{"id":"court_ctb_404_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-03-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 02 Declaration of Ho Wan Kwok In Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 02**\n\nDeclaration of Ho Wan Kwok In Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 1 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of 109\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------X |         |             |                         |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                                |         | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| Ho Wan Kwok,                                                          |         | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                                       | Debtor. | :<br>:<br>: |                         |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------X |         |             |                         |\n\n# **DECLARATION OF MR. HO WAN KWOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CHAPTER 11 CASE AND CERTAIN MOTIONS**\n\nI, Ho Wan Kwok, being duly sworn, depose and say:\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, I commenced the above-captioned Chapter 11 case. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify.\n\n2. I submit this Declaration to provide the Bankruptcy Court and all parties-in-interest background information about me and a description of the circumstances leading up to the commencement of my Chapter 11 case. I go into some length in this Declaration to provide context for the nature of the claims against me, my unique financial circumstances, and the reasons I commenced this Chapter 11 case.\n\n3. As discussed more fully below, I filed this Chapter 11 case to: (a) create a single forum to orderly address the various competing claims asserted against me; (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate my assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what I perceive to be misunderstandings in that regard; (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims; and, hopefully (d) reach consensus\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 2 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 3 of 109\n\nwith my creditors on a fair and equitable resolution of claims and distribution of assets pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan.\n\n4. In filing this Chapter 11 case and preparing this Declaration, I am cognizant that the Court may have concerns over Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order (defined below), adverse statements made about me by PAX (also defined below), and perhaps even the political views that I have expressed publicly. There are, of course, two or more sides to every story, and this Declaration will offer my views. For reasons that will become clear, I live in continuous fear of retribution by the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\") for my outspoken criticism of its corruption and human rights abuses. Over the years, I have endured relentless attacks through meritless litigation in the United States court system funded by the CCP and its proxies and agents. My Chapter 11 case can only address the financial harm the CCP seeks to exact upon me and my family. But, the CCP wants to cause me far more than just financial harm and public embarrassment. I believe the CCP would have me assassinated at the earliest possible opportunity if imprisoned, extradited, or if my family could no longer provide me with physical security. I do not suggest that the Court or any party-in-interest now accept my views about the underlying case facts. To the contrary, this Chapter 11 case is expected to be sufficiently funded by an *unsecured* post-petition loan *with repayment priority below all prepetition creditors* – to allow a fair investigation and stakeholders to present whatever admissible evidence they deem appropriate, as part of the typical Chapter 11 process. This bankruptcy is, in other words, intended to allow a reasoned vetting of all pertinent demonstrable case facts, without prejudicing any creditor's economic rights – except to the extent that any unsecured creditor hoped to jump ahead in payment priority via a \"race to the courthouse\" which would be necessarily unfair to some.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 3 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 4 of 109\n\n5. This Declaration is in two parts. Part I provides background information about me, including a summary description of my assets and liabilities. Part II provides testimonial support for certain motions.\n\n# **PART I – BACKGROUND**\n\n# **I. My Background**\n\n6. I was born in Shandong Province, China. I currently reside in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Road, with my wife of 37 years, Hing Chi Ngok. We moved from an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York to the current address in Connecticut in March 2020. My wife and I have two adult children. My son's name is Qiang Guo and he lives in London. My daughter's name is Mei Guo and she splits her time between New York City and Connecticut.\n\n7. My family and I grew up poor. My seven brothers and I worked hard and combined our earnings – mine from a radio repair shop and my brothers' from their own small businesses – to invest in real estate development. Following the pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, I spent approximately twenty months in jail, where I was tortured, for providing financial support to student protestors. I was in my early twenties at the time of my arrest. At the same time, I witnessed the brutality of two policemen – agents of the CCP – as they shot my younger brother and left him to die. The murder of my brother, and my arrest and torture in prison affected me profoundly. While in jail, I developed many meaningful personal connections with other prisoners of conscience who had similarly been jailed for supporting the Tiananmen Square prodemocracy movement. We shared the same passion for pursuing freedom in China and I continued to maintain these relationships after my release from prison in 1991.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 4 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of 109\n\n8. In or around 1991, the Chinese government began to loosen certain rules governing society, including rules enabling private citizens to start to achieve a sort of \"quasi-private\" ownership of real property in China. While my extended family benefitted from this change, I personally could not due to my prior politically motivated arrest and detention. Any assets in China listed under my name would likely have been seized by the CCP. My extended family used the wealth it amassed to support me, which has continued to this day.\n\n9. My extended family began working with Yuda Property Company (\"Yuda\"), a company focused on commercial real estate development in the Henan Province of China. Together, the Guo family and Yuda developed the Henan Yuda Hotel and, thereafter, the Yuda International Trade Center in Henan Province's capital city of Zhengzhou. These were successful ventures that allowed the Guo family to start amassing significant wealth. My family then developed other properties in China, including the Pangu Plaza – a 7-star hotel, convention center, and residential apartment complex in Beijing. Americans may recognize the Pangu Plaza as the primary backdrop to the 2008 and 2022 Olympics in Beijing.\n\n10. The Guo family's fortune continued to grow through diversification, as it invested in finance, technology, and other business sectors. My son, in particular, played a key role in expanding the family's wealth by establishing and managing investment opportunities, including the introduction of global luxury brands to China and Hong Kong. My son is, as a result, an independent, successful, and wealthy entrepreneur in his own right.\n\n11. I left mainland China for Hong Kong in or around 2000, and became a Hong Kong citizen. While the extended family was continuing to accumulate great wealth in China, under Chinese law, as a citizen of Hong Kong, I could neither keep my Chinese citizenship, nor would I have been permitted to own assets in China.\n\n4\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 5 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of 109\n\n12. My extended family's financial success did not go unnoticed by the CCP. In 2002, my extended family acquired large tracts of land in Beijing, which became significantly more valuable when China was named the host country for the 2008 Olympics. CCP officials attempted to appropriate this land for their own personal benefit, and I reported the attempted seizure to higher-up government officials. After a lengthy fight, the land was recovered, enabling the development of the Pangu Plaza.\n\n13. In or around 2015, I began to more publicly criticize and expose the CCP's corruption, and the CCP retaliated against me as a result. On January 10, 2015, Wu Zheng (a/k/a \"Bruno Wu\") advised me that my brothers, my wife, and my daughter had all been arrested in China. Brunu Wu is closely associated with top CCP officials and is a registered foreign agent of the CCP; his media companies partnered with Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\") – the parent company of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\") – on the attempted purchase of a significant Hollywood studio; [1](#page-5-0) and he is personally bankrolling (on behalf of the CCP) the litigation efforts of numerous plaintiffs against me. In early 2015, Brunu Wu, speaking on behalf of senior members of the CCP, called me to relay that my family would be released if I stopped publicly exposing CCP corruption and threatened that, if I did not comply, INTERPOL \"Red Notices\" would be issued for both me and my son and that I would be killed. I rejected the CCP's attempt, through Brunu Wu, to silence me and continued to speak out against the CCP.\n\n14. In 2017, I significantly increased my anti-CCP campaign by using social media and U.S.-based news outlets as platforms to expose the corruption of certain high-level CCP officials.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Nancy Tartaglione, *Chinese Create \\$800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment*, Deadline, February 6, 2012 [\\(http](http)[226260/\\)](http).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 6 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of 109\n\nMy public statements exposing the corruption of the CCP received widespread coverage, in the United States and abroad. In addition to using social media to more readily and pervasively expose CCP corruption, I also provided information to U.S. authorities regarding CCP officials and their crimes. Out of fear for my life, I filed for political asylum protection in the United States in September 2017, and my asylum application remains pending.\n\n15. In retaliation for my whistleblowing, the CCP unleashed a multifaceted campaign to try to gain leverage over, discredit, [2](#page-6-0) threaten, and silence me.[3](#page-6-1) Those actions, described below, ultimately have driven me into this bankruptcy case. For example, on April 19, 2017, I was scheduled to do an interview with Voice of America (\"VOA\") during which I planned to expose\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Stanford University and the Hoover Institute, the NGO Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), and Alphabet's Google have all separately reported that I have been a primary target of the CCP in its global social media disinformation campaign, driven by CCP agents and thousands of China's state-controlled websites and social media accounts. *See* Carly Miller, Vanessa Molter, Isabella Garca-Camargo, Rene DiResta, David Thiel and Alex Zaheer, *Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown, Stanford Internet Observatory*, June 17, 2020 [\\(http)](http); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, and Elise Thomas, *Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests*, October 2019 [\\(htt](htt)[2.amazonaws.com/2019-](htt)\n\n[<sup>12/</sup>Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\\\_4SfDUy7](htt) [sMfNkw0\\)](htt) (indicating that the CCP's disinformation campaign against me began in April 2017); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, Elise Thomas, Albert Zhang, Dr. Samantha Hoffman, Lin Li, Alex Pascoe and Danielle Cave, *Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor*, June 2020 [\\(htt](htt)[southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-](htt)\n\n[<sup>06/</sup>Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt](htt) [XD6TCA\\)](htt) (presenting data reflecting \"a persistent, large-scale influence campaign linked to Chinese state actors on Twitter and Facebook . . . [which] largely targeted Chinese-speaking audiences outside of the Chinese mainland (where Twitter is blocked) . . . with the intention of influencing perceptions on . . . Guo Wengui\"); Joseph Menn, *Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID*, Reuters, September 9, 2021 [\\(http](http)[covid-2021-09-08/\\)](http) (reporting that security experts at FireEye and Alphabet's Google have observed a coordinated, misinformation campaign on social media in support of Chinese government interests targeting me). As these independent sources confirm, no person in the world has been the target of more attacks by the CCP's social media warfare.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> The abusive tactics employed by the CCP against me, as a Chinese dissident living in the United States, are not unqiue. Recently, federal prosecutors alleged that \"[a] Chinese spy hired a private investigator to use violence if necessary to end a candidate's run for Congress, instructing him to 'beat him until he cannot run for election.'\" *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *Chinese Agent Proposed Violent Means to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says,* Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2022 [\\(http](http)[with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\\\_inline\\)](http).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 7 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of 109\n\nthe CCP's ownership interest in HNA Group Co. The CCP took a number of actions to try to prevent me and VOA from proceeding with the interview. First, two days before my scheduled VOA interview – and just as Brunu Wu threatened – the CCP had an INTERPOL \"Red Notice\" based upon fabricated criminal charges issued seeking my arrest and extradition to China. Second, the CCP threatened retaliation against VOA and its reporters in China if VOA proceeded with my interview, asserting that the interview constituted interference in China's internal affairs. Third, the day before the interview, PAX (a subsidiary of PAG) filed a meritless lawsuit against me in New York for breach of contract. I proceeded with the interview, but VOA (succumbing to the pressures of the CCP) ordered it be cut short.\n\n16. When the CCP's early efforts to silence me failed, it resorted to trying to get me extradited to China, where I would be killed. An FBI investigation revealed that during the summer of 2017, I was the target of lobbying attempts by the CCP in the United States, utilizing a corrupt government official and a number of prominent individuals, including Macao casino owner Steve Wynn, to directly lobby President Trump and his administration to extradite me to China. [4](#page-7-0) The CCP's scheme resulted in the federal indictments and guilty pleas of the former Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee Elliot Broidy (who has since, like Brunu Wu,\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha, *Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman*, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021 [\\(http](http)[mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103\\)](http).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 8 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of 109\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me), [5](#page-8-0) lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, [6](#page-8-1) and former DOJ official George Higginbotham,[7](#page-8-2) all of whom admittedly took payments in exchange for lobbying top U.S. government officials for my extradition. China's campaign included the bribery and corruption of a senior DOJ Headquarters official (George Higginbotham) who was found with almost \\$75 million in bank accounts that he controlled – making it one of the biggest espionage and corruption scandals in DOJ history. The CCP also targeted me in various other ways starting that same year, including by: hacking the server of the law firm that filed my asylum application in September 2017, extracting my highly sensitive information from that application, and then publicly disseminating it across the internet; bringing and funding (including several through Brunu Wu) numerous spurious litigations against me, some of which remain active today; and detaining, torturing, and imprisoning many of my family members and former colleagues.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National, October 20, 2020 [\\(http](http)[investigation-and\\)](http) (stating that \"Broidy also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A – a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Elliott Broidy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-1\"></span><sup>6</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Hawaii Businesswoman Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China, August 31, 2020 [\\(http](http)[campaign-drop-1mdb\\)](http) (stating that \"Lum Davis and others also agreed to lobby the Administration and Justice Department on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A — a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Nicki Lum Davis is attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-2\"></span><sup>7</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, November 30, 2018 [\\(http](http)[banks-about-millions\\)](http) (stating that \"Higginbotham further admitted that another purpose of the lobbying campaign was an attempt to persuade high-level U.S. government officials to have a separate foreign national, who was residing in the United States on a temporary visa at the time, removed from the United States and sent back to his country of origin\"; I am that \"separate foreign national\"). A copy of the \"Factual Basis for Plea\" as to George Higginbotham is attached hereto as Exhibit C.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 9 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 10 of 109\n\n17. Since 2017, the CCP has also frozen and seized family assets and purported assets in China and Hong Kong, making it impossible for me even to maintain a bank account.[8](#page-9-0) The CCP has made it its mission to destroy anything I create and to block me from dealing with financial institutions. I spend much of my time serving as an unpaid informal advisor or spokesperson to various entities, including entities that expose the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses. My family, and particularly my son, provides for my needs. Prior to the Petition Date, my son's family office, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\" or the \"Family Office\"), purchased, among many other things, my clothing, food, and sundries. I do not have access to a GSNY credit card or to a GSNY bank account. My family retains ownership of nearly everything I use, aside from my clothing and mobile phones. I do not own the Greenwich, Connecticut residence; it is owned by my wife through Greenwich Land, LLC. I hold the interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment in trust for my son.\n\n18. My family has advanced me loans (some documented, others not) to fund my significant litigation costs which allows me to defend myself against the many suits initiated by, or at the behest of, the CCP. As of the Petition Date, GSNY has extended to me approximately \\$21 million in loans to pay for my litigation costs. As discussed below and described in my Statement of Financial Affairs (the \"SOFA\"), I am a defendant and/or claimant in over 30 lawsuits pending in the United States and abroad. It is publicly known that the CCP utilizes its proxies to\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> On October 23, 2018, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance (the \"HK High Court\"), entered the *Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere* (the \"HK Restraint Order\"), dated October 18, 2018. The HK Restraint Order targeted HK\\$3.7 million of funds on deposit at the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC Bank) allegedly belonging to me. Billions more of funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong, of individuals and entities purportedly subject to my \"effective control\" (according to the HK Restraint Order) were also frozen and/or seized. The HK Restraint Order prohibits all dispositions of assets by the named \"respondents\" (which includes me). Anyone coming into receipt of my assets following entry of the HK Restraint Order is supposedly in violation of it and is subject to fines and imprisonment.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 10 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 11 of 109\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China.[9](#page-10-0) The cost of retaining lawyers, experts, vendors, interpreters, and other professionals in connection with such litigations has been extraordinary.\n\n# **II. My Liabilities**\n\n19. I have, to the best of my knowledge, reflected the current state of my liabilities in my filed Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (the \"Schedules\") and SOFA. The Family Office assisted me in preparing these documents, as did Verdolino & Lowey, P.C., an independent financial advisory firm with considerable experience preparing bankruptcy schedules and statements of financial affairs. As reflected in those documents and described further below, I am named as a defendant in 21 lawsuits and owe considerable amounts for litigation costs.\n\n# **A. PAX Litigation.**\n\n20. PAX, a Hong Kong investment fund – whose parent PAG partnered with CCP agent Brunu Wu's media companies to purchase a Hollywood studio – commenced actions against me in New York and the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\"). As I mentioned before, PAX's New York Supreme Court action was filed on April 18, 2017, the day before my VOA interview to expose CCP corruption. PAX's claim principally concerns collection on a disputed debt.\n\n21. In 2008, PAX made a \\$100 million loan (the \"PAX Loan\") to a Chinese entity called Spirit Carter. The \\$100 million loan came in two tranches: (1) a \\$30 million initial loan secured by a personal guaranty made by me, and (2) a second \\$70 million dollar loan secured by a 49% interest in the company that owns the land/development that eventually became the Pangu Plaza.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts*, Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2020 [\\(http](http)[fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112\\)](http).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 11 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 12 of 109\n\n22. In 2009, PAX received repayment of \\$100 million, acknowledged satisfaction of the loan, and further acknowledged that my obligation under the 2008 personal guaranty had been satisfied. PAX disputes that an \"accord and satisfaction\" actually occurred, and now asserts claims against me under a subsequent-dated personal guaranty that is a forgery. Prior to showing me this guaranty, my prior litigation counsel submitted it to the court in support of certain motions. When I subsequently learned of the document's existence, I stated that I believe it to be a forgery; but the court ruled that, by its prior submission, I no longer had the ability to challenge its authenticity. Consequently, on September 15, 2020, the court entered summary judgement in PAX's favor, without either allowing me to testify or conducting an evidentiary trial before a jury. The judgment, with interest, amounts to approximately \\$125 million as of today. I timely appealed this judgment to the New York Appellate Division, and that appeal remains pending.[10](#page-11-0)\n\n23. A few weeks later (on October 15, 2020), the Court issued a restraining order respecting my assets (the \"NYS Restraining Order\"). PAX, in enforcement of the judgment, focused primarily on a yacht named the \"Lady May,\" which is described further below. I do not own the Lady May; it is owned by my daughter. The boat's maintenance has always been paid for by my son. Nevertheless, on March 16, 2021, Justice Ostrager directed *me* to return the boat to New York by May 15, 2021 or face a massive daily fine of \\$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside the jurisdiction. I did have access to the boat, but I did not have the authority to order it back to New York. The Lady May never returned to New York and, as of earlier this year, the accrued contempt fine exceeded the amount of the judgment that had been entered in PAX's favor and was five or six times the stated value of the yacht. I have no ability to pay this fine.\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>10</sup> My Schedules include a potential malpractice claim against my historical litigation counsel.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 12 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 13 of 109\n\n24. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a *Final Order of Civil Contempt* (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") against me. In the February 9 Contempt Order, Justice Ostrager found that I hold a beneficial interest in and control the Lady May and ordered me to pay a \\$134 million fine to PAX within five business days or risk incarceration for civil contempt. I believe that the February 9 Contempt Order was wrongfully issued against me and have separately appealed this order to the Appellate Division. Regardless, I do not have the means to satisfy the order. I firmly believe the CCP is orchestrating the PAX case. The PAX litigation, so far, has been one of the CCP's few successes in its relentless campaign against me, by exposing me to potential imprisonment[11](#page-12-0) and forcing me into bankruptcy.