{"id":"court_ctb_441_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":441,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":"2022-03-20","title":"Exhibit UCC-2 Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions dated March 20, 2022","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit UCC-2\n\nDeclaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions dated March 20, 2022\n\n|                       |     | 22-50073                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n|-----------------------|-----|----------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok<br>IN RE: |     |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     |                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n|                       | UCC | 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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 2 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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<br>(JAM) |\n|              | Debtor.                                                               | :<br>:<br>: |                            |\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |             |                            |\n\n### **DECLARATION OF MR. HO WAN KWOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CHAPTER 11 CASE AND CERTAIN MOTIONS**\n\nI, Ho Wan Kwok, being duly sworn, depose and say:\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, I commenced the above-captioned Chapter 11 case. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify.\n\n2. I submit this Declaration to provide the Bankruptcy Court and all parties-in-interest background information about me and a description of the circumstances leading up to the commencement of my Chapter 11 case. I go into some length in this Declaration to provide context for the nature of the claims against me, my unique financial circumstances, and the reasons I commenced this Chapter 11 case.\n\n3. As discussed more fully below, I filed this Chapter 11 case to: (a) create a single forum to orderly address the various competing claims asserted against me; (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate my assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what I perceive to be misunderstandings in that regard; (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims; and, hopefully (d) reach consensus\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 2 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 3 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 4 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 5 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 6 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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; <sup>1</sup> 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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 7 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 8 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 9 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 10 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 11 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 12 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 13 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n24. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a *Final Order of Civil Contempt* (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") against me. In the February 9 Contempt Order, Justice Ostrager found that I hold a beneficial interest in and control the Lady May and ordered me to pay a \\$134 million fine to PAX within five business days or risk incarceration for civil contempt. I believe that the February 9 Contempt Order was wrongfully issued against me and have separately appealed this order to the Appellate Division. Regardless, I do not have the means to satisfy the order. I firmly believe the CCP is orchestrating the PAX case. The PAX litigation, so far, has been one of the CCP's few successes in its relentless campaign against me, by exposing me to potential imprisonment<sup>11</sup> and forcing me into bankruptcy.\n\n### **B. Securities Litigation.**\n\n25. I am named as a defendant in seven actions related to my promotion of the sale of securities in a company called GTV Media Group, Inc (\"GTV\") and virtual currency referred to as \"G Coin\" and \"G Dollar.\" In addition to two putative investor classes, several individual investors have asserted claims against me related to losses they allegedly suffered following their alleged investments. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that I participated in a scheme to sell unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors in violation of applicable U.S. securities laws. The complaints, in the aggregate, are seeking more than \\$100 million in damages from me\n\n<sup>11</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion Of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry Of An Order Confirming The Inapplicability Of The Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant To Section 362(D)(2) Of The Bankruptcy Code* [Docket No. 57] (the \"Lift Stay Motion\"). I believe that granting the relief requested by the Lift Stay Motion would cause me significant harm and materially prejudice my estate and its creditors. As indicated by PAX in the Lift Stay Motion, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order could result in my imprisonment in New York, which would materially impair my ability to achieve the objectives of this Chapter 11 case. Chiefly, if incarcerated, I will be unable to adequately and appropriately administer my estate, participate in this bankruptcy case, negotiate with creditors, appear and be heard before this Court, consult with and direct counsel, investigate and marshal the assets of the estate, or formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan. Further, I believe that PAX is under the misplaced belief that my family will pay PAX's ransom if I face the risk of incarceration; my family will not.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 13 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 14 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 15 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 16 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 17 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 18 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 19 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 20 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 21 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 22 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 23 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 24 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 25 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 26 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n### **EXHIBIT A**\n\n### **UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**\n\n) )\n\n) )\n\n**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA** )\n\n**CRIMINAL NO.**\n\n) )\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\n6\n\nForeign National A. In extensive contacts, communications, and documents drafted in furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham were secretive and anonymized references to Foreign National A. Further, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A often used encrypted applications when communicating about Foreign National A and PRC National A to conceal their conduct and connection to Foreign National A. Finally, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed, implicitly or explicitly, not to register under FARA to conceal their arrangement with Foreign National A.\n\n### **Overt Acts**\n\n27. In furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY and others committed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.\n\n### I. **Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases**\n\n### **A. BROIDY Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer**\n\n28. In or about March 2017, Person A contacted Davis in an effort to locate someone with close ties to the Administration to help a foreign client. Davis in tum told BROIDY that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could use help with a forfeiture matter.\n\n29. On or about March 7, 2017, Person A requested that Davis send him BROIDY's biography describing BROJDY's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration and photographs of BROIDY and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, BROIDY's assistant, at Davis's request, emailed photographs to Davis featuring BROIDY and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight for Foreign National A BROJDY's close access to the Administration.\n\n30. On or about March 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" BROIDY responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\"\n\n31. On or about March 13, 2017, BROIDY met with Davis and Person A to discuss Foreign National A and 1 MOB. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to BROIDY, and asked if BROIDY could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of BROIDY helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, BROIDY texted Davis in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n32. On or about March 13, 2017, Davis forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A so that Person A could present the agreement to Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee if the \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MOB forfeiture proceedings. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, Law Firm A, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure BROIDY's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on BROIDY's political connections.\n\n33. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did BROIDY, Davis, or Person A register with the FARA Unit regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n### **B. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis Meet Foreign National A in Bangkok**\n\n34. In or about April 2017, Davis relayed Person A's request for BROIDY to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. BROIDY told Davis to tell Person A that he would go only if he were paid \\$1 million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds. BROIDY was assured that Person A would personally pay \\$1 million in exchange for BROIDY traveling to Bangkok.\n\n35. On or about April 28, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, Davis responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n36. On or about April 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, BROIDY asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" Davis responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.]\"\n\n37. On or about May I, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok, and wrote, in part, \"Please send me the hotel confirmation for both Elliott's room and mine once you get it online and I will forward.\" That same day, Davis separately emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed up with, \"Also send me Elliott's wire info.\" Davis replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 2, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] a!].d I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n39. On or about May 2, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. BROIDY and Foreign National A spoke about the IMDB matters. BROIDY agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay BROIDY an \\$8 million retainer and wanted BROIDY to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the I MDB matter. BROIDY agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. During the meeting or shortly thereafter, Davis and BROIDY discussed the possibility of assisting in getting PRC National A removed from the United States. With respect to payment, BROrDY stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay BROIDY and others. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis agreed that the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to BROIDY through Law Firm A. BROIDY and Davis agreed that BROIDY would pay Davis a percentage of what BROIDY received. Person A also agreed to pay Davis a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told BROIDY and Davis that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review. BROIDY never met or spoke with Higginbotham.\n\n### **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; BROIDY is Paid \\$6 Million; Davis is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n40. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A\n\nfrom 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,\n\n\"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\n17\n\n68. Later on or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY messaged Person D, \"[Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize Circinus name. Thank you!\" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. This was the final payment made to BROIDY. In total, BROIDY was paid \\$9 million. On or about the next day, Law Fim1 A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with Davis. In the ensuing days, Law Firm A transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts belonging to BROIDY\n\n70. On or about August I 0, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from Malaysia that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Any update on Malaysia? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a highranking official at the White House.\n\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\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\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\n\nthe 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\n\nA's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DA VIS continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated[.]\" Person B responded, \"See wikr[.]\" 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\n\nbusiness account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DA 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\n\n[Person HJ tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]' s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n105. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. Person B texted, \"Is rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" DA VIS responded, \"I have no idea.\" Person B replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[.]\"\n\n106. On or about June 30, 2017, DAVIS, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of Foreign National Band the potential return of United States citizens held in Country B, texted Person B, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" Person B responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" DA VIS replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.] Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" Person B responded, \"Agree.\" DA VIS continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" Person B responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n107. On or about June 30, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" Person B followed up with, \"Separately, [Person E] texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, DA VIS replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" DA VIS later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n108. On or about July 1, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Spoke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you can[.]\" Person B did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. Similar to the representations Person B made in the memorandum that he prepared for the Attorney General and his communications with Person H, Person B did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n109. On or about July 2, 201 7, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public\n\nreporting, DA VIS texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H].\"\n\n110. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, DAVIS texted Person B: \"[President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" DAVIS then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\n111. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B emailed DAVIS the contact information for Person H. DA VIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n112. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Really need confirm it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says no[.]\" Person B responded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" Person B later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person H] in an hour.\"\n\n113. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, [].\" Later the same day, Person H 's spouse texted Person B, \"Hi []. Can you text me the details again of the [the PRC] man you texted previously thank you[.]\" Person B responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, [][.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" Person B then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n114. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. DAVIS texted Person B, \"Any word on embassy??\" DAVIS later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" Person B responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n115. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS several times. Among those messages, Person B wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" Person B later added, \" im with [Person H]. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n116. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, Person B asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A, and Person H suggested that they call the President. Person B and Person H then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n117. On or about September 13 , 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, DAVIS texted Person B links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n118. On or about October 2, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS a link to an article about PRC National A.\n\n119. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\n## COUNT ONE 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612 (Aiding and Abetting & Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)\n\n120. From in or about no later than May 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, within the District of Hawaii and elsewhere, the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, knowingly and willfully, without registering with the Attorney General as required by law, aided and abetted Person A and Person Bin their actions as agents of a foreign principal, to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the lMDB investigation favorably for Foreign National A and to return PRC National A to the PRC, all on behalf of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A and the Government of the PRC.\n\nAll in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(l).\n\n## **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n121. The allegations contained in Count 1 of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).\n\n122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c), upon conviction of Count 1, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 2, and Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, shall forfeit to the United States of America a sum of money representing property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against DA VIS for this sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n123. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n- e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\n\nDA TED: August 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.\n\n*Isl Kenji M Price*  KENn M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\n~~\n\n*Isl Kenneth M Sorenson*  KENNETH M. SORENSON Chief, National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*Isl John D. Keller*  JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nUnited States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No. ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n\n### **EXHIBIT C**\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |  |  |\n|---------------------------|--|--|\n| VS.                       |  |  |\n| GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM,      |  |  |\n| Defendant.                |  |  |\n|                           |  |  |","body_zh":"证物 UCC-2\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，日期为 March 20, 2022\n\n22-50073\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n关于：\n\nUCC　2\n\n5/25/2022 全部准予\nP.E.\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 1 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 2 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　：　第11章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　：\n：\n：　案件编号 22-50073\n(JAM)\n债务人。　：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作的声明\n\n本人，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经正式宣誓，声明如下：\n\n1. 于 February 15, 2022，本人启动了上述标题所示的第11章案件。本人已年满18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章案件的相关情形。本人在本声明中作了较为详尽的说明，以便为针对本人的债权性质、本人独特的财务状况以及本人启动本第11章案件的原因提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文更充分讨论，本人提交本第11章案件旨在：(a) 建立一个统一平台，以有序处理针对本人提出的各种相互竞争的债权主张；(b) 鉴于本人认为在此方面存在误解，为利益相关方提供有效机会，以调查本人的资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，继而可供向获准债权持有人分配；并且，希望能够 (d) 达成共识。\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 2 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 3 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n与本人的债权人就依据第11章计划公平且衡平地解决债权及分配资产达成共识。\n\n4. 在提交本第11章案件及准备本声明时，本人知悉法院可能会对 Ostrager 法官的 February 9 藐视法庭命令（定义见下文）、PAX（定义亦见下文）就本人作出的不利陈述，以及甚至本人曾公开表达的政治观点存有疑虑。当然，每个故事都有两个或更多方面，本声明将提供本人的观点。基于将会变得清楚的原因，本人因公开批评中国共产党（“CCP”）的腐败及侵犯人权行为，而持续担心遭受中国共产党的报复。多年来，本人一直遭受由中国共产党及其代理人和代表资助、通过美国法院系统提起的毫无根据的诉讼所进行的持续攻击。本人第11章案件只能处理中国共产党试图加诸本人及本人家人的财务损害。但是，中国共产党希望对本人造成的损害远不止财务损害和公开羞辱。本人相信，如本人遭监禁、引渡，或者本人的家人无法再为本人提供人身安全保障，中国共产党将在最早可能的机会将本人暗杀。本人并不主张法院或任何利害关系方现在接受本人对案件基础事实的观点。恰恰相反，本第11章案件预计将由一笔无担保的申请后贷款获得充足资金支持，该贷款的偿还优先权低于所有申请前债权人——以使得作为通常第11章程序的一部分，能够进行公平调查，并使利益相关方提出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、可证实的案件事实进行理性审查，而不损害任何债权人的经济权利——但任何无担保债权人若曾希望通过“抢先起诉”而在付款优先顺位上抢占先机，则不在此限，因为这必然会对某些人不公平。\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 3 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 4 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n5. 本声明分为两部分。第一部分提供有关本人的背景资料，包括对本人资产和负债的概述。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n第一部分——背景\n一、本人背景\n\n6. 本人出生于中国山东省。本人目前与结婚37年的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（叶庆钊）居住于康涅狄格州格林尼治市 373 Taconic Road。我们于 March 2020 从纽约 Sherry-Netherland 的一套公寓搬至目前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（郭强），居住在伦敦。本人女儿名为 Mei Guo（郭美），其时间分配于纽约市和康涅狄格州两地。\n\n7. 本人和家人是在贫困中长大的。本人和七位兄弟努力工作，并将所得收入——本人的收入来自一家无线电维修店，兄弟们的收入来自各自的小型企业——合并起来投资房地产开发。1989年支持民主的天安门广场抗议活动之后，本人因向学生抗议者提供财务支持而入狱约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。本人被捕时二十岁出头。与此同时，本人目睹两名警察——中国共产党的代理人——开枪射击本人弟弟并将其弃置等死的暴行。弟弟遭谋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。在狱中，本人与许多其他良心犯建立了有意义的个人联系，他们同样因支持天安门广场民主运动而被监禁。我们都怀有在中国追求自由的同样热情，本人在 1991 年出狱后继续维持这些关系。\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 4 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 5 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n8. 大约于 1991 年，中国政府开始放宽若干规范社会的规则，其中包括使普通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获益，但由于本人此前出于政治动机而被捕和拘留，本人个人无法从中获益。以本人名义登记的任何中国资产都很可能会被中国共产党没收。本人的大家庭利用其积累的财富支持本人，这种支持一直持续至今。\n\n9. 本人的大家庭开始与 Yuda Property Company（裕达地产公司，简称“Yuda”）合作，该公司专注于中国河南省的商业房地产开发。郭氏家族和裕达共同开发了河南裕达酒店，随后又在河南省省会郑州开发了裕达国际贸易中心。这些是成功的项目，使郭氏家族开始积累大量财富。其后，本人的家族在中国开发了其他房地产项目，包括盘古大观——北京的一座七星级酒店、会议中心和住宅公寓综合体。美国人可能会认出盘古大观，因为它是北京 2008 年和 2022 年奥运会的主要背景景观。\n\n10. 郭氏家族的财富通过多元化投资继续增长，其投资于金融、科技及其他商业领域。尤其是本人儿子，通过建立和管理投资机会，包括将全球奢侈品牌引入中国和香港，在扩大家族财富方面发挥了关键作用。因此，本人儿子本身是一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 本人大约于 2000 年离开中国大陆前往香港，并成为香港公民。尽管大家庭当时仍在中国积累巨额财富，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 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 5 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 6 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n12. 本人大家庭在财务上的成功并未逃过中国共产党的注意。于 2002 年，本人的大家庭在北京取得大片土地；当中国被指定为 2008 年奥运会主办国时，该等土地的价值显著上升。中国共产党官员试图为其个人利益侵占该土地，本人向上级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. 大约于 2015 年，本人开始更公开地批评和揭露中国共产党的腐败，因此中国共产党对本人进行报复。于 January 10, 2015，Wu Zheng（吴征，亦称“Bruno Wu”）告知本人，本人的兄弟、妻子和女儿均已在中国被捕。Bruno Wu 与中国共产党高级官员关系密切，并且是中国共产党的注册外国代理人；其媒体公司曾与 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，简称“PAG”）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，简称“PAX”）的母公司——合作，试图收购一家重要的好莱坞制片厂；1 且其本人正在代表中国共产党为众多针对本人的原告的诉讼活动提供资金。在 2015 年初，Bruno Wu 代表中国共产党高级成员致电本人，转达称若本人停止公开揭露中国共产党的腐败，本人的家人将获释；并威胁称，如本人不服从，本人和本人儿子均将被发出国际刑警组织“红色通报”，且本人将被杀害。本人拒绝了中国共产党通过 Bruno Wu 使本人噤声的企图，并继续公开反对中国共产党。\n\n14. 于 2017 年，本人通过利用社交媒体和设于美国的新闻媒体作为平台，揭露某些中国共产党高级官员的腐败，大幅加强了本人的反中国共产党运动。\n\n1 Nancy Tartaglione，《中国人设立 \\$800M 基金投资全球及本地娱乐业》，Deadline，February 6, 2012（http）。\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 6 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 7 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n本人公开揭露中国共产党腐败的声明在美国和国外获得广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更便捷且更广泛地揭露中国共产党的腐败外，本人还向美国当局提供了有关中国共产党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 September 2017 在美国申请政治庇护保护，且本人的庇护申请仍在审理中。\n\n15. 为报复本人的揭弊行为，中国共产党发动了一场多层面的行动，试图取得对本人的筹码、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，于 April 19, 2017，本人原计划接受 Voice of America（美国之音，简称“VOA”）的采访，在采访中本人计划揭露\n\n2 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）和 Hoover Institute（胡佛研究所）、非政府组织 Australian Strategic Policy Institute（澳大利亚战略政策研究所，简称“ASPI”）以及 Alphabet 的 Google（谷歌）均分别报告称，本人一直是中国共产党在其全球社交媒体虚假信息运动中的主要目标；该运动由中国共产党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，《马甲账号编造 COVID 故事：对归因于中华人民共和国的 2020 年 6 月 Twitter 清除行动的分析》，Stanford Internet Observatory，June 17, 2020（http）；Dr. Jake Wallis、Tom Uren 和 Elise Thomas，《穿越防火长城发推：对针对香港抗议活动的与中华人民共和国有关联的信息行动的初步分析》，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 April 2017）；Dr. Jake Wallis（杰克·沃利斯博士）、Tom Uren（汤姆·尤伦）、Elise Thomas（伊莉斯·托马斯）、Albert Zhang（张阿尔伯特）、Dr. Samantha Hoffman（萨曼莎·霍夫曼博士）、Lin Li（李琳）、Alex Pascoe（亚历克斯·帕斯科）和 Danielle Cave（丹妮尔·凯夫），《穿越防火长城的转推：一个持续且未受遏制的威胁行为者》，June 2020（htt\n\n06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt XD6TCA）（提供数据，反映“与中国国家行为者有关联、在 Twitter 和 Facebook 上持续的大规模影响力宣传活动……[其]主要针对中国大陆以外的中文受众（Twitter 在中国大陆被屏蔽）……意图影响人们对……Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的看法”）；Joseph Menn（约瑟夫·门恩），《亲中国社交媒体宣传活动波及新国家，将 COVID 归咎于美国》，Reuters（路透社），September 9, 2021（http）（报道称，FireEye（火眼）和 Alphabet's Google（Alphabet 的谷歌）的安全专家观察到一场协调一致、支持中国政府利益并以我为目标的社交媒体虚假信息宣传活动）。正如这些独立来源所证实，世界上没有任何人比我遭受过更多来自中国共产党的社交媒体战攻击。\n\n3 中国共产党针对身在美国的中国异议人士即我所采取的滥用手段并非独有。最近，联邦检察官指称，“[一名]中国间谍雇用了一名私家侦探，必要时使用暴力终止一名候选人的国会议员竞选，并指示他‘把他打到无法参选为止。’”