEC as evidence of criminal conduct.\n\nDoes the government intend to make the argument that the settlement is evidence of criminal conduct? 15 16\n\n(Counsel conferred)\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\nMR. HORTON: Your Honor, the answer is no. It is a relevant fact in the narrative, but the answer to the Court's question is no.\n\nTHE COURT: The government asks that the jury be instructed that the defendant has not raised a duress excuse or justification defense. 21 22 23\n\nI don't see that the defense has implied this thus far. Accordingly, I will not give this instruction. 24 25\n\n#### 5307 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 55 of 500\n\nMy law clerks have provided you with a copy of the verdict form. 1 2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\nFinally, in preparation for deliberations, the parties are reminded of my May 7th, 2025 order concerning the provision of exhibits to the jury. For jury deliberations, the parties shall provide a clean laptop containing only the exhibits admitted into evidence. The laptop must be prepared prior to the start of deliberations. And the parties shall also provide the required cables to connect the laptop to the monitor in the jury room.\n\nDuring summations, if either party believes that there has been a clear misstatement of a fact or misstatement of the law, certainly you may object. And if you feel that a sidebar is necessary, you may request that. But I want to keep that absolutely to a minimum because that interferes with the flow of the attorneys' summation.\n\nI'm now going to go to the issue regarding the testimony of Mr. Dragon.\n\nBy letter dated July 2nd, 2024, the government moves to strike a portion of defense expert Raymond Dragon's testimony from earlier that day, ECF No. 389. The government raised two issues. The first issue, which concerned the interpretation of Dragon's testimony concerning \"very large investor interest,\" was resolved by agreement of the parties on July 3rd, 2024. See transcript at page 5032, lines 1 to 17. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5308 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 56 of 500\n\nAs to the second issue, I directed the defense to respond to the government's motion by July 5th, 2024.\n\nMr. Dragon testified that \\$200 million of new GTV shares were sold in the GTV private placement. During his testimony, which appears on page 4893 of the transcript, Mr. Dragon stated that Saraca sold some of its own GTV shares as part of the GTV private placement, which resulted in the sale of \\$350 million of GTV shares, exceeding the \\$200 million of shares initially advertised in the GTV private placement memorandum.\n\nThe government contends that Mr. Dragon has no personal knowledge that Saraca was the source of the excess shares; and that this information was not in any of the materials that Dragon disclosed as having reviewed.\n\nBy letter dated July 5th, 2024, the defense opposes the government's motion, stating that Mr. Dragon's understanding is based on the GTV private placement memorandum which is in evidence, ECF No. 390. 15 16 17 18\n\nThe defense states that because the private placement memorandum discloses Saraca's ownership percentage of GTV as 100 percent, Mr. Dragon reasonably concluded that any excess shares beyond what the GTV private placement initially sought to sell would necessarily come from Saraca's equity holdings. Id. at 1.\n\nI'm satisfied with the defense's explanation of\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n21 22 23\n\n19\n\n20\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n25\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 57 of<br>5309<br>500<br>O78VGUO1 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Mr. Dragon's testimony, which the government had the                                                              |\n| 2  | opportunity to probe on recross examination.<br>Accordingly, the                                                  |\n| 3  | government's motion to strike is denied.                                                                          |\n| 4  | We are missing Juror No. 4 -- oh, I'm sorry, Juror No.                                                            |\n| 5  | 10.<br>She says that she is experiencing nausea and diarrhea;                                                     |\n| 6  | that she consulted a doctor who told her to stay home and take                                                    |\n| 7  | certain medication and rest.                                                                                      |\n| 8  | How would you like me to handle this?                                                                             |\n| 9  | MR. HORTON:<br>If we could have just one moment, your                                                             |\n| 10 | Honor.                                                                                                            |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                                                |\n| 12 | (Counsel conferred)                                                                                               |\n| 13 | MR. HORTON:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                             |\n| 14 | Given the number of alternates available, the                                                                     |\n| 15 | government proposes that we move forward with the trial.                                                          |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Does the government believe that I have                                                             |\n| 17 | the discretion to substitute the alternate without the consent                                                    |\n| 18 | of the defense?                                                                                                   |\n| 19 | MR. HORTON:<br>Yes.                                                                                               |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>I'll hear from the defense.                                                                         |\n| 21 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                           |\n| 22 | First of all, I do believe — and I think this has come                                                            |\n| 23 | up before — that the Court has the discretion to excuse the                                                       |\n| 24 | juror and impanel an alternate, even over the defense's                                                           |\n| 25 | objection.                                                                                                        |\n\n#### 5310 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 58 of 500\n\nWe recognize that the trial needs to move along, but we do think that it's possible that not giving one of the jurors a sick day, in essence, could constitute an abuse of that discretion, particularly given that we have now reported that Mr. Guo does not intend to testify; and so that, I think, relieves some of the time pressure.\n\nSo from our perspective, it is certainly within the Court's discretion to do so if it believes it's appropriate to move it along. We do think that creates a risk.\n\nTHE COURT: So although I don't believe that substituting the alternate would be abuse of discretion, I'm having my clerks look at that question in an abundance of caution.\n\nIn the meanwhile, I have some questions for Mr. Guo.\n\nSo Mr. Kamaraju, you have said that Mr. Guo will not be taking the stand, is that right?\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Yes, that is our belief at this time, your Honor. He's not planning to take the stand. I just want to be clear that he does have the right to change his mind at the end of the defense case, but he does not plan to take the stand.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. So you understand, Mr. Guo, that you have the right to take the stand and testify in your own defense?\n\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. Saturday and Sunday,\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 59 of<br>5311<br>500<br>O78VGUO1 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the attorney Kamaraju and Sabrina has discussed this with me                                                      |\n| 2  | and I made my decision of not testifying.                                                                         |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>And are you satisfied that your attorneys                                                           |\n| 4  | have spent enough time with you and answered all your questions                                                   |\n| 5  | about their advice concerning whether or not you should                                                           |\n| 6  | testify?                                                                                                          |\n| 7  | THE DEFENDANT:<br>Yes, your Honor.                                                                                |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>And you understand that the decision                                                                |\n| 9  | whether or not to testify is yours, and yours alone?                                                              |\n| 10 | THE DEFENDANT:<br>Yes, your Honor.                                                                                |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>So am I correct that you, on your own,                                                              |\n| 12 | have made the decision that you do not want to testify?                                                           |\n| 13 | THE DEFENDANT:<br>Yes, your Honor.                                                                                |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>All righty.                                                                                         |\n| 15 | So moving forward, I'm looking for simultaneous                                                                   |\n| 16 | translation.                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | Are there any other issues that the parties would like                                                            |\n| 18 | to raise at this time?                                                                                            |\n| 19 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, we did have an issue with the                                                          |\n| 20 | translation.<br>The witness who was on the stand described the                                                    |\n| 21 | experience as having to parse out information as though he were                                                   |\n| 22 | in the middle of a playground and many, many voices were being                                                    |\n| 23 | heard all at the same time.                                                                                       |\n| 24 | Over the weekend, I did reach out to the interpreters'                                                            |\n| 25 | office to try and resolve this because the witness was -- this                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                   |\n\n#### 5312 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 60 of 500\n\nis how exactly how the witness described it, like being on a playground having to parse through many voices.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\nSo I ask the Court to consider allowing consecutive translation for the witnesses, which I think is the norm; but if not, I guess it will have to be what it will have to be. But he did describe the experience that way. And I raised it with the interpreters.\n\nTHE COURT: Does the government wish to be heard on this question?\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, I think on this point we would defer to the Court. We would note the witness seemed able to answer the questions that were posed during the two and a half hours of direct examination we've had so far.\n\nMS. SHROFF: The witness described the experiences exactly the way I recited it. I then reached out to the interpreters' office.\n\nThe reason I called for a side break is because throughout the testimony he kept tugging at one ear and had difficulty with the number of voices going in. So as I understand it, he's not just listening to the English, which he's partially fluent in, then he's listening to one interpreter and at the same time the English voice is continuing. So there's an overlay.\n\nWhether or not he managed to make do for two hours isn't the point. I've just laid out what the witness said, 24 25\n\n#### 5313 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 61 of 500\n\nyour Honor, that's all. Thank you. 1\n\nTHE COURT: So my strong impression was that he fully understood the questions. He did not protest at that time about the simultaneous translation. There was a point at which he said that there was maybe a problem with one of the earphones, but he also stated that it had been corrected. 2 3 4 5 6\n\nIn my 24-plus years on the bench, I've always had simultaneous translation. That is the norm.\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n24\n\n25\n\nAnything further?\n\nMS. MURRAY: Just a few brief points, your Honor.\n\nWith respect to the witness who was on the stand at the end of the day Wednesday, the government yesterday received 26.2 materials from the defense which indicated that they met with him this weekend, yesterday, and prepared him.\n\nWe would note he's in the middle of his testimony. The Court has advised every witness in this case up to this point that they should not discuss their testimony. The defense team is certainly well aware of that rule, that order by the Court.\n\nAnd so we just wanted to raise for the Court's attention we don't know the content of that prep, it simply indicated that there was a prep session. But we think it's important to note for the Court. 20 21 22 23\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I have a second? THE COURT: Yes.\n\n#### 5314 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 62 of 500\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n(Counsel conferred)\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I believe the rule is that if the witness is on direct, he's free to talk to whoever is taking his questioning. In any event, we did not discuss any part of his past testimony. The rule is when he's on cross, I think that's pretty clear. But, in any event, I've conferred and we had no discussion at all with any of his past testimony.\n\nMS. MURRAY: I would just note, your Honor, the government has taken the approach, consistent with the Court's instructions, throughout this entire five-and-a-half-week trial that we have not spoken with any of our witnesses, even if they were on direct testimony. We have taken the Court's request that the witness not discuss their testimony at its word, and we have not prepped witnesses when they have been on direct either over a break or over an evening or over the weekend during the entire trial.\n\nTHE COURT: So, Ms. Shroff, are you providing me with a particular rule in the rules of evidence or --\n\nMS. SHROFF: No, I think that's the general rule. But, in any event, we did not discuss his testimony.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. I'm glad to hear that. And I will have my clerks look into that rule. This is the way that I've been doing it.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Just to be extremely clear, we certainly did not give him a copy of his prior testimony. We did not -- 24 25\n\n#### 5315 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 63 of 500\n\nI personally didn't even review it, if that matters to the Court. I did not go back and read the transcript. And I say that to you as an officer of the Court: I did not open it, I did not download it, I didn't do anything with it. 1 2 3 4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nTHE COURT: All righty.\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just based on the 26.2 materials, I don't believe Ms. Shroff met with the witness. Unless the materials omitted the presence of somebody, we believe it was other members of the defense team, but just another note.\n\nOne other thing I would like to note for the Court, just with respect to the timing of certain exhibits the defense has produced, the government received exhibits for Leanne Li, who is a witness who is expected to testify, at approximately 1 a.m. on Sunday. Those include a number of exhibits that have Mandarin translations the government has not yet been able to verify.\n\nWe're going to have various hearsay objections and relevance objections to those exhibits, which are WhatsApp chats that are clearly hearsay out-of-court statements of Mr. Guo or of the witness that are being offered for their truth, in the government's view. We just wanted to note the timing issue. They produced additional exhibits for Ms. Li at 4 a.m. this morning. And again, she's expected to testify today. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5316 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 64 of 500\n\nTHE COURT: All right. So that is what you call sharp practice. You do not produce exhibits so late that -- this is when you expect people to be asleep. 1 2 3\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, there was a problem yesterday. Once the government reached out, we sent them a chart of what we anticipated using. Mr. Schirick and I were together at the office where there was an actual human and computer problem that caused the delay.\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: What kind of a human and computer problem caused the delay? 9 10\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we just have a sidebar on this? 11 12\n\nTHE COURT: I want you to give me the explanation now. MS. SHROFF: The person who was working on it couldn't put it together. The person couldn't put it together and had to take a break and so that delayed it.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. I've told you before that you need to have enough people on your team who are competent in order to handle the trial. You cannot have somebody who falls apart at a crucial moment. You need steady, stable people.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, a large amount of Ms. Li's exhibits are photographs. We've moved Ms. Li down on the testifying chain. She's not likely to take the stand; she's the second to the last witness. 21 22 23 24\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\n#### 5317 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 65 of 500\n\n| 1  | MS. SHROFF:<br>That's what happened.                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | There was no sharp practices.<br>We did not purposely          |\n| 3  | delay anything.<br>I think you have two lawyers were at the    |\n| 4  | physical location, others were not.<br>And we tried to get the |\n| 5  | paperwork together.                                            |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>You need to hire competent people.               |\n| 7  | Manhattan is full of them; full of people who are prepared to  |\n| 8  | carry those types of tasks.<br>Don't let this happen again.    |\n| 9  | All righty.<br>I'd like to bring out Alternate No. 1.          |\n| 10 | (Juror present)                                                |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Good morning, sir.<br>You may sit down.          |\n| 12 | I just wanted to let you know that you are now going           |\n| 13 | to become Juror No. 10.                                        |\n| 14 | JUROR:<br>Okay.                                                |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>All righty?<br>You may step back inside.         |\n| 16 | (Juror not present)                                            |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Please have the jurors brought in.               |\n| 18 | MR. SCHIRICK:<br>Your Honor, may I address just one            |\n| 19 | brief other thing before we bring the jury?                    |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Why are we having this feedback problem?         |\n| 21 | MR. SCHIRICK:<br>I think that's taken care of it, your         |\n| 22 | Honor.                                                         |\n| 23 | I just wanted to mention a couple of things that are           |\n| 24 | relevant to what we expect to be the defense's final witness,  |\n| 25 | hopefully later this afternoon.                                |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n#### 5318 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 66 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nThe witness's name is George Higginbotham. And he is a former Department of Justice lawyer who pleaded guilty to engaging in a conspiracy to lobby officials in the Trump Administration on behalf of the PRC government to extradite Mr. Guo. And as part of the agreement to enter into Defense Stip 1, with which I'm sure the Court is familiar, the Fox Hunt stip, the defense agreed not to call several other witnesses who were related to this conspiracy, as well as other Fox Hunt-related witnesses, and only to call Mr. Higginbotham.\n\nWe expect Mr. Higginbotham to testify, among other things, that he joined the conspiracy in April of 2017, at the time that he was a lawyer for DOJ; that as part of the conspiracy, Mr. Higginbotham, who lives in Washington, went to the Chinese Embassy in Washington in July of 2017, to meet with the Chinese Ambassador to the United States. He also traveled to China in September of 2017 to meet with several co-conspirators. And he facilitated the transfer of tens of millions of dollars into the United States as part of the conspiracy. Ultimately, he pled guilty to conspiracy in November of 2018 in the District of D.C.\n\nWe have not, your Honor, had an opportunity to -- the defense has not had an opportunity to meet with this witness. He is still under a cooperation agreement with the government, with the District of D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office. And his lawyers would not give us access to him, so we have not met\n\n#### 5319 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 67 of 500\n\nwith him to prepare him today. And the events at issue date back approximately seven years. I just want to bring that to the Court's attention. 1 2 3\n\nAnd lastly, as part of Mr. Higginbotham's testimony, the defense will enter a stipulation into evidence between the parties relating to certain recordings of conversations between Mr. Guo and a Chinese government official Liu Yanping. And we will read select portions of those transcripts to the jury at the conclusion of Mr. Higginbotham's testimony. I just wanted the Court to have this for reference in terms of what we expect from Mr. Higginbotham, again, not having had the opportunity to meet with him or prepare him today.\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\nTHE COURT: So is there an application?\n\nMR. SCHIRICK: No, your Honor. I just wanted to make the Court aware of those facts.\n\nTHE COURT: Very well.\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I may, just with respect to Mr. Higginbotham, since Mr. Schirick brought it up, one component of Mr. Higginbotham's situation, as Mr. Schirick mentioned, is that he had entered into a cooperation agreement with the government. To be clear, he did not enter into that agreement with this office; he entered into that agreement with the Public Integrity Unit and MLARS in D.C.\n\nWe have spoken with the defense. We understand they are not going to elicit the fact of his cooperation agreement; 24 25\n\n#### 5320 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 68 of 500\n\nand they are not going to elicit details about his -- things relating to his cooperation with the government on direct; that, in our view, would be inappropriate. They've agreed to that. So that is a component of what we understand to be part of his testimony.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nWith respect to the timing here -- or, actually, one other point on Mr. Higginbotham.\n\nAs Mr. Schirick mentioned, he was a DOJ employee at the time that he participated in the entirely separate conspiracy that they are looking to elicit. We assume that they are not going to highlight that fact. We've discussed that with the Court at length. That would be inappropriate because it would be intended only to suggest that the front table has in any way something to do with the communist party or, again, this separate conspiracy to repatriate Mr. Guo, which we've already stipulated to. It's been introduced into evidence a number of times.\n\nMr. Doran, their expert, said that that paragraph 7 of Defense Stip 1 adequately summarized the entire case that Mr. Higginbotham was involved with.\n\nWe understand his testimony is coming in. We will cross-examine him as appropriate. But that fact has been covered, the fact of that 2017 conduct, which predates any of the charged conduct in this case has been covered. So, again, we assume that the defense won't elicit the fact that he is a\n\n#### 5321 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 69 of 500\n\nDOJ employee and we will object as appropriate.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nAnother component that the defense said that they would not elicit is his sentence in his case. That relates to, again, his cooperation. So to the extent that he received a minimal sentence for his involvement in, again, the separate conspiracy from 2017, they are not going to bring that out on direct.\n\nAnd then the last point I would note, Mr. Schirick just indicated that he expects to call Mr. Higginbotham today. That suggests to the government that they expect to get through all of their witnesses today, as he is scheduled to be last.\n\nWe may reserve the right at the break this morning to request that they instead call Leanne Li last, in light of the late production of these exhibits, including approximately 44 audio files that they produced at 4 this morning.\n\nTHE COURT: Mr. Schirick, you are not going to elicit testimony about the cooperation agreement or about his sentence, right?\n\nMR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, we have no plans to elicit that testimony on direct; but obviously, depending on what the government's cross is, reserve the right to raise that, should it become necessary.\n\nTHE COURT: And you're not going to be implying at any point that the government is being manipulated by the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party; correct? 23 24 25\n\n#### 5322 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 70 of 500\n\nMR. SCHIRICK: No, your Honor. The defense has been clear that we don't plan to make that argument.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nI would note, however, that it is a fact — a simple fact — that Mr. Higginbotham was employed by the Department of Justice at the time of the conspiracy and at the time that he had the meetings that I described to the Court earlier today. And, in fact, it is part of the narrative, your Honor, because he was asked to go to those meetings in part because he was an attorney for the Department of Justice.\n\nSo while we have no plans to make the argument that, you know, your Honor just described, we would ask for some latitude to be able to elicit the narrative, which is important and is, frankly, just part of the factual landscape here, without placing undue emphasis on it.\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, we strenuously, strenuously object to that.\n\nThe statement of facts in connection with Mr. Higginbotham's guilty plea in the D.C. case make it very clear that he was not acting in his DOJ capacity when he conducted any of the conduct that was the offense conduct. He made it clear when he went to the embassy in D.C. and when he went to visit the Chinese official in China, that he was not acting in an official capacity. It is entirely improper for the defense to bring that out as part of the narrative of what happened in 2017.\n\n#### 5323 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 71 of 500\n\n 1 2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\nTHE COURT: You're saying to bring out his employment. MS. MURRAY: That's correct.\n\nTHE COURT: So I'm directing you to not bring out the fact that he was a DOJ employee. I'm directing you to tell him that he may not volunteer that information. Clearly bringing that up is merely a rather clumsy way of trying to link the prosecution in this case with corruption and the Chinese government.\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I may make one clarification, because we have had certain discussions with the defense about the protest signs that have been produced into evidence in this case that suggested that the DOJ had been influenced by the CCP.\n\nWe don't object to one factual question about whether at the time he had been employed by DOJ, if that's what the defense would like to elicit. We would object to any further questioning that would suggest in any way that his employment had something to do with his offense conduct.\n\nMR. SCHIRICK: And, your Honor, Ms. Murray anticipated where I was going to go. To an extent, the government did open the door on this by showing the jury the signs that Ms. Murray referenced. And I believe we had an understanding with the prosecution team that we would be permitted to do what Ms. Murray just described. Again, that goes to the point that I was attempting to make, your Honor, which is we have no plan 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5324 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 72 of 500\n\nto unduly emphasize this. But it is a fact that he was employed by DOJ. And you know, as Ms. Murray said, we have an agreement to be able to at least elicit that fact, you know, as part of his direct, again, without unduly emphasizing it or --\n\nTHE COURT: Well, is the prosecution asking for some type of a curative instruction?\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, not at this time; although subject to how the direct testimony comes in, it might be possible.\n\nAs Mr. Schirick said, we've had certain discussions. We don't have an objection. We understand that the view is that the government might have opened the door to this by showing protest signs that Mr. Guo's enterprise had, you know, posted up against the bankruptcy trustee that mentioned DOJ.\n\nA curative instruction might be appropriate. We can discuss that.\n\nBut, again, fine with their establishing the fact that he was a DOJ employee. Any further questioning, and just kind of reacting to Mr. Schirick, because we don't intend to push the issue or emphasize, feels a little wishy-washy, so we just wanted to bring it to the Court's attention. If it goes down the path, we might object.\n\nTHE COURT: I want the parties to agree on the exact question that's going to be posed regarding this photograph. And I want you to instruct him that he is not to elaborate on 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 73 of<br>5325<br>500<br>O78VGUO1 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | his relationship with the Department of Justice.                                                                  |\n| 2  | MR. SCHIRICK:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                           |\n| 3  | We will speak to the prosecution and agree on the                                                                 |\n| 4  | question.                                                                                                         |\n| 5  | Just to be clear, again, I and the defense team do not                                                            |\n| 6  | have access to Mr. Higginbotham.<br>I will do my best to                                                          |\n| 7  | communicate what your Honor has just instructed to his lawyer                                                     |\n| 8  | before he testifies.                                                                                              |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Anything further?                                                                                   |\n| 10 | MS. MURRAY:<br>Not from the government.<br>Thank you.                                                             |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>All right.                                                                                          |\n| 12 | Please have the jurors brought out.                                                                               |\n| 13 | (Jury present)                                                                                                    |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.<br>Good morning, jurors.                                                          |\n| 15 | THE JURY:<br>Good morning.                                                                                        |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>It is 10:07.<br>And I am sorry that I did                                                           |\n| 17 | not bring you out promptly at 9:30.                                                                               |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>We need some help here.<br>I'm sorry.                                                         |\n| 19 | Your Honor, the witness is asking to test the device.                                                             |\n| 20 | May we test the device with him now?                                                                              |\n| 21 | (Pause)                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>As I was saying, I'm sorry that I didn't                                                            |\n| 23 | get you out promptly at 9:30.<br>There were a couple of issues.                                                   |\n| 24 | One issue is that Juror No. 10 has now been replaced                                                              |\n| 25 | by Alternate No. 1.<br>In addition, I had to discuss some                                                         |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 74 of<br>5326<br>500<br>O78VGUO1<br>Dai - Direct |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | important legal matters with the attorneys.<br>And so I am very                                                                   |\n| 2  | mindful that you're waiting.<br>And I don't want to waste your                                                                    |\n| 3  | time; I know your time is important, so I apologize.<br>I will                                                                    |\n| 4  | try to keep that to a minimum.                                                                                                    |\n| 5  | So now we're going to continue with the direct                                                                                    |\n| 6  | examination of Mr. Lai Dai.                                                                                                       |\n| 7  | You may inquire.                                                                                                                  |\n| 8  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                             |\n| 9  | Your Honor, perhaps the Court would like to remind                                                                                |\n| 10 | Mr. Dai he's still under oath.                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, that is a good idea.                                                                                           |\n| 12 | Sir, remember that you're still under oath.                                                                                       |\n| 13 | LAI DAI,                                                                                                                          |\n| 14 | called as a witness by the Defendant,                                                                                             |\n| 15 | having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows:                                                                          |\n| 16 | DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)                                                                                                    |\n| 17 | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                    |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Good morning, Mr. Dai.                                                                                                      |\n| 19 | A.<br>Good morning.                                                                                                               |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, was the functionality of the H Pay app in 2022 the                                                                 |\n| 21 | same as that of what we saw in the video and pictures last                                                                        |\n| 22 | week?                                                                                                                             |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes, it is the same.                                                                                                        |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Your Honor, I apologize.<br>I'm having                                                                        |\n| 25 | a device issue.<br>I cannot hear him very well.<br>Can you give me                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 75 of<br>5327<br>500<br>O78VGUO1<br>Dai - Direct |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 1  | one second to switch my device?<br>I apologize.<br>I'm so sorry.                                                                  |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                           |\n| 3  | All right.<br>So we're having a failure here of the                                                                               |\n| 4  | audio equipment.<br>And we'll take a five-minute break.                                                                           |\n| 5  | Remember that you're not allowed to discuss the case                                                                              |\n| 6  | amongst yourselves or with anyone else.<br>Don't permit anyone to                                                                 |\n| 7  | discuss the case in your presence.<br>Don't read, listen to, or                                                                   |\n| 8  | watch anything from any source concerning the subject matter of                                                                   |\n| 9  | this case.                                                                                                                        |\n| 10 | (Jury not present)                                                                                                                |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>We will recommence when the interpreter                                                                             |\n| 12 | returns.                                                                                                                          |\n| 13 | (Recess)                                                                                                                          |\n| 14 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                          |\n| 15 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 16 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 17 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 18 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 19 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 20 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n\n5328 O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in. THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering. (Jury present) THE COURT: Please be seated. Remember, sir, that you are still under oath. You may inquire. BY MS. SHROFF: Q. Mr. Dai, was the functionality of H Pay in 2022 the same as we saw in the videos and pictures last week? A. Yes, the same. Q. Was the user experience of the H Pay app in 2022 the same as we saw in those videos and pictures last week? A. Yes, the same. Q. Was the functionality of the Exchange's website in 2022 the same as we saw in the videos last week? A. All functions are the same, however, two functions were restricted. Q. Mr. Dai, please try and answer my question, okay. Whatever restrictions there were is not -- I'll withdraw that, your Honor. Was the experience of the Exchange's website in 2022 the same as those that we saw in the video last week? A. Yes, the same. Q. Mr. Dai, what is the New Federal State of China? A. New Federal State of China, it is to overthrow the CCP, to build the democracy and the Rule of the Law, and it is to build 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 76 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 77 of<br>5329<br>500 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Direct                                                             |\n| 1  |               | a new regime in China.                                                               |\n| 2  | Q.            | When did you first hear about the New Federal State of                               |\n| 3  | China?        |                                                                                      |\n| 4  | A.            | The first time it was June 4, 2020.                                                  |\n| 5  | Q.            | Where were you when you heard it?                                                    |\n| 6  | A.            | I was in Germany.                                                                    |\n| 7  | Q.            | And how did you hear it?                                                             |\n| 8  | A.            | I heard it from Mr. Guo's live stream that day.<br>He was --                         |\n| 9  |               | Mr. Guo was with Mr. Steve Bannon in New York and announce the                       |\n| 10 |               | funding of the New Federal State of China.                                           |\n| 11 | Q.            | Was there anyone else on the broadcast?                                              |\n| 12 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                 |\n| 13 | Q.            | Who?                                                                                 |\n| 14 | A.            | It should be other people who were in the live stream                                |\n| 15 |               | because there were in the boat on the ocean.                                         |\n| 16 | Q.            | Mr. Dai, if you could listen to my question.                                         |\n| 17 |               | Do you know if anybody else was present at the                                       |\n| 18 |               | broadcast?                                                                           |\n| 19 |               | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                        |\n| 20 |               | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                             |\n| 21 | Q.            | Did anyone else speak about the New Federal State of China?                          |\n| 22 |               | MR. HORTON:<br>Asked and answered.                                                   |\n| 23 |               | MS. SHROFF:<br>He did not answer that question.                                      |\n| 24 |               | THE COURT:<br>You may answer that question.                                          |\n| 25 | A.            | Everyone was discussing the New Federal State of China, a                            |\n|    |               |                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 78 of<br>5330<br>500 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Direct                                                                              |\n| 1  | lot of news media reported.                                                                           |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Who read the declaration of the New Federal State of China?                                     |\n| 3  | A.<br>Mr. Hao Haidong.                                                                                |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And who is that?                                                                                |\n| 5  | A.<br>He was a famous soccer player in China.<br>You can say that                                     |\n| 6  | he was the mister football in China.                                                                  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Was his wife also part of the broadcast?                                                        |\n| 8  | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.                                                                             |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Was there anyone else on the broadcast?                                                 |\n| 10 | Should be.<br>A.<br>I don't recall clearly --                                                         |\n| 11 | Q.<br>All right.                                                                                      |\n| 12 | A.<br>-- because it was long.<br>During the broadcast live mainly                                     |\n| 13 | were Mr. Guo, Steve Bannon and Mr. Hao Haidong.                                                       |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, did there come a time that you became aware that                                       |\n| 15 | the New Federal State of China had a base?                                                            |\n| 16 | Yes, I believe the earliest was 2020.<br>A.                                                           |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And what is your understanding of what the base was                                             |\n| 18 | supposed to be?                                                                                       |\n| 19 | A.<br>The base will provide for member of New Federal State of                                        |\n| 20 | China and G/Club member a place for events.<br>They can live                                          |\n| 21 | there for a period of time like a vacation.<br>They can also host                                     |\n| 22 | friends of New Federal State of China, famous people, media,                                          |\n| 23 | senators.                                                                                             |\n| 24 | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.<br>Move to strike for hearsay.                                              |\n| 25 | MS. SHROFF:<br>That's his understanding, your Honor.                                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 79 of<br>5331<br>500 |  |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    | O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Direct                                                                              |  |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>Go ahead.                                                                 |  |\n| 2  | A.<br>Also during the time of emergency, this place can provide                                       |  |\n| 3  | help for G/Club members.                                                                              |  |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Did you learn if in fact a base had been found?                                                 |  |\n| 5  | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection, calls for hearsay, your Honor.                                              |  |\n| 6  | He has no personal knowledge.<br>He's describing what he heard                                        |  |\n| 7  | from other people.                                                                                    |  |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>If you'll step up, please.                                                              |  |\n| 9  | (Continued on next page)                                                                              |  |\n| 10 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 11 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 12 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 13 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 14 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 15 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 16 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 17 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 18 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 19 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 20 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 21 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 22 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 23 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 24 |                                                                                                       |  |\n| 25 |                                                                                                       |  |\n|    |                                                                                                       |  |\n\n#### 5332 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 80 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nO78BGUO2 Dai - Direct\n\n(At the sidebar)\n\nTHE COURT: So aside from what he may have heard on a broadcast, did he personally have contact with the location?\n\nMS. SHROFF: I don't believe that would be the testimony, your Honor. But imagine if you're part of a member club, say you're part of the union club or the Harvard club, are you going to really talk to the executive of the Harvard club and each day he's going to call you and say, hey, listen, you know what, I'm going to put this new service in place; but all of you come to the executive meeting, and we'll all sit down and learn about this. And how else does one learn other than by listening to what the membership of the executive committee tells you is a benefit offered by a membership club. That's how you learn. That's the whole point of a membership club. We're not going to the truth of the matter asserted. They can say no such basis existed.\n\nBut I note here again, your Honor: One, if you're a member of Netflix, the only way you're going to know what Netflix has to offer next is by looking at the Netflix website, of getting an advertisement, of getting a notification and reading about it. That's the way it work. Netflix's CEO is not calling me to say, hey, you know what, this show is going to stream again tomorrow, make sure you watch. And even that according to them would be hearsay, so how would a member know? THE COURT: Why can't he testify about what he heard\n\n#### 5333 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 81 of\n\n500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nO78BGUO2 Dai - Direct\n\non these broadcasts?\n\nMR. HORTON: Because they're offering it for its truth, your Honor. There's a difference between the Netflix member saying, well, the CEO told me that Netflix does X, Y and Z, and as a member I used this service and this is my experience in using the service. He's not saying he went to the base. He's not saying he experienced it personally. He said I heard from other people what it was. They can call somebody who's at the base, who operated the base, who operated G/Clubs to testify from their personal knowledge, but this witness doesn't have personal knowledge.\n\nTHE COURT: So when the prosecution have witnesses on the stand and they asked them about all of the promised services and benefits, it was certainly not for their truth. The prosecution is not claiming that any of these services were offered, but my sense is that your witness is here in order to say that they did exist.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I think there's a difference between saying that the statement is being offered in fact for something existing versus the topic is being discussed that it is something that people are addressing. It is something that members understand. It is something even the defendant understands. That's United States v. DiMaria. 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nTHE COURT: You're saying that you're not offering it for the truth? 24 25\n\n#### 5334 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 82 of 500\n\n16\n\n17\n\nO78BGUO2 Dai - Direct\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: This is for their understanding, your Honor. Whether they are right or wrong as to whether that was a base or not, it's a question of what they believed, and that's the question. It's an intent case. It's a fraud question. If we're not allowed to introduce evidence of statements, if we're not allowed to introduce evidence of understanding, then the only way that a fraud defendant can ever defend themselves is by taking the stand. Because otherwise, you're never going to be permitted. That's why you have a state of mind hearsay exception. That's why you have a present sense impression. That's why you have all of these exceptions. So we have no problem with any of this testimony with an instruction that says it's not being offered for the truth, which that's the standard way that you deal with a hearsay issue. It is not to preclude the testimony in its entirety. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nTHE COURT: Certainly this has come in already through other witnesses, hasn't it?\n\nMR. HORTON: The context matters for the hearsay rule, your Honor. When we bring in something that the defendant or his agents or his co-conspirator says, the rule allows us to admit an opposing parties' statements. What Mr. Kamaraju was just talking about Miles Guo's intent, which we agree is the only intent that matters. This witness can't testify about Miles Guo's intent. The state of mind exception is about the declarant's state of mind, and your Honor we had a pre-trial 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5335 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 83 of\n\n500\n\nO78BGUO2 Dai - Direct argument about this a few weeks ago. This witness cannot testify, I heard this thing from somebody else, and so therefore it's Miles Guo's state of mind. That's not how it works. 1 2 3 4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Mr. Horton is correct. The state of mind exception is not specific to the defendant. It's specific to a declarant. With respect to Mr. Guo's intent, it can be corroborated by independent evidence, including the understanding of other people. They're allowed to challenge that weight. They're allowed to challenge whether that's how significant the jury should afford that. Your Honor has already ruled that Mr. Guo's intent corroborated by reasonable -- sorry corroborated to be proven reasonable by objective evidence. The fact that they were being discussed is evidence.\n\nTHE COURT: So you're saying that you want to introduce Mr. Guo's statements. I don't understand how you get around the hearsay problem.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: That's exactly what's in DiMaria, your Honor, and I have a copy of the case which I'll bring up. In DiMaria, the facts of DiMaria were, the defendant was present in a place to buy illegal cigarettes. It was either FBI or DHS agents -- I don't know specifically -- showed up and the defendant said, Why are you guys here? I just came for some cheap cigarettes. And the prosecution move to exclude that\n\n#### 5336 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 84 of\n\nO78BGUO2 Dai - Direct 500\n\nstatement on hearsay grounds.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nThe Court -- the district court agreed with the exclusion on hearsay grounds. The Second Circuit reverse and called it wasn't harmless. Because what they said was, it goes to the state of the mind of the defendant, his then existing belief as to why he was there, which was relevant to the mind. And they also rejected arguments about it being a false exculpatory statement, about the exception swallowing the rule because the hearsay state of mind exception already has a carve out in between. I can hand it up, your Honor. That's the difference. We are allowed to say that Mr. Guo's statement - we're allowed to say that Mr. Guo's intent is proveable by one of Mr. Guo's statements if it is a then existing statement of his mental state. And that's what DiMaria says, and I have it here for your Honor.\n\nMR. HORTON: Ms. Shroff's question wasn't about Mr. Guo's statements. The hearsay that the witness is testifying about wasn't attributed to anybody in particular. This case is about a defendant at a crime scene making a contemporaneous statement that comes in for his then existing -- his then existing state of mind. That's not what is happening here, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Are you going to limit it to only Mr. Guo's statements? 23 24 25\n\nMS. SHROFF: Sure.\n\n#### 5337 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 85 of\n\nO78BGUO2 Dai - Direct MR. FERGENSON: That's not permissible. THE COURT: It seems to me that you're arguing they can bring in the defendant's statement? MR. HORTON: My point is that the case they're hinging all this onto a single parallel purpose. Mr. Fergenson wants to supplement what I said. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they just bring in Mr. Guo's statements it's fair game and hearsay and what they're aiming for is not nearly that broad. THE COURT: I remember looking at this case, and I don't recall interpreting it the way that you do, but I am going to take a second look at the case. So let us move onto something while I -- well, my clerks will look at this. MR. KAMARAJU: Would your Honor like the hard copy? THE COURT: That's terrific. Thank you. MR. KAMARAJU: She's almost done at this point. THE COURT: We can always recall the witness if I don't come up with an answer soon enough. MS. SHROFF: That's fine. Whatever you want to do. THE COURT: Okay. (Continued on next page) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 86 of<br>5338<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (In open court)                                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>You may continue.                                                                                                  |\n| 3  | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                   |\n| 4  | Mr. Dai, let me show you what is marked not yet in evidence<br>Q.                                                                |\n| 5  | as Government Exhibit VD-6.<br>You could take a look at that                                                                     |\n| 6  | document for me, please.                                                                                                         |\n| 7  | MR. HORTON:<br>Your Honor, is there a question pending?                                                                          |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes, I see it.                                                                                                             |\n| 9  | Q.<br>Are you done, Mr. Dai, reading the document?                                                                               |\n| 10 | A.<br>Yes, I finish it.                                                                                                          |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, do you recognize that document?                                                                                   |\n| 12 | A.<br>Before today, I haven't seen this before.                                                                                  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>I couldn't hear him?                                                                                                       |\n| 14 | A.<br>Before today I didn't see it.<br>I didn't see it before.                                                                   |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I have no further questions at this time                                                                          |\n| 16 | pending the Court's ruling.                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Understood.<br>All righty.<br>Cross                                                                                |\n| 18 | examination.                                                                                                                     |\n| 19 | CROSS-EXAMINATION                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | BY MR. HORTON:                                                                                                                   |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Good morning, Mr. Dai.                                                                                                     |\n| 22 | A.<br>Good morning.                                                                                                              |\n| 23 | Q.<br>You're a supporter of Miles Guo, correct?                                                                                  |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 25 | You found him through his online videos, right?<br>Q.                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 87 of<br>5339<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And you understood from watching Miles Guo's videos you                                                                    |\n| 3  | thought he was a successful business person; isn't that right?                                                                   |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 5  | Q.<br>And when you met with Mr. Guo's lawyers earlier this year,                                                                 |\n| 6  | you told them that you thought Miles Guo had a lot of                                                                            |\n| 7  | credibility on investments; isn't that true?                                                                                     |\n| 8  | To whom I met?<br>A.                                                                                                             |\n| 9  | Q.<br>You met with Mr. Guo's lawyers earlier this year, do you                                                                   |\n| 10 | remember that?                                                                                                                   |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes, I told them that I like Mr. Guo's courage and his                                                                     |\n| 12 | honesty.                                                                                                                         |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Sir, I want you to limit your answer to                                                                            |\n| 14 | the question that's being asked.<br>The answer that you just gave                                                                |\n| 15 | was not responsive to the question that was just asked, so I'm                                                                   |\n| 16 | going to ask the reporter to read back the question and you                                                                      |\n| 17 | answer only the question that's been asked.<br>I'm going to                                                                      |\n| 18 | strike the answer.                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | (The record was read)                                                                                                            |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes, I remember.                                                                                                           |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And you told Mr. Guo's lawyers that you thought Mr. Guo was                                                                |\n| 22 | credible when he spoke about investments, right?                                                                                 |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 24 | Q.<br>You believe Miles Guo when he talks about GTV, don't you?                                                                  |\n| 25 | A.<br>You mean he mention GTV investment?                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 88 of<br>5340<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>Yes.<br>When Miles Guo talks about GTV investments, you                                                                    |\n| 2  | believe what he's saying, don't you?                                                                                             |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes, before my investment, I had not heard about GTV                                                                       |\n| 4  | investment by Mr. Guo.                                                                                                           |\n| 5  | Q.<br>But then you heard him talk about it, and ever since you                                                                   |\n| 6  | believed what he said; isn't that right?                                                                                         |\n| 7  | A.<br>No, I didn't hear him mention about GTV investment.<br>I,                                                                  |\n| 8  | through the group, the chat group of my fellow fighters, I got                                                                   |\n| 9  | that information.                                                                                                                |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Well, but after that, Mr. Dai, didn't you exchange WhatsApp                                                                |\n| 11 | messages with Miles Guo about investing in GTV?                                                                                  |\n| 12 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, the witness testified he did                                                                          |\n| 13 | so after the investment.<br>The government should be clear.                                                                      |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And after that you watched GTV for five hours a day, that                                                                  |\n| 16 | was your testimony, right?                                                                                                       |\n| 17 | A.<br>No, not like that.<br>When I watching the video that was five                                                              |\n| 18 | hours a day, that was before, before I got information about                                                                     |\n| 19 | investment.<br>I started -- the information I got from the                                                                       |\n| 20 | investment in May, late May 20 something, by then I already                                                                      |\n| 21 | watched GTV for over a month.                                                                                                    |\n| 22 | Q.<br>But you heard Miles Guo talk about GTV stocks, for example,                                                                |\n| 23 | in his broadcast, for example, didn't you?                                                                                       |\n| 24 | A.<br>No.<br>He has not mention anything GTV investment or stocks                                                                |\n| 25 | during his live stream --                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 89 of<br>5341<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai --                                                                                                                 |\n| 2  | A.<br>-- therefore I learn this much later.                                                                                      |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>You need to stop answering.<br>Once you've                                                                         |\n| 4  | answered the question that been's asked, you just stop.<br>So if                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                                                  |\n| 5  | I ask you what is today's date, you tell me today's date, but                                                                    |\n| 6  | you don't also tell me what time it is.<br>You understand?<br>Go                                                                 |\n| 7  | ahead.                                                                                                                           |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, over the last several years you've watched Miles                                                                  |\n| 9  | Guo's live streams, haven't you?                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                       |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And on those live streams you heard Miles Guo talk about                                                                   |\n| 12 | G/Club, didn't you?                                                                                                              |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 14 | Q.<br>And you heard on those live streams Miles Guo talk about                                                                   |\n| 15 | the Himalaya Exchange; isn't that right?                                                                                         |\n| 16 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                       |\n| 17 | Q.<br>Is it your testimony that on those live streams Miles Guo                                                                  |\n| 18 | never talked about GTV stocks?                                                                                                   |\n| 19 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, objection.                                                                                            |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>Overruled.<br>Please answer.                                                                         |\n| 21 | A.<br>G/Club and Himalaya Exchange were all in 2020, after                                                                       |\n| 22 | October of 2020.<br>About GTV investment was from April, and I                                                                   |\n| 23 | learned this was May of 2020, so how could I learn about GTV                                                                     |\n| 24 | investment by watching the other live stream on the other --                                                                     |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Once again you have not answered the                                                                               |\n|    |                                                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 90 of<br>5342<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | question.<br>I'm going to ask the reporter to read the question                                                                  |\n| 2  | back and only answer the question that has been asked.                                                                           |\n| 3  | (The record was read)                                                                                                            |\n| 4  | Before my investment, no, he didn't mention that.<br>A.                                                                          |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, my question is, you testified that you've watched                                                                 |\n| 6  | Miles Guo's live streams for the last several years.<br>Over that                                                                |\n| 7  | period when you watched his live streams, isn't it true that                                                                     |\n| 8  | Miles Guo talked about GTV shares?                                                                                               |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes, he did mention that.                                                                                                  |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And you believed everything he said about it, isn't that                                                                   |\n| 11 | true?                                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And he talked about other investments as well; isn't that                                                                  |\n| 14 | right?                                                                                                                           |\n| 15 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And you believed everything he said about those investments                                                                |\n| 17 | as well; isn't that true?                                                                                                        |\n| 18 | A.<br>After I read the document, yes, I believe that.                                                                            |\n| 19 | And GTV the \"G\" in that stands for Guo; isn't that right?<br>Q.                                                                  |\n| 20 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | Q.<br>The \"G\" in G/Clubs, that \"G\" stands for Guo doesn't it?                                                                    |\n| 22 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                        |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And the \"G\" in G Fashion, that \"G\" stands for Guo, doesn't                                                                 |\n| 24 | it?                                                                                                                              |\n| 25 | No.<br>A.                                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 91 of<br>5343<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>And the \"G\" in the G Series investment that Miles Guo                                                                      |\n| 2  | talked about in those broadcast, that \"G\" stands for Guo,                                                                        |\n| 3  | doesn't it?                                                                                                                      |\n| 4  | A.<br>To me I wouldn't say the G Series, I wouldn't say that.<br>I                                                               |\n| 5  | don't know what it represented.                                                                                                  |\n| 6  | Your testimony, Mr. Dai, is that after investing in GTV and<br>Q.                                                                |\n| 7  | in G/Clubs and in other G Series investments, you don't know                                                                     |\n| 8  | what the \"G\" stands for?                                                                                                         |\n| 9  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.<br>That's not what he said.                                                                            |\n| 10 | That misstates his answer completely.                                                                                            |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                    |\n| 12 | THE WITNESS:<br>May I answer now?                                                                                                |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Go right ahead.                                                                                            |\n| 14 | A.<br>I know what \"G\" means.<br>It doesn't mean Guo.<br>It means                                                                 |\n| 15 | global.                                                                                                                          |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Your testimony is that when Miles Guo promoted GTV, G/Club,                                                                |\n| 17 | G Fashion and the G Series investments that \"G\" stood for                                                                        |\n| 18 | global?                                                                                                                          |\n| 19 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Asked and answered.                                                                                               |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                                                                                      |\n| 21 | That's correct, it means global.<br>A.<br>This is very obvious.                                                                  |\n| 22 | Can I explain?                                                                                                                   |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                   |\n| 24 | Q.<br>You've heard of Guo Media, Mr. Dai, haven't you?                                                                           |\n| 25 | A.<br>Guo Media did you say?<br>I've heard of it.                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 92 of<br>5344<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>And the \"Guo\" in Guo Media, that refers to Miles Guo,                                                                      |\n| 2  | right?                                                                                                                           |\n| 3  | A.<br>Or maybe, but he's not what you just mentioned earlier.                                                                    |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, your testimony is that \"Guo\" in Guo Media only                                                                    |\n| 5  | maybe refers to Miles Guo; is that right?                                                                                        |\n| 6  | A.<br>I don't know.<br>I didn't invest in Guo Media.<br>I have never                                                             |\n| 7  | seen certain documents or explanation or description of what it                                                                  |\n| 8  | means.                                                                                                                           |\n| 9  | Q.<br>Okay.<br>You heard Miles Guo talk in his broadcast about the                                                               |\n| 10 | Himalaya Exchange; isn't that right?                                                                                             |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And when Miles Guo said that the Himalaya Exchange is a                                                                    |\n| 13 | cryptocurrency exchange, you believe that, right?                                                                                |\n| 14 | A.<br>I heard this, but I believe the content is because when I                                                                  |\n| 15 | read the relevant information, at that point I couldn't decide                                                                   |\n| 16 | it was true or not.                                                                                                              |\n| 17 | Q.<br>Well, you heard Miles Guo talk about the Himalaya Exchange                                                                 |\n| 18 | and H Coin and H dollar on his live streams that you watched,                                                                    |\n| 19 | didn't you?                                                                                                                      |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And when Miles Guo talked about Himalaya Coin or Himalaya                                                                  |\n| 22 | Dollar, you believe what he said on his broadcast that you                                                                       |\n| 23 | watched, didn't you believe it?                                                                                                  |\n| 24 | A.<br>No, I didn't believe that at the time.<br>I was only                                                                       |\n| 25 | interested.                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 93 of<br>5345<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, it's your testimony that there were times when you                                                                |\n| 2  | heard Miles Guo talk about the Himalaya Exchange and you did                                                                     |\n| 3  | not believe what he was saying?                                                                                                  |\n| 4  | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | Q.<br>And there were times that Miles Guo talked about GTV and                                                                   |\n| 6  | you did not believe what he was saying?                                                                                          |\n| 7  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor --                                                                                                     |\n| 8  | A.<br>I had no way to judge.<br>I just heard some interesting                                                                    |\n| 9  | information, and then I was waiting to have more information                                                                     |\n| 10 | come up in order for me to decide if that's true or should I                                                                     |\n| 11 | believe it.                                                                                                                      |\n| 12 | Q.<br>You agree with me, don't you, that H Coin is not backed by                                                                 |\n| 13 | gold?                                                                                                                            |\n| 14 | A.<br>H Coin does not have gold as backup.                                                                                       |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Right.<br>And when Miles Guo said that it did, was he lying?                                                               |\n| 16 | I don't believe he was lying.<br>A.<br>I was thinking that he was                                                                |\n| 17 | expressing his understanding of H Coin.<br>But obviously in the H                                                                |\n| 18 | Exchange in his white paper, he didn't specify that the H Coin                                                                   |\n| 19 | was backed by gold, so I think the H Coin is independent                                                                         |\n| 20 | platform so he can do his -- he can decide or design to decide                                                                   |\n| 21 | how to do this cryptocurrency.                                                                                                   |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, you agree with me don't you, that Miles Guo                                                                       |\n| 23 | designed H Coin?                                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | A.<br>I don't know.                                                                                                              |\n| 25 | MR. HORTON:<br>Ms. Loftus, can we pull up what's in                                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 94 of<br>5346<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | evidence as GX9 and go to page 120.                                                                                              |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, the Himalaya Exchange launched on November 1,                                                                     |\n| 3  | 2021; isn't that right?                                                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes, the formal launch, yes.                                                                                               |\n| 5  | Q.<br>On the screen in front of you there's a document called                                                                    |\n| 6  | GX9, if you look at the top of this page.<br>Mr. Dai, you see the                                                                |\n| 7  | date September 29, 2021, top left in highlight.                                                                                  |\n| 8  | Mr. Dai, the question is, do you see the date in the                                                                             |\n| 9  | top left corner?                                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | Yes, I see it.<br>A.                                                                                                             |\n| 11 | Q.<br>By the way, G News, is your testimony that G news, the \"G\"                                                                 |\n| 12 | doesn't stand for Guo either?                                                                                                    |\n| 13 | A.<br>That obviously is not representing Guo.<br>You can enlarge                                                                 |\n| 14 | it.                                                                                                                              |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Your testimony is that --                                                                                                  |\n| 16 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, may we ask for the document                                                                           |\n| 17 | to be enlarged.                                                                                                                  |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>We haven't heard the question.                                                                                     |\n| 19 | MS. SHROFF:<br>The witness asked for the document to be                                                                          |\n| 20 | enlarged.                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Absolutely, it should be enlarged.                                                                                 |\n| 22 | Absolutely.                                                                                                                      |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, the G News --                                                                                                     |\n| 24 | A.<br>As you can see, the G News --                                                                                              |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>One moment.<br>You have to wait for the                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 95 of<br>5347<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | question in order to offer an answer.                                                                                            |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, the question is whether your testimony today is                                                                   |\n| 3  | that the \"G\" in G News doesn't stand for Guo neither?                                                                            |\n| 4  | A.<br>Does not represent Mr. Guo.                                                                                                |\n| 5  | Q.<br>You see that this document is entitled highlights of Miles                                                                 |\n| 6  | Guo's live broadcast on September 29, 2021.<br>Do you see that?                                                                  |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, I can see the title.                                                                                                  |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And do you see Mr. Guo in the middle of the screenshot                                                                     |\n| 9  | there on the top of the page?                                                                                                    |\n| 10 | Yes, I see it.<br>A.                                                                                                             |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Thank you.                                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | MR. HORTON:<br>If you could zoom out, please, Ms.                                                                                |\n| 13 | Loftus.                                                                                                                          |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Mr. Guo's statement on this date, Mr. Dai, September 29,                                                                   |\n| 15 | 2021, that was just a few weeks before the Himalaya Exchange                                                                     |\n| 16 | launched; isn't that right?                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | A.<br>I think maybe over a month prior, yes.                                                                                     |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And Mr. Guo says \"The safest virtual coin at the moment is                                                                 |\n| 19 | the Himalaya Coin because 20 percent of the value is anchored                                                                    |\n| 20 | to gold.\"<br>Do you see that right there?                                                                                        |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes, I see that.                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | Q.<br>So when Mr. Guo said that, that was not true, was it?                                                                      |\n| 23 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, I have an objection under                                                                             |\n| 24 | Federal Rule of Evidence 609, and if I need to elaborate, I'm                                                                    |\n| 25 | happy to have a sidebar.<br>608, I'm sorry.                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>O78BGUO2 | Doc 3602   | Filed 10/01/24<br>500<br>Dai - Cross | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 96 of<br>5348 |\n|----|---------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------|\n|    |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 1  |                           | THE COURT: | All right.                           | Let's have a sidebar.     |                    |\n| 2  |                           |            | (Continued on next page)             |                           |                    |\n| 3  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 4  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 5  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 6  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 7  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 8  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 9  |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 10 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 11 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 12 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 13 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 14 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 15 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 16 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 17 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 18 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 19 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 20 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 21 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 22 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 23 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 24 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n| 25 |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n|    |                           |            |                                      |                           |                    |\n\n#### 5349 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross (At the sidebar) 1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 97 of 500\n\nTHE COURT: Are you going to tell me about Mr. 608, Mr. Kamaraju? 2 3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I'm going to do that with another rule in combination, your Honor. Rule 608 precludes specific instances of conduct being used to attack a witness's testimony. Basically you cannot ask another witness whether somebody lied. And because Mr. Guo's statements are being offered for as an out-of-court declarant, he falls under those same rules.\n\nTHE COURT: So aren't you looking to impeach Mr. Guo essentially?\n\nMR. FERGENSON: The question was whether this statement that he just read was true. It doesn't bring up - it's not character evidence under 608.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: It's 609(b).\n\nMR. HORTON: Your Honor, I admit, I'm confused. This is a fraud case. What's at issue is whether Mr. Guo lied when talking about investments. The witness testified that he watched Mr. Guo's broadcast where he made statements about investments. The witness also testified H Coin was not backed to gold. He agreed with me on that. Mr. Guo said repeatedly H Coin is backed to gold. The question of this fraud case is, that's not true, right?\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: You still can't ask a witness to\n\n#### 5350 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 98 of 500\n\nimpeach another witness's credibility in specific instances. Mr. Guo is an out-of-court declarant who can be impeached. It is a fraud case. They are allowed to prove that he lied, but the way you do that is not saying to one witness, did he lie on this instance.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nMS. SHROFF: You cannot ask about specific instances. MR. HORTON: It cannot be the case that they can bring in a witness for the purpose of bolstering the credibility of Mr. Guo, talking about materiality pro and con, and then we can't ask that this particular statement wasn't true based on the witness's prior testimony that H Coin was in fact backed by gold.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Actually, the witness testified that he read the white paper and that is what he relied on. He has repeatedly told you that he has not relied on Mr. Guo's video. You ignored all of his answers and you keep pummeling down this video road. And the rule has no exception to a fraud case -- I think the statute is the very clear -- you may not ask about specific instances and ask somebody who is in court whether those are true or false. If the statute says, and by the way, we're making an exception in a fraud case, I would be delighted to hear that.\n\nTHE COURT: What's the other rule, Mr. Kamaraju? MR. KAMARAJU: If you give me a second. It's an impeachment of out-of-court declarant statements. I have to 23 24 25\n\n#### 5351 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 99 of 500\n\nremember the rule number. 1\n\nMR. FERGENSON: If I may, your Honor. I think just going back to sort of fundamental building blocks. This is a case about representations made to investors and whether they're true. That's not about -- there's no, like, the entire -- if Mr. Kamaraju was correct, then the government's entire case in chief was improper because we're impeaching an out-of-court declarant, meaning the defendant. Of course in a fraud case you're going to say the things the defendant said are untrue. That's the entire basis for the prosecution. This rule, well it's sort of nuanced, it has no application here. And we're asking the witness if he agrees this representation was not factually true. That's the question pending. The objection should be overruled.\n\nTHE COURT: My recollection is the prosecution asked the same question of their witnesses. Why didn't you object then?\n\n18\n\n19\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I did.\n\nTHE COURT: Why didn't you bring up the rule then?\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I did. I did, your Honor, but I do think there is a difference -- and I want to draw this distinction. There's a difference between whether it's in a fraud case or any other case asking a witness for the underlying facts that show the defendant's statement is not true. They are undoubtedly permitted to do that. There's no 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5352 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 100 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nbar to that. The point that I'm objecting to is asking the witness his opinion as to whether Mr. Guo lied in a specific instance. That is what the rule bars. This does not hamstring the Southern District of New York from bringing fraud cases in the future, they just have to do it consistent with the rules of evidence.\n\nMR. FERGENSON: That's not the question pending. The question pending is whether that factual representation is true. There's no reason the witness can't answer that, and I don't think Mr. Horton needs to ask, and Miles Guo was knowingly lying when he said that, right? He's not going to ask that. He can just ask was this representation true, which is the question pending, and it should be overruled.\n\nTHE COURT: Is there anything further?\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I just note, I don't think that was the question before. If that's going to be the question, that's a different answer.\n\nTHE COURT: My recollection is that that was the question.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Just so I understand the ruling, it's not that he can say did Miles Guo lie in that instance. He can say is that factual statement that Miles Guo said is true?\n\nTHE COURT: That's what he asked. MR. KAMARAJU: I'm just making sure that I understand the Court going down this road. 23 24 25\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 101 of<br>5353<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>And you're not objecting to that question?                                                                          |\n| 2  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>I won't continue to.                                                                                             |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I said you're not objecting to that                                                                                 |\n| 4  | question?                                                                                                                         |\n| 5  | MS. SHROFF:<br>We are.                                                                                                            |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>You are?                                                                                                            |\n| 7  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>To the factual predicate of his                                                                                  |\n| 8  | understanding if it's true?                                                                                                       |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 10 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>I don't think I can object to that,                                                                              |\n| 11 | your Honor.<br>I've made my objection.                                                                                            |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>If you can just hold on a second.                                                                          |\n| 13 | I just want to talk to my clerk about the other issue.                                                                            |\n| 14 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, there was also a whole stream                                                                          |\n| 15 | of questions that were asked prior to this one as to whether or                                                                   |\n| 16 | not Mr. Guo had lied about specific instances.<br>I didn't                                                                        |\n| 17 | interrupt, but those questions are also improper to the extent                                                                    |\n| 18 | they talk about specific instances that the witness is being                                                                      |\n| 19 | asked about.<br>And the record should be clear, the witness has                                                                   |\n| 20 | repeatedly said, he did not rely on the video in determining                                                                      |\n| 21 | whether to invest.<br>He said that over and over again.                                                                           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Did you ask questions that contain the                                                                              |\n| 23 | word \"lie?\"                                                                                                                       |\n| 24 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Yes.                                                                                                               |\n| 25 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>He did, and they were not objecting                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n\n#### 5354 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 102 of 500\n\nto. We're not going to keep asking those questions. We'll ask about factual representations, which is what was objected to, and I think is not objectionable. 1 2 3\n\nTHE COURT: Wait one moment, please.\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMS. SHROFF: The question about him lying should be stricken.\n\nTHE COURT: Wait a minute. I want to go back to the DiMaria issue. I think that the defense is offering Mr. Guo's statement for the purposes of showing his state of mind. DiMaria is different. It's a different circumstance where the defendant was saying something in the moment, so I'm not going to permit these questions about the location of the club shall we say.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Just two points. You asked me previously about what rule I was citing in terms of attacking an out-of-court declarant's credibility. That's rule 806 which says that the declarant's credibility may be attacked if supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness, so it is subject to 608's limitations.\n\nAnd then the other thing I would say about DiMaria, your Honor, is I believe -- I could be wrong, but I believe that that was not admitted as a present sense impression. I believe that was admitted as a state of mind exception because the Court specifically addressed the carve out in that case and\n\n#### 5355 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 103 of 500\n\nthe distinguish other Second Circuit cases that had addressed the carve out. So that case is certainly in my reading a state of mind case not a present sense impression case. So I suspect we are going to have this issue come up again, so I just wanted to flag that point because I think we're going to cite it again. 1 2 3 4 5 6\n\nTHE COURT: All righty. I'm not going to permit the statement with regard to the location.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: With this witness or with any questioning? 9 10\n\nTHE COURT: With this witness so far. I don't know what the others are going to talk about. They may say they visited the location. I don't know. 11 12 13\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Understood.\n\n7\n\n8\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n(Continued on next page)\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 104 of<br>5356<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (In open court)                                                                                                                   |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>You may continue.                                                                                                   |\n| 3  | MR. HORTON:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                             |\n| 4  | BY MR. HORTON:                                                                                                                    |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, just redirecting your attention back to Mr. Guo's                                                                  |\n| 6  | statement on the screen.                                                                                                          |\n| 7  | Mr. Guo's statement on September 29, 2021, on G News                                                                              |\n| 8  | that the safest virtual coin at the moment is the Himalaya Coin                                                                   |\n| 9  | because 20 percent of the value is anchored to gold. That                                                                         |\n| 10 | statement was not true, was it?                                                                                                   |\n| 11 | A.<br>You mean compared with the white paper from the H Exchange,                                                                 |\n| 12 | whether that's true?<br>If that's the case, that's not true                                                                       |\n| 13 | because it's not linked to gold.                                                                                                  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Right.                                                                                                                      |\n| 15 | MR. HORTON:<br>Ms. Loftus, can you scroll down, please                                                                            |\n| 16 | to the second paragraph on page 121.<br>And, actually, if you                                                                     |\n| 17 | could stop at the bottom of 120.                                                                                                  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>You see the date on the left-hand side October 20, 2021?                                                                    |\n| 19 | A.<br>Yes, I see it.                                                                                                              |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And that's just 12 days before the launch of the Himalaya                                                                   |\n| 21 | Exchange, correct?                                                                                                                |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And that's Mr. Guo in the middle of the screenshot, isn't                                                                   |\n| 24 | it?                                                                                                                               |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n\n#### 5357 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 105 of 500\n\n| 1  | MR. HORTON:<br>Ms. Loftus, if you could scroll down to          |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | the excerpt.<br>It's the second paragraph on this page, and     |\n| 3  | highlight starting at, What is called the next three lines,     |\n| 4  | four lines, please.                                             |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, on October 20, 2021, Mr. Guo said, \"What is      |\n| 6  | called?<br>I am talking about your H Coins.<br>Brother Seven    |\n| 7  | designed it at that time.\"                                      |\n| 8  | Do you agree that Brother Seven is Miles Guo, correct?          |\n| 9  | Yes.<br>A.                                                      |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And so Miles Guo designed H Coin; isn't that right?       |\n| 11 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.<br>Is he asking for his               |\n| 12 | understanding or is he asking what that document states?        |\n| 13 | MR. HORTON:<br>My question, your Honor, to Mr. Dai is --        |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, didn't Miles Guo design H Coin?                  |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.<br>He has no personal knowledge.      |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                   |\n| 17 | A.<br>At this place that says so, but I wasn't sure who was the |\n| 18 | real designer behind it.                                        |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Well, was Miles Guo -- is this statement true what Miles  |\n| 20 | Guo said --                                                     |\n| 21 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                       |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                   |\n| 23 | MS. SHROFF:<br>We discussed this at the sidebar, and he         |\n| 24 | also said he doesn't know.                                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                   |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 106 of<br>5358<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Can you repeat your question because I was interrupted.                                                                     |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Is Miles Guo's statement that H Coin has 20 percent gold                                                                    |\n| 3  | and it is linked to gold, not the others, clear gold directly.                                                                    |\n| 4  | Is that statement true, Mr. Dai?                                                                                                  |\n| 5  | A.<br>This particular sentence he did say that.<br>He did say that                                                                |\n| 6  | sentence, but it's not inconsistent with the white paper from                                                                     |\n| 7  | the Himalaya Exchange.                                                                                                            |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, your testimony is that this statement is not                                                                       |\n| 9  | inconsistent with the white paper?                                                                                                |\n| 10 | That's correct, inconsistent.<br>A.                                                                                               |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Just so I make sure I understand, Mr. Dai, Mr. Guo's                                                                        |\n| 12 | statement on October 20, 2021 that H Coin has 20 percent gold,                                                                    |\n| 13 | your testimony is that that is consistent or inconsistent with                                                                    |\n| 14 | the white paper?                                                                                                                  |\n| 15 | A.<br>Inconsistent.                                                                                                               |\n| 16 | This statement on your screen from Miles Guo is not true,<br>Q.                                                                   |\n| 17 | is it?                                                                                                                            |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                                                                     |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>He didn't answer.<br>You can answer now.                                                                            |\n| 20 | Q.<br>This statement on your screen from Miles Guo, Mr. Dai, is                                                                   |\n| 21 | not true, is it?                                                                                                                  |\n| 22 | A.<br>I believe that's his understanding of H Coin.                                                                               |\n| 23 | Q.<br>It's not true, is it?                                                                                                       |\n| 24 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                                                                     |\n| 25 | MR. HORTON:<br>He did not answer the question.                                                                                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 107 of<br>5359<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>The question was not answered.<br>Sir,                                                                              |\n| 2  | answer the question.                                                                                                              |\n| 3  | Q.<br>This statement, Mr. Dai, from Miles Guo is not true, isn't                                                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 4  | that right?                                                                                                                       |\n| 5  | A.<br>The content was not true, but I don't understand -- do you                                                                  |\n| 6  | mean to say --                                                                                                                    |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>I want you to answer exactly what is being                                                                          |\n| 8  | asked.<br>Is there something that you don't understand about the                                                                  |\n| 9  | question?                                                                                                                         |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:<br>I understood the question.                                                                                        |\n| 11 | A.<br>He did say that.<br>But if you ask me whether he said this                                                                  |\n| 12 | thing, yes, he did say that.                                                                                                      |\n| 13 | MR. HORTON:<br>Your Honor, the government would move to                                                                           |\n| 14 | strike the answer after \"the content is not true.\"                                                                                |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>He answered the government's question.                                                                             |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>What comes after the word \"true\" is                                                                                 |\n| 17 | stricken.                                                                                                                         |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Last week, Mr. Dai, Ms. Shroff ask you some questions.                                                                      |\n| 19 | MR. HORTON:<br>We can take this down please, Ms. Loftus.                                                                          |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Ms. Shroff ask you some questions about -- last week --                                                                     |\n| 21 | whether buying a G/Club membership would get you GTV stock, do                                                                    |\n| 22 | you remember that?                                                                                                                |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes, I remember.                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And your testimony last week was that G/Club and GTV seems                                                                  |\n| 25 | not to be related at all, do you remember testifying to that?                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 108 of<br>5360<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes, I remember.                                                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 2  | MR. HORTON:<br>Ms. Loftus, can we show Mr. Dai what's in                                                                          |\n| 3  | evidence as GX29 at page 113.                                                                                                     |\n| 4  | Q.<br>That's Miles Guo in this screenshot; isn't it, Mr. Dai?                                                                     |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 6  | Q.<br>And it's from July 30, 2021.<br>Do you see the date on the                                                                  |\n| 7  | top left?                                                                                                                         |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes, I see it.                                                                                                              |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And it's recorded on GTV, do you see that in the URL?                                                                       |\n| 10 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                        |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And you watched GTV; isn't that right?                                                                                      |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 13 | MR. HORTON:<br>And, Ms. Loftus, can we scroll down to --                                                                          |\n| 14 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, the government hasn't                                                                                  |\n| 15 | established that the witness has seen this particular video.                                                                      |\n| 16 | MR. HORTON:<br>It's in evidence.                                                                                                  |\n| 17 | MS. SHROFF:<br>That's not the question.                                                                                           |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>So I haven't heard a question so I'd like                                                                           |\n| 19 | to hear the question.                                                                                                             |\n| 20 | MR. HORTON:<br>If I could have, Ms. Loftus, scroll down                                                                           |\n| 21 | to the right part of the document.<br>It's the part that                                                                          |\n| 22 | straddles 114 and 115.                                                                                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I'm just realizing that it's 11:33, so                                                                              |\n| 24 | it's time for the half hour break.<br>Remember you're not                                                                         |\n| 25 | permitted to discuss this case amongst yourselves.<br>Don't                                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 109 of<br>5361<br>500<br>O78BGUO2<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | permit anyone to discuss it in your presence.<br>Don't read,                                                                      |\n| 2  | listen to or watch anything from any source that touches on the                                                                   |\n| 3  | subject matter of this case.                                                                                                      |\n| 4  | THE LAW CLERK:<br>Jury exiting.                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | (Jury not present)                                                                                                                |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Sir, you may step out.<br>Don't discuss your                                                                        |\n| 7  | testimony.                                                                                                                        |\n| 8  | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                          |\n| 9  |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 10 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 11 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 12 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 13 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 14 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 15 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 16 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 17 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 18 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 19 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 20 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n\n#### 5362 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 110 of 500\n\n 1 2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n(Jury not present)\n\nTHE COURT: You may be seated. Is there anything before we reconvene at noon?\n\nMR. HORTON: Very briefly from the government. Just before the break I didn't have a question pending. I don't believe Ms. Shroff made an objection. There was just an interruption and an assertion from Ms. Shroff. Just ask that she not be permitted to do that. She can make objections. She can wait for the Court's rulings and she can follow them.\n\nTHE COURT: So you've been testifying, Ms. Shroff, as opposed to merely making objections. Don't do that.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. I do have a matter to raise though. The government is purposely not asking the witness whether or not the document that is being shown is something that this witness ever saw before or ever looked at before or has even viewed before. It is consistently asked - could you sit down, Mr. Horton, so I may finish? Thank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Whether someone is standing or sitting is up to me, Ms. Shroff. 18 19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n25\n\nMS. SHROFF: I can't see.\n\nTHE COURT: Don't be directing them what to do.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could I ask that the government not stand while I'm speaking cause I can't see. I'm rather short. 22 23 24\n\nTHE COURT: Well, I can see you well. There's a space\n\n#### 5363 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 111 of 500\n\nin between Mr. Horton and Mr. Fergenson, so limit yourself to purely legal issues.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMS. SHROFF: I object to the way the government is asking the witness questions. The government is deliberately skipping the step of asking the witness whether or not the witness is ever seen this particular video before, or whether he's even heard it before. And what they're saying is, this is a document in evidence, and now read from it. Now tell me if what you're reading is true. That is what the government is doing, and that is why I have a continuing objection to the manner in which they're asking that question. Thank you, your Honor.\n\nMR. HORTON: Your Honor, that's what redirect is for. There's no rule that says if a document is in evidence I need to establish some personal relationship from the witness to the document. The witness has also testified that he watched five hours of GTV a day.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, that is exactly what Mr. Schirick did and what -- 18 19\n\nTHE COURT: Ms. Shroff, don't speak over me. Mr. Horton has stated the law correctly. If you want to ask him on redirect whether he's looked at a document or video, you can do that. We'll return at noon.\n\n(Recess)\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 112 of<br>5365<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A F T E R N O O N<br>S E S S I O N                                                                                                |\n| 2  | 12:05 P.M.                                                                                                                        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Please have the jurors brought in.                                                                                  |\n| 4  | (Jury present)                                                                                                                    |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.                                                                                                   |\n| 6  | And please continue with your inquiry.                                                                                            |\n| 7  | MR. HORTON:<br>We're just awaiting the witness, your                                                                              |\n| 8  | Honor.                                                                                                                            |\n| 9  | (Witness present)                                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Sir, remember that you're still under                                                                               |\n| 11 | oath.                                                                                                                             |\n| 12 | MR. HORTON:<br>May I inquire?                                                                                                     |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                                                                                       |\n| 14 | BY MR. HORTON:                                                                                                                    |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, can you hear me okay?                                                                                              |\n| 16 | Yes, I can hear you.<br>A.                                                                                                        |\n| 17 | Q.<br>Before the break, I asked you whether you remembered                                                                        |\n| 18 | testifying last week that G CLUB and GTV seems not to be                                                                          |\n| 19 | related at all.<br>Do you remember that?                                                                                          |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And if someone were to say that G CLUB and GTV were                                                                         |\n| 22 | related, that would not be true, right?                                                                                           |\n| 23 | A.<br>But for my testimony, I was only talking about my fellow                                                                    |\n| 24 | fighters, and I didn't know what else you were talking about,                                                                     |\n| 25 | no.                                                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 113 of<br>5366<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HORTON:<br>Ms. Loftus, if we could please put up                                                                              |\n| 2  | what's in evidence as GX-9 at page 113.                                                                                           |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Do you see, Mr. Guo?                                                                                                        |\n| 4  | A.<br>I was talking about a private -- sorry.                                                                                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>So we don't have any question.<br>So just                                                                           |\n| 6  | wait for the question.                                                                                                            |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Do you see Mr. Guo in the screenshot here, Mr. Dai?                                                                         |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And do you see this is from GTV?<br>Do you see the URL on the                                                               |\n| 10 | left?                                                                                                                             |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes, I can see.                                                                                                             |\n| 12 | MR. HORTON:<br>Ms. Loftus, can you go down to the bottom                                                                          |\n| 13 | of 114 and the top of 115, please.<br>You can scroll down just a                                                                  |\n| 14 | few more lines, please.<br>Oh, can we publish it to the jury,                                                                     |\n| 15 | please.                                                                                                                           |\n| 16 | Can the jury see the screen?                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | Q.<br>This is a statement of Miles Guo on July 30th, 2021.<br>Do                                                                  |\n| 18 | you see that, Mr. Dai?<br>Can you see the statement on the                                                                        |\n| 19 | screen?                                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes, I can see.                                                                                                             |\n| 21 | Q.<br>There are still many people asking questions, Miles Guo                                                                     |\n| 22 | said, including Brother Long Island.                                                                                              |\n| 23 | And you know who Brother Long Island is, Mr. Dai?                                                                                 |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes, I know who Long Island Brother is.                                                                                     |\n| 25 | Q.<br>He was the leader of the Himalaya Farm Alliance, right?                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 114 of<br>5367<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 2  | In your answer to my question a moment ago, you referred to<br>Q.                                                                 |\n| 3  | fellow fighters, isn't that right?                                                                                                |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Miles Guo says here in July 2021:<br>There's still many                                                                     |\n| 6  | people asking questions, including Brother Long Island.<br>And                                                                    |\n| 7  | Kai told me that some of the fellow fighters asked, Will I                                                                        |\n| 8  | still get a stock offer when I buy a G CLUB membership.<br>And                                                                    |\n| 9  | Miles Guo says 100 percent.<br>Because I said that I have to                                                                      |\n| 10 | promise that anyone who buys G CLUB membership before                                                                             |\n| 11 | September 17th must be allotted shares, which is exactly the                                                                      |\n| 12 | same.<br>Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use                                                                    |\n| 13 | your money to buy G CLUB before September 17, G CLUB and the                                                                      |\n| 14 | stock shares.<br>You'll get both.                                                                                                 |\n| 15 | Do you see that, Mr. Dai?                                                                                                         |\n| 16 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And you believe that Miles Guo tells the truth, don't you?                                                                  |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                         |\n| 19 | Asked and answered several times.                                                                                                 |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>I believe so.<br>Sustained.                                                                                         |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Last week, Mr. Dai, you were shown some screenshots and                                                                     |\n| 22 | videos that you recorded before you testified.<br>Do you remember                                                                 |\n| 23 | that?                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                                                                                  |\n| 25 | Q.<br>And Mr. Guo's lawyers asked you to make those recordings,                                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 115 of<br>5368<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | didn't they?                                                                                                                      |\n| 2  | A.<br>I recorded.                                                                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n| 3  | Q.<br>And you recorded videos for Mr. Guo's lawyers of your H Pay                                                                 |\n| 4  | and Himalaya Exchange accounts, isn't that right?                                                                                 |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 6  | Q.<br>And earlier today, Ms. Shroff asked if all the features on                                                                  |\n| 7  | your account were the same last week as they were in 2022, do                                                                     |\n| 8  | you remember that?                                                                                                                |\n| 9  | A.<br>I remember.                                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | And you said under oath that two features were different,<br>Q.                                                                   |\n| 11 | they were restricted.<br>Do you remember that?                                                                                    |\n| 12 | A.<br>I remember.                                                                                                                 |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And one of those restricted features was redemptions,                                                                       |\n| 14 | wasn't it?                                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | A.<br>What do you mean by \"redemption\"?                                                                                           |\n| 16 | You said that two features were not accessible to you in<br>Q.                                                                    |\n| 17 | 2022, one of those features --                                                                                                    |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.<br>That is not what he                                                                                  |\n| 19 | testified.                                                                                                                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.                                                                                                          |\n| 21 | Q.<br>One of those restricted features was redemptions, isn't                                                                     |\n| 22 | that true?                                                                                                                        |\n| 23 | A.<br>When you say \"redemption,\" do you mean transfer HDO into                                                                    |\n| 24 | U.S. dollar to bank account?                                                                                                      |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Exactly right.<br>That was one of the restricted features for                                                               |\n\n5369 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross some time, wasn't it? MS. SHROFF: Objection to \"some time.\" THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, the redemption amount went down. Q. Mr. Dai, you have a Twitter account, don't you? MR. HORTON: I'm sorry, if the interpreter could read the answer please. THE COURT: I'm waiting. THE INTERPRETER: Do you want the interpreter reading -- MR. HORTON: Mr. Dai answered it. A. Yes, I do. Q. And you follow some cryptocurrency-related accounts, don't you? A. Yes. Q. And you know that the Himalaya Exchange has a Twitter account, isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Do you know that while you were testifying last Wednesday, the Himalaya Exchange tweeted that its site was down for maintenance? MS. SHROFF: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. A. This maintenance is to accurate and it will end shortly and goes back to normal. It happen a few times before previously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 116 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 117 of<br>5370<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | It does not affect usage.                                                                                                         |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, do you know that the Himalaya Exchange deleted                                                                     |\n| 3  | that July 3rd tweet?                                                                                                              |\n| 4  | A.<br>I don't know.                                                                                                               |\n| 5  | Q.<br>In between your testimony last week and your testimony                                                                      |\n| 6  | today, there was a break in these proceedings.<br>Do you remember                                                                 |\n| 7  | that?                                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Interpreter repeat.                                                                                           |\n| 9  | A.<br>Did I rest?<br>I rest.                                                                                                      |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And between your testimony last week and your testimony                                                                     |\n| 11 | today, you met again with Miles Guo's lawyers, isn't that                                                                         |\n| 12 | right?                                                                                                                            |\n| 13 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                        |\n| 14 | Q.<br>You met with Ms. Shroff?                                                                                                    |\n| 15 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 16 | Q.<br>You met with Mr. Schirick over there?                                                                                       |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 18 | Q.<br>You met with Mr. Barkan, who's not in the room, isn't that                                                                  |\n| 19 | right?                                                                                                                            |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | Q.<br>There are other lawyers for Miles Guo in those meetings,                                                                    |\n| 22 | right?                                                                                                                            |\n| 23 | A.<br>I have.                                                                                                                     |\n| 24 | Q.<br>This was after you started testifying last week, isn't that                                                                 |\n| 25 | right?                                                                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 118 of<br>5371<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Cross |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                             |\n| 2  | Q.            | And Miles Guo's lawyers gave you advice on how to finish                                                         |\n| 3  |               | your testimony, isn't that right?                                                                                |\n| 4  | A.            | No, they did not give me advice.                                                                                 |\n| 5  | Q.            | Well, they talked to you about your testimony, didn't they?                                                      |\n| 6  | A.            | Testimony.<br>They ask me questions; I answered.                                                                 |\n| 7  | Q.            | They gave you feedback on your answers, didn't they?                                                             |\n| 8  | A.            | No, they mention that my voice was low last time.                                                                |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                  |\n| 9  | Q.            | Are you aware that today is July 8th, Mr. Dai?                                                                   |\n| 10 | A.            | I know.                                                                                                          |\n| 11 | Q.            | You know that last night the Himalaya Exchange once again                                                        |\n| 12 |               | shut down for maintenance?                                                                                       |\n| 13 | A.            | Yes, I know.                                                                                                     |\n| 14 | Q.            | You want to help Miles Guo if you can, isn't that right,                                                         |\n| 15 |               | Mr. Dai?                                                                                                         |\n| 16 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                             |\n| 17 | Q.            | And you flew here from your home in Germany back on                                                              |\n| 18 |               | June 28th to try to help Mr. Guo, isn't that true?                                                               |\n| 19 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                             |\n| 20 | Q.            | You've been here for almost two weeks now to try to help                                                         |\n| 21 |               | Mr. Guo, isn't that right?                                                                                       |\n| 22 | A.            | Yes, ten days.                                                                                                   |\n| 23 | Q.            | And this morning, before you resumed your testimony, while                                                       |\n| 24 |               | you were sitting in that chair, Mr. Dai, and Miles Guo was                                                       |\n| 25 |               | sitting in the seat where he is in right now, Miles Guo looked                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 119 of<br>5372<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | at you and went like this, and nodded and smiled; isn't that                                                                         |\n| 2  | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 3  | A.<br>I did not see.                                                                                                                 |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Your testimony under oath, Mr. Dai, is that earlier this                                                                       |\n| 5  | morning, before you resumed your testimony, Miles Guo didn't                                                                         |\n| 6  | look over to you, standing where he's now sitting, while you                                                                         |\n| 7  | sat in that chair, and Miles Guo did not look at you and go                                                                          |\n| 8  | like this?                                                                                                                           |\n| 9  | A.<br>I saw he smiled at me, but I did not see the hand gesture.                                                                     |\n| 10 | You still believe in Miles Guo, don't you, sir?<br>Q.                                                                                |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes, I believe him.                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | MR. HORTON:<br>Your Honor, if I could just have one                                                                                  |\n| 13 | moment, please.                                                                                                                      |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                  |\n| 15 | (Counsel conferred)                                                                                                                  |\n| 16 | MR. HORTON:<br>Thank you.<br>We have no further questions.                                                                           |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Redirect.                                                                                                              |\n| 18 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION                                                                                                                 |\n| 19 | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                       |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, let me show you G-9 that was -- I'm sorry,                                                                            |\n| 21 | apparently it's GX CC-9 or Z-9.                                                                                                      |\n| 22 | MS. SHROFF:<br>May I have the first part made bigger for                                                                             |\n| 23 | him.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, you were asked questions about what the \"G\" stands                                                                    |\n| 25 | for in G News; correct?<br>By Mr.<br>-- by the government lawyer                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 120 of<br>5373<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | here?                                                                                                                                |\n| 2  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 3  | Q.<br>And your answer was interrupted; correct?                                                                                      |\n| 4  | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You can answer.                                                                                          |\n| 6  | A.<br>\"G\" stands for global.                                                                                                         |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Okay.<br>Could I just point out your answer was interrupted                                                                    |\n| 8  | and you said it is obvious why the \"G\" is global.<br>Do you                                                                          |\n| 9  | remember saying that?                                                                                                                |\n| 10 | MR. HORTON:<br>Your Honor, objection.<br>First part of the                                                                           |\n| 11 | question was Ms. Shroff's testimony.                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Don't testify.                                                                                                         |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Do you remember saying that it's obvious?                                                                                      |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And could you tell the jury why it is obvious to you that G                                                                    |\n| 16 | News stands for Global News?                                                                                                         |\n| 17 | A.<br>It was obviously from the design of the logo, this was the                                                                     |\n| 18 | globe, it was a circle and its symbolic design.                                                                                      |\n| 19 | MS. SHROFF:<br>All right.<br>So could we just --                                                                                     |\n| 20 | A.<br>Obviously represent global.                                                                                                    |\n| 21 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Could I have that blown up, please.                                                                                   |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Do you see Miles Guo's face in the middle of the G?                                                                            |\n| 23 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Thank you, Jorge.                                                                                                     |\n| 25 | You may take that down.                                                                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 121 of<br>5374<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, when did you first hear about GTV?                                                                                    |\n| 2  | A.<br>Are you referring to the GTV Media platform or the GTV                                                                         |\n| 3  | private placement?                                                                                                                   |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Let's start with the platform.<br>When did you first learn                                                                     |\n| 5  | about the platform?                                                                                                                  |\n| 6  | A.<br>April 2020.                                                                                                                    |\n| 7  | Q.<br>And how about the private placement?                                                                                           |\n| 8  | A.<br>Whenever private placement information, that was May 2020.                                                                     |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And you remember being asked questions by the government                                                                       |\n| 10 | lawyer about you listening to Miles Guo's videos about GTV?                                                                          |\n| 11 | A.<br>I do.                                                                                                                          |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Do you remember watching each and every one of Miles Guo's                                                                     |\n| 13 | videos that mentions the words \"GTV\"?                                                                                                |\n| 14 | A.<br>Could you repeat the question?                                                                                                 |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Interpreter can repeat.                                                                                          |\n| 16 | I cannot be certain if I remember all of them.<br>A.<br>But if I --                                                                  |\n| 17 | Q.<br>Are you finished, Mr. Dai, or are you still speaking?                                                                          |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Could you repeat your response one                                                                               |\n| 19 | more time.                                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I'll rephrase the question.                                                                                           |\n| 21 | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                       |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, did you watch each and every video that Miles Guo                                                                     |\n| 23 | ever made?                                                                                                                           |\n| 24 | A.<br>I cannot be certain, but I believe I saw most of it.                                                                           |\n| 25 | Q.<br>And before you invested through the private placement, had                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 122 of<br>5375<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  |               | you seen each one of his GTV discussions on live broadcasts?                                                        |\n| 2  | A.            | Before I finish the private placement, I did not saw                                                                |\n| 3  |               | Mr. Guo did the private placement livestream investment.                                                            |\n| 4  | Q.            | Did you read the private placement, all the accompanying                                                            |\n| 5  |               | documents, in English and in Mandarin?                                                                              |\n| 6  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 7  | Q.            | Mr. Dai, you were asked questions about the phrase \"G                                                               |\n| 8  |               | Series,\" you recall that?                                                                                           |\n| 9  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 10 | Q.            | Before today in court when the government lawyer used the                                                           |\n| 11 |               | phrase \"G Series,\" had you ever used that phrase yourself?                                                          |\n| 12 | A.            | I don't remember if I used this phrase.                                                                             |\n| 13 | Q.            | Do you know what he meant when he asked you the question, G                                                         |\n| 14 |               | Series?                                                                                                             |\n| 15 | A.            | I know what it meant.                                                                                               |\n| 16 | Q.            | You were asked questions about Guo Media, do you remember                                                           |\n| 17 | that?         |                                                                                                                     |\n| 18 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 19 | Q.            | Did you invest in Guo Media?                                                                                        |\n| 20 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 21 | Q.            | Did you research Guo Media?                                                                                         |\n| 22 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 23 | Q.            | You were asked questions of the Himalaya Exchange, H Pay, H                                                         |\n| 24 |               | Coin and H Dollar; correct?                                                                                         |\n| 25 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 123 of<br>5376<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.            | And then you were asked questions about what happened to                                                            |\n| 2  |               | the exchange while you were actually testifying in court last                                                       |\n| 3  |               | week; correct?                                                                                                      |\n| 4  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 5  | Q.            | Do they allow you to bring your cell phone into this                                                                |\n| 6  |               | building?                                                                                                           |\n| 7  | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 8  | Q.            | Do they allow you to bring a computer into this building?                                                           |\n| 9  | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | Q.            | Is there any other way for you to check what is going on on                                                         |\n| 11 |               | the Himalaya Exchange other than through the internet?                                                              |\n| 12 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 13 | Q.            | When you invested in H Pay, H Coin, H Dollar, and the                                                               |\n| 14 |               | Himalaya Exchange, did you read the white paper?                                                                    |\n| 15 | A.            | Yes, I did.                                                                                                         |\n| 16 | Q.            | Have you ever reviewed that white paper with me?                                                                    |\n| 17 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 18 | Q.            | Have you reviewed that white paper with any lawyer from                                                             |\n| 19 |               | Mr. Guo's legal team?                                                                                               |\n| 20 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 21 | Q.            | Between July 3rd or whenever it was that you last                                                                   |\n| 22 |               | testified, and here today, did anyone on the Guo team show you                                                      |\n| 23 |               | a single piece of paper?                                                                                            |\n| 24 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 25 | Q.            | On July 4th, did we tell you to go watch the fireworks and                                                          |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 124 of<br>5377<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | celebrate Independence Day?                                                                                                          |\n| 2  | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes, they told me that there were fireworks.<br>And I went to                                                                  |\n| 5  | the Brooklyn Bridge Park to saw the fireworks.                                                                                       |\n| 6  | Q.<br>You were asked questions about Mr. Guo designing H Coin;                                                                       |\n| 7  | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And you said you did not believe that he designed it                                                                           |\n| 10 | himself; correct?                                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | A.<br>I said I am not certain if he designed it.                                                                                     |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And do you recall, sitting here today, if Mr. Guo talked                                                                       |\n| 13 | about how he had consulted with professionals before the coin                                                                        |\n| 14 | was designed?                                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.<br>Issue raised at sidebar.                                                                                |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                             |\n| 17 | Q.<br>You were asked questions about having a Twitter account;                                                                       |\n| 18 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 19 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And on your Twitter account you follow Himalaya Exchange;                                                                      |\n| 21 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes, I follow.                                                                                                                 |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And do you think that Elon Musk's upgrading of Twitter is                                                                      |\n| 24 | any less or more frequent than the ones being done on Himalaya                                                                       |\n| 25 | Exchange?                                                                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 125 of<br>5378<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                             |\n| 3  | Q.<br>You were asked questions about the two restrictions, do you                                                                    |\n| 4  | remember that?                                                                                                                       |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 6  | Q.<br>What are these two restrictions that you were talking                                                                          |\n| 7  | about?                                                                                                                               |\n| 8  | A.<br>Redeem and top out cannot transfer -- cannot transfer U.S.                                                                     |\n| 9  | dollar into Himalaya Exchange to purchase.<br>And you want to --                                                                     |\n| 10 | you want to convert the HDO into U.S. dollar, the amount limit                                                                       |\n| 11 | went down.                                                                                                                           |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And when did the amount limit go down, what year?                                                                              |\n| 13 | A.<br>Sometime -- I believe sometime in 2023.                                                                                        |\n| 14 | Q.<br>So it was better in 2022; correct?                                                                                             |\n| 15 | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection, your Honor.                                                                                                |\n| 16 | The redemption amount was higher --<br>Q.                                                                                            |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                             |\n| 18 | Q.<br>The restriction was not in place in 2022; correct?                                                                             |\n| 19 | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 20 | Mischaracterizes the testimony.                                                                                                      |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                             |\n| 22 | Q.<br>In 2022, could you redeem more or less than in 2023?                                                                           |\n| 23 | A.<br>More.<br>At that time -- at the time it was \\$100,000 limit                                                                    |\n| 24 | redemption.                                                                                                                          |\n| 25 | Q.<br>And what is it in 2023?                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 126 of<br>5379<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>5,000.                                                                                                                         |\n| 2  | And you were asked questions, were you not, about<br>Q.                                                                              |\n| 3  | statements made by Mr. Guo regarding the gold; correct?<br>The                                                                       |\n| 4  | gold package; correct?                                                                                                               |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Did you take those statements into account while                                                                               |\n| 7  | considering your decision in whether or not to purchase H Coin                                                                       |\n| 8  | or H Dollar?                                                                                                                         |\n| 9  | A.<br>Those statement, that's not, in fact, my investment into                                                                       |\n| 10 | Himalaya Exchange.                                                                                                                   |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Why not?                                                                                                                       |\n| 12 | A.<br>Because I saw one versus one ratio with a U.S. dollar                                                                          |\n| 13 | bonding.<br>This ratio was good enough for me.                                                                                       |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, you were asked questions about you having flown                                                                       |\n| 15 | all the way from Germany to come here to help Mr. Guo; correct?                                                                      |\n| 16 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 17 | Q.<br>The testimony that you've given here last week and today,                                                                      |\n| 18 | has it been truthful?                                                                                                                |\n| 19 | A.<br>Truthful.                                                                                                                      |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Has it been complete?                                                                                                          |\n| 21 | A.<br>Complete.<br>You mean did I tell everything?                                                                                   |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 23 | Yes, all that I know, I disclose.<br>A.                                                                                              |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And did any one of us tell you how to answer these                                                                             |\n| 25 | questions?                                                                                                                           |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 127 of<br>5380<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Dai - Redirect |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And other than me telling you to keep your voice up and                                                                        |\n| 3  | annunciate, did I give you any other advice?                                                                                         |\n| 4  | A.<br>And as a matter of fact, I complained to Ms. Shroff about                                                                      |\n| 5  | the headphone device.<br>And she tried to help me resolve this                                                                       |\n| 6  | issue.<br>And she wanted me to listen to the question clearly and                                                                    |\n| 7  | tell the truth and speak up.                                                                                                         |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Mr. Dai, would you lie for Mr. Guo here today?                                                                                 |\n| 9  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 10 | Do you have a full-time job today?<br>Q.                                                                                             |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Do you have a wife and children?                                                                                               |\n| 13 | MR. HORTON:<br>Objection.<br>Relevance.<br>Scope.                                                                                    |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                             |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I have nothing further.                                                                                               |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Recross.                                                                                                               |\n| 17 | MR. HORTON:<br>We have nothing further, your Honor.                                                                                  |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you, sir.<br>You may step out of the                                                                             |\n| 19 | courtroom.                                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | (Witness excused)                                                                                                                    |\n| 21 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                             |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                      |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 128 of<br>5381<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>And the defense may call its next witness.                                                                              |\n| 2  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>The defense calls Thomas Bishop, your                                                                                |\n| 3  | Honor.                                                                                                                                |\n| 4  | THOMAS BISHOP,                                                                                                                        |\n| 5  | called as a witness by the Defendant,                                                                                                 |\n| 6  | having been duly sworn, testified as follows:                                                                                         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>You may inquire.                                                                                                        |\n| 8  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                               |\n| 9  | DIRECT EXAMINATION                                                                                                                    |\n| 10 | BY MR. KAMARAJU:                                                                                                                      |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Afternoon, Mr. Bishop.                                                                                                          |\n| 12 | A.<br>Afternoon.                                                                                                                      |\n| 13 | Sir, where did you go to school?<br>Q.                                                                                                |\n| 14 | A.<br>I graduated from Penn State University with a bachelor's                                                                        |\n| 15 | degree in accounting.                                                                                                                 |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And after your time at Penn State, did you work?                                                                                |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes.<br>I was hired by the Internal Revenue Service, criminal                                                                   |\n| 18 | investigation division.                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | What is the criminal investigations division of the IRS?<br>Q.                                                                        |\n| 20 | A.<br>The IRS criminal investigation division is the criminal                                                                         |\n| 21 | enforcement arm of the Internal Revenue Service.                                                                                      |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And what kind of investigations, generally speaking, did                                                                        |\n| 23 | you work on?                                                                                                                          |\n| 24 | A.<br>Income tax, money laundering, and currency crimes under the                                                                     |\n| 25 | Bank Secrecy Act.                                                                                                                     |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 129 of<br>5382<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | Q.<br>In your time at the IRS, did you hold any supervisory                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | positions?                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes, I held four.                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Let's just start with the first one.<br>What was the first                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | one?                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | A.<br>The first one was a supervisory special agent.                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>And could you just tell the jury what your general                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | responsibilities were in that role?                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A.<br>I supervised the operational day-to-day activities of a                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | group of 10 to 12 special agents or criminal investigators in                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | their investigations.                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And approximately how long were you in that role?                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A.<br>Approximately six years in that role.                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>And after that role came to an end, where did you go next?                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>I was promoted to a policy position in IRS headquarters                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | dealing with offshore banking issues and ensuring consistency                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | among that program in the IRS.                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And can you just tell us generally what your                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | responsibilities were in that role.                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | In that role, it was to ensure consistency and uniformity<br>A.                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | in the investigation of foreign offshore bank account-type                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | cases.                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And about how long were you in that role?                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A.<br>About 16 months.                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | Q.<br>What did you do next?                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 130 of<br>5383<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | A.<br>I came back to New York, the New York field office, as an                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | assistant special agent in charge.                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Q.<br>And could you just describe generally what your                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | responsibilities were there.                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | A.<br>Sure.<br>It's an operational role.<br>And you oversee the                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | investigative program of four groups -- four to five groups of                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | special agents.                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And how long were you in that role for?                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A.<br>About four years.                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | What did you work on after that?<br>Q.                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A.<br>I went to headquarters, Washington, D.C., and I was the                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | director of international field operations.                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And just give us a general sense of your responsibilities                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | there.                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>In that role, I supervised our foreign posted employees —                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | the IRS has special agents posted across the world — along with                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | supervising global investigations.                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Can you give the jury an example of a global investigation                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | you supervised?                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A.<br>The last one that I did before I retired was the Panama                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Papers.                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Was that a money laundering investigation?                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A.<br>There were components of it, yes.                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Now, how much time did you spend at the IRS in total?                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | A.<br>A little bit more than 25 years.                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 131 of<br>5384<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Did you work anywhere else after that?                                                                                          |\n| 2  | A.<br>I did.                                                                                                                          |\n| 3  | Q.<br>What did you do after?                                                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>I went to work in the forensics practice of Baker Tilly                                                                         |\n| 5  | U.S., which is a top ten accounting firm.                                                                                             |\n| 6  | Q.<br>And what were your responsibilities in that practice?                                                                           |\n| 7  | A.<br>In that practice we provided forensic accounting,                                                                               |\n| 8  | investigative and litigation support, legal and regulatory                                                                            |\n| 9  | compliance services to our clients.                                                                                                   |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And about how long were you at Baker Tilly?                                                                                     |\n| 11 | A.<br>Four years, a little bit more.                                                                                                  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And did you work any more after that?                                                                                           |\n| 13 | A.<br>I did.<br>I went to BDO.                                                                                                        |\n| 14 | Q.<br>What's BDO?                                                                                                                     |\n| 15 | A.<br>BDO is another large accounting firm, a little bit bigger                                                                       |\n| 16 | than Baker Tilly.<br>I worked in that forensic practice as well.                                                                      |\n| 17 | Q.<br>Were your responsibilities at BDO similar to Baker Tilly?                                                                       |\n| 18 | A.<br>They were virtually identical.                                                                                                  |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Sir, where do you work now?                                                                                                     |\n| 20 | A.<br>About 18 months ago I started my own firm.                                                                                      |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And what kind of work generally does your firm do?                                                                              |\n| 22 | A.<br>The same type of work I just described.                                                                                         |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And as a general matter, are there kinds of matters that                                                                        |\n| 24 | you consult on?                                                                                                                       |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes.<br>I consult predominantly on white-collar litigation                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | O78VGUO3 | Doc 3602              | Filed 10/01/24<br>500                                    | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Bishop - Direct | Page 132 of | 5385 |\n|----|---------------|----------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------|------|\n| 1  |               |          |                       | matters, tax controversy and advocacy-type engagements.  |                                              |             |      |\n| 2  | Q.            |          |                       | Have you ever testified at a trial before?               |                                              |             |      |\n| 3  | A.            |          | Yes, I have.          |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 4  | Q.            |          |                       | Have you testified previously as an expert witness?      |                                              |             |      |\n| 5  | A.            | I have.  |                       |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 6  | Q.            |          |                       | And how about as a summary witness?                      |                                              |             |      |\n| 7  | A.            |          | Yes, I have.          |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 8  | Q.            |          |                       | And have you testified before on behalf of the United    |                                              |             |      |\n| 9  |               |          | States government?    |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 10 | A.            | I have.  |                       |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 11 | Q.            |          |                       | And how about on behalf of criminal defendants?          |                                              |             |      |\n| 12 | A.            |          | Yes, I have.          |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 13 | Q.            |          |                       | I'd like to talk about this case.                        |                                              |             |      |\n| 14 |               |          |                       | Now, were you retained in this case?                     |                                              |             |      |\n| 15 | A.            |          | I was retained.       |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 16 | Q.            |          | Who retained you?     |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 17 | A.            |          | Mr. Guo's counsel.    |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 18 | Q.            |          |                       | And are you compensated for your work?                   |                                              |             |      |\n| 19 | A.            | I am.    |                       |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 20 | Q.            |          |                       | How are you compensated?                                 |                                              |             |      |\n| 21 | A.            |          | I'm paid by the hour. |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 22 | Q.            |          |                       | What is your hourly rate?                                |                                              |             |      |\n| 23 | A.            |          | 425, \\$425 per hour.  |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n| 24 | Q.            |          |                       | Now, sir, just generally speaking, can you tell the jury |                                              |             |      |\n| 25 |               |          |                       | what you were retained to do?                            |                                              |             |      |\n|    |               |          |                       |                                                          |                                              |             |      |\n\n|    |       | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 133 of<br>5386<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.    | In general, I was retained to review bank records and data.                                                                           |\n| 2  | Q.    | Now, were those bank records provided to you by Mr. Guo's                                                                             |\n| 3  |       | lawyers?                                                                                                                              |\n| 4  | A.    | Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 5  | Q.    | And did Mr. Guo's lawyers direct you as to which accounts                                                                             |\n| 6  |       | to look at?                                                                                                                           |\n| 7  | A.    | They did.                                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | Q.    | And did Mr. Guo's lawyers provide feedback on your work?                                                                              |\n| 9  | A.    | Yes, they did.                                                                                                                        |\n| 10 |       | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>I'd like to pull up what's already in                                                                                |\n| 11 |       | evidence, DX 11598, please.                                                                                                           |\n| 12 | Q.    | Sir, do you recognize this type of record?                                                                                            |\n| 13 | A.    | Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 14 | Q.    | Generally speaking, how would you describe it?                                                                                        |\n| 15 | A.    | It is an Excel spreadsheet containing transactional bank                                                                              |\n| 16 | data. |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 17 | Q.    | Do you know which bank it's a record for?                                                                                             |\n| 18 | A.    | I believe it's FV Bank.                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | Q.    | All right.<br>And so let's just go through as an example some                                                                         |\n| 20 |       | of these columns.                                                                                                                     |\n| 21 |       | So what's the date column there?                                                                                                      |\n| 22 | A.    | Column A is the date.                                                                                                                 |\n| 23 | Q.    | What's that intended to reflect?                                                                                                      |\n| 24 | A.    | The date of the transaction.                                                                                                          |\n| 25 | Q.    | All right.                                                                                                                            |\n|    |       |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 134 of<br>5387<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  |               | If we go over to column C, what's that intended to                                                                   |\n| 2  |               | reflect?                                                                                                             |\n| 3  | A.            | That is the originating transactor.                                                                                  |\n| 4  |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>All right.<br>We could scroll over a                                                                |\n| 5  |               | little bit.<br>There's a lot of columns.<br>Let's go over to column                                                  |\n| 6  |               | I real quick.                                                                                                        |\n| 7  | Q.            | What's column I reflect?                                                                                             |\n| 8  | A.            | Column I reflects the amount of the transaction.                                                                     |\n| 9  | Q.            | Okay.<br>So if we can go back over, do you see column G,                                                             |\n| 10 |               | where it says \"payment type\"?                                                                                        |\n| 11 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | Q.            | What's that reflect?                                                                                                 |\n| 13 | A.            | That reflects the type of transaction.                                                                               |\n| 14 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>We could scroll over to column T,                                                                   |\n| 15 |               | please.                                                                                                              |\n| 16 | Q.            | What's that reflect?                                                                                                 |\n| 17 | A.            | Column T is the beneficiary company name.                                                                            |\n| 18 | Q.            | What's the beneficiary company?                                                                                      |\n| 19 | A.            | That's the recipient entity account name.                                                                            |\n| 20 | Q.            | And do you see what's listed in row 2 there?                                                                         |\n| 21 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                 |\n| 22 | Q.            | Do you know what that is?                                                                                            |\n| 23 | A.            | Row 2, Sharps Pixley, is a gold dealer in London.                                                                    |\n| 24 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>We could take that down.                                                                            |\n| 25 |               | Can we pull up what's already in evidence as GX AS-18,                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 135 of<br>5388<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |  |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1  | please.<br>And we can publish that.<br>Could we go to page 10,                                                                        |  |  |\n| 2  | please.<br>All right.<br>And if we could blow up the paragraph that                                                                   |  |  |\n| 3  | says \"Additionally.\"                                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Do you see that, sir?                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 5  | A.<br>I do.                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Okay.<br>Would you mind reading that to the jury, please.                                                                       |  |  |\n| 7  | A.<br>Sure.                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 8  | \"Additionally, a member may make a request to the                                                                                     |  |  |\n| 9  | Himalaya Exchange to accept a transfer of Himalaya dollar                                                                             |  |  |\n| 10 | credits in exchange for an equivalent payment in U.S. dollars                                                                         |  |  |\n| 11 | to be paid to the bank account of the member.<br>However, such                                                                        |  |  |\n| 12 | exchanges are at the discretion of the Himalaya Exchange and                                                                          |  |  |\n| 13 | the Himalaya Coin.<br>A new coin issued by Himalaya International                                                                     |  |  |\n| 14 | Financial Group, 'HCN,' or Himalaya Coin, HDO, or any other                                                                           |  |  |\n| 15 | type of asset on account at the Himalaya Exchange or through                                                                          |  |  |\n| 16 | the Himalaya Pay app are references to credits corresponding to                                                                       |  |  |\n| 17 | that asset.\"                                                                                                                          |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Thank you, sir.                                                                                                                 |  |  |\n| 19 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Could we go to page 12, please.                                                                                      |  |  |\n| 20 | Q.<br>All right.<br>Do you see the blown-up language here that                                                                        |  |  |\n| 21 | starts with \"The issuer\"?                                                                                                             |  |  |\n| 22 | A.<br>I do.                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Would you mind reading that, please.                                                                                            |  |  |\n| 24 | A.<br>\"The issuer is not obliged to provide liquidity support and                                                                     |  |  |\n| 25 | the Himalaya Exchange is not obliged to agree to any request                                                                          |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 136 of<br>5389<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | from a member to exchange HDO credits for U.S. dollars.<br>And                                                                        |\n| 2  | such actions are at the sole discretion of the issuer and the                                                                         |\n| 3  | Himalaya Exchange respectively.<br>Members do not have any direct                                                                     |\n| 4  | or indirect claim on the issuer or the reserve.\"                                                                                      |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Thank you.                                                                                                                      |\n| 6  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Could we take that down and please go                                                                                |\n| 7  | to DX 11431, which is in evidence.                                                                                                    |\n| 8  | (Counsel conferred)                                                                                                                   |\n| 9  | Q.<br>Now, sir, I'd like you to take a look at this record.<br>Have                                                                   |\n| 10 | you seen it before?                                                                                                                   |\n| 11 | A.<br>I have.                                                                                                                         |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And is it a summary of bank data?                                                                                               |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes, it is.                                                                                                                     |\n| 14 | Q.<br>And do you see the date column at the left there?                                                                               |\n| 15 | A.<br>Yes, column A.                                                                                                                  |\n| 16 | What's the first date there?<br>Q.                                                                                                    |\n| 17 | A.<br>January 12, 2022.                                                                                                               |\n| 18 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>All right.<br>Can we go down to the last                                                                             |\n| 19 | row, please.<br>Sorry, the last row down.                                                                                             |\n| 20 | Q.<br>All right.<br>And do you see the date listed -- it's actually                                                                   |\n| 21 | the third row up, but 62951?                                                                                                          |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                            |\n| 23 | Q.<br>All right.<br>What's the date listed there?                                                                                     |\n| 24 | A.<br>June 21, 2022.                                                                                                                  |\n| 25 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>If we could scroll back up to the top,                                                                               |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 137 of<br>5390<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |  |\n| 1  | please.                                                                                                                               |  |\n| 2  | Q.<br>All right.<br>Now, do you know who the account holder is for                                                                    |  |\n| 3  | this account, sir?                                                                                                                    |  |\n| 4  | A.<br>This is a Himalaya bank account.<br>I just don't think the                                                                      |  |\n| 5  | screen is scrolled up enough.                                                                                                         |  |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Thank you.                                                                                                                      |  |\n| 7  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Why don't we take a look at a couple of                                                                              |  |\n| 8  | specific rows.<br>We look at row 62187, please.                                                                                       |  |\n| 9  | Q.<br>All right.<br>Do you see the date of that?                                                                                      |  |\n| 10 | Yes, it's November 22, 2021.<br>A.                                                                                                    |  |\n| 11 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Could we scroll over to column H,                                                                                    |  |\n| 12 | please.                                                                                                                               |  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>All right.<br>And do you see what's listed in the description                                                                   |  |\n| 14 | there?                                                                                                                                |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>Yes, it says \"client redemption.\"                                                                                               |  |\n| 16 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>All right.                                                                                                           |  |\n| 17 | Can we go over to column J, please.                                                                                                   |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>All right.<br>And what's listed there?                                                                                          |  |\n| 19 | A.<br>Client redemption.                                                                                                              |  |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And do you see an amount column?                                                                                                |  |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes, I; column I.                                                                                                               |  |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And how much is the redemption there?                                                                                           |  |\n| 23 | A.<br>30,000.                                                                                                                         |  |\n| 24 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Okay.<br>Could we go now to row 59802.                                                                               |  |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>What's the date of that transaction?                                                                                   |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 138 of<br>5391<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 1  | A.<br>June 17, 2022.                                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Okay.<br>And if we can scroll over again                                                                             |\n| 3  | to the description column.                                                                                                            |\n| 4  | Q.<br>All right.<br>What's listed there?                                                                                              |\n| 5  | A.<br>Client redemption.                                                                                                              |\n| 6  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And if we could scroll over to column                                                                                |\n| 7  | S, please.                                                                                                                            |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Who's listed as the beneficiary, once we pull it up for                                                                         |\n| 9  | you?                                                                                                                                  |\n| 10 | The beneficiary first name is Lai.<br>A.<br>I'm presuming that's                                                                      |\n| 11 | the way you pronounce it.<br>L-A-I.                                                                                                   |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Do you see the last name, too?                                                                                                  |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes.<br>It's D-A-I, Dai.                                                                                                        |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Thank you.                                                                                                                      |\n| 15 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And if we could scroll now to row                                                                                    |\n| 16 | 62057, please.                                                                                                                        |\n| 17 | Q.<br>All right.<br>What's the date of that transaction?                                                                              |\n| 18 | A.<br>February 4, 2022.                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | Q.<br>All right.<br>And is that also a client redemption?                                                                             |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                            |\n| 21 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And could we scroll over to the amount                                                                               |\n| 22 | column, please.                                                                                                                       |\n| 23 | Q.<br>What's the amount of the redemption?                                                                                            |\n| 24 | A.<br>\\$23,468.40.                                                                                                                    |\n| 25 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Okay.<br>And if we can scroll over now to                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 139 of<br>5392<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  |               | the beneficiary columns, columns S and T.                                                                            |\n| 2  | Q.            | And who's identified as the beneficiary there?                                                                       |\n| 3  | A.            | Lai Dai.                                                                                                             |\n| 4  |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>All right.                                                                                          |\n| 5  |               | Could we now go to row 62579.                                                                                        |\n| 6  | Q.            | And what's the date of this transaction, sir?                                                                        |\n| 7  | A.            | 4/19/2022.                                                                                                           |\n| 8  | Q.            | Okay.<br>And is this also a client redemption?                                                                       |\n| 9  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                 |\n| 10 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And let's go over to the amount.                                                                    |\n| 11 | A.            | \\$53,261.68.                                                                                                         |\n| 12 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>All right.                                                                                          |\n| 13 |               | And can we go to column S and T, please.                                                                             |\n| 14 | Q.            | And who's listed as the beneficiary?                                                                                 |\n| 15 | A.            | Zhiwei Jia, J-I-A.                                                                                                   |\n| 16 | Q.            | All right.                                                                                                           |\n| 17 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And last one, could we go to row 62678,                                                             |\n| 18 |               | please.                                                                                                              |\n| 19 | Q.            | Okay.<br>What's the date there?                                                                                      |\n| 20 | A.            | 6/28/2022.                                                                                                           |\n| 21 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>All right.<br>And let's scroll over to                                                              |\n| 22 |               | the -- sorry.<br>Withdrawn.                                                                                          |\n| 23 | Q.            | Is this a client redemption?                                                                                         |\n| 24 | A.            | Yes, it is.                                                                                                          |\n| 25 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And let's look at the amount.                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 140 of<br>5393<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>\\$79,890.00.                                                                                                                    |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Okay.                                                                                                                           |\n| 3  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>And could we scroll over to column S                                                                                 |\n| 4  | and T, please.                                                                                                                        |\n| 5  | A.<br>The beneficiary first name is Feng, F-E-N-G; beneficiary                                                                        |\n| 6  | last name is Tian, T-I-A-N.                                                                                                           |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Okay.<br>Now, Mr. Bishop, did you review the data contained                                                                     |\n| 8  | in this exhibit?                                                                                                                      |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                            |\n| 10 | Did you summarize it in any form?<br>Q.                                                                                               |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>I'd like to pull up just for the                                                                                     |\n| 13 | witness, the parties, and the Court what's been marked as DX                                                                          |\n| 14 | Z-02.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Sir, do you recognize this document?                                                                                            |\n| 16 | I do.<br>A.                                                                                                                           |\n| 17 | Q.<br>What is it?                                                                                                                     |\n| 18 | A.<br>It's a summary bar graph of the data contained in the chart                                                                     |\n| 19 | we just saw, the Excel spreadsheet.                                                                                                   |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Is it a fair and accurate summary?                                                                                              |\n| 21 | A.<br>It is.                                                                                                                          |\n| 22 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>The government offers -- sorry.<br>The                                                                               |\n| 23 | defense offers DX Z-02 please.                                                                                                        |\n| 24 | MS. MURRAY:<br>No objection.                                                                                                          |\n| 25 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Could we publish it please.                                                                                          |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 141 of<br>5394<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                               |\n| 2  | (Defendant's Exhibit DX Z-02 received in evidence)                                                                                    |\n| 3  | Q.<br>So, sir, this is a bar graph of the redemption activity                                                                         |\n| 4  | that we looked at?                                                                                                                    |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                            |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Okay.<br>And what's the first month that it starts in?                                                                          |\n| 7  | A.<br>November 2021.                                                                                                                  |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And across how many months does it continue?                                                                                    |\n| 9  | A.<br>Continues through June of 2022.                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>And is June 2022 when the bank records cut off that                                                                    |\n| 11 | we looked at?                                                                                                                         |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                            |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And now just looking at it, approximately what is the high                                                                      |\n| 14 | watermark for redemptions in terms of dollar value?                                                                                   |\n| 15 | A.<br>Roughly \\$11 million in December 2021.                                                                                          |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>And in terms of transactions, what's roughly the                                                                       |\n| 17 | high watermark?                                                                                                                       |\n| 18 | A.<br>The same month, 561.                                                                                                            |\n| 19 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Okay.<br>Now, could we go to the next                                                                                |\n| 20 | slide, please.                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | Q.<br>So based on your review, sir, during that time period,                                                                          |\n| 22 | approximately how many redemption transactions were made to                                                                           |\n| 23 | customers?                                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | A.<br>3680.                                                                                                                           |\n| 25 | Q.<br>And the total dollar amount was approximately how much?                                                                         |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 142 of<br>5395<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Slightly more than 64 million.                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Your Honor, at this time I'd like to                                                                                 |\n| 3  | read a stipulation between the parties.                                                                                               |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                               |\n| 5  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Thank you.                                                                                                           |\n| 6  | This is Defense Exhibit Stip 3.<br>If we could just pull                                                                              |\n| 7  | that up.<br>And I'll offer it, your Honor, so that the jury can                                                                       |\n| 8  | see it, if that's all right.                                                                                                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                   |\n| 10 | (Defendant's Exhibit Stip 3 received in evidence)                                                                                     |\n| 11 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>It is hereby stipulated and agreed by                                                                                |\n| 12 | the United States of America and Miles Guo, the defendant, that                                                                       |\n| 13 | the exhibits listed below in columns B and C were lawfully                                                                            |\n| 14 | obtained by the government, and are authentic records of the                                                                          |\n| 15 | entity listed in column A, that were made at or near the time,                                                                        |\n| 16 | by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge                                                                         |\n| 17 | of the matters set forth in the records.<br>Such records were                                                                         |\n| 18 | kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, and it                                                                          |\n| 19 | was the regular practice of that entity to make the records.                                                                          |\n| 20 | And then there are a number of exhibits listed, your                                                                                  |\n| 21 | Honor, which I can go through or I can just offer them all                                                                            |\n| 22 | together, whatever the Court would prefer.                                                                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>You're asking that I admit them all?                                                                                    |\n| 24 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Yes, your Honor.                                                                                                     |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>They are admitted.                                                                                                      |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 143 of<br>5396<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Thank you.                                                                                                          |\n| 2  | No further questions at this time.                                                                                                   |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Cross-examination.                                                                                                     |\n| 4  | MS. MURRAY:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                                |\n| 5  | CROSS-EXAMINATION                                                                                                                    |\n| 6  | BY MS. MURRAY:                                                                                                                       |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Mr. Bishop, you're testifying as a summary witness today;                                                                      |\n| 8  | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 9  | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 10 | Q.<br>You haven't set up an account at the Himalaya Exchange,                                                                        |\n| 11 | have you?                                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | A.<br>No, I have not.                                                                                                                |\n| 13 | Q.<br>You've never logged into an account at the Himalaya                                                                            |\n| 14 | Exchange, have you?                                                                                                                  |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, I have not.                                                                                                                |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And you've never purchased HDO, right?                                                                                         |\n| 17 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 18 | Q.<br>You've never purchased HCN?                                                                                                    |\n| 19 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | Q.<br>You only looked at bank records for certain accounts, isn't                                                                    |\n| 21 | that right?                                                                                                                          |\n| 22 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 23 | And those were the bank records that defense counsel<br>Q.                                                                           |\n| 24 | provided to you; correct?                                                                                                            |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes, yes.                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 144 of<br>5397<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | Q.<br>And those were bank records for accounts held at FV Bank,                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | right?                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | MS. MURRAY:<br>Now, if we can pull up, Ms. Loftus, DX                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Z-02.                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | Q.<br>While we're waiting, Mr. Bishop, you testified about some                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | of your background.<br>Do you recall that?                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Q.<br>You said, for example, you worked on money laundering cases                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | when you were at the IRS CI?                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And a money mule is someone who receives and transfers                                                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | criminal proceeds, isn't that right?                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.<br>I agree, yes.                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.<br>All right.<br>Now we've got DX Z-02 up.                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | This is a chart that you prepared for your testimony                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | today; correct?                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | Q.<br>DX Z-02 doesn't clearly identify which bank accounts it                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | summarizes, does it?                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | A.<br>It summarizes the records at the bottom, which records were                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | used.                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Right.<br>Q.<br>But it doesn't clearly identify what accounts at                                                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | which bank it's summarizing, isn't that right?                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | A.<br>It's what we just went through, yes.                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    |                                                 | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 145 of<br>5398<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |  |  |  |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1  | Q.                                              | Now, the defense didn't give you records for Himalaya                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Exchange accounts at Mercantile Bank, did they? |                                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.                                              | For this examination, no, I don't think so.                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q.                                              | And the defense didn't give you records for this                                                                                     |  |  |  |\n| 5  |                                                 | examination for Hamilton accounts at Silvergate Bank; correct?                                                                       |  |  |  |\n| 6  | A.                                              | I don't recall that bank, no.                                                                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.                                              | The bank records that you reviewed to put together this                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| 8  |                                                 | chart reflect withdrawals, right?                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A.                                              | This chart, yes.<br>Client redemptions.                                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q.                                              | Those bank records also reflect deposits into the bank                                                                               |  |  |  |\n| 11 | accounts; correct?                              |                                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |\n| 12 | A.                                              | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q.                                              | And those deposits are not summarized in DX Z-02, right?                                                                             |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.                                              | That's correct.                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.                                              | And DX Z-02 only reflects withdrawals that were categorized                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| 16 |                                                 | as redemptions; is that correct?                                                                                                     |  |  |  |\n| 17 | A.                                              | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.                                              | Now, you didn't choose the title of this slide, did you?                                                                             |  |  |  |\n| 19 | A.                                              | This particular -- no, I don't think that's the -- that's                                                                            |  |  |  |\n| 20 |                                                 | the -- the basis for the chart, the redemptions from the prior                                                                       |  |  |  |\n| 21 |                                                 | screen.                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q.                                              | Well, the defense chose to call this \"Himalaya Exchange                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| 23 |                                                 | Client Redemptions,\" correct?                                                                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A.                                              | We did, yes.                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |\n| 25 | Q.                                              | The determination of redemption for purposes of your                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 146 of<br>5399<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | summary chart is based on those wire transaction details we saw                                                                      |\n| 2  | in one of the columns; is that right?                                                                                                |\n| 3  | A.<br>That's what the bank records stated.                                                                                           |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And you don't have any personal knowledge whether those                                                                        |\n| 5  | withdrawals were, in fact, redemptions; correct?                                                                                     |\n| 6  | A.<br>We know what the bank records said.                                                                                            |\n| 7  | Q.<br>That was not my question, sir.<br>I asked if you had personal                                                                  |\n| 8  | knowledge whether those withdrawals were, in fact, redemptions?                                                                      |\n| 9  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Asked and answered.                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 11 | A.<br>Well, can you describe what you mean by \"personal                                                                              |\n| 12 | knowledge\"?                                                                                                                          |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Sure.<br>To your understanding, what is a redemption of a                                                                      |\n| 14 | Himalaya Exchange account?                                                                                                           |\n| 15 | A.<br>Someone asking for their money back.                                                                                           |\n| 16 | How is that your understanding?<br>Q.                                                                                                |\n| 17 | A.<br>That's just through my basis in this case.                                                                                     |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And what records did you study that described or defined                                                                       |\n| 19 | redemption that way?                                                                                                                 |\n| 20 | A.<br>These bank records and my collaboration with the defense                                                                       |\n| 21 | team.                                                                                                                                |\n| 22 | Q.<br>All right.<br>Let's take one of the withdrawals categories                                                                     |\n| 23 | categorized as a redemption as an example.                                                                                           |\n| 24 | MS. MURRAY:<br>Ms. Loftus, if we could pull up DX 11605.                                                                             |\n| 25 | Q.<br>While we're waiting for that, Mr. Bishop, do you know                                                                          |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 147 of<br>5400<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | what's in all those boxes at the front table?                                                                                        |\n| 2  | A.<br>I didn't see -- well, no, I don't know.                                                                                        |\n| 3  | Q.<br>The records that you reviewed to put together your summary                                                                     |\n| 4  | chart, was that just the one Excel file that Mr. Kamaraju went                                                                       |\n| 5  | through with you?                                                                                                                    |\n| 6  | A.<br>No.<br>We looked at the FV Bank records, the statements.                                                                       |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Excuse me.<br>Do you remember what the last four digits of                                                                     |\n| 8  | the accounts that you looked at were?                                                                                                |\n| 9  | A.<br>589 -- I can't remember.<br>367 -- I had them on the Excel                                                                     |\n| 10 | spreadsheet.<br>There were 94 accounts that we've looked at,                                                                         |\n| 11 | so --                                                                                                                                |\n| 12 | All right.<br>Q.<br>Now that we have this up, this is a record from                                                                  |\n| 13 | FV Bank; correct?                                                                                                                    |\n| 14 | A.<br>Mm-hmm.                                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And if we look at this, what is the time period covered in                                                                     |\n| 16 | this particular bank record?                                                                                                         |\n| 17 | A.<br>I can see the first date.                                                                                                      |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY:<br>We can scroll down, Ms. Loftus.                                                                                       |\n| 19 | A.<br>Go all the way to the bottom.                                                                                                  |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Generally speaking, what month do these records cover?                                                                         |\n| 21 | A.<br>April 2022.                                                                                                                    |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Okay.                                                                                                                          |\n| 23 | MS. MURRAY:<br>And Ms. Loftus, if we could scroll to the                                                                             |\n| 24 | right a little bit.<br>Little further, please.<br>And let's go up                                                                    |\n| 25 | to the top again.                                                                                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 148 of<br>5401<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>In the description column, Mr. Bishop, is that where you                                                                       |\n| 2  | went to identify the transactions that you described as                                                                              |\n| 3  | redemptions?                                                                                                                         |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 5  | MS. MURRAY:<br>And Ms. Loftus, if we could just scroll                                                                               |\n| 6  | down a little bit until we get one of those client redemption                                                                        |\n| 7  | descriptions that Mr. Bishop testified to.<br>There we go.                                                                           |\n| 8  | Q.<br>So, for example, Mr. Bishop, row 60, you don't know who                                                                        |\n| 9  | populates that transfer ID, do you?                                                                                                  |\n| 10 | A.<br>I know that this came from -- it's my understanding that                                                                       |\n| 11 | this came from the bank.                                                                                                             |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Right.<br>But with respect to the wire description, you don't                                                                  |\n| 13 | know who populates that transfer ID; is that correct?                                                                                |\n| 14 | No.<br>A.                                                                                                                            |\n| 15 | Q.<br>You don't know what that information reflects?                                                                                 |\n| 16 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 17 | Q.<br>You don't know whether that information accurately reflects                                                                    |\n| 18 | the purpose of these wires out of the account, do you?                                                                               |\n| 19 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 20 | MS. MURRAY:<br>All right.                                                                                                            |\n| 21 | And Ms. Loftus, if we could go back again to DX Z-02,                                                                                |\n| 22 | please.                                                                                                                              |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Mr. Bishop, there are no withdrawals described as                                                                              |\n| 24 | redemptions from August 2021 through October 2021, right?                                                                            |\n| 25 | A.<br>Not that we -- not that we located in that spreadsheet, no.                                                                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 149 of<br>5402<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>And to be clear, sir, you looked at the actual bank                                                                            |\n| 2  | records; correct?                                                                                                                    |\n| 3  | A.<br>Our team did, yes.                                                                                                             |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And you didn't identify any redemptions during that period?                                                                    |\n| 5  | A.<br>There might have been one, I believe, that's not captured                                                                      |\n| 6  | early on in August for a very small amount of money.                                                                                 |\n| 7  | Q.<br>So that redemption is not reflected on your summary chart;                                                                     |\n| 8  | is that correct?                                                                                                                     |\n| 9  | A.<br>No, because it was considered immaterial.                                                                                      |\n| 10 | Q.<br>You're aware that the Himalaya Exchange didn't officially                                                                      |\n| 11 | launch until November 1, 2021, right?                                                                                                |\n| 12 | A.<br>I'm not aware of when it exactly did that.                                                                                     |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Are you aware that there were deposits into these FV                                                                           |\n| 14 | Himalaya Exchange bank accounts before November 1, 2021?                                                                             |\n| 15 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Mr. Bishop, the source documents cited on the bottom right                                                                     |\n| 17 | here, this exhibit cites a number of different source documents                                                                      |\n| 18 | for the information here; is that correct?                                                                                           |\n| 19 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | Including about 50 documents in the last section, 6,001<br>Q.                                                                        |\n| 21 | through 6,050, right?                                                                                                                |\n| 22 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 23 | Q.<br>None of the information summarized on this chart actually                                                                      |\n| 24 | was sourced from those 50 documents; correct?                                                                                        |\n| 25 | A.<br>You'd have to give me -- I don't know exactly what the                                                                         |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 150 of<br>5403<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | numbers are.                                                                                                                         |\n| 2  | MS. MURRAY:<br>Okay.<br>Let's pull up Defense Exhibit                                                                                |\n| 3  | 6,002, please.                                                                                                                       |\n| 4  | Q.<br>This is one of those documents that was cited in that last                                                                     |\n| 5  | group of source documents, right?                                                                                                    |\n| 6  | A.<br>6,002, yes.                                                                                                                    |\n| 7  | Q.<br>And this is a page 1 of 1 bank record; correct?                                                                                |\n| 8  | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 9  | Q.<br>There's nothing reflected here about any redemptions,                                                                          |\n| 10 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 11 | A.<br>That's correct.<br>This is also dated 1/1/23.                                                                                  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Right.<br>So it's inaccurate to cite this as one of the                                                                        |\n| 13 | source documents for your summary chart; correct?                                                                                    |\n| 14 | A.<br>That was not in the summary chart, no.                                                                                         |\n| 15 | MS. MURRAY:<br>We could go back to DX Z-02.                                                                                          |\n| 16 | So looking at the bottom right where it identifies source<br>Q.                                                                      |\n| 17 | documents, a number of those documents that are reflected as                                                                         |\n| 18 | the source for this chart are not, in fact, the source of any                                                                        |\n| 19 | information; correct?                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | A.<br>Again, you'd have to -- the one you had showed me, correct.                                                                    |\n| 21 | You'd have to go back through.                                                                                                       |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY:<br>We can zoom out on that.                                                                                              |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Now, you established that you didn't have bank records for                                                                     |\n| 24 | the FV Bank accounts after June 2022, right?                                                                                         |\n| 25 | A.<br>I think it's December '22.                                                                                                     |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n| 500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross                                 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Q.<br>Looking at your chart, sir --                               |\n| A.<br>I'm sorry, I'm sorry.<br>June '22.                          |\n| Q.<br>So you don't know whether withdrawals as they're defined    |\n| here as redemptions continued, do you?                            |\n| A.<br>No, that was the end of the bank records.                   |\n| Q.<br>You're aware the government seized more than \\$608 million  |\n| in Himalaya Exchange money in October 2022 correct?               |\n| A.<br>I know there was a seizure, just don't know the amounts.    |\n| Q.<br>Did you know that those seizures included money that was    |\n| held at FV Bank accounts that you summarized?                     |\n| A.<br>No, I don't.                                                |\n| You weren't aware that William Je submitted a request to<br>Q.    |\n| withdraw 48 million of his own money from a Himalaya Exchange     |\n| bank account at Mercantile Bank in October 2022, were you?        |\n| A.<br>No.                                                         |\n| Q.<br>You don't know whether those wires that were requested were |\n| paid out to William Je, do you?                                   |\n| No.<br>A.                                                         |\n| MS. MURRAY:<br>Ms. Loftus, can you please publish what's          |\n| in evidence as Government Exhibits MER-5 and MER-6                |\n| side-by-side.                                                     |\n| Q.<br>While we're waiting, Mr. Bishop, you were asked some        |\n| questions about the white paper for the Himalaya Exchange.<br>Do  |\n| you recall those?                                                 |\n| A.<br>Yes.                                                        |\n|                                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 152 of<br>5405<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Did you review the entire Himalaya Dollar white paper?                                                                         |\n| 2  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Did you review the entire Himalaya Coin white paper?                                                                           |\n| 4  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 5  | Q.<br>What portions, if any, of those did you review in                                                                              |\n| 6  | connection with your summary chart?                                                                                                  |\n| 7  | A.<br>The pages from which I read from.                                                                                              |\n| 8  | Q.<br>All right.<br>So looking on the left here, we'll get it                                                                        |\n| 9  | published, this is Government Exhibit MER-6.<br>Do you see that,                                                                     |\n| 10 | sir?                                                                                                                                 |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Have you reviewed these documents in connection with your                                                                      |\n| 13 | redemptions summary chart?                                                                                                           |\n| 14 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Do you recognize what type of document this is from the                                                                        |\n| 16 | materials the defense gave you for your redemption summary                                                                           |\n| 17 | chart?                                                                                                                               |\n| 18 | A.<br>I didn't see these documents.<br>I didn't look at them, no.                                                                    |\n| 19 | Q.<br>And you didn't review similar OTC transaction forms for                                                                        |\n| 20 | each of the withdrawals reflected on your chart; correct?                                                                            |\n| 21 | No, just the bank record.<br>A.                                                                                                      |\n| 22 | Q.<br>You haven't seen any Himalaya Exchange redemption forms at                                                                     |\n| 23 | all; correct?                                                                                                                        |\n| 24 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 25 | Q.<br>You don't know whether such redemption forms exist for all                                                                     |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 153 of<br>5406<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the withdrawals that are reflected on your chart, isn't that                                                                         |\n| 2  | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 3  | A.<br>Like this, what you're showing me here?<br>No.                                                                                 |\n| 4  | Q.<br>You're not aware of any other visual type of redemption                                                                        |\n| 5  | form that exists for the transactions reflected on your chart,                                                                       |\n| 6  | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 7  | A.<br>There was a review of Himalaya Exchange computer records.                                                                      |\n| 8  | Q.<br>In what format did you review those records?                                                                                   |\n| 9  | A.<br>They were reviewed in a computer format, on location and                                                                       |\n| 10 | site.                                                                                                                                |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Do you know whether the defense provided those records to                                                                      |\n| 12 | the government?                                                                                                                      |\n| 13 | A.<br>I don't know what the defense provided.                                                                                        |\n| 14 | MS. MURRAY:<br>We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.<br>And                                                                             |\n| 15 | we can pull up government Exhibit AS-18.                                                                                             |\n| 16 | This is the Himalaya Dollar white paper dated January 2022,<br>Q.                                                                    |\n| 17 | right, Mr. Bishop?                                                                                                                   |\n| 18 | A.<br>I presume so, yes.                                                                                                             |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Well, if we look at the top, that's the date on this;                                                                          |\n| 20 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes, yes.                                                                                                                      |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>You're aware the word \"redemption\" only appears once                                                                  |\n| 23 | in this entire white paper; correct?                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 25 | MS. MURRAY:<br>Let's go to page 33, please, Ms. Loftus.                                                                              |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 154 of<br>5407<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Q.<br>This heading is titled \"Switzerland,\" right?                                                                                   |\n| Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                           |\n| Q.<br>The language in this portion of the white paper relates to                                                                     |\n| customers of the exchange who are located in Switzerland;                                                                            |\n| correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| A.<br>I'd have to read it.                                                                                                           |\n| MS. MURRAY:<br>We could zoom in on the text here,                                                                                    |\n| Ms. Loftus, just to make it larger.                                                                                                  |\n| Q.<br>Are you aware that this section relating to Switzerland                                                                        |\n| customers is the only place where the word \"redemption\" appears                                                                      |\n| in the entire white paper?                                                                                                           |\n| A.<br>If that's what you're telling me, I have no reason not to                                                                      |\n| believe you.                                                                                                                         |\n| Q.<br>All right.                                                                                                                     |\n| MS. MURRAY:<br>And, Ms. Loftus, if we could now go to                                                                                |\n| page 10, please.                                                                                                                     |\n| Q.<br>This is a portion that Mr. Kamaraju showed you, do you                                                                         |\n| recall that?                                                                                                                         |\n| A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| MS. MURRAY:<br>And if we focus on the paragraph that                                                                                 |\n| begins with \"Additionally.\"                                                                                                          |\n| Q.<br>This portion of the white paper says:<br>Exchanges of                                                                          |\n| Himalaya Dollar credits for U.S. dollars are at the discretion                                                                       |\n| of the Himalaya Exchange.<br>Right?                                                                                                  |\n| A.<br>Yes, that's what it says.                                                                                                      |\n|                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 155 of<br>5408<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>It further says:<br>The Himalaya Exchange is not obliged to                                                                    |\n| 2  | fulfill any such request.<br>Correct?                                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Himalaya Exchange customer withdrawal requests that the                                                                        |\n| 5  | Himalaya Exchange denied are not reflected on your summary                                                                           |\n| 6  | chart; is that right?                                                                                                                |\n| 7  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 8  | MS. MURRAY:<br>We can take this down, Ms. Loftus.                                                                                    |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And Mr. Bishop, you don't know where the money that was                                                                        |\n| 10 | wired out of the FV Bank accounts as redemptions ultimately                                                                          |\n| 11 | went, do you?                                                                                                                        |\n| 12 | A.<br>Only to where -- according to the bank records, what                                                                           |\n| 13 | accounts it was sent to.                                                                                                             |\n| 14 | Q.<br>You don't know whether it went along to other accounts                                                                         |\n| 15 | after making that first transfer, right?                                                                                             |\n| 16 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 17 | Q.<br>You don't know whether the money that was withdrawn was                                                                        |\n| 18 | reinvested into Guo's other investment offerings, do you?                                                                            |\n| 19 | A.<br>I do not.                                                                                                                      |\n| 20 | MS. MURRAY:<br>May I have a moment, your Honor?                                                                                      |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                              |\n| 22 | (Counsel conferred)                                                                                                                  |\n| 23 | MS. MURRAY:<br>Nothing further.                                                                                                      |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Redirect.                                                                                                              |\n| 25 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Just briefly, your Honor.                                                                                           |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 156 of<br>5409<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Redirect |  |  |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1  | REDIRECT EXAMINATION                                                                                                                    |  |  |\n| 2  | BY MR. KAMARAJU:                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Now, Mr. Bishop, you remember being asked some questions on                                                                       |  |  |\n| 4  | cross-examination about whether you could verify whether                                                                                |  |  |\n| 5  | certain transactions were redemptions?                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 6  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>And you were asked about whether you had personal knowledge                                                                       |  |  |\n| 8  | as to whether they were redemptions?                                                                                                    |  |  |\n| 9  | That's correct.<br>A.                                                                                                                   |  |  |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Do you remember that one of the transactions I asked you                                                                          |  |  |\n| 11 | about on direct was a redemption related to a man named Lai                                                                             |  |  |\n| 12 | Dai?                                                                                                                                    |  |  |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Are you aware that Lai Dai testified in this courtroom to                                                                         |  |  |\n| 15 | making that redemption?                                                                                                                 |  |  |\n| 16 | A.<br>I know that he testified; I don't know exactly what he                                                                            |  |  |\n| 17 | testified to.                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>You remember another one of the redemptions that I                                                                       |  |  |\n| 19 | asked you about was for a person named Dia Li?                                                                                          |  |  |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Are you aware that Ya Li testified in this courtroom before                                                                       |  |  |\n| 22 | this jury as to making that redemption?                                                                                                 |  |  |\n| 23 | A.<br>That's the same answer I'd give you, I don't know.                                                                                |  |  |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Now, do you remember you were asked about slides and the                                                                          |  |  |\n| 25 | sources for slides?<br>Do you remember that?                                                                                            |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 157 of<br>5410<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Bishop - Recross |\n|----|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | Q.            | Now, just because you review something, does that mean you                                                            |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                       |\n| 3  |               | put it on a slide?                                                                                                    |\n| 4  | A.            | No.                                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | Q.            | You make discretionary choices; correct?                                                                              |\n| 6  | A.            | Correct.                                                                                                              |\n| 7  | Q.            | And you remember you were asked whether you had ever opened                                                           |\n| 8  |               | a Himalaya Exchange account?                                                                                          |\n| 9  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                  |\n| 10 | Q.            | And you were asked whether you had ever bought HCN, right?                                                            |\n| 11 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                  |\n| 12 | Q.            | And you were asked whether you had ever bought HDO, right?                                                            |\n| 13 | A.            | Correct.                                                                                                              |\n| 14 | Q.            | You answered no to all those questions, right?                                                                        |\n| 15 | A.            | Correct.                                                                                                              |\n| 16 | Q.            | Mr. Bishop, are you a high-net Chinese individual who's                                                               |\n| 17 |               | dedicated to overthrowing the Chinese Community Party?                                                                |\n| 18 |               | MS. MURRAY:<br>Objection, your Honor.                                                                                 |\n| 19 |               | This is a summary witness.                                                                                            |\n| 20 |               | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                              |\n| 21 |               | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>No further questions.                                                                                |\n| 22 |               | THE COURT:<br>Any recross?                                                                                            |\n| 23 |               | MS. MURRAY:<br>Yes.                                                                                                   |\n| 24 |               | RECROSS EXAMINATION                                                                                                   |\n| 25 |               | BY MS. MURRAY:                                                                                                        |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 158 of<br>5411<br>500<br>O78VGUO3<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>Mr. Bishop, do you know what else Ya Li testified to during                                                                      |\n| 2  | this trial?                                                                                                                            |\n| 3  | A.<br>I don't know what she testified or he testified to.                                                                              |\n| 4  | MS. MURRAY:<br>Nothing further, your Honor.                                                                                            |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Sir, you may step out of the courtroom.                                                                                  |\n| 6  | THE WITNESS:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                                 |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>The defense may call its next witness.                                                                                   |\n| 8  | (Witness excused)                                                                                                                      |\n| 9  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, the defense calls Scott                                                                                     |\n| 10 | Barnett.                                                                                                                               |\n| 11 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT,                                                                                                                  |\n| 12 | called as a witness by the Defendant,                                                                                                  |\n| 13 | having been duly sworn, testified as follows:                                                                                          |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                                |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                                  |\n| 16 | DIRECT EXAMINATION                                                                                                                     |\n| 17 | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                         |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Good afternoon, Mr. Barnett.                                                                                                     |\n| 19 | A.<br>Afternoon.                                                                                                                       |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, could you tell the jury what you do for a                                                                           |\n| 21 | living?                                                                                                                                |\n| 22 | A.<br>Currently, I am the owner of GS Security Solutions.<br>And I                                                                     |\n| 23 | provide executive protection for celebrities, dignitaries, and                                                                         |\n| 24 | high-net-worth individuals.                                                                                                            |\n| 25 | Q.<br>What does \"GS\" stand for?                                                                                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>O78VGUO3 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 159 of<br>5412<br>500<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|---------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 1  | A.                        |          | Well, it was supposed to stand for Global Solutions, but                                      |\n| 2  | that was taken.           |          | So I guess it just stands for Gerald Scott                                                    |\n| 3  |                           |          | Security really, unfortunately.                                                               |\n| 4  | Q.                        |          | And when did you start your company?                                                          |\n| 5  | A.                        |          | That company was started in June of 2022.                                                     |\n| 6  |                           |          | (Continued on next page)                                                                      |\n| 7  |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 8  |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 9  |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 10 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 11 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 12 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 13 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 14 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 15 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 16 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 17 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 18 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 19 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 20 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 21 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 22 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 23 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 24 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n| 25 |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n|    |                           |          |                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 160 of<br>5413<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                         |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And by what time was it up and running?                                                          |\n| 3  | A.<br>January 2 -- I don't recall the exact dates, January of                                          |\n| 4  | '23.                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, who provided the funding or the finances to                                         |\n| 6  | start GS Security?                                                                                     |\n| 7  | A.<br>HCHK.                                                                                            |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And how much money did HCHK provide to set up GS Security?                                       |\n| 9  | A.<br>Originally they provided approximately give or take about                                        |\n| 10 | 400,000 I believe.                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And was there additional funding that was provided?                                              |\n| 12 | A.<br>There was in the beginning, correct.<br>In -- excuse me.<br>I'm                                  |\n| 13 | sorry.<br>I'm trying to remember the date.<br>In December I think                                      |\n| 14 | of 2022, they provided monies for insurance, and I believe it                                          |\n| 15 | was just insurance if I recall, but I have to look back.                                               |\n| 16 | And did you have any agreement as to this funding?<br>Q.                                               |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes.<br>At first we had a verbal agreement.<br>It was going to                                   |\n| 18 | be a written agreement, but that never came to pass so it stood                                        |\n| 19 | as a verbal agreement.                                                                                 |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, could you tell the jury why you wanted to set                                       |\n| 21 | up a separate company called GS Security?                                                              |\n| 22 | A.<br>In order to have proper security for anybody, you really                                         |\n| 23 | need to have insurance.<br>You have to have -- due to certain                                          |\n| 24 | liabilities for the client that you're protecting, God forbid                                          |\n| 25 | something were to happen.<br>If it's just either the client                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n5414 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 161 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | themselves or any other entity, they're liable.<br>God forbid we    |\n|    |                                                                     |\n| 2  | had to put our hands on somebody or anything worse than that or     |\n| 3  | even anything minor, any lawsuit would go directly to that          |\n| 4  | company instead of to a properly insured security company.<br>But   |\n| 5  | I guess the real reason is for legal reasons.<br>You legally have   |\n| 6  | to have a license in order to conduct security.                     |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Does your company still exist today?                          |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes, it does.                                                 |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And who is your largest client now?                           |\n| 10 | A.<br>My largest client is Mei Guo.                                 |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And who is Mei Guo?                                           |\n| 12 | A.<br>That's the daughter of Miles Guo.                             |\n| 13 | Q.<br>What does your job entail regarding Mei Guo?                  |\n| 14 | A.<br>Right now it just entails house security.<br>At first it was  |\n| 15 | for complete protection.<br>But as, I guess, money got tighter,     |\n| 16 | we had to scale back, but now it's basically house security.        |\n| 17 | We just monitor their house and, you know, do canvassing around     |\n| 18 | their house, that kind of stuff.<br>We no longer transport or       |\n| 19 | provide executive protection, personal bodyguard protection for     |\n| 20 | that.                                                               |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And who other than Mei Guo do you protect?                    |\n| 22 | A.<br>It varies.<br>We get contracts, very minimal contracts, but I |\n| 23 | had one for an executive in the city.<br>We did four-hour           |\n| 24 | security detail for them.<br>I've done security for other           |\n| 25 | companies as well.<br>We had one gentleman who needed security      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 162 of<br>5415<br>500 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                          |\n| 1  |               | for jewelry, was showing at a, like, a showcase, and that's                           |\n| 2  |               | really it.                                                                            |\n| 3  | Q.            | Mr. Barnett, going back to Mei Guo, have you discussed your                           |\n| 4  |               | testimony with her?                                                                   |\n| 5  | A.            | No, I have not.                                                                       |\n| 6  | Q.            | Has she ever asked you about what you would be testifying                             |\n| 7  | to?           |                                                                                       |\n| 8  | A.            | No, she has not.                                                                      |\n| 9  | Q.            | Have you ever talked to her about the details of this case?                           |\n| 10 | A.            | No, I have not.                                                                       |\n| 11 | Q.            | Have you ever talked to her about the arrest of her father?                           |\n| 12 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                  |\n| 13 | Q.            | And in discussing that, did you discuss anything that had                             |\n| 14 |               | to do with your testimony today?                                                      |\n| 15 | A.            | No.                                                                                   |\n| 16 | Q.            | And when was the last time you spoke to her about the                                 |\n| 17 |               | arrest of her father?                                                                 |\n| 18 | A.            | Maybe about a week ago.<br>I think I asked her how her father                         |\n| 19 |               | was doing.                                                                            |\n| 20 | Q.            | And other than that, have you had any substantive                                     |\n| 21 |               | discussions with her?                                                                 |\n| 22 | A.            | Not in regards to this case, no.                                                      |\n| 23 | Q.            | Mr. Barnett, did you ever work for Miles Guo?                                         |\n| 24 | A.            | Not directly, no.                                                                     |\n| 25 | Q.            | So describe for us how you worked for him indirectly?                                 |\n|    |               |                                                                                       |\n\n5416 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 163 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>I worked for, originally, for a company called Golden         |\n| 2  | Spring.<br>Part of that job was guarding Miles Guo, the company     |\n| 3  | later switched over to --                                           |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Let me stop you there. When did you start with Golden         |\n| 5  | Spring?                                                             |\n| 6  | A.<br>October of 2020.                                              |\n| 7  | Q.<br>And prior to being hired by Golden Spring, did you have       |\n| 8  | experience doing private security?                                  |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes.<br>So once I retired from the police department in 2013, |\n| 10 | I went into security in executive protection.<br>Basically the      |\n| 11 | gentleman that I trained with, we work with celebrities and         |\n| 12 | dignitaries, and I did that for a number of years.<br>And then      |\n| 13 | branched off to another company called pro-protection which was     |\n| 14 | basically for --                                                    |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Sir, I'd like you to draw the microphone              |\n| 16 | close to you so that everyone can hear you.<br>Speak right into     |\n| 17 | the microphone.                                                     |\n| 18 | And then I went to pro-protection which is a company out in<br>A.   |\n| 19 | Long Island.<br>It was just an easier commute.<br>I got tired of    |\n| 20 | guarding celebrities.<br>That wasn't really something that I        |\n| 21 | enjoyed very much, and then I had applied online. I can't           |\n| 22 | remember where I applied through -- whether it was Indeed, one      |\n| 23 | of those websites -- for a company looking for executive            |\n| 24 | protection.<br>That was -- I don't remember it saying the name of   |\n| 25 | the company, but they were offering a certain salary, so I          |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n5417 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 164 of\n\n|    | 500                                                                 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                        |\n| 1  | applied to it.<br>And then I think in October -- well, little       |\n| 2  | before that, beginning of October of 2020 is when they called       |\n| 3  | me for that particular job in regards to Miles.                     |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Were you hired at the first try?                              |\n| 5  | A.<br>No, I was not.                                                |\n| 6  | Q.<br>What was the reason why you weren't hired?                    |\n| 7  | A.<br>Well, this was a recruiting company.<br>The reason that I was |\n| 8  | not hired was because of my date of birth, and that it was the      |\n| 9  | year of the boar, and that was found to be -- at least they         |\n| 10 | told me -- it was unlucky, so I was not hired for that reason.      |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And then subsequently were you hired despite being born in    |\n| 12 | the year of the boar?                                               |\n| 13 | A.<br>I think that was a year prior.<br>So a year later I got a     |\n| 14 | call.<br>I actually didn't apply again.<br>I just received a call,  |\n| 15 | ask if I was still interested in the position.                      |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And, Mr. Barnett, prior to this, were you an officer of the   |\n| 17 | NYPD?                                                               |\n| 18 | I was.<br>A.                                                        |\n| 19 | Q.<br>For how long were you an officer of the NYPD?                 |\n| 20 | A.<br>From 1997 to 2013.                                            |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And I won't ask you for all the details, could you just       |\n| 22 | tell us, just summarize very briefly what your experience was       |\n| 23 | as an NYPD officer?                                                 |\n| 24 | I started out as a regular police officer in East Flatbush,<br>A.   |\n| 25 | Brooklyn, spent most of my time there, went to narcotics in         |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n5418 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 165 of\n\n|    | 500                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                     |\n| 1  | Brooklyn North for a while, then went back to the 67.<br>I don't |\n| 2  | remember what year it was.<br>And then I got my first -- I think |\n| 3  | I was injured the first time in 2008, and then went back to      |\n| 4  | work.<br>And then again I was injured in 2011, where my shoulder |\n| 5  | was torn out again after struggling with somebody and the        |\n| 6  | department decided to retire me at that time.                    |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you serve for the United States?          |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes, ma'am.                                                |\n| 9  | Q.<br>Where did you serve?                                       |\n| 10 | A.<br>The U.S. Navy.                                             |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And for how long?                                          |\n| 12 | A.<br>I was only in for a year and two months.