{"id":"court_sdny_437_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":437,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2024-07-23","title":"SDNY ECF 437","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"O6O1GUO1\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n2 ------------------------------x\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n3\nv. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n4\nMILES GUO,\n5\nDefendant. Trial\n6 ------------------------------x\nNew York, N.Y.\n7 June 24, 2024\n9:00 a.m.\n8\nBefore:\n9\n10 HON. ANALISA TORRES,\n11 District Judge\n-and a Jury-\n12\nAPPEARANCES\n13\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\n14 United States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York\n15 BY: MICAH F. FERGENSON\nRYAN B. FINKEL\n16 JUSTIN HORTON\nJULIANA N. MURRAY\n17 Assistant United States Attorneys\n18 SABRINA P. SHROFF\nAttorney for Defendant\n19\nPRYOR CASHMAN LLP\n20 Attorneys for Defendant\nBY: SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU\n21 MATTHEW BARKAN\n22 ALSTON & BIRD LLP\nAttorneys for Defendant\n23 BY: E. SCOTT SCHIRICK\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 ALSO PRESENT:\nIsabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO\n2 Robert Stout, Special Agent, FBI\nJorge Salazar, Defense Paralegal\n3 Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)\nShi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n4 Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 (Trial resumed; jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: Good morning.\n3 ALL COUNSEL: Good morning, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: Would you make your appearances, please.\n5 MR. FINKEL: Good morning, your Honor. Ryan Finkel\n6 and Justin Horton for the government. We're joined by Isabel\n7 Loftus, a paralegal specialist with our office. Juliana Murray\n8 and Micah Fergenson will be joining us shortly.\n9 MS. SHROFF: Good morning, your Honor. On behalf of\n10 Mr. Kwok, Sabrina Shroff, Sid Kamaraju, Scott Schirick, and\n11 Matt Barkan. Also present at counsel table is Mr. Salazar.\n12 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n13 Is there anything before we get started at 9:30?\n14 MS. SHROFF: Not from the defense, your Honor.\n15 MR. FINKEL: Not so much of an issue from the\n16 government. I just want to update the Court on scheduling, if\n17 the Court would like.\n18 THE COURT: Okay.\n19 MR. FINKEL: So the government, assuming we can get a\n20 certain document in today, we believe we'll hopefully be able\n21 to rest tomorrow, if tomorrow is a full day. If tomorrow is\n22 not a full day, I'm not sure. We have, I would say, two\n23 medium-length witnesses today and two short witnesses today.\n24 That's our plan. I'm not sure what the cross is going to be on\n25 the medium-length witnesses. If it's consistent with some\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 other crosses, we might not even be able to get those through\n2 today.\n3 We received the defense's witness list over the\n4 weekend, which we appreciate that they provided. There are 11\n5 witnesses on the witness list, possibly 12. We might stip on\n6 one witness. The defense estimates that they can complete\n7 those 12 witnesses——or 11 witnesses assuming the stip——by\n8 July 3rd is my understanding. That does not seem realistic to\n9 the government, particularly if those days are half days. A\n10 lot of the witnesses——I mean, of the witnesses, three of them\n11 are experts, which are going to take some time. There are a\n12 number of witnesses who——I mean, some of them we don't really\n13 know what their testimony is going to be because there's no\n14 26.2 material for those witnesses. We can guess, and I think\n15 it's basically they'll sort of put in Guo's life story and\n16 other issues. I don't know. But in any event, when we've done\n17 the 9:30-to-2:45 days, on average we've done about two\n18 witnesses a day; some days we've done three, some days we've\n19 done one. At that two-witness-a-day clip, we're very easily\n20 into the end of July at this point, and that's assuming the\n21 defendant doesn't testify. And if the defendant\n22 testifies——which, of course, he is entitled to do, and is\n23 entirely his right if he chooses to——I imagine such testimony\n24 will take days. He's going to have to explain, I imagine, all\n25 the videos, the recordings, all the statements, the businesses,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 the investments. It's going to take a lot of time, and so is\n2 the cross.\n3 So the way the government is looking at this is, we\n4 certainly defer to the Court on what makes the most sense in\n5 terms of scheduling. But if the goal is to complete this trial\n6 all in by July 12th, it does not seem feasible to the\n7 government to continue to sit just until 2:45. And maybe it's\n8 extending just a little bit each day or on certain days, but\n9 the government does believe we need to extend the days to make\n10 sure we get all this in. And at a minimum, we would ask your\n11 Honor to at least let the jury know that the week of July 8th,\n12 that sort of last week, would be a full day, because assuming\n13 things go as the defense anticipates, and the government\n14 certainly hopes, it would seem to the government that that week\n15 would be jury addresses and deliberations, which I assume the\n16 Court——and maybe I'm wrong to assume this, but I assume the\n17 Court would want to sit until 5 for those events.\n18 So sort of the bottom line, your Honor, coming back\n19 full circle, is, given what we understand the defense case is\n20 going to be, we believe that the Court should consider sitting\n21 longer days to make sure we meet the end of the trial by\n22 July 12th, which is what the Court predicted for the jury and\n23 what the parties had assumed would be the case.\n24 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor. And good\n25 morning.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 So what I would propose is——I think I heard Mr. Finkel\n2 say that the government would like to discuss with the Court\n3 and the parties the idea of possibly extending certain days,\n4 you know, maybe some a little bit, maybe some a little bit\n5 more. I think it might be productive for us to have a\n6 conversation with the government, because we're not opposed to\n7 doing some modification of the schedule to make sure that we\n8 complete the trial in a timely fashion. I don't know that the\n9 defense believes that that's necessary to sit full 9-to-5 days\n10 every day. And our witnesses, while there are 11 of them, some\n11 of them are, I anticipate——particularly in light of your\n12 Honor's recent ruling——some of them may be under 30 minutes.\n13 And our experts, it's hard for me to envision any of their\n14 direct examinations being more than 60 to 90 minutes. So I\n15 think we'd be well on track, but I think what we would propose\n16 is to have that discussion with the government, see if we can\n17 arrive at something mutual that we all believe can get this\n18 trial done in the right time, propose it to your Honor for your\n19 Honor's consideration, and, if your Honor agrees, then propose\n20 that to the jury. That would be my proposal.\n21 MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, certainly happy to speak\n22 with defense counsel more about this and try to reach an\n23 agreement. I would just ask two things. One, I think——I'm not\n24 sure, but——a number of the defense witnesses will require a\n25 translator, which will extend matters. If there are three\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 experts who are 60 to 90 minutes, let's assume that it's 75\n2 minutes on average, let's say it's a half hour of cross; that\n3 itself is two days. So if they think they're going to put\n4 their entire 11 witnesses in in four days, it just doesn't seem\n5 feasible, candidly. And I wish it was. I hope it moves\n6 quickly. I really do.\n7 The second point, your Honor, is we would ask that\n8 tomorrow, to the extent it works for your Honor and for the\n9 jury, that we would extend the day until either we complete our\n10 witnesses for the day or 5:00, whichever happens sooner. There\n11 is one witness, if we need them——and hopefully we won't,\n12 but——if there's one witness we need for custodial purpose, that\n13 would have to be on Wednesday. That person is not available\n14 until Wednesday morning. But anyway, that's sort of where we\n15 are. But I very much accept the invitation to have a\n16 discussion with defense counsel, and would ask your Honor to\n17 consider sitting tomorrow later.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: And just on the cross-examination\n19 point, your Honor, we have been working to try to make them\n20 more efficient. We'll continue to do that. I'll just give\n21 your Honor an example. On Friday, I believe Special Agent\n22 Luciano testified on direct for 107 minutes, and I believe\n23 Ms. Shroff's cross-examination was 26 minutes, which is about\n24 the same length of time that Special Agent Luciano testified\n25 about photographs, about towels and slippers, and lead paint\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 disclaimers in the contract. So we are working to try to make\n2 our crosses more efficient. I assume the government will do\n3 the same.\n4 We are looking at our witness list. We're trying to\n5 stipulate to certain things with the government to try to even\n6 shorten that list even further. But candidly, our witnesses\n7 are not of the same length that the government's are. We don't\n8 have three- or four- or five-hour witnesses that impact the\n9 average that Mr. Finkel was talking about. So again, I propose\n10 that we speak with the government. Maybe we can come up with a\n11 resolution that avoids your Honor having to resolve a dispute.\n12 But that would be my proposal.\n13 THE COURT: So what I think that I would like to do is\n14 ask them to stay late on Tuesday and Wednesday. I cannot stay\n15 late on Thursday. And so I will ask that question when they\n16 come out this morning, if there's anybody who absolutely cannot\n17 stay late on Wednesday and Thursday. In the meantime, you will\n18 have your discussion. Of course I wish that you had had this\n19 discussion during the break. But I urge you to talk to each\n20 other.\n21 Anything else?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor. Just a couple points\n23 to try and streamline the examination of the bankruptcy\n24 witness, Mr. Douglas Skalka. He is a local counsel in\n25 Connecticut to the bankruptcy trustee. In his direct\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 examination, we are trying to hue very closely to the narrow\n2 presentation of particularly probative, relevant evidence from\n3 the bankruptcy, as we laid out in our motions in limine and as\n4 the Court ordered we were permitted to do. We hope that it\n5 will be an efficient presentation. And, you know, the first\n6 point, your Honor, is just that by calling someone related to\n7 the bankruptcy, it doesn't mean that cross-examination is now a\n8 trial within a trial about the separate bankruptcy case. It\n9 should be focused, of course, on what was elicited in the\n10 direct examination. That's just one point. And hopefully, to\n11 Mr. Kamaraju's point, the defense is, you know, doing focused\n12 cross-examinations now as well.\n13 There are two other points to raise, your Honor, just\n14 about evidentiary disputes, as I understand them to be\n15 disputes. The first relates to the custodial witness we may\n16 need to call on Wednesday. One of the pieces of evidence we\n17 were hoping to just include in Mr. Skalka's testimony about the\n18 bankruptcy relates to transcripts from what are called 341\n19 meetings of creditors. As I understand it, in a bankruptcy\n20 proceeding, the debtor has to testify at a proceeding that is\n21 sort of organized and administered by the DOJ's Office of the\n22 Trustee. It's a component of the Department of Justice that\n23 sort of helps facilitate bankruptcy proceedings. I'm not an\n24 expert in that, but that is my understanding. They hold these\n25 meetings, they record them, they get transcribed.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 THE COURT: Is it sworn? Are the statements sworn?\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Yes. And Mr. Skalka was not present\n3 at those meetings, but we were still hoping to offer selected\n4 excerpts of the defendant's testimony at that through\n5 Mr. Skalka, since he is sort of our bankruptcy witness, for\n6 this type of evidence. He wasn't present at these meetings,\n7 however. We understand that the defense is going to object on\n8 authenticity grounds to offering these transcripts. Now as\n9 Mr. Finkel indicated, we can call the attorney from the Office\n10 of the Trustee, who is in New Haven. She has court on\n11 Tuesdays. Rather than trying to disrupt the court in New\n12 Haven's schedule, she could be available Wednesday morning to\n13 come and say, yes, you know, this was a recording, this is the\n14 testimony, here's the transcript. And that would be the extent\n15 of it. We're not really sure why that would be necessary to do\n16 that. We're hoping it would be efficient to just offer them\n17 through Mr. Skalka. But that's ultimately up to the defense, I\n18 guess. You know, what Mr. Skalka can say is that, you know, as\n19 local counsel in the bankruptcy proceedings, he received these\n20 transcripts, he's used them in filings, they've been relied on\n21 in court. But like I noted, he wasn't present at the meeting\n22 itself.\n23 The second issue, your Honor, relates to——and I'm not\n24 sure if we want defense counsel to address the first and then I\n25 can raise the second.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 THE COURT: Yes. I'd like to hear from the defense on\n2 that issue of the transcripts.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor. All we're asking for\n4 is for the government to authenticate documents in the way that\n5 the law requires. We are happy to talk to them about potential\n6 stipulations, as we have already, and even in the context of\n7 this document. But I don't think it is asking too much for the\n8 government to introduce evidence through witnesses who can\n9 properly authenticate it. We've had that issue before, during\n10 this trial. And that's it. This witness, I think\n11 Mr. Fergenson essentially conceded, does not have personal\n12 knowledge to authenticate that, and as defense counsel, it's\n13 hard for me to see how I can just automatically stipulate to\n14 something that the government doesn't have a basis for the\n15 witness to put in. So Mr. Skalka, I don't believe, is coming\n16 up first, so if they'd like to continue that discussion, I'm\n17 happy to. But it's pretty clear this witness does not have the\n18 ability to authenticate these transcripts.\n19 THE COURT: But your client certainly would know what\n20 he said, right? In other words, you could stipulate, based\n21 upon your client's representation to you, that these were his\n22 words.\n23 MR. KAMARAJU: Well, they're in English, your Honor,\n24 first of all, so——\n25 THE COURT: Well, of course they could be translated.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: They could be, your Honor, but I'm not\n2 sure how that——let me put it this way. My client could tell me\n3 if he recalls, during the course of this interview, giving\n4 these answers in connection with these questions. I don't know\n5 that he'll be able to do that. But even if he was able to do\n6 that, I'm not sure that obviates the government's requirement\n7 to authenticate the documents.\n8 THE COURT: It's not a question of whether it obviates\n9 the government's obligation, it's a question as to whether or\n10 not you'll stipulate. It's your call, of course. You make\n11 your decisions as to how to best represent your client. And so\n12 if there is no stipulation, then that witness will have to be\n13 called.\n14 What is the second issue?\n15 MR. FERGENSON: The second issue, your Honor, is, part\n16 of the testimony relates to this $37 million transfer from the\n17 Himalaya Exchange's bank accounts to the bankruptcy attorney\n18 that was representing Mei Guo, Mr. Guo's daughter, who claimed\n19 to be the owner of the yacht, the Lady May. One of the main\n20 disputes that sort of led to the bankruptcy related to the Lady\n21 May, your Honor, and there was a $37 million loan from the\n22 Himalaya Exchange entities to Mei Guo that was then put in\n23 escrow, because the yacht had been moved outside the\n24 jurisdiction of the United States. It relates to a draft loan\n25 agreement related to that. So the executed loan agreement is\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 filed on the docket, filed by both parties in the bankruptcy.\n2 Mr. Skalka is going to introduce that document. There was sort\n3 of a global agreement related to this $37 million escrow early\n4 on in the bankruptcy. There's also an initial draft of that\n5 loan agreement where the lender was not the Himalaya Exchange\n6 entity but ACA Capital Group, which, your Honor may recall, is\n7 the entity that had the bank account in Abu Dhabi that the\n8 government alleges basically used a money laundering slush fund\n9 to cycle fraud proceeds into and then back out of, back into\n10 the United States. That draft loan agreement was produced in\n11 discovery by the attorneys for the entity that is the\n12 borrower——sorry——basically the shell company that Mei Guo was\n13 the listed owner of. And Mr. Skalka, you know, it was produced\n14 in discovery to the trustee. Mr. Skalka has access to that\n15 discovery. It's Bates stamped with that entity's name. He's\n16 going to identify that as a draft loan produced in discovery.\n17 We're going to offer it. We understand the defense is going to\n18 object to that. I just wanted to raise it so maybe we can\n19 handle it now rather than at a sidebar during the jury's time.\n20 THE COURT: So your witness would merely be stating\n21 that this is a document that he received. He doesn't have any\n22 personal connection to the document.\n23 MR. FERGENSON: Correct, your Honor. It's a draft\n24 loan agreement between the, you know, the same——the final\n25 executed version that's filed on the docket by both parties in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 connection with the bankruptcy proceeding. This is just a\n2 draft version of it that was produced by that party in\n3 discovery to the trustee.\n4 THE COURT: So are you saying that the final document\n5 is something that we have a stipulation on?\n6 MR. FERGENSON: No, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: No.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: I don't think they're objecting to the\n9 final.\n10 THE COURT: They're not objecting to the final.\n11 They're objecting to the——\n12 MR. FERGENSON: I'm not certain. That was my——maybe\n13 I'm assuming. I thought it was the draft.\n14 MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, I can clear that up. We\n15 won't object to the final coming in.\n16 THE COURT: But you do object to the draft.\n17 MR. KAMARAJU: We had objected to the draft, your\n18 Honor. Frankly, I was curious about what the basis for\n19 authentication was that Mr. Fergenson was going to address for\n20 the draft.\n21 THE COURT: Well, it's the problem of authentication\n22 that he's raising.\n23 MR. KAMARAJU: Right. I raised the problem of\n24 authentication because I don't think it comports with your\n25 Honor's prior ruling. For example, we dealt with this issue\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 with the G Club documents in Ms. Reyes's testimony, and the\n2 government offered them, said that Ms. Reyes could authenticate\n3 them on the basis of her recognizing the signatures and\n4 recognizing those documents as being sort of the packet that\n5 G|CLUBS had typically used. So because she had sort of inside\n6 knowledge, right, because she worked there. Mr. Skalka doesn't\n7 have that.\n8 I think, your Honor, that if I have a discussion with\n9 Mr. Fergenson, we may be able to resolve this issue as well.\n10 THE COURT: I hope so. So you'll talk to each other,\n11 and we'll start at 9:30.\n12 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n14 (Recess)\n15 THE COURT: Would you have the jurors brought in.\n16 (Continued on next page)\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 (Jury present)\n2 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n3 Good morning, jurors.\n4 THE JURORS: Good morning.\n5 THE COURT: Welcome back.\n6 Due to circumstances beyond my control and the control\n7 of the parties, it looks like we're going to need some extra\n8 time; otherwise, I don't think we'll be able to finish by\n9 July 12th. And so I would like you to stay until 5\n10 tomorrow——Tuesday——and Wednesday. So today we stop at 2:45.\n11 Tomorrow you'd be staying until 5, Wednesday until 5, Thursday\n12 until 2:45, and Friday off.\n13 Is there anyone who absolutely cannot do that? If you\n14 would just state your number.\n15 JUROR: 10.\n16 THE COURT: And what is it that you're not able to——\n17 JUROR: I can't on Wednesday. I have——\n18 THE COURT: I can't hear you.\n19 JUROR: I can't on Wednesday.\n20 THE COURT: But tomorrow you can. Okay.\n21 JUROR: I can't on Wednesday either.\n22 THE COURT: So we will not be in session until 5 on\n23 Wednesday.\n24 All righty. So let's continue with the examination of\n25 the witness.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor. The government calls\n2 Amy Buck.\n3 THE COURT: All righty.\n4 (Witness sworn)\n5 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it.\n6 THE WITNESS: Amy Buck Faundez. A-M-Y, B-U-C-K,\n7 F-A-U-N-D-E-Z.\n8 THE COURT: You may inquire.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n10 AMY BUCK FAUNDEZ,\n11 called as a witness by the Government,\n12 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n13 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n14 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n15 Q. Good morning, Ms. Buck.\n16 A. Good morning.\n17 Q. Where do you live?\n18 A. New Jersey.\n19 Q. What do you do for work?\n20 A. I'm a real estate attorney.\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could please publish\n22 Government Exhibit Z12, at page 19.\n23 Q. Ms. Buck, have you ever seen this before?\n24 A. I have not.\n25 Q. Focusing you on the bottom right, can you read the text in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 the bottom right box.\n2 A. Buck Esq LLC, Attorney Trust Account.\n3 Q. What's the name of your LLC?\n4 A. Buck Esq LLC.\n5 Q. Were you involved in the purchase of the property at 675\n6 Ramapo Valley Road in Mahwah, New Jersey?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. What's the name you refer to that property as?\n9 A. Crocker Mansion.\n10 Q. And what was your role in the purchase?\n11 MS. SHROFF: May I have the exhibit taken down if it's\n12 not being used.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: That's fine, your Honor. We can take\n14 it down.\n15 THE COURT: Okay.\n16 Q. And I'm sorry, Ms. Buck. What was your role in the\n17 purchase of the Crocker Mansion?\n18 A. I represented the purchaser in the transaction.\n19 Q. After the purchase did you continue to perform work in\n20 connection with the Crocker Mansion?\n21 A. I did.\n22 Q. And at a high level, what did you do?\n23 A. I paid invoices to various contractors and vendors in\n24 relation to the property.\n25 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, in whose name was title to the Crocker\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Mansion held?\n2 A. Taurus Fund LLC.\n3 Q. And based on your work with the Crocker Mansion, who did\n4 you understand to own the Crocker Mansion as a practical\n5 matter?\n6 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n7 THE COURT: You may answer.\n8 A. A family.\n9 Q. Do you know the name of the family?\n10 A. I do not.\n11 Q. Did you ever meet them?\n12 A. I did not.\n13 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Buck, let's back up. How do you\n14 typically get business in your real estate practice?\n15 A. Through word of mouth and referrals.\n16 Q. Was the Crocker Mansion a referral?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And approximately when was it referred to you?\n19 A. The beginning of December of 2021.\n20 Q. And who referred it?\n21 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n22 Q. And in your initial conversation did you speak with Aaron\n23 Mitchell or someone else?\n24 A. I spoke with his wife Dara.\n25 Q. And what's her last name?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Lawall, L-A-W-A-L-L. I believe that's the name she\n2 practices under. I'm not certain.\n3 Q. And what's her occupation?\n4 A. She's an attorney with her husband.\n5 Q. Now in that initial conversation what did you discuss with\n6 Ms. Lawall?\n7 A. She called me.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Objection to hearsay.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: It's an agent——\n10 THE COURT: You can testify as to the nature of the\n11 discussion.\n12 THE WITNESS: Okay.\n13 A. She reached out to refer this particular matter to me. She\n14 told me the clients were like family to her and they were very\n15 important to them. And she also wanted to inquire about my\n16 ability to do a accelerated transaction. It was a quick cash\n17 transaction.\n18 Q. And Ms. Buck, was it your understanding she represented\n19 this family?\n20 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the leading.\n21 THE COURT: So the witness can testify about the\n22 subject matter but not about actual words stated by the\n23 individual.\n24 MR. FERGENSON: We may need a brief sidebar, your\n25 Honor.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 THE COURT: Okay.\n2 (At the sidebar)\n3 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Lawall is the wife of Aaron\n4 Mitchell. They have a law firm together, Lawall & Mitchell.\n5 It's a law firm that represents the defendant. They acted as\n6 his agent in the purchase of this New Jersey property. And\n7 so——\n8 THE COURT: The nature of the agency?\n9 MR. FERGENSON: Is the attorney's relationship.\n10 THE COURT: Okay.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: And so I think she can testify to what\n12 she was told by the agents of the defendant.\n13 MS. SHROFF: She's not an agent of Mr. Guo. She's a\n14 lawyer who practices law. He's somebody she's married to, but\n15 she's a separate lawyer. I mean, women do get married and\n16 still maintain a very separate professional existence. She\n17 does not have an attorney-client relationship and she's not\n18 acting as the agent.\n19 THE COURT: Is there an attorney-client relationship\n20 with Mr. Guo?\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Yes. That's what she will testify to.\n22 Ms. Lawall, the testimony will be that they have a very\n23 important client to them, it's a family, they're looking for\n24 someone to help quickly close on this property in Mahwah.\n25 That's perfectly permissible for her to explain what she was\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 told about the representation by the attorney for the defendant\n2 and his family.\n3 THE COURT: In addition to that, can you just give me\n4 a feel for what else you're going to elicit.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: Yeah, of course. So that's the\n6 initial conversation. After this initial conversation with\n7 Ms. Lawall, she accepts the referral, and then thereafter, her\n8 primary point of contact is Aaron Mitchell, Ms. Lawall's\n9 husband, also the attorney of the defendant of the same law\n10 firm that, you know, the husband and wife's shop. And\n11 thereafter, he's the point of contact, the representative, of\n12 Taurus Fund and the family. And she deals with him and with\n13 others such as Scott Barnett, the defendant's primary\n14 bodyguard; Gladys Chow, the defendant's translator; Sean Jing,\n15 another of the defendant's personal assistants; and she has\n16 communications with them about the closing on the property and\n17 then also payment of invoices for renovations for the family on\n18 the property, purchasing furnishings for the property, you\n19 know, various other works that they use to trace back to\n20 investor money that was sent to Crane and sent to Hamilton and\n21 then to Ms. Buck. That's, in essence, her testimony.\n22 THE COURT: Short witness then.\n23 MR. FERGENSON: That's what I'm hoping, your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to allow the\n25 testimony.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I just wanted to make sure\n2 it's noted, we have no objection to Aaron Mitchell and the\n3 remaining people. The government's argument here is designed\n4 to sort of obfuscate the issue. The person I'm objecting to\n5 the hearsay coming in is conversations with Ms. Lawall, who\n6 does not represent the Guo family, has not had any\n7 attorney-client relationship, and that is the narrow scope of\n8 my objection. Mr. Fergenson here went off as to all of the\n9 other people, who, arguably, they've already identified as\n10 agents or, quote-unquote, co-conspirators, but not this woman.\n11 So my objection is narrow, just to this woman's hearsay\n12 interactions with this lawyer.\n13 THE COURT: But I understand him to say that she had\n14 these dealings with the Guo entity.\n15 MS. SHROFF: There is no such evidence. There is only\n16 evidence of a referral. We have no——I'm not finished, sir.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: If I may respond. The Court is\n18 looking at me.\n19 THE COURT: One moment.\n20 MR. FERGENSON: You're correct.\n21 THE COURT: So I'm allowing the testimony.\n22 MS. SHROFF: Where is the relationship between her and\n23 the Guo family?\n24 THE COURT: So he seeks to elicit that testimony, and\n25 I'm relying on his representation as an officer of the court.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Let's go.\n2 (In open court)\n3 THE COURT: You may continue.\n4 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n5 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n6 Q. Ms. Buck, what did Ms. Lawall tell you about her client in\n7 that conversation?\n8 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Assumes facts not in\n9 evidence.\n10 Q. What, if anything, did Ms. Lawall tell you about her\n11 client——\n12 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n13 Q. ——in that conversation?\n14 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Assumes facts not in\n15 evidence.\n16 THE COURT: You'll establish the relationship first.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, it's just what she was\n18 told.