{"id":"court_ctb_440_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":440,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","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|                       |  | 22-50073                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n|-----------------------|--|----------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok<br>IN RE: |  |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| PAX                   |  | 2                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  | P.E.                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |  |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 2 of 109\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |             |                         |\n|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n|              |                                                                       | :           |                         |\n| In re:       |                                                                       | :           | Chapter 11              |\n| Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|              |                                                                       | :           |                         |\n|              | Debtor.                                                               | :           |                         |\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 3 of 109\n\nwith my creditors on a fair and equitable resolution of claims and distribution of assets pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan.\n\n4. In filing this Chapter 11 case and preparing this Declaration, I am cognizant that the Court may have concerns over Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order (defined below), adverse statements made about me by PAX (also defined below), and perhaps even the political views that I have expressed publicly. There are, of course, two or more sides to every story, and this Declaration will offer my views. For reasons that will become clear, I live in continuous fear of retribution by the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\") for my outspoken criticism of its corruption and human rights abuses. Over the years, I have endured relentless attacks through meritless litigation in the United States court system funded by the CCP and its proxies and agents. My Chapter 11 case can only address the financial harm the CCP seeks to exact upon me and my family. But, the CCP wants to cause me far more than just financial harm and public embarrassment. I believe the CCP would have me assassinated at the earliest possible opportunity if imprisoned, extradited, or if my family could no longer provide me with physical security. I do not suggest that the Court or any party-in-interest now accept my views about the underlying case facts. To the contrary, this Chapter 11 case is expected to be sufficiently funded by an *unsecured* post-petition loan *with repayment priority below all prepetition creditors* – to allow a fair investigation and stakeholders to present whatever admissible evidence they deem appropriate, as part of the typical Chapter 11 process. This bankruptcy is, in other words, intended to allow a reasoned vetting of all pertinent demonstrable case facts, without prejudicing any creditor's economic rights – except to the extent that any unsecured creditor hoped to jump ahead in payment priority via a \"race to the courthouse\" which would be necessarily unfair to some.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 3 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 4 of 109\n\n5. This Declaration is in two parts. Part I provides background information about me, including a summary description of my assets and liabilities. Part II provides testimonial support for certain motions.\n\n#### **PART I – BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **I. My Background**\n\n6. I was born 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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 5 of 109\n\n8. In or around 1991, the Chinese government began to loosen certain rules governing society, including rules enabling private citizens to start to achieve a sort of \"quasi-private\" ownership of real property in China. While my extended family benefitted from this change, I personally could not due to my prior politically motivated arrest and detention. Any assets in China listed under my name would likely have been seized by the CCP. My extended family used the wealth it amassed to support me, which has continued to this day.\n\n9. My extended family began working with Yuda Property Company (\"Yuda\"), a company focused on commercial real estate development in the Henan Province of China. Together, the Guo family and Yuda developed the Henan Yuda Hotel and, thereafter, the Yuda International Trade Center in Henan Province's capital city of Zhengzhou. These were successful ventures that allowed the Guo family to start amassing significant wealth. My family then developed other properties in China, including the Pangu Plaza – a 7-star hotel, convention center, and residential apartment complex in Beijing. Americans may recognize the Pangu Plaza as the primary backdrop to the 2008 and 2022 Olympics in Beijing.\n\n10. The Guo family's fortune continued to grow through diversification, as it invested in finance, technology, and other business sectors. My son, in particular, played a key role in expanding the family's wealth by establishing and managing investment opportunities, including the introduction of global luxury brands to China and Hong Kong. My son is, as a result, an independent, successful, and wealthy entrepreneur in his own right.\n\n11. I left mainland China for Hong Kong in or around 2000, and became a Hong Kong citizen. While the extended family was continuing to accumulate great wealth in China, under Chinese law, as a citizen of Hong Kong, I could neither keep my Chinese citizenship, nor would I have been permitted to own assets in China.\n\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 6 of 109\n\n12. My extended family's financial success did not go unnoticed by the CCP. In 2002, my extended family acquired large tracts of land in Beijing, which became significantly more valuable when China was named the host country for the 2008 Olympics. CCP 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 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<sup>1</sup> Nancy Tartaglione, *Chinese Create \\$800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment*, Deadline, February 6, 2012 (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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 7 of 109\n\nMy public statements exposing the corruption of the CCP received widespread coverage, in the United States and abroad. In addition to using social media to more readily and pervasively expose CCP corruption, I also provided information to U.S. authorities regarding CCP officials and their crimes. Out of fear for my life, I filed for political asylum protection in the United States in September 2017, and my asylum application remains pending.\n\n15. In retaliation for my whistleblowing, the CCP unleashed a multifaceted campaign to try to gain leverage over, discredit, <sup>2</sup> threaten, and silence me.<sup>3</sup> Those actions, described below, ultimately have driven me into this bankruptcy case. For example, on April 19, 2017, I was scheduled to do an interview with Voice of America (\"VOA\") during which I planned to expose\n\n<sup>2</sup> Stanford University and the Hoover Institute, the NGO Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), and Alphabet's Google have all separately reported that I have been a primary target of the CCP in its global social media disinformation campaign, driven by CCP agents and thousands of China's state-controlled websites and social media accounts. *See* Carly Miller, Vanessa Molter, Isabella Garca-Camargo, Rene DiResta, David Thiel and Alex Zaheer, *Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown, Stanford Internet Observatory*, June 17, 2020 (http); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, and Elise Thomas, *Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests*, October 2019 (htt\n\n<sup>12/</sup>Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\_4SfDUy7 sMfNkw0) (indicating that the CCP's disinformation campaign against me began in April 2017); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, Elise Thomas, Albert Zhang, Dr. Samantha Hoffman, Lin Li, Alex Pascoe and Danielle Cave, *Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor*, June 2020 (htt\n\n<sup>06/</sup>Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt XD6TCA) (presenting data reflecting \"a persistent, large-scale influence campaign linked to Chinese state actors on Twitter and Facebook . . . [which] largely targeted Chinese-speaking audiences outside of the Chinese mainland (where Twitter is blocked) . . . with the intention of influencing perceptions on . . . Guo Wengui\"); Joseph Menn, *Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID*, Reuters, September 9, 2021 (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<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).\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 8 of 109\n\nthe CCP's ownership interest in HNA Group Co. The CCP took a number of actions to try to prevent me and VOA from proceeding with the interview. First, two days before my scheduled VOA interview – and just as Brunu Wu threatened – the CCP had an INTERPOL \"Red Notice\" based upon fabricated criminal charges issued seeking my arrest and extradition to China. Second, the CCP threatened retaliation against VOA and its reporters in China if VOA proceeded with my interview, asserting that the interview constituted interference in China's internal affairs. Third, the day before the interview, PAX (a subsidiary of PAG) filed a meritless lawsuit against me in New York for breach of contract. I proceeded with the interview, but VOA (succumbing to the pressures of the CCP) ordered it be cut short.\n\n16. When the CCP's early efforts to silence me failed, it resorted to trying to get me extradited to China, where I would be killed. An FBI investigation revealed that during the summer of 2017, I was the target of lobbying attempts by the CCP in the United States, utilizing a corrupt government official and a number of prominent individuals, including Macao casino owner Steve Wynn, to directly lobby President Trump and his administration to extradite me to China. 4 The CCP's scheme resulted in the federal indictments and guilty pleas of the former Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee Elliot Broidy (who has since, like Brunu Wu,\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha, *Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman*, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021 (http).\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 8 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 9 of 109\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me), <sup>5</sup> lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, <sup>6</sup> and former DOJ official George Higginbotham,<sup>7</sup> all of whom admittedly took payments in exchange for lobbying top U.S. government officials for my extradition. China's campaign included the bribery and corruption of a senior DOJ Headquarters official (George Higginbotham) who was found with almost \\$75 million in bank accounts that he controlled – making it one of the biggest espionage and corruption scandals in DOJ history. The CCP also targeted me in various other ways starting that same year, including by: hacking the server of the law firm that filed my asylum application in September 2017, extracting my highly sensitive information from that application, and then publicly disseminating it across the internet; bringing and funding (including several through Brunu Wu) numerous spurious litigations against me, some of which remain active today; and detaining, torturing, and imprisoning many of my family members and former colleagues.\n\n<sup>5</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National, October 20, 2020 (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<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) (stating that \"Lum Davis and others also agreed to lobby the Administration and Justice Department on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A — a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Nicki Lum Davis is attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n<sup>7</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: 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) (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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 10 of 109\n\n17. Since 2017, the CCP has also frozen and seized family assets and purported assets in China and Hong Kong, making it impossible for me even to maintain a bank account.<sup>8</sup> The CCP has made it its mission to destroy anything I create and to block me from dealing with financial institutions. I spend much of my time serving as an unpaid informal advisor or spokesperson to various entities, including entities that expose the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses. My family, and particularly my son, provides for my needs. Prior to the Petition Date, my son's family office, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\" or the \"Family Office\"), purchased, among many other things, my clothing, food, and sundries. I do not have access to a GSNY credit card or to a GSNY bank account. My family retains ownership of nearly everything I use, aside from my clothing and mobile phones. I do not own the Greenwich, Connecticut residence; it is owned by my wife through Greenwich Land, LLC. I hold the interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment in trust for my son.\n\n18. My family has advanced me loans (some documented, others not) to fund my significant litigation costs which allows me to defend myself against the many suits initiated by, or at the behest of, the CCP. As of the Petition Date, GSNY has extended to me approximately \\$21 million in loans to pay for my litigation costs. As discussed below and described in my Statement of Financial Affairs (the \"SOFA\"), I am a defendant and/or claimant in over 30 lawsuits pending in the United States and abroad. It is publicly known that the CCP utilizes its proxies to\n\n<sup>8</sup> On October 23, 2018, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance (the \"HK High Court\"), entered the *Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere* (the \"HK Restraint Order\"), dated October 18, 2018. The HK Restraint Order targeted HK\\$3.7 million of funds on deposit at the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC Bank) allegedly belonging to me. Billions more of funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong, of individuals and entities purportedly subject to my \"effective control\" (according to the HK Restraint Order) were also frozen and/or seized. The HK Restraint Order prohibits all dispositions of assets by the named \"respondents\" (which includes me). Anyone coming into receipt of my assets following entry of the HK Restraint Order is supposedly in violation of it and is subject to fines and imprisonment.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 10 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 11 of 109\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China.<sup>9</sup> The cost of retaining lawyers, experts, vendors, interpreters, and other professionals in connection with such litigations has been extraordinary.\n\n### **II. My Liabilities**\n\n19. I have, to the best of my knowledge, reflected the current state of my liabilities in my filed Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (the \"Schedules\") and SOFA. The Family Office assisted me in preparing these documents, as did Verdolino & Lowey, P.C., an independent financial advisory firm with considerable experience preparing bankruptcy schedules and statements of financial affairs. As reflected in those documents and described further below, I am named as a defendant in 21 lawsuits and owe considerable amounts for litigation costs.\n\n### **A. PAX Litigation.**\n\n20. PAX, a Hong Kong investment fund – whose parent PAG partnered with CCP agent Brunu Wu's media companies to purchase a Hollywood studio – commenced actions against me in New York and the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\"). As I mentioned before, PAX's New York Supreme Court action was filed on April 18, 2017, the day before my VOA interview to expose CCP corruption. PAX's claim principally concerns collection on a disputed debt.\n\n21. In 2008, PAX made a \\$100 million loan (the \"PAX Loan\") to a Chinese entity called Spirit Carter. The \\$100 million loan came in two tranches: (1) a \\$30 million initial loan secured by a personal guaranty made by me, and (2) a second \\$70 million dollar loan secured by a 49% interest in the company that owns the land/development that eventually became the Pangu Plaza.\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts*, Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2020 (http).\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 11 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 12 of 109\n\n22. In 2009, PAX received repayment of \\$100 million, acknowledged satisfaction of the loan, and further acknowledged that my obligation under the 2008 personal guaranty had been satisfied. PAX disputes that an \"accord and satisfaction\" actually occurred, and now asserts claims against me under a subsequent-dated personal guaranty that is a forgery. Prior to showing me this guaranty, my prior litigation counsel submitted it to the court in support of certain motions. When I subsequently learned of the document's existence, I stated that I believe it to be a forgery; but the court ruled that, by its prior submission, I no longer had the ability to challenge its authenticity. Consequently, on September 15, 2020, the court entered summary judgement in PAX's favor, without either allowing me to testify or conducting an evidentiary trial before a jury. The judgment, with interest, amounts to approximately \\$125 million as of today. I timely appealed this judgment to the New York Appellate Division, and that appeal remains pending.10\n\n23. A few weeks later (on October 15, 2020), the Court issued a restraining order respecting my assets (the \"NYS Restraining Order\"). PAX, in enforcement of the judgment, focused primarily on a yacht named the \"Lady May,\" which is described further below. I do not own the Lady May; it is owned by my daughter. The boat's maintenance has always been paid for by my son. Nevertheless, on March 16, 2021, Justice Ostrager directed *me* to return the boat to New York by May 15, 2021 or face a massive daily fine of \\$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside the jurisdiction. I did have access to the boat, but I did not have the authority to order it back to New York. The Lady May never returned to New York and, as of earlier this year, the accrued contempt fine exceeded the amount of the judgment that had been entered in PAX's favor and was five or six times the stated value of the yacht. I have no ability to pay this fine.\n\n<sup>10</sup> My Schedules include a potential malpractice claim against my historical litigation counsel.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 12 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 13 of 109\n\n24. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a *Final Order of Civil Contempt* (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") against me. In the February 9 Contempt Order, Justice Ostrager found that I hold a beneficial interest in and control the Lady May and ordered me to pay a \\$134 million fine to PAX within five business days or risk incarceration for civil contempt. I believe that the February 9 Contempt Order was wrongfully issued against me and have separately appealed this order to the Appellate Division. Regardless, I do not have the means to satisfy the order. I firmly believe the CCP is orchestrating the PAX case. The PAX litigation, so far, has been one of the CCP's few successes in its relentless campaign against me, by exposing me to potential imprisonment11 and forcing me into bankruptcy.\n\n### **B. Securities Litigation.**\n\n25. I am named as a defendant in seven actions related to my promotion of the sale of securities in a company called GTV Media Group, Inc (\"GTV\") and virtual currency referred to as \"G Coin\" and \"G Dollar.\" In addition to two putative investor classes, several individual investors have asserted claims against me related to losses they allegedly suffered following their alleged investments. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that I participated in a scheme to sell unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors in violation of applicable U.S. securities laws. The complaints, in the aggregate, are seeking more than \\$100 million in damages from me\n\n<sup>11</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion Of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry Of An Order Confirming The Inapplicability Of The Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant To Section 362(D)(2) Of The Bankruptcy Code* [Docket No. 57] (the \"Lift Stay Motion\"). I believe that granting the relief requested by the Lift Stay Motion would cause me significant harm and materially prejudice my estate and its creditors. As indicated by PAX in the Lift Stay Motion, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order could result in my imprisonment in New York, which would materially impair my ability to achieve the objectives of this Chapter 11 case. Chiefly, if incarcerated, I will be unable to adequately and appropriately administer my estate, participate in this bankruptcy case, negotiate with creditors, appear and be heard before this Court, consult with and direct counsel, investigate and marshal the assets of the estate, or formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan. Further, I believe that PAX is under the misplaced belief that my family will pay PAX's ransom if I face the risk of incarceration; my family will not.