{"id":"court_sdny_107_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":107,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2020-10-06","title":"SDNY ECF 107","summary_zh":"破产案声明 —— 康涅狄格州破产法庭，Ho Wan Kwok 破产案 22-50073，ECF #107（2020 年 10 月 6 日）。Ho Wan Kwok 作为债务人提交的详细声明，说明个人背景、资产负债状况及提起破产案的原因。","summary_en":"Declaration—Ho Wan Kwok, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 22-50073, ECF #107 (filed Oct. 6, 2020). Debtor's detailed sworn statement explaining personal background, assets, liabilities, and reasons for commencing Chapter 11 bankruptcy.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                            |\n|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---|----------------------------|\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n| In re:       |                                                                       | : | Chapter 11                 |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n| Ho Wan Kwok, |                                                                       | : | Case No. 22-50073<br>(JAM) |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n|              | Debtor.                                                               | : |                            |\n|              |                                                                       | : |                            |\n|              | --------------------------------------------------------------------X |   |                            |\n\n# **DECLARATION OF MR. HO WAN KWOK IN SUPPORT OF THE CHAPTER 11 CASE AND CERTAIN MOTIONS**\n\nI, Ho Wan Kwok, being duly sworn, depose and say:\n\n1. On February 15, 2022, I commenced the above-captioned Chapter 11 case. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify.\n\n2. I submit this Declaration to provide the Bankruptcy Court and all parties-in-interest background information about me and a description of the circumstances leading up to the commencement of my Chapter 11 case. I go into some length in this Declaration to provide context for the nature of the claims against me, my unique financial circumstances, and the reasons I commenced this Chapter 11 case.\n\n3. As discussed more fully below, I filed this Chapter 11 case to: (a) create a single forum to orderly address the various competing claims asserted against me; (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate my assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what I perceive to be misunderstandings in that regard; (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims; and, hopefully (d) reach consensus\n\nwith my creditors on a fair and equitable resolution of claims and distribution of assets pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan.\n\n4. In filing this Chapter 11 case and preparing this Declaration, I am cognizant that the Court may have concerns over Justice Ostrager's February 9 Contempt Order (defined below), adverse statements made about me by PAX (also defined below), and perhaps even the political views that I have expressed publicly. There are, of course, two or more sides to every story, and this Declaration will offer my views. For reasons that will become clear, I live in continuous fear of retribution by the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\") for my outspoken criticism of its corruption and human rights abuses. Over the years, I have endured relentless attacks through meritless litigation in the United States court system funded by the CCP and its proxies and agents. My Chapter 11 case can only address the financial harm the CCP seeks to exact upon me and my family. But, the CCP wants to cause me far more than just financial harm and public embarrassment. I believe the CCP would have me assassinated at the earliest possible opportunity if imprisoned, extradited, or if my family could no longer provide me with physical security. I do not suggest that the Court or any party-in-interest now accept my views about the underlying case facts. To the contrary, this Chapter 11 case is expected to be sufficiently funded by an *unsecured* post-petition loan *with repayment priority below all prepetition creditors* – to allow a fair investigation and stakeholders to present whatever admissible evidence they deem appropriate, as part of the typical Chapter 11 process. This bankruptcy is, in other words, intended to allow a reasoned vetting of all pertinent demonstrable case facts, without prejudicing any creditor's economic rights – except to the extent that any unsecured creditor hoped to jump ahead in payment priority via a \"race to the courthouse\" which would be necessarily unfair to some.\n\n5. This Declaration is in two parts. Part I provides background information about me, including a summary description of my assets and liabilities. Part II provides testimonial support for certain motions.\n\n## **PART I – BACKGROUND**\n\n## **I. My Background**\n\n6. I was born in Shandong Province, China. I currently reside in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Road, with my wife of 37 years, Hing Chi Ngok. We moved from an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York to the current address in Connecticut in March 2020. My wife and I have two adult children. My son's name is Qiang Guo and he lives in London. My daughter's name is Mei Guo and she splits her time between New York City and Connecticut.\n\n7. My family and I grew up poor. My seven brothers and I worked hard and combined our earnings – mine from a radio repair shop and my brothers' from their own small businesses – to invest in real estate development. Following the pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, I spent approximately twenty months in jail, where I was tortured, for providing financial support to student protestors. I was in my early twenties at the time of my arrest. At the same time, I witnessed the brutality of two policemen – agents of the CCP – as they shot my younger brother and left him to die. The murder of my brother, and my arrest and torture in prison affected me profoundly. While in jail, I developed many meaningful personal connections with other prisoners of conscience who had similarly been jailed for supporting the Tiananmen Square prodemocracy movement. We shared the same passion for pursuing freedom in China and I continued to maintain these relationships after my release from prison in 1991.\n\n8. In or around 1991, the Chinese government began to loosen certain rules governing society, including rules enabling private citizens to start to achieve a sort of \"quasi-private\" ownership of real property in China. While my extended family benefitted from this change, I personally could not due to my prior politically motivated arrest and detention. Any assets in China listed under my name would likely have been seized by the CCP. My extended family used the wealth it amassed to support me, which has continued to this day.\n\n9. My extended family began working with Yuda Property Company (\"Yuda\"), a company focused on commercial real estate development in the Henan Province of China. Together, the Guo family and Yuda developed the Henan Yuda Hotel and, thereafter, the Yuda International Trade Center in Henan Province's capital city of Zhengzhou. These were successful ventures that allowed the Guo family to start amassing significant wealth. My family then developed other properties in China, including the Pangu Plaza – a 7-star hotel, convention center, and residential apartment complex in Beijing. Americans may recognize the Pangu Plaza as the primary backdrop to the 2008 and 2022 Olympics in Beijing.\n\n10. The Guo family's fortune continued to grow through diversification, as it invested in finance, technology, and other business sectors. My son, in particular, played a key role in expanding the family's wealth by establishing and managing investment opportunities, including the introduction of global luxury brands to China and Hong Kong. My son is, as a result, an independent, successful, and wealthy entrepreneur in his own right.\n\n11. I left mainland China for Hong Kong in or around 2000, and became a Hong Kong citizen. While the extended family was continuing to accumulate great wealth in China, under Chinese law, as a citizen of Hong Kong, I could neither keep my Chinese citizenship, nor would I have been permitted to own assets in China.\n\n12. My extended family's financial success did not go unnoticed by the CCP. In 2002, my extended family acquired large tracts of land in Beijing, which became significantly more valuable when China was named the host country for the 2008 Olympics. CCP officials attempted to appropriate this land for their own personal benefit, and I reported the attempted seizure to higher-up government officials. After a lengthy fight, the land was recovered, enabling the development of the Pangu Plaza.\n\n13. In or around 2015, I began to more publicly criticize and expose the CCP's corruption, and the CCP retaliated against me as a result. On January 10, 2015, Wu Zheng (a/k/a \"Bruno Wu\") advised me that my brothers, my wife, and my daughter had all been arrested in China. Brunu Wu is closely associated with top CCP officials and is a registered foreign agent of the CCP; his media companies partnered with Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\") – the parent company of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\") – on the attempted purchase of a significant Hollywood studio; [1](#page-4-0) and he is personally bankrolling (on behalf of the CCP) the litigation efforts of numerous plaintiffs against me. In early 2015, Brunu Wu, speaking on behalf of senior members of the CCP, called me to relay that my family would be released if I stopped publicly exposing CCP corruption and threatened that, if I did not comply, INTERPOL \"Red Notices\" would be issued for both me and my son and that I would be killed. I rejected the CCP's attempt, through Brunu Wu, to silence me and continued to speak out against the CCP.\n\n14. In 2017, I significantly increased my anti-CCP campaign by using social media and U.S.-based news outlets as platforms to expose the corruption of certain high-level CCP officials.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> Nancy Tartaglione, *Chinese Create \\$800M Fund To Invest In Global, Local Entertainment*, Deadline, February 6, 2012 [\\(http](http)[226260/\\)](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](#page-5-0) threaten, and silence me.[3](#page-5-1) Those actions, described below, ultimately have driven me into this bankruptcy case. For example, on April 19, 2017, I was scheduled to do an interview with Voice of America (\"VOA\") during which I planned to expose\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> Stanford University and the Hoover Institute, the NGO Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), and Alphabet's Google have all separately reported that I have been a primary target of the CCP in its global social media disinformation campaign, driven by CCP agents and thousands of China's state-controlled websites and social media accounts. *See* Carly Miller, Vanessa Molter, Isabella Garca-Camargo, Rene DiResta, David Thiel and Alex Zaheer, *Sockpuppets Spin COVID Yarns: An Analysis of PRC-Attributed June 2020 Twitter takedown, Stanford Internet Observatory*, June 17, 2020 [\\(http)](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](htt)[2.amazonaws.com/2019-](htt)\n\n[<sup>12/</sup>Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc\\\\_4SfDUy7](htt) [sMfNkw0\\)](htt) (indicating that the CCP's disinformation campaign against me began in April 2017); Dr. Jake Wallis, Tom Uren, Elise Thomas, Albert Zhang, Dr. Samantha Hoffman, Lin Li, Alex Pascoe and Danielle Cave, *Retweeting through the great firewall: A persistent and undeterred threat actor*, June 2020 [\\(htt](htt)[southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-](htt)\n\n[<sup>06/</sup>Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt](htt) [XD6TCA\\)](htt) (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](http)[covid-2021-09-08/\\)](http) (reporting that security experts at FireEye and Alphabet's Google have observed a coordinated, misinformation campaign on social media in support of Chinese government interests targeting me). As these independent sources confirm, no person in the world has been the target of more attacks by the CCP's social media warfare.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> The abusive tactics employed by the CCP against me, as a Chinese dissident living in the United States, are not unqiue. Recently, federal prosecutors alleged that \"[a] Chinese spy hired a private investigator to use violence if necessary to end a candidate's run for Congress, instructing him to 'beat him until he cannot run for election.'\" *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *Chinese Agent Proposed Violent Means to End Dissident's Congress Run, DOJ Says,* Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2022 [\\(http](http)[with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\\\_inline\\)](http).\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](#page-6-0) The CCP's scheme resulted in the federal indictments and guilty pleas of the former Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee Elliot Broidy (who has since, like Brunu Wu,\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha, *Steve Wynn May Face Justice Department Action for Role in China's Push to Expel Businessman*, Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2021 [\\(http](http)[mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103\\)](http).\n\nfunded litigation for other parties against me), [5](#page-7-0) lobbyist Nicki Lum Davis, [6](#page-7-1) and former DOJ official George Higginbotham,[7](#page-7-2) all of whom admittedly took payments in exchange for lobbying top U.S. government officials for my extradition. China's campaign included the bribery and corruption of a senior DOJ Headquarters official (George Higginbotham) who was found with almost \\$75 million in bank accounts that he controlled – making it one of the biggest espionage and corruption scandals in DOJ history. The CCP also targeted me in various other ways starting that same year, including by: hacking the server of the law firm that filed my asylum application in September 2017, extracting my highly sensitive information from that application, and then publicly disseminating it across the internet; bringing and funding (including several through Brunu Wu) numerous spurious litigations against me, some of which remain active today; and detaining, torturing, and imprisoning many of my family members and former colleagues.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National, October 20, 2020 [\\(http](http)[investigation-and\\)](http) (stating that \"Broidy also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A – a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Elliott Broidy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span><sup>6</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Hawaii Businesswoman Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China, August 31, 2020 [\\(http](http)[campaign-drop-1mdb\\)](http) (stating that \"Lum Davis and others also agreed to lobby the Administration and Justice Department on behalf of Foreign National A and People's Republic of China (PRC) Minister A, to arrange for the removal and return of PRC National A — a dissident of the PRC living in the United States\"; I am \"PRC National A\"). A copy of the \"Criminal Information\" as to Nicki Lum Davis is attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span><sup>7</sup> United States Department of Justice Press Release: Former Justice Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deceive U.S. Banks about Millions of Dollars in Foreign Lobbying Funds, November 30, 2018 [\\(http](http)[banks-about-millions\\)](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\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.[8](#page-8-0) The CCP has made it its mission to destroy anything I create and to block me from dealing with financial institutions. I spend much of my time serving as an unpaid informal advisor or spokesperson to various entities, including entities that expose the CCP's corruption and human rights abuses. My family, and particularly my son, provides for my needs. Prior to the Petition Date, my son's family office, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\" or the \"Family Office\"), purchased, among many other things, my clothing, food, and sundries. I do not have access to a GSNY credit card or to a GSNY bank account. My family retains ownership of nearly everything I use, aside from my clothing and mobile phones. I do not own the Greenwich, Connecticut residence; it is owned by my wife through Greenwich Land, LLC. I hold the interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment in trust for my son.\n\n18. My family has advanced me loans (some documented, others not) to fund my significant litigation costs which allows me to defend myself against the many suits initiated by, or at the behest of, the CCP. As of the Petition Date, GSNY has extended to me approximately \\$21 million in loans to pay for my litigation costs. As discussed below and described in my Statement of Financial Affairs (the \"SOFA\"), I am a defendant and/or claimant in over 30 lawsuits pending in the United States and abroad. It is publicly known that the CCP utilizes its proxies to\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>8</sup> On October 23, 2018, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance (the \"HK High Court\"), entered the *Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere* (the \"HK Restraint Order\"), dated October 18, 2018. The HK Restraint Order targeted HK\\$3.7 million of funds on deposit at the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC Bank) allegedly belonging to me. Billions more of funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong, of individuals and entities purportedly subject to my \"effective control\" (according to the HK Restraint Order) were also frozen and/or seized. The HK Restraint Order prohibits all dispositions of assets by the named \"respondents\" (which includes me). Anyone coming into receipt of my assets following entry of the HK Restraint Order is supposedly in violation of it and is subject to fines and imprisonment.\n\nfile lawsuits, even in U.S. courts, to coerce individuals sought for political reasons to return to China.[9](#page-9-0) The cost of retaining lawyers, experts, vendors, interpreters, and other professionals in connection with such litigations has been extraordinary.\n\n# **II. My Liabilities**\n\n19. I have, to the best of my knowledge, reflected the current state of my liabilities in my filed Schedules of Assets and Liabilities (the \"Schedules\") and SOFA. The Family Office assisted me in preparing these documents, as did Verdolino & Lowey, P.C., an independent financial advisory firm with considerable experience preparing bankruptcy schedules and statements of financial affairs. As reflected in those documents and described further below, I am named as a defendant in 21 lawsuits and owe considerable amounts for litigation costs.\n\n## **A. PAX Litigation.**\n\n20. PAX, a Hong Kong investment fund – whose parent PAG partnered with CCP agent Brunu Wu's media companies to purchase a Hollywood studio – commenced actions against me in New York and the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\"). As I mentioned before, PAX's New York Supreme Court action was filed on April 18, 2017, the day before my VOA interview to expose CCP corruption. PAX's claim principally concerns collection on a disputed debt.\n\n21. In 2008, PAX made a \\$100 million loan (the \"PAX Loan\") to a Chinese entity called Spirit Carter. The \\$100 million loan came in two tranches: (1) a \\$30 million initial loan secured by a personal guaranty made by me, and (2) a second \\$70 million dollar loan secured by a 49% interest in the company that owns the land/development that eventually became the Pangu Plaza.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See* Aruna Viswanatha and Kate O'Keeffe, *China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts*, Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2020 [\\(http](http)[fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112\\)](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](#page-10-0)\n\n23. A few weeks later (on October 15, 2020), the Court issued a restraining order respecting my assets (the \"NYS Restraining Order\"). PAX, in enforcement of the judgment, focused primarily on a yacht named the \"Lady May,\" which is described further below. I do not own the Lady May; it is owned by my daughter. The boat's maintenance has always been paid for by my son. Nevertheless, on March 16, 2021, Justice Ostrager directed *me* to return the boat to New York by May 15, 2021 or face a massive daily fine of \\$500,000 for every day the boat remained outside the jurisdiction. I did have access to the boat, but I did not have the authority to order it back to New York. The Lady May never returned to New York and, as of earlier this year, the accrued contempt fine exceeded the amount of the judgment that had been entered in PAX's favor and was five or six times the stated value of the yacht. I have no ability to pay this fine.\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>10</sup> 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 imprisonment[11](#page-11-0) and forcing me into bankruptcy.\n\n# **B. Securities Litigation.**\n\n25. I am named as a defendant in seven actions related to my promotion of the sale of securities in a company called GTV Media Group, Inc (\"GTV\") and virtual currency referred to as \"G Coin\" and \"G Dollar.\" In addition to two putative investor classes, several individual investors have asserted claims against me related to losses they allegedly suffered following their alleged investments. The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that I participated in a scheme to sell unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors in violation of applicable U.S. securities laws. The complaints, in the aggregate, are seeking more than \\$100 million in damages from me\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>11</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed its *Motion Of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry Of An Order Confirming The Inapplicability Of The Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant To Section 362(D)(2) Of The Bankruptcy Code* [Docket No. 57] (the \"Lift Stay Motion\"). I believe that granting the relief requested by the Lift Stay Motion would cause me significant harm and materially prejudice my estate and its creditors. As indicated by PAX in the Lift Stay Motion, enforcement of the February 9 Contempt Order could result in my imprisonment in New York, which would materially impair my ability to achieve the objectives of this Chapter 11 case. Chiefly, if incarcerated, I will be unable to adequately and appropriately administer my estate, participate in this bankruptcy case, negotiate with creditors, appear and be heard before this Court, consult with and direct counsel, investigate and marshal the assets of the estate, or formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan. Further, I believe that PAX is under the misplaced belief that my family will pay PAX's ransom if I face the risk of incarceration; my family will not.