{"id":"court_ctb_678_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":678,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-08-04","title":"Case222590733 109 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Case222590733 109\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n.............................................................................................................................................................................. In re: Chapter 11 Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) Debtor.\n\n이 있 때 위 아 바 배 배 배 배 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 등 등 등 등 -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. 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 678-2 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 08:56:08 Page 3 of 109\n\n# දියියි 22:598733 100\n\n5. S. 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#### L 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. 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#### Case222590733 100\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. 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\n# Case2229073 900-1078-2\" 1441286864122 Enterfalled 6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 100\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; 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> 6, 2012 (http).\n\n# Coste22250073 109\n\nMy public statements exposing the corruption of the CCP received widespread coverage, in the United States and abroad. In addition to using social media to more readily and pervasively expose CCP corruption, I also provided information to U.S. authorities regarding CCP officials and their crimes. Out of fear for my life, I filed for political asylum protection in the United States in September 2017, and my asylum application remains pending.\n\n15. In retaliation for my whistleblowing, the CCP unleashed a multifaceted campaign to try to gain leverage over, discredit, 2 threaten, and silence me.3 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 Walls, 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 sMfNkw() (indicating that the CCP's disinformation campaign against me began in April 2017); Dr. Jake Walls, 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%20frewall 1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyglOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt 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 unqive. 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 inline).\n\n# Case222590733 100\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# Cose22259073 906-1870-27144183169164/22 109\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me),5 lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, and former DOJ official George Higginbotham, 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 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 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#### 6956 22-50073 BBC 693-2 FilleReARG4022Enterlede6866862222683800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 100\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. 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# Case22250073 100\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China. 9 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. 9 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#### Cô§®£²²²²²։ 100\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. 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 100\n\n24. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a Final Order of Civil Contempt (the \"February 9 Contempt Order\") against me. In the February 9 Contempt Order, Justice Ostrager found that I hold a beneficial interest in and control the Lady May and ordered me to pay a \\$134 million fine to PAX within five business days or risk incarceration for civil contempt. I believe that the February 9 Contempt Order was wrongfully issued against me and have separately appealed this order to the Appellate Division. Regardless, I do not have the means to satisfy the order. I firmly believe the CCP is orchestrating the PAX case. The PAX litigation, so far, has been one of the CCP's few successes in its relentless campaign against me, by exposing me to potential imprisonment11 and forcing me into bankruptcy.\n\n#### B. Securities Litigation.\n\n25. I am named as a defendant in seven actions related to my promotion of the sale of securities in a company called GTV Media Group, Inc (\"GTV\") and virtual currency referred to as \"G Coin\" and \"G Dollar.\" In addition to two putative investor classes, several individual investors have asserted claims against me related to losses they allegedly suffered following their alleged investments. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that I participated in a scheme to sell unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors in violation of applicable U.S. securities laws. The complaints, in the aggregate, are seeking more than \\$100 million in damages from me\n\n<sup>11</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its Motion Of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry Of An Order Confirming The Inapplicability Of The Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant To Section 362(D)(2) Of The Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 57] (the \"Lift Stay Motion\"). I believe that granting the relief requested by the Lift Stay Motion would cause me significant harm and materially prejudice my estate and its creditors. As indicated by PAX in the Lift Stay Motion, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order could result in my imprisonment in New York, which would materially impair my ability to achieve the objectives of this Chapter 11 case. Chiefly, if incarcerated, I will be unable to adequately and appropriately administer my estate, participate in this bankruptcy case, negotiate with creditors, appear and be heard before this Court, consult with and direct counsel, investigate and marshal the assets of the estate, or formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan. Further, I believe that PAX is under the misplaced belief that my family will pay PAX's ransom if I face the risk of incarceration; my family will not.\n\n# දියි.පිදිවිද්‍යාව අතර 1078-2018 දී පිළිබඳ දැන්විය විසින් පිහිපි මිනිසිය පිහිපි 1989 දකුණු 1974 වි 100\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's contention that the GTV offering ran afoul of Section 506 of 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#### Cosse222590733 100\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#### දියි.පිටින් දින අවුරුව විවිධ විදින විවිධ විදිවිය විසින් පිහි මිතිය විසිනි මෙයි. මෙයි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි 100\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\nો રે\n\n# දියිසිදුවිට් දින අතර විවිධ විදි අනුවිය විසින් විසින් පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි 100\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#### Case22290733 B88-1878-2F1141183188164122-1114118816916918919999999999999999999999999999999999999 100\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\n### Casse2229073 109\n\nfor the estate's benefit. Craig Jalbert of V&L (as defined below) shall be the sole authorized signatory. Disbursements from the Debtor Account will only be at the direction of V&L, solely to the extent necessary to pay the items set forth in the DIP Budget, and as authorized in the proposed DIP Financing orders, the DIP Financing documents, and other relevant orders of the Court (including orders approving professional fee applications).\n\n38. Jo 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### දියි.දි22580733 100\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 vield 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\n## Case 22 300 73 100\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\n# දියි.දිරිවර්ති\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### දියි. දින දින දින දින දිවිය විසිනි විවිධ විදි විසින් පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි පිහි 100\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. J 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#### දියි.දිනිවිද්‍යාවේ පිහිටි විවිධියි... Film 2016 දින දිසින් පිහිටිය විසිනි පිහිටිය විසිනි පිහිටි මිය පිහිටිය විය... මෙම පිහිටි විද්‍යා 100\n\nnecessary and providing accounting of all cash activity; (d) claims review and administration; (e) plan of reorganization formulation and review; (t) 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\n53. 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 678-2 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 08:56:08 Page 25 of 109\n\n# Casse22259073 109\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true\n\nand correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\nDated: March 20, 2022 Greenwich. Connecticut\n\nBy: Name: Ho Wan Kwok\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 678-2 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 08:56:08 Page 27 of 109\n\n# Case 22500 33 1200 1000 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 100\n\n#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nl\n\n)\n\nﻤﺴﻴﺴﺎ\n\nﻤﺴﻴﺴﺔ -\n\n--\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nV.\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY,\n\nDefendant.\n\nCRIMINAL NO.\n\nCount 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy)\n\n#### CRIMINAL INFORMATION\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n#### INTRODUCTION\n\n- ﺳﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍ At all times relevant to this Information:\n- 2. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, 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 IMalaysia 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 IMDB 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\n\n#### Case 22 500 35 11 100 Company 2016 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 100\n\nof 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 IMDB 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 DOI, and at 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. J 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\n#### Cose 22 500 30 100 000 2008 2008 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 100\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 United States during the 2016 election cycle. In his role as Deputy Finance Chair, BROLDY 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\n#### Case 22 300 3 1 2006 100 2008 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100\n\n10. Person A was and is a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\nI I. 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 IMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company formed 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 firm 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 IMDB emberzhement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1MDB laundered proceeds. On November 1, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder\n\n#### Cose 22 500 33 1 1 2006 100 2 2014 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 100\n\nbillions of dollars embezzled from IMDB 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 1 through 16 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.\n- 18. From no later than March 2017 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 IMDB matters and the removal of PRC National A, without registering with the Attorney General, in violation of 22 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 National A to orchestrate back-channel, unregistered campaigns to lobby the Administration and DOJ to: (1) end the 1MDB matters or otherwise resolve the matters favorably for Foreign National A; and (2) remove PRC National A from the United States and send him back to the PRC.\n\n20. 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\n21. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to conceal BROIDY's contacts with and payments from Foreign National A to maintain BROIDY's credibility with United States officials and to further the illegal advocacy scheme.\n\n### Case 22 5000 30 11000 100 220 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100\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 1MDB 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 behalf of Foreign 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\n#### Cose 22 500 100 Class 1200 2002 2008 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 20 100\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 conceál 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#### Campaign to Resolve 1MDB 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 turn 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 hiography describing BROIDY'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 BROIDY's close access to the Administration.\n\n#### Case 2255000 31 2006 100 220 100 100 2006 2006 2008 100 100 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 100\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 IMDB. 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 1MDB 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#### Case 22 300 For 1 Book 9 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100\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 talkf. I\"\n\n37. On or about May 1, 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] and 1 will see you at arrivals. . . . Thanks and bon voyage - herc's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n#### Costs 22 500 75 1.1 100 - 10 % 10 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100\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 IMDB 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, BROIDY 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\n#### Costed on the see of the filled in the fine free mannel of the find of the see and of any and 100\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 of BROIDY'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\n#### Cose 22 2007 31 2006 100 2014 10:10 100 100 2000 2007 2000 100 100 100 100 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 100 100\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 IMDB 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 of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n#### D. BROIDY Facilitates and Attempts to Facilitate Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Efforts to Resolve the 1MDB 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\n#### Costs 22 500 FB 1.180 Close of Child May 16 May 19 2000 2012 10 100 00 2000 000 2000 000 2000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 100\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, \"Yesf, J\"\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 1MDB 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 1MDB 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\n# Case 22 5968 951 1498 1892 - 5 11 4 18 18 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 100\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 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, 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\nOn or about July 5, 2017, BROIDY exchanged messages with Person E regarding 53. 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 donef. I''\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Wickr[] ft'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 WHJ.] 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\n#### Cose 22 2007 31 12 000 100 2014 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 100\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 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, 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, \"Can u check Wikr] | 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#### Case 22 500 73 1. 1996 1478 2014 11:48 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100\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. 2017, 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, BROIDY 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 I-I] 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 D]- 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\n#### Cose 22 2007 21:10 000 100 2014 11 11:10 10 00 00 00 12 11 11 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 100\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???? Davis immediately followed by texting \"Wickrf.1\" 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 IMDB as a \"[p]riority]]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by I MDB, 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\n#### Costed on the see of the see and of the first and the first lead on the first of the comments of the for 100\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 mectings 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 Firm 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 10, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from Malaysia that mectings 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 ]] deputies or [Person ]]. 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\n#### Cose 22 3000 31 1200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100\n\n72. On or about August 31, 2017, BROIDY drafted and sent an email to Person 1 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 IMDB 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 IMDB 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 Dol to counter the previous Administration's case against IMDB 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\n#### Cose 22 300 30 100 100 2002 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 100\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 cmailed 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 Minister 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#### Cose 22 Callery : 10 Grille 10 College of the Research Portuge of Carrer Contract of Collection 100\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 Chinaf.]