{"id":"court_sdny_439_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":439,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2024-07-23","title":"SDNY ECF 439","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"O6PBGUO1\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 25, 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\nO6PBGUO1\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\nO6PBGUO1\n1 (Trial resumed; jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: Good morning. Please make your\n3 appearances.\n4 MR. FERGENSON: Micah Fergenson, Ryan Finkel, Julie\n5 Murray and Justin Horton for the United States.\n6 MS. SHROFF: Good morning, your Honor. On behalf of\n7 Mr. Guo, Sabrina Shroff. Mr. Guo is standing to my left.\n8 THE COURT: Please be seated. Is there anything that\n9 either side would like to bring up.\n10 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, first one minor scheduling\n11 issue. The witness, in consultation with the defense last\n12 night, we're reordering the witnesses. The witness who is\n13 going to go on after the current witness has an immovable\n14 appointment at 11:45. We think he's a very short witness. To\n15 the extent that he can't -- he's a United States attorney\n16 office paralegal, so he's accessible. To the extent we can't\n17 get him finish with cross at 11:45, we'd ask that he sort of\n18 stop and we call the next witness and then we can bring him\n19 back either later today or tomorrow when he returns. I hope\n20 that's not an issue for the Court.\n21 THE COURT: No problem.\n22 MR. FINKEL: There's a second issue, and I was\n23 wondering if we could discuss that one at sidebar.\n24 THE COURT: Okay. We're going to go into the robing\n25 room because they're going to have to deal with the AV over\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1 here.\n2 (Pages 4069-4072 Sealed)\n3 (Continued on next page)\n4\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\nO6PBGUO1\n1 (In the robing room)\n2 THE COURT: Anything else?\n3 MS. SHROFF: As I was walking to court this morning as\n4 I normally do pass the passageway, I was on a phone call with a\n5 pretrial services officer on an unrelated matter. I heard\n6 somebody say hello. I turned around. It was a juror. The\n7 juror immediately recognized that they shouldn't have said\n8 hello. They looked embarrassed. I didn't respond, and\n9 everybody went on their own merry way. I literally was on a\n10 phone call. I just wanted to let the Court know.\n11 MR. FINKEL: Which juror?\n12 MS. SHROFF: There were two of them together. One was\n13 a man. One was a woman, but it was literally moments. When I\n14 look at them, I could tell you. I was just walking to court.\n15 I think they were behind me. I can't remember.\n16 THE COURT: So what it suffice for me to just remind\n17 the jurors that they'll not to have contact with the lawyers.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, it would think look like I\n19 sort of ratted them out. It was so inconsequential that I\n20 really thought I shouldn't mention it, but I did so as an\n21 abundance of caution. Literally, the juror looked abashed that\n22 they'd done that. They made a gesture, like, why did I do\n23 that. The two were talking to each other. It was the tall\n24 man, the female. I think she's in the second row or maybe the\n25 first row. It was so inconsequential, literally nothing.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1 MR. FINKEL: The government has no issue with\n2 proceeding however the Court sees fit. This seems like no\n3 issue. I would just ask that Ms. Shroff inform the government\n4 which juror numbers it is just so we're aware. Other than\n5 that, I don't think there's anything that unnecessarily needs\n6 to be done. Of course, the government has no objection to your\n7 Honor reminding the jury of their obligations and requirements\n8 as jurors.\n9 THE COURT: If Ms. Shroff is asking that I not do\n10 that, then I won't do it.\n11 MS. SHROFF: It really was nothing. It was so\n12 inconsequential. I even thought I shouldn't bring it up, but\n13 just to be careful.\n14 THE COURT: Okay.\n15 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, given the nature of what was\n16 discussed in the first part of this conference in the robing\n17 room regarding the victim, the government would request that\n18 that portion of this conference be sealed.\n19 THE COURT: Yes. All righty. Thank you.\n20 (Continued on next page)\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in.\n3 THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering.\n4 (Jury present)\n5 THE COURT: Please be seated. Good morning, Jurors.\n6 I brought you in at 9:34 because we had an audio/visual\n7 failure, and so I needed to have that fixed first. Remember\n8 yesterday I asked whether you would be able to stay until 5:00\n9 on July 2nd and 3rd. Is there anybody who cannot do that?\n10 Very good. I appreciate your cooperating with me in this way.\n11 We're going to now continue with the direct examination of the\n12 witness. Sir, remember that you are still under oath.\n13 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.\n14 DOUGLAS SKALKA, resumed.\n15 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED\n16 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Skalka.\n18 A. Good morning.\n19 Q. Yesterday you explained at a high level the process for\n20 your fees being paid. Do you recall that?\n21 A. Yes, I do.\n22 Q. Do you know even just a ballpark estimate of approximately\n23 how much in fees your firm has been paid for the bankruptcy\n24 work?\n25 A. Approximately $2 million.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. And do you have, again ballpark number of how much Paul\n2 Hastings has been paid for its bankruptcy work?\n3 A. Approximately $25 million.\n4 Q. And can you remind us how much in assets have been\n5 recovered to the bankruptcy estate?\n6 A. Over a hundred million dollars.\n7 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could go to 1404-B. If we could scroll\n8 down, Ms. Loftus.\n9 Mr. Skalka, do you remember looking at this transcript\n10 when we broke yesterday?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And what was the date of this meeting of creditors?\n13 A. April 6, 2020.\n14 Q. How soon after the bankruptcy proceedings were filed just\n15 for context?\n16 A. A month and a half after the filing.\n17 Q. So, Ms. Loftus, maybe we can blow up the bottom half or so\n18 and we'll just scroll through.\n19 Now I'll read the questions, Mr. Skalka, and you can\n20 read Mr. Kwok's answers.\n21 It says, \"Does Greenwich Land, LLC -- yes, Greenwich\n22 Land, LLC, own any real estate other than 373 Taconic Road?\n23 \"A. I don't know.\n24 \"Q. Do you know anything about the property located at 3333\n25 Ferncliff in Cos Cob, Connecticut -- if we can just scroll\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 down. Then you can read at line two, Mr. Skalka.\n2 \"A. Yes. Now I remember it. It's also owned by my wife's\n3 company.\n4 \"Q. That being Greenwich Land?\n5 \"A. Maybe.\n6 \"Q. Do you know?\n7 \"A. I'm not sure.\n8 \"Q. Have you ever been to 33 Ferncliff?\n9 \"A. Yes.\n10 \"Q. How recently?\n11 \"A. No not recently.\n12 \"Q. Do you know when Greenwich Land purchased 33 Ferncliff?\n13 \"A. I don't remember.\n14 \"Q. Do you know approximately how much money it cost?\n15 \"A. Probably more than $1 million.\n16 \"Q. Does 1.37 million sound about right?\n17 \"A. I'm not sure.\n18 \"Q. Does the approximate purchase date of September 2019 sound\n19 about right to you?\n20 \"A. Not sure.\n21 \"Q. Turning back to 373 Taconic for a moment, how much was\n22 that property purchased for?\n23 \"A. Probably 400 to 500,000.\n24 Q. And then it says the private interpreter, no, no, no, and\n25 then the official interpreter, four to five million. I'm\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 sorry.\n2 The next question, \"Approximate time of purchase of\n3 373 Taconic if you know?\n4 \"A. I don't know.\n5 \"Q. Have you ever resided at 33 Ferncliff?\n6 \"A. No.\n7 \"Q. Do you know whether anyone currently lives there?\n8 \"A. Before there is another comrade maybe, you know, for\n9 disjoined Chinese Communist Party, and he was to live there.\n10 \"Q. How long ago?\n11 \"A. Probably one to two years ago.\n12 \"Q. Do you remember that person's name?\n13 \"A. Yes.\n14 \"Q. What is it?\n15 \"A. Wong Din Gon.\n16 \"Q. Does anyone currently live there if you know?\n17 \"A. I don't know.\n18 \"Q. Talking about 373 Taconic, where did the money come from\n19 to purchase that property?\n20 \"A. I don't know.\n21 \"Q. Do you know whether the house was purchased with cash or\n22 financing?\n23 \"A. I don't know.\n24 \"Q. Same questions for 33 Ferncliff. Do you know where the\n25 money came from to purchase that house?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. I heard it was purchased by cash.\n2 \"Q. From whom did you hear that?\n3 \"A. I don't remember.\n4 \"Q. Do you know where that money came from?\n5 \"A. I don't know.\n6 \"Q. If we could scroll down, Ms. Loftus.\n7 Do you know what Saraca Media Group is?\n8 \"A. Saraca?\n9 \"Q. Saraca.\n10 \"A. Saraca Media Group, I do.\n11 \"Q. What is Saraca Media Group?\n12 \"A. Just Saraca, it's a company.\n13 \"Q. What kind of company?\n14 \"A. I'm not sure.\n15 \"Q. Have you ever had any relations with Saraca personally?\n16 \"A. No.\n17 \"Q. Do you know anything about the type of business that\n18 Saraca conducts?\n19 \"A. I remember they are related to GTV media platform or they\n20 invested on the GTV media platform.\n21 \"Q. How do you know that?\n22 \"A. Because I was their consultant who owned the consultant\n23 and also I was the GTV host, and also this is one of the input\n24 and platform for disjoined communist party.\n25 \"Q. When you said you were a consultant a moment ago, was that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 for Saraca or GTV?\n2 \"A. GTV.\n3 \"Q. Has Saraca ever been -- ever had the 162 East 64th Street\n4 address associated with it?\n5 And then the question gets repeated, and you can start\n6 at line 19.\n7 \"A. I don't know.\n8 \"Q. That is the family office address, correct?\n9 \"A. It's one of them.\n10 \"Q. Where are the other ones?\n11 \"A. I don't know.\n12 \"Q. Are there others in New York City?\n13 \"A. I just want to clarify, Golden Spring is one of the\n14 companies in this building 162.\n15 \"Q. Understood, and thank you. We referred to the family\n16 office during your questioning and I just want to be clear.\n17 When we talk about the family office, are we referring to that\n18 address on East 64th Street?\n19 \"A. Yes.\n20 \"Q. Has GTV ever been associated with the family office\n21 address?\n22 \"A. I don't know.\n23 \"Q. Who owns Saraca?\n24 \"A. My son.\n25 \"Q. Since when?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. I don't know.\n2 \"Q. Does Saraca currently exist?\n3 \"A. I don't know.\n4 \"Q. Do you have any idea how many -- do you know anything\n5 about the value of Saraca's assets?\n6 \"A. I don't know.\n7 \"Q. Do you know anything about payments Saraca has made to\n8 GTV?\n9 \"A. No, I don't know.\n10 \"Q. Has your wife ever told you about any multi-million dollar\n11 payments from Saraca to Greenwich Land?\n12 \"A. I don't know.\n13 \"Q. You don't know whether he's ever told you or you don't\n14 know about the payments?\n15 \"A. She never told me, and I don't even know how much.\n16 \"Q. Do you know a company called Ziba Limited, Z-I-B-A?\n17 \"A. I don't know.\n18 \"Q. I'm sorry if I've already asked this. What is the\n19 relationship, if any, between Saraca and GTV?\n20 \"A. Saraca is the investor for GTV.\n21 \"Q. Do you know how much money Saraca invested in GTV?\n22 \"A. I don't know.\n23 \"Q. When was GTV founded?\n24 \"A. 2020, maybe 2019, not very sure.\n25 \"Q. Do you know the names of any of the officers or directors\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 of Saraca?\n2 \"A. I don't know.\n3 \"Q. Do you know whether Yvette Wang is an officer or director\n4 of Saraca?\n5 \"A. I don't know.\n6 \"Q. Do you know someone called Hong Chong Wang?\n7 \"A. Yes.\n8 \"Q. Who is that?\n9 \"A. He's my partner and also comrade for disjoined communist\n10 party.\n11 \"Q. Is he a friend of yours?\n12 \"A. Friend, comrade and a partner.\n13 \"Q. What do you mean by partner?\n14 \"A. Because we had a business corporation.\n15 \"Q. Tell me about that?\n16 \"A. Well, I don't remember the name of that company. It's a\n17 company for investigating communist party in USA doing money\n18 laundering and committing crimes.\n19 \"Q. Was it a for profit company?\n20 \"A. I don't know.\n21 \"Q. You don't know?\n22 \"A. I don't know.\n23 \"Q. What was the name of the company?\n24 \"A. I don't remember when getting to English. I don't\n25 remember the name.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"Q. Approximately what timeframe were you partners with Hong\n2 Chong Wang in this company?\n3 \"A. I don't remember.\n4 \"Q. Within the last three years?\n5 \"A. It must be more than three years ago.\n6 \"Q. More than ten years?\n7 \"A. No.\n8 \"Q. Did Hong Chong Wang ever have any connection to Saraca?\n9 \"A. I don't know.\n10 \"Q. Was he ever an officer or director of Saraca?\n11 \"A. I don't know.\n12 \"Q. What does the G in GTV stand for?\n13 \"A. God, the goal, like in G-O-A-L.\n14 \"Q. The English word \"goal?\"\n15 \"A. Yeah, goal or God.\n16 \"Q. How long have you known Hong Chong Wang?\n17 \"A. I don't remember.\n18 \"Q. More than ten years?\n19 \"A. Roughly.\n20 \"Q. And you still consider him a friend today?\n21 \"A. Yes.\n22 \"Q. Just a moment, please. There's been many questions today\n23 about Golden Spring funding your living expenses.\n24 Is it correct that as far as your living expenses are\n25 concerned that none of that is expected to be repaid?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. Yes, true.\n2 \"Q. And so those monies are not the subject of any formal\n3 agreement, correct?\n4 \"A. No.\n5 \"Q. And those monies essentially then are a gift to you,\n6 correct?\n7 \"A. Yes.\n8 \"Q. What's the Rule of Law Foundation?\n9 \"A. What does that mean?\n10 \"Q. The question is, what is it?\n11 And then the interpreter ask, Rule of Law Foundation,\n12 yes, sir. And we can scroll down slightly.\n13 I'll hopefully save sometime by just asking this\n14 question instead. Are you familiar with the Rule of Law\n15 Foundation?\n16 \"A. Yes.\n17 \"Q. Were you involved in its establishment?\n18 \"A. Yes.\n19 \"Q. Did you contribute any money to it when it was formed?\n20 \"A. Not myself.\n21 \"Q. Did you direct any entity to contribute to the Rule of Law\n22 Foundation?\n23 \"A. Suggestion in a direct and suggesting any difference.\n24 \"Q. If there was a suggestion, please tell me it was a\n25 suggestion?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"A. I didn't direct anybody or order anybody. I just always\n2 suggest people to make donations for the foundation.\n3 Q. And then the private interpreter says, As an interpreter, I\n4 think if the witness is asking the interpreter questions, the\n5 interpreter should interpret the question asked by the witness\n6 instead of answer that question. The interpreter responds. We\n7 can scroll down. We can keep scrolling down.\n8 Again it says by Mr. Harbach. I'll start reading the\n9 next question.\n10 \"Did you ever suggest to any of your family members\n11 that they donate to the Rule of Law Foundation?\n12 \"A. Yes, I did suggest.\n13 \"Q. Did any of your family members or the family controlled\n14 enterprises contribute money to the Rule of Law Foundation?\n15 \"A. Yes.\n16 \"Q. How much money?\n17 \"A. For cash there is one over $1 million, from Hong Kong,\n18 Japan and Mainland in China, and all combined it should be more\n19 than 30 million.\n20 \"Q. Just focusing for the moment on contributions from your\n21 family at your suggestion, approximately how much money is\n22 that?\n23 \"A. I don't know the details, because of security reasons,\n24 they don't want me to know.\n25 \"Q. Did you say a moment ago that your family contributed over\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 a million dollars?\n2 \"A. One million cash is in New York here.\n3 \"Q. When was that?\n4 \"A. I don't remember.\n5 \"Q. Is the reason -- well, let me ask it this way.\n6 Did you suggest an amount to your family members that\n7 they should contribute to the Rule of Law Foundation?\n8 \"A. I want them to donate, the more the better.\n9 \"Q. Is that what you told them?\n10 \"A. Yes.\n11 \"Q. Did you know whether the rule of law -- do you know\n12 whether the Rule of Law Foundation is associated with a family\n13 office address on 64th Street?\n14 \"A. Yes.\n15 \"Q. Did you ever make a $100 million donation to the Rule of\n16 Law Foundation in November of 2018?\n17 Interpreter ask to repeat the question. It gets\n18 repeated, and you can answer the answer.\n19 \"A. No. In the live stream, like I want, tried to collect the\n20 funds in the live stream show.\n21 \"Q. You could see the private interpreter says, not quite\n22 exactly what the witness said (indiscernible) broadcasting is\n23 okay. Live stream is okay. But collect money -- and the\n24 official interpreter says, asking for donation, right. Private\n25 interpreter says, raise. And then the witness testimony\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 continues. You can start at line 17.\n2 \"A. Raising money, raise donations. Yeah, in the live stream\n3 broadcast thing, or whatever, you know, asking for donations\n4 to -- you know, to raise funds, to raise money.\n5 \"Q. We can scroll down.\n6 Did you ever promise to donate $1 billion to the Rule\n7 of Law fund? And then the interpreter ask 10 billion you said.\n8 And Mr. Harbach says, no, sir, 1 billion. And the answer is at\n9 three.\n10 \"A. I don't remember. I don't remember.\n11 \"Q. Do you mean that it's possible that you made that promise?\n12 \"A. So we could reach that goal if we combine the\n13 organizations all over the world.\n14 \"Q. Understand. And it's a simple question. I just don't\n15 know the answer. Did you yourself ever promise to donate $1\n16 billion to the Rule of Law fund?\n17 \"A. In the past five years, I did the live stream over 5,000\n18 times. Some of the live stream could have reached four or five\n19 hours. It's hard for me to remember every sentence I said.\n20 \"Q. Well, I understand that, but I'm only asking about one\n21 issue, and it is whether you ever promised publicly or\n22 privately or any how to donate $1 billion to the Rule of Law\n23 fund. And then correction said donate, and the answer to that\n24 question 24.\n25 \"A. I don't remember.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 \"Q. I'll ask this one more time. Are you saying that it is\n2 possible that you made such a promise, you just can't be sure?\n3 \"A. In front of Ms. Holley, I wouldn't say anything is\n4 possible, but this is a very serious issue. Now they start the\n5 scheme again.\n6 \"Q. Well, this isn't what did you have for breakfast three\n7 days ago. This is, did you promise to donate $1 billion. And\n8 if the answer is you don't know, that's okay.\n9 Scroll down. And Mr. Baldiga responds. Who is he,\n10 Mr. Skalka?\n11 A. He was Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy counsel at the time.\n12 Q. If we could scroll down a little more. I'll read the\n13 question, line 17.\n14 \"So the answer might be no, but you're not saying no?\n15 You're saying you don't remember?\n16 \"A. I said it three times. I don't remember.\n17 Q. And you can continue at 21.\n18 \"A. Because in the past five years, (indiscernible) always\n19 making these kind of answers for me, so that's why the judge\n20 from the south district were fooled by you and you started\n21 again.\n22 Q. I'll move on. You can continue.\n23 \"A. In the south district court I only met judge 20 seconds.\n24 I didn't say one sentence within this five years, and I was\n25 fined a total about $300 million because that's what they did.