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 13 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 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\n\n#### **C. Defamation Claims.**\n\n26. Since 2017, I have maintained a very active social media presence and posted content that is critical of the CCP, its agents, and others within its sphere of influence. Against this backdrop, certain people allegedly identified in my social media content have asserted defamation claims against me. As identified in my SOFA, I am currently named as a defendant in several defamation suits, a number of which are being funded by Brunu Wu, an admitted CCP agent and business partner of PAX's parent company. The plaintiffs in these actions have alleged, in aggregate, substantial damages.\n\n### **D. Litigation Funding Costs.**\n\n27. The costs of my prosecution of claims with monetary relief have been funded through loans provided pursuant to litigation funding agreements (the \"Litigation Funding Agreements\"). In the instances where I have to defend claims, the Family Office has advanced me loans to cover my litigation costs. In either case, the loan proceeds were directly disbursed to the law firms and service providers retained by me. Through the Petition Date, GSNY has advanced approximately \\$21 million to me for litigation-related expenses.\n\n28. In the instances in which a Litigation Funding Agreement is in place, GSNY is entitled to a premium if I am ultimately successful in asserting and recovering on my claim and\n\n<sup>12</sup> These matters related to a certain settled enforcement proceeding. Specifically, in September 2021, GTV and Saraca entered into publicly announced \"no admit/no deny\" settlements with the SEC regarding the SEC's contention that the GTV offering ran afoul of Section 506 of the 33 Act (the \"SEC Entity Settlements\"). *In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al*., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021). A parallel settlement involving GTV and Saraca was also reached with the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, *In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, 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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 15 of 109\n\nhas asserted a security interest against certain of my litigation recoveries to secure that repayment and return on investment.\n\n#### **III. My Assets**\n\n29. I am advised that, upon the commencement of my Chapter 11 case, an estate was formed consisting of all legal or equitable interests that I have in property as of the filing date, wherever located and by whomever held. I am also advised that my estate and all property of my estate is subject to the Court's jurisdiction and oversight. I, of course, accept that.\n\n30. My assets, to the best of my knowledge, are identified in my Schedules. These assets are principally clothing, food, and other minor household goods, along with litigation claims.\n\n31. As noted earlier, my family has long supported me. My family has furnished me with clothing and other sundries. Everything else I have access to – including vehicles, my residences (past and current), furniture, artwork, and electronics (except for my mobile phones) – are owned by my family members. I have use of these assets, with their permission, but I do not have any authority to dispose of any material assets without their permission.\n\n32. I am also a claimant in several cases pending in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The particulars of such litigation are disclosed in my Statements of Financial Affairs. Two pieces of litigation are worthy of note here:\n\n> a. **UBS Claims**. Before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom, I and certain co-plaintiffs have asserted a claim against UBS AG (London Branch) (\"UBS\") seeking more than \\$500 million of damages related to negligent misrepresentation and advice by UBS in connection with my attempt to cause the acquisition of, and acquire certain shares issued by, a Chinese financial institution,\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 15 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 16 of 109\n\nHaitong, back in 2015. As recently as February 9, 2022, I received a favorable ruling establishing the jurisdiction of my claims over UBS before the courts of the United Kingdom – and not Switzerland, as advocated by UBS. Given that UBS disputed jurisdiction, a parallel litigation had to be brought before the Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority, in Switzerland, to ensure that the litigation could proceed in the event that jurisdiction was found to be lacking in the United Kingdom (it was not found to be lacking). That action in Switzerland is currently stayed pending the outcome of UBS's appeal to the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom on this jurisdictional issue.\n\nb. **Clark Hill Claims**. In addition, I have asserted claims against Clark Hill PLC and one of its members, Thomas K. Ragland (together, \"Clark Hill\"). This lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I am seeking \\$50 million in compensatory damages, and additional punitive damages, against Clark Hill for breach of its duties of legal representation. Specifically, as a result of Clark Hill's failure to adequately protect the highly sensitive information contained in my asylum application, the CCP hacked Clark Hill's server during September 2017, extracted that highly sensitive information, and then disseminated it across the internet. To make matters worse, Clark Hill succumbed to the CCP hackers' threats and withdrew as my immigration counsel. As a result, I have suffered and continue to suffer harm.\n\n33. Two other assets that I do not own warrant special discussion: (a) the Lady May; and (b) an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York City (the \"Apartment\").\n\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 17 of 109\n\n- a. **Lady May**. As mentioned above, I do not own the Lady May, though I did have permission to board and enjoy the vessel. My daughter, through HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, owns and controls the yacht. Despite the state court's findings in the February 9 Contempt Order, it was not within my power to direct the Lady May to stay in, or return to, New York.\n- b. **Sherry-Netherland Apartment**. Cooperative shares in the Sherry-Netherland apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC ( \"Genever US\"). 13 The membership interests in Genever US are, in turn, held by Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\"). My son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded Genever US with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by my son and not from me. It also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered, by Justice Ostrager, to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or the Genever US bankruptcy.\n\n34. As mentioned at the beginning of this Declaration, I believe that Justice Ostrager, PAX, and perhaps others believe I have greater financial wherewithal than is reflected here and in my Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs. The wealth they believe is mine, however, actually belongs to my son, daughter, wife, and extended family, not me. But, as also noted above,\n\n<sup>13</sup> On October 12, 2020, 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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 18 of 109\n\nthis bankruptcy will allow parties-in-interest to investigate that assertion and present any countervailing evidence. Importantly, and as discussed below, the adversarial process will be funded in such a way as to avoid harm to any creditor's economic interest in the estate.\n\n#### **III. Proposed DIP Financing**\n\n35. As set forth in my Schedules, I do not have resources of my own to fund the expenses of this Chapter 11 case. However, my son has expressed a willingness to fund certain costs of this Chapter 11 case. Specifically, GSNY is proposing to lend the estate \\$8 million (the \"DIP Financing\") on the terms set forth in the DIP Financing credit agreement (the \"DIP Credit Agreement\") attached to the motion to approve the DIP Financing. The DIP Financing will be used to pay for, among other things, the costs of the estate's retained professionals (both mine, and the professionals retained by an official committee of unsecured creditors and/or an examiner, if appointed) and the quarterly fees assessed by the Office of the United States Trustee. Of the \\$8 million budget, up to \\$4 million would be made available to fund the work of an Official Creditors Committee and/or Examiner.\n\n36. GSNY is offering to extend this loan on an unsecured basis, with repayment priority subordinated to all allowed general unsecured claims. Stated differently, the DIP Financing is not secured by any assets of the estate, does not require an administrative or priority claim, and will not be repaid from estate assets until all allowed prepetition claims are fully paid. This loan thus costs my creditors nothing and provides a fair opportunity for an investigation into my affairs. I do not believe that any loan provided by another lender would be on superior terms. Accordingly, obtaining this loan is in the best interest of my estate.\n\n37. I will not be given access to any of the borrowed funds. All of the DIP Financing proceeds will be deposited into a segregated deposit account (the \"Debtor Account\") established\n\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 19 of 109\n\nfor the estate's benefit. Craig Jalbert of V&L (as defined below) shall be the sole authorized signatory. Disbursements from the Debtor Account will only be at the direction of V&L, solely to the extent necessary to pay the items set forth in the DIP Budget, and as authorized in the proposed DIP Financing orders, the DIP Financing documents, and other relevant orders of the Court (including orders approving professional fee applications).\n\n38. There is only one \"milestone\" covenant in the DIP Credit Agreement: Bankruptcy Court final approval of the proposed DIP Financing order within 45 days of the date that the DIP Credit Agreement is approved on an interim basis. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 20 of 109\n\nfurther hope that, if there is thoughtful creditor engagement, my family will be willing to contribute funding to ensure a fair recovery for creditors under a plan.\n\n40. My assets, as discussed above, are principally litigation claims and I believe those claims have substantial merit and are valuable (perhaps valuable enough to pay all creditors in full). But, again, all stakeholders will be given a fair opportunity to investigate them.\n\n41. I understand that my Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to conclusively determine which other assets potentially comprise my bankruptcy estate. Certain of my creditors have alleged that I own assets that I believe are owned and controlled by my family members or their affiliated entities. I do not believe that the New York Supreme Court, which issued an order regarding my \"beneficial\" ownership and control of the Lady May, ever determined that I have actual legal title to the vessel or that it is now an asset of my Chapter 11 estate. These issues will be presented squarely and fairly to this Court for appropriate resolution.\n\n42. I have been defending myself against litigation brought by purported creditors for years. As noted above, GSNY – owned and controlled by my son - has lent me millions to fund my defense costs. This Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to determine, once and for all, the extent of allowed claims against my estate. Creditors will be afforded an opportunity to assert claims against my Chapter 11 estate, and the process should yield a fair allocation of whatever assets are in the estate across all equally situated creditors (without, for example, PAX jumping ahead of others in the same creditor class). I will work with my professionals to achieve an appropriate claims reconciliation process.\n\n43. In the end, I hope for a rational, value-maximizing plan that frees me of litigation and will help facilitate a \"fresh start\" under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 21 of 109\n\n#### **PART II –BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOTIONS**\n\n44. I have reviewed each of the following motions and the facts set forth in them are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.\n\n45. **Motion to Approve DIP Financing**. The DIP Financing is necessary to fund the costs associated with the Chapter 11 case and to provide sufficient runway for me, with the aid of my highly capable and experienced advisors, to negotiate and achieve confirmation of a plan of reorganization.\n\n46. Given that it was the adversarial and litigious relationship with my creditors, most notably PAX, that drove me to seek chapter 11 relief, I requested, and GSNY agreed, that the DIP Financing would be for the benefit of all estate professionals, without imposing any lien or priority rights that could potentially prejudice the interests of my creditors. The DIP Financing is offered on an unsecured basis, subordinated to the rights of my prepetition creditors, and without any administrative or other priority repayment rights. My understanding is that the DIP Loan shall be repaid if and only if all of my other creditors are paid in full. Given these generous terms, I believe that any attempt to obtain financing from another source on competitive or similar terms would be a waste of estate resources and would be futile.\n\n47. Also, as set forth above and in my Schedules, I anticipate that the proceeds of recoveries or settlements in litigations in which I am a plaintiff will be used to fund a Chapter 11 plan. Without access to the DIP Financing, I will be unable to retain and compensate the counsel currently prosecuting actions on my behalf. Similarly, my liabilities may substantially increase if I am unable to defend, settle, and/or litigate these claims (either within this proceeding or, if stay relief is granted, in other venues).\n\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 22 of 109\n\n48. For these reasons, I believe that the proposed DIP Financing is extended in good faith, does not prejudice any of my creditors' rights or interests, is in the best interests of my estate, and should therefore be approved.\n\n49. **Application to Retain Stretto, Inc. as Claims and Noticing Agent**. I need a claims and noticing agent to help provide notice to the estate's creditors and parties-in-interest throughout the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Stretto, Inc. (\"Stretto\") to serve as my claims and noticing agent. Stretto has substantial experience serving as a claims and noticing agent in various chapter 11 cases throughout the United States, including in this District. Stretto has agreed to render consulting services to: (a) serve as the noticing agent to mail notices to the estate's creditors and other parties-in-interest; (b) maintain an electronic platform for filing proofs of claim, plan solicitation, balloting, tabulation of votes, disbursements, and administrative support in preparation of schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs; and (c) provide other administrative services, as necessary, with respect to this Chapter 11 case.\n\n50. **Application to Retain Brown Rudnick LLP as Restructuring Counsel**. I need highly capable and experienced restructuring counsel to advise and help structure my exit from Chapter 11, potentially in the form of a confirmed plan of reorganization. I have chosen Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\") as my restructuring counsel for the Chapter 11 case. Brown Rudnick has extensive experience and knowledge in the fields of debtors' and creditors' rights and reorganizations under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, having represented debtors, official and unofficial committees and other prominent parties in many Chapter 11 cases in this Circuit, this District, and other districts across the country. Brown Rudnick also has familiarity with my affairs and the legal issues to be contested in the Chapter 11 case, and has agreed to: (a) prepare all necessary motions, responses, answers and other legal papers, including trial preparation as may\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 22 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 23 of 109\n\nbe necessary; (b) prepare and take action as necessary for approval of a disclosure statement and confirmation of a plan of reorganization; and (c) perform all other legal services as may be necessary during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n51. Prior to the Petition Date, on each of February 14, 2022 and February 15, 2022, Brown Rudnick was paid a retainer of \\$500,000. The source of the \\$1 million in retainer payments (the \"BR Retainer\") was Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\"), which is a company owned by my son. Lamp loaned me \\$1 million on an unsecured basis, and I directed Lamp to remit the proceeds of the loan directly to Brown Rudnick. Brown Rudnick applied \\$51,835.20 in pre-Petition Date fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer, leaving Brown Rudnick with a prepetition BR Retainer Balance of \\$948,164.80. Going forward, I have asked Brown Rudnick to apply its allowed fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer until the BR Retainer balance is \\$250,000, after which Brown Rudnick will seek payment of its allowed fees and expenses from me through the proceeds of the DIP Financing.\n\n52. **Application to Retain Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as Financial Advisor**. I need a financial advisory firm to prepare, review, and analyze the necessary financial disclosures mandated under the Bankruptcy Code and the ongoing monthly and quarterly reporting requirements during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\") to serve as my financial advisor. V&L has extensive experiencing working with distressed individual chapter 11 debtors, and provides tailored services, including, but not limited to, financial advisory, consulting, accounting services, tax, and other related services. V&L has agreed to render services regarding: (a) the preparation and review of my SOFA and the Schedules and other periodic reporting requirements; (b) the preparation and/or review of cash flow and related budget projections; (c) maintaining the DIP account, and effectuating disbursements when\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 23 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 24 of 109\n\nnecessary and providing accounting of all cash activity; (d) claims review and administration; (e) plan of reorganization formulation and review; (f) the rendering of any necessary litigation support; and (g) the providing of general consulting and assistance with any other matters and tasks that may arise during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\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 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 25 of 109\n\n55. In sum, without my Ordinary Course Professionals' knowledge, expertise, and familiarity in connection with their prepetition work, my estate will incur substantial additional and unnecessary expenses in educating and retaining replacement professionals necessary to preserve, and potentially continue prosecuting these valuable litigation claims. Accordingly, I believe that the continued retention of my Ordinary Course Professionals is in the best interests of this estate, my creditors, and other parties-in-interest.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 25 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 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\n19. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Foreign\n\nNational A to orchestrate back-channel, unregistered campaigns to lobby the Administration and\n\nDOJ to: (I) end the IMDB matters or otherwise resolve the matters favorably for Foreign National\n\nA; and (2) remove PRC National A from the United States and send him back to the PRC.\n\n- 20. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to make millions 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- 21. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to conceal BROIDY's contacts with and payments from Foreign National A to maintain BROIDY's credibility with United States officials and to further the illegal advocacy scheme.\n\n#### **Manner and Means of the Conspiracy**\n\n22. The manner and means by which BROIDY and others carried out the conspiracy included, but were not limited to, the following:\n\n#### International Travel to Meet with Foreign Principals and Government Officials\n\n23. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham, in various combinations, traveled to Thailand, Malaysia, and the PRC for the purpose of meeting with Foreign National A, PRC Minister A, and others to negotiate and discuss the arrangement by which BROIDY would lobby the Administration and DOJ--outside of official channels-in exchange for millions of dollars.