\" 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 Attornev 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. BROIDY 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\n\n#### Cose 22 2006 3 : 1 0 6 : 10 6 : 10 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 109\n\nefforts 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. 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.\" 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\n#### Cose 22 - 000 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 100\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 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 my contact this morning. Thank you. Ef.]\" 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, \"10 am head of ICE 11:30 FBI Perhaps a play at DHS would save situation. Fly by [Person ]]. The three items can be shared.\" BRO]DY 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\n#### Cose 22 2007 21:10 000 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 109\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 asan? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, BROIDY and Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n91. On or about May 30, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's meeting with United States government officials, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[]]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. All setf.]\" Davis replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated| . [\"\n\n92. In or about May 2017, Davis, at Person A's request, asked BROIDY to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n93. On or about May 30, 2017, 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 31, 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 ]]. He is happy meeting with [Person ]]. . . . 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\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 DHS? He can\n\n#### ිවිය. 22 සිරිමි අවුරුව 1 2006 දී 10 දි 11 දි 11 දි 11 දි 11 දී 11 විමිනි 12 දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින කිරීම විවිධ 10 දින කියවි පිහි 2006 100\n\nmention my name. Also try to get [Person ]] 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, \"Isn't [Person ]] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" BROIDY responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General] peoplef.]\" Davis responded, \"It's on the DHS 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 f[\\*]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 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, 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 H and 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, \"Is rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" Davis responded, \"I 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\n#### ිලිකියි විවිධිය විසින් අවුරුද්ධ විවිධ විද්‍යාඥය විසින් මිල පිහිටි විවිධ විවිධ විවිධ විවිධ විවිධ විවිධ විද්‍යාව විවිධ විද්‍යාව විවිධ විද්‍යාව විවිධ විසිනි පිහිටු විද්‍යාව විව 100\n\n101. 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 donel, 1\" Davis replied. \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.] 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[ ] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[]\" BROIDY responded, \"Sounds good. [Person H] 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 H]. He reiterated to POTUS.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Separately, [Person E] 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?\" Dayis later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n103. On or about July 1, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Spoke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you canf. [\" 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.]\"\n\n#### Case 22 500 Fe 100 Color 2014 11 60 000 400 2014 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 0000 100\n\n105. 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\n106. On or about July 10, 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 H in 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 confirm it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says nof I\" BROIDY\n\n#### Case 22 300 300 1000 100 2000 2000 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100\n\nresponded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[]\" BROIDY later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person H] 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. \"Hev 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 H]. have break thru opportunity].]\"\n\n113. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY met with Person H on 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\n#### Cose 22 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\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\nI 16. 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\nI. 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)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).\n\n2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(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- ﺿ has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; C. ت\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n\n# ියෙයි දින දින දින 1. ඔහු පිහිටි දින දින දින දින දින දින දින කිරීම මග කිරීම පිහි බව පිහිටු විසි විය. මෙය සිට පිහිට ප 109\n\nhas been commingled with other property which cannot be divided e. without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture 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\nDATED: September 30 , 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n/s/John D. Keller By: John D. Keller Principal Deputy Chief Scan F. Mulryne Deputy Director, Election Crimes Branch Nicole R. Lockhart James C. Mann Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 678-2 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 08:56:08 Page 59 of 109\n\n#### Costa 2007 - 000 2006 - 100 188 - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 109\n\nFILED N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII 11 Aug 17, 2020, 10:23am Michelle Rynne, Clerk of Court\n\nKENJI 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 HAWAII\n\nﺴﺴ\n\nﺴﻢ\n\nﻤﺴﺴﺴ\n\nﻟﺴﻨﺔ\n\nﻟﻤﺴﻠﺴﻞ\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n-\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nPlaintiff.\n\nVS.\n\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS,\n\nDefendant.\n\n# ) CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO\n\nINFORMATION\n\n[18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)]\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n# INTRODUCTION\n\nﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﮨﮯ۔ At all times relevant to this Information:\n\n2. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 2018,\n\nNICKIE LUM DAVIS agreed with Persons A and B to act as agents of Foreign\n\n#### Costeller of the comments of the collection of the collection of the comments of the comments of 109\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 Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop the investigation of Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from IMalaysia Development Berhad (\"IMDB\"), 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 1MDB investigation dropped.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, DAVIS 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, DAVIS and Persons A and B were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, DAVIS aided Person B in facilitating a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in\n\n1-3\n\n#### Costed on the comments of the collections of the collection of the comments of the comments of 100\n\nSeptember 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the IMDB 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. DAVIS, 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\n#### Criminal 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\n#### Case Be 2007 - 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 0000000000000000000000000000 109\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\n#### Coster Coloral College of the College of Controller College College Commentario Commentario Commentario Commentario Commentario Co 100\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 1MDB.\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\n#### Coster College of the Comments of Controller of Contractor College Comments of Concerner Collection 100\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the IMDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1MDB 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 IMDB 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 IMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases\n\n#### A. Person B Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for S8 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 IMDB. 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 DAVIS send him Person B's biography describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration\n\n#### Costed on the online of the collection of the collected and of the comments of the comments of the comments of the 100\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, DAVIS 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 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 1MDB forfeiture proceedings. In actuality, Person A, Person B, Law Firm A, DA VIS, 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\n#### Cosses & Editor & Older Links 2004 (188 @ 102) Extender 2000 (00 2002 2006 (00 Parmal (000 100\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 DAVIS 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\n23. On or about March 15, 2017, 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. DAVIS emailed Person B and his assistant about setting up another meeting among Person B. Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n25. At all relevant times, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B were aware of F ARA 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 DAVIS, Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n#### Costed on the comments of the college of the collection of the collection of the only of the only 100\n\n#### B. Person A, Person B, and DAVIS Meet Foreign National A in 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 DAVIS 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?\" DAVIS 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, DAVIS 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, DAVIS emailed Person B and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That same day, DAVIS 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\n#### Costs & 2006 For of the First Leading and Collection College Stores of Parmer Comments of All Comparison Compress of All Compo 100\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, DAVIS 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, DAVIS, 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 B and Foreign National A spoke about the 1MDB 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 B an \\$8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the IMDB 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 DAVIS agreed that\n\n#### Cosse2222000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 100\n\nthe money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person B and DAVIS agreed that Person B would pay DAVIS 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 B and 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, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 2017 was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n#### Come 22:2000 000 11 Fre 2000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 0000 000000000000000 109\n\n35. On or about May 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"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\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 DAVIS 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, DAVIS 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\n#### Comments on of the forme of the collection of the market of the former of the first of the first of the former of the first of the 109\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, 2017, 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 1MDB 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 1MDB 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\n#### Comment of the more of the model of the more of the forme to the comments the line 100\n\n43. The same day, at the request of Person A, DAVIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, DAVIS 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 B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding IMDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associated with Foreign National A.\n\n46. On or about June 17, 2017, Person B and DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 2017, Person B asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said, and DAVIS believed, that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the IMDB 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\n#### Comments of the Portal Pro- The Leading The Medical College of College of Comments of The September 14 Be 100\n\n47. On or about June 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the 1MDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n48. On or about June 25, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B a link to an article about Malaysian Prime Minister A and the IMDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Weird article. What can we do?\" DAVIS replied, \"Call pls. Got news[]\" DAVIS 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\n#### Costs & 22 2007 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 109\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, DAVIS 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\n#### COMBER 2017 000 GULET 8 - Died 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\n\nA's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DAVIS continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated| | Person B responded, \"See wikr|.]\" The following day, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[] Taking off. Need now[]\" DAVIS responded, \"Donef.]\" 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\n#### COSTER 22200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 100\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DAVIS 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, DAVIS wrote, \"Can u 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[.]\" DAVIS replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today].]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. 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 badf. I\" Person B responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n#### Costs 22:2006 - 10 000 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\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\n#### C @ S B 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 109\n\n64. On or about July 29, 2017, relaying information that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DAVIS 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??\" DAVIS immediately followed by texting \"Wickrf.l\" 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. DAVIS 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 IMDB as a \"[p]riority].]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by IMDB, 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\n#### රි ලියිසින් මිනිමි අවධිපත් විශ්වයි. මිල් මිලි බව විවිධිය විසිනි දිනි විශ්වයි. මෙයි සිට අතුරි පිහිටි විශ්වයි. 109\n\nof a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Hi [Person D]; When is [Secretary of State] mtg2; 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\n#### Comments of the Collection of the final to and the follow of the former the former the former the 109\n\nbusiness account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DAVIS.\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 DAVIS exchanged text messages to set up a meeting and a phone call. Among the messages, DAVIS 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 DAVIS exchanged text messages setting up a phone call. Among the messages, DAVIS 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 ]]. 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\n#### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\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, DAVIS 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 DAVIS 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\n#### ර ලියන දින් කිරීම පිහිටි විවිධ විවිධ විවිධ විවිධිය විසිනි මිනිමි සිට අවස්ථි විදියා විසි පිහිටි විශ්වයි. 109\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 IMDB investigation with the President during the meeting.\n\n79. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B drafted talking points related to I MDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Person B 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 I 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 1MDB 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\n#### II. Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States\n\n#### Costed 22 2007 30 000 000 11 5 - Doctor 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\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 B and Person C banking information for DAVIS's company.