{"id":"court_ctb_400_4","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":400,"sub_number":4,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2018-05-16","title":"EXHIBIT D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# EXHIBIT D\n\n### **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**\n\n| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE   | ) |                          |\n|---------------------------|---|--------------------------|\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | ) |                          |\n|                           | ) | Civil Action No. 22-1372 |\n|                           | ) |                          |\n| Plaintiff,                | ) |                          |\n|                           | ) |                          |\n| v.                        | ) |                          |\n|                           | ) |                          |\n| STEPHEN A. WYNN,          | ) |                          |\n|                           | ) |                          |\n| Defendant.                | ) |                          |\n\n### **COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF**\n\n The Attorney General of the United States of America, by and through the undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:\n\n### **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. This statutory injunction action is brought under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §§ 611-621 (\"FARA\" or \"the Act\"), to compel the Defendant, Stephen A. Wynn, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 618(f), to submit a true and complete registration statement, and supplements thereto, to the Attorney General, as required by 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b). Defendant is obligated to file these materials by virtue of his acting as an agent of two foreign principals: Sun Lijun (\"Sun\"), the former Vice Minister for Public Security in the People's Republic of China (\"PRC\"), and the PRC itself.\n\n2. Specifically, at the request of Sun, and on behalf of the PRC, the Defendant conveyed to former President Donald J. Trump and his Administration (\"the Trump Administration\") the PRC's request to remove from the country a PRC national who had sought political asylum in the United States. In so doing, from at least June 2017 through at least\n\nAugust 2017, the Defendant acted as an agent for foreign principals Sun and the PRC and engaged in political activities on their behalf in the United States.\n\n3. The Defendant therefore has an obligation under FARA to register with the Attorney General. 22 U.S.C. § 612(a).\n\n4. Nevertheless, after having been informed by the U.S. Department of Justice of this obligation in letters dated May 16, 2018, October 27, 2021, and April 13, 2022, the Defendant refused to register. Because his failure to file constitutes an ongoing violation of FARA and given the likelihood that this violation will continue in the absence of court action, a permanent injunction is necessary.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties to this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and also under 22 U.S.C. § 618(f).\n\n6. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to this action arose from events occurring within this judicial district.\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. Plaintiff is the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the nation's chief law enforcement officer and the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, an Executive Agency of the United States, and is entrusted with administering FARA. Pursuant to his statutory authority, *see* 22 U.S.C. § 620, the Attorney General has promulgated regulations delegating the responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, 28 C.F.R. § 5.1(a).