\n\n#### Meetings and Contacts with United States Officials\n\n24. BROIDY, both directly and through intermediaries, facilitated and attempted to facilitate meetings and other efforts to influence officials at the highest levels of the United States government, including the President and the Attorney General, for the benefit of PRC Minister A and Foreign National A.\n\n25. BROIDY, both directly and through intermediaries, contacted high-level officials in the United States government to arrange meetings for foreign government officials, including PRC Minister A and the Malaysian Prime Minister A, to provide opportunities for these foreign officials to formally request favorable governmental action, including the favorable resolution of the IMDB matters and the removal of PRC National A.\n\n#### Concealment\n\n26. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed to conceal BROIDY's agreement to lobby on behalfofForeign National A, in his individual capacity and as an intermediary for PRC Minister A. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A did not disclose and agreed not to disclose to United States government officials and the public BROIDY's financial arrangement with and payments from\n\nForeign National A. In extensive contacts, communications, and documents drafted in furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham were secretive and anonymized references to Foreign National A. Further, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A often used encrypted applications when communicating about Foreign National A and PRC National A to conceal their conduct and connection to Foreign National A. Finally, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed, implicitly or explicitly, not to register under FARA to conceal their arrangement with Foreign National A.\n\n#### **Overt Acts**\n\n27. In furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY and others committed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.\n\n#### I. **Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases**\n\n#### **A. BROIDY Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer**\n\n28. In or about March 2017, Person A contacted Davis in an effort to locate someone with close ties to the Administration to help a foreign client. Davis in tum told BROIDY that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could use help with a forfeiture matter.\n\n29. On or about March 7, 2017, Person A requested that Davis send him BROIDY's biography describing BROJDY's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration and photographs of BROIDY and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, BROIDY's assistant, at Davis's request, emailed photographs to Davis featuring BROIDY and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight for Foreign National A BROJDY's close access to the Administration.\n\n30. On or about March 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" BROIDY responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\"\n\n31. On or about March 13, 2017, BROIDY met with Davis and Person A to discuss Foreign National A and 1 MOB. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to BROIDY, and asked if BROIDY could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of BROIDY helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, BROIDY texted Davis in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n32. On or about March 13, 2017, Davis forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A so that Person A could present the agreement to Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee if the \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MOB forfeiture proceedings. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, Law Firm A, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure BROIDY's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on BROIDY's political connections.\n\n33. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did BROIDY, Davis, or Person A register with the FARA Unit regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n#### **B. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis Meet Foreign National A in Bangkok**\n\n34. In or about April 2017, Davis relayed Person A's request for BROIDY to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. BROIDY told Davis to tell Person A that he would go only if he were paid \\$1 million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds. BROIDY was assured that Person A would personally pay \\$1 million in exchange for BROIDY traveling to Bangkok.\n\n35. On or about April 28, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, Davis responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n36. On or about April 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, BROIDY asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" Davis responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.]\"\n\n37. On or about May I, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok, and wrote, in part, \"Please send me the hotel confirmation for both Elliott's room and mine once you get it online and I will forward.\" That same day, Davis separately emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed up with, \"Also send me Elliott's wire info.\" Davis replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 2, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] a!].d I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n39. On or about May 2, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. BROIDY and Foreign National A spoke about the IMDB matters. BROIDY agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay BROIDY an \\$8 million retainer and wanted BROIDY to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the I MDB matter. BROIDY agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. During the meeting or shortly thereafter, Davis and BROIDY discussed the possibility of assisting in getting PRC National A removed from the United States. With respect to payment, BROrDY stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay BROIDY and others. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis agreed that the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to BROIDY through Law Firm A. BROIDY and Davis agreed that BROIDY would pay Davis a percentage of what BROIDY received. Person A also agreed to pay Davis a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told BROIDY and Davis that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review. BROIDY never met or spoke with Higginbotham.\n\n#### **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; BROIDY is Paid \\$6 Million; Davis is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n40. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on or about May 8, 2017, was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n41. On or about May 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago -\". Davis then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n42. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$600,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts and \\$900,000 to an account for a business entity associated with Davis. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of BROIDY's business accounts. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n43. On or about May 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to BROIDY through Person A and BROIDY's payment of a percentage to Davis. Among the text messages, Davis asked, \"Did you get it?\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. BROIDY later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" Davis responded, \"When Asia opens .. . . Baby steps at least moving forward now.'' BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires. \" BROIDY later\n\nadded in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [BROIDY's assistant].\"\n\n44. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2. 7 million. On or about May 26, 2017, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which BROIDY and Foreign National A agreed in return for BROIDY's assistance with the **1** MDB civil forfeiture cases. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with Davis. On or about May 26, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$1 million to an account controlled by Person C. In or about early June 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$650,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts.\n\n#### **D. BROIDY Facilitates and Attempts to Facilitate Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Efforts to Resolve the lMDB Cases**\n\n45. On or about June *5,* 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\" Pursuant to a consulting agreement, BROIDY had agreed to pay Person D \\$25,000 per month for advice and guidance with respect to navigating the Administration.\n\n46. The same day, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, Davis wrote, \"Please call before u go to bed ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n47. On or about June 15, 2017, at Person A's request, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Hey he'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" Davis added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, BROIDY responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n48. On or about June 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 2017, BROIDY asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. BROIDY and Davis believed that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the I MOB matter. BROIDY also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n49. On or about June 19, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the IMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n50. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n51 . On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, BROIDY followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n52. On or about July 3, 2017, BROIDY again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Pr\\_ime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, Elliott.\" Later that day, BROIDY texted Person E again: \"[Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, BROIDY exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, BROIDY texted, \"[Person E], just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Davis continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize- I'm getting inundated[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" Davis responded, \"Done[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a high-ranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pis pis go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely! \"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E), It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A) with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, Elliot[.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process-\". BROIDY responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, ''NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with the Malaysians. NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. BROIDY responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" Davis followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. BROIDY responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" Davis replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. BROIDY replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 20 I 7, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" BROIDY responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21 , 2017, BROlDY texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], The Malaysians have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! Elliott.\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" BROIDY replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Just checked again with Malaysians. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, Elliott.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Hi [Person DJ- Can you call NSA for me re Malaysians receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to Malaysian Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, Elliott.\" Person D responded, \"E- will call again this morning.\"\n\n16\n\n64. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY emailed a high-level official from the National Security Council in an attempt to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n65. On or about July 29, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" Davis immediately followed by texting \"Wickr[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*\", which contained the purported talking points of Malaysian Prime Minister A intended for an upcoming meeting between the United States Secretary of State and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Davis had received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and Davis relayed them to BROIDY. The talking points mentioned, among other things, BROIDY's ongoing relationship and work with Malaysia, and identified 1 MOB as a \" (p ]riority[. ]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\".\n\n67. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY also sent these talking points to Person D, immediately followed by a message explaining, \"Above is attachment from Malaysian PM of his talking points. You can share with [staff assistant who works for the Secretary of State].\" BROIDY also sought to obtain details about the timing of a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State.\n\n68. Later on or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY messaged Person D, \"[Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize Circinus name. Thank you!\" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. This was the final payment made to BROIDY. In total, BROIDY was paid \\$9 million. On or about the next day, Law Fim1 A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with Davis. In the ensuing days, Law Firm A transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts belonging to BROIDY\n\n70. On or about August I 0, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from Malaysia that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Any update on Malaysia? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a highranking official at the White House.\n\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\n\nA's meeting with United States government officials, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\"\n\nBROIDY 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\n\nPRC 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,\n\n\"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\n26\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 responded, \"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<br>)                                         |\n|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Plaintiff,                | )<br>)<br>INFORMATION                                             |\n| vs.                       | )<br>)<br>(18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§<br>)<br>612 and 618(a)] |\n| NICKIE MALI LUM DA VIS,   | )                                                                 |\n| Defendant.                | )<br>)                                                            |\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  September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the lMDB matter with the President.\n\n5. DAVIS, Person A, and Person B also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that Person B, assisted by DA VIS, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. DA VIS, Person A, and Person B, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials at DOJ and the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"DHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make false and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n#### **RELEVANT PARTIES & ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with Persons A and B.\n\n9. Person A was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n10. Person B served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately April 2016 to April 2018. In that capacity, Person B raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. After\n\nthe election, Person B continued in his role as Deputy Finance Chair and maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration of the President, including the President. Over the same period, Person B owned and operated several domestic and international businesses and worked as a political consultant.\n\n11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multibillion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company formed by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A to pay Person B for his lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law firm operated by Person B's spouse, Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a dissident of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the lMDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1 MDB laundered proceeds. On November 1, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from lMDB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying bribes to various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials.\n\n### I. Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases\n\n# A. Person B Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer\n\n17. In or about March 2017, DAVIS told Person B that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could \"use help with the forfeiture.\"\n\n18. On or about March 5, 2017, at the request of Person B, DAVIS emailed Person B a copy of a civil forfeiture complaint related to lMDB. That same day, DAVIS emailed Person B a Bloomberg article titled \"[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits,\" and texted Person B, \"Your email has the court filing[.]\" Person B responded, \"Thx. Will review.\" DAVIS replied, \"Call me when u can- thank you[.]\" Person B responded again, \"Yes. 5 min[.]\"\n\n19. Person A requested that DA VIS send him Person B's biography describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration\n\nand photographs of Person B and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, Person B's assistant, at DAVIS's request, emailed photographs to DAVIS featuring Person B and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight Person B's close access to the Administration.\n\n20. On or about March 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" Person B responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\" Later that same day, DA VIS sent Person B additional text messages to set up the meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n21. At the direction of Person B, on or about March 13, 2017, DAVIS forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee ifthe \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MDB forfeiture proceedings. In actuality, Person A, Person B, Law Firm A, DAVIS, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure Person B's services to lobby the\n\nAdministration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on Person B's political connections.\n\n22. On or about March 13 , 2017, Person B met with Person A and DA VIS to discuss Foreign National A and his legal issues. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to Person B, and asked if Person B could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of Person B helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, Person B texted DAVIS in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n· 23. On or about March 15, 201 7, in reference to Foreign National A, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Anything new on ... [Person A's] Associate?\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \" [Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the 'promoter' and they hope to travel within the next few week[.]\"\n\n24. On or about March 22, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant about setting up another meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n25. At all relevant times, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B were aware of FARA and its prohibition on unregistered representation of foreign principals.\n\n26. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did DA VIS, Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n# **B. Person A, Person B, and DA VIS Meet Foreign National A m Bangkok**\n\n27. In or about April 2017, Person A asked Person B to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. Person B said he would go only if he were paid **\\$1** million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds.\n\n28. On or about April 28, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n29. On or about April 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, Person B asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" DA VIS responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.] \"\n\n30. On or about April 30, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding a flight itinerary for travel to Bangkok. In the email, DA VIS wrote in part: \"Please call me if you have questions -- It's 2 one way tickets - since we need to leave from a different country[.] We don't need to worry about hotels yet ... \"\n\n31. On or about May 1, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That same day, DA VIS emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed\n\nup with, \"Also send me [Person B's] wire info.\" DAVIS replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A. The same day, in response to a question from Person B's assistant about whether she should cancel Person B's hotel room reservation, DA VIS emailed Person B's assistant, \"Yes all rooms are booked by [Person A] already.