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 Q. And then just pause for a second, Mr. Skalka. The about\n2 $300 million, is that about the amount in the PAX case?\n3 A. The total judgment including the initial judgment plus the\n4 fine was approximately a little over $250 million.\n5 Q. And was that case in the Southern District of New York or\n6 in a state court?\n7 A. It was in the New York Supreme court which is a state\n8 court.\n9 Q. If we can just scroll down slightly more. There's back and\n10 forth between the attorneys. Then the question continues.\n11 \"Have you made any donations to the Rule of Law\n12 Foundation in the last two years?\n13 \"A. Myself, right?\n14 \"Q. Yes, sir.\n15 \"A. No.\n16 \"Q. Have you suggested to any of your family that they make\n17 donations to the Rule of Law Foundation within the last two\n18 years?\n19 \"A. I don't remember.\n20 \"Q. Would you ever have made a promise to donate $1 billion to\n21 the Rule of Law Foundation if you did not actually have that\n22 money?\n23 And ask to be repeated. Would you have ever made a\n24 promise to donate $1 billion to the Rule of Law Foundation if\n25 you did not actually have that money?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 And then, Mr. Skalka, you see line 11, it says the\n2 official interpreter, and you can read the line that starts, He\n3 said.\n4 A. He said are you -- want to sentencing me to death sentence.\n5 Q. Mr. Skalka, are there any death sentences in bankruptcy\n6 proceedings?\n7 A. Not that I'm aware of.\n8 Q. And if we scroll down, Ms. Loftus. That's the end of the\n9 exhibit. We can leave it there. You can take that down,\n10 Ms. Loftus.\n11 Now, Mr. Skalka, after the meeting of creditors we\n12 were just looking at, did there come a time when a bankruptcy\n13 trustee was appointed in Mr. Kwok's case?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Approximately when was he appointed?\n16 A. He was appointed by order of the bankruptcy court in June\n17 of 2022.\n18 Q. Ms. Loftus, could we please publish Government Exhibit\n19 VI-194. Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom on the top left, please.\n20 Mr. Skalka, do you recognize whose shown in the top\n21 left here?\n22 A. I recognize the person in the picture.\n23 Q. Who is that?\n24 A. That's the chapter 11 trustee.\n25 Q. Mr. Skalka, were you the subject of any protest?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- Direct\n1 A. I was not.\n2 Q. Who was?\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: Object to form.\n4 THE COURT: Sustained.\n5 Q. Who was the subject of the protest?\n6 MR. KAMARAJU: Object to form. It's the same\n7 question.\n8 THE COURT: If you would lay the foundation, please.\n9 Q. Were there any protest related to the bankruptcy of\n10 Mr. Kwok?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Who was the subject of those protests?\n13 A. The chapter 11 trustee was the subject of some of the\n14 protests.\n15 Q. Who else, if anyone, was the subject of the protest?\n16 A. Paul Hastings law firm was the subject of protest. PAX was\n17 a subject of protest, and the law firm representing PAX was a\n18 subject of protest.\n19 Q. Were any family members?\n20 A. Yes, the daughter of the chapter 11 trustee.\n21 Q. Mr. Skalka, in your 35 years of bankruptcy related\n22 practice, how common are such protest?\n23 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to relevance.\n24 THE COURT: You may answer.\n25 A. This is the first case I've seen these types of protest.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. We can take it down, Ms. Loftus.\n2 Mr. Skalka, are Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy proceeding\n3 ongoing?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Has PAX been repaid based upon Kwok's personal guarantee?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. Have any creditors been repaid yet?\n8 A. None of the pre-bankruptcy often referred to as\n9 pre-petition creditors have been paid. Ongoing expenses during\n10 the bankruptcy case are being paid.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: May I have a moment, your Honor.\n12 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n13 Q. Mr. Skalka, you mentioned PAX's law firm, what law firm is\n14 that?\n15 A. O'Melveny & Myers.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: No further questions.\n17 THE COURT: Cross examination.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.\n19 CROSS-EXAMINATION\n20 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n21 Q. Good morning. Could you tell me again the bankruptcy\n22 trustee's name?\n23 A. Luc Despins.\n24 Q. Now, Mr. Fergenson asked you over your last 35 years of\n25 bankruptcy have you ever seen protest?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. I believe the question was in bankruptcy cases. That's\n2 correct.\n3 Q. How common are chapter 11 bankruptcy filings for\n4 individuals?\n5 A. They're not as common as they are corporate entities, but\n6 I've been involved in several of them over the years.\n7 Q. Of the several of them that you've been involved in over\n8 the years, have any of those people been the subject of plots\n9 by the Chinese Communist Party to return them to China?\n10 A. No.\n11 Q. Have any of them been the subject of a plot to kidnap that\n12 person and return them to China?\n13 A. No.\n14 Q. Have any of them been the subject of a plot to discredit\n15 them online? Let me rephrase that. Discredit them online\n16 specifically by the Chinese Communist Party?\n17 A. No.\n18 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Guo, all of those things happen to\n19 him?\n20 A. I'm not.\n21 Q. So that's in prepared for your testimony today,\n22 Mr. Fergenson did not discuss that with you, correct?\n23 A. No.\n24 Q. And could we have back up the photo of from the protest. I\n25 think it's GXVI-194 maybe. You remember you were asked some\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 questions about this by Mr. Fergenson?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Do you have any familiarity with what the phrase CCP\n4 running dog means?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. And do you see on that poster, do you see where it says\n7 Take Down the CCP?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Do you understand this to associate Mr. Despins with the\n10 CCP?\n11 A. I'm not sure what this is trying to be communicated by that\n12 poster other than -- I just don't know.\n13 Q. Let's screen out, let's zoom out real quick.\n14 Now, do you see the bottom there's a number $250\n15 million?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And you see above it says extortionist appointed by the\n18 DOJ?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. Does that figure $250 million have any significance in the\n21 context of the PAX settlement negotiations?\n22 A. I don't know. I have not been a party to the settlement\n23 negotiation between PAX and Mr. Kwok.\n24 Q. Mr. Despins has though, right?\n25 A. Mr. Despins is the trustee representing the estate, which\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 includes many creditors not just PAX.\n2 Q. You're aware that there were negotiations between PAX and\n3 Mr. Guo's counsel to settle PAX's claims, correct?\n4 MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 Q. Were there any negotiations between Mr. Despins and\n7 Mr. Guo's counsel to settle the bankruptcy?\n8 A. There was a court-ordered mediation in the bankruptcy, and\n9 so there were negotiations as part of that bankruptcy\n10 court-ordered mediation.\n11 Q. Did Mr. Despins make a demand as part of that court-ordered\n12 mediation?\n13 A. I was not present during the mediation, so I believe he\n14 did, but I was not present for those mediation sessions.\n15 Q. To your understanding what was that demand?\n16 A. I don't know.\n17 THE COURT: Mr. Kamaraju, please speak into the\n18 microphone.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: Sorry, your Honor.\n20 Q. Now, you see it says appointed by DOJ. I think on direct\n21 you testified about someone named Ms. Claiborne?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Who is she again?\n24 A. Ms. Claiborne is a trial attorney for the Office of the\n25 United States Trustee.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. And the Office of the United States Trustee, is that in any\n2 particular department?\n3 A. My understanding it's a branch of the department of\n4 justice.\n5 Q. And the office of the trustee makes recommendations as to\n6 chapter 11 trustees to the bankruptcy court, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. That's what happened in this case, right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. So someone from Mr. Claiborne's office recommended\n11 Mr. Despins, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Was Mr. Despins the first trustee put forward to your\n14 knowledge?\n15 A. He was not.\n16 Q. Who was the first one?\n17 A. I don't recall the individual's name.\n18 Q. Do you have an understanding as to why there was a second\n19 trustee put forward?\n20 A. My understanding is the first trustee had a conflict or\n21 conflicts.\n22 Q. And as part of Mr. Despins selection -- let me withdraw.\n23 As a general matter, is there any kind of vetting done\n24 of a potential chapter 11 trustee?\n25 A. It is my understanding that there is some vetting done,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 yes.\n2 Q. What's your understanding of what that vetting is?\n3 A. There's an interview process, U.S. trustee office contacts\n4 people that they believe might be a qualified candidate to be a\n5 trustee. And at some point once they get down to a few\n6 candidates, my understanding is that there is some conflicts\n7 review being done by each candidate before they're selected.\n8 Q. And is it your understanding that that process happened in\n9 Mr. Guo's bankruptcy?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Now, you remember Mr. Fergenson asked you about are there\n12 any death sentences in bankruptcy cases. You remember that?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. Do you know if there are any death sentences possible under\n15 Chinese criminal law?\n16 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n17 A. I do not know.\n18 Q. Now, you were also asked some questions about the PAX\n19 litigation on direct, right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Now, PAX filed its complaint against Mr. Guo on April 18,\n22 2017, correct?\n23 A. It was filed in early 2017. I don't recall the exact date.\n24 Q. I'm going to see if I can help you out with that. Can we\n25 put up just for the witness and the parties DX7006, please.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 Just please review it for yourself.\n2 A. I see it.\n3 Q. So the question solely is, does looking at this document\n4 refresh your recollection as to the date of the filing of the\n5 PAX complaint?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. Was that date April 18, 2017?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. You're aware that that's the day before the Chinese\n10 government filed an Interpol red notice against Mr. Guo, right?\n11 A. I'm not aware of that.\n12 Q. You're aware that that's the day before Mr. Guo did a live\n13 interview about Chinese corruption for Voice of America, right?\n14 A. I'm not aware of that.\n15 Q. What is PAX exactly?\n16 A. It's an entity that lends money or lent money in this\n17 circumstance to a business known as Shiny Times Holdings.\n18 Q. Do you know any significance to the fact that it's named\n19 The Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund?\n20 A. I do not.\n21 Q. Do you know where it's based?\n22 A. I do not.\n23 Q. Do you know if it has a focus on investments in Asia?\n24 A. I do not.\n25 Q. You didn't represent any of the parties in the PAX\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 litigation, right?\n2 A. I did not.\n3 Q. So your familiarity with that case comes purely from\n4 reading documents filed in it, right?\n5 A. And hearing about the case in bankruptcy proceedings, but\n6 yes.\n7 Q. All second-hand information, right?\n8 A. Correct.\n9 Q. You didn't attend any of the hearings in the PAX\n10 litigation, right?\n11 A. I did not.\n12 Q. You didn't intervene in any way in the PAX litigation,\n13 correct?\n14 A. Correct.\n15 Q. And when Mr. Fergenson was asking you questions about the\n16 PAX litigation, he went over with you the documents that he\n17 would like you to read from, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And he went over with you the questions that he was likely\n20 to ask you, right?\n21 A. Not specifically.\n22 Q. Well, I'm not saying he asked you the specific questions.\n23 Generally speaking, he told you what he'd like you to talk\n24 about, right?\n25 A. Correct.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. Mr. Fergenson asked you some questions about a state court\n2 order in the PAX litigation. Do you remember that?\n3 A. He asked me about several state court orders I believe.\n4 Q. Let me be specific. I meant the one granting summary\n5 judgment. Do you remember that?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. When the summary judgment order was granted, that meant\n8 that there was effectively obligation for Mr. Guo to pay some\n9 money, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And that was north of $100 million, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. And I think you testified that PAX was seeking to collect\n14 on that judgment, right?\n15 A. Once that judgment was entered, yes.\n16 Q. After the judgment was entered, PAX was making efforts to\n17 collect, right?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And Mr. Guo wasn't paying it, right?\n20 A. Correct.\n21 Q. Now, from your experience in the bankruptcy case, you're\n22 aware that Mr. Guo claimed in that case that PAX is controlled\n23 by the CCP, right?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And, in fact, the protest that you refer to against PAX,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 Mr. Guo linked those also to the CCP, right?\n2 A. I believe that was his claim.\n3 Q. And the same with the protest against the trustee, correct?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Now, in addition to aligning PAX with the CCP, Mr. Guo also\n6 claimed that the trustee had scuttled a settlement between PAX\n7 and Mr. Guo's lawyers, correct?\n8 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.\n9 THE COURT: Sustained.\n10 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Guo claims in that motion included\n11 that the trustee had scuttled a settlement between PAX and\n12 Mr. Guo's counsel?\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Object to hearsay.\n14 THE COURT: I'm going to allow the question.\n15 A. I'm sorry. I don't recall a particular motion that was\n16 filed by Mr. Kwok related to the negotiations or mediation.\n17 That was your question?\n18 Q. In any bankruptcy filing that you're aware of in Mr. Guo's\n19 bankruptcy proceeding, are you aware of him making accusations\n20 that Mr. Despins had scuttled the settlement agreement between\n21 PAX and Mr. Guo?\n22 A. No.\n23 Q. Now, leading into -- the protest against Mr. Despins began\n24 in November of 2022, correct?\n25 A. It was fall of 2022. I don't recall the exact date or\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 month, but it was in the fall of 2022.\n2 Q. Around that time you're aware that Mr. Guo made a motion to\n3 disqualify Mr. Despins in the bankruptcy case?\n4 A. My recollection is that motion was prior to the protest.\n5 Q. Sure. It was not immediately coincidental, but it was\n6 before, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And as part of that motion, Mr. Guo's lawyer accused the\n9 trustee of being part of the CCP?\n10 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, objection to hearsay.\n11 This is not admissible.\n12 THE COURT: I'm going to allow the question.\n13 A. Can you restate the question.\n14 MR. KAMARAJU: Could we have it read back, please.\n15 (Record was read)\n16 A. I don't recall that accusation.\n17 Q. Let me see if I can help you with that. Let me put up just\n18 for the witness and the parties -- can I have just one moment,\n19 your Honor -- DX60658, just for the witness and the parties.\n20 Can we just scroll through that document for the\n21 witness. We can take that down actually. Sorry. Let's move\n22 on.\n23 Let's go back to the PAX case for a second, okay.\n24 Now, there was first an initial contempt order filed in the PAX\n25 case, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. That's a conditional contempt order of some sort?\n3 A. I believe it was referred to as the initial contempt order.\n4 Q. Whatever the term, there was one first and then there was\n5 one later, correct?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And the first one fined Mr. Guo $500,000 a day until the\n8 Lady May was returned to New York, correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Now, Mr. Guo faced potential time if he didn't comply,\n11 correct?\n12 A. The official contempt order made no reference to jail time\n13 or additional fines. My recollection is that contempt order\n14 provided 60 days for Mr. Guo, Mr. Kwok to return the Lady May\n15 to the jurisdiction before the fines would start being levied.\n16 (Continued on the next page)\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n2 Q. Okay. And the yacht didn't come back though, right?\n3 A. It did not.\n4 Q. Okay. Do you know where the yacht was at that time?\n5 A. Based on the pleadings, it was indicated the boat, or the\n6 yacht, was in Europe.\n7 Q. Okay. Do you know if Mr. Guo was in Europe at that time?\n8 A. I do not.\n9 Q. Okay. Now there were court hearings in New York in the PAX\n10 litigation, correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. You testified about an evidentiary hearing, right?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. Mr. Guo was at those hearings, right?\n15 A. I believe so.\n16 Q. Okay. So he wasn't in Europe at those times, right?\n17 A. The evidentiary hearing was in February of 2022. I believe\n18 he was in New York for that hearing.\n19 Q. Okay. Now the PAX had also obtained a summary judgment\n20 order by this time, correct?\n21 A. By February of 2022, yes.\n22 Q. Sorry. I meant by the time of the first contempt order\n23 going out.\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. Okay. Now Mr. Guo didn't use any money from G|CLUBS to pay\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 that underlying summary judgment order, right?\n2 A. No money was used to pay that summary judgment.\n3 Q. Right. So not G|CLUBS money, not GTV money, not Himalaya\n4 Exchange money; no money, right?\n5 A. Correct.\n6 Q. It went unsatisfied, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And in early 2022, PAX moved for the final contempt order,\n9 right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And the court granted that on November 9th; is that right?\n12 A. I believe it was February 9, 2022.\n13 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I misspoke. Thank you. February 9th,\n14 right?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. 2022. And the total fees/fines that Mr. Guo had to pay\n17 were $134 million, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: Could we pull up GX 1413 at 2, please.\n20 Does everybody have it on their screens? Okay. Let\n21 me just give that a second.\n22 Okay. Great. Thank you.