\n\nand various co-defendants, including GTV and its parent entity Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\"). I believe that those claims are without merit.[12](#page-12-0)\n\n# **C. Defamation Claims.**\n\n26. Since 2017, I have maintained a very active social media presence and posted content that is critical of the CCP, its agents, and others within its sphere of influence. Against this backdrop, certain people allegedly identified in my social media content have asserted defamation claims against me. As identified in my SOFA, I am currently named as a defendant in several defamation suits, a number of which are being funded by Brunu Wu, an admitted CCP agent and business partner of PAX's parent company. The plaintiffs in these actions have alleged, in aggregate, substantial damages.\n\n# **D. Litigation Funding Costs.**\n\n27. The costs of my prosecution of claims with monetary relief have been funded through loans provided pursuant to litigation funding agreements (the \"Litigation Funding Agreements\"). In the instances where I have to defend claims, the Family Office has advanced me loans to cover my litigation costs. In either case, the loan proceeds were directly disbursed to the law firms and service providers retained by me. Through the Petition Date, GSNY has advanced approximately \\$21 million to me for litigation-related expenses.\n\n28. In the instances in which a Litigation Funding Agreement is in place, GSNY is entitled to a premium if I am ultimately successful in asserting and recovering on my claim and\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>12</sup> These matters related to a certain settled enforcement proceeding. Specifically, in September 2021, GTV and Saraca entered into publicly announced \"no admit/no deny\" settlements with the SEC regarding the SEC's contention that the GTV offering ran afoul of Section 506 of the 33 Act (the \"SEC Entity Settlements\"). *In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al*., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021). A parallel settlement involving GTV and Saraca was also reached with the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, *In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents* (Sept 13, 2021).\n\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- 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](#page-15-0) The membership interests in Genever US are, in turn, held by Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. However, pursuant to a Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015 (the \"Trust Date\"), I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited (the \"Apartment Owner\"). My son owns the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date, the Apartment Owner funded Genever US with the purchase price for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or controlled by my son and not from me. It also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered, by Justice Ostrager, to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or the Genever US bankruptcy.\n\n34. As mentioned at the beginning of this Declaration, I believe that Justice Ostrager, PAX, and perhaps others believe I have greater financial wherewithal than is reflected here and in my Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs. The wealth they believe is mine, however, actually belongs to my son, daughter, wife, and extended family, not me. But, as also noted above,\n\n<span id=\"page-15-0\"></span><sup>13</sup> 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\nfor the estate's benefit. Craig Jalbert of V&L (as defined below) shall be the sole authorized signatory. Disbursements from the Debtor Account will only be at the direction of V&L, solely to the extent necessary to pay the items set forth in the DIP Budget, and as authorized in the proposed DIP Financing orders, the DIP Financing documents, and other relevant orders of the Court (including orders approving professional fee applications).\n\n38. There is only one \"milestone\" covenant in the DIP Credit Agreement: Bankruptcy Court final approval of the proposed DIP Financing order within 45 days of the date that the DIP Credit Agreement is approved on an interim basis. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 6.01(a). There is only one atypical Event of Default in the DIP Credit Agreement, which is the entry of an order granting PAX relief from the automatic stay to pursue litigation against me outside of this Court. *See* DIP Credit Agreement at ¶ 8.01(e). The only purpose of such litigation would be to seek my incarceration under the February 9 Contempt Order. Obviously, if such relief is granted, then I will not be able to meaningfully direct and participate in an orderly claims resolution and plan process. In such as case, my son – through GSNY – has no interest in continuing to fund the costs of this Chapter 11 case.\n\n## **IV. Objectives of My Chapter 11 Case**\n\n39. My ultimate objective is to arrive at a fully consensual Chapter 11 plan that finally resolves all issues with my creditors. I hope to achieve this outcome through reasoned and reasonable dialogue, after providing creditors a fair opportunity to conduct diligence and present their views through fiduciary representatives paid for by the DIP Financing. I hope that my creditors will be solely motivated to effect repayment of valid claims, and that they will put aside the use of litigation as a means of restricting my free speech and criticisms of political abuse. I further hope that, if there is thoughtful creditor engagement, my family will be willing to contribute funding to ensure a fair recovery for creditors under a plan.\n\n40. My assets, as discussed above, are principally litigation claims and I believe those claims have substantial merit and are valuable (perhaps valuable enough to pay all creditors in full). But, again, all stakeholders will be given a fair opportunity to investigate them.\n\n41. I understand that my Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to conclusively determine which other assets potentially comprise my bankruptcy estate. Certain of my creditors have alleged that I own assets that I believe are owned and controlled by my family members or their affiliated entities. I do not believe that the New York Supreme Court, which issued an order regarding my \"beneficial\" ownership and control of the Lady May, ever determined that I have actual legal title to the vessel or that it is now an asset of my Chapter 11 estate. These issues will be presented squarely and fairly to this Court for appropriate resolution.\n\n42. I have been defending myself against litigation brought by purported creditors for years. As noted above, GSNY – owned and controlled by my son - has lent me millions to fund my defense costs. This Chapter 11 case will provide a forum to determine, once and for all, the extent of allowed claims against my estate. Creditors will be afforded an opportunity to assert claims against my Chapter 11 estate, and the process should yield a fair allocation of whatever assets are in the estate across all equally situated creditors (without, for example, PAX jumping ahead of others in the same creditor class). I will work with my professionals to achieve an appropriate claims reconciliation process.\n\n43. In the end, I hope for a rational, value-maximizing plan that frees me of litigation and will help facilitate a \"fresh start\" under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\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\nbe necessary; (b) prepare and take action as necessary for approval of a disclosure statement and confirmation of a plan of reorganization; and (c) perform all other legal services as may be necessary during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n51. Prior to the Petition Date, on each of February 14, 2022 and February 15, 2022, Brown Rudnick was paid a retainer of \\$500,000. The source of the \\$1 million in retainer payments (the \"BR Retainer\") was Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\"), which is a company owned by my son. Lamp loaned me \\$1 million on an unsecured basis, and I directed Lamp to remit the proceeds of the loan directly to Brown Rudnick. Brown Rudnick applied \\$51,835.20 in pre-Petition Date fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer, leaving Brown Rudnick with a prepetition BR Retainer Balance of \\$948,164.80. Going forward, I have asked Brown Rudnick to apply its allowed fees and disbursements against the BR Retainer until the BR Retainer balance is \\$250,000, after which Brown Rudnick will seek payment of its allowed fees and expenses from me through the proceeds of the DIP Financing.\n\n52. **Application to Retain Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. as Financial Advisor**. I need a financial advisory firm to prepare, review, and analyze the necessary financial disclosures mandated under the Bankruptcy Code and the ongoing monthly and quarterly reporting requirements during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case. I have chosen Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. (\"V&L\") to serve as my financial advisor. V&L has extensive experiencing working with distressed individual chapter 11 debtors, and provides tailored services, including, but not limited to, financial advisory, consulting, accounting services, tax, and other related services. V&L has agreed to render services regarding: (a) the preparation and review of my SOFA and the Schedules and other periodic reporting requirements; (b) the preparation and/or review of cash flow and related budget projections; (c) maintaining the DIP account, and effectuating disbursements when necessary and providing accounting of all cash activity; (d) claims review and administration; (e) plan of reorganization formulation and review; (f) the rendering of any necessary litigation support; and (g) the providing of general consulting and assistance with any other matters and tasks that may arise during the pendency of the Chapter 11 case.\n\n53. **Motion to Authorize Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the 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\n55. In sum, without my Ordinary Course Professionals' knowledge, expertise, and familiarity in connection with their prepetition work, my estate will incur substantial additional and unnecessary expenses in educating and retaining replacement professionals necessary to preserve, and potentially continue prosecuting these valuable litigation claims. Accordingly, I believe that the continued retention of my Ordinary Course Professionals is in the best interests of this estate, my creditors, and other parties-in-interest.\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n# **UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**\n\n) ) ) ) ) )\n\n**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA** )\n\n**CRIMINAL NO.**\n\n**v. Count 1: 18 u.s.c.** § **371 (Conspiracy)**\n\n**ELLIOTT BROIDY,**\n\n**Defendant.**\n\n## **CRIMINAL INFORMATION**\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\n- l. At all times relevant to this Information:\n- 2. From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 20 I 8, ELLIOTT\n\nBROIDY agreed with Nickie Lum Davis and Person A to act as agents of Foreign National A in exchange for millions of dollars which was not disclosed. BROIDY specifically agreed to lobby the Administration of the President of the United States (\"Administration\") and the United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop or otherwise favorably resolve its matters against Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from I Malaysia Development Berhad (\"IMDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that BROIDY was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the l MDB matters dropped or otherwise favorably resolved for Foreign National A.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a citizen of the PRC living in the United States-all on behalf of Foreign National A. This involved, among other things, advocating for meetings between PRC Minister A and United States government officials. Here too, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, BROIDY, aided by Davis and Person A, attempted to facilitate a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the 1 MOB matter with the President.\n\n5. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that BROIDY, assisted by Davis and Person A, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials in the Administration, at DOJ, and at the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"OHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make\n\nfalse and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the United States government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n## **RELEVANT PARTIES** & **ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, ELLIOTT BROIDY, served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately 2017 to April 2018. BROIDY raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. In his role as Deputy Finance Chair, BROIDY maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration, including the President himself. Over the same period, BROIDY owned and operated several domestic and international businesses.\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with BROIDY and Person A. On August 31, 2020, Davis pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii to a onecount Information charging aiding and abetting a violation of FARA.\n\n10. Person A was and is a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multi-billion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company fanned by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A, and was used by Person A to pay BROIDY, Davis, and others for their lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law finn operated by Person C and controlled by BROIDY and Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a citizen of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the I MDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with I MOB laundered proceeds. On November I, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder\n\nbillions of dollars embezzled from I MOB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices\n\nAct by paying bribes to various Malaysian and United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\") officials.\n\n## **COUNT ONE**\n\n# **18 u.s.c.** § **371**\n\n## **(Conspiracy to Serve as an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)**\n\n- 17. Paragraphs **J** through J 6 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.\n- 18. From no later than March 20 I 7 to at least in or about January 2018, the defendant,\n\n## **ELLIOTT BROIDY,**\n\nknowingly conspired with others known and unknown, to:\n\na. knowingly and willfully act as an agent of a foreign principal, specifically, Foreign National A with respect to the 1 MDB matters and the removal of PRC National A, without registering with the Attorney General, in violation of22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618.\n\n## **Objects of the Conspiracy**\n\n- 19. 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: (I) end the IMDB 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\t- 20. It was an object of the conspiracy for BROIDY, Davis, and Person A to make\n\nmillions 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 IMDB matters and the removal of PRC National A.\n\n## Concealment\n\n26. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed to conceal BROIDY's agreement to lobby on behalfofForeign National A, in his individual capacity and as an intermediary for PRC Minister A. BROIDY, Davis, and Person A did not disclose and agreed not to disclose to United States government officials and the public BROIDY's financial arrangement with and payments from\n\nForeign National A. In extensive contacts, communications, and documents drafted in furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY, Davis, Person A, and Higginbotham were secretive and anonymized references to Foreign National A. Further, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A often used encrypted applications when communicating about Foreign National A and PRC National A to conceal their conduct and connection to Foreign National A. Finally, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A agreed, implicitly or explicitly, not to register under FARA to conceal their arrangement with Foreign National A.\n\n## **Overt Acts**\n\n27. In furtherance of the conspiracy, BROIDY and others committed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.\n\n## I. **Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases**\n\n### **A. BROIDY Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer**\n\n28. In or about March 2017, Person A contacted Davis in an effort to locate someone with close ties to the Administration to help a foreign client. Davis in tum told BROIDY that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could use help with a forfeiture matter.\n\n29. On or about March 7, 2017, Person A requested that Davis send him BROIDY's biography describing BROJDY's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration and photographs of BROIDY and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, BROIDY's assistant, at Davis's request, emailed photographs to Davis featuring BROIDY and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight for Foreign National A BROJDY's close access to the Administration.\n\n30. On or about March 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" BROIDY responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\"\n\n31. On or about March 13, 2017, BROIDY met with Davis and Person A to discuss Foreign National A and 1 MOB. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to BROIDY, and asked if BROIDY could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of BROIDY helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, BROIDY texted Davis in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n32. On or about March 13, 2017, Davis forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A so that Person A could present the agreement to Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee if the \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MOB forfeiture proceedings. BROIDY, Davis, Person A, Law Firm A, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure BROIDY's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on BROIDY's political connections.\n\n33. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did BROIDY, Davis, or Person A register with the FARA Unit regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n## **B. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis Meet Foreign National A in Bangkok**\n\n34. In or about April 2017, Davis relayed Person A's request for BROIDY to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. BROIDY told Davis to tell Person A that he would go only if he were paid \\$1 million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds. BROIDY was assured that Person A would personally pay \\$1 million in exchange for BROIDY traveling to Bangkok.\n\n35. On or about April 28, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, Davis responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n36. On or about April 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, BROIDY asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" Davis responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.]\"\n\n37. On or about May I, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok, and wrote, in part, \"Please send me the hotel confirmation for both Elliott's room and mine once you get it online and I will forward.\" That same day, Davis separately emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed up with, \"Also send me Elliott's wire info.\" Davis replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 2, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] a!].d I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n39. On or about May 2, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. BROIDY and Foreign National A spoke about the IMDB matters. BROIDY agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay BROIDY an \\$8 million retainer and wanted BROIDY to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the I MDB matter. BROIDY agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. During the meeting or shortly thereafter, Davis and BROIDY discussed the possibility of assisting in getting PRC National A removed from the United States. With respect to payment, BROrDY stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay BROIDY and others. BROIDY, Person A, and Davis agreed that the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to BROIDY through Law Firm A. BROIDY and Davis agreed that BROIDY would pay Davis a percentage of what BROIDY received. Person A also agreed to pay Davis a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told BROIDY and Davis that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review. BROIDY never met or spoke with Higginbotham.\n\n## **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; BROIDY is Paid \\$6 Million; Davis is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n40. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on or about May 8, 2017, was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n41. On or about May 8, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago -\". Davis then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n42. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$600,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts and \\$900,000 to an account for a business entity associated with Davis. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of BROIDY's business accounts. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of BROIDY's business accounts.\n\n43. On or about May 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to BROIDY through Person A and BROIDY's payment of a percentage to Davis. Among the text messages, Davis asked, \"Did you get it?\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. BROIDY later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" Davis responded, \"When Asia opens .. . . Baby steps at least moving forward now.'' BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires. \" BROIDY later\n\nadded in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [BROIDY's assistant].\"\n\n44. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2. 