{"id":"court_ctb_702_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":702,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-08-04","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION EXHIBIT LIST FOR DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 1 of 167\n\n#### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n#### **EXHIBIT LIST FOR DEBTOR, HO WAN KWOK**\n\nIN RE:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, DEBTOR.\n\nCHAPTER 11\n\n CA SE No. : 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nECF No. 598 – Motion for Order Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities; Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate; and Granting Related Relief\n\nHEARING DATE: August 4, 2022\n\n#### **EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY:** Debtor, Ho Wan Kwok\n\n**ATTORNEY:** Eric A. Henzy\n\n| EXHIBIT # | DESCRIPTION | ID/FULL | SUBMIT | WITNESS |\n|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------|----------|---------|\n| | | | DATE | |\n| | Global Notes and Statements of Limitations, Methodology, and | | | |\n| 1 | Disclaimers Regarding the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and | FULL | 8/4/2022 | |\n| | Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs | | | |\n| | Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok In Support of the Chapter 11 | | | |\n| 2 | Case and Certain Motions | FULL | 8/4/2022 | |\n| | Debtor's Omnibus Second Renewed Motion (i) To Approve | FULL | 8/4/2022 | |\n| | Second Amended and Restated Settlement with Bravo Luck and | | | |\n| 3 | PAX; and (ii) To Hire Melanie L. Cyganowski as an Employee | | | |\n| | Only to Act as the Sales Officer for the Debtor's Bankruptcy | | | |\n| | Estate | | | |\n| | Order Granting Debtor's Second Renewed Motion to Approve | FULL | 8/4/2022 | |\n| 4 | the Revised Settlement Agreement | | | |\n| | Letter from Luc
A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee to The | FULL | 8/42022 | |\n| 5 | Honorable Judge James L. Garrity, Jr. dated July 25, 2022 | | | |\n\nAPPEAL FILED ON . CHECKED EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT COURT ON .COPIES OF THE EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN RETAINED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\n| | | 2
2
0
0
3
-5
7 | |\n|---------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|---|\n| IN
R | H
E:
o | W
K
k
a
n
w
o | |\n| | | | |\n| D
e | b
t
o
r | | 1 |\n| | | | |\n| | 8/
4/
20 | 22
A
dm
itt
ed
in
F
ul
l | |\n| | | P
.E | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 3 of 167 | |\n|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Case 22-50073 Doc 77 Filed 03/09/22 Entered 03/09/22 23:25:16 Page 1 of 25 | |\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| 发机机场直营网易营营官网官网官网官网申博官网登录网址登录网址官网申博官网申博官网申博官网官网登录官网登录网址登录网址登录网址登录网址登录网址登录 皇冠 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------------------------|\n| | | |\n| In re: | | : Chapter 11 |\n| | | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | | : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | | |\n| | Debtor. | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n#### GLOBAL NOTES AND STATEMENTS OF LIMITATIONS, METHODOLOGY, AND DISCLAIMERS REGARDING THE DEBTOR'S SCHEDULES OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS\n\nHo Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), is filing his Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (each, a \"Schedule,\" and, collectively, the \"Schedules\") and Statement of Financial Affairs (the \"SOFA\") in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\") pursuant to section 521 of chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 1007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\").\n\nThese Global Notes and Statements of Limitations, Methodology, and Disclaimers Regarding the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and SOFA (collectively, the \"Global Notes\") pertain to, are incorporated by reference in, and comprise an integral part of all of the Schedules and SOFA. The Global Notes are in addition to the specific notes set forth below with respect to particular Schedules and SOFA (the \"Specific Notes\" and, together with the Global Notes, the \"Notes\").\n\nThe Global Notes should be referred to, and referenced in connection with, any review of the Schedules and SOFA. The Debtor prepared the Schedules and SOFA with the assistance of his advisors and other professionals. The Schedules and SOFA are unaudited and subject to potential adjustment. In preparing the Schedules and SOFA, the Debtor relied on information that was available to him at the time of preparation. The Debtor has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the Schedules and SOFA are as accurate and complete as possible under the circumstances; however, subsequent information or discovery may result in material changes to the Schedules and SOFA and inadvertent errors or omissions may exist.\n\nThe Debtor reserves all rights to amend or supplement the Schedules and SOFA from time to time, in all respects, as may be necessary or appropriate, including the right to dispute or otherwise assert offsets or defenses to any claim reflected on the Schedules and SOFA as to amount, liability, classification, or to otherwise subsequently designate any claim as \"disputed,\" \"contingent,\" or \"unliquidated.\" Further, nothing contained in the Schedules, SOFA, or Notes shall constitute a waiver of the Debtor's rights or an admission with respect to his chapter 11 case.\n\n#### GLOBAL NOTES\n\n- 1. Description of the Case. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor commenced a voluntary case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n- 2. Aliases of Debtor. Debtor is known by the following names: Guo Wengui; Miles Guo; Miles Kwok; and Ho Wan Kwok.\n- 3. Basis of Presentation. The Schedules and SOFA do not purport to represent financial statements prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (\"GAAP\"). The Schedules and SOFA reflect the Debtor's reasonable efforts to report the assets and liabilities of the Debtor.\n- 4. Reporting Date. Unless otherwise noted, the reported asset values in Schedules A and B align with the asset values as of the Petition Date, and the liability values in Schedules D. E, and F are as of the Petition Date.\n- 5. Accuracy. The financial information disclosed herein was not prepared in accordance with federal or state securities laws or other applicable non-bankruptcy law. Persons and entities trading in or otherwise purchasing, selling, or transferring the claims against the Debtor should evaluate this financial information in light of the purposes and context for which it was prepared. The Debtor is not liable for, and undertakes no responsibility to indicate, variations from securities laws or for any evaluations of the Debtor based on this financial information or any other information.\n- 6. Estimates and Assumptions. The preparation of the Schedules and SOFA required the Debtor to make estimates and assumptions that affected the reported amounts of certain assets and liabilities, the disclosure of certain contingent assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenue and expense. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. In nearly all instances, current market valuations are not maintained by, or readily available to, the Debtor. It would be prohibitively expensive, unduly burdensome, and an inefficient use of resources for the Debtor to obtain current market valuations for all assets. When necessary, the Debtor has indicated that the value of certain assets is \"Unknown\" or \"Undetermined.\" Amounts ultimately realized may vary materially from the estimated value\n- 7. Currency. Unless otherwise indicated, all amounts shown in the Schedules and SOFA are in U.S. Dollars.\n- 8. Debtors' Reservation of Rights. Nothing contained in the Schedules, SOFA, or Notes shall constitute a waiver of rights with respect to this chapter 11 case, including, but not limited to, the following:\n\t- a. Any failure to designate a claim listed on the Schedules and SOFA as \"disputed,\" \"contingent,\" or \"unliquidated\" does not constitute an admission by the Debtor that such amount is not \"disputed,\" \"contingent,\" or \"unliquidated.\" The Debtor reserves the right to dispute and to assert setoff rights, counterclaims, and defenses to any claim reflected on his Schedules as to amount, liability, and classification,\n\nand to otherwise subsequently designate any claim as \"disputed,\" \"contingent,\" or \"unliquidated.\"\n\n- b. The listing of a claim on Schedule D as \"secured,\" on Schedule E as \"priority,\" or on Schedule F as \"unsecured priority,\" or the listing of a contract or lease on Schedule G as \"executory\" or \"unexpired\" does not constitute an admission by the Debtor of the legal rights of the claimant, or a waiver of the Debtor's rights to recharacterize or reclassify such claim or contract pursuant to a schedule amendment, claim objection or otherwise. Moreover, although the Debtor may have scheduled claims of various creditors as secured claims for informational purposes, no current valuation of the Debtor's assets in which such creditors may have a security interest has been undertaken. The Debtor reserves all rights to dispute and challenge the secured nature or amount of any such creditor's claims or the characterization of the structure of any transaction, or any document or instrument related to such creditor's claims.\n- c. The claims of individual creditors may not reflect credits, allowances or other adjustments due from such creditors to the Debtor. The Debtor reserves all of his rights with regard to such credits, allowances and other adjustments, including the right to assert claims objections and/or setoffs with respect to the same.\n- d. Although the Debtor has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of his Schedules and SOFA, they nevertheless may contain errors and omissions. The Debtor hereby reserves all of his rights to dispute the validity, status, and enforceability of any contracts, agreements, and leases set forth on the Schedules and SOFA, and to amend and supplement the Schedules and SOFA as necessary.\n- e. The Debtor further reserves all of his rights, claims, and causes of action with respect to the contracts and agreements listed on the Schedules and SOFA, including, but not limited to, the right to dispute and challenge the characterization or the structure of any transaction, document, and instrument related to a creditor's claim.\n- f. Listing a contract or lease on the Schedules and SOFA shall not be deemed an admission that such contract is an executory contract, such lease is an unexpired lease, or that either necessarily is a binding, valid, and enforceable contract. The Debtor hereby expressly reserves the right to assert that any contract listed on the Schedules and SOFA does not constitute an executory contract within the meaning of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, as well as the right to assert that any lease so listed does not constitute an unexpired lease within the meaning of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n- 9. Global Notes Control. In the event that the Schedules or SOFA differ from any of the Global Notes, the Global Notes shall control.\n\n#### SPECIFIC NOTES\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, the following conventions were adopted by the Debtor in the preparation of the Schedules and SOFA:\n\n- 1. Schedule A/B.\n\t- a. Generally. To the extent a line item pertaining to the Debtor's assets indicates a value of \"\\$0.00,\" the Debtor notes that such amount is either \"unknown\" or \"undetermined\" and such \"\\$0.00\" designation does not constitute an admission that assets are, in fact, valued at \"\\$0.00.\" Because certain assets or liabilities are noted as \"\\$0.00,\" summary line items in Schedule A/B reflect totals that may be less than the ultimate value of such assets or liabilities.\n\t- b. Question 1 Do you own or have any legal or equitable interest in any residence, building, land, or similar property?\n\t\t- i. The Debtor has use and occupancy of real estate located at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831 (the \"Residence\"). The Debtor has no legal title to the Residence and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise, in it. All related costs and expenses associated with the Residence are paid directly by family and family-controlled enterprises. The Residence is owned by Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\"). The sole member of Greenwich Land is the Debtor's spouse.\n\t\t- ii. The Debtor also has access to an apartment located at the Sherry-Netherlands Hotel, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (the \"Apartment\"). The cooperative shares in the Apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC (the \"US SPV\"). The membership interests in the US SPV are held by Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"BVI Company\"). The Debtor holds all of the equity of the BVI Company; however, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"}, the Debtor holds such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\"). The Debtor's son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded the US SPV with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by the Debtor's son and not from the Debtor.\n\nThe US SPV commenced its own chapter 11 case before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on October 12, 2020 (Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)). The US SPV's disclosure statement with respect to its reorganization plan states that the US SPV \"sought Chapter 11 relief . . . in the face of multiple court disputes relating primarily to the beneficial ownership of the Residence as between Bravo Luck Limited . . . and [Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP (\"PAX\")].\" [Docket No.\n\n165]. In litigation seeking to determine the ownership of the Apartment, the Apartment Owner contends that it is the beneficial owner of the Apartment. The ultimate ownership of the Apartment will be resolved outside of the US SPV's chapter 11 case. Before the BVI courts, PAX has sought the turnover of the US SPV's membership interests based upon its judgment (which remains under appeal) against the Debtor.\n\nThe Apartment is currently marketed for sale by Sotheby's International Realty under the authority of Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq., the US SPV's sales officer. For these reasons, the Debtor does not report the value of the Apartment as an asset.\n\n- c. Question 3 Do you own, lease, or have legal or equitable interest in any vehicles, whether they are registered or not? Cars, vans, trucks, tractors, sport utility vehicles. motorcycles. The Debtor has use of automobiles, including luxury automobiles and motorcycles. The Debtor has no legal title to any vehicle of any type and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise, in any such vehicle. All costs and expenses associated with such vehicles are provided for directly by family and family-controlled enterprises.\n- d. Question 4 Do you own, lease, or have legal or equitable interest in any vehicles, whether they are registered or not? Watercraft, aircraft, motor homes, ATVs and other recreational vehicles, other vehicles, and accessories. The Debtor previously had access to the use of a yacht named the \"Lady May.\" The Lady May is owned by HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, which is owned by the Debtor's daughter. The Lady May is currently in port in Europe. The Debtor currently has no access to the Lady May and has had no access to the Lady May for over a year.\n\nThe ownership and/or control of the Lady May was disputed by the Debtor in the New York State Supreme Court action commenced by PAX against the Debtor in response to sanctions and contempt proceedings initiated by PAX. Following an evidentiary hearing, conducted on February 9, 2021, Justice Barry Ostrager found (the \"February 9 Decision\"), among other things, that the evidence established that the Debtor \"beneficially owns and controls\" the Lady May. The Debtor disagrees with the February 9 Decision and has appealed it. Due to the pending appeal (which is currently stayed), the Debtor does not include the Lady May as an asset of his estate. However, if included as an asset (which the Debtor anticipates will be resolved through this Chapter 11 Case) of his estate, the Lady May may have significant value - in 2015, the sales price for the Lady May was €28 million.\n\ne. Question 6-Household goods and furnishings. Numerous items fitting the personal and household items definition are located at the Residence and the Apartment. Except as set forth herein, the Debtor has no legal title to the contents of either the Residence or the Apartment, and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise, in any such items.\n\n- f. Question 7 Electronics Televisions, radios, audio. video, etc. Numerous items fitting the electronics items definition are located at the Residence and the Apartment including, but not limited to, computers, cell phones, and broadcasting equipment. Except as set forth herein, the Debtor has no legal title to the contents of either the Residence or the Apartment, and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise, in any such items.\n- g. Question 8 Collectibles of value. Any items at the Residence or the Apartment fitting the definition of this category are the property of family or family-controlled enterprises. Except as set forth herein, the Debtor has no legal title to the contents of either the Residence or the Apartment, and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise, in such items.\n- h. Question 9 Equipment for sports or hobbies. Any items at the Residence or the Apartment fitting the definition of this category are the property of family or family-controlled enterprises. Except as set forth herein, the Debtor has no legal title to the contents of either the Residence or the Apartment, and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise, in any such items.\n- i. Question 11 Clothes. The Debtor owns both business and casual clothing, including suits, shoes and sneakers from various manufacturers, including high-end brands.\n- j. Question 17 Deposits of money. On October 23, 2018, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance (the \"High Court\"), entered a Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere (the \"Restraint Order\"), dated October 18, 2018. The Restraint Order stated that it would remain in force up to and including April 30, 2019, with the understanding that it would remain in effect pursuant to a further order of the High Court entered on May 3, 2019. The effect of the Restraint Order was to freeze HK\\$3.7 million of funds alleged to belong to the Debtor. As much as billions more of funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong, of individuals and entities purportedly subject to the Debtor's \"effective control\" (according to the Restraint Order) were also frozen and/or seized. Due to the freezing/seizure of these assets, the Debtor does not include them in his estate.\n- k. Question 18 Bonds, mutual funds, or publicly traded stocks. Out of an abundance of caution, the Debtor refers you to Schedule B Notes, Question 17.\n- 1. Question 19 Non-publicly traded stock or interest in incorporated and unincorporated businesses, LLCs, partnerships or joint ventures. The Debtor was the sole shareholder of two controlled foreign corporations: Shiny Times Holdings Ltd. (\"Shiny Times\") and Well Origin Ltd. (\"Well Origin\"). For the following reasons, the Debtor ascribes no value to the interests in these entities.\n- i. In September and October 2017, the Chinese government raided the offices of Shiny Times and seized all accounting corporate records and many personal financial records. Access to the records was not possible after this time. Online access to the bank accounts is frozen and there are no copies or backup of the data available. The Debtor has made all reasonable attempts to obtain the data, but since the seizure, has been unable to obtain financial records for the corporation. Shiny Times has been inactive since that time. The Debtor has not had control of Shiny Times since November 2, 2017.\n- ii. As to Well Origin, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, in April of 2018, UBS took control of the shares of Well Origin, which it held as collateral, as the result of a default on a loan. After taking the shares of Well Origin and selling its assets, UBS put the company into liquidation in the British Virgin Islands. The Debtor has not had control of Well Origin since December 31, 2017.\n\nAs discussed above, in response to Statement Question 1, the Debtor holds the membership interests of the US UPV. The Debtor holds these membership interests in trust for the Apartment Owner.\n\nSee also Schedule B Notes, Question 17, related to numerous entities that are subject to the Restraint Order, and SOFA, Question 9, related to Eastern Profit (as defined below).\n\n- m. Question 20 Government and corporate bonds and other negotiable and nonnegotiable instruments. The Debtor has received the identified refund checks from the United States Treasury and the State of New York Department of Taxation and Finance. These checks are non-negotiated and may be dishonored if deposited because they were issued more than six months ago.\n- n. Question 22 Security deposits and prepayments. In connection with the acquisition of the Apartment, the US SPV provided the cooperative with respect to the Apartment, a security deposit (the \"Apartment Security Deposit\") of \\$5 million for the payment of taxes and other maintenance charges. The Apartment Owner funded the Apartment Security Deposit not from assets of the Debtor. Once the US SPV ceased regularly paying its maintenance charges, the cooperative began applying amounts due against the security deposit. On information and belief, approximately \\$2.065 million of the original Apartment Security Deposit remains. Due to the trust arrangement discussed above, in response to Question 1, the Debtor does not include the value of the remaining Apartment Security Deposit as an asset of his estate.\n- o. Question 25 Trusts, equitable or future interests in property and rights or powers exercised for your benefit. See Schedule B Notes, Questions 17, 19 and 22.\n- p. Question 26 Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property. The Debtor has possible unregistered copyrights and other intellectual property interests in music and videos posted to various digital and media platforms, such as YouTube, GTV, Twitter and GETTR. The Debtor ascribes no value to his social media assets and has made no attempts to monetize his social media presence.\n- q. Question 30 Other amounts someone owes you. See SOFA Notes, Part 4. Question 9 for identification of lawsuits to which the Debtor is asserting a claim.\n\nIn addition, in certain jurisdictions, the prevailing party to a matter is entitled to reimbursement of its costs. In the case captioned Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch), pending before the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, the Debtor may be entitled to the reimbursement of costs related to a recent jurisdictional dispute alongside the other plaintiffs. The amount awarded by the court to all plaintiffs to the action was £94,292.20. The Debtor's ratable entitlement to this amount is undetermined. Further, the defendant has been granted permission to appeal by the court and a successful appeal may result in the plaintiffs being ordered to repay the amount awarded by the court.\n\nIn the case captioned Wengui Guo v. Baosheng Guo, pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, counsel for the Debtor is in receipt of the \\$12,000 judgment awarded in his favor.\n\n- r. Question 31 Interests in insurance policies. The Debtor is covered by his spouse's health insurance policy which has no cash value.\n- s. Question 33 Claims against third parties, whether or not a lawsuit has been filed or made a demand for payment. The Debtor is a claimant in certain litigation identified on the SOFA Notes, Part 4, question 9.\n- t. Question 37 Legal or equitable interest in any business-related property. See Schedule B Notes, Questions 17 and 19 above.\n- u. Question 39 Office equipment furnishings or supplies. There is nothing in this category that is not already covered by responses to Schedule B Notes, Questions 6 and 7 above.\n- v. Question 42 Interests in Partnership or Joint Ventures. See Schedule B Notes, Questions 17 and 19.\n- w. Question 53 Property of the kind not already listed. The Debtor is identified as the member for his family's membership at The Mar-a-Lago Club, located in Palm Beach, Florida. The membership has been active since 2015. The Debtor is not responsible for the payment of the membership dues, nor is he entitled to the refund\n\nof any deposits that may have previously been paid upon termination of the membership.\n\n- Schedule C. 2.\n\t- a. The Debtor does not identify any exempt property at this time. However, the Debtor reserves the right to amend such exemption selection should he be found to own assets in excess of his clothing and his dog during the pendency of the bankruptcy.\n- Schedule D. 3.\n\t- a. Based on the information currently available to the Debtor believes that Schedule D accurately reflects all creditors with secured claims against the Debtor. To the extent the Debtor discovers that any additional secured claims exist, the Debtor may amend Schedule D accordingly to reflect such claims.\n\t- b. The Debtor reserves all of his rights to amend Schedule D to the extent that the Debtor determines that any claims should be reported on Schedule D. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by the Debtor of the legal rights of the claimant, deemed a modification or interpretation of the terms of any agreement, or considered a waiver of the Debtor's rights to recharacterize or reclassify any claim or contract.\n\t- c. The Debtor has not included on Schedule D parties that may believe their claims are secured through setoff rights or inchoate statutory lien rights.\n\t- d. Except as otherwise agreed or ordered by the Bankruptcy Court, the Debtor reserves his rights to dispute or challenge the validity, perfection or immunity from avoidance of any lien purported to be granted or perfected in any specific asset of a secured creditor of the Debtor. Moreover, the Debtor reserves all of his rights to dispute or challenge the secured nature of any such creditor's claim or the characterization of the structure of any such transaction or any document or instrument related to such creditor's claim.\n\t- e. The Debtor is party to litigation funding agreements (\"Litigation Funding Agreements\") wherein the Debtor pledged a security interest in, among other things, certain claims and the proceeds thereof to certain entities owned or controlled by the Debtor's son (each, a \"Litigation Funder\"). The Debtor does not believe the security interests were perfected.\n- Schedule E/F. ধ\n\t- a. The Debtor has used reasonable efforts to report all unsecured claims against him on Schedule E/F. The claims listed on Schedule E/F arose or were incurred on various dates. In certain instances, the date on which a claim arose is an open issue of fact. Although reasonable efforts have been made to identify the date of incurrence of each claim, the determination of the date that each claim in Schedule E/F was incurred or arose would be unduly burdensome and cost prohibitive.\n\nTherefore, while the Debtor does not provide a date for each claim listed on Schedule E/F, to the best of the Debtor's knowledge, all claims listed on Schedule E/F have arisen or were incurred before the Petition Date.\n\n- b. The Debtor reserves the right to assert that any such claims are contingent, unliquidated and/or disputed, as applicable.\n- c. The Debtor reserves the right to assert that any claim listed on Schedule E/F does not constitute a priority claim under section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code and thus constitutes an unsecured nonpriority claim.\n- d. The claims of individual creditors may not reflect credits and/or allowances due from creditors to the Debtor. The Debtor reserves all of his rights with respect to any such credits and/or allowances, including the right to assert objections and/or setoffs with respect to same.\n- e. Schedule E/F may include pending litigations or legal actions involving the Debtor. These pending litigations or legal actions are also reflected in response to SOFA Question 7. In all instances, the amount that is the subject of the litigation is uncertain or undetermined. The Debtor believes that the amount of any potential claims associated with any such pending litigation is contingent, unliquidated, and disputed. The inclusion of any litigation in the Schedules and/or SOFA or otherwise does not constitute an admission of liability alleged in such litigation.\n- f. To the extent they are known, Schedule E/F represents the prepetition amounts owing to counterparties to executory contracts and unexpired leases. Such prepetition amounts, however, may be paid in connection with the assumption or the assumption and assignment of an executory contract or unexpired lease. Additionally, Schedule E/F does not include potential rejection damage claims, if any, of the counterparties to executory contracts and unexpired leases that may be rejected.\n\n#### Schedule G. న్.\n\n- a. Although the Debtor used reasonable efforts to identify and schedule executory contracts and unexpired leases, inadvertent errors or omissions may have occurred. The Debtor reserves all rights to dispute the validity, status, or enforceability of any contracts, agreements, or leases set forth in Schedule G and to amend or supplement Schedule G as necessary. The contracts, agreements and leases listed therein may have expired or been modified, amended, or supplemented from time to time by various amendments, restatement, waivers, estoppel certificates, letters, memoranda and other documents, instruments, and agreements which may not be listed therein.\n- b. The presence of a contract or agreement on Schedule G does not constitute an admission as to the existence, validity or enforceability of the contract or agreement, or that such contract or agreement is an executory contract or unexpired lease, and the omission of a contract or agreement from Schedule G does not\n\nconstitute an admission that a contract or agreement does not exist. The Debtor reserves all rights, claims, and causes of action with respect to the contracts and agreements listed on Schedule G, including the rights to dispute or challenge the characterization or the structure of any transaction document or instrument. Certain executory agreements may not have been memorialized in writing and could be subject to dispute.\n\n#### Schedule H. 6.\n\na. The Debtor is involved in pending or threatened litigation. These matters may involve multiple plaintiffs and defendants, some or all of whom may assert crossclaims and counter-claims against other parties. Because all such claims are contingent, disputed and/or unliquidated, such claims have been set forth on both Schedules F (and flagged as contingent, liquidated and disputed) and H.\n\n#### 7. Schedule I.\n\na. The Debtor has no income that meets any definition of income on Schedule I. The Debtor does receive support funded by family and companies controlled by family for housing, household and living expenses. None of the funding related to housing, household or living expenses is subject to any claim by the funding source and all housing, household and living expense funding is without any agreement or expectation to be repaid. The Debtor plans to amend Form 122B, filed on February 15, 2022 [Docket No. 3], in which the Debtor erroneously claimed monthly income of \\$19,488.00. Such funds stated were as described herein and are not properly defined or described as income.\n\n#### 8. Schedule J.\n\n- a. Consistent with the reporting on Schedule I, all expenses of any kind including housing, household and living, are funded by third party family members or by companies they control. The Debtor has no expenses for which he is personally liable. The Debtor reserves his right to amend this Schedule in the future should his circumstances change.\n- 9. Specific Notes Regarding the Debtor's Statement of Financial Affairs (SOFA).\n\t- a. SOFA Question 1. The Debtor and his spouse consider themselves married even though they do not have a certificate from China evidencing their marriage. The couple has been living together for over 30 years, file joint tax returns, and have two children together.\n\t- b. SOFA Question 2. The Debtor previously lived at the Apartment from on or about March/April 2015 through September 2015 and then from March/April 2017 through February 2020.\n\t- c. SOFA Question 5. The Debtor has no income that meets any definition of income for this question or on 122B or Schedule I. The debtor does receive support funded\n\nby family and companies controlled by family for housing, household and living expenses. None of the funding related to the housing, household or living expenses is subject to any claim by the funding source and there is no expectation or agreement in place relative to repayment. The Debtor is amending Form 122B, in which the Debtor erroneously claimed monthly income of \\$19,488.00. Such funds stated are as described herein and are not properly defined or described as income.\n\n- d. SOFA Question 6. Professional payments listed in this category were made on behalf of the Debtor by family or companies controlled by family and are subject to the Litigation Funding Agreements. The payments are reported because there is an expectation of repayment from any proceeds contingent upon the resolution of the litigation. In addition, the Debtor does receive support funded by family and companies controlled by family for housing, household and living expenses. None of the funding related to the housing, household or living expenses is subject to any claim by the funding source, and there is no expectation or agreement in place relative to repayment. They are therefore excluded from this list. There were two payments made by the family totaling \\$109,827.12 that were inadvertently made post-petition, on February 16, 2022. These payments are being treated as gifts.\n- e. SOFA Question 8. The Debtor borrowed funds from Litigation Funders (see SOFA Question 12, below) to pursue and defend against litigation. In certain instances, entities affiliated with the Debtor's son are party to the litigation. He is not responsible for the costs incurred by such parties to the litigation. To the extent the Litigation Funder inadvertently allocated such third-party costs to the Debtor, the Debtor intends to dispute such liability.\n- f. SOFA Question 9. The Debtor has made reasonable best efforts to identity all current pending litigation, investigations and other legal actions involving the Debtor. However, certain omissions may have inadvertently occurred. The inclusion of any legal action in this question does not constitute an admission by the Debtor of any liability, the validity of any litigation or the amount of any potential claim that may result from any claims with respect to any legal action and the amount and treatment of any potential claim resulting from any legal action currently pending or that may arise in the future. The Debtor is a party to numerous lawsuits that are currently in various stages, as a plaintiff, defendant, or codefendant. All litigation costs for the benefit of the Debtor are funded by companies controlled by family or through various Litigation Funding Agreements, all of which are listed on Schedule G.\n\nIn ruling that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited (\"Eastern Profit\") prevailed on its breach of contract claim against Strategic Vision US LLC (\"Strategic Vision\"), and was thus entitled to collect on its \\$1 million judgment against Strategic Vision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York made a passing remark concerning the Debtor's purported relationship to Eastern Profit, that the company was \"in essence, a shell corporation for\" the Debtor and his family. For this reason alone, the Debtor schedules this action. Eastern Profit is owned and controlled by the Debtor's daughter, and the Debtor disputes that he has an interest in the company.\n\n- g. SOFA Question 10. See Schedule B Notes, Questions 17 (assets subject to the Restraint Order) and 19 (Shiny Times Holdings Ltd. and Well Origin Ltd.).\n- h. SOFA Question 12. See Schedule B Notes, Questions 1 (the Apartment), 17 (assets subject to the Restraint Order) and 19 (Shiny Times Holdings Ltd. and Well Origin Ltd.).\n- i. SOFA Question 16. Prior to the Petition Date, on each of February 14, 2021, and February 15, 2021, Brown Rudnick was paid a retainer of \\$500,000. The source of \\$1 million in retainer payments (the \"BR Retainer\") was Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\"). Lamp loaned the Debtor \\$1 million, and the Debtor directed Lamp to remit the proceeds of the loan directly to Brown Rudnick\n- j. SOFA Question 18. Within two years of the Debtor's Chapter 11 case, the Debtor entered into Litigation Funding Agreements with Litigation Funders. The most recent Litigation Funding Agreement is dated November 8, 2021. Pursuant to the Litigation Funding Agreements, the Litigation Funder has agreed to advance loans in connection with the Debtor's efforts to collect on judgments or damages he suffered. The Litigation Funding Agreements provide for a grant of a security interest in the Debtor's underlying claims and litigation proceeds to the applicable Litigation Funder.\n- k. SOFA Question 22. The Debtor continues to have access to the Apartment. Accordingly, he continues to store certain clothing and personal items there.\n- 1. SOFA Question 23. See SOFA Notes, Question 12. See Schedules Notes Questions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11. The Debtor has use of the Residence, various vehicles and numerous items fitting the personal and household items definition, such property being located at the Residence. The Debtor has no legal title to the Residence, the vehicles or its contents, and no court has made any determination that the Debtor has any other interest, equitable or otherwise in any such items.\n- m. SOFA Question 27. See Schedule B Notes, Questions 17 and 19.\n\n| | Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 16 of 167 | |\n|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Case 22-50073 Doc 77 Filed 03/09/22 Entered 03/09/22 23:25:16 Page 14 of 25 | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho Wan Kwok | | | |\n|---------------------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------|\n| | First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | |\n| Debtor 2 | | | | |\n| (Spouse if, filing) | First Name | Middle Name | Last Name | |\n| | | United States Bankruptcy Court for the: DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT | | |\n| Case number | 22-50073 | | | |\n| (if known) | | | | Check if this is an |\n| | | | | amended filing |\n\n## Official Form 107 Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy\n\nBe as complete and accurate as possible. If two maried people are filing together, both are equally for supplying correct information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer every question.\n\nPart 1: Give Details About Your Marital Status and Where You Lived Before\n\n#### 1. What is your current marital status?\n\n| V | Married | | | | |\n|---|-------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Not married | | | | |\n\n2. During the last 3 years, have you lived anywhere other than where you live now?\n\n| No
Y Yes. List all of the places you lived in the last 3 years. Do not include where you live now. | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|\n| Debtor 1 Prior Address: | Dates Debtor 1
lived there | Debtor 2 Prior Address: | Dates Debtor 2
lived there |\n| 781 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10022 | From-To:
March 2015 to
March 2020 | Same as Debtor 1 | Same as Debtor 1
From-To: |\n\n3. Within the last 8 years, did you ever live with a spouse or legal equivalent in a community property state or territory? (Community property states and territories include Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.)\n\n| | Part 2 Explain the Sources of Your Income |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | [ Yes. Make sure you fill out Schedule H: Your Codebtors (Official Form 106H). |\n| V | No |\n\n4. Did you have any income from employment or from operating a business during this year or the two previous calendar years? Fill in the total amount of income you received from all jobs and all businesses, including part-time activities. If you are filing a joint case and you have income that you receive together, list it only once under Debtor 1.\n\n| S | No | | |\n|---|----|--|---------------------------|\n| | | | Yes. Fill in the details. |\n\nDebtor 1\n\nSources of income Check all that apply.\n\nGross income (before deductions and exclusions)\n\nDebtor 2\n\nSources of income Check all that apply. Gross income (before deductions and exclusions)\n\n4/19\n\nOfficial Form 107\n\n| | C
a | 2
s
e | 2
0
0
-5
7 | 3 | 0
2
D
7
o
c | i
l
d
0
8
/
0
F
4
e | /
2
2 | d
0
E
nt
e
re | 8
/
0
/
5 | 2
2
6
:0
2
1
:4 | 4 | f
6
P
1
7
1
7
a
g
e
o |\n|--|--------|-------------|------------------------|---|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------|------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------|---|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| | | | | Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 18 of 167 | | | | | | |\n|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | Case 22-50073 | | | | | | |\n| | Debtor 1
Ho Wan Kwok
Case number (if known)
22-50073 | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Part 4: Identify Legal Actions, Repossessions, and Foreclosures | | | | | | | | | |\n| | 9. Within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy, were you a party in any lawsuit, court action, or administrative proceeding?
List all such matters, including personal claims actions, divorces, collection suits, paterrity actions, support or oustody
modifications, and contract disputes. | | | | | | | | | |\n| | No
Yes. Fill in the details. | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Case title
Case number | | Nature of the case | Court or agency | | Status of the case | | | | |\n| | See Attached Schedule # 9 | | | | Pending
On appeal
Concluded | | | | | |\n| | 10. Within 1 year before you tiled for bankruptcy, was any of your property repossessed, foreclosed, or levied?
Check all that apply and fill in the defails below. | | | | | | | | | |\n| | No. Go to line 11.
VI
Yes. Fill in the information below. | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Creditor Name and Address | | Describe the Property | | Date | Value of the
property | | | | |\n| | | | Explain what happened | | | | | | | |\n| | 11. Within 90 days before you filed for bankruptcy, did any creditor, including a bank or financial institution, set off any amounts from your
accounts or refuse to make a payment because you owed a debt?
V
No | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Yes. Fill in the details.
Creditor Name and Address | | Describe the action the creditor took | | Date action was
taken | Amount | | | | |\n| | 12. Within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy, was any of your property in the possession of an assignee for the benefit of creditors, a
court-appointed receiver, a custodian, or another official? | | | | | | | | | |\n| | No
Yes | | | | | | | | | |\n| Part 5: | List Certain Gifts and Contributions | | | | | | | | | |\n| | 13. Within 2 years before you filed for bankruptcy, did you give any gifts with a total value of more than \\$600 per person?
V
No
Yes. Fill in the details for each gift. | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Gifts with a total value of more than \\$600
per person | | Describe the gifts | | Dates you gave
the gifts | Value | | | | |\n| | Person to Whom You Gave the Gift and
Address: | | | | | | | | | |\n| | 14. Within 2 years before you filed for bankruptcy, did you give any gifts or contributions with a total value of more than \\$600 to any charity?
V
No
Yes. Fill in the details for each gift or contribution. | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Gifts or contributions to charities that total
more than \\$600
Charity's Name
Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | | | | Dates you
contributed | Value | | | | |\n\n| | C
2
2
-5
0
0
7
3
D
7
0
2
a
s
e
o
c | i
l
d
/
/
F
0
8
0
4
2
2
e | d
/
/
E
0
8
0
5
2
2
nt
e
re | 1
6
:0
2
:4
4
P
a | 1
9
f
1
6
7
g
e
o | | | | | | |\n|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 | | | | Page 20 of 167 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| Case 22-50073 | | | | Page 18 of 25 | | | |\n| Debtor 1
Ho Wan Kwok | | | Case number (if known) | 22-50073 | | | |\n| Part 8: List of Certain Financial Accounts, Instruments, Safe Deposit Boxes, and Storage Units | | | | | | | |\n| 20. Within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy, were any financial accounts or instruments held in your name, or for your benefit, closed,
sold, moved, or transferred?
Include checking, savings, money market, or other financial accounts; certificates of deposit; shares in banks, credit unions, brokerage
houses, pension funds, cooperatives, associations, and other financial institutions.
V
No
Yes. Fill in the details. | | | | | | | |\n| Name of Financial Institution and
Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP
Code) | Last 4 digits of
account number | Type of account or
instrument | Date account was
closed, sold,
moved, or
transferred | Last balance
before closing or
transfer | | | |\n| 21. Do you now have, or did you have within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy, any safe depository for securities,
cash, or other valuables? | | | | | | | |\n| No
V
Yes. Fill in the details. | | | | | | | |\n| Name of Financial Institution
Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | Who else had access to it?
Address (Number, Street, City,
State and ZIP Code) | | Describe the contents | Do you still
have it? | | | |\n| 22. Have you stored property in a storage unit or place other than your home within 1 year before you filed for bankruptcy? | | | | | | | |\n| No
Yes. Fill in the details. | | | | | | | |\n| Name of Storage Facility
Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | Who else has or had access
to it?
Address (Number, Street, City,
State and ZIP Code) | | Describe the contents | Do you still
have it? | | | |\n| The Sherry-Netherland Hotel
781 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10022 | | | Business and Casual Clothes
and other household items | No
V Yes | | | |\n| Part 9: Identify Property You Hold or Control for Someone Else | | | | | | | |\n| 23. Do you hold or control any property that someone else owns? Include any property you borrowed from, are hold in trust
for someone. | | | | | | | |\n| No
Yes. Fill in the details. | | | | | | | |\n| Owner's Name
Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | Where is the property?
(Number, Street, City, State and ZIP | | Describe the property | Value | | | |\n| Refer to Global Notes Question 23 | Code) | | | \\$0.00 | | | |\n\n#### Part 10: Give Details About Environmental Information\n\nFor the purpose of Part 10, the following definitions apply:\n\n- ({ Environmental law means any federal, state, or local statute or regulation concerning pollution, contamination, releases of hazardous or toxic substances, wastes, or material into the air, land, soil, surface water, groundwater, or other medium, including statutes or regulations controlling the cleanup of these substances, wastes, or material.\n- g Site means any location, facility, or property as defined under any environmental law, whether you now own, operate, or utilize it or used to own, operate, or utilize it, including disposal sites.\n- ({ Hazardous material means anything an environmental law delines as a hazardous substance, toxic substance, hazardous material, pollutant, contaminant, or similar term.\n\nReport all notices, releases, and proceedings that you know about, regardless of when they occurred.\n\n| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 21 of 167 | | | | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | Case 22-50073 | | | | | | | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok
Debtor 1 | | Case number (if known)
22-50073 | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | 24. Has any governmental unit notified you may be liable or potentially liable under or in violation of an environmental law? | | | | | | | | |\n| No
V
Yes. Fill in the details. | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Name of site
Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | Governmental unit
Address (Number, Street, City, State and
ZIP Code) | Date of notice
Environmental law, if you
know it | | | | | | | | |\n| 25. Have you notified any governmental unit of any release of hazardous material? | | | | | | | | | | |\n| No
Yes. Fill in the details.
Name of site | Governmental unit | Environmental law, if you
Date of notice | | | | | | | | |\n| Address (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | Address (Number, Street, City, State and
ZIP Code) | know it | | | | | | | | |\n| | | 26. Have you been a party in any judicial or administrative proceeding under any environmental law? Include settlements and orders. | | | | | | | | |\n| No | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Yes. Fill in the details.
Case Title | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Case Number | Court or agency
Name
Address (Number, Street, City,
State and ZIP Code) | Nature of the case
Status of the
case | | | | | | | | |\n| Part 11: Give Details About Your Business or Connections to Any Business | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 27. Within 4 years before you filed for bankruptcy, did you own a business or have any of the following connections to any business?
[__ ] A sole proprietor or self-employed in a trade, profession, or other activity, either full-time or part-time
__ A member of a limited liability company (LLC) or limited liability partnership (LLP)
A partner in a partnership
An officer, director, or managing executive of a corporation
An owner of at least 5% of the voting or equity securities of a corporation
No. None of the above applies. Go to Part 12. | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Y Yes. Check all that apply above and fill in the details below for each business. | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Business Name
Address | Describe the nature of the business | Employer Identification number
Do not include Social Security number or ITIN. | | | | | | | | |\n| (Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | Name of accountant or bookkeeper | Dates business existed | | | | | | | | |\n| Genever Holdings Corporation | Holding Company for Genever | EIN: | | | | | | | | |\n| P.O. Box 3170
Tortola, British Virgin Islands | Holdings LLC | From-To | | | | | | | | |\n| Shiny Times Holdings, LTD
173 Des Voex Road Cntrl | Investment Vehicle | EIN: | | | | | | | | |\n| 4/F Nan Fung Twr, R411
Hong Kong, 9990777 Hong Kong | MICHAEL LI & CO. , C/O HENRY
WONG 19/F PROSPERITY
TOWER, NO 39
QUEENS ROAD CENTRAL
HONG KONG | From-To 12/13/2007 to 12/31/2020 | | | | | | | | |\n| Well Origin Limited
173 Des Voex Road Cntrl | Investment Vehicle | EIN: | | | | | | | | |\n| 4/F Nan Fung Twr, R411 | MICHAEL LI & CO., C/O HENRY
WONG 19/F PROSPERITY
TOWER, NO 39
QUEENS ROAD CENTRAL
HONG KONG | From-To 4/1/2010 to 12/31/2020 | | | | | | | | |\n\nOfficial Form 107\n\n| Debtor 1
Ho Wan Kwok | Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 22 of 167
Case 22-50073 Doc 77 Filed 03/09/22 Entered 03/09/22 23:25:16 Page 20 of 25
Case number (if known) 22-50073 | | | | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| institutions, creditors, or other parties.
No
ﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤ
Yes. Fill in the details below.
Name
Address
(Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code) | 28. Within 2 years before you filed for bankruptcy, did you give a financial statement to anyone about your business? Include all financial
Date Issued | | | | | | | |\n| Part 12. Sign Below
I have read the answers on this Statement of Financial Affairs and I declare under penally of perily of the answers
are true and correct. I understand that making a falement, concealing money or property by fraud in connection
with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to \\$250,000, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.