\"\n\n32. On or about May 2, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] and I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n33. On or about May 2, 2017, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. Person Band Foreign National A spoke about the lMDB investigation and civil forfeiture actions. Person B agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay Person Ban \\$8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the lMDB matter. Person B agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. With respect to payment, Person B stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay Person B and others. Person B, Person A, and DA VIS agreed that  the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person B and DA VIS agreed that Person B would pay DA VIS thirty percent of what Person B received. Person A also agreed to pay DAVIS a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told Person Band DAVIS that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review.\n\n#### **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; Person B is Paid \\$6 Million; DAVIS is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n34. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 201 7, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 2017 was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n3 5. On or about May 8, 2017, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago-\". DA VIS then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n36. On or about May 9, 2017, Person A caused Company A to transfer \\$250,000 to a company controlled by a family member of DA VIS for the benefit of DAVIS.\n\n37. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 17, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to Person B through Person A and Person B's payment of a percentage to DAVIS. Among the text messages, DA VIS asked, \"Did you get it?\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. Person B later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" DAVIS responded, \"When Asia opens .... Baby steps at least moving forward now.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires.\" Person B later added in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [Person B's assistant].\"\n\n39. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of Person B's business accounts and \\$900,000 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n40. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2.7 million. On or about May 26, 201 7, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which Person B and Foreign National A agreed in return for Person B's lobbying the Administration and the DOJ to drop the lMDB civil forfeiture cases and any related investigations. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with DAVIS.\n\n#### **D. Person B Facilitates Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lobbies to Resolve the lMDB** Cases\n\n41. On or about May 18, 2017, Person B texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Hi [Person D]- Please work on Asian country visit. Date in July.\"\n\n42. On or about June 5, 2017, Person B texted Person D again regarding the visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\"\n\n43. The same day, at the request of Person A, DA VIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, DA VIS wrote, based upon information conveyed to her by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, \"Please call before u go to bed in ISRAEL if possible ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n44. On or about June 15, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Hey he 'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" DAVIS added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n45. On or about June 16, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding lMDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associated with Foreign National A.\n\n46. On or about June 17, 2017, Person Band DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 201 7, Person B asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said, and DA VIS believed, that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the 1 MDB matter. Person B also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n4 7. On or about June 19, 201 7, DA VIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the lMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n48. On or about June 25, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba link to an article about Malaysian Prime Minister A and the lMDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Weird article. What can we do?\" DAVIS replied, \"Call pls. Got news[.]\" DA VIS followed up stating that she had sent Person B a \"What's app request.\"\n\n49. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n50. On or about June 30, 2017, Person B sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, Person B followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n51. On or about July 3, 2017, Person B again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, [].\" Later that day, Person B texted Person E again: \" [Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n52. On or about July 4, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Call me asap\" and then \"Clear your phone - erase messages[.]\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, Person B exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, Person B texted, \"[Person E],just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, []\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DA VIS continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated[.]\" Person B responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" DAVIS responded, \"Done[.]\" Person B responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a highranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pls pls go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely!\"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, Person B texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E], It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A] with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, [][.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process -\". Person B responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, \"NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" Person B responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with [Malaysia.] NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. Person B responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, relaying information from Person A, DA VIS wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" DAVIS followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. Person B responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" DA VIS replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. Person B replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" Person B responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21, 2017, Person B texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], [Malaysia] have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! [].\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" Person B replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Just checked again with [Malaysia]. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, [].\" Person B followed up with, \"Hi [Person D]- Can you call NSA for me re [Malaysia] receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to [Malaysia] Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, []\" Person D responded,\"[] will call again this morning. Talked to [] briefly yesterday .... Will call shortly.\"\n\n64. On or about July 29, 2017, relaying information that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" DA VIS immediately followed by texting \"Wicla[.]\" Person B responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n65. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*,\" with talking points intended for an upcoming meeting between the Secretary of State of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A. DA VIS received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and relayed them to Person B, knowing that Person B would then provide them to the Secretary of State as background for the meeting. The talking points mentioned, among other things, Person B's ongoing relationship and work with [Malaysia], and identified lMDB as a \"[p]riority[.]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B also sent the talking points document to Person D for his review and edits and to obtain details about the timing\n\nof a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Hi [Person D]; When is [Secretary of State] mtg?; Already 11 :00 am Monday in [Malaysia]. Can you expand and send me final version?\" Person D responded by sending a revised version of the talking points to Person B and stating, \" []- here is the marked up version I am going to forward to [Secretary of State]'s office. He heads to Bangkok today and then to [Malaysia]. Let me know if you have any other changes. Thanks.\"\n\n67. Later, on or about August 7, 2017, Person B messaged Person D, \" [Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize [my company's] name. Thank you! \" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n68. Also on or about August 7, 2017, Person A executed an agreement between another of Person A's companies and a representative of Foreign National A providing for \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" in exchange for approximately EUR 8.4 million to be paid on or before August 16, 2017.\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. Person A also transferred \\$833,333 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DA VIS.\n\n70. On or about August 10, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from [Malaysia] that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 16, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages to set up a meeting and a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \" [Person A] really wants to see u today if possible since u leave Friday[.]\"\n\n72. On or about August 18, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages setting up a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Call me pls. [Person A] wants to conference in[.]\"\n\n73. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Any update on [Malaysia] ? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a high-ranking official at the White House.\n\n74. On or about August 21 , 2017, DAVIS wired \\$375,000 in funds she received as a commission from Person A, to Person C, the spouse of Person B.\n\n75. On or about August 24, 2017, Foreign National A directed the transfer of approximately \\$10 million to Person A's separate company that had entered into the \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" agreement with a representative of Foreign National A for EUR 8.4 million. Based on the prevailing exchange rate on August 24, 2017, EUR 8.4 million converted to approximately \\$10 million.\n\n76. On or about September 11 , 2017, DA VIS typed a letter at Person B's direction to be sent from Person B to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n77. On or about September 12, 2017, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House, due in part to the assistance provided by DA VIS for Person B's efforts to facilitate the meeting. Although Person B contacted highranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n78. On or about October 6, 2017, Person B met with the President at the White House. Person B represented to Person A, DAVIS, and Foreign National A that he raised the lMDB investigation with the President during the meeting.\n\n79. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B drafted talking points related to lMDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Person B had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \" l. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against 1 MDB in [Malaysia]. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the [] case. She is a [presidential] appointee and can be helpful ... . 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" Person B greatly exaggerated his efforts regarding the lMDB investigation.\n\n80. On or about January 6, 2018, Person B met with Person A, who asked Person B for a loan. Person A told Person B that Person A's friend was \"checking on\" the money they had received from Foreign National A and \"helping to keep it clean.\"\n\nII. Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States\n\n### **A. Person B Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n81. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, Person B agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, DAVIS and Person B discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n82. On or about May 15, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, DAVIS also emailed Person Band Person C banking information for DAVIS's company.\n\n83. On or about May 18, 201 7, Person A, Person B, and DA VIS traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to Person B about PRC National A and his alleged crimes and stated that the PRC wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC Minister A asked Person B to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n# **B. Person B Lobbies Top** U.S. **Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n84. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, Person B texted DA VIS, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.] \"\n\n85. On or about May 21 , 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \" [Person DJ- Just returned. Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]?[].\"\n\n86. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" Person B followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n87. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and [the PRC][.]\" Person B attached to the email a memorandum from Person B addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to Person B by DA VIS, who received it from Person A during the May 2017 trip to China where the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, Person Band Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n88. In the memorandum, Person B misrepresented the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. Person B\n\nconcealed his contact with Foreign National A and concealed Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between Person B and PRC Minister A. Person B also concealed the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A over the two weeks preceding the meeting in Shenzhen with PRC Minister A. Person B also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n89. In the memorandum, Person B stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that [the PRC] would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" Person B wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several high-ranking United States government officials. Person B advocated for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. Person B also noted several items that the PRC, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and the PRC. Person B then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request [the PRC] will make is that [PRC National A], who [the PRC] alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of [the PRC] (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to [the PRC] so he can be charged with these\n\nviolations and go through regular criminal proceedings in [the PRC] with regard to these allegations.\n\nPerson B appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n90. On or about May 23, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Hi[] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks[][.]\" Person D responded, \" [Person BJ- letter was delivered yesterday. Pls see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" Person B responded, \"Great. Thank you[]. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \" [W]aiting to hear from DoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n91. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted Person B, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General]'s office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n92. On or about May 25, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and DHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there 10 min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with[] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with\n\nmy contact this morning. Thank you. [ . ]\" Person D responded, \" [ ]- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, Person B texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.] \" Later that day, Person D responded,\"[]- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n93. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, Person B texted Person D, \" 10 am head of ICE 11:30 FBI Perhaps a play at DHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" Person B followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in DHS at the time.\n\n94. On or about May 28, 2017, Person B emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and [the PRC's] Ambassador to the US.\" Person B noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, Person Band Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n95. On or about May 30, 2017, relaying information from PRC Minister A\n\nand Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetings with United States Government\n\nofficials, DA VIS texted, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" Person B\n\nresponded, \"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\n\nto 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\n\nhotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could help\n\nPRC 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\n\nB 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~~~~~~~~~~~-\n\n### **EXHIBIT C**\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |  |  |\n|---------------------------|--|--|\n| VS.                       |  |  |\n| GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM,      |  |  |\n| Defendant.                |  |  |\n|                           |  |  |","body_zh":"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\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\nPAX　2\n\n5/25/2022 全部准许作为证据\nP.E.\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 1 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 2 页，共 109 页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国破产法院康涅狄格地区布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：　：　第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　：\n：\n：　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　：\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X　：\n郭文贵先生为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作的声明\n\n本人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经依法宣誓，特此陈述如下：\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。本人年满18周岁，并具备作证能力。\n\n2. 本人提交本声明，旨在向破产法院及所有利害关系方提供有关本人的背景资料，并说明导致本人启动第11章案件的情形。本声明作了较为详尽的说明，以便为针对本人的债权性质、本人的特殊财务状况以及本人启动本第11章案件的原因提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文进一步所述，本人提交本第11章案件是为了：(a) 建立一个单一平台，以有序处理针对本人提出的各种相互竞争的债权；(b) 鉴于本人认为在该等事项上存在误解，为利益相关方提供高效机会，以调查本人的资产、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) 达成共识。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 2 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 3 页，共 109 页\n\n与本人的债权人就依据第11章计划公平公正地解决债权及分配资产达成共识。\n\n4. 在提交本第11章案件并准备本声明时，本人知悉法院可能会对Ostrager法官于2月9日作出的藐视法庭命令（如下文定义）、PAX（亦如下文定义）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的说法，本声明将阐述本人的观点。基于将会明晰的原因，本人因公开批评中国共产党（以下简称“CCP”）的腐败和侵犯人权行为，而持续担心遭到其报复。多年来，本人在美国法院系统中遭受了由CCP及其代理人和代表资助的、毫无根据的诉讼所发动的不懈攻击。本人第11章案件只能处理CCP试图加诸本人及本人家人的经济损害。但是，CCP想对本人造成的远不止经济损害和公开羞辱。本人相信，如本人被监禁、被引渡，或者本人的家人无法再为本人提供人身安全保护，CCP将在最早可能的机会安排暗杀本人。本人并不主张法院或任何利害关系方现在接受本人对基础案件事实的看法。恰恰相反，预期本第11章案件将由一笔无担保的申请后贷款提供充足资金，该贷款的偿还优先顺位低于所有申请前债权人——以便进行公平调查，并让利益相关方在典型的第11章程序中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，同时不损害任何债权人的经济权利——除非任何无担保债权人希望通过“抢先起诉”而跃居偿还优先顺位之前；这将必然对某些人不公平。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 3 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 4 页，共 109 页\n\n5. 本声明分为两部分。第一部分提供有关本人的背景资料，包括对本人资产和负债的概述。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n\n第一部分——背景资料\n\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的一套公寓搬至现位于康涅狄格州的地址。本人和妻子育有两名成年子女。本人儿子名为Qiang Guo，居住在伦敦。本人女儿名为Mei Guo，其时间分配于纽约市和康涅狄格州两地。\n\n7. 本人及家人出身贫寒。本人和七位兄弟努力工作，并将我们的收入——本人来自一家无线电维修店的收入，以及兄弟们来自各自小企业的收入——合并用于投资房地产开发。1989年民主派天安门广场抗议活动之后，本人因向学生抗议者提供经济支持而被监禁约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。本人被捕时二十出头。同时，本人目睹两名警察——CCP的代理人——开枪射击本人的弟弟，并任其死亡。弟弟被杀，以及本人被捕和在监狱中遭受酷刑，对本人产生了深刻影响。本人在狱中与许多同样因支持天安门广场民主运动而被监禁的良心犯建立了许多有意义的私人联系。我们对在中国追求自由怀有相同热忱，本人在1991年出狱后继续维持这些关系。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 4 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 5 页，共 109 页\n\n8. 大约在1991年，中国政府开始放宽某些管理社会的规则，其中包括使私人公民能够开始在中国取得某种“准私人”房地产所有权的规则。尽管本人的大家庭从这一变化中受益，但由于本人此前出于政治动机而遭逮捕和拘留，本人个人无法受益。任何以本人名义登记在中国的资产，都很可能被CCP没收。本人大家庭利用其积累的财富支持本人，该支持持续至今。\n\n9. 本人大家庭开始与Yuda Property Company（“Yuda”）合作，该公司专注于中国河南省的商业房地产开发。Guo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。这些成功项目使Guo家族开始积累大量财富。本人家人随后在中国开发了其他房地产项目，包括北京的盘古大观——一座七星级酒店、会议中心和住宅公寓综合体。美国人可能会认出盘古大观，因为它是2008年和2022年北京奥运会的主要背景景观。\n\n10. Guo家族的财富继续通过多元化发展而增长，其投资于金融、技术及其他商业领域。尤其是本人儿子，通过设立和管理投资机会，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。虽然大家庭当时仍在中国持续积累巨额财富，但根据中国法律，作为香港公民，本人既不能保留中国国籍，也不获准在中国拥有资产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 5 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 6 页，共 109 页\n\n12. 本人大家庭的财务成功并未逃过CCP的注意。2002年，本人大家庭在北京取得大面积土地；在中国被指定为2008年奥运会主办国后，该等土地的价值大幅上升。CCP官员试图为其个人利益侵占该土地，本人向更高级别的政府官员举报了该企图。经过长期斗争，该土地得以收回，从而使盘古大观得以开发。\n\n13. 大约在2015年，本人开始更公开地批评和揭露CCP的腐败，CCP因此对本人进行报复。