见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和 Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《美国司法部称，中国特工提议以暴力手段终止异议人士的国会竞选》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），March 16, 2022（http）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交 03/20/22 录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 7 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 8 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n中国共产党对 HNA Group Co.（海航集团有限公司）的所有权权益。中国共产党采取了多项行动，试图阻止我和 VOA（美国之音）继续进行该采访。第一，在我预定接受 VOA 采访的两天前——正如 Brunu Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——中国共产党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，中国共产党威胁称，如果 VOA 继续对我进行采访，将对 VOA 及其在中国的记者进行报复，并声称该采访构成对中国内政的干涉。第三，在采访前一天，PAX（PAG 的子公司）在纽约对我提起了一项毫无根据的违约诉讼。我继续接受采访，但 VOA（屈服于中国共产党的压力）下令缩短采访。\n\n16. 当中国共产党早期试图使我噤声的努力失败后，其转而试图将我引渡至中国，在那里我将被杀害。FBI（联邦调查局）的一项调查披露，在 2017 年夏季，我成为中国共产党在美国游说活动的目标；该活动利用了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·韦恩），直接游说 President Trump（特朗普总统）及其政府将我引渡至中国。4 中国共产党的计划导致 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）（其后如同 Brunu Wu 一样，\n\n4 见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔），《史蒂夫·韦恩可能因其在中国驱逐商人行动中的角色而面临司法部行动》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），May 26, 2021（http）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交 03/20/22 录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 8 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 9 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n资助其他当事人对我提起诉讼）、说客 Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）6，以及前 DOJ（司法部）官员 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）7 遭到联邦起诉并作出有罪认罪答辩；他们均承认收受报酬，以换取游说美国政府高级官员将我引渡。中国的行动包括贿赂和腐蚀一名 DOJ 总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现近 \\$75 million，使之成为 DOJ 历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中国共产党还自同年开始以多种其他方式针对我，包括：于 September 2017 入侵提交我庇护申请的律师事务所服务器，从该申请中提取我的高度敏感信息，然后在互联网上公开传播；对我提起并资助（其中数起通过 Brunu Wu）大量无根据的诉讼，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 就秘密渠道游说活动认罪，该活动旨在撤销 1MDB 调查并移送一名中国外籍人士》，October 20, 2020（http）（称“Broidy 还同意代表 Foreign National A（外籍人士 A）和 People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A（中华人民共和国〔PRC〕A 部长），游说政府和 DOJ，以安排移送并遣返 PRC National A（PRC 国民 A）——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异议人士”；我即为“PRC National A”）。有关 Elliott Broidy 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉信息书）”副本作为附件 A 随附于此。\n\n6 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《夏威夷女商人就协助秘密渠道游说活动认罪，该活动旨在撤销 1MDB 调查并将一名外籍人士移送至中国》，August 31, 2020（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 Justice Department（司法部），以安排移送并遣返 PRC National A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异议人士”；我即为“PRC National A”）。有关 Nicki Lum Davis 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉信息书）”副本作为附件 B 随附于此。\n\n7 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《前司法部雇员就合谋就数百万美元外国游说资金欺骗美国银行认罪》，November 30, 2018（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外籍人士——其当时持临时签证居住在美国——移出美国并送回其原籍国”；我即为该“另一名外籍人士”）。有关 George Higginbotham 的“Factual Basis for Plea（认罪的事实依据）”副本作为附件 C 随附于此。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交 03/20/22 录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 9 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 10 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n17. 自 2017 年以来，中国共产党还冻结并没收了在中国和香港的家庭资产及所谓资产，使我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。8 中国共产党将摧毁我所创造的一切并阻止我与金融机构打交道作为其使命。我大部分时间作为无偿非正式顾问或发言人，为包括揭露中国共产党腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体在内的各实体服务。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，满足我的生活所需。在 Petition Date（申请日）之前，我儿子的家族办公室 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）（“GSNY”或“Family Office（家族办公室）”）购买了我的衣物、食品和日常用品等诸多物品。我无权使用 GSNY 信用卡或 GSNY 银行账户。除衣物和手机外，我使用的几乎所有物品均由我的家人保有所有权。我不拥有位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林尼治）的住所；该住所由我的妻子通过 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）拥有。我为我的儿子以信托方式持有 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）公寓中的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人向我预付贷款（部分有文件记载，部分没有），以资助我巨额的诉讼费用，从而使我能够就中国共产党发起或授意发起的众多诉讼为自己辩护。截至 Petition Date，GSNY 已向我提供约 \\$21 million 的贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如下文所述并在我的 Statement of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明书）（“SOFA”）中所载，我是在美国及国外待决的 30 多起诉讼中的被告和/或权利主张人。众所周知，中国共产党利用其代理人\n\n8 在 October 23, 2018，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（香港高等法院）”）作出了日期为 October 18, 2018 的 Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere（禁止处分香港及其他地区资产的限制令）（“HK Restraint Order（香港限制令）”）。香港限制令针对据称属于我的、存放在 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司）（HSBC Bank（汇丰银行））的 HK\\$3.7 million 资金。更多数以十亿计的资金和财产，包括据称受我“effective control（有效控制）”（根据香港限制令）的个人和实体在香港的房地产，也被冻结和/或没收。香港限制令禁止被列名的“respondents（答辩人）”（包括我）处分任何资产。任何人在香港限制令作出后接收我的资产，据称均违反该限制令，并可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交 03/20/22 录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 10 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 11 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n即使在美国法院也提起诉讼，以胁迫因政治原因被追捕的个人返回中国。9 与此类诉讼相关地聘请律师、专家、供应商、口译员和其他专业人士的费用极为高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在已提交的 Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（资产和负债清单）（“Schedules（清单）”）及 SOFA 中反映了我目前的负债状况。家族办公室协助我准备了这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所）亦提供了协助；该公司是一家独立财务咨询公司，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，并欠付大量诉讼费用。\n\nA. PAX 诉讼。\n\n20. PAX 是一家香港投资基金——其母公司 PAG（太盟投资集团）与中国共产党代理人 Brunu Wu 的媒体公司合作购买了一家好莱坞制片厂——其在纽约和 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）（“BVI”）对我提起诉讼。如我先前所述，PAX 的纽约州最高法院诉讼于 April 18, 2017 提起，即我接受 VOA 采访以揭露中国共产党腐败的前一天。PAX 的主张主要涉及追收一笔有争议的债务。\n\n21. 在 2008，PAX 向一家名为 Spirit Carter（斯皮里特·卡特）的中国实体提供了 \\$100 million 贷款（“PAX Loan（PAX 贷款）”）。该 \\$100 million 贷款分两部分发放：(1) 由我作出的个人保证担保的 \\$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 贷款。\n\n9 见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和 Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），July 29, 2020（http）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 107 提交 03/20/22 录入 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 11 页，共 108 页 案号 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 12 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n22. 2009年，PAX 收到 $100 million 的偿还款，确认该贷款已获清偿，并进一步确认我在 2008 年个人保证项下的义务已经履行完毕。PAX 对是否实际发生了“和解与清偿”提出异议，现根据一份日期在后的个人保证向我主张权利，而该保证系伪造。在向我出示该保证之前，我先前的诉讼律师曾向法院提交该文件，以支持若干动议。其后当我得知该文件的存在时，我表示相信其系伪造；但法院裁定，由于该文件此前已被提交，我已无权再对其真实性提出质疑。因此，2020年9月15日，法院作出有利于 PAX 的简易判决，既未允许我作证，也未在陪审团面前进行证据审理。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为 $125 million。我已及时向 New York Appellate Division（纽约上诉分院）就该判决提起上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。10\n\n23. 数周后（于2020年10月15日），法院就我的资产发布了限制令（以下简称“NYS Restricting Order”）。PAX 在执行该判决时，主要关注一艘名为“Lady May（五月夫人号）”的游艇，下文将进一步说明该游艇。我并不拥有 Lady May；该游艇由我的女儿所有。该船的维护费用始终由我的儿子支付。尽管如此，2021年3月16日，Ostrager 法官命令我于2021年5月15日前将该船返还纽约，否则该船在管辖范围外停留的每一日，我将面临 $500,000 的巨额每日罚款。我确实可以使用该船，但我无权命令其返回纽约。Lady May 从未返回纽约，截至今年早些时候，累计的藐视法庭罚款已超过作出有利于 PAX 的判决金额，并且为该游艇申报价值的五或六倍。我无能力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的财产清单包括一项针对我历任诉讼律师的潜在失职索赔。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 12 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 13 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\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（以下简称“February 9 Contempt Order”）。在 February 9 Contempt Order 中，Ostrager 法官认定我持有 Lady May 的受益权益并对其实施控制，并命令我在五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 $134 million 的罚款，否则可能因民事藐视法庭而被监禁。我认为 February 9 Contempt Order 被错误地针对我作出，并已就该命令另行向上诉分院提起上诉。无论如何，我没有履行该命令的资金能力。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，使我面临可能被监禁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，该等诉讼涉及我对一家名为 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 传媒集团公司，以下简称“GTV”）的公司的证券销售，以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币销售的推广。除两个拟议投资者集体外，数名个人投资者亦就其据称投资后遭受的损失向我提出索赔。这些案件的原告一般声称，我参与了一项计划，向缺乏经验的投资者出售未注册证券，违反适用的美国证券法。该等起诉状合计向我及包括 GTV 及其母公司 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司，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。我认为该等索赔毫无根据。12\n\nC. 名誉毁谤索赔。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直非常活跃于社交媒体，并发布批评 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向我提出名誉毁谤索赔。如我的 SOFA 所载，我目前在数起名誉毁谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中若干诉讼由 Brunu Wu（吴邦国）资助；其为 CCP 公认的代理人及 PAX 母公司的商业伙伴。这些案件的原告合计主张了巨额损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资成本。\n\n27. 我就金钱救济提出索赔的费用，均通过根据诉讼融资协议（以下简称“Litigation Funding Agreements”）提供的贷款予以资助。在我必须对索赔进行抗辩的情形下，Family Office（家族办公室）向我预支贷款，以支付我的诉讼费用。无论何种情形，贷款所得均直接支付给由我聘请的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至 Petition Date（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 有权取得溢价，并已就我的部分诉讼回收款设定担保权益，以确保该等偿还及投资回报。\n\n12 这些事项涉及某一已和解的执法程序。具体而言，2021年9月，GTV 和 Saraca 就 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）关于 GTV 发行违反 33 Act 第506条主张，达成了公开宣布的“不承认／不否认”和解（以下简称“SEC Entity Settlements”）。In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021)。GTV 和 Saraca 还与 New York State Office of the Attorney General（纽约州总检察长办公室）达成了平行和解。Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents (Sept 13, 2021)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 14 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 15 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据告知，在我的 Chapter 11（第11章）案件启动时，已形成一项破产财产，包括截至申请日我对财产享有的一切法定或衡平权益，无论该等财产位于何处或由何人持有。据进一步告知，我的破产财产及其中的所有财产均受本法院的管辖和监督。当然，我接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的财产清单中列明。这些资产主要是衣物、食品及其他少量家居用品，以及诉讼请求权。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物及其他日常用品。我可以使用的其他一切物品——包括车辆、我的住所（过去及目前）、家具、艺术品及电子设备（我的手机除外）——均由我的家庭成员所有。我经其许可可以使用这些资产，但未经其许可，我无权处分任何重要资产。\n\n32. 我亦是在美国、英国和瑞士待决的数起案件中的索赔人。该等诉讼的详情已在我的财务状况说明中披露。其中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），我与若干共同原告已对 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团伦敦分行，以下简称“UBS”）提出索赔，要求超过 $500 million 的损害赔偿，该索赔涉及 UBS 就我试图促成收购及收购一家中国金融机构 Haitong（海通）于2015年发行的若干股份时所作的过失性不实陈述及建议。就在2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁定，确认英国法院对我针对 UBS 的索赔具有管辖权——而非 UBS 所主张的瑞士法院管辖。鉴于 UBS 对管辖权提出异议，因此必须在瑞士 Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔市民事法院调解机构）提起平行诉讼，以确保在英国被认定缺乏管辖权的情况下该诉讼仍可继续进行（英国并未被认定缺乏管辖权）。瑞士的该诉讼目前处于中止状态，等待 UBS 就该管辖权问题向英国 Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提起的上诉结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill 索赔。此外，我已对 Clark Hill PLC 及其一名成员 Thomas K. Ragland（托马斯·K·拉格兰德）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出索赔。该诉讼目前在 United States District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）待决。我正就 Clark Hill 违反其法律代理职责，向其索赔 $50 million 的补偿性损害赔偿及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿。具体而言，由于 Clark Hill 未能充分保护我的庇护申请中所载的高度敏感信息，CCP 于2017年9月入侵了 Clark Hill 的服务器，提取了该高度敏感信息，随后将其传播至互联网。更糟的是，Clark Hill 屈从于 CCP 黑客的威胁，辞去了我的移民律师职务。因此，我已遭受并持续遭受损害。\n\n33. 另有两项并非由我所有的资产值得特别说明：(a) Lady May；以及 (b) 位于纽约市 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰大厦）的一套公寓（以下简称“Apartment”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 107 提交于 03/20/22 录入于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 16 页，共 108 页 案件 22-50073 文件 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 17 页，共 109 页 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n- a. Lady May（Lady May号游艇）。如上所述，我并不拥有Lady May，尽管我确有获准登船并享用该船只的许可。我的女儿通过HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）拥有并控制该游艇。尽管州法院在February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭命令）中作出认定，指示Lady May留在纽约或返回纽约并非我力所能及。\n\n- b. Sherry-Netherland Apartment（Sherry-Netherland公寓）。Sherry-Netherland公寓的合作社股份由Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司，“Genever US”）持有。13 Genever US的成员权益则由Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司，“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。但是，根据日期为February 17, 2015的信托声明及协议（“Trust Date”），我为Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck有限公司，“Apartment Owner”）以信托形式持有该等股权。我的儿子持有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价款。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（Ostrager法官）已命令将我在Genever BVI中的任何权益移交给PAX，前提是该等移交不干扰英属维尔京群岛正在进行的诉讼或Genever US的破产程序。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我相信Justice Ostrager、PAX以及或许其他人认为，我拥有比此处以及我的附表和财务状况声明中所反映的更雄厚的财力。然而，他们认为属于我的财富实际上属于我的儿子、女儿、妻子及大家庭成员，而非我。但是，如上所述，\n\n13. On October 12, 2020，Genever US在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提交了Chapter 11申请（Case No. 20-12411）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 17 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 18 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n本破产程序将允许利害关系方调查该主张，并提出任何相反证据。重要的是，如下文所述，对抗程序将以避免损害任何债权人在破产财产中经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\nIII. 拟议的DIP融资\n\n35. 如我的附表所载，我没有自己的资源来支付本Chapter 11案件的费用。但是，我的儿子表示愿意支付本Chapter 11案件的某些费用。具体而言，GSNY拟按照附于批准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融资将用于支付，包括但不限于，破产财产聘任的专业人士费用（包括我聘任的专业人士，以及无担保债权人正式委员会和/或审查员如获任命所聘任的专业人士）以及Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）收取的季度费用。在\\$8 million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Examiner（审查员）的工作。\n\n36. GSNY提议以无担保基础提供该贷款，其还款优先顺位从属于所有获准的一般无担保债权。换言之，DIP融资并不以破产财产的任何资产作担保，不要求行政债权或优先债权，并且在所有获准的破产申请前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会从破产财产资产中偿还。因此，该贷款不会使我的债权人付出任何代价，并为调查我的事务提供了公平机会。我不认为其他贷款人提供的任何贷款会具有更优条款。因此，取得该贷款符合我破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将无法取得任何借入资金。所有DIP融资款项将存入为破产财产利益而设立的独立存款账户（“Debtor Account”）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 18 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 19 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\nV&L（定义见下文）的Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）应为唯一获授权签字人。