{"id":"court_ctb_644_35","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":644,"sub_number":35,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2018-05-16","title":"| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE   |            | |---------------------------|------------|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE   |            |\n|---------------------------|------------|\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |            |\n|                           |            |\n|                           |            |\n|                           | Plaintiff, |\n|                           |            |\n| V.                        |            |\n|                           |            |\n| STEPHEN A. WYNN.          |            |\n|                           |            |\n|                           | Defendant  |\n\n![](_page_0_Picture_9.jpeg)\n\nAugust 2017, the Defendant acted as an agent for foreign principals Sun and the PRC and engaged in political activities on their behalf in the United States.\n\n3. The Defendant therefore has an obligation under FARA to register with the Attorney General. 22 U.S.C. § 612(a).\n\n4. Nevertheless, after having been informed by the U.S. Department of Justice of this obligation in letters dated May 16, 2018, October 27, 2021, and April 13, 2022, the Defendant refused to register. Because his failure to file constitutes an ongoing violation of FARA and given the likelihood that this violation will continue in the absence of court action, a permanent injunction is necessary.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties to this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and also under 22 U.S.C. § 618(f).\n\n6. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to this action arose from events occurring within this judicial district.\n\n## **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. Plaintiff is the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the nation's chief law enforcement officer and the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, an Executive Agency of the United States, and is entrusted with administering FARA. Pursuant to his statutory authority, *see* 22 U.S.C. § 620, the Attorney General has promulgated regulations delegating the responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, 28 C.F.R. § 5.1(a).\n\n8. The Defendant is a U.S. citizen, real estate developer, and businessperson who owned multiple casinos and resorts. In 2006, the Defendant opened the first of three casino properties located in Macau, which is a special administrative region of the PRC.\n\n## **FARA STATUTORY PROVISIONS**\n\n9. Among the chief purposes of FARA is to inform the American public of the activities of agents in the United States working for foreign principals to influence U.S. Government officials or the American public with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States, or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a foreign country or a foreign political party. U.S. agents of foreign principals must register with the Attorney General and make certain disclosures in the registration filings concerning their agency relationships and activities undertaken within the United States on behalf of their respective foreign principals. 22 U.S.C. § 612(a).\n\n10. Under FARA, the term \"foreign principal\" includes \"a government of a foreign country\" and \"a person outside of the United States,\" except in circumstances not applicable here. 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1)-(2).