\n\n8. The Defendant is a U.S. citizen, real estate developer, and businessperson who owned multiple casinos and resorts. In 2006, the Defendant opened the first of three casino properties located in Macau, which is a special administrative region of the PRC.\n\n### **FARA STATUTORY PROVISIONS**\n\n9. Among the chief purposes of FARA is to inform the American public of the activities of agents in the United States working for foreign principals to influence U.S. Government officials or the American public with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States, or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a foreign country or a foreign political party. U.S. agents of foreign principals must register with the Attorney General and make certain disclosures in the registration filings concerning their agency relationships and activities undertaken within the United States on behalf of their respective foreign principals. 22 U.S.C. § 612(a).\n\n10. Under FARA, the term \"foreign principal\" includes \"a government of a foreign country\" and \"a person outside of the United States,\" except in circumstances not applicable here. 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1)-(2).\n\n11. FARA's \"agency\" determination is a two-part inquiry that considers both (1) the relationship between the agent and the foreign principal and (2) the activities that the agent performs in the principal's interests. Agency relationships for purposes of FARA include situations where there is an indirect relationship between an agent and a foreign principal through an intermediary. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).\n\n12. As relevant here, the term \"agent of a foreign principal\" under FARA means:\n\n[A]ny person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity *at the* order, *request*, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised,\n\ndirected, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person . . . engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal [or] within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States.\n\n22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i), (iv) (emphasis added).\n\n13. FARA defines the term \"political activities\" as \"any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or foreign political party.\" 22 U.S.C. § 611(o).\n\n14. FARA does not limit the speech or political activities of its registrants, who are free to advance whatever message they wish, provided that they disclose their relationship to their foreign principal and adhere to the recordkeeping and other requirements of the statute.\n\n15. Pursuant to FARA, a person or entity who has a registration obligation has a continuing duty to register, even if the FARA-registrable conduct has ceased. 22 U.S.C. §§ 612(a), 618(e). Termination of the agency relationship does not relieve an agent of the obligation to file a registration statement. *Id*. § 612(a).\n\n### **FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS**\n\n16. In approximately May 2017, during a meeting coordinated by foreign national Low Taek Jho, Sun asked businessperson and former finance chair of the Republican National Committee (\"RNC\") Elliot Broidy, hip-hop artist Prakazrel Michel, and businessperson Nickie Lum Davis to lobby then-President Trump and the Trump Administration to convey the PRC's request to cancel the visa of or otherwise remove from the United States a PRC businessperson\n\nwho left China in 2014, was later charged with corruption by the PRC, and sought political asylum in the United States (hereinafter \"the PRC national\").