{"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":"庭审记录——美国诉Ho Wan Kwok（Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / 郭文贵）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF 437，2024年6月24日。法官Analisa Torres主持庭审，政府提议延长庭审时段以按时完成诉讼，辩护方回应其证人名单及案件管理计划。","summary_en":"Trial transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF 437, June 24, 2024. Judge Analisa Torres presides as government proposes extending trial hours to meet completion deadline; defense responds regarding witness list and case management.","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":"O6O1GUO1\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n------------------------------x\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nMILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n被告。 庭审\n------------------------------x\n纽约州纽约市\n2024年6月24日\n上午 9:00\n\n审判长：\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）阁下，\n地区法官\n——及陪审团——\n\n出庭人员\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\n代表律师：MICAH F. FERGENSON（米卡·F·弗根森）\nRYAN B. FINKEL（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nJUSTIN HORTON（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJULIANA N. MURRAY（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\n\nSABRINA P. SHROFF（萨布丽娜·P·施罗夫）\n被告代理律师\n\nPRYOR CASHMAN LLP（普赖尔·卡什曼律师事务所）\n被告代理律师\n代表律师：SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU（西达尔塔·卡玛拉朱）\nMATTHEW BARKAN（马修·巴坎）\n\nALSTON & BIRD LLP（奥斯顿·柏德律师事务所）\n被告代理律师\n代表律师：E. SCOTT SCHIRICK（E·斯科特·希里克）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南区速记员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n其他在场人员：\nIsabel Loftus（伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯），USAO（联邦检察官办公室）律师助理专员\nRobert Stout（罗伯特·斯托特），FBI（联邦调查局）特别探员\nJorge Salazar（豪尔赫·萨拉查），辩方律师助理\nTuo Huang（黄拓，音译），译员（普通话）\nShi Feng（冯实，音译），译员（普通话）\nYu Mark Tang（唐玉马克，音译），译员（普通话）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n（庭审恢复；陪审团未在场）\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n全体代理律师：法官阁下，早上好。\n\n法庭：请各位通报出庭身份。\n\n芬克尔先生：法官阁下，早上好。瑞安·芬克尔和贾斯汀·霍顿代表政府方。我们办公室的律师助理专员伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯也在场。朱莉安娜·默里和米卡·弗根森稍后会加入我们。\n\n施罗夫女士：法官阁下，早上好。萨布丽娜·施罗夫、西德·卡玛拉朱、斯科特·希里克和马特·巴坎代表郭先生出庭。萨拉查先生也在代理律师席就座。\n\n法庭：请坐。\n\n在我们 9:30 开始之前有什么事情吗？\n\n施罗夫女士：辩方没有，法官阁下。\n\n芬克尔先生：政府方倒没什么大问题。如果法庭需要的话，我只是想向法庭更新一下日程安排。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n芬克尔先生：政府方这边，假定我们今天能引入某份文件，我们认为如果明天是全天庭审的话，我们有望能够在明天完成举证。如果明天不是全天，我就不确定了。可以说，我们今天有两位中等时长的证人和两位短时长的证人。这是我们的计划。我不确定对中等时长证人的交叉询问会是怎样。如果与之前的某些交叉询问耗时一致，我们今天甚至可能无法完成这些证人的作证。\n\n我们在周末收到了辩方的证人名单，我们很感谢他们提供了这份名单。证人名单上有 11 名证人，可能有 12 名。我们可能会就其中一名证人达成约定。据我了解，辩方预计他们可以在 7 月 3 日之前完成这 12 名证人——或者假定达成约定的情况下是 11 名证人——的作证。在政府方看来这并不现实，尤其是如果那些日子是半天庭审的话。很多证人——我是说，在这些证人中，有三名是专家证人，这需要花一些时间。还有一些证人——我是说，由于没有关于这些证人的 26.2 条款材料，我们并不真正清楚他们的证词内容会是什么。我们可以猜测，我认为基本上他们就是会讲讲郭的生平故事以及其他问题。我不知道。但无论如何，当我们按照 9:30 至 2:45 的时间开庭时，平均每天大约审理两名证人；有的日子审理了三名，有的日子审理了一名。以每天两名证人的速度，到目前这个节点，我们很容易就会拖到 7 月底，而这还是假定被告不出庭作证的情况。如果被告出庭作证——他当然有权这样做，如果他选择作证完全是他的权利——我想这样的作证会持续数天。我想他将不得不解释所有的视频、录音、所有的陈述、业务、投资。这需要耗费大量时间，交叉询问也是如此。\n\n所以政府方的看法是，在日程安排方面，我们当然完全遵从法庭认为最合理的安排。但如果目标是在 7 月 12 日之前彻底结束这场审判，在政府方看来，继续只开庭到 2:45 似乎是不可行的。也许可以每天或在特定几天稍微延长一点时间，但政府方确实认为我们需要延长庭审时间，以确保能把这些内容全部审完。退一步说，我们请求法官阁下至少告知陪审团，7 月 8 日那一周，也就是最后那一周，将是全天开庭，因为假定事情如辩方预期且政府方当然也希望的那样发展，在政府方看来那一周将是陪审团陈词和评议阶段，我认为法庭——也许我这么假定是不对的，但我认为法庭在这些环节会希望开庭到 5 点。\n\n所以法官阁下，说到底，绕回原点，鉴于我们所了解的辩方举证情况，我们认为法庭应当考虑延长每天的开庭时间，以确保我们在 7 月 12 日前结束庭审，这也是法庭向陪审团预告的日期，也是各方此前所设想的情况。\n\n卡玛拉朱先生：谢谢法官阁下。早上好。\n\n我的提议是——我想我听到芬克尔先生说政府方希望与法庭及各方讨论可能延长某些天庭审时间的想法，您知道，也许有的天延长一点，也许有的天多延长一点。我认为我们与政府方进行一次沟通可能会有成效，因为我们并不反对对日程做一些调整，以确保我们及时完成庭审。我不知道辩方是否认为每天都从 9 点开到 5 点全天开庭是有必要的。我们的证人虽然有 11 名，但据我预计——特别是考虑到法官阁下最近的裁定——其中有些人的作证可能在 30 分钟以内。而我们的专家证人，我很难想象他们的直接询问会有任何一个超过 60 到 90 分钟。所以我认为我们完全能够按计划推进，但我想我们的提议是与政府方进行讨论，看看我们是否能达成双方一致认可的方案，使我们大家都相信能按时完成这场庭审，然后提交给法官阁下供阁下考量，如果法官阁下同意，再向陪审团提出。这就是我的提议。\n\n芬克尔先生：法官阁下，政府方当然很乐意与辩方律师就此进一步沟通并尝试达成协议。我只想提两点。第一，我认为——我不确定，但——辩方的多名证人将需要翻译，这会拉长时间。如果有三名专家证人每人需要 60 到 90 分钟，假设平均为 75 分钟，假设交叉询问半小时；仅这本身就是两天时间。因此，如果他们认为能在四天内传唤完他们全部 11 名证人，坦白讲，这看起来根本不可行。我也希望可行。我希望进展迅速。我确实是这么想的。\n\n第二点，法官阁下，我们请求明天在法官阁下和陪审团都合适的情况下，我们将庭审时间延长至我们完成当天证人的作证或到 5:00 为止，以先发生者为准。有一名证人，如果我们传唤的话——希望我们不需要，但——如果我们出于监管链证明目的需要一名证人，那必须是在周三。该名人员直到周三上午才有时间。但总之，目前的情况大致就是这样。但我非常接受与辩方律师进行讨论的邀请，并请求法官阁下考虑明天开庭到更晚。\n\n卡玛拉朱先生：关于交叉询问这一点，法官阁下，我们一直在努力提高效率。我们会继续这样做。我仅给法官阁下举个例子。在周五，我认为特别探员 Luciano（卢西亚诺）进行了 107 分钟的主询问作证，而我认为施罗夫女士的交叉询问用时为 26 分钟，这与特别探员卢西亚诺就照片、毛巾和拖鞋以及合同中的含铅油漆免责声明作证的时间差不多。所以我们正在努力提高交叉询问的效率。我想政府方也会这样做。\n\n我们正在审查我们的证人名单。我们正试图与政府方就某些事项达成约定，以尝试进一步缩短该名单。但坦白讲，我们的证人时长与政府方的证人时长不同。我们没有耗时三、四或五个小时的证人去拉高芬克尔先生所说的那种平均时间。因此我再次提议我们与政府方进行沟通。也许我们可以提出一个解决方案，免得法官阁下不得不出面解决争议。不过这就是我的提议。\n\n法庭：那么我想做的是请他们在周二和周三留到更晚。我周四不能留到很晚。因此今天上午他们出来时我会询问这个问题，看看是否有任何人绝对无法在周三和周四留到很晚。在此期间，你们进行你们的讨论。我当然希望你们在休庭期间就已经进行了讨论。但我敦促你们相互沟通。\n\n还有其他事吗？\n\n弗根森先生：有的，法官阁下。关于破产证人 Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡）先生的询问，我们只想谈几点以尝试简化程序。他是破产受托人在康涅狄格州的当地代理律师。在对他的主询问中，我们正努力严格紧扣破产案中极具证明力、相关联的狭窄证据范围进行展示，正如我们在原告审前动议中所阐述以及法庭命令允许我们做的那样。我们希望这将是一次高效的展示。而且，法官阁下，第一点就是，传唤与破产案相关的人员并不意味着交叉询问现在变成了对另一独立破产案的案中案审判。当然，它应当聚焦于主询问中所引出的内容。这只是一点。希望如卡玛拉朱先生所言，辩方现在也能进行聚焦重点的交叉询问。\n\n法官阁下，还有另外两点要提出，是关于证据争议的，据我理解它们属于争议。第一点与我们可能需要在周三传唤的监管链证人有关。我们原本希望纳入斯卡尔卡先生关于破产案证词中的一项证据，与被称为 341 债权人会议的记录有关。据我了解，在破产程序中，债务人必须在由 DOJ（司法部）受托人办公室组织和管理的程序中作证。它是司法部的一个组成部门，负责协助推进破产程序。我不是这方面的专家，但据我了解是这样。他们举行这些会议，进行录音，并形成文字记录。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 法官：是经过宣誓的吗？这些陈述宣过誓吗？\n2 费尔根森律师（MR. FERGENSON）：是的。斯卡尔卡先生（Mr. Skalka）当时并没有出席\n3 那些会议，但对于这类证据，鉴于他是我们破产方面的证人，\n4 我们仍希望通过斯卡尔卡先生出示\n5 被告在当中的部分证词摘录。\n6 但是，他当时确实没有出席这些会议。\n7 据我们了解，辩方将以真实性为由反对\n8 出示这些笔录。正如\n9 芬克尔先生（Mr. Finkel）所指出的，我们可以传唤来自纽黑文（New Haven）的\n10 美国受托人办公室（Office of the Trustee）的律师。她周二\n11 要出庭。为了尽量不打乱纽黑文法院\n12 的日程，她可以在周三上午\n13 到庭说明，是的，大家知道，这是一份录音，这是当时\n14 的证词，这是笔录。大概也就仅限于此。\n15 我们不太确定是否有必要这么做。\n16 我们希望直接通过斯卡尔卡先生出示，这样会更有效率。\n17 不过我想，这最终取决于辩方。\n18 斯卡尔卡先生所能说明的是，作为\n19 破产诉讼中的当地代理律师，他收到了这些\n20 笔录，他在法庭文件中使用过这些笔录，法庭也采信过它们。\n21 但正如我指出的，他本人当时并没有出席会议。\n22 庭上，第二个问题涉及——我不确定\n23 是否先让辩方律师就第一个问题发表意见，然后\n24 我再提出第二个问题。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 法官：好的。我想听听辩方关于\n2 笔录问题的意见。\n3 卡马拉朱律师（MR. KAMARAJU）：好的，庭上。我们唯一的要求\n4 就是政府方面按照法律规定的方式证明文件的真实性。\n5 我们乐意与他们探讨达成潜在\n6 事实认诺协议（stipulations）的可能，正如我们之前所做的那样，甚至就\n7 这份文件也是如此。但我认为，要求政府通过能够\n8 正确鉴真（authenticate）的证人来出示证据，并不过分。\n9 在本案审理期间，我们之前就遇到过这个问题。\n10 就是这样。这位证人，我认为\n11 费尔根森律师基本已经承认，并不具备对其进行鉴真的\n12 亲历知悉（personal knowledge），作为辩护律师，\n13 我很难直接对政府连证人出示的基础都不具备的文件\n14 自动作出事实认诺。另外我认为斯卡尔卡先生并不是\n15 第一个出庭的证人，所以如果他们想继续讨论，\n16 我乐意奉陪。但这很明显：该证人没有\n17 能力证明这些笔录的真实性。\n18 法官：但你的委托人肯定知道他自己说了什么，\n19 对吧？换句话说，基于你委托人向你作出的陈述，\n20 你可以认诺这些是他说过的话。\n21 卡马拉朱律师：庭上，首先，这些记录是英文的，\n22 所以——\n23 法官：当然，它们可以被翻译。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 卡马拉朱律师：可以翻译，庭上，但我不知道那怎么——\n2 这么说吧。我的委托人可以告诉我，\n3 他是否记得在这次面谈过程中就这些问题给出了这些回答。\n4 我不知道他是否能做到这一点。\n5 但即使他能做到，我也不确定这是否能免除\n6 政府对文件进行鉴真的法律要求。\n7 法官：这不是免除政府义务的问题，\n8 而是你是否愿意达成事实认诺的问题。\n9 当然，这由你决定。关于如何最有效地代表你的委托人，\n10 由你自己做决定。因此，\n11 如果没有认诺，那就必须传唤那位证人。\n12 第二个问题是什么？\n13 费尔根森律师：庭上，第二个问题是，部分证词涉及\n14 从喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）的银行账户向代表\n15 郭美（Mei Guo，郭先生的女儿）的破产律师进行的这笔 3,700 万美元的转账，\n16 郭美自称是游艇“梅号”（Lady May）的所有人。\n17 导致破产的主要争议之一\n18 就与“梅号”有关，庭上，\n19 喜马拉雅交易所实体向郭美提供了 3,700 万美元的贷款，\n20 随后这笔钱被存入第三方托管账户（escrow），因为该游艇已被移至\n21 美国司法管辖范围之外。此问题涉及与此相关的一份贷款协议草案。\n22 最终签署生效的贷款协议已经\n23 记录在案（filed on the docket），由破产案双方当事人共同提交。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 斯卡尔卡先生将出示该文件。破产案初期曾有一份\n2 与这笔 3,700 万美元托管资金相关的全局性协议。\n3 还有一份该贷款协议的初始草案，\n4 其中贷款人不是喜马拉雅交易所实体，\n5 而是阿卡资本集团（ACA Capital Group），\n6 庭上可能还记得，该实体在阿布扎比（Abu Dhabi）设有银行账户，\n7 政府指控该实体基本上是利用一个洗钱秘密资金池（money laundering slush fund）\n8 将欺诈收益周转进去，然后再转出来，\n9 转回美国。该贷款协议草案是由借款实体\n10 的律师在证据开示（discovery）程序中提供的——抱歉——\n11 基本上就是郭美名下的那家壳公司。\n12 斯卡尔卡先生，该文件是在证据开示中提供给受托人的。\n13 斯卡尔卡先生可以查阅该证据开示材料。上面盖有该实体名称的贝茨编号（Bates stamped）。\n14 他将证明该文件是在证据开示中提供的贷款草案。\n15 我们打算出示它。我们理解辩方会对此\n16 提出异议。我提出这个问题，是想或许我们现在就可以处理，\n17 而不必在陪审团出庭时再搞边裁沟通（sidebar）。\n18 法官：所以你的证人仅仅是在陈述\n19 这是他收到的一份文件。他与该文件\n20 并没有任何亲历关联。\n21 费尔根森律师：是的，庭上。这是一份由同一——\n22 双方当事人在破产诉讼中已记录在案的最终\n23 签署生效版本的贷款协议草案。这只是该当事人在证据开示程序中\n24 向受托人提供的草案版本。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 法官：所以你是说，最终生效文件\n2 是我们双方已有事实认诺的文件吗？\n3 费尔根森律师：不是的，庭上。\n4 法官：不是。\n5 费尔根森律师：我认为他们对最终文件没有异议。\n6 法官：他们对最终文件没有异议。\n7 他们异议的是——\n8 费尔根森律师：我不太确定。那是我的——也许是\n9 我的假设。我以为是针对草案。\n10 卡马拉朱律师：庭上，我可以澄清一下。我们\n11 对最终文件被采纳为证据没有异议。\n12 法官：但你们对草案有异议。\n13 卡马拉朱律师：庭上，我们之前对草案提出了异议。\n14 坦率地说，我很好奇费尔根森律师打算就该草案\n15 提出什么样的鉴真依据。\n16 法官：好吧，他现在提出的正是鉴真的问题。\n17 卡马拉朱律师：是的。我提出鉴真问题，是因为我认为\n18 这不符合庭上先前的裁定。例如，我们在雷耶斯女士（Ms. Reyes）\n19 的证词中处理过 G 会所（G Club）文件的问题，\n20 政府出示了这些文件，并表示雷耶斯女士可以基于\n21 她辨认出签名以及认出这些文件是\n22 G|CLUBS（G俱乐部）通常使用的材料包来进行鉴真。\n23 也就是因为她有某种内部知情，对吧，因为她在那里工作过。\n24 斯卡尔卡先生并不具备这种条件。\n25 我认为，庭上，如果我和费尔根森律师沟通一下，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 我们也许也能解决这个问题。\n2 法官：希望如此。那你们私下沟通一下，\n3 我们 9:30 开始。\n4 卡马拉朱律师：谢谢，庭上。\n5 费尔根森律师：谢谢，庭上。\n6 （休庭）\n7 法官：请带陪审员入庭。\n8 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1\n1 （陪审团入庭）\n2 法官：请就座。\n3 陪审员们，早上好。\n4 陪审团：早上好。\n5 法官：欢迎回来。\n6 由于非我和各方所能控制的情况，\n7 看来我们需要一些额外的时间；\n8 否则，我认为我们在 7 月 12 日之前无法审结。\n9 因此，我希望你们明天——也就是周二——\n10 和周三都待到下午 5 点。所以今天我们 2:45 结束。\n11 明天你们要留到 5 点，周三到 5 点，周四到 2:45，\n12 周五休息。\n13 有没有人绝对无法做到？如果不行，\n14 请直接报出你的编号。\n15 陪审员：10 号。\n16 法官：你是因为什么事情无法——\n17 陪审员：我周三不行。我有——\n18 法官：我听不清你说什么。\n19 陪审员：我周三不行。\n20 法官：但明天你可以。好的。\n21 陪审员：我周三也不行。\n22 法官：那我们周三就不开庭到 5 点了。\n23 好的。那我们继续对证人进行询问。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 巴克 - 主询问\n1 费尔根森律师：好的，庭上。政府传唤\n2 艾米·巴克（Amy Buck）。\n3 法官：好的。\n4 （证人宣誓）\n5 法官：请陈述您的姓名并拼写出来。\n6 证人：艾米·巴克·芬德斯（Amy Buck Faundez）。A-M-Y, B-U-C-K,\n7 F-A-U-N-D-E-Z。\n8 法官：您可以开始询问了。\n9 费尔根森律师：谢谢，庭上。\n10 艾米·巴克·芬德斯，\n11 作为政府方证人被传唤，\n12 经依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n13 主询问（DIRECT EXAMINATION）\n14 由费尔根森律师进行：\n15 问：早上好，巴克女士。\n16 答：早上好。\n17 问：您住在哪里？\n18 答：新泽西州（New Jersey）。\n19 问：您从事什么工作？\n20 答：我是一名房地产律师。\n21 费尔根森律师：洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），请向法庭出示\n22 政府第 Z12 号物证第 19 页。\n23 问：巴克女士，您以前见过这个吗？\n24 答：没有。\n25 问：请看右下角，您能读一下右下角方框中的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 巴克 - 主询问\n1 文字吗？\n2 答：Buck Esq LLC，律师信托账户（Attorney Trust Account）。\n3 问：您的有限责任公司的名称是什么？\n4 答：Buck Esq LLC（巴克律师有限责任公司）。\n5 问：您是否参与了购买位于新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah）\n6 拉马波山谷路 675 号（675 Ramapo Valley Road）的房产？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：您将该房产称作什么名称？\n9 答：克罗克庄园（Crocker Mansion）。\n10 问：您在购买过程中的职责是什么？\n11 什罗夫律师（MS. SHROFF）：如果暂不使用该物证，是否可以将其撤下。\n12 费尔根森律师：可以的，庭上。我们可以撤下。\n13 法官：好的。\n14 问：抱歉，巴克女士。您在购买克罗克庄园\n15 中的职责是什么？\n16 答：我在此次交易中代表买方。\n17 问：购买之后，您是否继续从事与克罗克庄园\n18 相关的工作？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：从宏观层面讲，您做了哪些工作？\n21 答：我向与该房产相关的各个承包商和供应商\n22 支付了发票款项。\n23 问：那么，巴克女士，克罗克庄园的产权登记在\n24 谁的名下？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck（巴克）- Direct（直接询问）\n1 庄园由谁持有？\n2 答：Taurus Fund LLC。\n3 问：根据你参与Crocker Mansion（克罗克庄园）相关工作的情况，从实际角度来看，你认为谁拥有克罗克庄园？\n4\n5\n6 希罗夫女士（Ms. Shroff）：反对。\n7 法庭：你可以回答。\n8 答：一个家族。\n9 问：你知道这个家族的名字吗？\n10 答：不知道。\n11 问：你见过他们吗？\n12 答：没见过。\n13 问：好的。现在，巴克女士，我们倒回去讲。在你的房地产业务中，你通常是如何获得业务的？\n14\n15 答：通过口碑和转介推荐。\n16 问：克罗克庄园是一桩转介业务吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：大约是什么时候转介给你的？\n19 答：2021年12月初。\n20 问：是谁转介的？\n21 答：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。\n22 问：在你最初的交谈中，你是与亚伦·米切尔谈的，还是与其他人谈的？\n23\n24 答：我和他的妻子Dara（达拉）谈的。\n25 问：她姓什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 答：Lawall（拉沃尔），L-A-W-A-L-L。我认为那是她执业使用的名字。我不太确定。\n2\n3 问：她的职业是什么？\n4 答：她和她丈夫一起做律师。\n5 问：那么在最初的那次谈话中，你与拉沃尔女士讨论了什么？\n6\n7 答：她给我打了电话。\n8 希罗夫女士：反对传闻证据。\n9 弗根森先生（Mr. Fergenson）：这是代理人——\n10 法庭：你可以就讨论的性质作证。\n11\n12 证人：好的。\n13 答：她联系我，要把这桩具体事项转介给我。她告诉我，客户对她来说就像家人一样，对他们非常重要。她还想询问我是否有能力进行加急交易。那是一笔快速现金交易。\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18 问：巴克女士，据你的理解，她是代表这个家族吗？\n19\n20 希罗夫女士：反对诱导性发问。\n21 法庭：证人可以就主题事项作证，但不能就该人所说的原话作证。\n22\n23\n24 弗根森先生：审判长，我们可能需要进行简短的侧吧庭谈（sidebar）。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 法庭：好的。\n2 （在侧吧庭谈）\n3 弗根森先生：拉沃尔女士是亚伦·米切尔的妻子。他们共同开有一家律师事务所，Lawall & Mitchell（拉沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）。这是一家代表被告的律师事务所。在购买这处新泽西房产的过程中，他们充当了他的代理人。所以——\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8 法庭：代理关系的性质是什么？\n9 弗根森先生：是律师代理关系。\n10 法庭：好的。\n11 弗根森先生：因此我认为她可以就听到被告代理人所说的话作证。\n12\n13 希罗夫女士：她不是Guo（郭）先生的代理人。她只是一名执业律师。他是她的配偶，但她是一名独立的律师。我的意思是，女性结婚后仍然保持着非常独立的专业职业身份。她不存在律师与客户关系，也没有作为代理人行事。\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19 法庭：与郭先生之间是否存在律师与客户关系？\n20\n21 弗根森先生：是的。这就是她将要作证的内容。拉沃尔女士，证词将证明他们有一位对他们非常重要的客户，是一个家族，他们正在寻找能够协助迅速完成在Mahwah（马瓦）这处房产交割的人。她完全可以就代表被告及其家族的律师向她告知的代理事项进行说明。\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1\n2\n3 法庭：除此之外，你能不能让我大概了解一下你还打算问出什么内容。\n4\n5 弗根森先生：好的，当然。这是最初的谈话。在与拉沃尔女士最初谈话后，她接受了转介，随后，她的主要联络人是拉沃尔女士的丈夫亚伦·米切尔，他也是被告的律师，属于同一家夫妻律师事务所。此后，他是Taurus Fund和该家族的联络人、代表。她与他以及其他人员打交道，例如被告的主要保镖Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）、被告的翻译Gladys Chow（周格拉迪斯）、被告的另一位私人助理Sean Jing；她就该房产的交割以及随后为该家族支付房产翻新发票、为房产购买家具等事宜与他们进行沟通，这些各项工作被用于追溯回发送至Crane（克兰）并发送至Hamilton（汉密尔顿）、然后再发送给巴克女士的投资者资金。实质上，这就是她的证词。\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22 法庭：那么这位证人的作证时间会很短。\n23 弗根森先生：审判长，我希望如此。\n24 法庭：好的。我将准许该证词。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 希罗夫女士：审判长，我只是想确保记录在案，我们对亚伦·米切尔和其余人员没有异议。政府方在这里的论辩旨在混淆问题。我反对作为传闻证据采纳的对象是与拉沃尔女士的交谈，她并不代表郭氏家族，没有任何律师与客户关系，这便是我提出异议的狭窄范围。弗根森先生在这里扯到了所有其他人，可以说，他们已经将那些人认定为代理人或所谓“共谋者”，但并不包括这位女士。因此我的异议范围很狭窄，仅针对这位女士与该律师之间的传闻互动。\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13 法庭：但我理解他的意思是她与郭氏实体打过交道。\n14\n15 希罗夫女士：没有这样的证据。只有转介的证据。我们没有——先生，我还没说完。\n16\n17 弗根森先生：请允许我回应。法庭正在看着我。\n18\n19 法庭：请稍等。\n20 弗根森先生：您说得对。\n21 法庭：因此我准许该证词。\n22 希罗夫女士：她和郭氏家族之间的关系在哪里？\n23\n24 法庭：他正在寻求获取该证词，而我依赖于他作为法庭官员（officer of the court）的陈述。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 我们继续。\n2 （在公开法庭）\n3 法庭：你可以继续。\n4 弗根森先生：谢谢，审判长。\n5 弗根森先生发问：\n6 问：巴克女士，拉沃尔女士在那次交谈中就她的客户向你说了什么？\n7\n8 希罗夫女士：反对。假定了未经证实的事实。\n9\n10 问：拉沃尔女士在那次交谈中，就她的客户向你说了什么（如果有的话）——\n11\n12 希罗夫女士：反对。\n13 问：——？\n14 希罗夫女士：反对。假定了未经证实的事实。\n15\n16 法庭：你应先确立这种关系。\n17 弗根森先生：审判长，这只是她被告知的内容。\n18\n19 希罗夫女士：反对。\n20 法庭：这是谁与谁之间的谈话？\n21\n22 弗根森先生：是巴克女士与拉沃尔女士之间的谈话。\n23 法庭：好的。是的，你可以继续。你可以回答。\n24\n25 答：她告诉我，他们是他们长期的客户，对他们来说就像家人一样。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1\n2 问：她告诉你客户的名字了吗？\n3 答：没有。\n4 问：你是否理解——\n5 法庭：为了陪审团的知情，巴克女士是谁？你就是巴克女士。\n6\n7 证人：是我。\n8 法庭：好的。好的。我只是想确保我们清楚所有的当事人。请继续。\n9\n10 弗根森先生：明白，审判长。谢谢。\n11 弗根森先生发问：\n12 问：好的。你和拉沃尔女士讨论了你的收费吗？\n13 答：讨论了。\n14 问：你的收费是多少？\n15 答：2,000美元。\n16 问：你接受了拉沃尔女士的转介吗？\n17 答：接受了。\n18 问：在你与拉沃尔女士交谈之后，你在克罗克庄园交易中的主要联络人是谁？\n19\n20 答：亚伦·米切尔。\n21 问：亚伦·米切尔说他的身份是什么？\n22 答：他是Taurus Fund的授权代表。\n23 问：亚伦·米切尔是否告诉过你他所代表的家族的名字？\n24\n25 答：没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1 希罗夫女士：反对。假定了未经证实的事实。\n2\n3 法庭：你可以回答。\n4 答：没有。\n5 问：巴克女士，你可以调整一下麦克风。如果可以的话，把它拉近一点。你可以把它直接对准你的嘴巴。这样会更容易听清你的声音。\n6\n7\n8 答：调好了。好些了吗？\n9 问：好多了。谢谢。\n10 答：抱歉。\n11 弗根森先生：好的。审判长，我可以走近证人席吗？\n12\n13 法庭：可以。\n14 问：好的。巴克女士，我刚刚递给你的是什么？\n15 答：证人物证活页夹。\n16 问：你此前审阅过该活页夹中的政府方物证吗？\n17\n18 答：审阅过。\n19 问：它是否包含你和你公司在克罗克庄园的工作中向政府方提供的文件——\n20\n21 希罗夫女士：反对诱导性发问。\n22 法庭：你可以回答。\n23 问：——你在克罗克庄园的工作中？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：它是否包含与你代表Taurus Fund支付的款项相关的发票及其他记录？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - Direct\n1\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：可以认为Buck Esq LLC在业务中定期留存此类记录吗？\n4\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：它是否还包含与Taurus Fund代理人的通讯往来？\n7\n8 答：是的。\n9 弗根森先生：好的。政府方提请采纳活页夹中的物证。这些均属于GX BUCK系列，B-U-C-K。