\n\n11. FARA's \"agency\" determination is a two-part inquiry that considers both (1) the relationship between the agent and the foreign principal and (2) the activities that the agent performs in the principal's interests. Agency relationships for purposes of FARA include situations where there is an indirect relationship between an agent and a foreign principal through an intermediary. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).\n\n12. As relevant here, the term \"agent of a foreign principal\" under FARA means:\n\n[A]ny person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity *at the* order, *request*, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised,\n\ndirected, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person . . . engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal [or] within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States.\n\n22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i), (iv) (emphasis added).\n\n13. FARA defines the term \"political activities\" as \"any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or foreign political party.\" 22 U.S.C. § 611(o).\n\n14. FARA does not limit the speech or political activities of its registrants, who are free to advance whatever message they wish, provided that they disclose their relationship to their foreign principal and adhere to the recordkeeping and other requirements of the statute.\n\n15. Pursuant to FARA, a person or entity who has a registration obligation has a continuing duty to register, even if the FARA-registrable conduct has ceased. 22 U.S.C. §§ 612(a), 618(e). Termination of the agency relationship does not relieve an agent of the obligation to file a registration statement. *Id*. § 612(a).\n\n## **FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS**\n\n16. In approximately May 2017, during a meeting coordinated by foreign national Low Taek Jho, Sun asked businessperson and former finance chair of the Republican National Committee (\"RNC\") Elliot Broidy, hip-hop artist Prakazrel Michel, and businessperson Nickie Lum Davis to lobby then-President Trump and the Trump Administration to convey the PRC's request to cancel the visa of or otherwise remove from the United States a PRC businessperson\n\nwho left China in 2014, was later charged with corruption by the PRC, and sought political asylum in the United States (hereinafter \"the PRC national\").\n\n17. In approximately June 2017, Broidy, on behalf of Sun, elicited the Defendant's help in the lobbying effort. Defendant served as the RNC finance chair from January 2017 through January 2018 and met Broidy through that work. Broidy believed that the Defendant's RNC experience, combined with the Defendant's business dealings in the PRC and friendship with then-President Trump, would be helpful in getting access to Trump Administration officials.\n\n18. Broidy told the Defendant that the PRC national was a criminal wanted by the PRC who was hiding in the United States, that the PRC wanted him arrested, and that his visa was due to expire soon. Broidy informed the Defendant that Broidy had received this information from Sun of the PRC's Ministry of Public Security and that Sun requested the Defendant's help in bringing the issue to the attention of the Trump Administration.\n\n19. Broidy provided the Defendant with the PRC national's passport photos, an Interpol red notice, and links to various news articles about the PRC national.\n\n20. In or around June 2017, Sun spoke by telephone with the Defendant and requested the Defendant's assistance with seeking the removal of the PRC national. The Defendant agreed to raise the matter with then-President Trump and Trump Administration officials. Defendant had no prior connection to the PRC national or independent interest in his removal.