7 million. On or about May 26, 2017, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which BROIDY and Foreign National A agreed in return for BROIDY's assistance with the **1** MDB civil forfeiture cases. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with Davis. On or about May 26, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$1 million to an account controlled by Person C. In or about early June 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$650,000 to one ofBROIDY's business accounts.\n\n## **D. BROIDY Facilitates and Attempts to Facilitate Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Efforts to Resolve the lMDB Cases**\n\n45. On or about June *5,* 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\" Pursuant to a consulting agreement, BROIDY had agreed to pay Person D \\$25,000 per month for advice and guidance with respect to navigating the Administration.\n\n46. The same day, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, Davis wrote, \"Please call before u go to bed ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n47. On or about June 15, 2017, at Person A's request, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Hey he'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" Davis added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, BROIDY responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n48. On or about June 17, 2017, BROIDY and Davis discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 2017, BROIDY asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. BROIDY and Davis believed that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the I MOB matter. BROIDY also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n49. On or about June 19, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the IMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n50. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n51 . On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, BROIDY followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n52. On or about July 3, 2017, BROIDY again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Pr\\_ime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, Elliott.\" Later that day, BROIDY texted Person E again: \"[Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, BROIDY exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, BROIDY texted, \"[Person E], just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Davis continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize- I'm getting inundated[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" Davis responded, \"Done[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a high-ranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pis pis go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely! \"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E), It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A) with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, Elliot[.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process-\". BROIDY responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, ''NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with the Malaysians. NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, Davis texted BROIDY, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. BROIDY responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" Davis followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. BROIDY responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" Davis replied in part,\n\n\"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. BROIDY replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 20 I 7, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" BROIDY responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21 , 2017, BROlDY texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], The Malaysians have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! Elliott.\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" BROIDY replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Just checked again with Malaysians. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, Elliott.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Hi [Person DJ- Can you call NSA for me re Malaysians receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to Malaysian Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, Elliott.\" Person D responded, \"E- will call again this morning.\"\n\n64. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY emailed a high-level official from the National Security Council in an attempt to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n65. On or about July 29, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" Davis immediately followed by texting \"Wickr[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*\", which contained the purported talking points of Malaysian Prime Minister A intended for an upcoming meeting between the United States Secretary of State and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Davis had received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and Davis relayed them to BROIDY. The talking points mentioned, among other things, BROIDY's ongoing relationship and work with Malaysia, and identified 1 MOB as a \" (p ]riority[. ]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\".\n\n67. On or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY also sent these talking points to Person D, immediately followed by a message explaining, \"Above is attachment from Malaysian PM of his talking points. You can share with [staff assistant who works for the Secretary of State].\" BROIDY also sought to obtain details about the timing of a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State.\n\n68. Later on or about August 7, 2017, BROIDY messaged Person D, \"[Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize Circinus name. Thank you!\" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. This was the final payment made to BROIDY. In total, BROIDY was paid \\$9 million. On or about the next day, Law Fim1 A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with Davis. In the ensuing days, Law Firm A transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts belonging to BROIDY\n\n70. On or about August I 0, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from Malaysia that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Any update on Malaysia? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a highranking official at the White House.\n\n72. On or about August 31 , 20 I 7, BROIDY drafted and sent an email to Person l attempting to arrange a golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President.\n\n73. On or about September 11 , 2017, Davis typed a letter to be sent from BROIDY to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President and provided the letter to BROIDY. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n74. Following BROIDY's repeated efforts to schedule a golf game between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House on or about September 12, 2017. Although BROIDY contacted high-ranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n75. On or about October 6, 2017, BROIDY met with the President at the White House. BROIDY did not raise the I MDB matters during the meeting but represented to Davis that he had, understanding that Davis would communicate that information to Person A and Foreign National A.\n\n76. On or about January 5, 2018, BROIDY drafted talking points related to 1 MDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that BROIDY had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \"1. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against lMDB in Malaysia. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the Malaysia case. She is\n\na [presidential] appointee and can be helpful. . .. 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" These representations were false.\n\n# II. **Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States**\n\n### **A. BROIDY Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n77. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, BROIDY agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, Davis and BROIDY discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n78. On or about May 15, 2017, Davis emailed BROIDY's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, Davis also emailed BROIDY and Person C banking information for Davis's company.\n\n79. On or about May 18, 2017, BROIDY, Davis, and Person A traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to BROIDY about PRC National A and his alleged crimes, and stated that the PRC government wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC M,inister A asked BROIDY to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. They also discussed the potential return to the United States of Americans then being held prisoner by the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n## **B. BROIDY Lobbies Top U.S. Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n80. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, BROIDY texted Davis, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.]\"\n\n81. On or about May 21, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \"[Person D]- Just returned . Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]? Elliott.\"\n\n82. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n83. On or about May 22, 2017, BROIDY sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and China[.]\" BROIDY attached to the email a memorandum from BROIDY addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to BROIDY by Davis, and the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, BROIDY and Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n84. In the memorandum, BROIDY mischaracterized the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. BROlDY did not disclose his contact with Foreign National A and did not disclose Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between BROIDY and PRC Minister A. BROIDY also did not disclose the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A. BROIDY also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n85. In the memorandum, BROIDY stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that China would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" BROIDY wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several highranking United States government officials. BROIDY indicated that it would be productive for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. BROIDY also noted several items that China, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and China. BROIDY then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request China will make is that [PRC National A], who China alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of China (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to China so he can be charged with these violations and go through regular criminal proceedings in China with regard to these allegations.\n\nBROIDY appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n86. On or about May 23, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Hi [] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks Elliott[.]\" Person D responded, \"Elliott- letter was delivered yesterday. Pis see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" BROIDY responded, \"Great. Thank you []. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \"[W]aiting to hear from\n\nDoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n87. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted BROIDY, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General] office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n88. On or about May 25, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and OHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there IO min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with [] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with my contact this morning. Thank you. E[.]\" Person D responded, \"E- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, BROIDY texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.]\" Later that day, Person D responded, \"E- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n89. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, BROIDY texted Person D, \"IO am head of ICE 11 :30 FBI Perhaps a play at OHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in OHS at the time.\n\n90. On or about May 28, 2017, after Davis transcribed correspondence to BROIDY, BROIDY emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and the Chinese Ambassador to the US.\" BROIDY noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, BROIDY and Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n91. On or about May 30, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's meeting with United States government officials, \"Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Yes. All set[.]\" Davis replied, \"He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]\"\n\n92. In or about May 2017, Davis, at Person A's request, asked BROIDY to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington, D.C.\n\n93. On or about May 30, 20 l 7, BROIDY met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. BROIDY also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n94. On or about May 3 I, 2017, BROIDY texted Person D:\n\nI met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [Attorney General] or [Person I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I] ... . So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only ifhe has a proper \"short meeting\". This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics. Thank you.\n\n95. Person D responded, \"E-got the info. I will call in a few mins.\" BROIDY replied, \"If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the VM at OHS? He can\n\nmention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.\"\n\n96. On or about May 31, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with, Person I, \"In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" BROIDY responded, \"Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A].\" BROIDY later continued, \"Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer.\" Davis responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" BROIDY replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" Davis then texted, \"lsn 't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" BROIDY responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General] people[.]\" Davis responded, \"It's on the OHS website[.) He's there for the afternoon[.) Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster fT\\*)ck.\" Davis replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n97. On or about June 9, 2017, Davis texted BROIDY a news article titled \"chinacranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]\"\n\n98. On or about June 27, 2017, BROIDY texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. BROIDY texted Person H's spouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with [Person HJ tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. ls there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, Elliott[.]\" BROIDY later continued:\n\nHi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive is [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice ... . The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 30th. It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list. . . . This order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. [The President of the PRC] mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A] .... He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by China and would accept a very large number of Chinese illegal immigrants for deportation back to China. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n99. On or about June 28, 2017, BROIDY met with Person Hand his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, BROIDY exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding PRC National A: \"Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person H] tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]'s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n100. On or about June 29, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY texted, \"ls rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" Davis responded, \" l have no idea.\" BROIDY replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" Davis responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[. ]\"\n\nI\n\nI 01. On or about June 30, 2017, Davis, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of PRC National A and the potential return of United States citizens held in the PRC, texted BROIDY, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" Davis replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.J Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" BROIDY responded, \"Agree.\" Davis continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.J After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n102. On or about June 30, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. BROIDY texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" BROIDY followed up with, \"Separately, [Person EJ texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, Davis replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" Davis later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n103. On or about July 1, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Spoke to [Person EJ at length. Call me when you can[.]\" BROIDY did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. BROIDY did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n104. On or about July 2, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public reporting, Davis texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H.J\"\n\nI 05. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, Davis texted BROIDY: \" [President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" Davis then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\nI 06. On or about July I 0, 2017, Person A emailed himself copies of the Red Notice for PRC National A, images of PRC National A's passport and identity card, and other documents related to PRC National A and the alleged crimes committed by PRC National A.\n\n107. In or about July 2017, Person A requested that Higginbotham meet with the PRC Ambassador to the United States at the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to convey a message to the PRC Ambassador about PRC National A. On or about July 16, 2017, Higginbotham went to the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. and met with the Ambassador. During the meeting, Higginbotham told the Ambassador that United States government officials were working on the extradition of PRC National A and that there would be additional information in the future concerning the logistics of the extradition. Following the meeting, Higginbotham reported to Person A what had occurred, and Person A said he would inform Foreign National A. Person A later told Higginbotham that Foreign National A was happy with the meeting and that it had given Foreign National A credibility with the PRC.\n\n108. On or about July 18, 2017, BROIDY emailed Davis the contact information for Person H. Davis connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n109. On or about July 26,2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, Davis wrote, \"Really need confinn it was officially transmitted. At this point- he says no[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" BROIDY later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person HJ in an hour.\"\n\n110. On or about July 26, 2017, BROIDY texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, Elliott.\" Later the same day, Person H's spouse texted BROIDY, \"Hi Elliot. Can you text me the details again of the Chinese man you texted previously thank you[.]\" BROIDY responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, Elliott[.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" BROIDY then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n111. On or about July 27, 2017, BROIDY and Davis exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. Davis texted BROIDY, \"Any word on embassy??\" Davis later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" BROIDY responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n112. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis several times. Among those messages, BROIDY wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" BROIDY later added, \"im with [Person HJ. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n113. On or about August 19, 2017, BROIDY met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, BROIDY asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A. Person H, in BROIDY's presence, then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n114. On or about September 13, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, Davis texted BROIDY links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n115. On or about October 2, 2017, BROIDY texted Davis a link to article about PRC National A.\n\n116. On or about January 5, 2018, BROIDY texted Davis, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\nAll in violation of **18** U.S.C. § 371.\n\n## **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n1. The allegations contained in Count One of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c).\n\n2. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981 (a)(l )(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), upon conviction of Count One, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, the defendant, ELLIOTT BROIDY, shall forfeit to the United States of America any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against BROIDY for a sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n3. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n\ne. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title\n\n21, United States Code, Section 853(p ), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section\n\n2461 (c).\n\nDA TED: September 30 , 2020\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*ls/John D. Keller*  By: John D. Keller Principal Deputy Chief Sean F. Mulryne Deputy Director, Election Crimes Branch Nicole R. Lockhart James C. Mann Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\nFILED NTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII Aug 17, 2020, 10:23a M ichelle Rynne, Clerk of Court\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #10523 United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON Assistant U.S. Attorney Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg. 