\n\n83. On or about May 18, 2017, Person A, Person B, and DAVIS 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 DAVIS, \"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 D]- 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 DAVIS, 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 B and 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\n#### Comments on offection of the find of the mest of the find of the follow to offer the former the tolle 109\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\n#### Control 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 100 100 1000 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 109\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 B]- 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\n#### C S S E 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 F 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 109\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 ]].\" 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.\"\n\n#### රි ලියිසි දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දින දි 100\n\nLater that same day, Person B and Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n95. On or about May 30, 2017, relaying information from PRC Minister A and Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetings with United States Government officials, DAVIS texted, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. All setf.]\" DAVIS replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]\"\n\n96. In or about May 2017, DAVIS, at Person A's request, asked Person B to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n97. On or about May 30, 2017, Person B met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n98. On or about May 31, 2017, Person B texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [ Attorney General] or [Person ]]. He is happy meeting with [Person ]]. . . . 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\n#### C @ S S 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\n\nVM at DHS? He can mention my name. Also try to get [Person ]] 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.\" DAVIS responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" Person B replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" DAVIS then texted, \"Isn't [Person ]] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" Person B responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General']s people[]\" DAVIS 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.\" DAVIS replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n101. On or about June 9, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B a 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\n#### O SEE E 22 2007 2000 000 11 8 7 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 109\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. ] 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 30th. 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#### Costed 22 2000 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109\n\n[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\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?\" DAVIS 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[?]\" DAVIS 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 B and 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\n\n#### Comments of the Collection of the contribution in the may be of the first of the first of the former to 109\n\nto slam until it's done] ]\" DAVIS replied, \"Let's make sure part I happens today. And date for m[.] Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" Person B 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] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" Person B responded, \"Sounds good. [Person H] calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n107. On or about June 30, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, \"Heard from [Person H]. 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, DAVIS replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" DAVIS 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. 2017. Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public\n\n#### Comments of the comments of the contribution of the contraction of the comments of the comments of the 109\n\nreporting, 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].\"\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. DAVIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person H in 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, DAVIS 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\n\n#### COSES 222000 30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 109\n\nB, \"Hi []. Can you text me the details again of 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 H on 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\n#### Consell 2007 2000 Clife - 2 Touril 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 109\n\n118. On or about October 2, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS a link to an article about PRC National A.\n\n119. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B texted DAVIS, \"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 Attornev General as required by law, aided and abetted Person B in their actions as agents of a foreign principal, to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the IMDB 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)(1).\n\n#### Collection of the server of the - 20 locked by 24 in the the street of the online of the one may the for 109\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 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).\n\n122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(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)(1), 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 DAVIS 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- has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; b.\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- has been substantially diminished in value; or d.\n- e. I has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty.\n\n#### Costelling of the First - Files the medial of the mediation of the only of the only of the forme 109\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property\n\npursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title\n\n28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\n\nDATED: August 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.\n\n151\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price KENJI M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\nfirm Sovenson\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson KENNETH M. SORENSON Chief, National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n/s/ John D. Keller JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nUnited States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No.\n\n#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |  |\n|---------------------------|--|\n|                           |  |\n| VS.                       |  |\n|                           |  |\n| GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM,      |  |\n|                           |  |\n| Defendant.                |  |\n|                           |  |\n\nCriminal Number:\n\n18-343 (CKK)\n\n#### FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEA\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States and the defendant, George HIGGINBOTHAM, stipulate and agree that the following facts fairly and accurately describe the defendant's conduct in the offense to which he is pleading guilty. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense and related conduct. This statement is being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist to establish that the defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty. The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and truthfully admits the facts set forth below.\n\nThe Conspiracy\n\n1. From in or about April 2017 to in or about January 2018, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, HIGGINBOTHAM and others knowingly conspired to commit the offense of making false statements to a bank by misrepresenting the true source and purpose of transfers of tens of millions of dollars from foreign accounts to various federally insured financial institutions in the United States.\n\n#### C Sos e 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11038\n\n#### Individuals Involved in the Conspiracy\n\n2. During the conspiracy, HIGGINBOTHAM was a licensed attorney employed by the United States Department of Justice, Co-conspirator A, a longtime associate of HIGGINBOTHAM, was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer. Co-conspirator B, a foreign national and associate of Co-conspirator A, was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who was alleged to have orchestrated a multi-billion dollar embezzlement and bribery scheme from I Malaysia Development Berhad (\\* 1 MDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia.\n\n#### Source and Purposes of International Fund Transfers\n\n3. In or about July 2016, the United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of over \\$1 billion in assets allegedly associated with laundered proceeds from the IMDB embezzlement and bribery scheme. Coconspirator B was named in the complaints as one of the primary architects of the embezzlement scheme.\n\n4. In or about March 2017, Co-conspirator A asked HIGGINBOTHAM to assist with identifying someone with political influence who could resolve Co-conspirator B's issues surrounding the IMDB forfeiture matters and the DOJ's investigation thereof. HIGGINBOTHAM introduced Co-conspirator A to a law firm recruiter, who recommended two different law firms, but Co-conspirator B ultimately selected Person 1, a non-lawyer business owner, political fundraiser, and financier with political connections at high levels of the United States government, to lobby government officials to resolve the 1MDB matters. HIGGINBOTHAM had no involvement in introducing Person I to Co-conspirator A or Co-conspirator B.\n\n#### Coro 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 108\n\n5. According to Co-conspirator A, Person I did not want to be paid directly by Coconspirator B because he did not want to be linked to Co-conspirator B. At Co-conspirator A's direction, HIGGINBOTHAM worked on various retainer and consulting agreements that provided for payments through pass-through entities to distance Co-conspirator B from Person 1 and anonymized Co-conspirator B in the transaction. According to the written agreements, Coconspirator B would pay tens of millions of dollars to Person I through various intermediaries and entities as compensation for Person I's efforts to lobby United States government officials to drop all civil and/or criminal matters related to 1MDB. According to Co-conspirator A, as part of the lobbying campaign, Person 1 agreed to try to influence a potential nominee for a federal position that would have authority over the IMDB civil forfeiture matters. That person ultimately was not nominated.\n\n6. In or about May 2017, Co-conspirator A informed HIGGINBOTHAM that Coconspirator B had another request separate from the 1MDB matters that was potentially more lucrative than their work on the IMDB issue: Co-conspirator B wanted Foreign National 1, a former resident of Country O who was living in the United States on a temporary visa and who had publicly criticized the leadership of Country Q, to be removed from the United States and sent back to Country Q. According to Co-conspirator A. Person I and others would use their political connections to lobby United States government officials to have Foreign National 1 removed from the United States.\n\n7. with Country Q's ambassador to the United States at Country Q's embassy in Washington, D.C. HIGGINBOTHAM agreed, and on or about July 16, 2017, HIGGINBOTHAM went to Country Q's embassy in Washington, D.C. and met with the ambassador. HIGGINBOTHAM informed\n\nلدما\n\n#### C Look 2 2 2 2008 3 : De 6 1 0 2 2 - 2 2 0 0 0 / 2 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 / 2 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11008\n\nembassy staff and Country Q's ambassador that he was there in his personal capacity and not as a representative of DOJ. At Co-conspirator A's request. HIGGINBOTHAM delivered a specific message during the meeting. United States government officials were working on the matter involving Foreign National 1 and there would be additional information in the future concerning the logistics of returning Foreign National 1 to Country Q Following the meeting, HIGGINBOTHAM reported to Co-conspirator A what had occurred. Co-conspirator A informed HIGGINBOTHAM that, based on Co-conspirator A's conversations with Co-conspirator B. Coconspirator B was satisfied with how the embassy meeting went.\n\n8. Between in or about May 2017 and in or about September 2017, tens of millions of dollars were transferred from Foreign Company L, an entity formed in Country Q, to accounts in the name of an entity in the United States controlled by Co-conspirator A. HIGGINBOTHAM understood that, although the money was coming from Foreign Company L, Co-conspirator B exercised control over the funds and the transfers occurred at Co-conspirator B's direction. HIGGINBOTHAM also understood that the purpose of the funds was to pay Person 1 and others to lobby United States government officials to ( 1 ) resolve the I MDB matters, and (2) have Foreign National I removed from the United States and sent back to Country Q.\n\n9. To make the international fund transfers appear legitimate, HIGGINBOTHAM worked on various fake loan documents, investments, and consulting contracts at the direction of Co-conspirator A. The documents were in the names of several foreign and domestic shell companies that concealed Co-conspirator B's involvement in the transactions. The purpose in creating the fake documents was to provide a cover story in case the banks or other authorities made inquiries about the true source and purpose of the funds. HIGGINBOTHAM understood that Co-conspirator A and Co-conspirator B were concerned that financial institutions in the United\n\n#### C & F 2 2 2 3 C 2 3 C 1 C C C 6 T 6 T 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 / 2 2 m E S F 6 8 / 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11008\n\nStates would refuse to execute transactions involving any funds identified as being associated with Co-conspirator B.\n\nMeeting with Co-conspirator B in Country Q\n\n10. In or about September 2017, at Co-conspirator A's request, HIGGINBOTHAM travelled to Country Q with Co-conspirator A and others to meet with Co-conspirator B, Over the course of several days, HIGGINBOTHAM met with Co-conspirator B, Co-conspirator A, and others. During these meetings, Co-conspirator B, Co-conspirator A, and others discussed strategies for secretly funneling more of Co-conspirator B's money into the United States to further the lobbying campaign, including coming up with cover stories to explain the movement of money and to conceal the fact that the money was associated with Co-conspirator Br They also discussed the strictness of the United States banking system in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. Co-conspirator B stated that he wanted to send the money in smaller installments over a longer period of time in order to avoid scrutiny.\n\n11. Eventually, Co-conspirator B came up with a proposal of giving HIGGINBOTHAM power of attorney over the assets of Foreign Company R, another entity formed in Country Q and purportedly owned by an associate of Co-conspirator B. In reality, Coconspirator B controlled Company R's assets and the associate was simply a nominee for Coconspirator B. According to Co-conspirator B's proposal, in the event Person I and others were successful in having Foreign National 1 removed from the United States, HIGGINBOTHAM (using the power of attorney authority) could sell Company R to Co-conspirator A and others associated with Person I and use Company R's assets to compensate those involved in the lobbying eampaign: At Co-conspirator B's direction, HIGGINBOTHAM signed various documents while in Country Q purporting to give HIGGINBOTHAM control over Company R and its assets.\n\n#### Color 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100\n\n12. Upon returning to the United States, HIGGINBOTHAM and Co-conspirator A learned that Person I and others involved in the lobbying campaign were dissatisfied with Coconspirator B's proposal and the fact that the trip to Country Q had not resulted in additional funds being sent to the United States. In or about October 2017, Co-conspirator A and HIGGINBOTHAM agreed that the additional funds that Person I and his associates were seeking from Co-conspirator B could instead be deposited into HIGGINBOTHAM's attorney escrow account pending resolution of the issue concerning Foreign National 1.\n\n13. On or about October 23, 2017, approximately \\$41 million was deposited into HIGGINBOTHAM's escrow account from Foreign Company R, at the direction of Co-conspirator B. HIGGINBOTHAM, at Co-conspirator A's direction, disbursed several million dollars for one of Co-conspirator A's entertainment projects. According to Co-conspirator A, those funds were Co-conspirator A's cut for helping get the money into the United States and acting as an intermediary between Co-conspirator B and the individuals engaged in the lobbying campaign. Virtually all of the remaining funds were placed in a certificate of deposit at Co-conspirator A s request because the individuals engaged in the lobbying campaign wanted the money to be secure. HIGGINBOTHAM believed that the funds would be released in the event the lobbying campaign was successful in having Foreign National 1 removed from the United States.