\n\n17. In approximately June 2017, Broidy, on behalf of Sun, elicited the Defendant's help in the lobbying effort. Defendant served as the RNC finance chair from January 2017 through January 2018 and met Broidy through that work. Broidy believed that the Defendant's RNC experience, combined with the Defendant's business dealings in the PRC and friendship with then-President Trump, would be helpful in getting access to Trump Administration officials.\n\n18. Broidy told the Defendant that the PRC national was a criminal wanted by the PRC who was hiding in the United States, that the PRC wanted him arrested, and that his visa was due to expire soon. Broidy informed the Defendant that Broidy had received this information from Sun of the PRC's Ministry of Public Security and that Sun requested the Defendant's help in bringing the issue to the attention of the Trump Administration.\n\n19. Broidy provided the Defendant with the PRC national's passport photos, an Interpol red notice, and links to various news articles about the PRC national.\n\n20. In or around June 2017, Sun spoke by telephone with the Defendant and requested the Defendant's assistance with seeking the removal of the PRC national. The Defendant agreed to raise the matter with then-President Trump and Trump Administration officials. Defendant had no prior connection to the PRC national or independent interest in his removal.\n\n21. Also in or around June 2017, Sun, through Broidy, sought the Defendant's assistance in having the PRC national placed on the No Fly List and having his new visa application denied.\n\n> a. By text message dated June 27, 2017 to the Defendant's wife, Broidy noted that the PRC national's visa was due to expire on June 30, 2017, and asserted that \"[i]t\n\nis critically [*sic*] that his new visa application he [*sic*] immediately denied\" and that the PRC national be placed on the No Fly List.\n\n- b. The Defendant's wife received and sent text messages on behalf of the Defendant, including the above text message and others discussed throughout this Complaint. The Defendant's wife informed the Defendant of the contents of messages received and also sent text messages to Broidy and other individuals at the direction of the Defendant.\n- c. Broidy sent to the Defendant, through the Defendant's wife, a second message on\n\nJune 27, 2017, stating that\n\nPresident Xi Jinping mentioned to President Trump at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [the PRC national] returned. Vice Minister [Sun] met with me and requested help with regard to [the PRC national]. The Vice Minister told me this is a matter of upmost importance to President Jinping. He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by China and would accept a very large number of Chinese illegal immigrants for deportation back to China. Finally, he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n22. During a dinner on or about June 27, 2017 with then-President Trump and other Administration officials in Washington, D.C., the Defendant conveyed to then-President Trump the PRC's desire to have the PRC national removed from the United States and provided the\n\nPRC national's passport photos to then-President Trump's secretary.\n\n- a. After the dinner, Broidy informed the Defendant by text (through Defendant's wife) that Sun was \"extremely pleased and said that President Xi Jinping appreciates [the Defendant's] assistance.\"\n- b. On or about the following day, June 28, 2017, Broidy inquired by text with the Defendant (through Defendant's wife) about the status of the PRC national's visa and whether he had been placed on the No Fly List. Broidy's message added that\n\n\"[Sun] says they are grateful for your help.\" In response, the Defendant (through Defendant's wife) texted Broidy that \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n23. From approximately June 2017 through at least August 2017, the Defendant had several telephone calls with Sun.\n\n- a. On these telephone calls, the Defendant was connected to Sun via Lum Davis, and the discussions were conducted via a translator.