\n\n# **B. Securities Litigation.**\n\n25. I am named as a defendant in seven actions related to my promotion of the sale of securities in a company called GTV Media Group, Inc (\"GTV\") and virtual currency referred to as \"G Coin\" and \"G Dollar.\" In addition to two putative investor classes, several individual investors have asserted claims against me related to losses they allegedly suffered following their alleged investments. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that I participated in a scheme to sell unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors in violation of applicable U.S. securities laws. The complaints, in the aggregate, are seeking more than \\$100 million in damages from me\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>11</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion Of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry Of An Order Confirming The Inapplicability Of The Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant To Section 362(D)(2) Of The Bankruptcy Code* [Docket No. 57] (the \"Lift Stay Motion\"). I believe that granting the relief requested by the Lift Stay Motion would cause me significant harm and materially prejudice my estate and its creditors. As indicated by PAX in the Lift Stay Motion, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order could result in my imprisonment in New York, which would materially impair my ability to achieve the objectives of this Chapter 11 case. Chiefly, if incarcerated, I will be unable to adequately and appropriately administer my estate, participate in this bankruptcy case, negotiate with creditors, appear and be heard before this Court, consult with and direct counsel, investigate and marshal the assets of the estate, or formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan. Further, I believe that PAX is under the misplaced belief that my family will pay PAX's ransom if I face the risk of incarceration; my family will not.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 13 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 14 of 109\n\nand various co-defendants, including GTV and its parent entity Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\"). I believe that those claims are without merit.[12](#page-13-0)\n\n# **C. Defamation Claims.**\n\n26. Since 2017, I have maintained a very active social media presence and posted content that is critical of the CCP, its agents, and others within its sphere of influence. Against this backdrop, certain people allegedly identified in my social media content have asserted defamation claims against me. As identified in my SOFA, I am currently named as a defendant in several defamation suits, a number of which are being funded by Brunu Wu, an admitted CCP agent and business partner of PAX's parent company. The plaintiffs in these actions have alleged, in aggregate, substantial damages.\n\n# **D. Litigation Funding Costs.**\n\n27. The costs of my prosecution of claims with monetary relief have been funded through loans provided pursuant to litigation funding agreements (the \"Litigation Funding Agreements\"). In the instances where I have to defend claims, the Family Office has advanced me loans to cover my litigation costs. In either case, the loan proceeds were directly disbursed to the law firms and service providers retained by me. Through the Petition Date, GSNY has advanced approximately \\$21 million to me for litigation-related expenses.\n\n28. In the instances in which a Litigation Funding Agreement is in place, GSNY is entitled to a premium if I am ultimately successful in asserting and recovering on my claim and\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span><sup>12</sup> These matters related to a certain settled enforcement proceeding. Specifically, in September 2021, GTV and Saraca entered into publicly announced \"no admit/no deny\" settlements with the SEC regarding the SEC's contention that the GTV offering ran afoul of Section 506 of the 33 Act (the \"SEC Entity Settlements\"). *In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al*., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021). A parallel settlement involving GTV and Saraca was also reached with the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, *In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents* (Sept 13, 2021).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 14 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 15 of 109\n\nhas asserted a security interest against certain of my litigation recoveries to secure that repayment and return on investment.\n\n# **III. My Assets**\n\n29. I am advised that, upon the commencement of my Chapter 11 case, an estate was formed consisting of all legal or equitable interests that I have in property as of the filing date, wherever located and by whomever held. I am also advised that my estate and all property of my estate is subject to the Court's jurisdiction and oversight. I, of course, accept that.\n\n30. My assets, to the best of my knowledge, are identified in my Schedules. These assets are principally clothing, food, and other minor household goods, along with litigation claims.\n\n31. As noted earlier, my family has long supported me. My family has furnished me with clothing and other sundries. Everything else I have access to – including vehicles, my residences (past and current), furniture, artwork, and electronics (except for my mobile phones) – are owned by my family members. I have use of these assets, with their permission, but I do not have any authority to dispose of any material assets without their permission.\n\n32. I am also a claimant in several cases pending in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The particulars of such litigation are disclosed in my Statements of Financial Affairs. Two pieces of litigation are worthy of note here:\n\n> a. **UBS Claims**. Before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom, I and certain co-plaintiffs have asserted a claim against UBS AG (London Branch) (\"UBS\") seeking more than \\$500 million of damages related to negligent misrepresentation and advice by UBS in connection with my attempt to cause the acquisition of, and acquire certain shares issued by, a Chinese financial institution,\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 15 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of 109\n\nHaitong, back in 2015. As recently as February 9, 2022, I received a favorable ruling establishing the jurisdiction of my claims over UBS before the courts of the United Kingdom – and not Switzerland, as advocated by UBS. Given that UBS disputed jurisdiction, a parallel litigation had to be brought before the Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority, in Switzerland, to ensure that the litigation could proceed in the event that jurisdiction was found to be lacking in the United Kingdom (it was not found to be lacking). That action in Switzerland is currently stayed pending the outcome of UBS's appeal to the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom on this jurisdictional issue.\n\nb. **Clark Hill Claims**. In addition, I have asserted claims against Clark Hill PLC and one of its members, Thomas K. Ragland (together, \"Clark Hill\"). This lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I am seeking \\$50 million in compensatory damages, and additional punitive damages, against Clark Hill for breach of its duties of legal representation. Specifically, as a result of Clark Hill's failure to adequately protect the highly sensitive information contained in my asylum application, the CCP hacked Clark Hill's server during September 2017, extracted that highly sensitive information, and then disseminated it across the internet. To make matters worse, Clark Hill succumbed to the CCP hackers' threats and withdrew as my immigration counsel. As a result, I have suffered and continue to suffer harm.\n\n33. Two other assets that I do not own warrant special discussion: (a) the Lady May; and (b) an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York City (the \"Apartment\").\n\n15\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 16 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of 109\n\n- a. **Lady May**. As mentioned above, I do not own the Lady May, though I did have permission to board and enjoy the vessel. My daughter, through HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, owns and controls the yacht. Despite the state court's findings in the February 9 Contempt Order, it was not within my power to direct the Lady May to stay in, or return to, New York.\n- b. **Sherry-Netherland Apartment**. Cooperative shares in the Sherry-Netherland apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC ( \"Genever US\"). [13](#page-16-0) The membership interests in Genever US are, in turn, held by Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\"). My son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded Genever US with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by my son and not from me. It also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered, by Justice Ostrager, to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or the Genever US bankruptcy.\n\n34. As mentioned at the beginning of this Declaration, I believe that Justice Ostrager, PAX, and perhaps others believe I have greater financial wherewithal than is reflected here and in my Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs. The wealth they believe is mine, however, actually belongs to my son, daughter, wife, and extended family, not me. But, as also noted above,\n\n<span id=\"page-16-0\"></span><sup>13</sup> On October 12, 2020, Genever US filed Chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 20-12411).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 17 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 18 of 109\n\nthis bankruptcy will allow parties-in-interest to investigate that assertion and present any countervailing evidence. Importantly, and as discussed below, the adversarial process will be funded in such a way as to avoid harm to any creditor's economic interest in the estate.\n\n# **III. Proposed DIP Financing**\n\n35. As set forth in my Schedules, I do not have resources of my own to fund the expenses of this Chapter 11 case. However, my son has expressed a willingness to fund certain costs of this Chapter 11 case. Specifically, GSNY is proposing to lend the estate \\$8 million (the \"DIP Financing\") on the terms set forth in the DIP Financing credit agreement (the \"DIP Credit Agreement\") attached to the motion to approve the DIP Financing. The DIP Financing will be used to pay for, among other things, the costs of the estate's retained professionals (both mine, and the professionals retained by an official committee of unsecured creditors and/or an examiner, if appointed) and the quarterly fees assessed by the Office of the United States Trustee. Of the \\$8 million budget, up to \\$4 million would be made available to fund the work of an Official Creditors Committee and/or Examiner.\n\n36. GSNY is offering to extend this loan on an unsecured basis, with repayment priority subordinated to all allowed general unsecured claims. Stated differently, the DIP Financing is not secured by any assets of the estate, does not require an administrative or priority claim, and will not be repaid from estate assets until all allowed prepetition claims are fully paid. This loan thus costs my creditors nothing and provides a fair opportunity for an investigation into my affairs. I do not believe that any loan provided by another lender would be on superior terms. Accordingly, obtaining this loan is in the best interest of my estate.\n\n37. I will not be given access to any of the borrowed funds. All of the DIP Financing proceeds will be deposited into a segregated deposit account (the \"Debtor Account\") established\n\n17\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 18 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 19 of 109\n\nfor the estate's benefit. Craig Jalbert of V&L (as defined below) shall be the sole authorized signatory. Disbursements from the Debtor Account will only be at the direction of V&L, solely to the extent necessary to pay the items set forth in the DIP Budget, and as authorized in the proposed DIP Financing orders, the DIP Financing documents, and other relevant orders of the Court (including orders approving professional fee applications).\n\n38. There is only one \"milestone\" covenant in the DIP Credit Agreement: Bankruptcy Court final approval of the proposed DIP Financing order within 45 days of the date that the DIP Credit Agreement is approved on an interim basis. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 6.01(a). There is only one atypical Event of Default in the DIP Credit Agreement, which is the entry of an order granting PAX relief from the automatic stay to pursue litigation against me outside of this Court. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 8.01(e). The only purpose of such litigation would be to seek my incarceration under the February 9 Contempt Order. Obviously, if such relief is granted, then I will not be able to meaningfully direct and participate in an orderly claims resolution and plan process. In such as case, my son – through GSNY – has no interest in continuing to fund the costs of this Chapter 11 case.\n\n# **IV. Objectives of My Chapter 11 Case**\n\n39. My ultimate objective is to arrive at a fully consensual Chapter 11 plan that finally resolves all issues with my creditors. I hope to achieve this outcome through reasoned and reasonable dialogue, after providing creditors a fair opportunity to conduct diligence and present their views through fiduciary representatives paid for by the DIP Financing. I hope that my creditors will be solely motivated to effect repayment of valid claims, and that they will put aside the use of litigation as a means of restricting my free speech and criticisms of political abuse. I\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 19 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 20 of 109\n\nfurther hope that, if there is thoughtful creditor engagement, my family will be willing to contribute funding to ensure a fair recovery for creditors under a plan.\n\n40. My assets, as discussed above, are principally litigation claims and I believe those claims have substantial merit and are valuable (perhaps valuable enough to pay all creditors in full). But, again, all stakeholders will be given a fair opportunity to investigate them.\n\n41. I understand that my Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to conclusively determine which other assets potentially comprise my bankruptcy estate. Certain of my creditors have alleged that I own assets that I believe are owned and controlled by my family members or their affiliated entities. I do not believe that the New York Supreme Court, which issued an order regarding my \"beneficial\" ownership and control of the Lady May, ever determined that I have actual legal title to the vessel or that it is now an asset of my Chapter 11 estate. These issues will be presented squarely and fairly to this Court for appropriate resolution.\n\n42. I have been defending myself against litigation brought by purported creditors for years. As noted above, GSNY – owned and controlled by my son - has lent me millions to fund my defense costs. This Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to determine, once and for all, the extent of allowed claims against my estate. Creditors will be afforded an opportunity to assert claims against my Chapter 11 estate, and the process should yield a fair allocation of whatever assets are in the estate across all equally situated creditors (without, for example, PAX jumping ahead of others in the same creditor class). I will work with my professionals to achieve an appropriate claims reconciliation process.\n\n43. In the end, I hope for a rational, value-maximizing plan that frees me of litigation and will help facilitate a \"fresh start\" under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n19\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 20 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 21 of 109\n\n# **PART II –BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOTIONS**\n\n44. I have reviewed each of the following motions and the facts set forth in them are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.\n\n45. **Motion to Approve DIP Financing**. The DIP Financing is necessary to fund the costs associated with the Chapter 11 case and to provide sufficient runway for me, with the aid of my highly capable and experienced advisors, to negotiate and achieve confirmation of a plan of reorganization.\n\n46. Given that it was the adversarial and litigious relationship with my creditors, most notably PAX, that drove me to seek chapter 11 relief, I requested, and GSNY agreed, that the DIP Financing would be for the benefit of all estate professionals, without imposing any lien or priority rights that could potentially prejudice the interests of my creditors. The DIP Financing is offered on an unsecured basis, subordinated to the rights of my prepetition creditors, and without any administrative or other priority repayment rights. My understanding is that the DIP Loan shall be repaid if and only if all of my other creditors are paid in full. Given these generous terms, I believe that any attempt to obtain financing from another source on competitive or similar terms would be a waste of estate resources and would be futile.\n\n47. Also, as set forth above and in my Schedules, I anticipate that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will be used to fund a Chapter 11 plan. Without access to the DIP Financing, I will be unable to retain and compensate the counsel currently prosecuting actions on my behalf. Similarly, my liabilities may substantially increase if I am unable to defend, settle, and/or litigate these claims (either within this proceeding or, if stay relief is granted, in other venues).\n\n20\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 21 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 22 of 109\n\n48. For these reasons, I believe that the proposed DIP Financing is extended in good faith, does not prejudice any of my creditors' rights or interests, is in the best interests of my estate, and should therefore be approved.\n\n49. **Application to Retain Stretto, Inc. as Claims and Noticing Agent**. I need a claims and noticing agent to help provide notice to the estate's creditors and parties-in-interest throughout the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Stretto, Inc. (\"Stretto\") to serve as my claims and noticing agent. Stretto has substantial experience serving as a claims and noticing agent in various chapter 11 cases throughout the United States, including in this District. Stretto has agreed to render consulting services to: (a) serve as the noticing agent to mail notices to the estate's creditors and other parties-in-interest; (b) maintain an electronic platform for filing proofs of claim, plan solicitation, balloting, tabulation of votes, disbursements, and administrative support in preparation of schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs; and (c) provide other administrative services, as necessary, with respect to this Chapter 11 case.\n\n50. **Application to Retain Brown Rudnick LLP as Restructuring Counsel**. I need highly capable and experienced restructuring counsel to advise and help structure my exit from Chapter 11, potentially in the form of a confirmed plan of reorganization. I have chosen Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") as my restructuring counsel for the Chapter 11 case. Brown Rudnick has extensive experience and knowledge in the fields of debtors' and creditors' rights and reorganizations under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, having represented debtors, official and unofficial committees and other prominent parties in many Chapter 11 cases in this Circuit, this District, and other districts across the country. Brown Rudnick also has familiarity with my affairs and the legal issues to be contested in the Chapter 11 case, and has agreed to: (a) prepare all necessary motions, responses, answers and other legal papers, including trial preparation as may\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 22 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of 109\n\nbe necessary; (b) prepare and take action as necessary for approval of a disclosure statement and confirmation of a plan of reorganization; and (c) perform all other legal services as may be necessary during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n51. Prior to the Petition Date, on each of February 14, 2022 and February 15, 2022, Brown Rudnick was paid a retainer of \\$500,000. The source of the \\$1 million in retainer payments (the \"BR Retainer\") was Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\"), which is a company owned by my son. Lamp loaned me \\$1 million on an unsecured basis, and I directed Lamp to remit the proceeds of the loan directly to Brown Rudnick. Brown Rudnick applied \\$51,835.20 in pre-Petition Date fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer, leaving Brown Rudnick with a prepetition BR Retainer Balance of \\$948,164.80. Going forward, I have asked Brown Rudnick to apply its allowed fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer until the BR Retainer balance is \\$250,000, after which Brown Rudnick will seek payment of its allowed fees and expenses from me through the proceeds of the DIP Financing.\n\n52. **Application to Retain Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as Financial Advisor**. I need a financial advisory firm to prepare, review, and analyze the necessary financial disclosures mandated under the Bankruptcy Code and the ongoing monthly and quarterly reporting requirements during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\") to serve as my financial advisor. V&L has extensive experiencing working with distressed individual chapter 11 debtors, and provides tailored services, including, but not limited to, financial advisory, consulting, accounting services, tax, and other related services. V&L has agreed to render services regarding: (a) the preparation and review of my SOFA and the Schedules and other periodic reporting requirements; (b) the preparation and/or review of cash flow and related budget projections; (c) maintaining the DIP account, and effectuating disbursements when\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 23 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of 109\n\nnecessary and providing accounting of all cash activity; (d) claims review and administration; (e) plan of reorganization formulation and review; (f) the rendering of any necessary litigation support; and (g) the providing of general consulting and assistance with any other matters and tasks that may arise during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n# 53. **Motion to Authorize Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the**\n\n**Ordinary Course**. I am a named plaintiff or named defendant in numerous cases pending at the state and federal levels in the United States, as well as in foreign jurisdictions. In connection with these litigations and certain ongoing government investigations, prepetition, I retained various law firms, accountants, and other non-attorney professionals (together, my \"Ordinary Course Professionals\"), which rendered services in connection with my prepetition litigation and provided other services in a variety of matters unrelated to this Chapter 11 case. I intend to use the DIP Financing, subject to the Court's approval, to continue employing and compensating these Ordinary Course Professionals because they each have a great deal of knowledge, expertise, and familiarity with my affairs (prepetition) and my pending litigation, much of which has been ongoing for years.\n\n54. Among the reasons I am seeking emergency interim relief for the DIP Financing is to ensure that the professionals representing me continue working. Certain professionals may withdraw from representing me unless I am able to assure them that they will be paid for their prepetition and post-Petition Date work. Such a withdrawal, depending on the status of the case and the services provided by the applicable professional, could cause cause me and my estate clear and irreparable harm. The UBS, Clark Hill, and other pending litigation claims are assets that I anticipate relying on to help formulate and potentially confirm a plan of reorganization. Any disruption to my prosecution of these claims would undoubtedly be value destructive.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 24 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 25 of 109\n\n55. In sum, without my Ordinary Course Professionals' knowledge, expertise, and familiarity in connection with their prepetition work, my estate will incur substantial additional and unnecessary expenses in educating and retaining replacement professionals necessary to preserve, and potentially continue prosecuting these valuable litigation claims. Accordingly, I believe that the continued retention of my Ordinary Course Professionals is in the best interests of this estate, my creditors, and other parties-in-interest.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 25 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of 109\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n# **UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**\n\n) ) ) ) ) )\n\n**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA** )\n\n**CRIMINAL NO.**\n\n**v. Count 1: 18 u.s.c.** § **371 (Conspiracy)**\n\n**ELLIOTT BROIDY,**\n\n**Defendant.**\n\n# **CRIMINAL INFORMATION**\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n# **INTRODUCTION**\n\n- l. At all times relevant to this Information:\n- 2. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 20 I 8, ELLIOTT\n\nBROIDY agreed with Nickie Lum Davis and Person A to act as agents of Foreign National A in exchange for millions of dollars which was not disclosed. BROIDY specifically agreed to lobby the Administration of the President of the United States (\"Administration\") and the United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop or otherwise favorably resolve its matters against Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from I Malaysia Development Berhad (\"IMDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that BROIDY was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the l MDB matters dropped or otherwise favorably resolved for Foreign National A.