\n19 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n20 THE COURT: This is a conversation between whom and\n21 whom?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Between Ms. Buck and Ms. Lawall.\n23 THE COURT: Okay. Yes, you may continue. You may\n24 answer.\n25 A. She told me that they were clients of theirs for a long\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 time and they were like family to them.\n2 Q. Did she tell you the client's name?\n3 A. She did not.\n4 Q. Did you understand——\n5 THE COURT: And just for the benefit of the jury,\n6 Ms. Buck is who? You're Ms. Buck.\n7 THE WITNESS: Me.\n8 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure\n9 that we know all the parties. Go ahead.\n10 MR. FERGENSON: Understood, your Honor. Thank you.\n11 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n12 Q. All right. And did you and Ms. Lawall discuss your fees?\n13 A. We did.\n14 Q. And what were your fees?\n15 A. $2,000.\n16 Q. Did you accept the referral from Ms. Lawall?\n17 A. I did.\n18 Q. After you spoke with Ms. Lawall, who was your primary\n19 contact for the Crocker Mansion deal?\n20 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n21 Q. And what did Aaron Mitchell say his role was?\n22 A. He was the authorized representative for the Taurus Fund.\n23 Q. And did Aaron Mitchell tell you the name of the family he\n24 represented?\n25 A. He did not.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Assumes facts not in\n2 evidence.\n3 THE COURT: You may answer.\n4 A. He did not.\n5 Q. And Ms. Buck, you can adjust the microphone. If you could\n6 pull it close to you. And you could point it right at your\n7 mouth. It will be easier to hear you.\n8 A. There we go. Better?\n9 Q. Much better. Thank you.\n10 A. Sorry.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: All right. May I approach, your\n12 Honor?\n13 THE COURT: You may.\n14 Q. All right. Ms. Buck, what did I just hand you?\n15 A. The witness binder.\n16 Q. And have you reviewed the government exhibits in that\n17 binder previously?\n18 A. I have.\n19 Q. Does it contain documents you and your company provided to\n20 the government from your work——\n21 MS. SHROFF: Objection to leading.\n22 THE COURT: You may answer.\n23 Q. ——from your work at Crocker Mansion?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. Does it contain invoices and other records related to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 payments you made on behalf of Taurus Fund?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Is it fair to say Buck Esq LLC regularly maintains such\n4 records as part of its business?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Does it also contain communications with agents of Taurus\n7 Fund?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: All right. The government offers the\n10 exhibits in the binder. These are all in the GX BUCK, B-U-C-K,\n11 series. These are Government Exhibits 34, 44, 48, 49, 50, 60,\n12 63, 69, 77, 80, 115, 117, 127, 131, 133, 138, 141, 168, 174,\n13 194, 218, 221, 227, 232, 235, 236, 241, 243, 375, 391, 428,\n14 522, 524, 532, 709, 822, 851, 1204, 1260, 1261, and then 1274\n15 through 1291, and 1293 through 1296. And the government offers\n16 those exhibits.\n17 MS. SHROFF: We're not going to massively agree to the\n18 admission of these exhibits. Your Honor, I don't have an\n19 authentication issue, but to the extent that we have hearsay\n20 and other objections, we maintain them.\n21 THE COURT: All righty. They are admitted.\n22 (Government's Exhibits BUCK 34, BUCK 44, BUCK 48, BUCK\n23 49, BUCK 50, BUCK 60, BUCK 63, BUCK 69, BUCK 77, BUCK 80\n24 received in evidence)\n25 (Government's Exhibits BUCK 115, BUCK 117, BUCK 127,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 BUCK 131, BUCK 133, BUCK 138, BUCK 141, BUCK 168, BUCK 174,\n2 BUCK 194 received in evidence)\n3 (Government's Exhibits BUCK 218, BUCK 221, BUCK 227,\n4 BUCK 232, BUCK 235, BUCK 236, BUCK 241, BUCK 243 received in\n5 evidence)\n6 (Government's Exhibits BUCK 375, BUCK 391, BUCK 428,\n7 BUCK 522, BUCK 524, BUCK 532 received in evidence)\n8 (Government's Exhibits BUCK 709, BUCK 822, BUCK 851,\n9 BUCK 1204, BUCK 1260, BUCK 1261, and BUCK 1274-BUCK 1291, and\n10 BUCK 1293-BUCK 1296 received in evidence)\n11 MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, if we could also show\n12 the witness what's marked as GX BUCK 1292. Just the witness.\n13 And if you could scroll up briefly just so she can see\n14 it.\n15 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n16 Q. What kind of document is this, Ms. Buck?\n17 A. This is an Excel spreadsheet of the payments made.\n18 Q. And did you create this Excel spreadsheet?\n19 A. I did.\n20 Q. Was that part of your work on behalf of Buck Esq LLC for\n21 the Taurus Fund?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. And is this another business record for Buck Esq LLC?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Government\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Exhibit 1292.\n2 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I just have a brief voir\n3 dire.\n4 THE COURT: Yes.\n5 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION\n6 BY MS. SHROFF:\n7 Q. Ms. Buck, when was this document created?\n8 A. I don't remember the exact date, but from the beginning, I\n9 started this Excel spreadsheet, when I started making payments.\n10 Q. And you maintained the Excel sheet throughout the course of\n11 your representation?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 MS. SHROFF: Okay. I have no objection, your Honor.\n14 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n15 (Government's Exhibit BUCK 1292 received in evidence)\n16 THE COURT: Would you please repeat the number of the\n17 exhibit.\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor. This is 1292. It's\n19 GX BUCK 1292.\n20 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n22 All right. We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n23 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n24 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Buck, after you accepted the referral\n25 for Crocker Mansion, what, if anything, did you do to formalize\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 the engagement?\n2 A. I drafted an engagement letter.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, if we could show\n4 what's now in evidence as GX BUCK 1296.\n5 Q. All right. And what's this document?\n6 A. This is the engagement letter I drafted for this\n7 transaction.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: All right. And if we could scroll\n9 down.\n10 Q. All right. And who signed on behalf of Taurus Fund?\n11 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n12 Q. And what did he write in the signature line?\n13 A. He wrote Attorney-in-Fact.\n14 Q. And what's an Attorney-in-Fact?\n15 A. It's similar to like a power of attorney. He has the\n16 authorization to sign on behalf of an entity.\n17 THE COURT: And what is an engagement letter?\n18 THE WITNESS: An engagement letter is something that\n19 attorneys use, or I use in my real estate business when I'm\n20 representing either a buyer or a seller, to formalize the\n21 engagement and to give the——the client information on the price\n22 and if——if any variables come up in the representation.\n23 THE COURT: What do you mean by engagement?\n24 THE WITNESS: They hire me to represent them.\n25 THE COURT: Go ahead.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n2 All right. And we can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n3 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n4 Q. After accepting——or after the engagement letter, Ms. Buck,\n5 what did you do next?\n6 A. I called the title company.\n7 Q. What was the name of the title company?\n8 A. Insight Title agency.\n9 Q. And what was their role in the purchase?\n10 A. They provided the title commitment and policy and they were\n11 the settlement agent, so they handled the funds for the\n12 transaction.\n13 Q. What's a settlement agent?\n14 A. A settlement agent is typically a title company. In New\n15 Jersey, that's how we do the transactions. They receive the\n16 deposit, the buyer's funds, they receive funds from possibly a\n17 lender if one's involved, and then they disburse the funds in\n18 accordance with the closing statement.\n19 Q. And after the title company and the engagement letter, what\n20 did you do next?\n21 A. I asked for a copy of the contract.\n22 Q. What was the contract price?\n23 A. 26 million.\n24 Q. And what were the terms of payment for the 26 million?\n25 A. It was a $2 million deposit. The balance was due at\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 closing. There was no mortgage contingency.\n2 Q. And when you say no mortgage contingency, what does that\n3 mean to a layperson?\n4 A. It's a cash deal. All the money is coming from the buyer.\n5 Q. And who was the buyer listed on the contract?\n6 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Asked and answered.\n7 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n8 A. Taurus Fund SP.\n9 Q. What is SP?\n10 A. I'm not really sure.\n11 Q. To your knowledge could an SP hold title to this property?\n12 A. No. I spoke to the title company about it, and it's not a\n13 recognized entity for title purposes in New Jersey.\n14 Q. What, if anything, did Aaron Mitchell tell you about Taurus\n15 Fund SP?\n16 A. He said they were going to form an LLC at closing.\n17 Q. And what entity ultimately held title to the property?\n18 A. Taurus Fund, LLC.\n19 Q. And how was Taurus Fund, LLC structured?\n20 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n21 THE COURT: Well, if you know.\n22 THE WITNESS: I do.\n23 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n24 A. It was formed in the state of Nevada, and it was a hundred\n25 percent member——excuse me——the 100 percent member was Taurus\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Fund——I'll start over.\n2 It was formed in Nevada. The sole member was Taurus\n3 Management, LLC.\n4 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, if we can show\n5 the witness what's in evidence as GX BUCK 1234.\n6 Q. All right. And what's this exhibit, Ms. Buck?\n7 A. This is a filed articles of organization for Taurus Fund,\n8 LLC.\n9 Q. In what state?\n10 A. Nevada.\n11 Q. And just to focus you sort of towards the top middle, when\n12 was it incorporated?\n13 A. December 16, 2021.\n14 Q. And how close was that to the closing date for the Crocker\n15 Mansion?\n16 A. I believe we closed the next day, on December 17th.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could scroll down to page 3,\n18 Ms. Loftus.\n19 And if we could zoom on the bottom half, just to make\n20 it larger.\n21 Q. Who were the managers of Taurus Fund, LLC?\n22 A. The managers were Taurus Management, LLC and Scott Barnett.\n23 Q. And——\n24 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm assuming the government\n25 is asking what the document notes as the manager, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 THE COURT: That is your question?\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor.\n3 THE COURT: As to what the document says?\n4 MR. FERGENSON: Yes.\n5 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n6 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n7 Q. And what's the address listed for those managers?\n8 A. 6628 Sky Pointe Drive, Suite 129-1071, Las Vegas, Nevada\n9 89131.\n10 Q. Same address for both?\n11 A. Correct.\n12 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Buck, who was Scott Barnett?\n13 A. He's the manager of——listed on this document for Taurus\n14 Fund, LLC. He was also a point of contact that I was\n15 authorized to receive invoices from and pay them accordingly.\n16 Q. What did you understand his connection to be, if any, to\n17 the family?\n18 A. I——I don't know. He was their——he set up their security\n19 systems, and he was handling a lot of the invoices and sending\n20 them to me and making sure they were paid. I don't know if he\n21 was a friend or an employee. I assumed he was an independent\n22 contractor.\n23 Q. You mentioned security. Were there significant security\n24 expenses that you helped pay?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, if we could go\n2 to GX BUCK 1233.\n3 Q. All right. What's this document, Ms. Buck?\n4 A. This is the filed articles of organization for Taurus\n5 Management, LLC.\n6 Q. And that's one of the managers of Taurus Fund, LLC?\n7 A. Correct.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the leading.\n9 THE COURT: So we can do this the long way or we can\n10 do it more efficiently. The objection is overruled.\n11 Q. All right. And if we could just——oh, Ms. Buck, quickly,\n12 where was Taurus Management, LLC incorporated?\n13 A. New Mexico.\n14 MS. SHROFF: The objection is asked and answered now.\n15 MR. FERGENSON: I did not ask that.\n16 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could scroll to page 2.\n18 Q. All right. And when was Taurus Management, LLC\n19 incorporated?\n20 A. December 15, 2021.\n21 Q. And how close was that to the incorporation of Taurus Fund,\n22 LLC?\n23 A. It was the day before.\n24 MR. FERGENSON: We can take it down, Ms. Loftus.\n25 Q. Ms. Buck, what, if anything, did Aaron Mitchell tell you\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 about the reasons for this structure?\n2 A. He said the client was very concerned about privacy and\n3 security and they took great length to protect their privacy\n4 and stay secure.\n5 Q. And what was your reaction to that?\n6 A. Given the price point of the property, I assumed it was a\n7 celebrity or high-net-worth individual, so I wasn't surprised\n8 by the level of security.\n9 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, approximately when was the closing date?\n10 A. On or around December 17, 2021.\n11 Q. And you said it was a cash deal, correct?\n12 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Asked and answered.\n13 THE COURT: Move on.\n14 Q. Who or what entity sent the cash to buy the property?\n15 A. At the time I don't know because I wasn't the settlement\n16 agent. It was sent to the title company.\n17 Q. And did you later learn?\n18 A. I later learned it was from Hamilton.\n19 Q. To your understanding what was Hamilton?\n20 A. My understanding, it was like a parent company to Taurus\n21 Fund, since it was a newly formed entity.\n22 Q. And where did that understanding of yours come from?\n23 A. From conversations with Aaron Mitchell.\n24 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, after the closing, what work did you do?\n25 A. After the closing, I paid invoices on behalf of Taurus Fund\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 for various vendors and contractors.\n2 Q. And who was your primary contact for that work?\n3 A. Initially, it was Aaron Mitchell.\n4 Q. And what, if anything, did Mitchell say about why you were\n5 asked to do that work?\n6 A. Because Taurus Fund was a newly formed entity, they haven't\n7 yet opened their bank accounts, and they had renovations and\n8 work being done right after closing, so it was a short-term\n9 assignment.\n10 Q. And could you just describe for the jury, you know, what\n11 your work entailed.\n12 A. I would receive nondisclosure agreements and invoices to\n13 review; I would be told if they were installment contracts,\n14 what to pay on them, who to pay; I would verify the wire\n15 instructions, and I would send out wires from my trust account.\n16 Q. And around when did you start this work?\n17 A. Immediately after closing.\n18 Q. And until when, approximately, did you continue making\n19 these payments?\n20 A. Until February of 2023.\n21 Q. Generally speaking, Ms. Buck, how frequently were you\n22 making payments?\n23 A. Frequently. Sometimes multiple times a day, sometimes\n24 daily. It was sometimes every few days. It was pretty\n25 constant.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. What sorts of things were you paying for?\n2 A. Construction and renovation, furnishings, artwork,\n3 furniture.\n4 Q. Overall, what was the approximate total amount you handled\n5 for payment?\n6 A. Approximately 18 million.\n7 Q. And the money that you paid to vendors, where was that\n8 money coming to your trust account from?\n9 A. It was coming from Hamilton.\n10 Q. Do you know where Hamilton got that money from?\n11 A. I do not.\n12 Q. Did you think you were doing anything wrong when making\n13 these payments?\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, we looked at the engagement letter earlier.\n16 Did you have an engagement letter for this payment work?\n17 A. It was a less formal engagement letter. It was through an\n18 email, but yes, it was documented.\n19 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could publish\n20 GX BUCK 1295.\n21 And if we could go to page 2. And scroll down\n22 slightly. That's good.\n23 Q. Is this the email, Ms. Buck?\n24 A. Yes, it is.\n25 Q. All right. And who did you send this email to?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n2 Q. All right. And I'll ask you to please read the first\n3 paragraph.\n4 A. \"As you know, the purchase of the above-referenced\n5 transaction has closed. You, as authorized person for the\n6 Taurus Fund, LLC, have requested my continued representation in\n7 connection with the purchase, delivery and coordination of\n8 various furnishings and interaction with various\n9 companies/vendors in connection therewith. As Taurus Fund, LLC\n10 is a new entity and in process of opening bank accounts, I will\n11 utilize my trust account to receive funds from or on behalf of\n12 Taurus Fund, LLC to pay various vendors. I will also negotiate\n13 Non Disclosure Agreements with the vendors to ensure protection\n14 of the Buyer and its information. The expectation is that\n15 there is approximately five vendors that I will be coordinating\n16 with and Scott Barnett is the authorized person/manager of\n17 Taurus Fund, LLC who will give me directions and written\n18 authorization to make payments.\"\n19 Q. Now just to pause there, Ms. Buck, when you said towards\n20 the middle there that Taurus Fund, LLC is in the process of\n21 opening bank accounts, where did you get that information from?\n22 A. That information was from Aaron Mitchell and Scott Barnett.\n23 Q. And you referenced nondisclosure agreements. How common\n24 are those in your practice?\n25 A. In a typical real estate transaction, residential, not as\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 standard; in commercial, they're a little more standard.\n2 Usually bigger transactions.\n3 Q. Did you think there was anything wrong with using\n4 nondisclosure agreements?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. All right. And I won't make you read it, Ms. Buck, but\n7 what was your fee for this work initially?\n8 A. $15,000.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could scroll up, please.\n10 I'm sorry. Scroll back down.\n11 Q. What did Aaron Mitchell say in response?\n12 A. \"Confirmed on behalf of Taurus.\"\n13 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could scroll back up. And\n14 keep scrolling up. Great.\n15 Q. All right. Now what's the date of this top email,\n16 Ms. Buck?\n17 A. February 21, 2022.\n18 Q. And about how long after the initial email is this email?\n19 A. Approximately two months.\n20 Q. And who did you send this email to?\n21 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n22 Q. All right. And Ms. Buck, I'll ask you to please read the\n23 first three paragraphs.\n24 A. \"I hope you are well. As previously discussed, my\n25 representation has surpassed our initial agreement and you\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 wanted me to present my fees for previous work performed and\n2 ongoing monthly fee if the same arrangement is to continue.\n3 \"As you may recall, my representation was to cover\n4 payments to approximately 5 vendors, handling approximately\n5 $2 million in client funds and conclude in about a month. I\n6 had one point of contact at the time, Scott (not including\n7 you). My fee was a flat fee of $15,000. Such arrangement was\n8 confirmed on December 21, 2021.\n9 \"To date, over $10 million of client funds have been\n10 wired to my account. Over 55 payments have been made to\n11 approximately 23 vendors. I have three points of contact,\n12 Scott, Sean, and Gladys (again not including you). As you\n13 know, wire instructions are verified verbally, NDAs, COIs and\n14 invoices are reviewed by me. I also discuss priorities of\n15 payments with the points of contact, review monies remaining\n16 and any other questions they may have.\"\n17 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, the increase you reference, $10 million and\n18 from 5 vendors to 23, was that discussed with you beforehand or\n19 did they just happen?\n20 A. They happened.\n21 Q. What was your reaction to that?\n22 A. I wasn't happy. That wasn't what our——that wasn't what the\n23 arrangement was, but I was trying to help a client continue on\n24 with their renovations so I didn't want to get in the way.\n25 Q. And again, Ms. Buck, just briefly, what was your ongoing\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 fee for this work going forward?\n2 A. $15,000.\n3 Q. And how often would you get $15,000?\n4 A. Monthly. It was earned.\n5 Q. All right. Now in what you read, you listed three points\n6 of contact. You referenced Scott. Which Scott is that?\n7 A. Scott——excuse me——Scott Barnett.\n8 Q. The one we discussed earlier?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. All right. And Sean, who was Sean?\n11 A. Sean Jing was also a point of contact that I was authorized\n12 to receive invoices from and pay them accordingly.\n13 Q. Did you ever meet him in person?\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. Did you talk to him on the phone?\n16 A. Quite frequently.\n17 Q. And what kinds of things did you talk about?\n18 A. He would send me invoices, he'd check on payments, he would\n19 prioritize payments.\n20 Q. Do you know what company, if any, he worked for formally?\n21 A. I don't know formally.\n22 Q. Do you know what his title was?\n23 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Title to what?\n24 THE COURT: You may answer.\n25 A. He was I think the project manager or the house manager.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 He seemed to be one at the Crocker Mansion so he knew what was\n2 getting done.\n3 Q. Did you have an understanding of who he worked for?\n4 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n5 A. He worked——\n6 THE COURT: Overruled. If you know who he worked for,\n7 you may say.\n8 A. He worked for Taurus Fund. I'm just not sure in what\n9 capacity.\n10 Q. And you also mentioned another point of contact, Gladys.\n11 Who was Gladys?\n12 A. Gladys Chow was another authorized person who sent me\n13 invoices.\n14 Q. Did you ever meet her in person?\n15 A. I did not.\n16 Q. Did you talk to her on the phone?\n17 A. I did.\n18 Q. What kinds of things did you discuss?\n19 A. She seemed to be in charge of the higher-end furnishings\n20 and artwork, so she would prioritize what needed to be paid and\n21 when.\n22 Q. And do you know what her title was?\n23 A. I think she——I think she was a project manager too.\n24 MS. SHROFF: Objection to \"think.\" Either she knows\n25 or doesn't know.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 THE COURT: So if you'll just state what you know as\n2 opposed to guessing.\n3 THE WITNESS: Understood. On some emails I saw\n4 her——her title as project manager.\n5 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n6 Q. And sort of formally, do you know what company she worked\n7 for?\n8 A. No.\n9 Q. As a practical matter, who did you understand she worked\n10 for?\n11 A. She was an agent of Taurus Fund. I don't know if she had\n12 her own company or——I don't know the extent.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Now, Ms. Loftus, if we\n14 could publish GX BUCK 822.\n15 Q. And Ms. Buck, you mentioned earlier that there were\n16 security-related expenses. What sorts of security-related\n17 expenses do you recall?\n18 A. There was a security system put in place; there was I'm\n19 sure cameras type of things; anyone on the property that was\n20 coming on the property signed what's called a non-disclosure\n21 agreement. That was for their protection of the buyer. I\n22 don't re——there was a lot of invoices. I'm sure——there was a\n23 lot of security invoices as well.\n24 Q. And in terms of dollar amount, were they significant?\n25 A. I believe so.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Buck, let me direct your attention to\n2 this.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could zoom on the bottom\n4 email, please, Ms. Loftus.\n5 Q. All right. Now Ms. Buck, could you please read this email\n6 you wrote.\n7 A. \"Hi Scott\n8 \"Please send me a copy of the signed NDA and $100,000\n9 invoice from the above-referenced vendor. In addition, please\n10 provide authorization to wire $100,000 to this vendor.\"\n11 Q. All right. And what's the date of this email, Ms. Buck?\n12 A. December 22, 2021.\n13 Q. And how soon into your payment work was this email?\n14 A. In the first week.\n15 Q. And in the To line, in the header section, who is this\n16 email to?\n17 A. Frontsight1@outlook.com.\n18 Q. And whose email is that?\n19 A. Scott Barnett.\n20 Q. And who is copied?\n21 A. I'm sorry?\n22 Q. Who's copied on the email?\n23 A. Oh, I'm sorry. Aaron Mitchell.\n24 Q. All right. Now your email body said \"the above-referenced\n25 vendor.\" What's the subject line of the email?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Taurus-Payment to Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC.\n2 Q. And what was Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC?\n3 A. It's a construction company.\n4 Q. Were you in contact with anyone there?\n5 A. A person by the name of Vinnie Labarbiera.\n6 Q. And who is Vinnie Labarbiera?\n7 A. He was the owner.\n8 Q. And what, if anything, did he do with respect to the\n9 Crocker Mansion.\n10 A. He did a lot of construction work. He also had a monthly I\n11 believe maintenance contract with Taurus Fund.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: All right. And if we could zoom out.\n13 And then if we could just zoom on the top email.\n14 Thank you, Ms. Loftus.\n15 Q. What did Scott Barnett write in reply?\n16 A. \"Attached are the documents you requested and I am\n17 authorizing the payment to the vendor.\"\n18 Q. All right. And are there attachments to that email?\n19 A. Yes, there are.\n20 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, if we could\n21 scroll down. We can go to page 7.\n22 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Buck, at the top here, can you read\n23 the very top line at the top center.\n24 A. LABARBIERA CUSTOM HOMES LLC.\n25 Q. And then directing you a little bit downward, what's the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 date of this document?\n2 A. December 18, 2021.\n3 Q. And then could you please read the Re line beneath that.\n4 A. \"Taurus Fund SP.\n5 \"675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah.\n6 \"Construction Agreement.\"\n7 Q. And could you read the sentence beneath that.\n8 A. \"Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC to provide the following at\n9 the above-referenced premises.\"\n10 MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, if we could like\n11 scroll slightly to see both pages.\n12 Q. All right. And Ms. Buck, I want to focus you underneath\n13 where it says Demolition Work to Be Provided in the Following\n14 Areas: Can you read the text beneath that.\n15 A. \"2nd level ladies master wing.\n16 \"3rd level sons wing.\n17 \"3rd level daughters wing.\n18 \"2nd level bedroom bath converted to laundry.\"\n19 Q. Ms. Buck, what's a wing?\n20 A. It's a section of the house. It may be how the house was\n21 built. It has different wings that they branch into.\n22 Q. Where it says \"master wing,\" what do you understand the\n23 master wing to be?\n24 A. Master is typically the primary heads of the households,\n25 spouses, husband and wife.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. And son wing, what do you understand that to refer to?\n2 A. Usually one of the children gets a wing.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's scroll down\n4 slightly, Ms. Loftus, please.\n5 Q. All right. And then focusing you on the bold text\n6 Daughter's Wing Level 3, can you just read the first line of\n7 text beneath that.\n8 A. \"Denoted walls to be removed.\"\n9 MR. FERGENSON: And we can zoom out, Ms. Loftus. And\n10 if we could scroll down again.\n11 Q. And focusing on Lady's Wing Level 2, can you read the first\n12 three lines of text.\n13 A. \"Denoted openings to be closed.\n14 \"Denoted openings formed as per plan.\n15 \"Marked walls to be removed.\"\n16 Q. And what do you understand Lady's Wing to mean?\n17 A. The wife of the husband and wife duo, the primaries.\n18 (Continued on next page)\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n2 Q. And where it says denoted openings formed as per plan. Do\n3 you recall reviewing a plan for that?\n4 A. I did not see the architectural plans.\n5 Q. And if we could just focusing you on son's wing level\n6 three. Could you read the first line of text beneath that?\n7 A. Existing theater platforms dividing wall and carpeting to\n8 be removed.\n9 Q. And let's go to page 10.\n10 Focusing you on the bottom, Ms. Buck, what was the\n11 total contract price for this work?\n12 A. $488,300.\n13 Q. Is this contract signed?\n14 A. This is not.\n15 MS. SHROFF: Objection. It's not a contract.\n16 Q. Is this document signed?\n17 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n18 A. It is not.\n19 Q. Let's go to GXBuck-168. Did you later receive a signed\n20 copy, Ms. Buck?\n21 A. I did.\n22 Q. And you can just scroll to page five, Ms. Loftus.\n23 Ms. Buck, is this copy signed?\n24 A. It is.\n25 Q. Do you know who signed on behalf of Taurus Fund, LLC?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. I believe that's Scott Barnett's.\n2 MS. SHROFF: Objection to believe. Either she knows\n3 or she doesn't know.\n4 THE COURT: Just testify as to what you know.\n5 A. Scott Barnett sent the signed contract to me.\n6 Q. And, Ms. Loftus, we can go to GXBuck-851. Let's actually\n7 start with page three if we could zoom in on the bottom email,\n8 Ms. Loftus.\n9 Ms. Buck, what's the date of this email?\n10 A. January 6, 2022.\n11 Q. And about how long had you been doing the payment work at\n12 this point?\n13 A. Less than a month.\n14 Q. Who is this email from?\n15 A. Gladys Chow.\n16 Q. And what is her email address?\n17 A. GladysC.@HCHKtech.com.\n18 Q. Do you know what HCHK Tech is?\n19 A. I do not.\n20 Q. Could you please read the first two lines of the email?