Signature of Debtor 2
Ho Wan Kwok
Signature of Debtor 1 | | | | | | | | |\n| 2/9
V No
Yes | Date
Did you attach additional pages to Your Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy (Official Form 107)? | | | | | | | |\n\nDid you pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help you fill out bankruptcy forms?\n\ny No\n\n[] Yes. Name of Person \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | | | | | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|--------------|-------|--------|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|------------------------------|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Chapler 11; Case No. 22-50073 [JAM] | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Statement of Financial Alfairs - (Question # 6 - Dunny the 90 days before you filed for bankruptcy, did you pay any credilor a total of \\$600 or more | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | Dates of Payment | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | Total Amount | Amount You Still | |\n| Creditor Name | Address1 | Address2 | Address3 | City | State | Zip | Date | Amount | Pald | Owe | Reason for Payment |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Andrew Sufner/Forensic Document Examinations, ILC | 220 East 57th Street | Suite 200 | | New York | INY | 10022 | 12/20/21 S | 52,566.25 5 | 52.566.25 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Saker Hosteller LIP | 45 Rockefeller Plaza | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | New York | ਮਾ | 10111 | 12/27/21 | 275,000.00 5 | 275,000.00 | \\$452,294.38 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Clayman & Rosenberg ILP | | | | | | | 12/15/21 | 116,454,73
ે રે | | | |\n| Clayman & Rosenberg LLP | | | | | | | 01/11/22 | 40,172.34
15 | | | |\n| Clayman & Rosenberg LLP | 305 Madison Avenue | Suite 650 | | New York | HY | 20165 | 02/16/22 | 89,508.91 5
ﮯ | 246,135.98 | \\$13.899.04 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Counsel Press Inc. | 460 West 34th Street | 4th Floor | | Hew York | NY | 10001 | 01/19/22 | 36,729.37 5 | 36,729.37 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Eric Goldsmith MD, LLC | 420 Madison Avenue | Suite 1201 | | New York | 184 | 10017 | 02/09/22 | 11,700.00 S | 11,700.00 | Unknawn | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Forbes Hare | | | | | | | 12/10/21 | 27,032.01
ਟ | | | |\n| Forbes Hare | Owomar Building, PO Box 4649 | Road Town Tortola VG1110 | British Virgin Islands | | | | 01/28/22 | 14,577.01 5 | 41.609.02 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LIP | | | | | | | 12/07/21 | 20 350.18
ા રે | | | |\n| | | | | | | | 12/31/21 | 22,753.02 | | | |\n| Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LEB | 360 Lexington Avenue | | | New York | 14 | 10017 | 01/09/22 | 14,129.22 5 | 57,222.42 | 560,133.05 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Harcus Parker | 7th Floor, Melbourne House | 44-46 Aldwych | london, WC20 4LL | | | | 02/09/22 | 109,780,43 S
ાં ર | 109,780.43 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Janover LLC | 100 Quentin Roosevek Blvd | Suite 516 | | Garden City | NY | 11530 | 12/10/22 | 29,164.95 5 | 29,164.95 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Lawalt & Mitchell HC | | | | | | | 11/29/21 | 1,720.00 | | | |\n| Lawall & Mitchell, LEC | 55 Madison Avenue | 4th Floor | | Morristown | NI | 07960 | 1/18/22 | 2,160.00 Հ | 3,880.00 | 54,880.00 | Other. Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | 12/17/21 | 65,848.00
ﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻟ | | | |\n| Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | | | | | | | 01/26/22 | 44 490.50
ﮧ ﮐ | | | |\n| Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | 655 Third Avenue | 2 2nd Flood | | Hew York | NY | 10017 | 02/03/12 | 17.581.00 5
ર | 127,919.50 | \\$10.634.50 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Roy D. Simon | | | | | | | 01/12/22 | 48,708,00
15 | | | |\n| Roy D. Simon | 205 West End Avenue | Suite SH | | Hew York | 11 | 10023 | 01/18/22 | 9.523.20 | 58,231.20 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Schulman Bhattacharya, ILC | | | | | | | 11/17/21 | 114,515.42 | | | |\n| Schulman Bhaltacharya, LLC | | | | | | | 11/19/21 | 94.033.12 | | | |\n| Schulman Bhattacharya, LtC | | | | | | | 12/20/21 | 235,632 31 | | | |\n| Schulman Bhattacharya, LEC | 6116 Executive Boulevard | Suite 425 | | Bethesda | MD | 20852 | 02/09/22 | 256.061.00 S | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | 600,241,85 | \\$173,987.48 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Selas Montbrial Avocals | 10, Rue Cimarosa | 75116 | Paris- France | | | | 02/16/22 | 20,318,21 \\$
ાર | 20,318.21 | \\$9,120.87 | Other. Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| The Casper Firm | | | | | | | 11/17/21 | 77,934.00
ર | | | |\n| The Casper Firm | | | | | | | 12/21/21 | 141,197.55
द | | | |\n| The Caspet Firm | | | | | | | 01/26/22 | 125.663.00 | | | |\n| The Casper Firm | 400 E. Pratt Street | Suite 903 | | Ballimore. | MO | 22202 | 02/09/22 | 28.013.00 5
રે | 372,807.55 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| The Francis Firm PILC | | | | | | | 12/7/21 | 0000000
રે | | | |\n| The Francis Firm PLLC | | | | | | | 1/11/22 | 10,000.00
ર | | | |\n| The Francis Firm PLLC | 33 W 60th Street | Floor 2 | | New York | NY | 10023 | 2/7/22 | 10,000.00 \\$
ਵ | 30,000.00 | \\$2,500.00 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| U.S. Legal Support, Inc. | | | | | | | 01/12/22 | 5
1.018.75 | | | |\n| U.S. Legal Support, Inc. | 200 West Jackson | Suite 600 | | Chicago | 18 | 60606 | 02/03/22 | 2,034.03 5
5 | 3.062.78 | \\$1.638.00 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Una Manyce Wilkinson | | | | | | | 12/01/21 | 600.00 | | | |\n| Una Manyee Willinson | | | | | | | 01/12/22 | 1,200.00
ਟ | | | |\n| Una Manyee Wilkinson | 68-18 Juno Street | | | Forest Hills | 150 | 11375 | 02/03/22 | 1.600.00 S
< | 3.400.00 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Veritent | | | | | | | ג 2/10/22 | 943.00 | | | |\n| | 290 West Mt. Pleasant Ave. | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| Veritent | | Suite 3200 | | Livingston | N | 07039 | 01/12/22 | 13.967.00 S | 14,910.00 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| VX Cerda & Associates | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | 601 Brickell Key Drive | Suite 700 | | Mismi | Fr | 33131 | 12/22/21 | 1,055.33 | 3,055.33
ડ | \\$3.124.99 | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| William Bradley Wendel | 123 Butleigh Drive | | | Ithaca | ાદવ | 148 50 | 01/12/22 5 | 9,503.33 15 | 9,503.33 | Unknown | Other- Professional Services |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | 2,054,671.92
ਵ | \\$732,212.31 | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| | | | | | |\n| Chapter 11; Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | | | | |\n| Statement of Financial Affairs - Question # 9 (Within 1 year before you a party in any lawsuit, court action, or administrative proceding?) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Case Name | Case No. | Nature of Case | lurisdiction | Court Address | Status |\n| | | | | | |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan (and
other a/k/a names), Genever Holdings Corporation, and Genever
Holdings LLC | 652077/2017 | Breach of Contract | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 1.P. v. Genever Holdings
Corp., Bravo Luck Ltd., Kwok Ho Wan (and other a/k/a names),
and Qiang Guo (and other a/k/a names) | BVIHCM 0137 of 2020 | Collection | Eastern Caribbean Sup. Ct, Virgin
Islands, High Court of Justice | | Active |\n| Rui Ma v. Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok and Golden Spring (New
York) Ltd | 158140/2017 | lort | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Guo Wengui (a/k/a Miles Kwok) v. Clark Hill PLC and Thomas
Ragland | 1:19-cv-3195-JEB | Tort/Breach of Contract | D.D.C. | 333 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001 | Active |\n| Kwok Ho Wan, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State
Limited v. UBS AG (London Branch) | CL-2020-000345 | Negligence | High Court of Justice, Business and
Property Courts of England and Wales,
Queen's Bench Division, Commercial
Court | | Active |\n| Ace Decade Holdings Limited and Kwok Ho Wan v. UBS AG | CL-2020-000345 | Negligence | Civil Court Basel-City, Concillation
Authority | | Active |\n| Zheng Wu (a/k/a Bruno Wu) and Yang Lan v. Guo Wengui (a/k/a
Miles Kwok) | 152123/2018 | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Weican (\"Watson\") Meng and Boxun, Inc. v. Guo Wengui (a/k/a
Miles Kwok) | 159636/2017 | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Xiqui (\"Bob\") Fu v. Guo Wengui (and other a/k/a names), GTV
Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., Voice of Guo
Media, Inc., Lihong Wei Lafrenz (a/k/a Sara Wei), and Dongna
Fang | MO:20-CV-257-DC | Tort (Defamation) | W.D. Tex | U.S. District Clerk's Office
200 East Wall, Room 222
Midland, Texas 79701
Martin Luther King Building | Active |\n| Wengui Guo (a/k/a Miles Kwok) v. Jun Chen (a/k/a Jonathan Ho) ((MCA)(MAH) | No. 18-CV-03800 | Tort (Defamation) | NJ Dist. | & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07102 | Active |\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| Chapter 11; Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | | | | |\n| Statement of Financial Affairs - Question # 9 {Within 1 year before you a party in any lawsuit, court action, or administrative proceeding?) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Case Name | Case No. | Nature of Case | Jurisdiction | Court Address | Status |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street | |\n| Samuel Dan Nunberg v. Guo Wengui (a/k/a Miles Kwok) | 150141/2020 | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| | | | | Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square | |\n| Logan Cheng (f/k/a Shuiyan Cheng) v. Guo Wengui | 1:20-cv-05678-KPF | Anti-SLAPP | SDNY | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Liehong Zhuang and Xiao Yan Zhu v. Wengui Guo (and other
a/k/a names), Saraca Media Group Inc., ABC Company 1-10, John
Doe 1-10 | 654999/2020 | Tort/Breach of Contract | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| lonathan Young v. Guo Wengui (a/k/a Miles Kwok), Saraca
Media Group, Inc., Golden Spring (New York) Ltd, and Rule of
Law Foundation III | 154683/2020 | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Zhengjun Dong, Wen Lin, Kaixin Hong, and Chenglong Wang v.
GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Wengui
Guo | 652190/2021 | Putative Class Action (Securities) | NY Sup. | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street | |\n| | | | | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Rong Zhang, Xiaodan Wang, and Chong Shen Raphanella v. Voice
of Guo Media, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group
Inc., Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV Inc.,
Sara Wei (a/k/a Lihong Wei Lafrenz), and Wengui Guo (and other
a/k/a names) | CV-21-01079-PHX-SMB | Putative Class Action (Securities; Tort) AZ Dist. | | Sandra Day O'Connor United States
Courthouse
401 W. Washington St., Suite 130, SPC 1
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 | Active |\n| Haihong Wang v. GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group,
Inc., and Wengui Guo | 3:21-cv-00359-VLB | Securities | D. Conn. | ABRAHAM RIBICOFF FEDERAL BUILDING
United States Courthouse
450 Main Street - Room 725
Hartford, Connecticut 06103 | Active |\n| June Shi v. GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and
Wengui Guo | 21-CV-1408 | Securities; Tort | N.D. III. | Everett McKinley Dirksen United States
Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604 | Active |\n| lanhu Yi and Quiju Jia v. GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media
Group, Inc., and Wengui Guo | 1:21 Civ 02669 (VM) | Securities | SDNY | Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| Weiguo Sun, Linda He Cheung, Jia Li Wang, Jiamei Lu, Jun Liu,
Moa-Fu, Weng, Ruquin Wang, Teli Chen, Weixiang Ge, Shuang
Wang, Xingyu Yan, Yan Gao, Yi Li, and Ying Liu. v. GTV Media
Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., Wengui Guo (a/k/a Ho
Wan Kwok), Voice Guo Media, Inc. [sic], and Lihong Wei Lafrenz
(and other a/k/a names) | 1:21-cv-04529 | Securities; Tort | SDNY | Thurgood Marshalf
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|\n| Chapter 11; Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | | | | |\n| Statement of Financial Affairs - Question # 9 {Within 1 year before you a party in any lawsult, court actor, or administrative proceeding?) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Case Name | Case No. | Nature of Case | Jurisdiction | Court Address | Status |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Keyi Zilkie, Huizhen Wang, Chao-Chih Chiu, and Yunxia Wu v. | | | | | |\n| GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Wengui | | | | New York County Courthouse | |\n| ઉપવ | | | | 60 Centre Street | |\n| | 652843/2021 | Securities; Tort | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse | |\n| Wengui Guo (a/k/a Miles Kwok) v. Yeliang Xia | 1:18-CV-00174-LO-TCB | | | 401 Courthouse Square | |\n| | | Tort (Defamation) | E.D. Va. | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Active |\n| | | | | New York County Courthouse | |\n| Guo v. Hong Zeng | 157025/2020 | | | 60 Centre Street | |\n| | | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| | | | Sup. Court of British Columbia, | | |\n| Guo v. Gao BingChen | VLC-5-5-187450 | Tort (Defamation) | Vancouver, Canada | | Active |\n| | | | | | |\n| Beijing Zhong Xian Wei Ye Stainless Decoration Center, et al. v. | | | | | |\n| Wengui Guo, Beijing Zenith Holdings Co, Beijing Pangu | | | | New York County Courthouse | |\n| Investment Co., Genever Holdings LLC, and Golden Spring (New | | | | 60 Centre Street | |\n| York) Ltd. | 653176/2017 | Collection Matter | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | High Court of The Hong Kong Special | | |\n| The Hong Kong High Court forfeiture proceedings against Guo | | | Administrative Region: Court of First | | |\n| and numerous individuals & entities | | Asset Seizure | Instance | | Unknown |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | 33 Admin Drive, Wickhams Cay 1, Road | |\n| Kwok v. MacDonald | 2019/0048 | | British Virgin Islands | Town, Tortola, Virgin Islands (British | Active |\n| FAN BINGBING v. GUO WENGUI a/k/a GUO WEN GUI a/k/a GUO | | | | | |\n| WEN-GUI a/k/a GUO HAOYUN a/k/a HAOUN GUO a/k/a WAN | | | | | |\n| GUE HAOYUN a/k/a MILES KWOK a/k/a KWOK HO WAN a/k/a | | | | New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street | |\n| KWOK HO | 156619/2017 | Tort (Defamation) | | | |\n| | | | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Inactive |\n| JIANSHENGXIE and JIEFU ZHENG v. WENGUI GUO a/k/a | | | | | |\n| HAOYUNGUO, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HO WANKWOK, a/k/a | | | | New York County Courthouse | |\n| HO KWOK, a/k/a WEN GUI GWO, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, | | | | 60 Centre Street | |\n| a/k/a GUO HAOYUN | 155995/2017 | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Inactive |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | King County Superior Court | |\n| WA&HF LLC, RUIZHENG AN V. SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC. and | | | | 516 Third Avenue, Room C-203 | |\n| WENGUI GUO | No. 20-2-12680-2 SEA | Tort/Breach of Contract | WA Sup. Ct | Seattle, WA 98104 | Active (but inactive as to MK) |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | New York County Courthouse | |\n| GUO WENGUI a/k/a KWOK HO WAN a/k/a MILES | | | | 60 Centre Street | |\n| KWOK v. GUO BAOSHENG, YAN ZHAO, and NING YE | 151251/2019 | Tort/Breach of Contract | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | Active |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| KUI CHENG v. G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC and WENGUI GUO A/K/A | | | | | |\n| HO WAN KWOK A/K/A MILES KWOK A/K/A MILES GUO | No. 521-009315 | Breach of Contract | Texas small claims court | | Active |\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------|\n| Chapter 11; Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | | | | |\n| Statement of Financial Affairs - Question # 9 (Within 1 year before you a party in any lawsult, court action, or administrative proceeding?) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Case Name | Case No. | Nature of Case | Jurisdiction | Court Address | Status |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | Matthew J. Perry, Jr. U.S. Courthouse | |\n| Wengui Guo a/k/a Miles Kwok v. | | | | 901 Richland Street | Resolved within 1 year of |\n| Danyu Lin | No. 2018-CP-03623 | Tort (Defamation) | South Carolina state court | Columbia, South Carolina 29201 | bankruptcy filing. |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | New York County Courthouse | |\n| | | | | 60 Centre Street | Resolved within 1 year of |\n| Yan Huang v. Wengui Guo | No. 156552/2017 | Tort (Defamation) | NY Sup. | New York, NY 10007 | bankruptcy filing. |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse | |\n| WENGUI GUO V. BAOSEHNG GUO | | | | 401 Courthouse Square | Resolved within 1 year of |\n| BAIQIAO TANG a/k/a TANG BAIQIAO and | No. 1:18-cv-1064 | Tort (Defamation/Fraud) | ED Va. | Alexandria, VA 22314 | bankruptcy filing. |\n| JING GENG v. WENGUI GUO a/k/a MILES KWOK a/k/a | | | | | |\n| GUO WEN GUI a/k/a HO WAN KWOK, | | | | | |\n| GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD., | | | | | |\n| RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III INC., | | | | Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse | |\n| RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV INC., SARACA | | | | 40 Foley Square | |\n| MEDIA GROUP, INC. | No. 1:17-cv-09031-JFK | Tort (Defamation/Commercial) | SDNY | New York, NY 10007 | Resolved within 1 year of |\n| | | | | | bankruptcy filing. |\n\n| | 2
2
-5
0
0
7
3 | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| IN
R | H
W
K
k
E:
o
a
n
w
o | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| 2
D
b
t
e
o
r | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | 8/
4/
20 | 22
A
dm
itt
ed
in
F
ul
l | | | | |\n| | | P
.E | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\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\n32 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % -- 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\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## Case225560933 Boorbor Fillerd3669725 Entereston6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\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\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\n1 6, 2012 (http).\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\n2 Stanford University and the Hoover Institute, the NGO Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), and Alphabet's Google have all separately reported that I have been a primary target of the CCP in its global social media disinformation campaign, driven by CCP agents and thousands of China's state-controlled websites and social media accounts. See Carly Miller, Vanessa Molter, Isabella Garca-Camargo, Rene DiResta, David Thiel and Alex Zaheer, Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown, Stanford Internet Observatory, June 17, 2020 (http); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, and Elise Thomas, Tweeting through the great firewall: Preliminary Analysis of PRClinked information operations against the Hong Kong protests, October 2019 (htt\n\n12/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\n06/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\n3 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## Case 22 500 73 000 407 Filed 0366 2007 Enterest 0366 366 366 400\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\n4 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\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\n5 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\n6 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\n7 United States Department of Justice Press Release: Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, November 30, 2018 (http) (stating that \"Higginbotham further admitted that another purpose of the lobbying campaign was an attempt to persuade high-level U.S. government officials to have a separate foreign national, who was residing in the United States on a temporary visa at the time, removed from the United States and sent back to his country of origin''; I am that \"separate foreign national\"). A copy of the \"Factual Basis for Plea\" as to George Higginbotham is attached hereto as Exhibit C.\n\n## Case 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\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\n8 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\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\n9 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\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\n10 My Schedules include a potential malpractice claim against my historical litigation counsel.\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\n11 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\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\n12 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\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\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\n। રે\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\n13 On October 12, 2020, Genever US filed Chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 20-12411).\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## East 22-50073 BBC 702 Eiled 88/64/22 Eintered Barreless 16:30:44 Page 18 01 189\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\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#### 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\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## East 22-56073 BBC 403 Eilen 88/69/22 Eintered 83/68/22 16:39:44 Page 26 of 189\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\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\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 54 of 167\n\n#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n--\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\nﺳﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍ At all times relevant to this Information:\n\n2. 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 1MDB matters dropped or otherwise favorably resolved for Foreign National A.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a citizen of the PRC living in the United States-all on behalf of Foreign National A. This involved, among other things, advocating for meetings between PRC Minister A and United States government officials. Here too, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A. BROIDY, aided by Davis and Person A, attempted to facilitate a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the 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### Case 22-500-3002 Electronic Electronic Camentere Conceller State 38 Of 189\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 22 500 Se 1902 Election 2018 Click Comments 2018 2018 30 01 109\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\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#### 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\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#### I. 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\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#### 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\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\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\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### Case 22 500 For 1 Book 400 2 1 File Model 2016 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\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## £25£ 22£50079 1.88000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\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\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, BROIDY exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, BROIDY texted, \"[Person E], just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, Elliott].]\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get 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\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 0 1000 400 2 14 16 000 000 10 11 11 19 000 10 000 10 10 000 10 0 100\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\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## Case 22-500-52 1300-400-216188889999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999\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\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 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.\" 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#### 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 Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to BROIDY by Davis, and the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, BROIDY and Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n84. In the memorandum. BROIDY mischaracterized the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. 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\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\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 [].\" Person I was a senior official in DHS at the time.\n\n90. On or about May 28, 2017, after Davis transcribed correspondence to BROIDY, BROIDY emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and the Chinese Ambassador to the US.\" BROIDY noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, BROIDY and Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n91. On or about May 30, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's meeting with United States government officials, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[]]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. All 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\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, Elliottf.]\" 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\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\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\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\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## Case222550078 1890040021411866660000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\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 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 86 of 167\n\nCase & Color Color Collect Career College Comers College Comments of Concellent Comments of\n\nUNITED 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\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\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\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 the 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\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\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\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#### 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\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\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\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\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#### Casse2200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### Casse 220000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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 IMDB 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#### イ および 2006 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 167\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#### Comments on the post of the follow of the college of the consider of the promotion of the 167\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#### Cores 222000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### Cosse 220063900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### CASSE 222000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### Cesse 222000 30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### C @ B 2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### Caree 22 2000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### C @ S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### CASSE 222000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### Casse2220000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### C@2582220000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### Costed 2017 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 167\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#### Casse 2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### C @ 22 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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 set[.]\" DAVIS replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[].]\"\n\n96. In or about May 2017, DAVIS, at Person A's request, asked Person B to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n97. On or about May 30, 2017, Person B met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n98. On or about May 31, 2017, Person B texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [ Attorney General] or [Person ]]. 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#### Come 2220000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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#### Castel 22 2000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### C @ S C 2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### Costed 22 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 167\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#### C B B B B B B B O D O D O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D O D O D O D O D O D O D O D O D O D O D O D O D D O D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 167\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#### C G B 2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167\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#### COSES 222000 B 2000 CLAR FRANCE 2000 COLORAL 13 COMMA PERSELLA PERGELECT 8 167\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#### 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#### Cosse2220000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 167\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\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#### Case 22450093: 1 Dorectorial 3 Filled 18/04/222: ntEnteriedEdBlog108:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 11678\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#### Case 22500073:1 Barcilion 3 €166 08/04/22:11EMelled&126/08/02/165/Bage 3 cPage 109 of 1,68\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\n#### Cose2225 000 000 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 1108\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#### Color 22 Collect 1 Bore 10 2 4 3 Filled (1900 000 2005 000 000 1 5 0 Page 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 11808\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 B. 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#### ලියුද දිවියා හිටි පිහිටි විද්යාඥය කිරීම මිනිමින් මිනිමින් දින දින මුදල 19 දී අ 1188\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 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 133 of 167\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 134 of 167\n\n#### Case 22 College 1 Cores Constitution Comental College Comments Comments of Constitue of 1498\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# Case 22-50073180000073-Cited 08/60/2018211 Eineredd 08/09/228 67320410 (Fage 1086 of\n149\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 attgree 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\n\n| | 2
2
0
0
3
-5
7 | | | | |\n|---------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| IN
R | H
E:
o | W
K
k
a
n
w
o | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| D
e | b
t
o
r | 3 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 8/
4/
20 | 22
A
dm
itt
ed
in
F
ul
l | | | |\n| | | P