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Telephone: (808) 541-2850 Facsimile: (808) 541 -2958 Email: ken.sorenson@usdoj.gov\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\nJOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE Deputy Director, Election Crimes NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\n# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n# FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAW Aii\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | )           | CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO                               |\n|---------------------------|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| Plaintiff,                | )<br>)      | INFORMATION                                        |\n| vs.                       | )<br>)<br>) | (18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§<br>612 and 618(a)] |\n| NICKIE MALI LUM DA VIS,   | )<br>)      |                                                    |\n| Defendant.                | )           |                                                    |\n\nThe United States of America charges:\n\n# **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. At all times relevant to this Information:\n\n2. From no later than March 201 7 to at least in or about January 2018, NICKIE LUM DAVIS agreed with Persons A and B to act as agents of Foreign National A in exchange for millions of dollars in undisclosed wire transfers originating from foreign accounts associated with Foreign National A. DAVIS specifically agreed to facilitate Person B's lobbying of the President of the United States (\"the President\"), his Administration, and the United States Depa1tment of Justice (\"DOJ\") to drop the investigation of Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from !Malaysia Development Berhad (\"lMDB\"), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, the defendant and Person B willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that Person B was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, DAVIS and Persons A and B were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the lMDB investigation dropped.\n\n3. During the same approximate period, DA VIS also agreed with Persons A and B to aid their efforts to lobby the Administration and the DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") National A-a dissident of the PRC living in the United States-at the request of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A. Here too, DA VIS and Persons A and B were ultimately unsuccessful.\n\n4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, DAVIS aided Person B in facilitating a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in  September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the lMDB matter with the President.\n\n5. DAVIS, Person A, and Person B also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that Person B, assisted by DA VIS, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. DA VIS, Person A, and Person B, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials at DOJ and the United States Department of Homeland Security (\"DHS\"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017.\n\nCriminal Prohibitions on Acting as an Agent of a Foreign Principal or Government\n\n6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (\"FARA\"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as \"an agent of a foreign principal\" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit (\"FARA Unit\") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make false and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.\n\n7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal.\n\n### **RELEVANT PARTIES & ENTITIES**\n\n8. The defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman, and consultant with personal and business relationships with Persons A and B.\n\n9. Person A was a United States citizen, businessperson, and entertainer with international ties, including ties to Foreign National A.\n\n10. Person B served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately April 2016 to April 2018. In that capacity, Person B raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. After  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 lMDB.\n\n12. Company A was a limited liability company formed by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A to pay Person B for his lobbying efforts.\n\n13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution.\n\n14. Law Firm A was a law firm operated by Person B's spouse, Person C.\n\n15. PRC National A was a dissident of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC.\n\n16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the lMDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1 MDB laundered proceeds. On November 1, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from lMDB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying bribes to various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials.\n\n# I. Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases\n\n# A. Person B Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for \\$8 Million Retainer\n\n17. In or about March 2017, DAVIS told Person B that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could \"use help with the forfeiture.\"\n\n18. On or about March 5, 2017, at the request of Person B, DAVIS emailed Person B a copy of a civil forfeiture complaint related to lMDB. That same day, DAVIS emailed Person B a Bloomberg article titled \"[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits,\" and texted Person B, \"Your email has the court filing[.]\" Person B responded, \"Thx. Will review.\" DAVIS replied, \"Call me when u can- thank you[.]\" Person B responded again, \"Yes. 5 min[.]\"\n\n19. Person A requested that DA VIS send him Person B's biography describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration\n\nand photographs of Person B and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, Person B's assistant, at DAVIS's request, emailed photographs to DAVIS featuring Person B and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight Person B's close access to the Administration.\n\n20. On or about March 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?\" Person B responded, \"I think so. Let's speak later.\" Later that same day, DA VIS sent Person B additional text messages to set up the meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n21. At the direction of Person B, on or about March 13, 2017, DAVIS forwarded to Person A a \"Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services\" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A. The \"Retainer and Fee Agreement\" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an \\$8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional \\$75 million success fee ifthe \"matter\" was resolved within 180 days, or \\$50 million if the \"matter\" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the \"matter\" referred to the 1 MDB forfeiture proceedings. In actuality, Person A, Person B, Law Firm A, DAVIS, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure Person B's services to lobby the Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A's behalf based on Person B's political connections.\n\n22. On or about March 13 , 2017, Person B met with Person A and DA VIS to discuss Foreign National A and his legal issues. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to Person B, and asked if Person B could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of Person B helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, Person B texted DAVIS in part, \"I'm excited about our business prospects.\"\n\n· 23. On or about March 15, 201 7, in reference to Foreign National A, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Anything new on ... [Person A's] Associate?\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \" [Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the 'promoter' and they hope to travel within the next few week[.]\"\n\n24. On or about March 22, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant about setting up another meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS.\n\n25. At all relevant times, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B were aware of FARA and its prohibition on unregistered representation of foreign principals.\n\n26. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did DA VIS, Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.\n\n# **B. Person A, Person B, and DA VIS Meet Foreign National A m Bangkok**\n\n27. In or about April 2017, Person A asked Person B to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. Person B said he would go only if he were paid **\\$1** million, and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from \"untainted\" funds.\n\n28. On or about April 28, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS advising, \"I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]\" That same day, DAVIS responded, \"Ok[.]\"\n\n29. On or about April 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages, Person B asked in reference to Foreign National A, \"Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location?\" DA VIS responded, \"Call me when u can talk[.] \"\n\n30. On or about April 30, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding a flight itinerary for travel to Bangkok. In the email, DA VIS wrote in part: \"Please call me if you have questions -- It's 2 one way tickets - since we need to leave from a different country[.] We don't need to worry about hotels yet ... \"\n\n31. On or about May 1, 2017, DA VIS emailed Person B and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That same day, DA VIS emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded, \"[Foreign National A] is booking our hotel,\" and later followed\n\nup with, \"Also send me [Person B's] wire info.\" DAVIS replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A. The same day, in response to a question from Person B's assistant about whether she should cancel Person B's hotel room reservation, DA VIS emailed Person B's assistant, \"Yes all rooms are booked by [Person A] already.\"\n\n32. On or about May 2, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B stating in part, \"Since u land earlier - [Person A] and I will see you at arrivals .... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!\"\n\n33. On or about May 2, 2017, DA VIS, Person A, and Person B arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. Person Band Foreign National A spoke about the lMDB investigation and civil forfeiture actions. Person B agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay Person Ban \\$8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the lMDB matter. Person B agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A's behalf. With respect to payment, Person B stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be \"clean.\" Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay Person B and others. Person B, Person A, and DA VIS agreed that  the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person B and DA VIS agreed that Person B would pay DA VIS thirty percent of what Person B received. Person A also agreed to pay DAVIS a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told Person Band DAVIS that Person A's friend, Higginbotham, was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review.\n\n### **C. Person A Receives \\$8.5 Million from Foreign National A; Person B is Paid \\$6 Million; DAVIS is Paid \\$1.7 Million**\n\n34. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand, on or about May 8, 201 7, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately \\$2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier's check from the Company A account for \\$702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of \\$48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-party company transferred \\$250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to \\$1 million. Within several days, approximately \\$900,000 of the \\$1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 2017 was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n3 5. On or about May 8, 2017, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago-\". DA VIS then added, \"702 total cashier check[.]\"\n\n36. On or about May 9, 2017, Person A caused Company A to transfer \\$250,000 to a company controlled by a family member of DA VIS for the benefit of DAVIS.\n\n37. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred \\$3 million from Company A to Law Firm A.\n\n38. On or about May 17, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to Person B through Person A and Person B's payment of a percentage to DAVIS. Among the text messages, DA VIS asked, \"Did you get it?\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning.\" Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. Person B later added, \"Did you get 2nd confirm?\" DAVIS responded, \"When Asia opens .... Baby steps at least moving forward now.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires.\" Person B later added in part, \"Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [Person B's assistant].\"\n\n39. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$500,000 to one of Person B's business accounts and \\$900,000 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional \\$950,000 in two separate transfers to one of Person B's business accounts.\n\n40. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately \\$2.7 million. On or about May 26, 201 7, Person A transferred \\$2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the \\$8 million retainer to which Person B and Foreign National A agreed in return for Person B's lobbying the Administration and the DOJ to drop the lMDB civil forfeiture cases and any related investigations. That same day, \\$600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with DAVIS.\n\n### **D. Person B Facilitates Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lobbies to Resolve the lMDB** Cases\n\n41. On or about May 18, 2017, Person B texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Hi [Person D]- Please work on Asian country visit. Date in July.\"\n\n42. On or about June 5, 2017, Person B texted Person D again regarding the visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: \"Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap.\"\n\n43. The same day, at the request of Person A, DA VIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages, DA VIS wrote, based upon information conveyed to her by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, \"Please call before u go to bed in ISRAEL if possible ... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]\" Person B responded, \"Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]\"\n\n44. On or about June 15, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Hey he 'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?\" DAVIS added, \"Principal\", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Yes[.]\"\n\n45. On or about June 16, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding lMDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associated with Foreign National A.\n\n46. On or about June 17, 2017, Person Band DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 201 7, Person B asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said, and DA VIS believed, that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the 1 MDB matter. Person B also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests.\n\n4 7. On or about June 19, 201 7, DA VIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the lMDB forfeiture action in the United States.\n\n48. On or about June 25, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba link to an article about Malaysian Prime Minister A and the lMDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, \"Weird article. What can we do?\" DAVIS replied, \"Call pls. Got news[.]\" DA VIS followed up stating that she had sent Person B a \"What's app request.\"\n\n49. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago.\"\n\n50. On or about June 30, 2017, Person B sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: \"Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A].\" Later that day, Person B followed up with, \"[Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime.\"\n\n51. On or about July 3, 2017, Person B again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: \"Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, [].\" Later that day, Person B texted Person E again: \" [Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!\"\n\n52. On or about July 4, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Call me asap\" and then \"Clear your phone - erase messages[.]\"\n\n53. On or about July 5, 2017, Person B exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages, Person B texted, \"[Person E],just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, []\" Person E responded, \"It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]\"\n\n54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"Wickr[.] It's 5pm ... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed.\" These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DA VIS continued, \"Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated[.]\" Person B responded, \"See wikr[.]\" The following day, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]\" DAVIS responded, \"Done[.]\" Person B responded, \"Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]\" Person F was then a highranking official on the National Security Council.\n\n55. On or about July 13, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, \"Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pls pls go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely!\"\n\n56. On or about July 13, 2017, Person B texted Person E again regarding the golf date: \"Hi [Person E], It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A] with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, [][.]\" Person E responded, \"I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process -\". Person B responded \"Thank you!!\" Person E replied, \"NSC is on it and coordinating[.]\" Person B responded, \"Can we get date today?\" Person E replied, \"They're working directly with [Malaysia.] NSC is coordinating a date.\"\n\n57. On or about July 15, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Working on getting meetings for tomorrow.\"\n\n58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B, \"[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]\" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. Person B responded, \"Agree. Hammering away[.]\"\n\n59. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, relaying information from Person A, DA VIS wrote, \"Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]\" DAVIS followed up with, \"This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed.\" According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. Person B responded, \"Calling [Person E] now[.]\" DA VIS replied in part, \"Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]\" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. Person B replied, \"Doing it now.\"\n\n60. On or about July 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"Secondly we need this date bad[.]\" Person B responded the following day, \"Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]\"\n\n61. On or about July 21, 2017, Person B texted Person E regarding the golf outing: \"[Person E], [Malaysia] have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! [].\"\n\n62. On or about July 24, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!\" Person D responded, \"Let's follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?\" Person B replied, \"'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person H] by [Person E].\"\n\n63. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Just checked again with [Malaysia]. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, [].\" Person B followed up with, \"Hi [Person D]- Can you call NSA for me re [Malaysia] receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to [Malaysia] Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, []\" Person D responded,\"[] will call again this morning. Talked to [] briefly yesterday .... Will call shortly.\"\n\n64. On or about July 29, 2017, relaying information that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DA VIS texted Person B in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, \"They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??\" DA VIS immediately followed by texting \"Wicla[.]\" Person B responded, \"May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?\"\n\n65. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B sent his assistant an email with the subject, \"Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*,\" with talking points intended for an upcoming meeting between the Secretary of State of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A. DA VIS received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A-and relayed them to Person B, knowing that Person B would then provide them to the Secretary of State as background for the meeting. The talking points mentioned, among other things, Person B's ongoing relationship and work with [Malaysia], and identified lMDB as a \"[p]riority[.]\" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by lMDB, and specified that \"[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]\"\n\n66. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B also sent the talking points document to Person D for his review and edits and to obtain details about the timing\n\nof a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Hi [Person D]; When is [Secretary of State] mtg?; Already 11 :00 am Monday in [Malaysia]. Can you expand and send me final version?\" Person D responded by sending a revised version of the talking points to Person B and stating, \" []- here is the marked up version I am going to forward to [Secretary of State]'s office. He heads to Bangkok today and then to [Malaysia]. Let me know if you have any other changes. Thanks.\"\n\n67. Later, on or about August 7, 2017, Person B messaged Person D, \" [Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize [my company's] name. Thank you! \" Person D responded, \"Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations.\"\n\n68. Also on or about August 7, 2017, Person A executed an agreement between another of Person A's companies and a representative of Foreign National A providing for \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" in exchange for approximately EUR 8.4 million to be paid on or before August 16, 2017.\n\n69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately \\$12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred \\$3 million to Law Firm A. Person A also transferred \\$833,333 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred \\$900,000 to a business account associated with DA VIS.\n\n70. On or about August 10, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: \"Heard from [Malaysia] that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned - no plug. ;- .... \"\n\n71. On or about August 16, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages to set up a meeting and a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \" [Person A] really wants to see u today if possible since u leave Friday[.]