\n23 Q. All right. So paragraph 2 there says, \"directed to tender\n24 immediate payment to PAX,\" correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. And the amount is $134 million, right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. And then on paragraph 4, it says, \"Payment of the amount\n4 set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five\n5 business days of the service of this order, with notice of\n6 entry,\" correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. Okay. So Mr. Guo's deadline to comply I think was\n9 February 16, 2022, correct?\n10 A. I believe that's correct. I mean, five business days. I\n11 didn't pull out a calendar, but I believe there's probably a\n12 weekend day in there and so that is probably accurate.\n13 Q. Right. Right. Well, let me put it this way. He filed his\n14 bankruptcy petition on February 15, 2022, right?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And that was the day before he was going to have to pay\n17 this, right?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And I think you testified about it; there's a weekend in\n20 there, right?\n21 A. Yeah, I believe so.\n22 Q. Okay. So the bankruptcy judge——sorry. Withdrawn.\n23 The state court judge ordered Mr. Guo to pay more than\n24 a hundred million dollars in basically a week, right?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. And Mr. Guo didn't use G|CLUBS money to pay that either,\n2 right?\n3 A. Correct.\n4 Q. He didn't use Himalaya Exchange money to pay that, right?\n5 A. Correct.\n6 Q. He didn't use GTV money to pay that, right?\n7 A. Correct.\n8 Q. He didn't use Rule of Law donations to pay that, right?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. And Mr. Guo did face potential jail time if he violated\n11 this contempt order, correct?\n12 A. That's my understanding.\n13 Q. And despite that, he still did not use any of that money to\n14 pay this fine, correct?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. Now instead, Mr. Guo filed bankruptcy, right?\n17 A. He did file bankruptcy, yes.\n18 Q. Now when one files bankruptcy, it's fair to say that you\n19 have to give up certain information about yourself, right?\n20 A. Financial information, yes.\n21 Q. Right. You have to disclose assets and liabilities, right?\n22 A. Correct.\n23 Q. You have to publicly disclose that you don't have\n24 sufficient assets to cover your liabilities, correct?\n25 A. You have to disclose the extent of your assets and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 liabilities. Sometimes it might actually show you can pay off\n2 your bills but maybe not pay them off right away, so——but you\n3 need to disclose them.\n4 Q. Can you explain what you mean with that last answer.\n5 A. You can disclose assets that appear to be more than your\n6 liabilities.\n7 Q. But they might not be liquid so you can't pay right away,\n8 right?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. So the fact that somebody declares bankruptcy does not mean\n11 that they don't have access to significant assets, it just\n12 means they don't have access to liquid assets at that moment,\n13 right?\n14 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.\n15 THE COURT: Sustained.\n16 Q. Okay. Well, can you explain what you just meant then by\n17 the difference between liquid and illiquid assets in the\n18 context of a bankruptcy filing.\n19 A. You can disclose assets that——and values of assets\n20 that——that are in excess of the amount of your liabilities but\n21 they may not all be liquid at the time that you disclose them,\n22 meaning that they may not all be in cash; they may be in forms\n23 of assets, whether it's real estate or investments, that are\n24 not able to be——\n25 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry. The interpreters are\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 requesting that all parties slow down. Thank you.\n2 THE COURT: Please slow down.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: Will do, your Honor.\n4 Q. Please go ahead.\n5 A. You're not able to liquidate those assets for some period\n6 of time and therefore not able to pay your bills.\n7 Q. And in this case the period of time was a week, right?\n8 A. The purpose of the bankruptcy is often to provide debtors\n9 time to pay your bills, so——but you need to disclose the full\n10 extent of your assets, whether they're liquid or not.\n11 Q. Right. So what I was saying is the amount——well,\n12 withdrawn. We'll move on.\n13 Now are you familiar with the term \"personal\n14 bankruptcy\"?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. What, colloquially, is meant by personal bankruptcy?\n17 A. That means a bankruptcy filing by an individual rather than\n18 a business entity or a corporate entity.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Let's pull up, if we can,\n20 please, GX 1419, which is in evidence, please.\n21 Let's publish it.\n22 Actually, sorry. Before we do that, could we go to\n23 GX 1407, real quick.\n24 Can everybody see it? Okay. Great.\n25 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. This is Mr. Guo's petition to file bankruptcy, correct?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. All right. And just to tie it down——if we can go to\n4 page 7——that's his signature, correct, electronic?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And it was executed on February 15, 2022, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Now can we go to page——sorry.\n9 The page just shifted on me, but can we go to page 1 of\n10 the——well, page 10 of 14 at the top there on the pdf. It's a\n11 form, official Form 104.\n12 There we go. Thank you.\n13 Now could we just scroll down a little bit. Oh, we\n14 lost it.\n15 All right. Thanks. Can we scroll down a little bit.\n16 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n17 Q. Okay. You see No. 2 there?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Okay. That's Golden Spring, correct?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And it says, \"What is the nature of the claim?\" Can you\n22 read that?\n23 A. Yes. Oh.\n24 Q. Yeah, could you read what it says.\n25 A. \"Litigation funding.\"\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. And how much is disclosed as the approximate amount of\n2 this?\n3 A. Approximately $21 million.\n4 Q. So does this reflect that Golden Spring is identified as\n5 having a $21 million outstanding debt?\n6 A. This is a list of the 20 largest creditors as filed by\n7 Mr. Kwok, and Golden Spring is listed as the second largest\n8 creditor with a claim of $21 million.\n9 MR. KAMARAJU: And can we go to page 13.\n10 Q. Okay. And you see No. 16 there?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay. Can you read the creditor's name.\n13 A. Lamp Capital, LLC.\n14 Q. And what's the nature of that claim?\n15 A. Litigation loan.\n16 Q. And what's the amount?\n17 A. $1 million.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. If we can go to 1419 now,\n19 please.\n20 Q. All right. This is another filing——I'm sorry. Do you need\n21 a sec?\n22 Okay. This is another filing Mr. Guo's counsel made\n23 in bankruptcy, right?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And Global Notes and Statements is basically an explanation\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 document of some sort?\n2 A. In this case, yes.\n3 Q. Okay. Provides additional details, right?\n4 A. Regarding the documents, some of which we just looked at,\n5 the bankruptcy schedules and statement of financial affairs.\n6 Q. Okay. So let's just start with page 4, please.\n7 And I think Mr. Fergenson asked you some questions\n8 about question 1b. Do you remember that?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And if you look down——\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: We can go to No. ii, please, Jorge.\n12 Thank you.\n13 Q. Okay. And he asked you some questions about this\n14 paragraph, right?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Now can you actually just read the first paragraph, please.\n17 A. Yes. \"The debtor also has access to an apartment located\n18 at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY\n19 10022 ('the Apartment'). The cooperative shares in the\n20 Apartment are held by Genever Holdings LLC ('the US SPV'). The\n21 membership interests in the US SPV are held by Genever Holdings\n22 Corporation ('the BVI company'). The debtor holds all of the\n23 equity of the BVI company; however, pursuant to a Declaration\n24 of Trust and Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2015 ('the\n25 Trust Date'), the debtor holds such equity in trust for Bravo\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Luck Limited ('the Apartment Owner'). The debtor's son owns\n2 the equity of the Apartment Owner. On or about the Trust Date,\n3 the Apartment Owner funded the US SPV with the purchase price\n4 for the Apartment. These funds came from entities owned or\n5 controlled by the debtor's son and not from the debtor.\"\n6 Q. Okay. So do you understand all that to be a long way of\n7 saying that Mr. Guo's son owned the Sherry-Netherland\n8 apartment?\n9 A. That's my understanding of what is being asserted in this\n10 document.\n11 Q. Right. That's what's said here, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Do you know what the purchase price was when it was\n14 purchased by Mr. Guo's son?\n15 A. Approximately——the purchase price was approximately\n16 $60 million.\n17 Q. Okay. And I'm not going to ask you to read the next\n18 paragraph, but if you could just take a look at it.\n19 Do you see there's a reference there below to \"in the\n20 face of multiple court disputes relating primarily to the\n21 beneficial ownership of the residence,\" then it goes on to say\n22 \"as between Bravo Luck Limited . . . and PAX\"?\n23 A. I see that.\n24 Q. Okay. So PAX had also initiated litigation regarding the\n25 Sherry-Netherland apartment, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. It was regarding I believe Genever, the two Genever\n2 entities, Genever Holdings, LLC and Genever Corporation.\n3 Q. And that litigation was commenced in the British Virgin\n4 Islands, correct?\n5 A. Yes, and also in the New York Supreme Court action.\n6 Q. Okay. So there were two, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And British Virgin Islands is sometimes referred to as BVI,\n9 right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Okay. And BVI is a regular place of business, correct? A\n12 lot of businesses are in BVI, right?\n13 A. A lot of businesses are incorporated in BVI, yes.\n14 Q. That's for various corporate benefits, right?\n15 A. That's my understanding.\n16 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Let's go to the next page.\n17 Q. All right. I'm not going to ask you to read all of it, but\n18 question 3, you see where it says, \"The Debtor has use of\n19 automobiles, including luxury automobiles and motorcycles\"? Do\n20 you see that?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Then it says, \"All costs and expenses associated with such\n23 vehicles are provided for directly by family and\n24 family-controlled enterprises,\" correct?\n25 A. That's what it says.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 THE COURT: One moment, please.\n2 MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor.\n3 THE COURT: You may continue.\n4 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.\n5 If we could go to page 6, please.\n6 Q. All right. And you see question 17?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And Mr. Fergenson asked you a few questions about that on\n9 direct as well, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Now of the individual Chapter 11 cases that you've had\n12 during your career, how many of them have had restraining\n13 orders, how many of them involved debtors with restraining\n14 orders imposed by the High Court of Hong Kong?\n15 A. None other than the Kwok bankruptcy proceeding.\n16 Q. Right. He's the only one, right?\n17 A. Of the cases I've been involved in.\n18 Q. Sure.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: And could we go to page 7.\n20 Q. And paragraph i, do you see where it says, \"In September\n21 and October 2017, the Chinese government raided the offices of\n22 Shiny Times and seized all accounting corporate records and\n23 many personal financial records\"? You see that?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. So in all those individual Chapter 11 cases you've done,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 how many of them have had debtors who have had their offices\n2 raided by the Chinese government?\n3 A. This was the only case.\n4 Q. Okay. Fair to say that Mr. Guo's bankruptcy case is pretty\n5 unique, in your experience?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. Okay. And one of the reasons it's unique is because\n8 Mr. Guo declared basically having no assets, right?\n9 A. No. I've been involved in other cases in which debtors\n10 have disclosed little or no assets.\n11 THE COURT: Sir, if you'll speak into the microphone\n12 so everyone can hear you.\n13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.\n14 A. I have been involved in other bankruptcy cases in which the\n15 debtor has disclosed little or no assets. But——so that's\n16 not——that by itself is not unusual or make it a unique case.\n17 Q. Okay. Fair enough. I was just curious if that was one\n18 factor. I'm sorry. We didn't hear your answer. Was that one\n19 factor?\n20 A. It's——yes, it's one factor.\n21 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Could we go to page 11, please.\n22 Q. All right. Do you see Schedule I?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Okay. You see the sentence there that says, \"The Debtor\n25 does receive support funded by family and companies controlled\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 by family for housing, household and living expenses,\" correct?\n2 A. That's what it says.\n3 Q. Okay. The fact that Mr. Guo received support from family\n4 and companies controlled by family would not make him\n5 ineligible to file Chapter 11, correct?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 Q. And in fact, there is a mechanism by which an inappropriate\n8 Chapter 11 filing could be dismissed, right?\n9 A. There's a mechanism where parties can seek to dismiss a\n10 bankruptcy case for virtually any reason. The parties can move\n11 to dismiss.\n12 Q. And a creditor can do that, right?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And PAX was a creditor in this bankruptcy, right?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. So PAX could have moved to dismiss the bankruptcy if it had\n17 wanted.\n18 A. PAX actually did move to dismiss at some point.\n19 Q. Okay. And what happened?\n20 A. The judge denied this at the same time that a motion was\n21 made to appoint the trustee, and instead of dismissing the\n22 case, the court granted the motion to appoint the trustee.\n23 Q. Okay. So Mr. Despins was appointed in lieu of dismissing\n24 the bankruptcy, right?\n25 A. Correct.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. Are you familiar with the term \"trust fund baby\"?\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to relevance.\n3 THE COURT: Sustained.\n4 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with other instances in which a\n5 debtor has been supported by their family primarily?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. So that's not unusual in a bankruptcy case, right?\n8 A. I've seen it before. I've seen it in other cases.\n9 Q. Now you testified you weren't party to the settlement\n10 negotiations or the mediation conference, correct?\n11 A. Correct.\n12 Q. So as part of that, as part of your work as local counsel,\n13 do you familiarize yourself with the proceedings that are going\n14 on in court?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And you submit the applications that go with that, right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And you describe the work that you've done?\n19 A. That my firm has done.\n20 Q. Correct. And I think you testified on direct that\n21 Mr. Despins and his firm had received approximately $25 million\n22 in fees, right?\n23 A. That's correct.\n24 Q. And that there had been——withdrawn.\n25 And where did those fees get paid out of?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. The recoveries that have occurred to date in the bankruptcy\n2 proceedings.\n3 Q. And that's a little over a hundred million dollars,\n4 correct?\n5 A. Correct.\n6 Q. So Mr. Despins's fees have been approximately 25 percent of\n7 what's been recovered, correct?\n8 A. Approximately.\n9 Q. Sure. I'm not asking for specifics but approximately,\n10 right?\n11 Now when you testified about that, was it called a 314\n12 interview, correct?\n13 A. 341.\n14 Q. 341. Okay. Thank you. So a 341 interview is where the\n15 debtor has to sit and answer questions, correct?\n16 A. Correct. That's the creditors meeting. 341 is a section\n17 in the Bankruptcy Code. Sorry to get so technical, but——and\n18 that's what refers to the creditors meeting.\n19 Q. Okay. So is that a meeting that's available to all of the\n20 creditors?\n21 A. Yes. All creditors get notice of that meeting.\n22 Q. Okay. And so any of them can show up and ask questions if\n23 they want, right?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. And is it appropriate to say the DOJ trustee? What's the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 best way to describe Ms. Claiborn's position?\n2 A. I refer to her as the trial attorneys for the Office of the\n3 U.S. Trustee, so often it's referred to as U.S. trustee.\n4 Q. Okay. So it's fair to say the U.S. trustee can ask\n5 questions at that as well, right?\n6 A. U.S. Trustee's Office actually administers or runs the\n7 meeting, so yes.\n8 Q. Okay. And they can ask questions about any of the debtor's\n9 financial affairs, right?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. They can ask questions about transactions that the debtor\n12 has entered into, right?\n13 A. To the extent they know of them, yes.\n14 Q. Sure. They ask questions about assets and liabilities,\n15 right?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And the debtor has to answer those questions, right?\n18 A. The debtor is obligated to cooperate in the bankruptcy\n19 proceeding and answer truthfully.\n20 Q. Okay. Now you looked at I think a couple of excerpts\n21 earlier from that. Do you remember that?\n22 A. From the transcripts of the creditors meetings?\n23 Q. Yes.\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And Mr. Fergenson sort of did a little role play with you,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. I'm not going to do as much, but I'm going to try and do\n4 just a little bit, okay?\n5 MR. KAMARAJU: Could we pull out GX 1401A, please, and\n6 put it up on everybody's screen.\n7 All right. And if we could go to page 51 of the\n8 transcript first.\n9 Q. And you see line 11 there?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Actually, I'm going to——yeah,\n12 line 11 is fine.\n13 Q. So I'll read it and then we can skip all that other stuff\n14 and then you can go to the answer, okay?\n15 A. Okay.\n16 Q. Okay. \"Mr. Kwok, who is Max Krasner?\"\n17 And then I think it picks up at 22. That's\n18 Mr. Baldiga's answer.\n19 A. \"He has to double-check with you because I cannot read and\n20 cannot remember English names well. So just the name, you said\n21 Max. If it's the name Max only, I know Max. But if you add\n22 another name to it, I'm not sure. I don't know.\"\n23 Q. \"Do you know a Max with respect to Golden Spring?\"\n24 A. \"Yes, I know.\"\n25 Q. \"And what is Max's role with Golden Spring?\"\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. \"I don't know.\"\n2 Q. \"Well, do you know Max?\"\n3 A. \"I don't remember.\"\n4 Q. \"Do you know more than one person by the name of Max?\"\n5 A. \"For me English name is very complicated. Like I can't\n6 remember the last name of my lawyer. If you add something else\n7 to Max, I don't know.\"\n8 Q. \"Mr. Kwok, the name Max Krasner is listed as the person to\n9 whom the mail for Golden Spring is directed to. Do you know\n10 why that is?