.E | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n# %8E%22%E9%73D0003102FiilEdB6%94%22%22%E7%9F%E0%88%24%E1%86%A8%E0%B6%A8%E0%B6%A8%E0%BE%A\n%AF%E0%A7%D8%A7%E4%88%84%9F%E0%A7%E7%8A%A7%8A%A7%8A%A8%A7%8A%A7%8A%A7%8A%A7%8A%A7%8A%\n\n#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC,\n\nCase No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\nDebtor.\n\n#### DEBTOR'S OMNIBUS SECOND RENEWED MOTION (i) TO APPROVE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT WITH BRAVO LUCK AND PAX; AND (ii) TO HIRE MELANIE L. CYGANOWSKI AS AN EMPLOYEE ONLY TO ACT AS THE SALES OFFICER FOR THE DEBTOR'S BANKRUPTCY ESTATE\n\nGenever Holdings LLC (the \"Debtor\"), as and for its omnibus and second renewed motion (the \"Renewed Motion\") (i) seeking approval pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a) of the Second Amended and Restated Settlement with Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") and Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit \"A\" (the \"Revised Settlement\"); and (ii) to hire Melanie L. Cyganowski (\"Ms. Cyganowski\") as an employee only to act as the Sales Officer for the Debtor's Bankruptcy Estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105 and 363 in accordance with the attached revised Employment Letter annexed hereto as Exhibit \"B\" and pursuant to the respective pre-fixed revised Orders approving the Revised Settlement and the corresponding hiring of Ms. Cyganowski, which are being separately noticed for presentment, represents and shows this Court as follows:\n\n#### Background\n\n1. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on October 12, 2020 and thereafter has continued in possession and management of its assets as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and 1108.\n\n# %85£22££9973DdC93102FiilEd892849422225256688924951448.96644MailF496cd1ff8ff\n777729973DdC93102FiilEdB6928494227\n\n2. J The Debtor's chief asset consists of the 18th floor apartment and auxiliary units in the Sherry Netherland Hotel located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022 (collectively, the \"Residence\").\n\n3. J The Debtor reached a proposed settlement with Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") and Bravo Luck Ltd. (\"Bravo Luck\") establishing, inter alia, a negotiated framework for the sale of the Residence under the stewardship of a Sales Officer to be employed by the Debtor. The parties agreed upon the selection of Melanie Cyganowski to serve in this capacity, and the Debtor previously moved for Bankruptcy Court approval of the proposed settlement and the retention of Melanie Cyganowski as the Sales Officer (See, ECF Nos. 62 and 72).\n\n4. J The Office of the U.S. Trustee objected to both motions (ECF Nos. 94 and 103). Thereafter, the parties briefed a number of issues in connection therewith (See, ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106).\n\n5. On September 1, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued a comprehensive decision (the \"September 1, 2021 Decision\") relating to the Debtor's motions, finding (i) that the settlement comfortably fell within the range of reasonableness and was in the best interests of the Debtor's estate; (ii) that the Debtor had the right under state law to amend its operating agreement to appoint the Sales Officer; and (iii) that the Debtor had the right to employ Ms. Cyganowski as Sales Officer.\n\n6. The Bankruptcy Court, however, found certain issues with Ms. Cyganowski providing any legal advice to the Debtor or utilizing personnel at her firm (Otterbourg P.C.) to assist her without retention of the firm under 11 U.S.C. §327. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court initially did not approve either of the motions on this basis. In the main, however, the proposed settlement appeared acceptable to the Court for purposes of Bankruptcy Rule 9019.\n\n# 9888249973DdC93702FiilEd992842424225EpFerear699249574416967411696ccdffeef\nf1086869973DdC93702FiilEd899249499889f7\n\n7. Following receipt of the September 1, 2021 Decision, the Settling Parties have modified the proposed retention of Ms. Cyganowski to address the foregoing, essentially as follows:\n\n- · Ms. Cyganowski shall be hired strictly as an employee of the Debtor and shall not provide any legal advice or counsel to the Debtor.\n- · The Debtor shall not retain the Otterbourg P.C. law firm to assist Ms. Cyganowski or otherwise.\n\n8. Based upon these modifications, the Settling Parties hereby seek to renew the Debtor's motion for approval of the Revised Settlement with the same corresponding modifications relating to the hiring of Ms. Cyganowski. The Revised Settlement continues to provide an agreed framework for the sale of the Residence under the stewardship of the Sales Officer, who shall direct the sale and marketing process based upon her status as an employee of the Debtor. The Revised Settlement is substantially identical to the prior version of the settlement agreement, but has been modified to remove the provisions outlined in Paragraph 7 above regarding Ms. Cyganowski's status as an employee; (i) that the Otterbourg firm shall not be retained; and (ii) Ms. Cyganowski shall not provide legal advice to the Debtor. Also there were clarifications made regarding the structure of Ms. Cyganowski's indemnity and compensation, plus other non-substantive clean-up. Accordingly, the Debtor has obtained the agreement of the Settling Parties and the Office of the U.S. Trustee to the revised terms, and submits that the Revised Settlement should now be approved by the Court.\n\n#### Renewed Retention of Ms. Cyganowski\n\n9. sense of stability and confidence to the position of Sales Officer. Indeed, there is unanimous agreement among the parties that Ms. Cyganowski is an ideal candidate, as her experience and judgment are beyond reproach.\n\n# Sose224729873Do893102FiiEd869281242227Feber889249514489880818e8f\nPorts449873DoR93102FiilEd869281247244617\n\n#### Scope of Services\n\n10. In keeping with the Court's September 1, 2021 Decision, Ms. Cyganowski will perform the following services as more particular detailed in the renewed settlement agreement solely as an employee of the Debtor':\n\n- a. Ms. Cyganowski shall oversee the sale of the Residence through a conventional bankruptcy-type sale process for the Debtor in consultation with Bravo Luck and PAX. Ms. Cyganowski is not a chapter 11 trustee or examiner and is being hired strictly as an employee of the Debtor and Ms. Cyganowski will not render any legal advice or counsel.\n- b. Ms. Cyganowski shall select the real estate broker (\"Broker\") on behalf of the Debtor, subject to the right of Bravo and PAX to object. The broker shall have expertise selling luxury residential Manhattan real estate and employed by the Debtor's Bankruptcy Estate. Bravo Luck and PAX shall be allowed to recommend and interview parties to fill the role of Broker in conjunction with Ms. Cyganowski.\n- c. Ms. Cyganowski shall also oversee the establishment of a marketing program and sales procedures for the Debtor that are designed to maximize value of the Residence. Procedures and the ultimate approval of any sale shall be subject to further application to the Court to be filed by the Debtor's counsel.\n- 11. In sum, Ms. Cyganowski is being hired as an employee and designated sale\n\nofficer to lead the Debtor's efforts to sell the Residence with delineated functions as set forth in the Renewed Settlement Agreement.\n\n#### Ms. Cyganowski's Disinterestedness\n\n12. Although the hiring of Ms. Cyganowski is being done under 11 U.S.C. § 363, she has no disqualifying relationships involving any creditors or parties in interest, and otherwise qualifies as a \"disinterested person\" within the meaning of Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code to the extent applicable.\n\n13. To the best of the Debtor's knowledge, information, and belief, Ms. Cyganowski: (a) has no prior or current connection with the Debtor, its creditors, any member of the Kwok\n\n# 중앙토토2249973DdCQ3102FiilEdG6928494222EpFerFerF0992495124146.9644MaRA986AMeRf\nFridded of 3DdCQ3102FiilEdG6928494724867\n\nfamily, or other parties in interest; and (b) does not hold any interest adverse to the Debtor, the Debtor's estate, PAX or Bravo Luck.\n\n#### Terms of Compensation\n\n14. As set forth in the renewed Employment Letter, Ms. Cyganowski has requested and will be paid on an hourly basis predicated on a current billing rate of \\$1,400 per hour. Ms. Cyganowski has agreed that her compensation shall be paid from the sale proceeds generated from the sale of the Residence, and the Debtor shall seek authorization to pay her fees and expense in connection with a future application to sell the Residence. Pending a sale of the Residence, Ms. Cyganowski shall accrue her fees and expenses as an administrative expense claim\n\n#### Basis for Granting Application to Hire Ms. Cyganowski\n\n15. The legal predicates for Ms. Cyganowski's hiring have already been extensively briefed and analyzed in this Court's September 1, 2021 Decision. Essentially, the Debtor's authority to hire Ms. Cyganowski flows from the Debtor's ability to sell the Residence pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in relevant part, that a debtor in possession, \"after notice and a hearing, may use, sell, or lease, other than in the ordinary course of business, property of the estate.\" 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1). Under Section 363(b), courts require only that the debtor \"show that a sound business purpose justifies such actions.\" In re Montgomery Ward Holding Corp., 242 B.R. 147, 153 (D. Del. 1999) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Elpida Memory, Inc., No. 12-10947 (CSS), 2012 WL 6090194, at \\*5 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 20, 2012) (noting that it is \"well-settled\" that a debtor may use its assets outside the ordinary course where such use \"represents the sound exercise of\n\n1 The Court is respectfully referred to the renewed settlement agreement for a complete recitation of the terms.\n\n# £8££24££9973DoP93702£ï¡€ď€§½££½££½££º££º££º££º£º£º£º£º£º£º£¬²´¥MaiÑ�Уâ€ñ½ÊñÍ\nº £º£244£9973DoP93702£¡¡Ed £9724247\n\nbusiness judgment\"); In re Phoenix Steel Corp., 82 B.R. 334, 335-36 (Bankr. D. Del. 1987) (stating that judicial approval under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code requires a showing that the proposed action is fair and equitable, in good faith, and supported by a good business reason). Moreover, \"[w]here the debtor articulates a reasonable basis for its business decisions (as distinct from a decision made arbitrarily or capriciously), courts will generally not entertain objections to the debtor's conduct.\" In re Johns-Manville Corp., 60 B.R. 612, 616 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citation omitted); see also In re Tower Air, Inc., 416 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that \"[o]vercoming the presumptions of the business judgment rule on the merits is a near-Herculean task\").\n\n16. The decision to hire Ms. Cyganowski, having been made with the approval of the Debtor's major creditors, should be approved and authorized because it is based on a sound exercise of the Debtor's business judgment, and her employment is in the best interest of the Debtor's estate and creditors consistent with the Revised Settlement.\n\n#### The Revised Settlement and Revised Order Approving the Debtor's Hiring of Ms. Cyganowski Should Each Be Approved\n\n17. This Court previously found in its September 1, 2021 decision that the initial settlement was reasonable and met the Iridium factors for approval of settlements. As the Court stated:\n\n> The sixth Iridium Factor is not relevant to this matter. The Settlement Agreement falls comfortably within the scope of the remaining factors . . . The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair and equitable and is in the best interests of the Debtor's estate and creditors.\n\n18. However, as noted, the Court declined to approve the settlement because of its concerns relating to Ms. Cyganowski's retention. Since the Revised Settlement fully addresses these concerns, as detailed above, the Debtor respectfully submits that the Revised Settlement should now be approved, together with Ms. Cyganowski's employment.\n\n# %8E%22E9973DdB93102FiilEd8692494222EpEdF669924/251416:0644MaR198&dMeAt\n100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\n\n19. The final terms of the Revised Settlement (including the revised terms relating to hiring of Ms. Cyganowski) have been reviewed with the Office of the U.S. Trustee and all objections have been resolved. Accordingly, the Debtor is seeking Bankruptcy Court approval of these motions based upon a Notice of Presentment as authorized during the hearing on September 22, 2021. Any other creditor or party in interest having an objection may file the same prior to the presentment date, which then will be heard on October 20, 2021\n\nWHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully prays for the entry of the pre-fixed Orders.\n\nDated: New York, New York September 24, 2021\n\n> GOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP Attorney for the Debtor 1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10036 (212) 221-5700\n\nBy: /s/ Kevin J. Nash, Esq.\n\n# Case 224 PM 3 Revised Settlement Agreement Page of 2 to 12 of 12\n\n#### SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\n\nThis Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement (the \"Settlement Agreement\") is entered into as of September 24, 2021, by and among Genever Holdings, LLC, (\"Debtor\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") and Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") (each a \"Party\" and collectively, the \"Parties\").1\n\n#### WITNESETH:\n\nWHEREAS, on October 12, 2020, Debtor filed its Chapter 11 Case.\n\nWHEREAS, on December 16, 2020, PAX filed its motion to Modify the Automatic Stay to Proceed with State Court Action and Related Relief (the \"Lift Stay Motion\") [Dkts 12-14], which included, inter alia, a request to try PAX's veil piercing claims against the Debtor in the State Court Action.\n\nWHEREAS, on January 5, 2021, the Debtor filed a response to the Lift Stay Motion and Bravo Luck also filed its objection thereto [Dkts 21 and 22].\n\nWHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, PAX filed its motion for an Order Under 11 U.S.C. 1112(b) Converting the Debtor's Case to a Case Under Chapter 7 or, in the Alternative, for an Order Under 11 U.S.C. 1104(a) Appointing a Trustee to Administer the Debtor's Estate (\"Conversion Motion\") [Dkts 35-37].\n\nWHEREAS, on May 10, 2021, the Debtor filed its opposition to the Conversion Motion [Dkt 84] and on January 27, 2021, Bravo Luck filed its opposition to the Conversion Motion [Dkt 44].\n\nWHEREAS, the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck entered in a settlement agreement on February 26, 2021 (the \"Initial Agreement\") to resolve the Lift Stay Motion and Conversion Motion, and to establish procedures for the sale of the Residence through the Chapter 11 Case while preserving the rights of all Parties.\n\nWHEREAS, the Debtor moved (the \"Motion\") for approval of the Initial Agreement entered into on February 26, 2021 pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a) [Dkt 62].\n\nWHEREAS, with approval from PAX and Bravo Luck, the Debtor also moved to retain Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.) (hereinafter, \"Ms. Cyganowski\") as the Sales Officer for purposes of settlement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§105 and 363(b) [Dkt 72] (the \"Motion to Appoint Ms. Cyganowski\").\n\n1 Capitalized terms shall have the meaning provided below, or if not otherwise defined, in the Motions.\n\n# Case 22229933 Door 393 Filled 8692472 - Elliered 869242219493.10 - East 18 of 12\n\nWHEREAS, in support of the Motion to Appoint Ms. Cyganowski, the Debtor filed the Declaration of Disinterestedness by Melanie L. Cyganowski dated April 12, 2021 [Dkt. 73] (the \"Cyganowski Declaration\").\n\nWHEREAS, the Office of the U.S. Trustee (\"UST\") previously objected to the Initial Agreement, and the Parties thereafter agreed to amend and modify the Initial Agreement to attempt to address the concerns and objections raised by the \"Amended Settlement\").\n\nWHEREAS, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision dated September 1, 2021 finding, in the main, that the Amended Settlement met the standards of Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a), but denying the Debtor's motions due to certain issues relating to Ms. Cyganowski also providing legal advice directly to the Debtor or with the assistance of the Otterbourg P.C. law firm without retention under 11 U.S.C. § 327.\n\nWHEREAS, the Parties have again further modified the Amended Settlement as provided herein to address the Court's concerns as set forth in its decision dated September 1, 2021 and to address the objections of the UST in a continuing effort to resolve their differences as described herein without resorting to further litigation, and, as a result of negotiations among the Parties, the Parties have agreed to resolve the Lift Stay Motion and the Conversion Motion, as well as establish procedures for the sale of the Residence through the Chapter 11 Case while preserving the rights of all Parties, as set forth below.\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby CONSENT, AGREE, and STIPULATE as follows:\n\n1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the following meanings:\n\n\"Approval Order\" shall mean the order entered by the Bankruptcy Court a. granting the Motion and approving this Settlement Agreement.\n\nb. the Southern District of New York.\n\n\"BVI\" shall mean the British Virgin Islands. C.\n\nd. \" \"BVI Litigation\" shall mean those certain actions filed by PAX in the BVI in 2020 under case No. BVIHCM 2020/0137 against: (i) Genever BVI, (ii) Bravo Luck, (iii) Kwok, and (iv) Guo, seeking, among other things, to enforce (a) the Judgment arising in the State Court Action; and (b) the Defense and Counterclaim filed on January, 14, 2021, by Bravo Luck and Guo against PAX.\n\n\"Chapter 11 Case\" shall mean the underlying chapter 11 bankruptcy case captioned GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC., filed by the Debtor in the Bankruptcy Court, case number 20-12411.\n\n## Cope 222 2019 13 000 392 1 Filed 8692472 15495 106 124 26.46 122 106 12 106 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Revised Settlement Agreement Pg 3 of 12\n\nf. been entered by the Bankruptcy Court and is a final order.\n\ng. \"Genever BVI\" shall mean Genever Holdings Corporation, a British Virgin Islands corporation and 100% owner of the Debtor.\n\n- h. \"Guo\" shall mean Qiang Guo.\n- i. \"Kwok\" shall mean Kwok Ho Wan aka Miles Kwok.\n\n\"Operating Agreement\" shall mean the Limited Lability Company 1. Agreement of the Debtor dated February 13, 2015, as amended by the Resolution, pursuant to section 23 therein.\n\nk. \"Residence\" shall mean the entire 18th floor apartment and auxiliary units in the Sherry Netherland Hotel located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022.\n\nl. \" \"Resolution\" shall mean the corporate resolution previously passed by the Debtor as referenced in the Court's September 1, 2021 decision regarding the hiring of Ms. Cyganowski as an employee to serve as the Debtor's Sales Officer as provided hereunder.\n\nm. \" \"Sale Motion\" shall mean a motion to be filed by the Debtor seeking approval by the Bankruptcy Court to sell the assets of the Debtor, including but not limited to, the Residence, and for approval of sale procedures in connection with same.\n\nn. \" \"Sales Officer Hiring Order\" shall mean the separate order entered by the Bankruptcy Court approving the renewed Motion to hire Ms. Cyganowski pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.\n\no. \"Sherry-Netherland Co-Op Board\" shall mean the cooperative board of the Sherry-Netherland.\n\n2. business judgment to hire and appoint Ms. Cyganowski solely as an employee to serve as the Debtor's Sales Officer (the \"SO\") pursuant to Sections 9.3 and 23 of the Operating Agreement and the Resolution and (ii) designates authority to Ms. Cyganowski as SO solely to control and oversee the sale of the Residence as provided hereunder and without subjecting Ms. Cyganowski to any other duties or responsibilities. Ms. Cyganowski's employment, as set forth in this Settlement Agreement, shall be approved by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Sales Officer Hiring Order. Pursuant to the Operating Agreement, Bankruptcy Code Section 363, and this Settlement Agreement, the Debtor may only revoke or terminate Ms. Cyganowski's hiring upon further Order of the Bankruptcy Court. The Parties believe that Ms. Cyganowski has the requisite expertise selling luxury residential Manhattan real estate and co-ops through a bankruptcy process. Ms. Cyganowski is acceptable to the Debtor, Bravo Luck, and PAX. Ms. Cyganowski as SO will oversee and interface with the retained real estate broker as provided below, and shall have the final authority as delegated by the Debtor hereunder and in the\n\n#### Costs 2229977 Bearther First 18924622 Ellers 2009692121212696 Perfect 200 Revised Settlement Roreement Pg 4 of 12\n\nResolution, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval with right of objection by Bravo Luck and PAX, over the Debtor's decision making, sale process and the selection of (i) Qualified Buyer (defined below) and Qualified Offer (defined below) and (ii) successful and backup offers for the sale of the Residence. In the exercise of such powers, the SO shall consult with the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX. The SO is not acting as a lawyer for the Debtor and is not a chapter 11 trustee or examiner but shall have the same type of powers utilized by a trustee in bankruptcy, limited strictly to the terms of employment hereunder and without displacing the Debtor from its role as a debtor in possession.\n\n3. and employed by the Debtor's estate in the SO's business judgment as delegated by the Resolution, in consultation with the Parties, and subject to the right of Bravo Luck and PAX to object. Bravo Luck and PAX shall be allowed to propose/recommend parties to the SO for the role of Broker. Bravo Luck and PAX shall have the right to interview the prospective Brokers. Bravo Luck and PAX shall consult with the Broker and the SO for purposes of establishing the timing and realization of maximum value for the Residence. The Broker will be compensated consistent with market terms, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval with right of objection by Bravo Luck and PAX. The SO will consult Bravo Luck and PAX regarding Broker's compensation. Broker shall be disinterested and free of conflicts, as described below. A draft Broker Agreement and Affidavit of Disinterest shall be provided to Bravo Luck and PAX for review and comment prior to filing by the Debtor, which shall include disclosure of all past and present conflicts, connections, and financial relationships between the Broker, and its representatives, with Miles Kwok, members of Kwok's family and their respective counsel, associates, affiliates and interests, as well as any past connection with Bravo Luck and PAX as well as their respective counsel, associates, affiliates and interests. Broker shall have expertise selling luxury residential Manhattan real estate.\n\n4. Marketing Terms. The Parties agree to the following terms for the marketing of the Residence, with the specific terms to be established by the SO in consultation with the Debtor and as provided below:\n\n Floor price to be set by the SO for minimum offers for any sale in a. consultation with Bravo Luck and PAX.\n\nb. The SO may consider imposing limitations on an insider offer or by PAX or an affiliate thereof, in consultation with Bravo Luck and PAX.\n\nc. The Broker shall fully disclose all fees, costs and any other direct or indirect compensation to be received by the Broker and its representatives.\n\nd. The SO shall coordinate with the Broker in consultation with the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX on protocols for sale of the Residence, including staging, marketing strategy and process, identifying prospective buyers, international outreach, setting floor and target sale price, counteroffers, negotiated concessions, etc. and coordination with the Sherry-Netherland, as necessary.\n\nOther protocols and procedures for sale of the Residence shall be e. developed by the SO and the Broker in consultation with the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX, including duration, minimum sale price, target sale price, and time, place, and\n\n#### College 2000 Dollar Dollar Filed 8002472 Eller Boller 2000 2002 100 Person 200 Revised Settlement Agreement Pg 5 of 12\n\nmanner of any sale of the Residence. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the duration of the sale process shall be limited to 180 days from the retention of the Broker, subject to extension upon written agreement of the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX, or by further order of the Court for cause shown.\n\nParties residing at the Residence shall make the Residence available for ﮨﻨ showing upon 24 hours advance notice.\n\nన్. Sales Procedures. The Parties agree to the following regarding the sale of the Residence:\n\na. and better offers. If more than one Qualified Offer is received, the SO, in consultation with the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX, shall schedule an auction at which all Qualified Buyers can participate.\n\nSelection of the winning Qualified Buyer shall be made by the SO in b. consultation with the Debtor, the Broker, Bravo Luck and PAX.\n\nc. Sale shall be subject to Bankruptcy Court approval of a Sale Motion to be prepared and filed by the Debtor; draft of such motion to be provided to Bravo Luck and PAX for review and approval prior to filing.\n\nd. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Settlement Agreement, and subject to applicable law, the sale of the Residence shall be subject to assignment of that certain Proprietary Lease by and between the Sherry-Netherland and the Debtor (the \"Proprietary Lease\"); all rights and obligations of the parties, whether under the Proprietary Lease or under applicable law, are expressly reserved.\n\nBravo Luck and PAX shall have access to the SO and the Broker and shall e. be kept fully informed regarding the status of the sale process, all offers received, and all material issues relating to the negotiation and eventual sale of the Residence.\n\nf. The sale process shall include consultation rights for the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX, with the SO to have final authority in the event of any dispute pursuant to the authority granted to Ms. Cyganowski as an officer under Section 9.3 of the Operating Agreement.\n\ng. Gross proceeds of sale less customary closing costs and expenses (including fees and expenses of the SO without further order of the Bankruptcy Court and the reasonable fees and expenses of the Broker subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court upon notice to all Parties), without other deduction, shall be placed in escrow as provided below, subject to release solely with Bankruptcy Court approval on prior notice, including prior notice to Bravo Luck and PAX. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Ms. Cyganowski shall have no control over, or obligations with regard to, the gross proceeds of the sale or the escrow account, which shall be held by an escrow agent in accordance with this paragraph, and only released upon further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon notice to the Parties.\n\n## Cope 22439973 Door 1321 Fifted 8692492 Eller Self Self States League of Revised Settlement Adreement Pg 6 of 12\n\nh. Gross proceeds of sale, as described above, shall be deposited in a nationally recognized collateralized bank reasonably acceptable to the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX and subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.\n\ni. timing for Board approvals necessary to conduct and complete the sale of the Residence.\n\n6. be initially marketed through the Broker in a commercially reasonable manner consistent with the stature of the Residence in an effort to identity one or more acceptable competing offers (each, a \"Qualified Offer\") from one or more acceptable competing buyers (each, a \"Qualified Buyer\"). An auction may be conducted if the SO determines it would result in a higher and better offer or upon further order of the Bankruptcy Court. The SO shall have the final approval power after prior consultation with the Debtor. Bravo Luck and PAX, and subject to Bankruptcy Court approval with right to object by Bravo Luck and PAX, regarding the marketing and sale of the Residence, including the following:\n\nTo decide the sale process, whether through traditional means, private a. sale, auction, a combination thereof, or other process;\n\nb. To determine which potential buyers are Qualified Buyers;\n\nTo determine which offers are Qualified Offers; C.\n\nd. To schedule an auction and determine the auction process, if necessary, including break-up fees, required overbids and other procedures;\n\ne. To determine which Qualified Offer is the highest and otherwise best offer and which is the next highest and otherwise best offer;\n\nf. To reject any offer that is (i) inadequate or insufficient, (ii) not in conformity with the requirements of the Sales Procedures (as set forth in section 5 above) or the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, or (iii) contrary to the best interests of the Debtor and its estate;\n\ng. To waive any term and condition set forth herein with respect to any potential buyer;\n\nTo impose additional terms and conditions with respect to any potential h. buyer and the successful purchaser;\n\ni. To extend the deadlines set forth herein;\n\n1. To, except, as set forth herein, adjourn or cancel any auction and/or sale hearing without further notice;\n\nk. To modify the Sales Procedures; and/or\n\n1. To withdraw the Sale Motion at any time with or without prejudice.\n\n### Cose essessions books on Fified 8692672472 Eliterad only and en links of Revised Settlement Adreement Pg 7 of 12\n\n#### 7. Stay Relief, Maintenance, Fees and Other Terms.\n\nStay relief is granted to allow PAX to prosecute, and the Debtor to defend, a. the state court action currently pending in the New York Supreme Court under Docket No. 652077/2017 (the \"State Court Action\"), with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment entered against the Debtor in the State Court Action, pending further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon further notice to all Parties. Nothing herein shall be construed as an acknowledgment of the appropriate forum outside the bankruptcy court to address any such issues, with all Parties' rights expressly reserved.\n\nb. Nothing herein shall prejudice the rights of any party, including Bravo Luck and PAX to proceed with the BVI Litigation, provided that PAX, Bravo Luck, Kwok, Guo or any of his or its affiliates reserve the right to assert claims in the Bankruptcy Court relating to its status as a creditor of the Debtor, and PAX reserves all rights to oppose such claims on any grounds. In addition, notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights of any Party, including Bravo Luck and PAX, from proceeding with any and all claims, if any, against anyone, including Bravo Luck, Kwok, Guo, or any of his or its affiliates, and PAX or any of its affiliates, in BVI, State Court, or otherwise, and Bravo Luck and PAX reserve all rights to oppose such claims in the applicable forum.\n\nC. PAX shall withdraw its Conversion Motion expressly as provided below. PAX will not support or encourage a motion for the appointment of a trustee or conversion by any other party herein. However, notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, to the extent any substantive term of this Settlement is breached by the Debtor, Bravo Luck, Kwok, Guo, or any of their related entities, there shall be no limitation on PAX's right to renew or file its Conversion Motion, including appointment of a trustee, nor will there be any limitation upon the Debtor's or Bravo Luck's right to oppose such action on any ground, including inter alia, that such breach did not occur. To the extent PAX breaches any substantive term under this Agreement, then PAX shall have no further right to renew or file its Conversion Motion, including appointment of a trustee, provided however, that there shall be no limitations upon PAX's right to seek a Bankruptcy Court declaration that such breach did not occur. Other than as expressly provided for under this Agreement, all Parties' rights and remedies are expressly reserved.\n\nd. Recommendation and Appointment of the SO: In connection with execution of this Settlement Agreement, the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX have previously agreed upon Ms. Cyganowski as the designed SO. In the event that paragraph 27(D)(f) is triggered, then Bravo Luck and PAX shall designate a total of four candidates for consideration as the designed SO, two by Bravo Luck and two by PAX (total of four by all Parties) (the \"List\"). The Parties shall confer to select an agreed SO from such List. If an agreement on selection of an SO cannot be reached by the Parties, then the Bankruptcy Court shall appoint the SO from such List, unless the Court finds an irreconcilable conflict to exist, after which the Office of the United States Trustee, after\n\nconsultation with Bravo Luck and PAX, may submit recommendations to the Court for other independent and disinterested persons to serve as SO.\n\nStay relief is confirmed to allow the Sherry-Netherland to apply all accrued and owing post-petition maintenance fees and assessments as of the date hereof, and thereafter on a monthly basis, from the current security deposit, with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other purposes.\n\n8. Bankruptcy Court Approval. This Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court and shall only be effective and binding on and from the Effective Date. The Parties hereby agree to waive the 14-day appeal period with respect to the effect of the Approval Order. The Debtor shall request that the Bankruptcy Court make the Approval Order a final, non-appealable order immediately upon entry. Bravo Luck and PAX have and shall continue to take all reasonable steps to seek approval of the Settlement Agreement and entry of the Approval Order and defend against any objections to this Settlement Agreement or appeals from the Approval Order.\n\n9. Agreement are subject to the occurrence of the Effective Date. If the Bankruptcy Court declines to enter the Approval Order, or if the Approval Order is vacated or reversed on appeal, this Settlement Agreement shall be of no further force or effect, and each of the Parties' respective interests, rights, remedies and defenses shall be restored without prejudice as if this Settlement Agreement had never been formed and concluded/entered.\n\n10. Representations and Warranties. Each Party represents and warrants to the other Parties that: (a) it is authorized to execute and deliver this Settlement Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder; (b) each believes its own best interests are served by settling the matters encompassed by this Settlement Agreement, as provided in this Settlement Agreement; (c) no promise, agreement, inducement, representation, or warranty has been offered to any Party except as expressly provided in this Settlement Agreement; (d) this Settlement Agreement is not in violation of or in conflict with any other agreement of any Party; (e) this Settlement Agreement is executed voluntarily with full knowledge of the consequences and implications of the terms and obligations contained herein: (t) each Party has been represented by counsel of that Party's choice throughout the negotiations that preceded the execution of this Settlement Agreement, and in connection with the preparation and execution of this Settlement Agreement; (g) each Party has carefully and thoroughly reviewed this Settlement Agreement in its entirety and has resolved all questions concerning the meaning, legal nature, and binding effect of this Settlement Agreement with counsel of each Party's choosing; and (h) this Settlement Agreement is contractual and not merely recital, and that each Party has read, understands, and fully agrees to the terms of this Settlement Agreement.\n\n11. No Admission of Liability. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability or fault by any Party, and such liability and fault are expressly denied.\n\n### Cope 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Revised Settlement Adreement Pg 9 of 12\n\n12. Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute and deliver any document or instrument reasonably requested by another Party after the date of this Settlement to effectuate the intent of this Settlement Agreement.\n\n13. Assignment. No Party may assign any of its respective benefits, obligations or liabilities under or in respect of this Settlement Agreement without (a) the prior written consent of each other Party, which may be withheld in its absolute discretion, or (b) by order of the Bankruptcy Court.\n\n14. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each Party and its respective successors, heirs, estates and personal representatives.\n\n15. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a writing signed by a duly authorized representative of each Party hereto.\n\n16. Integration. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement are integrated, essential and non-severable terms of this Settlement Agreement.\n\n17. Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each such counterpart will constitute an original document and such counterparts, taken together, will constitute one and the same document. Electronically transmitted or facsimile copies shall be deemed to be originals.\n\n18. Headings. The headings of this Settlement Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference and do not define, limit or describe the scope of this Settlement Agreement or the scope or content of any of its provisions.\n\n19. Governing Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n20. Continuing Jurisdiction. The Bankruptcy Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation or enforcement of this Settlement Agreement.\n\n21. Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties regarding this Settlement and the subject matter thereof.