仅可在V&L指示下，且仅在支付DIP预算所列项目所必需的范围内，并依照拟议DIP融资命令、DIP融资文件及法院其他相关命令（包括批准专业人士费用申请的命令）的授权，从Debtor Account支付款项。\n\n38. DIP Credit Agreement中仅有一项“里程碑”约定：破产法院须在DIP Credit Agreement获临时批准之日起45日内，最终批准拟议DIP融资命令。见DIP Credit Agreement第¶ 6.01(a)款。DIP Credit Agreement中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即作出一项命令，准许PAX解除自动中止，以便在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。见DIP Credit Agreement第¶ 8.01(e)款。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是根据February 9 Contempt Order寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准许该等救济，我将无法有意义地指导并参与有序的债权解决和计划程序。在此情形下，我的儿子——通过GSNY——没有继续资助本Chapter 11案件费用的利益。\n\nIV. 我Chapter 11案件的目标\n\n39. 我的最终目标是达成一项完全合意的Chapter 11计划，最终解决与我债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在给予债权人公平机会进行尽职调查并通过由DIP融资支付费用的受托代表陈述其观点后，通过理性和合理的对话实现该结果。我希望我的债权人将仅出于实现有效债权清偿的动机，并搁置将诉讼作为限制我的言论自由及对政治滥用行为批评的手段。我\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 19 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 12:13:10 Page 20 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n还希望，如债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人根据计划获得公平受偿。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要是诉讼请求权，我相信这些请求权具有实质性依据且有价值（其价值或许足以全额清偿所有债权人）。但是，再次强调，所有利益相关方都将获得公平机会调查这些请求权。\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。我不认为曾就我对Lady May的“受益”所有权和控制权作出命令的New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾经认定我对该船只拥有实际法定所有权，或认定其现为我的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，我一直在应对所谓债权人提起的诉讼。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。债权人将获得机会对我的Chapter 11破产财产主张债权，而该程序应当使破产财产中的任何资产在所有处于同等地位的债权人之间得到公平分配（例如，不让PAX在同一债权人类别中抢在其他人之前）。我将与我的专业人士合作，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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 20 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 21 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n第二部分——动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅下列各项动议，据我所知、所获信息及所信，其中陈述的事实真实且准确。\n\n45. 批准DIP融资的动议。DIP融资对于支付与Chapter 11案件相关的费用是必要的，并将为我在我能力卓越且经验丰富的顾问协助下协商并实现重整计划的确认提供充分的时间余地。\n\n46. 鉴于我与债权人之间的对抗性和诉讼性关系，尤其是与PAX之间的关系，促使我寻求Chapter 11救济，我请求并且GSNY同意，DIP融资将使所有破产财产专业人士受益，而不施加任何可能损害我债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP融资以无担保基础提供，从属于我的破产申请前债权人的权利，且不具有任何行政性或其他优先还款权。我的理解是，当且仅当我的所有其他债权人获得全额清偿时，DIP贷款才应获得偿还。鉴于这些慷慨条款，我相信，任何试图从其他来源按竞争性或类似条款取得融资的行为，都将浪费破产财产资源并且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上所述及我的附表所载，我预计将在我是原告的诉讼中获得的追偿款或和解款项用于资助Chapter 11计划。若无法取得DIP融资，我将无法聘用并支付目前代表我推进诉讼的律师。同样，如我无法对这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论在本程序内，还是在准许解除中止后于其他审理地），我的负债可能会大幅增加。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 107 Filed 03/20/22 Entered 03/20/22 15:39:01 Page 21 of 108 Case 22-50073 Doc 406-2 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 22 of 109 441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n48. 基于上述理由，我相信拟议DIP融资是善意提供的，不损害我任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我破产财产的最佳利益，因此应获批准。\n\n49. 聘用Stretto, Inc.（Stretto公司）担任债权及通知代理人的申请。在Chapter 11案件审理期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人，协助向破产财产的债权人和利害关系方发出通知。我已选择Stretto担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto在全美国各地的多起Chapter 11案件中担任债权及通知代理人方面拥有丰富经验，包括在本辖区内。Stretto已同意提供咨询服务，以：(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) 维护一个电子平台，用于提交债权证明、计划征求、投票、计票、付款，以及为编制资产和负债附表及财务状况声明提供行政支持；以及(c) 就本Chapter 11案件按需要提供其他行政服务。\n\n50. 聘任 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）担任重组法律顾问的申请。我需要一家具备高度能力和丰富经验的重组法律顾问，就我退出第11章程序提供建议并协助构建方案，该方案可能采取经确认的重整计划形式。我已选定 Brown Rudnick LLP（“Brown Rudnick”）担任我在本第11章案件中的重组法律顾问。Brown Rudnick 在《破产法典》第11章规定的债务人和债权人权利及重整领域拥有丰富经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本地区及全国其他地区的众多第11章案件中代表债务人、正式及非正式委员会以及其他重要当事方。Brown Rudnick 亦熟悉我的事务及将在本第11章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：(a) 准备所有必要的动议、答复、答辩及其他法律文件，包括可能必要的审判准备工作；\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 22 页，共 108 页；案号 22-50073 文书 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 23 页，共 109 页；441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n(b) 为批准披露声明及确认重整计划而准备并采取必要行动；以及 (c) 在本第11章案件未决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，Brown Rudnick 分别于 2022年2月14日及 2022年2月15日收取了 $500,000 的预付聘金。该等预付聘金合计 $1 million（“BR 预付聘金”）的来源为 Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp”），该公司由我儿子所有。Lamp 在无担保基础上向我出借 $1 million，我指示 Lamp 将贷款所得款项直接汇至 Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick 以 BR 预付聘金抵扣了 $51,835.20 的申请日前费用和垫付款项，使 Brown Rudnick 持有的申请日前 BR 预付聘金余额为 $948,164.80。此后，我已要求 Brown Rudnick 将其获准的费用和垫付款项从 BR 预付聘金中抵扣，直至 BR 预付聘金余额为 $250,000；此后，Brown Rudnick 将通过 DIP 融资（DIP Financing）的所得款项向我寻求支付其获准的费用和开支。\n\n52. 聘任 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”）担任财务顾问的申请。我需要一家财务咨询公司，以编制、审阅并分析《破产法典》所要求的必要财务披露，以及在本第11章案件未决期间持续适用的月度和季度报告要求。我已选定 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”）担任我的财务顾问。V&L 在与陷入财务困境的个人第11章债务人合作方面拥有丰富经验，并提供定制服务，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) 编制和审阅我的财务状况说明书（SOFA）、附表及其他定期报告要求；(b) 编制和/或审阅现金流及相关预算预测；(c) 维护 DIP 账户，并在必要时进行付款，\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 23 页，共 108 页；案号 22-50073 文书 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 24 页，共 109 页；441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n并就所有现金活动提供核算；(d) 债权审核和管理；(e) 重整计划的制定和审阅；(f) 提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及 (g) 在本第11章案件未决期间，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. 授权聘任及支付正常业务过程中使用的专业人员的动议。我是美国州级和联邦级法院以及外国司法辖区内众多未决案件中的具名原告或具名被告。就该等诉讼及某些持续进行的政府调查而言，在申请日前，我聘请了多家律师事务所、会计师及其他非律师专业人员（合称“我的正常业务专业人员”）；该等人员就我的申请日前诉讼提供服务，并就与本第11章案件无关的各种事项提供其他服务。经法院批准后，我拟使用 DIP 融资继续聘任并支付这些正常业务专业人员，因为他们各自对我的事务（申请日前）和我的未决诉讼具有大量知识、专业技能和熟悉程度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我寻求针对 DIP 融资的紧急临时救济的理由之一，是确保代表我的专业人员继续工作。除非我能够向某些专业人员保证其申请日前及申请日后工作将获得报酬，否则他们可能退出对我的代理。此类退出代理，视案件状态及相关专业人员所提供服务而定，可能对我及我的破产财产造成明确且不可弥补的损害。UBS（瑞银集团）、Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔）及其他未决诉讼请求均属资产，我预计将依赖这些资产协助制定并可能确认一项重整计划。对我推进这些诉讼请求的任何干扰，无疑都会损害价值。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 24 页，共 108 页；案号 22-50073 文书 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 25 页，共 109 页；441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n55. 总而言之，若无我的正常业务专业人员就其申请日前工作所具备的知识、专业技能和熟悉程度，我的破产财产将为培训和聘任替代专业人员而产生大量额外且不必要的开支；该等替代专业人员对于保全并可能继续推进这些有价值的诉讼请求属必要。因此，我认为，继续聘任我的正常业务专业人员符合本破产财产、我的债权人及其他利害关系方的最佳利益。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 107 提交于 03/20/22 登记于 03/20/22 15:39:01 第 25 页，共 108 页；案号 22-50073 文书 406-2 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 26 页，共 109 页；441-2 05/25/22 05/26/22 15:59:53\n\n附件 A\n\n哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院\n\n) )\n\n) )\n\n美利坚合众国（United States of America） )\n\n刑事案号\n\n) )\n\n诉　罪名项 1：18 U.S.C. § 371（共谋）\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事起诉书\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本起诉书有关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于 2017年3月起至至少约 2018年1月期间，ELLIOTT BROIDY 与 Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）及人士 A（Person A）同意作为外国国民 A（Foreign National A）的代理人，以换取未披露的数百万美元。BROIDY 特别同意游说美国总统行政当局（“行政当局”）及美国司法部（“DOJ”），撤销或以其他方式有利地解决针对外国国民 A 因其参与从 1Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）——一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资及开发公司——挪用数十亿美元而产生的案件事项。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和人士 A 故意未向行政当局及 DOJ 官员披露 BROIDY 系代表外国国民 A 行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis 和人士 A 未能使涉及 1MDB 的事项被撤销或以其他方式对外国国民 A 作出有利解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，BROIDY、Davis 和人士 A 还同意代表外国国民 A 游说行政当局和 DOJ，以安排将中国（PRC）国民 A——一名居住在美国的中国公民——移送并遣返中国。该等活动包括倡导安排中国部长 A（PRC Minister A）与美国政府官员会面。就此，BROIDY、Davis 和人士 A 最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民 A 的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和人士 A 的协助下，试图促成马来西亚总理 A（Malaysian Prime Minister 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 和人士 A 还在中国与中国部长 A 会面，并同意 BROIDY 将在 Davis 和人士 A 的协助下游说行政当局，将中国国民 A 送返中国。BROIDY、Davis 和人士 A 还同意并试图促成中国部长 A 在 2017年5月访问美国期间与行政当局、DOJ 及美国国土安全部（DHS）高级官员会面，其明确目的在于为中国部长 A 提供机会，使其能够与美国高级官员讨论移送中国国民 A 的问题。\n\n禁止作为外国委托人或外国政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agents Registration Act，“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人员，就某些类型的活动向司法部长登记，例如代表该外国委托人从事政治或公共关系活动或游说活动。该等登记向 DOJ 内国家安全司的《外国代理人登记法》处（“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未登记，以及就依该法规定提交至 FARA Unit 的文件作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA 的目的在于防止外国委托人的秘密影响。依该法进行适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估担任外国委托人代理人的个人所作陈述及从事活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记会披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人处获得的报酬来源及金额，以及登记人在担任外国委托人代理人期间所作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人和实体\n\n8. 被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 于约 2017年起至 2018年4月止担任一个全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。BROIDY 从捐款人处筹集了大量政治捐款，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。作为财务副主席，BROIDY 始终能够接触并与行政当局的高级官员保持联系，包括总统本人。在相同期间，BROIDY 拥有并经营数家国内及国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）过去及现在均为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与 BROIDY 和人士 A 存在个人及商业关系。2020年8月31日，Davis 在夏威夷联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Hawaii）就一份指控其帮助和教唆违反 FARA 的单项罪名刑事起诉书认罪答辩。\n\n10. 人士 A 过去及现在均为美国公民、商人及演艺人员，并具有国际联系，包括与外国国民 A 的联系。\n\n11. 外国国民 A 是一名居住在东亚的富有商人，因其在策划和实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元的计划中所起的作用而另被起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是一家由Person A成立的有限责任公司，用于接收来自Foreign National A（外国国民A）的电汇款项，并被Person A用于向BROIDY（布罗伊迪）、Davis（戴维斯）及其他人为其游说活动支付报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是Person A的同事，且是一名受雇于DOJ（美国司法部）的持牌律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国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一项罪名起诉信息书认罪。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由Person C经营并受BROIDY和Person C控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中国国民A）是中华人民共和国公民，持临时签证居住在美国。中华人民共和国政府，包括PRC Minister A（中国部长A）和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将PRC National A从美国遣返中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ一直在积极调查Foreign National A涉嫌与1MDB贪污计划洗钱所得有关的交易。2016年7月，DOJ提交了多份民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称以1MDB洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ提交了一份刑事起诉书，指控Foreign National A及其他人共谋洗钱数十亿美元的1MDB被贪污资金，并共谋通过向马来西亚及阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）的多名官员支付贿赂而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n罪名项一\n\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n\n（共谋担任未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 兹重新主张并以引用方式纳入第1至第16段。\n\n18. 自不晚于2017年3月至至少约2018年1月期间，被告人ELLIOTT BROIDY明知而与其他已知及未知人员共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地，就1MDB事项及遣返PRC National A事项，担任外国委托人，即Foreign National A的代理人，而未向司法部长登记，违反22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n\n共谋目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Foreign National A策划秘密渠道、未经登记的行动，以游说政府和DOJ：(1) 终止1MDB事项，或以其他方式对Foreign National A有利地解决该等事项；以及(2) 将PRC National A从美国遣返中华人民共和国。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis和Person A利用BROIDY接触总统及其政府的渠道以及被认为对其具有的影响力，从Foreign National A取得付款，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在美国官员中的可信度，并进一步推进该非法游说计划。\n\n共谋的方式和手段\n\n22. BROIDY及其他人实施该共谋的方式和手段包括但不限于以下各项：\n\n为会见外国委托人和政府官员而进行国际旅行\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、Person A和Higginbotham以不同组合前往泰国、马来西亚和中华人民共和国，目的在于会见Foreign National A、PRC Minister A及其他人，就BROIDY将如何在官方渠道之外游说政府和DOJ以换取数百万美元一事进行谈判和讨论。\n\n与美国官员的会晤和接触\n\n24. BROIDY直接及通过中间人，为影响美国政府最高层级官员（包括总统和司法部长）而促成并试图促成会晤及其他行动，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，为外国政府官员安排会晤，包括PRC Minister A和马来西亚总理A，以便这些外国官员正式请求有利的政府行动，包括有利地解决1MDB事项及遣返PRC National A。\n\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis和Person A同意隐瞒BROIDY代表Foreign National A（以其个人身份及作为PRC Minister A的中间人）进行游说的协议。BROIDY、Davis和Person A未向且同意不向美国政府官员及公众披露BROIDY与Foreign National A之间的财务安排以及其从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的提及均为秘密且匿名的。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默示或明示同意不依照FARA登记，以隐瞒其与Foreign National A之间的安排。\n\n公开行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，BROIDY及其他人在哥伦比亚特区及其他地点实施了下列公开行为及其他行为。\n\nI. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的行动\n\nA. BROIDY同意以$8 Million预付聘金为Foreign National A游说\n\n28. 约在2017年3月，Person A联系Davis，试图寻找一名与政府关系密切的人士来帮助一名外国客户。Davis随后告诉BROIDY，她有一名在马来西亚的潜在客户，可能需要就一项没收事项获得帮助。\n\n29. 约在2017年3月7日，Person A要求Davis向其发送BROIDY的简历，其中描述了BROIDY与政府高级官员的关系，以及BROIDY与总统的照片。约在2017年3月7日，应Davis要求，BROIDY的助理通过电子邮件向Davis发送了BROIDY与总统的照片。Person A表示，他想要这些照片，以便向Foreign National A突出BROIDY与政府之间的密切接触渠道。\n\n30. 约在2017年3月8日，Davis向BROIDY发送短信称：“你16号会在洛杉矶与[Person A]会面吗，在他那个周末前往亚洲之前？”BROIDY回复称：“我想会。晚点再谈。”\n\n31. 约在2017年3月13日，BROIDY与Davis和Person A会面，讨论Foreign National A和1MDB。在该会面中，Person A向BROIDY描述了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问BROIDY是否能够协助处理涉及Foreign National A的民事没收案件。Person A表示，他会与Foreign National A讨论由BROIDY协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约在2017年3月13日，Davis向Person A转发了一份Law Firm A与Foreign National A之间的“聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务”，以便Person A向Foreign National A出示该协议。“聘用及费用协议”规定，Foreign National A将预先支付$8 million聘用费；如该“事项”在180日内解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费；如该“事项”在365日内解决，则支付$50 million。协议草案包含附件A，说明该“事项”是指1MDB没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A和Person C均未向Foreign National A提供诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于BROIDY的政治关系，取得BROIDY代表Foreign National A向政府和DOJ游说的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉有义务登记为外国委托人的代理人，BROIDY、Davis或Person A从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人的工作向FARA Unit登记。