\"\n11 \"Interpreter: Sorry?\"\n12 \"Do you know why that is?\"\n13 A. \"I only remember there is a Max at Golden Spring. I only\n14 know this one thing.\"\n15 Q. \"And what is Max's job at Golden Spring?\"\n16 A. \"I'm not sure what role. I (indiscernible) know he is in\n17 charge of finance, but I'm not sure.\"\n18 Q. \"What does he do for Golden Spring with respect to\n19 finances?\"\n20 A. \"I was not involved in the management so I don't know.\"\n21 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Can we keep going with page 54\n22 real quick.\n23 Just scroll down to line 20.\n24 Right there is fine. Thank you.\n25 Q. \"Mr. Kwok, do you have access to a credit card or a debit\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 card provided to you by or through Golden Spring?\"\n2 A. \"No.\"\n3 Q. Okay. As part of his bankruptcy filings, are you aware of\n4 Mr. Guo disclosing any credit card debt?\n5 A. I don't believe he did.\n6 Q. Okay. Did he disclose having any credit cards?\n7 A. I don't believe he did.\n8 Q. The only property he disclosed was having an iPhone, right?\n9 A. He disclosed some clothing, he mentioned a family dog, and\n10 some checks that had not been cashed.\n11 Q. Right. The Pomeranian, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Okay. Now how often have bankruptcy debtors had no credit\n14 cards?\n15 MR. FERGENSON: Objection to relevance.\n16 THE COURT: You may answer.\n17 A. I've seen it many times in business bankruptcy proceedings.\n18 Q. Sure. How about individuals?\n19 A. I'm sorry?\n20 Q. How about individuals?\n21 A. I believe I've seen it before, but more common to see\n22 credit card debt in individual bankruptcy filings.\n23 Q. Okay. Now you were asked some questions about a loan\n24 document. Do you remember that?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: All right. So can we just pull up\n2 what's been marked as Government Exhibit 1316, please.\n3 Q. Do you remember testifying about this on direct?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Now the only time you've seen this document is in the\n6 context of the bankruptcy case, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. So you weren't there when it was signed, right?\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. You're not a Himalaya International Financial Group\n11 employee, correct?\n12 A. Correct.\n13 Q. You are not an employee of HK International Funds\n14 Investments, correct?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. You don't know Mei Guo personally, right?\n17 A. I do not.\n18 Q. You don't recognize the signatures on the document, right,\n19 other than Ms. Guo?\n20 A. Other than Ms. Guo. I've seen her signature on several\n21 documents.\n22 Q. Right. But you've never actually seen her sign those\n23 documents, right?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. So do you see at the top——and there's a sticker at the top,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 but at the top left it says, Case 22-05003. Do you see that?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. And you see it says Doc 84-1?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Do you know why that's on there?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. Okay. Could you explain to us why it is.\n8 A. I believe I testified on direct that there was an adversary\n9 proceeding that had been commenced by HK International Funds\n10 Investments (USA), commonly referred to as HK USA. An\n11 adversary proceeding is a lawsuit within a bankruptcy\n12 proceeding. And this is the docket number for that lawsuit\n13 that had been commenced by HK USA, and this document, this\n14 exhibit in this proceeding, was filed as an exhibit in that\n15 adversary proceeding, and that's the document number that was\n16 assigned to the——this document when it was filed in the\n17 adversary proceeding.\n18 Q. Okay. So this document is now a matter of public record,\n19 correct?\n20 A. Yes, it was——again, it was filed in the bankruptcy court\n21 adversary proceeding, which is a public filing.\n22 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Could we pull up GX 1314\n23 quickly.\n24 Q. You remember testifying about this document before, right?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. Okay. And it too has that same docket stamp at the top,\n2 right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. So it was also publicly filed, right?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Now, and you similarly were not there at the execution of\n7 this document, right?\n8 A. Correct.\n9 MR. KAMARAJU: All right. Could we turn to page 4 of\n10 the document, please.\n11 Q. All right. And you see the section that says Purpose? You\n12 see that?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And you see 3.2 there?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Okay. Could you read the first sentence, please.\n17 A. \"The Total Facility amount will be used as security for the\n18 court in relation to the Yacht.\"\n19 Q. Okay. So what's your understanding of what it means to say\n20 \"security for the court in relation to the Yacht\"?\n21 A. My understanding from reading this document was it was\n22 intended as a secured loan on the lot——excuse me——on the yacht,\n23 and to be disclosed to the bankruptcy court.\n24 Q. Okay. And why would it need to be disclosed to the\n25 bankruptcy court?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. Because at the time of this loan being made, there were\n2 proceedings pending in the bankruptcy court about what was\n3 going to happen to the Lady May and whether or not PAX would be\n4 allowed to go back to the state court and try to pursue a\n5 recovery of the Lady May.\n6 THE COURT: What do you understand the word \"facility\"\n7 to mean?\n8 THE WITNESS: \"Facility\" I believe was defined earlier\n9 in the document, your Honor, as the loan that was going to be\n10 provided by Himalaya to the borrower.\n11 Q. Okay. Could you look at the next sentence, please.\n12 A. \"The period the borrower retains the Total Facility Amount\n13 in the escrow account will be the time period from the date of\n14 this agreement to when the yacht is returned to the USA.\"\n15 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that this facility amount was\n16 intended to be like a bond for when the boat would come back?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Okay. And it was going to be held in escrow, right?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. Okay. So this 37 million wasn't to buy the yacht, right?\n21 A. No. It was a loan to HK USA, who was then going to put it\n22 up as a——as a bond in connection with the\n23 negotiation——negotiated settlement of the Lady May in the\n24 bankruptcy court.\n25 Q. Right. No one's getting a new yacht with this 37 million,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 right?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Okay. And do you know what happened to that $37 million in\n4 the escrow account?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. What happened to it?\n7 A. The bankruptcy court, in connection with the adversary\n8 proceeding that is referred to here, ultimately found that the\n9 $37 million, as well as the Lady May, were property of the\n10 bankruptcy estate, and they——the funds were recovered by the\n11 trustee and put into the bankruptcy estate.\n12 Q. Okay. So that $37 million is part of the $100 million that\n13 you testified about before?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And so after the trustee took that action, the $37 million\n16 could not be returned to the lender in this matter, right?\n17 A. Correct.\n18 Q. Now all of this, this whole arrangement, was disclosed to\n19 the state court, correct?\n20 A. Not that I'm aware of.\n21 Q. Okay. It was disclosed to the bankruptcy court?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. And so no one hid this arrangement from the court, correct?\n24 A. Not to the bankruptcy court.\n25 MR. KAMARAJU: Now can we go back to 1316, please,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 GX 1316.\n2 Make sure everybody has that.\n3 Q. Okay. Do you remember this? This is the side letter?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Okay. And you testified that a side letter is a sort of an\n6 amendment to an agreement, right?\n7 A. In this case, yes.\n8 Q. Okay. And again, you weren't present for the signing of\n9 this, right?\n10 A. Correct.\n11 Q. You have no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the\n12 execution, right?\n13 A. Correct.\n14 Q. Okay. Now do you see 1.3(a)? It says, \"The loan in the\n15 loan agreement will no longer be deemed to be secured against\n16 the yacht.\" Correct?\n17 A. That's what it says, yes.\n18 Q. Okay. So the effect of this is that the yacht is no longer\n19 security for the loan, right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And you see the date on this document, April 19, 2022?\n22 Sorry. If we blow it back out, you'll see it at the\n23 top there.\n24 A. It refers to the loan agreement being dated April 19, 2022,\n25 but I believe the date of this document is April 29, 2022.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. You're right. Thank you.\n2 A. That's all right.\n3 Q. So at that time, April 29, 2022, there were a number of\n4 different demands to the yacht, correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. PAX had a demand to it, right?\n7 A. They had a demand to it for purposes of collection of their\n8 judgment, yes.\n9 Q. Sure. And the state court had entered a restraining order\n10 on it, right?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. So they couldn't have transferred the yacht if they'd\n13 wanted to, right?\n14 MR. FERGENSON: Object to form. Calls for\n15 speculation. I'm not sure what the question is.\n16 THE COURT: Are you asking for a legal conclusion?\n17 MR. KAMARAJU: No. I'm just asking for his\n18 understanding.\n19 THE COURT: I'll allow the question.\n20 A. It would have been possible for HK USA to transfer its\n21 title interest in the property, in the yacht at that time.\n22 Q. Okay. But it didn't do that, right?\n23 A. It did not.\n24 Q. It just left it there, right?\n25 A. Correct. And as I said, they started——HK USA started a\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 lawsuit to actually claim that they were the owner of the\n2 property, of the boat.\n3 Q. Right. They availed themselves of the U.S. court system,\n4 correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And all of the disclosures that come with that, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. So instead of doing the title thing, they filed a lawsuit.\n9 A. I don't know if they were planning to do anything with the\n10 title.\n11 Q. Fair enough. Because, again, you're not part of the\n12 company, right?\n13 A. Correct.\n14 Q. You never spoke to Mei Guo about it, right?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. You have no idea what her thinking is, right?\n17 A. Correct.\n18 Q. Have you ever heard of William Je?\n19 A. I've heard the name.\n20 Q. You heard the name in the context of the bankruptcy?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Okay. In what context did his name come up?\n23 A. Just that he had a relationship with Mr. Kwok.\n24 Q. Okay. But you've never spoken to him, right?\n25 A. Correct.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. You have no idea what his reasons are for entering into any\n2 loans, right?\n3 A. Correct.\n4 Q. Same with ACA Capital, right? You have no personal\n5 knowledge of anything at ACA Capital?\n6 A. I have no connection to ACA Capital.\n7 Q. Same with the Himalaya Exchange?\n8 A. Correct. I have no connection to Himalaya Exchange.\n9 Q. And you remember Mr. Fergenson asked you questions about a\n10 draft loan agreement, right?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And that draft had ACA on it, right?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And then it switched to the Himalaya International\n15 Financial Group in the final, right?\n16 A. Correct.\n17 Q. Have you ever heard of a typo?\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n19 THE COURT: Sustained.\n20 MR. KAMARAJU: Now if I could have just one minute,\n21 your Honor.\n22 Q. Now you're what's called local counsel; is that a fair\n23 description?\n24 A. Yes, and conflicts counsel as well.\n25 Q. Okay. So Mr. Despins's firm hired you as local counsel,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 correct?\n2 A. Hired my firm, yes.\n3 Q. Yeah, sorry, your firm. And you testified that your firm\n4 has made roughly $2 million based on that engagement?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. I'm not asking for particulars, but is that a big, small,\n7 or large engagement for your firm?\n8 A. We're a 40-lawyer firm. We've been in——I've been in\n9 practice with the firm for 30 years. We've had larger matters,\n10 we've had smaller matters, so I——\n11 Q. Okay. So it's not substantial, not insubstantial.\n12 A. Correct.\n13 Q. And you testified before about a process by which the\n14 trustee——I'll call him the Chapter 11 trustee, Mr. Despins,\n15 right——how the Chapter 11 trustee was selected——not\n16 selected——recommended by the U.S. trustee, right?\n17 A. Correct.\n18 Q. And that recommendation is a necessary step to somebody\n19 being appointed Chapter 11 trustee by the bankruptcy court,\n20 right?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. So if Mr. —— if a person wanted to be a Chapter 11 trustee\n23 in the District of Connecticut, they would need that\n24 recommendation, right?\n25 A. It's actually an appointment by the Office of the U.S.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Trustee, but yes.\n2 Q. Okay. Sorry. Let's use that word, to make it accurate.\n3 So to be appointed, they would need the approval of the U.S.\n4 trustee, right, and that's true for every bankruptcy case in\n5 the District of Connecticut that comes next, right?\n6 A. As far as Chapter 11 trustees, yes.\n7 Q. So if Mr. Despins wants to plan to be a Chapter 11 trustee\n8 down the road, he needs approval from the U.S. trustee, right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And again, that's a department of the Department of\n11 Justice, correct?\n12 A. It's my understanding it's a branch of the Department of\n13 Justice.\n14 Q. Now you were hired by Mr. Despins's firm, correct?\n15 A. We were hired by Mr. Despins.\n16 Q. Okay. And that's his decision, right?\n17 A. Correct.\n18 Q. He could always decide to hire somebody else down the road,\n19 right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. He could change horses even in this case, right?\n22 A. Absolutely.\n23 Q. Like you said, it's ongoing, right?\n24 A. Absolutely.\n25 Q. So he has an opportunity to pick a different firm if he'd\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 like to, right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Now you understand Mr. Despins has spoken with the\n4 prosecutors on a number of occasions, correct?\n5 A. I don't know.\n6 Q. Do you know if he's ever spoken with them?\n7 A. I don't know.\n8 Q. When were you approached about testifying in this case?\n9 A. Approximately two weeks ago.\n10 Q. Do you know if prior to you being approached Mr. Despins\n11 was going to be a witness in this case?\n12 A. I do not.\n13 Q. Now as part of Mr. Guo's bankruptcy proceedings, you and\n14 Mr. Despins had filed a number of court cases, I think you\n15 mentioned, right?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. I think you said it was over 300, right?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And all of those are to recover assets back into the\n20 estate, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Okay. And by recover assets back into the estate, the\n23 trustee's allegation is that that money actually belongs to\n24 Mr. Guo, right?\n25 A. They belong to the bankruptcy estate, and it's——it's the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Kwok bankruptcy estate, so the funds would be there to pay\n2 creditors of the estate.\n3 Q. Right. Ultimately, the funds would be used to pay the\n4 creditors, right?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And they'd be used to pay his creditors?\n7 A. Correct.\n8 Q. Right? And you're paying his creditors with his money,\n9 right?\n10 A. With the funds that we believe belong to the bankruptcy\n11 estate.\n12 Q. Okay. And that's his estate.\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And the larger the estate, the more money there is that's\n15 available for your fees, right?\n16 A. My fees would have to be approved before they would be\n17 paid, but there——if there's the large——I'm not being paid on a\n18 contingency fee basis, I'm being paid on an hourly basis, so\n19 the larger the estate doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to get\n20 paid more money.\n21 Q. No. My question was: There's money available to pay you,\n22 sir.\n23 THE COURT: Mr. Kamaraju, please speak into the\n24 microphone.\n25 MR. KAMARAJU: Sorry. My apologies, your Honor.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. Did you hear my question?\n2 A. Yes. The larger the estate, there's more money to pay my\n3 firm's fees.\n4 Q. Okay. And you testified that Mr. Despins is not taking a\n5 commission, right?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 Q. But the same is true of him, right? The larger the estate,\n8 the more money that's available to pay his fees, right?\n9 A. And all other expenses of the case, yes.\n10 Q. Sure. To pay all of it, right?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. So if his fees go north of that $25 million, it's got to\n13 come out of the estate, right?\n14 A. It——yes.\n15 Q. And many of the lawsuits that you've filed have subject\n16 matter that overlaps with the allegations in this case,\n17 correct?\n18 A. I don't know.\n19 Q. Well——\n20 MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.\n21 THE COURT: You'll step up, please.\n22 (Continued on next page)\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 THE COURT: So why would that be irrelevant?\n3 MR. FERGENSON: We believe it is excluded under Rule\n4 403. He's not charged with bankruptcy fraud, one; two, it goes\n5 well beyond the scope of the direct; three, it is improper to\n6 try and impugn the criminal prosecution and the allegations\n7 we've brought by trying to impugn the bankruptcy trustee when\n8 there's already been significant cross on the fact that\n9 Mr. Kwok has said he's an agent of the CCP. You can't use the\n10 bankruptcy trustee's actions and their similarity to our\n11 allegations and overlap to try and make some kind of\n12 insinuation about our case and that this is improper. Excluded\n13 under 403.\n14 MR. KAMARAJU: I'm sorry. I wasn't sure if he was\n15 done.\n16 No, I'm merely asking it to set up a bias cross with\n17 respect to this particular——\n18 THE COURT: A what?\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: A cross on bias, your Honor, with\n20 respect to this particular witness. The line of questions are\n21 going to go: There's an overlap; you're aware that the\n22 government could ask to pause your case? In fact, you\n23 voluntarily paused your case, and you voluntarily paused your\n24 case so as not to interfere with the criminal case, including,\n25 in particular, to not have any of the government's witnesses\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 deposed by Mr. Guo. And he did that, right? And they've said\n2 that in public filings. And so it's just bias, like you would\n3 cross anybody else, like you would cross a cooperator, you took\n4 all these steps to help the government, that's all.\n5 THE COURT: What is the nature of the bias?