\n\n22. Dual Construction. If any provision of this Settlement Agreement may be construed in two or more ways, one of which would render the provision invalid or otherwise voidable or unenforceable and another of which would render the provision valid and enforceable, such provision shall have the meaning that renders it valid and enforceable.\n\n23. provides that ambiguities in a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this Settlement Agreement because each Party drafted its terms, and all Parties waive applicability of such rule of construction in interpreting this Settlement Agreement.\n\n## College 22 2007 322 Fifted 8692472 Eller 2008 2622 16496 16 16496 16 00 Revised Settlement Agreement Pg 10 of 12\n\n24. Conferring Benefits. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to confer any benefit upon any person or entity, other than the Parties.\n\n25. Recitals. The recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.\n\n26. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in relation to this Settlement Agreement.\n\n27.\n\nA. J The Debtor is authorized to hire Ms. Cyganowski as an employee to serve as the designated SO under its Operating Agreement as amended and bylaws to carry out the specific duties and obligations set forth in this Settlement Agreement, and has hired Ms. Cyganowski pursuant to the Resolution.\n\nB. J. Ms. Cyganowski will be paid on an hourly basis predicated on a current billing rate of \\$1,400 per hour with all of her compensation to be treated as an administrative expense claim in accordance with Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor shall seek authorization to pay Ms. Cyganowski her fees and expenses in connection with an application to sell the Residence.\n\nC. The rights, duties and obligations of the SO shall be carried out without the necessity for further approvals from the Debtor's member(s) and manager(s) as such approvals have already been given by the Debtor in the exercise of its business judgment; provided, that, the SO shall report periodically to the Debtor's member(s) and manager(s); and approval of the highest and best offer for the sale of the Residence shall be subject to further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon notice.\n\nD. The Debtor's hiring of Ms. Cyganowski as the SO in accordance with this Settlement Agreement, as approved by the Bankruptcy Court, shall be subject to the following general limitations.\n\na. Ms. Cyganowski (and any agent and/or related entity) shall not act in any other capacity (for example, and without limitation, as a lawyer, counsel, financial advisor, examiner, trustee or investor/acquirer) in connection with the Chapter 11 Case.\n\nb. Solely upon written consent of the Debtor, Bravo Luck and PAX and by written motion to the Bankruptcy Court upon notice, the Debtor may seek to (i) have Ms. Cyganowski assume duties that are different than the functions envisioned in the Settlement Agreement, (ii) materially change the terms of the engagement, (iii) modify the functions provided thereunder, (iv) add new executive officers, or (v) altering or expanding the scope of the engagement (except neither Ms. Cyganowski nor Otterbourg P.C. shall provide legal services to the Debtor).\n\nNo principal or employee associated with Ms. Cyganowski shall serve as a C. director of the Debtor during the pendency of the above-captioned case.\n\n### Cope 22229976 Door 1921 Fifted 18924622 Felfosted 08926721164.26546 Pear Mark of Revised Settlement Agreement Pg 11 of 12\n\nd. any payment hereunder, the Debtor shall file or cause to be filed with the Bankruptcy Court and provide notice to parties having filed notices of appearance (the UST, Bravo Luck, and PAX) in this Chapter 11 Case, reports of Ms. Cyganowski's earned compensation and expenses.\n\ne. Ms. Cyganowski, and her agents, shall be entitled to advancement and indemnification by the Debtor's estate in like manner as any of the Debtor's officers for all judgments, costs, and expenses, including reasonable legal fees (which shall be paid under the indemnity after court approval as they arising from or related to any and all claims of whatsoever type brought against any of them in their capacity as SO or her agent, except for gross negligence, willful misconduct, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty determined by a final order no longer subject to appeal. Nothing herein shall limit any defenses of Ms. Cyganowski allowed by law or deprive her of indemnity for any act or omission for which she has a defense. Ms. Cyganowski shall be added to the Debtor's existing liability policy with AIG Property and Consulting Company as an additional insured.\n\nf. In the event of death, incapacity, resignation, or removal, a replacement SO shall be selected through the same process as the initial selection of the SO in accordance with this Settlement Agreement and further order of the Bankruptcy Court.\n\nE. J. Ms. Cyganowski, in consultation with the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck, shall make decisions in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement regarding the sale and marketing of the Residence, utilizing her business judgment and subject to Bankruptcy Court approval of the sale of the Residence pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §363(b) and (f), and 1123. The Debtor has amended the Operating Agreement to and hereby reconfirm (i) the hiring of Ms. Cyganowski as SO to carry out all of the duties and responsibilities as provided herein; (ii) that the Debtor cannot revoke Ms. Cyganowski's hiring and/or authority as SO without Bankruptcy Court approval; and (iii) that in the event of death, incapacity, resignation, or removal, a replacement SO shall be selected in accordance with this Settlement Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall divest the Debtor from its duties as a debtor-in-possession.\n\nF. To the extent there is inconsistency between the terms of this Settlement Agreement, the Motion, the Engagement Letter and the Order approving this Settlement Agreement, the terms of this Settlement Agreement shall govern.\n\n[Signatures on the following page]\n\n# Case 224 22 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 120 000 12\n\nDated: September 24, 2021\n\nGenever Holdings LLC\n\nBy: /s/Kevin J. Nash Kevin J. Nash Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP 1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022-5520 212-301-6944 KNash@gwfglaw.com Attorneys for Debtor, Genever Holdings, LLC\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\nBy: /s/ Douglas E Spelfogel Douglas E. Spelfogel Foley & Lardner LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-1314 212-682-7474 dspelfogel(@foley.com Attorneys for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund I . P\n\nBravo Luck Limited\n\nBy: /s/ Fran J. Lawall Francis J. Lawall Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 215-981-4000 Francis.lawall@troutman.com Attorneys for Bravo Luck Limited\n\n## Cope 2229973 Boc 13222 Filad 869914721 Felated 86926721 Ed Person Ferraine of Engagement Letter Pg 1 of 5\n\n\n\n230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 otterbourg.com 212 661 9100\n\nMelanie L. Cyganowski Member of the Firm mcyganowski@otterbourg.com 212 905 3677\n\nSeptember 24, 2021\n\nYanping Wang Duly Authorized Representative of Genever Holdings LLC The Sherry-Netherland 781 Fifth Avenue Unit 1801 New York, New York 10022\n\n#### Re: Genever Holdings LLC; Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\nDear Mr. Wang:\n\nOn October 12, 2020, Genever Holdings LLC (the \"Company\") filed for bankruptcy relief with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Court\"), Case No. 20-12411 (JLG) (the \"Bankruptcy Case\"). The Company is currently operating as a debtor in possession under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"). It is my understanding that on March 5, 2021, the Company filed a motion with the Court to approve a proposed settlement agreement by and among the Company, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") and Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") |Dkt. No. 62] (the \"First Settlement Motion\") and also filed a motion to retain me as a designated Sales Officer on behalf of the Company's bankruptcy estate [Dkt. Nos. 72, 73] (the \"First Retention Motion\"). On September 1, 2021, the Court denied the First Settlement Motion and the First Retention Motion. [Dkt. No. 123].\n\nIn accordance with my discussions with Kevin J. Nash, Esq., bankruptcy counsel for the Company, I have been informed that the Company will be filing a second revised motion seeking approval of a second amended and revised settlement agreement (the \"Proposed Settlement\") by and among the Company, PAX, and Bravo Luck Limited, and that the Company seeks to hire me as the Sales Officer in connection with the Bankruptcy Case pursuant to a revised employment letter. This letter serves to confirm the revised understanding and agreement \") between the Company and me concerning my employment as the Sales Officer and also serves to set forth the terms and conditions of the employment, including the scope of services to be performed and the structure of compensation for those services.\n\n#### Description of Services\n\n· In connection with this employment, I will serve as the Sales Officer on behalf of the Company with respect to the proposed sale (the \"Proposed Sale\") of the Company's ownership interest in the entire 18th floor apartment and auxiliary\n\n## Cope 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Engagement Letter Pg 2 of 5\n\nOtterbourg\n\nSeptember 24, 2021 Yanping Wang Page 2\n\n> units located at The Sherry-Netherland, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022 (the \"Residence\"), which interest according to the Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2, dated October 6, 2020 [Dkt. No. 1], is \"memorialized by approximately 3,000 shares of Sherry Netherland cooperative stock and corresponding proprietary leases\".\n\n- · As Sales Officer, I will have the powers and duties set forth in the Proposed Settlement (as approved by the Court), solely to control and oversee the sale of the Residence as provided under the Proposed Settlement without subjecting me to any other duties or responsibilities.\n- · Solely upon written consent of the Company, Bravo Luck and PAX, and on notice to the Office of the U.S. Trustee with an opportunity to object, the Company may seek to have me assume duties that are different than the functions provided herein, or to expand into other areas or altering or expanding the scope of the employment, which relief shall be sought by motion to modify the retention filed with the Court;\n- · The Company expressly authorizes the Sales Officer to carry out all such duties and obligations as provided under the Settlement Agreement without further action by the Company.\n\n#### Cooperation\n\n· The Company shall furnish to me and my agents all information in its possession or control relating to the Residence that the Company believes is relevant to the Proposed Sale of the Residence and shall furnish all information that I shall request in connection with my duties as Sales Officer.\n\n#### Limitation of Duties\n\n- · I do not make any representation or guarantee of the amount of sale proceeds, if any, that could be or will be generated from the sale of the Residence.\n- · I shall not be responsible, obligated or liable for the payment of any taxes, fees, costs, expenses, maintenance or charges related to the Residence or the Company, and such taxes, fees, costs, expenses, maintenance or charges shall be solely the responsibility, obligation and liability of the Company's bankruptcy estate.\n\nOtterbourg.\n\nSeptember 24, 2021 Yanping Wang Page 3\n\n- · I (and any agent and/or related entity) shall not act in any other capacity (for example, and without limitation, as a lawyer, counsel, financial advisor, examiner, trustee or investor/acquirer) in connection with the Chapter 11 Case. I shall not provide any legal advice to the Debtor\n- · The firm of Otterbourg P.C. is not being retained. Otterbourg P.C. makes no representations hereunder and will not incur any obligations hereunder.\n\n#### Compensation\n\n- · My services will be paid on an hourly basis predicated on my current billing rate of \\$1,400 per hour. The Company shall seek authorization to pay my fees and expenses in connection with an application for the sale of the Residence. In connection with any increases in my rates, I shall file a supplemental declaration with the Court and provide ten business days' notice to the U.S. Trustee prior to any increase in rates. The supplemental declaration shall set forth the requested rate increases, explain the basis for the requested rate increase, and certify that the Company has consented to the requested rate increases.\n- · Disbursements to be billed to the Company include, but are not limited to, nonlocal telephone calls, facsimile and other telecommunication charges, transportation, copying, delivery and messenger services, computerized research (billed at the actual cost of such research) if required, and other disbursements.\n- · All fees and expenses incurred by me will be based upon my actual time charges and disbursements recorded or incurred. For purposes of this employment, such fees and expenses shall accrue pending a sale of the Residence and will be promptly paid from the sale proceeds generated from the sale of the Residence following the filing of an application.\n- · All fees and expenses incurred and accrued by me will be treated and allowed in this Bankruptcy Case as administrative expenses in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code. A summary of all such charges as accrued, shall be filed with the Court, and provided to any parties having filed notices of appearance and the U.S. Trustee on a periodic basis.\n- · I (and my agents) shall be entitled to advancement and indemnification by the Company's bankruptcy estate in like manner as any of the Debtor's other officers for all judgments, costs, reasonable expenses, including legal fees (which shall be paid under the indemnity after court approval as they arising from or\n\n### Cope 22439973 Books 2222 Filmed 86924721-049696921212122546 Peganifil Penghifts Feganting Pennsible Pennsible Pennsible Pennsible Pennsible Pe Engagement 4 etter Pg 4 of 5\n\nOtterbourg.\n\nSeptember 24, 2021 Yanping Wang Page 4\n\n> related to any and all claims of whatsoever type brought against me in my capacity as Sales Officer, or my agents, except for gross negligence, willful misconduct, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty determined by a final order no longer subject to appeal. Nothing herein shall limit any defenses allowed by law or deprive me of indemnity for any act or omission for which I have a defense. I shall be added to the Debtor's existing liability policy with AIG Property and Consulting Company as an additional insured.\n\n#### Term\n\n· The employment will commence effective as of the date on which the Court enters an order approving my employment as Sales Officer on behalf of the Company and shall terminate upon the earlier of (i) the entry of a Court order dismissing the Bankruptcy Case, (ii) the entry of a Court order converting the Company's chapter 11 bankruptcy case to a case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and (iii) the entry of a Court order terminating my services as Sales Officer.\n\n#### Court Approval\n\n· The Company shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain prompt approval from the Court of my employment as Sales Officer on behalf of the Company. Such Court approval shall provide for the employment to be effective as of the date on which the Court enters an order approving my employment as Sales Officer and shall incorporate all of the terms herein.\n\n#### Miscellaneous\n\n· This Agreement, including, without limitation, the construction and interpretation thereof, and all claims, controversies and disputes arising under or relating thereto, shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to principles of conflict of law that would defer to the laws of another jurisdiction. The parties hereto agree to waive trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim brought by or on behalf of the parties hereto with respect to any matter relating to or arising out of the employment or the performance or non-performance of the Sales Officer hereunder. The parties hereto agree that the Bankruptcy Court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction to hear any dispute arising under this agreement and waive any and all personal rights under the law of any jurisdiction to object on any basis (including, without limitation, inconvenience of forum) to jurisdiction or venue in the Bankruptcy\n\n### Cope if 2009 g 1000 1022 Filmed 8002472 1 El Relevel 060 2422 104 26 00 100 000 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Engagement Letter Pg 5 of 5\n\nOtterbourg.\n\nSeptember 24, 2021 Yanping Wang Page 5\n\n> Court SDNY for any disputes and/or litigation arising in connection with this Agreement.\n\n· This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, successors, and assignees, including, without limitation, any Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 Trustee appointed.\n\nOn behalf of the Company, please confirm your agreement to this employment letter, by signing a copy of this letter on behalf of the Company and returning it to me. Of course if you have any questions or comments please call me to discuss them.\n\nVery truly yours,\n\n/s/ Melanie L. Cyganowski\n\nAGREED AND ACCEPTED:\n\n/s/ YANPING WANG\n\nDuly Authorized Representative of Genever Holdings LLC\n\nCC: Kevin J. Nash, Esq. (KNash(@GWFGLaw.com)\n\n| | 2
2
0
0
3
-5
7 | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|--|--|--|--|\n| H
W
K
k
IN
R
E:
o
a
n
w
o | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| 4
D
b
t
e
o
r | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | 8/
4/
20
22
A
dm
itt
ed
in
F
ul
l | | | | | |\n| | | P
.E | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n# Qase\\_22\\_59973 DdCQ4102 FilEllerbR889222\\_EgFerFeredR8892224.9649644Mark996cdffferff\neeffile9973 DdCQ4102 FiilEtterBoR88922\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC,\n\nCase No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\nDebtor.\n\n#### ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR'S SECOND RENEWED MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\n\nUpon the Debtor's renewed motion (ECF No 131) (the \"Renewed Motion\") of Genever Holdings LLC, (the \"Debtor\") seeking approval of a certain settlement agreement between the Debtor, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") and Bravo Luck Limited (\"Brayo Luck\") (ECF No. 62); and upon the opposition to the Renewed Motion filed by the Office of the U.S. Trustee via a motion for the appointment of an Operating Chapter 11 Trustee (ECF No. 64) (the \"UST Opposition\"); and upon the supplemental responses filed by the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck relating to the UST Opposition (ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106); and a series of hearings having been held before the undersigned; and upon the record compiled at these hearings; and the Court having considered the UST Opposition; and upon the September 1, 2021, decision (the \"September 1, 2021 Decision\") in which the undersigned determined that the Restated Settlement meets the standards of reasonableness and is supported by the creditors and major stakeholders in the Chapter 11 case, but denied the Renewed Motion due to issues relating to certain aspects of the proposed retention of Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq. and her firm, Otterbourg. P.C.; and, thereafter, the Settling Parties having agreed to the Second Amended and Revised Settlement Agreement between the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck (the \"Revised Settlement Agreement\") which addresses the concerns raised by the Court in its September 1, 2021 Decision as well as the objections of the U.S. Trustee, which no longer has any objections to the Revised\n\n# Gose 223 E99 3 D000402 Fileberb882422 Emeressed88895122416496 44 Main986cdfffent\nPartify 3 DRCF4102 File6698892122 Ext 2012 012\n\nSettlement Agreement and the terms of Melanie L. Cyganowski's employment as Sale Officer for the Debtor; and the Court having agreed to consider final approval of the Renewed Settlement by Notice of Presentment; and based upon the entirety of the record compiled at the various hearings; and good cause appearing therefor; it is hereby\n\nORDERED as follows:\n\n1. The Renewed Settlement Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. Jo The Revised Settlement Agreement is approved in all respects and shall become effective immediately upon the entry of this Order.\n\n3. J The Debtor's proposed employment of Melanie L. Cyganowski as Sale Officer shall be approved by separate Order to be noticed and entered simultaneously herewith.\n\n4. The UST Motion seeking the appointment of an Operating Trustee is adjourned sine die.\n\n5. Stay relief is granted to allow PAX to prosecute, and the Debtor to defend, the state court action currently pending in the New York Supreme Court under Docket No. 652077/2017 (the \"State Court Action\"), with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment entered against the Debtor in the State Court Action, pending further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon further notice to all Parties.\n\n6. The Lift Stay Motion and Conversion Motion filed by PAX are withdrawn as mooted by the approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement.\n\nDated: New York, New York October 8, 2021\n\names L. G.\n\nHon. James L. Garrity, Jr.\n\n| | | 2
2
0
0
3
-5
7 | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---|--|--|--|\n| H
W
K
k
IN
R
E:
o
a
n
w
o | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| D
e | b
t
o
r | | 5 | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | 8/
4/
20
22
A
dm
itt
ed
in
F
ul
l | | | | | |\n| | | P
.E | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n20-12411-ilg Doc 194 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 10:07:46 Main Document Pg 1 of 44\n\nPAIJI HASTINGS\n\nRECEIVED JUL 2 7 2022\n\n1 (212) 318-6001 lucdespins@paulhastings.com\n\nJuly 25, 2022\n\n#### VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL\n\nThe Honorable Judge James L. Garrity, Jr. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York One Bowling Green New York, New York 10004-1408 Email: garrity.chambers@nysb.uscourts.gov\n\n#### Re: In re Genever Holdings LLC, Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\nDear Judge Garrity:\n\nI am writing to you in my capacity as the chapter 11 trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok' pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Connecticut (the \"Connecticut Bankruptcy Court\"), Case No. 22-50073 (JAM).2\n\nAs you may already be aware, Mr. Kwok owns all of the equity in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\"), a British Virgin Island Corporation, which, in turn, wholly owns Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\"), which is a debtor in a chapter 11 case pending before your Honor, Case No. 20-12411 (JLG). Genever (US) is the registered owner of, among other things, an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland building in New York (the \"Sherry Netherland Apartment\"), which is currently the subject of a marketing and sale process in Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case before your Honor.3\n\nAs part of my efforts (in my capacity as the Trustee) to identify and collect assets for the benefit of Mr. Kwok's estate, on Saturday, July 23, 2022, I filed the attached motion in the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court seeking entry of an order confirming that the Trustee holds all of Mr. Kwok's economic and governance rights, for the benefit of Mr. Kwok's estate, with respect to all corporate entities owned and/or controlled by Mr. Kwok, including, without limitation, Genever (BVI) (the \"Corporate Governance Rights Motion'), as well as requesting related relief. Concurrently with the filing of the Corporate Governance Rights Motion, I also filed a motion requesting expedited consideration of such motion. Today, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to expedite, setting a hearing on the Corporate Governance Rights Motion for Monday, August 1, 2022.4\n\nAs made clear in Corporate Governance Rights Motion is not an attempt to request\n\nany relief with respect to the chapter 11 case of Genever (US), including any modification of the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement,\n\n- Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases.\n- 2 I was appointed as the Trustee in Mr. Kwok's case by order of the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, dated July 8, 2022.\n- 3 The identity of the true owner of the Sherry-Netherland Apartment is presently subject to dispute.\n- 4 Copies of the Corporate Governance Rights Motion to expedite, and the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court's order granting the motion to expedite are enclosed with this letter. For the ease of your review, I have highlighted the relevant sections related to Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case (as discussed futher below in this letter) .\n\nPaul Hastings LLP 1 200 Park Avenue | New York, NY 10166 t: +1.212.318.6000 I www.paumasiings.com\n\n20-12411-jig Doc 194 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 10:07:46 Main Document Pg 2 of 44\n\n## PAU HASTINGS\n\nJuly 25, 2022 Page 2\n\n> dated as of September 24, 2021 . . . Nor should the requested relief, if granted, be deemed to authorize the Trustee to take any particular action with respect to Genever (US) in its chapter 11 cases, with respect to which the Trustee will seek relief from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York . . . , as may be appropriate.\n\nCorporate Governance Rights Motion at 2 n.3 (emphasis added). Moreover, the proposed order attached as Exhibit A to the Corporate Governance Rights Motion explicitly provides that \"[n]othing in this Order shall be deemed to authorize any particular action with respect to Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") in its chapter 11 case pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Genever Court\").\" Corporate Governance Rights Motion, Proposed Order (Ex. A) ¶ 7. The proposed order also made clear that I \"shall appear before, and seek guidance from, the Genever Court to the extent the Trustee's exercise of corporate governance rights with respect to Genever (US) would impact its chapter 11 case.\" Id.\n\nNor is it my intention to interfere with the ongoing sales process in Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case before your Honor. I expressly made that point in the Corporate Governance Rights Motion. Id. at 5 n.6.\n\nI understand that your Honor has scheduled a status conference in Genever (US)'s chapter 11 case for August 16, 2022, which I would like to attend, but, unfortunately, I am not available on that date and would ask that the status conference be rescheduled for a date on or after August 22, 2022.\n\nPlease let me know if you have any questions regarding any of the foregoing.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nLuc A. Despins\n\nChapter 11 Trustee\n\ncc: Kevin J. Nash, Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP, Email: kjnash@gwfglaw.com Francis J. Lawall, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Email: Francis.lawall@troutman.com Melanie L. Cyganowski, Otterbourg P.C., Email: mcyganowski@otterbourg.com\n\nEnclosures","body_zh":"案件 22-50073 文件 702 提交于 08/04/22 登记于 08/05/22 16:02:44 第 1 页，共 167 页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国破产法院康涅狄格州地区布里奇波特分院）\n债务人 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）的证据材料清单\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nECF 编号 598 – 请求裁定确认第 11 章受托人持有债务人在其控制实体中的全部经济权利及公司治理权利；授权第 11 章受托人代表破产财团在任何外国行事；以及给予相关救济的动议\n\n听证日期：August 4, 2022\n提交证据材料方：债务人，郭文贵\n\n律师：Eric A. Henzy（埃里克·A·亨齐）\n\n证据材料编号 说明 ID/完整本 提交 证人\n\n日期\n关于债务人资产和负债清单及财务状况说明书的总体说明、限制、方法和免责声明 完整本 8/4/2022\n1\n\n郭文贵先生为支持第 11 章案件及若干动议所作的声明 完整本 8/4/2022\n2\n\n债务人第二次续提的综合动议：(i) 请求批准与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）及 PAX（PAX）的第二次修订和重述和解协议；以及 (ii) 请求聘用 Melanie L. Cyganowski（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基）作为雇员，仅担任债务人破产财团的出售主管 完整本 8/4/2022\n3\n\n准许债务人第二次续提动议以批准经修订和解协议的裁定 完整本 8/4/2022\n4\n\n第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平）致 James L. Garrity, Jr.（小詹姆斯·L·加里蒂）尊敬法官、日期为 July 25, 2022 的信函 完整本 8/4/2022\n5\n\n上诉于 . 提出。勾选的证据材料已于 . 提交给地区法院。证据材料副本已由破产法院留存。\n\n-5\n关于：\n郭文贵\n债务人\n8/4/2022\n全部准许作为证据\nP.E.\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 702 提交于 08/04/22 登记于 08/05/22 16:02:44 第 3 页，共 167 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 77 提交于 03/09/22 登记于 03/09/22 23:25:16 第 1 页，共 25 页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国破产法院康涅狄格州地区布里奇波特分院）\n\n发机机场直营网易营营官网官网官网官网申博官网登录网址登录网址官网申博官网申博官网申博官网官网登录官网登录网址登录网址登录网址登录网址登录网址登录 皇冠\n\n关于： ：第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， ：案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n关于债务人资产和负债清单及财务状况说明书的总体说明、限制、方法和免责声明\n\nHo Wan Kwok（以下简称“债务人”）根据《美国法典》第 11 编第 11 章第 521 条（以下简称“破产法典”）以及《联邦破产程序规则》第 1007 条（以下简称“破产规则”），向康涅狄格州地区破产法院（以下简称“破产法院”）提交其资产和负债清单（每份称为“一份清单”，合称“清单”）及财务状况说明书（以下简称“SOFA”）。\n\n本关于债务人资产和负债清单及 SOFA 的总体说明、限制、方法和免责声明（统称“总体说明”）涉及全部清单及 SOFA，均以援引方式纳入其中，并构成其不可分割的组成部分。除下文就特定清单及 SOFA 所列的具体说明（以下简称“具体说明”，与总体说明合称“说明”）外，另有本总体说明。\n\n审阅清单及 SOFA 时，应参照并援引总体说明。债务人在其顾问及其他专业人士的协助下编制了清单及 SOFA。清单及 SOFA 未经审计，并可能作出调整。债务人在编制清单及 SOFA 时，依赖于编制时可获得的信息。债务人已作出合理努力，以确保在当时情形下清单及 SOFA 尽可能准确和完整；但是，后续信息或发现可能导致清单及 SOFA 发生重大变更，且其中可能存在无意的错误或遗漏。\n\n债务人保留随时在所有方面修订或补充清单及 SOFA 的一切权利，包括为必要或适当之目的进行修订或补充的权利；以及就清单及 SOFA 所反映的任何债权之金额、责任或分类提出异议、主张抵销或抗辩，或随后以其他方式将任何债权指定为“有争议”“或有”或“未确定金额”的权利。此外，清单、SOFA 或说明中的任何内容，均不构成债务人对其第 11 章案件相关权利的放弃，亦不构成任何承认。\n\n总体说明\n\n1. 案件说明。于 February 15, 2022（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据破产法典第 11 章启动了一宗自愿案件。\n\n2. 债务人的别名。债务人还以下列姓名为人所知：Guo Wengui；Miles Guo；Miles Kwok；以及 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n3. 列报基础。清单及 SOFA 并不意图构成依照美国公认会计原则（“GAAP”）编制的财务报表。清单及 SOFA 反映债务人为报告其资产和负债所作出的合理努力。\n\n4. 报告日期。除非另有说明，清单 A 和 B 中所报告的资产价值与申请日的资产价值一致，清单 D、E 和 F 中的负债价值均截至申请日。\n\n5. 准确性。此处披露的财务信息并非依照联邦或州证券法或其他适用的非破产法编制。交易、购买、出售或以其他方式转让针对债务人的债权的个人和实体，应结合编制该等财务信息的目的和背景评估该财务信息。债务人不对任何与证券法的差异，或基于该财务信息或任何其他信息对债务人作出的任何评估承担责任，亦不承诺指出该等差异。\n\n6. 估计和假设。编制清单及 SOFA 要求债务人作出估计和假设，该等估计和假设影响某些资产和负债的报告金额、某些或有资产和负债的披露以及收入和费用的报告金额。实际结果可能与该等估计存在重大差异。在几乎所有情况下，债务人均未保存或无法轻易取得当前市场估值。为所有资产取得当前市场估值将产生高得难以承受的费用、造成不当负担，并且会低效地使用资源。必要时，债务人已将某些资产的价值标示为“未知”或“未确定”。最终实现的金额可能与估计价值存在重大差异。\n\n7. 货币。除非另有说明，清单及 SOFA 中所示全部金额均以美元计。\n\n8. 债务人保留权利。清单、SOFA 或说明中的任何内容，均不构成对与本第 11 章案件有关之权利的放弃，包括但不限于下列权利：\n\na. 未将清单及 SOFA 中列示的债权指定为“有争议”“或有”或“未确定金额”，并不构成债务人承认该金额并非“有争议”“或有”或“未确定金额”。债务人保留就其清单所反映的任何债权之金额、责任及分类提出异议，以及主张抵销权、反诉和抗辩的权利，并保留随后以其他方式将任何债权指定为“有争议”“或有”或“未确定金额”的权利。\n\nb. 将清单 D 中的债权列为“有担保”，将清单 E 中的债权列为“优先”，将清单 F 中的债权列为“无担保优先”，或将清单 G 中的合同或租约列为“待履行”或“未届满”，均不构成债务人承认债权人的法律权利，亦不构成债务人放弃根据清单修订、债权异议或其他方式重新界定或重新分类该等债权或合同的权利。此外，尽管债务人可能为提供信息之目的将不同债权人的债权列为有担保债权，但尚未对该等债权人可能在其中享有担保权益的债务人资产进行当前估值。债务人保留对任何该等债权人债权的有担保性质或金额、任何交易结构的定性，或与该等债权人债权有关的任何文件或文书提出异议和质疑的一切权利。\n\nc. 个别债权人的债权可能未反映该等债权人应向债务人提供的贷记、津贴或其他调整。债务人保留与该等贷记、津贴和其他调整有关的一切权利，包括就其提出债权异议和／或抵销的权利。\n\nd. 虽然债务人已作出合理努力以确保其清单及 SOFA 的准确性，但其中仍可能包含错误和遗漏。债务人特此保留对清单及 SOFA 所列任何合同、协议和租约的有效性、状态和可执行性提出异议的一切权利，并保留在必要时修订和补充清单及 SOFA 的权利。\n\ne. 债务人进一步保留与清单及 SOFA 所列合同和协议有关的一切权利、请求权和诉因，包括但不限于对与债权人债权有关的任何交易、文件和文书的定性或结构提出异议和质疑的权利。\n\nf. 在清单及 SOFA 中列示合同或租约，不得视为承认该合同为待履行合同、该租约为未届满租约，或两者中任一者必然是具有约束力、有效且可执行的合同。债务人特此明确保留主张清单及 SOFA 中所列任何合同并非破产法典第 365 条含义内的待履行合同的权利，以及主张其中所列任何租约并非破产法典第 365 条含义内的未届满租约的权利。\n\n9. 总体说明优先。如清单或 SOFA 与任何总体说明不一致，应以总体说明为准。\n\n具体说明\n\n除上述内容外，债务人在编制清单及 SOFA 时采用了下列惯例：\n\n1. 附表 A/B。\n\na. 一般规定。在与债务人资产有关的某一项目显示价值为“\\$0.00”的范围内，债务人说明，该金额或者为“未知”，或者为“未确定”，且该“\\$0.00”标示并不构成承认该等资产事实上价值为“\\$0.00”。由于某些资产或负债标示为“\\$0.00”，附表 A/B 中的汇总项目反映的总额可能低于该等资产或负债的最终价值。\n\nb. 问题 1：您是否拥有或对任何住宅、建筑物、土地或类似财产享有任何法定或衡平法上的权益？\n\ni. 债务人享有对位于 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831 的不动产（以下简称“住宅”）的使用和居住权。债务人对该住宅不享有法定所有权，且任何法院均未裁定债务人对该住宅享有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法权益还是其他权益。与该住宅有关的所有成本和费用均由家庭成员及家庭控制的企业直接支付。该住宅由 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司，以下简称“Greenwich Land”）所有。Greenwich Land 的唯一成员为债务人的配偶。\n\nii. 债务人还可使用位于 Sherry-Netherlands Hotel（谢里-荷兰酒店）, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 的一套公寓（以下简称“公寓”）。该公寓的合作公寓股份由 Genever Holdings LLC（吉纳维尔控股有限责任公司，以下简称“US SPV”）持有。US SPV 的成员权益由 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉纳维尔控股公司，以下简称“BVI Company”）持有。债务人持有 BVI Company 的全部股权；但根据日期为 February 17, 2015 的《信托声明及协议》（以下简称“Trust Date”），债务人为 Bravo Luck Limited（卓运有限公司，以下简称“Apartment Owner”）以信托方式持有该等股权。债务人的儿子拥有 Apartment Owner 的股权。在 Trust Date 当日或前后，Apartment Owner 向 US SPV 注入购买该公寓的价款。该等资金来自债务人儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非债务人。\n\nUS SPV 于 October 12, 2020 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院）自行启动了第 11 章案件（Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)）。US SPV 就其重组计划提交的披露声明称，US SPV“在主要涉及 Bravo Luck Limited . . . 与 [Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX”）]之间就该住宅实益所有权产生的多项法院争议的情况下，寻求第 11 章救济。”. [Docket No. 165]。在旨在确定该公寓所有权的诉讼中，Apartment Owner 主张其为该公寓的实益所有人。该公寓的最终所有权将在 US SPV 的第 11 章案件之外得到解决。在英属维尔京群岛法院，PAX 基于其针对债务人的判决（该判决仍在上诉中），寻求移交 US SPV 的成员权益。\n\n该公寓目前由 US SPV 的出售官 Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq.（梅拉妮·L·赛加诺夫斯基律师）授权 Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际地产）推向市场出售。基于上述原因，债务人未将该公寓的价值申报为资产。\n\nc. 问题 3：您是否拥有、租赁或对任何车辆享有法定或衡平法上的权益，无论其是否已登记？汽车、厢式货车、卡车、拖拉机、运动型多用途车、摩托车。债务人可使用汽车，包括豪华汽车和摩托车。债务人对任何类型的任何车辆均不享有法定所有权，且任何法院均未裁定债务人对任何该等车辆享有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法权益还是其他权益。与该等车辆有关的所有成本和费用均由家庭成员及家庭控制的企业直接承担。\n\nd. 问题 4：您是否拥有、租赁或对任何车辆享有法定或衡平法上的权益，无论其是否已登记？船只、航空器、房车、全地形车及其他休闲车辆、其他车辆和配件。债务人此前可使用一艘名为“Lady May”的游艇。Lady May 由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）所有，该公司由债务人的女儿拥有。Lady May 目前停泊在欧洲港口。债务人目前无法使用 Lady May，且已超过一年无法使用 Lady May。\n\n在 PAX 针对债务人提起的纽约州最高法院诉讼中，债务人对 Lady May 的所有权和/或控制权提出争议；该诉讼系 PAX 就其启动的制裁及藐视法庭程序作出回应而提起。在 February 9, 2021 举行证据听证后，Barry Ostrager 法官（巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）作出认定（以下简称“February 9 Decision”），其中包括，证据证明债务人“实益拥有并控制”Lady May。债务人不同意 February 9 Decision，并已就其提起上诉。由于上诉尚待审理（目前处于中止状态），债务人未将 Lady May 列为其破产财团的资产。然而，如 Lady May 被列为其破产财团的资产（债务人预计该问题将通过本第 11 章案件解决），其可能具有重大价值——2015 年，Lady May 的售价为 €28 million。\n\ne. 问题 6——家庭用品和家具。住宅和公寓内存有大量符合个人及家庭用品定义的物品。除本文件另有规定外，债务人对住宅或公寓内的物品均不享有法定所有权，且任何法院均未裁定债务人对任何该等物品享有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法权益还是其他权益。\n\nf. 问题 7：电子产品——电视、收音机、音频、视频等。住宅和公寓内存有大量符合电子产品定义的物品，包括但不限于电脑、手机和广播设备。除本文件另有规定外，债务人对住宅或公寓内的物品均不享有法定所有权，且任何法院均未裁定债务人对任何该等物品享有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法权益还是其他权益。\n\ng. 问题 8：有价值的收藏品。住宅或公寓内任何符合该类别定义的物品均为家庭成员或家庭控制企业的财产。除本文件另有规定外，债务人对住宅或公寓内的物品均不享有法定所有权，且任何法院均未裁定债务人对该等物品享有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法权益还是其他权益。\n\nh. 问题 9：体育或爱好设备。住宅或公寓内任何符合该类别定义的物品均为家庭成员或家庭控制企业的财产。除本文件另有规定外，债务人对住宅或公寓内的物品均不享有法定所有权，且任何法院均未裁定债务人对任何该等物品享有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法权益还是其他权益。\n\ni. 问题 11：衣物。债务人拥有商务和休闲衣物，包括来自不同制造商的西装、鞋和运动鞋，其中包括高端品牌。\n\nj. 问题 17：货币存款。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，以下简称“High Court”）作出了一项日期为 October 18, 2018 的《禁止在香港及其他地区处置资产的限制令》（以下简称“Restraint Order”）。