\n- b. During these telephone calls, the Defendant believed Lum Davis to be Sun's assistant.\n- c. The Defendant participated in at least eight of these calls with Sun. The calls varied in length but lasted approximately thirty minutes on average.\n- d. In these discussions, Sun described the PRC national and stated that it would be very important to the PRC if the PRC national's visa was not renewed. Sun also stated that he would appreciate the Defendant's help.\n- e. The Defendant mentioned his business interests in Macau to Sun on multiple phone calls.\n- 24. On or about July 26, 2017, Defendant's wife sent to Broidy a text message asking Broidy to send to her again the documentation about the PRC national.\n\n25. Between approximately July 2017 and August 2017, the Defendant attempted to organize meetings with senior officials on the National Security Council (\"NSC\") and at the White House.\n\n- a. In or around late July and August 2017, the Defendant had contact with multiple Trump Administration officials, including two former White House chiefs of staff and two senior officials on the NSC, regarding the PRC national.\n- b. The Defendant contacted the White House Chief of Staff on multiple occasions about the PRC national during June and July 2017 and requested a meeting with then-President Trump to discuss the same.\n- c. During a late July 2017 meeting with the White House Chief of Staff and two senior NSC officials, the Defendant stated that PRC officials had contacted him and advised him that \"they were very interested in having\" the PRC national returned to China as soon as possible.\n- d. In or around August 2017, the Defendant on multiple occasions visited the White House in person to have what appeared to be unscheduled meetings with then-President Trump. Some of these discussions, including a meeting on August 25, 2017, concerned the PRC national.\n- e. In late August 2017, Broidy took Defendant and Defendant's wife on a trip off the coast of Italy on a yacht belonging to Broidy and his wife. On August 19, 2017, Broidy and the Defendant called then-President Trump from the yacht. During that call, the Defendant asked then-President Trump about the PRC national's status, and then-President Trump responded that he would look into the matter.\n- 26. The efforts to have the PRC national removed ultimately were unsuccessful.\n\n27. Sun continued to contact the Defendant through approximately October 2017, at which point the Defendant informed Sun that he had made U.S. Government officials aware of the request, that the Defendant was not able to provide any more assistance, and that Sun should\n\nstop contacting him. Defendant wanted to exit the situation gracefully, preserve his business interests in China, and avoid offending anyone.\n\n28. Defendant's conduct was motivated by his desire to protect his business interests in the PRC. In an undated text message, the Defendant told Lum Davis to advise a PRC official to have the PRC ambassador in Washington, D.C. contact two senior-level NSC officials directly. Defendant wrote in the message that he had spoken with both individuals and received assurances \"that all parties in the White House were fully sensitive to the timing of this issue and the relevant USA procedural law involved.\" Defendant went on to state that\n\n[a]t this point, as a private citizen, I believe I have exhausted the advantages of my position. If there is any other aspect of this situation may occur to you going forward, I would of course be anxious to help. I remain grateful for the privilege of being part of the Macau and PRC business community.