\"\n\n72. On or about August 18, 2017, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages setting up a phone call. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Call me pls. [Person A] wants to conference in[.]\"\n\n73. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Any update on [Malaysia] ? Person D responded, \"As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf.\" Person B responded, \"Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings. I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best.\" Person I was then a high-ranking official at the White House.\n\n74. On or about August 21 , 2017, DAVIS wired \\$375,000 in funds she received as a commission from Person A, to Person C, the spouse of Person B.\n\n75. On or about August 24, 2017, Foreign National A directed the transfer of approximately \\$10 million to Person A's separate company that had entered into the \"Strategic Communications and Crisis Management\" agreement with a representative of Foreign National A for EUR 8.4 million. Based on the prevailing exchange rate on August 24, 2017, EUR 8.4 million converted to approximately \\$10 million.\n\n76. On or about September 11 , 2017, DA VIS typed a letter at Person B's direction to be sent from Person B to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President.\n\n77. On or about September 12, 2017, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House, due in part to the assistance provided by DA VIS for Person B's efforts to facilitate the meeting. Although Person B contacted highranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.\n\n78. On or about October 6, 2017, Person B met with the President at the White House. Person B represented to Person A, DAVIS, and Foreign National A that he raised the lMDB investigation with the President during the meeting.\n\n79. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B drafted talking points related to lMDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Person B had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: \" l. We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration's case against 1 MDB in [Malaysia]. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the [] case. She is a [presidential] appointee and can be helpful ... . 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President, he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue.\" Person B greatly exaggerated his efforts regarding the lMDB investigation.\n\n80. On or about January 6, 2018, Person B met with Person A, who asked Person B for a loan. Person A told Person B that Person A's friend was \"checking on\" the money they had received from Foreign National A and \"helping to keep it clean.\"\n\nII. Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States\n\n# **A. Person B Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A**\n\n81. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, Person B agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, DAVIS and Person B discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A.\n\n82. On or about May 15, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, DAVIS also emailed Person Band Person C banking information for DAVIS's company.\n\n83. On or about May 18, 201 7, Person A, Person B, and DA VIS traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to Person B about PRC National A and his alleged crimes and stated that the PRC wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC Minister A asked Person B to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials.\n\n# **B. Person B Lobbies Top** U.S. **Officials for the Removal of PRC National A**\n\n84. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, Person B texted DA VIS, \"I'll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.] \"\n\n85. On or about May 21 , 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: \" [Person DJ- Just returned. Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]?[].\"\n\n86. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss.\" Person B followed up with, \"I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss.\" Later the same day, Person D responded, \"Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg.\"\n\n87. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B sent an email to Person D with the subject, \"Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and [the PRC][.]\" Person B attached to the email a memorandum from Person B addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to Person B by DA VIS, who received it from Person A during the May 2017 trip to China where the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, Person Band Person C revised the memorandum.\n\n88. In the memorandum, Person B misrepresented the reason for his trip to China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. Person B\n\nconcealed his contact with Foreign National A and concealed Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between Person B and PRC Minister A. Person B also concealed the \\$4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A over the two weeks preceding the meeting in Shenzhen with PRC Minister A. Person B also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment.\n\n89. In the memorandum, Person B stated, \"I was told by [PRC Minister A] that [the PRC] would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security.\" Person B wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several high-ranking United States government officials. Person B advocated for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. Person B also noted several items that the PRC, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and the PRC. Person B then added:\n\nAccording to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request [the PRC] will make is that [PRC National A], who [the PRC] alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of [the PRC] (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to [the PRC] so he can be charged with these\n\nviolations and go through regular criminal proceedings in [the PRC] with regard to these allegations.\n\nPerson B appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.\n\n90. On or about May 23, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"Hi[] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General]? Please update Thanks[][.]\" Person D responded, \" [Person BJ- letter was delivered yesterday. Pls see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early.\" Person B responded, \"Great. Thank you[]. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat.\" The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded, \" [W]aiting to hear from DoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks.\"\n\n91. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted Person B, \"Just got a call from [Attorney General]'s office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later.\"\n\n92. On or about May 25, 2017, Person B texted Person D, \"The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and DHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there 10 min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with[] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with\n\nmy contact this morning. Thank you. [ . ]\" Person D responded, \" [ ]- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by.\" Later the same day, Person B texted Person D, \"Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney General] heard the 3 things which really help US[.] \" Later that day, Person D responded,\"[]- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks.\"\n\n93. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, Person B texted Person D, \" 10 am head of ICE 11:30 FBI Perhaps a play at DHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared.\" Person B followed up with, \"Please call me\" and \"I'm trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I].\" Person I was a senior official in DHS at the time.\n\n94. On or about May 28, 2017, Person B emailed Person D, \"transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and [the PRC's] Ambassador to the US.\" Person B noted, \"I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of.\" Later that same day, Person Band Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content.\n\n95. On or about May 30, 2017, relaying information from PRC Minister A and Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetings with United States Government officials, DA VIS 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 I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I]. .... So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only if he has a proper \"short meeting\" . This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics. Thank you.\n\n99. Person D responded, \" []-got the info. I will call in a few mins.\" Person B replied, \"If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the\n\nVM at DHS? He can mention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed.\"\n\n100. On or about May 31, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with Person I, \"In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?\" Person B responded, \"Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A].\" Person B later continued, \"Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer.\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes, I'm telling him that.\" Person B replied, \"Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened.\" DA VIS then texted, \"Isn't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?\" Person B responded, \"Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General']s people[.]\" DA VIS responded, \"It's on the DHS website[.] He's there for the afternoon[.] Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]\" Person B responded, \"Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster f]ck.\" DA VIS replied, \"Wickr.\"\n\n101. On or about June 9, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba news article titled \"[the PRC]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]\"\n\n102. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages regarding PRC National A.\n\n103. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. Person B knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. Person B texted Person H's spouse, \"On another note, I would like to meet with Person H tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. Is there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, [][.]\" Person B later continued:\n\nHi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice .... The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 3Qt<sup>11</sup> • It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list. .. . The order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. The President of the PRC mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A]. ... He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by [the PRC] and would accept a very large number of [the PRC] illegal immigrants for deportation back to [the PRC]. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.\n\n104. On or about June 28, 2017, Person B met with Person H and his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, Person B exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding [PRC National A]: \"Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person HJ tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]' s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help.\" Person H's spouse responded, \"This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this.\"\n\n105. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. Person B texted, \"Is rejection or acceptance letter already generated?\" DA VIS responded, \"I have no idea.\" Person B replied, \"Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]\" DA VIS responded, \"Yes[.] Check Wickr[.]\"\n\n106. On or about June 30, 2017, DAVIS, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of Foreign National Band the potential return of United States citizens held in Country B, texted Person B, \"Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President's medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]\" Person B responded, \"I am going to slam until it's done[.]\" DA VIS replied, \"Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.] Don't leave that dude until we do it.\" Person B responded, \"Agree.\" DA VIS continued, \"Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]\" Person B responded, \"Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call.\"\n\n107. On or about June 30, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, \"Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS.\" Person B followed up with, \"Separately, [Person E] texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it.\" That same date, DA VIS replied, \"Can we get proof today about revoke?\" DA VIS later specified, \"From [Person E]?\"\n\n108. On or about July 1, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Spoke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you can[.]\" Person B did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. Similar to the representations Person B made in the memorandum that he prepared for the Attorney General and his communications with Person H, Person B did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E.\n\n109. On or about July 2, 201 7, Person B and DA VIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public\n\nreporting, DA VIS texted, \"There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person H].\"\n\n110. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, DAVIS texted Person B: \"[President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe[.]\" DAVIS then followed up: \"July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC][.]\"\n\n111. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B emailed DAVIS the contact information for Person H. DA VIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A.\n\n112. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, DA VIS wrote, \"Really need confirm it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says no[.]\" Person B responded, \"Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]\" Person B later added, \"Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person H] in an hour.\"\n\n113. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: \"Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, [].\" Later the same day, Person H 's spouse texted Person B, \"Hi []. Can you text me the details again of the [the PRC] man you texted previously thank you[.]\" Person B responded, \"Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, [][.]\" Person H's spouse replied, \"[PRC National A].\" Person B then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27.\n\n114. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. DAVIS texted Person B, \"Any word on embassy??\" DAVIS later added, \"Hey any update about formal notice?\" Person B responded, \"I'm dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]\"\n\n115. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS several times. Among those messages, Person B wrote, \"Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]\" Person B later added, \" im with [Person H]. have break thru opportunity[.]\"\n\n116. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, Person B asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A, and Person H suggested that they call the President. Person B and Person H then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States.\n\n117. On or about September 13 , 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, \"Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]\" That same day, DAVIS texted Person B links to articles about PRC National A.\n\n118. On or about October 2, 2017, Person B texted DA VIS a link to an article about PRC National A.\n\n119. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B texted DA VIS, \"Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, ... ASAP[.]\"\n\n# COUNT ONE 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612 (Aiding and Abetting & Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)\n\n120. From in or about no later than May 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, within the District of Hawaii and elsewhere, the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, knowingly and willfully, without registering with the Attorney General as required by law, aided and abetted Person A and Person Bin their actions as agents of a foreign principal, to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the lMDB investigation favorably for Foreign National A and to return PRC National A to the PRC, all on behalf of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A and the Government of the PRC.\n\nAll in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(l).\n\n# **FORFEITURE ALLEGATION**\n\n121. The allegations contained in Count 1 of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c).\n\n122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c), upon conviction of Count 1, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 2, and Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, shall forfeit to the United States of America a sum of money representing property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against DA VIS for this sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph.\n\n123. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n- e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,\n\nthe United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\n\nDA TED: August 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.\n\n*Isl Kenji M Price*  KENn M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii\n\n~~\n\n*Isl Kenneth M Sorenson*  KENNETH M. SORENSON Chief, National Security\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice\n\n*Isl John D. Keller*  JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief\n\nSEANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section\n\nUnited States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No. ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n\n# **EXHIBIT C**\n\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, |  |\n|---------------------------|--|\n| VS.                       |  |\n| GEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM,      |  |\n| Defendant.                |  |\n|                           |  |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：　:　第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\nHO WAN KWOK 先生支持第 11 章案件及若干动议的声明书\n\n我，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经正式宣誓，陈述并作证如下：\n\n1. 2022年2月15日，我启动了上述标题项下的第 11 章案件。我年满 18 岁，具备作证资格。\n\n2. 我提交本声明书，旨在向破产法院及所有利益相关方提供关于我的背景信息，并说明导致我启动本第 11 章案件的相关情况。我在本声明书中进行了较长篇幅的阐述，以便为针对我的主张的性质、我独特的财务状况以及我启动本第 11 章案件的原因提供背景情况。\n\n3. 正如文后更详尽论述的那样，我提起该第 11 章案件旨在：(a) 建立一个单一的法庭审理程序，以便有序处理针对我提出的各项相互竞争的主张；(b) 鉴于我认为在此方面存在误解，为利益相关方提供一个有效的机会来调查我的资产、负债及财务事务；(c) 确定哪些资产属于破产财团财产，进而可用于向获准主张的持有人进行分配；并且，期望能够 (d) 与我的债权人达成共识，根据第 11 章重组计划，对各项主张予以公正公平的解决并进行资产分配。\n\n4. 在提起本第 11 章案件及准备本声明书时，我认识到法院可能会对 Ostrager 法官于2月9日作出的藐视法庭裁定（定义见下文）、PAX（亦定义见下文）对我发表的负面言论、甚至我公开表达的政治观点存有顾虑。当然，凡事皆有两面或多面，本声明书将表达我的观点。基于文后将阐明的原因，由于我公开批评中国共产党（“CCP”）的腐败和侵犯人权行为，我一直生活在对 CCP 报复的持续恐惧之中。多年来，我忍受了由 CCP 及其代理人与中介资助的、在 United States（美国）法院系统中提起的毫无根据的诉讼所发起的无情攻击。我的第 11 章案件只能解决 CCP 企图对我及我的家人造成的经济损害。但是，CCP 企图给我造成的伤害远不止经济损失和公众难堪。我相信，如果我被监禁、引渡，或者如果我的家人无法再为我提供人身安全保护，CCP 将在最早可能的机会暗杀我。我并不建议法院或任何利益相关方现在就接受我对基础案件事实的看法。相反，本第 11 章案件预计将获得一笔无担保的申请后贷款的充分资助，其偿还顺位低于所有申请前债权人——以便在典型的第 11 章程序中允许进行公平的调查，并允许利益相关方出示他们认为适当的任何可采信证据。换言之，本破产程序旨在允许对所有相关的、可证实的案件事实进行合情合理的审查，同时不损害任何债权人的经济权利——除非某些无担保债权人企图通过“竞相赶往法院诉讼”来抢先获得清偿顺位，而这种做法必然对某些人是不公平的。\n\n5. 本声明书分为两个部分。第一部分提供关于我的背景信息，包括我的资产和负债的概要描述。第二部分为若干动议提供证言支持。\n\n第一部分 – 背景\n\nI. 我的背景\n\n6. 我出生在中国山东省。我目前与相伴 37 年的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）居住在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林威治）Taconic 街 373 号。我们于 2020 年 3 月从 New York（纽约）Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰酒店）的一套公寓搬至康涅狄格州的现址。我和妻子育有两个成年子女。我儿子名叫 Qiang Guo（郭强），居住在伦敦。我女儿名叫 Mei Guo（郭美），她的时间分配在 New York City（纽约市）和康涅狄格州两地。\n\n7. 我和我的家人出身贫寒。我和我的七个兄弟努力打拼，合并了我们的收入——我的来自一家无线电修理铺，我兄弟们的来自他们各自的小生意——以投资房地产开发。在 1989 年天安门广场民主抗议运动之后，我因向学生抗议者提供资金支持而被监禁了约二十个月，并在狱中遭受酷刑。我被捕时年仅二十出头。与此同时，我目睹了两名警察——CCP 的代理人——的残暴行径，他们开枪射击了我的弟弟，并任由他死去。我弟弟的遇害，以及我被捕入狱和在狱中遭受酷刑，对我产生了深远的影响。在狱中，我与其他同样因支持天安门广场民主运动而入狱的良心犯建立了许多有深厚意义的个人联系。我们对在中国追求自由抱有同样的激情，并且在 1991 年我出狱后，我继续保持着这些联系。\n\n8. 在 1991 年左右，中国政府开始放宽某些管理社会的规定，包括允许普通公民在中国开始实现某种对不动产的“准私有”所有权的规定。虽然我的大家族从这一变化中受益，但我个人由于之前具有政治动机的被捕和羁押而无法受益。任何登记在我名下的中国境内资产都很可能已被 CCP 没收。我的大家族利用其积累的财富来支持我，这一情况一直持续至今。\n\n9. 我的大家族开始与 Yuda Property Company（裕达置业公司，“Yuda”）合作，这是一家专注于中国河南省商业房地产开发的公司。郭氏家族与裕达共同开发了河南裕达国贸酒店，随后又在河南省省会郑州市开发了裕达国贸中心。这些都是成功的合资项目，使得郭氏家族开始积累巨额财富。随后，我的家族在中国开发了其他物业，包括 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）——位于北京的一座集七星级酒店、会议中心和住宅公寓楼于一体的综合体。美国人可能会认出盘古大观是 2008 年和 2022 年北京奥运会的主要背景建筑。\n\n10. 随着向金融、科技及其他商业领域的投资，郭氏家族的财富通过多元化持续增长。特别是我的儿子，通过建立和管理投资机会（包括将全球奢侈品牌引入中国大陆和香港），在扩大体家族财富方面发挥了关键作用。因此，我儿子凭借自身实力成为了一名独立、成功且富有的企业家。\n\n11. 我在 2000 年左右离开中国大陆前往香港，并成为香港公民。在大家族继续在中国积累巨额财富的同时，根据中国法律，作为香港公民，我既不能保留中国国籍，也不被允许在中国拥有资产。\n\n12. 我大家族的商业成功并未逃过 CCP 的注意。2002 年，我的大家族在北京收购了大片土地，在中国被指定为 2008 年奥运会主办国后，这些土地大幅升值。CCP 官员企图侵吞这些土地以谋取个人私利，我向更高级别的政府官员举报了这一企图强占的行为。经过长期的抗争，土地得以收回，从而促成了盘古大观的开发。\n\n13. 在 2015 年左右，我开始更加公开地批评和揭露 CCP 的腐败，CCP 因而对我实施了报复。2015年1月10日，Wu Zheng（吴征，又名“Bruno Wu”）告知我，我的兄弟、我的妻子和我的女儿已全部在中国被捕。吴征与 CCP 高层官员关系密切，是 CCP 的注册外国代理人；他的媒体公司与 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，“PAG”）——即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，“PAX”）的母公司——合作企图收购一家重要的好莱坞制片厂；[1] 并且他个人（代表 CCP）正在为众多原告针对我发起的诉讼提供资金支持。2015 年初，吴征代表 CCP 高级成员致电给我，转达如果我停止公开揭露 CCP 腐败，我的家人就会被释放，并威胁说如果我不照办，将对我及我的儿子发布 INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）“红色通缉令”，并且我将被杀害。我拒绝了 CCP 通过吴征企图让我噤声的企图，并继续公开发声反对 CCP。\n\n14. 2017 年，我通过利用社交媒体和设在美国的新闻机构作为平台，大幅加强了反对 CCP 的行动，以揭露某些 CCP 高级官员的腐败。\n\n1 Nancy Tartaglione，《中国人设立 8 亿美元基金投资全球及本土娱乐产业》，Deadline，2012年2月6日 (http)[226260/]。\n\n我揭露 CCP 腐败的公开声明在美国及海外获得了广泛的报道。除了利用社交媒体更快捷、更普遍地揭露 CCP 腐败外，我还向美国当局提供了有关 CCP 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 月在美国申请了政治庇护保护，我的庇护申请目前仍在审理中。\n\n15. 为了报复我的揭发行为，CCP 发起了一场多方面的行动，企图获取对我的筹码、败坏我的名誉、[2] 威胁并让我噤声。[3] 这些在下文中叙述的行为，最终将我逼入了本破产案件。例如，2017年4月19日，我原定接受 Voice of America（美国之音，“VOA”）的采访，在采访中我计划揭露\n\n2 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）与 Hoover Institution（胡佛研究所）、非政府组织 Australian Strategic Policy Institute（澳大利亚战略政策研究所，ASPI）以及 Alphabet 旗下的 Google（谷歌）均分别报告称，我一直是 CCP 全球社交媒体虚假信息行动的主要目标，该行动由 CCP 代理人及数千个受中国国家控制的网站和社交媒体账户推动。