\n\n#### False Statements to Financial Institutions\n\n14. Between in or about September 2017 and in or about December 2017, in furtherance of the conspiracy. HIGGNBOTHAM made and caused to be made false statements to three federally insured financial institutions in the United States in order to influence the imancial institutions actions in connection with the tens of millions of dollars transferred from Foreign Company L and Foreign Company R to accounts in the United States to finance Co-\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 678-2 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 08:56:08 Page 106 of 109\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 678-2 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 08:56:08 Page 107 of 109\n\n#### C Sole 2 2 5 6 6 6 3 - 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ની રેમ્ક્\n\nFinancial Institution Y closed Co-conspirator A's business accounts and disbursed the remaining funds, including those from the cash accounts, to Co-conspirator A.\n\n17. In or about December 2017, Financial Institution Z, an FDIC insured bank where HIGGINBOTHAM maintained an attorney escrow account, inquired of HIGGINBOTHAM about the source and purpose of the approximately \\$41 million deposited into HIGGINBOTHAM's account from Foreign Company R. In order to influence Financial Institution Z's due diligence with respect to the funds, HIGGINBOTHAM responded that the money was an investment from Foreign Company R in music and entertainment projects for one of his clients. HIGGINBOTHAM did not mention Co-conspirator B or the campaign to influence the 1MDB matters and have Foreign National 1 removed from the United States.\n\n18. On or about May 9, 2017, HIGGINBOTHAM submitted a \\$20,000 invoice to Coconspirator A for work related, at least in part, to the conduct described above for Co-conspirator A. On or about August 11, 2017, HIGGINBOTHAM submitted a \\$50,000 invoice to Coconspirator A and his money manager for work related, at least in part, to the conduct described above for Co-conspirator A. Co-conspirator A paid HIGGINBOTHAM the full amount of both invoices.\n\nANNALOU TIROL Acting Chief Public Integrity Section\\_ John Keller Deputy Chief Ryan Ellersick James Mann Sean Mulryne Nicole Lockhart\n\nBy:\n\nTrial Attorneys Public Integrity Section 1400 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-1412\n\n# CSes 225,600331 BBC GARD BBC CHARL CORRECT FOR COMMENT CONSECTET CONTRACT COOLOGIC COOLOGO COOCOLOGO COOCOLOGO CO\n\n#### DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE\n\nThe preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am. in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Factual Basis for Plea fully.\n\nI have read every word of this Factual Basis for Plea or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my atterneys. I agree and stipulate to this Factual Basis for Plea, and declare under penally of that it is true and correct.\n\nDate: Noveman Print 19, 2018\n\nGeorge Higginbotham Defendant\n\n#### ATTORNEY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT\n\nI have read this Factual Basis for Plea, and have reviewed it with my client fully. I concur in my client's desire to adopt and stipulate to this Factual Basis for Plea as true and accurate.\n\n11/19/18\n\nChristopher Mead Lance Robinson For the Defendant","body_zh":"案件 22-50073，第 109 页\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 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)，债务人。\n\n이 있 때 위 아 바 배 배 배 배 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 매 등 등 등 등 -X\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），经正式宣誓后，陈述如下：\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 周岁，具备作证能力。\n\n2. 关于本人的背景资料，以及导致本人启动第 11 章案件的相关情形说明。本人在本声明中作了较为详尽的陈述，以便就针对本人的索赔性质、本人的特殊财务状况以及本人启动本第 11 章案件的原因提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文更详细所述，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项相互竞争的索赔；(b) 鉴于本人认为在该等事项上存在误解，为利益相关方提供高效机会，以调查本人的资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财产，进而可供向获准索赔权利人分配；以及，希望，(d) 达成共识\n案件 22-50073，文件 678-2，于 08/04/22 提交，于 08/04/22 08:56:08 登记，第 3 页，共 109 页\nදියියි 22:598733 100\n\n5. 本声明分为两部分。第一部分提供关于本人的背景资料，包括对本人资产和负债的概要说明。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n第一部分——背景\n一、我的背景\n\n6. 本人出生于中国山东省。目前，本人与结婚 37 年的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（郭英芝）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（谢里-内瑟兰）的一套公寓搬至康涅狄格州现址。本人和妻子育有两名成年子女。儿子名为 Qiang Guo（郭强），居住在伦敦。女儿名为 Mei Guo（郭美），其时间分居于纽约市和康涅狄格州。\n\n7. 我们的收入——本人的收入来自一家无线电维修店，兄弟们的收入来自其各自的小企业——用于投资房地产开发。在 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政支持而被监禁约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。被捕时本人二十出头。同时，本人目睹两名警察——CCP 的特工——枪杀本人的弟弟并任其死亡的暴行。弟弟被杀，以及本人被捕和在狱中遭受酷刑，对本人产生了深刻影响。在狱中，本人与许多同样因支持天安门广场民主运动而被监禁的良心犯建立了具有重大意义的私人联系。我们对在中国追求自由抱有相同热忱，本人在 1991 年出狱后仍继续维持这些关系。\n案件 22-50073，第 100 页\n\n8. 大约在 1991 年，中国政府开始放宽若干管理社会的规则，包括使普通公民能够开始在中国实现某种“准私人”房地产所有权的规则。尽管本人的大家族因这一变化而受益，但本人因先前具有政治动机的逮捕和拘押而无法受益。任何以本人名义登记的中国资产都很可能被 CCP 没收。本人大家族利用其积累的财富支持本人，并一直持续至今。\n\n9. 一家专注于中国河南省商业房地产开发的公司。郭氏家族与 Yuda（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。这些成功项目使郭氏家族开始积累巨额财富。此后，本人家族在中国开发了其他房地产项目，包括北京 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）——一座七星级酒店、会议中心及住宅公寓综合体。美国人可能认识盘古大观，因为它是北京 2008 年和 2022 年奥运会的主要背景。\n\n10. 郭氏家族的财富通过多元化持续增长，其投资于金融、科技及其他商业领域。特别是，本人的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，本人的儿子本身是一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 大约在 2000 年，本人离开中国大陆前往 Hong Kong（香港），并成为香港公民。虽然大家族继续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，也不被允许在中国拥有资产。\n案件 22-50073，文件 678-2，于 08/04/22 08:56:08 登记，第 100 页\n\n12. 本人大家族的财务成功并未逃过 CCP 的注意。于 2002 年，本人大家族在北京取得大面积土地；当中国被指定为 2008 年奥运会主办国后，该等土地的价值大幅增加。CCP 官员试图为其个人利益侵占该等土地，本人将该企图侵占之事向更高级别的政府官员举报。经过长期斗争，该等土地得以收回，从而使盘古大观得以开发。\n\n13. 大约在 2015 年，本人开始更公开地批评和揭露 CCP 的腐败，因此 CCP 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 CCP 高层官员关系密切，且是 CCP 登记在案的外国代理人；其媒体公司曾与 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟集团，以下简称“PAG”）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）的母公司——就拟收购一家重要好莱坞制片厂开展合作；并且其个人代表 CCP 为众多原告针对本人的诉讼活动提供资金支持。2015 年初，Bruno Wu 代表 CCP 高级成员致电本人，转达如果本人停止公开揭露 CCP 腐败，本人的家人将被释放，并威胁称，如本人不遵从，将对本人及本人的儿子发布 INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“Red Notices（红色通报）”，且本人将被杀害。本人拒绝 CCP 通过 Bruno Wu 使本人噤声的企图，并继续公开反对 CCP。\n\n14. 于 2017 年，本人通过社交媒体和美国新闻媒体，更大幅度地开展反 CCP 运动，以揭露若干 CCP 高级官员的腐败。\n\n1 6, 2012 (http)。\n案件 22-50073，第 109 页\n\n本人揭露 CCP 腐败的公开声明，在美国和国外均获得广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更便捷、更广泛地揭露 CCP 腐败外，本人还向美国当局提供了关于 CCP 官员及其犯罪行为的信息。因担心生命安全，本人于 September 2017 在美国申请政治庇护保护，目前本人的庇护申请仍在待决中。\n\n15. 为报复本人的揭弊行为，CCP 发起了一场多层面的行动，试图获得对本人的制约、诋毁本人、2 威胁本人并使本人噤声。3 下文所述的这些行动最终迫使本人进入本破产案件。例如，于 April 19, 2017，本人原定接受 Voice of America（美国之音，以下简称“VOA”）采访，期间本人计划揭露\n\n2 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）和 Hoover Institute（胡佛研究所）、非政府组织 Australian Strategic Policy Institute（澳大利亚战略政策研究所，以下简称“ASPI”）以及 Alphabet（字母公司）的 Google（谷歌）均分别报告称，本人一直是 CCP 全球社交媒体虚假信息运动的主要目标；该运动由 CCP 特工以及数千个中国国家控制的网站和社交媒体账户推动。参见 Carly Miller、Vanessa Molter、Isabella Garca-Camargo、Rene DiResta、David Thiel 和 Alex Zaheer，《Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown》，Stanford Internet Observatory（斯坦福互联网观察站），June 17, 2020 (http)；Dr. Jake Walls、Tom Uren 和 Elise Thomas，《Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests》，October 2019 (htt\n\n12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc 4SfDUy7 sMfNkw()（表明 CCP 针对本人的虚假信息运动始于 April 2017）；Dr. Jake Walls、Tom Uren、Elise Thomas、Albert Zhang、Dr. Samantha Hoffman、Lin Li、Alex Pascoe 和 Danielle Cave，《Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor》，June 2020 (htt\n\n06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20frewall 1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyglOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt XD6TCA)（提出的数据反映了“一个与中国国家行为者有关、持续且大规模的、在 Twitter 和 Facebook 上的影响力运动……[其]主要针对中国大陆以外的中文受众（Twitter 在中国大陆被屏蔽）……意图影响对……Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的看法”）；Joseph Menn，《Pro-China social media campaign hits new countries, blames U.S. for COVID》，Reuters（路透社），September 9, 2021 (http)（报道 FireEye（火眼）和 Alphabet 的 Google 的安全专家观察到一场经过协调的、支持中国政府利益并以本人为目标的社交媒体虚假信息运动）。如这些独立来源所确认，世界上没有任何人比本人遭受更多来自 CCP 社交媒体战争的攻击。\n\n3 CCP 对本人这一居住在美国的中国异议人士所采用的滥用手段并非独特。最近，联邦检察官指称，“[一]名中国间谍雇用一名私家侦探，在必要时使用暴力终止一名候选人的国会竞选活动，并指示其‘殴打他，直至他无法参选。’”参见 Aruna Viswanatha 和 Kate O'Keeffe，《Chinese Agent Proposed Violent Means to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），March 16, 2022 (http inline)。\n案件 22-50073，第 100 页\n\nCCP 对 HNA Group Co.（海航集团公司）的所有权权益。CCP 采取了一系列行动，试图阻止本人和 VOA 继续进行采访。第一，在本人预定 VOA 采访前两天——正如 Bruno Wu 所威胁的——CCP 基于捏造的刑事指控发布了要求逮捕本人并将本人引渡至中国的 INTERPOL “Red Notice”。第二，CCP 威胁称，如 VOA 继续对本人进行采访，将对 VOA 及其在中国的记者实施报复，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）在纽约对本人提起毫无根据的违约诉讼。本人继续接受采访，但 VOA（屈从于 CCP 的压力）命令缩短采访。\n\n16. 当 CCP 早期使本人噤声的努力失败后，其转而试图将本人引渡至中国，在那里本人将被杀害。FBI（美国联邦调查局）的一项调查显示，2017 年夏季期间，本人成为 CCP 在美国游说活动的目标；CCP 利用一名腐败政府官员及若干知名人士，包括澳门赌场业主 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利），直接游说 President Trump（特朗普总统）及其政府将本人引渡至中国。4 CCP 的计划导致 Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）前财务主席 Elliot Broidy（艾略特·布罗伊迪）遭联邦起诉并作出认罪答辩（其后，如同 Bruno Wu，\n\n4 参见 Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）、Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·韦恩），《史蒂夫·韦恩可能因在中国推动遣返商人中所扮演的角色而面临司法部行动》，《华尔街日报》，May 26, 2021（http）。\n\n资助其他当事人对我提起诉讼），5 说客 Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·拉姆·戴维斯）以及前 DOJ（美国司法部）官员 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）；他们均承认收受款项，以换取游说美国政府高级官员将我引渡。中国的行动包括贿赂和腐蚀一名 DOJ 总部高级官员（George Higginbotham）；在其控制的银行账户中发现近 \\$75 million，这使其成为 DOJ 历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中共还自同年起以各种其他方式针对我，包括：于 September 2017 黑入为我提交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；通过 Brunu Wu（布鲁努·吴）对我提起并资助多起无端诉讼，其中部分至今仍在进行；以及拘押、酷刑折磨和监禁我的许多家庭成员及前同事。\n\n5 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Elliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）承认通过秘密渠道开展游说活动，要求撤销对 1MDB 的调查并遣返一名中国外国公民》，October 20, 2020（http）（其中称：“Broidy 还同意代表外国国民 A 和 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，PRC）部长 A，游说政府和 DOJ，安排将 PRC 国民 A——一名居住在美国的 PRC 异见人士——遣返”；我即为“PRC 国民 A”）。关于 Elliott Broidy 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉信息书）”副本随附于此，作为附件 A。\n\n6 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《夏威夷女商人承认协助通过秘密渠道开展游说活动，要求撤销对 1MDB 的调查并将一名外国国民遣送至中国》，August 31, 2020（http）（其中称：“Lum Davis 和其他人还同意代表外国国民 A 和 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，PRC）部长 A，游说政府和司法部，安排将 PRC 国民 A——一名美国异见人士——遣返”；我即为“PRC 国民 A”）。关于 Nicki Lum Davis 的“Criminal Information（刑事起诉信息书）”副本随附于此，作为附件 B。\n\n7 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《前司法部雇员承认共谋就数百万美元外国游说资金欺骗美国银行》，November 30, 2018（http）（其中称：“Higginbotham 进一步承认，该游说活动的另一目的，是试图说服美国政府高级官员，将另一名当时持临时签证居住在美国的外国国民驱逐出美国并送回其原籍国”；我即为该“另一名外国国民”）。关于 George Higginbotham 的“Factual Basis for Plea（认罪事实依据）”副本随附于此，作为附件 C。\n\n17. 自 2017 年起，中共还冻结并没收了我在中国和香港的家庭资产及所谓资产，以致我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。中共将摧毁我所创造的一切并阻止我与金融机构往来作为其使命。我将大部分时间用于担任各类实体的无偿非正式顾问或发言人，包括揭露中共腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，为我提供生活所需。在 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“家族办公室”）为我购买了衣物、食品和日用品等众多物品。我无法使用 GSNY 的信用卡或 GSNY 的银行账户。除衣物和手机外，我所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）的住宅；该住宅由我的妻子通过 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）持有。我为我的儿子以信托方式持有 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰人公寓）的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人为我提供了贷款（部分有文件记录，部分没有），以支付我数额巨大的诉讼费用，使我能够就中共发起或授意发起的众多诉讼为自己辩护。截至 Petition Date，GSNY 已向我提供约 \\$21 million 的贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如以下所述及我在 Statement of Financial Affairs（财务状况说明，“SOFA”）中所载，我是美国及境外 30 多起未决诉讼中的被告和/或权利主张人。众所周知，中共利用其代理人\n\n8 于 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”）作出日期为 October 18, 2018 的《禁止处分香港及其他地区资产的限制令》（“HK Restraint Order”）。HK Restraint Order 针对据称属于我的、存放于 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司，HSBC Bank）的 HK\\$3.7 million 资金。根据 HK Restraint Order，据称受我“有效控制”的个人和实体的更多数十亿美元资金和财产，包括位于香港的房地产，亦被全部或部分冻结和/或没收。HK Restraint Order 禁止被点名的“respondents（答辩人）”（包括我）处分任何资产。任何人在 HK Restraint Order 作出后收到我的资产，均被认为违反该命令，并可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n即使在美国法院提起诉讼，以胁迫因政治原因被追捕的个人返回中国。9 与该等诉讼有关的律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的聘用成本极其高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在提交的 Schedules of Assets and Liabilities（资产和负债清单，“Schedules”）及 SOFA 中反映了我当前的负债状况。家族办公室协助我编制了这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey 专业公司）亦提供协助；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方面经验丰富。如该等文件所反映及如下文进一步所述，我在 21 起诉讼中被列为被告，并欠付数额巨大的诉讼费用。\n\nA. PAX 诉讼。\n\n20. PAX（PAX）是一家香港投资基金，其母公司 PAG（PAG）曾与中共代理人 Brunu Wu 的媒体公司合作购买一家好莱坞制片厂；该基金在纽约及 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，“BVI”）对我提起诉讼。如我此前所述，PAX 在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的诉讼于 April 18, 2017 提交，即我为揭露中共腐败而接受 VOA（美国之音）采访的前一天。PAX 的请求主要涉及追收一笔有争议的债务。\n\n21. 于 2008 年，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”）。该 \\$100 million 贷款分两笔发放：(1) 以我作出的个人保证为担保的 \\$30 million 初始贷款；以及 (2) 以最终成为 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地/开发项目所属公司 49% 权益为担保的第二笔 \\$70 million 贷款。\n\n9 参见 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》，《华尔街日报》，July 29, 2020（http）。\n\n22. 于 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。PAX 对实际上是否发生“accord and satisfaction（和解清偿）”存有争议，并现依据一份日期较后的伪造个人保证书向我主张权利。在向我出示该保证书之前，我此前的诉讼律师已将其提交法院，以支持若干动议。当我后来得知该文件的存在时，我表示相信其为伪造；但法院裁定，由于该文件此前已被提交，我不再有能力质疑其真实性。因此，于 September 15, 2020，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（纽约州上诉分庭）对该判决提起上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。10\n\n23. 关于我的资产（“NYS Restraining Order（纽约州限制令）”）。PAX 在执行该判决时，主要关注一艘名为“Lady May（五月花女士）”的游艇，下文将进一步说明该游艇。我并不拥有 Lady May；其由我的女儿拥有。该船的维护费用一直由我的儿子支付。尽管如此，于 March 16, 2021，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特雷格法官）命令我在 May 15, 2021 前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每在管辖区外停留一天，我将面临 \\$500,000 的巨额每日罚款。我确实能够使用该船，但我无权命令其返回纽约。Lady May 从未返回纽约，截至今年早些时候，累计的藐视法庭罚款已超过有利于 PAX 作出的判决金额，并为该游艇所述价值的五倍或六倍。我无力支付该罚款。\n\n10 我的 Schedules 包括一项针对我历任诉讼律师的潜在执业过失请求。\n\n24. 于 February 9, 2022，Justice Ostrager 对我作出《最终民事藐视法庭命令》（“February 9 Contempt Order”）。在 February 9 Contempt Order 中，Justice Ostrager 认定我对 Lady May 享有受益权益并拥有控制权，并命令我在五个营业日内向 PAX 支付 \\$134 million 罚款，否则可能因民事藐视法庭而被监禁。我相信 February 9 Contempt Order 是被错误地针对我作出的，并已另行向 Appellate Division（上诉分庭）对该命令提起上诉。无论如何，我都没有能力履行该命令。我坚信中共正在策划 PAX 案件。迄今为止，PAX 诉讼是中共对我持续不懈行动中少数成功案例之一，使我面临潜在监禁11，并迫使我进入破产程序。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 因我推介出售一家名为 GTV Media Group, Inc（GTV 媒体集团公司，“GTV”）的公司证券以及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币，我在七起诉讼中被列为被告。除两个拟议投资者集体外，若干个人投资者亦就其据称投资后遭受的损失向我提出权利主张。这些诉讼的原告通常主张，我参与了一项违反适用美国证券法、向缺乏经验的投资者出售未注册证券的计划。这些起诉书合计向我请求超过 \\$100 million 的损害赔偿。\n\n11 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）关于请求作出裁定以确认自动中止不适用，或作为替代方案，根据《破产法典》第362(D)(2)条解除自动中止的动议[Docket No. 57]（“解除中止动议”）。我相信，准许解除中止动议所请求的救济将对我造成重大损害，并将实质性损害我的破产财产及其债权人的利益。如PAX在解除中止动议中所示，执行February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性损害我实现本Chapter 11（第11章）案件目标的能力。最重要的是，如被监禁，我将无法充分且适当地管理我的破产财产、参与本破产案件、与债权人谈判、在本院出庭并陈述意见、咨询和指导律师、调查并归集破产财产资产，或制定并协商Chapter 11（第11章）计划。此外，我相信，PAX错误地认为，如我面临被监禁的风险，我的家人将支付PAX的赎金；我的家人不会这样做。\n\n以及包括GTV和其母公司Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca媒体集团公司，简称“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告。我相信，这些主张毫无依据。12\n\nC. 诽谤主张。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直保持非常活跃的社交媒体存在，并发布批评CCP（中国共产党的英文缩写）、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识别的某些人士已对我提出诽谤主张。如我的SOFA（财务状况说明书）所载，我目前在数起诽谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中若干起由Brunu Wu（吴布鲁努）资助，其是已承认的CCP代理人及PAX母公司的商业伙伴。这些案件中的原告合计主张了巨额损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资费用。\n\n27. 我提起要求金钱救济的主张所产生的费用，系通过根据诉讼融资协议（“诉讼融资协议”）提供的贷款予以资助。在我必须应诉的情形下，Family Office（家族办公室）向我预支贷款以支付我的诉讼费用。在任何一种情形下，贷款所得均直接支付给我聘用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，如我最终成功提出并收回我的主张，GSNY有权获得溢价，并已就我的某些诉讼回收款主张担保权益，以担保该等偿还及投资回报。\n\n12 这些事项涉及某项已和解的执法程序。具体而言，于2021年9月，GTV和Saraca就SEC（美国证券交易委员会）关于GTV发行违反第506条的主张，达成公开宣布的“不承认/不否认”和解（“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\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据告知，在我的Chapter 11（第11章）案件启动后，即形成了由截至申请日我在任何地点、由任何人持有的所有财产上的一切法定或衡平权益构成的破产财产。据进一步告知，我的破产财产及其所有财产均受本院管辖和监督。我当然接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的资产清单中列明。这些资产主要是衣物、食品及其他少量家庭用品，以及诉讼主张。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物和其他日常用品。除此以外，我可使用的一切物品——包括车辆、我的住所（过去和现在）、家具、艺术品和电子设备（我的手机除外）——均归我的家庭成员所有。经其许可，我可以使用这些资产，但未经其许可，我无权处置任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我亦是数起在美国、英国和瑞士待决案件中的权利主张人。该等诉讼的详情已在我的财务状况说明书中披露。其中两项诉讼值得在此说明：\n\na. UBS主张。在英国Royal Courts of Justice（皇家法院）前，我与若干共同原告已对UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团伦敦分行，简称“UBS”）提出主张，请求赔偿超过$500 million的损害赔偿，该等损害涉及UBS就我试图促成收购并取得一家中国金融机构Haitong（海通）于2015年发行的若干股份而作出的过失性失实陈述和建议。就在2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁决，确认英国法院对我针对UBS的主张具有管辖权——而非如UBS所主张的瑞士法院。鉴于UBS对管辖权提出异议，为确保在英国被认定缺乏管辖权时诉讼仍可继续进行，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（英国并未被认定缺乏管辖权）。瑞士的该案目前处于中止状态，等待UBS就该管辖权问题向英国Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提出的上诉结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill主张。此外，我已对Clark Hill PLC和其一名成员Thomas K. Ragland（托马斯·K·拉格兰德）（合称“Clark Hill”）提出主张。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。我正向Clark Hill请求$50 million的补偿性损害赔偿及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿，理由是其违反法律代理义务。具体而言，由于Clark Hill未能充分保护载于我的庇护申请中的高度敏感信息，CCP于2017年9月期间入侵了Clark Hill的服务器，提取了该等高度敏感信息，继而将其散布至互联网。更糟的是，Clark Hill屈服于CCP黑客的威胁，辞去了我的移民律师职务。因此，我已遭受并继续遭受损害。\n\n33. 另有两项并非我所有的资产值得特别说明：(a) Lady May；及(b) 位于纽约市Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰）的一套公寓（“该公寓”）。\n\na. Lady May。如上所述，我并不拥有Lady May，但我确曾获准登上并享用该船只。我的女儿通过HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）拥有并控制该游艇。尽管州法院在February 9 Contempt Order（2月9日藐视法庭裁定）中作出认定，但指示Lady May留在纽约或返回纽约并不在我的权力范围之内。\n\nb. Sherry-Netherland公寓。Sherry-Netherland公寓的合作社股份由Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。13 Genever US的成员权益继而由Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。但是，根据日期为2015年2月17日的信托声明及协议（“Trust Date”），我为Bravo Luck Limited（“公寓所有人”）以信托方式持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有公寓所有人的股权。