Restraint Order 规定，其效力持续至并包括 April 30, 2019，并明确其将依据 High Court 于 May 3, 2019 作出的进一步命令继续有效。Restraint Order 的效果是冻结据称属于债务人的 HK\\$3.7 million 资金。此外，据称受债务人“有效控制”的个人和实体（根据 Restraint Order）的数十亿资金和财产，包括位于香港的不动产，亦被冻结和/或扣押。由于该等资产被冻结/扣押，债务人未将其列入其破产财团。\n\nk. 问题 18：债券、共同基金或公开交易股票。为谨慎起见，债务人请您参阅附表 B 注释，问题 17。\n\nl. 问题 19：非公开交易股票，或在已注册及未注册企业、有限责任公司、合伙企业或合资企业中的权益。债务人是两家受控外国公司的唯一股东：Shiny Times Holdings Ltd.（盛世控股有限公司，以下简称“Shiny Times”）和 Well Origin Ltd.（威源有限公司，以下简称“Well Origin”）。基于下列原因，债务人未赋予其在该等实体中的权益任何价值。\n\ni. 在 September 和 October 2017，中国政府突击搜查了 Shiny Times 的办公室，并扣押了全部公司会计记录和许多个人财务记录。此后无法获取该等记录。对银行账户的在线访问被冻结，且没有可用的数据副本或备份。债务人已尽一切合理努力获取该等数据，但自扣押以来，始终未能取得该公司的财务记录。Shiny Times 自此一直处于非经营状态。债务人自 November 2, 2017 起未再控制 Shiny Times。\n\nii. 关于在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的 Well Origin，April 2018，由于贷款违约，UBS（瑞银集团）取得了其作为担保品持有的 Well Origin 股份的控制权。在取得 Well Origin 的股份并出售其资产后，UBS 将该公司置于英属维尔京群岛清算程序中。债务人自 December 31, 2017 起未再控制 Well Origin。\n\n如上文针对声明问题 1 所述，债务人持有 US SPV 的成员权益。债务人为 Apartment Owner 以信托方式持有该等成员权益。\n\n另请参阅附表 B 注释，问题 17，涉及受 Restraint Order 约束的众多实体；以及 SOFA，问题 9，涉及 Eastern Profit（定义见下文）。\n\nm. 问题 20：政府和公司债券及其他可转让和不可转让票据。债务人已收到来自 United States Treasury（美国财政部）和 State of New York Department of Taxation and Finance（纽约州税务和财政部）的所列退款支票。该等支票尚未兑付，且因其签发已超过六个月，如予存入，可能被拒付。\n\nn. 问题 22：保证金和预付款。就取得该公寓而言，US SPV 向与该公寓有关的合作公寓支付了 \\$5 million 的保证金（以下简称“Apartment Security Deposit”），用于支付税款及其他维护费用。Apartment Owner 并非以债务人的资产出资支付 Apartment Security Deposit。US SPV 停止定期支付其维护费用后，该合作公寓开始以保证金抵扣到期应付款项。据了解和相信，原 Apartment Security Deposit 中尚余约 \\$2.065 million。由于上文针对问题 1 所述的信托安排，债务人未将剩余 Apartment Security Deposit 的价值列为其破产财团的资产。\n\no. 问题 25：信托、财产上的衡平法或未来权益，以及为您的利益行使的权利或权力。参见附表 B 注释，问题 17、19 和 22。\n\np. 问题 26：专利、版权、商标、商业秘密及其他知识产权。债务人就发布于 YouTube、GTV、Twitter 和 GETTR 等各种数字及媒体平台的音乐和视频，可能享有未注册版权及其他知识产权权益。债务人未对其社交媒体资产赋予任何价值，且未试图将其社交媒体影响力变现。\n\nq. 问题 30：他人欠您的其他款项。关于债务人正主张请求权的诉讼之识别，请参阅 SOFA 注释，第 4 部分，问题 9。\n\n此外，在某些司法辖区，事项中的胜诉方有权获得其费用的补偿。在英格兰及威尔士高等法院商业与财产法院王座法庭商事法庭审理中的 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（王牌十年控股有限公司）及 Dawn State Limited（曙光州有限公司）诉 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团股份公司〔伦敦分行〕）一案中，债务人可能与其他原告一同有权获得与近期管辖权争议有关的费用补偿。法院裁定向该诉讼全体原告支付的金额为 £94,292.20。债务人对该金额按比例享有的权利尚未确定。此外，法院已准许被告提出上诉，且上诉成功可能导致原告被命令偿还法院裁定支付的金额。\n\n在美国弗吉尼亚东区联邦地区法院审理中的 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）诉 Baosheng Guo（郭宝胜）一案中，债务人的律师已收到判决裁定支付给债务人的 $12,000。\n\nr. 问题 31：保险单权益。债务人受其配偶的健康保险单保障，该保险单不具有现金价值。\n\ns. 问题 33：对第三方的债权，无论是否已提起诉讼或提出付款要求。债务人是 SOFA 注释第 4 部分问题 9 所列某些诉讼中的请求人。\n\nt. 问题 37：对任何与企业相关财产的法定或衡平权益。见上文附表 B 注释问题 17 和 19。\n\nu. 问题 39：办公设备、家具或用品。本类别中不存在任何未由上文附表 B 注释问题 6 和 7 的答复涵盖的内容。\n\nv. 问题 42：合伙企业或合资企业权益。见附表 B 注释问题 17 和 19。\n\nw. 问题 53：尚未列明类别的财产。债务人被列为其家人在位于佛罗里达州棕榈滩的 The Mar-a-Lago Club 的会员资格所对应的会员。该会员资格自 2015 年起一直有效。债务人不负责支付会员费，也无权在会员资格终止时获得对先前可能已支付的任何保证金的退款。\n\n附表 C。2。\n\na. 债务人目前未列明任何豁免财产。但是，如在破产程序进行期间认定债务人拥有除其衣物和其犬只之外的资产，债务人保留修改该等豁免选择的权利。\n\n附表 D。3。\n\na. 根据债务人目前可获得的信息，债务人认为附表 D 准确反映了对债务人享有有担保债权的所有债权人。如债务人发现存在任何额外的有担保债权，债务人可据此修改附表 D 以反映该等债权。\n\nb. 债务人保留修改附表 D 的一切权利，只要债务人确定任何债权应在附表 D 中报告。本文任何内容均不得解释为债务人承认请求人的合法权利，不得视为对任何协议条款的修改或解释，亦不得视为债务人放弃将任何债权或合同重新定性或重新分类的权利。\n\nc. 债务人未在附表 D 中列入可能认为其债权通过抵销权或未完善的法定留置权获得担保的当事人。\n\nd. 除非另有约定或破产法院命令，债务人保留对据称在债务人任何有担保债权人的任何特定资产上设定或完善的任何留置权的有效性、完善性或不受撤销影响的豁免性提出异议或质疑的一切权利。此外，债务人保留对任何该等债权人债权的有担保性质，或对任何该等交易或与该等债权人债权有关的任何文件或文书的结构定性提出异议或质疑的一切权利。\n\ne. 债务人是诉讼融资协议（“Litigation Funding Agreements”）的一方，根据该等协议，债务人向债务人之子拥有或控制的若干实体（各称“诉讼融资方”）质押了包括若干债权及其收益在内的担保权益。债务人不认为该等担保权益已获完善。\n\n附表 E/F。4。\n\na. 债务人已作出合理努力，在附表 E/F 中报告针对其的所有无担保债权。附表 E/F 所列债权在不同日期产生或发生。在某些情况下，债权产生之日是一个尚未确定的事实问题。尽管已作出合理努力以确定每项债权的发生日期，但确定附表 E/F 中每项债权发生或产生的日期将造成不当负担且成本过高。\n\n因此，尽管债务人未对附表 E/F 所列每项债权提供日期，但据债务人所知，附表 E/F 所列全部债权均在申请日之前产生或发生。\n\nb. 债务人保留在适用情况下主张任何该等债权为或有、金额未确定和／或有争议的权利。\n\nc. 债务人保留主张附表 E/F 所列任何债权不构成《破产法》第 507 条规定的优先债权，因此构成无担保非优先债权的权利。\n\nd. 个别债权人的债权可能未反映债权人应向债务人给予的抵扣和／或让步。债务人保留关于任何该等抵扣和／或让步的一切权利，包括就此提出异议和／或抵销的权利。\n\ne. 附表 E/F 可能包括涉及债务人的未决诉讼或法律行动。该等未决诉讼或法律行动亦在对 SOFA 问题 7 的答复中反映。在所有情况下，诉讼标的金额均不确定或尚未确定。债务人认为，与任何该等未决诉讼相关的任何潜在债权金额均为或有、金额未确定且有争议。将任何诉讼列入附表和／或 SOFA 或以其他方式列入，并不构成承认该等诉讼中所主张的责任。\n\nf. 在已知范围内，附表 E/F 列示待履行合同及未届满租赁的相对方在申请日前应付的金额。然而，该等申请日前金额可与待履行合同或未届满租赁的承继，或承继并转让有关而获得支付。此外，附表 E/F 未包括如有的话，可能被拒绝履行的待履行合同及未届满租赁相对方的潜在拒绝履行损害赔偿债权。\n\n附表 G。5。\n\na. 虽然债务人已作出合理努力识别并列明待履行合同及未届满租赁，但可能发生无意的错误或遗漏。债务人保留对附表 G 所列任何合同、协议或租赁的有效性、状态或可执行性提出异议的一切权利，并保留在必要时修改或补充附表 G 的权利。其中列明的合同、协议和租赁可能已届满，或不时经各种修正、重述、豁免、禁止反言证明书、信函、备忘录及其他可能未列于其中的文件、文书和协议予以修改、修订或补充。\n\nb. 在附表 G 中列有某项合同或协议，并不构成承认该合同或协议的存在、有效性或可执行性，或承认该合同或协议为待履行合同或未届满租赁；而未将某项合同或协议列入附表 G，也不构成承认该合同或协议不存在。债务人保留关于附表 G 所列合同和协议的一切权利、债权及诉因，包括对任何交易文件或文书的定性或结构提出异议或质疑的权利。某些待履行协议可能未以书面形式记载，并可能存在争议。\n\n附表 H。6。\n\na. 债务人涉及未决或可能提起的诉讼。这些事项可能涉及多名原告和被告，其中部分或全部可能对其他当事人提出交叉请求和反诉。由于所有该等债权均为或有、有争议和／或金额未确定，该等债权已在附表 F（并标注为或有、金额已确定且有争议）和 H 中列明。\n\n附表 I。7。\n\na. 债务人没有任何符合附表 I 中任何收入定义的收入。债务人确实获得由家庭成员及其控制的公司资助的住房、家庭及生活费用支持。与住房、家庭或生活费用有关的任何资金均不受资助来源的任何债权约束，且所有住房、家庭及生活费用资金均不存在偿还协议或偿还预期。债务人计划修改于 February 15, 2022 提交的表格 122B [Docket No. 3]，债务人在该表格中错误申报月收入为 $19,488.00。所述资金如本文所述，并未被适当定义或描述为收入。\n\n附表 J。8。\n\na. 与附表 I 中的报告一致，包括住房、家庭和生活费用在内的所有任何种类的费用，均由第三方家庭成员或其控制的公司资助。债务人不存在其个人负有责任的任何费用。如债务人的情况发生变化，债务人保留日后修改本附表的权利。\n\n关于债务人财务状况说明书（SOFA）的具体注释。9。\n\na. SOFA 问题 1。债务人及其配偶认为自己已婚，尽管他们没有中国出具的证明其婚姻关系的证书。该夫妇已共同生活超过 30 年，共同申报纳税，并育有两名子女。\n\nb. SOFA 问题 2。债务人此前自约 March/April 2015 起至 September 2015 止居住于该公寓，随后自 March/April 2017 起至 February 2020 止居住于该公寓。\n\nc. SOFA 问题 5。债务人没有任何符合本问题、表格 122B 或附表 I 中任何收入定义的收入。债务人确实获得由家庭成员及其控制的公司资助的住房、家庭及生活费用支持。与住房、家庭或生活费用有关的任何资金均不受资助来源的任何债权约束，且不存在有关偿还的任何预期或协议。债务人正在修改表格 122B，债务人在该表格中错误申报月收入为 $19,488.00。所述资金如本文所述，并未被适当定义或描述为收入。\n\nd. 财务状况说明书（SOFA）第6问。本类别所列专业费用由家人或家人控制的公司代债务人支付，并受诉讼资金协议的约束。之所以报告这些付款，是因为预期将从以诉讼解决为条件取得的任何收益中获得偿还。此外，债务人确实获得由家人及家人控制的公司资助的住房、家庭及生活费用支持。与住房、家庭或生活费用有关的任何资金均不受资金来源方任何请求权的约束，且不存在有关偿还的预期或协议。因此，该等资金未列入本清单。家人曾于申请提交后，即 February 16, 2022，无意中支付两笔款项，合计 \\$109,827.12。该等付款被视为赠与。\n\ne. 财务状况说明书第8问。债务人向诉讼资金提供方借款（见下文财务状况说明书第12问），以提起诉讼及应对诉讼。在某些情形下，与债务人儿子有关联的实体是该等诉讼的当事人。债务人无须对该等诉讼当事人产生的费用负责。如诉讼资金提供方无意中将该等第三方费用分摊给债务人，债务人拟对该等责任提出异议。\n\nf. 财务状况说明书第9问。债务人已尽合理最大努力确认所有涉及债务人的当前未决诉讼、调查及其他法律程序。然而，可能无意中出现某些遗漏。本问中列入任何法律程序，并不构成债务人承认任何责任、任何诉讼的有效性，或就任何法律程序相关请求可能产生的任何潜在请求权的金额，以及任何当前未决或未来可能产生的法律程序所导致的任何潜在请求权的金额及处理方式。债务人作为原告、被告或共同被告，是目前处于各个阶段的众多诉讼的当事人。所有为债务人利益发生的诉讼费用，均由家人控制的公司或通过各项诉讼资金协议提供资金，该等协议均列于附表G。\n\n纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）裁定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司，以下简称“Eastern Profit”）在其针对 Strategic Vision US LLC（美国战略愿景有限责任公司，以下简称“Strategic Vision”）提出的违约请求中胜诉，因此有权收取其针对 Strategic Vision 的 \\$1 million 判决款项；该法院顺带评论债务人与 Eastern Profit 之间所谓的关系，称该公司“实质上是”债务人及其家人的一家空壳公司。仅因此原因，债务人将该诉讼列入附表。Eastern Profit 由债务人的女儿拥有及控制，债务人对其在该公司拥有权益一事提出异议。\n\ng. 财务状况说明书第10问。见附表B注释第17问（受限制令约束的资产）及第19问（Shiny Times Holdings Ltd.（闪耀时代控股有限公司）和 Well Origin Ltd.（良源有限公司））。\n\nh. 财务状况说明书第12问。见附表B注释第1问（该公寓）、第17问（受限制令约束的资产）及第19问（Shiny Times Holdings Ltd. 和 Well Origin Ltd.）。\n\ni. 财务状况说明书第16问。在申请日之前，于 February 14, 2021 及 February 15, 2021，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）各收到 \\$500,000 的预付律师费。\\$1 million 预付律师费（“BR预付律师费”）的资金来源为 Lamp Capital LLC（灯资本有限责任公司，以下简称“Lamp”）。Lamp 向债务人出借 \\$1 million，债务人指示 Lamp 将贷款所得款项直接汇给 Brown Rudnick。\n\nj. 财务状况说明书第18问。在债务人第11章案件前两年内，债务人与诉讼资金提供方订立了诉讼资金协议。最近一份诉讼资金协议的日期为 November 8, 2021。根据诉讼资金协议，诉讼资金提供方同意就债务人为收取判决款或其所遭受损害赔偿所作的努力提供垫款贷款。诉讼资金协议规定，就债务人的基础请求权及诉讼收益向适用的诉讼资金提供方授予担保权益。\n\nk. 财务状况说明书第22问。债务人仍可使用该公寓。因此，他仍在该处存放某些衣物及个人物品。\n\nl. 财务状况说明书第23问。见财务状况说明书注释第12问。见附表注释第1、3、4、6、7、8、9及11问。债务人可使用该住所、各种车辆及符合个人和家庭物品定义的大量物品，该等财产位于该住所内。债务人对该住所、车辆或其内物品不具有法定所有权，且任何法院均未认定债务人对任何该等物品拥有任何其他权益，无论是衡平法上的权益还是其他权益。\n\nm. 财务状况说明书第27问。见附表B注释第17及19问。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 702 提交 08/04/22 录入 08/05/22 16:02:44 第16页，共167页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 77 提交 03/09/22 录入 03/09/22 23:25:16 第14页，共25页\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n债务人2\n\n（如共同申报，为配偶） 名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n美国康涅狄格地区破产法院\n\n案件编号 22-50073\n\n（如已知） 如属修正申报，请勾选\n\n官方表格107 个人申请破产财务状况说明书\n\n请尽可能完整、准确地填写。如两名已婚人士共同申报，双方均同等负责提供正确信息。如需更多空间，请在本表附上单独的纸张。在任何附加页顶部写明您的姓名及案件编号（如已知）。请回答每个问题。\n\n第1部分：提供有关您的婚姻状况及此前居住地的详细信息\n\n1. 您目前的婚姻状况为何？\n\nV 已婚\n\n未婚\n\n2. 在过去3年内，您是否曾居住在现住址以外的任何地点？\n\n否\n\nY 是。请列出您在过去3年内居住过的所有地点。请勿包括您目前居住的地点。\n\n债务人1此前地址： 债务人1在该处居住的日期 债务人2此前地址： 债务人2在该处居住的日期\n\n781 5th Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022 起止日期：\nMarch 2015 至\nMarch 2020 与债务人1相同 与债务人1相同\n起止日期：\n\n3. 在过去8年内，您是否曾与配偶或法律上的同等关系人在夫妻共同财产州或领地共同居住？（夫妻共同财产州及领地包括 Arizona、California、Nevada、New Mexico、Puerto Rico、Texas、Washington 和 Wisconsin。）\n\n是。请确保填写附表H：您的连带债务人（官方表格106H）。\n\nV 否\n\n第2部分：说明您的收入来源\n\n4. 在本年度或此前两个日历年度，您是否曾从受雇工作或经营企业中获得任何收入？请填写您从所有工作及所有企业获得的收入总额，包括兼职活动。如您共同申报，且有共同取得的收入，请仅在债务人1项下列出一次。\n\n否\n\n是。填写详细信息。\n\n债务人1\n\n收入来源 勾选所有适用项。\n\n总收入（扣除及排除前）\n\n债务人2\n\n收入来源 勾选所有适用项。总收入（扣除及排除前）\n\n4/19\n\n官方表格107\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 702 提交 08/04/22 录入 08/05/22 16:02:44 第18页，共167页\n\n案件 22-50073\n\n债务人1\n\nHo Wan Kwok\n\n案件编号（如已知）\n\n22-50073\n\n第4部分：确认法律程序、收回财产及止赎\n\n9. 在您申请破产前1年内，您是否为任何诉讼、法院程序或行政程序的当事人？\n\n列出所有该等事项，包括人身请求诉讼、离婚、追偿诉讼、亲子关系诉讼、扶养费或监护权变更，以及合同争议。\n\n否\n\n是。填写详细信息。\n\n案件名称\n\n案件编号 案件性质 法院或机构 案件状态\n\n见所附附表第9项 未决\n\n上诉中\n\n已结案\n\n10. 在您申请破产前1年内，您的任何财产是否被收回、止赎或扣押执行？\n\n勾选所有适用项，并填写下列详细信息。\n\n否。转至第11行。\n\nVI\n\n是。填写下列信息。\n\n债权人姓名及地址 说明财产 日期 财产价值\n\n说明发生的情况\n\n11. 在您申请破产前90日内，任何债权人（包括银行或金融机构）是否从您的账户中抵销任何金额，或因您欠有债务而拒绝付款？\n\nV 否\n\n是。填写详细信息。\n\n债权人姓名及地址 说明债权人采取的行动 采取行动的日期 金额\n\n12. 在您申请破产前1年内，您的任何财产是否由为债权人利益而指定的受让人、法院指定的接管人、保管人或其他官员占有？\n\n否\n\n是\n\n第5部分：列出特定赠与及捐款\n\n13. 在您申请破产前2年内，您是否给予任何人每人总价值超过 \\$600 的赠与？\n\nV 否\n\n是。填写每项赠与的详细信息。\n\n每人总价值超过 \\$600 的赠与 说明赠与 给予赠与的日期 价值\n\n您赠与的对象及地址：\n\n14. 在您申请破产前2年内，您是否向任何慈善机构作出总价值超过 \\$600 的赠与或捐款？\n\nV 否\n\n是。填写每项赠与或捐款的详细信息。\n\n总额超过 \\$600 的向慈善机构作出的赠与或捐款\n\n慈善机构名称\n\n地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州及邮政编码） 捐款日期 价值\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 702 提交 08/04/22 录入 08/05/22 16:02:44 第20页，共167页\n\n案号 22-50073 第 18 页，共 25 页\n\n债务人 1\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 案号（如已知） 22-50073\n\n第 8 部分：列出某些金融账户、金融工具、保险箱和储物单元\n\n20. 在您申请破产前 1 年内，是否有以您名义持有或为您利益而持有的任何金融账户或金融工具被关闭、出售、迁移或转让？\n\n包括支票账户、储蓄账户、货币市场账户或其他金融账户；存款证；以及银行、信用合作社、经纪行、养老基金、合作社、协会和其他金融机构中的股份。\n\nV 否\n\n是。请填写详细信息。\n\n金融机构名称及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 账号后 4 位 账户或金融工具类型 账户关闭、出售、迁移或转让日期 关闭或转让前的最后余额\n\n21. 您现在是否拥有，或在您申请破产前 1 年内是否曾拥有任何用于存放证券、现金或其他贵重物品的保险箱？\n\n否\n\nV 是。请填写详细信息。\n\n金融机构名称及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 还有谁可使用该保险箱？地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 说明内容物 您是否仍拥有该保险箱？\n\n22. 在您申请破产前 1 年内，您是否将财产存放于储物单元或您住所之外的其他地点？\n\n否\n\n是。请填写详细信息。\n\n储存设施名称及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 还有谁现在或曾经可使用该处？地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 说明内容物 您是否仍拥有该财产？\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）\n781 5th Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022 商务和休闲服装及其他家庭物品 否\n\nV 是\n\n第 9 部分：确认您为他人持有或控制的财产\n\n23. 您是否持有或控制由他人所有的任何财产？包括您从他人借用的任何财产，或您为他人信托持有的任何财产。\n\n否\n\n是。请填写详细信息。\n\n所有人姓名及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 财产位于何处？（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 说明财产 价值\n\n参见全球注释问题 23 \\$0.00\n\n第 10 部分：提供环境信息详情\n\n就第 10 部分而言，适用以下定义：\n\n- 环境法系指任何有关污染、污染物、有害或有毒物质、废弃物或材料向空气、土地、土壤、地表水、地下水或其他介质释放的联邦、州或地方法律或法规，包括管制清理此类物质、废弃物或材料的法律或法规。\n\n- 场地系指任何环境法所定义的任何地点、设施或财产，无论您目前是否拥有、经营或使用，或曾经拥有、经营或使用，包括处置场地。\n\n- 危险材料系指环境法界定为危险物质、有毒物质、危险材料、污染物、污染物质或类似术语的任何物品。\n\n无论何时发生，报告您知悉的所有通知、释放和程序。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 702 提交于 08/04/22 录入于 08/05/22 16:02:44 第 21 页，共 167 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n债务人 1 案号（如已知）\n\n22-50073\n\n24. 是否有任何政府单位通知您，您可能根据环境法承担责任、潜在承担责任，或可能违反环境法？\n\n否\n\nV 是。请填写详细信息。\n\n场地名称及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 政府单位及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 通知日期 环境法，如您知悉\n\n25. 您是否已将任何危险材料释放情况通知任何政府单位？\n\n否\n\n是。请填写详细信息。\n\n场地名称及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 政府单位及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 通知日期 环境法，如您知悉\n\n26. 您是否曾作为任何根据环境法进行的司法或行政程序的一方当事人？包括和解和命令。\n\n否\n\n是。请填写详细信息。\n\n案件名称 案号 法院或机构名称及地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 案件性质 案件状态\n\n第 11 部分：提供有关您的企业或与任何企业关系的详情\n\n27. 在您申请破产前 4 年内，您是否拥有企业，或与任何企业存在下列任何关系？\n\n[__] 作为独资经营者，或在某一行业、专业或其他活动中全职或兼职自营。\n\n__ 有限责任公司（LLC）或有限责任合伙企业（LLP）的成员。\n\n合伙企业的合伙人。\n\n公司的高级职员、董事或管理层高管。\n\n持有公司至少 5%有表决权证券或股权证券的所有人。\n\n否。以上均不适用。转至第 12 部分。\n\nY 是。勾选上文所有适用项，并就每一企业填写以下详情。\n\n企业名称 地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 说明企业性质 雇主识别号码\n\n请勿填写社会保障号码或 ITIN。 会计师或簿记员姓名 企业存续期间\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司） P.O. Box 3170\nTortola, British Virgin Islands Genever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）的控股公司 EIN： 自—至\n\nShiny Times Holdings, LTD（Shiny Times 控股有限公司）\n173 Des Voex Road Cntrl\n4/F Nan Fung Twr, R411\nHong Kong, 9990777 Hong Kong 投资载体 EIN：\nMICHAEL LI & CO.（李氏会计师事务所）, C/O HENRY WONG（黄亨利）\n19/F PROSPERITY TOWER, NO 39\nQUEENS ROAD CENTRAL\nHONG KONG 自—至 12/13/2007 至 12/31/2020\n\nWell Origin Limited（Well Origin 有限公司）\n173 Des Voex Road Cntrl\n4/F Nan Fung Twr, R411 投资载体 EIN：\nMICHAEL LI & CO.（李氏会计师事务所）, C/O HENRY WONG（黄亨利）\n19/F PROSPERITY TOWER, NO 39\nQUEENS ROAD CENTRAL\nHONG KONG 自—至 4/1/2010 至 12/31/2020\n\n官方表格 107\n\n债务人 1\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文件 702 提交于 08/04/22 录入于 08/05/22 16:02:44 第 22 页，共 167 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 77 提交于 03/09/22 录入于 03/09/22 23:25:16 第 20 页，共 25 页\n\n案号（如已知）22-50073\n\n金融机构、债权人或其他方。\n\n否\n\n是。请在下方填写详细信息。\n\n姓名 地址（门牌号、街道、城市、州和邮政编码） 28. 在您申请破产前 2 年内，您是否曾向任何人提供有关您企业的财务报表？包括向金融机构、债权人或其他方提供的所有财务报表。 出具日期\n\n第 12 部分：在下方签名\n\n我已阅读本《财务状况说明书》中的答复，并在伪证处罚的责任下声明，答复真实且正确。我理解，在破产案件中作出虚假陈述、以欺诈方式隐瞒金钱或财产，可导致最高 \\$250,000 的罚款，或最长 20 年的监禁，或两者并处。\n\n18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.\n\n债务人 2 签名\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n债务人 1 签名\n\n2/9\n\nV 否\n\n是 日期\n\n您是否附加了《个人申请破产财务状况说明书》（官方表格 107）的附页？\n\n您是否曾向非律师人员付款或同意付款，以协助您填写破产表格？\n\ny 否\n\n[] 是。人员姓名 __________________________________________________________________________________\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n第 11 章；案号 22-50073 [JAM]\n\n财务状况说明书——（问题 #6——在您申请破产前 90 天内，您是否向任何债权人支付合计 \\$600 或以上？）\n\n付款日期\n\n债权人名称 地址 1 地址 2 地址 3 城市 州 邮政编码 日期 金额 已付总额 尚欠金额 付款原因\n\nAndrew Sufner/Forensic Document Examinations, ILC（Andrew Sufner／法证文件检验公司） 220 East 57th Street Suite 200 New York NY 10022 12/20/21 \\$52,566.25 \\$52,566.25 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nSaker Hosteller LIP（Saker Hosteller 律师事务所） 45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York NY 10111 12/27/21 275,000.00 \\$275,000.00 \\$452,294.38 其他——专业服务\n\nClayman & Rosenberg LLP（Clayman & Rosenberg 律师事务所） 12/15/21 116,454.73\n\nClayman & Rosenberg LLP（Clayman & Rosenberg 律师事务所） 01/11/22 40,172.34\n\nClayman & Rosenberg LLP（Clayman & Rosenberg 律师事务所） 305 Madison Avenue Suite 650 New York NY 20165 02/16/22 89,508.91 \\$246,135.98 \\$13,899.04 其他——专业服务\n\nCounsel Press Inc.（Counsel Press 公司） 460 West 34th Street 4th Floor New York NY 10001 01/19/22 36,729.37 \\$36,729.37 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nEric Goldsmith MD, LLC（Eric Goldsmith 医学博士有限责任公司） 420 Madison Avenue Suite 1201 New York NY 10017 02/09/22 11,700.00 \\$11,700.00 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nForbes Hare（福布斯·黑尔） 12/10/21 27,032.01\n\nForbes Hare（福布斯·黑尔） Owomar Building, PO Box 4649 Road Town Tortola VG1110 British Virgin Islands 01/28/22 14,577.01 \\$41,609.02 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nGanfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer 律师事务所）\n\nGanfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer 律师事务所） 12/07/21 20,350.18\n\n12/31/21 22,753.02\n\nGanfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer 律师事务所） 360 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10017 01/09/22 14,129.22 \\$57,222.42 \\$560,133.05 其他——专业服务\n\nHarcus Parker（Harcus Parker 律师事务所） 7th Floor, Melbourne House 44-46 Aldwych London, WC20 4LL 02/09/22 109,780.43 \\$109,780.43 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nJanover LLC（Janover 有限责任公司） 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd Suite 516 Garden City NY 11530 12/10/22 29,164.95 \\$29,164.95 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nLawall & Mitchell HC（Lawall & Mitchell HC） 11/29/21 1,720.00\n\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC（Lawall & Mitchell 有限责任公司） 55 Madison Avenue 4th Floor Morristown NJ 07960 1/18/22 2,160.00 \\$3,880.00 \\$4,880.00 其他——专业服务\n\nPetrillo Klein & Boxer LLP（Petrillo Klein & Boxer 律师事务所） 12/17/21 65,848.00\n\nPetrillo Klein & Boxer LLP（Petrillo Klein & Boxer 律师事务所） 01/26/22 44,490.50\n\nPetrillo Klein & Boxer LLP（Petrillo Klein & Boxer 律师事务所） 655 Third Avenue 22nd Floor New York NY 10017 02/03/12 17,581.00 \\$127,919.50 \\$10,634.50 其他——专业服务\n\nRoy D. Simon（罗伊·D·西蒙） 01/12/22 48,708.00\n\nRoy D. Simon（罗伊·D·西蒙） 205 West End Avenue Suite SH New York NY 10023 01/18/22 9,523.20 \\$58,231.20 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nSchulman Bhattacharya, LLC（Schulman Bhattacharya 有限责任公司） 11/17/21 114,515.42\n\nSchulman Bhattacharya, LLC（Schulman Bhattacharya 有限责任公司） 11/19/21 94,033.12\n\nSchulman Bhattacharya, LLC（Schulman Bhattacharya 有限责任公司） 12/20/21 235,632.31\n\nSchulman Bhattacharya, LLC（Schulman Bhattacharya 有限责任公司） 6116 Executive Boulevard Suite 425 Bethesda MD 20852 02/09/22 256,061.00 \\$600,241.85 \\$173,987.48 其他——专业服务\n\nSelas Montbrial Avocats（Selas Montbrial 律师事务所） 10, Rue Cimarosa 75116 Paris, France 02/16/22 20,318.21 \\$20,318.21 \\$9,120.87 其他——专业服务\n\nThe Casper Firm（Casper 律师事务所） 11/17/21 77,934.00\n\nThe Casper Firm（Casper 律师事务所） 12/21/21 141,197.55\n\nThe Casper Firm（Casper 律师事务所） 01/26/22 125,663.00\n\nThe Casper Firm（Casper 律师事务所） 400 E. Pratt Street Suite 903 Baltimore, MD 22202 02/09/22 28,013.00 \\$372,807.55 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nThe Francis Firm PLLC（Francis 律师事务所 PLLC） 12/7/21 0000000\n\nThe Francis Firm PLLC（Francis 律师事务所 PLLC） 1/11/22 10,000.00\n\nThe Francis Firm PLLC（Francis 律师事务所 PLLC） 33 W 60th Street Floor 2 New York NY 10023 2/7/22 10,000.00 \\$30,000.00 \\$2,500.00 其他——专业服务\n\nU.S. Legal Support, Inc.（美国法律支持公司） 01/12/22 1,018.75\n\nU.S. Legal Support, Inc.（美国法律支持公司） 200 West Jackson Suite 600 Chicago IL 60606 02/03/22 2,034.03 \\$3,062.78 \\$1,638.00 其他——专业服务\n\nUna Manyce Wilkinson（尤娜·曼尼斯·威尔金森） 12/01/21 600.00\n\nUna Manyee Wilkinson（尤娜·曼尼·威尔金森） 01/12/22 1,200.00\n\nUna Manyee Wilkinson（尤娜·曼尼·威尔金森） 68-18 Juno Street Forest Hills NY 11375 02/03/22 1,600.00 \\$3,400.00 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nVeritent（Veritent） 2/10/22 943.00\n\nVeritent（Veritent） 290 West Mt. Pleasant Ave.\nSuite 3200 Livingston NJ 07039 01/12/22 13,967.00 \\$14,910.00 未知 其他——专业服务\n\nVX Cerda & Associates（VX Cerda & Associates） 601 Brickell Key Drive Suite 700 Miami FL 33131 12/22/21 1,055.33 3,055.33 \\$3,124.99 其他——专业服务\n\nWilliam Bradley Wendel（威廉·布拉德利·温德尔） 123 Butleigh Drive Ithaca NY 14850 01/12/22 \\$9,503.33 \\$9,503.33 未知 其他——专业服务\n\n2,054,671.92\n\n\\$732,212.31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n第11章；案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n财务状况说明书——问题第9项（在申请破产前1年内，您是否为任何诉讼、法院诉讼或行政程序的当事人？）\n\n案件名称 案件编号 案件性质 管辖法院 法院地址 状态\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵；及其他别名）、Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）及 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司） 652077/2017 违约 NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 Genever Holdings Corp.（Genever控股公司）、Bravo Luck Ltd.（Bravo Luck有限公司）、Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵；及其他别名）及 Qiang Guo（郭强；及其他别名） BVIHCM 0137 of 2020 追偿 Eastern Caribbean Sup. Ct, Virgin Islands, High Court of Justice（东加勒比最高法院、维尔京群岛高等法院） 进行中\nRui Ma（马蕊）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd（黄金之泉（纽约）有限公司） 158140/2017 侵权 NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nGuo Wengui（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）诉 Clark Hill PLC（Clark Hill律师事务所）及 Thomas Ragland（托马斯·拉格兰） 1:19-cv-3195-JEB 侵权／违约 D.D.C.（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院） 333 Constitution Avenue N.W.\nWashington D.C. 20001 进行中\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade控股有限公司）及 Dawn State Limited（Dawn State有限公司）诉 UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞银集团股份公司（伦敦分行）） CL-2020-000345 过失 High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court（英格兰及威尔士高等法院、商业及财产法院、王座法庭商业法庭） 进行中\nAce Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade控股有限公司）及 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）诉 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司） CL-2020-000345 过失 Civil Court Basel-City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔城市民事法院、调解机构） 进行中\nZheng Wu（吴征，亦称 Bruno Wu）及 Yang Lan（杨澜）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok） 152123/2018 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nWeican (\"Watson\") Meng（孟维参（“Watson”））及 Boxun, Inc.（博讯公司）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok） 159636/2017 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nXiqui (\"Bob\") Fu（傅希秋（“Bob”））诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵；及其他别名）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）、Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭之声传媒公司）、Lihong Wei Lafrenz（魏丽红·拉弗伦兹，亦称 Sara Wei）及 Dongna Fang（方东娜） MO:20-CV-257-DC 侵权（诽谤） W.D. Tex（得克萨斯州西区联邦地区法院） U.S. District Clerk's Office（美国联邦地区法院书记官办公室）\n200 East Wall, Room 222\nMidland, Texas 79701\nMartin Luther King Building 进行中\nWengui Guo（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）诉 Jun Chen（陈军，亦称 Jonathan Ho） No. 18-CV-03800 侵权（诽谤） NJ Dist.（新泽西联邦地区法院） & U.S. Courthouse（美国法院大楼）\n50 Walnut Street\nNewark, NJ 07102 进行中\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n第11章；案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n财务状况说明书——问题第9项（在申请破产前1年内，您是否为任何诉讼、法院诉讼或行政程序的当事人？）\n\n案件名称 案件编号 案件性质 管辖法院 法院地址 状态\nSamuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·努恩伯格）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok） 150141/2020 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nLogan Cheng（程水燕，原名 Shuiyan Cheng）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵） 1:20-cv-05678-KPF 反SLAPP SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院） Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nLiehong Zhuang（庄烈宏）及 Xiao Yan Zhu（朱小燕）诉 Wengui Guo（郭文贵；及其他别名）、Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）、ABC Company 1-10（ABC公司1-10）及 John Doe 1-10（无名氏1-10） 654999/2020 侵权／违约 NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nJonathan Young（乔纳森·扬）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd（黄金之泉（纽约）有限公司）及 Rule of Law Foundation III（法治基金会III） 154683/2020 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nZhengjun Dong（董正军）、Wen Lin（林雯）、Kaixin Hong（洪凯欣）及 Chenglong Wang（王成龙）诉 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵） 652190/2021 拟议集体诉讼（证券） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nRong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）及 Chong Shen Raphanella（沈冲·拉法内拉）诉 Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭之声传媒公司）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会III公司）、Rule of Law Society IV Inc.（法治协会IV公司）、Sara Wei（魏丽红·拉弗伦兹，亦称 Lihong Wei Lafrenz）及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵；及其他别名） CV-21-01079-PHX-SMB 拟议集体诉讼（证券；侵权） AZ Dist.（亚利桑那联邦地区法院） Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse（桑德拉·戴·奥康纳美国法院大楼）\n401 W. Washington St., Suite 130, SPC 1\nPhoenix, AZ 85003-2118 进行中\nHaihong Wang（王海红）诉 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵） 3:21-cv-00359-VLB 证券 D. Conn.（康涅狄格联邦地区法院） ABRAHAM RIBICOFF FEDERAL BUILDING（亚伯拉罕·里比科夫联邦大楼）\nUnited States Courthouse（美国法院大楼）\n450 Main Street - Room 725\nHartford, Connecticut 06103 进行中\nJune Shi（施军）诉 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵） 21-CV-1408 证券；侵权 N.D. Ill.（伊利诺伊州北区联邦地区法院） Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse（埃弗里特·麦金利·德克森美国法院大楼）\n219 South Dearborn Street\nChicago, IL 60604 进行中\nJianhu Yi（易建湖）及 Quiju Jia（贾曲菊）诉 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵） 1:21 Civ 02669 (VM) 证券 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院） Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nWeiguo Sun（孙卫国）、Linda He Cheung（张何琳达）、Jia Li Wang（王佳丽）、Jiamei Lu（卢佳美）、Jun Liu（刘军）、Moa-Fu Weng（翁茂福）、Ruqin Wang（王茹琴）、Teli Chen（陈特丽）、Weixiang Ge（葛维香）、Shuang Wang（王双）、Xingyu Yan（闫星宇）、Yan Gao（高燕）、Yi Li（李毅）及 Ying Liu（刘颖）诉 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）、Wengui Guo（郭文贵，亦称 Ho Wan Kwok）、Voice Guo Media, Inc. [sic]（郭之声传媒公司［原文如此］）及 Lihong Wei Lafrenz（魏丽红·拉弗伦兹；及其他别名） 1:21-cv-04529 证券；侵权 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院） Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n第11章；案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n财务状况说明书——问题第9项（在申请破产前1年内，您是否为任何诉讼、法院诉讼或行政程序的当事人？）\n\n案件名称 案件编号 案件性质 管辖法院 法院地址 状态\nKeyi Zilkie（齐可·齐尔基）、Huizhen Wang（王慧珍）、Chao-Chih Chiu（邱超志）及 Yunxia Wu（吴云霞）诉 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca传媒集团公司）及 Wengui Guo（郭文贵） 652843/2021 证券；侵权 NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nWengui Guo（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）诉 Yeliang Xia（夏业良） 1:18-CV-00174-LO-TCB 侵权（诽谤） E.D. Va.（弗吉尼亚州东区联邦地区法院） Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse（阿尔伯特·V·布赖恩美国法院大楼）\n401 Courthouse Square\nAlexandria, VA 22314 进行中\nGuo（郭）诉 Hong Zeng（曾宏） 157025/2020 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\nGuo（郭）诉 Gao BingChen（高冰尘） VLC-5-5-187450 侵权（诽谤） Sup. Court of British Columbia（不列颠哥伦比亚省最高法院） Vancouver, Canada 进行中\n\nBeijing Zhong Xian Wei Ye Stainless Decoration Center（北京中现伟业不锈钢装饰中心）等诉 Wengui Guo（郭文贵）、Beijing Zenith Holdings Co（北京正道控股公司）、Beijing Pangu Investment Co.（北京盘古投资公司）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（黄金之泉（纽约）有限公司） 653176/2017 追偿事项 NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\n\n香港高等法院针对 Guo（郭）及众多个人和实体的没收程序 资产扣押 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） 不明\n\nKwok（郭）诉 MacDonald（麦克唐纳） 2019/0048 侵权 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛） 33 Admin Drive, Wickhams Cay 1, Road Town, Tortola, Virgin Islands (British 进行中\nFAN BINGBING（范冰冰）诉 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），亦称 GUO WEN GUI，亦称 GUO WEN-GUI，亦称 GUO HAOYUN，亦称 HAOUN GUO，亦称 WAN GUE HAOYUN，亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 KWOK HO WAN，亦称 KWOK HO 156619/2017 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 未进行\nJIANSHENGXIE（谢建生）及 JIEFU ZHENG（郑杰夫）诉 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵），亦称 HAOYUNGUO，亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 HO WANKWOK，亦称 HO KWOK，亦称 WEN GUI GWO，亦称 WAN GUE HAOYUN，亦称 GUO HAOYUN 155995/2017 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 未进行\n\nWA&HF LLC（WA&HF有限责任公司）、RUIZHENG AN（安睿正）诉 SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.（Saraca传媒集团公司）及 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵） No. 20-2-12680-2 SEA 侵权／违约 WA Sup. Ct（华盛顿州最高法院） King County Superior Court（金县高等法院）\n516 Third Avenue, Room C-203\nSeattle, WA 98104 进行中（但就 MK 而言未进行）\n\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵），亦称 KWOK HO WAN，亦称 MILES KWOK 诉 GUO BAOSHENG（郭宝胜）、YAN ZHAO（赵燕）及 NING YE（叶宁） 151251/2019 侵权／违约 NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 进行中\n\nKUI CHENG（程奎）诉 G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC（G CLUB运营有限责任公司）及 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵），亦称 HO WAN KWOK，亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 MILES GUO No. 521-009315 违约 Texas small claims court（得克萨斯州小额索赔法院） 进行中\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n第11章；案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n财务状况说明书——问题第9项（在申请破产前1年内，您是否为任何诉讼、法院诉讼或行政程序的当事人？）\n\n案件名称 案件编号 案件性质 管辖法院 法院地址 状态\nWengui Guo（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok）诉 Danyu Lin（林丹玉） No. 2018-CP-03623 侵权（诽谤） South Carolina state court（南卡罗来纳州法院） Matthew J. Perry, Jr. U.S. Courthouse（小马修·J·佩里美国法院大楼）\n901 Richland Street\nColumbia, South Carolina 29201 在提交破产申请前1年内已解决。\n\nYan Huang（黄燕）诉 Wengui Guo（郭文贵） No. 156552/2017 侵权（诽谤） NY Sup.（纽约州最高法院） 纽约县法院大楼\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, NY 10007 在提交破产申请前1年内已解决。\n\nWENGUI GUO（郭文贵）诉 BAOSHENG GUO（郭宝胜）、BAIQIAO TANG（唐柏桥，亦称 TANG BAIQIAO）及 No. 1:18-cv-1064 侵权（诽谤／欺诈） ED Va.（弗吉尼亚州东区联邦地区法院） Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse（阿尔伯特·V·布赖恩美国法院大楼）\n401 Courthouse Square\nAlexandria, VA 22314 在提交破产申请前1年内已解决。\nJING GENG（耿静）诉 WENGUI GUO（郭文贵），亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 GUO WEN GUI，亦称 HO WAN KWOK、GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（黄金之泉（纽约）有限公司）、RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III INC.（法治基金会III公司）、RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV INC.（法治协会IV公司）、SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.（Saraca传媒集团公司） No. 1:17-cv-09031-JFK 侵权（诽谤／商业） SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院） Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007 在提交破产申请前1年内已解决。\n\n-5\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n债务人\n8/4/2022\n全额准许\nP.E.\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院布里奇波特分庭\n\n.............................................................................................................................................................................. 关于：第11章 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），案号 22-50073 (JAM)，债务人。\n\n32 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % -- X\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）先生支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明\n\n本人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经正式宣誓，声明如下：\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，本人启动上述第11章案件。本人已年满18岁，并具备作证能力。\n\n2. 关于本人的背景资料，以及导致本人启动第11章案件的情形说明。本人在本声明中作出较为详细的陈述，以为针对本人的债权性质、本人独特的财务状况，以及本人启动本第11章案件的原因提供背景。\n\n3. 如下文进一步讨论，本人提交本第11章案件是为了：(a) 建立一个单一平台，以有序处理针对本人提出的各种相互竞争的债权主张；(b) 鉴于本人认为在该等事项上存在误解，为利益相关方提供一个高效机会，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团财产，进而可供向获准债权持有人分配；并且，希望能够 (d) 达成共识。\n\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述。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n\n第一部分——背景\nI. 本人的背景\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（邢志岳）居住在康涅狄格州格林威治市 373 Taconic Road。2020年3月，我们从纽约 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）的一套公寓搬至目前的康涅狄格州地址。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），其时间往返于纽约市和康涅狄格州之间。\n\n7. 我们的收入——我自己的收入来自一家无线电修理店，我兄弟们的收入来自各自的小企业——用于投资房地产开发。1989年亲民主的天安门广场抗议活动之后，我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，我二十出头。同时，我目睹了两名警察——中国共产党（CCP）的特工——开枪射击我的弟弟，并任由他死亡的暴行。我弟弟被谋杀，以及我被逮捕和在狱中遭受酷刑，对我产生了深刻影响。在狱中，我与许多其他良心犯建立了有意义的个人关系，他们同样因支持天安门广场亲民主运动而被监禁。我们对在中国追求自由怀有同样的热忱，而在我于1991年出狱后，我继续维持这些关系。\n\n8. 大约在1991年，中国政府开始放宽某些社会管理规则，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。虽然我的大家族从这一变化中受益，但由于我先前出于政治动机而被逮捕和拘留，我个人无法从中受益。任何在中国登记在我名下的资产都很可能被中国共产党没收。我的大家族利用其积累的财富支持我，并且这种支持一直持续至今。\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市开发了裕达国际贸易中心。这些项目均取得成功，使郭氏家族得以开始积累巨额财富。此后，我的家族在中国开发了其他房地产项目，包括北京的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。美国人或许会将盘古大观认作2008年和2022年北京奥运会的主要背景场景。\n\n10. 郭氏家族的财富通过多元化投资继续增长，其投资领域包括金融、科技及其他商业行业。尤其是，我的儿子通过创设和管理投资机会，在扩大家族财富方面发挥了关键作用，其中包括将全球奢侈品牌引入中国和香港。因此，我的儿子本身就是一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 大约在2000年，我离开中国大陆前往香港，并成为香港公民。尽管大家族仍在中国持续积累巨额财富，但根据中国法律，作为香港公民，我既不能保留中国国籍，也不会被允许在中国拥有资产。\n\n12. 中国共产党没有忽视我的大家族在财务上的成功。2002年，我的大家族在北京购得大面积土地；在中国被确定为2008年奥运会主办国后，该土地的价值大幅上升。中国共产党官员试图为其个人利益侵占该土地，我遂向更高级别的政府官员举报该企图。在经历长期斗争后，该土地被收回，从而得以开发盘古大观。\n\n13. 大约在2015年，我开始更公开地批评和揭露中国共产党的腐败，因此中国共产党对我进行了报复。2015年1月10日，Wu Zheng（又名“Bruno Wu”，吴征）告知我，我的兄弟们、妻子和女儿均已在中国被捕。Bruno Wu与中国共产党高层官员关系密切，并且是中国共产党登记在案的外国代理人；其媒体公司曾与Pacific Alliance Group（“PAG”，太盟投资集团）——Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（“PAX”，太盟亚洲机会基金）的母公司——合作，试图收购一家重要的好莱坞制片厂；并且他个人代表中国共产党资助众多原告针对我的诉讼活动。2015年初，Bruno Wu代表中国共产党高级成员致电我，转达称如果我停止公开揭露中国共产党的腐败，我的家人将获释；并威胁称，如果我不服从，我和我儿子都将被签发国际刑警组织（INTERPOL）“红色通缉令”，且我将被杀害。我拒绝了中国共产党通过Bruno Wu使我噤声的企图，并继续公开反对中国共产党。\n\n14. 2017年，我通过社交媒体和设在美国的新闻媒体，作为揭露某些中国共产党高级官员腐败行为的平台，显著加强了我的反中国共产党运动。\n\n1 6, 2012（http）。\n\n我公开揭露中国共产党腐败的言论，在美国及国外获得广泛报道。除利用社交媒体更便捷且更广泛地揭露中国共产党腐败外，我还向美国当局提供了有关中国共产党官员及其犯罪行为的信息。出于对自身生命安全的担忧，我于2017年9月在美国申请政治庇护保护，我的庇护申请仍在审理中。\n\n15. 为报复我的举报行为，中国共产党发动了一场多层面的行动，试图获得对我的筹码、诋毁我、威胁我并使我噤声。3如下所述，这些行动最终迫使我进入本破产案件。例如，2017年4月19日，我原定接受Voice of America（“VOA”，美国之音）的采访，期间我计划揭露中国共产党在HNA Group Co.（海航集团公司）中的所有权权益。中国共产党采取多项行动，试图阻止我和美国之音继续进行该采访。第一，在我原定接受美国之音采访的两天前——正如Bruno Wu所威胁的那样——中国共产党基于捏造的刑事指控，使国际刑警组织签发了寻求逮捕我并将我引渡至中国的“红色通缉令”。第二，中国共产党威胁称，若美国之音继续进行对我的采访，其将对美国之音及其在中国的记者进行报复，并声称该采访构成对中国内政的干涉。第三，在采访前一天，PAX（PAG的子公司）以违约为由在纽约对我提起毫无依据的诉讼。我继续进行了采访，但美国之音（屈从于中国共产党的压力）命令缩短采访。\n\n2 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）及Hoover Institute（胡佛研究所）、非政府组织Australian Strategic Policy Institute（ASPI，澳大利亚战略政策研究所）以及Alphabet旗下的Google（谷歌），均分别报告称：在由中国共产党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的全球社交媒体虚假信息运动中，我一直是中国共产党的主要目标。参见Carly Miller（卡莉·米勒）、Vanessa Molter（瓦妮莎·莫尔特）、Isabella Garca-Camargo（伊莎贝拉·加西亚-卡马戈）、Rene DiResta（蕾妮·迪雷斯塔）、David Thiel（大卫·蒂尔）和Alex Zaheer（亚历克斯·扎希尔），《傀儡账户编织COVID故事：对归因于中华人民共和国的2020年6月Twitter下架行动的分析》，Stanford Internet Observatory（斯坦福互联网观察站），2020年6月17日（http）；Dr. Jake Wallis（杰克·沃利斯博士）、Tom Uren（汤姆·尤伦）和Elise Thomas（伊莉斯·托马斯），《穿越防火长城发推：对与中华人民共和国有关、针对香港抗议活动的信息行动的初步分析》，2019年10月（htt\n\n12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc 4SfDUy7 sMfNkw()）（表明中国共产党针对我的虚假信息运动始于2017年4月）；Dr. Jake Walls（杰克·沃尔斯博士）、Tom Uren（汤姆·尤伦）、Elise Thomas（伊莉斯·托马斯）、Albert Zhang（张艾伯特）、Dr. Samantha Hoffman（萨曼莎·霍夫曼博士）、Lin Li（李琳）、Alex Pascoe（亚历克斯·帕斯科）和Danielle Cave（丹妮尔·凯夫），《穿越防火长城转推：一个持续且未受遏制的威胁行为者》，2020年6月（htt\n\n06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20frewall 1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyglOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt XD6TCA）（列示的数据反映“一个与中国国家行为者相关、在Twitter和Facebook上持续进行的大规模影响力运动……[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……其意图是影响对于……Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的看法”）；Joseph Menn（约瑟夫·门恩），《亲中国社交媒体运动波及新国家，指责美国造成COVID》，Reuters（路透社），2021年9月9日（http）（报道FireEye（火眼）和Alphabet旗下Google的安全专家观察到，一场协调一致、支持中国政府利益的社交媒体虚假信息运动正以我为目标）。如这些独立来源所确认，世界上没有任何人比我遭受更多来自中国共产党社交媒体战的攻击。\n\n3 中国共产党针对我这一居住在美国的中国异见人士所采取的滥用手段，并非独一无二。最近，联邦检察官指称，“一名中国间谍雇用了一名私家侦探，必要时使用暴力终止一名候选人的国会竞选，指示他‘殴打他，直到他无法参加选举。’”参见Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔）和Kate O'Keeffe（凯特·奥基夫），《美国司法部称，中国代理人提议以暴力手段终止异见人士的国会竞选》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），2022年3月16日（http inline）。\n\n16. 当中国共产党早期使我噤声的努力失败后，其转而试图将我引渡至中国，而我将在那里被杀害。FBI（联邦调查局）的一项调查显示，2017年夏季期间，我是在美国境内遭受中国共产党游说企图的目标；中国共产党利用一名腐败政府官员和多名知名人士，包括澳门赌场所有人Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利），直接游说Trump（特朗普）总统及其政府将我引渡至中国。4中国共产党的计划导致Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）前财务主席Elliot Broidy（艾略特·布罗伊迪）、说客Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）和前DOJ（美国司法部）官员George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）受到联邦起诉并作出认罪答辩；其中所有人均承认收取款项，以换取游说美国政府高级官员将我引渡。Elliot Broidy此后亦如Bruno Wu一样，资助其他当事人针对我的诉讼。5中国的行动还包括贿赂和腐蚀美国司法部总部的一名高级官员George Higginbotham；其控制的银行账户中被发现近$75 million，使此案成为美国司法部历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。中国共产党还自同年起以各种其他方式针对我，包括：入侵于2017年9月提交我庇护申请的律师事务所服务器，从该申请中提取我的高度敏感信息，随后在互联网上公开传播；通过Bruno Wu提起并资助数起、其中若干仍在进行的针对我的大量无根据诉讼；以及拘留、酷刑折磨并监禁我的许多家人和前同事。\n\n4 参见Aruna Viswanatha（阿鲁娜·维斯瓦纳塔），《Steve Wynn可能因在中国驱逐商人行动中所扮演的角色而面临司法部行动》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），2021年5月26日（http）。\n\n5 United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）新闻稿：《Elliott Broidy就幕后游说活动认罪，该活动旨在撤销对1MDB的调查并移除一名中国外国国民》，2020年10月20日（http）（称“Broidy还同意代表外国国民A和People's Republic of China（PRC，中华人民共和国）部长A，游说政府和司法部，以安排移除并遣返PRC国民A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异见人士”；我即为“PRC国民A”）。有关Elliott Broidy的“Criminal Information（刑事指控书）”副本作为证物A附于本文件。