<br>I fell 20 feet |\n| 13 | and shattered my wrist, broke a bone in my left leg and my back  |\n| 14 | and they basically retired me at that point.                     |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you have a lawyer?                         |\n| 16 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                 |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And through your lawyer were you served with a subpoena to |\n| 18 | testify here today?                                              |\n| 19 | A.<br>Yes, I was.                                                |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And was the subpoena from Mr. Kamaraju's office?           |\n| 21 | A.<br>I believe so.                                              |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And before you were served with the subpoena in this case, |\n| 23 | had you met with these four prosecutors who are seated at the    |\n| 24 | table here?                                                      |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n5419 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct Q. And how many times did you meet with these four prosecutors? A. Twice. Q. Did you have phone calls with these four prosecutors? A. Yes, once. Q. Let me show you what is marked as DX60761. Do you recognize this document, and can I show Mr. Barnett the last page of this document as well. A. Yes, I recognize it. MS. SHROFF: Defense moves DX60761 into evidence. MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Is this a document that he authored? MS. SHROFF: He signed it, your Honor. Q. Mr. Barnett, let's look at the last page. Is your signature there? A. Yes. Q. Did you review this document? A. I did with my attorney. Q. And did you also sign it several times, if you look at the right side? A. I signed it in -- it looks like -- I only see one spot where I signed it. Q. Well, let's look at the date on the top. It's dated - look at the date. And you signed it on that date, correct? A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 166 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 167 of<br>5420<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | Q.<br>And you signed it on a second date at the corner, right?                                         |\n| 2  | A.<br>I don't see where you're pointing to.<br>Where it says                                           |\n| 3  | 4/11/24?                                                                                               |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 5  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                  |\n| 6  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, the defense moves the                                                       |\n| 7  | document into evidence.                                                                                |\n| 8  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>No objection.<br>It's fine.                                                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>It is admitted.                                                                          |\n| 10 | (Defendant's Exhibit 67061 received in evidence)                                                       |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Did you assign a number to that?                                                         |\n| 12 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Yes, your Honor, DX67061.<br>And may I                                                  |\n| 13 | please publish it to the jury?                                                                         |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Thank you.                                                                              |\n| 16 | Mr. Barnett, prior to meeting with these prosecutors, did<br>Q.                                        |\n| 17 | you review this document with your attorney and sign it?                                               |\n| 18 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                      |\n| 19 | Q.<br>And when you met with the prosecutors, did you tell them                                         |\n| 20 | the truth?                                                                                             |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                      |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And on April 11, 2024, did you tell the prosecutors that                                         |\n| 23 | when the Mahwah property was purchased, Mr. Guo told you --                                            |\n| 24 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, your Honor.<br>He could                                                   |\n| 25 | testify.<br>She can't ask him about out-of-court statements.                                           |\n\n5421 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct THE COURT: Sustained. Q. What did you tell the prosecutors on April 11 of 2024? MR. FERGENSON: Objection, it's hearsay. THE COURT: It's hearsay. Q. On April 11, of 2024 -- MR. FERGENSON: Objection. MS. SHROFF: I have not finish the question. Q. -- did the prosecutors ask you your understanding of certain events when you were working for and with Miles Guo? MR. FERGENSON: Objection to relevance. THE COURT: You can answer that question. It's a yes or no answer or I don't know or I don't remember. THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. A. Can you repeat that question. Q. Sure. I'll actually ask you a different question, Mr. Barnett. For the times that you met with the prosecutors, did they ask you questions about what you did for Miles Guo? A. Yes, I believe so, yes. Q. Did they ask you questions about your understanding of certain events? A. Yes. Q. Did they ask you for your understanding about the purchase of Mahwah? A. I believe so. I can't remember exactly what was asked, but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 168 of 500\n\n5422 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct I believe so. Q. Well, let's see if we can refresh your recollection. THE COURT: Keep in mind, sir, that you cannot repeat the statements of others. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. MS. SHROFF: Let's show 006. Could you go down please. MR. FERGENSON: Is there a question pending, your Honor? THE COURT: Ms. Shroff. MS. SHROFF: We're trying to highlight the refresher portion of the document for the witness, and here we go. Q. Does that document -- just the question of whether or not this document refreshes your recollection as to whether or not you told these prosecutors? MR. FERGENSON: Objection, he cannot say that. THE COURT: He said he forgot or that he didn't remember. MS. SHROFF: I'm sorry. Q. Does this document refresh your recollection as to whether or not you were asked questions about why Mr. Miles purchased the Mahwah property? A. Yes. Q. It does? A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 169 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 170 of<br>5423<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Thank you.<br>You can take that down.                                                            |\n| 2  | Mr. Barnett, let's go to Miles Guo.<br>When was the                                                    |\n| 3  | first time you met Miles Guo?                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>It would have -- probably the first time that I met Mr. Guo                                      |\n| 5  | was at a residence in Connecticut when I was first got hired                                           |\n| 6  | doing security there.<br>I couldn't give you a exact date.<br>I                                        |\n| 7  | would assume it was about two weeks, maybe two and a half weeks                                        |\n| 8  | after I started.                                                                                       |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And, Mr. Barnett, what was your salary when you started?                                         |\n| 10 | I believe it was \\$100,000 a year.<br>A.                                                               |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And when you started the job, did you know who Miles Guo                                         |\n| 12 | was?                                                                                                   |\n| 13 | A.<br>No, I had looked it up, did a internet search before I was                                       |\n| 14 | hired.                                                                                                 |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And did other people work security with you?                                                     |\n| 16 | Yes, they did.<br>A.                                                                                   |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And who were those people?                                                                       |\n| 18 | A.<br>The first gentleman was Greg Burnhart was one of them.<br>The                                    |\n| 19 | second one was -- we just called him Johnny, and the other one                                         |\n| 20 | was Henry.<br>I couldn't tell you their last names off the top of                                      |\n| 21 | my head.                                                                                               |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did all of them have experience as prior NYPD                                       |\n| 23 | officers?                                                                                              |\n| 24 | A.<br>One was ex-correction.<br>I believe that was Johnny.<br>Henry                                    |\n| 25 | was ex-NYPD, and I believe Greg was ex-Nassau County police                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 171 of<br>5424<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | department.                                                                                            |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, at that time who did you consider your boss to                                      |\n| 3  | be?                                                                                                    |\n| 4  | A.<br>Grace Yang was my boss at this time.                                                             |\n| 5  | Q.<br>And if somebody gave you direction, who did you confirm                                          |\n| 6  | those directions with?                                                                                 |\n| 7  | A.<br>At that time I would have confirmed something with Grace                                         |\n| 8  | unless I was directly told either by Mr. Guo in regards to                                             |\n| 9  | security.<br>But anything that had to do with a direction, that                                        |\n| 10 | we had to go in or we had to take somebody somewhere, it would                                         |\n| 11 | have been by Grace at that time.                                                                       |\n| 12 | Mr. Barnett, after Covid did your job duties change?<br>Q.                                             |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes, it did.                                                                                     |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Could you tell us how?                                                                           |\n| 15 | A.<br>It was more now executive protection where we were driving                                       |\n| 16 | Mr. Guo to the office at 64th Street in New York, and then                                             |\n| 17 | either back home or to the residence in Connecticut or the                                             |\n| 18 | residence in New York City.                                                                            |\n| 19 | Q.<br>And how many cars did you use to transport Mr. Guo?                                              |\n| 20 | A.<br>Two.                                                                                             |\n| 21 | Q.<br>What were the two cars?                                                                          |\n| 22 | A.<br>It depends, but the first car was -- I'm trying to think at                                      |\n| 23 | that time.                                                                                             |\n| 24 | Q.<br>It's all right.<br>Did you have a general protocol as to how                                     |\n| 25 | to transport Mr. Guo?                                                                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 172 of<br>5425<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Mr. Guo was transported in one car.<br>There was one arms                                        |\n| 2  | security officer with him in the car, and then there was a                                             |\n| 3  | driver.<br>And then there was a backup car behind that car, and                                        |\n| 4  | that was an armored Lexus.                                                                             |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, you testified that you would drive him to East                                      |\n| 6  | 64th Street; is that correct?                                                                          |\n| 7  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                  |\n| 8  | Q.<br>What was at East 64th Street?                                                                    |\n| 9  | A.<br>Office building.<br>It was called the Himalaya Exchange I                                        |\n| 10 | believe.                                                                                               |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Did you ever hear anyone refer to that building as the                                           |\n| 12 | townhouse?                                                                                             |\n| 13 | A.<br>No.                                                                                              |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Did there come a time when you were promoted to director of                                      |\n| 15 | security?                                                                                              |\n| 16 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                             |\n| 17 | Q.<br>When was that?                                                                                   |\n| 18 | A.<br>I believe it was June -- it was after I want to say                                              |\n| 19 | mid-June of 2021 I believe.                                                                            |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And did you get a raise along with that promotion?                                               |\n| 21 | A.<br>I did.                                                                                           |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And as part of your promotion, did your job                                                      |\n| 23 | responsibilities shift?                                                                                |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes, they did.                                                                                   |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Did they expand?                                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 173 of<br>5426<br>500 |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And as part of -- what was your position then and what was                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | your job title?                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | A.<br>My job was overall security of the office building.<br>I                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | can't remember.<br>I believe at that time we had just -- they had                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | just moved into 3 Columbus Circle, but I can't be sure of the                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | date on that.<br>I was responsible for the security of that.                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | There was security for a small warehouse in Manhattan that I                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | had to oversee the guard there.<br>I wasn't in charge of anybody                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | else in there except for the security guard and his executive                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | protection detail.                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, let me show you what is marked as GXSB8.                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Do you recognize that document?                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.<br>What is this document?                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | That's just the security assessment I did.<br>A.<br>This was prior                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | to given the role of director of security.                                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And did you -- what is it?<br>Is it a report?                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | A.<br>It's just a report stating there were a lot of problems                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | with the security as it was when I first started.<br>There was a                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | lack of organization where it -- there was -- there was really                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | basically a lack of leadership.<br>The person who was my boss at                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | this time, her name was Grace, had no security experience at                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | all, and she was not very good at kind of managing security and                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | managing her other duties.<br>So we were kind of doing things on                                       |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 174 of<br>5427<br>500 |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    |               | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  |               | our own, and it just -- it was a little chaotic.<br>It was not                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  |               | organized security which was what I was use to.                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Q.            | Did you send this report -- did you send this document to                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  |               | anyone?                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | A.            | Yes, I did.                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | Q.            | To whom?                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | A.            | I believe I sent it to Grace and I believe I sent it to                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | Yvette.       |                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Q.            | And where did Grace work?                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | A.            | Grace worked at the office at 64th Street.                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Q.            | And what was at 64th Street, what company?                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | A.            | That was Golden Spring in the beginning.                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q.            | And where did Yvette work?                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.            | The same office.                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.            | Did Golden Spring keep records like this at part of its                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 |               | business?                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | A.            | I have no idea.                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 |               | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, we move Government Exhibit                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 |               | SB8 into evidence.                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 |               | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, lack of foundation.                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 |               | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q.            | Did you prepare documents that were security assessments on                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 |               | a regular basis?                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A.            | At first there was only one security assessment that I did.                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |               | After that, I did -- if we had like an event coming up, I would                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |               |                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n#### 5428 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 175 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | do basically a small assessment of what was needed for that         |\n| 2  | event.<br>And then after a while, it just didn't -- I didn't need   |\n| 3  | the security assessment anymore because of the promotion that I     |\n| 4  | received.<br>We started to have a chain of command, so it wasn't    |\n| 5  | really necessary at that time.                                      |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you refer to -- let me ask you an easier     |\n|    |                                                                     |\n| 7  | question.<br>What did you call Mr. Guo?                             |\n| 8  | A.<br>Usually for the most part I called him sir.<br>If I was       |\n| 9  | texting with someone, usually it would have been symbolized         |\n| 10 | with the letter \"P.\"<br>If I was talking to Yvette directly, it     |\n| 11 | would have been use the letter \"P\" and that stood for               |\n| 12 | principal.<br>I've called him boss, usually those three.<br>Most of |\n| 13 | the time it was sir .                                               |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Who came up with the word \"principal?\"                        |\n| 15 | A.<br>That I don't know.                                            |\n| 16 | Q.<br>How about who came up with the word \"boss?\"                   |\n| 17 | A.<br>I don't know if anybody came up with that word.<br>I think it |\n| 18 | was just common knowledge.<br>Anybody that I would protect or       |\n| 19 | anybody that was above me, I probably would have just called        |\n| 20 | them boss.<br>That may have been something from my earlier days     |\n| 21 | in the police department.<br>It was nothing.                        |\n| 22 | Q.<br>So if you were protecting me, you'd call me boss?             |\n| 23 | A.<br>Probably.                                                     |\n| 24 | Mr. Barnett, as part of your security job, did you access<br>Q.     |\n| 25 | different levels of risk?                                           |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n5429 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 176 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>At times I did, yes.                                         |\n| 2  | Q.<br>What are the different levels of risk in your opinion?       |\n| 3  | When we first started, I didn't really have much<br>A.             |\n| 4  | assessment.<br>We had over the time.<br>We started to see more and |\n| 5  | more of different individuals coming, trying to get into the       |\n| 6  | office on 64th Street without any type of authority, so we had     |\n| 7  | most of that problem.<br>We had a few people that would follow in  |\n| 8  | cars when we were driving.<br>You would see one car in particular  |\n| 9  | was like a giant billboard that would drive around the block       |\n| 10 | all the time.                                                      |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Did you consider that to be a serious, medium or low risk    |\n| 12 | threat?                                                            |\n| 13 | A.<br>At that time it was more of a medium threat.<br>I didn't see |\n| 14 | anything severe.<br>I was more concerned about the people showing  |\n| 15 | up to the office trying to get in.<br>That would have been more    |\n| 16 | of a serious threat.                                               |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And while you worked there, were there occasions when        |\n| 18 | people just left suspicious packages at the East 64th location?    |\n| 19 | A.<br>I remember one in particular there was one bag that we       |\n| 20 | called the NYPD for.<br>And I think one of my security guys, I     |\n| 21 | think he actually donned a helmet and went out there to look       |\n| 22 | into the bag, but I don't believe there was anything of serious    |\n| 23 | note in it.                                                        |\n| 24 | Do you recall if there were any times when people who were<br>Q.   |\n| 25 | armed tried to get into East 64th Street?                          |\n|    |                                                                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 177 of<br>5430<br>500 |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | A.<br>Not that I know of, no.                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Mr. Barnett, how long did you work for Miles Guo?<br>Q.                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.<br>I started in October of 2020 and worked for him all the way                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | up to, I guess that would be March of 2023.                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Q.<br>And how would you describe him as an employer?                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | A.<br>In all honesty, one of the better people that I worked for.                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | And the reason I say that is because he's very cordial, very                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | courteous, thought about.<br>He seem to care about his security                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | detail.<br>You don't see that a lot when you do executive                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | protection, especially for high net worth individuals.<br>They                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | tend to treat you subpar.<br>I don't know if that's the best word                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | to use.<br>He was never like that.<br>He was always very courteous.                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | He was a gentleman.                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>How did you communicate with him?                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>Usually we'd have sporadic conversation.<br>It was not                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | anything at length.<br>If I had to really talk to him, I would                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | have to use someone to translate.                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>How was his English?                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | A.<br>It was okay.<br>It took me a while to get an ear for it.<br>It                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | wasn't great, so it took me a little while to understand what                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | he was saying sometime, especially if he was behind me in the                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | back seat in the car and I'm in the front.<br>It was hard.                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you use any sort of apps to communicate                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | with Mr. Guo?                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes, we used WhatsApp.                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 178 of<br>5431 |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------------|\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>And did Mr. Guo have the same number throughout the time   |\n| 2  | that you worked for him, the same phone number?                  |\n| 3  | A.<br>No, I don't believe so.                                    |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And what was your experience with his phone numbers, could |\n| 5  | you tell the jury?                                               |\n| 6  | A.<br>Well, Mr. Guo would switch his phones.<br>He would explain |\n| 7  | that his phones had been hacked by the Chinese government, so    |\n| 8  | he would switch his phone semi-regularly.<br>It wasn't that      |\n| 9  | often, but it was semi-regularly.                                |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did there come a time when you learned about  |\n| 11 | something called the New Federal State of China?                 |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                       |\n| 13 | And what did you understand it to be?<br>Q.                      |\n| 14 | A.<br>Basically my understanding of it was that Miles was trying |\n| 15 | to create a new order for a Chinese people.<br>He wanted to take |\n| 16 | down basically the Chinese Communist Party based on, you know,   |\n| 17 | different issues.<br>But in regards to the New Federal State of  |\n| 18 | China, that was kind of his -- it's going to be his new          |\n| 19 | foundation for all the Chinese people.                           |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Did you believe he was sincere in his efforts?             |\n| 21 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, he can't testify to the             |\n| 22 | sincerity of the defendant.                                      |\n| 23 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I'm asking about his understanding of             |\n| 24 | what he viewed of Miles Guo, your Honor.                         |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>You can answer.                                    |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 179 of<br>5432<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes, I thought he was sincere about it, yes.                                                     |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you recall if you provided security for an                                       |\n| 3  | event at the World Trade Center?                                                                       |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                      |\n| 5  | Q.<br>What year was that?                                                                              |\n| 6  | A.<br>I believe that was June 4 of 2021, don't quote me on the                                         |\n| 7  | date, but I thought that's what it was.                                                                |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Do you recall who was present there?                                                             |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes, for the most part I couldn't tell you everybody.                                            |\n| 10 | That's for sure.                                                                                       |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And, Mr. Barnett, on June 4 of 2021, did the Mahwah                                              |\n| 12 | property exist?                                                                                        |\n| 13 | A.<br>No, not that I know of, no.                                                                      |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did your job require you to go to Sherry                                            |\n| 15 | Netherlands?                                                                                           |\n| 16 | Yes, it did.<br>A.                                                                                     |\n| 17 | Q.<br>What was Sherry Netherlands?                                                                     |\n| 18 | A.<br>That was a residence, one of the residences that Miles                                           |\n| 19 | stayed at.                                                                                             |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you provide security in that -- is it an                                        |\n| 21 | apartment building?                                                                                    |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes, it is.<br>It's a hotel/apartment building.                                                  |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Did you provide security within that building?                                                   |\n| 24 | A.<br>Sometimes, not all the time.<br>We weren't there 24-7 because                                    |\n| 25 | they had security downstairs.<br>There was no need for us to stay                                      |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 180 of<br>5433<br>500 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4      | Barnett - Direct                                                                      |\n| 1  |               | there overnight.                                                                      |\n| 2  | Q.            | Mr. Barnett, and part of your duties or job description was                           |\n| 3  |               | to drive Mr. Guo, correct?                                                            |\n| 4  | A.            | That's correct.                                                                       |\n| 5  | Q.            | And did there come a time when there were two cars that                               |\n| 6  |               | were purchased to ensure the security of Mr. Guo?                                     |\n| 7  |               | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection to the leading.                                           |\n| 8  |               | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                        |\n| 9  | Q.            | Were two cars purchased?                                                              |\n| 10 |               | THE COURT:<br>You may answer that question.                                           |\n| 11 | A.            | I don't know which two cars you're referring to.                                      |\n| 12 | Q.            | You tell us which cars were purchased?                                                |\n| 13 | A.            | There's two cars that my company purchased.                                           |\n| 14 | Q.            | Which were those?                                                                     |\n| 15 | A.            | Two BMWs.                                                                             |\n| 16 | Q.            | And when was that?                                                                    |\n| 17 | A.            | I believe that was January of 2023.                                                   |\n| 18 | Q.            | Do you know who ordered those two BMWs?                                               |\n| 19 | A.            | Yes, I did.                                                                           |\n| 20 | Q.            | And who paid for them?                                                                |\n| 21 | A.            | Well, it was -- I paid for them out of the funding from                               |\n| 22 | HCHK.         |                                                                                       |\n| 23 | Q.            | Do you know how much it cost?                                                         |\n| 24 | A.            | Each car was -- with tax I believe was about \\$165,000.                               |\n| 25 | Q.            | Were those two BMWs used to transport anyone, any other                               |\n|    |               |                                                                                       |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 181 of<br>5434<br>500 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| people?                                                                                                |\n| A.<br>Yes, at different times, but for the most part they were                                         |\n| used to transport Miles.                                                                               |\n| Q.<br>And who other than Miles did they transport?                                                     |\n| A.<br>I've transported Yvette in those cars.<br>If we had an event                                     |\n| we probably would have transported someone from that event, but                                        |\n| I can't give you an exact name on that.                                                                |\n| Q.<br>How many events do you recall -- I'll withdraw that.                                             |\n| Was part of your job to transport people back and                                                      |\n| forth from events?                                                                                     |\n| A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| Q.<br>And were these events related to the New Federal State of                                        |\n| China?                                                                                                 |\n| MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection to the leading again, your                                                 |\n| Honor.                                                                                                 |\n| THE COURT:<br>What were the events related to?                                                         |\n| Q.<br>What were these events related to?                                                               |\n| A.<br>The first one that we did was New Federal State of China.                                        |\n| There was an event for Himalaya Coin.<br>There was another event                                       |\n| for the -- I believe it was after the purchase of the house in                                         |\n| Mahwah if I'm not mistaken, and there were a few other events                                          |\n| here and there, but I couldn't tell you what they were for.                                            |\n| Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did Miles Guo know how to drive?                                                    |\n| A.<br>I believe he did.<br>I seen him drive.                                                           |\n| Q.<br>Where did you see him drive?                                                                     |\n|                                                                                                        |\n\n5435 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct A. I saw him drive once when we were looking at a property. He drove a car around the property, that's about the only time I've seen him drive. Q. Did you ever see him drive on a road? A. Maybe once, but I can't recall when that was. Q. Mr. Barnett, do you recall seeing any motorcycles while you guarded Mr. Guo? MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the leading. Q. Did you see any other vehicles while you were guarding Mr. Guo? A. Yes. Q. What other vehicles did you see? A. I saw motorcycles. There was other cars. There was a Rolls-Royce. There was a Lamborghini. There was a other Mercedes, a van. Q. Let's start with the motorcycle. Do you know what the motorcycles were used for? A. They weren't used. They were -- originally they were going to be purchased to use for -- Q. Could you keep your voice up for me. A. They were going to be used for, originally, for like the - he was doing a lot of music videos, like that kind of stuff. The reason that no one use them was because they were in my name. Q. And why was that a problem for other people to use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 182 of 500\n\n5436 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 183 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                               |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | something that was in your name?                                  |\n| 2  | A.<br>The main reason why they were put in my name, not only, was |\n| 3  | I ask, I was the only one that had a motorcycle license.<br>The   |\n| 4  | problem I had with it was that anybody that wanted to use them    |\n| 5  | didn't have a motorcycle license and it was under my name, and    |\n| 6  | God forbid something were to happen, I would be liable.           |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Did you watch any videos in which these motorcycles         |\n| 8  | features?                                                         |\n| 9  | A.<br>No, because the first video that I was actually privy to    |\n| 10 | was -- didn't have the motorcycle at that time.                   |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And were these motorcycles purchased for just use by        |\n| 12 | Mr. Guo or for other people as well?                              |\n| 13 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                      |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                       |\n| 15 | A.<br>Originally they were purchased for Mr. Guo from what I      |\n| 16 | remember.                                                         |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And did that ever change?                                   |\n| 18 | It did.<br>A.<br>So it came to -- I was -- I believe I was        |\n| 19 | approached by Yvette.<br>And I can't remember if Max was there or |\n| 20 | not.<br>But, anyway, they wanted to rent out the motorcycles,     |\n| 21 | meaning they wanted to have some of the supporters be able to     |\n| 22 | rent these.<br>Not really rent them, but sign them out and use    |\n| 23 | them.<br>And I immediately put a stop to that because, again,     |\n| 24 | they were in my name, and it wasn't a rental service.             |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Where were these motorcycles initially kept?                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 184 of<br>5437<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Initially they were kept in Connecticut.                                                         |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Were they moved?                                                                                 |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes, we moved them.<br>I moved them to the house in New                                          |\n| 4  | Jersey.<br>Scratch that, I believe I drove one of them to the                                          |\n| 5  | house in New Jersey, and the other ones we had the trailer.                                            |\n| 6  | Q.<br>So these motorcycles, Mr. Barnett, are they now still in                                         |\n| 7  | your name?                                                                                             |\n| 8  | A.<br>I believe one still is according to what an attorney told                                        |\n| 9  | me the other day.                                                                                      |\n| 10 | And where is the other one?<br>Q.                                                                      |\n| 11 | A.<br>Say again.                                                                                       |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And whose name is the other one in now?                                                          |\n| 13 | A.<br>I have no idea.<br>I turn those over to Max Krasner.<br>I don't                                  |\n| 14 | remember what the date was.<br>I want to say it was sometime in                                        |\n| 15 | 2023, but I couldn't tell you what date that was.                                                      |\n| 16 | You mention a Lamborghini, correct?<br>Q.                                                              |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 18 | Q.<br>What was the plan with the Lamborghini?                                                          |\n| 19 | A.<br>I have no idea.<br>At one point I know when they were talking                                    |\n| 20 | about the motorcycle being rented -- sorry, I keep use the word                                        |\n| 21 | \"rented.\"<br>It was meant to be signed out, almost like someone                                        |\n| 22 | wanted to use something.<br>It's the same thing with the                                               |\n| 23 | Lamborghini.<br>That's the only time I ever heard plans with that                                      |\n| 24 | Lamborghini.<br>Otherwise, it wasn't really discussed that I know                                      |\n| 25 | of.                                                                                                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 185 of<br>5438<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | Q.<br>When you say signed out, were you ever given like a                                              |\n| 2  | sign-out sheet that someone would have to fill out to --                                               |\n| 3  | A.<br>That never came to fruition.<br>I was not having that.                                           |\n| 4  | Q.<br>You were not having that?                                                                        |\n| 5  | A.<br>No.                                                                                              |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you recall learning anything about a                                             |\n| 7  | Bugatti?                                                                                               |\n| 8  | A.<br>I remember hearing about it, but I didn't really have much                                       |\n| 9  | to do in regards to purchase or anything like that with it.                                            |\n| 10 | Do you know what it was for, whom it was bought?<br>Q.                                                 |\n| 11 | A.<br>No, I don't.                                                                                     |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you have any knowledge of an entity called                                       |\n| 13 | G/Clubs?                                                                                               |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes, I know about it.                                                                            |\n| 15 | Q.<br>What is G/Clubs?                                                                                 |\n| 16 | I can only tell you the way it was explained to me.<br>A.<br>It's                                      |\n| 17 | basically a club that you paid for, almost like any type of                                            |\n| 18 | country club or anything, and you receive services for that,                                           |\n| 19 | whether it be -- I believe it was money off of clothing.<br>I                                          |\n| 20 | thought there was something about there were trips that you                                            |\n| 21 | could win or something like that.<br>I don't know the full extent                                      |\n| 22 | of what it entailed.                                                                                   |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you know anything about any boats while                                         |\n| 24 | you worked for Mr. Guo?                                                                                |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 186 of<br>5439<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | Q.<br>What boats did you know about?                                                                   |\n| 2  | A.<br>There was the -- the only boat that I had any dealings with                                      |\n| 3  | was, I believe it was the Lady May Two, and there was a boat                                           |\n| 4  | that came later that was called Liberty.                                                               |\n| 5  | Q.<br>What do you recall about the Liberty?                                                            |\n| 6  | A.<br>I don't know much about the purchase of the Liberty.<br>I                                        |\n| 7  | remember when we it actually arrived, it had massive amounts of                                        |\n| 8  | problems with it.<br>It was not very seaworthy.<br>And the only                                        |\n| 9  | reason I know that was from speaking to the captain of the boat                                        |\n| 10 | at that time.                                                                                          |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Did the fellow fighters or supporters use the Liberty?                                           |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 13 | Q.<br>When?                                                                                            |\n| 14 | A.<br>It was different occasions to do broadcasting.<br>I couldn't                                     |\n| 15 | tell you the dates.                                                                                    |\n| 16 | Do you know somebody named Prince Li?<br>Q.                                                            |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                                                       |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Who was Prince Li or is Prince Li?                                                               |\n| 19 | A.<br>I don't know his official title.<br>To me he was kind of                                         |\n| 20 | almost what I would consider like a team lead for the                                                  |\n| 21 | supporters.                                                                                            |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And did he take the Liberty out with the supporters?                                             |\n| 23 | A.<br>I believe so, yes.                                                                               |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Now, Mr. Barnett, are you familiar with a property called                                        |\n| 25 | Mahwah?                                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 187 of<br>5440<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Did you ever visit Mahwah?                                                                       |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes, many times.                                                                                 |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And when was your first visit to Mahwah?                                                         |\n| 5  | A.<br>I don't believe I know the date, but it had to be early of                                       |\n| 6  | 2022.<br>I don't recall the date.                                                                      |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Was that before or after its purchase?                                                           |\n| 8  | A.<br>I went there once before I believe it was purchased.<br>I                                        |\n| 9  | don't know the date it was actually purchased, but I believe I                                         |\n| 10 | was there before.                                                                                      |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Do you recall who you were there with?                                                           |\n| 12 | A.<br>I was there with I believe -- well, I know it was Miles.<br>I                                    |\n| 13 | thought Yvette was there, and the owner of the Mahwah residence                                        |\n| 14 | was there.<br>I can't remember his name.                                                               |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Did you ask Mr. Guo if he was going --                                                           |\n| 16 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection to the leading, your Honor.                                                |\n| 17 | MS. SHROFF:<br>It's a question.                                                                        |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Did you ask Mr. Guo if he was going to buy that property?                                        |\n| 19 | A.<br>No, I did not ask him that, no.                                                                  |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Did Mr. Guo ever volunteer to you for whom he was buying                                         |\n| 21 | that property?                                                                                         |\n| 22 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection to the hearsay.                                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>So, once again, this would be a yes or no                                                |\n| 24 | or I don't know or I don't recall kind of a question.<br>It's not                                      |\n| 25 | a question where you repeat what you were told.<br>You                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 188 of<br>5441<br>500 |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | understand?                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | THE WITNESS:<br>Yes, ma'am.                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Were you surprised when Mr. Guo purchased that property?                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Why?                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | A.<br>It just didn't seem like his type of property, but that's                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | just my own personal take on it.                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | And why did it not seem like his type of property?<br>Q.                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A.<br>I always felt that Mr. Guo like properties that had an                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | intense amount of land.<br>This was, in this particular property,                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | even though it was on 12 acres, it was surrounded basically by                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | a neighborhood.<br>It wasn't very easily -- it wasn't easy to                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | secure due to that problem.<br>And for those reasons, it was                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | very, very ornate.<br>It just didn't seem like a property that I                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | felt that something he would purchase.                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Did Mr. Guo ever tell you whether the property was for him                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | or for someone else?                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Here we go again.<br>This is one of those                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | questions where you can't say what he said.<br>You can say yes,                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | no, I don't recall.<br>I don't know.                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:<br>Yes, ma'am.                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n5442 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct Q. Mr. Barnett, were you asked similar questions such as the ones I've just asked you by the government when you met with them during proffer sessions? MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. MS. SHROFF: Not these questions. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. A. I believe so, but I can't remember everything that I was asked. MS. SHROFF: Well, let's show him 006 again. MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, we'll stipulate that we asked him about Mahwah just to speed things along. MS. SHROFF: Are they going to stipulate to what he said back? MR. FERGENSON: No, because it's hearsay. THE COURT: I don't think so. Q. When you met with the government and you were asked these questions, was your lawyer present? A. Yes, he was. Q. And after you answered all of their questions, did they accuse you of not telling the truth? A. Not to me, or at least not to my attorney, not that I know of. Q. And how many times did the government talk to you about these topics? MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 189 of 500\n\n5443 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Mr. Barnett, were you anticipating being a witness at this trial for the United States Attorney's office? MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Were you told by the United States Attorney's office that you would be called as a witness? MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Mr. Barnett, when did I first reach out to you? A. I believe it was after I received a subpoena to testify. Q. I know, but when, this month, last month? A. Last month, right, yeah, June I believe. Q. You remember which week of June? A. No, I don't. I'm sorry. Q. Mr. Barnett, in all the times that you worked for Mr. Guo, did he live at the Mahwah facility? A. No, he did not live there. He stayed there, but he did not live there. Q. What was the longest period of time that he ever stayed there? A. I believe about four or five days at most. Q. And what did he do during those four or five days? A. Mostly he would broadcast for the most part. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Guo's wife at Mahwah? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 190 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 191 of<br>5444<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And what was your perception of her at Mahwah?                                                   |\n| 3  | A.<br>In my perception she did not like it very much.                                                  |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And did she look happy while she was there?                                                      |\n| 5  | A.<br>Not that I know of.<br>I didn't think that she looked it                                         |\n| 6  | there.<br>I couldn't tell you whether she looked happy or not.<br>I                                    |\n| 7  | got the impression she did not like it.                                                                |\n| 8  | Q.<br>What is your impression based on?                                                                |\n| 9  | A.<br>Just communication between kind of husband and wife.<br>It                                       |\n| 10 | doesn't really matter what language it is.<br>Sometimes you can                                        |\n| 11 | just tell.                                                                                             |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Body language?                                                                                   |\n| 13 | A.<br>Body language and verbal cues.<br>My wife gives them to me                                       |\n| 14 | all the time.                                                                                          |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Sorry about that.                                                                                |\n| 16 | Mr. Barnett, did you ever see Mr. Guo's son at Mahwah?                                                 |\n| 17 | A.<br>No.                                                                                              |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Have you seen Mr. Guo's son in all the time that you've                                          |\n| 19 | ever worked for him?                                                                                   |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes, I saw him one time.                                                                         |\n| 21 | Q.<br>What time, in which year?                                                                        |\n| 22 | A.<br>It was when I first started in 2020.<br>I believe he was at                                      |\n| 23 | the residence in Connecticut, but we did not know that he was                                          |\n| 24 | there.<br>I was actually surprised when I saw him walking up the                                       |\n| 25 | driveway.<br>I didn't know who he was.                                                                 |\n\n5445 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 192 of\n\n|    |                                                              | 500                                                        |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n|    |                                                              | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                               |  |  |  |\n| 1  | Q.                                                           | And after that have you ever seen him at the Connecticut   |  |  |  |\n| 2  | residence?                                                   |                                                            |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.                                                           | No.                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q.                                                           | How about Sherry Netherland?                               |  |  |  |\n| 5  | A.                                                           | No.                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 6  | Q.                                                           | How about Mahwah?                                          |  |  |  |\n| 7  | A.                                                           | No.                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 8  |                                                              | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, your Honor.                   |  |  |  |\n| 9  |                                                              | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.                                   |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q.                                                           | How about at 3CC?                                          |  |  |  |\n| 11 |                                                              | THE COURT:<br>He has stated that he never saw him again.   |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q.                                                           | Did you see Mr. Miles Guo's daughter at these places?      |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A.                                                           | I saw his daughter at the house in New Jersey in Mahwah.   |  |  |  |\n| 14 | Q.                                                           | And how many days did you see her there for?               |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A.                                                           | Not many, maybe she would visit for a day, maybe two at    |  |  |  |\n| 16 | most, but I believe it wasn't more than a day, and she would |                                                            |  |  |  |\n| 17 |                                                              | leave.                                                     |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.                                                           | Do you know somebody name Wayne?                           |  |  |  |\n| 19 | A.                                                           | Yes, I do.                                                 |  |  |  |\n| 20 | Q.                                                           | Who is Wayne?                                              |  |  |  |\n| 21 | A.                                                           | Wayne is the fiancee' of Mei.                              |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q.                                                           | Did he live there?                                         |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A.                                                           | No, he did not.                                            |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q.                                                           | Now, Mr. Barnett, is it fair to say that it's a pretty big |  |  |  |\n| 25 |                                                              | house?                                                     |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                              |                                                            |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 193 of<br>5446<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes, it is.                                                                                      |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Could you describe the house for us?<br>It might be less                                         |\n| 3  | leading?                                                                                               |\n| 4  | A.<br>The house sits on 12 acres.<br>It's up on a hill.<br>When you                                    |\n| 5  | pull around the driveway, as you come up the driveway, there's                                         |\n| 6  | a security house on the right.<br>As you pull up the gate, you go                                      |\n| 7  | up a hill.<br>As you go up the hill and you enter on the front of                                      |\n| 8  | the residence as you walk in, it's just a giant living room.                                           |\n| 9  | Basically there's a giant living in the front.<br>And then off to                                      |\n| 10 | the right would have been where the kitchen is, and then off to                                        |\n| 11 | the left was where there was an office, and then that was the                                          |\n| 12 | main floor.                                                                                            |\n| 13 | I'm sorry.<br>Are you asking me what it was like when I                                                |\n| 14 | first went there or what it's like after some of the renovation                                        |\n| 15 | were done?                                                                                             |\n| 16 | Q.<br>I was asking you what it was like when you first went                                            |\n| 17 | there.<br>I can interrupt you if I may.                                                                |\n| 18 | A.<br>Okay.                                                                                            |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were there cameras at Mahwah when you first                                         |\n| 20 | saw it?                                                                                                |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes, there were.                                                                                 |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And as part of your -- did you have a job at Mahwah at some                                      |\n| 23 | point?                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes.<br>So I was task with redoing all the security at                                           |\n| 25 | Mahwah.<br>The security cameras and the equipment there were very                                      |\n\n5447 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 194 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                    |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | substandard.<br>And for something that size, you really needed to      |\n| 2  | have a complete overhaul of all the security systems, cameras,         |\n| 3  | internet and stuff like that.                                          |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you need some water?<br>Do you have water        |\n| 5  | there?                                                                 |\n| 6  | A.<br>I don't know.<br>Do I have water here?<br>I'm good.<br>Go ahead. |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Were you in charge of installing the camera system?              |\n| 8  | A.<br>No, I was not.                                                   |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And did you pick the vendors who would install the camera        |\n| 10 | system?                                                                |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                      |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And which vendor did you pick?                                   |\n| 13 | A.<br>Company was called Prevenitas.                                   |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Was that a company -- it's fine.                                 |\n| 15 | How long -- did you supervise the installation of the                  |\n| 16 | cameras?                                                               |\n| 17 | A.<br>Some days.<br>I wasn't there everyday, so.                       |\n| 18 | Could you tell us what was the rest of your work while you<br>Q.       |\n| 19 | were in charge of Mahwah?                                              |\n| 20 | A.<br>So at first it was really just doing the security system.        |\n| 21 | Unfortunately what end up happening, the amount of construction        |\n| 22 | that was going on with all the different vendors that were             |\n| 23 | coming in, all my security guys had to keep track of which             |\n| 24 | vendors were coming in.<br>And then we had to worry about who was      |\n| 25 | coming in with those vendors.<br>We had one MS-13 gang member          |\n|    |                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 195 of<br>5448<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | that had to be removed, stuff like that.<br>But for the most part                                      |\n| 2  | I had left that to another one of my team leads to kind of                                             |\n| 3  | oversee that.                                                                                          |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Now, when you -- for how long were you in charge of                                              |\n| 5  | overseeing things at Mahwah?                                                                           |\n| 6  | A.<br>I guess when it first started, I don't remember the date of                                      |\n| 7  | start.<br>I know it ended in September of 2023 for me.                                                 |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, what were the types of things -- was the house                                      |\n| 9  | in good shape?                                                                                         |\n| 10 | A.<br>No, it was not.                                                                                  |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Could you use that mic for me.                                                                   |\n| 12 | A.<br>It was not in good shape.                                                                        |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Was authority of your job to put it in shape?                                                    |\n| 14 | A.<br>No.<br>My job was to oversee the construction, make sure that                                    |\n| 15 | the contractors were doing what they're supposed to do,                                                |\n| 16 | basically just keeping track of the -- make sure nobody was                                            |\n| 17 | doing anything wrong, more of like a security role than it was                                         |\n| 18 | overseeing contractors.                                                                                |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were there names attributed to different rooms                                      |\n| 20 | within the facility?                                                                                   |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 22 | Q.<br>What were the names?                                                                             |\n| 23 | A.<br>I'd have to look at the map, but the ground floor I don't                                        |\n| 24 | remember that having a name.<br>The second floor, one side was                                         |\n| 25 | Miles' wing.<br>The other side was madam's wing, which was                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 196 of<br>5449<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | Miles's wife.<br>And I believe on the third floor one side was                                         |\n| 2  | for Mei, and the other side was for his son.                                                           |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Were those the names given to the four areas of the two                                          |\n| 4  | floors?                                                                                                |\n| 5  | A.<br>I believe so, on the security map they were I believe.                                           |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Did you have a security map?                                                                     |\n| 7  | A.<br>I did, yes.                                                                                      |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Who created the security map, do you know?                                                       |\n| 9  | A.<br>Prevenitas, they did a security assessment.                                                      |\n| 10 | And they created the map?<br>Q.                                                                        |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes, it was taken off of blueprints, but they created the                                        |\n| 12 | name on the map, correct.                                                                              |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Was there construction done to create more bedrooms on the                                       |\n| 14 | first floor?                                                                                           |\n| 15 | A.<br>On the first floor.                                                                              |\n| 16 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, your Honor.                                                               |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>What was the nature of the construction on                                               |\n| 18 | the first floor.                                                                                       |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Or any floor for that matter while you worked there?<br>Go                                       |\n| 20 | ahead and tell us.                                                                                     |\n| 21 | A.<br>There wasn't a whole lot of construction at first.<br>On the                                     |\n| 22 | first floor, the main floor, most the construction was on the                                          |\n| 23 | second and third floor I believe.                                                                      |\n| 24 | Q.<br>How many bathrooms all told were on the second floor, do                                         |\n| 25 | you know?                                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct A. There was definitely two. It might have been three, but I know there definitely were two. Q. And did there come a time when there were meetings held at Mahwah? A. Yes. Q. And who was present for those meetings? MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, objection. I think we may need a sidebar. THE COURT: All righty. Step up. (Continued on next page) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 197 of\n\n O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct (At the sidebar) MR. FERGENSON: I assume this is post-indictment, post-arrest meetings what you're getting at? MR. KAMARAJU: No. No. It's pre-arrest, pre-indictment. MR. FERGENSON: Sorry. THE COURT: Okay. (Continued on next page) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 198 of\n\n5452 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct (In open court) THE COURT: You may answer. MS. SHROFF: A. Yes. Q. Mr. Barnett, was Miles Guo present for that meeting? A. For that particular meeting I'm thinking of, yes. Q. Who else was there with Miles Guo just generally, try and describe for us who was there? A. The meeting I'm thinking of is more of in the beginning of the residence, but I'm pretty sure there were certain supporters there. And I thought Yvette was there, I'm almost positive, but that's all I can remember. I don't remember who else was there. Q. And during that meeting was there a broadcast that was undertaken? A. There may have been. That I don't recall. Q. Mr. Barnett, do you know which entity bought the property that has been referred to as Mahwah? A. Yes, Taurus Fund purchased the property. Q. Did you have a role at the Taurus Fund? A. I did not have a role at the Taurus Fund. Q. Did you have a signatory role at the Taurus Fund? A. Yes, I did. I was unaware of that; but yes, I did. Q. And what was the signatory role that you had? A. Well, apparently, which I didn't find out until much later, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 199 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 200 of<br>5453<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | that I was the manager, one of the managers of that, of the                                            |\n| 2  | fund.                                                                                                  |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Did you sign a document that made you a manager of the                                           |\n| 4  | Taurus Fund?                                                                                           |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                      |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Did there come a time when that property was to be                                               |\n| 7  | transferred out of the Taurus Fund into another fund?                                                  |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes, for my understanding it was to be transferred to HCHK                                       |\n| 9  | Properties.                                                                                            |\n| 10 | Mr. Barnett, while you worked at the Mahwah facility, did<br>Q.                                        |\n| 11 | you do any work with the guard house?                                                                  |\n| 12 | A.<br>I'm sorry.                                                                                       |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Did you have any work done on the guard house?                                                   |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 15 | Q.<br>What work did you have done?                                                                     |\n| 16 | The guard house was basically, it was gutted.<br>A.<br>We had to                                       |\n| 17 | create what's called a security operation center inside that                                           |\n| 18 | house, and then the rest of the house basically was just being                                         |\n| 19 | redone.<br>The house was in complete disarray.<br>There was mold in                                    |\n| 20 | it.<br>It was in really bad shape.                                                                     |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Could you tell the jury what is a license plate reader?                                          |\n| 22 | A.<br>A license plate reader is basically a camera that picks up                                       |\n| 23 | a license plate.<br>If it was a police department, it would                                            |\n| 24 | actually pick up the license plate and tell you all the                                                |\n| 25 | information registered to that particular license plate.                                               |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 201 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                   |\n| 1  | Civilian wise, you can't do that, so basically it reads the                                    |\n| 2  | actual license plate, lets you know how many times that license                                |\n| 3  | plate's been there.<br>And you can actually, on a computer, you                                |\n| 4  | can make it so that if that license plate appears, it will                                     |\n| 5  | notify you that there is a problem if you don't want that                                      |\n| 6  | particular car in your area.                                                                   |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Did you install a license plate reader in Mahwah?                                        |\n| 8  | A.<br>It was installed.<br>I didn't personally install it.                                     |\n| 9  | Q.<br>Do you know when it was installed?                                                       |\n| 10 | A.<br>I believe it was later.<br>I want to say more towards August                             |\n| 11 | or September of '23.<br>That I don't know for sure.                                            |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you recall that people -- do you know what                               |\n| 13 | a non-disclosure agreement is?                                                                 |\n\nA. Yes, I do. 14\n\nQ. What is it? 15\n\nA. That's basically an agreement stating that whatever you - the gist of it is whatever you see or hear, whatever, it's to be kept confidential. 16 17 18\n\nQ. Did you sign one? 19\n\nA. Not for -- for Mahwah, no, I did not. 20\n\nQ. Did vendors who came to the Mahwah facility sign them? 21\n\nA. Yes, everybody had to sign them. 22\n\nQ. And was there a reason -- did you have an understanding of why there was such a focus on security at Mahwah? 23 24\n\nA. Well, it was just because of basically the size of the 25\n\n5455 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 202 of\n\n| property, and we were more concerned with the safety of the |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n| I don't know whether it was                                 |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n| Well, let me show you something that                        |\n| Could you                                                   |\n| Thank                                                       |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n|                                                             |\n| And could you tell us what security threat you perceived in |\n|                                                             |\n| It's just for the witness.<br>If you could just             |\n\n5456 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct (sic). He stated that he had received a call. I don't remember whether it was from Yvette or it was from -- MR. FERGENSON: We object to the hearsay, your Honor. MS. SHROFF: It's not being offered for the truth of the matter. MR. FERGENSON: Really. THE COURT: If he is -- sir, don't repeat anything that was said to you. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. What did you do? A. Basically we had -- I instructed them to take Mrs. Guo and Mei to New Jersey, the New Jersey residence, because I felt like that would be the most secure place if someone was following them. Q. How long did they stay at the secure place in New Jersey? A. I believe a few hours. I don't have an exact time. Q. And then where did you take them back? A. Back to their residence in Connecticut. Q. Mr. Barnett, moving forward to June 2022, was the construction still going on at the Mahwah facility? A. Yes. Q. And how focus -- was it light construction work or heavy construction work? A. It was always heavy construction work going on. Q. Now, Mr. Barnett, sitting here today, do you recall if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 203 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 204 of<br>5457<br>500 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                          |\n| 1  |               | around June of 2022, whether there was another meeting at                             |\n| 2  |               | Mahwah residence that you supervised?                                                 |\n| 3  | A.            | I don't recall that.<br>There may have been.<br>I just don't                          |\n| 4  |               | recall.                                                                               |\n| 5  | Q.            | Sitting here today, do you recall if there was a Lunar                                |\n| 6  |               | celebration at Mahwah?                                                                |\n| 7  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                  |\n| 8  | Q.            | When was that?                                                                        |\n| 9  | A.            | I don't know the date of that, but there was, yes.                                    |\n| 10 | Q.            | Could you describe what the celebration looked like over                              |\n| 11 | there?        |                                                                                       |\n| 12 | A.            | I don't think I was present at that celebration.                                      |\n| 13 | Q.            | Did you provide security for the celebration?                                         |\n| 14 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                  |\n| 15 | Q.            | And what security did you provide?                                                    |\n| 16 | A.            | I believe it was security that was already there that would                           |\n| 17 |               | have been my team lead Tom Carino and who was on duty that day.                       |\n| 18 |               | THE COURT:<br>Speak into the microphone.                                              |\n| 19 | A.            | Tom Carino and whoever was on duty that day that was                                  |\n| 20 |               | securing the estate.                                                                  |\n| 21 | Q.            | Mr. Barnett, as part of your job duty for Mr. Guo, did you                            |\n| 22 |               | scout out properties for him to view?                                                 |\n| 23 | A.            | Yes, I scouted out offices and warehouses.                                            |\n| 24 | Q.            | Could you keep your voice up.                                                         |\n| 25 |               | You scouted out offices and what?                                                     |\n|    |               |                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 205 of<br>5458<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| 1  | A.<br>Offices and warehouse.                                                                           |\n| 2  | Q.<br>What else?                                                                                       |\n| 3  | A.<br>I scouted out homes as well.                                                                     |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Where did you scout out homes?                                                                   |\n| 5  | A.<br>Most of the scouting I did, it was online.<br>One was in                                         |\n| 6  | Arizona.<br>One was in Colorado.<br>I think there was one in Texas                                     |\n| 7  | as well.                                                                                               |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And were these properties that you were scouting, can                                            |\n| 9  | out -- was it your understanding that they were for?                                                   |\n| 10 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                           |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                               |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Describe what directions you --                                                                  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                               |\n| 14 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                           |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Don't repeat anything that was said to                                                   |\n| 16 | you.                                                                                                   |\n| 17 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, may we have a sidebar?                                                      |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                    |\n| 19 | (Continued on next page)                                                                               |\n| 20 |                                                                                                        |\n| 21 |                                                                                                        |\n| 22 |                                                                                                        |\n| 23 |                                                                                                        |\n| 24 |                                                                                                        |\n| 25 |                                                                                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n5459 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 206 of\n\n500\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n25\n\n(At the sidebar)\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I wasn't sure what the basis of the hearsay objection is to a direction from Mr. Guo. Under U.S. v. DiMaria, a direction is not hearsay.\n\nTHE COURT: I'm waiting for the direction to be, get me a house for G/Club, something hike that.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: He didn't even -- she didn't even get a chance to ask the question as to what the direction was.\n\nTHE COURT: Anticipating what his answer would be, I sustained an objection. 9 10\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm being slow on this. If the objection is to hearsay, then don't we have to hear what the direction was going to be.\n\nTHE COURT: Well, then, the jury would hear that, and that can be a problem. 14 15\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I'm not sure how we can ever get to it if the direction was for G/Club or for fellow fighters or for anybody else, I don't know how to ask that question I guess is my point.\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we have to be candid. We have no idea what his answer is going to be. We didn't have the level of access to Mr. Barnett that the government did. They know what he is going to say. We don't know. We were not allowed to prep these witnesses. 20 21 22 23 24\n\nMR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, my understanding is that\n\n#### 5460 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 207 of\n\n500\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct he has prepped with them. I think that's superly incorrect. They also have the 302s. But that aside, I think your Honor is exactly right. There can be mix statements where what is sort of clothed as a command is really an assertion of truth. Meaning, these are for G/Clubs like your Honor's example. That is still hearsay. It isn't permissible. It is a proper objection that the question calls for hearsay because that is like your Honor clearly discerned what is coming.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nTHE COURT: You want to get out that these potential properties had a certain purpose. That is the reason you're asking these questions? 9 10 11\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: We are entitled to get out that Mr. Guo directed people to look for properties for a certain purpose. That's not hearsay. That's both his state of mind and his direction.\n\nTHE COURT: You can ask did you receive directions to look for properties for certain purposes without his naming the purpose.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, maybe I'm not understanding. If part of the hearsay exception is for his state of mind as well as his direction, then I don't understand how the purpose is not appropriate.\n\nTHE COURT: You want to get this in for the truth of the matter. That's the reason that I don't buy any other reason. 23 24 25\n\n#### 5461 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 208 of\n\n500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: That's why I come back to the DiMaria case. He was here to buy cheap cigarettes. That was the intention that was expressed in the statement that the Second Circuit said. So the Second Circuit said, even though there is some argument that that could be viewed as he's really there for the purpose of buying cigarettes, it went to his state of mind. It's the same concept.\n\nTHE COURT: So he's acting as a scout, and what exactly did you expect that he would say about what he was thinking about?\n\nMS. SHROFF: He was told to look for properties that were large, that had land attached to them, that had height to them so that there would be dwellings on the top and dwellings below. The point of the properties was to make sure that there was room for everyone to live if they so wanted. The property was such to have zoning that would allow for the building of new structures. And I want to be clear because the government just said that what I said was superly incorrect or something like that.\n\nThe defense has had one meeting with his lawyer and him, and we have not had access to him after that because his lawyer has been on vacation in the Poconos and has no phone service, and we have not spoken to somebody who is represented by counsel without them being present. This is what I am surmising would be his answer. More importantly under DiMaria, 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 5462 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 209 of\n\n500\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct the fact that he has a state of mind and he knows that Miles Guo is looking for property that is of a certain type and for a certain purpose is properly admissible, your Honor.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: As a generality, absolutely. Were you given certain criteria with respect to the property? He's going to say yes. Did you apply that criteria when you searched online? He's going to say yes.\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, I'm going to maintain the objection because I think the appropriate solution is a limiting instruction. It's not the exclusion of the testimony. If the Court has concerns that the testimony could be taken by the jury or even argued by defense counsel, then I believe that the proper course is not exclusion. It's a limiting instruction, or an objection by the government if I try to do that in summation.\n\nTHE COURT: Are you telling me that in summation you will not be trying to use his testimony about the purpose of the properties for the truth?\n\nMR. KAMARAJU: I'm going to be saying, this is what Miles Guo thought. That's a classic state of mind statement. That's what I'm going to say. You want to know what Miles Guo thought? This is how you know what Miles Guo thought. If Miles Guo was wrong, he was wrong, but that's what he thought. That's what I'm going to say in summation. 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nMR. FERGENSON: I think your Honor's proposal was\n\n5463 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 210 of\n\n|    | 500                                                                 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                        |\n| 1  | correct.<br>I think your Honor recognized earlier, this case is     |\n| 2  | in a different universe than the DiMaria case, and it just          |\n| 3  | doesn't have any traction in a case like that.<br>And               |\n| 4  | particularly the context like this, this person is just             |\n| 5  | following orders.<br>The purpose is the effect.<br>It's not what he |\n| 6  | was told about why, it's what he did.                               |\n| 7  | MS. SHROFF:<br>He was told why.                                     |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>He was told why, and so he took certain               |\n| 9  | steps.<br>He put certain words into the search bar when he was      |\n| 10 | looking at these properties.<br>He put it in a certain price.<br>He |\n| 11 | put in certain criteria concerning use of the property.             |\n| 12 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Right.<br>Is the Court's ruling that I may           |\n| 13 | not inquire into what the purpose of the property was?              |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Correct.                                              |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>And I may not inquire about the specific             |\n| 16 | terms that he put into the search?                                  |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Correct.                                              |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>And I could not inquire as to what this              |\n| 19 | witness's understanding is of Mr. Guo's state of mind at the        |\n| 20 | time he gave those directives?                                      |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Correct.                                              |\n| 22 | MS. SHROFF:<br>So I think that is in conflict with                  |\n| 23 | DiMaria. That's our position, your Honor.                           |\n| 24 | (Continued on next page)                                            |\n| 25 |                                                                     |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n5464 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 211 of\n\n|    | 500                                                                |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                       |\n| 1  | (In open court)                                                    |\n| 2  | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                     |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were you given certain criteria when you were   |\n| 4  | directed to look for properties, just yes or no?                   |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                         |\n| 6  | And who gave you those directives or directions criteria?<br>Q.    |\n| 7  | A.<br>Miles Guo.                                                   |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And did you, without telling us what they were, did you use  |\n| 9  | that criteria to look for properties?                              |\n| 10 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                  |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And what properties did you find?                            |\n| 12 | A.<br>Again, I found a property in Texas.<br>I found a property -- |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Could you take a minute and describe for the jury the        |\n| 14 | property that you found in Texas?                                  |\n| 15 | A.<br>The one that I found in Texas was extremely large property.  |\n| 16 | I believe it was about 600 acres.<br>It was -- I believe it        |\n| 17 | already had an airstrip on it, and I don't recall much about       |\n| 18 | the residence on the property.<br>I just remember it being very    |\n| 19 | large.                                                             |\n| 20 | Q.<br>What other states did you -- did you look for properties     |\n| 21 | in -- that was a bad question, but I think you get it?             |\n| 22 | A.<br>I looked for properties in Arizona as well as Colorado.      |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Tell us about the property that you found in Arizona?        |\n| 24 | A.<br>The properties that I found in Arizona, actually visited     |\n| 25 | that property with Miles Guo.                                      |\n|    |                                                                    |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 212 of<br>5465<br>500 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                                                           |\n| Q.<br>I'm sorry.                                                                                       |\n| A.<br>I visited that property with Miles Guo.                                                          |\n| Q.<br>And could you describe the property for us?                                                      |\n| A.<br>It was a large property.<br>One part of it was up on a hill                                      |\n| and it cascaded down almost like into a valley and it was in                                           |\n| Sedona.                                                                                                |\n| Q.<br>What other state did you look for property in?                                                   |\n| A.<br>Colorado was the other state that I found property.                                              |\n| Q.<br>Did you look for property in Connecticut?                                                        |\n| I looked at properties in Connecticut.<br>A.<br>I believe that was                                     |\n| with Mr. Guo though.                                                                                   |\n| Q.<br>Without telling us what it was, did you have an                                                  |\n| understanding of what the purpose of these properties was?                                             |\n| A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| Q.<br>And from whom did you get that understanding?                                                    |\n| Mr. Guo.<br>A.                                                                                         |\n| Q.<br>After you found these properties, did you communicate                                            |\n| information about these properties to others?                                                          |\n| A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| Q.<br>To whom?                                                                                         |\n| THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>It's now 2:30, so we'll take                                               |\n| our half hour break.<br>Remember that you're not allowed to                                            |\n| discuss the case amongst yourselves.<br>Don't permit anyone to                                         |\n| discuss it in your presence.<br>Don't read, listen to or watch                                         |\n| anything from any source that touches on the subject matter of                                         |\n|                                                                                                        |\n\n O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct this case. Sir, you can step out. Don't discuss your testimony. THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting. (Jury not present) THE COURT: Please be seated. Is there anything before we return at 3 p.m.? MR. FERGENSON: Not from the government. MS. SHROFF: Not from us, your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. (Recess) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 213 of\n\n5467 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct THE COURT: Please be seated. MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I run to go get the witness? THE COURT: Yes, go ahead. Except, Ms. Shroff? MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: I want to make a ruling before you do that. Can someone else get the witness? MS. SHROFF: Sure. THE COURT: All righty. I have reviewed the transcript and case law. And I will permit the defense to pursue a broader line of questioning, broader than what I had indicated at the sidebar. The defense seeks to ask Scott Barnett what directions he received from Mr. Guo when searching for a property. Mr. Barnett may testify that Mr. Guo told him to look for a property with certain characteristics. Such instructions constitute commands and are, therefore, not hearsay. Oh, would the witness please exit. THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. THE COURT: See United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 586, (2d Cir. 1999). I will permit the defense to elicit the specific criteria that Mr. Guo gave to Mr. Barnett. Mr. Barnett may also testify that Mr. Guo told him why he was seeking a property with those criteria. Although this would not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 214 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 215 of<br>5468<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | constitute a command, such a statement would be indicative of                                                                          |\n| 2  | Guo's \"then-existing state of mind, such as motive, intent, or                                                                         |\n| 3  | plan\" under Rule 803(3).                                                                                                               |\n| 4  | So long as the statement is forward-looking and not                                                                                    |\n| 5  | backward-looking, it is admissible under the state of mind                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |\n| 6  | hearsay exception pursuant to United States v. DiMaria, 727                                                                            |\n| 7  | F.2d, 265, 270-71 (2d Cir. 1984).                                                                                                      |\n| 8  | So now you may bring the witness back.                                                                                                 |\n| 9  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Thank you, your Honor.<br>We'll get him.                                                                              |\n| 10 | (Witness present)                                                                                                                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>All righty.                                                                                                              |\n| 12 | Let's have the jurors come in, please.                                                                                                 |\n| 13 | (Jury present)                                                                                                                         |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | Remember, sir, that you're still under oath.                                                                                           |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:<br>Yes, ma'am.                                                                                                            |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>You may continue the inquiry.                                                                                            |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                                                                                  |\n| 19 | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                         |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, before we broke, we were discussing the                                                                             |\n| 21 | criteria you were given when looking for these properties.                                                                             |\n| 22 | Do you recall that?                                                                                                                    |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And could you tell the jury what criteria you were given                                                                         |\n| 25 | while searching for these properties?                                                                                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 216 of<br>5469<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>The basic criteria had to be a large -- a large property;                                                                        |\n| 2  | had to be able to house numerous people, over 1,000 is really                                                                          |\n| 3  | the extent of it; it had to have the capabilities of being able                                                                        |\n| 4  | to have -- being able to have numerous houses on it; as well as                                                                        |\n| 5  | having access both by vehicle and airplane.                                                                                            |\n| 6  | Q.<br>And did you look for properties that met that criteria?                                                                          |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And Mr. Barnett, did Mr. Guo tell you why it is that he was                                                                      |\n| 9  | looking for these types of properties?                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | Yes, he did.<br>A.                                                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Why?                                                                                                                             |\n| 12 | A.<br>It was explained to me that Mr. Guo felt that the -- best                                                                        |\n| 13 | way to put it is the world as we know it was not going to be                                                                           |\n| 14 | sustainable with COVID and the vaccines.<br>He felt like that                                                                          |\n| 15 | there would be a lot of deaths, there would be a lot of chaos,                                                                         |\n| 16 | the world would go into massive turmoil.<br>And he wanted to have                                                                      |\n| 17 | places set up for, as he called it, his people, so that they                                                                           |\n| 18 | would have places to go when this happened.                                                                                            |\n| 19 | Q.<br>And who were his people?                                                                                                         |\n| 20 | A.<br>The Chinese people, meaning his supporters.                                                                                      |\n| 21 | Q.<br>His what?                                                                                                                        |\n| 22 | A.<br>Supporters.                                                                                                                      |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And did he tell you what other reasons he was looking for                                                                        |\n| 24 | these properties?                                                                                                                      |\n| 25 | A.<br>Well, primarily it was for that reason.<br>The reason for the                                                                    |\n\n# 5470 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct access for airplanes and that nature was to be able to go to and from these properties, as well as bring in supplies, you know, as needed. Q. And you mentioned it had to have space for 1,000 people. Did you have an understanding of who these thousand people would be? A. My understanding was -- for the way it was described to me, was over 50,000 supporters. But I don't have exact names or - of who it would be or, you know, which people would go where. Q. Mr. Barnett, you testified about a property that you looked at in Colorado; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And could you describe that property for me. A. It was a large property. I don't recall the acreage. It had already had a runway on it. I believe it was a grass runway, if I remember correctly. It had -- I believe it already had different homes on it, but I'm a little fuzzy about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 217 of 500\n\nthe details of the exact property. I just remember it being very large. And I don't know, I remember the price tag being quite big from -- I couldn't tell you exact amount, but it was definitely 200 million, give or take. I don't know the exact amount. 18 19 20 21 22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could I just have a minute? (Counsel conferred)\n\nQ. Mr. Barnett, did you visit the Colorado property or did you\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 218 of<br>5471<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |\n| 1  | just research it online?                                                                                                               |\n| 2  | A.<br>I just saw it online.<br>I did not visit it.                                                                                     |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, you testified about the property in New                                                                             |\n| 4  | Jersey, you remember that?                                                                                                             |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                             |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Okay.<br>And were you aware of an anticipated purchase of a                                                                      |\n| 7  | restaurant also close to that property?                                                                                                |\n| 8  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                           |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.<br>Don't lead.                                                                                                |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were you told to look for the purchase of any                                                                       |\n| 11 | other property in Mahwah, New Jersey, the area of Mahwah, New                                                                          |\n| 12 | Jersey?                                                                                                                                |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes, I looked at other properties in Mahwah.                                                                                     |\n| 14 | Q.<br>And what were those properties?                                                                                                  |\n| 15 | A.<br>The properties I looked at was mostly like office space and                                                                      |\n| 16 | warehouses.                                                                                                                            |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And what else?                                                                                                                   |\n| 18 | A.<br>There was one restaurant that I think that -- referring to,                                                                      |\n| 19 | but it was -- I don't believe it was for sale.                                                                                         |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, as part of your job description at Mahwah, do                                                                       |\n| 21 | you recall purchasing any ready-to-eat meals in large                                                                                  |\n| 22 | quantities?                                                                                                                            |\n| 23 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection to leading.                                                                                                |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                          |\n| 25 | I personally purchased not in large quantities basic<br>A.                                                                             |\n\n#### 5472 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 219 of 500\n\ndifferent types of meals to kind of show Mr. Guo, you know, what they were. And then if he had approved those, and it was approved by Yvette, then we would have purchased a bunch of them. We were looking into it, but we never purchased them. Q. And who were you going to purchase them for? A. For the plan that Mr. Guo had already wanted to do in regards to having like different survival areas for the supporters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n\nTHE COURT: What do you mean by \"survival areas\"?\n\nTHE WITNESS: I considered those -- the properties in regards to what he was looking for, was almost like survival areas for what the -- for what his vision was as to what the world was going to become. That's kind of why I call it that.\n\nTHE COURT: So in case there were some crisis, is that what you're saying? 14 15\n\nTHE WITNESS: That's correct.\n\nTHE COURT: Go ahead.\n\nBY MS. SHROFF:\n\nQ. Mr. Barnett, let me show you what is Defense Exhibit 60678A. Do you recognize this document?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n25\n\nQ. What is it? 22\n\nA. I believe it's one of the properties that we were looking at. 23 24\n\nQ. And where is this property located, do you recall?\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 220 of<br>5473<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>I believe that one was in Arizona.                                                                                               |\n| 2  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, the defense moves DX 60678A                                                                                 |\n| 3  | into evidence.                                                                                                                         |\n| 4  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>May we briefly voir dire, your Honor?                                                                                |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>You may.                                                                                                                 |\n| 6  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Who prepared this document?                                                                                          |\n| 7  | THE WITNESS:<br>I have no idea.                                                                                                        |\n| 8  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>We object.                                                                                                           |\n| 9  | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                         |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Do you recognize the document regardless of who prepared                                                                         |\n| 11 | it?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 12 | I recognize the property from seeing it before, but I never<br>A.                                                                      |\n| 13 | visited the property, nor did I pick out that property myself.                                                                         |\n| 14 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Okay.<br>Let's scroll down.<br>Scroll down.                                                                             |\n| 15 | And keep going.                                                                                                                        |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Do you recall reviewing this property for purchase by                                                                            |\n| 17 | Mr. Guo for fellow supporters?                                                                                                         |\n| 18 | Yes, that I remember.<br>A.<br>I remember that specific picture                                                                        |\n| 19 | that you're showing now.                                                                                                               |\n| 20 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, we move again to have the                                                                                   |\n| 21 | document admitted.                                                                                                                     |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Are you saying that it consists of only                                                                                  |\n| 23 | those two pages that he just identified?                                                                                               |\n| 24 | MS. SHROFF:<br>No, no, it's a larger document.<br>I'm                                                                                  |\n| 25 | happy to have him scroll through it to see if he recognizes the                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 221 of<br>5474<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | entire document.                                                                                                                       |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>He would need to do that before it's                                                                                     |\n| 3  | admitted.                                                                                                                              |\n| 4  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Okay.<br>Can you keep scrolling down,                                                                                   |\n| 5  | please, Jorge.<br>Keep scrolling down.                                                                                                 |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Do you recognize that document now, Mr. Barnett?                                                                                 |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                                                                                       |\n| 8  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Okay.<br>The defense moves to admit it into                                                                             |\n| 9  | evidence.                                                                                                                              |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I just don't know how far you've gotten                                                                                  |\n| 11 | through the document.<br>There's some photographs.<br>I don't know                                                                     |\n| 12 | if there's written language.                                                                                                           |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Do you recognize the document as it's unfolding before you?                                                                      |\n| 14 | A.<br>I do recognize it.<br>I can't tell you that I recognize every                                                                    |\n| 15 | single picture, but I do recognize the document.                                                                                       |\n| 16 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, we renew the motion to admit                                                                                |\n| 17 | the document into evidence.                                                                                                            |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Was that the full document?                                                                                              |\n| 19 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Yes, your Honor.                                                                                                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>And do you recognize the full document?                                                                                  |\n| 21 | THE WITNESS:<br>Your Honor, I recognize some of the                                                                                    |\n| 22 | photos in that document.<br>I can't tell you that I recognize all                                                                      |\n| 23 | the photos.                                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>What percentage do you recognize?                                                                                        |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:<br>It's definitely over 50 percent, your                                                                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 222 of<br>5475<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Honor.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I'll admit it.<br>Go ahead.                                                                                              |\n| 3  | (Defendant's Exhibit DX 60678A received in evidence)                                                                                   |\n| 4  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor --                                                                                                           |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Is this the property that you scouted, Mr. Barnett?                                                                              |\n| 6  | A.<br>It's one of the properties that was shown to me.<br>I did not                                                                    |\n| 7  | find this property personally.                                                                                                         |\n| 8  | MS. SHROFF:<br>And may we publish it to the jury,                                                                                      |\n| 9  | please.<br>We can just keep scrolling, please.                                                                                         |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, sitting here today, do you recall sending this                                                                      |\n| 11 | brochure to someone?                                                                                                                   |\n| 12 | A.<br>I believe I sent this to Yvette.<br>I know -- I know it was                                                                      |\n| 13 | shown to Miles, and also I think it was sent to Anthony                                                                                |\n| 14 | Dibatista.                                                                                                                             |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, was zoning one of the criterias that you were                                                                       |\n| 16 | asked to consider when looking for properties?                                                                                         |\n| 17 | A.<br>Meaning what?<br>I don't know what that --                                                                                       |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Whether property was zoned for a single dwelling or                                                                              |\n| 19 | multiple dwellings?                                                                                                                    |\n| 20 | No, it had to be -- some of the properties had to be<br>A.                                                                             |\n| 21 | multiple dwellings, but there was always -- if it was just                                                                             |\n| 22 | regular like land, straight land, then there would have to                                                                             |\n| 23 | be -- there wasn't any zoning consideration at the time, it was                                                                        |\n| 24 | more of showing the property.<br>And then it would have to be                                                                          |\n| 25 | zoned for multiple -- multiple homes on the property.                                                                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 223 of<br>5476<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were you present -- let me try it a different                                                                       |\n| 2  | way.                                                                                                                                   |\n| 3  | MS. SHROFF:<br>You can take that down for me.                                                                                          |\n| 4  | Thank you.                                                                                                                             |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were you aware of something called the Rule of                                                                      |\n| 6  | Law Foundation?                                                                                                                        |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, I was aware of it.                                                                                                          |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And as part of your security experience, were you asked to                                                                       |\n| 9  | respond to protests undertaken by the Rule of Law Foundation                                                                           |\n| 10 | supporters?                                                                                                                            |\n| 11 | A.<br>I didn't respond to -- well, I responded to one protest,                                                                         |\n| 12 | and that was in Grand Central Station.<br>I responded to that.                                                                         |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And who contacted you?                                                                                                           |\n| 14 | A.<br>I believe it was the -- the MTA police.<br>I can't remember                                                                      |\n| 15 | the -- I can't remember his name off the top of my head, but                                                                           |\n| 16 | I -- be honest with you, I can't remember how he got my phone                                                                          |\n| 17 | number.<br>But he had called me and asked me to come down to                                                                           |\n| 18 | speak with the protesters.                                                                                                             |\n| 19 | Q.<br>And did you do that?                                                                                                             |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                                                      |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And what did you do as a result of being down there?                                                                             |\n| 22 | A.<br>Basically, alls I did was I talked to, I believe it was,                                                                         |\n| 23 | Prince Li at the time; explained to him, you know, about                                                                               |\n| 24 | following the rules of whatever the police department required.                                                                        |\n| 25 | And then after that, I spoke with -- I left a business card                                                                            |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 224 of<br>5477<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | with the two police officers that were in the train station,                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | and then spoke to the deputy after.<br>I believe it was on the                                                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | phone; I don't recall it being in person.<br>And he asked me, you                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | know -- I said, If they don't follow the rules then, they're                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | subject to be either summonsed or arrested.<br>It's just the way                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | it is.                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, you testified about having been employed for                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | Mr. Guo for more than a year; correct?                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | And during that time, did you see him interact with fellow<br>Q.                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | supporters?                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And what is your impression of his attitude towards the                                                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | fellow supporters?                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>My impression of it is he loved them very much.<br>He was --                                                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | he was always talking to them.<br>They were like his primary                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | concern.                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, on the Mahwah property, there is a part that                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | is called the gazebo; is that correct?                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A.<br>There is a gazebo on the property; correct.                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And were there plans to do something with the area that is                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | the gazebo?                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A.<br>There may have been.<br>I don't know what those plans were.                                                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Do you recall at all what the plans were for that area?                                                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.<br>He just said he doesn't                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 225 of<br>5478<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Direct |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | know.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                               |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Do you recall if there was ever a plan to have a                                                                                 |\n| 4  | spaceship --                                                                                                                           |\n| 5  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                           |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.<br>Don't lead.                                                                                                |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Do you recall of any other plans that you were aware of for                                                                      |\n| 8  | the building at Mahwah?                                                                                                                |\n| 9  | A.<br>I'm sorry?                                                                                                                       |\n| 10 | Were you aware of any other plans for -- that were going to<br>Q.                                                                      |\n| 11 | be put in place at Mahwah?                                                                                                             |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes, I was aware of other plans.                                                                                                 |\n| 13 | Q.<br>What were they?                                                                                                                  |\n| 14 | A.<br>The only -- the only plan -- other plan that I'm aware of                                                                        |\n| 15 | was the -- the changing of a kitchen for the office space that                                                                         |\n| 16 | was going to be created on the first floor.                                                                                            |\n| 17 | Q.<br>How about the outside area of Mahwah, were you aware of any                                                                      |\n| 18 | other plans?                                                                                                                           |\n| 19 | A.<br>No, not in regards to the gazebo, I wasn't aware of that                                                                         |\n| 20 | plan.<br>I don't know when that plan was initiated because I was                                                                       |\n| 21 | out -- I left Mahwah in late August/early September.                                                                                   |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Were there drones at Mahwah?                                                                                                     |\n| 23 | A.<br>No, there was an anti-drone system.<br>There were no drones                                                                      |\n| 24 | at Mahwah.                                                                                                                             |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>What was the anti-drone system at Mahwah?                                                                               |\n\n#### 5479 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 226 of 500\n\n| 1  | A.<br>Basically, the anti-drone system was a system that was        |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 2  | installed on the roof of the house in Mahwah.<br>And its            |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | capabilities were that it can detect a drone, a launch of any       |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | drone, I want to say about 15 to 20 miles out.<br>As soon as a      |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | drone is launched, it will tell you exactly what that drone is,     |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | what its capabilities were, where the person who was actually       |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | flying the drone was standing.<br>And that's really the main --     |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | its main capabilities.<br>There was supposed to be a camera that    |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | would actually zoom into the location of that drone, but it was     |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | never -- it was never installed.                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you install this anti-drone equipment?       |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Was it already there when you got there?                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.<br>No, it was not.                                               |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Do you know who installed it?                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | A.<br>It was contracted through Prevenitas.<br>They hired a company |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | that installed it.<br>I don't recall the name of it.<br>I'd have to |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | see the paperwork for it.                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, sitting here today, do you have any doubt        |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | about the fealty Mr. Guo felt for his fellow supporters?            |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, your Honor.                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I have nothing further.                              |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Cross-examination.                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                            |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                     |  |  |  |  |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 227 of<br>5480<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |  |  |  |  |  |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| CROSS-EXAMINATION                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| BY MR. FERGENSON:                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>Good afternoon, Mr. Barnett.                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>Afternoon.                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>You were Miles Guo's head of security, right?                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>You were -- in layman's terms, you were a bodyguard for                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Miles Guo?                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>Yes, that's correct.                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>You called him at times the principal, right?                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>And at times you called him boss, right?                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>Starting in October 2020, you were paid by Golden Spring,                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| right?                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| You understood that that was Miles Guo's money; correct?<br>Q.                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>No, I didn't understand that at that time, no, sir.                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>And you thought other people were paying for Miles Guo's                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| bodyguard?                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| A.<br>I wouldn't have had knowledge of that.<br>It was basically                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| hired by a company to do security services for an individual,                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| so I wouldn't have access to whoever funded that.                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| Q.<br>And then after Golden Spring, Lamp Capital paid you;                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| correct?                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 228 of<br>5481<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.            | Yes, that was switched from Golden Spring to Lamp Capital.                                                           |\n| 2  |               | I don't remember the date though when that was done.                                                                 |\n| 3  | Q.            | And Lamp Capital was another Guo family company, right?                                                              |\n| 4  | A.            | That I had no knowledge of.<br>We only received a couple of                                                          |\n| 5  |               | paychecks from Lamp Capital, and I never really asked about why                                                      |\n| 6  |               | the switch was done.                                                                                                 |\n| 7  | Q.            | And fair to say you don't even know what Lamp Capital was,                                                           |\n| 8  | right?        |                                                                                                                      |\n| 9  | A.            | I honestly have no idea what Lamp Capital was.                                                                       |\n| 10 | Q.            | But you know you got money from it; correct?                                                                         |\n| 11 | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                      |\n| 12 | Q.            | And then after that, HCHK paid you, right?                                                                           |\n| 13 | A.            | Yes, I believe it was HCHK Technologies; and then later,                                                             |\n| 14 |               | HCHK Properties, something like that.                                                                                |\n| 15 | Q.            | And HCHK, those companies were run by Guo and Yvette?                                                                |\n| 16 | A.            | Yes.<br>So my immediate boss was Yvette, that's who I                                                                |\n| 17 |               | reported to.<br>At that time that's pretty much her and Anthony                                                      |\n| 18 |               | are who I reported to every day.                                                                                     |\n| 19 | Q.            | And HCHK had offices at Columbus Circle?                                                                             |\n| 20 | A.            | Correct.                                                                                                             |\n| 21 | Q.            | Guo had an office in HCHK's floor?                                                                                   |\n| 22 | A.            | Right.                                                                                                               |\n| 23 | Q.            | And Yvette had an office on HCHK's floor?                                                                            |\n| 24 | A.            | Yes, she did.                                                                                                        |\n| 25 | Q.            | They were on opposite sides of the floor, right?                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 229 of<br>5482<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.            | No, I believe -- I believe Yvette's office -- I guess that                                                           |\n| 2  |               | was later on.<br>So initially, yes.<br>And then eventually Yvette                                                    |\n| 3  |               | had moved up to an upper floor.                                                                                      |\n| 4  | Q.            | And Guo and Yvette, they were together a lot, right?                                                                 |\n| 5  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                 |\n| 6  |               | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection to what is a lot.                                                                           |\n| 7  |               | THE COURT:<br>You can ask him to gauge.                                                                              |\n| 8  | Q.            | They were together every week, right?                                                                                |\n| 9  | A.            | Yes, to my knowledge, when I was with them, yes.                                                                     |\n| 10 | Q.            | Fair to say they worked closely together?                                                                            |\n| 11 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | Q.            | And now after -- withdrawn.                                                                                          |\n| 13 |               | There came a point where you started your own company;                                                               |\n| 14 |               | correct?                                                                                                             |\n| 15 | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                      |\n| 16 | Q.            | Its name was -- tell me if I have this right.<br>Was it GS                                                           |\n| 17 |               | Security Solution?                                                                                                   |\n| 18 | A.            | That's correct.<br>It's called GS Security Solutions.                                                                |\n| 19 | Q.            | And you started that company with the help of Guo and                                                                |\n| 20 |               | Yvette, right?                                                                                                       |\n| 21 | A.            | Well, I started that company with the permission of Yvette.                                                          |\n| 22 |               | Miles didn't really have any say in that.<br>I never had a                                                           |\n| 23 |               | discussion with him in regards to that company; was with                                                             |\n| 24 |               | Yvette, Max Krasner and Anthony Dibatista is who I discussed                                                         |\n| 25 |               | that with.                                                                                                           |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 230 of<br>5483<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               |                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.            | And Yvette approved the plan for --                                                                                  |\n| 2  | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                      |\n| 3  | Q.            | For that company.                                                                                                    |\n| 4  |               | And Anthony Dibatista, you also discussed that plan                                                                  |\n| 5  |               | with him, right?                                                                                                     |\n| 6  | A.            | I did.                                                                                                               |\n| 7  | Q.            | Max Krasner, he had access to your company's books, right?                                                           |\n| 8  | A.            | Yes, he did.                                                                                                         |\n| 9  | Q.            | And he was kind of a finance guy for the Guo family                                                                  |\n| 10 |               | companies, fair to say?                                                                                              |\n| 11 | A.            | Yes, he -- when I first met Max, he was the finance guy for                                                          |\n| 12 |               | Golden Spring.                                                                                                       |\n| 13 | Q.            | Max called Miles Guo boss, right?                                                                                    |\n| 14 | A.            | I believe so.                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | Q.            | And Anthony called Miles Guo boss, right?                                                                            |\n| 16 | A.            | Yes, I believe so.                                                                                                   |\n| 17 | Q.            | And Yvette called Miles Guo the principal, right?                                                                    |\n| 18 | A.            | Well, the only term she used with me was the P.<br>She never                                                         |\n| 19 |               | used the full term \"principal,\" just so you know.                                                                    |\n| 20 | Q.            | You understood --                                                                                                    |\n| 21 | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                      |\n| 22 | Q.            | -- that that meant principal; correct?                                                                               |\n| 23 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | Q.            | And they weren't the only employees who called Miles Guo                                                             |\n| 25 |               | boss, right?                                                                                                         |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 231 of<br>5484<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>No, a lot of people called him boss.                                                                                            |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And they weren't the only employees -- Yvette wasn't the                                                                        |\n| 3  | only employee -- you and Yvette weren't the only employees who                                                                        |\n| 4  | called him the principal, right?                                                                                                      |\n| 5  | A.<br>That I don't know.<br>I don't -- that wasn't a common term.                                                                     |\n| 6  | It was a term that me and Yvette used with each other.<br>I                                                                           |\n| 7  | don't -- I don't remember -- I don't know if it was used with                                                                         |\n| 8  | my other team members, but I know it was used between me and                                                                          |\n| 9  | Yvette.<br>I don't remember anybody else calling him the                                                                              |\n| 10 | principal, but they may have, but I don't recall that.                                                                                |\n| 11 | Q.<br>But you and your team members also referred to him as                                                                           |\n| 12 | principal or P, right?                                                                                                                |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yeah.<br>Most of the time it would have been boss, but I                                                                        |\n| 14 | referred to him as P with Yvette all the time.                                                                                        |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Now, after you started your company, your company received                                                                      |\n| 16 | money from HCHK, right?                                                                                                               |\n| 17 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                        |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And HCHK sent your company money on multiple occasions,                                                                         |\n| 19 | right?                                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | A.<br>For payroll until it was fully -- fully switched over.<br>So                                                                    |\n| 21 | there was an agreement in regards to how the company was going                                                                        |\n| 22 | to be run and what services that I would be giving and getting                                                                        |\n| 23 | in return.                                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And in December 2022, your company received \\$50,000 from                                                                       |\n| 25 | HCHK Property Management?                                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 232 of<br>5485<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 1  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And in January 2023, your company received \\$400,000 from                                                                       |\n| 3  | HCHK, right?                                                                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |\n| 5  | Q.<br>In February 2023, your company received \\$200,000 from HCHK,                                                                    |\n| 6  | right?                                                                                                                                |\n| 7  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |\n| 8  | Q.<br>So sir, in the three months leading up to Miles Guo's                                                                           |\n| 9  | arrest, your company received \\$650,000 from HCHK; correct?                                                                           |\n| 10 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                        |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And that was after Miles Guo had declared bankruptcy;                                                                           |\n| 12 | correct?                                                                                                                              |\n| 13 | A.<br>I didn't know Miles Guo had declared bankruptcy.                                                                                |\n| 14 | Q.<br>He never told you that?                                                                                                         |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, he did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 16 | Sir, didn't you take him --<br>Q.                                                                                                     |\n| 17 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection as to hearsay that the                                                                                       |\n| 18 | government is seeking to elicit.                                                                                                      |\n| 19 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>He's an opposing party, your Honor.                                                                                 |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.                                                                                                              |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Didn't you take him to court proceedings in Connecticut in                                                                      |\n| 22 | connection with bankruptcy?                                                                                                           |\n| 23 | A.<br>I did.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                       |\n| 24 | Q.<br>So what did you think he was going there for?                                                                                   |\n| 25 | A.<br>I didn't know it was in regards to anything that was                                                                            |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 233 of<br>5486<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | current, meaning HCHK.<br>I had no knowledge of that.                                                                                 |\n| 2  | Q.<br>But you knew he had declared bankruptcy because you took                                                                        |\n| 3  | him to court --                                                                                                                       |\n| 4  | A.<br>From a previous company, that's correct.                                                                                        |\n| 5  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, could Mr.<br>--                                                                                            |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Just allow him to answer.                                                                                               |\n| 7  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Thank you.                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | Q.<br>But you understood that it was Miles Guo -- Miles Guo had                                                                       |\n| 9  | declared bankruptcy; correct?                                                                                                         |\n| 10 | A.<br>My understanding is the company declared bankruptcy.<br>I                                                                       |\n| 11 | don't know if it was Miles Guo personally.<br>But I did take him                                                                      |\n| 12 | to court, that's correct.                                                                                                             |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Was it Miles Guo who told you that the company declared                                                                         |\n| 14 | bankruptcy?                                                                                                                           |\n| 15 | No.<br>A.                                                                                                                             |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Did he ever tell you that he himself had declared                                                                               |\n| 17 | bankruptcy in early 2022?                                                                                                             |\n| 18 | A.<br>Not that I remember, not personally.                                                                                            |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Now, Mr. Barnett, since Miles Guo's arrest, you've                                                                              |\n| 20 | continued working for the Guo family, right?                                                                                          |\n| 21 | That's correct.<br>A.                                                                                                                 |\n| 22 | Q.<br>You still work for the Guo family, right?                                                                                       |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                                                                                      |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Miles Guo's daughter is your client?                                                                                            |\n| 25 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |\n\n| Page 234 of<br>5487                                           |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n| And that's just -- you know, before Miles Guo's arrest, he    |\n|                                                               |\n| The companies also.                                           |\n| The whole -- the whole entity was the most important company. |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n| Now, since Miles Guo's arrest, you've received money sent     |\n|                                                               |\n| I mean, meaning my invoices, how they are                     |\n|                                                               |\n| Well, individuals who are not your actual clients have sent   |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n|                                                               |\n| invoice to Mei, and then she has whatever, pays the invoice.  |\n| And since Miles Guo's arrest, you've received monies sent     |\n|                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 235 of<br>5488<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | by companies who are not your actual clients; correct?                                                                                |\n| 2  | A.<br>I'm unaware of who is actually sending the money; I just                                                                        |\n| 3  | know it does arrive in my bank.<br>I don't have an exact name of                                                                      |\n| 4  | each person or how Mei sends the money.                                                                                               |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>But the question is whether those                                                                                       |\n| 6  | individuals or entities are actually your clients.                                                                                    |\n| 7  | THE WITNESS:<br>No, they are not my clients.<br>Mei Guo is                                                                            |\n| 8  | my client.                                                                                                                            |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And sir, on May 4th, 2023, your company received \\$152,000                                                                      |\n| 10 | approximately from an individual named Jingrui Sun, right?                                                                            |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yeah, I did receive that money.<br>I couldn't tell you if                                                                       |\n| 12 | that's who it was from, but I did receive that money.                                                                                 |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And the next month, on June 12, 2023, your company received                                                                     |\n| 14 | over \\$25,000 from a company called HGA Property Operation LLC,                                                                       |\n| 15 | right?                                                                                                                                |\n| 16 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                            |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And that same month, on the next day, on June 13, 2023,                                                                         |\n| 18 | your company received an incoming wire of \\$105,000 from an                                                                           |\n| 19 | individual named Shengxu Wang; correct?                                                                                               |\n| 20 | A.<br>I did receive that money.<br>Again, I don't know who those                                                                      |\n| 21 | were from.<br>Those are all invoices for securities services.                                                                         |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And, sir, you work for the NYPD, right?                                                                                         |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes, sir.                                                                                                                       |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And you know a money mule is someone who receives and                                                                           |\n| 25 | transfers fraud proceeds, right?                                                                                                      |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 236 of<br>5489<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                                                                                           |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes.<br>Provides services for that money.<br>It's not -- I                                                                      |\n| 4  | don't just get money; I provide service for that, sir.                                                                                |\n| 5  | Q.<br>No, no, I'm talking about money mules.                                                                                          |\n| 6  | A.<br>Oh, in general.<br>I thought you were calling me one.<br>I'm                                                                    |\n| 7  | sorry.                                                                                                                                |\n| 8  | Q.<br>No, no.<br>But you're aware that that's what a money mule is,                                                                   |\n| 9  | right?                                                                                                                                |\n| 10 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                            |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And on July 6, 2023, your company received over \\$107,000                                                                       |\n| 12 | from an individual named Xuehong Zhang; correct?                                                                                      |\n| 13 | A.<br>I did receive that money, yes, sir.                                                                                             |\n| 14 | Q.<br>And then on September 5th, 2023, your company received over                                                                     |\n| 15 | \\$49,000 from an individual named Desheng Yin; correct?                                                                               |\n| 16 | Again, I received that money.<br>A.                                                                                                   |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And then the next month, on October 30, 2023, your company                                                                      |\n| 18 | received \\$10,000 from that same entity, HGA Property                                                                                 |\n| 19 | Operations; correct?                                                                                                                  |\n| 20 | A.<br>That's correct.<br>That was for an invoice for legal fees;                                                                      |\n| 21 | correct.                                                                                                                              |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And then after that, the next month, on November 10, 2023,                                                                      |\n| 23 | your company received over \\$55,000 from a wire that was from an                                                                      |\n| 24 | individual named Yu Xuanlin; correct?                                                                                                 |\n| 25 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 237 of<br>5490<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>And that was transferred through the Overseas Chinese                                                                           |\n| 2  | Banking Corporation Ltd. in Singapore; correct?                                                                                       |\n| 3  | A.<br>I assume so.<br>You know better than I would.                                                                                   |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And then the next month, on December 7th, 2023, your                                                                            |\n| 5  | company received another \\$55,000, approximately, from that same                                                                      |\n| 6  | individual; correct?                                                                                                                  |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, I received that money for invoices; correct.                                                                               |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And then coming into this year, on January 16th, your                                                                           |\n| 9  | company received — again from this same individual — over                                                                             |\n| 10 | \\$55,000; correct?                                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                        |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And then the next day, on January 17th, your company                                                                            |\n| 13 | received \\$55,000 from a different individual, Wei Lai; correct?                                                                      |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Counsel, please step up.                                                                                                |\n| 15 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                              |\n| 16 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 17 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 18 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 19 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 20 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                       |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 238 of<br>5491<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross                                                                            |\n| 1  | (At sidebar)                                                                                           |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>So I need to protect him from                                                            |\n| 3  | self-incrimination.<br>Is his lawyer here?                                                             |\n| 4  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>I'm not sure, your Honor.                                                            |\n| 5  | MS. SHROFF:<br>No, he's not, your Honor.<br>We told him                                                |\n| 6  | that he was going to testify today.<br>And his lawyer is away, as                                      |\n| 7  | best as I can tell.<br>But he's had somebody in -- who can step                                        |\n| 8  | in.<br>But I'm happy to take a break and call.                                                         |\n| 9  | But I think the government knows about all of this and                                                 |\n| 10 | the government never asked him any of these questions when they                                        |\n| 11 | proffered him several, several times.                                                                  |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Have you asked these questions of him                                                    |\n| 13 | beforehand?                                                                                            |\n| 14 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>No.                                                                                  |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>No, they didn't ask.                                                                    |\n| 16 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>He's not our witness, your Honor.                                                    |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>No, no, no.<br>I just don't know whether or                                              |\n| 18 | not you've had any contact with him.                                                                   |\n| 19 | I think I need to take a little recess and talk to                                                     |\n| 20 | him.                                                                                                   |\n| 21 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Sure.                                                                                   |\n| 22 | (Continued on next page)                                                                               |\n| 23 |                                                                                                        |\n| 24 |                                                                                                        |\n| 25 |                                                                                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 239 of<br>5492<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (In open court)                                                                                                                       |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Members of the jury, we're going to take a                                                                              |\n| 3  | brief break.<br>I will call you back in a few minutes.                                                                                |\n| 4  | (Jury not present)                                                                                                                    |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.                                                                                                       |\n| 6  | Sir, you have been asked a series of questions                                                                                        |\n| 7  | concerning an inflow of a considerable amount of money into                                                                           |\n| 8  | your account.<br>I am concerned that you may be answering these                                                                       |\n| 9  | questions without the proper advice of an attorney.                                                                                   |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                 |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>And so I want you to know that you have                                                                                 |\n| 12 | the right to not answer these questions and you have the right                                                                        |\n| 13 | to consult an attorney.<br>Do you have somebody who is on call?                                                                       |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:<br>I do have someone I can call.                                                                                         |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>All righty.<br>I'd like you to take a break                                                                             |\n| 16 | and to make a call and to express to your attorney my concern                                                                         |\n| 17 | about this line of questioning.                                                                                                       |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                 |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>And then ask for his or her advice about                                                                                |\n| 20 | whether you should continue to answer questions about the                                                                             |\n| 21 | subject matter.                                                                                                                       |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                 |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>All righty?                                                                                                             |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:<br>Yup.                                                                                                                  |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                                                       |\n\n#### 5493 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 240 of 500\n\nSo go ahead and we will wait for you to come back. He'll have to get his phone. In the meantime, we can call another witness. You may go downstairs. And just when you're finished, come back and -- MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we just confer with him about if he can use -- if he knows the phone number, he can certainly use one of our phones. That's the only thing I was going to offer. THE COURT: Or maybe the name of the attorney can be put into Google and you can find that phone number. MS. SHROFF: I do have his attorney's name. I'm happy to get in touch with the attorney and hand over the phone to Mr. Barnett. I'll just give him my phone so he can call his attorney after I give him the number. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Fergenson? MR. FERGENSON: That's fine, your Honor. We also have the cell phone number of his attorney. MS. SHROFF: That attorney is not around today, that particular attorney. We'll figure it out, your Honor. But I'm just going to give him the number of the contact attorney and let him call him. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SHROFF: Okay. THE COURT: And in the meantime, I'd like you to call 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 241 of<br>5494<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Barnett - Cross |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | another witness.<br>Is there somebody at the ready?                                                                                   |\n| 2  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>We do have someone.<br>I just want to                                                                                |\n| 3  | swap out with Ms. Shroff.                                                                                                             |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, Mr. Barnett is on the phone                                                                                |\n| 6  | with his counsel.<br>Would the Court prefer to just give him five                                                                     |\n| 7  | minutes or should we start and interrupt again?                                                                                       |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I want to get as much in as possible.<br>So                                                                             |\n| 9  | if we could have your next witness.                                                                                                   |\n| 10 | MS. SHROFF:<br>She's right here.                                                                                                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>All righty.<br>If you'll come to the stand,                                                                             |\n| 12 | please.<br>And if you'll have the jurors brought in.                                                                                  |\n| 13 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, could we ask for a standby                                                                                 |\n| 14 | interpreter for Ms. Li?                                                                                                               |\n| 15 | She has requested a standby interpreter.<br>She has                                                                                   |\n| 16 | English and Mandarin fluency of --                                                                                                    |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>One second.                                                                                                             |\n| 18 | The answer is yes on the standby interpreter.                                                                                         |\n| 19 | You can have the jurors brought in, please.                                                                                           |\n| 20 | (Jury present)                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.                                                                                                       |\n| 22 | Members of the jury, in the interest of efficiency, I                                                                                 |\n| 23 | have decided that, for logistical reasons, we're going to take                                                                        |\n| 24 | the testimony of another witness.                                                                                                     |\n| 25 | You may swear the witness.                                                                                                            |\n\n|    |                                               | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 242 of<br>5495<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Leanne Li - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  |                                               | LEANNE LI,                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | called as a witness by the Defendant,         |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | having been duly sworn, testified as follows: |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  |                                               | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>You can make the inquiry.                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | DIRECT EXAMINATION                            |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  |                                               | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.                                            | Good afternoon, Ms. Li.                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | A.                                            | Good afternoon.                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Q.                                            | Ms. Li, where were you born?                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | A.                                            | I was born in China.                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Q.                                            | And how long did you live in China?                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | A.                                            | Until I was 11, 12 years old.                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q.                                            | And where in China did you live?                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.                                            | I lived in Beijing.                                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.                                            | And in Beijing, did you attend elementary school?                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | A.                                            | Yes.                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | Q.                                            | What school did you go to?                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | A.                                            | I don't remember the name.                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | Q.                                            | Ms. Li, did there come a time when you left China?                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A.                                            | Yes.                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q.                                            | And how old were you when you left?                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | A.                                            | Eleven or 12 years old.                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Q.                                            | And with whom did you leave China?                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A.                                            | My parents.                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | Q.                                            | Do you recall what year that was?                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                               |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 243 of<br>5496<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Leanne Li - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | A.            | 2001 or 2002, around that time.                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q.            | Ms. Li, after you left China, where did you move to?                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.            | I moved to Vancouver, Canada.                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q.            | And did your parents move with you?                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | Q.            | Did you attend school in Vancouver?                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | Q.            | Where did you go to school?                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A.            | Fairview.                                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q.            | And did you attend college?                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q.            | Where did you go to college?                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A.            | I went to University of Ottawa.                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | Q.            | And did you graduate from University of Ottawa?                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | Q.            | And with what degree did you graduate?                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | A.            | Business degree.                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q.            | Did you attend any other schooling after you graduated from                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 |               | the University of Ottawa?                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q.            | Where did you go to school?                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | A.            | UBC.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Q.            | What is UBC?                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A.            | Sorry.<br>Let me clarify that, okay.<br>So it's University                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |               | British Columbia.                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 244 of<br>5497<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Leanne Li - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | Q.            | And what did you study there?                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | A.            | Real estate.                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Q.            | And for how long did you study real estate?                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | A.            | For a year.                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Q.            | And as a result of those studies, did you get a license?                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q.            | And what are you licensed to do?                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | A.            | To become a Realtor agent.                                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Q.            | And were you, in fact, working as a Realtor agent in                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 |               | Canada?                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q.            | We'll come back to that.<br>But first let me ask you, Ms. Li,                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 |               | are you currently employed?                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.            | And who do you work for now?                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | A.            | I work for Heran Hao.                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | Q.            | Ms. Li, what company do you work for?                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | A.            | I work for G Fashion.                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | Q.            | And G Fashion what?                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A.            | I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q.            | Okay.<br>Where do you live now?                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | A.            | I live in Milan.                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Q.            | Milan as in what country?                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A.            | Italy.                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | Q.            | And what is your title right now?                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    |    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 245 of<br>5498<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Leanne Li - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | A. | CEO.                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q. | CEO of what?                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A. | Of G Fashion.                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q. | Ms. Li, when did you first hear of Miles Guo?                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | A. | In 2017.                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | Q. | And where did you first hear of Miles Guo?                                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | A. | I heard him on YouTube.                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | Q. | And could you describe what kind of program was it on                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  |    | YouTube where you first saw him.                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | A. | I'm sorry, can you rephrase that?                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Q. | Sure.                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 |    | On YouTube, was it a live broadcast or a replay?                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A. | At that time it was a replay, I think.                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | Q. | And do you recall sitting here today when you heard that                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 |    | replay what it is that Mr. Guo was talking about?                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | A. | He was talking about corruptions of the CCP and -- and let                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 |    | me think.<br>And CCP was using BGY strategies to the future is                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 |    | the west.<br>And he was talking about the love scandals between                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 |    | the high-rank Chinese government officials with -- yes, with                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 |    | all the celebrities in China.                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q. | So let's break that down, Ms. Li.                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 |    | What is BGY?                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A. | BG --                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q. | Could you see if you can adjust the mic so you don't have                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |    | blowback.                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 246 of<br>5499<br>500<br>O78VGUO5<br>Leanne Li - Direct |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1  | A.<br>Is it better now?                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q.<br>I think so.                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A.<br>Okay.<br>So B represented blue, means networking, monitoring,                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | and controlling.<br>So the Chinese government say they can                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | manipulate the social medias and work towards to their favor.                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | BG -- BGY -- okay.<br>G means gold, represent gold.<br>So                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | they're using -- they are using money to bribe all the                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | political -- political figures and influencing people around                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | the world so that these people -- so will do whatever they are                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | asking for.                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | And BG -- Y stands for yellow.<br>So they are using                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | sexually bribing the political figures and also the influential                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | people.<br>And after that, they use that videos or message to                                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | blackmail them so that these people will -- will listen to                                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | whatever they're asking them to do.                                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    |    | Case 22-50073  | Doc 3602                                                      | Filed 10/01/24 | 500 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 247 of | 5500    |\n|----|----|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----|---------------------------|-------------|---------|\n|    |    | O78BGUO6       |                                                               |                |     | Leanne Li - Direct        |             |         |\n| 1  |    |                | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 2  | Q. |                | And then you said -- I had a little trouble there.            |                |     |                           |             | Ms. Li, |\n| 3  |    |                | were you trying to say they were \"infiltrating\" the media; is |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 4  |    | that the word? |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 5  | A. |                | Yes, correct.                                                 |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 6  | Q. |                | Now, Ms. Li, have you ever met Miles Guo in person?           |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 7  | A. | No.            |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 8  | Q. |                | Is this the first time you're seeing Miles Guo in person?     |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 9  | A. | Yes.           |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 10 | Q. |                | And after seeing Miles Guo in the 2017 YouTube, did you       |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 11 |    |                | continue to watch broadcasting by Mr. Guo?                    |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 12 | A. | Yes.           |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 13 | Q. |                | And for how many years did you watch the broadcast, from      |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 14 |    |                | what year to what year?                                       |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 15 | A. |                | From 2017 to 2020, first half of year.                        |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 16 | Q. |                | First half of 2020?                                           |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 17 | A. | Correct.       |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 18 | Q. |                | Why did you stop watching after the first half of 2020?       |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 19 | A. |                | Because I went to LA to work for G Fashion.                   |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 20 | Q. |                | And what did that have to do with you stopping to watch       |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 21 |    | videos?        |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 22 | A. |                | Because I was so busy, I do not have time to watch his live   |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 23 |    | broadcast.     |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 24 | Q. |                | Ms. Li, did there come a time after 2017 when you were        |                |     |                           |             |         |\n| 25 |    |                | contacted by Miles Guo?                                       |                |     |                           |             |         |\n|    |    |                |                                                               |                |     |                           |             |         |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 248 of<br>5501<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO6<br>Leanne Li - Direct                                                                         |\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 2  | Q.<br>When was that, do you remember?                                                                  |\n| 3  | A.<br>I think it was 2018.                                                                             |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And how did Mr. Guo contact you?                                                                 |\n| 5  | A.<br>He contact me through Guo Media.                                                                 |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Through what?                                                                                    |\n| 7  | A.<br>Guo Media.                                                                                       |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And could you explain how that came about?                                                       |\n| 9  | A.<br>What do you mean by that?<br>I'm sorry.<br>Can you rephrase                                      |\n| 10 | your question again?                                                                                   |\n| 11 | Q.<br>So did he call you through Guo media?                                                            |\n| 12 | Did he DM you?                                                                                         |\n| 13 | How did the contact happen?                                                                            |\n| 14 | A.<br>So he send me a direct message on Guo Media.                                                     |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And what is a direct message?                                                                    |\n| 16 | A.<br>He said hi.                                                                                      |\n| 17 | Q.<br>No, what is it?<br>I understand what his direct message was.                                     |\n| 18 | My question is, what is a direct message?                                                              |\n| 19 | A.<br>Direct message is private chat, so he send me a message                                          |\n| 20 | through private chat.                                                                                  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>And were you active on Guo Media at that time?                                          |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And do you know -- could you describe Guo Media for the                                          |\n| 24 | jury?                                                                                                  |\n| 25 | A.<br>Okay.<br>Guo media was social platform like a Twitter, like a                                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 249 of<br>5502<br>500 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | O78BGUO6<br>Leanne Li - Direct                                                                         |\n| 1  | app that people can exchange information, upload videos.                                               |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Did you have an account on Guo Media?                                                            |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And what language was Guo Media available in or in what                                          |\n| 5  | language was Guo Media available?                                                                      |\n| 6  | A.<br>I think it was Chinese and English.                                                              |\n| 7  | Q.<br>And which language did you use?                                                                  |\n| 8  | A.<br>I use English.                                                                                   |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And why did you use the English version of the app?                                              |\n| 10 | Because that was the default mode.<br>A.                                                               |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Because that was the what?                                                                       |\n| 12 | A.<br>The default mode.                                                                                |\n| 13 | Q.<br>The default mode?                                                                                |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Ms. Li, are you fluent in both English and Mandarin?                                             |\n| 16 | Well, I don't know how to say that because I was born in<br>A.                                         |\n| 17 | China, study until 11, 12, and then afterwards I move to                                               |\n| 18 | Canada.<br>I speak English.<br>Now living Italy, I'm learning                                          |\n| 19 | Italian right now, so my language system is all messed up.<br>So.                                      |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>Ms. Li, what did you use -- what did you primarily                                      |\n| 21 | use Guo media for?                                                                                     |\n| 22 | A.<br>I was use to upload the videos that I made.                                                      |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And what videos did you make, videos yourself?                                                   |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Of what?                                                                                         |\n|    |                                                                                                        |\n\n#### 5503 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 250 of\n\n|    | 500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Leanne Li - Direct                               |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>I translate some parts of Mr. Guo's live broadcast, and I     |\n| 2  | add the subtitle, English and Chinese subtitle on video club.       |\n| 3  | Hold on, Ms. Li.<br>Q.                                              |\n| 4  | When you just testified that you made videos, you                   |\n| 5  | don't mean you made videos.<br>Let me try this again.<br>They       |\n| 6  | weren't videos about you that you made, correct?                    |\n| 7  | A.<br>Sorry.<br>I don't understand your question.                   |\n| 8  | Q.<br>The videos that you made, describe the process of how you     |\n| 9  | made these videos?                                                  |\n| 10 | A.<br>Okay.<br>So I will watch Mr. Guo's live broadcast.<br>After I |\n| 11 | finish his live broadcast, I will pick, myself, the most            |\n| 12 | important part, or the part I think the western people need to      |\n| 13 | know, the whole world need to know.<br>So I would download those    |\n| 14 | part, only that part, and then afterwards I add the subtitle,       |\n| 15 | English subtitle, so people can able to understand.                 |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And after you did that, did you upload the video?             |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes, I upload the video.                                      |\n| 18 | To where?<br>Q.                                                     |\n| 19 | A.<br>To Guo Media.                                                 |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Did somebody ask you to do this or did you do this by         |\n| 21 | yourself?                                                           |\n| 22 | A.<br>I did it by myself.                                           |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And why?                                                      |\n| 24 | Because I think whatever what Mr. Miles said, you know, it<br>A.    |\n| 25 | is very important for people to know these things are really        |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n5504 O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct happening in China, and then they try to infiltrate the west. So I think the western people need to know about this. This is very important. Q. Did you post these translated videos on any other social media other than Guo Media? A. YouTube. Q. As a result of posting of these videos, Ms. Li, did anything happen to your own account on Guo Media? A. Can you ask that question again? Q. Sure. After you posted these videos, did you gain followers on your account? MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. She's testifying. THE COURT: I'll allow the question. Go ahead. A. Yes. Q. How many followers did you have? A. I don't remember. MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we have one quick sidebar? THE COURT: Yes. (Continued on next page) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 251 of 500\n\n O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct (At the sidebar) MS. SHROFF: I just receive Mr. Barnett is squared away, and he has some work whatever issues. I don't know if you wanted to finish -- THE COURT: Yes, we can finish with him. We'll bring him back. MS. SHROFF: We don't even have to leave the jury. THE COURT: No. We'll just leave them in place. Sure. (Continued on next page) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 252 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 253 of<br>5506<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (In open court)                                                                                                                      |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Members of the jury, we are going to go                                                                                |\n| 3  | back to the prior witness now.<br>You can go out of the                                                                              |\n| 4  | courtroom.<br>Don't discuss your testimony.                                                                                          |\n| 5  | THE WITNESS:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>We're going to go back to the cross                                                                                    |\n| 7  | examination of Mr. Barnett.                                                                                                          |\n| 8  | (Witness entered the courtroom)                                                                                                      |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>And, sir, remember that you're still under                                                                             |\n| 10 | oath.                                                                                                                                |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:<br>Yes, ma'am.                                                                                                          |\n| 12 |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 13 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT,                                                                                                                |\n| 14 | CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED                                                                                                          |\n| 15 | BY MR. FERGENSON:                                                                                                                    |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, when we broke we were talking about certain                                                                       |\n| 17 | payments your company had received.<br>Do you recall that?                                                                           |\n| 18 | Yes, I do.<br>A.                                                                                                                     |\n| 19 | Q.<br>It's a fact, sir, that you've received at least over                                                                           |\n| 20 | \\$500,000 from individuals or companies who are not your actual                                                                      |\n| 21 | clients, right?                                                                                                                      |\n| 22 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And you said you provided services for that money, right?                                                                      |\n| 24 | A.<br>That's correct, I provided security services for all that                                                                      |\n| 25 | money.                                                                                                                               |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 254 of<br>5507<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.<br>But you didn't provide services to those people who sent                                                                       |\n| 2  | you that money, right?                                                                                                               |\n| 3  | A.<br>No, sir.                                                                                                                       |\n| 4  | You provided those services to Miles Guo's daughter, right?<br>Q.                                                                    |\n| 5  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 6  | Q.<br>And then you sent Miles Guo daughter's invoices, right?                                                                        |\n| 7  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And then these other people whom you don't even know sent                                                                      |\n| 9  | you hundreds of thousands of dollars, right?                                                                                         |\n| 10 | A.<br>Yes, sir.                                                                                                                      |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Now, the Guo family has helped pay for your lawyers as                                                                         |\n| 12 | well, right?                                                                                                                         |\n| 13 | A.<br>No, I had to do a Go Fund Me for that.                                                                                         |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Before the Go Fund Me, sir, didn't you ask Mei Guo for help                                                                    |\n| 15 | paying for your bankruptcy lawyers?                                                                                                  |\n| 16 | A.<br>I did. That's correct.                                                                                                         |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And you needed a lawyer because you got sued for the money                                                                     |\n| 18 | your company had received from HCHK, right?                                                                                          |\n| 19 | That's correct.<br>A.                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | Q.<br>You were sued by the U.S. bankruptcy trustee in Miles Guo's                                                                    |\n| 21 | bankruptcy?                                                                                                                          |\n| 22 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And you talked to Victor Cerda about that, right?                                                                              |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                                                    |\n| 25 | Victor Cerda is a lawyer for the Guo family, right?<br>Q.                                                                            |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 255 of<br>5508<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And you knew Cerda from your work for the Guo family,                                                                          |\n| 3  | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 5  | And Victor Cerda helped you find the bankruptcy lawyer who<br>Q.                                                                     |\n| 6  | represented you in that proceeding, right?                                                                                           |\n| 7  | A.<br>I believe Mei Guo found that attorney for me.<br>I'm not sure                                                                  |\n| 8  | who found that attorney.                                                                                                             |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And Victor Cerda help pay for that attorney?                                                                                   |\n| 10 | A.<br>Originally for the initial \\$10,000 that I invoiced for,                                                                       |\n| 11 | that was from Victor, correct, his law firm.                                                                                         |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And Victor Cerda helped pay for your criminal lawyers too,                                                                     |\n| 13 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 14 | A.<br>I think in the beginning, I believe so.                                                                                        |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And Victor Cerda asked that you talk to Miles Guo's defense                                                                    |\n| 16 | lawyers, right?                                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | A.<br>I don't recall that.                                                                                                           |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And you did talk to Miles Guo's defense lawyers, right?                                                                        |\n| 19 | A.<br>I did in the very, very beginning, but I don't think Victor                                                                    |\n| 20 | ask me to do that.<br>I don't recall that, but I remember having                                                                     |\n| 21 | that conversation in New Jersey.                                                                                                     |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And Victor Cerda also wanted you to testify in this trial,                                                                     |\n| 23 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 24 | A.<br>Yes, I believe he did, correct.                                                                                                |\n| 25 | Q.<br>And you did that too, right?                                                                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 256 of<br>5509<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | A.<br>I was subpoena to.<br>I said, if you want me to testify, you                                                                   |\n| 2  | have to subpoena me.                                                                                                                 |\n| 3  | Q.<br>And you mention a Go Fund Me a few moments ago, right?                                                                         |\n| 4  | That's correct.<br>A.                                                                                                                |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Victor Cerda help you set up your Go Fund Me, right?                                                                           |\n| 6  | A.<br>Well, I set up my own Go Fund Me, and I shared it with him,                                                                    |\n| 7  | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | Q.<br>You did that because he was going to help you get donations                                                                    |\n| 9  | to that Go Fund Me?                                                                                                                  |\n| 10 | A.<br>I had hoped so, correct?                                                                                                       |\n| 11 | Q.<br>That was your understanding, right?                                                                                            |\n| 12 | A.<br>That's why I sent it to him, yes.                                                                                              |\n| 13 | Q.<br>You understood that Victor Cerda was going to send your Go                                                                     |\n| 14 | Fund me to a guy name Long Island David, right?                                                                                      |\n| 15 | A.<br>That I didn't have that conversation with him.<br>I didn't                                                                     |\n| 16 | know who he sent it to.                                                                                                              |\n| 17 | Q.<br>You knew he was going to send it to Miles Guo's supporters,                                                                    |\n| 18 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | That's correct, yes.<br>A.                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And, in fact, it was sent to Miles Guo's supporters, right?                                                                    |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And you raised tens of thousands of dollars in your Go Fund                                                                    |\n| 23 | Me from them, right?                                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | A.<br>That's correct, all spent on attorneys.                                                                                        |\n| 25 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, could the government please                                                                               |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 257 of<br>5510<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  |               | let Mr. Barnett finish.                                                                                             |\n| 2  |               | THE COURT:<br>So permit him to answer before the next                                                               |\n| 3  |               | question.                                                                                                           |\n| 4  | Q.            | You don't know who those people are either, right?                                                                  |\n| 5  | A.            | I don't recognize the names on there, I do not.                                                                     |\n| 6  | Q.            | But you know they sent you money, right?                                                                            |\n| 7  | A.            | Of course.<br>I get a thing from Go Fund Me that shows who                                                          |\n| 8  |               | sent money.                                                                                                         |\n| 9  | Q.            | Now, Mr. Barnett, you testified about various large                                                                 |\n| 10 |               | properties that you looked at in person or online, right?                                                           |\n| 11 | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                     |\n| 12 | Q.            | Now, nobody actually bought those properties, right?                                                                |\n| 13 | A.            | Nope.                                                                                                               |\n| 14 | Q.            | And when you were looking at those properties, Miles Guo                                                            |\n| 15 |               | had already purchased Mahwah, right?                                                                                |\n| 16 | A.            | Yes, this was after Mahwah.                                                                                         |\n| 17 | Q.            | And you went on at least one trip, correct?                                                                         |\n| 18 | A.            | Trip?                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | Q.            | Like you went in person to one of the properties, correct?                                                          |\n| 20 | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                     |\n| 21 | Q.            | And was part of that trip a vacation for the Guo family?                                                            |\n| 22 | A.            | It was a vacation/business trip.<br>Any trip that we went on                                                        |\n| 23 |               | regarding Miles was always really 80 percent of his business,                                                       |\n| 24 |               | but the family did come along on that trip, correct.                                                                |\n| 25 | Q.            | You and Miles Guo were on that trip, right?                                                                         |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                     |\n\n|    |    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 258 of<br>5511<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 2  | Q. | And other of your security team were on that trip, right?                                                                            |\n| 3  | A. | That's correct, the whole security team.                                                                                             |\n| 4  | Q. | And Gladys Chow went on that trip?                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | A. | Yes, she did.                                                                                                                        |\n| 6  | Q. | And Gladys Chow was Miles Guo's translator, right?                                                                                   |\n| 7  | A. | Yeah, she translated for me.<br>I don't know if that was her                                                                         |\n| 8  |    | exact title, but she did translate.                                                                                                  |\n| 9  | Q. | Her formal company she worked for was HCHK, right?                                                                                   |\n| 10 | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 11 | Q. | In terms of what she actually did, she was Miles Guo's                                                                               |\n| 12 |    | personal translator, right?                                                                                                          |\n| 13 |    | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 14 |    | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | A. | Yes, she translated.<br>That's correct.                                                                                              |\n| 16 | Q. | And she was also performing kind of personal assistant type                                                                          |\n| 17 |    | task as well, right?                                                                                                                 |\n| 18 | A. | That's correct.                                                                                                                      |\n| 19 | Q. | And in addition to you, security guys, Gladys Chow, Miles                                                                            |\n| 20 |    | Guo's wife went on that trip, right?                                                                                                 |\n| 21 | A. | On that trip, yes.                                                                                                                   |\n| 22 | Q. | And Miles Guo's daughter's fiancee' went on that trip,                                                                               |\n| 23 |    | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 24 | A. | I don't remember him being on that particular trip.                                                                                  |\n| 25 | Q. | Wayne Cao is --                                                                                                                      |\n|    |    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 259 of<br>5512<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.            | I don't remember him being there, but I can't say that he                                                           |\n| 2  |               | wasn't.<br>I'm trying to remember who went on that trip.<br>Sorry.                                                  |\n| 3  |               | I went on a few trips.<br>I'm just trying to remember what trip                                                     |\n| 4  |               | that was.                                                                                                           |\n| 5  | Q.            | Just on Mei Guo's fiancee', that's Defeng Cao, right?                                                               |\n| 6  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 7  | Q.            | He also goes by Wayne Cao?                                                                                          |\n| 8  | A.            | I call him Wayne, correct.                                                                                          |\n| 9  | Q.            | And after looking at that property in person, nobody bought                                                         |\n| 10 |               | it, right?                                                                                                          |\n| 11 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | Q.            | Now, it wasn't just large properties that you looked at as                                                          |\n| 13 |               | part of your work for Miles Guo, right?                                                                             |\n| 14 | A.            | That's correct.                                                                                                     |\n| 15 | Q.            | You also looked at penthouse apartments in Manhattan,                                                               |\n| 16 |               | correct?                                                                                                            |\n| 17 | A.            | Yes, that's correct.                                                                                                |\n| 18 | Q.            | They were worth tens of millions of dollars, correct?                                                               |\n| 19 | A.            | I guess.                                                                                                            |\n| 20 | Q.            | Some of them only had four bedrooms, correct?                                                                       |\n| 21 | A.            | Yes.<br>The one that I went on, yes, that's correct.                                                                |\n| 22 | Q.            | And there are four people in Miles Guo's immediate family,                                                          |\n| 23 |               | correct?                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | A.            | As far as I know, correct.                                                                                          |\n| 25 | Q.            | There's Miles Guo, right?<br>There's Miles Guo's wife, right?                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 260 of<br>5513<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>Yeah, as far as I know that's correct.                                                                                         |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And then there's Miles Guo's son, right?                                                                                       |\n| 3  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And then there's Miles Guo's daughter?                                                                                         |\n| 5  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Now, those penthouse apartments, they weren't purchased                                                                        |\n| 7  | either, right?                                                                                                                       |\n| 8  | A.<br>No, not that I know of.                                                                                                        |\n| 9  | Q.<br>What was purchased was a property earlier in Mahwah, New                                                                       |\n| 10 | Jersey, right?                                                                                                                       |\n| 11 | That's correct.<br>A.                                                                                                                |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And you had a role with that property, fair to say?                                                                            |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 14 | Q.<br>And you discussed that role with Yvette, right?                                                                                |\n| 15 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And you discussed Taurus Fund with Yvette, right?                                                                              |\n| 17 | I didn't discuss Taurus Fund with Yvette, but I did discuss<br>A.                                                                    |\n| 18 | if we had like an invoice, it would go to Yvette.                                                                                    |\n| 19 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>If we could pull up, Ms. Loftus,                                                                                   |\n| 20 | what's in evidence and publish it GX Buck 1234.                                                                                      |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Sir, you know what Taurus Fund LLC is, right?                                                                                  |\n| 22 | A.<br>Do I know that they purchase the house in New Jersey,                                                                          |\n| 23 | that's correct.                                                                                                                      |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And the entity held title to the Mahwah mansion, it was                                                                        |\n| 25 | Taurus Fund LLC?                                                                                                                     |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 261 of<br>5514<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 2  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Is he showing something?                                                                                              |\n| 3  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>It's being fulled up.                                                                                              |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And while we're waiting, I'll just ask a few questions.                                                                        |\n| 5  | You were one of the managing members of Taurus Fund,                                                                                 |\n| 6  | LLC?                                                                                                                                 |\n| 7  | A.<br>So, on paper they had me down as a manager.<br>That wasn't my                                                                  |\n| 8  | idea of what my job role was.<br>So when they ask me to be a                                                                         |\n| 9  | manager, I just thought they just meant to manage the property                                                                       |\n| 10 | and install the security services.<br>It wasn't to manage Taurus                                                                     |\n| 11 | Fund because I would have no experience, nor would I undertake                                                                       |\n| 12 | something like that.                                                                                                                 |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Did you know what Taurus Fund was?                                                                                             |\n| 14 | A.<br>No, I just assume it was a company.                                                                                            |\n| 15 | Q.<br>But you were given paperwork by Aaron Mitchell to sign?                                                                        |\n| 16 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                           |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And Aaron Mitchell was another lawyer for the Guo family,                                                                      |\n| 18 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | A.<br>Yes, he was.                                                                                                                   |\n| 20 | Q.<br>He was close with the Guo family, right?                                                                                       |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Fair to say he was a trusted person in the inner circle?                                                                       |\n| 23 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 25 | A.<br>I don't have an answer for you on that.                                                                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n#### 5515 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 262 of 500\n\n|    | O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross                                          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>I need for you to speak into the                      |\n| 2  | microphone so everyone can hear you.                                |\n| 3  | A.<br>He was friendly with them.<br>I don't know how close he was.  |\n| 4  | I wasn't that close with Aaron, so I don't know.                    |\n| 5  | Q.<br>And you signed the paperwork that Aaron Mitchell gave you,    |\n| 6  | right?                                                              |\n| 7  | A.<br>I did.                                                        |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And you thought the paperwork made you some kind of           |\n| 9  | property manager, right?                                            |\n| 10 | A.<br>So when I signed it, I didn't really understand.<br>I just    |\n| 11 | thought it meant to manage the property, and I didn't really        |\n| 12 | understand the whole ins and outs of it until later on.             |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And, Mr. Barnett, we got the document up now.<br>Do you see   |\n| 14 | towards the middle of the page it says on the right, it says        |\n| 15 | entity name?                                                        |\n| 16 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                    |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And it says Taurus Fund LLC to the right of that?             |\n| 18 | Yep.<br>A.                                                          |\n| 19 | Q.<br>If we could go to page three, please.<br>Why don't we zoom on |\n| 20 | the boxes four, five and six.<br>You see on number six it says      |\n| 21 | name and address of each manager or managing members?               |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes.                                                          |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And number two is Scott Barnett, that's you, right?           |\n| 24 | A.<br>That's correct.                                               |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Do you live in Las Vegas, Nevada?                             |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 263 of<br>5516<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | A.<br>No, I do not.                                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Is that your correct address?                                                                                                  |\n| 3  | A.<br>No, it is not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Now, you didn't think you were actually the owner of the                                                                       |\n| 5  | Taurus Fund LLC, correct?                                                                                                            |\n| 6  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 7  | Q.<br>You learned what the paperwork you signed actually meant                                                                       |\n| 8  | after filing bankruptcy, right?                                                                                                      |\n| 9  | After I showed it to my attorney, he explained it to me.<br>A.                                                                       |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And that was when you got sued in the bankruptcy, right?                                                                       |\n| 11 | A.<br>That's correct.<br>They put me down as the owner of it which                                                                   |\n| 12 | took me a little bit by surprise, correct.                                                                                           |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Because that's not true, sir, you're not the actual owner                                                                      |\n| 14 | of the Mahwah mansion, right?                                                                                                        |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, I'm not.                                                                                                                   |\n| 16 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>And we can take that down, Ms. Loftus.                                                                             |\n| 17 | Q.<br>That wasn't your house, right?                                                                                                 |\n| 18 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 19 | Q.<br>But you did take Miles Guo there, correct?                                                                                     |\n| 20 | A.<br>Yes, I did take him there.                                                                                                     |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And he was there two to three times a week?                                                                                    |\n| 22 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, misstates testimony.                                                                                       |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled. You may answer.                                                                                             |\n| 24 | A.<br>I took him there.<br>I don't think it was two or three times                                                                   |\n| 25 | a week, maybe in the beginning when it first started.<br>Other                                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 264 of<br>5517<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | than that, it was sporadic.<br>And I wasn't with him everyday so                                                                     |\n| 2  | I don't have an actual accounting of how many times he was                                                                           |\n| 3  | there.                                                                                                                               |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Sure.<br>You didn't have a bedroom there?                                                                                      |\n| 5  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Miles Guo had a bedroom there, right?                                                                                          |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, on the second floor.                                                                                                      |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And Miles Guo's wife had a bedroom there?                                                                                      |\n| 9  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 10 | Miles Guo's son had a bedroom there?<br>Q.                                                                                           |\n| 11 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Miles Guo's daughter had a bedroom there?                                                                                      |\n| 13 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Miles Guo daughter's fiancee' had a bedroom there?                                                                             |\n| 15 | A.<br>That I don't know.                                                                                                             |\n| 16 | And, in fact, the Guo family did not just have bedrooms<br>Q.                                                                        |\n| 17 | there; is that correct?                                                                                                              |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, what's the question.                                                                                       |\n| 19 | Q.<br>The question was, the Guo family didn't just have bedrooms                                                                     |\n| 20 | at Mahwah mansion, correct?                                                                                                          |\n| 21 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection to form.                                                                                                    |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>You can answer.<br>Did they have something                                                                             |\n| 23 | in addition to bedrooms.                                                                                                             |\n| 24 | A.<br>I don't understand the question.<br>I know what you're                                                                         |\n| 25 | asking, but I don't know what you're referring to.                                                                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 265 of<br>5518<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Let me rephrase.<br>These weren't just bedrooms.<br>They were                                                                  |\n| 2  | whole wings, correct?                                                                                                                |\n| 3  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 4  | Q.<br>They were multi-rooms portions of this mansion were just                                                                       |\n| 5  | for --                                                                                                                               |\n| 6  | A.<br>Yes, one side like the -- I don't know what direction that                                                                     |\n| 7  | is, but if you walk into the right, one side was Miles' area.                                                                        |\n| 8  | The other side was the miss's area.<br>That's correct.                                                                               |\n| 9  | And you didn't keep a set of Brioni suits at Mahwah<br>Q.                                                                            |\n| 10 | mansion, correct?                                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                                                                                          |\n| 13 | A.<br>If you're asking if I kept them personally?                                                                                    |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Yes, sir.                                                                                                                      |\n| 15 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Do you own a whole set of Brioni suits?                                                                                        |\n| 17 | A.<br>I own Brioni suits, but they're from the Real Real, so                                                                         |\n| 18 | they're used.<br>I can't afford Brioni suits, sir.                                                                                   |\n| 19 | Q.<br>But Miles Guo kept a whole set of Brioni suits at the                                                                          |\n| 20 | Mahwah mansion, correct?                                                                                                             |\n| 21 | A.<br>I don't know.                                                                                                                  |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And, sir, you didn't pick the renovation to those wings,                                                                       |\n| 23 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 | A.<br>I did not, no.                                                                                                                 |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Miles Guo was the one who designed that, correct?                                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 266 of<br>5519<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>You may answer if you know.                                                                                            |\n| 3  | A.<br>I don't know.<br>I don't know if he was the only one that                                                                      |\n| 4  | picked.<br>I don't know.                                                                                                             |\n| 5  | Q.<br>He had a role in designing them?                                                                                               |\n| 6  | A.<br>Yes, he did.                                                                                                                   |\n| 7  | Q.<br>In fact, you walked through sort of the wing with Miles Guo                                                                    |\n| 8  | at a time, correct?                                                                                                                  |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes, I have.                                                                                                                   |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And there were also renovations just not to bedrooms, but                                                                      |\n| 11 | to closets, correct?                                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And Miles Guo picked the renovations done to his closet,                                                                       |\n| 14 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 15 | A.<br>I believe so, but I can't confirm that.                                                                                        |\n| 16 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Could you keep your voice up,                                                                                         |\n| 17 | Mr. Barnett.<br>I missed what you said after I believe so.                                                                           |\n| 18 | A.<br>I said I believe so.<br>I can't confirm that.<br>I believe so.                                                                 |\n| 19 | Q.<br>And you didn't pick out the beds that were in the Guo                                                                          |\n| 20 | family's bedroom?                                                                                                                    |\n| 21 | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Miles Guo did that, right?                                                                                                     |\n| 23 | A.<br>That I don't know cause I didn't have anything to do with                                                                      |\n| 24 | that part of the construction.                                                                                                       |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Do you know if the Guo family more generally picked out the                                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 267 of<br>5520<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | beds in their bedrooms?                                                                                                              |\n| 2  | A.<br>I don't know.                                                                                                                  |\n| 3  | Q.<br>You didn't pick out the furnishing in their bedroom, right?                                                                    |\n| 4  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Miles Guo did that, correct?                                                                                                   |\n| 6  | Again, I don't know.<br>A.<br>I didn't have -- I wasn't privy to                                                                     |\n| 7  | that part of it.<br>Unless we went to a specific store and he                                                                        |\n| 8  | pick something out, then I could confirm that, but I wasn't                                                                          |\n| 9  | with him when they were picking out anything in regards to                                                                           |\n| 10 | bedroom furniture or I wasn't privy to that.                                                                                         |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Now, you did know though that that wing when you took -- I                                                                     |\n| 12 | think you said it was to the right?                                                                                                  |\n| 13 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 14 | Q.<br>The wing to the right was Miles Guo's wing?                                                                                    |\n| 15 | A.<br>That's right, on the second floor, correct.                                                                                    |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And you knew that because you were helping him with that                                                                       |\n| 17 | property, correct?                                                                                                                   |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 20 | A.<br>As part of the construction plans then, yes, I knew that.                                                                      |\n| 21 | You became aware that there was a bankruptcy proceeding,<br>Q.                                                                       |\n| 22 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 23 | A.<br>In regards to HCHK?                                                                                                            |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Involving Miles Guo at least.                                                                                                  |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 268 of<br>5521<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Are you aware that Miles Guo did not mention this mansion                                                                      |\n| 2  | in Mahwah in his bankruptcy filings at all?                                                                                          |\n| 3  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 4  | Q.<br>Are you aware that he didn't mention any of the money spent                                                                    |\n| 5  | on the renovations at this mansion?                                                                                                  |\n| 6  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Are you aware he didn't mention any of the \\$35,000 beds                                                                       |\n| 8  | bought for this mansion?                                                                                                             |\n| 9  | No, I did not.<br>A.                                                                                                                 |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Are you aware he didn't mention any of the furniture, the                                                                      |\n| 11 | hundreds of thousands of dollars in furniture or millions                                                                            |\n| 12 | bought for this mansion?                                                                                                             |\n| 13 | A.<br>No, I did not have knowledge.                                                                                                  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Are you aware he didn't mention --                                                                                             |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, I think Mr. Barnett has no                                                                                |\n| 16 | knowledge of what Mr. Miles Guo mentioned in his bankruptcy.                                                                         |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Ms. Shroff, I have said to you in the past                                                                             |\n| 18 | that you are not to testify. If you want to make an objection,                                                                       |\n| 19 | make an objection.                                                                                                                   |\n| 20 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, your Honor, cumulative.                                                                                    |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled. you may answer.                                                                                             |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Are you aware he didn't disclose the millions or thousands                                                                     |\n| 23 | at least of dollars spent on artwork for this mansion where his                                                                      |\n| 24 | family had wings?                                                                                                                    |\n| 25 | A.<br>No, I'm not aware of that.                                                                                                     |\n\n|    |        | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 269 of<br>5522<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.     | Now, the money that went to Mahwah it was passed through a                                                                           |\n| 2  |        | woman named Amy Buck, correct?                                                                                                       |\n| 3  | A.     | That's correct.                                                                                                                      |\n| 4  | Q.     | It was pass through her attorney --                                                                                                  |\n| 5  |        | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection to the form of the question as                                                                              |\n| 6  |        | to pass through.<br>It's inappropriate, your Honor.                                                                                  |\n| 7  |        | THE COURT:<br>Well, if you could be more specific.                                                                                   |\n| 8  | Q.     | Amy Buck was paying the expenses for the Mahwah mansion,                                                                             |\n| 9  |        | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 10 | A.     | That's who I sent the invoices to, correct.                                                                                          |\n| 11 | Q.     | She was paying it through her attorney trust account,                                                                                |\n| 12 |        | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 13 | A.     | Yes, I believe so, yes.                                                                                                              |\n| 14 | Q.     | Now, you testified on direct about a man name Sean or Sean                                                                           |\n| 15 | Jing?  |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 16 | A.     | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 17 | Q.     | And Sean Jing you said worked for HCHK, right?                                                                                       |\n| 18 | A.     | I believe so, yes.                                                                                                                   |\n| 19 | Q.     | That was the company that he worked for, correct?                                                                                    |\n| 20 | A.     | I believe so.                                                                                                                        |\n| 21 | Q.     | Same company that you believe Gladys Chow formally worked                                                                            |\n| 22 | for?   |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 23 | A.     | That's correct.                                                                                                                      |\n| 24 | Q.     | Sean Jing was another personal assistant to the Guo family,                                                                          |\n| 25 | right? |                                                                                                                                      |\n|    |        |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 270 of<br>5523<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>I don't -- he was at one time.<br>I think when -- are you                                                                      |\n| 2  | asking in regards to Mahwah?                                                                                                         |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Well, he performed kind of personal assistant type task for                                                                    |\n| 4  | the Guo family?                                                                                                                      |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes, he did.                                                                                                                   |\n| 6  | Q.<br>And he also acted as a property manager for the mansion in                                                                     |\n| 7  | Mahwah, right?                                                                                                                       |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And in the personal assistant type work, he did things for                                                                     |\n| 10 | Miles Guo, right?                                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | A.<br>That I don't know.<br>I know he did assistant stuff, but I                                                                     |\n| 12 | don't know what jobs he did or didn't do.                                                                                            |\n| 13 | Q.<br>And he did things for the Guo family more generally,                                                                           |\n| 14 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 15 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, he just said he answered the                                                                               |\n| 16 | question.                                                                                                                            |\n| 17 | Q.<br>One was to Miles Guo.<br>This is the Guo family more                                                                           |\n| 18 | generally.                                                                                                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>So you may answer the question.                                                                                        |\n| 20 | A.<br>Sorry.<br>Can you ask that again.                                                                                              |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Of course.<br>Sean Jing, he performed -- he did things for                                                                     |\n| 22 | the Guo family more generally?                                                                                                       |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 24 | Q.<br>There were other people who did personal assistant type                                                                        |\n| 25 | work for the Guo family, correct?                                                                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    |    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 271 of<br>5524<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  |    | MS. SHROFF:<br>Form.                                                                                                                 |\n| 2  |    | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 3  | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 4  | Q. | One of them was named Hank, right?                                                                                                   |\n| 5  | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 6  | Q. | He had a Chinese name, but in English he went by Hank,                                                                               |\n| 7  |    | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 8  | A. | I don't know his Chinese name.                                                                                                       |\n| 9  | Q. | And another one was named Jason, right?                                                                                              |\n| 10 | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n| 11 | Q. | And you describe them before as kind of like indentures                                                                              |\n| 12 |    | servants, right?                                                                                                                     |\n| 13 |    | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 14 |    | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.                                                                                                             |\n| 15 | Q. | You described them before as kind of like indenture                                                                                  |\n| 16 |    | servants, right?                                                                                                                     |\n| 17 | A. | That's how I classified it as more of a joking manner.                                                                               |\n| 18 |    | That's how I classified it, sorry.                                                                                                   |\n| 19 | Q. | You said that, right?                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | A. | I did.                                                                                                                               |\n| 21 | Q. | And they did whatever personal stuff the family needed,                                                                              |\n| 22 |    | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 23 | A. | Yes, I believe so.                                                                                                                   |\n| 24 | Q. | They did shopping?                                                                                                                   |\n| 25 | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                 |\n|    |    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 272 of<br>5525<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.            | They did cooking?                                                                                                   |\n| 2  | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                |\n| 3  | Q.            | They chauffeured the family around?                                                                                 |\n| 4  | A.            | Yes, sometimes, yes.                                                                                                |\n| 5  | Q.            | And they would buy things the family wanted, right?                                                                 |\n| 6  | A.            | I guess.<br>I wouldn't be privy to what they bought for the                                                         |\n| 7  |               | family except for groceries.                                                                                        |\n| 8  | Q.            | Now, at times Miles Guo had you buy things for him, right?                                                          |\n| 9  | A.            | Me personally, sir?<br>Yeah, if it was mostly like anything,                                                        |\n| 10 |               | like, if he needed a pair of I-pods for your ears, but                                                              |\n| 11 |               | nothing -- anything of real expense I had to ask.                                                                   |\n| 12 | Q.            | He had you buy motorcycles for him, right?                                                                          |\n| 13 | A.            | Yes, they had me buy motorcycles.<br>No, they didn't have me                                                        |\n| 14 |               | buy it.<br>They ask.                                                                                                |\n| 15 | Q.            | And you did that, right?                                                                                            |\n| 16 | A.            | I did.                                                                                                              |\n| 17 | Q.            | How many was it, four or five?                                                                                      |\n| 18 | A.            | I believe in the end it was five.                                                                                   |\n| 19 | Q.            | And each one cost a few tens of thousands of dollars?                                                               |\n| 20 | A.            | They varied in price.                                                                                               |\n| 21 | Q.            | And the motorcycles were in your name, right?                                                                       |\n| 22 | A.            | Yes, they were.                                                                                                     |\n| 23 | Q.            | But those were not really your motorcycles?                                                                         |\n| 24 | A.            | No, they were not.                                                                                                  |\n| 25 | Q.            | You weren't the real owner of those motorcycles, correct?                                                           |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 273 of<br>5526<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>No, I wasn't.                                                                                                                  |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Miles Guo asked you to do this after he filed for                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 3  | bankruptcy, correct?                                                                                                                 |\n| 4  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, your Honor, assumes facts not                                                                              |\n| 5  | in evidence.                                                                                                                         |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                                                                                          |\n| 7  | A.<br>I don't know.<br>I don't know when as far as a bankruptcy and                                                                  |\n| 8  | when they ask, I don't know.                                                                                                         |\n| 9  | Q.<br>You testified on direct that at a certain point Yvette                                                                         |\n| 10 | wanted you to rent them to supporters?                                                                                               |\n| 11 | A.<br>We had a discussion about it, that's correct.                                                                                  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And that was in late 2022, right?                                                                                              |\n| 13 | A.<br>I believe so.                                                                                                                  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>Were you aware that shortly before that the United States                                                                      |\n| 15 | had seized hundreds of millions of dollars from the entities                                                                         |\n| 16 | associated with Miles Guo?                                                                                                           |\n| 17 | A.<br>No, I was not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Did Guo ever say that the department of justice had just                                                                       |\n| 19 | done that?                                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Did Yvette ever say that the department of justice had just                                                                    |\n| 22 | done that before she had this conversation about renting out                                                                         |\n| 23 | these assets?                                                                                                                        |\n| 24 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 25 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>If we could pull up, Ms. Loftus,                                                                                   |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 274 of<br>5527<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | what's in evidence as Government Exhibit WA26.<br>Ms. Loftus, why                                                                    |\n| 2  | don't we just zoom in on the bottom half, please.                                                                                    |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Now, sir, this list several vehicles.<br>Do you see the                                                                        |\n| 4  | pictures of the vehicles?                                                                                                            |\n| 5  | A.<br>I do.                                                                                                                          |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Some of them are the motorcycles you purchased, correct?                                                                       |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, that's correct, the two at the top there.                                                                                 |\n| 8  | For instance, the Ducati, in the bankruptcy proceedings<br>Q.                                                                        |\n| 9  | when that came up, you didn't even know that was still in your                                                                       |\n| 10 | name, right?                                                                                                                         |\n| 11 | A.<br>I did not.                                                                                                                     |\n| 12 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, your Honor.<br>I think we've                                                                               |\n| 13 | established what his knowledge basis is about the bankruptcy.                                                                        |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                                                                                          |\n| 15 | A.<br>I did not.                                                                                                                     |\n| 16 | Q.<br>You didn't know that that was still in your name, correct?                                                                     |\n| 17 | A.<br>I did not, correct.                                                                                                            |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And if we could zoom out.                                                                                                      |\n| 19 | Now, the person listed under owner, do you see that in                                                                               |\n| 20 | the second to right column?                                                                                                          |\n| 21 | A.<br>Barely.                                                                                                                        |\n| 22 | Q.<br>We can blow it up.<br>You see that says owner?                                                                                 |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yep.                                                                                                                           |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And then in the person listed there is Defeng Cao, correct?                                                                    |\n| 25 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 275 of<br>5528<br>500 |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    | O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross                                                                             |  |\n| 1  | Q.<br>He wasn't the actual owner of these motorcycles either,                                          |  |\n| 2  | correct?                                                                                               |  |\n| 3  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection to form.                                                                      |  |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                          |  |\n| 5  | A.<br>I was the original owner.<br>I don't know who the second                                         |  |\n| 6  | owner of those motorcycle was or became.                                                               |  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>If we can just scroll down.<br>Let's zoom on the Lamborghini.                                    |  |\n| 8  | Mr. Barnett, you see under the owner column for the                                                    |  |\n| 9  | Lamborghini it says Defeng Cao.<br>You see that?                                                       |  |\n| 10 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                  |  |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And there's an address for 373 Taconic Road in Greenwich                                         |  |\n| 12 | Connecticut.<br>You see that?                                                                          |  |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |  |\n| 14 | Q.<br>That was one of the Guo family homes, correct?                                                   |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>That's where I currently do security, yes.                                                       |  |\n| 16 | Q.<br>And do you see in the notes column it says G/Club                                                |  |\n| 17 | International LTD?                                                                                     |  |\n| 18 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                             |  |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Do you know why it says that?                                                                    |  |\n| 20 | A.<br>I have no idea.                                                                                  |  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>You also testified in your discussions with Yvette about                                         |  |\n| 22 | signing out certain of the assets to supporters they mention                                           |  |\n| 23 | the Lamborghini too?                                                                                   |  |\n| 24 | A.<br>That was mentioned, correct.                                                                     |  |\n| 25 | Q.<br>In discussing the Lamborghini, did Yvette say that the                                           |  |\n|    |                                                                                                        |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 276 of<br>5529<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | United States government had just seized hundreds of millions                                                                        |\n| 2  | of dollars from G/Clubs?                                                                                                             |\n| 3  | A.<br>No, she did not.                                                                                                               |\n| 4  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>If we can go to Government Exhibit                                                                                 |\n| 5  | WA27, if we can zoom on the text here.                                                                                               |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, you see how in the notes column you're listed                                                                     |\n| 7  | as Scott Barnett driver?                                                                                                             |\n| 8  | A.<br>Yes, that's correct.<br>I see that.                                                                                            |\n| 9  | And then under owner it says HCHK Technologies for the<br>Q.                                                                         |\n| 10 | first two?                                                                                                                           |\n| 11 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 12 | Q.<br>And in the bottom two it says GS Security Solutions, right?                                                                    |\n| 13 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 14 | Q.<br>GS Security Solutions that's your company, right?                                                                              |\n| 15 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 16 | Q.<br>These are the BMWs that you purchased, correct?                                                                                |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 18 | Q.<br>And you purchased them with money from HCHK Technologies,                                                                      |\n| 19 | correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 20 | A.<br>I did.                                                                                                                         |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And that was in January of 2023, right?                                                                                        |\n| 22 | A.<br>Correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 23 | Q.<br>That's nearly a year after Miles Guo had declared                                                                              |\n| 24 | bankruptcy, right?                                                                                                                   |\n| 25 | A.<br>Apparently.                                                                                