\n\n29. According to public reporting, in 2016, shortly before the conduct described above occurred, the Macau government restricted the number of gaming tables and machines that the Defendant's casino could operate.1 Also according to public reporting, Defendant was scheduled to renegotiate his licenses to operate casinos in Macau in 2019, subsequent to the conduct described above.2\n\n<sup>1</sup> *See* James Detar, \"Wynn resorts falls as Macau restricts tables at new casino,\" Investor's Business Daily (Aug. 12, 2016).\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* Linette Lopez, \"And now it's clear how China will exploit Steve Wynn's moment of weakness,\" Business Insider (Jan. 29, 2018).\n\n### **LEGAL ALLEGATIONS**\n\n# **I. Then-Vice Minister of Public Security Sun Lijun and the PRC are foreign principals under FARA**\n\n30. As a Vice Minister for the PRC during the time period discussed above who is believed to reside in China, Sun is a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA. 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2).\n\n31. The PRC is a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA because it constitutes the government of a foreign country. 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1).\n\n# **II. The Defendant acted as an agent of then-Vice Minister of Public Security Sun and the PRC**\n\n32. Sun, on behalf of the PRC, requested that the Defendant assist in the effort to\n\nlobby the U.S. Government, including then-President Trump and the Trump Administration, to have the PRC national removed.\n\n33. Broidy, on behalf of Sun, also requested that the Defendant assist in the effort to lobby the U.S. Government, including then-President Trump and the Trump Administration, to have the PRC national removed.\n\n34. Accordingly, the Defendant acted as an agent of Sun and the PRC when he engaged in political activities on their behalf. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).\n\n# **III. The Defendant is obligated to register under FARA because he engaged in political activities at the request of then-Vice Minister Sun and the PRC**\n\n35. The Defendant is obligated to register under FARA because, through his communications with and lobbying efforts directed at then-President Trump and the Trump Administration, he engaged in political activities by seeking to influence U.S. Government officials \"with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States, or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations\" of the PRC, for or in the interests of the PRC. 22 U.S.C. § 611(o).\n\n36. The Defendant lobbied multiple people in the Trump Administration, including then-President Trump, on at least three separate occasions, to have the PRC national removed, and he did so at the request of at least one PRC official, Sun. As such, he acted as an agent of a foreign principal under FARA. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i).\n\n### **IV. The Defendant has failed to register under FARA**\n\n37. By letter dated May 16, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (\"the Department\") advised the Defendant of his obligation to register under FARA as an agent of Sun and the PRC and gave him thirty days to effect the registration. The Defendant, through counsel, sent to the Department a letter dated June 8, 2018, disputing the Department's analysis and requesting that the Department reconsider its determination. By letter dated October 27, 2021, the Department advised the Defendant that he remained obligated to register under FARA and that further investigation into the matter had strengthened the Department's determination in this regard. Defendant, through counsel, responded by letter dated December 10, 2021. By letter dated April 13, 2022, the Department reiterated its conclusion that Defendant has an obligation to register and gave the Defendant thirty days to do so.\n\n38. To date, the Defendant has failed to register as required.