\n\nB. BROIDY、Person A和Davis在曼谷会见Foreign National A\n\n34. 约在2017年4月，Davis转达了Person A要求BROIDY前往泰国曼谷会见Foreign National A的请求。BROIDY告诉Davis，转告Person A，只有在获得$1 million报酬的情况下他才会前往，且他希望由Person A以“未受污染”的资金向其支付。BROIDY获保证，Person A将亲自支付$1 million，以换取BROIDY前往曼谷。\n\n35. 约在2017年4月28日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信称：“我希望款项汇入[Law Firm A]。”同日，Davis回复称：“好的。”\n\n36. 约在2017年4月29日，BROIDY和Davis就其即将与Foreign National A及Person A举行的会面互发短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY提及Foreign National A时问道：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点入住特定酒店？”Davis回复称：“你能说话时给我打电话。”\n\n37. 约在2017年5月1日，Davis通过电子邮件向BROIDY及其助理发送了曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接，并部分写道：“你们在线订妥后，请把Elliott的房间和我的房间的酒店确认函都发给我，我会转发。”同日，Davis另行向Person A发送电子邮件，告知其在香格里拉酒店订房，并将确认函发送给她。Person A回复称：“[Foreign National A]正在为我们订酒店”，并随后补充称：“另外，把Elliott的电汇信息发给我。”Davis回复并提供了一个以Law Firm A名义开立账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 约在2017年5月2日，Davis向BROIDY发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A]和我会在抵达大厅见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——愿这是一次令人兴奋且繁荣的冒险之开端！”\n\n39. 约在2017年5月2日，BROIDY、Davis和Person A抵达曼谷。在该次旅行期间，BROIDY、Davis和Person A在酒店套房内会见Foreign National A。BROIDY和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预付聘金，并希望BROIDY联系美国司法部长，使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。BROIDY同意为Foreign National A游说政府和DOJ，以取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其正代表Foreign National A工作的事实。在会面期间或其后不久，Davis和BROIDY讨论了协助将PRC National A从美国遣返的可能性。就付款而言，BROIDY表示，款项不应直接来自Foreign National A，且应为“干净”的资金。Foreign National A指认了一名可以向BROIDY及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A和Davis同意，款项将先经由Person A转入，随后通过Law Firm A支付给BROIDY。BROIDY和Davis同意，BROIDY将向Davis支付其所收款项的一定比例。Person A还同意向Davis支付Person A所收资金的一定比例。Person A告诉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获得$6 Million付款；Davis获得$1.7 Million付款\n\n40. 在泰国与外国国民A（Foreign National A）会面后，于或约于 May 8, 2017，A公司（Company A）收到了一笔由外国国民A指示、来自一家香港实体的约 \\$2.8 million 电汇款项。同日，A人士（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人士还从A公司账户向A律师事务所另行电汇了 \\$48,000。同日，一家第三方公司亦依A人士指示向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 May 8, 2017 前后转入A律师事务所账户的 \\$1 million 中，约 \\$900,000 于数日内从该账户转入布罗伊迪（BROIDY）的一个商业账户。\n\n41. 于或约于 May 8, 2017，戴维斯（Davis）向布罗伊迪发送短信：“进入[A律师事务所]的两笔电汇均来自[A人士]。余款于20分钟前送至你的办公室——”。戴维斯随后补充道：“银行本票总额为702[。]”\n\n42. 于或约于 May 17, 2017，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向A公司发出一笔国际电汇。同日，A人士从A公司向A律师事务所转账 \\$3 million。于或约于 May 18, 2017，A律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入 \\$600,000，并向与戴维斯有关联的一个商业实体账户转入 \\$900,000。于或约于 May 18, 2017，A律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入 \\$500,000。在约一周内，A律师事务所又通过两笔单独转账，向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户额外转入 \\$950,000。\n\n43. 于或约于 May 17, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就外国国民A经由A人士向布罗伊迪付款，以及布罗伊迪向戴维斯支付一定百分比款项一事交换短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯问道：“你收到了吗？”布罗伊迪答道：“收到了。已给你发Wickr[。]早上给你电汇。”Wickr是一种允许端到端加密及内容到期消失的即时通讯应用程序。布罗伊迪随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”戴维斯答道：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正一步步向前推进。”布罗伊迪答道：“是。催他们处理接下来的两笔电汇。”布罗伊迪随后部分补充道：“假设第二笔3已经到账，并确认最后两笔正在发送。请问一下[布罗伊迪的助理]。”\n\n44. 于或约于 May 25, 2017，外国国民A促使向A公司作出第三笔转账，本次金额约为 \\$2.7 million。于或约于 May 26, 2017，A人士从A公司向A律师事务所转入 \\$2 million，作为对布罗伊迪与外国国民A约定的 \\$8 million 预付聘金的部分履行，以换取布罗伊迪协助处理1MDB民事没收案件。同日，\\$600,000 从A律师事务所账户转入与戴维斯有关联的商业账户。于或约于 May 26, 2017，A律师事务所向由C人士（Person C）控制的账户转入 \\$1 million。于或约于 June 2017 初，A律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入 \\$650,000。\n\nD. 布罗伊迪为马来西亚总理A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）促成并试图促成会面，以及解决1MDB案件的努力提供便利\n\n45. 于或约于 June 5, 2017，布罗伊迪向D人士（Person D）发送短信；D人士是一名政治顾问，曾任总统竞选团队助理。布罗伊迪请求D人士与政府合作，为马来西亚总理A安排访问：“亚洲国家对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，布罗伊迪同意每月向D人士支付 \\$25,000，以获取有关如何应对政府的意见和指导。\n\n46. 同日，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就外国国民A交换短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“你睡前请给我打电话……[外国国民A]一直打电话来问消息[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“好的。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\n47. 于或约于 June 15, 2017，应A人士请求，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”戴维斯补充道：“主事人”，指的是外国国民A。同日，布罗伊迪答道：“可以[。]”\n\n48. 于或约于 June 17, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯讨论了马来西亚总理A。于或约于 June 2017，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。布罗伊迪和戴维斯认为，这会使外国国民A满意，并将让马来西亚总理A能够尝试解决1MDB事项。布罗伊迪还希望获得与马来西亚总理A政府的额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球能进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 于或约于 June 19, 2017，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章内容为马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n50. 于或约于 June 29, 2017，布罗伊迪向一名白宫高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行一场高尔夫活动：“嗨，[E人士（Person E）]，正如我提到的，总统（POTUS）已同意于7月下旬或8月上旬在华盛顿特区或贝德明斯特与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫。非常感谢你回复我日期。另外，数周前曾向国务院寄出一封信，要求安排一次会面。”\n\n51. 于或约于 June 30, 2017，布罗伊迪就高尔夫活动向E人士发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天早上能就[中国国民A（PRC National A）]以及总统与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫的日期谈谈。”当日稍后，布罗伊迪又跟进称：“[E人士]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能够完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n52. 于或约于 July 3, 2017，布罗伊迪再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫日期向E人士发送短信：“早上好，[E人士]。如果你今天能向我确认总统与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期，这将对我极有帮助。总统告诉我，他很高兴在贝德明斯特或华盛顿特区打球。我们谈过之后，我曾告诉[马来西亚总理A]，他上周会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当日稍后，布罗伊迪再次向E人士发送短信：“[E人士]，我在跟进。请把[马来西亚总理A]与总统打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 于或约于 July 5, 2017，布罗伊迪与E人士就高尔夫活动交换信息。在其他信息中，布罗伊迪发送短信：“[E人士]，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人士答道：“这件事交由国家安全委员会（NSC）处理[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成的[。]”\n\n54. 于或约于 July 11, 2017，戴维斯转达A人士的信息，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。日期以及其他方面。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，以及外国国民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——我被消息淹没了[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“看Wickr[。]”次日，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发短信。我正起飞，需要去白宫（WH）[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯答道：“办好了[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“收到了。谢了[。]正试图让[F人士（Person F）]尽快打电话[。]”F人士当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 于或约于 July 13, 2017，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，我们好谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以请你去华盛顿特区，坐在白宫，直到你办成此事。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 于或约于 July 13, 2017，布罗伊迪再次就高尔夫日期向E人士发送短信：“嗨，[E人士]，已经两周了。再次询问[马来西亚总理A]与总统打高尔夫的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliott[。]”E人士答道：“我现在再查一下[。]这些事情要经过一个程序——”布罗伊迪答道：“谢谢！！”E人士回复道：“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人士回复道：“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. 于或约于 July 15, 2017，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. 于或约于 July 17, 2017，戴维斯转达A人士代表外国国民A所表达的紧迫性，向布罗伊迪发送短信：“[E人士]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，也指涉及中国国民A的事项。布罗伊迪答道：“同意。正在全力催办[。]”\n\n59. 于或约于 July 18, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就安排总统和马来西亚总理A之间的会面交换数条短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“你能查一下Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。今天我为此忙疯了。他正在恐慌[。]”戴维斯随后补充道：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们被打得很惨。”据A人士称，外国国民A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。布罗伊迪答道：“现在就给[E人士]打电话[。]”戴维斯部分回复道：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[。]也给[G人士（Person G）]打电话。我们今天必须办成[。]”G人士是总统的一名行政助理。布罗伊迪回复道：“现在就在办。”\n\n60. 于或约于 July 19, 2017，戴维斯提及安排马来西亚总理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。正在获取一些关于会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 于或约于 July 21, 2017，布罗伊迪就高尔夫活动向E人士发送短信：“[E人士]，马来西亚方面尚未收到国家安全委员会的任何消息。总统说他会在7月下旬或8月上旬与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫。总统说他很乐意这样做。你说一两天内就会安排好。现在已经进入第四周。我知道你很忙，而且程序也适用，但我已经非常有耐心。此事非但没有带来积极结果，现在反而正在对我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. 于或约于 July 24, 2017，布罗伊迪向D人士发送短信：“收到9月在新泽西州打高尔夫的日期。在联合国大会前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你帮忙！”D人士答道：“我们应继续跟进，并确保该日期得到国家安全委员会确认。他有告诉你是谁给他的日期吗？”布罗伊迪回复道：“谢谢！！太棒了。由[E人士]给了[H人士（Person H）]。”\n\n63. 于或约于 July 27, 2017，布罗伊迪向D人士发送短信：“刚刚再次向马来西亚方面确认。他们的驻美大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快查一下。致意，Elliott。”布罗伊迪随后补充道：“嗨，[D人士]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事，替我打电话给国家安全顾问（NSA）。国家安全委员会仍未就会面事宜联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”D人士答道：“E——今天早上会再打电话。”\n\n64. 于或约于 July 27, 2017，布罗伊迪向国家安全委员会的一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行一场高尔夫比赛。\n\n65. 于或约于 July 29, 2017，戴维斯提及马来西亚总理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？？”戴维斯随即又发送短信：“Wickr[。]”布罗伊迪答道：“可能是两场会面。大使应该问一下。周六在贝德明斯特打高尔夫，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“马来西亚谈话要点最终版”的电子邮件，其中载有马来西亚总理A拟用于即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会晤的所谓谈话要点。Davis（戴维斯）从Person A（A某）处收到该谈话要点——Person A代表外国国民A提供该谈话要点——Davis随后将其转给BROIDY。该谈话要点除其他事项外，提及BROIDY与马来西亚持续开展的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“优先事项”。该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并具体说明：“美国检察官的介入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发负面反应。”\n\n67. 约在2017年8月7日，BROIDY还将这些谈话要点发送给Person D（D某），紧接着发送一则消息说明：“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还试图获得有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚举行会晤时间安排的细节。\n\n68. 之后约在2017年8月7日，BROIDY向Person D发送消息：“[国务卿]将于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，于9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出Circinus这个名字。谢谢！”Person D回复：“促成这项联系肯定很重要。这不太可能成为正式会晤的一部分，但会努力在他们交谈期间提一下。”\n\n69. 约在2017年8月9日，外国国民A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。这是向BROIDY支付的最后一笔款项。BROIDY共获得$9 million。约在次日，Law Firm A向与Davis相关联的一个商业账户转账$900,000。在随后的数日内，Law Firm A向属于BROIDY的账户转账数十万美元。\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：“听马来西亚方面说，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——没有提及。;- ……”\n\n71. 约在2017年8月19日，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“马来西亚方面有任何更新吗？”Person D回复：“目前将在华盛顿特区举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫，但我正在努力。可能不得不就此直接找[Person I（I某）]，并利用他们两人一起打高尔夫的过往。”BROIDY回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给[Person I]的一名副手或[Person I]打电话。还需要给会晤增加时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”Person I当时是White House（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与总统打一场高尔夫球。\n\n73. 约在2017年9月11日，Davis起草了一封拟由BROIDY寄给总统的信，以备马来西亚总理A与总统会晤之用，并将该信交给BROIDY。该信包括马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未交给总统。\n\n74. 在BROIDY多次努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A打一场高尔夫球之后，马来西亚总理A于约2017年9月12日在白宫会见了总统。尽管BROIDY联系政府内的高级官员，试图在正式会晤之外安排总统与马来西亚总理A举行高尔夫会晤，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球比赛。\n\n75. 约在2017年10月6日，BROIDY在白宫会见总统。BROIDY在会晤期间未提及1MDB事项，但向Davis表示其已提及该事项，明知Davis会将该信息传达给Person A和外国国民A。\n\n76. 约在2018年1月5日，BROIDY起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A表明BROIDY代表其所作出的努力。该谈话要点除其他事项外载明：“1. 我们正在与DoJ（司法部）合作，以反制上一届政府在马来西亚针对1MDB的案件。我已制定策略，联系DoJ和NSC（国家安全委员会）双方人员，以寻求解决此问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的人员，并可能会有所帮助。……3. 如我先前向你告知，在我与总统讨论时，他承诺解决此问题。重要的是，我应遵从他的指引，但将继续传达此问题的重要性。”这些陈述不实。\n\nII. 将中国籍A某从美国遣返的行动\n\nA. BROIDY前往中国会见中国部长A\n\n77. 约在2017年5月，继曼谷之行后，BROIDY同意前往香港再次会见外国国民A。在出行之前，Davis与BROIDY讨论，外国国民A认为将PRC National A（中国籍A某）从美国遣返十分重要。赴香港之行的目的是会见外国国民A及一名PRC（中华人民共和国）外国政府官员，以讨论中国籍A某。\n\n78. 约在2017年5月15日，Davis就赴香港之行的旅行安排和行程向BROIDY的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis还向BROIDY和Person C（C某）发送了Davis公司银行信息的电子邮件。\n\n79. 约在2017年5月18日，BROIDY、Davis和Person A前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，在一家酒店套房内与外国国民A和PRC Minister A（中国部长A）会面。中国部长A向BROIDY谈及中国籍A某及其被指控的犯罪，并表示中国政府希望将中国籍A某送回中国。中国部长A要求BROIDY利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，游说将中国籍A某遣返并送回中国。他们还讨论了当时被中国关押的美国人可能返回美国一事。中国部长A还表示，他不久将访问Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），并且在安排与某些美国政府高级官员会面时遇到困难。\n\nB. BROIDY游说美国高级官员遣返中国籍A某\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：“我会尝试让这成为我们与[司法部长]取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n81. 约在2017年5月21日，BROIDY就其与外国国民A和中国部长A的会晤向Person D发送短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否周一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？Elliott。”\n\n82. 约在2017年5月22日，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“我需要尽快会见[司法部长]。我们会讨论。”BROIDY随后发送：“我正在给你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，Person D回复：“已向[司法部长]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“美中之间大幅加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。BROIDY在电子邮件中附上一份由BROIDY致司法部长的备忘录，意图让Person D随后将该备忘录交给司法部长。该备忘录的内容由Davis提供给BROIDY，且内容源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，BROIDY和Person C修改了该备忘录。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY歪曲了其赴中国之行的原因及其与中国部长A会面的情形。BROIDY未披露其与外国国民A的联系，也未披露外国国民A在安排BROIDY与中国部长A会面中的作用。BROIDY还未披露外国国民A已向其支付的$4 million。BROIDY还未披露，其就中国籍A某所作的游说努力至少部分是依据其与外国国民A之间的财务安排，并可能导致额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY称：“[中国部长A]告诉我，中国希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面，大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”BROIDY写及中国部长A即将赴华盛顿哥伦比亚特区访问，中国部长A及其代表团计划在访问中会见数名美国政府高级官员。BROIDY表示，司法部长与中国部长A会面将富有成效。BROIDY还列举了数项据中国部长A所称中国愿意采取的措施，以改善美中执法关系。