\n21 A. Attached are the documents for the rugs purchase. There\n22 are two separate invoices, 300K attachment one, plus 200K --\n23 excuse me, 250K attachment two and the COI and NDA are attached\n24 as well.\n25 Q. By the way, Ms. Buck, what is a COI?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Certificate of insurance.\n2 Q. What's a certificate of insurance?\n3 A. They show that, in this instance, that the vendor has\n4 insurance cause they're carrying high-end furnishing so we want\n5 to see they're insured in case something happens.\n6 Q. And we can zoom out, Ms. Loftus. We can scroll up to page\n7 two. If we can zoom on that email, yes, please.\n8 Ms. Buck, could you please read your response?\n9 A. Hi, Gladys. I need fine rugs to sign off that we can\n10 directly pay the owner. They can write on their invoice or\n11 send email directing me to pay Nahid Botesazan. I also need\n12 wire instructions for Nahid. Scott, please authorize both\n13 payments for rugs.\n14 Q. Why did you ask Scott to authorize payments?\n15 A. In the beginning with Taurus, Aaron and Scott were only the\n16 authorized representatives at this point. Gladys wasn't\n17 authorized, so I needed someone to tell me to pay them.\n18 Q. Can we zoom in on the response. What did Gladys say in\n19 response?\n20 A. Attached is the email directing you to pay Nahid for the\n21 two Chinese rugs and the wire info of Nahid is attached too.\n22 Thank you.\n23 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I think it says, Hi Amy,\n24 comma, and then goes to the body of the email.\n25 THE COURT: Did you say you wanted to pause?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 MR. FERGENSON: No, I didn't want to interrupt you.\n2 THE COURT: If you would just state what it says.\n3 THE WITNESS: You want me to reread it?\n4 THE COURT: Yes.\n5 A. Hi Amy, attached is the email directing you to pay the\n6 Nahid for the two Chinese rugs, and the wire info of Nahid is\n7 attached too. Thank you. Regards.\n8 Q. If we can zoom out and scroll up. If we could zoom on\n9 Ms. Buck's email.\n10 Ms. Buck, in your response there's a image there.\n11 What is that image?\n12 A. That image is from my excel spreadsheet.\n13 Q. What was that excel spreadsheet tracking?\n14 A. The payments made on behalf of Taurus Fund.\n15 Q. If we could zoom out and scroll up. Then what does Gladys\n16 say in response?\n17 A. Please hold on with DND. The client wants to double\n18 confirm the items. Regards.\n19 Q. Who did you understand the client to refer to?\n20 A. The family.\n21 Q. If we could zoom out. Let's actually go to GX Buck-532.\n22 And if we could scroll down slightly.\n23 Ms. Buck, could you please read Gladys' initial email\n24 here?\n25 A. Hi Amy, attached please find document for furniture\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 purchase from DND gallery. Thank you, regards.\n2 Q. And let's go up. What did you write back in response?\n3 A. Hi Scott, please authorize payment if acceptable.\n4 Q. And if we could go to the next email.\n5 What did Gladys say in response?\n6 A. Hi Amy, here is the final invoice and the certificate of\n7 authenticity for a total of 41 items. The principal has\n8 approved and authorized the payment. Please process the\n9 payment today. Thank you so much, Gladys.\n10 Q. When she said the principal has approved and authorized the\n11 payment, who did you understand the principal to be?\n12 A. Someone in the family.\n13 Q. If we could zoom out, Ms. Loftus, if we could scroll down.\n14 And there's attachments to this email, right,\n15 Ms. Buck?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And could you read the description here, Ms. Buck?\n18 A. A very rare and unusual antique French Louie -- I don't\n19 remember my Roman numerals, XVI Gilt bronze mounted boule and\n20 silvered bronze rectangular form desk/center table of\n21 exceptional craftsmanship embellished with fine detail and\n22 adorned with gilt bronze figural mask 19th Century.\n23 Q. That's fine. Thank you. If we could just keep scrolling\n24 through. Thank you, Ms. Loftus. We can stop there.\n25 Ms. Loftus, if we can go to GX Buck-709.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Ms. Buck, focusing you on the top here, can you read\n2 the text in the top right corner?\n3 A. Flat rate elite.\n4 Q. And what does it say in large text to the left of that?\n5 A. Your move plan.\n6 Q. And focusing you sort of above that in smaller text, what's\n7 the name listed?\n8 A. Taurus Fund, LLC.\n9 Q. And what's the date on this document?\n10 A. January 18, 2022.\n11 Q. And about how soon after the closing is that?\n12 A. It's about a month.\n13 Q. And beneath the header, could you read the large text there\n14 what it says?\n15 A. I'm sorry. I don't know where you're referring.\n16 Q. Do you see, Your upcoming elite move there.\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Focusing you beneath that where it says where, do you see\n19 that?\n20 A. I do.\n21 Q. Could you please read the origin address?\n22 A. 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831, flights\n23 2.5.\n24 Q. Do you know that address in Greenwich, Connecticut?\n25 A. I do not.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. Did anyone tell you what it was?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Did anyone tell you who lived there?\n4 A. No.\n5 Q. Could you please read the destination address?\n6 A. 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07431, flights\n7 2.0.\n8 Q. And what's at that address?\n9 A. That's the Crocker mansion address.\n10 Q. And when was this move scheduled for, focusing you beneath\n11 that?\n12 A. Packing date Thursday, January 20, 2022.\n13 Q. And when were the move-in dates?\n14 A. Friday, January 21, 2022, and Friday January 28, 2022.\n15 Q. And, Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom out slightly.\n16 Beneath what we just looked at, Ms. Buck, what was the\n17 price for this move?\n18 A. $118,000.\n19 Q. If we could scroll to page two and if we can blow up the\n20 first few lines and make it larger.\n21 Ms. Buck, in the top left it says furniture, could you\n22 read on the left the first two lines there?\n23 A. One extra large cabinet in living room, 20 x 25 x 2 master\n24 bedroom.\n25 Q. And what's the line beneath that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. One gold orb 15 x 1 x 1 master bedroom, one cabinet storage\n2 extra large dining room.\n3 Q. Ms. Loftus, we can zoom out. We could go to page seven, if\n4 we could zoom on the signature.\n5 Now, Ms. Buck, you see it says E-sign at the top?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. What name is listed in large text there?\n8 A. Scott Barnett.\n9 Q. What does it say in the sign by row?\n10 A. Signed by Scott Barnett.\n11 Q. What's the email address signed by email?\n12 A. GladysC@HCHKtech.com.\n13 Q. And to your understanding who used that email?\n14 A. Gladys Chow.\n15 Q. Did Scott Barnett use that email?\n16 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n17 THE COURT: You may answer.\n18 A. He didn't use that email with me.\n19 Q. Let's go to GXBuck-1204, if we can zoom in on the text.\n20 Ms. Buck, is this one of the invoices you received for\n21 your payment work?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Did you pay this invoice?\n24 A. I did.\n25 Q. What does it say in the top left?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Meritt Plumbing.\n2 Q. And what's the date of this invoice focusing you on the top\n3 right?\n4 A. January 24, 2022.\n5 Q. What was the job location for this invoice?\n6 A. 373 Taconic Road Greenwich, Connecticut.\n7 Q. How does that address compare with the origin address that\n8 we just looked at?\n9 A. It's the same.\n10 Q. So beneath the address, what does it say after bill to?\n11 A. Sean.\n12 Q. Who did you understand Sean to refer to?\n13 A. Sean Jing.\n14 Q. Scrolling down or looking at the bottom, what was the total\n15 amount due on this invoice?\n16 A. $400.\n17 Q. Let's go to Government Exhibit Buck-375. Who's this email\n18 from?\n19 A. Gladys Chow.\n20 Q. What's the date on this email?\n21 A. January 27, 2022.\n22 Q. And just as a reference, about how long after the closing\n23 was this?\n24 A. A little over a month.\n25 Q. And who's this email to?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. It's to me and Scott Barnett.\n2 Q. What is Scott Barnett's email?\n3 A. ScottB@GSNYUS.com.\n4 Q. Do you know what GSNYUS is?\n5 A. I do not.\n6 Q. What's the subject line of this email?\n7 A. Hastens mattress purchase.\n8 Q. What's Hastens if you know?\n9 A. A mattress company.\n10 Q. Could you please read Gladys' email, the body?\n11 A. Hi, Amy, please find attached the client has approved\n12 already. Thanks.\n13 Q. Who did you understand the client to refer to?\n14 A. The family.\n15 Q. Are there attachments to this email?\n16 A. There are.\n17 Q. If we could scroll down to page three, Ms. Loftus. Who is\n18 this sales order book from?\n19 A. This is from Hastens.\n20 Q. And, Ms. Loftus, maybe we can blow up the top portion to\n21 make it easier to read. What's listed under bill to?\n22 A. Taurus Fund, LLC.\n23 Q. And is that the Las Vegas address?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And what's listed under ship to?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah.\n2 Q. Is that the Crocker mansion address?\n3 A. It is.\n4 Q. If we could scroll down, Ms. Loftus, if we can blow up the\n5 remainder of it starting with that chart.\n6 Ms. Buck, focusing you first on rows one and two, what\n7 are those items?\n8 A. Mattress and top mattress.\n9 Q. What color is listed for both of those items?\n10 MS. SHROFF: Objection as to relevance, what color is\n11 the mattress.\n12 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n13 A. Blue.\n14 Q. And how much is the mattress?\n15 A. $36,590.\n16 Q. How much is the top mattress?\n17 A. $5,590.\n18 Q. Focusing you on rows three and four, what are those items?\n19 A. Mattress and top mattress.\n20 Q. What color are those items?\n21 A. White.\n22 Q. And what's the price of the mattress?\n23 A. $36,210.\n24 Q. And the top mattress?\n25 A. $5,840.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. And then focusing you on row five, what's that item?\n2 A. Accessories.\n3 Q. And in the bold, what does it say there?\n4 A. Mattress cover.\n5 Q. And how many -- what's the quantity? How many pieces were\n6 there?\n7 A. Two.\n8 Q. And just focusing on the total cost, how much was this in\n9 total?\n10 A. The invoice or the cover?\n11 Q. The bold total after the discount?\n12 A. $80,829.21.\n13 Q. Let's go to GXBuck-522. If we could go to page three,\n14 scroll up slightly, and we can zoom in on the bottom one.\n15 Ms. Buck, is this the initial email we were just\n16 looking at?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. We could scroll up now. What did you write back?\n19 A. Hi, Scott, please approve the purchase. Gladys advises\n20 that the delivery will be made to her New York office address\n21 so NDA is not necessary. Thanks.\n22 Q. If we could scroll up.\n23 Ms. Buck, what was your understanding of why an NDA\n24 would not be needed if it was going to the New York office?\n25 A. If the vendor is not going to be on site at the Crocker\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 mansion, there's no need for NDA.\n2 Q. You wrote back again, can you read your next email?\n3 A. Apologies. It looks like you have a signed NDA and COI.\n4 Good on my end. Gladys, I assume there is another request that\n5 is being delivered to your office. Thanks.\n6 Q. Can you read Gladys' response like the first line?\n7 A. Correct. Mattress are still going to NJ.\n8 Q. The bottom line of her response?\n9 A. Only the piano is going to New York office first. Will\n10 send that invoice over as soon as I received it. Thanks.\n11 Q. Do you recall the address for the New York office,\n12 Ms. Buck?\n13 A. I do not.\n14 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could show GX Buck-69 or publish, please.\n15 While we're waiting, Ms. Buck, did you receive an\n16 invoice for a piano?\n17 A. I did.\n18 Q. If we could zoom in on the top half. In the top center,\n19 who's this bill of sale from?\n20 A. Faust Harrison Pianos.\n21 Q. And on the top right, what's the date?\n22 A. January 27, 2022.\n23 Q. The sold to, can you read the top line there?\n24 A. Taurus Fund, LLC.\n25 Q. And can you read the full ship to?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Gladys Chow, 3 Columbus Circle 20th floor, New York, New\n2 York 10019.\n3 Q. And do you know what was at that address, Ms. Buck?\n4 A. I do not.\n5 Q. And could you read the first line of the description,\n6 please?\n7 A. Bosendorfer 185VC Porsche # 49539 with custom bench.\n8 Q. Focusing you on the bottom right, what was the total due?\n9 A. $140,938.69.\n10 Q. Ms. Loftus, let's go now to GXBuck-428.\n11 What's the date of this email, Ms. Buck?\n12 A. February 17, 2022.\n13 Q. And focusing you on the from line, what's the email address\n14 in the from line?\n15 A. 675payable@proton mail.com.\n16 Q. What's that email address?\n17 A. It's an email address I received emails from Gladys Chow\n18 and Sean Jing.\n19 Q. Focusing on the bottom email, who signed this email?\n20 A. Gladys.\n21 Q. What did she list beneath that?\n22 A. Project manager.\n23 Q. Can you read just the first line underneath purchase, could\n24 you just read one and two, please?\n25 A. Hastens mattress $36,596.90, Cedric DuPont shipping\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 $38,651.80.\n2 Q. Focusing you on the header where it says attachments, could\n3 you please read the name of the first attachments, Ms. Buck?\n4 A. Hastens invoice daughter 2.17.22. pdf.\n5 Q. Who did you understand daughter to refer to?\n6 A. The daughter, the family.\n7 Q. If we can go to page two, please.\n8 Ms. Buck, just quickly here focusing you on rows one\n9 and two, what's the color indicated there?\n10 A. It's abbreviated, seem to be silver blue.\n11 Q. And we can zoom out. What's the total cost?\n12 A. $36,596.90.\n13 Q. If we can go to page six now, Ms. Loftus. We can zoom on\n14 the top half just make it larger.\n15 Now, the shipper origin, do you see that, Ms. Buck?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. Can you read the second line?\n18 A. Cedric DuPont Antiques.\n19 Q. Let's actually pull up GXBuck-77. Actually, Ms. Loftus, if\n20 we could do GXBuck-77 and GXBuck-80.\n21 Now, Ms. Buck, in both of these, what is the large\n22 text in the center?\n23 A. Cedric DuPont Antiques.\n24 Q. Focus on the document on the right, can you read the\n25 description there?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. A stunning and large scale Italian 19th Century wrought\n2 iron lantern.\n3 Q. Let's go to GXBuck-194, please. And we can zoom in on\n4 that.\n5 Now, Ms. Buck, focusing you on the top left there when\n6 it says date, what's the date?\n7 A. February 2, 2022.\n8 Q. And then moving over to the top right, what's the customer\n9 name?\n10 A. Sean Jing.\n11 Q. Back on the left under bill to, what are the first two\n12 lines?\n13 A. Taurus Funds LLC, Sean Jing.\n14 Q. In the email address listed at the bottom there, what's\n15 that email address?\n16 A. NewJ6909@protonmail.com.\n17 Q. Whose email address is that?\n18 A. Sean Jing.\n19 Q. The ship to, can you read the first line there?\n20 A. Sean Jing.\n21 Q. Is the Crocker mansion's address beneath that?\n22 A. Yes, it is.\n23 Q. Now, if we could just -- actually, I think you can see it.\n24 Can you read the description under order items?\n25 A. Samsung Q900 series, QN98Q900RBF, 98 inches, QLED Smart\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 TV-8K new.\n2 Q. To the right of that, what's the unit price?\n3 A. $59,969.\n4 Q. And what's the unit price for the freight?\n5 A. $2,818.54.\n6 Q. Let's go to GX Buck-218, please.\n7 Ms. Buck, is this an invoice you received as part of\n8 your work?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. What's the name of the company on the top left?\n11 A. Luca, Inc.\n12 Q. And beneath that on the right, what's the date?\n13 A. February 20, 2022.\n14 Q. And could you read the second line from the top under\n15 description?\n16 A. Painting and fixing boss door.\n17 Q. Could you read the second one from the bottom?\n18 A. Supplying and installing two towel racks for boss bathroom.\n19 Q. Who did you understand boss to be?\n20 A. The head of the family.\n21 Q. Did you ever meet anyone name boss?\n22 A. No.\n23 Q. Let's go to page two. Just quickly, can you read the\n24 second line from the top?\n25 A. Installation two closet rods in madam's laundry room.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. Let's go to GXBuck-391, please.\n2 Ms. Buck, focusing you on the top, whose this email\n3 from?\n4 A. Gladys Chow.\n5 Q. What's the date?\n6 A. March 29, 2022.\n7 Q. And if we could zoom out. Just focusing on the bottom\n8 email to focus you at the bottom there, Ms. Buck, can you read\n9 what it says after to?\n10 A. Golden Spring New York LTD.\n11 Q. Do you know what Golden Spring New York LTD is?\n12 A. I do not.\n13 Q. You can go to GX Buck-1275, please.\n14 Who sent this email to you, Ms. Buck?\n15 A. Gladys.\n16 Q. What's the date of this email?\n17 A. May 23, 2022.\n18 Q. And I'll ask you just to read the first line of the second\n19 paragraph?\n20 A. Attached please find the invoice wire instruction and COI\n21 for Amuneal bookcase.\n22 Q. In the same paragraph can you read the last line of that\n23 paragraph?\n24 A. The client has approved it already.\n25 Q. Who did you understand the client to be?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. The family.\n2 Q. If we could, Ms. Buck, could you read one more sentence,\n3 the next sentence there, There is no?\n4 A. There is no certificate of authenticity since it is not an\n5 antique item and is a custom-made piece for the client.\n6 Q. If we could scroll down to page three for the client.\n7 Under description, Ms. Buck, can you read just that first row\n8 right there?\n9 A. Brass bookcase.\n10 Q. If we can zoom on the top left, please, page two. It\n11 should be the same exhibit 1275, the top left.\n12 What does it say after attention?\n13 A. Leanne Leonal @ G Fashion.com.\n14 Q. Do you know what G Fashion is?\n15 A. I do not.\n16 Q. Do you know who Leanne is?\n17 A. I do not.\n18 Q. Can you read what it says after reference?\n19 A. Brass bookcase to match brass pantry.\n20 Q. And focusing on the bottom line, where was this being sent?\n21 A. 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New York.\n22 Q. Is that the Crocker mansion?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Let's go to GX Buck-1279, if we could scroll down, and we\n25 can zoom on the bottom email.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Ms. Buck, who is Ilona Musial?\n2 A. She was another authorized person that sent me invoices to\n3 pay.\n4 Q. What is the date of this email that she sent you?\n5 A. June 2, 2022.\n6 Q. Can you read her message, please.\n7 A. Hello Amy. It's Ilona Musial for the house manager for\n8 Crocker mansion. I am sending you some bills to pay. If this\n9 is not a problem, from now on I will be sending all invoices or\n10 bills directly to you skipping Scott. Thank you, Ilona Musial.\n11 Q. If we can zoom out and keep going up. Let's just go back\n12 up to page one. If we could zoom on the bottom email.\n13 Ms. Buck, just for context in this part of the email\n14 chain, who are you emailing with?\n15 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n16 Q. Can you read your email to Aaron Mitchell?\n17 A. Okay. She said she's taking the place of Scott, so I\n18 wasn't sure. She sent me two bills for Rockland Electric that\n19 are already paid. I can just let her know they are paid and\n20 paid the other ones. She knows we need sign NDA, COI, etc, for\n21 each contract/vendor.\n22 Q. If we could zoom out of that email and scroll to the top\n23 email. Can you just read Aaron Mitchell's first line response?\n24 A. I haven't spoken to her. Just found out they hired a house\n25 manager.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. When he said her, who did you understand her to be?\n2 A. Ilona Musial.\n3 Q. When he said found out they just hired a house manager, who\n4 did you understand the \"they\" to refer to?\n5 A. The family.\n6 Q. Let's go to GX Buck-1274. If we can just zoom on the\n7 bottom email, please. Who's this email from?\n8 A. Ilona Musial.\n9 Q. If you can read the first two lines of her email to you?\n10 A. Hello, Amy. Thank you for getting back to me. I spoke\n11 with Scott and Yvette, and from now on I would be sending\n12 payments to you to process them.\n13 Q. Do you know who Yvette is?\n14 A. I do not.\n15 Q. Did you ever meet her?\n16 A. No.\n17 Q. Did you ever speak with her directly?\n18 A. Not that I recall.\n19 Q. Do you know what company or companies she worked for?\n20 MS. SHROFF: I think she testified she doesn't know\n21 who Yvette is.\n22 THE COURT: Sustained.\n23 Q. Let's go to GX Buck-1277. If we can zoom on the top email,\n24 please. Who's this email from?\n25 A. Ilona Musial.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. Who is it to?\n2 A. Me, Amy Buck.\n3 Q. And who is copied?\n4 A. Scott Barnett and Sean Jing.\n5 Q. I'll ask you if you could just read the last sentence in\n6 the long paragraph there?\n7 A. We would need to hear from you daily if the payments went\n8 out because of the family requirement to pay all vendors on\n9 time and specially for priority transfers.\n10 Q. Who did you understand the family to refer to?\n11 A. The family behind Taurus Fund.\n12 Q. If we could go to GX Buck-1282.\n13 Ms. Buck, who did you understand Wayne Cao to be?\n14 A. I saw that name on invoices, so I assumed he was part of\n15 the family.\n16 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the assumption.\n17 THE COURT: Don't say what you assume. Just say what\n18 you know.\n19 A. I saw the name Cao on various invoices.\n20 Q. And if we could zoom on the bottom email. Who is this\n21 email from?\n22 A. Wayne Max Cao.\n23 Q. Could you please read just the main question there?\n24 A. Would you please give me a heads up when the balance of the\n25 fund is getting close to 200K.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. And what did you understand him to be referring to by\n2 balance of the fund?\n3 A. The balance of money in my trust account.\n4 Q. How did you respond?\n5 A. Absolutely not a problem.\n6 Q. Did you ever meet Wayne Cao in person?\n7 A. No.\n8 Q. Did you ever have a phone call with him?\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. What sort of interaction did you have with him?\n11 A. He would be copied on some emails or he sent emails that I\n12 was copied on, so only through emails I saw his name.\n13 Q. Let's go to GX Buck-1294.\n14 Is this another invoice you received as part of your\n15 work?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. If we could zoom on the top left, please.\n18 Now, can you read what's written in the bottom left?\n19 A. Cao residence, 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey\n20 07430.\n21 Q. Did you see Cao residence on other invoices you received as\n22 well?\n23 A. I did.\n24 Q. And then just focusing on the top right there, what does it\n25 say after customer number?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Cao.\n2 Q. You can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n3 Ms. Buck, in the witness binder you reviewed, did you\n4 select which documents went in that witness binder?\n5 A. I did not.\n6 Q. Did you receive, fair to say, many invoices?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And are all of them in that witness binder?\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, did there come a time when you received a\n11 subpoena in connection with your work?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Who was the subpoena from?\n14 A. The SEC.\n15 Q. And approximately when did you receive it?\n16 A. In May of 2022.\n17 Q. After receiving that subpoena, what did you do?\n18 A. I freaked out.\n19 Q. Why did you freak out?\n20 A. I'm not a litigator. I don't go to court. Subpoenas are\n21 very knew for me.\n22 Q. After freaking out, what did you do next?\n23 A. I immediately sent a copy to Aaron Mitchell and called him.\n24 Q. And what did you discuss with Aaron Mitchell?\n25 A. That I received a subpoena and next steps.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. What did he say to you?\n2 A. He was much calmer than me and said this is the cost of\n3 doing business and they would hire counsel and we'd move\n4 forward.\n5 Q. When he said, This is the cost of doing business, what did\n6 you understand that to mean?\n7 A. That they either weren't surprised about the subpoena or\n8 had other ones. I don't really know.\n9 Q. What, if anything, did he tell you about the family in\n10 connection with that call?\n11 A. He said that the government doesn't like the client cause\n12 they're part of the federalist party of China and the subpoena\n13 didn't seem unexpected.\n14 Q. Had you ever heard of the federalist party of China?\n15 A. No.\n16 Q. Do you follow Chinese politics?\n17 A. No.\n18 Q. Do you follow U.S China foreign relations?\n19 A. I try not to.\n20 Q. Do you know what the federalist party of China is?\n21 A. No.\n22 Q. When he said the government doesn't like them, do you have\n23 any independent knowledge of whether that's true?\n24 A. I do not.\n25 Q. After that conversation, Ms. Buck, what did you do in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 response to the subpoena?\n2 A. Counsel was hired and then I was communicating with counsel\n3 to respond to the subpoena.\n4 Q. And without getting into any discussions with your counsel,\n5 did your counsel ultimately respond to the subpoena on your\n6 behalf?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, did there come a time when the funds in your\n9 trust account were running low and not being refilled?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Approximately when was that?\n12 A. The first time was July of 2022.\n13 Q. And what, if anything, did you do as a result?\n14 A. Most of the contractors had my cell phone number. So when\n15 they weren't getting paid, I received a lot of calls, so I was\n16 reaching out to mostly Aaron to find out if the fund was going\n17 to be replenished so I could pay the various contractors.\n18 Q. What happened after that, after you reached out to Aaron?\n19 A. I don't remember the days, sometime later in July I did\n20 receive another wire.\n21 Q. Approximately how much was that?\n22 A. Five million.\n23 Q. Did that five million eventually run out?\n24 A. It did.\n25 Q. And what happened after that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. Around October, November of 2022, the funds were low again.\n2 I was trying to find out if my representation was concluding so\n3 I can turn over the records and whatever information was\n4 necessary for the next person. I wasn't being told any\n5 information. I was just getting the calls from the contractors\n6 of who wasn't getting paid.\n7 Eventually I did connect with Aaron, and he told me to\n8 reach out to someone else to find out about the funds and if\n9 they were going to be authorized to be paid through my trust\n10 account.\n11 Q. And where was that someone else located?\n12 A. The UK.\n13 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could publish GX Buck-1283. If we can\n14 zoom in on the text. Who is this invite from, Ms. Buck?\n15 A. David Fallon.\n16 Q. And what's the domain of his email address?\n17 A. Hamilton-IM.\n18 Q. And who is this invite to?\n19 A. Priya Patel, William Je, myself and Aaron Mitchell.\n20 Q. And what's the date of this invite?\n21 A. December 1, 2022.\n22 Q. And what's the subject?\n23 A. Buck Esq. LLC Taurus call.\n24 Q. And, Ms. Buck, did you have a call around this time?\n25 A. We did.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 Q. Who was on the call?\n2 A. I was on the call, Priya Patel. There were other\n3 individuals there male, I just don't know if Mr. Fallon and\n4 Mr. Je were on that call.\n5 Q. Who did you understand David Fallon to be?\n6 A. He was the person at Hamilton that authorized my payments\n7 and my monthly fee.\n8 Q. And who did you understand William Je to be?\n9 A. I don't know. I know he was part of Hamilton.\n10 Q. What did you discuss on this call?\n11 A. We discussed a couple of things. One of them was my\n12 counsel legal fee for responding to the subpoena. They wanted\n13 me to run a title search on the property. It's called a\n14 rundown, and it tells you if there's any liens that have been\n15 placed on the property. And also if I was going to continue in\n16 my role or if it was concluding and then transition to someone\n17 else.\n18 Q. Did they ask anything about the SEC subpoena?\n19 A. They also ask in connection with the legal fee from my\n20 counsel, they ask for a copy of the subpoena and our response.\n21 Q. Now, around this time, Ms. Buck, what was your\n22 understanding of whether some bills were still being paid?\n23 A. I got the impression from how the contractors were calling\n24 me that some payments were being paid from someone else and\n25 some weren't just from how they were calling me and telling me\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 what was paid and what wasn't, because I knew what I was paying\n2 and not paying.\n3 Q. Do you know where they were being paid from?\n4 A. Sean Jing was making payments.\n5 Q. Did you ever speak with him about that?\n6 A. I did.\n7 Q. Tell us about that conversation?\n8 A. I asked him if they set up bank accounts to move forward\n9 with payments, and he didn't really answer me. He just said he\n10 was taking care of it.\n11 Q. Ultimately were you able to pay the invoices that Taurus\n12 had due?\n13 A. At that time, no.\n14 Q. Let's go to -- actually, Ms. Loftus, if we could publish GX\n15 Buck-1290.\n16 Ms. Buck, what is this exhibit?\n17 A. This is a text message between me and Aaron Mitchell.\n18 Q. And are your text in green or in gray?\n19 A. Mine are in green.\n20 Q. If we could scroll down. The January 26 message, what year\n21 is that, January 26?\n22 A. 2024.\n23 Q. What did you write to Aaron Mitchell?\n24 A. Did you get this.\n25 Q. And what did you send him a screenshot of?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct\n1 A. A notice of a motion in connection with a bankruptcy\n2 matter.\n3 Q. If we could zoom on that again.\n4 Ms. Buck, focusing you on the caption where it says In\n5 Re. Can you read what it says after In Re?\n6 A. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.\n7 Q. Did you know who Ho Wan Kwok was?\n8 A. I do not.\n9 Q. Do you know who Luc Despins is?\n10 A. I do not.