\n\n21. Also in or around June 2017, Sun, through Broidy, sought the Defendant's assistance in having the PRC national placed on the No Fly List and having his new visa application denied.\n\n> a. By text message dated June 27, 2017 to the Defendant's wife, Broidy noted that the PRC national's visa was due to expire on June 30, 2017, and asserted that \"[i]t\n\nis critically [*sic*] that his new visa application he [*sic*] immediately denied\" and that the PRC national be placed on the No Fly List.\n\n- b. The Defendant's wife received and sent text messages on behalf of the Defendant, including the above text message and others discussed throughout this Complaint. The Defendant's wife informed the Defendant of the contents of messages received and also sent text messages to Broidy and other individuals at the direction of the Defendant.\n- c. Broidy sent to the Defendant, through the Defendant's wife, a second message on\n\nJune 27, 2017, stating that\n\nPresident Xi Jinping mentioned to President Trump at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [the PRC national] returned. Vice Minister [Sun] met with me and requested help with regard to [the PRC national]. The Vice Minister told me this is a matter of upmost importance to President Jinping. He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by China and would accept a very large number of Chinese illegal immigrants for deportation back to China. Finally, he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n22. During a dinner on or about June 27, 2017 with then-President Trump and other\n\nAdministration officials in Washington, D.C., the Defendant conveyed to then-President Trump\n\nthe PRC's desire to have the PRC national removed from the United States and provided the\n\nPRC national's passport photos to then-President Trump's secretary.\n\n- a. After the dinner, Broidy informed the Defendant by text (through Defendant's wife) that Sun was \"extremely pleased and said that President Xi Jinping appreciates [the Defendant's] assistance.\"\n- b. On or about the following day, June 28, 2017, Broidy inquired by text with the Defendant (through Defendant's wife) about the status of the PRC national's visa and whether he had been placed on the No Fly List. Broidy's message added that\n\n\"[Sun] says they are grateful for your help.\" In response, the Defendant (through Defendant's wife) texted Broidy that \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n23. From approximately June 2017 through at least August 2017, the Defendant had several telephone calls with Sun.\n\n- a. On these telephone calls, the Defendant was connected to Sun via Lum Davis, and the discussions were conducted via a translator.\n- b. During these telephone calls, the Defendant believed Lum Davis to be Sun's assistant.\n- c. The Defendant participated in at least eight of these calls with Sun. The calls varied in length but lasted approximately thirty minutes on average.\n- d. In these discussions, Sun described the PRC national and stated that it would be very important to the PRC if the PRC national's visa was not renewed. Sun also stated that he would appreciate the Defendant's help.\n- e. The Defendant mentioned his business interests in Macau to Sun on multiple phone calls.\n- 24. On or about July 26, 2017, Defendant's wife sent to Broidy a text message asking Broidy to send to her again the documentation about the PRC national.