这些是政府物证 34、44、48、49、50、60、63、69、77、80、115、117、127、131、133、138、141、168、174、194、218、221、227、232、235、236、241、243、375、391、428、522、524、532、709、822、851、1204、1260、1261，以及1274至1291，和1293至1296。政府方提请采纳这些物证。\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17 希罗夫女士：我们不会一概同意采纳这些物证。审判长，我在真实性鉴真（authentication）方面没有异议，但就我们提出的传闻及其他异议而言，我们仍坚持这些异议。\n18\n19\n20\n21 法庭：好的。均予采纳。\n22 （政府物证 BUCK 34、BUCK 44、BUCK 48、BUCK 49、BUCK 50、BUCK 60、BUCK 63、BUCK 69、BUCK 77、BUCK 80获准采纳为证据）\n23\n24\n25 （政府物证 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、BUCK 194获准采纳为证据）\n2\n3 （政府物证 BUCK 218、BUCK 221、BUCK 227、BUCK 232、BUCK 235、BUCK 236、BUCK 241、BUCK 243获准采纳为证据）\n4\n5\n6 （政府物证 BUCK 375、BUCK 391、BUCK 428、BUCK 522、BUCK 524、BUCK 532获准采纳为证据）\n7\n8 （政府物证 BUCK 709、BUCK 822、BUCK 851、BUCK 1204、BUCK 1260、BUCK 1261，以及 BUCK 1274-BUCK 1291，和 BUCK 1293-BUCK 1296获准采纳为证据）\n9\n10\n11 弗根森先生：还有Loftus女士（洛夫特斯女士），我们是否也可以向证人出示标为GX BUCK 1292的内容。仅向证人出示。\n12\n13 如果你能稍微往上滚动一下，以便她能看清。\n14\n15 弗根森先生发问：\n16 问：巴克女士，这是什么文件？\n17 答：这是一份已付款项的Excel电子表格。\n18 问：这份Excel电子表格是你制作的吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：那是你在Buck Esq LLC代表Taurus Fund所做工作的一部分吗？\n21\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：这是Buck Esq LLC的另一份业务记录吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 弗根森先生：政府方提请采纳政府\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 物证 1292。\n2 希罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：法官阁下，我可以进行简短的预先\n3 审查询问吗？\n4 法庭：可以。\n5 预先审查询问\n6 希罗夫女士主问：\n7 问：巴克女士（Ms. Buck），这份文件是什么时候制作的？\n8 答：我不记得确切日期了，但从一开始，我\n9 开始制作这个 Excel 电子表格，是在我开始付款的时候。\n10 问：在您代理业务的整个过程中，您都维护着这个 Excel 表格吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 希罗夫女士：好的。法官阁下，我没有异议。\n13 法庭：予以采纳。\n14 （政府方物证 BUCK 1292 被采纳为证据）\n15 法庭：请您重复一下该物证的\n16 编号。\n17 费根森先生（MR. FERGENSON）：好的，法官阁下。这是 1292。它是\n18 政府方物证 BUCK 1292（GX BUCK 1292）。\n19 法庭：好的。请继续。\n20 费根森先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n21 好的。洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），我们可以撤下那个了。\n22 费根森先生主问：\n23 问：好的。那么，巴克女士，在您接受克罗克庄园（Crocker Mansion）的\n24 转介之后，您采取了什么措施（如果有的话）来使\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 聘用关系正式化？\n2 答：我起草了一份聘用函。\n3 费根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，能否展示\n4 现已采纳为证据的政府方物证 BUCK 1296。\n5 问：好的。这是什么文件？\n6 答：这是我为该笔\n7 交易起草的聘用函。\n8 费根森先生：好的。能否向下\n9 滚动。\n10 问：好的。是谁代表金牛基金（Taurus Fund）签字的？\n11 答：亚伦·米切尔（Aaron Mitchell）。\n12 问：他在签名栏写了什么？\n13 答：他写了事实代理人（Attorney-in-Fact）。\n14 问：什么是事实代理人？\n15 答：类似于委托代理人。他拥有\n16 代表某个实体签署文件的授权。\n17 法庭：什么是聘用函？\n18 证人：聘用函是律师所使用的，或者\n19 是我在房地产业务中，当我\n20 代表买方或卖方时所使用的，用以使聘用关系正式化，并向——向客户提供价格\n21 以及在代理过程中如果——如果出现任何变数时的相关信息。\n22 法庭：您所说的聘用是什么意思？\n23 证人：他们雇佣我来代表他们。\n24 法庭：请继续。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 费根森先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n2 好的。洛夫特斯女士，我们可以撤下那个了。\n3 费根森先生主问：\n4 问：在接受——或者在聘用函之后，巴克女士，\n5 您接下来做了什么？\n6 答：我给产权公司打了电话。\n7 问：那家产权公司的名称是什么？\n8 答：见解产权代理公司（Insight Title agency）。\n9 问：他们在这次购买中的角色是什么？\n10 答：他们提供了产权承诺书和保单，并且他们是\n11 结算代理人，所以他们负责处理该笔\n12 交易的资金。\n13 问：什么是结算代理人？\n14 答：结算代理人通常是产权公司。在新泽西州（New\n15 Jersey），我们就是这样处理交易的。他们接收\n16 定金、买方的资金，如果涉及贷款机构，他们也接收来自贷款机构的\n17 资金，然后他们按照\n18 结算清单划拨资金。\n19 问：在产权公司和聘用函之后，您\n20 接下来做了什么？\n21 答：我索要了一份合同副本。\n22 问：合同价格是多少？\n23 答：2600 万。\n24 问：这 2600 万的付款条件是什么？\n25 答：是 200 万美元的定金。余款在\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 交割时付清。没有抵押贷款附带条件。\n2 问：当您说没有抵押贷款附带条件时，对外行来说这\n3 意味着什么？\n4 答：这是一笔全现金交易。所有的钱都来自买方。\n5 问：合同上列明的买方是谁？\n6 希罗夫女士：反对。该问题已被问过且回答过。\n7 法庭：反对无效。您可以回答。\n8 答：金牛基金 SP（Taurus Fund SP）。\n9 问：什么是 SP？\n10 答：我不是很确定。\n11 问：据您所知，SP 可以持有该房产的产权吗？\n12 答：不可以。我和产权公司沟通过这件事，在新泽西州，出于产权目的，它不是一个\n13 被认可的实体。\n14 问：亚伦·米切尔就金牛基金 SP 向您说明了什么（如果有的话）？\n15 答：他说他们将在交割时成立一家有限责任公司（LLC）。\n16 问：最终由什么实体持有该房产的产权？\n17 答：金牛基金有限责任公司（Taurus Fund, LLC）。\n18 问：金牛基金有限责任公司是如何架构的？\n19 希罗夫女士：反对。\n20 法庭：嗯，如果您知道的话。\n21 证人：我知道。\n22 法庭：请回答。\n23 答：它是在内华达州（state of Nevada）成立的，其百分之百的\n24 成员——对不起——持有 100% 权益的成员是金牛\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 基金——我重新说。\n2 它是在内华达州成立的。唯一成员是金牛\n3 管理有限责任公司（Taurus Management, LLC）。\n4 费根森先生：好的。洛夫特斯女士，能否向\n5 证人展示现已采纳为证据的政府方物证 BUCK 1234。\n6 问：好的。巴克女士，这份物证是什么？\n7 答：这是已归档的金牛基金有限责任公司的\n8 组织章程。\n9 问：在哪个州？\n10 答：内华达州。\n11 问：为了让您关注大概中上方的位置，它是什么时候\n12 注册成立的？\n13 答：2021 年 12 月 16 日。\n14 问：那距离克罗克\n15 庄园的交割日期有多近？\n16 答：我相信我们在次日，即 12 月 17 日完成了交割。\n17 费根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，能否向下滚动到第 3 页。\n18 能否放大下半部分，把它\n19 放大一点。\n20 问：金牛基金有限责任公司的经理人是谁？\n21 答：经理人是金牛管理有限责任公司和斯科特·巴内特（Scott Barnett）。\n22 问：并且——\n23 希罗夫女士：法官阁下，我假设政府方\n24 问的是该文件载明的经理人，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 法庭：这是您的问题吗？\n2 费根森先生：是的，法官阁下。\n3 法庭：关于文件上是怎么写的？\n4 费根森先生：是的。\n5 法庭：请继续。\n6 费根森先生主问：\n7 问：这些经理人列出的地址是什么？\n8 答：内华达州拉斯维加斯天尖大道 6628 号 129-1071 室，邮编\n9 89131（6628 Sky Pointe Drive, Suite 129-1071, Las Vegas, Nevada 89131）。\n10 问：两者的地址相同吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：好的。那么，巴克女士，斯科特·巴内特是谁？\n13 答：他是这份文件上列明的金牛\n14 基金有限责任公司的经理人。他也是我的一个联络人，我\n15 获授权接收来自他的发票并据此付款。\n16 问：您理解他与该家族有何关联（如果有的话）？\n17 答：我——我不知道。他是他们的——他为他们搭建了安保\n18 系统，他负责处理很多发票并把它们\n19 发送给我，确保它们得到支付。我不知道他是\n20 朋友还是雇员。我以为他是独立承包商。\n21 问：您提到了安保。是否存在由您协助支付的大笔安保\n22 费用？\n23 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 费根森先生：好的。洛夫特斯女士，我们能否查看\n2 政府方物证 BUCK 1233。\n3 问：好的。巴克女士，这份文件是什么？\n4 答：这是已归档的金牛\n5 管理有限责任公司的组织章程。\n6 问：那是金牛基金有限责任公司的经理人之一？\n7 答：是的。\n8 希罗夫女士：反对应答性诱导。\n9 法庭：我们可以按慢方法来，也可以\n10 更有效率地进行。反对无效。\n11 问：好的。我们能否——噢，巴克女士，简要问下，\n12 金牛管理有限责任公司是在哪里注册成立的？\n13 答：新墨西哥州（New Mexico）。\n14 希罗夫女士：现在的反对理由是该问题已被问过且回答过。\n15 费根森先生：我之前没有问过这个。\n16 法庭：反对无效。您可以回答。\n17 费根森先生：能否滚动到第 2 页。\n18 问：好的。金牛管理有限责任公司是什么时候\n19 注册成立的？\n20 答：2021 年 12 月 15 日。\n21 问：那距离金牛基金有限责任公司的注册成立\n22 有多近？\n23 答：是在前一天。\n24 费根森先生：我们可以撤下它了，洛夫特斯女士。\n25 问：巴克女士，亚伦·米切尔就这种架构的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 原因向您说明了什么（如果有的话）？\n2 答：他说客户非常关切隐私和\n3 安全，他们采取了大力度的措施来保护自己的隐私\n4 并保持安全。\n5 问：您对此有何反应？\n6 答：鉴于该房产的价位，我以为是某位\n7 名人或高净值人士，所以我对这种级别的安保并不感到意外。\n8 问：那么，巴克女士，交割日期大约是什么时候？\n9 答：大约在 2021 年 12 月 17 日或该日前后。\n10 问：您说过这是一笔全现金交易，对吗？\n11 希罗夫女士：反对。该问题已被问过且回答过。\n12 法庭：继续下一个问题。\n13 问：是谁或什么实体汇出了购买该房产的现金？\n14 答：当时我不知道，因为我不是结算\n15 代理人。资金是汇给产权公司的。\n16 问：您后来得知了吗？\n17 答：我后来得知是来自汉密尔顿（Hamilton）。\n18 问：据您的理解，汉密尔顿是什么？\n19 答：我的理解是，它类似于金牛\n20 基金的母公司，因为金牛基金是一个新成立的实体。\n21 问：您的这种理解来自何处？\n22 答：来自与亚伦·米切尔的谈话。\n23 问：那么，巴克女士，交割之后，您做了什么工作？\n24 答：交割之后，我代表金牛基金为各家\n25 供应商和承包商支付发票。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 问：那项工作您的主要联络人是谁？\n2 答：最初是亚伦·米切尔。\n3 问：米切尔就为何要求您做这项工作说明了什么（如果有的话）？\n4 答：因为金牛基金是一个新成立的实体，他们尚未\n5 开立银行账户，而且他们在交割后立即进行了装修和\n6 工程施工，所以这是一项短期\n7 任务。\n8 问：您能否向陪审团描述一下，您知道的，\n9 您的工作具体包含哪些内容。\n10 答：我会收到保密协议和发票进行审查；\n11 我会被告知它们是否属于分期付款合同、\n12 应当就其支付多少金额、向谁支付；我会核实电汇\n13 指令，然后我会从我的信托账户汇出款项。\n14 问：您大约是什么时候开始这项工作的？\n15 答：交割后立即开始。\n16 问：您继续进行这些付款大约\n17 持续到了什么时候？\n18 答：直到 2023 年 2 月。\n19 问：总体而言，巴克女士，您进行付款的\n20 频率如何？\n21 答：很频繁。有时一天多次，有时\n22 每天都有。有时是每隔几天一次。相当\n23 频繁固定。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 问：您当时支付的是哪些类别的款项？\n2 答：施工和装修、陈设品、艺术品、\n3 家具。\n4 问：总体而言，您经手支付的大致总金额\n5 是多少？\n6 答：大约 1800 万。\n7 问：您支付给供应商的资金，进入您信托账户的资金是\n8 从哪里来的？\n9 答：来自汉密尔顿。\n10 问：您知道汉密尔顿是从哪里获得那笔资金的吗？\n11 答：我不知道。\n12 问：您在进行这些付款时，是否认为自己做错了什么？\n13 答：没有。\n14 问：那么，巴克女士，我们早些时候看过了聘用函。\n15 您就这项付款工作是否有聘用函？\n16 答：那是一份没那么正式的聘用函。是通过一封\n17 电子邮件确定的，但是是的，有书面记录。\n18 费根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，能否出示\n19 政府方物证 BUCK 1295。\n20 能否翻到第 2 页。稍微向下\n21 滚动一点。可以了。\n22 问：巴克女士，是这封电子邮件吗？\n23 答：是的，就是这封。\n24 问：好的。您把这封电子邮件发给谁了？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 答：Aaron Mitchell。\n2 问：好的。请您读一下第一\n3 段。\n4 答：“如您所知，上述交易\n5 的购买已经完成。您作为\n6 Taurus Fund, LLC 的授权人，已要求我继续担任代理人，\n7 负责与各种陈设品的采购、交付和协调，\n8 以及就此与各种公司/供应商\n9 进行沟通对接的相关事宜。由于 Taurus Fund, LLC\n10 是一家新实体，正在开立银行账户，我将\n11 使用我的信托账户接收来自 Taurus Fund, LLC 或代表其\n12 支付给各供应商的款项。我还将与供应商协商\n13 保密协议（Non Disclosure Agreements），以确保保护\n14 买方及其信息。预计\n15 我将协调大约五个供应商，\n16 Scott Barnett 是 Taurus Fund, LLC 的授权人/经理，\n17 他将向我发出指示并提供书面\n18 付款授权。”\n19 问：现在先停一下，Buck 女士，当您在中间部分\n20 说 Taurus Fund, LLC 正在\n21 开立银行账户时，您是从哪里得到这个信息的？\n22 答：该信息来自 Aaron Mitchell 和 Scott Barnett。\n23 问：您提到了保密协议。在您的执业过程中，\n24 这种情况常见吗？\n25 答：在典型的住宅房地产交易中，不算\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 标准常规；在商业交易中，稍微更标准常规一些。\n2 通常是较大的交易。\n3 问：您认为使用保密协议\n4 有什么不妥吗？\n5 答：没有。\n6 问：好的。我就不让您读了，Buck 女士，\n7 您最初这项工作的收费是多少？\n8 答：$15,000。\n9 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否往上滚屏。\n10 抱歉。再往回滚下去。\n11 问：Aaron Mitchell 是如何回复的？\n12 答：“代表 Taurus 确认。”\n13 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否往上滚回。并且\n14 继续往上滚。太好了。\n15 问：好的。现在这封顶部的电子邮件日期是哪一天，\n16 Buck 女士？\n17 答：2022年2月21日。\n18 问：这封邮件与最初那封邮件大约相隔多久？\n19 答：大约两个月。\n20 问：您把这封邮件发给谁了？\n21 答：Aaron Mitchell。\n22 问：好的。Buck 女士，请您读一下\n23 前三段。\n24 答：“希望您一切都好。如之前所讨论的，我的\n25 代理工作已经超出了我们最初的协议，您\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 希望我提出此前已完成工作的费用，\n2 以及如果继续保持相同安排情况下的后续每月费用。\n3 “您可能还记得，我的代理原本是涵盖\n4 向大约 5 家供应商付款，处理约\n5 $2 million 的客户资金，并在大约一个月内结束。\n6 当时我只有一个联络人 Scott（不包括\n7 您）。我的费用是 $15,000 的固定费用。该安排\n8 于 2021年12月21日 获得确认。\n9 “截至目前，已有超过 $10 million 的客户资金\n10 电汇至我的账户。已向\n11 约 23 家供应商支付了超过 55 笔款项。我有三个联络人：\n12 Scott、Sean 和 Gladys（同样不包括您）。如您\n13 所知，电汇指令均经过口头核实，保密协议（NDAs）、保险凭证（COIs）和\n14 发票均由我审核。我还与联络人讨论付款的\n15 优先顺序，核对剩余资金\n16 以及他们可能有的任何其他问题。”\n17 问：那么，Buck 女士，您提到的增长——$10 million 以及\n18 从 5 家供应商增加到 23 家，这是事先与您商量过的，\n19 还是就这么发生了？\n20 答：就这么发生了。\n21 问：您对此有什么反应？\n22 答：我不太高兴。那不是我们的——那不是当初的\n23 安排，但我当时想帮助客户继续进行\n24 他们的装修，所以我不想从中阻碍。\n25 问：再次简要问一下，Buck 女士，您今后这项工作的持续\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 收费是多少？\n2 答：$15,000。\n3 问：您多久收到一次 $15,000？\n4 答：每月。这是挣得的报酬。\n5 问：好的。在您刚才读的内容中，您列出了三个联络人。\n6 您提到了 Scott。那是哪个 Scott？\n7 答：Scott——不好意思——Scott Barnett。\n8 问：就是我们早先讨论过的那位？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：好的。那 Sean 呢，Sean 是谁？\n11 答：Sean Jing（荆肖）也是一位联络人，我获得授权\n12 接收他发来的发票并据此付款。\n13 问：您见过他本人吗？\n14 答：没有。\n15 问：您和他通电话吗？\n16 答：相当频繁。\n17 问：你们都谈些什么样的事情？\n18 答：他会给我发发票，查询付款情况，确定\n19 付款的优先顺序。\n20 问：您是否知道他正式为哪家公司工作（如果有的话）？\n21 答：正式的我不知道。\n22 问：您知道他的头衔是什么吗？\n23 SHROFF 女士：反对。什么头衔？\n24 法庭：你可以回答。\n25 答：我认为他是项目经理或房屋管家。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 他似乎是 Crocker Mansion（克罗克庄园）现场的人，所以他清楚都在\n2 做些什么。\n3 问：您是否了解他为谁工作？\n4 SHROFF 女士：反对。\n5 答：他为——\n6 法庭：反对无效。如果你知道他为谁工作，\n7 你可以说。\n8 答：他为 Taurus Fund 工作。我只是不确定以何种\n9 身份。\n10 问：您还提到了另一位联络人 Gladys。\n11 Gladys 是谁？\n12 答：Gladys Chow（周丽莎）是另一位给我发发票的\n13 授权人。\n14 问：您见过她本人吗？\n15 答：没有。\n16 问：您和她通电话吗？\n17 答：通电话。\n18 问：你们都讨论些什么样的事情？\n19 答：她似乎负责高端陈设品\n20 和艺术品，所以她会优先确定需要支付什么\n21 以及何时支付。\n22 问：您知道她的头衔是什么吗？\n23 答：我认为她——我认为她也是项目经理。\n24 SHROFF 女士：对“认为”提出反对。她要么知道，\n25 要么不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 法庭：那么请你只陈述你知道的事实，\n2 不要猜测。\n3 证人：明白。在一些电子邮件中我看到\n4 她——她的头衔是项目经理。\n5 FERGENSON 先生继续发问：\n6 问：那么在正式层面上，您知道她为哪家公司工作\n7 吗？\n8 答：不知道。\n9 问：在实际上，据您理解她是为谁工作的？\n10 答：她是 Taurus Fund 的代理人。我不知道她是否有\n11 自己的公司或者——我不知道具体情况。\n12 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，我们能否\n13 出示政府证物 GX BUCK 822。\n14 问：Buck 女士，您早先提到过有\n15 与安保相关的开支。您记得有哪些种类的\n16 安保相关开支？\n17 答：安装了一套安保系统；我相信有\n18 摄像头之类的设备；任何进入该物业\n19 踏上该物业的人都要签署所谓的保密\n20 协议。那是为了保护买方。我不记——发票有很多。\n21 我相信——也有很多安保方面的发票。\n22 问：就金额而言，数额大吗？\n23 答：我认为是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 问：好的。现在，Buck 女士，让我提请您注意\n2 这个。\n3 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，请我们能否放大底部的\n4 电子邮件。\n5 问：好的。Buck 女士，请您读一下这封\n6 您写的电子邮件。\n7 答：“嗨 Scott\n8 “请将上述供应商签署的保密协议（NDA）副本及 $100,000\n9 发票发送给我。此外，请\n10 提供向该供应商电汇 $100,000 的授权。”\n11 问：好的。这封电子邮件的日期是哪一天，Buck 女士？\n12 答：2021年12月22日。\n13 问：这封邮件是在您开展付款工作后多久发出的？\n14 答：在第一周内。\n15 问：在抬头部分的收件人（To）一栏中，这封邮件是发给谁的？\n16 答：Frontsight1@outlook.com。\n17 问：那是谁的邮箱？\n18 答：Scott Barnett。\n19 问：抄送给了谁？\n20 答：您说什么？\n21 问：邮件抄送给了谁？\n22 答：噢，抱歉。Aaron Mitchell。\n23 问：好的。您邮件正文写了“上述\n24 供应商”。该邮件的主题栏是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 答：Taurus-Payment to Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC（Taurus - 支付给 Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC 的款项）。\n2 问：Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC 是一家什么公司？\n3 答：是一家建筑施工公司。\n4 问：您与那里的什么人有联系吗？\n5 答：一个叫 Vinnie Labarbiera 的人。\n6 问：Vinnie Labarbiera 是谁？\n7 答：他是老板。\n8 问：关于 Crocker Mansion，他做了什么事情（如果有的话）？\n9\n10 答：他做了很多建筑施工工作。我相信他还与 Taurus Fund 签有\n11 每月的维护合同。\n12 FERGENSON 先生：好的。我们能否缩小画面。\n13 然后能否只放大顶部的电子邮件。\n14 谢谢，Loftus 女士。\n15 问：Scott Barnett 在回复中写了什么？\n16 答：“附上您要求的文件，我\n17 授权向供应商付款。”\n18 问：好的。该邮件有附件吗？\n19 答：是的，有附件。\n20 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，我们能否\n21 往下滚屏。我们可以翻到第 7 页。\n22 问：好的。Buck 女士，在顶部这里，您能读一下\n23 顶部正中间的第一行吗。\n24 答：LABARBIERA CUSTOM HOMES LLC。\n25 问：然后再往下一小段，该文件的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 日期是哪一天？\n2 答：2021年12月18日。\n3 问：然后请您读一下其下方的关于（Re）栏。\n4 答：“Taurus Fund SP。\n5 “675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah。\n6 “施工协议。”\n7 问：您能读一下其下方的句子吗。\n8 答：“Labarbiera Custom Homes, LLC 在上述物业处所提供\n9 以下服务。”\n10 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能否稍微\n11 滚屏以便同时看到两页。\n12 问：好的。Buck 女士，我想请您把注意力集中在写有\n13 “在以下区域提供拆除工程：”下方，\n14 您能读一下其下方的文字吗。\n15 答：“二楼女士主翼。\n16 “三楼儿子翼。\n17 “三楼女儿翼。\n18 “二楼卧室浴室改建为洗衣房。”\n19 问：Buck 女士，什么是“翼”（wing）？\n20 答：是房屋的一个区域。可能是房屋建造的方式。\n21 它有分支出去的不同翼区。\n22 问：在写有“主翼”（master wing）的地方，据您理解主翼是指什么？\n23 答：Master 通常指主要的户主、\n24 配偶、丈夫和妻子。\n25 问：那儿子翼呢，据您理解这是指什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO1 Buck - 主问\n1 答：通常其中一个孩子分到一个翼区。\n2 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，请我们\n3 稍微往下滚屏。\n4 问：好的。然后请注意粗体字\n5 “三楼女儿翼”，您能只读一下其下方的\n6 第一行文字吗。\n7 答：“拆除指定墙体。”\n8 FERGENSON 先生：我们可以缩小画面了，Loftus 女士。\n9 我们能否再往下滚屏。\n10 问：请注意“二楼女士翼”，您能读一下前\n11 三行文字吗。\n12 答：“封闭指定开口。\n13 “按图纸建造指定开口。\n14 “拆除标明墙体。”\n15 问：据您理解“女士翼”（Lady's Wing）是什么意思？\n16 答：夫妻二人中的妻子，即主要主人。\n17 （下页继续）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 费尔根森律师（MR. FERGENSON）提问：\n2 问：在写着“按图纸形成的指定开口”的地方。\n3 您是否记得为此审查过图纸？\n4 答：我没有看过建筑图纸。\n5 问：如果我们把注意力集中在儿子的侧翼三楼。\n6 您能读一下那下面第一行文字吗？\n7 答：现有的影院平台隔墙和地毯需要拆除。\n8 问：我们翻到第 10 页。\n9 请看底部，巴克女士（Ms. Buck），这项工程的\n10 合同总价是多少？\n11 答：488,300 美元。\n12 问：这份合同签字了吗？\n13 答：没有签字。\n14 施罗夫律师（MS. SHROFF）：异议。这不是合同。\n15 问：这份文件签字了吗？\n16 法庭：请继续。\n17 答：没有签字。\n18 问：我们看 GXBuck-168 号证据。巴克女士，您后来是否收到了\n19 签字的副本？\n20 答：收到了。\n21 问：洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），您可以直接翻到第五页。\n22 巴克女士，这份副本签字了吗？\n23 答：签字了。\n24 问：您知道是谁代表 Taurus Fund, LLC 签字的吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 答：我认为是斯科特·巴尼特（Scott Barnett）的签名。\n2 施罗夫律师：对“认为”提出异议。她要么知道，\n3 要么不知道。\n4 法庭：只就您所知道的作证。\n5 答：斯科特·巴尼特把签过字的合同寄给了我。\n6 问：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以看 GXBuck-851 号证据。如果我们能放大底部的电子邮件，\n7 洛夫特斯女士，我们先从第三页开始。\n8 巴克女士，这封电子邮件的日期是哪天？\n9 答：2022 年 1 月 6 日。\n10 问：到这个时候，您负责付款工作大约有多久了？\n11 答：不到一个月。\n12 问：这封电子邮件是谁发来的？\n13 答：格拉迪斯·周（Gladys Chow）。\n14 问：她的电子邮件地址是什么？\n15 答：GladysC.@HCHKtech.com。\n16 问：您知道 HCHK Tech 是什么吗？\n17 答：我不知道。\n18 问：请您读一下这封邮件的前两行好吗？\n19 答：随附购买地毯的文件。\n20 有两份单独的发票，附件一为 30 万，加上 20 万——\n21 对不起，附件二为 25 万，保险凭证（COI）和保密协议（NDA）\n22 也一并附上。\n23 问：顺便问一下，巴克女士，什么是 COI？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 答：保险凭证（Certificate of insurance）。\n2 问：什么是保险凭证？\n3 答：它们用来证明（就本案而言）供应商拥有\n4 保险，因为他们运送的是高档家具，所以我们要\n5 确保他们投了保，以防发生意外。\n6 问：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以缩小画面。我们可以往上翻到第二页。\n7 如果我们可以放大那封电子邮件，是的，拜托。\n8 巴克女士，请读一下您的回复好吗？\n9 答：嗨，格拉迪斯。我需要优质地毯商签字确认我们可以\n10 直接付款给业主。他们可以在发票上注明，或者\n11 发电子邮件指示我付款给纳希德·博特萨赞（Nahid Botesazan）。我还需要\n12 纳希德的电汇指引。斯科特，请批准\n13 这两笔地毯付款。\n14 问：您为什么要求斯科特批准付款？\n15 答：刚开始与 Taurus 合作时，此时只有亚伦（Aaron）和斯科特是\n16 授权代表。格拉迪斯没有\n17 获得授权，所以我需要有人指示我向他们付款。\n18 问：我们可以放大回复吗。格拉迪斯在回复中说了什么？\n19 答：随附指示您向纳希德支付\n20 两张中国地毯款项的电子邮件，纳希德的电汇信息也一并附上。\n21 谢谢。\n22 施罗夫律师：法官阁下，我认为上面写的是“嗨，艾米（Amy）”，\n23 逗号，然后才进入电子邮件正文。\n24 法庭：您是说您想暂停一下吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 费尔根森律师：不，我并不想打断您。