\n11 Q. Did you know about the bankruptcy before receiving this\n12 document?\n13 A. I did.\n14 Q. If we could zoom out and scroll down.\n15 What did Aaron Mitchell say? Actually, why don't I\n16 read Aaron Mitchell's responses and you can read yours.\n17 Yes, about 1,000 people got it.\n18 A. That sounds amazing.\n19 Q. Some people are fighting. So if they win, we win.\n20 A. Gotcha. Do I need counsel for this too?\n21 Q. Up to you, but I'm not getting counsel or responding.\n22 A. Gotcha.\n23 Q. Any further response to this with Aaron Mitchell?\n24 A. No.\n25 Q. After receiving -- without getting into any discussion with\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 counsel, what did you do?\n2 A. I responded to the subpoena.\n3 Q. We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n4 Ms. Buck, we discussed a number of people, correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And we discussed a few entities in connection with your\n7 work, right?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Did any of your contacts ever bring up the entity G/Club?\n10 A. No.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: May I have a moment, your Honor.\n12 Q. Ms. Buck, what's a HUD-1 statement?\n13 A. A HUD-1 is used for closings. It's where you see all the\n14 numbers for disbursement in a real estate transaction.\n15 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you. Nothing further.\n16 THE COURT: Cross examination.\n17 CROSS-EXAMINATION\n18 BY MS. SHROFF:\n19 Q. Good morning, Ms. Buck.\n20 A. Good morning.\n21 Q. Ms. Buck, how long have you been a lawyer?\n22 A. 23 years.\n23 Q. And you said you were not a litigator, correct?\n24 A. I am not.\n25 Q. I understand. Your primary practice was in real estate,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 correct?\n2 A. It is.\n3 Q. And it has always been in real estate; is that right?\n4 A. A majority of it.\n5 Q. And is it fair to say that your practice was initially New\n6 Jersey, then you moved to Florida and you moved back to New\n7 Jersey? Do I have the chronology generally correct?\n8 A. I'm only licensed in New Jersey and New York. Personally\n9 we did Florida once or twice.\n10 Q. And it didn't quite work out, right?\n11 A. Yeah.\n12 Q. You moved back to New Jersey?\n13 A. I did.\n14 Q. And unfortunately, I'm assuming you moved back to New\n15 Jersey during Covid, correct?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And when you moved back during Covid, at that time you did\n18 not have a physical office space; is that right?\n19 A. I have an office address that I use through a friend of\n20 mine, but I maintain a home office.\n21 Q. Can you help me with that last sentence again.\n22 A. I maintain a home office. I don't use that address for\n23 clients for safety, but I have an office address where mail\n24 goes and I can go to, to use for a conference room if I need\n25 to.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. So you use a friend's office address to get your mail,\n2 correct?\n3 A. Correct.\n4 Q. And then you work out of your home?\n5 A. Correct.\n6 Q. Which is, what, 90 percent of us did during Covid, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. Do you also have some kind of virtual office or do you use\n9 your friend's office space?\n10 A. Just my friend's.\n11 Q. And you testified that your practice is based in New\n12 Jersey?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And you talked about, is there a county named Darlington in\n15 New Jersey?\n16 A. I don't think so.\n17 Q. How about do you know -- is your practice county-based or\n18 just statewide?\n19 A. Statewide.\n20 Q. And you testified on direct, right, that you got a referral\n21 from someone name Dara Lawall, correct?\n22 A. Correct.\n23 Q. And did you know Dara from before?\n24 A. I met her through mutual friends.\n25 Q. And your connection was with her, was that many years\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 before she sent you this referral?\n2 A. No, it's when we moved to Chester, New Jersey.\n3 Q. So you reconnected with her; is that right?\n4 A. No, we both live in Chester, so we met like through mutual\n5 friends.\n6 Q. And when you met through mutual friends, she -- let me\n7 withdraw that.\n8 She's also a lawyer, right?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. And she's the one who sent you the referral, correct?\n11 A. Correct.\n12 Q. And she sent you the referral in her capacity as an\n13 attorney; is that right?\n14 A. Yeah.\n15 Q. Or did she just send it to you because you guys had become\n16 friends?\n17 A. As an attorney.\n18 Q. And when she sent you that referral, she said she was\n19 referring, you said, a family to you; is that right?\n20 That's what you said on direct?\n21 A. Yeah, she indicated they were important to her. They were\n22 like family.\n23 Q. And I'm assuming that you had a nice back and forth with\n24 her when she did the introduction, correct?\n25 A. I'm sure we spoke for a few minutes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Did you ask her who's this family?\n2 A. At the time I probably didn't cause I know I'll see it on\n3 the contract.\n4 Q. So you didn't ask her how she knew the family, correct?\n5 A. I did not.\n6 Q. You didn't ask her how long she knew the family, correct?\n7 A. I did not.\n8 Q. And you already told me that you didn't ask the name of the\n9 family, correct?\n10 A. Correct.\n11 Q. And you became aware that it was -- the referral was about\n12 a specific property, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And what name did you know that property by just so I can\n15 refer to it the same way for you?\n16 A. Crocker mansion.\n17 Q. So you were aware that the property was Crocker mansion,\n18 right?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. And you were also aware that the Crocker mansion had been\n21 on the market for at least a decade, correct?\n22 A. I didn't know that actually.\n23 Q. Did you know how long it had been on the market?\n24 A. I didn't look.\n25 Q. It's okay if you didn't look. My question was, if you were\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 aware in any other way how long it had been on the market?\n2 A. I was aware through one of my conversations with Aaron\n3 Mitchell that it must have been a while because there was a\n4 price reduction.\n5 Q. There was a huge price reduction, correct?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 Q. The initial price was 39 million?\n8 A. That's what I saw on Zillow.\n9 Q. And then it had dropped all the way down to 26 million,\n10 correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And according to you there was a lot of back and forth on\n13 the price of the sale of the property?\n14 A. I wasn't involved at that point. It seemed like there was\n15 negotiation between the parties.\n16 Q. I know you weren't involved. By the time you got involved,\n17 the sale was complete?\n18 A. The price was set, yes.\n19 Q. And you were aware though that there was some urgency on\n20 the part of the seller to the sale, correct?\n21 A. Correct.\n22 Q. And you in fact told the government that you were aware of\n23 this urgency, but that the urgency came from the seller, right?\n24 A. Both parties seem to be very urgent.\n25 Q. You didn't say that when you met with Mr. Fergenson,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 correct?\n2 You told him that the urgency was coming from the\n3 seller, right? Do you recall that?\n4 A. I don't recall the difference between both parties and the\n5 seller.\n6 Q. Let me show you 3507-004 and see if that refreshes your\n7 recollection.\n8 A. Okay.\n9 Q. It's just only for the witness, the Court and the parties,\n10 please.\n11 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I just have a minute.\n12 Q. Does that refresh your recollection that it was the\n13 seller's attorney that was contacting you a lot?\n14 A. In regard to the deposit.\n15 Q. Right. And it was never the buyer's attorney that was\n16 contacting you with a rush, correct?\n17 A. I was the buyer's attorney.\n18 Q. I understand, but nobody from the buyer side contacted with\n19 a rush, right?\n20 A. In connection with the deposit, no.\n21 Q. And the times that the sellers attorney was contacting you,\n22 do you recall how many times she -- was it a \"her\" or a \"him?\"\n23 A. It was a \"he.\"\n24 Q. And how often did he contact you?\n25 A. I don't recall, several.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Several times, right?\n2 A. I believe so, yes.\n3 Q. You can take that down.\n4 Now, Ms. Buck, it's fair to say that you have spoken\n5 with the -- do you recall also -- let me go back for a minute.\n6 Do you recall also telling the government that there\n7 was a closing deadline before Christmas, and it was the seller\n8 driving that urgency. Do you recall the timing of it being\n9 before Christmas?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And you were also aware, were you not, given the work you\n12 were doing that the property itself was old, correct?\n13 A. I didn't know the age of the estate, but through the\n14 invoices seem like it needed a lot of work.\n15 Q. And you told that to Mr. Fergenson, correct, when you met\n16 with him?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And you told him it was your impression that the property\n19 was such that a lot of contractors would be needed to work on\n20 it, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And that a lot of contractors would need to be paid,\n23 correct?\n24 A. Initially I was only paying a few. As it went on, I paid\n25 many.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. And the same is true for the vendors, right?\n2 A. Correct.\n3 Q. Initially there were a few, then you paid a lot?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Now, you were asked a lot of questions repeatedly about\n6 what you understood the family to mean, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n9 THE COURT: Overruled.\n10 Q. There is a time when you learned that the purchaser was\n11 going to be an SP, right?\n12 A. That's the name that was on the contract.\n13 Q. Could you tell us, please, the full name of the contract as\n14 you recall it?\n15 A. Taurus Fund SP.\n16 Q. And when you saw Taurus Fund SP, what did you think \"SP\"\n17 stood for?\n18 A. In my world immediately comes to mind sole proprietorship.\n19 Q. When you saw that, did it ring a bell for you that New\n20 Jersey had a different rule and it wouldn't be allowed?\n21 A. Immediately, and I could confirm with the title company.\n22 Q. Right, because that's what you do for a living, right.\n23 Did you then tell Mr. Mitchell that that would not\n24 work in New Jersey?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Do you know if Mr. Mitchell was versed in these laws of\n2 real estate?\n3 A. I don't know his background.\n4 Q. And that's because you're really fully familiar with the\n5 wife, right?\n6 A. I wasn't familiar with their work at all, because they've\n7 referred other matters to me. I knew their practice was\n8 primarily commercial litigation, and they did some residential\n9 real estate, but I don't know how complex or not.\n10 Q. Was it your perception that it was a husband and wife with\n11 a separate practice for each, or that they both worked on the\n12 same matters?\n13 A. They made one firm. I don't know if they divvied up their\n14 practice.\n15 Q. You don't know one was a criminal lawyer and the other was\n16 a real estate lawyer?\n17 A. I do not.\n18 Q. And do you recall when you spoke to Aaron Mitchell him\n19 telling you and discussing with you the topic of the new\n20 federal state of China?\n21 A. I thought he told me it was federalist party of China, but\n22 I don't remember the exact name.\n23 Q. But putting aside the exactness of the name, you do recall\n24 sitting here today Mr. Mitchell talking to you about that,\n25 correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And is it fair to say that it was not an area of your\n3 interest so you didn't follow-up with them?\n4 A. It was not.\n5 Q. And it's still not an area of your interest, right?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. There came a time when you started really just working with\n8 Mr. Mitchell on this matter, correct?\n9 A. Yes, after my initial conversation with Dara, we did not\n10 discuss Taurus Fund.\n11 Q. And when you were speaking with Mr. Mitchell, did he talk\n12 to you about NDA?\n13 A. He did from the beginning.\n14 Q. And just, I'm allowed to lead, but that is a non-disclosure\n15 agreement, correct?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And is it fair to say that he gave you a written out\n18 non-disclosure agreement for you to use?\n19 A. Yes, he gave me a form.\n20 Q. Like a template, right?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And did you use that template?\n23 A. I reviewed it, but the signed NDAs were sent to me so I\n24 didn't typically deal with them. I had copies of them from the\n25 various vendors or contractors.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. So if a vendor was going to do a dropoff at the property,\n2 it would not be your responsibility to ensure that a NDA was\n3 signed. You checked to see if it was signed?\n4 A. I asked if they have one. Somebody else's responsibility\n5 to gather the information.\n6 Q. And when you first started working with this property, what\n7 was the month and the year? I'm sorry. I've forgotten.\n8 A. December of 2021.\n9 Q. In December of 2021, at that point had Mr. Mitchell talk to\n10 you about the need for security on the property?\n11 A. When we initially spoke, since I didn't have -- every\n12 company or entity has people, so you usually have the name.\n13 When I ask for the name so I knew who natural person was behind\n14 the client, I didn't get it. And he said they were very\n15 concerned about security and privacy. So from the getgo, I\n16 assumed, like I said, it was a celebrity or high net worth\n17 individual, and it was very important that they feel safe, be\n18 safe, and their information kept as nonpublic as possible.\n19 Q. And when he, by \"he\" I mean Mr. Mitchell, talked to you\n20 about the new federal state of China, you didn't ask him if\n21 that had anything to do with the property, correct?\n22 A. That came up when I received the first subpoena.\n23 Q. No, I'm not asking about the subpoena.\n24 A. I'm sorry. Can you ask it again.\n25 Q. Sure. When Mr. Mitchell first mentioned the new federal\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 state of China, you didn't ask if that property was going to be\n2 used vis-a-vis the new federal state of China, right?\n3 A. I did not.\n4 Q. When you were talking about the security of the property,\n5 you understood Mr. Mitchell to be talking about the physical\n6 security of the property, correct?\n7 A. Correct.\n8 Q. And also the physical security of the property would\n9 include the periphery of the property, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And the security within the property, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Ms. Buck, did you actually ever visit the property?\n14 A. I did not.\n15 Q. You didn't go see what it looked like, right?\n16 A. I would have loved a tour, but I didn't. No one gave me\n17 one.\n18 Q. So when you were testifying about all of these invoices,\n19 you did not know how the shipment was done at the physical\n20 location, right?\n21 You're just moving the paper along; is that fair?\n22 A. Correct. I wasn't there to see the property.\n23 Q. Now, I'm going to come back to Mr. Barnett, but Mr. Barnett\n24 was also one of the people who also discussed physical safety?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Is it your testimony that you did knot know Mr. Barnett\n2 well or did you know him well?\n3 A. I don't know him at all.\n4 Q. Do you know if he was ex-NYPD or not?\n5 A. He told me in one of our conversation he was a retired cop.\n6 Q. Did he talk about being a cop a lot?\n7 A. No.\n8 Q. Did he tell you what his role was at the facility?\n9 A. He said it chartered the security system, and he was my\n10 initial contact for all the invoices until he got too busy.\n11 Q. Did he talk to about what the security system was?\n12 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to hearsay.\n13 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. He didn't tell you. Okay. Let me move to a little bit of\n16 a different point. Okay.\n17 You remember the government showing you a few invoices\n18 involving -- and I have trouble with this word, LaBarbiera\n19 Custom Homes, correct?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And there was a point-person for that company named Vinny,\n22 right?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Is it fair to say that you were aware that Vinny had been\n25 at that property for many years before the sale to Taurus S,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 LLP?\n2 A. I don't know if that's the case or not.\n3 Q. Do you know if the same LaBarbiera Custom House had done\n4 work on the property before?\n5 A. Before when?\n6 Q. Before you came on the scene?\n7 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n8 Q. Did you ever speak to this person name Vinny?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Did he ever tell you that he had worked on that property\n11 for many years?\n12 A. He did not mention it.\n13 Q. Did he speak to you in English?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. He didn't speak Mandarin to you, right?\n16 A. I don't speak Mandarin.\n17 Q. And did you physically ever meet him?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. Did you ever zoom with him?\n20 A. No.\n21 Q. Now, do you recall discussing with him renovations that\n22 would be needed on the property, including the renovations in\n23 the garage on the property?\n24 A. I received invoices from him for the renovations, and he\n25 was also in the beginning receiving payment on behalf of his\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 subcontractors until I was paying them directly.\n2 Q. So is it fair to say that when you got an invoice, right,\n3 you didn't evaluate -- you didn't make any evaluation of the\n4 invoice itself, right?\n5 A. The evaluation I did, if it was an installment contract and\n6 there were several payments to make sure I was paying what was\n7 supposers to be paid and it wasn't duplicative to make sure the\n8 work was completed before I paid it, but that was the extent of\n9 my review.\n10 Q. If Vinny double-billed, you wouldn't check that, right?\n11 MR. FERGENSON: Speculation.\n12 MS. SHROFF: I'm asking if she would check that.\n13 THE COURT: So the question would be did you check his\n14 bills.\n15 Q. Did you check his bills?\n16 A. I did.\n17 THE COURT: So it's now 11:30, and we're going to take\n18 our break. Members of the jury, remember that you're not\n19 allowed to talk amongst yourselves about the case. Don't\n20 permit anyone to discuss it in your presence. Don't read,\n21 listen or watch anything from any source that touches on the\n22 subject matter of this case.\n23 THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting.\n24 THE COURT: Ms. Buck, you can step out. Don't discuss\n25 your testimony.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Cross\n1 (Jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: You may be seated. Is there anything\n3 before we reconvene at noon?\n4 MR. FERGENSON: Not from the government.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, just one matter. The defense\n6 has given the government the defense exhibits it seeks to\n7 introduce through Ms. Buck. They are the same documents that\n8 were produced pursuant to the Buck LLC account. To the extent\n9 the government wants to stipulate to the admittance, it will\n10 certainly make the cross go faster.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: We have not been told about any\n12 exhibits that they're seeking to introduce through Ms. Buck.\n13 THE COURT: So you'll work it out during the break.\n14 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n15 (Recess)\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3\n1 AFTERNOON SESSION\n2 12:00 p.m.\n3 (Jury not present)\n4 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n5 Juror No. 12 told a member of my staff that he wanted\n6 to speak with me concerning a scheduling issue. So if you'll\n7 bring him in, please.\n8 (Juror present)\n9 THE COURT: And just sit in the first seat.\n10 You may sit down.\n11 You're Juror No. 12, correct?\n12 JUROR: Yes.\n13 THE COURT: What's the problem?\n14 JUROR: I'm the executive directer of a small non\n15 profit. We are short-staffed.\n16 THE COURT: If you'll speak up, please.\n17 JUROR: We're short-staffed. We're at the end of the\n18 fiscal year, a lot of things going on. One thing that is going\n19 on is we're vacating one of our offices by June 30th. That's\n20 the end of the lease. We haven't been able to negotiate\n21 anything with the landlord, and I'm concerned that he might\n22 lock us out. If there is a way that the Court could intervene\n23 so that we get an extension, so that I can continue? I'm fully\n24 committed to this, but——I hate to be locked out. We have\n25 confidential records of our clients and——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3\n1 THE COURT: Do you have an attorney?\n2 JUROR: Yes.\n3 THE COURT: And your attorney is dealing with the\n4 landlord?\n5 JUROR: Not at this point, but I could call him and——\n6 THE COURT: So that would be my first suggestion is\n7 that you speak with your attorney. Maybe you can get an\n8 extension.\n9 JUROR: I tried to negotiate that with him and he\n10 got——he wants me to stay and negotiate a long-term lease. And\n11 we're not going to do that.\n12 THE COURT: So you're looking for a short-term\n13 extension.\n14 JUROR: A short-term extension; a month, maybe two\n15 months. Not even that.\n16 THE COURT: That seems like something that might be\n17 able to be accomplished by your attorney, and so I would like\n18 you to check with the attorney and find out. You could call\n19 him or her this afternoon.\n20 If you're not able to get an extension, what would\n21 happen?\n22 JUROR: He will probably lock us out. He will want\n23 the rent anyway. My concern is the records, that they——we're\n24 trying to remove all the records in case he does lock us out.\n25 THE COURT: And so what impact, if any, would that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 have on your role as a juror in this case?\n2 JUROR: If it's locked out and we cannot do anything,\n3 then I'm here and I wait till we finish.\n4 THE COURT: So essentially your request is whether I\n5 can intervene in this issue.\n6 JUROR: Right.\n7 THE COURT: I wish I could. But because this is a\n8 private matter between your organization and the landlord, I\n9 have no authority to get involved, and so I regret to give you\n10 that news, and I wish you luck.\n11 JUROR: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, your Honor.\n12 THE COURT: Yes.\n13 (Juror not present)\n14 THE COURT: Would you have all the jurors brought out,\n15 please.\n16 (Jury present)\n17 THE COURT: You may resume the stand.\n18 Please be seated.\n19 Ms. Buck, remember that you're still under oath.\n20 You may continue the inquiry.\n21 BY MS. SHROFF:\n22 Q. Ms. Buck, I apologize. I'm not quite sure where we left\n23 off. But I am going to pick up where we were talking about\n24 NDAs, okay?\n25 A. Okay.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Did you keep a file of the NDAs that were signed and sent\n2 back to you, or did you just simply confirm they were signed?\n3 A. I kept a file. I have a file folder for each contractor or\n4 vendor.\n5 Q. And would it be fair to say that you had no NDA for\n6 Mr. Barnett?\n7 A. I don't recall having one, no.\n8 Q. And did you have an NDA for Ms. Chow?\n9 A. I don't recall having one for her either.\n10 Q. Do you recall if you had an NDA for Mr. Cao?\n11 A. No.\n12 Q. How about for Sean Jing?\n13 A. I don't recall having one, no.\n14 Q. Okay. Did you know that Sean Jing worked for G Club?\n15 A. No.\n16 Q. Did you ask him where he worked?\n17 A. I did not.\n18 Q. Did you know where Mr. Cao worked?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Did you ask him?\n21 A. I never spoke to him.\n22 Q. Did you email with him?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Did you email and ask him where he worked?\n25 A. No.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Now about Mr. Barnett, you testified that at one point he\n2 was always your first point of contact, correct?\n3 A. Correct.\n4 Q. And I'm not sure if I recall this correctly. Did you in\n5 person ever meet him?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. And it's fair to say that the government showed you a fair\n8 number of documents from Mr. Barnett, correct, email exchanges\n9 from Mr. Barnett, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And at times they highlighted for you the different email\n12 addresses that he used, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And sitting here today, do you know how many email\n15 addresses Mr. Barnett had?\n16 A. I don't.\n17 Q. Do you know if he had an email address called\n18 frontsight1@outlook.com?\n19 A. That's the primary one I emailed back and forth with him.\n20 Q. And Mr. Fergenson here highlighted for you a GS email\n21 address that he had, correct?\n22 A. Correct.\n23 Q. Do you know if he had any other addresses?\n24 A. Not that I recall.\n25 Q. And when you were sent email addresses from different\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 emails from Mr. Barnett, you assumed it was the same\n2 Mr. Barnett, right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. You didn't email back and say, which Mr. Barnett are you?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. Okay. Now it's fair to say, Ms. Buck, that throughout the\n7 course of your work, you never thought you were doing anything\n8 improper, correct?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. And sitting here today, you still don't think you were\n11 doing anything improper, correct?\n12 A. Correct.\n13 Q. You had invoices that you received, right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And you checked to make sure that the person was\n16 authorizing payments on the invoices, right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Then you processed the invoices, correct?\n19 A. First I confirmed the wire instructions verbally.\n20 Q. Right. As you're required to, correct?\n21 A. Correct.\n22 Q. And in fact, you were quite diligent; you always put that\n23 in your email, \"Please confirm them orally,\" correct?\n24 A. Yes, to——for problems with wire fraud.\n25 Q. Right. And they would be confirmed orally, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. All of them.\n2 Q. Right. And if they weren't confirmed orally, you wouldn't\n3 process the payment, correct?\n4 A. Correct.\n5 Q. And you in fact were quite diligent, you kept an Excel\n6 sheet, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And did you share that Excel sheet with anybody else such\n9 as Scott Barnett or anyone else?\n10 A. Yes, with the authorized people, Scott Barnett, Sean Jing,\n11 Gladys Chow, obviously Aaron Mitchell.\n12 Q. Right. And there was no issue ever; nobody ever raised an\n13 issue saying something hadn't been paid or some number was\n14 overstated, correct?\n15 A. Sometimes there would be questions. If invoices were paid,\n16 if the wire didn't go through, depending on timing; sometimes\n17 they're held up, like, in the cloud, that they don't see them,\n18 but——I don't think there were any issues of what I was paying.\n19 Q. Right. And they were generally pretty happy with you,\n20 right?\n21 A. I didn't hear complaints.\n22 Q. Good. Okay. So with that, may I just direct your\n23 attention with a little more focus to certain documents that\n24 you were shown, okay?\n25 And maybe I can ask you some of the questions without\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 the documents.\n2 The government showed you the certificate of\n3 incorporation and documents from the State of Nevada, correct?\n4 A. It was articles of organization, yes.\n5 Q. Right. Nothing unusual about that, right?\n6 A. It's a filed copy for that state, yes.\n7 Q. Right. And they can open a corporation if they want in\n8 Nevada or in Maine, right?\n9 A. They can open an entity anywhere.\n10 Q. Right. And they told you where they opened the entity,\n11 right?\n12 A. Well, I could see it on the articles of organization. It\n13 was in Nevada.\n14 Q. Right. But they're the ones who sent you the documents,\n15 right?\n16 A. Correct. I did not form it.\n17 Q. Right. And you had no questions; you didn't ask them why\n18 Nevada or why did you pick this state or anything like that,\n19 right?\n20 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form. Multiple questions.\n21 THE COURT: If you'll break it down.\n22 Q. Did you ask them why Nevada?\n23 A. I did. I asked Aaron again, 'cause typically, in a New\n24 Jersey transaction, it's a New Jersey LLC. It's not uncommon,\n25 if you want to use a different state, but we were also getting\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 pressure to close on time because it's year end, and he said it\n2 was just a layer of privacy——\n3 Q. Okay.\n4 A. ——for the client.\n5 Q. Right. And when he answered that question for you, did you\n6 feel like you got a proper answer from him?\n7 A. I did.\n8 Q. Okay. Now you were shown a document, which was 1295. If I\n9 could just have that pulled up for you.\n10 This is your email to Aaron Mitchell, correct, where\n11 you set out your terms of your representation?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Okay. And it goes to his——is that his law firm address\n14 that you see up top?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Okay. And this was just an easy way to set up the\n17 agreement between you and the person you were going to work\n18 for, correct?\n19 A. This was to document a continuing representation because\n20 what I signed on for and what we did were not the same, so I\n21 wanted documentation of what we were doing going forward.\n22 Q. Okay. And Mr. Mitchell received this email and responded\n23 to you, correct?\n24 A. He did.\n25 Q. Okay. And did he tell you what the estimate was so that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 you could plan accordingly?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Okay. And did you follow up with him?\n4 A. I did.\n5 Q. Okay. Now you were also asked questions about——\n6 MS. SHROFF: You can take that down. Thank you.