\n\n25. Between approximately July 2017 and August 2017, the Defendant attempted to organize meetings with senior officials on the National Security Council (\"NSC\") and at the White House.\n\n- a. In or around late July and August 2017, the Defendant had contact with multiple Trump Administration officials, including two former White House chiefs of staff and two senior officials on the NSC, regarding the PRC national.\n- b. The Defendant contacted the White House Chief of Staff on multiple occasions about the PRC national during June and July 2017 and requested a meeting with then-President Trump to discuss the same.\n- c. During a late July 2017 meeting with the White House Chief of Staff and two senior NSC officials, the Defendant stated that PRC officials had contacted him and advised him that \"they were very interested in having\" the PRC national returned to China as soon as possible.\n- d. In or around August 2017, the Defendant on multiple occasions visited the White House in person to have what appeared to be unscheduled meetings with then-President Trump. Some of these discussions, including a meeting on August 25, 2017, concerned the PRC national.\n- e. In late August 2017, Broidy took Defendant and Defendant's wife on a trip off the coast of Italy on a yacht belonging to Broidy and his wife. On August 19, 2017, Broidy and the Defendant called then-President Trump from the yacht. During that call, the Defendant asked then-President Trump about the PRC national's status, and then-President Trump responded that he would look into the matter.\n- 26. The efforts to have the PRC national removed ultimately were unsuccessful.\n\n27. Sun continued to contact the Defendant through approximately October 2017, at which point the Defendant informed Sun that he had made U.S. Government officials aware of the request, that the Defendant was not able to provide any more assistance, and that Sun should\n\nstop contacting him. Defendant wanted to exit the situation gracefully, preserve his business interests in China, and avoid offending anyone.\n\n28. Defendant's conduct was motivated by his desire to protect his business interests in the PRC. In an undated text message, the Defendant told Lum Davis to advise a PRC official to have the PRC ambassador in Washington, D.C. contact two senior-level NSC officials directly. Defendant wrote in the message that he had spoken with both individuals and received assurances \"that all parties in the White House were fully sensitive to the timing of this issue and the relevant USA procedural law involved.\" Defendant went on to state that\n\n[a]t this point, as a private citizen, I believe I have exhausted the advantages of my position. If there is any other aspect of this situation may occur to you going forward, I would of course be anxious to help. I remain grateful for the privilege of being part of the Macau and PRC business community.\n\n29. According to public reporting, in 2016, shortly before the conduct described above occurred, the Macau government restricted the number of gaming tables and machines that the Defendant's casino could operate.1 Also according to public reporting, Defendant was scheduled to renegotiate his licenses to operate casinos in Macau in 2019, subsequent to the conduct described above.2\n\n<sup>1</sup> *See* James Detar, \"Wynn resorts falls as Macau restricts tables at new casino,\" Investor's Business Daily (Aug. 12, 2016).\n\n<sup>2</sup> *See* Linette Lopez, \"And now it's clear how China will exploit Steve Wynn's moment of weakness,\" Business Insider (Jan. 29, 2018).