\n\n#### **COUNT I**\n\n### **(Violation of 22 U.S.C. § 612(a))**\n\n39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n40. By virtue of the acts described above, the Defendant acted as an agent of two foreign principals under 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1), that is, he lobbied the U.S. Government for the removal of the PRC national at the request of Sun and on behalf of the PRC.\n\n41. By virtue of the acts described above, the Defendant has an obligation to register as an agent of foreign principals pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 612(a). The Department on multiple occasions has informed the Defendant of this obligation, but he has declined to register.\n\n42. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 618(f) requiring the Defendant to register as an agent of a foreign principal under FARA and, by doing so, to submit a true and complete registration statement, and any supplements thereto, as required by 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b).\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the Attorney General of the United States of America, respectfully requests that this Court enter:\n\n- a. A declaratory judgment stating that Defendant has an obligation to register pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 612(a) for conduct undertaken on behalf of foreign principals Sun Lijun and the PRC;\n- b. A permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to submit a true and complete registration statement, and supplements thereto, as required pursuant to Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b);\n\nc. Any and all other relief necessary to effectuate fully the injunction against the\n\nDefendant; and\n\nd. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: May 17, 2022\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n MATTHEW G. OLSEN Assistant Attorney General National Security Division U.S. Department of Justice\n\n JENNIFER KENNEDY GELLIE Chief, FARA Unit National Security Division U.S. Department of Justice\n\n /s/ Nathan M. Swinton Nathan M. Swinton Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Room 7700D Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 353-0267 Email: Nathan.Swinton@usdoj.gov","body_zh":"证据 D\nUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）\n\nATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE )\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )\n) 民事诉讼案号 22-1372\n)\nPlaintiff（原告）, )\n)\nv. )\n)\nSTEPHEN A. WYNN（斯蒂芬·A·韦恩）, )\n)\nDefendant（被告）. )\n要求宣告性救济与禁令救济的起诉状\n\n美利坚合众国司法部长，通过下述签字律师，提起本起要求宣告性救济与禁令救济的民事诉讼，并指控如下：\n\n导言\n\n1. 本起法定禁令诉讼依据经修订的《1938年外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938，简称 FARA 或“本法”），22 U.S.C. §§ 611-621 提起，旨在依据 22 U.S.C. § 618(f) 强制被告 Stephen A. Wynn（斯蒂芬·A·韦恩）按照 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b) 的要求，向司法部长提交真实且完整的登记表及相关补充材料。被告负有提交上述材料的义务，系因其作为两个外国委托人的代理人开展活动：Sun Lijun（孙力军，简称“Sun”），People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，简称“PRC”）公安部前副部长；以及中华人民共和国本身。\n\n2. 具体而言，应孙力军的请求并代表中华人民共和国，被告向前总统 Donald J. Trump（唐纳德·J·特朗普）及其政府（“特朗普政府”）转达了中华人民共和国关于将一名在美国寻求政治庇护的中华人民共和国国民驱逐出境的请求。在此过程中，自至少2017年6月起至至少2017年8月止，被告作为外国委托人孙力军和中华人民共和国的代理人开展活动，并代表他们在美国境内从事政治活动。\n\n3. 因此，被告根据 FARA 负有向司法部长进行登记的义务。22 U.S.C. § 612(a)。\n\n4. 尽管如此，在收到 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）日期为2018年5月16日、2021年10月27日和2022年4月13日的信函告知该义务后，被告仍拒绝登记。鉴于其未提交登记材料构成了对 FARA 的持续违反，且在没有法院行动的情况下该违法行为极有可能继续发生，永久禁令实属必要。\n\n管辖权与审理法院\n\n5. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 和 1345 以及 22 U.S.C. § 618(f) 对本案标的及本诉讼的所有当事人享有管辖权。\n\n6. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)，本司法管辖区为本案的适格审理法院，因为引发本诉讼的作为或不作为的相当大部分均源自本司法管辖区内发生的事件。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 原告为美利坚合众国司法部长。司法部长系全国首席执法官和 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部，为美利坚合众国的行政机构）的首长，并被赋予管理 FARA 的职责。