2015年1月10日，Wu Zheng（又名“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登记在案的外国代理人；其媒体公司曾与Pacific Alliance Group（“PAG”）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（“PAX”）的母公司——合作，试图收购一家重要的好莱坞制片厂；1 并且其个人正在（代表CCP）资助众多原告针对本人的诉讼活动。2015年初，Brunu Wu代表CCP高级成员致电本人，转达如本人停止公开揭露CCP腐败，本人家人将获释放；并威胁称，如本人不服从，将对本人及本人儿子发出INTERPOL“红色通报”，且本人将被杀害。本人拒绝了CCP通过Brunu Wu使本人噤声的企图，并继续公开反对CCP。\n\n14. 2017年，本人通过社交媒体和美国新闻媒体，作为揭露某些CCP高级官员腐败的平台，大幅加强了本人的反CCP运动。\n\n1 Nancy Tartaglione，《Chinese Create $800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment》，Deadline，February 6, 2012 (http)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交日期 03/20/22 登记日期 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 6 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 7 页，共 109 页\n\n本人揭露CCP腐败的公开言论，在美国及国外受到广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更便利且更广泛地揭露CCP腐败外，本人还向美国有关部门提供了关于CCP官员及其犯罪行为的信息。出于对本人生命安全的担忧，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，试图获得对本人的筹码、诋毁本人，2 威胁并使本人噤声。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，本人原计划接受Voice of America（“VOA”）采访，在采访中本人计划揭露\n\n2 Stanford University和Hoover Institute、非政府组织Australian Strategic Policy Institute（ASPI）以及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运动的主要目标，该运动由CCP代理人以及数千个中国国家控制的网站和社交媒体账户推动。参见Carly Miller、Vanessa Molter、Isabella Garca-Camargo、Rene DiResta、David Thiel和Alex Zaheer，《Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown》，Stanford Internet Observatory，June 17, 2020 (http)；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren和Elise Thomas，《Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests》，October 2019 (htt\n\n12/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（伊莉丝·托马斯）、Albert Zhang（张艾伯特）、Dr. Samantha Hoffman（萨曼莎·霍夫曼博士）、Lin Li（李林）、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，2020 年 6 月（htt\n\n06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt XD6TCA）（提出的数据反映出“与中国国家行为体有关联、在 Twitter 和 Facebook 上持续进行的大规模影响活动……［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）……意图影响对……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，Reuters（路透社），2021 年 9 月 9 日（http）（报道称，FireEye（火眼）和 Alphabet's Google（Alphabet 旗下 Google）的安全专家观察到一场协调一致的社交媒体虚假信息宣传活动，该活动支持中国政府利益并以我为目标）。如这些独立来源所证实，世界上没有任何人比我更频繁地成为中共社交媒体战攻击的目标。\n\n3 中共针对我这一居住在美国的中国异议人士所采用的滥用手段，并非独一无二。最近，联邦检察官指称，“［一名］中国间谍雇用一名私家侦探，必要时使用暴力以终止一名候选人竞选国会议员，并指示他‘把他打到不能参选为止。’”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，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2022 年 3 月 16 日（http）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 7 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 8 of 109\n\n中共在 HNA Group Co.（海航集团）的所有权权益。中共采取了一系列行动，试图阻止我和 VOA（美国之音）继续进行访谈。第一，在我预定接受 VOA 采访前两天——正如 Brunu Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——中共基于捏造的刑事指控，发布了一份寻求逮捕我并将我引渡至中国的 INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“Red Notice（红色通报）”。第二，中共威胁称，若 VOA 继续进行对我的访谈，将对 VOA 及其在中国的记者进行报复，并声称该访谈构成干涉中国内政。第三，在访谈前一天，PAX（PAG 的子公司）在纽约对我提起了一项毫无依据的违约诉讼。我继续接受了访谈，但 VOA（屈从于中共的压力）命令缩短访谈。\n\n16. 当中共早期使我噤声的努力失败后，它转而试图将我引渡至中国，届时我将被杀害。FBI（联邦调查局）的一项调查显示，在 2017 年夏季，中共在美国游说，利用一名腐败政府官员和若干知名人士，包括澳门赌场业主 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利），直接游说 President Trump（特朗普总统）及其政府，要求将我引渡至中国。4 中共的计划导致 Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）前财务主席 Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）（此后，其与 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，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2021 年 5 月 26 日（http）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 8 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 9 of 109\n\n曾为其他当事人资助针对我的诉讼）、说客 Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·拉姆·戴维斯）6 以及 DOJ（美国司法部）前官员 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）7 被联邦起诉并作出认罪答辩；他们均承认收受款项，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司法部总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现了近 \\$75 million，这使其成为司法部历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中共还自同年起以多种其他方式针对我，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，继而在互联网上公开传播；对我提起并资助（其中数起通过 Brunu Wu）大量虚假诉讼，其中一些至今仍在进行；以及拘留、酷刑折磨和监禁我的许多家人及前同事。\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，2020 年 10 月 20 日（http）（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，安排移送并遣返 PRC National A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异议人士”；我即为“PRC National A”）。随附作为附件 A 的是关于 Elliott Broidy 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉书）”副本。\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，2020 年 8 月 31 日（http）（称“Lum Davis 和其他人还同意代表 Foreign National A 和 People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A 游说政府和司法部，安排移送并遣返 PRC National A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异议人士”；我即为“PRC National A”）。随附作为附件 B 的是关于 Nicki Lum Davis 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉书）”副本。\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，2018 年 11 月 30 日（http）（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移出美国并送回其原籍国”；我即为该“另一名外国国民”）。随附作为附件 C 的是关于 George Higginbotham 的“Factual Basis for Plea（认罪事实基础）”副本。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 9 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 10 of 109\n\n17. 自 2017 年以来，中共还冻结并扣押了我在中国和香港的家庭资产及据称资产，致使我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。8 中共将摧毁我所创造的一切以及阻止我与金融机构打交道作为其任务。我将大部分时间用作各种实体的无偿非正式顾问或发言人，其中包括揭露中共腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，为我提供生活所需。在申请日之前，我儿子的家族办公室 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（Golden Spring（New York）有限公司，“GSNY”或“家族办公室”）除其他许多物品外，购买我的衣物、食品和日用品。我无法使用 GSNY 信用卡或 GSNY 银行账户。除我的衣物和手机外，我的家人保留了我所使用的几乎所有物品的所有权。我并不拥有位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林尼治）的住宅；该住宅由我妻子通过 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）拥有。我为我儿子以信托形式持有 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人已向我提供贷款（部分有书面记录，部分没有），以资助我巨额的诉讼费用，使我能够就中共发起或授意发起的众多诉讼为自己辩护。截至申请日，GSNY 已向我提供约 \\$21 million 的贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如以下所述并载于我的 Statement of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明书，“SOFA”）中，我是美国及国外超过 30 起待决诉讼中的被告和／或请求人。众所周知，中共利用其代理人\n\n8 2018 年 10 月 23 日，High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭，“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（禁止处置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（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司，HSBC Bank）价值 HK\\$3.7 million 的资金。另有数十亿资金和财产，包括据称受我“有效控制”（根据 HK Restraint Order）的个人和实体在香港的房地产，也被冻结和／或扣押。HK Restraint Order 禁止被点名的“respondents（答辩人）”（包括我）作出任何资产处分。任何人在 HK Restraint Order 作出后收到我的资产，均据称违反该命令，并可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 10 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 11 of 109\n\n提起诉讼，即便在美国法院也是如此，以胁迫因政治原因被追查的个人返回中国。9 与此类诉讼有关而聘请律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的费用极其高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在所提交的 Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（资产和负债清单，“Schedules”）及 SOFA 中反映了我负债的当前状况。家族办公室协助我编制这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey 律师事务所）也提供了协助；该所是一家独立财务顾问公司，在编制破产清单和财务状况说明书方面具有丰富经验。如该等文件所反映并如下文进一步所述，我在 21 起诉讼中被列为被告，并负有数额巨大的诉讼费用。\n\nA. PAX 诉讼。\n\n20. PAX 是一家香港投资基金——其母公司 PAG 曾与中共代理人 Brunu Wu 的媒体公司合作购买一家好莱坞制片厂——其在纽约和 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，“BVI”）对我提起诉讼。如我先前所述，PAX 在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的诉讼于 2017 年 4 月 18 日提交，即我接受 VOA 访谈以揭露中共腐败的前一天。PAX 的请求主要涉及追收一项存在争议的债务。\n\n21. 2008 年，PAX 向一家名为 Spirit Carter 的中国实体提供 \\$100 million 贷款（“PAX Loan”）。该 \\$100 million 贷款分两笔发放：(1) 由我提供个人保证担保的 \\$30 million 初始贷款；以及 (2) 由最终成为 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地／开发项目所属公司 49% 权益担保的第二笔 \\$70 million dollar 贷款。\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，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》），2020 年 7 月 29 日（http）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 11 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-2 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 12 of 109\n\n22. 2009年，PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）收到 \\$100 million 的偿还款，确认该贷款已获清偿，并进一步确认我在 2008 年个人保证项下的义务已获履行。PAX 对“和解与清偿”实际发生一事存有争议，现根据一份日期较后的、系伪造的个人保证向我主张权利。在向我出示该保证之前，我先前的诉讼代理律师已将其提交法院，以支持若干动议。当我其后得知该文件的存在时，我表示我认为其系伪造；但法院裁定，由于该文件此前已被提交，我不再有能力质疑其真实性。因此，2020年9月15日，法院作出有利于 PAX 的简易判决，既未允许我作证，也未在陪审团面前进行证据审判。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为 \\$125 million。我已及时向纽约上诉分庭提起对该判决的上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。10\n\n23. 数周后（2020年10月15日），法院就我的资产发布了限制令（“纽约州限制令”）。PAX 在执行该判决时，主要关注一艘名为“Lady May”的游艇，详见下文。我并不拥有 Lady May；该游艇由我的女儿所有。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（奥斯特拉格法官）命令我于 2021年5月15日之前将该船驶回纽约，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，并为该游艇所述价值的五至六倍。我无力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的清单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 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 12 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 登记于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 13 页，共 109 页\n\n24. 2022年2月9日，Ostrager 法官对我作出民事藐视法庭最终命令（“2月9日藐视法庭命令”）。在 2月9日藐视法庭命令中，Ostrager 法官认定我对 Lady May 持有受益权益并对其实施控制，并命令我在五个营业日内向 PAX 支付 \\$134 million 的罚款，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对我作出，并已就该命令另行向上诉分庭提起上诉。无论如何，我均无力履行该命令。我坚信，CCP（中国共产党）正在策划 PAX 案件。迄今为止，PAX 诉讼是 CCP 针对我不懈行动中为数不多的成功之一，令我面临潜在监禁11，并迫使我进入破产程序。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 我在七起诉讼中被列为被告，该等诉讼与我推介出售一家名为 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司，以下简称“GTV”）的公司证券，以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币有关。除两个拟议投资者集体外，若干个人投资者亦就其声称在作出投资后遭受的损失向我主张权利。该等诉讼的原告一般主张，我参与了一项违反适用美国证券法、向缺乏经验的投资者出售未注册证券的计划。该等起诉状合计向我\n\n11 2022年3月1日，PAX 提交了 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 的动议 [Docket No. 57]（“解除中止动议”）。我认为，准许解除中止动议所请求的救济将对我造成重大损害，并对我的破产财产及其债权人造成实质性不利影响。如 PAX 在解除中止动议中所述，执行 2月9日藐视法庭命令可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性损害我实现本 Chapter 11 案件目标的能力。尤其是，如被监禁，我将无法充分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、在本院出庭并陈述意见、咨询并指示律师、调查并归集破产财产资产，或制定和协商 Chapter 11 计划。此外，我认为 PAX 错误地相信，如我面临被监禁的风险，我的家人将向 PAX 支付赎金；我的家人不会如此做。\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 13 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 登记于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 14 页，共 109 页\n\n以及包括 GTV 及其母公司 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司，以下简称“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告，索赔超过 \\$100 million 的损害赔偿。我认为，该等主张毫无根据。12\n\nC. 诽谤索赔。\n\n26. 自 2017 年以来，我一直十分活跃于社交媒体，并发布批评 CCP、其代理人及其影响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索赔。如我的财务状况说明所载，我目前在数起诽谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中若干诉讼由 Brunu Wu（吴征）资助；其为一名承认的 CCP 代理人，亦为 PAX 母公司的商业伙伴。该等诉讼的原告合计主张了巨额损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资成本。\n\n27. 我为取得金钱救济而提起索赔的费用，已通过根据诉讼融资协议（“诉讼融资协议”）提供的贷款获得资助。在我必须抗辩索赔的情形下，Family Office（家族办公室）向我预支贷款以支付我的诉讼费用。在任何一种情形下，贷款所得款项均直接支付给由我聘请的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日，GSNY 已向我预支约 \\$21 million 用于诉讼相关费用。\n\n28. 在存在诉讼融资协议的情形下，如我最终成功主张并收回我的索赔，GSNY 有权获得溢价，并\n\n12 该等事项涉及某项已和解的执法程序。具体而言，2021年9月，GTV 和 Saraca 就 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）所主张的 GTV 发售违反 33 Act 第 506 条一事，与 SEC 达成了公开宣布的“不承认/不否认”和解（“SEC 实体和解”）。In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021)。GTV 和 Saraca 还与 New York State Office of the Attorney General（纽约州总检察长办公室）就一项平行程序达成和解。Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James（詹乐霞）, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents (Sept 13, 2021)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 14 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 登记于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 15 页，共 109 页\n\n已就我的部分诉讼回收款主张担保权益，以担保该等偿还款及投资回报。\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 我获告知，在我的 Chapter 11 案件启动时，已形成一项破产财产，其中包括截至申请日我在任何地点、由任何人持有的财产所享有的一切法定或衡平权益。我还获告知，我的破产财产及其所有财产均受本院管辖和监督。当然，我接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的清单中列明。该等资产主要为衣物、食品和其他少量家庭用品，以及诉讼索赔。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物和其他日常用品。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该等资产，但未经其许可，我无权处分任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我也是数起在美国、英国和瑞士待决案件中的索赔人。该等诉讼的详情已在我的财务状况说明中披露。有两项诉讼值得在此说明：\n\na. UBS 索赔。在英国 Royal Courts of Justice（皇家法院），我和若干共同原告已对 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团股份公司伦敦分行，以下简称“UBS”）提出索赔，要求就 UBS 在我试图促成收购并收购一家中国金融机构 Haitong（海通）于 2015 年发行的若干股份时作出的过失性虚假陈述和建议，获得超过 \\$500 million 的损害赔偿。\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 15 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 登记于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 16 页，共 109 页\n\n就在 2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁定，确认英国法院而非 UBS 所主张的瑞士法院，对我针对 UBS 的索赔享有管辖权。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，以确保如英国被认定缺乏管辖权时，该诉讼仍可继续进行（英国并未被认定缺乏管辖权）。瑞士的该诉讼目前处于中止状态，等待 UBS 就该管辖权问题向英国 Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提起的上诉结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill 索赔。此外，我已对 Clark Hill PLC（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）及其一名成员 Thomas K. Ragland（托马斯·K·拉格兰）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出索赔。该诉讼目前正在 United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）审理。我正向 Clark Hill 请求 \\$50 million 的补偿性损害赔偿及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿，理由是其违反法律代理职责。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，CCP 于 2017年9月期间入侵了 Clark Hill 的服务器，提取该高度敏感信息，随后在互联网上传播。更糟的是，Clark Hill 屈从于 CCP 黑客的威胁，退出担任我的移民代理律师。因此，我已经并将继续遭受损害。\n\n33. 另外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（“该公寓”）。\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 16 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文书 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 登记于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 17 页，共 109 页\n\n- a. Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）。如上所述，我并不拥有 Lady May，尽管我获准登船并享用该船。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 日藐视法庭命令中作出认定，但指示 Lady May 停留在纽约或返回纽约，并非我所能决定。\n\n- b. Sherry-Netherland Apartment（Sherry-Netherland 公寓）。Sherry-Netherland 公寓的合作公寓股份由 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。13 Genever US 的成员权益则由 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有 Genever BVI 的全部股权。然而，根据日期为 February 17, 2015 的信托声明及协议（“Trust Date”），我为 Bravo Luck Limited（“Apartment Owner”）以信托方式持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有 Apartment Owner 的股权。在 Trust Date 当日或前后，Apartment Owner 向 Genever US 提供了购买该公寓的购房款。这些资金来自由我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。还应注意的是，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）已命令将我在 Genever BVI 中拥有的任何权益移交给 PAX，但前提是该等移交不得干扰在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）进行的未决诉讼或 Genever US 的破产程序。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我相信 Justice Ostrager、PAX 以及可能其他人认为，我拥有比此处以及我的财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、妻子及大家庭成员，而非我本人。但是，如上所述，本破产程序将使利害关系方能够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 DIP 融资\n\n35. 如我的财产清单所载，我没有自己的资源来支付本 Chapter 11 案件的费用。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意支付本 Chapter 11 案件的某些费用。具体而言，GSNY 拟按附于批准 DIP 融资动议的 DIP 融资信贷协议（“DIP Credit Agreement”）所载条款，向破产财产出借 \\$8 million（“DIP Financing”）。DIP Financing 将用于支付包括但不限于破产财产所聘专业人员的费用（包括我所聘请的专业人员，以及无担保债权人正式委员会和/或审查员（如获任命）所聘请的专业人员）以及 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）征收的季度费用。在 \\$8 million 的预算中，最多 \\$4 million 将可用于资助 Official Creditors Committee（正式债权人委员会）和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY 提议以无担保方式提供该贷款，其偿还顺位从属于所有获准的一般无担保债权。换言之，DIP Financing 不以破产财产的任何资产作担保，不要求享有管理费用债权或优先债权，且在所有获准的申请前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会从破产财产资产中得到偿还。因此，该贷款不会使我的债权人付出任何代价，并为调查我的事务提供公平机会。我不认为任何其他贷款人所提供的贷款会具有更优越的条款。因此，取得该贷款符合我破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将不会获准使用任何借入资金。DIP Financing 的全部所得款项将存入为破产财产利益设立的独立存款账户（“Debtor Account”）。V&L（定义见下文）的 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）将为唯一获授权签字人。仅可依 V&L 的指示，从 Debtor Account 支付款项，且仅限于支付 DIP Budget（DIP 预算）中列明的项目所必需的范围，并须经拟议 DIP 融资命令、DIP 融资文件及法院其他相关命令（包括批准专业费用申请的命令）授权。\n\n38. DIP Credit Agreement 中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：破产法院须在 DIP Credit Agreement 获临时批准之日起 45 天内，最终批准拟议 DIP 融资命令。见 DIP Credit Agreement 第 ¶ 6.01(a) 段。DIP Credit Agreement 中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即作出命令，准许 PAX 解除自动中止，以在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。见 DIP Credit Agreement 第 ¶ 8.01(e) 段。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是根据 2 月 9 日藐视法庭命令寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准予该等救济，我将无法有意义地指导并参与有序的债权解决和计划程序。在该情况下，我的儿子通过 GSNY 将不再有兴趣继续资助本 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，以最终解决与我债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在通过由 DIP Financing 支付报酬的受托代表，给予债权人公平机会开展尽职调查并表达其意见后，通过理性且合理的对话实现这一结果。我希望我的债权人将仅出于促成有效债权获得偿还的动机行事，并放弃将诉讼用作限制我言论自由及对政治滥权进行批评的手段。我还希望，如果债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人在计划下获得公平受偿。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要为诉讼请求权，我相信该等请求权具有实质理由并有价值（或许价值足以全额偿付所有债权人）。但同样，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。我不认为作出关于我对 Lady May “受益”所有权和控制权命令的 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾认定我对该船舶拥有实际法定所有权，或认定该船舶现为我 Chapter 11 破产财产的一项资产。这些问题将被直接且公平地提交本法院，以作出适当裁决。\n\n42. 多年来，我一直在为针对我提起的、由声称的债权人发起的诉讼进行抗辩。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，以支付我的抗辩费用。本 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，以一劳永逸地确定针对我破产财产的获准债权范围。债权人将有机会对我的 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抢先于其他人）。我将与我的专业人员合作，实现适当的债权核对程序。\n\n43. 最终，我希望获得一项理性、价值最大化的计划，使我摆脱诉讼，并有助于根据 Bankruptcy Code（《破产法典》）实现“重新开始”。\n\n第二部分——动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅下列每项动议，并且据我所知、所获信息及所信，动议中所载事实均真实且正确。\n\n45. 批准 DIP 融资动议。DIP Financing 对于支付与 Chapter 11 案件相关的费用，以及为我在能力卓越且经验丰富的顾问协助下谈判并实现重整计划确认提供充足的时间与资金，均属必要。\n\n46. 鉴于与我的债权人，尤其是 PAX 的对抗性和诉讼性关系促使我寻求 chapter 11 救济，我要求且 GSNY 同意，DIP Financing 应为所有破产财产专业人员的利益而提供，不附加任何可能损害我债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP Financing 以无担保方式提供，从属于我的申请前债权人的权利，且不享有任何管理费用或其他优先偿还权。我的理解是，DIP Loan（DIP 贷款）当且仅当我的所有其他债权人均获全额清偿时方予偿还。鉴于这些慷慨条款，我认为，试图从其他来源以有竞争力或类似的条款取得融资，将是对破产财产资源的浪费且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上文及我的财产清单所载，我预计将把我作为原告的诉讼中取得的追偿款或和解款项用于资助 Chapter 11 计划。若无法获得 DIP Financing，我将无法继续聘用并补偿目前代表我追诉诉讼的律师。同样，若我无法对这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论在本程序内，还是在准许解除中止救济时在其他审理地进行），我的负债可能大幅增加。\n\n48. 基于这些理由，我相信，拟议 DIP Financing 是出于善意提供的，不会损害我任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我破产财产的最佳利益，因此应获批准。\n\n49. 申请聘用 Stretto, Inc. 作为债权及通知代理人。在 Chapter 11 案件存续期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人，以协助向破产财产的债权人和利害关系方发出通知。我已选择 Stretto, Inc.（“Stretto”）担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto 在美国各地（包括本区）的各类 chapter 11 案件中担任债权及通知代理人方面拥有丰富经验。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和其他利害关系方邮寄通知；(b) 维护电子平台，用于提交债权证明、计划征求、投票、计票、付款，以及为编制资产负债表和财务状况说明提供行政支持；以及 (c) 就本 Chapter 11 案件按需要提供其他行政服务。\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。我需要极具能力且经验丰富的重组法律顾问，就我退出第 11 章程序事宜提供建议并协助构建方案，该方案可能采取经确认的重组计划形式。我已选定布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所担任本第 11 章案件的重组法律顾问。布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所在《破产法》第 11 章项下债务人和债权人权利及重组领域具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、官方及非官方委员会以及其他重要当事方。布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所亦熟悉我的事务及将在本第 11 章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：(a) 准备所有必要的动议、答复、答辩及其他法律文书，包括可能必要的审判准备工作；\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 22 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 录入于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 23 页，共 109 页\n\n如有必要；(b) 为批准披露声明和确认重组计划而准备并采取必要行动；以及 (c) 在第 11 章案件审理期间提供可能必要的所有其他法律服务。\n\n51. 在申请日之前，于 2022 年 2 月 14 日和 2022 年 2 月 15 日，布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所各获支付一笔 $500,000 的预付聘金。该等共计 $1 million 的预付聘金付款（“BR 预付聘金”）来源于 Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）（“Lamp”），该公司由我儿子拥有。Lamp 在无担保基础上向我贷款 $1 million，而我指示 Lamp 将该贷款所得款项直接汇付给布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所。布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所已从 BR 预付聘金中抵扣申请日前费用及支出 $51,835.20，剩余申请日前 BR 预付聘金余额为 $948,164.80。此后，我已要求布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所从 BR 预付聘金中抵扣其获准费用及支出，直至 BR 预付聘金余额为 $250,000；此后，布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所将通过 DIP 融资所得款项向我寻求支付其获准费用及开支。\n\n52. 申请聘任 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺及洛伊专业公司）担任财务顾问。我需要一家财务顾问公司，以编制、审阅和分析《破产法》规定的必要财务披露，以及在第 11 章案件审理期间持续进行的月度和季度报告要求。我已选定韦尔多利诺及洛伊专业公司（“V&L”）担任我的财务顾问。V&L 在与陷入困境的个人第 11 章债务人合作方面具有广泛经验，并提供定制服务，包括但不限于财务咨询、顾问服务、会计服务、税务及其他相关服务。V&L 已同意就以下事项提供服务：(a) 编制和审阅我的 SOFA 及附表和其他定期报告要求；(b) 编制和／或审阅现金流及相关预算预测；(c) 维护 DIP 账户，并在\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 23 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 录入于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 24 页，共 109 页\n\n必要时实施付款，并对所有现金活动提供会计核算；(d) 债权审查及管理；(e) 重组计划的拟定及审阅；(f) 提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及 (g) 在第 11 章案件审理期间，就可能出现的任何其他事项和任务提供一般咨询及协助。\n\n53. 请求授权聘用并支付在正常业务过程中使用的专业人士之动议。我是在美国州和联邦层级以及外国司法辖区审理的众多案件中的具名原告或具名被告。就这些诉讼及某些持续进行的政府调查而言，在申请日前，我聘用了多家律师事务所、会计师事务所及其他非律师专业人士（合称“我的正常业务过程专业人士”），其就我申请日前的诉讼提供服务，并就与本第 11 章案件无关的各种事项提供其他服务。经法院批准后，我拟使用 DIP 融资继续聘用并支付该等正常业务过程专业人士的报酬，因为他们各自对我的事务（申请日前）及我的待决诉讼拥有大量知识、专长和熟悉程度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我寻求就 DIP 融资获得紧急临时救济的理由之一，是确保代理我的专业人士继续工作。除非我能够向某些专业人士保证，他们将获得其申请日前及申请日后工作的报酬，否则其可能退出对我的代理。此种退出，视案件状况及适用专业人士所提供服务而定，可能对我及我的破产财产造成明显且不可弥补的损害。UBS、Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔律师事务所）及其他待决诉讼请求权属于我预期将依赖以协助拟定并可能确认重组计划的资产。对我推进该等请求权的任何干扰，无疑都会损害其价值。\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 24 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 录入于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 25 页，共 109 页\n\n55. 总而言之，若无我的正常业务过程专业人士就其申请日前工作所具有的知识、专长和熟悉程度，我的破产财产将为培训及聘用必要的替代专业人士而产生大量额外且不必要的费用，以保全并可能继续推进这些有价值的诉讼请求权。因此，我相信继续聘用我的正常业务过程专业人士符合本破产财产、我的债权人及其他利害关系方的最佳利益。\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 25 页，共 108 页；案件 22-50073 文件 440-2 提交于 05/25/22 录入于 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 26 页，共 109 页\n\n附件 A\n\n哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院\n\n） ） ） ） ） ）\n\n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（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事起诉信息书\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本起诉信息书有关的所有时间：\n\n2. 