参见 Carly Miller、Vanessa Molter、Isabella Garcia-Camargo、Renee DiResta、David Thiel 和 Alex Zaheer，《网络水军编造新冠谎言：对 2020 年 6 月归因于中华人民共和国的推特下架事件的分析，斯坦福互联网观察台》，2020年6月17日 (http)；Jake Wallis 博士、Tom Uren 和 Elise Thomas，《推特穿越防火长城：对与中华人民共和国有关的针对香港抗议活动的信息行动的初步分析》，2019年10月 (htt)[2.amazonaws.com/2019-12/Tweeting%20through%20the%20great%20fire%20wall.pdf?VersionId=TRGkGXh8FPY5KXLSc_4SfDUy7sMfNkw0]（表明 CCP 针对我的虚假信息行动始于 2017 年 4 月）；Jake Wallis 博士、Tom Uren、Elise Thomas、Albert Zhang、Samantha Hoffman 博士、Lin Li、Alex Pascoe 和 Danielle Cave，《转推穿越防火长城：一个持续且未受威慑的威胁行为体》，2020年6月 (htt)[southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2020-]\n\n[06/Retweeting%20through%20the%20great%20firewall\\_1.pdf?VersionId=ZzW5dlyqlOOgG5m9oHj9DWsjgt](htt) [XD6TCA)](htt)（呈现的数据反映了“与Twitter和Facebook上的中国国家行为体相关联的持续、大规模影响力行动……[该行动]主要针对中国大陆以外的华语受众（Twitter在大陆被屏蔽）……意图影响对……Guo Wengui（郭文贵）的看法”）；Joseph Menn，《亲华社交媒体行动波及新国家，将新冠归咎于美国》，路透社（Reuters），2021年9月9日 [http](http)[covid-2021-09-08/)](http)（报道称，FireEye以及Alphabet旗下的Google（谷歌）的安全专家观察到社交媒体上存在协同发起的、支持中国政府利益并针对我的虚假信息行动）。正如这些独立来源所证实的那样，世界上没有任何人像我一样遭受过如此之多来自中共社交媒体战的攻击。\n\n3 中共对我这位居住在美国的中国异见人士所采用的虐待手段并非个案。近期，联邦检察官指控称，“[一名]中国间谍雇佣了一名私家侦探，在必要时使用暴力以阻止某位候选人竞选国会议员，指示他‘打他，直到他无法参选’”。参见 Aruna Viswanatha 与 Kate O'Keeffe，《美国司法部称中国特工提议使用暴力手段阻止异见人士竞选国会议员》，《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal），2022年3月16日 [http](http)[with-harassing-dissidents-in-u-s-11647455520?mod=article\\_inline)](http)。\n\n中共在海航集团有限公司（HNA Group Co.）中的所有权权益。中共采取了多项行动试图阻止我和VOA（美国之音）进行该采访。首先，在我预定的美国之音采访前两天——正如Brunu Wu（吴征）所威胁的那样——中共基于捏造的刑事罪名促使INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）发布了一份“红色通缉令”（Red Notice），企图将我逮捕并引渡至中国。其次，中共威胁称，如果美国之音继续对我进行采访，将对美国之音及其驻华记者进行报复，坚称该采访构成了对中国内政的干涉。第三，在采访前一天，PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金，PAG（太盟投资集团）旗下子公司）在纽约以违约为由对我提起了毫无根据的诉讼。我继续接受了采访，但美国之音（屈服于中共的压力）下令缩短了采访。\n\n16. 当中共早期试图让我噤声的企图失败后，它便转而企图将我引渡回中国，而在那里我会被杀害。一项FBI（联邦调查局）的调查显示，在2017年夏季，我成为了中共在美国进行游说企图的目标，中共利用一名腐败的政府官员以及包括澳门赌场老板Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·韦恩）在内的多名知名人士，直接游说特朗普总统及其政府将我引渡至中国。[4](#page-6-0) 中共的这一阴谋导致了共和党全国委员会（Republican National Committee）前财务主席Elliot Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪，自那以后，与吴征一样，\n\n4 参见 Aruna Viswanatha，《史蒂夫·韦恩或因在中国推动驱逐商人中所扮演的角色面临司法部行动》，《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal），2021年5月26日 [http](http)[mogul-steve-wynn-to-register-as-foreign-lobbyist-11622054103)](http)。\n\n为其他当事人资助针对我的诉讼）[5](#page-7-0)、游说客Nicki Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）[6](#page-7-1) 以及前DOJ（司法部）官员George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）[7](#page-7-2) 被联邦大陪审团起诉并认罪答辩，他们所有人都承认接受了款项以换取向美国政府高官进行游说以将我引渡。中国的行动包括贿赂和腐化一名司法部总部的资深官员（乔治·希金博瑟姆），在其控制的银行账户中发现了近7500万美元——这使其成为司法部历史上最大的间谍和腐败丑闻之一。从同一年开始，中共还通过各种其他方式针对我，包括：黑客入侵了在2017年9月提交我的庇护申请的律师事务所的服务器，从该申请中提取了我的高度敏感信息，随后在互联网上公开散播；提起并资助（包括多起通过吴征资助的）多起针对我的虚假诉讼，其中一些诉讼至今仍处于进行状态；以及拘留、酷刑折磨和监禁我的许多家人和前同事。\n\n5 美国司法部新闻稿：《埃利奥特·布罗伊迪因开展秘密游说活动以撤销对一马公司的调查并遣返一名中国外籍公民而认罪答辩》，2020年10月20日 [http](http)[investigation-and)](http)（声明称“布罗伊迪还同意代表外籍人士A和中华人民共和国部长A向本届政府及司法部游说，安排遣返和遣送中华人民共和国公民A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异见人士”；我就是“中华人民共和国公民A”）。针对埃利奥特·布罗伊迪的《刑事起诉书》（Criminal Information）副本作为附件A附于本声明之后。\n\n6 美国司法部新闻稿：《夏威夷女商人因协助秘密游说活动以撤销对一马公司的调查并将一名外籍人士遣返中国而认罪答辩》，2020年8月31日 [http](http)[campaign-drop-1mdb)](http)（声明称“卢姆·戴维斯等人亦同意代表外籍人士A和中华人民共和国部长A向本届政府及司法部游说，安排遣返和遣送中华人民共和国公民A——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国异见人士”；我就是“中华人民共和国公民A”）。针对妮基·卢姆·戴维斯的《刑事起诉书》（Criminal Information）副本作为附件B附于本声明之后。\n\n7 美国司法部新闻稿：《前司法部雇员因合谋在数百万美元外国游说资金问题上欺骗美国银行而认罪答辩》，2018年11月30日 [http](http)[banks-about-millions)](http)（声明称“希金博瑟姆进一步承认，该游说活动的另一个目的是试图说服美国高级政府官员将当时持临时签证居住在美国的另一名外国公民从美国遣返并送回其原籍国”；我就是该“另一名外国公民”）。针对乔治·希金博瑟姆的《答辩事实依据》（Factual Basis for Plea）副本作为附件C附于本声明之后。\n\n17. 自2017年以来，中共还冻结并扣押了在中国及香港的家族资产和声称的资产，使我甚至无法持有银行账户。[8](#page-8-0) 中共将其使命定为摧毁我所创造的一切，并阻止我与金融机构进行交易。我将大部分时间用于担任各种实体的无偿非正式顾问或发言人，包括揭露中共腐败和侵犯人权行为的实体。我的家人，特别是我儿子，供养我的生活所需。在申请日（Petition Date）之前，我儿子的家族办公室Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“GSNY”或“家族办公室”）为我购置了衣物、食物和日用品等诸多物品。我无权使用GSNY的信用卡或GSNY的银行账户。除我的衣物和移动电话外，我使用的几乎所有物品的所有权均由我的家族保留。我并不拥有位于康涅狄格州格林威治（Greenwich, Connecticut）的住宅；该住宅由我妻子通过Greenwich Land, LLC持有。我为我儿子的利益以信托方式持有雪莉-荷兰酒店（Sherry-Netherland）公寓的权益。\n\n18. 我的家族向我提供了预支贷款（部分有文件记录，其他则无），以资助我数额庞大的诉讼费用，这使我能够针对中共发起的或在其指使下发起的众多诉讼进行抗辩。截至申请日，GSNY已向我提供了约2100万美元的贷款以支付我的诉讼费用。如下文所述以及在我的《财务状况说明书》（Statement of Financial Affairs，简称“SOFA”）中所述，我是目前在美国及海外未决的30多起诉讼中的被告和/或索赔人。众所周知，中共利用其代理人\n\n8 2018年10月23日，香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭（“香港高等法院”）作出了日期为2018年10月18日的《禁止在香港及其他地方处置资产的限制令》（“香港限制令”）。该香港限制令针对据称属于我的、存放在香港上海汇丰银行有限公司（HSBC Bank）的370万港元存款。根据香港限制令，据称受我“有效控制”的个人及实体的更多数十亿资金和财产（包括在香港的房地产）亦被冻结和/或扣押。香港限制令禁止被指定的“答辩人”（其中包括我）进行任何资产处置。在香港限制令作出后任何接收我资产的人均被视为违反该限制令，并将面临罚款和监禁。\n\n提起诉讼，甚至在美国法院提起诉讼，以胁迫因政治原因被追捕的人士返回中国。[9](#page-9-0) 就此类诉讼聘请律师、专家、供应商、翻译人员及其他专业人士的费用极其庞大。\n\nII. 我的负债\n\n19. 据我所知，我已在提交的《资产与负债清单》（Schedules of Assets and Liabilities，简称“Schedules”）及SOFA中反映了我的负债现状。家族办公室协助我准备了这些文件，Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（一家在编制破产清单和财务状况说明书方面具有丰富经验的独立财务咨询公司）也协助了我。正如这些文件所反映以及下文进一步描述的那样，我在21起诉讼中被列为被告，并因诉讼费用拖欠巨额款项。\n\nA. PAX诉讼。\n\n20. PAX（一家香港投资基金——其母公司PAG曾与中共代理人吴征的媒体公司合作收购一家好莱坞制片厂）在纽约和英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）对我提起了诉讼。如我之前所提及，PAX在纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）的诉讼是在2017年4月18日提起的，即我接受美国之音采访以揭露中共腐败的前一天。PAX的主张主要是追讨一笔存在争议的债务。\n\n21. 2008年，PAX向一家名为Spirit Carter的中国实体提供了1亿美元的贷款（“PAX贷款”）。这笔1亿美元的贷款分为两笔：(1) 由我提供个人担保作为担保的3000万美元首笔贷款；以及 (2) 由拥有最终成为盘古大观（Pangu Plaza）的土地/开发项目的公司49%股权作为担保的第二笔7000万美元贷款。\n\n9 参见 Aruna Viswanatha 与 Kate O'Keeffe，《中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院》，《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal），2020年7月29日 [http](http)[fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112)](http)。\n\n22. 2009年，PAX收到了1亿美元的还款，确认了贷款清偿，并进一步确认了我在2008年个人担保项下的义务已获履行。PAX否认实际发生了“和解与清偿”（accord and satisfaction），现依据一份后注日期的个人担保向我主张权利，而该担保是一份伪造文件。在将这份担保出示给我之前，我此前的诉讼代理律师将其提交给了法院以支持某些动议。当我随后得知该文件的存在时，我声明我认为该文件系伪造；但法院裁定，由于该文件此前已被提交，我不再有权质疑其真实性。因此，在2020年9月15日，法院在既不允许我作证也未在陪审团面前进行证据开庭审理的情况下，作出了支持PAX的即决判决（summary judgement）。截至今日，该判决连同利息约为1.25亿美元。我及时就该判决向纽约州上诉法院（New York Appellate Division）提起了上诉，该上诉目前仍在审理中。[10](#page-10-0)\n\n23. 几周后（2020年10月15日），法院发布了关于我资产的限制令（下称“NYS限制令”）。PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金）在执行判决时，主要针对一艘名为“Lady May”（梅夫人号）的游艇，下文将对此作进一步说明。我并不拥有Lady May；它由我的女儿所有。该船的维护费用一直由我的儿子支付。尽管如此，在2021年3月16日，Ostrager法官指示我本人须在2021年5月15日前将该船驶回纽约，否则该船在管辖区外停留的每一天都将面临高达每天$500,000的巨额罚款。我确实可以使用该船，但我无权命令其返回纽约。Lady May从未返回纽约，且截至今年早些时候，累计的藐视法庭罚款已超过判给PAX胜诉的判决金额，并且是该游艇申报价值的五到六倍。我无力支付该笔罚款。\n\n10 我的附表（Schedules）包括针对我既往诉讼律师的一项潜在执业过失索赔。\n\n24. 2022年2月9日，Ostrager法官对我发布了《民事藐视最终命令》（Final Order of Civil Contempt，下称“2月9日藐视命令”）。在2月9日藐视命令中，Ostrager法官认定我对Lady May享有实益权益并对其具有控制权，并命令我在五个工作日内向PAX支付$134 million的罚款，否则将面临因民事藐视而被监禁的风险。我认为2月9日藐视命令系对我错误发布，并已就该命令向Appellate Division（上诉法庭）单独提起上诉。无论如何，我都没有履行该命令的资金手段。我坚信CCP（中国共产党）正在幕后操纵PAX案。迄今为止，PAX诉讼是CCP对我进行无情打压中为数不多的得逞之一，它使我面临潜在的监禁风险11并迫使我破产。\n\nB. 证券诉讼。\n\n25. 我在七起诉讼中被列为被告，这些诉讼与我推广销售一家名为GTV Media Group, Inc（下称“GTV”）的公司证券以及被称为“G Coin”（G币）和“G Dollar”（G元）的虚拟货币有关。除两个拟议的投资者集体外，数名个别投资者也已针对我提出索赔，涉及他们在据称投资后所遭受的损失。这些诉讼中的原告普遍指控我参与了向非成熟投资者出售未注册证券的计划，违反了适用的美国证券法。这些起诉书合计向我\n\n11 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了其《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.关于确认自动中止不适用或依破产法第362(d)(2)条给予自动中止救济的命令动议》（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]（下称“解除中止动议”）。我认为，批准解除中止动议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。正如PAX在解除中止动议中所指出的，执行2月9日藐视命令可能导致我在纽约被监禁，这将实质性削弱我实现本第11章破产案目标的能力。首要的是，若被监禁，我将无法充分且妥当地管理我的破产财产、参与本破产案、与债权人谈判、出庭并在本法院陈述意见、咨询并指示律师、调查并整理破产财产的资产，或制定并协商第11章重整计划。此外，我认为PAX存在一种错误的认识，即如果我面临监禁风险，我的家人就会支付PAX的赎金；我的家人绝不会支付。\n\n以及包括GTV及其母实体Saraca Media Group, Inc.（下称“Saraca”）在内的多名共同被告索赔超过$100 million的损害赔偿金。我认为这些索赔毫无依据。12\n\nC. 诽谤索赔。\n\n26. 自2017年以来，我一直在社交媒体上保持高度活跃，并发布批评CCP、其代理人以及处于其势力范围内的其他人士的内容。在此背景下，据称在我社交媒体内容中被指名的某些人已针对我提出了诽谤索赔。正如在我的SOFA（财务状况说明书）中所列明，我目前在多起诽谤诉讼中被列为被告，其中多起诉讼由Bruno Wu（吴征）提供资金资助，吴征是一名自认的CCP代理人，也是PAX母公司的业务合作伙伴。这些诉讼中的原告合计索赔巨额损害赔偿金。\n\nD. 诉讼资助成本。\n\n27. 我提起金钱救济索赔的诉讼费用一直通过依据诉讼资助协议（下称“诉讼资助协议”）提供的借款进行资助。在我必须就索赔进行抗辩的情况下，Family Office（家族办公室）已向我垫付借款以支付我的诉讼费用。在任一情况下，借款款项均直接拨付给我聘请的律师事务所和服务提供商。截至申请日（Petition Date），GSNY已向我垫付了约$21 million的诉讼相关费用。\n\n28. 在存在诉讼资助协议的情况下，如果我最终成功主张并追回我的索赔权益，GSNY有权获得溢价，并且\n\n12 这些事项与一项已和解的执法程序有关。具体而言，2021年9月，GTV和Saraca就SEC（美国证券交易委员会）关于GTV发售违反《33年证券法》（33 Act）第506条的主张，与SEC达成了公开宣布的“不承认/不否认”和解（下称“SEC实体和解”）。In the Matter of GTV Media Corp., et al., Admin. Proc. File, File No. 3-20537 (Sept 13, 2021)。GTV和Saraca与New York State Office of the Attorney General（纽约州总检察长办公室）也达成了一项平行和解。Assurance of Continuance No. 21-062, In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc., Respondents (Sept 13, 2021)。\n\n已对我拥有的某些诉讼追偿款主张担保权益，以确保该笔偿还款项及投资回报。\n\nIII. 我的资产\n\n29. 我获悉，在我第11章破产案启动时，已形成一个破产财产池（estate），由截至申请日我所拥有的所有财产法定或衡平权益构成，无论其位于何处或由何人持有。我还获悉，我的破产财产以及属于我破产财产的所有财产均受法院的管辖和监督。我当然对此予以接受。\n\n30. 据我所知，我的资产已在我的附表（Schedules）中列明。这些资产主要包括衣物、食物和其他次要家庭用品，以及诉讼索赔。\n\n31. 如前所述，我的家人长期以来一直资助我。我的家人向我提供了衣物和其他日用品。我所能使用的所有其他物品——包括车辆、我的住所（过去和现在的）、家具、艺术品和电子产品（我的手机除外）——均由我的家庭成员所有。在获得他们许可的情况下，我对这些资产享有使用权，但我无权在未获他们许可的情况下处置任何重大资产。\n\n32. 我还是在美国、英国和瑞士未结的数起诉讼中的索赔人（原告）。此类诉讼的详情已在我的财务状况说明书（Statements of Financial Affairs）中披露。在此有两起诉讼值得注意：\n\na. UBS索赔。在英国的Royal Courts of Justice（英国皇家法院），我和某些共同原告已对UBS AG (London Branch)（瑞士银行伦敦分行，下称“UBS”）提起索赔，要求赔偿超过$500 million的损失，该损失与UBS在涉及我早在2015年试图促成收购并收购一家中国金融机构\n\n海通（Haitong）发行的某些股份的过程中所作出的过失性不实陈述和建议有关。就在2022年2月9日，我获得了一项有利裁定，确立了英国法院（而非UBS所主张的瑞士法院）对我针对UBS的索赔享有管辖权。鉴于UBS对管辖权提出异议，必须在瑞士的Civil Court of Basel City, Conciliation Authority（巴塞尔城市民事法院和解调解处）提起平行诉讼，以确保在英国被裁定缺乏管辖权的情况下诉讼能够继续进行（事实已裁定并不缺乏管辖权）。目前在瑞士的该起诉讼已中止，以等待UBS就该管辖权问题向英国Court of Appeal（上诉法院）提起上诉的结果。\n\nb. Clark Hill索赔。此外，我还对Clark Hill PLC及其合伙人之一Thomas K. Ragland（合称“Clark Hill”）提起了索赔。该诉讼目前在United States District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）审理中。我正在就Clark Hill违反法律代理职责的行为向其索赔$50 million的补偿性损害赔偿金以及额外的惩罚性损害赔偿金。具体而言，由于Clark Hill未能充分保护我庇护申请中所包含的高度敏感信息，CCP黑客在2017年9月期间黑入了Clark Hill的服务器，窃取了该高度敏感信息，随后在互联网上大肆传播。更糟糕的是，Clark Hill屈服于CCP黑客的威胁，退出了作为我移民律师的代理。结果导致我遭受了并将继续遭受损害。\n\n33. 我并不拥有的另外两项资产值得专门讨论：(a) Lady May；以及 (b) 位于纽约市Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷夫酒店）的一套公寓（下称“公寓”）。\n\n- a. Lady May。如上所述，我并不拥有Lady May，尽管我确实拥有登船并享用该船只的许可。我的女儿通过HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC拥有并控制该游艇。尽管州法院在2月9日藐视命令中作出了认定，但我无权指示Lady May留在纽约或返回纽约。\n\n- b. Sherry-Netherland公寓。Sherry-Netherland公寓的合作公寓股份由Genever Holdings LLC（下称“Genever US”）持有。13 Genever US的成员权益反过来由Genever Holdings Corporation（下称“Genever BVI”）持有。我持有Genever BVI的全部股权。然而，根据一份日期为2015年2月17日（下称“信托日”）的《信托声明与协议》（Declaration of Trust and Agreement），我是为Bravo Luck Limited（下称“公寓所有者”）以信托方式代持该等股权。我的儿子拥有公寓所有者的股权。在信托日或其前后，公寓所有者向Genever US提供了用于购买该公寓的款项。这些资金来自我儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自我。同样值得注意的是，Ostrager法官已命令将我在Genever BVI中拥有的任何权益移交给PAX，前提是该等移交不得干扰英属维尔京群岛正在进行的诉讼或Genever US的破产程序。\n\n34. 正如我在本声明开头所提及的，我认为Ostrager法官、PAX以及可能的其他人认为我拥有的财务实力大于此处以及我的附表和财务状况说明书中所反映的情况。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，而不是我。但是，正如上文同样指出的，\n\n13 2020年10月12日，Genever US在Southern District of New York（纽约南区，案号：20-12411）申请了第11章破产。\n\n本破产程序将允许利害关系方调查该主张并提出任何相反证据。重要的是，且如下文所述，对抗性程序将以避免损害破产财产中任何债权人经济利益的方式获得资金支持。\n\nIII. 拟议的DIP融资\n\n35. 如我的《财产申报表》（Schedules）所述，我本人没有资源来资助本第11章案件的各项费用。然而，我的儿子已表示愿意资助本第11章案件的某些费用。具体而言，GSNY拟按照批准DIP融资动议所附的DIP融资信贷协议（「DIP Credit Agreement」）中规定的条款，向破产财产提供800万美元的贷款（「DIP Financing」，即DIP融资/占有中债务人融资）。DIP融资将主要用于支付破产财产聘请的专业人士费用（包括我方聘请的，以及由官方无担保债权人委员会及/或审查员——如获指定——聘请的专业人士）以及由美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）核定的季度费用等。在800万美元的预算中，至多400万美元将用于资助官方债权人委员会及/或审查员的工作。\n\n36. GSNY提议在无担保的基础上发放这笔贷款，其偿还顺位劣后于所有获准的普通无担保债权。换言之，DIP融资不受破产财产任何资产的担保，不要求享有行政管理费用债权或优先债权，且在所有获准的申请前债权得到全额偿付之前，不会从破产财产的资产中获得偿还。因此，这笔贷款不会给我的债权人带来任何成本，并为对我事务的调查提供了公平的机会。我认为任何其他贷款人所提供的贷款条件都不会更优越。因此，获得这笔贷款符合我破产财产的最大利益。\n\n37. 我将无法使用任何所借入的资金。所有DIP融资款项都将存入为破产财产利益而设立的独立存款账户（「Debtor Account」，即债务人账户）。V&L（定义见下文）的Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）应为唯一授权签字人。从债务人账户支取款项只能在V&L的指示下进行，且仅限于支付DIP预算中列明项目的必要范围，并需获得拟议的DIP融资命令、DIP融资文件以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。\n\n38. DIP信贷协议中仅有一项「里程碑」（milestone）约定：自DIP信贷协议获得临时批准之日起45天内，破产法院对拟议的DIP融资命令作出最终批准。参见DIP信贷协议第 6.01(a) 款。DIP信贷协议中仅有一项非典型的违约事件（Event of Default），即作出准许PAX解除自动中止以在本法院之外对我提起诉讼的命令。参见DIP信贷协议第 8.01(e) 款。此类诉讼的唯一目的就是依据2月9日藐视法庭命令寻求将我监禁。显而易见，如果该等救济获得批准，我将无法有效指导并参与有序的债权解决和重组计划程序。在那种情况下，我的儿子——通过GSNY——将无意继续资助本第11章案件的费用。\n\nIV. 本第11章案件的目标\n\n39. 我的最终目标是达成一项完全经协商一致的第11章重组计划，最终解决与我债权人的所有问题。我希望在通过DIP融资支付报酬的受托人代表为债权人提供进行尽职调查和陈述意见的公平机会后，通过理性且合理的对话来实现这一成果。我希望我的债权人仅仅出于使有效债权获得清偿的目的，并放下将诉讼作为限制我言论自由及对政治滥权批评之手段的做法。我还希望，如果有建设性的债权人参与，我的家人将愿意出资，以确保在计划下为债权人实现公平的受偿。\n\n40. 如前所述，我的资产主要是诉讼索赔主张，我相信这些主张具有实质法律依据且价值重大（可能足以全额偿付所有债权人）。但是，所有利益相关方都将再次获得对其进行调查的公平机会。\n\n41. 我理解我的第11章案件将提供一个场所，以最终确定哪些其他资产可能构成我的破产财产。我的某些债权人声称我拥有某些我认为是由我家庭成员或其关联实体拥有和控制的资产。我认为，曾就我对Lady May（五月夫人号）的「实质权益」（beneficial）所有权和控制权发布命令的纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court），从未认定我对该船舶拥有实际法律所有权，亦未认定该船舶现属于我第11章破产财产的资产。这些问题将直接且公平地呈递给本法院以获得适当解决。\n\n42. 多年来我一直在就声称的债权人所提起的诉讼进行抗辩。如前所述，由我儿子拥有并控制的GSNY已向我借出数百万美元以资助我的抗辩费用。本第11章案件将提供一个场所，以彻底确定针对我破产财产所获准债权的范围。债权人将获得对我第11章破产财产主张债权的机会，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实现公平分配（例如，避免PAX抢在同一债权组别的其他债权人之前受偿）。我将与我聘请的专业人士合作，以实现适当的债权核对程序。\n\n43. 最终，我希望达成一项合理的、实现价值最大化的重组计划，使我免于诉讼，并有助于在《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）下实现「重新开始」（fresh start）。\n\n第二部分——动议所请求救济的依据\n\n44. 我已审阅了以下各项动议，就我所知、所悉及所信，其中陈述的事实均真实准确。\n\n45. 批准DIP融资的动议。DIP融资对于支付与本第11章案件相关的费用，并为我在能力出众且经验丰富的顾问协助下协商并达成重组计划的确认提供充足的缓冲期是必要的。\n\n46. 鉴于正是我与债权人（尤其是PAX）之间的对抗和诉讼关系迫使我寻求第11章救济，我提出请求且GSNY亦同意，DIP融资将为所有破产财产专业人士的利益服务，而不施加任何可能损害我债权人利益的留置权或优先权。DIP融资是在无担保的基础上提供的，劣后于我申请前债权人的权利，且不享有任何行政管理费用或其他优先清偿权。我的理解是，当且仅当我的所有其他债权人均获得全额偿付时，DIP贷款方可获得偿还。鉴于这些慷慨的条款，我认为任何试图以具有竞争性或类似条款从其他来源获取融资的尝试都将是对破产财产资源的浪费，且是徒劳的。\n\n47. 此外，如上文及我的《财产申报表》中所述，我预计以我作为原告的诉讼中的受偿款或和解款将用于资助第11章重组计划。如果不获得DIP融资，我将无法聘请并支付目前代表我提起诉讼的律师。同样，如果我无法对这些索赔进行抗辩、和解及/或诉讼（无论是在本程序内，还是在中止救济获得批准的情况下在其他审理地），我的负债可能会大幅增加。\n\n48. 基于这些理由，我相信拟议的DIP融资是善意提供的，不损害我的任何债权人的权利或利益，符合我破产财产的最大利益，因此应予以批准。\n\n49. 聘请Stretto, Inc.作为债权及通知代理人的申请。在整个第11章案件审理期间，我需要一名债权及通知代理人来协助向破产财产的债权人及利害关系方发出通知。我已选择Stretto, Inc.（「Stretto」）担任我的债权及通知代理人。Stretto在全美（包括本司法区）各第11章案件中担任债权及通知代理人方面拥有丰富经验。Stretto已同意提供咨询服务以：(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) 维护用于提交债权证明、重组计划征集、投票、计票、分配的电子平台，并为准备资产负债表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管理服务。\n\n50. 聘请Brown Rudnick LLP作为重组法律顾问的申请。我需要能力出众且经验丰富的重组法律顾问为我退出第11章（可能以获得确认的重组计划形式）提供咨询并协助构建方案。我已选择Brown Rudnick LLP（「Brown Rudnick」）作为我本第11章案件的重组法律顾问。Brown Rudnick在债务人和债权人权利以及《破产法典》第11章下的重组领域拥有丰富的经验和知识，曾在本巡回区、本司法区以及全国其他司法区的诸多第11章案件中代表债务人、官方和非官方委员会以及其他重要当事方。Brown Rudnick亦熟悉我的事务以及本第11章案件中争议的法律问题，并已同意：(a) 准备所有必要的动议、答复、答辩状和其他法律文件，包括在必要时准备庭审；(b) 准备并在必要时采取行动以促成披露声明的批准和重组计划的确认；以及 (c) 在本第11章案件审理期间履行所有其他必要的法律服务。\n\n51. 在申请日（Petition Date）之前，Brown Rudnick分别于2022年2月14日和2022年2月15日各收到一笔500,000美元的预付聘用费（retainer）。该100万美元预付款项（「BR Retainer」，即BR预付款）的来源为Lamp Capital LLC（「Lamp」），这是一家由我儿子拥有的公司。Lamp在无担保的基础上借给我100万美元，我指示Lamp直接将贷款资金汇给Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick从BR预付款中扣减了51,835.20美元的申请日前费用及杂费支出，使Brown Rudnick持有的申请日前BR预付款余额为948,164.80美元。今后，我已要求Brown Rudnick将其获准的费用及杂费支出从BR预付款中冲抵，直至BR预付款余额达到250,000美元，之后Brown Rudnick将通过DIP融资的资金向我请求支付其获准的费用及支出。\n\n52. 聘请 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 担任财务顾问之申请。我需要一家财务咨询机构在第11章破产案审理期间，准备、审查和分析《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）强制要求的必要财务披露，并满足持续的月度与季度报告要求。我已选择 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.（“V&L”）担任我的财务顾问。V&L 在处理陷入困境的个人第11章债务人案件方面拥有丰富经验，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) 准备和审查我的财务状况陈述表（SOFA）、资产负债及相关明细表（Schedules）以及其他定期报告要求；(b) 准备和/或审查现金流和相关预算预测；(c) 维护占有中债务人（DIP）账户，在必要时执行支出，并提供所有现金活动的核算；(d) 债权申报审查与管理；(e) 重组计划制定与审查；(f) 提供任何必要的诉讼支持；以及 (g) 提供一般咨询，并就第11章案件审理期间可能出现的任何其他事项和任务提供协助。\n\n53. 授权聘用并支付常规业务中所用专业人士费用的动议。我是美国联邦和州各级以及外国司法辖区未决的众多案件中被列名的原告或被列名的被告。针对这些诉讼以及某些正在进行的政府调查，在申请破产前，我聘请了各类律师事务所、会计师和其他非律师专业人士（统称为我的“常规业务专业人士”），他们为我的破产前诉讼提供了服务，并在一系列与本第11章案件无关的事项中提供了其他服务。在获得法院批准的前提下，我打算使用 DIP 融资继续聘用并向这些常规业务专业人士支付报酬，因为他们每位都对我的事务（破产前）以及我未决的诉讼具有高度的了解、专业知识和熟悉度，其中许多诉讼已持续多年。\n\n54. 我为 DIP 融资寻求紧急临时救济的原因之一，是确保代表我的专业人士能够继续工作。某些专业人士可能会退出对我的代理，除非我能够向他们保证其在申请破产日前和申请破产日后的工作均能获得报酬。此类退出行为，取决于案件状况以及相关专业人士所提供的服务，可能给我和我的破产财产造成明确且不可挽回的损害。瑞银（UBS）、克拉克·希尔（Clark Hill）以及其他未决的诉讼请求是我预期依赖的资产，有助于制定并最终确认重组计划。对我提起和推进这些索赔的任何干扰都无疑会破坏价值。\n\n55. 总之，如果没有我的常规业务专业人士因其破产前工作而具备的知识、专业技能和熟悉度，我的破产财产将因培训和聘请必要的替代专业人士以保全并可能继续推进这些宝贵的诉讼请求，而产生大量额外的、不必要的开支。因此，我认为继续留聘我的常规业务专业人士符合本破产财产、我的债权人以及其他利害关系方的最大利益。\n\n物证 A\n\n哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院（UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA）\n\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA）\n\n刑事案号（CRIMINAL NO.）\n罪名项 1：18 U.S.C. § 371（共谋）\n\n诉\n\nELLIOTT BROIDY（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪），\n\n被告。\n\n刑事起诉书（CRIMINAL INFORMATION）\n\n美利坚合众国指控：\n\n导言\n\n1. 在本起诉书涉及的所有相关时间：\n\n2. 自不迟于 2017 年 3 月起至至少约 2018 年 1 月，ELLIOTT BROIDY 与 Nickie Lum Davis 以及 A 个人（Person A）达成协议，担任外国国民 A（Foreign National A）的代理人，以换取数百万美元未予披露的资金。BROIDY 特别同意向美利坚合众国总统政府（“政府”）和美国司法部（“DOJ”）进行游说，促使其撤销或以其他有利方式解决针对外国国民 A 因其在马来西亚一马发展公司（1Malaysia Development Berhad，简称“1MDB”）——一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资与开发公司——数十亿美元侵占案中所扮演角色而开展的案件。作为其努力的一部分，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人故意未向政府和司法部官员披露 BROIDY 是代表外国国民 A 行事。最终，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人未能成功促使 1MDB 案件被撤销或以对外国国民 A 有利的方式解决。\n\n3. 在大致相同的时期内，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人还同意代表外国国民 A 向政府和司法部游说，安排驱逐并遣返中华人民共和国（“PRC”）国民 A（PRC National A）——一名居住在美国的中华人民共和国公民。这涉及（除其他事项外）争取安排中华人民共和国 A 部长（PRC Minister A）与美国政府官员之间的会面。在这一点上，BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人最终也未获成功。\n\n4. 为增进外国国民 A 的利益，BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 个人的协助下，试图于 2017 年 9 月促成马来西亚 A 总理（Malaysian Prime Minister A）与总统之间的会面，部分目的是让马来西亚 A 总理能够向总统提出解决 1MDB 案件的问题。\n\n5. BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人还在中国与中华人民共和国 A 部长会面，并同意 BROIDY 在 Davis 和 A 个人的协助下，游说政府将中国国民 A 遣返回中国。BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人为向中华人民共和国 A 部长提供与美国高级官员讨论驱逐中国国民 A 问题的明确目的，还同意并试图在中华人民共和国 A 部长于 2017 年 5 月访美期间，促成其与政府、司法部和美国国土安全部（“DHS”）的高级官员举行会面。\n\n关于充当外国委托人或外国政府代理人的刑事禁止规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 及以下各条，过去和现在都是一项披露性法规，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（例如代表外国委托人进行的政治或公共关系工作或游说）向司法部长进行登记。此类登记由司法部国家安全司下属的外国代理人登记处（“FARA 处”）办理。明知且故意不进行登记，以及在根据法律规定向 FARA 处提交的文件中作出虚假和误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA 的目的是防止外国委托人的秘密影响。根据该法规进行正当登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估充当外国委托人代理人的个人的言论和活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记披露了登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人向外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从外国委托人处获得报酬的来源和金额，以及登记人在担任外国委托人代理人期间所作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关当事方与实体\n\n8. 被告 ELLIOTT BROIDY 自大约 2017 年至 2018 年 4 月担任某国家级政治委员会的财务副主席。在 2016 年选举周期期间，BROIDY 从捐赠人处筹集了大量政治捐款，组织了政治筹款活动，并与美利坚合众国总统职位候选人的竞选团队协调了筹款策略。在其担任财务副主席的职务中，BROIDY 保持着接触和联络政府高官（包括总统本人）的途径。在同一时期，BROIDY 拥有并经营着多家国内和国际企业。\n\n9. Nickie Mali Lum Davis 过去和现在都是美国公民、女商人和顾问，与 BROIDY 和 A 个人保持着私人及商业关系。2020 年 8 月 31 日，Davis 在夏威夷特区美国联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Hawaii）对一项指控其协助和教唆违反 FARA 的单项罪名起诉书认罪答辩。\n\n10. A 个人过去和现在都是美国公民、商人兼演艺人员，拥有国际人脉关系，包括与外国国民 A 的关系。\n\n11. 外国国民 A 是一名居住在东亚的富商，其因策划和实施从 1MDB 侵占数十亿美元的计划已被另行起诉。\n\n12. A 公司（Company A）是由 A 个人设立以接收来自外国国民 A 的电汇资金的有限责任公司，被 A 个人用于向 BROIDY、Davis 等人支付游说费用。\n\n13. George Higginbotham 是 A 个人的关联人员，曾是受雇于司法部的持牌律师。2019 年 11 月 20 日，Higginbotham 在哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院对一项指控其共谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项罪名起诉书认罪答辩。\n\n14. A 律师事务所（Law Firm A）是由 C 个人（Person C）经营并由 BROIDY 和 C 个人控制的律师事务所。\n\n15. 中国国民 A 是中华人民共和国公民，持临时签证居住在美国。包括中华人民共和国 A 部长和中华人民共和国主席在内的中华人民共和国政府，一直试图将中国国民 A 从美国驱逐出境并遣返回中国。\n\n16. 在 2016 年底至 2019 年期间，司法部正在积极调查外国国民 A 据称与 1MDB 侵占计划的洗钱收益相关的交易。2016 年 7 月，司法部提起了多起民事没收起诉书，要求没收据称是用 1MDB 洗钱收益购买的数亿美元资产。2018 年 11 月 1 日，司法部提起刑事起诉书，指控外国国民 A 等人共谋洗钱从 1MDB 侵占的数十亿美元，并指控其通过向多名马来西亚和阿拉伯联合酋长国（“阿联酋”）官员行贿而共谋违反《反海外腐败法》（Foreign Corrupt Practices Act）。\n\n罪名项一\n18 U.S.C. § 371\n（共谋充当未登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n17. 第 1 段至第 16 段在此重述并作为参考并入本文。\n\n18. 自不迟于 2017 年 3 月起至至少约 2018 年 1 月，被告，\nELLIOTT BROIDY，\n\n明知地与已知和未知的其他人共谋：\n\na. 在未向司法部长登记的情况下，明知且故意充当外国委托人的代理人，具体而言即在涉及 1MDB 事项及驱逐中国国民 A 方面充当外国国民 A 的代理人，违反了 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 和 618。\n\n共谋之目的\n\n19. BROIDY、Davis、A 个人和外国国民 A 共谋的目的之一是策划秘密的、未登记的行动，向政府和司法部游说以：(1) 终结 1MDB 案件，或以对外国国民 A 有利的方式解决该案件；以及 (2) 将中国国民 A 驱逐出美国并遣返回中国。\n\n20. BROIDY、Davis 和 A 个人共谋的目的之一是通过利用 BROIDY 接触总统及其政府的途径以及在外界看来对总统及其政府的影响力，以获取来自外国国民 A 的款项，从而赚取数百万美元。\n\n21. 隐瞒 BROIDY（布洛伊迪）与 Foreign National A（外国国民A）的接触以及自其收受的付款，以维持 BROIDY 在美国官员心目中的信誉并推进非法游说计划，属于该共谋的目的。\n\n共谋的方式与方法\n\n22. BROIDY 及其他人实施该共谋的方式与方法包括但不限于以下各项：\n\n跨国旅行以与外国委托人及政府官员会面\n\n23. BROIDY、Davis（戴维斯）、Person A（人员A）与 Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）以不同的人员组合前往泰国、马来西亚和中华人民共和国（PRC），旨在与外国国民A、PRC Minister A（中国部长A）等人会面，就 BROIDY 通过非官方渠道游说本届政府及美国司法部（DOJ）以换取数百万美元的安排进行谈判和讨论。\n\n与美国官员会面及接触\n\n24. BROIDY 直接并透过中间人促成及企图促成与美国政府最高层官员（包括总统和总检察长）的会面及其他施加影响力的行动，以谋取中国部长A及外国国民A的利益。\n\n25. BROIDY 直接并透过中间人联络美国政府的高层官员，为包括中国部长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面，以便为这些外国官员提供正式请求有利的政府行动的机会，包括有利地解决 1MDB（一马公司）相关事项以及驱逐出境 PRC National A（中国国民A）。\n\n隐瞒行为\n\n26. BROIDY、戴维斯和人员A商定隐瞒 BROIDY 同意代表外国国民A（以其个人身份并作为中国部长A的中间人）进行游说的协议。BROIDY、戴维斯和人员A未向美国政府官员及公众披露，并商定不向其披露 BROIDY 与外国国民A之间的财务安排以及自其收受的付款。在为推进该共谋而起草的大量联络记录、通信和文件中，BROIDY、戴维斯、人员A和希金博瑟姆秘密行事，并对外国国民A的指称进行了匿名化处理。此外，BROIDY、戴维斯和人员A在就外国国民A和中国国民A进行沟通时经常使用加密应用程序，以隐瞒其行为以及与外国国民A的关联。最后，BROIDY、戴维斯和人员A默示或明示商定不依据《外国代理人登记法》（FARA）进行登记，以隐瞒其与外国国民A的安排。\n\n公开行为\n\n27. 为推进该共谋，BROIDY 及其他人在哥伦比亚特区（District of Columbia）及其他地方实施了包括但不限于以下各项的公开行为。\n\nI. 旨在解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的行动\nA. BROIDY 同意以 800 万美元预付聘金为外国国民A进行游说\n\n28. 2017年3月左右，人员A联络了戴维斯，试图物色与本届政府关系密切的人士以帮助一名外国客户。戴维斯随后告知 BROIDY，她在马来西亚可能有一位客户需要在没收事项上获得帮助。\n\n29. 2017年3月7日左右，人员A要求戴维斯向其发送 BROIDY 的个人简历（其中描述了 BROIDY 与本届政府高层官员的关系）以及 BROIDY 与总统的合影照片。2017年3月7日左右，BROIDY 的助理应戴维斯的要求，通过电子邮件向戴维斯发送了 BROIDY 与总统的合影照片。人员A表示他索要这些照片是为了能向外国国民A突出展示 BROIDY 能够密切接触本届政府。\n\n30. 2017年3月8日左右，戴维斯发短信给 BROIDY 称：“你16号在洛杉矶与[人员A]在他那个周末前往亚洲之前会面吗？”BROIDY 回复称：“我想可以。稍后谈。”\n\n31. 2017年3月13日左右，BROIDY 与戴维斯和人员A会面，讨论外国国民A和 1MDB。在会面上，人员A向 BROIDY 描述了他与外国国民A的关系，并询问 BROIDY 是否能在涉及外国国民A的民事没收案件上提供帮助。人员A表示他将与外国国民A就 BROIDY 协助民事没收案件的可能性进行交谈。同日，BROIDY 发短信给戴维斯，部分内容为：“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”\n\n32. 2017年3月13日左右，戴维斯向人员A转发了一份 Law Firm A（律师事务所A）与外国国民A之间的《聘用与费用协议——诉讼服务》，以便人员A将该协议呈交外国国民A。该《聘用与费用协议》规定，外国国民A应预先支付 $8 million 聘金，且若该“事项”在180天内解决，则额外支付 $75 million 成功报酬，若该“事项”在365天内解决，则支付 $50 million。该协议草案包括一份附件A，说明该“事项”系指 1MDB 没收诉讼程序。BROIDY、戴维斯、人员A、律师事务所A及 Person C（人员C）均未向外国国民A提供任何诉讼服务或法律建议。该聘用协议的真实目的是为了借助 BROIDY 的政治人脉，获取 BROIDY 代表外国国民A游说本届政府及司法部的服务。\n\n33. 尽管明知有作为外国委托人代理人进行登记的要求，BROIDY、戴维斯或人员A在任何时候均未就其作为外国国民A代理人的工作向 FARA Unit（FARA处）进行登记。\n\nB. BROIDY、人员A与戴维斯在曼谷与外国国民A会面\n\n34. 2017年4月左右，戴维斯转达了人员A关于 BROIDY 前往泰国曼谷与外国国民A会面的请求。BROIDY 告诉戴维斯转告人员A，只有在支付其 $1 million 的情况下他才会前往，且他希望由人员A用“未受污染”的资金进行支付。BROIDY 得到保证，人员A将亲自支付 $1 million 以换取 BROIDY 前往曼谷。\n\n35. 2017年4月28日左右，BROIDY 发短信告知戴维斯：“我希望这笔款项进入[律师事务所A]。”同日，戴维斯回复称：“好的[。]”\n\n36. 2017年4月29日左右，BROIDY 与戴维斯就其即将与外国国民A及人员A举行的会面互发了短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY 在谈及外国国民A时询问：“委托人是否希望我们在两地中的某一特定酒店入住？”戴维斯回复称：“你能通话时打给我[。]”\n\n37. 2017年5月1日左右，戴维斯通过电子邮件向 BROIDY 及其助理发送了曼谷香格里拉大酒店（Shangri-La Hotel）的链接，并写道（部分内容）：“在线预订后，请将 Elliott 的房间和我房间的酒店确认单发给我，我会进行转发。”同日，戴维斯另行通过电子邮件告知人员A在香格里拉大酒店预订房间并将确认单发给她。人员A回复称：“[外国国民A]正在帮我们预订酒店”，随后又补充道：“并请将 Elliott 的电汇信息发给我。”戴维斯回复提供了以律师事务所A名义开立的账户的电汇信息。\n\n38. 2017年5月2日左右，戴维斯通过电子邮件告知 BROIDY，部分内容为：“鉴于你较早降落——[人员A]和我将在到达处见你……谢谢，旅途平安——祝愿一段激动人心且繁荣昌盛的冒险旅程就此开始！”\n\n39. 2017年5月2日左右，BROIDY、戴维斯和人员A抵达曼谷。