\n\n## **LEGAL ALLEGATIONS**\n\n# **I. Then-Vice Minister of Public Security Sun Lijun and the PRC are foreign principals under FARA**\n\n30. As a Vice Minister for the PRC during the time period discussed above who is believed to reside in China, Sun is a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA. 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2).\n\n31. The PRC is a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA because it constitutes the government of a foreign country. 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1).\n\n# **II. The Defendant acted as an agent of then-Vice Minister of Public Security Sun and the PRC**\n\n32. Sun, on behalf of the PRC, requested that the Defendant assist in the effort to\n\nlobby the U.S. Government, including then-President Trump and the Trump Administration, to have the PRC national removed.\n\n33. Broidy, on behalf of Sun, also requested that the Defendant assist in the effort to lobby the U.S. Government, including then-President Trump and the Trump Administration, to have the PRC national removed.\n\n34. Accordingly, the Defendant acted as an agent of Sun and the PRC when he engaged in political activities on their behalf. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).\n\n## **III. The Defendant is obligated to register under FARA because he engaged in political activities at the request of then-Vice Minister Sun and the PRC**\n\n35. The Defendant is obligated to register under FARA because, through his communications with and lobbying efforts directed at then-President Trump and the Trump Administration, he engaged in political activities by seeking to influence U.S. Government officials \"with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States, or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations\" of the PRC, for or in the interests of the PRC. 22 U.S.C. § 611(o).\n\n36. The Defendant lobbied multiple people in the Trump Administration, including then-President Trump, on at least three separate occasions, to have the PRC national removed, and he did so at the request of at least one PRC official, Sun. As such, he acted as an agent of a foreign principal under FARA. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i).\n\n## **IV. The Defendant has failed to register under FARA**\n\n37. By letter dated May 16, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (\"the Department\") advised the Defendant of his obligation to register under FARA as an agent of Sun and the PRC and gave him thirty days to effect the registration. The Defendant, through counsel, sent to the Department a letter dated June 8, 2018, disputing the Department's analysis and requesting that the Department reconsider its determination. By letter dated October 27, 2021, the Department advised the Defendant that he remained obligated to register under FARA and that further investigation into the matter had strengthened the Department's determination in this regard. Defendant, through counsel, responded by letter dated December 10, 2021. By letter dated April 13, 2022, the Department reiterated its conclusion that Defendant has an obligation to register and gave the Defendant thirty days to do so.\n\n38. To date, the Defendant has failed to register as required.\n\n### **COUNT I**\n\n## **(Violation of 22 U.S.C. § 612(a))**\n\n39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n40. By virtue of the acts described above, the Defendant acted as an agent of two foreign principals under 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1), that is, he lobbied the U.S. Government for the removal of the PRC national at the request of Sun and on behalf of the PRC.