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a citizen of the PRC living in the United States-all on behalf of Foreign National A. This involved, among other things, advocating for meetings between PRC Minister A and United States government officials. Here too, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, BROIDY, aided by Davis and Person A, attempted to facilitate a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the 1 MOB matter with the President.\n\n5. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that BROIDY, assisted by Davis and Person A, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials in the Administration, at DOJ, and at the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"OHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make\n\nfalse and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the United States government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n# **RELEVANT PARTIES** & **ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, ELLIOTT BROIDY, served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately 2017 to April 2018. BROIDY raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. In his role as Deputy Finance Chair, BROIDY maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration, including the President himself. Over the same period, BROIDY owned and operated several domestic and international businesses.\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with BROIDY and Person A. On August 31, 2020, Davis pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii to a onecount Information charging aiding and abetting a violation of FARA.\n\n3\n\n10. Person A was and is a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multi-billion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company fanned by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A, and was used by Person A to pay BROIDY, Davis, and others for their lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law finn operated by Person C and controlled by BROIDY and Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a citizen of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the I MDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with I MOB laundered proceeds. On November I, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder\n\n4\n\nbillions of dollars embezzled from I MOB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices\n\nAct by paying bribes to various Malaysian and United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") officials.\n\n# **COUNT ONE**\n\n# **18 u.s.c.** § **371**\n\n# **(Conspiracy to Serve as an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)**\n\n- 17. Paragraphs **J** through J 6 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.\n- 18. From no later than March 20 I 7 to at least in or about January 2018, the defendant,\n\n# **ELLIOTT BROIDY,**\n\nknowingly conspired with others known and unknown, to:\n\na. knowingly and willfully act as an agent of a foreign principal, specifically, Foreign National A with respect to the 1 MDB matters and the removal of PRC National A, without registering with the Attorney General, in violation of22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618.\n\n# **Objects of the Conspiracy**\n\n- 19. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Foreign National A to orchestrate back-channel, unregistered campaigns to lobby the Administration and DOJ to: (I) end the IMDB matters or otherwise resolve the matters favorably for Foreign National A; and (2) remove PRC National A from the United States and send him back to the PRC.\n\t- 20. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to make\n\nmillions of dollars by leveraging BROIDY's access to and perceived influence with the President and his Administration in order to secure payments from Foreign National A.\n\n21. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to conceal BROIDY's contacts with and payments from Foreign National A to maintain BROIDY's credibility with United States officials and to further the illegal advocacy scheme.\n\n# **Manner and Means of the Conspiracy**\n\n22. The manner and means by which BROIDY and others carried out the conspiracy included, but were not limited to, the following:\n\n# International Travel to Meet with Foreign Principals and Government Officials\n\n23. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham, in various combinations, traveled to Thailand, Malaysia, and the PRC for the purpose of meeting with Foreign National A, PRC Minister A, and others to negotiate and discuss the arrangement by which BROIDY would lobby the Administration and DOJ--outside of official channels-in exchange for millions of dollars.\n\n# Meetings and Contacts with United States Officials\n\n24. BROIDY, both directly and through intermediaries, facilitated and attempted to facilitate meetings and other efforts to influence officials at the highest levels of the United States government, including the President and the Attorney General, for the benefit of PRC Minister A and Foreign National A.\n\n25. BROIDY, both directly and through intermediaries, contacted high-level officials in the United States government to arrange meetings for foreign government officials, including PRC Minister A and the Malaysian Prime Minister A, to provide opportunities for these foreign officials to formally request favorable governmental action, including the favorable resolution of the IMDB matters and the removal of PRC National A.\n\n# Concealment\n\n26. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed to conceal BROIDY's agreement to lobby on behalfofForeign National A, in his individual capacity and as an intermediary for PRC Minister A. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A did not disclose and agreed not to disclose to United States government officials and the public BROIDY's financial arrangement with and payments from\n\n6\n\nForeign National A. In extensive contacts, communications, and documents drafted in furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham were secretive and anonymized references to Foreign National A. Further, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A often used encrypted applications when communicating about Foreign National A and PRC National A to conceal their conduct and connection to Foreign National A. Finally, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed, implicitly or explicitly, not to register under FARA to conceal their arrangement with Foreign National A.\n\n# **Overt Acts**\n\n27. In furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY and others committed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.\n\n# I. **Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases**\n\n# **A. BROIDY Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer**\n\n28. In or about March 2017, Person A contacted Davis in an effort to locate someone with close ties to the Administration to help a foreign client. Davis in tum told BROIDY that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could use help with a forfeiture matter.\n\n29. On or about March 7, 2017, Person A requested that Davis send him BROIDY's biography describing BROJDY's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration and photographs of BROIDY and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, BROIDY's assistant, at Davis's request, emailed photographs to Davis featuring BROIDY and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight for Foreign National A BROJDY's close access to the Administration.\n\n30. On or about March 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" BROIDY responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\"\n\n31. On or about March 13, 2017, BROIDY met with Davis and Person A to discuss Foreign National A and 1 MOB. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to BROIDY, and asked if BROIDY could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of BROIDY helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, BROIDY texted Davis in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n32. On or about March 13, 2017, Davis forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A so that Person A could present the agreement to Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee if the \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MOB forfeiture proceedings. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, Law Firm A, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure BROIDY's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on BROIDY's political connections.\n\n33. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did BROIDY, Davis, or Person A register with the FARA Unit regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n# **B. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis Meet Foreign National A in Bangkok**\n\n34. In or about April 2017, Davis relayed Person A's request for BROIDY to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. BROIDY told Davis to tell Person A that he would go only if he were paid \\$1 million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds. BROIDY was assured that Person A would personally pay \\$1 million in exchange for BROIDY traveling to Bangkok.\n\n35. On or about April 28, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, Davis responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n36. On or about April 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, BROIDY asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" Davis responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.]\"\n\n37. On or about May I, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok, and wrote, in part, \"Please send me the hotel confirmation for both Elliott's room and mine once you get it online and I will forward.\" That same day, Davis separately emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed up with, \"Also send me Elliott's wire info.\" Davis replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 2, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] a!].d I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n39. On or about May 2, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. BROIDY and Foreign National A spoke about the IMDB matters. BROIDY agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay BROIDY an \\$8 million retainer and wanted BROIDY to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the I MDB matter. BROIDY agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. During the meeting or shortly thereafter, Davis and BROIDY discussed the possibility of assisting in getting PRC National A removed from the United States. With respect to payment, BROrDY stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay BROIDY and others. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis agreed that the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to BROIDY through Law Firm A. BROIDY and Davis agreed that BROIDY would pay Davis a percentage of what BROIDY received. Person A also agreed to pay Davis a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told BROIDY and Davis that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review. BROIDY never met or spoke with Higginbotham.\n\n# **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; BROIDY is Paid \\$6 Million; Davis is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n40. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on or about May 8, 2017, was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n41. On or about May 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago -\". Davis then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n42. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$600,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts and \\$900,000 to an account for a business entity associated with Davis. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of BROIDY's business accounts. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n43. On or about May 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to BROIDY through Person A and BROIDY's payment of a percentage to Davis. Among the text messages, Davis asked, \"Did you get it?\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. BROIDY later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" Davis responded, \"When Asia opens .. . . Baby steps at least moving forward now.'' BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires. \" BROIDY later\n\nadded in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [BROIDY's assistant].\"\n\n44. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2. 7 million. On or about May 26, 2017, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which BROIDY and Foreign National A agreed in return for BROIDY's assistance with the **1** MDB civil forfeiture cases. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with Davis. On or about May 26, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$1 million to an account controlled by Person C. In or about early June 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$650,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts.\n\n# **D. BROIDY Facilitates and Attempts to Facilitate Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Efforts to Resolve the lMDB Cases**\n\n45. On or about June *5,* 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\" Pursuant to a consulting agreement, BROIDY had agreed to pay Person D \\$25,000 per month for advice and guidance with respect to navigating the Administration.\n\n46. The same day, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, Davis wrote, \"Please call before u go to bed ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n47. On or about June 15, 2017, at Person A's request, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Hey he'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" Davis added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, BROIDY responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n48. On or about June 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 2017, BROIDY asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. BROIDY and Davis believed that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the I MOB matter. BROIDY also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n49. On or about June 19, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the IMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n50. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n51 . On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, BROIDY followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n52. On or about July 3, 2017, BROIDY again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Pr\\_ime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, Elliott.\" Later that day, BROIDY texted Person E again: \"[Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, BROIDY exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, BROIDY texted, \"[Person E], just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Davis continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize- I'm getting inundated[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" Davis responded, \"Done[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a high-ranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pis pis go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely! \"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E), It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A) with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, Elliot[.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process-\". BROIDY responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, ''NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with the Malaysians. NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. BROIDY responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" Davis followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. BROIDY responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" Davis replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. BROIDY replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 20 I 7, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" BROIDY responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21 , 2017, BROlDY texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], The Malaysians have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! Elliott.\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" BROIDY replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Just checked again with Malaysians. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, Elliott.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Hi [Person DJ- Can you call NSA for me re Malaysians receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to Malaysian Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, Elliott.\" Person D responded, \"E- will call again this morning.\"\n\n64. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY emailed a high-level official from the National Security Council in an attempt to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n65. On or about July 29, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" Davis immediately followed by texting \"Wickr[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*\", which contained the purported talking points of Malaysian Prime Minister A intended for an upcoming meeting between the United States Secretary of State and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Davis had received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and Davis relayed them to BROIDY. The talking points mentioned, among other things, BROIDY's ongoing relationship and work with Malaysia, and identified 1 MOB as a \" (p ]riority[. ]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\".\n\n67. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY also sent these talking points to Person D, immediately followed by a message explaining, \"Above is attachment from Malaysian PM of his talking points. You can share with [staff assistant who works for the Secretary of State].\" BROIDY also sought to obtain details about the timing of a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State.\n\n17\n\n68. Later on or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY messaged Person D, \"[Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize Circinus name. Thank you!\" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. This was the final payment made to BROIDY. In total, BROIDY was paid \\$9 million. On or about the next day, Law Fim1 A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with Davis. In the ensuing days, Law Firm A transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts belonging to BROIDY\n\n70. On or about August I 0, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from Malaysia that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Any update on Malaysia? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a highranking official at the White House.\n\n18\n\n72. On or about August 31 , 20 I 7, BROIDY drafted and sent an email to Person l attempting to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n73. On or about September 11 , 2017, Davis typed a letter to be sent from BROIDY to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President and provided the letter to BROIDY. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n74. Following BROIDY's repeated efforts to schedule a golf game between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House on or about September 12, 2017. Although BROIDY contacted high-ranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n75. On or about October 6, 2017, BROIDY met with the President at the White House. BROIDY did not raise the I MDB matters during the meeting but represented to Davis that he had, understanding that Davis would communicate that information to Person A and Foreign National A.\n\n76. On or about January 5, 2018, BROIDY drafted talking points related to 1 MDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that BROIDY had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \"1. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against lMDB in Malaysia. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the Malaysia case. She is\n\na [presidential] appointee and can be helpful. . .. 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" These representations were false.\n\n# II. **Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States**\n\n# **A. BROIDY Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n77. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, BROIDY agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, Davis and BROIDY discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n78. On or about May 15, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, Davis also emailed BROIDY and Person C banking information for Davis's company.\n\n79. On or about May 18, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to BROIDY about PRC National A and his alleged crimes, and stated that the PRC government wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC M,inister A asked BROIDY to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. They also discussed the potential return to the United States of Americans then being held prisoner by the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n# **B. BROIDY Lobbies Top U.S. Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n80. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, BROIDY texted Davis, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.]\"\n\n81. On or about May 21, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \"[Person D]- Just returned . Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]? Elliott.\"\n\n82. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n83. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and China[.]\" BROIDY attached to the email a memorandum from BROIDY addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to BROIDY by Davis, and the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, BROIDY and Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n84. In the memorandum, BROIDY mischaracterized the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. BROlDY did not disclose his contact with Foreign National A and did not disclose Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between BROIDY and PRC Minister A. BROIDY also did not disclose the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A. BROIDY also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n85. In the memorandum, BROIDY stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that China would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" BROIDY wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several highranking United States government officials. BROIDY indicated that it would be productive for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. BROIDY also noted several items that China, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and China. BROIDY then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request China will make is that [PRC National A], who China alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of China (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to China so he can be charged with these violations and go through regular criminal proceedings in China with regard to these allegations.\n\nBROIDY appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n86. On or about May 23, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Hi [] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks Elliott[.]\" Person D responded, \"Elliott- letter was delivered yesterday. Pis see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" BROIDY responded, \"Great. Thank you []. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \"[W]aiting to hear from\n\nDoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n87. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted BROIDY, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General] office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n88. On or about May 25, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and OHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there IO min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with [] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with my contact this morning. Thank you. E[.]\" Person D responded, \"E- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.]\" Later that day, Person D responded, \"E- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n89. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, BROIDY texted Person D, \"IO am head of ICE 11 :30 FBI Perhaps a play at OHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in OHS at the time.\n\n90. On or about May 28, 2017, after Davis transcribed correspondence to BROIDY, BROIDY emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and the Chinese Ambassador to the US.\" BROIDY noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, BROIDY and Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n91. On or about May 30, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's meeting with United States government officials, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. All set[.]\" Davis replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]\"\n\n92. In or about May 2017, Davis, at Person A's request, asked BROIDY to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n93. On or about May 30, 20 l 7, BROIDY met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. BROIDY also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n94. On or about May 3 I, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [Attorney General] or [Person I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I] ... . So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only ifhe has a proper \"short meeting\". This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics. Thank you.\n\n95. Person D responded, \"E-got the info. I will call in a few mins.\" BROIDY replied, \"If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the VM at OHS? He can\n\nmention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.