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 277 of<br>5530<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, assumes knowledge that this                                                                                |\n| 2  | witness has disclaimed.                                                                                                              |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Do you know what year he declared                                                                                      |\n| 4  | bankruptcy?                                                                                                                          |\n| 5  | THE WITNESS:<br>No, ma'am, I do not.                                                                                                 |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                             |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Sir, you used money from HCHK to buy those BMWs, right?                                                                        |\n| 8  | A.<br>That's correct.<br>The money was apart of the startup                                                                          |\n| 9  | agreement, that's correct.                                                                                                           |\n| 10 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Now, we can take that down,                                                                                        |\n| 11 | Ms. Loftus.                                                                                                                          |\n| 12 | Q.<br>You also had a role in managing a yacht, correct?                                                                              |\n| 13 | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                            |\n| 14 | You received emails from the Liberty yacht captain, right?<br>Q.                                                                     |\n| 15 | A.<br>Yes, that's correct.<br>That was in regards to repairs that                                                                    |\n| 16 | were being done because I guess Max Krasner was inundated with                                                                       |\n| 17 | whatever he was doing and couldn't keep up with the constant                                                                         |\n| 18 | emails from the captain, so Yvette ask me to join in on that to                                                                      |\n| 19 | make sure that the repairs were getting done.                                                                                        |\n| 20 | Now, your attorneys produced some of those emails to the<br>Q.                                                                       |\n| 21 | government, right?                                                                                                                   |\n| 22 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Max Krasner who you just mention, he also received those                                                                       |\n| 24 | emails, right?                                                                                                                       |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes, as far as I know.                                                                                                         |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 278 of<br>5531<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Sir, you didn't work for G/Club, right?                                                                                        |\n| 2  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Max Krasner, he didn't work for G/Club either, right?                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>I have no idea.                                                                                                                |\n| 5  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Ms. Loftus, can we show the witness                                                                                |\n| 6  | what's marked as Government Exhibit SB212.                                                                                           |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Fergenson.                                                                                                         |\n| 8  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>I'm waiting for an exhibit, your                                                                                   |\n| 9  | Honor.<br>It's okay, your Honor.<br>I'll just move on.                                                                               |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                  |\n| 11 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Thank you for the indulgence.                                                                                      |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Sir, you also talked a bit about Miles Guo's supporters on                                                                     |\n| 13 | direct, right?                                                                                                                       |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And sometimes the supporters would go to 3 Columbus Circle,                                                                    |\n| 16 | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 18 | Q.<br>They would listen to Miles Guo talk?                                                                                           |\n| 19 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 20 | Q.<br>They would clap for him?                                                                                                       |\n| 21 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Fair to say they idolized him?                                                                                                 |\n| 23 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                           |\n| 24 | Q.<br>They would ask him to hold babies, right?                                                                                      |\n| 25 | A.<br>I've seen that.<br>I don't know if they asked or not.<br>It                                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 279 of<br>5532<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | would have been in Chinese.<br>I wouldn't have understood.                                                                           |\n| 2  | MS. SHROFF:<br>What you did say.                                                                                                     |\n| 3  | A.<br>I've seen him hold people's babies.<br>I don't know if they                                                                    |\n| 4  | asked or not.<br>They were speaking in Chinese, so I don't know.                                                                     |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Sometimes they would bring their children with them to 3                                                                       |\n| 6  | Columbus Circle?                                                                                                                     |\n| 7  | A.<br>Yes, I've seen that.                                                                                                           |\n| 8  | Q.<br>And they would bring their children and give those children                                                                    |\n| 9  | an I-pad, right?                                                                                                                     |\n| 10 | Yes, I've seen that.<br>A.                                                                                                           |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And then those supporters would just work all day, right?                                                                      |\n| 12 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You can answer.                                                                                          |\n| 14 | A.<br>I wasn't there all day, but, yes, they worked.                                                                                 |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And these supporters when they were working, they didn't                                                                       |\n| 16 | listen to other workers, right?                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection as to form.                                                                                                 |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, it's impossible for him to say                                                                                   |\n| 19 | whether others were listening.<br>He can't perceive that.                                                                            |\n| 20 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>I can rephrase, your Honor.                                                                                        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                                                                  |\n| 22 | Q.<br>You're aware of instances -- withdrawn.                                                                                        |\n| 23 | Your impression, Mr. Barnett, being in 3 Columbus                                                                                    |\n| 24 | Circle when this was happening was that these supporters didn't                                                                      |\n| 25 | always listen to other workers, correct?                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 280 of<br>5533<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>I can't speak for other workers, but I have seen instances                                                                     |\n| 2  | where if there was issues with other workers, I had spoken with                                                                      |\n| 3  | other workers in regards to it.                                                                                                      |\n| 4  | Q.<br>And these supporters, they always listen to Miles Guo,                                                                         |\n| 5  | right?                                                                                                                               |\n| 6  | A.<br>Again, all the conversation were in Chinese.<br>I could tell                                                                   |\n| 7  | you that they did listen to him, but I can't tell you what was                                                                       |\n| 8  | said.                                                                                                                                |\n| 9  | Q.<br>And, look, your impression was that this stuff with the                                                                        |\n| 10 | supporters was weird, fair to say?                                                                                                   |\n| 11 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection.                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                        |\n| 13 | A.<br>Weird, I guess -- I don't know if I'd use the word \"weird.\"                                                                    |\n| 14 | I guess it was just different for me because I've never seen it                                                                      |\n| 15 | before.<br>Usually I would say that with like celebrities where                                                                      |\n| 16 | people were kind of in awe of a celebrity.<br>That's kind of the                                                                     |\n| 17 | impression I got from it.                                                                                                            |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Sir, you testified about how Miles Guo was one of the                                                                          |\n| 19 | better people you been a bodyguard for, right?                                                                                       |\n| 20 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 21 | Q.<br>You like him, right?                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | A.<br>I like him very much.                                                                                                          |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And you testified about how you thought he was sincere with                                                                    |\n| 24 | the stuff he was doing with the NFSC, right?                                                                                         |\n| 25 | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 281 of<br>5534<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett- Cross |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    |                                                                                                                                      |  |\n| 1  | Q.<br>Sir, you didn't watch his live broadcast in Mandarin,                                                                          |  |\n| 2  | correct?                                                                                                                             |  |\n| 3  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |  |\n| 4  | Q.<br>You didn't follow him online, correct?                                                                                         |  |\n| 5  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |  |\n| 6  | Q.<br>You didn't invest in any of those investment projects, did                                                                     |  |\n| 7  | you?                                                                                                                                 |  |\n| 8  | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |  |\n| 9  | Q.<br>You didn't send companies affiliated with Miles Guo your                                                                       |  |\n| 10 | personal money, correct?                                                                                                             |  |\n| 11 | A.<br>No, sir.                                                                                                                       |  |\n| 12 | Q.<br>You didn't send him your retirement money, correct?                                                                            |  |\n| 13 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                                                                        |  |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You may answer.                                                                                          |  |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |  |\n| 16 | Q.<br>You didn't send him money you had borrowed from your home                                                                      |  |\n| 17 | equity, correct?                                                                                                                     |  |\n| 18 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                                                                        |  |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You can answer.                                                                                          |  |\n| 20 | A.<br>No, I did not.                                                                                                                 |  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>You didn't send him your families' money, correct?                                                                             |  |\n| 22 | A.<br>No, sir, I did not.                                                                                                            |  |\n| 23 | And it's true, sir, that actually you got money from<br>Q.                                                                           |  |\n| 24 | working for Miles Guo, right?                                                                                                        |  |\n| 25 | A.<br>Meaning for services, sir?<br>I don't know what you're                                                                         |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 282 of<br>5535<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | asking.                                                                                                                                     |\n| 2  | Q.<br>We talked about all the money you got paid earlier?                                                                                   |\n| 3  | A.<br>For services, correct.                                                                                                                |\n| 4  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Objection to the form, your Honor.                                                                                           |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                                    |\n| 6  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>May I just have a moment, your Honor?                                                                                     |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                                                                          |\n| 8  | Sir, you didn't lose money after sending it to Miles Guo,<br>Q.                                                                             |\n| 9  | correct?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 10 | A.<br>I'm sorry.                                                                                                                            |\n| 11 | MS. SHROFF:<br>Assumes facts that are clearly not                                                                                           |\n| 12 | verified.                                                                                                                                   |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>He stated he did not send money.                                                                                              |\n| 14 | Sustained.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 15 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Nothing further, your Honor.                                                                                              |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Redirect.                                                                                                                     |\n| 17 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION                                                                                                                        |\n| 18 | BY MS. SHROFF:                                                                                                                              |\n| 19 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, good afternoon again.                                                                                                    |\n| 20 | A.<br>Hello.                                                                                                                                |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, for how many years did you honorably serve the                                                                           |\n| 22 | People of the City Of New York as an NYPD officer?                                                                                          |\n| 23 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                                |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>It's all right.<br>How long did you serve as                                                                                  |\n| 25 | a police officer.                                                                                                                           |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 283 of<br>5536<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.<br>For 17 and a half years, ma'am.                                                                                                       |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And for 17 years did you testify on behalf of the City of                                                                             |\n| 3  | New York or the State of New York?                                                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>Yes, I have testified.                                                                                                                |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Did you take an oath as you've taken here today?                                                                                      |\n| 6  | A.<br>Yes, I have.                                                                                                                          |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Have you ever lied under oath?                                                                                                        |\n| 8  | A.<br>No.                                                                                                                                   |\n| 9  | Q.<br>Today did you ever lie under oath?                                                                                                    |\n| 10 | A.<br>No, ma'am.                                                                                                                            |\n| 11 | Q.<br>And would you lie under oath for Miles Guo?                                                                                           |\n| 12 | A.<br>No, ma'am.                                                                                                                            |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Would you lie for Miles Guo because he had HCHK send you                                                                              |\n| 14 | \\$15,000 or \\$30,000 or \\$650,000 or 600 and a million dollars?                                                                             |\n| 15 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Argumentive.                                                                                                              |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You can answer.                                                                                                 |\n| 17 | A.<br>No, ma'am, I would not.                                                                                                               |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, you got money for the work you did for Mei                                                                               |\n| 19 | Guo, correct?                                                                                                                               |\n| 20 | That's correct.<br>A.                                                                                                                       |\n| 21 | Q.<br>I'm not going to go through all of the iterations, but you                                                                            |\n| 22 | got that money into a bank account, correct?                                                                                                |\n| 23 | A.<br>That's correct, my company's bank account.                                                                                            |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And the company's bank account is at a real bank, right?                                                                              |\n| 25 | A.<br>Chase Bank, that's correct.                                                                                                           |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 284 of<br>5537<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.            | And Chase bank has never flagged your account, correct?                                                                    |\n| 2  |               | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, your Honor.                                                                                   |\n| 3  |               | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                              |\n| 4  | A.            | No, they have not.                                                                                                         |\n| 5  | Q.            | These are wire transfers, correct?                                                                                         |\n| 6  | A.            | Yes, ma'am.                                                                                                                |\n| 7  | Q.            | And do you know who these people were that wired the money?                                                                |\n| 8  | A.            | I do not.                                                                                                                  |\n| 9  | Q.            | Do you know if they were Mei Guo's uncles?                                                                                 |\n| 10 |               | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                                               |\n| 11 |               | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                              |\n| 12 |               | MR. FERGENSON:<br>He said he doesn't know, your Honor.                                                                     |\n| 13 | Q.            | Were they her uncles?                                                                                                      |\n| 14 | A.            | I don't know.                                                                                                              |\n| 15 | Q.            | Were they her family in China?                                                                                             |\n| 16 |               | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection again, asked and answered.                                                                     |\n| 17 |               | Same question.                                                                                                             |\n| 18 |               | THE COURT:<br>You can answer.                                                                                              |\n| 19 | A.            | I don't know.                                                                                                              |\n| 20 | Q.            | You were asked about a person name Jian Wu Zhang, correct?                                                                 |\n| 21 | A.            | I believe so, yes.                                                                                                         |\n| 22 | Q.            | Do you know if he's related to Mei Guo?                                                                                    |\n| 23 | A.            | I don't.                                                                                                                   |\n| 24 | Q.            | You were asked about a transfer of a \\$105, 000 by Su Zu                                                                   |\n| 25 |               | Wang, correct?                                                                                                             |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                            |\n\n|    |            | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 285 of<br>5538<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |            |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 1  | A.         | Yes, I believe so.                                                                                                                          |\n| 2  | Q.         | Do you know if Su Zu Wang is related to Mei Guo?                                                                                            |\n| 3  | A.         | I don't know.                                                                                                                               |\n| 4  | Q.         | You were asked about a \\$107,000 transferred again by                                                                                       |\n| 5  |            | Mr. Zhang, correct?                                                                                                                         |\n| 6  | A.         | Yes, I believe so.                                                                                                                          |\n| 7  | Q.         | Do you know that Mr. Zhang is related to Mei Guo?                                                                                           |\n| 8  | A.         | I don't know.                                                                                                                               |\n| 9  | Q.         | Do you know who Desheng Yin is?                                                                                                             |\n| 10 | A.         | I do not.                                                                                                                                   |\n| 11 | Q.         | Do you know if Desheng Yin is related to Mei Guo?                                                                                           |\n| 12 | A.         | I do not.                                                                                                                                   |\n| 13 | Q.         | You were asked about some money that came from Singapore,                                                                                   |\n| 14 |            | correct?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 15 | A.         | Yeah.                                                                                                                                       |\n| 16 | Q.         | Do you know if Mei Guo has a uncle, aunt or cousin in                                                                                       |\n| 17 | Singapore? |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 18 | A.         | I don't know.                                                                                                                               |\n| 19 | Q.         | You were asked many questions about a man name Victor                                                                                       |\n| 20 |            | Cerda, correct?                                                                                                                             |\n| 21 | A.         | Yes.                                                                                                                                        |\n| 22 | Q.         | Did Mr. Cerda assist you when you needed a lawyer?                                                                                          |\n| 23 | A.         | Yes, he did.                                                                                                                                |\n| 24 | Q.         | Did he give you a referral?                                                                                                                 |\n| 25 | A.         | I don't know if he gave me the referral or it came from                                                                                     |\n|    |            |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 286 of<br>5539<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 1  | Mei.<br>I don't recall who gave me the referral.                                                                                            |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Did Mr. Cerda ever tell you, I'll give you the money if you                                                                           |\n| 3  | testify for Miles Guo?                                                                                                                      |\n| 4  | A.<br>No, he did not.                                                                                                                       |\n| 5  | Q.<br>Did Mr. Cerda tell you I'll give you the money if you talk                                                                            |\n| 6  | to Ms. Shroff?                                                                                                                              |\n| 7  | A.<br>No, he did not.                                                                                                                       |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Did Mr. Cerda tell you, I'll only give you the money if you                                                                           |\n| 9  | talk to Ms. Shroff and not talk to the government?                                                                                          |\n| 10 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                                                                                                |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>You can answer.                                                                                                 |\n| 12 | A.<br>No, he did not.                                                                                                                       |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Did Mr. Cerda attach any strings to the help he gave you?                                                                             |\n| 14 | A.<br>No, he did not.                                                                                                                       |\n| 15 | Q.<br>You were asked questions about a criminal lawyer that you                                                                             |\n| 16 | hired or you were helped hire, correct?                                                                                                     |\n| 17 | A.<br>I hired a criminal lawyer, that's correct.                                                                                            |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Who chose that criminal lawyer?                                                                                                       |\n| 19 | A.<br>I did.                                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Let me rephrase that.<br>I apologize.<br>I should know better.                                                                        |\n| 21 | Criminal defense lawyer, who chose him?                                                                                                     |\n| 22 | A.<br>I did.                                                                                                                                |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Did Mr. Cerda have anything to do with him?                                                                                           |\n| 24 | A.<br>Not in picking him out, no.                                                                                                           |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Did I have anything to do with him?                                                                                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 287 of<br>5540<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | A.            | No.                                                                                                                        |\n| 2  | Q.            | Did any of Mr. Guo's lawyers have anything to do with the                                                                  |\n| 3  |               | lawyer you chose?                                                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.            | No, it did not.                                                                                                            |\n| 5  | Q.            | You were asked about a Go Fund Me page, correct,                                                                           |\n| 6  |               | Mr. Barnett?                                                                                                               |\n| 7  | A.            | Yes, that's correct.                                                                                                       |\n| 8  | Q.            | Why did you need a Go Fund Me page?                                                                                        |\n| 9  | A.            | Because the lawyers that I've had to retain were requesting                                                                |\n| 10 |               | their money, and I had nowhere else to turn to get the money.                                                              |\n| 11 |               | I don't have that kind of money personally.                                                                                |\n| 12 | Q.            | Victor Cerda didn't give you that money, correct?                                                                          |\n| 13 | A.            | No, he did not.                                                                                                            |\n| 14 | Q.            | Mei Guo didn't give you that money, correct?                                                                               |\n| 15 | A.            | No, she did not.                                                                                                           |\n| 16 | Q.            | Wayne Cao didn't give you that money, correct?                                                                             |\n| 17 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                        |\n| 18 | Q.            | Yvette Wang didn't you give that money, correct?                                                                           |\n| 19 | A.            | No.                                                                                                                        |\n| 20 | Q.            | Miles Guo didn't give you that money, correct?                                                                             |\n| 21 | A.            | No, he didn't.                                                                                                             |\n| 22 | Q.            | By the way the money that you got all those wire transfers                                                                 |\n| 23 |               | that the government asked you about, you declared that on your                                                             |\n| 24 |               | income tax, correct?                                                                                                       |\n| 25 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 288 of<br>5541<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>And you declared the Go Fund Me money on your income tax,                                                                             |\n| 2  | correct?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 3  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, relevance and scope.                                                                                           |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>You may answer.                                                                                                               |\n| 5  | A.<br>Not on this year tax. It would be next year tax that would                                                                            |\n| 6  | be claimed on.                                                                                                                              |\n| 7  | Q.<br>Now, you were asked many questions about other properties                                                                             |\n| 8  | in New York City that you saw, correct?                                                                                                     |\n| 9  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And one of the properties that they asked you about was a                                                                             |\n| 11 | penthouse that had four bedrooms, correct?                                                                                                  |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Did you know if Mr. Guo's son has been here in the year of                                                                            |\n| 14 | 2024?                                                                                                                                       |\n| 15 | A.<br>I have no idea.                                                                                                                       |\n| 16 | Q.<br>When was the last time you saw his son?                                                                                               |\n| 17 | A.<br>The only time that I ever met him was in 2020, and I think                                                                            |\n| 18 | it was October or November.<br>I couldn't tell you what month it                                                                            |\n| 19 | was.                                                                                                                                        |\n| 20 | Q.<br>Is it fair to say, sir, other than that one time you have                                                                             |\n| 21 | never seen Mr. Mileson in this country?                                                                                                     |\n| 22 | I never seen him except that one time.<br>A.                                                                                                |\n| 23 | Q.<br>These four bedroom penthouses, do you know the reason why                                                                             |\n| 24 | it wasn't purchased?                                                                                                                        |\n| 25 | A.<br>I don't.                                                                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 289 of<br>5542<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 1  | Q.<br>You were asked questions about Aaron Mitchell, correct?                                                                               |\n| 2  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 3  | Q.<br>Did you ever observe Aaron Mitchell and Miles Guo have a                                                                              |\n| 4  | conversation?                                                                                                                               |\n| 5  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Did they seem to understand each other without an                                                                                     |\n| 7  | interpreter?                                                                                                                                |\n| 8  | A.<br>I don't know.<br>I wasn't privy to the conversation.<br>I                                                                             |\n| 9  | witness them talking, but I couldn't tell you what the                                                                                      |\n| 10 | conversation was, nor what it was about.                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Now, you were asked questions about the Taurus Fund,                                                                                  |\n| 12 | correct?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 13 | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 14 | Was your signature on the Taurus Fund forged?<br>Q.                                                                                         |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, it was not.                                                                                                                       |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Did you sign it without understanding what the role was?                                                                              |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes, I did.                                                                                                                           |\n| 18 | Q.<br>You were asked questions, were not you not, Mr. Barnett,                                                                              |\n| 19 | about Brioni suits, correct?                                                                                                                |\n| 20 | Yes.<br>A.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>Do you know how many suits Mrs. Miles Guo owns?                                                                                       |\n| 22 | A.<br>I don't.                                                                                                                              |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Do you know how many suits there are at the Sherry                                                                                    |\n| 24 | Netherlands?                                                                                                                                |\n| 25 | A.<br>I do not.                                                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 290 of<br>5543<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.            | Do you know how many there are in Connecticut?                                                                             |\n| 2  | A.            | No, ma'am, I don't.                                                                                                        |\n| 3  | Q.            | For all you know, the suits at Mahwah are one third of the                                                                 |\n| 4  |               | suits he owns, you just don't know, correct?                                                                               |\n| 5  | A.            | I don't know.                                                                                                              |\n| 6  | Q.            | At Mahwah did he broadcast from there?                                                                                     |\n| 7  | A.            | Yes, he did.                                                                                                               |\n| 8  | Q.            | Did he wear the same suit for every broadcast?                                                                             |\n| 9  | A.            | I didn't watch the broadcast.<br>I can't answer that.<br>I                                                                 |\n| 10 |               | don't know.                                                                                                                |\n| 11 | Q.            | You were asked many, many questions about Mr. Guo's                                                                        |\n| 12 |               | bankruptcy, correct?                                                                                                       |\n| 13 | A.            | Yes.                                                                                                                       |\n| 14 | Q.            | Did you know when he declared bankruptcy?                                                                                  |\n| 15 | A.            | I did not know.                                                                                                            |\n| 16 | Q.            | Do you know if he declared bankruptcy?                                                                                     |\n| 17 | A.            | I didn't know.<br>No, I don't.                                                                                             |\n| 18 | Q.            | Do you know sitting here today what he did or did not                                                                      |\n| 19 |               | disclose in his bankruptcy petition?                                                                                       |\n| 20 | A.            | No, I don't know that.                                                                                                     |\n| 21 | Q.            | Do you know if he consulted a lawyer who decided what to                                                                   |\n| 22 |               | put in the petition?                                                                                                       |\n| 23 | A.            | I don't know.<br>No, I don't.                                                                                              |\n| 24 | Q.            | You were asked questions about Sean Jing, Hank and Jason,                                                                  |\n| 25 |               | correct?                                                                                                                   |\n|    |               |                                                                                                                            |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 291 of<br>5544<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 1  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 2  | Q.<br>And the government said that you called them indentured                                                                               |\n| 3  | servants, correct?                                                                                                                          |\n| 4  | A.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                                       |\n| 5  | Q.<br>And you said you were joking when you said that, correct?                                                                             |\n| 6  | A.<br>I said I was using it as a joke, but, um, they did serve                                                                              |\n| 7  | the family.<br>That's correct.                                                                                                              |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Let's talk about this.<br>Did you see Miles Guo interact with                                                                         |\n| 9  | Hank?                                                                                                                                       |\n| 10 | A.<br>I've seen it, yes.                                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | Q.<br>How would you describe that interaction?                                                                                              |\n| 12 | A.<br>More family -- the best way to describe is family like, but                                                                           |\n| 13 | he was a -- he was basically someone who did a lot of the work.                                                                             |\n| 14 | He's a very hard worker.                                                                                                                    |\n| 15 | Q.<br>Do you know sitting here today if Hank and Miles left China                                                                           |\n| 16 | together when he left?                                                                                                                      |\n| 17 | A.<br>I have no idea.                                                                                                                       |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Do you know if they escaped China together?                                                                                           |\n| 19 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>He just said he doesn't know, your                                                                                        |\n| 20 | Honor.                                                                                                                                      |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                                    |\n| 22 | Q.<br>Do you know if they were in Hong Kong together?                                                                                       |\n| 23 | A.<br>I don't.                                                                                                                              |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Do you know if they came from Hong Kong to the United                                                                                 |\n| 25 | States together?                                                                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    |    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 292 of<br>5545<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |    |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 1  | A. | I don't know.                                                                                                                               |\n| 2  | Q. | Do you know how much Mr. Miles has supported Hank?                                                                                          |\n| 3  | A. | I don't.                                                                                                                                    |\n| 4  | Q. | Do you know if he supports Hank's wife?                                                                                                     |\n| 5  | A. | I don't know.                                                                                                                               |\n| 6  | Q. | Do you know if he supports Hank's child?                                                                                                    |\n| 7  | A. | I don't know.                                                                                                                               |\n| 8  | Q. | You were asked several questions about motorcycles,                                                                                         |\n| 9  |    | correct?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 10 | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                        |\n| 11 | Q. | Lamborghini, correct?                                                                                                                       |\n| 12 | A. | Yes.                                                                                                                                        |\n| 13 | Q. | And then you were told or you were asked whether or not you                                                                                 |\n| 14 |    | were aware of DOJ's seizing assets, correct?                                                                                                |\n| 15 | A. | That's correct.                                                                                                                             |\n| 16 | Q. | Do you know when the DOJ seized any asset of Mr. Guo's?                                                                                     |\n| 17 | A. | No, I don't.                                                                                                                                |\n| 18 | Q. | So you would have no way to place your conversation with                                                                                    |\n| 19 |    | Yvette about renting these instrumentalities versus the DOJ's                                                                               |\n| 20 |    | seizure, correct?                                                                                                                           |\n| 21 | A. | Yes, correct.                                                                                                                               |\n| 22 | Q. | You don't know if the conversation was months before the                                                                                    |\n| 23 |    | seizure, correct?                                                                                                                           |\n| 24 |    | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                                                                            |\n| 25 |    | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                                    |\n|    |    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 293 of<br>5546<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>You simply don't know, correct?                                                                                                       |\n| 2  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Asked and answered.                                                                                                       |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                                    |\n| 4  | Q.<br>You were asked question after question about incidents and                                                                            |\n| 5  | the seizure, correct?                                                                                                                       |\n| 6  | A.<br>Yes.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 7  | Q.<br>You have no knowledge of the timeline between the two,                                                                                |\n| 8  | correct?                                                                                                                                    |\n| 9  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection, asked and answered.                                                                                            |\n| 10 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I could go through each of the                                                                                               |\n| 11 | instrumentalities.<br>It will just take us a lot longer.                                                                                    |\n| 12 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>He said he doesn't know.                                                                                                  |\n| 13 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>Do you know any correlation of the renting of the                                                                            |\n| 14 | motorcycle and the seizure by DOJ?                                                                                                          |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, I don't.                                                                                                                          |\n| 16 | How about renting the Lamborghini and the seizure of DOJ?<br>Q.                                                                             |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>All righty.<br>It's 5:00.                                                                                                     |\n| 18 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Your Honor, may I have a very brief                                                                                       |\n| 19 | moment before you dismiss the jury, very brief.                                                                                             |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                                                                          |\n| 21 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                                    |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 294 of<br>5547<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (At the sidebar)                                                                                                                            |\n| 2  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>I'm having a child tomorrow.<br>If                                                                                        |\n| 3  | there's anyway I would be able to finish this witness today,                                                                                |\n| 4  | I'll do very brief recross.<br>I have very limited questions, if                                                                            |\n| 5  | there is anyway we can finish the witness.                                                                                                  |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>How long do you have?                                                                                                         |\n| 7  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Since he objected, quite a bit.                                                                                              |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Oh God, this is terrible.                                                                                                     |\n| 9  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Nobody comes before the client.<br>Sorry.                                                                                    |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Do you know when the baby is suppose to                                                                                       |\n| 11 | come?                                                                                                                                       |\n| 12 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>It's a scheduled C-section.<br>You have                                                                                   |\n| 13 | to leave at nine to be there.                                                                                                               |\n| 14 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I'm sure one of his colleagues can step                                                                                      |\n| 15 | in.                                                                                                                                         |\n| 16 | MR. FERGENSON:<br>It's fine, your Honor, if Ms. Shroff                                                                                      |\n| 17 | is not going to accommodate.<br>We'll sort it out.                                                                                          |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>I'm so happy for you.                                                                                                         |\n| 19 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                                    |\n| 20 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 295 of<br>5548<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 1  | (In open court)                                                                                                                             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Members of the jury, it's time to stop our                                                                                    |\n| 3  | work.<br>We'll continue tomorrow morning as usual.<br>Remember that                                                                         |\n| 4  | you're not allowed to discuss the case amongst yourselves or                                                                                |\n| 5  | with anyone else. Don't permit anyone to discuss the case in                                                                                |\n| 6  | your presence.<br>Don't listen to, watch, or read anything from                                                                             |\n| 7  | any source about this trial.<br>Have a good evening.                                                                                        |\n| 8  | THE LAW CLERK:<br>Jury exiting.                                                                                                             |\n| 9  | (Jury not present)                                                                                                                          |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.<br>Sir, you may step out.                                                                                   |\n| 11 | (Witness temporarily excused)                                                                                                               |\n| 12 | (Continued on next page)                                                                                                                    |\n| 13 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 14 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 15 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 16 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 17 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 18 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 19 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 20 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 296 of<br>5549<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (Jury not present)                                                                                                                          |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>So how much more do we have on the defense                                                                                    |\n| 3  | case?                                                                                                                                       |\n| 4  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, we have Ms. Li, and I think                                                                                      |\n| 5  | we have one last witness after that and then we're done.                                                                                    |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>How long do you think all of that will                                                                                        |\n| 7  | take?                                                                                                                                       |\n| 8  | MS. SHROFF:<br>Your Honor, I'm hoping that the direct                                                                                       |\n| 9  | will be no more than an hour, hour and a half.<br>I'm hoping                                                                                |\n| 10 | shorter.                                                                                                                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>You're saying total?                                                                                                          |\n| 12 | MS. SHROFF:<br>I don't know the second witness.<br>He's                                                                                     |\n| 13 | not mine, your Honor.<br>Sorry.                                                                                                             |\n| 14 | MR. SCHIRICK:<br>Your Honor, the final witness I would                                                                                      |\n| 15 | expect to be maybe an hour on direct.                                                                                                       |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>So it's not looking like we will have the                                                                                     |\n| 17 | prosecution sum up tomorrow.<br>Okay.<br>Well, I hope that you can                                                                          |\n| 18 | be efficient so that we can get this done.                                                                                                  |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY:<br>Your Honor, if I may, one proposal.<br>We                                                                                    |\n| 20 | had the chance to speak with the defense on timing and on                                                                                   |\n| 21 | summations.<br>I think the parties are in agreement that,                                                                                   |\n| 22 | assuming the timing is what we expect, which is the defense                                                                                 |\n| 23 | will rest tomorrow assuming that Mr. Guo does not testify as                                                                                |\n| 24 | they've indicated, we would do summation on Wednesday, but                                                                                  |\n| 25 | perhaps we could take some of the time tomorrow afternoon with                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 297 of<br>5550<br>500<br>O78BGUO6<br>Barnett<br>- Redirect |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the jury for the Court to instruct them just on the law part of                                                                             |\n| 2  | the instructions so we don't waste too much time in the                                                                                     |\n| 3  | afternoon.                                                                                                                                  |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>You mean the substantive instruction?                                                                                         |\n| 5  | MS. MURRAY:<br>Correct.                                                                                                                     |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>I think that's a great idea.<br>You both                                                                                      |\n| 7  | agree to that?                                                                                                                              |\n| 8  | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>That's fine, your Honor.                                                                                                   |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>Absolutely.                                                                                                          |\n| 10 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>I think -- and you'll correct me -- I                                                                                      |\n| 11 | think part of your Honor's instruction turns on deliberation                                                                                |\n| 12 | specifically, so that might just come after summations, but all                                                                             |\n| 13 | the substantive legal stuff would be out of the way.                                                                                        |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>So I just want to get a letter from you as                                                                                    |\n| 15 | to from what section to what section you'd like me to charge                                                                                |\n| 16 | the jury.                                                                                                                                   |\n| 17 | MR. KAMARAJU:<br>Absolutely, your Honor.<br>That proposal                                                                                   |\n| 18 | is generally fine with us.                                                                                                                  |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Have a good evening.                                                                                                 |\n| 20 | (Adjourned to July 9, 2024 at 9 a.m.)                                                                                                       |\n| 21 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 22 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 23 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                             |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                                                             |\n\n#### 5551 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 298 of\n\n500\n\n1\n\n|  | INDEX OF EXAMINATION |  |  |  |\n|--|----------------------|--|--|--|\n|  |                      |  |  |  |\n\n| 2  | Examination of:<br>Page        |\n|----|--------------------------------|\n| 3  | LAI DAI                        |\n| 4  | Direct By Ms. Shroff5326       |\n| 5  | Cross By Mr. Horton<br>.5338   |\n| 6  | Redirect By Ms. Shroff5372     |\n| 7  | THOMAS BISHOP                  |\n| 8  | Direct By Mr. Kamaraju5381     |\n| 9  | Cross By Ms. Murray<br>.5396   |\n| 10 | Redirect By Mr. Kamaraju5409   |\n| 11 | Recross By Ms. Murray<br>.5410 |\n| 12 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT           |\n| 13 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5411       |\n| 14 | Cross By Mr. Fergenson5480     |\n| 15 | LEANNE LI                      |\n| 16 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5495       |\n| 17 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT           |\n| 18 | Cross By Mr. Fergenson5506     |\n| 19 | Redirect By Ms. Shroff5535     |\n| 20 | DEFENDANT EXHIBITS             |\n| 21 | Exhibit No.<br>Received        |\n| 22 | 67061<br>.5420                 |\n| 23 | DX 60678A<br>.5475             |\n| 24 | DX Z-02<br>.5394               |\n| 25 | Stip 3<br>.5395                |\n\n# **EXHIBIT 3**\n\n**Email dated July 28, 2024**\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 300 of 500\n\n**From:** [Song, Luyi](mailto:luyisong@paulhastings.com) **To:** [Song, Luyi](mailto:luyisong@paulhastings.com) **Subject:** FW: [EXT] Re: Urgent : Mahwah Mansion issues **Date:** Monday, September 30, 2024 11:32:03 AM\n\nBegin forwarded message:\n\nHello Luc, Can you take a phone call? Thank you ,Franco DiPaolo Hawk Eye Security 201. 259. 6340 On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 8: 26 PM Johnson Qi<johnsonfalcon7@ gmail. com> wrote: Dear Franco, Hope you are well. The case about this Mansion has\n\n**From:** Franco DiPaolo [<hawkeyeservices1540@gmail.com](mailto:hawkeyeservices1540@gmail.com)> **Date:** July 29, 2024 at 2:46:36 AM GMT+2 **To:** \"Despins, Luc A.\" [<lucdespins@paulhastings.com](mailto:lucdespins@paulhastings.com)> **Subject: [EXT] Re: Urgent : Mahwah Mansion issues**\n\n**This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender** You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report [Suspicious](http)\n\nHello Luc,\n\nZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart\n\nZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd\n\nCan you take a phone call?\n\nThank you , Franco DiPaolo Hawk Eye Security 201.259.6340\n\nOn Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 8:26 PM Johnson Qi [<johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com](mailto:johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com)> wrote:\n\nDear Franco,\n\nHope you are well.\n\nThe case about this Mansion has already been a verdict.\n\nOn July 16, 2024. The criminal trial conclude. The Mahwah Mansion belong to the Goverment.\n\nSee transcript announcement in Documnet 395 of case 1:23-cr-00118-AT on US Court of Southern District of New York.\n\nFrom that date, this property has been handed over to the US Department of Justice Attorney's office, Southern District of New York.\n\nThe previous Owner of this Mansion No need to pay anything more.\n\nLawyer is communicating with the Court and the Trustee for further follows-ups.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 301 of 500\n\nSo that reason,\n\nSince July 29 ,2024. the security service costs can No longer be paid.\n\nThe last invoive 07282024 was made by ACH wire tranfer and will arrive on Tuesday. Please check.\n\nThanks for your understanding!\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n**July 30, 2024 Hearing Transcript**\n\n 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05005 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . GREENWICH LAND, LLC, . et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, et al., . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05017 (JAM) Plaintiffs, . . v. . . TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05007 (JAM) Plaintiff, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY . Brien McMahon Federal Building COMPANY, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendant . . Tuesday, July 30, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:39 p.m. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 303 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602                                                                            | Filed 10/01/24             | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43                                           | Page 304 of |  |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--|\n|    |                                                                                                      |                            | 500                                                                 | 2           |  |\n|    |                                                                                                      |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 1  | APPEARANCES:                                                                                         |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 2  | For the Chapter 11<br>Trustee:                                                                       |                            | Patrick Linsey, Esquire                                             |             |  |\n| 3  |                                                                                                      |                            | NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.<br>195 Church Street                  |             |  |\n| 4  |                                                                                                      |                            | 13th Floor<br>New Haven, Connecticut 06510                          |             |  |\n| 5  |                                                                                                      |                            | -and-                                                               |             |  |\n| 6  |                                                                                                      |                            | Luc A. Despins, Esquire                                             |             |  |\n| 7  |                                                                                                      |                            | PAUL HASTINGS, LLP<br>200 Park Avenue                               |             |  |\n| 8  |                                                                                                      |                            | New York, New York 10166                                            |             |  |\n| 9  |                                                                                                      |                            | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire                                        |             |  |\n| 10 |                                                                                                      |                            | 2050 M Street, NW<br>Washington, DC 20036                           |             |  |\n| 11 | For Taurus Fund LLC,                                                                                 |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 12 | Taurus Fund Management,<br>and Scott Barnett:                                                        | Michael T. Conway, Esquire |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 13 |                                                                                                      |                            | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP<br>747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor |             |  |\n| 14 |                                                                                                      |                            | Fifth Floor<br>New York, New York 10017                             |             |  |\n| 15 |                                                                                                      |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 16 |                                                                                                      |                            | TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING                                               |             |  |\n| 17 | BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING<br>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE                              |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 18 |                                                                                                      |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 19 | (APPEARANCES CONTINUED)                                                                              |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n| 20 | Audio Operator:                                                                                      |                            | Electronically recorded                                             |             |  |\n| 21 | Transcription Company:                                                                               |                            | Reliable                                                            |             |  |\n| 22 |                                                                                                      |                            | The Nemours Building<br>1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110            |             |  |\n| 23 |                                                                                                      |                            | Wilmington, Delaware 19801<br>Telephone: (302)654-8080              |             |  |\n| 24 |                                                                                                      |                            | Email:<br>gmatthews@reliable-co.com                                 |             |  |\n| 25 | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,<br>transcript produced by transcription service. |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n|    |                                                                                                      |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n|    |                                                                                                      |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n|    |                                                                                                      |                            |                                                                     |             |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 305 of\n\n|          |                                                | 500                                                                                         | 3 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1        | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):                       |                                                                                             |   |\n| 2<br>3   | For Pacific Alliance<br>Asia Opportunity Fund: | Annecca H. Smith, Esquire<br>ROBINSON & COLE, LLP                                           |   |\n| 4        |                                                | 280 Trumbull Street<br>Hartford, Connecticut 06103                                          |   |\n| 5        |                                                | -and-                                                                                       |   |\n| 6        |                                                | Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire<br>O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP                                        |   |\n| 7        |                                                | Times Square Tower<br>7 Times Square                                                        |   |\n| 8        |                                                | New York, New York 10036                                                                    |   |\n| 9        | For Hing Chi Ngok and<br>Greenwich Land, LLC   | Austin D. Kim, Esquire                                                                      |   |\n| 10<br>11 |                                                | Christopher J. Major, Esquire<br>MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP<br>125 Park Avenue              |   |\n| 12       |                                                | 7th Floor<br>New York, New York 10017                                                       |   |\n| 13       | For Genever Holdings:                          | Michael T. McCormack, Esquire<br>O'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN                                |   |\n| 14       |                                                | & BLISS, P.C.<br>180 Glastonbury Boulevard                                                  |   |\n| 15       |                                                | Suite 210<br>Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033                                                 |   |\n| 16       | For AIG Property                               |                                                                                             |   |\n| 17<br>18 | Casualty Company:                              | Michael P. Thompson, Esquire<br>GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI<br>95 Glastonbury Boulevard |   |\n| 19       |                                                | Suite 206<br>Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033                                                 |   |\n| 20       |                                                | -and-                                                                                       |   |\n| 21       |                                                | John O'Connor, Esquire                                                                      |   |\n| 22       |                                                | John J. Kavanagh, Esquire<br>STEPTOE, LLP                                                   |   |\n| 23       |                                                | 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW<br>Washington, DC 20036                                         |   |\n| 24       |                                                |                                                                                             |   |\n| 25       |                                                |                                                                                             |   |\n|          |                                                |                                                                                             |   |\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 1: Luc A. Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. Adversary Case no. 23-05017 (JAM) Status Conference 7 Matter No. 2: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Greenwich Land, LLC, et al. Adversary Case No. 23-05005 (JAM) Status Conference 30 Matter No. 3: Genever Holdings, LLC v AIG Property Casualty Company Adversary Case No. 23-05007 (JAM) Status Conference 46 Transcriptionist's' Certificate 52 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 306 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 307 of 500\n\n5\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:39 p.m.) THE CLERK: Thank you. Case Number 23-5005 Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee v Greenwich Land, LLC, et al., and 23-5017, Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Stuart Sarnoff at O'Melveny on behalf of creditor PAX. I don't expect that I'll be speaking, but I'm attending. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Connecticut counsel for creditor PAX with the same\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 caveat as Mr. Sarnoff, that I don't expect speaking today. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major from Meister Seelig & Fein, on behalf of Ms. Hing Chi Ngok in the 23-05005 adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KIM: Afternoon, Your Honor. Austin Kim, also from Meister Seelig & Fein, representing Ms. Hing Chi Ngok and Defendant Greenwich Land. THE COURT: I don't see you, Attorney Kim. Are you on video? MR. KIM: Dialed in, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Conway? MR. CONWAY: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Conway on behalf of Taurus Fund, LLC, Taurus Fund Management LLC, and Scott Barnett. THE COURT: All right. The matters -- I think that is everyone's appearance, by the way. Am I -- did I miss anyone? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So the two matters on for a status conference at 1:30 today are the adversary proceeding against Greenwich Land and the adversary proceeding against Taurus Fund. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 308 of 500\n\n 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, Trustee Despins, how would you like to proceed? MR. DESPINS: I think, Your Honor, we should start with Taurus Fund and then I'll pass the baton to Mr. Bassett. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Nick? MR. BASSETT: Okay, I'm sorry. The status conference on Taurus Fund? THE COURT: Yes, why don't we proceed with the Taurus Fund status conference first. MR. BASSETT: Absolutely, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. So, Your Honor, and I'll -- and I think the trustee, I thought he was suggesting that he was going to address the Court on this topic, I will certainly let him chime in. As to Taurus Fund, the reason for the status conference, as set forth in our status conference request, is that we found out, I believe it was two nights ago now, through a letter or actually an email that was forwarded to us by the security company for the mansion, which as you know, this Court had under the revised preliminary injunction order, put in place and required the security company to be present and to monitor you know, the Mahwah Mansion premises, monitor people who are coming and going, all the things of Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 309 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 310 of 500\n\n8\n\n1 2 that nature, to make sure that this potentially very, very valuable asset of the estate is protected.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 We received a note indicating that Taurus Fund was no longer going to continue to pay the fees or the costs of that security firm. The note indicated that the reason for the determination to discontinue payment is that in light of the debtor's conviction, they believe they no longer had an interest in the property; again, that's what the note said.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 We immediately responded. Obviously this, is of great concern and, you know, assured the security company that we would make sure the, you know, that the, that they were paid and that their services are not discontinued. We also have had, since then, a further conversation with Attorney Conway about other issues, for example, what about ongoing maintenance costs for the property. Certainly, our impression from the note that we received was that the decision to discontinue paying the security firm was not isolated and that that would apply to all costs. So there's maintenance, there's utilities, there's taxes. There's, I think, a \\$70,000 tax bill coming due on August 1st. All of that, in our mind, is potentially in jeopardy.\n\n22 23 24 25 So we have had an initial call with Attorney Conway yesterday, where he, I think, indicated -- and I'll let him speak for himself -- I think he indicated that he was still gathering information. But the reason for the status\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 311 of 500\n\n9\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 conference is really to apprise the Court of this development which is inconsistent with the preliminary injunction order that's in place, to let the Court know that we believe the estate has to step in, and, you know, immediately begin paying for the security firm is Taurus Fund is not going to do it, and also to, you know, address other issues that are important to the preservation of value of this property going forward.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So that's the update, Your Honor. Again, from our perspective, the main thing was to make sure the Court is aware that the estate, in our view, has to step in and start covering these costs, but I'll leave it there and let the trustee add anything he would like to add and then, obviously, I'm happy to answer any questions or to respond to any comments that Mr. Conway may offer.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, good afternoon. The cost of the security is \\$14,200 a week and as Mr. Bassett mentioned, there's a seventy-five or \\$77,000 tax bill coming due August 1st. And, obviously, the estate cannot be in a position where it's funding an entity that claims that we don't own. You know, it's okay for us to fund it if we own it, but not when we're in limbo.\n\n23 24 25 So, you know, obviously, Mr. Conway will express Taurus Fund's view, but my view is that if that's going to be the game, then we need to go, and we're ready to go relief\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 312 of 500\n\n10\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with regard to summary judgment on that property, given what has been said about the property and how it was purchased and all that in the criminal trial, but I'll let Mr. Conway address whether they're actually going to start paying again or whatever the plan is. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Conway? (No verbal response) THE COURT: You're on mute. MR. DESPINS: Mike, you're on mute. THE COURT: There you go. MR. CONWAY: Thank you. Rookie mistake, Your Honor. I was copied on the note that went out Sunday night to the security company and it said that there was a finding that the house had been forfeited to the government and, therefore, there was no ownership apparently left. I asked -- this came from the manager that had been hired by Taurus Fund. After I spoke with Mr. Bassett, I reached out to the manager -- actually, I think I reached out to him, I probably talked to him after I spoke with Mr. Bassett and said, Why would you send such an email? And he said, Well, the Court found that the house was forfeited; that's their understanding.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 313 of 500\n\n11\n\n1 2 3 4 And I said, Well, you need to get back in touch with the client and the person who has the purse strings and find out whether we're still paying, because the house hasn't been forfeited.\n\n5 6 And he said, Well, I don't understand. I read that it was forfeited.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 So that's where we left it. I'm still waiting for other information. There was a miscommunication and, you know, obviously, (indiscernible) read the proceedings differently and as Mr. Despins points out, we've been funding 14,000 and change every week for some time now with no access to the property, mind you. So, you know, there's certainly no dispute on our part that it's important, given the fact that there's property, personal property in the property, which belongs to our client, mind you, and we want that protected. But we also do believe that there is a little bit of injustice here that our client is unable to use its own property and is expected to maintain the costs of the trustee in protecting that property.\n\n20 21 22 23 So -- and I'm just responding to the comments that there's some inequity here of the estate having to pay for anything. Right now, the estate is the reason why our client can't use its own property.\n\n24 25 So, that said, I wish I had more information, Your Honor. All I have is that our client's manager, I think,\n\n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 erroneously sent an email saying that we no longer own the property, because it's been forfeited to the government, and that's where we stand. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? The concept that a manager, the loan-level person who is actually in charge of paying the bill went on his own made that determination is interesting, but, you know, I have serious doubt about that. And the reason his client can't use the property is because the client is in jail; that's why he can't use the property. That's a (indiscernible) of the state of facts. So, I don't get it. THE COURT: Say that again. I missed the second thing you said, Trustee Despins. MR. DESPINS: The reason -- you said the client can't use the property. The reason the client cannot use the property is because the client is in jail. Mr. Kwok is the owner of the property. He can't use the property because he's in jail, the same way he can't use the (indiscernible) property or The Sherry-Netherland. So, in any event, the point is, I think that what's happening here is -- we'll hear a little more about this in Greenwich Land -- is that they're holding up the purchase. They understand what's going on with Mr. Kwok and Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 314 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 315 of 500\n\n13\n\n1 2 3 I think that this is not an action that somehow a manager, on his own, made the decision, decided to cut off their funding. Somebody else decided that (indiscernible).\n\nThe point I'm making --\n\n4\n\n25\n\n5 6 7 MR. CONWAY: I don't know if Your Honor wants me to respond to any of that, but none of it was based on fact; it's all Mr. Despins' opinion and it's all inaccurate.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And, frankly, I don't represent Mr. Kwok. When we got involved in this case, I had to ask them who Mr. Kwok was. I had no idea who he was. We're talking about Taurus Fund LLC and to this day, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that anybody under Taurus Fund LLC owns the property and, in fact, in my recent conversation yesterday, I was told, oh, well, there was evidence at the criminal trial that Taurus Fund was trying to lease a portion of the property to the wife of Mr. Kwok. If that's not evidence that he doesn't own it, I'm not sure what it, because why would he lease -- THE COURT: Well, we don't need to worry about all that because none of it is in the record, okay.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 MR. CONWAY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: What we do need to worry about is -- MR. CONWAY: And I would just ask that Mr. Despins be reminded that neither of us should be making assertions based on evidence that's not in the record.\n\nTHE COURT: Well, let's talk a minute, first of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 316 of 500\n\n14\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all, Mister -- Attorney Conway. You've talked -- I think I've asked you more than once who is your client and who are you getting direction from. I don't think I've ever gotten an answer to that question, but you obviously talked to somebody yesterday about something. I still don't know who your client is and who you take direction from. But the email -- and it wasn't a note; it was an email, according to what I've seen that was filed on the docket of this case -- is saying that the house was forfeited. It's not a house, but the mansion was forfeited to the government. There's no information that I can see on the docket of this case or this adversary proceeding that would support that conclusion by this person named -- hold on a second -- the email came from -- MR. CONWAY: Qi Yong, Your Honor. THE COURT: What? MR. CONWAY: His name is Qi Yong; he's the manager. THE COURT: Okay. So what did he base his belief on, because there's nothing that I've seen that would say that anything's been forfeited to the government. So where does that come from? There has to be some basis for that belief and I don't see anything that would support that belief.\n\n 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Did he show you anything -- MR. CONWAY: It's an incorrect belief. THE COURT: -- that would support that belief? MR. CONWAY: No. I did speak with him, as I mentioned, Your Honor, and he told me -- I asked him, Where did you get that belief? He said he read it in the paper. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that seems somewhat extreme to then say, We're not going to pay anything, because of that, without talking to you. You're his lawyer, right? You're the lawyer for Taurus Fund and he is the manager of Taurus Fund. That seems somewhat extreme, don't you think? MR. CONWAY: Well, it seemed inappropriate to me and I let him know that. THE COURT: Okay. Good. All right. So, then, you've let him know it's inappropriate, number one. Number two, did you ask him about this last invoice that was paid where there was going to be an ACH transfer that was going to be received today according to his email? I don't know for what services that covers. Does that cover just last week or does it cover beyond that? I don't know what the invoice is for, so it's a little difficult to understand what's been paid to the security company, okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 317 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 318 of 500\n\n|    | 16                                                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, they were payments                |\n| 2  | through Monday at midnight; meaning, Monday at midnight or    |\n| 3  | Sunday night, midnight, and then, so that's why I received a  |\n| 4  | call from this gentleman saying, We're pulling out, you know, |\n| 5  | we're getting paid until Sunday night.                        |\n| 6  | And I had to tell him, Don't do that.<br>I'll cover           |\n| 7  | what needs to be covered until further notice.<br>So, it was  |\n| 8  | until Sunday night that just passed.                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, his -- the email            |\n| 10 | from a person who's name is Johnson Qi -- K -- Q-i, is that   |\n| 11 | who you're talking about, Attorney Conway?                    |\n| 12 | MR. CONWAY:<br>His name is Qi Yong in his email.<br>I         |\n| 13 | guess whoever reads these uses the name \"Johnson,\" but his    |\n| 14 | name is Qi Yong, Y-o-n-g.                                     |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>His first name is Q-i?                          |\n| 16 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Q-i Y-o-n-g.                                   |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Q-i, is his first name and his         |\n| 18 | last name is Y-o-u -- say it again, please.<br>I'm sorry.     |\n| 19 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Y-o-n-g.                                       |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Y-o-n-g.                                        |\n| 21 | Who sent an email from an email address:                      |\n| 22 | Johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com to hi -- to Hawkeye Security, to     |\n| 23 | Franco at Hawkeye Security at 8:26 p.m. on Sunday, July 28th, |\n| 24 | okay.                                                         |\n| 25 | So, what you're saying is -- I believe what you're            |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 319 of 500\n\n17\n\n1 2 3 saying is that that's a mistake. He acted erroneously, and that the payments are going to continue to be made to pay the security.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Is that what you're saying, Attorney Conway? MR. CONWAY: That's what I asked him to find out. I haven't heard back yet. He expressed a concern about the ability to make the payments going forward, given the fact that he thought that the -- Your Honor, I can't speak to his state of mind, but he acted as if I was telling him an indirect fact when I told him that this house had not been forfeited. It was as if he didn't believe me.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So I've asked him to confirm for me, you know, what, if anything, we can expect going forward, with respect to payments. At the same time, I conferred with Mr. Bassett and agree with Mr. Bassett that, you know, if we don't have money coming in, you know, we think it's important to either protect the personal property within the house there, or move it someplace elsewhere it can be protected.\n\n19 20 21 The house, itself, obviously, isn't going to be stolen and, frankly, it's not being used. It hasn't been used since Your Honor put the order in effect.\n\n22 23 24 So there are ways to try to fix the problem, but right now, I'm not sure what to tell you, other than I'm waiting for information.\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: And when do you expect to have this\n\n 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information? MR. CONWAY: I have no expectations, Your Honor, other than I've asked for it. I've been -- I will continue to push as hard as I can to get information as quickly as I can say. That's all I can say. THE COURT: Where's Mr. Johnson located or Mr. Yong, where is he located? MR. CONWAY: I believe he's -- the reason he was hired is because he lives somewhere near the property. THE COURT: Who hired him? MR. CONWAY: Taurus Fund. THE COURT: Who at Taurus Fund made that decision? MR. CONWAY: Well, I can't tell for sure, but the contract is signed by David Fallon. You know, if there was somebody else that helped David Fallon, I can't tell you that. It's a fund, so -- but David Fallon is the one who formally engaged him. THE COURT: Okay. Well, if these payments aren't made, then they're going to be in violation of an existing order and they could be subject to sanctions, including jail. Do they understand that? MR. CONWAY: I got it. THE COURT: I think you need to make sure that you communicate that to them. I mean, this is a very odd situation, Attorney Conway, and I'm hearing you say you don't Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 320 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 321 of 500\n\n| 1  | know when you're going to get a response.                       |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | I understand you didn't cause the issue, but the                |\n| 3  | problem is that's not an acceptable answer.<br>This is an       |\n| 4  | asset.<br>Whether you agree or not, this is subject to an order |\n| 5  | of this Court, with regard to this being an asset of the        |\n| 6  | estate.<br>And I understand if you don't agree -- that's fine;  |\n| 7  | I'm not quarrelling with that at all -- but the status is,      |\n| 8  | right now, that this property is subject to an order of this    |\n| 9  | Court and if your client isn't going to abide by that, then     |\n| 10 | they're going to be subject to sanctions, which could           |\n| 11 | include, you know, possible jail if they're not going to pay    |\n| 12 | what they're ordered to pay.                                    |\n| 13 | I mean, we've been through this before; this isn't              |\n| 14 | new.<br>I don't mean about payment, but what I'm saying is,     |\n| 15 | this is the order.<br>Whether they like it or not, it's the     |\n| 16 | order, and to somehow cause a commotion by saying it's          |\n| 17 | been -- he believes, because he read in the paper that -- and   |\n| 18 | he didn't talk to anybody and he just sends an email saying,    |\n| 19 | We're not going to pay you anymore, that doesn't sound like a   |\n| 20 | thing that -- that doesn't sound like an action that a          |\n| 21 | manager would take, exercising reasonable business judgment,    |\n| 22 | to me.                                                          |\n| 23 | And that's your client.<br>Your client is what your             |\n| 24 | client is.<br>So I think you need to -- we need to have an      |\n| 25 | answer, not \"I don't know when.\"<br>And I'm not -- I'm saying   |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 322 of 500\n\n20\n\n1 2 3 to you, I understand that what you said to me, but you need to have an answer to that question. I'm going -- I will have an answer by tomorrow or Thursday.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 We've been through this on \"there's no insurance\"; we've already been through this. I mean, this isn't going to work. You represent this client. If I have to have an order bringing your client into court to explain to me what is going on and from whom they're getting their authority, I will do so and that can be as soon as tomorrow or Thursday.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 So I don't know how you want to proceed, but that this is -- you know, you're saying it's incorrect; well, then, they've got to pay. So I need to know that they're going to pay, otherwise, they're going to be in this courtroom tomorrow or Thursday and I'll have the United States Marshals go get them, Mr. Fallon and Mr. Yong.\n\n16 17 18 So I don't know if you want to have a conversation with your client this afternoon, but I would certainly suggest that you do.\n\n19 20 MR. CONWAY: I will do my best, Your Honor, as I've been doing so far.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, I need their addresses. I need to know where they are so I can send the U.S. Marshals to where they need to go to get these people to come into court, and you need -- you have an address for them, you have to. So I need that information.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 323 of 500\n\n| 1  | MR. CONWAY:<br>Okay.<br>Well, do you want me to give          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | that to you now, because I don't have that now?<br>I've given |\n| 3  | that information to the trustee, so the trustee can give it   |\n| 4  | to you just as easily as I can.                               |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah, but they're your clients --               |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>I'm not sure that --                          |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>-- Mr. Conway.<br>They're your clients.         |\n| 8  | MR. CONWAY:<br>Excuse me?                                     |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>They're your clients.                           |\n| 10 | MR. CONWAY:<br>They're my clients, Your Honor, but            |\n| 11 | remember, what we're doing here today is a status conference. |\n| 12 | This was not a motion.<br>This was not a hearing on contempt. |\n| 13 | This is not something that I even had time to --              |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Conway --                                   |\n| 15 | MR. CONWAY:<br>-- I just got out of court, Your               |\n| 16 | Honor.                                                        |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Conway -- there's already orders            |\n| 18 | in place --                                                   |\n| 19 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Yes, there are, Your Honor.                    |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>-- that your client needs to abide by.          |\n| 21 | And if they're not abiding by them, then I will take whatever |\n| 22 | action I think is appropriate.                                |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY:<br>That's fine, Your Honor.<br>And you            |\n| 24 | have the -- you're the judge.                                 |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>This is a valuable lesson.<br>As we all         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 324 of 500\n\n22\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know, we already had this whole thing about insurance. We went through this many, many, many months ago. If your clients are going to assert that they are not going to pay and you don't have an answer that they actually are going to pay, then I will do what I think is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. So -- MR. CONWAY: Well, all we can do, Your Honor, is find out. Right now, all we have is counsel coming to you asking for a status conference before anybody had time to figure out what was going on. So if you'll give me the benefit of the doubt and let me try and reach my client, then I can report back. But, Your Honor -- THE COURT: I think I just suggested that to you. I'm not suggesting I'm not -- MR. CONWAY: Okay. And I'm hearing you, Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- giving you the opportunity -- MR. CONWAY: -- loud and clear. THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Conway. Let me finish my statement, please. I didn't suggest that you didn't have the opportunity to contact you client; in fact, I said, I think you better call them this afternoon. That's exactly what I said, so I don't know what your argument is. You need to get\n\n 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an answer. MR. CONWAY: I'm not sure -- okay, my point only is, Your Honor, I hear you and I'm going to do what you asked. THE COURT: Okay, good. Because I need an answer. I need to know whether or not they're going to make these payments, including the real estate taxes. This is not -- you know, this is a bankruptcy estate, Mr. Conway -- and I'm not suggesting you think anything to the contrary -- however, the Court has to make sure that the assets of the bankruptcy estate, and unless and until they're not, if you win on appeal and all those other things, are secure. And if payments aren't going to be made by your client, who's bound by an existing order to do so, then appropriate steps will be taken. We can't -- this isn't a situation where we have 21 days to file a response; that's not going to happen. There's already an existing order in place and that existing order needs to be complied with, and if it's not going to be complied with, I need it in writing that it's not going to be custom replied with and why, and who provided you with the authority to say that. Because you represent a corporate entity, you have -- there has to be somebody with authority; that's how it works, we all know that. So, Trustee Despins and Attorney Conway, I think Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 325 of 500\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 326 of 500\n\n24\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what we need to do is establish a time frame by which Attorney Conway is going to get back to the Court on this issue. Right now, supposedly, the security has been paid through Sunday night. Trustee Despins, that's what you're telling me? MR. DESPINS: That's correct. Your Honor, I become liable from Monday. THE COURT: And that's the normal course; they pay at the end of each week? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: So the week of July 29th through August 3rd would be paid on August 3rd? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that's 14,000-some-odd dollars. I don't need to know the exact amount, but that's what you're telling me, correct? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: And those amounts have been paid, without interruption, during the course of this adversary proceeding, correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Have real estate taxes been paid at all during the course of this adversary proceeding? MR. DESPINS: Real estate taxes have been paid, but as I said, there's a payment of seventy-five or \\$77,000\n\n 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coming due on August 1st. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: But to date, the other payments -- THE COURT: I'm just asking, have there been real estate payments made to date -- MR. DESPINS: Yes -- THE COURT: -- by Taurus Fund with regard to this house? MR. DESPINS: -- yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And do you have -- MR. DESPINS: I don't know who made the payments, but payments were made. THE COURT: Okay. Do you happen to know the approximate amount? I mean, is this -- does New Jersey work as a two times a year you pay the taxes and they're \\$75,000 twice a year or how does it work? MR. DESPINS: I don't recall precisely, but I thought there were two payments in 2024 already made, much smaller, and now I'm really speculating, but I thought they were in 20,000 range. Mr. Bassett may have (indiscernible) who listed that. So it's -- so I think some payments were made in 2024. I think there were two payments, in the fifteen-totwenty-thousand-dollar range, but I -- this is where I'm a little bit -- you know, I can't be that precise. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 327 of 500\n\n| 1  | Mr. Bassett?                                                   |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Actually, yeah, the records that               |\n| 3  | looking at, I mean, they're just publicly available, you       |\n| 4  | know, county records, they actually show that two payments of  |\n| 5  | approximately \\$69,000 were made this year; one on May 1st,    |\n| 6  | 2024, and another on February 21st, 2024.<br>There was also    |\n| 7  | payments of approximately \\$70,000 made in, you know, November |\n| 8  | of 2023 and August of 2023, May of 2023, February of 2023.     |\n| 9  | So, Your Honor, it looks like there are quarterly payments     |\n| 10 | due of approximately \\$70,000 each.                            |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>It sounds like quarterly               |\n| 12 | payments, that's right.                                        |\n| 13 | So they've been made through May of 2024,                      |\n| 14 | according to the records you're looking at, Attorney Bassett?  |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                    |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 17 | So, Attorney Conway and Trustee Despins, there's               |\n| 18 | two ways we can go.<br>You can come up and tell me what works  |\n| 19 | for both of you on agreement or I can tell you when, Attorney  |\n| 20 | Conway, you need to file some kind of document, or we can      |\n| 21 | have another status conference and you can tell me.            |\n| 22 | But I'm telling you right now, I need to know if               |\n| 23 | these payments are going to be made to the security company    |\n| 24 | and the real estate taxes and that Taurus Fund has told you,   |\n| 25 | through an authorized representative, whomever that is -- and  |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 329 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n21\n\nI want to know who it is -- that they are going to be made. And if they're not going to be made and the decision is that they're not going to be made, then I want to know what representative of Taurus Fund has decided not to comply with the order and not to meet its obligations as a business, as an entity, and then I will bring that person into court and they will be subject to an examination.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 So, how do you want to proceed? Do you two want to talk after this or do you want me to set a date right now? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, as much as we'd like to talk to Mr. Conway, who's a real gentleman, the issue is a pretty simple one: they'll make the payment or not make the payment. There should be a date by which they report to the Court that they will or will not make the payment. That date should be pretty short, like Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., something like that.\n\n17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Okay. I will do that with the understanding that if you and Mr. Conway come to some agreement or he provides something satisfactory to you in the meantime --\n\nMR. DESPINS: Sure.\n\n22 23 THE COURT: -- then there won't be a need to file something.\n\n24 25 MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. Thank you. THE COURT: So I will set the time frame for\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 330 of 500\n\n| 1  | Mr. Conway to report to you -- well, maybe he's going to --   |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | actually, it's going to be something filed on the docket,     |\n| 3  | much like -- didn't we do that with regard to the insurance,  |\n| 4  | the fact that there was no insurance on the property, wasn't  |\n| 5  | it filed on the docket of the case --                         |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                              |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>-- of the adversary, I should say?              |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Then, by noon -- I'm going to say               |\n| 10 | by 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1st, Attorney Conway --      |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's Thursday, Your Honor.                  |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>What did I just say, Tuesday?<br>I'm            |\n| 13 | sorry.                                                        |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Tuesday.                                      |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>I'm sorry.                                      |\n| 16 | By 11:00 a.m. --                                              |\n| 17 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Your Honor, if I may?                          |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Yes?                                            |\n| 19 | MR. CONWAY:<br>If I may have until 5:00?<br>I'm in            |\n| 20 | court in Texas on Thursday, so it would be very helpful to me |\n| 21 | to have until 5:00.                                           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>I'll give you until 5:00 --                     |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>-- till 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,                  |\n| 25 | August 1st, you'll have to file something on the docket of    |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 331 of 500\n\n| 1  | this adversary proceeding that indicates that the Taurus Fund |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | will make all payments, due and owing, with regard to the     |\n| 3  | property, including, but not limited to the weekly security   |\n| 4  | services payment and the real estate taxes, and you will tell |\n| 5  | me who provided you with that authority, their name and their |\n| 6  | address, where they can be served and/or the United States    |\n| 7  | Marshals Service can come, bring them into this court, or you |\n| 8  | can -- and/or you can say that you're not going -- that       |\n| 9  | Taurus Fund is not going to make the payments and the same    |\n| 10 | information will be necessary.                                |\n| 11 | Who is the person that was authorized to make that            |\n| 12 | decision on behalf of Taurus Fund and what is their -- where  |\n| 13 | is the address that they are located, both home and business  |\n| 14 | addresses, so that they can be served and the United States   |\n| 15 | Marshals can bring them into this court.                      |\n| 16 | Are there any questions, with regard to that?                 |\n| 17 | MR. CONWAY:<br>No, Your Honor.                                |\n| 18 | I would just point out that my not objecting on               |\n| 19 | the record doesn't mean that I waive the right to state that  |\n| 20 | I don't believe that's an appropriate remedy for a            |\n| 21 | corporation who decides that they can't do something or can   |\n| 22 | do something.<br>It's just, with that said, I don't know if   |\n| 23 | it's an appropriate time to raise objections.                 |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>I think it's completely appropriate             |\n| 25 | for you to raise your objection, but that's overruled.        |\n\n| 1  | MR. CONWAY:<br>Well, then, for the record, Your             |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | Honor, I object to the idea that a marshal can go out and   |\n| 3  | arrest an officer of a corporation simply because the       |\n| 4  | corporation makes the determination it can or can't do      |\n| 5  | something.<br>I don't know what the determination --        |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>I didn't say anything about arrest,           |\n| 7  | Attorney Conway; I never used that word.                    |\n| 8  | MR. CONWAY:<br>Well, having a marshal go out and put        |\n| 9  | somebody in whatever they have to put them in to drag them  |\n| 10 | into court, sounds like an arrest.                          |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Well, we'll see.<br>We see how you do         |\n| 12 | and what you file by the -- I never used the word; that's   |\n| 13 | your word, so you can figure out how you want to interpret  |\n| 14 | that.<br>I can issue orders that are supplemental to orders |\n| 15 | that are already in existence in this adversary proceeding. |\n| 16 | All right.<br>So I think that concludes the Taurus          |\n| 17 | Fund status conference; is that correct?                    |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                            |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then, let's move to --       |\n| 20 | thank you, Attorney Conway.<br>You do not need to stay, but |\n| 21 | you're welcome to if you'd like to.                         |\n| 22 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                       |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Then let's move to the Greenwich Land         |\n| 24 | status conference, please.                                  |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>Again, Nick             |\n|    |                                                             |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 333 of 500\n\n31\n\n1 2 Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee, for the record.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 So, Your Honor, again, this is -- the general background here is set forth in the request for the status conference that we filed on the docket of the adversary proceeding. In short, this relates to the motion for stay pending appeal that the Defendants have filed with Your Honor. Your Honor has entered a scheduling order that sets the trustee's objection deadline for, I believe, August 6th, and I believe there's a hearing currently scheduled for August 20th or the 22nd, one of those two dates. I apologize.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 We -- it's the 20th -- we, last Monday, so eight days ago, served very narrow discovery requests, and we had also previewed to counsel that we would be serving such discovery requests before we did, we served discovery requests on the 22nd and, again, they were very narrow. We had six requests for documents. We also sought a limited deposition.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 The information that we're seeking, we believe, is directly relevant to the request for the stay. We're seeking information that we need an order to test the various assertions that Defendants are making in their motion to evaluate the factors, including prejudice to, alleged prejudice to the Defendants, potential harm to the estate, et\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 334 of 500\n\n32\n\n1 2 cetera, that the Court needs to evaluate when considering a stay motion.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In brief, if I can just summarize, quickly, the six requests? So, Your Honor, we're asking for, first, copies of any documents related to bills, invoices, upkeep - and this is kind of a common refrain, you know, going back to the status conference we just had on the Taurus Fund to understand what types of payments are due to maintain the property, whether it be taxes, utilities, et cetera, and documentation showing whether those things are being paid, and if so, from what source; obviously, that's critically necessary to know if the property is going to be maintained if the stay that's being requested is granted.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 We also have asked for bank statements so that we can evaluate, you know, where the source of these funds are coming and also see if there's been any dissipation of Greenwich Land assets, i.e., funds in bank accounts, either before or after the Court's summary judgment ruling, which obviously would be highly relevant to prejudice to the estate in the event of a stay.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 We're also seeking documents concerning the Defendant -- the debtor's wife's -- I'm sorry -- her alleged ownership of personal property and other assets located in the house, because that's been one of the issues that has arisen on the motion for stay; the assertion being that there\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 335 of 500\n\n1 2 3 would be prejudice if we tried to sell the house with its contents because some of those contents allegedly belong to Ms. Ngok, so we sought documents on that issue.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 We've also sought documents related to any movement of property to or from the mansion; again, it goes to whether or not the property that's located there is truly owned by the Defendant. It also goes to the potential dissipation of assets.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And then, lastly, Your Honor, we sought copies of insurance policies and related documents, such as any appraisals, that would help us understand the value of the house; obviously, insurance is critical. We also want to understand what the land is worth versus what the house and the developments on the land are worth; all of that is essentially relevant to, not only the request for the stay, but also to the extent that the Court were to entertain the stay request, the appropriate level of bond that would be required to ensure that the estate is fully protected for the duration of any stay.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 So, Your Honor, that's the narrow discovery we sought. We also want to ask Ms. Ngok questions in a deposition about those narrow topics. We sent the discovery requests, as I said, on the 22nd; eight days ago. Immediately, in that same email, which is attached to our status conference request, offered to meet and confer. We\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 336 of 500\n\n34\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 didn't hear anything. I followed up two days later with Attorney Major and said, Just following up, we are obviously under a tight timeline here. We need this information. I'm happy to meet and confer. Again, didn't hear back. We then, had no choice but to file a status conference request on Friday and now, here we are.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 We still have not had an opportunity to meet and confer. We still have not been assured that any discovery is being provided. Again, we don't see how we can go forward at a hearing upon, you know, at which the Defendants bear the burden to seek a stay if we are unable to test their assertions and fully understand, based on, you know, some underlying documentation and testimony, et cetera, as to the, you know, the facts relevant to the various considerations that the Court must take into account in evaluating their motion.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 So, Your Honor, again, the purpose of the conference today, we would ask the Court is to make clear what we think we are entitled to already, which is responses to our discovery. I'm obviously happy to hear from counsel to the Defendants and I'm happy to answer any questions, but that's kind of the description of the purpose of the conference today, Your Honor.\n\n24 25 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, before we go there, if I may, just two minutes?\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 337 of 500\n\n35\n\nTHE COURT: Go ahead.\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 MR. DESPINS: I've always had doubts about this, but I think now it's pretty clear: there's no insurance on that house. And I'm really -- well, I'll just say it's bankruptcy malpractice for me not to raise this.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 You know, this is a six million, \\$7 million asset with no insurance -- I hope Mr. Major will correct me, but I don't think he can -- and my point is they're dead on arrival on the stay hearing. So we're going to spend a lot of money preparing for this, but if they know -- and I guarantee they will not pay the taxes due on August 1st, because it's not - they don't have insurance and they know they're dead on arrival at a stay hearing because -- and I don't want to presume what Your Honor will do -- but I know from prior cases, as you mentioned, insurance is number one always, and they can't get insurance now; they're uninsurable.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, to me, that's changed the circumstances. You gracefully gave them more time for a stay hearing, et cetera, et cetera, but if we had known that there is no insurance on that property, I'm not sure it would have played out that way. So we ask the discovery issues that Mr. Bassett raised and (indiscernible) address that, but I really wanted to address the issue of no insurance. And I question the idea of going to a full stay evidentiary hearing when they're going to show up with no insurance for that property. Thank\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 338 of 500\n\n| 1  | you, Your Honor.                                              |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                             |\n| 3  | Attorney Major?                                               |\n| 4  | MR. MAJOR:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 5  | I think for a variety of reasons, including my                |\n| 6  | client's condition, that I agree with -- and I'm saying this  |\n| 7  | without prejudice to my client's rights and arguments and     |\n| 8  | where this all may go -- but I agree with the trustee that    |\n| 9  | perhaps we should not be going through the stay litigation.   |\n| 10 | And I'd like an opportunity, if the Court will give it to me, |\n| 11 | and if the trustee will oblige, if I could try to convince    |\n| 12 | the trustee through private negotiation over the next couple  |\n| 13 | of days, to come to some resolution of the stay litigation    |\n| 14 | that would balance his concerns and I think help my client,   |\n| 15 | given the condition that she's in.                            |\n| 16 | And so, I don't want to say too much more than                |\n| 17 | that in terms of, you know, where I want to try to take this. |\n| 18 | I would love if we could do it with a mediator.<br>I don't    |\n| 19 | think there's sufficient time, but I'd like to have a little  |\n| 20 | bit of time with an audience on behalf of the trustee,        |\n| 21 | whether it be one of his lawyers or himself -- whatever his   |\n| 22 | team can accommodate -- to see if we could reach some form of |\n| 23 | a resolution of the stay motion.<br>I think we can, but I'd   |\n| 24 | like to have that opportunity if I could.                     |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>And, Your Honor, I would say the              |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 339 of 500\n\n37\n\n1 2 same thing I said to Mr. Conway. Mr. Major is a gentleman. He's in an awful position, unfortunately.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And for the trustee to accept the concept that somebody who has been found not to be the owner would stay in the house that's uninsured, they're not paying taxes, Your Honor, they're pulling (indiscernible). They know that as a result of the criminal conviction, the game is over. That's why they're stopping to pay at Taurus, because they know they will lose Taurus, regardless if they lose it to me or to the government; they will lose it and the same thing for this house.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Major has no argument on the stay. He knows that. He's trying to do the best for his client, and I respect that, but if something happened to that property on my watch and I allowed this to happen, somebody would say, You should have your head examined, trustee, for having allowed that.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I don't want to sound like a horrible person. I understand what he's saying, but we're dealing with a criminal enterprise. That's not -- you remember, this whole thing was a criminal enterprise and in that context, where there's no insurance, there should be zero tolerance in your court. And I really feel bad about putting you, Your Honor, on the spot like this, but we just cannot allow this to go on; it's too dangerous and they know it's too dangerous.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 340 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|               |          | 500            |                           |             |\n\n38\n\nMR. MAJOR: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. MAJOR: So, the Court set -- and this was, you\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 know, a schedule that the trustee asked to be moved -- but upon the consent motion that trustee filed, the Court set a deadline of this coming Friday, August 2nd, for my client to file a statement regarding property insurance and taxes. And so only after that order was entered did the trustee seek to unilaterally move that date through the discovery request.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 What I'm proposing is a negotiation this week that does not alter the timeline that the Court set, with input from the trustee. And I don't think that it is too much to ask for, under the circumstances, for the trustee to negotiate with us during that window. We're already -- our client is already under an obligation to file on Friday, that information.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And so -- and we've reached out to the trustee, albeit, shortly before the hearing, because I just recently met with the client yet again and, you know, went to proceed on this path and that's why I reached out to the trustee today and started that process. And I understand it's got to be done very quickly and we're prepared to do that. And that's -- I don't think we should deviate from the original schedule, with the exception that I'm going to do my best to try to reach some consensual resolution of the stay\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 341 of 500\n\n39\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 litigation. THE COURT: So just, Attorney Major, so I understand -- I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to make sure that I do. So you would like to have discussions, ongoing discussions with the trustee this week to try to resolve the issue of a motion for stay pending appeal without having to deal with discovery issues and the actual hearing on the stay pending appeal; is that what you're saying? MR. MAJOR: So, Your Honor, the hearing on the stay is set for August 20th. THE COURT: Right. MR. MAJOR: The discovery issues, you know, I think would be necessary to resolve if that hearing is going forward. Well, what I'm suggesting is that we discuss resolving the stay motion so that there wouldn't be a hearing. THE COURT: Right. MR. MAJOR: I understand, for sure, not just from what you've said today during this status conference, but from what the trustee has said to me during phone calls, that some of what's in their discovery requests would have to be part of some resolution of the stay litigation. And so I think that that is something that we understand in terms of information that the trustee is going to want as part of any\n\n# 40 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 342 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sort of a resolution of the stay litigation. And, again, I'm saying this without prejudice to the arguments in our stay motion and so forth, but I just - again, being with my client, I think it's in her best interests, given her physical condition, that I work something out with the trustee, and maybe it's not possible, but I'd like to try. THE COURT: All right. So let's -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, consensually -- THE COURT: Hold on a second, Trustee Despins. So let's assume that you both agree that that makes sense to have a conversation between now and Friday; let's just make that assumption. And then let's also assume you don't work anything out. You still have to file something on the docket of this adversary proceeding on Friday as to whether or not there's insurance and taxes have been paid; do you understand that? MR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And you're not asking for that date to change? MR. MAJOR: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Because it can't. I don't see any way that that can change unless there's an agreement with the trustee. Okay. I think that's what I -- that's all I'm\n\n 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to say for now. Attorney -- Trustee Despins, were you going to respond to Attorney Major? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, consensually, I'm always happy to talk to people, but the insurance is a deal-breaker. I cannot -- you can overrule me, and if that's your determination, that's perfectly fine -- but I cannot consensually agree that it's okay to have somebody who's been found not to own the house to live in the house without insurance. So, I'm happy to talk, but I don't want to mislead anyone about what's going to happen. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, if I may? The only other observation I would make is that if we were to proceed down this path of trying to have discussions this week while keeping in place the deadline for counsel to file proof of insurance and other information on the docket, the other issue, of course, we run into if we don't have a resolution is we would, then, still, as counsel noted, need responses to the discovery. So I think at that juncture, we would maybe have some wiggle room with the objection deadline of the 6th and a hearing date of the 20th to potentially move out our objection deadline to allow for discovery to take place, you know, next week in advance of that. But I think we would have to deal with that issue of the timing and sequencing Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 343 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 344 of 500\n\n| 1  | under the current schedule, Your Honor.                       |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                   |\n| 3  | So what are we -- how are we concluding this today            |\n| 4  | as far as there is an order in place, ECF 147, that extended  |\n| 5  | out the deadlines, including the deadline for the Greenwich   |\n| 6  | parties to file the insurance and taxes notice to August 2nd, |\n| 7  | which is Friday.<br>I just asked Attorney Major that he knows |\n| 8  | he's got to file that, even if there isn't an agreement with  |\n| 9  | the trustee.                                                  |\n| 10 | If there is an agreement with the trustee, I don't            |\n| 11 | know what it's going to be, so you all will have to figure    |\n| 12 | that out.                                                     |\n| 13 | But Attorney Major, I know I heard you clearly.               |\n| 14 | I've asked you the question on the record.<br>You understand  |\n| 15 | you have to file it.                                          |\n| 16 | If you don't -- if you do not file anything on                |\n| 17 | August 2nd, then, you know, we'll see where things go.<br>If  |\n| 18 | there isn't an agreement and the trustee is requesting --     |\n| 19 | well, already has requested discovery, under the              |\n| 20 | circumstances of this specific adversary proceeding and the   |\n| 21 | circumstances of the larger Chapter 11 cases, I think the     |\n| 22 | discovery is warranted and I, you know, do not see any reason |\n| 23 | why it shouldn't be complied with.                            |\n| 24 | I understand what you're saying about your                    |\n| 25 | client's health; obviously, we don't know anything about      |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 345 of 500\n\n43\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 that, other than what you've said, and I'm not suggesting you have to prove anything at this point in time, but you, as - you're in -- you have to decide how that's going to go after conversations with your client. If there isn't some resolution, I haven't been persuaded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure somehow do not support discovery in this situation, and so that's how I see things from the Court's standpoint right now.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, thank you for those comments. You know, my only point is let's assume that they file something saying there's no insurance and they haven't paid taxes. There needs -- well, they need -- there should be a mechanism to shortcut this because the costs involved - and I need to retain an expert, I've already found a (indiscernible) guy -- having a full-blown hearing on this when we know, I think, that the outcome without any insurance and without the taxes being paid, we know what the outcome is. So I'm not asking you to rule on that today, but I think we may come back to Your Honor very soon to say that there should be -- this hearing should not go forward. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: If that is --\n\nTHE COURT: I understand that clearly.\n\n25 MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 346 of 500\n\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>We'll see what gets filed on Friday.             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>And if there isn't insurance and taxes           |\n| 4  | aren't being paid, then we'll probably be having another       |\n| 5  | status conference Monday or Tuesday of next week, because      |\n| 6  | we -- it can't be -- I mean, Attorney Major, you were here     |\n| 7  | before.<br>I'm not saying anything you haven't already heard.  |\n| 8  | There can't be an asset, whether you agree it's an asset or    |\n| 9  | not, that is uninsured.<br>It is not -- the Bankruptcy Code    |\n| 10 | even references that as a basis for a debtor who had sought    |\n| 11 | affirmative relief not to be in the Bankruptcy Court before.   |\n| 12 | We all know what happened.<br>The debtor sought                |\n| 13 | affirmative relief, but the trustee was appointed.             |\n| 14 | So that's where things stand.<br>So, from the                  |\n| 15 | Court's perspective, I'm not sure there's anything else we     |\n| 16 | can do in connection with this adversary proceeding this       |\n| 17 | afternoon.<br>We will see what happens.                        |\n| 18 | I encourage you to talk.<br>I have no idea whether             |\n| 19 | it will produce anything, but I obviously encourage you to     |\n| 20 | talk.