\n\n41. By virtue of the acts described above, the Defendant has an obligation to register as an agent of foreign principals pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 612(a). The Department on multiple occasions has informed the Defendant of this obligation, but he has declined to register.\n\n42. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 618(f) requiring the Defendant to register as an agent of a foreign principal under FARA and, by doing so, to submit a true and complete registration statement, and any supplements thereto, as required by 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b).\n\n## **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the Attorney General of the United States of America, respectfully requests that this Court enter:\n\n- a. A declaratory judgment stating that Defendant has an obligation to register pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 612(a) for conduct undertaken on behalf of foreign principals Sun Lijun and the PRC;\n- b. A permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to submit a true and complete registration statement, and supplements thereto, as required pursuant to Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b);\n\nc. Any and all other relief necessary to effectuate fully the injunction against the\n\nDefendant; and\n\nd. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: May 17, 2022\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n MATTHEW G. OLSEN Assistant Attorney General National Security Division U.S. Department of Justice\n\n JENNIFER KENNEDY GELLIE Chief, FARA Unit National Security Division U.S. Department of Justice\n\n /s/ Nathan M. Swinton Nathan M. Swinton Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Room 7700D Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 353-0267 Email: Nathan.Swinton@usdoj.gov","body_zh":"美利坚合众国司法部长，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nSTEPHEN A. WYNN（斯蒂芬·A·韦恩），\n\n被告。\n\n2017年8月，被告作为外国委托人Sun（孙）和PRC（中华人民共和国）的代理人行事，并代表他们在美国从事政治活动。\n\n3. 因此，根据FARA（《外国代理人登记法》），被告有义务向Attorney General（司法部长）进行登记。22 U.S.C. § 612(a)。\n\n4. 然而，在U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）于2018年5月16日、2021年10月27日和2022年4月13日的信函中被告知该义务后，被告仍拒绝登记。鉴于其未予申报的行为构成了对FARA的持续违反，且在缺乏法院行动的情况下该违法行为极有可能继续发生，因此有必要发出永久禁令。\n\n管辖权与审理地\n\n5. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 和 1345，以及 22 U.S.C. § 618(f)，本法院对本诉讼的标的事项及各方当事人均拥有管辖权。\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)，本司法管辖区为恰当审理地，因为引起本诉讼的相当大部分作为或不作为系源自本司法管辖区内发生的事件。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 原告为United States Attorney General（美国司法部长）。司法部长系国家首席执法官及美国行政机构美国司法部的负责人，受托负责实施FARA。依据其法定职权（见 22 U.S.C. § 620），司法部长已颁布法规，将管理和执行该法案的职责授予Assistant Attorney General for National Security（国家安全事务助理司法部长），28 C.F.R. § 5.1(a)。\n\n8. 被告为美国公民、房地产开发商及拥有多家赌场和度假村的商业人士。2006年，被告在位于中华人民共和国特别行政区的Macau（澳门）开设了其三处赌场物业中的第一处。\n\nFARA 法定条款\n\n9. FARA的主要目的之一是向美国公众通报在美国为外国委托人工作的代理人的活动，这些活动旨在就美国的内政或外交政策，或就外国或外国政党的政治或公共利益、政策或关系，影响美国政府官员或美国公众。外国委托人的美国代理人必须向司法部长登记，并在登记申报文件中就其代理关系以及代表各自外国委托人在美国境内开展的活动进行特定披露。22 U.S.C. § 612(a)。\n\n10. 根据FARA，“外国委托人”一词包括“外国政府”和“美国境外的个人”，除非属于此处不适用的情形。22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1)-(2)。\n\n11. FARA对“代理关系”的认定是一个两部分的审查，同时考量（1）代理人与外国委托人之间的关系，以及（2）代理人为了委托人的利益所开展的活动。就FARA而言，代理关系包括代理人与外国委托人之间通过中间人存在间接关系的情形。22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)。\n\n12. 与本案相关的，FARA项下的“外国委托人的代理人”一词是指：\n\n任何作为代理人、代表、雇员或仆从行事的人，或任何根据外国委托人的命令、要求，或在其指导或控制下，或根据其任何活动全部或大部分由外国委托人直接或间接监督、\n\n指导、控制、资助或补贴的人的命令、要求，或在其指导或控制下以任何其他身份行事的人，且其直接或通过任何其他人……在美国境内为该外国委托人的利益从事政治活动，[或]在美国境内就该外国委托人的利益向美国政府的任何机构或官员陈情。