\"\n\n96. On or about May 31, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with, Person I, \"In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" BROIDY responded, \"Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A].\" BROIDY later continued, \"Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer.\" Davis responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" BROIDY replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" Davis then texted, \"lsn 't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" BROIDY responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General] people[.]\" Davis responded, \"It's on the OHS website[.) He's there for the afternoon[.) Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster fT\\*)ck.\" Davis replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n97. On or about June 9, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a news article titled \"chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]\"\n\n98. On or about June 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY texted Person H's spouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with [Person HJ tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. ls there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, Elliott[.]\" BROIDY later continued:\n\nHi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive is [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice ... . The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 30th. It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list. . . . This order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. [The President of the PRC] mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A] .... He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by China and would accept a very large number of Chinese illegal immigrants for deportation back to China. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n99. On or about June 28, 2017, BROIDY met with Person Hand his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, BROIDY exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding PRC National A: \"Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person H] tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]'s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n100. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY texted, \"ls rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" Davis responded, \" l have no idea.\" BROIDY replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" Davis responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[. ]\"\n\nI\n\nI 01. On or about June 30, 2017, Davis, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of PRC National A and the potential return of United States citizens held in the PRC, texted BROIDY, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" Davis replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.J Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" BROIDY responded, \"Agree.\" Davis continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.J After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n102. On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. BROIDY texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Separately, [Person EJ texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, Davis replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" Davis later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n103. On or about July 1, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Spoke to [Person EJ at length. Call me when you can[.]\" BROIDY did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n104. On or about July 2, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public reporting, Davis texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H.J\"\n\n27\n\nI 05. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, Davis texted BROIDY: \" [President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" Davis then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\nI 06. On or about July I 0, 2017, Person A emailed himself copies of the Red Notice for PRC National A, images of PRC National A's passport and identity card, and other documents related to PRC National A and the alleged crimes committed by PRC National A.\n\n107. In or about July 2017, Person A requested that Higginbotham meet with the PRC Ambassador to the United States at the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to convey a message to the PRC Ambassador about PRC National A. On or about July 16, 2017, Higginbotham went to the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. and met with the Ambassador. During the meeting, Higginbotham told the Ambassador that United States government officials were working on the extradition of PRC National A and that there would be additional information in the future concerning the logistics of the extradition. Following the meeting, Higginbotham reported to Person A what had occurred, and Person A said he would inform Foreign National A. Person A later told Higginbotham that Foreign National A was happy with the meeting and that it had given Foreign National A credibility with the PRC.\n\n108. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY emailed Davis the contact information for Person H. Davis connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n109. On or about July 26,2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Really need confinn it was officially transmitted. At this point- he says no[.]\" BROIDY\n\n## Case 1i20-cr-00210-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 29 of 31 Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 55 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 56 of 109\n\nresponded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" BROIDY later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person HJ in an hour.\"\n\n110. On or about July 26, 2017, BROIDY texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, Elliott.\" Later the same day, Person H's spouse texted BROIDY, \"Hi Elliot. Can you text me the details again of the Chinese man you texted previously thank you[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" BROIDY then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n111. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. Davis texted BROIDY, \"Any word on embassy??\" Davis later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" BROIDY responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n112. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis several times. Among those messages, BROIDY wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" BROIDY later added, \"im with [Person HJ. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n113. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, BROIDY asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A. Person H, in BROIDY's presence, then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n114. On or about September 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, Davis texted BROIDY links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n115. On or about October 2, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis a link to article about PRC National A.\n\n116. On or about January 5, 2018, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\nAll in violation of **18** U.S.C. § 371.\n\n# **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n1. The allegations contained in Count One of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).\n\n2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), upon conviction of Count One, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, the defendant, ELLIOTT BROIDY, shall forfeit to the United States of America any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against BROIDY for a sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n3. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n\ne. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title\n\n21, United States Code, Section 853(p ), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section\n\n2461 (c).\n\nDA TED: September 30 , 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*ls/John D. Keller*  By: John D. Keller Principal Deputy Chief Sean F. Mulryne Deputy Director, Election Crimes Branch Nicole R. Lockhart James C. Mann Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\n109\n\nFILED NTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII Aug 17, 2020, 10:23a M ichelle Rynne, Clerk of Court\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #10523 United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON Assistant U.S. Attorney Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg. 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Telephone: (808) 541-2850 Facsimile: (808) 541 -2958 Email: ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\nJOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE Deputy Director, Election Crimes NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\n# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n# FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAW Aii\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | )           | CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO                               |\n|---------------------------|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| Plaintiff,                | )<br>)<br>) | INFORMATION                                        |\n| vs.                       | )<br>)      | (18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§<br>612 and 618(a)] |\n| NICKIE MALI LUM DA VIS,   | )<br>)      |                                                    |\n| Defendant.                | )           |                                                    |\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n# **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. At all times relevant to this Information:\n\n2. From no later than March 201 7 to at least in or about January 2018, NICKIE LUM DAVIS agreed with Persons A and B to act as agents of Foreign\n\nNational A in exchange for millions of dollars in undisclosed wire transfers originating from foreign accounts associated with Foreign National A. DAVIS specifically agreed to facilitate Person B's lobbying of the President of the United States (\"the President\"), his Administration, and the United States Depa1tment of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop the investigation of Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from !Malaysia Development Berhad (\"lMDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, the defendant and Person B willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that Person B was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, DAVIS and Persons A and B were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the lMDB investigation dropped.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, DA VIS also agreed with Persons A and B to aid their efforts to lobby the Administration and the DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a dissident of the PRC living in the United States-at the request of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A. Here too, DA VIS and Persons A and B were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, DAVIS aided Person B in facilitating a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in\n\n> 2\n\nSeptember 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the lMDB matter with the President.\n\n5. DAVIS, Person A, and Person B also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that Person B, assisted by DA VIS, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. DA VIS, Person A, and Person B, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials at DOJ and the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"DHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make false and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n#### **RELEVANT PARTIES & ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with Persons A and B.\n\n9. Person A was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n10. Person B served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately April 2016 to April 2018. In that capacity, Person B raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. After\n\nthe election, Person B continued in his role as Deputy Finance Chair and maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration of the President, including the President. Over the same period, Person B owned and operated several domestic and international businesses and worked as a political consultant.\n\n11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multibillion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company formed by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A to pay Person B for his lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law firm operated by Person B's spouse, Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a dissident of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n5\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the lMDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1 MDB laundered proceeds. On November 1, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from lMDB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying bribes to various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials.\n\n# I. Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases\n\n# A. Person B Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer\n\n17. In or about March 2017, DAVIS told Person B that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could \"use help with the forfeiture.\"\n\n18. On or about March 5, 2017, at the request of Person B, DAVIS emailed Person B a copy of a civil forfeiture complaint related to lMDB. That same day, DAVIS emailed Person B a Bloomberg article titled \"[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits,\" and texted Person B, \"Your email has the court filing[.]\" Person B responded, \"Thx. Will review.\" DAVIS replied, \"Call me when u can- thank you[.]\" Person B responded again, \"Yes. 5 min[.]\"\n\n19. Person A requested that DA VIS send him Person B's biography describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration\n\nand photographs of Person B and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, Person B's assistant, at DAVIS's request, emailed photographs to DAVIS featuring Person B and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight Person B's close access to the Administration.\n\n20. On or about March 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" Person B responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\" Later that same day, DA VIS sent Person B additional text messages to set up the meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n21. At the direction of Person B, on or about March 13, 2017, DAVIS forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee ifthe \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MDB forfeiture proceedings. In actuality, Person A, Person B, Law Firm A, DAVIS, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure Person B's services to lobby the\n\nAdministration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on Person B's political connections.\n\n22. On or about March 13 , 2017, Person B met with Person A and DA VIS to discuss Foreign National A and his legal issues. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to Person B, and asked if Person B could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of Person B helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, Person B texted DAVIS in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n· 23. On or about March 15, 201 7, in reference to Foreign National A, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Anything new on ... [Person A's] Associate?\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \" [Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the 'promoter' and they hope to travel within the next few week[.]\"\n\n24. On or about March 22, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant about setting up another meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n25. At all relevant times, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B were aware of FARA and its prohibition on unregistered representation of foreign principals.\n\n26. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did DA VIS, Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n# **B. Person A, Person B, and DA VIS Meet Foreign National A m Bangkok**\n\n27. In or about April 2017, Person A asked Person B to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. Person B said he would go only if he were paid **\\$1** million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds.\n\n28. On or about April 28, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n29. On or about April 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, Person B asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" DA VIS responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.] \"\n\n30. On or about April 30, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding a flight itinerary for travel to Bangkok. In the email, DA VIS wrote in part: \"Please call me if you have questions -- It's 2 one way tickets - since we need to leave from a different country[.] We don't need to worry about hotels yet ... \"\n\n31. On or about May 1, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That same day, DA VIS emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed\n\nup with, \"Also send me [Person B's] wire info.\" DAVIS replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A. The same day, in response to a question from Person B's assistant about whether she should cancel Person B's hotel room reservation, DA VIS emailed Person B's assistant, \"Yes all rooms are booked by [Person A] already.\"\n\n32. On or about May 2, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] and I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n33. On or about May 2, 2017, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. Person Band Foreign National A spoke about the lMDB investigation and civil forfeiture actions. Person B agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay Person Ban \\$8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the lMDB matter. Person B agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. With respect to payment, Person B stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay Person B and others. Person B, Person A, and DA VIS agreed that  the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person B and DA VIS agreed that Person B would pay DA VIS thirty percent of what Person B received. Person A also agreed to pay DAVIS a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told Person Band DAVIS that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review.\n\n#### **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; Person B is Paid \\$6 Million; DAVIS is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n34. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 201 7, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 2017 was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n3 5. On or about May 8, 2017, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago-\". DA VIS then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n36. On or about May 9, 2017, Person A caused Company A to transfer \\$250,000 to a company controlled by a family member of DA VIS for the benefit of DAVIS.\n\n37. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 17, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to Person B through Person A and Person B's payment of a percentage to DAVIS. Among the text messages, DA VIS asked, \"Did you get it?\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. Person B later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" DAVIS responded, \"When Asia opens .... Baby steps at least moving forward now.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires.\" Person B later added in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [Person B's assistant].\"\n\n39. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of Person B's business accounts and \\$900,000 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n40. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2.7 million. On or about May 26, 201 7, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which Person B and Foreign National A agreed in return for Person B's lobbying the Administration and the DOJ to drop the lMDB civil forfeiture cases and any related investigations. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with DAVIS.\n\n#### **D. Person B Facilitates Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lobbies to Resolve the lMDB** Cases\n\n41. On or about May 18, 2017, Person B texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Hi [Person D]- Please work on Asian country visit. Date in July.\"\n\n42. On or about June 5, 2017, Person B texted Person D again regarding the visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\"\n\n43. The same day, at the request of Person A, DA VIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, DA VIS wrote, based upon information conveyed to her by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, \"Please call before u go to bed in ISRAEL if possible ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n44. On or about June 15, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Hey he 'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" DAVIS added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n45. On or about June 16, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding lMDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associated with Foreign National A.\n\n46. On or about June 17, 2017, Person Band DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 201 7, Person B asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said, and DA VIS believed, that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the 1 MDB matter. Person B also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n4 7. On or about June 19, 201 7, DA VIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the lMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n48. On or about June 25, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba link to an article about Malaysian Prime Minister A and the lMDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Weird article. What can we do?\" DAVIS replied, \"Call pls. Got news[.]\" DA VIS followed up stating that she had sent Person B a \"What's app request.\"\n\n49. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n50. On or about June 30, 2017, Person B sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, Person B followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n51. On or about July 3, 2017, Person B again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, [].\" Later that day, Person B texted Person E again: \" [Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n52. On or about July 4, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Call me asap\" and then \"Clear your phone - erase messages[.]\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, Person B exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, Person B texted, \"[Person E],just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, []\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DA VIS continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated[.]\" Person B responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" DAVIS responded, \"Done[.]\" Person B responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a highranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pls pls go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely!\"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, Person B texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E], It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A] with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, [][.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process -\". Person B responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, \"NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" Person B responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with [Malaysia.] NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. Person B responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, relaying information from Person A, DA VIS wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" DAVIS followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. Person B responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" DA VIS replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. Person B replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" Person B responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21, 2017, Person B texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], [Malaysia] have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! [].\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" Person B replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Just checked again with [Malaysia]. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, [].\" Person B followed up with, \"Hi [Person D]- Can you call NSA for me re [Malaysia] receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to [Malaysia] Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, []\" Person D responded,\"[] will call again this morning. Talked to [] briefly yesterday .... Will call shortly.\"\n\n64. On or about July 29, 2017, relaying information that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" DA VIS immediately followed by texting \"Wicla[.]\" Person B responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n65. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*,\" with talking points intended for an upcoming meeting between the Secretary of State of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A. DA VIS received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and relayed them to Person B, knowing that Person B would then provide them to the Secretary of State as background for the meeting. The talking points mentioned, among other things, Person B's ongoing relationship and work with [Malaysia], and identified lMDB as a \"[p]riority[.]