\n\n6 美国司法部新闻稿：夏威夷女商人承认协助开展幕后游说活动，以撤销对 1MDB 的调查并将一名外国国民遣送至中国，2020 年 8 月 31 日（http）（称：“Lum Davis 和其他人还同意代表外国国民 A 和中华人民共和国（PRC）部长 A，游说政府和司法部，以安排将中华人民共和国国民 A——一名身处美国的异见人士——遣送并送回中国”；我即为“中华人民共和国国民 A”）。兹附上有关 Nicki Lum Davis（尼基·卢姆·戴维斯）的“刑事信息书”副本，作为附件 B。\n\n7 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，2018 年 11 月 30 日（http）（称：“Higginbotham 还承认，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遣送出美国并送回其原籍国”；我即为该“另一名外国国民”）。兹附上有关 George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）的“认罪答辩事实依据”副本，作为附件 C。\n\n案件 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n\n17. 自 2017 年以来，中国共产党（CCP）还冻结并扣押了位于中国和香港的家庭资产及所谓资产，使我甚至无法维持一个银行账户。中共已将摧毁我所创建的一切并阻止我与金融机构往来作为其任务。我大部分时间都在担任各类实体的无偿非正式顾问或发言人，其中包括揭露中共腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。我的家人，尤其是我的儿子，满足我的生活所需。在 Petition Date（申请日）之前，我儿子的家族办公室 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）（“GSNY”或“家族办公室”）购买了包括我的衣物、食品和日用品在内的众多物品。我无法使用 GSNY 的信用卡或 GSNY 的银行账户。除我的衣物和手机外，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）的住所；该住所由我的妻子通过 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）持有。我为我的儿子以信托方式持有 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）公寓的权益。\n\n18. 我的家人已向我提供贷款（部分有书面凭证，部分没有），以支付我数额巨大的诉讼费用，使我得以针对中共发起或授意发起的众多诉讼为自己辩护。截至申请日，GSNY 已向我提供约 $21 million 的贷款，用于支付我的诉讼费用。如以下所述及我在财务状况说明书（“SOFA”）中所载，我是美国及境外待决的 30 多起诉讼中的被告和/或请求权人。众所周知，中共利用其代理人\n\n8 2018 年 10 月 23 日，Hong Kong Special Administrative Region（香港特别行政区）High Court（高等法院）Court of First Instance（原讼法庭）（“HK High Court”）作出了日期为 2018 年 10 月 18 日的《禁止处置香港及其他地区资产的限制令》（“HK Restraint Order”）。HK Restraint Order 针对据称属于我的、存放于 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited（香港上海汇丰银行有限公司）（HSBC Bank）的 HK$3.7 million 资金。根据 HK Restraint Order，据称受我“有效控制”的个人和实体的数十亿美元资金和财产，包括位于香港的不动产，也被冻结和/或扣押。HK Restraint Order 禁止被列名的“答辩人”（包括我）作出任何资产处分。在 HK Restraint Order 作出后接收我的资产的任何人，据称均违反该命令，并可能被处以罚款和监禁。\n\n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 与该等诉讼有关的聘请律师、专家、供应商、口译员及其他专业人士的费用极为高昂。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在已提交的资产和负债清单（“Schedules”）及 SOFA 中反映了我的负债现状。家族办公室协助我准备这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺与洛伊专业公司）也提供了协助；该公司是一家独立财务咨询公司，在准备破产清单及财务状况说明书方面具有丰富经验。如这些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（一家香港投资基金——其母公司 PAG 与中共特工 Brunu Wu（吴征）的媒体公司合作购买了一家好莱坞制片厂）在 New York（纽约）及 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）（“BVI”）对我提起诉讼。如我先前所述，PAX 在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的诉讼于 2017 年 4 月 18 日提交，即我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. 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）由我提供个人保证担保的首笔 $30 million 贷款；以及（2）由最终成为 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）的土地/开发项目所属公司 49% 权益担保的第二笔 $70 million 贷款。\n\n9 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》，Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），2020 年 7 月 29 日（http）。\n\n22. 2009 年，PAX 收到 $100 million 的还款，确认贷款已获清偿，并进一步确认我在 2008 年个人保证项下的义务已获履行。PAX 对“和解与清偿”实际发生一事提出争议，现根据一份日期较后的、系伪造的个人保证向我提出请求。在向我出示该保证之前，我先前的诉讼代理律师已将其提交法院以支持某些动议。当我后来得知该文件存在时，我表示相信其系伪造；但法院裁定，由于先前已提交该文件，我不再有权质疑其真实性。因此，2020 年 9 月 15 日，法院作出有利于 PAX 的简易判决，既未允许我作证，也未在陪审团面前进行证据审理。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为 $125 million。我及时向 New York Appellate Division（纽约州上诉分庭）就该判决提起上诉，该上诉仍在审理中。10\n\n23. 关于我的资产（“NYS Restraining Order”）。PAX 在执行该判决时，主要着眼于一艘名为“Lady May（五月花号）”的游艇，下文将进一步说明该游艇。我不拥有 Lady May；其由我的女儿拥有。该船的维护费用一向由我的儿子支付。尽管如此，2021 年 3 月 16 日，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）命令我于 2021 年 5 月 15 日前将该船送回纽约，否则该船每在该管辖范围外停留一天，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，累积的藐视法庭罚款已超过作出有利于 PAX 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 我的清单包括针对我历任诉讼代理律师的一项潜在失职索赔。\n\n24. 2022 年 2 月 9 日，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 享有受益权益并控制该船，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。我认为 February 9 Contempt Order 被错误地针对我作出，并已另行向 Appellate Division 就该命令提起上诉。无论如何，我均无能力履行该命令。我坚信中共正在策划 PAX 案件。迄今为止，PAX 诉讼一直是中共针对我的不懈行动中为数不多的成功之一，因为它使我面临潜在监禁11，并迫使我进入破产程序。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 我在七起与我推介出售一家名为 GTV Media Group, Inc（GTV 媒体集团公司）（“GTV”）的公司证券及被称为“G Coin”和“G Dollar”的虚拟货币有关的诉讼中被列为被告。除两个拟议投资者集体外，数名个人投资者亦就其在据称投资后遭受的损失向我提出请求。这些诉讼中的原告通常主张，我参与了一项向缺乏经验的投资者出售未注册证券、违反适用美国证券法的计划。各项起诉书合计向我\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）关于作出裁定确认自动中止不适用，或作为替代方案，根据 Bankruptcy Code（破产法）Section 362(D)(2) 解除自动中止的动议 [Docket No. 57]（“Lift Stay Motion”）。我相信，准许 Lift Stay Motion 所请求的救济将对我造成重大损害，并实质性损害我的破产财产及其债权人的利益。正如 PAX 在 Lift Stay Motion 中所指，执行 February 9 Contempt Order 可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性妨碍我实现本 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件的目标。尤其是，如被监禁，我将无法充分且适当地管理我的破产财产、参与本破产案件、与债权人谈判、在本法院出庭并陈述意见、咨询并指示律师、调查并归集破产财产资产，或制定并协商 Chapter 11 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。\n\n以及包括 GTV 及其母公司 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）（“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告请求超过 $100 million 的损害赔偿。我认为这些请求毫无依据。12\n\nC. 诽谤请求。\n\n26. 自 2017 年以来，我一直活跃于社交媒体，并发布批评中共、其代理人及其影响范围内其他人士的内容。在此背景下，某些据称在我的社交媒体内容中被指认的人士已对我提出诽谤请求。如我的 SOFA 所列，我目前在数起诽谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中若干诉讼由 Brunu Wu 资助；其为公认的中共特工及 PAX 母公司的商业伙伴。这些诉讼中的原告合计主张数额巨大的损害赔偿。\n\nD. 诉讼融资费用。\n\n27. 我提出金钱救济请求所产生的费用，系通过根据诉讼融资协议（“Litigation Funding Agreements”）提供的贷款支付。在我必须对请求进行抗辩的情形下，家族办公室向我提供贷款以支付我的诉讼费用。无论何种情形，贷款所得款项均直接支付给我聘请的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日，GSNY 已就诉讼相关费用向我提供约 $21 million。\n\n28. 在存在 Litigation Funding Agreement 的情形下，如我最终成功主张并收回我的请求，GSNY 有权获得一笔溢价，并且\n\n12 这些事项涉及一项已和解的执法程序。具体而言，于 September 2021，GTV（GTV）和 Saraca（萨拉卡）就美国证券交易委员会（SEC）关于 GTV 发行违反 Section 506 的主张，达成了公开宣布的“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）达成了一项平行和解。Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James（詹乐霞）, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents (Sept 13, 2021)。\n\n已就我的某些诉讼所得主张担保权益，以担保该等偿还及投资回报。\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 据告知，在我的 Chapter 11（第11章）案件开始时，已形成一项破产财产，包括截至申请提交之日我在任何地点、由任何人持有的财产所享有的一切法定或衡平权益。据进一步告知，我的破产财产及其全部财产均受法院的管辖和监督。我当然接受这一点。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的附表中列明。这些资产主要为衣物、食品及其他价值较小的家庭用品，以及诉讼请求。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直支持我。我的家人为我提供衣物及其他日用品。我能够使用的其他一切物品——包括车辆、我的住所（过去和现在）、家具、艺术品及电子设备（我的移动电话除外）——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，我无权处分任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我还是数起在 United States（美国）、United Kingdom（英国）和 Switzerland（瑞士）待决案件中的请求人。此类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 Claims。于 United Kingdom（英国）Royal Courts of Justice（皇家司法法院）审理的案件中，我和若干共同原告已对 UBS AG (London Branch)（“UBS”）提出诉讼请求，就 UBS 在 2015 年期间与我促成收购及收购一家中国金融机构 Haitong（海通）所发行的某些股份有关的过失性虚假陈述和建议，寻求超过 $500 million 的损害赔偿。\n\n直至 February 9, 2022，我获得了一项有利裁决，确认英国法院对我针对 UBS 的请求享有管辖权，而非 UBS 所主张的瑞士法院管辖权。鉴于 UBS 对管辖权提出异议，必须同时在瑞士 Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔市民事法院调解机构）提起平行诉讼，以确保在英国被认定缺乏管辖权的情况下诉讼仍可继续进行（英国并未被认定缺乏管辖权）。该瑞士诉讼目前已中止，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 Claims。此外，我已对 Clark Hill PLC 和其一名成员 Thomas K. Ragland（合称“Clark Hill”）提出请求。该诉讼目前正在 United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）待决。我正因 Clark Hill 违反其法律代理义务而向其寻求 $50 million 的补偿性损害赔偿及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿。具体而言，由于 Clark Hill 未能充分保护我的庇护申请中所含的高度敏感信息，中国共产党（CCP）于 September 2017 期间入侵了 Clark Hill 的服务器，提取了该高度敏感信息，随后将其传播至互联网。更糟的是，Clark Hill 屈服于 CCP 黑客的威胁，退出担任我的移民律师。因此，我已经并将继续遭受损害。\n\n33. 有两项并非由我所有的其他资产值得特别说明：(a) Lady May（“五月夫人”号游艇）；及 (b) 位于 New York City（纽约市）Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰）的公寓（“该公寓”）。\n\na. Lady May。如上所述，我并不拥有 Lady May，尽管我曾获准登船并享用该船。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日藐视法庭命令）中作出认定，但指示 Lady May 留在纽约或返回纽约并非我力所能及。\n\nb. Sherry-Netherland Apartment。Sherry-Netherland 公寓的合作社股份由 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever US”）持有。13 Genever US 的成员权益则由 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有 Genever BVI 的全部股权。但是，根据日期为 February 17, 2015 的信托声明及协议（“Trust Date”），我以信托方式为 Bravo Luck Limited（“公寓所有人”）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。这些资金来自由我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我本人。还应指出，我在 Genever BVI 中拥有的任何权益，已被 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）命令移交给 PAX，前提是该等移交不干扰 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的待决诉讼或 Genever US 的破产程序。\n\n34. 如本声明开头所述，我认为 Justice Ostrager、PAX 以及可能其他人认为，我拥有比此处以及我的附表和财务状况说明书所反映的更强的财力。然而，他们认为属于我的财富实际上属于我的儿子、女儿、妻子和大家庭成员，而非我本人。但是，如上所述，\n\n13 于 October 12, 2020，Genever US 在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提交了 Chapter 11 申请（Case No. 20-12411）。\n\n本破产程序将使利害关系方能够调查该项主张并提出任何相反证据。重要的是，如下文所述，对抗程序将以避免损害任何债权人对破产财产所享有经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\nIII. 拟议 DIP 融资\n\n35. 如我的附表所载，我没有自身资源为本 Chapter 11 案件的费用提供资金。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意为本 Chapter 11 案件的某些费用提供资金。具体而言，GSNY 拟按照附于批准 DIP Financing（占有债务人融资）动议的 DIP Financing 信贷协议（“DIP Credit Agreement”）所载条款，向破产财产出借 $8 million（“DIP Financing”）。DIP Financing 将用于支付，包括破产财产聘用的专业人士费用（包括我所聘用的专业人士，以及无担保债权人官方委员会和/或审查员如获任命时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 的预算中，最多 $4 million 将可用于资助 Official Creditors Committee（官方债权人委员会）和/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY 提出在无担保基础上提供该贷款，其偿还优先权劣后于所有获准的一般无担保债权。换言之，DIP Financing 不以破产财产的任何资产作担保，不要求行政债权或优先债权，且在所有获准的申请前债权均获全额清偿之前，不会从破产财产资产中获得偿还。因此，该贷款不会使我的债权人承担任何成本，并为调查我的事务提供公平机会。我不认为其他贷款人提供的任何贷款会有更优越的条款。因此，取得该贷款符合我的破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n37. 我将不会获准使用任何借入资金。所有 DIP Financing 收益将存入为破产财产利益而设立的独立存款账户（“Debtor Account”）。如下文所定义，V&L 的 Craig Jalbert 将为唯一获授权签字人。只有在 V&L 指示下、仅以支付 DIP Budget 所列项目所必需的范围内，并依照拟议 DIP Financing 命令、DIP Financing 文件及法院其他相关命令（包括批准专业人士费用申请的命令）的授权，方可从 Debtor Account 支付款项。\n\nCase 22-50073 BBC 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/04/22 16:30:44 Page 18 of 189\n\n38. DIP Credit Agreement 中仅有一项“里程碑”承诺：在 DIP Credit Agreement 获临时批准之日起 45 日内，破产法院最终批准拟议的 DIP Financing 命令。见 DIP Credit Agreement 第 ¶ 6.01(a) 条。DIP Credit Agreement 中仅有一项非典型违约事件，即作出一项命令，准许 PAX 解除自动中止，以便在本法院之外对我提起诉讼。见 DIP Credit Agreement 第 ¶ 8.01(e) 条。该等诉讼的唯一目的将是根据 February 9 Contempt Order 寻求对我实施监禁。显然，如获准该等救济，我将无法有意义地指导和参与有序的债权解决及计划程序。在此情形下，我的儿子——通过 GSNY——将无意继续为本 Chapter 11 案件的费用提供资金。\n\nIV. 我的 Chapter 11 案件的目标\n\n39. 我的最终目标是达成一项完全合意的 Chapter 11 计划，最终解决与我债权人之间的所有问题。我希望在向债权人提供公平机会、使其可通过由 DIP Financing 支付费用的受托代表进行审查并提出其观点后，通过有理有据且合理的对话实现该结果。我希望我的债权人将完全出于促成有效债权获得偿还的动机，并停止利用诉讼作为限制我言论自由及限制我批评政治滥用的手段。我还希望，如债权人进行审慎参与，我的家人将愿意提供资金，以确保债权人根据一项计划获得公平清偿。\n\n40. 如上所述，我的资产主要为诉讼请求，我相信该等请求具有重大依据并有价值（或许价值足以全额清偿所有债权人）。但是，同样，所有利益相关方将获得公平机会对其进行调查。\n\n41. 我理解，我的 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，以最终确定其他哪些资产可能构成我的破产财产。我的某些债权人主张，我拥有我认为由我的家庭成员或其关联实体拥有和控制的资产。我不认为作出关于我对 Lady May 的“受益”所有权和控制权命令的 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院），曾经认定我对该船拥有实际法定所有权，或该船现为我的 Chapter 11 破产财产的一项资产。这些问题将被直接且公平地提交本法院作出适当裁决。\n\n42. 多年来，我一直在为自称债权人提起的诉讼进行抗辩。如上所述，由我儿子拥有和控制的 GSNY 已向我出借数百万资金，用于支付我的抗辩费用。本 Chapter 11 案件将提供一个平台，一劳永逸地确定针对我破产财产的获准债权范围。债权人将获机会对我的 Chapter 11 破产财产提出债权，而该程序应当使破产财产中的任何资产在所有处于同等地位的债权人之间得到公平分配（例如，不会让 PAX 先于同一债权类别中的其他人获得清偿）。我将与我的专业人士合作，以实现适当的债权核对程序。\n\n43. 最终，我希望制定一项理性、实现价值最大化的方案，使我摆脱诉讼，并有助于我根据《破产法》实现“重新开始”。\n\n第二部分——所请求救济的动议依据\n\n44. 我已审阅以下各项动议，并且据我所知、所获信息及所信，动议中陈述的事实真实且准确。\n\n45. 批准DIP融资的动议。DIP融资对于支付与第11章案件相关的费用是必要的，并将为我提供充足的时间和资源，使我在我能力卓越且经验丰富的顾问协助下，就重组计划进行谈判并取得其确认。\n\n46. 鉴于促使我寻求第11章救济的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，我要求且GSNY同意，DIP融资将惠及所有破产财产专业人士，而不设定任何可能损害我债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP融资以无担保方式提供，次于我的申请前债权人的权利，且不享有任何行政费用或其他优先受偿权。我的理解是，只有在我的所有其他债权人均获得全额偿付时，DIP贷款才应偿还。鉴于这些优厚条件，我认为，任何试图从其他来源以竞争性或类似条件获得融资的做法，都会浪费破产财产资源且不会成功。\n\n47. 此外，如上所述并如我的财产清单所载，我预计我作为原告的诉讼中获得的追偿或和解所得款项将用于为第11章计划提供资金。若无法获得DIP融资，我将无法继续聘用并支付目前代表我提起诉讼的律师。类似地，若我无法对这些请求权进行抗辩、和解和/或诉讼（无论是在本程序中，还是在解除自动停止获准后于其他法院进行），我的负债可能大幅增加。\n\n48. 基于上述理由，我认为，拟议的DIP融资系善意提供，不损害任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我破产财产的最佳利益，因此应予批准。\n\n49. 聘用Stretto, Inc.（斯特雷托公司）作为债权申报及通知代理人的申请。我需要一名债权申报及通知代理人，在第11章案件审理期间协助向破产财产的债权人和利害关系方发出通知。我已选择Stretto, Inc.（“Stretto”）担任我的债权申报及通知代理人。Stretto在美国各地的多起第11章案件中担任债权申报及通知代理人方面具有丰富经验，包括在本辖区内。Stretto已同意提供以下咨询服务：(a) 担任通知代理人，向破产财产的债权人及其他利害关系方邮寄通知；(b) 维护一个电子平台，用于提交债权证明、计划征求、投票、计票、付款，以及为编制资产和负债清单及财务状况说明书提供行政支持；以及(c) 就本第11章案件在必要时提供其他行政服务。\n\n50. 聘用Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克有限责任合伙律师事务所）作为重组法律顾问的申请。我需要能力卓越且经验丰富的重组法律顾问，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组计划形式。我已选择Brown Rudnick LLP（“Brown Rudnick”）作为我在第11章案件中的重组法律顾问。Brown Rudnick在《破产法》第11章下债务人和债权人权利以及重组领域具有广泛的经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本辖区及全国其他辖区的众多第11章案件中代理债务人、正式及非正式委员会和其他重要当事人。Brown Rudnick亦熟悉我的事务以及将在第11章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：(a) 编制所有必要的动议、答复、答辩状及其他法律文件，包括必要的审判准备；(b) 为批准披露说明书及确认重组计划编制文件并采取必要行动；以及(c) 在第11章案件审理期间提供可能必要的所有其他法律服务。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 403 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:39:44 Page 26 of 189\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的预付金。该等总额为\\$1 million的预付金（“BR预付金”）来源于Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp资本有限责任公司”），该公司由我儿子所有。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从BR预付金中抵扣了\\$51,835.20的申请日前费用和垫付款，使Brown Rudnick持有的申请前BR预付金余额为\\$948,164.80。此后，我已要求Brown Rudnick将其获准的费用和垫付款从BR预付金中抵扣，直至BR预付金余额为\\$250,000；此后，Brown Rudnick将通过DIP融资的所得款项向我请求支付其获准的费用和开支。\n\n52. 聘用Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（韦尔多利诺及洛伊专业公司）作为财务顾问的申请。我需要一家财务顾问公司，以编制、审阅和分析《破产法》规定的必要财务披露文件，以及在第11章案件审理期间持续进行的月度和季度报告要求。我已选择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章债务人合作方面具有丰富经验，并提供量身定制的服务，包括但不限于财务咨询、顾问、会计服务、税务及其他相关服务。V&L已同意就以下事项提供服务：(a) 编制和审阅我的财务状况说明书、财产清单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，以及对所有现金活动进行会计核算；(d) 审阅及管理债权；(e) 制定和审阅重组计划；(f) 提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及(g) 在第11章案件审理期间，就可能出现的任何其他事项和任务提供一般咨询及协助。\n\n53. 日常业务。我是在美国州级和联邦级法院以及外国辖区审理的众多案件中被列名的原告或被列名的被告。就该等诉讼及某些持续进行的政府调查而言，我在申请前聘用了多家律师事务所、会计师及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章案件无关的多种事项提供其他服务。我拟在法院批准的前提下，使用DIP融资继续聘用并支付这些日常业务专业人士，因为他们各自对我的事务（申请前）和我的未决诉讼具有大量知识、专长和熟悉程度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我寻求DIP融资紧急临时救济的原因之一，是确保代理我的专业人士继续工作。除非我能够向某些专业人士保证其申请前及申请日后的工作将获得报酬，否则他们可能退出对我的代理。此类退出代理，视案件状况及相关专业人士所提供的服务而定，可能对我和我的破产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权均为资产，我预计将依赖这些资产来协助制定并可能确认重组计划。对我推进这些请求权的任何干扰，无疑都会损害其价值。\n\n根据28 U.S.C. § 1746，我在伪证处罚的约束下声明，以上内容据我所知真实且准确。\n\n日期：March 20, 2022 Greenwich, Connecticut\n\n签署人：姓名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 54 of 167\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）\n\n--\n\n)\n\nﻤﺴﻴﺴﺎ\n\nﻤﺴﻴﺴﺔ -\n\n--\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：\n\n引言\n\n在与本起诉书有关的所有期间：\n\n2. 自不晚于2017年3月起至至少约2018年1月止，ELLIOTT BROIDY同Nickie Lum Davis（尼基·卢姆·戴维斯）及A人士达成协议，以收取数百万美元且未予披露的报酬为交换，担任外国国民A的代理人。BROIDY具体同意游说美国总统行政当局（“行政当局”）和United States Department of Justice（美国司法部，“DOJ”），使其撤销或以其他方式有利地解决针对外国国民A的事项；该事项涉及其从1Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）挪用数十亿美元，1MDB是一家由Government of Malaysia（马来西亚政府）全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis及A人士故意未向行政当局和DOJ官员披露BROIDY正代表外国国民A行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis及A人士未能促使1MDB事项被撤销，或以其他方式有利地为外国国民A解决该事项。\n\n3. 在大致相同期间，BROIDY、Davis及A人士还同意代表外国国民A游说行政当局和DOJ，以安排将People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，“PRC”）国民A——一名居住在美国的PRC公民——移除并送回PRC。该行为尤其包括倡导安排PRC部长A与美国政府官员举行会晤。在此方面，BROIDY、Davis及A人士最终亦未成功。\n\n4. 为进一步促进外国国民A的利益，BROIDY在Davis及A人士协助下，试图促成马来西亚总理A于2017年9月同总统会晤，部分目的在于使马来西亚总理A能够与总统讨论解决1MDB事项。\n\n5. BROIDY、Davis及A人士还在PRC会见PRC部长A，并同意由BROIDY在Davis及A人士协助下游说行政当局，将PRC国民A送回PRC。为明确给予PRC部长A机会与美国高级官员讨论移除PRC国民A，BROIDY、Davis及A人士还同意并试图促成PRC部长A于2017年5月访问美国期间，与行政当局、DOJ及United States Department of Homeland Security（美国国土安全部，“DHS”）的高级官员举行会晤。\n\n禁止担任外国委托人或外国政府代理人的刑事规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agents Registration Act，简称“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，过去及现在均为一项信息披露法规，要求任何在美国境内作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的人，就某些类型的活动向司法部长登记，例如代表该外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动，或进行游说。此类登记向美国司法部（Department of Justice，简称“DOJ”）国家安全司（National Security Division）下属的《外国代理人登记法》处（Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit，简称“FARA Unit”）办理。明知且故意未办理登记，以及在依该法规定向 FARA Unit 提交的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n案件 22-500-3002 电子……第 38 页，共 189 页\n\n7. FARA 的目的在于防止外国委托人进行隐蔽影响。依该法规适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估作为外国委托人代理人的个人所作的陈述及其活动。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收取的报酬来源及金额，以及登记人在作为该外国委托人代理人期间所作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）自约 2017 年起至 2018 年 4 月止担任某全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。BROIDY 从捐款人处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在 2016 年选举周期内与一名竞选美国总统职位候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。BROIDY 作为财务副主席，可接触并联系政府中的高级官员，包括总统本人。在同一期间，BROIDY 拥有并经营数家美国国内及国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis（妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）过去及现在均为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与 BROIDY 和 Person A（A 某）存在个人及商业关系。2020 年 8 月 31 日，Davis 在 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii（美国夏威夷联邦地区法院）就一份指控其帮助和教唆违反 FARA 的单项起诉信息书作出有罪答辩。\n\n案件 22-500-3002……第 30 页，共 109 页\n\n10. Person A 过去及现在均为美国公民、商人及艺人，并具有国际关系，包括与 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）的关系。\n\n11. Foreign National A 是居住在东亚的一名富有商人，因其在策划和实施从 1MDB 挪用数十亿美元资金的计划中所发挥的作用，已被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A 公司）是一家由 Person A 设立的有限责任公司，用于接收来自 Foreign National A 的电汇款项，并被 Person A 用于向 BROIDY、Davis 及其他人支付其游说活动的报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是 Person A 的关联人员，且是一名受 DOJ 雇用的持证律师。2019 年 11 月 20 日，Higginbotham 在 United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一份指控其共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项起诉信息书作出有罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A 律师事务所）是一家由 Person C（C 某）经营、并由 BROIDY 和 Person C 控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中国国民 A）是中华人民共和国（People’s Republic of China，简称“PRC”）公民，持临时签证居住在美国。PRC 政府，包括 PRC Minister A（中国部长 A）及 PRC 主席，正寻求将 PRC National A 从美国遣返回 PRC。\n\n16. 自 2016 年末至 2019 年，DOJ 积极调查据称与 1MDB 挪用资金计划洗钱所得有关的 Foreign National A 交易。2016 年 7 月，DOJ 提起多项民事没收诉状，寻求没收据称使用 1MDB 洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。2018 年 11 月 1 日，DOJ 提起刑事起诉书，指控 Foreign National A 及他人共谋洗钱从 1MDB 挪用的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向马来西亚及阿拉伯联合酋长国（United Arab Emirates，简称“UAE”）多名官员行贿而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\n第一罪名项\n\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n\n（共谋担任外国委托人的未登记代理人）\n\n17. 兹重申第 1 段至第 16 段，并以援引方式将其纳入本文。\n\n18. 至迟自 2017 年 3 月起至至少约 2018 年 1 月止，被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 明知地与已知及未知的他人共谋，以：\n\na. 明知且故意地作为外国委托人的代理人行事，具体而言，就 1MDB 事项及遣返 PRC National A 事项，担任 Foreign National A 的代理人而未向司法部长登记，违反 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618。\n\n共谋目的\n\n19. 该共谋的目的之一，是由 BROIDY、Davis、Person A 及 Foreign National A 策划秘密渠道、未登记的活动，以游说政府及 DOJ：（1）终结 1MDB 事项，或以其他方式使该等事项获得对 Foreign National A 有利的解决；以及（2）将 PRC National A 从美国遣返 PRC。\n\n20. 该共谋的目的之一，是由 BROIDY、Davis 及 Person A 利用 BROIDY 与总统及其政府的接触渠道和被认为具有的影响力，以从 Foreign National A 获得付款，从而赚取数百万美元。\n\n21. 该共谋的目的之一，是由 BROIDY、Davis 及 Person A 隐瞒 BROIDY 与 Foreign National A 的接触及从其获得的付款，以维持 BROIDY 在美国官员中的可信度，并进一步实施该非法倡议计划。\n\n共谋的方式和手段\n\n22. BROIDY 及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及政府官员\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis、Person A 及 Higginbotham 以不同组合前往泰国、马来西亚及 PRC，以会见 Foreign National A、PRC Minister A 及其他人，并就以下安排进行谈判和讨论：BROIDY 将在正式渠道之外游说政府及 DOJ，以换取数百万美元。\n\n与美国官员的会面和联系\n\n24. BROIDY 直接及通过中间人，促成并试图促成会议及其他活动，以影响美国政府最高层级的官员，包括总统及司法部长，从而使 PRC Minister A 及 Foreign National A 获益。\n\n25. BROIDY 直接及通过中间人联系美国政府高级官员，为包括 PRC Minister A 及 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）在内的外国政府官员安排会议，以使这些外国官员有机会正式请求获得有利的政府行动，包括有利地解决 1MDB 事项及遣返 PRC National A。\n\n隐瞒\n\n26. BROIDY、Davis 及 Person A 同意隐瞒 BROIDY 以个人身份并作为 PRC Minister A 的中间人代表 Foreign National A 进行游说的协议。BROIDY、Davis 及 Person A 未向且同意不向美国政府官员及公众披露 BROIDY 与 Foreign National A 之间的财务安排及其从 Foreign National A 收取的付款。在为推进该共谋而起草的大量接触、通信和文件中，BROIDY、Davis、Person A 及 Higginbotham 对 Foreign National A 使用了秘密且匿名化的指称。此外，BROIDY、Davis 及 Person A 在就 Foreign National A 及 PRC National A 进行沟通时，经常使用加密应用程序，以隐瞒其行为及其与 Foreign National A 的联系。最后，BROIDY、Davis 及 Person A 明示或默示地同意不依 FARA 登记，以隐瞒其与 Foreign National A 的安排。\n\n明示行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，BROIDY 及他人在哥伦比亚特区及其他地点实施了下列明示行为及其他行为。\n\nI. 解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的活动\n\nA. BROIDY 同意以 $8 million 预付聘金代表 Foreign National A 进行游说\n\n28. 约于 2017 年 3 月，Person A 联系 Davis，试图寻找一名与政府关系密切的人士，以协助一名外国客户。Davis 随后告知 BROIDY，她有一名可能的马来西亚客户，其没收事项可能需要协助。\n\n29. 约于 2017 年 3 月 7 日，Person A 要求 Davis 向其发送 BROIDY 的简介，其中描述 BROIDY 与政府高级官员的关系，并附上 BROIDY 与总统的照片。约于 2017 年 3 月 7 日，应 Davis 的要求，BROIDY 的助理以电子邮件向 Davis 发送了 BROIDY 与总统的照片。Person A 表示，他希望取得这些照片，以便向 Foreign National A 突出显示 BROIDY 与政府的密切接触渠道。\n\n30. 约于 2017 年 3 月 8 日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“你会在 LA 于 16 日、[Person A] 当周末前往亚洲之前与其见面吗？”BROIDY 回应：“我想会。我们稍后再谈。”\n\n31. 约于 2017 年 3 月 13 日，BROIDY 与 Davis 及 Person A 会面，讨论 Foreign National A 及 1MDB。在该次会面中，Person A 向 BROIDY 说明其与 Foreign National A 的关系，并询问 BROIDY 是否能够协助处理涉及 Foreign National A 的民事没收案件。Person A 表示，他将与 Foreign National A 商谈 BROIDY 协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。当日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信，部分内容为：“我对我们的商业前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 约于 2017 年 3 月 13 日，Davis 向 Person A 转发了 Law Firm A 与 Foreign National A 之间的“预付聘金及费用协议——诉讼服务”，以便 Person A 向 Foreign National A 出示该协议。“预付聘金及费用协议”约定，Foreign National A 将预先支付 $8 million 预付聘金；如该“事项”在 180 days 内解决，则另支付 $75 million 成功费；如该“事项”在 365 days 内解决，则支付 $50 million 成功费。该协议草案包括附件 A，说明该“事项”系指 1MDB 没收程序。BROIDY、Davis、Person A、Law Firm A 及 Person C 未向 Foreign National A 提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该委聘协议的真实目的，是基于 BROIDY 的政治关系，取得 BROIDY 代表 Foreign National A 游说政府及 DOJ 的服务。\n\n33. 尽管知悉作为外国委托人代理人须登记的要求，BROIDY、Davis 或 Person A 从未就其作为 Foreign National A 代理人的工作向 FARA Unit 登记。\n\nB. BROIDY、Person A 及 Davis 在曼谷会见 Foreign National A\n\n34. 约于 2017 年 4 月，Davis 转达了 Person A 提出的请求，即要求 BROIDY 前往泰国曼谷会见 Foreign National A。BROIDY 告知 Davis，让其转告 Person A，除非其获得 $1 million 报酬，否则不会前往，并且其希望由 Person A 使用“未受污染”的资金向其付款。BROIDY 获得保证，Person A 将亲自支付 $1 million，以换取 BROIDY 前往曼谷。\n\n35. 约于 2017 年 4 月 28 日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信称：“我希望将资金汇至 [Law Firm A]。”当日，Davis 回应：“好。”\n\n36. 约于 2017年4月29日，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）与 Davis（戴维斯）就其即将与 Foreign National A（外国籍人士 A）和 Person A（A 人）举行的会面交换了短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY 就 Foreign National A 问道：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点入住某家特定酒店？”Davis 回应道：“你方便通话时给我打电话。我”\n\n37. 约于 2017年5月1日，Davis 通过电子邮件向 BROIDY 及其助理发送了 Bangkok（曼谷）Shangri-La Hotel（香格里拉酒店）的链接，并在邮件中写道：“请在你在线预订后，将 Elliott 的房间和我的房间的酒店确认信息发送给我，我会转发。”同日，Davis 另行通过电子邮件告知 Person A，要求其在香格里拉酒店预订房间，并将确认信息发送给她。Person A 回应道：“[Foreign National A] 正在预订我们的酒店，”随后又补充道：“还请把 Elliott 的电汇信息发给我。”Davis 随即提供了一个以 Law Firm A（A 律师事务所）名义开设账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 约于 2017年5月2日，Davis 通过电子邮件向 BROIDY 表示，部分内容如下：“由于你较早抵达——[Person A] 和我会在抵达区见你。……谢谢，旅途愉快——这将是一次激动人心且富有成效的冒险之旅的开始！”\n\n39. 约于 2017年5月2日，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 抵达曼谷。在该次行程期间，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 在一间酒店套房内与 Foreign National A 会面。BROIDY 与 Foreign National A 谈及 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 同意协助 Foreign National A 尝试解决该事项。Foreign National A 同意向 BROIDY 支付 $8 million 的预付聘金，并希望 BROIDY 联系 Attorney General of the United States（美国司法部长），以促使 DOJ（司法部）撤销 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 同意游说 Administration（政府）和 DOJ，以为 Foreign National A 争取有利结果，同时隐瞒其正代表 Foreign National A 开展工作的事实。在会面期间或其后不久，Davis 与 BROIDY 讨论了协助使 PRC National A（中国籍人士 A）被驱逐出美国的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY 表示，资金不应直接来自 Foreign National A，且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A 指认了一名可以向 BROIDY 及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、Person A 和 Davis 同意，该笔资金将先经由 Person A 转付，然后通过 Law Firm A 支付给 BROIDY。BROIDY 和 Davis 同意，BROIDY 将向 Davis 支付其所收款项的一定比例。Person A 亦同意向 Davis 支付 Person A 所收资金的一定比例。Person A 告知 BROIDY 和 Davis，Person A 的朋友 Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实该资金的合法性。Higginbotham 实际上并未进行任何此类审查。BROIDY 从未见过或与 Higginbotham 交谈过。\n\nC. Person A 从 Foreign National A 处收取 $8.5 Million；BROIDY 获支付 $6 Million；Davis 获支付 $1.7 Million\n\n40. 在 Thailand（泰国）与 Foreign National A 会面后，约于 2017年5月8日，Company A（A 公司）收到了一笔由 Foreign National A 指示、从 Hong Kong（香港）某实体汇来的约 $2.8 million 电汇款项。同日，Person A 从 Company A 账户取得一张金额为 $702.000、付款给 Law Firm A 的银行本票，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，第三方公司依 Person A 的指示向 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，于约 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 BROIDY 的一个商业账户。\n\n41. 约于 2017年5月8日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“进入 [Law Firm A] 的两笔电汇均来自 [Person A]。余额在 20 分钟前已送到你的办公室——”Davis 随后补充道：“银行本票总计 702[。]”\n\n42. 约于 2017年5月17日，Foreign National A 指示一家香港公司向 Company A 发出一笔国际电汇。同日，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入 $3 million。约于 2017年5月18日，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入 $600,000，并向与 Davis 有关联的一个商业实体账户转入 $900,000。约于 2017年5月18日，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入 $500,000。约一周内，Law Firm A 又分两笔向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入额外 $950,000。\n\n43. 约于 2017年5月17日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 Foreign National A 经由 Person A 向 BROIDY 支付的款项，以及 BROIDY 向 Davis 支付一定比例款项之事交换了短信。在这些短信中，Davis 问道：“你收到了吗？”BROIDY 回应道：“是。已在 Wickr[。] 上发给你。明早向你电汇。”Wickr 是一款允许端到端加密和内容到期失效的通信应用程序。BROIDY 随后又补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”Davis 回应道：“等亚洲开市。……至少现在正一步一步向前推进。”BROIDY 回应道：“是。催他们发出接下来的两笔电汇。”BROIDY 随后部分补充道：“假定第二笔 3 已到账，并确认最后两笔正在发出。请询问 [BROIDY 的助理]。”\n\n44. 约于 2017年5月25日，Foreign National A 指示向 Company A 进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为 $2.7 million。约于 2017年5月26日，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转入 $2 million，作为对 BROIDY 与 Foreign National A 就 BROIDY 协助处理 1MDB 民事没收案件而约定的 $8 million 预付聘金的部分履行。同日，$600,000 从 Law Firm A 账户转入与 Davis 有关联的一个商业账户。约于 2017年5月26日，Law Firm A 向 Person C（C 人）控制的账户转入 $1 million。于约 2017年6月初，Law Firm A 向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转入 $650,000。\n\nD. BROIDY 为 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）促成并尝试促成会面，以及为解决 1MDB 案件所作的努力\n\n45. 约于 2017年6月5日，BROIDY 向 Person D（D 人）发送短信；Person D 是一名政治顾问，曾任 President（总统）的竞选助理。BROIDY 请求 Person D 与 Administration 合作，为 Malaysian Prime Minister A 安排一次访问：“亚洲国家对于 7 月会面非常积极，希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”根据一项咨询协议，BROIDY 同意每月向 Person D 支付 $25,000，以获取有关如何应对 Administration 的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就 Foreign National A 交换了短信。在这些短信中，Davis 写道：“请在你睡前打电话……[Foreign National A] 一直打电话询问消息[。]”BROIDY 回应道：“是。我会打给你。我今晚正前往 D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），处理 [Foreign National A] 和亚洲国家的事。”\n\n47. 约于 2017年6月15日，应 Person A 的请求，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”Davis 补充道：“委托人”，该词指的是 Foreign National A。同日，BROIDY 回应道：“是。”\n\n48. 约于 2017年6月17日，BROIDY 与 Davis 讨论了 Malaysian Prime Minister A。于约 2017年6月，BROIDY 询问 President 是否愿意与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 打高尔夫球。BROIDY 和 Davis 相信，这会令 Foreign National A 满意，并使 Malaysian Prime Minister A 得以尝试解决 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 还希望与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的政府获得额外业务，并希望安排与 President 打高尔夫球将进一步促进其商业利益。\n\n49. 约于 2017年6月19日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的办公室批评美国的 1MDB 没收诉讼。\n\n50. 约于 2017年6月29日，BROIDY 向 White House（白宫）一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与 President 一同打高尔夫球：“你好，[Person E（E 人）]，如我所述，POTUS（总统）同意在 7 月下旬或 8 月上旬于 D.C. 或 Bedminster（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 state dept.（国务院）发送一封信，要求安排会面。”\n\n51. 约于 2017年6月30日，BROIDY 就该高尔夫球活动向 Person E 发送另一则短信：“希望我们今天上午能就 [PRC National A] 以及 POTUS 与 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 打高尔夫球的日期通话。”当日稍后，BROIDY 又补充道：“[Person E]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n52. 约于 2017年7月3日，BROIDY 再次就 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与 President 的高尔夫球日期向 Person E 发送短信：“早上好，[Person E]。如果你今天能够与 POTUS 确认同 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 打高尔夫球的日期，这将对我极有帮助。POTUS 告诉我，他很乐意在 Bedminster 或 D.C. 打球。我们交谈后，我向 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 提到，他上周会拿到日期。非常感谢！此致，Elliott。”当日稍后，BROIDY 再次向 Person E 发送短信：“[Person E]，我正在跟进。请把 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 与 POTUS 打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 约于 2017年7月5日，BROIDY 与 Person E 就该高尔夫球活动交换信息。在其他信息中，BROIDY 发送短信：“[Person E]，刚给你留了言。已经一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？致意，Elliott。”Person E 回应道：“此事已交由 NSC（国家安全委员会）处理[。]他们负责协调和谈判——我相信会办成的。”\n\n54. 约于 2017年7月11日，Davis 转达 Person A 的信息，向 BROIDY 发送短信：“Wickr[。] 已经下午 5 点了……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期以及其他方面。我们正被压得喘不过气来。”这些信息指的是确认 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与 President 打高尔夫球的日期，以及 Foreign National A 因尚未确认日期而感到不满。Davis 继续说道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我被各种事情淹没了[。]”BROIDY 回应道：“看 Wickr[。]”次日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“在 Wickr 上给我发短信。我正要起飞，得去白宫。正在起飞。现在就需要[。]”Davis 回应道：“已完成[。]”BROIDY 回应道：“收到了。谢谢[。]正尝试让 [Person F（F 人）] 尽快通话[。]”Person F 当时是 National Security Council 的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约于 2017年7月13日，Davis 向 BROIDY 发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们必须处理此事，所以请、请去 D.C.，并待在白宫，直到你办成此事。如果你担心孤单，我会陪着你！”\n\n56. 约于 2017年7月13日，BROIDY 再次就高尔夫球日期向 Person E 发送短信：“你好，[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，Elliott[。]”Person E 回应道：“我现在会再查一次[。]这些事情要经过一个流程——”BROIDY 回应道：“谢谢！！”Person E 回复道：“NSC 正在处理和协调[。]”BROIDY 回应道：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”Person E 回复道：“他们正直接与马来西亚方面合作。NSC 正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约于 2017年7月15日，BROIDY 向 Davis 发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 约于 2017 年 7 月 17 日，Davis（戴维斯）转达了 Person A（A 人士）代表 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）表达的紧迫性，并向 BROIDY（布罗伊迪）发送短信：“[Person E（E 人士）]现在需要给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来很无能。”该短信既提及安排总统与 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）会面，也提及涉及 PRC National A（中华人民共和国〔PRC〕国民 A）的事项。BROIDY 回复：“同意。正在全力推进。”\n\n59. 约于 2017 年 7 月 18 日，BROIDY 与 Davis 就安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 会面交换了数条短信。其中，Davis 写道：“你能查一下 Wickr 吗？确实需要那个日期。我今天一整天都在为此忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌。”Davis 随后写道：“今天必须确定这个日期——我们正被彻底压垮。”据 Person A 所述，Foreign National A 正在恐慌，因为尚未安排任何会面。BROIDY 回复：“现在就给 [Person E] 打电话。”Davis 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（G 人士）] 打电话。我们今天就需要这个。”Person G 是总统的一名行政助理。BROIDY 回复：“现在就在办。”\n\n60. 约于 2017 年 7 月 19 日，Davis 就安排马来西亚总理 A 与总统会面的日期向 BROIDY 发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期。”BROIDY 于次日回复：“请耐心等待。我正在获取有关会面的信息。”\n\n61. 约于 2017 年 7 月 21 日，BROIDY 就高尔夫活动向 Person E 发送短信：“[Person E]，马来西亚方面没有从国家安全委员会（NSC）得到任何消息。POTUS（总统）说他会在 7 月下旬或 8 月初与 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 打高尔夫球。POTUS 说他很乐意这样做。你说会在一两天内安排。现在已经是第 4 周了。我知道你很忙，而且程序适用，但我已经非常有耐心了。这件事现在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（埃利奥特）。”\n\n62. 约于 2017 年 7 月 24 日，BROIDY 向 Person D（D 人士）发送短信：“收到了 9 月在 NJ 的高尔夫日期。联合国大会前的那个周六。终于！可以从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”Person D 回复：“让我们跟进并确保该日期得到 NSC 的确认。他告诉你是谁给他的这个日期吗？”BROIDY 回复：“谢谢！！太棒了。由 [Person H（H 人士）] 从 [Person E] 处获得。”\n\n63. 约于 2017 年 7 月 27 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“刚刚又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。”BROIDY 随后写道：“嗨，[Person D]——你能否就马来西亚方面收到正式通知一事替我给 NSA 打电话？NSC 仍未就会面联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。致意，Elliott。”Person D 回复：“E——今天上午会再打电话。”\n\n64. 约于 2017 年 7 月 27 日，BROIDY 向国家安全委员会的一名高级官员发送电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理 A 与总统进行一场高尔夫球赛。\n\n65. 约于 2017 年 7 月 29 日，Davis 就马来西亚总理 A 与总统的会面向 BROIDY 发送短信：“他们被告知会面日期是 12 sept。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二？？？？”Davis 随即又发送短信：“Wickr。”BROIDY 回复：“可能有两场会面。大使应当询问。周六在 Bedminster 打高尔夫球，周二在 WH？”\n\n66. 约于 2017 年 8 月 7 日，BROIDY 向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中载有据称由马来西亚总理 A 准备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 Person A 处收到该谈话要点——Person A 是代表 Foreign National A 提供该要点的——随后 Davis 将其转交给 BROIDY。该谈话要点尤其提及 BROIDY 与马来西亚持续存在的关系及其为马来西亚所做的工作，并将 IMDB 确定为“一项优先事项”。该谈话要点指出 IMDB 造成的损害不足，并明确表示：“美国检察官的介入造成了不必要的美国〔原文如此〕紧张局势，并可能引发马来西亚人的负面反应。”\n\n67. 约于 2017 年 8 月 7 日，BROIDY 还将该谈话要点发送给 Person D，随即发送信息说明：“以上是马来西亚总理谈话要点的附件。你可以与为国务卿工作的[工作人员助理]分享。”BROIDY 还试图获取有关马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿在马来西亚会面时间的详情。\n\n68. 于约 2017 年 8 月 7 日稍后，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送信息：“[Secretary of State（国务卿）]将在 8 日与 [Malaysian Prime Minister A] 会面，并在 9 日与副总理会面。让我们以我的名义插上一句。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出 Circinus（赛奇纳斯）这个名称。谢谢！”Person D 回复：“确保建立这层联系肯定很重要。这很可能不会成为正式会面的一部分，但我会努力在他们的谈话中插上一句。”\n\n69. 约于 2017 年 8 月 9 日，Foreign National A 促使一家香港公司向 Company A（公司 A）转移约 \\$12.8 million。随后，Person A 向 Law Firm A（律师事务所 A）转移 \\$3 million。这是向 BROIDY 支付的最后一笔款项。BROIDY 共计获得 \\$9 million。约于次日，Law Firm A 向与 Davis 关联的一个企业账户转移 \\$900,000。此后的数日内，Law Firm A 向属于 BROIDY 的账户转移了数十万美元。\n\n70. 约于 2017 年 8 月 10 日，BROIDY 就马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿的会面向 Person 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——没有插上一句。:-”\n\n71. 约于 2017 年 8 月 19 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送短信：“马来西亚有什么进展吗？”Person D 回复：“截至目前，将在 DC 举行。由于日程安排，很难安排高尔夫球，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找 [Person I（I 人士）]，并利用他们两人曾一起打高尔夫球的经历。”BROIDY 回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给 [Person I] 的某位副手或 [Person J（J 人士）] 打电话。还需要增加会面时间。我想与你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最合适。”Person I 当时是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n72. 约于 2017 年 8 月 31 日，BROIDY 起草并向 Person I 发送了一封电子邮件，试图安排马来西亚总理 A 与总统进行一场高尔夫球赛。\n\n73. 约于 2017 年 9 月 11 日，Davis 起草了一封拟由 BROIDY 发送给总统的信函，以备马来西亚总理 A 与总统会面之用，并将该信函提供给 BROIDY。该信函包含马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信函从未提交给总统。\n\n74. 在 BROIDY 多次努力安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 进行一场高尔夫球赛后，马来西亚总理 A 于约 2017 年 9 月 12 日在白宫与总统会面。尽管 BROIDY 除正式会面外还联系政府中的高级官员，以安排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 在白宫与总统会面。BROIDY 在会面期间没有提出 IMDB 事项，但向 Davis 表示他已经提出，明知 Davis 会将该信息传达给 Person A 和 Foreign National A。\n\n76. 约于 2018 年 1 月 5 日，BROIDY 起草了与 IMDB 有关的谈话要点，以向 Foreign National A 表明 BROIDY 已代表其采取的努力。该谈话要点尤其载明：“1. 我们正在与司法部（DoJ）合作，以反击前届政府在马来西亚针对 IMDB 的案件。我已制定一项策略，以联系 DoJ 和 NSC 的相关人士，寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长会面。她是[总统]任命的人员，能够提供帮助。……3. 如我先前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺解决这一问题。重要的是我遵从他的指示，但将继续传达这一问题的重要性。”这些陈述是虚假的。\n\nII. 将 PRC National A 驱逐出美国的行动\n\nA. BROIDY 前往中国会见 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A）\n\n77. 于约 2017 年 5 月，在曼谷之行后，BROIDY 同意前往香港再次会见 Foreign National A。在出行前，Davis 与 BROIDY 讨论了将 PRC National A 驱逐出美国对 Foreign National A 而言十分重要。前往香港的目的是会见 Foreign National A 和一名 PRC 外国政府官员，以讨论 PRC National A。\n\n78. 约于 2017 年 5 月 15 日，Davis 就前往香港的旅行安排和行程向 BROIDY 的助理发送电子邮件。同日，Davis 还向 BROIDY 和 Person C（C 人士）发送了 Davis 公司的银行信息。\n\n79. 约于 2017 年 5 月 18 日，BROIDY、Davis 和 Person A 前往香港，并被运送至中国深圳，在那里他们于一家酒店套房内会见了 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A。PRC Minister A 向 BROIDY 谈及 PRC National A 及其被指控的罪行，并表示 PRC 政府希望将 PRC National A 送回 PRC。PRC Minister A 要求 BROIDY 利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡导将 PRC National A 驱逐并送回 PRC。他们还讨论了将当时被 PRC 监禁的美国人遣返美国的可能性。PRC Minister A 还表示，他很快将访问 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方面遇到困难。