行程期间，BROIDY、戴维斯和人员A在一家酒店套房内与外国国民A会面。BROIDY 与外国国民A谈及了 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 同意协助外国国民A试图解决该事项。外国国民A同意向 BROIDY 支付 $8 million 聘金，并希望 BROIDY 联络美国总检察长以促使司法部放弃 1MDB 事项。BROIDY 同意向本届政府及司法部进行游说以为外国国民A争取有利结果，同时隐瞒其代表外国国民A工作的事实。在会面期间或会面后不久，戴维斯与 BROIDY 讨论了协助将中国国民A驱逐出美国境内的可能性。关于付款，BROIDY 声明这笔钱不应直接来自外国国民A，且应当是“干净的”。外国国民A指认了一名可以向 BROIDY 及其他人付款的朋友。BROIDY、人员A和戴维斯商定，这笔款项将首先通过人员A转接，然后通过律师事务所A支付给 BROIDY。BROIDY 与戴维斯商定，BROIDY 将把其收受款项的一定比例支付给戴维斯。人员A亦同意将人员A收受资金的一定比例支付给戴维斯。人员A告知 BROIDY 和戴维斯，人员A的朋友希金博瑟姆正在核实该资金的合法性。希金博瑟姆实际上并未进行任何此类审查。BROIDY 从未与希金博瑟姆会面或交谈。\n\nC. 人员A自外国国民A处收受 850 万美元；BROIDY 获付 600 万美元；戴维斯获付 170 万美元\n\n40. 在泰国与外国国民A会面后，2017年5月8日左右，Company A（公司A）收到了由外国国民A指示自香港一家实体电汇转入的约 $2.8 million。同日，人员A从公司A账户开立了一张金额为 $702,000、收款人为律师事务所A的银行本票，该本票立即存入律师事务所A的账户。人员A还从公司A账户向律师事务所A单独电汇了 $48,000。同日，一家第三方公司根据人员A的指示向律师事务所A账户转账 $250,000，使得存入律师事务所A账户的总金额达到 $1 million。数日之内，在2017年5月8日左右转入律师事务所A账户的 $1 million 中，有约 $900,000 从律师事务所A账户转入了 BROIDY 的一个商业账户。\n\n41. 2017年5月8日左右，戴维斯发短信给 BROIDY 称：“[律师事务所A]收到的两笔电汇均来自[人员A]。剩余余额已在20分钟前送达你的办公室——”。随后戴维斯补充道：“702总额的银行本票[。]”\n\n42. 2017年5月17日左右，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向公司A发出一笔国际电汇。同日，人员A从公司A向律师事务所A转账 $3 million。2017年5月18日左右，律师事务所A向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转账 $600,000，并向与戴维斯相关联的一家商业实体的账户转账 $900,000。2017年5月18日左右，律师事务所A向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户转账 $500,000。约一周内，律师事务所A通过两笔单独的转账向 BROIDY 的一个商业账户额外转账了 $950,000。\n\n43. 2017年5月17日左右，BROIDY 与戴维斯就外国国民A通过人员A向 BROIDY 付款以及 BROIDY 向戴维斯支付一定比例款项的事宜互发了短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯询问：“你收到了吗？”BROIDY 回复称：“收到了。在 Wickr 上发给你了[。]明早给你电汇。”Wickr 是一款支持端到端加密和内容过期的即时通讯应用程序。BROIDY 随后补充道：“你收到第2笔确认了吗？”戴维斯回复称：“亚洲开市时……目前至少在小步向前推进。”BROIDY 回复称：“是的。催紧他们把接下来的2笔电汇打过来。”BROIDY 随后\n\n补充道（部分内容）：“假设第2笔3已经到了，并且确认最后一笔2正在汇出。请询问[BROIDY 的助理]。”\n\n44. 2017年5月25日或该日前后，Foreign National A（外国国民A）促成了向Company A（公司A）进行的第三笔转账，此次金额约为270万美元。2017年5月26日或该日前后，Person A（人员A）将200万美元从Company A转至Law Firm A（律所A），用以部分支付BROIDY（布罗伊迪）与Foreign National A所约定的800万美元预付聘请费，作为换取BROIDY就1MDB民事没收案件提供协助的回报。同日，60万美元从Law Firm A的账户转至与Davis（戴维斯）关联的商业账户。2017年5月26日或该日前后，Law Firm A向由Person C（人员C）控制的账户转账100万美元。在2017年6月上旬或该期间前后，Law Firm A向BROIDY名下的一个商业账户转账65万美元。\n\nD. BROIDY协助并试图协助Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）安排会面，并协助争取解决1MDB案件\n\n45. 2017年6月5日或该日前后，BROIDY向Person D（人员D，一名政治顾问兼前总统竞选助理）发送短信，请求Person D与现任政府配合，为Malaysian Prime Minister A安排一次访问：“亚洲国家针对7月的会面非常有动力。希望我们能尽快确认日期等。”根据一份咨询协议，BROIDY已同意每月向Person D支付25,000美元，以换取其在与现任政府打交道方面的建议和指导。\n\n46. 同日，BROIDY与Davis就Foreign National A互通了短信。在这些信息中，Davis写道：“请在睡前打电话……[Foreign National A]一直打电话询问进展[。]”BROIDY回复道：“好的。会给你打电话。我今晚正前往华盛顿特区去处理[Foreign National A]和亚洲国家的事宜[。]”\n\n47. 2017年6月15日或该日前后，应Person A的要求，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“嗨，他今晚想和你谈谈。你方便吗？”Davis补充道：“委托人”，此指Foreign National A。同日，BROIDY回复：“可以[。]”\n\n48. 2017年6月17日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis讨论了Malaysian Prime Minister A的事宜。在2017年6月或该月前后，BROIDY询问总统是否愿意与Malaysian Prime Minister A一起打高尔夫球。BROIDY和Davis认为这会取悦Foreign National A，并将使Malaysian Prime Minister A能够试图解决1MDB事宜。BROIDY还希望与Malaysian Prime Minister A的政府争取额外的业务，并希望通过安排与总统打高尔夫球来推进其商业利益。\n\n49. 2017年6月19日或该日前后，Davis向BROIDY发短信提供了一篇文章的链接，内容涉及Malaysian Prime Minister A的办公室对美国1MDB没收诉讼的批评。\n\n50. 2017年6月29日或该日前后，BROIDY向白宫的一名高级官员发送短信，试图安排Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统之间的高尔夫球活动：“你好[Person E（人员E）]，正如我所提及的，POTUS（美国总统）同意于7月下旬或8月上旬在特区或贝德敏斯特与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打一场高尔夫。非常感谢你能带着日期回复我。此外，几周前已向国务院发出了一封请求会面的信函。”\n\n51. 2017年6月30日或该日前后，BROIDY就高尔夫球活动向Person E发送了另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[PRC National A（中国国民A）]以及为[Malaysian Prime Minister A]安排与POTUS打高尔夫的日期进行沟通。”当天晚些时候，BROIDY跟进道：“[Person E]，正如所讨论的，希望我们今天能办妥这些事项。请随时给我打电话。”\n\n52. 2017年7月3日或该日前后，BROIDY再次就Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统的高尔夫球日期向Person E发送短信：“早上好[Person E]。如果您今天能向我确认[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS的高尔夫球日期，将对我大有帮助。POTUS告诉我他很乐意在贝德敏斯特或特区打球。在我们通话后，我对[Malaysian Prime Minister A]说他上周就能拿到日期。非常感谢！问候，Elliott。”当天晚些时候，BROIDY再次向Person E发送短信：“[Person E]，我跟进一下。请将[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n53. 2017年7月5日或该日前后，BROIDY与Person E就高尔夫球活动交换了信息。在其他信息中，BROIDY发短信称：“[Person E]，刚给你留了言。已经过了一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？祝好，Elliott[。]”Person E回复：“这事在NSC（国家安全委员会）那里[。]他们负责协调和磋商——我相信能办成的[。]”\n\n54. 2017年7月11日或该日前后，Davis转达Person A的信息，向BROIDY发送短信：“Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们必须采取行动了。日期和其他事情都是。我们快被逼死了。”这些信息指的是确认Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统打高尔夫球的日期，以及Foreign National A因日期迟迟未能确认而表示的不满。Davis继续写道：“请打电话，因为我们需要商量对策——我这里应接不暇了[。]”BROIDY回复：“看Wickr[。]”次日，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“在Wickr上给我发短信。我要出发了，需要去白宫[。]出发了。现在就需要[。]”Davis回复：“发了[。]”BROIDY回复：“收到了。谢谢[。]正试图让[Person F（人员F）]尽快通电话[。]”Person F当时是国家安全委员会的高级官员。\n\n55. 2017年7月13日或该日前后，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“方便时请打电话以便我们谈谈——我们必须处理好这事，所以求求你求求你去特区并在白宫一直坐到拿到结果为止。如果你担心孤单，我陪你去！”\n\n56. 2017年7月13日或该日前后，BROIDY再次就高尔夫球日期向Person E发送短信：“你好[Person E]，已经过去2周了。再次核实[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与POTUS打高尔夫的日期。今天能把日期发给我吗？谢谢。祝好，Elliott[。]”Person E回复：“我现在再去核实一下[。]这些事情都有流程——”。BROIDY回复：“谢谢！！”Person E回复：“NSC正在处理并协调中[。]”BROIDY回复：“今天能拿到日期吗？”Person E回复：“他们正在直接与马来西亚方面沟通。NSC正在协调日期。”\n\n57. 2017年7月15日或该日前后，BROIDY向Davis发送短信：“正在争取安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 2017年7月17日或该日前后，为传达Person A代表Foreign National A表达的紧迫之情，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“[Person E]现在必须把这个日期给你，并向他询问另一件事的最新进展。我们看起来软弱无能[。]”该短信既指安排总统与Malaysian Prime Minister A之间的会面，也指涉及PRC National A的事项。BROIDY回复：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 2017年7月18日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis互通了数条关于安排总统与Malaysian Prime Minister A会面的短信。在这些信息中，Davis写道：“能看下Wickr吗[。]真的很需要那个日期。我今天一整天都被这事搞疯了。他陷入恐慌了[。]”Davis随后跟进写道：“这个日期今天必须定下来——我们快被彻底击垮了。”据Person A称，Foreign National A因会面尚未排定而感到恐慌。BROIDY回复：“现在正在打给[Person E][。]”Davis部分回复道：\n\n“给所有人都打电话，好让他们知道你极其愤怒[。]也打给[Person G（人员G）]。我们今天必须搞定这个[。]”Person G是总统的一名行政助理。BROIDY回复：“正在办。”\n\n60. 2017年7月19日或该日前后，关于安排Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统会面日期的事宜，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“其次，我们非常需要这个日期[。]”BROIDY于次日回复：“请包涵。正在获取一些关于会面的信息[。]”\n\n61. 2017年7月21日或该日前后，BROIDY就高尔夫球活动向Person E发送短信：“[Person E]，马来西亚方面没有收到来自NSC的任何消息。POTUS曾表示会在7月下旬或8月上旬与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打高尔夫。POTUS曾表示他很乐意这样做。你曾说过一两天内就会安排好。我们现在已经进入第4周了。我知道你很忙且有既定程序，但我已经表现得极其有耐心了。这非但没有产生积极效果，反而在对我造成损害。如果您今天能带着日期回复我，我将不胜感激。谢谢！Elliott。”\n\n62. 2017年7月24日或该日前后，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“收到了9月在新泽西打高尔夫的日期。联合国大会之前的那个周六。终于！从我的待办清单中划掉了！也感谢你的协助！”Person D回复：“我们跟进到底，确保日期得到NSC的确认。他有没有告诉你谁给他的日期？”BROIDY回复：“谢谢！！太棒了。由[Person E]提供给[Person H（人员H）]。”\n\n63. 2017年7月27日或该日前后，BROIDY向Person D发送短信：“刚又向马来西亚方面核实过。他们的驻美大使和外交部长没有收到任何消息。请尽快核实。祝好，Elliott。”BROIDY随后跟进道：“你好[Person D]——你能替我给国家安全顾问打个电话，询问马来西亚方面收到官方消息的事吗。NSC仍未就该会面联系马来西亚大使。谢谢。祝好，Elliott。”Person D回复：“E——今天上午会再打电话。”\n\n64. 2017年7月27日或该日前后，BROIDY向国家安全委员会的一名高级别官员发送了电子邮件，试图安排Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统之间的高尔夫球赛。\n\n65. 2017年7月29日或该日前后，关于Malaysian Prime Minister A与总统的会面，Davis向BROIDY发送短信：“他们被告知会面定于9月12日。那天联合国大会开幕——那是星期二？？？？不高尔夫了？？”Davis紧接着发送短信：“Wickr[。]”BROIDY回复：“可能有两场会面。大使应该问一下。周六在贝德敏斯特打高尔夫，周二在白宫？”\n\n66. 2017年8月7日或该日前后，BROIDY向其助理发送了一封主题为“马来西亚谈话要点*最终版*”的电子邮件，其中包含据称属于Malaysian Prime Minister A的谈话要点，拟用于美国国务卿与Malaysian Prime Minister A即将举行的会面。Davis从Person A处收到了这些谈话要点——后者系代表Foreign National A提供——并且Davis将其转交给了BROIDY。该谈话要点除其他内容外，提到了BROIDY与马来西亚持续保持的关系及开展的工作，并将1MDB确定为一项“优先事项”。该谈话要点指出了1MDB未造成损害，并特别指出“美国检察官的介入引发了不必要的紧张局势美国[原文如此]，并可能在马来西亚民众中引起负面反应[。]”。\n\n67. 2017年8月7日或该日前后，BROIDY还将这些谈话要点发送给了Person D，紧随其后附上一条信息说明：“上面是马来西亚总理发来的其谈话要点的附件。你可以分享给[为国务卿工作的职员助理]。”BROIDY还试图获取有关Malaysian Prime Minister A与国务卿在马来西亚会面的具体时间细节。\n\n68. 2017年8月7日晚些时候或该日前后，BROIDY向Person D发送信息：“[国务卿]定于8日与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]会面，9日与副总理会面。让我们顺便提一下我的名字。他们知道我的名字，可能不会立即认出Circinus（瑟西纳斯公司）的名字。谢谢！”Person D回复：“建立这种联系绝对重要。这不太可能会成为正式会面的一部分，但会在他们交谈期间设法提一下。”\n\n69. 2017年8月9日或该日前后，Foreign National A促使一家香港公司向Company A转账约1280万美元。Person A随后向Law Firm A转账300万美元。这是向BROIDY支付的最后一笔款项。BROIDY总共获付900万美元。次日或该日前后，Law Firm A向与Davis关联的商业账户转账90万美元。在随后的几天内，Law Firm A向属于BROIDY的账户转账了数十万美元。\n\n70. 2017年8月10日或该日前后，BROIDY就Malaysian Prime Minister A与国务卿的会面向Person D发送短信：“从马来西亚方面获悉会面非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]感到满意。没有提到我的名字——没有顺带宣传。; - .... ”\n\n71. 2017年8月19日或前后，BROIDY（布罗伊迪）给 Person D（人员D）发短信称：“马来西亚那边有更新吗？”人员D回复称：“目前定在华盛顿特区。由于日程安排很难安排打高尔夫，但我正在想办法。可能需要就此直接找[Person I（人员I）]，利用他们两人曾经一起打高尔夫的交情。”布罗伊迪回复称：“好的。如果你觉得有用，我可以直接致电[人员I]的副手之一或[人员I]。会谈时间也需要延长。我想和你讨论一下细节。请告诉我怎么做最好。”人员I当时是 White House（白宫）的高级官员。\n\n72. 2017年8月31日或前后，布罗伊迪起草并向人员I发送了一封电子邮件，试图安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）与 President（总统）之间的一场高尔夫球局。\n\n73. 2017年9月11日或前后，考虑到马来西亚总理A将与总统会面，Davis（戴维斯）打出了一封准备由布罗伊迪发给总统的信件，并将该信件提供给了布罗伊迪。该信件包含了马来西亚与 United States（美国）之间关系的数项积极进展。该信件从未提供给总统。\n\n74. 在布罗伊迪多次努力安排总统与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球之后，马来西亚总理A于2017年9月12日或前后在白宫与总统会面。尽管布罗伊迪联系了本届政府的高级官员，试图在正式会谈之外另行安排总统与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未举行高尔夫球局。\n\n75. 2017年10月6日或前后，布罗伊迪在白宫与总统会面。布罗伊迪在会面期间并未提及 1MDB（一马公司）事宜，但向戴维斯声称他提到了，因为他明白戴维斯会将该信息转达给 Person A（人员A）和 Foreign National A（外国国民A）。\n\n76. 2018年1月5日或前后，布罗伊迪起草了与一马公司相关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A展示布罗伊迪代表其所付出的努力。除其他内容外，该谈话要点写道：“1. 我们正在与 DoJ（司法部）合作，以应对上一届政府在马来西亚针对一马公司的案件。我已经制定了联系司法部和 NSC（国家安全委员会）双方的策略，以寻求解决该问题。2. 我正在安排与负责监督马来西亚案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是总统任命的官员，会有所帮助。……3. 正如我早些时候告知你的那样，在我和总统的讨论中，他承诺将解决这个问题。重要的是我要听从他的主导，但我会继续传达这个问题的重要性。”这些陈述是不真实的。\n\nII. 将 PRC National A（中国国民A）驱逐出美国的游说活动\n\nA. 布罗伊迪前往中国与 PRC Minister A（中国部长A）会面\n\n77. 2017年5月或前后，在前往曼谷之后，布罗伊迪同意前往香港再次与外国国民A会面。在行程之前，戴维斯和布罗伊迪讨论过，将中国国民A从美国驱逐出境对外国国民A而言非常重要。前往香港的目的就是与外国国民A及 PRC（中华人民共和国）的一名外国政府官员会面，讨论中国国民A的事宜。\n\n78. 2017年5月15日或前后，戴维斯就前往香港的行程安排和行程单向布罗伊迪的助理发送了电子邮件。同一天，戴维斯还向布罗伊迪和 Person C（人员C）发送了戴维斯公司的银行账户信息。\n\n79. 2017年5月18日或前后，布罗伊迪、戴维斯和人员A前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，他们在一家酒店套房内与外国国民A及中国部长A会面。中国部长A与布罗伊迪谈论了中国国民A及其涉嫌的犯罪行为，并表示中国政府希望将中国国民A遣返至中国。中国部长A请求布罗伊迪利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，呼吁将中国国民A驱逐并遣返至中国。他们还讨论了可能将在中国被拘留的美国人遣返回美国的事宜。中国部长A还表示他很快将访问华盛顿特区，并且在安排与某些美国政府高级官员会面方面遇到了困难。\n\nB. 布罗伊迪向美国高级官员游说驱逐中国国民A\n\n80. 2017年5月20日或前后，在从中国返回的途中，布罗伊迪向戴维斯发短信称：“我将努力让这周成为我们与[Attorney General（司法部长）]的关键一周。”\n\n81. 2017年5月21日或前后，布罗伊迪就其与外国国民A和中国部长A的会面给人员D发短信称：“[人员D]——刚回来。巨大的机会。我们能否周一早上9点30分在[酒店]见一面？埃利奥特。”\n\n82. 2017年5月22日或前后，布罗伊迪给人员D发短信称：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们面议。”布罗伊迪紧接着发了一条短信：“我正在给你发一份备忘录。我们面议。”当天晚些时候，人员D回复称：“已经向[司法部长]提出了会面请求。”\n\n83. 2017年5月22日或前后，布罗伊迪向人员D发送了一封主题为“中美大幅加强执法合作的机会”的电子邮件。布罗伊迪在邮件中附了一份由布罗伊迪致司法部长的备忘录，意在让人员D随后将该备忘录提供给司法部长。该备忘录的内容由戴维斯提供给布罗伊迪，而内容最初源自中国部长A和外国国民A。收到后，布罗伊迪和人员C对该备忘录进行了修改。\n\n84. 在该备忘录中，布罗伊迪歪曲了他前往中国的原因以及促成他与中国部长A会面的背景情况。布罗伊迪未披露他与外国国民A的联系，也未披露外国国民A在安排布罗伊迪与中国部长A会面中所起的作用。布罗伊迪也未披露外国国民A已向其支付的 400 万美元。布罗伊迪同样未披露他针对中国国民A的游说工作至少部分是根据他与外国国民A的财务安排进行的，并且可能会带来额外的报酬。\n\n85. 在该备忘录中，布罗伊迪陈述称：“[中国部长A]告诉我，中国希望在执法方面（包括网络安全）大幅加强与美国的双边合作。”布罗伊迪写到了中国部长A即将前往华盛顿特区的行程，届时中国部长A及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。布罗伊迪指出，司法部长与中国部长A会面将是富有成效的。布罗伊迪还列举了根据中国部长A的说法，中国为了改善中美两国的执法关系而愿意做出的若干事项。布罗伊迪随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中国部长A]的交谈，中国将提出的唯一请求是，将[中国国民A]尽快递解（其签证在下个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已对其发出红色通缉令，随函附上以供参考）出境并从美国遣返至中国，中国指控其与已被逮捕并被控违反多项中国刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的其他人员勾结，以便就这些指控对他提起诉讼，并在中国针对这些指控进行常规刑事程序。\n\n布罗伊迪在该备忘录后附上了针对中国国民A的国际刑警组织红色通缉令。\n\n86. 2017年5月23日或前后，布罗伊迪给人员D发短信称：“嗨[]明天的会面定下来了吗？我的备忘录送交[司法部长]了吗？请告知最新进展 谢谢 埃利奥特”。人员D回复称：“埃利奥特——信件已于昨天送达。请查看包含修改的最终版本。正在敲定明天的会面，争取安排在下午早些时候。今天晚些时候打给你。我现在赶今晚的红眼航班，以便早点回到华盛顿特区。”布罗伊迪回复称：“太好了。谢谢你[]。另外尽量确定一下他的会面是否已经定下，或者我们能否改定在周四，或周五或周六在阿拉巴马州。”次日，即2017年5月24日或前后，人员D回复称：“正在等待司法部关于会面的消息——包括我们的会面和[中国部长A]的会面。你有空时告诉我，我们可以碰头讨论其他问题。谢谢。”\n\n87. 2017年5月24日或前后，人员D给布罗伊迪发短信称：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚不行。但我直接收到了他回复的短信，说他晚点打给我。”\n\n88. 2017年5月25日或前后，布罗伊迪给人员D发短信称：“今天上午10点在司法部开会。明天则是 FBI（联邦调查局）和 DHS（国土安全部）。也许我可以让我联系的人提前10分钟到达那里，这样可以进行简短的会面。然后再与[]一对一会面以讨论更多细节。请务必争取今天一早就见到[司法部长]。我们办成这件事真的非常重要。我今天上午需要和我联系的人通电话。谢谢。E”。人员D回复称：“E——正在推进。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，但正在设法了解他什么时候回来。请稍候。”当天晚些时候，布罗伊迪给人员D发短信称：“具体情况是我备忘录里的那3件事仅供[司法部长]。[中国部长A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我这条是合法的秘密渠道。[中国部长A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]已经听到了那3件对美国切实有利的事”。当天晚些时候，人员D回复称：“E——实际上刚刚与[司法部长]通了电话。不是什么好消息。你有空通话时告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n89. 2017年5月26日或前后，关于中国部长A的会面，布罗伊迪给人员D发短信称：“10点是 ICE（移民和海关执法局）局长 11:30是联邦调查局 也许在国土安全部做做文章能挽救局面。让[人员I]简要介入。这三项内容可以分享。”布罗伊迪紧接着发信息称：“请打给我”以及“我正在试图进行危机公关，需要和你谈谈。最好是把[人员I]拉到一边私下谈。”人员I当时是国土安全部的高级官员。\n\n90. 2017年5月28日或前后，在戴维斯向布罗伊迪转录了往来信函之后，布罗伊迪向人员D发送电子邮件，标题为“已转录[司法部长]与中国驻美大使之间的往来信函”。布罗伊迪指出：“我认为这是[司法部长]促进美国利益的极好机会。我在下面添加了意见。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件司法部长应当知晓的利益相关事项。”当天晚些时候，布罗伊迪和人员D互通电子邮件，约定时间讨论该邮件及其内容。\n\n91. 2017年5月30日或前后，戴维斯就中国部长A与美国政府官员的会面事宜给布罗伊迪发短信称：“查看 Wickr——会面全部亮绿灯了”。布罗伊迪回复称：“好的。一切准备就绪”。戴维斯回复称：“他的会面已经恢复了”。\n\n92. 2017年5月或前后，戴维斯应人员A的要求，请求布罗伊迪在华盛顿特区与中国部长A会面。\n\n93. 2017年5月30日或前后，布罗伊迪在华盛顿特区的一家酒店与中国部长A会面。布罗伊迪还询问人员D，人员D是否可以协助中国部长A安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n94. 2017年5月31日或前后，布罗伊迪给人员D发短信称：\n\n我昨晚见到了VM（副部长）。他今天下午乘下午4点的航班返回。FBI（联邦调查局）让他与非常低级别的人员会面，并让他原定要会见的人转去会见越南方面。他的上级告诉他，除非与[Attorney General（司法部长）]或[Person I（人员I）]会面，否则就回国。他乐意与[Person I]会面……迄今为止，他已经遣返了一名孕妇，接下来的2名将很快送出。他将接收60名被驱逐出境的中国公民，但前提是他能获得一次正式的“简短会面”。这是本届政府可以宣传的一大胜利。这是两国总统在海湖庄园会晤的成果。请致电给我，我会告诉你更多具体细节。谢谢。\n\n95. Person D（人员D）回复道：“E——收到信息。我几分钟后打过来。”BROIDY（布洛伊迪）回复道：“如果你促成了会面，我们能让白宫政治联络人与VM在DHS（国土安全部）会面吗？他可以\n\n提到我的名字。也尽量让[Person I]缓和局势。也提一下我。谢谢！祝好运。”\n\n96. 2017年5月31日或该日前后，Davis（戴维斯）就PRC Minister A（中国部长A）据称与Person I会面一事给BROIDY发短信：“原则上[Person I]没问题——只是时间安排问题？”BROIDY回复道：“只是通知紧急的时间安排问题。接下来的一个小时左右可能仍会有消息。与[PRC Minister A]之间没有问题。”BROIDY随后继续写道：“请向VM转达我的良好祝愿。再稍微等一下。”Davis回复道：“好的，我正在告诉他。”BROIDY回复道：“告诉他我正在向白宫和[Attorney General]说明发生的情况。”Davis随后发短信说：“[Person I]今天下午不是预定要在海地吗？”BROIDY回复道：“日程安排人员没提这个？？你确定吗？[Attorney General]的人也没提[。]”Davis回复道：“DHS网站上有[。]他下午都在那里[。]刚跟VM通了话，他听起来像在哭[。]”BROIDY回复道：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。说到底是不能怪我们。通常他们的大使会处理。这真是一团糟。”Davis回复道：“Wickr。”\n\n97. 2017年6月9日或该日前后，Davis给BROIDY发了一条短信，附带一篇题为“中国加大对流亡大亨[PRC National A（中国公民A）]的施压力度”的新闻报道。\n\n98. 2017年6月27日或该日前后，BROIDY就驱逐PRC National A一事给Person H（人员H）的配偶发了短信。BROIDY明知Person H是一位在国际上取得成功的商人，经常为政治竞选活动捐款，与总统关系密切，可以直接接触总统并对其施加影响，并能在寻求驱逐PRC National A方面发挥有效作用。BROIDY给Person H的配偶发短信称：“顺便提一下，我想在明天上午与[Person H]会面，讨论一件重要且敏感的事情。明天上午是否有方便的时间，或者共进午餐？期待在[]酒店见到您！祝好，Elliott[。]”BROIDY随后继续写道：\n\n您好[]，[Person H]让我通过短信向您发送这些信息。关于通缉犯[PRC National A]，我将向您发送若干项资料。第一项是国际刑警组织红色通缉令……极其紧迫的事情是，[PRC National A]在美国居留的签证将于6月30日到期。至关重要的是立即拒绝其新的签证申请。他还必须被列入DHS的禁飞名单……该命令需要来自最高层，因为[PRC National A]与为其私人安保团队服务的前FBI人员关系密切。[The President of the PRC（中国国家主席）]在海湖庄园向[the President（总统）]提及，希望将[PRC National A]遣返。[PRC Minister A]与我会面，并请求在[PRC National A]一事上提供协助……他承诺遣返被中国扣押的某些美国公民，并将接收大量非法中国移民驱逐回中国。最后，他就朝鲜问题提供了新的协助。\n\n99. 2017年6月28日或该日前后，BROIDY在一次社交聚会上与Person H及其配偶会面。会面后，BROIDY就PRC National A一事与Person H的配偶互通短信：“您好[]，今晚见到您和[Person H]真是太棒了！我刚刚又收到了[PRC Minister A]的消息。鉴于时间紧迫，他想知道[PRC National A]的签证状态。——签证已经签发了还是我们予以拒绝了？我们能否确认[PRC National A]是否在DHS的禁飞名单上？[PRC Minister A]非常担心[PRC National A]将于本周逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并着手驱逐。这将是我们两国之间不可思议的一步。[PRC Minister A]表示他们对您的帮助非常感激。”Person H的配偶回复道：“这件事情已经到了国务院和国防部的最高层。他们正在处理这件事。”\n\n100. 2017年6月29日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A的签证申请互通短信。BROIDY发短信问：“拒签信还是批准信已经生成了吗？”Davis回复道：“我完全不知道。”BROIDY回复道：“不好意思，是总是会生成的。换句话说，每个申请人最终都会收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]不好意思，收到书面的批准或拒绝[？]”Davis回复道：“是的[。]查收Wickr[。]”\n\n101. 2017年6月30日或该日前后，针对他们为促成驱逐PRC National A以及可能带回被扣押在中国的美国公民所做的努力，Davis给BROIDY发短信称：“Wickr。你现在是大功臣。在你今年7月4日为这个国家完成这项成就之后，他们会授予你总统自由勋章的[。]”BROIDY回复道：“我会全力推进，直到办成为止[。]”Davis回复道：“我们确保第1部分在今天完成。还有m的日期[。]在办成之前别离开那家伙。”BROIDY回复道：“同意。”Davis继续写道：“让他知道——如果我们今天在下班前拿到确认拒签的信函（因为你需要工作人员生成那封信），那么我们将在7月4日前让那2名美国人回国[。]在第二阶段之后——我们可以接收那60人[。]”BROIDY回复道：“听起来不错。[Person H]马上给我回电话。正在通话中。”\n\n102. 2017年6月30日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A互通了数条短信。BROIDY发短信称：“收到了[Person H]的消息。他向POTUS（美国总统）重申了。”BROIDY随后补充道：“另外，[Person E（人员E）]给我发短信说他被事情脱不开身，但正在跟进此事。”同日，Davis回复道：“我们今天能拿到关于撤销的证据吗？”Davis随后明确问道：“从[Person E]那里？”\n\n103. 2017年7月1日或该日前后，BROIDY给Davis发短信称：“与[Person E]长谈了。方便时打给我[。]”BROIDY并未与Person E交谈，但曾就PRC National A的签证申请与其互通短信。BROIDY并未向Person E透露其与PRC Minister A关系的真实性质。\n\n104. 2017年7月2日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A及其签证申请互通短信。根据公开报道，Davis发短信称：“定于今天周日与[President of the PRC]就朝鲜问题通电话。他可以询问并确认包裹的事。他甚至可以说他是从[Person H]那里听说的[。]”\n\n105. 2017年7月3日或该日前后，同样根据公开报道，Davis给BROIDY发短信称：“[President]周三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲[。]”Davis随后跟进发短信称：“7月5日。预定与[President of the PRC]进行面对面会晤[。]”\n\n106. 2017年7月10日或该日前后，Person A（人员A）给自己发送电子邮件，内容包括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及其涉嫌犯罪相关的其他文件。\n\n107. 2017年7月或该月前后，Person A要求Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）在位于华盛顿特区的中国驻美国大使馆与中国驻美大使会面。该会面的目的是向中国大使传达有关PRC National A的信息。2017年7月16日或该日前后，Higginbotham前往位于华盛顿特区的中国大使馆并与大使会面。在会面期间，Higginbotham告诉大使，美国政府官员正在处理引渡PRC National A的事宜，未来会有关于引渡后勤保障的更多信息。会面后，Higginbotham向Person A汇报了情况，Person A表示他会通知Foreign National A（外国公民A）。Person A后来告诉Higginbotham，Foreign National A对该会面感到满意，且该会面让Foreign National A在中国方面获得了信誉。\n\n108. 2017年7月18日或该日前后，BROIDY通过电子邮件向Davis发送了Person H的联系方式。Davis为推进驱逐PRC National A的游说活动，安排了PRC Minister A与Person H之间的多次通话。\n\n109. 2017年7月26日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A及其被从美国驱逐至中国一事互通短信。在这些短信中，Davis写道：“真的需要确认是否已经正式传递。目前——他说没有[。]”BROIDY回复道：“已经要求3个不同的人去跟进[。]”BROIDY随后补充道：“给[Person E]打了电话。一小时后见[Person H]。”\n\n110. 2017年7月26日或该日前后，BROIDY给Person H发短信，约在华盛顿特区的一家酒店会面讨论PRC National A：“您好[Person H]，我从工作人员处得知您在华盛顿特区，我也在，住在[酒店]。您今天想喝杯咖啡吗？祝好，Elliott。”同日晚些时候，Person H的配偶给BROIDY发短信：“您好Elliot。您能把之前短信里提到的那个中国男子的详细信息再发我一次吗？谢谢[。]”BROIDY回复道：“您好[]，您指的是[PRC National A]还是[PRC Minister A]？祝好，Elliott[。]”Person H的配偶回复道：“[PRC National A]。”随后，BROIDY重新发送了其之前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n111. 2017年7月27日或该日前后，BROIDY与Davis就PRC National A互通短信。Davis给BROIDY发短信问：“大使馆有消息吗？？”Davis随后补充道：“嘿，正式通知有更新吗？”BROIDY回复道：“我正在与NSC（国家安全委员会）的人打交道。直接发邮件。等待回复[。]”\n\n112. 2017年8月19日或该日前后，BROIDY给Davis发了数条短信。在这些短信中，BROIDY写道：“紧急。打给我。好消息[。]”BROIDY随后补充道：“我和[Person H]在一起。有突破性机会[。]”\n\n113. 2017年8月19日或该日前后，BROIDY在Person H的游艇上与Person H会面。在他们共处期间，BROIDY向Person H询问了涉及PRC National A的事宜。随后，Person H在BROIDY在场的情况下致电总统，询问PRC National A在美国的身份状态。\n\n114. 2017年9月13日或该日前后，BROIDY给Davis发短信称：“请把庇护报道发短信给我。还有另一篇报道[。]”同日，Davis给BROIDY发短信，提供了关于PRC National A的报道链接。\n\n115. 2017年10月2日或该日前后，BROIDY给Davis发短信，提供了一篇关于PRC National A的报道链接。\n\n116. 2018年1月5日或该日前后，BROIDY给Davis发短信称：“把更多关于[PRC National A]参与资助民主党政客的信息发给我，……尽快[。]”\n\n上述行为均违反了 18 U.S.C. § 371。\n\n没收指控\n\n1. 本正式控告书第一项罪名中所包含的指控特此重述并通过引用纳入本部分，用以根据《美国法典》第18编第981条(a)(1)(C)款及《美国法典》第28编第2461条(c)款提出没收指控。\n\n2. 根据《美国法典》第18编第981条(a)(1)(C)款及《美国法典》第28编第2461条(c)款，一旦被告ELLIOTT BROIDY被判定犯有违反《美国法典》第18编第371条的第一项罪名，其应向美利坚合众国没收构成因上述违法行为所获收益或源自可追溯至上述违法行为收益的任何不动产或动产。并进一步特此发出告知，一旦定罪，美国意图针对BROIDY就代表本段所述财产的金额寻求一项判决。\n\n3. 如果上述任何财产因被告的任何作为或不作为：\n\n- a. 经尽职调查后无法找到；\n- b. 已被转让或出售给第三方，或已存入第三方处；\n- c. 已置于法院管辖范围之外；\n- d. 价值已大幅贬损；或\n\ne. 已与难以分割的其他财产相混合，\n\n美利坚合众国有权根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 2461 条 (c) 款所并入的《美国法典》第 21 编第 853 条 (p) 款之规定，没收替代财产。\n\n日期：2020年9月30日\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON\n主管\n公共廉政处（Public Integrity Section）\n美国司法部（United States Department of Justice，DOJ）\n\n/s/ John D. Keller\n签署人：John D. Keller\n首席副主管\nSean F. Mulryne\n选举犯罪科（Election Crimes Branch）副主管\nNicole R. Lockhart\nJames C. Mann\n出庭律师\n公共廉政处\n\n附件 B\n\n归档于夏威夷区美国联邦地区法院（United States District Court District of Hawaii）\n2020年8月17日 上午 10:23\nMichelle Rynne，法院书记官\n\nKENIT M. PRICE #10523\n联邦检察官\n夏威夷区\n\nKENNETH M. SORENSON\n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\n主管，公共廉政处\n美国司法部\n\nJOHN D. KELLER\n首席副主管\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE\n副主管，选举犯罪科\nNICOLE R. LOCKHART\nJAMES C. MANN\n出庭律师\n公共廉政处\n\n夏威夷区\n美国联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国，）刑事案号：CR. NO. 20-00068 JAO\n原告，）\n）起诉书（INFORMATION）\n诉）\n）（18 U.S.C. § 2 及 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 与 618(a)）\nNICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS，）\n）\n被告。）\n\n美利坚合众国指控：\n\n导言\n\n1. 在与本起诉书相关的所有时间内：\n\n2. 自不迟于 2017 年 3 月起至至少 2018 年 1 月左右，NICKIE LUM DAVIS（戴维斯）与人员 A（Person A）及人员 B（Person B）达成协议，担任外国公民 A（Foreign National A）的代理人，以换取源自与外国公民 A 关联的外国账户、未披露的数百万美元电汇款项。戴维斯具体同意协助人员 B 向美利坚合众国总统（“总统”）、其政府以及美国司法部（“DOJ”）进行游说，以放弃对外国公民 A 在从一马发展有限公司（1Malaysia Development Berhad，“1MDB”，一家由马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资与发展公司）侵吞数十亿美元中所扮演角色的调查。作为其行动的一部分，被告与人员 B 蓄意未向本届政府和司法部官员披露人员 B 是代表外国公民 A 行事。最终，戴维斯与人员 A、人员 B 试图使 1MDB 调查被撤销的努力未能成功。\n\n3. 在大致相同的期间内，戴维斯还同意与人员 A 及人员 B 一起，协助他们游说本届政府和司法部，应外国公民 A 和中华人民共和国（“PRC”）部长 A 的要求，安排将居住在美国的中华人民共和国异见人士中华人民共和国公民 A（PRC National A）驱逐并遣返出境。在这一事项上，戴维斯与人员 A、人员 B 最终也未获成功。\n\n4. 为增进外国公民 A 的利益，戴维斯协助人员 B 促成了马来西亚总理 A（Malaysian Prime Minister A）与总统于 2017 年 9 月的会晤，部分目的是为了让马来西亚总理 A 能够向总统提出解决 1MDB 事项。\n\n5. 戴维斯、人员 A 与人员 B 还在中国与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面，并商定由人员 B 在戴维斯的协助下向本届政府游说，将中华人民共和国公民 A 遣返回中国。戴维斯、人员 A 和人员 B 为了向中华人民共和国部长 A 提供与美国高级别官员讨论驱逐中华人民共和国公民 A 的机会这一明确目的，还同意并试图在中华人民共和国部长 A 于 2017 年 5 月访美期间，促成中华人民共和国部长 A 与司法部及美国国土安全部（United States Department of Homeland Security，“DHS”）最高级别官员的会晤。\n\n关于担任外国委托人或外国政府代理人的刑事禁止性规定\n\n6. 《外国代理人登记法》（Foreign Agents Registration Act，“FARA”），22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，曾经是且现在仍是一部信息披露法规，要求在美国境内作为“外国委托人的代理人”行事的任何人在从事特定类型的活动（例如代表外国委托人进行政治或公共关系活动或游说）时，向司法部长进行登记。此类登记须向司法部下属国家安全司的外国代理人登记处（Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit，“FARA Unit”）提交。明知并蓄意未予登记，以及在根据该法律规定提交给外国代理人登记处的文件中作出虚假、误导性陈述或重大遗漏，均构成犯罪。\n\n7. FARA 的立法目的是防止外国委托人的秘密施压与影响。根据该法规进行妥善登记，使美国政府和美国人民能够评估担任外国委托人代理人的个人的言论和活动。除其他事项外，FARA 登记披露了登记人代表其提供服务的外国委托人的身份、登记人向外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从外国委托人处收取的报酬来源和数额，以及登记人在担任外国委托人代理人期间所作出的政治竞选捐款。\n\n相关各方与实体\n\n8. 被告 NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 曾经是且现在仍是一名美国公民、女商人和顾问，与人员 A 及人员 B 存在个人和业务关系。\n\n9. 人员 A 是一名美国公民、商人和演艺界人士，拥有国际关系背景，包括与外国公民 A 的关系。\n\n10. 人员 B 自约 2016 年 4 月至 2018 年 4 月担任某全国性政治委员会的财务副主席。在这一职位上，人员 B 从捐赠人处募集了巨额政治捐款，组织了政治筹款活动，并在 2016 年大选周期内与竞选美利坚合众国总统职位的候选人竞选团队协调筹款策略。大选后，人员 B 继续担任其财务副主席职务，并保持了接触总统政府高级官员（包括总统本人）的渠道和联系。在同一时期，人员 B 拥有并经营着多家国内和国际企业，并担任政治顾问。\n\n11. 外国公民 A 是一名居住在东亚的富商，其因策划和实施从 1MDB 侵吞数十亿美元的犯罪计划而已被另案起诉。\n\n12. 公司 A（Company A）是一家由人员 A 成立的有限责任公司，用于接收来自外国公民 A 的电汇款项，以向人员 B 支付其游说工作的报酬。\n\n13. George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）是人员 A 的关联人员，并且是受雇于司法部的持牌律师。2019 年 11 月 20 日，希金博瑟姆在哥伦比亚特区美国联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the District of Columbia）对一项指控其串谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单罪名起诉书认罪答辩。\n\n14. 律师事务所 A（Law Firm A）是由人员 B 的配偶人员 C（Person C）经营的律师事务所。\n\n15. 中华人民共和国公民 A 是一名持临时签证居住在美国的中国异见人士。包括中华人民共和国部长 A 和中国国家主席在内的中华人民共和国政府一直谋求将中华人民共和国公民 A 从美国驱逐回中国。\n\n16. 2016 年底至 2019 年期间，司法部正在积极调查外国公民 A 据指控与 1MDB 侵吞计划的洗钱收益相关的交易。2016 年 7 月，司法部提交了多起民事没收起诉书，寻求没收据指控使用 1MDB 洗钱收益购买的数亿美元资产。2018 年 11 月 1 日，司法部提交了一份刑事起诉书，指控外国公民 A 和其他人员串谋洗钱从 1MDB 侵吞的数十亿美元，并通过向马来西亚和阿布扎比的多名官员行贿而串谋违反《反海外腐败法》（Foreign Corrupt Practices Act）。