\n2 法庭：请您如实陈述上面写的内容即可。\n3 证人：您想让我重读一遍吗？\n4 法庭：是的。\n5 答：嗨，艾米，随附指示您向纳希德支付两张中国地毯款项的电子邮件，纳希德的电汇信息也\n6 一并附上。谢谢。顺祝商祺。\n7 问：如果我们能缩小画面并向上滚动。如果我们能放大\n8 巴克女士的电子邮件。\n9 巴克女士，在您的回复中有一张图片。\n10 那张图片是什么？\n11 答：那张图片来自我的 Excel 电子表格。\n12 问：那个 Excel 电子表格记录的是什么？\n13 答：代表 Taurus Fund 支付的款项。\n14 问：如果我们能缩小画面并向上滚动。然后格拉迪斯\n15 在回复中说了什么？\n16 答：请暂停 DND 的事项。客户想要重新\n17 确认这些物品。顺祝商祺。\n18 问：据您的理解，客户指的是谁？\n19 答：那一家人。\n20 问：如果我们能缩小画面。我们来看 GX Buck-532 号证据。\n21 如果我们能稍微向下滚动。\n22 巴克女士，请读一下格拉迪斯在这里最初发的电子邮件好吗？\n23 答：嗨，艾米，随信附上从 DND gallery 购买家具的\n24 文件。谢谢，顺祝商祺。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 问：我们向上看。您在回复中回了什么？\n2 答：嗨，斯科特，如果可以接受，请批准付款。\n3 问：如果我们能看下一封电子邮件。\n4 格拉迪斯在回复中说了什么？\n5 答：嗨，艾米，这是共计 41 件物品的最终发票和\n6 真品证书。委托人已经\n7 批准并授权了付款。请于今天处理\n8 付款。非常感谢，格拉迪斯。\n9 问：当她说委托人已经批准并授权付款时，\n10 据您的理解，委托人是谁？\n11 答：家里的某个人。\n12 问：洛夫特斯女士，如果我们能缩小画面，如果我们能向下滚动。\n13 这封邮件有附件，对吧，\n14 巴克女士？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：巴克女士，您能读一下这里的描述吗？\n17 答：一件非常罕见且不寻常的古董法国路易——我不记得\n18 我的罗马数字了，十六世鎏金铜镶嵌布尔工艺及\n19 镀银青铜长方形写字台/中央桌，\n20 工艺精湛，饰以精美细节，\n21 并装饰有 19 世纪鎏金铜人像面具。\n22 问：可以了。谢谢。我们继续滚动浏览即可。\n23 谢谢，洛夫特斯女士。我们可以停在那里。\n24 洛夫特斯女士，如果我们能看 GX Buck-709 号证据。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 巴克女士，请看顶部的这里，您能读出\n2 右上角的文字吗？\n3 答：Flat rate elite（固定费率精英搬运）。\n4 问：在它左边的大字写着什么？\n5 答：您的搬家计划。\n6 问：请看大约在那上方的小字，列出的\n7 名称是什么？\n8 答：Taurus Fund, LLC。\n9 问：这份文件上的日期是哪天？\n10 答：2022 年 1 月 18 日。\n11 问：那是在交易交割（closing）后多久？\n12 答：大约一个月。\n13 问：在标题下方，您能读一下那里的粗大文字\n14 写着什么吗？\n15 答：对不起。我不知道您指的是哪里。\n16 问：您看到那里的“您即将进行的精英搬迁”了吗。\n17 答：看到了。\n18 问：请看那下面写着“地点”的地方，您看到了吗？\n19 答：看到了。\n20 问：请读一下始发地地址好吗？\n21 答：373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831（康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路 373 号，邮编 06831），楼层\n22 2.5。\n23 问：您知道康涅狄格州格林威治的那个地址吗？\n24 答：我不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 问：有人告诉过您那是哪里吗？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：有人告诉过您谁住在那里吗？\n4 答：没有。\n5 问：请读一下目的地地址好吗？\n6 答：675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07431（新泽西州马瓦拉马波谷路 675 号，邮编 07431），楼层\n7 2.0。\n8 问：那个地址有什么？\n9 答：那是克罗克豪宅（Crocker mansion）的地址。\n10 问：这次搬家安排在什么时候，请看那下面？\n11 答：打包日期为 2022 年 1 月 20 日，星期四。\n12 问：搬入日期是什么时候？\n13 答：2022 年 1 月 21 日，星期五，以及 2022 年 1 月 28 日，星期五。\n14 问：洛夫特斯女士，如果我们能稍微缩小画面。\n15 在我们刚才看的内容下方，巴克女士，这次搬家的\n16 价格是多少？\n17 答：118,000 美元。\n18 问：如果我们能翻到第二页，如果我们能放大\n19 前几行并将其调大。\n20 巴克女士，左上方写着“家具”，您能\n21 读一下左侧的前两行吗？\n22 答：客厅特大柜一个，主卧\n23 20 x 25 x 2。\n24 问：那下面一行是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 答：主卧金色球体一个 15 x 1 x 1，餐厅\n2 特大储物柜一个。\n3 问：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以缩小画面。我们可以翻到第七页，如果我们\n4 能放大签名。\n5 现在，巴克女士，您看到顶部写着“电子签名（E-sign）”了吗？\n6 答：看到了。\n7 问：那里用大字列出的名字是什么？\n8 答：斯科特·巴尼特。\n9 问：“签署人”一栏写着什么？\n10 答：由斯科特·巴尼特签署。\n11 问：“签署人邮箱”的电子邮件地址是什么？\n12 答：GladysC@HCHKtech.com。\n13 问：据您的理解，谁使用了该邮箱？\n14 答：格拉迪斯·周。\n15 问：斯科特·巴尼特使用过该邮箱吗？\n16 施罗夫律师：异议。\n17 法庭：您可以回答。\n18 答：他与我联络时没有使用过那个邮箱。\n19 问：我们看 GXBuck-1204 号证据，如果我们能放大文字。\n20 巴克女士，这是您在付款工作中收到的\n21 发票之一吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：您支付了这张发票吗？\n24 答：支付了。\n25 问：左上方写着什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 答：Meritt Plumbing（梅里特管道工程）。\n2 问：请看右上角，这张发票的日期是哪天？\n3 答：2022 年 1 月 24 日。\n4 问：这张发票的工作地点是哪里？\n5 答：373 Taconic Road Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路 373 号）。\n6 问：该地址与我们刚才看过的始发地地址\n7 相比如何？\n8 答：是一样的。\n9 问：那么在地址下方，“账单收件人”后面写着什么？\n10 答：肖恩（Sean）。\n11 问：据您的理解，肖恩指的是谁？\n12 答：肖恩·景（Sean Jing）。\n13 问：向下滚动或看底部，这张发票上的应付总金额\n14 是多少？\n15 答：400 美元。\n16 问：我们来看政府方 375 号证据（Government Exhibit Buck-375）。这封电子邮件是谁\n17 发来的？\n18 答：格拉迪斯·周。\n19 问：这封电子邮件的日期是哪天？\n20 答：2022 年 1 月 27 日。\n21 问：作为参考，这大约是在交易交割后多久？\n22 答：一个多月。\n23 问：这封电子邮件是发给谁的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 答：是发给我和斯科特·巴尼特的。\n2 问：斯科特·巴尼特的电子邮件是什么？\n3 答：ScottB@GSNYUS.com。\n4 问：您知道 GSNYUS 是什么吗？\n5 答：我不知道。\n6 问：这封电子邮件的主题行是什么？\n7 答：购买海丝腾（Hastens）床垫。\n8 问：如果您知道的话，海丝腾是什么？\n9 答：一家床垫公司。\n10 问：请您读一下格拉迪斯的电子邮件正文好吗？\n11 答：嗨，艾米，请见附件，客户已经\n12 批准了。谢谢。\n13 问：据您的理解，客户指的是谁？\n14 答：那一家人。\n15 问：这封电子邮件有附件吗？\n16 答：有。\n17 问：洛夫特斯女士，如果我们能向下滚动到第三页。这本销售订单簿\n18 是谁的？\n19 答：这是海丝腾的。\n20 问：洛夫特斯女士，也许我们可以放大顶部以便阅读。\n21 “账单收件人”下面列出的是什么？\n22 答：Taurus Fund, LLC。\n23 问：那是拉斯维加斯的地址吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：“收货人”下面列出的是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n1 答：675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah（马瓦拉马波谷路 675 号）。\n2 问：那是克罗克豪宅的地址吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：洛夫特斯女士，如果我们能向下滚动，如果我们能从那个表格开始\n5 放大其余部分。\n6 巴克女士，首先请看第一行和第二行，那些是\n7 什么物品？\n8 答：床垫和床褥（top mattress）。\n9 问：这两件物品列出的颜色是什么？\n10 施罗夫律师：对相关性提出异议，床垫是什么颜色\n11 与本案无关。\n12 法庭：异议驳回。您可以回答。\n13 答：蓝色。\n14 问：床垫是多少钱？\n15 答：36,590 美元。\n16 问：床褥是多少钱？\n17 答：5,590 美元。\n18 问：请看第三行和第四行，那些是什么物品？\n19 答：床垫和床褥。\n20 问：那些物品是什么颜色？\n21 答：白色。\n22 问：床垫的价格是多少？\n23 答：36,210 美元。\n24 问：床褥呢？\n25 答：5,840 美元。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 问：然后请看第五行，那一项是什么？\n2 答：配件。\n3 问：粗体字写的是什么？\n4 答：床垫罩。\n5 问：有多少——数量是多少？有几件？\n6\n7 答：两件。\n8 问：请只看总费用，这总共是多少钱？\n9\n10 答：发票总额还是床垫罩？\n11 问：折扣后的粗体总额？\n12 答：80,829.21美元。\n13 问：我们看 GXBuck-522。如果能翻到第 3 页，\n14 稍微往上滚一点，我们可以放大看最下面那一封。\n15 Buck（巴克）女士，这是我们刚才看的那封最初的电子邮件吗？\n16\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：现在可以往上滚了。你回复了什么？\n19 答：嗨，Scott（斯科特），请批准这笔采购。Gladys（格拉迪斯）告知，\n20 货物将送至她的纽约办公室地址，\n21 所以不需要保密协议（NDA）。谢谢。\n22 问：如果我们可以往上滚。\n23 巴克女士，按你的理解，如果送到纽约办公室，为什么\n24 就不需要保密协议了？\n25 答：如果供应商不会亲自前往 Crocker（克罗克）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 庄园现场，就不需要保密协议。\n2 问：你后来又回复了，你能读一下你的下一封电子邮件吗？\n3 答：抱歉。看来你们已经有了签署好的保密协议和保险凭证（COI）。\n4 我这边没问题了。格拉迪斯，我假定还有另一笔递送到你办公室的请求。\n5 谢谢。\n6 问：你能读一下格拉迪斯回复的第一行吗？\n7 答：没错。床垫仍然送到新泽西（NJ）。\n8 问：她回复的最后一行？\n9 答：只有钢琴先送到纽约办公室。\n10 一收到发票我就会发过去。谢谢。\n11 问：你还记得那个纽约办公室的地址吗，\n12 巴克女士？\n13 答：不记得了。\n14 问：Loftus（洛夫特斯）女士，我们能否出示或公布 GX Buck-69。\n15 在等待的同时，巴克女士，你收到过一架钢琴的发票吗？\n16\n17 答：收到过。\n18 问：我们能否放大上半部分。在顶部中间，\n19 这份销货清单来自谁？\n20 答：Faust Harrison Pianos（福斯特哈里森钢琴公司）。\n21 问：右上角的日期是什么？\n22 答：2022年1月27日。\n23 问：买方（sold to）那一栏，你能读一下最上面那一行吗？\n24 答：Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司）。\n25 问：你能把送货地址（ship to）完整读出来吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 答：Gladys Chow（周秀芝），纽约州纽约市哥伦布圆环3号20楼，邮编10019（Gladys Chow, 3 Columbus Circle 20th floor, New York, New York 10019）。\n2\n3 问：你知道那个地址有什么吗，巴克女士？\n4 答：不知道。\n5 问：请问你能读一下品名描述的第一行吗？\n6\n7 答：Bosendorfer 185VC Porsche # 49539 with custom bench（贝森朵夫 185VC 保时捷款 49539号，配定制琴凳）。\n8 问：请看右下角，应付总额是多少？\n9 答：140,938.69美元。\n10 问：洛夫特斯女士，我们现在看 GXBuck-428。\n11 这封电子邮件的日期是什么，巴克女士？\n12 答：2022年2月17日。\n13 问：请看发件人（from）那一栏，发件人栏里的电子邮件地址是什么？\n14\n15 答：675payable@proton mail.com。\n16 问：那是谁的电子邮件地址？\n17 答：那是我接收来自周秀芝和 Sean Jing（荆申）邮件的邮箱地址。\n18\n19 问：请看最下面的邮件，这封邮件是谁签名的？\n20 答：Gladys（格拉迪斯）。\n21 问：她在签名下方列出的头衔是什么？\n22 答：项目经理（Project manager）。\n23 问：你能只读一下采购（purchase）下方的第一行，你能只读第1和第2项吗？\n24\n25 答：Hastens（海丝腾）床垫 36,596.90美元，Cedric DuPont 运输费\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 38,651.80美元。\n2 问：请看写着附件（attachments）的抬头部分，巴克女士，你能读一下第一个附件的名称吗？\n3\n4 答：Hastens invoice daughter 2.17.22. pdf。\n5 问：你理解其中的“daughter（女儿）”指的是谁？\n6 答：女儿，这家人。\n7 问：请翻到第 2 页。\n8 巴克女士，快速看一下这里，请看第 1 行和第 2 行，上面注明的颜色是什么？\n9\n10 答：是缩写，看起来像是银蓝色（silver blue）。\n11 问：我们可以缩小画面。总费用是多少？\n12 答：36,596.90美元。\n13 问：洛夫特斯女士，我们现在可以翻到第 6 页。我们可以放大上半部分，让它大一些。\n14\n15 现在，发货人始发地（shipper origin），你看到了吗，巴克女士？\n16 答：看到了。\n17 问：你能读一下第二行吗？\n18 答：Cedric DuPont Antiques（塞德里克·杜邦古董店）。\n19 问：我们调出 GXBuck-77 吧。实际上，洛夫特斯女士，能否同时出示 GXBuck-77 和 GXBuck-80。\n20\n21 那么，巴克女士，在这两份文件中，中间的大字是什么？\n22\n23 答：Cedric DuPont Antiques（塞德里克·杜邦古董店）。\n24 问：请看右边的文件，你能读一下上面的描述吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 答：A stunning and large scale Italian 19th Century wrought iron lantern（一盏令人惊叹的大型意大利19世纪锻铁吊灯）。\n2\n3 问：请看 GXBuck-194。我们可以放大那一页。\n4\n5 现在，巴克女士，请看左上角写着日期的地方，日期是什么？\n6\n7 答：2022年2月2日。\n8 问：然后移到右上角，客户姓名是什么？\n9\n10 答：Sean Jing（荆申）。\n11 问：回到左边账单寄往（bill to）下方，前两行是什么？\n12\n13 答：Taurus Funds LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司），Sean Jing（荆申）。\n14 问：最下方列出的电子邮件地址是什么？\n15\n16 答：NewJ6909@protonmail.com。\n17 问：那是谁的电子邮件地址？\n18 答：荆申。\n19 问：收货人（ship to）那一栏，你能读一下第一行吗？\n20 答：荆申。\n21 问：下方是克罗克庄园的地址吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：现在，如果我们只——其实我觉得你能看得清。你能读一下订购项目（order items）下方的描述吗？\n24\n25 答：Samsung Q900 series, QN98Q900RBF, 98 inches, QLED Smart TV-8K new（三星Q900系列，QN98Q900RBF，98英寸，QLED智能电视-8K全新）。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1\n2 问：在那右边，单价是多少？\n3 答：59,969美元。\n4 问：运费单价是多少？\n5 答：2,818.54美元。\n6 问：请看 GX Buck-218。\n7 巴克女士，这是你在工作中所收到的一份发票吗？\n8\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：左上角的公司名称是什么？\n11 答：Luca, Inc.\n12 问：在那下方右侧，日期是什么？\n13 答：2022年2月20日。\n14 问：你能读一下品名描述（description）下方从上往下数第二行吗？\n15\n16 答：Painting and fixing boss door（油漆和修理老板房门）。\n17 问：你能读一下倒数第二行吗？\n18 答：Supplying and installing two towel racks for boss bathroom（为老板卫生间提供并安装两条毛巾架）。\n19 问：你理解的“boss（老板）”是谁？\n20 答：一家之主。\n21 问：你见过名叫“boss（老板）”的人吗？\n22 答：没有。\n23 问：我们看第 2 页。简短看一下，你能读一下从上往下数第二行吗？\n24\n25 答：Installation two closet rods in madam's laundry room（在夫人洗衣房安装两根壁橱挂衣杆）。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 问：请看 GXBuck-391。\n2 巴克女士，请看上方，这封电子邮件是谁发来的？\n3\n4 答：周秀芝。\n5 问：日期是什么？\n6 答：2022年3月29日。\n7 问：如果我们缩小画面。为了让你看最下面，请只看最下面的电子邮件，巴克女士，你能读一下收件人（to）后面写的是什么吗？\n8\n9\n10 答：Golden Spring New York LTD（金泉纽约有限公司）。\n11 问：你知道 Golden Spring New York LTD（金泉纽约有限公司）是什么吗？\n12 答：不知道。\n13 问：请看 GX Buck-1275。\n14 巴克女士，这封电子邮件是谁发给你的？\n15 答：格拉迪斯。\n16 问：这封电子邮件的日期是什么？\n17 答：2022年5月23日。\n18 问：请你只读一下第二段的第一行？\n19\n20 答：随函附上 Amuneal（阿穆尼尔）书架的发票、电汇指示和保险凭证。\n21\n22 问：在同一段中，你能读一下该段的最后一行吗？\n23\n24 答：客户已经批准了。\n25 问：你理解的“客户”是谁？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 答：这家人。\n2 问：巴克女士，如果可以的话，你能再读一句吗，也就是接下来的那一句，“There is no”？\n3\n4 答：没有真品证书，因为这不是古董，而是为客户定制的物品。\n5\n6 问：我们能否向下滚动到第 3 页。在品名描述下方，巴克女士，你能只读那里的第一行吗？\n7\n8\n9 答：黄铜书架（Brass bookcase）。\n10 问：请放大左上角，第 2 页。应该还是同一份证物 1275 的左上角。\n11\n12 收件人注意（attention）后面写的是什么？\n13 答：Leanne Leonal @ G Fashion.com。\n14 问：你知道 G Fashion 是什么吗？\n15 答：不知道。\n16 问：你知道 Leanne 是谁吗？\n17 答：不知道。\n18 问：你能读一下参考（reference）后面写的是什么吗？\n19 答：配黄铜配餐室的黄铜书架（Brass bookcase to match brass pantry）。\n20 问：请看最下面一行，这是要寄送到哪里的？\n21 答：纽约州马瓦拉马波谷路675号（675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New York）。\n22 问：那是克罗克庄园吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：我们看 GX Buck-1279，如果可以往下滚动，我们放大最下面的电子邮件。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 巴克女士，Ilona Musial（伊洛娜·穆西亚尔）是谁？\n2 答：她是另一位有权向我发送付款发票的人。\n3\n4 问：她发给你的这封电子邮件的日期是什么？\n5 答：2022年6月2日。\n6 问：请读一下她的信息。\n7 答：你好 Amy（艾米）。我是克罗克庄园的管家伊洛娜·穆西亚尔。我给你发一些账单来付款。如果没问题的话，从现在开始我会跳过斯科特，直接把所有发票或账单发给你。谢谢，伊洛娜·穆西亚尔。\n8\n9\n10\n11 问：如果我们缩小画面并继续往上。我们回到第 1 页。如果我们能放大最下面的电子邮件。\n12\n13 巴克女士，为了了解这部分邮件链的背景，你当时在和谁通邮件？\n14\n15 答：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。\n16 问：你能读一下你发给亚伦·米切尔的电子邮件吗？\n17 答：好的。她说她要接替斯科特的位置，所以我不确定。她给我发了两张 Rockland Electric（罗克兰电力公司）已经付过的账单。我可以告诉她这些已经付了，并把其余的付掉。她知道每个合同/供应商都需要签署保密协议、保险凭证等。\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22 问：我们能否从那封邮件缩小并滚动到最上面的邮件。你能只读一下亚伦·米切尔回复的第一行吗？\n23\n24 答：我还没跟她谈过。刚得知他们雇了一位管家。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 问：当他说“her（她）”时，你理解的“她”是谁？\n2 答：伊洛娜·穆西亚尔。\n3 问：当他说刚得知他们雇了一位管家时，你理解的“they（他们）”指的是谁？\n4\n5 答：这家人。\n6 问：我们看 GX Buck-1274。请放大最下面的电子邮件。这封电子邮件是谁发来的？\n7\n8 答：伊洛娜·穆西亚尔。\n9 问：你能读一下她发给你的邮件的前两行吗？\n10 答：你好，艾米。谢谢你的回复。我和斯科特以及 Yvette（伊薇特）谈过了，从现在开始我会把付款发给你处理。\n11\n12\n13 问：你知道伊薇特是谁吗？\n14 答：不知道。\n15 问：你见过她吗？\n16 答：没有。\n17 问：你直接跟她说过话吗？\n18 答：在我的记忆中没有。\n19 问：你知道她在哪家或哪些公司工作吗？\n20 SHROFF（施罗夫）女士：我认为她已经作证说过她不知道伊薇特是谁。\n21\n22 法庭：异议成立。\n23 问：我们看 GX Buck-1277。请放大最上面的电子邮件。这封电子邮件是谁发来的？\n24\n25 答：伊洛娜·穆西亚尔。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - Direct（主问询）\n1 问：发给谁的？\n2 答：我，Amy Buck（艾米·巴克）。\n3 问：抄送给谁？\n4 答：Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）和荆申。\n5 问：请你只读一下那里长段落里的最后一句话？\n6\n7 答：如果款项已汇出，我们需要每天收到你的消息，因为这家人要求按时向所有供应商付款，尤其是优先转账。\n8\n9\n10 问：你理解的“the family（这家人）”指的是谁？\n11 答：金牛座基金背后的那家人。\n12 问：如果我们可以看 GX Buck-1282。\n13 巴克女士，你理解的 Wayne Cao（曹伟）是谁？\n14 答：我在发票上看到过那个名字，所以我假定他是这家人的一员。\n15\n16 施罗夫女士：对假定提出异议。\n17 法庭：不要说你假定的事。只说你知道的事。\n18\n19 答：我在各种发票上看到过曹这个名字。\n20 问：如果我们放大最下面的电子邮件。这封电子邮件是谁发来的？\n21\n22 答：Wayne Max Cao。\n23 问：你能只读一下那里的主要问题吗？\n24 答：当基金余额接近20万美元时，能否请你提醒我一下。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n问：您理解他所说的资金余额（balance of the fund）是指什么？\n答：我信托账户里的资金余额。\n问：您怎么回应的？\n答：绝对没问题。\n问：您见过 Wayne Cao（曹伟）本人吗？\n答：没有。\n问：您和他通过电话吗？\n答：没有。\n问：您和他有过什么样的互动？\n答：他会在某些电子邮件中被抄送，或者他发送的邮件中我被抄送，所以仅通过电子邮件我见过他的名字。\n问：我们看政府物证 GX Buck-1294。\n这是您在工作中收到的另一张发票吗？\n答：是的。\n问：请放大左上角。\n现在，您能读一下左下角写了什么吗？\n答：Cao residence（曹宅），675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430。\n问：您在收到的其他发票上也见过“曹宅”吗？\n答：见过的。\n问：然后只看右上角那里，客户编号后面写着什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n答：Cao。\n问：您可以撤下那张物证了，Ms. Loftus（洛夫特斯女士）。\nBuck（巴克）女士，在您审阅过的证人文件夹中，是您挑选了哪些文件放入该证人文件夹的吗？\n答：不是我。\n问：您是否收到了——可以这么说——很多发票？\n答：是的。\n问：所有的发票都在那个证人文件夹里吗？\n答：没有。\n问：那么，巴克女士，是否在某个时候，您收到了与您的工作相关的传票（subpoena）？\n答：是的。\n问：传票是谁发来的？\n答：SEC（美国证券交易委员会）。\n问：大约是什么时候收到的？\n答：2022年5月。\n问：收到传票后，您做了什么？\n答：我吓坏了。\n问：您为什么吓坏了？\n答：我不是诉讼律师。我不出庭。传票对我来说非常陌生。\n问：吓坏之后，您接下来做了什么？\n答：我立即发了一份副本给 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）并给他打了电话。\n问：您和亚伦·米切尔讨论了什么？\n答：我收到了传票以及后续步骤。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n问：他对您说了什么？\n答：他比我冷静得多，说这是做生意的成本，他们会聘请律师，我们会继续推进。\n问：当他说“这是做生意的成本”时，您的理解是什么意思？\n答：要么是他们对传票并不感到意外，要么是他们还收到了其他传票。我不太清楚。\n问：关于那通电话，如果有的话，他就那个家族对您说了什么？\n答：他说政府不喜欢该客户，因为他们属于 federalist party of China（中华联邦党），传票似乎并不出人意料。\n问：您以前听说过中华联邦党吗？\n答：没有。\n问：您关注中国政治吗？\n答：不关注。\n问：您关注美中外交关系吗？\n答：我尽量不关注。\n问：您知道中华联邦党是什么吗？\n答：不知道。\n问：当他说政府不喜欢他们时，您是否有任何独立的认知来判断这是否属实？\n答：我没有。\n问：在那次谈话之后，巴克女士，针对传票您做了什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n答：聘请了律师，然后我与律师进行沟通以回应传票。\n问：在不涉及与您律师的任何具体讨论内容的前提下，您的律师最终是否代表您回应了传票？\n答：是的。\n问：那么，巴克女士，是否在某个时候，您信托账户中的资金不足且没有得到补充？\n答：是的。\n问：大约是什么时候？\n答：第一次是在2022年7月。\n问：结果您做了什么（如果有的话）？\n答：大多数承包商都有我的手机号码。因此当他们拿不到付款时，我接到了很多电话，所以我主要联系亚伦，了解资金是否会得到补充，以便我向各承包商付款。\n问：在那之后，在您联系亚伦之后发生了什么？\n答：我不记得具体日期了，7月稍晚的时候我确实收到了另一笔电汇。\n问：大约是多少金额？\n答：500万美元。\n问：那500万美元最终用完了吗？\n答：用完了。\n问：在那之后发生了什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n答：大约在2022年10月、11月左右，资金又不足了。我试图了解我的代理是否即将结束，以便我移交记录以及下一个人所需的任何信息。没有人向我透露任何信息。我只是不断接到承包商打来的关于谁没拿到付款的电话。\n最终我和亚伦取得了联系，他让我联系另一个人去了解资金情况，以及是否会被授权通过我的信托账户进行支付。\n问：那另一个人在哪里？\n答：英国。\n问：洛夫特斯女士，请展示政府物证 GX Buck-1283。请放大正文部分。巴克女士，这个邀请是谁发来的？\n答：David Fallon（大卫·法伦）。\n问：他电子邮箱地址的域名是什么？\n答：Hamilton-IM（汉密尔顿投资管理）。\n问：这个邀请是发给谁的？\n答：Priya Patel（普里亚·帕特尔）、William Je（余建明）、我自己和亚伦·米切尔。\n问：这个邀请的日期是哪一天？\n答：2022年12月1日。\n问：主题是什么？\n答：Buck Esq. LLC Taurus call（巴克律师有限责任公司 Taurus 通话）。\n问：巴克女士，您在这个时间左右通了电话吗？\n答：通了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n问：谁参加了通话？\n答：我参加了通话，还有普里亚·帕特尔。还有其他男性人员在场，我只是不知道法伦先生和余先生是否在那个通话中。\n问：您理解大卫·法伦是什么身份？\n答：他是汉密尔顿那边授权我的付款和我的月度报酬的人。\n问：您理解余建明是什么身份？\n答：我不知道。我只知道他是汉密尔顿的一员。\n问：您在这次通话中讨论了什么？\n答：我们讨论了几件事。其中之一是我的律师回应传票的律师费。他们希望我对该房产进行产权审查（title search）。这被称为 rundown（产权查验），它会告诉你房产上是否已被设置了任何留置权（liens）。还有我是否会继续担任该角色，或者该角色是否结束并过渡给其他人。\n问：他们有没有询问关于 SEC 传票的任何情况？\n答：他们还结合我律师的法律费用，索要了传票的副本以及我们的回复文件。\n问：那么，大约在这个时候，巴克女士，关于部分账单是否仍在被支付，您的理解是什么？\n答：从承包商给我打电话的情况来看，我的印象是某些款项正由其他人支付，而某些款项没有支付，这仅仅是从他们给我打电话并告诉我哪些付了、哪些没付得知的，因为我知道自己在支付什么和没支付什么。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n问：您知道款项是从哪里支付的吗？\n答：Sean Jing 在进行付款。\n问：您就此事和他谈过吗？\n答：谈过。\n问：请告诉我们那次谈话的情况？\n答：我问他是否设立了银行账户来继续进行付款，他没有真正回答我。他只是说他正在处理。\n问：最终您能够支付 Taurus 到期的发票吗？\n答：在那时，不能。\n问：我们看——实际上，洛夫特斯女士，请展示政府物证 GX Buck-1290。\n巴克女士，这份物证是什么？\n答：这是我和亚伦·米切尔之间的短信记录。\n问：您的短信是绿色的还是灰色的？\n答：我的是绿色的。\n问：请向下滚动。1月26日的信息，那是哪一年，1月26日？\n答：2024年。\n问：您给亚伦·米切尔写了什么？\n答：你收到这个了吗。