\n\nB. BROIDY 游说美国高级官员驱逐 PRC National A\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：“我会努力让本周成为我们与 [the Attorney General（司法部长）] 的重要一周。”\n\n81. 约于 2017 年 5 月 21 日，BROIDY 就其与 Foreign National A 和 PRC Minister A 的会面向 Person D 发送短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大的机会。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 Person D 发送短信：“我需要尽快与 [Attorney General] 会面。我们会讨论。”BROIDY 随后写道：“我正在给你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，Person D 回复：“已向 [Attorney General] 提出会面请求。”\n\n83. 约于 2017 年 5 月 22 日，BROIDY 向 Person D 发送了一封主题为“美中之间显著加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。BROIDY 在电子邮件中附上了一份由 BROIDY 致司法部长的备忘录，意图由 Person D 随后将该备忘录交给司法部长。该备忘录的内容由 Davis 提供给 BROIDY，而该内容源自 PRC Minister A 和 Foreign National A。收到后，BROIDY 与 Person C 对该备忘录进行了修改。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）歪曲了其赴中国旅行的原因以及促成其与PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长A）会面的情形。BROIDY未披露其与Foreign National A（外国国民A）的联系，也未披露外国国民A在安排BROIDY与中华人民共和国部长A会面中所起的作用。BROIDY还未披露其已从外国国民A处收取的$4 million。BROIDY还未披露，其就PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A）所作的游说努力，至少部分是依据其与外国国民A之间的财务安排，并且可能导致额外付款。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，BROIDY称：“[PRC Minister A]告诉我，中国希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面大幅增加与美国的双边合作。”BROIDY写到中华人民共和国部长A即将前往Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区），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。BROIDY表示，Attorney General（司法部长）与中华人民共和国部长A会面将富有成效。BROIDY还指出，据中华人民共和国部长A称，为改善美国与中国之间的执法关系，中国愿意采取若干措施。随后，BROIDY补充道：\n\n根据我与[PRC Minister A]的谈话，中国将提出的一项请求是，将[PRC National A]——中国称其曾与其他已被逮捕并被指控违反中国多项刑法（包括绑架罪和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋——尽快从美国驱逐出境（其签证将在下个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至中国，以便其因上述违法行为受到指控，并就这些指控在中国接受正常刑事程序审理。\n\nBROIDY将一份有关PRC National A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录。\n\n86. 大约在May 23, 2017，BROIDY向Person D（D人士）发送短信：“嗨[]，明天的会面定了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[Attorney General]了吗？请更新。谢谢。Elliott[]”Person D回复道：“Elliott——信昨天已递交。请看含修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚乘红眼航班，这样我可以早些返回DC。”BROIDY回复道：“太好了。谢谢[]。也请设法确定他的会面是否已定，或者我们能否安排在周四、或周五或周六在Alabama（阿拉巴马州）举行。”次日，大约在May 24, 2017，Person D回复道：“正在等待DoJ（司法部）就会面——我们的和[PRC Minister A]的——作出回复。请告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n87. 大约在May 24, 2017，Person D向BROIDY发送短信：“刚接到[Attorney General]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，说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n88. 大约在May 25, 2017，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“今天上午10:00在司法部举行会面。然后明天去FBI（联邦调查局）和DHS（国土安全部）。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到达，这样可以进行一次简短会面。然后再与[]一对一会面，以讨论更多细节。请今天一早设法见到[Attorney General]。促成此事确实非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人交谈。谢谢。Ef。”Person D回复道：“E——正在处理。[Attorney General]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”当日稍后，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“细节是，我备忘录中的三件事只针对[Attorney General]。[PRC Minister A]希望直接告诉[Attorney General]。我的是合法的后门渠道。[PRC Minister A]的上司希望确认[Attorney General]听到了这三件事，这些事确实有助于美国。”当日稍后，Person D回复道：“E——实际上刚刚与[Attorney General]通完电话。消息不太好。请告诉我你何时有空谈谈。谢谢。”\n\n89. 大约在May 26, 2017，提及为PRC Minister A安排的会面，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“上午10点与ICE（移民与海关执法局）负责人会面，11:30与FBI会面。或许在DHS采取行动能挽救局面。顺访[Person]。三件事可以分享。”BROIDY随后又称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正在设法控制损失，需要与你交谈。最好是把[Person]拉到一旁。”Person I（I人士）当时是DHS的高级官员。\n\n90. 大约在May 28, 2017，在Davis（戴维斯）向BROIDY转录通信内容后，BROIDY向Person D发送电子邮件：“与[Attorney General]和驻美中国大使之间的往来通信转录件。”BROIDY指出：“我相信，[Attorney General]有一个极好的机会推进美国利益。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一事项值得AG（司法部长）知悉。”当日稍后，BROIDY与Person D互发电子邮件，以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。\n\n91. 大约在May 30, 2017，就PRC Minister A与美国政府官员的会面，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“查看Wickr——现在一切都已明确，可以举行会面。”BROIDY回复道：“是的。一切就绪。”Davis回复道：“他的会面已恢复。”\n\n92. 大约在May 2017，应Person A（A人士）的要求，Davis请BROIDY在Washington, D.C.与PRC Minister A会面。\n\n93. 大约在May 30, 2017，BROIDY在Washington, D.C.的一家酒店会见了PRC Minister A。BROIDY还询问Person D能否协助PRC Minister A安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n94. 大约在May 31, 2017，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与VM（副部长）会面。他今天下午乘坐4 pm的航班返回。FBI让他与级别很低的人会面，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]或[Person]会面，否则就回国。他很愿意与[Person]会面。……截至目前，他已交出一名孕妇，另外两人将很快被送出。他将接受60名中国国民被驱逐出境，但前提是他能进行一次适当的“短暂会面”。这是政府的一项重大胜利，可以予以宣传。这是两国总统在Mar-A-Lago会面所产生的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n95. Person D回复道：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”BROIDY回复道：\n\n“如果你促成了会面，我们能否让政治方面的WH（白宫）联络官在DHS与VM会面？他可以提到我的名字。也请设法让[Person]缓和局面。也提到我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n96. 大约在May 31, 2017，就PRC Minister A据称与Person I会面的事宜，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“原则上[Person I]可以——只是日程安排问题？”BROIDY回复道：“只是临时通知的日程安排问题。仍可能在接下来一小时左右得到消息。[PRC Minister A]没有任何问题。”BROIDY随后继续说道：“请向VM转达我的良好祝愿。再等一会儿。”Davis回复道：“是的，我正在这样告诉他。”BROIDY回复道：“告诉他，我正在把发生的事情告诉WH和[Attorney General]。”随后Davis发送短信：“[Person]今天下午不是安排在Haiti（海地）吗？”BROIDY回复道：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？？你确定吗？[Attorney General]的人也没有提到。”Davis回复道：“DHS网站上有。他下午在那里。刚刚与VM谈过，他听起来像是在哭。”BROIDY回复道：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底，不是我们的错。通常他们的大使会处理。这真他妈是一团糟。”Davis回复道：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 大约在June 9, 2017，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. 大约在June 27, 2017，BROIDY就将PRC National A驱离一事向Person H（H人士）的配偶发送短信。BROIDY知道，Person H是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，也是政治竞选活动的经常捐款人，与President（总统）关系密切，能够直接接触并影响总统，并且可能有效地寻求将PRC National A驱离。BROIDY向Person H的配偶发送短信：“另有一事，我想明天上午就一件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，或者午餐时会面？期待在[] Hotel（酒店）见到你！致意，Elliott。”BROIDY随后继续说道：\n\n嗨[]，[Person H]请我通过短信向你发送此信息。我将向你发送若干有关逃犯[PRC National A]的材料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报。……时效性极强的事项是，[PRC National A]留在美国的签证将于June 30th到期。至关重要的是，其新的签证申请必须立即被拒绝。他还必须被列入DHS禁飞名单。……该命令需要来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与曾任职于FBI的人员关系密切，这些人员属于其私人安保团队。[The President of the PRC]在Mar-A-Lago向[the President]提到，他希望将[PRC National A]送回。[PRC Minister A]与我会面，并请求协助处理[PRC National A]一事。……他承诺让中国释放若干被扣为人质的美国公民，并将接受数量极大的中国非法移民被驱逐回中国。最后，他还提出就North Korea（朝鲜）提供新的协助。\n\n99. 大约在June 28, 2017，BROIDY在一次社交聚会上会见了Person H及其配偶。会面后，BROIDY与Person H的配偶就PRC National A互发短信：“嗨[]，今晚见到你和[Person H]真好！我刚刚再次收到[PRC Minister A]的消息。他想知道[PRC National A]的VISA（签证）状态，因为时间至关重要。——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]本周会逃离美国。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，他们感谢你们的帮助。”Person H的配偶回复道：“这件事已提交至国务院和国防部的最高层。他们正在处理。”\n\n100. 大约在June 29, 2017，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A的签证申请互发短信。BROIDY发送短信：“拒绝函或批准函已经生成了吗？”Davis回复道：“我不知道。”BROIDY回复道：“抱歉，总是会生成。换句话说，每位申请人最终都会书面收到批准或拒绝的答复[?]。抱歉，书面收到批准或拒绝的答复[?]”Davis回复道：“是的。查看Wickr。”\n\n101. 大约在June 30, 2017，Davis提及他们为促成PRC National A被驱离以及可能让被扣留在PRC的美国公民返回所作的努力，向BROIDY发送短信：“Wickr。你现在真是个了不起的人。在你为这个国家于这个July 4th将完成的事情之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章。”BROIDY回复道：“我会全力以赴，直到完成为止。”Davis回复道：“让我们确保第一部分今天发生。还有m的日期。直到我们办成此事之前，不要离开那个人。”BROIDY回复道：“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绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成该信函），那么我们将在July 4前让那两名美国人回家。之后的第二阶段——我们可以接收那60人。”BROIDY回复道：“听起来不错。[Person H]很快会回电话给我。正在通话中。”\n\n102. 约在2017年6月30日，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）与Davis（戴维斯）就PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A）交换了数条短信。BROIDY发短信称：“听说了[Person H（H人士）]的消息。他向POTUS重申了此事。”BROIDY随后补充道：“另外，[Person E（E人士）]给我发短信称，他被其他事情缠住了，但正在跟进此事。”同日，Davis回复道：“我们今天能拿到有关撤销的证明吗？”Dayis后来具体说明：“来自[Person E]的吗？”\n\n103. 约在2017年7月1日，BROIDY向Davis发短信称：“与[Person E]长谈。你方便时给我打电话。[”BROIDY并未与Person E交谈，但曾就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（中华人民共和国部长A）关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 约在2017年7月2日，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，Davis发短信称：“今天周日与[President of the PRC（中华人民共和国主席）]就朝鲜问题安排了一通电话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他听说过[Person H]的消息。”\n\n105. 约在2017年7月3日，同样根据公开报道，Davis向BROIDY发短信称：“[President（总统）]周三离开D.C.前往欧洲。]”Davis随后补充道：“7月5日。安排与[President of the PRC]亲自会面。]”\n\n106. 约在2017年7月10日，Person A（A人士）向其本人发送了PRC National A的红色通缉令副本、PRC National A的护照和身份证图像，以及与PRC National A及其被指控实施的犯罪有关的其他文件。\n\n107. 在约2017年7月，Person A要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的PRC Embassy（中华人民共和国大使馆）会见PRC Ambassador to the United States（中华人民共和国驻美国大使）。该会面的目的是向该大使传达有关PRC National A的信息。约在2017年7月16日，Higginbotham前往Washington, D.C.的PRC Embassy，并会见了该大使。在会面期间，Higginbotham告诉该大使，美国政府官员正在处理PRC National A的引渡事宜，并且未来将有关于引渡后勤安排的更多信息。会面后，Higginbotham向Person A报告了所发生的情况，Person A表示其将通知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，且该会面使Foreign National A在PRC面前获得了可信度。\n\n108. 约在2017年7月18日，BROIDY将Person H的联系信息通过电子邮件发送给Davis。Davis为推进将PRC National A移除的游说活动，接通了PRC Minister A与Person H之间的多通电话。\n\n109. 约在2017年7月26日，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A及将其从美国移送至PRC一事交换短信。在这些短信中，Davis写道：“确实需要确认该事项已被正式传达。到目前为止——他说没有。”BROIDY回复道：“已请3个不同的人跟进。]”BROIDY后来补充道：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n110. 约在2017年7月26日，BROIDY发短信约Person H在Washington, D.C.的一家酒店见面，以讨论PRC National A：“你好，[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知你在DC，我也在DC，住在[hotel（酒店）]。你今天愿意喝杯咖啡吗？致意，Elliott（埃利奥特）。”同日稍后，Person H的配偶向BROIDY发短信称：“你好，Elliot。你能否再次向我发送你此前发短信提及的那名中国男子的详细情况，谢谢[。]”BROIDY回复道：“你好，[]，你指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A]？致意，Elliott[。]”Person H的配偶回复道：“[PRC National A]。”随后，BROIDY再次发送了其此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n111. 约在2017年7月27日，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A交换短信。Davis向BROIDY发短信称：“大使馆方面有消息吗？”Davis后来补充道：“关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”BROIDY回复道：“我正在与NSC（国家安全委员会）的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。正在等待回复[。]”\n\n112. 约在2017年8月19日，BROIDY数次向Davis发短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息。]”BROIDY后来补充道：“我与[Person H]在一起。有突破机会。]”\n\n113. 约在2017年8月19日，BROIDY在Person H的游艇上会见了Person H。在二人共处期间，BROIDY询问Person H有关PRC National A的事项。随后，Person H当着BROIDY的面给总统打电话，询问PRC National A在美国境内的身份状态。\n\n114. 约在2017年9月13日，BROIDY向Davis发短信称：“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. 约在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. 约在2018年1月5日，BROIDY向Davis发短信称：“尽快给我发送更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[]”\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 为根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)提出没收主张之目的，现重新主张并以引用方式纳入本Information（控罪书）中Count One（第一项罪名）的指控。\n\n2. 根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，在因违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 371的Count One被定罪后，被告ELLlOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）应向United States of America（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收益的不动产或动产。现进一步通知，在定罪后，美国拟寻求对BROIDY作出金钱判决，其金额代表本段所述财产。\n\n3. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，上述所述任何财产：\n\na. 经尽职调查后无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或寄存于第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他难以分割的财产混同，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权根据Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)所纳入的Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：September 30, 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙森）\nUnited States Department of Justice（美国司法部）\nPublic Integrity Section（公共廉正处）处长\n\n/s/John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副处长\nSean F. Mulryne（肖恩·F·马尔林）\nElection Crimes Branch（选举犯罪科）副主任\nNicole R. Lockhart（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJames C. Mann（詹姆斯·C·曼）\nPublic Integrity Section审判律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 702 Filed 08/04/22 Entered 08/05/22 16:02:44 Page 86 of 167\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nDISTRICT OF HAWAII（夏威夷地区）\n11 Aug 17, 2020, 10:23am\nMichelle Rynne（米歇尔·林恩），法院书记员\n\nKENJI M. PRICE（肯吉·M·普赖斯）#10523\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官）\nDistrict of Hawaii\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼思·M·索伦森）\nAssistant U.S. Attorney（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电子邮箱：ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\nUnited States Department of Justice\nPublic Integrity Section处长\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副处长\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\nElection Crimes副主任\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\nPublic Integrity Section审判律师\n\n在美国联邦地区法院\n夏威夷地区\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA，\n\n原告。\n\n诉\n\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马利·拉姆·戴维斯），\n\n被告。\n) CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO\n\n控罪书\n\n[18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)]\n\n美利坚合众国提出控罪：\n\n引言\n\n在与本Information有关的所有时间：\n\n2. 自不晚于2017年3月起至至少约2018年1月止，NICKIE LUM DAVIS同Persons A and B（A人士和B人士）达成协议，以作为Foreign National A代理人为交换条件，收取数百万美元未披露的电汇款项，该等款项源自与Foreign National A有关的外国账户。DAVIS具体同意协助Person B游说President of the United States（美国总统）、其政府及United States Department of Justice（DOJ，美国司法部），以撤销对Foreign National A因其在从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——挪用数十亿美元中所涉作用的调查。作为其努力的一部分，被告和Person B故意未向政府和DOJ官员披露Person B系代表Foreign National A行事。最终，DAVIS和Persons A及B未能实现撤销1MDB调查的目的。\n\n3. 在大约同一期间，DAVIS还同Persons A及B达成协议，协助其游说政府和DOJ，以应Foreign National A和PRC Minister A的请求，安排将居住在美国的PRC异见人士PRC National A移除并送回PRC。在此方面，DAVIS和Persons A及B最终也未成功。\n\n4. 为促进Foreign National A的利益，DAVIS协助Person B促成Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）与总统于2017年9月会面，部分目的在于使Malaysian Prime Minister A能够向总统提出解决1MDB事项的问题。\n\n5. DAVIS、Person A和Person B还在PRC会见PRC Minister A，并同意由Person B在DAVIS协助下游说政府，将PRC National A送回PRC。DAVIS、Person A和Person B还同意并试图促成PRC Minister A与DOJ及United States Department of Homeland Security（DHS，美国国土安全部）高级官员之间的会面，其明确目的在于为PRC Minister A提供机会，使其在2017年5月访问美国期间能够与美国高级官员讨论移除PRC National A一事。\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.，过去和现在均为一项信息披露法，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，例如代表该外国委托人开展政治或公共关系活动或游说。该等登记向DOJ内部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。明知且故意未登记，以及在依该法规定提交给FARA Unit的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA的目的是防止外国委托人的秘密影响。根据该法适当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估作为外国委托人代理人的个人所作出的陈述和开展的活动。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代理人期间作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事人及实体\n\n8. 被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（尼基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯）曾是且现为美国公民、女商人及顾问，与Person A（A某人士）和Person B（B某人士）具有个人及商业关系。\n\n9. Person A曾是美国公民、商人和演艺人士，具有国际联系，包括与Foreign National A（外国国民A）的联系。\n\n10. 自约2016年4月至2018年4月，Person B担任全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。以该身份，Person B从捐款人处筹集大量政治捐款，组织政治筹款活动，并在2016年选举周期内与一名美国总统候选人的竞选团队协调筹款策略。选举后，Person B继续担任财务副主席，并保持接触总统政府（Administration）高级官员的渠道及与其的联系，包括总统。同期，Person B拥有并经营数家国内及国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. Foreign National A是一名居住在东亚的富有商人，因其在策划和实施从1MDB侵吞数十亿美元计划中所起的作用而被另案起诉。\n\n12. Company A（A公司）是一家由Person A设立的有限责任公司，用于接收Foreign National A汇来的电汇款项，以支付Person B的游说工作费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是Person A的同事，也是一名受雇于DOJ（美国司法部）的持牌律师。2019年11月20日，Higginbotham在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）就一项指控共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的起诉信息书认罪答辩。\n\n14. Law Firm A（A律师事务所）是一家由Person B的配偶Person C（C某人士）经营的律师事务所。\n\n15. PRC National A（中国国民A）是一名中华人民共和国异见人士，持临时签证居住在美国。中华人民共和国政府，包括PRC Minister A（中国部长A）和中华人民共和国主席，正寻求将PRC National A从美国遣返回中华人民共和国。\n\n16. 自2016年末至2019年，DOJ一直在积极调查Foreign National A据称与1MDB侵吞计划洗钱所得相关的交易。2016年7月，DOJ提起多起民事没收诉讼，请求没收据称以1MDB洗钱所得购买的数百万美元资产。2018年11月1日，DOJ提交刑事起诉书，指控Foreign National A及其他人共谋洗白从1MDB侵吞的数十亿美元，并共谋通过向多名马来西亚和阿布扎比官员支付贿赂而违反《反海外腐败法》。\n\nI. 解决1MDB民事没收案件的活动\n\nA. Person B同意以$8 Million预付费用为Foreign National A进行游说\n\n17. 约在2017年3月，DAVIS告诉Person B，她在马来西亚有一名可能的客户，可以“在没收方面使用帮助”。\n\n18. 约在2017年3月5日，应Person B要求，DAVIS通过电子邮件向Person B发送了一份与1MDB有关的民事没收诉状副本。同日，DAVIS通过电子邮件向Person B发送了一篇彭博社文章，题为“Foreign National A Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits”，并向Person B发送短信：“你的电子邮件中有法院提交文件[]。”Person B回复：“Thx. Will review.” DAVIS回复：“Call me when u can- thank you[.]”Person B再次回复：“Yes. 5 min].])”\n\n19. Person A要求DAVIS向其发送Person B的个人简介，该简介说明Person B与政府高级官员的关系，以及Person B与总统的照片。约在2017年3月7日，应DAVIS要求，Person B的助理通过电子邮件向DAVIS发送了展示Person B与总统的照片。Person A表示，其想要这些照片，以便突出Person B与政府之间的密切接触渠道。\n\n20. 约在2017年3月8日，DAVIS向Person 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?” Person B回复：“I think so. Let's speak later.” 同日稍后，DAVIS向Person B发送了额外短信，以安排Person B、Person A和DAVIS之间的会面。\n\n21. 按照Person B的指示，约在2017年3月13日，DAVIS向Person A转发了Law Firm A与Foreign National A之间的“Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services”。该“Retainer and Fee Agreement”规定，Foreign National A应预先支付$8 million预付费用；如该“事项”在180日内解决，则另行支付$75 million成功费用；如该“事项”在365日内解决，则另行支付$50 million。协议草案包括附件A，说明该“事项”系指1MDB没收程序。事实上，Person A、Person B、Law Firm A、DAVIS和Person C均未向Foreign National A提供任何诉讼服务或法律意见。该聘用协议的真实目的，是基于Person B的政治关系，取得Person B代表Foreign National A向政府和DOJ进行游说的服务。\n\n22. 约在2017年3月13日，Person B与Person A和DAVIS会面，讨论Foreign National A及其法律问题。会面中，Person A向Person B说明了其与Foreign National A的关系，并询问Person B是否能够协助处理涉及Foreign National A的民事没收案件。Person A表示，其将与Foreign National A讨论Person B协助处理民事没收案件的可能性。同日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信，其中部分内容为：“I'm excited about our business prospects.”\n\n23. 约在2017年3月15日，就Foreign National A而言，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“Anything new on . . . [Person A's] Associate?” 同日，DAVIS回复：“[Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the 'promoter' and they hope to travel within the next few week[]]”\n\n24. 约在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之间的另一次会面。\n\n25. 在所有相关期间，DAVIS、Person A和Person B均知悉FARA（《外国代理人登记法》）及其禁止未经登记代表外国委托人的规定。\n\n26. 尽管知悉须登记为外国委托人代理人的要求，DAVIS、Person A和Person B从未就其作为Foreign National A代理人所从事的工作向DOJ内的FARA Unit（《外国代理人登记法》部门）登记。\n\nB. Person A、Person B和DAVIS在曼谷会见Foreign National A\n\n27. 约在2017年4月，Person A要求Person B前往泰国曼谷，与Foreign National A会面。Person B表示，只有获得$1 million报酬其才会前往，并且其希望由Person A以“未受污染”的资金向其付款。\n\n28. 约在2017年4月28日，Person B向DAVIS发送短信称：“I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]” 同日，DAVIS回复：“Ok[.]”\n\n29. 约在2017年4月29日，Person B和DAVIS就即将与Foreign National A和Person A举行的会面互发短信。在这些短信中，Person B就Foreign National A询问：“Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?” DAVIS回复：“Call me when u can talk[.]”\n\n30. 约在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。电子邮件中，DAVIS部分写道：“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. 约在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，告知其在Shangri-La Hotel预订房间，并向她发送确认信息。Person A回复：“[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,”随后又补充道：“Also send me [Person B's] wire info.” DAVIS回复，提供了以Law Firm A名义开立账户的电汇信息。同日，针对Person B的助理询问其是否应取消Person B的酒店客房预订，DAVIS向Person B的助理发送电子邮件称：“Yes all rooms are booked by [Person A] already.”\n\n32. 约在2017年5月2日，DAVIS向Person B发送电子邮件，部分内容为：“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. 约在2017年5月2日，DAVIS、Person A和Person B抵达曼谷。旅行期间，DAVIS、Person A和Person B在一间酒店套房内与Foreign National A会面。Person B和Foreign National A谈及1MDB调查及民事没收诉讼。Person B同意协助Foreign National A试图解决该事项。Foreign National A同意向Person B支付$8 million预付费用，并希望Person B联系美国司法部长，以使DOJ撤销1MDB事项。Person B同意代表Foreign National A向政府和DOJ游说，以取得对Foreign National A有利的结果，同时隐瞒其代表Foreign National A工作的事实。关于付款，Person B表示，款项不应直接来自Foreign National A，并且应当“干净”。Foreign National A确定了一名可以向Person B及其他人付款的朋友。Person B、Person A和DAVIS同意，资金将首先经由Person A转汇，随后通过Law Firm A支付给Person B。Person B和DAVIS同意，Person B将向DAVIS支付Person B所收取款项的百分之三十。Person A还同意向DAVIS支付Person A所收取资金的一定比例。Person A告诉Person B和DAVIS，Person A的朋友Higginbotham正在核实资金的合法性。Higginbotham实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. Person A从Foreign National A收到$8.5 Million；Person B获付$6 Million；DAVIS获付$1.7 Million\n\n34. 在泰国与Foreign National A会面后，约在2017年5月8日，Company A收到由Foreign National A指示、从香港一实体汇出的约$2.8 million电汇款项。同日，Person A从Company A账户取得一张以Law Firm A为收款人的$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，第三方公司按照Person A的指示向Law Firm A账户转入$250,000，使存入Law Firm A账户的总额达到$1 million。在数日内，2017年5月8日转入Law Firm A账户的$1 million中约$900,000，从Law Firm A账户转入Person B的一个商业账户。\n\n35. 约在2017年5月8日，DAVIS向Person B发送短信：“Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago - ”DAVIS随后补充道：“702 total cashier check]. [”\n\n36. 约在2017年5月9日，Person A促使Company A向由DAVIS一名家庭成员控制的一家公司转账$250,000，以使DAVIS受益。\n\n37. 约在2017年5月17日，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A发出一笔国际电汇。同日，Person A从Company A向Law Firm A转账$3 million。\n\n38. 约于2017年5月17日，人员B与DAVIS就外国国籍人士A经由人员A向人员B支付款项，以及人员B向DAVIS支付一定比例款项事宜交换了短信。短信中，DAVIS问道：“你收到了吗？”人员B回复：“是的。已给你发Wickr。明早给你汇款。”Wickr是一款允许端到端加密和内容过期的通讯应用程序。人员B随后补充道：“你收到第二笔确认了吗？”DAVIS回复：“等亚洲市场开盘……至少现在正逐步向前推进。”人员B回复：“是的。催他们发接下来的两笔汇款。”人员B后来部分补充道：“假设第二笔300万已经到账，并确认最后两笔正在汇出。请询问[人员B的助理]。”\n\n39. 约于2017年5月18日，A律师事务所向人员B的一个商业账户转账$500,000，并向DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转账$900,000。约一周内，A律师事务所又通过两笔单独转账，向人员B的一个商业账户转入额外的$950,000。\n\n40. 约于2017年5月25日，外国国籍人士A促成向A公司进行第三笔转账，此次金额约为$2.7 million。约于2017年5月26日，人员A从A公司向A律师事务所转账$2 million，部分履行人员B与外国国籍人士A约定的$8 million预付聘金；作为对价，人员B将游说政府当局和司法部（DOJ）撤销1MDB民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，$600,000从A律师事务所账户转入与DAVIS有关联的一个商业账户。\n\nD. 人员B促成马来西亚总理A举行会晤，并游说解决1MDB案件\n\n41. 约于2017年5月18日，人员B向人员D——总统的政治顾问及前竞选助手——发送短信，请求人员D与政府当局合作，为马来西亚总理A安排访问：“嗨，[人员D]——请推进亚洲国家访问。日期定在7月。”\n\n42. 约于2017年6月5日，人员B再次就马来西亚总理A的访问向人员D发送短信：“该亚洲国家对7月会晤非常积极。希望我们能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同日，应人员A要求，DAVIS向人员B发送了有关外国国籍人士A的短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS根据人员A代表外国国籍人士A向其传达的信息写道：“如果可能的话，请在你去以色列睡觉前给我打电话……[外国国籍人士A]一直打电话询问消息。”人员B回复：“好的。我会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿特区，处理[外国国籍人士A]和亚洲国家的事。”\n\n44. 约于2017年6月15日，DAVIS转达人员A的信息，向人员B发送短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你可以吗？”DAVIS补充道：“委托人”，指的是外国国籍人士A。同日，人员B回复：“可以。”\n\n45. 约于2017年6月16日，人员B与DAVIS就1MDB以及从一名与外国国籍人士A有关联的人士处扣押珠宝的事宜交换了短信。\n\n46. 约于2017年6月17日，人员B与DAVIS讨论了马来西亚总理A。约于2017年6月，人员B询问总统是否愿与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。人员B表示，且DAVIS相信，这将使外国国籍人士A感到满意，并使马来西亚总理A得以尝试解决1MDB事项。人员B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\n47. 约于2017年6月19日，DAVIS向人员B发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及马来西亚总理A办公室批评美国的1MDB没收诉讼。\n\n48. 约于2017年6月25日，DAVIS向人员B发送了一篇文章的链接，该文章涉及马来西亚总理A以及涉及外国国籍人士A的1MDB没收诉讼。同日，人员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随后表示，她已向人员B发送了“WhatsApp请求”。\n\n49. 约于2017年6月29日，人员B向白宫一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排马来西亚总理A与总统进行一次高尔夫球活动：“嗨，[人员E]，如我所提及，总统（POTUS）同意于7月下旬或8月初在华盛顿特区或贝德明斯特与[马来西亚总理A]打一轮高尔夫球。非常感谢你回复我日期。此外，几周前已向国务院发出一封信，要求举行会晤。”\n\n50. 约于2017年6月30日，人员B就高尔夫球活动向人员E发送另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[中国籍人士A]以及总统与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球的日期谈谈。”当日稍后，人员B又补充道：“[人员E]，如所讨论，希望我们今天能完成这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n51. 约于2017年7月3日，人员B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，[人员E]。如果你今天能向总统确认与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球的日期，这将对我极有帮助。总统告诉我，他乐意在贝德明斯特或华盛顿特区打球。我们谈过后，我告诉[马来西亚总理A]，他上周会拿到日期。非常感谢！致意，[ ]。”当日稍后，人员B再次向人员E发送短信：“[人员E]，我在跟进。请把[马来西亚总理A]与总统打高尔夫球的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n52. 约于2017年7月4日，DAVIS向人员B发送短信：“尽快给我打电话”，随后又称：“清空你的手机——删除信息。”\n\n53. 约于2017年7月5日，人员B与人员E就高尔夫球活动交换了信息。在其他信息中，人员B发送短信称：“[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？致意，[ ]。”人员E回复：“国家安全委员会（NSC）正在处理。他们正在协调和谈判——我确信这会办妥。”\n\n54. 约于2017年7月11日，DAVIS转达人员A的信息，向人员B发送短信：“Wickr。现在下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动。日期及其他事项。我们正遭受重创。”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国籍人士A的不满。DAVIS转达人员A所表达的紧迫性，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。”人员B回复：“在Wickr上看。”次日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发短信。我正在起飞，需要去白宫（WH）。正在起飞。现在就需要。”DAVIS回复：“完成。”人员B回复：“收到了。谢谢。正试图让[人员F]尽快打电话。”人员F当时是国家安全委员会的一名高级官员。\n\n55. 约于2017年7月13日，DAVIS向人员B发送短信：“你方便时请打电话，这样我们可以谈谈——我们必须处理此事，所以请你务必去华盛顿特区，并在白宫坐等，直到你拿到它。如果你担心孤单，我会陪你！”\n\n56. 约于2017年7月13日，人员B再次就高尔夫球日期向人员E发送短信：“嗨，[人员E]，已经两周了。再次询问总统与[马来西亚总理A]打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能把日期短信发给我吗？谢谢。致意，[ ]。”人员E回复：“我现在再查一下。这类事情要经过一个程序——”。人员B回复：“谢谢！！”人员E回复：“国家安全委员会正在处理和协调。”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。国家安全委员会正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 约于2017年7月15日，人员B向DAVIS发送短信：“正在努力安排明天的会晤。”\n\n58. 约于2017年7月17日，DAVIS转达人员A代表外国国籍人士A表达的紧迫性，向人员B发送短信：“[人员E]现在必须给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的进展。我们看起来毫无作为。”该短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会晤，也指涉及中国籍人士A的事项。人员B回复：“同意。正在不断施压。”\n\n59. 约于2017年7月18日，人员B与DAVIS就安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会晤交换了数条短信。其中，DAVIS转达人员A提供的信息写道：“你能查看Wickr吗？确实非常需要那个日期。我今天一整天都因这件事忙得不可开交。他正在恐慌。”DAVIS随后补充道：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们正遭受惨重打击。”据人员A称，外国国籍人士A因尚未安排任何会晤而感到恐慌。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，让他们知道你非常愤怒。也给[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。人员B回复：“现在就在做。”\n\n60. 约于2017年7月19日，DAVIS就安排马来西亚总理A与总统会晤的日期向人员B发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期。”人员B于次日回复：“请耐心等我一下。正在获取有关会晤的信息。”\n\n61. 约于2017年7月21日，人员B就高尔夫球活动向人员E发送短信：“人员E，[马来西亚]没有从国家安全委员会听到任何消息。总统说他会于7月下旬或8月初与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。总统说他很乐意这样做。你说一两天内就会安排好。现在已是第四周。我知道你很忙，而且程序必须适用，但我已经非常有耐心了。此事现在不但没有带来积极作用，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！[ ]。”\n\n62. 约于2017年7月24日，人员B向人员D发送短信：“收到了9月在新泽西州举行高尔夫球活动的日期。在联合国大会之前的星期六。终于！从我的清单上划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”人员D回复：“我们要跟进，并确保国家安全委员会确认日期。他有没有告诉你是谁给他的日期？”人员B回复：“谢谢！！太棒了。由[人员E]给[人员H]。”\n\n63. 约于2017年7月27日，人员B向人员D发送短信：“刚刚再次向[马来西亚]核实。他们驻美国大使和外交部长都没有听到任何消息，请尽快查问。致意，[ ]。”人员B随后补充道：“嗨，[人员D]——你能否就[马来西亚]收到正式通知一事替我致电国家安全顾问（NSA）？国家安全委员会仍未就会晤事宜联系[马来西亚]驻美大使。谢谢。致意，[ ]。”人员D回复：“[ ]今天上午会再打电话。昨天简短地与[ ]谈过……很快会打电话。”\n\n64. 约于2017年7月29日，DAVIS（戴维斯）代表外国国民A从Person A（A某）处转达其收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统之间的会晤向Person B（B某）发送短信：“他们被告知9月12日是会晤日期。那天是联合国大会开始的日子——是星期二？？？？没有高尔夫？”DAVIS随即又发送短信：“Wickr。”Person B回复：“可能有两场会晤。大使应当问一下。星期六在Bedminster打高尔夫，星期二在白宫？”\n\n65. 约于2017年8月7日，Person B向其助理发送了一封主题为“Malaysia Talking Points \\Final\\”的电子邮件，其中载有供即将举行的美国国务卿与马来西亚总理A会晤使用的谈话要点。DAVIS从Person A处收到该谈话要点——Person A代表外国国民A提供该等要点——并将其转交给Person B，明知Person B随后会将其提供给国务卿，作为该次会晤的背景材料。该谈话要点除其他事项外，提及Person B与[马来西亚]持续的关系和工作，并将1MDB列为“[优]先事项]。”该谈话要点指出1MDB造成的损害不足，并具体说明：“[美]国检察官的介入已造成不必要的紧张局势，美方[原文如此]，并可能在马来西亚人中引发负面反应[][]。”\n\n66. 约于2017年8月7日，Person B还将该谈话要点文件发送给Person D（D某），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晤时间安排的细节：“嗨，[Person D]；[国务卿]何时会晤？马来西亚已经是星期一上午11:00。你能否扩充并给我发送最终版本？”Person D回复，将经修订的谈话要点版本发送给Person B，并称：“[]——这是我将转发给[国务卿]办公室的标注版本。他今天前往曼谷，然后前往[马来西亚]。如有其他修改，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n67. 此后，约于2017年8月7日，Person B向Person D发送信息：“[国务卿]将在8日与[马来西亚总理A]会晤，并在9日与副总理会晤。让他们提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出[我公司的]名称。谢谢！”Person D回复：“促成这一联系肯定很重要。这不太可能成为正式会晤的一部分，但我会努力在他们交谈期间提一下。”\n\n68. 同样约于2017年8月7日，Person A签署了一项协议，该协议由Person A的另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表订立，约定以应于2017年8月16日或之前支付的约EUR 8.4 million为对价，提供“战略传播和危机管理”服务。\n\n69. 约于2017年8月9日，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向Company A（A公司）转账约$12.8 million。随后，Person A向Law Firm A（A律师事务所）转账$3 million。Person A还向由DAVIS控制的一个商业账户转账$833.333。约于2017年8月10日，Law Firm A向一个与DAVIS相关联的商业账户转账$900,000。\n\n70. 约于2017年8月10日，Person B就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会晤向Person D发送短信：“听说（马来西亚）那边，会晤进展得非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有提及。;- ... .”\n\n71. 约于2017年8月16日，Person B与DAVIS互发短信，以安排一次会面和一次电话通话。在这些短信中，DAVIS写道：“如果可能，[Person A]今天真的想见你，因为你星期五要离开]。”\n\n72. 约于2017年8月18日，Person B与DAVIS互发短信，安排一次电话通话。在这些短信中，DAVIS写道：“请给我打电话。[Person A]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 约于2017年8月19日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“关于[马来西亚]有什么更新吗？”Person D回复：“截至目前，将在DC举行。由于日程安排，很难安排高尔夫，但我正在努力。可能必须就此直接找[Person I（I某）]，并利用他们两人一起打高尔夫的过往。”Person B回复：“是的。如果你认为会有帮助，我可以直接给[Person I]的一名副手或[Person ]打电话。还需要为会晤增加时间。我想和你讨论细节。请告诉我怎样最好。”当时，Person I是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 约于2017年8月21日，DAVIS将其作为佣金从Person A处收到的$375,000资金电汇给Person C（C某），即Person B的配偶。\n\n75. 约于2017年8月24日，外国国民A指示向Person A的另一家独立公司转账约$10 million；该公司曾与外国国民A的一名代表订立金额为EUR 8.4 million的“战略传播和危机管理”协议。根据2017年8月24日的现行汇率，EUR 8.4 million折合约$10 million。\n\n76. 约于2017年9月11日，DAVIS依Person B指示起草了一封将由Person B寄给总统的信，预备马来西亚总理A与总统会晤。该信列举了马来西亚与美国关系中的若干积极进展。该信从未提供给总统。\n\n77. 约于2017年9月12日，马来西亚总理A在白宫与总统会晤，部分原因在于DAVIS为Person B促成该次会晤所作努力提供的协助。尽管Person B曾联系政府中的高级官员，以安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A除正式会晤外再举行一次高尔夫会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间未举行高尔夫球赛。\n\n78. 约于2017年10月6日，Person B在白宫与总统会面。Person B向Person A、DAVIS和外国国民A表示，他在该次会面期间向总统提起了1MDB调查。\n\n79. 约于2018年1月5日，Person B起草了与1MDB有关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A展示Person B代表其所作的努力。该谈话要点除其他事项外载明：“1. 我们正与DoJ合作，以应对前一届政府在[马来西亚]针对1MDB的案件。我已制定一项策略，联系DoJ和NSC的相关方，以寻求解决这一问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督该[]案件的助理总检察长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的人员，并且可以提供帮助……。3. 如我此前告知你的，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。”Person B极大夸大了其就1MDB调查所作的努力。\n\n80. 约于2018年1月6日，Person B与Person A会面，Person A向Person B请求借款。Person A告诉Person B，Person A的朋友正在“核查”他们从外国国民A处收到的钱，并“帮助保持其清白。”\n\nII. 将中国籍A驱逐出美国的行动\n\nA. Person B前往中国与中国部长A会面\n\n81. 约于2017年5月，在前往曼谷的行程之后，Person B同意前往香港再次与外国国民A会面。在行程之前，DAVIS与Person B讨论，外国国民A认为中国籍A被驱逐出美国一事很重要。前往香港的目的是与外国国民A及一名中华人民共和国政府官员会面，讨论中国籍A。\n\n82. 约于2017年5月15日，DAVIS就前往香港行程的旅行安排和行程表向Person B的助理发送电子邮件。同日，DAVIS还向Person B和Person C发送了DAVIS公司的银行账户信息。\n\n83. 约于2017年5月18日，Person A、Person B和DAVIS前往香港，后被送往中国深圳，在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Person B谈及中国籍A及其被指控的罪行，并称中华人民共和国希望中国籍A被遣返回中华人民共和国。中国部长A请求Person B利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，倡议将中国籍A移除并遣返中华人民共和国。中国部长A还称，其不久将访问Washington, D.C.，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. Person B游说美国高级官员，以移除中国籍A\n\n84. 约于2017年5月20日，在从中国返回的途中，Person B向DAVIS发送短信：“我会努力使这成为我们与[总检察长]取得重大进展的一周。”\n\n85. 约于2017年5月21日，Person B就其与外国国民A和中国部长A的会面向Person D发送短信：“[Person D]——刚回来。巨大机会。我们能否星期一上午9:30在[酒店]会面？[]。”\n\n86. 约于2017年5月22日，Person B向Person D发送短信：“我需要尽快与[总检察长]会面。我们会讨论。”Person B接着说道：“我正在给你发送一份备忘录。我们会讨论。”同日稍后，Person D回复：“已向[总检察长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 约于2017年5月22日，Person B向Person D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。Person B在电子邮件中附上了一份由Person B写给总检察长的备忘录，意图使Person D随后将该备忘录提供给总检察长。该备忘录的内容由DAVIS提供给Person B；DAVIS是在2017年5月中国之行期间从Person A处收到该内容，而该内容源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，Person B和Person C修订了该备忘录。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，Person B虚假陈述了其前往中国的原因，以及导致其与中国部长A会面的情况。Person B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Person B与中国部长A会面中所起的作用。Person B还隐瞒了在深圳与中国部长A会面前两周内其从外国国民A处收取的$4 million。Person B还未披露，其就中国籍A所作的游说努力至少部分依据其与外国国民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某人陈述：“据[中国部长A]告知，[中国]希望大幅加强与美国在执法方面的双边合作，包括网络安全。”B某人写到中国部长A即将赴Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）访问，届时中国部长A及其代表团计划会见数名美国政府高级官员。B某人主张司法部长应会见中国部长A。B某人还指出，据中国部长A所称，为改善美国与中国之间执法关系，中国愿意采取若干措施。随后，B某人补充道：\n\n据我与[中国部长A]的谈话，[中国]将提出的一项请求是，将[中国籍人士A]尽快从美国遣返（其签证将在未来一个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已就其发布红色通报，随附供您参考）至[中国]；[中国]指称其与其他已被逮捕并被控违反[中国]多项刑事法律（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的人共谋，以便其可因这些违法行为被起诉，并就这些指控在[中国]接受正常刑事诉讼程序。\n\nB某人将一份关于中国籍人士A的国际刑警组织红色通报附于该备忘录之后。\n\n90. 约于2017年5月23日，B某人向D某人发送短信：“嗨[]，明天的会面安排好了吗？我的备忘录已发送给[司法部长]了吗？请更新消息。谢谢[][。]”D某人回复：“[B某人]-信昨天已送达。请看附有修改内容的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，但目标是下午早些时候。我今天晚些时候会给你打电话。我今晚乘红眼航班，以便能早些回到DC。”B某人回复：“太好了。谢谢[]。也请设法确定他是否已安排会面，或者我们是否可以安排在周四，或周五或周六在Alabama（阿拉巴马州）会面。”次日，约于2017年5月24日，D某人回复：“正在等待DoJ（司法部）关于会面的消息——我们的和[中国部长A]的。告诉我你何时有空，我们可以见面讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n91. 约于2017年5月24日，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。但我直接收到他的短信回复，说他稍后会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 约于2017年5月25日，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。然后明天与FBI（联邦调查局）和DHS（国土安全部）会面。或许我可以告诉我的联系人提前10分钟到达，这样可以进行一次简短会面。然后与[]一对一会面，讨论更多细节。请今天一早设法见到[司法部长]。我们办成这件事确实非常重要。我今天上午需要与我的联系人谈话。谢谢。[。]”D某人回复：“[]—正在处理。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法了解他何时返回。请等待。”同日稍后，B某人向D某人发送短信：“我备忘录中的三件事仅供[司法部长]知悉。[中国部长A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我的渠道是合法的秘密沟通渠道。[中国部长A]的上司希望确认[司法部长]已听到这三件事，这些事确实有助于美国[。]”当日稍后，D某人回复：“[]—实际上刚刚与司法部长通完电话。不是什么好消息。告诉我你何时有空谈谈。谢谢。”\n\n93. 约于2017年5月26日，B某人提及中国部长A的会面，向D某人发送短信：“上午10点见ICE（移民和海关执法局）负责人，11:30见FBI。或许在DHS采取行动能挽救局面。让[I某人]出面。那三件事可以分享。”B某人随后又写道：“请给我打电话”以及“我正在设法控制损害，需要同你谈谈。最好单独拉[某人]出来谈。”当时，I某人是DHS的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 约于2017年5月28日，B某人向D某人发送电子邮件：“与[司法部长]和[中国]驻美国大使之间往来通信的转录文本。”B某人指出：“我相信[司法部长]有一个绝佳机会进一步促进美国利益。我在下方添加了评论。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件值得关注的事项，应使AG（司法部长）知悉。”\n\n同日稍后，B某人与D某人互发电子邮件，安排讨论该电子邮件及其内容的时间。\n\n95. 约于2017年5月30日，DAVIS（戴维斯）转达中国部长A和A某人关于中国部长A与美国政府官员会面的信息，发送短信称：“查看Wickr（加密通信应用）——现在会面一切已清[]”B某人回复：“是的。一切就绪[。]”戴维斯回复：“他的会面已恢复安排[。]”\n\n96. 约于2017年5月，戴维斯应A某人的请求，请B某人在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）与中国部长A会面。\n\n97. 约于2017年5月30日，B某人在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的一家酒店与中国部长A会面。B某人还询问D某人能否协助中国部长A安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n98. 约于2017年5月31日，B某人向D某人发送短信：\n\n我昨晚与这位VM会面。他今天下午乘坐下午4点的航班返回。FBI安排他与级别很低的人会面，并让原本要与他会面的人改去见Vietnam（越南）了。他的上级告诉他，除非与[司法部长]或[某人]会面，否则就回国。他很愿意与[某人]会面。……到目前为止，他已经交出一名孕妇，另外两人将很快被送来。他将接受60名中国籍人士被遣返回中国，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项重大胜利，可以予以宣传。这是两国总统在Mar-A-Lago（海湖庄园）会面的结果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体情况。谢谢。\n\n99. D某人回复：“[]—收到信息。我几分钟后会打电话。”B某人回复：“如果你安排到会面，我们能否让白宫政治联络人到DHS与VM会面？他可以提及我的名字。也请设法让[某人]缓和局面。也提及我。谢谢！祈祷顺利。”\n\n100. 约于2017年5月31日，戴维斯就中国部长A据称与I某人的会面向B某人发送短信：“原则上[I某人]同意——只是日程问题？”B某人回复：“只是临时通知的日程问题。仍可能在接下来一小时左右收到消息。与[中国部长A]没有任何问题。”B某人随后继续说道：“请代我向VM致意。再等一会儿。”戴维斯回复：“是的，我正在告诉他。”B某人回复：“告诉他，我正在告诉白宫和[司法部长]发生了什么。”随后戴维斯发送短信：“[某人]今天下午不是安排在Haiti（海地）吗？”B某人回复：“日程安排人员没有提到这个？你确定吗？[司法部长]的人也没有提到[]。”戴维斯回复：“DHS网站上有[。]他下午在那里[。]刚刚同VM谈过，他听起来像是在哭][。]”B某人回复：“糟糕。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。”戴维斯回复：“Wickr。”\n\n101. 约于2017年6月9日，戴维斯向B某人发送了一篇新闻文章，题为“[中国]-加大对流亡大亨-[中国籍人士A]的施压力度。”\n\n102. 约于2017年6月27日，B某人与戴维斯就中国籍人士A互发数条短信。\n\n103. 约于2017年6月27日，B某人就驱逐中国籍人士A一事向H某人的配偶发送短信。B某人知道，H某人是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，经常向政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切，能够立即接触总统并对总统施加影响，且可能有效地寻求驱逐中国籍人士A。B某人向H某人的配偶发送短信：“另外，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与H某人会面。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者午餐时间也可以？期待在[]酒店见到您！谨致问候，[][。]”B某人随后继续写道：\n\n嗨[]，H某人让我通过短信把这些信息发给你。我将向你发送若干关于逃犯[中国籍人士A]的资料。第一份是国际刑警组织红色通报。……高度时间敏感的事项是，[中国籍人士A]留在美国的签证将于6月30日到期。至关重要的是，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[中国籍人士A]与前FBI人员关系密切，而这些人员负责其私人安保工作。中国国家主席曾在Mar-A-Lago（海湖庄园）向[总统]提及，希望[中国籍人士A]被送回。中国部长A曾与我会面，并请求就[中国籍人士A]一事提供帮助。……他承诺归还被[中国]扣为人质的某些美国公民，并将接受大量[中国]非法移民被遣返回[中国]。最后，他提出就North Korea（朝鲜）问题提供新的协助。\n\n104. 约于2017年6月28日，B某人在一次社交聚会上与H某人及其配偶会面。会面后，B某人与H某人的配偶就[中国籍人士A]互发短信：“嗨[]，今晚见到您和[H某人]真高兴！我刚刚再次收到[中国部长A]的消息。他想知道[中国籍人士A]签证的状态，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[中国籍人士A]在DHS禁飞名单上？[中国部长A]非常担心[中国籍人士A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手遣返。这将是我们两国之间令人难以置信的一步。[中国部长A]说他们感谢您的帮助。”H某人的配偶回复：“此事已交由国务院和国防部最高层处理。他们正在处理。”\n\n105. 约于2017年6月29日，B某人与戴维斯就中国籍人士A的签证申请互发短信。B某人发送短信：“拒绝或批准信是否已经生成？”戴维斯回复：“我不知道。”B某人回复：“抱歉，总会生成。换句话说，每位申请人最终都会以书面形式收到批准或拒绝[？]抱歉，收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]”戴维斯回复：“是[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n106. 约于2017年6月30日，戴维斯提及他们为促成驱逐外国籍人士B以及可能使被B国扣留的美国公民返回所作的努力，向B某人发送短信：“Wickr。你现在真是个能人。在你于今年7月4日为这个国家所完成的事情之后，他们将向你颁发总统自由勋章[。]”B某人回复：“我将要”\n\n“务必猛推进，直到完成。”戴维斯（DAVIS）回复道：“确保第一部分今天发生。还有m[.]