随后，BROIDY补充道：\n\n根据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，中国将提出的一项请求是，应尽快将[中国籍A某]——中国指控其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋——从美国遣返（其签证将在未来一个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至中国，以便其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将一份有关中国籍A某的国际刑警组织红色通报附在该备忘录之后。\n\n86. 约在2017年5月23日，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“你好[]。明天的会面确定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[司法部长]了吗？请更新。谢谢，Elliott。”Person D回复：“Elliott——信件昨天已送达。请看有修改的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚乘红眼航班，因此可以早些回到华盛顿哥伦比亚特区。”BROIDY回复：“很好。谢谢[]。还请尽力确定他的会面是否已安排，或者我们是否可以安排在周四，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回复：“正在等待DoJ就会面——我们的和[中国部长A]的——作出回复；请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n87. 约在2017年5月24日，Person D向BROIDY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\n88. 约于 May 25, 2017，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）向 Person D（D 人）发送短信称：“今天上午 10:00 在司法部举行会面。随后明天与联邦调查局（FBI）和美国国土安全部（DHS）会面。或许我可以让我的联系人提前 10 分钟到场，这样可以进行一次简短会面。然后安排其与 [] 一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请设法今天一早见到 [Attorney General（司法部长）]。我们务必办成此事，极其重要。我今天上午需要同我的联系人谈谈。谢谢。E[.]”D 人回复称：“E——正在处理。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，布罗伊迪向 D 人发送短信称：“具体情况是，我备忘录中的三件事仅供[司法部长]知悉。[PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）]想直接告诉[司法部长]。我的是一条正当的非正式沟通渠道。中国部长 A 的上级希望确认[司法部长]已听到那三件确实有助于美国的事[。]”当日稍后，D 人回复称：“E——实际上刚刚同[司法部长]通完电话。消息不太好。你有空时告诉我，以便通话。谢谢。”\n\n89. 约于 May 26, 2017，就为中国部长 A 安排会面一事，布罗伊迪向 D 人发送短信称：“10 am 会见美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）负责人，11:30 会见 FBI。或许在 DHS 方面作些安排可挽回局面。顺便去见一下 [Person I（I 人）]。那三项内容可以分享。”布罗伊迪随后又称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正试图控制损害，需要同你谈谈。最好单独找 [I 人] 谈谈。”I 人当时是 DHS 的一名高级官员。\n\n90. 约于 May 28, 2017，在 Davis（戴维斯）向布罗伊迪誊录通信内容后，布罗伊迪向 D 人发送电子邮件称：“已誊录[司法部长]与驻美国中国大使之间的往来通信。”布罗伊迪指出：“我相信，[司法部长]有绝佳机会进一步促进美国利益。我在下文补充了意见。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件值得关注的事项，应当让司法部长知悉。”同日稍后，布罗伊迪与 D 人互发电子邮件，安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n91. 约于 May 30, 2017，就中国部长 A 与美国政府官员的会面事宜，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信称：“查看 Wickr——现在会面一切已获放行[。]”布罗伊迪回复称：“是的。一切就绪[。]”戴维斯回复称：“他的会面已获重新安排[。]”\n\n92. 约于 May 2017，应 Person A（A 人）请求，戴维斯要求布罗伊迪在 Washington, D.C. 与中国部长 A 会面。\n\n93. 约于 May 30, 2017，布罗伊迪在 Washington, D.C. 的一家酒店与中国部长 A 会面。布罗伊迪还询问 D 人能否协助中国部长 A 安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n94. 约于 May 31, 2017，布罗伊迪向 D 人发送短信称：\n\n“我昨晚见了这位副部长（VM）。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员会面，并让原本应与他会面的人转而同越南方面会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[司法部长]或[I 人]会面，否则就回国。他很乐意与[I 人]会面……截至目前，他已移交一名孕妇，接下来的两人也将很快被送来。他将接受 60 名中国公民被遣返，但前提是他能有一次适当的‘短暂会面’。这对政府而言是一项重大成果，可以公开宣传。这是两国总统在 Mar-A-Lago（海湖庄园）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. D 人回复称：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”布罗伊迪回复称：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在 DHS 与这位副部长会面？他可以提及我的名字。还请设法让[I 人]缓和一下局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n96. 约于 May 31, 2017，就中国部长 A 据称与 I 人的会面，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信称：“原则上[I 人]可以——只是日程问题？”布罗伊迪回复称：“只是临时通知的日程安排问题。大约再过一小时仍可能有消息。中国部长 A 没有任何问题。”布罗伊迪随后继续称：“请代我向这位副部长致以良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”戴维斯回复称：“是的，我正在这样告诉他。”布罗伊迪回复称：“告诉他，我正在将发生的事告知白宫和[司法部长]。”戴维斯随后发送短信称：“[I 人]今天下午不是安排在 Haiti 吗？”布罗伊迪回复称：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[司法部长]的人也没有提到[。]”戴维斯回复称：“这在 DHS 网站上[。]他整个下午都在那里[。]刚同这位副部长谈过，他听起来像是在哭[。]”布罗伊迪回复称：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真他妈是一团糟。”戴维斯回复称：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 约于 June 9, 2017，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送了一篇题为《中国加大对流亡大亨 PRC National A（中国公民 A）的压力》的新闻文章。\n\n98. 约于 June 27, 2017，布罗伊迪就将中国公民 A 遣离一事向 Person H（H 人）的配偶发送短信。布罗伊迪知道，H 人是一名在国际上成功的商人，也经常向政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切；其能够立即接触并影响总统，且可能有效地寻求将中国公民 A 遣离。布罗伊迪向 H 人的配偶发送短信称：“另外，我想明天上午就一件重要且敏感的事项与[H 人]会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者共进午餐？期待在[] Hotel 见到您！谨致问候，Elliott[。]”布罗伊迪随后继续称：\n\n“您好，[]，[H 人]让我通过短信向您发送这项信息。我将向您发送若干与逃犯[中国公民 A]有关的事项。第一项是一份 Interpol red notice（国际刑警组织红色通报）……这件时间极为紧迫的事项是，[中国公民 A]留在美国的签证将于 June 30th 到期。至关重要的是，必须立即拒绝其新的签证申请。他还必须被列入 DHS 禁飞名单……这项命令须来自最高层，因为[中国公民 A]与前 FBI 人员关系密切，而这些人员担任其私人安保人员。[the President of the PRC（中国国家主席）]曾在 Mar-A-Lago 向[the President（总统）]提及，希望将[中国公民 A]送回。[中国部长 A]曾与我会面，并请求协助处理[中国公民 A]事宜……他承诺将释放被中国扣押的某些美国公民，并将接受大量中国非法移民被遣返回中国。最后，他还提出将在 North Korea 相关事项上提供新的协助。”\n\n99. 约于 June 28, 2017，布罗伊迪在一次社交聚会上与 H 人及其配偶会面。会面后，布罗伊迪与 H 人的配偶就中国公民 A 互发短信：“您好，[]，今晚见到您和[H 人]非常高兴！我刚刚再次收到[中国部长 A]的消息。他想知道[中国公民 A]签证的状态，因为时间紧迫。签证是否已签发，还是我们已拒绝？我们能否确认[中国公民 A]已被列入 DHS 禁飞名单？[中国部长 A]非常担心[中国公民 A]本周将逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并推进遣返。这将是我们两国之间极其重大的一步。[中国部长 A]说，他们感谢您的帮助。”H 人的配偶回复称：“此事已提交国务院和国防部的最高层。他们正在处理。”\n\n100. 约于 June 29, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就中国公民 A 的签证申请互发短信。布罗伊迪发送短信称：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”戴维斯回复称：“我完全不知道。”布罗伊迪回复称：“抱歉，是否总会生成？换言之，每位申请人最终都会以书面形式收到批准或拒绝[？]抱歉，收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]”戴维斯回复称：“是[。]查看 Wickr[。]”\n\n101. 约于 June 30, 2017，戴维斯提及他们为促成将中国公民 A 遣离以及可能让被扣押在中国的美国公民返美所作的努力，向布罗伊迪发送短信称：“Wickr。你现在真是关键人物。他们会在这个 July 4th 后，因你将为这个国家实现的成就而向你授予总统自由勋章[。]”布罗伊迪回复称：“在办成之前，我会全力推进[。]”戴维斯回复称：“让我们确保第一部分今天办成。并确定会面的日期[。]在办成之前，别离开那家伙。”布罗伊迪回复称：“同意。”戴维斯继续称：“告诉他——如果我们今天在下班前拿到确认拒绝的函件（因为你需要工作人员来生成该函），那么我们将在 July 4 前让那两名美国人回国[。]之后的第二阶段——我们可以办理接收那 60 人[。]”布罗伊迪回复称：“听起来不错。[H 人]很快会回电给我。正在通话中。”\n\n102. 约于 June 30, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就中国公民 A 互发数条短信。布罗伊迪发送短信称：“收到[H 人]的消息。他向 POTUS（美国总统）重申了此事。”布罗伊迪随后称：“另外，[Person E（E 人）]给我发短信称，他被其他事情耽搁了，但正在跟进。”同日，戴维斯回复称：“我们今天能拿到有关撤销的证明吗？”戴维斯随后具体说明：“来自[E 人]的吗？”\n\n103. 约于 July 1, 2017，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信称：“已与[E 人]长谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”布罗伊迪没有同 E 人交谈，但曾就中国公民 A 的签证申请与其互发短信。布罗伊迪没有向 E 人披露其与中国部长 A 关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约于 July 2, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就中国公民 A 及其签证申请互发短信。基于公开报道，戴维斯发送短信称：“今天 Sunday 有一通与[中国国家主席]讨论 North Korea 的电话。他可以询问并确认该一揽子事项。他甚至可以说，他听说了[H 人]的消息。”\n\n105. 约于 July 3, 2017，同样基于公开报道，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信称：“[President（总统）]于 Wednesday 离开 D.C. 前往 Europe[。]”戴维斯随后称：“July 5。安排与[中国国家主席]亲自会面[。]”\n\n106. 约于 July 10, 2017，A 人向自己发送电子邮件，附有中国公民 A 的红色通报副本、中国公民 A 护照和身份证件的图像，以及其他与中国公民 A 及其涉嫌实施的犯罪有关的文件。\n\n107. 约于 July 2017，A 人要求 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转达一项有关中国公民 A 的信息。约于 July 16, 2017，希金博瑟姆前往 Washington, D.C. 的中国大使馆并与大使会面。会面期间，希金博瑟姆告诉大使，美国政府官员正在处理对中国公民 A 的引渡，并且此后将有关于引渡具体安排的更多信息。会面后，希金博瑟姆向 A 人报告了所发生的情况，A 人称其会告知 Foreign National A（外国公民 A）。A 人后来告诉希金博瑟姆，外国公民 A 对该会面感到满意，并且该会面提升了外国公民 A 在中国方面的可信度。\n\n108. 约于 July 18, 2017，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送了 H 人的联系信息。为推进将中国公民 A 遣离的游说活动，戴维斯接通了中国部长 A 与 H 人之间的多次通话。\n\n109. 约于 July 26, 2017，布罗伊迪与戴维斯就中国公民 A 及将其从美国遣返至中国一事互发短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“确实需要确认其已被正式传送。目前，他表示没有[。]”布罗伊迪回复称：“已请三名不同的人跟进[。]”布罗伊迪随后补充称：“给[E 人]打过电话。一小时后见[H 人]。”\n\n110. 约于 2017年7月26日，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）发短信给 Person H（H某），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（中国籍人士A）：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知你在华盛顿，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 的配偶发短信给布罗伊迪：“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[。]”布罗伊迪回复：“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，布罗伊迪重新发送了其先前于 6月27日发送的消息。\n\n111. 约于 2017年7月27日，布罗伊迪与 Davis（戴维斯）就 PRC National A 交换了短信。戴维斯发短信给布罗伊迪：“大使馆有消息吗？？”戴维斯随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”布罗伊迪回复：“我正在与 NSC（国家安全委员会）的人员沟通。直接发电子邮件。正在等待回复[。]”\n\n112. 约于 2017年8月19日，布罗伊迪多次发短信给戴维斯。在这些短信中，布罗伊迪写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”布罗伊迪随后补充道：“我和[Person H]在一起。我有突破性机会[。]”\n\n113. 约于 2017年8月19日，布罗伊迪在 Person H 的游艇上与 Person H 会面。在共同相处期间，布罗伊迪询问 Person H 有关涉及 PRC National A 的事项。随后，Person H 当着布罗伊迪的面致电总统，询问 PRC National A 在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n114. 约于 2017年9月13日，布罗伊迪发短信给戴维斯：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有另一篇文章[。]”同日，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送了关于 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n115. 约于 2017年10月2日，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送了一篇关于 PRC National A 的文章链接。\n\n116. 约于 2018年1月5日，布罗伊迪发短信给戴维斯：“尽快给我发送更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\n\n上述行为均违反 18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 为根据《美国法典》第18编第 981(a)(l)(C) 条和第28编第 2461(c) 条主张没收之目的，现再次陈述并以引用方式并入本起诉书罪名项一所载的指控。\n\n2. 根据《美国法典》第18编第 981 (a)(l )(C) 条及第28编第 2461 ( c ) 条，如因违反《美国法典》第18编第 371 条的罪名项一被定罪，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收益的不动产或动产。兹进一步通知，如被定罪，美利坚合众国拟寻求针对布罗伊迪作出一项金钱判决，以代表本段所述财产的金额。\n\n3. 如上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为：\n\na. 经尽职调查后无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让或出售给第三方，或存放于第三方处；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅降低；或\n\ne. 已与其他难以分割的财产混同，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权根据经《美国法典》第28编第 2461 (c) 条纳入的《美国法典》第21编第 853(p ) 条，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020年9月30日\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R. 阿蒙森）\n美国司法部\n公共廉政处处长\n\nls/John D. Keller\n\n签署人：John D. Keller（约翰·D. 凯勒）\n首席副处长\nSean F. Mulryne（肖恩·F. 马尔赖恩）\n选举犯罪处副处长\nNicole R. Lockhart（妮可·R. 洛克哈特）\nJames C. Mann（詹姆斯·C. 曼恩）\n公共廉政处审判律师\n\n附件 B\n\n已提交至美国夏威夷地区联邦地区法院\n2020年8月17日，上午10:23\n法院书记员 Michelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩）\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #10523\n美国检察官\n夏威夷地区\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼思·M. 索伦森）\n助理美国检察官\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电子邮件：ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\n美国司法部\n公共廉政处处长\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\n选举犯罪处副处长\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n公共廉政处审判律师\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\n\n美利坚合众国，　刑事案号 CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO\n）\n原告，　）\n）\n起诉书\n诉　）\n）\n（18 U.S.C. § 2 和 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美利坚合众国提出指控：\n\n引言\n\n1. 在与本起诉书有关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于 2017年3月起至至少约 2018年1月期间，NICKIE LUM DAVIS 同 Persons A and B（A某和B某）达成协议，作为 Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）的代理人行事，以换取来自与外国籍人士A有关的外国账户、未披露的数百万美元电汇款项。戴维斯具体同意协助 B某游说美国总统（“总统”）、总统政府及美国司法部（“DOJ”），以撤销对外国籍人士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——挪用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B某故意未向总统政府及司法部官员披露B某是代表外国籍人士A行事。最终，戴维斯及A某和B某未能成功促使撤销对 1MDB 的调查。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，戴维斯还同A某和B某达成协议，应外国籍人士A和 PRC Minister A（中国部长A）的请求，协助其游说总统政府和司法部，以安排将居住在美国的中国异见人士 PRC National A 驱逐并送返。就此而言，戴维斯及A某和B某最终也未获成功。\n\n4. 为进一步推进外国籍人士A的利益，戴维斯协助B某促成 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）于 2017年9月与总统会面，部分目的是让马来西亚总理A能够向总统提出解决 1MDB 事项的问题。\n\n5. 戴维斯、A某和B某还在中国与中国部长A会面，并同意由B某在戴维斯协助下游说总统政府，将中国籍人士A送返中国。戴维斯、A某和B某还同意并试图促成中国部长A于 2017年5月访美期间与司法部和美国国土安全部（“DHS”）高级官员会面，其明确目的在于为中国部长A提供机会，与美国高级官员讨论驱逐中国籍人士A之事。\n\n禁止作为外国委托人或政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项披露法规，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向总检察长登记，例如代表外国委托人进行政治或公共关系活动或游说。此类登记须向司法部内国家安全司的外国代理人登记法部门（“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未办理登记，以及在依该法规定提交给 FARA Unit 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 的宗旨是防止外国委托人进行秘密影响。依该法正确登记，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 登记会披露登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得的报酬来源和数额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间所作的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告 NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 过去及现在均为美国公民、女商人和顾问，与A某和B某具有个人及业务关系。\n\n9. A某曾为美国公民、商人和艺人，具有包括与外国籍人士A的关系在内的国际联系。\n\n10. B某自约 2016年4月至 2018年4月担任某全国性政治委员会财务副主席。以该身份，B某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。选举后，B某继续担任财务副主席，并保持与总统政府高级官员，包括总统在内的接触和联系。在同一期间，B某拥有并经营数家国内及国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. 外国籍人士A是一名居住于东亚的富有商人，因其策划和实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元的计划所起作用而被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是一家由A某设立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国籍人士A的电汇款项，以支付B某的游说活动费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是A某的关联人士，且为受雇于司法部的执业律师。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）就一项指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的起诉书罪名项认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由B某的配偶 Person C（C某）经营的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A 是一名持临时签证居住在美国的中国异见人士。中国政府，包括中国部长A及中国国家主席，正在寻求将 PRC National A 从美国驱逐并送返中国。\n\n16. 自 2016年末至 2019年，司法部一直积极调查外国籍人士A的交易，该等交易据称与 1MDB 挪用计划洗白的收益有关。2016年7月，司法部提起多项民事没收诉讼，请求没收据称以 1MDB 洗白收益购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，司法部提交刑事起诉书，指控外国籍人士A及其他人共谋洗白从 1MDB 挪用的数十亿美元，以及共谋通过向多名马来西亚和阿布扎比官员支付贿赂而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n一、解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的活动\nA. B某同意以 $8 Million 预付金代表外国籍人士A进行游说\n\n17. 约于 2017年3月，戴维斯告诉B某，她在马来西亚有一名潜在客户，可能“需要在没收方面获得帮助”。\n\n18. 约于 2017年3月5日，应B某请求，戴维斯通过电子邮件向B某发送了一份与 1MDB 有关的民事没收诉状副本。同日，戴维斯通过电子邮件向B某发送了一篇彭博社文章，题为“[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits”，并发短信给B某：“你的电子邮件中有法院提交文件[。]”B某回复：“谢谢。会审阅。”戴维斯回复：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[。]”B某再次回复：“好的。5分钟[。]”\n\n19. Person A要求DAVIS向其发送Person B的个人简介，该简介描述Person B与Administration（政府当局）高级官员之间的关系，以及Person B与总统的照片。2017年3月7日前后，应DAVIS的要求，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称其想要这些照片，以便突出Person B与政府当局之间的密切接触。\n\n20. 