\n7 Q. You were also asked about several payments that you made\n8 and you were shown a whole group of invoices, correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. All right. So some of the invoices were from a person\n11 named Gladys Chow, correct?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. And she signed off on the emails and said she was the\n14 project manager, right?\n15 A. That was in her email, yes.\n16 Q. Right. Did you ever ask her what project she was managing?\n17 A. I did not.\n18 Q. Did you know what the name of the project was?\n19 A. I don't.\n20 Q. Now let me show you what the government marked as 822.\n21 It's Exhibit 822.\n22 MS. SHROFF: And if we could just scroll down.\n23 Q. And I think that the government was focused on page 7,\n24 correct, 7 and 8? Do you recall looking at this document?\n25 MS. SHROFF: Let's just stay on the first page.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Do you recall this document, ma'am?\n2 A. I do.\n3 Q. Okay. And it says Demolition Work to Be Provided in the\n4 Following Areas. Correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And could you read what it says below that.\n7 A. \"2nd level ladies master wing.\"\n8 Q. Right. Is that ladies in plural?\n9 A. It is.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if we could just go to the\n11 next page.\n12 Q. You see on the top it says \"3rd level sons wing,\" correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. Do you know if that family in question had a son?\n15 A. I don't know anything about the family.\n16 Q. Do you know if there was even a son that was living in the\n17 United States at any point in time of your representation?\n18 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n19 Q. Okay. And it said, on the same thing, on the same\n20 document, it talked about the second level bedroom bath\n21 converted to laundry, correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. You have no idea what that means.\n24 A. I do not.\n25 Q. Okay. And I don't want to belabor this by going through\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 each one of these, but none of us know what——well, forget about\n2 us. You don't know what it means, what the work was when it\n3 says, \"Ceiling to be sawcut to receive 7 chandelier locations\n4 centered on existing arches,\" right? No?\n5 A. I do not.\n6 MS. SHROFF: And if we could just scroll down some\n7 more on this document. And keep going down.\n8 Q. And you see right there, it says, \"Daughter's Wing Level\n9 3,\" right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And you've already said you don't know if he had a\n12 daughter, but what does it mean to you when it says, \"Denoted\n13 walls to be removed\"?\n14 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to form, and she didn't say\n15 that.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained. The witness did not state\n17 that.\n18 Q. Do you know if the family had a daughter?\n19 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n20 Q. Thank you. What were the denoted walls to be removed?\n21 A. I don't know. I didn't have construction plans.\n22 Q. What are marked openings?\n23 A. Usually they're on construction plans, that I didn't see.\n24 Q. Okay. Do you know if there were even construction plans?\n25 A. I don't know if there was or was not.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Then it talks about \"new partitions to be sheetrocked and\n2 spackled,\" correct?\n3 A. Yes, that's what it says.\n4 Q. And I'm assuming you also don't have an understanding of\n5 what that means?\n6 A. I don't.\n7 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if I could just have us just\n8 keep scrolling down.\n9 Just keep going down.\n10 And still one more page down.\n11 And the last page, please.\n12 Q. And that document tells you that there is a total contract\n13 price, correct?\n14 A. It does.\n15 Q. And then it tells you a deposit amount, a midway payment,\n16 right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And there is no computation on balance on completion.\n19 A. Correct.\n20 Q. Okay. And these are just documents that you would process;\n21 you would not question whether or not the bill was appropriate,\n22 right?\n23 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.\n24 THE COURT: So if you'll break it down, please.\n25 MS. SHROFF: Sure. You know what, it's okay. I'll\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 withdraw that question. We can just move on to the next\n2 document.\n3 Let's look at Document 168.\n4 BY MS. SHROFF:\n5 Q. So is it fair to say that the bills that you got from this\n6 Labarbiera generally had the same format, right?\n7 A. For this contract, I paid the installment payments, but for\n8 other invoices, he had subcontractors included so they would\n9 look different.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Okay. So if we could just go to the next\n11 page of this particular document.\n12 And then the next one.\n13 The next page, please.\n14 Okay. Right there.\n15 Q. Okay. You see these additional terms?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. Okay. Were those terms worked out by you or just between\n18 these two individuals, the Taurus Fund and Labarbiera Custom\n19 Homes?\n20 A. For this particular contract, I don't recall dealing\n21 directly with the contractor, so I gave suggestions for\n22 contract terms to Aaron or Scott Barnett. I don't recall which\n23 one.\n24 Q. Okay. And would you give those suggestions to them by\n25 telephone or would you email those to them?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I emailed them.\n2 Q. Okay. And do you know if they incorporated your\n3 suggestions or not? It's fine if you don't recall.\n4 A. I'm reading them. I——I don't recall if those were my words\n5 or if they were Aaron's.\n6 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's move on to Government\n7 Exhibit 851, please.\n8 And if I could just have the middle section, which is\n9 12:33 p.m., enlarged.\n10 Q. Do you know what Prevenitas is?\n11 A. That's the company that I received invoices for. It looked\n12 like a——for security equipment.\n13 Q. Okay. How about New York Business Systems?\n14 A. I do not recall.\n15 Q. Okay. And Monster Air Heating and Cooling?\n16 A. HVAC equipment.\n17 Q. Okay. And the remaining fees seem self-evident, but do you\n18 recall with any specificity what those were for?\n19 A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?\n20 Q. I said the remaining three payments——Fine Rugs, RDM Fine\n21 Art, and Fine Rugs——seem self-evident, but do you recall what\n22 they were for?\n23 A. For rugs and fine art. I don't remember specifics other\n24 than that.\n25 Q. Okay. And this email is from you, and you're letting\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Gladys know, right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Scott and Gladys, correct?\n4 A. Correct.\n5 Q. And Gladys you're reaching at hchktech.com, right?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And Scott Barnett at frontsight1@outlook, correct?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Now when you were emailing Ms. Chow at this email address,\n10 were you perplexed by the use of that email address, by any\n11 chance, back then?\n12 A. I didn't think much of it. I assumed she was maybe an\n13 independent contractor and had her own company.\n14 Q. Okay. And sitting here today, you don't know otherwise,\n15 right?\n16 A. I don't know anything about it.\n17 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Now let's move on, if we may, to\n18 709, please.\n19 Okay. And this document, if I could just have it made\n20 somewhat larger.\n21 Q. Now the government showed you this document, correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. And you testified on direct that you did not know who lived\n24 at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut, right?\n25 A. That is correct.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. And is it fair to say that sitting here today, you still\n2 don't know who lives there, right?\n3 A. I don't know who lives there.\n4 Q. Okay. And if we could just take a look, the date on the\n5 top is 1/18/2022, right?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And is it fair to say that there was more than one of these\n8 invoices that you processed?\n9 A. I believe there was more invoices from Flat Rate, yes.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Okay. So let's just scroll down, if we\n11 can.\n12 Q. Okay. And this one's for how much?\n13 A. $118,000.\n14 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if we could just keep\n15 scrolling down.\n16 All right. And let's just look at the items that are\n17 shipped, okay? If we could just make them larger.\n18 Q. So I'm not going to have you read each one of these, but do\n19 you know where these items were coming from?\n20 A. I didn't think about it.\n21 Q. Okay. But looking at the document now, can you tell where\n22 they're coming from?\n23 A. It looks like they're being moved from 373 Taconic Road.\n24 Q. Okay. So when you looked at this document and the\n25 inventory, you cannot tell if any of these items are purchased\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 and being shipped from the Connecticut address——\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.\n3 MS. SHROFF: I hadn't finished, but I'm happy to try\n4 again.\n5 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n6 Q. ——or whether they were items that were in that Connecticut\n7 home that are now being shipped?\n8 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.\n9 THE COURT: So——\n10 MR. FERGENSON: It's confusing.\n11 THE COURT: You need to break it down.\n12 Q. Do you know, that extra large cabinet in living room, when\n13 it was purchased?\n14 A. I do not.\n15 Q. Looking on the third side, the chair desk study, do you\n16 know if it was purchased or simply in the Connecticut home and\n17 being shipped here?\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.\n19 THE COURT: So are you asking whether it was purchased\n20 through the system that she was involved with or whether it was\n21 purchased ever? What is the question?\n22 MS. SHROFF: Sure. I'll try again, your Honor. Sorry\n23 about that.\n24 BY MS. SHROFF:\n25 Q. You don't know if that chair desk was an old piece of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 furniture in the Connecticut home being shipped to New Jersey,\n2 correct?\n3 A. I don't know anything about that chair.\n4 Q. Right. So you don't even know, for example——\n5 MS. SHROFF: Let's just scroll down.\n6 MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. She doesn't know.\n7 MS. SHROFF: I have not asked the question yet.\n8 Please keep scrolling down.\n9 Right there.\n10 Q. You see the credenza large, bedroom three? Sitting here\n11 today, you don't know if that credenza had anything in it when\n12 it was moved, correct?\n13 A. I don't know anything about it.\n14 Q. Okay. And you don't know, for example, on the left side,\n15 if the table side small had papers in it, correct?\n16 A. I don't know anything about it.\n17 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that you don't know anything\n18 about any of these items that were shipped?\n19 A. That's a fair statement.\n20 Q. And that is because it was simply not your job, correct?\n21 Your job was just to pay the invoice.\n22 A. You didn't ask me a question.\n23 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Your job was just to pay the invoice that\n24 had been authorized for payment, correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Okay. You received invoices for camera equipment; is that\n2 right?\n3 A. I believe so.\n4 Q. And you received invoices for lighting, correct?\n5 A. Yes, for lighting.\n6 Q. Okay. And you processed those invoices as well, right?\n7 A. I did.\n8 Q. Now let me show you what is marked as Defense\n9 Exhibit 60613. Do you recognize that document?\n10 A. I do.\n11 Q. Okay.\n12 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the defense moves DX 60613\n13 into evidence.\n14 MR. FERGENSON: No objection, your Honor.\n15 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n16 (Defendant's Exhibit 60613 received in evidence)\n17 Q. And did you review this proposal?\n18 MS. SHROFF: Oh, I'm sorry. May I have it shown to\n19 the jury. I always forget that.\n20 Q. Do you review it at all, this document?\n21 A. Can you show me other pages of it. I don't——\n22 Q. Of course. Of course. So let's just slow down.\n23 MS. SHROFF: Can we go one page back.\n24 Q. Do you see on the top it reads, \"Provides video\n25 monitoring,\" correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. It does.\n2 Q. Okay. And one page before this one, \"Benefits of a\n3 security operations center.\" Correct?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that you didn't inquire about\n6 what the security operations center was, right?\n7 A. I did not.\n8 Q. Okay. And let's just look at the last page then.\n9 Do you recall what you did with this document?\n10 A. I saved it in my system.\n11 Q. Did you make a payment on it, do you recall?\n12 A. I made several payments to Prevenitas. I don't recall if\n13 it was specific to this proposal.\n14 Q. Okay. But let's look at the next one, which is 60614.\n15 That's Defense Exhibit 60614. Do you recall receiving this\n16 document?\n17 MR. FERGENSON: We have no objection to admitting it.\n18 THE COURT: So it is admitted.\n19 (Defendant's Exhibit 60614 received in evidence)\n20 MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.\n21 Q. Do you recall receiving this document?\n22 A. I believe, yes, I received this.\n23 Q. And you see the dollar amounts on the side? I'm not going\n24 to make you read them, but do you see them there?\n25 A. Okay. I do.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Okay. And there's a total of 392,000 some-odd change,\n2 right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. Did you pay it; do you know? Not you. I'm sorry about\n5 that. I know you didn't pay any of these bills. You\n6 authorized payments.\n7 A. Yes. I don't remember the amounts, but I did make several\n8 payments to Prevenitas.\n9 Q. Okay. Thank you.\n10 MS. SHROFF: We can take that down and move to 60618.\n11 Q. And it says there, if you could read——\n12 MR. FERGENSON: If this is being offered, your Honor,\n13 we do not object to it coming in.\n14 THE COURT: And which one is this?\n15 MS. SHROFF: 60618, your Honor.\n16 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n17 (Defendant's Exhibit 60618 received in evidence)\n18 BY MS. SHROFF:\n19 Q. And I'm going to do this very briefly. This discussed the\n20 threat and vulnerability assessment, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And it is for the same property that is listed to Taurus\n23 Fund, LLC on the top, correct?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. Okay. And it's the attention to Scott Barnett, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down.\n3 We can do 60620. And assuming the government has no\n4 objection, your Honor, we would move it into evidence.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: If they could show it to the parties\n6 first so we can see.\n7 THE COURT: So bring it up.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: No objection, your Honor. Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n10 (Defendant's Exhibit 60620 received in evidence)\n11 BY MS. SHROFF:\n12 Q. You recognize it, right?\n13 A. I do.\n14 Q. Okay. And was that dollar amount paid; do you know?\n15 A. That's my handwriting on the bottom so it was probably part\n16 of that larger payment total is my guess. I'd have to see my\n17 records, but it was paid.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if I could just have it zoomed\n19 out.\n20 Q. And I'm assuming that you don't know what camera powder\n21 coating or any of these other expenses are, right? They just\n22 seem to be related to security cameras?\n23 A. Correct. I don't know what they are one way or the other.\n24 Q. Thank you.\n25 MS. SHROFF: If I could have 60621 shown to government\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 counsel and the witness and the Court.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: We have no objection, your Honor.\n3 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n4 (Defendant's Exhibit 60621 received in evidence)\n5 Q. Did the government show you this document when you met with\n6 them to prepare?\n7 A. I don't specifically recall this one.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Okay. You can take that down.\n9 If I could please do the same with 60623.\n10 And if the government has no objection, we would move\n11 60623 into evidence.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: No objection, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n14 (Defendant's Exhibit 60623 received in evidence)\n15 BY MS. SHROFF:\n16 Q. Did you discuss this document with Mr. Fergenson when you\n17 met with him?\n18 A. I don't specifically recall this document being discussed.\n19 Q. And I'm assuming you do not know which innovation\n20 technology they actually ended up using, but you paid the bill\n21 once you were authorized to pay, correct?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to form.\n23 THE COURT: So it's two questions in one.\n24 MS. SHROFF: I'm happy to do it——\n25 THE COURT: Just ask them separately.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: Okay.\n2 Q. What is the document titled?\n3 A. It's a Security Camera Surveillance System Installation\n4 Proposal.\n5 Q. And the date?\n6 A. January 29, 2022.\n7 MS. SHROFF: And if I could just have——Mr. Salazar,\n8 could you just scroll through for me.\n9 Q. What is that an image of?\n10 A. It says Property Overview.\n11 Q. Okay. And do you know what property it's talking about?\n12 A. If you look at the first page, I think it's the Crocker\n13 Mansion address.\n14 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And let's just go to page 3.\n15 Page 4.\n16 Page 5.\n17 And is there a page 6? No. Okay. So page 5 is the\n18 last one.\n19 Q. And there's the total project costs, correct?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And I'm assuming you don't recall if you discussed this\n22 document with Mr. Fergenson.\n23 A. I don't specifically recall discussing this document.\n24 Q. Okay. Do you recall if this amount was paid?\n25 A. This amount, I don't specifically recall. I've paid\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 several payments to Prevenitas.\n2 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's look at 60625, still a\n3 defense exhibit.\n4 Q. What is that, ma'am?\n5 A. This is an email to me from Scott Barnett.\n6 Q. Okay. And if we could just——\n7 MR. FERGENSON: I'm sorry. Is this being shown to the\n8 jury?\n9 THE JURORS: No.\n10 MR. FERGENSON: Okay. I apologize. I have no\n11 objection to this coming in.\n12 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n13 (Defendant's Exhibit 60625 received in evidence)\n14 MS. SHROFF: Now may we show it to the jury, please?\n15 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n16 BY MS. SHROFF:\n17 Q. And it says, \"Amy, here is a photo of the invoice,\"\n18 correct?\n19 A. It does.\n20 Q. Okay. And does he attach an invoice for you?\n21 A. I believe he did. I don't specifically recall.\n22 Q. Okay. And sitting here today, you don't recall if you\n23 actually paid that invoice, correct?\n24 A. I don't even remember what it is.\n25 Q. All right. Well, let's just show you then 60624.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: And don't show it to the jury, please,\n2 Mr. Salazar. Thank you.\n3 And if we could scroll down just for the witness and\n4 the Court and the parties.\n5 Q. Do you recall this document and its attachment?\n6 A. It looks familiar, yes.\n7 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We move 60624 into evidence.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: No objection.\n9 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n10 (Defendant's Exhibit 60624 received in evidence)\n11 Q. And with this document, he attaches the information from\n12 Prevenitas, right?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 MS. SHROFF: And if we could just show that to the\n15 jury and scroll down.\n16 Thank you.\n17 Q. Let me show you what is marked for evidence as 60626,\n18 please. Do you recognize——\n19 MS. SHROFF: Don't show it to the jury, Jorge. Thank\n20 you.\n21 Q. Do you recognize this document, Ms. Buck?\n22 A. I don't specifically recall it, but it looks familiar, if\n23 that makes sense.\n24 Q. Was it sent to you?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. And is it from an electronic mail address that you\n2 recognize?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 MS. SHROFF: Okay. The defense moves 60626 into\n5 evidence.\n6 THE COURT: No objection?\n7 MR. FERGENSON: Just one moment, your Honor.\n8 No objection, your Honor.\n9 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n10 (Defendant's Exhibit 60626 received in evidence)\n11 MS. SHROFF: So if we could just take a look at that\n12 document, please.\n13 BY MS. SHROFF:\n14 Q. Would you tell the jury what B&H is.\n15 A. I believe it's the company name. I don't know. I don't\n16 remember offhand.\n17 Q. And does the remaining portion of that line tell you what\n18 kind of company it could be?\n19 A. Do you want me to read it?\n20 Q. Please.\n21 A. Broadcast equipment.\n22 MS. SHROFF: And if I could just go to the second page\n23 of this document.\n24 And if it could be enlarged for the jurors.\n25 And if we could just move our way down.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. You received this particular document, right?\n2 A. I believe so, yes.\n3 MS. SHROFF: And if I could just scroll back up for a\n4 moment.\n5 Q. It very clearly tells you, right, sold to Gladys——\n6 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the characterization,\n7 your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: So you can just state the words without\n9 giving it a spin.\n10 Q. This document tells the reader that the equipment is sold\n11 to Gladys Chow, correct?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. 6628 Sky Point Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89141, right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And then it tells you where it's going to be shipped to,\n16 correct?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And the date on this is June 1, 2022.\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. Nobody's hiding any addresses, correct?\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n22 THE COURT: Are you asking whether, looking at the\n23 document, she can tell that something is hidden?\n24 MS. SHROFF: Yes.\n25 THE COURT: Go ahead and answer.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I took the document on its face. I don't know anything\n2 otherwise.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And let's just keep scrolling\n4 down.\n5 Q. And can you tell just by the title on the top who generated\n6 that document?\n7 A. B&H Photo-Video, I think.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if we could just go to the\n9 last page, please.\n10 Q. The total is for $67,416.73, right?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And the last one is 60628.\n13 You know, actually, it's okay. I think we have\n14 enough. I'll withdraw the last one.\n15 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, Mr. Fergenson here asked you questions about\n16 the documents in your binder, right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And do you know how that binder was created?\n19 A. I don't understand the question.\n20 Q. Okay. Let me try again.\n21 A. Okay.\n22 Q. Do you know how he chose the documents?\n23 A. I do not.\n24 Q. Did he share his process with you?\n25 A. No.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Okay. He gave you a set of documents and the two of you\n2 reviewed them; is that correct?\n3 A. He gave me the binder to review and stepped out of the\n4 room.\n5 Q. Okay. And then you sat and reviewed them, correct?\n6 A. I did.\n7 Q. And then did you discuss the documents with him?\n8 A. I did.\n9 Q. Okay. You and I have never met to discuss any documents,\n10 right?\n11 A. No.\n12 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Give me one minute.\n13 Q. Now you were shown 709 by the government, right? And if I\n14 could just have that pulled up for you.\n15 We went through this document before. Do you recall\n16 what Mr. Barnett's role was in this, in the move, if he had a\n17 role?\n18 A. I don't recall if he sent any of those invoices to me.\n19 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down and look at\n20 1204.\n21 Q. You remember testifying about this document on direct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Okay. And the government here, Mr. Fergenson, pointed your\n24 attention to the job location being at Connecticut, correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Okay. And the total bill for this one was what, $400; is\n2 that right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. And did you authorize payment on this? Sitting here, do\n5 you remember?\n6 A. Not specifically, but I'm sure I paid it.\n7 Q. Okay. Did you ask Sean why you were paying $400 for some\n8 work done in Connecticut?\n9 A. I did not.\n10 Q. Okay. Now let's look at Government Exhibit 375.\n11 And the government spent a lot of time asking you\n12 about these mattresses, correct?\n13 A. He asked me questions about them, yes.\n14 Q. Yes. What color they were, how much they cost, correct?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Okay. And you testified that you knew what Hästens\n17 mattresses are, right?\n18 Are you aware of the company?\n19 A. I've heard of the name, but I couldn't tell you from where.\n20 Q. Okay. And it's fair to say that the government also asked\n21 you questions about this email address for Mr. Barnett,\n22 correct? Remember they focused your attention to GSNYUS.com?\n23 A. Yes, they asked me questions today about that email\n24 address.\n25 Q. Okay. Do you know what that stands for?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I do not.\n2 Q. Did you ask Mr. Barnett, hey, why are you emailing me from\n3 this address?\n4 A. I'm not sure I realized it at the time, but I didn't ask\n5 him.\n6 Q. And you didn't ask Ms. Chow, right?\n7 A. No.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Okay. If we could just keep scrolling\n9 down on that document, please.\n10 Still 375, right?\n11 Q. I'm not going to go over the price of all the mattresses\n12 and everything, but you testified at great length about whether\n13 they were blue or white and had a checked pattern, right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Okay. You paid for the mattresses because you were\n16 authorized to release payment?\n17 A. Yes, I was authorized to pay this invoice.\n18 Q. Okay. And you didn't question why the mattresses were\n19 being bought, right?\n20 A. No. I didn't question them.\n21 Q. And the only reason you're testifying about these\n22 mattresses is because Mr. Fergenson picked this document and\n23 asked you questions about it, right?\n24 A. I don't think I understand your question. I'm sorry.\n25 Q. You didn't choose this document to testify about, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. Correct, I didn't choose it.\n2 Q. And you didn't flag it as a document that you found odd,\n3 correct?\n4 A. I didn't flag anything.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's just move on.\n6 Now let's go to Government Exhibit 522.\n7 Q. You see this document?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. You testified about this one as well?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And there were questions asked about where different things\n12 were going, correct?\n13 MS. SHROFF: You know what, just show her the photo\n14 again since you had it up on the screen here already.\n15 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, I'm not sure what this is.\n16 Is it a document in evidence?\n17 MS. SHROFF: It's a Government Exhibit.\n18 THE COURT: Which exhibit?\n19 MS. SHROFF: It's W5V.1. It's a Government Exhibit in\n20 evidence.\n21 BY MS. SHROFF:\n22 Q. Do you know who this person is?\n23 A. I do not.\n24 Q. Okay. Do you recognize the brass bookcases in the\n25 background?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I do not.\n2 Q. You would not be able to match something you read on an\n3 inventory sheet with this brass bookcase, correct?\n4 A. I can't make that match, no.\n5 Q. And you cannot tell if this photograph was taken in the New\n6 Jersey residence or not, correct?\n7 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Okay. You can take that down.\n9 Going back to 522.\n10 Q. On the topmost part of this email, right?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Mr. Fergenson asked you questions about the piano going to\n13 the New York office, correct?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Do you know why the piano was going to the New York office\n16 first?\n17 A. I didn't ask.\n18 Q. Do you know if it had to do with insurance?\n19 A. I——I don't know one way or the other.\n20 Q. How about the mattresses?\n21 A. No one discussed with me where things were going or why.\n22 Q. Okay. They sent you an email about it. As long as you\n23 were authorized to pay it, you paid it, right?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 MS. SHROFF: All right. We can take that down.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. You don't know who is at 3 Columbus Circle, correct?\n2 A. I do not know that address.\n3 Q. You don't know an address on East 64th Street, correct?\n4 A. Can you repeat that. I'm sorry.\n5 Q. Sure. Do you know of any significance to an address on\n6 East 64th Street?\n7 A. I don't recognize that address.\n8 Q. You never heard of any place called the townhouse, correct?\n9 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n10 Q. Let me show you 1275, please.\n11 Do you recall being asked questions about this——I\n12 don't even know how to pronounce it——Amuneal bookcase?\n13 A. I do.\n14 Q. Okay. Do you know what an Amuneal bookcase is?\n15 A. I do not.\n16 Q. If I showed it to you, would you recognize one?\n17 A. No.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down.\n19 Let's go to 1279, please. Thank you Jorge.\n20 And if I could just have you scroll down, please.\n21 And is there one more down? Go further down.\n22 Q. Okay. And you see this email?\n23 MS. SHROFF: If I could just have it made larger.\n24 Q. You see this person? It's Ilona Musial, right?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Was she fired?\n2 A. I was told she was, yes.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Okay. You can take that down.