\n问：您给他发了什么的截图？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 直接询问\n答：一份关于破产案件的动议通知（notice of a motion）。\n问：请再次放大那部分。\n巴克女士，请注意案件抬头写着 In Re（关于……一案）的地方。您能读一下 In Re 后面写着什么吗？\n答：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等。\n问：您知道郭文贵是谁吗？\n答：我不知道。\n问：您知道 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯宾斯）是谁吗？\n答：我不知道。\n问：在收到这份文件之前，您知道破产的事吗？\n答：我知道。\n问：请缩小并向下滚动。\n亚伦·米切尔说了什么？实际上，不如我来读亚伦·米切尔的回复，您读您的回复。\n“是的，大约有1000人收到了。”\n答：“听起来真惊人。”\n问：“有些人在抗争。所以如果他们赢了，我们就赢了。”\n答：“明白。我也需要为此请律师吗？”\n问：“随你便，但我不会请律师或作出回应。”\n答：“明白。”\n问：与亚伦·米切尔对此事还有进一步的回应吗？\n答：没有了。\n问：收到——在不涉及与律师的任何讨论的情况下，您做了什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉询问\n答：我回应了传票。\n问：我们可以撤下该物证了，洛夫特斯女士。\n巴克女士，我们讨论了很多人，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：而且我们讨论了与您工作相关的几个实体，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：您的任何联络人曾提起过 G/Club 这个实体吗？\n答：没有。\nMR. FERGENSON（费根森检察官）：法官阁下，能否容我稍候片刻。\n问：巴克女士，什么是 HUD-1（房产交易过户结算单）？\n答：HUD-1 用于过户结算。在房地产交易中，您可以通过它查看所有支出的具体数字。\n费根森检察官：谢谢。没有其他问题了。\n法庭：交叉询问。\n交叉询问\nMS. SHROFF（施罗夫律师）主问：\n问：早上好，巴克女士。\n答：早上好。\n问：巴克女士，您执业律师有多久了？\n答：23年。\n问：您说过您不是诉讼律师，对吗？\n答：我不是。\n问：我明白了。您的主要业务是在房地产领域，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉询问\n问：对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：而且一直是在房地产领域；是这样吗？\n答：大部分是。\n问：可以这么说吗，您的执业最初是在新泽西州，然后您搬到了佛罗里达州，之后又搬回了新泽西州？我的时间顺序大体正确吗？\n答：我仅在新泽西州和纽约州持有执照。就个人而言，我们在佛罗里达州做过一两次。\n问：结果不太顺利，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：您搬回了新泽西州？\n答：是的。\n问：遗憾的是，我推测您是在新冠疫情期间搬回新泽西州的，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：当您在新冠疫情期间搬回来时，当时您并没有实体办公场所；是这样吗？\n答：我通过我的一位朋友使用一个办公地址，但我保留了一个家庭办公室。\n问：您能把最后一句话再向我说明一下吗？\n答：我保留了一个家庭办公室。出于安全考虑，我不会对客户使用那个地址，但我有一个用于接收邮件的办公地址，而且如果有需要的话，我可以去那里使用会议室。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 问：所以你用朋友的办公室地址收信，\n2 对吗？\n3 答：对。\n4 问：然后你在家里办公？\n5 答：对。\n6 问：这也就是我们百分之九十的人在新冠疫情期间的做法，对吗？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：你是否也有某种虚拟办公室，还是你就用你朋友的办公场地？\n9\n10 答：就用我朋友的。\n11 问：并且你作证说你的执业地点在New Jersey（新泽西州）？\n12\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：你谈到过，新泽西州有一个叫Darlington（达灵顿）的县吗？\n15\n16 答：我认为没有。\n17 问：那么你知道——你的执业范围是基于县域的，还是全州范围的？\n18\n19 答：全州范围。\n20 问：你在主询问中作证说，对吧，你收到了一个名叫Dara Lawall的人的转介，对吗？\n21\n22 答：对。\n23 问：你以前认识Dara吗？\n24 答：我是通过共同的朋友认识她的。\n25 问：你和她的交往，是在她向你提供这次转介前\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 很多年吗？\n2 答：不是，是在我们搬到新泽西州Chester（切斯特）的时候。\n3 问：所以你重新联系上了她，是这样吗？\n4 答：不是，我们都住在切斯特，所以我们就像是通过共同的朋友认识的。\n5\n6 问：当你们通过共同的朋友认识时，她——让我撤回这个问题。\n7\n8 她也是一名律师，对吧？\n9 答：对。\n10 问：是她向你转介的，对吗？\n11 答：对。\n12 问：她是以律师身份向你提供转介的，是这样吗？\n13\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：还是说她只是因为你们成了朋友才转介给你的？\n16\n17 答：以律师身份。\n18 问：当她向你提供那次转介时，她说她向你转介的，如你所说，是一个家庭，是这样吗？\n19\n20 这就是你在主询问中说的？\n21 答：是的，她表示他们对她很重要。他们就像家人一样。\n22\n23 问：我想在她做介绍时，你们之间进行了很不错的沟通，对吗？\n24\n25 答：我确信我们谈了几分钟。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 问：你有没有问她这家人是谁？\n2 答：当时我可能没有问，因为我知道我会在合同上看到。\n3\n4 问：所以你没有问她是怎么认识这家人的，对吗？\n5 答：我没有。\n6 问：你没有问她认识这家人多久了，对吗？\n7 答：我没有。\n8 问：而且你已经告诉我你没有问这家人姓甚名谁，对吗？\n9\n10 答：对。\n11 问：并且你得知这是——该转介是关于一处具体房产的，对吗？\n12\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：你所知道的那处房产的名称是什么，以便我对你使用相同的称呼？\n15\n16 答：Crocker mansion（克罗克庄园）。\n17 问：所以你知道那处房产是克罗克庄园，对吧？\n18\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：你还知道克罗克庄园在市场上挂牌出售至少有十年了，对吗？\n21\n22 答：其实我不知道这一点。\n23 问：你知道它在市场上挂牌了多久吗？\n24 答：我没有去查。\n25 问：没查也没关系。我的问题是，你是否通过\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 任何其他方式知道它挂牌了多久？\n2 答：我在与Aaron Mitchell的一次谈话中得知应该有一段时间了，因为价格下调过。\n3\n4\n5 问：有一次大幅降价，对吗？\n6 答：对。\n7 问：最初的价格是3900万？\n8 答：那是我在Zillow上看到的。\n9 问：然后一路降到了2600万，对吗？\n10\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：照你所说，关于该房产的出售价格曾有反复交涉？\n13\n14 答：我当时没有参与。看起来双方之间存在谈判。\n15\n16 问：我知道你当时没参与。等你参与进来的时候，交易已经达成了？\n17\n18 答：价格已经定好了，是的。\n19 问：不过你知道卖方对出售有些急迫，对吗？\n20\n21 答：对。\n22 问：事实上你告诉过政府你知道这种急迫性，但这种急迫性来自卖方，对吧？\n23\n24 答：双方似乎都非常急迫。\n25 问：你在与Fergenson先生会面时可不是这么说的，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 对吗？\n2 你告诉他急迫性来自卖方，对吧？你记得吗？\n3\n4 答：我不记得在双方和卖方之间有什么区别。\n5\n6 问：让我给你看3507-004号材料，看看这是否能唤起你的记忆。\n7\n8 答：好的。\n9 问：请只给证人、法庭和各方当事人查看。\n10\n11 SHROFF女士：法官阁下，能否给我一分钟。\n12 问：这是否唤起了你的记忆，即频繁联系你的是卖方律师？\n13\n14 答：是关于定金的事。\n15 问：对。而且从来不是买方律师催促着联系你，对吗？\n16\n17 答：我就是买方律师。\n18 问：我明白，但是买方那边没有任何人催促着联系你，对吧？\n19\n20 答：就定金而言，没有。\n21 问：卖方律师联系你的那几次，你记得联系了多少次吗——是“她”还是“他”？\n22\n23 答：是“他”。\n24 问：他多常联系你一次？\n25 答：我不记得了，有好几次。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 问：好几次，对吧？\n2 答：我认为是的，对。\n3 问：你可以把那个拿下来了。\n4 那么，Buck女士，可以公允地说你已经与——你是否还记得——让我先回到前一点。\n5\n6 你是否还记得告诉过政府，在圣诞节前有一个交割截止日期，而且是卖方在推动这种急迫性。你记得时间是在圣诞节前吗？\n7\n8\n9\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：鉴于你当时所做的工作，你也很清楚房产本身很旧，对吗？\n12\n13 答：我不知道那座庄园的房龄，但从发票上看，它似乎需要大量修缮。\n14\n15 问：你在与Fergenson先生会面时也是这么告诉他的，对吗？\n16\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：你告诉他你的印象是该房产状况需要大量的承包商来进行施工，对吗？\n19\n20\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：并且需要向大量的承包商付款，对吗？\n23\n24 答：起初我只支付几家。随着事情的推进，我支付了很多家。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 问：供应商也是一样的情况，对吧？\n2 答：对。\n3 问：起初是少数几家，后来你付了很多家？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：那么，有人反复问了你很多关于你对“家庭”一词含义的理解的问题，对吗？\n6\n7 答：是的。\n8 FERGENSON先生：反对。\n9 法庭：反对无效。\n10 问：到了某个时间点，你得知买方将是一家SP，对吧？\n11\n12 答：那是合同上写的名字。\n13 问：请你告诉我们，依你的记忆合同上的全名是什么？\n14\n15 答：Taurus Fund SP（金牛座基金SP）。\n16 问：当你看到Taurus Fund SP时，你认为“SP”代表什么？\n17\n18 答：在我的行业认知里，立刻想到的是sole proprietorship（个人独资企业）。\n19 问：当你看到那个名字时，你有没有意识到新泽西州有不同的规则，这种形式是不被允许的？\n20\n21 答：立刻意识到了，我可以向产权公司核实。\n22 问：对，因为这就是你的本职工作，对吧。\n23 你随后是否告诉Mitchell先生这在新泽西州行不通？\n24\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 问：你知道Mitchell先生是否精通这些房地产法律吗？\n2\n3 答：我不知道他的背景。\n4 问：这是因为你其实只对他妻子完全熟悉，对吧？\n5\n6 答：我根本不熟悉他们的业务，因为他们曾向我转介过其他事务。我知道他们的业务主要是商业诉讼，也做一些住宅房地产业务，但我不知道其复杂程度如何。\n7\n8\n9\n10 问：你的看法是他们是夫妻且各自独立执业，还是他们共同承办相同的案件？\n11\n12\n13 答：他们组成了一家律师事务所。我不知道他们是否分工执业。\n14\n15 问：你不知道一个是刑事律师，另一个是房地产律师吗？\n16\n17 答：我不知道。\n18 问：你是否记得，当你与Aaron Mitchell交谈时，他向你告知并与你讨论了New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）的话题？\n19\n20\n21 答：我以为他告诉我的是federalist party of China（中国联邦党），但我不记得确切的名字了。\n22\n23 问：但姑且不论名称的准确性，你今天坐在这里确实记得Mitchell先生跟你谈过那件事，对吗？\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：可以公允地说，这不是你感兴趣的领域，所以你没有跟他们跟进此事？\n3\n4 答：确实不是。\n5 问：而且现在仍然不是你感兴趣的领域，对吧？\n6 答：不是。\n7 问：后来到了某个阶段，在这一事务上你实际上只跟Mitchell先生对接工作了，对吗？\n8\n9 答：是的，在我与Dara进行了最初的交谈之后，我们就没有再讨论过Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）。\n10\n11 问：当你与Mitchell先生交谈时，他有没有跟你谈起过NDA（保密协议）？\n12\n13 答：他从一开始就谈了。\n14 问：顺便问一下，虽然我可以用诱导性发问，但那就是一份non-disclosure agreement（保密协议），对吗？\n15\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：可以公允地说，他给了你一份书面的保密协议让你使用？\n18\n19 答：是的，他给了我一份格式文本。\n20 问：就像一个模板，对吧？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：你用了那个模板吗？\n23 答：我审阅了它，但签署好的保密协议都是寄送给我的，所以我通常不处理这些。我从各个供应商或承包商那里收到了它们的副本。\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 反询问\n1 问：所以如果有供应商要在该房产送货，确保签署保密协议并不是你的责任。你只是检查它是否已签署？\n2\n3\n4 答：我询问他们是否有保密协议。收集信息是其他人的责任。\n5\n6 问：当你最初开始接手这处房产的工作时，是哪一年哪一月？抱歉，我忘了。\n7\n8 答：2021年12月。\n9 问：在2021年12月，当时Mitchell先生有没有跟你谈起过该房产的安保需求？\n10\n11 答：当我们最初交谈时，因为我没有——每家公司或实体都有人，所以你通常会有名字。当我询问名字以便知道客户背后的自然人是谁时，我没有拿到。他说他们非常关心安保和隐私。因此从一开始，我就像我说过的那样，以为那是一位名人或高净值人士，让他们感到安全、保持安全以及让他们的信息尽可能不公开是非常重要的。\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19 问：当他，我说的“他”是指Mitchell先生，跟你谈到新中国联邦时，你没有问他那是否与该房产有任何关系，对吗？\n20\n21\n22 答：那是在我收到第一份传票时提及的。\n23 问：不，我不是在问传票的事。\n24 答：抱歉。你能再问一遍吗。\n25 问：好的。当Mitchell先生第一次提到新中国联邦时，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 中国联邦，你并没有询问该处物业是否将被用于\n2 涉及新中国联邦（New Federal State of China）的相关事宜，对吗？\n3 答：我没有问。\n4 问：当你在谈及该物业的安保问题时，\n5 你理解 Mitchell（米切尔）先生所谈论的是该物业的实体\n6 安保，对吗？\n7 答：对。\n8 问：而且该物业的实体安保也会\n9 包括该物业的周边范围，对吗？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：以及该物业内部的安保，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：Buck（巴克）女士，你实际上是否曾去过该物业现场？\n14 答：我没有去过。\n15 问：你没有去实地看过它长什么样，对吗？\n16 答：我原本很想去参观一下，但我没有去。没有人带我\n17 去过。\n18 问：所以当你就所有这些发票作证时，\n19 你并不知道在实体地点处\n20 货物运输是如何完成的，对吗？\n21 你只是在经手走文件流程；这样说公允吗？\n22 答：对。我并没有去现场查看该物业。\n23 问：现在，我要回过头来谈 Barnett（巴内特）先生，但巴内特先生\n24 也是曾讨论过实体安全的人士之一，对吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 问：根据你的证言，你是不太了解巴内特先生，\n2 还是非常了解他？\n3 答：我根本不认识他。\n4 问：你知道他是否曾任职于 NYPD（纽约市警察局）吗？\n5 答：在我们的一次交谈中，他告诉我他是一名退休警察。\n6 问：他经常谈论自己当警察的事吗？\n7 答：不经常。\n8 问：他是否告诉过你他在该场所的职责是什么？\n9 答：他说他负责规划安保系统，而且在我所有的发票事务中，他是我的\n10 最初对接人，直到他后来太忙为止。\n11 问：他是否向你谈起过安保系统具体是什么？\n12 FERGENSON（费尔根森）先生：反对，传闻证据。\n13 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。\n14 答：没有。\n15 问：他没有告诉你。好的。让我换一个稍微\n16 不同的问题。好的。\n17 你记得政府方曾向你出示过几张涉及——我发不好这个词的音，LaBarbiera\n18 Custom Homes（拉巴比拉定制住宅公司）的发票，对吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：那家公司有一位名叫 Vinny（维尼）的对接人，\n21 对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：可以公允地说，你知道维尼在该物业出售给 Taurus S,\n24 LLP 之前，就已经在该物业工作多年了吗？\n25 答：我不知道是否是这种情况。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 问：你知道同一家拉巴比拉定制住宅公司此前是否曾\n2 在该物业上做过工程吗？\n3 答：在什么时候之前？\n4 问：在你参与该事务之前？\n5 答：不管是与否，我都不知道。\n6 问：你曾与这位名叫维尼的人交谈过吗？\n7 答：交谈过。\n8 问：他是否曾告诉过你，他曾在那处物业上工作过\n9 很多年？\n10 答：他没有提及此事。\n11 问：他跟你说话是用英语吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：他没有对你说普通话，对吗？\n14 答：我不会说普通话。\n15 问：那么你是否曾与他本人亲自见过面？\n16 答：没有。\n17 问：你曾与他进行过 Zoom 视频会议吗？\n18 答：没有。\n19 问：现在，你是否记得曾与他讨论过该物业上所需要的\n20 翻新工程，包括该物业上车库的\n21 翻新工程？\n22 答：我从他那里收到了翻新工程的发票，而且起初\n23 他还代表他的分包商收取款项，\n24 直到后来由我直接向他们付款。\n25 问：那么可以公允地说，当你收到一张发票时，对吧，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 你并没有对发票本身进行评估——你没有对发票本身\n2 做任何实质评估，对吗？\n3 答：我所做的评估，如果它是一份分期付款合同且\n4 包含多笔款项，那就是确保我支付的是应当\n5 支付的款项，且并非重复付款，以确保在付款前\n6 工程已经完工，但也仅限于这种程度的\n7 审核。\n8 问：如果维尼进行了重复计费，你是不会去核查的，对吗？\n9 费尔根森先生：推测性提问。\n10 SHROFF（施罗夫）女士：我是在问她是否会核查。\n11 法庭：那么问题应该是你是否核查了他的\n12 账单。\n13 问：你核查过他的账单吗？\n14 答：我核查过。\n15 法庭：现在是 11:30，我们要休庭\n16 休息一下。陪审团成员们，请记住，你们不得\n17 相互讨论本案。不要允许任何人在你们面前\n18 讨论本案。不要阅读、收听或观看来自任何涉及\n19 本案主题的渠道的任何内容。\n20 法庭书记官：陪审团退庭。\n21 法庭：巴克女士，你可以退席。请勿讨论\n22 你的证言。\n23 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n24 (212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO2 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 （陪审团不在场）\n2 法庭：请就座。在我们中午 12 点重新开庭之前，\n3 还有什么事吗？\n4 费尔根森先生：政府方没有。\n5 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，只有一件事。辩方\n6 已经向政府方提供了其试图通过巴克女士引入的\n7 辩方证据。它们就是依据 Buck LLC（巴克有限责任公司）账户\n8 提交的相同文件。如果政府方愿意就接纳这些证据达成约定，\n9 肯定能加快交叉盘问的进度。\n10 费尔根森先生：我们尚未获知任何他们试图\n11 通过巴克女士引入的证据。\n12 法庭：那么你们在休庭期间协商解决。\n13 费尔根森先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n14 （休庭）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3\n1 下午庭审\n2 中午 12:00\n3 （陪审团不在场）\n4 法庭：请就座。\n5 12 号陪审员告知了我的一名工作人员，说他想\n6 就时间安排问题与我沟通。请把他\n7 带进来。\n8 （陪审员在场）\n9 法庭：请坐在第一个座位上。\n10 你可以坐下。\n11 你是 12 号陪审员，对吗？\n12 陪审员：是的。\n13 法庭：有什么问题？\n14 陪审员：我是一家小型非营利机构的执行总监。\n15 我们人手不足。\n16 法庭：请大声一点。\n17 陪审员：我们人手不足。我们正处于财年年底，\n18 有很多事情在进行。其中一件事是，\n19 我们必须在 6 月 30 日之前腾空我们的一处办公室。那是\n20 租约到期的日子。我们一直未能与房东就任何事项达成协议，\n21 我担心他可能会把我们锁在门外。法庭是否有办法出面干预，\n22 以便让我们获得延期，从而让我能够继续履行职责？我完全\n23 致力于本案，但是——我实在不想被锁在门外。我们存有\n24 客户的保密档案，而且——\n25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3\n1 法庭：你有聘请律师吗？\n2 陪审员：有。\n3 法庭：你的律师正在与房东交涉吗？\n4 陪审员：目前还没有，但我可以给他打电话，然后——\n5 法庭：那么我的首要建议就是，\n6 你先与你的律师沟通。也许你们可以争取到\n7 延期。\n8 陪审员：我曾试图就此与他协商，但他——\n9 他希望我留下来并协商一份长期租约。而\n10 我们不打算那样做。\n11 法庭：所以你是在寻求一份短期\n12 延期。\n13 陪审员：一份短期延期；一个月，或许两个月。\n14 甚至用不了那么久。\n15 法庭：这看起来是你的律师可能可以办成的事情，\n16 因此我希望你先向律师咨询并了解清楚。你可以在\n17 今天下午给他或她打电话。\n18 如果你无法获得延期，会发生什么情况？\n19 陪审员：他很可能会把我们锁在门外。无论如何他都会索要\n20 租金。我担心的是那些档案，它们——我们正试图\n21 转移所有档案，以防他真的把我们锁在门外。\n22 法庭：那么这对你在本案中担任陪审员的角色会有什么影响\n23 （如果有的话）？\n24 陪审员：如果被锁在外面而我们什么也做不了，\n25 那我就会留在这里，一直等到我们审理结束。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 法庭：所以你的请求实质上是在问我\n2 能否就此事进行干预。\n3 陪审员：对。\n4 法庭：我也希望我能帮忙。但由于这是你们机构\n5 与房东之间的私人事务，\n6 我无权介入，因此我很遗憾地告诉你这个消息，\n7 祝你好运。\n8 陪审员：好的。谢谢。谢谢法官阁下。\n9 法庭：好的。\n10 （陪审员不在场）\n11 法庭：请将全体陪审员带出来。\n12 （陪审团在场）\n13 法庭：你可以重回证人席。\n14 请就座。\n15 巴克女士，请记住你仍处于宣誓作证状态。\n16 你可以继续发问。\n17 施罗夫女士提问：\n18 问：巴克女士，很抱歉。我不太确定我们刚才停在\n19 哪里了。但我打算从我们谈论保密协议（NDAs）的地方\n20 继续，好吗？\n21 答：好的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 问：你是否保存了签署并寄回给你的保密协议档案，\n2 还是你只是确认它们已被签署？\n3 答：我保存了档案。我为每个承包商或供应商都设有\n4 一个文件夹。\n5 问：那么可以公允地说，你没有巴内特先生的\n6 保密协议吗？\n7 答：我不记得有，没有。\n8 问：那你是否有 Chow（周）女士的保密协议？\n9 答：我也不记得有她的。\n10 问：你是否记得有 Cao（曹）先生的保密协议？\n11 答：没有。\n12 问：Sean Jing（肖恩·荆/荆肖恩）的呢？\n13 答：我不记得有，没有。\n14 问：好的。你知道 Sean Jing 为 G Club（G俱乐部）工作吗？\n15 答：不知道。\n16 问：你是否曾询问过他在哪里工作？\n17 答：我没有问过。\n18 问：你知道曹先生在哪里工作吗？\n19 答：不知道。\n20 问：你询问过他吗？\n21 答：我从未与他交谈过。\n22 问：你与他通关电子邮件吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：你是否曾通过电子邮件询问他在哪里工作？\n25 答：没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 问：现在关于巴内特先生，你作证说他曾一度\n2 始终是你的首要对接人，对吗？\n3 答：对。\n4 问：我不确定我是否记得准确。你本人是否曾与他\n5 当面见过面？\n6 答：没有。\n7 问：可以公允地说，政府方曾向你出示了相当\n8 数量来自巴内特先生的文件，对吗，来自巴内特先生的电子邮件往来，\n9 对吧？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：而且有时他们还为你特别标出了他所使用的\n12 不同电子邮箱地址，对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：今天坐在这里，你知道巴内特先生有多少个电子邮箱\n15 地址吗？\n16 答：我不知道。\n17 问：你知道他是否有一个名为 frontsight1@outlook.com 的\n18 电子邮箱地址吗？\n19 答：那是我与他进行往来邮件沟通的主要邮箱。\n20 问：而这里的费尔根森先生曾为你标出过一个他拥有的 GS 邮箱\n21 地址，对吗？\n22 答：对。\n23 问：你知道他是否还有其他邮箱地址吗？\n24 答：据我回忆没有了。\n25 问：当来自巴内特先生的不同邮箱向你发送电子邮件时，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉盘问\n1 你认为那是同一个巴内特先生，对吧？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：你并没有回信询问“你是哪位巴内特先生？”\n4 答：没有。\n5 问：好的。现在可以公允地说，巴克女士，在你的\n6 整个工作过程中，你从未认为自己在做任何\n7 不当的事情，对吗？\n8 答：对。\n9 问：今天坐在这里，你仍然不认为自己曾做过\n10 任何不当的事情，对吗？\n11 答：对。\n12 问：你收到了发票，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：而且你核实并确保了相关人员正在对发票\n15 授权付款，对吧？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：然后你处理了这些发票，对吗？\n18 答：首先我会口头核实电汇指令。\n19 问：对。按照你的职责要求去做，对吗？\n20 答：对。\n21 问：而且事实上，你相当尽职尽责；你总是在\n22 电子邮件中写道“请口头确认”，对吗？\n23 答：是的，为了——防止出现电信诈骗问题。\n24 问：对。而且它们都得到了口头确认，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 答：全部都是。\n2 问：对。如果未经口头确认，您就不会\n3 处理付款，对吗？\n4 答：对。\n5 问：事实上您非常尽职，您保留了一份 Excel\n6 表格，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：您是否与任何其他人分享过该 Excel 表格，比如\n9 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）或其他人？\n10 答：是的，与获授权的人员分享过，Scott Barnett、Sean Jing（肖恩·荆）、\n11 Gladys Chow（格拉迪斯·周），显然还有 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。\n12 问：对。并且从未出现过问题；从来没有人提出过\n13 异议说某笔款项未付或某些数字被\n14 夸大了，对吗？\n15 答：有时会有疑问。例如发票是否已付，\n16 电汇是否未通过，这取决于时间节点；有时\n17 它们会被搁置，比如在云端，导致他们看不到，\n18 但是——我认为我支付的款项没有出现过任何问题。\n19 问：对。他们通常对您相当满意，\n20 对吧？\n21 答：我没听到过抱怨。\n22 问：很好。好的。那么鉴于此，我能否请您稍微更\n23 集中地关注向您出示的某些\n24 文件，可以吗？\n25 也许多数问题我可以在不出示\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 文件的情况下向您提问。\n2 政府向您出示了来自 State of Nevada（内华达州）的公司注册成立证书和\n3 文件，对吗？\n4 答：那是组织章程，是的。\n5 问：对。那并没有什么异常，对吧？\n6 答：那是该州的备案副本，是的。\n7 问：对。如果他们愿意，他们可以在\n8 内华达州或在 Maine（缅因州）开设一家公司，对吧？\n9 答：他们可以在任何地方开设实体。\n10 问：对。而且他们告诉了您他们在哪里开设了该实体，\n11 对吧？\n12 答：嗯，我在组织章程上能看到。是在\n13 内华达州。\n14 问：对。但文件是他们发给您的，\n15 对吧？\n16 答：对。不是我设立的。\n17 问：对。您没有任何疑问；您没有问他们为什么选\n18 内华达州，或者为什么选这个州，或者诸如此类的问题，\n19 对吧？\n20 FERGENSON 先生：反对形式。复合提问。\n21 法庭：请分拆提问。\n22 问：您问过他们为什么选内华达州吗？\n23 答：问过。我又问了 Aaron，因为通常在 New\n24 Jersey（新泽西州）的交易中，会设立新泽西州的有限责任公司。如果您想使用不同的州，\n25 这并不罕见，但我们当时也面临着\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 在年底按时完成交易的压力，他说这只是\n2 为了给客户增加一层隐私——\n3 问：好的。\n4 答：——保护。\n5 问：对。当他为您回答该问题时，您是否\n6 觉得从他那里得到了合理解释？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：好的。现在向您出示一份文件，即 1295 号。能否\n9 为您调出该文件。\n10 这是您发给 Aaron Mitchell 的电子邮件，对吗，您在其中\n11 列明了代理条款？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：好的。发送给他的——您在上方看到的是他的律师事务所地址\n14 吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：好的。这只是在您与您将为其工作的人之间\n17 确立协议的一种简便方式，\n18 对吗？\n19 答：这是为了将持续代理关系记录在案，因为\n20 我签约时承诺的工作与我们实际做的工作不一致，因此\n21 我希望对我们后续的工作留存书面记录。