自不迟于 2017 年 3 月起至至少约于 2018 年 1 月期间，ELLIOTT BROIDY 同意与 Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）及 Person A（A 人士）合作，作为 Foreign National A（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 特别同意游说美国总统行政当局（“行政当局”）和美国司法部（“DOJ”），使其撤销或以其他方式有利地解决其针对外国国民 A 就其侵吞 I Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）数十亿美元一事所采取的事项。1MDB 是一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 人士故意未向行政当局和司法部官员披露 BROIDY 正代表外国国民 A 行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 人士未能使 1MDB 相关事项被撤销或以其他方式为外国国民 A 获得有利解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 人士还同意代表外国国民 A 游说行政当局和司法部，以安排将 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国）（“PRC”）National A（一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国公民）遣送回中华人民共和国。这包括但不限于倡议安排 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A）与美国政府官员会面。就此而言，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 人士最终亦未能成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民 A 的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 人士协助下，试图促成 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）于 2017 年 9 月与总统会面，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 人士还在中华人民共和国与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面，并同意 BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 人士协助下，将游说行政当局把中华人民共和国国民 A 送回中华人民共和国。为明确使中华人民共和国部长 A 有机会与美国高级官员讨论遣送中华人民共和国国民 A 一事，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 人士还同意并试图促成中华人民共和国部长 A 于 2017 年 5 月访问美国期间，与行政当局、司法部和 United States Department of Homeland Security（美国国土安全部）（“DHS”）的高级官员会面。\n\n作为外国委托人或政府代理人行事的刑事禁止规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国境内作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向司法部长登记，例如代表外国委托人进行政治或公共关系活动或游说。该等登记向司法部国家安全司下属的《外国代理人登记法》处（“FARA 处”）办理。明知且故意不登记，以及在依该法规定向 FARA 处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 的目的是防止外国委托人的秘密影响。依该法规妥善登记，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陈述和从事活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人身份、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报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 于约 2017 年至 2018 年 4 月期间，担任一个全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。BROIDY 从捐款人处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在 2016 年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 作为财务副主席，可以接触并联系行政当局的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，BROIDY 拥有并经营数家国内和国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis 曾经并现在仍是美国公民、女商人及顾问，与 BROIDY 和 A 人士存在个人及商业关系。2020 年 8 月 31 日，Davis 在 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii（夏威夷地区美国联邦地区法院）就一项指控其协助和教唆违反 FARA 的单项起诉信息书认罪答辩。\n\n10. A 人士曾经并现在仍是美国公民、商界人士及艺人，具有国际联系，包括与外国国民 A 的联系。\n\n11. 外国国民 A 是一名居住在东亚的富有商界人士，因其策划并实施从 1MDB 侵吞数十亿美元的计划所发挥的作用，已被另行起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A 公司）是一家由 A 人士成立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国国民 A 的电汇款项，并被 A 人士用于支付 BROIDY、Davis 及其他人为其游说活动所获报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是Person A（A号人物）的关联人士，且是一名受雇于DOJ（美国司法部）的持证律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一份指控其共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项罪名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号人物）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（A号中国公民）是中华人民共和国公民，持临时签证居住在United States（美国）。中华人民共和国政府，包括PRC Minister A（A号中华人民共和国部长）和President of the PRC（中华人民共和国主席），正寻求将PRC National A从美国遣返至中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ一直在积极调查Foreign National A（A号外国人士）据称与1MDB贪污计划洗钱所得有关的交易。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Foreign National A及其他人共谋洗钱数十亿美元的从1MDB贪污所得，并共谋通过向马来西亚及United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国，“UAE”）多名官员支付贿赂，违反Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（《反海外腐败法》）。\n\n第一项罪名\n\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n（共谋担任未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 兹重述并以引用方式将第1至16段并入本文。\n\n18. 自不迟于2017年3月20日起至至少约2018年1月期间，被告人\nELLIOTT BROIDY，\n\n明知而与其他已知及未知人员共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地在未向Attorney General（总检察长）登记的情况下，就1MDB事项及PRC National A的遣返事宜，担任外国委托人即Foreign National A的代理人，违反22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n共谋目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的之一是，由BROIDY、Davis（戴维斯）、Person A和Foreign National A策划通过非正式渠道、未登记的活动，游说Administration（政府当局）和DOJ，以：(1) 终结1MDB事项，或以其他方式作出对Foreign National A有利的解决；及(2) 将PRC National A从美国遣返并送回中华人民共和国。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis和Person A利用BROIDY与President（总统）及其Administration的接触渠道和被认为具有的影响力，从Foreign National 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，BROIDY、Davis和Person A隐瞒BROIDY与Foreign National A的接触及其从Foreign National A获得的付款，以维持BROIDY在美国官员中的信誉，并推进该非法游说计划。\n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前往国外会见外国委托人和政府官员\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Higginbotham以各种组合前往Thailand（泰国）、Malaysia（马来西亚）及中华人民共和国，会见Foreign National A、PRC Minister A及其他人，以谈判和讨论如下安排：BROIDY将在官方渠道之外游说Administration和DOJ，以换取数百万美元。\n\n与美国官员的会面和接触\n\n24. BROIDY直接及通过中间人，为安排并试图安排会见以及其他旨在影响美国政府最高层级官员（包括President和Attorney General）的活动提供便利，以使PRC Minister A和Foreign National A受益。\n\n25. BROIDY直接及通过中间人，联系美国政府高级官员，为包括PRC Minister A和Malaysian Prime Minister A（A号马来西亚总理）在内的外国政府官员安排会面，为这些外国官员正式请求有利的政府行动提供机会，包括有利地解决1MDB事项以及遣返PRC National A。\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis和Person A同意隐瞒BROIDY以Foreign National A个人身份及其作为PRC Minister A中间人的身份代表Foreign National A进行游说的协议。BROIDY、Davis和Person A未向美国政府官员及公众披露，并同意不披露BROIDY与Foreign National A之间的财务安排及其从Foreign National A获得的付款。在为推进该共谋而起草的大量接触、通信和文件中，BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Higginbotham对Foreign National A的提及具有保密性且使用匿名化表述。此外，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在就Foreign National A和PRC National A进行沟通时，经常使用加密应用程序，以隐瞒其行为及其与Foreign National A的关联。最后，BROIDY、Davis和Person A明示或默示地同意不根据FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）登记，以隐瞒其与Foreign National A之间的安排。\n公开行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，BROIDY及其他人在District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）及其他地方实施了以下公开行为，其中包括：\nI. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的活动\nA. BROIDY同意以$8 Million预付聘金为Foreign National A进行游说\n\n28. 约于2017年3月，Person A联系Davis，试图寻找一名与Administration关系密切的人士以协助一名外国客户。随后，Davis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的简介，其中说明BROIDY与Administration高级官员的关系，并附有BROIDY与President的照片。约于2017年3月7日，应Davis的请求，BROIDY的助理通过电子邮件向Davis发送了展示BROIDY与President的照片。Person A称其想要这些照片，以便向Foreign National A突出BROIDY与Administration的密切接触。\n\n30. 约于2017年3月8日，Davis向BROIDY发送短信称：“你16日会在la与[Person A]会面吗，在他当周末前往亚洲之前？”BROIDY回复：“我想是的。我们晚些时候再谈。”\n\n31. 约于2017年3月13日，BROIDY与Davis及Person A会面，讨论Foreign National A和1MDB。会上，Person A向BROIDY描述了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问BROIDY能否协助处理涉及Foreign National A的民事没收案件。Person A称其将与Foreign National A讨论由BROIDY协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，BROIDY在向Davis发送的短信中部分写道：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约于2017年3月13日，Davis向Person A转发了Law Firm A与Foreign National A之间的一份“Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services（聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务）”，以便Person A将该协议提交给Foreign National A。该“Retainer and Fee Agreement”规定，Foreign National A将预先支付$8 million聘金，如该“事项”在180日内得到解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费用；如该“事项”在365日内得到解决，则支付$50 million。协议草案包含附件A，说明该“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A和Person C均未向Foreign National A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于BROIDY的政治关系，获得BROIDY代表Foreign National A游说Administration和DOJ的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人代理人的要求，BROIDY、Davis或Person A从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人的工作向FARA Unit（《外国代理人登记法》部门）登记。\nB. BROIDY、Person A和Davis在Bangkok（曼谷）会见Foreign National A\n\n34. 约于2017年4月，Davis转达了Person A提出的请求，要求BROIDY前往泰国曼谷会见Foreign National A。BROIDY告知Davis，只有在获得$1 million付款的情况下他才会前往，并且他希望由Person A以“未受污染”的资金向其付款。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：“我希望资金汇至[Law Firm A]。”同日，Davis回复：“好的[。]”\n\n36. 约于2017年4月29日，BROIDY与Davis就其即将与Foreign National A和Person A举行的会面交换短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY提及Foreign National A时询问：“委托人是否希望我们住在任一地点的特定酒店？”Davis回复：“你能说话时给我打电话[。]”\n\n37. 约于2017年5月1日，Davis通过电子邮件向BROIDY及其助理发送了曼谷Shangri-La Hotel（香格里拉酒店）的链接，并部分写道：“一旦你在线取得Elliott和我两人的房间预订确认，请将酒店确认信息发给我，我会转发。”同日，Davis另行通过电子邮件告知Person A，让其在Shangri-La Hotel预订房间并将确认信息发给她。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A]正在预订我们的酒店”，并随后补充道：“还请把Elliott的电汇信息发给我。”Davis回复并提供了Law Firm A名下账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 约于2017年5月2日，Davis向BROIDY发送电子邮件，部分称：“既然你更早抵达——[Person A]和我会在抵达处见你……谢谢，一路顺风——为一场激动人心且繁荣的冒险之始干杯！”\n\n39. 约于2017年5月2日，BROIDY、Davis和Person A抵达曼谷。在该次行程中，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在一间酒店套房会见Foreign National A。BROIDY与Foreign National A谈及1MDB事项。BROIDY同意协助Foreign National A尝试解决该事项。Foreign National A同意向BROIDY支付$8 million聘金，并希望BROIDY联系美国Attorney General，以使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。BROIDY同意为Foreign National A游说Administration和DOJ，以获得有利结果，同时隐瞒其正在代表Foreign National A工作的事实。在会面期间或其后不久，Davis与BROIDY讨论了协助使PRC National A被遣返出美国的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY表示，资金不应直接来自Foreign National A，并应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A确认了一名可以向BROIDY及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A和Davis同意，资金将首先经由Person A转交，然后通过Law Firm A支付给BROIDY。BROIDY与Davis同意，BROIDY将向Davis支付其所收款项的一定比例。Person A亦同意向Davis支付Person A所收资金的一定比例。Person A告知BROIDY和Davis，Person A的朋友Higginbotham正在核实资金的合法性。Higginbotham实际上并未进行任何此类审查。BROIDY从未与Higginbotham会面或交谈。\n\nC. Person A从Foreign National A收取$8.5 Million；BROIDY获支付$6 Million；Davis获支付$1.7 Million\n\n40. 在与外国籍人士A（Foreign National A）在泰国会面后，于2017年5月8日或前后，A公司（Company A）收到了一笔由外国籍人士A指示、从一家香港实体汇出的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，A某（Person A）从A公司账户开具了一张金额为$702,000、收款人为A律师事务所（Law Firm A）的银行本票，该款项随即记入A律师事务所账户。A某还从A公司账户向A律师事务所另行电汇$48,000。同日，一家第三方公司依A某指示向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日或前后转入A律师事务所账户的$1 million中，约$900,000从A律师事务所账户转入布罗伊迪（BROIDY）的一个企业账户。\n\n41. 于2017年5月8日或前后，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某]。剩余余额于20分钟前送到了你的办公室——”。戴维斯随后补充道：“银行本票总额702[。]”\n\n42. 于2017年5月17日或前后，外国籍人士A促使一家香港公司向A公司发送一笔国际电汇。同日，A某从A公司向A律师事务所转入$3 million。于2017年5月18日或前后，A律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个企业账户转入$600,000，并向与戴维斯有关联的一家商业实体账户转入$900,000。于2017年5月18日或前后，A律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个企业账户转入$500,000。约一周内，A律师事务所又分两笔向布罗伊迪的一个企业账户转入额外$950,000。\n\n43. 于2017年5月17日或前后，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就外国籍人士A经由A某向布罗伊迪付款，以及布罗伊迪向戴维斯支付一定比例款项一事交换了短信。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[。]早上给你汇款。”Wickr是一款允许端到端加密及内容到期消失的消息应用程序。布罗伊迪随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”戴维斯答道：“亚洲开市时……至少现在正一步一步往前推进。”布罗伊迪答道：“是。就接下来的两笔电汇狠狠催他们。”布罗伊迪随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已到账，并确认最后的2正在发送。请问一下[布罗伊迪的助理]。”\n\n44. 于2017年5月25日或前后，外国籍人士A促使向A公司作出第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。于2017年5月26日或前后，A某从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籍人士A约定的$8 million预付律师费，作为布罗伊迪协助处理1MDB民事没收案件的对价。同日，$600,000从A律师事务所账户转入与戴维斯有关联的一个企业账户。于2017年5月26日或前后，A律师事务所向由C某（Person C）控制的账户转入$1 million。于2017年6月初或前后，A律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个企业账户转入$650,000。\n\nD. 布罗伊迪为马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）促成并试图促成会面，以及解决1MDB案件的努力\n\n45. 于2017年6月5日或前后，布罗伊迪向D某（Person D）——一名政治顾问及总统的前竞选助理——发送短信，请求D某与本届政府合作，为马来西亚总理A安排访问：“这个亚洲国家对于7月会面非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事宜。”根据一份咨询协议，布罗伊迪已同意每月向D某支付$25,000，以获得关于如何应对本届政府的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就外国籍人士A交换了短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“你睡觉前请打电话……[外国籍人士A]一直打电话问消息[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“是。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区处理[外国籍人士A]和亚洲国家的事[。]”\n\n47. 于2017年6月15日或前后，应A某请求，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：“委托人”，这是指外国籍人士A。同日，布罗伊迪答道：“可以[。]”\n\n48. 于2017年6月17日或前后，布罗伊迪与戴维斯讨论了马来西亚总理A。于2017年6月或前后，布罗伊迪询问总统是否愿意与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。布罗伊迪与戴维斯认为，这会令外国籍人士A满意，并会使马来西亚总理A得以尝试解决1MDB事项。布罗伊迪还希望获得马来西亚总理A政府的额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 于2017年6月19日或前后，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n50. 于2017年6月29日或前后，布罗伊迪向白宫（White House）一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[E某（Person E）]，如我所述，POTUS同意于7月下旬或8月初在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区或贝德明斯特与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，数周前已向国务院发函请求会面。”\n\n51. 于2017年6月30日或前后，布罗伊迪就高尔夫球活动向E某发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[中国籍人士A（PRC National A）]以及POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期谈谈。”当日稍后，布罗伊迪跟进称：“[E某]，如讨论所述，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日或前后，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某发送短信：“早上好，[E某]。如果你今天能够与POTUS确认[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期，这将对我极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很乐意在贝德明斯特或华盛顿哥伦比亚特区打球。我们谈话后，我告诉[马来西亚总理A]，他上周就会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当日稍后，布罗伊迪再次向E某发送短信：“[E某]，我正在跟进。请把[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 于2017年7月5日或前后，布罗伊迪与E某就高尔夫球活动交换了消息。在其他消息中，布罗伊迪发送短信：“[E某]，刚给你留了言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott[。]”E某答道：“国家安全委员会（National Security Council，NSC）正在处理[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成[。]”\n\n54. 于2017年7月11日或前后，戴维斯转达A某的信息，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。日期以及其他事项。我们被压得喘不过气。”这些信息指的是确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及外国籍人士A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。戴维斯继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我收到的信息铺天盖地[。]”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。我正要起飞，得去白宫[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯答道：“已完成[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“收到了。谢了[。]正努力让[F某（Person F）]尽快打电话[。]”F某当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 于2017年7月13日或前后，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这个事，所以就算尿尿也去华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，坐在白宫直到你办成。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 于2017年7月13日或前后，布罗伊迪再次就高尔夫日期向E某发送短信：“嗨，[E某]，已经两周了。再次询问[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliott[。]”E某答道：“我现在再查一次[。]这些事要经过程序——”布罗伊迪答道：“谢谢你！！”E某回复道：“国家安全委员会正在处理并协调[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”E某回复道：“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日或前后，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 于2017年7月17日或前后，戴维斯转达A某代表外国籍人士A表达的紧迫性，向布罗伊迪发送短信：“[E某]现在必须给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来毫无作为[。]”这条短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面，也指涉及中国籍人士A的事项。布罗伊迪答道：“同意。正在不断催办[。]”\n\n59. 于2017年7月18日或前后，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了多条短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“你能查一下Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。今天一整天这件事都把我逼疯了。他正慌张[。]”戴维斯随后又说：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们被打得惨不忍睹。”据A某称，外国籍人士A因尚未安排任何会面而感到恐慌。布罗伊迪答道：“现在就给[E某]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某（Person G）]打电话。我们今天就需要这个[。]”G某是总统的一名行政助理。布罗伊迪回复道：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 于2017年7月19日或前后，戴维斯就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期向布罗伊迪发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[。]”布罗伊迪次日答道：“请耐心等我。正在获得一些关于会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 于2017年7月21日或前后，布罗伊迪就高尔夫球活动向E某发送短信：“[E某]，马来西亚方面尚未从国家安全委员会得到任何消息。POTUS说他会在7月下旬或8月初与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球。POTUS说他很乐意这样做。你说一两天内就会安排。现在已是第四周。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常有耐心了。这件事不但没有带来积极影响，现在反而正给我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将非常感谢。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. 于2017年7月24日或前后，布罗伊迪向D某发送短信：“收到9月在新泽西州的高尔夫日期。联合国大会前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你提供帮助！”D某答道：“让我们跟进，并确保该日期得到国家安全委员会确认。他告诉你是谁给他的日期了吗？”布罗伊迪回复道：“谢谢你！！太棒了。由[E某]给了[H某（Person H）]。”\n\n63. 于2017年7月27日或前后，布罗伊迪向D某发送短信：“刚刚再次向马来西亚方面核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快核实。致意，Elliott。”布罗伊迪随后补充道：“嗨，[D某]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式消息一事替我给国家安全顾问打电话。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某答道：“E——今天上午会再打电话。”\n\n64. 于2017年7月27日或前后，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球赛。\n\n65. 于2017年7月29日或前后，戴维斯就马来西亚总理A与总统之间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——是星期二？？？？没有高尔夫球？？”戴维斯随即又发送短信：“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. 约在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，其中载有马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）拟用于即将举行的美国国务卿（United States Secretary of State）与马来西亚总理A会晤的谈话要点。Davis（戴维斯）从Person A（A某）处获得了该谈话要点——Person A代表Foreign National A（外国籍A）提供该要点——而Davis将其转交给BROIDY。该谈话要点提及，包括但不限于，BROIDY与马来西亚持续进行的关系及工作，并将1MDB列为“（优）先（事）项”。该谈话要点指出1MDB所造成的损害不足，并明确表示：“美国检察官的介入造成了不必要的美国[原文如此]紧张局势，并可能引起马来西亚人的负面反应。”\n\n67. 约在2017年8月7日，BROIDY还将该谈话要点发送给Person D（D某），紧接着发送了一则信息解释道：“以上是马来西亚总理所附的谈话要点。你可以与[为国务卿工作的助理人员]分享。”BROIDY还试图获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚举行会晤时间安排的细节。\n\n68. 在约2017年8月7日稍后，BROIDY向Person D发送信息：“[国务卿]于8日与[马来西亚总理A]会面，于9日与副总理会面。让我们以我的名义插一句话。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出Circinus（赛尔西纳斯）的名称。谢谢！”Person D答复道：“促成这一联系肯定很重要。这不太可能成为正式会晤的一部分，但我会努力在他们交谈期间插一句话。”\n\n69. 约在2017年8月9日，Foreign National A使一家香港公司向Company A（A公司）转移约$12.8 million。Person A随后向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转移$3 million。这是向BROIDY支付的最后一笔款项。BROIDY总共获得$9 million报酬。约在次日，Law Firm A向与Davis有关联的一个商业账户转移$900,000。在随后的数日内，Law Firm A向属于BROIDY的账户转移了数十万美元。\n\n70. 约在2017年8月10日，BROIDY就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会晤向Person D发送短信：“从马来西亚获悉，会晤进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有插话。;-....”\n\n71. 约在2017年8月19日，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“马来西亚有任何最新消息吗？”Person D答复道：“截至目前，将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫球，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找[Person I（I某）]，并利用他们两人曾一起打高尔夫球的经历。”BROIDY答复道：“是。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接打电话给[Person I]的一名副手或[Person I]。还需要为会晤增加时间。我想同你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”Person I当时是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n72. 约在2017年8月31日，BROIDY起草并向Person I发送了一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间进行一场高尔夫球赛。\n\n73. 约在2017年9月11日，Davis起草了一封拟由BROIDY发送给总统的信函，预期马来西亚总理A将与总统会晤，并将该信函提供给BROIDY。该信函列举了马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信函从未提供给总统。\n\n74. 在BROIDY反复努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A进行一场高尔夫球赛后，马来西亚总理A约在2017年9月12日于白宫会见总统。尽管BROIDY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进行高尔夫会晤，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间没有进行任何高尔夫球赛。\n\n75. 约在2017年10月6日，BROIDY在白宫会见总统。BROIDY在会晤期间没有提出1MDB事项，但向Davis表示其已提出该事项，明知Davis会将该信息传达给Person A和Foreign National A。\n\n76. 约在2018年1月5日，BROIDY起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向Foreign National A表明BROIDY已代表其采取的努力。除其他事项外，该谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正与DoJ（司法部）合作，以应对前届政府针对马来西亚1MDB的案件。我已制定策略，联系DoJ和NSC（国家安全委员会）的相关人士，以寻求解决该问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是一名[总统]任命官员，可以提供帮助。……3. 如我早先告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺解决该问题。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。”这些陈述是虚假的。\n\nII. 将PRC National A（中国籍A）从美国移除的活动\n\nA. BROIDY前往中国会见PRC Minister A（中国部长A）\n\n77. 约在2017年5月，在曼谷之行后，BROIDY同意前往香港，再次会见Foreign National A。在行程之前，Davis和BROIDY讨论称，将PRC National A从美国驱逐出境对Foreign National A而言很重要。前往香港的目的是会见Foreign National A及一名PRC外国政府官员，以讨论PRC National A。\n\n78. 约在2017年5月15日，Davis就前往香港之行的旅行安排及行程向BROIDY的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis还向BROIDY和Person C（C某）发送了Davis公司银行账户信息。\n\n79. 约在2017年5月18日，BROIDY、Davis和Person A前往香港，并被运送至中国深圳，在一间酒店套房内会见Foreign National A和PRC Minister A。PRC Minister A向BROIDY谈及PRC National A及其被指称的犯罪，并表示PRC政府希望将PRC National A遣返回PRC。PRC Minister A要求BROIDY利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将PRC National A移除并遣返回PRC。他们还讨论了当时被PRC囚禁的美国人可能返回美国的事宜。PRC Minister 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会晤方面遇到困难。\n\nB. BROIDY游说美国高级官员，要求移除PRC National A\n\n80. 约在2017年5月20日，在从中国返程途中，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“我会努力让本周成为我们与[总检察长]的重要一周。”\n\n81. 约在2017年5月21日，BROIDY就其与Foreign National A和PRC Minister A的会晤向Person D发送短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否于周一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？Elliott（艾略特）。”\n\n82. 约在2017年5月22日，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“我需要尽快与[总检察长]会面。我们将讨论。”BROIDY随后补充道：“我正在向你发送一份备忘录。我们将讨论。”同日稍后，Person D答复道：“已向[总检察长]提出会面请求。”\n\n83. 约在2017年5月22日，BROIDY向Person D发送了一封主题为“美国与中国之间显著加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。BROIDY在电子邮件中附上一份由BROIDY致总检察长的备忘录，意图由Person D随后将该备忘录提供给总检察长。该备忘录的内容由Davis提供给BROIDY，其内容源自PRC Minister A和Foreign National A。收到后，BROIDY和Person C修改了该备忘录。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY歪曲了其前往中国的原因及导致其与PRC Minister A会晤的情况。BROIDY没有披露其与Foreign National A的联系，也没有披露Foreign National A在安排BROIDY与PRC Minister A会晤中所起的作用。BROIDY还没有披露Foreign National A向其支付的$4 million。BROIDY还没有披露，其就PRC National A所作的游说努力至少部分是根据其与Foreign National A之间的财务安排进行，并可能导致额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY称：“[PRC Minister A]告诉我，中国希望在执法方面，包括网络安全方面，与美国显著加强双边合作。”BROIDY写到了PRC Minister A即将前往Washington, D.C.的行程，PRC Minister A及其代表团计划在此期间会见数名美国政府高级官员。BROIDY表示，总检察长与PRC Minister A会晤将富有成效。BROIDY还列明，根据PRC Minister A所述，中国愿意采取若干措施，以改善美国与中国之间的执法关系。BROIDY随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[PRC Minister A]的交谈，中国将提出的唯一请求是，将[PRC National A]——中国指称其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑事法律（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋——（其签证将在下个月左右到期）驱逐出境，或（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）引渡，并尽快将其自美国遣送至中国，以便其可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诉讼程序。\n\nBROIDY将一份关于PRC National A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n86. 约在2017年5月23日，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会晤确定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[总检察长]了吗？