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B also sent the talking points document to Person D for his review and edits and to obtain details about the timing\n\nof a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Hi [Person D]; When is [Secretary of State] mtg?; Already 11 :00 am Monday in [Malaysia]. Can you expand and send me final version?\" Person D responded by sending a revised version of the talking points to Person B and stating, \" []- here is the marked up version I am going to forward to [Secretary of State]'s office. He heads to Bangkok today and then to [Malaysia]. Let me know if you have any other changes. Thanks.\"\n\n67. Later, on or about August 7, 2017, Person B messaged Person D, \" [Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize [my company's] name. Thank you! \" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n68. Also on or about August 7, 2017, Person A executed an agreement between another of Person A's companies and a representative of Foreign National A providing for \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" in exchange for approximately EUR 8.4 million to be paid on or before August 16, 2017.\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. Person A also transferred \\$833,333 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DA VIS.\n\n70. On or about August 10, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from [Malaysia] that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 16, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages to set up a meeting and a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \" [Person A] really wants to see u today if possible since u leave Friday[.]\"\n\n72. On or about August 18, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages setting up a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Call me pls. [Person A] wants to conference in[.]\"\n\n73. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Any update on [Malaysia] ? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a high-ranking official at the White House.\n\n74. On or about August 21 , 2017, DAVIS wired \\$375,000 in funds she received as a commission from Person A, to Person C, the spouse of Person B.\n\n75. On or about August 24, 2017, Foreign National A directed the transfer of approximately \\$10 million to Person A's separate company that had entered into the \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" agreement with a representative of Foreign National A for EUR 8.4 million. Based on the prevailing exchange rate on August 24, 2017, EUR 8.4 million converted to approximately \\$10 million.\n\n76. On or about September 11 , 2017, DA VIS typed a letter at Person B's direction to be sent from Person B to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n77. On or about September 12, 2017, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House, due in part to the assistance provided by DA VIS for Person B's efforts to facilitate the meeting. Although Person B contacted highranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n78. On or about October 6, 2017, Person B met with the President at the White House. Person B represented to Person A, DAVIS, and Foreign National A that he raised the lMDB investigation with the President during the meeting.\n\n79. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B drafted talking points related to lMDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Person B had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \" l. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against 1 MDB in [Malaysia]. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the [] case. She is a [presidential] appointee and can be helpful ... . 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" Person B greatly exaggerated his efforts regarding the lMDB investigation.\n\n80. On or about January 6, 2018, Person B met with Person A, who asked Person B for a loan. Person A told Person B that Person A's friend was \"checking on\" the money they had received from Foreign National A and \"helping to keep it clean.\"\n\nII. Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States\n\n# **A. Person B Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n81. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, Person B agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, DAVIS and Person B discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n82. On or about May 15, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, DAVIS also emailed Person Band Person C banking information for DAVIS's company.\n\n83. On or about May 18, 201 7, Person A, Person B, and DA VIS traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to Person B about PRC National A and his alleged crimes and stated that the PRC wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC Minister A asked Person B to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n# **B. Person B Lobbies Top** U.S. **Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n84. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, Person B texted DA VIS, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.] \"\n\n85. On or about May 21 , 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \" [Person DJ- Just returned. Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]?[].\"\n\n86. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" Person B followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n87. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and [the PRC][.]\" Person B attached to the email a memorandum from Person B addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to Person B by DA VIS, who received it from Person A during the May 2017 trip to China where the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, Person Band Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n88. In the memorandum, Person B misrepresented the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. Person B\n\nconcealed his contact with Foreign National A and concealed Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between Person B and PRC Minister A. Person B also concealed the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A over the two weeks preceding the meeting in Shenzhen with PRC Minister A. Person B also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n89. In the memorandum, Person B stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that [the PRC] would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" Person B wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several high-ranking United States government officials. Person B advocated for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. Person B also noted several items that the PRC, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and the PRC. Person B then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request [the PRC] will make is that [PRC National A], who [the PRC] alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of [the PRC] (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to [the PRC] so he can be charged with these\n\nviolations and go through regular criminal proceedings in [the PRC] with regard to these allegations.\n\nPerson B appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n90. On or about May 23, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Hi[] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks[][.]\" Person D responded, \" [Person BJ- letter was delivered yesterday. Pls see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" Person B responded, \"Great. Thank you[]. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \" [W]aiting to hear from DoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n91. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted Person B, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General]'s office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n92. On or about May 25, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and DHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there 10 min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with[] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with\n\nmy contact this morning. Thank you. [ . ]\" Person D responded, \" [ ]- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, Person B texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.] \" Later that day, Person D responded,\"[]- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n93. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, Person B texted Person D, \" 10 am head of ICE 11:30 FBI Perhaps a play at DHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" Person B followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in DHS at the time.\n\n94. On or about May 28, 2017, Person B emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and [the PRC's] Ambassador to the US.\" Person B noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, Person Band Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n95. On or about May 30, 2017, relaying information from PRC Minister A and Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetings with United States Government officials, DA VIS texted, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. All set[.]\" DAVIS replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]\"\n\n96. In or about May 2017, DAVIS, at Person A's request, asked Person B to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n97. On or about May 30, 2017, Person B met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n98. On or about May 31 , 2017, Person B texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [Attorney General] or [Person I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I]. .... So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only if he has a proper \"short meeting\" . This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics. Thank you.\n\n99. Person D responded, \" []-got the info. I will call in a few mins.\" Person B replied, \"If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the\n\nVM at DHS? He can mention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.\"\n\n100. On or about May 31, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with Person I, \"In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" Person B responded, \"Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A].\" Person B later continued, \"Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer.\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" Person B replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" DA VIS then texted, \"Isn't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" Person B responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General']s people[.]\" DA VIS responded, \"It's on the DHS website[.] He's there for the afternoon[.] Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]\" Person B responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster f]ck.\" DA VIS replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n101. On or about June 9, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba news article titled \"[the PRC]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]\"\n\n102. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages regarding PRC National A.\n\n103. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. Person B knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. Person B texted Person H's spouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with Person H tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. Is there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, [][.]\" Person B later continued:\n\nHi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice .... The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 3Qt<sup>11</sup> • It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list. .. . The order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. The President of the PRC mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A]. ... He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by [the PRC] and would accept a very large number of [the PRC] illegal immigrants for deportation back to [the PRC]. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n104. On or about June 28, 2017, Person B met with Person H and his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, Person B exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding [PRC National A]: \"Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person HJ tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]' s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n105. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. Person B texted, \"Is rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" DA VIS responded, \"I have no idea.\" Person B replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[.]\"\n\n106. On or about June 30, 2017, DAVIS, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of Foreign National Band the potential return of United States citizens held in Country B, texted Person B, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" Person B responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" DA VIS replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.] Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" Person B responded, \"Agree.\" DA VIS continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" Person B responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n107. On or about June 30, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" Person B followed up with, \"Separately, [Person E] texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, DA VIS replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" DA VIS later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n108. On or about July 1, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Spoke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you can[.]\" Person B did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. Similar to the representations Person B made in the memorandum that he prepared for the Attorney General and his communications with Person H, Person B did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n109. On or about July 2, 201 7, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public\n\nreporting, DA VIS texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H].\"\n\n110. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, DAVIS texted Person B: \"[President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" DAVIS then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\n111. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B emailed DAVIS the contact information for Person H. DA VIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n112. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Really need confirm it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says no[.]\" Person B responded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" Person B later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person H] in an hour.\"\n\n113. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, [].\" Later the same day, Person H 's spouse texted Person B, \"Hi []. Can you text me the details again of the [the PRC] man you texted previously thank you[.]\" Person B responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, [][.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" Person B then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n114. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. DAVIS texted Person B, \"Any word on embassy??\" DAVIS later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" Person B responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n115. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS several times. Among those messages, Person B wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" Person B later added, \" im with [Person H]. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n116. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, Person B asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A, and Person H suggested that they call the President. Person B and Person H then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n117. On or about September 13 , 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, DAVIS texted Person B links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n118. On or about October 2, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS a link to an article about PRC National A.\n\n119. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\n# COUNT ONE 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612 (Aiding and Abetting & Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)\n\n120. From in or about no later than May 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, within the District of Hawaii and elsewhere, the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, knowingly and willfully, without registering with the Attorney General as required by law, aided and abetted Person A and Person Bin their actions as agents of a foreign principal, to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the lMDB investigation favorably for Foreign National A and to return PRC National A to the PRC, all on behalf of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A and the Government of the PRC.\n\nAll in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(l).\n\n# **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n121. The allegations contained in Count 1 of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).\n\n122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c), upon conviction of Count 1, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 2, and Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, shall forfeit to the United States of America a sum of money representing property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against DA VIS for this sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n123. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n- e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\n\nDA TED: August 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.\n\n*Isl Kenji M Price*  KENn M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\n~~\n\n*Isl Kenneth M Sorenson*  KENNETH M. SORENSON Chief, National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*Isl John D. Keller*  JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nUnited States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No. ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n\n# **EXHIBIT C**\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |  |\n|---------------------------|--|\n| VS.                       |  |\n| GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM,      |  |\n| Defendant.                |  |\n|                           |  |","body_zh":"证据附件 PAX 02\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作的声明\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 1 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of 109\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　:\n:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作的声明\n\n本人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经依法宣誓，声明并陈述如下：\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，本人启动了上述标题所示的第11章案件。本人已年满18周岁，具备作证能力。\n\n2. 本人提交本声明，以向破产法院及全体利害关系方提供有关本人的背景资料，并说明导致本人启动第11章案件的情形。本人在本声明中作出较为详尽的说明，以提供关于针对本人的债权性质、本人独特的财务状况以及本人启动本第11章案件原因的背景。\n\n3. 如下文更充分论述，本人提交本第11章案件是为了：(a) 建立一个单一法院审理平台，以有序处理针对本人提出的各种相互竞争的债权主张；(b) 鉴于本人认为在此方面存在误解，向利益相关方提供有效机会调查本人的资产、负债和财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，并进而可供向获准债权持有人分配；以及，希望(d) 与本人的债权人就依据第11章计划公平、公正地解决债权主张和分配资产达成共识。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 2 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 3 of 109\n\n4. 在提交本第11章案件及准备本声明时，本人知悉本院可能对Ostrager法官（Justice Ostrager）于2月9日作出的藐视法庭命令（定义见下文）、PAX（亦定义见下文）就本人作出的不利陈述，以及甚至本人公开表达的政治观点存有疑虑。当然，任何事情都有两个或更多方面，本声明将陈述本人的观点。基于将会明了的原因，本人因公开批评中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party，以下简称“CCP”）的腐败及侵犯人权行为，而持续担心遭受其报复。多年来，本人一直遭受由CCP及其代理人和代表资助、通过美国法院系统提起的毫无根据的诉讼的持续攻击。本人的第11章案件只能处理CCP试图加诸本人及本人家人的财务损害。但是，CCP希望造成的远不止是财务损害和公开羞辱。本人相信，如本人被监禁、被引渡，或本人的家人无法再为本人提供人身安全保障，CCP将在最早可能的机会安排暗杀本人。本人并非建议本院或任何利害关系方现即接受本人对基础案件事实的观点。恰恰相反，预计本第11章案件将通过一笔无担保的申请后贷款获得充足资金，该贷款的偿还优先顺位低于所有申请前债权人——从而使得在典型的第11章程序中能够进行公平调查，并让利益相关方提交其认为适当的任何可采纳证据。换言之，本破产程序旨在允许对所有相关且可证明的案件事实进行理性审查，而不损害任何债权人的经济权利——但任何无担保债权人希望通过“抢先起诉”而在受偿优先顺位上居先的情况除外，因为这必然会对某些人不公平。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 3 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 4 of 109\n\n5. 本声明分为两部分。第一部分提供有关本人的背景资料，包括对本人资产和负债的概述。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n第一部分——背景\n一、本人背景\n\n6. 本人出生于中国山东省。本人现与结婚37年的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（仰智岳）居住于康涅狄格州格林尼治市373 Taconic Road。2020年3月，我们从纽约Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）的一套公寓搬至康涅狄格州现址。本人和妻子育有两名成年子女。本人儿子名为Qiang Guo（郭强），居住在伦敦。本人女儿名为Mei Guo（郭梅），其时间分别居于纽约市和康涅狄格州。\n\n7. 本人和家人出身贫寒。本人及七名兄弟辛勤工作，并将收入汇集起来——本人的收入来自一家无线电维修店，兄弟们的收入来自他们各自的小企业——用于投资房地产开发。1989年亲民主的天安门广场抗议活动之后，本人因向学生抗议者提供财务支持而被监禁约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。本人被捕时二十出头。与此同时，本人亲眼目睹两名警察——CCP的代理人——残酷地枪击本人的弟弟并任其死亡。弟弟遭杀害，以及本人被捕并在狱中遭受酷刑，对本人产生了深刻影响。在监狱期间，本人与其他良心犯建立了许多意义重大的个人联系，他们同样因支持天安门广场民主运动而遭监禁。我们同样热切地追求中国的自由，本人在1991年获释后仍继续维持这些关系。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 4 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of 109\n\n8. 大约在1991年，中国政府开始放宽管理社会的某些规定，其中包括使普通公民能够开始在中国实现某种“准私有”房地产所有权的规定。尽管本人的大家族从这一变化中受益，本人本人却因先前出于政治动机的逮捕和拘禁而无法受益。任何以本人名义登记的中国资产都很可能会被CCP没收。本人的大家族一直使用其积累的财富支持本人，至今仍然如此。\n\n9. 本人的大家族开始与Yuda Property Company（玉达地产公司，以下简称“Yuda”）合作，该公司专注于中国河南省的商业房地产开发。郭氏家族与Yuda共同开发了河南裕达酒店，随后又开发了位于河南省省会郑州的裕达国际贸易中心。这些都是成功的项目，使郭氏家族开始积累大量财富。此后，本人的家族在中国开发了其他物业，包括北京的盘古广场——一座7星级酒店、会议中心和住宅公寓综合体。美国人可能会认出盘古广场，它是2008年和2022年北京奥运会的主要背景建筑。\n\n10. 郭氏家族的财富继续通过多元化投资而增长，其投资领域包括金融、科技和其他商业行业。尤其是本人的儿子，他通过建立和管理投资机会，包括将全球奢侈品牌引入中国和香港，在扩大家族财富方面发挥了关键作用。因此，本人的儿子本身是一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 大约在2000年，本人离开中国大陆前往香港，并成为香港公民。在大家族继续于中国积累巨额财富期间，根据中国法律，作为香港公民，本人既不能保留中国国籍，也不会被允许拥有位于中国的资产。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 5 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of 109\n\n12. 本人大家族的财务成功并未逃过CCP的注意。2002年，本人的大家族在北京取得了大面积土地；当中国被指定为2008年奥运会主办国后，该等土地的价值显著上升。CCP官员企图将这些土地据为己有，本人向更高级别的政府官员举报了该企图没收土地的行为。经过长期斗争，土地得以收回，从而使盘古广场得以开发。\n\n13. 大约在2015年，本人开始更公开地批评并揭露CCP的腐败，因此CCP对本人进行了报复。2015年1月10日，Wu Zheng（吴征，亦称“Bruno Wu”）告知本人，本人的兄弟、妻子和女儿均已在中国被捕。Brunu Wu与CCP高级官员关系密切，并且是CCP登记在册的外国代理人；其媒体公司曾与Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，以下简称“PAG”）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）的母公司——合作，试图收购一家重要的好莱坞制片厂；[1] 此外，他还亲自为众多针对本人的原告的诉讼活动提供资金（代表CCP）。2015年初，Brunu Wu代表CCP高级成员致电本人，转达称若本人停止公开揭露CCP腐败，本人的家人将被释放；并威胁称，如本人不遵从，将对本人及本人的儿子签发INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“红色通报”，且本人将被杀害。本人拒绝CCP通过Brunu Wu令本人噤声的企图，并继续公开反对CCP。\n\n14. 2017年，本人通过使用社交媒体和美国新闻媒体作为平台，大幅加强了本人的反CCP活动，以揭露某些CCP高级官员的腐败。\n\n1 Nancy Tartaglione, Chinese Create $800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment, Deadline, February 6, 2012 [\\(http][226260/\\)].\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 6 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of 109\n\n本人公开揭露CCP腐败的言论在美国及国外均获得广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更便捷且更广泛地揭露CCP腐败外，本人还向美国当局提供了有关CCP官员及其犯罪行为的信息。因担心自身生命安全，本人于2017年9月在美国申请政治庇护保护，本人的庇护申请仍在审理中。\n\n15. 为报复本人的举报行为，CCP发动了一场多层面的行动，试图获得对本人的制约、诋毁[2]、威胁并令本人噤声。[3] 下文所述的这些行为最终迫使本人进入本破产案件。例如，2017年4月19日，本人原定接受Voice of America（美国之音，以下简称“VOA”）采访，期间本人计划揭露\n\n2 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）和Hoover Institute（胡佛研究所）、非政府组织Australian Strategic Policy Institute（澳大利亚战略政策研究所，以下简称“ASPI”）以及Alphabet’s Google（Alphabet旗下的Google）均分别报告称，本人一直是CCP全球社交媒体虚假信息活动的主要目标；该活动由CCP代理人以及数以千计由中国国家控制的网站和社交媒体账户推动。参见Carly Miller、Vanessa Molter、Isabella Garca-Camargo、Rene DiResta、David Thiel和Alex Zaheer，《Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown》，Stanford Internet Observatory（斯坦福互联网观察站），2020年6月17日[\\(http)]；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren和Elise Thomas，《Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests》，2019年10月[\\(htt][2.amazonaws.com/2019-]\n\n[12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\\\_4SfDUy7] [sMfNkw0\\)]（表明中国共产党（CCP）针对我的虚假信息宣传活动始于2017年4月）；Dr. Jake Wallis（杰克·沃利斯博士）、Tom Uren（汤姆·尤伦）、Elise Thomas（伊莉斯·托马斯）、Albert Zhang（张艾伯特）、Dr. Samantha Hoffman（萨曼莎·霍夫曼博士）、Lin Li（李琳）、Alex Pascoe（亚历克斯·帕斯科）和Danielle Cave（丹妮尔·凯夫），《Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor》（穿越防火长城的转推：一个持续且未受遏制的威胁行为者），2020年6月[\\(htt][southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-]\n\n[06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt] [XD6TCA\\)]（提供的数据反映了“一场与中国国家行为者有关、持续且大规模的、在Twitter和Facebook上的影响力活动……[其]主要针对中国大陆以外的中文受众（Twitter在中国大陆被屏蔽）……意图影响人们对……Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的看法”）；Joseph Menn（约瑟夫·门恩），《Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID》（亲华社交媒体活动波及新国家，指责美国应为COVID负责），Reuters（路透社），2021年9月9日[\\(http][covid-2021-09-08/\\)]（报道FireEye和Alphabet's Google的安全专家观察到一场协调一致的社交媒体虚假信息活动，该活动旨在支持中国政府利益并针对我）。正如这些独立来源所证实，世界上没有任何人比我遭受过更多来自CCP社交媒体战的攻击。\n\n3 CCP针对我这一居住在美国的中国异见人士所采用的辱虐手段并非独有。最近，联邦检察官指称，“[一]名中国间谍雇佣了一名私家侦探，如有必要使用暴力终止一名候选人的国会竞选，并指示他‘打到他无法参选为止。’”见Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《Chinese Agent Proposed Violent Means to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says》（司法部称，中国特工提议以暴力手段终止异见人士竞选国会议员），Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2022年3月16日[\\(http][with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\\\_inline\\)]。\n\n案件22-50073 文件107 提交于03/20/22 录入于03/20/22 15:39:01 第7页，共108页 案件22-50073 文件404-2 提交于05/20/22 录入于05/20/22 11:52:18 第8页，共109页\n\nCCP在HNA Group Co.（海航集团）的所有权权益。CCP采取了若干行动，试图阻止我和VOA（美国之音）继续进行采访。首先，在我预定接受VOA采访的两天前——正如Brunu Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——CCP基于捏造的刑事指控，发布了一份国际刑警组织（INTERPOL）“红色通报”，寻求逮捕我并将我引渡至中国。其次，CCP威胁称，如VOA继续对我进行采访，将对VOA及其驻中国记者进行报复，并主张该采访构成对中国内政的干涉。第三，在采访前一天，PAX（PAG的子公司）在纽约对我提起了一项毫无根据的违约诉讼。我继续接受采访，但VOA（屈从于CCP的压力）命令缩短采访。\n\n16. 在CCP早期试图使我噤声的努力失败后，其转而试图将我引渡至中国，在那里我将被杀害。FBI（联邦调查局）的一项调查披露，2017年夏季期间，我成为CCP在美国游说活动的目标；该活动利用一名腐败政府官员和若干知名人士，包括澳门赌场所有者Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利），直接游说President Trump（特朗普总统）及其政府将我引渡至中国。[4] CCP的计划导致Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）前财务主席Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）（此后他与Brunu Wu一样，\n\n4 见Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔），《Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman》（史蒂夫·永利或因参与中国驱逐商人的行动而面临司法部采取行动），Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2021年5月26日[\\(http][mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103\\)]。