\n22 问：好的。Mitchell 先生收到了这封电子邮件并给您做了\n23 回复，对吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：好的。他是否告知了您预估金额，以便\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 您能作出相应计划？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：好的。您向他跟进了吗？\n4 答：跟进了。\n5 问：好的。现在关于——您也被问及了相关问题\n6 SHROFF 女士：可以撤下该文件了。谢谢。\n7 问：您也被问及了您支付的数笔款项，\n8 并且有人向您出示了一整组发票，对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：好的。其中部分发票来自一名\n11 名叫 Gladys Chow 的人，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：她在电子邮件末尾签名并称自己是\n14 项目经理，对吧？\n15 答：她的电子邮件里是这么写的，是的。\n16 问：对。您是否曾问过她管理的是什么项目？\n17 答：没有。\n18 问：您知道该项目的名称是什么吗？\n19 答：不知道。\n20 问：现在让我向您出示政府标为 822 的文件。\n21 这是证据 822。\n22 SHROFF 女士：能否往下滚动一下。\n23 问：我认为政府关注的是第 7 页，\n24 对吗，第 7 页和第 8 页？您记得看过这份文件吗？\n25 SHROFF 女士：就停在第一页吧。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 问：女士，您记得这份文件吗？\n2 答：记得。\n3 问：好的。上面写着“将在以下区域提供拆除工程”。\n4 对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：您能读一下下面的内容吗。\n7 答：“二楼主卧女士侧翼。”\n8 问：对。“女士”是用复数形式吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 SHROFF 女士：好的。能否翻到\n11 下一页。\n12 问：您看到顶部写着“三楼儿子侧翼”，对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：您知道涉案家庭是否有儿子吗？\n15 答：我对该家庭一无所知。\n16 问：您是否知道在您代理期间的任何时间点，\n17 是否有儿子居住在美国？\n18 答：我完全不知道。\n19 问：好的。在同一份文件的同一个部分，\n20 提到了二楼卧室浴室\n21 改建为洗衣房，对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：您完全不知道那是什么意思。\n24 答：不知道。\n25 问：好的。我不想通过逐一过一遍这些内容来\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 纠缠不休，但我们都不知道——好吧，先不管\n2 我们。当上面写着“天花板切割以安装 7 处吊灯位置，\n3 以现有拱门为中心”时，您不知道这意味着什么，不知道这项工程是什么，\n4 对吧？不知道？\n5 答：不知道。\n6 SHROFF 女士：能否在这份文件上再往后滚动一些。\n7 继续往下滚动。\n8 问：您看到就在那里，写着“三楼女儿侧翼”，\n9 对吧？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：您已经说过您不知道他是否有女儿，\n12 但当上面写着“拆除指定墙体”时，对您来说意味着什么？\n13 FERGENSON 先生：反对形式，她没有那样说过。\n14 法庭：反对成立。证人并未作此陈述。\n15 问：您知道该家庭是否有女儿吗？\n16 答：我完全不知道。\n17 问：谢谢。要拆除的指定墙体是什么？\n18 答：我不知道。我没有施工图纸。\n19 问：标记的开口是什么？\n20 答：通常会在施工图纸上标明，而我没见过施工图纸。\n21 问：好的。您知道当时到底有没有施工图纸吗？\n22 答：我不知道有还是没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 问：然后上面提到了“安装石膏板并批灰的新隔断”，\n2 对吗？\n3 答：是的，上面是这么写的。\n4 问：我想您同样不理解\n5 那是什么意思？\n6 答：不理解。\n7 SHROFF 女士：好的。能否请操作人员\n8 继续往下滚动。\n9 继续往下。\n10 再往下一页。\n11 请翻到最后一页。\n12 问：该文件告诉您有一个合同总价，\n13 对吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：然后它列出了定金金额、中期付款金额，\n16 对吧？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：竣工尾款则没有计算说明。\n19 答：对。\n20 问：好的。这些只是您会去处理的文件；\n21 您不会去质疑账单是否合理，\n22 对吧？\n23 FERGENSON 先生：反对形式。\n24 法庭：请分拆提问。\n25 SHROFF 女士：好的。您知道吗，没关系。我\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 撤回该提问。我们可以直接看下一份\n2 文件。\n3 我们看一下 168 号文件。\n4 由 SHROFF 女士继续提问：\n5 问：可以说您从这家 Labarbiera 收到的账单\n6 通常具有相同的格式，对吧？\n7 答：对于这份合同，我支付的是分期付款，但对于\n8 其他发票，他附带了分包商，因此格式\n9 会有所不同。\n10 SHROFF 女士：好的。能否翻到该特定文件的\n11 下一页。\n12 然后下一页。\n13 请翻到下一页。\n14 好的。就停在那里。\n15 问：好的。您看到这些附加条款了吗？\n16 答：看到了。\n17 问：好的。这些条款是由您拟定的，还是仅仅在这\n18 两个主体之间，即 Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）与 Labarbiera Custom Homes（拉巴比埃拉定制住宅）之间拟定的？\n19 答：对于这份特定的合同，我不记得直接与\n20 承包商打过交道，所以我向 Aaron 或 Scott Barnett 提出了合同条款\n21 建议。我不记得是给他们中的哪一位了。\n22 问：好的。您是通过电话向他们提出这些建议，\n23 还是通过电子邮件发送给他们的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 答：我通过电子邮件发给他们的。\n2 问：好的。您知道他们是否采纳了您的\n3 建议吗？如果您不记得也没关系。\n4 答：我正在看这些条款。我——我不记得那些是我说的话\n5 还是 Aaron 说的话。\n6 SHROFF 女士：好的。请看政府\n7 证据 851。\n8 能否把中间部分，也就是\n9 下午 12:33 的部分放大。\n10 问：您知道 Prevenitas 是什么吗？\n11 答：那是我收到发票的公司。它看起来像是\n12 一家——提供安保设备的公司。\n13 问：好的。New York Business Systems 呢？\n14 答：我不记得了。\n15 问：好的。那 Monster Air Heating and Cooling 呢？\n16 答：暖通空调设备。\n17 问：好的。其余费用似乎显而易见，但您是否\n18 清楚记得具体是用来买什么的？\n19 答：抱歉。您能重复一遍吗？\n20 问：我说剩下的三笔付款——Fine Rugs、RDM Fine\n21 Art 和 Fine Rugs——似乎显而易见，但您是否记得它们\n22 是用来买什么的？\n23 答：用来买地毯和艺术品。除此之外的具体细节我不记得了。\n24 问：好的。这封电子邮件是您发的，并且您在通知\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 Gladys，对吧？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：Scott 和 Gladys，对吗？\n4 答：对。\n5 问：您联系 Gladys 的邮箱是 hchktech.com，对吧？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：联系 Scott Barnett 的邮箱是 frontsight1@outlook，对吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：当时您给 Chow 女士发送邮件到该邮箱地址时，\n10 您对使用该邮箱地址感到\n11 困惑过吗？\n12 答：我没多想。我以为她可能是\n13 独立承包商并拥有自己的公司。\n14 问：好的。今天坐在这里，您也没有其他了解，\n15 对吧？\n16 答：对此我一无所知。\n17 SHROFF 女士：好的。如果可以的话，我们现在转到\n18 709 号文件。\n19 好的。这份文件，能否请稍稍\n20 放大一些。\n21 问：现在政府向您出示了这份文件，对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：您在主问中作证称您不知道谁居住在\n24 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路373号），对吧？\n25 答：对。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 问：而且可以这么说，今天坐在这里，你依然\n2 不知道谁住在那里，对吗？\n3 答：我不知道谁住在那里。\n4 问：好的。如果我们看一眼，顶部的日期\n5 是 1/18/2022，对吗？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：而且可以这么说，你处理过的这类发票\n8 不止一份，对吗？\n9 答：我相信来自 Flat Rate 的发票不止一份，是的。\n10 SHROFF 女士（施罗夫）：好的。那我们就往下滚屏，如果\n11 可以的话。\n12 问：好的。这一份是多少钱？\n13 答：118,000 美元。\n14 SHROFF 女士：好的。如果我们能继续\n15 往下滚屏。\n16 好的。我们来看看运送的物品，好吗？如果我们能把它们放大一点。\n17 问：我不会让你逐一宣读这些内容，但是\n18 你知道这些物品来自哪里吗？\n19 答：我当时没想过这个问题。\n20 问：好的。但是现在看着这份文件，你能看出它们\n21 来自哪里吗？\n22 答：看起来它们是从 373 Taconic Road 运出的。\n23 问：好的。所以当你查看这份文件和\n24 物品清单时，你无法分辨其中是否有任何物品是被购买\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 并从康涅狄格州的地址运出的——\n2 FERGENSON 先生（费尔根森）：提问形式异议。\n3 SHROFF 女士：我还没说完，不过我很乐意再试\n4 一次。\n5 法庭：请继续。\n6 问：——或者它们原本就是那处康涅狄格州\n7 住所内的物品，现在被运出？\n8 FERGENSON 先生：提问形式异议。\n9 法庭：那么——\n10 FERGENSON 先生：这令人费解。\n11 法庭：你需要拆开来问。\n12 问：你知道客厅里的那个特大号柜子\n13 是什么时候购买的吗？\n14 答：我不知道。\n15 问：看第三页，书房的书桌椅，你\n16 知道它是新买的，还是原本就在那处康涅狄格州住所里现在\n17 被运到这里的吗？\n18 FERGENSON 先生：提问形式异议。\n19 法庭：所以你问的是它是通过她所参与的系统\n20 购买的，还是问它到底有没有被购买过？问题到底是什么？\n21 SHROFF 女士：好的。法官阁下，我再试一次。很抱歉。\n23 由 SHROFF 女士继续：\n25 问：你不知道那张书桌椅是不是康涅狄格州住所里运往新泽西州的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 一件旧家具，\n2 对吗？\n3 答：我对那把椅子一无所知。\n4 问：对。所以你甚至不知道，例如——\n5 SHROFF 女士：我们往下滚屏吧。\n6 FERGENSON 先生：已经问过且已回答。她不知道。\n7 SHROFF 女士：我还没问这个问题呢。\n8 请继续往下滚屏。\n9 就在那里。\n10 问：你看到三号卧室的大号餐具柜了吗？今天坐在这里，\n11 你不知道那个餐具柜在搬运时里面是否装有任何东西，\n12 对吗？\n13 答：我对它一无所知。\n14 问：好的。而且你不知道，例如在左侧，\n15 小边几里面是否有文件，对吗？\n16 答：我对它一无所知。\n17 问：好的。那么可以这么说，你对运送的这些物品\n18 中的任何一件都一无所知，对吗？\n19 答：这样说没问题。\n20 问：那是因为这根本不是你的工作，对吗？\n21 你的工作只是支付发票。\n22 答：你刚才没有向我提问。\n23 问：噢，不好意思。你的工作只是去支付那些\n24 已获批准付款的发票，对吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 问：好的。你收到过摄像设备的发票；是\n2 这样吗？\n3 答：我相信是的。\n4 问：而且你收到过照明设备的发票，对吗？\n5 答：是的，照明设备的。\n6 问：好的。你也处理了那些发票，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：现在我向你展示标记为辩方\n9 证据 60613 的文件。你认得那份文件吗？\n10 答：我认得。\n11 问：好的。\n12 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，辩方动议将 DX 60613\n13 采纳为证据。\n14 FERGENSON 先生：无异议，法官阁下。\n15 法庭：准予采纳。\n16 （被告证据 60613 获采纳为证据）\n17 问：那么你审阅过这份方案吗？\n18 SHROFF 女士：噢，不好意思。可以向陪审团\n19 展示吗？我总是忘了这一点。\n20 问：你审阅过它吗，这份文件？\n21 答：你能把其他几页也展示给我看吗？我不——\n22 问：当然。当然。我们放慢一点。\n23 SHROFF 女士：我们能退回一页吗？\n24 问：你看到顶部写着“提供视频\n25 监控”，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 答：确实如此。\n2 问：好的。在这一页的前一页，写着“安防运营中心\n3 的优势”。对吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：好的。而且可以这么说，你并没有询问\n6 那个安防运营中心是什么，对吧？\n7 答：我没有。\n8 问：好的。那么我们来看最后一页。\n9 你记得你对这份文件做了什么处理吗？\n10 答：我把它保存在我的系统里了。\n11 问：你据此进行了付款吗，你记得吗？\n12 答：我向 Prevenitas 付过多笔款项。我不记得\n13 是否具体针对这份方案。\n14 问：好的。但我们来看下一份，即 60614。\n15 那是辩方证据 60614。你记得收到过这份\n16 文件吗？\n17 FERGENSON 先生：我们对其采纳为证据没有异议。\n18 法庭：那么准予采纳。\n19 （被告证据 60614 获采纳为证据）\n20 SHROFF 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n21 问：你记得收到过这份文件吗？\n22 答：我相信是的，我收到过这个。\n23 问：你看到旁边的金额了吗？我不会\n24 让你读出来，但是你看到那里的金额了吗？\n25 答：好的。我看到了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 问：好的。总额是 392,000 美元加上若干零头，\n2 对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：你支付了吗；你知道吗？不是说由你出钱。不好意思。\n5 我知道你没有自掏腰包付过这些账单。是你\n6 批准了付款。\n7 答：是的。我不记得具体金额了，但我确实向 Prevenitas\n8 付过多笔款项。\n9 问：好的。谢谢你。\n10 SHROFF 女士：我们可以撤下这个，换到 60618。\n11 问：上面写着，如果你能读一下——\n12 FERGENSON 先生：法官阁下，如果这是要出示采证，\n13 我们不反对将其采纳。\n14 法庭：这是哪一份？\n15 SHROFF 女士：60618，法官阁下。\n16 法庭：准予采纳。\n17 （被告证据 60618 获采纳为证据）\n18 由 SHROFF 女士继续：\n19 问：我会非常简短地问。这讨论了\n20 威胁与漏洞评估，对吗？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：而且它是针对顶部列在 Taurus\n23 Fund, LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司）名下的同一处房产，对吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：好的。收件人是 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特），对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 答：是的。\n2 SHROFF 女士：好的。我们可以撤下这个。\n3 我们可以换到 60620。假设政府方没有\n4 异议，法官阁下，我们将动议将其采纳为证据。\n5 FERGENSON 先生：能否先向各方当事人展示，\n6 好让我们能看到。\n7 法庭：那么展示出来吧。\n8 FERGENSON 先生：无异议，法官阁下。谢谢。\n9 法庭：准予采纳。\n10 （被告证据 60620 获采纳为证据）\n11 由 SHROFF 女士继续：\n12 问：你认得它，对吧？\n13 答：我认得。\n14 问：好的。那笔金额付清了吗；你知道吗？\n15 答：底部那是我的笔迹，所以根据我的猜测，它可能属于\n16 那笔较大总付款额的一部分。我需要查看我的\n17 记录，但它确实付过了。\n18 SHROFF 女士：好的。能否请把画面\n19 缩小。\n20 问：我猜你不知道摄像机粉末\n21 涂层或任何这些其他费用是什么，对吧？它们看起来\n22 只是与安防监控摄像机有关？\n23 答：没错。不管怎样我都不知道它们具体是什么。\n24 问：谢谢。\n25 SHROFF 女士：能否请向政府方律师、\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 证人以及法庭展示 60621。\n2 FERGENSON 先生：我们没有异议，法官阁下。\n3 法庭：准予采纳。\n4 （被告证据 60621 获采纳为证据）\n5 问：你在与政府方会面准备作证时，他们向你展示过\n6 这份文件吗？\n7 答：我没有特别记起这一份。\n8 SHROFF 女士：好的。可以撤下这个了。\n9 能否请对 60623 同样处理。\n10 如果政府方没有异议，我们将动议\n11 将 60623 采纳为证据。\n12 FERGENSON 先生：无异议，法官阁下。\n13 法庭：准予采纳。\n14 （被告证据 60623 获采纳为证据）\n15 由 SHROFF 女士继续：\n16 问：你在与 Fergenson 先生会面时，跟他讨论过\n17 这份文件吗？\n18 答：我没有特别记起讨论过这份文件。\n19 问：我猜你不知道他们最终实际使用的是哪一种\n20 创新技术，但一旦你获得付款授权，你就支付了账单，\n21 对吗？\n22 FERGENSON 先生：提问形式异议。\n23 法庭：这是合二为一的两个问题。\n24 SHROFF 女士：我很乐意——\n25 法庭：分开来问即可。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 SHROFF 女士：好的。\n2 问：该文件标题是什么？\n3 答：是《安防摄像监控系统安装\n4 方案》。\n5 问：日期呢？\n6 答：2022 年 1 月 29 日。\n7 SHROFF 女士：能否请——Salazar 先生（萨拉查），\n8 能否请你替我滚屏浏览一下。\n9 问：那是什么图像？\n10 答：上面写着“物业概况”。\n11 问：好的。你知道它说的是哪处物业吗？\n12 答：如果看第一页的话，我认为是克罗克庄园（Crocker\n13 Mansion）的地址。\n14 SHROFF 女士：好的。我们直接翻到第 3 页。\n15 第 4 页。\n16 第 5 页。\n17 还有第 6 页吗？没有。好的。那么第 5 页是\n18 最后一页。\n19 问：上面有项目总成本，对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：我猜你不记得自己是否曾与 Fergenson 先生\n22 讨论过这份文件。\n23 答：我没有特别记起讨论过这份文件。\n24 问：好的。你记得这笔款项是否已支付吗？\n25 答：这笔金额，我没有特别记起。我曾向 Prevenitas\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 付过多笔款项。\n2 SHROFF 女士：好的。我们来看 60625，依然是\n3 辩方证据。\n4 问：女士，那是什么？\n5 答：这是 Scott Barnett 发给我的一封电子邮件。\n6 问：好的。如果我们能——\n7 FERGENSON 先生：不好意思。这是在向\n8 陪审团展示吗？\n9 陪审员们：不是。\n10 FERGENSON 先生：好的。我道歉。我们对\n11 将其采纳没有异议。\n12 法庭：准予采纳。\n13 （被告证据 60625 获采纳为证据）\n14 SHROFF 女士：现在可以请向陪审团展示了吗？\n15 法庭：请展示。\n16 由 SHROFF 女士继续：\n17 问：上面写着：“艾米（Amy），这是发票的照片”，\n18 对吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：好的。他是否为你附上了发票？\n21 答：我相信他附了。我没有特别记起。\n22 问：好的。今天坐在这里，你不记得自己是否\n23 实际支付了那张发票，对吗？\n24 答：我甚至不记得它是什么了。\n25 问：好的。那么我们来向你展示 60624 吧。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 盘问\n1 SHROFF 女士：Salazar 先生，请不要向陪审团展示。\n2 谢谢。\n3 如果我们可以仅向证人、法庭\n4 以及各方当事人往下滚屏。\n5 问：你记得这份文件及其附件吗？\n6 答：看起来很眼熟，是的。\n7 SHROFF 女士：好的。我们动议将 60624 采纳为证据。\n8 FERGENSON 先生：无异议。\n9 法庭：准予采纳。\n10 （被告证据 60624 获采纳为证据）\n11 问：随这份文件，他附上了来自\n12 Prevenitas 的信息，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 SHROFF 女士：能否请向陪审团展示\n15 并往下滚屏。\n16 谢谢。\n17 问：请允许我向你展示标记为证据的 60626。\n18 你认得——\n19 SHROFF 女士：不要向陪审团展示，Jorge（豪尔赫）。谢谢\n20 你。\n21 问：你认得这份文件吗，Buck 女士？\n22 答：我没有特别记起它，但它看起来很眼熟，不知你是否明白我的\n23 意思。\n24 问：它是发给你的吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：那是来自一个你\n2 认识的电子邮件地址吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 施罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：好的。辩方申请将第 60626 号证物采纳为\n5 证据。\n6 法庭（THE COURT）：有异议吗？\n7 费根森先生（MR. FERGENSON）：请稍等片刻，法官阁下。\n8 没有异议，法官阁下。\n9 法庭：准予采纳。\n10 （被告第 60626 号证物被采纳为证据）\n11 施罗夫女士：那么能否请我们看一看那份\n12 文件。\n13 由施罗夫女士继续询问：\n14 问：你能告诉陪审团 B&H 是什么吗。\n15 答：我认为那是一家公司的名字。我不知道。我一时\n16 想不起来了。\n17 问：那么那一行的其余部分是否告诉了你它可能是\n18 什么样的公司？\n19 答：你想让我读出来吗？\n20 问：请读。\n21 答：广播器材。\n22 施罗夫女士：能否请翻到这份文件的\n23 第二页。\n24 能否为陪审员们放大一下。\n25 能否请我们往下看。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：你收到了这份特定的文件，对吗？\n2 答：我想是的，收到了。\n3 施罗夫女士：能否请稍微往回向上滚动\n4 一下。\n5 问：它非常清楚地告诉你，对吧，售予 Gladys——\n6 费根森先生：反对这种定性表述，\n7 法官阁下。\n8 法庭：你可以直接陈述字面内容，不要\n9 带倾向性。\n10 问：这份文件告诉读者器材是售予\n11 Gladys Chow（周秀娟）的，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：地址是内华达州拉斯维加斯市天点道 6628 号，邮编 89141（6628 Sky Point Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89141），对吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：然后它告诉你它将被运送到哪里，\n16 对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：上面的日期是 2022 年 6 月 1 日。\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：没有人隐瞒任何地址，对吗？\n21 费根森先生：反对。\n22 法庭：你是问她看着这份\n23 文件，是否能看出隐瞒了什么？\n24 施罗夫女士：是的。\n25 法庭：请回答。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我是根据文件的字面意思理解的。除此以外我一概\n2 不知。\n3 施罗夫女士：好的。我们继续往下\n4 滚动。\n5 问：你能仅凭顶部的抬头看出是谁生成了\n6 那份文件吗？\n7 答：我想是 B&H Photo-Video。\n8 施罗夫女士：好的。能否请我们翻到\n9 最后一页。\n10 问：总金额是 67,416.73 美元，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 施罗夫女士：好的。最后一份是 60628。\n13 那个，其实没事了。我认为我们已经看够了。\n14 我撤回最后一份。\n15 问：那么，巴克女士（Ms. Buck），在场的费根森先生之前向你询问了\n16 关于你文件夹里的文件的问题，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：你知道那个文件夹是如何制作出来的吗？\n19 答：我不明白这个问题。\n20 问：好的。我再问一次。\n21 答：好的。\n22 问：你知道他是如何挑选这些文件的吗？\n23 答：我不知道。\n24 问：他有没有向你透露过他的挑选过程？\n25 答：没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：好的。他给了你一套文件，然后你们二人\n2 对其进行了审阅；是这样吗？\n3 答：他把文件夹给我审阅，然后就走出了\n4 房间。\n5 问：好的。然后你就坐在那里审阅了这些文件，对吗？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：之后你和他讨论了这些文件吗？\n8 答：讨论了。\n9 问：好的。你和我从未见面讨论过任何文件，\n10 对吧？\n11 答：没有。\n12 施罗夫女士：好的。请给我一分钟。\n13 问：那么政府方曾向你出示了第 709 号证物，对吧？能否请\n14 为你调出那份文件。\n15 我们之前过过这份文件。你是否记得\n16 巴内特先生（Mr. Barnett）在这次搬迁中扮演了什么角色，如果他有\n17 参与的话？\n18 答：我不记得他是否曾把其中任何一张发票寄给我。\n19 施罗夫女士：好的。我们可以撤下那份，看第\n20 1204 号。\n21 问：你记得在主询问中就这份文件作过证吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：好的。在场的政府方，费根森先生，提请你\n24 注意工作地点是在康涅狄格州（Connecticut），对吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：好的。这一笔的总账单是多少，400 美元；是\n2 这样吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：你是否批准了这一笔付款？坐在这里，你\n5 记得吗？\n6 答：具体情况记不清了，但我肯定我付了。\n7 问：好的。你有没有问过肖恩（Sean）为什么你要为在康涅狄格州\n8 完成的一些工作支付 400 美元？\n9 答：我没有问。\n10 问：好的。现在让我们看政府方第 375 号证物。\n11 政府方花了很多时间向你\n12 询问这些床垫的情况，对吗？\n13 答：他问了我关于它们的问题，是的。\n14 问：对。它们是什么颜色，花费了多少钱，对吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：好的。你作证说你知道海丝腾（Hästens）\n17 床垫是什么，对吧？\n18 你知道这家公司吗？\n19 答：我听说过这个名字，但我说不上是在哪里听说的。\n20 问：好的。可以这么说，政府方也问了\n21 你关于巴内特先生这个电子邮件地址的问题，\n22 对吗？记得他们提请你注意 GSNYUS.com 吗？\n23 答：是的，他们今天问了我关于那个电子邮件\n24 地址的问题。\n25 问：好的。你知道那代表什么吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我不知道。\n2 问：你有没有问过巴内特先生，嘿，你为什么用\n3 这个地址给我发邮件？\n4 答：我不确定当时我是否意识到了这点，但我没有问过\n5 他。\n6 问：你也没有问过周女士，对吧？\n7 答：没有。\n8 施罗夫女士：好的。能否请在那份文件上继续往下\n9 滚动。\n10 还是第 375 号，对吧？\n11 问：我不会去复核所有床垫的价格和所有事情，\n12 但你用了很长篇幅作证说它们是蓝色还是白色以及是否有\n13 格纹图案，对吧？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：好的。你支付了这些床垫的费用是因为你\n16 获得了发放付款的授权？\n17 答：是的，我被授权支付这张发票。\n18 问：好的。你并没有质疑为什么要购买\n19 这些床垫，对吧？\n20 答：没有。我没有质疑过。\n21 问：而你对这些床垫作证的唯一原因，\n22 是因为费根森先生挑选了这份文件并就此\n23 向你提问，对吧？\n24 答：我想我没听懂你的问题。抱歉。\n25 问：你并没有选择这份文件来作证，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：是的，不是我挑选的。\n2 问：你也没有将其标记为你觉得可疑的文件，\n3 对吗？\n4 答：我没有标记任何东西。\n5 施罗夫女士：好的。我们继续。\n6 现在让我们看政府方第 522 号证物。\n7 问：你看到这份文件了吗？\n8 答：看到了。\n9 问：你也对这份文件作过证？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：当时有人问及不同物品\n12 的去向，对吗？\n13 施罗夫女士：那个，既然你们刚才已经在屏幕上展示过了，\n14 就再给她看一下那张照片吧。\n15 费根森先生：法官阁下，我不确定这是什么。\n16 这是已被采纳为证据的文件吗？\n17 施罗夫女士：这是一份政府方证物。\n18 法庭：哪份证物？\n19 施罗夫女士：是 W5V.1。这是一份已采纳为证据的\n20 政府方证物。\n21 由施罗夫女士继续询问：\n22 问：你知道这个人是谁吗？\n23 答：我不知道。\n24 问：好的。你认得背景里的黄铜书架\n25 吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我不认得。\n2 问：你无法将你在清单上读到的东西\n3 与这个黄铜书架对应起来，对吗？\n4 答：我无法进行对应，是的。\n5 问：而且你无法分辨这张照片是否是在新泽西\n6 住宅拍摄的，对吗？\n7 答：我完全不知道。\n8 施罗夫女士：好的。可以把那个撤下了。\n9 回到第 522 号。\n10 问：在这封电子邮件的最上面部分，对吧？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：费根森先生问了你关于钢琴运往\n13 纽约办公室的问题，对吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：你知道为什么钢琴要先运往\n16 纽约办公室吗？