\n4 How about 1275? If I could just have that made\n5 larger.\n6 And you know, I think I have the wrong number. Hold\n7 on one second.\n8 I'm sorry. I may have the wrong number, your Honor.\n9 May I just have a moment?\n10 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n11 MS. SHROFF: Sorry.\n12 I must have written down the exhibit number\n13 incorrectly.\n14 BY MS. SHROFF:\n15 Q. But you recall Mr. Fergenson asking you questions about an\n16 individual named Lee Ann at G Fashion?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Ms. Loftus, could you possibly help me\n19 out with the exhibit number.\n20 Q. Do you recall giving testimony about that document?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Do you know who Lee Ann is?\n23 A. I don't know.\n24 Q. Do you know what G Fashion is?\n25 A. I do not.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Do you know if that company exists today?\n2 A. I——I don't know one way or the other.\n3 Q. Have you ever Googled G Fashion?\n4 A. No.\n5 Q. Do you know if G Fashion had some sort of office or space——\n6 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n7 Q. ——at the Mahwah mansion?\n8 THE COURT: So she's testified that she doesn't know\n9 of the company.\n10 Q. Do you know if any company had space and did work out of\n11 the Ramapo property?\n12 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n13 Q. Do you know if G Fashion clothing was left in that mansion?\n14 MR. FERGENSON: Same objection.\n15 THE COURT: Sustained.\n16 Q. Now you testified to certain questions posed by\n17 Mr. Fergenson that you felt payment was authorized by the\n18 family behind the Taurus Fund. Remember that?\n19 A. I do.\n20 Q. Okay. Sitting here today, you do not know if there was one\n21 or several families behind the Taurus Fund, correct?\n22 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n23 Q. Right. So when you said family, you just used the\n24 nomenclature, right?\n25 A. The people I talked to, that's how they referred to them.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 I don't know anything beyond them being called the family.\n2 Q. Okay. So you don't know how many people were in this\n3 quote-unquote family, correct?\n4 A. I do not know.\n5 Q. Do you know if it was a joint family or a nuclear family?\n6 A. Don't——\n7 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to form. I'm not sure what\n8 that means.\n9 THE COURT: I don't understand what the meaning of\n10 \"joint family\" is.\n11 Q. Do you know what a joint family is?\n12 A. I don't know.\n13 Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say that a family can be defined\n14 as a smaller unit versus a family with all of the siblings\n15 included?\n16 MR. FERGENSON: Just I guess objection to relevance\n17 and knowledge.\n18 THE COURT: Perhaps you could be more specific.\n19 Q. Would it be fair to say that in certain cultures, family\n20 would include all brothers, all of their wives, and all of\n21 their children?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. She's not a\n23 cultural expert.\n24 MS. SHROFF: I'm asking for her understanding.\n25 THE COURT: I'd like her opinion on that. Go ahead.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I don't really have an opinion. All cultures are\n2 different.\n3 Q. Possible, right?\n4 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to speculation.\n5 THE COURT: Don't ask her to speculate. She's told\n6 you all cultures are different.\n7 Q. Are you familiar at all with the Chinese culture?\n8 A. I am not.\n9 Q. Do you know how a Chinese family would define family?\n10 MR. FERGENSON: Objection. She said she doesn't know.\n11 THE COURT: Sustained.\n12 Q. You were asked questions about a person named Cao, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. You've never met the person, correct?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. You got emails from this person, correct?\n17 A. I was copied on emails that he wrote, yes.\n18 Q. Did you ask what his job was?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Did you ask who he was employed by?\n21 A. I did not.\n22 Q. Now you testified about freaking out about the SEC\n23 subpoena, right?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. Okay. And I hope somebody told you that's a normal\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 reaction. But you reached out to Aaron Mitchell, correct?\n2 A. I did.\n3 Q. Okay. And you had a text exchange with Mr. Mitchell,\n4 right? Was that a text exchange that——\n5 MS. SHROFF: I need the exhibit up. I believe it\n6 is——I'm sorry. What was the exhibit, Government Exhibit\n7 number?\n8 Q. Okay. This is 1290, correct?\n9 A. This is a text exchange with Aaron and myself, yes.\n10 Q. Okay. And you're in green?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay. So you say you're in Hershey and you can't talk\n13 right now. \"Can I call u later,\" right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And you then exchange a text with him in November, right?\n16 November 9th.\n17 A. Correct.\n18 Q. And you say you wanted to give him a heads up that \"I got\n19 an information subpoena and deposition notice,\" right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. For Taurus Fund.\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. \"Can we please catch up next week?\" Right?\n24 A. Yes, that's my text.\n25 Q. Okay. And he suggests Monday at 2, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I'm the green. That's me.\n2 Q. Oh, sorry. So you suggest Monday at 2.\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. And do you know if you're being noticed for a deposition by\n5 the Taurus Fund?\n6 A. I don't believe it was, no.\n7 Q. Okay. So who was noticing you for a deposition?\n8 A. I don't remember, but it was for bankruptcy court.\n9 MS. SHROFF: Okay. So let's just scroll down.\n10 No, one page up.\n11 Q. He says, \"U got it! Thanks,\" right?\n12 A. No, that's me.\n13 Q. Still you?\n14 A. Yeah, I'm green and then——oop, I'm gone.\n15 Q. So what happens in the middle?\n16 A. I——\n17 Q. We've lost all signal.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I think we have some\n19 technical difficulties with the equipment.\n20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we have sent an email to the\n21 audiovisual department so they'll come up. Is there anything\n22 that you could ask about that doesn't require the screen?\n23 MS. SHROFF: Maybe Ms. Loftus can help me out.\n24 Very good. Thank you.\n25 MR. FERGENSON: Do you have the——I think it was 1290.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Okay.\n2 MS. SHROFF: So Ms. Loftus has it. Thank you so much,\n3 Ms. Loftus.\n4 BY MS. SHROFF:\n5 Q. Okay. So you see there is a response saying, \"Sure. Call\n6 this number.\" Right? That's from Mr. Mitchell to you, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And then you say, \"U got it! Thanks.\" Right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And could you not reach him so you say to him, \"Call me\n11 please\"?\n12 A. I think it was he wanted me to call him on his cellphone\n13 and not his work number, so——\n14 Q. Okay. And do you know if he was traveling that day?\n15 A. I have no idea.\n16 Q. Okay. And then who is in blue now?\n17 A. Blue is me.\n18 Q. Okay. So you say to him, \"Please call me asap. Thanks.\"\n19 Right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Okay. And does he call you?\n22 A. I don't think he did, 'cause I sent another text.\n23 Q. Okay. And you text him and you say, \"Call me when free\n24 please-looking for update,\" correct?\n25 A. Yes, that's my text.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection that somewhere\n2 along the way he told you he was busy but would call you back?\n3 MR. FERGENSON: I don't think there was a failure to\n4 recall, but that's fine.\n5 Q. You see a response that says, \"Call me when free please\"?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 MR. FERGENSON: That's Ms. Buck's text, your Honor, as\n8 she testified.\n9 THE COURT: So which are you referring to? Is that in\n10 blue?\n11 THE WITNESS: Yes.\n12 THE COURT: So what's the question?\n13 BY MS. SHROFF:\n14 Q. My question is: Do you see the first line, \"Call me when\n15 free please,\" right? Is that line in response to Mr. Mitchell\n16 letting you know that he was not free to speak?\n17 A. I think he didn't respond to my earlier text so I texted\n18 him again.\n19 MS. SHROFF: Okay. So let's keep scrolling down.\n20 Q. And you see the government showed you this document,\n21 correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. And do you know what the title of that document is?\n24 A. It's too small.\n25 Q. Do you have any recollection of what that document was?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. I know that's from the bankruptcy court. It's Notice of\n2 Motion.\n3 Q. Right.\n4 A. Do you want me to read it?\n5 Q. Just the title, please.\n6 A. Notice of Motion for Extension of Time for Trustee to Bring\n7 Claims Against Potential Defendants.\n8 Q. Right. So is it fair to say you're a lawyer? I take that\n9 back. You are a lawyer, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Okay. And it's fair to say, right, as a lawyer, you can\n12 tell this jury that this is for an extension of time, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And when Mr. Mitchell tells you he's not intending to\n15 respond to it, doesn't that tell you that he has no opposition\n16 to the extension of time request?\n17 MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.\n18 THE COURT: Sustained. She cannot possibly know what\n19 is on Mr. Mitchell's mind, what he meant.\n20 Q. The motion is for an extension of time, correct?\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.\n22 THE COURT: Sustained.\n23 Q. And Mr. Mitchell's response to this front page, you\n24 testified, was that he did not plan to respond to this motion,\n25 correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. Yes, that was his text response.\n2 Q. Okay. And sitting here today, do you know if you objected\n3 to the extension of time?\n4 A. I didn't respond to this one.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Okay. So let's keep scrolling down.\n6 Q. And then you and Mr. Mitchell continue to have an\n7 interaction, correct? You keep texting, right?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Okay. And he says, \"Yes. About 1,000 people got it.\"\n10 Correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Did you take that as hyperbole or a true statement of fact?\n13 A. I took it as an exaggeration, that a lot went out.\n14 Q. Okay. And you responded saying, \"That sounds amazing,\"\n15 correct?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And Mr. Mitchell replied, like many litigators do, \"Some\n18 people are fighting——\"\n19 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the commentary.\n20 THE COURT: Don't enhance. Just ask the question.\n21 Q. \"Some people are fighting it, so if they win, we win,\"\n22 correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Okay. And you say, \"Gotcha. Do I need counsel for this\n25 too?\" Right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 A. Correct.\n2 Q. And he says, \"Up to you, but I am not getting counsel or\n3 responding.\" Correct?\n4 A. Yes, that's his text.\n5 Q. And the only document in this chain is a motion for\n6 extension of time, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Could we go all the way down.\n9 Q. That's the end of the document, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down.\n12 Q. You also testified about another conversation you had with\n13 Mr. Aaron Mitchell, right, where you talked about——he talked to\n14 you about the cost of doing business, correct?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And you testified that Mr. Mitchell told you that the\n17 government doesn't like the family, correct?\n18 A. He said something along those lines, yes.\n19 Q. Right. And he did not elaborate on which government it\n20 was, correct?\n21 A. He did not.\n22 Q. He didn't tell you if the government was the United States\n23 government, correct?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. He didn't tell you if it was the Chinese Communist Party,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Cross\n1 correct?\n2 A. Correct.\n3 Q. And he didn't tell you why the government did not like the\n4 family, correct?\n5 A. I don't recall him explaining any of it.\n6 Q. And sitting here today, you have no idea whether or not the\n7 government liked or disliked this family, correct?\n8 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n9 Q. Exactly. And is it fair to say that when Mr. Mitchell was\n10 talking to you about the Federalist Party of China——that's the\n11 name you recall, right?\n12 A. That's the name I recall, yes.\n13 Q. You had no follow-up questions for him, right?\n14 A. We may have conversed. I don't remember the details. It\n15 wasn't important to me.\n16 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Your Honor, may I just have a\n17 moment, please.\n18 THE COURT: Yes.\n19 MS. SHROFF: Thank you.\n20 Q. You were asked a series of questions about a person named\n21 Luc Despins, correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Do you know who that is?\n24 A. I think that's the name on the bankruptcy paperwork.\n25 Q. Okay. But do you know who it is?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Redirect\n1 A. Oh, no.\n2 Q. Do you know if it's a lawyer or not a lawyer?\n3 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n4 Q. Okay. Ms. Buck, sitting here today, could you tell the\n5 jury how much you paid or how much you authorized in payments\n6 for security at the property?\n7 A. I don't know the number, the aggregate number.\n8 Q. You didn't keep an aggregate number in your head for any of\n9 the expenses, correct?\n10 A. I did not.\n11 Q. Right. And you had a limited role to play in all of this,\n12 correct?\n13 A. I paid the invoices that I was authorized to pay.\n14 Q. And you gave a copy of all of those invoices to\n15 Mr. Fergenson here, correct?\n16 A. I believe so.\n17 MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further, your Honor.\n18 Thank you.\n19 THE COURT: All righty. Let's have our redirect.\n20 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION\n22 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n23 Q. Ms. Buck, you were asked some questions about the\n24 conversation regarding the Federalist Party of China. Do you\n25 remember that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Redirect\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. Just for clarity, who was that conversation with?\n3 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n4 Q. And when did the Federalist Party of China come up? When\n5 was that conversation?\n6 A. Around when I got the first subpoena.\n7 Q. And who was that first subpoena from?\n8 A. The SEC.\n9 Q. Is the SEC part of the United States government?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Okay. Do you remember, Ms. Buck, you were asked questions\n12 about whether Sean Jing worked for G|CLUBS? Do you remember\n13 that?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 MR. FERGENSON: Can we please publish, Ms. Loftus,\n16 GX BUCK 194.\n17 And if we can just zoom on the top half, please.\n18 Q. Ms. Buck, you see on the top right here, it says Customer\n19 Name, Sean Jing?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And on the left it says Bill To, and it says Taurus Funds,\n22 LLC and Sean Jing beneath that?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Is G|CLUBS listed anywhere on this document?\n25 A. No.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Redirect\n1 Q. And Sean Jing's email address, is that a G|CLUBS email\n2 address?\n3 A. No.\n4 MR. FERGENSON: If we could go to, Ms. Loftus, Defense\n5 Exhibit 60613.\n6 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, you were asked a number of questions about\n7 payments for security invoices. Do you remember those?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. And this is one of the invoices you were shown, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: We can scroll down. And we can scroll\n12 down to page 3, please.\n13 And if we could just zoom in on the top paragraph\n14 there.\n15 Q. Ms. Buck, could you read the second sentence there that\n16 starts, \"Having 24/7.\"\n17 A. \"Having 24/7 video capabilities can keep your family and\n18 operations safe.\"\n19 Q. Now, Ms. Buck, who did you understand to be behind Taurus\n20 Fund, LLC?\n21 A. A family.\n22 MR. FERGENSON: We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n23 Q. Ms. Buck, I'm not going to show you documents again.\n24 You were asked questions on cross about the\n25 mattresses. Do you remember that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Recross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. Those were Hästens mattresses, right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. They cost some $30,000 apiece, right?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Do you know if those mattresses have any special security\n7 features?\n8 A. I——I don't know.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: Nothing further, your Honor.\n10 THE COURT: Recross?\n11 RECROSS EXAMINATION\n12 BY MS. SHROFF:\n13 Q. Do you know any mattress to have a security feature, ever?\n14 A. I don't know one way or the other.\n15 Q. Okay. Let's look at 194, shall we.\n16 You see that document about Sean Jing, right? He\n17 asked you questions if there was a G Club on here, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Okay. Do you know people to have more than one job at one\n20 given time?\n21 A. Sure, people can have more than one job.\n22 Q. Right. This man could work here and at G Club, right?\n23 MR. FERGENSON: Calls for speculation.\n24 THE COURT: Can a person have more than one job?\n25 THE WITNESS: Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Recross\n1 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n2 Q. I can work two jobs, right?\n3 A. You can.\n4 Q. Right. I could have a job at G|CLUBS in the morning and at\n5 Walmart in the day, right?\n6 A. I'm sure you can.\n7 Q. There you go.\n8 MS. SHROFF: We can take that one down.\n9 And let's go to 60613.\n10 Let's go to that line, \"family and operations.\"\n11 Q. Do you see that?\n12 A. I do.\n13 Q. Okay. Businesses have operations, correct?\n14 A. They do.\n15 MS. SHROFF: Thank you. You can take that down.\n16 Q. And let me just take you to your many, many meetings with\n17 Mr. Fergenson over here, right?\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Scope, your Honor. This is recross.\n19 We didn't talk about this.\n20 MS. SHROFF: I think it's well within the scope.\n21 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.\n22 Q. You and Mr. Mitchell discussed the New Federal State of\n23 China far earlier than June, correct? Do you recall that,\n24 talking with Mr. Aaron Mitchell about the New Federal State of\n25 China more than once? Right? You recall that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Recross\n1 A. We may have. I don't specifically recall.\n2 Q. All right. Well, let's see if we can help you out.\n3 MS. SHROFF: If we could just show her.\n4 Q. Does that help you out?\n5 A. I don't know what NFSC is.\n6 Q. New Federal State of China?\n7 A. Oh.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, the question is if it\n9 refreshes her recollection. She should not read the document\n10 into the record.\n11 THE COURT: So you just look at the document and\n12 you'll say whether it refreshes your recollection.\n13 THE WITNESS: Yes.\n14 BY MS. SHROFF:\n15 Q. Okay. You don't really remember much about this because\n16 the New Federal State of China doesn't interest you, right?\n17 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n18 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. Go ahead.\n19 A. I wasn't interested, no.\n20 MS. SHROFF: Thank you. I have nothing further. Have\n21 a nice day.\n22 THE COURT: All righty. Thank you. You may step out.\n23 (Witness excused)\n24 THE COURT: The government may call its next witness.\n25 MR. FERGENSON: The government calls Douglas Skalka.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 DOUGLAS SKALKA,\n2 called as a witness by the Government,\n3 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n4 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it.\n5 THE WITNESS: My name is Douglas Skalka, S-K-A-L-K-A.\n6 THE COURT: You may inquire.\n7 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n8 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n9 Q. Good morning, Mr. Skalka.\n10 A. Good afternoon.\n11 Q. Good afternoon.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, just before we get\n13 started, if I may just offer an exhibit pursuant to a\n14 stipulation?\n15 THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: GXC-146 and GXC-146-T.\n17 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection, your Honor.\n18 THE COURT: They are admitted.\n19 (Government's Exhibits C-146, C146-T received in\n20 evidence)\n21 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n22 Q. Mr. Skalka, what do you for work?\n23 A. I'm an attorney in private practice.\n24 Q. What firm do you work at?\n25 A. I work at the firm known as Neubert, Pepe & Monteith.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. Mr. Skalka, you can adjust the microphone and you can pull\n2 it closer to you.\n3 What type of law do you practice?\n4 A. I practice primarily in the area of bankruptcy and\n5 financial distress, creditors rights, commercial transactions\n6 involving financially distress entities and assets. Those are\n7 my practice areas.\n8 Q. How long have you been bankruptcy related law?\n9 A. Approximately 35 years.\n10 Q. Are you familiar with the bankruptcy proceedings of Ho Wan\n11 Kwok or Miles Guo?\n12 A. Yes, I am.\n13 Q. How are you familiar with that?\n14 A. My firm Neubert, Pepe & Monteith has been retained as\n15 Connecticut counsel and conflicts counsel for the Chapter 11\n16 trustee appointed in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy proceeding.\n17 Q. What name do you refer to him by?\n18 A. I refer to him as Mr. Kwok or the debtor.\n19 Q. Where was Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy filed?\n20 A. It was filed in the bankruptcy court for the District of\n21 Connecticut in Bridgeport, Connecticut.\n22 Q. What type of bankruptcy did Kwok file?\n23 A. It's a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.\n24 Q. What typically happens in that type, the Chapter 11\n25 proceeding that Mr. Kwok filed?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings are commonly referred to\n2 as reorganization proceedings, meaning that they're an effort\n3 by the debtor to reorganize their financial affairs with an\n4 effort to obtain a plan that's acceptable to the entities\n5 creditors or the person's creditors and to emerge from the\n6 bankruptcy proceeding as a more viable entity with a plan\n7 acceptable to his or their creditors.\n8 Q. Is there a bankruptcy trustee in Mr. Kwok's Chapter 11\n9 case?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. How was that trustee appointed at a high level?\n12 A. The trustee was appointed by the bankruptcy court in the\n13 District of Connecticut. I believe the order was entered in\n14 June of 2022, and it was in response to a motion filed in the\n15 bankruptcy case.\n16 Q. And again just at a high level, what is the trustee's role\n17 in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy?\n18 A. A Chapter 11 trustee, essentially the Chapter 11 trustee in\n19 Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy case, essentially steps in the shoes of\n20 the debtor and has all the powers and rights of a debtor, which\n21 means he has the right to pursue the recovery of assets, to\n22 pursue claims to recover assets for the benefit of creditors.\n23 He also has a right to object to claims, and also to keep the\n24 court and the creditors advised of what is going on in the\n25 bankruptcy proceeding, meaning he has to file monthly reports\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 with the bankruptcy court.\n2 Q. You used the phrase creditor, what's a creditor?\n3 A. A creditor is any party who has a claim against the debtor\n4 and a claim can be brought, and it's broadly defined under the\n5 bankruptcy code. Could be for a specific amount of money, an\n6 unknown amount of money. It could be a contingent claim.\n7 Those are all creditors.\n8 THE COURT: Do you mean a creditor is a person or an\n9 entity that believes that they are owed money?\n10 THE WITNESS: It could be owed money or property.\n11 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n12 Q. Mr. Skalka, without getting into any privileged areas or\n13 discussions, what role, if any, has your firm played as counsel\n14 to the trustee?\n15 A. My firm was retained as Connecticut counsel and conflicts\n16 counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee.\n17 Q. again without getting into any privileged stuff, at a high\n18 level, what sort of work have you done in the bankruptcy?\n19 A. So in that role, myself and my firm, my colleagues, have\n20 filed pleadings on behalf of the trustee, attended hearings on\n21 behalf of the trustee, pursued discovery from third parties on\n22 behalf of the trustee, including serving subpoenas on third\n23 parties to obtain information or documents from third parties.\n24 In connection with pleadings, we have filed lawsuits. We have\n25 filed motions. We have filed objections to other parties'\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 motions.\n2 Q. Could you at a high level just please explain the process\n3 for your firm to be compensated for that work in the bankruptcy\n4 proceedings?\n5 A. Yes. As a court-approved professional, which is what my\n6 firm is in the bankruptcy case, we are required to file what\n7 are called fee applications periodically with the bankruptcy\n8 court and seek to have our fees approved by the bankruptcy\n9 court. Those fee applications are subject to objections by any\n10 party in the bankruptcy case, as well as by the judge. The\n11 judge ultimately has the decision as to what fees are awarded\n12 and when they are paid.\n13 Q. Have your fees been paid in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy so far?\n14 A. Some of my firm's fees have been paid.\n15 Q. Now generally speaking, how is a trustee compensated in a\n16 Chapter 11 case?\n17 A. A Chapter 11 trustee like the Chapter 11 trustee in\n18 Mr. Kwok's case has the right to seek a commission under the\n19 bankruptcy code commission, meaning a percentage of the funds\n20 that are recovered and run through the bankruptcy estate during\n21 the course of the bankruptcy case. The trustee has the right\n22 to seek that commission.\n23 Q. And what's your understanding of how Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy\n24 trustee is being compensated?\n25 A. Mr. Kwok bankruptcy trustee --\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter request all parties to\n2 slow down.\n3 THE COURT: Please slow down.\n4 Q. Mr. Skalka, what's your understanding of how Mr. Kwok's\n5 bankruptcy trustee is being compensated?\n6 A. Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy trustee has indicated he is not going\n7 to seek commission as the trustee.\n8 Q. What is the trustee's name?\n9 A. His name is Mr. Luck Despins.\n10 Q. Where does he work?\n11 A. He is an attorney with the law firm of Paul Hastings.\n12 Q. And what kind of law does he practice?\n13 A. He's a bankruptcy attorney.\n14 Q. What law firm is the main counsel or the primary counsel\n15 for the trustee?\n16 A. The trustee retained his law firm Paul Hastings as lead\n17 counsel.\n18 Q. Is it common or uncommon for a trustee to hire his or her\n19 own bankruptcy practice?\n20 A. When a trustee has a bankruptcy practice, sometimes\n21 trustees are not in bankruptcy firms. A trustee could be not\n22 even attorneys. But in this case, he's a bankruptcy attorney,\n23 and he has a bankruptcy practice, so it is common for trustees\n24 to retain their firms under these circumstances.\n25 Q. Has the trustee filed actions to recover funds related to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 the bankruptcy?\n2 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, if we may have both\n3 parties to slow down.\n4 THE COURT: Please speak slowly.\n5 Q. Has the trustee filed actions to recover funds related to\n6 the bankruptcy?\n7 A. Yes, the trustee has commenced actions.\n8 Q. Approximately how many actions?\n9 A. The trustee has commenced to date approximately 300\n10 actions.\n11 Q. Approximately how much has been recovered to date?\n12 A. To date the trustee has recovered over a hundred million\n13 dollars.\n14 Q. Mr. Skalka, are you billing for your testimony today?\n15 A. I am not.\n16 Q. Why are you testifying today?\n17 A. I was requested to testify by your office.\n18 Q. How many times approximately have you met with the U.S.\n19 Attorney's office to prepare for your testimony?\n20 A. I have met with the U.S. Attorney's office three times,\n21 twice remotely and once in person.\n22 Q. Now, Mr. Skalka, who is Mr. Kwok's largest known creditor?\n23 A. Mr. Kwok's largest known creditor in the bankruptcy is an\n24 entity known as Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund.\n25 Q. Do you refer to that by any acronym?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Yes, that entity is commonly referred to in the bankruptcy\n2 case as PAX because frankly it's a lot to say Pacific Alliance\n3 Asia Opportunity Fund.\n4 Q. Can you spell PAX?\n5 A. It's commonly spelled as PAX.\n6 Q. At a high level, what is PAX?\n7 A. PAX is a fund that lends money to commercial enterprises.\n8 Q. And, Mr. Skalka, you could probably adjust the mic closer\n9 to your mouth, if you could keep your voice up slightly. It's\n10 a difficult to hear.\n11 A. I'll get a little bit closer. Sorry.\n12 Q. Perfect. Thank you.\n13 Now, really quick, Mr. Skalka, could you spell the\n14 last name of the trustee for us?\n15 A. Despins, D-E-S-P-I-N-S.\n16 Q. Now, going back to PAX. As part of your involvement in\n17 Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy, have you become familiar with the\n18 litigation between PAX and Mr. Kwok?\n19 A. Yes, I have.\n20 Q. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, was there a lawsuit between\n21 PAX and Mr. Kwok?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. What was PAX's claim against Mr. Kwok?