请更新。谢谢，Elliott[。]”Person D答复道：“Elliott——信函昨天已送达。请见有修改的最终版本。正在为明天安排会晤，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚乘坐红眼航班，以便能早些回到DC。”BROIDY答复道：“很好。谢谢[]。还请确定他的会晤是否已安排，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，约在2017年5月24日，Person D答复道：“正在等待DoJ关于会晤——我们的以及[PRC Minister A的]——的消息。告诉我你何时有空，我们可以会面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n87. 约在2017年5月24日，Person D向BROIDY发送短信：“刚接到[总检察长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到了他的短信回复，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 约于 2017 年 5 月 25 日，BROIDY 向 Person D（D 人士）发送短信：“今天上午 10:00 在司法部开会。然后明天与 FBI 和 DHS 开会。也许我可以告诉我的联系人提前 10 分钟到达，并可进行一次简短会面。然后再与 [Attorney General（司法部长）] 一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请设法在今天一早见到 [Attorney General]。我们务必办成，这一点非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。E[.]”Person D 回复：“E——正在办。[Attorney General] 今天上午不在办公室，但正设法了解他何时回来。请等待。”同日稍后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“细节是，我备忘录中的 3 件事只针对 [Attorney General]。[PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）] 想直接告诉 [Attorney General]。我的是合法的秘密渠道。[PRC Minister A] 的上司想确认 [Attorney General] 已听到这 3 件事，这些事确实对美国有帮助[.]”当日稍后，Person D 回复：“E——刚刚与 [Attorney General] 通完电话。消息不太好。你有空谈时告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n89. 约于 2017 年 5 月 26 日，就为 [PRC Minister A] 安排会面一事，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“上午 10 点 ICE 负责人，11:30 FBI。或许在 DHS 方面运作一下可以挽救局面。顺道找 [Person I（I 人士）]。可以分享那三件事。”BROIDY 随后又说：“请给我打电话”以及“我正试图控制损害，需要和你谈谈。最好是把 [Person I] 拉到一旁谈谈。”当时，Person I 是 DHS 的一名高级官员。\n\n90. 约于 2017 年 5 月 28 日，在 Davis（戴维斯）向 BROIDY 誊录通信内容后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送电子邮件：“誊录了 [the Attorney General（司法部长）] 与美国驻华大使之间往来的通信。”BROIDY 指出：“我相信，[the Attorney General] 有一个极好的机会进一步推进美国利益。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件利益相关事项应当让 AG 知悉。”同日稍后，BROIDY 与 Person D 互发电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n91. 约于 2017 年 5 月 30 日，就 [PRC Minister A] 与美国政府官员的会面而言，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“查看 Wickr——现在会面都已获准[.]”BROIDY 回复：“是。都安排好了[.]”Davis 回复：“他的会面已恢复安排[.]”\n\n92. 约于 2017 年 5 月，Davis 应 Person A（A 人士）的请求，请 BROIDY 在 Washington, D.C. 与 [PRC Minister A] 会面。\n\n93. 约于 2017 年 5 月 30 日，BROIDY 在 Washington, D.C. 的一家酒店与 [PRC Minister A] 会面。BROIDY 还询问 Person D 是否能帮助 [PRC Minister A] 安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n94. 约于 2017 年 5 月 31 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与副部长会面。他今天下午乘坐 4 pm 的航班返回。FBI 安排他与级别很低的人会面，而且让本应与他会面的人改去见 Vietnam（越南）了。他的上级告诉他，除非与 [Attorney General] 或 [Person I] 会面，否则就回国。他很乐意与 [Person I] 会面……到目前为止，他已经交出一名孕妇，另外两人将很快被送来。他将接受 60 名中国籍人士被驱逐出境，但前提是他能获得一次适当的“简短会面”。这对本届政府而言是一项重大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两位总统在 Mar-a-Lago 会面所取得的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n95. Person D 回复：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY 回复：\n\n“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在 DHS 与副部长会面？他可以提到我的名字。也设法让 [Person I] 缓和一下局面。也提到我。谢谢！希望一切顺利。”\n\n96. 约于 2017 年 5 月 31 日，就 [PRC Minister A] 据称与 Person I 的会面，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“原则上 [Person I] 可以——只是日程问题？”BROIDY 回复：“只是临时通知导致的日程问题。大约一小时内仍可能有消息。与 [PRC Minister A] 没有任何问题。”BROIDY 稍后继续说：“请转达我对副部长的良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”Davis 回复：“是的，我正这样告诉他。”BROIDY 回复：“告诉他，我正在把发生的事情告诉白宫和 [Attorney General]。”Davis 随后发送短信：“[Person I] 今天下午不是安排去 Haiti（海地）吗？”BROIDY 回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这件事？？你确定吗？[Attorney General] 的人也没有提到[.]”Davis 回复：“DHS 网站上有[.]他下午在那里[.]刚刚与副部长谈过，他听起来像是在哭[.]”BROIDY 回复：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真他妈是一团糟。”Davis 回复：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 约于 2017 年 6 月 9 日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送了一篇题为“chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A（中国国民 A）]”的新闻文章。\n\n98. 约于 2017 年 6 月 27 日，BROIDY 就遣返 [PRC National A] 一事向 Person H（H 人士）的配偶发送短信。BROIDY 知道，Person H 是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，也是政治竞选活动的经常捐助者，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触并影响总统，并且可能有效地寻求遣返 [PRC National A]。BROIDY 向 Person H 的配偶发送短信：“另有一事，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与 [Person H] 会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者也许共进午餐？期待在 [] Hotel（酒店）见到你！致意，Elliott（埃利奥特）[.]”BROIDY 稍后继续说：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H] 要我通过短信向你发送这些信息。我将向你发送若干与逃犯 [PRC National A] 有关的事项。第一项是 Interpol（国际刑警组织）红色通缉令……高度紧急的事项是，[PRC National A] 在美国停留的签证于 June 30th 到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝，这一点至关重要。他还必须被列入 DHS 禁飞名单……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为 [PRC National A] 与曾任职于 FBI、现担任其私人安保人员的人关系密切。[the President of the PRC（中国国家主席）] 在 Mar-A-Lago 向 [the President（总统）] 提到，他希望 [PRC National A] 被遣返。[PRC Minister A] 与我会面，并请求就 [PRC National A] 一事提供帮助……他承诺遣返被中国扣押为人质的某些美国公民，并接受数量非常庞大的中国非法移民被驱逐回中国。最后，他提出在 North Korea（朝鲜）问题上提供新的协助。\n\n99. 约于 2017 年 6 月 28 日，BROIDY 在一次社交聚会上与 Person H 及其配偶会面。会面后，BROIDY 与 Person H 的配偶就 [PRC National A] 互发短信：“嗨，[]，今晚见到你和 [Person H] 真好！我刚刚又收到 [PRC Minister A] 的消息。他想知道 [PRC National A] 的 VISA（签证）状态，因为时间紧迫。VISA 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] 会在本周逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手驱逐出境。这将是我们两国之间令人难以置信的一步。[PRC Minister A] 说他们感谢你的帮助。”Person H 的配偶回复：“此事已提交至国务院和国防部最高层。他们正在处理。”\n\n100. 约于 2017 年 6 月 29 日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 [PRC National A] 的签证申请互发短信。BROIDY 发送短信：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”Davis 回复：“我不知道。”BROIDY 回复：“抱歉，总是会生成。换言之，每位申请人最终都会书面收到批准或拒绝[?]抱歉，书面收到批准或拒绝[?]”Davis 回复：“是的[.]查看 Wickr[.]”\n\n101. 约于 2017 年 6 月 30 日，Davis 提及他们为促成遣返 [PRC National A] 以及可能让被关押在中国的美国公民返回所作的努力时，向 BROIDY 发送短信：“Wickr。你现在真是关键人物。在你为这个国家于 July 4th 所完成的事情之后，他们将授予你总统自由勋章[.]”BROIDY 回复：“在办成之前，我会全力推进[.]”Davis 回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。并确定会面日期[.]在办成之前别离开那家伙。”BROIDY 回复：“同意。”Davis 继续说：“让他知道——如果我们今天在下班前拿到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员制作该信），那么我们将在 July 4 前让那两名美国人回家。之后的第二阶段——我们可以接收那 60 人[.]”BROIDY 回复：“听起来不错。[Person H] 很快会回电给我。正在通话。”\n\n102. 约于 2017 年 6 月 30 日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 [PRC National A] 互发数条短信。BROIDY 发送短信：“收到 [Person H] 的消息。他向 POTUS（美国总统）重申了此事。”BROIDY 随后说：“另外，[Person E（E 人士）] 给我发短信说他被事情缠住了，但正在处理。”同日，Davis 回复：“我们今天能拿到撤销的证据吗？”Davis 稍后具体说明：“来自 [Person E] 的？”\n\n103. 约于 2017 年 7 月 1 日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“与 [Person E] 长谈。你能打电话时给我打电话[.]”BROIDY 并未与 Person E 通话，但曾与其就 [PRC National A] 的签证申请互发短信。BROIDY 未向 Person E 披露其与 [PRC Minister A] 关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约于 2017 年 7 月 2 日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 [PRC National A] 及其签证申请互发短信。基于公开报道，Davis 发送短信：“今天星期日将与 [President of the PRC] 就朝鲜问题通话。他可以询问并确认有关安排。他甚至可以说他听说过 [Person H] 的情况。”\n\n105. 约于 2017 年 7 月 3 日，同样基于公开报道，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“[President] 周三离开 D.C. 前往 Europe（欧洲）[.]”Davis 随后又说：“July 5。计划与 [President of the PRC] 当面会见[.]”\n\n106. 约于 2017 年 7 月 10 日，Person A 向其本人发送了 [PRC National A] 红色通缉令的副本、[PRC National A] 护照和身份证的图像，以及与 [PRC National A] 和 [PRC National A] 被指控实施的犯罪有关的其他文件。\n\n107. 约于 2017 年 7 月，Person A 请求 Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在 Washington, D.C. 的中国大使馆与中国驻美国大使会面。该会面的目的是向中国大使传达一则有关 [PRC National A] 的信息。约于 2017 年 7 月 16 日，Higginbotham 前往 Washington, D.C. 的中国大使馆并与该大使会面。会面期间，Higginbotham 告诉该大使，美国政府官员正在办理对 [PRC National A] 的引渡事宜，未来将有关于该引渡后勤安排的进一步信息。会面后，Higginbotham 向 Person A 报告了所发生的事情，Person A 表示他会通知 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）。Person A 后来告诉 Higginbotham，Foreign National A 对该次会面感到满意，并且该会面使 Foreign National A 在中国方面获得了可信度。\n\n108. 约于 2017 年 7 月 18 日，BROIDY 通过电子邮件向 Davis 发送了 Person H 的联系信息。Davis 为 [PRC Minister A] 与 Person H 接通了多次电话，以推进遣返 [PRC National A] 的游说活动。\n\n109. 约于 2017 年 7 月 26 日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 [PRC National A] 及其从美国被遣返至中国一事互发短信。在这些短信中，Davis 写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式传达。到目前为止——他说没有[.]”BROIDY 回复：“已请 3 个不同的人跟进[.]”BROIDY 稍后补充说：“给 [Person E] 打过电话。一小时后见 [Person H]。”\n\n110. 于2017年7月26日前后，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）向Person H（H号人士）发送短信，约其在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店会面，以讨论PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A）：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知你在DC，我也在，住在[酒店]。你今天想一起喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott。”同日稍后，Person H的配偶向BROIDY发送短信：“嗨，Elliot。你能否再次把你之前发短信提到的那名中国男子的详情发给我，谢谢[。]”BROIDY回复：“嗨，[]，你指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A]？致意，Elliott[。]”Person H的配偶回复：“[PRC National A]。”随后，BROIDY再次发送了其先前于6月27日发送的消息。\n\n111. 于2017年7月27日前后，BROIDY与Davis（戴维斯）就PRC National A交换短信。Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？？”Davis随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”BROIDY回复：“我正在与NSC的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n112. 于2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY多次向Davis发送短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”BROIDY随后补充道：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破的机会[。]”\n\n113. 于2017年8月19日前后，BROIDY在Person H的游艇上与Person H会面。在他们共处期间，BROIDY向Person H询问涉及PRC National A的事项。随后，Person H在BROIDY在场的情况下致电总统，询问PRC National A在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n114. 于2017年9月13日前后，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有其他文章[。]”同日，Davis向BROIDY发送了有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n115. 于2017年10月2日前后，BROIDY向Davis发送了一篇有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n116. 于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 National 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)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)主张没收之目的，特此再次主张并以引用方式纳入本Information（控告书）中Count One（第一罪名项）所载的指控。\n\n2. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，如就违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 371的Count One被定罪，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）应向美利坚合众国没收任何构成或源自可追溯至该等违法行为所得收益的不动产或动产。现进一步通知，如被定罪，美利坚合众国拟寻求对BROIDY作出金钱判决，金额代表本段所述财产。\n\n3. 如上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为而：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法查明其所在；\n\nb. 已被转让或出售给第三方，或已存放于第三方处；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖权之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他无法在不造成困难的情况下分割的财产混同，\n\n美利坚合众国应有权根据由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：September 30, 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部\n公共廉正处处长\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副处长\nSean F. Mulryne（肖恩·F·马尔林）\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNicole R. Lockhart（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJames C. Mann（詹姆斯·C·曼）\n公共廉正处审判律师\n\n附件B\n\n已提交\n美国夏威夷地区联邦地区法院\nAug 17, 2020, 10:23 a.m.\nMichelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩），法院书记员\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #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（科里·R·阿蒙森）\n美国司法部\n公共廉正处处长\n\nJOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE（肖恩·F·马尔林）\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJAMES C. MANN（詹姆斯·C·曼）\n公共廉正处审判律师\n\n美国夏威夷地区联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国，　刑事案号：20-00068 JAO\n）\n\n原告，　）\n）\n控告书\n诉　）\n）\n（18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§\n）\n612 and 618(a)]\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯），　）\n被告。　）\n）\n\n美利坚合众国提出如下指控：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本控告书相关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于2017年3月起至至少2018年1月前后，NICKIE LUM DAVIS同Persons A and B（A号人士和B号人士）达成协议，作为Foreign National A（外国国民A）的代理人行事，以换取源自与Foreign National A有关的外国账户、金额达数百万美元的未披露电汇款项。DAVIS特别同意协助Person B游说美国总统（“总统”）、总统政府及美国司法部（“DOJ”），以撤销对Foreign National A因其在从1Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”，一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司）侵吞数十亿美元中所起作用的调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告和Person B故意未向政府和DOJ官员披露Person B系代表Foreign National A行事。最终，DAVIS以及Persons A and B未能使1MDB调查被撤销。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，DAVIS还同Persons A and B达成协议，协助其游说政府和DOJ，以应Foreign National A和PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长A）的请求，安排将居住在美国的中华人民共和国异议人士PRC National A遣离并送返中华人民共和国。在此方面，DAVIS以及Persons A and B最终也未成功。\n\n4. 为推进Foreign National A的利益，DAVIS协助Person B促成Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）与总统于2017年9月会面，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理A能够与总统讨论1MDB事项的解决。\n\n5. DAVIS、Person A和Person B还在中华人民共和国与PRC Minister A会面，并同意由Person B在DAVIS协助下游说政府，将PRC National A送返中华人民共和国。DAVIS、Person A和Person B还同意并试图促成PRC Minister A于2017年5月访问美国期间，与DOJ和United States Department of Homeland Security（“DHS”，美国国土安全部）高级官员会面，其明确目的在于为PRC Minister A提供机会，使其能与美国高级官员讨论遣离PRC National 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. Foreign Agents Registration Act（“FARA”，外国代理人登记法），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去和现在均为一项披露法，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，例如代表外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或游说。此类登记须向DOJ内National Security Division’s Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit（“FARA Unit”，国家安全司外国代理人登记法处）办理。明知且故意未登记，以及在依照该法规定向FARA Unit提交的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA的目的是防止外国委托人的秘密影响。根据该法进行适当登记，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陈述和开展活动。除其他事项外，FARA登记会披露登记人为其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS过去和现在均为美国公民、女商人和顾问，与Persons A and B具有个人和商业关系。\n\n9. Person A是一名美国公民、商人和艺人，具有国际联系，包括与Foreign National A的联系。\n\n10. Person B自约2016年4月至2018年4月担任某全国性政治委员会的副财务主席。以该身份，Person B从捐赠人处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在2016年选举周期中与一名美国总统职位候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。选举后，Person B继续担任副财务主席，并继续能够接触和联系总统政府的高级官员，包括总统。在同期内，Person B拥有并经营多家国内和国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. Foreign National A是一名居住在东亚的富有商人，因其策划和实施从1MDB侵吞数十亿美元计划所起的作用，已被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是由Person A设立的一家有限责任公司，用于接收Foreign National A的电汇款项，以支付Person B的游说活动费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是Person A的同事，并是一名受雇于DOJ的持证律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一项指控其共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项控告书罪名认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是由Person B的配偶Person C（C号人士）经营的一家律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A是一名居住在美国、持有临时签证的中华人民共和国异议人士。中华人民共和国政府，包括PRC Minister A和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将PRC National A从美国遣离并送返中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ积极调查据称与1MDB侵吞计划洗钱所得收益有关的Foreign National A交易。2016年7月，DOJ提起多项民事没收诉讼，寻求没收据称以1MDB洗钱所得收益购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ提交刑事起诉书，指控Foreign National A及其他人共谋清洗从1MDB侵吞的数十亿美元，以及共谋通过向多名马来西亚和阿布扎比官员行贿而违反Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（反海外腐败法）。\n\nI. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的行动\n\nA. Person B同意以$8 Million Retainer（$8百万预付聘金）为Foreign National A进行游说\n\n17. 于2017年3月前后，DAVIS告诉Person B，她在马来西亚有一名潜在客户，可能“需要关于没收方面的帮助”。\n\n18. 于2017年3月5日前后，应Person B要求，DAVIS通过电子邮件向Person B发送了一份与1MDB有关的民事没收诉状副本。同日，DAVIS通过电子邮件向Person B发送了一篇题为“[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits”的Bloomberg（彭博社）文章，并向Person B发送短信：“你的电子邮件里有法院提交文件[。]”Person B回复：“谢谢。会审阅。”DAVIS回复：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[。]”Person B再次回复：“好的。5分钟[。]”\n\n19. Person A（A某）要求DAVIS（戴维斯）向其发送Person B（B某）的传记，其中描述Person B与政府高级官员的关系，以及Person B与总统的照片。2017年3月7日前后，应DAVIS要求，Person B的助理通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了包含Person B与总统的照片。Person A表示，他想要这些照片，以便突出Person B与政府之间的密切接触。\n\n20. 2017年3月8日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“你16日在洛杉矶吗，在[Person A]那个周末前往亚洲之前与他会面？”Person B回复：“我想是的。我们晚点再谈。”同日稍后，DAVIS向Person B发送了额外短信，以安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的会面。\n\n21. 在Person B的指示下，2017年3月13日前后，DAVIS向Person A转发了一份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”。该“聘用及费用协议”规定，外国国民A应预先支付\\$8 million聘用费；若“事项”在180天内解决，则另行支付\\$75 million成功费；若“事项”在365天内解决，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，Person A、Person B、A律师事务所、DAVIS和Person C（C某）均未向外国国民A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真正目的，是基于Person B的政治关系，获得Person B代表外国国民A游说政府和司法部（DOJ）的服务。\n\n22. 2017年3月13日前后，Person B与Person A和DAVIS会面，讨论外国国民A及其法律问题。在会面中，Person A向Person B描述了其与外国国民A的关系，并询问Person B是否能够帮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Person B帮助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 2017年3月15日前后，就外国国民A而言，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“关于……[Person A]的同事，有什么新情况吗？”同日，DAVIS回复：“[Person A]明天将与‘发起人’亲自会面，他们希望在未来几周内出行[。]”\n\n24. 2017年3月22日前后，DAVIS通过电子邮件联系Person B及其助理，安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的另一次会面。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、Person A和Person B均知悉《外国代理人登记法》（FARA）及其对未经登记代表外国委托人的禁止规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人代理人的要求，DAVIS、Person A和Person 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. Person A、Person B和DAVIS在曼谷会见外国国民A\n\n27. 2017年4月前后，Person A要求Person B前往泰国曼谷，与外国国民A会面。Person B表示，只有获得\\$1 million报酬才会前往，并且其希望由Person A使用“未受污染”的资金向其付款。\n\n28. 2017年4月28日前后，Person B向DAVIS发送短信称：“我希望资金汇入[A律师事务所]。”同日，DAVIS回复：“好的[。]”\n\n29. 2017年4月29日前后，Person B和DAVIS就其即将与外国国民A和Person A举行的会面交换了短信。在这些短信中，Person 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特定酒店？”DAVIS回复：“你能说话时给我打电话[。]”\n\n30. 2017年4月30日前后，DAVIS就前往曼谷的航班行程通过电子邮件联系Person B的助理。在该电子邮件中，DAVIS部分写道：“如有问题请给我打电话——这是两张单程票——因为我们需要从不同国家离开[。]我们暂时不需要担心酒店……”\n\n31. 2017年5月1日前后，DAVIS通过电子邮件向Person B及其助理发送了曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接。同日，DAVIS通过电子邮件告知Person A预订香格里拉酒店的房间，并向她发送确认信息。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[Person B]的电汇信息发给我。”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Person B助理关于是否应取消Person B酒店房间预订的询问，DAVIS通过电子邮件告知Person B的助理：“是的，所有房间均已由[Person A]预订。”\n\n32. 2017年5月2日前后，DAVIS通过电子邮件告知Person B，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A]和我将在到达处见你……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\n33. 2017年5月2日前后，DAVIS、Person A和Person B抵达曼谷。旅行期间，DAVIS、Person A和Person B在酒店套房内与外国国民A会面。Person B和外国国民A讨论了1MDB调查和民事没收诉讼。Person B同意帮助外国国民A尝试解决该事项。外国国民A同意向Person B支付\\$8 million聘用费，并希望Person B联系美国司法部长，以促使司法部撤销1MDB事项。Person B同意代表外国国民A游说政府和司法部，以取得对外国国民A有利的结果，同时隐瞒其代表外国国民A工作的事实。关于付款，Person B表示，款项不应直接来自外国国民A，且应当是“干净的”。外国国民A指定了一名可以向Person B及其他人付款的朋友。Person B、Person A和DAVIS同意，款项将首先经由Person A转入，随后通过A律师事务所支付给Person B。Person B和DAVIS同意，Person B将向DAVIS支付Person B所收取款项的百分之三十。Person A还同意向DAVIS支付Person A所收取资金的一定比例。Person A告知Person B和DAVIS，Person A的朋友Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实资金的合法性。Higginbotham实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. Person A从外国国民A收取\\$8.5 Million；Person B获得\\$6 Million；DAVIS获得\\$1.7 Million\n\n34. 在泰国与外国国民A会面后，2017年5月8日前后，A公司（Company A）收到由外国国民A指示、从一家香港实体汇出的约\\$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，Person A从A公司账户取得了一张金额为\\$702,000、收款人为A律师事务所的银行本票，该款项立即记入A律师事务所账户。Person A还从A公司账户向A律师事务所另行电汇\\$48,000。同日，在Person A指示下，一家第三方公司向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。数日内，2017年5月8日转入A律师事务所账户的\\$1 million中约\\$900,000从A律师事务所账户转入Person B的一个商业账户。\n\n35. 2017年5月8日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[A律师事务所]中的两笔电汇均来自[Person A]。剩余余额已于20分钟前送至你的办公室——”DAVIS随后补充道：“银行本票总额702[。]”\n\n36. 2017年5月9日前后，Person A促使A公司向由DAVIS家庭成员控制的一家公司转账\\$250,000，供DAVIS受益。\n\n37. 2017年5月17日前后，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向A公司发送国际电汇。同日，Person A从A公司向A律师事务所转账\\$3 million。\n\n38. 2017年5月17日前后，Person B和DAVIS就外国国民A通过Person A向Person B付款，以及Person 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问道：“你收到了吗？”Person B回复：“是的。已向你发送Wickr[。]早上向你汇款。”Wickr是一种允许端到端加密和内容到期的消息应用程序。Person B随后补充道：“你收到第二份确认了吗？”DAVIS回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正逐步推进。”Person B回复：“是的。催促他们发出接下来的两笔电汇。”Person B随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已到账，并确认最后两笔正在发送。请询问[Person B的助理]。”\n\n39. 2017年5月18日前后，A律师事务所向Person B的一个商业账户转账\\$500,000，并向由DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转账\\$900,000。约一周内，A律师事务所分两笔向Person B的一个商业账户另行转账\\$950,000。\n\n40. 2017年5月25日前后，外国国民A促使向A公司进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为\\$2.7 million。2017年5月26日前后，Person A从A公司向A律师事务所转账\\$2 million，作为对\\$8 million聘用费的部分支付；该聘用费系Person B和外国国民A达成一致，作为Person 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的回报。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. Person B协助安排马来西亚总理A会面，并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 2017年5月18日前后，Person B向Person D（D某）发送短信；Person D是一名政治顾问及总统的前竞选助手。Person B要求Person D与政府合作，为马来西亚总理A安排访问：“嗨，[Person D]——请着手安排亚洲国家访问。日期在7月。”\n\n42. 2017年6月5日前后，Person B再次就马来西亚总理A的访问向Person D发送短信：“亚洲国家非常积极推动7月会面。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同日，应Person A要求，DAVIS向Person B发送有关外国国民A的短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS根据Person A代表外国国民A向其传达的信息写道：“如果可能，请在你去以色列睡觉前给我打电话……[外国国民A]一直打电话询问消息[。]”Person B回复：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿特区，处理[外国国民A]和亚洲国家的事情[。]”\n\n44. 2017年6月15日前后，DAVIS转达Person A的信息，向Person B发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”DAVIS补充道：“委托人”，指的是外国国民A。同日，Person B回复：“可以[。]”\n\n45. 2017年6月16日前后，Person 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. 2017年6月17日前后，Person B和DAVIS讨论马来西亚总理A。2017年6月前后，Person B询问总统是否愿意与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。Person B表示，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。Person B还希望获得与马来西亚总理A政府开展的额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n47. 2017年6月19日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n48. 约于2017年6月25日，DAVIS（戴维斯）向Person B（B某人）发送了一条短信，其中包含一篇有关马来西亚总理A和涉及Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）的1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。同日，Person B回复道：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”DAVIS回复道：“请打电话。有消息[。]”DAVIS随后表示，她已向Person B发送了“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 约于2017年6月29日，Person B向白宫的一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行一次高尔夫活动：“嗨，[Person E（E某人）]，如我所提及，POTUS已同意于7月下旬或8月初在DC或Bedminster与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫。非常感谢您回复我日期。此外，数周前已向国务院发送了一封关于会面的信函。”\n\n50. 