\n17 答：我没有问。\n18 问：你知道这是否与保险有关吗？\n19 答：我——我完全不知道。\n20 问：那么床垫呢？\n21 答：没有人跟我讨论过东西要运到哪里或为什么运。\n22 问：好的。他们给你发了一封相关的电子邮件。只要你\n23 获得付款授权，你就支付了，对吧？\n24 答：是的。\n25 施罗夫女士：好的。我们可以撤下那份了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：你不知道谁在哥伦布圆环 3 号（3 Columbus Circle），对吗？\n2 答：我不知道那个地址。\n3 问：你不知道东 64 街（East 64th Street）上的一个地址，对吗？\n4 答：你能重复一下吗。抱歉。\n5 问：好的。你知道东 64 街上的某个地址有什么特殊意义吗？\n6 答：我不认得那个地址。\n7 问：你从未听说过任何被称为联排别墅（the townhouse）的地方，对吗？\n8 答：我完全不知道。\n9 问：请让我给你出示第 1275 号。\n10 你记得曾被问及关于这个——我都不知道\n11 怎么发音——Amuneal（阿穆尼尔）书架的问题吗？\n12 答：记得。\n13 问：好的。你知道 Amuneal 书架是什么吗？\n14 答：我不知道。\n15 问：如果我出示给你看，你能认出来吗？\n16 答：不能。\n17 施罗夫女士：好的。我们可以撤下那个。\n18 请看第 1279 号。谢谢你，豪尔赫（Jorge）。\n19 能否请你往下滚动一下。\n20 还能再往下一页吗？再往下。\n21 问：好的。你看到这封电子邮件了吗？\n22 施罗夫女士：能否请把它放大。\n23 问：你看到这个人了吗？是伊洛娜·穆夏尔（Ilona Musial），对吧？\n24 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：她被解雇了吗？\n2 答：有人告诉我她是，是的。\n3 施罗夫女士：好的。你可以把那个撤下了。\n4 第 1275 号怎么样？能否请把那个\n5 放大。\n6 那个，我想我拿错编号了。等\n7 一下。\n8 抱歉。我可能报错了编号，法官阁下。\n9 可以给我一点时间吗？\n10 法庭：请便。\n11 施罗夫女士：抱歉。\n12 我一定是把证物编号写错了。\n13 由施罗夫女士继续询问：\n14 问：但你记得费根森先生问过你关于\n15 G Fashion 一位名叫李安（Lee Ann）的人士的问题吗？\n16 答：记得。\n17 施罗夫女士：洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），能否请你帮我\n18 查一下证物编号。\n19 问：你记得就那份文件作过证吗？\n20 答：记得。\n21 问：你知道李安是谁吗？\n22 答：我不知道。\n23 问：你知道 G Fashion 是什么吗？\n24 答：我不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：你知道那家公司如今是否存在吗？\n2 答：我——我完全不知道。\n3 问：你曾在谷歌上搜索过 G Fashion 吗？\n4 答：没有。\n5 问：你知道 G Fashion 是否拥有某种办公室或空间——\n6 费根森先生：反对。\n7 问：——在马瓦（Mahwah）豪宅？\n8 法庭：她已经作证说她不知道\n9 这家公司。\n10 问：你知道是否有任何公司在拉马波（Ramapo）物业拥有场地并在那里开展工作吗？\n11 答：我完全不知道。\n12 问：你知道 G Fashion 的服装是否留在那座豪宅里了吗？\n13 费根森先生：同上反对。\n14 法庭：反对成立。\n15 问：那么，你回答费根森先生提出的某些\n16 问题时曾作证说，你认为付款是由\n17 金牛座基金（Taurus Fund）背后的家族授权的。还记得吗？\n18 答：记得。\n19 问：好的。今天坐在这里，你并不知道金牛座基金背后\n20 是有一个还是几个家族，对吗？\n21 答：我完全不知道。\n22 问：对。所以当你说家族时，你只是使用了这种\n23 称谓，对吧？\n24 答：与我交谈的人，他们就是这么称呼他们的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 除了他们被称为“家族”之外，我什么都不知道。\n2 问：好的。所以你不知道这个\n3 所谓的“家族”里有多少人，对吗？\n4 答：我不知道。\n5 问：你知道这是个大家族还是核心家庭吗？\n6 答：不——\n7 费根森先生（MR. FERGENSON）：反对提问方式。我不确定\n8 那是什么意思。\n9 法庭（THE COURT）：我不理解\n10 “大家族”是什么意思。\n11 问：你知道什么是大家族吗？\n12 答：我不知道。\n13 问：好的。是否可以这样说：家庭可以被定义为\n14 一个较小的单元，相对于包含所有兄弟姐妹在内的\n15 家族而言？\n16 费根森先生：我想仅对相关性\n17 和知情度提出反对。\n18 法庭：也许你可以问得更具体一些。\n19 问：是否可以这样说：在某些文化中，家庭\n20 会包括所有的兄弟、他们所有的妻子，以及他们所有的\n21 孩子？\n22 费根森先生：反对，法官阁下。她不是\n23 文化专家。\n24 施罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：我问的是她的理解。\n25 法庭：我想听听她对此的看法。请继续。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我真没什么看法。各国的文化都\n2 不一样。\n3 问：有可能，对吧？\n4 费根森先生：反对要求证人推测。\n5 法庭：不要让她推测。她已经告诉你\n6 所有文化都不一样了。\n7 问：你对中国文化有一点了解吗？\n8 答：我不了解。\n9 问：你知道中国家庭会如何定义家庭吗？\n10 费根森先生：反对。她说过了她不知道。\n11 法庭：反对成立。\n12 问：有人问过你关于一个名叫曹（Cao）的人的问题，对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：你从未见过这个人，对吗？\n15 答：对。\n16 问：你收到过来自这个人的电子邮件，对吗？\n17 答：他在写邮件时抄送了我，是的。\n18 问：你问过他的工作是什么吗？\n19 答：没有。\n20 问：你问过他是受雇于谁吗？\n21 答：我没有。\n22 问：现在，你作证说你对 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的\n23 传票感到吓坏了，对吧？\n24 答：对。\n25 问：好的。我希望有人告诉过你那是正常的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 反应。但你联系了亚伦·米切尔（Aaron Mitchell），对吗？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：好的。你和米切尔先生互发了短信，\n4 对吧？那是一次短信交流——\n5 施罗夫女士：我需要调出物证。我认为\n6 它是——抱歉。那是哪份物证，政府方物证\n7 编号是多少？\n8 问：好的。这是 1290 号物证，对吗？\n9 答：这是亚伦和我之间的短信往来，是的。\n10 问：好的。绿色的是你？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：好的。所以你说你在好时（Hershey），现在不能\n13 说话。“我稍后打给你好吗”，对吧？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：然后你在 11 月和他发了短信，对吧？\n16 11 月 9 日。\n17 答：对。\n18 问：并且你说你想提前提醒他一声，“我收到了\n19 一份调取信息传票和宣誓证言取证通知”，对吧？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：关于金牛座基金（Taurus Fund）的。\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：“我们下周能沟通一下吗？”对吧？\n24 答：是的，那是我的短信。\n25 问：好的。他建议周一下午 2 点，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我是绿色的。那是我建议的。\n2 问：噢，抱歉。所以是你建议周一下午 2 点。\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：你知道你是否被金牛座基金通知进行宣誓证言取证吗？\n5 答：我认为不是，不是。\n6 问：好的。那是谁通知你进行宣誓证言取证的？\n7 答：我不记得了，但那是破产法院的。\n8 施罗夫女士：好的。我们往下翻一下。\n9 不，往上一页。\n10 问：他说，“没问题！谢谢”，对吧？\n11 答：不，那是我说的。\n12 问：还是你？\n13 答：是的，我是绿色的，然后——哎呀，屏幕没了。\n14 问：中间发生什么了？\n15 答：我——\n16 问：我们完全没有信号了。\n17 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，我认为我们的设备\n18 遇到了一些技术故障。\n19 法庭：好的。好吧，我们已经给视听部门发了邮件，\n20 他们会上来处理。有什么你可以在不需要屏幕的情况下\n21 询问的问题吗？\n22 施罗夫女士：也许洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus）能帮我一下。\n23 很好。谢谢你。\n24 费根森先生：你有那份——我想那是 1290 号。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 好的。\n2 施罗夫女士：洛夫特斯女士拿到了。非常感谢，\n3 洛夫特斯女士。\n4 施罗夫女士继续询问：\n5 问：好的。你看这里有一条回复说，“好的。请打\n6 这个号码。”对吧？那是米切尔先生发给你的，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：然后你说，“没问题！谢谢。”对吧？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：你是不是联系不上他，所以你对他说，“请打给我”？\n11 答：我想是他希望我打他的手机，\n12 而不是他的办公电话，所以——\n13 问：好的。你知道他那天是否在出差途中吗？\n14 答：我完全不知道。\n15 问：好的。那现在蓝色的是谁？\n16 答：蓝色是我。\n17 问：好的。所以你对他说，“请尽快打给我。谢谢。”\n18 对吧？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：好的。他给你回电话了吗？\n21 答：我认为他没有，因为我又发了一条短信。\n22 问：好的。你给他发短信说，“有空请打给我——\n23 想了解最新进展”，对吗？\n24 答：是的，那是我的短信。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 问：好的。这是否唤起了你的记忆，即在这个过程中\n2 的某个时候，他曾告诉你他很忙但会给你回电话？\n3 费根森先生：我认为证人并没有记不清，\n4 但无所谓了。\n5 问：你看到有一条回复写着，“有空请打给我”？\n6 答：是的。\n7 费根森先生：法官阁下，正如巴克女士（Ms. Buck）所作证的那样，\n8 那是巴克女士发的短信。\n9 法庭：你指的是哪一条？是蓝色的\n10 那条吗？\n11 证人：是的。\n12 法庭：那么问题是什么？\n13 施罗夫女士继续询问：\n14 问：我的问题是：你看到第一行，“有空请打给我”，\n15 对吧？那一行是不是在回复米切尔先生通知你\n16 他当时没空通话？\n17 答：我想是他没有回复我之前的短信，所以我又给他\n18 发了一条。\n19 施罗夫女士：好的。我们继续往下翻。\n20 问：你看到政府方出示了这份文件给你，\n21 对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：你知道这份文件的标题是什么吗？\n24 答：字太小了。\n25 问：你对这份文件是什么有任何印象吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我知道那是破产法院的文件。是一份动议通知书（Notice of Motion）。\n2 问：对。\n3 答：你想让我读出来吗？\n4 问：只要读标题，谢谢。\n5 答：托管人针对潜在被告提起主张之延期申请动议通知书（Notice of Motion for Extension of Time for Trustee to Bring Claims Against Potential Defendants）。\n6 问：对。那么说你是一名律师，这话公允吗？我收回这句话。\n7 你就是一名律师，对吧？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：好的。可以公允地说，对吧，作为一名律师，你能够\n10 告诉陪审团这是为了申请延期，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：当米切尔先生告诉你他不打算对它作出回应时，\n13 这难道没有告诉你，他对延期申请没有任何异议吗？\n14 费根森先生：反对，法官阁下。\n15 法庭：反对成立。她不可能知道\n16 米切尔先生心里在想什么，他指的是什么。\n17 问：该动议是关于延期的申请，对吗？\n18 费根森先生：已询问并已回答。\n19 法庭：反对成立。\n20 问：而且对于这个首页，你作证说米切尔先生的回应是\n21 他不打算回应这项动议，\n22 对吗？\n23 答：是的，那是他的短信回复。\n24 问：好的。此时此刻，你知道你是否曾对延期申请\n25 提出异议吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：我没有回应这一次。\n2 施罗夫女士：好的。我们继续往下翻。\n3 问：然后你和米切尔先生继续进行了互动，\n4 对吗？你们继续发短信，对吧？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：好的。他说，“是的。大约有 1,000 人收到了。”\n7 对吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：你认为这是夸张修辞，还是陈述真实事实？\n10 答：我认为这是一种夸大，意思是发出去了很多。\n11 问：好的。你回复说，“听起来太不可思议了”，\n12 对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：米切尔先生回复说，就像许多诉讼律师那样，“有些\n15 人正在抗争——”\n16 费根森先生：反对发表评论。\n17 法庭：不要添加渲染。只提问。\n18 问：“有些人正在抗争，所以如果他们赢了，我们就赢了”，\n19 对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：好的。你说，“明白了。这个我也需要请律师吗？”\n22 对吧？\n23 答：对。\n24 问：他说，“随你便，但我不会请律师，也不会\n25 回应。”对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 答：是的，那是他的短信。\n2 问：而这串记录中唯一的文件就是一份延期动议，\n3 对吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 施罗夫女士：好的。我们能翻到最底部吗。\n6 问：那就是文件的结尾了，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 施罗夫女士：好的。我们可以撤下那份文件了。\n9 问：你还就你与亚伦·米切尔先生进行的另一次谈话作证了，\n10 对吧，你们谈到了——他向你谈到了\n11 经商成本，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：你作证说米切尔先生告诉你政府\n14 不喜欢这个家族，对吗？\n15 答：他是说了类似的话，是的。\n16 问：对。而他并没有详细说明是哪个政府，\n17 对吗？\n18 答：他没有。\n19 问：他没有告诉你该政府是否是美国政府，\n20 对吗？\n21 答：对。\n22 问：他没有告诉你那是否是中国共产党，\n23 对吗？\n24 答：对。\n25 问：他也没有告诉你为什么政府不喜欢这个\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 交叉询问\n1 家族，对吗？\n2 答：我不记得他解释过其中的任何缘由。\n3 问：此时此刻，你根本不知道政府是喜欢\n4 还是不喜欢这个家族，对吗？\n5 答：我哪一种情况都不知道。\n6 问：正是。那么是否可以公允地说，当米切尔先生\n7 和你谈论中华联邦党（Federalist Party of China）时——那是\n8 你记得的名字，对吧？\n9 答：那是我记得的名字，是的。\n10 问：你没有向他追问任何问题，对吧？\n11 答：我们可能交谈过。我不记得细节了。这\n12 对我来说并不重要。\n13 施罗夫女士：好的。法官阁下，请允许我稍等\n14 片刻。\n15 法庭：可以。\n16 施罗夫女士：谢谢。\n17 问：有人向你询问了一系列关于一个名叫\n18 吕克·德斯平斯（Luc Despins）的人的问题，对吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：你知道那是谁吗？\n21 答：我想那是破产法律文书上的名字。\n22 问：好的。但你知道那是谁吗？\n23 答：噢，不知道。\n24 问：你知道他是不是律师吗？\n25 答：我不知道他是还是不是。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - 再直接询问\n1 问：好的。巴克女士，此时此刻，你能否告诉\n2 陪审团你为该处房产的安保支付了多少费用，或者你批准了多少\n3 支付金额？\n4 答：我不知道具体的数字，总金额数字。\n5 问：对于任何开支，你脑子里都没有记下一个总数字，\n6 对吗？\n7 答：我没有。\n8 问：对。你在这一切当中所起的作用很有限，\n9 对吗？\n10 答：我支付了获得授权支付的发票。\n11 问：而且你把所有这些发票的副本都提供给了\n12 这里的费根森先生，对吗？\n13 答：我认为是的。\n14 施罗夫女士：我没有其他问题了，法官阁下。\n15 谢谢。\n16 法庭：好的。让我们进行再直接询问。\n17 费根森先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n18 再直接询问（REDIRECT EXAMINATION）\n19 费根森先生询问：\n20 问：巴克女士，有人问了你一些关于涉及\n21 中华联邦党的谈话的问题。你\n22 还记得吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Redirect\n\n1 答：是的。\n\n2 问：只是为了明确起见，那是和谁的谈话？\n\n3 答：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。\n\n4 问：那么 Federalist Party of China（中国联邦党）是什么时候被提及的？那次谈话是在什么时候？\n\n6 答：大概是在我收到第一份传票的时候。\n\n7 问：那第一份传票是谁发来的？\n\n8 答：SEC（美国证券交易委员会）。\n\n9 问：SEC 是 United States government（美国政府）的一部分吗？\n\n10 答：是的。\n\n11 问：好的。Buck（巴克）女士，你是否记得有人曾向你提问关于 Sean Jing（肖恩·荆）是否为 G|CLUBS 工作？你还记得吗？\n\n14 答：记得。\n\n15 Fergenson（弗根森）先生：Loftus（洛夫特斯）女士，我们能否出示 GX BUCK 194 号政府证物？如果我们能放大上半部分，谢谢。\n\n18 问：巴克女士，你看到右上角这里写着客户姓名，Sean Jing？\n\n20 答：是的。\n\n21 问：左边写着账单寄送地址，写着 Taurus Funds, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司），下面写着 Sean Jing？\n\n23 答：是的。\n\n24 问：这份文件上有任何地方列出 G|CLUBS 吗？\n\n25 答：没有。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Redirect\n\n1 问：Sean Jing 的电子邮件地址，那是 G|CLUBS 的电子邮件地址吗？\n\n3 答：不是。\n\n4 弗根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，我们能否查看辩方第 60613 号证物。\n\n6 问：现在，巴克女士，你被问及了一些关于安保发票付款的问题。你还记得那些吗？\n\n8 答：记得。\n\n9 问：这就是给你看过的其中一张发票，对吧？\n\n10 答：是的。\n\n11 弗根森先生：我们可以向下滚动。请向下滚动到第 3 页。如果我们可以放大最上面的那一段。\n\n15 问：巴克女士，你能读一下那里以“Having 24/7”开头的第二句话吗？\n\n17 答：“具备全天候 24/7 视频监控能力可以保护您的家庭和业务运营的安全。”\n\n19 问：现在，巴克女士，据你的理解，Taurus Funds, LLC 背后的主体是谁？\n\n21 答：一个家庭。\n\n22 弗根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以撤下那份文件了。\n\n23 问：巴克女士，我不会再向你出示文件了。在反交叉质询中有人问过你关于床垫的问题。你还记得吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Recross\n\n1 答：记得。\n\n2 问：那些是 Hästens（海丝腾）床垫，对吧？\n\n3 答：是的。\n\n4 问：每张大约价值 30,000 美元，对吧？\n\n5 答：是的。\n\n6 问：你知道那些床垫是否具备任何特殊的安保功能吗？\n\n8 答：我——我不知道。\n\n9 弗根森先生：法官阁下，没有其他问题了。\n\n10 法庭：再反交叉质询？\n\n11 再反交叉质询\n\n12 由 Shroff（施罗夫）女士进行：\n\n13 问：你是否曾知晓任何床垫具备安保功能？\n\n14 答：我完全不知道。\n\n15 问：好的。让我们看一下 194 号证物，好吗。你看到了关于 Sean Jing 的那份文件，对吧？他问过你这里是否有 G Club，对吗？\n\n18 答：是的。\n\n19 问：好的。你知道有人在同一时间做多份工作吗？\n\n21 答：当然，人可以有多份工作。\n\n22 问：对。这个人可以在这里工作，也可以在 G Club 工作，对吧？\n\n23 弗根森先生：要求证人作推测。\n\n24 法庭：一个人可以有多份工作吗？\n\n25 证人：可以。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Recross\n\n1 法庭：请继续。\n\n2 问：我可以打两份工，对吧？\n\n3 答：你可以。\n\n4 问：对。我可以早上在 G|CLUBS 工作，白天在 Walmart（沃尔玛）工作，对吧？\n\n6 答：我相信你可以。\n\n7 问：这就对了。\n\n8 施罗夫女士：我们可以撤下那份文件。让我们看 60613 号。让我们看“家庭和业务运营”那一行。\n\n11 问：你看到了吗？\n\n12 答：看到了。\n\n13 问：好的。企业都有业务运营，对吗？\n\n14 答：是的。\n\n15 施罗夫女士：谢谢。你可以撤下那份文件了。\n\n16 问：让我带你回顾一下你与这里的弗根森先生的多次、多次会面，对吧？\n\n18 弗根森先生：超出范围，法官阁下。这是再反交叉质询。我们没有谈过这个。\n\n20 施罗夫女士：我认为这完全在范围之内。\n\n21 法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n22 问：你和 Mitchell 先生早在 6 月之前很久就讨论过 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦），对吗？你还记得吗，与 Aaron Mitchell 先生不止一次谈论过新中国联邦？对吧？你记得吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6O1GUO3 Buck - Recross\n\n1 答：我们可能谈过。我没有具体的印象。\n\n2 问：好的。那么，让我们看看是否能帮你回忆起来。\n\n3 施罗夫女士：如果我们能向她出示一下。\n\n4 问：这能帮你想起来吗？\n\n5 答：我不知道 NFSC 是什么。\n\n6 问：New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）？\n\n7 答：噢。\n\n8 弗根森先生：法官阁下，问题在于这是否能唤起她的记忆。她不应该将文件读入记录。\n\n11 法庭：所以你只需看一下文件，然后说明它是否唤起了你的记忆。\n\n13 证人：是的。\n\n14 由施罗夫女士进行：\n\n15 问：好的。你对这件事确实记得不多，因为你对新中国联邦不感兴趣，对吧？\n\n17 弗根森先生：反对。\n\n18 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。请继续。\n\n19 答：我不感兴趣，是的。\n\n20 施罗夫女士：谢谢。我没有其他问题了。祝你今天过得愉快。\n\n22 法庭：好的。谢谢你。你可以退庭了。\n\n23 （证人退庭）\n\n24 法庭：政府方可以传唤下一位证人。\n\n25 弗根森先生：政府方传唤 Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡）。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n\n1 Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），\n\n2 作为政府方证人被传唤，\n\n3 经依法宣誓，作证如下：\n\n4 法庭：请陈述您的姓名并拼写。\n\n5 证人：我的名字是 Douglas Skalka，拼写为 S-K-A-L-K-A。\n\n6 法庭：你可以提问了。\n\n7 直接质询\n\n8 由弗根森先生进行：\n\n9 问：早上好，Skalka（斯卡尔卡）先生。\n\n10 答：下午好。\n\n11 问：下午好。\n\n12 弗根森先生：法官阁下，在我们开始之前，我能否根据一项约定协议呈交一份证物？\n\n15 法庭：可以。请继续。\n\n16 弗根森先生：GXC-146 及 GXC-146-T。\n\n17 Kamaraju（卡马拉朱）先生：没有反对意见，法官阁下。\n\n18 法庭：准予采纳。\n\n19 （政府方证物 C-146、C146-T 被采纳为证据）\n\n21 由弗根森先生进行：\n\n22 问：斯卡尔卡先生，你从事什么工作？\n\n23 答：我是一名执业律师。\n\n24 问：你在哪家律所工作？\n\n25 答：我在名为 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）的律所工作。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n\n1 问：斯卡尔卡先生，你可以调整一下麦克风，把它拉近一点。你从事哪一领域的法律业务？\n\n4 答：我主要在破产和财务困境、债权人权利、涉及陷入财务困境的实体及资产的商业交易领域执业。这些是我的执业领域。\n\n8 问：你从事破产相关法律工作多久了？\n\n9 答：大约 35 年。\n\n10 问：你熟悉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）或 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的破产程序吗？\n\n12 答：是的，我熟悉。\n\n13 问：你是如何知悉该程序的？\n\n14 答：我的律所 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 已被聘为郭先生破产程序中指定的 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人的康涅狄格州法律顾问和利益冲突特别顾问律师。\n\n17 问：你如何称呼他？\n\n18 答：我称他为郭先生或债务人。\n\n19 问：郭先生的破产申请是在哪里提交的？\n\n20 答：是在位于康涅狄格州布里奇波特的 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）破产法院提交的。\n\n22 问：郭提交了哪种类型的破产申请？\n\n23 答：这是一宗第11章破产程序。\n\n24 问：在郭先生提交的这种类型，即第11章程序中，通常会发生什么？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n\n1 答：第11章破产程序通常被称为重组程序，意味着这是债务人重组其财务事务的一种努力，旨在获得一份该实体的债权人或个人的债权人可接受的方案，并以一份其债权人可接受的方案从破产程序中走出来，成为一个更具生存能力的实体。\n\n8 问：在郭先生的第11章案件中是否有破产受托人？\n\n10 答：是的。\n\n11 问：概括而言，该受托人是如何被指定的？\n\n12 答：受托人是由康涅狄格区破产法院指定的。我相信命令是在 2022 年 6 月作出的，是对破产案件中提交的一项动议的回应。\n\n16 问：再次概括而言，受托人在郭先生的破产案中扮演什么角色？\n\n18 答：一名第11章受托人，实质上郭先生破产案中的第11章受托人，实质上取代了债务人的地位，拥有债务人的所有权力和权利，这意味着他有权追回资产，有权提起索赔以为了债权人的利益追回资产。他也有权对债权主张提出异议，并让法院和债权人随时了解破产程序的进展情况，这意味着他必须向破产法院提交月度报告。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n\n1 向破产法院提交。\n\n2 问：你使用了债权人这个词，什么是债权人？\n\n3 答：债权人是指对债务人享有债权主张的任何一方，并且可以提出债权主张，这在破产法典下有广泛的定义。可以是特定数额的款项、未知数额的款项。也可以是一项附条件债权主张。这些都是债权人。\n\n8 法庭：你的意思是，债权人是指认为别人欠自己钱的个人或实体吗？\n\n10 证人：可能是欠钱或欠财产。\n\n11 法庭：请继续。\n\n12 问：斯卡尔卡先生，在不涉及任何保密特权领域或讨论的情况下，如果说有的话，你的律所作为受托人的顾问律师扮演了什么角色？\n\n15 答：我的律所被聘为第11章受托人的康涅狄格州法律顾问和利益冲突特别顾问律师。\n\n17 问：再次在不涉及任何保密特权内容的情况下，概括而言，你们在破产案中做了什么样的工作？\n\n19 答：所以在该角色下，我本人以及我的律所、我的同事，代表受托人提交了诉讼文书，代表受托人出席了听证会，代表受托人向第三方进行证据开示，包括向第三方送达传票以从第三方获取信息或文件。在诉讼文书方面，我们提起了诉讼。我们提交了动议。我们对其他各方的动议提交了异议。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n\n1 动议。\n\n2 问：能否请你概括解释一下你的律所在破产程序中获得该项工作报酬的流程？\n\n5 答：可以。作为经法院批准的专业人员——这就是我的律所在破产案件中的身份——我们被要求定期向破产法院提交所谓的费用申请，并请求破产法院批准我们的费用。这些费用申请可能会受到破产案件中任何一方以及法官的异议。法官最终决定裁定给予多少费用以及何时支付。\n\n13 问：到目前为止，你们在郭先生破产案中的费用是否已获得支付？\n\n14 答：我律所的部分费用已获得支付。\n\n15 问：现在一般而言，在第11章案件中受托人是如何获得报酬的？\n\n17 答：第11章受托人，就像郭先生案件中的第11章受托人一样，有权根据破产法典寻求佣金，佣金是指在破产案件进行过程中追回并流经破产财产的资金的一定百分比。受托人有权寻求该佣金。\n\n23 问：据你了解，郭先生的破产受托人是如何获得报酬的？\n\n25 答：郭先生破产受托人——\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 传译员：传译员请求各方放慢语速。\n2\n3 法庭：请放慢语速。\n4 问：Skalka（斯卡尔卡）先生，据您了解，Kwok（郭文贵）先生的\n5 破产受托人是如何获取报酬的？\n6 答：郭先生的破产受托人已表示他不打算\n7 索取作为受托人的佣金。\n8 问：受托人叫什么名字？\n9 答：他名叫 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）先生。\n10 问：他在哪里工作？\n11 答：他是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的律师。\n12 问：他从事哪类法律业务？\n13 答：他是一名破产法律师。\n14 问：哪家律师事务所是受托人的主要律师或首席律师？\n15\n16 答：受托人聘请了他所在的普衡律师事务所担任首席\n17 律师。\n18 问：受托人聘请自己所在的破产业务团队是常见的还是罕见的？\n19\n20 答：当受托人拥有破产业务团队时，有时\n21 受托人并不在破产律所。受托人甚至可能\n22 都不是律师。但在此案中，他是一名破产法律师，\n23 并且他拥有破产业务团队，因此在这种情况下受托人\n24 聘请自己的律所是很常见的。