\n6 MR. KAMARAJU: The nature of the bias is that he and\n7 his firm get paid the longer the bankruptcy case goes on, and\n8 as long as they continue to work on it. If the government\n9 pauses it, right, if the government takes any action, then he\n10 doesn't get those fees. It's that simple. His fees are\n11 basically dependent on them.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, Mr. Kamaraju moved for the\n13 stay of the bankruptcy, not the government.\n14 MR. KAMARAJU: No, no. But he also moved for the stay\n15 of the bankruptcy case. That's my point. I'm not bringing out\n16 that we moved for the stay, I'm bringing out that he moved for\n17 a stay.\n18 MR. FERGENSON: How is that bias?\n19 THE COURT: He's somehow now interested?\n20 MR. KAMARAJU: If they said in a public filing, I am\n21 voluntarily staying this incredibly lucrative case that we\n22 could be bringing because I don't want to interfere with the\n23 government's case and I don't want the government's witnesses\n24 to be deposed, that is a person or a firm or an entity offering\n25 to help the government in the same way that if I had 3500\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 material that a cooperator said, look, I'll go make a recording\n2 against the co-defendant, I would be allowed to cross and be\n3 like, look at all the efforts this person is willing to make.\n4 It's not that dissimilar from the cross I was going to do on\n5 Mr. Bass, who I understand is now not going to be a witness.\n6 It's the same idea. It's just bias. It's the lengths to which\n7 they will go to help the government.\n8 THE COURT: Or themselves.\n9 MR. KAMARAJU: Could be both. Yeah.\n10 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: If he's going to bring up the stay,\n12 then I think we can ask on redirect about how Mr. Kwok moved to\n13 stay the bankruptcy.\n14 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to permit the\n15 question.\n16 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.\n17 (Continued on next page)\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: You may continue.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: Do you want the question to be read back?\n5 MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, that would be great.\n6 THE WITNESS: Yes.\n7 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n8 (Record read)\n9 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n10 Q. One of the actions that the trustee filed is against\n11 G|CLUBS, correct?\n12 A. I believe so.\n13 Q. And one of the actions the trustees filed is against ACA,\n14 correct?\n15 A. I believe so.\n16 Q. One of the actions it filed is against Golden State New\n17 York, correct? Golden Spring New York. My apologies.\n18 A. Golden Spring, yes.\n19 Q. Same with GTV, correct?\n20 A. I don't recall whether GTV was named in an action.\n21 Q. Okay. Have you ever reviewed the indictment in this case?\n22 A. I don't recall if I read the entire indictment.\n23 Q. Okay. Have you read some of it?\n24 A. I believe I read some of it.\n25 Q. Okay. Do you remember that G|CLUBS is part of the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 indictment in this case?\n2 A. I do not.\n3 Q. Now are you aware that the government could seek to pause\n4 the bankruptcy case?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. Okay. The government could seek to file a motion to ask\n7 the bankruptcy case to be stayed, right?\n8 A. I believe any party could theoretically file that motion.\n9 Q. Sure. So them too, right?\n10 A. If you're referring to the government, yes.\n11 Q. Yes. Right? And if that were successful, that would mean\n12 that during the period of the pause, there would be no more\n13 fees for you, right?\n14 A. If you're referring to my firm?\n15 Q. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Your firm.\n16 A. I don't know what the bankruptcy court would do during a\n17 pause of the case. There's still administrative things that\n18 would take place even if the bankruptcy case was paused.\n19 THE COURT: Please speak into the microphone.\n20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.\n21 A. There would still be administrative proceedings that would\n22 take place even if the case was paused from the sense that no\n23 litigation would be going on. There are still obligations,\n24 monthly obligations of documents that have to be filed in the\n25 case just to keep it going and alive, frankly, so——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. So it's fair to say that your fees would be less?\n2 A. There would be less work, yes.\n3 Q. Right. And the same is true of Mr. Despins's firm,\n4 correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Now are you aware that Mr. Despins discussed the\n7 possibility of a pause with the prosecutors?\n8 A. I am not.\n9 Q. Now there came a time when you and Mr. Despins filed what's\n10 called a civil RICO complaint, right?\n11 A. In the bankruptcy proceeding, yes.\n12 Q. And you sued a bunch of people, right?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And that was all to seek a recovery for the estate, right?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And as part of that, you would actually be able to recover\n17 triple damages, correct?\n18 A. One of the claims would include a treble damage claim, yes.\n19 Q. And so if you won on that, that would bring in even more\n20 money into the estate, right?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. So even greater than the other adversary proceedings that\n23 you had filed, right?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And again, that would be more money available to pay your\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 firm's fees, right?\n2 A. There would be more money in the estate to pay all fees and\n3 all creditors.\n4 Q. Okay. So that includes Mr. Despins's fees as well, right?\n5 A. And all the other professionals in the case, yes.\n6 Q. Sure. Everybody is getting paid from that bankruptcy,\n7 right?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.\n10 THE COURT: Sustained.\n11 Q. Now almost immediately after that civil RICO case was\n12 filed, Mr. Despins asked for it to be paused, right?\n13 A. There was a motion filed in the bankruptcy case to pause or\n14 stay that action, yes.\n15 Q. Okay. And your firm filed that motion, correct?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. Okay. Did you review it before it was filed?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Okay. And I take for granted that you know as a lawyer you\n20 have to be truthful to the court, right?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Okay. Now one of the reasons that Mr. Despins told the\n23 bankruptcy court that he wanted to stay the RICO cases was to\n24 avoid interfering with the criminal prosecution, correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 Q. And in particular, he told the bankruptcy court that he\n2 wanted to avoid having to depose any of the witnesses that may\n3 be called by the government, correct?\n4 A. I don't recall that specific allegation in the motion, but\n5 I do recall the statement that——that he wanted to pause that\n6 RICO case because of this criminal proceeding.\n7 Q. Okay. Let me see if I can help you.\n8 MR. KAMARAJU: Can we pull that up.\n9 Just for the witness and the parties, please.\n10 Q. And let me know when it's on your screen, sir. Thank you.\n11 Okay. Could you just review this paragraph just to\n12 yourself, please.\n13 Okay. Does that refresh your recollection about one\n14 of the reasons being avoiding the possibility of deposing\n15 witnesses in the criminal case?\n16 A. Yes. This refers to staying depositions in the main\n17 bankruptcy case, not in connection with the RICO case, which\n18 was why I was——didn't recall that, but this is asking for\n19 staying depositions in the main bankruptcy case.\n20 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Could we go to paragraph 26.\n21 Q. Okay. Just review that.\n22 Now if the RICO case was paused——\n23 MR. KAMARAJU: We can take that down.\n24 Q. If the RICO case was paused, then there would be no\n25 depositions in that case either, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 A. Correct.\n2 Q. Okay. What's a deposition?\n3 A. It's an out-of-court examination or question, questioning\n4 of a witness under——under oath.\n5 Q. And if there were a deposition in the RICO case, the\n6 trustee's counsel would have an opportunity to question them,\n7 right, the witness?\n8 A. If it's a deposition noticed by the trustee's counsel, yes.\n9 Q. Okay. But even if Mr. Guo's counsel noticed the\n10 deposition, wouldn't trustee's counsel have an opportunity to\n11 ask questions?\n12 A. Presumably.\n13 Q. Right. So if the trustee noticed the deposition, then\n14 Mr. Guo's counsel would have an opportunity, correct?\n15 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, are we getting into\n16 hypotheticals? And it's also outside the scope.\n17 THE COURT: I'll permit some exploration of this.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: I'm almost done, your Honor.\n19 THE COURT: Yes.\n20 Q. Let me make the question simple. In the event of a\n21 deposition, Mr. Guo's counsel may have an opportunity to\n22 question the witness, correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. And that would include witnesses that the government\n25 intended to call at this trial, if they were served with a\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Cross\n1 deposition subpoena.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Objection. Calls for speculation.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: I'd like to finish the question,\n4 please.\n5 THE COURT: You're not finished?\n6 MR. KAMARAJU: I have now finished.\n7 THE COURT: It does call for speculation, so I'm going\n8 to sustain the objection.\n9 MR. KAMARAJU: Okay.\n10 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n11 Q. Until that stay is lifted, there will be no depositions in\n12 the RICO case, correct?\n13 A. Correct.\n14 Q. And that's what Mr. Despins wanted, right?\n15 MR. FERGENSON: Objection.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained.\n17 Q. That's what Mr. Despins told the bankruptcy court, correct?\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Objection. Asked and answered.\n19 THE COURT: I don't know if that question was\n20 answered. You may answer.\n21 A. It's what was included in the motion that we filed for\n22 Mr. Despins, yes.\n23 Q. And you're aware that's what the prosecutors want, right?\n24 MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. He can't do\n25 that. And that misstates the testimony.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 THE COURT: He can't know what the prosecutors want.\n2 MR. KAMARAJU: No further questions, your Honor.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: That's not what we want. That's fine.\n4 THE COURT: Redirect.\n5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION\n6 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n7 Q. Mr. Skalka, you were just asked just a moment ago questions\n8 about the stay of the bankruptcy proceedings, the stay of the\n9 trustee's civil RICO case. Do you remember that?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Kwok moved to stay the bankruptcy\n12 prior to the trustee making that motion?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And he moved actually two times to stay the bankruptcy?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And that's Mr. Kwok, correct?\n17 A. Correct.\n18 Q. That wasn't the government that made that motion, correct?\n19 A. Correct.\n20 THE COURT: And what do you understand the meaning of\n21 \"moved\"?\n22 THE WITNESS: There was a motion filed.\n23 THE COURT: What do you understand is a \"motion\"?\n24 THE WITNESS: It's a pleading, a document filed by a\n25 party to ask, in this case, to stay the Chapter 11 bankruptcy\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 proceedings of the debtor.\n2 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n4 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n5 Q. Mr. Skalka, you were asked early on about the PAX lawsuit.\n6 Do you remember those questions on cross?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And you were asked about whether, under Chinese law, there\n9 are death sentences. Do you remember that?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. What court was the PAX lawsuit filed in?\n12 A. New York Supreme Court.\n13 Q. Is that in the United States?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. When Mr. Kwok was the subject of that lawsuit, was he in\n16 the United States?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Does the New York court, where that lawsuit took place,\n19 apply New York law?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Does it apply Chinese law?\n22 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Calls for a legal\n23 conclusion.\n24 THE COURT: Sustained.\n25 Q. Who is the judge?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 A. In the PAX litigation?\n2 Q. In the PAX litigation?\n3 A. The judge in the PAX litigation is Judge Ostrager.\n4 Q. To your knowledge is he a member of the Chinese Communist\n5 Party?\n6 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Calls for speculation.\n7 THE COURT: If he knows.\n8 A. I don't know.\n9 Q. Does he apply New York law in his cases?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Calls for a legal\n12 conclusion.\n13 THE COURT: Well, he may apply New York law and he may\n14 apply other law, depending on what is correct in the case.\n15 MR. FERGENSON: That's fair, your Honor. That's fair,\n16 your Honor.\n17 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n18 Q. You were also asked questions about the timing of the PAX\n19 lawsuit. Do you remember that?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, could we pull up Defense\n22 Exhibit 7006.\n23 Q. Mr. Skalka, is this the complaint that started the PAX\n24 lawsuit?\n25 A. It's——it's the cover sheet for the complaint, yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Defense\n2 Exhibit 7006.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, hearsay.\n4 THE COURT: The complaint is not already in evidence?\n5 MR. FERGENSON: No, your Honor. It's a defense\n6 exhibit. The government is offering it.\n7 THE COURT: Sustained.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, can you show——\n9 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n10 Q. Mr. Skalka, do you recall the exact details in the\n11 complaint about what happened before the date of the filing of\n12 this complaint?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And what did PAX allege happened prior to their filing this\n15 complaint?\n16 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Hearsay.\n17 THE COURT: Sustained.\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, I may need a sidebar then.\n19 THE COURT: Okay.\n20 (Continued on next page)\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MR. FERGENSON: So yesterday, Mr. Kamaraju objected to\n3 my asking this question. I said, is there going to be any\n4 cross on the fact, you know, suggesting that PAX was acting as\n5 an agent of the Chinese Communist Party? Mr. Kamaraju said he\n6 may ask the date. He asked the date and then he also asked:\n7 And you're aware that date was, you know, the day before a Red\n8 Notice was filed by the Chinese Communist Party? Or are you\n9 aware that was the day before Miles Guo gave a Voice of America\n10 interview? So now there's a suggestion that this complaint,\n11 this entire lawsuit, was filed in conjunction with the Red\n12 Notice and with the Voice of America interview. That's not\n13 what the complaint itself even says. It talks about how they\n14 issued demand letters two years prior, they issued demand\n15 letters to Mr. Guo in 2015, they issued another demand letter\n16 in 2016, and then they filed, a year before this complaint, a\n17 proceeding in the BVI to put the entity, Shiny Times, that was\n18 the subject of the loan, into liquidation proceedings in the\n19 British Virgin Islands. If we're not allowed to elicit that\n20 fact, it completely distorts the picture of what this lawsuit\n21 was for the jury, and it will allow them to sum up in an\n22 incredibly misleading way at summations. And I understand that\n23 Mr. Kamaraju was eliciting those things on cross to go to\n24 defendant's state of mind. Well, then the government can at\n25 least show what the complaint itself that Mr. Kwok read and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 supposedly had this state of mind that, oh, this must be a\n2 Communist party plot, the government should be allowed to show\n3 what that complaint actually alleged happened before the date\n4 the complaint was filed.\n5 THE COURT: How do you propose to elicit the\n6 testimony?\n7 MR. FERGENSON: I think the simplest way is just to\n8 offer the complaint and say it could be offered for its\n9 effect——\n10 THE COURT: The whole thing?\n11 MR. FERGENSON: Yeah, just offer it. It's 11 pages.\n12 MR. KAMARAJU: There's no evidence in the record that\n13 Mr. Guo read the complaint.\n14 MR. FERGENSON: He filed an answer, your Honor, and he\n15 testified that he filed an answer.\n16 MR. KAMARAJU: So there's still no evidence that\n17 Mr. Guo read the complaint. The fact that the lawyers filed an\n18 answer is not evidence that Mr. Guo read the complaint, which\n19 is in English, by the way.\n20 Second, everything Mr. Fergenson started with was they\n21 want to talk about the complaint for purposes of showing there\n22 was a demand letter and there was an action in BVI and there\n23 were these collection efforts. All of that is just for the\n24 truth.\n25 MR. FERGENSON: It's——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: So——excuse me. May I finish, please.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: I'm sorry.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: So if they're offering it for the\n4 truth, then obviously it's hearsay. If they're offering it for\n5 state of mind, they would have to have some evidence that\n6 Mr. Guo read it or saw it, which is consistent with your\n7 Honor's prior ruling, and if they are offering it for some\n8 other purpose, then they need to establish it. But if they\n9 really want to get into PAX's motivations for filing it, then\n10 call a PAX witness. But putting in a hearsay document because\n11 they have concerns about the way we're going to sum up is not\n12 the way the evidence works.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: We have no objection to your Honor\n14 instructing the jury that this document is not coming in only\n15 for its effects.\n16 MR. KAMARAJU: You still don't have evidence he read\n17 it.\n18 MR. FERGENSON: This wasn't a third-party litigation.\n19 Mr. Guo was the defendant. This litigation was going on for\n20 years. He was threatened to be put in jail. He filed an\n21 answer. He was deposed. He was also served with the\n22 complaint.\n23 THE COURT: All right. I'm going to allow that.\n24 (Continued on next page)\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 (In open court)\n2 MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Defense\n3 Exhibit 7006.\n4 THE COURT: So the objection is overruled and the\n5 document is admitted.\n6 (Defendant's Exhibit 7006 received in evidence)\n7 MR. KAMARAJU: With a limiting instruction, your\n8 Honor?\n9 THE COURT: Yes. The complaint is not being offered\n10 for the truth of the statements contained in the complaint,\n11 only for its effect upon the reader.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n13 Ms. Loftus, if we could scroll down.\n14 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n15 Q. Now, Mr. Skalka, could you read paragraph 1, please.\n16 A. \"This is a straightforward breach of contract case. Kwok\n17 Ho Wan——\"\n18 Q. And you can skip the a/k/as.