在Trust Date当日或前后，公寓所有人向Genever US提供了购买该公寓的价款。该等资金来自我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。还应当指出的是，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）已命令将我在Genever BVI中拥有的任何权益移交给PAX，前提是该等移交不干扰在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）待决的诉讼或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资产清单和财务状况说明书所反映的更大的财力。然而，他们认为属于我的财富，实际上属于我的儿子、女儿、妻子和大家庭，而非我本人。但是，如上所述，\n\n13 于2020年10月12日，Genever US在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）申请Chapter 11（第11章）破产（Case No. 20-12411）。\n\n本破产程序将允许利害关系方调查该项主张，并提出任何相反证据。重要的是，如下文所述，对抗程序将以一种避免损害任何债权人对破产财产经济利益的方式获得资助。\n\nIII. 拟议DIP融资\n\n35. 如我的资产清单所载，我没有自身资源来资助本Chapter 11（第11章）案件的费用。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意资助本Chapter 11（第11章）案件的某些费用。具体而言，GSNY提议按照附于批准DIP融资动议的DIP融资信贷协议（“DIP信贷协议”）中规定的条款，向破产财产出借$8 million（“DIP融资”）。DIP融资将用于支付包括但不限于破产财产聘用的专业人士费用（包括我的专业人士，以及无担保债权人正式委员会和/或审查员如获任命所聘用的专业人士费用）以及United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室征收的季度费用。在$8 million预算中，最多$4 million将可用于资助Official Creditors Committee（正式债权人委员会）和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY拟在无担保基础上提供该笔贷款，其偿还优先顺位低于所有获准的一般无担保债权。换言之，DIP融资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，并且在所有获准的申请前债权获得全额清偿之前，不会以破产财产资产予以偿还。因此，该笔贷款不会使我的债权人付出任何代价，并为调查我的事务提供公平机会。我不认为任何其他贷款人提供的贷款会具有更优越的条款。因此，取得该笔贷款符合我的破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将不会获准使用任何借入资金。所有DIP融资所得将存入为破产财产利益而设立的独立存款账户（“债务人账户”）。V&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。债务人账户的付款仅应依V&L的指示作出，仅限于支付DIP预算中列明的项目所必需的范围内，并须符合拟议DIP融资命令、DIP融资文件及本院其他相关命令（包括批准专业费用申请的命令）的授权。\n\n38. DIP Credit Agreement（DIP信贷协议）中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：在DIP Credit Agreement获得临时批准之日起45日内，由Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）对拟议的DIP Financing（DIP融资）命令作出最终批准。参见DIP Credit Agreement第¶ 6.01(a)条。DIP Credit Agreement中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即作出命令准许PAX（PAX）解除自动中止，以便在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。参见DIP Credit Agreement第¶ 8.01(e)条。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是根据2月9日藐视法庭命令寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如准予该等救济，我将无法有意义地指导并参与有序的债权处理和计划程序。在此情况下，我的儿子——通过GSNY（GSNY）——将无意继续为本第11章案件的费用提供资金。\n\nIV. 我第11章案件的目标\n\n39. 我的最终目标是达成一项完全协商一致的第11章计划，最终解决与我债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在由DIP融资支付报酬的受托代表向债权人提供公平机会开展尽职调查并陈述其意见后，通过理性且合理的对话实现这一结果。我希望我的债权人仅以促成对有效债权的偿还为动机，并停止将诉讼作为限制我言论自由及限制我对政治滥用行为批评的手段。我进一步希望，如债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人根据一项计划获得公平受偿。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要为诉讼请求，我相信这些请求具有实质性依据并有价值（其价值或许足以全额偿付所有债权人）。但是，同样地，所有利益相关方均将获得公平机会对其进行调查。\n\n41. 我理解，我的第11章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（Lady May）的“受益”所有权及控制权作出命令的New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾认定我对该船舶拥有实际法定所有权，或该船舶现为我第11章财产的一项资产。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已向我出借数百万美元，用于支付我的抗辩费用。本第11章案件将提供一个平台，以一劳永逸地确定针对我财产的获准债权范围。债权人将获得机会对我的第11章财产主张债权，而该程序应当使财产中的任何资产在所有处于同等地位的债权人之间得到公平分配（例如，不允许PAX在同一债权人类别中的其他人之前获得清偿）。我将与我的专业顾问合作，以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《破产法典》实现“重新开始”。\n\n案件22-50073 第100页\n\n第二部分——各项动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅下列各项动议，并且据我所知、所获信息及所信，其所载事实均真实且正确。\n\n45. 批准DIP融资的动议。DIP融资是支付与第11章案件有关费用所必需的，并为我在能力卓越、经验丰富的顾问协助下，协商并实现重整计划确认提供充足的时间和资源。\n\n46. 鉴于正是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，促使我寻求第11章救济，我请求且GSNY同意，DIP融资将惠及所有财产专业人士，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融资以无担保方式提供，其受制于我申请前债权人的权利，且不享有任何行政优先或其他优先偿还权。我的理解是，只有在我的所有其他债权人均获得全额清偿时，DIP贷款才应获得偿还。鉴于这些慷慨条件，我认为，试图从其他来源以竞争性或类似条件取得融资，将浪费财产资源且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上所述及如我在资产负债表中所列，我预计我作为原告的诉讼中所获得的追偿款或和解款将用于资助一项第11章计划。如无法获得DIP融资，我将无法继续聘用和支付目前代表我提起诉讼的律师。类似地，如我无法对这些债权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论是在本程序内，还是在准予解除中止救济后于其他审理地进行），我的负债可能大幅增加。\n\n48. 基于上述理由，我相信拟议的DIP融资系善意提供，不损害我任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我财产的最佳利益，因此应予批准。\n\n49. 聘用Stretto, Inc.（Stretto公司）担任债权及通知代理人的申请。在第11章案件未决期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人，以协助向财产的债权人和利害关系方提供通知。我已选择Stretto担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto在美国各地的多宗第11章案件中，包括在本地区，作为债权及通知代理人提供服务方面具有丰富经验。Stretto已同意提供以下咨询服务：(a) 担任通知代理人，向财产的债权人及其他利害关系方邮寄通知；(b) 维护电子平台，用于提交债权证明、计划征询、投票、计票、付款，以及为编制资产负债表和财务状况说明书提供行政支持；以及(c) 就本第11章案件视需要提供其他行政服务。\n\n50. 聘用Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）担任重组律师的申请。我需要能力卓越、经验丰富的重组律师，就我退出第11章程序提供建议并协助安排，可能采取经确认的重整计划形式。我已选择Brown Rudnick担任我第11章案件的重组律师。Brown Rudnick在《破产法典》第11章项下债务人和债权人权利以及重组领域拥有广泛经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本地区及全国其他地区的众多第11章案件中代理债务人、官方及非官方委员会和其他重要当事方。Brown Rudnick亦熟悉我的事务及将在第11章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：(a) 编制所有必要的动议、答复、答辩及其他法律文件，包括视需要进行审判准备；(b) 为批准披露说明书及确认重整计划进行必要的准备和采取必要行动；以及(c) 在第11章案件未决期间视需要提供所有其他法律服务。\n\n51. 在申请日之前，Brown Rudnick于2022年2月14日和2022年2月15日各收取了一笔$500,000的预付聘用费。该等共计$1 million的预付聘用费（“BR预付聘用费”）的来源为Lamp Capital LLC（Lamp资本有限责任公司）（“Lamp”），该公司由我儿子拥有。Lamp以无担保方式向我出借$1 million，而我指示Lamp将贷款所得款项直接汇给Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick已从BR预付聘用费中抵扣$51,835.20的申请日前费用和支出，使Brown Rudnick持有的申请前BR预付聘用费余额为$948,164.80。此后，我已要求Brown Rudnick以BR预付聘用费抵扣其获准费用和支出，直至BR预付聘用费余额为$250,000；此后，Brown Rudnick将通过DIP融资所得款项向我请求支付其获准费用和支出。\n\n52. 聘用Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（Verdolino & Lowey专业公司）担任财务顾问的申请。我需要一家财务顾问公司，以编制、审阅和分析《破产法典》规定的必要财务披露文件，以及第11章案件未决期间持续的月度和季度报告要求。我已选择Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”）担任我的财务顾问。V&L在与陷入困境的个人第11章债务人合作方面经验丰富，并提供定制服务，包括但不限于财务顾问、咨询、会计服务、税务及其他相关服务。V&L已同意就以下事项提供服务：(a) 编制和审阅我的SOFA、资产负债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，并在必要时实施付款，以及就全部现金活动提供会计核算；(d) 债权审阅和管理；(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和协助。\n\n53. 日常业务。我是在美国州级和联邦级法院以及外国司法辖区审理的众多案件中的具名原告或具名被告。就这些诉讼及某些持续进行的政府调查而言，在申请前，我聘用了多家律师事务所、会计师和其他非律师专业人士（合称我的“日常业务专业人士”），其就我的申请前诉讼提供服务，并就与本第11章案件无关的各种事项提供其他服务。我拟在获得法院批准的前提下，使用DIP融资继续聘用和支付这些日常业务专业人士，因为他们均对我的事务（申请前）及我正在进行的诉讼具有大量知识、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DIP融资紧急临时救济的理由之一，是确保代理我的专业人士继续工作。除非我能够向某些专业人士保证，其申请前及申请日后的工作将获得报酬，否则他们可能退出对我的代理。此类退出，取决于案件状况及相关专业人士提供的服务，可能对我及我的财产造成明显且不可弥补的损害。UBS、Clark Hill及其他未决诉讼请求均为资产，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。对我推进这些请求的任何干扰，无疑都会破坏价值。\n\n案件22-50073 文件678-2 提交日期08/04/22 登记日期08/04/22 08:56:08 第25页，共109页\n\n案件22-50073 第109页\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，本人特此在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明，据本人所知，上述内容真实无误。\n\n日期：March 20, 2022 Greenwich, Connecticut\n\n签署人：姓名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA（哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事案号。\n\n罪名项1：18 U.S.C. § 371（共谋）\n刑事起诉书\n\n美利坚合众国指控如下：\n\n引言\n\n与本起诉书有关的所有期间内：\n\n2. 自不晚于 March 2017 起至至少约 January 2018 止，ELLIOTT BROIDY 同意与 Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）及 Person A（人员A）一道，作为 Foreign National A（外国国民A）的代理人行事，以换取数百万美元的未披露款项。BROIDY 具体同意游说美国总统行政当局（“Administration”）及美国司法部（“DOJ”），以撤销或以其他方式有利地解决其针对外国国民A就其从 1Malaysia Development Berhad（1MDB，马来西亚一马发展有限公司）挪用数十亿美元所涉事项；该公司是一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A故意未向行政当局和司法部官员披露 BROIDY 正代表外国国民A行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A未能使 1MDB 事项被撤销，或以其他方式为外国国民A获得有利解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间内，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A还同意游说行政当局和司法部，代表外国国民A安排将 People's Republic of China（“PRC”，中华人民共和国）National A（一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国公民）遣离并送回中华人民共和国。这尤其包括倡议安排 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长A）与美国政府官员会面。在此方面，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A最终也未获成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民A的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和人员A的协助下，试图促成 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）于 September 2017 与总统会面，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理A能够就 1MDB 事项的解决向总统提出讨论。\n\n5. BROIDY、Davis 和人员A还在中华人民共和国与中华人民共和国部长A会面，并同意 BROIDY 在 Davis 和人员A协助下，将游说行政当局把中华人民共和国国民A送回中华人民共和国。为明确使中华人民共和国部长A有机会与美国高级官员讨论遣离中华人民共和国国民A，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A还同意并试图促成中华人民共和国部长A于 May 2017 访问美国期间，与行政当局、DOI 以及 United States Department of Homeland Security（“DHS”，美国国土安全部）高级官员会面。\n\n禁止充当外国委托人或政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. 《Foreign Agents Registration Act》（“FARA”，《外国代理人登记法》），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去和现在均是一项披露法，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向总检察长登记，例如代表该外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或游说活动。此类登记向司法部内 National Security Division（国家安全司）的 Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit（“FARA Unit”，《外国代理人登记法》处）办理。明知且故意未进行登记，以及根据该法规定在提交给 FARA Unit 的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或作出重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA 的目的是防止外国委托人的秘密影响。依照该法进行适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估作为外国委托人代理人服务的个人所作的陈述和活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记披露登记人为之提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人为该外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从该外国委托人获得报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间所作的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 自约 2017 年起至 April 2018 止担任某全国政治委员会的财务副主席。BROIDY 从捐助者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竞选美国公职候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。作为财务副主席，BROIDY 与行政当局的高级官员，包括总统本人，保持接触并可获得接触机会。在同一期间，BROIDY 拥有并经营数家国内和国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis 曾是且现在是美国公民、女商人和顾问，与 BROIDY 和人员A存在个人及商业关系。On August 31, 2020，Davis 在 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii（夏威夷地区美国联邦地区法院）就一项指控协助和教唆违反 FARA 的起诉书作出有罪答辩。\n\n10. 人员A曾是且现在是美国公民、商人和艺人，具有国际联系，包括与外国国民A的联系。\n\n11. Foreign National A 曾是一名居住在东亚的富裕商人，因其策划和实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元的计划所起的作用，已被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是一家由人员A设立的有限责任公司，用于接收来自外国国民A的电汇款项，并被人员A用于向 BROIDY、Davis 和其他人为其游说活动付款。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是人员A的关联人，且是一名受雇于司法部的持证律师。On November 20, 2019，Higginbotham 在哥伦比亚特区美国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作出有罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由 Person C（人员C）经营并由 BROIDY 和人员C控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A 是一名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，包括中华人民共和国部长A和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将中华人民共和国国民A从美国遣离并送回中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自 late 2016 至 2019 年，司法部一直积极调查据称与 1MDB 挪用计划洗钱所得相关的外国国民A交易。In July 2016，司法部提起多项民事没收诉讼，请求没收据称以 1MDB 洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。On November 1, 2018，司法部提起刑事起诉书，指控外国国民A及其他人共谋清洗从 1MDB 挪用的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚及 United Arab Emirates（“UAE”，阿拉伯联合酋长国）官员行贿而违反《Foreign Corrupt Practices Act》（《反海外腐败法》）。\n\n第一项罪名\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n（共谋担任未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 兹重申第1至16段，并通过引用将其并入本文。\n\n18. 自不晚于 March 2017 起至至少约 January 2018 止，被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 明知地与其他身份已知及未知者共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地，在未向总检察长登记的情况下，就 1MDB 事项和遣离中华人民共和国国民A事项，作为外国委托人即外国国民A的代理人行事，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、人员A和外国国民A策划秘密渠道、未登记的行动，以游说行政当局和司法部：（1）终止 1MDB 事项，或以其他方式有利于外国国民A地解决该等事项；以及（2）将中华人民共和国国民A从美国遣离并送回中华人民共和国。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A利用 BROIDY 与总统及其行政当局的接触机会和被认为具有的影响力，以从外国国民A获得款项，从而赚取数百万美元。\n\n21. 该共谋的目的之一是，BROIDY、Davis 和人员A隐瞒 BROIDY 与外国国民A的接触及其从外国国民A获得的款项，以维持 BROIDY 在美国官员中的可信度，并推进该非法倡议计划。\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内容：\n\n前往国外会见外国委托人和政府官员\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、人员A和 Higginbotham 以不同组合前往泰国、马来西亚和中华人民共和国，目的是与外国国民A、中华人民共和国部长A和其他人会面，就 BROIDY 将如何在官方渠道之外游说行政当局和司法部以换取数百万美元的安排进行谈判和讨论。\n\n与美国官员的会面和接触\n\n24. BROIDY 直接或通过中间人，为中华人民共和国部长A和外国国民A的利益，促成并试图促成与美国政府最高层级官员，包括总统和总检察长，举行会面及作出其他施加影响的努力。\n\n25. BROIDY 直接或通过中间人联系美国政府高级官员，为包括中华人民共和国部长A和马来西亚总理A在内的外国政府官员安排会面，从而为这些外国官员正式请求有利的政府行动提供机会，包括有利地解决 1MDB 事项以及遣离中华人民共和国国民A。\n\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis 和人员A同意隐瞒 BROIDY 以其个人身份及作为中华人民共和国部长A中间人，代表外国国民A进行游说的协议。BROIDY、Davis 和人员A未向且同意不向美国政府官员和公众披露 BROIDY 与外国国民A之间的财务安排以及来自外国国民A的付款\n\nA 外国国民（Foreign National A）。在为推进该共谋而起草的大量接触、通信和文件中，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）、Davis（戴维斯）、A 某人（Person A）和 Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）均系对 A 外国国民的秘密化和匿名化指称。此外，布罗伊迪、戴维斯和 A 某人在就 A 外国国民及 A 中国国民（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 A 外国国民的联系。最后，布罗伊迪、戴维斯和 A 某人明示或默示地同意不依照 FARA 登记，以隐瞒其与 A 外国国民的安排。\n\n公开行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，布罗伊迪及其他人在哥伦比亚特区及其他地点实施了以下公开行为，其中包括：\n\n为解决 1MDB 民事没收案件而开展的活动\n\nA. 布罗伊迪同意为 A 外国国民游说，以换取 $8 Million 预付聘金\n\n28. 大约在 2017 年 3 月，A 某人为寻找一名与政府当局关系密切、能够协助一名外国客户的人而联系戴维斯。随后，戴维斯告诉布罗伊迪，她有一名可能的马来西亚客户，其没收事宜可能需要协助。\n\n29. 大约在 2017 年 3 月 7 日，A 某人要求戴维斯向其发送布罗伊迪的个人简介，其中说明布罗伊迪与政府当局高级官员的关系，并附有布罗伊迪与总统的照片。大约在 2017 年 3 月 7 日，应戴维斯要求，布罗伊迪的助理通过电子邮件向戴维斯发送了布罗伊迪与总统的照片。A 某人称，其想要这些照片，以便向 A 外国国民突出布罗伊迪与政府当局的密切接触渠道。\n\n30. 大约在 2017 年 3 月 8 日，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“你会在 16 日于洛杉矶与[A 某人]会面吗？在他那个周末前往亚洲之前？”布罗伊迪回复：“我想会。稍后再谈。”\n\n31. 大约在 2017 年 3 月 13 日，布罗伊迪与戴维斯和 A 某人会面，讨论 A 外国国民和 1MDB。会上，A 某人向布罗伊迪说明其与 A 外国国民的关系，并询问布罗伊迪能否协助处理涉及 A 外国国民的民事没收案件。A 某人称，其将与 A 外国国民讨论由布罗伊迪协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 大约在 2017 年 3 月 13 日，戴维斯向 A 某人转发了 A 律师事务所（Law Firm A）与 A 外国国民之间的《聘用及费用协议——诉讼服务》，以便 A 某人向 A 外国国民提交该协议。《聘用及费用协议》规定，A 外国国民应预先支付 $8 million 聘金；如“事项”在 180 日内解决，则另行支付 $75 million 成功费用；如“事项”在 365 日内解决，则支付 $50 million。协议草案包括附件 A，说明“事项”系指 1MDB 没收程序。布罗伊迪、戴维斯、A 某人、A 律师事务所和 C 某人（Person C）均未向 A 外国国民提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于布罗伊迪的政治关系，取得布罗伊迪代表 A 外国国民向政府当局和美国司法部（DOJ）游说的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉须作为外国委托人的代理人登记的要求，布罗伊迪、戴维斯或 A 某人从未就其作为 A 外国国民代理人的工作向 FARA 处登记。\n\nB. 布罗伊迪、A 某人和戴维斯在曼谷会见 A 外国国民\n\n34. 大约在 2017 年 4 月，戴维斯转达了 A 某人的请求，即要求布罗伊迪前往泰国曼谷会见 A 外国国民。布罗伊迪告诉戴维斯，让其告知 A 某人，除非向其支付 $1 million，否则其不会前往；并且其希望 A 某人以“未受污染”的资金向其付款。布罗伊迪获保证，A 某人将亲自支付 $1 million，以换取布罗伊迪前往曼谷。\n\n35. 大约在 2017 年 4 月 28 日，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发送短信，称：“我希望资金汇入[A 律师事务所]。”同日，戴维斯回复：“好。]”\n\n36. 大约在 2017 年 4 月 29 日，布罗伊迪和戴维斯就即将与 A 外国国民和 A 某人举行的会面交换短信。在这些短信中，布罗伊迪提及 A 外国国民时询问：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点住在特定酒店？”戴维斯回复：“你能通话时给我打电话。我”\n\n37. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 1 日，戴维斯向布罗伊迪及其助理发送电子邮件，附上曼谷香格里拉酒店的链接，并部分写道：“请你们一旦在网上订妥 Elliott 的房间和我的房间，即向我发送酒店确认信息，我会转发。”同日，戴维斯另行向 A 某人发送电子邮件，告知其预订香格里拉酒店的房间并向她发送确认信息。A 某人回复：“[A 外国国民]正在预订我们的酒店”，随后又写道：“另请向我发送 Elliott 的电汇信息。”戴维斯回复，提供了以 A 律师事务所名义开设账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 2 日，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送电子邮件，部分写道：“由于你较早抵达——[A 某人]和我将在抵达处见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——祝这场激动人心且繁荣的冒险之旅有一个好的开始！”\n\n39. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 2 日，布罗伊迪、戴维斯和 A 某人抵达曼谷。旅行期间，布罗伊迪、戴维斯和 A 某人在一间酒店套房内会见 A 外国国民。布罗伊迪和 A 外国国民谈及 1MDB 事宜。布罗伊迪同意协助 A 外国国民尝试解决该事项。A 外国国民同意向布罗伊迪支付 $8 million 聘金，并希望布罗伊迪联系美国总检察长，以使美国司法部撤销 1MDB 事项。布罗伊迪同意代表 A 外国国民向政府当局和美国司法部游说，以取得对 A 外国国民有利的结果，同时隐瞒其正代表 A 外国国民工作的事实。会面期间或其后不久，戴维斯和布罗伊迪讨论了协助将 A 中国国民从美国驱逐的可能性。关于付款，布罗伊迪表示，资金不应直接来自 A 外国国民，且应当“干净”。A 外国国民指定了一名能够向布罗伊迪及其他人付款的朋友。布罗伊迪、A 某人和戴维斯同意，资金将首先经由 A 某人转入，然后通过 A 律师事务所支付给布罗伊迪。布罗伊迪和戴维斯同意，布罗伊迪将向戴维斯支付其所收款项的一定比例。A 某人还同意向戴维斯支付 A 某人所收资金的一定比例。A 某人告知布罗伊迪和戴维斯，A 某人的朋友希金博瑟姆正在核实该等资金的合法性。希金博瑟姆实际上未进行任何此类审查。布罗伊迪从未与希金博瑟姆会面或交谈。\n\nC. A 某人从 A 外国国民处收取 $8.5 Million；布罗伊迪获支付 $6 Million；戴维斯获支付 $1.7 Million\n\n40. 在泰国与 A 外国国民会面后，大约在 2017 年 5 月 8 日，A 公司（Company A）收到由 A 外国国民指示、一家香港实体汇出的约 $2.8 million 电汇款项。同日，A 某人从 A 公司账户取得一张以 A 律师事务所为收款人的 $702,000 银行本票，该款项立即记入 A 律师事务所账户。A 某人还从 A 公司账户向 A 律师事务所另行电汇 $48,000。同日，第三方公司依 A 某人指示向 A 律师事务所账户转入 $250,000，使存入 A 律师事务所账户的总额达到 $1 million。在数日内，大约在 2017 年 5 月 8 日转入 A 律师事务所账户的 $1 million 中，约 $900,000 从 A 律师事务所账户转入布罗伊迪的一个商业账户。\n\n41. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 8 日，戴维斯向布罗伊迪发送短信：“[A 律师事务所]收到的两笔电汇均来自[A 某人]。剩余余额于 20 分钟前送至你的办公室——”戴维斯随后补充道：“本票合计 702[。]”\n\n42. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 17 日，A 外国国民安排一家香港公司向 A 公司发送国际电汇。同日，A 某人将 $3 million 从 A 公司转入 A 律师事务所。大约在 2017 年 5 月 18 日，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。大约在 2017 年 5 月 18 日，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 律师事务所通过两笔单独转账，另向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入 $950,000。\n\n43. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 17 日，布罗伊迪和戴维斯就 A 外国国民经由 A 某人向布罗伊迪付款，以及布罗伊迪向戴维斯支付一定比例款项，交换短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯询问：“你收到了吗？”布罗伊迪回复：“是的。给你发了 Wickr[。]明早向你电汇。”Wickr 是一款允许端到端加密和内容到期的消息应用程序。布罗伊迪随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”戴维斯回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在正逐步向前推进。”布罗伊迪回复：“是。向他们催要接下来的两笔电汇。”布罗伊迪随后部分补充道：“假设第二笔 3 已到账，并确认最后两笔正在汇出。请询问[布罗伊迪的助理]。”\n\n44. 大约在 2017 年 5 月 25 日，A 外国国民安排向 A 公司进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为 $2.7 million。大约在 2017 年 5 月 26 日，A 某人将 $2 million 从 A 公司转入 A 律师事务所，作为对布罗伊迪和 A 外国国民约定的 $8 million 聘金的部分履行；该聘金系布罗伊迪协助处理 1MDB 民事没收案件的对价。同日，$600,000 从 A 律师事务所账户转入与戴维斯有关联的商业账户。大约在 2017 年 5 月 26 日，A 律师事务所向由 C 某人控制的账户转入 $1 million。大约在 2017 年 6 月初，A 律师事务所向布罗伊迪的一个商业账户转入 $650,000。\n\nD. 布罗伊迪协助并试图协助安排马来西亚总理 A 的会面及解决 1MDB 案件的工作\n\n45. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 5 日，布罗伊迪向 D 某人（Person D）发送短信。D 某人系政治顾问及总统前竞选助手。布罗伊迪请求 D 某人与政府当局合作，为马来西亚总理 A 安排访问：“亚洲国家非常积极推进 7 月会面，希望我们能尽快确认日期等事宜。”根据一份咨询协议，布罗伊迪已同意每月向 D 某人支付 $25,000，以获得有关如何应对政府当局的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，布罗伊迪和戴维斯就 A 外国国民交换短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“你睡觉前请打电话……[A 外国国民]一直打电话询问消息[。]”布罗伊迪回复：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿特区，处理[A 外国国民]和亚洲国家的事宜[。]”\n\n47. 2017年6月15日前后，应Person A（人员A）的请求，Davis（戴维斯）向BROIDY（布罗迪）发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”戴维斯补充道：“Principal”，这是指Foreign National A（外国籍人士A）。同日，布罗迪回复：“Yesf, J”。\n\n48. 2017年6月17日前后，布罗迪与戴维斯讨论了Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）。2017年6月前后，布罗迪询问总统是否愿与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。布罗迪与戴维斯认为，这将取悦外国籍人士A，并使马来西亚总理A得以尝试解决1MDB事项。