根据其法定权力（参见 22 U.S.C. § 620），司法部长已颁布法规，将管理和执行本法的职责授予国家安全事务助理司法部长，28 C.F.R. § 5.1(a)。\n\n8. 被告为美国公民、房地产开发商和商人，曾拥有多家赌场和度假村。2006年，被告开设了位于中华人民共和国特别行政区澳门的三家赌场物业中的第一家。\n\nFARA 法定条款\n\n9. FARA 的主要目的之一是向美国公众告知在美国境内为外国委托人工作的代理人的活动，这些活动旨在就美国的国内或外交政策，或就外国或外国政党的政治或公共利益、政策或关系，影响美国政府官员或美国公众。外国委托人的美国代理人必须向司法部长登记，并在登记备案中对其代理关系以及代表各自外国委托人在美国境内开展的活动进行特定披露。22 U.S.C. § 612(a)。\n\n10. 根据 FARA，“外国委托人”一词包括“外国政府”和“美国境外的个人”，除非存在本案不适用的情形。22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1)-(2)。\n\n11. FARA 对“代理”的认定属于两部分审查，既考虑 (1) 代理人与外国委托人之间的关系，又考虑 (2) 代理人为委托人的利益所开展的活动。就 FARA 而言，代理关系包括代理人与外国委托人之间通过中介机构存在间接关系的情形。22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)。\n\n12. 与本案相关的，FARA 下“外国委托人的代理人”一词是指：\n\n任何作为代理人、代表、雇员或仆从行事的人，或根据外国委托人或其任何活动全部或主要部分受到外国委托人直接或间接监督、指导、控制、资助或补贴的人的命令、请求，或在其指导或控制下以任何其他身份行事的人，且其直接或通过任何其他人……在美国境内为此类外国委托人的利益开展政治活动，[或]在美国境内向美利坚合众国政府的任何机构或官员代表此类外国委托人的利益。\n\n22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i), (iv)（强调为后加）。\n\n13. FARA 将“政治活动”一词定义为“从事该活动的个人认为将以、或意图以任何方式在制定、通过或改变美利坚合众国的国内或外交政策方面，或在外国政府或外国政党的政治或公共利益、政策或关系方面，影响美利坚合众国政府的任何机构或官员或美利坚合众国内的任何公众群体的任何活动。”22 U.S.C. § 611(o)。\n\n14. FARA 并不限制其登记人的言论或政治活动，登记人可以自由宣传其希望传达的任何信息，前提是他们披露其与外国委托人的关系并遵守本法的记录保存及其他要求。\n\n15. 根据 FARA，负有登记义务的个人或实体具有持续登记的义务，即使应根据 FARA 登记的行为已经停止。22 U.S.C. §§ 612(a), 618(e)。代理关系的终止并不能免除代理人提交登记表的义务。同上 § 612(a)。\n\n事实指控\n\n16. 约在2017年5月，在外国国民 Low Taek Jho（刘特佐）协调的一次会议中，孙力军要求商人兼 Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会，简称“RNC”）前财务主席 Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）、嘻哈艺术家 Prakazrel Michel（普拉卡兹雷尔·米歇尔）以及商人 Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）游说时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府，以转达中华人民共和国关于取消一名中华人民共和国商人签证或以其他方式将其驱逐出境的请求，该商人于2014年离开中国，后被中华人民共和国指控贪腐，并在美国寻求政治庇护（以下简称“中华人民共和国国民”）。\n\n17. 约在2017年6月，布罗伊迪代表孙力军寻求被告在游说工作中的协助。被告自2017年1月至2018年1月担任共和党全国委员会财务主席，并通过该项工作结识了布罗伊迪。布罗伊迪认为，被告在共和党全国委员会的经验，结合被告在中华人民共和国的商业往来以及与时任总统特朗普的友谊，将有助于接触特朗普政府官员。\n\n18. 布罗伊迪告知被告，该中华人民共和国国民是一名被中华人民共和国通缉且藏匿于美国的罪犯，中华人民共和国希望逮捕他，且其签证即将到期。布罗伊迪告知被告，布罗伊迪从中华人民共和国公安部的孙力军处获得了该信息，且孙力军请求被告协助引起特朗普政府对该问题的关注。\n\n19. 布罗伊迪向被告提供了该中华人民共和国国民的护照照片、一份国际刑警组织红色通缉令以及关于该中华人民共和国国民的各种新闻文章链接。\n\n20. 约在2017年6月，孙力军与被告通电话，并请求被告协助寻求驱逐该中华人民共和国国民。被告同意向时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府官员提出该事项。被告此前与该中华人民共和国国民没有任何联系，对其被驱逐出境也没有独立的利益诉求。\n\n21. 同样约在2017年6月，孙力军通过布罗伊迪，寻求被告协助将该中华人民共和国国民列入禁飞名单，并使其新的签证申请被拒。\n\na. 在2017年6月27日发送给被告妻子的短信中，布罗伊迪指出该中华人民共和国国民的签证将于2017年6月30日到期，并声称“至关重要的是立即拒绝[原文如此]其新签证申请”，并将该中华人民共和国国民列入禁飞名单。\n\nb. 被告的妻子代表被告接收和发送短信，包括上述短信以及整份起诉状中讨论的其他短信。被告的妻子将被告收到的信息内容告知被告，并根据被告的指示向布罗伊迪和其他个人发送短信。\n\nc. 布罗伊迪于2017年6月27日通过被告的妻子向被告发送了第二条信息，称\n\n习近平主席在海湖庄园向特朗普总统提及，希望将[该中华人民共和国国民]遣返。副部长[孙力军]与我会面，并就[该中华人民共和国国民]请求协助。副部长告诉我，这对习近平主席而言是至关重要的事情。他承诺释放中国扣押的某些美国公民人质，并将接收大量被驱逐回中国的中国非法移民。最后，他就朝鲜问题提供了新的协助。\n\n22. 约在2017年6月27日于华盛顿特区与时任总统特朗普以及其他政府官员共进晚餐期间，被告向时任总统特朗普转达了中华人民共和国希望将该中华人民共和国国民驱逐出美国的意愿，并将该中华人民共和国国民的护照照片交给了时任总统特朗普的秘书。\n\na. 晚餐后，布罗伊迪通过短信（通过被告妻子）告知被告，孙力军“非常高兴，并表示习近平主席感谢[被告的]协助”。\n\nb. 次日，即2017年6月28日左右，布罗伊迪通过短信（通过被告妻子）向被告询问该中华人民共和国国民的签证状态以及其是否已被列入禁飞名单。布罗伊迪的信息还补充道：“[孙力军]表示他们对您的协助深表感激。”作为回复，被告（通过被告妻子）向布罗伊迪发短信称：“此事正在由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在推进此事。”\n\n23. 自约2017年6月起至至少2017年8月止，被告与孙力军通了数次电话。\n\n- a. 在这些电话中，被告（Defendant）是通过 Lum Davis（戴维斯）与 Sun（孙力军）取得联系的，且讨论是通过翻译进行的。\n- b. 在这些电话中，被告认为 Lum Davis 是孙的助手。\n- c. 被告与孙参与了至少八次此类通话。通话时长不等，但平均持续约三十分钟。\n- d. 在这些讨论中，孙描述了该 PRC（中华人民共和国）公民的情况，并表示如果不为该 PRC 公民续签签证，对 PRC 将非常重要。孙还表示，如被告提供帮助，他将不胜感激。\n- e. 被告在多次通话中向孙提及了自己在 Macau（澳门）的商业利益。\n- 24. 2017年7月26日左右，被告的妻子向 Broidy（布罗伊迪）发送短信，要求布罗伊迪再次将有关该 PRC 公民的文件材料发送给她。\n\n25. 大约在2017年7月至2017年8月期间，被告试图安排与 National Security Council（国家安全委员会，简称“NSC”）及白宫的高级官员会面。\n\n- a. 在2017年7月下旬和8月左右，被告就该 PRC 公民事宜与多名 Trump（特朗普）政府官员进行了接触，其中包括两名前白宫幕僚长以及 NSC 的两名高级官员。\n- b. 2017年6月和7月期间，被告多次就该 PRC 公民事宜联系白宫幕僚长，并请求与时任总统特朗普会面以讨论此事。\n- c. 在2017年7月下旬与白宫幕僚长及两名 NSC 高级官员的会面中，被告表示 PRC 官员曾与他联系并告知他“他们非常希望”尽快将该 PRC 公民遣返中国。\n- d. 2017年8月左右，被告多次亲自前往白宫，与时任总统特朗普进行了看似未事先排定的会面。