2017年3月8日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“你会在16日到洛杉矶与[Person A]会面吗，在他于当周周末前往亚洲之前？”Person B回复：“我想会的。我们晚些时候再谈。”当天晚些时候，DAVIS向Person B发送了更多短信，以安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的会面。\n\n21. 根据Person B的指示，2017年3月13日前后，DAVIS向Person A转发了一份Law Firm A（A律师事务所）与Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）之间的“Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services（聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务）”。该“Retainer and Fee Agreement”规定，Foreign National A应预先支付$8 million聘用费；如该“事项”在180日内解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费；如该“事项”在365日内解决，则另行支付$50 million。协议草案包含附件A，说明该“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。事实上，Person A、Person B、Law Firm A、DAVIS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Person B的政治关系，取得Person B代表Foreign National A向Administration和Department of Justice（司法部，DOJ）进行游说的服务。\n\n22. 2017年3月13日前后，Person B与Person A及DAVIS会面，讨论Foreign National A及其法律问题。会上，Person A向Person B描述了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问Person B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商讨由Person B协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信，其中部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 2017年3月15日前后，就Foreign National A而言，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“……[Person A]的Associate有什么新消息吗？”同日，DAVIS回复：“[Person A]明天将与这名‘promoter’当面会面，他们希望在接下来几周内出行。”\n\n24. 2017年3月22日前后，DAVIS就安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的另一次会面，通过电子邮件联系Person B及其助理。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、Person A和Person B均知悉Foreign Agents Registration Act（外国代理人登记法，FARA）及其对未经登记代理外国委托人的禁止性规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人的代理人，DAVIS、Person A和Person B从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人的工作，向DOJ内的FARA部门登记。\n\nB. Person A、Person B和DAVIS在曼谷会见Foreign National A\n\n27. 2017年4月前后，Person A要求Person B前往泰国曼谷与Foreign National A会面。Person B称，只有获得$1 million报酬其才会前往，且其希望Person A以“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[Law Firm A]。”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Foreign National A及Person A进行的会面互发短信。在这些短信中，Person B就Foreign National A询问：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点入住特定酒店？”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。DAVIS在电子邮件中部分写道：“如有疑问，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。我们暂时无需担心酒店……”\n\n31. 2017年5月1日前后，DAVIS向Person B及其助理通过电子邮件发送了曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接。同日，DAVIS向Person A发送电子邮件，要求其预订香格里拉酒店的房间并将确认信息发送给她。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A]正在为我们预订酒店”，随后又称：“还请向我发送[Person B]的电汇信息。”DAVIS回复并提供了以Law Firm A名义开立账户的电汇信息。同日，就Person B的助理询问其是否应取消Person B的酒店房间预订，DAVIS通过电子邮件回复Person B的助理：“是的，所有房间均已由[Person A]预订。”\n\n32. 2017年5月2日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A]和我将在抵达处见你……感谢，祝旅途愉快——愿这成为一段令人兴奋且繁荣的冒险之旅的开始！”\n\n33. 2017年5月2日前后，DAVIS、Person A和Person B抵达曼谷。在该次行程中，DAVIS、Person A和Person B在一间酒店套房内与Foreign National A会面。Person B和Foreign National A讨论了1MDB调查及民事没收诉讼。Person B同意协助Foreign National A尝试解决该事项。Foreign National A同意向Person B支付$8 million聘用费，并希望Person B联系美国司法部长，以促使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。Person B同意代表Foreign National A向Administration和DOJ游说以取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其代表Foreign National A工作的事实。就付款而言，Person B称该款项不应直接来自Foreign National A，且应当“干净”。Foreign National A指定了一名可向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转付，随后通过Law Firm A支付给Person B。Person B和DAVIS同意，Person B将把其所收款项的百分之三十支付给DAVIS。Person A亦同意向DAVIS支付Person A所收资金的一定百分比。Person A告知Person B和DAVIS，Person A的朋友Higginbotham正在核实该等资金的合法性。Higginbotham实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. Person A从Foreign National A收取$8.5 Million；Person B获支付$6 Million；DAVIS获支付$1.7 Million\n\n34. 在泰国与Foreign National A会面后，2017年5月8日前后，Company A（A公司）从一家香港实体收到一笔由Foreign National A指示汇出的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，Person A从Company A账户取得一张金额为$702,000、收款人为Law Firm A的银行本票，该款随即记入Law Firm A账户。Person A还从Company A账户向Law Firm A另行电汇$48,000。同日，一家第三方公司依Person A指示向Law Firm A账户转入$250,000，使存入Law Firm A账户的总额达到$1 million。在数日内，2017年5月8日转入Law Firm A账户的$1 million中约$900,000从Law Firm A账户转入Person B的一个企业账户。\n\n35. 2017年5月8日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[Law Firm A]中的两笔电汇均来自[Person A]。余款于20分钟前送至你的办公室——”。DAVIS随后补充道：“银行本票总额为702。”\n\n36. 2017年5月9日前后，Person A促使Company A向一家由DAVIS家庭成员控制的公司转移$250,000，以使DAVIS受益。\n\n37. 2017年5月17日前后，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A发送国际电汇。同日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转移$3 million。\n\n38. 2017年5月17日前后，Person B和DAVIS就Foreign National A经由Person A向Person B支付款项，以及Person B向DAVIS支付一定百分比款项一事互发短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS询问：“你收到了吗？”Person B回复：“是的。已向你发送Wickr。早上向你发电汇。”Wickr是一款允许端到端加密及内容过期的通讯应用程序。Person B随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”DAVIS回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正一步一步向前推进。”Person B回复：“是的。就接下来的两笔电汇向他们施压。”Person B随后部分补充道：“假定第二个3已经到账，并确认最后两个正在发送。请询问[Person B的助理]。”\n\n39. 2017年5月18日前后，Law Firm A向Person B的一个企业账户转移$500,000，并向一个由DAVIS控制的企业账户转移$900,000。约一周内，Law Firm A又通过两笔单独转账，向Person B的一个企业账户额外转移$950,000。\n\n40. 2017年5月25日前后，Foreign National A促使向Company A进行了第三笔转账，本次金额约为$2.7 million。2017年5月26日前后，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转移$2 million，作为对Person B与Foreign National A约定的$8 million聘用费的部分履行；该聘用费的对价是Person B向Administration和DOJ游说，以促使其撤销1MDB民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，$600,000从Law Firm A账户转入与DAVIS有关联的一个企业账户。\n\nD. Person B为Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）促成会面，并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 2017年5月18日前后，Person B向Person D（一名政治顾问及总统的前竞选助手）发送短信，请求Person D与Administration合作，为Malaysian Prime Minister 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Malaysian Prime Minister A的访问向Person D发送短信：“亚洲国家对7月会面非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同日，应Person A要求，DAVIS就Foreign National A向Person B发送短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS根据Person A代表Foreign National A向其传达的信息写道：“如有可能，请在你于ISRAEL上床睡觉前打电话……[Foreign National 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，为[Foreign National A]和亚洲国家开展工作。”\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：“Principal”，即指Foreign National 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Foreign National A有关联的人士处扣押珠宝一事互发短信。\n\n46. 2017年6月17日前后，Person B和DAVIS讨论了Malaysian Prime Minister A。2017年6月前后，Person B询问总统是否会与Malaysian Prime Minister A打高尔夫球。Person B称，并且DAVIS相信，这将取悦Foreign National A，并将使Malaysian Prime Minister A能够尝试解决1MDB事项。Person B还希望与Malaysian Prime Minister A的政府取得更多业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球能够进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n47. 2017年6月19日前后，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇有关Malaysian Prime Minister A办公室批评美国1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。\n\n48. 约于2017年6月25日，DAVIS（戴维斯）向Person B（B人士）发送短信，附上了一篇关于Malaysia Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）及涉及Foreign National A（外国国民A）的1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。同日，B人士回复：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”戴维斯回复：“请打电话。有消息[。]”戴维斯随后称，她已向B人士发送了一项“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 约于2017年6月29日，B人士向White House（白宫）的一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统之间的一次高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[Person E（E人士）]，如我所述，POTUS同意于7月下旬或8月初在DC或Bedminster与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢您回复我日期。此外，数周前已向state dept.寄出一封信，要求举行会晤。”\n\n50. 约于2017年6月30日，B人士就该高尔夫球活动向E人士发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[PRC National A（中国国民A）]以及POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期通话。”当日稍后，B人士又发送：“[E人士]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n51. 约于2017年7月3日，B人士再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫日期向E人士发送短信：“早上好，[E人士]。如果您今天能向我确认POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]的高尔夫日期，对我将极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很乐意在Bedminster或DC打球。我们通话后，我向[马来西亚总理A]提到，他上周会收到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当日稍后，B人士再次向E人士发送短信：“[E人士]，我正在跟进。请向我发送[马来西亚总理A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期和时间。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约于2017年7月4日，戴维斯向B人士发送短信：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又称：“清空你的手机——删除信息[。]”\n\n53. 约于2017年7月5日，B人士与E人士就该高尔夫球活动交换信息。在其他信息中，B人士发送：“[E人士]，刚给你留了言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，[]。”E人士回复：“正在由NSC处理[。]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，戴维斯转达Person A（A人士）的信息，向B人士发送短信：“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。我们正被打得落花流水。”这些信息涉及确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及外国国民A因尚未确认日期而产生的不满。戴维斯转达A人士的紧迫要求，继续称：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被大量信息淹没了[。]”B人士回复：“看Wickr[。]”翌日，B人士向戴维斯发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发信息。我要起飞，得去WH[。]正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯回复：“完成了[。]”B人士回复：“收到了。谢[。]正努力让[Person F（F人士）]尽快打电话[。]”F人士当时是National Security Council（国家安全委员会）的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约于2017年7月13日，戴维斯向B人士发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以请请去D.C.，并坐在WH直到你拿到它。如果你担心孤单，我会陪你！”\n\n56. 约于2017年7月13日，B人士再次就高尔夫日期向E人士发送短信：“嗨，[E人士]，已经2周了。再次询问POTUS与[马来西亚总理A]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，[][。]”E人士回复：“我现在再查一下[。]这些事情要经过一个程序——”B人士回复：“谢谢！！”E人士回复：“NSC正在处理并协调[。]”B人士回复：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”E人士回复：“他们正直接与[Malaysia（马来西亚）]合作。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约于2017年7月15日，B人士向戴维斯发送短信：“正努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约于2017年7月17日，戴维斯转达A人士代表外国国民A表达的紧迫要求，向B人士发送短信：“[E人士]现在需要给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的最新进展。我们看起来毫无能力[。]”该短信既涉及安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会晤，也涉及与中国国民A有关的事项。B人士回复：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 约于2017年7月18日，B人士与戴维斯就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会晤交换多条短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯转达A人士的信息，写道：“Can u check Wickr[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。我今天一整天都为此忙疯了。他正在恐慌[。]”戴维斯随后称：“这个日期今天必须确定——我们正被彻底击溃。”据A人士称，外国国民A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会晤。B人士回复：“现在给[E人士]打电话[。]”戴维斯部分回复称：“给每个人打电话，让他们知道你非常愤怒[。]也给[Person G（G人士）]打电话。我们今天就需要这个[。]”G人士是总统的一名行政助理。B人士回复：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 约于2017年7月19日，戴维斯就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会晤日期一事，向B人士发送短信：“其次，我们急需这个日期[。]”B人士于翌日回复：“请耐心等候。我正在获取关于会晤的一些信息[。]”\n\n61. 约于2017年7月21日，B人士就该高尔夫球活动向E人士发送短信：“[E人士]，[马来西亚]没有从NSC听到任何消息。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。你说会在一两天内安排。现在已是第4周。我知道你很忙且须遵循程序，但我一直非常有耐心。这件事现在非但没有带来积极影响，反而正在给我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约于2017年7月24日，B人士向Person D（D人士）发送短信：“收到9月在NJ打高尔夫球的日期。在UN General Assembly（联合国大会）之前的星期六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你的帮助！”D人士回复：“让我们跟进并确保日期由NSC确认。他告诉你是谁给他的日期吗？”B人士回复：“‘谢谢！！太棒了。由[E人士]给了[Person H（H人士）]。’”\n\n63. 约于2017年7月27日，B人士向D人士发送短信：“刚又向[马来西亚]确认。他们的驻美大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息。请尽快核查。致意，[]。”B人士随后称：“嗨，[D人士]——你能否就[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事替我给NSA打电话。NSC仍未就会晤联系[马来西亚]大使。谢谢。致意，[]”D人士回复：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天与[]简短谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约于2017年7月29日，戴维斯转达其从A人士处收到的、代表外国国民A的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统之间的会晤向B人士发送短信：“他们被告知9月12日是会晤日期。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[。]”B人士回复：“可能是两次会晤。大使应当询问。星期六在Bedminster打高尔夫球，星期二在WH？”\n\n65. 约于2017年8月7日，B人士向其助理发送一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中包含拟用于即将举行的United States Secretary of State（美国国务卿）与马来西亚总理A会晤的谈话要点。戴维斯从A人士处收到该谈话要点；A人士代表外国国民A提供该谈话要点；戴维斯将其转交给B人士，明知B人士随后会将其提供给国务卿，作为该会晤的背景材料。该谈话要点除其他事项外提及B人士与[马来西亚]持续的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“[p]riority[。]”。该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并具体说明：“[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [原文如此]，and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[。]”\n\n66. 同样约于2017年8月7日，B人士还将该谈话要点文件发送给D人士，供其审阅和修改，并获取关于马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会晤时间的详情：“嗨，[D人士]；[Secretary of State（国务卿）]何时会晤？；[马来西亚]已是星期一上午11:00。你能扩充并将最终版本发给我吗？”D人士向B人士发送了一份修订后的谈话要点版本，并称：“[]——这是我将转发给[国务卿]办公室的标注版本。他今天前往Bangkok（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. 此后，于约2017年8月7日，B人士向D人士发送信息：“[国务卿]将于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，于9日会见副总理。让我们以我的名义插入一段。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出[我公司的]名称。谢谢！”D人士回复：“促成这一联系绝对很重要。这不太可能成为正式会晤的一部分，但将努力在他们的谈话期间插入一段。”\n\n68. 同样于约2017年8月7日，A人士签署了一份协议，该协议由A人士的另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表订立，约定提供“战略传播与危机管理”，作为在2017年8月16日或之前支付约EUR 8.4 million的对价。\n\n69. 约于2017年8月9日，外国国民A促使一家Hong Kong（香港）公司向Company A（A公司）转账约\\$12.8 million。A人士随后向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转账\\$3 million。A人士还向一个由戴维斯控制的商业账户转账\\$833,333。约于2017年8月10日，A律师事务所向一个与戴维斯关联的商业账户转账\\$900,000。\n\n70. 约于2017年8月10日，B人士就马来西亚总理A与国务卿之间的会晤向D人士发送短信：“从[马来西亚]听说，会晤进行得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]很满意。没有提及我的名字——没有插入。;- ……”\n\n71. 约于2017年8月16日，B人士与戴维斯交换短信，以安排一次会晤和一次电话。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“如果可能，[A人士]非常想今天见你，因为你星期五离开[。]”\n\n72. 约于2017年8月18日，B人士与戴维斯交换短信，安排一次电话。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“请给我打电话。[A人士]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 约于2017年8月19日，B人士向D人士发送短信：“关于[马来西亚]有什么更新吗？”D人士回复：“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。对此可能必须直接找[Person I（I人士）]，并利用他们二人一起打高尔夫球的历史。”B人士回复：“是的。如果你认为有帮助，我可以直接给[I人士]的一名副手或[I人士]打电话。还需要增加会晤时间。我想与你讨论细节。请告诉我什么方式最好。”