布罗迪还希望与马来西亚总理A的政府获得额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 2017年6月19日前后，戴维斯向布罗迪发送了一篇关于马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国1MDB没收诉讼的文章链接。\n\n50. 2017年6月29日前后，布罗迪向白宫一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[Person E（人员E）]，如我所述，POTUS（美国总统）已同意于7月下旬或8月初在DC（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）或Bedminster（贝德明斯特）与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢您回复我日期。另外，数周前已向state dept.（国务院）发函要求会面。”\n\n51. 2017年6月30日前后，布罗迪就高尔夫球活动向人员E发送另一条短信：“希望我们今早能就[PRC National A（中国籍人士A）]以及POTUS与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打高尔夫球的日期通话。”当日稍后，布罗迪又跟进道：“[Person E]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时致电给我。”\n\n52. 2017年7月3日前后，布罗迪再次就马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期向人员E发送短信：“早上好，[Person E]。如果您今天能与POTUS确认同[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打高尔夫球的日期，这对我将极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很乐意在Bedminster或DC打球。我们谈过之后，我告诉[Malaysian Prime Minister A]，他上周会收到日期。非常感谢！致意，Elliott。”当日稍后，布罗迪再次向人员E发送短信：“[Person E]，我正在跟进。请把马来西亚总理A与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 2017年7月5日前后，布罗迪与人员E就该高尔夫球活动交换信息。在其他信息中，布罗迪发送短信称：“[Person E]，刚给您留了信息。已经一周了。您今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott。”人员E回复：“这事在NSC（国家安全委员会）那里。他们负责协调和协商——我相信会办成的。我……”\n\n54. 2017年7月11日前后，戴维斯转达人员A的信息，向布罗迪发送短信：“Wickr[]，现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动了。日期以及其他事项。我们正被打得很惨。”这些信息是指确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及因尚未确认日期而引起的外国籍人士A的不满。戴维斯继续道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被信息淹没了。”布罗迪回复：“看Wikr[]。”次日，布罗迪向戴维斯发送短信：“在Wikr上给我发短信。我正在起飞，需要赶到WH（白宫）。正在起飞。现在就需要。”戴维斯回复：“已完成[]。”布罗迪回复：“收到。谢谢[]。正试图让[Person F（人员F）]尽快通话。”人员F当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 2017年7月13日前后，戴维斯向布罗迪发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们得处理这件事，所以请务必去D.C.，并在WH待着，直到你拿到它。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 2017年7月13日前后，布罗迪再次就高尔夫球日期向人员E发送短信：“嗨，[Person E]，已经两周了。再次询问[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，Elliot。”人员E回复：“我现在再查一下。这些事情要经过一个流程——。”布罗迪回复：“谢谢！！”人员E回复：“NSC正在处理并协调[]。”布罗迪回复：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”人员E回复：“他们正直接与马来西亚方面合作。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 2017年7月15日前后，布罗迪向戴维斯发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 2017年7月17日前后，戴维斯转达人员A代表外国籍人士A表达的紧迫性，向布罗迪发送短信：“[Person E]现在需要把这个日期给你，并向他询问另一件事的最新情况。我们看起来很无能。”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面，也指涉及中国籍人士A的事项。布罗迪回复：“同意。正在全力推进。”\n\n59. 2017年7月18日前后，布罗迪与戴维斯就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了数条短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“你能查看Wikr吗？真的需要那个日期。我整天都因这件事忙得发疯。他正在恐慌。”戴维斯跟进道：“今天必须确定这个日期——我们正被打得很惨。”据人员A称，外国籍人士A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。布罗迪回复：“现在给[Person E]打电话。”戴维斯部分回复道：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你非常愤怒。也给[Person G（人员G）]打电话。我们今天需要这个。”人员G是总统的一名行政助理。布罗迪回复：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 2017年7月19日前后，戴维斯就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期向布罗迪发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期。”布罗迪于次日回复：“请耐心等待。我正在获得一些关于会面的信息。”\n\n61. 2017年7月21日前后，布罗迪就高尔夫球活动向人员E发送短信：“[Person E]，马来西亚方面尚未收到NSC的任何消息。POTUS说他将在7月下旬或8月初与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打高尔夫球。POTUS说他很乐意这么做。你说一两天内就会安排。现在已是第4周。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常有耐心。此事如今非但没有带来积极影响，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. 2017年7月24日前后，布罗迪向Person D（人员D）发送短信：“收到9月在NJ（新泽西州）的高尔夫球日期。联合国大会前的周六。终于！可以从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”人员D回复：“让我们继续跟进，确保日期由NSC确认。他告诉你是谁给了他这个日期吗？”布罗迪回复：“谢谢！！太棒了。由[Person I（人员I）]通过[Person E]告知。”\n\n63. 2017年7月27日前后，布罗迪向人员D发送短信：“刚再次向马来西亚方面核实。他们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。Elliott。”布罗迪跟进道：“嗨，[Person D]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事替我致电NSA（国家安全顾问）？NSC仍未就会面联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”人员D回复：“E——今天早上会再打电话。”\n\n64. 2017年7月27日前后，布罗迪向国家安全委员会一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统打一场高尔夫球。\n\n65. 2017年7月29日前后，戴维斯就马来西亚总理A与总统的会面向布罗迪发送短信：“他们被告知会面是9月12日。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是个星期二？？？？”戴维斯随即发送短信：“Wickr[.]”布罗迪回复：“可能是两次会面。大使应当询问。周六在Bedminster打高尔夫球，周二在WH？”\n\n66. 2017年8月7日前后，布罗迪向其助理发送一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中载有据称由马来西亚总理A为即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A之间会面准备的谈话要点。戴维斯从人员A处收到该谈话要点——人员A代表外国籍人士A提供该要点——戴维斯随后将其转给布罗迪。该谈话要点除其他事项外，提到布罗迪与马来西亚持续存在的关系及工作，并将IMDB列为“[p]riority]]”。该谈话要点指出IMDB造成的损害缺失，并具体说明，“[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[]”。\n\n67. 2017年8月7日前后，布罗迪还将这些谈话要点发送给人员D，随即发送一则信息解释道：“以上是马来西亚总理的谈话要点附件。你可以与[为国务卿工作的工作人员助理]分享。”布罗迪还试图获得有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面时间安排的细节。\n\n68. 2017年8月7日稍后，布罗迪向人员D发送信息：“[Secretary of State（国务卿）]将于8日会见[Malaysian Prime Minister A]，于9日会见副总理。让我们以我的名义搭上线。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出Circinus（赛金斯）这个名称。谢谢！”人员D回复：“确实重要的是促成这层联系。这很可能不会成为正式会面的组成部分，但会努力在他们交谈期间促成搭线。”\n\n69. 2017年8月9日前后，外国籍人士A促使一家香港公司向Company A（公司A）转移约$12.8 million。随后，人员A向Law Firm A（律师事务所A）转移$3 million。这是向布罗迪作出的最后一笔付款。布罗迪共计获得$9 million付款。次日前后，律师事务所A向与戴维斯关联的一个商业账户转移$900,000。此后数日，律师事务所A向属于布罗迪的账户转移了数十万美元。\n\n70. 2017年8月10日前后，布罗迪就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会面向人员D发送短信：“听马来西亚方面说，会面进行得非常顺利。他们对[Secretary of State]很满意。没有提到我的名字——没有搭线。:-”\n\n71. 2017年8月19日前后，布罗迪向人员D发送短信：“马来西亚有什么最新消息吗？”人员D回复：“截至目前，地点将在DC。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫球，但我正在努力。或许不得不就此直接去找[Person I]，并利用他们两人曾一起打高尔夫球的经历。”布罗迪回复：“是。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接致电[Person I]的一名副手或[Person I]。还需要增加会面时间。我想与你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”人员I当时是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n72. 2017年8月31日前后，布罗迪起草并向人员I发送一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统打一场高尔夫球。\n\n73. 约于2017年9月11日，Davis（戴维斯）起草了一封拟由BROIDY（布罗伊迪）寄给总统的信，以备马来西亚总理A与总统会晤之用，并将该信提供给BROIDY。该信载有马来西亚与United States（美国）关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未提供给总统。\n\n74. 在BROIDY多次努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球之后，马来西亚总理A于约2017年9月12日在White House（白宫）与总统会晤。尽管BROIDY除正式会晤外，还联系政府中的高级官员，安排总统与马来西亚总理A举行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未进行高尔夫球赛。\n\n75. 约于2017年10月6日，BROIDY在白宫与总统会晤。BROIDY未在会晤期间提及1MDB事项，但向Davis表示其已提及该事项，并知悉Davis会将该信息传达给人物A和外国国民A。\n\n76. 约于2018年1月5日，BROIDY起草了与1MDB相关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A展示BROIDY代表其所作的努力。除其他事项外，该谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正与DoJ（司法部）合作，以应对前届政府针对马来西亚1MDB的案件。我已制定一项策略，联系DoJ和NSC（国家安全委员会）的有关各方，以寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理总检察长[]会面。她是一名[总统]任命官员，并可提供帮助。……3. 如我先前向您告知，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺解决这一问题。重要的是我应遵循他的指示，但我将继续传达这一问题的重要性。”这些陈述不实。\n\nII. 将中国公民A驱逐出美国的活动\n\nA. BROIDY前往中国与中国部长A会面\n\n77. 于约2017年5月，在前往Bangkok（曼谷）之后，BROIDY同意前往Hong Kong（香港）再次与外国国民A会面。出行前，Davis与BROIDY讨论称，将中国公民A驱逐出美国对外国国民A而言十分重要。前往香港的目的，是与外国国民A及一名中国政府官员会面，讨论中国公民A事宜。\n\n78. 约于2017年5月15日，Davis就赴香港行程的旅行安排和行程表向BROIDY的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis还向BROIDY和人物C发送电子邮件，提供Davis公司的一项银行信息。\n\n79. 约于2017年5月18日，BROIDY、Davis及人物A前往香港，随后被送往中国Shenzhen（深圳），并在那里的一间酒店套房内与外国国民A及中国部长A会面。中国部长A向BROIDY谈及中国公民A及其被指控的犯罪行为，并称中国政府希望中国公民A被遣返回中国。中国部长A要求BROIDY利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将中国公民A移除并遣返回中国。他们还讨论了将当时被中国关押的美国人遣返回美国的可能性。中国部长A还称，其将很快访问Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），且在安排与某些美国政府高级官员会面时遇到困难。\n\nB. BROIDY就移除中国公民A一事游说美国高级官员\n\n80. 约于2017年5月20日，在从中国返程途中，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“我会努力使本周成为我们与[总检察长]取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n81. 约于2017年5月21日，BROIDY就其与外国国民A及中国部长A的会面向人物D发送短信：“人物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. 约于2017年5月22日，BROIDY向人物D发送短信：“我需要尽快与[总检察长]会面。我们会讨论。”BROIDY随后称：“我正在向你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，人物D回复：“已向[总检察长]提出会面请求。”\n\n83. 约于2017年5月22日，BROIDY向人物D发送了一封主题为“美中执法合作显著加强的机会[.]”的电子邮件。BROIDY在该电子邮件中附上了一份由BROIDY致总检察长的备忘录，意图由人物D随后将该备忘录提供给总检察长。该备忘录的内容由Davis提供给BROIDY，且该内容源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，BROIDY和人物C修改了该备忘录。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY歪曲了其前往中国的原因及促成其与中国部长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亦未披露外国国民A向其支付的$4 million。BROIDY还未披露，其就中国公民A所作的游说努力，至少部分是依照其与外国国民A之间的财务安排而进行，并且可能导致额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY称：“[中国部长A]告诉我，中国希望显著加强与美国在执法方面的双边合作，包括网络安全。”BROIDY写及中国部长A即将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，届时中国部长A及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。BROIDY表示，总检察长与中国部长A会面将富有成效。BROIDY还列举了若干事项，据中国部长A称，中国愿意采取这些措施以改善美中执法关系。BROIDY随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，中国将提出的一项请求是，[中国公民A]，中国称其与已被逮捕并被控违反中国多项刑法（包括绑架及重大金融犯罪）的人共谋，应尽快从美国被驱逐出境（其签证将在约下个月到期）或被引渡（Interpol（国际刑警组织）已就其发布红色通缉令，随附供您参考）至中国，以便其可因这些违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在中国接受常规刑事诉讼程序。\n\nBROIDY将一份关于中国公民A的国际刑警组织红色通缉令附于该备忘录之后。\n\n86. 约于2017年5月23日，BROIDY向人物D发送短信：“你好[]，明天的会面是否已安排？我的备忘录是否已发送给[总检察长]？请更新。谢谢。Elliott[]。”人物D回复：“Elliott——信件昨天已递交。请查看附有修改的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但争取在下午早些时候进行。今天晚些时候会打给你。我今晚正搭乘红眼航班，以便能尽早返回DC。”BROIDY回复：“很好。谢谢[]。也请设法确定他是否已安排会面，或者我们是否能安排在周四、周五或周六在Alabama（阿拉巴马州）会面。”次日，约于2017年5月24日，人物D回复：“正在等待DoJ关于会面的消息——我们的会面以及[中国部长A]的会面。请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以碰面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n87. 约于2017年5月24日，人物D向BROIDY发送短信：“刚接到[总检察长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到他回复的短信，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 约于2017年5月25日，BROIDY向人物D发送短信：“今天上午10:00在Justice（司法部）举行会面。然后明天与FBI（联邦调查局）和DHS（国土安全部）会面。也许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到达，然后可以进行一次简短会面。之后再与[]一对一会面，讨论更多细节。请努力今天第一时间见到[总检察长]。我们办成此事确实很重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。E[.]”人物D回复：“E——正在处理。[总检察长]今天上午不在办公室，但正努力了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，BROIDY向人物D发送短信：“细节是，我备忘录中的3件事仅供[总检察长]知悉。[中国部长A]希望直接告诉[总检察长]。我的是合法的秘密渠道。[中国部长A]的上级希望确认[总检察长]听到了这3件事，这些事确实有助于美国[]。”当日稍后，人物D回复：“E——刚刚与[总检察长]通完电话。消息不太好。请告诉我你何时有空交谈。谢谢。”\n\n89. 约于2017年5月26日，提及为中国部长A安排的会面，BROIDY向人物D发送短信：“上午10点ICE（移民和海关执法局）负责人，11:30 FBI。也许在DHS采取行动可以挽救局面。与[人物I]短暂会面。这三项内容可以分享。”BROIDY随后称：“请给我打电话”及“我正努力控制损害，需要与你交谈。最好与[人物I]单独交谈。”人物I当时是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n90. 约于2017年5月28日，在Davis将通信内容转录给BROIDY后，BROIDY向人物D发送电子邮件：“[总检察长]与中国驻美大使之间往来通信的转录内容。”BROIDY指出：“我相信，[总检察长]有极好的机会进一步推动美国利益。我已在下方添加评论。我们能否尽快讨论？另有一项总检察长应当知悉的利益相关事项。”同日稍后，BROIDY与人物D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2017年5月30日，Davis就中国部长A与美国政府官员的会面向BROIDY发送短信：“查看Wickr——现在会面都已获准[]。”BROIDY回复：“是的。都安排好了[.]”Davis回复：“他的会面已恢复。”\n\n92. 于约2017年5月，Davis应人物A要求，请BROIDY在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）与中国部长A会面。\n\n93. 约于2017年5月30日，BROIDY在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店与中国部长A会面。BROIDY还询问人物D，人物D是否可以协助中国部长A安排与美国政府高级官员会面。\n\n94. 约于2017年5月31日，BROIDY向人物D发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与该副部长会面。他今天下午搭乘4点的航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人会面，并让原本应与他会面的人转而与Vietnam（越南）会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[总检察长]或[人物I]会面，否则就回国。他很愿意与[人物I]会面。……截至目前，他已交出一名孕妇，接下来的2人将很快被送来。他会接收60名被驱逐出境的中国公民，但前提是他能进行一次适当的“简短会面”。这对本届政府而言是一次重大胜利，可以公开宣传。这是两国总统在Mara Largo会面所产生的结果。请给我打电话，我将告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n95. 人物D回复：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY回复，\n\n“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫（WH）的政治联络官在国土安全部（DHS）会见副部长（VM）？他可以提到我的名字。也试着让[Person]为该情况预热。也提到我。谢谢！祝我们好运。”\n\n96. 约于2017年5月31日，Davis（戴维斯）就中华人民共和国A部长（PRC Minister A）据称与[Person I]的会面向BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）发送短信：“原则上[Person I]对我们没问题——只是日程安排问题？”BROIDY回复：“只是临时通知导致的日程安排问题。可能仍会在接下来一小时左右收到消息。与[PRC Minister A]没有任何问题。”BROIDY随后继续说道：“请向副部长转达我的良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”Davis回复：“是的，我正这样告诉他。”BROIDY回复：“告诉他，我正在把发生的事情告诉白宫和[Attorney General]。”Davis随后发送短信：“[Person]今天下午不是安排在海地吗？”BROIDY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：“国土安全部网站上有。他下午在那里。刚和副部长谈过，他听起来像是在哭。”BROIDY回复：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真是一场他妈的灾难。”Davis回复：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 约于2017年6月9日，Davis向BROIDY发送了一篇题为“chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]”的新闻文章。\n\n98. 约于2017年6月27日，BROIDY就遣返中华人民共和国国民A（PRC National A）一事向[Person H]的配偶发送短信。BROIDY知道，[Person H]是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，也是一名经常向政治竞选活动捐款、与总统关系密切的人士；其可以立即接触并影响总统，且可能有效地寻求遣返[PRC National A]。BROIDY向[Person H]的配偶发送短信：“另有一事，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与[Person H]会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者午餐时间也可以？期待在[] Hotel见到您！致意，Elliott。”BROIDY随后继续说道：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H]让我通过短信将该信息发送给您。我将向您发送若干与逃犯[PRC National A]有关的材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报……极其时间紧迫的是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证将于6月30日到期。必须立即拒绝其新的签证申请。他还必须被列入国土安全部禁飞名单……该命令需要由最高层作出，因为[PRC National A]与前联邦调查局（FBI）人员关系密切，而这些人员在其私人安保团队中任职。[中华人民共和国主席]曾在Mar-A-Lago向[总统]提到，他希望将[PRC National A]送回。[PRC Minister A]曾与我会面，并请求我就[PRC National A]提供帮助……他承诺遣返若干被中国扣为人质的美国公民，并将接收大量被遣返回中国的中国非法移民。最后，他还提出就朝鲜问题提供新的协助。\n\n99. 约于2017年6月28日，BROIDY在一次社交聚会上与[Person H]及其配偶会面。会后，BROIDY与[Person H]的配偶就[PRC National A]交换短信：“嗨，[]，今晚见到您和[Person H]真高兴！我刚再次收到[PRC Minister A]的消息。他想知道[PRC National A]签证的状态，因为时间至关重要。——签证是否已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]已被列入国土安全部禁飞名单？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手遣返。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的最高层处理。他们正在办理。”\n\n100. 约于2017年6月29日，BROIDY和Davis就[PRC National A]的签证申请交换短信。BROIDY发送短信：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”Davis回复：“我不知道。”BROIDY回复：“抱歉，总是会生成。换句话说，每位申请人最终都会收到书面的同意或拒绝？抱歉，收到书面的同意或拒绝？”Davis回复：“是。查看Wickr。”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月30日，Davis提及他们为促成遣返[PRC National A]以及可能遣返被中华人民共和国扣留的美国公民所作的努力时，向BROIDY发送短信：“Wickr。你现在真是了不起。他们会因你在今年7月4日为这个国家所完成的事情而授予你总统自由勋章。”BROIDY回复：“我会全力以赴，直到完成为止。”Davis回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。并确定会面日期。在我们办成之前，不要离开那个人。”BROIDY回复：“同意。”Davis继续说道：“让他知道——如果我们今天在营业结束前拿到确认拒签的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们将在7月4日前让那2名美国人回家。之后的第二阶段——我们可以接收那60人。”BROIDY回复：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会给我回电话。正在通话。”\n\n102. 约于2017年6月30日，BROIDY和Davis就[PRC National A]交换了数条短信。BROIDY发送短信：“收到[Person H]的消息。他向总统重申了此事。”BROIDY随后补充道：“另外，[Person E]给我发短信说他被其他事情缠住了，但正在处理此事。”同日，Davis回复：“我们今天能拿到有关撤销的证明吗？”Davis随后具体说明：“来自[Person E]？”\n\n103. 约于2017年7月1日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“与[Person E]进行了长时间交谈。你方便时给我打电话。”BROIDY并未与[Person E]通话，而是曾就[PRC National A]的签证申请与其交换短信。BROIDY未向[Person E]披露其与[PRC Minister A]关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约于2017年7月2日，BROIDY和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：“今天周日安排了与[中华人民共和国主席]就朝鲜问题的通话。他可以询问并确认有关一揽子事项。他甚至可以说他听说过[Person H]。”\n\n105. 约于2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“[总统]周三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲。”Davis随后补充道：“7月5日。安排与[中华人民共和国主席]亲自会面。”\n\n106. 约于2017年7月10日，[Person A]将[PRC National A]的红色通报副本、[PRC National A]护照和身份证件的图像，以及其他与[PRC National A]及其涉嫌实施的犯罪有关的文件通过电子邮件发送给自己。\n\n107. 约于2017年7月，[Person A]要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在位于Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的中华人民共和国大使馆与中华人民共和国驻美国大使会面。该会面的目的是向中华人民共和国大使传达有关[PRC National A]的信息。约于2017年7月16日，Higginbotham前往位于Washington, D.C.的中华人民共和国大使馆，并与该大使会面。会面期间，Higginbotham告诉该大使，美国政府官员正在推进对[PRC National A]的引渡，今后将有关于引渡后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，Higginbotham向[Person A]报告了所发生的情况，[Person A]称他会通知Foreign National A（外国国民A）。[Person A]后来告诉Higginbotham，Foreign National A对该次会面感到满意，并且该会面使Foreign National A在中华人民共和国获得了可信度。\n\n108. 约于2017年7月18日，BROIDY通过电子邮件向Davis发送了[Person H]的联系信息。Davis为[PRC Minister A]与[Person H]之间接通了多次电话，以推进遣返[PRC National A]的游说活动。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月26日，BROIDY和Davis就[PRC National A]及其从美国被遣返至中华人民共和国一事交换短信。其中，Davis写道：“确实需要确认其已被正式传达。到目前为止——他说没有。”BROIDY回复：“已让3个不同的人跟进。”BROIDY随后补充道：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后会见[Person H]。”\n\n110. 约于2017年7月26日，BROIDY向[Person H]发送短信，约其在Washington, D.C.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，我也在这里，住在[hotel]。您今天愿意喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott。”同日晚些时候，[Person H]的配偶向BROIDY发送短信：“嗨，Elliot。你能再给我发一次你之前发过短信的那名中国男子的详情吗，谢谢。”BROIDY回复：“嗨，[]，您指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A]？致意，Elliott。”[Person H]的配偶回复：“[PRC National A]。”BROIDY随后重新发送了他此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n111. 约于2017年7月27日，BROIDY和Davis就[PRC National A]交换短信。Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“大使馆那边有什么消息吗？”Davis随后补充道：“有关正式通知有任何更新吗？”BROIDY回复：“我正在与国家安全委员会（NSC）的人打交道。直接发送电子邮件。等待回复。”\n\n112. 约于2017年8月19日，BROIDY多次向Davis发送短信。其中，BROIDY写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息。”BROIDY随后补充道：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破机会。”\n\n113. 约于2017年8月19日，BROIDY在[Person H]的游艇上与[Person H]会面。在他们共处期间，BROIDY询问[Person H]有关涉及[PRC National A]的事项。随后，[Person H]当着BROIDY的面致电总统，询问[PRC National A]在美国境内的状态。\n\n114. 约于2017年9月13日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有其他文章。”同日，Davis向BROIDY发送了有关[PRC National A]的文章链接。\n\n115. 约于2017年10月2日，BROIDY向Davis发送了一篇有关[PRC National A]的文章链接。\n\n116. 约于2018年1月5日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“尽快给我发送更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政客的信息，……”\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)主张没收，本信息书第一项罪名中的指控在此再次主张，并通过援引纳入本文。\n\n2. 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 371的第一项罪名被定罪，被告ELLIOTT BROIDY应向美利坚合众国没收任何构成或源自可追溯至上述违法行为所得收益的不动产或动产。现进一步通知，一旦定罪，美利坚合众国拟寻求针对BROIDY作出金钱判决，金额相当于本段所述财产。\n\n3. 如上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为：\n\n- a. 经尽职调查仍无法找到；\n- b. 已被转让或出售给第三方，或已存放于第三方处；\n- c. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n- d. 价值已大幅减少；或\n- e. 已与其他财产混同，且无法在不造成困难的情况下分割，\n\n美国有权依照经 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) 纳入适用的 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)，没收财产。