\n\n案件22-50073 文件107 提交于03/20/22 录入于03/20/22 15:39:01 第8页，共108页 案件22-50073 文件404-2 提交于05/20/22 录入于05/20/22 11:52:18 第9页，共109页\n\n资助其他当事人对我提起诉讼）、游说人士Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）以及前DOJ（美国司法部）官员George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）受到联邦起诉并作出有罪认罪答辩；[5][6][7]他们均承认收取款项，以换取游说美国政府高级官员将我引渡。中国的行动包括贿赂和腐蚀一名DOJ总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现了近\\$75 million，使其成为DOJ历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。CCP还从同年开始以各种其他方式针对我，包括：于2017年9月入侵提交我庇护申请的律师事务所服务器，从该申请中提取我的高度敏感信息，然后在互联网上公开传播；对我提起并资助（包括通过Brunu Wu提起和资助的数项）大量虚假诉讼，其中部分至今仍在进行；以及拘留、酷刑折磨并监禁我的许多家庭成员和前同事。\n\n5 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National》（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪就秘密游说活动认罪，该活动旨在撤销对1MDB的调查并移除一名中国外国国民），2020年10月20日[\\(http][investigation-and\\)]（称“Broidy还同意代表Foreign National A（外国国民A）和People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A（中华人民共和国（PRC）部长A）游说政府和DOJ，以安排移除并遣返PRC National A——一名居住在美国的PRC异见人士”；我即为“PRC National A”）。有关Elliott Broidy的“Criminal Information”（刑事起诉信息）副本作为附件A附于本文件。\n\n6 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Hawaii Businesswoman Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China》（夏威夷女商人就协助秘密游说活动认罪，该活动旨在撤销对1MDB的调查并将一名外国国民移送中国），2020年8月31日[\\(http][campaign-drop-1mdb\\)]（称“Lum Davis和其他人还同意代表Foreign National A（外国国民A）和People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A（中华人民共和国（PRC）部长A）游说政府和司法部，以安排移除并遣返PRC National A——一名居住在美国的PRC异见人士”；我即为“PRC National A”）。有关Nicki Lum Davis的“Criminal Information”（刑事起诉信息）副本作为附件B附于本文件。\n\n7 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds》（司法部前雇员就共谋欺骗美国银行有关数百万美元外国游说资金的事项认罪），2018年11月30日[\\(http][banks-about-millions\\)]（称“Higginbotham进一步承认，该游说活动的另一目的是试图说服美国政府高级官员，将另一名当时持临时签证居住在美国的外国国民从美国移除并送回其原籍国”；我即为该“另一名外国国民”）。有关George Higginbotham的“Factual Basis for Plea”（认罪事实依据）副本作为附件C附于本文件。\n\n案件22-50073 文件107 提交于03/20/22 录入于03/20/22 15:39:01 第9页，共108页 案件22-50073 文件404-2 提交于05/20/22 录入于05/20/22 11:52:18 第10页，共109页\n\n17. 自2017年以来，CCP还冻结和扣押了我在中国和香港的家庭资产及所谓资产，使我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。[8] CCP已将摧毁我所创造的一切并阻止我与金融机构打交道作为其使命。我大部分时间以无偿非正式顾问或发言人的身份为各种实体服务，其中包括揭露CCP腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，满足我的生活需要。在申请日之前，我儿子的家族办公室Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“GSNY”或“家族办公室”）在众多事项中为我购买衣物、食品和日用品。我无法使用GSNY信用卡或GSNY银行账户。除衣物和移动电话外，我使用的几乎所有物品均由我的家人保有所有权。我不拥有位于Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林尼治）的住所；该住所由我的妻子通过Greenwich Land, LLC持有。我为我的儿子以信托方式持有Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）公寓的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人已向我提供贷款（部分有文件记载，部分没有），以资助我巨额的诉讼费用，使我得以在由CCP发起或依其要求发起的众多诉讼中为自己辩护。截至申请日，GSNY已向我提供约\\$21 million贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如以下所述并如我的Statement of Financial Affairs（“SOFA”）（财务状况说明书）所载，我是在美国及国外待决的30多起诉讼中的被告和/或请求人。众所周知，CCP利用其代理人\n\n8 2018年10月23日，High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭）（“HK High Court”）作出了日期为2018年10月18日的Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere（禁止处分香港及其他地区资产的限制令）（“HK Restraint Order”）。HK Restraint Order针对据称属于我的、存放于Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited（HSBC Bank）（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司）的HK\\$3.7 million资金。根据HK Restraint Order，据称受我“有效控制”的个人和实体所持有的更多数十亿资金和财产，包括香港房地产，亦被予以冻结和/或扣押。HK Restraint Order禁止被点名的“respondents”（被申请人）（包括我）处分任何资产。任何人在HK Restraint Order作出后接收我的资产，均据称违反该命令，并可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n案件22-50073 文件107 提交于03/20/22 录入于03/20/22 15:39:01 第10页，共108页 案件22-50073 文件404-2 提交于05/20/22 录入于05/20/22 11:52:18 第11页，共109页\n\n提起诉讼，即使是在美国法院提起诉讼，以胁迫因政治原因被追缉的个人返回中国。[9] 与此类诉讼相关而聘用律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的费用极其高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在所提交的Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（“Schedules”）（资产和负债明细表）及SOFA中反映了我目前负债的状况。家族办公室协助我准备这些文件，具有丰富破产明细表和财务状况说明书编制经验的独立财务顾问公司Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（弗多利诺及洛伊律师事务所）亦提供协助。如该等文件所反映及如下文进一步所述，我在21起诉讼中被列为被告，并欠付数额巨大的诉讼费用。\n\nA. PAX诉讼。\n\n20. PAX是一家香港投资基金——其母公司PAG与CCP代理人Brunu Wu的媒体公司合作购买了一家好莱坞制片厂——其在纽约和British Virgin Islands（“BVI”）（英属维尔京群岛）对我提起诉讼。如前所述，PAX在New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的诉讼于2017年4月18日，即我接受VOA采访揭露CCP腐败的前一天提交。PAX的请求主要涉及追收一笔存在争议的债务。\n\n21. 2008年，PAX向一家名为Spirit Carter的中国实体提供了一笔\\$100 million贷款（“PAX Loan”）。该\\$100 million贷款分两批发放：(1) 一笔\\$30 million初始贷款，以我作出的个人保证作担保；以及(2) 第二笔\\$70 million贷款，以最终成为Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地/开发项目所属公司49%的权益作担保。\n\n9 见Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts》（中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院），Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2020年7月29日[\\(http][fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112\\)]。\n\n案件22-50073 文件107 提交于03/20/22 录入于03/20/22 15:39:01 第11页，共108页 案件22-50073 文件404-2 提交于05/20/22 录入于05/20/22 11:52:18 第12页，共109页\n\n22. 2009年，PAX（PAX）收到$100 million的偿还款，确认该贷款已获清偿，并进一步确认我在2008年个人担保项下的义务已获履行。PAX对实际上是否发生了“和解及清偿”提出异议，并现依据一份日期在后的、伪造的个人担保向我主张权利。在向我出示该担保之前，我先前的诉讼代理律师曾将其提交法院，以支持若干动议。其后，当我得知该文件存在时，我表示我认为其系伪造；但法院裁定，由于其先前已被提交，我不再有能力对其真实性提出质疑。因此，2020年9月15日，法院作出有利于PAX的简易判决，既未允许我作证，也未在陪审团面前进行证据审判。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为$125 million。我已及时向New York Appellate Division（纽约上诉分庭）对该判决提出上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。[10]\n\n23. 数周后（于2020年10月15日），法院就我的资产签发了一项限制令（下称“NYS限制令”）。PAX在执行该判决时，主要关注一艘名为“Lady May”的游艇，后文将对其作进一步说明。我并不拥有Lady May；其由我的女儿所有。该船的维护费用一直由我的儿子支付。尽管如此，2021年3月16日，Ostrager法官（Justice Ostrager）命令我在2021年5月15日前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每在管辖区外停留一天，我将面临$500,000的巨额每日罚款。我确实能够使用该船，但我无权命令其返回纽约。Lady May从未返回纽约；截至今年年初，累计的藐视法庭罚款已超过作出有利于PAX判决的金额，并为该游艇所称价值的五至六倍。我无力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的资产清单中包括一项针对我历任诉讼代理律师的潜在执业过失索赔。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 于03/20/22提交 于03/20/22登记 15:39:01 第12页，共108页 案件 22-50073 文件 404-2 于05/20/22提交 于05/20/22登记 11:52:18 第13页，共109页\n\n24. 2022年2月9日，Ostrager法官对我签发了一项民事藐视法庭最终命令（下称“2月9日藐视法庭命令”）。在2月9日藐视法庭命令中，Ostrager法官认定我对Lady May享有受益权益并对其实施控制，且命令我在五个工作日内向PAX支付$134 million罚款，否则将面临因民事藐视法庭而被监禁的风险。我认为2月9日藐视法庭命令被错误地针对我签发，并已另行向上诉分庭对此命令提出上诉。无论如何，我均无能力履行该命令。我坚信中国共产党（CCP）正在策划PAX案件。迄今为止，PAX诉讼是中共对我不懈施压行动中为数不多的成功之一，其使我面临可能被监禁的风险[11]，并迫使我破产。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 因我推广销售一家名为GTV Media Group, Inc（GTV Media Group, Inc.）的公司（下称“GTV”）的证券，以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币，我在七起诉讼中被列为被告。除两个拟议投资者集体外，数名个人投资者亦就其据称投资后遭受的损失向我主张权利。这些诉讼中的原告通常主张，我参与了一项向缺乏经验的投资者出售未经注册证券的计划，从而违反适用的美国证券法。各项起诉书合计请求我及包括GTV及其母公司Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca Media Group, Inc.，下称“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告赔偿超过$100 million的损害赔偿。我认为这些主张均无依据。[12]\n\n11 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.）关于作出命令确认自动中止不适用，或备选地根据《破产法》第362(D)(2)条解除自动中止的动议[Docket No. 57]（下称“解除中止动议”）。我认为，准许解除中止动议所请求的救济将对我造成重大损害，并实质性地损害我的破产财产及其债权人的利益。如PAX在解除中止动议中所示，执行2月9日藐视法庭命令可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性地损害我实现本Chapter 11案件目标的能力。尤其是，如被监禁，我将无法充分且适当地管理我的破产财产、参与本破产案件、与债权人谈判、出席本院并陈述意见、咨询并指示律师、调查并归集破产财产的资产，或制定并协商Chapter 11计划。此外，我认为PAX错误地认为，如我面临被监禁的风险，我的家人将支付PAX的赎金；我的家人不会这样做。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 于03/20/22提交 于03/20/22登记 15:39:01 第13页，共108页 案件 22-50073 文件 404-2 于05/20/22提交 于05/20/22登记 11:52:18 第14页，共109页\n\nC. 诽谤主张。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直非常活跃于社交媒体，并发布批评中共、其代理人及其影响力范围内其他人士的内容。在此背景下，据称在我的社交媒体内容中被指认的某些人士已对我提出诽谤主张。如我在财务状况说明书中所列，我目前在数起诽谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中若干诉讼由Brunu Wu（Brunu Wu）资助；其是已承认的中共代理人，也是PAX母公司的商业伙伴。这些诉讼中的原告合计主张了巨额损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资成本。\n\n27. 我为获得金钱救济而提出主张的成本，系通过根据诉讼融资协议（下称“诉讼融资协议”）提供的贷款予以融资。在我必须为主张进行抗辩的情况下，Family Office（家族办公室）已向我垫付贷款以支付我的诉讼成本。无论在哪种情况下，贷款所得款项均直接支付给我聘请的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日，GSNY（GSNY）已为与诉讼有关的支出向我垫付约$21 million。\n\n28. 在存在诉讼融资协议的情况下，如我最终成功主张并收回我的索赔，GSNY有权获得溢价，并已就我的部分诉讼回收款设定担保权益，以担保该等偿还款和投资回报。\n\n12 这些事项涉及某一已和解的执法程序。具体而言，2021年9月，GTV和Saraca就SEC关于GTV发行违反33 Act第506条的主张，与SEC达成公开宣布的“既不承认也不否认”和解（下称“SEC实体和解”）。In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021)。GTV和Saraca还与New York State Office of the Attorney General（纽约州总检察长办公室）就平行程序达成和解。Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents (Sept 13, 2021)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 于03/20/22提交 于03/20/22登记 15:39:01 第14页，共108页 案件 22-50073 文件 404-2 于05/20/22提交 于05/20/22登记 11:52:18 第15页，共109页\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据告知，在我的Chapter 11案件开始时，已形成一项破产财产，其中包括截至申请日我在任何地点、由任何人持有的财产中享有的所有法定或衡平权益。据进一步告知，我的破产财产及其所有财产均受本院的管辖和监督。当然，我接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的资产清单中列明。这些资产主要为衣物、食品和其他少量家居物品，以及诉讼请求权。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物和其他日常用品。我能够使用的其他一切物品——包括车辆、我的住所（过去及现时）、家具、艺术品和电子设备（我的手机除外）——均由我的家庭成员所有。我经其许可可以使用这些资产，但未经其许可，我无权处分任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我亦是在美国、英国和瑞士审理的数起案件中的索赔人。该等诉讼的具体情况已在我的财务状况说明书中披露。以下两项诉讼值得在此特别说明：\n\na. UBS主张。在英国Royal Courts of Justice（皇家法院）审理的案件中，我和若干共同原告向UBS AG (London Branch)（UBS AG伦敦分行，下称“UBS”）提出索赔，请求获得超过$500 million的损害赔偿，该等赔偿涉及UBS就我试图促成收购并取得一家中国金融机构Haitong（海通）于2015年发行的若干股份时所作的过失性陈述及建议。截至2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁决，确认英国法院对我针对UBS的主张享有管辖权，而非UBS主张的瑞士法院管辖。鉴于UBS对管辖权提出异议，必须同时在瑞士Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔市民事法院调解机构）提起平行诉讼，以确保在英国被认定缺乏管辖权时，该诉讼仍可继续进行（并未被认定缺乏管辖权）。瑞士的该案目前中止审理，等待UBS就该管辖权问题向英国Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提出的上诉结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill主张。此外，我已向Clark Hill PLC（Clark Hill PLC）及其一名成员Thomas K. Ragland（Thomas K. Ragland）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出主张。本案目前在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）审理。我正就Clark Hill违反其法律代理职责，向其请求$50 million的补偿性损害赔偿以及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿。具体而言，由于Clark Hill未能充分保护我的庇护申请中所含的高度敏感信息，中共于2017年9月期间入侵Clark Hill的服务器，提取该等高度敏感信息，随后将其传播至互联网。更糟糕的是，Clark Hill屈从于中共黑客的威胁，辞去我的移民代理律师职务。因此，我已遭受并持续遭受损害。\n\n33. 另有两项并非由我所有的资产值得特别说明：（a）Lady May；以及（b）位于纽约市Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰酒店）的一套公寓（下称“该公寓”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 于03/20/22提交 于03/20/22登记 15:39:01 第16页，共108页 案件 22-50073 文件 404-2 于05/20/22提交 于05/20/22登记 11:52:18 第17页，共109页\n\n- a. Lady May（Lady May号游艇）。如上所述，我并不拥有Lady May，但我确有获准登船并享用该船的许可。我的女儿通过HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC拥有并控制该游艇。尽管州法院在2月9日藐视法庭命令中的认定如此，该游艇留在纽约或返回纽约并非我所能指示。\n\n- b. Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）公寓。Sherry-Netherland公寓的合作社股份由Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。[13] Genever US的成员权益则由Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。然而，根据日期为February 17, 2015的《信托声明和协议》（“信托日期”），我为Bravo Luck Limited（“公寓所有人”）以信托方式持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有该公寓所有人的股权。在信托日期当日或前后，公寓所有人为Genever US提供了购买该公寓的购房款。该等资金来自由我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。还应注意的是，Ostrager法官已命令将我在Genever BVI中拥有的任何权益移交给PAX，前提是该移交不干扰英属维尔京群岛正在进行的诉讼或Genever US破产程序。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我相信Ostrager法官、PAX以及可能其他人士认为，我拥有比此处及我的资产清单和财务状况说明中所反映的更强财力。然而，他们认为属于我的财富实际上属于我的儿子、女儿、妻子和大家庭成员，而非属于我。但是，如上所述，\n\n13. On October 12, 2020，Genever US在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提交了Chapter 11申请（Case No. 20-12411）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 17 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 18 页，共 109 页\n\n本破产程序将允许利害关系方调查该主张，并提出任何相反证据。重要的是，如下文所述，对抗性程序将以避免损害任何债权人在破产财产中经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\nIII. 拟议的DIP融资\n\n35. 如我的资产清单所载，我没有自身资源来支付本Chapter 11案件的费用。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意为本Chapter 11案件的某些费用提供资金。具体而言，GSNY拟按照随批准DIP融资动议附具的DIP融资信贷协议（“DIP信贷协议”）所载条款，向破产财产出借\\$8 million（“DIP融资”）。DIP融资将用于支付，包括但不限于，破产财产聘用的专业人士费用（包括我的专业人士，以及无担保债权人正式委员会和/或审查员（如获任命）聘用的专业人士费用）以及United States Trustee Office（美国受托人办公室）征收的季度费用。在\\$8 million预算中，最多\\$4 million将可用于资助正式债权人委员会和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY提出以无担保方式提供该贷款，其偿还优先级从属于所有获准的一般无担保债权。换言之，DIP融资并非由破产财产的任何资产担保，不要求行政债权或优先债权，并且在所有获准的破产申请前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会从破产财产资产中偿还。因此，该贷款不使我的债权人承担任何成本，并为调查我的事务提供公平机会。我不认为其他贷款人提供的任何贷款会有更优的条款。因此，取得该贷款符合我的破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将不会获得对任何借入资金的使用权。所有DIP融资款项将存入为破产财产利益设立的独立存款账户（“债务人账户”）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 18 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 19 页，共 109 页\n\nV&L（如下文定义）的Craig Jalbert将为唯一获授权签字人。债务人账户的支出仅可依V&L的指示作出，仅限于支付DIP预算中列明的项目所必需的范围内，并须经拟议DIP融资命令、DIP融资文件及法院其他相关命令（包括批准专业人士费用申请的命令）授权。\n\n38. DIP信贷协议中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：破产法院须在DIP信贷协议获临时批准之日起45天内最终批准拟议DIP融资命令。见DIP信贷协议第¶ 6.01(a)款。DIP信贷协议中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即作出命令，准许PAX解除自动中止，以便在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。见DIP信贷协议第¶ 8.01(e)款。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是根据2月9日藐视法庭命令寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准予该项救济，我将无法实质性地指导和参与有序的债权解决及计划程序。在该等情况下，我的儿子——通过GSNY——无意继续资助本Chapter 11案件的费用。\n\nIV. 我的Chapter 11案件的目标\n\n39. 我的最终目标是达成一项完全协商一致的Chapter 11计划，最终解决与我债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在让债权人获得公平机会进行尽职调查并通过由DIP融资支付费用的受托代表提出其意见后，通过审慎且合理的对话实现这一结果。我希望我的债权人将仅出于实现有效债权偿还的动机行事，并将以诉讼作为限制我的言论自由及对政治滥用的批评之手段置于一旁。我\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 19 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 20 页，共 109 页\n\n还希望，如果债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人根据计划获得公平回收。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要是诉讼请求权，我相信这些请求权具有重大理由并且具有价值（其价值可能足以全额清偿所有债权人）。但是，再次强调，所有利益相关方将获得公平机会对其进行调查。\n\n41. 我理解，我的Chapter 11案件将提供一个平台，以最终确定哪些其他资产可能构成我的破产财产。我的某些债权人主张，我拥有我认为由我的家庭成员或其关联实体拥有和控制的资产。我不认为就我对Lady May的“受益”所有权和控制权作出命令的New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾确定我对该船拥有实际法定所有权，或者该船现为我Chapter 11破产财产的资产。这些问题将被明确且公平地提交本法院，以作出适当裁决。\n\n42. 多年来，我一直在为所谓债权人提起的诉讼进行抗辩。如上所述，由我儿子拥有和控制的GSNY已向我出借数百万资金，用以支付我的抗辩费用。本Chapter 11案件将提供一个平台，一劳永逸地确定针对我破产财产的获准债权范围。债权人将获给予机会对我的Chapter 11破产财产提出债权，而该程序应当使破产财产中的任何资产在所有处于同等地位的债权人之间得到公平分配（例如，不允许PAX在同一债权人类别中领先于他人）。我将与我的专业人士合作，以实现适当的债权核对程序。\n\n43. 最终，我希望达成一项理性、价值最大化的计划，使我摆脱诉讼，并有助于根据Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）实现“重新开始”。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 20 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 21 页，共 109 页\n\n第二部分——动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅以下各项动议，并且据我所知、所获信息及所信，动议中陈述的事实真实、正确。\n\n45. 批准DIP融资的动议。DIP融资对于支付与Chapter 11案件有关的费用并为我提供足够的缓冲期是必要的，以使我在我极具能力且经验丰富的顾问协助下，能够就重组计划进行谈判并实现其确认。\n\n46. 鉴于我与债权人之间的对抗性和诉讼性关系，尤其是与PAX之间的关系，促使我寻求Chapter 11救济，我要求且GSNY同意，DIP融资应当惠及所有破产财产专业人士，且不设定任何可能损害我债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP融资以无担保方式提供，从属于我的破产申请前债权人的权利，且不附带任何行政性或其他优先偿还权。我的理解是，DIP贷款当且仅当我的所有其他债权人获得全额清偿时方予偿还。鉴于这些慷慨条款，我认为，任何试图从其他来源以竞争性或类似条款获取融资的做法都将浪费破产财产资源且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上文及我的资产清单所载，我预计我作为原告的诉讼中取得的追偿款或和解款项将用于资助Chapter 11计划。如无法获得DIP融资，我将无法继续聘用并支付目前代表我提起诉讼的律师报酬。同样，如我无法对这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论是在本程序内，还是在解除中止获准时于其他审理地点），我的负债可能大幅增加。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 21 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 22 页，共 109 页\n\n48. 基于这些理由，我相信拟议DIP融资是善意提供的，不损害我的任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我的破产财产的最佳利益，因此应予批准。\n\n49. 聘用Stretto, Inc.（“Stretto”）作为债权及通知代理人的申请。在Chapter 11案件审理期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人，协助向破产财产的债权人和利害关系方提供通知。我已选择Stretto担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto在美国各地的多宗Chapter 11案件中担任债权及通知代理人，具有丰富经验，包括在本辖区内。Stretto已同意提供下列咨询服务：(a) 担任通知代理人，向破产财产的债权人及其他利害关系方邮寄通知；(b) 维护一个电子平台，用于提交债权证明、计划征求、投票、计票、分配，以及编制资产和负债清单及财务状况说明时的行政支持；以及(c) 就本Chapter 11案件提供其他必要的行政服务。\n\n50. 申请聘任 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）担任重组法律顾问。我需要具备高度能力和丰富经验的重组法律顾问，就我退出第11章程序事宜向我提供建议并协助构建方案，该方案可能采取经确认的重组计划的形式。我已选择 Brown Rudnick LLP（“Brown Rudnick”）担任我第11章案件的重组法律顾问。Brown Rudnick 在债务人和债权人权利以及《破产法》第11章项下重组领域拥有广泛的经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本地区及全国其他地区的众多第11章案件中代理债务人、正式和非正式委员会及其他重要当事方。Brown Rudnick 亦熟悉我的事务以及将在第11章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：（a）编制所有必要的动议、答复、应答及其他法律文书，包括可能需要的庭审准备；\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 22 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 23 页，共 109 页\n\n必要时；（b）为批准披露声明及确认重组计划编制文件并采取必要行动；以及（c）在第11章案件审理期间提供可能需要的所有其他法律服务。\n\n51. 在申请日之前，Brown Rudnick 分别于 February 14, 2022 和 February 15, 2022 收到 $500,000 的预付聘金。该等共计 $1 million 的预付聘金（“BR Retainer”）的来源是 Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital LLC”），该公司由我儿子所有。Lamp 向我提供了 $1 million 的无担保贷款，而我指示 Lamp 将该贷款所得款项直接汇付给 Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick 已从 BR Retainer 中抵扣申请日前的费用及垫付款 $51,835.20，Brown Rudnick 持有的申请日前 BR Retainer 余额因此为 $948,164.80。此后，我已要求 Brown Rudnick 将其获准的费用及垫付款从 BR Retainer 中抵扣，直至 BR Retainer 余额为 $250,000；此后，Brown Rudnick 将通过 DIP Financing 的所得款项向我请求支付其获准的费用和开支。\n\n52. 申请聘任 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺与洛伊会计师事务所）担任财务顾问。我需要一家财务顾问公司编制、审阅和分析《破产法》所要求的必要财务披露，以及第11章案件审理期间持续的月度和季度报告要求。我已选择 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”）担任我的财务顾问。V&L 在与陷入财务困境的个人第11章债务人合作方面拥有丰富经验，并提供量身定制的服务，包括但不限于财务顾问、咨询、会计服务、税务及其他相关服务。V&L 已同意就以下事项提供服务：（a）编制和审阅我的 SOFA、财产清单及其他定期报告要求；（b）编制和/或审阅现金流量及相关预算预测；（c）维持 DIP 账户，并在必要时执行付款，以及对所有现金活动进行核算；\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 23 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 24 页，共 109 页\n\n必要时，并对所有现金活动进行核算；（d）债权审查和管理；（e）重组计划的制订和审阅；（f）提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及（g）就第11章案件审理期间可能出现的任何其他事项和任务提供一般咨询和协助。\n\n53. 请求授权聘用并支付在日常经营过程中使用的专业人士的动议。我是美国州和联邦层级以及外国司法管辖区内众多未决案件中的具名原告或具名被告。就该等诉讼及某些持续进行的政府调查而言，在申请日之前，我聘用了多家律师事务所、会计师及其他非律师专业人士（统称为我的“日常经营专业人士”）；该等人士就我的申请日前诉讼提供服务，并就与本第11章案件无关的各种事项提供其他服务。经法院批准，我拟使用 DIP Financing 继续聘用并支付该等日常经营专业人士的报酬，因为他们每一位均对我的事务（申请日前）和我的未决诉讼拥有大量知识、专业技能和熟悉程度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我寻求就 DIP Financing 获得紧急临时救济的原因之一，是确保代理我的专业人士继续工作。除非我能够向某些专业人士保证其申请日前及申请日后的工作将获得报酬，否则他们可能退出对我的代理。此类退出代理，视案件状态及适用专业人士所提供的服务而定，可能对我及我的破产财产造成明确且不可弥补的损害。UBS、Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）及其他未决诉讼请求权均为资产，我预计将依赖这些资产协助制订并可能确认一项重组计划。对我推进该等请求权的任何干扰，无疑都会破坏其价值。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 24 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 25 页，共 109 页\n\n55. 总之，如无我的日常经营专业人士就其申请日前工作所具备的知识、专业技能和熟悉程度，我的破产财产将为培训和聘用替代专业人士而产生大量额外且不必要的开支；该等替代专业人士对于保全并可能继续推进这些有价值的诉讼请求权是必要的。因此，我相信，继续聘用我的日常经营专业人士符合本破产财产、我的债权人及其他利害关系方的最佳利益。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 25 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 26 页，共 109 页\n\n附件 A\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n刑事案号\n\n诉 罪名项 1：18 U.S.C. § 371（共谋）\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY（艾略特·布罗伊迪），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事起诉书\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本刑事起诉书有关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于 March 2017 起至至少约 January 2018 期间，ELLIOTT BROIDY 同 Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）和 A某达成协议，作为外国国民A的代理人行事，以换取数百万美元的未披露报酬。BROIDY 明确同意游说美国总统行政当局（“Administration”）和美国司法部（“DOJ”），以撤销或以其他方式有利地解决针对外国国民A因其在从 1 Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）——一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司——挪用数十亿美元中所扮演角色而涉及的事项。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和 A某故意未向行政当局和 DOJ 官员披露 BROIDY 正代表外国国民A行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis 和 A某未能使涉及外国国民A的 1MDB 事项被撤销或以其他方式获得有利解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，BROIDY、Davis 和 A某还同意代表外国国民A游说行政当局和 DOJ，以安排将中国国民A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国公民——遣送回中国。该事项尤其涉及主张安排中国部长A与美国政府官员会晤。在此方面，BROIDY、Davis 和 A某最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民A的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A某协助下，试图促成马来西亚总理A与总统于 September 2017 会晤，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理A能够向总统提出解决 1MDB 事项的问题。\n\n5. BROIDY、Davis 和 A某还在中华人民共和国与中国部长A会面，并同意 BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A某协助下游说行政当局，将中国国民A送回中国。BROIDY、Davis 和 A某还同意并试图促成中国部长A与行政当局、DOJ 及 United States Department of Homeland Security（美国国土安全部，“DHS”）高级官员之间的会晤，其明确目的在于使中国部长A有机会在其于 May 2017 访问美国期间，与美国高级官员讨论遣送中国国民A事宜。\n\n作为外国委托人或政府代理人行事的刑事禁止规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去和现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向总检察长登记，例如代表该外国委托人从事政治或公共关系活动或游说活动。此类登记向 DOJ 内国家安全司的《外国代理人登记法》处（“FARA Unit”）办理。明知而故意未进行登记，以及在依该法规定向 FARA Unit 提交的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA 的目的在于防止外国委托人的隐蔽影响。依该法规进行适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估作为外国委托人代理人的个人所作的陈述和活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人向该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得的报酬来源和数额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 自约 2017 至 April 2018 担任一个全国性政治委员会的副财务主席。BROIDY 从捐助人处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在 2016 选举周期内与一名美国总统职位候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。BROIDY 在担任副财务主席期间，得以接触并联络行政当局的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，BROIDY 拥有并经营多家美国国内和国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis 曾经且现在均为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与 BROIDY 和 A某具有个人和商业关系。August 31, 2020，Davis 在 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii（夏威夷联邦地区法院）就一项指控协助和教唆违反 FARA 的单项刑事起诉书认罪答辩。\n\n10. A某曾经且现在均为美国公民、商人和演艺人士，并具有国际联系，包括与外国国民A的联系。\n\n11. 外国国民A是在东亚居住的一名富有商人，因其策划并实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元的计划而被另案起诉。\n\n12. A公司是由 A某设立的一家有限责任公司，用于接收来自外国国民A的电汇，并被 A某用于支付 BROIDY、Davis 及其他人为其游说活动所获得的报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是 Person A（A 人）的关联人士，并曾受雇于 DOJ（美国司法部）担任持证律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham 在 United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一份指控其共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项罪名项起诉信息书认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A 律师事务所）是一家由 Person C（C 人）经营并由 BROIDY（布罗伊迪）和 Person C 控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中国公民 A）是中华人民共和国公民，持临时签证居住于美国。中华人民共和国政府，包括 PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将中国公民 A 从美国遣返回中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ 正积极调查据称与1MDB侵吞计划洗钱所得有关的 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）的交易。2016年7月，DOJ 提起多项民事没收诉讼，请求没收据称以1MDB洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ 提交刑事起诉书，指控外国国民 A 及其他人共谋清洗从1MDB侵吞的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚及阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）官员支付贿赂而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n第一项罪名\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n（共谋担任未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 兹重述第1至第16段，并通过援引将其纳入本文。\n\n18. 自不迟于2017年3月起，至至少约2018年1月止，被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）明知而与其他已知及未知人员共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地在涉及1MDB事项及遣返中国公民 A 的问题上担任外国委托人，即外国国民 A 的代理人，而未向司法部长登记，违反22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n\n共谋的目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的之一，是由 BROIDY、Davis（戴维斯）、Person A 和外国国民 A 策划非正式渠道、未登记的活动，游说政府和 DOJ，以：(1) 终止1MDB事项，或以其他方式对外国国民 A 有利地解决该等事项；以及 (2) 将中国公民 A 从美国遣返至中华人民共和国。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一，是由 BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 利用 BROIDY 与总统及其政府之间的接触渠道和被认为具有的影响力，以从外国国民 A 获得付款，从而赚取数百万美元。\n\n21. 该共谋的目的之一，是由 BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 隐瞒 BROIDY 与外国国民 A 的接触及从其收取的款项，以维持 BROIDY 在美国官员中的可信度，并推进该非法游说计划。\n\n共谋的方式和手段\n\n22. BROIDY 及其他人实施该共谋的方式和手段包括但不限于以下各项：\n\n为会见外国委托人和政府官员而进行的国际旅行\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、Person A 和 Higginbotham 以不同组合前往泰国、马来西亚和中华人民共和国，旨在与外国国民 A、中国部长 A 及其他人会面，就 BROIDY 将如何在官方渠道之外游说政府和 DOJ 以换取数百万美元的安排进行谈判和讨论。\n\n与美国官员的会面和接触\n\n24. BROIDY 直接或通过中间人，促成并试图促成会面及其他旨在影响美国政府最高层官员（包括总统和司法部长）的行动，以使中国部长 A 和外国国民 A 受益。\n\n25. BROIDY 直接或通过中间人联系美国政府高级官员，以安排外国政府官员，包括中国部长 A 和 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A），举行会面，从而为这些外国官员提供正式请求有利政府行动的机会，包括有利地解决1MDB事项及遣返中国公民 A。\n\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 同意隐瞒 BROIDY 以个人身份及作为中国部长 A 的中间人代表外国国民 A 游说的协议。BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 未向美国政府官员和公众披露，并同意不披露 BROIDY 与外国国民 A 之间的财务安排及其从外国国民 A 收取的款项。在为推进该共谋而拟定的大量接触、通信和文件中，BROIDY、Davis、Person A 和 Higginbotham 对外国国民 A 的提及均采取保密和匿名方式。此外，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 在就外国国民 A 和中国公民 A 进行沟通时，经常使用加密应用程序，以隐瞒其行为及与外国国民 A 的关联。最后，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 默示或明示地同意不依照 FARA 登记，以隐瞒其与外国国民 A 之间的安排。\n\n公开行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，BROIDY 及其他人在哥伦比亚特区及其他地点实施了以下公开行为，除其他行为外。\n\nI. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的活动\n\nA. BROIDY 同意以 $8 Million 预付聘用费为外国国民 A 游说\n\n28. 约于2017年3月，Person A 联系 Davis，试图寻找一名与政府关系密切的人士来帮助一名外国客户。Davis 随后告知 BROIDY，她在马来西亚有一名可能需要协助处理没收事项的潜在客户。\n\n29. 约于2017年3月7日，Person A 要求 Davis 向其发送 BROIDY 的履历，其中描述了 BROIDY 与政府高级官员的关系，以及 BROIDY 与总统的照片。约于2017年3月7日，应 Davis 的请求，BROIDY 的助手通过电子邮件向 Davis 发送了 BROIDY 与总统的照片。Person A 表示，他想要这些照片，以便向外国国民 A 强调 BROIDY 与政府之间的密切接触渠道。\n\n30. 约于2017年3月8日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信称：“你16日会在洛杉矶吗，能否在[Person A]那个周末前往亚洲之前与其见面？”BROIDY 回复：“我想是的。稍后再谈。”\n\n31. 约于2017年3月13日，BROIDY 与 Davis 和 Person A 会面，讨论外国国民 A 和1MDB。在会面中，Person A 向 BROIDY 说明了其与外国国民 A 的关系，并询问 BROIDY 是否能够协助处理涉及外国国民 A 的民事没收案件。Person A 表示，他将与外国国民 A 讨论由 BROIDY 协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约于2017年3月13日，Davis 向 Person A 转发了一份 Law Firm A 与外国国民 A 之间的“预付聘用费及费用协议——诉讼服务”，以便 Person A 向外国国民 A 出示该协议。该“预付聘用费及费用协议”规定，外国国民 A 应预先支付 $8 million 预付聘用费；如该“事项”在180日内获得解决，则另行支付 $75 million 成功费用；如该“事项”在365日内获得解决，则支付 $50 million。该协议草案包括附件 A，其中说明“事项”是指1MDB没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A 和 Person C 均未向外国国民 A 提供诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于 BROIDY 的政治关系，取得 BROIDY 代表外国国民 A 向政府和 DOJ 游说的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉作为外国委托人代理人须登记的要求，BROIDY、Davis 或 Person A 从未就其担任外国国民 A 代理人的工作向 FARA Unit（《外国代理人登记法》部门）登记。\n\nB. BROIDY、Person A 和 Davis 在曼谷会见外国国民 A\n\n34. 约于2017年4月，Davis 转达了 Person A 提出让 BROIDY 前往泰国曼谷会见外国国民 A 的请求。BROIDY 告知 Davis，应转告 Person A，只有在获得 $1 million 报酬的情况下他才会前往，并且他希望由 Person A 从“无污染”资金中向其付款。BROIDY 获保证，Person A 将亲自支付 $1 million，作为 BROIDY 前往曼谷的对价。\n\n35. 约于2017年4月28日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信称：“我希望款项汇入[Law Firm A]。”同日，Davis 回复：“好的[。]”\n\n36. 约于2017年4月29日，BROIDY 和 Davis 就其即将与外国国民 A 和 Person A 举行的会面交换短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY 就外国国民 A 问道：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点住特定酒店？”Davis 回复：“你能说话时给我打电话[。]”\n\n37. 约于2017年5月1日，Davis 通过电子邮件向 BROIDY 及其助手发送了曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接，并部分写道：“请在你们在线预订后，将 Elliott 的房间和我的房间的酒店确认函发给我，我会转发。”