\n24 A. PAX claimed that Mr. Kwok had sign a personal guarantee\n25 related to a loan that was made by PAX to a commercial\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 enterprise, a business known as Shiny Time Holding. And PAX\n2 was seeking to recover that loan that it had made to Shiny\n3 Times Holding from Mr. Kwok.\n4 Q. In laymen's terms, what's a personal guarantee?\n5 A. It is a separate contract between a lender and the person\n6 who signs the personal guarantee which essentially says if the\n7 party that the loan is made to doesn't pay the loan for\n8 whatever reason, the person who signs the personal guarantee,\n9 often referred to as the guarantor, is essentially saying, I'm\n10 going to be obligated to pay the loan if the party, the\n11 borrower, doesn't pay the loan for whatever reason.\n12 Q. Where was PAX's lawsuit regarding the personal guarantee\n13 filed?\n14 A. It's filed in the New York Supreme Court.\n15 Q. And when approximately did PAX file this lawsuit in New\n16 York Supreme court?\n17 A. In 2017.\n18 Q. And by the way, that court, is that state court or federal\n19 court?\n20 A. That is a state court.\n21 Q. At a high level, what kind of document did PAX file to\n22 start the lawsuit?\n23 A. The document they filed was called a complaint.\n24 Q. Just again at a very high level, what's a complaint?\n25 A. A complaint is a document that commences a piece of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 litigation. It states the claim that the plaintiff, who is the\n2 party that starts the litigation, the claim of the plaintiff\n3 against a defendant or defendants, that claim is set forth in\n4 the complaint.\n5 Q. Did Mr. Kwok file an answer?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And what's an answer, again just very high level?\n8 A. High level is the answer is, again a document filed in the\n9 lawsuit responding to the claims asserted in the plaintiff's\n10 complaint.\n11 Q. And, Mr. Skalka, do you recall what PAX alleged in the\n12 complaint that it had done prior to 2017 to recover the alleged\n13 debt?\n14 A. Yes, the complaint indicates that there were efforts made\n15 by PAX to collect on its loan from Shiny Times and I believe\n16 Mr. Kwok, and that there had been negotiations and even a\n17 potential settlement reached at one point; but the complaint\n18 indicates that that settlement fell apart or didn't go forward\n19 for some reason.\n20 Q. What's a demand letter?\n21 A. A demand letter is a letter that is what it sounds like.\n22 It's a letter written usually to a party that is owed, may owe\n23 money to the sender of the letter. It's a demand to pay on a\n24 debt.\n25 Q. And were there, if ever, demand letters sent by PAX?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to personal knowledge, your\n2 Honor.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: I can rephrase, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n5 Q. Do you recall if PAX alleged they had sent demand letters?\n6 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to relevance.\n7 THE COURT: If you'll set up.\n8 (Continued on next page)\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 THE COURT: Is the complaint in evidence?\n3 MR. FERGENSON: It's not. I think I can move on. My\n4 only question, if I may ask Mr. Kamaraju just a question. We\n5 can maybe resolve this, is there going to be cross on the\n6 complaint that's filed in response to him being a Chinese\n7 dissident?\n8 MR. KAMARAJU: I'm going to ask the date when it was\n9 filed. That's all.\n10 MR. FERGENSON: If I need to get into this, I think we\n11 can address it on redirect. I'll move on for now.\n12 THE COURT: Thank you.\n13 (Continued on next page)\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 (In open court)\n2 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n3 Q. Mr. Skalka, at a high level did Mr. Kwok's answer admit or\n4 deny the allegations?\n5 A. Mr. Kwok's answer denied the allegation in the complaint.\n6 Q. What, if anything, happened with the PAX lawsuit?\n7 A. PAX at some point in the litigation filed what's referred\n8 to as a motion of summary judgment seeking a judgment on its\n9 complaint against Mr. Kwok.\n10 Q. Was there a summary judgment ruling in the PAX case?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And at a high level, what was the ruling?\n13 A. The court granted the motion filed by PAX and entered\n14 judgment against Mr. Kwok.\n15 Q. And what, if any, damages were awarded as well?\n16 A. The court entered a judgment in the amount of roughly $114\n17 million.\n18 Q. And approximately when was that entered?\n19 A. September of 2020.\n20 Q. And at a high level, what was the basis for that amount of\n21 damages?\n22 A. That was the principal amount of the loan plus interest and\n23 I believe some attorneys fees.\n24 Q. What, if any, efforts did PAX make to collect on that\n25 judgment?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Soon after the court granted the summary judgment motion,\n2 PAX filed a motion for a restraining order to restrain the\n3 debtor or Mr. Kwok from transferring assets outside of the\n4 jurisdiction.\n5 Q. And were any restraining orders entered?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. What is a restraining order?\n8 A. It's an order from the court to restrain a party from doing\n9 something. In this case it was an effort to restrain the\n10 debtor Mr. Kwok from transferring assets.\n11 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could show the witness what's marked as\n12 Government Exhibit 1416.\n13 What's this document, Mr. Skalka?\n14 A. This is a copy of the restraining order entered by the New\n15 York Supreme court on October 15, 2020.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Government\n17 Exhibit 1416.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n19 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n20 (Government's Exhibit 1416 received in evidence)\n21 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n22 Q. Mr. Skalka, what date was this filed?\n23 A. It was entered I believe on October 15, 2020.\n24 Q. And if we could, Ms. Loftus, maybe we can make the text a\n25 little larger just for reading.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 Mr. Skalka, could you please read these paragraphs\n2 please?\n3 A. On October 15, 2020, the court held oral argument via\n4 Microsoft Teams with counsel for all parties participating on\n5 plaintiff's motion for a post-judgment restraining order\n6 pursuant to CPLR 5229 (motion 011). On September 15, 2020, the\n7 court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on\n8 liability with damages on the issue of whether the corporate\n9 defendants are defendant Kwok's alter egos to be determined at\n10 a later date.\n11 Q. If you could just read the next paragraph.\n12 A. Plaintiff's motion for a restraining order pursuant to CPLR\n13 5229 is granted. Mr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing\n14 any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any\n15 property in which he as an interest, whether directly or\n16 indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any\n17 debt now due or thereafter coming due to him subject to the\n18 exception set forth in CPLR 5222 in accordance with the\n19 proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020.\n20 Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners\n21 of, one, the residence at the Sherry-Netherland hotel; and two,\n22 the yacht \"The Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing\n23 any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with those\n24 assets.\n25 Q. Mr. Skalka, some of this refers to the word \"plaintiff,\"\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 who is the plaintiff in this case?\n2 A. PAX.\n3 Q. And there's a reference to alter ego, what's an alter ego?\n4 A. An alter ego is a related entity or an entity that is\n5 controlled by a third party.\n6 Q. And focusing you on the bottom paragraph number one, the\n7 residence at the Sherry-Netherland hotel, are you familiar with\n8 that residence?\n9 A. I am in the context of the Kwok's bankruptcy proceeding.\n10 Q. What's your understanding of the residence being referred\n11 to?\n12 A. I believe it refers to the co-op that was -- it is owned by\n13 an entity known as Jennifer Holdings, LLC. It owns actually\n14 the shares in that co-op.\n15 Q. What kind of apartment was it?\n16 A. It's a penthouse apartment at the property known as the\n17 Sherry-Netherlands hotel on 5th Avenue, New York City.\n18 Q. What, if any -- were there collection efforts with respect\n19 to the Sherry-Netherland apartment?\n20 A. Yes, PAX was seeking to recover its judgment or its claim\n21 from the asset known as the Sherry-Netherland hotel apartment.\n22 Q. What, if anything, happened with those efforts?\n23 A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear your question.\n24 Q. What, if anything, happened with PAX's efforts to collect\n25 on the apartment?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Shortly after the entry of this order, Jennifer Holdings,\n2 LLC, filed its own Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, so that\n3 automatically stayed or stopped PAX's efforts to collect from\n4 that entity.\n5 Q. Why did it filing for bankruptcy automatically stop those\n6 efforts?\n7 A. Under the bankruptcy code, any bankruptcy filing creates\n8 what is known as an automatic stay. It's under Section 362 of\n9 the bankruptcy code. That stays all efforts by any creditor to\n10 try to collect from the debtor while they're in bankruptcy\n11 unless they obtain bankruptcy court relief to do so.\n12 Q. Focusing on number two, the yacht, the Lady May. What, if\n13 any, efforts did PAX make to collect via the yacht?\n14 A. Well, in this case they had obtained this restraining\n15 order, and I believe they were in the process of trying to\n16 collect their judgment from the Lady May.\n17 Q. Do you recall -- withdrawn.\n18 What of note happened next with respect to the Lady\n19 May?\n20 A. According to the pleadings in this case, the Lady May was\n21 moved outside of the jurisdiction of the New York Supreme\n22 court, and PAX filed a motion for contempt against Mr. Kwok for\n23 allegedly violating this restraining order by moving the boat\n24 outside of the jurisdiction of the court.\n25 Q. What is contempt?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Contempt in this case is knowingly violating the court's\n2 order.\n3 Q. If we could show the witness what's marked as Government\n4 Exhibit 1413.\n5 Was the motion for contempt granted?\n6 A. Yes, it was.\n7 Q. Is this the order of contempt?\n8 A. What I'm looking at now is a copy of the final order of\n9 contempt which was entered in February of 2022.\n10 MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit\n11 1413.\n12 MR. KAMARAJU: Subject to our prior objection, no\n13 objection at this time.\n14 THE COURT: All righty.\n15 (Government's Exhibit 1413 received in evidence)\n16 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n17 Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Skalka, what date was this final\n18 order of civil contempt entered?\n19 A. February 9, 2022.\n20 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom on the actual text, the bottom\n21 half.\n22 Mr. Skalka, could you please read the first paragraph?\n23 A. Whereas this court's conditional order of civil contempt,\n24 dated March 16, 2021, directed that if defendant Kwok Ho Wan\n25 (\"Kwok\") failed to return the Lady May yacht, the Lady May, to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 the jurisdiction of this court by May 15, 2021, he would be\n2 subject to a $500,000 fine for each day that the Lady May\n3 remained outside of the jurisdiction.\n4 Q. And if you could read the next line, please.\n5 A. Whereas the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction\n6 by May 15, 2021.\n7 Q. And if you could go ahead and read the next one, please.\n8 A. Whereas on November 4, 2021, the Appellate Division's First\n9 Department affirmed this court's order holding Kwok in\n10 conditional civil contempt finding that \"the daily fine of\n11 $500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge\n12 himself of the contempt, which despite being permitted two\n13 months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing.\" And\n14 instructing this court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing\n15 to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht\n16 and to assess appropriate penalties.\n17 THE COURT: One moment, please.\n18 (Pause)\n19 THE COURT: You may continue.\n20 Q. Mr. Skalka, if you could read the last line on this page.\n21 A. Whereas Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to\n22 the jurisdiction.\n23 Q. Ms. Loftus, if you could go to the next page, please. Why\n24 don't we zoom on the top half first.\n25 Could you continue, Mr. Skalka.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Whereas the evidentiary hearing specified by the First\n2 Department's November 4, 2021, order was held on February 2,\n3 2022.\n4 Q. And if you could read the next line, please.\n5 A. Whereas both Kwok and the registered title holder of the\n6 Lady May, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited,\n7 LLC, appeared at the hearing by counsel, proffered evidence and\n8 were represented by counsel.\n9 Q. Who is the owner, Mr. Skalka, of HK International Funds\n10 Investments or the registered owner of HK International Funds\n11 Investments USA Limited. LLC?\n12 A. Mei Guo.\n13 Q. What relationship, if any, did Mei Guo have to Mr. Kwok?\n14 A. Mei Guo is Mr. Kwok's daughter.\n15 Q. The evidentiary hearing reference here which family\n16 members, if any, testified at that hearing?\n17 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, personal knowledge.\n18 THE COURT: If you know.\n19 Q. Which family members, if any, testified at that hearing?\n20 A. The pleadings indicate that Mei Guo testified at the\n21 hearing.\n22 Q. If you could continue and read the third paragraph, please.\n23 A. Whereas based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the\n24 court determines that PAX has clearly and convincingly\n25 established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 over the Lady May as set forth in the court's February 9, 2022\n2 decision and order.\n3 Q. What is a beneficial interest, Mr. Skalka.\n4 What's your understanding?\n5 A. My understanding of beneficial interest as used in this\n6 order is that he had, if he didn't have title to this property,\n7 he had some interest in the property, some ownership interest\n8 in the property.\n9 Q. If we can scroll down. It says that accordingly it is\n10 hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that, and there's a list\n11 or several things. Could you please read number one.\n12 A. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law Section 753 and is\n13 in civil contempt of this court's order.\n14 Q. And number two?\n15 A. Kwok is directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the\n16 amount of $134 million representing $500,000 for each day\n17 between May 15, 2021 and February 7, 2022.\n18 Q. And number three?\n19 A. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at the rate\n20 of $500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the\n21 jurisdiction which additional accrual shall begin 10 business\n22 days from service of this order with notice of entry.\n23 Q. And number four, please.\n24 A. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph two above\n25 shall be made to PAX within five business days of the service\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 of this order with notice of entry.\n2 Q. And number five?\n3 A. The court shall exercise its full authority under New York\n4 Judiciary Law Section 753 in the event the fine is not timely\n5 paid to PAX.\n6 Q. And what authority besides filings does the court have\n7 under that law?\n8 A. The court under that statute also has the right to issue\n9 what are called capias orders.\n10 Q. What does that mean?\n11 A. An arrest warrant.\n12 Q. Mr. Skalka, focusing you on number four, approximately how\n13 long did Kwok, Mr. Kwok, have to pay the $134 million?\n14 A. He had five business days.\n15 Q. Did Mr. Kwok in fact make that payment?\n16 A. No.\n17 Q. What happened instead?\n18 A. On February 15, 2022, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing was\n19 made in the District of Connecticut.\n20 Q. And how soon was that filing made -- withdrawn.\n21 What was the timing of that filing with respect to the\n22 deadline to pay the 134 million?\n23 A. It was six days. I believe it's within the five business\n24 days though of this order. It's six days after the entry of\n25 this order from Judge Ostrager.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. Can we show the witness what's marked as Government Exhibit\n2 1407. Mr. Skalka, what's this document?\n3 A. This is a copy of the voluntarily petition filed by\n4 Mr. Kwok on February 15, 2022 in the District of Connecticut.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit\n6 1407.\n7 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n8 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n9 (Government's Exhibit 1407 received in evidence)\n10 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n11 Q. Ms. Loftus, maybe we can just blow up the middle portion\n12 perhaps. Underneath about debtor one, what name is listed\n13 there?\n14 A. Ho Wan Kwok.\n15 Q. And what are the other names listed beneath that?\n16 A. Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Wengui Guo.\n17 Q. And to the right of that it says about debtor two, and in\n18 parenthesis spouse only in a joint case. Is that filled out?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. What is the name of Mr. Kwok's spouse?\n21 A. Hing Chi Ngok.\n22 Q. Could you spell that for the court report, please.\n23 A. H-I-N-G, C-H-I, N-G-O-K.\n24 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we can go to page two, please. If we could\n25 zoom on where you live.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 What did Mr. Kwok put for where he lives?\n2 A. He put an address care of Golden Spring New York Limited at\n3 162 East 64th Street in New York.\n4 Q. Ms. Loftus, let's go to page seven, please. If we can zoom\n5 on the bottom half.\n6 Mr. Skalka, in number 18, how many creditors did\n7 Mr. Kwok estimate he owed?\n8 A. He estimated that he had somewhere between 50 to 99\n9 creditors.\n10 Q. And how much did he estimate that he owned in assets?\n11 A. He indicated that he had assets worth between $50,001 and\n12 $100,000.\n13 Q. And focusing you on the bottom left, who signed this?\n14 A. Mr. Kwok.\n15 Q. Now we can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n16 Mr. Skalka, did filing for a bankruptcy resolve the\n17 issue with the Lady May?\n18 A. No, it did not.\n19 Q. Did there come a time when an agreement was reached to hold\n20 funds in escrow as security for the Lady May?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Ultimately how much was put into escrow?\n23 A. $37 million.\n24 Q. And who were the parties to that agreement?\n25 A. It was an agreement reached between PAX, Mr. Kwok, the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 creditors committee, which was a committee appointed by the\n2 U.S. bankruptcy court in the District of Connecticut and HK --\n3 what I refer to as HK USA.\n4 Q. Just remind us, what is HK USA?\n5 A. It was the entity owned by Mei Guo that claim to be the\n6 title holder to the Lady May.\n7 Q. What was the source of the $37 million that was put into\n8 escrow pursuant to that agreement?\n9 A. The source was a loan made to HK USA.\n10 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could show the witness what's marked as\n11 Government Exhibit 1314.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: May I have just a quick moment, your\n13 Honor.\n14 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n15 Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Skalka, do you recall the date the\n16 loan agreement was executed or the date on the loan agreement?\n17 A. I believe it was April 19, 2022.\n18 Q. And just for context, about how long after the filing of\n19 Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy is that?\n20 A. It's approximately two months after the filing.\n21 Q. Can you see it on your screen, Mr. Skalka?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. What is this document?\n24 A. This is a copy of the loan agreement between HK\n25 International Funds Investment USA, Limited LLC and Himalaya\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 International Financial Group, LTD.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Government\n3 Exhibit 1314.\n4 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection your Honor.\n5 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n6 (Government's Exhibit 1314 received in evidence)\n7 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n8 Q. Now that we can see it, Ms. Loftus if you can zoom in on\n9 the text on the cover page.\n10 So it says dated 19th of April 2022, do you see that,\n11 Mr. Skalka?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Can you read who this loan agreement is between?\n14 A. Loan agreement between HK International Funds Investments\n15 USA Limited LLC and Himalaya International Financial Group LTD.\n16 Q. Let's go to page two, Ms. Loftus, if we could just keep\n17 scrolling down. Just to focus on the bottom line there where\n18 it says the yacht.\n19 Can you read what's just in the quotation mark after\n20 the yacht, Mr. Skalka?\n21 A. Lady May.\n22 Q. And if we can go to page four, please, and scroll down.\n23 Mr. Skalka, under purpose if you could read 3.1 and\n24 3.2?\n25 A. Yes. The total facility amount will be paid into an escrow\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 account as agreed between the parties in writing (the escrow\n2 account) as per this agreement. The total facility amount will\n3 be used as security for the court in relation to the yacht.\n4 The period the borrower retain the total facility amount in the\n5 escrow account will be the time period from the date of this\n6 agreement to when the yacht is returned to the USA. The\n7 borrower will make all reasonable efforts for the prompt return\n8 of the yacht.\n9 Q. And focusing on 2.1, what was the amount, what was the\n10 facility amount?\n11 A. $37 million.\n12 Q. If we could go to page five, please, focusing you on 4.3.\n13 Could you read 4.3?\n14 A. The total facility amount shall be secured against the\n15 yacht and all other assets of the company directly and\n16 indirectly and shall take priority against all other liability\n17 or debts claim against the borrower.\n18 Q. At a high level, what does it mean for the loan to be\n19 secured against the yacht?\n20 A. This indicates that there was going to be a lien against\n21 the yacht, that's the security that I believe the lender was\n22 looking for.\n23 Q. If we can go to page 13.\n24 Mr. Skalka, who signed for what you called HK USA I\n25 believe?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Mei Guo.\n2 Q. And what is her position listed as?\n3 A. She's listed as the sole member of that LLC.\n4 Q. And who signed for Himalaya International Financial Group?\n5 A. I do not recognize the signature.\n6 Q. Is there a title listed for that person?\n7 A. No.\n8 Q. Is there a name listed for that person?\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. What does it say?\n11 A. It just says authorized signature.\n12 Q. If we could show the witness, Ms. Loftus, Government\n13 Exhibit 1316. What's this document, Mr. Skalka?\n14 A. This document is a side letter to the loan agreement that\n15 we just looked at, the loan agreement dated April 19, 2022\n16 between HK USA and Himalaya International Financial Group.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit\n18 1316.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: Can I have one moment real quick, your\n20 Honor?\n21 THE COURT: Yes.\n22 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection, your Honor.\n23 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n24 (Government's Exhibit 1316 received in evidence)\n25 BY MR. FERGENSON:\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. Thank you.\n2 Mr. Skalka, you said side letter, very high level,\n3 what's a side letter to an agreement?\n4 A. It's an amendment. This is designed to be an amendment to\n5 the loan agreement, so it has some new terms or revised terms.\n6 Q. Focusing you sort of on the upper left, what's the date of\n7 this letter?\n8 A. April 29, 2022.\n9 Q. Is this between the same parties as the loan agreement we\n10 just looked at?\n11 A. Yes, it is.\n12 Q. If we could focus, Ms. Loftus, on 1.2 and 1.3.\n13 Mr. Skalka, I'll ask you to just read 1.3, please,\n14 through the subparagraph?\n15 A. In consideration of the sum of one pound sterling, we agree\n16 as follows: A, the loan in the loan agreement will no longer be\n17 deemed to be secured against the yacht.\n18 B, the borrower will instead provide a personal\n19 guarantee (a signed copy of which has been received)\n20 C, the terms --\n21 Q. That's actually okay.\n22 Mr. Skalka, in 1.3 where it says in consideration of,\n23 what's your understanding of what that means in this context?\n24 A. There were some considerations for the change in the terms\n25 of the loan agreement so that it would no longer be secured,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 but there'd be a personal guarantee.\n2 Q. In laymen's terms, what consideration?\n3 A. Some value, some value in this case. It was only one pound\n4 sterling, but laymen's terms it is some value.\n5 Q. And, Ms. Loftus, if we could show what's marked --\n6 actually, if we could scroll down quickly to page two. If we\n7 could zoom on the signatures. Is there a signature for HK USA?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Is there a name listed?\n10 A. No.\n11 Q. What's the position listed?\n12 A. Director.\n13 Q. What was the position listed on the loan?\n14 A. Sole member.\n15 Q. And then for Himalaya International Financial Group, who\n16 signed there?\n17 A. I don't recognize the signature.\n18 Q. Is there a name listed?\n19 A. There is a name. There's a signature. There's no name\n20 listed.\n21 Q. Let's show what's marked as Government Exhibit 1315 just\n22 for the witness, please.\n23 What's this document, Mr. Skalka?\n24 A. This is a copy of a guarantee agreement.\n25 MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 1315.\n2 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n3 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n4 (Government's Exhibit 1315 received in evidence)\n5 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n6 Q. Mr. Skalka, who is this guarantee agreement between?\n7 A. It is between Mei Guo and the Himalaya International\n8 Financial Group, LTD.\n9 Q. And the document we looked at earlier referenced a personal\n10 guarantee, at a high level what is this agreement about?\n11 A. This is a personal guarantee from Mei Guo indicating that\n12 she's personally guaranteeing the obligation between HK\n13 International Funds Investments USA, as I refer to as HK USA,\n14 and Himalaya International Financial Group.\n15 Q. If we can scroll down, Ms. Loftus, to the signature page.\n16 Who signed it?\n17 A. Mei Guo.\n18 Q. How does this kind of agreement compare to the one that PAX\n19 had alleged Mr. Kwok had given?\n20 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.\n21 THE COURT: Sustained.\n22 Q. If we could go now, Ms. Loftus, to government exhibit --\n23 show the witness only please, what's marked as Government\n24 Exhibit 1303.\n25 What's this document, Mr. Skalka.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. This is a draft loan agreement between Hong Kong\n2 International Fund Limited and ACA Capital Group Limited.\n3 Q. Was this document produced to the trustee in discovery?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Who was it produced by?\n6 A. Counsel for HK USA.\n7 Q. That's the registered title holder of the Lady May?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit\n10 1303.\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n12 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n13 (Government's Exhibit 1303 received in evidence)\n14 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n15 Q. If we can publish, please.\n16 Mr. Skalka, who is the draft loan agreement between?\n17 A. Hong Kong International Fund Limited and ACA Capital Group\n18 Limited.\n19 Q. If we could scroll down now.\n20 Mr. Skalka, do you know why the lender was changed\n21 from ACA Capital Group to Himalaya entity?\n22 A. I do not.\n23 Q. If we can keep scrolling down and we can just go all the\n24 way down to page 15, Ms. Loftus.\n25 Mr. Skalka, could you read the first signature line,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 the entity for the first signature line?\n2 A. Hong Kong International Fund Limited.\n3 Q. And could you read the second entity?\n4 A. Fortress Spark Limited.\n5 Q. Do you know what Fortress Spark Limited is?\n6 A. I do not.\n7 Q. To your knowledge has Fortress Spark Limited otherwise come\n8 up in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy?\n9 A. Not to my knowledge.\n10 Q. We could take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n11 Mr. Skalka, was $37 million ultimately put into\n12 escrow?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And who received those funds first?\n15 A. The loan proceeds went to HK USA's counsel in the\n16 bankruptcy case.\n17 Q. And what was the name of their counsel?\n18 A. The law firm of Zeisler & Zeisler.\n19 Q. Who, if anyone, else did Zeisler & Zeisler come to\n20 represent in the bankruptcy?\n21 A. They also represented Mei Guo, and subsequently they've\n22 also become counsel for Mr. Kwok.\n23 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could show the witness -- these are four\n24 docs. These are government exhibits -- Mr. Skalka before we do\n25 that -- I'll tell you, Ms. Loftus, 1419. 1420, 1421 and 1422.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 While we're waiting, Mr. Skalka, what, if anything, happened in\n2 the PAX case after the $37 million was put in escrow with\n3 respect to the yacht?\n4 A. The PAX case was stayed as a result of the bankruptcy\n5 filings, so there was no further action being taken in the PAX\n6 case while the bankruptcy case was pending.\n7 Q. Mr. Skalka, are you able to see what these documents are at\n8 a high level?\n9 A. Yes, I could see them.\n10 Q. Are these filings by Mr. Kwok and his attorney in the\n11 bankruptcy regarding his assets?\n12 A. Yes, his assets and his liabilities.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers government\n14 Exhibit 1419 through 1422.\n15 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n16 THE COURT: They're admitted.