\n\n22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i), (iv)（重点为后加）。\n\n13. FARA将“政治活动”一词定义为“从事该活动的个人认为或意图以任何方式在制定、采纳或改变美国国内或外交政策方面，或在外国政府或外国政党的政治或公共利益、政策或关系方面，影响美国政府的任何机构或官员，或美国境内的任何公众群体的任何活动。” 22 U.S.C. § 611(o)。\n\n14. FARA并不限制其登记人的言论或政治活动，登记人可以自由宣传他们希望传达的任何信息，前提是他们披露其与外国委托人的关系，并遵守该法令的记录保存和其他要求。\n\n15. 根据FARA，负有登记义务的个人或实体具有持续登记的责任，即使应向FARA登记的行为已经停止亦然。22 U.S.C. §§ 612(a), 618(e)。代理关系的终止并不能免除代理人提交登记声明的义务。同上，§ 612(a)。\n\n事实指控\n\n16. 大约在2017年5月，在外国国民Low Taek Jho（刘特佐）协调的一次会议上，孙要求商人兼Republican National Committee（“RNC”，共和党全国委员会）前财务主席Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）、嘻哈艺术家Prakazrel Michel（普拉卡兹雷尔·米歇尔）和商人Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·拉姆·戴维斯）向时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府进行游说，转达中国方面关于取消一名中国商人的签证或以其他方式将其驱逐出美国的请求，该中国商人于2014年离开中国，随后被中国指控腐败，并在美国申请政治庇护（以下简称“中国国民”）。\n\n17. 大约在2017年6月，布罗伊迪代表孙争取被告在游说工作中的协助。被告在2017年1月至2018年1月期间担任RNC财务主席，并通过该工作认识了布罗伊迪。布罗伊迪认为，被告的RNC经历，加上被告在中国的商业往来以及与时任总统特朗普的友谊，将有助于接触到特朗普政府的官员。\n\n18. 布罗伊迪告诉被告，该中国国民是一名躲藏在美国的中国通缉犯，中国希望逮捕他，且他的签证即将到期。布罗伊迪告知被告，布罗伊迪是从中国Ministry of Public Security（公安部）的孙处获悉此信息的，且孙请求被告协助促使特朗普政府对此事予以关注。\n\n19. 布罗伊迪向被告提供了该中国国民的护照照片、一份Interpol（国际刑警组织）红色通缉令以及关于该中国国民的多篇新闻报道链接。\n\n20. 大约在2017年6月，孙与被告通了电话，并请求被告协助争取将该中国国民驱逐出境。被告同意向时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府官员提出此事。被告此前与该中国国民没有任何关联，对于其被驱逐出境亦无独立的个人利益。\n\n21. 同样在大约2017年6月，孙通过布罗伊迪寻求被告协助，以期将该中国国民列入No Fly List（禁飞名单），并使其新的签证申请被拒。\n\na. 在2017年6月27日发送给被告妻子的短信中，布罗伊迪指出该中国国民的签证将于2017年6月30日到期，并坚称“立即拒绝其新的签证申请至关重要[原文如此]”，且应将该中国国民列入禁飞名单。\n\nb. 被告的妻子代表被告接收和发送短信，包括上述短信以及本诉状中通篇讨论的其他短信。被告的妻子向被告告知了所收到信息的内容，并根据被告的指示向布罗伊迪及其他个人发送了短信。\n\nc. 2017年6月27日，布罗伊迪通过被告的妻子向被告发送了第二条信息，声明：\n\n习近平主席在海湖庄园向特朗普总统提及，他希望引渡[该中国国民]回国。[孙]副部长与我进行了会面，并就[该中国国民]一事请求协助。副部长告诉我，此事对习近平主席至关重要。他承诺归还被中国扣为人质的某些美国公民，并愿意接收数量非常庞大的中国非法移民遣返回中国。最后，他表示愿意就朝核问题提供新的协助。\n\n22. 在大约2017年6月27日于华盛顿特区与时任总统特朗普和其他政府官员共进晚餐期间，被告向时任总统特朗普转达了中国希望将该中国国民驱逐出美国的意愿，并将该中国国民的护照照片交给了时任总统特朗普的秘书。\n\na. 晚餐后，布罗伊迪通过短信向被告（通过被告妻子）通报，孙“非常高兴，并表示习近平主席感谢[被告的]协助”。\n\nb. 在次日（即2017年6月28日）或前后，布罗伊迪通过短信向被告（通过被告妻子）询问该中国国民的签证状态以及其是否已被列入禁飞名单。布罗伊迪的信息还补充道：“[孙]表示他们对您的帮助深表感激。”作为回应，被告（通过被告妻子）给布罗伊迪发短信称：“这已经到了国务院和国防部的最高层。他们正在处理此事。”\n\n23. 从大约2017年6月到至少2017年8月，被告与孙通了数次电话。\n\na. 在这些电话通话中，被告通过拉姆·戴维斯与孙取得联系，讨论是通过翻译进行的。\n\nb. 在这些电话通话中，被告认为拉姆·戴维斯是孙的助手。\n\nc. 被告与孙至少进行了八次此类通话。通话时长各不相同，但平均持续约三十分钟。\n\nd. 在这些讨论中，孙对该中国国民进行了说明，并表示如果不延长该中国国民的签证，对中国而言将非常重要。孙还表示，如果被告能提供帮助，他将不胜感激。\n\ne. 被告在多次电话通话中向孙提及了自己在澳门的商业利益。\n\n24. 2017年7月26日或前后，被告的妻子向布罗伊迪发送了一条短信，要求布罗伊迪再次将关于该中国国民的文件材料发送给她。\n\n25. 在大约2017年7月至2017年8月期间，被告试图安排与National Security Council（“NSC”，国家安全委员会）及白宫的高级官员会面。\n\n- a. 约在 2017 年 7 月下旬及 8 月，被告（Defendant）就该名 PRC（中国）公民事宜与 Trump Administration（特朗普政府）的多名官员进行了接触，其中包括两名前白宫幕僚长及两名 NSC（国家安全委员会）高级官员。\n\n- b. 被告在 2017 年 6 月和 7 月期间多次就该中国公民事宜联系白宫幕僚长，并请求与时任总统 Trump（特朗普）会面讨论此事。\n\n- c. 在 2017 年 7 月下旬与白宫幕僚长及两名国家安全委员会高级官员的会面中，被告表示中国官员已与他联系，并告知他“他们非常希望”该中国公民尽快被遣返回中国。\n\n- d. 约在 2017 年 8 月，被告多次亲自前往白宫，与时任总统特朗普进行了看似未事先排定的会面。其中一些讨论（包括 2017 年 8 月 25 日的一次会面）涉及该中国公民。\n\n- e. 2017 年 8 月下旬，Broidy（布洛迪）带领被告及被告妻子乘坐属于布洛迪及其妻子的游艇在意大利海岸附近航行。2017 年 8 月 19 日，布洛迪与被告在游艇上致电时任总统特朗普。在那次通话中，被告向时任总统特朗普询问了该中国公民的情况，时任总统特朗普回应称他会过问此事。\n\n- 26. 促使该中国公民被驱逐出境的努力最终未能成功。\n\n27. Sun（孙力军）在约至 2017 年 10 月期间继续与被告联系，此时被告告知孙力军，他已向美国政府官员转达了该请求，被告无法再提供任何协助，孙力军应当停止与他联系。被告希望体面地退出该局面，维护其在中国的商业利益，并避免得罪任何人。\n\n28. 被告的行为是出于其保护在 PRC（中国）商业利益的愿望。在一封未注明发送日期的短信中，被告告知 Lum Davis（戴维斯），让其建议一名中国官员安排中国驻 Washington, D.C.（华盛顿特区）大使直接联系两名国家安全委员会高级官员。被告在短信中写道，他已与该两人交谈，并获得保证“白宫各方均完全明了该问题的时间节点以及所涉及的相关美国程序法”。被告接着表示：\n\n在目前阶段，作为一名普通公民，我认为我已用尽了我所处地位的优势。如果今后您想到了这一情况的任何其他方面，我当然很乐意提供帮助。我依然对能成为 Macau（澳门）及中国商界的一员深怀感激。\n\n29. 据公开报道，2016 年，即在上述行为发生前不久，Macau government（澳门政府）限制了被告赌场可以运营的赌桌和老虎机数量。1 另据公开报道，在上述行为发生之后，被告原定于 2019 年重新就其在澳门运营赌场的牌照进行谈判。