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（公共廉政处处长）\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\n/s/John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller（首席副处长）\nSean F. Mulryne（选举犯罪处副主任）\nNicole R. Lockhart\nJames C. Mann\n审判律师\n公共廉政处\n\n案件编号 22-50073　文件 678-2　提交日期 08/04/22　录入日期 08/04/22 08:56:08　第 59 页，共 109 页\n\n于 2020 年 Aug 17, 10:23am 提交至 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）DISTRICT OF HAWAII（夏威夷地区）；法院书记员 Michelle Rynne\n\nKENJI M. PRICE #10523\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\nDistrict of Hawaii（夏威夷地区）\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON\nAssistant U.S. Attorney（美国助理联邦检察官）\nRoom 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg.\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公共廉政处处长\n美国司法部\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\n选举犯罪处副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n审判律师\n公共廉政处\n\n在美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（尼基·马利·拉姆·戴维斯），\n\n被告。\n）刑事案件编号 20-00068 JAO\n\n起诉书\n\n[18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)]\n\n美利坚合众国指控：\n\n导言\n\n在与本起诉书相关的所有时间：\n\n2. 自不晚于 March 2017 起至至少约 January 2018，NICKIE LUM DAVIS（尼基·拉姆·戴维斯）同人士 A 和人士 B 约定，作为外国国民 A 的代理人行事，以换取源自与外国国民 A 相关的外国账户、且未披露的数百万美元电汇款项。DAVIS 明确同意协助人士 B 游说 President of the United States（美国总统，以下简称“总统”）、总统的政府班子以及 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部，以下简称“DOJ”），以撤销对外国国民 A 因其从 1Malaysia Development Berhad（1MDB）——一家由 Government of Malaysia（马来西亚政府）全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司——侵吞数十亿美元所涉行为的调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告和人士 B 故意未向政府班子和 DOJ 官员披露人士 B 正代表外国国民 A 行事。最终，DAVIS 以及人士 A 和 B 未能促成撤销 1MDB 调查。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，DAVIS 还同人士 A 和 B 约定，应外国国民 A 和中华人民共和国部长 A 的请求，协助其游说政府班子和 DOJ，安排将 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，以下简称“中国”）国民 A——一名居住在美国的中国异见人士——遣离并送返中国。在此事上，DAVIS 以及人士 A 和 B 最终同样未能成功。\n\n4. 为进一步推进外国国民 A 的利益，DAVIS 协助人士 B 促成 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）与总统于 September 2017 会面，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理 A 能够就 1MDB 事项的解决与总统进行讨论。\n\n5. DAVIS、人士 A 和人士 B 还在中国会见了中国部长 A，并同意由人士 B 在 DAVIS 的协助下游说政府班子，将中国国民 A 送返中国。DAVIS、人士 A 和人士 B 还同意并试图促成中国部长 A 与 DOJ 及 United States Department of Homeland Security（美国国土安全部，以下简称“DHS”）高级官员之间的会面，明确目的在于为中国部长 A 提供机会，使其在中国部长 A 于 May 2017 访问美国期间，能够与美国高级官员讨论遣离中国国民 A 一事。\n\n禁止作为外国委托人或政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. Foreign Agents Registration Act（外国代理人登记法，以下简称“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去和现在均为一部披露法，要求任何在美国作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向 Attorney General（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。此类登记向 DOJ 内 National Security Division’s Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit（国家安全司外国代理人登记法科，以下简称“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未登记，以及在依照该法规定向 FARA Unit 提交的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA 的目的在于防止外国委托人进行秘密影响。根据该法进行适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估服务于外国委托人的个人所作的陈述和活动。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报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人的代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人和实体\n\n8. 被告 NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 是且一直是美国公民、女商人及顾问，与人士 A 和 B 存在个人及商业关系。\n\n9. 人士 A 是美国公民、商人及艺人，具有国际联系，包括与外国国民 A 的联系。\n\n10. 人士 B 自约 April 2016 至 April 2018 担任一个全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。以该身份，人士 B 从捐助者处募集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在 2016 选举周期内与一名美国总统职位候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。选举后，人士 B 继续担任财务副主席，并保持接触总统政府班子的高级官员、包括总统在内的渠道和联系。在同一期间，人士 B 拥有并经营若干美国国内和国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. 外国国民 A 是居住在东亚的富有商人，已因其策划和实施从 1MDB 侵吞数十亿美元的计划而受到单独指控。\n\n12. Company A（公司 A）是一家由人士 A 设立的有限责任公司，用于接收外国国民 A 的电汇款项，以支付人士 B 的游说活动费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是人士 A 的同事，也是受雇于 DOJ 的持证律师。于 November 20, 2019，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）就一项指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的起诉书作出认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（律所 A）是一家由人士 B 的配偶人士 C 经营的律师事务所。\n\n15. 中国国民 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 和中国国家主席，正寻求将中国国民 A 自美国遣离并送返中国。\n\n16. 自 2016 年末至 2019 年，DOJ 正积极调查据称与 1MDB 侵吞计划洗钱所得相关的外国国民 A 的交易。于 July 2016，DOJ 提起多项民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称以 1MDB 洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。于 November 1, 2018，DOJ 提交刑事起诉书，指控外国国民 A 及他人共谋洗钱从 1MDB 侵吞的数十亿美元，以及共谋通过向多名马来西亚和 Abu Dhabi（阿布扎比）官员支付贿赂而违反 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act（反海外腐败法）。\n\n一、解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的行动\nA. 人士 B 同意以 $8 Million 预付聘用费为外国国民 A 进行游说\n\n17. 于约 March 2017，DAVIS 告诉人士 B，她在马来西亚有一名可能“需要有人协助处理没收事宜”的客户。\n\n18. 于约 March 5, 2017，应人士 B 的请求，DAVIS 通过电子邮件向人士 B 发送了一份与 1MDB 有关的民事没收诉状副本。同日，DAVIS 通过电子邮件向人士 B 发送了一篇 Bloomberg（彭博社）文章，标题为“Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits”，并向人士 B 发送短信：“你的电子邮件里有法院提交文件[]。”人士 B 回复：“Thx. Will review.” DAVIS 回复：“你方便时给我打电话——谢谢[.]。”人士 B 再次回复：“Yes. 5 min].])”\n\n19. 人士 A 要求 DAVIS 向其发送人士 B 的简历，该简历描述了人士 B 与政府班子高级官员的关系，以及人士 B 与总统的合影。于约 March 7, 2017，应 DAVIS 的请求，人士 B 的助理通过电子邮件向 DAVIS 发送了展示人士 B 与总统的照片。人士 A 表示，其希望获得这些照片，以便突出人士 B 与政府班子的密切接触渠道。\n\n20. 于约 March 8, 2017，DAVIS 向人士 B 发送短信：“Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?” 人士 B 回复：“I think so. Let's speak later.” 当日稍后，DAVIS 向人士 B 发送了额外短信，以安排人士 B、人士 A 和 DAVIS 之间的会面。\n\n21. 在人士 B 指示下，于约 March 13, 2017，DAVIS 向人士 A 转发了一份 Law Firm A 与外国国民 A 之间的“Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services”。该“Retainer and Fee Agreement”规定，外国国民 A 将预先支付 $8 million 的预付聘用费；如该“事项”在 180 日内解决，则另行支付 $75 million 的成功费；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”系指 1MDB 没收程序。事实上，人士 A、人士 B、Law Firm A、DAVIS 和人士 C 未向外国国民 A 提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真正目的，是基于人士 B 的政治关系，取得人士 B 代表外国国民 A 向政府班子和 DOJ 进行游说的服务。\n\n22. 大约于2017年3月13日，Person B（B 人）与Person A（A 人）及DAVIS（戴维斯）会面，讨论Foreign National A（外国籍人士 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商谈由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，部分内容为：“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 大约于2017年3月15日，就Foreign National A而言，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“……[Person A]的关联人有什么新消息吗？”同日，DAVIS回复：“[Person A]明天将与‘发起人’亲自会面，他们希望在接下来的几周内出行。”\n\n24. 大约于2017年3月22日，DAVIS向Person B及其助理发送电子邮件，讨论安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS再次会面。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、Person A和Person B均知悉FARA（外国代理人登记法）及其禁止未登记代表外国委托人的规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人的代理人，DAVIS、Person A或Person B从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人所开展的工作，向DOJ（美国司法部）的FARA部门登记。\n\nB. Person A、Person B和DAVIS在曼谷会见Foreign National A\n\n27. 大约于2017年4月，Person A要求Person B前往泰国曼谷会见Foreign National A。Person B表示，只有获得$1 million报酬才会前往，并且希望由Person A以“未受污染”的资金向其付款。\n\n28. 大约于2017年4月28日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信称：“我希望资金汇入[Law Firm A（A律师事务所）]。”同日，DAVIS回复：“好的。”\n\n29. 大约于2017年4月29日，Person B与DAVIS就其即将与Foreign National A和Person A举行的会面交换短信。在这些短信中，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：“你能通话时给我打电话。”\n\n30. 大约于2017年4月30日，DAVIS就前往曼谷的航班行程向Person B的助理发送电子邮件。DAVIS在邮件中部分写道：“如有问题请给我打电话——这是两张单程票——因为我们需要从不同国家离开。我们暂时不必担心酒店问题……”\n\n31. 大约于2017年5月1日，DAVIS向Person B及其助理发送了曼谷Shangri-La Hotel（香格里拉酒店）的链接。同日，DAVIS向Person A发送电子邮件，告知其预订香格里拉酒店的房间并向她发送确认信息。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A]正在预订我们的酒店。”随后又补充道：“还请把[Person B]的电汇信息发给我。”DAVIS回复并提供了Law Firm A名下账户的电汇信息。同日，针对Person B的助理关于其是否应取消Person B酒店房间预订的询问，DAVIS向该助理发送电子邮件称：“是的，所有房间均已由[Person A]预订。”\n\n32. 大约于2017年5月2日，DAVIS向Person B发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A]和我会在到达处见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——愿这段令人兴奋且繁荣的旅程有一个好的开端！”\n\n33. 大约于2017年5月2日，DAVIS、Person A和Person B抵达曼谷。在该次行程中，DAVIS、Person A和Person B在一间酒店套房内会见了Foreign National A。Person B与Foreign National A谈及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预付聘金，并希望Person B联系美国司法部长，以使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。Person B同意游说政府当局和DOJ，以为Foreign National A取得有利结果，同时隐瞒其代表Foreign National A工作的事实。关于付款，Person B表示，资金不应直接来自Foreign National A，并且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A确定了一名可向Person B及其他人付款的朋友。Person B、Person A和DAVIS同意，资金将首先经由Person A转汇，然后通过Law Firm A支付给Person B。Person B和DAVIS同意，Person B将向DAVIS支付其所收款项的百分之三十。Person A还同意向DAVIS支付Person A所收资金的一定比例。Person A告知Person B和DAVIS，其朋友Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）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处收取$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，大约于2017年5月8日，Company A（A公司）收到Foreign National A指示由一家香港实体汇出的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，Person A从Company A账户取得一张向Law Firm A支付的$702,000银行本票，该款项随即记入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。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. 大约于2017年5月8日，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[Law Firm A]账户中的两笔电汇均来自[Person A]。剩余余额已于20分钟前送至你的办公室——。”DAVIS随后补充道：“银行本票总额为702。”\n\n36. 大约于2017年5月9日，Person A促使Company A向由DAVIS的一名家庭成员控制的一家公司转账$250,000，以使DAVIS受益。\n\n37. 大约于2017年5月17日，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转入$3 million。\n\n38. 大约于2017年5月17日，Person B与DAVIS就Foreign National A经由Person A向Person B付款，以及Person B向DAVIS支付一定比例款项交换短信。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信息。早上会向你发送电汇。”Wickr是一种允许端到端加密和内容到期失效的消息应用程序。Person B后来补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”DAVIS回复：“等亚洲市场开盘……至少现在正逐步推进。”Person B回复：“是的。催他们发出接下来的两笔电汇。”Person B后来部分补充道：“假定第二笔3已到账，且确认最后两笔正在发送。请问[Person B的助理]。”\n\n39. 大约于2017年5月18日，Law Firm A向Person B的一个企业账户转入$500,000，并向由DAVIS控制的一个企业账户转入$900,000。约一周内，Law Firm A又分两笔向Person B的一个企业账户转入额外$950,000。\n\n40. 大约于2017年5月25日，Foreign National A促使向Company A作出第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。大约于2017年5月26日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转入$2 million，作为对Person B与Foreign National A约定的$8 million预付聘金的部分履行；该聘金的对价是Person B游说政府当局和DOJ撤销1MDB民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，Law Firm A账户向与DAVIS有关联的一个企业账户转入$600,000。\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. 大约于2017年5月18日，Person B向Person D（D 人）发送短信。Person D是一名政治顾问，曾任总统竞选助理。Person B请求Person D与政府当局合作，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. 大约于2017年6月5日，Person B再次就Malaysian Prime Minister A的访问向Person D发送短信：“亚洲国家非常积极地推进7月会面。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同日，应Person A要求，DAVIS就Foreign National A向Person B发送短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS基于Person A代表Foreign National A向其传达的信息写道：“如有可能，请在你去以色列睡觉前打电话……[Foreign National A]一直打电话询问消息。”Person B回复：“好的。会给你打电话。我今晚要去华盛顿特区，处理[Foreign National A]和亚洲国家的事。”\n\n44. 大约于2017年6月15日，DAVIS转达Person A的信息，向Person B发送短信：“嘿，他想今晚和你谈谈。你可以吗？”DAVIS补充道：“委托人”，这是指Foreign National A。同日，Person B回复：“可以。”\n\n45. 大约于2017年6月16日，Person B与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交换短信。\n\n46. 大约于2017年6月17日，Person B与DAVIS讨论了Malaysian Prime Minister A。大约于2017年6月，Person B询问总统是否会与Malaysian Prime Minister A打高尔夫球。Person B表示，并且DAVIS相信，此举将取悦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的政府获得额外业务，并希望安排与总统打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n47. 大约于2017年6月19日，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章内容为Malaysian Prime Minister A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收行动。\n\n48. 大约于2017年6月25日，DAVIS向Person B发送了一篇关于Malaysian Prime Minister A及涉及Foreign National A的1MDB没收行动的文章链接。同日，Person B回复：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”DAVIS回复：“请打电话。有消息。”DAVIS随后称，她已向Person B发送“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 大约于2017年6月29日，Person B向White House（白宫）的一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统进行高尔夫活动：“嗨，[Person E（E 人）]，如我所述，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[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，数周前已向国务院发出一封信，要求安排会面。”\n\n50. 约在2017年6月30日，人员B就高尔夫活动向人员E发送了另一条短信：“希望我们今早能够就［中华人民共和国国民A］以及［马来西亚总理A］与美国总统（POTUS）的高尔夫日期谈谈。”当天晚些时候，人员B又跟进称：“［人员E］，如我们所讨论，希望我们今天能把这些事项办妥。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n51. 约在2017年7月3日，人员B再次就马来西亚总理A与总统的高尔夫日期向人员E发短信：“早上好［人员E］。如果你今天能够向我确认［马来西亚总理A］与POTUS的高尔夫日期，将对我极有帮助。POTUS告诉我，他很高兴在Bedminster或DC打球。我们谈过之后，我向［马来西亚总理A］提到，他上周就会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，[]。”当天晚些时候，人员B再次向人员E发短信：“［人员E］，我正在跟进。请把［马来西亚总理A］与POTUS打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约在2017年7月4日，DAVIS（戴维斯）向人员B发短信称：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又称：“清理你的手机——删除信息[]”\n\n53. 约在2017年7月5日，人员B与人员E就高尔夫活动交换了信息。在这些信息中，人员B发短信称：“［人员E］，刚给你留了言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？此致，[]”人员E回复：“这件事在NSC那里。”他们正在协调和谈判——我相信会办成[。]”\n\n54. 约在2017年7月11日，DAVIS转达人员A的信息，向人员B发短信称：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们正被搞得很惨。”这些信息涉及确认马来西亚总理A与总统打高尔夫的日期，以及外国国民A因尚未确认日期而感到不满。DAVIS转达人员A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。”人员B回复：“看Wickr[。]”次日，人员B向DAVIS发短信称：“在Wickr上给我发信息。我马上要起飞，得去WH[]。马上起飞。现在就需要[]”DAVIS回复：“办好了[。]”人员B回复：“收到。谢谢[]。正试着让［人员F］尽快打电话[。]”人员F当时是国家安全委员会的高级官员。\n\n55. 约在2017年7月13日，DAVIS向人员B发短信称：“你方便时请打电话，我们谈谈——我们必须处理这件事，所以请你务必去D.C.，在WH一直坐着，直到你办成。我可以陪着你，如果你担心孤单的话！”\n\n56. 约在2017年7月13日，人员B再次就高尔夫日期向人员E发短信：“嗨［人员E］，已经两周了。再次询问［马来西亚总理A］与POTUS打高尔夫的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。此致，[][。]”人员E回复：“我现在再查一下[。]这些事情要经过一个流程——”。人员B回复：“谢谢！！”人员E回复：“NSC正在处理并协调[。]”人员B回复：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”人员E回复：“他们正直接与［马来西亚］合作。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约在2017年7月15日，人员B向DAVIS发短信称：“正在安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约在2017年7月17日，DAVIS代表外国国民A转达人员A表达的紧迫要求，向人员B发短信称：“［人员E］现在需要给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们显得毫无作为[。]”该短信既涉及安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面，也涉及中华人民共和国国民A相关事项。人员B回复：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 约在2017年7月18日，人员B与DAVIS就安排总统与马来西亚总理A会面交换了数条短信。在这些信息中，DAVIS转达人员A的信息称：“你能查一下Wickr吗[。]真的、真的需要那个日期。我今天一整天都因这件事忙疯了。他正在恐慌[。]”DAVIS又跟进称：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们正被彻底压垮。”据人员A称，外国国民A正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。人员B回复：“现在给［人员E］打电话[。]”DAVIS部分回复称：“给所有人打电话，让他们知道你怒不可遏[。]也给［人员G］打电话。我们今天必须办成这事[。]”人员G是总统的行政助理。人员B回复：“现在就办。”\n\n60. 约在2017年7月19日，DAVIS就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会面的日期，向人员B发短信称：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[。]”次日，人员B回复：“请耐心等我。正在获取有关会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 约在2017年7月21日，人员B就高尔夫活动向人员E发短信称：“人员E，［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月上旬与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫。POTUS说他很高兴这样做。你说会在一两天内安排好。现在已进入第四周。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常有耐心了。这现在不但没有带来积极影响，反而正在对我造成损害。如你今天能够回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 约在2017年7月24日，人员B向人员D发短信称：“收到9月在NJ的高尔夫日期。在联合国大会前的周六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也谢谢你的帮助！”人员D回复：“我们继续跟进，确保该日期由NSC确认。他有没有告诉你是谁给了他这个日期？”人员B回复：“谢谢！！太棒了。［人员E］把日期给了［人员H］。”\n\n63. 约在2017年7月27日，人员B向人员D发短信称：“刚刚再次向［马来西亚］核实。他们驻美大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息，请尽快查一下。此致，[]。”人员B又跟进称：“嗨［人员D］——你能替我就［马来西亚］收到正式通知一事给国家安全顾问（NSA）打电话吗？NSC仍未就会面事宜联系［马来西亚］大使。谢谢。此致，[]”人员D回复：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天曾与[]简短谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约在2017年7月29日，DAVIS转达其代表外国国民A从人员A处收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统的会面向人员B发短信称：“他们被告知会面是9月12日。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是周二？？？？没有高尔夫？？”DAVIS随即又发短信称：“Wickr[。]”人员B回复：“可能有两次会面。大使应该问一下。周六在Bedminster打高尔夫，周二在WH？”\n\n65. 约在2017年8月7日，人员B向其助理发送了一封电子邮件，主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”，其中载有拟用于即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会面的谈话要点。DAVIS从人员A处收到该谈话要点——人员A代表外国国民A提供该要点——并将其转交给人员B，明知人员B随后会将其提供给国务卿，作为该会面的背景材料。谈话要点除其他外提及人员B与［马来西亚］持续的关系及工作，并将IMDB列为“［优］先事项[。]”谈话要点指出，IMDB并未造成损害，并明确称，“［美］国检察官的介入造成了不必要的美方紧张[原文如此]，并可能引起马来西亚人的负面反应[]。”\n\n66. 约在2017年8月7日，人员B还将谈话要点文件发送给人员D，供其审阅和修改，并获取有关马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面的时间安排细节：“嗨［人员D］；［国务卿］何时会面？［马来西亚］已经是周一上午11:00。你能扩充并把最终版本发给我吗？”人员D回复，向人员B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］办公室的修订版本。他今天前往Bangkok，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，约在2017年8月7日，人员B向人员D发信息称：“［国务卿］于8日会见［马来西亚总理A］，于9日会见副总理。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，但可能不会立即认出［我公司的］名称。谢谢！”人员D回复：“让这件事得到提及肯定很重要。这不大可能成为正式会面的组成部分，但会努力在他们的谈话中提一下。”\n\n68. 同样在约2017年8月7日，人员A签署了一份其另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表之间的协议，约定提供“战略传播与危机管理”，交换条件为在2017年8月16日或之前支付约EUR 8.4 million。\n\n69. 约在2017年8月9日，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向Company A（A公司）转移约$12.8 million。人员A随后向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转移$3 million。人员A还向由DAVIS控制的一个企业账户转移$833.333。约在2017年8月10日，Law Firm A向与DAVIS有关联的一个企业账户转移$900,000。\n\n70. 约在2017年8月10日，人员B就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会面向人员D发短信称：“从［马来西亚］听说，会面进行得非常顺利。他们对［国务卿］感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有帮我提及。;–……”\n\n71. 约在2017年8月16日，人员B与DAVIS交换短信，以安排会面和电话通话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“［人员A］确实想在今天见你，如果可能的话，因为你周五离开[。]”\n\n72. 约在2017年8月18日，人员B与DAVIS交换短信以安排电话通话。在这些信息中，DAVIS写道：“请给我打电话。［人员A］想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 约在2017年8月19日，人员B向人员D发短信称：“［马来西亚］有什么更新吗？”人员D回复：“截至目前，会面将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难打高尔夫，但我正在努力。可能必须就此事直接找［人员I］，并利用他们二人曾一起打高尔夫的经历。”人员B回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给［人员I］的一名副手或［人员］打电话。还需要延长会面时间。我想与你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”人员I当时是白宫的高级官员。\n\n74. 约在2017年8月21日，DAVIS将其作为佣金从人员A处收到的$375,000资金电汇给人员C，即人员B的配偶。\n\n75. 2017年8月24日或前后，外国国民A指示向A某人的另一家公司转移约$10 million；该公司已与外国国民A的一名代表签订一份金额为EUR 8.4 million的“战略传播和危机管理”协议。根据2017年8月24日的通行汇率，EUR 8.4 million折合约$10 million。\n\n76. 2017年9月11日或前后，DAVIS应B某人的指示起草了一封拟由B某人寄给总统的信，以预期马来西亚总理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日或前后，马来西亚总理A在白宫会见总统，部分原因是DAVIS为B某人促成该会面所作努力提供了协助。尽管B某人联系政府内高级官员，试图除正式会面外安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A进行高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间未进行高尔夫比赛。\n\n78. 2017年10月6日或前后，B某人在白宫会见总统。B某人向A某人、DAVIS及外国国民A表示，他在会面期间向总统提出了IMDB调查一事。\n\n79. 2018年1月5日或前后，B某人起草了与I MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A展示B某人为其所作的努力。