\n19 A. \"——a reported billionaire, and his controlled entities\n20 borrowed millions of dollars from plaintiff Pacific Alliance\n21 Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ('PAX LP') but have failed to pay\n22 any of the amount owed to PAX LP under binding written\n23 agreements.\"\n24 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could zoom out, Ms. Loftus.\n25 Let's scroll down, please.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 Scroll down. Keep scrolling down.\n2 And keep scrolling down, Ms. Loftus.\n3 Keep going, please.\n4 You can go more quickly.\n5 Yeah, keep going.\n6 All right. I'm sorry. Scroll back up, please.\n7 Sorry.\n8 One more.\n9 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n10 Q. Okay. Now towards the bottom, Mr. Skalka, do you see the\n11 bold that says \"PAX LP seeks to enforce its contractual rights\n12 and collect amounts owed\"?\n13 A. I see that.\n14 Q. All right. Can you read paragraph 38, please.\n15 A. \"On October 16, 2015, after the Deeds of Settlement and\n16 Option Agreement were terminated and the 2011 Facility Letter\n17 reverted to being in full force and effect, PAX LP sent a\n18 written notice of demand ('the Notice of Demand') to Kwok's\n19 address in Hong Kong, as specified under the terms of the\n20 personal guarantee.\"\n21 Q. Generally speaking, what's a notice of demand?\n22 A. It's a——in this case, written notice of demand is a letter\n23 demanding a full payment, or payment on an obligation or a\n24 debt.\n25 Q. And this was alleged to be sent in 2015, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 A. That's what the allegation is, yes.\n2 Q. And is that around a year and a half before the ultimate\n3 filing of this lawsuit in April 2017?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: Let's zoom out, please. Let's scroll\n6 down.\n7 Next page.\n8 Q. Can you read paragraph 40.\n9 A. \"Kwok never responded to the Notice of Demand.\"\n10 Q. Can you read paragraph 41, please.\n11 A. \"On February 19, 2016, PAX LP sent a letter to Shiny Times\n12 demanding payment of $82,219,404.08 due and owing under the\n13 2011 Facility Letter ('the Shiny Times Demand Letter'), which\n14 represented the principal plus contractual interest of\n15 15 percent per annum calculated up to the date of the Shiny\n16 Times Demand Letter.\"\n17 Q. And February 2016, is that over a year before the ultimate\n18 filing of this lawsuit in New York court?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 MR. FERGENSON: Can we zoom out, please.\n21 Q. Now can you read the first sentence of paragraph 43,\n22 please.\n23 A. \"When Shiny Times did not respond, PAX LP submitted an\n24 application to court in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) on\n25 February 29, 2016, seeking the appointment of joint liquidators\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 to put Shiny Times, which is a BVI corporation, into\n2 liquidation. The application alleged that (i)——\"\n3 Q. And that's good, Mr. Skalka.\n4 Is that also over a year before this New York State\n5 court action was filed?\n6 A. It's about a year.\n7 MR. FERGENSON: All right. We can take that down.\n8 Q. You were asked questions about whether——well, withdrawn.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: If we could pull up, Ms. Loftus,\n10 Government Exhibit 1407 and go to page 7.\n11 And if we could zoom on the bottom portion, Part 7.\n12 Q. Mr. Skalka, do you see the first sentence says, \"I have\n13 examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury\n14 that the information provided is true and correct\"?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Is there any exception in this document for being targeted\n17 by the CCP?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. If you're targeted by the CCP, do the perjury laws not\n20 apply?\n21 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Calls for a legal\n22 conclusion.\n23 THE COURT: Sustained.\n24 Q. Does this document say that the perjury laws do not apply\n25 if you're targeted by the CCP?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: Document speaks for itself.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 Q. Now, Mr. Skalka, you were also asked questions about the\n4 summary judgment ruling entered by Justice Ostrager?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And you were asked questions about how G|CLUBS didn't pay\n7 that fine, correct?\n8 A. Correct.\n9 Q. Or, I'm sorry, that judgment.\n10 And you were also asked the same about the contempt\n11 fines, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. You were asked how G|CLUBS didn't pay that and the Himalaya\n14 Exchange didn't pay that, correct?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Who lent the money for the $37 million loan that kept the\n17 PAX litigation stayed? What was the entity?\n18 A. Himalaya International Finance or Financial Group.\n19 Q. Are you aware that that entity is connected to Himalaya\n20 Exchange?\n21 A. I believe there is a connection.\n22 Q. By the way, do you know why Mei Guo needed a loan to pay\n23 that money?\n24 A. Ms. Guo's attorneys had alleged in the bankruptcy\n25 proceeding that the only asset of HK USA was the Lady May.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - Redirect\n1 Q. And do you know why Mei Guo didn't give HK USA the money\n2 herself and instead got a loan?\n3 A. I do not.\n4 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Calls for speculation.\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 MR. FERGENSON: I'm just asking if he knows. He\n7 doesn't know.\n8 Q. Do you know why the initial loan agreement said ACA\n9 Capital?\n10 MR. KAMARAJU: Same objection.\n11 A. I don't.\n12 THE COURT: Sustained.\n13 Q. Do you know why it was changed to Himalaya International\n14 Financial Group?\n15 MR. KAMARAJU: Same objection.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained.\n17 Q. You were also asked what happened ultimately to that\n18 $37 million. Why did the bankruptcy judge find it was part of\n19 the bankruptcy estate?\n20 A. The judge made a finding that HK USA was an alterego of the\n21 debtor and therefore the——made a finding that the Lady May was\n22 property of Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy estate and the funds in\n23 escrow were property of Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy estate.\n24 Q. You were asked several questions about the Office of the\n25 U.S. Trustee, Department of Justice.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2\n1 THE COURT: One moment. It's time for our break.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Oh.\n3 THE COURT: So members of the jury, don't discuss the\n4 case amongst yourselves. Don't permit others to discuss it in\n5 your presence. Don't read or watch or listen to anything from\n6 any source that touches upon the subject matter of this case.\n7 Sir, you can step out. Don't discuss your testimony.\n8 (Jury not present)\n9 (Witness not present)\n10 THE COURT: You may be seated.\n11 And we'll have a sidebar.\n12 (Page 4162 SEALED by order of the Court)\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - Redirect\n1 AFTERNOON SESSION\n2 12:00 p.m.\n3 THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in.\n4 THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering.\n5 (Jury present)\n6 THE COURT: Please be seated. Remember, sir, that\n7 you're still under oath, and you may continue the redirect.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you.\n9 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n10 Q. Mr. Skalka, you were also asked questions on cross about\n11 the Office of the U.S. Trustee and bankruptcy proceeding?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Is that also the same or a different office from my office?\n14 A. It is different. Their role is to oversee the\n15 administration of bankruptcy in every federal district in the\n16 country.\n17 Q. You also were asked on cross about how targeting by the CCP\n18 and issues related to that made this bankruptcy unique. You\n19 remember those questions?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And you said I guess that could be one factor about what\n22 made it unique. What were some of the other factors that made\n23 this bankruptcy unique?\n24 A. The fact that the debtor indicated that he had virtually no\n25 assets on his bankruptcy schedule, but listed over $373 million\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - Recross\n1 of liability. It was unusual to me in my experience as a\n2 bankruptcy attorney. As I noted I believe earlier, the fact\n3 that there were protest associated with the bankruptcy case was\n4 unique. To be frank, most bankruptcy cases are fairly dry.\n5 They're disputes over money, so it's not uncommon to see a lot\n6 of debts and disputes over how those debts are going to be\n7 paid; but usually you don't see protests and bankruptcy courts\n8 getting involved with providing restraining orders and First\n9 Amendment right claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. That's\n10 unusual.\n11 MR. FERGENSON: No further questions.\n12 THE COURT: Recross.\n13 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor, just briefly.\n14 RECROSS EXAMINATION\n15 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n16 Q. Can we have DX7006, please. This is a complaint, right,\n17 sir?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. The complaint filed by PAX?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. So PAX decides what to put in here, right?\n22 A. It's my understanding.\n23 Q. And these are PAX's allegations, right?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. And you have no way of knowing if any of what's in here is\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - Recross\n1 true, right?\n2 A. I know they're allegations, and I know what the court\n3 found. That's my knowledge.\n4 Q. An allegation is just an allegation, right?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And Mr. Guo denied the allegation, right?\n7 A. Correct.\n8 Q. And this complaint was filed online, correct?\n9 A. It was filed with the New York County clerk electronically,\n10 but online, not necessarily on the internet. What do you mean\n11 by on line, I guess?\n12 Q. Not to get too inside baseball. When you file something\n13 electronically, you go on the internet and file it, right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Can we pull up DX Stip 0001, please. Can we go down. You\n16 see paragraph five there?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Could you read the first sentence?\n19 A. To carry out some of the objectives of Fox Hunt in 2017,\n20 the PRC government tasked a specially designated group of\n21 operatives, (the group) with discrediting and harassing\n22 individuals, including Mr. Guo, by using interactive computer\n23 services and electronic communication systems.\n24 Q. We can pull that down. 2017, that was the year that the\n25 PAX litigation started, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - Recross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. Can we go to the next paragraph. Can you read the second\n3 sentence, please?\n4 A. In May 2017, the PRC government sent four undeclared agents\n5 from the PRC Ministry of State Security (MSS) to the United\n6 States to attempt to cause Mr. Guo's coerced repatriation to\n7 the PRC as part of a Fox Hunt initiative.\n8 Q. May 2017, that's the month after PAX filed its litigation,\n9 right?\n10 A. I think it was a couple months after. I believe it was\n11 filed in February of 2017.\n12 MR. KAMARAJU: No further questions.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Just one question.\n14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION\n15 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n16 Q. Mr. Skalka, are you a Chinese spy?\n17 A. No.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: One last one.\n19 RECROSS EXAMINATION\n20 BY MR. KAMARAJU:\n21 Q. If you were a Chinese spy, would you tell us?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Calls for speculation, your Honor.\n23 THE COURT: You may step out, and the government may\n24 call its next witness.\n25 (Witness excused)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor. The government\n2 calls Owen Foley.\n3 OWEN FOLEY,\n4 called as a witness by the Government,\n5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n6 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it.\n7 THE WITNESS: Owen Foley, first name O-W-E-N, last\n8 name F-O-L-E-Y.\n9 THE COURT: Mr. Foley, I need you to speak right into\n10 the microphone.\n11 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.\n12 THE COURT: You may inquire.\n13 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n14 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n15 BY MS. MURRAY:\n16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Foley.\n17 A. Good afternoon.\n18 Q. Where do you work?\n19 A. I work at the United States Attorney's office for the\n20 Southern District of New York.\n21 Q. What is your position at the U.S. Attorney's office for the\n22 Southern District of New York?\n23 A. I'm a paralegal specialist.\n24 Q. What are your duties and responsibilities as a paralegal\n25 specialist?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. Assisting the Assistant United States Attorney with\n2 discovery legal process, trial preparation.\n3 Q. How long have you been a paralegal at the U.S. Attorney's\n4 office for the Southern District of New York?\n5 A. Just about two years.\n6 Q. Besides your testimony today and preparation for that\n7 testimony, did you have any involvement in this case?\n8 A. I did not, no.\n9 Q. In advance of your testimony, were you asked to review a\n10 government exhibit and verify the accuracy of information in\n11 it?\n12 A. I was.\n13 Q. And when were you asked to review that summary chart?\n14 A. Roughly a week ago.\n15 Q. Did you review the summary chart for accuracy?\n16 A. I did.\n17 Q. Is the summary chart based on voluminous records?\n18 A. It is.\n19 Q. Were those records provided to you by the government?\n20 A. They were.\n21 Q. What types of exhibits generally speaking is the summary\n22 chart based on?\n23 A. They were loan payments.\n24 Q. Who decided which exhibits you reviewed and what\n25 information to include in the summary chart?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. You did.\n2 Q. Did you note corrections to the summary chart to make sure\n3 that it was accurate after your review?\n4 A. I did.\n5 Q. Was the chart revised to reflect your corrections?\n6 A. It was.\n7 Q. After the chart was revised, is it now accurate?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Just to be clear, Mr. Foley, did you review all of the\n10 evidence gathered in the government's case here or just the\n11 summary chart and the exhibits it's based on?\n12 A. Just the summary chart and the exhibits that it's based on.\n13 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if you could please put up GX\n14 Stip 8 which is in evidence. It's a stipulation between the\n15 parties.\n16 This reads on page two that the parties stipulate and\n17 agree that Government Exhibits 1601 through 1849 were lawfully\n18 obtained by the government and are authentic business records\n19 of the entity indicated on the face of the exhibit that were\n20 made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by\n21 a person with knowledge of the matter set forth in the record.\n22 Such records were kept in the course of a regularly conducted\n23 activity, and it was the regular practice of that entity to\n24 make the records.\n25 On the next page please, Ms. Loftus. GX Stip 8 also\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 indicates that government exhibits listed in this stipulation,\n2 including Government Exhibit 1601 through 1849, may be received\n3 as evidence. And your Honor, pursuant to Stip 8, at this time\n4 the government offers the following government exhibits for\n5 admission. Government Exhibits 1628, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1634,\n6 1636, 1637, 1639, 1643, 1644, and 1646.\n7 MR. SCHIRICK: No objection.\n8 THE COURT: They are admitted.\n9 (Government's Exhibits 1628, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1634,\n10 1636, 1637, 1639, 1643, 1644, and 1646 received in evidence)\n11 BY MS. MURRAY:\n12 Q. Ms. Loftus, we can put that down, and if you could please\n13 put up for the witness what's been marked as Government Exhibit\n14 Z-13.\n15 Mr. Foley, do you recognize the document in front of\n16 you?\n17 A. I do.\n18 Q. Is that the summary chart you reviewed in preparation for\n19 your testimony today?\n20 A. It is.\n21 Q. Did you review all of the exhibits this summary chart is\n22 based on?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Are those exhibits indicated by exhibit number on this\n25 chart?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. Is the chart accurate based on your review?\n3 A. It is.\n4 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the government offers\n5 Government Exhibit Z-13.\n6 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, if I may have one moment?\n7 MS. MURRAY: Could we just have a moment, please, your\n8 Honor.\n9 THE COURT: Are you ready?\n10 MS. MURRAY: We just need another moment, your Honor.\n11 Thank you very much.\n12 THE COURT: Okay.\n13 Q. Mr. Foley, if you could take a look at the document that's\n14 on your screen. This is marked for identification as\n15 Government Exhibit Z-13, and I'm going to give it to defense\n16 counsel to look at it as well.\n17 Is this the summary chart that you reviewed in\n18 preparation for your testimony?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 MS. MURRAY: Defense counsel is reviewing it before I\n21 move to admit. At this time, the government moves to admit\n22 Government Exhibit Z-13.\n23 MR. SCHIRICK: No objection your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n25 (Government's Exhibit Z-13 received in evidence)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 BY MS. MURRAY:\n2 Q. If we could please publish.\n3 Mr. Foley, looking at this summary chart, what is the\n4 title of this chart?\n5 A. G/Club loan agreements and select investments.\n6 Q. And generally speaking, what type of agreements are\n7 summarized in this exhibit Z-13?\n8 A. Various loans ranging from 1 million to 60 million U.S.\n9 dollars.\n10 Q. And looking at the second column here, who is the lender of\n11 the majority of these loans that are reflected on Z-13?\n12 A. G/Club Operations, LLC.\n13 Q. Mr. Foley, do you know what G/Club Operations, LLC is.\n14 A. I do not.\n15 Q. Looking at the borrower column, what is the borrower listed\n16 as reflected for the majority of the loans?\n17 A. Majority of them are G/Club International Limited.\n18 Q. Mr. Foley, do you know what G/Club International Limited\n19 is?\n20 A. I do not.\n21 Q. I'd like to look at the various different fields that are\n22 reflected in this exhibit. Starting on the left most column,\n23 what information is reflected there for the loans that are\n24 summarized here?\n25 A. The left most column is the date of the loan.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 Q. And then the next column, what is that information?\n2 A. The lender.\n3 Q. The third column, what does that indicate?\n4 A. The lender signatory.\n5 Q. And looking at rows two and three, is there --\n6 THE COURT: What does signatory mean?\n7 THE WITNESS: The name signed on the loan.\n8 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n9 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n10 Q. Looking at rows two and three, there's no lender signatory\n11 listed there, do you see that?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Going to the next column borrower, what information is\n14 reflected there?\n15 A. The borrower was the name of the borrower listed in the\n16 lease agreement in the underlying documents.