\n\nI. 解决 1MDB 民事没收案件的行动\nA. 人员 B 同意为外国公民 A 进行游说以获取 800 万美元的聘用费\n\n17. 2017 年 3 月左右，戴维斯告诉人员 B，她在马来西亚有一个潜在客户，“可以在没收事项上获得帮助”。\n\n18. 2017 年 3 月 5 日左右，应人员 B 的要求，戴维斯通过电子邮件向人员 B 发送了一份与 1MDB 相关的民事没收起诉书副本。同一天，戴维斯向人员 B 发送了一封电子邮件，内容为彭博社（Bloomberg）题为《［外国公民 A］信托申请在没收诉讼中迟延提交索赔主张》的文章，并给人员 B 发短信称：“法院立案文件发到你邮箱了［。］”人员 B 回复：“谢谢。我会看。”戴维斯回复：“能打电话时给我回个电话——谢谢［。］”人员 B 再次回复：“好的。5分钟后［。］”\n\n19. 人员 A 要求戴维斯向其发送人员 B 的个人履历（其中描述了人员 B 与本届政府高级官员的关系），\n\n以及人员 B 与总统的合影。2017 年 3 月 7 日左右，人员 B 的助手应戴维斯的要求，通过电子邮件向戴维斯发送了人员 B 与总统的合影。人员 A 表示他需要这些照片，以便人员 A 能够着重展现人员 B 接触本届政府的紧密渠道。\n\n20. 2017 年 3 月 8 日左右，戴维斯给人员 B 发短信：“你 16 号在洛杉矶与［人员 A］在他那个周末前往亚洲之前碰面吗？”人员 B 回复：“应该在。晚点聊。”当天晚些时候，戴维斯向人员 B 发送了更多短信，以安排人员 B、人员 A 和戴维斯之间的会面。\n\n21. 在人员 B 的指示下，2017 年 3 月 13 日左右，戴维斯向人员 A 转发了一份律师事务所 A 与外国公民 A 之间的《聘用与费用协议——诉讼服务》（Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services）。该《聘用与费用协议》约定，外国公民 A 将预先支付 800 万美元的聘用费，如果该“事项”在 180 天内得到解决，则另行支付 7500 万美元的风险成功费；如果在 365 天内得到解决，则另行支付 5000 万美元。该协议草案包括一份附件 A，说明该“事项”是指 1MDB 没收诉讼程序。实际上，人员 A、人员 B、律师事务所 A、戴维斯和人员 C 均未向外国公民 A 提供任何诉讼服务或法律建议。该聘用协议的真实目的是凭借人员 B 的政治人脉，获取人员 B 代表外国公民 A 向本届政府和司法部进行游说的服务。\n\n22. 2017 年 3 月 13 日左右，人员 B 与人员 A 及戴维斯会面，讨论外国公民 A 及其法律问题。在会面上，人员 A 向人员 B 描述了他与外国公民 A 的关系，并询问人员 B 是否可以在涉及外国公民 A 的民事没收案件中提供帮助。人员 A 表示他将与外国公民 A 就人员 B 在民事没收案件中提供帮助的可能性进行沟通。同一天，人员 B 给戴维斯发短信称，部分内容为：“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”\n\n23. 2017 年 3 月 15 日左右，人员 B 就外国公民 A 给戴维斯发短信问：“关于……［人员 A 的］关联人有任何新进展吗？”同一天，戴维斯回复：“［人员 A］明天与那位‘发起人’当面碰头，他们希望在接下来的几周内成行［。］”\n\n24. 2017 年 3 月 22 日左右，戴维斯通过电子邮件向人员 B 及其助手发送邮件，沟通安排人员 B、人员 A 和戴维斯之间的另一次会面。\n\n25. 在所有相关时间内，戴维斯、人员 A 和人员 B 均知晓 FARA 及其关于禁止未登记代理外国委托人的规定。\n\n26. 尽管他们知晓作为外国委托人代理人需进行登记的规定，但在任何时候，DAVIS（戴维斯）、Person A（人员 A）或 Person B（人员 B）均未就其作为 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）代理人的工作向 DOJ（美国司法部）内的 FARA Unit（《外国代理人登记法》处）进行登记。\n\nB. Person A、Person B 与 DAVIS 在曼谷会见 Foreign National A\n\n27. 大约在 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，只有在获得 $1 百万美元报酬的情况下他才会去，并且他希望 Person A 使用“无污点”的资金向其支付报酬。\n\n28. 2017年4月28日或该日前后，Person B 向 DAVIS 发短信告知：“我希望资金进入[Law Firm A（律所 A）]。”同一天，DAVIS 回复：“好[。]”\n\n29. 2017年4月29日或该日前后，Person B 和 DAVIS 就他们即将与 Foreign National A 及 Person A 的会面互发了短信。在这些短信中，Person B 针对 Foreign National A 询问：“委托人是否希望我们在任一地点的某家特定酒店入住？”DAVIS 回复：“能说话时打给我[。]”\n\n30. 2017年4月30日或该日前后，DAVIS 就前往曼谷的航班行程向 Person B 的助理发送了电子邮件。在邮件中，DAVIS 部分写道：“如果有问题请打电话给我——这是 2 张单程票——因为我们需要从不同的国家离开[。]我们目前还不需要担心酒店的事……”\n\n31. 2017年5月1日或该日前后，DAVIS 向 Person B 及其助理发送了一封包含曼谷香格里拉大酒店链接的电子邮件。同一天，DAVIS 向 Person A 发送电子邮件，让其在香格里拉大酒店预订房间并将确认单发给她。Person A 回复：“[Foreign National A] 正在为我们预订酒店，”随后又发信称：“另外把[Person B 的]电汇信息发给我。”DAVIS 回复并提供了以 Law Firm A 名义开立的账户的电汇信息。同日，针对 Person B 的助理询问是否应取消 Person B 的酒店房间预订，DAVIS 向 Person B 的助理发送电子邮件称：“是的，所有房间已被[Person A]预订了。”\n\n32. 2017年5月2日或该日前后，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送电子邮件，部分陈述道：“因为你落地较早——[Person A]和我将在到达厅见你……谢谢，旅途愉快——预祝一段激动人心且繁荣昌盛的冒险旅程就此开启！”\n\n33. 2017年5月2日或该日前后，DAVIS、Person A 和 Person B 抵达曼谷。在行程期间，DAVIS、Person A 和 Person B 在一间酒店套房内会见了 Foreign National A。Person B 和 Foreign National A 谈及了 1MDB（一马公司）调查以及民事没收诉讼。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 百万美元的聘请费，并希望 Person B 与 United States Attorney General（美国司法部长）联系以促使 DOJ 放弃 1MDB 事项。Person B 同意向政府当局和 DOJ 进行游说，以期为 Foreign National A 争取有利结果，同时隐瞒他代表 Foreign National A 工作的事实。关于付款，Person B 表示该款项不应直接来自 Foreign National A，且应当是“干净的”。Foreign National A 指定了一位可以向 Person B 和其他人付款的朋友。Person B、Person A 和 DAVIS 商定，资金将首先经由 Person A 转账，随后通过 Law Firm A 支付给 Person B。Person B 和 DAVIS 商定，Person B 将向 DAVIS 支付其所收金额的百分之三十。Person A 亦同意向 DAVIS 支付 Person A 所收资金的一定比例。Person A 告诉 Person B 和 DAVIS，Person A 的朋友 Higginbotham（希金博瑟姆）正在核实资金的合法性。Higginbotham 实际上并未进行任何此类审查。\n\nC. Person A 从 Foreign National A 处收取 $8.5 百万美元；Person B 获付 $6 百万美元；DAVIS 获付 $1.7 百万美元\n\n34. 在泰国与 Foreign National A 会面之后，2017年5月8日或该日前后，Company A（公司 A）收到了由 Foreign National A 指示从香港某实体电汇的约 $2.8 百万美元款项。同一天，Person A 从 Company A 账户开出了一张收款人为 Law Firm A 的 $702,000 美元本票，该款项随即计入 Law Firm A 的账户。Person A 还从 Company A 账户向 Law Firm A 另行电汇了 $48,000 美元。同样在当天，一家第三方公司在 Person A 的指示下向 Law Firm A 账户转账 $250,000 美元，使得存入 Law Firm A 账户的总金额达到 $1 百万美元。数日之内，2017年5月8日转入 Law Firm A 账户的 $1 百万美元中，有约 $900,000 美元从 Law Firm A 账户转至 Person B 的一个商业账户。\n\n35. 2017年5月8日或该日前后，DAVIS 向 Person B 发短信称：“进入[Law Firm A]的两笔电汇均来自[Person A]。剩余结余已在 20 分钟前送至你的办公室——”。DAVIS 随后补充道：“本票总额 702[。]”\n\n36. 2017年5月9日或该日前后，Person A 促使 Company A 向由 DAVIS 某位家庭成员控制的一家公司转账 $250,000 美元，以用于 DAVIS 的利益。\n\n37. 2017年5月17日或该日前后，Foreign National A 促使一笔国际电汇从一家香港公司汇至 Company A。同一天，Person A 将 $3 百万美元从 Company A 转账至 Law Firm A。\n\n38. 2017年5月17日或该日前后，Person B 与 DAVIS 就 Foreign National A 通过 Person A 向 Person B 支付款项以及 Person B 向 DAVIS 支付一定比例款项一事互发了短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS 问道：“你收到了吗？”Person B 回复：“收到了。在 Wickr 上给你发了信息[。]明早给你电汇。”Wickr 是一款支持端到端加密和内容过期的即时通讯应用程序。Person B 随后补充道：“你拿到第 2 笔确认了吗？”DAVIS 回复：“等亚洲开市……至少现在是在按部就班推进了。”Person B 回复：“是的。催促他们办理接下来的 2 笔电汇。”Person B 随后部分补充道：“假设第二个 3 已经到账，并且确认最后的 2 正在汇出。请询问[Person B 的助理]。”\n\n39. 2017年5月18日或该日前后，Law Firm A 向 Person B 的一个商业账户转账 $500,000 美元，并向由 DAVIS 控制的一个商业账户转账 $900,000 美元。在约一周内，Law Firm A 通过两笔独立的转账向 Person B 的一个商业账户额外转账了 $950,000 美元。\n\n40. 2017年5月25日或该日前后，Foreign National A 促使向 Company A 进行了第三笔转账，本次金额约为 $2.7 百万美元。2017年5月26日或该日前后，Person A 从 Company A 向 Law Firm A 转账 $2 百万美元，以部分偿付 Person B 和 Foreign National A 所商定的 $8 百万美元聘请费，换取 Person B 向政府当局和 DOJ 进行游说，以促使其放弃 1MDB 民事没收案件及任何相关调查。同日，$600,000 美元从 Law Firm A 的账户转至一个与 DAVIS 相关的商业账户。\n\nD. Person B 为 Malaysian Prime Minister A 促成会面并游说解决 1MDB 案件\n\n41. 2017年5月18日或该日前后，Person B 向 Person D（人员 D，一名政治顾问兼总统前竞选助理）发送短信，请求 Person D 与政府当局协调为 Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理 A）安排一次访问：“嗨[Person D]——请跟进亚洲国家的访问事宜。日期在七月。”\n\n42. 2017年6月5日或该日前后，Person B 再次就 Malaysian Prime Minister A 的访问向 Person D 发短信：“亚洲国家对七月份的会面非常积极。希望能尽快确认日期等事项。”\n\n43. 同一天，应 Person A 的请求，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送了关于 Foreign National A 的短信。在这些短信中，DAVIS 根据 Person A 代表 Foreign National A 向其传达的信息写道：“如果可能的话，请在以色列就寝前打电话……[Foreign National A]一直打电话询问消息[。]”Person B 回复：“好的。会给你打电话。我今晚前往华盛顿特区处理[Foreign National A]和亚洲国家的事宜[。]”\n\n44. 2017年6月15日或该日前后，DAVIS 转发 Person A 的消息向 Person B 发短信：“嘿，他今晚想和你谈谈。你方便吗？”DAVIS 补充道：“委托人”，指的是 Foreign National A。同一天，Person B 回复：“方便[。]”\n\n45. 2017年6月16日或该日前后，Person B 和 DAVIS 就 1MDB 以及从一名与 Foreign National A 有关联的人员处扣押珠宝一事互发了短信。\n\n46. 2017年6月17日或该日前后，Person B 和 DAVIS 讨论了 Malaysian Prime Minister A。大约在 2017年6月，Person B 询问总统是否愿意与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 打高尔夫球。Person B 称，且 DAVIS 亦认为，这将使 Foreign National A 感到满意，并将使 Malaysian Prime Minister A 能够试图解决 1MDB 事项。Person B 还希望获得与 Malaysian Prime Minister A 所在国政府的额外业务，并希望通过安排与总统打高尔夫球来促进其商业利益。\n\n47. 2017年6月19日或该日前后，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送了一条短信，内含一篇关于 Malaysian Prime Minister A 办公室批评美国 1MDB 没收诉讼的文章链接。\n\n48. 2017年6月25日或该日前后，DAVIS 向 Person B 发送了一条短信，内含一篇关于 Malaysian Prime Minister A 以及涉及 Foreign National A 的 1MDB 没收诉讼的文章链接。同一天，Person B 回复：“奇怪的文章。我们能做什么？”DAVIS 回复：“请打电话。有消息[。]”DAVIS 随后跟进表示她已向 Person B 发送了一条“WhatsApp 请求”。\n\n49. 2017年6月29日或该日前后，Person B 向白宫一位高级官员发送短信，试图安排 Malaysian Prime Minister A 与总统之间的高尔夫球活动：“嗨[Person E]，如我之前所述，美国总统已同意在七月下旬或八月上旬在华盛顿特区或贝德敏斯特与[Malaysian Prime Minister A]打一场高尔夫球。非常感谢你向我回复日期。另外，几周前已就一次会面事宜向国务院致函。”\n\n50. 2017年6月30日或该日前后，Person B 就高尔夫球活动向 Person E 发送了另一条短信：“希望我们今天上午能就[PRC National A（中国国民 A）]以及与美国总统为[Malaysian Prime Minister A]安排的高尔夫球日期通电话。”当天晚些时候，Person B 跟进短信称：“[Person E]，正如之前所讨论的，希望我们今天能办妥这些事项。请随时打给我。”\n\n51. 2017年7月3日或该日前后，Person B 再次就 Malaysian Prime Minister A 和总统的高尔夫球日期向 Person E 发短信：“早上好[Person E]。如果你今天能确认与美国总统为[Malaysian Prime Minister A]安排的高尔夫球日期，对我将极其有帮助。美国总统告诉我他很乐意在贝德敏斯特或华盛顿特区打球。在我们通话后，我对[Malaysian Prime Minister A]提及他上周就能拿到日期。非常感谢！祝好，[]。”当天晚些时候，Person B 再次向 Person E 发短信：“[Person E]，我在跟进此事。请将[Malaysian Prime Minister A]与美国总统的高尔夫球日期和时间发给我。谢谢！”\n\n52. 2017年7月4日或该日前后，DAVIS 向 Person B 发短信称：“尽快打给我”，随后又发短信称：“清理你的手机——擦除信息[。]”\n\n53. 2017年7月5日或该日前后，Person B 就高尔夫球活动与 Person E 互通了消息。在其他消息中，Person B 发短信称：“[Person E]，刚给你留言了。已经过去一周了。你今天能把日期发给我吗？祝好，[]”Person E 回复：“此事在 NSC[（国家安全委员会）]手中[。]他们负责协调和磋商——我相信会办妥的[。]”\n\n54. 2017年7月11日或该日前后，DA VIS（戴维斯）转达Person A（人员A）的信息，给Person B（人员B）发短信称：“用Wickr[。]现在是下午5点……我认为我们需要采取行动了。确定日期以及其他事项。我们快被逼死了。”这些短信指的是为Malaysian Prime Minister A（马来西亚总理A）与总统打高尔夫球敲定日期，以及Foreign National A（外国国民A）因尚未确认日期而表达的不满。戴维斯转达人员A的紧急催促，继续写道：“请打电话，因为我们需要制定策略——我快被事情淹没了[。]”人员B回复称：“看wikr[。]”次日，人员B给戴维斯发短信称：“在wikr上给我发短信。我正要出发，需要去白宫（WH）[。]正在出发。现在就需要[。]”戴维斯回复称：“已发[。]”人员B回复称：“收到了。谢谢[。]正在尽量让[Person F（人员F）]尽快通电话[。]”人员F当时是国家安全委员会（National Security Council，简称NSC）的高级官员。\n\n55. 2017年7月13日或该日前后，戴维斯给人员B发短信称：“你方便时请打电话，以便我们沟通——我们必须处理这件事，所以请务必去华盛顿特区（D.C.），在白宫坐着等，直到你拿到日期。如果你担心一个人无聊，我会陪你！”\n\n56. 2017年7月13日或该日前后，人员B再次就高尔夫球日期给Person E（人员E）发短信：“嗨[人员E]，已经过去两周了。再次跟进[马来西亚总理A]与美国总统（POTUS）打高尔夫球的日期。你今天能发短信告诉我日期吗？谢谢。祝好，[][。]”人员E回复称：“我现在再去核实[。]这些事情都要走流程——”。人员B回复称“谢谢！！”人员E回复称：“国安会正在跟进并进行协调[。]”人员B回复称：“我们今天能拿到日期吗？”人员E回复称：“他们正在直接与[马来西亚]对接。国安会正在协调确定日期。”\n\n57. 2017年7月15日或该日前后，人员B给戴维斯发短信称：“正在争取安排明天的会面。”\n\n58. 2017年7月17日或该日前后，戴维斯代表外国国民A转达人员A表达的紧迫性，给人员B发短信称：“[人员E]现在就需要给你这个日期，并向他询问另一件事的最新进展。我们看起来显得无能为力[。]”这条短信既指安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面，也指涉及PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民A）的事项。人员B回复称：“同意。正在全力推进[。]”\n\n59. 2017年7月18日或该日前后，人员B与戴维斯就安排总统与马来西亚总理A之间的会面互发了数条短信。在这些信息中，戴维斯转达人员A的信息写道：“你能查看一下Wikr吗[。]真的非常需要那个日期。我一整天都在为这事抓狂。他慌了[。]”戴维斯随后补充道：“今天必须拿到这个日期——我们快被彻底击垮了。”据人员A称，外国国民A因尚未安排会面而感到恐慌。人员B回复称：“现在正在给[人员E]打电话[。]”戴维斯部分回复道：“给所有人都打电话，好让他们知道你非常愤怒[。]也给[Person G（人员G）]打。我们今天就得办成[。]”人员G当时是总统的行政助理。人员B回复称：“现在正在做。”\n\n60. 2017年7月19日或该日前后，戴维斯就为马来西亚总理A与总统的会面安排日期一事给人员B发短信称：“其次我们极度需要这个日期[。]”人员B于次日回复称：“请多包涵。正在获取关于会面（mtg）的一些信息[。]”\n\n61. 2017年7月21日或该日前后，人员B就高尔夫活动给人员E发短信称：“[人员E]，[马来西亚]方面没有收到国安会的任何消息。总统曾表示他愿意在7月下旬或8月上旬与马来西亚总理A打高尔夫球。总统表示他很乐意这样做。你说过一两天内就会安排好。现在已经是第4周了。我知道你很忙而且有程序要走，但我已经极具耐心了。这不仅没有起到积极作用，现在反而在对我造成损害。如果你今天能回复我一个日期，我将不胜感激。谢谢！[]。”\n\n62. 2017年7月24日或该日前后，人员B给Person D（人员D）发短信称：“已收到9月份在新泽西州（NJ）的高尔夫日期。在联合国大会（UN General Assembly）之前的周六。终于搞定了！从我的待办清单中划掉了！也感谢你的帮助！”人员D回复称：“我们跟进落实一下，确保国安会确认了该日期。他有没有告诉你谁给他的日期？”人员B回复称：“‘谢谢！！太棒了。是[人员E]给[Person H（人员H）]的。”\n\n63. 2017年7月27日或该日前后，人员B给人员D发短信称：“刚刚再次与[马来西亚]确认。他们驻美大使（Amb to US）和外交部长（Foreign Minister）什么都没听到。请尽快核实。祝好，[]。”人员B随后补充道：“嗨[人员D]——你能替我给国家安全顾问（NSA）打电话询问关于[马来西亚]收到正式通知的事吗？国安会仍未就人员会面事宜联系[马来西亚]大使。谢谢。祝好，[]”人员D回复称：“[]今天上午会再打电话。昨天与[]简短谈过……稍后就打。”\n\n64. 2017年7月29日或该日前后，戴维斯转达其代表外国国民A从人员A处收到的信息，就马来西亚总理A与总统的会面给人员B发短信称：“他们被告知9月12日会面。那天是联合国大会开幕的日子——是个星期二？？？？不打高尔夫球？？”戴维斯紧接着发短信称“Wicla[。]”人员B回复称：“可能是两次会面。大使应该去问问。周六在贝德敏斯特（Bedminster）打高尔夫球，周二在白宫会面？”\n\n65. 2017年8月7日或该日前后，人员B给其助理发送了一封主题为“马来西亚谈话要点\\*最终版\\*（Malaysia Talking Points \\*Final\\*）”的电子邮件，其中包含拟用于United States Secretary of State（美国国务卿）与马来西亚总理A即将举行的会面的谈话要点。戴维斯从人员A处获得了这些谈话要点——人员A系代表外国国民A提供——并将其转达给人员B，且明知人员B随后会将这些内容提供给国务卿作为会面的背景材料。该谈话要点除其他事项外，提及了人员B与[马来西亚]的持续关系和工作，并将1MDB（一马公司）列为“[重]中之重[。]”谈话要点指出一马公司并未造成损害，并特别指出“[美]国检察官的介入造成了不必要的紧张关系美国人[原文如此]，并可能在马来西亚人中引起负面反应[。]”\n\n66. 2017年8月7日或该日前后，人员B还将该谈话要点文件发送给人员D供其审阅和修改，并获取关于马来西亚总理A与国务卿在马来西亚会面的时间细节：“嗨[人员D]；[国务卿]会面是什么时候？；[马来西亚]现在已经是周一上午11:00了。你能补充展开并给我发送最终版本吗？”人员D通过向人员B发送修改后的谈话要点版本并陈述予以回复：“[]——这是我准备转发给[国务卿]办公室的修订版本。他今天前往曼谷，然后前往[马来西亚]。如果你有任何其他修改意见，请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n67. 随后，在2017年8月7日或该日前后，人员B给人员D发信息称：“[国务卿]定于8日会见[马来西亚总理A]，9日会见副总理。让我们为我美言提一句（get a plug in my name）。他们知道我的名字，但可能无法立刻认出[我公司]的名字。谢谢！”人员D回复称：“建立这种联系绝对重要。这不太可能成为正式会议的一部分，但会努力在他们的交谈中为你美言提一句。”\n\n68. 同样在2017年8月7日或该日前后，人员A签署了人员A的另一家公司与外国国民A的一名代表之间的协议，约定提供“战略沟通与危机管理（Strategic Communications and Crisis Management）”服务，报酬约为840万欧元（EUR 8.4 million），在2017年8月16日或该日之前支付。\n\n69. 2017年8月9日或该日前后，外国国民A促使一家香港公司向Company A（公司A）转账约1280万美元（$12.8 million）。随后人员A向Law Firm A（律师事务所A）转账300万美元。人员A还向戴维斯控制的一个商业账户转账833,333美元。2017年8月10日或该日前后，律师事务所A向一个与戴维斯关联的商业账户转账900,000美元。\n\n70. 2017年8月10日或该日前后，人员B就马来西亚总理A与国务卿的会面给人员D发短信称：“从[马来西亚]处获悉会面非常顺利。他们对[国务卿]很满意。没有提到我的名字——没有美言。;-……。”\n\n71. 2017年8月16日或该日前后，人员B与戴维斯互发短信安排会面和电话通话。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“[人员A]真的很想今天见你，如果可能的话，因为你周五要离开[。]”\n\n72. 2017年8月18日或该日前后，人员B与戴维斯互发短信安排电话通话。在这些信息中，戴维斯写道：“请给我打电话。[人员A]想加入电话会议[。]”\n\n73. 2017年8月19日或该日前后，人员B给人员D发短信称：“关于[马来西亚]有最新进展吗？”人员D回复称：“截至目前，会面将在华盛顿特区举行。由于日程安排很难安排高尔夫，但我正在想办法。可能需要就此直接找[Person I（人员I）]，利用他们两人打高尔夫球的历史渊源。”人员B回复称：“好的。如果你觉得有帮助，我可以给[人员I]的一名副手或[人员I]直接打电话。还需要增加会面时间。我想与你讨论细节。请告诉我怎么做最好。”人员I当时是白宫的一名高级官员。\n\n74. 2017年8月21日或该日前后，戴维斯将其作为佣金从人员A处收到的375,000美元资金电汇给了人员B的配偶Person C（人员C）。\n\n75. 2017年8月24日或该日前后，外国国民A指示向人员A名下另一家公司转账约1000万美元，该公司此前与外国国民A的代表签订了金额为840万欧元的“战略沟通与危机管理”协议。根据2017年8月24日的现行汇率，840万欧元折合约1000万美元。\n\n76. 2017年9月11日或该日前后，戴维斯按照人员B的指示起草了一封信函，拟在马来西亚总理A与总统会面之前由人员B致信总统。该信函包含马来西亚与美国关系的若干积极进展。该信函从未呈交予总统。\n\n77. 2017年9月12日或该日前后，马来西亚总理A在白宫会见了总统，这部分归功于戴维斯对人员B促成该会面的努力所提供的协助。尽管人员B联系了本届政府的高级官员，试图在正式会面之外安排美国总统与马来西亚总理A之间的高尔夫球会面，但马来西亚总理A与总统之间并未举行高尔夫球比赛。\n\n78. 2017年10月6日或该日前后，人员B在白宫会见了总统。人员B向人员A、戴维斯和外国国民A声称，他在会面期间向总统提出了一马公司调查案。\n\n79. 2018年1月5日或该日前后，人员B起草了与一马公司相关的谈话要点，以向外国国民A展示人员B代表其所付出的努力。除其他事项外，该谈话要点载明：“1. 我们正在与美国司法部（DoJ）合作，以应对上届政府在[马来西亚]针对一马公司的案件。我已制定了一项策略，联系司法部和国安会双方的人员以寻求该问题的解决方案。2. 我正在安排与监督[]案件的助理司法部长[]会面。她是[总统]任命的官员，能够提供帮助……。3. 正如我早前告知你的，在我与总统的讨论中，他承诺解决这个问题。重要的是我要遵循他的指示，但会继续传达该问题的重要性。”人员B极大地夸大了其就一马公司调查案所付出的努力。\n\n80. 2018年1月6日或该日前后，人员B会见了人员A，后者向人员B借款。人员A告诉人员B，人员A的朋友正在“核查”他们从外国国民A处收到的资金，并“帮助使其合法化（keeping it clean）”。\n\nII. 将中华人民共和国国民A驱逐出美国的行动\nA. 人员B前往中国与PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长A）会面\n\n81. 约在 2017 年 5 月，在曼谷之行后，Person B（人员 B）同意前往中国香港（Hong Kong）再次与 Foreign National A（外国国民 A）会面。出行前，DAVIS（戴维斯）与人员 B 讨论指出，将 PRC National A（中华人民共和国国民 A）从美国驱逐出境对外国国民 A 而言至关重要。此次香港之行的目的，是与外国国民 A 及一名中华人民共和国（PRC）外国政府官员会面并商讨中华人民共和国国民 A 的相关事宜。\n\n82. 2017 年 5 月 15 日或该日前后，戴维斯就香港之行的行程安排和路线向人员 B 的助理发送了电子邮件。同日，戴维斯还向人员 B 和 Person C（人员 C）发送电子邮件，提供了戴维斯公司的银行账户信息。\n\n83. 2017 年 5 月 18 日或该日前后，Person A（人员 A）、人员 B 和戴维斯前往香港，并被送往中国深圳，他们在一家酒店套房内与外国国民 A 和 PRC Minister A（中华人民共和国部长 A）会面。中华人民共和国部长 A 向人员 B 谈及中华人民共和国国民 A 及其涉嫌的犯罪行为，并表示中华人民共和国希望将中华人民共和国国民 A 遣返回中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国部长 A 请求人员 B 利用其对美国政府高级官员的影响力，呼吁并推动将中华人民共和国国民 A 驱逐并遣返回中华人民共和国。中华人民共和国部长 A 还表示，他很快将访问华盛顿特区（Washington, D.C.），并在安排与某些美国政府高级官员的会面方面遇到了困难。\nB. 人员 B 为驱逐中华人民共和国国民 A 向美国高层官员进行游说\n\n84. 2017 年 5 月 20 日或该日前后，在从中国返回途中，人员 B 给戴维斯发短信称：“我会努力为我们与[司法部长]争取这是重要的一周。”\n\n85. 2017 年 5 月 21 日或该日前后，人员 B 就其与外国国民 A 和中华人民共和国部长 A 会面一事向 Person D（人员 D）发短信称：“[人员 D]——刚回来。巨大的机会。我们能否周一上午 9:30 在[酒店]见？[]。”\n\n86. 2017 年 5 月 22 日或该日前后，人员 B 给人员 D 发短信称：“我需要尽快与[司法部长]会面。我们会面讨论。”人员 B 紧接着发短信称：“我正在给你发一份备忘录。我们会面讨论。”同日稍晚，人员 D 回复道：“已向[司法部长]提出会面请求。”\n\n87. 2017 年 5 月 22 日或该日前后，人员 B 给人员 D 发送了一封主题为“大幅加强美[中]执法合作的契机”的电子邮件。人员 B 在邮件中附上了一份由人员 B 致司法部长的备忘录，意在让人员 D 随后将该备忘录呈交给司法部长。备忘录的内容系由戴维斯提供给人员 B，而戴维斯是在 2017 年 5 月的中国之行期间从人员 A 处收到的，其内容源自中华人民共和国部长 A 和外国国民 A。收到后，人员 B 和人员 C 对该备忘录进行了修改。\n\n88. 在该备忘录中，人员 B 对其中国之行的原因以及促成其与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面的背景情况作了虚假陈述。人员 B 隐瞒了他与外国国民 A 的接触，并隐瞒了外国国民 A 在安排人员 B 与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面中所起的作用。人员 B 还隐瞒了在深圳与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面前两周内，外国国民 A 向其支付的 400 万美元。人员 B 亦未披露，他针对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 达成的财务协议进行的，并可能带来额外的报酬。\n\n89. 在备忘录中，人员 B 陈述称：“[中华人民共和国部长 A]告诉我，[中华人民共和国]希望在包括网络安全在内的执法方面大幅加强与双边的合作。”人员 B 提及中华人民共和国部长 A 即将前往华盛顿特区的访问行程，其中中华人民共和国部长 A 及其代表团计划与数名美国政府高级官员会面。人员 B 呼吁司法部长与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面。人员 B 还列举了根据中华人民共和国部长 A 所述、中华人民共和国愿意为改善美中执法关系而采取的若干举措。人员 B 随后补充道：\n\n根据我与[中华人民共和国部长 A]的交谈，[中华人民共和国]将提出的唯一请求是，尽快将[中华人民共和国国民 A]从美国驱逐出境（他的签证将在下个月左右到期）或引渡（国际刑警组织已对其发布红色通缉令，附后供参考）至[中华人民共和国]，[中华人民共和国]指控其与已被逮捕并被控违反[中华人民共和国]多部刑法（包括绑架和重大金融犯罪）的其他人共谋，以便就这些指控追究其违法责任，并就相关指控在[中华人民共和国]接受正规的刑事诉讼程序。\n\n人员 B 在备忘录后附上了针对中华人民共和国国民 A 的国际刑警组织红色通缉令（Interpol Red Notice）。\n\n90. 2017 年 5 月 23 日或该日前后，人员 B 给人员 D 发短信称：“你好[]明天的会面定下来了吗？我的备忘录送给[司法部长]了吗？请告知最新进展 谢谢[][.]”人员 D 回复称：“[人员 B]——信件昨天已送达。请查阅修改后的最终版本。正在安排明天的会面，目标定在下午早些时候。今天晚些时候给你打电话。我今晚坐红眼航班，以便早点赶回华盛顿特区。”人员 B 回复称：“太好了。谢谢[]。同时试着确定他的会面是否已经定下，或者我们能否定在周四，或周五、周六在阿拉巴马州（Alabama）。”次日（即 2017 年 5 月 24 日或该日前后），人员 D 回复称：“正在等待司法部（DoJ）就有关会面的回复——包括我们的会面和[中华人民共和国部长 A]的会面。有空请告诉我，我们可以见面讨论其他事项。谢谢。”\n\n91. 2017 年 5 月 24 日或该日前后，人员 D 给人员 B 发短信称：“刚接到[司法部长]办公室的电话，他今晚不行。但我直接收到了他本人发来的短信，说他晚些时候会给我打电话。”\n\n92. 2017 年 5 月 25 日或该日前后，人员 B 给人员 D 发短信称：“会面今天上午 10:00 在司法部进行。然后明天是联邦调查局（FBI）和国土安全部（DHS）。或许我可以告诉我那边的联络人提前 10 分钟到场，进行一次简短会面。然后再与[]一对一会面讨论更多细节。今天一早请务必争取见到[司法部长]。我们办成这件事非常重要。今天上午我需要和我那边的联络人通话。谢谢。[ . ]”人员 D 回复称：“[]——正在办。[司法部长]今天上午不在办公室，正在设法确认他何时回来。请稍候。”同日稍晚，人员 B 给人员 D 发短信称：“细节在于，我备忘录中的这 3 件事仅供[司法部长]了解。[中华人民共和国部长 A]希望直接告诉[司法部长]。我这里是正当的秘密渠道。[中华人民共和国部长 A]的上级希望确认[司法部长]已经听到了这 3 件真正对美国有利的事项[.]”当天晚些时候，人员 D 回复称：“[]——其实刚跟[司法部长]通完电话。情况不太妙。有空通话时请告诉我。谢谢。”\n\n93. 2017 年 5 月 26 日或该日前后，人员 B 就中华人民共和国部长 A 的会面安排给人员 D 发短信称：“上午 10 点移民及海关执法局（ICE）局长，11:30 联邦调查局。或许在国土安全部做些运作能挽回局面。顺道拜访[Person I（人员 I）]。这三项内容可以共享。”人员 B 紧接着发短信称：“请给我打电话”以及“我正在设法进行危机公关，需要和你通话。最好是私下拉[人员 I]谈谈。”人员 I 当时是国土安全部的一名高级官员。\n\n94. 2017 年 5 月 28 日或该日前后，人员 B 给人员 D 发送电子邮件，附上了“转录的[司法部长]与[中华人民共和国]驻美大使之间的往来函件”。人员 B 指出：“我认为这是[司法部长]促进美国利益的极佳契机。我在下面添加了意见。我们能否尽快讨论？还有另一件司法部长应当知晓的利益相关事项。”同日晚些时候，人员 B 与人员 D 互发电子邮件，约定时间讨论该邮件及其内容。\n\n95. 2017 年 5 月 30 日或该日前后，戴维斯转达了中华人民共和国部长 A 和人员 A 关于中华人民共和国部长 A 与美国政府官员会面的信息，发短信称：“查看 Wickr——现在会面一切障碍已排除[.]”人员 B 回复称：“好的。一切准备就绪[.]”戴维斯回复称：“他的会面恢复了[.]”\n\n96. 约在 2017 年 5 月，戴维斯应人员 A 的请求，要求人员 B 在华盛顿特区与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面。\n\n97. 2017 年 5 月 30 日或该日前后，人员 B 在华盛顿特区的一家酒店与中华人民共和国部长 A 会面。人员 B 还询问人员 D 是否能协助中华人民共和国部长 A 安排与美国政府高级官员的会面。\n\n98. 2017 年 5 月 31 日或该日前后，人员 B 给人员 D 发短信称：\n\n昨晚我与副部长（VM）见了面。他乘坐今天下午 4 点的航班回国。联邦调查局让他同非常低级别的人员会面，并让他原定要会见的人转去会见越南方面。他的上级告诉他，除非同[司法部长]或[人员 I]会面，否则就回国。他乐于同[人员 I]会面。……到目前为止，他已送回了一名孕妇，接下来的 2 人也将很快送出。他将接受 60 名被驱逐出境的中国国民，但前提是他能获得一次适当的“简短会面”。这对本届政府来说是一场可以公开宣传的重大胜利。这是两国总统在马阿拉歌庄园（Mara Largo）会晤的成果。请给我打电话，我会告诉你更多具体细节。谢谢。\n\n99. 人员 D 回复道：“[]——收到信息。我几分钟后打过来。”人员 B 回复道：“如果能争取到会面，能否让白宫政治联络员在国土安全部会见副部长？他可以提我的名字。同时设法让[人员 I]热络一下局面。也提一下我。谢谢！祝我们好运。”\n\n100. 2017 年 5 月 31 日或该日前后，戴维斯就中华人民共和国部长 A 意图与人员 I 会面一事给人员 B 发短信称：“原则上[人员 I]同意——只是日程问题？”人员 B 回复道：“只是临时安排的日程问题。接下来一小时左右可能还会有消息。[中华人民共和国部长 A]这边没有问题。”人员 B 随后继续发短信称：“请代向副部长转达我的良好祝愿。再稍微等等。”戴维斯回复道：“好的，我正在告诉他。”人员 B 回复道：“告诉他我正在向白宫和[司法部长]报告所发生的事情。”戴维斯随后发短信称：“[人员 I]今天下午不是预定要去海地（Haiti）吗？”人员 B 回复道：“日程安排人员没提这个？？你确定吗？[司法部长]那边的人也没提[.]”戴维斯回复道：“国土安全部官网上有[.]他下午都在那里[.]刚和副部长通了话，他听上去都快哭了[.]”人员 B 回复道：“太糟糕了。真是一团糟。归根结底不是我们的错。通常这该由他们的大使处理。这简直彻底搞砸了。”戴维斯回复道：“Wickr 上聊。”\n\n101. 2017 年 6 月 9 日或该日前后，戴维斯给人员 B 发短信推送了一篇标题为“[中国]对流亡大亨[中华人民共和国国民 A]施加更大压力”的新闻报道。\n\n102. 2017 年 6 月 27 日或该日前后，人员 B 与戴维斯就中华人民共和国国民 A 互发了数条短信。\n\n103. 2017 年 6 月 27 日或该日前后，人员 B 就驱逐中华人民共和国国民 A 一事给 Person H（人员 H）的配偶发短信。人员 B 知悉人员 H 是一名在国际上取得成功的商人，经常向政治竞选活动捐款，且与总统关系密切，能够直接接触并影响总统，在谋求驱逐中华人民共和国国民 A 方面能够发挥有效作用。人员 B 给人员 H 的配偶发短信称：“另外，我想明天上午就一项重要且敏感的事项与人员 H 会面。明天上午什么时候方便，或者共进午餐？期待在[]酒店见到你们！顺祝商祺，[][.]”人员 B 随后继续发短信称：\n\n你好[]，[Person H（H人士）]让我通过短信将此信息发送给你。我将向你发送几件关于逃犯[PRC National A（中国籍公民A）]的材料。第一件是Interpol（国际刑警组织）红色通缉令……极具时效性的事项是，[中国籍公民A]留在美国的签证将于6月30日到期。至关重要的是，必须立即拒绝他的新签证申请。他还必须被列入DHS（美国国土安全部）禁飞名单。……由于[中国籍公民A]与在其私人安保团队任职的前FBI（联邦调查局）人员关系密切，该命令需要来自最高层。PRC（中华人民共和国）主席在Mar-A-Lago（海湖庄园）向[总统]提及，希望将[中国籍公民A]遣返。[PRC Minister A（中国部长A）]与我进行了会面，并就[中国籍公民A]一事请求协助。……他承诺归还被[中国]扣为人质的某些美国公民，并将接收大量被遣返回[中国]的[中国]非法移民。最后，他还就North Korea（朝鲜）问题提供了新的协助。\n\n104. 2017年6月28日或前后，Person B（B人士）在一次社交聚会上与H人士及其配偶会面。会面后，B人士与H人士的配偶就[中国籍公民A]互通了短信：“你好[]，今晚很高兴见到你和[H人士]！我刚才又收到[中国部长A]的消息。由于时间紧迫，他想知道[中国籍公民A]的签证状态。——签证已经签发了还是我们拒绝了？我们能否确认[中国籍公民A]在国土安全部的禁飞名单上？[中国部长A]非常担心[中国籍公民A]本周会逃离美国。我希望我们能够确认并推进遣返。这对我们两国来说将是不可思议的一步。[中国部长A]表示他们对你们的帮助非常感谢。”H人士的配偶回复道：“这事正在由State Department（国务院）和Defense Department（国防部）的最高层处理。他们正在处理此事。”\n\n105. 2017年6月29日或前后，B人士与DAVIS（戴维斯）就中国籍公民A的签证申请互通了短信。B人士发短信称：“拒绝或批准函是否已经生成？”戴维斯回复：“我不知道。”B人士回复：“不好意思总是生成的。换句话说，每位申请人最终都会收到书面的赞成或否定[？]不好意思收到书面的赞成或否定[？]”戴维斯回复：“是的[。]查看Wickr[。]”\n\n106. 2017年6月30日或前后，戴维斯针对他们为促成Foreign National B（外国籍公民B）被驱逐出境以及可能接回被扣押在Country B（B国）的美国公民所作的努力，给B人士发短信称：“Wickr。你现在是大功臣。在你在今年7月4日为这个国家所做的一切之后，他们会颁给你President's Medal of Freedom（总统自由勋章）[。]”B人士回复：“我会全力以赴，直到搞定[。]”戴维斯回复：“我们务必确保第1部分今天落实。以及给m的日期[。]在我们办成之前，别离开那家伙。”B人士回复：“同意。”戴维斯继续发道：“让他知道——如果我们能在今天下班前拿到确认拒绝的函件（因为你需要工作人员生成该函件），那么我们将在7月4日之前把那2名美国人接回家[。]在另一阶段第2阶段之后——我们可以接收那60人[。]”B人士回复：“听起来不错。[H人士]马上给我回电话。正在通话中。”\n\n107. 2017年6月30日或前后，B人士与戴维斯就中国籍公民A互通了数条短信。B人士发短信称：“收到[H人士]的消息了。他向POTUS（美国总统）重申了。”B人士接着发道：“另外，[Person E（E人士）]给我发短信说他被事情耽搁了，但他正在密切跟进。”同一天，戴维斯回复：“我们今天能拿到关于撤销的证明吗？”戴维斯随后明确问道：“从[E人士]那里？”\n\n108. 2017年7月1日或前后，B人士给戴维斯发短信称：“与[E人士]详谈过了。有空给我打电话[。]”B人士并未与E人士通话，但曾就中国籍公民A的签证申请与他互通短信。与B人士为Attorney General（司法部长）准备的备忘录中的陈述以及他与H人士的沟通类似，B人士未向E人士透露他与中国部长A关系的真实性质。\n\n109. 2017年7月2日或前后，B人士与戴维斯就中国籍公民A及其签证申请互通了短信。根据公开\n\n报道，戴维斯发短信称：“今天周日安排了与[中国国家主席]就朝鲜问题通电话。他可以询问并确认有关方案的事。他甚至可以说他是从[H人士]那里听说的。”\n\n110. 2017年7月3日或前后，同样根据公开报道，戴维斯给B人士发短信称：“[总统]周三离开华盛顿特区前往欧洲[。]”戴维斯随后接着发道：“7月5日。按计划将与[中国国家主席]面谈[。]”\n\n111. 2017年7月18日或前后，B人士通过电子邮件向戴维斯发送了H人士的联系方式。戴维斯为中国部长A与H人士之间接通了多次通话，以进一步推进遣返中国籍公民A的游说活动。\n\n112. 2017年7月26日或前后，B人士与戴维斯就中国籍公民A及其从美国被遣返回中国一事互通了短信。在这些短信中，戴维斯写道：“确实需要确认已经正式送达。目前——他说没有[。]”B人士回复：“已要求3个不同的人去跟进[。]”B人士随后补充道：“给[E人士]打了电话。一小时后见[H人士]。”\n\n113. 2017年7月26日或前后，B人士给H人士发短信，约在Washington, D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）的一家酒店会面以讨论中国籍公民A：“你好[H人士]，我从工作人员处获悉你人在特区，我也在，住在[酒店]。今天愿意一起喝杯咖啡吗？问候，[]。”同一天晚些时候，H人士的配偶给B人士发短信称：“你好[]。能否再次发短信告诉我你之前发过短信提及的那位[中国]男子的详细信息谢谢[。]”B人士回复：“你好[]，你指的是[中国籍公民A]还是[中国部长A]？祝好，[][。]”H人士的配偶回复：“[中国籍公民A]。”B人士随后重新发送了他此前于6月27日发送的信息。\n\n114. 2017年7月27日或前后，B人士与戴维斯就中国籍公民A互通了短信。戴维斯给B人士发短信称：“使馆有消息吗？？”戴维斯随后补充道：“嘿，关于正式通知有任何更新吗？”B人士回复：“我正在与NSC（美国国家安全委员会）的人打交道。直接发邮件。正在等待回复[。]”\n\n115. 2017年8月19日或前后，B人士给戴维斯发了数条短信。在这些短信中，B人士写道：“紧急。打给我。好消息[。]”B人士随后补充道：“我和[H人士]在一起。迎来了突破性机会[。]”\n\n116. 2017年8月19日或前后，B人士在H人士的游艇上与H人士会面。在他们在一起期间，B人士向H人士询问了涉及中国籍公民A的事项，H人士建议他们致电总统。随后B人士与H人士致电总统，询问中国籍公民A在美国境内的状态。\n\n117. 2017年9月13日或前后，B人士给戴维斯发短信称：“请把庇护的文章短信发给我。还有另一篇文章[。]”同一天，戴维斯给B人士发短信提供了有关中国籍公民A的文章链接。\n\n118. 2017年10月2日或前后，B人士给戴维斯发短信提供了一篇关于中国籍公民A的文章链接。\n\n119. 2018年1月5日或前后，B人士给戴维斯发短信称：“给我发送更多关于[中国籍公民A]参与资助民主党政客的信息，……尽快[。]”\n第一项罪名 18 U.S.C. § 2 及 22 U.S.C. § 612（协助与教唆及未经登记的外国委托人代理人）\n\n120. 自不迟于2017年5月前后起至至少2018年1月前后止，在District of Hawaii（夏威夷区）及其他地方，被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS（妮基·马莉·林·戴维斯）明知且故意，在未按法律规定向司法部长登记的情况下，协助并教唆Person A（A人士）和B人士作为外国委托人的代理人开展行动，即：为外国籍公民A的利益促成1MDB（一马公司）调查获得有利解决，以及将中国籍公民A遣返回中国，而代表外国籍公民A、中国部长A和中华人民共和国政府执行秘密渠道游说活动。\n\n全部违反 18 U.S.C. § 2 以及 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 和 618(a)(1)。\n没收指控\n\n121. 本刑事起诉书第1项罪名中包含的指控特此重述并通过引用纳入本部分，以便根据Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C)（《美国法典》第18编第981条第(a)款第(1)项第(C)目）和Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)（《美国法典》第28编第2461条第(c)款）指控没收。\n\n122. 根据《美国法典》第18编第981条第(a)款第(1)项第(C)目和《美国法典》第28编第2461条第(c)款，一旦被判定犯有第1项罪名（违反《美国法典》第18编第2条以及《美国法典》第22编第612条和第618条第(a)款第(1)项），被告妮基·马莉·林·戴维斯应向美利坚合众国没收一笔款项，该款项代表构成或源自可追溯至上述违法行为之收益的财产（不论是不动产还是动产）。特此进一步通知，一旦定罪，美国打算向戴维斯就代表本段所述财产的该笔款项寻求判决。\n\n123. 如果上述任何财产由于被告的任何作为或不作为：\n\n- a. 尽合理努力后仍无法找到；\n- b. 已转让或出售给第三方，或存放于第三方处；\n- c. 已置于本法院管辖范围之外；\n- d. 价值已大幅贬损；或\n- e. 已与无法轻易分割的其他财产发生混同，\n\n美利坚合众国应有权根据由《美国法典》第28编第2461条第(c)款纳入适用的Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p)（《美国法典》第21编第853条第(p)款），没收替代财产\n\n日期：2020年8月17日，于夏威夷州火奴鲁鲁。\n\n签名：Kenji M. Price  KENJI M. PRICE（肯吉·M·普莱斯）夏威夷区联邦检察官\n\n~~\n\n签名：Kenneth M. Sorenson  KENNETH M. SORENSON（肯尼斯·M·索伦森）国家安全处处长\n\nCOREY R. AMUNDSON（科里·R·阿蒙德森）美国司法部公共诚信科主管\n\n签名：John D. Keller  JOHN D. KELLER（约翰·D·凯勒）首席副主管\n\nSEAN F. MULRYNE（肖恩·F·马尔莱恩）NICOLE R. LOCKHART（妮可·R·洛克哈特）JAMES C. MANN（詹姆斯·C·曼恩）公共诚信科审判出庭律师\n\n美利坚合众国 诉 妮基·马莉·戴维斯 刑事起诉书 刑事案号 ~~~~~~~~~~~-\n证据标物 C\n美利坚合众国，\n诉\nGEORGE HIGGINBOTHAM（乔治·希金博瑟姆），\n被告。","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":27300,"status":"published","published_at":"2020-10-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2020-10-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:29:49"}