<br>There isn't a lot of time, obviously, between now and |\n| 21 | Friday, so, obviously -- and, I mean, I don't need to say it,  |\n| 22 | but I will -- I'll be not happy to hear that the               |\n| 23 | conversations start at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, if that's when     |\n| 24 | the conversation starts.<br>I understand that everybody has a  |\n| 25 | lot of things to deal with, and I'm not suggesting anything    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 347 of 500\n\n45\n\n1 2 to the contrary, but this is a critical issue in this adversary proceeding.\n\n3 4 5 6 And I understand that you, Attorney Major, would like a stay pending appeal, and you're absolutely entitled to seek that, but you have burdens associated with that, as well, as does the trustee. You both do.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So we need to handle it appropriately under the Federal Rules, applicable Federal Rules in this situation. So we will see what happens on Friday and depending upon what is or is not filed, we will take the next step. And if that means the trustee requests on, you know, which you could do, too, Attorney Major, either one of you could request a status conference over the weekend. I mean, it's not likely that it'll be held on the weekend, but it would be held on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 So, does anyone have any questions? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Major, is there anything else that you want to add this afternoon while we're here? MR. MAJOR: Not at this time, Your Honor. Thank\n\n21 you for the time.\n\n22\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n23 24 That concludes the status conference in the Greenwich Land, adversary 23-05005.\n\nAttorney Major, obviously, you are not required to\n\n 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stay -- we have another conference in another matter -- but you are welcome to stay if you would like to; that's your choice. MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll leave. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. So, now, I'll have the -- I think the people for the 2 o'clock status conference are in the waiting room. THE CLERK: Yes, they are here. THE COURT: You can go ahead and bring them in, please, and then we'll call that matter. Thank you. THE CLERK: Thank you. (Pause) THE CLERK: I think that's it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And, Your Honor, this is in the AIG matter? THE CLERK: Case Number 23-5007, Genever Holdings LLC v AIG Property Casualty Company. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I'm not appearing. I'm not -- this is Genever, so I'm really appearing just to monitor, but I am not really appearing. I'm not -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, go ahead and appear Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 348 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 349 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 47                                                                                             |\n| 1  | anyway and we'll go from there, okay?                                                          |\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.<br>Luc Despins, Chapter 11                                               |\n| 3  | Trustee, in the Kwok case.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                           |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                              |\n| 5  | MR. MCCORMACK:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor --                                                |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead, Attorney McCormack.<br>Go                                              |\n| 7  | ahead.                                                                                         |\n| 8  | MR. MCCORMACK:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>On                                            |\n| 9  | behalf of Genever Holdings, LLC, I am Michael McCormack from                                   |\n| 10 | O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss.                                                           |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                                                  |\n| 12 | MR. O'CONNOR:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>John                                           |\n| 13 | O'Connor and John Kavanagh from Steptoe, LLP, for AIG, and                                     |\n| 14 | Michael Thompson, our Connecticut counsel, is present, as                                      |\n| 15 | well.                                                                                          |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon to all of you.                                                    |\n| 17 | UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER:<br>Good afternoon.                                                  |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>I looked at the joint                                              |\n| 19 | response that was filed in connection with the status                                          |\n| 20 | conference order and I understand the parties' positions,                                      |\n| 21 | obviously.<br>It wasn't clear to me whether the parties were                                   |\n| 22 | going to be going forward with discovery, given the fact that                                  |\n| 23 | the pretrial order had just been amended, I think, maybe two                                   |\n| 24 | days before the order entered in the main case, staying                                        |\n| 25 | matters.<br>So, obviously, that's what happened.                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 350 of 500\n\n| 1  | But now we're going to proceed, so I want to know               |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | what the parties' plan is, with regard to -- if you've had a    |\n| 3  | discussion, and what your plan is with regard to discovery.     |\n| 4  | MR. O'CONNOR:<br>Your Honor, this is John O'Connor              |\n| 5  | for AIG.                                                        |\n| 6  | I think at this point, we've had discussions, but               |\n| 7  | we've agreed that we need to discuss a revised pretrial         |\n| 8  | schedule, now that the deposition stay is over.<br>I would      |\n| 9  | think, and we worked cooperatively with Genever's counsel on    |\n| 10 | these things, I would think that we could get together,         |\n| 11 | hammer out a proposed, a revised order and submit it to the     |\n| 12 | Court.<br>I don't know if Mr. McCormack agrees or disagrees     |\n| 13 | with that, but that's how I see it.                             |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Attorney McCormack?                               |\n| 15 | MR. MCCORMACK:<br>Thank you, Your Honor, and good               |\n| 16 | afternoon.                                                      |\n| 17 | I don't disagree with Attorney O'Connor's                       |\n| 18 | statements.<br>We're happy to have discussions about an amended |\n| 19 | pretrial form.<br>I just will stay, though, that I think as we  |\n| 20 | indicated in our motion for summary judgment, we don't          |\n| 21 | believe that additional discovery is necessary to the pending   |\n| 22 | motion for summary judgment.<br>The discovery that would be     |\n| 23 | necessary relates to damages and the other claims in the        |\n| 24 | amended complaint that are not before the Court on the          |\n| 25 | summary judgment motion.                                        |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 351 of 500\n\n49\n\n| 1  | MR. O'CONNOR:<br>And Your Honor is aware that our               |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | view is that there is appropriate discovery going towards the   |\n| 3  | summary judgment motion.<br>But I think we are all in agreement |\n| 4  | that there is some discovery that needs to be taken and we      |\n| 5  | should work out that schedule and submit it to the Court.       |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I'd like -- and I appreciate the            |\n| 7  | comments of both counsel -- I'd like the discovery schedule     |\n| 8  | to be the same time frame as the schedule that you all agreed   |\n| 9  | to when you amended the pretrial order back in March.<br>So I   |\n| 10 | think the time frame should be the same and, you know, just     |\n| 11 | change the dates and I think we need to move forward.           |\n| 12 | Whether or not I -- as you know, the motion for                 |\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 summary judgment is under advisement. I will decide what, if anything, I will do while you can proceed with discovery with regard to that motion for summary judgment. But I would like the pretrial order to be presented to the Court by next Friday, August 9th, and I'd like the dates to be the same time frames that were in this existing, first-amended pretrial order, just with different dates.\n\n20 21 Does that make sense to everyone or does anyone have any questions?\n\n22 23 24 25 MR. O'CONNOR: It makes sense to AIG, Your Honor. And I don't think anybody proposed that there was going to be a lengthy -- nobody is going to suggest a year of discovery, let's put it that way.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 352 of 500\n\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>That's fine, thank you.                         |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | MR. MCCORMACK:<br>I agree, Your Honor.                        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you, both.                       |\n| 4  | So, again, I dragged you in here because I wasn't             |\n| 5  | sure what the status was.<br>You've told me in your joint     |\n| 6  | report, and I appreciate that, and now we just need to have   |\n| 7  | that, what will be a second-amended pretrial order enter --   |\n| 8  | submitted to the Court by August 9th.<br>And whether I see it |\n| 9  | on August 9th or the next week, it'll enter shortly           |\n| 10 | thereafter, unless there's some concern, which I doubt there  |\n| 11 | will be, that the Court has with regard to the pretrial       |\n| 12 | order.                                                        |\n| 13 | Is there anything else we should discuss this                 |\n| 14 | afternoon?                                                    |\n| 15 | MR. MCCORMACK:<br>Nothing from the Plaintiff, Your            |\n| 16 | Honor.                                                        |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Sorry to have --                  |\n| 18 | MR. O'CONNOR:<br>Nothing --                                   |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Not from the --                               |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, I'm sorry, Trustee Despins.<br>Go           |\n| 21 | ahead.                                                        |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No, I was just going to say, not              |\n| 23 | from our perspective, and then thank you to the Court for     |\n| 24 | making yourself available on all of these status conferences; |\n| 25 | I really appreciate it, thank you.                            |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. And I, again, I'm sorry for all of you on this adversary that you had to wait. The other status conferences went a little longer than anticipated. But as I noted to people last week, at least you didn't have to be here when there was no air-conditioning in our building, so that's kind of helpful for all of you, hopefully. (Laughter) UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: That was my thought, Your Honor, that at least we were (indiscernible). Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you all very much. That concludes today's hearings, so Court is adjourned. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. THE CLERK: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:46 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 353 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 354 of    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n|    | 500                                                                      | 52             |\n| 1  | CERTIFICATION                                                            |                |\n| 2  | I certify that the foregoing is a correct                                |                |\n| 3  | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the                    |                |\n| 4  | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my               |                |\n| 5  | knowledge and ability.                                                   |                |\n| 6  |                                                                          |                |\n| 7  | /s/ William J. Garling                                                   | August 1, 2024 |\n| 8  | William J. Garling, CET-543                                              |                |\n| 9  | Certified Court Transcriptionist                                         |                |\n| 10 | For Reliable                                                             |                |\n| 11 |                                                                          |                |\n| 12 |                                                                          |                |\n| 13 |                                                                          |                |\n| 14 |                                                                          |                |\n| 15 |                                                                          |                |\n| 16 |                                                                          |                |\n| 17 |                                                                          |                |\n| 18 |                                                                          |                |\n| 19 |                                                                          |                |\n| 20 |                                                                          |                |\n| 21 |                                                                          |                |\n| 22 |                                                                          |                |\n| 23 |                                                                          |                |\n| 24 |                                                                          |                |\n| 25 |                                                                          |                |\n|    |                                                                          |                |\n|    |                                                                          |                |\n\n# **EXHIBIT 5**\n\n**August 13, 2024 Hearing Transcript**\n\n 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC and . Adversary Proceeding LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . No. 23-05002 (JAM) TRUSTEE, . . Plaintiff, . . v. . . HO WAN KWOK, HING CHI NGOK, . QIANG GUO, AND MEI GUO, . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, et al., . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05017 (JAM) Plaintiffs, . . v. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendants. . . Tuesday, August 13, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:12 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE (Continued) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 356 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602                           | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43                                          | Page 357 of |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n|    |                                                     |                | 500                                                                | 2           |\n|    |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 1  | APPEARANCES:                                        |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 2  | For the Chapter 11<br>Trustee:                      |                | Patrick Linsey, Esquire                                            |             |\n| 3  |                                                     |                | NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.<br>195 Church Street                 |             |\n| 4  |                                                     |                | 13th Floor<br>New Haven, Connecticut 06510                         |             |\n| 5  |                                                     |                | -and-                                                              |             |\n| 6  |                                                     |                | Luc A. Despins, Esquire                                            |             |\n| 7  |                                                     |                | Shlomo Maza, Esquire<br>PAUL HASTINGS, LLP                         |             |\n| 8  |                                                     |                | 200 Park Avenue<br>New York, New York 10166                        |             |\n| 9  |                                                     |                | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire                                       |             |\n| 10 |                                                     |                | 2050 M Street, NW<br>Washington, DC 20036                          |             |\n| 11 |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 12 | For the U.S. Trustee:                               |                | Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire<br>OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE |             |\n| 13 |                                                     |                | The Giaimo Federal Building<br>150 Court Street, Room 302          |             |\n| 14 |                                                     |                | New Haven, Connecticut 06510                                       |             |\n| 15 |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 16 |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 17 |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 18 |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 19 | (APPEARANCES CONTINUED)                             |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 20 | Audio Operator:                                     |                | Electronically recorded                                            |             |\n| 21 | Transcription Company:                              |                | Reliable<br>The Nemours Building                                   |             |\n| 22 |                                                     |                | 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110<br>Wilmington, Delaware 19801     |             |\n| 23 |                                                     |                | Telephone: (302)654-8080<br>Email:<br>gmatthews@reliable-co.com    |             |\n| 24 | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, |                |                                                                    |             |\n| 25 |                                                     |                | transcript produced by transcription service.                      |             |\n|    |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n|    |                                                     |                |                                                                    |             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 358 of\n\n 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund: Annecca H. Smith, Esquire ROBINSON & COLE, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 -and- Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 For the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors: Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 850 Main Street 8th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 For G Club Operations, Weddle Law PLLC, FFP BVI Limited, Ogier, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For Yankwitt, LLP; Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer, LLP; Brune Law, P.C.; and Petrillo Klein + Boxer, LLP: Anthony J. Proscia, Esquire KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP 40 Exchange Place 20th Floor New York, New York 10005 500\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 359 of\n\n|    |                                      | 500                                                             | 4 |\n|----|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1  | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):             |                                                                 |   |\n| 2  | For Meta                             |                                                                 |   |\n| 3  | Platforms, Inc.,<br>and Apple, Inc.: | Jin Yan, Esquire                                                |   |\n| 4  |                                      | ARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP<br>1717 K Street NW<br>Washington DC 20006 |   |\n| 5  | For Hing Chi Ngok and                |                                                                 |   |\n| 6  | Greenwich Land, LLC                  | Austin D. Kim, Esquire<br>MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP            |   |\n| 7  |                                      | 125 Park Avenue<br>7th Floor                                    |   |\n| 8  |                                      | New York, New York 10017                                        |   |\n| 9  | For Morvillo<br>Abramowitz Grand     |                                                                 |   |\n| 10 | Iason & Anello, P.C:                 | Rowena A. Moffett, Esquire<br>BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN, LLP  |   |\n| 11 |                                      | 271 Whitney Avenue<br>New Haven, Connecticut 06511              |   |\n| 12 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 13 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 14 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 15 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 16 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 17 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 18 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 19 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 20 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 21 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 22 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 23 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 24 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n| 25 |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n|    |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n|    |                                      |                                                                 |   |\n\n 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al. Main Case no. 22-050073 (JAM) Matter No. 1: Motion to Extend Time to Extend Deadline to File Avoidance Actions (First Supplemental Motion) to 02/15/2025 (RE: 3329) 14 Court's Ruling: 80 Matter No. 2: Amended Emergency Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363(b), for Entry of Order Authorizing Trustee to Fund Maintenance of Mahwah Mansion and for Related Relief (RE: 3381) 81 Court's Ruling: 86 Genever Holdings LLC and Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Ho Wan Kwok, Hing Chi Ngok, Qiang Guo, and Mei Guo Adversary Case No. 23-05002 (JAM) Matter No. 3: Pretrial Conference Hearing 89 Court's Ruling: 90 Luc A. Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. Adversary Case No. 23-05017 (JAM) Matter No. 4: Status Conference 90 Court's Ruling: 94 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 360 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 361 of |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n|    | 500                                                                      | 6           |\n| 1  | INDEX                                                                    |             |\n| 2  |                                                                          |             |\n| 3  | WITNESSES CALLED<br>BY THE TRUSTEE:                                      | PAGE        |\n| 4  | LUC A. DESPINS                                                           |             |\n| 5  | Direct examination by Mr. Bassett                                        | 18          |\n| 6  | Cross-examination by Mr. Yan                                             | 30          |\n| 7  | Cross-examination by Mr. Sklarz                                          | 34          |\n| 8  |                                                                          |             |\n| 9  | Transcriptionist's Certificate                                           | 96          |\n| 10 |                                                                          |             |\n| 11 |                                                                          |             |\n| 12 |                                                                          |             |\n| 13 |                                                                          |             |\n| 14 |                                                                          |             |\n| 15 |                                                                          |             |\n| 16 |                                                                          |             |\n| 17 |                                                                          |             |\n| 18 |                                                                          |             |\n| 19 |                                                                          |             |\n| 20 |                                                                          |             |\n| 21 |                                                                          |             |\n| 22 |                                                                          |             |\n| 23 |                                                                          |             |\n| 24 |                                                                          |             |\n| 25 |                                                                          |             |\n|    |                                                                          |             |\n|    |                                                                          |             |\n\n 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:12 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok; Adversary 23-50002, Genever Holdings, LLC, et al. v Kwok, et al., and Adversary 23-05017 Despins, et al., v Taurus Fund LLC, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. Trustee Despins? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Is he frozen? Maybe. THE CLERK: No. THE COURT: Okay. They can't hear me? Apparently, they can't hear me. THE CLERK: Trustee Despins? (No verbal response) THE CLERK: Oh, you know what? I'm sorry, I'll call him. I'm sorry, Judge. THE COURT: So I think we have to start all over again, because I don't think that was recording or anyone could hear us. THE CLERK: Yes. Case Number -- the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is now in session after recess. Judge -- the Honorable Julie Manning is presiding. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 362 of 500\n\n 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. There are matters on the calendar beginning at 1:00 p.m., so I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok; Adversary 23-05002, Genever Holdings, LLC, et al. v Kwok, et al.; and Adversary 23-05017, Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. THE COURT: Good afternoon. I'm going to take appearances to the record. We are on remote. This was supposed to be a remote hearing, which was not evidentiary. Whether it will be or not, we will see, because I don't conduct evidentiary hearings remotely. But when everyone notes their appearance, I'd like to make sure that whoever is noting their appearance, notes whether they have actually filed a notice of appearance in the case or in the adversary proceeding, because if you have not done so, you will need to do so. So, in any event, we will start with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. MAZA: Good afternoon, Shlomo Maza of Paul Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 363 of 500\n\n 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hastings, as well. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir. I couldn't hear what you said. Let's go back to the gentleman who just spoke, please. MR. MAZA: Shlomo Maza with Paul Hastings for the trustee, as well. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAZA: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sorry, I could not hear you. I apologize. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith for the trustee, and trustee's counsel do have appearances entered. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of creditor PAX in the main case. I'm not sure if I filed a notice of appearance in the adversary proceeding that's under discussion today, but I don't expect to be participating. THE COURT: Thank you. I don't think you need a file a notice in the adversary proceeding unless you choose to, but you do need to Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 364 of 500\n\n 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have an appearance in the main case, which you already do and have for some time, so thank you. MR. SARNOFF: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith of Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel to creditor PAX. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. I have an appearance in the main case, but I do not believe we have an appearance in the adversary proceeding. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz of Green & Sklarz, for certain objecting parties. I have an appearance in the main case, as well as the applicable adversaries where some of the objections were filed. Also online is my associate Michelle Antao. I don't recall if she has an appearance, and she won't be arguing. But if she doesn't, we'll get an appearance for her in the main case. I'll also note that my client, one of my clients, Justin Weddle of Weddle Law is also viewing proceedings; he is a party to one of the adversaries, or his law firm is a party to one of the adversaries. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. There is no hearing in the adversary proceedings Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 365 of 500\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 366 of<br>500 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 11                                                                                             |\n| today, though, just so the record is clear.                                                    |\n| MR. SKLARZ:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| MR. YAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Jin Yan on                                          |\n| behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc. and Apple, Inc.<br>We do have                                   |\n| appearances on in the adversary cases.<br>I don't recall if we                                 |\n| have appearances in the main bankruptcy case.                                                  |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                              |\n| MR. PROSCIA:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Anthony                                         |\n| Proscia from Kaufman Dolowich.<br>We represent four law firms                                  |\n| in the related adversary proceedings.<br>We will not be                                        |\n| speaking; we're just monitoring for the today.                                                 |\n| THE COURT:<br>What related adversary proceeding are                                            |\n| you speaking of, Counsel?                                                                      |\n| MR. PROSCIA:<br>Sure.<br>It's the adversary                                                    |\n| proceedings against Yankwitt, against Ganfer Shore, against                                    |\n| Brune Law, and against Petrillo Klein.                                                         |\n| THE COURT:<br>You're going to have to spell every                                              |\n| one of those, Counsel.<br>Our record is only kept by audio and                                 |\n| if the person who, then, creates the transcript can't                                          |\n| understand -- and that's not your fault.<br>It's not your                                      |\n| fault; it's just the way it is -- you know, then there's a                                     |\n| lot of blanks in the transcript.<br>So I'm going to ask you, if                                |\n| you would, please, spell all the names of the Defendants you                                   |\n| just named in adversary proceedings.                                                           |\n| MR. PROSCIA:<br>Sure, Your Honor.                                                              |\n|                                                                                                |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 367 of 500\n\n12\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The first law firm is Yankwitt, which Y-a-n-k-w-it-t. The second law firm is Ganfer Shore, G-a-n-f-e-r S-h-or-e. The third law firm is Brune Law, B-r-u-n-e. The fourth one is Petrillo Klein, P-e-t-r-i-l-l-o K-l-e-i-n. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. KIM: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Austin Kim from Meister Seelig & Fein, and we have an appearance in both, the main proceeding and adversary proceeding on behalf of the Greenwich Land Defendants, that's Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land, LLC. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. MOFFETT: Your Honor, Rowena Moffett from Brenner Saltzman & Wallman. I represent another of the adversary Defendants, a law firm called Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, spelled M-o-r-v-i-l-l-o A-b-r-a-m-o-wi-t-z G-r-a-n-d I-a-s-o-n & A-n-e-l-l-o, P.C. THE COURT: Thank you. Have I taken everyone's appearance for the record, then? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. The first -- I'm not sure, Trustee Despins, how you want to proceed, but I would just note that the matters on the calendar today, the first two matters, the first motion -- first supplemental motion to extend deadline and the amended emergency motion authorizing\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 368 of 500\n\n| 1  | funding, were filed in the main case, as they should be,        |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | because that's relief that's related to the estate as a         |\n| 3  | whole.<br>The two final matters on the calendar are really with |\n| 4  | regard to a pretrial conference in a specific adversary         |\n| 5  | proceeding, 23-05002, and then a request for a status           |\n| 6  | conference in another adversary proceeding, 23-05017.           |\n| 7  | Trustee Despins, I do not know how you intend to proceeding,    |\n| 8  | but I will hear from you with regard to your intentions.        |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, and first, a clarification.<br>I           |\n| 10 | thought we also had a motion in with Mahwah adversary           |\n| 11 | proceeding to authorize us to spend money to maintain, maybe    |\n| 12 | even you covered that, but there's a hearing on that today, I   |\n| 13 | believe to authorize us to spend money to pay taxes and         |\n| 14 | security services and all of that, I believe.<br>That should be |\n| 15 | on the agenda for today.                                        |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>You may be correct about that.<br>I'll            |\n| 17 | take a look at that.                                            |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>I see what you're saying.<br>You filed            |\n| 20 | an emergency motion that we -- yes, I understand what you're    |\n| 21 | saying.<br>Okay.<br>I'll take a look while you're speaking.     |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>But, in any event, Your Honor, I                |\n| 23 | think that given the number of people on the phone that are     |\n| 24 | here for the, what I refer to as the August 15th extension      |\n| 25 | motion, it probably makes sense to cover that first so that     |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 369 of 500\n\n| 1  | the people are free to stay on for the rest, but at least     |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | they don't have to; otherwise, they'll have to stay on for    |\n| 3  | everything and there'll be nothing productive and             |\n| 4  | (indiscernible).<br>So, I would recommend starting with the   |\n| 5  | August 15th extension motion.                                 |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Go right ahead, which is just for the           |\n| 7  | record, ECF 3329.                                             |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Mr. Bassett is handling that motion,          |\n| 9  | Your Honor.                                                   |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Bassett, you're on -- there you             |\n| 11 | go -- you were on mute, but please proceed.                   |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:<br>My apologies.                                 |\n| 13 | Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Again, for the                 |\n| 14 | record, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the |\n| 15 | Chapter 11 Trustee.                                           |\n| 16 | To address Your Honor's question at the outset, we            |\n| 17 | did intend, obviously, with the Court's permission, to have a |\n| 18 | very limited evidentiary presentation today and it is         |\n| 19 | certainly our apologies for assuming we would be able to do   |\n| 20 | that via Zoom.<br>I think the reason we had proceeded in that |\n| 21 | manner is because at the hearing on this motion that occurred |\n| 22 | in February, it was done remotely and we did have the trustee |\n| 23 | provide some testimony.                                       |\n| 24 | I realize now in thinking back on that particular             |\n| 25 | hearing, that I think we did that one remotely due to         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 370 of 500\n\n1 2 3 unanticipated weather issues. So maybe there was an exception made to the Court's general policy in that instance.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Be that as it may, Your Honor, again, obviously, we're at the Court's mercy, but subject to your permission, we did intend to have the trustee present limited testimony. I think most of the record that we would rely on in support of the motion is the record indicates, which we would ask the Court to take judicial notice, so I don't think the evidentiary presentation would be long, but that was our intention, Your Honor.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: Well, the only reason I raise the issue is because there's going -- if Trustee Despins testifies, then there's going to be five different lawyers that are going to cross-examine him, is that what we're going to do, because there's a number of objections filed to this motion, so I would assume all those lawyers are going to want to cross-examine him.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: I can't speak for him, Your Honor. I would note that I think each of those parties, or at least some of those parties, reserved the right expressly in their objections to cross-examine the trustee to the extent he testified. I don't know if they intend to or not. As I said, the testimony will be limited. I would expect 10 or so minutes, which I would hope you would cabin\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 371 of 500\n\n16\n\n1 2 and eliminate the scope of their cross, but, again, I can't speak for the opposing parties' counsel.\n\n3 4 THE COURT: I understand you can't speak for them; I'm not suggesting you should.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 But I'm saying I am virtually certain that they're going to want to cross-examine him, so then we're going to have direct examination and cross-examination remotely and the courtroom deputy has to then swear the parties in remotely. The courtroom deputy is not on a camera. You know, there are issues with that; that's why I don't do that unless it's determined in advance and there's a reason for it. Because, as you know, the Federal Rules of Evidence still require in-court hearings for testimony.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In any event, if that's how we're going to proceed, we'll see how we do, but I do think that, you know, it is necessary to understand that there's no reason why if testimony and exhibits are going to be introduced, why parties can't be here in the courtroom or work out an arrangement in advance so the Court is aware of what's happening. And that's what I would say with regard to that. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. I will take the blame for not having dealt with this appropriately in advance. THE COURT: All right. Well, let's see how things proceed, so go right ahead.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 372 of 500\n\n| Are you calling Trustee Despins as a witness right               |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| now?                                                             |\n| MR. BASSETT:<br>So, Your Honor, we would.<br>I think             |\n| the ladies of the jury Calloway to proceed would be for us to    |\n| complete our limited evidentiary presentation, which really      |\n| will only consist of the trustee testifying and the Court        |\n| can, obviously, take notice of other filings in the record,      |\n| which we refer to in our papers and they refer to, again, in     |\n| argument, but it's really just the trustee taking the stand,     |\n| which I think would be the appropriate way to proceed right      |\n| now.                                                             |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Given what I've stated for the            |\n| record, the courtroom deputy does not have a camera, so I am     |\n| going to have to say for the record that I am sitting next to    |\n| the courtroom deputy.<br>I can see her.<br>She is going to swear |\n| in the witness, Trustee Despins, and then we will have to go     |\n| from there, okay.                                                |\n| So I'm going to ask -- Trustee Despins, are ready                |\n| to be sworn in?                                                  |\n| MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                 |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So as if we can pretend we're             |\n| in the courtroom and, Attorney Bassett just called you to the    |\n| witness stand.<br>So, now, we need to turn this over to the      |\n| courtroom deputy, whose duty it is to swear in the witness.      |\n| THE CLERK:<br>Thank you.                                         |\n|                                                                  |\n\n 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney Despins, please raise your right hand. THE COURT: We can't see your right hand, Trustee Despins. We need to see it. MR. DESPINS: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: The other way. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE CLERK: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Hold on a second. I don't know why that's not -- okay. That's my right hand. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE CLERK: Okay. LUC A. DESPINS, TRUSTEE'S WITNESS, SWORN THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: State your name and address for the record, your business address, of course. THE WITNESS: Luc Despins, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Bassett, you may proceed. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BASSETT: Q Trustee Despins, you understand we are here today on the trustee's motion to extend avoidance action deadlines; is that right? Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 373 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 374 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 19                                                                                             |\n| 1  | A<br>I do.                                                                                     |\n| 2  | Q<br>Now, this is the second motion, such motion you have                                      |\n| 3  | filed in this case; is that right?                                                             |\n| 4  | A<br>That's correct.                                                                           |\n| 5  | Q<br>Now, do you recall, Trustee Despins, testifying at the                                    |\n| 6  | hearing on the first motion, which I believe was on                                            |\n| 7  | February 13th of this year?                                                                    |\n| 8  | A<br>Yes, I do.                                                                                |\n| 9  | Q<br>And have you reviewed that testimony, again, in                                           |\n| 10 | anticipation of your testimony today?                                                          |\n| 11 | A<br>Yes, I have.                                                                              |\n| 12 | Q<br>Was that testimony that you gave them, Trustee Despins,                                   |\n| 13 | true and accurate to the best of your recollection?                                            |\n| 14 | A<br>It was.                                                                                   |\n| 15 | Q<br>Okay.<br>So what I'd like to do today is just briefly ask                                 |\n| 16 | some questions about events that have happened and transpired                                  |\n| 17 | since you last testified in February of 2024.                                                  |\n| 18 | Now, Trustee Despins, can you just generally describe                                          |\n| 19 | what you have been doing in your investigation in this                                         |\n| 20 | Chapter 11 case since we've last had that hearing in February                                  |\n| 21 | of this year?                                                                                  |\n| 22 | A<br>A number of things.<br>First, continuing to review                                        |\n| 23 | documents we have received, analyzing them, bank account                                       |\n| 24 | statements, et cetera, with the help of Kroll.<br>Then, we also                                |\n| 25 | sought what we call \"follow-up 2004 discovery\" for a limited                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 375 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 20                                                                                             |\n| 1  | number of parties to advance our investigation.                                                |\n| 2  | Q<br>Okay.<br>When you say Rule 2004 discovery, how many                                       |\n| 3  | additional Rule 2004 motions that you recall, have you filed                                   |\n| 4  | since the hearing in February?                                                                 |\n| 5  | A<br>Four.                                                                                     |\n| 6  | Q<br>And do you know how many additional parties, or                                           |\n| 7  | discovery targets, if you will, that those motions covered?                                    |\n| 8  | A<br>47.                                                                                       |\n| 9  | Q<br>And do you have a general sense of approximately how                                      |\n| 10 | many documents were obtained through those Rule 2004 motions                                   |\n| 11 | from those parties?                                                                            |\n| 12 | A<br>Just from those parties with the new 2004, around 700                                     |\n| 13 | documents.                                                                                     |\n| 14 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Now, in addition to the 2004 discovery that you                                  |\n| 15 | just described, have you and your team obtained additional                                     |\n| 16 | documents by other means or from other sources?                                                |\n| 17 | A<br>Yes.<br>The first source is pursuing the existing 2004,                                   |\n| 18 | the ones that were existing before (indiscernible) to obtain                                   |\n| 19 | more information from the targets of that investigation.                                       |\n| 20 | Nobody ever produces all of their documents on the                                             |\n| 21 | first go-around, so we have to pursue this case.<br>It was                                     |\n| 22 | mostly Mr. Linsey's firm that did this.<br>So that was one                                     |\n| 23 | source of a very voluminous source of documents that we                                        |\n| 24 | received.                                                                                      |\n| 25 | In addition to that, we obtained access to documents                                           |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 376 of 500\n\n| 1  | that were in a warehouse in Jersey and, also, they were       |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | iPhones and the like, computers, in that facility that we     |\n| 3  | obtained and we analyzed.<br>So that's, generally, the        |\n| 4  | additional work that was done in terms of obtaining           |\n| 5  | documents.                                                    |\n| 6  | Q<br>And do you have a ballpark sense of the volume of        |\n| 7  | documents that we're talking about when you pull together     |\n| 8  | these additional sources with the 2004 discovery that you     |\n| 9  | described?                                                    |\n| 10 | A<br>Well, putting aside the 700 documents that exist for     |\n| 11 | the new -- for 2004, there would be in excess of 20,000       |\n| 12 | documents from the sources I've described, which is the       |\n| 13 | previous, the initially previously granted 2004, the New      |\n| 14 | Jersey warehouse, and the computers, and the iPhones that we  |\n| 15 | found in that facility.                                       |\n| 16 | Q<br>Now, what is your team, if anything, doing with this     |\n| 17 | documents as you receive them?                                |\n| 18 | A<br>Well, not to go into a lot of details, but, basically,   |\n| 19 | we have a software program that allows us to search by name,  |\n| 20 | so they're downloaded to that so everyone can actually search |\n| 21 | a specific term.<br>Then, they're also given, that access is  |\n| 22 | given to the Kroll team so they can also look at that, and    |\n| 23 | that gives them a lead as to new bank accounts and the like.  |\n| 24 | So there's a whole process that goes on, that's still         |\n| 25 | ongoing, as to those documents.                               |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 377 of 500\n\n| 1  | Q<br>So you mentioned Kroll and their bank account analysis,  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | which was a topic that came up at the hearing in February.    |\n| 3  | Can you talk more about the additional work, any              |\n| 4  | additional discoveries that the Kroll team has made, with     |\n| 5  | respect to bank accounts since February?                      |\n| 6  | A<br>Yeah, as I described when I testified, you know, these   |\n| 7  | bank accounts, they're really almost the only key documents   |\n| 8  | we have, or at least documents that we're sure of their       |\n| 9  | authenticity because they come from banks.<br>And every time  |\n| 10 | you look at a bank account, there's dozens, if not hundreds   |\n| 11 | of transfers that lead you to other bank accounts, and that's |\n| 12 | what Kroll does.                                              |\n| 13 | So what they did is that through this additional              |\n| 14 | discovery that Mr. Linsey's firm produced, we're able to --   |\n| 15 | they were able to identify 200 additional bank accounts that  |\n| 16 | they started analyzing and are still analyzing at this stage. |\n| 17 | Q<br>And do you have a ballpark sense at all as to how many   |\n| 18 | transfers within those accounts have been analyzed?           |\n| 19 | A<br>Not precisely.<br>It's thousands and thousands, but I    |\n| 20 | would hesitate to give a precise number.                      |\n| 21 | Q<br>And how long does it take Kroll to go through this sort  |\n| 22 | of exercise?                                                  |\n| 23 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Objection; hearsay.                            |\n| 24 | He's asking what somebody else is not in court is             |\n| 25 | doing.                                                        |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the trustee -- THE COURT: So, hold on a second. Attorney Sklarz, I didn't hear you, so you're going to have to do that again. MR. SKLARZ: I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's not your fault. MR. SKLARZ: Objection. THE COURT: That's not your fault. I'm just saying that's one of the downsides to remote, right. I can't hear you when you start to talk, so I'm going to ask you to do that again, please. MR. SKLARZ: Fair enough, Your Honor. My objection is on account of hearsay. The trustee is testifying about what Kroll, who is a party not in court today, is doing, so it's hearsay. THE COURT: Do you have a responses, Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- yes, Your Honor. I don't understand how the question calls for hearsay. The trustee has retained Kroll as his advisor in this case; he's testified about that at length, including at the last hearing. The trustee, obviously, has firsthand knowledge of how long it has taken Kroll, at his direction, to perform certain tasks. MR. SKLARZ: That is classic hearsay. Kroll isn't Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 378 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 379 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 24                                                                                             |\n| 1  | here.                                                                                          |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I'm going to overrule the objection,                                             |\n| 3  | but give the testimony whatever weight I think is                                              |\n| 4  | appropriate.                                                                                   |\n| 5  | So please continue.                                                                            |\n| 6  | BY MR. BASSETT:                                                                                |\n| 7  | Q<br>So approximately how long, Trustee Despins, does it                                       |\n| 8  | take Kroll to perform the type of bank account analysis that                                   |\n| 9  | you just described?                                                                            |\n| 10 | A<br>It's impossible to give a precise, you know, number of                                    |\n| 11 | days answer to that because it depends on how many transfers                                   |\n| 12 | are in the accounts.<br>But as to those 200, there are still --                                |\n| 13 | that analysis is still ongoing, because as I said, every                                       |\n| 14 | account opens the door to another account and that analysis                                    |\n| 15 | is still ongoing.<br>It's not the same degree that it was going                                |\n| 16 | on, let's say, in January or February, but it's still                                          |\n| 17 | ongoing, as we speak.                                                                          |\n| 18 | Q<br>Now, Trustee Despins, you're aware that the debtors'                                      |\n| 19 | criminal trial has taken place in the United States District                                   |\n| 20 | Court for the Southern District of New York, correct?                                          |\n| 21 | A<br>Correct, yes.                                                                             |\n| 22 | Q<br>And do you recall, approximately, when that trial                                         |\n| 23 | started?                                                                                       |\n| 24 | A<br>In late May; May 22nd, something along those lines.                                       |\n| 25 | Q<br>And, approximately, when it concluded?                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 380 of |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 500<br>25                                                                               |\n| 1  | A<br>In mid-July; July 16th or 17th.                                                    |\n| 2  | Q<br>And did your team monitor that trial as it was                                     |\n| 3  | transpiring?                                                                            |\n| 4  | A<br>Yes, we did, either through attendance when there were                             |\n| 5  | key witnesses that could be key to our case and we wanted to                            |\n| 6  | gauge their credibility as a witness or by reading                                      |\n| 7  | transcripts when they were routine witnesses like FBI                                   |\n| 8  | testimony where, like, we didn't need to be there for that.                             |\n| 9  | Q<br>And so how, if at all, was the criminal trial relevant                             |\n| 10 | to your investigation in this case?                                                     |\n| 11 | A<br>Incredibly relevant.<br>As I said, testified before, the                           |\n| 12 | government has better tools than we do.<br>They have all sorts                          |\n| 13 | of ways of getting information.                                                         |\n| 14 | And what could be learned through that trial,                                           |\n| 15 | basically, is it just opened up a whole new dimension as to a                           |\n| 16 | number of the things that we've been analyzing.                                         |\n| 17 | Q<br>And do you know, Trustee Despins, approximately how                                |\n| 18 | many witnesses there were in the criminal trial altogether?                             |\n| 19 | A<br>The government had over 30 and the Defendant has                                   |\n| 20 | something like 8 or 10.<br>Not more than 10.                                            |\n| 21 | Q<br>And do you have a ballpark sense for how many exhibits                             |\n| 22 | were introduced into evidence during the criminal trial?                                |\n| 23 | A<br>There's thousands.<br>My memory was 2900 and something,                            |\n| 24 | so thousands of exhibits.                                                               |\n| 25 | Q<br>And do you have access to those exhibits?                                          |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 381 of 500\n\n| 1  | A<br>No.                                                        |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | Before trial begins, in theory, when the government             |\n| 3  | uses an exhibit, it's supposed to post them promptly, but as    |\n| 4  | of today, there's still hundreds of exhibits that have not      |\n| 5  | been downloaded so that we can have access to them.<br>So we    |\n| 6  | did not have access to them before -- most of them.<br>Some of  |\n| 7  | them we did, but most of them, we did not have access.<br>Since |\n| 8  | they were posted, we've had access, but that's not the          |\n| 9  | complete list.<br>There's hundreds of exhibits that, for some   |\n| 10 | reason, have not been posted yet.<br>Of course, we've been      |\n| 11 | following up with the government to make sure they do post      |\n| 12 | them promptly.                                                  |\n| 13 | Q<br>And what is your team doing with the exhibits from the     |\n| 14 | criminal trial, if they are able to access them?                |\n| 15 | A<br>Same routine as putting this on our software database,     |\n| 16 | giving it to Kroll, because there are references to bank        |\n| 17 | accounts.<br>There's actually analysis of bank transfers in     |\n| 18 | government exhibits.<br>So we're feeding all of that to them so |\n| 19 | they can update their analysis.                                 |\n| 20 | Q<br>Now, Trustee Despins, are you aware that this Court        |\n| 21 | entered an order staying certain litigation and certain         |\n| 22 | litigation activities, including depositions, during the        |\n| 23 | pendency of the criminal trial?                                 |\n| 24 | A<br>Yes, I am.                                                 |\n| 25 | Q<br>How, if at all, did that stay impact your investigation    |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 382 of 500\n\n| 1  | progress over the last few months?                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | A<br>Well, there was an absolute prohibition on depositions    |\n| 3  | during that time period, so -- obviously, there are a number   |\n| 4  | of witnesses that we were about to depose that, in fact, were  |\n| 5  | potentially going to be testifying at the criminal trial and,  |\n| 6  | therefore, we could not depose until, you know, last week or   |\n| 7  | something like that.<br>So, clearly, it had a major impact on  |\n| 8  | our ability to depose the key witnesses.                       |\n| 9  | Q<br>Now, that stay was granted, pursuant to a motion that     |\n| 10 | you filed; is that right?                                      |\n| 11 | A<br>That's correct.                                           |\n| 12 | Q<br>Why did you file that motion?                             |\n| 13 | A<br>Two reasons.<br>The first one is that the debtor was      |\n| 14 | filing a renewed motion before the criminal court to stay the  |\n| 15 | entire bankruptcy case, so, obviously, we did not want that    |\n| 16 | to happen; that would have been a disaster and, therefore,     |\n| 17 | that was part of the reason.<br>But the other part of the      |\n| 18 | reason is that the witnesses that we were scheduling for       |\n| 19 | depositions were saying, Hey, I'm going to be a witness or,    |\n| 20 | I'm talking with the Government, and I will complain to them   |\n| 21 | that you're trying to depose us.<br>And, of course, the impact |\n| 22 | of that would have -- could have been that the government      |\n| 23 | would have said, Well, actually, we think the bankruptcy case  |\n| 24 | should be stayed completely.                                   |\n| 25 | And that's why we filed this motion, which was kind of         |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 383 of 500\n\n| 1  | (indiscernible), in attempt that we were still able to get      |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | documents, but no depositions, so that we would not interfere   |\n| 3  | with the criminal trial or the witnesses that could or have     |\n| 4  | appeared at the criminal trial.                                 |\n| 5  | Q<br>Now, since February 15th of 2024, have you filed any       |\n| 6  | additional avoidance actions?                                   |\n| 7  | A<br>Yes.                                                       |\n| 8  | Q<br>Approximately how many?                                    |\n| 9  | A<br>We filed four, but we're about to file, or we're in the    |\n| 10 | process -- they're just appearing on the docket today -- of     |\n| 11 | filing an additional 30 or so.                                  |\n| 12 | Q<br>And how are you deciding when to file these complaints?    |\n| 13 | A<br>As soon as we're ready to file them, in the sense that     |\n| 14 | we have enough information to file them and we've verified      |\n| 15 | all the information to the best of our ability.<br>We're not    |\n| 16 | holding anything back.<br>We're filing all the ones that we can |\n| 17 | right now and that's how we have decided, if we have enough     |\n| 18 | information.<br>That process is led mostly by Mr. Linsey's      |\n| 19 | firm, but, you know, I'm involved with reviewing the            |\n| 20 | complaints.<br>But, basically, we file them when we have enough |\n| 21 | information to go ahead.                                        |\n| 22 | Q<br>Trustee Despins, you testified in February about some      |\n| 23 | of the obstruction that had occurred at the hands of the        |\n| 24 | debtor and others in this case, do you recall that testimony?   |\n| 25 | A<br>Yes.                                                       |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 384 of 500\n\n29\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q Now, that obstruction that you talked about then, has that continued to affect your investigation in your view? A Sure, because as I said, the only reliable source we have are bank accounts, but that doesn't show you the full picture; it just shows you transfers. We have no books and records. You know, the debtor testified many times he didn't have an iPhone. And now, of course, we know he had an iPhone, because that came out in the criminal trial; he had many iPhones, but with data. And, obviously, the inability to have books and records to tie all of this makes this case, I would say, unprecedented in terms of the amount of work that needs to be done to tie everything together. MR. BASSETT: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone wish to cross-examine Trustee Despins? MR. YAN: Your Honor, I have just a few questions for Trustee Despins. THE COURT: Okay. Would you just -- I can see you, but would you please state your name for the record, again, and who you represent, because, again, as I said at the beginning of the hearing, we only have audio for our\n\n23 24 transcripts, so it would be helpful to make the record as clear as possible. Thank you.\n\n25\n\nMR. YAN: Sure. My name is Jin Yan, J-i-n, last\n\n 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 name, Y-a-n. I represent Apple, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. YAN: Q Trustee Despins -- THE COURT: Go right ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't mean -- MR. YAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- to speak over you. I apologize. But you may proceed. MR. YAN: Thank you, Your Honor. BY MR. YAN: Q Trustee Despins, you testified earlier that you issued four new 2004 (indiscernible) targeting 47 parties. Did I state that correctly? A That's correct. Q Was Apple one of those targets? A I don't recall. Q Do you recall if Meta was one of those targets? A I don't recall. Q What actions have you taken, specifically, to investigate additional avoidance claims against Apple or Meta? A There's -- they're part of, meaning that we searched, generally, for all transfers through these bank accounts that Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 385 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 386 of 500\n\n| 1  | we keep getting these 200 additional bank accounts, so if     |  |  |  |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 2  | Meta or Apple appears in there, we're going to pursue that.   |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | So that's part of the analysis.                               |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | But we don't go -- our analysis is not Defendants             |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | targeted, in the sense that we are looking for transfers,     |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | because we have this running clock that we're trying to       |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | comply with and, therefore, we're looking at all transfers.   |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | And if it happens that Meta or Apple is on that list,         |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | then we will chase that.                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q<br>Trustee Despins, you're aware that you've already sued   |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Apple, correct?                                               |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | A<br>Correct.                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Q<br>And you're also aware that you've already sued Meta,     |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | right?                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | A<br>Correct.                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | Q<br>Have you identified any additional claims, other than    |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | the ones in your current lawsuit against Meta?                |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | A<br>There are some smaller claims that we found, but not --  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | nothing material, you know, in the thousands of dollars, not  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.<br>So, at this time, |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | the answer would be, no, nothing material.                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q<br>What about against Apple?                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A<br>Same answer.                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q<br>And you said the additional claims that you found that   |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | are not material, are those already asserted in the claims in |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                               |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 387 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 32                                                                                             |\n| 1  | the lawsuit that's been brought?                                                               |\n| 2  | A<br>I don't think so.<br>I think these would be added to                                      |\n| 3  | that, but, again, not in -- it wouldn't move the dial in a                                     |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n| 4  | material way.                                                                                  |\n| 5  | Q<br>Do you intend to serve those claims against Apple or                                      |\n| 6  | Meta?                                                                                          |\n| 7  | A<br>I need to talk to counsel about that.<br>You know,                                        |\n| 8  | (indiscernible) litigation, so I need to confer with them to                                   |\n| 9  | decide whether it's worth doing that.                                                          |\n| 10 | Q<br>Okay.<br>And when did you identify those additional                                       |\n| 11 | claims that are not part of the existing lawsuits?                                             |\n| 12 | A<br>I don't know when.<br>Obviously after February 15th, but                                  |\n| 13 | when between February 15th and now, I couldn't say.                                            |\n| 14 | Q<br>Can you explain why you haven't sought to amend your                                      |\n| 15 | existing lawsuit to add those claims?                                                          |\n| 16 | A<br>Because Apple and Meta is not the only thing we're                                        |\n| 17 | focusing on.<br>We're focusing on, you know, more than 300                                     |\n| 18 | Defendants and now we're adding another 50 or so and 30, plus                                  |\n| 19 | another potential 20, so that's 50.<br>So, we -- I understand                                  |\n| 20 | from your perspective, you're concerned about those two only,                                  |\n| 21 | but there are a lot of balls in the air and we go to the most                                  |\n| 22 | material and the most critical aspects first.                                                  |\n| 23 | And that's why I said I'm aware of additional                                                  |\n| 24 | transfers, but I don't think they move the dial and certainly                                  |\n| 25 | not in the way that we would put everything to the side and                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 388 of 500\n\n|    | 33                                                             |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1  | amend to add the, at this time, to amend to add these amounts  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | that are not material.                                         |  |  |  |\n| 3  | If we find something that's really material, then we           |  |  |  |\n| 4  | would, obviously, amend it as quickly as we can.<br>So there's |  |  |  |\n| 5  | no strategy vis-a-vis, Apple or Meta; it's a global strategy   |  |  |  |\n| 6  | of dealing with hundreds of Defendants and we go to the most   |  |  |  |\n| 7  | pressing, you know, because there's a limited number of hours  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | in the day.                                                    |  |  |  |\n| 9  | MR. YAN:<br>I have no further questions.                       |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Thank you, Trustee Despins.                                    |  |  |  |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Does anyone else wish to cross-examine Trustee                 |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Despins?                                                       |  |  |  |\n| 14 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                |  |  |  |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Sklarz, will you just, again,           |  |  |  |\n| 16 | state your name for the record and who you represent, because  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | we need that for the record, please.<br>Thank you.             |  |  |  |\n| 18 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Yes, Jeffrey Sklarz and for purposes            |  |  |  |\n| 19 | of this hearing, my clients are G Club; FFP (BVI) Limited,     |  |  |  |\n| 20 | which is sued in Adversary Proceeding 24-506 -- 5056;          |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Ogier, 24 -- sued in Adversary 24-05012; Pillsbury Winthrop    |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Shaw Pittman, sued in Adversary 24-05014; and Weddle Law,      |  |  |  |\n| 23 | sued in Adversary 24-05188.                                    |  |  |  |\n| 24 | //                                                             |  |  |  |\n| 25 | //                                                             |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 389 of<br>500 |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | 34                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | CROSS-EXAMINATION                                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | BY MR. SKLARZ:                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Q<br>Trustee Despins, you indicated that you received                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | additional information, which, much like the proverbial                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Russian nesting doll, every time you open one layer, you get                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | more and more.                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Is that fair to say?                                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | A<br>As a general characterization, yes.                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Q<br>Okay.<br>So to the extent you continue to get more and                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | more information, are you indicating there's a possibility                                     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | that your investigation could go on, effectively, in                                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | perpetuity for years and years and years?                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A<br>No, at one point, we need to, you know, wrap up this                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | case and move on to other things in our lives and that's the                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | intent here.<br>From our point of view, we're not at that stage                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | yet, but, clearly, the goal is to get to that stage so that                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | we can move on.<br>We have to balance that desire of leaving                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | potential targets, you know, without a claim, so, that's,                                      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | really, the balancing act there.                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | Q<br>And you also indicated earlier, I believe, that you had                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | moved to stay your own pursuit of cases based on the criminal                                  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | proceeding.                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Did I understand that correctly?                                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A<br>No, we did that in the past.                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | Q<br>You did that in the past?                                                                 |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602                                                  | Filed 10/01/24<br>500 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43                                    | Page 390 of           |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--|--|\n|    |                                                                            |                       |                                                              | 35                    |  |  |\n| 1  | A<br>Yes.                                                                  |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 2  | Q                                                                          |                       | And there were pending discovery examinations, I             |                       |  |  |\n| 3  |                                                                            |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 4  | believe you said, that were stayed as a result of your<br>motion, correct? |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 5  | A<br>Correct.                                                              |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n|    |                                                                            |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 6  | Q                                                                          |                       | And some of those folks you were going to take exams of      |                       |  |  |\n| 7  |                                                                            |                       | were witnesses in the criminal proceeding, correct?          |                       |  |  |\n| 8  | A                                                                          |                       | I said witnesses or could have been witnesses so, the        |                       |  |  |\n| 9  | government had to decide to use them.                                      |                       |                                                              | Now, they would be in |  |  |\n| 10 | one of those two categories.                                               |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 11 | Q<br>Okay.                                                                 |                       | So, you -- and no one opposed your motion to                 |                       |  |  |\n| 12 | stay; is that the testimony?                                               |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 13 | A                                                                          |                       | I don't think anybody did; that's right.                     |                       |  |  |\n| 14 | Q                                                                          |                       | So you self-stayed cases for your own reasons; that's        |                       |  |  |\n| 15 | fair to say?                                                               |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 16 | A<br>No.                                                                   |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 17 | Q                                                                          |                       | You self-stayed the case for other people's reasons?         |                       |  |  |\n| 18 | A                                                                          |                       | No, we filed a motion, but it was not in a vacuum; it's      |                       |  |  |\n| 19 | not just for our own reasons.                                              |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n| 20 |                                                                            |                       | It's that because we were attempting to depose people        |                       |  |  |\n| 21 |                                                                            |                       | who said, Wait a minute, I'm a witness or I've been asked to |                       |  |  |\n| 22 |                                                                            |                       | be a witness in a criminal trial and they were going to      |                       |  |  |\n| 23 |                                                                            |                       | complain about it, what we were trying to do, to the DOJ,    |                       |  |  |\n| 24 |                                                                            |                       | that's when we decided we needed to halt this during the     |                       |  |  |\n| 25 | duration of the trial.                                                     |                       | So, we did that on our own, but it                           |                       |  |  |\n|    |                                                                            |                       |                                                              |                       |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 391 of<br>500 |  |  |  |  |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n|    | 36                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | was taking into account a number of factors, including not                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | interfering with a criminal proceeding.                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Q<br>Have you coordinated witness testimony with the                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | government?                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | A<br>Never.                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Objection; irrelevant.                                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.<br>So we'll strike that from                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | the record, that answer.                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | BY MR. SKLARZ:                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q<br>In terms of my clients who've objected today, G Club,                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | FFP, Ogier, Pillsbury Winthrop, and Weddle Law, they were all                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | sued prior to the February extension order; is that correct?                                   |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A<br>Well, I know about G Club for sure, on both, on alter                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | ego and what we would call a precautionary transfer                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | complaint.<br>Ogier, I know, as well.<br>Pillsbury, yes.                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | The other entity you mentioned, I'm sorry, I don't recall                                      |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | them.                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q<br>Okay.<br>With respect to all of those entities, are there                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | any other claims you discovered between February and today                                     |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | that you're intending to bring?                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | A<br>I want to be careful, because, remember, as to G Club,                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | our first cause of action is to seek alter-ego or alter                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | (indiscernible) ruling.<br>The fraudulent transfer would only                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | be if we don't succeed in that and, therefore, there has been                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | no focus on the fraudulent transfer claims against G Club,                                     |  |  |  |  |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 392 of 500\n\n37\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 because we first want to try to obtain a ruling of alter-ego. So, you know, I cannot say that there's not more in terms of fraudulent transfer, because that's not our focus against G Club. As to the other entities, I really hesitate in giving you a definite answer, because there's 280 Defendants, so I don't know each one of them. But nothing comes to mind in terms of, oh, there's another (indiscernible) against\n\n9 10 (indiscernible) or something like that. Nothing comes to mind along those lines.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 Q So as you sit here today, you're not aware of any additional claims that could be brought -- let's put G Club aside and we'll go through it one by one -- as you sit here today, you're not aware of any additional claims that could be brought against FFP?\n\n16 17 18 A Against, there's 280 Defendants, so I can't -- I don't know, so I hesitate to give you an answer that there's definitely not. I (indiscernible).\n\n19 20 21 22 Q So, the question, again, as to Ogier, as you sit here today, are you aware of any additional claims against Ogier? A None that are material or that have been brought to my attention.\n\n23 24 25 I want to be clear, there's -- you know, Mr. Linsey's firm is running that process, generally, and so they may be reviewing and finding additional transfers and they don't\n\n 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bring every dollar to my attention until it's time to file an amended complaint. So I have not been approached by them to file an amended complaint at this time against (indiscernible). THE COURT: Attorney Sklarz, before you continue, I just want to make sure that the record is clear. The two parties you just asked about, the first was FFP; is that correct? MR. SKLARZ: Correct, Your Honor. Yes. THE COURT: And the second was Ogier; is that correct? MR. SKLARZ: Ogier is O-g-i-e-r. THE COURT: Okay. That's -- we do need to do that, unfortunately, for the record, so I may have to ask you to -- I mean, now that you've said those two, that's very helpful. MR. SKLARZ: Sure. THE COURT: If you talk about other Defendants that you represent, I would ask you to please spell their names for the record. MR. SKLARZ: No problem, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q So the next Defendant would be Pillsbury Winthrop, P-il-l-s-b-u-r-y W-i-n-t-h-r-o-p. It's a New York law firm. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 393 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 394 of 500\n\n| 1  | Are you aware of any additional claims against                |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | Pillsbury?                                                    |\n| 3  | A<br>Again, I -- what I'm aware of is nobody has asked me to  |\n| 4  | sign off on an amended complaint being filed.<br>That's the   |\n| 5  | best information I can give you at this stage.                |\n| 6  | Q<br>With respect to Weddle Law, W-e-d-d-l-e, are you aware   |\n| 7  | of any additional claims against Weddle Law?                  |\n| 8  | A<br>I would give you the same answer; there's no current     |\n| 9  | plan, to my knowledge, to file an amended complaint asserting |\n| 10 | additional claims.                                            |\n| 11 | Q<br>Thank you.                                               |\n| 12 | Now, you mentioned the debtor, post-February has              |\n| 13 | continued to obstruct your getting books and records.         |\n| 14 | Is that -- did I understand your testimony correctly?         |\n| 15 | A<br>I think the question that was asked was whether the      |\n| 16 | obstruction by the debtor affected us, continued to affect us |\n| 17 | post-February and the answer was yes.                         |\n| 18 | Q<br>Okay.<br>So let's break it down a little bit.            |\n| 19 | Has the debtor obstructed you in your investigation           |\n| 20 | since the February extension order came out?                  |\n| 21 | A<br>Well, every day that they're not producing their books   |\n| 22 | and records, they're obstructing us; that's one way of        |\n| 23 | looking at it.                                                |\n| 24 | Q<br>What --                                                  |\n| 25 | A<br>Not when -- sorry.                                       |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 395 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 40                                                                                             |\n| 1  | Q<br>What precisely has the debtor himself done?<br>He's been                                  |\n| 2  | sitting in jail, correct?                                                                      |\n| 3  | A<br>Correct.                                                                                  |\n| 4  | Q<br>What has he done since the February extension order,                                      |\n| 5  | which, just for reference, is dated -- it's ECF 2921 --                                        |\n| 6  | dated, February 15, 2024.<br>What, since February 15th, 2024,                                  |\n| 7  | has the debtor done to obstruct your investigation, other                                      |\n| 8  | than not cooperating when you asked him to?                                                    |\n| 9  | A<br>He's continued to fail to produce his books and                                           |\n| 10 | records.                                                                                       |\n| 11 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Now, you have obtained various books and                                         |\n| 12 | records, correct, related to debtor entities?                                                  |\n| 13 | Strike that question.<br>Let me ask again.                                                     |\n| 14 | You have obtained various books and records from both,                                         |\n| 15 | the debtor and entities that you claim are controlled by the                                   |\n| 16 | debtor; is that fair to say?                                                                   |\n| 17 | A<br>No, I wouldn't say that there's any books and records                                     |\n| 18 | from the debtor and as to other entities, what qualifies as                                    |\n| 19 | books and records is unclear.<br>We did obtain business                                        |\n| 20 | documents from other entities, yes.                                                            |\n| 21 | Q<br>So, for example, with respect to -- there were a number                                   |\n| 22 | of entities that have the letters HGHK preceding them, you                                     |\n| 23 | obtained books and records from certain HK -- HGHK entities,                                   |\n| 24 | like HGHK Technologies; is that correct?                                                       |\n| 25 | A<br>I hesitate to say books and records.<br>We obtained                                       |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 396 of 500\n\n| 1  |                   | documentation from them showing transactions.<br>Whether these |\n|----|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  |                   | were really accurate, complete books and records, I could not  |\n| 3  | say.              | I actually would not say that.                                 |\n| 4  | Q                 | Okay.<br>There was a gentleman, a receiver appointed in        |\n| 5  |                   | an action by the name of Hofmeister, H-o-f-m-e-i-s-t-e-r, do   |\n| 6  | you remember him? |                                                                |\n| 7  | A                 | Yes, I do.                                                     |\n| 8  | Q                 | And there was a settlement entered into, whereby he            |\n| 9  |                   | turned over or gave access to you, with respect to the         |\n| 10 |                   | entities that he was appointed receiver over, do you recall    |\n| 11 | that?             |                                                                |\n| 12 | A                 | He gave me access to what?                                     |\n| 13 | Q                 | I'm asking, did he give you access to information?             |\n| 14 | A                 | He gave us access to information that he had received,         |\n| 15 | yes.              |                                                                |\n| 16 | Q                 | Okay.<br>And you entered into a settlement that was            |\n| 17 |                   | approved by this Court with Mr. Hofmeister; is that right?     |\n| 18 | A                 | That's correct.                                                |\n| 19 | Q                 | What did you get from Mr. Hofmeister?                          |\n| 20 | A                 | A series of documents purporting to show some                  |\n| 21 |                   | transfers, some payments, but I don't think there were         |\n| 22 |                   | balance sheets.<br>Nothing that was pass muster, in terms of a |\n| 23 |                   | true accounting.                                               |\n| 24 | Q                 | And --                                                         |\n| 25 | A                 | We got what he got from Mr. Kwok's associates.<br>He           |\n|    |                   |                                                                |\n\n 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't prepare any books and records. He just gave us what they gave him. Q So Mr. Kwok's associates turned over information to Mr. Hofmeister, who then turned it over to you? A They gave some information, yes, that's correct. Yes. Q And did Mr. Hofmeister obstruct your investigation? A Sorry, did he obstruct our investigation? No. Q Let me just have a moment. (Pause) MR. SKLARZ: Thank you, Trustee. I don't have further questions at this time. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to cross-examine Trustee Despins? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, Attorney Bassett, do you have any redirect? MR. BASSETT: No redirect, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Trustee Despins. Your testimony is concluded. You're excused as a witness. (Witness excused) THE COURT: I know you're going to continue to be at the hearing, but you're excused as a witness. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 397 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 398 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 43                                                                                             |\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                       |\n| 3  | Attorney Bassett, did you wish to proceed,                                                     |\n| 4  | continue?                                                                                      |\n| 5  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Yes, Your Honor, thank you.                                                    |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>You're welcome.                                                                  |\n| 7  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Again, for the record, Nick Bassett                                            |\n| 8  | from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.                                        |\n| 9  | Your Honor, that -- in addition, as I said before,                                             |\n| 10 | in addition to Trustee Despins' testimony, we believe that                                     |\n| 11 | the record generally in this Chapter 11 case and the related                                   |\n| 12 | adversary proceedings is highly relevant to the motion before                                  |\n| 13 | the Court today, as it was to the motion before the Court                                      |\n| 14 | back in February and the Court can, then, you know, take                                       |\n| 15 | judicial notice of that docket and of that record.                                             |\n| 16 | So, you know, coupling the record before --                                                    |\n| 17 | coupling the record in this case with Trustee Despins'                                         |\n| 18 | testimony, that concludes our evidence in support of the                                       |\n| 19 | motion.<br>And with that, I would propose proceeding to                                        |\n| 20 | argument.<br>I'm happy to do that, Your Honor.                                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Go right ahead.                                                                  |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Thank you very much.                                                           |\n| 23 | So, Your Honor, I'll try to be brief in my                                                     |\n| 24 | remarks, because I don't think there is really any new ground                                  |\n| 25 | to cover that we did not already cover when we had the                                         |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 399 of 500\n\n44\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 hearing back in February on the first motion to extend the trustee's time to file avoidance actions. The Court, in that order, which was issued on February 15th, 2024, and is at ECF 2921, the Court reached two main conclusions. First, it granted the trustee's request for an extension of his deadline to file avoidance actions from February 15th, 2024, through August 15th, 2024, under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b). Second, the Court determined in that order that it disagreed and denied the trustee's requests for equitable tolling on the statute of limitations deadline; however, it expressly did so without prejudice to the trustee's ability to raise equitable tolling in response to any argument that a particular adversary Defendant may raise as to the statute of limitations in the future.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor, there is no reason, based on either the passage of time, the intervening facts and circumstances that have occurred since February, or anything in the objections that the Court has received, that would militate in favor of any other outcome that's different from what the Court already concluded back in February. I do want to emphasize that the trustee absolutely intends to argue equitable tolling at the appropriate time if a Defendant raises a statute of limitations issue in an adversary proceeding, but we respect the Court's ruling as to that and will reserve all rights accordingly.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 400 of 500\n\n45\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Your Honor, I'll spend the balance of my time just responding to the particular arguments that certain of the objecting parties have raised. Again, in my view, there is nothing new. I think the arguments generally fall into two buckets. The first is the objecting parties reiterate arguments they made previously that the Court should not be able to use Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b) to extend the deadline for filing avoidance actions. And then the second argument is one that's really based on the factual record, with parties taxes the position that nothing has occurred or that there were no facts in the record that would justify extending the deadline to file avoidance actions further.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On the first of those arguments, on 9006(b), Your Honor, again, I think it's already been decided. The Court carefully analyzed this issue and the relevant case law in its first extension order. The Court, after conducting that analysis, ultimately concluded correctly that limitations periods are generally not substantive and, therefore, the Court has the power to use Rule 9006(b) to extend the limitations period set forth in 546(a), based on principles of equity.\n\n23 24 25 In reaching that decision, the Court expressly considered and declined to follow contrary case law, including, specifically, Judge Tancredi's decision in the In\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 401 of 500\n\n46\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 re Walnut Hill case, which the objecting parties continue to rely upon. The Court also specifically noted in his decision, which granted the trustee's request to extend the deadline for filing avoidance actions to August 15th, 2024, that, (indiscernible) for the order, but which date may be further extended upon notice and a hearing, and that's why we're here today, Your Honor, to have a further hearing on extending that deadline through February of 2015 [sic].\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Everything the Court decided in its prior order on this issue, Your Honor, remains correct today and it should not be disturbed. The only argument that certain of the objecting parties attempt to characterize as a new argument is an argument based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Purdue Pharma case, but nothing about that decision, Your Honor, impacts the Court's analysis.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In Purdue, the Supreme Court concluded that bankruptcy courts -- the Bankruptcy Court in that case could not prove the nonconsensual, third-party release because Congress had not authorized such releases under the Bankruptcy Code and it undeniably would have affected the substantive rights of parties who held claims against other parties. It's important to note, and there's an entire section of the Court's opinion at the end where the Court is very clear to caution the narrowness of its holding.\n\n25\n\nAnd the Court said, quote, \"As important as the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 402 of 500\n\n47\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 question we decide today are the ones we do not decide.\" The Court then concluded, quote, \"Consigning ourselves to the question presented, we hold only that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.\"\n\n8 9 10 11 So, Your Honor, the decision to the issue before the Court today obviously does not involve nonconsensual third-party releases and, therefore, in our view, Purdue has no bearing on the Court's decision.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Now, to the extent and notwithstanding the Court's very careful attempt to clarify the narrowness of its holding, Purdue can be said to stand for broader principles. At most, I would submit it could stand for the proposition that bankruptcy courts are not allowed to use their equitable powers in a way that affects substantive rights in a manner that is inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 And, again, the Court addressed this issue and already decided it, and we make this point in our reply brief, the point being that the statute of limitations here are not substantive, therefore, the Court is not modifying substantive rights.\n\n24 25 Now, if the Defendants' broad ruling of Purdue are correct, the implications of that would be far broader than\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 403 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 they suggest, because as I read their objection, they're effectively saying that a Court could never use equitable powers to effect statutes of limitation, would that would apply to equitable tolling, as well. That also applies outside of the bankruptcy context.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I don't think there's any possible reasonable reading of the Purdue case, which could be said that -- where the Supreme Court could have been said to have intended to do away with equitable tolling of statutes of limitations, like, that's a far too broad reading of that decision and I think that it certainly was not intended to be -- that it was not intended to have that effect.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, aside from the 9006(b) arguments and the Purdue overlay, as I'll call it, the only other argument that the objectors really make is that, in their view, the circumstances don't justify an extension of time. Your Honor, I would submit based on the testimony that the trustee gave today, based on the record in this case, and based on the testimony that he gave back in February, the record amply supports the limited, further extension that the trustee is seeking.\n\n22 23 24 25 And you can tell from the cross-examination today one of the points that the objectors are making is that, Well, this obstruction, this all occurred at the beginning of the case and the debtor has been in prison. He hasn't been\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 404 of 500\n\n49\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 actively obstructing the trustee's investigation since, but that's just not true, because the obstruction that occurred and the unique and extraordinary cases of this case are that we have a debtor and we have an individual associated with the debtor who has never cooperated with the trustee's investigation. They've never provided the books and records that ordinarily should be provided in any case. That continues to impede the trustee's investigation. All the issues arising out of that lack of cooperation does not magically disappear after February 15th of this year, Your Honor.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And the trustee testified about the diligent efforts that he is continuing to undertake. He testified about thousands of documents that his team has received from 2004 investigations, from a warehouse belonging to Golden Spring that his team obtained access to, to the thousands of exhibits in a criminal trial, all of which he does not even have access to yet. He talked about his team's process for going through those documents as diligently as they can.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 The trustee also talked about his monitoring of the criminal trial more generally and the relevance that has to his investigation. He talked about the bank account analysis being undertaken by Kroll, which was the subject of extensive testimony back in February.\n\n25\n\nYour Honor, all of that is ongoing. All of it\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 405 of 500\n\n50\n\n1 2 takes time. All of it continues to be affected by the unique and extraordinary circumstances of this case.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The last point I will address, Your Honor, as to the trustee's diligence with his investigation is the argument that (indiscernible) surrounding the motion to stay the bankruptcy case. Your Honor, that was a motion that the trustee presented. You heard from him today the reasons why it was filed. The Court granted that motion. In doing so, I'd submit that the Court found that that motion was in the best interests of the estate. Other parties, including the objectors who are here today, had the opportunity to object to that if they thought it was not appropriate.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 And, again, Your Honor, the trustee had very good reasons for doing that. The potential consequences of not proceeding in that manner would have been to fight with the debtor about a global stay of the bankruptcy case, which would have been a disaster if the trustee had been unable to continue to do any of his work during the pendency of the criminal trial, that would have been a disaster and, therefore, he made the recent decision to file that motion and it was granted by the Court.\n\n22 23 24 25 The last argument I'll briefly address, Your Honor, is the argument by Meta and Apple, where they say that, again, there's no evidence that they, themselves, are done anything to obstruct the trustee's investigation. And\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 406 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 on that, Your Honor, I would just simply point the Court to the decision already issued in the first extension order at paragraph 14, where the Court said, quote, \"The bankruptcy case presents a rather different (indiscernible) on equitable tolling and the typical situation, it would have been debtors' conduct, rather than the Defendants' conduct, which invokes equitable tolling. In some senses, this is unfair to the Defendant.\"\n\n9 10 11 And the Court cited cases in support of that, including the Fundamental Long Term Care case from the Middle District of Florida Bankruptcy Court, cited in this opinion.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 So, Your Honor, the point is not whether a particular individual, avoidance action Defendant obstructed the trustee's investigation; it is whether or not there has been an obstruction, generally, that has prevented the trustee from being able to complete his investigation within the time that ordinarily exists under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 So, Your Honor, for all those reasons, we would respectfully request that the Court grant an extension of the deadline to file avoidance actions by another six months through February 15th, 2025. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n23 24 25 And who wishes to go, to proceed first with their objection? We have counsel for -- we have Attorney Yan, Attorney Sklarz. Is anyone else going to be making an\n\n 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 argument, in objection to the motion? MR. KIM: Your Honor, there's also an objection filed by the Greenwich Land Defendants, so I'll reserve until the end and if the -- THE COURT: Oh, yes. MR. KIM: -- and if Mr. Yan and Mr. Sklarz cover all the ground, then I have no need to retread. THE COURT: Thank you, Attorney Kim. I just missed -- I misplaced your objection for a second, there. I apologize. All right. So, Attorney Sklarz, Attorney Yan, who would like to proceed first? MR. SKLARZ: By all means, go ahead, Attorney Yan. MR. YAN: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. As Your Honor noted in her prior order granting the trustee's requested extension, an (indiscernible) concern under Rule 9006(b) is prejudice to the Defendant. Now, I'll say that we disagree with the Court's analysis, but I don't think we need to retread on 9006(b) arguments. Here, we have a case where we're differently situated from some of the other Defendants that are going to be Defendants and potential Defendants that might be affected by the order that the trustee's asking the Court to enter. And we're differently situated because Meta and Apple have Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 407 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 408 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 53                                                                                             |\n| 1  | already been sued; they were sued before the prior extension                                   |\n| 2  | that was granted.<br>And in those cases, we have spent the                                     |\n| 3  | money and expense to move to dismiss and filed a number of                                     |\n| 4  | other things.                                                                                  |\n| 5  | And so, we're differently situated than those                                                  |\n| 6  | people who don't even though that they're targets and haven't                                  |\n| 7  | had to do anything yet.                                                                        |\n| 8  | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>(Indiscernible.)                                                      |\n| 9  | MR. YAN:<br>I'm sorry, go ahead.                                                               |\n| 10 | The other thing is kind of related to that is,                                                 |\n| 11 | here, we've come before the Court and we've objected to it                                     |\n| 12 | and I don't see how we're differently situated from some of                                    |\n| 13 | the other Defendants or parties that have been carved out of                                   |\n| 14 | the last order, such as UBS and Sotheby's, who also filed                                      |\n| 15 | objections and were carved out.                                                                |\n| 16 | Here, as you've heard the trustee say, he has                                                  |\n| 17 | identified potential, additional claims against Meta and                                       |\n| 18 | Apple that he says are non-material, but it's been six                                         |\n| 19 | months.<br>He filed it before the last extension and he hasn't                                 |\n| 20 | done anything with those claims.<br>We don't know.<br>He hasn't                                |\n| 21 | said whether he needs additional time beyond the six-month                                     |\n| 22 | extension already, another six months to file anything                                         |\n| 23 | additional against Apple.                                                                      |\n| 24 | And there's a fundamental fairness point where the                                             |\n| 25 | trustee gets to reserve all of his arguments, with respect to                                  |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 409 of 500\n\n 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 equitable tolling and all of the (indiscernible) arguments and on top of that, he gets this order saying, Yeah, he can timely file in another six months; whereas, we are prejudiced because we can't make that argument anymore after this order. And so why does he get belts-and-suspenders and we, who have done nothing wrong, we get cut off at the knees, with respect to our arguments relating to why the trustee's claims are time-barred. And so for those reasons we would just ask that -- THE COURT: Wait. May I stop you just right there for one second so I make sure I understand your argument? MR. YAN: Sure. THE COURT: When you say you get cut off at the knees on his equitable tolling argument, is that the point that you're making, Counsel? I just want to make sure I understand. MR. YAN: Not the equitable tolling argument. I'm just saying he gets to make his equitable - if we -- if he makes an equitable tolling argument -- we'll get to that -- I don't think the order affects that, but he will already have an advantage in that he can wave the order around and say, If we make an argument that his claims are time-barred, he can say, Well, look, I have an order from the judge saying that that argument no longer flies, with respect\n\n25\n\nto you.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 410 of 500\n\n55\n\n THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's true. MR. YAN: So, I'm just --\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: I don't think that's what the order says. So maybe I need you to point me in that direction, because I believe what the order says is that there's an extension of time granted under these very specific and unusual circumstances of these complex, consolidated, administratively consolidated Chapter 11 cases and adversary proceedings and that I was not going to prospectively order that the trustee can assert equitable tolling. I believe the order says that the trustee can assert equitable tolling when someone raises it in a motion\n\n13 14 15 to dismiss or another pleading. And so I don't see how that cuts you off at the knees at all, so I would like to make sure I'm not missing your point.\n\n16 17 18 MR. YAN: Sure. I guess my point, Your Honor, is why does he need that? He can always make an equitable tolling argument because his rights are preserved.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 THE COURT: What does he need what, though; I didn't give him what he wanted, so I don't know what you're -- I guess that's what I'm struggling with. I didn't give him what he wanted in the original order. I didn't say that he prospectively has the right to assert equitable tolling; I didn't say that.\n\n25\n\n1\n\n2\n\nI said that under the cases that all the parties\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 411 of 500\n\n| 1  | cited, the application of equitable tolling does not come       |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | into play or does not become an issue unless and until it's     |\n| 3  | raised in connection with a motion to dismiss the case          |\n| 4  | because the statute of limitations has passed.<br>That's what   |\n| 5  | the order says.                                                 |\n| 6  | MR. YAN:<br>Understood.<br>Understood, Your Honor.              |\n| 7  | And my point is, why does he need more than that?               |\n| 8  | He can -- that argument is preserved.<br>If he can make that -- |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>I don't know that he does need more               |\n| 10 | than that.                                                      |\n| 11 | MR. YAN:<br>That's my point, Your Honor, why does he            |\n| 12 | need this additional order?                                     |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Well, that's time.<br>Time is different           |\n| 14 | from equitable tolling, Counsel.<br>He's asking for additional  |\n| 15 | time.                                                           |\n| 16 | I didn't -- he's asking for an additional time to               |\n| 17 | commence causes of action, okay.<br>I didn't hear Attorney      |\n| 18 | Bassett -- but maybe I missed it and that's why I'm stopping    |\n| 19 | to ask these questions -- I didn't hear Attorney Bassett, and   |\n| 20 | I don't think I read in the papers, but maybe I'm -- you        |\n| 21 | know, I could have missed it, because as you can, I'm sure,     |\n| 22 | appreciate, there are a lot of papers filed in this case and    |\n| 23 | in the adversary proceedings, but I didn't hear Attorney        |\n| 24 | Bassett ask me to prospectively order from this point forward   |\n| 25 | that equitable tolling, the trustee is entitled to assert       |\n\n 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. I didn't hear him. Attorney Bassett, did you ask me to do that, because if you did, I missed it. MR. BASSETT: I did not, Your Honor; in fact, the Court has already ruled on that issue. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So, that's my question to you, Attorney Yan. The only issue that I see and is right now in the papers is, the trustee is asking for an extension of time to commence causes of action. I've ruled on the issue of equitable tolling. So I'm a little confused as to your statement that somehow you've been -- and I apologize -- I think the words were that you're cut off at the knees. I don't see how you are. So, please explain to me. I don't want you to not tell me. I'm just not sure that I understand your argument. MR. YAN: Sure, Your Honor. And I think this -- let me go back to the argument. I think the point I was really trying to make is we're differently situated because he doesn't need more time; he's already asserted claims against us, so I don't think it's equitable for him to get additional time to add on to claims that he's already asserted against us. THE COURT: Well, don't you think the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will address that? If he tries to Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 412 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 413 of 500\n\n| 1  | add on claims or bring a new cause of action, you can do      |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | whatever you need to do, if he even does that.                |\n| 3  | And I think you asked him -- and I understand why             |\n| 4  | you did -- were there any additional claims against Apple and |\n| 5  | metal -- Meta, excuse me -- and his answer was \"not material  |\n| 6  | claims that he could think of\" and that was the answer I      |\n| 7  | heard.                                                        |\n| 8  | But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will deal            |\n| 9  | with it one way or another; either he'll move to amend the    |\n| 10 | complaint that was, as you already admitted, was filed before |\n| 11 | the expiration of the statute under the applicable statutes   |\n| 12 | or he'll file a new cause of action.<br>And in either case,   |\n| 13 | you're going to either oppose the motion to amend or you're   |\n| 14 | going to move to dismiss.<br>And that's how the Federal Rules |\n| 15 | of Civil Procedure work, right?                               |\n| 16 | I mean, I guess I'm a little confused by your                 |\n| 17 | argument, because you -- I agree with you, though, that you   |\n| 18 | are differently situated insofar as your clients were sued    |\n| 19 | before any applicable statute ran.<br>So, from that           |\n| 20 | perspective, I think whatever happens, happens and the        |\n| 21 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will -- do apply and you and |\n| 22 | the trustee will assert whatever arguments you have under the |\n| 23 | applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and then the      |\n| 24 | Court will address those accordingly.                         |\n| 25 | MR. YAN:<br>I think that makes sense if he's going            |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 414 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n14\n\nto assert them in the same case. What we're concerned about, and what we didn't see in the papers or hear from the trustee is that they intend to assert civil litigation. So, eight months down the line, does he intend to file a new claim against us? We don't know, and so we want to preserve our right to object to that.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Well, I think you vaccinate right. I don't see how you would -- my prior order does preserve that right for you, in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but it says that the trustee is not entitled to prospective, equitable tolling and that issue will come up, if at all, when a party raises and files a motion to dismiss, asserting that a statute of limitations has passed.\n\nMR. YAN: Understood, Your Honor.\n\n15 16 17 18 THE COURT: So, I don't see how your right isn't preserved. But that doesn't mean I'm right, Counsel; I'm just telling you, that's the Court's perspective. You can do with that what you feel is appropriate.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But the prior order was very -- I tried to be very clear in a very short amount of time to say that the trustee's right to bring causes of action was extended because I felt and I found and held that Rule 9006 did not bar that extension because those statutes were statutes of repose, which did not affect substantive rights of parties. And I found that, based upon many things, including the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 415 of 500\n\n| 1  | Supreme Court case of Young, in which Justice Scalia, writing   |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | for the majority, said that those statutes are not              |\n| 3  | substantive statutes; they don't affect substantive rights.     |\n| 4  | So, in any event, what I'm saying to you is, I                  |\n| 5  | understand what you're saying, but I believe you are            |\n| 6  | protected.<br>You may think otherwise, and I completely respect |\n| 7  | that, but that is the reason why I proceed -- the decision      |\n| 8  | says what it says.                                              |\n| 9  | MR. YAN:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                             |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I didn't foreclose on any Defendant               |\n| 11 | from asserting that there was some kind of statute of           |\n| 12 | limitations issue.                                              |\n| 13 | MR. YAN:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                             |\n| 14 | And then that, perhaps, is the issue where we                   |\n| 15 | didn't see that level of protection that you just               |\n| 16 | articulated, which is why we asked to just be carved out from   |\n| 17 | the ambit of the order.                                         |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>So, what you're saying is you would               |\n| 19 | like me to rule -- and I just want to make sure -- with         |\n| 20 | regard to Apple and Meta that if there's an extension           |\n| 21 | granted, it doesn't apply to them?                              |\n| 22 | MR. YAN:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                         |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Well, if I agreed with you, which I               |\n| 24 | don't know that I will, but I would not agree with you with     |\n| 25 | regard to the existing causes of action being amended.<br>Now,  |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 416 of 500\n\n 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that doesn't mean you couldn't oppose amendment, but, obviously, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for amendments to an existing cause of action. They allow to it up until after trial. So, with regard to that issue, the only issue that I think, then, I would decide with regard to Meta and Apple are whether Meta and Apple are carved out from any new causes of action. That's what I would decide. MR. YAN: I think your articulation is exactly right, Your Honor. I agree with that. THE COURT: Okay. Great. I appreciate that. I didn't mean to cut you off, so if there's more that you want to argue, please do. I just wanted to be -- I wanted to make sure I understood what you were arguing. MR. YAN: No, we appreciate that, Your Honor, and that's all that I have. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Sklarz, did you wish to proceed next? MR. SKLARZ: Yes, please, Your Honor. Your Honor, in nearly 40 years of an unbroken line of cases, running from Northern Pipeline to Granfinanciera to Stern to Purdue, cited just a few months ago, our Supreme Court has held that unless the Bankruptcy Code clearly permits relief, Bankruptcy Courts cannot fashion substantive relief based on either gap-fillers or a lack of Congress\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 417 of 500\n\n62\n\n1 saying that they can't be done.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 So in Purdue, there's nothing in 1123 that says Bankruptcy Courts can't authorize nonconsensual third-party releases. But the Supreme Court was still clear that they're not allowed because of the Code silence and allowing such relief would countermand specific provisions of the Code, namely, Section 1141 and the discharge provisions.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Here, and, certainly in light of Your Honor's ruling, Purdue came out afterward, but in light of Purdue, and analyzed against that backdrop, the applicable section that provides the statute of limitations, Section 546, says it's two years. It is silent on whether you can or cannot extend it. There's nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that says you can extend it or you can't extend it.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 So the trustee looks to Rule 9006 and refers to what they're requesting under 9006, listed on page 5 of their reply brief -- I'm sorry, paragraph 5 of their reply brief as a \"equitable extension.\" This is definitely not an equitable extension.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 As Your Honor just discussed with Attorney Yan, equity, as to statutes of limitation, we know of three main extending doctrines of statutes of limitations: equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment, and the discovery rule. What this is, very specifically, is the use of a rule, not a statute, but we'll just say a provision, not a\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 418 of 500\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\nwarns against.\n\ncommon law provision, not something that exists in the equitable ether, but a written rule that has general application to extend a statute of limitations, 546, that have a specific statement. So this is precisely what Purdue\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Again, the dissent in Purdue makes exactly the same observations as the trustee. Over 40 times, the dissent refers to equitable relief or some variance of the word \"equity\" and their argument is the releases and the settlement payments solve those problems and ensure fair and equitable recovery for the opioid victims. It's certainly a good argument, but it wasn't the majority.\n\n13 14 15 The majority says otherwise. It says, faced with so many marks against its interpretation of the law, plan proponents in the dissent resort to a policy argument.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 That is exactly what occurs here. It's a policy argument saying that because of all these other things, other than what is written down, that the statute can be extended. The trustee's request for an equitable extension has to fail for exactly the reasons stated in Purdue. The Code provides absolutely no mechanism for a prospective extension of a written-down statutes of limitations.\n\n23 24 25 And I think in light of Purdue and now specific it was, it's important that I briefly just turn to three of the Court's main holdings in the February ruling. I don't want\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 419 of 500\n\n| 1  | to -- Your Honor ruled and I just -- I think in the context       |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | of Purdue, it's a little bit different.<br>So the three main      |\n| 3  | rulings as to why, as I understand it, Your Honor ruled           |\n| 4  | that 9006 applies is the Rules Enabling Act doesn't apply to      |\n| 5  | stop 9006 from applying because of traditional principles of      |\n| 6  | equity.<br>In light of Purdue, it is unclear.<br>So that's number |\n| 7  | one.<br>Number two, statutes of limitations are procedural, and   |\n| 8  | that's subject to the Bankruptcy Rules.<br>And third, the         |\n| 9  | statutes of limitations provisions of the Code come into          |\n| 10 | existence, only once a Title 11 case is filed.                    |\n| 11 | Turning back -- let me expand on that a little                    |\n| 12 | bit.<br>So, turning back to the Rules Enabling Act question.      |\n| 13 | Essentially, the Rules Enabling Act and the jurisprudence         |\n| 14 | thereunder says, as long as there isn't something specific        |\n| 15 | that says you can't -- you can't do it, you can apply this --     |\n| 16 | you can apply traditional tolling doctrines.<br>Traditional       |\n| 17 | tolling doctrines, as we discussed, are equitable tolling,        |\n| 18 | discovery rule, and fraudulent concealment.                       |\n| 19 | Using Rule 9006 to prospectively extend the                       |\n| 20 | statute, in other words, as Your Honor explained, an              |\n| 21 | extension of time to commence causes of action are different      |\n| 22 | than equitable tolling.<br>I agree 100 percent.<br>This has       |\n| 23 | nothing to do with equity.                                        |\n| 24 | This has to do with, can you graft on an extension                |\n| 25 | provision that is written nowhere in the Code by gap-filling      |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 420 of 500\n\n65\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 with the Rules? In light of Purdue, is it unclear how an arguably equitable approach can be applied to pull gap-filler from the Rules and apply here. There's no argument that there's a right to equitable tolling at this time; that argument has been reserved, as we just discussed. There's no argument that there's been a prospective, fraudulent concealment, or discovery rule violations, or some other traditional, common law tolling doctrine.\n\n9 10 The trustee cites 9006. He doesn't cite equity to support his 9006 argument.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Turning to the question of whether statutes of limitations are procedural or substantive. I apologize, I don't -- so, first, we cite -- and I'll just refer to the G Club brief, because that's in the main case. The arguments that we submitted in our briefing in the four adversaries are essentially the same, just the structure is a little bit different.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 On page 6 of G Club, we cite to the Second Circuit's ruling in Enterprise Mortgage, which explains that substantive and procedural for how the rights affect somebody in the case is a different analysis than whether something is substantive or procedural for choice of law purposes, which is where that substantive, procedural analysis comes from. We briefed this in our case.\n\n25\n\nAnd then Enterprise Mortgage, the Second Circuit\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 421 of 500\n\n66\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 explains that procedural versus substantive, you have to look at it through the eyes of the Defendant. So, here, the Defendant, my clients, or anybody else who hasn't been sued or who doesn't even know they're going to be sued -- perhaps anybody else in the room, we don't know -- the -- from their eyes, the two years has passed. So they -- to them, to that unsued party as of today, they're -- that is a substantive, not a procedural right under Enterprise Mortgage.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 And then we also cite the case of Aetna Life - and the citation there is 391 F.3d 401, and that's on page, mainly on page 6 of our brief in G Club -- that case applied the Sarbanes-Oxley (indiscernible) was -- looking at the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but it also references a Supreme Court case of Landgraf and it explains that the resurrection of previously time-barred claims has an impermissible, retroactive effect extending the statute of limitations retroactively, increasing the Defendant's liability for past conduct.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 Now, there, there was a law -- the question was whether the law was retroactively applied. Here, the law can't be retroactively applied. There's been no change in the law. What there is, is a gap-filler provision, 9006, to extend the statute of limitations prospectively. If Congress can't do it with an act and not make\n\n25 it specific, we can't do it otherwise. That is exactly what Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 422 of 500\n\n67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Purdue says. Finally, whether 546 is subject to tolling because it doesn't come into existence until it's a Title 11 case is filed; again, under that the Court has ruled. Your Honor applied IDB (phonetic) over Butcher, but again, I think we need to view those cases now in light of Purdue. And it appears in my view that the Purdue case says that is not the analysis, that the Butcher analysis should be applied. And we cited -- THE COURT: But the Purdue case doesn't say anywhere in it that the Butcher analysis should be applied -- MR. SKLARZ: Oh, no, no, no, no. THE COURT: -- and, in fact, in Butcher, all the courts in Butcher in the circuit in Butcher don't follow Butcher. If Purdue says that, please tell me, because I don't believe that it says anything at all about Butcher. It never mentions it. MR. SKLARZ: Oh, I agree, Purdue doesn't cite Butcher. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: What it does is apply a similar analysis, which is textual. You read the text. The text is clear. The text applies. And then we cited additional cases in our brief in that regard, more than we cited in the previous brief, using\n\n 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other provisions of the Code. I'm sorry, Your Honor? THE COURT: No, I don't have anything. Go ahead. MR. SKLARZ: Okay. So -- if I may just have one moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. SKLARZ: I just need to check if I have anything else. (Pause) MR. SKLARZ: Just turning briefly to the factual argument justification. Regardless of whether Your Honor agrees with me or agrees with the trustee, I think we can all agree prospectively extending statutes of limitations is very unusual. It's already been done once in this case. Your Honor found, as Your Honor noted, on very specific facts that that extraordinary relief was probative. If Your Honor disagrees with me on the Purdue argument and the arguments we've set forth, I still believe that they cannot meet the burden Your Honor imposed upon them under Your Honor's February ruling. There's no longer extraordinary that Mr. Kwok did or did not do anything; in fact, on examination, we know a lot of information has been turned over. It may not have been turned over as quickly as the trustee had hoped, but that is not some kind of obstruction. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 423 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 424 of 500\n\n69\n\n1 2 3 4 For example, the trustee said the government hasn't turned over the information. Is that obstruction by the government, of not turning over information? Of course not.\n\n5 6 7 On cross-examination, the trustee indicated that more information occurs daily. That is true in almost every financial fraud investigation.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 There were -- Your Honor found extraordinary facts the first time. We have to look at what's occurred since then. And we have not heard anything today that is of the nature of extraordinary. There was no further protesting or other actions that Mr. Kwok's retainers took. There was no lack of funds, which was the major reason the last time around, to toll the statute.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: Well, I just want to stop you there. I don't even think there was any mention of protesting in the prior ruling and I'm not sure that there was any mention of a lack of funds, other than that was an argument made by the objecting parties that somehow that should persuade the Court that the trustee didn't act diligently because he didn't have funds to retain a forensic accountant.\n\n22 23 24 25 So, just to be clear, when you say the factual basis and that the trustee can't meet its burden, the argument about the protesting, I don't even think that was mentioned. I could be wrong, though; it could have been\n\n 70 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 425 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mentioned in the order. MR. SKLARZ: I -- THE COURT: But with regard to the funding, the lack of funding, that was a claim that was raised by the objecting parties to try to establish for the Court or persuade the Court that the trustee did not act diligently and I found just the opposite, in fact. I found that it was clear to the Court that the trustee has been more than reasonably diligent. So I don't think the argument about funds and/or protesting is persuasive. MR. SKLARZ: And that's my -- I'm not saying it is; what I'm saying is those facts do not exist today. And I recall Kwok's examining the trustee on the lack of funds. What he indicated, as I recall, and we could do back to the record, is that he did not hire a forensic accountant because his firm didn't want to share payments pari passu with the forensic accountant, so he deferred hiring. But we make -- THE COURT: No, that wasn't the testimony at all; in fact, the testimony was that he didn't hire the accountant because the forensic accountant wanted to be paid -- MR. SKLARZ: Right. THE COURT: -- and there weren't funds in the estate to pay the forensic accountant and the forensic\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 426 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accountant didn't want to take the risk that the forensic accountant would have to share with all the other administrative claimants in an insolvent estate. That was - that's my recollection of the testimony. MR. SKLARZ: I suppose I have a different recollection, but -- THE COURT: Oh, you could be right, but I'm just saying that's my recollection. MR. SKLARZ: -- it probably doesn't matter. It's written down for a reason -- THE COURT: Right. MR. SKLARZ: -- and my point is it's not terribly relevant right now. What the trustee presented today was, I have a lot of work to do and it's hard and there's lots of it. And I have great sympathy that there is a lot of work to do, but what we're talking about is meeting the standards Your Honor set in the ruling, which is extraordinary circumstances. I guess the first time is if it happened. The second time is a coincidence. If we get to a third time, perhaps that's a mode of operation. I don't know when extraordinary stops becoming extraordinary. But, certainly, we're -- I'm not sure why we're now adding a full year under the trustee's motion to what Congress said should be the statute of limitations of two years.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 427 of 500\n\n| 1  | So I don't think that even if Your Honor reaches                |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | the factual issue, it rises to the level of extraordinary as    |\n| 3  | Your Honor ruled in your prior (indiscernible).                 |\n| 4  | But, Your Honor, I'm happy to answer any                        |\n| 5  | questions; otherwise, that concludes my presentation.           |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>I do not have any                   |\n| 7  | questions at the moment, Attorney Sklarz, thank you.            |\n| 8  | Attorney Kim, did you wish to be heard?                         |\n| 9  | MR. KIM:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                              |\n| 10 | Austin Kim for the Greenwich Land Defendants.                   |\n| 11 | Just a few finer points to pick up on what Attorney Yan had     |\n| 12 | mentioned.<br>You know, what's -- from our position, what's     |\n| 13 | going on here is the trustee is seeking to obtain the relief    |\n| 14 | of equitable tolling without having to seek it, one, and        |\n| 15 | then, two, with equitable tolling is done on a case-by-case     |\n| 16 | basis, because it is factually dependent, what the trustee is   |\n| 17 | seeking is an omnibus order that sort of avoids the trustee     |\n| 18 | having to establish on a case-by-case basis, why they should    |\n| 19 | effectively obtain the relief of equitable tolling.             |\n| 20 | So, with equitable tolling, you know, it's a case               |\n| 21 | by-case, fact-specific analysis.<br>What the trustee is seeking |\n| 22 | is essentially a six-month equitable toll the first time        |\n| 23 | around and now they're seeking a second, six-month equitable    |\n| 24 | toll the second time around, based, essentially, on the same    |\n| 25 | facts.                                                          |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 428 of 500\n\n73\n\n| 1  | And so, you know, the constitute did provide some             |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | testimony as to what, you know, additional efforts have been  |\n| 3  | made since February, but the bulk of what the trustee has put |\n| 4  | forth as to why an additional six months is necessary are     |\n| 5  | facts that existed a year ago, or facts that already existed  |\n| 6  | six months ago.<br>So, I'm not here to doubt the diligence of |\n| 7  | the trustee in, you know, the efforts made to do the          |\n| 8  | investigation, but it's not just confined to the trustee's    |\n| 9  | diligence; it's the, so what?<br>What has come out since      |\n| 10 | February that is so extraordinary that the Court should       |\n| 11 | exercise its discretion to grant to extend the statute of     |\n| 12 | limitations by another 25 percent on an omnibus basis without |\n| 13 | the trustee demonstrating what's new.                         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Vague statements of, Well, we have received 400 documents or 700 documents or 20,000 documents, that's great, but so what, right? We don't know when these documents were received, you know, where the progress is, and I just think it's inequitable to allow the trustee to continue to, on a piecemeal basis, obtain equitable tolling relief across the board and as to, you know, frankly, parties that are not here or who haven't been named yet or based on some speculation that there could be something there.\n\n23 24 25 So, on that basis, we do stand by our initial objection that, you know, we do disagree with the Court's prior ruling that, you know, the statute of limitations, 546,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 429 of 500\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n74\n\n1 2 can be extended for the same reasons that my prior colleagues have mentioned, and we rest there.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Bassett, do you have any reply?