\n17 Q. And then the next column, what individuals' names are\n18 reflected there, if any?\n19 A. The borrower signatory.\n20 Q. And then the following column is titled fund receiver, what\n21 information does that reflect from the loan agreements?\n22 A. The name of the individual or organization that was\n23 designated as the fund receiver in the loan agreements.\n24 Q. In the following two columns first there's amount and then\n25 currency. Can you explain what information is reflected there?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. The amount was the amount listed on the underlying loan\n2 agreement, and the currency was the currency of that amount. A\n3 majority are U.S. dollars. There are payments for GPB and CHF\n4 as well.\n5 Q. And finally the right most column, does that reflect the\n6 government exhibit numbers of the supporting documents?\n7 A. Yes, it does.\n8 Q. We can take this down for a moment, Ms. Loftus.\n9 I'd like to look at one of those underlying loan\n10 agreements, Mr. Foley, and then, we'll look at the chart.\n11 Ms. Loftus, if you could please pull up GXGC-515, and zoom in\n12 on the text portion please.\n13 Mr. Foley, what is the name of the entity listed at\n14 the top of this document?\n15 A. Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP.\n16 Q. And do you know what Hamilton Digital Assets is?\n17 A. I do not.\n18 Q. What information does this reflect the first bold entry\n19 here?\n20 A. The transfer is from G/Club Operations LLC.\n21 Q. And what is the transfer to based on this document?\n22 A. G/Club International Limited.\n23 Q. And the name of the fund?\n24 A. Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP.\n25 Q. Now looking at the effective date of the transfer, what\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 date is listed there?\n2 A. March 6, 2021.\n3 Q. And the next field indicates two dollar amounts with\n4 different dates. Can you read each of those, please?\n5 A. The first one is $20 million on May 6, 2021, and the second\n6 is $15 million on May 13, 2021.\n7 Q. Mr. Foley, there are two signatures on this document who is\n8 the first one based on the typed information below the line?\n9 A. Haoran He.\n10 Q. And what is the title listed for Haoran He there?\n11 A. UBO.\n12 Q. That's on behalf of which party to this agreement?\n13 A. The transferor.\n14 Q. The next signature, Mr. Foley, what's the typed name for\n15 that one?\n16 A. Haoran He.\n17 Q. By what title?\n18 A. Director.\n19 Q. That's on behalf of what entity to this agreement?\n20 A. The transferee.\n21 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could please pull up alongside Z-13. If\n22 we could focus in on the second and third rows of Z-13. It's\n23 fine if it kind of overlaps.\n24 Mr. Foley, looking at these entries -- is there any\n25 way to make it larger, Ms. Loftus.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 Looking at these entries, the second and third entries\n2 here on Z-13, do those reflect the information that we just\n3 looked at in the legal agreement in GXGC-515?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. And looking at the dates listed here, the first date in the\n6 zoomed out portion is May 6, 2201, what is the dollar amount\n7 that's listed for that particular entry?\n8 A. 20 million U.S. dollars.\n9 Q. And looking at the document on the left, GXGC-515, where do\n10 we see that information on the loan agreement?\n11 A. In the fifth bolded section under amount of transfer.\n12 Q. And same question with respect to the second row that's\n13 highlighted from GX-Z-13 here, what is the date listed for that\n14 entry?\n15 A. May 13, 2021.\n16 Q. And the dollar amount associated with that transfer?\n17 A. 15 million U.S. dollars.\n18 Q. Where do we see that in the source document GXGC-515?\n19 A. Under the section of the amount of the transfer.\n20 Q. And looking at the portion of GXZ-13, the parties that are\n21 listed here for fund receiver -- and, Ms. Loftus, perhaps we\n22 can zoom out and zoom in including the header.\n23 Fund receiver for these entries are listed as Hamilton\n24 Digital Assets FD SP, where do we see that information\n25 reflected in the loan agreement that's on the left?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. Beneath the third bolded section that says name of the\n2 fund.\n3 Q. And then looking all the way to the right, Mr. Foley, the\n4 GX number that's listed for those two entries, GXGC-515, is\n5 that the government exhibit number for the source document that\n6 we're seeing on the left of our screen?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. Ms. Loftus, we can take up 515 and leave up Z-13.\n9 Mr. Foley, generally speaking, the exercise that we\n10 just went through, is that the process that you undertook to\n11 verify the accuracy of the information in Z-13?\n12 A. It is.\n13 Q. If we could just read through some of the entries on this\n14 chart, Mr. Foley.\n15 So starting with the first entry, what was the date of\n16 that loan agreement?\n17 A. January 15, 2021.\n18 Q. Who was the lender?\n19 A. G/Club Operation, LLC.\n20 Q. Who was the borrower for that loan?\n21 A. Jovial Century International Limited.\n22 Q. And what individual signed that loan agreement on behalf of\n23 Jovial century International limited?\n24 A. Haoran He.\n25 Q. And who was listed in that loan agreement as the fund\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 receiver?\n2 A. Fiesta Property Developments, LTD.\n3 Q. And what was the amount and the currency for that loan?\n4 A. It was 10 million GBP.\n5 Q. Do you know what GBP stands for?\n6 A. I do not.\n7 Q. Ms. Loftus, could we please pull up GXGC-544. That's the\n8 source document for this entry. If we can't do that, let's go\n9 back to Z-13. If we could zoom in on the text portion so it's\n10 a bit larger, please.\n11 Mr. Foley, on this document on the bottom left there,\n12 do you see kind of a key that indicates what italic indicate on\n13 this summary chart?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. What do the italics indicate?\n16 A. The loan was not fully executed.\n17 Q. What does that mean not fully executed?\n18 A. It was missing one or more of the signatures.\n19 Q. And looking at the entries on this summary chart, are the\n20 italics for the execution status of the loan documents, are\n21 those listed in the GX column on the far right?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Now, the loans that are reflected on this summary chart,\n24 Mr. Foley, what was the total US dollar and/or other currency\n25 amount of loans that were fully executed based on the exhibits\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 you reviewed?\n2 A. Total was 110 million U.S. dollars and 10 million GBP.\n3 Q. And what was the total of the loans reflected on this chart\n4 that were not fully executed either missing one or both\n5 signatures?\n6 A. 192 million U.S. dollars and 10 million CHF.\n7 Q. Do you know what CHF stands for?\n8 A. I do not.\n9 Q. And looking, Mr. Foley, at the next box, the total combined\n10 for all of the loans reflected on this chart, what is the total\n11 U.S. dollar amount and the total amount additionally in GBP and\n12 CHF?\n13 A. 302 million U.S. dollars, 10 million GBP and 10 million\n14 CHF.\n15 Q. Focusing again on those first, or the second and third\n16 entry that we looked at the document for the Hamilton Digital\n17 Assets, Ms. Loftus, if we could please pull up GXSCB-13 and go\n18 to the second page. If we could zoom in on the text portion,\n19 please.\n20 Mr. Foley, have you ever seen this before?\n21 A. I have not.\n22 Q. What is the entity name listed on the top left here?\n23 A. Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP.\n24 Q. Looking on the right, what is the text that's indicated on\n25 the right of this government exhibit?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. U.S. dollar transactions from January 1, 2021 to January\n2 18, 2022.\n3 Q. Mr. Foley, the way you read the second date there, can you\n4 explain why you read it in that manner?\n5 A. It's date, month, year.\n6 Q. Ms. Loftus, focusing on the first two lines here.\n7 Mr. Foley, do you see that first entry, can you read\n8 the transaction date and the value date?\n9 A. The transaction date was May 6, 2021 and the value was 20\n10 million U.S. dollars.\n11 Q. And what is listed under payment receipt -- excuse me,\n12 description?\n13 A. Payment receipt G/Club Operations, LLC.\n14 Q. Mr. Foley, same question for the second line there, what is\n15 the transaction date listed?\n16 A. May 13, 2021.\n17 Q. What's the description of that particular transaction?\n18 A. Payment receipt G/Club Operations, LLC.\n19 Q. And then looking in the credit column, what is the amount\n20 of that transaction?\n21 A. 15 million U.S. dollars.\n22 Q. So let's go back please, Ms. Loftus, to Z-13.\n23 Mr. Foley, the information we just saw on that bank\n24 record, is that the same information reflected in the second\n25 and third row of this summary chart?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. It is.\n2 Q. I'd like to look at one other example with you. If we\n3 could look a few rows down. There's an entry on June 23, 2021.\n4 Do you see that, Mr. Foley?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Can you read the lender for that particular transaction and\n7 the lender signatory?\n8 A. The lender is G/Club Operations LLC and the lender\n9 signatory is Limarie Reyes Molinaris.\n10 Q. And what is the borrower and the borrower signatory for\n11 that entry?\n12 A. The borrower is G/Club International Limited and the\n13 borrower signatory is Haoran He.\n14 Q. What's the fund receiver listed for this particular loan?\n15 A. Yieldesta LP.\n16 Q. Do you know what Yieldesta is?\n17 A. I do not.\n18 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we can pull up Government Exhibit 1639. If\n19 we could go to the next page, please.\n20 Mr. Foley looking, at -- if we could zoom in on the\n21 first two items on this page, please. Looking at item one,\n22 what is listed as the dollar amount of this loan?\n23 A. 3 million U.S. dollars.\n24 Q. And under item two, can you read the first sentence of that\n25 up until the words \"registered address.\"\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 A. The borrower intends to use the loan to invest in Yieldesta\n2 LP (fund receiver) registered in Delaware USA and having its\n3 registered address at.\n4 Q. We can zoom out of that. Going to the first page focusing\n5 on the top portion. Pardon, the second page.\n6 What is the effective date of this particular loan\n7 agreement?\n8 A. June 21, 2021.\n9 Q. The lender entities that are listed here?\n10 A. G/Club Operations LLC.\n11 Q. And the borrower entities that are listed here?\n12 A. G/Club International Limited.\n13 Q. Ms. Loftus, we can zoom out of that.\n14 Finally, Mr. Foley, there's an entry on Z-13, if we\n15 can pull that up, Ms. Loftus. It's on the bottom quarter of\n16 the chart. The date is November 23, 2021. Do you see that?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. What is the lender for that loan and the lender signatory?\n19 November 23, 2021 is what we're looking at.\n20 A. The lender is G/Club Operations LLC, and the lender\n21 signatory is Limarie Reyes Molinaris.\n22 Q. And the borrower and the signatory for the borrower to that\n23 loan?\n24 A. The borrower is G/Club International Limited, and the\n25 borrower signatory is Haoran He.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 Q. And what is the dollar amount of that loan from G/Club\n2 Operations LLC to G/Club International Limited?\n3 A. 50 million U.S. dollars.\n4 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could please go to Government Exhibit\n5 MER-204 and go to row 135.\n6 Mr. Foley, have you ever seen this document before?\n7 A. No, I have not.\n8 Q. There are some column titles along the top row one in this\n9 document. Do you see the title for the column B entity?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. What is listed as the entity for the row that's highlighted\n12 row 135?\n13 A. G/Club International Limited.\n14 Q. And what is the date listed?\n15 A. December 2, 2021.\n16 Q. What type of transaction does this reflect?\n17 A. A withdrawal.\n18 Q. And what is the dollar amount of that withdrawal?\n19 A. 50 million.\n20 Q. Thank you, Ms. Loftus. We can go back to Z-13 one more\n21 time.\n22 Mr. Foley, on this exhibit there are a couple of\n23 asterisks that are indicated and some text on the bottom left.\n24 Do you see that?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- Direct\n1 Q. Is that information that's reflected in the source loan\n2 documents that you reviewed?\n3 A. It is.\n4 Q. And does that indicate that certain of these entries\n5 reflect amendments to other entries that are the loan chart?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. Mr. Foley, looking at the last entry as an example,\n8 borrower and borrower signatory are listed as Quiang Guo. Do\n9 you see that?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. Do you know who that individual is?\n12 A. I do not.\n13 MS. MURRAY: May I have a moment, your Honor.\n14 THE COURT: You may.\n15 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n16 Q. Mr. Foley, aside from your testimony today, do you have any\n17 knowledge of any facts in this case?\n18 A. I do not.\n19 Q. Did you have any involvement in the government's\n20 investigation in this case beyond reviewing the summary chart\n21 and the underlying exhibits for accuracy?\n22 A. No, I did not.\n23 MS. MURRAY: Nothing further, your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: Cross examination.\n25 CROSS-EXAMINATION\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 BY MR. SCHIRICK:\n2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Foley.\n3 A. Good afternoon.\n4 Q. You testified that you're a paralegal with the U.S.\n5 Attorney's office?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 Q. That the government lawyer first asked you to testify in\n8 this case just about a week ago, right?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. And you didn't really know anything about this case before\n11 the folks sitting at the government table asked you to testify,\n12 fair?\n13 A. Correct.\n14 Q. And you didn't do any paralegal work for the folks sitting\n15 at the government's table in connection with this case?\n16 A. I did not, no.\n17 Q. And you didn't investigate any of the loans or investments\n18 that we just -- or that you just went through in the chart,\n19 fair?\n20 A. Fair.\n21 Q. And so really the only thing that you know is what I think\n22 we sort of covered on direct is what the government lawyers\n23 showed you, fair?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. Now, how many times did you meet with the government\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 lawyers before you testified here today?\n2 A. Two to three times.\n3 Q. Including this morning?\n4 A. Not this morning, no.\n5 Q. Yesterday?\n6 A. Briefly maybe.\n7 Q. Fair enough. Now, the chart GXZ-13 that you just looked at\n8 a few moments ago, you didn't make that chart, right?\n9 A. No, I did not, no.\n10 Q. Who made it?\n11 A. AUSA Julie Murray.\n12 Q. And how many drafts of this draft were there?\n13 A. I'm not aware of how many drafts there were before it was\n14 given to me.\n15 Q. Unfair question. How many drafts are you aware of?\n16 A. Three.\n17 Q. And you were only asked to review the chart for accuracy\n18 based on the information that you were given, right?\n19 A. Correct.\n20 Q. And is it fair to say that you were only given the\n21 documents that showed up in the far right-hand column of that\n22 chart?\n23 A. Correct.\n24 Q. And if we could just pull up the chart for reference\n25 briefly. Just to be clear for the jury, when I said the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 columns in the far right column, that's the GX column, right?\n2 A. Correct.\n3 Q. That's all you had access to?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Now, as a result, you didn't really review any additional\n6 G/Club document that might have been related to these loans,\n7 fair?\n8 A. Fair, just the items in the far right column.\n9 Q. You didn't have access to a review, for example, of any\n10 related corporate resolutions?\n11 A. No.\n12 Q. Or any related email correspondence?\n13 A. No.\n14 Q. Or any other documents that may have explained what the\n15 reasons or purpose of any of the transactions were, right?\n16 A. No.\n17 Q. And you also didn't review any bank records; is that fair\n18 too?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Is it accurate to say you didn't review any bank records\n21 just to be clear?\n22 A. Just the loan records here.\n23 Q. Now, we'll just go back to the chart here briefly. At the\n24 top the title reads G/Club loan agreements and select\n25 investments, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 A. Correct.\n2 Q. And select investments withdrawn.\n3 The \"select investments\" that are referred to in the\n4 title in this chart, those were selected by the prosecutors,\n5 right?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. So it's not all investments, right, as far as you know?\n8 A. I have no knowledge of that.\n9 Q. In any event, the chart says select investments?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. I want to clarify one thing that I think you testified to\n12 on direct just to be clear. I believe you may have testified\n13 that the documents that you looked at were loan payments.\n14 Now I think we just cleared up that you didn't really\n15 look at any payments, right?\n16 A. They were loan agreements.\n17 Q. Loan agreements. You didn't look at bank records, so you\n18 don't know whether there were actually any payments related to\n19 these loan agreements, right?\n20 A. Correct.\n21 Q. Just to be clear, we're not talking about payments when we\n22 looked at this schedule?\n23 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n24 THE COURT: Sustained.\n25 Q. I'll move on. Now, there are two separate G/Club entities\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 listed in this chart; is that right?\n2 A. Correct.\n3 Q. G/Club Operations?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. If we're focusing on the first row under lender, and then\n6 there's G/Club International Limited, for example, on the July\n7 26, 2021 entry, right?\n8 A. Correct.\n9 Q. And those are different entities, right?\n10 A. They have different names.\n11 Q. As far as you know different entities?\n12 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n13 THE COURT: Sustained.\n14 Q. Now, the loans for both of these entities are put together\n15 in the same chart though, right?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. Now, if we could just highlight the first row the January\n18 15, 2021 row.\n19 Now, with the exception of row one that we're looking\n20 at here, for every loan that this chart says that G/Clubs\n21 Operations made, G/Clubs International is the borrower; is that\n22 right?\n23 And I want you to take a second to look at it closely\n24 to make sure that you understand.\n25 A. Sorry. Could you repeat the question one more time.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. Sure. And I think if we move that up so the witness can\n2 take a look at the chart. Can you see the balance of the chart\n3 here?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. So the question is, for every loan made by G/Clubs\n6 operations, G/Clubs International is the borrower?\n7 A. That is correct.\n8 Q. And to your understanding is G/Club International the sole\n9 member of G/Clubs Operations?\n10 A. I have no knowledge of that.\n11 Q. Well, let's see if we can pull up GX1630. If we can go to\n12 page two, please.