\n17 (Government's Exhibits 1419, 1420, 1421 and 1422\n18 received in evidence)\n19 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n20 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom first on 1421.\n21 Mr. Skalka, this says declaration about an\n22 individual's debtor schedule. Could you read in the bottom\n23 left there's a signature, could you read the text above the\n24 signature?\n25 A. Under penalty of perjury I declare that I have read the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 summary and schedules filed with this declaration and that they\n2 are true and accurate.\n3 Q. And who signed this?\n4 A. Mr. Kwok.\n5 Q. And what was the date?\n6 A. March 9, 2022.\n7 Q. Now, Ms. Loftus, let's just go to, if we could, just pull\n8 up Government Exhibit 1420. If we could zoom, Ms. Loftus, on\n9 the middle portion on official form 106.\n10 Mr. Skalka, at a high level, what kind of filing is\n11 this?\n12 A. These are referred to as bankruptcy schedules that need to\n13 be filed by any debtor in any bankruptcy case filed in the\n14 United States. These are government forms, and this particular\n15 document I'm looking at is a summary of the assets and\n16 liabilities that had been set forth by the debtor on the\n17 various schedules.\n18 Q. What was the total value in real estate assets Mr. Kwok\n19 claim?\n20 A. Zero.\n21 Q. What was the total value in personal property Mr. Kwok\n22 claim?\n23 A. $3850.\n24 Q. And under part two, how much in liabilities did Mr. Kwok\n25 claim?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. $373,803,498.09.\n2 Q. How much income did Mr. Kwok claim to have?\n3 A. Zero.\n4 Q. What about expenses?\n5 A. Zero.\n6 Q. If we could go to page three of this, Ms. Loftus. If we\n7 could, again, you can blow up about the same portion as we did\n8 last time.\n9 Mr. Skalka, what did Mr. Kwok say in response whether\n10 he had any legal or equitable interest in real estate?\n11 A. He said none. He didn't have any.\n12 Q. What did Mr. Kwok say about interest in any vehicles?\n13 A. He said no, he didn't have any.\n14 Q. What about interest in any watercraft?\n15 A. He said no, he didn't have any.\n16 Q. What about any legal or equitable interest in any household\n17 goods and furnishings?\n18 A. He indicated no, he didn't have any interest.\n19 Q. What about electronics?\n20 A. He did indicate yes that he had an interest in electronics.\n21 Q. And if we could scroll down, Ms. Loftus.\n22 What did he list for electronics?\n23 A. An iPhone.\n24 Q. And what was the value of that?\n25 A. Unknown.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. If we could scroll down a little bit more.\n2 Now, in addition to the iPhone, what other assets did\n3 Mr. Kwok declare in this form?\n4 A. He indicated that he had some clothing. He had a family\n5 dog.\n6 Q. What kind of dog?\n7 A. A Pomeranian.\n8 Q. And what were the value of these assets?\n9 A. Unknown.\n10 Q. If we could go to page five, please. What did he list as\n11 assets on this page?\n12 A. He listed that he had some tax refund checks to him from\n13 the state of New York and some Covid relief check that had not\n14 been negotiated.\n15 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we can now go to Government Exhibit 1419.\n16 Maybe we can zoom in on the top half.\n17 Mr. Skalka, at a high level what was this document?\n18 A. These were notes and statements filed by the debtor by the\n19 debtor counsel describing some limitations as to the disclosure\n20 set forth in the debtor schedule that we just looked at and\n21 some other responses to questions related to what's called the\n22 statement of financial affairs which we haven't seen, but\n23 that's another form that needs to be filled out by a debtor in\n24 any bankruptcy case.\n25 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom out, and if we could go down\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 to page four.\n2 Mr. Skalka, could you please read question one?\n3 A. Do you own or have any illegal or equitable interest in any\n4 residence, building, land or similar property.\n5 Q. Can you read the first entry -- Mr. Skalka, just for\n6 reference, when we looked at the earlier document, how did\n7 Mr. Kwok answer that question on that document?\n8 A. On the schedules in the other document he said he had no\n9 interest in real estate.\n10 Q. And could you read bullet number one under that?\n11 A. The debtor has use and occupancy of real estate located at\n12 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut (\"residence\"). The\n13 debtor has no legal title to the residence and no court has\n14 made any determination that the debtor has any other interest\n15 equitable or otherwise in it. All related costs and expenses\n16 associated with the residence are paid directly by family and\n17 family controlled enterprises. The residence is owned by\n18 Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") the sole member of\n19 Greenwich Land is the debtor's spouse.\n20 Q. And if we could scroll down to number two. I'll ask you if\n21 you could just read -- why don't you just read the first two\n22 sentence?\n23 A. The debtor also has access to an apartment located at the\n24 Sherry-Netherland hotel, 781 5th Avenue New York, New York\n25 10022 (the apartment). The cooperative shares in the apartment\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 are held by Jennifer Holdings, LLC (the USS PV) the membership\n2 interest.\n3 Q. Mr. Skalka, could you just skipping down a couple of\n4 sentences read the sentence that starts the debtor's son?\n5 A. The debtor's son owns the equity of the apartment owner.\n6 On or about the trust date, the apartment owner funded the USS\n7 PV with the purchase price for the apartment. These funds came\n8 from entities owned or controlled by the debtor's son and not\n9 from the debtor.\n10 Q. And Ms. Loftus if we can zoom out, and if you can just\n11 scroll slightly to page four.\n12 Now, Mr. Skalka, are any other properties discussed\n13 under that question?\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. By the way, did Mr. Kwok claim to have an interest in\n16 either of these properties that are discussed?\n17 A. No.\n18 Q. Now, do these discuss at all a property in Mahwah, New\n19 Jersey?\n20 A. They do not.\n21 Q. Let's go to page six, Ms. Loftus, please. If we could zoom\n22 on paragraph J, please. Could you read question 17?\n23 A. Question 17, deposits of money.\n24 Q. And what do these notes say in response to that?\n25 A. These notes make reference to a restraining order entered\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 in Hong Kong in 2018.\n2 Q. If you could read starting at the second sentence just the\n3 restraint order?\n4 A. The restraint order stated that it would remain in force up\n5 to and including April 30, 2019, with the understanding that it\n6 would remain in effect pursuant to a further order of the high\n7 court entered on May 3, 2019. The effective the restraint\n8 order was to freeze HK $3.7 million, Hong Kong dollars of funds\n9 alleged to belong to the debtor, as much as billions more of\n10 funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong of\n11 individuals and entities purportedly subject to the debtor's\n12 effective control (according to the restraint order) were also\n13 frozen and/or seized. Due to the freezing/seizure of these\n14 assets, the debtor does not include them in his estate.\n15 Q. And if we could go to page seven, please. If we could zoom\n16 on the very top paragraph there. If you could read the first\n17 sentence there, please?\n18 A. In September and October 2017, the Chinese government\n19 raided the office of Shiny Times and seized all accounting\n20 corporate records and many personal financial records.\n21 Q. Can you remind us, Mr. Skalka, what, if any, relevance did\n22 Shiny Times have to the PAX case?\n23 A. Shiny Time Holdings was their full name was the borrowing\n24 entity in the loan from PAX, and the entity that Mr. Kwok\n25 personally guaranteed the obligation.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. If we could go to page eight, please, and if we could zoom\n2 on question 26 just at the top please.\n3 Question 26, an underline says, patent, copyrights,\n4 trademarks, trade secrets and other intellectual property.\n5 Could you please read Mr. Kwok's note to that answer?\n6 A. The debtor has possible unregistered copyrights and other\n7 intellectual property interest in music and videos posted to\n8 various digital and media platforms, such as YouTube, GTV,\n9 Twitter and Gettr. The debtor ascribes no value to his social\n10 media assets and has made no attempts to monetize his social\n11 media presence.\n12 Q. What's your understanding of ascribes no value to these\n13 assets?\n14 A. My understanding was that thought that there was no value\n15 to these assets.\n16 Q. Ms. Loftus, we can take it down. If we could Ms. Loftus\n17 show the witness what's marked as Government Exhibit 1401-A.\n18 While that comes up, Mr. Skalka, what's a meeting of\n19 creditors in a bankruptcy?\n20 A. In every Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the court soon after\n21 the filing of the case sets up a creditors meeting. It's under\n22 Section 341 of the bankruptcy code, in which all creditors in\n23 the case are invited to attend and could ask questions; but the\n24 meeting itself is run by the Office of the United States\n25 Trustee and the debtor is required to appear at the meeting and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 answer questions under oath.\n2 Q. Did those occur in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. Mr. Skalka, what is Government Exhibit 1401-A?\n5 A. This is a portion of the transcript of the creditors\n6 meetings held in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy case on March 21, 2022.\n7 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Government\n8 Exhibit 1401-A.\n9 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n10 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n11 (Government's Exhibit 1401-A received in evidence)\n12 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n13 Q. Now, Mr. Skalka, in this excerpt who is being questioned?\n14 A. Mr. Kwok is being questioned.\n15 Q. And so where it says Q and A, what does Q and A stand for?\n16 A. Question for Q and A is answer.\n17 Q. Now, if we could, if I could ask, I'll read the question\n18 and if you want to read the answers of Mr. Kwok:\n19 \"Does Golden Spring own that building that's located\n20 at that address?\n21 \"A. I don't know.\n22 \"Q. Have you ever been to that address?\n23 \"A. Yes.\n24 \"Q. What type of building is it? What's located there?\n25 \"A. It was a building.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"Q. Is the building a residential building or commercial\n2 building?\n3 \"A. Business building.\n4 Q. And then there's some back and forth with Claiborne and the\n5 interpreter. Just for reference, Mr. Skalka, who is\n6 Ms. Claiborne?\n7 A. She's an attorney with the U.S. Trustee's Office in\n8 Connecticut.\n9 Q. Is that the office you said runs these meetings?\n10 A. In Connecticut, yes.\n11 Q. I'll continue here:\n12 Does anyone live at that address?\n13 \"A. I don't know.\n14 \"Q. What type of business does Golden Spring do?\n15 \"A. It's a big family business. My son works, but I don't\n16 know specifically what categories of business it has.\n17 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, when you use the term --\n18 \"A. It is a family office own by my son. He has other\n19 businesses, but I don't know.\n20 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, when you use the term family business or family\n21 office, what do you mean by those terms?\n22 \"A. It's mainly for the whole family, all the family members.\n23 When there is something we (indiscernible) and help each other.\n24 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, can you explain in more detail?\n25 \"A. I don't know how to explain.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"Q. Does Golden Spring have any employees?\n2 \"A. Yes.\n3 \"Q. How many?\n4 \"A. I don't know.\n5 \"Q. Does Golden Spring own any real estate?\n6 \"A. I don't know.\n7 \"Q. Does Golden Spring own any other business?\n8 \"A. I don't know.\n9 \"Q. Does Golden Spring have any bank accounts?\n10 \"A. I don't know.\n11 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, you previously said in documents filed with the\n12 bankruptcy court that Golden Spring pays for your personal\n13 living expenses. Can you please explain how they do that?\n14 \"A. I don't know what you mean by they pay me. In what\n15 regard?\n16 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, you previously told the court in your bankruptcy\n17 documents that Golden Spring pays for your clothing, your food\n18 and your housing. My question is, how they do that? Do they\n19 give you money? Do they pay other people directly? How does\n20 it work?\n21 \"A. Whenever I need any expenses for my basic living, I talk\n22 to my son and he will tell his office to give it to me.\n23 \"Q. Who are the owners of Golden Spring? And then there's\n24 back and forth and we can scroll down skip over that.\n25 If you could, Mr. Skalka, you can start after it says\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 the interpreter, I'll repeat the interpretation, starting with\n2 when I need. It's the third line.\n3 \"A. When I need expenses for my basic living, I tell my son.\n4 My son will tell the office to take --\n5 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, who are the owners of Golden Spring?\n6 \"A. My son.\n7 \"Q. Are there any other owners of Golden Spring other than\n8 your son?\n9 \"A. No.\n10 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, have you ever owned an interest in Golden\n11 Spring?\n12 \"A. No.\n13 \"Q. Who are the officers and directors of Golden Spring?\n14 And we could scroll down.\n15 I'll read again, it says by Ms. claiborne. Mr. Kwok,\n16 as of today, who are the officers of Golden Spring?\n17 \"A. (Indiscernible.)\n18 \"Q. I'm going to repeat that name so everyone understands what\n19 I thought I heard. What I heard was Yanping also known as\n20 Yvonne Wang; is that accurate?\n21 \"A. Yes.\n22 \"Q. Is Yvonne Wang the only officer of Golden Spring?\n23 \"A. I don't know.\n24 \"Q. As of today, who are the directors of Golden Spring?\n25 \"A. I don't know.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, have you ever been a direct of Golden Spring?\n2 \"A. I don't remember.\n3 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, who is Max Krasner?\n4 \"A. I don't know. I don't know.\n5 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, who is Max Krasner? And it says Mr. Kwok can\n6 you please answer.\n7 For reference, Mr. Skalka, who is Mr. Baldiga?\n8 A. He was Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy counsel at the time.\n9 Q. If we could just scroll down. So you can continue at line\n10 22, Mr. Skalka.\n11 \"A. He has to double check with you because I can not read and\n12 cannot remember English names well, so just the names. You\n13 said Max. If it's the name Max, only I know Max. But if you\n14 add another name to it, I'm not sure. I don't know.\n15 \"Q. Do you know a Max with respect to Golden Spring?\n16 \"A. Yes, I know.\n17 \"Q. And what is Max's role with Golden Spring?\n18 \"A. I don't know.\n19 \"Q. Well, how do you know Max?\n20 \"A. I don't remember.\n21 \"Q. Do you know more than one person by the name of Max?\n22 \"A. For me English name is very complicated. Like I can't\n23 remember the last name of my lawyer. If you add something else\n24 to Max, I don't know.\n25 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, the name Max Krasner is listed as a person to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 whom the mail for Golden Spring is directed to. Do you know\n2 why that is?\n3 \"A. I only remember there is a Max in Golden Spring. I only\n4 know this one thing.\n5 \"Q. And what is Max's job at Golden Spring?\n6 \"A. I'm not sure what role I (indiscernible) know he is in\n7 charge of finance, but I'm not sure.\n8 \"Q. What does he do for Golden Spring with respect to\n9 finances?\n10 \"A. I was not involved in the management so I don't know.\n11 \"Q. If Golden Spring gives you money, does it come through Max\n12 Krasner's efforts? Does he help make that happen?\n13 \"A. I don't know, he didn't give me money in person.\n14 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, when you get money from Golden Spring, how do\n15 you get money? Does it come in the form of cash or something\n16 else?\n17 \"A. From my son and (indiscernible.)\n18 Q. That gets repeated by the interpreter and the question is.\n19 My question was, how do you get money from your son? Does it\n20 come in the form of cash or some other form?\n21 \"A. I don't understand what you mean by how, the word how. I\n22 never get money directly from them.\n23 \"Q. If you don't get money directly from your son, how do you\n24 get the money from your son? Where does it go?\n25 \"A. I don't use cash and I don't use credit cards. My son and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 (indiscernible). Wan, they just pay my expenses for me. It's\n2 impossible for me to get any cash from them. Also, I don't\n3 have bank account, any bank accounts.\n4 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, do you have access to a credit card that was\n5 taken out by Golden Spring? And then Mr. Baldiga.\n6 Asked again, Mr. Kwok, do you have access to a credit\n7 card or a debit card provided to you by or through Golden\n8 Spring?\n9 \"A. No.\n10 \"Q. Mr. Kwok, are you obligated to pay Golden Spring back for\n11 the money that it pays on your behalf for your living expenses?\n12 A. No, no need.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could show the\n14 witness what's marked as Government Exhibit 1401-B. Your\n15 Honor, at this time the government offers other excerpts. They\n16 are 1404-A and 1404-B.\n17 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n18 THE COURT: They are admitted.\n19 (Government's Exhibits 1401-B, 1404-A, 1404-B received\n20 in evidence)\n21 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n22 Q. I'll continue. Are these answers still from Mr. Kwok?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. And this is the same meeting of creditors, the same one we\n25 were looking at, another excerpt?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. I'll continue with the questions.\n3 What is your relationship to Golden Spring?\n4 \"A. I don't understand what you mean by your question. I\n5 don't know how to answer your question.\n6 \"Q. Do you know what the word \"relationship\" means?\n7 \"A. Relationship means love of things in China. It could be\n8 between husband and wife. It could be between government\n9 relationship, a financial relationship, money, and it could be\n10 a lot of things.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, can you please publish.\n12 \"A. So I don't know which one you mean. Is it a man/woman\n13 relationship or a money relationship or what?\n14 \"Q. Any relationship. What is it? What is your -- it says\n15 (indiscernible.)\n16 And then question comes again, any relationship, what\n17 is yours to Golden Spring?\n18 \"A. Now the relationship is between is he lends me money. I\n19 owe money to him. It helps me.\n20 \"Q. Why does he do this?\n21 \"A. Because I was once a member of the Guo family.\n22 \"Q. Does Golden Spring pay the expenses of any other member of\n23 the Guo family?\n24 \"A. Yes.\n25 Q. Which other members of the Guo family?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. I don't know.\n2 \"Q. A year ago I asked you why does Golden Spring pay\n3 Mr. Podhaskie, spelled, for services rendered to you in your\n4 individual capacity. I'm asking that again now.\n5 Why does Golden Spring pay Mr. Podhaskie for services\n6 rendered to you in your individual capacity? And if we could\n7 scroll down. And then it says, can you start at line 12 where\n8 it says Mr. Kwok, how did he answer that?\n9 \"A. I don't know.\n10 \"Q. Have you ever asked anyone why they pay for him to advise\n11 you?\n12 \"A. I don't remember.\n13 \"Q. I asked you last year why did Golden Spring New York pay\n14 that judgment on your behalf, and I was referring to the one my\n15 client Mr. Cheng held against you.\n16 I'm asking you again, why did Golden Spring New York\n17 pay that judgment on your behalf?\n18 \"A. It was money lended.\n19 \"Q. Why did Golden Spring loan you that money?\n20 \"A. I don't have anything so I borrowed from them.\n21 \"Q. Where did Golden Spring get the money from?\n22 \"A. I don't know.\n23 \"Q. Where does Golden Spring get any money from?\n24 \"A. I don't know.\n25 \"Q. Your son owns Golden Spring, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. Yes.\n2 \"Q. Does your son owe you any money?\n3 \"A. No.\n4 \"Q. How does your son get the money that funds Golden Spring?\n5 \"A. I don't know.\n6 \"Q. Did you ever provide your son with any seed capital?\n7 \"A. No.\n8 \"Q. Have you ever invested in any of your son's businesses?\n9 \"A. No.\n10 \"Q. When did Connecticut become your residence?\n11 \"A. End of February or early March of 2020.\n12 \"Q. And if we could scroll down, Ms. Loftus, if we could now\n13 go to 1404-A. is this another excerpt from a meeting of\n14 creditors?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. What was the date of this meeting?\n17 A. April 6, 2022.\n18 Q. And the answers here, are they from Mr. Kwok?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. So I will read the question again.\n21 Did you meet with anyone else beside your attorney to\n22 prepare for today's meeting while you were at the office?\n23 \"A. I don't know what you mean the other people.\n24 \"Q. Well, did you meet with anyone who worked for Golden\n25 Spring?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. Yes, I meet Yvonne Wang.\n2 \"Q. And this was yesterday?\n3 \"A. Yes, I met her yesterday.\n4 \"Q. Did you ask some questions of her yesterday?\n5 \"A. No.\n6 \"Q. And tell me about your conversation with Ms. Wang?\n7 \"A. What do you mean?\n8 \"Q. Well, I like to know what you talk about with her?\n9 \"A. I ask her to arrange the food to eat and the coffee.\n10 \"Q. Is that all?\n11 \"A. And also we talked about how to abolish communist party.\n12 \"Q. I want to make sure I get this right. I think you said --\n13 and then Mr. Baldiga. If you can read line six again.\n14 \"A. We talk about how to abolish communist party.\n15 \"Q. Ms. Wang is an officer of Golden Spring, correct?\n16 \"A. Yes.\n17 \"Q. And you directed her to bring coffee, right?\n18 \"A. No, I didn't direct her. I'm just hoping her to bring\n19 some coffee.\n20 \"Q. You were hoping or helping?\n21 \"A. Help.\n22 \"Q. You were helping. Because my question to you was what you\n23 talked about with Ms. Wang, and I thought you said you asked\n24 her to bring some coffee or maybe even told her to bring some\n25 coffee?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. No, your attorney office, you attorney office making and\n2 imagining things again.\n3 \"Q. What did you discuss with Ms. Wang yesterday?\n4 \"A. Do you want me to talk about it in detail? I can talk\n5 about this for hours.\n6 \"Q. Not if the detail concerns how to overthrow the Chinese\n7 communist party, so I'll be more precise.\n8 \"A. So you don't want us to abolish Chinese communist party?\n9 Our job is to abolish Chinese communist party.\n10 Q. And Mr. Baldiga says just answer the question. And the\n11 witness.\n12 \"A. You don't have a question. You're just directing\n13 something.\n14 Q. We can just scroll down.\n15 Did you discuss with Yvette yesterday anything related\n16 to preparing for the meeting today?\n17 \"A. Yes.\n18 \"Q. What did you discuss?\n19 \"A. I ask her to bring those documents here.\n20 \"Q. Anything else?\n21 \"A. I don't remember.\n22 \"Q. When was Lamp Capital created?\n23 \"A. I don't know.\n24 \"Q. Why was Lamp Capital created?\n25 \"A. I don't know.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"Q. Who created Lamp Capital?\n2 \"A. My son.\n3 \"Q. How do you know that?\n4 \"A. Because I borrow money from my son to pay attorney fee.\n5 \"Q. The question is how do you know that your son created Lamp\n6 Capital?\n7 \"A. Because my son said it.\n8 \"Q. He told you himself?\n9 \"A. Yes.\n10 \"Q. Did he ask for any advice from you about whether to create\n11 Lamp Capital?\n12 \"A. No.\n13 \"Q. Did he ask you your opinion on whether he should create\n14 Lamp Capital?\n15 \"A. No.\n16 \"Q. Did he tell you why he was creating Lamp Capital?\n17 \"A. No.\n18 \"Q. Thank you. Do you have an understanding of what business\n19 Lamp Capital is engaged in, if any?\n20 A. No.\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus let,s now publish 1404-B.\n22 Q. Is this excerpt from this same creditors meeting?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. If we could scroll down. And again the answers in this\n25 excerpt are coming from Mr. Kwok?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. Among that documents that you filed were some specific\n3 notes and one of those notes discusses the residence of Taconic\n4 road or on Taconic Road, and then there's a reference to\n5 Mr. Harbach. Do you recall who he?\n6 A. He's an attorney for at least one creditor, perhaps more.\n7 Q. If we can scroll down. I'll start at line 21.\n8 First question, is it true that all expenses related\n9 to the Taconic Road house are paid directly by family and\n10 family controlled enterprises?\n11 \"A. Yes.\n12 \"Q. Which family members?\n13 \"A. My wife, sometime by my son.\n14 \"Q. Which family controlled enterprises?\n15 \"A. Which country, my wife.\n16 \"Q. Your wife's not an enterprise. I'm trying to ask which\n17 family controlled enterprises pay the expenses for the Taconic\n18 house?\n19 \"A. Greenwich, LLC.\n20 \"Q. Incidentally how do you know that your wife or sometimes\n21 your son pay these expenses?\n22 \"A. Because I live there.\n23 \"Q. Did you observe them pay the expenses?\n24 \"A. Yes.\n25 \"Q. Is that ever at your request?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. I don't remember I request anything.\n2 \"Q. Does Greenwich Land LLC -- yes, Greenwich Land LLC, own\n3 any other real estate beside 373 Taconic Road?\n4 A. I don't know.\n5 THE COURT: We're going to stop there. Members of the\n6 jury, you have graciously agreed to stay until 5 p.m. tomorrow.\n7 That's Tuesday. On Wednesday and Thursday, we're going to go\n8 to 2:45, and on Friday you have the day off. The following\n9 week Monday, the first of July, you have off. Tuesday and\n10 Wednesday, you come in. Then Thursday and Friday, the 4th and\n11 the 5th, you have off. And so what I'm asking you to please\n12 think about this evening, you don't have to tell me now. Could\n13 you stay for a full day on Tuesday and Wednesday, July 2nd and\n14 3rd. You can think about it and tell me tomorrow morning. In\n15 the meantime, don't discuss the case amongst yourselves or with\n16 anyone else. Don't permit anyone to discuss the case in your\n17 presence. Don't read, watch or listen to anything from any\n18 source that touches upon the subject matter of this case. Have\n19 a good evening.\n20 THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting.\n21 (Jury not present)\n22 THE COURT: Sir, you may step out of the courtroom.\n23 Don't discuss your testimony.\n24 (Witness temporarily excused)\n25 THE COURT: Please be seated. Is there anything\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1 before we reconvene in the morning?\n2 MR. KAMARAJU: Not from the defense, your Honor.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: No, your Honor. Just for context for\n4 the Court, I have maybe I hope around 15 minutes left. This is\n5 the last excerpt. We're almost there, and then I think pretty\n6 short questioning after that.\n7 THE COURT: Great. All right. Have a good evening.\n8 (Adjourned to June 25, 2024 at 9 a.m.)\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION\n2 Examination of: Page\n3 AMY BUCK FAUNDEZ\n4 Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .3873\n5 Cross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . . .3935\n6 Redirect By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . .4000\n7 Recross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . .4003\n8 DOUGLAS SKALKA\n9 Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .4006\n10 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS\n11 Exhibit No. Received\n12 BUCK 34, BUCK 44, BUCK 48, BUCK 49, . . . . .3883\n13 BUCK 50, BUCK 60, BUCK 63,\n14 BUCK 69, BUCK 77, BUCK 80\n15 BUCK 115, BUCK 117, BUCK 127, BUCK 131, . . .3883\n16 BUCK 133, BUCK 138, BUCK 141,\n17 BUCK 168, BUCK 174, BUCK 194\n18 BUCK 218, BUCK 221, BUCK 227, BUCK 232, . . .3884\n19 BUCK 235, BUCK 236, BUCK 241,\n20 BUCK 243\n21 BUCK 375, BUCK 391, BUCK 428, BUCK 522, . . .3884\n22 BUCK 524, BUCK 532\n23 BUCK 709, BUCK 822, BUCK 851, BUCK . . . . .3884\n24 1204, BUCK 1260, BUCK 1261,\n25 and BUCK 1274-BUCK 1291, and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 BUCK 1293-BUCK 1296\n2 C-146, C146-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4006\n3 1419, 1420, 1421 and 1422 . . . . . . . . .4039\n4 1401-B, 1404-A, 1404-B . . . . . . . . . . .4053\n5 BUCK 1292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3885\n6 1303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4037\n7 1314 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4031\n8 1315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4036\n9 1316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4033\n10 1401-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4047\n11 1407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4028\n12 1413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4023\n13 1416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4019\n14 DEFENDANT EXHIBITS\n15 Exhibit No. Received\n16 60613 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3971\n17 60614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3972\n18 60618 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3973\n19 60620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3974\n20 60621 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3975\n21 60623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3975\n22 60624 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3978\n23 60625 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3977\n24 60626 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3979\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":45616,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-23","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:52:32"}