2\n\n1 见 James Detar，《Wynn resorts falls as Macau restricts tables at new casino》（澳门限制新赌场赌桌数量，永利度假村股价下跌），《Investor's Business Daily》（投资者商业日报）（2016 年 8 月 12 日）。\n\n2 见 Linette Lopez，《And now it's clear how China will exploit Steve Wynn's moment of weakness》（如今已很明朗，中国将如何利用史蒂夫·永利的软肋），《Business Insider》（商业内幕）（2018 年 1 月 29 日）。\n\n法律主张\n\nI. 时任公安部副部长孙力军与中国系 FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）项下的外国委托人\n\n30. 孙力军在上述讨论的时期担任中国副部长，且据信居住在中国，属于 FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）含义内的外国委托人。22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2)。\n\n31. 中国属于《外国代理人登记法》含义内的外国委托人，因为其构成外国政府。22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(1)。\n\nII. 被告充当时任公安部副部长孙力军及中国的代理人\n\n32. 孙力军代表中国请求被告协助游说美国政府，包括时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府，以促使该中国公民被驱逐出境。\n\n33. 布洛迪代表孙力军，亦请求被告协助游说美国政府，包括时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府，以促使该中国公民被驱逐出境。\n\n34. 据此，被告代表孙力军和中国从事政治活动，充当了孙力军和中国的代理人。22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)。\n\nIII. 被告负有根据《外国代理人登记法》进行登记的义务，因其应时任副部长孙力军及中国的请求从事了政治活动\n\n35. 被告负有根据《外国代理人登记法》进行登记的义务，因为其通过与时任总统特朗普和特朗普政府的沟通及对其开展的游说努力，为了中国的利益或代表中国的利益，通过试图影响美国政府官员“关于制定、采纳或改变美国的国内或对外政策，或者关于中国的政治或公共利益、政策或关系”，从事了政治活动。22 U.S.C. § 611(o)。\n\n36. 被告至少在三个不同场合游说了特朗普政府的多名人员，包括时任总统特朗普，以促使该中国公民被驱逐出境，且其系应至少一名中国官员孙力军的请求而为。因此，根据《外国代理人登记法》，其充当了外国委托人的代理人。22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)(i)。\n\nIV. 被告未根据《外国代理人登记法》进行登记\n\n37. 通过日期为 2018 年 5 月 16 日的信函，U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部，以下简称“司法部”）告知被告其作为孙力军和中国的代理人负有根据《外国代理人登记法》进行登记的义务，并给予其三十天时间完成登记。被告通过其律师向司法部发送了日期为 2018 年 6 月 8 日的信函，对司法部的分析提出异议，并请求司法部重新考虑其决定。通过日期为 2021 年 10 月 27 日的信函，司法部告知被告其仍负有根据《外国代理人登记法》进行登记的义务，且对此事的进一步调查强化了司法部在此方面的决定。被告通过其律师以日期为 2021 年 12 月 10 日的信函作出了回应。通过日期为 2022 年 4 月 13 日的信函，司法部重申了其关于被告负有登记义务的结论，并给予被告三十天时间进行登记。\n\n38. 截至目前，被告仍未按要求进行登记。\n\n罪名项 I\n\n（违反 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)）\n\n39. 原告重申并援引本诉状第 1 段至第 38 段的主张，如同在此完整陈述。\n\n40. 凭借上述行为，根据 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1)，被告充当了两个外国委托人的代理人，即其应孙力军的请求并代表中国，游说美国政府驱逐该中国公民。\n\n41. 凭借上述行为，根据 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)，被告负有作为外国委托人之代理人进行登记的义务。司法部已多次告知被告该义务，但他拒绝登记。\n\n42. 根据 22 U.S.C. § 618(f)，原告有权获得永久禁令，要求被告根据《外国代理人登记法》登记为外国委托人的代理人，并以此按照 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b) 的要求提交真实且完整的登记声明及任何补充文件。\n\n求偿请求\n\n为此，原告 Attorney General of the United States of America（美利坚合众国司法部长）谨请本法院作出：\n\n- a. 确认之诉判决书，确认被告因代表外国委托人孙力军及中国所实施的行为，根据 22 U.S.C. § 612(a) 负有登记义务；\n\n- b. 永久禁令，要求被告按照《外国代理人登记法》第 2(a) 条和第 2(b) 条即 22 U.S.C. § 612(a)-(b) 的规定，提交真实且完整的登记声明及其补充文件；\n\nc. 为使针对被告的禁令充分生效所必需的任何及所有其他救济；以及\n\nd. 本法院认为公正且适当的该等其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022 年 5 月 17 日\n\n谨呈，\n\nMATTHEW G. OLSEN\nAssistant Attorney General（助理司法部长）\nNational Security Division（国家安全司）\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\nJENNIFER KENNEDY GELLIE\nChief, FARA Unit（外国代理人登记处处长）\nNational Security Division（国家安全司）\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\n/s/ Nathan M. Swinton\nNathan M. Swinton\nTrial Attorney（审判出庭律师）\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\nNational Security Division（国家安全司）\nCounterintelligence and Export Control Section（反间谍与出口管制处）\n950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Room 7700D\nWashington, D.C. 20530\n电话：(202) 353-0267\n电子邮箱：Nathan.Swinton@usdoj.gov","key_entities":["CIPA","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3220,"status":"published","published_at":"2018-05-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2018-05-16","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:34:58"}