同日，Davis 另行发送电子邮件给 Person A，要求其在香格里拉酒店预订房间并向她发送确认函。Person A 回复：“[外国国民 A]正在预订我们的酒店”，随后又补充道：“还请把 Elliott 的电汇信息发给我。”Davis 回复并提供了以 Law Firm A 名义开设账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 约于2017年5月2日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“由于你更早抵达——[Person A]和我会在抵达处见你……谢谢，祝一路顺风——为一段令人兴奋且繁荣的冒险之旅的开始干杯！”\n\n39. 约于2017年5月2日，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 抵达曼谷。在该次旅行中，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 在一间酒店套房内与外国国民 A 会面。BROIDY 和外国国民 A 谈论了1MDB事项。BROIDY 同意帮助外国国民 A 尝试解决该事项。外国国民 A 同意向 BROIDY 支付 $8 million 预付聘用费，并希望 BROIDY 联系美国司法部长，促使 DOJ 撤销1MDB事项。BROIDY 同意游说政府和 DOJ，以为外国国民 A 取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其正代表外国国民 A 工作的事实。在会面期间或不久之后，Davis 和 BROIDY 讨论了协助将中国公民 A 从美国遣返的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY 表示，款项不应直接来自外国国民 A，且应当“干净”。外国国民 A 指认了一名能够向 BROIDY 及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A 和 Davis 同意，该款项将首先经由 Person A 转入，然后通过 Law Firm A 支付给 BROIDY。BROIDY 和 Davis 同意，BROIDY 将向 Davis 支付其所收款项的一定百分比。Person A 亦同意向 Davis 支付 Person A 所收款项的一定百分比。Person A 告知 BROIDY 和 Davis，其朋友 Higginbotham 正在核实该等资金的合法性。Higginbotham 实际上并未进行任何此类审查。BROIDY 从未与 Higginbotham 会面或交谈。\n\nC. Person A 从外国国民 A 收到 $8.5 Million；BROIDY 获支付 $6 Million；Davis 获支付 $1.7 Million\n\n40. 在泰国与外国国民 A 会面后，于2017年5月8日前后，A 公司收到由外国国民 A 指示、从一家香港实体汇入的约\\$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，A 人从A 公司账户取得一张金额为\\$702,000、支付给A 律师事务所的银行本票，该款项随即记入A 律师事务所账户。A 人还从A 公司账户向A 律师事务所另行电汇\\$48,000。同日，第三方公司依A 人指示向A 律师事务所账户转入\\$250,000，使存入A 律师事务所账户的总额达到\\$1 million。在数日内，于2017年5月8日前后转入A 律师事务所账户的\\$1 million中，约\\$900,000从该律师事务所账户转入布罗伊迪（BROIDY）的一个商业账户。\n\n41. 于2017年5月8日前后，戴维斯（Davis）向布罗伊迪发送短信：“[A 律师事务所]中的两笔电汇均来自[A 人]。剩余余额于20分钟前送至你的办公室——”。戴维斯随后补充道：“银行本票总额为702[。]”\n\n42. 于2017年5月17日前后，外国国民 A 安排一家香港公司向A 公司发送国际电汇。同日，A 人从A 公司向A 律师事务所转入\\$3 million。于2017年5月18日前后，A 律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入\\$600,000，并向与戴维斯有关联的商业实体账户转入\\$900,000。于2017年5月18日前后，A 律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入\\$500,000。约一周内，A 律师事务所又分两笔向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入额外\\$950,000。\n\n43. 于2017年5月17日前后，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就外国国民 A 经由A 人向布罗伊迪付款，以及布罗伊迪向戴维斯支付一定比例款项一事互发短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯问道：“你收到了吗？”布罗伊迪答道：“是。给你发了Wickr[。]早上向你汇款。”Wickr是一款允许端到端加密及内容到期消失的即时通讯应用程序。布罗伊迪随后补充道：“你收到第二次确认了吗？”戴维斯答道：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正逐步向前推进。”布罗伊迪答道：“是。就接下来的两笔电汇向他们施压。”布罗伊迪随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已经到账，并确认最后两笔正在发送。请问一下[布罗伊迪的助理]。”\n\n44. 于2017年5月25日前后，外国国民 A 安排向A 公司进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为\\$2.7 million。于2017年5月26日前后，A 人从A 公司向A 律师事务所转入\\$2 million，以部分履行布罗伊迪与外国国民 A 约定的\\$8 million聘用费；作为交换，布罗伊迪将协助处理1MDB民事没收案件。同日，\\$600,000从A 律师事务所账户转入与戴维斯有关联的商业账户。于2017年5月26日前后，A 律师事务所向由C 人控制的账户转入\\$1 million。于2017年6月初前后，A 律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入\\$650,000。\n\nD. 布罗伊迪协助并试图协助安排马来西亚总理 A 的会面及解决1MDB案件的工作\n\n45. 于2017年6月5日前后，布罗伊迪向D 人发送短信。D 人是一名政治顾问，曾担任总统竞选助手；布罗伊迪请求D 人与政府合作，为马来西亚总理 A 安排访问：“亚洲国家对于7月会议非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事宜。”根据一项咨询协议，布罗伊迪同意每月向D 人支付\\$25,000，以获取有关如何应对政府的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就外国国民 A 互发短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“你睡觉前请打电话……[外国国民 A]一直打电话询问消息[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“是。我会给你打电话。我今晚前往华盛顿特区，处理[外国国民 A]和亚洲国家的事[。]”\n\n47. 于2017年6月15日前后，应A 人请求，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”戴维斯补充道：“主事人”，这是指外国国民 A。同日，布罗伊迪答道：“可以[。]”\n\n48. 于2017年6月17日前后，布罗伊迪与戴维斯讨论了马来西亚总理 A。于2017年6月前后，布罗伊迪询问总统是否会与马来西亚总理 A 打高尔夫球。布罗伊迪与戴维斯认为，这将取悦外国国民 A，并将使马来西亚总理 A 得以尝试解决1MDB事项。布罗伊迪还希望与马来西亚总理 A 的政府取得更多业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球能够进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 于2017年6月19日前后，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章报道马来西亚总理 A 的办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n50. 于2017年6月29日前后，布罗伊迪向一名白宫高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理 A 与总统进行高尔夫活动：“您好，[E 人]，如我所述，美国总统（POTUS）同意于7月底或8月初在华盛顿特区或贝德明斯特与[马来西亚总理 A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢您回复我日期。另外，数周前已向国务院致函请求会面。”\n\n51. 于2017年6月30日前后，布罗伊迪就该高尔夫活动向E 人发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[中华人民共和国国民 A]以及[马来西亚总理 A]与美国总统的高尔夫日期谈谈。”当日稍后，布罗伊迪补充道：“[E 人]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n52. 于2017年7月3日前后，布罗伊迪再次就马来西亚总理 A 与总统的高尔夫日期向E 人发送短信：“早上好，[E 人]。如果您今天能向美国总统确认与[马来西亚总理 A]的高尔夫日期，这将对我极有帮助。美国总统告诉我，他很乐意在贝德明斯特或华盛顿特区打球。在我们谈话之后，我已告诉[马来西亚总理 A]，他会在上周拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当日稍后，布罗伊迪再次向E 人发送短信：“[E 人]，我正在跟进。请将[马来西亚总理 A]与美国总统打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 于2017年7月5日前后，布罗伊迪与E 人就该高尔夫活动交换信息。在其他信息中，布罗伊迪发送短信：“[E 人]，刚给你留了信息。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott[。]”E 人答道：“此事已交给国家安全委员会（NSC）[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成的[。]”\n\n54. 于2017年7月11日前后，戴维斯转达A 人的信息，向布罗伊迪发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们被逼得很惨。”这些信息是指确认马来西亚总理 A 与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及外国国民 A 因尚未确认日期而表示不满。戴维斯继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被各种信息淹没了[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“看Wickr[。]”次日，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发短信。我正起飞，需要到白宫[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯答道：“完成[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“收到了。谢谢[。]正试着让[F 人]尽快打电话[。]”F 人当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 于2017年7月13日前后，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，我们得谈谈——我们必须处理好这事，所以赶紧去华盛顿特区，在白宫坐着直到你办成。要是你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 于2017年7月13日前后，布罗伊迪再次就高尔夫日期向E 人发送短信：“您好，[E 人]，已经两周了。再次查询[马来西亚总理 A]与美国总统打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliot[。]”E 人答道：“我现在再查一次[。]这些事情要经过流程——”布罗伊迪答道：“谢谢！！”E 人回复道：“国家安全委员会正在处理和协调[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”E 人回复道：“他们正直接与马来西亚方面合作。国家安全委员会正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 于2017年7月15日前后，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“正在设法安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 于2017年7月17日前后，戴维斯代表外国国民 A 转达A 人所表达的紧迫性，向布罗伊迪发送短信：“[E 人]现在必须给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们显得毫无能力[。]”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 的会面，也指涉及中华人民共和国国民 A 的事项。布罗伊迪答道：“同意。正在不断施压[。]”\n\n59. 于2017年7月18日前后，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 会面互发数条短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“你能查看Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。我一整天都因这事忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌[。]”戴维斯随后写道：“今天必须给出这个日期——我们正被打得很惨。”据A 人称，外国国民 A 正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。布罗伊迪答道：“现在给[E 人]打电话[。]”戴维斯部分回复道：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[。]也给[G 人]打电话。我们今天需要这个[。]”G 人是总统的行政助理。布罗伊迪答道：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 于2017年7月19日前后，戴维斯就安排马来西亚总理 A 与总统会面日期一事向布罗伊迪发送短信：“其次，我们急需这个日期[。]”布罗伊迪次日答道：“请耐心等候。我正在获取有关会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 于2017年7月21日前后，布罗伊迪就该高尔夫活动向E 人发送短信：“[E 人]，马来西亚方面没有从国家安全委员会得到任何消息。美国总统说他会于7月底或8月初与[马来西亚总理 A]打高尔夫球。美国总统说他很乐意这样做。你说一两天内会安排好。现在已经是第四周。我知道你很忙，且程序适用，但我已经非常耐心了。这件事非但没有带来积极影响，现在反而正在给我造成损害。如你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. 于2017年7月24日前后，布罗伊迪向D 人发送短信：“收到9月在新泽西州的高尔夫日期。在联合国大会之前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”D 人答道：“让我们跟进，并确保日期得到国家安全委员会确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的日期？”布罗伊迪答道：“谢谢！！太好了。由[E 人]给了[H 人]。”\n\n63. 于2017年7月27日前后，布罗伊迪向D 人发送短信：“刚刚再次向马来西亚方面核实。他们驻美大使和外交部长均未听到任何消息。请尽快核查。致意，Elliott。”布罗伊迪随后写道：“您好，[D 人]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事替我致电国家安全顾问（NSA）。国家安全委员会仍未就会面联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”D 人答道：“E——今天上午会再打电话。”\n\n64. 于2017年7月27日前后，布罗伊迪向国家安全委员会的一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理 A 与总统进行一场高尔夫比赛。\n\n65. 于2017年7月29日前后，戴维斯就马来西亚总理 A 与总统的会面向布罗伊迪发送短信：“他们被告知9月12日是会面日期。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——星期二？？？？没有高尔夫球？？”戴维斯随即发送短信：“Wickr[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“可能是两场会面。大使应当询问。周六在贝德明斯特打高尔夫球，周二在白宫？”\n\n66. 约于2017年8月7日，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中载有据称由Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）为即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会晤准备的谈话要点。Davis（戴维斯）从Person A（A某）处收到该谈话要点——后者代表Foreign National A（外国国民A）提供该要点——随后戴维斯将其转交给布罗伊迪。该谈话要点尤其提及布罗伊迪与马来西亚持续的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“一项优先事项”。该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并明确称：“美国检察官的介入已造成不必要的美国[原文如此]紧张局势，并可能引起马来西亚人的负面反应。”\n\n67. 约于2017年8月7日，布罗伊迪还将该谈话要点发送给Person D（D某），紧接着发送一条信息解释道：“以上是马来西亚总理附上的谈话要点。你可以与[为国务卿工作的助理人员]分享。”布罗伊迪还试图获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会晤时间安排的详细信息。\n\n68. 于约2017年8月7日晚些时候，布罗伊迪向D某发信息称：“[国务卿]于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，于9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，但可能不会立即认出Circinus的名字。谢谢！”D某回复道：“务必促成这一联系。这不太可能成为正式会晤的一部分，但我会努力让他们在谈话期间提及此事。”\n\n69. 约于2017年8月9日，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向Company A（A公司）转账约$12.8 million。A某随后向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转账$3 million。这是向布罗伊迪作出的最后一笔付款。布罗伊迪合计收取$9 million。约于次日，A律师事务所向与戴维斯有关联的一个商业账户转账$900,000。在随后的数日内，A律师事务所向属于布罗伊迪的账户转入数十万美元。\n\n70. 约于2017年8月10日，布罗伊迪就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会晤向D某发送短信：“从马来西亚听说会晤进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]很满意。没有提到我的名字——没有提及。;- ……”\n\n71. 约于2017年8月19日，布罗伊迪向D某发送短信：“马来西亚方面有什么最新情况？”D某回复道：“截至目前将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难安排高尔夫球，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找[Person I（I某）]，并利用他们两人曾一起打高尔夫球的经历。”布罗伊迪回复道：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给I某的一位副手或I某打电话。还需要为会晤增加时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”当时，I某是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n72. 约于2017年8月31日，布罗伊迪起草并向I某发送了一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统打一场高尔夫球。\n\n73. 约于2017年9月11日，戴维斯起草了一封拟由布罗伊迪发送给总统的信函，以预备马来西亚总理A与总统的会晤，并将该信函交给布罗伊迪。该信函列举了马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信函从未交给总统。\n\n74. 在布罗伊迪多次努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A打一场高尔夫球后，马来西亚总理A约于2017年9月12日在白宫会见了总统。尽管布罗伊迪联系了政府中的高级官员，试图在正式会晤之外安排总统与马来西亚总理A进行高尔夫球会晤，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行任何高尔夫球活动。\n\n75. 约于2017年10月6日，布罗伊迪在白宫会见总统。布罗伊迪未在会晤期间提及1MDB事项，但向戴维斯表示其已提及，并明知戴维斯会将该信息传达给A某和外国国民A。\n\n76. 约于2018年1月5日，布罗伊迪起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A证明布罗伊迪代表其所作的努力。该谈话要点尤其载明：“1. 我们正在与DoJ合作，以应对前届政府针对马来西亚1MDB的案件。我已经制定了一项战略，以联系DoJ和NSC双方人士，寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长[]会晤。她是[总统]任命的官员，能够提供帮助。……3. 正如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺会解决这一问题。重要的是我应遵循他的指示，但将继续传达这一问题的重要性。”这些陈述均属虚假。\n\nII. 将PRC National A（中国国民A）从美国移除的行动\n\nA. 布罗伊迪前往中国会见PRC Minister A（中国部长A）\n\n77. 于约2017年5月，在前往曼谷的行程之后，布罗伊迪同意前往香港再次会见外国国民A。行程前，戴维斯与布罗伊迪讨论称，对外国国民A而言，将中国国民A从美国驱逐出境至关重要。前往香港的目的，是会见外国国民A和一名中国政府官员，讨论中国国民A事宜。\n\n78. 约于2017年5月15日，戴维斯就前往香港的旅行安排和行程表向布罗伊迪的助理发送电子邮件。同日，戴维斯还向布罗伊迪和Person C（C某）发送了戴维斯公司银行信息的电子邮件。\n\n79. 约于2017年5月18日，布罗伊迪、戴维斯和A某前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，在一间酒店套房内会见了外国国民A和中国部长A。中国部长A向布罗伊迪谈及中国国民A及其被指控的罪行，并表示中国政府希望将中国国民A送回中国。中国部长A要求布罗伊迪利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，推动将中国国民A移除并送回中国。他们还讨论了将当时被中国关押的美国人送回美国的可能性。中国部长A还表示其将很快访问Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），且在安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会晤方面遇到困难。\n\nB. 布罗伊迪游说美国高级官员移除中国国民A\n\n80. 约于2017年5月20日，在从中国返程途中，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“我会努力让这一周成为我们与[司法部长]的重要一周。”\n\n81. 约于2017年5月21日，布罗伊迪就其与外国国民A和中国部长A的会晤向D某发送短信：“[D某]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否于周一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？Elliott。”\n\n82. 约于2017年5月22日，布罗伊迪向D某发送短信：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们会讨论。”布罗伊迪随后补充道：“我正在给你发一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”当日稍后，D某回复道：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n83. 约于2017年5月22日，布罗伊迪向D某发送一封主题为“Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and China[.]”的电子邮件。布罗伊迪在电子邮件中附上一份由布罗伊迪致司法部长的备忘录，意图由D某随后将该备忘录交给司法部长。该备忘录内容由戴维斯提供给布罗伊迪，其内容源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，布罗伊迪和C某修改了该备忘录。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，布罗伊迪歪曲了其前往中国的原因以及其与中国部长A会面的背景情况。布罗伊迪未披露其与外国国民A的联系，也未披露外国国民A在安排布罗伊迪与中国部长A会晤中所起的作用。布罗伊迪还未披露其从外国国民A处收取的$4 million。布罗伊迪还未披露，其就中国国民A进行的游说努力至少部分是依照其与外国国民A之间的财务安排进行，并且可能导致额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，布罗伊迪表示：“[中国部长A]告诉我，中国希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”布罗伊迪写及中国部长A即将前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的行程，在该行程中，中国部长A及其代表团计划会见数名美国政府高级官员。布罗伊迪表示，司法部长会见中国部长A将富有成效。布罗伊迪还列举了据中国部长A所称，中国愿意采取的若干改善美中执法关系的举措。布罗伊迪随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，中国将提出的唯一请求是，[中国国民A]，中国指称其曾与其他已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑事法律的人共谋（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪），应在其签证于下个月左右到期后被驱逐出境，或被引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供你参考），并尽快从美国送往中国，以便其能够因这些违法行为受到指控，并在中国就这些指控接受正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\n布罗伊迪将一份关于中国国民A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n86. 约于2017年5月23日，布罗伊迪向D某发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会晤安排好了吗？我的备忘录是否已发送给[司法部长]？请更新。谢谢，Elliott[。]”D某回复道：“Elliott——信件昨天已送达。请参阅包含修改的最终版本。正在努力安排明天的会晤，但目标是下午早些时候。今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚搭乘红眼航班，以便能早些回到DC。”布罗伊迪回复道：“太好了。谢谢[]。还请设法确定他的会晤是否已安排好，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在阿拉巴马州举行。”次日，约于2017年5月24日，D某回复道：“正在等待DoJ关于会晤的消息——我们的以及[中国部长A]的。请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以碰面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n87. 约于2017年5月24日，D某向布罗伊迪发送短信：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到他的短信回复，说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 约在2017年5月25日，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）向[Person D]（D人士）发送短信称：“今天上午10:00在司法部开会。明天则与FBI（联邦调查局）和OHS会面。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到那里，以便可以进行一次简短会面。然后安排与[]一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请设法今天一早先见[Attorney General]（司法部长）。我们能否办成此事确实非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。E[.]”D人士回复称：“E——正在处理。[Attorney General]今天上午不在办公室，但正设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，BROIDY向D人士发送短信称：“具体情况是，我备忘录中的三件事仅供[Attorney General]知悉。[PRC Minister A]（中华人民共和国部长A）希望直接告诉[Attorney General]。我的渠道是合法的后门渠道。[PRC Minister A]的上司希望确认[Attorney General]听到了那三件确实有助于美国的事[。]”当日稍后，D人士回复称：“E——刚刚与[Attorney General]通完电话。消息不太好。你有空时告诉我，我们谈谈。谢谢。”\n\n89. 约在2017年5月26日，关于为中华人民共和国部长A安排会面，BROIDY向D人士发送短信称：“上午10点移民及海关执法局（ICE）负责人，11:30联邦调查局。或许在OHS采取行动可挽救局面。让[Person I]（I人士）过目。这三项内容可以共享。”BROIDY随后又称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正试图控制损害，需要与你交谈。最好把[Person I]拉到一边谈。”当时，I人士是OHS的一名高级官员。\n\n90. 约在2017年5月28日，在Davis（戴维斯）将通信内容转录给BROIDY之后，BROIDY向D人士发送电子邮件称：“已转录与[the Attorney General]和中国驻美国大使之间往来的通信内容。”BROIDY指出：“我相信，[the Attorney General]有绝佳机会进一步促进美国利益。我在下方添加了意见。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一事项值得AG知悉。”同日稍后，BROIDY和D人士交换电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n91. 约在2017年5月30日，就中华人民共和国部长A与美国政府官员的会面，Davis向BROIDY发送短信称：“查看Wickr——现在会面安排均已获准[。]”BROIDY回复称：“是的。都安排好了[。]”Davis回复称：“他的会面安排恢复了[。]”\n\n92. 约在2017年5月，应[Person A]（A人士）的请求，Davis要求BROIDY在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区与中华人民共和国部长A会面。\n\n93. 约在2017年5月30日，BROIDY在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店与中华人民共和国部长A会面。BROIDY还询问D人士，D人士能否帮助中华人民共和国部长A安排与美国高级政府官员会面。\n\n94. 约在2017年5月31日，BROIDY向D人士发送短信称：\n\n我昨晚与VM（副部长）会面。他今天下午乘坐下午4点的航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人员会面，并让原本应与他会面的人改为与越南会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[Attorney General]或[Person I]会面，否则就回国。他很乐意与[Person I]会面……截至目前，他已移交一名孕妇，接下来的两人将很快被送回。他将接受60名中国国民被遣返，但前提是他能有一次正式的“简短会面”。这是可向外公布的、政府的一项重大胜利。这是两国总统在Mar-a-Lago会面所取得的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更具体的情况。谢谢。\n\n95. D人士回复称：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY回复称：“如果你促成会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在OHS与VM会面？他可以提及我的名字。也设法让[Person I]缓和一下局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n96. 约在2017年5月31日，就中华人民共和国部长A据称与I人士的会面，Davis向BROIDY发送短信称：“原则上[Person I]没问题——只是日程安排问题？”BROIDY回复称：“只是临时通知造成的日程安排问题。可能在接下来一小时左右仍会有消息。[PRC Minister A]不存在任何问题。”BROIDY后来继续称：“请向VM转达我的良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”Davis回复称：“是的，我正这么告诉他。”BROIDY回复称：“告诉他，我正将发生的情况告诉白宫和[Attorney General]。”随后Davis发送短信称：“[Person I]不是定于今天下午在海地吗？”BROIDY回复称：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[Attorney General]的人也没有提到[。]”Davis回复称：“OHS网站上有[。]他下午在那里[。]刚刚与VM谈过，他听起来像是在哭[。]”BROIDY回复称：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真他妈是一团糟。”Davis回复称：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 约在2017年6月9日，Davis向BROIDY发送了一篇题为“chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A]（中华人民共和国国民A）”的新闻文章。\n\n98. 约在2017年6月27日，BROIDY就将中华人民共和国国民A移送一事向[Person H's spouse]（H人士的配偶）发送短信。BROIDY知道，[Person H]（H人士）是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，常向政治竞选活动捐款，并可密切接触总统，且可立即接触并影响总统，因此可能有效推动将中华人民共和国国民A移送。BROIDY向H人士的配偶发送短信称：“另有一事，我想明天上午就一项重要而敏感的事项与[Person H]会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者也许共进午餐？期待在[]酒店见到你！致意，Elliott[。]”BROIDY后来继续称：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H]让我通过短信将此信息发送给你。关于逃犯[PRC National A]，我将向你发送若干事项。第一项是国际刑警组织红色通报……高度时效性的事项是，[PRC National A]在美国停留的签证将于6月30日到期。至关重要的是，必须立即拒绝其新的签证申请。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单……该命令需要来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与前FBI人员关系密切，而这些人员属于其私人安保团队。[the President of the PRC]（中华人民共和国主席）在Mar-a-Lago向[the President]（总统）提到，他希望[PRC National A]被送回。[PRC Minister A]与我会面，并请求我就[PRC National A]提供帮助……他承诺送还被中国扣为人质的某些美国公民，并将接受数量极大的中国非法移民被遣返中国。最后，他还提出在朝鲜问题上提供新的协助。\n\n99. 约在2017年6月28日，BROIDY在一次社交聚会上与H人士及其配偶会面。会面后，BROIDY与H人士的配偶就中华人民共和国国民A交换短信：“嗨，[]，今晚见到你和[Person H]真是太好了！我刚刚又收到[PRC Minister A]的消息。他想知道[PRC National A]签证的状态，因为时间至关重要。——签证是否已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]已被列入DHS禁飞名单？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]将在本周逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手遣返。这将是我们两国之间不可思议的一步。[PRC Minister A]说他们感谢你的帮助。”H人士的配偶回复称：“此事已交由国务院和国防部的最高层处理。他们正在办理此事。”\n\n100. 约在2017年6月29日，BROIDY和Davis就中华人民共和国国民A的签证申请交换短信。BROIDY发送短信称：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”Davis回复称：“我不知道。”BROIDY回复称：“抱歉，总是会生成。换言之，每名申请人最终都会收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]抱歉，收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]”Davis回复称：“是[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n101. 约在2017年6月30日，Davis在提及他们为促成移送中华人民共和国国民A以及可能送还被中华人民共和国扣押的美国公民所作努力时，向BROIDY发送短信称：“Wickr。你现在真是个能人。在你为这个国家于今年7月4日完成的事情之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章[。]”BROIDY回复称：“在办成之前，我会全力推进[。]”Davis回复称：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。以及m的日期[。]在我们办成之前，别离开那家伙。”BROIDY回复称：“同意。”Davis继续称：“让他知道——如果我们今天在营业结束前拿到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们将在7月4日前让那两名美国人回家。之后第二阶段——我们可以接收那60人[。]”BROIDY回复称：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会给我回电。正在通话中。”\n\n102. 约在2017年6月30日，BROIDY和Davis就中华人民共和国国民A交换了数条短信。BROIDY发送短信称：“收到[Person H]的消息。他向POTUS（总统）重申了。”BROIDY随后又称：“另外，[Person E]（E人士）发短信告诉我，他被事情缠住了，但正在处理此事。”同日，Davis回复称：“我们今天能拿到撤销的证明吗？”Davis后来具体说明：“来自[Person E]？”\n\n103. 约在2017年7月1日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信称：“与[Person E]长谈过。你方便时给我打电话[。]”BROIDY并未与E人士交谈，但曾就中华人民共和国国民A的签证申请与其交换短信。BROIDY未向E人士披露其与中华人民共和国部长A关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约在2017年7月2日，BROIDY和Davis就中华人民共和国国民A及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，Davis发送短信称：“今天周日安排了与[President of the PRC]就朝鲜问题通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他听说了[Person H]的消息。”\n\n105. 约在2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，Davis向BROIDY发送短信称：“[President]周三离开华盛顿哥伦比亚特区前往欧洲[。]”Davis随后又称：“7月5日。安排与[President of the PRC]亲自会面[。]”\n\n106. 约在2017年7月10日，A人士向其本人发送了中华人民共和国国民A的红色通报副本、中华人民共和国国民A护照和身份证的图像，以及与中华人民共和国国民A及其被指控实施的犯罪有关的其他文件。\n\n107. 约在2017年7月，A人士要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的中华人民共和国大使馆会见中华人民共和国驻美国大使。该会面的目的是向中华人民共和国大使传达有关中华人民共和国国民A的信息。约在2017年7月16日，Higginbotham前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的中华人民共和国大使馆，并与该大使会面。在会面期间，Higginbotham告诉该大使，美国政府官员正在处理中华人民共和国国民A的引渡事宜，并且未来将有关于引渡后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，Higginbotham向A人士报告了所发生的情况，A人士称其将通知[Foreign National A]（外国国民A）。A人士后来告诉Higginbotham，外国国民A对该会面感到满意，并且该会面为外国国民A在中华人民共和国方面增添了可信度。\n\n108. 约在2017年7月18日，BROIDY向Davis发送了H人士的联系信息。为推进将中华人民共和国国民A移送的游说活动，Davis接通了中华人民共和国部长A与H人士之间的多次通话。\n\n109. 约在2017年7月26日，BROIDY和Davis就中华人民共和国国民A及其从美国被移送至中华人民共和国一事交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis写道：“确实需要确认其已被正式传送。截至目前——他说没有[。]”BROIDY（布罗伊迪）\n案号 1:20-cr-00210-CKK 文件 1 提交于 10/06/20 第 29 页，共 31 页 案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 55 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 404-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 56 页，共 109 页\n回复称：“已要求3名不同的人跟进[。]”BROIDY后来又称：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n110. 2017年7月26日前后，ELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）向人员H发送短信，约其在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店会面，以讨论中华人民共和国（PRC）国民A：“嗨，[人员H]，我从工作人员那里得知你在华盛顿特区，我也在，住在[酒店]。你今天想一起喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott。”同日稍后，人员H的配偶向BROIDY发送短信：“嗨，Elliot。你能否再给我发一次你此前发短信提到的那名中国男子的详细情况，谢谢[。]”BROIDY回复：“嗨，[ ]，你指的是[PRC国民A]还是[PRC部长A]？致意，Elliott[。]”人员H的配偶回复：“[PRC国民A]。”随后，BROIDY重新发送了其此前于June 27发送的信息。\n\n111. 2017年7月27日前后，BROIDY与Davis（戴维斯）就PRC国民A交换了短信。Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？？？”Davis随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有什么更新吗？”BROIDY回复：“我正在与国家安全委员会的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n112. 2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY多次向Davis发送短信。在这些信息中，BROIDY写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”BROIDY随后补充道：“我和[人员H]在一起。有突破机会[。]”\n\n113. 2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY在人员H的游艇上与人员H会面。在二人共处期间，BROIDY询问人员H有关PRC国民A所涉事项的情况。随后，人员H在BROIDY在场时致电总统，询问PRC国民A在美国的身份状况。\n\n114. 2017年9月13日前后，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有另一篇文章[。]”同日，Davis向BROIDY发送了有关PRC国民A的文章链接。\n\n115. 2017年10月2日前后，BROIDY向Davis发送了一篇有关PRC国民A的文章链接。\n\n116. 2018年1月5日前后，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“尽快给我发更多关于[PRC国民A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)主张没收，现重新主张并以引用方式纳入本起诉书第一项罪名所载指控。\n\n2. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c )，在因违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 371的第一项罪名被定罪后，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY应向美利坚合众国（United States of America）没收任何构成可追溯至该等违法行为收益，或源自该等收益的不动产或动产。现进一步通知，定罪后，美国拟请求法院对BROIDY作出金钱判决，金额相当于本段所述财产。\n\n3. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，上述任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让或出售给第三方，或已存放于第三方处；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混同，且无法在不造成困难的情况下分割，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权根据由Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 (c)纳入适用的Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p )，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：September 30 , 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部（United States Department of Justice）\n公共诚信处处长\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副处长\nSean F. Mulryne（肖恩·F·马尔赖恩）\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNicole R. Lockhart（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJames C. Mann（詹姆斯·C·曼）\n公共诚信处审判律师\n\n附件B\n\n已提交至夏威夷联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Hawaii）\nAug 17, 2020, 10:23a M\n法院书记官Michelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩）\n\nKENIT M. PRICE（凯尼特·M·普赖斯）#10523\n夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼斯·M·索伦森）\n助理联邦检察官\nPJKK联邦大楼6-100室\n300 Ala Moana Boulevard\nHonolulu, Hawaii 96850\n电话：(808) 541-2850\n传真：(808) 541 -2958\n电子邮箱：ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\n美国司法部\n公共诚信处处长\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n公共诚信处审判律师\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\n\n美利坚合众国，　　　　　　　　　)　刑事案号：CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO\n\n原告，　　　　　　　　　　　　　)\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　)\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　)　起诉书\n诉　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　)\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　)　（18 U.S.C. § 2和22 U.S.C. §§\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　)　612 and 618(a)）\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯），　)\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　)\n被告。　　　　　　　　　　　　　)\n\n美利坚合众国提出指控：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本起诉书相关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于March 2017起至至少January 2018前后，NICKIE LUM DAVIS同人员A和B达成协议，作为外国国民A的代理人行事，以换取源自与外国国民A有关的外国账户、数额达数百万美元且未披露的电汇款项。DAVIS具体同意协助人员B游说美国总统（“总统”）、总统领导的政府（下称“政府”）及美国司法部（下称“DOJ”），以撤销对外国国民A因从1Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）——一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资与开发公司——侵吞数十亿美元所涉调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告和人员B故意未向政府和DOJ官员披露人员B系代表外国国民A行事。最终，DAVIS及人员A和B未能促成撤销1MDB调查。\n\n3. 在大约同期，DAVIS还同人员A和B达成协议，协助其游说政府和DOJ，以应外国国民A和PRC部长A的请求，安排将居住在美国的PRC异见人士PRC国民A移送并遣返。就此，DAVIS及人员A和B最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为推进外国国民A的利益，DAVIS协助人员B促成马来西亚总理A与总统于September 2017举行会面，部分目的在于让马来西亚总理A得以向总统提出解决1MDB事项。\n\n5. DAVIS、人员A和人员B还在PRC与PRC部长A会面，并同意人员B将在DAVIS协助下游说政府，将PRC国民A遣返PRC。DAVIS、人员A和人员B还同意并试图促成PRC部长A与DOJ和美国国土安全部（United States Department of Homeland Security，下称“DHS”）高级官员举行会面，目的明确是为PRC部长A在其于May 2017访问美国期间提供机会，与美国高级官员讨论将PRC国民A移送一事。\n\n担任外国委托人或外国政府代理人的刑事禁令\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agents Registration Act，简称“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向总检察长登记，例如代表该外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动，或进行游说。该等登记向DOJ内国家安全司的外国代理人登记法部门（“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未登记，以及在依该法规定向FARA Unit提交的文件中作出虚假或误导性陈述，或作出重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA的目的在于防止外国委托人进行秘密影响。依该法规适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估担任外国委托人代理人的个人所作的陈述及活动。除其他事项外，FARA登记披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得的报酬来源及数额，以及登记人在担任该外国委托人代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS过去及现在均为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与人员A和B存在个人及商业关系。\n\n9. 人员A为美国公民、商人及艺人，具有国际联系，包括与外国国民A的联系。\n\n10. 自大约April 2016至April 2018，人员B担任一个全国性政治委员会的副财务主席。以该身份，人员B从捐款人处筹集大额政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在2016选举周期内与一名美国总统职位候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。在选举后，人员B继续担任副财务主席，并保持接触总统政府中的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同期内，人员B拥有并经营多家国内和国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. 外国国民A是一名居住在东亚的富裕商人，因其策划并实施从1MDB侵吞数十亿美元的计划所涉角色，已被另案起诉。