\n\nMR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor, briefly.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 So, I'll start by responding to some of Attorney Sklarz's arguments, which I think almost exclusively for the first half of his presentation focused on the Purdue case. And, look, I understand, Your Honor, the inclination to cease upon a high-profile ruling of the Supreme Court and sort of turn that into something significant to this motion, but I really just do not think it is.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 Purdue could not be a more different case than this case, as much as Attorney Sklarz tries to characterize it otherwise. Purdue dealt with giving a discharge to a nondebtor; an issue that's fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code and I would submit (indiscernible) whether one talks about these issues.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In this case, the Court has been asked to extend the statute of limitations, which it has found is procedural, non-substantive. There should not be a wider gulf between those scenarios, Purdue on the one hand and what the Court is confronted with in the context of this motion. That also needs to be considered in the context of what the Supreme Court specifically said about the narrowness of its decision.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 430 of 500\n\n1 2 3 It was very careful to say that it was talking about thirdparty releases and their permissibility on a nonconsensual scenario in that case.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And what I think Attorney Sklarz did not say, because he could not say, or maybe he will come back and argue this down the line if we do have a dispute about equitable tolling, but if you take his argument to its logical extension, he's basically saying the Supreme Court, in a Purdue decision about nonconsensual third-party releases intended to say that equitable tolling of a statute of limitation as set forth in a statute of Congress is never permissible. That's the logical extension of what he's saying. He talks about the dissent and the equitable arguments that the Supreme Court's majority did not consider. That's essentially where he is taking that argument. And I submit there is no logical reading of the Purdue decision that could be read that broadly, Your Honor.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, as to the facts -- and just to round out, Your Honor, the 9006(b) and all the legal arguments surrounding whether or not the Court has the authority to extend the deadline, nothing else is new. The Court's analysis, its decision was correct. No intervening cases have been issued. There's no other reason as to why that analysis should be revisited and, therefore, we would ask that the same order, again, be entered.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 431 of 500\n\n76\n\n1 2 3 4 5 As to the factual arguments that the parties have raised, Attorney Sklarz, as to the (indiscernible) Attorney Kim, I believe, as well, had -- I think the way Attorney Sklarz characterized it is the circumstances of this case are, quote, no longer extraordinary.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Your Honor, I'm not sure what that means. The circumstances of this case are either extraordinary or they are not and I don't think anyone could, with a straight face, take the position that this case is anything but incredibly extraordinary based on the level of obstruction the trustee has faced from the beginning of the case, based on the fact that this is a debtor who purported to file bankruptcy in this case with, I think, 3,000 or some odd dollars in cash to his name, despite having lived the life of a billionaire. He's had to peel back every layer of the onion to try to figure out where the shell companies, where these assets were really held and whose names are they nominally held. Where are the bank accounts and other transactions located that explain the true nature of the debtors' financial affairs?\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 The debtor has never cooperated. He never provided books and records and that continues to affect the trustee's investigation today. This case is, and always has been extraordinary. That did not stop on February 15th. The fallacy in the objectors' arguments is that all the obstruction, all the unique circumstances of this case\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 432 of 500\n\n1 2 3 necessarily could have been overcome in the six months that have occurred since February 15th until now, but as the trustee has testified, that just hasn't been the case.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And the inquiry, Your Honor, for extending the statute of limitations in the context of the order that the Court issued is whether the trustee has been diligent. And Your Honor found that he has been. I think the testimony today only demonstrates that that diligence has continued. The trustee has said that he's filing complaints as soon as he possibly can. He and his team are diligently working to pursue additional 2004 targets. They are viewing documents from the criminal case: twenty-plus-thousand documents that the trustee and his team are going through. The Kroll team is continuing to analyze bank accounts, all of which should have been provided if they were -- if this were a normal case where the debtor is cooperating, he'd provide access to his books and records.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 But the trustee is continuing to do all of those things. He's testified clearly that he's been diligent in his efforts and, Your Honor, I think that factual record, again, together with the context of this case from the beginning, amply supports the further extension that the trustee is seeking.\n\n24 25 Subject to any questions the Court may have, I don't have any further remarks at this time. Thank you, Your\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 433 of<br>500 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 78                                                                                             |\n| 1  | Honor.                                                                                         |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>I do not have any                                                  |\n| 3  | questions.                                                                                     |\n| 4  | Anything further, Attorney Yan?<br>Attorney Sklarz?                                            |\n| 5  | Or -- did I lose everybody?<br>Oh, no, Attorney Sklarz is still                                |\n| 6  | there.<br>Or Attorney Kim, that you'd like to state for the                                    |\n| 7  | record?                                                                                        |\n| 8  | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Only, Your Honor, I don't know if you                                           |\n| 9  | want me to submit -- I don't know that it's necessary, but I                                   |\n| 10 | certainly will -- of any of the prior transcripts references                                   |\n| 11 | that we discussed during my argument related to what the                                       |\n| 12 | trustee was doing back at the inception of the case.                                           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>That is not necessary, from my                                                   |\n| 14 | perspective, thank you.                                                                        |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>And just very briefly, I never made                                             |\n| 16 | the argument that Purdue removes equitable tolling; to the                                     |\n| 17 | contrary, I said that the trustee's argument is not equitable                                  |\n| 18 | in nature.<br>It's made on the basis of a rule and doesn't                                     |\n| 19 | invoke the Court's equitable, true equitable jurisdiction,                                     |\n| 20 | which would be invoked through common law doctrines, such as                                   |\n| 21 | equitable tolling.<br>So, I just want to make sure that that is                                |\n| 22 | clear.                                                                                         |\n| 23 | Thank you, Your Honor.                                                                         |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                       |\n| 25 | Anyone else wish to be heard any further?                                                      |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 434 of<br>500 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 79                                                                                             |\n| MR. KIM:<br>Your Honor, I would just be remiss                                                 |\n| (indiscernible) to mention one point --                                                        |\n| THE COURT:<br>Attorney Kim, I'm just going to stop                                             |\n| you for a second, just so it's clear that it's you that's                                      |\n| speaking.                                                                                      |\n| So, Attorney Kim, you go right ahead.                                                          |\n| MR. KIM:<br>Yes, Austin Kim for the Greenwich Land                                             |\n| Defendants.<br>I apologize, Your Honor.                                                        |\n| THE COURT:<br>No, that's okay.                                                                 |\n| MR. KIM:<br>Austin Kim for the Greenwich Land                                                  |\n| Defendants.                                                                                    |\n| The one last point that I wanted to raise is that                                              |\n| the bulk of what the trustee has presented are vague claims                                    |\n| of obstruction or of concealment, but those are precisely why                                  |\n| the equitable doctrines of equitable tolling or fraudulent                                     |\n| concealment, those doctrines already exist.<br>So the trustee                                  |\n| is totally protected if, for example, some of the 700                                          |\n| documents or whatever documents do uncover some basis for an                                   |\n| additional adversary proceeding after the 15th of August.<br>So                                |\n| the trustee does not need the Court's additional order,                                        |\n| basically granting him a six-month reprieve from having to                                     |\n| justify an equitable toll for any particular case because                                      |\n| they have it for every case, brought or not brought.                                           |\n| So, we would just say that as a matter of equity                                               |\n| to the objectors and for individuals who are not yet here,                                     |\n|                                                                                                |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 435 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 that there's no need for the trustee to get the additional sort of protection of not having to establish their burden based on some claim of obstruction, because that same argument that was raised in February is the same argument being raised today. I mean, it'll probably be raised against next February.\n\n80\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 At a certain point -- I'm not saying this case is going to last forever -- but at a certain point, I think the two-year statute of limitations was made for a particular reason. They've already received a 25 percent extension. Now, they're seeking a 50 percent extension. At a certain point, you know, I think that the Court should hold the trustee to its tasks and let him know, Hey, you already have these rights if you can show that that was, in fact, observe instruction that caused a delay and having the information to bring the adversary proceeding, instead of prospectively saying, Well, you know, we think there's obstruction and we're looking at information and Kroll is spending some time digging around.\n\n20 21 22 I think it's insufficient to justify a cause basis for essentially granting them equitable tolling on an omnibus basis, and that's all I have, Your Honor.\n\n23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. With regard to the motion for extension of time, the first supplemental motion to extend\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 436 of 500\n\n| 1  | deadline to file avoidance actions, ECF 3329, I will take the |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | matter under advisement and rule accordingly.                 |\n| 3  | Thank you all very much.                                      |\n| 4  | Now, we'll move to the mentioned emergency motion             |\n| 5  | for order authorizing funding to maintain the Mahwah Mansion. |\n| 6  | And parties who were here on the first matter, if             |\n| 7  | you do not want to stay, you are absolutely excused, but      |\n| 8  | you're also welcome to stay throughout the entire hearing.    |\n| 9  | Thank you.                                                    |\n| 10 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.               |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>I'll be              |\n| 12 | addressing the amended emergency motion.<br>This is Patrick   |\n| 13 | Linsey for the Chapter 11 Trustee.                            |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:<br>The amended emergency motion was               |\n| 16 | filed in the main case, but addresses facts that are at issue |\n| 17 | in the Taurus Fund LLC adversary proceeding 23-5017.<br>That  |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding was filed against Taurus Fund and its    |\n| 19 | co-defendants involving a \\$26-and-a-half-million mansion in  |\n| 20 | Mahwah New Jersey, which the debtor purchased in December     |\n| 21 | of 2021.                                                      |\n| 22 | Since the Court entered a preliminary injunction              |\n| 23 | in that adversary proceeding and until the debtors' criminal  |\n| 24 | trial, the Defendants have been funding security and other    |\n| 25 | expenses for the Mahwah Mansion.<br>These expenses are        |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 437 of 500\n\n82\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 substantial. The Mahwah Mansion is approximately 50,000 square feet in interior size and has approximately 12 and a half acres of grounds. The cost of the security services for the Mahwah Mansion is approximately \\$14,200 a week. The cost of the real estate taxes for the property, which the Defendants have also been funding, is approximately \\$70,000 per quarter.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 The trustee expects there will be other expenses, as well (indiscernible) and the like. It's important for the value of the Mahwah Mansion to be preserved for the benefit of the estate, hence the trustee's motion requesting authority under the Bankruptcy Code to fund these expenses.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Court has already found in its ruling on the preliminary injunction that it is administer likely than not that the debtor is the beneficial owner of and controls the Mahwah Mansion. The Court also noted in the preliminary injunction that for a period of time, the debtor had made the Mahwah Mansion available to other individuals and entities, such that it was frequented by third parties. This highlights the importance that security be maintained in light of the threat of damage by people who had previously frequented the property.\n\n23 24 25 The preliminary injunction, as the Court is aware, requires that the Defendants employ the security services. Following the debtors' criminal trial, Taurus Fund informed\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 438 of 500\n\n83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the manager of the security services that Taurus Fund would no longer be providing funding. While the trustee believes that Taurus Fund is violating a preliminary injunction, it is important that the value of this property is preserved in light of the trustee's expectation that through the adversary proceeding, the mansion will be confirmed by judgment of the Court to be property of the estate.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 In fact, from the evidence from the debtors' criminal trial, the trustee's case that this is property of the estate is even stronger now than it was when the Court entered the preliminary injunction order and made those findings there.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 One additional thing I neglected to mention, what we know from proceedings in the Mahwah adversary proceeding is that the Mahwah Mansion is presently not insured, which, again, is further reason that measures need to be taken to ensure that the property is secured.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 The trustee's motion requests authority under Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to use property of the estate to pay expenses of the Mahwah Mansion up to a cap of \\$300,000. We're seeking this relief because we don't yet have that judgment saying this is property of the estate. The trustee is hopeful that the \\$300,000 cap will\n\n24 25 provide adequate funding for any expenses over the period of time necessary to obtain judgment as to ownership of the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 439 of 500\n\n84\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 property. To the extent the cap requires adjustment, there's a mechanism built into the proposed order to do that. To be clear and for the purpose of the record, we're filing a 363(b) motion because the property is not, by the Court's ruling yet, property of the estate; however, once that ruling enters, the trustee understands that we would no longer need to be under the relief sought in this order under 363(b), because at that point, the payments to maintain the property would be ordinary course. The motion also provides that the trustee does not obtain judgment in the adversary proceeding to the extent that, or to the effect, rather, that the Mahwah Mansion is property of the estate, that the estate will then have a claim against Taurus Fund in the amount of the expenses advanced to be secured by the value of the Mahwah Mansion. This is because right now, Taurus Fund is obligated under the preliminary injunction to be funding expenses. It's not doing so. And under a hypothetical scenario, just to be clear, we don't think it's going to come to pass, but under a hypothetical scenario where the estate's claims do not prevail, Taurus Fund would have been unjustly enriched by the estate's funding of these expenses. The trustee would also note that the relief he is\n\n24 25 seeking does not reveal the Defendants of their obligations under the preliminary injunction; again, this motion is one\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 440 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 of practicality. Your Honor can enter further orders and we may proceed with further orders in regards to those matters, but from a practical perspective, the trustee has an obligation to preserve the value for the estate and that's what we're doing by this motion.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yesterday, Taurus Fund filed a response to the motion consenting to the relief requested by the trustee, as provided in the proposed order that's at ECF 3392. Since filing the motion, the trustee has consulted with counsel for the United States Trustee, who suggested that terms in the proposed order that rely on incorporated definition be expressly defined in the proposed order and the trustee agrees that makes sense.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So what the trustee would propose to do, to the extent the Court is inclined to grant the motion, is that we submit a revised proposed order that expressly defines the capitalized terms for which definitions are incorporated. That we note that the Taurus Fund filed a response saying that it does not object to the relief sought in the order. And that we say, explicitly, that there was a hearing today. We can submit that order -- the trustee can submit that order, certainly, by tomorrow, if not by later today,\n\n24 25 Defendants and the U.S. Trustee CCed, in the Court would prefer we submit it otherwise.\n\nand can send it to the courtroom deputy with the Mahwah\n\n <sup>85</sup>\n\n 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Court may have. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at this time, thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on this motion? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn, do you agree with what Attorney Linsey said, with regard to the proposed order? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. And the U.S. Trustee has no objection to the motion. THE COURT: Okay. I have looked at the proposed order -- does anybody else wish to be heard? I'm sorry, I don't want to cut anyone off? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. I had looked at the proposed order and I understand that you're going to be making some changes, Attorney Linsey, assuming I'm going to grant the motion. I think the changes that you've just stated are fine. I find that no one has filed any written objection to your motion. The Taurus Fund did file something yesterday, I belief it was yesterday, that says they do not object to the motion, but they object to certain language in what it Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 441 of 500\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 442 of 500\n\n87\n\n1 2 believes is a mischaracterization of the Taurus Fund's behavior set forth in the motion.\n\n| 3  | I think under the very specific circumstances of              |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 4  | this case and the issues related to the Mahwah Mansion that   |\n| 5  | have been brought to the Court's attention, both in the main  |\n| 6  | case and in the adversary proceeding that the trustee has     |\n| 7  | commenced against the Taurus Fund and related Defendants,     |\n| 8  | that the relief sought is reasonable and necessary under the  |\n| 9  | circumstances.<br>We've gone through the issues in the        |\n| 10 | adversary proceeding, including the fact that there is no     |\n| 11 | insurance at the property and that the security firm was      |\n| 12 | retained as part of a preliminary injunction order.<br>I know |\n| 13 | that the trustee is not pressing any issues with the          |\n| 14 | preliminary injunction at this time.                          |\n| 15 | For all those reasons, the amended motion for                 |\n| 16 | order is granted and, Attorney Linsey, you'll have the order  |\n| 17 | in by tomorrow or the next day?<br>I just need to give a date |\n| 18 | to the Clerk's Office so that they will be on the lookout for |\n| 19 | it.                                                           |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:<br>We'll have it in by tomorrow, Your             |\n| 21 | Honor.                                                        |\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n22\n\n23 24 25 And you can just submit it to the courtroom deputy email box for Bridgeport. You do not need to docket it on the case docket.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 443 of 500\n\n| 1  | So the motion is granted and the revised proposed             |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | order will be submitted on or before August 14th.             |\n| 3  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 5  | Now, with regard to the two -- now, Trustee                   |\n| 6  | Despins, I forget now, and I apologize.<br>I think I've been  |\n| 7  | sitting here for a few hours, but you had said something at   |\n| 8  | the beginning that you thought there was something that       |\n| 9  | needed to be on the calendar and now I can't recall what that |\n| 10 | was, because this was the Mahwah Mansion issue.               |\n| 11 | Was there something else?                                     |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, no.<br>There's the status               |\n| 13 | conference on --                                              |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Right, the status conference.<br>Yeah,          |\n| 15 | that's fair.                                                  |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- the scheduling.                            |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>That's the fourth matter on the                 |\n| 18 | calendar.                                                     |\n| 19 | There are two other -- the status conference was              |\n| 20 | granted; it is on the calendar.                               |\n| 21 | But let's just take a moment with regard to the               |\n| 22 | Genever adversary proceeding versus Kwok; that's been         |\n| 23 | continued a few times before, but it was not continued today. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yeah.                                         |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Did you anticipate oh did you plan to           |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go forward with this matter? MR. DESPINS: No, we dropped the ball, Your Honor, on that. We should have extended that, as well. So we'll make sure that that happens. So, that should not go forward. We apologize for that. THE COURT: That's fine. So you're going to be filing a motion to set a new -- to adjourn the pretrial conference to a new date in the future? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So we're just going to note that the conference was held, but that the Plaintiff will be submitting, I suppose, a motion or something -- will be submitting -- what did you file last time, was it an actual motion? I think it might have been, yeah, a motion to -- MR. DESPINS: A consent, yeah. THE COURT: -- adjourn hearing upon consent. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: So I think you'll be submitting another motion and suggest an adjourned pretrial conference date, okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. So the pretrial conference Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 444 of 500\n\n# 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 was held, but it will be adjourned, again, to a date to be determined, okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So the last matter on the calendar is the status conference, so go right -- in the - with regard to the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding. So go right ahead, Trustee Despins. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 445 of 500\n\n8 9 MR. DESPINS: Mr. Bassett will handle that, Your Honor. Thank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\n10\n\n11 12 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, yes, again, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, it's a bit of an odd situation to be in for a status conference. We, as the Court will recall, we outlined this in our request for the status conference, the order saying various litigation, including the Mahwah adversary proceeding provided that upon the conclusion of the criminal trial, the debtor could file a notice indicating his intent to resume the adversary proceeding, following which the parties had seven days to confer about a proposed schedule.\n\n22 23 24 25 We sent our proposed schedule to Attorney Conway, counsel for the Defendants. He confirmed receipt, but did not give us his position on the schedule. We followed up with him prior to the seven-day deadline to request a status\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 446 of 500\n\n1 2 3 conference and still did not hear anything, so we then requested the status conference. We've still not heard from him.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 All we have heard is that he sent a response to the other motion that we just finished discussing, stating that he was occupied today and, therefore, would not be attending the hearing. So we are having a status conference with only one of the parties present.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 From the trustee's perspective, Your Honor, our intent, which we have expressed to the Defendants' counsel is to move forward with summary judgment in the adversary proceeding as expeditiously as possible. We have undertaken some discovery. We have also very intently followed the criminal trial and gathered additional information from that trial that we would intend to use in support of summary judgment. We see no delay in moving ahead in that -- we see no reason to delay moving ahead in that direction and we've received no opposition, no response at all, from counsel to the Defendants.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 So, that's what we intend to do. I think what we had said in the, in what we filed that requested the status conference, Your Honor, that we had anticipated filing our motion by the 19th and then giving the Defendants two weeks to respond and then we'd reply in a week. I think what we may do, and we can submit a proposed scheduling order, but\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 447 of 500\n\n| 1  | out of respect for colleagues on me team that are working on  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | that motion, we may need a couple of extra days, so I think   |\n| 3  | we would just propose a schedule that says we will file the   |\n| 4  | motion and there'll be a 14-day response deadline and then    |\n| 5  | a 7-day reply deadline.                                       |\n| 6  | That's how we intend to proceed --                            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>No, I think were usually give a 21-day          |\n| 8  | response deadline, though, on motions; that's the District    |\n| 9  | Court's Local Rule.                                           |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:<br>That's fine, Your Honor.                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:<br>We had proposed to Defense counsel            |\n| 13 | moving quickly under the circumstances, given the funding and |\n| 14 | other issues, but we're happy to do 21 days.                  |\n| 15 | The only other point I wanted to make, just so the            |\n| 16 | Court is aware, although we did not hear back from counsel    |\n| 17 | regarding our request for, regarding our proposed schedule,   |\n| 18 | we did get notice that they filed a motion to withdraw the    |\n| 19 | reference --                                                  |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah, I saw that.                               |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:<br>-- Friday night.                              |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>And it's been transmitted to the                |\n| 23 | District Court.<br>I think it might have been transmitted     |\n| 24 | today.                                                        |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 448 of 500\n\n| 1  | Okay.<br>I just wanted to make sure the Court was             |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | aware of that.<br>And, obviously, in our view, if there's     |\n| 3  | summary judgment briefing before Your Honor and that leads to |\n| 4  | the decision that would be reviewed by the Appellate Court,   |\n| 5  | in any event, so we'll deal with the motion to withdraw the   |\n| 6  | reference as we need to, but we don't see that as, you know,  |\n| 7  | creating any issue with respect to how we proceed before Your |\n| 8  | Honor.                                                        |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.<br>Mr. Conway may                 |\n| 10 | disagree, but I'm sure we'll do that in his papers or not.    |\n| 11 | So we'll see how things proceed.                              |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, if I may?<br>Luc Despins,         |\n| 13 | Chapter 11 Trustee.                                           |\n| 14 | On the 21 days, can we -- because I have the                  |\n| 15 | feeling that we're not going to hear from Mr. Conway again.   |\n| 16 | I could be wrong, but --                                      |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>You can ask for the time to be                  |\n| 18 | shortened; yes, in your scheduling, you can ask for that.     |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Or that if he intends to file                 |\n| 20 | something, then he should have his 21 days, but if he's not   |\n| 21 | going to do it, I don't want to wait 21 days for nothing.     |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I --                                      |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So I can't promise --                         |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Under the District Court Local Rules            |\n| 25 | it's 21 days so, if you want a shorter time, you'll have to   |\n\n 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ask for it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Bassett, is there anything else, then, we can do this afternoon with regard to this status conference? MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. Thank you very much. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not going to schedule another status conference at this point. You will just take whatever action you think is appropriate, including, as you mentioned, the likelihood of proceeding forward with summary judgment, okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then, with regard to -- we have now addressed everything that is on today's calendar, but as we often do at the end of hearings when there are several matters, I ask the trustee or any parties, are there any other issues that the parties wish to discuss with the Court? MR. DESPINS: The only point, Your Honor -- thank you, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee -- is that we may need, and I don't know that yet, assistance in terms of getting title to Greenwich Land transferred in my name as trustee; to put insurance on, I need to have an insurable interest. We're working on that, the technical aspects of that, but we Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 449 of 500\n\n 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may need, like, a court order that directs, you know, like, the Town (indiscernible) or something like that, but we hope to avoid all of that. And we are working on a stipulation with the Greenwich Land Defendants where, I think everything has been agreed to, where there'll be a transfer of possession on August 20th. So, if anything happens, it will need to be between now and August 20th, but hopefully, we won't. We'll just be submitting to Your Honor a stipulated or a consent order. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else -- MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: -- wish to be heard on any matters this afternoon? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Well, thank you, all. That concludes today's hearings and those were the last matters on today's calendar, so Court is adjourned. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE CLERK: Court is adjourned. Excuse me. (Proceedings concluded at 3:24 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 450 of 500\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 3602<br>Filed 10/01/24<br>Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43<br>Page 451 of |    |  |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|--|\n|    | 500                                                                                     | 96 |  |\n| 1  | CERTIFICATION                                                                           |    |  |\n| 2  | I certify that the foregoing is a correct                                               |    |  |\n| 3  | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the                                   |    |  |\n| 4  | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my                              |    |  |\n| 5  | knowledge and ability.                                                                  |    |  |\n| 6  |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 7  | /s/ William J. Garling<br>August 19, 2024                                               |    |  |\n| 8  | William J. Garling, CET-543                                                             |    |  |\n| 9  | Certified Court Transcriptionist                                                        |    |  |\n| 10 | For Reliable                                                                            |    |  |\n| 11 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 12 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 13 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 14 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 15 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 16 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 17 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 18 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 19 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 20 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 21 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 22 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 23 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 24 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n| 25 |                                                                                         |    |  |\n|    |                                                                                         |    |  |\n|    |                                                                                         |    |  |\n\n## **EXHIBIT 6**\n\n**Superseding Indictment**\n\n- -\n\t-\n\t-\n\n| Bescription                                             | Percentage of Proceeds |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|\n| Acquisition of companies to strengthen and grow<br>GILV | Approximate 70%        |\n| Upgrade of GTV technology and security                  | Approximate 10%        |\n| Marketing                                               | Approximate 8%         |\n| Working capital                                         | Approximate 7%         |\n| Other                                                   | Approximate 5%         |\n| Total                                                   | 100%                   |\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-","body_zh":"美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分部\n\nx\n\n第11章\n：\n：\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nx\n：\n：\n对抗程序案号：23-05017\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人请求作出命令，授权受托人出售马瓦宅邸及其内部物品，但须以作出进一步命令为条件，包括关于聘用经纪人、该等出售的条款以及各方对出售所得款项的权利\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯潘斯）以其获任命担任 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）受托人（“受托人”）的身份，谨此恭敬地\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭浩云）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人及 Genever 债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（“民事规则”）第65条（经《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第7065条适用），以及本院在上述标题所列对抗程序（“对抗程序”）中作出的《部分准许初步禁令动议的决定备忘录及命令》[Adv. ECF No. 47]2（经修改后称为“初步禁令命令”）3，提交本动议（“本动议”），请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上如随附本文件作为附件1的拟议命令（“拟议命令”），授权受托人出售：(a) 位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 的不动产（“马瓦宅邸”）；以及 (b) 位于、附着于或在马瓦宅邸内、上或处的所有动产和/或固定装置（“内部物品”），但须以本院进一步作出命令为条件：(i) 批准受托人聘用房地产经纪人和/或拍卖师以推销和/或促成该等出售；(ii) 授权向一名或多名潜在买方进行该等出售的条款和条件；以及 (iii) 确定各方对该等出售净收益的权利。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 被告持续违反其在初步禁令命令及本院其他命令下的明确义务，使受托人陷入无法维持的境地：即使马瓦宅邸尚未被确定为债务人第11章遗产（“遗产”）的财产，受托人仍必须承担马瓦宅邸巨额持有成本——每季度约 $300,000。此举严重损害受托人，因为若本院可能认定马瓦宅邸和内部物品属于遗产财产，受托人将无法向\n\n2 “Adv. ECF No.”系指在对抗程序中提交的文件。\n\n3 本文未明确定义的首字母大写术语，采用初步禁令命令中规定的定义。\n\n被告追偿这些持有成本，因为被告已向本院表示其无能力支付该等成本。4 因此，维护马瓦宅邸及内部物品的巨额成本将减少遗产最终可实现的净价值。减少该负担的唯一方法是现在授权受托人出售马瓦宅邸和内部物品，从而缩短必须承担该等成本的期间。\n\n2. 如作出一项命令，授权受托人现在出售这些资产，但须以本院就该等出售的条款及各方各自对出售净收益的权利作出的进一步命令为条件，被告不会因此遭受任何损害。被告从未控制或占用马瓦宅邸，且目前对该宅邸不享有占有权益；目前亦无人占用该宅邸。事实上，2024年7月，在债务人在刑事案件中被定罪后，被告显然认识到马瓦宅邸和内部物品将成为遗产财产（如受托人在本对抗程序中胜诉），或成为刑事案件中政府没收程序的标的，遂停止支付维护费用。基于这些理由，不同于涉及不动产的其他情形，出售马瓦宅邸不会对其声称的所有人造成不可弥补的损害。此外，如被告胜诉，出售马瓦宅邸及其内动产所得的净现金收益将可供被告取得，该等收益是资产本身的完全可接受替代物。\n\n4 受托人还在本对抗程序中请求作出命令，认定 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）为债务人的另一个自我，以致其所有财产均为遗产财产。如本院准许该项救济，受托人将因另一理由无法向 Taurus Fund 追偿持有成本：任何该等成本的请求权必然须针对遗产因另一个自我裁定而已经拥有的资产主张。受托人能够从被告处获得持有成本偿还的唯一情形，是本院不太可能认定马瓦宅邸并非遗产财产；在此情况下，受托人将享有由马瓦宅邸价值担保的偿还请求权。\n\n3. 本动议所请求的救济亦有理由作为对被告明显且持续违反本院命令的制裁。5 除其他事项外，初步禁令命令要求被告：(a) 不得以任何方式减损 Taurus Fund 的任何资产或财产，包括马瓦宅邸以及位于、附着于或在马瓦宅邸内、上或处的任何动产和/或固定装置；(b) 提交下列财产的保险证明：(i) Taurus Fund 的所有资产和财产，包括马瓦宅邸；及 (ii) 位于、附着于或在马瓦宅邸内、上或处的所有动产和/或固定装置；以及 (c) 聘用安保服务。被告违反了所有这些义务，未取得保险、未为安保服务提供资金，且未支付与马瓦宅邸有关的房地产税或其他费用。如前所述，被告的行为迫使受托人承担支付安保服务及其他维护费用的义务，包括公用事业费和房地产税，以维持这些资产的价值。此外，如下文进一步详述，被告还明显违反了本院要求其：(a) 说明其为何不再遵守初步禁令命令；以及 (b) 确定一名有权为被告作出决定的个人的命令。\n\n4. 在此情况下，受托人主张，现在授权其着手出售马瓦宅邸和内部物品，是对被告持续不遵守本院命令的适当制裁形式。仅对被告处以金钱制裁不会构成有效救济，因为被告的立场是其首先就没有资源承担持有成本（鉴于被告在债务人于其刑事审判中被定罪前完全有能力支付该等成本，此立场令人存疑）。不过，如被告为\n\n5 受托人此前已明确表示，且本院已确认，其保留就被告持续违反初步禁令命令及其他命令向被告寻求救济的权利。\n\n马瓦宅邸及内部物品提供持有成本资金，受托人将准备停止行动，不再寻求本动议所请求的救济。\n\n5. 为明确起见，受托人并非寻求一张可出售马瓦宅邸和内部物品的空白支票。相反，受托人承认，其将需要再次向本院申请，以聘用经纪人和/或拍卖师推销和/或促成该等资产的出售，并须就向潜在买方进行一项或多项该等出售的条款取得批准。在作出确定各方对该等出售净收益权利的命令之前，受托人将以托管方式持有该等净收益，并完整保留各方对其享有的全部权利。6\n\n6. 最后，受托人承认，理论上，另一种救济可以是授权其推销马瓦宅邸和内部物品，将其出售该等资产的授权问题留待日后解决。然而，该替代性救济在本案中不会有效，因为在未获授出售这些资产的授权的情况下，任何严肃的经纪人或潜在买方都不会花费时间和资源与受托人就该等重大资产的一项或多项出售进行接洽。\n\n7. 总而言之，鉴于被告明显且持续违反初步禁令命令及其他命令，减轻被告不遵守命令所致损害的唯一途径，是尽量缩短遗产被迫支付马瓦宅邸和内部物品持有成本的期间，并授权受托人现在启动出售程序。因此，受托人谨主张应准许本动议。\n\n6 为免生疑问，依照融资命令（定义见下文），遗产为马瓦费用垫付款项而在马瓦宅邸上享有的担保权益，应继续存在于出售马瓦宅邸所得的净收益中。\n\n背景\n\n一、对抗程序\n\n8. 马瓦宅邸是美国最大的宅邸之一，系一栋拥有21间卧室、50,000平方英尺、城堡式风格的私人住宅，坐落于占地12.5英亩的 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430。债务人于2021年12月通过 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）以 $26.5 million 购买马瓦宅邸，供其本人和家人使用，并利用 Taurus Fund 及其关联人士隐瞒其对该财产的所有权。\n\n9. 2024年7月11日，受托人通过对 Taurus Fund、Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）及以 Taurus Fund 受托人身份行事的 Taurus Management LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）（与 Taurus Fund 合称“被告”）提交其起诉书 [Adv. ECF No. 1]（“起诉书”），启动本对抗程序，请求：(a) 作出确认判决，确认：(i) 债务人为马瓦宅邸的衡平所有人；(ii) 债务人为 Taurus Fund 的衡平所有人；以及 (iii) Taurus Fund 为债务人的另一个自我；以及 (b) 基于上述各项理由，根据 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, and 544 作出命令，要求向遗产返还并向受托人交付：(i) 马瓦宅邸及马瓦宅邸内的所有固定装置和动产；(ii) Taurus Fund 的任何成员权益或其他所有权权益；以及 (iii) Taurus Fund 的全部资产。\n\n10. 受托人在提交起诉书的同时，提交了其单方申请临时限制令和初步禁令的动议 [Adv. ECF No. 4]（“初步禁令动议”）。\n\n11. 2023年8月1日，本院作出《部分准许单方申请临时限制令动议的命令》[Adv. ECF No. 17]，并据此于2023年8月14日就初步禁令动议举行听证，包括听取受托人及公司被告的证据和辩论。\n\n12. 2023年8月24日，本院作出其初步禁令命令。初步禁令命令认定，其中包括，以下事项更有可能为真：(a) 债务人系Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）的实益所有人并对其拥有控制权（初步禁令命令第16页）；及(b) Taurus Fund（金牛基金）是债务人的另一个自我实体，和/或由债务人实益拥有并控制（同上，第20页）。初步禁令命令进一步认定，“Mahwah Mansion正被提供给作为Taurus Fund以外实体成员的众多个人使用”（同上，第10页），并认定：\n\n“如不作出初步禁令，Taurus Fund的资产很可能会被被告和/或NFSC、Whistleblower Movement、Himalaya‘农场’和/或与个人债务人利益有关联的其他方损害和/或耗散。鉴于证据10所确立的事实，即Mahwah Mansion已列入National Register of Historic Places，且必须依照适用标准进行维护和修缮，对Mahwah Mansion造成的损害尤为令人担忧。”\n\n（同上，第11页。）\n\n13. 为保存Mahwah Mansion的价值，初步禁令命令规定，其中包括，应限制进入Mahwah Mansion，且被告“应为Mahwah Mansion雇用[保安服务]”，该保安服务必须：\n\n“(i) 记录所有进入和离开Mahwah Mansion场地、内部及全部财产的人员；(ii) 监督Mahwah Mansion场地、内部及全部财产的访客；(iii) 保障并保护Taurus Fund的任何及所有资产或财产，包括Mahwah Mansion，和/或位于Mahwah Mansion内部、之上或处所内的任何及所有动产和/或附着物；以及(iv) 将Taurus Fund的任何资产或财产（包括Mahwah Mansion）和/或位于Mahwah Mansion内部、之上或处所内的任何动产和/或附着物遭受的任何损害或耗散通知被告和受托人。”\n\n（同上，第24页。）\n\n14. 初步禁令命令要求，被告最迟于2023年8月28日下午4:00提交以下财产的保险证明：(i) Taurus Fund的全部资产和财产，包括Mahwah Mansion；及(ii) 位于Mahwah Mansion内部、之上或处所内的全部动产和/或附着物（“保险证明”）。（同上，第47页。）\n\n15. 被告未在本院规定的期限内提交保险证明，此后亦未提交任何保险证明。受托人了解到，Mahwah Mansion及其内部物品仍未投保，因此，保安服务对于保存该财产的价值尤为关键。\n\n16. 2023年8月31日，鉴于被告未为该财产投保，本院作出《准许修改初步禁令的紧急动议命令》[对立程序ECF No. 58]（“初步禁令修改命令”），将进入Mahwah Mansion的权限仅限于：\n\n“(a) 保安服务；(b) 受托人及其代表和/或专业人员；(c) United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）及其雇员和代表；(d) FBI（联邦调查局）及其雇员和代表；(e) 其他联邦、新泽西州或Mahwah市执法机构及其雇员和代表；(f) 经受托人以书面形式明确授权的任何其他人士（可包括电子邮件）；以及(g) 经United States District Court for the Southern District for New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）或本院明确授权的任何其他人士。”\n\n（初步禁令修改命令第2至3页。）\n\n17. 初步禁令命令（经初步禁令修改命令修订）仍完全有效。\n\nII. 与政府的和解协议及债务人的刑事审判\n\n18. United States of America（美国；下称“政府”）在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）对债务人提起的刑事案件[Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（“刑事案件”）中，主张了没收请求，包括就Mahwah Mansion提出的没收请求。为避免因有关Mahwah Mansion的没收程序结果而使破产财产就为推进该对立程序及保存Mahwah Mansion价值所投入的资源面临风险，受托人与政府订立了《第11章受托人与美利坚合众国之间的协议》（“和解协议”），本院已根据《破产程序规则》第9019条在第11章案件中授权并批准该协议。参见《根据〈破产程序规则〉第9019条批准第11章受托人关于与美利坚合众国和解之动议的命令》[Case No. 22-50073中的ECF No. 2849]（“和解命令”）。7\n\n19. 和解协议规定，其中包括，破产财产为“确保[Mahwah Mansion]得到安全保管和保全所产生的费用（包括在该处所内或周边的保安服务）”，应从Mahwah Mansion最终出售的收益中支付。（《和解协议》第¶¶ 2、3项。）和解协议还规定，政府“不得反对……受托人为取得控制权和/或出售[Mahwah Mansion]所作的任何努力。”（《和解协议》第¶ 1项。）\n\n20. 2024年7月16日，在债务人刑事案件的审判（“刑事审判”）后，债务人被裁定九项重罪罪名成立，即敲诈勒索共谋、电信欺诈和银行欺诈共谋、洗钱共谋、证券欺诈共谋、与Farm Loan Program有关的电信欺诈、与Farm Loan Program有关的证券欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的电信欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的证券欺诈，以及与Himalaya Exchange有关的电信欺诈。\n\n21. 在刑事审判期间，政府提出了大量证据，证明债务人通过其代理人和空壳公司网络，为其本人及其家人出资购买和翻修Mahwah Mansion，包括：(a) 通过其代理人促使转移资金以购买该庄园；(b) 为该庄园选择家具和艺术品；以及(c) 指示对其平面布局进行数百万美元的翻修。此外，被告Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）作证称，其中包括，他在并不了解Taurus Fund为何物或其职位职责为何的情况下，接受了担任Taurus Fund管理成员的角色，并认为“他们只是想让[巴尼特先生]管理该财产并安装保安服务。”（参见《刑事审判庭审记录》，2024年7月8日，第5514:5-16页，其真实、准确副本作为证据2随附于本文件。）巴尼特先生进一步作证称，在Aaron Mitchell（债务人的个人律师）要求其签署一些文件后，他成为Taurus Fund的管理成员。巴尼特先生不理解自己所签署的文件，而当他后来意识到“[他们]把我列为[Taurus Fund]的所有人时，[这]让我有点吃惊……”（参见证据2，第5515:5-12页、第5516:4-15页。）8\n\nIII. 被告拒绝为保安服务提供资金，违反初步禁令命令\n\n22. 2024年7月28日，Taurus Fund的一名代表通过电子邮件联系保安服务的经理，错误地表示，由于债务人刑事审判后的裁决，“Mahwah Mansion属于政府”，并进一步表示，“自2024年7月29日起，保安服务费用无法再予支付。”9 此举违反了初步禁令命令，该命令要求被告雇用保安服务。尽管有关Mahwah Mansion属于政府的陈述不正确，该电子邮件明确传达了来自Kwok（郭文贵）企业集团的信息：为Mahwah Mansion的费用提供资金没有意义，因为债务人最终不会入住该庄园。\n\n23. 如在2024年7月30日举行的对立程序状态会议上所讨论，受托人已保证支付Mahwah Mansion的保安服务及其他必要费用，以在受托人就被告违反初步禁令命令一事向本院处理期间保存该资产的价值。事实上，本院指出，“如果不作出这些付款，那么他们将违反现有命令，并且可能受到制裁，包括监禁。”（参见《庭审记录》，2024年7月30日，第18:18-30页，其真实、准确副本作为证据4随附于本文件；另参见同上，第19:9-12页。）此外，本院警告被告，本院“可以作出补充本对立程序中已经存在的命令的命令。”（同上，第30:14-15页。）\n\n24. 在该状态会议后，被告的律师未就Taurus Fund代表的电子邮件作出解释，也无法保证被告将来会为Mahwah Mansion的保安服务或其他费用（包括房地产税）提供资金，本院命令：\n\n“被告应于2024年8月1日下午5:00时或之前，就被告是否将继续遵守在本对立程序中作出的现有命令，包括但不限于支付被告应付给Hawk Eye Security（鹰眼安保公司）的全部费用以及所有到期应付的房地产税（包括于2024年8月1日到期应付的款项），向本对立程序的案卷提交一份陈述。该陈述应包括有权决定被告是否将继续遵守在本对立程序中作出的现有命令并支付被告全部费用的个人的姓名、住宅地址、营业地址及职务。”\n\n案卷条目命令[对立程序ECF No. 108]（2024年7月30日）（“披露命令”）。\n\n25. 2024年8月1日，被告的律师提交了《第四次修订的关于初步禁令的答复》[对立程序ECF No. 109]（“对披露命令的答复”），其中称，被告Taurus Fund将不支付Mahwah Mansion的保安服务或房地产税，因为Taurus Fund据称没有资金作出该等支付。（《对披露命令的答复》第3页。）在该答复中，律师还表示，与Taurus Fund有关联的任何个人均无权就遵守法院命令作出决定。（同上（“不存在与被告有关联且有权决定被告‘是否’将继续遵守在本对立程序中作出的现有命令并支付被告全部费用的个人”）。）\n\n26. 目前，保安服务的费用约为每周$14,200，Mahwah Mansion的房地产税费用约为每季度$70,000。此外，包括电力、燃气和互联网在内的公用事业费用约为每月$6,300。总计，仅这些费用10每季度即超过$280,000。\n\nIV. 受托人请求批准破产财产提供资金以维护Mahwah Mansion的紧急动议\n\n27. 2024年8月5日，受托人提交了其《(I) 就被告方关于初步禁令的第四次修正答复所作的答复，以及 (II) 根据《破产法典》第363(b)条和第105(a)条提出的紧急动议，请求批准为遗产提供资金以维持Mahwah Mansion（Mahwah庄园）》[对抗程序 ECF No. 113]（以下简称“初始资金动议”）。初始资金动议说明了为何对披露命令的答复不符合披露命令，以及该答复中的辩解为何不可信；初始资金动议还请求法院批准受托人在其向法院处理被告方行为期间为Mahwah庄园的费用提供资金。\n\n28. 2024年8月7日，受托人提交了一项修正动议[案件 No. 22-50073 中的 ECF No. 3381]（以下简称“修正资金动议”），以补充和修正初始资金动议。如修正资金动议所详述，受托人请求法院授权受托人为Mahwah庄园合理且必要的费用提供资金，包括但不限于支付安保服务、公用事业费用以及就该房产应缴纳的任何房地产税（以下简称“Mahwah费用”），最高不超过\n\n10 所列费用不包括为维持Mahwah庄园可能需要产生的其他费用，包括游泳池维护和景观维护，或使其达到为适合出售所必需状态的费用。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 已提交 10/01/24 已录入 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 13 页，共 500 页\n\n三十万美元（\\$300,000.00）（以下简称“费用上限”），直至法院另有命令。修正资金动议还请求，如对抗程序的结果并未导致作出确认Mahwah庄园属于遗产财产的判决书（因该庄园由债务人实益拥有和/或因Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）是债务人的另我），则受托人（为遗产利益）应就遗产垫付的Mahwah费用，对Taurus基金享有以Mahwah庄园价值担保的债权。\n\n29. Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）就修正资金动议提交了答复[案件 No. 22-50073 中的 ECF No. 3392]，但未对修正资金动议所请求的救济提出异议。\n\n30. 正如受托人的律师在2024年8月13日关于修正资金动议的听证会上明确表示，受托人保留就被告方违反PI命令一事寻求进一步救济的权利。（见2024年8月13日听证笔录，第84:23-85:2页，其真实、准确副本作为附件5附于本文件。）法院确认，“受托人目前并未主张任何有关初步禁令的问题。”同上，第87:13-14页。\n\n31. 2024年8月15日，法院作出命令[案件 No. 22-50073 中的 ECF No. 3422]（以下简称“资金命令”），准予修正资金动议所请求的救济。其中，资金命令确认，其中任何内容均“不应解除对抗程序中的被告方根据[PI命令]或[披露命令]所承担的义务，该等命令仍完全有效。”资金命令第5段。\n\nV. 受托人的简易判决动议\n\n32. 2024年9月11日，受托人在对抗程序中提交了其简易判决动议[对抗程序 ECF No. 124]（以下简称“简易判决动议”），以及其相关法律备忘录（以下简称“法律备忘录”）、《Douglass E. Barron（道格拉斯·E·巴伦）为支持Chapter 11受托人代表Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产提出的简易判决动议之法律备忘录所作声明》以及当地规则56(a)(1)无争议重要事实陈述，所有该等文件均通过援引纳入本文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 已提交 10/01/24 已录入 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 14 页，共 500 页\n\n33. 如法律备忘录及相关提交文件所详述，包括债务人刑事审判中提交的证据在内的证据表明，对于受托人在对抗程序中提出的请求，不存在任何重要事实争议；受托人有权获得简易判决，认定债务人是Mahwah庄园的衡平所有人，债务人是Taurus基金的衡平所有人，且Taurus基金是债务人的另我。受托人的提交文件详述了自作出PI命令以来发现的证据，该等证据确认并加强了受托人针对被告方的请求。\n\n34. 例如，如法律备忘录及相关提交文件所详述：\n\n与其所有其他有价值的资产一样，债务人将Mahwah庄园隐藏于一家名义上由受信任亲信管理的空壳公司名下——在本案中，该亲信是其保镖Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）（Taurus基金的名义管理人及本对抗程序的共同被告）。\n\n正如政府在刑事审判期间向陪审团出示的一段语音留言所揭示，2021年11月下旬，债务人指示其个人律师Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）就购买Mahwah庄园进行谈判。其后，债务人通过其代理人，促使据称属于G Club Operations LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）（债务人的另我之一及其犯罪企业的关键工具之一）的资金，被转移至其控制的另一实体Hamilton Opportunity Fund（Hamilton机会基金），以完成对该庄园的购买。\n\n取得Mahwah庄园后，债务人挑选了家具和艺术品，并指示对其平面布局进行数百万美元的翻修，包括为其本人、其妻子、其女儿及其儿子各建造一座侧翼建筑的计划。\n\n在被捕前，债务人将Mahwah庄园作为其住所之一；其散落在该房产各处的个人物品证明了这一点，其中包括其主卧衣帽间内大量每套价值\\$10,000的Brioni（布里奥尼）西装，内袋标有“Brioni for Miles Kwok”。\n\n在刑事审判的询问过程中，债务人自己的律师将债务人称为该庄园的买方。\n\n没有任何证据显示Taurus基金（或任何其他人）是该庄园真正的实益所有人。巴内特是唯一理论上可以提供支持Taurus基金的证言之人，但他在刑事审判中未提供任何证言以反驳债务人对Mahwah庄园的所有权。实际上，他作证称，其对Taurus基金的资产和业务运营完全不了解。\n\n当被问及其如何成为Taurus基金的管理人时，巴内特承认，他只是签署了亚伦·米切尔让其签署的文件；当其后来得知自己在Taurus基金中据称显赫的角色时，感到惊讶。\n\n与债务人周围的许多其他人一样——例如其妻子、儿子、女儿及女儿的男友等——巴内特只是债务人的傀儡，除名义持有债务人的资产外不承担任何其他作用。11\n\n35. 被告方就简易判决动议作出答复的期限已定为2024年10月16日。（见 ECF No. 133。）然而，等到该事项的结果出来后再着手推销Mahwah庄园及其室内物品以供出售，既不可行，也不可取。\n\n所请求的救济\n\n36. 受托人通过本动议，谨请求作出拟议命令，授权受托人为遗产利益出售Mahwah庄园及其室内物品，但须受本院进一步命令的约束，该等命令包括：(i) 批准受托人聘用房地产经纪人和/或拍卖师，以推销和/或促成该等出售；(ii) 授权向一名或多名潜在买方出售的条款和\n\n11 同样，除巴内特外，任何人均无法可信地提供支持Taurus基金立场的证言。如上所述，Taurus基金的律师告知法院，不存在任何与Taurus基金有关联、能够就遵守法院命令作出决定的个人。鉴于Taurus基金的真正所有人及决策者——债务人——身陷囹圄，且很可能将长期如此，这并不令人意外。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 已提交 10/01/24 已录入 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 16 页，共 500 页\n\n条件；以及(iii) 确定各方对该等出售净收益的权利。12\n\n37. 为免生疑问，在作出任何有关各方对该等出售净收益享有权利的命令之前，该等收益应由受托人以托管方式持有，且各方对该等收益的所有权利应得到完全保留。13\n\n38. 鉴于被告方持续不遵守法院命令，本动议请求根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65条（经《联邦破产程序规则》第7065条适用），扩大PI命令所准予的禁令救济。\n\n管辖权、审判地及法定依据\n\n39. 本院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334以及United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦地区法院）的移交常设命令，对本事项具有管辖权。14 本案属于28 U.S.C. § 157(b)含义内的核心程序。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本地区为适当审判地。\n\n40. 本文所请求救济的法定依据是《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65条，该条经《联邦破产程序规则》第7065条适用。\n\n论证\n\n41. 现在应授权受托人出售Mahwah庄园及其室内物品。尽管受托人承认，在作出有利于受托人的简易判决之前，该等救济或许并不寻常，但受托人谨陈，在本案的特殊情形下，该等救济适当。\n\n42. 首先，受托人陈述，本动议所请求的救济应被视为对法院此前在PI命令中准予的初步禁令救济的补充和执行。15 鉴于被告方故意且持续不遵守PI命令和披露命令的明确要求，以及缺乏任何其他有效的救济和/或制裁措施以强制遵守本院命令，此类补充和执行在本案中适当。\n\nI. 动议所请求的救济是对PI命令的适当扩大\n\n43. 为获得初步禁令救济，原告必须证明：(i) 其很可能在实体问题上胜诉；(ii) 如无初步救济，其很可能遭受不可弥补的损害；(iii) 衡平利益的权衡对其有利；以及(iv) 禁令符合公共利益。Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008)；另见 In re Motors Liquidation Co., 513 B.R. 467, 479 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)。如下文所述，动议所请求的救济满足上述每一项要求。\n\nA. 受托人很可能在实体问题上胜诉\n\n44. 寻求禁令救济的一方仅需证明，其至少一项请求很可能在实体问题上胜诉。In re Homaidan, 640 B.R. 810 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2022)（援引 3M Co. v. CovCare, Inc., 2021 WL 7162292, at \\*2 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 7, 2021)）。原告无需证明胜诉具有绝对确定性；其仅需作出表明该等\n\n15 如上所述，法院在 2024 年 7 月 30 日的状态会议上告诫被告，其有权作出“对本对抗程序中已经存在的命令具有补充作用的命令”。（July 30, 2024 H'g Tr. at 30:14-15.）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 18 页，共 500 页\n\n其胜诉的可能性超过百分之五十。同上（引用 Home It, Inc. v. Wen, 2020 WL 353098, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)）。\n\n45. 在本案中，法院已基于初步禁令命令（PI Order）中阐明的理由认定，受托人很可能会就其针对被告提出的请求在实体上胜诉。（PI Order at 22.）自该命令作出以来，支持受托人请求的证据（包括在债务人的刑事审判中提交的证据）已大幅增加，毫无疑问地证明 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）及其中物品（Contents）属于破产财产（Estate）。\n\nB. 债务人的破产财产可能遭受不可弥补的损害\n\n46. 除非法院授权受托人尽快启动出售马瓦豪宅及其中物品的程序，否则破产财产很可能遭受不可弥补的损害。马瓦豪宅的持有成本极为高昂。鉴于被告未能履行其在初步禁令命令下的义务，破产财产每季度约支出 $300,000 用于维持马瓦豪宅及其中物品——且这是以不存在与维持这些资产有关的其他不可预见费用为前提的（而如法院十分清楚，这些资产仍未投保）。更糟的是，目前受托人正在就尚未被确定为破产财产的资产承担这些成本——尽管如前所述，受托人主张该等资产极有可能被认定为破产财产。然而，在此期间，受托人正在耗用数额巨大的破产财产资源。只有现在授权受托人启动出售程序，受托人才能缩短发生此类成本的期间。\n\n47. 此外，倘若法院在不大可能的情况下认定马瓦豪宅不属于破产财产，受托人能够向 Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）请求偿还该等持有成本（该偿还请求以马瓦豪宅的价值为担保）；但在受托人在本对抗程序中胜诉这一可能性大得多的情况下，他将无法追回这些成本。该等成本只会减少破产财产因成功出售该等资产而实现的净收益。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 19 页，共 500 页\n\nC. 衡平因素有利于受托人\n\n48. 衡平因素强烈支持准许所请求的救济。如上所示，时间的流逝将对破产财产造成不可弥补的损害。另一方面，允许受托人出售马瓦豪宅及其中物品，并由本法院进一步命令确定该等出售的条款以及各方对该等出售净收益各自的权利，不会对被告造成任何损害。如果被告胜诉，出售马瓦豪宅及其内动产所得的净现金收益将可供其取得，而该等收益完全可以替代资产本身。如前所述，各方对该等净现金收益的权利将得到充分保全。\n\n49. 值得注意的是，被告从未控制或占用马瓦豪宅，目前对该豪宅亦不享有任何占有权益，且目前亦无任何其他人占用该豪宅。事实上，2024 年 7 月，在被告显然认识到——债务人在刑事案件中被定罪后——马瓦豪宅及其中物品将成为破产财产（如受托人在本对抗程序中胜诉），或将受制于政府在刑事案件中的没收程序后，被告停止支付维持费用。因此，与其他涉及不动产的情形不同，出售马瓦豪宅不会对其所谓所有人造成不可弥补的损害。\n\nD. 公共利益有利于禁令\n\n50. 最后，公共利益支持按请求扩大禁令，因为此举将有助于最大化出售极有可能被认定为破产财产的资产所实现的净收益，从而最大化债务人债权人的受偿额。该目标只有通过尽量缩短破产财产被迫承担与这些资产相关的巨额持有成本的期间才能实现，而这又要求受托人尽快启动出售程序。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 20 页，共 500 页\n\nII. 作为违反法院命令的制裁，所请求的救济是适当的\n\n51. 本动议所请求的救济亦可作为对被告明显且持续违反初步禁令命令及披露命令（Disclosure Order）的适当制裁而得到支持。如前所述，受托人此前保留了就被告违反该等命令寻求制裁的权利，法院亦确认其有权就此类违反施加制裁。\n\nA. 被告违反初步禁令命令及披露命令\n\n52. 本法院拥有明确的权力强制遵守其命令。参见 U.S. Lines, Inc. v. GAC Marine Fuels, Ltd. (In re McLean Indus.), 68 B.R. 690, 695 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986)（“任何法院审理并解决法律争议的职责，均附带执行该命令的权力。”）；Milner v. Duncklee, 460 F. Supp. 2d 360, 375 (D. Conn. 2006)（“在适当情形下，法院有权执行其自身的命令……。”）。\n\n53. 除其他事项外，初步禁令命令要求被告：\n— 不得以任何方式损害 Taurus基金的任何资产或财产，包括马瓦豪宅，以及位于马瓦豪宅内、上或处的任何动产和/或附着物（PI Order at 22-23）；\n— 提交以下财产的保险证明：(i) Taurus基金的所有资产和财产，包括马瓦豪宅；以及 (ii) 位于马瓦豪宅内、上或处的所有动产和/或附着物（id. at 23）；以及\n— 聘用安保服务（Security Services）（id. at 24）。\n\n54. 目前，被告明显违反初步禁令命令，未能继续支付马瓦豪宅的持有成本——尤其是安保服务费用和不动产税——从而迫使受托人每季度支付约 $300,000，以维持一项法院尚未（尚未）认定为破产财产的资产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 21 页，共 500 页\n\n55. 此外，被告亦违反披露命令。被告对该命令的答复含糊其辞、不完整且不合规。值得注意的是，该答复未能说明被告为何不再遵守初步禁令命令，也未指明任何有权为被告作出决定的个人。\n\nB. 施加制裁是适当的\n\n56. 破产法院根据《破产法》第 105(a) 条，有能力“作出为执行[《破产法》]规定所必需或适当的任何命令、程序或判决书。”11 U.S.C. § 105(a)。根据第 105(a) 条，法院有权认定一方藐视法庭，而该权力“本身包括对一方施加制裁的能力”。In re Dickerson, No. 08-33071, 2009 WL 4666457, at *9 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8 2009)（省略内部引文）（引用 Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek), 544 F.3d 34, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2008)）；另见 In re Chauteaugay Corp., 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990); In re Ditech Holding Corp., No. 19-10412 (JLG); 2021 WL 3716398, at *7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021); In re Bambi, 492 B.R. 183, 191 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)。此外，《破产规则》第 9020 条明确设想，破产法院可在适当情形下作出藐视法庭命令。\n\n57. “如（1）被藐视者未遵守的命令清晰且明确无歧义，（2）不遵守的证据清晰且令人信服，以及（3）被藐视者未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守，则一方可因未遵守法院命令而被认定为民事藐视法庭。无需证明该违反系故意。”Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Medical Sys. Info. Technologies, Inc., 369\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 22 页，共 500 页\n\nF.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004)（省略内部引号及引文）。民事藐视法庭制裁“既可为强制未来遵守为另一方利益而作出的法院命令，也可为‘赔偿此前因不遵守所造成的任何损害’而施加。”In re 1990's Caterers Ltd. d/b/a Vina de Villa Caterers, 531 B.R. 309, 319 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015)（引用 In re Chief Executive Officers Clubs, Inc., 359 B.R. 527, 534 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)）。破产法院可以针对民事藐视法庭施加的制裁“多种多样”。In re Vaso Active Pharms., Inc., 514 B.R. 416, 423 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014)（引文省略）。\n\n58. 在本案中，初步禁令命令及披露命令的条款清晰且明确无歧义。被告违反这些命令亦不存在任何重大争议。被告也未以任何合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守。尽管被告主张其不具备遵守初步禁令命令的资源，见 Response to Disclosure Order at 3，但对于为何资源据称仅在债务人于刑事案件中被定罪后才枯竭，未作出任何解释——相反，被告将责任归咎于政府扣押资产。Response to Disclosure Order at 2（主张 Taurus基金的两家关联方，即 Hamilton Taurus Fund SP（Hamilton Taurus基金SP）和 G Club International Ltd. BVI（英属维尔京群岛G Club International有限公司，简称“G-Club International”），其资产已被政府冻结）。但如政府针对债务人的替代起诉书所明确表明，政府对现金的扣押大多发生于 2022 年 9 月和 10 月，最迟发生于 2023 年 3 月——远早于 2023 年 8 月作出的初步禁令命令，以及此后一年中对安保服务及其他费用的支付。16 因此，显而易见，\n\n16 替代起诉书 [S.D.N.Y. Case No. 23-cr-118 ECF No. 307] 的真实准确副本作为附件 6 随附于此。政府对 G-Club International 现金账户的扣押载于第 42 页，对“Hamilton”实体各个账户的扣押载于第 41 至 44 页。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 23 页，共 500 页\n\n政府的扣押并非被告依初步禁令命令要求终止为安保服务提供资金的真正原因。终止的原因是，债务人在其刑事案件作出有罪裁决后将不再占用马瓦豪宅。\n\n59. 此外，对披露命令的答复未披露有权决定 Taurus基金支付或不支付何种款项（或以其他方式就该实体行使管理权）的个人负责人身份。该答复反而含糊地声称，“不存在任何与被告有关联的个人，有权决定‘是否’被告将继续遵守本对抗程序中作出的现有命令，并支付被告的全部费用。”（Response to Disclosure Order at 3.）\n\n60. 最后，受托人主张，在此情形下，所请求的制裁形式（即授权受托人出售 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）及其内物品）是适当的。诸如施加金钱制裁——无论金额为持有成本还是更高数额——的替代方式，在此情形下将毫无意义，因为被告主张其首先并无资金支付任何此类款项。*如果被告有能力支付持有成本并同意如此支付，受托人将不会在本动议中寻求该项救济。*\n\n61. 减轻被告不遵守 PI Order（初步禁令命令）及 Disclosure Order（披露命令）所造成损害（即迫使破产财产支付 Mahwah Mansion 及其内物品的持有成本）的唯一途径，是通过授权受托人现在启动出售程序，尽量缩短破产财产被迫支付该等成本的期间。\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 24 页，共 500 页\n\n62. 为明确起见，理论上，受托人仅寻求获授权推介出售 Mahwah Mansion 及其内物品，并将其出售该等资产的权限问题留待日后处理，亦可接受。然而，该等较为有限的救济在本案中将无效，因为如未获授出售该等资产的权限，任何经纪人或潜在买方均不会投入时间和资源与受托人就该等出售进行接洽。\n\n63. 最后，如前所述，受托人并非寻求概括性授权以出售 Mahwah Mansion 及其内物品。任何该等出售仍须遵守法院进一步作出的命令：(a) 授权聘请房地产经纪人和/或拍卖师，以推介和/或促成 Mahwah Mansion 及其内物品的出售；(b) 授权向一名或多名潜在买方出售的条款和条件；以及 (c) 确定各方对该等出售净收益的权利。此外，受托人目前并不寻求获授权聘请房地产经纪人和/或拍卖师，以推介和/或促成任何该等出售。\n\n64. 基于上述所有理由，法院应准许本动议所请求的救济，作为对被告不遵守 PI Order 及 Disclosure Order 的制裁。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n65. 受托人此前未曾向本法院或任何其他法院请求本文件所请求的救济。\n\n结论\n\n66. 基于上述所有理由，受托人主张，法院应授权受托人出售 Mahwah Mansion 及其内物品，但须遵守拟议命令的条款。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n因此，受托人谨请求录入拟议命令，准许本文件所请求的救济，以及法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\n日期：October 1, 2024　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A.·德斯潘），第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林赛，ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨，获准临时出庭） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦，获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 alexbongartz@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A.·巴塞特，获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 26 页，共\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n：\n关于：\n：\n第 11 章\n：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，\n：\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n：\n债务人。\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nx\n：\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A.·德斯潘），第 11 章受托人，\n：\n：\n原告，\n：\n：\n诉\n：\n：\nTAURUS FUND LLC（托罗斯基金有限责任公司），\n：\nSCOTT BARNETT（斯科特·巴尼特），作为 TAURUS\n：　-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n对抗程序案号 23-05017\n\nTAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC（托罗斯管理有限责任公司），作为\n：\nTAURUS FUND LLC 的受托人，\n：　FUND LLC，及　：\n：\n被告。\n\nx\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，于本证明日期，上述动议已在上述标题所列第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）及对抗程序（“对抗程序”）中以电子方式提交。经法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统运行，或按照电子提交通知中所示，以邮寄方式向无法接受电子提交的任何人士发送了本次提交的通知。\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，并有众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰纳维尔控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰纳维尔控股公司）。受托人及 Genever 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯潘），作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n各方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交文件。\n\n日期：October 1, 2024　签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文　Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R.·林赛，ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\n\n附件 1\n\n（拟议命令）\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：　第 11 章\n1　：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　：\n：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：　（合并管理）\n\nx\n\n［拟议］命令：授权受托人出售 MAHWAH MANSION 及其内物品，但须以录入进一步命令为条件，包括关于聘请经纪人、该等出售条款及各方对出售收益权利的命令\n\n鉴于 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯潘）以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第 11 章案件中获指定的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）之身份提交的动议（“动议”）2，请求根据经《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第 7065 条适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》（“民事规则”）第 65 条，以及本对抗程序中录入的 PI Order，录入一项命令，授权受托人为破产财产利益出售：(a) 位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 的不动产（“Mahwah Mansion”）；以及 (b) 位于、附着于或存放于 Mahwah Mansion 内、上或处的所有动产和/或附着物（“内物品”），所有详情均载于动议；且法院已认定：(a) 法院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对本事项具有管辖权；(b) 本事项依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 属于核心程序；(c)\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，并有众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰纳维尔控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰纳维尔控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯潘），作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n2 本文件中未明确定义的首字母大写术语，采用动议中所载定义。\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 30 页，共 500 页\n\n审判地依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409 属于适当；以及 (d) 已就动议作出充分且适当的通知；且无需任何其他或进一步通知，法院已认定并裁定，动议所载法律及事实依据确立了准许本文件所授救济的正当理由；且显示经本命令条款修改后的动议所请求救济，符合债务人破产财产及债权人的最佳利益；且基于法院审理的全部程序，并经适当审议及有充分理由支持，特此\n命令如下：\n\n1. 本动议按本文件所述予以准许。\n\n2. 授权受托人依照本命令条款出售 Mahwah Mansion 及其内物品。\n\n3. 对 Mahwah Mansion 或其内物品的任何一项或多项出售，均须遵守本法院进一步作出的命令：(a) 授权聘请任何房地产经纪人和/或拍卖师，以推介和/或促成该等资产的出售；(b) 授权向一名或多名潜在买方出售的条款和条件；以及 (c) 确定各方对该等出售净收益的权利。\n\n4. 该等出售的净收益应存入托管账户，并保留各方对该等收益所享权利。为免生疑，受托人就破产财产垫付的 Mahwah Expenses（如 Funding Order〔资金命令〕所定义）金额而对 Mahwah Mansion 享有的担保权益，应继续附着于出售 Mahwah Mansion 所得净收益。\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 31 页，共 500 页\n\n5. 为免生疑，本命令任何内容均不解除被告根据 PI Order 或 Disclosure Order 所承担的义务，该等命令仍完全有效。\n\n6. 本命令任何内容均不修改 Settlement Order（和解命令）的条款，该命令仍完全有效。\n\n7. 授权并赋予受托人采取一切必要行动，以实施本命令所准许的救济。\n\n8. 本命令的条款和条件自录入时起立即生效并可执行。\n\n9. 对于因实施、解释及执行本命令而产生或与之相关的一切事项，本法院保留专属管辖权。\n\n附件 2\n\n刑事审判庭审记录，July 8, 2024\n\n5285 O78VGUO1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院） ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），诉 23 Cr. 118 (AT) MILES GUO（郭文贵），被告人。审判 ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. July 8, 2024 9:00 a.m. 审判长：HON. ANALISA TORRES（尊敬的阿纳莉萨·托雷斯），联邦地区法官——及陪审团——出庭人员 DAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉斯）纽约南区联邦检察官 由以下人员代理：MICAH F. FERGENSON（迈卡·F.·弗格森） RYAN B. FINKEL（瑞安·B.·芬克尔） JUSTIN HORTON（贾斯廷·霍顿） JULIANA N. MURRAY（朱莉安娜·N.·默里）助理联邦检察官 SABRINA P. SHROFF（萨布丽娜·P.·施罗夫）被告人律师 PRYOR CASHMAN LLP（普赖尔·卡什曼律师事务所）被告人律师 由以下人员代理：SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU（西达尔塔·卡马拉朱） MATTHEW BARKAN（马修·巴坎） JOHN KILGARD（约翰·基尔加德） ALSTON & BIRD LLP（奥尔斯顿与伯德律师事务所）被告人律师 由以下人员代理：E. SCOTT SCHIRICK（E. 斯科特·希里克） 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 33 页，共 500 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO1　第 34 页，共\n\n1　其他在场人员：\n2　Isabel Loftus（伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯），美国联邦检察官办公室法律助理专员\n3　Robert Stout（罗伯特·斯托特），FBI（联邦调查局）特别探员\nJorge Salazar（豪尔赫·萨拉萨尔），辩方律师助理\n4　Tuo Huang（黄拓），口译员（普通话）\nShi Feng（施峰），口译员（普通话）\n5　Yu Mark Tang（唐宇·马克），口译员（普通话）\nBarbara Robertson（芭芭拉·罗伯逊），口译员（普通话）\n6　Tuo Hung（洪拓），口译员（普通话）\nPeter Ginsberg（彼得·金斯伯格），证人 Jianhu Yi（易建湖）的律师\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO1\n英语\n\n1　（审判继续进行；陪审团未在场）\n\n2　法院：\n\n早上好。\n\n3　请各方出庭律师报上姓名。\n\n4　HORTON 律师：\n\n早上好，法官阁下。\n\n5　我叫 Justin Horton（贾斯廷·霍顿）、Micah Fergenson（迈卡·弗格森）、Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）和\n\n6　Ryan Finkel（瑞安·芬克尔），代表美利坚合众国。\n\n7　SCHIRICK 律师：\n\n早上好，法官阁下。\n\n8　我叫 Scott Schirick（斯科特·希里克）、Sidhardha Kamaraju（悉达尔塔·卡马拉朱）和 Matthew\n\n9　Barkan（马修·巴坎），代表被告郭先生；郭先生亦与我们一同坐在律师席。\n\n10\n\n11　法院：\n\n请坐。\n\n12　2024 年 6 月 25 日，双方提交了对本院陪审团指示草案所提出的\n\n13　修订和增补建议。\n\n14　昨日，即 2024 年 7 月 7 日，政府提交了一封信函，\n\n15　请求作出进一步修订。今天凌晨 12:13，我还收到\n\n16　辩方的一封信函。\n\n17　我将按照本院书记员刚刚向各位提供的陪审团指示中\n\n18　各项修改出现的顺序，逐一处理双方提出的修改建议。\n\n19\n\n20　从第 6 页开始，在举证责任及无罪推定部分的第一段——这也\n\n21　适用于第 14 页起诉书摘要部分的第一段。\n\n22\n\n23　政府请求本院加入以下表述：政府无须\n\n24　证明起诉书中的每一项指控事实，而只须证明\n\n25　各项罪名的构成要件。辩方不反对加入该表述。本院将把所请求的表述加入举证责任及无罪推定部分，但不会在起诉书摘要部分重复该表述。\n\n5288 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 36 页，共 500 页\n\n在第 13 页，标题为“政府作为一方当事人”部分的第二段中，政府请求我在以“本案对政府而言很重要”开头的句子中加入“美利坚合众国”一词；我将如此处理。\n\n在下一段，即以“控方这一事实”开头的一段中，政府请求我加入以下表述：“本案由美利坚合众国依法提起，提起本案的决定绝未受到中国政府或中国共产党的影响。”我不认为这些句子是必要的。迄今为止的证据并未使陪审员产生控方违法或受中国共产党影响的印象。\n\n在第 14 页、第 14 项“起诉书摘要”下的第一段中，政府请求我在被告姓名旁注明，他亦被称为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Brother 7（七哥）、The Principal（主事人）和 Boss（老板）。我将注明 Miles Guo（郭文贵）亦被称为 Ho Wan Kwok 和 Guo Wengui。\n\n在第 14 页最后一段，即以“起诉书包含”开头的一段，以及第 15 页第二段，即以“稍后”开头的一段中，辩方请求我在“12 项罪名”之后加入“针对被告”一语。由于起诉书中有一项罪名仅针对 Je（杰）先生，本院将加入辩方提出的表述。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员公司） (212) 805-0300\n\n5289 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 37 页，共 500 页\n\n在第 15 页第 1 段中，政府请求将“称为 G/CLUBS 的生活方式会员公司”一语修改为“称为 G/CLUBS 的 purported 在线会员俱乐部”。政府称这与起诉书中的表述一致。目前，本院不认为增加这些描述语是必要的，仅将表述为“与 G/CLUBS 有关”。\n\n第 15 页第 2 段中有一句：“每一项罪名均构成一项独立犯罪。”本院准许辩方请求，在“独立”与“犯罪”之间加入“被指控的”一词。\n\n在第 16 页、“16. 电信诈骗的构成要件”项下第二段中，以“第九项罪名”开头的最后一个完整句内，政府请求将“其会员费将如何使用”一语修改为较为中性的表述“个人汇给 G/CLUBS 的钱将如何使用”。本院将作出该项修改。\n\n在同一段后面的一个句子中，政府请求将“所筹集资金将如何使用”一语修改为“汇给 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）或用于购买其积分的钱将如何使用”。以“或”字开头的从句重复，因此本院将表述为：“汇给 Himalaya Exchange 的钱将如何使用。”\n\n5290 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 38 页，共 500 页\n\n在第 17 页第三个完整段落，以及第 19 页第 5 和第 6 段中，政府主张“故意”为电信诈骗法条的非构成要件，并请求在全文中删除该词。作为依据，政府援引 Oetken（厄特肯）法官在 United States（美利坚合众国）诉 Middledorf（米德尔多夫）案，18 Cr. 36 中的裁决，以及纽约东区的一宗案件。\n\n但是，在 Middledorf 案中，尽管 Oetken 法官否决了 Sand 论著中的指示表述，他仍给予了关于故意的指示；本区其他法官也同样如此。参见 United States v. Bankman-Fried, 22 Cr. 673；United States v. Avenatti, 19 Cr. 374；以及 United States v. Constanzo Recio, 22 Cr. 281。第二巡回上诉法院并未明确否定故意这一要件。参见 United States v. Petrossi, 786 F. App'x 286, 289 (2d Cir. 2019)。\n\n然而，本院在第一版指示草案中对“故意”的定义，暗示被告必须知道其行为是“违法的”，而不是更一般意义上的“错误的”。因此，本院将修改第 19 页标题为“b. 第二要件：明知及诈骗故意”部分第四和第五段中出现的定义，改为：“‘故意’行事，是指自愿并出于不正当目的而行事。行为如系有目的且经过审慎考虑地作出，即为明知且故意作出。”这与本区其他法官所采用的较为有限的指示，以及第二巡回上诉法院在 United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556, 567-68 (2d Cir. 2010) 中的裁决相一致。\n\n5291 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 39 页，共 500 页\n\n在第 17 页标题为“a. 第一要件：诈骗计划”项下的第一段中，辩方请求我说明，计划或诡计是“为实现欺诈性目标而制定的方案”。\n\n所提议加入的“欺诈性”一词并不正确，本院不会加入。\n\n在第 17 页最后一段中，辩方请求，除说明某项陈述“如出于欺骗意图作出，即属欺诈”外，还应说明“作出该陈述时必须存在欺骗意图”。\n\n这一增补并无必要，因为它重复了现有表述，本院不会加入。\n\n在第 17 页标题为“a. 第一要件：诈骗计划”部分的第一个完整段落之后，政府请求我加入一段，表述如下：“虚假或欺诈性的借口、陈述或承诺，无须在受害人决定交出金钱或财产之前作出；相反，如被告在取得金钱或财产后，设计或参与一项诈骗计划，通过就重大事实作出后续虚假或欺诈性陈述来保留该金钱或财产，即足以证明存在诈骗计划。”\n\n5292 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 40 页，共 500 页\n\n本院不同意该项指示有必要或有帮助，故不会加入。\n\n在第 17 页最后一个完整段落之后，辩方请求我加入一段，表述如下：“欺诈不能仅凭作出承诺后未予履行这一事实予以证明。未能维持承诺，或未能遵守合同或其他文件中的条款，本身并不构成欺诈。相反，政府必须排除合理怀疑地证明，被告在作出陈述或承诺时，从未打算履行。被告后来决定不遵守承诺、合同或文件的条款，即使该决定系故意作出，也不能成为定罪依据。”\n\n本院不同意该项指示有必要或有帮助，故不会加入。\n\n在第 18 页第 1 段中，第三句载明：“这意味着，如你们认定某一特定陈述不实，则必须确定该陈述是否为理性人可能会认为在作出其决定时重要的陈述。”\n\n辩方请求将“可能会”改为“会”。本院将作出该修改。在第三个“该”字之后，辩方还请求加入“能够影响该决定”的从句。加入该表述会使陪审团感到困惑，本院不会加入。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员公司） (212) 805-0300\n\n5293 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 41 页，共 500 页\n\n在第 18 页、以“在确定是否存在诈骗计划时”开头的段落之前，辩方请求插入一段新文字，表述如下：“为证明存在诈骗计划，政府必须排除合理怀疑地证明，被告预期会使他人失去金钱或财产。仅证明其他个人或公司可能取得金钱或财产并不足够。为证明诈骗计划这一要件，必须证明被告预期受害人会因其欺骗而遭受实际损害。诈骗计划无须通过直接证据予以证明，但可依据本案情形和事实予以确立。”\n\n该段与故意要件重复，本院不会加入。\n\n在第 19 页倒数第二个完整段落中，辩方请求我将诈骗故意的定义改述如下：“换言之，要认定存在特定诈骗故意或欺诈意图，你们必须认定，被告在作出虚假陈述或虚假承诺时，意图从他人处骗取或窃取金钱。”\n\n5294 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 42 页，共 500 页\n\n本院不认为该改述能增加清晰度，故不会加入。\n\n在第 20 页，政府请求我加入两项指示，说明：第一，被告相信最终不会造成损害，并不是对欺诈罪的抗辩理由；第二，被告无须仅仅出于欺诈动机。本院同意这两项指示提供了重要澄清，并将予以加入。\n\n本院将在第 20 页第二个完整段落末尾表述：“此外，政府无须证明被告仅出于不正当考量而行动。即使被告亦出于其他合法目的而行动，其仍可能具有所要求的诈骗故意。”\n\n同样在第 20 页最后一段中，就善意指示而言，本院将表述：“然而，在考虑善意时，被告相信——无论该相信正确与否——其最终能够解决问题，以致不会有任何个人遭受损失这一事实，并不能成为被告欺诈行为所造成的现实且即时损失的免责理由。”\n\n政府请求在关于最终无损害的指示中加入以下表述，并主张为处理有关 Himalaya Exchange 的证词，有必要加入该表述。政府希望我说明：“某些人获提供或实际收到退款，也不构成抗辩理由。任何涉案公司是否继续经营，同样不构成抗辩理由。”\n\n5295 O78VGUO1 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 登记于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 43 页，共 500 页\n\n本院认为现有的最终无损害指示已属充分，不会加入所提议的表述。\n\n政府请求本庭在第20页最后一段末尾加入如下文字：“尽管如此，你们已听取证据表明，Miles Guo（郭文贵）及本案中的某些实体聘有律师。律师参与某一个人、实体或交易，本身并不构成对本案任何罪名的抗辩。辩方并未主张，而且也不能主张，被告人在电信欺诈罪名项中被指控的涉嫌违法行为，因其善意依赖律师意见而实施，便属合法。”\n\n我将于“V. 最终一般指示”项下增加一节，标题为“31. 律师的参与”。该节内容如下：\n\n“你们已听取证据表明，被告人及某些实体由律师代理。律师参与某一个人或实体，并不使该个人或实体的行为合法。”\n\n在第20页最后一段之后，辩方请求增加一段，内容为：“如果你们认定，被告人并非该计划中明知且故意的参与者，或在作出相关虚假陈述或虚假承诺时不具有所要求的欺诈故意，则应认定被告人无罪。另一方面，如果你们认定政府已排除合理怀疑地证明，不仅第一项要件，即欺诈计划的存在，而且第二项要件，即被告人明知参与并具有特定欺诈故意地行事，那么你们应继续审议第三项要件。”\n\n我不同意该段属必要，且不会将其纳入。\n\n在第21页“第三项要件”部分，政府要求澄清，电信通信可以在取得相关资金之后作出。政府请求采用如下具体文字：“如果某项通信旨在使某人陷入虚假的安全感，从而推迟其向当局投诉，或保留从该计划中取得的资金，则电信通信也可以包括在取得该个人资金之后作出的通信。”\n\n我将纳入该文字的一部分。但我认为政府引用的示例没有必要。因此，我将在第21页第二个完整段落末尾表述如下：“电信通信也可以包括在取得某个人资金之后作出的通信。”\n\n在第24页，辩方请求我在重要性分项第一段末尾加入以下句子：“公司乐观表述和夸大宣传不具有重要性。”\n\n我驳回该项增补，因其会使陪审团感到困惑且无助于陪审团。\n\n在第24页重要性分项第二段之后，辩方请求我加入：“然而，你们不得从事后角度评估重要性，陈述失实也并非仅因其可能对投资者重要而具有重要性。”\n\n对于有关事后角度的句子，我将改为在第24页第一个完整段落末尾加入以下句子：“重要性应以信息披露时点为准进行判断。”\n\n第二个拟议句子旨在区分重要性与重大性，但其造成不必要的困惑，我不会将其纳入。对重要性的定义已经足够，且并未将重要性等同于单纯的重要程度。\n\n在第24页，关于陪审团指示中对证券的定义，辩方提议增加一段：如果政府主张农场贷款和G CLUB会员资格本身属于证券，该段将提供证券的单独定义。\n\n我不认为政府正在采取这一立场。我理解得对吗？\n\nHORTON先生（霍顿）：法官阁下，请给我一秒钟。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n（律师协商）\n\nHORTON先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：转到第25页。\n\n在“与……有关”部分，辩方请求在第2段之后增加以下段落：“然而，‘与……有关’要件并非仅因被指控的欺诈恰好涉及证券出售即可满足；它还要求更多要素。政府必须排除合理怀疑地证明，欺骗性行为既与特定证券销售同时发生，亦对投资者购买特定证券的决定具有重要性。如果被指控的欺骗性行为未与特定证券出售同时发生，则‘与……有关’的要求未获满足。\n\n“此外，如果被告人被指控的失实陈述并非涉及证券的价值、性质或投资特征，则‘与……有关’的要求未获满足。而且，在证券出售后发生的被指控失实陈述，不可能与该等购买或出售同时发生，因此不可能对该等出售具有重要性。”\n\n我驳回拟议文字，首先认定，“欺骗性行为与特定证券销售同时发生”仅是认定欺骗性行为“涉及”证券交易的一种方式。增加该句将造成困惑，并可能限制该定义，而最高法院和第二巡回法院对“与……有关”一语“主张广义解释”。Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 (2006)。拟议段落的其余部分将重要性审查的内容引入“与……有关”的定义。\n\n在第25页“与……有关”部分第一段中，政府请求增加以下句子：“只要表面上的证券被作为进行交易的诱因而提供，即无须实际出售或交付任何证券；承诺某人将在未来获得股票，即构成与证券购买或出售的充分关联。”\n\n基于该拟议增补，本庭将在第一段最后一句之前加入以下句子：“也无须任何证券曾被发行或出售。”\n\n在第26页第一段中，辩方请求增加以下句子：“因此，无论一项计划可能多么具有误导性或欺骗性，如果其是出于善意而制定或实施的，便不构成欺诈。这包括被告人诚实相信其所作陈述真实无误。”\n我不会纳入该文字；但我将在该段第一句之后，重述我此前在电信欺诈部分提供的如下“善意”定义：“被告人如在当时诚实地相信其所作陈述真实，即便该等陈述后来被证明不准确或虚假，其行为即属善意。”\n\n同样在第26页第一段之后，政府请求增加以下段落：“然而，在审议被告人是否出于善意行事时，现指示你们，被告人相信——如确有该等相信——最终一切都会顺利解决，以致没有投资者会损失任何金钱，并不必然构成善意。被告人无论多么诚实地相信该计划最终会为投资者带来利润，均不能为其欺诈行为或虚假陈述开脱。”\n\n我不会纳入拟议文字，但将重述我在电信欺诈部分提供的如下指示：“然而，被告人无论正确或错误地相信自己最终能够解决问题，以致没有个人遭受损失，这一事实均不能成为其欺诈行为导致的现实且即时损失的借口。”\n\n政府在同一段末尾再次请求作出有关律师参与被告人及相关实体的指示。由于我现已加入有关律师参与的指示，我不会在此纳入该指示。\n\n在第34页“第二项要件：参与”部分的页面底部，于以“政府无须”开头的段落末尾，辩方要求我增加以下两句话：“如果你们认定被告人对该计划的结果不具有经济利益，这也是你们可以适当考虑的因素，用以确定被告人是否为共谋成员。归根结底，必须依据关于被告人自身行为或陈述的独立证据，证明其参与共谋。”\n\n我将在该段末尾增加以下句子：“相反，如果你们认定被告人对该计划的结果不具有经济利益，这也是你们可以适当考虑的因素，用以确定被告人是否为共谋成员。”\n\n在第36页第1段中，我准许辩方请求，删除第二个引述段落中“被告人的共谋者”之前的“亦”字。\n\n在第50页，政府请求我避免将RICO罪名项描述为“复杂”，我将如此处理。\n\n在第51页，标题为“a. 第一项要件：敲诈活动企业”分项的第二段中，辩方请求我删除如下句子：“当然，如果你们认定共谋的目标已经实现，则证明该目标已经实现，可能是证明共谋存在的最具说服力的证据，或者是最具说服力的证据。”\n\n这是一项标准的共谋指示，我认为其有助于陪审团，因此我不会删除。\n\n在第52页最后两段以及第58页“i. 企业与敲诈活动模式”第1段中，辩方请求我明确说明，“G Enterprise”是政府使用的术语，我将如此处理。\n\n在第52页最后一段中，辩方请求我将认定RICO企业的第一项组成要素改述为“实施敲诈活动企业的共同目的”，而非仅为“共同目的”。\n\n我不同意这是对法律的正确表述。因此，该项修改被驳回；但是，我将改述最后一个分句，表述为：“那么你们可以认定，敲诈活动共谋的第一项要件已经满足”，而非暗示整项犯罪均已被证明。\n\n在同一段中，政府请求我在“一个持续性单位”之后加入“在起诉书指控的时间范围内的一段重要期间”这一措辞。该陪审团指示在第52页该页第一个完整段落中已包含实质上相似的文字，我不同意额外文字属必要。\n\n在第55页“第四项要件：敲诈活动模式”下第一段中，辩方请求我将以“政府必须证明被告人同意”开头的句子前移至该段较早位置。我将如此处理。\n\n在第55页的同一句中，政府要求我澄清，被告人还应对其代理人在代理权限范围内实施的行为负责。\n\n政府拟议的句子如下：\n\n“政府必须证明，被告人同意参与该企业，并意图使其本人或该共谋中的另一名或多名成员，或其代理人，实施两项或更多项我将予以说明的敲诈勒索行为。”我认为该指示会使陪审团感到困惑，因此不会加入该指示。\n\n在第56页，以“First,”开头的第三个完整段落中，政府要求我在带下划线的句子之后列举敲诈勒索犯罪类型的示例。我认为这有所帮助，将把政府建议的措辞加入该段末尾。\n\n在第57页第二个完整段落开头，政府要求我删除“实质性期间至少为两年”这一表述。我将省略“两年”的表述；尽管本巡回区从未认可过更短的期间，但这并非一项明晰界线规则。不过，政府建议的措辞也可能使陪审员感到困惑。我将遵循其他《反有组织犯罪法》（RICO）共谋罪指控的范式，在指示中省略对“实质性期间”的解释。\n\n辩方要求我删除有意回避指示。只有在存在以下证据时，方可给予该指示：第一，被告人主张其缺乏作出有罪判决所需的某一特定知情要素；第二，有证据表明被告人意识到争议事实存在高度可能性，并有意避免确认该事实。United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145, 154 (2d Cir. 2000)。我认定这些要求尚未满足，将省略该指示。\n\n辩方要求我加入“多重共谋”指示。我不会加入此类指示。多重共谋指示旨在协助陪审团确定某一被控共谋是否确为单一共谋，而不是另行提醒陪审团分别审议每一项被控共谋。United States v. Aguilar, 352 F. App'x 522, 525 (2d Cir. 2009)。看来辩方希望我强调，应分别审议第一项至第四项罪名项中指控的共谋。我认为多重共谋指示会使陪审团感到困惑。该指示在第15页载明，陪审团“必须分别审议起诉书中的每一项罪名项”，我认为这已足够。因此，我不会加入多重共谋指示。\n\n在第62页“28. 执法人员和政府证人”指示中，辩方要求我加入一句，说明：“辩护律师以该证人的证言可能因其对案件结果具有个人或职业利益而受到影响为由，试图攻击该证人的可信性，是完全适当的。”\n\n我认为这与现有的证人可信性指示重复，因此不会加入。\n\n辩方要求以不适用为由删除共犯／合作证人证言、获豁免证人及类似行为指示。政府不反对，我同意应予排除。\n\n在第64页，辩方要求我在“非起诉协议”指示中加入措辞，说明应对根据NPA作证的证人进行严格审查。我将省略以下句子：“你们不得以任何方式将其用于支持或不利于被告人”，因为我同意该句可能造成困惑。我还将在该段末尾加入一句：“当然，你们可以考虑该证人订立本协议这一事实是否影响其证言的可信性。”\n\n辩方请求作出如下指示：“本案指控可能涉及巨额资金这一事实，并不意味着被告人须遵守更高的行为标准。”\n\n我不同意该指示有必要或有帮助，因此不会加入。\n\n辩方还要求作出指示，陪审团不得将Saraca（萨拉卡）与SEC达成和解视为犯罪行为的证据。\n\n政府是否打算主张该和解是犯罪行为的证据？\n\n（律师商议）\n\n霍顿先生：法官阁下，答案是否定的。这是叙述中的一个相关事实，但对法院问题的回答是否定的。\n\n法院：政府要求指示陪审团，被告人并未提出胁迫免责或正当理由抗辩。\n\n到目前为止，我看不出辩方曾暗示这一点。因此，我不会给予该指示。\n\n我的法官助理已向你们提供了一份裁决表副本。\n\n最后，为准备陪审团评议，现提醒双方注意我于May 7th, 2025作出的关于向陪审团提供证物的命令。为供陪审团评议，双方应提供一台仅含已获准作为证据的证物的干净笔记本电脑。该笔记本电脑必须在评议开始前准备完毕。双方还应提供将该笔记本电脑连接至陪审团室显示器所需的线缆。\n\n在总结陈词期间，如任何一方认为存在对事实的明显错误陈述或对法律的错误陈述，当然可以提出异议。如你们认为有必要进行庭边讨论，可以提出请求。但我希望将此绝对降至最低，因为这会干扰律师总结陈词的连贯性。\n\n现在我将处理有关Dragon先生证言的问题。\n\n政府在日期为July 2nd, 2024的信函中，申请删除辩方专家Raymond Dragon（雷蒙德·德拉贡）于当日早些时候所作证言的一部分，ECF No. 389。政府提出了两个问题。第一个问题涉及对Dragon关于“非常大的投资者兴趣”的证言的解释，双方已于July 3rd, 2024达成协议予以解决。见庭审记录第5032页，第1至17行。\n\n对于第二个问题，我命令辩方于July 5th, 2024前对政府的动议作出回应。\n\nDragon先生证称，在GTV私募配售中出售了$200 million的新GTV股份。在其证言中，该部分载于庭审记录第4893页，Dragon先生称，Saraca作为GTV私募配售的一部分出售了其自有的一些GTV股份，致使出售的GTV股份达到$350 million，超过了GTV私募配售备忘录中最初宣传的$200 million股份。\n\n政府主张，Dragon先生并无关于Saraca是超额股份来源的亲身知情；且该信息并未载于Dragon披露其审阅过的任何材料中。\n\n辩方在日期为July 5th, 2024的信函中反对政府的动议，称Dragon先生的理解基于已作为证据提交的GTV私募配售备忘录，ECF No. 390。\n\n辩方称，由于私募配售备忘录披露Saraca对GTV的持股比例为100 percent，Dragon先生合理地得出结论，GTV私募配售最初拟出售数量之外的任何超额股份，必然来自Saraca的股权持有。Id. at 1.\n\n我对辩方就Dragon先生证言所作的解释感到满意，政府已在再次交叉询问中有机会探究该证言。因此，政府要求删除该证言的动议被驳回。\n\n我们少了一名第4号陪审员——哦，抱歉，是第10号陪审员。她说她出现恶心和腹泻；她咨询了一名医生，该医生告诉她留在家中，服用某些药物并休息。\n\n你们希望我如何处理此事？\n\n霍顿先生：法官阁下，如果我们能有片刻时间。\n\n法院：可以。\n\n（律师商议）\n\n霍顿先生：谢谢，法官阁下。鉴于现有候补陪审员的人数，政府建议我们继续进行审判。\n\n法院：政府是否认为，在未经辩方同意的情况下，我有裁量权替换候补陪审员？\n\n霍顿先生：是的。\n\n法院：我将听取辩方意见。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：谢谢，法官阁下。首先，我确实认为——而且我想这之前已经提出过——即使辩方提出异议，法院仍有裁量权免除该陪审员并选任一名候补陪审员。\n\n我们认识到审判需要继续推进，但我们确实认为，实质上不让其中一名陪审员享受一天病假，可能构成对该裁量权的滥用，特别是鉴于我们现已报告郭先生无意作证；因此，我认为这缓解了一些时间压力。\n\n因此，从我们的角度看，如果法院认为为推进审判而这样做适当，当然属于法院的裁量权范围。我们确实认为这会产生风险。\n\n法院：因此，尽管我不认为替换候补陪审员会构成裁量权滥用，但出于格外谨慎，我正让我的助理研究该问题。\n\n与此同时，我有一些问题要问郭先生。\n\n那么，卡马拉朱先生，您说郭先生不会出庭作证，对吗？\n\n卡马拉朱先生：是的，法官阁下，这是我们目前的理解。他不打算出庭作证。我只是想明确，他有权在辩方案件结束时改变主意，但他不打算出庭作证。\n\n法院：好的。那么，郭先生，您明白您有权出庭并为自己辩护作证吗？\n\n被告人：明白，法官阁下。Saturday和Sunday，卡马拉朱律师和Sabrina（莎布丽娜）已与我讨论过此事，我已作出不作证的决定。\n\n法院：您是否满意您的律师已与您进行了足够时间的沟通，并回答了您关于他们就您是否应作证所提供建议的所有问题？\n\n被告人：满意，法官阁下。\n\n法院：您明白是否作证的决定由您作出，并且仅由您作出吗？\n\n被告人：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，我是否可以正确理解为，您已自行作出不愿作证的决定？\n\n被告人：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么接下来，我需要同步口译。\n\n双方目前还有其他问题希望提出吗？\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我们确实遇到了口译问题。刚才在证人席上的证人将该体验描述为，他必须如同置身于操场中央那样筛选信息，而许多许多声音同时传来。\n\n在周末期间，我确实联系了口译员办公室，试图解决这个问题，因为该证人当时——这\n\n这正是该证人所描述的情形，就像在操场上不得不从许多声音中加以辨析。\n\n因此，我请求法院考虑允许对证人进行交替传译，我认为这是惯常做法；但如果不行，我想也只能如此。但他确实是这样描述该经历的。我也已向口译员提出此事。\n\n法庭：政府是否希望就此问题发表意见？\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，我认为在这一点上，我们交由法院决定。我们注意到，在迄今为止两个半小时的直接询问中，该证人似乎能够回答所提出的问题。\n\n什罗夫女士：该证人完全如我刚才所述那样描述了这些经历。随后，我联系了口译员办公室。\n\n我请求庭边讨论的原因是，在整个证言过程中，他一直拉扯一只耳朵，并且难以应对传入的多种声音。据我理解，他不只是在听英语——他对英语有一定程度的流利——然后他在听一名口译员，同时英语声音仍在继续。因此，声音是叠加的。\n\n他是否设法应付了两个小时并不是重点。我刚刚陈述了该证人所说的话，法官阁下，仅此而已。谢谢。\n\n法庭：那么，我的强烈印象是，他完全理解这些问题。他当时并未就同声传译提出异议。有一次，他说其中一个耳机可能有问题，但他也表示该问题已经纠正。\n\n在我担任法官的二十四年多时间里，我一直使用同声传译。这是惯常做法。还有其他事项吗？\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，仅有几点简短事项。\n\n关于周三当天结束时正在作证的证人，政府昨日收到辩方根据26.2提供的材料，表明辩方本周末、昨日与该证人会面，并对其进行了准备。\n\n我们注意到，他的证言尚未结束。截至目前，法院已告知本案每名证人，他们不应讨论自己的证言。辩护团队当然十分清楚该规则，即法院的该项命令。\n\n因此，我们只是希望提请法院注意：我们不知道该准备的内容，材料仅表明曾有一次准备会面。但我们认为，有必要向法院说明。\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我可以占用一点时间吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n（律师协商）\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我认为规则是，如果证人正在接受直接询问，他可以与正在对其进行询问的人交谈。无论如何，我们没有讨论其先前证言的任何部分。我认为规则是在他接受交叉询问时适用，这一点相当明确。但无论如何，我已进行确认，我们完全没有讨论其先前证言的任何内容。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，我只想指出，政府在整个这场为期五周半的审判中，一直遵循与法院指示一致的做法，即不与任何本方证人交谈，即使他们正在接受直接询问。我们严格遵照法院要求证人不得讨论其证言的指示，在整个审判期间，无论是在休庭期间、夜间还是周末，即使证人正在接受直接询问，我们也没有对证人进行准备。\n\n法庭：那么，什罗夫女士，您是在向我提出《证据规则》中的某项具体规则，还是——\n\n什罗夫女士：不是，我认为这是一般规则。但无论如何，我们没有讨论他的证言。\n\n法庭：好的。我很高兴听到这一点。我会让我的书记员查阅该规则。这一直是我的做法。\n\n什罗夫女士：为极其明确起见，我们当然没有给他一份其先前证言的副本。我们没有——\n\n我本人甚至没有审阅过它，如果这对法院而言有意义的话。我没有回去阅读庭审记录。我以法庭官员的身份向您说明：我没有打开它，没有下载它，也没有对它做任何处理。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，仅根据26.2材料，我不认为什罗夫女士与该证人会过面。除非材料遗漏了某人的在场情况，我们认为是辩护团队的其他成员，但这只是另一项说明。\n\n我还想向法院说明另一件事，仅涉及辩方提交某些证物的时间问题。政府于周日凌晨约1时收到为Leanne Li（李琳）——一名预计将作证的证人——准备的证物。其中包括若干附有中文译文、但政府尚无法核实的证物。\n\n就这些证物而言，政府将提出多项传闻证据异议和关联性异议；这些证物是WhatsApp聊天记录，政府认为，其中显然包含郭先生或该证人的庭外陈述，并被为证明其内容真实而提出。我们只是希望指出时间问题。辩方今天凌晨4时又为李女士提交了额外证物。而且，她预计今日作证。\n\n法庭：好的。这就是所谓的不当诉讼策略。你们不得在如此晚的时候提交证物——这正是人们预期在睡觉的时候。\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，昨天出现了一个问题。政府一联系我方，我们就向他们发送了一份我们预计使用内容的清单。希里克先生和我当时都在办公室，那里发生了实际的人为和计算机问题，造成了延误。\n\n法庭：什么样的人为和计算机问题造成了延误？\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我们能否就此进行庭边讨论？\n\n法庭：我现在要你给我解释。\n\n什罗夫女士：负责处理此事的人无法将其整理完成。该人无法将其整理完成，必须休息一下，因此造成了延误。\n\n法庭：好的。我此前已告知你们，你们团队中必须有足够胜任的人来处理审判工作。你们不能让某人在关键时刻崩溃。你们需要沉着、稳定的人。\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，李女士的大量证物是照片。我们已将李女士在作证顺序中往后安排。她不太可能出庭；她是倒数第二名证人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n什罗夫女士：事情就是这样。不存在任何不当诉讼策略。我们并非故意延误任何事情。我认为有两名律师在现场，其他人不在。我们试图把文件整理好。\n\n法庭：你们需要聘用胜任的人。曼哈顿这样的人很多；有很多人已准备好承担这类任务。不要再发生这种事。\n\n好的。我想请候补陪审员1号出来。\n\n（陪审员在场）\n\n法庭：早上好，先生。您可以坐下。我只是想让您知道，您现在将成为10号陪审员。\n\n陪审员：好的。\n\n法庭：好的？您可以回里面去。\n\n（陪审员不在场）\n\n法庭：请让陪审员入庭。\n\n希里克先生：法官阁下，在让陪审团入庭之前，我能否再谈一件简短的事情？\n\n法庭：为什么会有这个反馈问题？\n\n希里克先生：我认为已经处理好了，法官阁下。我只是想提及几件与我们预计将成为辩方最后一名证人的人有关的事情，希望在今天下午晚些时候。\n\n该证人的名字是George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）。他曾是Department of Justice（美国司法部）律师，曾就参与一项共谋认罪；该共谋旨在代表PRC government（中华人民共和国政府）游说Trump Administration（特朗普政府）官员，将郭先生引渡。作为订立Defense Stip 1的一部分——我相信法院熟悉该文件，即“猎狐”协议——辩方同意不传唤与该共谋有关的若干其他证人，以及其他与“猎狐”有关的证人，而仅传唤希金博瑟姆先生。\n\n我们预计希金博瑟姆先生将作证，除其他事项外，他于2017年4月加入该共谋，当时他是美国司法部律师；作为该共谋的一部分，居住在Washington（华盛顿）的希金博瑟姆先生于2017年7月前往华盛顿的Chinese Embassy（中国驻美国大使馆），会见Chinese Ambassador to the United States（中国驻美国大使）。他还于2017年9月前往China（中国），会见数名共谋者。他还作为该共谋的一部分，促成数千万美元转入美国。最终，他于2018年11月在District of D.C.（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就共谋罪认罪。\n\n法官阁下，我们没有机会——辩方没有机会与该证人会面。他仍与政府、与District of D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office（哥伦比亚特区联邦检察官办公室）订有合作协议。他的律师不允许我们接触他，因此我们今天没有与他会面以对其进行准备。所涉事件可追溯至约七年前。我只是希望提请法院注意这一点。\n\n最后，作为希金博瑟姆先生证言的一部分，辩方将把双方之间就郭先生与一名中国政府官员Liu Yanping（刘延平）之间某些谈话录音所达成的一项协议提交为证据。我们将在希金博瑟姆先生证言结束时，向陪审团宣读这些记录中的选定部分。我只是希望法院参考这些内容，以了解我们预计希金博瑟姆先生将作何证言；同样，我们今日没有机会与他会面或对其进行准备。\n\n法庭：那么，有申请吗？\n\n希里克先生：没有，法官阁下。我只是想让法院知悉这些事实。\n\n法庭：很好。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，如果可以的话，既然希里克先生提到了希金博瑟姆先生，我只想就他说明一点。正如希里克先生所提及，希金博瑟姆先生情况的一个组成部分是，他已与政府订立合作协议。为明确起见，他并非与本办公室订立该协议；他是与D.C.的Public Integrity Unit（公共诚信处）和MLARS订立该协议。\n\n我们已与辩方交谈。我们了解到，他们不会引出其合作协议这一事实；并且他们不会在直接询问中引出有关他——有关其与政府合作的事项细节；在我们看来，那样做将不适当。他们已同意这一点。因此，这是我们所理解的其证言的一部分。\n\n关于此处的时间问题——或者，实际上，关于希金博瑟姆先生还有另一点。\n\n正如Schirick先生所提到的，他参与他们正试图引出的那一项完全独立的共谋时，是司法部（Department of Justice，DOJ）的一名雇员。我们认为他们不会突出这一事实。我们已就此与法庭进行了详尽讨论。这样做是不恰当的，因为其目的仅仅是暗示律师席与共产党，或者再次与遣返郭先生（Mr. Guo）的这项独立共谋有任何关联；而对此我们已经作出约定。该事实已多次作为证据提交。\n\n他们的专家Doran先生表示，辩方约定事项1（Defense Stip 1）第7段已充分概述Higginbotham先生所涉案件的全部情况。\n\n我们理解他的证言将被采纳。我们将酌情对其进行交叉询问。但是，该事实，即发生于2017年的行为，早于本案任何被指控的行为，已经得到说明。因此，我们再次认为，辩方不会引出他是司法部雇员这一事实；如有必要，我们将提出异议。\n\n辩方表示他们不会引出的另一项内容，是他在其案件中所获刑罚。这同样涉及他的合作。因此，就他因参与该项2017年的独立共谋而获得极轻刑罚一事而言，他们不会在直接询问中提出。\n\n最后一点，我想指出，Schirick先生刚刚表示他预计今天传唤Higginbotham先生。这使政府方认为，他们预计今天将完成对所有证人的询问，因为按安排他将最后出庭。\n\n鉴于这些证物迟延提交，包括他们今天凌晨4点提交的约44份音频文件，我们可能保留在今天上午休庭时请求他们改为最后传唤Leanne Li（李莲）的权利。\n\n法庭：Schirick先生，你们不会引出有关合作协议或其刑罚的证言，对吗？\n\nSCHIRICK先生：法官阁下，我们没有计划在直接询问中引出该证言；但显然，视政府方交叉询问的内容而定，如有必要，我们保留提出该事项的权利。\n\n法庭：并且你们不会在任何时候暗示，中国政府或中国共产党正在操纵政府方，对吗？\n\nSCHIRICK先生：不，法官阁下。辩方已明确表示，我们不计划提出该论点。\n\n但我想指出，Higginbotham先生在共谋发生时，以及在他参加我今天早些时候向法庭所述会议时，受雇于司法部，这是一个事实——一个简单事实。而且，法官阁下，这确实是叙事的一部分，因为要求他前往那些会议，部分原因正是他是司法部的律师。\n\n因此，尽管我们没有计划提出您刚才所述的论点，但我们请求获得一定酌处空间，以便引出这一重要叙事；坦率地说，这只是本案事实背景的一部分，同时又不对其作出不当强调。\n\nMURRAY女士：法官阁下，我们强烈、强烈反对。\n\n与Higginbotham先生在哥伦比亚特区（D.C.）案件中认罪答辩有关的事实陈述非常明确地表明，在他实施构成犯罪行为的任何行为时，他并非以司法部职务身份行事。他在前往哥伦比亚特区的大使馆，以及在中国拜访该中国官员时，已明确表示自己并非以官方身份行事。辩方将此作为2017年所发生事情叙事的一部分提出，完全不恰当。\n\n法庭：你是说提出他的受雇情况。\n\nMURRAY女士：是的。\n\n法庭：因此，我命令你们不要提出他是司法部雇员这一事实。我命令你们告知他，他不得主动提供该信息。显然，提出这一点，不过是一种相当笨拙地试图将本案的公诉与腐败和中国政府联系起来的方式。\n\nMURRAY女士：法官阁下，如准许，我想作一项澄清，因为我们此前曾就本案中已作为证据提交的抗议标语与辩方进行过某些讨论；这些标语暗示司法部曾受到中国共产党的影响。\n\n如果辩方希望引出这一点，我们不反对就他当时是否受雇于司法部提出一个事实性问题。我们反对任何进一步询问，因为该等询问会以任何方式暗示其受雇情况与其犯罪行为有关。\n\nSCHIRICK先生：法官阁下，Murray女士预见到了我正要说的内容。在某种程度上，政府方通过向陪审团展示Murray女士提及的标语，确实为此打开了话题之门。我相信我们与控方团队已有共识，即我们将被允许按Murray女士刚才所述方式行事。再次说明，这正是我试图向您说明的一点，法官阁下，即我们没有计划对此作出不当强调。但是，他受雇于司法部是一个事实。而且，如Murray女士所言，我们已有协议，至少可以在对其进行直接询问时引出该事实，同样不会对其作出不当强调，或者——\n\n法庭：那么，控方是否要求作出某种补救性指示？\n\nMURRAY女士：法官阁下，目前没有；不过，取决于直接证言如何提出，这可能是必要的。\n\n如Schirick先生所言，我们已经进行过某些讨论。我们不提出异议。我们理解，政府方通过展示郭先生的企业针对破产受托人张贴、且提到司法部的抗议标语，可能已经为此打开了话题之门。\n\n补救性指示可能是适当的。我们可以讨论这一点。\n\n但是，再次说明，我们同意他们确定他是司法部雇员这一事实。至于任何进一步询问，并且只是回应Schirick先生所说的、他们无意推动或强调这一问题的说法，这听起来有些含糊，所以我们只是想提醒法庭注意。如其沿着该方向发展，我们可能提出异议。\n\n法庭：我希望双方就将针对这张照片提出的确切问题达成一致。我希望你们指示他，不得详述他与司法部的关系。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区书记员公司） (212) 805-0300\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO1\n\n1　SCHIRICK先生：\n2　谢谢您，法官阁下。\n3　我们将与控方沟通，并就该\n4　问题达成一致。\n5　为再次明确起见，我和辩方团队\n6　无法接触Higginbotham先生。我会尽力\n7　在他作证前，向他的律师传达法官阁下刚才所作的指示。\n8　\n9　法庭：\n还有其他事项吗？\n10　MURRAY女士：\n政府方没有了。谢谢。\n11　法庭：\n好的。\n12　请将陪审员带出。\n13　（陪审团在场）\n14　法庭：\n请坐。各位陪审员，早上好。\n15　陪审团：\n早上好。\n16　法庭：\n现在是10:07。很抱歉我没有\n17　在9:30及时请你们出来。\n18　口译员：\n我们这里需要一些协助。对不起。\n19　法官阁下，证人要求测试设备。\n20　我们现在可以与他一起测试设备吗？\n21　（暂停）\n22　法庭：\n正如我刚才所说，很抱歉没有\n23　在9:30及时请你们出来。有几个问题需要处理。\n24　其中一个问题是，10号陪审员现已由\n25　1号候补陪审员替换。此外，我还必须讨论一些\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO1\nDai（戴）—直接询问\n\n1　重要的法律事项与律师们讨论。因此，我非常\n2　清楚你们在等待。我不想浪费你们的\n3　时间；我知道你们的时间很重要，所以我致歉。我将\n4　尽力将此类情况减至最低。\n5　现在，我们将继续对Lai Dai（戴莱）先生进行\n6　直接询问。\n7　你可以询问。\n8　SHROFF女士：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n9　法官阁下，或许法庭希望提醒\n10　戴先生，他仍在宣誓之下。\n11　法庭：\n是的，这是个好主意。\n12　先生，请记住，你仍在宣誓之下。\n13　LAI DAI，\n14　由被告方传唤为证人，\n15　此前已依法宣誓，作证如下：\n16　直接询问（继续）\n17　由SHROFF女士进行：\n18　问：戴先生，早上好。\n19　答：早上好。\n20　问：戴先生，2022年H Pay应用程序的功能是否\n21　与我们上周在视频和图片中看到的\n22　相同？\n23　答：是的，相同。\n24　口译员：\n法官阁下，对不起。我遇到了\n25　设备问题。我听不太清楚他。您能给我\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO1\nDai（戴）—直接询问\n\n1　一秒钟让我更换设备吗？对不起。非常抱歉。\n2　法庭：\n请继续。\n3　好的。现在音频设备\n4　出现故障。我们休庭五分钟。\n5　请记住，你们不得彼此之间或与其他任何人讨论本案。\n6　不得允许任何人在你们在场时\n7　讨论本案。不得阅读、收听或\n8　观看任何来源中有关本案争议事项的任何内容。\n9　\n10　（陪审团不在场）\n11　法庭：\n口译员返回后，我们将重新开始。\n12　\n13　（休庭）\n14　（下页续）\n\n5328 O78BGUO2 Dai（戴）—直接询问\n\n法庭：请将陪审员带入。\n\n法官助理：陪审团入场。\n\n（陪审团在场）\n\n法庭：请坐。先生，请记住，你仍在宣誓之下。你可以询问。\n\n由SHROFF女士进行：\n\n问：戴先生，2022年H Pay的功能是否与我们上周在视频和图片中看到的相同？\n\n答：是的，相同。\n\n问：2022年H Pay应用程序的用户体验是否与我们上周在那些视频和图片中看到的相同？\n\n答：是的，相同。\n\n问：2022年交易所（Exchange）网站的功能是否与我们上周在视频中看到的相同？\n\n答：所有功能都相同，但有两项功能受到限制。\n\n问：戴先生，请尽量回答我的问题，好吗。无论存在哪些限制，都不是——我撤回该问题，法官阁下。2022年交易所网站的使用体验是否与我们上周在视频中看到的相同？\n\n答：是的，相同。\n\n问：戴先生，什么是新中国联邦（New Federal State of China）？\n\n答：新中国联邦，是为了推翻中国共产党，建立民主和法治，并且是为了建立\n\nO78BGUO2\nDai（戴）—直接询问\n1　中国的一个新政权。\n2　问：您第一次听说 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）是在何时？\n3　\n4　答：第一次是在 2020 年 6 月 4 日。\n5　问：您听说此事时在哪里？\n6　答：我在德国。\n7　问：您是如何得知的？\n8　答：我是从郭先生当天的直播中得知的。他当时——\n9　郭先生与 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）在纽约，并宣布为 New Federal State of China 筹集资金。\n10　\n11　问：直播中还有其他人吗？\n12　答：有。\n13　问：谁？\n14　答：应该还有其他参与直播的人，\n15　因为他们在海上的船上。\n16　问：戴先生，请听我的问题。\n17　您是否知道还有其他任何人在\n18　直播中在场？\n19　HORTON 律师：\n异议，已问已答。\n20　法院：\n异议成立。\n21　问：还有其他人谈及 New Federal State of China 吗？\n22　HORTON 律师：\n已问已答。\n23　SHROFF 律师：\n他没有回答那个问题。\n24　法院：\n您可以回答那个问题。\n25　答：所有人都在讨论 New Federal State of China，许多\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\nDai（戴）—直接询问\n1　新闻媒体都进行了报道。\n2　问：\n谁宣读了 New Federal State of China 的声明？\n3　答：\nHao Haidong（郝海东）先生。\n4　问：\n他是谁？\n5　答：\n他是中国一名著名的足球运动员。可以说，\n6　他是中国的足球先生。\n7　问：\n他的妻子是否也参与了直播？\n8　HORTON 律师：\n异议。\n9　法院：\n直播中还有其他人吗？\n10　答：\n应该有。我记不太清了——\n11　问：\n好的。\n12　答：\n——因为时间很久了。直播期间，主要\n13　有郭先生、史蒂夫·班农和郝海东先生。\n14　问：\n戴先生，您何时开始得知\n15　New Federal State of China 有一个基地？\n16　答：\n是的，我相信最早是在 2020 年。\n17　问：\n您对该基地\n18　据称应当是什么的理解是什么？\n19　答：\n该基地将为 New Federal State of China 的成员\n20　和 G/Club（G/俱乐部）成员提供举办活动的场所。他们可以\n21　在那里居住一段时间，如同度假。他们还可以接待\n22　New Federal State of China 的朋友、知名人士、媒体人士、\n23　参议员。\n24　HORTON 律师：\n异议。请求以传闻证据为由删除。\n25　SHROFF 律师：\n这是他的理解，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\nDai（戴）—直接询问\n1　法院：\n驳回。请继续。\n2　答：\n此外，在紧急情况下，这个地方可以为\n3　G/Club 成员提供帮助。\n4　问：\n您是否得知实际上已经找到了一个基地？\n5　HORTON 律师：\n异议，要求传闻证据，法官阁下。\n6　他没有亲身知情。他是在描述他从\n7　其他人那里听到的内容。\n8　法院：\n请到前面来。\n9　（续下页）\n\n5332　案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 80 页，共 500 页\nO78BGUO2　Dai（戴）—直接询问\n\n（在法官席旁）\n\n法院：那么，除他可能在直播中听到的内容之外，他本人是否与该地点有过接触？\n\nSHROFF 律师：我认为证词不会是那样，法官阁下。但请设想，假如您是某个会员俱乐部的一员，比如您是工会俱乐部或 Harvard Club（哈佛俱乐部）的一员，您真的会去与哈佛俱乐部的管理人员交谈，而他每天都会给您打电话说，嘿，听着，您知道吗，我要推出这项新服务；但你们所有人都来参加管理层会议，我们一起坐下来了解这件事。除了听取执行委员会成员告诉您会员俱乐部所提供的福利外，一个人还能如何得知呢？这就是您得知的方式。这正是会员俱乐部的全部意义所在。我们并非为了证明所陈述事项的真实性。他们可以说根本不存在这样的基地。\n\n但我再次指出，法官阁下：第一，如果您是 Netflix（奈飞）的会员，您能知道 Netflix 接下来会提供什么的唯一方式，就是查看 Netflix 网站、收到广告、收到通知并阅读相关内容。这就是其运作方式。Netflix 的首席执行官不会打电话告诉我，嘿，您知道吗，这部节目明天会再次上线播放，务必观看。即便如此，按照他们的说法也会是传闻证据，那么会员又如何得知呢？\n\n法院：他为什么不能就他在这些直播中听到的内容作证？\n\n5333　案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 81 页，共\n\nO78BGUO2　Dai（戴）—直接询问\n\nHORTON 律师：因为他们提出这些内容是为了证明其真实性，法官阁下。Netflix 会员说，好吧，首席执行官告诉我 Netflix 有 X、Y 和 Z，而作为会员我使用了这项服务，这是我使用该服务的经验；这两者之间存在区别。他没有说他去过该基地。他没有说他亲身经历过。他说他从其他人那里听说那是什么。他们可以传唤在基地的人、运营基地的人、运营 G/Club 的人，根据其亲身知情作证，但这名证人没有亲身知情。\n\n法院：那么，当控方让证人出庭并询问他们所有被承诺的服务和福利时，当然并不是为了证明其真实性。控方并未主张提供过任何这些服务，但我的理解是，你方的证人来到这里是为了说明这些服务确实存在。\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：我认为，说某项陈述实际上是为证明某个现存事物而提出，与正在讨论该议题、这是人们正在处理的事情之间，是有区别的。这是会员所理解的事情。甚至也是被告所理解的事情。这是 United States v. DiMaria（美国诉迪玛丽亚案）。18　19　20　21　22　23\n\n法院：您的意思是，您并非为证明其真实性而提出？\n\n24　25\n\n5334　案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 82 页，共 500 页\nO78BGUO2　Dai（戴）—直接询问\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：这是为了说明他们的理解，法官阁下。无论他们关于那是否为一个基地的理解是对是错，问题在于他们相信什么，而这就是问题所在。这是一起意图案件。这是一个欺诈问题。如果不允许我们引入陈述证据，如果不允许我们引入理解方面的证据，那么欺诈案被告唯一能够为自己辩护的方式就是出庭作证。否则，您永远不会被允许这样做。这就是为什么存在心理状态传闻证据例外。这就是为什么存在即时感知印象例外。这就是为什么存在所有这些例外。因此，只要附有一项指示，说明该证词并非为证明其真实性而提出，我们对任何这些证词都没有问题，这也是处理传闻证据问题的标准方式。并不是要完全排除该证词。1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15\n\n法院：当然，这些内容已经通过其他证人提出了，不是吗？\n\nHORTON 律师：传闻证据规则的语境很重要，法官阁下。当我们引入被告、其代理人或其共同犯罪人所说的内容时，该规则允许我们采纳对方当事人的陈述。卡马拉朱律师刚才谈到的是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的意图，我们同意这是唯一重要的意图。这名证人不能就郭文贵的意图作证。心理状态例外涉及的是陈述人的心理状态，而且，法官阁下，我们在庭前曾就此进行过——18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25\n\n5335　案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 83 页，共\n\nO78BGUO2　Dai（戴）—直接询问\n\n几周前的辩论。这名证人不能作证说，我从其他人那里听到了这件事，因此这就是郭文贵的心理状态。并非如此运作。1　2　3　4\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：霍顿律师是正确的。心理状态例外并不专门针对被告，而是针对陈述人。关于郭先生的意图，可以由独立证据予以佐证，包括其他人的理解。他们可以质疑该证据的证明力。他们可以质疑陪审团应赋予该证据多大的重要性。法官阁下已经裁定，郭先生的意图可由客观证据佐证为合理——抱歉，由客观证据证明为合理。它们曾被讨论这一事实本身就是证据。\n\n法院：所以您是说，您想引入郭先生的陈述。我不明白您如何规避传闻证据问题。\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：法官阁下，这正是 DiMaria 案中所述的内容，我有该案副本，可以呈交。在 DiMaria 案中，案情是，被告在一个购买非法香烟的地点。FBI（联邦调查局）或 DHS（国土安全部）的特工——我不确知具体是哪个——出现了，被告说：“你们为什么在这里？我只是来买些便宜香烟。”控方请求以传闻证据为由排除该项——\n\n5336　案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 84 页，共\n\nO78BGUO2　Dai（戴）—直接询问　500\n\n陈述。法院——地区法院同意以传闻证据为由排除该陈述。Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）撤销了该裁定，并称该错误并非无害。因为其所说的是，该陈述涉及被告当时存在的心理状态，即他当时对于自己为何在那里所持的信念，这与其心理状态有关。他们还驳回了关于该陈述属于虚假开脱性陈述、该例外会吞没规则的论点，因为心理状态传闻证据例外本身已经包含一项限制。我可以呈交，法官阁下。这就是区别。我们可以说郭先生的陈述——如果该陈述是其当时存在的心理状态陈述，我们可以说郭先生的意图可由其一项陈述证明。这正是 DiMaria 案所说的，我这里有该案供法官阁下查阅。\n\nHORTON 律师：什罗夫律师的问题并不是关于郭先生的陈述。该证人正在作证的传闻证据并未归属于任何特定人士。本案涉及一名被告在犯罪现场作出的同期陈述，该陈述是为证明其当时存在的——其当时存在的心理状态而被采纳。这并非此处正在发生的情况，法官阁下。\n\n法院：您是否只会将其限于郭先生的陈述？23　24　25\n\nSHROFF 律师：当然。\n\n5337　案号 22-50073　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 85 页，共\n\nO78BGUO2　Dai（戴）—直接询问\n\nFERGENSON 律师：这是不允许的。\n\n法院：在我看来，您是在主张他们可以引入被告的陈述？\n\nHORTON 律师：我的意思是，他们将这一切建立在一个单一的平行目的上。弗格森律师想补充我所说的话。我当然不是要暗示，他们只要引入郭先生的陈述就万事皆可，也就不是传闻证据；他们所追求的范围远没有那么宽。\n\n法院：我记得看过这个案件，但我不记得曾按您所说的方式解释过它，不过我会再看一遍该案。那么，在我——嗯，我的书记员审阅此案期间，我们先转到其他事项。\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：法官阁下是否需要纸质副本？\n\n法院：那太好了。谢谢。\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：她此时差不多已经问完了。\n\n法院：如果我未能及时得出答案，我们随时可以再次传唤该证人。\n\nSHROFF 律师：好的。您想怎么做都可以。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n（续下页）1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25　500\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\nDai（戴）—交叉询问\n\n（公开开庭）\n\n法庭：\n你可以继续。\n\n由 Shroff 女士：\n\n问：戴先生，请看这份标记为政府证物 VD-6、尚未获准作为证据的文件。请您看一下这份文件。\n\nHorton 先生：\n法官阁下，目前有待回答的问题吗？\n\n答：是的，我看到了。\n\n问：戴先生，您读完该文件了吗？\n\n答：是的，我读完了。\n\n问：戴先生，您认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：在今天之前，我没有见过这个。\n\n问：我没听清他说什么？\n\n答：在今天之前我没有见过。我之前没见过。\n\nShroff 女士：\n目前我没有更多问题，等待法庭的裁定。\n\n法庭：\n明白。好的。交叉询问。\n\n交叉询问\n\n由 Horton 先生：\n\n问：早上好，戴先生。\n\n答：早上好。\n\n问：您是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的支持者，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是通过他的网络视频认识他的，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，您通过观看 Miles Guo 的视频，认为他是一名成功的商人；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，今年早些时候您与 Guo 先生的律师会面时，您告诉他们，您认为 Miles Guo 在投资方面很有信誉；这是真的吗？\n\n答：我与谁会面？\n\n问：今年早些时候，您与 Guo 先生的律师会面，您记得吗？\n\n答：是，我告诉他们，我喜欢 Guo 先生的勇气和诚实。\n\n法庭：\n先生，我希望您将回答限于所提的问题。您刚才的回答并未回应刚才所问的问题，因此我将要求书记员重读问题，您只回答所问的问题。我将删除该回答。\n\n（笔录被宣读）\n\n答：是，我记得。\n\n问：而且，您告诉 Guo 先生的律师，您认为 Guo 先生在谈及投资时是可信的，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Miles Guo 谈及 GTV 时，您相信他所说的话，对吗？\n\n答：您的意思是他提到 GTV 投资吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：是。当 Miles Guo 谈及 GTV 投资时，您相信他所说的话，对吗？\n\n答：是，在我投资之前，我没有听 Guo 先生谈过 GTV 投资。\n\n问：但后来您听到他谈论此事，而且从那以后您就相信他所说的话；对吗？\n\n答：不，我没有听到他提到 GTV 投资。我是通过群组、我战友的聊天群获得该信息的。\n\n问：不过，戴先生，在那之后，您不是曾就投资 GTV 一事与 Miles Guo 交换 WhatsApp 消息吗？\n\nShroff 女士：\n法官阁下，该证人证称那是在投资之后。政府应当说清楚。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而在那之后，您每天观看 GTV 五个小时，这是您的证词，对吗？\n\n答：不，不是那样。我每天看五个小时视频，是在之前，在我获得投资信息之前。我在五月份、五月二十几号较晚时候获得投资信息；到那时，我已经观看 GTV 超过一个月了。\n\n问：但是，例如，您曾听到 Miles Guo 在他的广播中谈及 GTV 股票，对吗？\n\n答：没有。在他的直播期间，他没有提到任何 GTV 投资或股票——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：戴先生——\n\n答：——因此我是在很久以后才得知此事。\n\n法庭：\n您需要停止回答。一旦您回答了所问的问题，就停止。因此，如果我问您今天的日期，您告诉我今天的日期，但不要也告诉我现在几点。您明白吗？请继续。\n\n问：戴先生，在过去几年中，您一直观看 Miles Guo 的直播，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在那些直播中，您听到 Miles Guo 谈及 G/Club，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在那些直播中，您听到 Miles Guo 谈及喜马拉雅交易所，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您的证词是，在那些直播中，Miles Guo 从未谈及 GTV 股票吗？\n\nShroff 女士：\n法官阁下，异议。\n\n法庭：\n异议驳回。异议驳回。请回答。\n\n答：G/Club 和喜马拉雅交易所都在 2020 年十月之后。关于 GTV 投资是在四月，而我在 2020 年五月得知此事，那么我怎么可能通过观看另一场直播而得知 GTV 投资——\n\n法庭：\n您再一次没有回答问题。我将要求书记员重读问题，您只回答所问的问题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n（笔录被宣读）\n\n答：在我投资之前，没有，他没有提到该事项。\n\n问：戴先生，我的问题是，您证称自己在过去几年一直观看 Miles Guo 的直播。在您观看其直播的那段期间，Miles Guo 曾谈及 GTV 股份，这是真的吗？\n\n答：是，他确实提到过。\n\n问：而且，您相信他就此所说的一切，这是真的吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，他也谈及其他投资；对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，您也相信他就那些投资所说的一切，这是真的吗？\n\n答：在我阅读该文件之后，是的，我相信。\n\n问：而且，GTV 中的 “G” 代表 Guo；对吗？\n\n答：不。\n\n问：G/Clubs 中的 “G”，该 “G” 代表 Guo，对吗？\n\n答：不。\n\n问：而且，G Fashion 中的 “G”，该 “G” 代表 Guo，对吗？\n\n答：不。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：而且，在 Miles Guo 于那些广播中谈及的 G Series 投资中，“G” 代表 Guo，对吗？\n\n答：对我而言，我不会称其为 G Series，我不会那样说。我不知道它代表什么。\n\n问：戴先生，您的证词是，在投资 GTV、G/Clubs 及其他 G Series 投资之后，您不知道 “G” 代表什么？\n\nShroff 女士：\n异议。这不是他所说的话。这完全歪曲了他的回答。\n\n法庭：\n您可以回答。\n\n证人：\n我现在可以回答吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。请回答。\n\n答：我知道 “G” 的含义。它不代表 Guo。它代表 global。\n\n问：您的证词是，当 Miles Guo 推介 GTV、G/Club、G Fashion 和 G Series 投资时，“G” 代表 global？\n\nShroff 女士：\n已问过并已回答。\n\n法庭：\n异议驳回。您可以回答。\n\n答：是的，它代表 global。这很明显。我可以解释吗？\n\n法庭：\n不可以。请继续。\n\n问：戴先生，您听说过 Guo Media，对吗？\n\n答：您说 Guo Media 吗？我听说过。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：而且，Guo Media 中的 “Guo” 指的是 Miles Guo，对吗？\n\n答：也许是，但他并不是您刚才提到的那些。\n\n问：戴先生，您的证词是，Guo Media 中的 “Guo” 只是可能指 Miles Guo；对吗？\n\n答：我不知道。我没有投资 Guo Media。我从未见过有关其含义的特定文件、解释或说明。\n\n问：好的。您听到 Miles Guo 在其广播中谈及喜马拉雅交易所，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，当 Miles Guo 说喜马拉雅交易所是一家加密货币交易所时，您相信这一点，对吗？\n\n答：我听到过这个，但我相信其内容，是因为当时我阅读相关信息时，我无法判断它是真是假。\n\n问：那么，您在观看的 Miles Guo 直播中，听到他谈及喜马拉雅交易所、H Coin 和 H dollar，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且，当 Miles Guo 谈及 Himalaya Coin 或 Himalaya Dollar 时，您相信他在您所观看的广播中所说的话，您相信了，对吗？\n\n答：不，我当时并不相信。我只是感兴趣。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：戴先生，您的证词是，有些时候您听到 Miles Guo 谈及喜马拉雅交易所，而您并不相信他所说的话？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：而且，有些时候 Miles Guo 谈及 GTV，而您并不相信他所说的话？\n\nShroff 女士：\n法官阁下——\n\n答：我没有办法判断。我只是听到一些有趣的信息，然后等待出现更多信息，以便我决定那是否真实，或者我是否应当相信。\n\n问：您同意我的说法，对吗，H Coin 并非由黄金支持？\n\n答：H Coin 没有以黄金作为支持。\n\n问：对。而当 Miles Guo 说它由黄金支持时，他是在说谎吗？\n\n答：我不认为他在说谎。我当时认为他是在表达他对 H Coin 的理解。但显然，在 H Exchange 的白皮书中，没有明确 H Coin 由黄金支持，因此我认为 H Coin 是一个独立平台，所以他可以——他可以决定或设计如何处理该加密货币。\n\n问：戴先生，您同意我的说法，对吗，Miles Guo 设计了 H Coin？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nHorton 先生：\nLoftus 女士，我们可以调出已作为证据的 GX9 并转到第 120 页吗。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：戴先生，喜马拉雅交易所于 November 1, 2021 正式推出；对吗？\n\n答：是，正式推出，是。\n\n问：在您面前的屏幕上有一份名为 GX9 的文件，如果您看该页顶部。戴先生，您看到左上方突出显示的日期 September 29, 2021 吗？\n\n问：戴先生，问题是，您看到左上角的日期吗？\n\n答：是，我看到了。\n\n问：顺便说一下，G News，您的证词是 G News 中的 “G” 也不代表 Guo 吗？\n\n答：那显然不代表 Guo。您可以放大它。\n\n问：您的证词是——\n\nShroff 女士：\n法官阁下，我们能否请求将文件放大。\n\n法庭：\n我们还没有听到问题。\n\nShroff 女士：\n证人要求将文件放大。\n\n法庭：\n当然，应当放大。当然。\n\n问：戴先生，G News——\n\n答：如您所见，G News——\n\n法庭：\n请稍等。您必须等待问题，才能作出回答。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴——交叉询问\n\n问：戴先生，问题是，您今天的证词是否为，G News 中的 “G” 也不代表 Guo？\n\n答：不代表 Guo 先生。\n\n问：您看到该文件题为 Miles Guo 于 September 29, 2021 进行的直播要点吗？您看到了吗？\n\n答：是，我能看到标题。\n\n问：而且，您看到页面顶部截图中间的 Guo 先生吗？\n\n答：是，我看到了。\n\n问：谢谢。\n\nHorton 先生：\nLoftus 女士，请缩小画面。\n\n问：戴先生，Guo 先生在该日即 September 29, 2021 所作的陈述，距离喜马拉雅交易所推出仅有数周；对吗？\n\n答：我认为可能早于一个多月，是。\n\n问：而且，Guo 先生说：“目前最安全的虚拟币是 Himalaya Coin，因为其价值的 20 percent 与黄金挂钩。”您看到那里写的内容了吗？\n\n答：是，我看到了。\n\n问：那么，当 Guo 先生那样说时，那不是真的，对吗？\n\nShroff 女士：\n法官阁下，我根据 Federal Rule of Evidence 609 提出异议；如果我需要进一步阐述，我愿意进行庭边商议。608，抱歉。\n\n案号 22-50073\nO78BGUO2　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24\n\n戴——交叉询问　登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 96 页，共\n\n法庭：好的。我们进行庭边商议。\n\n（续下页）\n\n5349 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问（在法官席旁） 1 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 97 页，共 500 页\n\n法庭：你是否要向我说明608条，Kamaraju（卡马拉朱）先生？ 2 3\n\nKAMARAJU先生：法官阁下，我将结合另一条规则来说明。规则608禁止使用具体行为事例来攻击证人的证词。基本上，你不能询问另一名证人某人是否撒谎。并且，由于Guo（郭文贵）先生的陈述是作为庭外陈述人的陈述提出的，他受同样规则的约束。\n\n法庭：那么，你实质上不是想要弹劾Guo先生吗？\n\nFERGENSON先生：问题是他刚刚读出的这项陈述是否真实。它没有涉及——它不是608条项下的品格证据。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：是609(b)。\n\nHORTON先生：法官阁下，我承认，我感到困惑。这是一起欺诈案。争议在于Guo先生谈论投资时是否撒谎。证人作证称，他观看了Guo先生的直播，其中他就投资作出陈述。证人还作证称，H Coin并非以黄金作担保。他就此与我意见一致。Guo先生反复说H Coin以黄金作担保。本欺诈案的问题是，这不是真的，对吗？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：你仍然不能要求一名证人\n\n5350 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 98 页，共 500 页\n\n就具体事例弹劾另一名证人的可信度。Guo先生是一名可以被弹劾的庭外陈述人。这是一起欺诈案。他们可以证明他撒了谎，但方法不是向一名证人说，他在这一次是否撒了谎。\n\nSHROFF女士：你不能询问具体事例。\n\nHORTON先生：不可能允许他们为增强Guo先生可信度的目的传唤一名证人，谈论重要性的正反两面，然后我们却不能根据该证人先前关于H Coin事实上以黄金作担保的证词，询问这项具体陈述不是真实的。\n\nSHROFF女士：实际上，证人作证称他阅读了白皮书，而那是他所依赖的内容。他一再告诉你，他并未依赖Guo先生的视频。你无视他的所有回答，并不断沿着视频这条路穷追不舍。而且该规则对欺诈案没有例外——我认为法条非常明确——你不得询问具体事例，并询问出庭的人这些事例是真是假。如果法条规定，顺便说一句，我们在欺诈案中作出例外，我很乐意听到这一点。\n\n法庭：另一条规则是什么，Kamaraju先生？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：请给我一点时间。这是对庭外陈述人陈述的弹劾。我得 23 24 25\n\n5351 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 99 页，共 500 页\n\n想起规则编号。1\n\nFERGENSON先生：如果可以的话，法官阁下。我认为只需回到一些基本要点。这是一起关于向投资者作出陈述以及该等陈述是否真实的案件。这不是关于——不存在类似于整个——如果Kamaraju先生是正确的，那么政府的整个控方案情陈述都是不当的，因为我们是在弹劾一名庭外陈述人，即被告人。当然，在欺诈案中，你会说被告人所说的话不真实。这正是控方的全部基础。这项规则，尽管有些微妙，在这里并不适用。我们是在询问证人，他是否同意该项陈述在事实层面并不真实。这是待决问题。应驳回异议。\n\n法庭：我记得控方曾向其证人提出同样的问题。你当时为何没有提出异议？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：我提出了。\n\n法庭：你当时为何没有援引该规则？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：我援引了。我援引了，法官阁下，但我确实认为存在区别——我想说明这一差别。在欺诈案或任何其他案件中，询问一名证人能够表明被告人陈述不真实的基础事实，与询问其他事项之间存在区别。他们无疑可以这样做。对此不存在 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5352 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 100 页，共 500 页\n\n禁止。我提出异议的要点是，询问证人他认为Guo先生是否在某一具体事例中撒谎。那正是该规则所禁止的。这并不会束缚Southern District of New York（纽约南区）今后提起欺诈案件；他们只须以符合证据规则的方式进行。\n\nFERGENSON先生：那不是待决问题。待决问题是该事实陈述是否真实。没有理由证人不能回答该问题，而且我认为Horton先生无需问，“Miles Guo（郭文贵）在作出该陈述时是明知故犯地撒谎，对吗？”他不会问这个。他只需问该陈述是否真实，这就是待决问题，应驳回异议。\n\n法庭：还有其他事项吗？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：我仅指出，我认为那不是此前的问题。如果这将成为问题，答案就不同了。\n\n法庭：我记得那就是问题。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：为了让我理解该裁定，其含义不是他可以说Miles Guo在该事例中是否撒谎。他可以问Miles Guo所说的该事实陈述是否真实？\n\n法庭：那正是他所问的。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：我只是确保我理解法庭正沿着这一方向处理。23 24 25\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴—交叉询问\n\n1　法庭：\n你并未对该问题提出异议，对吗？\n\n2　KAMARAJU先生：\n我不会继续提出异议。\n\n3　法庭：\n我说的是，你并未对该\n\n4　问题提出异议？\n\n5　SHROFF女士：\n我们提出异议。\n\n6　法庭：\n你们提出异议？\n\n7　KAMARAJU先生：\n对于他理解的事实前提是否真实？\n\n8　\n\n9　法庭：\n是。\n\n10　KAMARAJU先生：\n我认为我不能对此提出异议，\n\n11　法官阁下。\n我已经提出了异议。\n\n12　法庭：\n好的。\n请稍等一下。\n\n13　我只是想和我的书记员讨论另一项问题。\n\n14　SHROFF女士：\n法官阁下，在此之前还提出了一连串\n\n15　问题，询问Guo先生是否\n\n16　就具体事例撒谎。我没有\n\n17　打断，但只要那些问题涉及向证人询问的\n\n18　具体事例，那些问题也不当。\n\n19　而且记录应当明确，证人已\n\n20　反复表示，他在决定是否投资时\n\n21　并未依赖该视频。\n他一再这样说。\n\n22　法庭：\n你是否问过包含\n\n23　“撒谎”一词的问题？\n\n24　SHROFF女士：\n是。\n\n25　FERGENSON先生：\n他问过，而且当时他们没有提出异议。\n\n5354 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 102 页，共 500 页\n\n对此。我们不会继续提出那些问题。我们将询问事实陈述，这正是被提出异议的内容，而且我认为对此不应提出异议。1 2 3\n\n法庭：请稍等片刻。\n\nSHROFF女士：关于他撒谎的问题应予删除。\n\n法庭：等一下。我想回到DiMaria（迪马里亚）问题。我认为辩方提出Guo先生的陈述，是为了证明他的心理状态。DiMaria不同。那是一种不同的情形，即被告人在当时说了某些话，因此我不会允许这些关于俱乐部地点的问题，姑且这么说。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：仅有两点。您此前问我，就攻击庭外陈述人可信度而言，我援引的是哪一条规则。那是规则806，该规则规定，如同陈述人已作为证人作证时可为该等目的采纳的任何证据所支持的那样，陈述人的可信度可以受到攻击，因此其受608条限制的约束。\n\n然后，法官阁下，关于DiMaria，我还想说的是，我相信——我可能错了，但我相信——该案并非作为当时感知印象被采纳。我相信该案是作为心理状态例外被采纳，因为法庭在该案中明确讨论了该项例外，并且\n\n5355 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 103 页，共 500 页\n\n区分了其他讨论该项例外的第二巡回区案件。因此，依我理解，该案当然是一个心理状态案件，而不是当时感知印象案件。因此，我预计这一问题还会再次出现，所以我只是想指出这一点，因为我认为我们还会再次援引该案。1 2 3 4 5 6\n\n法庭：好的。我不会准许有关地点的陈述。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：仅就这名证人而言，还是对于任何询问而言？9 10\n\n法庭：目前仅就这名证人而言。我不知道其他人会谈论什么。他们可能会说他们去过该地点。我不知道。11 12 13\n\nKAMARAJU先生：明白。\n（续下页）\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴—交叉询问\n\n1　（公开法庭内）\n\n2　法庭：\n你可以继续。\n\n3　HORTON先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n4　由HORTON先生询问：\n\n5　问：\n戴先生，请将您的注意力重新转回屏幕上的Guo先生\n\n6　陈述。\n\n7　Guo先生于2021年9月29日在G News（G新闻）上所作的陈述称，\n\n8　目前最安全的虚拟货币是Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币），\n\n9　因为其价值的20 percent以黄金为锚定。\n\n10　该陈述不真实，对吗？\n\n11　答：\n您的意思是，与H Exchange（H交易所）的白皮书相比，\n\n12　该陈述是否真实？如果是这样，该陈述不真实，\n\n13　因为它并未与黄金挂钩。\n\n14　问：\n对。\n\n15　HORTON先生：\nLoftus（洛夫特斯）女士，请向下滚动\n\n16　至第121页第二段。实际上，请\n\n17　停在第120页底部。\n\n18　问：\n你看到左侧的日期2021年10月20日吗？\n\n19　答：\n是，我看到了。\n\n20　问：\n那正是在Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）上线前12天，\n\n21　对吗？\n\n22　答：\n是。\n\n23　问：\n截图中间的是Guo先生，对吗？\n\n24　\n\n25　答：\n是。\n\n5357 O78BGUO2 戴—交叉询问 案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 105 页，共 500 页\n\n1　HORTON先生：\nLoftus女士，请向下滚动至\n\n2　摘录部分。就在本页第二段，并且\n\n3　请从“What is called?”开始高亮接下来的三行、\n\n4　四行。\n\n5　问：\n戴先生，2021年10月20日，Guo先生说：“What is\n\n6　called? 我说的是你们的H Coins。\n\n7　Brother Seven（七哥）当时设计了它。”\n\n8　你同意Brother Seven就是Miles Guo，对吗？\n\n9　答：\n是。\n\n10　问：\n那么，Miles Guo设计了H Coin；对吗？\n\n11　SHROFF女士：\n异议。他是在询问其\n\n12　理解，还是在询问该文件所述内容？\n\n13　HORTON先生：\n法官阁下，我向戴先生提出的问题是——\n\n14　问：\n戴先生，Miles Guo没有设计H Coin吗？\n\n15　SHROFF女士：\n异议。他没有亲身知情。\n\n16　法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n17　答：\n这个地方是这样写的，但我不确定其背后真正的设计者是谁。\n\n18　\n\n19　问：\n那么，Miles Guo——Miles Guo所说的这一陈述是否真实——\n\n20　\n\n21　SHROFF女士：\n异议。\n\n22　法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n23　SHROFF女士：\n我们在法官席旁讨论过这一点，而且他\n\n24　也说过他不知道。\n\n25　法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴—交叉询问\n\n1　A.\n请重复一下您的问题，因为我刚才被打断了。\n\n2　Q.\n郭文贵（Miles Guo）称，H Coin 有 20 percent 黄金，\n\n3　并且其与黄金挂钩，不是与其他东西挂钩，而是直接与黄金挂钩。\n\n4　戴先生（Mr. Dai），该陈述属实吗？\n\n5　A.\n他确实说过这句话。他确实说过那句话，\n\n6　但这与喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）的白皮书并不矛盾。\n\n7　\n\n8　Q.\n戴先生，您的证言是，该陈述与白皮书\n\n9　并不矛盾吗？\n\n10　是的，正确，不矛盾。\nA.\n\n11　Q.\n为确保我理解无误，戴先生，郭先生于 October 20, 2021 所作的\n\n12　H Coin 有 20 percent 黄金这一陈述，\n\n13　您的证言是，该陈述与\n\n14　白皮书一致还是不一致？\n\n15　A.\n不一致。\n\n16　Q.\n您屏幕上郭文贵的这一陈述不属实，\n\n17　对吗？\n\n18　SHROFF 女士（MS. SHROFF）：\n反对，已问过并已回答。\n\n19　法庭（THE COURT）：\n他没有回答。您现在可以回答。\n\n20　Q.\n戴先生，您屏幕上郭文贵的这一陈述\n\n21　不属实，对吗？\n\n22　A.\n我相信那是他对 H Coin 的理解。\n\n23　Q.\n这不属实，对吗？\n\n24　SHROFF 女士：\n反对，已问过并已回答。\n\n25　HORTON 先生（MR. HORTON）：\n他没有回答问题。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　法庭：\n该问题没有得到回答。先生，\n\n2　请回答问题。\n\n3　Q.\n戴先生，郭文贵的这一陈述不属实，不是\n\n4　这样吗？\n\n5　A.\n其内容不属实，但我不明白——您的意思是——\n\n6　\n\n7　法庭：\n我要您准确回答所问的问题。\n\n8　您对该问题有什么不理解之处吗？\n\n9　\n\n10　证人（THE WITNESS）：\n我理解该问题。\n\n11　A.\n他确实说过那句话。但如果您问我他是否说过\n\n12　这句话，是的，他确实说过。\n\n13　HORTON 先生：\n法官阁下，政府请求\n\n14　删除“其内容不属实”之后的回答。\n\n15　SHROFF 女士：\n他回答了政府的问题。\n\n16　法庭：\n“属实”一词之后的内容\n\n17　予以删除。\n\n18　Q.\n上周，戴先生，Shroff 女士问了您一些问题。\n\n19　HORTON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，请把这个撤下。\n\n20　Q.\n上周，Shroff 女士问了您一些问题，内容是——\n\n21　购买 G/Club 会员资格是否会让您获得 GTV 股票，您\n\n22　记得吗？\n\n23　A.\n是的，我记得。\n\n24　Q.\n而您上周的证言是，G/Club 和 GTV 似乎\n\n25　完全没有关联，您记得作过该证言吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　A.\n是的，我记得。\n\n2　HORTON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，我们能否向戴先生出示\n\n3　已作为证据的 GX29 第 113 页。\n\n4　Q.\n戴先生，这张截图中是郭文贵，对吗？\n\n5　A.\n是。\n\n6　Q.\n该截图来自 July 30, 2021。您看到\n\n7　左上角的日期了吗？\n\n8　A.\n是，我看到了。\n\n9　Q.\n该视频是在 GTV 上录制的，您在 URL 中看到了吗？\n\n10　A.\n是。\n\n11　Q.\n而且您观看过 GTV，对吗？\n\n12　A.\n是。\n\n13　HORTON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，我们能否向下滚动至——\n\n14　SHROFF 女士：\n法官阁下，政府尚未\n\n15　证明证人看过这一特定视频。\n\n16　HORTON 先生：\n它已作为证据。\n\n17　SHROFF 女士：\n那不是问题所在。\n\n18　法庭：\n我尚未听到问题，所以我希望\n\n19　听到问题。\n\n20　HORTON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，请向下滚动\n\n21　至文件的相应部分。该部分\n\n22　横跨第 114 页和第 115 页。\n\n23　法庭：\n我刚意识到现在是 11:33，因此\n\n24　到了半小时休庭时间。请记住，你们不得\n\n25　相互讨论本案。不得\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO2\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　允许任何人在你们在场时讨论本案。不要阅读、\n\n2　收听或观看任何来源中涉及\n\n3　本案争议事项的任何内容。\n\n4　法官助理（THE LAW CLERK）：\n陪审团退庭。\n\n5　（陪审团不在场）\n\n6　法庭：\n先生，您可以出去。不要讨论您的\n\n7　证言。\n\n8　（下页续）\n\n5362 O78BGUO2 戴 — 交叉询问 案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 110 页，共 500 页\n\n1 2\n（陪审团不在场）\n\n法庭：请坐。在我们于中午恢复开庭之前，有什么事项需要处理吗？\n\nHORTON 先生：政府有一项非常简短的事项。休庭前，我没有尚待回答的问题。我认为 Shroff 女士没有提出异议。只是 Shroff 女士作出了打断和主张。只请求不允许她这样做。她可以提出异议。她可以等待法庭的裁定，并且遵守裁定。\n\n法庭：所以，Shroff 女士，您是在作证，而不只是提出异议。不要这样做。\n\nSHROFF 女士：是的，法官阁下。不过，我确有一项事项要提出。政府故意不询问证人，向其出示的文件是否是该证人此前曾看过、曾阅览过，甚至曾观看过的内容。政府一贯这样问——Horton 先生，您能坐下让我说完吗？谢谢。\n\n法庭：由我决定某人是站着还是坐着，Shroff 女士。18 19\n\nSHROFF 女士：我看不见。\n\n法庭：不要指挥他们做什么。\n\nSHROFF 女士：法官阁下，我能否请求政府在我发言时不要站着，因为我看不见。我个子相当矮。22 23 24\n\n法庭：嗯，我能清楚看见您。Horton 先生和 Fergenson 先生（Mr. Fergenson）之间有空隙，所以请您仅限于提出纯粹的法律问题。\n\n5363 O78BGUO2 戴 — 交叉询问 案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 111 页，共 500 页\n\nSHROFF 女士：我反对政府向证人提问的方式。政府故意跳过询问证人是否曾看过这一特定视频、甚至是否听过该视频的步骤。他们所说的是，这是已作为证据的文件，现在从中朗读。现在告诉我您所读的内容是否属实。这就是政府正在做的事，这也是我对其提问方式持续提出异议的原因。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nHORTON 先生：法官阁下，这正是复询的用途。没有任何规则规定，如果一份文件已作为证据，我必须证明该证人与该文件之间存在某种个人关系。该证人还曾作证称，他每天观看五小时 GTV。\n\nSHROFF 女士：法官阁下，这正是 Schirick 先生（Mr. Schirick）所做的，以及——18 19\n\n法庭：Shroff 女士，不要在我说话时插话。Horton 先生正确陈述了法律。如果您想在复询时询问他是否看过某份文件或视频，您可以这样做。我们中午恢复开庭。\n\n（休庭）\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　下 午 庭 审\n\n2　12:05 P.M.\n\n3　法庭：\n请让陪审员入庭。\n\n4　（陪审团在场）\n\n5　法庭：\n请坐。\n\n6　请继续询问。\n\n7　HORTON 先生：\n我们正在等候证人，\n\n8　法官阁下。\n\n9　（证人在场）\n\n10　法庭：\n先生，请记住您仍在\n\n11　宣誓之下。\n\n12　HORTON 先生：\n我可以询问吗？\n\n13　法庭：\n是，您可以。\n\n14　由 HORTON 先生询问：\n\n15　Q.\n戴先生，您能清楚听到我说话吗？\n\n16　A.\n是的，我能听到。\n\n17　Q.\n休庭前，我问您是否记得\n\n18　您上周作证称，G CLUB 和 GTV 似乎\n\n19　完全没有关联。您记得吗？\n\n20　A.\n是。\n\n21　Q.\n如果有人说 G CLUB 和 GTV 有关联，\n\n22　那就不属实，对吗？\n\n23　A.\n但就我的证言而言，我只是在谈论我的战友，\n\n24　我不知道您还在谈论什么，不是。\n\n25　\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　HORTON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，请出示\n\n2　已作为证据的 GX-9 第 113 页。\n\n3　Q.\n郭先生，您看到了吗？\n\n4　A.\n我当时说的是私人——抱歉。\n\n5　法庭：\n所以目前没有任何问题。因此，\n\n6　请等候问题。\n\n7　Q.\n戴先生，您在这里的截图中看到了郭先生吗？\n\n8　A.\n是。\n\n9　Q.\n您看到这是来自 GTV 吗？您看到左边的 URL 了吗？\n\n10　\n\n11　A.\n是，我看到了。\n\n12　HORTON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，请到第 114 页底部\n\n13　和第 115 页顶部。请再向下滚动\n\n14　几行。哦，请向陪审团展示。\n\n15　请问陪审团能看到屏幕吗？\n\n16　Q.\n这是郭文贵于 July 30th, 2021 所作的陈述。\n\n17　戴先生，您看到了吗？您能看到屏幕上的\n\n18　陈述吗？\n\n19　\n\n20　A.\n是，我能看到。\n\n21　Q.\n郭文贵说，仍有很多人在提问，包括长岛兄弟（Brother Long Island）。\n\n22　\n\n23　戴先生，您知道长岛兄弟是谁吗？\n\n24　A.\n是的，我知道长岛兄弟是谁。\n\n25　Q.\n他是喜马拉雅农场联盟的领导人，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　A.\n是。\n\n2　Q.\n刚才在您回答我的问题时，您提到了\n\n3　战友，对吗？\n\n4　A.\n是。\n\n5　Q.\n郭文贵于 July 2021 在这里说：仍有很多\n\n6　人在提问，包括长岛兄弟。而且\n\n7　Kai 告诉我，一些战友问，购买 G CLUB 会员资格后，\n\n8　我是否仍会得到股票配售。而且\n\n9　郭文贵说，100 percent。因为我说过，我必须\n\n10　承诺，任何在 September 17th 之前购买 G CLUB 会员资格的人\n\n11　都必须获配股份，这完全\n\n12　相同。因为我们说过，任何人都可以选择是否用\n\n13　你的钱在 September 17 之前购买 G CLUB、G CLUB 和\n\n14　股票。你会同时得到两者。\n\n15　戴先生，您看到了吗？\n\n16　A.\n是。\n\n17　Q.\n而且您相信郭文贵说实话，对吗？\n\n18　SHROFF 女士：\n反对。\n\n19　该问题已被多次问过并回答。\n\n20　法庭：\n我相信是这样。维持异议。\n\n21　Q.\n上周，戴先生，向您出示了一些您在作证前\n\n22　录制的截图和视频。您记得\n\n23　吗？\n\n24　A.\n是，我记得。\n\n25　Q.\n郭先生的律师要求您制作这些录制内容，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴 — 交叉询问\n\n1　对吗？\n\n2　A.\n是我录制的。\n\n3　Q.\n而且您为郭先生的律师录制了您 H Pay\n\n4　和喜马拉雅交易所账户的视频，对吗？\n\n5　A.\n是。\n\n6　Q.\n今天早些时候，Shroff 女士问您，您账户上的所有功能\n\n7　在上周是否与其在 2022 年时相同，您\n\n8　记得吗？\n\n9　A.\n我记得。\n\n10　Q.\n而且您在宣誓之下称，有两项功能不同，\n\n11　它们受到限制。您记得吗？\n\n12　A.\n我记得。\n\n13　Q.\n其中一项受限功能是赎回，\n\n14　不是吗？\n\n15　A.\n您所说的“赎回”是什么意思？\n\n16　Q.\n您说，2022 年时有两项功能您无法使用，其中一项功能——\n\n17　\n\n18　SHROFF 女士：\n反对。这不是他的\n\n19　证言。\n\n20　法庭：\n驳回。\n\n21　Q.\n其中一项受限功能是赎回，这属实\n\n22　吗？\n\n23　A.\n您说的“赎回”，是指将 HDO 转换为\n\n24　美元并转入银行账户吗？\n\n25　Q.\n完全正确。那在一段时间内是受限功能之一，\n\n5369 O78VGUO3 戴 — 交叉询问 一段时间内，不是吗？SHROFF 女士：反对“一段时间内”。法庭：驳回。A. 是的，赎回金额下降了。Q. 戴先生，您有一个 Twitter 账户，对吗？HORTON 先生：抱歉，请口译员朗读一下回答。法庭：我在等。口译员（THE INTERPRETER）：您是要口译员朗读——HORTON 先生：戴先生已经回答了。A. 是的，我有。Q. 而且您关注一些与加密货币有关的账户，对吗？A. 是。Q. 而且您知道喜马拉雅交易所有一个 Twitter 账户，对吗？A. 是。Q. 您知道吗，在您上周三作证期间，喜马拉雅交易所在 Twitter 上发文称其网站因维护而下线？SHROFF 女士：反对。传闻证据。法庭：驳回。您可以回答。A. 这次维护是为了准确，并且很快就会结束并恢复正常。这在此前曾发生过几次。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 116 页，共 500 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nDai（戴先生）—交叉询问\n\n1　这不影响使用。\n2　问：戴先生，您知道 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）删除了\n3　那条 7 月 3 日的推文吗？\n4　答：我不知道。\n5　问：在您上周作证和您今天作证之间，\n6　本案程序曾有一次休庭。您记得\n7　这件事吗？\n8　口译员：口译员请求重复。\n9　答：我休息了吗？我休息了。\n10　问：在您上周作证和您今天作证之间，\n11　您再次会见了 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的律师，对吗？\n12　\n13　答：是。\n14　问：您会见了 Shroff（施罗夫女士）？\n15　答：是。\n16　问：您会见了那边的 Schirick（席里克先生）？\n17　答：是。\n18　问：您会见了不在本庭内的 Barkan（巴尔坎先生），对吗？\n19　\n20　答：是。\n21　问：在那些会面中，还有郭文贵的其他律师，\n22　对吗？\n23　答：有。\n24　问：这是在您上周开始作证之后，对吗？\n25　\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—交叉询问\n\n1　答：是。\n2　问：郭文贵的律师就如何完成\n3　您的证言向您提供了建议，对吗？\n4　答：不，他们没有向我提供建议。\n5　问：不过，他们和您谈过您的证言，不是吗？\n6　答：证言。他们问我问题；我回答。\n7　问：他们就您的回答向您提供了反馈，不是吗？\n8　答：没有，他们提到我上次声音很小。\n\n9　问：戴先生，您知道今天是 7 月 8 日吗？\n10　答：我知道。\n11　问：您知道昨晚 Himalaya Exchange 又一次\n12　因维护而关闭了吗？\n13　答：是，我知道。\n14　问：如果可以，您想帮助郭文贵，对吗，\n15　戴先生？\n16　答：是。\n17　问：您于 6 月 28 日从您在德国的家中飞来\n18　此处，试图帮助郭先生，这是真的吗？\n19　答：是。\n20　问：您已经在这里将近两周，试图帮助\n21　郭先生，对吗？\n22　答：是，十天。\n23　问：今天上午，在您恢复作证之前，当您坐在那把椅子上时，\n24　戴先生，而郭文贵坐在他现在所在的座位上时，郭文贵看着\n25　\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　您，做了这个动作，并点头微笑；对吗？\n2　\n3　答：我没有看到。\n4　问：戴先生，您在宣誓后作证称，今天上午稍早，在您恢复作证之前，\n5　郭文贵没有看向您；当您坐在那把椅子上时，他站在现在所坐的位置，\n6　而郭文贵没有看着您并\n7　做这个动作，\n8　是吗？\n9　答：我看到他向我微笑，但我没有看到手势。\n10　问：先生，您仍然相信郭文贵，对吗？\n11　答：是，我相信他。\n12　HORTON（霍顿先生）：法官阁下，请允许我\n13　占用片刻。\n14　法庭：好的。\n15　（律师商议）\n16　霍顿先生：谢谢。我们没有进一步的问题。\n17　法庭：复询。\n18　复询\n19　由 SHROFF 女士进行：\n20　问：戴先生，让我向您出示 G-9，那个是——抱歉，\n21　显然是 GX CC-9 或 Z-9。\n22　施罗夫女士：能否把第一部分放大一些，\n23　给他看。\n24　问：戴先生，政府律师曾向您询问过 G News 中的“G”\n25　代表什么；对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　此处？\n2　答：是。\n3　问：您的回答被打断了；对吗？\n4　霍顿先生：反对。\n5　法庭：驳回。您可以回答。\n6　答：“G”代表全球。\n7　问：好的。我能否指出，您的回答被打断了，\n8　您说“G”显然是全球。您\n9　记得这样说过吗？\n10　霍顿先生：法官阁下，反对。问题的第一部分\n11　是施罗夫女士的证言。\n12　法庭：不要作证。\n13　问：您记得说过这是显然的吗？\n14　答：是。\n15　问：您能否向陪审团说明，为什么对您而言，G\n16　News 代表 Global News（全球新闻）是显然的？\n17　答：这显然来自标志的设计；这是地球仪，是一个圆形，\n18　也是其象征性设计。\n19　施罗夫女士：好的。那么我们能否——\n20　答：显然代表全球。\n21　施罗夫女士：请把它放大，好吗。\n22　问：您看到“G”中间有郭文贵的脸吗？\n23　答：没有。\n24　施罗夫女士：谢谢，Jorge（豪尔赫）。\n25　您可以把它撤下。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　问：戴先生，您第一次听说 GTV 是在何时？\n2　答：您指的是 GTV Media（GTV 媒体）平台，还是 GTV\n3　私募？\n4　问：我们先说平台。您第一次得知\n5　该平台是在何时？\n6　答：2020 年 4 月。\n7　问：那么私募呢？\n8　答：私募信息是在 2020 年 5 月。\n9　问：您记得政府律师曾就您观看郭文贵关于 GTV 的视频\n10　向您提问吗？\n11　答：记得。\n12　问：您记得观看过郭文贵提到“GTV”一词的每一个\n13　视频吗？\n14　答：您能重复一下问题吗？\n15　口译员：口译员可以重复。\n16　答：我不能确定我是否记得全部。但如果我——\n17　问：戴先生，您说完了吗，还是仍在说话？\n18　口译员：请再重复一次您的回答。\n19　\n20　施罗夫女士：我将重新表述问题。\n21　由 SHROFF 女士进行：\n22　问：戴先生，您是否观看过郭文贵制作过的每一个\n23　视频？\n24　答：我不能确定，但我相信我看过大部分。\n25　问：在您通过私募投资之前，您是否\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　看过他的每一次有关 GTV 的直播讨论？\n2　答：在我完成私募之前，我没有看到\n3　郭先生就私募投资进行直播。\n4　问：您是否阅读了私募的所有随附文件，\n5　包括英文和普通话版本？\n6　答：是。\n7　问：戴先生，曾有人问您关于“G\n8　Series”的措辞，您记得吗？\n9　答：是。\n10　问：在今天法庭上政府律师使用“G Series”这一措辞之前，\n11　您自己是否曾使用过这一措辞？\n12　答：我不记得我是否使用过这一措辞。\n13　问：当他问您关于 G Series 的问题时，您知道他的意思吗？\n14　\n15　答：我知道它的意思。\n16　问：曾有人问您关于 Guo Media（郭媒体）的问题，您记得\n17　吗？\n18　答：是。\n19　问：您投资过郭媒体吗？\n20　答：没有。\n21　问：您研究过郭媒体吗？\n22　答：没有。\n23　问：曾有人问您关于 Himalaya Exchange、H Pay、H\n24　Coin 和 H Dollar 的问题；对吗？\n25　答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　问：然后，有人就您上周实际在法庭作证期间\n2　交易所发生的情况向您提问；\n3　对吗？\n4　答：是。\n5　问：他们允许您把手机带进这栋\n6　大楼吗？\n7　答：不允许。\n8　问：他们允许您把电脑带进这栋大楼吗？\n9　答：不允许。\n10　问：除通过互联网外，您是否还有其他方式查看\n11　Himalaya Exchange 的情况？\n12　答：没有。\n13　问：当您投资 H Pay、H Coin、H Dollar 和\n14　Himalaya Exchange 时，您阅读了白皮书吗？\n15　答：是，我阅读了。\n16　问：您曾与我一起审阅过那份白皮书吗？\n17　答：没有。\n18　问：您曾与郭先生律师团队中的任何律师一起审阅过\n19　那份白皮书吗？\n20　答：没有。\n21　问：从 7 月 3 日，或者您最后一次作证的任何日期起，\n22　到今天在这里，郭团队中是否有人向您出示过\n23　一张纸？\n24　答：没有。\n25　问：7 月 4 日，我们是否告诉您去看烟花并\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　庆祝独立日？\n2　霍顿先生：反对。\n3　法庭：您可以回答。\n4　答：是，他们告诉我有烟花。我去了\n5　Brooklyn Bridge Park（布鲁克林大桥公园）看烟花。\n6　问：曾有人问您关于郭先生设计 H Coin 的问题；\n7　对吗？\n8　答：是。\n9　问：而您说您不相信是他亲自设计的；\n10　对吗？\n11　答：我说我不确定是否由他设计。\n12　问：您今天坐在这里时，是否记得郭先生曾谈到，在该币种设计之前，\n13　他如何咨询过专业人士？\n14　\n15　霍顿先生：反对。该问题已在法官席旁提出。\n16　法庭：支持反对。\n17　问：曾有人问您关于拥有 Twitter（推特）账户的问题；\n18　对吗？\n19　答：是。\n20　问：在您的 Twitter 账户上，您关注 Himalaya Exchange；\n21　对吗？\n22　答：是，我关注。\n23　问：您认为 Elon Musk（埃隆·马斯克）对 Twitter 的升级，\n24　比 Himalaya Exchange 所进行的升级频率更低还是更高？\n25　\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　霍顿先生：反对。\n2　法庭：支持反对。\n3　问：曾有人问您关于两项限制的问题，您记得\n4　吗？\n5　答：是。\n6　问：您所谈论的这两项限制是什么？\n7　\n8　答：赎回和充值上限，不能转账——不能将美元转入\n9　Himalaya Exchange 进行购买。并且当您想要——\n10　想把 HDO 兑换成美元时，金额上限\n11　降低了。\n12　问：金额上限是在何时降低的，哪一年？\n13　答：某个时候——我相信是在 2023 年的某个时候。\n14　问：所以在 2022 年情况更好；对吗？\n15　霍顿先生：反对，法官阁下。\n16　问：赎回金额更高——\n17　法庭：支持反对。\n18　问：该限制在 2022 年并不存在；对吗？\n19　霍顿先生：反对。\n20　歪曲证言。\n21　法庭：支持反对。\n22　问：在 2022 年，您能够赎回的金额比 2023 年更多还是更少？\n23　答：更多。当时——当时赎回上限为 $100,000。\n24　\n25　问：那么 2023 年是多少？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　答：5,000。\n2　问：曾有人问您关于郭先生就黄金所作陈述的问题，\n3　对吗？黄金\n4　套餐，对吗？\n5　答：是。\n6　问：在考虑是否购买 H Coin\n7　或 H Dollar 的决定时，您是否将这些陈述纳入考虑？\n8　\n9　答：那些陈述实际上不是我投资\n10　Himalaya Exchange 的依据。\n11　问：为什么不是？\n12　答：因为我看到与美元 1 比 1 挂钩的比例。\n13　这个比例对我来说已经足够好。\n14　问：戴先生，曾有人问您关于您从德国一路飞来此处帮助郭先生的问题；\n15　对吗？\n16　答：对。\n17　问：您上周和今天在这里所作的证言，\n18　是否真实？\n19　答：真实。\n20　问：是否完整？\n21　答：完整。您的意思是，我是否把一切都说了？\n22　问：是。\n23　答：是，我披露了我所知道的一切。\n24　问：我们之中是否有任何人告诉您应如何回答这些\n25　问题？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n戴先生—复询\n\n1　答：没有。\n2　问：除了我告诉您提高音量并清晰发音以外，\n3　我是否还给过您任何其他建议？\n4　答：事实上，我向施罗夫女士抱怨过\n5　耳机设备。她试图帮助我解决这个\n6　问题。她希望我清楚听到问题，\n7　如实回答并提高音量。\n8　问：戴先生，您今天会在这里为了郭先生而说谎吗？\n9　答：不会。\n10　问：您目前有全职工作吗？\n11　答：有。\n12　问：您有妻子和孩子吗？\n13　霍顿先生：反对。相关性。范围。\n14　法庭：支持反对。\n15　施罗夫女士：我没有进一步的问题。\n16　法庭：再次交叉询问。\n17　霍顿先生：法官阁下，我们没有进一步的问题。\n18　法庭：谢谢，先生。您可以离开\n19　法庭。\n20　（证人退庭）\n21　（续见下一页）\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—直接询问\n\n法庭：\n辩方可以传唤下一位证人。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n辩方传唤 Thomas Bishop（托马斯·毕晓普），法官阁下。\n\nThomas Bishop（托马斯·毕晓普），\n\n由被告方传唤作为证人，\n\n在依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n\n法庭：\n你可以询问。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n直接询问\n\n由 KAMARAJU先生进行：\n\n问：\n下午好，Bishop先生。\n\n答：\n下午好。\n\n问：\n先生，您在哪里上学？\n\n答：\n我毕业于 Penn State University（宾夕法尼亚州立大学），获得会计学学士学位。\n\n问：\n在宾夕法尼亚州立大学毕业后，您工作了吗？\n\n答：\n是的。我受雇于 Internal Revenue Service（美国国税局）刑事调查部门。\n\n问：\n美国国税局刑事调查部门是什么？\n\n答：\n美国国税局刑事调查部门是美国国税局的刑事执法机构。\n\n问：\n一般来说，您从事哪类调查工作？\n\n答：\n根据 Bank Secrecy Act（银行保密法）开展的所得税、洗钱和货币犯罪调查。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n问：\n在国税局任职期间，您是否担任过任何监督职务？\n\n答：\n是的，我担任过四个。\n\n问：\n我们先从第一个开始。第一个是什么职务？\n\n答：\n第一个是监督特别探员。\n\n问：\n您能否向陪审团说明您在该职务中的一般职责？\n\n答：\n我监督由10至12名特别探员或刑事调查员组成的小组在调查中的日常业务活动。\n\n问：\n您大约担任该职务多久？\n\n答：\n大约六年。\n\n问：\n该职务结束后，您接下来去了哪里？\n\n答：\n我被晋升到国税局总部的一个政策职位，处理离岸银行问题，并确保国税局该项目的一致性。\n\n问：\n您能否概括说明您在该职务中的职责？\n\n答：\n在该职务中，我的职责是确保对外国离岸银行账户类案件的调查具有一致性和统一性。\n\n问：\n您担任该职务大约多久？\n\n答：\n大约16个月。\n\n问：\n您接下来做什么？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n答：\n我回到纽约，即纽约外勤办公室，担任主管助理特别探员。\n\n问：\n您能否概括说明您在那里的职责。\n\n答：\n当然。这是一个业务职务。您负责监督四个小组——四至五个特别探员小组——的调查项目。\n\n问：\n您担任该职务多久？\n\n答：\n大约四年。\n\n问：\n之后您从事什么工作？\n\n答：\n我去了总部，即 Washington, D.C.（哥伦比亚特区华盛顿），担任国际外勤业务主管。\n\n问：\n请概括说明您在那里的职责。\n\n答：\n在该职务中，我监督派驻国外的员工——国税局在世界各地派驻特别探员——并监督全球调查。\n\n问：\n您能否向陪审团举例说明一项您监督过的全球调查？\n\n答：\n我退休前最后参与的一项是 Panama Papers（巴拿马文件）。\n\n问：\n那是一项洗钱调查吗？\n\n答：\n是的，其中包括洗钱调查部分。\n\n问：\n那么，您在国税局总共工作了多长时间？\n\n答：\n略多于25年。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n问：\n之后您还在其他地方工作过吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n之后您做了什么？\n\n答：\n我在 Baker Tilly U.S.（贝克尔·蒂利美国公司）的法务会计业务部门工作，该公司是一家排名前十的会计师事务所。\n\n问：\n您在该业务部门的职责是什么？\n\n答：\n在该业务部门，我们向客户提供法务会计、调查和诉讼支持、法律和监管合规服务。\n\n问：\n您在贝克尔·蒂利工作了大约多久？\n\n答：\n四年多一点。\n\n问：\n之后您还工作过吗？\n\n答：\n是的。我去了 BDO（立信德豪）。\n\n问：\nBDO是什么？\n\n答：\nBDO是另一家大型会计师事务所，比贝克尔·蒂利稍大。我也在该公司的法务会计业务部门工作。\n\n问：\n您在BDO的职责与在贝克尔·蒂利时相似吗？\n\n答：\n几乎完全相同。\n\n问：\n先生，您现在在哪里工作？\n\n答：\n大约18个月前，我创办了自己的公司。\n\n问：\n一般而言，您的公司从事什么类型的工作？\n\n答：\n就是我刚才所述的同类工作。\n\n问：\n一般而言，您是否就某些类型的事项提供咨询？\n\n答：\n是的。我主要就白领诉讼事项、税务争议和倡导类委托提供咨询。\n\n案号 22-50073　O78VGUO3　文件 3602　提交日期 10/01/24\n500　录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n毕晓普——直接询问　第 132 页，共 5385 页\n\n问：您以前在审判中作过证吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您以前曾作为专家证人作证吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：作为汇总证人呢？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您以前曾代表美国政府作证吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：代表刑事被告人作证呢？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我想谈谈本案。那么，您是否在本案中受聘？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：是谁聘请您的？\n\n答：Guo先生（郭先生）的律师。\n\n问：您是否因您的工作获得报酬？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您如何获得报酬？\n\n答：我按小时计酬。\n\n问：您的时薪是多少？\n\n答：425，$425每小时。\n\n问：那么，先生，一般而言，您能否向陪审团说明您受聘从事什么工作？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n答：一般而言，我受聘审查银行记录和数据。\n\n问：那么，这些银行记录是由郭先生的律师提供给您的吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：郭先生的律师是否指示您查看哪些账户？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：郭先生的律师是否对您的工作提供反馈？\n\n答：是的。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请出示已经作为证据提交的 DX 11598。\n\n问：先生，您认得这种记录吗？\n\n答：认得。\n\n问：一般而言，您如何描述它？\n\n答：这是一份包含银行交易数据的 Excel 电子表格。\n\n问：您知道这是哪家银行的记录吗？\n\n答：我相信是 FV Bank（FV银行）。\n\n问：好的。那么，我们就以其中一些栏位为例逐一查看。那里的日期栏是什么？\n\n答：A栏是日期。\n\n问：它旨在反映什么？\n\n答：交易日期。\n\n问：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n问：\n如果我们查看C栏，它旨在反映什么？\n\n答：那是发起交易方。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。我们可以稍微向右滚动。有很多栏位。我们快速查看I栏。\n\n问：I栏反映什么？\n\n答：I栏反映交易金额。\n\n问：\n好的。那么，如果我们回到前面，您看到G栏了吗，上面写着“付款类型”？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：那反映什么？\n\n答：那反映交易类型。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请滚动到T栏。\n\n问：那反映什么？\n\n答：T栏是受益公司名称。\n\n问：什么是受益公司？\n\n答：那是收款实体的账户名称。\n\n问：您看到那里第2行列出的内容了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：您知道那是什么吗？\n\n答：第2行的 Sharps Pixley（夏普斯·皮克斯利）是伦敦的一家黄金交易商。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n可以撤下。请出示已经作为证据提交的 GX AS-18。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请公布该证据。请转到第10页。好的。如果可以，请放大以“此外”开头的段落。\n\n问：\n先生，您看到了吗？\n\n答：\n看到了。\n\n问：\n好的。请您向陪审团朗读该段，可以吗？\n\n答：\n当然。\n\n“此外，成员可以向 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）提出请求，要求其接受喜马拉雅美元额度的转让，以换取支付至该成员银行账户的等额美元款项。但是，该等兑换由喜马拉雅交易所和 Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）酌情决定。由 Himalaya International Financial Group（喜马拉雅国际金融集团）发行的新币‘HCN’，或 Himalaya Coin、HDO，或喜马拉雅交易所账户内或通过 Himalaya Pay app（喜马拉雅支付应用程序）持有的任何其他类型资产，均指对应于该资产的额度。”\n\n问：\n谢谢，先生。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请转到第12页。\n\n问：\n好的。您看到这里放大的、以“发行人”开头的文字了吗？\n\n答：\n看到了。\n\n问：\n请您朗读该段，可以吗？\n\n答：\n“发行人没有义务提供流动性支持，喜马拉雅交易所也没有义务同意任何成员提出的将HDO额度兑换为美元的请求。并且，该等行动分别完全由发行人和喜马拉雅交易所自行决定。成员对发行人或储备金不享有任何直接或间接请求权。”\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n问：\n谢谢。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请撤下该证据，并请出示已作为证据提交的 DX 11431。\n\n（律师交谈）\n\n问：\n那么，先生，我想请您看一下这份记录。您以前看过吗？\n\n答：\n看过。\n\n问：\n它是银行数据的汇总吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您看到左侧的日期栏了吗？\n\n答：\n看到了，A栏。\n\n问：\n第一个日期是什么？\n\n答：\nJanuary 12, 2022。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。请向下滚动到最后一行。抱歉，向下滚动到最后一行。\n\n问：\n好的。您看到列出的日期了吗——实际上是倒数第三行，但编号为62951的那一行？\n\n答：\n看到了。\n\n问：\n好的。那里列出的日期是什么？\n\n答：\nJune 21, 2022。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请向上滚动到顶部。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\n毕晓普——直接询问\n\n问：\n好的。那么，先生，您知道该账户的账户持有人是谁吗？\n\n答：\n这是一个喜马拉雅银行账户。我只是认为屏幕没有向上滚动得足够多。\n\n问：\n谢谢。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n我们来看几行具体记录。请查看第62187行。\n\n问：\n好的。您看到该行的日期了吗？\n\n答：\n看到了，是 November 22, 2021。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请滚动到H栏。\n\n问：\n好的。您看到说明栏中列出的内容了吗？\n\n答：\n看到了，上面写着“客户赎回”。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。请转到J栏。\n\n问：\n好的。那里列出的是什么？\n\n答：\n客户赎回。\n\n问：\n您看到金额栏了吗？\n\n答：\n看到了，I栏。\n\n问：\n那笔赎回的金额是多少？\n\n答：\n30,000。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。现在请转到第59802行。\n\n问：\n好的。该交易的日期是什么？\n\n答：\nJune 17, 2022.\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。请再次向右滚动至\n\n说明栏。\n\n问：\n好的。那里列明的是什么？\n\n答：\n客户赎回。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请向右滚动至 S\n\n栏。\n\n问：\n调出后，其中列明的受益人是谁？\n\n答：\n受益人的名字是 Lai。\n我推定这是其发音方式。\nL-A-I。\n\n问：\n您也看到姓氏了吗？\n\n答：\n是的。是 D-A-I，Dai。\n\n问：\n谢谢。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n现在请滚动至第\n\n62057 行。\n\n问：\n好的。该笔交易的日期是什么？\n\n答：\nFebruary 4, 2022.\n\n问：\n好的。这也是一笔客户赎回吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请向右滚动至金额\n\n栏。\n\n问：\n赎回金额是多少？\n\n答：\n\\$23,468.40。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。现在请向右滚动至\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—直接询问\n\n受益人栏，即 S 栏和 T 栏。\n\n问：受益人被确定为谁？\n\n答：Lai Dai。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。现在请转至第 62579 行。\n\n问：该笔交易的日期是什么，先生？\n\n答：4/19/2022。\n\n问：好的。这也是一笔客户赎回吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请转至金额栏。\n\n答：\\$53,261.68。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。\n\n请转至 S 栏和 T 栏。\n\n问：列明的受益人是谁？\n\n答：Zhiwei Jia，J-I-A。\n\n问：好的。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n最后一笔，请转至第 62678 行，\n\n谢谢。\n\n问：好的。那里的日期是什么？\n\n答：6/28/2022。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。请向右滚动至\n\n该——抱歉。撤回。\n\n问：这是一笔客户赎回吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请看金额。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—直接询问\n\n答：\n\\$79,890.00。\n\n问：\n好的。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请向右滚动至 S\n\n栏和 T 栏。\n\n答：\n受益人的名字是 Feng，F-E-N-G；受益人的\n\n姓氏是 Tian，T-I-A-N。\n\n问：\n好的。现在，Bishop先生，您是否审阅了本证物所载的\n\n数据？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n您是否以任何形式对其进行了汇总？\n\n答：\n是。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n我想仅为\n\n证人、各方当事人和法庭调出标记为 DX\n\nZ-02 的文件。\n\n问：\n先生，您认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：\n认得。\n\n问：\n它是什么？\n\n答：\n这是对我们刚才看到的图表，即 Excel 电子表格中所载数据的\n\n汇总柱状图。\n\n问：\n它是否是一份公正且准确的汇总？\n\n答：\n是。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n政府提交——抱歉。辩方\n\n申请将 DX Z-02 作为证据提交。\n\nMURRAY女士：\n无异议。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n请予展示。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—直接询问\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n\n（被告方证物 DX Z-02 被接纳为证据）\n\n问：\n那么，先生，这是我们查看过的赎回活动的\n\n柱状图吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n好的。它从哪个月开始？\n\n答：\nNovember 2021.\n\n问：\n好的。它持续了多少个月？\n\n答：\n持续至 June of 2022。\n\n问：\n好的。June 2022 是否是我们所查看的银行记录截止的\n\n时间？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n现在只看该图，按美元金额计算，赎回的最高\n\n水平大约是多少？\n\n答：\nDecember 2021 约为 \\$11 million。\n\n问：\n好的。按交易笔数计算，最高水平大约是\n\n多少？\n\n答：\n同一个月，561 笔。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n好的。现在请转至下一张\n\n幻灯片。\n\n问：\n那么，根据您的审阅，先生，在该期间内，\n\n大约有多少笔赎回交易向客户作出？\n\n答：\n3680 笔。\n\n问：\n总美元金额大约是多少？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—直接询问\n\n答：\n略高于 64 million。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n法官阁下，此时我想宣读一项当事人之间的\n\n约定。\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n谢谢。\n\n这是辩方证物 Stip 3。请将其调出。\n\n法官阁下，我将其作为证据提交，以便陪审团可以\n\n查看，如果可以的话。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n（被告方证物 Stip 3 被接纳为证据）\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n美利坚合众国（United States of America）与被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）特此约定并同意，\n\n下列 B 栏和 C 栏所列证物均由政府依法\n\n取得，且系 A 栏所列实体的真实记录，该等记录是在\n\n记录所载事项发生时或接近该时间，由知悉\n\n记录所列事项之人制作，或根据该人传递的信息制作。该等记录\n\n是在经常开展的活动过程中保存的，并且制作该等记录\n\n是该实体的经常做法。\n\n法官阁下，随后列有若干证物，我可以\n\n逐一说明，也可以将它们一并提交，视法庭\n\n偏好而定。\n\n法庭：\n您是请求我将它们全部接纳吗？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n予以接纳。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n谢谢。\n\n目前没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：\n交叉询问。\n\nMURRAY女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n交叉询问\n\n由 MURRAY女士进行：\n\n问：\nBishop先生，您今天是作为汇总证人作证；对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n您没有在 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）开设账户，是吗？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n您从未登录过 Himalaya Exchange 的账户，是吗？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n您从未购买过 HDO，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n您从未购买过 HCN？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n您仅查看了某些账户的银行记录，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n那些是辩护律师提供给您的银行记录；\n\n对吗？\n\n答：\n是，是的。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：\n而且，那些是在 FV Bank（FV 银行）持有账户的银行记录，\n\n对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\nMURRAY女士：\n现在，Loftus女士，请调出 DX\n\nZ-02。\n\n问：\n在等待期间，Bishop先生，您就您的部分背景作了\n\n证言。您记得吗？\n\n答：\n记得。\n\n问：\n例如，您说您在 IRS CI（美国国税局刑事调查局）任职时办理过洗钱案件，\n\n对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n而“钱骡”是指接收并转移犯罪所得的人，\n\n对吗？\n\n答：\n我同意，是的。\n\n问：\n好的。现在我们已调出 DX Z-02。\n\n这是您为今天的证言准备的图表，\n\n对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\nDX Z-02 并未清楚标明其所汇总的是哪些银行账户，\n\n对吗？\n\n答：\n它汇总了底部所列明的记录，即所\n\n使用的记录。\n\n问：\n对。但它并未清楚标明它汇总的是哪家银行的\n\n哪些账户，对吗？\n\n答：\n是我们刚才查看过的那些，是的。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：　现在，辩方没有向您提供 Mercantile Bank（商业银行）中 Himalaya\n\nExchange 账户的记录，对吗？\n\n答：　就本次询问而言，没有，我认为没有。\n\n问：　而且，辩方没有向您提供用于本次\n\n询问的 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）中 Hamilton 账户的记录；对吗？\n\n答：　我不记得那家银行，没有。\n\n问：　您为编制此图表所审阅的银行记录\n\n反映了取款，对吗？\n\n答：　此图表反映了，是的。客户赎回。\n\n问：　那些银行记录也反映了向银行\n\n账户的存款；对吗？\n\n答：　是。\n\n问：　而这些存款未在 DX Z-02 中汇总，对吗？\n\n答：　对。\n\n问：　而且，DX Z-02 仅反映被归类\n\n为赎回的取款；对吗？\n\n答：　是。\n\n问：　现在，这张幻灯片的标题不是您选择的，对吗？\n\n答：　这一特定——不，我不认为那是——那是\n\n该图表的——图表的依据，即上一屏中的赎回\n\n交易。\n\n问：　嗯，辩方选择将其称为“Himalaya Exchange\n\n客户赎回”，对吗？\n\n答：　是的，我们选择了。\n\n问：　就您的\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n汇总图表而言，对赎回的认定是基于我们在某一栏中看到的\n\n那些电汇交易明细；对吗？\n\n答：\n那是银行记录所记载的内容。\n\n问：\n而且，您并不亲自知悉那些\n\n取款事实上是否为赎回；对吗？\n\n答：\n我们知道银行记录记载了什么。\n\n问：\n先生，这不是我的问题。我问的是，您是否亲自\n\n知悉那些取款事实上是否为赎回？\n\nKAMARAJU先生：\n问题已问并已回答。\n\n法庭：\n您可以回答。\n\n答：\n那么，您能说明您所说的“亲自\n\n知悉”是什么意思吗？\n\n问：\n当然。按照您的理解，Himalaya Exchange 账户的\n\n赎回是什么？\n\n答：\n某人要求拿回其钱款。\n\n问：\n您的这种理解是如何形成的？\n\n答：\n仅基于我在本案中的依据。\n\n问：\n您研究了哪些记录，以描述或定义\n\n赎回具有该种含义？\n\n答：\n这些银行记录以及我与辩方团队的协作。\n\n问：\n好的。我们以其中一项被归类为赎回的\n\n取款类别作为例子。\n\nMURRAY女士：\nLoftus女士，请调出 DX 11605。\n\n问：\n在等待调出期间，Bishop先生，您是否知道\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n前方桌上那些箱子里装着什么？\n\n答：\n我没有看到——嗯，不知道。\n\n问：\n您为编制汇总图表所审阅的记录，\n\n是否仅为 Kamaraju先生与您查看过的那一份 Excel 文件？\n\n答：\n不是。我们查看了 FV Bank 的记录和对账单。\n\n问：\n抱歉。您是否记得您查看过的账户最后四位\n\n数字是什么？\n\n答：\n589——我记不起来了。367——我在 Excel\n\n电子表格中有这些数字。我们查看过 94 个账户，\n\n所以——\n\n问：\n好的。现在我们已经调出该文件，这是来自\n\nFV Bank 的一份记录；对吗？\n\n答：\n嗯。\n\n问：\n如果我们看这份文件，该特定银行记录涵盖的\n\n期间是什么？\n\n答：\n我可以看到第一个日期。\n\nMURRAY女士：\nLoftus女士，我们可以向下滚动。\n\n答：\n一直滚动到底部。\n\n问：\n总体而言，这些记录涵盖哪个月份？\n\n答：\nApril 2022.\n\n问：\n好的。\n\nMURRAY女士：\nLoftus女士，请稍微向右滚动。\n\n再向右一些。然后请再次向上滚动\n\n至顶部。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：\nBishop先生，在说明栏中，您是否是在那里\n\n识别您所称为赎回的交易？\n\n答：\n是。\n\nMURRAY女士：\nLoftus女士，请稍微向下滚动，\n\n直到我们找到 Bishop先生作证提到的其中一项客户赎回\n\n说明。找到了。\n\n问：\n例如，Bishop先生，就第 60 行而言，您不知道是谁\n\n填写了该转账 ID，对吗？\n\n答：\n我知道这来自——我的理解是，\n\n这来自银行。\n\n问：\n对。但就该电汇说明而言，您不知道是谁\n\n填写了该转账 ID；对吗？\n\n答：\n不知道。\n\n问：\n您不知道该信息反映了什么？\n\n答：\n不知道。\n\n问：\n您不知道该信息是否准确反映了这些从账户汇出的\n\n电汇用途，对吗？\n\n答：\n不知道。\n\nMURRAY女士：\n好的。\n\nLoftus女士，请再次返回 DX Z-02，\n\n谢谢。\n\n问：\nBishop先生，从 August 2021 至 October 2021，\n\n没有任何被描述为赎回的取款，对吗？\n\n答：\n就我们——就我们在该电子表格中找到的而言，没有。\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：为明确起见，先生，您查阅了实际的银行记录；对吗？\n\n答：我们团队查阅了，是的。\n\n问：而且您未发现该期间内有任何赎回；对吗？\n\n答：我相信，8月初可能有一笔未被记录在内、金额非常小的赎回。\n\n问：因此，该笔赎回未反映在您的汇总图表上；对吗？\n\n答：是，因为其被认为不具重要性。\n\n问：您知道Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）直到November 1, 2021才正式上线，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道其具体是在何时上线的。\n\n问：您知道在November 1, 2021之前，这些FV Himalaya Exchange银行账户已有存款吗？\n\n答：知道。\n\n问：Bishop先生，此处右下方所列的源文件，本证物为此处的信息引用了若干不同的源文件；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：包括最后一组中的约50份文件，即6,001至6,050；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：该图表所汇总的信息，实际上没有任何一项来源于这50份文件；对吗？\n\n答：您得给我看一下——我不知道这些编号具体是什么。\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：好的。请调出辩方证物6,002。\n\n问：这是最后一组源文件中被引用的文件之一；对吗？\n\n答：6,002，是的。\n\n问：这是第1页（共1页）的银行记录；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：这里没有反映任何赎回；对吗？\n\n答：正确。这份文件的日期也是1/1/23。\n\n问：对。因此，将此文件列为您的汇总图表的源文件之一是不准确的；对吗？\n\n答：不，这不在汇总图表中。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：我们可以回到DX Z-02。\n\n问：因此，看右下方标明源文件的位置，许多被列为该图表来源的文件，事实上并非任何信息的来源；对吗？\n\n答：再说一次，您得——您刚才给我看的那一份，是的。您得重新逐一查阅。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：我们可以把那个缩小。\n\n问：现在，您确认您没有June 2022之后FV Bank（FV银行）账户的银行记录；对吗？\n\n答：我认为是December '22。\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：看您的图表，先生——\n\n答：抱歉，抱歉。June '22。\n\n问：因此，您不知道此处定义为赎回的提款是否仍在继续，是吗？\n\n答：不知道，那是银行记录的截止时间。\n\n问：您知道政府于October 2022扣押了超过$608 million的Himalaya Exchange资金，对吗？\n\n答：我知道有一次扣押，只是不知道金额。\n\n问：您知道该等扣押包括存放在您汇总的FV Bank账户中的资金吗？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：您不知道William Je（威廉·杰）于October 2022提交了请求，从Mercantile Bank（商业银行）的一个Himalaya Exchange银行账户中提取其本人48 million资金一事，是吗？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：您不知道所请求的那些电汇是否已支付给William Je，是吗？\n\n答：不知道。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），请将已作为政府证物MER-5和MER-6收录的文件并排展示。\n\n问：在等待期间，Bishop先生，曾有人就Himalaya Exchange的白皮书向您提问。您记得吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：您是否审阅了整份Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）白皮书？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否审阅了整份Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）白皮书？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：就您的汇总图表而言，您审阅了其中哪些部分（如有）？\n\n答：我从中朗读的那些页面。\n\n问：好的。因此，看左边这里，我们会将其展示出来，这是政府证物MER-6。先生，您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：您是否曾就您的赎回汇总图表审阅这些文件？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：根据辩方为您的赎回汇总图表提供的材料，您认得这是哪一类文件吗？\n\n答：我没有见过这些文件。我没有审阅过它们，没有。\n\n问：而且您没有审阅图表中反映的每一笔提款所对应的类似场外交易（OTC）交易表格；对吗？\n\n答：没有，只看了银行记录。\n\n问：您根本没有见过任何Himalaya Exchange赎回表格；对吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您不知道图表中反映的所有提款是否都有此类赎回表格；对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n答：像您在这里给我看的这个？不知道。\n\n问：您不知道是否存在任何其他视觉形式的赎回表格，用于图表中反映的交易；对吗？\n\n答：曾审阅过Himalaya Exchange的计算机记录。\n\n问：您以何种格式审阅那些记录？\n\n答：这些记录是在现场以计算机格式审阅的。\n\n问：您知道辩方是否向政府提供了那些记录吗？\n\n答：我不知道辩方提供了什么。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），我们可以把那个撤下。我们可以调出政府证物AS-18。\n\n问：这是日期为January 2022的Himalaya Dollar白皮书，对吗，Bishop先生？\n\n答：我推定是的。\n\n问：嗯，如果我们看顶部，这就是上面的日期；对吗？\n\n答：是，是的。\n\n问：好的。您知道“redemption”一词在整份白皮书中仅出现过一次；对吗？\n\n答：不知道。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：请转到第33页，Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士）。\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：这个标题是“Switzerland（瑞士）”，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：白皮书这一部分的文字涉及位于Switzerland的交易所客户；对吗？\n\n答：我得读一下。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），我们可以放大这里的文字，使其更大一些。\n\n问：您知道这部分关于Switzerland客户的内容，是整份白皮书中“redemption”一词唯一出现的地方吗？\n\n答：如果这是您告诉我的内容，我没有理由不相信您。\n\n问：好的。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），现在请转到第10页。\n\n问：这是Kamaraju先生（卡马拉朱先生）向您展示过的一部分，您记得吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：请聚焦于以“Additionally（此外）”开头的段落。\n\n问：白皮书这一部分写道：将Himalaya Dollar贷记额兑换为美元，由Himalaya Exchange自行决定。对吗？\n\n答：是，这是它所写的内容。\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—交叉询问\n\n问：其进一步写道：Himalaya Exchange没有义务满足任何此类请求。正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：被Himalaya Exchange拒绝的Himalaya Exchange客户提款请求，没有反映在您的汇总图表中；对吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），我们可以把这个撤下。\n\n问：而且，Bishop先生，您不知道作为赎回从FV Bank账户电汇出去的资金最终流向何处，是吗？\n\n答：只知道——根据银行记录——其被汇至哪些账户。\n\n问：您不知道该笔资金在完成首次转账后是否又流向其他账户；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您不知道被提取的资金是否被再投资于Guo（郭）的其他投资项目，是吗？\n\n答：不知道。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：法官阁下，我可以稍候片刻吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n（律师协商）\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：复询。\n\nKAMARAJU先生（卡马拉朱先生）：很简短，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—复询\n\n复询\n\n由KAMARAJU先生（卡马拉朱先生）进行：\n\n问：现在，Bishop先生，您记得在交叉询问中有人问过您，您能否核实某些交易是否为赎回？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：并且曾有人问您，您是否对其是否为赎回具有亲身知情？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您记得我在直接询问中问过您的一笔交易，是与一名叫Lai Dai（赖戴）的人有关的赎回吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：您知道Lai Dai曾在本法庭就进行该笔赎回作证吗？\n\n答：我知道他作过证；我不知道他具体作证了什么。\n\n问：好的。您记得我问过您的另一笔赎回，是为一名叫Dia Li（迪娅·李）的人进行的吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：您知道Ya Li（雅·李）曾在陪审团面前于本法庭就进行该笔赎回作证吗？\n\n答：我的回答也是一样，我不知道。\n\n问：现在，您记得有人问过您幻灯片以及幻灯片的来源吗？您记得吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBishop（毕晓普）—再交叉询问\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：现在，仅仅因为您审阅了某项内容，是否意味着您会将其放在幻灯片上？\n\n答：不意味着。\n\n问：您会作出酌情选择；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您记得有人问过您是否曾开设Himalaya Exchange账户？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：并且有人问过您是否曾购买HCN，对吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：并且有人问过您是否曾购买HDO，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您对所有这些问题的回答都是否；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：Bishop先生，您是否是一名致力于推翻中国共产党的高净值华人？\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：反对，法官阁下。这是一名汇总证人。\n\n法庭：异议成立。\n\nKAMARAJU先生（卡马拉朱先生）：没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：有再交叉询问吗？\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：有。\n\n再交叉询问\n\n由MURRAY女士（默里女士）进行：\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO3\nBarnett（巴内特）—直接询问\n\n问：Bishop先生，您知道Ya Li在本次审判中还作证了什么吗？\n\n答：我不知道她或他作证了什么。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：没有进一步问题，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：先生，您可以离开法庭。\n\n证人：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：辩方可以传唤下一位证人。\n\n（证人退庭）\n\nSHROFF女士（施罗夫女士）：法官阁下，辩方传唤Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）。\n\nGERALD SCOTT BARNETT（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴内特），由被告方传唤为证人，经依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nSHROFF女士（施罗夫女士）：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n直接询问\n\n由SHROFF女士（施罗夫女士）进行：\n\n问：下午好，Barnett先生。\n\n答：下午好。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您能否告诉陪审团您从事何种职业？\n\n答：目前，我是GS Security Solutions（GS安保解决方案公司）的所有人。我为名人、政要及高净值人士提供要员保护服务。\n\n问：“GS”代表什么？\n\nCase 22-50073\nO78VGUO3　文件3602　提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nBarnett（巴内特）—直接询问\n\n答：嗯，它本应代表Global Solutions（全球解决方案），但那个名称已被占用。所以我想，不幸的是，它实际上只代表Gerald Scott Security（杰拉尔德·斯科特安保）。\n\n问：您何时创办公司？\n\n答：那家公司成立于June of 2022。\n\n（续下页）\n\nCase 22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　由什罗夫女士提问：\n2　问：该公司何时开始运营？\n3　答：2023年1月2日——我不记得确切日期，是2023年\n4　1月。\n5　问：巴尼特先生，是谁提供了启动GS Security（GS Security安保公司）的资金或财务支持？\n6　\n7　答：HCHK。\n8　问：HCHK为设立GS Security提供了多少钱？\n9　答：最初他们提供了大约\n10　400,000，我相信上下略有出入。\n11　问：之后是否还提供了额外资金？\n12　答：一开始是有的，没错。——抱歉。我\n13　很抱歉。我在努力回忆日期。我想是在2022年\n14　12月，他们提供了保险费用，我记得\n15　可能只是保险费用，但我得回头查一下。\n16　问：对于这笔资金，你们是否有任何协议？\n17　答：有。起初我们有一项口头协议。本来\n18　要订立书面协议，但后来从未落实，因此\n19　一直是口头协议。\n20　问：巴尼特先生，您能否告诉陪审团，为什么您想设立一家名为GS Security的独立公司？\n21　\n22　答：为了向任何人提供适当的安保服务，确实\n23　需要购买保险。鉴于您所保护的客户可能承担某些\n24　责任，以防万一\n25　发生什么事情。如果只是客户本人\n\n5414 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 161 of\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　或任何其他实体，他们就要承担责任。万一我们\n2　不得不对某人动手，或发生比那更严重的事情，或者\n3　即便是任何轻微事件，任何诉讼都会直接针对该\n4　公司，而不是针对一家已适当投保的安保公司。不过，\n5　我想真正的原因是法律原因。依法\n6　从事安保服务必须持有执照。\n7　问：您的公司如今是否仍然存在？\n8　答：是，仍然存在。\n9　问：您现在最大的客户是谁？\n10　答：我最大的客户是Mei Guo（郭美）。\n11　问：Mei Guo是谁？\n12　答：她是Miles Guo（郭文贵）的女儿。\n13　问：您就Mei Guo所从事的工作包括什么？\n14　答：现在只包括住宅安保。起初\n15　是提供全面保护。但随着，我想，资金变得紧张，\n16　我们不得不缩减服务，但现在基本上是住宅安保。\n17　我们只是监控他们的住宅，并且，您知道，在\n18　其住宅周边进行巡查，诸如此类。我们不再提供接送或\n19　行政保护、私人保镖保护服务。\n20　\n21　问：除Mei Guo外，您还保护谁？\n22　答：不固定。我们会获得合同，合同非常少，但我\n23　曾为市内一名高管提供服务。我们为其提供了四小时的\n24　安保勤务。我也为其他\n25　公司提供过安保。我们曾有一位先生需要为珠宝提供安保\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　服务，他在一个类似展销会的场合展示珠宝，而这\n2　基本就是全部。\n3　问：巴尼特先生，回到Mei Guo，您是否曾与她讨论过您的\n4　证词？\n5　答：没有，未曾。\n6　问：她是否曾问过您将就什么内容作证\n7　？\n8　答：没有，未曾。\n9　问：您是否曾与她谈论过本案的细节？\n10　答：没有，未曾。\n11　问：您是否曾与她谈论过她父亲被捕一事？\n12　答：是。\n13　问：在讨论该事时，您是否讨论过任何与您今日证词\n14　有关的事项？\n15　答：没有。\n16　问：您最后一次与她谈论她父亲被捕\n17　是什么时候？\n18　答：大约一周前。我想我问过她，她父亲\n19　怎么样了。\n20　问：除此之外，您是否与她进行过任何实质性\n21　讨论？\n22　答：没有涉及本案的讨论。\n23　问：巴尼特先生，您是否曾为Miles Guo工作？\n24　答：并非直接为他工作，没有。\n25　问：那么，请向我们说明您是如何间接为他工作的？\n\n5416 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 163 of\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　答：我最初为一家名为Golden Spring（Golden Spring公司）的公司工作。\n2　那项工作的一部分是保护Miles Guo，该公司后来改为——\n3　\n4　问：先停在这里。您何时开始在Golden Spring工作？\n5　\n6　答：2020年10月。\n7　问：在受Golden Spring雇用之前，您是否有从事私人安保的\n8　经验？\n9　答：有。所以，在我于2013年从警察局退休后，\n10　我进入安保和行政保护行业。基本上，\n11　与我一同接受培训的那位先生，我们为名人和\n12　政要工作，我做了多年这类工作。之后\n13　转到另一家名为pro-protection（pro-protection公司）的公司，那基本上是为了——\n14　\n15　法庭：先生，请您把麦克风\n16　拉近一些，以便大家都能听见您。请直接对着\n17　麦克风说话。\n18　答：之后我去了pro-protection，那是一家位于\n19　Long Island（长岛）的公司。通勤更方便。我厌倦了\n20　保护名人。那并不是我\n21　很喜欢做的事，后来我在网上申请了工作。我不记得\n22　我是通过哪里申请的——是否是Indeed（Indeed网站）或\n23　那些网站中的一个——有一家公司在招聘行政\n24　保护人员。那是——我不记得上面是否写明该公司的\n25　名称，但他们提供某一薪资，所以我\n\n5417 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 164 of\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　申请了。之后我想是在10月——嗯，稍早一些，\n2　2020年10月初，他们就那份与Miles有关的工作\n3　给我打了电话。\n4　问：您第一次应聘时就被录用了吗？\n5　答：没有。\n6　问：您未被录用的原因是什么？\n7　答：嗯，这是一家招聘公司。我未被\n8　录用的原因是我的出生日期，以及我是猪年出生，\n9　而他们认为——至少他们告诉我——那是不吉利的，\n10　所以我因此未被录用。\n11　问：之后，尽管您生于猪年，您是否仍获录用？\n12　\n13　答：我想那是在一年前。因此一年后我接到\n14　电话。我实际上没有再次申请。我只是接到电话，\n15　问我是否仍对该职位感兴趣。\n16　问：巴尼特先生，在此之前，您是否曾任\n17　NYPD（纽约市警察局）警员？\n18　答：是。\n19　问：您担任NYPD警员多久？\n20　答：从1997年到2013年。\n21　问：我不会要求您讲述所有细节，您能否只\n22　非常简要地概述您作为NYPD警员的\n23　经历？\n24　答：我起初是Brooklyn（布鲁克林）East Flatbush（东弗拉特布什）的普通警员，\n25　大部分时间都在那里度过，之后有一段时间去了Brooklyn North的缉毒部门，\n\n5418 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 165 of\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　随后回到第67分局。我不记得是哪一年。\n2　然后我第一次——我想\n3　我在2008年第一次受伤，之后又回去工作。\n4　后来我在2011年再次受伤，在与某人搏斗后，\n5　我的肩膀再次撕裂，\n6　部门当时决定让我退休。\n7　问：巴尼特先生，您是否曾为美国服役？\n8　答：是的，女士。\n9　问：您在哪里服役？\n10　答：美国海军。\n11　问：服役多久？\n12　答：我只服役了一年两个月。我从20英尺高处\n13　坠落，手腕粉碎性骨折，左腿和背部的一根骨头\n14　骨折，他们基本上就在那时让我退休。\n15　问：巴尼特先生，您有律师吗？\n16　答：有。\n17　问：您是否通过您的律师被送达传票，要求\n18　您今日在此作证？\n19　答：是。\n20　问：该传票是否来自卡马拉朱先生的办公室？\n21　答：我相信是。\n22　问：在本案中向您送达传票之前，您是否曾与坐在\n23　此处席位上的这四名检察官会面\n24　？\n25　答：是，见过。\n\n5419 O78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问 问：您与这四名检察官会面过多少次？答：两次。问：您是否与这四名检察官通过电话？答：是，一次。问：请看标记为DX60761的文件。您是否认得该文件？我是否也可以向巴尼特先生出示该文件的最后一页？答：是，我认得。什罗夫女士：辩方申请将DX60761作为证据提交。费根森先生：反对。法庭：这是他撰写的文件吗？什罗夫女士：他签署了该文件，法官大人。问：巴尼特先生，我们看最后一页。上面是否有您的签名？答：有。问：您是否审阅过该文件？答：我与我的律师审阅过。问：如果您看右侧，您是否也在上面签过数次名？答：我在——看起来——我只看到一处我签名的地方。问：那么，我们看顶部的日期。日期是——看一下日期。您在该日期签署了该文件，对吗？答：是。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 166 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　问：您还在角落处的第二个日期签署了该文件，对吗？\n2　答：我没看到您指向的地方。是写着\n3　4/11/24的地方吗？\n4　问：是。\n5　答：没错。\n6　什罗夫女士：法官大人，辩方申请将该\n7　文件作为证据提交。\n8　费根森先生：不反对。可以。\n9　法庭：准予作为证据收录。\n10　（被告方证物67061已收录为证据）\n11　法庭：您给它编了号码吗？\n12　什罗夫女士：是的，法官大人，DX67061。我是否\n13　可以向陪审团展示它？\n14　法庭：请进行。\n15　什罗夫女士：谢谢。\n16　问：巴尼特先生，在与这些检察官会面之前，您是否与您的律师审阅并签署了\n17　该文件？\n18　答：是。\n19　问：与检察官会面时，您是否告诉了他们\n20　真相？\n21　答：是。\n22　问：在2024年4月11日，您是否告诉检察官，在购买\n23　Mahwah（马瓦）房产时，Guo先生告诉您——\n24　费根森先生：反对，法官大人。他可以\n25　作证。她不能询问他庭外陈述的内容。\n\n5421 O78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问 法庭：反对成立。问：您在2024年4月11日告诉检察官什么？费根森先生：反对，这是传闻证据。法庭：这是传闻证据。问：在2024年4月11日——费根森先生：反对。什罗夫女士：我的问题尚未问完。问：——在您为Miles Guo工作以及与其共事期间，检察官是否询问您对某些事件的理解？费根森先生：以无关性为由反对。法庭：您可以回答该问题。答案应为是或否，或者“我不知道”或“我不记得”。证人：是，法官大人。答：您能重复一下那个问题吗？问：当然。我实际上换一个问题问您，巴尼特先生。在您与检察官会面的那些时候，他们是否问过您有关您为Miles Guo所做之事的问题？答：是，我相信问过。问：他们是否问过您对某些事件的理解？答：是。问：他们是否问过您对购买Mahwah一事的理解？答：我相信问过。我不记得具体问了什么，但是 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 168 of 500\n\n5422 O78BGUO4 巴尼特（Barnett）—直接询问 我相信是这样。 问：那么，让我们看看能否唤起您的记忆。 法院：先生，请牢记，您不得复述他人的陈述。 证人：是，法官女士。 SHROFF女士（施罗夫女士）：请出示006。请向下翻。 FERGENSON先生（弗格森先生）：法官阁下，目前是否有待答问题？ 法院：Shroff女士。 SHROFF女士：我们正试图为证人突出该文件中用于唤起记忆的部分，现在就好了。 问：该文件——仅就该文件是否唤起您对于您是否曾向这些检察官作出陈述的记忆这一问题？ FERGENSON先生：反对，他不能这么说。 法院：他说他忘了，或者说他不记得了。 SHROFF女士：抱歉。 问：该文件是否唤起您对于是否有人就Miles Guo（郭文贵）先生购买Mahwah房产的原因向您提问的记忆？ 答：是。 问：它确实唤起了吗？ 答：是。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 案号22-50073 文件3602 提交于10/01/24 录入于10/01/24 09:51:43 第169页，共500页\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　问：谢谢。您可以把它撤下。\n2　Barnett先生，我们来谈谈Miles Guo（郭文贵）。您\n3　第一次见到Miles Guo是什么时候？\n4　答：我第一次见到Guo先生，大概是在我刚开始受雇\n5　在康涅狄格州一处住宅从事安保工作时。\n6　我无法给您一个确切日期。我\n7　猜想是在我开始工作后大约两周，或许两周半\n8　之后。\n9　问：Barnett先生，您开始工作时的薪水是多少？\n10　答：我相信是每年\\$100,000。\n11　问：您开始这份工作时，知道Miles Guo\n12　是谁吗？\n13　答：不知道。我在受雇之前查过，做过互联网\n14　搜索。\n15　问：还有其他人与您一起从事安保工作吗？\n16　答：是的，有。\n17　问：那些人是谁？\n18　答：第一位先生是Greg Burnhart（格雷格·伯恩哈特），他是其中之一。第\n19　二位是——我们只叫他Johnny（约翰尼），另一位\n20　是Henry（亨利）。我一时\n21　想不起他们的姓氏。\n22　问：Barnett先生，他们所有人都有曾任NYPD（纽约市警察局）\n23　警员的经验吗？\n24　答：有一人曾任惩教人员。我相信那是Johnny。Henry\n25　曾任NYPD警员，我相信Greg曾任Nassau County Police\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　Department（拿骚县警察局）警员。\n2　问：Barnett先生，当时您认为谁是您的上司\n3　？\n4　答：当时Grace Yang（杨格蕾丝）是我的上司。\n5　问：如果有人向您下达指示，您会向谁确认\n6　这些指示？\n7　答：当时，我会向Grace确认某事，\n8　除非Guo先生直接就安保事项\n9　对我作出指示。但凡涉及指示，\n10　比如我们必须前往某处或必须带某人去某处，\n11　当时都会由Grace下达。\n12　问：Barnett先生，Covid之后，您的工作职责是否发生变化？\n13　答：是，发生了变化。\n14　问：您能告诉我们是怎样变化的吗？\n15　答：这更多地变成了高管保护工作，我们会开车\n16　送Guo先生去纽约64街的办公室，然后\n17　送他回家，或送到康涅狄格州的住宅，或\n18　纽约市的住宅。\n19　问：您用多少辆车运送Guo先生？\n20　答：两辆。\n21　问：是哪两辆车？\n22　答：这要看情况，但第一辆车是——我在想\n23　当时的情况。\n24　问：没关系。对于如何运送Guo先生，您是否有一般的\n25　规程？\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　答：Guo先生乘坐一辆车。有一名配枪\n2　安保人员与他同车，另有一名\n3　司机。然后在该车后方有一辆后备车，\n4　那是一辆装甲Lexus（雷克萨斯）。\n5　问：Barnett先生，您证称您会开车送他到East\n6　64th Street（东64街）；对吗？\n7　答：对。\n8　问：East 64th Street有什么？\n9　答：办公楼。我相信它叫Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）。\n10　\n11　问：您是否曾听人把那栋楼称为\n12　联排别墅？\n13　答：没有。\n14　问：后来您是否被晋升为\n15　安保主管？\n16　答：是。\n17　问：是什么时候？\n18　答：我相信是在6月——我想说是在\n19　2021年6月中旬之后。\n20　问：您是否随同这次晋升获得加薪？\n21　答：是。\n22　问：作为晋升的一部分，您的工作\n23　职责是否发生变化？\n24　答：是。\n25　问：是否扩大了？\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　答：是。\n2　问：作为——您当时的职位是什么，职务名称\n3　是什么？\n4　答：我的工作是负责整栋办公楼的安保。我\n5　记不清了。我相信当时我们刚刚——他们刚刚搬进\n6　3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号），但我不能确定\n7　那个日期。我负责那里的安保。\n8　曼哈顿有一个小型仓库需要安保，我\n9　必须监督那里的警卫。我不负责里面其他任何人，\n10　只负责安保警卫和他的高管\n11　保护小组。\n12　问：Barnett先生，我向您出示标记为GXSB8的文件。\n13　您认得这份文件吗？\n14　答：认得。\n15　问：这是什么文件？\n16　答：那只是我做的安保评估。这是在被授予\n17　安保主管职位之前完成的。\n18　问：那么您——它是什么？它是一份报告吗？\n19　答：这只是一份报告，说明我刚开始工作时，\n20　安保方面存在很多问题。缺乏组织，\n21　其中——存在——实际上基本上是缺乏领导。\n22　当时我的上司叫Grace，她完全没有安保经验，\n23　而且不太擅长管理安保及\n24　管理她的其他职责。因此，我们当时有点自行其是，\n\n案号22-50073 文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　情况有些混乱。那不是我所习惯的\n2　有组织的安保。\n3　问：您是否发送了这份报告——您是否把这份文件发给\n4　任何人？\n5　答：是，发了。\n6　问：发给谁？\n7　答：我相信我发给了Grace，我相信我发给了\n8　Yvette（伊薇特）。\n9　问：Grace在哪里工作？\n10　答：Grace在64街的办公室工作。\n11　问：64街有什么，是哪家公司？\n12　答：起初是Golden Spring（金泉）。\n13　问：Yvette在哪里工作？\n14　答：同一间办公室。\n15　问：Golden Spring是否在其业务过程中保存诸如此类的\n16　记录？\n17　答：我不知道。\n18　SHROFF女士：法官阁下，政府请求将证物\n19　SB8作为证据准予接纳。\n20　FERGENSON先生：反对，缺乏基础。\n21　法院：维持反对。\n22　问：您是否定期编制作为安保评估的\n23　文件？\n24　答：起初我只做过一次安保评估。\n25　之后，如果我们有类似活动即将举行，我会\n\n5428 案号22-50073 文件3602 提交于10/01/24 录入于10/01/24 09:51:43 第175页，共\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　基本做一份该活动所需内容的小型\n2　评估。过了一段时间，我就不再——我不再需要\n3　安保评估了，因为我获得了\n4　晋升。我们开始有了指挥链，因此在当时\n5　确实没有必要。\n6　问：Barnett先生，您是否称呼——让我问您一个更简单的\n7　问题。您如何称呼Guo先生？\n8　答：通常大多数时候我称他为“先生”。如果我\n9　与某人发短信，通常会用字母“P”\n10　来表示。如果我直接与Yvette交谈，\n11　会用字母“P”，它代表\n12　principal（要人）。我也称他为“老板”，通常就是这三种称呼。\n13　大多数时候是“先生”。\n14　问：“principal”这个词是谁想出来的？\n15　答：我不知道。\n16　问：那么“boss（老板）”这个词是谁想出来的？\n17　答：我不知道是否有人想出过这个词。我认为\n18　那只是常识。任何我会保护的人，\n19　或者任何职位高于我的人，我大概都会称其为\n20　老板。那可能是我早年在\n21　警察局时留下的习惯。没什么特别的。\n22　问：所以如果您在保护我，您会称我为老板？\n23　答：大概会。\n24　问：Barnett先生，作为您安保工作的一部分，您是否评估过\n25　不同级别的风险？\n\n5429 案号22-50073 文件3602 提交于10/01/24 录入于10/01/24 09:51:43 第176页，共\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n1　答：有时会，是的。\n2　问：依您之见，不同级别的风险有哪些？\n3　答：我们刚开始时，我其实没有做太多\n4　评估。随着时间推移，我们开始看到越来越多不同的\n5　人前来，试图在没有任何授权的情况下进入\n6　64街的办公室，所以我们主要有这类问题。我们有几个人\n7　会在我们开车时尾随我们的车辆。您会看到有一辆车，\n8　尤其是有一辆像巨型广告牌的车，\n9　总是在街区周围行驶。\n10　\n11　问：您认为那是严重、中等还是低风险\n12　威胁？\n13　答：当时那更像是一种中等威胁。我没有看到\n14　任何严重情况。我更担心有人到办公室试图\n15　进入。那会构成更严重的\n16　威胁。\n17　问：在您在那里工作期间，是否有人曾在East 64th Street地点\n18　留下可疑包裹？\n19　答：我特别记得有一次，有一个包，我们因此叫了\n20　NYPD。我认为我的一名安保人员，\n21　他实际上戴上头盔出去查看\n22　那个包，但我相信里面没有任何值得严重注意的\n23　东西。\n24　问：您是否记得曾有任何携带武器的人试图进入\n25　East 64th Street？\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交于10/01/24\n录入于10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　答：据我所知，没有。\n2　问：Barnett先生，您为Miles Guo工作了多久？\n3　答：我于2020年10月开始，直到\n4　我想应该是2023年3月，一直为他工作。\n5　问：您会如何形容他作为雇主？\n6　答：坦率地说，他是我服务过的较好的雇主之一。\n7　我之所以这么说，是因为他非常亲切，非常\n8　有礼，考虑周到。他似乎关心他的安保\n9　小组。在从事高管\n10　保护工作时，您并不常见到这种情况，尤其是对高净值人士而言。他们\n11　往往对待您不够好。我不知道这是否是最恰当的说法。\n12　他从来不是那样。他一直非常有礼。\n13　他是一位绅士。\n14　问：您如何与他沟通？\n15　答：通常我们会零星交谈。并非\n16　长时间交谈。如果我确实必须同他交谈，\n17　我会需要有人翻译。\n18　问：他的英语怎么样？\n19　答：还可以。我花了一段时间才适应他的口音。它\n20　并不太好，所以我花了一些时间才明白他有时\n21　说的话，尤其是当他坐在车后座、在我身后，而我在前排时。\n22　这很困难。\n23　问：Barnett先生，您是否使用任何应用程序与Guo先生\n24　沟通？\n25　答：是，我们使用WhatsApp。\n\n案号22-50073　文件3602　提交于10/01/24　录入于10/01/24 09:51:43　第178页，共\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n\n问：在您为Guo先生（郭文贵）工作期间，他一直使用同一个号码、同一个电话号码吗？\n\n答：不，我不这么认为。\n\n问：您对他的电话号码有什么了解，能告诉陪审团吗？\n\n答：嗯，Guo先生会更换电话。他会解释说他的电话遭到中国政府黑客入侵，因此他会不定期更换电话。并不那么频繁，但会不定期更换。\n\n问：Barnett先生（巴尼特），您是否曾在某个时候得知一个名为New Federal State of China（中国新联邦）的事物？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您理解它是什么？\n\n答：基本上，我对它的理解是，Miles正在尝试为中国人民建立一种新秩序。他想基于一些不同的问题，基本上推翻中国共产党。但就New Federal State of China而言，那算是他的——它将成为他为所有中国人建立的新基础。\n\n问：您相信他为此所作的努力是真诚的吗？\n\nFERGENSON先生（弗格森）：异议，他不能就被告的真诚性作证。\n\nSHROFF女士（什罗夫）：法官阁下，我问的是他对Miles Guo（郭文贵）的看法的理解。\n\n法庭：您可以回答。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n答：是，我认为他对此是真诚的，是。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您是否记得曾为World Trade Center（世界贸易中心）的一场活动提供安保？\n\n答：是，我提供过。\n\n问：那是哪一年？\n\n答：我相信是2021年6月4日，别把我的话当作确切日期，但我认为是那个日期。\n\n问：您是否记得当时谁在场？\n\n答：是，大多数人我记得。我肯定不能告诉您所有人。\n\n问：还有，Barnett先生，在2021年6月4日，Mahwah（莫瓦）房产是否已经存在？\n\n答：不，据我所知，没有。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您的工作是否要求您前往Sherry Netherlands（雪莉-尼德兰）？\n\n答：是，要求。\n\n问：Sherry Netherlands是什么？\n\n答：那是一处住所，是Miles居住过的住所之一。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您是否在那个——那是一栋公寓楼吗——提供安保？\n\n答：是。这是一栋酒店/公寓楼。\n\n问：您是否在那栋楼内提供安保？\n\n答：有时，并非一直。我们并非24-7都在那里，因为楼下有安保人员。我们没有必要在那里过夜。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n问：Barnett先生，您的职责或工作说明的一部分是驾驶车辆接送Guo先生，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：后来是否购买了两辆车以确保Guo先生的安全？\n\nFERGENSON先生：对诱导性提问提出异议。\n\nSHROFF女士继续询问：\n\n问：是否购买了两辆车？\n\n法庭：您可以回答这个问题。\n\n答：我不知道您指的是哪两辆车。\n\n问：您告诉我们购买了哪些车？\n\n答：我公司购买了两辆车。\n\n问：是哪两辆？\n\n答：两辆BMW（宝马）。\n\n问：那是什么时候？\n\n答：我相信是2023年1月。\n\n问：您知道是谁订购了那两辆BMW吗？\n\n答：是，我知道。\n\n问：谁付的钱？\n\n答：嗯，是——我用HCHK的资金支付了它们。\n\n问：您知道花了多少钱吗？\n\n答：每辆车——含税，我相信约为\\$165,000。\n\n问：那两辆BMW是否被用于接送任何人、其他人？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n答：是，在不同时间，但大多数时候它们用于接送Miles。\n\n问：除Miles外，它们还接送过谁？\n\n答：我曾用那些车接送过Yvette（伊薇特）。如果我们有活动，我们可能会接送该活动中的某个人，但我无法给您一个确切姓名。\n\n问：您记得有多少场活动——我撤回这个问题。您的工作的一部分是否是往返接送参加活动的人？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这些活动是否与New Federal State of China有关？\n\nFERGENSON先生：再次对诱导性提问提出异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：这些活动与什么有关？\n\n问：这些活动与什么有关？\n\n答：我们举办的第一场活动是New Federal State of China的活动。有一场Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）的活动。还有另一场活动，我相信是在购买Mahwah的房子之后，如果我没弄错的话；还有几场零星活动，但我无法告诉您它们是为了什么。\n\n问：Barnett先生，Miles Guo会开车吗？\n\n答：我相信他会。我见过他开车。\n\n问：您在哪里见过他开车？\n\n5435 O78BGUO4 Barnett - 直接询问 答：有一次我们在看一处房产时，我看见他开车。他开着车绕那处房产转了一圈，那大概是我唯一一次见他开车。问：您是否见过他在道路上开车？答：也许有一次，但我记不起是什么时候。问：Barnett先生，在您保护Guo先生期间，您是否记得见过任何摩托车？FERGENSON先生：对诱导性提问提出异议。问：在您保护Guo先生期间，您是否见过其他车辆？答：是。问：您见过哪些其他车辆？答：我见过摩托车。还有其他汽车。有一辆Rolls-Royce（劳斯莱斯）。有一辆Lamborghini（兰博基尼）。还有另一辆Mercedes（梅赛德斯）、一辆厢式车。问：我们先谈摩托车。您知道这些摩托车是用来做什么的吗？答：它们没有被使用。它们——最初原本是购买来用于——问：能请您提高音量吗。答：它们最初是打算用于，比如说——他当时在拍很多音乐视频，诸如此类的事情。没人使用它们的原因，是因为它们登记在我名下。问：为什么登记在您名下的东西会造成其他人使用的问题？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第182页，共500页\n\n5436 案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第183页，共\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n答：将它们登记在我名下的主要原因，不只是因为我提出要求，而是我是唯一持有摩托车驾照的人。我对此的问题是，任何想使用它们的人都没有摩托车驾照，而且它登记在我名下，万一发生什么事，我就要承担责任。\n\n问：您是否看过这些摩托车出现的视频？\n\n答：没有，因为我实际有机会看到的第一个视频——当时没有摩托车。\n\n问：这些摩托车只是为Guo先生使用而购买，还是也供其他人使用？\n\nFERGENSON先生：异议。\n\n法庭：异议驳回。您可以回答。\n\n答：根据我的记忆，它们最初是为Guo先生购买的。\n\n问：后来是否有改变？\n\n答：有。后来——我——我相信是Yvette找过我。我不记得Max（马克斯）是否在场。但无论如何，他们想把摩托车出租出去，意思是让一些支持者能够租用它们。并非真正出租，而是登记借出并使用它们。我立即制止了这件事，因为再次强调，它们登记在我名下，而且这不是一家租赁服务机构。\n\n问：这些摩托车最初存放在哪里？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n答：最初存放在Connecticut（康涅狄格州）。\n\n问：它们被转移了吗？\n\n答：是，我们转移了它们。我把它们转移到New Jersey（新泽西州）的房子里。更正一下，我相信我骑着其中一辆到了新泽西州的房子，其他几辆则是用拖车运过去的。\n\n问：那么，Barnett先生，这些摩托车现在是否仍登记在您名下？\n\n答：根据一名律师前几天告诉我的情况，我相信其中一辆仍然是。\n\n问：另一辆在哪里？\n\n答：请再说一遍。\n\n问：另一辆现在登记在谁名下？\n\n答：我完全不知道。我把它们交给了Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。我不记得日期。我想说是在2023年的某个时候，但我无法告诉您确切日期。\n\n问：您提到一辆Lamborghini，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：对这辆Lamborghini有什么计划？\n\n答：我不知道。有一次，我知道他们在谈论出租摩托车时——抱歉，我一直使用“出租”这个词。原意是登记借出，就像有人想使用某样东西一样。对那辆Lamborghini也是同样的情况。那是我唯一一次听说与那辆Lamborghini有关的计划。除此之外，据我所知，并没有真正讨论过。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n问：当您说登记借出时，是否曾给您一张类似登记表，让某人必须填写以便——\n\n答：那从未实现。我不会允许那样。\n\n问：您不会允许那样？\n\n答：不会。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您是否记得得知过任何有关Bugatti（布加迪）的事情？\n\n答：我记得听说过它，但我实际上没有参与它的购买或类似事情。\n\n问：您知道它是为了什么、为谁购买的吗？\n\n答：不，我不知道。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您是否知道一个名为G/Clubs的实体？\n\n答：是，我知道它。\n\n问：G/Clubs是什么？\n\n答：我只能告诉您别人向我解释的方式。它基本上是一个需要付费的俱乐部，几乎像任何一种乡村俱乐部之类，您会因此获得服务，比如——我相信是购买服装可以优惠。我认为还有关于您可以赢得旅行或类似事情的内容。我不知道它具体包含哪些全部内容。\n\n问：Barnett先生，您为Guo先生工作期间，是否知道任何船只的事情？\n\n答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n问：您知道哪些船只？\n\n答：我唯一接触过的船，我相信是Lady May Two，后来还有一艘名为Liberty（自由号）的船。\n\n问：您记得有关Liberty的什么情况？\n\n答：我对购买Liberty不太了解。我记得它实际抵达时，存在大量问题。它不太适航。我之所以知道这些，只是因为与当时那艘船的船长交谈。\n\n问：战友或支持者是否使用过Liberty？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：什么时候？\n\n答：是在不同场合用于直播。我无法告诉您日期。\n\n问：您认识一个名叫Prince Li（李王子）的人吗？\n\n答：是，我认识。\n\n问：Prince Li是谁，或者说是什么身份？\n\n答：我不知道他的正式头衔。对我来说，他有点像我会认为的支持者团队负责人。\n\n问：他是否带着支持者驾驶Liberty出航？\n\n答：我相信是的。\n\n问：现在，Barnett先生，您是否熟悉一处名为Mahwah的房产？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　答。\n是。\n\n2　问。\n您是否曾去过 Mahwah（马瓦）？\n\n3　答。\n是，去过很多次。\n\n4　问。\n您第一次去 Mahwah 是什么时候？\n\n5　答。\n我想我不知道日期，但肯定是在\n\n6　2022 年初。\n我不记得日期。\n\n7　问。\n那是在购买该处房产之前还是之后？\n\n8　答。\n我想我在该房产被购买之前去过一次。我\n\n9　不知道它实际购买的日期，但我想我\n\n10　在那之前去过。\n\n11　问。\n您记得当时和谁一起去的吗？\n\n12　答。\n我想我当时和——嗯，我知道 Miles（迈尔斯）在场。我\n\n13　以为 Yvette（伊薇特）也在场，Mahwah 住宅的所有人\n\n14　也在场。我不记得他的名字。\n\n15　问。\n您是否问过 Guo 先生（郭文贵）他是否打算——\n\n16　FERGENSON 先生（弗格森）：\n反对，该问题具有诱导性，法官阁下。\n\n17　SHROFF 女士（施罗夫）：\n这是一个问题。\n\n18　问。\n您是否问过 Guo 先生，他是否打算购买该房产？\n\n19　答。\n没有，我没有问过他这个问题，没有。\n\n20　问。\nGuo 先生是否曾主动告诉您，他是为谁购买\n\n21　该房产的？\n\n22　FERGENSON 先生：\n反对，传闻证据。\n\n23　法庭：\n那么，再次说明，这将是一个回答“是”或“否”\n\n24　或者“我不知道”或“我不记得”这一类的问题。这不是\n\n25　一个让您重复别人告诉您的话的问题。您明白吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　证人：\n是，法官女士。\n\n2　法庭：\n继续。\n\n3　答。\n是。\n\n4　问。\n当 Guo 先生购买该房产时，您感到惊讶吗？\n\n5　答。\n是。\n\n6　问。\n为什么？\n\n7　答。\n它看起来不像是他会购买的那类房产，但这只是我个人对此的看法。\n\n8　问。\n为什么它看起来不像是他会购买的那类房产？\n\n9　答。\n我一直觉得 Guo 先生喜欢拥有\n\n10　大量土地的房产。这个特定房产，\n\n11　尽管占地 12 英亩，但基本上被\n\n12　一个社区所包围。因此很难——由于这个问题，很难\n\n13　确保安全。并且由于这些原因，它\n\n14　非常、非常华丽。它看起来就不像一处我认为\n\n15　他会购买的房产。\n\n16　问。\nGuo 先生是否曾告诉您，该房产是供他本人使用\n\n17　还是供他人使用？\n\n18　FERGENSON 先生：\n反对。\n\n19　法庭：\n又来了。这是那种\n\n20　您不能说出他说了什么的问题。您可以说“是”、\n\n21　“否”、“我不记得”或“我不知道”。\n\n22　证人：\n是，法官女士。\n\n23　答。\n是。\n\n5442 O78BGUO4 Barnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n问。\nBarnett 先生，在您与政府于预审陈述会谈期间会面时，政府是否曾向您提出与我刚才问您的问题类似的问题？\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n已问已答。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n不是这些问题。\n\n法庭：\n驳回反对。您可以回答。\n\n答。\n我想是的，但我不记得他们问过我的所有问题。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n那么，让我们再次向他出示 006。\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n法官阁下，为加快进程，我们同意承认我们曾就 Mahwah 问过他。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n他们是否会同意承认他如何回答？\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n不会，因为那是传闻证据。\n\n法庭：\n我不这么认为。\n\n问。\n当您与政府会面并被问及这些问题时，您的律师在场吗？\n\n答。\n是，他在场。\n\n问。