I人士当时是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 约于2017年8月21日，戴维斯将其作为佣金从A人士处收到的资金中的\\$375,000电汇给Person C（C人士），即B人士的配偶。\n\n75. 约于2017年8月24日，外国国民A指示将约\\$10 million转给A人士另一家独立公司；该公司曾与外国国民A的一名代表订立“战略传播与危机管理”协议，对价为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. 2017年9月11日前后，DAVIS（戴维斯）依Person B（B 人）指示，起草了一封拟由B 人发送给总统的信，预期马来西亚总理A与总统会面。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. 2017年9月12日前后，马来西亚总理A在白宫会见总统，部分原因是DAVIS为B 人促成该会面所作努力提供了协助。尽管B 人联系政府高级官员，拟在正式会面之外安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A举行高尔夫球会，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间未举行高尔夫球赛。\n\n78. 2017年10月6日前后，B 人在白宫会见总统。B 人向Person A（A 人）、DAVIS及Foreign National A（外国国民A）表示，其在会面期间曾向总统提及1MDB调查。\n\n79. 2018年1月5日前后，B 人起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A表明B 人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，反制前一届政府针对[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）的相关方面联系，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，他承诺解决此问题。重要的是，我应当遵循他的指示，但将继续传达此问题的重要性。”B 人极大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80. 2018年1月6日前后，B 人与A 人会面，A 人向B 人请求贷款。A 人告诉B 人，A 人的一名朋友正在“核查”他们从外国国民A处收到的钱，并“帮助保持其清白”。\n\nII. 将PRC National A（中国国民A）从美国移除的行动\n\nA. B 人前往中国会见PRC Minister A（中国部长A）\n\n81. 2017年5月前后，在曼谷之行后，B 人同意前往香港再次会见外国国民A。出行前，DAVIS与B 人讨论，外国国民A认为将中国国民A驱逐出美国十分重要。前往香港的目的，是会见外国国民A及中华人民共和国（PRC）的一名外国政府官员，以讨论中国国民A事宜。\n\n82. 2017年5月15日前后，DAVIS就赴香港行程的旅行安排及行程表向B 人的助理发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向B 人及Person C（C 人）发送了DAVIS公司的银行信息。\n\n83. 2017年5月18日前后，A 人、B 人和DAVIS前往香港，随后被送往中国深圳，在那里的一间酒店套房内会见外国国民A及中国部长A。中国部长A向B 人谈及中国国民A及其被指控的犯罪行为，并表示PRC希望将中国国民A遣返回PRC。中国部长A要求B 人利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡议将中国国民A移除并遣返PRC。中国部长A还表示，其不久将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，但在安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会面时遇到困难。\n\nB. B 人游说美国高级官员以移除中国国民A\n\n84. 2017年5月20日前后，在从中国返回途中，B 人向DAVIS发送短信：“我会努力让本周成为我们与[司法部长]大有进展的一周。”\n\n85. 2017年5月21日前后，B 人就其与外国国民A和中国部长A的会面向Person D（D 人）发送短信：“[D 人]——刚回来。重大机会。我们能否于周一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？[]。”\n\n86. 2017年5月22日前后，B 人向D 人发送短信：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们会讨论。”B 人随后又称：“我正在通过电子邮件给你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，D 人回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 2017年5月22日前后，B 人向D 人发送一封电子邮件，主题为“美国与[PRC]之间大幅加强执法合作的机会[。]”B 人在该电子邮件中附上了一份由B 人致司法部长的备忘录，意图由D 人随后将该备忘录交给司法部长。该备忘录内容由DAVIS提供给B 人；DAVIS在2017年5月中国之行期间从A 人处获得该内容，而该内容源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，B 人与C 人修改了该备忘录。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，B 人虚假陈述了其前往中国的原因以及其与中国部长A会面的相关情况。B 人隐瞒了其与外国国民A的接触，并隐瞒了外国国民A在安排B 人与中国部长A会面中所起的作用。B 人还隐瞒了在与中国部长A于深圳会面前两周内其从外国国民A处获得的$4 million付款。B 人还未披露，其就中国国民A所作的游说努力，至少部分是依照其与外国国民A之间的财务安排进行的，并可能导致额外付款。\n\n89. 在该备忘录中，B 人称：“[中国部长A]告诉我，[PRC]希望在执法方面，包括网络安全方面，大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”B 人写及中国部长A即将前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的行程，届时中国部长A及其代表团计划会见数名美国政府高级官员。B 人倡议司法部长与中国部长A会面。B 人还指出，据中国部长A所述，PRC愿意采取若干措施，以改善美国与PRC之间的执法关系。B 人随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，[PRC]将提出的一项请求是，尽快将[中国国民A]从美国驱逐出境（其签证将在下个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至[PRC]，因为[PRC]指控其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反[PRC]多项刑法（包括绑架及重大金融犯罪）的人共谋，以便其可因这些违法行为被起诉，并就在[PRC]中针对这些指控进行正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nB 人将一份关于中国国民A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n90. 2017年5月23日前后，B 人向D 人发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会面安排好了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[司法部长]了吗？请更新。谢谢[][。]”D 人回复：“[B 人]——信昨天已送达。请查看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚乘坐红眼航班，以便能早些回到华盛顿哥伦比亚特区。”B 人回复：“太好了。谢谢[]。还请确定他的会面是否已安排，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在阿拉巴马州举行。”次日，即2017年5月24日前后，D 人回复：“正在等待DoJ就会面——我们的以及[中国部长A]的——作出回复。请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以会面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n91. 2017年5月24日前后，D 人向B 人发送短信：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到他回复的短信，说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 2017年5月25日前后，B 人向D 人发送短信：“今天上午10:00在司法部举行会面。随后明天会见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分钟到达，这样可以进行一次简短会面。然后与[]一对一会面，讨论更多细节。请今天第一时间设法会见[司法部长]。我们办成此事确实非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人谈谈。谢谢。[。]”D 人回复：“[]——正在处理。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，B 人向D 人发送短信：“具体情况是，我备忘录中的三件事仅限让[司法部长]知悉。[中国部长A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我这边是合法的秘密渠道。[中国部长A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]已听到这三件事，而这三件事确实有助于美国[。]”当天稍后，D 人回复：“[]——实际上刚与[司法部长]通完电话。消息不太好。请告诉我你何时有空谈谈。谢谢。”\n\n93. 2017年5月26日前后，B 人提及为中国部长A安排的会面时，向D 人发送短信：“上午10点会见ICE（移民与海关执法局）负责人，11:30会见FBI。或许在DHS安排一次与[Person I（I 人）]的简短会面可挽救局面。三项内容可以分享。”B 人随后又称：“请给我打电话”及“我正试图进行损害控制，需要与你谈谈。最好能私下与[I 人]交谈。”当时，I 人是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 2017年5月28日前后，B 人向D 人发送电子邮件：“与[司法部长]及[PRC]驻美国大使之间往来函件的誊录文本。”B 人指出：“我认为，[司法部长]有极佳机会进一步推进美国利益。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，B 人和D 人互发电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n95. 2017年5月30日前后，DAVIS转达中国部长A和A 人关于中国部长A与美国政府官员会面的信息时，发送短信：“查看Wickr——现在会面全部获准[。]”B 人回复：“是的。全都安排好了[。]”DAVIS回复：“他的会面已恢复安排[。]”\n\n96. 2017年5月前后，DAVIS应A 人请求，请求B 人在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区会见中国部长A。\n\n97. 2017年5月30日前后，B 人在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店与中国部长A会面。B 人还询问D 人是否能够协助中国部长A安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n98. 2017年5月31日前后，B 人向D 人发送短信：\n\n我昨晚会见了副部长（VM）。他今天下午乘坐下午4点的航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人会面，并安排原本应与他会面的人改与越南方面会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[司法部长]或[I 人]会面，否则就回国。他很乐意与[I 人]会面。……到目前为止，他已交付一名孕妇，接下来的2人将很快被送来。他将接受60名被驱逐出境的中国国民，但前提是他能举行一次适当的“简短会面”。这是政府的一大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两位总统在Mar-a-Lago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. D 人回复：“[]——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”B 人回复：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络官在DHS会见副部长？他可以提及我的名字。还请设法让[I 人]改善局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n100. 约于2017年5月31日，DAVIS（戴维斯）就PRC Minister A（中国部长A）据称与Person I（I某）会面一事向Person B（B某）发送短信：“原则上，[Person I]对我们没问题——只是日程安排问题？”Person B回复：“只是临时通知的日程安排问题。可能在接下来一小时左右仍会有消息。[PRC Minister A]没有任何问题。”Person B随后继续说道：“请代我向该VM致以良好祝愿。再稍等一会儿。”DAVIS回复：“是的，我正在这样告诉他。”Person B回复：“告诉他，我正在向WH和[Attorney General（司法部长）]说明发生了什么事。”DAVIS随后发送短信：“[Person I]不是定于今天下午在海地吗？”Person B回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[Attorney General]的人也没有提到。”DAVIS回复：“DHS网站上有。他今天下午在那里。刚和VM谈过话，他听起来像是在哭。”Person B回复：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理此事。这真是一团糟。”DAVIS回复：“Wickr。”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月9日，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇题为“[the PRC]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A（中国国民A）]”的新闻文章。\n\n102. 约于2017年6月27日，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A交换了数条短信。\n\n103. 约于2017年6月27日，Person B就遣返PRC National A一事向Person H（H某）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，经常向政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触并影响总统，因此可能有效地寻求遣返PRC National A。Person B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，或者午餐时间也可以？期待在[ ] Hotel（[ ]酒店）见到您！致意，[ ][。]”Person B随后继续说道：\n\n嗨，[ ]， [Person H]让我通过短信把这项信息发给您。我将向您发送若干有关逃犯[PRC National A]的材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报……极其时间紧迫的事项是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证于6月30日到期。其新的签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为[PRC National A]与曾任FBI人员者关系密切，而后者在其私人安保团队中任职。中国国家主席曾在Mar-A-Lago（海湖庄园）向[the President（总统）]提到，希望将[PRC National A]遣返。[PRC Minister A]与我会面，并请求就[PRC National A]一事提供协助。……他承诺遣返某些被[the PRC]扣为人质的美国公民，并将接收大量被遣返回[the PRC]的[the PRC]非法移民。最后，他提出将在朝鲜问题上提供新的协助。\n\n104. 约于2017年6月28日，Person B在一次社交聚会上与Person H及其配偶会面。会面后，Person B与Person H的配偶就[PRC National A]交换短信：“嗨，[ ]，今晚见到您和[Person H]真是太好了！我刚刚又收到[PRC Minister A]的消息。他想知道[PRC National A]签证的状态，因为时间至关重要。签证是否已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]在DHS禁飞名单上？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能确认并推进遣返。这将是我们两国之间不可思议的一步。[PRC Minister A]说，他们感谢您的帮助。”Person H的配偶回复：“此事已交由国务院和国防部最高层处理。他们正在办理此事。”\n\n105. 约于2017年6月29日，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A的签证申请交换短信。Person B发送短信：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”DAVIS回复：“我不知道。”Person B回复：“抱歉，总是会生成。换言之，每名申请人最终都会收到书面的批准或拒绝答复[？]抱歉，会收到书面的批准或拒绝答复[？]”DAVIS回复：“是的。查看Wickr。”\n\n106. 约于2017年6月30日，DAVIS提及他们为促成遣返Foreign National A（外国国民A）以及可能遣返被Country B（B国）扣押的美国公民所作的努力时，向Person B发送短信：“Wickr。你现在真是关键人物。就你将在这个7月4日为这个国家所完成的事情而言，他们将授予你总统自由勋章。”Person B回复：“我会全力以赴，直到办成。”DAVIS回复：“我们要确保第一部分今天发生。还有m的日期。在办成之前不要离开那个人。”Person B回复：“同意。”DAVIS继续说道：“让他知道——如果我们在今天营业结束前拿到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们将在7月4日前让两名美国人回国。之后的第二阶段——我们可以完成接收60人的事。”Person B回复：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会回电给我。正在通话。”\n\n107. 约于2017年6月30日，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（E某）]给我发短信说他被别的事缠住了，但正在处理此事。”同日，DAVIS回复：“我们今天能拿到关于撤销的证据吗？”DAVIS随后明确表示：“来自[Person E]？”\n\n108. 约于2017年7月1日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“与[Person E]详细谈过。你方便时给我打电话。”Person B并未与Person E交谈，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准备的备忘录中所作陈述以及其与Person H的沟通类似，Person B没有向Person E披露其与PRC Minister A关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月2日，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：“今天星期日将与[President of the PRC（中国国家主席）]通话，讨论朝鲜问题。他可以询问并确认有关方案。他甚至可以说他听说了[Person H]的情况。”\n\n110. 约于2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[President]星期三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲。”DAVIS随后补充道：“7月5日。计划与[President of the PRC]亲自会面。”\n\n111. 约于2017年7月18日，Person B通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了Person H的联系信息。DAVIS为PRC Minister A与Person H之间接通了多次电话，以推进遣返PRC National A的游说活动。\n\n112. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A及其从美国被遣返至中国一事交换短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式传达。截至目前——他说没有。”Person B回复：“已请3个不同的人跟进。”Person B随后补充道：“给[Person E]打过电话。一小时后会见[Person H]。”\n\n113. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B向Person H发送短信，约在华盛顿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您在华盛顿特区，我也是，住在[hotel（酒店）]。您今天愿意一起喝杯咖啡吗？致意，[ ]。”同日稍后，Person H的配偶向Person B发送短信：“嗨，[ ]。你能否再次把你此前发短信提及的那个[the PRC]男子的详情发给我，谢谢。”Person B回复：“嗨，[ ]，您指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A]？致意，[ ][。]”Person H的配偶回复：“[PRC National A]。”Person B随后重新发送了其此前于6月27日发送的短信。\n\n114. 约于2017年7月27日，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回复：“我正在与NSC（国家安全委员会）的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。正在等待回复。”\n\n115. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B多次向DAVIS发送短信。在这些短信中，Person B写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息。”Person B随后补充道：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破机会。”\n\n116. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B在Person H的游艇上与Person H会面。在一起期间，Person B向Person H询问了涉及PRC National A的事项，Person H建议他们给总统打电话。随后，Person B与Person H致电总统，询问PRC National A在美国境内的状况。\n\n117. 约于2017年9月13日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“请把庇护文章和另一篇文章发给我。”同日，DAVIS向Person B发送了有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n118. 约于2017年10月2日，Person B向DAVIS发送了一个有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n119. 约于2018年1月5日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“尽快发给我更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……。”\n\n第一项罪名 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612（帮助和教唆及未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不晚于约2017年5月至至少约2018年1月期间，在夏威夷地区及其他地点，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）明知且故意地，未按法律规定向Attorney General登记，帮助和教唆Person A（A某）及Person B以外国委托人代理人的身份实施行为，即代表Foreign National A、PRC Minister A和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IMDB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)(1)。\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 现为根据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，重述并通过援引纳入本信息书第一项罪名所载指控。\n\n122. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，一旦就违反Title 18 United States Code, Section 2，以及Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(1)的第一项罪名被定罪，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS应向美利坚合众国没收一笔金额，相当于构成或源自可追溯至所述违法行为所得的动产或不动产。现进一步通知，一旦定罪，美利坚合众国拟就代表本段所述财产的该笔金额向DAVIS寻求判决。\n\n123. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，导致上述任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法定位；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或存放于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖权之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混同，而无法在不造成困难的情况下分割，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权根据经Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)纳入的Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020年8月17日，于夏威夷州檀香山。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price  KENJI M. PRICE\n美国联邦检察官\n夏威夷地区\n\n~~\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson  KENNETH M. SORENSON\n国家安全主管\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\n廉政处主管\n美国司法部\n\n/s/ John D. Keller  JOHN D. KELLER\n首席副主管\n\n肖恩·F·马尔林　妮可·R·洛克哈特　詹姆斯·C·曼恩　审判律师　公职廉政处\n\n美利坚合众国诉尼基·马利·戴维斯（Nickie Mali DAVIS）　起诉信息书　Cr. No. ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n证据附件 C\n\n美利坚合众国，\n\n诉\n乔治·希金博瑟姆（GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM），\n被告。","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","Je","GTV","Guo","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"},{"doc_number":406,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28163,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:22:10"}