\n25 问：受托人是否已提起诉讼以追回与\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 破产相关的资金？\n2 传译员：审判长，能否请双方\n3 都放慢语速。\n4 法庭：请慢慢讲。\n5 问：受托人是否已提起诉讼以追回与\n6 破产相关的资金？\n7 答：是的，受托人已经启动了诉讼程序。\n8 问：大约有多少起诉讼？\n9 答：截至目前，受托人已启动了大约 300 起\n10 诉讼。\n11 问：截至目前大约追回了多少资金？\n12 答：截至目前，受托人已追回超过一亿\n13 美元。\n14 问：斯卡尔卡先生，您今天的作证收费吗？\n15 答：我不收费。\n16 问：您今天为何作证？\n17 答：我是应贵办公室的请求前来作证的。\n18 问：您大约与联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's office）会面了多少次\n19 来为您的作证做准备？\n20 答：我与联邦检察官办公室会面过三次，\n21 两次远程，一次亲自到场。\n22 问：那么，斯卡尔卡先生，郭先生已知的最大债权人是谁？\n23 答：在破产案中，郭先生已知的最大债权人是一家\n24 名为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）的实体。\n25 问：您是否用任何首字母缩写来指代它？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 答：是的，该实体在破产案中通常被称为\n2 PAX，因为坦率地说，说“太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金”实在太冗长了。\n3\n4 问：您能拼写一下 PAX 吗？\n5 答：通常拼写为 P-A-X。\n6 问：概括而言，PAX 是什么？\n7 答：PAX 是一家向商业企业借贷资金的基金。\n8 问：还有，斯卡尔卡先生，您可以把麦克风调得离您的嘴\n9 稍近一些，如果您能稍微提高音量的话。有点\n10 难以听清。\n11 答：我会靠得稍微近一点。抱歉。\n12 问：太好了。谢谢。\n13 现在，很快问一下，斯卡尔卡先生，您能为我们拼写一下\n14 受托人的姓氏吗？\n15 答：Despins，D-E-S-P-I-N-S。\n16 问：现在，回到 PAX。作为您参与郭先生\n17 破产案的一部分，您是否熟悉\n18 PAX 与郭先生之间的诉讼？\n19 答：是的，我很熟悉。\n20 问：在提交破产申请之前，PAX 与郭先生之间\n21 是否存在诉讼？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：PAX 针对郭先生的诉求是什么？\n24 答：PAX 声称郭先生签署了一份个人担保，\n25 涉及 PAX 向一家商业企业——一家名为\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 Shiny Time Holding（日新控股有限公司）的企业——发放的贷款。PAX\n2 试图从郭先生处追回其发放给日新控股有限公司的\n3 笔贷款。\n4 问：通俗地说，什么是个人担保？\n5 答：它是放贷人与签署个人担保的人之间的一份\n6 独立合同，其本质上规定，如果接受贷款的\n7 当事人因任何原因未偿还贷款，\n8 签署个人担保的人（通常称为担保人）\n9 本质上是在说：如果借款人当事人因任何原因未偿还贷款，\n10 我将有义务\n11 偿还该笔贷款。\n12 问：PAX 关于个人担保的诉讼是在哪里\n13 提起的？\n14 答：是在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的。\n15 问：PAX 大约是在何时在纽约州最高法院\n16 提起这项诉讼的？\n17 答：在 2017 年。\n18 问：顺便问一下，该法院是州法院还是联邦\n19 法院？\n20 答：那是州法院。\n21 问：概括而言，PAX 提交了何种文件来\n22 启动诉讼？\n23 答：他们提交的文件被称为起诉状（complaint）。\n24 问：同样非常概括地讲，什么是起诉状？\n25 答：起诉状是启动一项诉讼的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 文件。它陈述原告（即启动诉讼的\n2 当事人）对一名或多名被告提出的诉求，\n3 该诉求阐明于\n4 起诉状中。\n5 问：郭先生是否提交了答辩状（answer）？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：同样非常概括地讲，什么是答辩状？\n8 答：概括而言，答辩状同样是在诉讼中提交的一份文件，\n9 用于回应原告起诉状中所主张的诉求。\n10\n11 问：斯卡尔卡先生，您是否记得 PAX 在起诉状中指称它在\n12 2017 年之前为追回涉案债务所采取的\n13 措施？\n14 答：是的，起诉状表明 PAX 曾努力从日新以及\n15 我相信还有郭先生处追讨其贷款，并且\n16 曾经进行过谈判，甚至一度达成了潜在的和解；\n17 但起诉状表明，由于某种原因，该和解破裂或未能推进\n18 下去。\n19\n20 问：什么是催款函（demand letter）？\n21 答：催款函正如其字面意思。\n22 它通常是写给欠款人（可能欠信件发件人款项的当事人）的信件。\n23 它是要求清偿债务的催告。\n24\n25 问：PAX 是否曾寄发过催款函？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 KAMARAJU 先生：反对，审判长，证人缺乏亲身感知。\n2\n3 FERGENSON 先生：审判长，我可以换个方式提问。\n4 法庭：请继续。\n5 问：您是否记得 PAX 是否指称他们曾寄发过催款函？\n6 KAMARAJU 先生：以关联性为由反对。\n7 法庭：请律师到法官席来。\n8 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 （在法官席旁）\n2 法庭：起诉状是否已作为证据采纳？\n3 FERGENSON 先生：没有。我想我可以继续往下进行。我\n4 唯一的问题是，我是否可以只问 Kamaraju（卡马拉朱）先生一个问题。我们\n5 或许可以解决这个问题，针对因他是中国异见人士而提起的\n6 起诉状，会有交叉询问吗？\n7\n8 KAMARAJU 先生：我打算询问提交该起诉状的日期。仅此而已。\n9\n10 FERGENSON 先生：如果我需要涉及这点，我想我们可以在\n11 再次直接询问中处理。我现在继续往下进行。\n12 法庭：谢谢。\n13 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 （在公开法庭上）\n2 由 FERGENSON 先生提问：\n3 问：斯卡尔卡先生，概括而言，郭先生的答辩状是承认还是\n4 否认了这些指控？\n5 答：郭先生的答辩状否认了起诉状中的指控。\n6 问：关于 PAX 诉讼，后续有何进展（如有）？\n7 答：PAX 在诉讼的某个阶段提出了所谓的\n8 简易判决动议（motion for summary judgment），针对郭先生就其起诉状\n9 寻求判决。\n10 问：PAX 案中是否有简易判决裁定？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：概括而言，裁定内容是什么？\n13 答：法院准许了 PAX 提出的动议，并作出了针对\n14 郭先生的判决。\n15 问：同时还判处了多少损害赔偿金（如有）？\n16 答：法院作出了金额约为 1.14 亿美元的\n17 判决。\n18 问：该判决大约是在何时作出的？\n19 答：2020 年 9 月。\n20 问：概括而言，该损害赔偿金额的依据是什么？\n21\n22 答：那是贷款本金加上利息，以及\n23 我相信还有一部分律师费。\n24 问：PAX 为执行该判决采取了哪些措施（如有）？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 答：在法院准许简易判决动议后不久，\n2 PAX 提交了一项限制令（restraining order）动议，以限制\n3 债务人即郭先生向该管辖区域外转移资产。\n4\n5 问：是否作出了任何限制令？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：什么是限制令？\n8 答：它是法院限制当事人从事某种行为的\n9 命令。在本案中，它是为了限制\n10 债务人郭先生转移资产。\n11 问：Loftus（洛夫特斯）女士，能否请我们向证人出示标为\n12 政府证据 1416 号的物证。\n13 斯卡尔卡先生，这份文件是什么？\n14 答：这是纽约州最高法院于 2020 年 10 月 15 日作出的\n15 限制令副本。\n16 FERGENSON 先生：政府方出示政府\n17 证据 1416 号。\n18 KAMARAJU 先生：无异议。\n19 法庭：准予采纳。\n20 （政府证据 1416 号已作为证据采纳）\n21 由 FERGENSON 先生提问：\n22 问：斯卡尔卡先生，这份文件是何时提交/归档的？\n23 答：我相信它是在 2020 年 10 月 15 日作出的。\n24 问：洛夫特斯女士，如果可以的话，为了便于阅读，我们是否可以把字号\n25 稍微调大一点。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka-直接询问\n1 斯卡尔卡先生，能否请您朗读一下这些段落？\n2\n3 答：2020 年 10 月 15 日，法院通过 Microsoft Teams（微软 Teams）\n4 举行了口头辩论，各方代理律师均就原告依据\n5 CPLR 5229（动议 011 号）提出的判决后限制令动议出席了辩论。\n6 2020 年 9 月 15 日，法院就责任问题作出了支持原告的\n7 简易判决，关于各公司被告是否为被告郭的\n8 另我（alter ego）这一问题的损害赔偿金将在\n9 稍后日期确定。\n10\n11 问：能否请您只朗读下一段。\n12 答：原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的限制令动议获得准许。\n13 郭先生被限制直接或间接进行或引起任何\n14 出售、转让、让与或干预其享有权益的任何\n15 财产，以及被限制清偿或以其他方式处分任何\n16 目前应付或此后将应付给他的债务，但须遵守\n17 CPLR 5222 所列之例外情况，并符合 2020 年 10 月 15 日\n18 记入庭审笔录的诉讼程序。\n19 特别是，郭先生和/或以下资产的登记所有权人：\n20 其一，位于 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰）酒店的住所；\n21 其二，“The Lady May（梅夫人号）”游艇，被限制进行或引起\n22 对这些资产的任何出售、转让、让与或干预。\n23\n24\n25 问：斯卡尔卡先生，这其中的部分内容提到了“原告”一词，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n问：本案的原告是谁？\n答：PAX。\n问：这里提到了另我（alter ego），什么是另我？\n答：另我是指关联实体，或者由第三方控制的实体。\n问：请你看向底部第一段，位于雪梨荷兰酒店（Sherry-Netherland hotel）的住所，你熟悉那处住所吗？\n答：在Kwok（郭）的破产程序背景下，我是熟悉的。\n问：你对所提及的那处住所的理解是什么？\n答：我认为它是指由名为Jennifer Holdings, LLC的实体所拥有的合作公寓（co-op）。该实体实际拥有该合作公寓的股份。\n问：那是怎样的一间公寓？\n答：那是位于纽约市第五大道名为雪梨荷兰酒店物业的一间顶层公寓（penthouse）。\n问：关于雪梨荷兰酒店的公寓，是否有过任何执行追索行动？\n答：是的，PAX曾试图从名为雪梨荷兰酒店公寓的资产中执行追讨其判决款项或债权。\n问：那些追索行动有什么结果吗？\n答：抱歉。我没听清你的问题。\n问：PAX针对该公寓的执行追讨行动有什么结果？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n答：该命令（order）作出后不久，Jennifer Holdings, LLC自行提交了第11章破产申请，因此自动中止或停止了PAX向该实体执行追讨的行动。\n问：为什么它申请破产会自动停止这些行动？\n答：根据《破产法典》（bankruptcy code），任何破产申请都会产生所谓的自动中止（automatic stay）。这是根据《破产法典》第362条规定的。它会中止任何债权人在债务人处于破产期间试图向其追讨的所有行动，除非债权人获得破产法院的救济许可才能这样做。\n问：看向第二项，游艇Lady May（梅夫人号）。PAX是否有通过该游艇进行追索的任何行动？\n答：嗯，在本案中他们获得了这份限制令，而且我相信他们当时正在设法通过Lady May来执行追讨其判决款项。\n问：你是否记得——撤回。\n关于Lady May，接下来发生了什么值得注意的事？\n答：根据本案的诉状，Lady May被移出了New York Supreme court（纽约州最高法院）的司法管辖范围，PAX对Mr. Kwok（郭先生）提出了藐视法庭动议（motion for contempt），指控他通过将游艇移出法院管辖范围而涉嫌违反该限制令。\n问：什么是藐视法庭？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n答：本案中的藐视法庭是指明知而故意违反法院的命令。\n问：可否向证人出示标为政府证据1413号的文件。\n藐视法庭的动议获得批准了吗？\n答：是的，获得了批准。\n问：这是藐视法庭裁定吗？\n答：我现在看到的是2022年2月作出的最终民事藐视法庭裁定的一份副本。\nMR. FERGENSON（费根森律师）：政府方提交政府证据1413号。\nMR. KAMARAJU（卡马拉朱律师）：在保留我们先前异议的前提下，此时无异议。\nTHE COURT（法官）：好的。\n（政府证据1413号被采纳为证据）\nBY MR. FERGENSON（由费根森律师继续询问）：\n问：在我们等待的时候，Skalka先生，这份最终民事藐视法庭裁定是在哪一天作出的？\n答：2022年2月9日。\n问：Loftus女士，如果我们能放大实际文本，下半部分。\nSkalka先生，请你读一下第一段好吗？\n答：鉴于本院于2021年3月16日作出的附条件民事藐视法庭裁定指令，若被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭文贵）（“Kwok”）未能在2021年5月15日前将Lady May游艇（即Lady May）带回本院司法管辖范围，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n则Lady May停留在管辖范围之外的每一天，他都将被处以500,000美元的罚款。\n问：请读下一行。\n答：鉴于Lady May在2021年5月15日之前并未被带回管辖范围。\n问：请继续读下一段。\n答：鉴于2021年11月4日，Appellate Division's First Department（上诉分部第一部门）维持了本院认定Kwok构成附条件民事藐视法庭的裁定，认定“每日500,000美元的罚款旨在强烈促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为（purge himself of the contempt），尽管获得了两个月的期限来完成此事，但他未表现出任何这样做的意愿。”并指示本院进行证据听证会，以解决关于游艇所有权和控制权的争议并评估适当的处罚。\nTHE COURT（法官）：请稍等片刻。\n（暂停）\nTHE COURT（法官）：你可以继续。\n问：Skalka先生，请你读一下本页的最后一行。\n答：鉴于Kwok迄今未能将Lady May带回管辖范围。\n问：Loftus女士，请翻到下一页。我们先放大上半部分。\n请继续，Skalka先生。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n答：鉴于第一部门2021年11月4日裁定所指定的证据听证会已于2022年2月2日举行。\n问：请读下一行。\n答：鉴于Kwok及Lady May的法定登记所有权人HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC均由律师代表出席了听证会，提交了证据并由律师代理。\n问：Skalka先生，谁是HK International Funds Investments的所有人，或者说HK International Funds Investments USA Limited. LLC的登记所有人是谁？\n答：Mei Guo（郭美）。\n问：Mei Guo与Mr. Kwok有何关系（如有的话）？\n答：Mei Guo是Mr. Kwok的女儿。\n问：这里提到的证据听证会，有哪些家庭成员（如有的话）在该听证会上作证？\nMR. KAMARAJU（卡马拉朱律师）：异议，缺乏亲身感知（personal knowledge）。\nTHE COURT（法官）：如果你知道的话。\n问：有哪些家庭成员（如有的话）在该听证会上作证？\n答：诉状表明Mei Guo在听证会上作了证。\n问：请继续读第三段。\n答：鉴于根据听证会上提出的证据，法院认定PAX已以清楚且有说服力的证据（clearly and convincingly）证明Kwok对Lady May拥有实际受益权益（beneficial interest）及控制权，正如本院2022年2月9日的决定与裁定中所述。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n问：什么是实际受益权益，Skalka先生。\n你的理解是什么？\n答：我对本裁定中使用的实际受益权益的理解是，即使他对该财产没有法定所有权（title），他对该财产也享有某种权益，对该财产享有某种所有权权益。\n问：我们可以向下滚动。上面写着“据此，特此裁定、判决与宣告如下：”，后面列出了一系列或若干事项。请读第一项。\n答：Kwok违反了《纽约州司法法》（New York Judiciary Law）第753条，并构成对本院命令的民事藐视。\n问：第二项呢？\n答：指令Kwok立即向PAX支付134,000,000美元的款项，代表2021年5月15日至2022年2月7日期间每天500,000美元。\n问：第三项呢？\n答：应付给PAX的款项应继续以每天500,000美元的费率累计，直至Kwok将Lady May带回管辖范围，该额外累计应自本裁定附带登入判决通知（notice of entry）送达之日起10个工作日后开始。\n问：请读第四项。\n答：上述第二段所列款项的支付应在附带登入判决通知的本裁定送达后五个工作日内向PAX完成。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n问：第五项呢？\n答：如果未向PAX按时支付罚款，法院应行使其在《纽约州司法法》第753条下的全部权力。\n问：除了立案归档之外，法院根据该法律还拥有什么权力？\n答：法院根据该法规还有权签发所谓的拘票令（capias orders）。\n问：那是什么意思？\n答：逮捕令。\n问：Skalka先生，请你看向第四项，Kwok，即Mr. Kwok，大约有多长时间来支付这134,000,000美元？\n答：他有五个工作日。\n问：Mr. Kwok实际进行了那笔支付吗？\n答：没有。\n问：相反发生了什么？\n答：在2022年2月15日，在District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）提交了第11章破产申请。\n问：该申请是在多久之后提交的——撤回。\n该申请的提交时间与支付1.34亿的截止日期相比如何？\n答：是六天。不过我相信它是在本命令规定的五个工作日之内。是在Ostrager法官作出该裁定后的六天。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n问：我们可以向证人出示标为政府证据1407号的文件吗。Skalka先生，这是什么文件？\n答：这是Mr. Kwok于2022年2月15日在康涅狄格区提交的自愿破产申请书（voluntary petition）的副本。\nMR. FERGENSON（费根森律师）：政府方提交政府证据1407号。\nMR. KAMARAJU（卡马拉朱律师）：无异议。\nTHE COURT（法官）：予以采纳。\n（政府证据1407号被采纳为证据）\nBY MR. FERGENSON（由费根森律师继续询问）：\n问：Loftus女士，也许我们只要放大中间部分即可。在关于债务人一的下方，那里列出的名字是什么？\n答：Ho Wan Kwok（郭浩云/郭文贵）。\n问：在其下方列出的其他别名是什么？\n答：Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Wengui Guo（郭文贵）。\n问：在其右侧写着关于债务人二，括号里注明仅限联合案件中的配偶。那里填写了吗？\n答：没有。\n问：Mr. Kwok的配偶姓名是什么？\n答：Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）。\n问：请你为法庭速记员拼读一下好吗。\n答：H-I-N-G, C-H-I, N-G-O-K。\n问：Loftus女士，请翻到第二页。我们能否放大你居住地址的部分。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\nMr. Kwok填写的居住地址是什么？\n答：他填写的地址是由Golden Spring New York Limited转交，位于纽约东64街162号。\n问：Loftus女士，请翻到第七页。我们能否放大下半部分。\nSkalka先生，在第18项中，Mr. Kwok估计他欠了多少债权人？\n答：他估计他大约有50到99名债权人。\n问：他估计自己拥有多少资产？\n答：他表明他拥有的资产价值在50,001美元至100,000美元之间。\n问：请你看向左下角，这是谁签的名？\n答：Mr. Kwok。\n问：现在我们可以把那个撤下了，Loftus女士。\nSkalka先生，申请破产是否解决了Lady May的问题？\n答：不，并没有解决。\n问：后来是否达成了将资金放入托管账户（escrow）作为Lady May担保的协议？\n答：是的。\n问：最终放入托管账户的金额是多少？\n答：37,000,000美元。\n问：该协议的当事方是谁？\n答：这是PAX、Mr. Kwok与……之间达成的协议。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct（斯卡尔卡 - 直接询问）\n债权人委员会，即由 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）美国破产法院指定的委员会，以及 HK——即我所称的 HK USA。\n问：请提醒我们一下，什么是 HK USA？\n答：它是 Mei Guo（郭美）拥有的实体，声称拥有 Lady May（梅号游艇）的所有权。\n问：根据该协议存入托管账户的 3700 万美元资金来源是什么？\n答：来源是向 HK USA 发放的一笔贷款。\n问：Loftus 女士（Ms. Loftus），请向证人出示标为 Government Exhibit 1314（政府第 1314 号证据）的文件。\nMR. FERGENSON（费根森先生）：法官阁下，能否容我片刻。\nTHE COURT（法庭）：请便。\n问：在我们等待的同时，Skalka 先生，您是否记得贷款协议签署的日期或贷款协议上的日期？\n答：我相信是 2022 年 4 月 19 日。\n问：结合背景来看，那大约是在 Mr. Kwok（郭先生）申请破产多久之后？\n答：大约是在申请后两个月。\n问：您在屏幕上能看到吗，Skalka 先生？\n答：可以。\n问：这份文件是什么？\n答：这是 HK International Funds Investment USA, Limited LLC（香港国际基金投资美国有限公司）与 Himalaya International Financial Group, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）之间的贷款协议副本。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\nInternational Financial Group, LTD.\nMR. FERGENSON：政府提交政府第 1314 号证据。\nMR. KAMARAJU（卡马拉朱先生）：无异议，法官阁下。\nTHE COURT：采纳为证据。\n（政府第 1314 号证据已被采纳为证据）\nMR. FERGENSON 提问：\n问：既然我们能看到了，Loftus 女士，请放大首页上的文字。\n上面写着日期为 2022 年 4 月 19 日，您看到了吗，Skalka 先生？\n答：看到了。\n问：您能读出这份贷款协议的双方是谁吗？\n答：HK International Funds Investments USA Limited LLC 与 Himalaya International Financial Group LTD. 之间的贷款协议。\n问：让我们翻到第二页，Loftus 女士，请继续向下滚动。请聚焦在底部写有游艇的那一行。\n您能读一下在“游艇”之后引号里的内容吗，Skalka 先生？\n答：Lady May。\n问：请翻到第四页并向下滚动。\nSkalka 先生，在“目的”项下，您能读一下 3.1 和 3.2 吗？\n答：可以。“融资金额总额将按照本协议的约定，存入各方书面同意的托管账户（托管账户）。融资金额总额将用作向法院提供与游艇相关的担保。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n借款人在托管账户中保留融资金额总额的期限为自本协议签署之日起至游艇返还至美国（USA）止。借款人应尽一切合理努力促成游艇迅速返还。”\n问：聚焦在 2.1 上，金额是多少，融资金额是多少？\n答：3700 万美元。\n问：请翻到第五页，请聚焦在 4.3。您能读一下 4.3 吗？\n答：“融资金额总额应直接及间接地以该游艇及本公司的所有其他资产设定担保，并应优先于针对借款人主张的所有其他负债或债务。”\n问：概括而言，以游艇为贷款提供担保是什么意思？\n答：这表明将在游艇上设立留置权，我相信这就是出借人所寻求的担保。\n问：请翻到第 13 页。\nSkalka 先生，我相信是谁代表您所说的 HK USA 签字的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n答：Mei Guo。\n问：她列出的职位是什么？\n答：她被列为该有限责任公司（LLC）的唯一成员（sole member）。\n问：谁代表 Himalaya International Financial Group 签字？\n答：我不认得这个签名。\n问：该人是否列有头衔？\n答：没有。\n问：该人是否列有姓名？\n答：没有。\n问：上面写着什么？\n答：只写着“授权签字”（authorized signature）。\n问：Loftus 女士，请向证人出示 Government Exhibit 1316（政府第 1316 号证据）。这份文件是什么，Skalka 先生？\n答：这份文件是我们刚才看过的贷款协议的补充函（side letter），即 HK USA 与 Himalaya International Financial Group 之间于 2022 年 4 月 19 日订立的贷款协议。\nMR. FERGENSON：政府提交政府第 1316 号证据。\nMR. KAMARAJU：法官阁下，能否请稍等片刻？\nTHE COURT：可以。\nMR. KAMARAJU：无异议，法官阁下。\nTHE COURT：采纳为证据。\n（政府第 1316 号证据已被采纳为证据）\nMR. FERGENSON 提问：\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n问：谢谢。\nSkalka 先生，您提到了补充函，概括而言，协议的补充函是什么？\n答：它是一份修正案。其旨在作为贷款协议的修正案，因此包含了一些新条款或修改后的条款。\n问：请聚焦在左上方，这封函件的日期是什么？\n答：2022 年 4 月 29 日。\n问：这是在我们刚才看过的贷款协议的相同主体之间签署的吗？\n答：是的。\n问：Loftus 女士，请聚焦在 1.2 和 1.3。\nSkalka 先生，请您通读 1.3 的各分项，好吗？\n答：“以一英镑（one pound sterling）为对价（consideration），我们达成协议如下：A，贷款协议中的贷款将不再被视为以游艇作为担保。\nB，借款人将改为提供个人担保（personal guarantee）（已收到其签署的副本）\nC，条款——”\n问：这样就可以了。\nSkalka 先生，在 1.3 中写有“以……为对价”处，在当前语境下您的理解是什么意思？\n答：贷款协议条款的变更存在一定对价，从而不再设定担保，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n而是提供个人担保。\n问：用通俗的话说，什么是对价？\n答：某种价值，在本案中是某种价值。虽然只有一英镑，但通俗地说它代表某种价值。\n问：Loftus 女士，请出示标为——实际上，请快速向下滚动到第二页。请放大签名处。HK USA 有签名吗？\n答：有。\n问：列有姓名吗？\n答：没有。\n问：列出的职位是什么？\n答：董事（Director）。\n问：在贷款协议上列出的职位是什么？\n答：唯一成员。\n问：那么 Himalaya International Financial Group 方面，是谁签的字？\n答：我不认得这个签名。\n问：列有姓名吗？\n答：有一个名字。有一个签名。没有列出姓名。\n问：请向证人出示标为 Government Exhibit 1315（政府第 1315 号证据）的文件。\n这份文件是什么，Skalka 先生？\n答：这是一份担保协议副本。\nMR. FERGENSON：政府提交政府第 1315 号证据。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n1315。\nMR. KAMARAJU：无异议。\nTHE COURT：采纳为证据。\n（政府第 1315 号证据已被采纳为证据）\nMR. FERGENSON 提问：\n问：Skalka 先生，这份担保协议是在谁与谁之间签署的？\n答：是在 Mei Guo 与 Himalaya International Financial Group, LTD. 之间。\n问：我们之前看过的文件提到了个人担保，概括而言这份协议是关于什么的？\n答：这是 Mei Guo 出具的个人担保，表明她就 HK International Funds Investments USA（即我所称的 HK USA）与 Himalaya International Financial Group 之间的债务承担个人担保责任。\n问：Loftus 女士，请向下滚动到签名页。是谁签署的？\n答：Mei Guo。\n问：这类协议与 PAX（太盟）声称 Mr. Kwok 曾出具的协议相比如何？\nMR. KAMARAJU：反对提问形式。\nTHE COURT：反对成立。\n问：Loftus 女士，请翻到政府证据——请仅向证人出示标为 Government Exhibit 1303（政府第 1303 号证据）的文件。\n这份文件是什么，Skalka 先生。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n答：这是 Hong Kong International Fund Limited（香港国际基金有限公司）与 ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司）之间的贷款协议草案。\n问：这份文件是在证据开示（discovery）过程中向受托人（trustee）提交的吗？\n答：是的。\n问：是由谁提交的？\n答：由 HK USA 的律师提交。\n问：即 Lady May 的登记所有权人？\n答：是的。\nMR. FERGENSON：政府提交政府第 1303 号证据。\nMR. KAMARAJU：无异议。\nTHE COURT：采纳为证据。\n（政府第 1303 号证据已被采纳为证据）\nMR. FERGENSON 提问：\n问：请向法庭展示。\nSkalka 先生，这份贷款协议草案的双方是谁？\n答：Hong Kong International Fund Limited 与 ACA Capital Group Limited。\n问：请向下滚动。\nSkalka 先生，您是否知道出借人为何从 ACA Capital Group 变更为喜马拉雅实体？\n答：我不知道。\n问：Loftus 女士，请继续向下滚动，直接翻到第 15 页。\nSkalka 先生，您能读一下第一签名行处的实体吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n第一签名行处的实体是什么？\n答：Hong Kong International Fund Limited。\n问：您能读一下第二个实体吗？\n答：Fortress Spark Limited。\n问：您知道 Fortress Spark Limited 是什么吗？\n答：我不知道。\n问：据您所知，Fortress Spark Limited 在 Mr. Kwok 的破产案中是否有在其他场合出现过？\n答：据我所知没有。\n问：Loftus 女士，可以撤下该文件了。\nSkalka 先生，最终是否有 3700 万美元存入托管账户？\n答：是的。\n问：谁最先收到这些资金？\n答：贷款收益支付给了 HK USA 在破产案中的代理律师。\n问：他们的代理律师名称是什么？\n答：Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所。\n问：Zeisler & Zeisler 在破产案中后来还代表了谁（如果有的话）？\n答：他们还代表了 Mei Guo，后来他们也成为了 Mr. Kwok 的代理律师。