\n\n12. A公司是一家由人员A设立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国国民A的电汇款项，以支付人员B的游说活动费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是人员A的关联人士，且为受雇于DOJ的持证律师。November 20, 2019，Higginbotham在哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Columbia）就一份指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的一项罪名起诉书作出有罪认罪答辩。\n\n14. A律师事务所是由人员B的配偶人员C经营的一家律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC国民A是一名PRC异见人士，持临时签证居住在美国。PRC政府，包括PRC部长A和PRC主席，正寻求将PRC国民A从美国移送回PRC。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ积极调查据称与1MDB侵吞计划洗钱收益有关的外国国民A交易。July 2016，DOJ提出多项民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称以1MDB洗钱收益购得的数百万美元资产。November 1, 2018，DOJ提出刑事起诉书，指控外国国民A及其他人共谋洗钱从1MDB侵吞的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚及阿布扎比官员行贿而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n一、解决1MDB民事没收案件的活动\n\nA. 人员B同意以$8 Million预付聘金代表外国国民A进行游说\n\n17. March 2017前后，DAVIS告诉人员B，她在马来西亚有一名潜在客户，可能“需要就没收事项获得帮助”。\n\n18. 2017年3月5日前后，应人员B请求，DAVIS通过电子邮件向人员B发送了一份与1MDB有关的民事没收诉状副本。同日，DAVIS通过电子邮件向人员B发送了一篇题为“[外国国民A]信托基金请求获准在没收诉讼中迟延提出请求”的Bloomberg文章，并向人员B发送短信：“你的电子邮箱里有法院提交文件[。]”人员B回复：“谢谢。会审阅。”DAVIS回复：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[。]”人员B再次回复：“好的。5分钟[。]”\n\n19. 人物A（Person A）要求DAVIS（戴维斯）向其发送人物B（Person B）的传记，该传记描述了人物B与政府（Administration）高级官员之间的关系，以及人物B和总统的照片。于2017年3月7日前后，应DAVIS的请求，人物B的助理通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了人物B和总统的合影。人物A称其想要这些照片，以便突出人物B与政府的密切关系。\n\n20. 于2017年3月8日前后，DAVIS向人物B发送短信：“你会在16日于洛杉矶与[人物A]会面吗，之后他将在那个周末前往亚洲？”人物B回复：“我想会的。我们晚些时候再谈。”同日稍后，DAVIS向人物B发送了更多短信，以安排人物B、人物A和DAVIS之间的会面。\n\n21. 奉人物B指示，于2017年3月13日前后，DAVIS向人物A转发了A律师事务所（Law Firm A）与外国国民A（Foreign National A）之间的《聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务》。“聘用及费用协议”规定，外国国民A将预先支付$8 million聘用费；如“事项”在180天内得到解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费；如“事项”在365天内得到解决，则支付$50 million。协议草案包括附件A，其中说明“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。事实上，人物A、人物B、A律师事务所、DAVIS和人物C（Person C）均未向外国国民A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的是，基于人物B的政治关系，取得其代表外国国民A向政府和美国司法部（DOJ）游说的服务。\n\n22. 于2017年3月13日前后，人物B与人物A和DAVIS会面，讨论外国国民A及其法律问题。会上，人物A向人物B介绍了其与外国国民A的关系，并询问人物B是否能够协助处理涉及外国国民A的民事没收案件。人物A称其将与外国国民A讨论人物B协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，人物B向DAVIS发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 于2017年3月15日前后，就外国国民A而言，人物B向DAVIS发送短信：“……[人物A]的合伙人有什么新消息吗？”同日，DAVIS回复：“[人物A]明天将亲自与‘发起人’会面，他们希望在未来几周内出行[。]”\n\n24. 于2017年3月22日前后，DAVIS就安排人物B、人物A和DAVIS再次会面一事向人物B及其助理发送电子邮件。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、人物A和人物B均知悉FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）及其禁止未经登记代表外国委托人的规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人的代理人，DAVIS、人物A和人物B从未就其作为外国国民A代理人的工作向司法部的FARA部门登记。\n\nB. 人物A、人物B和DAVIS在曼谷会见外国国民A\n\n27. 于2017年4月前后，人物A要求人物B前往泰国曼谷与外国国民A会面。人物B称，只有在获得$1 million报酬的情况下才会前往，并且希望人物A从“来源清白”的资金中向其付款。\n\n28. 于2017年4月28日前后，人物B向DAVIS发送短信称：“我希望款项汇入[A律师事务所]。”同日，DAVIS回复：“好的[。]”\n\n29. 于2017年4月29日前后，人物B和DAVIS就其即将与外国国民A和人物A举行的会面交换了短信。在这些短信中，人物B就外国国民A询问：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点入住某家特定酒店？”DAVIS回复：“你能说话时给我打电话[。]”\n\n30. 于2017年4月30日前后，DAVIS就前往曼谷的航班行程向人物B的助理发送电子邮件。DAVIS在电子邮件中部分写道：“如有问题请给我打电话——这是两张单程票——因为我们需要从不同国家离开[。]我们暂时不必担心酒店……”\n\n31. 于2017年5月1日前后，DAVIS向人物B及其助理发送了曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接。同日，DAVIS向人物A发送电子邮件，告知其预订香格里拉酒店的房间并向其发送确认信息。人物A回复：“[外国国民A]正在预订我们的酒店”，随后又称：“另请向我发送[人物B]的电汇信息。”DAVIS回复并提供了以A律师事务所名义开立的账户的电汇信息。同日，针对人物B的助理询问其是否应取消人物B的酒店房间预订，DAVIS向人物B的助理发送电子邮件称：“是的，所有房间均已由[人物A]预订。”\n\n32. 于2017年5月2日前后，DAVIS向人物B发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[人物A]和我将在到达大厅见你……谢谢，祝旅途愉快——为一场令人兴奋且繁荣的冒险的开始干杯！”\n\n33. 于2017年5月2日前后，DAVIS、人物A和人物B抵达曼谷。在此次行程中，DAVIS、人物A和人物B在一间酒店套房内与外国国民A会面。人物B和外国国民A谈论了1MDB调查和民事没收诉讼。人物B同意协助外国国民A尝试解决该事项。外国国民A同意向人物B支付$8 million聘用费，并希望人物B联系美国总检察长，以使司法部撤销1MDB事项。人物B同意在隐瞒其正代表外国国民A工作的事实的同时，向政府和司法部游说，以为外国国民A取得有利结果。关于付款，人物B表示，资金不应直接来自外国国民A，并且应当是“干净的”。外国国民A指定了一名可向人物B及其他人付款的朋友。人物B、人物A和DAVIS同意，资金将首先经由人物A转付，之后通过A律师事务所支付给人物B。人物B和DAVIS同意，人物B将向DAVIS支付其所得款项的百分之三十。人物A还同意向DAVIS支付人物A所收款项的一定比例。人物A告知人物B和DAVIS，人物A的朋友Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实资金的合法性。希金博瑟姆实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. 人物A从外国国民A收取$8.5 Million；人物B获付$6 Million；DAVIS获付$1.7 Million\n\n34. 在泰国与外国国民A会面后，于2017年5月8日前后，A公司（Company A）收到了一笔由外国国民A指示、从香港一家实体汇出的约$2.8 million电汇。同日，人物A从A公司账户开具了一张以A律师事务所为收款人的$702,000银行本票，该款项立即记入A律师事务所账户。人物A还从A公司账户向A律师事务所另行电汇$48,000。同日，第三方公司依人物A指示向A律师事务所账户转入$250,000，使存入A律师事务所账户的总金额达到$1 million。数日内，于2017年5月8日转入A律师事务所账户的$1 million中约$900,000从该账户转入人物B的一个商业账户。\n\n35. 于2017年5月8日前后，DAVIS向人物B发送短信：“进入[A律师事务所]的两笔电汇均来自[人物A]。其余款项20分钟前已送到你的办公室——”。DAVIS随后补充道：“本票总额702[。]”\n\n36. 于2017年5月9日前后，人物A使A公司向由DAVIS的一名家庭成员控制的一家公司转移$250,000，以使DAVIS受益。\n\n37. 于2017年5月17日前后，外国国民A使一家香港公司向A公司发送了一笔国际电汇。同日，人物A从A公司向A律师事务所转移$3 million。\n\n38. 于2017年5月17日前后，人物B和DAVIS就外国国民A经由人物A向人物B付款，以及人物B向DAVIS支付一定比例款项一事交换了短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS询问：“你收到了吗？”人物B回复：“是的。已向你发送Wickr[。]明早向你汇款。”Wickr是一种允许端到端加密和内容到期失效的消息应用程序。人物B随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”DAVIS回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正一步一步向前推进。”人物B回复：“是的。向他们施压，催促接下来的两笔电汇。”人物B随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已到账，且确认最后两笔正在发送。请询问[人物B的助理]。”\n\n39. 于2017年5月18日前后，A律师事务所向人物B的一个商业账户转移$500,000，并向由DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转移$900,000。约一周内，A律师事务所通过两笔单独转账，向人物B的一个商业账户额外转移$950,000。\n\n40. 于2017年5月25日前后，外国国民A使第三笔款项转入A公司，此次金额约为$2.7 million。于2017年5月26日前后，人物A从A公司向A律师事务所转移$2 million，作为对人物B和外国国民A约定的$8 million聘用费的部分履行；该聘用费的对价是人物B游说政府和司法部撤销1MDB民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，$600,000从A律师事务所账户转入与DAVIS有关联的一个商业账户。\n\nD. 人物B为马来西亚总理A促成会晤，并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 于2017年5月18日前后，人物B向人物D（Person D）发送短信；人物D是一名政治顾问，曾担任总统的竞选助理。人物B要求人物D与政府合作，为马来西亚总理A安排访问：“嗨，[人物D]——请着手安排亚洲国家访问。日期在7月。”\n\n42. 于2017年6月5日前后，人物B再次就马来西亚总理A的访问向人物D发送短信：“亚洲国家非常积极推动7月会面。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同日，应人物A请求，DAVIS就外国国民A一事向人物B发送短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS基于人物A代表外国国民A向其传达的信息写道：“如有可能，请在你于以色列上床睡觉前打电话……[外国国民A]一直打电话询问消息[。]”人物B回复：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚前往华盛顿特区，为[外国国民A]和亚洲国家开展工作[。]”\n\n44. 于2017年6月15日前后，DAVIS转达人物A的信息，向人物B发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”DAVIS补充道：“Principal（委托人）”，系指外国国民A。同日，人物B回复：“可以[。]”\n\n45. 于2017年6月16日前后，人物B和DAVIS就1MDB以及从一名与外国国民A有关联的人士处扣押珠宝一事交换了短信。\n\n46. 于2017年6月17日前后，人物B和DAVIS讨论了马来西亚总理A。于2017年6月前后，人物B询问总统是否愿意与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。人物B称，并且DAVIS相信，此举将使外国国民A感到高兴，并将使马来西亚总理A能够尝试解决1MDB事项。人物B还希望与马来西亚总理A的政府取得额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n47. 于2017年6月19日前后，DAVIS向人物B发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章报道马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n48. 约在 June 25, 2017，DAVIS（戴维斯）向B某（Person B）发送了一篇关于马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）及涉及外国籍人士A（Foreign National A）的1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。同日，B某回复称：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”DAVIS回复称：“请打电话。有消息[。]”DAVIS随后表示，她已向B某发送了“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 约在 June 29, 2017，B某向白宫（White House）的一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间的一次高尔夫活动：“嗨，[E某（Person E）]，如我所说，总统（POTUS）同意于七月底或八月初在DC或Bedminster与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫。非常感谢你回复我日期。另外，几周前已向国务院寄出一封信，要求举行会面。”\n\n50. 约在 June 30, 2017，B某就高尔夫活动向E某发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[中国公民A（PRC National A）]以及[马来西亚总理A]与总统的高尔夫日期谈谈。”当日稍后，B某又发送：“[E某]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n51. 约在 July 3, 2017，B某再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫日期向E某发送短信：“早上好，[E某]。如果你今天能向总统确认与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期，这对我将极有帮助。总统告诉我，他很乐意在Bedminster或DC打球。我们谈过之后，我向[马来西亚总理A]提到，他上周就会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当日稍后，B某再次向E某发送短信：“[E某]，我正在跟进。请把[马来西亚总理A]与总统打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约在 July 4, 2017，DAVIS向B某发送短信：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又发送：“清理你的手机——删除信息[。]”\n\n53. 约在 July 5, 2017，B某与E某就高尔夫活动交换信息。在这些信息中，B某发送：“[E某]，刚给你留了语音留言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，[]。”E某回复：“这事在国家安全委员会（NSC）那里[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成[。]”\n\n54. 约在 July 11, 2017，DAVIS转达来自A某（Person A）的信息，向B某发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们正被打得很惨。”这些信息是指确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫的日期，以及外国籍人士A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。DAVIS转达A某的紧急要求，继续称：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被信息淹没了[。]”B某回复：“看Wickr[。]”次日，B某向DAVIS发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发信息。我正要起飞，需要去白宫[。]要起飞了。现在就需要[。]”DAVIS回复：“办好了[。]”B某回复：“收到了。谢[。]正设法让F某（Person F）尽快打电话[。]”当时，F某是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约在 July 13, 2017，DAVIS向B某发送短信：“你有空时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以请请去D.C.，并在白宫一直待到你办成。我会陪着你，如果你担心孤单的话！”\n\n56. 约在 July 13, 2017，B某再次就高尔夫日期向E某发送短信：“嗨，[E某]，已经2周了。再次询问[马来西亚总理A]与总统打高尔夫的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，[][。]”E某回复：“我现在再查一下[。]这些事要经过程序——”B某回复：“谢谢你！！”E某回复：“国家安全委员会正在处理并协调[。]”B某回复：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”E某回复：“他们正直接与[马来西亚]合作。国家安全委员会正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约在 July 15, 2017，B某向DAVIS发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约在 July 17, 2017，DAVIS转达A某代表外国籍人士A表达的紧急要求，向B某发送短信：“[E某]现在需要把这个日期给你，并让他更新另一件事。我们看起来毫无能力[。]”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面，也指涉及中国公民A的事项。B某回复：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 约在 July 18, 2017，B某与DAVIS就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了数条短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS转达来自A某的信息，写道：“你能查看Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。我今天一整天都因这事忙得发疯。他正在恐慌[。]”DAVIS随后称：“今天必须有这个日期——我们正遭受重创。”据A某称，外国籍人士A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。B某回复：“现在给[E某]打电话[。]”DAVIS部分回复称：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你非常愤怒[。]也给G某（Person G）打电话。我们今天需要这个[。]”G某是总统的行政助理。B某回复：“现在就在办。”\n\n60. 约在 July 19, 2017，DAVIS提及安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期，向B某发送短信：“其次，我们迫切需要这个日期[。]”B某于次日回复：“请耐心等我。正在获取有关会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 约在 July 21, 2017，B某就高尔夫活动向E某发送短信：“[E某]，[马来西亚]没有从国家安全委员会得到任何消息。总统说他会在七月底或八月初与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫。总统说他很乐意这样做。你说会在一两天内安排。现在已是第四周。我知道你很忙，也有程序需要遵循，但我已经非常有耐心了。这现在非但没有带来积极效果，反而正对我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约在 July 24, 2017，B某向D某（Person D）发送短信：“收到在NJ于九月、联合国大会前的周六打高尔夫的日期。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你的帮助！”D某回复：“让我们跟进，并确保该日期由国家安全委员会确认。他告诉你是谁给他的这个日期吗？”B某回复：“‘谢谢你！！太好了。由[E某]给了H某（Person H）。”\n\n63. 约在 July 27, 2017，B某向D某发送短信：“刚又向[马来西亚]核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长什么也没听到。请尽快核查。致意，[]。”B某随后称：“嗨，[D某]——你能就[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事替我给国家安全顾问（NSA）打电话吗？国家安全委员会仍未与[马来西亚]大使就会面联系。谢谢。致意，[]”D某回复：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天与[]简短谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约在 July 29, 2017，DAVIS转达其从A某处代表外国籍人士A收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统之间的会面向B某发送短信：“他们被告知12 sept是会面日期。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二？？？没有高尔夫？？”DAVIS随即又发送短信：“Wickr[。]”B某回复：“可能是两场会面。大使应该问一下。周六在Bedminster打高尔夫，周二在白宫？”\n\n65. 约在 August 7, 2017，B某向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中包含供即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会面使用的谈话要点。DAVIS从A某处收到该谈话要点；A某代表外国籍人士A提供了该要点；DAVIS明知B某随后会将其提供给国务卿作为该会面的背景资料，仍将其转交给B某。谈话要点特别提及B某与[马来西亚]持续进行的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“[优]先事项[。]”。谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并明确称：“[美]国检察官的介入已造成不必要的美国人[原文如此]紧张关系，并可能引起马来西亚人的负面反应[。]”\n\n66. 约在 August 7, 2017，B某还将谈话要点文件发送给D某，供其审阅和修改，并以获得马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面的时间细节：“嗨，[D某]；[国务卿]何时会面？；[马来西亚]已经是星期一上午11:00。你能扩充并把最终版本发给我吗？”D某回复，向B某发送了一份修订版谈话要点，并表示：“[]——这是我将转发给[国务卿]办公室的标注版本。他今天前往Bangkok，然后前往[马来西亚]。如果你还有其他修改，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n67. 当日稍后，即约在 August 7, 2017，B某向D某发送信息：“[国务卿]于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，于9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出[我公司的]名称。谢谢！”D某回复：“让这件事接上头绝对很重要。这不太可能成为正式会面的组成部分，但会努力在他们的交谈中提一下。”\n\n68. 同样约在 August 7, 2017，A某签署了其另一家公司与外国籍人士A的一名代表之间的协议，约定提供“战略沟通与危机管理”，交换条件为在 August 16, 2017当日或之前支付约EUR 8.4 million。\n\n69. 约在 August 9, 2017，外国籍人士A促使一家香港公司向公司A（Company A）转移约$12.8 million。随后，A某向律师事务所A（Law Firm A）转移$3 million。A某还向由DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转移$833,333。约在 August 10, 2017，律师事务所A向与DAVIS关联的一个商业账户转移$900,000。\n\n70. 约在 August 10, 2017，B某就马来西亚总理A与国务卿之间的会面向D某发送短信：“从[马来西亚]听说会面进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]很满意。没有提到我的名字——没有提及。;- ……”\n\n71. 约在 August 16, 2017，B某与DAVIS交换短信，以安排会面和电话通话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“[A某]真的想今天见你，如果可能的话，因为你星期五离开[。]”\n\n72. 约在 August 18, 2017，B某与DAVIS交换短信，安排电话通话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“请给我打电话。[A某]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 约在 August 19, 2017，B某向D某发送短信：“[马来西亚]有什么更新吗？”D某回复：“截至目前，将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找I某（Person I），并利用他们两人曾一起打高尔夫的经历。”B某回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给I某的一名副手或I某打电话。还需要增加会面时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”当时，I某是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 约在 August 21 , 2017，DAVIS将其作为佣金从A某收到的$375,000资金电汇给C某（Person C），即B某的配偶。\n\n75. 约在 August 24, 2017，外国籍人士A指示向A某的另一家独立公司转移约$10 million；该公司曾与外国籍人士A的一名代表签订“战略沟通与危机管理”协议，金额为EUR 8.4 million。根据August 24, 2017的现行汇率，EUR 8.4 million兑换为约$10 million。\n\n76．2017年9月11日前后，应B某（Person B）的指示，戴维斯（DAVIS）起草了一封由B某寄给总统的信，以备马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）与总统会面之用。该信列举了马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未提交给总统。\n\n77．2017年9月12日前后，马来西亚总理A在白宫会见总统，部分原因是戴维斯为B某促成该会面所作的努力提供了协助。尽管B某联系政府高级官员，安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A除正式会面外另行举行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球赛。\n\n78．2017年10月6日前后，B某在白宫会见总统。B某向A某（Person A）、戴维斯和外国籍A某（Foreign National A）声称，他在会面期间向总统提出了1MDB调查事项。\n\n79．2018年1月5日前后，B某起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国籍A某展示B某代表其所作的努力。除其他事项外，该谈话要点载明：“1．我们正与司法部（DoJ）合作，应对前届政府针对［马来西亚］1MDB的案件。我已制定一项策略，与司法部和国家安全委员会（NSC）的有关方面联系，以寻求解决该问题。2．我正在安排与负责监督［］案件的助理司法部长［］会面。她是［总统］任命的官员，并可能有所帮助……。3．如我先前告知您的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺将解决这一问题。重要的是我应遵循他的指示，但将继续传达该问题的重要性。”B某极大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80．2018年1月6日前后，B某与A某会面，A某向B某请求贷款。A某告诉B某，A某的朋友正在“查核”他们从外国籍A某处收到的款项，并在“帮助保持其清白”。\n\nII．将中国籍A某（PRC National A）移出美国的活动\nA．B某赴中国会见中国部长A（PRC Minister A）\n\n81．2017年5月前后，在曼谷之行后，B某同意前往香港再次会见外国籍A某。在出行前，戴维斯与B某讨论，外国籍A某认为将中国籍A某驱逐出美国十分重要。赴香港之行的目的是会见外国籍A某及中华人民共和国（PRC）的一名外国政府官员，讨论中国籍A某事宜。\n\n82．2017年5月15日前后，戴维斯就赴香港之行的旅行安排和行程向B某的助理发送电子邮件。同日，戴维斯还向B某和C某（Person C）发送了戴维斯公司（DAVIS's company）的银行信息。\n\n83．2017年5月18日前后，A某、B某和戴维斯前往香港，随后被送往中国深圳，并在一家酒店套房内与外国籍A某和中国部长A会面。中国部长A向B某谈及中国籍A某及其被指控的犯罪行为，并表示中国希望中国籍A某被遣返中国。中国部长A要求B某利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将中国籍A某移出美国并送返中国。中国部长A还称，他不久将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，且在安排与某些美国政府高级官员会面方面遇到困难。\n\nB．B某游说美国高级官员将中国籍A某移出美国\n\n84．2017年5月20日前后，在从中国返程途中，B某向戴维斯发送短信：“我会尝试让本周成为我们与［司法部长（Attorney General）］取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n85．2017年5月21日前后，B某就其与外国籍A某及中国部长A的会面向D某（Person D）发送短信：“［D某］——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否于周一上午9:30在［酒店］［］会面？”\n\n86．2017年5月22日前后，B某向D某发送短信：“我需要尽快与［司法部长］会面。我们将讨论。”B某随后又称：“我正通过电子邮件向你发送一份备忘录。我们将讨论。”同日稍后，D某回复：“已向［司法部长］提出会面请求。”\n\n87．2017年5月22日前后，B某向D某发送一封主题为“美国与［中国］之间大幅加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。B某在电子邮件中附上一份由B某致司法部长的备忘录，意图由D某随后将该备忘录交给司法部长。备忘录内容由戴维斯提供给B某；戴维斯在2017年5月赴中国期间从A某处获得该内容，而该内容源自中国部长A和外国籍A某。收到后，B某和C某修订了该备忘录。\n\n88．在该备忘录中，B某歪曲了其赴中国之行的原因以及促成其与中国部长A会面的情形。B某隐瞒了其与外国籍A某的联系，并隐瞒了外国籍A某在安排B某与中国部长A会面中所起的作用。B某还隐瞒了其在与中国部长A于深圳会面前两周内已从外国籍A某处收取的$4 million。B某也未披露，其就中国籍A某所作的游说努力至少部分是依照其与外国籍A某之间的财务安排进行的，并且可能导致额外付款。\n\n89．在该备忘录中，B某称：“［中国部长A］告诉我，［中国］希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”B某写及中国部长A即将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，在该访问期间，中国部长A及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。B某主张司法部长应会见中国部长A。B某还列举了若干事项，据中国部长A称，中国愿意采取这些措施以改善美国与中国之间的执法关系。B某随后补充道：\n\n根据我与［中国部长A］的谈话，［中国］将提出的一项请求是，［中国籍A某］，［中国］指称其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反［中国］多项刑法的人共谋（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪），应尽快由美国被驱逐出境（其签证将在未来一个月左右到期）或被引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至［中国］，以便其能够因这些违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在［中国］接受正常刑事程序。\n\nB某将一份关于中国籍A某的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n90．2017年5月23日前后，B某向D某发送短信：“你好［］，明天的会面是否已安排妥当？我的备忘录是否已发送给［司法部长］？请更新，谢谢［］［。］”D某回复：“［B某］——信昨日已送达。请查看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚正乘夜航班，以便我能早些返回华盛顿哥伦比亚特区。”B某回复：“太好了。谢谢［］。另请设法确定是否已安排好其会面，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在阿拉巴马州举行。”次日，即2017年5月24日前后，D某回复：“正在等待司法部就会面——我们的及［中国部长A］的会面——作出回复；请告知你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n91．2017年5月24日前后，D某向B某发送短信：“刚接到［司法部长］办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到他回复的短信，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92．2017年5月25日前后，B某向D某发送短信：“今天上午10:00在司法部举行会面。然后明天与联邦调查局（FBI）和国土安全部（DHS）会面。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到场，并可举行简短会面。然后与［］一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请设法今天第一时间见到［司法部长］。我们务必办成此事。我今天上午需要与我的联系人通话。谢谢。［。］”D某回复：“［］——正在办理。［司法部长］今天上午不在办公室，但正尝试确认他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，B某向D某发送短信：“细节是，我备忘录中的三项内容仅供［司法部长］知悉。［中国部长A］希望直接告诉［司法部长］。我的是正当的秘密渠道。［中国部长A］的上级希望确认［司法部长］已听到这三项真正有助于美国的内容［。］”当日稍后，D某回复：“［］——实际上刚刚与［司法部长］通完电话。不是好消息。请告知你何时有空通话。谢谢。”\n\n93．2017年5月26日前后，B某提及为中国部长A安排的会面，向D某发送短信：“上午10点，移民和海关执法局（ICE）负责人；11:30，联邦调查局。也许在国土安全部采取行动可以挽回局面。顺道见一下I某（Person I）。可以分享那三项内容。”B某随后称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正试图控制损害，需要与你通话。最好将I某拉到一旁。”当时，I某是国土安全部的一名高级官员。\n\n94．2017年5月28日前后，B某向D某发送电子邮件：“［司法部长］与［中国］驻美大使之间往来函件的转录文本。”B某指出：“我相信［司法部长］有极好机会进一步促进美国利益。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件令司法部长应当知悉的事项。”同日稍后，B某和D某互发电子邮件，安排讨论该电子邮件及其内容的时间。\n\n95．2017年5月30日前后，戴维斯转达来自中国部长A和A某的、有关中国部长A与美国政府官员会面的信息，发送短信：“查看Wickr——现在会面一切畅通［。］”B某回复：“是的。一切就绪［。］”戴维斯回复：“他的会面已恢复［。］”\n\n96．2017年5月前后，应A某请求，戴维斯要求B某在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区会见中国部长A。\n\n97．2017年5月30日前后，B某在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店与中国部长A会面。B某还询问D某是否可以帮助中国部长A安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n98．2017年5月31日前后，B某向D某发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与该副部长（VM）会面。他今天下午乘坐下午4点的航班返回。联邦调查局安排他与级别很低的人会面，并让原应与他会面的人改为与越南会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与［司法部长］或［I某］会面，否则就回国。他很愿意与［I某］会面。……到目前为止，他已经交出一名孕妇，另外两人将很快被送交。他会接收60名中国籍人士被驱逐出境，但前提是他能有一次适当的“简短会面”。这对政府而言是一次重大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两国总统在Mar-a-Lago会面的结果。请给我打电话，我将告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99．D某回复：“［］——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”B某回复：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在国土安全部与该副部长会面？他可以提到我的名字。还请尝试让［I某］缓和局面。也提到我。谢谢！祈祷成功。”\n\n100. 约于2017年5月31日，DAVIS（戴维斯）就中华人民共和国部长A据称与Person I会面一事向Person B发送短信：“原则上，[Person I] 对我们没问题——只是日程安排问题？”Person B回复：“只是一个临时通知的日程安排问题。可能在接下来一小时左右仍会有消息。与[中华人民共和国部长A]不存在任何问题。”Person B随后继续说：“请代我向副部长致以良好祝愿。再稍等一会儿。”DAVIS回复：“是的，我正这样告诉他。”Person B回复：“告诉他，我正在把发生的事情告诉白宫和[司法部长]。”DAVIS随后发送短信：“[Person I]不是安排在今天下午去海地吗？”Person B回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[司法部长]的人也没有提到。”DAVIS回复：“国土安全部网站上有。她今天下午在那里。刚和副部长谈过，他听起来像是在哭。”Person B回复：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底，不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真他妈是一团糟。”DAVIS回复：“Wickr。”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月9日，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇题为“[中华人民共和国]-加大对流亡大亨-[中华人民共和国国民A]的施压力度”的新闻文章。\n\n102. 约于2017年6月27日，Person B与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A交换了数条短信。\n\n103. 约于2017年6月27日，Person B就遣返中华人民共和国国民A一事向Person H的配偶发送短信。Person B知道，Person H是一名在国际上获得成功的商人，经常向政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切并可直接接触总统，对总统具有影响力，且可能有效推动遣返中华人民共和国国民A。Person B向Person H的配偶发送短信：“另外，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与Person H会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者也许共进午餐？期待在[ ]酒店见到您！致意，[ ][ ]。”Person B随后继续说：\n\n嗨，[ ]， [Person H]让我通过短信把这些信息发送给您。关于逃犯[中华人民共和国国民A]，我将向您发送若干材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报……这项高度紧迫的事项是，[中华人民共和国国民A]留在美国的签证于June 30th到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入国土安全部禁飞名单……该命令需要来自最高层，因为[中华人民共和国国民A]与前联邦调查局人员关系密切，而这些人员是其私人安保团队成员。中华人民共和国主席曾在Mar-A-Lago向[总统]提到，他希望将[中华人民共和国国民A]遣返。[中华人民共和国部长A]与我会面，并请求就[中华人民共和国国民A]一事提供帮助。……他承诺遣返被[中华人民共和国]扣为人质的某些美国公民，并接受大量[中华人民共和国]非法移民被驱逐出境遣返回[中华人民共和国]。最后，他提出就朝鲜问题提供新的协助。\n\n104. 约于2017年6月28日，Person B在一次社交聚会上与Person H及其配偶会面。会面后，Person B与Person H的配偶就[中华人民共和国国民A]交换短信：“嗨，[ ]，今晚见到您和[Person H]真是太好了！我刚刚再次收到[中华人民共和国部长A]的消息。由于时间紧迫，他想知道[中华人民共和国国民A]签证的状态。签证已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[中华人民共和国国民A]已被列入国土安全部禁飞名单？[中华人民共和国部长A]非常担心[中华人民共和国国民A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手遣返。这将是我们两国之间令人难以置信的一步。[中华人民共和国部长A]说，他们感谢您的帮助。”Person H的配偶回复：“这件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\n105. 约于2017年6月29日，Person B与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A的签证申请交换短信。Person B发送短信：“拒绝或接受函是否已经生成？”DAVIS回复：“我完全不知道。”Person B回复：“抱歉，是始终会生成。换句话说，每名申请人最终都会以书面形式收到同意或拒绝？抱歉，以书面形式收到同意或拒绝？”DAVIS回复：“是。查看Wickr。”\n\n106. 约于2017年6月30日，DAVIS提及他们为促成遣返外国国民B以及可能让被B国扣押的美国公民返回所作的努力时，向Person B发送短信：“Wickr。你现在就是那个人。在你为这个国家于这个July 4th所完成的事情之后，他们将授予你总统自由勋章。”Person B回复：“我会全力推进，直到完成。”DAVIS回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。还有 m 的日期。在我们完成之前，不要离开那个人。”Person B回复：“同意。”DAVIS继续说：“让他知道——如果我们今天在营业结束前拿到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们将在July 4前让那两名美国人回家。之后第二阶段——我们可以让他们接回那60人。”Person B回复：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会回电给我。正在通话中。”\n\n107. 约于2017年6月30日，Person B与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A交换了数条短信。Person B发送短信：“收到[Person H]的消息。他向POTUS重申了此事。”Person B随后说：“另外，[Person E]给我发短信说，他被其他事情耽搁了，但正在处理此事。”同日，DAVIS回复：“我们今天能拿到有关撤销的证明吗？”DAVIS随后具体说明：“从[Person E]那里？”\n\n108. 约于2017年7月1日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“与[Person E]进行了长时间交谈。你方便时给我打电话。”Person B并未与Person E交谈，但曾就中华人民共和国国民A的签证申请与其交换短信。与Person B在其为司法部长准备的备忘录中所作的陈述及其与Person H的沟通相似，Person B没有向Person E披露其与中华人民共和国部长A关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月2日，Person B与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，DAVIS发送短信：“今天星期日安排了与[中华人民共和国主席]就朝鲜问题的通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他听说了[Person H]的事。”\n\n110. 约于2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[总统]星期三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲。”DAVIS随后补充说：“July 5。安排与[中华人民共和国主席]亲自会面。”\n\n111. 约于2017年7月18日，Person B通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了Person H的联系信息。DAVIS为中华人民共和国部长A与Person H之间连接了多次通话，以推进遣返中华人民共和国国民A的游说活动。\n\n112. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A及将其从美国遣返至中华人民共和国一事交换短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS写道：“确实需要确认已正式传达。到目前为止——他说没有。”Person B回复：“已请三名不同的人跟进。”Person B随后补充说：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n113. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B发短信约Person H在华盛顿特区一家酒店会面，以讨论中华人民共和国国民A：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知您在华盛顿特区，我也在，住在[酒店]。您今天想喝杯咖啡吗？致意，[ ]。”当天晚些时候，Person H的配偶向Person B发送短信：“嗨，[ ]。您能否再次把您此前发短信提到的那个[中华人民共和国]男子的详情发给我，谢谢。”Person B回复：“嗨，[ ]，您指的是[中华人民共和国国民A]还是[中华人民共和国部长A]？此致，[ ][ ]。”Person H的配偶回复：“[中华人民共和国国民A]。”Person B随后重新发送了其此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n114. 约于2017年7月27日，Person B与DAVIS就中华人民共和国国民A交换短信。DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？”DAVIS随后补充说：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”Person B回复：“我正在与国家安全委员会的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复。”\n\n115. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B多次向DAVIS发送短信。在这些短信中，Person B写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息。”Person B随后补充说：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破机会。”\n\n116. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B在Person H的游艇上与Person H会面。在他们相处期间，Person B询问Person H有关涉及中华人民共和国国民A的事项，Person H建议他们给总统打电话。随后，Person B和Person H致电总统，询问中华人民共和国国民A在美国境内的状态。\n\n117. 约于2017年9月13日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“请把庇护文章和另一篇文章发给我。”同日，DAVIS向Person B发送了有关中华人民共和国国民A的文章链接。\n\n118. 约于2017年10月2日，Person B向DAVIS发送了一篇有关中华人民共和国国民A的文章链接。\n\n119. 约于2018年1月5日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“尽快发给我更多有关[中华人民共和国国民A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……。”\n\n第一项罪名　18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612（帮助和教唆及未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不晚于约2017年5月起至至少约2018年1月止，在夏威夷地区及其他地点，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（尼基·马利·拉姆·戴维斯）明知并故意地，未按法律要求向司法部长登记，帮助和教唆Person A及Person B以外国委托人代理人身份实施行为，即代表外国国民A、中华人民共和国部长A及中华人民共和国政府，实施秘密渠道游说活动，以有利于外国国民A的方式解决1MDB调查，并将中华人民共和国国民A遣返至中华人民共和国。\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(1)。\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)及Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)主张没收，现重申并援引本控告书第一项罪名中的指控。\n\n122. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)及Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，在因违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 2，以及Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(1)的第一项罪名被定罪后，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS应向美利坚合众国没收一笔款项，该款项代表构成或源自可追溯至所述违法行为所得的动产或不动产。进一步通知，定罪后，美利坚合众国拟就代表本段所述财产的该笔款项向DAVIS寻求判决。\n\n123. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，发生下述任一情形：\n\na. 经尽职查找仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或存放于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混同，且难以分割，\n\n美利坚合众国应有权根据经Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)纳入的Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：August 17, 2020，地点：Honolulu, Hawaii。\n\n署名：Kenji M. Price　KENJI M. PRICE　夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\n~~\n\n署名：Kenneth M. Sorenson　KENNETH M. SORENSON　国家安全主管\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON　公共廉政处处长　美国司法部\n\n署名：John D. Keller　JOHN D. KELLER　首席副处长\n\n肖恩·F·马尔林（SEAN F. MULRYNE） 妮可·R·洛克哈特（NICOLE R. LOCKHART） 詹姆斯·C·曼恩（JAMES C. MANN） 审判律师 公共诚信处\n\n美国诉尼基·马利·戴维斯（Nickie Mali DAVIS） 信息 刑事案号：~~~~~~~~~~~-\n证物 C\n\n美利坚合众国，\n\n诉\n乔治·希金博瑟姆（GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM），\n被告。","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","Je","GTV","Guo","Saraca","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party","853(p)"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":13,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28018,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:19:20"}