除其他事项外，该谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正与DoJ合作，反制前届政府在[马来西亚]针对I MDB提起的案件。我已制定策略，与DoJ和NSC双方接触，以寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与对该[]案件负有监督职责的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的人员，并且可能会有所帮助……。3. 如我先前告知您的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺将解决这一问题。重要的是，我应当遵循他的指示，但将继续传达这一问题的重要性。”B某人大大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80. 2018年1月6日或前后，B某人与A某人会面，A某人向B某人请求贷款。A某人告诉B某人，A某人的朋友正在“查问”他们从外国国民A处收到的款项，并“帮助保持其干净”。\n\nII. 将中华人民共和国国民A从美国移除的行动\n\nA. B某人赴中国会见中华人民共和国部长A\n\n81. 2017年5月或前后，在曼谷之行后，B某人同意前往香港再次会见外国国民A。出行前，DAVIS与B某人讨论，外国国民A认为将中华人民共和国国民A驱逐出境离开美国十分重要。赴香港之行的目的是会见外国国民A和一名中华人民共和国外国政府官员，以讨论中华人民共和国国民A。\n\n82. 2017年5月15日或前后，DAVIS就香港之行的旅行安排和行程向B某人的助理发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向B某人和C某人发送了DAVIS公司的银行信息。\n\n83. 2017年5月18日或前后，A某人、B某人和DAVIS前往香港，后被送往中国深圳，并在那里的一间酒店套房内会见了外国国民A和中华人民共和国部长A。中华人民共和国部长A向B某人谈及中华人民共和国国民A及其被指控的犯罪行为，并表示中华人民共和国希望中华人民共和国国民A被遣返回中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国部长A要求B某人利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将中华人民共和国国民A移除并遣返回中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国部长A还表示，他不久将访问华盛顿哥伦比亚特区，且在安排与某些美国政府高级官员会面方面遇到困难。\n\nB. B某人为移除中华人民共和国国民A游说美国高级官员\n\n84. 2017年5月20日或前后，在从中国返程途中，B某人向DAVIS发送短信：“我会尝试让这成为我们与[司法部长]共事的重要一周。”\n\n85. 2017年5月21日或前后，B某人就其与外国国民A和中华人民共和国部长A的会面向D某人发送短信：“[D某人]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否于周一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？[]。”\n\n86. 2017年5月22日或前后，B某人向D某人发送短信：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们将讨论。”B某人随后称：“我正在向您发送一份备忘录。我们将讨论。”同日稍后，D某人回复：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 2017年5月22日或前后，B某人向D某人发送了一封主题为“美国与[中华人民共和国][]之间显著加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。B某人将一份由B某人写给司法部长的备忘录附于该电子邮件，意图由D某人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B某人；DAVIS在2017年5月中国之行中从A某人处获得该内容，而该内容源自中华人民共和国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，B某人和C某人修订了该备忘录。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，B某人歪曲了其赴中国旅行的原因及其与中华人民共和国部长A会面的背景。B某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某人与中华人民共和国部长A会面中的作用。B某人还隐瞒了在深圳与中华人民共和国部长A会面前两周内其从外国国民A处收取的$4 million。B某人还未披露，其就中华人民共和国国民A进行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，且可能导致额外付款。\n\n89. 在该备忘录中，B某人表示：“[中华人民共和国部长A]告诉我，[中华人民共和国]希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面，显著加强与美国的双边合作。”B某人写及中华人民共和国部长A即将前往华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的行程，届时中华人民共和国部长A及其代表团计划会见数名美国政府高级官员。B某人主张司法部长应会见中华人民共和国部长A。B某人还指出，据中华人民共和国部长A称，中华人民共和国愿意采取若干行动，以改善美国与中华人民共和国之间的执法关系。B某人随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中华人民共和国部长A]的谈话，[中华人民共和国]将提出的一项请求是，尽快将[中华人民共和国国民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出红色通报，随附供您参考）；[中华人民共和国]指控其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反[中华人民共和国]多项刑事法律（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋，以便其能够因这些违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在[中华人民共和国]接受正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nB某人将一份关于中华人民共和国国民A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录。\n\n90. 2017年5月23日或前后，B某人向D某人发送短信：“您好[]，明天的会面定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[司法部长]了吗？请更新，谢谢[]。”D某人回复：“B某人——信昨天已递交。请看含有修改的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。今天晚些时候我会给您打电话。我今晚正乘坐红眼航班，以便能早点回到华盛顿哥伦比亚特区。”B某人回复：“很好。谢谢[]。还请尝试确定其会面是否已定，或者我们能否安排在周四，或周五或周六在阿拉巴马州会面。”次日，即2017年5月24日或前后，D某人回复：“正在等待DoJ就会面——我们的和[中华人民共和国部长A]的——作出回复。请告知您何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n91. 2017年5月24日或前后，D某人向B某人发送短信：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚无法会面。但我直接收到了他的短信回复，称他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 2017年5月25日或前后，B某人向D某人发送短信：“今天上午10:00在司法部举行会面。然后明天是FBI和DHS。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到达，并可进行一次简短会面。然后再与[]一对一会面，讨论更多细节。请今天第一时间尝试会见[司法部长]。我们务必促成此事。我今天上午需要与我的联系人谈话。谢谢。[。]”D某人回复：“[]——正在办理。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正在尝试了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，B某人向D某人发送短信：“细节是，我备忘录中的三项内容仅供[司法部长]知悉。[中华人民共和国部长A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我的渠道是合法的后门渠道。[中华人民共和国部长A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]听到了这三项确实有助于美国的内容[。]”当日稍后，D某人回复：“[]——实际上刚刚与司法部长通完电话。不是好消息。请告知您何时方便谈话。谢谢。”\n\n93. 2017年5月26日或前后，提及为中华人民共和国部长A安排的会面，B某人向D某人发送短信：“上午10点，ICE负责人；11:30，FBI。或许在DHS采取行动可以挽救局面。顺道见一下I某人。可以分享那三项内容。”B某人随后称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正试图控制损害，需要与您交谈。最好是与[某人]私下交谈。”I某人在当时是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 2017年5月28日或前后，B某人向D某人发送电子邮件：“与[司法部长]及[中华人民共和国]驻美国大使往来函件的转录文本。”B某人指出：“我相信，[司法部长]有一个进一步促进美国利益的绝佳机会。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一项令AG应当知悉的事项。”\n\n同日稍后，B某人与D某人交换电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n95. 2017年5月30日或前后，DAVIS转达了中华人民共和国部长A和A某人关于中华人民共和国部长A与美国政府官员会面的信息，并发送短信：“查一下Wickr——现在会面都已获准[]。”B某人回复：“是的。都安排好了[。]”DAVIS回复：“他的会面已恢复[。]”\n\n96. 2017年5月或前后，DAVIS应A某人的请求，要求B某人在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区会见中华人民共和国部长A。\n\n97. 约于2017年5月30日，Person B（B某人）在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店会见了PRC Minister A（中国部长A）。Person B还询问Person D（D某人），Person D是否可以帮助PRC Minister A安排与美国政府高级官员会面。\n\n98. 约于2017年5月31日，Person B向Person D发送短信：\n\n我昨晚见了VM（副部长）。他今天下午乘坐下午4点的航班返回。FBI（联邦调查局）安排他会见级别很低的人，并让原本应与他会面的人改为与Vietnam（越南）会面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[Attorney General（司法部长）]或[Person ]]会面，否则就回国。他很高兴与[Person ]]会面。……到目前为止，他已交出一名孕妇，接下来的两人将很快送出。他将接受60名Chinese Nationals（中国籍人士）被驱逐出境，但前提是他获得一次适当的“简短会面”。这对本届政府而言是一项重大胜利，可以予以公开宣传。这是两位总统在Mara Largo会晤的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99. Person D回复：“[]——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”Person B回复：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让WH（白宫）的政治联络人到DHS（国土安全部）与VM会面？他可以提到我的名字。也试着让[Person ]]缓和一下局面。也提到我。谢谢！祈祷一切顺利。”\n\n100. 约于2017年5月31日，DAVIS（戴维斯）就PRC Minister A据称与Person I（I某人）的会面向Person B发送短信：“原则上[Person I]没问题——只是日程问题？”Person B回复：“只是临时通知造成的日程安排问题。可能仍会在接下来一小时左右收到消息。[PRC Minister A]没有任何问题。”Person B随后继续说：“请转达我对VM的良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”DAVIS回复：“好的，我正在告诉他。”Person B回复：“告诉他，我正在向WH和[Attorney General]说明发生了什么。”DAVIS随后发短信说：“[Person ]]不是安排今天下午去Haiti（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网站上有这件事。他下午在那里。刚和VM通了话，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。这是一场他妈的灾难。”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（中国）]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A（中国籍人士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就将PRC National A移除一事向Person H（H某人）的配偶发送短信。Person B知道，Person H是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，也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，且可有效寻求将PRC National A移除。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，或者也许共进午餐？期待在[] Hotel（[]酒店）见到您！谨致问候，[]。”Person B随后继续说：\n\n嗨，[]，[Person H]让我通过短信把这些信息发给您。关于逃犯[PRC National A]，我有若干事项将发给您。第一项是国际刑警组织红色通报。……极为时间紧迫的是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证将于6月30日到期。他的新签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单。……该命令需要来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与曾任FBI人员的人关系密切，而这些人属于其私人安保团队。PRC总统在Mar-A-Lago向[总统]提到，他希望[PRC National A]被送回。[PRC Minister A]与我会面，并请求我协助处理[PRC National A]一事。……他承诺交还被[the PRC]扣为人质的某些美国公民，并会接受数量极大的[the PRC]非法移民被驱逐回[the PRC]。最后，他还提出在North Korea（朝鲜）问题上提供新的协助。\n\n104. 约于2017年6月28日，Person B在一次社交聚会上会见了Person H及其配偶。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]的签证状态，因为时间紧迫。——签证已经签发，还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]已被列入DHS禁飞名单？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]会在本周逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并推进驱逐出境。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：“此事已提交至国务院和国防部的最高层级。他们正在处理。”\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：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”DAVIS回复：“我不知道。”Person B回复：“抱歉，总是会生成。换句话说，每个申请人最终都会书面收到批准或拒绝，对吗？抱歉，书面收到批准或拒绝，对吗？”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Foreign National B（外国籍人士B）被移除以及可能让被扣押在Country B（B国）的美国公民返回所作的努力，向Person B发送短信：“Wickr。你现在真是了不起。他们会在今年7月4日之后，因你将为这个国家取得的成就，授予你总统自由勋章。”Person B回复：“我会全力干到底，直到办成。”DAVIS回复：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。还有m的日期。除非我们办成，否则别离开那家伙。”Person B回复：“同意。”DAVIS继续说：“让他知道——如果我们今天在下班前拿到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们会在7月4日前让那2名美国人回家。之后进行第二阶段——我们可以让他们接收那60人。”Person B回复：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会回电给我。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：“另外，[Person E（E某人）]给我发短信说，他被耽搁了，但正在处理此事。”同日，DAVIS回复：“我们今天能拿到撤销的证明吗？”DAVIS随后具体说明：“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]长谈。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的陈述及其与Person H的沟通类似，Person B未向Person E披露其与PRC Minister A关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 约于2017年7月2日，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A及其签证申请交换短信。基于公开报道，DAVIS发送短信：“今天星期日安排了与[PRC总统]就n Korea（朝鲜）问题的通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说自己听说了[Person H]的事。”\n\n110. 约于2017年7月3日，同样基于公开报道，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“[总统]星期三离开D.C.前往Europe（欧洲）。”DAVIS随后补充说：“7月5日。安排与[PRC总统]本人会面。”\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接通了多次通话，以推进将PRC National A移除的游说活动。\n\n112. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B与DAVIS就PRC National A及其从美国被移除至PRC一事交换短信。其中，DAVIS写道：“非常需要确认该事项已被正式传达。到目前为止——他说没有。”Person B回复：“已请3个不同的人跟进。”Person B随后补充说：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n113. 约于2017年7月26日，Person B向Person H发送短信，要求在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区的一家酒店会面讨论PRC National A：“嗨，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知您在DC，我也在，住在[hotel]。您今天想喝杯咖啡吗？谨致问候，[]。”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到的那名[PRC]男子的详细情况发给我，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]。”随后，Person B重新发送了其此前于6月27日发送的消息。\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随后补充说：“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。等待回复。”\n\n115. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B数次向DAVIS发送短信。其中，Person B写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息。”Person B随后补充说：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破机会。”\n\n116. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B在Person H的游艇上与Person H会面。在他们共处期间，Person B询问Person H有关涉及PRC National A的事项，Person H建议他们给总统打电话。随后，Person B和Person H给总统打电话，询问PRC National A在美国境内的状态。\n\n117. 约于2017年9月13日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有另一篇文章。”同日，DAVIS向Person B发送了有关PRC National A的文章链接。\n\n118. 约于2017年10月2日，Person B向DAVIS发送了一篇有关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：“尽快给我发更多有关[PRC National A]参与资助Dem（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（协助及教唆与未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 最迟自约 May 2017 起至至少约 January 2018 止，在District of Hawaii（夏威夷地区）及其他地区，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）明知且故意地，在未按法律要求向Attorney General（司法部长）登记的情况下，协助并教唆B号人士以外国委托人代理人的身份实施行为，即代表A号外国人、A号中华人民共和国部长及中华人民共和国政府开展幕后游说活动，以有利于A号外国人的方式解决1MDB调查事项，并将A号中华人民共和国国民送回中华人民共和国。\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 2以及22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(1)。\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)及Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)提出没收主张，现重新主张并以引用方式纳入本起诉书第1项罪名中的指控。\n\n122. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)及Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，在被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS因违反Title 18 United States Code, Section 2以及Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(1)的第1项罪名被定罪后，其应向美利坚合众国没收一笔代表不动产或动产的款项，该财产构成或源自可追溯至上述违法行为的收益。进一步通知如下：一旦定罪，美利坚合众国拟就代表本款所述财产的该笔款项向DAVIS申请金钱判决。\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找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、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. 其价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他无法轻易分割的财产混同，\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：August 17, 2020，于Honolulu, Hawaii（夏威夷州火奴鲁鲁）。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price\n\nKENJI M. PRICE（肯吉·M·普赖斯）\n\nDistrict of Hawaii（夏威夷地区）联邦检察官\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼斯·M·索伦森）\n\n国家安全处处长\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙德森）\n\nPublic Integrity Section（公共廉政处）处长\n\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\n\nJOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）\n\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE（肖恩·F·马尔赖恩）\n\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\n\nJAMES C. MANN（詹姆斯·C·曼恩）\n\nPublic Integrity Section（公共廉政处）审判律师\n\n美利坚合众国诉Nickie Mali DAVIS（妮基·马利·戴维斯）起诉书，刑事案号。\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA（哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n诉\n\nGEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM（乔治·希金博瑟姆），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事案号：\n\n18-343 (CKK)\n\n认罪答辩的事实依据\n\n根据Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第11条），美利坚合众国与被告George HIGGINBOTHAM约定并同意，以下事实公正且准确地描述了被告就其拟认罪的罪行所实施的行为。这些事实并不构成双方当事人就被控罪行及相关行为所知悉的全部事实。提交本陈述旨在表明，存在足够事实证明被告实施了其拟认罪的罪行。被告明知、自愿且如实承认下列事实。\n\n共谋\n\n1. 自约April 2017起至约January 2018止，在District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）及其他地区，HIGGINBOTHAM与他人明知地共谋实施向银行作虚假陈述之罪，即就从外国账户向美国多家受联邦保险保障的金融机构转移数千万美元的真实来源和目的作出虚假陈述。\n\n参与共谋的人员\n\n2. 在共谋期间，HIGGINBOTHAM是一名受雇于United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）的执业律师。共同谋犯A是HIGGINBOTHAM的长期伙伴，为美国公民、商人及艺人。共同谋犯B是一名外国国民，也是共同谋犯A的伙伴，是居住在东亚的富有商人，被指控策划了针对1Malaysia Development Berhad（1马来西亚发展有限公司，“1MDB”）的数十亿美元侵吞和贿赂计划；该公司是一家由Government of Malaysia（马来西亚政府）全资拥有的战略投资与发展公司。\n\n国际资金转移的来源和目的\n\n3. 约在July 2016，United States Department of Justice（美国司法部，“DOJ”）提起多份民事没收起诉状，寻求没收超过$1 billion的资产；该等资产据称与1MDB侵吞和贿赂计划所涉洗钱收益有关。共同谋犯B在该等起诉状中被列为侵吞计划的主要策划者之一。\n\n4. 约在March 2017，共同谋犯A要求HIGGINBOTHAM协助寻找一名具有政治影响力的人士，以解决共同谋犯B有关1MDB没收事项及DOJ对此进行调查的问题。HIGGINBOTHAM向共同谋犯A介绍了一名律师事务所招聘人员，该人员推荐了两家不同的律师事务所，但共同谋犯B最终选择了1号人士；该人士是一名非律师的企业所有人、政治筹款人及金融家，与美国政府高层人士具有政治关系，以游说政府官员解决1MDB事项。HIGGINBOTHAM未参与将1号人士介绍给共同谋犯A或共同谋犯B。\n\n5. 据共同谋犯A所述，1号人士不希望由共同谋犯B直接向其付款，因为其不希望与共同谋犯B产生关联。依共同谋犯A的指示，HIGGINBOTHAM起草了多项聘用及咨询协议，规定通过通道实体付款，以使共同谋犯B与1号人士保持距离，并在交易中隐匿共同谋犯B的身份。根据书面协议，共同谋犯B将通过多名中介人和实体向1号人士支付数千万美元，作为对1号人士游说美国政府官员撤销所有与1MDB有关的民事及／或刑事事项之努力的报酬。据共同谋犯A所述，作为游说活动的一部分，1号人士同意设法影响一名对1MDB民事没收事项具有管辖权的联邦职位潜在被提名人。该人最终未获提名。\n\n6. 约在May 2017，共同谋犯A告知HIGGINBOTHAM，共同谋犯B另有一项与1MDB事项无关的请求，其潜在获利可能高于他们就1MDB问题所进行的工作：共同谋犯B希望将1号外国人从美国移出并送回Q国；该人原为O国居民，持临时签证居住在美国，并曾公开批评Q国领导层。据共同谋犯A所述，1号人士及其他人将利用其政治关系游说美国政府官员，将1号外国人从美国移出。\n\n7. 应共同谋犯A的要求，HIGGINBOTHAM同意与Q国驻美国大使在位于Washington, D.C.（哥伦比亚特区华盛顿）的Q国大使馆会面，并于约July 16, 2017前往该大使馆与该大使会面。HIGGINBOTHAM告知使馆工作人员及Q国大使，其系以个人身份而非作为DOJ代表到场。依共同谋犯A的要求，HIGGINBOTHAM在会面期间传达了一项具体信息：美国政府官员正在处理涉及1号外国人的事项，未来将有关于将1号外国人送回Q国的后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，HIGGINBOTHAM向共同谋犯A报告了所发生的情况。共同谋犯A告知HIGGINBOTHAM，根据共同谋犯A与共同谋犯B的谈话，共同谋犯B对该次使馆会面的进展感到满意。\n\n8. 约在May 2017至约September 2017期间，数千万美元从在Q国设立的实体Foreign Company L（外国公司L）转移至一家由共同谋犯A控制的美国实体名下账户。HIGGINBOTHAM知悉，尽管该笔资金来自Foreign Company L，共同谋犯B仍控制该笔资金，且该等转移系依共同谋犯B的指示进行。HIGGINBOTHAM还知悉，该笔资金的目的在于支付1号人士及其他人游说美国政府官员，以（1）解决1MDB事项，以及（2）将1号外国人从美国移出并送回Q国。\n\n9. 为使国际资金转移看似合法，HIGGINBOTHAM依共同谋犯A的指示制作了多份虚假贷款文件、投资文件和咨询合同。该等文件以数家外国和国内空壳公司的名义制作，隐瞒了共同谋犯B参与交易的事实。制作虚假文件的目的，是在银行或其他主管机关查询资金真实来源和目的时提供掩饰说法。HIGGINBOTHAM知悉，共同谋犯A和共同谋犯B担心，美国境内的金融机构会拒绝办理任何被认定与共同谋犯B有关的资金交易。\n\n在Q国与共同谋犯B会面\n\n10. 约在September 2017，依共同谋犯A的要求，HIGGINBOTHAM与共同谋犯A及其他人一同前往Q国与共同谋犯B会面。在数日内，HIGGINBOTHAM与共同谋犯B、共同谋犯A及其他人会面。在该等会面中，共同谋犯B、共同谋犯A及其他人讨论了秘密将更多共同谋犯B的资金转入美国、以推进游说活动的策略，包括编造掩饰说法以解释资金流动并隐瞒该等资金与共同谋犯B有关的事实。他们还讨论了September 11, 2001事件后美国银行体系的严格程度。共同谋犯B表示，其希望在更长时间内分批汇入较小款项，以避免受到审查。\n\n11. 最终，共同共谋人B提出一项建议，即授予HIGGINBOTHAM对外国公司R（Foreign Company R）资产的授权委托书权限；该公司是在Q国（Country Q）成立的另一实体，表面上由共同共谋人B的一名关联人所有。实际上，共同共谋人B控制着公司R的资产，而该关联人仅是共同共谋人B的名义持有人。根据共同共谋人B的建议，如I某（Person I）及其他人成功使外国国民1（Foreign National 1）被移出美国，HIGGINBOTHAM可（凭借授权委托书权限）将公司R出售给共同共谋人A及与I某有关联的其他人，并使用公司R的资产补偿参与游说活动的人员：在共同共谋人B的指示下，HIGGINBOTHAM在Q国签署了多份文件，表面上赋予HIGGINBOTHAM对公司R及其资产的控制权。\n\n12. 返回美国后，HIGGINBOTHAM和共同共谋人A得知，I某及其他参与游说活动的人员对共同共谋人B的建议，以及前往Q国之行未能促成额外资金汇入美国一事感到不满。约于2017年10月，共同共谋人A和HIGGINBOTHAM商定，I某及其关联人向共同共谋人B寻求的额外资金，可在有关外国国民1的问题解决之前，存入HIGGINBOTHAM的律师托管账户。\n\n13. 约于2017年10月23日，在共同共谋人B的指示下，约$41 million从外国公司R存入HIGGINBOTHAM的托管账户。在共同共谋人A的指示下，HIGGINBOTHAM为共同共谋人A的一项娱乐项目支付了数百万美元。根据共同共谋人A的说法，该等资金是共同共谋人A协助将资金转入美国，以及充当共同共谋人B与参与游说活动的人员之间中间人的应得份额。应共同共谋人A的要求，几乎所有剩余资金均被存入定期存单，因为参与游说活动的人员希望该笔资金得到妥善保管。HIGGINBOTHAM认为，如游说活动成功使外国国民1被移出美国，该等资金将被释放。\n\n向金融机构作出虚假陈述\n\n14. 在约2017年9月至约2017年12月期间，为推进该共谋，HIGGINBOTHAM向美国三家受联邦保险的金融机构作出并促成作出虚假陈述，以影响该等金融机构就从外国公司L（Foreign Company L）和外国公司R转入美国账户、用于资助共同……\n\n金融机构Y（Financial Institution Y）关闭了共同共谋人A的商业账户，并将包括现金账户资金在内的剩余资金支付给共同共谋人A。\n\n17. 约于2017年12月，金融机构Z（Financial Institution Z）——一家由FDIC承保、HIGGINBOTHAM在该行设有律师托管账户的银行——就从外国公司R存入HIGGINBOTHAM账户的约$41 million的来源和用途向HIGGINBOTHAM询问。为影响金融机构Z就该等资金开展的尽职调查，HIGGINBOTHAM答复称，该笔资金是外国公司R对其一名客户的音乐和娱乐项目的投资。HIGGINBOTHAM未提及共同共谋人B，亦未提及旨在影响1MDB事项并使外国国民1被移出美国的活动。\n\n18. 约于2017年5月9日，HIGGINBOTHAM就至少部分与上述为共同共谋人A实施的行为相关的工作，向共同共谋人A提交了一张$20,000发票。约于2017年8月11日，HIGGINBOTHAM就至少部分与上述为共同共谋人A实施的行为相关的工作，向共同共谋人A及其资金管理人提交了一张$50,000发票。共同共谋人A向HIGGINBOTHAM全额支付了两张发票。\n\nANNALOU TIROL\n代理公共廉政科科长\nJohn Keller\n副科长\nRyan Ellersick\nJames Mann\nSean Mulryne\nNicole Lockhart\n\n签署人：\n\n审判律师\n公共廉政科\n1400 New York Ave. NW\nWashington, DC 20005\n(202) 514-1412\n\n被告人接受确认\n\n上述陈述系为向法院提供本人就被控罪名作出有罪答辩的事实依据而作的摘要。该陈述未包括本人所知关于本罪行的全部事实。本人是在知情、自愿的情况下作出本陈述，并且因为本人确实犯有被控罪行。没有任何人威胁本人，本人亦未受任何可能妨碍本人充分理解本《认罪答辩事实依据》的事物影响。\n\n本人已阅读本《认罪答辩事实依据》的每一个字，或已由他人为本人宣读。根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第11条，在与本人的律师协商后，本人同意并约定本《认罪答辩事实依据》，并在伪证处罚下声明其真实、正确。\n\n日期：November 19, 2018\n\nGeorge Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）\n被告人\n\n律师确认\n\n本人已阅读本《认罪答辩事实依据》，并已与本人的当事人全面审阅该文件。本人同意本人的当事人希望采纳并约定本《认罪答辩事实依据》真实准确的意愿。\n\n11/19/18\n\nChristopher Mead（克里斯托弗·米德）\nLance Robinson（兰斯·罗宾逊）\n代表被告人","key_entities":["CCP","CIPA","forfeiture","Je","GTV","Guo","Saraca","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","853(p)"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":32378,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-08-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-08-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:27:39"}