其中部分讨论（包括2017年8月25日的一次会面）涉及该 PRC 公民。\n- e. 2017年8月下旬，布罗伊迪带领被告及被告妻子乘坐属于布罗伊迪及其妻子的游艇在意大利海岸附近旅行。2017年8月19日，布罗伊迪和被告从游艇上致电时任总统特朗普。在那次通话中，被告向时任总统特朗普询问了该 PRC 公民的身份状态，时任总统特朗普回应称他会过问此事。\n- 26. 促使该 PRC 公民被遣返的努力最终未获成功。\n\n27. 孙继续与被告保持联系直至大约2017年10月，此时被告告知孙，他已让美国政府官员知悉该请求，被告无法再提供任何协助，且孙应当\n\n停止与他联系。被告希望体面地脱身，维护其在中国的商业利益，并避免得罪任何人。\n\n28. 被告的行为是出于保护其在 PRC 商业利益的愿望。在一条未注本日期的短信中，被告告诉戴维斯，建议一名 PRC 官员让位于华盛顿特区的 PRC 驻美大使直接联系两名 NSC 高级别官员。被告在短信中写道，他已与这两人交谈，并得到了保证，“白宫所有各方都完全意识到了此问题的时间紧迫性以及涉及的相关美国程序法”。被告接着表示：\n\n在此刻，作为一名普通公民，我认为我已经穷尽了我这一身份所能发挥的作用。如果后续您想到此情况的任何其他方面，我当然会十分渴望提供帮助。能成为澳门和 PRC 商界的一员，我依然心怀感激。\n\n29. 据公开报道，在上述行为发生前不久的2016年，澳门政府限制了被告赌场可以运营的赌台和博彩机数量。1 同样据公开报道，在上述行为发生之后的2019年，被告原定重新谈判其在澳门运营赌场的牌照。2\n\n1 参见 James Detar，《随着澳门限制新赌场的赌台，永利度假村股价下跌》（Wynn resorts falls as Macau restricts tables at new casino），《投资者商业日报》（Investor's Business Daily）（2016年8月12日）。\n\n2 参见 Linette Lopez，《现在清楚了中国将如何利用史蒂夫·韦恩的脆弱时刻》（And now it's clear how China will exploit Steve Wynn's moment of weakness），《商业内幕》（Business Insider）（2018年1月29日）。\n法律指控\nI. 时任公安部副部长孙力军和 PRC 属于 FARA 项下的外国委托人\n\n30. 作为上述讨论期间的一名据信居住在中国的 PRC 副部长，孙属于 FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）含义内的外国委托人。22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2)。\n\n31. PRC 属于 FARA 含义内的外国委托人，因为其构成外国政府。22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1)。\nII. 被告作为时任公安部副部长孙及 PRC 的代理人开展活动\n\n32. 孙代表 PRC 请求被告协助开展游说\n\n美国政府（包括时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府）以遣返该 PRC 公民的行动。\n\n33. 布罗伊迪代表孙，同样请求被告协助开展游说美国政府（包括时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府）以遣返该 PRC 公民的行动。\n\n34. 因此，被告代表孙和 PRC 从事政治活动时，充当了他们的代理人。22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)。\nIII. 被告有义务根据 FARA 进行登记，因为其应时任副部长孙及 PRC 的请求从事了政治活动\n\n35. 被告有义务根据 FARA 进行登记，因为通过与时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府的沟通及对其开展的游说努力，他从事了政治活动，即为了 PRC 的利益或为了增进其利益，试图在“涉及制定、采纳或改变美国国内或对外政策，或涉及 PRC 的政治或公共利益、政策或关系”方面对美国政府官员施加影响。22 U.S.C. § 611(o)。\n\n36. 被告至少在三个不同场合游说了特朗普政府中的多人（包括时任总统特朗普）以遣返该 PRC 公民，且他是在至少一名 PRC 官员孙的请求下这样做的。因此，他充当了 FARA 项下的外国委托人代理人。22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i)。\nIV. 被告未依法根据 FARA 进行登记\n\n37. 通过2018年5月16日的函件，U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部，简称“司法部”）告知被告其有义务作为孙和 PRC 的代理人根据 FARA 进行登记，并给予其三十天时间完成登记。被告通过其律师向司法部发送了一封日期为2018年6月8日的函件，对司法部的分析提出异议，并请求司法部重新考虑其决定。通过2021年10月27日的函件，司法部告知被告其仍有义务根据 FARA 进行登记，且对该事项的进一步调查强化了司法部在此方面的决定。被告通过其律师于2021年12月10日致函回复。通过2022年4月13日的函件，司法部重申了其关于被告有义务登记的结论，并给予被告三十天时间履行。\n\n38. 截至目前，被告仍未按要求进行登记。\n罪名项 I\n（违反 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)）\n\n39. 原告重申并援引本起诉状第1段至第38段中的指控，犹如在本文中完整陈述一样。\n\n40. 鉴于上述行为，被告根据 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1) 充当了两个外国委托人的代理人，即应孙的请求并代表 PRC 游说美国政府以遣返该 PRC 公民。\n\n41. 鉴于上述行为，被告根据 22 U.S.C. § 612(a) 有义务登记为外国委托人的代理人。司法部已多次将此义务告知被告，但他拒绝登记。\n\n42. 原告有权根据 22 U.S.C. § 618(f) 获得永久禁令，要求被告作为外国委托人的代理人根据 FARA 进行登记，并以此按 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b) 的要求提交真实、完整的登记声明及任何补充文件。\n救济请求\n\n为此，原告，即美利坚合众国司法部长，谨请求本院作出：\n\n- a. 宣告性判决，确认被告因代表外国委托人孙力军及 PRC 开展的行为，有义务根据 22 U.S.C. § 612(a) 进行登记；\n- b. 永久禁令，要求被告按照《外国代理人登记法》第 2(a) 条和第 2(b) 条（即 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b)）的要求，提交真实、完整的登记声明及其补充文件；\n\nc. 为充分执行针对被告的禁令所必需的任何及全部其他救济；以及\n\nd. 法院认为公正且适当的此类其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022年5月17日\n\n谨此提交，\n\nMATTHEW G. OLSEN\n助理司法部长\n国家安全司\n美国司法部\n\nJENNIFER KENNEDY GELLIE\nFARA 处处长\n国家安全司\n美国司法部\n\n/s/ Nathan M. Swinton\nNathan M. Swinton\n出庭律师\n美国司法部\n国家安全司\n反间谍与出口管制处\n950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Room 7700D\nWashington, D.C. 20530\n电话：(202) 353-0267\n电子邮件：Nathan.Swinton@usdoj.gov","key_entities":["CIPA","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3454,"status":"published","published_at":"2018-05-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2018-05-16","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:40:06"}