\n问：Loftus 女士，请向证人出示——这是四份文件。这些是政府证据——Skalka 先生在我们展示之前——Loftus 女士，我告诉您，是 1419、1420、1421 和 1422。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- Direct\n在我们等待的同时，Skalka 先生，在 3700 万美元就该游艇存入托管账户之后，PAX 案中发生了什么（如果有的话）？\n答：由于破产申请，PAX 案被中止（stayed），因此在破产案审理期间，PAX 案没有采取进一步行动。\n问：Skalka 先生，您能否大致看清这些文件是什么？\n答：可以，我能看到。\n问：这些是 Mr. Kwok 及其律师在破产程序中提交的关于其资产的申报文件吗？\n答：是的，他的资产和负债申报。\nMR. FERGENSON：政府提交 Government Exhibit 1419 through 1422（政府第 1419 号至第 1422 号证据）。\nMR. KAMARAJU：无异议。\nTHE COURT：采纳为证据。\n（政府第 1419、1420、1421 和 1422 号证据已被采纳为证据）\nMR. FERGENSON 提问：\n问：Loftus 女士，请首先放大 1421。\nSkalka 先生，上面写着“个人债务人附表声明”（declaration about an individual's debtor schedule）。您能否读一下左下方的签名，您能否读一下签名上方的文字？\n答：“我谨在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，我已阅读……\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 随本声明一并提交的汇总表和附表，且它们\n2 真实、准确。\n3 问：这是谁签署的？\n4 答：Kwok 先生（郭文贵）。\n5 问：日期是哪一天？\n6 答：2022年3月9日。\n7 问：现在，Loftus 女士，如果可以的话，我们调出\n8 政府证据第 1420 号。Loftus 女士，如果我们可以放大\n9 官方表格 106 上的中间部分。\n10 Skalka 先生，概括而言，这是什么类型的\n11 提交文件？\n12 答：这些被称为破产附表，在美国提交的任何破产案件中，\n13 任何债务人都必须提交这些附表。\n14 这些是政府表格，我现在看到的这份具体\n15 文件是债务人在各附表中列出的\n16 资产和负债的汇总表。\n17\n18 问：Kwok 先生声称的房地产资产总价值是多少？\n19\n20 答：零。\n21 问：Kwok 先生声称的个人财产总价值是多少？\n22\n23 答：$3850。\n24 问：在第二部分下，Kwok 先生声称了多少\n25 负债？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 答：$373,803,498.09。\n2 问：Kwok 先生声称拥有多少收入？\n3 答：零。\n4 问：支出呢？\n5 答：零。\n6 问：Loftus 女士，如果我们能翻到这个文件的第三页。如果\n7 我们能再次放大与我们上次差不多的部分。\n8\n9 Skalka 先生，关于其在房地产中是否拥有任何法定或衡平法权益，\n10 Kwok 先生是如何回答的？\n11 答：他说无。他没有任何权益。\n12 问：Kwok 先生关于在任何车辆中的权益是怎么说的？\n13 答：他说没有，他没有任何权益。\n14 问：关于在任何水上载具中的权益呢？\n15 答：他说没有，他没有任何权益。\n16 问：关于在任何家居用品和家具中的任何法定或衡平法权益呢？\n17\n18 答：他表示没有，他没有任何权益。\n19 问：电子产品呢？\n20 答：他确实表示有，他在电子产品中拥有权益。\n21 问：如果我们能往下滚动，Loftus 女士。\n22 他列出了什么电子产品？\n23 答：一部 iPhone。\n24 问：其价值是多少？\n25 答：未知。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 问：如果我们能再往下滚动一点。\n2 现在，除了 iPhone 之外，Kwok 先生在此表格中还申报了\n3 哪些其他资产？\n4 答：他表示他有一些衣物。他有一只家庭\n5 宠物狗。\n6 问：什么品种的狗？\n7 答：一只博美犬。\n8 问：这些资产的价值是多少？\n9 答：未知。\n10 问：请翻到第五页。他在此页上列出了哪些\n11 资产？\n12 答：他列出了纽约州退还给他的一些退税支票，\n13 以及一些尚未兑现的 Covid（新冠）救济支票。\n14\n15 问：Loftus 女士，我们现在能否调出政府证据第 1419 号。\n16 也许我们可以放大上半部分。\n17 Skalka 先生，概括而言这份文件是什么？\n18 答：这些是债务人由债务人律师提交的附注和陈述，\n19 描述了对我们刚才看到的债务人附表中所述披露的\n20 一些限制，以及对与所谓财务状况说明书相关问题的\n21 其他一些答复，财务状况说明书我们尚未看到，\n22 但那是任何破产案件中债务人都需要填写的\n23 另一份表格。\n24\n25 问：Loftus 女士，如果我们能缩小，并翻到\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 第四页。\n2 Skalka 先生，请您读一下问题一好吗？\n3 答：您是否在任何住所、建筑物、土地或类似财产中拥有所有权或任何法定或衡平法权益。\n4\n5 问：您能读一下第一项吗——Skalka 先生，仅供\n6 参考，当我们看早前的那份文件时，\n7 Kwok 先生在该文件上是如何回答该问题的？\n8 答：在另一份文件的附表上，他说他在房地产中没有任何\n9 权益。\n10 问：您能读一下其下的第一点吗？\n11 答：债务人对位于 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路373号）的房地产拥有使用和占有权（“住所”）。\n12 债务人对该住所不拥有法定所有权，且没有任何法院\n13 判定债务人对其拥有任何其他衡平法或其他性质的权益。\n14 与该住所相关的所有相关成本和费用\n15 均由家族及家族控制的企业直接支付。\n16 该住所由 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）（“Greenwich Land”）拥有，\n17 Greenwich Land 的唯一成员是债务人的配偶。\n18\n19 问：如果我们能向下滚动到第二项。我想请问您\n20 能否只读——您为何不只读前两\n21 句话？\n22 答：债务人还可以使用位于 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨尼德兰）酒店，781 5th Avenue New York, New York 10022（纽约州纽约市第五大道781号，邮编10022）的一套公寓（该公寓）。\n23 该公寓的合作公寓股份由 Jennifer Holdings, LLC（Jennifer 控股有限责任公司）（美国特别目的载体）持有，即成员\n24 权益。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1\n2\n3 问：Skalka 先生，您能否跳过几句话，\n4 读一下以“债务人的儿子”开头的那句话？\n5 答：债务人的儿子拥有公寓所有权人的股权。\n6 在信托日或信托日左右，公寓所有权人为该美国特别目的载体\n7 提供了购买该公寓的款项。这些资金来自\n8 债务人儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非\n9 来自债务人。\n10 问：Loftus 女士，我们能否缩小，您能否\n11 稍微滚动到第四页。\n12 现在，Skalka 先生，该问题下是否讨论了\n13 任何其他财产？\n14 答：没有。\n15 问：顺便问一下，Kwok 先生是否声称在所讨论的\n16 这两处财产中的任一处拥有权益？\n17 答：没有。\n18 问：那么，这些内容是否讨论了在新泽西州 Mahwah（马瓦）的房产？\n19\n20 答：没有。\n21 问：Loftus 女士，请翻到第六页。如果我们能放大\n22 J 段。您能读一下问题 17 吗？\n23 答：问题 17，货币存款。\n24 问：这些附注对此作何回答？\n25 答：这些附注提到了 2018 年在香港签发的一项\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 限制令。\n2 问：如果您能从第二句话开始读，只读\n3 限制令部分？\n4 答：限制令载明，该命令将持续有效至\n5 2019年4月30日（含该日），并理解为\n6 根据高等法院于 2019年5月3日作出的进一步命令，该命令将继续有效。\n7 限制令的效力是冻结据称属于债务人的\n8 HK $3.7 million（370万港元）资金，\n9 据称受债务人实际控制的个人和实体的\n10 高达数十亿以上的更多资金和财产（包括在香港的房地产）\n11 （根据限制令）\n12 也被冻结和/或扣押。\n13 由于这些资产被冻结/扣押，债务人未将它们列入其破产财产中。\n14\n15 问：如果我们可以翻到第七页。如果我们能放大\n16 最顶部的那个段落。请您读一下那里的第一\n17 句话好吗？\n18 答：2017年9月和10月，中国政府\n19 搜查了 Shiny Times（耀时代）的办公室，并扣押了所有会计\n20 公司记录以及许多个人财务记录。\n21 问：Skalka 先生，您能否提醒我们，Shiny Times 与\n22 PAX（太盟）案件有何关联（如果有的话）？\n23 答：Shiny Time Holdings（耀时代控股）是其全称，是向 PAX 借款的\n24 借款实体，也是 Kwok 先生对其债务提供个人\n25 担保的实体。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 问：如果我们可以翻到第八页，如果我们能放大\n2 顶部的问题 26。\n3 问题 26，下划线写着：专利、版权、\n4 商标、商业秘密和其他知识产权。\n5 您能读一下 Kwok 先生对该答复的附注吗？\n6 答：债务人对发布在 YouTube、GTV、\n7 Twitter 和 Gettr 等各种数字和媒体平台上的音乐和视频\n8 可能拥有未注册的版权和其他知识产权权益。\n9 债务人认为其社交媒体资产毫无价值，\n10 且未曾试图将其社交媒体影响力变现。\n11\n12 问：您对“认为这些资产毫无价值”的理解是什么？\n13\n14 答：我的理解是，认为这些资产\n15 没有价值。\n16 问：Loftus 女士，我们可以撤下它了。Loftus 女士，我们能否\n17 向证人出示标为政府证据第 1401-A 号的文件。\n18 在调出该文件期间，Skalka 先生，破产程序中的\n19 债权人会议是什么？\n20 答：在每一个 Chapter 11（第11章）破产案件中，法院在立案后不久\n21 就会安排一次债权人会议。这是根据\n22 破产法典第 341 条设立的，案件中的所有债权人\n23 都被邀请出席并可以提问；但\n24 会议本身由 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）主持，债务人必须出席会议并在\n25 宣誓后回答问题。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1\n2 问：这些情况在 Kwok 先生的破产案中发生过吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：Skalka 先生，政府证据第 1401-A 号是什么？\n5 答：这是 2022年3月21日 Kwok 先生破产案件中\n6 举行的债权人会议记录的一部分。\n7 FERGENSON 先生：政府方提呈政府证据\n8 第 1401-A 号。\n9 KAMARAJU 先生：无异议。\n10 法庭：予以采纳。\n11 （政府证据第 1401-A 号被采纳为证据）\n12 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n13 问：现在，Skalka 先生，在这份节录中，谁在接受询问？\n14 答：Kwok 先生正在接受询问。\n15 问：那么在标有 Q 和 A 的地方，Q 和 A 代表什么？\n16 答：Q 代表提问，A 代表回答。\n17 问：现在，如果可以的话，我来读提问，\n18 您来读 Kwok 先生的回答：\n19 “Golden Spring（金泉）是否拥有位于\n20 该地址的那栋建筑物？\n21 “答：我不知道。\n22 “问：您去过那个地址吗？\n23 “答：去过。\n24 “问：那是什么类型的建筑物？那里设有什么？\n25 “答：那是一栋建筑物。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “问：该建筑物是住宅楼还是商业\n2 楼？\n3 “答：商务楼。\n4 问：然后 Claiborne 与译员之间有一些交流。\n5 仅供参考，Skalka 先生，Claiborne 女士\n6 是谁？\n7 答：她是 U.S. Trustee's Office in Connecticut（美国受托人驻康涅狄格州办公室）的一名律师。\n8\n9 问：那就是您说的负责主持这些会议的办公室吗？\n10 答：在康涅狄格州是的。\n11 问：我在这里继续读：\n12 有人住在该地址吗？\n13 “答：我不知道。\n14 “问：Golden Spring 从事什么类型的业务？\n15 “答：这是一个大型家族企业。我儿子在工作，但我具体\n16 不知道它有哪些业务类别。\n17 “问：Kwok 先生，当您使用这个词时——\n18 “答：这是我儿子拥有的家族办公室。他有其他\n19 生意，但我不知道。\n20 “问：Kwok 先生，当您使用家族企业或家族\n21 办公室这些词时，您指的是什么意思？\n22 “答：主要面向全家，所有的家庭成员。\n23 当有事情时，我们（听不清）并互相帮助。\n24 “问：Kwok 先生，您能更详细地解释一下吗？\n25 “答：我不知道该怎么解释。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “问：Golden Spring（源泉公司）有雇员吗？\n2 “答：有。\n3 “问：有多少人？\n4 “答：我不知道。\n5 “问：Golden Spring 拥有任何不动产吗？\n6 “答：我不知道。\n7 “问：Golden Spring 拥有任何其他企业吗？\n8 “答：我不知道。\n9 “问：Golden Spring 有银行账户吗？\n10 “答：我不知道。\n11 “问：郭先生，您之前在提交给破产法院的文件中说过，\n12 Golden Spring 支付您的个人生活费用。\n13 您能解释一下他们是如何做到的吗？\n14 “答：我不知道你说的他们付钱给我是什么意思。是在哪方面？\n15\n16 “问：郭先生，您之前在您的破产文件中告诉法庭，\n17 Golden Spring 支付您的衣物、食物和住房费用。\n18 我的问题是，他们是如何做到的？他们是给您钱吗？\n19 还是直接付给其他人？具体是如何运作的？\n20\n21 “答：每当我需要基本生活开支时，我就跟我儿子说，\n22 他就会让他办公室的人给我。\n23 “问：谁是 Golden Spring 的所有者？然后有一番来回交涉，\n24 我们可以往下翻跳过那部分。\n25 Skalka 先生，如果您可以的话，您可以在‘译员’之后开始，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 我会重复翻译，从‘当我需要’开始。那是第三行。\n2\n3 “答：当我需要基本生活开支时，我告诉我儿子。\n4 我儿子会告诉办公室去——\n5 “问：郭先生，谁是 Golden Spring 的所有者？\n6 “答：我儿子。\n7 “问：除了您的儿子，Golden Spring 还有其他所有者吗？\n8\n9 “答：没有。\n10 “问：郭先生，您是否曾拥有过 Golden Spring 的权益？\n11\n12 “答：没有。\n13 “问：谁是 Golden Spring 的高级管理人员和董事？\n14 我们可以往下翻。\n15 我再读一遍，上面写着 Ms. Claiborne（克莱伯恩女士）问。郭先生，\n16 截至今天，谁是 Golden Spring 的高级管理人员？\n17 “答：（听不清。）\n18 “问：我要重复一遍那个名字，以便大家理解我以为我听到的内容。\n19 我听到的是 Yanping，也叫 Yvonne Wang（王雁平）；准确吗？\n20\n21 “答：是的。\n22 “问：Yvonne Wang 是 Golden Spring 唯一的高级管理人员吗？\n23 “答：我不知道。\n24 “问：截至今天，谁是 Golden Spring 的董事？\n25 “答：我不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “问：郭先生，您曾经担任过 Golden Spring 的董事吗？\n2 “答：我不记得了。\n3 “问：郭先生，Max Krasner 是谁？\n4 “答：我不知道。我不知道。\n5 “问：郭先生，Max Krasner 是谁？上面写着郭先生请您回答。\n6\n7 供参考，Skalka 先生，Mr. Baldiga（鲍迪加先生）是谁？\n8 答：他是郭先生当时的破产律师。\n9 问：我们能不能往下翻一下。所以您可以从第 22 行继续，\n10 Skalka 先生。\n11 “答：他必须跟你核对一下，因为我不会看英文，也记不住英文名字，\n12 所以只是名字。你说 Max。如果只是 Max 这个名字，\n13 我只知道 Max。但如果你加上另一个名字，我就不确定了。我不知道。\n14\n15 “问：关于 Golden Spring，您认识一位 Max 吗？\n16 “答：是的，我认识。\n17 “问：Max 在 Golden Spring 是什么角色？\n18 “答：我不知道。\n19 “问：嗯，您是怎么认识 Max 的？\n20 “答：我不记得了。\n21 “问：您认识不止一个叫 Max 的人吗？\n22 “答：对我来说英文名字非常复杂。就像我记不住我律师的姓氏一样。\n23 如果你在 Max 后面加上别的东西，我就不知道了。\n24\n25 “问：郭先生，Max Krasner 的名字被列为寄往\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 Golden Spring 的邮件的收件人。您知道这是为什么吗？\n2\n3 “答：我只记得 Golden Spring 有一个 Max。我只知道这一件事。\n4\n5 “问：Max 在 Golden Spring 的工作是什么？\n6 “答：我不确定是什么角色，我（听不清）知道他是负责财务的，\n7 但我不确定。\n8 “问：他在财务方面为 Golden Spring 做什么？\n9\n10 “答：我没有参与管理，所以我不知道。\n11 “问：如果 Golden Spring 给您钱，是通过 Max Krasner 的努力吗？\n12 他是否协助促成了这件事？\n13 “答：我不知道，他没有亲自给我钱。\n14 “问：郭先生，当您从 Golden Spring 拿到钱时，您是怎么拿到的？\n15 是以现金形式还是其他形式？\n16\n17 “答：从我儿子和（听不清。）\n18 问：译员重复了这句，问题是。\n19 我的问题是，您如何从您儿子那里拿到钱？\n20 是以现金形式还是其他形式？\n21 “答：我不明白你说的如何，‘如何’这个词是什么意思。\n22 我从未直接从他们那里拿到钱。\n23 “问：如果您没有直接从您儿子那里拿到钱，您是如何从您儿子那里拿到钱的？\n24 钱去哪儿了？\n25 “答：我不使用现金，也不使用信用卡。我儿子和\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 （听不清）。Wan，他们只是替我支付开销。\n2 我不可能从他们那里拿到任何现金。此外，我没有银行账户，\n3 没有任何银行账户。\n4 “问：郭先生，您能使用由 Golden Spring 开立的信用卡吗？\n5 然后是 Baldiga 先生。\n6 再次提问，郭先生，您能使用由 Golden Spring 或通过 Golden Spring\n7 提供给您的信用卡或借记卡吗？\n8\n9 “答：不能。\n10 “问：郭先生，对于 Golden Spring 代表您支付的生活费用，\n11 您有义务偿还 Golden Spring 吗？\n12 答：没有，不需要。\n13 MR. FERGENSON（费根森先生）：Loftus 女士，我们能否向证人出示\n14 标记为政府证据 1401-B 的文件。法官阁下，\n15 此时政府提供其他节录件。它们是 1404-A 和 1404-B。\n16\n17 MR. KAMARAJU（卡马拉朱先生）：无异议。\n18 THE COURT（法庭）：准予采纳。\n19 （政府证据 1401-B、1404-A、1404-B 被采纳为证据）\n20\n21 由 MR. FERGENSON（费根森先生）继续询问：\n22 问：我继续。这些回答仍然来自郭先生吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：这是同一场债权人会议，就是我们正在看的同一场会议的另一份节录吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：我继续提问。\n3 您与 Golden Spring 是什么关系？\n4 “答：我不明白你问题的意思。我不知道怎么回答你的问题。\n5\n6 “问：您知道‘关系’这个词是什么意思吗？\n7 “答：关系在中国意味着对事物的爱。它可以是夫妻之间的关系。\n8 它可以是政府关系，财务关系，金钱，\n9 它可以是很多事情。\n10 MR. FERGENSON（费根森先生）：Loftus 女士，请您出示一下。\n11 “答：所以我不知道你指的是哪一种。是男女关系，\n12 还是金钱关系，还是什么？\n13 “问：任何关系。那是什么？您的——上面写着\n14 （听不清。）\n15 然后问题又来了，任何关系，您与 Golden Spring 是什么关系？\n16\n17 “答：现在的关系是，他借钱给我。我欠他钱。\n18 它帮助我。\n19 “问：他为什么要这么做？\n20 “答：因为我曾经是郭家族的一员。\n21 “问：Golden Spring 是否支付郭家族任何其他成员的费用？\n22\n23 “答：是的。\n24 问：郭家族的哪些其他成员？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：我不知道。\n2 “问：一年前我问过您，为什么 Golden Spring 为以您个人身份向您提供的服务\n3 向 Mr. Podhaskie（波德哈斯基先生）（拼写）付款。\n4 我现在再次询问。\n5 为什么 Golden Spring 为以您个人身份向您提供的服务向 Podhaskie 先生付款？\n6 如果我们可以往下翻。然后上面写着，您能否从第 12 行开始，\n7 那里写着郭先生，他是怎么回答的？\n8 “答：我不知道。\n9 “问：您是否曾问过任何人他们为什么要付钱请他为您提供咨询？\n10\n11 “答：我不记得了。\n12 “问：我去年问过您，为什么 Golden Spring New York（纽约源泉公司）代表您支付了那项判决款项，\n13 我指的是我的当事人 Mr. Cheng（郑先生）对您持有的那项判决。\n14\n15 我再次问您，为什么 Golden Spring New York 代表您支付了那项判决款项？\n16\n17 “答：那是借来的钱。\n18 “问：为什么 Golden Spring 借给您那笔钱？\n19 “答：我一无所有，所以我向他们借。\n20 “问：Golden Spring 是从哪里拿到那笔钱的？\n21 “答：我不知道。\n22 “问：Golden Spring 是从哪里拿到任何钱的？\n23 “答：我不知道。\n24 “问：您儿子拥有 Golden Spring，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：是的。\n2 “问：您儿子欠您钱吗？\n3 “答：不欠。\n4 “问：您儿子是如何获得资助 Golden Spring 的资金的？\n5 “答：我不知道。\n6 “问：您曾向您儿子提供过任何启动资金吗？\n7 “答：没有。\n8 “问：您曾投资过您儿子的任何企业吗？\n9 “答：没有。\n10 “问：康涅狄格州何时成为您的居住地？\n11 “答：2020 年 2 月底或 3 月初。\n12 “问：如果我们能往下翻，Loftus 女士，我们现在是否可以\n13 转到 1404-A。这是债权人会议的另一份节录吗？\n14\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：这次会议的日期是什么时候？\n17 答：2022 年 4 月 6 日。\n18 问：这里的回答是郭先生作出的吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：所以我再读一遍问题。\n21 当您在办公室时，除了您的律师之外，您是否还与其他人会面以准备今天的会议？\n22\n23 “答：我不知道你说的其他人是什么意思。\n24 “问：那么，您是否与为 Golden Spring 工作的任何人会面？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：是的，我见到了 Yvonne Wang。\n2 “问：这是昨天吗？\n3 “答：是的，我昨天见到了她。\n4 “问：您昨天向她提问了吗？\n5 “答：没有。\n6 “问：那请告诉我您与 Wang 女士的对话？\n7 “答：你是什么意思？\n8 “问：嗯，我想知道您和她谈了些什么？\n9 “答：我让她安排吃的食物和咖啡。\n10 “问：就这些吗？\n11 “答：而且我们还谈了如何废除共产党。\n12 “问：我想确保我没听错。我想您说的是——然后是 Baldiga 先生。\n13 如果您可以再读一遍第六行。\n14 “答：我们谈了如何废除共产党。\n15 “问：Wang 女士是 Golden Spring 的高级管理人员，对吗？\n16 “答：是的。\n17 “问：您指示她端咖啡来，对吗？\n18 “答：不，我没有指示她。我只是希望她端一些咖啡来。\n19\n20 “问：您是希望（hoping）还是帮忙（helping）？\n21 “答：帮（Help）。\n22 “问：您在帮忙。因为我对您的提问是您与 Wang 女士谈了什么，\n23 而且我以为您说的是您让她端些咖啡来，甚至可能是告诉她端些咖啡来？\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：不，你的律师办公室，你们律师办公室又在捏造和想象事情了。\n2\n3 “问：您昨天与 Wang 女士讨论了什么？\n4 “答：你想让我详细谈谈吗？这方面我可以谈上几个小时。\n5\n6 “问：如果细节涉及如何推翻中国共产党就不用了，所以我问得更精确些。\n7\n8 “答：所以你不想让我们废除中国共产党？我们的工作就是废除中国共产党。\n9\n10 问：Baldiga 先生说只要回答问题即可。然后是证人。\n11\n12 “答：你没有问题。你只是在引导某些事情。\n13 问：我们可以直接往下翻。\n14 您昨天是否与 Yvette 讨论了与准备今天的会议相关的任何事情？\n15\n16 “答：讨论了。\n17 “问：您讨论了什么？\n18 “答：我让她把那些文件带到这里来。\n19 “问：还有别的吗？\n20 “答：我不记得了。\n21 “问：Lamp Capital 何时成立的？\n22 “答：我不知道。\n23 “问：为什么成立 Lamp Capital？\n24 “答：我不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “问：谁创立了 Lamp Capital？\n2 “答：我儿子。\n3 “问：你怎么知道的？\n4 “答：因为我向我儿子借钱付律师费。\n5 “问：问题是你怎么知道你儿子创立了 Lamp\n6 Capital？\n7 “答：因为我儿子说的。\n8 “问：他亲自告诉你的？\n9 “答：是的。\n10 “问：关于是否创立 Lamp Capital，他向你征求过任何建议吗？\n11\n12 “答：没有。\n13 “问：关于他是否应该创立 Lamp Capital，他问过你的意见吗？\n14\n15 “答：没有。\n16 “问：他告诉你他为什么要创立 Lamp Capital 了吗？\n17 “答：没有。\n18 “问：谢谢。你是否了解 Lamp Capital 从事什么业务（如果有的话）？\n19\n20 答：不了解。\n21 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们现在出示 1404-B。\n22 问：这节选是来自同一次债权人会议吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：我们能否往下拉。再次确认，本节选中的回答是来自 Kwok 先生（郭先生）吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：在你提交的那些文件中，有一些具体的记录，其中一份记录讨论了 Taconic\n3 Road（塔科尼克路）或 Taconic Road 上的住宅，然后提到了\n4 Harbach 先生。你记得他是谁吗？\n5\n6 答：他是至少一名债权人（也许更多）的律师。\n7 问：我们能否往下拉。我从第 21 行开始。\n8 第一个问题，与 Taconic Road 房屋相关的所有费用均由家庭及\n9 家庭控制的企业直接支付，这是真的吗？\n10\n11 “答：是的。\n12 “问：哪些家庭成员？\n13 “答：我妻子，有时是我儿子。\n14 “问：哪些家庭控制的企业？\n15 “答：哪个国家，我妻子。\n16 “问：你妻子不是企业。我是想问，哪些家庭控制的企业支付 Taconic\n17 房屋的费用？\n18\n19 “答：Greenwich, LLC。\n20 “问：顺便问一下，你怎么知道是你妻子或者有时是你儿子支付这些费用的？\n21\n22 “答：因为我住在那里。\n23 “问：你亲眼看到他们支付这些费用了吗？\n24 “答：是的。\n25 “问：那曾经是应你的要求吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：我不记得我要求过任何事。\n2 “问：Greenwich Land LLC——是的，Greenwich Land LLC 除了 373 Taconic Road 之外，还拥有任何其他不动产吗？\n3\n4 答：我不知道。\n5 法庭：我们就在这里暂停。各位陪审团成员，\n6 你们非常通情达理地同意明天留到下午 5 点。\n7 明天是周二。在周三和周四，我们将进行到下午\n8 2:45，周五你们休息。接下来的一周，\n9 7 月 1 日周一，你们休息。周二和周三，\n10 你们要来。然后周四和周五，即 4 日和\n11 5 日，你们休息。因此，我请你们今晚\n12 考虑一下（你们不必现在告诉我）：\n13 你们能否在 7 月 2 日和 3 日周二及周三全天留下来。\n14 你们可以考虑一下，并在明天早上告诉我。\n15 在此期间，切勿在你们彼此之间或与\n16 任何其他人讨论本案。切勿允许任何人在你们\n17 面前讨论本案。切勿阅读、观看或收听来自任何来源的\n18 涉及本案标的事项的任何内容。祝你们度过\n19 愉快的夜晚。\n20 法庭书记官：陪审团退庭。\n21 （陪审团不在场）\n22 法庭：先生，您可以步出法庭了。\n23 请勿讨论您的证言。\n24 （证人暂时退庭）\n25 法庭：请就座。在明天早上重新开庭之前，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6OBGUO4 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 还有什么事吗？\n2 KAMARAJU 先生：辩方没有了，法官阁下。\n3 FERGENSON 先生：没有了，法官阁下。只是向法庭说明一下背景情况，\n4 我大概我希望能在大约 15 分钟内结束。这是\n5 最后一个节选。我们快完成了，然后我认为在那之后\n6 询问会相当简短。\n7 法庭：太好了。好的。祝各位度过愉快的夜晚。\n8 （休庭至 2024 年 6 月 25 日上午 9 点）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 询问索引\n2 询问对象： 页码\n3 AMY BUCK FAUNDEZ\n4 由 Fergenson 先生进行直接询问 . . . . . . . . . . .3873\n5 由 Shroff 女士进行反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .3935\n6 由 Fergenson 先生进行再直接询问 . . . . . . . . . .4000\n7 由 Shroff 女士进行再反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4003\n8 DOUGLAS SKALKA\n9 由 Fergenson 先生进行直接询问 . . . . . . . . . . .4006\n10 政府物证\n11 物证编号 收到页码\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 以及 BUCK 1274-BUCK 1291、以及\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 及 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 被告物证\n15 物证编号 收到页码\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\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":45616,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:43:33"}