的日期。完成之前不要离开那个人。”B某回复：“同意。”戴维斯继续说道：“让他知道——如果我们今天下班前收到确认拒绝的信函（因为你需要工作人员出具该信函），那么我们将在7月4日前让这2名美国人回国。第二阶段之后——我们可以让那60人回去。”B某回复：“听起来不错。[H某]很快会回电给我。正在通话中。”\n\n107. 2017年6月30日前后，B某和戴维斯就中国籍人士A交换了数条短信。B某发短信称：“收到[H某]的消息。他向POTUS重申了。”B某随后补充道：“另外，[E某]发短信告诉我，他被事情缠住了，但正在处理。”同日，戴维斯回复：“我们今天能拿到关于撤销的证明吗？”戴维斯后来具体说明：“从[E某]那里拿？”\n\n108. 2017年7月1日前后，B某向戴维斯发短信称：“与[E某]长谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”B某并未与E某交谈，但曾就中国籍人士A的签证申请与其交换短信。与B某在其为总检察长准备的备忘录中所作的陈述以及其与H某的通信相似，B某未向E某披露其与中国部长A的关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 2017年7月2日前后，B某和戴维斯就中国籍人士A及其签证申请交换短信。根据公开报道，戴维斯发短信称：“今天星期日安排了与[中国国家主席]就朝鲜问题的通话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的情况。他甚至可以说他听说过[H某]的事。”\n\n110. 2017年7月3日前后，同样根据公开报道，戴维斯向B某发短信称：“[总统]星期三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲[。]”戴维斯随后补充道：“7月5日。安排与[中国国家主席]当面会晤[。]”\n\n111. 2017年7月18日前后，B某将H某的联系方式通过电子邮件发送给戴维斯。戴维斯为推动游说活动以移走中国籍人士A，接通了中国部长A与H某之间的多次通话。\n\n112. 2017年7月26日前后，B某和戴维斯就中国籍人士A及将其从美国遣返至中国交换短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“确实需要确认它已被正式转送。到目前为止——他说没有[。]”B某回复：“已要求3个不同的人跟进[。]”B某后来补充道：“给[E某]打了电话。一小时后见[H某]。”\n\n113. 2017年7月26日前后，B某发短信约H某在华盛顿特区的一家酒店会面，以讨论中国籍人士A：“嗨，[H某]，我从工作人员处得知你在华盛顿特区，我也是，住在[酒店]。今天想一起喝杯咖啡吗？致意，[ ]。”同日稍后，H某的配偶向B某发短信称：“嗨，[ ]。你能否再次把你此前发短信提到的中国]男子的详情发给我，谢谢] [”B某回复：“嗨，] ]，你是指[中国籍人士A]还是[中国部长A]？致意，[ ][。]”H某的配偶回复：“[中国籍人士A]。”B某随后重新发送了其先前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n114. 2017年7月27日前后，B某和戴维斯就中国籍人士A交换短信。戴维斯向B某发短信：“大使馆有什么消息吗？”戴维斯后来补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”B某回复：“我正在与国家安全委员会的人打交道。直接发电子邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n115. 2017年8月19日前后，B某多次向戴维斯发短信。在这些短信中，B某写道：“紧急。给我打电话。好消息[。]”B某后来补充道：“我和[H某]在一起。有突破机会]。]”\n\n116. 2017年8月19日前后，B某在H某的游艇上与H某会面。在一起期间，B某询问H某有关中国籍人士A事项的情况，H某建议他们给总统打电话。随后，B某和H某致电总统，询问中国籍人士A在美国境内的身份状况。\n\n117. 2017年9月13日前后，B某向戴维斯发短信称：“请把庇护文章发给我。还有另一篇文章[。]”同日，戴维斯向B某发送了有关中国籍人士A的文章链接。\n\n118. 2017年10月2日前后，B某向戴维斯发送了一篇有关中国籍人士A的文章链接。\n\n119. 2018年1月5日前后，B某向戴维斯发短信称：“尽快给我发送更多关于[中国籍人士A]参与资助民主党政治人物的信息，……[。]”\n\n第一项罪名 18 U.S.C. § 2 和 22 U.S.C. § 612（帮助及教唆与未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不晚于2017年5月前后起至至少2018年1月前后止，在夏威夷地区（District of Hawaii）及其他地区，被告妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯（NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS）明知且故意地，未按法律要求向总检察长登记，帮助及教唆B某以外国委托人代理人的身份行事，即：代表外国籍人士A、中国部长A及中华人民共和国政府，开展秘密渠道游说活动，以有利于外国籍人士A的方式解决1MDB调查事项，并将中国籍人士A遣返至中国。\n\n上述行为均违反18 U.S.C. § 2和22 U.S.C. §§ 612及618(a)(1)。\n\n没收指控\n\n121. 为依据《美国法典》第18编第981(a)(1)(C)条和第28编第2461(c)条提出没收主张，现重新主张并援引本起诉书第一项罪名所载指控。\n\n122. 根据《美国法典》第18编第981(a)(1)(C)条和第28编第2461(c)条，如被告妮基·马利·卢姆·戴维斯因违反《美国法典》第18编第2条以及第22编第612条和第618(a)(1)条的第一项罪名被定罪，其应向美利坚合众国没收一笔款项，该款项代表构成或源自可追溯至所述违法行为收益的不动产或动产。现进一步通知，如被定罪，美利坚合众国拟就代表本段所述财产的该笔款项向戴维斯申请判决。\n\n123. 如上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为：\n\na. 经尽职调查后无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或存入第三方；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混同，且无法在不造成困难的情况下分割，\n\n则美利坚合众国有权依据《美国法典》第21编第853(p)条，并经《美国法典》第28编第2461(c)条纳入适用，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020年8月17日，夏威夷州檀香山。\n\n/s/ Kenji M. Price\nKENJI M. PRICE（肯吉·M·普赖斯）\n夏威夷地区联邦检察官\n\nfirm Sovenson\n\n/s/ Kenneth M. Sorenson\nKENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼斯·M·索伦森）\n国家安全主管\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙德森）\n公共廉政处主管\n美国司法部\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\nJOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）\n首席副主管\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE（肖恩·F·马尔赖恩）\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART（妮可·R·洛克哈特）\nJAMES C. MANN（詹姆斯·C·曼恩）\n公共廉政处审判律师\n\n美利坚合众国诉妮基·马利·戴维斯案 起诉书 刑事案号\n\n美利坚合众国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院（UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA）\n\n美利坚合众国，\n\n诉\n\n乔治·希金博瑟姆（GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事案号：\n\n18-343 (CKK)\n\n认罪答辩事实基础\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第11条，美利坚合众国与被告乔治·希金博瑟姆约定并同意，以下事实公正、准确地描述了被告在其将认罪答辩的犯罪中的行为。这些事实并不构成双方当事人所知悉的关于被控犯罪及相关行为的全部事实。提交本陈述是为了证明存在足够事实，以确定被告实施了其将认罪答辩的犯罪。被告明知、自愿且如实承认下述事实。\n\n共谋\n\n1. 自2017年4月前后起至2018年1月前后止，在哥伦比亚特区及其他地区，希金博瑟姆与他人明知地共谋实施向银行作出虚假陈述的犯罪，即虚假陈述数千万美元自外国账户转入美国各联邦存款保险金融机构的真实来源和用途。\n\n参与共谋的人员\n\n2. 在共谋期间，希金博瑟姆是一名受雇于美国司法部的持证律师。共谋人A是希金博瑟姆的长期同事，是美国公民、商人及艺人。共谋人B是外国籍人士及共谋人A的同事，是居住在东亚的富有商人，被指控策划了从马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资与开发公司1 Malaysia Development Berhad（“1MDB”）侵吞和贿赂数十亿美元的计划。\n\n国际资金转移的来源和用途\n\n3. 2016年7月前后，美国司法部（“DOJ”）提起多项民事没收诉讼，请求没收据称与1MDB侵吞及贿赂计划所涉洗钱收益有关的逾$1 billion资产。共谋人B在诉状中被列为侵吞计划的主要策划者之一。\n\n4. 2017年3月前后，共谋人A请求希金博瑟姆协助确定一名具有政治影响力、能够解决共谋人B有关1MDB没收事项及司法部对其调查问题的人。希金博瑟姆将共谋人A介绍给一家律师事务所招聘人员，后者推荐了两家不同的律师事务所，但共谋人B最终选择由第1人——一名非律师企业主、政治筹款人及与美国政府高层有政治联系的金融家——游说政府官员，以解决1MDB事项。希金博瑟姆未参与将第1人介绍给共谋人A或共谋人B。\n\n5. 据共同谋犯A称，Person 1不愿由共同谋犯B直接向其付款，因为其不希望与共同谋犯B产生关联。在共同谋犯A的指示下，HIGGINBOTHAM（希金博瑟姆）起草了多份聘用及咨询协议，规定通过过手实体支付款项，以使共同谋犯B与Person 1保持距离，并在该交易中将共同谋犯B匿名化。根据书面协议，共同谋犯B将通过各类中间人和实体向Person 1支付数千万美元，作为Person 1游说美国政府官员撤销与1MDB有关的一切民事和／或刑事事项的报酬。据共同谋犯A称，作为游说活动的一部分，Person 1同意尝试影响一名拟被提名担任联邦职位的人选，该职位将对1MDB民事没收事项具有管辖权。该人最终未获提名。\n\n6. 大约在2017年5月，共同谋犯A告知HIGGINBOTHAM，共同谋犯B提出了另一项与1MDB事项无关的请求，该请求可能比他们就1MDB问题所从事的工作更为有利可图：共同谋犯B希望将Foreign National 1（外国国民1）——一名曾居住于Country O（O国）、持临时签证居住在美国、且曾公开批评Country Q（Q国）领导层的人——驱逐出美国并遣返回Q国。据共同谋犯A称，Person 1及其他人将利用其政治关系游说美国政府官员，将Foreign National 1驱逐出美国。\n\n7. 与Q国驻美国大使在Q国驻华盛顿哥伦比亚特区大使馆会面。HIGGINBOTHAM同意了，并于2017年7月16日前后前往Q国驻华盛顿哥伦比亚特区大使馆，与该大使会面。HIGGINBOTHAM告知大使馆工作人员及Q国大使，他是以个人身份到场，而非作为DOJ（美国司法部）的代表。应共同谋犯A的请求，HIGGINBOTHAM在会面中传达了一项具体信息。美国政府官员正在处理涉及Foreign National 1的事项，日后将有关于将Foreign National 1遣返Q国的后勤安排的进一步信息。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对该大使馆会面的进展感到满意。\n\n8. 自2017年5月前后至2017年9月前后，数千万美元从Foreign Company L（外国公司L）——一家在Q国成立的实体——转入一个由共同谋犯A控制的美国实体名下账户。HIGGINBOTHAM明白，尽管该笔资金来自Foreign Company L，共同谋犯B对该资金行使控制权，且该等转账系依共同谋犯B的指示进行。HIGGINBOTHAM还明白，该等资金的目的是向Person 1及其他人付款，以游说美国政府官员：(1) 解决1MDB事项；以及(2) 将Foreign National 1驱逐出美国并遣返回Q国。\n\n9. 为使国际资金转账看似合法，HIGGINBOTHAM依共同谋犯A的指示制作了各类虚假贷款文件、投资文件和咨询合同。该等文件使用数家外国及国内空壳公司的名义，隐瞒共同谋犯B参与该等交易的事实。制作虚假文件的目的是在银行或其他主管机关就资金的真实来源和用途提出询问时提供掩饰说法。HIGGINBOTHAM明白，共同谋犯A和共同谋犯B担心，美国的金融机构会拒绝执行任何被识别为与共同谋犯B有关资金所涉的交易。\n\n与共同谋犯B在Q国会面\n\n10. 大约在2017年9月，应共同谋犯A的请求，HIGGINBOTHAM与共同谋犯A及其他人前往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。在这些会面期间，共同谋犯B、共同谋犯A及其他人讨论了将更多共同谋犯B的资金秘密转入美国以推进游说活动的策略，包括编造解释资金流动并掩盖该资金与共同谋犯B有关这一事实的掩饰说法。他们还讨论了2001年9月11日事件后美国银行系统的严格程度。共同谋犯B表示，他希望在较长期间内分批、小额汇入资金，以避免受到审查。\n\n11. 最终，共同谋犯B提出一项方案，授予HIGGINBOTHAM对Foreign Company R（外国公司R）资产的授权委托书；Foreign Company R是另一家在Q国成立的实体，名义上由共同谋犯B的一名关联人士拥有。实际上，共同谋犯B控制Company R的资产，而该关联人士仅为共同谋犯B的名义持有人。根据共同谋犯B的方案，如Person 1及其他人成功将Foreign National 1驱逐出美国，HIGGINBOTHAM可利用授权委托书所赋予的权限，将Company R出售给共同谋犯A及与Person 1有关联的其他人，并利用Company R的资产补偿参与游说活动者。依共同谋犯B的指示，HIGGINBOTHAM在Q国期间签署了多份文件，声称授予HIGGINBOTHAM对Company R及其资产的控制权。\n\n12. 返回美国后，HIGGINBOTHAM和共同谋犯A得知，参与游说活动的Person 1及其他人对共同谋犯B的方案以及前往Q国之行未能促成额外资金转入美国一事感到不满。大约在2017年10月，共同谋犯A和HIGGINBOTHAM同意，Person 1及其同伙向共同谋犯B寻求的额外资金，可改为存入HIGGINBOTHAM的律师托管账户，等待解决涉及Foreign National 1的问题。\n\n13. 2017年10月23日前后，依共同谋犯B的指示，约$41 million从Foreign Company R存入HIGGINBOTHAM的托管账户。HIGGINBOTHAM依共同谋犯A的指示，为共同谋犯A的一项娱乐项目支付了数百万美元。据共同谋犯A称，该等资金是共同谋犯A协助将资金转入美国并充当共同谋犯B与参与游说活动人员之间中间人的分成。应共同谋犯A的请求，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相信，如游说活动成功将Foreign National 1驱逐出美国，该等资金将被释放。\n\n向金融机构作出虚假陈述\n\n14. 自2017年9月前后至2017年12月前后，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使他人作出虚假陈述，以影响该等金融机构就从Foreign Company L和Foreign Company R转入美国账户、用于资助共同……\n\nFinancial Institution Y（金融机构Y）关闭了共同谋犯A的商业账户，并将剩余资金，包括现金账户中的资金，支付给共同谋犯A。\n\n17. 大约在2017年12月，Financial Institution Z（金融机构Z）——一家由FDIC（联邦存款保险公司）承保的银行，HIGGINBOTHAM在该行设有律师托管账户——向HIGGINBOTHAM询问从Foreign Company R存入HIGGINBOTHAM账户的约$41 million的来源和用途。为影响Financial Institution Z对该等资金进行的尽职调查，HIGGINBOTHAM答复称，该款项是Foreign Company R为其一名客户的音乐和娱乐项目所作的投资。HIGGINBOTHAM未提及共同谋犯B，亦未提及旨在影响1MDB事项和将Foreign National 1驱逐出美国的活动。\n\n18. 2017年5月9日前后，HIGGINBOTHAM就其至少部分为共同谋犯A从事上述行为相关的工作，向共同谋犯A提交了一张$20,000发票。2017年8月11日前后，HIGGINBOTHAM就其至少部分为共同谋犯A从事上述行为相关的工作，向共同谋犯A及其资金管理人提交了一张$50,000发票。共同谋犯A向HIGGINBOTHAM全额支付了两张发票。\n\nANNALOU TIROL（安娜卢·蒂罗尔）\n代理公共诚信处处长\nJohn Keller（约翰·凯勒）\n副处长\nRyan Ellersick（瑞安·埃勒西克）\nJames Mann（詹姆斯·曼恩）\nSean Mulryne（肖恩·马尔赖恩）\nNicole Lockhart（妮可·洛克哈特）\n\n签署人：\n\n审判律师\n公共诚信处\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对本人所提指控作出有罪答辩的事实依据而作的摘要。其未包括本人就本罪行所知的全部事实。本人在知情且自愿的情况下作出本陈述，因为本人事实上犯有被指控的罪行。未有人对本人作出威胁，本人亦未受任何可能妨碍本人充分理解本《认罪事实依据》的事物影响。\n\n本人已阅读本《认罪事实依据》的每一个字，或已由他人向本人宣读。依照《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第11条，在与本人律师协商后，本人同意并约定本《认罪事实依据》，并在伪证处罚下声明其真实且正确。\n\n日期：2018年11月19日\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《认罪事实依据》，并已与本人的客户充分审阅该文件。本人同意本人的客户希望采纳并约定本《认罪事实依据》真实且准确。\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\n\n美国破产法院\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n案号：20-12411 (JLG)\n\n债务人。\n\n债务人综合第二次续期动议：(i) 批准与Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）及PAX（帕克斯）达成的第二次修订和重述和解协议；以及(ii) 聘用Melanie L. Cyganowski（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基）仅作为雇员，担任债务人破产财产的出售负责人\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司，下称“债务人”）作为其综合性且第二次续提动议（下称“续提动议”），(i) 请求依据《破产规则》第9019(a)条批准与Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，下称“PAX”）及Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司，下称“Bravo Luck”）达成的第二次修订及重述和解协议，其副本作为附件“A”附于本动议之后（下称“修订和解协议”）；及(ii) 请求依据11 U.S.C. §§ 105 and 363，按照作为附件“B”附于本动议之后的修订雇佣函，仅以雇员身份聘用Melanie L. Cyganowski（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基，下称“Cyganowski女士”）担任债务人破产财产的销售官，并依据分别预先拟定的、批准修订和解协议及相应聘用Cyganowski女士的修订命令；该等命令正另行通知以供提交，现向本法院陈述并说明如下：\n\n背景\n\n1. 债务人于October 12, 2020根据《破产法》第11章提交自愿申请，此后依据11 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and 1108，作为占有中的债务人继续占有并管理其资产。\n\n2. 债务人的主要资产包括位于781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022的Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉荷兰酒店）内第18层公寓及附属单元（统称“住宅”）。\n\n3. 债务人与PAX及Bravo Luck达成一项拟议和解协议，其中包括确立由债务人聘用的一名销售官负责管理住宅出售的协商框架。各方同意选定Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基）担任该职务，债务人此前已申请破产法院批准该拟议和解协议及聘用Melanie Cyganowski担任销售官（参见，ECF Nos. 62 and 72）。\n\n4. 美国受托人办公室（Office of the U.S. Trustee）对两项动议均提出异议（ECF Nos. 94 and 103）。此后，各方就此提交了多项问题的书面陈述（参见，ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106）。\n\n5. On September 1, 2021，破产法院就债务人的动议作出一项综合性裁定（下称“September 1, 2021裁定”），认定：(i) 该和解协议明显处于合理性范围内，并符合债务人破产财产的最佳利益；(ii) 债务人依州法有权修改其经营协议以任命销售官；及(iii) 债务人有权聘用Cyganowski女士担任销售官。\n\n6. 然而，破产法院认为，Cyganowski女士向债务人提供任何法律意见，或在未依据11 U.S.C. §327聘用其所在律师事务所Otterbourg P.C.（奥特堡律师事务所）的情况下使用该所人员协助其工作，存在若干问题。因此，破产法院最初基于此未批准任一动议。然而，总体而言，拟议和解协议就《破产规则》第9019条而言似乎可为法院接受。\n\n7. 在收到September 1, 2021裁定后，和解各方已对拟议聘用Cyganowski女士作出修改，以解决前述问题，实质如下：\n\n- Cyganowski女士应严格作为债务人的雇员受聘，且不得向债务人提供任何法律意见或法律咨询。\n\n- 债务人不得聘用Otterbourg P.C.律师事务所协助Cyganowski女士或以其他方式提供协助。\n\n8. 基于上述修改，和解各方现请求续提债务人关于批准修订和解协议的动议，并对聘用Cyganowski女士作出相同的相应修改。修订和解协议继续规定，由销售官负责管理住宅出售的约定框架；销售官将基于其债务人员工身份，指导出售及营销程序。修订和解协议与先前版本的和解协议基本相同，但已作出修改，删除上文第7段所述关于Cyganowski女士雇员身份的条款；(i) 不得聘用Otterbourg律师事务所；及(ii) Cyganowski女士不得向债务人提供法律意见。另对Cyganowski女士的赔偿及报酬结构作出澄清，并作出其他非实质性整理。因此，债务人已取得和解各方及美国受托人办公室对修订条款的同意，并主张法院现应批准修订和解协议。\n\n续提聘用Cyganowski女士\n\n9. 为销售官这一职位带来稳定感和信心。事实上，各方一致认为Cyganowski女士是理想人选，因为其经验和判断力无可指摘。\n\n服务范围\n\n10. 根据法院的September 1, 2021裁定，Cyganowski女士将仅以债务人员工身份，按照续提和解协议中更为详细的规定，提供以下服务：\n\n- a. Cyganowski女士应在与Bravo Luck及PAX协商后，通过常规的破产类型出售程序，监督债务人出售住宅。Cyganowski女士并非第11章受托人或审查员，且仅严格作为债务人的雇员受聘；Cyganowski女士不得提供任何法律意见或法律咨询。\n\n- b. Cyganowski女士应代表债务人选择房地产经纪人（下称“经纪人”），但Bravo及PAX有权提出异议。该经纪人应具备出售曼哈顿豪华住宅房地产的专业经验，并由债务人破产财产聘用。Bravo Luck及PAX应获准与Cyganowski女士共同推荐并面试担任经纪人的候选方。\n\n- c. Cyganowski女士还应监督为债务人制定旨在最大化住宅价值的营销计划及出售程序。有关程序及对任何出售的最终批准，应由债务人的律师另行向法院提出申请。\n\n11. 总而言之，Cyganowski女士受聘为雇员并被指定为销售官，以按照续提和解协议所载的明确职能，领导债务人为出售住宅所作的努力。\n\nCyganowski女士的无利害关系资格\n\n12. 尽管聘用Cyganowski女士系依据11 U.S.C. § 363进行，但她与任何债权人或利害关系方不存在任何导致其不具资格的关系，且在适用的范围内，符合《破产法》第101(14)条所称“无利害关系人士”的资格。\n\n13. 据债务人所知、所获信息及所信，Cyganowski女士：(a) 与债务人、其债权人、郭氏家族（Kwok family）的任何成员或其他利害关系方均不存在先前或现有联系；及(b) 对债务人、债务人破产财产、PAX或Bravo Luck不持有任何不利利益。\n\n报酬条款\n\n14. 如续提雇佣函所载，Cyganowski女士已请求并将按小时获得报酬，以现行每小时$1,400的计费费率为基础。Cyganowski女士已同意，其报酬应从出售住宅所得的出售收益中支付，且债务人将就出售住宅的未来申请请求授权支付其费用及开支。在住宅出售之前，Cyganowski女士的费用及开支应作为行政费用债权予以累积。\n\n准予聘用Cyganowski女士申请的依据\n\n15. 聘用Cyganowski女士的法律依据已在本法院的September 1, 2021裁定中得到广泛书面陈述和分析。实质上，债务人聘用Cyganowski女士的权限源于债务人依据《破产法》第363条出售住宅的能力。《破产法》第363(b)(1)条的相关规定为，占有中的债务人“在通知及听证后，可以使用、出售或出租不属于通常营业过程中的破产财产。”11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)。根据第363(b)条，法院仅要求债务人“证明正当的商业目的足以支持该等行为。”In re Montgomery Ward Holding Corp., 242 B.R. 147, 153 (D. Del. 1999) (internal citations omitted); 另见 In re Elpida Memory, Inc., No. 12-10947 (CSS), 2012 WL 6090194, at *5 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 20, 2012)（指出，债务人在通常营业过程之外使用其资产，只要该使用“体现了对商业判断的正当行使”，即为“确立已久”的规则）；In re Phoenix Steel Corp., 82 B.R. 334, 335-36 (Bankr. D. Del. 1987)（指出，根据《破产法》第363条获得司法批准，须证明拟议行为公平公正、善意，并有充分的商业理由支持）。此外，“债务人对其商业决定提出合理依据时（有别于任意或反复无常作出的决定），法院通常不会受理对债务人行为的异议。”In re Johns-Manville Corp., 60 B.R. 612, 616 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citation omitted); 另见 In re Tower Air, Inc., 416 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir. 2005)（指出，“就实体问题推翻商业判断规则的推定，是一项近乎赫拉克勒斯式的艰巨任务”）。\n\n1 法院谨请参阅续提和解协议，以了解条款的完整陈述。\n\n16. 聘用Cyganowski女士的决定已获债务人主要债权人批准，应予批准及授权，因为该决定基于对债务人商业判断的正当行使，且其受聘符合债务人破产财产及债权人的最佳利益，并与修订和解协议一致。\n\n修订和解协议及批准债务人聘用Cyganowski女士的修订命令均应获得批准\n\n17. 本法院此前在其September 1, 2021裁定中认定，初始和解协议具有合理性，并符合批准和解协议的Iridium因素。正如法院所述：\n\n第六项Iridium因素与本案无关。和解协议明显属于其余因素的范围之内……法院认定，和解协议公平公正，并符合债务人破产财产及债权人的最佳利益。\n\n18. 然而，如前所述，法院因其对聘用Cyganowski女士的关切而拒绝批准该和解协议。由于修订和解协议已如上文详述完全解决该等关切，债务人谨此主张，现应连同Cyganowski女士的聘用一并批准修订和解协议。\n\n19. 修订和解协议（包括与聘用 Cyganowski 女士有关的修订条款）的最终条款已与美国受托人办公室（Office of the U.S. Trustee）审阅，且所有异议均已解决。因此，债务人正根据 2021 年 9 月 22 日听证会期间授权的呈递通知，寻求破产法院批准这些动议。任何其他债权人或利害关系方如有异议，均可在呈递日期之前提出，该等异议随后将于 2021 年 10 月 20 日审理。\n\n因此，债务人谨请作出预先拟定的命令。\n\n日期：New York, New York，2021 年 9 月 24 日\n\nGOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP\n债务人代理律师\n1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor\nNew York, New York 10036\n(212) 221-5700\n\n签署人：/s/ Kevin J. Nash, Esq.\n\n第二次修订及重述和解协议\n\n本第二次修订及重述和解协议（以下简称“和解协议”）由 Genever Holdings, LLC（以下简称“债务人”）、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）及 Bravo Luck Limited（以下简称“Bravo Luck”）于 2021 年 9 月 24 日订立。各方单称“一方”，合称“各方”。1\n\n兹证明：\n\n鉴于，债务人于 2020 年 10 月 12 日提交其 Chapter 11 案件。\n\n鉴于，PAX 于 2020 年 12 月 16 日提交其关于修改自动中止以继续州法院诉讼及相关救济的动议（以下简称“解除中止动议”）[Dkts 12-14]，其中包括但不限于，请求在州法院诉讼中审理 PAX 针对债务人的揭开公司面纱请求。\n\n鉴于，债务人于 2021 年 1 月 5 日提交对解除中止动议的答复，Bravo Luck 亦对此提出异议 [Dkts 21 and 22]。\n\n鉴于，PAX 于 2021 年 1 月 12 日提交其根据 11 U.S.C. 1112(b) 请求将债务人案件转换为 Chapter 7 案件，或备选地，根据 11 U.S.C. 1104(a) 请求指定一名受托人管理债务人财产的命令之动议（以下简称“转换动议”）[Dkts 35-37]。\n\n鉴于，债务人于 2021 年 5 月 10 日提交其对转换动议的反对意见 [Dkt 84]，Bravo Luck 于 2021 年 1 月 27 日提交其对转换动议的反对意见 [Dkt 44]。\n\n鉴于，债务人、PAX 及 Bravo Luck 于 2021 年 2 月 26 日订立和解协议（以下简称“初始协议”），以解决解除中止动议和转换动议，并建立通过 Chapter 11 案件出售该住宅的程序，同时保留各方的一切权利。\n\n鉴于，债务人依据破产程序规则 9019(a) 提出动议（以下简称“该动议”），请求批准于 2021 年 2 月 26 日订立的初始协议 [Dkt 62]。\n\n鉴于，经 PAX 和 Bravo Luck 批准，债务人亦根据 11 U.S.C. §§105 and 363(b) 提出动议，聘用 Melanie L. Cyganowski（Ret.）（以下简称“Cyganowski 女士”）担任为和解目的的出售主管 [Dkt 72]（以下简称“指定 Cyganowski 女士动议”）。\n\n1 大写术语具有下文规定的含义；如未另行定义，则具有各项动议中规定的含义。\n\n鉴于，为支持指定 Cyganowski 女士动议，债务人提交了 Melanie L. Cyganowski 于 2021 年 4 月 12 日出具的无利害关系声明 [Dkt. 73]（以下简称“Cyganowski 声明”）。\n\n鉴于，美国受托人办公室（以下简称“UST”）此前对初始协议提出异议，此后各方同意修订和修改初始协议，以尝试解决“修订和解协议”所提出的关切及异议。\n\n鉴于，破产法院于 2021 年 9 月 1 日作出决定，主要认定修订和解协议符合破产程序规则 9019(a) 的标准，但因 Cyganowski 女士还直接向债务人提供法律意见，或在未根据 11 U.S.C. § 327 获聘的 Otterbourg P.C. 律师事务所协助下提供法律意见的若干问题，而驳回债务人的动议。\n\n鉴于，各方已按本协议规定再次进一步修改修订和解协议，以解决法院在其 2021 年 9 月 1 日决定中所述的关切，并解决 UST 的异议，持续努力按本协议所述在不诉诸进一步诉讼的情况下解决其分歧；作为各方谈判的结果，各方已同意解决解除中止动议和转换动议，并建立通过 Chapter 11 案件出售该住宅的程序，同时保留各方的一切权利，具体如下。\n\n因此，鉴于本协议所载承诺及相互约定，且各方特此确认已收到并认可其充分性，各方特此同意、约定并订立如下条款：\n\n1. 定义。本协议所用但未另行定义的大写术语具有下列含义：\n\n“批准命令”系指破产法院作出的命令，该命令批准该动议及本和解协议。\n\n“破产法院”系指纽约南区（Southern District of New York）。\n\n“BVI”系指 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）。\n\n“BVI 诉讼”系指 PAX 于 2020 年在 BVI 提起的、案号为 BVIHCM 2020/0137 的诉讼，针对：(i) Genever BVI，(ii) Bravo Luck，(iii) Kwok，及 (iv) Guo；其中请求事项包括但不限于执行：(a) 源于州法院诉讼的判决书；及 (b) Bravo Luck 和 Guo 于 2021 年 1 月 14 日针对 PAX 提出的答辩及反诉。\n\n“Chapter 11 案件”系指债务人在破产法院提交的、案名为 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC. 的基础 Chapter 11 破产案件，案号为 20-12411。\n\n“最终命令”系指已由破产法院作出并构成最终命令的命令。\n\n“Genever BVI”系指 Genever Holdings Corporation，一家英属维尔京群岛公司，且为债务人的 100% 所有者。\n\n“Guo”系指 Qiang Guo（郭强）。\n\n“Kwok”系指 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n“经营协议”系指债务人于 2015 年 2 月 13 日订立的有限责任公司协议，该协议已根据其中第 23 条由该决议修订。\n\n“住宅”系指位于 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022 的 Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里内德兰酒店）内整套第 18 层公寓及附属单元。\n\n“决议”系指债务人此前通过的公司决议，如法院 2021 年 9 月 1 日关于聘用 Cyganowski 女士作为债务人员工、按本协议规定担任债务人出售主管的决定中所述。\n\n“出售动议”系指债务人拟提交的动议，请求破产法院批准出售债务人的资产，包括但不限于该住宅，并批准与此相关的出售程序。\n\n“出售主管聘用命令”系指破产法院作出的单独命令，批准根据本和解协议重新提出的聘用 Cyganowski 女士动议。\n\n“Sherry-Netherland 合作公寓委员会”系指 Sherry-Netherland 的合作公寓委员会。\n\n2. 债务人根据经营协议第 9.3 条和第 23 条及该决议，以其商业判断聘用并指定 Cyganowski 女士仅作为雇员担任债务人的出售主管（以下简称“SO”），并仅授予 Cyganowski 女士作为出售主管控制和监督按本协议规定出售该住宅的权限，而不使 Cyganowski 女士承担任何其他职责或责任。Cyganowski 女士的聘用，如本和解协议所载，应由破产法院根据出售主管聘用命令批准。根据经营协议、破产法典第 363 条及本和解协议，债务人仅可在破产法院进一步命令后撤销或终止对 Cyganowski 女士的聘用。各方认为，Cyganowski 女士具备通过破产程序出售 Manhattan（曼哈顿）豪华住宅房地产及合作公寓的必要专长。Cyganowski 女士为债务人、Bravo Luck 及 PAX 所接受。出售主管 Cyganowski 女士将按下文规定监督并与获聘房地产经纪人进行联络，并应在债务人按本协议及该决议授权的范围内，就债务人的决策、出售程序，以及对 (i) 合格买方（定义见下文）和合格要约（定义见下文），及 (ii) 该住宅出售的成功要约和备选要约的选择，拥有最终决定权，但须经破产法院批准，且 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 有权提出异议。在行使该等权力时，出售主管应与债务人、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 协商。出售主管并非作为债务人的律师行事，亦非 Chapter 11 受托人或审查员，但应拥有破产受托人所行使的同类权力，严格限于本协议项下的聘用条款，且不取代债务人作为占有中的债务人的角色。\n\n3. 经纪人应由债务人财产根据出售主管由该决议授予的商业判断予以聘用，并与各方协商，但 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 有权提出异议。Bravo Luck 和 PAX 可向出售主管提议或推荐担任经纪人的人员。Bravo Luck 和 PAX 有权面试潜在经纪人。Bravo Luck 和 PAX 应为确定该住宅的出售时机及实现最大价值之目的，与经纪人和出售主管协商。经纪人的报酬应符合市场条件，但须经破产法院批准，且 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 有权提出异议。出售主管将就经纪人的报酬与 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 协商。经纪人应无利害关系且不存在利益冲突，如下文所述。在债务人提交前，应向 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 提供经纪人协议草案和无利害关系宣誓书，供其审阅和评论；该等文件应披露经纪人及其代表与 Miles Kwok、Kwok 的家庭成员及其各自律师、关联人士、关联方及利益之间的一切过去和现有利益冲突、联系及财务关系，以及与 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 及其各自律师、关联人士、关联方及利益的任何既往联系。经纪人应具备出售 Manhattan 豪华住宅房地产的专长。\n\n4. 营销条款。各方同意就该住宅的营销适用下列条款，具体条款由出售主管与债务人协商并按下文规定确定：\n\n出售主管应与 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 协商，为任何出售的最低要约设定底价。\n\n出售主管可与 Bravo Luck 和 PAX 协商，考虑对内部人要约、PAX 或其关联方提出的要约施加限制。\n\n经纪人应充分披露经纪人及其代表将收取的一切费用、成本及任何其他直接或间接报酬。\n\n出售主管应与经纪人协调，并与债务人、Bravo Luck 和 PAX 协商，就出售该住宅的方案进行协调，包括布置、营销策略和程序、识别潜在买方、国际推广、设定底价和目标售价、反要约、协商性让步等，以及在必要时与 Sherry-Netherland 进行协调。\n\n住宅出售的其他方案和程序应由SO（特别官员）和Broker（经纪人）在与Debtor（债务人）、Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）及PAX（帕克斯）协商后制定，包括期限、最低售价、目标售价，以及住宅任何出售的时间、地点和方式。\n\n住宅的出售程序期限应限于自聘任经纪人之日起180天，但经债务人、Bravo Luck及PAX书面同意，或法院因有正当理由另行作出命令的，可予延长。\n\n居住在住宅内的各方应在提前24小时通知后，提供住宅以供看房。\n\n销售程序。各方就住宅出售达成如下协议：\n\na. 如收到一份以上合格要约，则SO应在与债务人、Bravo Luck及PAX协商后，安排所有合格买方均可参与的拍卖。\n\nb. 中标合格买方应由SO在与债务人、经纪人、Bravo Luck及PAX协商后选定。\n\nc. 出售须经破产法院批准由债务人拟定并提交的出售动议；该动议草案须在提交前提供给Bravo Luck及PAX审阅和批准。\n\nd. 尽管本和解协议中有任何相反规定，并在适用法律允许的范围内，住宅出售须遵守Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）与债务人之间的该份专有租约（以下简称“专有租约”）的转让；各方在专有租约项下或适用法律项下的所有权利和义务均明确保留。\n\ne. Bravo Luck及PAX应可接触SO和经纪人，并应获充分告知出售程序的状态、收到的所有要约以及与住宅谈判和最终出售有关的所有重大事项。\n\nf. 出售程序应包括债务人、Bravo Luck及PAX的协商权；如发生任何争议，根据《经营协议》第9.3节授予Cyganowski女士（齐加诺夫斯基）作为高级职员的权限，SO拥有最终决定权。\n\ng. 出售总收益扣除惯常交割成本和费用（包括无需破产法院进一步命令的SO费用和开支，以及经在通知所有各方后由破产法院批准的经纪人的合理费用和开支）后，不作其他扣除，应按下文规定存入托管账户；该等款项仅可在事先通知并经破产法院批准后解除托管，包括事先通知Bravo Luck及PAX。尽管有上述规定，Cyganowski女士对出售总收益或托管账户不享有控制权，亦不承担任何义务；该等款项应由托管代理人依照本段持有，并仅可在通知各方后经破产法院进一步命令解除。\n\nh. 如上所述的出售总收益应存入一家在全国范围内获得认可、已提供担保、且债务人、Bravo Luck及PAX合理接受并经破产法院批准的银行。\n\ni. 就进行和完成住宅出售所必需的董事会批准的时间安排作出决定。\n\n住宅应首先通过经纪人以符合住宅地位的商业上合理方式进行营销，以争取从一名或多名可接受的竞争买方（各称“合格买方”）获得一份或多份可接受的竞争要约（各称“合格要约”）。如SO认定拍卖将产生更高且更优的要约，或破产法院进一步作出命令，可以进行拍卖。在事先与债务人、Bravo Luck及PAX协商后，并在破产法院批准且Bravo Luck及PAX有权提出异议的前提下，SO对于住宅的营销和出售拥有最终批准权，包括如下事项：\n\na. 决定出售程序，包括采用传统方式、私下出售、拍卖、上述方式的组合或其他程序；\n\nb. 确定哪些潜在买方属于合格买方；\n\nc. 确定哪些要约属于合格要约；\n\nd. 如有必要，安排拍卖并确定拍卖程序，包括解约费、所要求的加价竞标及其他程序；\n\ne. 确定哪一份合格要约为最高且其他方面最优的要约，以及哪一份合格要约为次高且其他方面最优的要约；\n\nf. 拒绝任何以下要约：(i) 不充分或不足；(ii) 不符合销售程序（如上文第5节所述）的要求或《破产法典》的要求；或(iii) 违背债务人及其破产财产最佳利益；\n\ng. 就任何潜在买方放弃本协议规定的任何条款和条件；\n\nh. 就任何潜在买方及成功买方施加额外条款和条件；\n\ni. 延长本协议规定的期限；\n\nj. 除本协议另有规定外，无需进一步通知而延期或取消任何拍卖及/或出售听证会；\n\nk. 修改销售程序；及/或\n\nl. 随时有偏见或无偏见地撤回出售动议。\n\n7. 自动停止解除、维护费、费用及其他条款。\n\na. 批准解除自动停止，以允许PAX提起诉讼以及债务人为其辩护，处理目前在New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）以案卷编号652077/2017待决的州法院诉讼（以下简称“州法院诉讼”）；但自动停止就所有其他目的而言仍然有效，包括与执行或收取州法院诉讼中针对债务人作出的任何判决有关的事项，直至在进一步通知所有各方后破产法院另行作出命令。本协议任何内容均不得解释为承认破产法院以外处理任何该等问题的适当法院，且各方权利均明确保留。\n\nb. 本协议任何内容均不得损害任何一方的权利，包括Bravo Luck及PAX继续进行BVI Litigation（英属维尔京群岛诉讼）的权利，但PAX、Bravo Luck、Kwok（郭文贵）、Guo（郭文贵）或其任何关联方保留在破产法院就其作为债务人债权人的地位提出请求的权利，且PAX保留以任何理由反对该等请求的一切权利。此外，尽管本协议中有任何相反规定，本协议任何内容均不得损害任何一方的权利，包括Bravo Luck及PAX针对任何人提出任何及一切请求（如有）的权利，包括在英属维尔京群岛、州法院或其他地方针对Bravo Luck、Kwok、Guo或其任何关联方，以及PAX或其任何关联方提出请求的权利；Bravo Luck及PAX保留在适用法院以任何理由反对该等请求的一切权利。\n\nc. PAX应明确按下文规定撤回其Conversion Motion（转换动议）。PAX不会支持或鼓励任何其他方提出委任受托人或转换程序的动议。然而，尽管本协议中有任何相反规定，如债务人、Bravo Luck、Kwok、Guo或其任何关联实体违反本和解的任何实质性条款，则PAX重新提出或提交其转换动议的权利不受任何限制，包括委任受托人；债务人或Bravo Luck以任何理由反对该等行动的权利亦不受任何限制，包括但不限于主张该等违约并未发生。如PAX违反本协议项下任何实质性条款，则PAX不再有权重新提出或提交其转换动议，包括委任受托人；但PAX寻求破产法院宣告该等违约并未发生的权利不受任何限制。除本协议明确规定外，各方的一切权利和救济均明确保留。\n\nd. SO的推荐及委任：就签署本和解协议而言，债务人、Bravo Luck及PAX此前已商定Cyganowski女士为指定SO。如第27(D)(f)段被触发，则Bravo Luck及PAX应各指定两名、合计四名候选人，供考虑担任指定SO（所有各方合计四名）（以下简称“名单”）。各方应协商从该名单中选定一致同意的SO。如各方无法就选定SO达成协议，则破产法院应从该名单中委任SO，除非法院认定存在不可调和的冲突；此后，United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室可在与Bravo Luck及PAX协商后，向法院提交由其他独立且无利害关系人士担任SO的建议。\n\n确认解除自动停止，以允许Sherry-Netherland自本协议之日累计应付的申请后维护费和摊款，以及其后按月从现有保证金中抵扣，但自动停止就所有其他目的而言仍然有效。\n\n8. 破产法院批准。本和解协议须经破产法院批准，并仅自生效日起生效并对各方具有约束力。各方特此同意放弃就批准命令效力提出上诉的14日期限。债务人应请求破产法院在批准命令一经作出后立即使其成为最终且不可上诉的命令。Bravo Luck及PAX已经并将继续采取一切合理措施，寻求批准本和解协议及作出批准命令，并就针对本和解协议的任何异议或针对批准命令的上诉进行抗辩。\n\n9. 本协议以生效日发生为条件。如破产法院拒绝作出批准命令，或批准命令在上诉中被撤销或推翻，则本和解协议不再具有任何效力，各方各自的利益、权利、救济和抗辩应在不受损害的情况下恢复，如同本和解协议从未订立及达成/作出。\n\n10. 陈述与保证。各方分别向其他各方陈述并保证：(a) 其有权签署并交付本和解协议，并履行其项下义务；(b) 各方均认为，按照本和解协议的规定，就本和解协议所涵盖的事项达成和解符合其自身最佳利益；(c) 除本和解协议明确规定外，未向任何一方提出任何承诺、协议、诱因、陈述或保证；(d) 本和解协议不违反任何一方的任何其他协议，亦不与其发生冲突；(e) 本和解协议是在充分知悉本协议所载条款和义务的后果及影响的情况下自愿签署的；(f) 在本和解协议签署前的谈判过程中，以及在本和解协议的起草和签署过程中，各方均由其自行选定的律师代理；(g) 各方均已仔细、全面地审阅本和解协议全文，并已与各方自行选定的律师解决了有关本和解协议含义、法律性质及约束力的所有问题；及(h) 本和解协议具有合同性质，而非仅为陈述，且各方均已阅读、理解并完全同意本和解协议的条款。\n\n11. 不承认责任。本和解协议中的任何内容均不得解释为任何一方承认责任或过错，且该等责任及过错均被明确否认。\n\n12. 进一步保证。自本和解之日起，各方应签署并交付另一方合理要求的任何文件或文书，以实现本和解协议的意图。\n\n13. 转让。未经(a) 其他各方各自事先书面同意（该等同意可由其自行全权酌定予以拒绝），或(b) 破产法院命令，任何一方均不得转让其在本和解协议项下或与本和解协议有关的任何利益、义务或责任。\n\n14. 继受人。本协议对各方及其各自的继受人、继承人、遗产及遗产代理人均具有约束力，并使其受益。\n\n15. 修订。本协议仅可由本协议各方的正式授权代表签署书面文件予以修改或修订。\n\n16. 完整性。本和解协议的条款为本和解协议一体化、必要且不可分割的条款。\n\n17. 副本；传真签名。本和解协议可签署多份副本，每份副本均构成正本，所有该等副本共同构成同一份文件。电子传输或传真副本应视为正本。\n\n18. 标题。本和解协议的标题仅为便利和参考而设置，并不界定、限制或描述本和解协议的范围，或其任何条款的范围或内容。\n\n19. 准据法。本和解协议应受《破产法典》管辖，并依其解释。\n\n20. 持续管辖权。破产法院应保留管辖权，以解决与本和解协议的解释或执行有关的任何争议。\n\n21. 完整协议。本和解协议构成各方就本和解及其标的事项达成的完整协议和谅解。\n\n22. 双重解释。如本和解协议的任何条款可作两种或更多种解释，其中一种解释会导致该条款无效、可撤销或不可执行，而另一种解释会导致该条款有效且可执行，则该条款应具有使其有效且可执行的含义。\n\n23. 规定合同中的歧义应作不利于起草方解释的规则不适用于本和解协议，因为各方均起草了其条款，且所有各方均放弃在解释本和解协议时适用该解释规则。\n\n24. 赋予利益。本和解协议中的任何内容均不得解释为赋予除各方以外的任何个人或实体任何利益。\n\n25. 前言。前言真实、正确，并通过援引纳入本协议，如同在本协议中全文列明。\n\n26. 时间至关重要。就本和解协议而言，时间至关重要。\n\n27.\n\nA. 债务人获授权聘用Cyganowski女士（西加诺夫斯基女士）作为雇员，根据经修订的《经营协议》和公司章程担任指定SO，以履行本和解协议规定的具体职责和义务，并已根据该决议聘用了Cyganowski女士。\n\nB. Cyganowski女士将按小时获得报酬，按目前每小时$1,400的计费标准计算，其全部报酬应依照《破产法典》第503条作为行政费用债权处理。债务人应在申请出售该住宅时，寻求授权支付Cyganowski女士的费用和支出。\n\nC. SO的权利、职责和义务应无须债务人成员和经理进一步批准即可履行，因为债务人已在行使其商业判断时作出该等批准；但SO应定期向债务人成员和经理报告；对出售该住宅的最高及最佳报价的批准，应在通知后由破产法院进一步命令决定。\n\nD. 债务人按照本和解协议并经破产法院批准聘用Cyganowski女士担任SO，应受以下一般限制约束。\n\na. Cyganowski女士（及任何代理人和／或关联实体）不得就第11章案件以任何其他身份行事（例如但不限于作为律师、法律顾问、财务顾问、审查人、受托人或投资者／收购人）。\n\nb. 仅经债务人、Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·勒克有限公司）和PAX书面同意，并通过向破产法院提交书面动议且经通知后，债务人可寻求：(i) 由Cyganowski女士承担不同于本和解协议所设想职能的职责，(ii) 对聘任条款作出重大变更，(iii) 修改其项下提供的职能，(iv) 增加新的高级管理人员，或(v) 改变或扩大聘任范围（但Cyganowski女士和Otterbourg P.C.（奥特堡P.C.）均不得向债务人提供法律服务）。\n\n在上述案件审理期间，与Cyganowski女士有关联的任何负责人或雇员均不得担任债务人的董事。\n\nd. 在支付本协议项下任何款项之前，债务人应向破产法院提交或促使向破产法院提交Cyganowski女士已获得的报酬和支出报告，并向在本第11章案件中已提交出庭通知的当事人（UST、Bravo Luck和PAX）发出通知。\n\ne. Cyganowski女士及其代理人应有权由债务人遗产以与债务人任何高级管理人员相同的方式预支款项并获得赔偿，以支付针对其任何一人以SO或其代理人身份提出的任何及所有任何类型的索赔所产生或与之有关的全部判决、成本和费用，包括合理律师费（该等律师费应在法院批准后依赔偿条款支付），但因不可再上诉的终局命令认定的重大过失、故意不当行为、欺诈或违反信义义务除外。本协议中的任何内容均不得限制Cyganowski女士依法享有的任何抗辩，或剥夺其就其具有抗辩理由的任何作为或不作为获得赔偿的权利。Cyganowski女士应作为附加被保险人加入债务人与AIG Property and Consulting Company（AIG财产和咨询公司）现有的责任保险单。\n\nf. 如发生死亡、丧失行为能力、辞职或被免职，替代SO应按照本和解协议及破产法院的进一步命令，通过与初次选择SO相同的程序选定。\n\nE. Cyganowski女士应与债务人、PAX和Bravo Luck协商，依照本和解协议的条款，就该住宅的出售和营销作出决定，运用其商业判断，并须依11 U.S.C. §363(b) and (f), and 1123，经破产法院批准出售该住宅。债务人已修订《经营协议》，并特此再次确认：(i) 聘用Cyganowski女士担任SO，以履行本协议规定的全部职责和责任；(ii) 未经破产法院批准，债务人不得撤销对Cyganowski女士的聘用和／或其作为SO的授权；及(iii) 如发生死亡、丧失行为能力、辞职或被免职，应按照本和解协议选定替代SO。尽管有前述规定，本协议所载任何内容均不得免除债务人作为占有中债务人的职责。\n\nF. 如本和解协议、该动议、聘用函以及批准本和解协议的命令的条款之间存在不一致，应以本和解协议的条款为准。\n\n[签名载于下一页]\n\n日期：September 24, 2021\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n签署人：/s/Kevin J. Nash\nKevin J. Nash（凯文·J·纳什）\nGoldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦律师事务所）\n1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor\nNew York, NY 10022-5520\n212-301-6944\nKNash@gwfglaw.com\n债务人Genever Holdings, LLC的律师\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglas E Spelfogel\nDouglas E. Spelfogel（道格拉斯·E·斯佩尔福格尔）\nFoley & Lardner LLP（福利与拉德纳律师事务所）\n90 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10016-1314\n212-682-7474\ndspelfogel(@foley.com\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund I . P的律师\n\nBravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·勒克有限公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Fran J. Lawall\nFrancis J. Lawall（弗朗西斯·J·劳沃尔）\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所）\n3000 Two Logan Square\nEighteenth and Arch Streets\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-2799\n215-981-4000\nFrancis.lawall@troutman.com\nBravo Luck Limited的律师\n\n230 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10169\notterbourg.com\n212 661 9100\n\nMelanie L. Cyganowski（梅兰妮·L·西加诺夫斯基）\n律师事务所成员\nmcyganowski@otterbourg.com\n212 905 3677\n\nSeptember 24, 2021\n\nYanping Wang（王燕平）\nGenever Holdings LLC的正式授权代表\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nUnit 1801\nNew York, New York 10022\n\n事由：Genever Holdings LLC；Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\n尊敬的Wang先生：\n\n2020年10月12日，Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司，下称“公司”）向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国破产法院，下称“法院”）申请破产救济，案号为 Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)（下称“破产案件”）。公司目前正根据 United States Code（美国法典）Chapter 11（下称“破产法”）作为占有资产的债务人运营。据我了解，2021年3月5日，公司向法院提交动议，请求批准由公司、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，下称“PAX”）及 Bravo Luck Limited（百瑞好运有限公司，下称“Bravo Luck”）之间拟议达成的和解协议 [Dkt. No. 62]（下称“第一次和解动议”），并同时提交动议，请求代表公司的破产财产聘任我担任指定销售官 [Dkt. Nos. 72, 73]（下称“第一次聘任动议”）。2021年9月1日，法院驳回了第一次和解动议和第一次聘任动议。[Dkt. No. 123]。\n\n根据我与公司破产代理律师 Kevin J. Nash, Esq.（凯文·J·纳什律师）的讨论，我获悉，公司将提交第二次修订动议，请求批准由公司、PAX及 Bravo Luck Limited 之间达成的第二次修订和重述和解协议（下称“拟议和解协议”），且公司寻求根据经修订的聘用函，在破产案件中聘任我担任销售官。本函旨在确认公司与我之间关于我受聘担任销售官的经修订理解及协议，并载明聘用的条款和条件，包括将履行的服务范围及该等服务的报酬结构。\n\n服务说明\n\n· 就本聘用而言，我将代表公司就公司拟议出售（下称“拟议出售”）其位于 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰酒店公寓），781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022 的整层第18层公寓及附属单元（下称“住宅”）的所有权权益担任销售官；根据债务人于2020年10月6日提交的《依据当地破产规则1007-2作出的声明》[Dkt. No. 1]，该权益“以约3,000股 Sherry Netherland cooperative stock（谢里-内瑟兰合作社股份）及相应专有租赁权为凭证”。\n\n· 作为销售官，我将仅拥有拟议和解协议（经法院批准）规定的权力和职责，即按照拟议和解协议的规定控制和监督住宅出售，而不使我承担任何其他职责或责任。\n\n· 仅在公司、Bravo Luck及PAX书面同意，并通知 Office of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）且给予其提出异议机会后，公司方可寻求让我承担与本函规定职能不同的职责，或扩展至其他领域，或变更或扩大聘用范围；该等救济应通过向法院提交动议修改聘任的方式寻求。\n\n· 公司明确授权销售官无需公司进一步行动，即可履行和解协议规定的所有该等职责和义务。\n\n合作\n\n· 公司应向我及我的代理人提供其占有或控制的、公司认为与拟议出售住宅有关的全部信息，并应提供我就履行销售官职责所要求的全部信息。\n\n职责限制\n\n· 我不就住宅出售可能或将会产生的出售所得金额（如有）作出任何陈述或保证。\n\n· 我不负责、无义务且不承担支付与住宅或公司有关的任何税款、费用、成本、开支、维护费或收费的责任，该等税款、费用、成本、开支、维护费或收费应完全由公司的破产财产负责、承担义务并承担责任。\n\nOtterbourg\n\n2021年9月24日 Yanping Wang（王雁平） 第3页\n\n· 我（及任何代理人和/或关联实体）不得就Chapter 11案件以任何其他身份行事（例如但不限于作为律师、法律顾问、财务顾问、审查员、受托人或投资者/收购人）。我不得向债务人提供任何法律意见。\n\n· Otterbourg P.C.（奥特堡律师事务所）未被聘任。Otterbourg P.C.不在本函项下作出任何陈述，亦不在本函项下承担任何义务。\n\n报酬\n\n· 我的服务将按小时计费，按照我目前每小时\\$1,400的计费费率计算。公司应在申请出售住宅时寻求授权支付我的费用和开支。如我的费率有任何提高，我应向法院提交补充声明，并在任何费率提高前十个营业日通知美国受托人。补充声明应载明所请求的费率提高，说明请求提高费率的依据，并证明公司已同意所请求的费率提高。\n\n· 向公司计费的垫付款包括但不限于非本地电话、传真及其他电信费用、交通、复印、递送和信使服务、如有需要的计算机检索费用（按该等检索的实际成本计费）及其他垫付款。\n\n· 我产生的所有费用和开支将基于我实际记录或发生的工时费用和垫付款。就本聘用而言，该等费用和开支应在住宅出售完成前持续累积，并将在提交申请后，立即从住宅出售产生的出售所得中支付。\n\n· 我产生和累积的所有费用和开支，均应在本破产案件中依照破产法作为行政费用处理并获准许。所有该等已累积收费的摘要应定期向法院提交，并提供给已提交出庭通知的任何当事方及美国受托人。\n\n· 对于以我作为销售官或我的代理人的身份向我提出的任何及所有任何类型的索赔所产生或与之相关的全部判决、成本、合理开支（包括律师费，该等费用应在法院批准后根据赔偿义务支付），公司破产财产应以与债务人任何其他高管相同的方式向我（及我的代理人）提供预付和赔偿，但经不再可上诉的终局命令认定存在重大过失、故意不当行为、欺诈或违反信义义务的情形除外。本函任何规定均不限制法律允许的任何抗辩，亦不剥夺我就我拥有抗辩的任何作为或不作为获得赔偿的权利。我将作为附加被保险人加入债务人与 AIG Property and Consulting Company（美国国际集团财产和咨询公司）现有的责任保险单。\n\n期限\n\n· 本聘用应自法院作出命令批准我代表公司担任销售官之日起生效，并应于下列最早发生者终止：(i) 法院作出命令驳回破产案件；(ii) 法院作出命令将公司的chapter 11破产案件转换为破产法chapter 7案件；以及 (iii) 法院作出命令终止我作为销售官的服务。\n\n法院批准\n\n· 公司应尽商业上合理的努力，及时获得法院对我代表公司担任销售官的批准。该法院批准应规定，该聘用自法院作出命令批准我担任销售官之日起生效，并应纳入本函全部条款。\n\n其他规定\n\n· 本协议，包括但不限于其解释和释义，以及因本协议产生或与本协议有关的所有索赔、争议和纠纷，应受纽约州法律管辖并据其解释，不适用可能要求适用另一司法管辖区法律的法律冲突原则。本协议各方同意，就各方或代表各方提起的、与本聘用或销售官在本协议项下履行或不履行职责有关或由此产生的任何事项所提起的任何诉讼、程序或反诉，放弃陪审团审判。本协议各方同意，破产法院应保留对本协议项下产生的任何争议的专属管辖权，并放弃其在任何司法管辖区法律下以任何理由（包括但不限于不方便法院）对破产法院所在地管辖权或审判地提出异议的一切个人权利，以处理因本协议产生的任何争议和/或诉讼。\n\n· 本协议对本协议各方、其各自继承人、承继人及受让人具有约束力，包括但不限于任何获任命的Chapter 11或Chapter 7受托人。\n\n请代表公司签署本函副本并返还给我，以确认贵方同意本聘用函。当然，如有任何问题或意见，请致电与我讨论。\n\n谨致\n\n/s/ Melanie L. Cyganowski（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基）\n\n同意并接受：\n\n/s/ YANPING WANG（王雁平）\n\nGenever Holdings LLC 正式授权代表\n\n抄送：Kevin J. Nash, Esq.（凯文·J·纳什律师）(KNash(@GWFGLaw.com)\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区美国破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nChapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\nCase No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\n债务人。\n\n准许债务人第二次续展动议以批准经修订和解协议的命令\n\n鉴于债务人 Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（以下简称“债务人”）提出的续提动议（ECF No. 131）（以下简称“续提动议”），请求批准债务人与 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）及 Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）（“Brayo Luck”）之间的一项和解协议（ECF No. 62）；并鉴于美国受托人办公室通过请求任命运营第11章受托人的动议（ECF No. 64）提出的对续提动议的异议（以下简称“UST异议”）；并鉴于债务人、PAX及Bravo Luck就UST异议提交的补充答复（ECF Nos. 76、81、83、95、96、97、99、104、105和106）；且已在署名法官面前举行一系列听证会；并鉴于在该等听证会上形成的记录；且本院已审议UST异议；并鉴于2021年9月1日的决定（以下简称“2021年9月1日决定”），其中署名法官认定重述和解协议符合合理性标准，并获得第11章案件中的债权人及主要利益相关方支持，但因拟议聘用 Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq.（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基律师）及其律师事务所 Otterbourg, P.C.（奥特伯格律师事务所）的若干方面存在问题而驳回续提动议；且此后，和解各方已同意债务人、PAX及Bravo Luck之间的第二次修订及重述和解协议（以下简称“修订和解协议”），该协议解决了本院在其2021年9月1日决定中提出的关切，以及美国受托人的异议；美国受托人现已不再对修订和解协议以及梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基受聘担任债务人销售负责人的条款提出任何异议；且本院已同意通过呈递通知审议对续提和解协议的最终批准；并基于在各次听证会上形成的全部记录；且有充分理由；现据此\n\n命令如下：\n\n1. 如本命令所述，准许续提和解动议。\n\n2. 全面批准修订和解协议；该协议应于本命令录入后立即生效。\n\n3. 债务人拟聘用梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基担任销售负责人，应由另行送达通知并与本命令同时作出的命令予以批准。\n\n4. 请求任命运营受托人的UST动议无限期延期。\n\n5. 解除自动中止，以允许PAX提起诉讼，并允许债务人就目前在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）案卷号652077/2017下待决的州法院诉讼（以下简称“州法院诉讼”）进行抗辩；但自动中止在其他所有方面继续有效，包括就州法院诉讼中对债务人作出的任何判决进行执行或追收，直至破产法院在向所有当事方进一步通知后另行作出命令。\n\n6. PAX提出的解除自动中止动议及转换动议，因修订和解协议获批准而失去意义，现予撤回。\n\n日期：2021年10月8日，纽约州纽约市\n\nJames L. Garrity, Jr.（詹姆斯·L·加里蒂二世法官）\n\n-5\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n债务人\n\n8/4/ 完全受理 P.E.\n\n20-12411-jlg Doc 194 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 10:07:46 Main Document Pg 1 of 44\n\nPAUL HASTINGS（普衡律师事务所）\n\n已收件：2022年7月27日\n\n1 (212) 318-6001 lucdespins@paulhastings.com\n\n2022年7月25日\n通过电子邮件及隔夜邮件发送\n\n尊敬的 James L. Garrity, Jr.（詹姆斯·L·加里蒂二世）法官\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦破产法院）\nOne Bowling Green\nNew York, New York 10004-1408\n电子邮件：garrity.chambers@nysb.uscourts.gov\n\n事由：关于 Genever Holdings LLC，案号20-12411 (JLG)\n\n尊敬的加里蒂法官：\n\n本人以第11章受托人的身份致函。本人被任命为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生在 United States District Court for the Southern District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格南区联邦地区法院）（以下简称“康涅狄格破产法院”）待决的第11章案件中的受托人，案号22-50073 (JAM)。2\n\n如阁下可能已经知悉，郭先生拥有 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）（“Genever (BVI)”）的全部股权，该公司为一家英属维尔京群岛公司；而该公司又全资拥有 Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（“Genever (US)”）。Genever (US)是目前在阁下面前待决的第11章案件中的债务人，案号20-12411 (JLG)。Genever (US)系包括位于纽约 Sherry-Netherland building（雪莉-内瑟兰大厦）的一套公寓（以下简称“Sherry Netherland公寓”）在内的财产的登记所有人；该公寓目前正处于阁下面前Genever (US)第11章案件中的营销和出售程序之中。3\n\n作为本人努力识别并归集资产以使郭先生破产财产受益的一部分（以本人受托人身份），本人于2022年7月23日星期六向康涅狄格破产法院提交了随附动议，请求作出一项命令，确认受托人为了郭先生破产财产的利益，就郭先生拥有及／或控制的所有公司实体，包括但不限于Genever (BVI)，持有郭先生的全部经济权益及治理权利（以下简称“公司治理权利动议”），并请求相关救济。本人在提交公司治理权利动议的同时，还提交了一项请求加速审议该动议的动议。今日，康涅狄格破产法院准许加速审议动议，并将公司治理权利动议的听证会定于2022年8月1日星期一举行。4\n\n如公司治理权利动议所明确说明，该动议并非试图就Genever (US)的第11章案件请求任何救济，包括对日期为2021年9月24日的第二次修订及重述和解协议作出任何修改……即使获准，所请求的救济亦不应被视为授权受托人就Genever (US)在其第11章案件中采取任何特定行动；就此，受托人将视情况向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦破产法院）请求救济……\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为Ho Wan Kwok，但其亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名。\n\n2 本人经康涅狄格破产法院于2022年7月8日作出的命令，被任命为郭先生案件中的受托人。\n\n3 Sherry-Netherland公寓真正所有人的身份目前存在争议。\n\n4 本函随附公司治理权利动议、加速审议动议及康涅狄格破产法院准许加速审议动议的命令副本。为便于阁下审阅，本人已突出显示与Genever (US)第11章案件相关的部分（如下文进一步讨论）。\n\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 电话：+1.212.318.6000 网站：www.paulhastings.com\n\n20-12411-jlg Doc 194 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 10:07:46 Main Document Pg 2 of 44\n\nPAUL HASTINGS（普衡律师事务所）\n\n2022年7月25日 第2页\n\n公司治理权利动议，第2页脚注3（着重强调为原文所加）。此外，作为公司治理权利动议附件A附具的拟议命令明确规定：“本命令中的任何内容均不应被视为授权就Genever Holdings LLC（‘Genever (US)’）在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（‘Genever法院’）待决的第11章案件采取任何特定行动。”公司治理权利动议，拟议命令（附件A）第7段。拟议命令还明确指出，如受托人行使与Genever (US)有关的公司治理权利将影响其第11章案件，本人“应在Genever法院出庭并寻求其指引”。同上。\n\n本人亦无意干扰Genever (US)在阁下面前进行中的第11章案件出售程序。本人在公司治理权利动议中明确说明了该点。同上，第5页脚注6。\n\n本人了解到，阁下已将Genever (US)第11章案件的状态会议定于2022年8月16日举行；本人希望出席，但遗憾的是本人当日无法出席，故请求将该状态会议改期至2022年8月22日或之后的日期举行。\n\n如阁下对上述任何事项有任何疑问，请告知本人。\n\n谨此呈上，\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n\n第11章受托人\n\n抄送：Kevin J. Nash（凯文·J·纳什），Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦律师事务所），电子邮件：kjnash@gwfglaw.com\nFrancis J. Lawall（弗朗西斯·J·拉沃尔），Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所），电子邮件：Francis.lawall@troutman.com\nMelanie L. Cyganowski（梅拉妮·L·西加诺夫斯基），Otterbourg P.C.（奥特伯格律师事务所），电子邮件：mcyganowski@otterbourg.com\n\n随附文件","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","CIPA","CCP","forfeiture","Ho Wan Kwok","GTV","Saraca","Yanping Wang","Miles Guo","Despins","Finkel","853(p)","GETTR","Paul Hastings","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":44,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":62,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":64,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":72,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":73,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":84,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":123,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":194,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":54989,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-08-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-08-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:36:54"}