\n在您回答完他们所有问题后，他们是否指控您没有如实陈述？\n\n答。\n没有直接对我这样说，至少没有对我的律师这样说，据我所知没有。\n\n问。\n政府就这些话题与您谈过多少次？\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n已问已答。\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n第 189 页，共 500 页\n\n5443 O78BGUO4 Barnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n法庭：\n维持反对。\n\n问。\nBarnett 先生，您是否预期将作为美国检察官办公室的证人出席本次审判？\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n维持反对。\n\n问。\n美国检察官办公室是否告诉您，您将被传唤作为证人？\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n维持反对。\n\n问。\nBarnett 先生，我最初是在何时联系您的？\n\n答。\n我想是在我收到出庭作证传票之后。\n\n问。\n我知道，但是什么时候，本月、上个月？\n\n答。\n上个月，对，是的，我想是六月。\n\n问。\n您记得是六月的哪一周吗？\n\n答。\n不记得。抱歉。\n\n问。\nBarnett 先生，在您为 Guo 先生工作的所有时间里，他是否住在 Mahwah 设施内？\n\n答。\n没有，他不住在那里。他会住在那里，但不在那里居住。\n\n问。\n他在那里停留过的最长时间是多久？\n\n答。\n我想最多大约四五天。\n\n问。\n在那四五天期间，他做什么？\n\n答。\n大多数时候，他主要会进行直播。\n\n问。\n您是否曾在 Mahwah 见过 Guo 先生的妻子？\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n第 190 页，共 500 页\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　答。\n是。\n\n2　问。\n您对她在 Mahwah 的印象是什么？\n\n3　答。\n依我看来，她并不太喜欢那里。\n\n4　问。\n她在那里时看起来高兴吗？\n\n5　答。\n据我所知没有。我不认为她在那里看起来\n\n6　高兴。我无法告诉您她看起来是否高兴。我\n\n7　得到的印象是她不喜欢那里。\n\n8　问。\n您的印象基于什么？\n\n9　答。\n只是夫妻之间某种沟通。\n\n10　不管是什么语言，其实都无关紧要。有时您\n\n11　就是能看出来。\n\n12　问。\n肢体语言？\n\n13　答。\n肢体语言和言语暗示。我妻子一直都会给我\n\n14　这些暗示。\n\n15　问。\n对此抱歉。\n\n16　Barnett 先生，您是否曾在 Mahwah 见过 Guo 先生的儿子？\n\n17　答。\n没有。\n\n18　问。\n在您曾为他工作的所有时间里，您见过 Guo 先生的儿子吗？\n\n19　答。\n是，我见过他一次。\n\n20　问。\n是什么时候，哪一年？\n\n21　答。\n是在我于 2020 年刚开始工作时。我想他当时在\n\n22　康涅狄格州的住宅内，但我们不知道他在那里。\n\n23　当我看到他沿着\n\n24　车道走来时，实际上很惊讶。我不知道他是谁。\n\n5445 案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 192 页，共\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　问。此后，您是否曾在康涅狄格州住宅\n\n2　见过他？\n\n3　答。没有。\n\n4　问。Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内德兰）呢？\n\n5　答。没有。\n\n6　问。Mahwah 呢？\n\n7　答。没有。\n\n8　FERGENSON 先生：\n反对，法官阁下。\n\n9　法庭：\n驳回反对。\n\n10　问。3CC 呢？\n\n11　法庭：\n他已表示，他再也没有见过他。\n\n12　问。您是否在这些地点见过 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的女儿？\n\n13　答。我在新泽西州 Mahwah 的那所房子见过他的女儿。\n\n14　问。您在那里见过她多少天？\n\n15　答。不多，也许她会来一天，最多两天，\n\n16　但我想没有超过一天，然后她就会\n\n17　离开。\n\n18　问。您认识一个叫 Wayne（韦恩）的人吗？\n\n19　答。是，我认识。\n\n20　问。Wayne 是谁？\n\n21　答。Wayne 是 Mei（梅）的未婚夫。\n\n22　问。他住在那里吗？\n\n23　答。没有，他不住在那里。\n\n24　问。现在，Barnett 先生，可以说那是一所相当大的\n\n25　房子吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　答。\n是的，确实是。\n\n2　问。\n您能为我们描述一下那所房子吗？这样可能\n\n3　更少诱导性？\n\n4　答。\n那所房子占地 12 英亩，位于一座小山上。当您\n\n5　沿车道转入并向上行驶时，\n\n6　右侧有一间警卫室。当您驶过大门时，您会\n\n7　上山。当您上山并从住宅正面进入，走进去时，\n\n8　就是一个巨大的客厅。\n\n9　基本上，前面有一个巨大的客厅。然后\n\n10　右侧是厨房所在之处，左侧是\n\n11　一间办公室所在之处，那就是\n\n12　主层。\n\n13　抱歉。您是在问我\n\n14　第一次去那里时的样子，还是进行部分翻修\n\n15　之后的样子？\n\n16　问。\n我是在问您第一次去\n\n17　那里时的样子。如果可以，我可以打断您。\n\n18　答。\n好的。\n\n19　问。\nBarnett 先生，您第一次见到 Mahwah 时，那里有摄像头吗？\n\n20　答。\n是，有。\n\n21　问。\n作为您工作的一部分——您当时是否在 Mahwah 有一项\n\n22　工作？\n\n23　答。\n是。因此，我的任务是重做 Mahwah 的全部安保设施。\n\n24　那里的安全摄像头和设备都非常\n\n25　不合格。\n\n5447 案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 194 页，共\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　对于那么大规模的地方，确实需要对所有安保系统、摄像头、\n\n2　互联网及诸如此类的设施进行彻底改造。\n\n3　问。\nBarnett 先生，您需要水吗？您那里有水吗？\n\n4　答。\n我不知道。我这里有水吗？我没事。继续。\n\n5　问。\n您负责安装摄像头系统吗？\n\n6　答。\n不，我不负责。\n\n7　问。\n您是否挑选安装摄像头系统的供应商？\n\n8　答。\n是，我挑选。\n\n9　问。\n您挑选了哪家供应商？\n\n10　答。\n该公司名为 Prevenitas（普雷维尼塔斯）。\n\n11　问。\n那是一家公司——没关系。\n\n12　您是否监督摄像头的安装？安装了多长时间？\n\n13　答。\n有些日子。我不是每天都在那里，所以。\n\n14　问。\n在您负责 Mahwah 期间，您其余的工作是什么，能否\n\n15　告诉我们？\n\n16　答。\n起初确实只是负责安保系统。不幸的是，后来发生的情况是，\n\n17　由于所有不同供应商进行大量施工，\n\n18　我所有的安保人员都必须记录哪些\n\n19　供应商进入。然后我们还必须担心\n\n20　有哪些人与这些供应商一同进入。我们曾有一名 MS-13 帮派成员\n\n21　必须被清除出去，诸如此类。不过，大部分情况下，\n\n22　我把那件事交给我的另一名团队主管去\n\n23　大致监督。\n\n24　问。\n那么，您——您负责监督 Mahwah 事务\n\n25　多长时间？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　答。\n我想是从最初开始的，我不记得开始日期。\n\n2　我知道对我而言是在 2023 年 9 月结束。\n\n3　问。\nBarnett 先生，是什么类型的事情——那所房子\n\n4　状况良好吗？\n\n5　答。\n不，状况不好。\n\n6　问。\n请您用一下那个麦克风。\n\n7　答。\n它状况不好。\n\n8　问。\n使其恢复良好状态是否属于您工作权限范围？\n\n9　答。\n不属于。我的工作是监督施工，确保\n\n10　承包商做他们应当做的事，\n\n11　基本上就是跟踪——确保没有人\n\n12　做任何不当的事，这更像是安保职责，而不是\n\n13　监督承包商。\n\n14　问。\nBarnett 先生，设施内不同房间是否有对应的名称？\n\n15　答。\n有。\n\n16　问。\n是什么名称？\n\n17　答。\n我得看一下地图，但我不记得一楼\n\n18　有名称。二楼的一侧是\n\n19　Miles 的区域。另一侧是夫人的区域，即\n\n20　Miles 的妻子。\n\n21　我想三楼的一侧是\n\n22　给 Mei 使用，另一侧是给他儿子使用。\n\n23　问。\n这些是这两层楼四个区域所用的名称吗？\n\n24　答。\n我想是的，我想安保地图上是这样标注的。\n\n25　问。\n您有安保地图吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　答。\n有，是的。\n\n2　问。\n您知道是谁制作安保地图的吗？\n\n3　答。\nPrevenitas，他们做了一项安保评估。\n\n4　问。\n并且他们制作了该地图？\n\n5　答。\n是，它是根据蓝图制作的，但他们在地图上创建了\n\n6　这些名称，没错。\n\n7　问。\n是否进行了施工，以便在一楼增加更多卧室？\n\n8　答。\n在一楼？\n\n9　FERGENSON 先生：\n反对，法官阁下。\n\n10　法庭：\n一楼施工的性质是什么？\n\n11　问。\n或者，就此而言，在您工作期间的任何楼层？\n\n12　继续，告诉我们。\n\n13　答。\n起初施工并不多。一楼，即主层，\n\n14　大部分施工我想是在二楼和三楼。\n\n15　问。\n您知道二楼总共有多少间卫生间吗？\n\nO78BGUO4 巴尼特（Barnett）—直接询问\n答：肯定有两次。可能有三次，但我知道肯定有两次。\n问：后来是否曾在 Mahwah 举行会议？\n答：是。\n问：谁出席了那些会议？\n费根森先生（MR. FERGENSON）：法官大人，异议。我认为我们可能需要进行庭边磋商。\n法庭（THE COURT）：好的。上来吧。\n（下页续）\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 197 页，共\n\nO78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问\n（庭边磋商）\n费根森先生：我假定您所指的是起诉书提交后、逮捕后举行的会议？\n卡马拉朱先生（MR. KAMARAJU）：不，不。是逮捕前、起诉书提交前。\n费根森先生：抱歉。\n法庭：好的。\n（下页续）\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 198 页，共\n\n5452 O78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问\n（公开开庭）\n法庭：您可以回答。\n什罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：\n答：是。\n问：巴尼特先生，Miles Guo（郭文贵）是否出席了那次会议？\n答：就我所想到的那次特定会议而言，是。\n问：除 Miles Guo 外，还有谁在场？概括而言，请为我们描述一下谁在场。\n答：我所想到的会议是在该住所刚开始启用时举行的，但我相当确定有一些支持者在场。我认为 Yvette（伊薇特）在场，我几乎可以肯定，但那就是我所能记得的一切。我不记得还有谁在场。\n问：在那次会议期间，是否进行了广播？\n答：可能有。这个我不记得。\n问：巴尼特先生，您知道是哪个实体购买了被称为 Mahwah 的房产吗？\n答：是，Taurus Fund（陶鲁斯基金）购买了该房产。\n问：您在 Taurus Fund 中是否担任职务？\n答：我没有在 Taurus Fund 中担任职务。\n问：您在 Taurus Fund 中是否具有签字权限？\n答：是，我有。我当时并不知道；但确实有。\n问：您所具有的签字权限是什么？\n答：嗯，显然，我直到很久以后才发现，\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 199 页，共 500\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　我是该基金的一名经理，即其中一名经理。\n2\n3　问：您是否签署了一份使您成为 Taurus Fund 经理的文件？\n4\n5　答：是，我签署了。\n6　问：后来该房产是否将从 Taurus Fund 转移至另一基金？\n7\n8　答：据我了解，该房产将被转移至 HCHK Properties（HCHK 地产）。\n9\n10　问：巴尼特先生，您在 Mahwah 设施工作期间，是否对门卫室进行过任何工作？\n11\n12　答：抱歉。\n13　问：您是否对门卫室进行了任何施工？\n14　答：是。\n15　问：您进行了什么施工？\n16　答：门卫室基本上被彻底清空了。我们必须在那栋房子内建立所谓的安保运营中心，之后房子的其余部分基本上也都进行了翻修。\n17\n18\n19　那栋房子完全杂乱不堪。里面有霉菌。\n20　状况非常糟糕。\n21　问：您能否向陪审团说明什么是车牌识别器？\n22　答：车牌识别器基本上是一种能够读取车牌的摄像头。\n23　如果是警察部门使用，它实际上会读取车牌，并向您提供登记在该特定车牌名下的全部信息。\n24\n25\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　平民不能这样做，因此它基本上读取实际车牌，让您知道该车牌出现过多少次。您实际上还可以在电脑上设置，如果该车牌出现，它就会通知您存在问题，如果您不希望该特定车辆出现在您的区域内。\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7　问：您是否在 Mahwah 安装了车牌识别器？\n8　答：它被安装了。不是我亲自安装的。\n9　问：您知道它何时安装的吗？\n10　答：我相信是在后期。我想大约是在 '23 年 8 月或 9 月左右。我并不确定。\n11\n12　问：巴尼特先生，您是否记得人们——您知道什么是保密协议吗？\n13\n\n答：是，我知道。14\n\n问：那是什么？15\n\n答：那基本上是一项协议，规定无论您——其要旨是，无论您看见或听见什么，或其他任何事情，都必须予以保密。16 17 18\n\n问：您签署过一份吗？19\n\n答：就——就 Mahwah 而言，没有，我没有签署。20\n\n问：来到 Mahwah 设施的供应商是否签署过该等协议？21\n\n答：是，每个人都必须签署。22\n\n问：是否有原因——您是否了解为何如此重视 Mahwah 的安保？23 24\n\n答：嗯，基本上只是因为该房产的规模，而且我们更关心该处的安全。25\n\n5455 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 202 页，共\n\n房产，以及我们的安全。\n\n我不知道是否是\n\n嗯，让我给您看一份东西。\n您能否\n谢谢。\n\n您能否告诉我们您在\n\n这只是给证人的。\n如果您能否只\n\n5456 O78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问\n（原文如此）。他表示他接到了一通电话。我不记得是来自 Yvette，还是来自——\n费根森先生：法官大人，我们对传闻证据提出异议。\n什罗夫女士：这不是为证明其所述事项的真实性而提出。\n费根森先生：真的。\n法庭：如果他——先生，请不要复述任何对您说过的话。\n证人：好的。\n问：您做了什么？\n答：基本上，我们——我指示他们把 Guo 夫人和 Mei（梅）带到新泽西州，即新泽西州的住所，因为我觉得如果有人在跟踪她们，那里将是最安全的地点。\n问：她们在新泽西州的安全地点停留了多久？\n答：我相信是几个小时。我没有确切时间。\n问：随后您把她们带回哪里？\n答：带回她们在康涅狄格州的住所。\n问：巴尼特先生，时间推进至 2022 年 6 月，Mahwah 设施的施工是否仍在进行？\n答：是。\n问：施工重点如何——是轻型施工，还是重型施工？\n答：一直都在进行重型施工。\n问：现在，巴尼特先生，您今天坐在这里，是否记得\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 203 页，共 500\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　大约在 2022 年 6 月，您所负责安保的 Mahwah 住所是否还举行过另一次会议？\n2\n3　答：我不记得了。可能有过。我只是\n4　不记得。\n5　问：您今天坐在这里，是否记得 Mahwah 是否曾举行农历庆祝活动？\n6\n7　答：是。\n8　问：那是什么时候？\n9　答：我不知道日期，但确实有。\n10　问：您能否描述一下那边的庆祝活动是什么样的？\n11\n12　答：我认为我没有出席那次庆祝活动。\n13　问：您是否为该庆祝活动提供了安保？\n14　答：是。\n15　问：您提供了什么安保？\n16　答：我相信是当时已经在场的安保人员，即我的团队主管 Tom Carino（汤姆·卡里诺）以及当天值班的人员。\n17\n18　法庭：请对着麦克风说。\n19　答：Tom Carino 以及当天值班、负责保障庄园安全的任何人员。\n20\n21　问：巴尼特先生，作为您为 Guo 先生履行工作职责的一部分，您是否为他考察可供查看的房产？\n22\n23　答：是，我考察办公室和仓库。\n24　问：请提高音量。\n25　您考察办公室和什么？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\n巴尼特—直接询问\n1　答：办公室和仓库。\n2　问：还有什么？\n3　答：我也考察住宅。\n4　问：您在哪里考察住宅？\n5　答：我所做的大部分考察都在网上进行。一处在 Arizona（亚利桑那州）。一处在 Colorado（科罗拉多州）。我认为 Texas（得克萨斯州）也有一处。\n6\n7\n8　问：您所考察的这些房产，能否说——您是否理解它们是供何用途的？\n9\n10　费根森先生：异议。\n11　法庭：异议成立。\n12　问：请描述您所获得的指示——\n13　法庭：异议成立。\n14　费根森先生：异议。\n15　法庭：不要复述任何对您说过的话。\n16\n17　什罗夫女士：法官大人，我们可以进行庭边磋商吗？\n18　法庭：好的。\n19　（下页续）\n\n5459 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 206 页，共\n\nO78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问\n（庭边磋商）\n\n卡马拉朱先生：我不确定，对来自 Guo 先生的指示提出传闻证据异议的依据是什么。根据 U.S. v. DiMaria（美国诉迪玛丽亚案），指示不是传闻证据。\n\n法庭：我在等着该指示是这样说的：“给我找一栋供 G/Club 使用的房子”之类的话。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：他甚至——她甚至都还没有机会询问该指示是什么。\n\n法庭：预期他的回答会是什么，我维持了异议。9 10\n\n卡马拉朱先生：抱歉，法官大人。我在这方面反应很慢。如果异议针对传闻证据，那么我们不是必须听取该指示原本会是什么吗？\n\n法庭：那么，陪审团就会听到那一点，而这可能成为问题。14 15\n\n卡马拉朱先生：如果该指示是为了 G/Club，或为了 fellow fighters（战友），或为了其他任何人，我不确定我们如何才能谈及这一点；我想，我的问题是不知道该如何提出这个问题。\n\n什罗夫女士：法官大人，我们必须坦诚。我们完全不知道他的回答会是什么。我们没有获得政府对巴尼特先生所具有的那种接触程度。他们知道他会说什么。我们不知道。我们不被允许准备这些证人。20 21 22 23 24\n\n费根森先生：法官大人，据我了解，\n5460 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 207 页，共\n\nO78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问\n他已经与他们进行了准备。我认为那是极其不正确的。他们也有 302s。但撇开这一点不谈，我认为法官大人完全正确。可能存在混合陈述，即表面上被包装成命令的内容实际上是对事实的断言。也就是说，这些是给 G/Clubs 的，就像法官大人所举的例子。那仍然是传闻证据。这不被允许。以该问题要求传闻证据为由提出异议是适当的，因为那正如法官大人显然所辨识出的，即将会出现的内容。\n法庭：您想要提出的是，这些潜在房产具有某种用途。这就是您提出这些问题的原因？9 10 11\n\n卡马拉朱先生：我们有权提出 Guo 先生指示人们为某一特定用途寻找房产这一事实。那不是传闻证据。那既是他的心理状态，也是他的指示。\n\n法庭：您可以问，您是否收到过为某些用途寻找房产的指示，而不必由他说明该用途。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：法官大人，也许是我没有理解。如果传闻证据例外的一部分适用于他的心理状态以及他的指示，那么我不理解为何该用途不适当。\n\n法庭：您想要为证明其所述事项的真实性而提出这一点。这就是原因，我不接受任何其他理由。23 24 25\n\n5461 案件 22-50073 文书 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 208 页，共\n\nO78BGUO4 巴尼特—直接询问\n\n卡马拉朱先生：这就是我回到 DiMaria 案的原因。他在这里是为了购买便宜香烟。这是在该陈述中表达出来的意图，第二巡回上诉法院所说的是。因此，第二巡回上诉法院表示，尽管有人认为那可被视为他确实是为了购买香烟而在那里，但它涉及他的心理状态。概念是相同的。\n\n法庭：所以他是在充当考察人员，而您究竟预期他会就自己所想的事情说什么？\n\n什罗夫女士：他被告知要寻找面积大、附有土地、具有高差的房产，以便上方有住所、下方也有住所。这些房产的要点是确保如果每个人愿意，都有足够空间供所有人居住。该房产还应具有允许建造新结构的分区条件。我想说明清楚，因为政府刚才说我所说的是极其不正确，或者类似的话。\n\n辩方曾与其律师及其本人会面一次，此后我们一直无法接触到他，因为其律师一直在波科诺斯（Poconos）度假，且没有电话服务；我们不会在代理律师不在场的情况下与有律师代理的人交谈。我推测这会是他的回答。更重要的是，根据 DiMaria（迪马里亚案），\n\n5462 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 209 of\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - 直接询问：他具有某种心理状态，并且知道 Miles Guo（郭文贵）正在为特定类型及特定目的寻找房产这一事实，适当地具有可采性，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：作为一般原则，绝对如此。是否有人就该房产向你提供过某些标准？他会说是。你在网上搜索时是否适用了这些标准？他会说是。\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：法官阁下，我将维持异议，因为我认为适当的解决办法是限制性指示，而不是排除该证词。如果法庭担心陪审团可能会如此理解该证词，或者甚至担心辩护律师可能会如此主张，那么我认为适当的做法不是排除，而是作出限制性指示；或者，如果我试图在结案陈词中这样做，则由政府提出异议。\n\n法庭：你是在告诉我，你在结案陈词中不会试图为了证明其真实性而使用他关于这些房产目的的证词吗？\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：我会说，这是 Miles Guo 所认为的。这是典型的心理状态陈述。这就是我要说的。你想知道 Miles Guo 是怎么想的吗？这就是你如何知道 Miles Guo 是怎么想的。如果 Miles Guo 错了，那他就是错了，但那是他所认为的。这就是我将在结案陈词中说的。\n\nFERGENSON 律师：我认为法官阁下的建议是正确的。我认为法官阁下先前已认识到，本案与 DiMaria 案处于完全不同的情形，在这样的案件中，该案根本没有任何适用性。尤其是在这样的语境下，此人只是在执行命令。目的在于其效果。关键不在于他被告知为何这样做，而在于他做了什么。\n\nSHROFF 律师：他被告知了原因。\n\n法庭：他被告知了原因，因此他采取了某些步骤。他在查看这些房产时，在搜索栏中输入了某些词语。他输入了某个价格。他输入了有关房产用途的某些标准。\n\nSHROFF 律师：对。法庭的裁定是，我不得询问该房产的用途为何吗？\n\n法庭：正确。\n\nSHROFF 律师：我也不得询问他在搜索中输入的具体词语吗？\n\n法庭：正确。\n\nSHROFF 律师：而且我不能询问该证人对 Guo 先生在作出那些指示时心理状态的理解吗？\n\n法庭：正确。\n\nSHROFF 律师：因此，我认为这与 DiMaria 案相冲突。这是我们的立场，法官阁下。\n\n（续下页）\n\n5464 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 211 of\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n（公开法庭内）\n\nSHROFF 律师询问：\n\n问：Barnett 先生，当你被指示寻找房产时，是否有人向你提供过某些标准？只回答是或否。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是谁向你作出了那些指示或指令、标准？\n\n答：Miles Guo。\n\n问：在不告诉我们这些标准是什么的情况下，你是否使用这些标准来寻找房产？\n\n答：是，我使用了。\n\n问：你找到了哪些房产？\n\n答：再次说明，我在 Texas（得克萨斯州）找到了一处房产。我找到了一处房产——\n\n问：你能否花一点时间向陪审团描述你在 Texas 找到的那处房产？\n\n答：我在 Texas 找到的那处房产非常大。我相信大约有 600 英亩。我相信——我相信其上已经有一条简易机场跑道，而且我不太记得该房产上的住宅情况。我只记得它非常大。\n\n问：你还在哪些州——你在哪些州寻找过房产——这个问题问得不好，但我想你明白我的意思？\n\n答：我在 Arizona（亚利桑那州）以及 Colorado（科罗拉多州）寻找过房产。\n\n问：请告诉我们你在 Arizona 找到的房产情况？\n\n答：我在 Arizona 找到的那些房产，实际上我曾与 Miles Guo 一同考察过那处房产。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n问：对不起。\n\n答：我曾与 Miles Guo 一同考察过那处房产。\n\n问：你能为我们描述一下该房产吗？\n\n答：那是一处大型房产。其中一部分位于山上，向下延伸，几乎像是进入一个山谷，它位于 Sedona（塞多纳）。\n\n问：你还在哪个州寻找房产？\n\n答：Colorado 是我找到房产的另一个州。\n\n问：你在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）寻找过房产吗？\n\n答：我看过 Connecticut 的房产。我相信那是与 Guo 先生一起看的。\n\n问：在不告诉我们其具体内容的情况下，你是否理解这些房产的用途是什么？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你从谁那里获得了这种理解？\n\n答：Guo 先生。\n\n问：在你找到这些房产后，你是否向其他人传达了有关这些房产的信息？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：向谁传达？\n\n法庭：好的。现在是 2:30，因此我们休息半小时。请记住，你们不得彼此讨论本案。不要允许任何人在你们在场时讨论本案。不要阅读、收听或观看任何涉及本案主题的任何来源的信息。\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - 直接询问：本案。先生，你可以离开了。不要讨论你的证词。\n\n法官助理：陪审团退庭。\n\n（陪审团不在场）\n\n法庭：请坐。在我们于下午 3 点返回之前，还有什么事项吗？\n\nFERGENSON 律师：政府方面没有，法官阁下。\n\nSHROFF 律师：我方没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n（休庭）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 213 of\n\n5467 O78VGUO5 Barnett - 直接询问\n\n法庭：请坐。\n\nSHROFF 律师：法官阁下，我可以赶紧去叫证人吗？\n\n法庭：可以，去吧。不过，Shroff 律师？\n\nSHROFF 律师：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：在你这样做之前，我想作出一项裁定。可以由其他人去叫证人吗？\n\nSHROFF 律师：当然可以。\n\n法庭：好的。我已审阅庭审记录和判例法。我将允许辩方进行比我在席边讨论时所表示的范围更广的询问。辩方拟询问 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）在寻找房产时从 Guo 先生处获得了什么指示。Barnett 先生可以作证称，Guo 先生告诉他寻找具有某些特征的房产。此类指示构成命令，因此不属于传闻证据。哦，请证人离开。\n\n证人：哦，对不起。\n\n法庭：参见 United States v. Bellomo（美国诉 Bellomo 案）, 176 F.3d 580, 586, (2d Cir. 1999)。我将允许辩方引出 Guo 先生向 Barnett 先生提供的具体标准。Barnett 先生还可以作证称，Guo 先生告诉他为何要寻找符合这些标准的房产。尽管这不构成命令，但这种陈述将根据规则 803(3) 表明 Guo 当时存在的心理状态，例如动机、意图或计划。只要该陈述是面向未来而非回顾过去的，它便根据 United States v. DiMaria（美国诉 DiMaria 案）, 727 F.2d, 265, 270-71 (2d Cir. 1984)，在心理状态传闻证据例外下具有可采性。因此，现在你们可以把证人带回来了。\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。我们去叫他。\n\n（证人在场）\n\n法庭：好的。请陪审员进来。\n\n（陪审团在场）\n\n法庭：请坐。先生，请记住你仍在宣誓状态。\n\n证人：是的，女士。\n\n法庭：你可以继续询问。\n\nSHROFF 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nSHROFF 律师询问：\n\n问：Barnett 先生，休庭前，我们正在讨论你在寻找这些房产时获得的标准。你记得吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：你能否告诉陪审团，你在寻找这些房产时获得了什么标准？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett - 直接询问\n\n答：基本标准是必须是一处大型——大型房产；必须能够容纳大量人员，实际上超过 1,000 人；必须具备——能够在其上建设大量房屋的能力；并且应可通过车辆和飞机进出。\n\n问：你是否寻找了符合该标准的房产？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Barnett 先生，Guo 先生是否告诉过你，他为何要寻找这类房产？\n\n答：是，他告诉过我。\n\n问：为什么？\n\n答：有人向我解释说，Guo 先生认为——最恰当的说法是，我们所知的世界在 COVID 和疫苗的影响下将无法维持下去。他认为会有很多人死亡，会有很多混乱，世界将陷入巨大的动荡。他希望为他所称的“他的人”准备好一些地方，以便当这种情况发生时，他们有地方可去。\n\n问：谁是他的人？\n\n答：中国人，也就是指他的支持者。\n\n问：他的什么人？\n\n答：支持者。\n\n问：他是否告诉你，他寻找这些房产还有什么其他原因？\n\n答：嗯，主要是出于那个原因。需要飞机进出的原因及该性质，是为了能够往返于这些房产，并在需要时运入物资。\n\n问：你提到该房产必须有容纳 1,000 人的空间。你是否理解这 1,000 人会是谁？\n\n答：我的理解是——按向我描述的方式，是超过 50,000 名支持者。但我没有确切姓名，也不知道——会是谁，或者哪些人会去哪里。\n\n问：Barnett 先生，你就你在 Colorado 看过的一处房产作了证，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：你能为我描述一下该房产吗？\n\n答：那是一处大型房产。我不记得其面积。其上已经有一条跑道。我相信那是一条草地跑道，如果我记得没错的话。我相信——我相信其上已经有不同的住宅，但对于那处具体房产的细节，我有些记不清了。我只记得它非常大。而且我记得其标价相当高——我无法告诉你确切金额，但肯定是 200 million 左右。我不知道确切金额。\n\nSHROFF 律师：法官阁下，我可以占用一分钟吗？\n\n（律师协商）\n\n问：Barnett 先生，你是否考察过 Colorado 的那处房产，还是你——\n\n只是在线查了一下吗？\n\n答：\n我只是在网上看到过。\n我没有去过那里。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生（Mr. Barnett），你就新泽西州的那处房产作过证，你记得吗？\n\n答：\n记得。\n\n问：\n好的。\n你是否知道，预计还会购买一家也靠近该房产的餐厅？\n\n费根森先生（Mr. FERG ENSON）：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n支持反对。不要诱导提问。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，有人是否让你寻找购买新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah, New Jersey）或马瓦地区的任何其他房产？\n\n答：\n是的，我看过马瓦的其他房产。\n\n问：\n那些是什么房产？\n\n答：\n我看的房产大多是办公空间和仓库之类的。\n\n问：\n还有什么？\n\n答：\n有一家餐厅，我想他们指的是那家餐厅，但我不认为它在出售。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，作为你在马瓦的工作职责的一部分，你是否记得购买过大量即食餐食？\n\n费根森先生：\n反对诱导提问。\n\n法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n答：\n我个人购买过一些基本的不同种类的餐食，但数量不大，算是向郭先生（Mr. Guo）展示它们是什么样的。然后，如果他批准了这些餐食，并且Yvette（伊薇特）也批准了，我们本会购买大量餐食。我们当时正在研究此事，但从未购买。\n\n问：\n你们打算为谁购买这些餐食？\n\n答：\n是为郭先生已经想要实施的计划，即为支持者设立不同的生存区域。\n\n法庭：\n你所说的“生存区域”是什么意思？\n\n证人：\n就他所寻找的房产而言，我认为那几乎是为了应对他所设想的世界将会变成什么样子的生存区域。这就是我这样称呼它的原因。\n\n法庭：\n也就是说，如果发生某种危机，是这个意思吗？\n\n证人：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n继续。\n\n由什罗夫女士（Ms. SHROFF）提问：\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，我向你出示辩方证物60678A。你认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：\n认得。\n\n问：\n这是什么？\n\n答：\n我相信这是我们当时正在查看的其中一处房产。\n\n问：\n你记得这处房产位于哪里吗？\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交日期10/01/24\n录入日期10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\n巴尼特——直接询问\n\n答：\n我相信那一处在亚利桑那州（Arizona）。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n法官阁下，辩方请求将辩方证物60678A作为证据提交。\n\n费根森先生：\n法官阁下，我们可以简要进行资格审查吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n费根森先生：\n谁制作了这份文件？\n\n证人：\n我完全不知道。\n\n费根森先生：\n我们反对。\n\n由什罗夫女士提问：\n\n问：\n不论是谁制作的，你认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：\n我因之前见过而认得这处房产，但我从未到访过该房产，也不是我本人选定这处房产的。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n好的。请向下滚动。向下滚动。\n继续。\n\n问：\n你是否记得审阅过这处房产，以供郭先生为支持者购买？\n\n答：\n是的，我记得。\n我记得你现在展示的那张特定图片。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n法官阁下，我们再次请求准许将该文件作为证据接纳。\n\n法庭：\n你的意思是，该文件仅由他刚刚确认的那两页组成吗？\n\n什罗夫女士：\n不，不，这是一份较长的文件。\n我愿意让他滚动浏览，以查看他是否认得整份文件。\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交日期10/01/24\n录入日期10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\n巴尼特——直接询问\n\n法庭：\n在文件获接纳之前，他需要这样做。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n好的。Jorge（豪尔赫），请继续向下滚动。继续向下滚动。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，你现在认得那份文件吗？\n\n答：\n是的，认得。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n好的。辩方请求将其作为证据接纳。\n\n法庭：\n我只是不知道你们已经浏览文件到什么程度。里面有一些照片。我不知道是否有文字内容。\n\n问：\n随着该文件在你面前展开，你认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：\n我认得这份文件。我不能说我认得每一张图片，但我认得这份文件。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n法官阁下，我们再次请求将该文件作为证据接纳。\n\n法庭：\n那是完整文件吗？\n\n什罗夫女士：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n你认得完整文件吗？\n\n证人：\n法官阁下，我认得该文件中的一些照片。我不能说我认得所有照片。\n\n法庭：\n你认得的占百分之多少？\n\n证人：\n肯定超过50%，法官阁下。\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交日期10/01/24\n录入日期10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\n巴尼特——直接询问\n\n法庭：\n我予以接纳。继续。\n\n（被告方证物DX 60678A作为证据接收）\n\n什罗夫女士：\n法官阁下——\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，这是你勘察过的那处房产吗？\n\n答：\n这是向我展示过的其中一处房产。我不是亲自找到这处房产的。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n请向陪审团展示该证物。请继续滚动即可。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，今天坐在这里，你是否记得将这份宣传册发送给某人？\n\n答：\n我相信我把这个发给了伊薇特。我知道——我知道这给Miles（迈尔斯）看过，而且我认为也发给了Anthony Dibatista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，在寻找房产时，分区规划是否是要求你考虑的标准之一？\n\n答：\n是什么意思？我不知道那是——\n\n问：\n即该房产是否被划区用于单户住宅或多户住宅？\n\n答：\n不，必须是——有些房产必须是多户住宅，但一直是——如果只是普通土地、单纯的土地，那么就必须——当时没有考虑分区规划，更多是展示房产。然后，该房产必须划区允许在该房产上建造多套住宅。\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交日期10/01/24\n录入日期10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\n巴尼特——直接询问\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，你是否在场——让我换一种问法。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n请把那个从屏幕上撤下。谢谢。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，你是否知道一个名为Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）的组织？\n\n答：\n是的，我知道。\n\n问：\n作为你安保经验的一部分，是否有人要求你应对法治基金会支持者进行的抗议活动？\n\n答：\n我没有应对——嗯，我应对过一次抗议，那是在Grand Central Station（大中央车站）。我应对了那次。\n\n问：\n谁联系了你？\n\n答：\n我相信是——是MTA police（大都会运输署警察）。我一时想不起他的名字，但我——坦白说，我不记得他是怎么得到我的电话号码的。但他打电话给我，请我过去与抗议者交谈。\n\n问：\n你这样做了吗？\n\n答：\n是的，我这样做了。\n\n问：\n你到了那里后做了什么？\n\n答：\n基本上，我所做的就是与我相信当时是Prince Li（李王子）的人交谈；向他说明，你知道，要遵守警察部门要求的规则。之后，我与——我给在车站内的两名警官留下了一张名片，之后又与副警长交谈。我相信是在电话里；我不记得是当面交谈。他问我，你知道——我说，如果他们不遵守规则，那么他们可能会被传唤或逮捕。事情就是这样。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，你作证称，你受郭先生雇用超过一年；对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n在此期间，你看过他与支持者互动吗？\n\n答：\n看过。\n\n问：\n你对他对待支持者的态度有什么印象？\n\n答：\n我的印象是，他非常爱他们。他一直——他一直与他们交谈。他们是他首要关心的对象。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，在马瓦房产上，有一处被称为凉亭；对吗？\n\n答：\n该房产上有一座凉亭；对。\n\n问：\n是否有计划对凉亭所在区域做些什么？\n\n答：\n可能有。我不知道那些计划是什么。\n\n问：\n你完全不记得该区域的计划是什么吗？\n\n费根森先生：\n反对。他刚刚说他不知道。\n\n法庭：\n支持反对。\n\n问：\n你是否记得是否曾有计划设置一艘宇宙飞船——\n\n费根森先生：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n支持反对。不要诱导提问。\n\n问：\n对于马瓦的建筑物，你是否知道任何其他计划？\n\n答：\n对不起？\n\n问：\n你是否知道将在马瓦实施的任何其他计划？\n\n答：\n是的，我知道其他计划。\n\n问：\n是什么？\n\n答：\n我知道的唯一——唯一另一项计划是——改造厨房，以供将在一层设立的办公空间使用。\n\n问：\n马瓦的室外区域呢，你是否知道任何其他计划？\n\n答：\n不，就凉亭而言，我不知道那项计划。我不知道该计划何时启动，因为我在8月下旬/9月上旬离开了马瓦。\n\n问：\n马瓦有无人机吗？\n\n答：\n没有，有一套反无人机系统。马瓦没有无人机。\n\n问：\n好的。马瓦的反无人机系统是什么？\n\n答：\n基本上，反无人机系统是一套安装在马瓦房屋屋顶上的系统。其功能是可以探测到无人机、任何无人机的起飞，我想大约在15至20英里外。无人机一经起飞，该系统会准确告诉你那架无人机是什么、其功能是什么、实际操控该无人机的人站在哪里。这确实是——其主要功能。本来应该有一台摄像机，能够实际放大该无人机所在的位置，但它从未——从未安装。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，是你安装的这套反无人机设备吗？\n\n答：\n不是，不是我。\n\n问：\n你到那里时，它已经在那里了吗？\n\n答：\n不是。\n\n问：\n你知道是谁安装的吗？\n\n答：\n该项目是通过Prevenitas（普雷维尼塔斯）签约的。他们雇用了一家公司进行安装。我不记得那家公司的名称。我得看相关文件。\n\n问：\n巴尼特先生，今天坐在这里，你对郭先生对其支持者所怀有的忠诚是否有任何怀疑？\n\n费根森先生：\n反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n支持反对。\n\n什罗夫女士：\n我没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：\n交叉询问。\n\n费根森先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交日期10/01/24\n录入日期10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\n巴尼特——交叉询问\n\n交叉询问\n由费根森先生提问：\n\n问：\n下午好，巴尼特先生。\n\n答：\n下午好。\n\n问：\n你是Miles Guo（郭文贵）的安保负责人，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n用通俗的话说，你是郭文贵的保镖？\n\n答：\n是的，对。\n\n问：\n你有时称他为委托人，对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n你有时称他为老板，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n自2020年10月起，Golden Spring（金泉）向你支付报酬，对吗？\n\n答：\n对。\n\n问：\n你当时明白那是郭文贵的钱；对吗？\n\n答：\n不，当时我并不明白，先生。\n\n问：\n你以为其他人在为郭文贵的保镖支付费用？\n\n答：\n我不会知道这一点。基本上，是一家公司雇用我为某个人提供安保服务，因此我不会接触到是谁资助此事。\n\n问：\n在Golden Spring之后，Lamp Capital（兰普资本）向你支付报酬；对吗？\n\n案号22-50073\n文件3602\n提交日期10/01/24\n录入日期10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\n巴尼特——交叉询问\n\n1　答　是的，付款方从 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）变成了 Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital）。\n\n2　不过，我不记得是在何时变更的。\n\n3　问　Lamp Capital 是另一家郭氏家族公司，对吗？\n\n4　答　我对此并不了解。我们只从 Lamp Capital 收到过几次工资支票，我从未真正询问过为何作出该变更。\n\n7　问　可以说，您甚至不知道 Lamp Capital 是什么，对吗？\n\n9　答　老实说，我完全不知道 Lamp Capital 是什么。\n\n10　问　但您知道您从它那里收到了钱；对吗？\n\n11　答　对。\n\n12　问　之后，HCHK 向您付款，对吗？\n\n13　答　是的，我相信是 HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技）；后来是 HCHK Properties（HCHK地产），大概是这样。\n\n15　问　HCHK，那些公司是由 Guo（郭文贵）和 Yvette（伊薇特）经营的，对吗？\n\n16　答　是的。所以我的直接上司是 Yvette，我向她汇报。当时，我每天基本上就是向她和 Anthony 汇报。\n\n19　问　HCHK 在 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）设有办公室？\n\n20　答　对。\n\n21　问　Guo 在 HCHK 所在楼层有一间办公室？\n\n22　答　对。\n\n23　问　Yvette 在 HCHK 所在楼层也有一间办公室？\n\n24　答　是的，她有。\n\n25　问　她们的办公室位于该楼层的两侧，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett（巴内特）—交叉询问\n\n1　答　不，我相信——我相信 Yvette 的办公室——我想那是后来才有的。起初，是的。后来，Yvette 搬到了较高的楼层。\n\n4　问　Guo 和 Yvette 经常在一起，对吗？\n\n5　答　是的。\n\n6　SHROFF 女士：对“经常”一词提出异议。\n\n7　法院：您可以要求他作出估量。\n\n8　问　她们每周都在一起，对吗？\n\n9　答　据我所知，在我与她们共事期间，是的。\n\n10　问　可以说，她们密切合作？\n\n11　答　是的。\n\n12　问　现在，在——撤回。\n\n13　曾有一个时候，您开始经营自己的公司；对吗？\n\n15　答　对。\n\n16　问　它的名称是——请告诉我是否正确。是 GS Security Solution 吗？\n\n18　答　对。它叫作 GS Security Solutions（GS安保解决方案）。\n\n19　问　您是在 Guo 和 Yvette 的帮助下创办该公司的，对吗？\n\n21　答　嗯，我是在 Yvette 的许可下创办该公司的。Miles 没有对此发表意见。我从未就该公司与他讨论过；我与 Yvette、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）和 Anthony Dibatista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）讨论过此事。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　问　Yvette 批准了该计划——\n\n2　答　对。\n\n3　问　即该公司的计划。您也与 Anthony Dibatista 讨论过该计划，对吗？\n\n6　答　是的。\n\n7　问　Max Krasner 可以查阅您公司的账簿，对吗？\n\n8　答　是的，他可以。\n\n9　问　可以说，他是郭氏家族公司的一名财务人员？\n\n11　答　是的，他——我第一次见到 Max 时，他是 Golden Spring 的财务人员。\n\n13　问　Max 称 Miles Guo（郭文贵）为“老板”，对吗？\n\n14　答　我相信是这样。\n\n15　问　Anthony 称 Miles Guo 为“老板”，对吗？\n\n16　答　是的，我相信是这样。\n\n17　问　Yvette 称 Miles Guo 为负责人，对吗？\n\n18　答　嗯，她与我交谈时唯一使用的称呼是“P”。她从未使用过“principal”这一完整称呼，特此说明。\n\n20　问　您理解——\n\n21　答　对。\n\n22　问　——那是指负责人；对吗？\n\n23　答　是的。\n\n24　问　称 Miles Guo 为“老板”的员工并不只有他们，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　答　不，很多人都称他为“老板”。\n\n2　问　他们也不是唯一的员工——Yvette 不是唯一的员工——您和 Yvette 不是唯一称他为负责人的员工，对吗？\n\n5　答　我不知道。我不——那不是一个常用称呼。这是我和 Yvette 彼此之间使用的称呼。我不——我不记得——我不知道是否与我的其他团队成员使用过，但我知道我和 Yvette 之间使用过。我不记得其他任何人称他为负责人，但他们可能这样称呼过，不过我不记得。\n\n11　问　但是，您和您的团队成员也称他为负责人或 P，对吗？\n\n13　答　是的。大多数时候会称他为“老板”，但我与 Yvette 交谈时一直称他为 P。\n\n15　问　现在，在您创办公司之后，您的公司从 HCHK 收到了钱，对吗？\n\n17　答　对。\n\n18　问　HCHK 多次向您的公司汇款，对吗？\n\n20　答　用于工资支付，直至完全过渡完成。因此，就该公司将如何经营，以及我将提供哪些服务并获得何种回报，存在一项协议。\n\n24　问　2022年12月，您的公司从 HCHK Property Management（HCHK物业管理）收到 \\$50,000，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　答　对。\n\n2　问　2023年1月，您的公司从 HCHK 收到 \\$400,000，对吗？\n\n4　答　对。\n\n5　问　2023年2月，您的公司从 HCHK 收到 \\$200,000，对吗？\n\n7　答　对。\n\n8　问　那么，先生，在 Miles Guo 被捕前的三个月内，您的公司从 HCHK 收到 \\$650,000；对吗？\n\n10　答　对。\n\n11　问　那是在 Miles Guo 宣布破产之后；对吗？\n\n13　答　我不知道 Miles Guo 宣布破产了。\n\n14　问　他从未告诉您此事？\n\n15　答　没有，他没有。\n\n16　问　先生，您不是带他——\n\n17　SHROFF 女士：对政府试图引出的传闻证据提出异议。\n\n19　FERGENSON 先生：法官阁下，他是对方当事人。\n\n20　法院：异议驳回。\n\n21　问　您不是带他去 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）参加与破产有关的法院程序吗？\n\n23　答　是的。我带他去了。对。\n\n24　问　那么您认为他去那里是为了什么？\n\n25　答　我不知道那与任何当前事项有关，即 HCHK。我对此并不知情。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n2　问　但您知道他曾宣布破产，因为您带他去过法院——\n\n4　答　是此前的一家公司，对。\n\n5　SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，Barnett 先生能否——\n\n6　法院：让他回答即可。\n\n7　SHROFF 女士：谢谢。\n\n8　问　但您理解，是 Miles Guo——Miles Guo 宣布了破产；对吗？\n\n10　答　我的理解是该公司宣布了破产。我不知道是否是 Miles Guo 个人破产。但我确实带他去了法院，对。\n\n13　问　是 Miles Guo 告诉您该公司宣布破产的吗？\n\n15　答　不是。\n\n16　问　他是否曾告诉您，他本人于 2022年初宣布破产？\n\n18　答　据我记得，没有，他没有亲自告诉我。\n\n19　问　现在，Barnett 先生，自 Miles Guo 被捕以来，您一直继续为郭氏家族工作，对吗？\n\n21　答　对。\n\n22　问　您现在仍为郭氏家族工作，对吗？\n\n23　答　是的。\n\n24　问　Miles Guo 的女儿是您的客户？\n\n25　答　对。\n\n而那只是——您知道，在 Miles Guo 被捕之前，他\n\n那些公司也是。整个——整个实体是最重要的公司。\n\n现在，自 Miles Guo 被捕以来，您收到过被汇出的款项\n\n我的意思是，我的发票，以及它们是如何\n\n嗯，并非您实际客户的个人曾经汇出\n\n向 Mei 开具发票，然后她会以某种方式支付该发票。自 Miles Guo 被捕以来，您收到过被汇出的款项\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　由并非您实际客户的公司汇出；对吗？\n\n2　答　我不知道实际上是谁汇出的款项；我只知道款项确实进入了我的银行账户。我没有每个人的确切姓名，也不知道 Mei 如何汇出款项。\n\n5　法院：问题是，这些个人或实体是否确实是您的客户。\n\n7　证人：不，他们不是我的客户。Mei Guo（郭美）是我的客户。\n\n9　问　先生，2023年5月4日，您的公司从一名名为 Jingrui Sun（孙京瑞）的个人处收到约 \\$152,000，对吗？\n\n11　答　是的，我确实收到了那笔钱。我不能告诉您那笔钱是否是由该人汇出的，但我确实收到了那笔钱。\n\n13　问　下个月，即 2023年6月12日，您的公司从一家名为 HGA Property Operation LLC（HGA物业运营有限责任公司）的公司收到超过 \\$25,000，对吗？\n\n16　答　是的。\n\n17　问　同月次日，即 2023年6月13日，您的公司收到一笔由名为 Shengxu Wang（王盛旭）的个人汇入的 \\$105,000 电汇；对吗？\n\n20　答　我确实收到了那笔钱。再次说明，我不知道那些款项是谁汇出的。那些都是安保服务的发票款项。\n\n22　问　先生，您在 NYPD（纽约市警察局）工作，对吗？\n\n23　答　是的，先生。\n\n24　问　您知道资金骡子是指接收并转移欺诈所得的人，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　SHROFF 女士：异议。\n\n2　法院：异议驳回。您可以回答。\n\n3　答　是的。为该笔钱提供服务。这不是——我并非只是收钱；我为此提供服务，先生。\n\n5　问　不，不，我说的是资金骡子。\n\n6　答　哦，一般意义上的。我以为您是在称我是资金骡子。抱歉。\n\n8　问　不，不。但您知道资金骡子是什么，对吗？\n\n10　答　是的。\n\n11　问　2023年7月6日，您的公司从一名名为 Xuehong Zhang（张学红）的个人处收到超过 \\$107,000；对吗？\n\n13　答　是的，先生，我确实收到了那笔钱。\n\n14　问　之后，于 2023年9月5日，您的公司从一名名为 Desheng Yin（尹德胜）的个人处收到超过 \\$49,000；对吗？\n\n16　答　再次说明，我收到了那笔钱。\n\n17　问　再之后，下个月，即 2023年10月30日，您的公司从同一实体 HGA Property Operations（HGA物业运营公司）收到 \\$10,000；对吗？\n\n20　答　对。那是法律费用发票的款项；对。\n\n22　问　之后，下个月，即 2023年11月10日，您的公司从一笔由名为 Yu Xuanlin（于炫霖）的个人汇出的电汇中收到超过 \\$55,000；对吗？\n\n25　答　对。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　问　该笔款项经由位于 Singapore（新加坡）的 Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd.（华侨银行有限公司）转汇；对吗？\n\n3　答　我想是的。您比我清楚。\n\n4　问　再下个月，即 2023年12月7日，您的公司再次从同一名个人处收到约 \\$55,000；对吗？\n\n7　答　是的，我收到了那笔发票款项；对。\n\n8　问　再进入本年度，于1月16日，您的公司再次从同一名个人处收到超过 \\$55,000；对吗？\n\n11　答　对。\n\n12　问　次日，即1月17日，您的公司从另一名个人 Wei Lai（魏来）处收到 \\$55,000；对吗？\n\n14　法院：律师，请到审判席前来。\n\n15　（下页续）\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n1　（席前密谈）\n\n2　法院：我需要保护他免于自我归罪。他的律师在场吗？\n\n4　FERGENSON 先生：我不确定，法官阁下。\n\n5　SHROFF 女士：不在，法官阁下。我们告诉过他今天要作证。据我所知，他的律师不在。但他已有一名可以代为出庭的人。不过，我很乐意休庭并打电话联系。\n\n9　但我认为政府知悉这一切，而政府在数次、数次与他进行证言陈述会谈时，从未问过他这些问题。\n\n12　法院：您此前问过他这些问题吗？\n\n14　FERGENSON 先生：没有。\n\n15　SHROFF 女士：没有，他们没有问。\n\n16　FERGENSON 先生：他不是我们的证人，法官阁下。\n\n17　法院：不，不，不。我只是不了解您是否曾与他有任何接触。\n\n19　我认为我需要短暂休庭并与他谈谈。\n\n21　SHROFF 女士：当然。\n\n22　（下页续）\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5\nBarnett—交叉询问\n\n（公开庭审中）\n\n法庭：\n\n陪审团成员，我们将短暂休庭。我将在几分钟后传唤你们返回。\n\n（陪审团不在场）\n\n法庭：\n\n请就座。\n\n先生，已经有人就一笔相当大金额流入您账户的事宜向您提出了一系列问题。我担心您可能在未获得律师适当建议的情况下回答这些问题。\n\n证人：\n\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n\n因此，我希望您知道，您有权不回答这些问题，也有权咨询律师。您是否有可以随时联系的人？\n\n证人：\n\n我有可以打电话联系的人。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。我希望您休息一下，打个电话，并向您的律师表达我对这一询问方向的担忧。\n\n证人：\n\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n\n然后询问他或她的建议，即您是否应当继续回答有关该事项的问题。\n\n证人：\n\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n\n好吗？\n\n证人：\n\n是。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。\n\n5493 O78VGUO5 Barnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问　Case 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 240 of 500\n\n那么，请继续，我们会等您回来。他得去拿他的手机。与此同时，我们可以传唤另一名证人。您可以下楼。等您办完后，回来然后——\n\nSHROFF 女士（什罗夫女士）：\n\n法官阁下，我们是否可以先与他商量一下，看他是否可以使用——如果他知道电话号码，他当然可以使用我们的一部电话。这是我唯一想提供的帮助。\n\n法庭：\n\n或者也许可以把该律师的姓名输入 Google，然后找到那个电话号码。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n\n我有他的律师姓名。我很愿意联系该律师，然后把电话交给 Barnett 先生（巴尼特先生）。我会把我的电话给他，以便我把号码告诉他后，他可以打电话给他的律师。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。Fergenson 先生（弗格森先生）？\n\nFERGENSON 先生（弗格森先生）：\n\n可以，法官阁下。我们也有他律师的手机号码。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n\n那位律师，也就是那一位特定律师，今天不在。我们会想办法，法官阁下。不过，我只是要把联络律师的号码给他，让他打电话给他。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n\n与此同时，我希望你们传唤另一名证人。是否有人已准备就绪？\n\nKAMARAJU 先生（卡马拉朱先生）：\n\n我们有人。我只是想与 Shroff 女士换一下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n\n法官阁下，Barnett 先生正在与其律师通电话。法庭是否希望给他五分钟，还是我们应当开始，然后再次中断？\n\n法庭：\n\n我希望尽可能多地进行审理。因此，如果可以，请传唤你方下一名证人。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n\n她就在这里。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。请您到证人席来。并请带陪审员入庭。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n\n法官阁下，我们可否为 Li 女士（莉安·李）请求一名备用口译员？\n\n她请求配备一名备用口译员。她的英语和普通话熟练程度——\n\n法庭：\n\n等一下。\n\n关于备用口译员，答案是可以。请带陪审员入庭。\n\n（陪审团在场）\n\n法庭：\n\n请就座。\n\n陪审团成员，为提高效率，出于后勤原因，我已决定听取另一名证人的证言。\n\n你们可以让证人宣誓。\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\nLEANNE LI（莉安·李）：\n\n由被告方传唤作为证人，在依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。你可以开始询问。\n\n直接询问\n\n由 SHROFF 女士：\n\n问：下午好，Li 女士。\n\n答：下午好。\n\n问：Li 女士，您出生在哪里？\n\n答：我出生在中国。\n\n问：您在中国生活了多久？\n\n答：直到我 11、12 岁。\n\n问：您在中国哪里生活？\n\n答：我住在北京。\n\n问：在北京，您上过小学吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您上的是哪所学校？\n\n答：我不记得名字。\n\n问：Li 女士，后来您是否离开了中国？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您离开时多大？\n\n答：11 或 12 岁。\n\n问：您与谁一起离开中国？\n\n答：我的父母。\n\n问：您记得那是哪一年吗？\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n答：2001 或 2002 年，大约是那个时候。\n\n问：Li 女士，离开中国后，您搬到了哪里？\n\n答：我搬到了加拿大温哥华。\n\n问：您的父母和您一起搬过去了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您在温哥华上学了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您在哪里上学？\n\n答：Fairview（费尔维尤）。\n\n问：您上过大学吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您在哪所大学就读？\n\n答：我就读于 University of Ottawa（渥太华大学）。\n\n问：您从 University of Ottawa 毕业了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您获得什么学位毕业？\n\n答：商业学位。\n\n问：您从 University of Ottawa 毕业后，是否继续接受其他教育？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您在哪里上学？\n\n答：UBC。\n\n问：UBC 是什么？\n\n答：抱歉。让我澄清一下，好吗？是 University British Columbia（不列颠哥伦比亚大学）。\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n问：您在那里学习什么？\n\n答：房地产。\n\n问：您学习房地产学了多久？\n\n答：一年。\n\n问：由于这些学习经历，您取得了执照吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您获准从事什么工作？\n\n答：成为房地产经纪人。\n\n问：您实际上曾在加拿大担任房地产经纪人吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我们会再回到那个话题。但首先让我问您，Li 女士，您目前受雇工作吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您现在为谁工作？\n\n答：我为 Heran Hao（郝然）工作。\n\n问：Li 女士，您为哪家公司工作？\n\n答：我为 G Fashion 工作。\n\n问：G Fashion 什么？\n\n答：抱歉，我不明白这个问题。\n\n问：好的。您现在住在哪里？\n\n答：我住在米兰。\n\n问：米兰是哪个国家的？\n\n答：意大利。\n\n问：您目前的职务是什么？\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n答：首席执行官。\n\n问：什么的首席执行官？\n\n答：G Fashion 的。\n\n问：Li 女士，您第一次听说 Miles Guo（郭文贵）是在何时？\n\n答：2017 年。\n\n问：您最初是在哪里听说 Miles Guo 的？\n\n答：我在 YouTube 上听到他的。\n\n问：您能否描述一下，您最初在 YouTube 上看到他的是何种节目。\n\n答：抱歉，您能换个说法吗？\n\n问：当然。\n\n问：在 YouTube 上，那是直播还是重播？\n\n答：当时我认为是重播。\n\n问：您今天坐在这里时，是否记得您听到那次重播时，Guo 先生谈论的是什么？\n\n答：他谈论了中国共产党的腐败问题，并且——让我想一下。还有中国共产党在利用 BGY 策略来影响西方的未来。他还谈论了中国高级政府官员与——是的，与中国所有名人之间的桃色丑闻。\n\n问：那么我们把这个拆开来说，Li 女士。BGY 是什么？\n\n答：BG——\n\n问：您能否看看是否可以调整一下麦克风，以免产生回声。\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78VGUO5　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n答：现在好些了吗？\n\n问：我想是的。\n\n答：好的。B 代表蓝色，意思是建立关系网络、监控和控制。因此，中国政府说他们可以操纵社交媒体，使其朝着对自己有利的方向发展。BG——BGY——好的。G 意为黄金，代表金钱。因此，他们使用——他们使用金钱贿赂全世界所有政治——政治人物和有影响力的人，以便这些人——因而会按他们要求的任何方式行事。\n\nBG——Y 代表黄色。因此，他们利用性手段贿赂政治人物及有影响力的人。之后，他们利用那些视频或信息勒索他们，以便这些人会——会听从他们要求其所做的任何事情。\n\n（续下页）\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 247 of 500\n\nO78BGUO6　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n由 SHROFF 女士：\n\n问：然后您说——我刚才有点没听清。Li 女士，您是想说他们在“渗透”媒体吗；是这个词吗？\n\n答：是的，正确。\n\n问：现在，Li 女士，您曾亲自见过 Miles Guo 吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：这是您第一次亲自见到 Miles Guo 吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在 2017 年于 YouTube 上看到 Miles Guo 后，您是否继续观看 Guo 先生的播出节目？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您观看该节目有多少年，从哪一年到哪一年？\n\n答：从 2017 年到 2020 年上半年。\n\n问：2020 年上半年？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您为什么在 2020 年上半年后停止观看？\n\n答：因为我去了洛杉矶为 G Fashion 工作。\n\n问：那与您停止观看视频有什么关系？\n\n答：因为我太忙了，没有时间看他的直播。\n\n问：Li 女士，在 2017 年后，Miles Guo 后来是否曾联系您？\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您记得那是在何时吗？\n\n答：我认为是 2018 年。\n\n问：Guo 先生如何联系您？\n\n答：他通过 Guo Media 联系我。\n\n问：通过什么？\n\n答：Guo Media。\n\n问：您能否解释那是如何发生的？\n\n答：您的意思是什么？抱歉。您能再换个说法问一遍吗？\n\n问：那么，他是通过 Guo Media 给您打电话吗？他给您发私信了吗？联系是如何发生的？\n\n答：那么，他在 Guo Media 上给我发送了一条私信。\n\n问：什么是私信？\n\n答：他说你好。\n\n问：不，私信是什么？我明白他的私信内容是什么。我的问题是，什么是私信？\n\n答：私信是私人聊天，因此他通过私人聊天给我发了一条信息。\n\n问：好的。您当时活跃于 Guo Media 吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您知道——您能否向陪审团描述一下 Guo Media？\n\n答：好的。Guo Media 是一个社交平台，像 Twitter，是一个人们可以交换信息、上传视频的应用程序。\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6　Leanne Li（莉安·李）—直接询问\n\n问：您在 Guo Media 上有账户吗？\n\n答：有。\n\n问：Guo Media 提供什么语言版本，或者说，Guo Media 提供哪些语言版本？\n\n答：我认为有中文和英文。\n\n问：您使用哪种语言？\n\n答：我使用英文。\n\n问：您为什么使用该应用程序的英文版本？因为那是默认模式。\n\n答：因为那是默认模式。\n\n问：因为什么？\n\n答：默认模式。\n\n问：默认模式？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Li 女士，您英语和普通话都很流利吗？\n\n答：嗯，我不知道该怎么说，因为我出生在中国，上学直到 11、12 岁，之后我搬到加拿大。我说英语。现在住在意大利，我目前正在学意大利语，所以我的语言系统全乱了。所以。\n\n问：好的。Li 女士，您使用——您主要使用 Guo Media 做什么？\n\n答：我用它上传我制作的视频。\n\n问：您制作什么视频，是您自己制作的视频吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：关于什么？\n\nA.\n我翻译Guo先生（郭文贵）直播的某些部分，并在Video Club上为视频添加英文和中文字幕。\n\n等一下，Li女士（李女士）。\n\n问：\n您刚才作证称您制作视频时，您不是指您制作了视频。让我重新问一遍。这些不是由您制作的、关于您的视频，对吗？\n\n答：\n抱歉。我不明白您的问题。\n\n问：\n请描述一下您制作这些视频的过程？\n\n答：\n好的。所以我会观看Guo先生的直播。在他直播结束后，我会自行挑选最重要的部分，或者我认为西方人需要知道、全世界需要知道的部分。因此，我会下载那些部分，仅下载那部分，然后之后我添加字幕，英文字幕，这样人们就能够理解。\n\n问：\n在您这样做之后，您是否上传了视频？\n\n答：\n是的，我上传了视频。\n\n问：\n上传到哪里？\n\n答：\n上传到Guo Media（郭媒体）。\n\n问：\n是有人要求您这样做，还是您自己这样做的？\n\n答：\n是我自己做的。\n\n问：\n为什么？\n\n答：\n因为我认为Miles先生所说的任何事情，您知道，这些事情确实正在中国发生，然后他们试图渗透西方。所以我认为西方人需要知道这些。这非常重要。\n\n5504 O78BGUO6 Leanne Li（李女士）—直接询问\n\n问：\n除Guo Media外，您是否还在任何其他社交媒体上发布这些翻译视频？\n\n答：\nYouTube（优兔）。\n\n问：\nLi女士，作为发布这些视频的结果，您的Guo Media账户是否发生了任何事情？\n\n答：\n您能再问一遍这个问题吗？\n\n问：\n当然。在您发布这些视频之后，您的账户是否获得了关注者？\n\nMURRAY女士：\n反对，法官阁下。她正在作证。\n\n法院：\n我允许该问题。请继续。\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您有多少关注者？\n\n答：\n我不记得。\n\nSHROFF女士：\n法官阁下，我们可以进行一次简短的席前讨论吗？\n\n法院：\n可以。\n\n（续下页）\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交 10/01/24 录入 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 251 页，共 500 页\n\nO78BGUO6 Leanne Li（李女士）—直接询问\n\n（席前讨论时）\n\nSHROFF女士：\n我刚收到消息，Barnett先生（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴尼特）那边已经处理妥当，他有一些工作上的问题。我不知道您是否想结束——\n\n法院：\n是的，我们可以和他结束。我们会把他带回来。\n\nSHROFF女士：\n我们甚至不必让陪审团退庭。\n\n法院：\n不。就让他们留在原位。当然。\n\n（续下页）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交 10/01/24 录入 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 252 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n（公开法庭上）\n\n法院：\n陪审团成员，我们现在将回到先前的证人。您可以离开法庭。不要讨论您的证言。\n\n证人：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n我们将回到对Barnett先生的交叉询问。\n\n（证人进入法庭）\n\n法院：\n先生，请记得您仍在宣誓之下。\n\n证人：\n是的，女士。\n\nGERALD SCOTT BARNETT（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴尼特），\n交叉询问继续\nFERGENSON先生发问：\n\n问：\nBarnett先生，休庭前我们在讨论贵公司收到的某些付款。您记得吗？\n\n答：\n是的，我记得。\n\n问：\n先生，事实上，您已从并非您实际客户的个人或公司处收到了至少超过$500,000，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您说您为那笔钱提供了服务，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，我为所有那笔钱提供了安保服务。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n问：\n但您并未向给您汇款的那些人提供服务，对吗？\n\n答：\n没有，先生。\n\n问：\n您向Miles Guo（郭文贵）的女儿提供了那些服务，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n然后您向Miles Guo的女儿发送了发票，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n然后这些您甚至不认识的其他人给您汇了数十万美元，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，先生。\n\n问：\n现在，Guo家族也帮助支付您的律师费用，对吗？\n\n答：\n没有，我不得不为此发起Go Fund Me（众筹）。\n\n问：\n在Go Fund Me之前，先生，您是否曾请求Mei Guo（郭美）帮助支付您的破产律师费用？\n\n答：\n我请求过。是的。\n\n问：\n您需要律师，是因为您因贵公司从HCHK收到的钱而被起诉，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您是在Miles Guo的破产案中被美国破产受托人起诉的？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您就此事与Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）谈过，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda是Guo家族的律师，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您因您为Guo家族所做的工作而认识Cerda，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda帮助您找到在该程序中代理您的破产律师，对吗？\n\n答：\n我相信是Mei Guo为我找到了那位律师。我不确定是谁找到了那位律师。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda也帮助支付了那位律师的费用？\n\n答：\n最初，就我开具发票的最初$10,000而言，那是由Victor及其律师事务所支付的，没错。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda也帮助支付了您的刑事律师费用，对吗？\n\n答：\n我认为在开始时，我相信是这样。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda要求您与Miles Guo的辩护律师交谈，对吗？\n\n答：\n我不记得了。\n\n问：\n您确实与Miles Guo的辩护律师交谈过，对吗？\n\n答：\n我在非常、非常开始的时候谈过，但我不认为是Victor要求我这样做的。我不记得了，但我记得在新泽西进行过那次谈话。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda还希望您在本案审判中作证，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，我相信他希望，没错。\n\n问：\n您也这样做了，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n答：\n我是因传票而来的。我说，如果你们想让我作证，就必须向我发传票。\n\n问：\n您刚才提到了Go Fund Me，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\nVictor Cerda帮助您设立Go Fund Me，对吗？\n\n答：\n嗯，是我自己设立了Go Fund Me，然后我与他分享了，对吗？\n\n问：\n您这样做是因为他将帮助您为该Go Fund Me获得捐款？\n\n答：\n我希望如此，对吗？\n\n问：\n那是您的理解，对吗？\n\n答：\n这就是我把它发给他的原因，是的。\n\n问：\n您理解Victor Cerda会把您的Go Fund Me发送给一个名叫Long Island David（长岛大卫）的人，对吗？\n\n答：\n我没有与他进行过那次谈话。我不知道他发给了谁。\n\n问：\n您知道他会把它发送给Miles Guo的支持者，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，没错。\n\n问：\n事实上，它被发送给了Miles Guo的支持者，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您从他们那里通过Go Fund Me筹集了数万美元，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，全部花在律师身上。\n\nSHROFF女士：\n法官阁下，政府能否请Barnett先生说完。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n法院：\n那么，在下一个问题之前，允许他回答。\n\n问：\n您也不知道那些人是谁，对吗？\n\n答：\n我不认识上面的名字，我不认识。\n\n问：\n但您知道他们给您寄了钱，对吗？\n\n答：\n当然。我从Go Fund Me收到一份显示谁寄了钱的通知。\n\n问：\n现在，Barnett先生，您作证称，您亲自或在网上看过各种大型房产，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n现在，实际上没有人购买那些房产，对吗？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n当您查看那些房产时，Miles Guo已经购买了Mahwah（马瓦），对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，这是Mahwah之后的事。\n\n问：\n您至少进行过一次旅行，对吗？\n\n答：\n旅行？\n\n问：\n比如，您亲自去过其中一处房产，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n那次旅行的一部分是否是Guo家族的度假？\n\n答：\n那是一次度假/商务旅行。我们就Miles的事情进行的任何旅行，实际上总是80%是他的业务，但家人确实随同参加了那次旅行，没错。\n\n问：\n您和Miles Guo在那次旅行中，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您安保团队的其他成员也在那次旅行中，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，整个安保团队。\n\n问：\nGladys Chow（周女士）参加了那次旅行？\n\n答：\n是的，她参加了。\n\n问：\nGladys Chow是Miles Guo的翻译，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的，她为我翻译。我不知道那是否是她的确切职务，但她确实翻译。\n\n问：\n她正式受雇的公司是HCHK，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n就她实际所做的工作而言，她是Miles Guo的私人翻译，对吗？\n\nSHROFF女士：\n反对。\n\n法院：\n您可以回答。\n\n答：\n是的，她翻译。是的。\n\n问：\n她还从事某种私人助理类型的工作，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n除您、安保人员、Gladys Chow外，Miles Guo的妻子也参加了那次旅行，对吗？\n\n答：\n在那次旅行中，是的。\n\n问：\nMiles Guo女儿的未婚夫也参加了那次旅行，对吗？\n\n答：\n我不记得他参加了那一次特定的旅行。\n\n问：\nWayne Cao（曹伟）是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n答：\n我不记得他在那里，但我不能说他不在。我正在努力回忆谁参加了那次旅行。抱歉。我参加过几次旅行。我只是努力回忆那是哪一次旅行。\n\n问：\n就Mei Guo的未婚夫而言，那是Defeng Cao（曹德丰），对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n他也叫Wayne Cao？\n\n答：\n我称他为Wayne，没错。\n\n问：\n在亲自查看那处房产之后，没有人购买它，对吗？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n现在，作为您为Miles Guo工作的组成部分，您查看的不只是大型房产，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您还查看了曼哈顿的顶层公寓，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n它们价值数千万美元，对吗？\n\n答：\n我想是。\n\n问：\n其中一些只有四间卧室，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。我去看的那一处，是的。\n\n问：\nMiles Guo的直系亲属有四人，对吗？\n\n答：\n据我所知，是的。\n\n问：\n有Miles Guo，对吗？有Miles Guo的妻子，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交 10/01/24\n录入 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）—交叉询问\n\n答：\n是的，据我所知是这样。\n\n问：\n然后有Miles Guo的儿子，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n然后有Miles Guo的女儿？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n现在，那些顶层公寓也没有被购买，对吗？\n\n答：\n没有，据我所知没有。\n\n问：\n此前购买的是新泽西州Mahwah的一处房产，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您在那处房产中发挥了作用，可以这么说吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您与Yvette（伊薇特）讨论过该作用，对吗？\n\n答：\n是的。\n\n问：\n您与Yvette讨论过Taurus Fund，对吗？\n\n答：\n我没有与Yvette讨论Taurus Fund，但我确实讨论过，如果我们有比如发票，它会交给Yvette。\n\nFERGENSON先生：\nLoftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），如果我们可以调出已被接纳为证据的GX Buck 1234并向陪审团展示。\n\n问：\n先生，您知道Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）是什么，对吗？\n\n答：\n我知道他们购买了新泽西的那所房子，是的。\n\n问：\n持有Mahwah豪宅产权的实体是Taurus Fund LLC？\n\n答：是的。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n他正在展示什么吗？\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\n正在调出来。\n\n问：在等待期间，我先问几个问题。\n\n你是 Taurus Fund, LLC 的管理成员之一吗？\n\n答：所以，文件上把我列为经理。那并不是我所理解的工作职责。因此，当他们让我担任经理时，我只是以为他们的意思是管理该房产并安装安保服务。并不是管理 Taurus Fund，因为我既没有经验，也不会承担那样的事情。\n\n问：你知道 Taurus Fund 是什么吗？\n\n答：不知道，我只是以为那是一家公司。\n\n问：但 Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）给了你文件让你签字？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Aaron Mitchell 是郭家（Guo family）的另一位律师，对吗？\n\n答：是的，他是。\n\n问：他与郭家关系密切，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：可以说他是核心圈子里受信赖的人吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n答：对此我无法给你答案。\n\n5515 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 262 of 500\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n法庭：\n我需要你对着麦克风说话，这样每个人都能听见你。\n\n答：他和他们关系友好。我不知道他与他们有多亲近。我与 Aaron 并不那么亲近，所以我不知道。\n\n问：你签了 Aaron Mitchell 给你的文件，对吗？\n\n答：我签了。\n\n问：而且你认为该文件让你成了某种房产经理，对吗？\n\n答：所以我签字时，我并不真正明白。我只是以为那意味着管理该房产，直到后来我才真正明白其中的全部细节。\n\n问：Barnett 先生，现在我们已经把文件展示出来了。你看到页面中间偏右的位置写着“entity name（实体名称）”吗？\n\n答：是的，我看到了。\n\n问：其右侧写着 Taurus Fund LLC，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：请转到第三页。我们把第 4、5 和 6 栏放大。你看到第 6 栏写着“每位经理或管理成员的姓名和地址”吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：第 2 位是 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特），那就是你，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：你住在 Las Vegas, Nevada 吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n答：不，我不住。\n\n问：那是你的正确地址吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：现在，你并不认为自己实际上是 Taurus Fund LLC 的所有人，对吗？\n\n答：不，我不这么认为。\n\n问：你是在申请破产后才知道你所签文件实际上意味着什么，对吗？\n\n答：在我把它给我的律师看后，他向我解释了。\n\n问：那是在你在破产程序中被起诉的时候，对吗？\n\n答：是的。他们把我列为其所有人，这确实让我有些意外。\n\n问：因为那不是真的，先生，你并不是 Mahwah mansion 的实际所有人，对吗？\n\n答：不，我不是。\n\nFERGENSON 先生：\nLoftus 女士，我们可以把那个撤下来了。\n\n问：那不是你的房子，对吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：但你确实带 Miles Guo（郭文贵）去过那里，对吗？\n\n答：是的，我带他去过那里。\n\n问：而且他每周去那里两到三次？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对，歪曲证词。\n\n法庭：\n驳回。你可以回答。\n\n答：我带他去过那里。我不认为是每周两三次，也许刚开始时是这样。除此之外，是零星的。而且我并非每天都和他在一起，所以我没有关于他去那里次数的确切记录。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n问：当然。你在那里没有卧室？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Miles Guo 在那里有一间卧室，对吗？\n\n答：是的，在二楼。\n\n问：Miles Guo 的妻子在那里有一间卧室？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Miles Guo 的儿子在那里有一间卧室？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Miles Guo 的女儿在那里有一间卧室？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Miles Guo 女儿的未婚夫在那里有一间卧室？\n\n答：这我不知道。\n\n问：事实上，郭家在那里的不只是卧室，对吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对，问题是什么。\n\n问：问题是，郭家在 Mahwah mansion 不只是有卧室，对吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对提问方式。\n\n法庭：\n你可以回答。他们除卧室外还有别的东西吗？\n\n答：我不明白这个问题。我知道你在问什么，但我不知道你指的是什么。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n问：让我换一种说法。这些不只是卧室。它们是整片侧翼区域，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：这座豪宅中那些包含多个房间的部分，完全是供——\n\n答：是的，一侧，例如——我不知道那是什么方向，但如果你走进去后向右，一侧是 Miles 的区域。另一侧是太太的区域。是的。\n\n问：而且你没有在 Mahwah mansion 放一整套 Brioni（布里奥尼）西装，对吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n驳回。你可以回答。\n\n答：如果你问的是我个人是否存放了它们？\n\n问：是的，先生。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你拥有一整套 Brioni 西装吗？\n\n答：我有 Brioni 西装，但它们来自 Real Real，所以是二手的。我买不起 Brioni 西装，先生。\n\n问：但 Miles Guo 在 Mahwah mansion 放了一整套 Brioni 西装，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：而且，先生，你没有挑选对那些侧翼区域进行的装修，对吗？\n\n答：没有，我没有。\n\n问：是 Miles Guo 设计了那些装修，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n如果你知道，你可以回答。\n\n答：我不知道。我不知道他是否是唯一作出选择的人。我不知道。\n\n问：他参与了其设计？\n\n答：是的，他参与了。\n\n问：事实上，你曾经一次陪同 Miles Guo 查看该侧翼区域，对吗？\n\n答：是的，我陪同过。\n\n问：而且，装修的不只是卧室，还有衣橱，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Miles Guo 挑选了对其衣橱进行的装修，对吗？\n\n答：我相信是这样，但我无法确认。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\nBarnett 先生，你能提高音量吗？你说“我相信是这样”之后的内容我没有听到。\n\n答：我说，我相信是这样。我无法确认。我相信是这样。\n\n问：而且你没有挑选郭家卧室里的床，对吗？\n\n答：没有，我没有。\n\n问：是 Miles Guo 挑选的，对吗？\n\n答：这我不知道，因为我没有参与那部分施工。\n\n问：你知道郭家总体而言是否挑选了他们卧室里的床吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你没有挑选他们卧室里的家具，对吗？\n\n答：没有，我没有。\n\n问：是 Miles Guo 挑选的，对吗？\n\n答：同样，我不知道。我没有——我并不知悉那部分情况。除非我们去了某一家具体商店并且他挑选了某件物品，那么我可以确认，但他们挑选任何与卧室家具有关的物品时，我并不在他身边，也不知悉此事。\n\n问：不过，你确实知道那个侧翼区域——我想你说是在右边？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：右侧的侧翼区域是 Miles Guo 的区域？\n\n答：是的，在二楼，没错。\n\n问：而且你知道这一点，是因为你在协助他处理那处房产，对吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n答：作为施工计划的一部分，是的，我知道。\n\n问：你后来知悉存在一项破产程序，对吗？\n\n答：是关于 HCHK 吗？\n\n问：至少涉及 Miles Guo 的那项程序。\n\n答：是的。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n问：你是否知道 Miles Guo 在其破产申报文件中完全没有提及位于 Mahwah 的这座豪宅？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：你是否知道他没有提及花费在这座豪宅装修上的任何款项？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：你是否知道他没有提及为这座豪宅购买的任何一张 \\$35,000 的床？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：你是否知道他没有提及为这座豪宅购买的任何家具，即价值数十万美元乃至数百万美元的家具？\n\n答：不知道，我不了解。\n\n问：你是否知道他没有提及——\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n法官阁下，我认为 Barnett 先生并不了解 Miles Guo 在其破产程序中提及了什么。\n\n法庭：\nShroff 女士，我过去已经对你说过，你不得作证。如果你要提出反对，就提出反对。\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对，法官阁下，重复。\n\n法庭：\n驳回。你可以回答。\n\n问：你是否知道他没有披露为这座豪宅中的艺术品所花费的数百万美元，或至少数千美元，而他的家人在那里有侧翼区域？\n\n答：不知道，我不了解此事。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n问：现在，流向 Mahwah 的钱是经由一名叫 Amy Buck（艾米·巴克）的女士转付的，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：它是经由她的律师——\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对该问题中“经由”的提问方式。这不恰当，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n那么，请你说得更具体一些。\n\n问：Amy Buck 在支付 Mahwah mansion 的费用，对吗？\n\n答：是我把发票寄给她的，是的。\n\n问：她通过其律师信托账户支付这些费用，对吗？\n\n答：是的，我相信是这样，是的。\n\n问：现在，你在直接询问中作证提到了一名叫 Sean 或 Sean Jing（肖恩·静）的人？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：你说 Sean Jing 为 HCHK 工作，对吗？\n\n答：我相信是这样，是的。\n\n问：那是他工作的公司，对吗？\n\n答：我相信是这样。\n\n问：也是你认为 Gladys Chow（格拉迪斯·周）曾正式为其工作的同一家公司？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Sean Jing 是郭家的另一名私人助理，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\n答：我不——他曾一度是。我想——你是在问与 Mahwah 有关的情况吗？\n\n问：嗯，他为郭家从事过某种私人助理性质的工作？\n\n答：是的，他做过。\n\n问：而且他还担任 Mahwah 那座豪宅的房产经理，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：在私人助理性质的工作中，他为 Miles Guo 办事，对吗？\n\n答：这我不知道。我知道他做助理的事情，但我不知道他做过或没有做过哪些工作。\n\n问：而且他为郭家总体上办事，对吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对，他刚才已经回答了这个问题。\n\n问：一个问题是 Miles Guo。这是指郭家总体而言。\n\n法庭：\n那么你可以回答这个问题。\n\n答：抱歉。你能再问一遍吗？\n\n问：当然。Sean Jing，他为郭家总体而言办事？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：还有其他人为郭家从事私人助理性质的工作，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特——交叉询问\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n提问方式。\n\n法庭：\n你可以回答。\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：其中一人叫 Hank（汉克），对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：他有一个中文名字，但他用英语称自己为 Hank，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道他的中文名字。\n\n问：另一个人叫 Jason（杰森），对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：你之前把他们形容为有点像契约仆人，对吗？\n\nSHROFF 女士：\n反对。\n\n法庭：\n驳回。\n\n问：你之前把他们形容为有点像契约仆人，对吗？\n\n答：我是在更具玩笑意味的情况下这样归类的。抱歉，我是这样归类的。\n\n问：你说过那样的话，对吗？\n\n答：我说过。\n\n问：而且他们做家庭所需要的任何私人事务，对吗？\n\n答：是的，我相信是这样。\n\n问：他们购物？\n\n答：是的。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　问：他们做饭吗？\n2　答：是。\n3　问：他们开车载送这家人四处出行吗？\n4　答：是，有时是。\n5　问：而且他们会购买这家人想要的东西，对吗？\n6　答：我想是。\n除了杂货以外，我不会知悉他们为这家人购买了什么。\n8　问：现在，有时郭文贵（Miles Guo）让你为他购买东西，对吗？\n9　答：我本人吗，先生？\n是，如果主要是类似于任何东西，\n10　比如说，如果他需要一副耳机，但\n11　没有——任何真正昂贵的东西我都必须请示。\n12　问：他让你为他购买摩托车，对吗？\n13　答：是，他们让我购买摩托车。\n不，他们没有让我\n14　购买它。\n他们是提出要求。\n15　问：而你照做了，对吗？\n16　答：我照做了。\n17　问：有多少辆，四辆还是五辆？\n18　答：我相信最终是五辆。\n19　问：而且每辆花费数万美元？\n20　答：它们价格不一。\n21　问：而且这些摩托车登记在你名下，对吗？\n22　答：是，登记在我名下。\n23　问：但那些实际上并不是你的摩托车？\n24　答：不，不是。\n25　问：你不是那些摩托车的实际所有人，正确吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　答：不，我不是。\n2　问：郭文贵在他申请\n3　破产后让你这样做，对吗？\n4　施罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：反对，法官阁下，问题假定了\n5　未被证据支持的事实。\n6　法庭：驳回。你可以回答。\n7　答：我不知道。\n至于破产以及他们何时提出要求，我不知道。\n9　问：你在直接询问中作证说，在某一时期，伊薇特（Yvette）\n10　想让你将它们出租给支持者？\n11　答：我们就此进行过讨论，这没错。\n12　问：那是在 2022 年末，对吗？\n13　答：我相信是。\n14　问：你是否知道，在那之前不久，美国（United States）\n15　从与郭文贵有关联的实体中扣押了数亿美元？\n17　答：不，我不知道。\n18　问：郭文贵是否曾说过司法部（Department of Justice）刚刚\n19　做了这件事？\n20　答：没有。\n21　问：伊薇特在她就出租\n22　这些资产进行这次谈话之前，是否曾说过司法部刚刚\n23　做了这件事？\n24　答：没有。\n25　弗格森先生（MR. FERGENSON）：洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），如果我们能调出\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　已作为政府证物 WA26 提交证据的内容。洛夫特斯女士，为何\n2　不请您只放大下半部分。\n3　问：现在，先生，这份清单列有数辆车辆。你看到\n4　车辆的照片了吗？\n5　答：看到了。\n6　问：其中一些是你购买的摩托车，正确吗？\n7　答：是，正确，就是顶部的那两辆。\n8　问：例如，那辆杜卡迪（Ducati），在破产程序中\n9　出现该问题时，你甚至不知道它仍登记在你\n10　名下，对吗？\n11　答：我不知道。\n12　施罗夫女士：反对，法官阁下。我认为我们已经\n13　确定了他对于破产所知情况的依据。\n14　法庭：驳回。你可以回答。\n15　答：我不知道。\n16　问：你不知道它仍登记在你名下，正确吗？\n17　答：我不知道，正确。\n18　问：如果我们能缩小画面。\n19　现在，所有人项下所列的人，你看到第二个靠右栏中的\n20　内容了吗？\n21　答：勉强能看见。\n22　问：我们可以放大。你看到那里写着“所有人”吗？\n23　答：看到了。\n24　问：而且，那里所列的人是曹德峰（Defeng Cao），正确吗？\n25　答：正确。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　问：他也不是这些摩托车的实际所有人，\n2　正确吗？\n3　施罗夫女士：对问题形式提出异议。\n4　法庭：你可以回答。\n5　答：我是原始所有人。我不知道那些\n6　摩托车的第二任所有人是谁或后来是谁。\n7　问：如果我们可以向下滚动。让我们放大兰博基尼（Lamborghini）。\n8　巴内特先生（Mr. Barnett），你看到兰博基尼\n9　所有人栏下写的是曹德峰。你看到了吗？\n10　答：是的。\n11　问：而且有一个地址为康涅狄格州格林尼治市塔科尼克路 373 号\n12　（373 Taconic Road in Greenwich Connecticut）。你看到了吗？\n13　答：是。\n14　问：那是郭家的一处住宅，对吗？\n15　答：那是我目前从事安保工作的地方，是。\n16　问：而且你看到备注栏写着 G/Club\n17　International LTD 吗？\n18　答：是。\n19　问：你知道为什么会这样写吗？\n20　答：我完全不知道。\n21　问：你还作证说，在你与伊薇特讨论\n22　将某些资产签出给支持者时，他们也提到了\n23　那辆兰博基尼？\n24　答：提到了，正确。\n25　问：在讨论那辆兰博基尼时，伊薇特是否说美国\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　政府刚刚从 G/Clubs 扣押了数亿美元？\n2　答：没有，她没有。\n4　弗格森先生：如果我们能转到政府证物\n5　WA27，如果我们能放大这里的文字。\n6　问：巴内特先生，你看到备注栏中\n7　列你为“Scott Barnett driver”吗？\n8　答：是，正确。我看到了。\n9　问：而且在所有人项下，前两辆写的是 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 技术公司）？\n11　答：正确。\n12　问：而底下两辆写的是 GS Security Solutions（GS 安保解决方案公司），对吗？\n13　答：正确。\n14　问：GS Security Solutions 是你的公司，对吗？\n15　答：正确。\n16　问：这些是你购买的 BMW（宝马）汽车，正确吗？\n17　答：是。\n18　问：而且你是用 HCHK Technologies 的钱购买它们的，\n19　正确吗？\n20　答：是。\n21　问：那是在 2023 年 1 月，对吗？\n22　答：正确。\n23　问：那是在郭文贵宣布\n24　破产近一年之后，对吗？\n25　答：显然是。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　施罗夫女士：反对，问题假定了该证人\n2　已否认具备的知识。\n3　法庭：你知道他是哪一年宣布\n4　破产的吗？\n5　证人：不知道，女士，我不知道。\n6　法庭：支持异议。\n7　问：先生，你用 HCHK 的钱购买了那些宝马汽车，对吗？\n8　答：正确。这笔钱是创业协议的一部分，\n9　正确。\n10　弗格森先生：现在，我们可以把那个撤下了，\n11　洛夫特斯女士。\n12　问：你还在管理一艘游艇方面发挥过作用，正确吗？\n13　答：不。\n14　问：你收到过 Liberty 号游艇船长发来的电子邮件，对吗？\n15　答：是，正确。那是关于正在进行的维修，\n16　因为我想马克斯·克拉斯纳（Max Krasner）忙于\n17　他正在做的任何事情，无法应付船长不断发送的\n18　电子邮件，所以伊薇特让我加入其中，\n19　以确保维修正在完成。\n20　问：现在，你的律师向政府提交了其中一些电子邮件，\n21　对吗？\n22　答：是。\n23　问：你刚才提到的马克斯·克拉斯纳，他也收到过那些\n24　电子邮件，对吗？\n25　答：据我所知，是。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　问：先生，你没有为 G/Club 工作，对吗？\n2　答：不，我没有。\n3　问：马克斯·克拉斯纳也没有为 G/Club 工作，对吗？\n4　答：我完全不知道。\n5　弗格森先生：洛夫特斯女士，我们能否向证人出示\n6　标记为政府证物 SB212 的文件。\n7　法庭：弗格森先生。\n8　弗格森先生：我在等一份证物，法官阁下。\n9　没关系，法官阁下。我继续往下问。\n10　法庭：好的。\n11　弗格森先生：感谢您的宽容。\n12　问：先生，你还在直接询问中谈到了一些郭文贵的支持者，\n13　对吗？\n14　答：是。\n15　问：而且有时支持者会去哥伦布圆环 3 号（3 Columbus Circle），\n16　对吗？\n17　答：是。\n18　问：他们会听郭文贵讲话？\n19　答：是。\n20　问：他们会为他鼓掌？\n21　答：是。\n22　问：可以说他们崇拜他？\n23　答：是。\n24　问：他们会请他抱婴儿，对吗？\n25　答：我见过这种情况。我不知道他们是否提出请求。那\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　会是中文。我不会明白。\n2　施罗夫女士：你刚才确实说过。\n3　答：我见过他抱别人的婴儿。我不知道他们是否\n4　提出请求。他们说的是中文，所以我不知道。\n5　问：有时他们会带着孩子去哥伦布圆环 3 号？\n6　\n7　答：是，我见过这种情况。\n8　问：而且他们会带着孩子，并给那些孩子\n9　一台 iPad，对吗？\n10　答：是，我见过这种情况。\n11　问：然后那些支持者会整天工作，对吗？\n12　施罗夫女士：反对。\n13　法庭：驳回。你可以回答。\n14　答：我并非整天都在那里，但，是的，他们工作。\n15　问：而这些支持者工作时，他们不听其他工作人员的话，\n16　对吗？\n17　施罗夫女士：对问题形式提出异议。\n18　法庭：嗯，他不可能说其他人是否在听。\n19　他无法感知这一点。\n20　弗格森先生：我可以重新表述，法官阁下。\n21　法庭：好的。\n22　问：你知道一些情形——撤回。\n23　巴内特先生，当时事情发生时你在哥伦布圆环 3 号的\n24　印象是，这些支持者并不总是听其他工作人员的话，\n25　正确吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　答：我不能代表其他工作人员发言，但我见过一些情形，\n2　在其他工作人员出现问题时，我曾就此与\n3　其他工作人员交谈。\n4　问：而这些支持者总是听郭文贵的话，\n5　对吗？\n6　答：再次强调，所有谈话都是中文。我可以告诉\n7　你，他们确实听他说话，但我无法告诉你说了什么。\n9　问：而且，你的印象是，与支持者有关的这些事\n10　很奇怪，可以这么说吗？\n11　施罗夫女士：反对。\n12　法庭：你可以回答。\n13　答：奇怪，我想——我不知道我会不会用“奇怪”这个词。\n14　我想那对我而言只是不同，因为我以前从未见过。\n15　通常我会把这形容为类似于名人，人们对名人\n16　有些敬畏。这就是\n17　我得到的印象。\n18　问：先生，你作证说，郭文贵是你曾担任保镖服务过的\n19　较好的人之一，对吗？\n20　答：正确。\n21　问：你喜欢他，对吗？\n22　答：我非常喜欢他。\n23　问：而且你作证说，你认为他在 NFSC 所做的\n24　事情是真诚的，对吗？\n25　答：正确。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特—交叉询问\n\n1　问：先生，你没有观看他的普通话直播，\n2　正确吗？\n3　答：不，我没有。\n4　问：你没有在网上关注他，正确吗？\n5　答：不，我没有。\n6　问：你没有投资于那些投资项目中的任何一个，对吗？\n8　答：不，我没有。\n9　问：你没有向与郭文贵有关联的公司汇去你的\n10　个人资金，正确吗？\n11　答：没有，先生。\n12　问：你没有把你的退休金汇给他，正确吗？\n13　施罗夫女士：反对，已问及并已回答。\n14　法庭：驳回。你可以回答。\n15　答：不，我没有。\n16　问：你没有把从你房屋净值中借来的钱汇给他，\n17　正确吗？\n18　施罗夫女士：反对，已问及并已回答。\n19　法庭：驳回。你可以回答。\n20　答：不，我没有。\n21　问：你没有把你家人的钱汇给他，正确吗？\n22　答：没有，先生，我没有。\n23　问：而且，先生，事实上你从\n24　为郭文贵工作中获得了钱，对吗？\n25　答：您的意思是作为服务报酬吗，先生？我不知道你在问什么。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\n巴内特\n—复询问\n\n1　问：我们之前谈过你获得的所有报酬？\n2　答：作为服务报酬，正确。\n4　施罗夫女士：对问题形式提出异议，法官阁下。\n5　法庭：支持异议。\n6　弗格森先生：我可以稍等片刻吗，法官阁下？\n7　法庭：可以。\n8　问：先生，你没有在把钱汇给郭文贵后损失钱，\n9　正确吗？\n10　答：抱歉。\n11　施罗夫女士：假定了显然\n12　未经证实的事实。\n13　法庭：他已陈述他没有汇钱。\n14　支持异议。\n15　弗格森先生：没有进一步问题，法官阁下。\n16　法庭：复询问。\n17　复询问\n18　由施罗夫女士进行：\n19　问：巴内特先生，再次下午好。\n20　答：您好。\n21　问：巴内特先生，你作为纽约市警察局（NYPD）警员，为纽约市（City Of New York）人民光荣服务了多少年？\n23　弗格森先生：反对。\n24　法庭：可以。你担任警察有多长时间？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）\n—复询问\n\n1　A.　已有 17 年半，女士。\n2　Q.　在这 17 年中，您是否曾代表 City of New York（纽约市）或 State of New York（纽约州）作证？\n3\n4　A.　是的，我曾作证。\n5　Q.　您是否像今天在这里一样宣誓？\n6　A.　是的，我宣誓过。\n7　Q.　您是否曾在宣誓后说谎？\n8　A.　没有。\n9　Q.　今天您是否曾在宣誓后说谎？\n10　A.　没有，女士。\n11　Q.　您会为了 Miles Guo（郭文贵）在宣誓后说谎吗？\n12　A.　不会，女士。\n13　Q.　您会因为他让 HCHK 向您发送 $15,000、$30,000、$650,000、$600,000 或 $1 million，而为了 Miles Guo 说谎吗？\n14\n15　MR. FERGENSON（费根森先生）：带有争辩性。\n16　THE COURT（法院）：驳回异议。您可以回答。\n17　A.　不会，女士，我不会。\n18　Q.　Barnett 先生，您因您为 Mei Guo（郭梅）所做的工作获得了钱款，对吗？\n19　A.　是的。\n20\n21　Q.　我不打算逐一说明所有情况，但您将该笔钱存入了一个银行账户，对吗？\n22\n23　A.　是的，存入我公司的银行账户。\n24　Q.　而该公司的银行账户是在一家真正的银行开设的，对吗？\n25　A.　Chase Bank（大通银行），是的。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　Q.　而大通银行从未标记过您的账户，对吗？\n2　MR. FERGENSON：异议，法官阁下。\n3　THE COURT：您可以回答。\n4　A.　没有，他们从未标记过。\n5　Q.　这些是电汇转账，对吗？\n6　A.　是的，女士。\n7　Q.　您知道向您电汇钱款的这些人是谁吗？\n8　A.　我不知道。\n9　Q.　您知道他们是否是 Mei Guo 的叔叔吗？\n10　MR. FERGENSON：异议。\n11　THE COURT：您可以回答。\n12　MR. FERGENSON：他已经说过他不知道，法官阁下。\n13　Q.　他们是她的叔叔吗？\n14　A.　我不知道。\n15　Q.　他们是她在中国的家人吗？\n16　MR. FERGENSON：再次异议，问过且已答。\n17　同一个问题。\n18　THE COURT：您可以回答。\n19　A.　我不知道。\n20　Q.　有人曾就一名名为 Jian Wu Zhang（张建武）的人询问您，对吗？\n21　A.　我相信是的。\n22　Q.　您知道他是否与 Mei Guo 有亲属关系吗？\n23　A.　我不知道。\n24　Q.　有人曾就 Su Zu Wang（王素祖）转账 $105,000 一事询问您，对吗？\n25\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　A.　是的，我相信是。\n2　Q.　您知道 Su Zu Wang 是否与 Mei Guo 有亲属关系吗？\n3　A.　我不知道。\n4　Q.　有人曾就 Zhang 先生再次转账 $107,000 一事询问您，对吗？\n5\n6　A.　是的，我相信是。\n7　Q.　您知道 Zhang 先生与 Mei Guo 有亲属关系吗？\n8　A.　我不知道。\n9　Q.　您知道 Desheng Yin（尹德胜）是谁吗？\n10　A.　我不知道。\n11　Q.　您知道 Desheng Yin 是否与 Mei Guo 有亲属关系吗？\n12　A.　我不知道。\n13　Q.　有人曾就来自新加坡的一些钱款询问您，对吗？\n14\n15　A.　是。\n16　Q.　您知道 Mei Guo 在新加坡是否有叔叔、姑姨或表亲吗？\n17\n18　A.　我不知道。\n19　Q.　有人曾就一名名为 Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）的人向您提出许多问题，对吗？\n20\n21　A.　是。\n22　Q.　当您需要律师时，Cerda 先生是否帮助过您？\n23　A.　是，他帮助过。\n24　Q.　他是否向您提供了推荐？\n25　A.　我不知道推荐是他给我的，还是来自 Mei。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　我不记得是谁给我作的推荐。\n2　Q.　Cerda 先生是否曾对您说：“如果您为 Miles Guo 作证，我就给您钱”？\n3\n4　A.　没有，他没有这样说。\n5　Q.　Cerda 先生是否对您说：“如果您与 Shroff 女士（施罗夫女士）交谈，我就给您钱”？\n6\n7　A.　没有，他没有这样说。\n8　Q.　Cerda 先生是否对您说：“只有您与 Shroff 女士交谈而不与政府交谈，我才给您钱”？\n9\n10　MR. FERGENSON：异议。\n11　THE COURT：驳回异议。您可以回答。\n12　A.　没有，他没有这样说。\n13　Q.　Cerda 先生是否对他给予您的帮助附加任何条件？\n14　A.　没有，他没有。\n15　Q.　有人曾就您聘请的或有人协助您聘请的一名刑事律师向您提问，对吗？\n16\n17　A.　我聘请了一名刑事律师，是的。\n18　Q.　是谁选择了那名刑事律师？\n19　A.　我。\n20　Q.　让我重新表述一下。抱歉。我本应知道得更准确。\n21　刑事辩护律师，是谁选择了他？\n22　A.　我。\n23　Q.　Cerda 先生是否与他有任何关系？\n24　A.　在选择他这件事上没有。\n25　Q.　我是否与他有任何关系？\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　A.　没有。\n2　Q.　Guo 先生的任何律师是否与您选择的律师有任何关系？\n3\n4　A.　没有。\n5　Q.　有人曾就一个 GoFundMe（GoFundMe 众筹平台）页面询问您，对吗，Barnett 先生？\n6\n7　A.　是的。\n8　Q.　您为什么需要一个 GoFundMe 页面？\n9　A.　因为我不得不聘请的律师要求支付他们的费用，而我没有其他途径筹到这笔钱。\n10\n11　我个人没有那么多钱。\n12　Q.　Victor Cerda 没有给您那笔钱，对吗？\n13　A.　没有，他没有。\n14　Q.　Mei Guo 没有给您那笔钱，对吗？\n15　A.　没有，她没有。\n16　Q.　Wayne Cao（曹韦恩）没有给您那笔钱，对吗？\n17　A.　没有。\n18　Q.　Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）没有给您那笔钱，对吗？\n19　A.　没有。\n20　Q.　Miles Guo 没有给您那笔钱，对吗？\n21　A.　没有，他没有。\n22　Q.　顺便说一下，对于政府向您询问的那些电汇转账所收到的钱，您已在所得税申报中申报了，对吗？\n23\n24\n25　A.　是的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　Q.　而您也在所得税申报中申报了 GoFundMe 的钱，对吗？\n2\n3　MR. FERGENSON：异议，关联性及范围。\n4　THE COURT：您可以回答。\n5　A.　并未在本年度的税务申报中申报。应在下一年度的税务申报中申报。\n6\n7　Q.　现在，有人曾就您看过的纽约市其他房产向您提出许多问题，对吗？\n8\n9　A.　是。\n10　Q.　他们向您询问的房产之一是一套有四间卧室的顶层公寓，对吗？\n11\n12　A.　是。\n13　Q.　您知道 Guo 先生的儿子在 2024 年是否来过这里吗？\n14\n15　A.　我完全不知道。\n16　Q.　您最后一次见到他的儿子是什么时候？\n17　A.　我唯一一次见到他是在 2020 年，我想是在 10 月或 11 月。\n18　我无法告诉您具体是哪个月。\n19\n20　Q.　先生，是否可以说，除那一次外，您从未在本国见过 Mileson 先生？\n21\n22　A.　除那一次外，我从未见过他。\n23　Q.　这些有四间卧室的顶层公寓，您知道为什么没有购买吗？\n24\n25　A.　我不知道。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　Q.　有人曾就 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）向您提问，对吗？\n2　A.　是。\n3　Q.　您是否曾看到 Aaron Mitchell 和 Miles Guo 交谈？\n4\n5　A.　是。\n6　Q.　他们看起来是否能在没有口译员的情况下相互理解？\n7\n8　A.　我不知道。我没有听到那段谈话。\n9　我看到他们在交谈，但我无法告诉您那段谈话是什么内容，也无法告诉您谈的是什么。\n10\n11　Q.　现在，有人曾就 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）向您提问，对吗？\n12\n13　A.　是。\n14　Q.　您在 Taurus Fund 上的签名是伪造的吗？\n15　A.　不，不是。\n16　Q.　您是否在不了解自己角色的情况下签了字？\n17　A.　是，我签了。\n18　Q.　Barnett 先生，有人曾就 Brioni（布里奥尼）西装向您提问，对吗？\n19\n20　A.　是。\n21　Q.　您知道 Miles Guo 的妻子拥有多少套西装吗？\n22　A.　我不知道。\n23　Q.　您知道 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）有多少套西装吗？\n24\n25　A.　我不知道。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　Q.　您知道在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）有多少套吗？\n2　A.　不，女士，我不知道。\n3　Q.　据您所知，在 Mahwah（马瓦）的西装可能仅占他拥有的西装的三分之一，您只是并不知道，对吗？\n4\n5　A.　我不知道。\n6　Q.　在 Mahwah，他是否从那里进行直播？\n7　A.　是，他是。\n8　Q.　他是否每次直播都穿同一套西装？\n9　A.　我没有看直播。我无法回答。我不知道。\n10\n11　Q.　有人曾就 Guo 先生的破产向您提出许多、许多问题，对吗？\n12\n13　A.　是。\n14　Q.　您知道他何时申请破产吗？\n15　A.　我不知道。\n16　Q.　您知道他是否申请破产吗？\n17　A.　我不知道。不，我不知道。\n18　Q.　您现在坐在这里，知道他在其破产申请书中披露了什么或没有披露什么吗？\n19\n20　A.　不，我不知道。\n21　Q.　您知道他是否咨询过一名律师，而该律师决定在申请书中写入什么内容吗？\n22\n23　A.　我不知道。不，我不知道。\n24　Q.　有人曾就 Sean Jing（荆肖恩）、Hank（汉克）和 Jason（杰森）向您提问，对吗？\n25\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　A.　是的。\n2　Q.　而政府称您把他们叫作契约劳工，对吗？\n3\n4　A.　是的。\n5　Q.　而您说您说那话是在开玩笑，对吗？\n6　A.　我说我是把它当作玩笑来用，但，嗯，他们确实为这个家庭服务。\n7　是的。\n8　Q.　我们谈谈这个。您是否看到 Miles Guo 与 Hank 互动？\n9\n10　A.　我见过，是的。\n11　Q.　您会如何描述那种互动？\n12　A.　更像家人——最恰当的描述是像家人，但他是——他基本上是做了许多工作的人。\n13　他工作非常努力。\n14　Q.　您现在坐在这里，知道 Hank 和 Miles 在他离开中国时是否一起离开中国吗？\n15\n16　A.　我完全不知道。\n17　Q.　您知道他们是否一起逃离中国吗？\n18　MR. FERGENSON：他刚才已经说了他不知道，法官阁下。\n19\n20　THE COURT：支持异议。\n21　Q.　您知道他们是否曾一起在 Hong Kong（香港）吗？\n22　A.　我不知道。\n23　Q.　您知道他们是否一起从香港来到 United States（美国）吗？\n24\n25\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　A.　我不知道。\n2　Q.　您知道 Miles 先生资助 Hank 的金额是多少吗？\n3　A.　我不知道。\n4　Q.　您知道他是否资助 Hank 的妻子吗？\n5　A.　我不知道。\n6　Q.　您知道他是否资助 Hank 的孩子吗？\n7　A.　我不知道。\n8　Q.　有人曾就摩托车向您提出几个问题，对吗？\n9\n10　A.　是。\n11　Q.　Lamborghini（兰博基尼），对吗？\n12　A.　是。\n13　Q.　然后有人告诉您，或者询问您是否知晓 DOJ（司法部）扣押资产一事，对吗？\n14\n15　A.　是的。\n16　Q.　您知道司法部何时扣押 Guo 先生的任何资产吗？\n17　A.　不，我不知道。\n18　Q.　因此，您无法确定您与 Yvette 关于租用这些物品的谈话相对于司法部扣押的时间，对吗？\n19\n20　A.　是的，正确。\n21　Q.　您不知道该谈话是否发生在扣押前数月，对吗？\n22\n23　MR. FERGENSON：异议，问过且已答。\n24　THE COURT：支持异议。\n25\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　Q.　您根本不知道，对吗？\n2　MR. FERGENSON：问过且已答。\n3　THE COURT：支持异议。\n4　Q.　有人就相关事件和扣押连续向您提出问题，对吗？\n5\n6　A.　是。\n7　Q.　您不了解两者之间的时间顺序，对吗？\n8\n9　MR. FERGENSON：异议，问过且已答。\n10　MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：我可以逐一谈及每一项物品。\n11　那只会花费我们更多时间。\n12　MR. FERGENSON：他已经说过他不知道。\n13　Q.　好的。您知道租用摩托车与司法部扣押之间有任何关联吗？\n14\n15　A.　不，我不知道。\n16　Q.　那么租用兰博基尼与司法部扣押之间呢？\n17　THE COURT：好了。现在是 5:00。\n18　MR. FERGENSON：法官阁下，在您解散陪审团前，我可以占用非常短暂的一刻吗，非常短暂。\n19\n20　THE COURT：可以。\n21　（续见下一页）\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett\n—复询问\n\n1　（在边席处）\n\n2　弗格森先生：\n我明天要有孩子了。如果有任何办法让我今天完成对这名证人的询问，\n\n3　我会作非常简短的再次交叉询问。我只有非常有限的问题，如果\n\n4　有任何办法我们能完成对该证人的询问。\n\n5\n\n6　法庭：\n你还需要多长时间？\n\n7　施罗夫女士：\n既然他提出了异议，需要相当一段时间。\n\n8　法庭：\n天啊，这太糟糕了。\n\n9　施罗夫女士：\n没有人能排在客户之前。抱歉。\n\n10　法庭：\n你知道婴儿应该什么时候\n\n11　出生吗？\n\n12　弗格森先生：\n这是预定的剖腹产。你\n\n13　必须九点离开，才能赶到那里。\n\n14　施罗夫女士：\n我相信他的一位同事可以\n\n15　顶上。\n\n16　弗格森先生：\n没关系，法官阁下，如果施罗夫女士\n\n17　不打算通融。我们会自行解决。\n\n18　法庭：\n我真为你高兴。\n\n19　（下页继续）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）\n- 复询\n\n1　（公开开庭）\n\n2　法庭：\n陪审团各位成员，现在该结束我们\n\n3　的工作了。我们将照常于明天上午继续。请记住，\n\n4　你们不得彼此之间或与其他任何人讨论本案。\n\n5　不得允许任何人在你们在场时讨论本案。\n\n6　不得从任何来源听取、观看或阅读有关本次审判的任何内容。\n\n7　祝各位晚上愉快。\n\n8　法官助理：\n陪审团退庭。\n\n9　（陪审团不在场）\n\n10　法庭：\n请坐。先生，你可以离开。\n\n11　（证人暂时退庭）\n\n12　（下页继续）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）\n- 复询\n\n1　（陪审团不在场）\n\n2　法庭：\n那么，辩方举证还剩多少？\n\n3\n\n4　施罗夫女士：\n法官阁下，我们还有李女士，我认为\n\n5　在那之后还有最后一名证人，然后我们就结束了。\n\n6　法庭：\n你认为全部需要\n\n7　多长时间？\n\n8　施罗夫女士：\n法官阁下，我希望直接询问\n\n9　不超过一小时至一小时半。我希望\n\n10　更短一些。\n\n11　法庭：\n你是说总共？\n\n12　施罗夫女士：\n我不了解第二名证人。他\n\n13　不是我的证人，法官阁下。抱歉。\n\n14　施里克先生：\n法官阁下，我预计最后一名证人\n\n15　直接询问可能需要大约一小时。\n\n16　法庭：\n所以看来控方明天不会作\n\n17　总结陈词。好吧。我希望你们能\n\n18　提高效率，以便我们能够完成此事。\n\n19　默里女士：\n法官阁下，如果可以的话，提出一个建议。我们\n\n20　有机会与辩方就时间安排及\n\n21　总结陈词进行了沟通。我认为各方一致同意，\n\n22　假定时间安排如我们所预期，即辩方\n\n23　将在明天结束举证，假定郭先生如其所示意不出庭作证，\n\n24　我们将在 Wednesday 作总结陈词，但\n\n25　或许我们可以利用明天下午的部分时间，与陪审团一起\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\nO78BGUO6\nBarnett（巴尼特）\n- 复询\n\n1　由法庭仅就指示中的法律部分向其作出指示，\n\n2　这样我们就不会在下午浪费太多\n\n3　时间。\n\n4　法庭：\n你的意思是实体性指示？\n\n5　默里女士：\n正确。\n\n6　法庭：\n我认为这是个很好的主意。你们双方\n\n7　都同意吗？\n\n8　卡马拉朱先生：\n可以，法官阁下。\n\n9　法庭：\n当然。完全可以。\n\n10　卡马拉朱先生：\n我认为——您会纠正我——我\n\n11　认为法官阁下的部分指示具体取决于评议，\n\n12　所以那部分或许应在总结陈词之后进行，但所有\n\n13　实体法律内容都会先行处理完毕。\n\n14　法庭：\n因此，我只想收到你们的一封信，说明\n\n15　你们希望我从哪一节至哪一节向陪审团作出指示。\n\n16\n\n17　卡马拉朱先生：\n当然，法官阁下。该建议\n\n18　总体上我们可以接受。\n\n19　法庭：\n好。祝各位晚上愉快。\n\n20　（休庭至 July 9, 2024 上午 9 时）\n\n5551 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 298 of\n\n询问索引\n\n2　受询问人：　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　页码\n\n3　LAI DAI（赖黛）\n\n4　由施罗夫女士直接询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5326\n\n5　由霍顿先生交叉询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5338\n\n6　由施罗夫女士复询　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5372\n\n7　THOMAS BISHOP（托马斯·毕晓普）\n\n8　由卡马拉朱先生直接询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　5381\n\n9　由默里女士交叉询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5396\n\n10　由卡马拉朱先生复询　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5409\n\n11　由默里女士再次交叉询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　5410\n\n12　GERALD SCOTT BARNETT（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴尼特）\n\n13　由施罗夫女士直接询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5411\n\n14　由弗格森先生交叉询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5480\n\n15　LEANNE LI（利安娜·李）\n\n16　由施罗夫女士直接询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5495\n\n17　GERALD SCOTT BARNETT（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴尼特）\n\n18　由弗格森先生交叉询问　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5506\n\n19　由施罗夫女士复询　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5535\n\n20　被告方证物\n\n21　证物编号　　　　　　　　　　　　　接收\n\n22　67061　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5420\n\n23　DX 60678A　　　　　　　　　　　　　5475\n\n24　DX Z-02　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5394\n\n25　Stip 3　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　5395\n\n证物 3\n\n日期为 July 28, 2024 的电子邮件\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 300 of 500\n\n发件人：[Song, Luyi（宋鲁艺）] 收件人：[Song, Luyi（宋鲁艺）] 主题：FW: [EXT] Re: 紧急：Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）问题 日期：Monday, September 30, 2024 11:32:03 AM\n\n转发邮件开始：\n\n你好，Luc（吕克）：\n\n你能接个电话吗？谢谢，Franco DiPaolo（弗兰科·迪保罗）Hawk Eye Security（鹰眼安保）201. 259. 6340 On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 8: 26 PM Johnson Qi（齐约翰逊）<johnsonfalcon7@ gmail. com> wrote: 亲爱的 Franco： 希望你一切安好。关于这座豪宅的案件已经\n\n发件人：Franco DiPaolo（弗兰科·迪保罗）[<hawkeyeservices1540@gmail.com>] 日期：July 29, 2024 at 2:46:36 AM GMT+2 收件人：“Despins, Luc A.”（吕克·A·德斯平）[<lucdespins@paulhastings.com>] 主题：[EXT] Re: 紧急：Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）问题\n\n本邮件来自不受信任的发件人。您此前未曾与该发件人通信。报告 [可疑]\n\n你好，Luc（吕克）：\n\nZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart\n\nZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd\n\n你能接个电话吗？\n\n谢谢，Franco DiPaolo（弗兰科·迪保罗）Hawk Eye Security（鹰眼安保）201.259.6340\n\nOn Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 8:26 PM Johnson Qi（齐约翰逊）[<johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com>] wrote:\n\n亲爱的 Franco：\n\n希望你一切安好。\n\n关于这座豪宅的案件已经作出裁决。\n\nOn July 16, 2024。刑事审判结束。Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）归政府所有。\n\n请参阅美国 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）法院案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT 的 Documnet 395 中的庭审记录公告。\n\n自该日起，该财产已移交给美国司法部 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）检察官办公室。\n\n该豪宅先前的所有人无需再支付任何款项。\n\n律师正在与法庭及受托人沟通，以便进一步跟进。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 301 of 500\n\n因此，\n\n自 July 29, 2024 起，安保服务费用不能再支付。\n\n最后一张发票 07282024 已通过 ACH 电汇支付，并将于 Tuesday 到达。请查收。\n\n感谢你的理解！\n\n证物 4\n\nJuly 30, 2024 听证会记录\n\n1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院） DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格联邦地区） BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院） IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）, et al., . . （合并管理） Debtors（债务人）. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平）, CHAPTER 11 . 对抗程序 TRUSTEE（第 11 章受托人）, . No. 23-05005 (JAM) . Plaintiff（原告）, . . v. . . GREENWICH LAND, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）, . et al., . . Defendants（被告）. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平）, et al., . 对抗程序 . No. 23-05017 (JAM) Plaintiffs（原告）, . . v. . . TAURUS FUND, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）, et al., . . Defendants（被告）. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）, . 对抗程序 . No. 23-05007 (JAM) Plaintiff（原告）, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY . Brien McMahon Federal Building COMPANY（AIG 财产意外险公司）, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendant（被告） . . Tuesday, July 30, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:39 p.m.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 303 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 304 of\n\n500　2\n\n1　出庭人员：\n\n2　代表第 11 章\n受托人：　Patrick Linsey, Esquire（帕特里克·林赛律师）\n\n3　NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩·蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n\n4　13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n5　-及-\n\n6　Luc A. Despins, Esquire（吕克·A·德斯平律师）\n\n7　PAUL HASTINGS, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\n\n8　New York, New York 10166\n\n9　Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\n\n10　2050 M Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n11　代表 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）、\n12　Taurus Fund Management（金牛基金管理公司）\n及 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）：　Michael T. Conway, Esquire（迈克尔·T·康韦律师）\n\n13　LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor\n\n14　Fifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n16　听证会记录\n\n17　于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前\n美国破产法官\n\n19　（出庭人员续）\n\n20　音频操作员：　电子录音\n\n21　记录公司：　Reliable（瑞莱布尔）\n\n22　The Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\n\n23　Wilmington, Delaware 19801　电话：(302)654-8080\n\n24　电子邮箱：\ngmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n25　程序以电子声音录音记录，\n记录由记录服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 305 of\n\n500　3\n\n1　出庭人员（续）：\n\n3　代表 Pacific Alliance\nAsia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）：　Annecca H. Smith, Esquire（安妮卡·H·史密斯律师）\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP（罗宾逊及科尔律师事务所）\n\n4　280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n5　-及-\n\n6　Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\n\n7　Times Square Tower\n7 Times Square\n\n8　New York, New York 10036\n\n9　代表 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）及\nGreenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）　Austin D. Kim, Esquire（奥斯汀·D·金律师）\n\n11　Christopher J. Major, Esquire（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰律师）\nMEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP（迈斯特·西利格及范恩律师事务所）\n125 Park Avenue\n\n12　7th Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n13　代表 Genever Holdings（吉尼弗控股公司）：　Michael T. McCormack, Esquire（迈克尔·T·麦考马克律师）\nO'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN\n\n14　& BLISS, P.C.（奥沙利文·麦考马克·詹森及布利斯律师事务所）\n180 Glastonbury Boulevard\n\n15　Suite 210\nGlastonbury, Connecticut 06033\n\n16　代表 AIG Property\n\n18　Casualty Company（AIG 财产意外险公司）：　Michael P. Thompson, Esquire（迈克尔·P·汤普森律师）\nGORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI（戈登及里斯·斯卡利·曼苏哈尼律师事务所）\n95 Glastonbury Boulevard\n\n19　Suite 206\nGlastonbury, Connecticut 06033\n\n20　-及-\n\n21　John O'Connor, Esquire（约翰·奥康纳律师）\n\n22　John J. Kavanagh, Esquire（约翰·J·卡瓦纳律师）\nSTEPTOE, LLP（世达律师事务所）\n\n23　1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 索引 动议：页码 事项编号 1：Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平）等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等 对抗案件编号 23-05017 (JAM) 状态会议 7 事项编号 2：Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），第 11 章受托人诉 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等 对抗案件编号 23-05005 (JAM) 状态会议 30 事项编号 3：Genever Holdings, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）诉 AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG 财产意外险公司） 对抗案件编号 23-05007 (JAM) 状态会议 46 记录员证明 52 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 306 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 307 of 500\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 （程序于 1:39 p.m. 开始。）\n\n书记员：\n谢谢。案件编号 23-5005，Despins, Luc A.（吕克·A·德斯平），第 11 章受托人诉 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等，以及 23-5017，Despins（德斯平）等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等。\n\n法庭：\n好的。下午好。请各方为记录出庭说明身份，先从第 11 章受托人开始。\n\n德斯平先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。吕克·德斯平，第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。尼克·巴塞特，来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。\n\n林赛先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），来自 Neubert Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特·佩佩·蒙蒂思律师事务所），受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。\n\n萨诺夫先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny（欧麦律师事务所）的斯图尔特·萨诺夫，代表债权人 PAX。我预计不会发言，但我出席。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n史密斯女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），债权人 PAX 的康涅狄格州律师，具有同一\n\n同萨诺夫先生一样，我也要说明一下，我预计今天不会发言。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n梅杰先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Meister Seelig & Fein（迈斯特·西利格与费因律师事务所）的克里斯·梅杰，代表第 23-05005 号对抗程序中的 Hing Chi Ngok（Hing Chi Ngok）女士。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n金先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是同样来自 Meister Seelig & Fein（迈斯特·西利格与费因律师事务所）的奥斯汀·金，代表 Hing Chi Ngok（Hing Chi Ngok）女士和被告 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）。\n\n法庭：我看不到您，金律师。您开着视频吗？\n\n金先生：我是电话接入的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。康威律师？\n\n康威先生：是的。下午好，法官阁下。我是迈克尔·康威，代表 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）、Taurus Fund Management LLC（金牛基金管理有限责任公司）及斯科特·巴内特（Scott Barnett）。\n\n法庭：好的。顺便说一下，我想这就是所有出庭人员了。我——我漏了谁吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：没错，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，今天下午 1:30 排期举行状态会议的两项事项，是针对 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）的对抗程序，以及针对 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）的对抗程序。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 308 of 500\n\n那么，德斯平斯受托人，您希望如何进行？\n\n德斯平斯先生：我认为，法官阁下，我们应当先处理 Taurus Fund（金牛基金），然后我会把话筒交给巴塞特先生。\n\n法庭：请开始。\n\n德斯平斯先生：尼克？\n\n巴塞特先生：好的，抱歉。是关于 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）的状态会议吗？\n\n法庭：是的，我们先进行 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）的状态会议吧。\n\n巴塞特先生：当然，法官阁下。我是来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的尼克·巴塞特，代表第 11 章受托人。因此，法官阁下，我——我认为受托人，我原以为他表示将就此事项向法庭陈述，我当然会让他补充发言。就 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）而言，如我们提交的状态会议请求所述，举行状态会议的原因是，我们发现，我相信是两天前晚上，通过一封由该庄园保安公司转发给我们的信，或者实际上是一封电子邮件——如您所知，根据经修订的初步禁令，法庭已作出安排并要求该保安公司在场，监控 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）场所，监控人员进出，以及诸如此类的一切事项，以确保这项可能对破产财产具有极高价值的资产得到保护。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 309 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 310 of 500\n\n我们收到一份通知，称 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）将不再继续支付该保安公司的费用或成本。通知称，决定停止付款的原因是，鉴于债务人被定罪，他们认为其不再对该房产享有权益；再次说明，这是通知中的说法。\n\n我们立即作出了回应。显然，这极为令人担忧，而且我们向保安公司保证，我们将确保他们获得付款，其服务不会中断。此后，我们还与康威律师就其他问题进行了进一步沟通，例如该房产持续的维护费用怎么办。我们当然从所收到的通知中得出的印象是，停止向保安公司付款的决定并非孤立的，而且这将适用于所有费用。因此，有维护费、水电费、税款。我认为，有一笔 $70,000 的税单将于 August 1st 到期。在我们看来，所有这些都可能面临风险。\n\n因此，我们昨天与康威律师进行了初步通话，他——我认为——表示，我会让他自行说明——我认为他表示仍在收集信息。但举行状态会议的原因，实际上是向法庭通报这一进展，这与现行的初步禁令不一致；告知法庭，我们认为破产财产必须介入；而且，如果 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）不付款，我们必须立即开始支付保安公司的费用；并且处理其他对于今后维护该房产价值至关重要的问题。\n\n这就是最新情况，法官阁下。再次说明，从我们的角度看，主要是确保法庭知悉，我们认为破产财产必须介入并开始承担这些费用，但我就说到这里，让受托人补充他希望补充的任何内容；当然，我也乐意回答任何问题，或回应康威先生可能提出的任何意见。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，法官阁下，下午好。保安费用为每周 $14,200，正如巴塞特先生所提到的，有一笔 seventy-five 或 $77,000 的税单将于 August 1st 到期。而且显然，破产财产不能处于为一个声称我们并不拥有的实体提供资金的境地。如果我们拥有它，为其提供资金是可以的，但不能在我们处于悬而未决状态时这样做。\n\n因此，显然，康威先生将表达 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）的观点，但我的观点是，如果这就是他们的做法，那么鉴于刑事审判中就该房产及其购买方式等所说的内容，我们需要就该房产申请简易判决，而且我们已准备好这样做；但我会让康威先生说明，他们是否实际上会重新开始付款，或者计划为何。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。康威律师？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法庭：您被静音了。\n\n德斯平斯先生：迈克，您被静音了。\n\n法庭：好了。\n\n康威先生：谢谢。新手错误，法官阁下。我被抄送了周日晚上发给保安公司的通知，其中称，已有认定该房屋已被没收给政府，因此显然不再留有任何所有权。我问——这封通知来自 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）雇用的管理人。在我与巴塞特先生交谈后，我联系了该管理人——实际上，我想我是联系了他，我可能是在与巴塞特先生交谈后同他谈过——并说：“你为什么发送这样的电子邮件？”他说：“嗯，法庭认定该房屋已被没收；这是他们的理解。”\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 312 of 500\n\n我说：“那么，你需要重新与客户及掌管资金的人联系，弄清楚我们是否仍在付款，因为该房屋尚未被没收。”\n\n他说：“嗯，我不明白。我看到它已被没收。”\n\n所以事情就停在这里。我仍在等待其他信息。此前存在沟通误解，而且显然，（听不清）对程序作出了不同的理解。正如德斯平斯先生指出的，我们已有一段时间每周支付 14,000 多美元，却无法进入该房产，请注意。因此，鉴于该房产内有属于我方客户的财产、动产，请注意，我们当然并不争议保护该房产的重要性。但我们也确实认为，这里存在某种不公：我方客户不能使用其自己的房产，却被要求承担受托人为保护该房产所产生的费用。\n\n所以——我只是回应有关破产财产必须支付任何费用存在某种不公平的意见。现在，正是破产财产使我方客户无法使用其自己的房产。\n\n话虽如此，法官阁下，我希望我有更多信息。我目前所掌握的只是，我方客户的管理人，我认为，错误地发送了一封电子邮件，称我们不再拥有该房产，因为它已被没收给政府，这就是目前的情况。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，如果可以的话？认为一名管理人，即实际负责支付账单的基层人员，自行作出了该决定，这很有意思，但是，我对此严重怀疑。他的客户无法使用该房产的原因，是因为该客户在监狱里；这就是他无法使用该房产的原因。这是事实状况的（听不清）。所以，我不明白。\n\n法庭：再说一遍。我没有听到您说的第二件事，德斯平斯受托人。\n\n德斯平斯先生：原因——您说客户无法使用该房产。客户无法使用该房产的原因，是因为该客户在监狱里。郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）先生是该房产的所有人。他不能使用该房产，是因为他在监狱里，就像他不能使用（听不清）房产或 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰酒店）一样。无论如何，重点是，我认为这里发生的情况是——我们将在 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）事项中进一步听到这一点——他们正在拖延购买。他们了解郭先生的情况，而我认为，这并不是某个管理人自行作出决定、决定中断其资金支付的行为。是其他人作出了决定，即（听不清）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 314 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 315 of 500\n\n我的意思是——\n\n康威先生：我不知道法官阁下是否希望我回应其中任何内容，但这些都不是基于事实；全都是德斯平斯先生的意见，而且全都不准确。\n\n坦率地说，我并不代表郭先生。我们介入本案时，我不得不问他们郭先生是谁。我根本不知道他是谁。我们谈的是 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司），而直到今天，我尚未看到任何证据表明 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）名下的任何人拥有该房产。事实上，在我昨天最近的一次谈话中，有人告诉我，哦，刑事审判中有证据表明 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）试图将该房产的一部分出租给郭先生的妻子。如果这还不足以证明他不拥有该房产，我不知道还有什么能证明，因为他为什么要租赁——\n\n法庭：好，我们不必担心所有这些，因为其中没有任何内容在案卷记录中，好吗。\n\n康威先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我们确实需要担心的是——\n\n康威先生：我只请求提醒德斯平斯先生，我们双方都不应基于不在案卷记录中的证据作出断言。\n\n法庭：好的，首先我们谈一谈，康威律师（Attorney Conway）。我想我不止一次地问过您，谁是您的委托人，您是从谁那里获得指示的。我想我从未得到过那个问题的答案，但您显然昨天就某件事与某人谈过。我仍然不知道谁是您的委托人，以及您从谁那里接受指示。但是，根据我所见提交至本案案卷的材料，那封电子邮件——它不是便条，而是一封电子邮件——称该房屋已被没收。它不是一所房屋，而是一座豪宅，已被没收给政府。我在本案或本对抗程序的案卷中看不到任何能支持这个名叫——等一下——此电子邮件来自——\n\n康威律师：齐勇（Qi Yong），法官阁下。\n\n法庭：什么？\n\n康威律师：他的名字是齐勇；他是金牛基金（Taurus Fund）的经理。\n\n法庭：好的。那么他的这一看法是基于什么，因为我所见没有任何材料表明有任何东西已被没收给政府。那么这从何而来？这一看法必须有某种依据，而我看不到任何能支持这一看法的材料。\n\n康威律师：这是一种错误的看法。\n\n法庭：——他是否向您出示过任何支持该看法的材料？\n\n康威律师：没有。如我提到的，法官阁下，我确实与他谈过，他告诉我——我问他，您从哪里得出这一看法？他说他是在报纸上读到的。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，那么仅仅因为这个、又没有同您谈过，就说“我们不会再支付任何款项”，这似乎有些过分。您是他的律师，对吗？您是金牛基金的律师，而他是金牛基金的经理。这似乎有些过分，您不这么认为吗？\n\n康威律师：嗯，这在我看来不恰当，我已让他知道这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。好的。那么，第一，您已经让他知道这不恰当。第二，您是否问过他有关这最后一张已支付的发票，其中根据他的电子邮件，今天将收到一笔 ACH 转账？我不知道该款项涵盖哪些服务。它仅涵盖上周，还是涵盖更长期间？我不知道该发票是针对什么，因此很难理解已向安保公司支付的款项所为何事，好吗。\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：法官阁下，这些付款支付至周一午夜；也就是说，周一午夜或周日夜间午夜，因此，这就是我接到这位先生电话的原因，他说：“我们要撤出了，您知道，我们的付款只到周日晚上。”我不得不告诉他：“不要这样做。在另行通知前，我将支付需要支付的款项。”所以，付款是到刚过去的周日晚上。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，他的——来自一个名叫 Johnson Qi——K——Q-i 的人的电子邮件，是您所说的那个人吗，康威律师？\n\n康威律师：他在电子邮件中的名字是 Qi Yong。我猜不管是谁阅读这些材料都使用“Johnson”这个名字，但他的名字是 Qi Yong，Y-o-n-g。\n\n法庭：他的名字是 Q-i？\n\n康威律师：Q-i Y-o-n-g。\n\n法庭：好的。Q-i 是他的名字，而他的姓是 Y-o-u——请再说一遍。抱歉。\n\n康威律师：Y-o-n-g。\n\n法庭：Y-o-n-g。此人于 7 月 28 日星期日晚上 8:26，从电子邮件地址 Johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com 向——向鹰眼安保（Hawkeye Security）的 Franco 发送了一封电子邮件，好吗。那么，您的意思是——我相信您的意思是，这是一个错误。他的行为有误，且将继续付款以支付安保费用。\n\n法庭：这是您的意思吗，康威律师？\n\n康威律师：这是我要求他查明的事情。我还没有收到回复。鉴于他认为——法官阁下，我无法谈论他的心理状态，但当我告诉他这座房屋并未被没收时，他的表现仿佛我是在告诉他一项间接事实。他似乎并不相信我。\n\n因此，我已要求他向我确认，您知道，关于付款方面，我们日后可以预期什么，如有的话。同时，我与巴西特先生（Mr. Bassett）商议过，并同意巴西特先生的意见，即，您知道，如果我们没有资金进来，我们认为重要的是，要么保护房屋内的个人财产，要么将其转移至其他能够受到保护的地方。\n\n该房屋本身显然不会被盗，而且坦率地说，它并未被使用。自法官阁下使该命令生效以来，它一直未被使用。\n\n因此，有办法设法解决问题，但现在，除非说我正在等待信息，我不确定该如何向您说明。\n\n法庭：您预计何时会获得这些信息？\n\n康威律师：除我已提出要求外，我没有任何预期，法官阁下。我一直——我将继续尽我所能地推动，以尽快获得信息。这就是我所能说的一切。\n\n法庭：Johnson 先生在哪里，或者 Yong 先生，他在哪里？\n\n康威律师：我相信他——聘用他的原因是，他住在该物业附近某处。\n\n法庭：谁聘用了他？\n\n康威律师：金牛基金。\n\n法庭：金牛基金中是谁作出了该决定？\n\n康威律师：嗯，我无法确定，但合同由大卫·法伦（David Fallon）签署。您知道，如果有其他人协助大卫·法伦，我无法告诉您。这是一只基金，所以——但大卫·法伦是正式聘用他的人。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，如果未支付这些款项，那么他们将违反一项现有命令，并可能受到制裁，包括监禁。他们明白这一点吗？\n\n康威律师：我明白了。\n\n法庭：我认为您需要确保将此事传达给他们。我的意思是，这是一个非常奇怪的情况，康威律师，而且我听到您说您不知道何时会得到答复。\n\n我理解这个问题不是由您造成的，但问题是，这不是一个可接受的答复。这是一项资产。无论您是否同意，关于其为破产财产资产这一点，它受本法庭命令的约束。我理解，如果您不同意——这没关系；我完全不与您争论这一点——但目前的状态是，该物业受本法庭命令约束，如果您的委托人不遵守该命令，那么他们将受到制裁，其中可能包括监禁，如果他们不支付被命令支付的款项。\n\n我的意思是，我们以前经历过这种情况；这并不新鲜。我不是指付款方面，而是说，这是命令。无论他们是否喜欢，这都是命令，而仅仅因为他在报纸上读到——他没有与任何人谈过，就发送一封电子邮件说：“我们不会再向你们付款”，以此引起骚动，这在我看来并不像是经理在行使合理商业判断时会采取的行为。\n\n而那是您的委托人。您的委托人就是您的委托人。因此，我认为您需要——我们需要一个答复，而不是“我不知道何时”。而且我并不是——我是在告诉您，我理解您对我所说的内容，但您需要对那个问题有一个答复。我将——我会在明天或周四得到一个答复。\n\n我们已经就“没有保险”经历过这种情况；我们已经经历过这一点。我的意思是，这行不通。您代表这名委托人。如果我必须下达命令，要求您的委托人到法庭向我解释究竟发生了什么，以及他们从谁那里获得授权，我会这样做，而且可以最早在明天或周四进行。\n\n因此，我不知道您希望如何进行，但这——您知道，您说这是不正确的；那么，他们就必须付款。因此，我需要知道他们会付款，否则他们将在明天或周四到这个法庭来，我将让美国法警（United States Marshals）去带他们来，即法伦先生和 Yong 先生。\n\n因此，我不知道您是否希望今天下午与您的委托人交谈，但我当然建议您这样做。\n\n康威律师：我会尽我所能，法官阁下，正如我迄今所做的那样。\n\n法庭：嗯，我需要他们的地址。我需要知道他们在哪里，这样我就可以派美国法警前往他们需要去的地方，将这些人带到法庭来，而您需要——您一定有他们的地址。因此，我需要该信息。\n\n康威律师：好的。那么，您希望我现在向您提供吗，因为我现在没有。我已将该信息提供给受托人，因此受托人可以像我一样轻易地向您提供。\n\n法庭：是的，但他们是您的委托人——\n\n德斯平斯先生：我不确定——\n\n法庭：——康威先生。他们是您的委托人。\n\n康威律师：请问？\n\n法庭：他们是您的委托人。\n\n康威律师：他们是我的委托人，法官阁下，但请记住，我们今天在这里进行的是一次状态会议。这不是一项动议。这不是一次关于藐视法庭的听证会。这不是我甚至有时间——\n\n法庭：康威先生——\n\n康威律师：——我刚从法庭出来，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：康威先生——已经有命令生效——\n\n康威律师：是的，有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——您的委托人需要遵守。如果他们不遵守，我将采取我认为适当的任何行动。\n\n康威律师：没问题，法官阁下。您拥有——您是法官。\n\n法庭：这是一个宝贵的教训。正如我们都知道的，我们已经有过关于保险的整件事。我们在很多很多很多个月前经历过这一点。如果您的委托人要主张他们不会付款，而您又没有答案表明他们实际上会付款，那么我将根据本案的情形采取我认为适当的行动。因此——\n\n康威律师：嗯，法官阁下，我们所能做的就是查明。目前，我们所掌握的只是律师在任何人有时间弄清发生何事之前，来向您请求举行一次状态会议。因此，如果您能推定我无过错并让我尝试联系我的委托人，那么我可以向您报告。但是，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：我想我刚刚已经向您建议了这一点。我并不是在建议我不——\n\n康威律师：好的。我听到了您所说的，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：——给予您这个机会——\n\n康威律师：——十分清楚。\n\n法庭：等一下，康威律师。请让我说完。我并未建议您没有机会联系您的委托人；事实上，我说过，我认为您最好今天下午给他们打电话。这正是我所说的，因此我不知道您的争论是什么。您需要取得——\n\n答复。\n\nCONWAY先生（康韦）：我不太确定——好吧，我的意思只是，法官阁下，我明白您的意思，我会按您的要求去做。\n\n法庭：好，很好。因为我需要一个答复。我需要知道他们是否会支付这些款项，包括房地产税。这不是——您知道，这是破产财团，康韦先生——我并不是说您有任何相反的想法——然而，法庭必须确保破产财团的资产安全，除非并直至其不再属于破产财团，例如您在上诉中胜诉以及发生所有其他情形。如果您的当事人不支付款项，而其根据现有命令负有支付义务，那么将采取适当措施。我们不能——这不是我们有21天时间提交答复的情形；这不会发生。现有命令已经生效，必须遵守该现有命令；如果不会遵守，我需要以书面形式获悉将不予遵守及其原因，并获悉是谁授权您作出该表示。因为您代理的是一个法人实体，您必须——必须有人具有授权；规则就是如此，我们都知道。因此，Despins受托人（德斯潘）和Conway律师（康韦），我认为\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 325 页，共 500 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 326 页，共 500 页\n\n我们需要做的是确定一个时限，Conway律师将在该时限内就此问题向法庭回复。目前，据称安保费用已支付至周日晚上。Despins受托人，这是您告诉我的情况吗？\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯潘）：是的，法官阁下。从周一开始，我将承担责任。\n\n法庭：而且这是通常做法；他们在每周末付款吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法庭：那么，7月29日至8月3日这一周的费用将在8月3日支付？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那是大约14,000美元。我不需要知道确切数额，但这是您告诉我的情况，对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：并且，在本对抗程序进行期间，这些数额一直都已支付，未曾中断，对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。在本对抗程序进行期间，房地产税是否曾有支付？\n\nDESPINS先生：房地产税已经支付，但正如我所说，有一笔75,000或$77,000的付款将于8月1日到期。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nDESPINS先生：但截至目前，其他付款——\n\n法庭：我只是问，截至目前是否已经支付过房地产税——\n\nDESPINS先生：是的——\n\n法庭：——由 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）就这栋房屋支付？\n\nDESPINS先生：——是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。您是否有——\n\nDESPINS先生：我不知道是谁支付了这些款项，但确实已经支付。\n\n法庭：好。您碰巧知道大致数额吗？我的意思是，这是否——New Jersey（新泽西州）是否是每年两次缴税，每次都是$75,000，还是如何运作？\n\nDESPINS先生：我不记得确切情况，但我认为2024年已经支付了两笔款项，数额小得多；现在我确实是在推测，但我认为在20,000美元左右。Bassett先生（巴塞特）可能有列明该情况的人。所以——所以我认为2024年已经支付了一些款项。我认为有两笔付款，每笔在15,000至20,000美元范围内，但我——在这一点上我有些——您知道，我不能那么精确。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 327 页，共 500 页\n\nBassett先生？\n\nBASSETT先生：实际上，是的，我查看的记录——我的意思是，它们都是公开可获得的县级记录——显示今年已经支付了两笔约$69,000的款项；一笔于2024年5月1日支付，另一笔于2024年2月21日支付。2023年11月、2023年8月、2023年5月和2023年2月，也分别支付了约$70,000的款项。因此，法官阁下，看起来每季度应支付约$70,000的款项。\n\n法庭：对。听起来是按季度付款，没错。那么，根据您正在查看的记录，款项已支付至2024年5月，Bassett律师？\n\nBASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。谢谢。因此，Conway律师和Despins受托人，我们有两种处理方式。你们可以上来告诉我双方同意的安排，或者我可以告诉您，Conway律师，您何时需要提交某种文件，或者我们可以再举行一次进度会议，由您向我说明。但我现在告诉您，我需要知道这些款项是否会支付给安保公司并支付房地产税，以及 Taurus Fund 已通过一名获授权的代表——无论其为何人——告知您将会支付；而且我想知道此人是谁。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 329 页，共 500 页\n\n如果不会支付，并且已经决定不支付，那么我想知道 Taurus Fund 的哪一名代表决定不遵守该命令，且不履行其作为企业、作为实体的义务；届时我将把该人带到法庭，该人将接受询问。\n\n那么，您们希望如何进行？你们二位想在会后讨论，还是希望我现在确定一个日期？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，尽管我们很愿意与 Conway 先生——他是一位真正的绅士——讨论，但问题相当简单：他们会付款，或者不会付款。应当确定一个日期，届时他们向法庭报告将会或不会付款。该日期应当很快，例如周四上午9:00之类。\n\n法庭：好。我会这样做，但前提是，如果您和 Conway 先生达成某种协议，或者他在此期间向您提供令您满意的内容——\n\nDESPINS先生：当然。\n\n法庭：——那么就无需提交任何文件。\n\nDESPINS先生：完全同意。谢谢。\n\n法庭：那么，我将为\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 330 页，共 500 页\n\nConway先生设定向您报告的时限——好吧，也许他将会——实际上，应当是在案卷记录中提交某项文件，正如——我们不是就保险问题这样做过吗，即该房产没有保险一事，不是已在案件的案卷记录中提交——\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——我是说，对抗程序的案卷记录中？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法庭：那么，在中午之前——我会说，在8月1日星期二上午11:00之前，Conway律师——\n\nDESPINS先生：那是星期四，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我刚才说了什么，星期二？抱歉。\n\nDESPINS先生：星期二。\n\n法庭：抱歉。在上午11:00之前——\n\nCONWAY先生：法官阁下，我可以说一句吗？\n\n法庭：可以？\n\nCONWAY先生：如果我可以截至5:00？我周四在Texas（得克萨斯州）出庭，因此如果可以截至5:00，对我将非常有帮助。\n\n法庭：我给您截至5:00——\n\nCONWAY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——截至8月1日星期四下午5:00，您必须在本对抗程序的案卷记录中提交某项文件，说明 Taurus Fund\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 331 页，共 500 页\n\n将支付与该房产有关的一切到期应付款项，包括但不限于每周安保服务付款和房地产税；并且您将告诉我是谁赋予您该授权，其姓名和地址，以及可以向其送达的地点和/或 United States Marshals Service（美国法警局）可以前往并将其带到本法庭的地点；或者您可以——和/或您可以说明 Taurus Fund 不会支付这些款项，同样需要提供上述信息。代表 Taurus Fund 获授权作出该决定的人是谁？其所在地地址为何，包括住所和营业地址，以便可以向其送达，并由美国法警将其带到本法庭。\n\n关于此事，有任何问题吗？\n\nCONWAY先生：没有，法官阁下。我仅指出，我未在记录中提出异议，并不意味着我放弃主张下述立场的权利：我不认为对于一个决定其无法或能够做某事的公司而言，这是适当的救济。话虽如此，我不知道现在是否是提出异议的适当时机。\n\n法庭：我认为您提出异议完全适当，但异议驳回。\n\nCONWAY先生：那么，为记录在案，法官阁下，我反对这样的观点：仅仅因为公司作出其能够或不能做某事的决定，法警就可以前去逮捕公司的一名高管。我不知道该决定——\n\n法庭：我没有说任何关于逮捕的话，Conway律师；我从未使用过那个词。\n\nCONWAY先生：那么，让法警前去，把某人放进无论他们必须放进的任何东西里，再把其拖到法庭，听起来就像逮捕。\n\n法庭：那么，我们拭目以待。我们看看您如何处理，以及您在——之前提交什么；我从未使用过那个词；那是您的用词，因此您可以决定您希望如何解释。我可以发布对本对抗程序中已经存在的命令起补充作用的命令。好。那么，我认为 Taurus Fund 进度会议至此结束；对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那么，我们转入——谢谢您，Conway律师。您不必留下，但如果您愿意，可以留下。\n\nCONWAY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，请转入 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）进度会议。\n\nBASSETT先生：是的，法官阁下。再次说明，记录在案，我是来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表第11章受托人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 333 页，共 500 页\n\n因此，法官阁下，再次说明，此处的一般背景已载于我们在对抗程序案卷记录中提交的进度会议申请。简言之，这涉及被告向法官阁下提交的上诉待决期间中止执行动议。法官阁下已经发布排期命令，将受托人提出异议的截止日期定为8月6日，我认为目前安排在8月20日或22日这两个日期之一举行听证会。抱歉。\n\n我们——是20日——我们在上周一，即八天前，送达了范围非常狭窄的证据开示请求；在此之前，我们也曾向律师预告将送达此类证据开示请求。我们于22日送达了证据开示请求，而且再次说明，其范围非常狭窄。我们提出了六项文件提交请求。我们还请求进行有限范围的证言录取。\n\n我们寻求的信息，我们认为与中止执行申请直接相关。我们寻求为检验被告在其动议中提出的各项主张、评估相关因素所需的信息，包括对被告所谓的不利影响、对破产财团的潜在损害等，这些都是法庭审议中止执行动议时需要评估的因素。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 334 页，共 500 页\n\n简而言之，如果我可以快速概括一下这六项请求？那么，法官阁下，我们首先请求提供与账单、发票、维护有关的任何文件——这也算是一个反复提出的问题，您知道，追溯到我们刚刚就 Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）举行的状态会议——以了解为维持该房产需要支付哪些款项，无论是税款、公用事业费等，以及显示这些款项是否正在支付、如在支付则其资金来源的文件；显然，如批准所请求的中止，了解该房产是否会得到维护至关重要。\n\n我们还请求提供银行对账单，以便我们能够评估这些资金的来源，并查看是否在本院作出简易判决裁定之前或之后存在对 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）资产的任何耗散，即银行账户中的资金；显然，如获中止，这与对破产财产造成的损害高度相关。\n\n我们还寻求有关被告——债务人的妻子——抱歉——她所主张拥有的、位于该房屋内的个人财产及其他资产的文件，因为这是中止动议中出现的问题之一；所提出的主张是，如果我们试图出售该房屋及其内部物品，将会造成损害，因为其中一些物品据称属于 Ngok女士（Ngok女士），因此我们就该问题寻求文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 335 页，共 500 页\n\n我们还寻求与任何移入或移出该豪宅的财产有关的文件；同样，这关系到位于该处的财产是否确实归被告所有。这也关系到资产可能被耗散的问题。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我们寻求保险单副本及相关文件，例如任何评估报告，这将帮助我们了解该房屋的价值；显然，保险至关重要。我们还希望了解土地本身的价值，与房屋及土地上开发设施的价值相比各是多少；所有这些实质上不仅与中止请求有关，而且如果本院考虑中止请求，也与为确保在任何中止期间破产财产得到充分保护而应要求提供的适当担保金额有关。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就是我们所寻求的有限范围的证据开示。我们还希望在证言录取中就这些有限事项向 Ngok女士提问。正如我所说，我们于22日发出了证据开示请求；即八天前。在同一封附于我们状态会议请求的电子邮件中，我们立即提出进行协商。我们没有收到任何回应。我两天后向 Major律师（梅杰律师）跟进，并说：只是跟进一下，显然我们面临紧迫的时间安排。我们需要这些信息。我愿意进行协商。再次没有收到回复。此后，我们别无选择，只能于星期五提交状态会议请求，而现在，我们就在这里。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 336 页，共 500 页\n\n我们仍然没有机会进行协商。我们仍未得到任何证据开示材料将被提供的保证。再次，如果我们无法检验其主张，并且无法基于一些基础文件和证言等充分了解与本院在评估其动议时必须考虑的各种因素有关的事实，我们看不出如何能够在一场由被告承担寻求中止举证责任的听证会上继续进行。\n\n因此，法官阁下，再次说明，我们请求本院明确我们认为自己已经有权获得的事项，即对我们证据开示请求的答复。我当然愿意听取被告方律师的意见，也愿意回答任何问题，但这大致就是今天会议的目的，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：法官阁下，在我们谈这个之前，如果可以的话，占用两分钟？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 337 页，共 500 页\n\n本院：请讲。\n\nDESPINS先生：我一直对此有所怀疑，但我认为现在已经相当清楚：那栋房屋没有保险。而且我确实——好吧，我只想说，如果我不提出这一点，就构成我在破产程序中的执业失当。\n\n您知道，这是价值六百万、七百万美元的资产，却没有保险——我希望 Major先生会纠正我，但我认为他无法纠正——我的意思是，他们在中止听证会上从一开始就注定失败。因此，我们将花费很多钱为此做准备，但如果他们知道——而且我保证，他们不会支付8月1日到期的税款，因为这不是——他们没有保险，而且他们知道在中止听证会上从一开始就注定失败，因为——我不想预先假定法官阁下会如何处理——但我从先前案件中知道，正如您提到的，保险永远是第一位的，而他们现在无法获得保险；他们不具备可保资格。\n\n所以，对我而言，这改变了情势。您宽容地给予他们更多时间举行中止听证会，诸如此类，但如果我们当时知道该房产没有保险，我不确定事情会以那样的方式发展。因此，我们请求处理 Bassett先生（巴塞特先生）提出的证据开示问题和（听不清）处理该问题，但我确实想谈谈没有保险的问题。当他们将携带该房产没有保险的情况出席时，我质疑举行完整中止证据听证会的做法。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 338 页，共 500 页\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。Major律师？\n\nMAJOR律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n我认为，基于多种原因，包括我当事人的状况，我同意——我这样说并不损害我当事人的权利和论点，也不损害本案可能的走向——但我同意受托人的看法，或许我们不应继续进行中止诉讼。如果本院愿意给予我这个机会，而且受托人愿意配合，我希望能够在接下来几天内通过私下协商说服受托人，就中止诉讼达成某种解决方案，以平衡他的关切，并且鉴于她目前的状况，我认为这将有助于我的当事人。\n\n因此，关于我希望如何推进此事，我不想说得太多。如果我们能够通过调解员来做，我会很乐意；我认为时间并不充足，但我希望能有一点时间与代表受托人的人会面，无论是他的一名律师还是他本人——无论其团队能够如何安排——以看看我们能否就中止动议达成某种解决方案。我认为我们可以做到，但如果可以的话，我希望获得这个机会。\n\nDESPINS先生：而且，法官阁下，我会对 Conway先生（康威先生）说同样的话。Major先生是一位绅士。遗憾的是，他处于一个非常糟糕的境地。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 339 页，共 500 页\n\n而要让受托人接受这样一种构想，即某个已被认定并非所有人的人留在一栋没有保险的房屋中，他们没有支付税款，法官阁下，他们正在抽走（听不清）。他们知道，由于刑事定罪，游戏已经结束。这就是他们停止向 Taurus 支付款项的原因，因为他们知道他们会失去 Taurus，无论是失给我还是失给政府；他们都会失去它，这栋房屋也是一样。\n\nMajor先生对中止问题没有任何论点。他知道这一点。他正尽力为其当事人争取最佳结果，我尊重这一点，但如果在我负责期间该房产发生了什么事，而我允许这种情况发生，有人会说：受托人，你竟允许这种情况发生，应该去检查一下脑子。\n\n所以，我不想显得像个可怕的人。我理解他在说什么，但我们面对的是一个犯罪企业。那不是——您记得，整件事都是一个犯罪企业；而在这种情境下，没有保险，您的法庭不应有任何容忍。我确实很抱歉这样让您，法官阁下，处于尴尬位置，但我们不能允许这种情况继续；这太危险了，而且他们知道这太危险。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 340 页，共 500 页\n\nMAJOR律师：法官阁下，如果可以？\n\n本院：请讲。\n\nMAJOR律师：因此，本院设定了——而且这是，您知道，受托人请求变更的时间表——但根据受托人提交的同意动议，本院设定了即将到来的星期五，即8月2日，作为我的当事人提交有关财产保险和税款陈述的截止日期。因此，只有在该命令作出之后，受托人才试图通过证据开示请求单方面变更该日期。\n\n我所提出的是本周内进行协商，在受托人参与的情况下，不改变本院所设定的时间表。我认为，在这种情形下，要求受托人在该期间内与我们协商并不过分。我们的当事人已经负有义务在星期五提交该信息。\n\n因此——而且我们已经联系受托人，尽管是在听证会前不久，因为我刚刚再次与当事人会面，并且决定沿着这一路径推进，这就是我今天联系受托人并开始该流程的原因。我理解必须非常迅速地完成，我们已准备好这样做。这就是——我认为我们不应偏离原有时间表，唯一例外是我将尽最大努力尝试就中止诉讼达成某种协商一致的解决方案。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 341 页，共 500 页\n\n本院：那么，Major律师，为使我理解——我想我明白您的意思，但我想确保我确实明白。您的意思是，您希望本周与受托人进行讨论、持续讨论，以尝试解决上诉期间中止动议的问题，而无需处理证据开示问题和关于上诉期间中止的实际听证会；您是这个意思吗？\n\nMAJOR律师：法官阁下，中止听证会定于8月20日举行。\n\n本院：对。\n\nMAJOR律师：您知道，我认为如果该听证会继续进行，则有必要解决证据开示问题。嗯，我所建议的是讨论解决中止动议，以便无需举行听证会。\n\n本院：对。\n\nMAJOR律师：我当然理解，不仅根据您今天在本次状态会议中所说的，也根据受托人在电话中对我所说的，他们证据开示请求中的部分事项必须成为中止诉讼任何解决方案的一部分。我认为，就受托人作为任何……一部分所希望获得的信息而言，这是我们所理解的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 提交于 10/01/24 录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 342 页，共 500 页\n\n这是对暂缓诉讼的一种解决方式。再说一次，我这样说并不影响我们在暂缓动议中提出的论点等等，但是我只是——再说一次，考虑到我的当事人的情况，我认为鉴于她的身体状况，与受托人达成某种安排符合她的最大利益；也许不可能，但我想尝试一下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们——\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，经双方同意——\n\n法庭：请稍等一下，Despins受托人。假设你们双方都同意，在现在至周五之间进行一次沟通是合理的；我们就作此假设。再假设你们未能达成任何安排。你们仍必须在周五就保险是否已投保以及税款是否已缴纳，在本对抗程序的案卷中提交文件；你明白吗？\n\nMAJOR先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。你并未请求更改该日期，对吗？\n\nMAJOR先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因为不能更改。除非与受托人达成协议，否则我看不出有任何办法可以更改。好的。我认为这就是我——目前要说的全部。Major律师，Despins受托人，您是否要回应Major律师？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，经双方同意，我一向乐于与人沟通，但保险是无法妥协的问题。我不能——您可以推翻我，如果这是您的决定，那完全没有问题——但我不能在双方同意的情况下，同意让已被认定不拥有该房屋的人在未投保的情况下居住在该房屋内。因此，我乐于沟通，但我不想就将会发生什么误导任何人。\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我唯一想补充的意见是，如果我们沿着本周尝试讨论这一途径推进，同时保留律师在案卷中提交保险证明及其他信息的期限，当然，如果我们未能达成解决方案，我们遇到的另一个问题是，正如律师所述，我们仍然需要对证据开示作出回应。因此，我认为届时，对于6日的异议期限和20日的听证日期，我们或许有一些回旋余地，可以将我们的异议期限延后，以便在此之前于下周进行证据开示。但我认为，在现行时间表下，我们必须处理该时间安排和先后顺序问题，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我明白。那么，关于ECF 147号命令，该命令延长了各项期限，包括Greenwich各方于8月2日即周五提交保险及税款通知的期限，我们今天对此将如何作出结论？我刚才问Major律师，他知道即使未与受托人达成协议，也必须提交该文件。\n\n如果与受托人达成协议，我不知道该协议会是什么，因此你们都必须自行解决这个问题。\n\n但是Major律师，我知道我清楚地听到了您的意见。我已在记录中向您提出了这个问题。您明白您必须提交该文件。\n\n如果您没有——如果您在8月2日未提交任何文件，那么，我们就看看事态如何发展。如果未达成协议，而受托人请求——事实上已请求——进行证据开示，在本特定对抗程序的情形以及更大范围第11章案件的情形下，我认为证据开示是有必要的，而且我看不出有任何理由不应予以遵守。\n\n我理解您就您当事人健康状况所说的内容；显然，除您所说之外，我们对此一无所知，而且我并不是说您此时必须证明任何事情，但您作为——您处于——在与您的当事人沟通后，您必须决定此事将如何处理。如果未能达成某种解决方案，我并未被说服《联邦民事诉讼规则》在某种程度上不支持在这种情况下进行证据开示，因此，这是我目前从法庭角度看待此事的方式。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，感谢您的这些意见。我的唯一观点是，假设他们提交文件称没有保险且未缴纳税款。需要——嗯，他们需要——应当存在一种机制来简化此事，因为所涉费用——而且我需要聘请一名专家，我已经找到一名（听不清）人员——在我们知道，我认为，在没有任何保险且未缴纳税款的情况下，其结果会是什么时，为此举行全面听证会。我们知道结果会是什么。因此，我并非请求您今天就此作出裁定，但我认为我们可能很快会回到您面前，说该——这场听证会不应继续进行。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nDESPINS先生：如果是这样——\n\n法庭：我清楚地明白这一点。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：我们将看看周五提交什么文件。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：如果没有保险且税款未获缴纳，那么我们可能将在下周一或周二再举行一次状态会议，因为我们——这不可能——我的意思是，Major律师，您以前来过这里。我没有说任何您此前未曾听过的话。不能有一项资产，无论您是否同意它是一项资产，处于未投保状态。这不是——《破产法》甚至将此作为曾寻求积极救济的债务人不应继续留在破产法院的依据。我们都知道发生了什么。债务人寻求积极救济，但受托人被指定。因此，事情目前就是这样。因此，从法庭的角度看，我不确定今天下午就本对抗程序还有什么其他可以做的。我们将看看会发生什么。\n\n我鼓励你们沟通。我不知道这是否会产生任何结果，但我显然鼓励你们沟通。显然，现在至周五之间没有太多时间，所以，显然——而且，我的意思是，我不需要说，但我还是要说——如果我听说沟通是在周五下午4:00才开始，如果那时才开始沟通，我会不高兴。我理解每个人都有很多事情要处理，我并未作出任何相反的暗示，但这是本对抗程序中的关键问题。\n\n而且我理解，Major律师，您希望在上诉期间获得暂缓执行，您当然有权寻求该项救济，但您也负有与此相关的负担，受托人也是如此。你们双方都是。\n\n因此，在这种情况下，我们需要根据《联邦规则》及适用的《联邦规则》妥善处理此事。因此，我们将看看周五会发生什么，并视提交或未提交的文件而定，采取下一步措施。如果这意味着受托人提出请求——您也可以这样做，Major律师——你们任何一方都可以在周末请求举行状态会议。我的意思是，该会议不太可能在周末举行，但最迟将在周一或周二举行。\n\n那么，是否有人有任何问题？\n\nDESPINS先生：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：Major律师，我们在这里期间，您今天下午还有任何想补充的吗？\n\nMAJOR先生：目前没有，法官阁下。感谢您给予时间。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nGreenwich Land（格林尼治土地）对抗程序23-05005的状态会议至此结束。\n\nMajor律师，显然，您无需留下——我们在另一事项中还有一次会议——但如果您愿意，欢迎您留下；由您自行选择。\n\nMAJOR先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我将离开。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么现在，我想下午2点状态会议的相关人员正在等候室内。\n\n书记员：是的，他们在这里。\n\n法庭：请您让他们进来，然后我们将传唤该事项。谢谢。\n\n书记员：谢谢。\n\n（暂停）\n\n书记员：我想这就齐了。\n\n身份不明的男性发言人：法官阁下，这是AIG事项吗？\n\n书记员：案件编号23-5007，Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC）诉AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG Property Casualty Company）。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请各方为记录说明出庭身份，可以吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我并非出庭——我不是——这是Genever事项，所以我实际上只是来旁听，但我并非真正出庭。我不是——\n\n法庭：好的。那么无论如何，请您说明出庭身份，然后我们再继续，好吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯），Kwok案（郭案）第11章受托人。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nMCCORMACK先生：下午好，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：请继续，McCormack律师。请继续。\n\nMCCORMACK先生：下午好，法官阁下。我代表Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings, LLC）。我是来自O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss（O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss）的Michael McCormack（迈克尔·麦考马克）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nO'CONNOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表AIG的John O'Connor（约翰·奥康纳）和来自Steptoe, LLP（Steptoe, LLP）的John Kavanagh（约翰·卡瓦纳）；我们的康涅狄格州律师Michael Thompson（迈克尔·汤普森）也在场。\n\n法庭：各位下午好。\n\n身份不明的男性发言人：下午好。\n\n法庭：好的。我审阅了就状态会议命令提交的联合答复，显然我理解各方的立场。我不清楚的是，鉴于预审命令刚刚被修改，我想是在主案中作出暂缓各事项命令之前约两天，各方是否会继续进行证据开示。因此，显然，这就是所发生的情况。\n\n但是现在我们将继续进行，因此我想知道\n\n2　当事人就——如果你们已经进行了讨论——以及关于证据开示的计划是什么。\n3　\n4　O'CONNOR 律师：\n法官阁下，我是代表 AIG 的 John O'Connor（约翰·奥康纳）。\n5　\n6　我认为目前我们已经进行了讨论，但\n7　我们同意，在证言录取暂缓期结束后，需要讨论修订后的审前\n8　日程安排。我认为，并且我们已就这些事项与 Genever 的代理律师进行了合作，\n9　\n10　我认为我们可以会面，\n11　拟定一份建议的修订命令，并将其提交给\n12　法院。我不知道 McCormack 律师是否同意或不同意\n13　这一点，但这是我的看法。\n14　法院：\nMcCormack 律师？\n15　MCCORMACK 律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下，下午好。\n16　\n17　我不反对 O'Connor 律师的\n18　陈述。我们乐于就修订后的审前文件进行讨论。\n19　不过，我只想说明，我认为如我们在\n20　简易判决动议中所指出的，\n21　我们不认为针对待决\n22　简易判决动议需要额外的证据开示。所\n23　需要的证据开示涉及损害赔偿以及修订后起诉书中\n24　未在法院审理的其他请求，\n25　即未列入简易判决动议的请求。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 351 of 500\n\n1　O'CONNOR 律师：\n法官阁下知悉，我们的\n\n2　立场是，应当进行适当的证据开示以支持\n3　简易判决动议。但我认为，我们都同意，\n4　有一些证据开示需要进行，我们\n5　应当拟定该日程并提交法院。\n6　法院：\n好的，我希望——并且我感谢\n7　双方律师的意见——我希望证据开示日程的\n8　期限与各位在三月修订审前命令时商定的日程\n9　期限相同。因此，我\n10　认为期限应当相同，并且，你知道，\n11　只需更改日期，我认为我们需要继续推进。\n12　至于我是否——如各位所知，简易判决动议正在\n\n13　审议中。在各位能够就该简易判决动议继续进行证据开示期间，我将决定我将采取何种行动，如果会采取任何行动。但我希望审前命令在下周五，即 August 9th，之前提交给法院，并且我希望日期期限与现有第一份修订审前命令中的期限相同，只是日期不同。\n\n20　21　各位都明白吗，还是有人有任何问题？\n\n22　23　24　25　O'CONNOR 律师：AIG 明白，法官阁下。而且我认为没有人提议会有一段漫长的——换句话说，没有人会建议进行一年的证据开示。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 352 of 500\n\n1　法院：\n可以，谢谢。\n\n2　MCCORMACK 律师：\n我同意，法官阁下。\n3　法院：\n好的。谢谢二位。\n4　因此，再说一次，我把各位叫到这里来，是因为我不\n5　确定目前的状态。各位已在联合\n6　报告中告诉了我，我对此表示感谢，现在我们只需要\n7　将第二份修订审前命令——即将成为第二份修订审前命令的文件——\n8　在 August 9th 之前提交给法院。无论我是在\n9　August 9th 还是下一周看到它，此后不久都会录入，\n10　除非法院对该审前\n11　命令存在某些疑虑；我认为不会有这种\n12　疑虑。\n13　今天下午我们还有其他应当讨论的事项吗？\n14　\n15　MCCORMACK 律师：\n原告方没有其他事项，法官\n16　阁下。\n17　法院：\n好的。很抱歉让——\n18　O'CONNOR 律师：\n没有——\n19　DESPINS 律师：\n我们这边没有——\n20　法院：\n哦，抱歉，Despins 受托人。请\n21　继续。\n22　DESPINS 律师：\n不，我只是想说，从\n23　我们的角度没有其他事项，并且感谢法院在所有这些状态会议中\n24　抽出时间；我非常感谢，谢谢。\n25　\n\n51　1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25　法院：好的。而且，再次向本对立程序中的各位致歉，让各位不得不等待。其他状态会议的时间比预期稍长。但如我上周向各位所说，至少在我们大楼没有空调的时候，各位不必在这里，因此希望这对各位多少有些帮助。（笑声）身份不明的男性发言人：法官阁下，我也是这么想的，至少我们能够（听不清）。谢谢。法院：好的。好。非常感谢各位。今天的庭审至此结束，现宣布休庭。律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。书记员：现宣布休庭。（程序于下午 2:46 结束。）Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 353 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 354 of\n\n500　52\n1　证明\n2　本人证明，据本人所知及能力所及，\n3　上述内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的\n4　正确文字记录。\n5　\n\n7　/s/ William J. Garling　August 1, 2024\n8　William J. Garling（威廉·J·加林），CET-543\n9　认证法庭记录员\n10　代表 Reliable（可靠记录服务公司）\n\n附件 5\n\nAugust 13, 2024 庭审记录\n\n1　1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25　美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格地区\n布里奇波特分庭\n关于：　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　第 11 章\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　　　　　　（合并管理）\n债务人。\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　对立程序\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）及　　　　　　　　　编号 23-05002 (JAM)\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章\n受托人，\n原告，\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）、\nQIANG GUO（郭强）及 MEI GUO（郭美），\n被告。\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等，　对立程序\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　编号 23-05017 (JAM)\n原告，\n诉　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　法庭 123\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Brien McMahon Federal Building（布莱恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\nTAURUS FUND, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，　915 Lafayette Boulevard\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n被告。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Tuesday, August 13, 2024\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　下午 1:12\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美利坚合众国破产法官面前举行的庭审记录\n（续）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 356 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602　Filed 10/01/24　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 357 of\n\n500　2\n\n1　出庭人员：\n2　代表第 11 章\n受托人：　Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），Esquire\n3　NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙泰斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n4　13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n5　以及\n6　Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），Esquire\n7　Shlomo Maza（什洛莫·马扎），Esquire\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n8　200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n9　Nicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特），Esquire\n10　2050 M Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n12　代表美国受托人：　Holley L. Claiborn（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩），Esquire\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\n13　The Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n14　New Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n19　（出庭人员续）\n20　音频操作员：　电子录音\n21　记录服务公司：　Reliable（可靠记录服务公司）\nThe Nemours Building\n22　1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n23　电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：\ngmatthews@reliable-co.com\n24　程序通过电子录音记录，\n25　文字记录由记录服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 358 of\n\n3　1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25　出庭人员（续）：\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）：\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯），Esquire\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n以及\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫），Esquire\nO'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n代表 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会）：\nKristin B. Mayhew（克里斯汀·B·梅休），Esquire\nPULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC（普尔曼与康利有限责任公司）\n850 Main Street\n8th Floor\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06601\n代表 G Club Operations（G 俱乐部运营公司）、Weddle Law PLLC（韦德尔律师事务所）、FFP BVI Limited（FFP 英属维尔京群岛有限公司）、Ogier（奥杰律师事务所）及 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP（博钦律师事务所）：\nJeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹），Esquire\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\n3rd Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n代表 Yankwitt, LLP（扬克维特律师事务所）；Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer, LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹与扎德勒律师事务所）；Brune Law, P.C.（布鲁恩律师事务所）；及 Petrillo Klein + Boxer, LLP（彼得里洛·克莱因与博克瑟律师事务所）：\nAnthony J. Proscia（安东尼·J·普罗夏），Esquire\nKAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP（考夫曼·多洛维奇律师事务所）\n40 Exchange Place\n20th Floor\nNew York, New York 10005\n500\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 359 of\n\n500　4\n\n1　出庭人员（续）：\n2　代表 Meta\n3　Platforms, Inc.（Meta 平台公司）及 Apple, Inc.（苹果公司）：　Jin Yan（严进），Esquire\n4　ARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP（阿伦特福克斯·希夫律师事务所）\n1717 K Street NW\nWashington DC 20006\n5　代表 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）及\n6　Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）：　Austin D. Kim（金奥斯汀），Esquire\nMEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP（迈斯特·西利格与费恩律师事务所）\n7　125 Park Avenue\n7th Floor\n8　New York, New York 10017\n9　代表 Morvillo\nAbramowitz Grand\n10　Iason & Anello, P.C.（莫维洛·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·伊森与阿内洛律师事务所）：　Rowena A. Moffett（罗威娜·A·莫菲特），Esquire\nBRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN, LLP（布伦纳·萨尔茨曼与沃尔曼律师事务所）\n11　271 Whitney Avenue\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n5　1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25　目录\n动议：　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　页码\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等\n主案编号 22-050073 (JAM)\n事项编号 1：将提起撤销诉讼的截止日期延长至 02/15/2025 的延长期限动议（第一份补充动议）（关于：3329）　14\n法院裁定：　80\n事项编号 2：第 11 章受托人根据《破产法典》第 363(b) 条提出的经修订紧急动议，请求作出授权受托人为 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）维护提供资金及给予相关救济的命令（关于：3381）　81\n法院裁定：　86\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）及 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人 诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）、Qiang Guo（郭强）及 Mei Guo（郭美）\n对立案件编号 23-05002 (JAM)\n事项编号 3：审前会议庭审　89\n法院裁定：　90\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等 诉 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等\n对立案件编号 23-05017 (JAM)\n事项编号 4：状态会议　90\n法院裁定：　94\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 360 of 500\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 361 of\n\n500　6\n1　目录\n\n3　出庭证人\n由受托人传唤：　　　　　　　　　　　　　页码\n4　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n5　由 Bassett 律师进行的直接询问　18\n6　由 Yan 律师进行的交叉询问　30\n7　由 Sklarz 律师进行的交叉询问　34\n\n9　记录员证明　96\n\n7　1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25　（程序于下午 1:12 开始。）书记员：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）；对立案件 23-50002，Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）等 诉 Kwok（郭）等；以及对立案件 23-05017，Despins（德斯平斯）等 诉 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等。法院：好的。下午好。请为记录说明出庭人员，先从第 11 章受托人开始。Despins 受托人？（无口头回应）法院：他卡住了吗？或许吧。书记员：没有。法院：好的。他们听不见我说话？显然，他们听不见我们。书记员：Despins 受托人？（无口头回应）书记员：哦，你知道吗？抱歉，我给他打电话。抱歉，法官。法院：所以我想我们必须重新开始，因为我认为刚才没有录音，或者没有人能听见我们。书记员：是。案件编号——康涅狄格地区美利坚合众国破产法院现于休庭后开庭。法官——尊敬的 Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官正在主持。Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 362 of 500\n\n法庭：各位下午好。下午 1:00 有列入日程的事项，因此我请法庭书记官宣读日程。\n\n书记官：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）；对抗程序 23-05002，Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings, LLC）等诉 Kwok（郭文贵）等；以及对抗程序 23-05017，Despins（德斯平斯）等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC（Taurus Fund, LLC）等。\n\n法庭：下午好。我将记录各方的出庭信息。我们目前以远程方式进行。本应是一次非证据性远程听证会。它是否会成为证据性听证会，我们将拭目以待，因为我不通过远程方式举行证据性听证会。但是，在各方说明出庭身份时，我希望确保每一位说明出庭身份的人都说明其是否已在本案或对抗程序中提交出庭通知；如尚未提交，则需要提交。因此，无论如何，我们先从 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人。\n\nBASSETT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表第 11 章受托人。\n\nMAZA 先生：下午好，我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Shlomo Maza（什洛莫·马扎），同样代表受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 363 页，共 500 页\n\nMAZA 先生：同样来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：抱歉，先生。我没有听清您说的话。请回到刚才发言的那位先生。\n\nMAZA 先生：我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Shlomo Maza（什洛莫·马扎），同样代表受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMAZA 先生：抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：抱歉，我没有听清您说的话。我表示歉意。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert Pepe & Monteith（诺伊伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），代表受托人；受托人及受托人律师均已登记出庭。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好。我是代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的 Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），代表主案中的债权人 PAX。我不确定自己是否已在今日讨论的对抗程序中提交出庭通知，但我预计不会参与。\n\n法庭：谢谢。除非您选择提交，否则我认为您无需在对抗程序中提交出庭通知；但您确实需要在主案中登记出庭，而您已登记出庭且已有一段时间，因此谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 364 页，共 500 页\n\nSARNOFF 先生：谢谢。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊及科尔律师事务所）的 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），为债权人 PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼及康利律师事务所）的 Kristin Mayhew（克里斯廷·梅休），代表债权人委员会。我已在主案中登记出庭，但我认为我们没有在该对抗程序中登记出庭。\n\nSKLARZ 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Green & Sklarz（格林及斯克拉兹律师事务所）的 Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹），代表若干提出异议的当事人。我已在主案以及提出部分异议的相关对抗程序中登记出庭。我的同事 Michelle Antao（米歇尔·安唐）也在线。我不记得她是否已登记出庭，她也不会进行辩论；但如未登记，我们将为她在主案中登记出庭。我还要说明，我的一名客户，Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所）的 Justin Weddle（贾斯廷·韦德尔），也在观看程序；他本人或其律师事务所是其中一个对抗程序的一方当事人。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。为使记录明确，今日并无对抗程序中的听证会。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 365 页，共 500 页\n\nSKLARZ 先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\nYAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Jin Yan（金燕），代表 Meta Platforms, Inc.（Meta Platforms, Inc.）和 Apple, Inc.（Apple, Inc.）。我们已在对抗案件中登记出庭。我不记得我们是否已在主破产案中登记出庭。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。\n\nPROSCIA 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Kaufman Dolowich（考夫曼·多洛维奇律师事务所）的 Anthony Proscia（安东尼·普罗夏）。我们代表相关对抗程序中的四家律师事务所。我们不会发言；我们今天只是进行旁听。\n\n法庭：律师，您所说的是哪一项相关对抗程序？\n\nPROSCIA 先生：当然。这些是针对 Yankwitt（扬克维特）、Ganfer Shore（甘弗·肖尔）、Brune Law（布鲁恩律师事务所）和 Petrillo Klein（佩特里洛·克莱因）的对抗程序。\n\n法庭：律师，您必须拼写这些名称中的每一个。我们的记录仅以音频形式保存，因此，如果之后制作庭审记录的人无法听懂——这并非您的过错。这不是您的过错；情况就是如此——那么庭审记录中会有大量空白。因此，我请您拼写刚才所列对抗程序中所有被告的名称。\n\nPROSCIA 先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 367 页，共 500 页\n\n第一家律师事务所是 Yankwitt，拼写为 Y-a-n-k-w-i-t-t。第二家律师事务所是 Ganfer Shore，拼写为 G-a-n-f-e-r S-h-o-r-e。第三家律师事务所是 Brune Law，拼写为 B-r-u-n-e。第四家是 Petrillo Klein，拼写为 P-e-t-r-i-l-l-o K-l-e-i-n。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nKIM 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Meister Seelig & Fein（迈斯特·西利格及费因律师事务所）的 Austin Kim（金奥斯汀），代表 Greenwich Land Defendants（格林尼治土地被告方），即 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）和 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）；我们已在主程序和对抗程序中均登记出庭。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nMOFFETT 女士：法官阁下，我是 Brenner Saltzman & Wallman（布伦纳·萨尔茨曼及沃尔曼律师事务所）的 Rowena Moffett（罗韦娜·莫菲特）。我代表另一名对抗程序被告，即一家名为 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, P.C.（莫维洛·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·亚森及阿内洛律师事务所）的律师事务所，拼写为 M-o-r-v-i-l-l-o A-b-r-a-m-o-w-i-t-z G-r-a-n-d I-a-s-o-n & A-n-e-l-l-o, P.C.\n\n法庭：谢谢。那么，我是否已将所有人的出庭信息记入记录？\n\n（无口头回应）\n\n法庭：好的。首先——Despins 受托人，我不确定您希望如何进行，但我想指出，今日日程中的事项，前两项事项，即第一项延长期限补充动议以及经修正的紧急动议，即授权提供资金的动议，均在主案中提交，这是恰当的，因为该等救济涉及整个破产财产。日程中最后两项事项实际涉及特定对抗程序 23-05002 的审前会议，以及另一对抗程序 23-05017 的状态会议请求。Despins 受托人，我不知道您打算如何进行，但我将听取您对意向的说明。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 368 页，共 500 页\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，首先作一项澄清。我认为我们还在 Mahwah 对抗程序中提交了一项动议，请求授权我们支出资金以维持——也许您已经涵盖了该事项——但我相信今日就该事项举行听证会，以授权我们支出资金支付税款、安保服务及所有这些费用。我认为该事项应列入今日议程。\n\n法庭：您对此可能是正确的。我会查看一下。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我明白您的意思了。您提交了一项紧急动议，我们——是的，我明白您的意思。好的，您发言时我会查看。\n\nDESPINS 先生：但无论如何，法官阁下，我认为鉴于电话线上有许多人是为了我所称的 August 15th 延期动议而来，可能应先处理该事项，以便这些人可以选择继续参加其余程序，至少他们并非必须如此；否则，他们必须全程在线，而这将没有任何成效，而且——（听不清）。因此，我建议从 August 15th 延期动议开始。\n\n法庭：请继续。为记录起见，该动议是 ECF 3329。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，Bassett 先生负责该动议。\n\n法庭：Bassett 先生，您的——好了——您刚才处于静音状态，但请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：抱歉。\n\n下午好，法官阁下。再次为记录起见，我是 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n为回答法庭阁下开头提出的问题，显然，经法庭许可，我们确实原计划今日进行一项非常有限的证据陈述；我们假定能够通过 Zoom 进行该陈述，对此当然表示歉意。我认为我们之所以如此进行，是因为今年 2 月就该动议举行的听证会是远程进行的，而且我们确实让受托人提供了一些证言。\n\n我现在回想那次特定听证会时意识到，我认为当时是因无法预料的天气问题而远程进行的。因此，在那种情形下，法院的一般政策或许作出了例外。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 370 页，共 500 页\n\n无论如何，法官阁下，显然我们仍听凭法庭决定，但经您许可，我们原本确实打算让受托人提供有限证言。我认为，我们为支持该动议所依赖的大部分记录均如记录所示，我们将请求法庭对此予以司法认知，因此我认为证据陈述不会很长，但这就是我们的意图，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，我提出这个问题的唯一原因是，如果 Despins 受托人作证，那么将会有五名不同的律师对他进行交叉询问，是不是我们要这样进行，因为已有多项针对该动议的异议提交，因此我会认为所有这些律师都会希望对他进行交叉询问。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我无法代表他们发言。我想指出，我认为各该当事人，或至少其中一些当事人，已在其异议中明确保留了在受托人作证时对其进行交叉询问的权利。我不知道他们是否打算这样做。正如我所说，证言将是有限的。我预计大约为 10 分钟，我希望您会限制并缩小其交叉询问的范围；但同样，我无法代表对方当事人的律师发言。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 371 页，共 500 页\n\n法庭：我明白您无法代表他们发言；我并非建议您应当如此。\n\n但我要说的是，我几乎确信他们会希望对他进行交叉询问，因此我们将远程进行直接询问和交叉询问，法庭书记官还必须远程为当事人主持宣誓。法庭书记官并未出现在摄像头中。您知道，这存在一些问题；这就是为什么除非事先确定并有相应理由，否则我不会这样做。因为，如您所知，《联邦证据规则》仍要求就证言进行法庭内听证。\n\n无论如何，如果这就是我们将要进行的方式，我们就看看情况如何，但我确实认为，必须理解的是，如果要提交证言和证物，没有理由使当事人不能到法庭出席，或者事先作出安排，以便法庭知悉正在发生的情况。这就是我就此事项所要说的。\n\nBASSETT 先生：明白，法官阁下。我承担未能事先妥善处理此事的责任。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我们看看事情如何进行，请继续。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3602　提交于 10/01/24　录入于 10/01/24 09:51:43　第 372 页，共 500 页\n\n您现在要传唤Despins受托人（德斯平斯）作为证人吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n是的，法官阁下，我们希望如此。我认为，合乎逻辑的推进方式是让我们完成有限的证据陈述，其实际上仅包括受托人作证；法院显然可以对记录中的其他提交文件予以司法认知，我们在书面文件中援引了这些文件，而对方也再次在辩论中援引了这些文件，但实际上只是让受托人出庭作证，我认为这是目前适当的推进方式。\n\n法院：\n好的。鉴于我已载入记录的陈述，法庭书记员没有摄像头，因此我必须载入记录说明，我正坐在法庭书记员旁边。我能看见她。她将为证人Despins受托人宣誓，然后我们将视情况继续，好吗？那么我要问——Despins受托人，您准备好宣誓了吗？\n\nDespins先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，就仿佛我们可以假装身处法庭，而巴塞特律师刚刚传唤您到证人席。现在，我们需要将此交由法庭书记员处理，其职责是为证人宣誓。\n\n书记员：\n谢谢。\n\nDespins律师，请举起您的右手。\n\n法院：\n我们看不到您的右手，Despins受托人。我们需要看到它。\n\nDespins先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n换另一边。\n\nDespins先生：\n是。\n\n书记员：\n好的。\n\nDespins先生：\n请稍等一下。我不知道为什么那不是——好的。那是我的右手。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nDespins先生：\n是。\n\n书记员：\n好的。\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯），受托人方证人，已宣誓。\n\n证人：\n我宣誓。\n\n书记员：\n请为记录陈述您的姓名和地址，当然，是您的营业地址。\n\n证人：\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166。\n\n法院：\n好的。巴塞特先生，您可以继续。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n由巴塞特先生进行直接询问：\n\n问：Despins受托人，您了解我们今天就受托人延长撤销权诉讼期限的动议出庭；对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 373 of 500\n\n答：我了解。\n\n问：那么，这是您在本案中提交的第二项此类动议；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：那么，Despins受托人，您是否记得在就第一项动议举行的听证会上作证，我相信该听证会是在今年2月13日举行的？\n\n答：是，我记得。\n\n问：而且，您是否为了准备今天的证言，再次审阅了该证言？\n\n答：是，我审阅了。\n\n问：Despins受托人，据您所记得，您当时所作的证言是否真实准确？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。那么，我今天想做的只是简要询问一些自您上次于2024年2月作证以来已经发生和展开的事件。Despins受托人，自我们今年2月举行该听证会以来，您能否概括说明您在本第11章案件的调查中一直在做什么？\n\n答：很多事情。首先，继续审阅我们收到的文件并进行分析，包括银行账户对账单等，并有Kroll（科尔）的协助。随后，为推进我们的调查，我们还向数量有限的当事人寻求我们所称的“后续2004取证”。\n\n问：好的。您所说的Rule 2004（规则2004）取证，自2月听证会以来，据您记得，您又提交了多少项Rule 2004动议？\n\n答：四项。\n\n问：您是否知道这些动议涵盖了多少额外的当事人，或者说取证对象？\n\n答：47个。\n\n问：您是否大致了解，通过这些Rule 2004动议从这些当事人处取得了多少文件？\n\n答：仅就这些当事人和新的2004取证而言，约700份文件。\n\n问：好的。除您刚刚所述的2004取证外，您和您的团队是否还通过其他方式或从其他来源取得了额外文件？\n\n答：是的。第一个来源是继续推进现有的2004取证，即那些在（听不清）之前已存在的取证，以从该调查的对象获得更多信息。没有人会在第一次就提供全部文件，因此我们必须继续推进本案。这主要是林赛先生（Linsey）所在律所完成的。因此，这是我们收到的一个文件数量非常庞大的来源。除此之外，我们还取得了位于泽西一处仓库中的文件，并且还取得并分析了该设施内的iPhone以及类似设备、电脑。因此，这大致就是在取得文件方面所完成的额外工作。\n\n问：当您将这些额外来源与您所述的2004取证合并计算时，您是否大致了解所涉文件数量？\n\n答：撇开新2004取证中的700份文件不谈，我所述来源的文件将超过20,000份，即先前、最初已获批准的2004取证、新泽西仓库，以及我们在该设施中发现的电脑和iPhone。\n\n问：那么，您的团队在收到这些文件后，正在对其采取什么处理措施，如有的话？\n\n答：不便详述，但基本上，我们有一款软件程序，可按姓名进行检索，因此文件被下载到该程序中，以便每个人都可实际检索特定术语。随后，Kroll团队也获得访问权限，以便他们也可查看，这会为他们提供有关新银行账户等线索。因此，针对这些文件有一整套程序正在进行，并且仍在持续进行。\n\n问：所以，您提到了Kroll及其银行账户分析，这是2月听证会上出现的话题。您能否进一步谈谈自2月以来Kroll团队就银行账户所完成的额外工作，以及任何额外发现？\n\n答：是的，正如我作证时所述，这些银行账户实际上几乎是我们拥有的唯一关键文件，或者至少是我们确信其真实性的文件，因为它们来自银行。每当您查看一个银行账户时，都会有数十笔甚至数百笔转账，引向其他银行账户，这正是Kroll所做的工作。因此，他们通过林赛先生所在律所提供的这项额外取证，得以识别出200个额外银行账户，并已开始分析，目前仍在分析。\n\n问：您是否大致了解，在这些账户中已有多少笔转账被分析？\n\n答：不精确。数以千计，但我不愿给出精确数字。\n\n问：Kroll完成此类工作通常需要多长时间？\n\nSklarz先生（斯克拉兹）：\n反对；传闻证据。他在询问未出庭的他人所做的事情。\n\n巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下，受托人——\n\n法院：\n请稍等一下。斯克拉兹律师，我没有听清您说的话，所以您必须再说一遍。\n\nSklarz先生：\n抱歉。\n\n法院：\n这不是您的错。\n\nSklarz先生：\n反对。\n\n法院：\n这不是您的错。我只是说，这是远程方式的缺点之一，对吗。我在您开始讲话时听不见您，所以请您再说一遍。\n\nSklarz先生：\n可以，法官阁下。我的反对理由是传闻证据。受托人正在就Kroll所做的事情作证，而Kroll是今天未出庭的一方，因此这属于传闻证据。\n\n法院：\n巴塞特律师，您有回应吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下——是的，法官阁下。我不理解该问题为何要求提供传闻证据。受托人在本案中聘请Kroll作为其顾问；他已对此作了详细证言，包括在上次听证会上。显然，受托人对于Kroll在其指示下完成某些任务所需的时间具有第一手了解。\n\nSklarz先生：\n那是典型的传闻证据。Kroll不在这里。\n\n法院：\n我将驳回该反对，但将给予该证言我认为适当的权重。请继续。\n\n由巴塞特先生继续询问：\n\n问：那么，Despins受托人，Kroll完成您刚才所述类型的银行账户分析大约需要多长时间？\n\n答：不可能就此给出精确的、多少天的答案，因为这取决于账户中有多少笔转账。但就那200个账户而言，分析仍在进行，因为正如我所说，每个账户都会打开通向另一账户的大门，该分析仍在进行。其进行程度不像今年1月或2月那样，但截至目前仍在进行。\n\n问：Despins受托人，您知道债务人的刑事审判已在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）进行，对吗？\n\n答：对，是的。\n\n问：您是否记得该审判大约何时开始？\n\n答：5月下旬；5月22日，大致如此。\n\n问：其大约何时结束？\n\n答：7月中旬；7月16日或17日。\n\n问：在该审判进行期间，您的团队是否对其进行了关注？\n\n答：是的，我们进行了关注。当有可能对我们案件具有关键意义的关键证人时，我们会出席，以评估其作为证人的可信度；或者，对于如FBI（联邦调查局）证言等常规证人，我们会阅读庭审记录，因为我们不需要亲自到场。\n\n问：那么，该刑事审判与您在本案中的调查有何关联，如有的话？\n\n答：关联极大。正如我之前所作证，政府拥有比我们更好的工具。他们拥有各种获取信息的方式。通过该审判能够获知的内容，基本上为我们正在分析的若干事项开启了一个全新的维度。\n\n问：Despins受托人，您是否知道该刑事审判总共有多少名证人？\n\n答：政府方有超过30名，被告方有大约8或10名。不超过10名。\n\n问：您是否大致了解刑事审判期间有多少件证物被提交为证据？\n\n答：有数千件。我的记忆是2900多件，因此有数千件证物。\n\n问：您是否能够获得那些证物？\n\n答：不能。\n\n2　按理说，在审判开始之前，政府一方使用某项证物时，应当及时将其上传；但截至今日，仍有数百项证物尚未下载，以便我们能够查阅。因此，我们此前无法查阅其中大多数证物。有些我们可以查阅，但大多数我们无法查阅。自其上传后，我们便可以查阅，但那并非完整清单。由于某种原因，仍有数百项证物尚未上传。当然，我们一直在跟进政府一方，以确保其及时上传。\n\n13　问　如果其团队能够查阅刑事审判中的证物，您团队会如何处理这些证物？\n\n15　答　与将这些资料录入我们的软件数据库相同的程序，并将其交给 Kroll，因为其中涉及银行账户。政府一方的证物中实际上还包括对银行转账的分析。因此，我们将所有这些资料提供给他们，以便他们更新其分析。\n\n20　问　Despins 受托人，您是否知悉，本院已作出命令，在刑事审判进行期间中止某些诉讼及某些诉讼活动，包括证言录取？\n\n24　答　是，我知悉。\n\n25　问　该中止令对您过去数月的调查进展有何影响，如有影响？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 382 of 500\n\n1　答　在该期间内，绝对禁止进行证言录取，因此——显然，有若干我们原本即将进行证言录取的证人，实际上可能会在刑事审判中作证，因此，我们直到上周左右才可以对其进行证言录取。因此，显然，这对我们对关键证人进行证言录取的能力产生了重大影响。\n\n9　问　该中止令是根据您提出的动议作出的，对吗？\n\n11　答　正确。\n\n12　问　您为何提出该动议？\n\n13　答　有两个原因。第一个原因是，债务人正在刑事法院再次提出动议，要求中止整个破产案件，因此，显然，我们不希望发生这种情况；那将是一场灾难，因此，这也是原因的一部分。但另一个原因是，我们安排进行证言录取的证人表示：“嘿，我将成为证人”，或者，“我正在与政府一方沟通，我会向他们投诉你们试图对我们进行证言录取。”当然，这可能导致政府一方表示：“实际上，我们认为整个破产案件应当被完全中止。”这就是我们提出该动议的原因；该动议有点——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 383 of 500\n\n1　（听不清）——旨在使我们仍能够取得文件，但不进行证言录取，以免干扰刑事审判或可能已在刑事审判中出庭作证的证人。\n\n5　问　自 2024 年 2 月 15 日以来，您是否提出过任何额外的撤销诉讼？\n\n7　答　是。\n\n8　问　大约有多少？\n\n9　答　我们已提出四项，但我们即将提出，或者正在提出——它们今天刚出现在案卷上——另外约 30 项。\n\n12　问　您如何决定何时提出这些诉状？\n\n13　答　一旦我们准备好提出诉状，也就是说，一旦我们拥有足够的信息来提出诉状，并且已尽我们所能核实所有信息，我们便提出。我们并未保留任何内容。目前能够提出的，我们都在提出；这就是我们的决定方式，即看我们是否拥有足够信息。该程序主要由 Linsey 先生的律师事务所主导，但我参与审阅诉状。不过，基本上，我们一旦拥有足够信息便会提出。\n\n22　问　Despins 受托人，您在二月曾就本案中债务人及其他人造成的某些阻挠作证，您是否记得该证词？\n\n25　答　是。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 384 of 500\n\n问　依您看来，您当时所谈及的该等阻挠，是否仍在影响您的调查？\n\n答　当然，因为正如我所说，我们唯一可靠的信息来源是银行账户，但那无法向您展示全貌；它只显示转账。我们没有账簿和记录。您知道，债务人曾多次作证称其没有 iPhone。现在，当然，我们知道他有 iPhone，因为这在刑事审判中披露了；他有许多部带有数据的 iPhone。显然，无法取得账簿和记录以将所有这些事项联系起来，使得本案——我会说——就将一切联系起来所需完成的工作量而言，前所未有。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有人希望对 Despins 受托人进行交叉询问吗？\n\nYAN 先生：法官阁下，我仅有几个问题要询问 Despins 受托人。\n\n法庭：好的。您能否——我能看见您，但请您再次为记录说明您的姓名，以及您所代表的一方，因为正如我在听证开始时所说，我们的庭审记录只有音频，因此，尽可能清楚地形成记录将有所帮助。谢谢。\n\nYAN 先生：当然。我的名字是 Jin Yan，J-i-n，姓氏是 Y-a-n。我代表 Apple, Inc.（苹果公司）和 Meta Platforms, Inc.（Meta 平台公司）。\n\nYAN 先生进行交叉询问：\n\n问　Despins 受托人——\n\n法庭：请继续。我很抱歉，我并非有意——\n\nYAN 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——打断您。对此我表示歉意。但您可以继续。\n\nYAN 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nYAN 先生询问：\n\n问　Despins 受托人，您先前作证称，您发出了四份新的 2004（听不清），针对 47 个当事方。我的表述正确吗？\n\n答　正确。\n\n问　Apple 是否是其中一个对象？\n\n答　我不记得。\n\n问　您是否记得 Meta 是否是其中一个对象？\n\n答　我不记得。\n\n问　您具体采取了哪些行动，以调查针对 Apple 或 Meta 的额外撤销请求权？\n\n答　它们是其中的一部分，意思是，我们一般性地检索通过这些银行账户的所有转账；我们不断获得这 200 个额外银行账户，因此，如果 Meta 或 Apple 出现在其中，我们将予以追查。因此，这是分析的一部分。\n\n但我们不会——我们的分析并非以被告为目标，因为我们是在寻找转账；我们有一个持续运行的时限需要遵守，因此，我们审查所有转账。如果 Meta 或 Apple 恰好在该清单上，那么我们将追查。\n\n问　Despins 受托人，您知道您已经起诉 Apple，对吗？\n\n答　正确。\n\n问　您也知道您已经起诉 Meta，对吗？\n\n答　正确。\n\n问　除您目前针对 Meta 的诉讼中的请求权外，您是否发现任何额外请求权？\n\n答　我们发现了一些较小的请求权，但没有——没有任何重大事项，金额为数千美元，而非数十万美元。因此，目前的答案是，没有任何重大事项。\n\n问　针对 Apple 呢？\n\n答　同样的答案。\n\n问　您称您发现的那些非重大额外请求权，是否已在已提起诉讼中的请求权中主张？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n1　答　我认为没有。我认为这些将被加入其中，但再次说明，这不会在实质上改变局面。\n\n5　问　您是否打算向 Apple 或 Meta 送达这些请求权？\n\n7　答　我需要与律师讨论。您知道，（听不清）诉讼，因此我需要与他们协商，以决定是否值得这样做。\n\n10　问　好的。您何时发现那些不属于现有诉讼的额外请求权？\n\n12　答　我不知道是什么时候。显然是在 2 月 15 日之后，但在 2 月 15 日至今之间的何时，我无法说明。\n\n14　问　您能否解释为何您尚未寻求修改现有诉讼以增加这些请求权？\n\n16　答　因为 Apple 和 Meta 不是我们唯一关注的事项。我们关注的是 300 多名被告，现在我们又增加了约 50 名和 30 名，另加可能的 20 名，因此共计 50 名。我理解，从您的角度而言，您只关切那两方，但我们同时处理许多事项，我们首先处理最重大和最关键的方面。\n\n23　这就是为什么我说我知道存在额外转账，但我不认为其会改变局面，当然也不会达到我们会将一切搁置一旁并在此时修改诉讼以增加这些非重大金额的程度。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 388 of 500\n\n1　如果我们发现真正重大的事项，那么显然，我们将尽快修改。因此，就 Apple 或 Meta 而言不存在任何策略；这是处理数百名被告的整体策略，我们处理最紧迫的事项，因为一天中的时间有限。\n\n9　YAN 先生：我没有进一步问题。谢谢您，Despins 受托人。\n\n11　法庭：谢谢。还有其他人希望对 Despins 受托人进行交叉询问吗？\n\n14　SKLARZ 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n15　法庭：Sklarz 律师，您能否再次为记录说明您的姓名及您所代表的一方，因为我们需要将此记入记录。谢谢。\n\n18　SKLARZ 先生：是的，Jeffrey Sklarz；就本次听证而言，我的当事人是 G Club；FFP (BVI) Limited，其在对抗程序 24-506 -- 5056 中被起诉；Ogier，其在对抗程序 24-05012 中被起诉；Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman，其在对抗程序 24-05014 中被起诉；以及 Weddle Law，其在对抗程序 24-05188 中被起诉。\n\n24　//\n25　//\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602\nFiled 10/01/24\nEntered 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n1　交叉询问\n\n2　SKLARZ 先生询问：\n\n3　问　Despins 受托人，您表示您获得了额外信息，这些信息很像众所周知的俄罗斯套娃，每打开一层，便会得到越来越多的信息。这样说公平吗？\n\n8　答　作为一般性描述，是的。\n\n9　问　好的。因此，鉴于您持续获得越来越多的信息，您是否表示，您的调查有可能实际上持续数年又数年又数年，直至无限期？\n\n13　答　不，在某个时候，我们需要——您知道——结束本案，并继续处理我们生活中的其他事情，这就是这里的意图。从我们的角度来看，我们尚未到达那个阶段，但显然，目标是到达那个阶段，以便我们能够继续前行。我们必须平衡这种不对潜在对象主张请求权的愿望，因此，这确实是其中需要权衡的事项。\n\n20　问　我相信，您先前还表示，您曾基于刑事程序申请中止您自己对案件的追诉。我理解正确吗？\n\n24　答　不，我们过去曾这样做。\n\n25　问　您过去曾这样做？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 3602　Filed 10/01/24\n500　Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43　Page 390 of\n\n1　答　是。\n\n2　问　我相信，您说有尚未完成的证据开示询问，因您的动议而被中止，对吗？\n\n5　答　正确。\n\n问：而且，你本打算对其中一些人进行询问，他们是刑事诉讼程序中的证人，对吗？\n\n答：我说的是证人，或者可能成为证人，因此政府必须决定是否使用他们。现在，他们会属于这两类中的一类。\n\n问：好的。那么，你——并且没有人反对你的中止动议；这是你的证词吗？\n\n答：我认为没有人反对；是的。\n\n问：所以，你是出于自己的理由自行中止了案件；这样说公平吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：你是出于他人的理由自行中止了案件？\n\n答：不是，我们提交了一项动议，但这并非毫无背景；并不只是为了我们自己的理由。因为我们试图对一些人进行取证，而他们说，等一下，我是证人，或者我已被要求在刑事审判中作为证人，他们将就我们试图做的事情向 DOJ 提出异议，因此我们决定需要在审判期间中止此事。所以，我们是自行这样做的，但这是考虑了多项因素，包括不干扰刑事诉讼程序。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n问：你是否曾与政府协调证人证词？\n\n答：从未。\n\n巴塞特律师（Bassett）：异议；无关。\n\n法院：异议成立。因此，我们将该回答从记录中删除。\n\n斯克拉兹律师（Sklarz）询问：\n\n问：就今天提出异议的我的当事人而言，即 G Club（G俱乐部）、FFP、Ogier（奥吉尔）、Pillsbury Winthrop（普博温思罗普）和 Weddle Law（韦德尔律师事务所），他们全部都是在二月延期命令之前被起诉的；对吗？\n\n答：嗯，我肯定知道 G Club，涉及两个方面，即另我和我们称为预防性转让起诉状的事项。Ogier，我也知道。Pillsbury，是的。至于你提到的另一实体，抱歉，我不记得他们。\n\n问：好的。就所有这些实体而言，你在二月至今期间是否发现任何你打算提出的其他请求？\n\n答：我想谨慎回答，因为，请记住，就 G Club 而言，我们的第一项诉因是寻求另我或另我（听不清）认定。只有在我们未能成功取得该认定时，才会涉及欺诈性转让。因此，我们尚未重点关注针对 G Club 的欺诈性转让请求，因为我们首先希望尝试获得另我认定。所以，你知道，我不能说在欺诈性转让方面没有更多内容，因为那不是我们针对 G Club 的重点。至于其他实体，我确实不愿向你作出明确答复，因为有 280 名被告，所以我不了解其中每一个人。但我想不到诸如，哦，存在另一项针对（听不清）的（听不清）或类似情况。就这方面而言，我想不到任何事情。\n\n问：因此，就你今天在此所知，你不知道可以提出任何额外请求——我们先不谈 G Club，我们将逐一讨论——就你今天在此所知，你不知道可以针对 FFP 提出任何额外请求？\n\n答：针对——有 280 名被告，所以我不能——我不知道，因此我不愿向你答复说肯定没有。我（听不清）。\n\n问：那么，再问一次，关于 Ogier，就你今天在此所知，你知道是否有针对 Ogier 的任何额外请求？\n\n答：没有任何实质性的，也没有任何已提请我注意的。\n\n我想说明的是，林赛先生（Linsey）的律师事务所总体上正在处理该流程，因此他们可能正在审查并发现额外转让，而他们不会在需要提交修正起诉状之前将每一美元都提请我注意。因此，截至目前，他们尚未要求我针对（听不清）提交修正起诉状。\n\n法院：斯克拉兹律师，在你继续之前，我想确保记录清楚。你刚才询问的两方当事人，第一方是 FFP；对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：正确，法官阁下。是。\n\n法院：第二方是 Ogier；对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：Ogier 拼写为 O-g-i-e-r。\n\n法院：好的。很遗憾，为了记录，我们确实需要这样做，所以我可能必须请你——我的意思是，既然你已经说出了这两个名称，这非常有帮助。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：当然。\n\n法院：如果你谈及你所代理的其他被告，我请你为记录拼写其名称。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：没问题，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n斯克拉兹律师询问：\n\n问：那么，下一名被告将是 Pillsbury Winthrop，拼写为 P-i-l-l-s-b-u-r-y W-i-n-t-h-r-o-p。这是一家纽约律师事务所。你知道是否有针对 Pillsbury 的任何额外请求？\n\n答：再说一次，我——我所知道的是，没有人要求我批准提交修正起诉状。这是我在现阶段能向你提供的最佳信息。\n\n问：就 Weddle Law 而言，拼写为 W-e-d-d-l-e，你知道是否有针对 Weddle Law 的任何额外请求？\n\n答：我会给出相同答复；据我所知，目前没有计划提交主张额外请求的修正起诉状。\n\n问：谢谢。现在，你提到，债务人在二月之后仍持续阻碍你获取账簿和记录。是这样吗——我是否正确理解了你的证词？\n\n答：我认为被问的问题是，债务人的阻碍是否影响了我们，并在二月之后持续影响我们，而答案是肯定的。\n\n问：好的。那么让我们稍微分解一下。自二月延期命令作出以来，债务人是否阻碍了你的调查？\n\n答：嗯，只要他们每天未提供其账簿和记录，他们就在阻碍我们；这是看待此事的一种方式。\n\n问：什么——\n\n答：不是在——抱歉。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n问：债务人本人具体做了什么？他一直在狱中，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：自二月延期命令以来，他做了什么，该命令仅供参考，日期为——其 ECF 编号为 2921——日期为 February 15, 2024。自 February 15th, 2024 起，除在你要求其配合时不予配合之外，债务人做了什么来阻碍你的调查？\n\n答：他持续未提供其账簿和记录。\n\n问：好的。你已经取得了各种账簿和记录，对吗，涉及债务人实体？\n\n撤回该问题。让我再问一次。你已从债务人以及你主张由债务人控制的实体取得了各种账簿和记录；这样说公平吗？\n\n答：不，我不会说有任何来自债务人的账簿和记录；至于其他实体，何为账簿和记录并不明确。我们确实从其他实体取得了商业文件。\n\n问：因此，举例而言，就——有若干实体名称前带有 HGHK 字母——你从某些 HK——HGHK 实体，例如 HGHK Technologies，取得了账簿和记录；对吗？\n\n答：我不愿称之为账簿和记录。我们从他们那里取得了显示交易情况的文件。至于这些是否确为准确、完整的账簿和记录，我无法说明。我实际上不会这样说。\n\n问：好的。有一位名为 Hofmeister（霍夫迈斯特）的人士，在一项诉讼中被指定为接管人，拼写为 H-o-f-m-e-i-s-t-e-r，你记得他吗？\n\n答：是的，我记得。\n\n问：并且达成了一项和解协议，据此，他就其被指定为接管人的实体向你移交或提供查阅权限，你记得吗？\n\n答：他让我查阅什么？\n\n问：我问的是，他是否让你查阅信息？\n\n答：他让我们查阅了他收到的信息，是的。\n\n问：好的。你与霍夫迈斯特先生达成了一项经本院批准的和解协议；对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：你从霍夫迈斯特先生那里得到了什么？\n\n答：一系列据称显示一些转让、一些付款的文件，但我认为其中没有资产负债表。没有任何可通过审查、构成真实账目的材料。\n\n问：而且——\n\n答：我们得到的是他从郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）的同事那里得到的东西。他没有编制任何账簿和记录。他只是把他们交给他的东西交给了我们。\n\n问：所以，郭先生的同事向霍夫迈斯特先生移交了信息，而后者再将其移交给你？\n\n答：他们提供了一些信息，是的，正确。是的。\n\n问：霍夫迈斯特先生是否阻碍了你的调查？\n\n答：抱歉，他是否阻碍了我们的调查？没有。\n\n问：请稍等片刻。\n\n（暂停）\n\n斯克拉兹律师：谢谢，受托人。我目前没有进一步问题。\n\n证人：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。还有其他人希望交叉询问德斯潘斯受托人（Trustee Despins）吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。既然没有听到回应，巴塞特律师，你是否要进行复询？\n\n巴塞特律师：不进行复询，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢你，德斯潘斯受托人。你的证词已结束。你作为证人可以退席。\n\n（证人退席）\n\n法院：我知道你将继续出席本次听证会，但你作为证人可以退席。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n录入日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n德斯潘斯先生（Despins）：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。巴塞特律师，你是否希望继续进行？\n\n巴塞特律师：是的，法官阁下，谢谢。\n\n法院：不客气。\n\n巴塞特律师：再次为记录说明，我是代表 Chapter 11 受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。法官阁下，另外，正如我之前所说，除德斯潘斯受托人的证词外，我们认为，本 Chapter 11 案件及相关对抗诉讼中的整体记录，与今日提交本院审理的动议高度相关，正如其与二月提交本院审理的动议相关一样；因此，本院可以对该案卷和该记录进行司法认知。\n\n因此，将本案记录与德斯潘斯受托人的证词结合起来，这便构成我们支持该动议的证据。就此，我建议转入辩论程序。我很乐意这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法院：请继续。\n\n巴塞特律师：非常感谢。因此，法官阁下，我会尽量简要陈述，因为我认为并没有任何新的内容需要讨论，而这些内容并非我们在二月就受托人首次申请延长提起撤销诉讼期限的动议举行听证会时已经讨论过的。\n\n本院在该命令中，即于 February 15th, 2024 作出、ECF 编号为 2921 的命令中，作出了两项主要结论。第一，本院依据《联邦破产程序规则》9006(b)，批准受托人请求，将其提起撤销诉讼的截止期限从 February 15th, 2024 延长至 August 15th, 2024。第二，本院在该命令中认定其不同意并驳回受托人关于对诉讼时效截止期限适用衡平法中止的请求；但是，本院明确作出该决定并不妨碍受托人日后针对任何特定对抗诉讼被告就诉讼时效提出的任何论点，提出衡平法中止的能力。\n\n法官阁下，无论是基于时间的推移、自二月份以来发生的中间事实和情形，还是基于法院收到的任何异议，均不存在任何理由支持作出不同于法院二月份已作结论的结果。我确实要强调，如果被告在对抗诉讼程序中提出诉讼时效问题，受托人绝对拟在适当时候主张衡平停止时效，但我们尊重法院就此作出的裁定，并将相应保留一切权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 400 页，共 500 页\n\n法官阁下，我将用剩余时间回应某些异议方提出的具体论点。再次强调，依我看来，没有任何新内容。我认为这些论点大体可分为两类。第一，异议方重申了其先前提出的论点，即法院不应能够运用 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b) 延长提起撤销诉讼的截止日期。第二项论点实质上基于事实记录，有些当事方采取的立场是，未发生任何情况，或者记录中不存在任何足以证明进一步延长提起撤销诉讼截止日期正当性的事实。\n\n关于第一项论点，即关于 9006(b)，法官阁下，我再次认为该问题已经裁决。法院在其首份延期命令中仔细分析了这一问题及相关判例法。法院在进行该分析后，最终正确地认定，时效期间通常不具有实体性，因此，法院有权基于衡平原则运用 Rule 9006(b) 延长 546(a) 规定的时效期间。\n\n在作出该决定时，法院明确审议并拒绝遵循相反的判例法，尤其包括 Tancredi 法官（坦克雷迪法官）在 In re Walnut Hill（核桃山）案中作出的裁决，异议方仍持续援引该裁决。法院还在其批准受托人请求、将提起撤销诉讼的截止日期延至 August 15th, 2024 的决定中明确指出，(无法辨识)该命令，但该日期可在通知及听证后进一步延长；这正是我们今天来到这里的原因，法官阁下，即就将该截止日期进一步延至 February of 2015 [sic] 举行听证。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 401 页，共 500 页\n\n法官阁下，法院此前命令中就该问题作出的所有决定今天仍然正确，不应予以变更。某些异议方试图描述为新论点的唯一论点，是基于 Supreme Court（最高法院）近期在 Purdue Pharma（普渡制药）案中作出的裁决的论点；但法官阁下，该裁决没有任何内容影响法院的分析。\n\n在 Purdue 案中，最高法院认定，破产法院——即该案中的 Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）——不能批准非经同意的第三方免责，因为国会并未根据 Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）授权此类免责，而且此举无疑会影响对其他当事方享有债权的当事方的实体权利。重要的是，应当注意到，法院意见书末尾有整整一节，法院在其中非常明确地提醒其裁决范围的狭窄性。法院称，引用，“与我们今天所裁决的问题同等重要的是我们未作裁决的问题。”随后，法院认定，引用，“限于所提出的问题，我们仅认定，破产法典并未授权作为 Chapter 11 重整计划一部分的免责和禁令；该免责和禁令实际上试图在未取得受影响债权人同意的情况下免除对非债务人的债权。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 402 页，共 500 页\n\n因此，法官阁下，法院今日面临的问题显然不涉及非经同意的第三方免责，因此，在我们看来，Purdue 对法院的决定没有影响。\n\n现在，即使法院非常谨慎地试图澄清其裁决范围的狭窄性，Purdue 可以被认为确立了更广泛的原则；我至多会主张，它可以被认为确立如下命题：破产法院不得以不符合 Bankruptcy Code 的方式运用其衡平权力，从而影响实体权利。\n\n并且，法官阁下，法院已处理并裁决了该问题；我们在答复状中提出了这一点，即此处的诉讼时效不具有实体性，因此法院并未修改实体权利。\n\n现在，如果被告方对 Purdue 的宽泛解读是正确的，其影响将远比他们所称的更为广泛，因为按照我对其异议的理解，他们实际上是在说，法院永远不得运用衡平权力影响诉讼时效；这同样将适用于衡平停止时效。这也适用于破产情形之外。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 403 页，共 500 页\n\n我认为，不可能对 Purdue 案作出任何合理解读，从而可以说最高法院意图废除诉讼时效的衡平停止时效；这对该裁决的解读过于宽泛，我认为它当然无意——无意产生该等效果。\n\n法官阁下，除 9006(b) 论点以及我所谓的 Purdue 叠加因素外，异议方真正提出的唯一其他论点是，依其看来，相关情形不足以证明延期正当。法官阁下，我谨主张，基于受托人今天作出的证言、基于本案记录，以及基于他二月份作出的证言，记录充分支持受托人所请求的有限进一步延期。\n\n而且，从今天的交叉询问可以看出，异议方提出的一点是：嗯，这种妨碍行为都发生在案件初期，债务人一直在狱中；他此后并未积极妨碍受托人的调查。但这并不属实，因为已经发生的妨碍行为以及本案独特且非常情形在于，我们有一名债务人，也有一名与债务人有关联的个人，他们从未配合受托人的调查。他们从未提供在任何案件中通常应当提供的账簿和记录。这持续妨碍受托人的调查。因缺乏配合而产生的所有问题，并不会在本年 February 15th 之后神奇地消失，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 404 页，共 500 页\n\n受托人还就其持续开展的勤勉努力作了证言。他就其团队从 Rule 2004 调查中收到的数千份文件、其团队获得进入权限的属于 Golden Spring（金泉）的仓库中的文件，以及刑事审判中的数千件证物作了证言；其中所有材料他目前甚至尚未获得查阅权限。他谈到了其团队尽可能勤勉审阅这些文件的程序。\n\n受托人还谈到了他对刑事审判总体情况的监测，以及这与其调查的相关性。他谈到了 Kroll（科尔）正在进行的银行账户分析，该分析是二月份广泛作证的主题。法官阁下，所有这些工作仍在进行。所有这些都需要时间。所有这些仍持续受到本案独特且非常情形的影响。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 405 页，共 500 页\n\n法官阁下，关于受托人调查的勤勉程度，我最后要回应的一点是围绕中止破产案件动议的论点，(无法辨识)。法官阁下，那是受托人提出的一项动议。您今天听取了他说明提交该动议的理由。法院批准了该动议。就此而言，我谨主张，法院认定该动议符合破产财产的最佳利益。其他当事方，包括今天在场的异议方，如果认为该动议不适当，均有机会提出异议。\n\n并且，法官阁下，受托人这样做有非常充分的理由。如果不以该方式进行，潜在后果将是就破产案件的全面中止与债务人进行争执；如果受托人在刑事审判进行期间无法继续开展其任何工作，那将是一场灾难。因此，他作出了近期决定，提交该动议，而法院批准了该动议。\n\n法官阁下，我最后将简要回应的论点，是 Meta（元平台公司）和 Apple（苹果公司）提出的论点；他们称，再次强调，没有证据表明他们自身曾采取任何行动妨碍受托人的调查。而且——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3602 于 10/01/24 提交 于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记 第 406 页，共 500 页\n\n就此而言，法官阁下，我只想请法院参阅首份延期命令第 14 段已经作出的裁决，法院在其中称，引用，“本破产案件在衡平停止时效方面呈现一种相当不同的(无法辨识)，而在典型情形中，通常是债务人的行为而非被告的行为引发衡平停止时效。在某种意义上，这对被告并不公平。”\n\n法院援引判例支持该观点，包括 Middle District of Florida Bankruptcy Court（佛罗里达中区破产法院）的 Fundamental Long Term Care（基础长期护理）案，该案已在本意见中被引用。\n\n因此，法官阁下，关键不在于某一特定撤销诉讼被告是否妨碍了受托人的调查；而在于，是否总体上存在妨碍，致使受托人无法在 Bankruptcy Code 通常规定的时间内完成其调查。\n\n因此，法官阁下，基于所有上述理由，我们谨请求法院再将提起撤销诉讼的截止日期延长六个月，至 February 15th, 2025。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。\n\n谁希望先进行，即先陈述其异议？我们有——我们有 Yan 律师、Sklarz 律师。还有其他人要提出一项\n\n就该动议提出异议的辩论？金律师：法官阁下，Greenwich Land 被告方也已提交异议，因此我将保留至最后；如果——法院：哦，是的。金律师：——如果严律师和斯克拉茨律师已涵盖所有问题，那么我无需重复陈述。法院：谢谢您，金律师。我刚才一时遗漏了——把您的异议放错地方了。对此我表示歉意。好的。那么，斯克拉茨律师、严律师，谁愿意先进行陈述？斯克拉茨律师：请严律师先讲。严律师：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。如法官阁下在此前准许受托人所请求延期的裁定中所指出，根据规则 9006(b)，一个（听不清）考量因素是对被告造成的不利影响。现在，我要说的是，我们不同意法院的分析，但我认为我们无需就 9006(b) 的论点重复陈述。在本案中，我们与将成为被告以及可能受受托人请求法院作出的命令影响的其他一些被告处境不同。我们处境不同，是因为 Meta（元宇宙平台 Meta）和 Apple（苹果公司）已经被起诉；它们在此前获准延期之前就已被起诉。在那些案件中，我们已花费金钱和费用提出驳回动议，并提交了若干其他文件。因此，我们与那些虽然是目标对象、但尚未必须采取任何行动的人处境不同。身份不明的发言人：（听不清。）严律师：抱歉，请继续。\n\n另一点与此有些关联，即我们已向法院提出异议，我看不出我们与被排除在上一次命令之外的其他一些被告或当事人有何不同，例如 UBS（瑞银集团）和 Sotheby's（苏富比），它们也提出了异议并被排除在外。如您已听到受托人所说，他已确认对 Meta 和 Apple 可能存在额外的权利主张，他称这些并非实质性权利主张，但已经六个月了。他在上次延期之前已提出这些权利主张，却尚未对这些权利主张采取任何行动。我们不知道。他没有说明，除已获准的六个月延期外，他是否还需要额外时间，即再延长六个月，才能对 Apple 提出任何额外主张。还有一个根本公平的问题，即受托人可以保留其有关衡平中止时效以及所有（听不清）论点的全部论点；此外，他还获得这项命令，称是的，他可以在再延长六个月内及时提交；而我们则受到不利影响，因为在该命令作出后，我们不能再提出该论点。因此，为什么他可以得到双重保障，而我们这些没有做错任何事的人，却在有关受托人权利主张为何已过时效的论点方面遭受致命打击。基于这些理由，我们仅请求——法院：请等一下。我能否就在这里打断您一秒钟，以确保我理解您的论点？严律师：当然。法院：当您说，对于他的衡平中止时效论点，您们遭受致命打击时，您是在提出这一点吗，律师？我只是想确保我理解。严律师：不是衡平中止时效论点。我只是说，他可以提出他的衡平——如果我们——如果他提出衡平中止时效论点——我们稍后会谈到这一点——我认为该命令不影响这一点，但他已经会占据优势，因为他可以拿出该命令并说，如果我们提出其权利主张已过时效的论点，他可以说，好吧，看，我有法官作出的命令，称就你们而言，该论点不再成立。法院：嗯，我认为这不正确。严律师：所以，我只是——\n\n法院：我认为这不是该命令所说的内容。因此，也许我需要您向我指出这一点，因为我相信该命令所说的是，在这些复杂、合并、行政合并的 Chapter 11 案件和对抗程序的非常具体且不寻常情形下，准予延期，而且我并未前瞻性地命令受托人可以主张衡平中止时效。我相信该命令所说的是，当有人在驳回动议或其他书状中提出该问题时，受托人可以主张衡平中止时效。因此，我完全看不出这如何会使您遭受致命打击，所以我想确保我没有遗漏您的要点。严律师：当然。我想，我的要点是，法官阁下，他为什么需要这个？因为他的权利受到保留，他始终可以提出衡平中止时效论点。法院：不过，他需要什么？我没有给予他想要的东西，所以我不知道您——我想，这就是我感到困惑的地方。我没有在原命令中给予他想要的东西。我没有说他前瞻性地有权主张衡平中止时效；我没有这样说。我说的是，根据各方均援引的判例，除非且直至在因诉讼时效已经届满而提出驳回案件的动议时提出该问题，否则衡平中止时效的适用不会发生，也不会成为问题。这就是该命令所说的内容。严律师：明白。明白，法官阁下。我的要点是，他为什么需要比这更多的东西？他可以——该论点已被保留。如果他能够提出该——法院：我不知道他是否确实需要比这更多的东西。严律师：这就是我的要点，法官阁下，他为什么需要这项额外命令？法院：嗯，那是时间问题。时间与衡平中止时效不同，律师。他请求的是额外时间。我没有——他请求额外时间以提起诉讼请求，好吗。我没有听到巴塞特律师——但也许是我遗漏了，这就是我停下来问这些问题的原因——我没有听到巴塞特律师提出请求，而且我认为我也没有在文件中看到，但也许我——您知道，我可能遗漏了，因为如您肯定能够理解的，本案和对抗程序中提交了大量文件，但我没有听到巴塞特律师请求我前瞻性地命令，自此以后，受托人有权主张衡平中止时效。\n\n我没有听到他这样请求。巴塞特律师，您是否请求我这样做，因为如果您请求了，我遗漏了。巴塞特律师：我没有，法官阁下；事实上，法院已就该问题作出裁定。法院：好的。谢谢。那么，这就是我向您提出的问题，严律师。我目前在文件中看到的唯一问题是，受托人请求延长提起诉讼请求的时间。我已就衡平中止时效问题作出裁定。因此，您说您不知为何已——对此我表示歉意——我想您用的词是“遭受致命打击”，我对此有些困惑。我看不出您如何遭受这种打击。因此，请向我解释。我不希望您不告诉我。我只是不能确定我理解您的论点。严律师：当然，法官阁下。我认为这——让我回到这个论点。我认为我真正想表达的要点是，我们处境不同，因为他不需要更多时间；他已经对我们提出了权利主张，所以我认为，让他获得额外时间以增加其已对我们提出的权利主张并不公平。法院：嗯，您不认为《联邦民事诉讼规则》会处理这个问题吗？如果他试图增加权利主张或提出新的诉讼请求，您可以采取任何必要行动，前提是他确实这样做。而且我认为您问过他——我理解您为什么这样问——是否存在针对 Apple 和 Meta 的任何额外权利主张——抱歉，是 Meta——而他的回答是“他能想到的并非实质性权利主张”，这就是我听到的回答。但《联邦民事诉讼规则》会以某种方式处理此事；要么他将提出动议修改起诉状，而如您已经承认，该起诉状是在适用法定期限届满之前提交的，要么他将提出新的诉讼请求。无论哪种情形，您要么会反对修改动议，要么会提出驳回动议。这就是《联邦民事诉讼规则》的运作方式，对吗？我的意思是，我对您的论点有些困惑，因为您——不过，我同意您们的处境不同，因为您们的客户是在任何适用法定期限届满之前被起诉的。因此，从这一角度看，我认为无论发生什么就发生什么，《联邦民事诉讼规则》确实适用，您和受托人将根据适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》提出你们各自的论点，然后法院将据此处理。严律师：如果他将在同一案件中提出这些主张，我认为这有道理。我们担心的是，而且我们没有在文件中看到或从受托人那里听到的是，他们打算提起民事诉讼。因此，八个月之后，他是否打算对我们提出新的权利主张？我们不知道，因此我们希望保留对该项主张提出异议的权利。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为您完全正确。我看不出您会如何——在我看来，我此前的命令确实为您保留了该权利。也许我是错的，但该命令称，受托人无权获得前瞻性的衡平中止时效，而且该问题即使出现，也将在一方提出并提交驳回动议、主张诉讼时效已经届满时出现。\n\n严律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：因此，我看不出您的权利如何没有受到保留。但这并不意味着我是对的，律师；我只是告诉您，这是法院的观点。您可以根据您认为适当的方式处理。\n\n但此前的命令非常——我试图在极短时间内非常明确地说明，受托人提起诉讼请求的权利获得延长，是因为我认为并认定和裁决，规则 9006 并未禁止该延期，因为那些法定期限是除斥期间，不影响当事人的实体权利。基于多项因素，包括 Young 一案，在该案中，斯卡利亚大法官撰写意见，\n\n多数意见认为，这些法条并非实体性法条；它们不影响实体权利。因此，无论如何，我要对你说的是，我理解你所说的内容，但我认为你受到保护。你或许不这样认为，我完全尊重这一点，但这就是我继续作出裁定的原因——该判决的表述就是如此。\n\nYAN先生（阎先生）：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我并未禁止任何被告主张存在某种诉讼时效问题。\n\nYAN先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n或许正是在这一问题上，我们没有看到您刚才所阐明的那种程度的保护，这就是我们请求将我们排除在该命令适用范围之外的原因。\n\n法院：那么，您所说的是，您希望我作出裁定——我只是想确认一下——就 Apple（苹果公司）和 Meta（Meta公司）而言，如果准予延期，该延期不适用于它们？\n\nYAN先生：正是如此，法官阁下。\n\n法院：嗯，如果我同意您的意见——我尚不确定我是否会同意——但对于修改现有诉因，我不会同意您的意见。现在，这并不意味着您不能反对修改，但是，显然，《联邦民事诉讼规则》允许对现有诉因作出修改，直至审判结束后仍可修改。因此，就该问题而言，我认为我将就 Meta 和 Apple 作出决定的唯一问题，是 Meta 和 Apple 是否被排除在任何新增诉因之外。这就是我将作出的决定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 录入，第 416 页，共 500 页\n\nYAN先生：我认为您的表述完全正确，法官阁下。我同意。\n\n法院：好的。很好。我感谢这一点。我无意打断您，因此如果您还有更多要论证的内容，请继续。我只是想——我只是想确保我理解您所主张的内容。\n\nYAN先生：不，我们感谢您，法官阁下，这就是我要说的全部内容。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Sklarz律师（斯克拉兹律师），您希望接下来继续吗？\n\nSKLARZ律师：是的，请允许，法官阁下。法官阁下，在近40年一系列未曾中断的判例中，从 Northern Pipeline（北方管道案）到 Granfinanciera（格兰芬南谢拉案）再到 Stern（斯特恩案）和数月前刚被援引的 Purdue（普渡案），美国最高法院一贯认为，除非《破产法典》明确允许某项救济，破产法院不得基于填补空白的规定，或基于国会未表示该等事项不得实施，而创设实体性救济。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 录入，第 417 页，共 500 页\n\n因此，在 Purdue 案中，Section 1123 中没有任何内容规定破产法院不得授权非自愿的第三方免责。但是，美国最高法院仍明确指出，该等免责不被允许，因为法典对此保持沉默，而且允许该等救济将违背法典的具体规定，即 Section 1141 和有关免责的规定。\n\n在此，当然，鉴于法官阁下的裁定，Purdue 案是在其后作出的；但根据 Purdue 案，并在该背景下加以分析，规定诉讼时效的适用条款 Section 546 规定时效为两年。该条款对于是否可以延期未作规定。破产法典中没有任何内容规定可以延期，也没有任何内容规定不得延期。\n\n因此，受托人援引 Rule 9006，并在其答辩状第5页——抱歉，是其答辩状第5段——将其根据 Rule 9006 所请求的内容称为“衡平延期”。这绝非衡平延期。\n\n正如法官阁下刚才与 Yan 律师讨论的那样，关于诉讼时效的衡平问题，我们知道有三项延长诉讼时效的主要原则：衡平中止、欺诈性隐瞒以及发现规则。这里的情况，具体而言，是使用一项规则，而非一项法条；但我们姑且称其为一项规定，而非一项普通法规定，也不是存在于衡平法抽象领域中的某种事物，而是一项具有普遍适用性的成文规则，用以延长已有具体规定的诉讼时效 Section 546。因此，这恰恰是 Purdue 所警示的做法。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 录入，第 418 页，共 500 页\n\n再次，Purdue 案中的反对意见作出了与受托人完全相同的观察。反对意见四十多次提及衡平救济或“equity”一词的某种变体，其论点是，免责和和解付款解决了那些问题，并确保阿片类药物受害者获得公平且衡平的赔偿。这当然是一个好的论点，但这不是多数意见。\n\n多数意见另有表述。其称，面对如此多与其法律解释相悖的迹象，反对意见中的计划支持者转而诉诸政策论点。\n\n这正是此处发生的情况。这是一项政策论点，即由于所有这些并非明文规定的其他事项，诉讼时效可以被延长。受托人对衡平延期的请求必须基于 Purdue 案所述的完全相同理由而失败。法典绝对没有为一项成文诉讼时效提供前瞻性延期的机制。\n\n而且，我认为鉴于 Purdue 案及其如今的具体程度，我有必要简要转向法院在2月裁定中的三项主要认定。我不想——法官阁下已经作出裁定，而我只是——我认为在 Purdue 的背景下，这有些不同。因此，据我理解，法官阁下裁定 Rule 9006 适用的三项主要理由是：《规则授权法》并不因传统衡平原则而阻止 Rule 9006 的适用。鉴于 Purdue 案，这一点尚不明确。这是第一点。第二点，诉讼时效属于程序性事项，因此受《破产规则》管辖。第三点，法典中关于诉讼时效的规定，只有在 Title 11 案件提出后才产生。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 录入，第 419 页，共 500 页\n\n回过头来——请允许我对此稍作展开。因此，回到《规则授权法》问题。实质上，《规则授权法》及其相关判例法规定，只要没有具体规定说你不能——你不能这样做，你就可以适用这一原则——你可以适用传统的中止原则。正如我们讨论过的，传统的中止原则包括衡平中止、发现规则和欺诈性隐瞒。\n\n使用 Rule 9006 前瞻性地延长时效，换言之，正如法官阁下所解释的，延长提起诉因的期限不同于衡平中止。我百分之百同意。这与衡平无关。\n\n这关乎的是：你能否通过《规则》填补空白，将法典中任何地方均未写明的一项延期规定嫁接进去？鉴于 Purdue 案，尚不明确如何能够采用一种据称属于衡平的方法，从《规则》中提取填补空白的规定并适用于此处。目前并无人主张享有衡平中止的权利；正如我们刚才讨论的，该论点已被保留。也无人主张存在前瞻性的欺诈性隐瞒、发现规则的违反，或其他传统的普通法中止原则。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 录入，第 420 页，共 500 页\n\n受托人援引 Rule 9006。他并未援引衡平原则来支持其关于 Rule 9006 的论点。\n\n转向诉讼时效属于程序性还是实体性的问题。抱歉，我不——因此，首先，我们援引——我只提及 G Club（G俱乐部）的书面陈述，因为那是在主案中。我们在四个对抗程序的书面陈述中提出的论点实质上相同，只是结构略有不同。\n\n在 G Club 的第6页，我们援引第二巡回法院在 Enterprise Mortgage（企业抵押案）中的裁定，该裁定解释称，就权利如何影响案件中的某人而言，实体性与程序性的分析，不同于为法律选择目的而判断某事项属于实体性还是程序性的分析；后者才是该实体性、程序性分析的来源。我们已在本案中就此作出书面陈述。\n\n随后，Enterprise Mortgage 案中，第二巡回法院解释称，判断程序性与实体性时，必须从被告的角度看待。因此，在这里，被告、我的当事人，或任何尚未被起诉，甚至不知道自己将被起诉的人——或许在场的任何其他人，我们并不清楚——从他们的角度来看，两年期限已经届满。因此，对于他们而言，对于截至今日尚未被起诉的当事人而言，根据 Enterprise Mortgage 案，这是一项实体性权利，而非程序性权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 录入，第 421 页，共 500 页\n\n随后，我们还援引 Aetna Life（安泰人寿案），其引证为 391 F.3d 401，主要载于我们在 G Club 中书面陈述的第6页——该案适用的是 Sarbanes-Oxley（听不清）——其审查的是 Sarbanes-Oxley Act（萨班斯-奥克斯利法案），但其也援引了美国最高法院的 Landgraf（兰德格拉夫案），并解释称，恢复先前因时效届满而受阻的请求权，具有不被允许的溯及既往效力，即溯及既往地延长诉讼时效，并增加被告对过去行为承担的责任。\n\n当时存在一项法律——问题在于该法律是否被溯及既往地适用。这里，该法律不能被溯及既往地适用。法律并无任何变更。这里存在的是一项填补空白的规定，即 Rule 9006，用以将诉讼时效前瞻性地延长。如果国会不能通过一项法案这样做而又未将其具体规定，我们就不能以其他方式这样做。这正是 Purdue 案所说的。\n\n最后，关于 Section 546 是否因其只有在 Title 11 案件提出后才产生而受中止原则约束；同样，在这一点上法院已经作出裁定。法官阁下适用了 IDB（按读音记录）而非 Butcher（布彻案），但我仍认为，我们现在需要根据 Purdue 案来审视这些案件。依我看来，Purdue 案似乎表明这不是应当采用的分析，而应采用 Butcher 案的分析。我们援引了——\n\n法院：但是 Purdue 案中没有任何地方说应当采用 Butcher 案的分析——\n\nSKLARZ律师：哦，不，不，不，不。\n\n法院：——而且，事实上，在 Butcher 案中、在 Butcher 案所属巡回区内的所有法院均不遵循 Butcher 案。如果 Purdue 案这样说，请告诉我，因为我认为它根本没有提及 Butcher 案。它从未提及该案。\n\nSKLARZ律师：哦，我同意，Purdue 案并未援引 Butcher 案。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nSKLARZ律师：它所做的是适用类似的分析，即文本分析。你阅读文本。文本很明确。文本适用。然后，我们在书面陈述中就此援引了其他判例，比我们在先前书面陈述中援引的更多，采用\n\n法典的其他规定。抱歉，法官阁下？\n\n法庭：不，我没有任何问题。请继续。\n\n斯克拉兹先生（Mr. Sklarz）：好的。那么——如果可以的话，请给我一点时间，法官阁下？\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：我只需要确认一下我是否还有其他内容。\n\n（暂停）\n\n斯克拉兹先生：简要转向事实论证的依据。无论法官阁下同意我的意见，还是同意受托人的意见，我认为我们都可以一致认为，前瞻性地延长诉讼时效期间是非常罕见的。本案已经这样做过一次。正如法官阁下所指出的，法官阁下已基于非常具体的事实认定，该非常救济具有证明力。如果法官阁下不同意我就 Purdue（普渡）论点及我们提出的论点所持的意见，我仍然认为，他们无法满足法官阁下在二月份裁定中对其施加的举证责任。Kwok先生（郭先生）所为或不为，已不再具有任何非常之处；事实上，经审查，我们知道已有大量信息被移交。这些信息的移交速度可能没有受托人所希望的那么快，但这并不构成某种形式的阻挠。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 423 页，共 500 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 424 页，共 500 页\n\n例如，受托人称政府尚未移交该信息。政府未移交信息是否构成政府的阻挠？当然不是。\n\n在交叉询问中，受托人表示每天都会出现更多信息。这在几乎每一项金融欺诈调查中都属实。\n\n此前，法官阁下认定存在非常情况。我们必须审视此后发生的情况。而我们今天尚未听到任何具有非常性质的内容。Kwok先生聘用的人员没有再提出抗议或采取其他行动。也不存在资金短缺——而资金短缺是上次中止时效期间的主要理由。\n\n法庭：嗯，我想在这里打断您一下。我甚至不认为先前的裁定中提及过抗议，而且我也不确定是否提及过资金短缺，除非那是提出异议的当事方所提出的一项论点，即该论点应以某种方式说服法庭，认为受托人并未勤勉行事，因为他没有资金聘请法务会计师。\n\n因此，为明确起见，当您谈及事实依据以及受托人无法满足其举证责任时，关于抗议的论点，我甚至不认为曾被提及。当然，我可能记错了；该命令中可能提及过。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 425 页，共 500 页\n\n斯克拉兹先生：我——\n\n法庭：但关于资金问题，即资金不足，那是提出异议的当事方为向法庭证明或说服法庭受托人并未勤勉行事而提出的一项主张，而事实上我作出了完全相反的认定。我认定，对法庭而言，显然受托人已进行了超过合理程度的勤勉努力。因此，我不认为有关资金和／或抗议的论点具有说服力。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：这正是我的——我并不是说它具有说服力；我要说的是，那些事实如今并不存在。我记得 Kwok先生曾就资金不足问题询问受托人。据我记得，他表示，他没有聘请法务会计师，是因为其律所不愿与法务会计师按比例平等分摊款项，因此他推迟了聘请。但我们作出——\n\n法庭：不，那根本不是证词；事实上，证词是，他没有聘请该会计师，是因为该法务会计师要求获得报酬——\n\n斯克拉兹先生：对。\n\n法庭：——而遗产中没有资金支付该法务会计师，并且该法务会计师不愿承担风险，即在一个无清偿能力的遗产中，法务会计师必须与所有其他行政债权人分享。这是——那是我对证词的记忆。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：我想我的记忆不同，但是——\n\n法庭：哦，您可能是对的，但我只是说那是我的记忆。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——这可能并不重要。这被记录下来是有原因的——\n\n法庭：对。\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——而我的观点是，目前这并非特别相关。受托人今天所提出的是，我有很多工作要做，工作很艰难，而且数量很多。我非常同情确实有大量工作要做，但我们所谈论的是满足法官阁下在裁定中设定的标准，即非常情况。我想，第一次如果发生了，那就是非常情况。第二次是巧合。如果到了第三次，也许那就是一种运作方式。我不知道“非常”何时不再是“非常”。但是，当然，我们——我不确定为什么我们现在要根据受托人的动议，在国会规定应为两年的诉讼时效期间上再增加整整一年。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 426 页，共 500 页\n\n因此，我认为，即使法官阁下审理事实问题，其程度也未达到法官阁下在先前裁定中所裁定的非常程度（听不清）。\n\n但是，法官阁下，我很乐意回答任何问题；否则，我的陈述至此结束。\n\n法庭：谢谢。目前我没有任何问题，斯克拉兹律师，谢谢您。Kim律师（金律师），您希望发表意见吗？\n\n金先生（Mr. Kim）：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nAustin Kim（金奥斯汀）代表 Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）被告。\n\n仅就 Yan律师（严律师）提到的内容补充几个细节。您知道，从我方立场看，此处正在发生的是，受托人试图在无需首先寻求衡平中止救济的情况下取得该项救济；其次，衡平中止是逐案作出的，因为它取决于事实，而受托人所寻求的是一项一揽子命令，该命令某种程度上使受托人无需逐案证明其为何应实际获得衡平中止救济。\n\n因此，对于衡平中止，您知道，这是逐案、基于具体事实的分析。受托人所寻求的，本质上是第一次为期六个月的衡平中止，现在第二次又寻求为期六个月的衡平中止，基本上依据的是相同事实。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 427 页，共 500 页\n\n因此，您知道，受托人确实就自二月份以来已作出的额外努力提供了一些证言，但受托人为说明为何有必要再延长六个月而提出的大部分事实，是一年前已经存在的事实，或六个月前已经存在的事实。因此，我在此并非质疑受托人在为进行调查所作努力中的勤勉程度，但这并不只限于受托人的勤勉；问题是，那又如何？自二月份以来出现了什么如此非常的情况，以至于法庭应行使其酌处权，在受托人未证明有何新情况的情况下，以一揽子方式将诉讼时效期间再延长 25 percent？\n\n诸如“嗯，我们收到了 400 份文件或 700 份文件或 20,000 份文件”之类的模糊陈述，这很好，但那又如何，对吧？我们不知道这些文件何时收到，不知道进展如何，而且我只是认为，允许受托人继续零星地、一概地取得衡平中止救济，并将其适用于坦率说不在场或尚未被列名的当事方，或者仅基于可能存在某些问题的猜测，是不公平的。\n\n因此，基于该理由，我方坚持最初的异议，即我们不同意法庭先前的裁定，即诉讼时效期间第 546 条可以因我先前发言的同仁已经提及的相同理由而延长，我方陈述至此。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 428 页，共 500 页\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Bassett律师，您有任何答复吗？\n\n巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：有，法官阁下，简要答复。\n\n因此，我将先回应斯克拉兹律师的一些论点。我认为，在其陈述的前半部分，他几乎完全聚焦于 Purdue案。并且，您看，我理解法官阁下有意抓住最高法院（Supreme Court）的一个备受关注的裁决，并某种程度上将其转化为与本动议有关的重要事项，但我确实不认为是这样。\n\nPurdue案不可能与本案更加不同，尽管斯克拉兹律师试图作出相反的描述。Purdue案涉及给予非债务人免责；这是《破产法典》的一个基本问题，而我认为（听不清）无论人们是否谈论这些问题。\n\n本案中，法庭被请求延长诉讼时效期间，而法庭已认定该事项属于程序性、非实体性事项。在一方面的 Purdue案与法庭在本动议背景下面临的情形之间，不可能存在更大的鸿沟。这还需要结合最高法院就其裁决的狭窄性所作的明确说明加以考虑。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 429 页，共 500 页\n\n法院非常谨慎地表示，其在该案中所讨论的是第三方免责，以及在非合意情形下此类免责的允许性。\n\n而我认为斯克拉兹律师没有说——因为他无法这样说，或者如果我们确实就衡平中止发生争议，他日后可能会回来提出这一论点——但如果您将其论点推至逻辑终点，他实际上是在说，最高法院在 Purdue案中就非合意第三方免责所作的裁决，意在表示，对国会制定的法定诉讼时效期间进行衡平中止永远不被允许。这是他所说内容的逻辑延伸。他谈到反对意见以及最高法院多数意见未考虑的衡平论点。这基本上就是他将该论点引向的方向。我认为，不存在对 Purdue裁决的任何合乎逻辑的解读，能够将其理解得如此宽泛，法官阁下。\n\n现在，关于事实——并且，为完整起见，法官阁下，第 9006(b) 条以及围绕法庭是否有权延长期限的所有法律论点，没有任何其他新内容。法庭的分析及其裁决是正确的。没有作出任何介入性的判例。没有其他理由需要重新审视该分析，因此，我们请求再次作出相同的命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3602 于 10/01/24 提交，于 10/01/24 09:51:43 登记，第 430 页，共 500 页\n\n关于各方提出的事实论点，斯克拉兹律师，关于（听不清），我相信 Kim律师也是如此——我认为斯克拉兹律师描述该问题的方式是，本案情形用其原话说，已“不再非常”。\n\n法官阁下，我不确定这是什么意思。本案的情形要么是非同寻常的，要么就不是；我认为，基于受托人自本案开始以来所遭遇的阻挠程度，任何人都无法面不改色地主张本案并非极其非同寻常。债务人在本案中声称申请破产时，我认为，其名下现金仅有 3,000 或若干美元，尽管他一直过着亿万富翁的生活。受托人不得不剥开每一层面纱，试图弄清这些空壳公司何在、这些资产实际由何处持有，以及名义上由谁持有。这些银行账户和其他交易位于何处，能够说明债务人真实财务状况的性质？\n\n债务人从未配合。他从未提供账簿和记录，而这至今仍影响着受托人的调查。本案现在是、并且一直都是非同寻常的。这种情形并未于 2 月 15 日停止。异议方论点的谬误在于，认为本案所有的阻挠及所有独特情形\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 432 页，共 500 页\n\n必然能够在自 2 月 15 日至今的六个月内得到克服，但如受托人所作证的，事实并非如此。\n\n而且，法官阁下，在法院作出的命令所涉背景下，延长时效期间的审查标准是受托人是否勤勉。法官阁下已认定其确已勤勉。我认为，今日的证词仅表明该等勤勉仍在持续。受托人表示，他会在尽可能早的时候提起诉讼。他及其团队正勤勉努力地追查其他 Rule 2004 审查对象。他们正在查阅刑事案件的文件：受托人及其团队正在审阅两万余份文件。Kroll（克罗尔）团队仍在分析银行账户；如本案属于债务人予以配合的正常案件，所有这些本应予以提供——债务人本应提供其账簿和记录的查阅权限。\n\n但受托人仍在继续开展所有这些工作。他已明确作证其在努力中一直勤勉；法官阁下，我认为，该事实记录再次结合本案自始以来的背景，充分支持受托人所请求的进一步延长。\n\n如法院没有任何问题，我此时没有进一步陈述。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n法官阁下。\n法院：\n谢谢。\n我没有任何\n问题。\n严律师（Attorney Yan），还有其他事项吗？\n斯克拉兹律师（Attorney Sklarz）？\n或者——我失去所有人的联系了吗？\n哦，没有，斯克拉兹律师仍然\n在线。\n或者金律师（Attorney Kim），您是否希望作出\n记录在案的陈述？\n斯克拉兹先生：\n只是，法官阁下，我不知道您是否\n希望我提交——我不知道是否有必要，但我当然会——我们在辩论中讨论过的任何先前庭审记录的引述，\n涉及\n受托人在本案刚开始时所做的工作。\n法院：\n从我的角度看，\n没有必要，谢谢。\n斯克拉兹先生：\n还有非常简要地说，我从未\n主张 Purdue（普渡）排除了衡平停止期间；恰恰相反，\n我所说的是，受托人的论点并非衡平性质。\n该论点是依据一项规则提出的，并未援引法院的衡平、真正的衡平管辖权，\n后者将通过普通法原则予以援引，例如\n衡平停止期间。因此，我只是想确保这一点\n明确。\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n法院：\n谢谢。\n还有其他人希望进一步陈述吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3602\n提交日期 10/01/24\n登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43\n\n金先生：\n法官阁下，如不提及一点，我就会有所疏漏——\n（听不清）\n法院：\n金律师，我先打断您一下，\n以便明确发言的是您。\n那么，金律师，您请继续。\n金先生：\n是的，我是代表 Greenwich Land Defendants（格林尼治地产被告方）的奥斯汀·金（Austin Kim）。\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n法院：\n不，没关系。\n金先生：\n我是代表格林尼治地产被告方的奥斯汀·金。\n我想提出的最后一点是，\n受托人所提出的大部分内容，都是关于阻挠或隐瞒的模糊主张；但这些恰恰是衡平停止期间或欺诈性隐瞒等衡平法原则已经存在的原因。因此，受托人得到完全保护；例如，如果 700 份文件中的某些文件，或者无论多少份文件，确实揭示出在 8 月 15 日之后提起额外对抗程序的某种依据。\n因此，受托人不需要法院作出额外命令，实质上给予其六个月的宽限，使其无须就任何特定案件证明适用衡平停止期间的理由，因为无论案件已经提起还是尚未提起，他们在每个案件中都享有该等权利。\n因此，我们仅认为，出于对异议方以及尚未到庭的个人的衡平考虑，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 435 页，共 500 页\n\n受托人没有必要获得这种额外保护，即无需基于某项阻挠主张证明其负担，因为 2 月提出的同一论点正是今日提出的同一论点。我的意思是，它大概会在明年 2 月再次被提出。\n\n在某个时候——我并不是说本案会永远持续下去——但在某个时候，我认为两年的时效期间是出于特定原因而设定的。他们已经获得了 25 percent 的延长。现在，他们正在寻求 50 percent 的延长。在某个时候，我认为法院应要求受托人履行其职责，并让他知道：如果你能够证明，确实是阻挠导致延误并妨碍获得提起对抗程序所需的信息，那么你已经享有这些权利；而不是预先说，嗯，我们认为存在阻挠，我们正在查阅信息，而 Kroll 正在花时间四处调查。\n\n我认为，这不足以构成理由基础，以实质上全面给予他们衡平停止期间；我的陈述完毕，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。关于延长期间的动议，即延长提交撤销诉讼期限的第一份补充动议，ECF 3329，我将保留审议并相应作出裁定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 436 页，共 500 页\n\n谢谢诸位。\n现在，我们将转入所提及的紧急动议，即授权提供资金以维护 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）的命令。\n对于出席第一项事项的当事人，如你们不希望留下，完全可以离席；但也欢迎你们在整个听证期间留下。\n谢谢。\n身份不明的发言人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n林西先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n我将就修正后的紧急动议\n进行陈述。我是代表 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）的帕特里克·林西（Patrick Linsey）。\n法院：\n好的。\n林西先生：\n修正后的紧急动议已在主案中\n提交，但涉及 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）对抗程序 23-5017 中存在争议的事实。该对抗程序针对 Taurus Fund 及其共同被告提起，涉及位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）Mahwah 的一座价值 \\$26-and-a-half-million 的庄园，该庄园由债务人于 2021 年 12 月购置。\n自法院在该对抗程序中作出初步禁令\n起，直至债务人的刑事审判，诸被告一直为马瓦庄园的安保及其他费用提供资金。这些费用是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3602 提交日期 10/01/24 登记日期 10/01/24 09:51:43 第 437 页，共 500 页\n\n巨大的。马瓦庄园室内面积约为 50,000 平方英尺，占地约 12 and a half 英亩。马瓦庄园安保服务的费用约为每周 \\$14,200。该物业的房地产税费用约为每季度 \\$70,000，诸被告也一直为此提供资金。\n\n受托人预计还将产生其他费用，包括（听不清）等。为遗产利益保全马瓦庄园的价值至关重要，因此受托人提出本动议，请求根据《破产法典》授权为这些费用提供资金。\n\n法院已在其关于初步禁令的裁定中认定，债务人是马瓦庄园的受益所有人并对其实施控制的可能性较高。法院还在初步禁令中指出，在一段时期内，债务人曾将马瓦庄园提供给其他个人和实体使用，以致该物业常有第三方出入。这凸显了维持安保的重要性，鉴于先前常到访该物业之人可能造成损害的威胁。\n\n如法院所知，初步禁令要求诸被告雇用安保服务。在债务人的刑事审判之后，Taurus Fund 告知安保服务的管理人，Taurus Fund 将不再提供资金。尽管受托人认为 Taurus Fund 违反了初步禁令，但鉴于受托人预期通过该对抗程序，法院将以判决确认该庄园为遗产财产，保全该物业的价值十分重要。\n\n事实上，根据债务人刑事审判中的证据，受托人关于该物业属于遗产财产的主张，如今比法院作出初步禁令并在其中作出相关认定时更为有力。\n\n还有一点我遗漏了，即我们从马瓦对抗程序中的诉讼程序得知，马瓦庄园目前未投保；这再次进一步说明，必须采取措施确保该物业得到妥善保护。\n\n受托人的动议请求根据《破产法典》第 363(b) 条授权使用遗产财产支付马瓦庄园的费用，上限为 \\$300,000。我们寻求该项救济，是因为我们尚未取得确认该物业属于遗产财产的判决。受托人希望 \\$300,000 的上限将\n\n为在取得关于该不动产所有权的判决所需期间内产生的任何费用提供充足资金。若该上限需要调整，拟议命令中设有相应机制。为明确起见并为记录在案，我们依据 363(b) 提交动议，因为根据法院尚未作出的裁定，该不动产尚不属于破产财产；但是，一旦该裁定作出，受托人理解，我们将不再需要依据 363(b) 获得本命令所请求的救济，因为届时维持该不动产的付款将属于正常经营过程。该动议还规定，若受托人在对抗程序中未能取得马瓦庄园（Mahwah Mansion）属于破产财产的判决，则破产财产将对金牛基金（Taurus Fund）享有一项债权，金额为已预付的费用，并以马瓦庄园的价值作为担保。这是因为目前金牛基金根据初步禁令负有支付相关费用的义务，但其并未如此履行。为明确起见，在一种假设情形下，我们不认为这种情形会发生，但若破产财产的请求未获支持，金牛基金将因破产财产支付这些费用而获得不当得利。受托人还指出，其所请求的救济并不解除被告根据初步禁令所负的义务；同样，本动议是出于实际需要。\n\n法官阁下可以就这些事项作出进一步命令，我们也可以继续申请进一步命令；但从实际角度而言，受托人负有维护破产财产价值的义务，而这正是我们通过本动议所做的事情。\n\n昨日，金牛基金提交了对该动议的答复，同意受托人所请求的救济，如 ECF 3392 所载拟议命令所规定。自提交该动议以来，受托人与美国受托人（United States Trustee）的律师进行了协商，后者建议将拟议命令中依赖援引定义的术语，在拟议命令中明确定义；受托人同意这很合理。\n\n因此，若法院倾向于批准该动议，受托人拟议的做法是提交一份经修订的拟议命令，明确界定通过援引纳入定义的首字母大写术语；注明金牛基金已提交答复，表示其不反对该命令所请求的救济；并明确说明今日举行了听证会。我们可以提交该命令——受托人当然可以最迟于明日、如非今日稍晚时提交该命令；如果法院希望我们以其他方式提交，我们也可在抄送马瓦被告及美国受托人的情况下，将其发送给布里奇波特（Bridgeport）法庭书记员。\n\n对此，我愿意回答法院可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法院：目前我没有任何问题，谢谢。\n\nLinsey（林西）先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望就该动议发表意见吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师，就拟议命令而言，您是否同意 Linsey 律师所说的内容？\n\nClaiborn 女士：是的，法官阁下。美国受托人不反对该动议。\n\n法院：好的。我已审阅拟议命令——还有其他人希望发表意见吗？抱歉，我不想打断任何人。\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。我已审阅拟议命令，并且我理解，Linsey 律师，假定我将批准该动议，您将作出一些修改。我认为您刚才所述的修改没有问题。我认定无人对您的动议提出书面异议。金牛基金昨日确实提交了一份文件——我相信是昨日——其中称其不反对该动议，但反对其认为动议中对金牛基金行为的某些措辞构成错误描述。\n\n我认为，鉴于本案的非常具体情形，以及法院在主案和受托人对金牛基金及相关被告提起的对抗程序中注意到的与马瓦庄园有关的问题，所请求的救济在此情形下是合理且必要的。我们已经审查了对抗程序中的问题，包括该不动产未投保这一事实，以及该安保公司是作为初步禁令命令的一部分而受聘的。我知道受托人目前并未推进与初步禁令有关的任何问题。\n\n基于上述所有理由，修订后的命令动议获准。Linsey 律师，您将在明日或后日提交该命令吗？我只需要向书记官办公室给出一个日期，以便他们留意该命令。\n\nLinsey 先生：我们将在明日提交，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。您可以直接将其提交至布里奇波特法庭书记员的电子邮箱。您无需将其登记在案件案卷中。\n\n因此，该动议获准，经修订的拟议命令将于 8 月 14 日或之前提交。\n\nLinsey 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。现在，关于那两项——现在，Despins（德斯潘斯）受托人，我一时想不起来了，抱歉。我想我已经在这里坐了几个小时了，但您一开始曾说过，您认为有一项事项需要列入日程，而现在我想不起来那是什么了，因为刚才是马瓦庄园事项。还有其他事项吗？\n\nDespins 先生：嗯，没有。有关于——\n\n法院：对，状态会议。是的，这很合理。\n\nDespins 先生：——日程安排的状态会议。\n\n法院：那是日程上的第四项事项。还有另外两项——状态会议的请求获准，已列入日程。但让我们花一点时间讨论 Genever（杰内弗）诉 Kwok（郭文贵）的对抗程序；此前该事项已数次延期，但今日未予延期。\n\nDespins 先生：是的。\n\n法院：您是否预期——哦，您是否计划继续推进该事项？\n\nDespins 先生：没有，法官阁下，我们在此事上有所疏忽。我们本也应当将其延期。我们将确保完成此事。因此，该事项不应继续推进。对此我们表示歉意。\n\n法院：没关系。那么，您将提交一项动议，确定新的——将审前会议延期至未来新的日期？\n\nDespins 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么我们只会记载该会议已经举行，但原告将提交，我想，一项动议或其他文件——将提交——您上次提交的是什么，是真正的动议吗？我想是的，一项动议，以便——\n\nDespins 先生：一份同意书，是的。\n\n法院：——经同意延期听证会。\n\nDespins 先生：是的。\n\n法院：因此，我认为您将提交另一项动议，并建议一个延期后的审前会议日期，可以吗？\n\nDespins 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：好的。因此，审前会议已经举行，但将再次延期至一个待定日期，可以吗？\n\nDespins 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。因此，日程上的最后一项事项是状态会议，那么请继续——关于金牛基金对抗程序。请继续，Despins 受托人。\n\nDespins 先生：Bassett（巴塞特）先生将处理该事项，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBassett 先生：法官阁下，是的，再次说明，我是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法官阁下，对于一次状态会议而言，我们所处的情况有些不同。正如法院所记得的那样，我们在请求召开状态会议的申请中概述过，关于包括马瓦对抗程序在内的各项诉讼，命令规定，在刑事审判结束后，债务人可以提交一份通知，表明其恢复对抗程序的意图，之后各方有七天时间就拟议日程进行协商。\n\n我们已将拟议日程发送给被告律师 Conway（康威）律师。他确认收到，但未告知我们其对日程的立场。我们在七日期限届满前跟进联系他，请求召开状态会议，但仍未收到任何消息，因此我们随后请求召开状态会议。我们至今仍未收到他的任何消息。\n\n我们唯一收到的消息是，他就我们刚刚讨论完的另一项动议提交了一份答复，称其今日事务繁忙，因此不会出席听证会。因此，我们正在仅有一方当事人出席的情况下举行状态会议。\n\n从受托人的角度而言，法官阁下，我们已向被告律师表明的意图，是尽快在对抗程序中推进简易判决。我们已开展了一些证据开示工作。我们还非常密切地关注了刑事审判，并从该审判中收集了额外信息，拟用于支持简易判决。我们认为没有任何理由延迟朝该方向推进，而且我们未收到被告律师的任何反对意见，也完全没有收到其任何回应。\n\n因此，这就是我们打算做的。我认为，法官阁下，我们在所提交的请求召开状态会议的文件中曾表示，预计将在 19 日前提交动议，随后给予被告两周时间作出回应，然后我们将在一周内提交答复。我认为我们可能会这样做，并且可以提交一份拟议日程安排命令，但出于对我团队中正在处理……的同事的尊重\n\n就该动议而言，我们可能需要额外几天，因此我认为我们将提出一项时间安排，即我们将提交该动议，答复期限为14天，随后答辩期限为7天。\n\n这就是我们拟采取的程序——\n\n法庭：\n不，我认为我们通常对动议规定21天的答复期限；这是地区法院的地方法规。\n\nBASSETT先生（巴西特先生）：\n可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n鉴于资金及其他问题，我们曾向辩护律师提出在此情况下迅速推进，但我们愿意采用21天期限。\n\n我唯一想指出的另一点，是为了让法庭知悉，尽管我们未收到律师就我们的请求、即就我们拟议时间安排的回复，\n\n但我们确实收到通知，得知他们提交了一项撤回移送的动议——\n\n法庭：\n是的，我看到了。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n——于周五晚上提交。\n\n法庭：\n并且该事项已转交地区法院。我想可能是今天转交的。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n案件22-50073，文件3602，于10/01/24提交，于10/01/24 09:51:43录入，第448页，共500页\n\n好的。我只是想确保法庭知悉此事。显然，在我们看来，若在法官阁下面前进行简易判决书面陈述程序，并由此作出将由上诉法院审查的裁决，无论如何，我们都会在需要时处理该撤回移送动议；但我们不认为这会对我们在法官阁下面前如何推进造成任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。CONWAY先生（康威先生）可能不同意，但我相信我们会在他的书面文件中处理这一问题，或者不会。那我们就看看事态如何发展。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n法官阁下，容我发言？我是第11章受托人Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。\n\n关于21天期限，我们能否——因为我感觉我们不会再收到CONWAY先生的消息了。我可能错了，但是——\n\n法庭：\n您可以请求缩短期限；是的，您可以在时间安排中提出该请求。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n或者，如果他打算提交某些文件，那么他应有21天期限；但如果他不打算这样做，我不想毫无意义地等21天。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n所以我不能保证——\n\n法庭：\n根据地区法院地方法规，期限为21天，因此，如果您希望缩短期限，您必须提出申请。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。BASSETT律师，关于本次状态会议，今天下午我们还有其他可以处理的事项吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：\n没有，法官阁下。非常感谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。目前我不会安排另一次状态会议。您只需采取您认为适当的任何行动，包括如您所提到的，很可能继续推进简易判决，好吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。关于——我们现已处理今天日程上的所有事项，但正如我们在有多个事项的听证会结束时经常所做的那样，我询问受托人或任何当事方：当事方是否有任何其他问题希望与法庭讨论？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n唯一的一点，法官阁下——谢谢，我是第11章受托人Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）——是我们可能需要、但我目前尚不确定，需要协助将Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）的产权以受托人的身份转至我名下；为投保起见，我需要具有可保利益。我们正在处理此事的技术层面，但我们可能需要，例如，一项法院命令，指示，比如说，城镇（听不清）或类似机构采取行动，但我们希望避免这一切。我们正在与Greenwich Land被告方（Greenwich Land Defendants）就一项协议进行磋商，我认为其中所有事项均已达成一致，根据该协议，将于August 20th移交占有权。因此，如有任何情况发生，将是在现在至August 20th之间，但希望不会发生。我们只会向法官阁下提交一项经协议或经同意的命令。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。还有其他人——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n——希望就今天下午的任何事项发表意见吗？\n\n（无人作口头答复）\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，谢谢各位。今天的听证至此结束，这些也是今天日程上的最后事项，因此现在休庭。\n\n律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n书记员：\n现在休庭。请原谅。\n\n（程序于下午3:24结束）\n\n案件22-50073，文件3602，于10/01/24提交，于10/01/24 09:51:43录入，第450页，共500页\n\n案件22-50073\n文件3602\n于10/01/24提交\n于10/01/24 09:51:43录入\n第451页，共500页\n\n96\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力，上述内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling\nAugust 19, 2024\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J·加林），CET-543\n认证法庭记录誊写员\n代表Reliable（可靠）\n\n附件6\n\n替代起诉书\n\n说明　收益比例\n\n为加强和发展GILV而收购公司　约70%\n升级GTV技术和安全性　约10%\n市场营销　约8%\n营运资金　约7%\n其他　约5%\n合计　100%","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Shroff","Miles Guo","Despins","Fergenson","Kamaraju","Himalaya","Horton","Murray","Himalaya Exchange","GTV","Kwok","CIPA","HCHK","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Saraca","CCP","forfeiture","Farm Loan","Chinese Communist Party","RICO","William Je","Finkel","Torres","Analisa Torres","Pryor Cashman"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":4,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":17,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":47,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":58,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":108,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":109,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":113,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":124,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":147,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":307,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":389,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":390,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2849,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2921,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3329,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3381,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3392,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3422,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":126581,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-10-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-10-01","updated_at":"2026-08-24 00:48:26"}