约于2017年6月30日，Person B就高尔夫活动向Person E发送了另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[PRC National A（中国籍人士A）]和POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期通话。”当日稍后，Person B又补充道：“[Person E]，如已讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n51. 约于2017年7月3日，Person B再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫日期向Person E发送短信：“早上好，[Person E]。如果您今天能够与POTUS确认[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期，对我将极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他乐意在Bedminster或DC打球。我们通话后，我向[马来西亚总理A]提到，他上周将会收到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当日稍后，Person B再次向Person E发送短信：“[Person E]，我正在跟进。请将[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约于2017年7月4日，DAVIS向Person B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. 约于2017年7月5日，Person B与Person E就高尔夫活动交换信息。在这些信息中，Person B发送短信称：“[Person E]，刚给您留了信息。已经一周了。您今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，[]。”Person E回复道：“这事在NSC[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成[。]”\n\n54. 约于2017年7月11日，DAVIS转达Person A（A某人）的一则信息，向Person B发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期和其他事项。我们正在遭受重创。”这些信息涉及确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫的日期，以及Foreign National A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。DAVIS转达Person A的紧迫要求，继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被各种事情淹没了[。]”Person B回复道：“看Wickr[。]”次日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发短信。我正要起飞，需要去WH[。]正要起飞。现在就需要[。]”DAVIS回复道：“已完成[。]”Person B回复道：“收到了。谢谢[。]正试图让[Person F（F某人）]尽快打电话[。]”当时，Person F是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约于2017年7月13日，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以请务必去D.C.，并在WH坐等，直到你拿到它。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 约于2017年7月13日，Person B再次就高尔夫日期向Person E发送短信：“嗨，[Person E]，已经两周了。再次询问[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期。您今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，[][。]”Person E回复道：“我现在再查一次[。]这些事情要经过一个流程——”Person B回复：“谢谢！！”Person E答道：“NSC正在处理并协调[。]”Person B回复道：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”Person E答道：“他们正直接与[马来西亚]合作。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约于2017年7月15日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约于2017年7月17日，DAVIS转达Person A代表Foreign National A表达的紧迫要求，向Person B发送短信：“[Person E]现在需要把这个日期给你，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来毫无办法[。]”该短信既涉及安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面，也涉及PRC National A的事项。Person B回复道：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 约于2017年7月18日，Person B与DAVIS就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了数条短信。其中，DAVIS转达Person A的信息，写道：“你能查一下Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。我今天一整天都因这事忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌[。]”DAVIS随后补充道：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们正在遭受惨重打击。”据Person A称，Foreign National A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。Person B回复道：“现在给[Person E]打电话[。]”DAVIS部分回复道：“给每个人打电话，让他们知道你愤怒至极[。]也给[Person G（G某人）]打电话。我们今天就需要这个[。]”Person G是总统的一名行政助理。Person B回复道：“现在就在办。”\n\n60. 约于2017年7月19日，DAVIS就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期向Person B发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[。]”Person B于次日回复：“请耐心等我。我正在获取有关会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 约于2017年7月21日，Person B就高尔夫活动向Person E发送短信：“[Person E]，[马来西亚]没有从NSC得到任何消息。POTUS说他会在7月下旬或8月初与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫。POTUS说他很乐意这样做。你说会在一两天内安排。现在已经是第四周。我知道你很忙，也有程序要遵循，但我已经非常耐心了。这件事现在不但没有带来积极效果，反而正对我造成损害。如你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约于2017年7月24日，Person B向Person D（D某人）发送短信：“已收到9月在NJ举行高尔夫活动的日期。在联合国大会前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你的帮助！”Person D回复道：“让我们跟进并确保日期得到NSC确认。他告诉你是谁给他这个日期的吗？”Person B回复道：“‘谢谢！！太棒了。由[Person E]给了[Person H（H某人）]。”\n\n63. 约于2017年7月27日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“刚刚再次向[马来西亚]核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快核实。致意，[]。”Person B随后补充道：“嗨，[Person D]——你能就[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事替我致电NSA吗？NSC仍未就会面与[马来西亚]大使联系。谢谢。致意，[]”Person D回复道：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天简短地与[]谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约于2017年7月29日，DAVIS转达其从Person A处收到的、代表Foreign National A提供的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统之间的会面向Person B发送短信：“他们被告知会面是在9月12日。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二???? 没有高尔夫??”DAVIS紧接着发送短信：“Wicla[。]”Person B回复道：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。周六在Bedminster打高尔夫，周二在WH？”\n\n65. 约于2017年8月7日，Person B向其助理发送一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，内容为拟用于美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A即将举行会面的谈话要点。DAVIS从Person A处收到该谈话要点，Person A代表Foreign National A提供了该文件；DAVIS明知Person B随后会将其提供给国务卿作为会面背景资料，仍将其转交给Person B。该谈话要点除其他事项外，提及Person B与[马来西亚]正在持续进行的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“[优]先事项[。]”。该谈话要点指出1MDB所造成的损害不足，并具体说明：“[美]国检察官的参与造成了不必要的美国[原文如此]紧张局势，并可能在马来西亚人中引起负面反应[。]”\n\n66. 约于2017年8月7日，Person B还将谈话要点文件发送给Person D，供其审阅和修改，并获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面时间的细节：“嗨，[Person D]；[国务卿]何时会面？；[马来西亚]已经是星期一上午11:00。你能扩充并把最终版本发给我吗？”Person D回复称，其已向Person B发送了谈话要点的修订版本，并表示：“[]——这是我将转发给[国务卿]办公室的标注版本。他今天前往曼谷，然后前往[马来西亚]。如你有任何其他修改，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n67. 当日稍后，即约于2017年8月7日，Person B向Person D发送信息：“[国务卿]将在8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，但可能不会立即认出[我公司的]名称。谢谢！”Person D回复道：“确实重要的是促成这一联系。这不太可能成为正式会面的一部分，但我会努力让他们在谈话中提及。”\n\n68. 同样于约2017年8月7日，Person A签署了一份协议，该协议由Person A的另一家公司与Foreign National A的一名代表订立，约定提供“战略传播和危机管理”，作为交换，将于2017年8月16日或之前支付约EUR 8.4 million。\n\n69. 约于2017年8月9日，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A（A公司）转账约\\$12.8 million。随后，Person A向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转账\\$3 million。Person A还向一个由DAVIS控制的商业账户转账\\$833,333。约于2017年8月10日，Law Firm A向一个与DAVIS有关联的商业账户转账\\$900,000。\n\n70. 约于2017年8月10日，Person B就马来西亚总理A与国务卿之间的会面向Person D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]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有提及。;- ……”\n\n71. 约于2017年8月16日，Person B与DAVIS交换短信，以安排一次会面和一次电话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“如果可能，[Person A]非常想今天见你，因为你星期五就离开[。]”\n\n72. 约于2017年8月18日，Person B与DAVIS交换短信，安排一次电话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“请给我打电话。[Person A]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“关于[马来西亚]有任何更新吗？”Person D回复道：“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[Person I（I某人）]，并利用他们二人一起打高尔夫的经历。”Person B回复道：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给[Person I]的一名副手或[Person I]打电话。还需要增加会面时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”当时，Person I是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 约于2017年8月21日，DAVIS将其作为从Person A收取的佣金而获得的\\$375,000资金电汇给Person C（C某人），即Person B的配偶。\n\n75. 约于2017年8月24日，Foreign National A指示向Person A另一家独立公司转账约\\$10 million；该公司曾与Foreign National A的一名代表订立“战略传播和危机管理”协议，金额为EUR 8.4 million。根据2017年8月24日的现行汇率，EUR 8.4 million折合约\\$10 million。\n\n76. 约于2017年9月11日，DAVIS（戴维斯）应Person B（B人士）指示，起草了一封由Person B寄给总统的信，以配合马来西亚总理A预计与总统举行的会晤。该信列举了马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未交给总统。\n\n77. 约于2017年9月12日，马来西亚总理A在白宫（White House）与总统会面，部分得益于DAVIS为Person B促成该会晤所作努力提供的协助。尽管Person B曾联系政府中的高级官员，除正式会晤外还试图安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A举行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球赛。\n\n78. 约于2017年10月6日，Person B在白宫与总统会面。Person B向Person A（A人士）、DAVIS和Foreign National A（外国国民A）表示，他在该次会面期间向总统提及了1MDB调查。\n\n79. 约于2018年1月5日，Person B起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向Foreign National A表明Person B已代表其采取的行动。其中，谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正在与DoJ（司法部）合作，以应对前届政府针对[Malaysia（马来西亚）]1MDB的案件。我已制定策略，与DoJ和NSC（国家安全委员会）的相关人员联系，以寻求解决此问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督该[]案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的官员，能够提供帮助……。3. 如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺促成解决该问题。重要的是，我应当遵循他的指示，但将继续传达该问题的重要性。”Person B极大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80. 约于2018年1月6日，Person B与Person A会面，后者向Person B请求贷款。Person A告诉Person B，Person A的一名朋友正在“核查”他们从Foreign National A处收到的款项，并“帮助保持其清白”。\n\nII. 将PRC National A（中国国民A）从美国遣送离境的活动\nA. Person B前往中国与PRC Minister A（中国部长A）会面\n\n81. 约于2017年5月，在曼谷之行后，Person B同意前往Hong Kong（香港），再次与Foreign National A会面。出行前，DAVIS与Person B讨论称，Foreign National A认为将PRC National A从美国驱逐出境十分重要。前往香港的目的是与Foreign National A及一名PRC外国政府官员会面，讨论PRC National A事宜。\n\n82. 约于2017年5月15日，DAVIS就前往香港之行的旅行安排及行程向Person B的助理发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向Person B和Person C（C人士）发送了DAVIS公司的银行账户信息。\n\n83. 约于2017年5月18日，Person A、Person B和DAVIS前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，在当地一家酒店套房内与Foreign National A及PRC Minister A会面。PRC Minister A向Person B谈及PRC National A及其被指控的犯罪行为，并称PRC希望将PRC National A送回PRC。PRC Minister A要求Person B利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡议将PRC National A遣送离境并送回PRC。PRC Minister A还称，其不久将访问Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），且难以安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会面。\nB. Person B就遣送PRC National A一事游说美国高级官员\n\n84. 约于2017年5月20日，在从中国返程途中，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“我会努力让这成为我们与[司法部长]有关的重要一周。”\n\n85. 约于2017年5月21日，Person B就其与Foreign National A及PRC Minister A的会面向Person D（D人士）发送短信：“[Person D]——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. 约于2017年5月22日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们将讨论。”随后Person B又称：“我正向你发送一份备忘录。我们将讨论。”同日稍后，Person D回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 约于2017年5月22日，Person B向Person D发送一封主题为“美国与[PRC]之间大幅加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。Person B在邮件中附上了一份由Person B致司法部长的备忘录，意图由Person D继而将该备忘录交给司法部长。备忘录内容由DAVIS提供给Person B；DAVIS在2017年5月中国之行期间从Person A处收到该内容，而该内容源自PRC Minister A和Foreign National A。Person B和Person C收到后对备忘录作了修改。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，Person B虚假陈述了其前往中国的原因以及导致其与PRC Minister A会面的情形。Person B隐瞒了其与Foreign National A的接触，并隐瞒了Foreign National A在安排Person B与PRC Minister A会面中所起的作用。Person B还隐瞒了在与PRC Minister A于深圳会面前两周内，Foreign National A向其支付的\\$4 million。Person B还未披露，其就PRC National A开展的游说活动至少部分是依照其与Foreign National A之间的财务安排进行，并且可能导致额外付款。\n\n89. 在该备忘录中，Person B称：“[PRC Minister A]告诉我，[PRC]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。”Person B写及PRC Minister A即将前往Washington, D.C.访问，届时PRC Minister A及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。Person B主张司法部长应与PRC Minister A会面。Person B还提及，据PRC Minister A称，为改善美国与PRC之间的执法关系，PRC愿意采取的若干措施。Person B随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[PRC Minister A]的谈话，[PRC]将提出的一项请求是，将[PRC National A]——[PRC]指控其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反[PRC]多项刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋——在其签证于下个月左右到期后，尽快从美国驱逐出境，或将其引渡至[PRC]（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考），以便其可因这些违法行为受到指控，并就这些指控在[PRC]进行正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nPerson B将PRC National A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录。\n\n90. 约于2017年5月23日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会面定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[司法部长]了吗？请更新。谢谢[]。”Person D回复：“[Person B]——信昨天已递交。请查看带有修改的最终版本。正在争取明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚乘红眼航班，以便能早些回到DC。”Person B回复：“很好。谢谢[]。也请确定他的会面是否已安排，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在Alabama（阿拉巴马州）举行。”次日，即约于2017年5月24日，Person D回复：“正在等待DoJ关于会面的消息——我们的和[PRC Minister A]的。请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n91. 约于2017年5月24日，Person D向Person B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，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 约于2017年5月25日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“今天上午10:00在司法部举行会面。然后明天是FBI（联邦调查局）和DHS（国土安全部）。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，讨论更多细节。请今天一早设法见到[司法部长]。我们促成此事确实很重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。[。]”Person D回复：“[]——正在处理。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正试图确定他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，Person B向Person D发送短信：“具体而言，我备忘录中的三件事只针对[司法部长]。[PRC Minister A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我的渠道是合法的后门渠道。[PRC Minister A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]听到了这三件对美国确有帮助的事。”当日稍后，Person D回复：“[]——实际上刚与[司法部长]通完电话。消息不太好。请告诉我你何时方便通话。谢谢。”\n\n93. 约于2017年5月26日，Person B提及PRC Minister A的会面安排，向Person D发送短信：“上午10点移民与海关执法局局长，11:30联邦调查局。或许在DHS采取行动可挽救局面。顺道见[Person I]。可分享那三项内容。”Person B随后发送：“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，Person I（I人士）是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 约于2017年5月28日，Person B向Person D发送电子邮件：“与[司法部长]及[PRC]驻美大使之间来往通信的转录文本。”Person B指出：“我相信，[司法部长]有极好的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？还有另一件司法部长应当知悉的事项。”同日稍后，Person B与Person D交换电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n95. 约于2017年5月30日，DAVIS转达PRC Minister A和Person A关于PRC Minister A与美国政府官员会面的信息，发送短信称：“查看Wickr——现在所有会面均已获准。”Person B回复：“是的。都安排好了。”DAVIS回复：“他的会面已恢复。”\n\n96. 约于2017年5月，应Person A要求，DAVIS要求Person B在Washington, D.C.与PRC Minister A会面。\n\n97. 约于2017年5月30日，Person B在Washington, D.C.的一家酒店与PRC Minister A会面。Person B还询问Person D能否协助PRC Minister A安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n98. 约于2017年5月31日，Person B向Person D发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与VM会面。他今天下午乘下午4点的航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人会面，并让原定与他会面的人改为与Vietnam（越南）会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[司法部长]或[Person I]会面，否则就回国。他很愿意与[Person I]会面。……迄今为止，他已移交一名孕妇，接下来的2人将很快被移交。他将接受60名中国国民被驱逐出境，但前提是他能进行一次适当的“简短会面”。这对政府而言是一次重大胜利，可以予以公开宣传。这是两位总统在Mara Largo会面所产生的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99. Person D回复：“[]——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”Person B回复：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在DHS与VM会面？他可以提及我的名字。还请设法让[Person I]为这一情况预热。也提及我。谢谢！祝好运。”\n\n100. 约在 May 31, 2017，DAVIS（戴维斯）就 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A）据称与 Person I（人物 I）会面一事向 Person B（人物 B）发送短信：“原则上 [Person I] 对我们没问题——只是日程问题？”Person B 回应道：“只是临时通知的日程问题。大概再过一小时左右仍可能会有消息。[PRC Minister A] 没有任何问题。”Person B 随后继续说道：“请转达我对该 VM 的良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”DAVIS 回应道：“是的，我正在这样告诉他。”Person B 回答道：“告诉他，我正在告诉 WH 和 [Attorney General] 发生了什么。”DAVIS 随后发送短信：“[Person I] 不是安排在今天下午去 Haiti 吗？”Person B 回应道：“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 回应道：“DHS 网站上有[。]他下午在那里[。]刚和 VM 通话，他听起来像在哭[。]”Person B 回应道：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真是他妈的一团糟。”DAVIS 回答道：“Wickr。”\n\n101. 约在 June 9, 2017，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送了一篇题为“[the PRC]-加大对流亡大亨-[PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民 A）]施压”的新闻文章。\n\n102. 约在 June 27, 2017，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 交换了数条短信。\n\n103. 约在 June 27, 2017，Person B 就遣返 PRC National A 一事向 Person H（人物 H）的配偶发送短信。Person B 知道，Person H 是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，也是政治竞选活动的经常捐助者，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触并影响总统，且可能有效地寻求遣返 PRC National A。Person B 向 Person H 的配偶发送短信：“顺便说一下，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与 Person H 会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者共进午餐？期待在该[] Hotel（酒店）见到您！致意，[][。]”Person B 随后继续说道：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H] 要我通过短信把这些信息发给你。我会向你发送若干有关逃犯 [PRC National A] 的材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报……这项高度时间紧迫的事项是，[PRC National A] 留在美国的签证将于 June 30th 到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入 DHS 禁飞名单……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为 [PRC National A] 与担任其私人安保人员的前 FBI 人员关系密切。中华人民共和国主席曾在 Mar-A-Lago 对总统提到，他希望将 [PRC National A] 遣返。[PRC Minister A] 与我会面，并请求我就 [PRC National A] 一事提供帮助。……他承诺归还被 [the PRC] 扣作人质的某些美国公民，并将接收大量被驱逐回 [the PRC] 的 [the PRC] 非法移民。最后，他提出就 North Korea（朝鲜）提供新的协助。\n\n104. 约在 June 28, 2017，Person B 在一次社交聚会上与 Person H 及其配偶会面。会面后，Person B 就 [PRC National A] 与 Person H 的配偶交换短信：“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] 的 VISA（签证）状态，因为时间至关重要。—VISA 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] 本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手驱逐出境。这将是我们两国令人难以置信的一步。[PRC Minister A] 说他们感谢你的帮助。”Person H 的配偶回应道：“此事已提交国务院和国防部的最高层。他们正在处理。”\n\n105. 约在 June 29, 2017，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National 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 回应道：“我不知道。”Person B 回答道：“抱歉，总是会生成。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 回应道：“是[。]查看 Wickr[。]”\n\n106. 约在 June 30, 2017，DAVIS 提及他们为促成遣返 Foreign National B（外国国民 B）以及可能使被 Country B（B 国）扣押的美国公民获释所作的努力，向 Person B 发送短信：“Wickr。你现在就是那个人。在你为这个国家于 July 4th 所完成的事情之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章[。]”Person B 回应道：“在事情完成之前，我会全力猛干[。]”DAVIS 回答道：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。还有 m 的日期[。]在我们办成之前，别离开那家伙。”Person B 回应道：“同意。”DAVIS 继续说道：“让他知道——如果我们今天在下班前拿到确认拒绝的信（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们会在 July 4 前让那两名美国人回家[。]之后第二阶段——我们可以让那 60 人被接收回去[。]”Person B 回应道：“听起来不错。[Person H] 很快会回电给我。正在通话。”\n\n107. 约在 June 30, 2017，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 交换了数条短信。Person B 发送短信：“收到 [Person H] 的消息。他向 POTUS（美国总统）重申了此事。”Person B 随后说道：“另外，[Person E（人物 E）] 给我发短信说他被别的事缠住了，但正在跟进。”同日，DAVIS 回应道：“我们今天能拿到关于撤销的证据吗？”DAVIS 随后具体说明：“来自 [Person E] 的？”\n\n108. 约在 July 1, 2017，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 通话，但曾就 PRC National A 的签证申请与其交换短信。与 Person B 在其为 Attorney General（司法部长）准备的备忘录中所作的陈述以及其与 Person H 的通信类似，Person B 未向 Person E 披露其与 PRC Minister A 关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约在 July 2, 2017，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，DAVIS 发送短信：“今天星期日安排了与 [President of the PRC（中华人民共和国主席）] 就 n Korea 进行的通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说，他听到了 [Person H] 的消息。”\n\n110. 约在 July 3, 2017，同样根据公开报道，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信：“[President（总统）] 星期三离开 D.C. 前往 Europe（欧洲）[。]”DAVIS 随后补充道：“July 5。安排与 [President of the PRC] 当面会晤[。]”\n\n111. 约在 July 18, 2017，Person B 通过电子邮件向 DAVIS 发送了 Person H 的联系信息。DAVIS 为进一步推进遣返 PRC National A 的游说活动，接通了 PRC Minister A 与 Person H 之间的多次通话。\n\n112. 约在 July 26, 2017，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 及将其从美国遣返至中华人民共和国一事交换短信。其中，DAVIS 写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式转达。到目前为止——他说没有[。]”Person B 回应道：“已请 3 个不同的人跟进[。]”Person B 随后补充道：“给 [Person E] 打了电话。一小时后见 [Person H]。”\n\n113. 约在 July 26, 2017，Person B 向 Person H 发送短信，要求在 Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的一家酒店会面讨论 PRC National A：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知你在 DC，我也在，住在 [hotel（酒店）]。你今天想喝杯咖啡吗？致意，[]。”同日稍后，Person H 的配偶向 Person B 发送短信：“嗨，[]。你能否再次把你先前发短信提到的 [the PRC] 人的详情发给我，谢谢[。]”Person B 回应道：“嗨，[]，你指的是 [PRC National A] 还是 [PRC Minister A]？致意，[][。]”Person H 的配偶回答道：“[PRC National A]。”Person B 随后重新发送了其此前于 June 27 发送的信息。\n\n114. 约在 July 27, 2017，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 PRC National A 交换短信。DAVIS 向 Person B 发送短信：“大使馆那边有消息吗？？”DAVIS 随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”Person B 回应道：“我正在与 NSC（国家安全委员会）的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n115. 约在 August 19, 2017，Person B 多次向 DAVIS 发送短信。其中，Person B 写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”Person B 随后补充道：“我与 [Person H] 在一起。有突破机会[。]”\n\n116. 约在 August 19, 2017，Person B 在 Person H 的游艇上与 Person H 会面。在共同相处期间，Person B 向 Person H 询问涉及 PRC National A 的事项，而 Person H 建议他们打电话给总统。Person B 与 Person H 随后致电总统，询问 PRC National A 在美国境内的状态。\n\n117. 约在 September 13, 2017，Person B 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 Person B 发送了有关 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n118. 约在 October 2, 2017，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送了一个有关 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n119. 约在 January 5, 2018，Person B 向 DAVIS 发送短信：“尽快给我发送更多关于 [PRC National A] 涉及资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\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 May 2017 起至至少约 January 2018 止，在 District of Hawaii（夏威夷联邦地区）及其他地点，被告 NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·拉姆·戴维斯）明知且故意地，未按法律要求向司法部长登记，帮助和教唆 Person A（人物 A）及 Person B 实施作为外国委托人代理人的行为，即：代表 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）、PRC Minister A 及中华人民共和国政府，开展秘密渠道游说活动，以有利于 Foreign National A 的方式解决 lMDB 调查，并将 PRC National 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)(l)。\n没收指控\n\n121. 为根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) 主张没收之目的，现重新主张并通过援引纳入本起诉信息书第一项罪名中所载的指控。\n\n122. 根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，在因违反 Title 18 United States Code, Section 2, and 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上述违法行为所得的动产或不动产。进一步通知，在定罪后，美利坚合众国拟就代表本段所述财产的该笔款项向 DAVIS 申请判决书。\n\n123. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，上述所述任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已转让或出售给第三方，或已存放于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\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美利坚合众国有权根据经 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) 纳入的 Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：August 17, 2020，地点：Honolulu, Hawaii（夏威夷州檀香山）。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price\nKENJI M. PRICE\nUnited States Attorney\nDistrict of Hawaii\n\n~~\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson\nKENNETH M. SORENSON\nChief, National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\nChief, Public Integrity Section\nUnited States Department of Justice\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\nJOHN D. KELLER\nPrincipal Deputy Chief\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） 出庭检察官 公职廉政处\n\n美利坚合众国（United States）诉尼基·马利·戴维斯（Nickie Mali DAVIS）信息书 刑事案号\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~-\n证物 C\n\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA），\n\n诉\n乔治·希金博瑟姆（GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM），\n被告。","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","Je","GTV","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","Chinese Communist Party","853(p)"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":13,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28068,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:19:41"}