\n13 Now, GX1630 is among the documents that you reviewed\n14 in preparing this chart, right?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. And if we can please zoom in on the top where it says\n17 lender and borrower, if we can just focus on the whereas clause\n18 that's in the middle there under recitals.\n19 Do you see there at the top where it says, Whereas the\n20 borrower is lender's sole member?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Does that indicate to you that the borrower here G/Club\n23 International is the sole member of G/Clubs Operations?\n24 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor, document speaks\n25 for itself.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 THE COURT: Sustained.\n2 Q. Do you see that there?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. Now, the sole member means that G/Club International owns\n5 G/Club Operations, right?\n6 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: Sustained.\n8 MR. SCHIRICK: I'm asking his understanding. He put\n9 together the chart.\n10 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, that misrepresent his\n11 testimony. He verified the accuracy of the chart. He did not\n12 prepare it. This is beyond direct.\n13 MR. SCHIRICK: I didn't characterize his testimony.\n14 I'm asking his understanding.\n15 THE COURT: Do you understand?\n16 THE WITNESS: Do I understand what the borrower is the\n17 lender's sole member means?\n18 THE COURT: Is that the question?\n19 Q. I'm asking if he understands that that means that G/Clubs\n20 International owns G/Clubs Operation as the sole member,\n21 there's no other members?\n22 A. I have no way of verifying that.\n23 Q. Do you know what \"member\" means in the context of a limited\n24 liability corporation?\n25 A. Not in this context, no.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. So you reading what we just reviewed on GX1630, that\n2 doesn't mean anything to you about the ownership of the\n3 entities?\n4 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 Q. Now, if we go to -- I'll move on from this. If we can\n7 please go to pull up -- actually, you know what, let's do this\n8 quickly.\n9 If we can go back to 1630 and scroll to page two.\n10 We're going to go to GC-544. Again, Mr. Foley, this is one of\n11 the documents that your reviewed in connection with the chart?\n12 A. I believe so, yes.\n13 Q. And now this is called a facility agreement. Do you see\n14 that?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And it's entered into between three entities, G/Club\n17 Operations, Jovial Century International Limited and Fiesta\n18 Property Developments. You see that?\n19 A. Correct.\n20 Q. If we can scroll down to page two under parties, and we can\n21 see here that the lender is G/Clubs Operations?\n22 A. Correct.\n23 Q. And the borrower is Jovial Century International, right?\n24 A. Correct.\n25 Q. And if we go to the top of the -- if we go down a little\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 bit further, the fund receiver is Fiesta Property Development\n2 right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. Now if we scroll down to the background section, you see\n5 the background section?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And it says there, the borrower is the 100 percent\n8 shareholder of lender, right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Does that mean to you that Jovial, which is the borrower,\n11 is the 100 percent owner of G/Clubs Operation?\n12 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, objection. The document\n13 speaks for itself.\n14 THE COURT: Sustained.\n15 Q. We'll keep reading here. The next sentence says, the\n16 ultimate beneficial owner of the borrower is the same as that\n17 of the fund receiver. Do you see that?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Do you know what ultimate beneficial owner means?\n20 A. Not in this context.\n21 Q. I believe you testified on direct that Mr. He was the\n22 ultimate beneficial owner of one of the entities?\n23 MS. MURRAY: Objection, mischaracterizes his\n24 testimony.\n25 THE COURT: Sustained.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. The relationship between and amongst the entities listed in\n2 this chart, if any, isn't displayed in the chart; is that fair?\n3 A. Just the relationship of lender and receiver.\n4 Q. So, in other words, just to be clear, in other words to the\n5 extent that some or more than one of these entities owns the\n6 other entities or has an interest in the other entities, that's\n7 not reflected in the chart?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Is it also true that the terms of the loan agreements are\n10 not reflected in this chart?\n11 A. That is correct.\n12 Q. Now, if we just go back to the chart GXZ-13.\n13 Now, is it fair to say that with the exception of the\n14 first entry in this chart for which the underlying agreement we\n15 just reviewed, is that fair, we just reviewed that underlying\n16 agreement?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. With the exception of that entry and agreement, this chart\n19 does not reflect any of the underlying agreements between the\n20 borrower and the fund receiver?\n21 MS. MURRAY: Objection to form, your Honor.\n22 THE COURT: Sustained.\n23 Q. Does the chart, apart from the first entry, reflect any\n24 relationship between the borrower and the fund receiver?\n25 MS. MURRAY: Object to form. Again, I'm not sure what\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 the question is.\n2 Q. I'll back it up. So the chart reflects a relationship\n3 between the lender and the borrower, right, like it\n4 characterizes one entity as the lender and it characterizes\n5 another as a borrower?\n6 A. Correct.\n7 Q. It's reflecting a relationship between the two entities?\n8 MS. MURRAY: Objection to the follow-up question about\n9 the relationship.\n10 THE COURT: So you can take the questions separately.\n11 He answered yes to the characterization of one party as the\n12 lender and the other as the borrower. Now you can ask the\n13 relationship question.\n14 Q. Sure. One column shows that a certain set of entities is\n15 the lender and the other column shows that the other set of\n16 entities is a borrower, fair?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Would you agree with me that that means that the chart\n19 reflects the nature of the relationship between them as to the\n20 transactions listed here?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Now, if we move to the right with this chart, the\n23 relationship between the borrower entity in that column and the\n24 relationship between the fund receiver entity is not reflected\n25 in this chart, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 MS. MURRAY: Objection to form again.\n2 THE COURT: If you know you may answer.\n3 A. I'm not sure what the relationship between the borrower and\n4 fund receiver is.\n5 Q. Right. The chart doesn't say what the relationship is\n6 between the borrower and fund receiver is?\n7 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n8 THE COURT: Sustained.\n9 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, I'm just clarifying the\n10 witness's answer. That's all.\n11 THE COURT: You're asking the question a second time.\n12 That's what you're doing.\n13 Q. For example, you can't tell from this chart why the fund\n14 receiver, again apart from the first entry, why the fund\n15 receiver received the funds or why the borrower may have\n16 engaged in a transaction with the fund receiver, right?\n17 MS. MURRAY: Calls for speculation.\n18 THE COURT: You can ask him what the document states.\n19 Is that what you're asking?\n20 MR. SCHIRICK: I believe that's what I asked, your\n21 Honor, whether one can tell from the chart.\n22 THE COURT: Well, that's a different question. You're\n23 asking whether a person can interpret the chart to mean a\n24 certain thing.\n25 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, I believe he testified to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 the creation of this chart. I'm just asking whether he can\n2 tell, the person who helped create it, what the relationship is\n3 between the fund receiver and the borrower.\n4 MS. MURRAY: Again, your Honor, mischaracterizes\n5 Mr. Foley's testimony and his role. He did not create the\n6 chart.\n7 THE COURT: He did not create the chart.\n8 MR. SCHIRICK: But he's familiar with the chart.\n9 THE COURT: Yes, to the extent of his limited role.\n10 MR. SCHIRICK: Sure. Your Honor, I think it's fair to\n11 ask whether given his role in helping to work on this chart\n12 whether he can tell something that maybe I can't tell from it.\n13 THE COURT: Well, you're asking him to interpret the\n14 chart.\n15 MR. SCHIRICK: As someone who helped create it,\n16 someone who had a hand in generating.\n17 THE COURT: Yes, he played a role in generating the\n18 chart. Were you asked to interpret the chart?\n19 THE WITNESS: No, just verify for accuracy.\n20 THE COURT: Move on.\n21 BY MR. SCHIRICK:\n22 Q. Is it fair to say that there are no agreements between the\n23 entities listed as borrowers and the entities listed as\n24 receivers or you just don't know?\n25 A. I do not know.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. So if there were other contracts that govern the\n2 relationship as entities listed as borrower and an entity\n3 listed as fund receiver, that's just something you don't know\n4 about, right?\n5 A. I only reviewed the underlying exhibits listed on the\n6 right-hand side.\n7 Q. And the government gave you those underlying exhibits,\n8 right?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. Now I like to draw your attention to the second and third\n11 rows of the chart. The second row, if we can just highlight\n12 briefly is dated May 6, 2021, and the third row is dated May\n13 13, 2021?\n14 A. Correct.\n15 Q. And in both of these rows, the lender is G/Clubs\n16 Operations, right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And there is no lender signatory indicated in the chart,\n19 right?\n20 A. Correct.\n21 Q. And the fund receiver is Hamilton Digital Asset FD SP,\n22 right?\n23 A. Correct.\n24 Q. And the first entry is for 20 million?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. And the second entry is for 15?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Can we please pull up GXGC-515. If we can blow up the\n4 relevant portion of that.\n5 Now, it doesn't say anywhere on this document that\n6 this is a loan, right?\n7 A. No, it does not.\n8 Q. It doesn't say borrower here anywhere, right?\n9 A. No, it doesn't.\n10 Q. Doesn't say lender here anywhere?\n11 A. It does not.\n12 Q. This is a letter of direction, right?\n13 A. Correct.\n14 Q. But this is included in the chart that we looked at labeled\n15 loans, right?\n16 A. Yes, I believe it was labeled loans and select investment.\n17 Q. Is there anything on the face of this document that we're\n18 looking at right now which was included as an underlying\n19 exhibit to the chart that indicates that this transaction was a\n20 loan?\n21 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered, your Honor.\n22 MR. SCHIRICK: I don't think I asked that particular\n23 question.\n24 THE COURT: Sir, do you hold a license to practice law\n25 in the state of New York?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 THE WITNESS: No, I do not.\n2 THE COURT: Don't ask him legal questions.\n3 Q. If we could just hold onto this document, but also bring up\n4 alongside it Government Exhibit 1630 and go to the last page,\n5 the signature page if we could. It may be the second to last\n6 page.\n7 Now, this is another one of the documents, 1630,\n8 that's included as a source document for the chart?\n9 A. Correct.\n10 Q. And you see here on the signature line it says lender\n11 G/Club Operations?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. And on the other signature line it says borrower G/Club\n14 International?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Now, you don't see similar words on the other exhibit\n17 GXGC-515, right?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. And we can take that down. Thank you. And if we could\n20 please go back to the chart GXZ-13. If we can go to the entry\n21 dated July 21, 2021.\n22 This list the lender as G/Club Operations. I'm sorry,\n23 the July 21 entry, not 26. So this shows that G/Club\n24 Operations is the lender, right?\n25 A. Correct.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. And the borrower is G/Club International?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. And borrower signatory is Mr. He?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. And the fund receiver is Himalaya International Clearing\n6 Limited, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And the amount is for $25 million, right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And this row summarizes the source document GXGC-221,\n11 right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. If we can just please go quickly to GXGC-221. If we can go\n14 to page four of the pdf which is the first page of the\n15 agreement.\n16 This is a loan agreement between G/Club Operations and\n17 G/Club International, right?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Now, if we can just go to the second to last page of this,\n20 the signature page.\n21 And this I believe you testified on direct that there\n22 were some agreements that didn't have -- withdrawn.\n23 You testified on direct that there were some\n24 agreements that weren't fully executed, right?\n25 A. Correct.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 Q. And is this one of those?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Now, if we can go back to the beginning of the document to\n4 the Whereas clauses, and we can just focus on the second\n5 whereas clause.\n6 It says, Subject to the terms of this agreement,\n7 lender will loan $25 million to borrower, right?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. And it says, Whereas for efficiency purpose and pursuant to\n10 borrower's request, lender will send the loan proceeds directly\n11 to the Himalayan International Clearing on borrower's behalf.\n12 You see that?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. Now, let's go back to the summary chart GXZ-13. And if we\n15 go down to the entry dated July 27, 2021. There's that little\n16 asterisk there. You see that?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And if we go down to the key at the bottom of the chart\n19 that asterisk indicates the amendment. This agreement is an\n20 amendment to the July 21, 2021 agreement?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. We just looked at the July 21st agreement, right?\n23 A. Correct.\n24 Q. Now let's look at the July 27 agreement, and if we can just\n25 pull up before we look at the agreement itself, July 21 entry\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 and the July 27 entry, and all the way up to the 21st entry.\n2 And now we'll just looking at the entry for the July 21st and\n3 July 27 entry carefully.\n4 Is it fair to say that the only difference between\n5 these is that there's a different fund receiver?\n6 A. The fund receiver, the date, and the underlying government\n7 exhibit number.\n8 Q. Yes. Thank you. You're right. The only difference in the\n9 terms of the loan is the fund receiver, right?\n10 THE COURT: Here we go again. He's not an attorney.\n11 He cannot give you legal definitions. He cannot define the\n12 terms.\n13 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I wasn't asking\n14 him to define terms. I was asking him to verify that the only\n15 difference in the entries on the chart.\n16 THE COURT: He can read. He can tell you what is on\n17 the chart.\n18 Q. So the difference here is that Yieldesta is the fund\n19 receiver, right?\n20 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n21 THE COURT: Sustained.\n22 Q. Let's just pull up now the underlying exhibit which is\n23 GX1636, if we can just blow up the recitals there, and it says,\n24 Whereas the parties entered into the loan agreement on July 21.\n25 You see that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And again, that's the other agreement that we looked at,\n3 right, a second ago?\n4 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, objection. Mr. Foley is a\n5 summary witness and these documents speak for themselves.\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. If we go down to the final whereas clause it says, The\n8 parties wish to amend the agreement to authorize and direct the\n9 lender to send $25 million of loan proceeds of the agreement\n10 directly to Yieldesta instead of the Himalayan International\n11 Clearing Limited?\n12 MS. MURRAY: Same objection, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: I haven't heard the question yet.\n14 MR. SCHIRICK: I'm simply asking him to confirm that\n15 I've read that correctly.\n16 MS. MURRAY: Same objection.\n17 THE COURT: So the document speaks for itself.\n18 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, may we have a brief\n19 sidebar?\n20 THE COURT: Yes.\n21 (Continued on next page)\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, the last question was\n3 merely to ask the witness if I read that correctly. Even with a\n4 summary witness my understanding is that I'm permitted to ask\n5 the witness if I read the document correctly. It's one of the\n6 source documents in the chart, and I'm trying to show that\n7 there were changes in the agreements that are not reflected in\n8 the chart. And I'm not sure how I can do that without being\n9 able to question the witness about what the underlying\n10 documents are.\n11 THE COURT: So the chart list the underlying\n12 documents?\n13 MR. SCHIRICK: Correct, and I'm going through them to\n14 show that there are changes in the transactions that are not\n15 reflected in the chart. And it goes directly to the integrity\n16 of the chart, the reliability of the chart, which is I think is\n17 highly relevant.\n18 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the continued objections to\n19 documents speak for themselves is largely for efficiency. This\n20 is a summary witness. He's testified to verifying the accuracy\n21 of the chart. We've moved in the exhibits that support the\n22 entries in the chart, and they are listed. So the defense can\n23 go and look at those underlying exhibits. But Mr. Foley simply\n24 confirm the accuracy of what's in the chart itself, and I don't\n25 see from what Mr. Schirick is saying that the chart is\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 inaccurate. Based on the documents, it accurately reflects the\n2 charts in the document.\n3 MR. SCHIRICK: If I can respond to that, your Honor,\n4 that is where I'm going because I believe the chart is\n5 inaccurate. The only way I can do that and show that through a\n6 witness is to be able to ask the witness questions about the\n7 underlying document. I understand the government has to object\n8 where it needs to object, but I would be through this already\n9 if there weren't continued objections about me just trying to\n10 establish underlying facts.\n11 THE COURT: So he can read the title of a document.\n12 He can read from a document, but he can't tell you what it\n13 means.\n14 MR. SCHIRICK: I understand. Your Honor has made that\n15 point, and I think what I'm doing here, I haven't asked a\n16 question. You can check the record. I have not asked a\n17 question about what anything means. I'm simply asking him to\n18 confirm that that information is in the underlying document.\n19 MS. MURRAY: With respect to the particular issue that\n20 was in the last question, I'm not clear what information\n21 Mr. Schirick is saying is inaccurate in the chart.\n22 MR. SCHIRICK: We haven't gotten through the cross\n23 yet. I'm trying to elicit it through the witness, which is the\n24 only way I have to do it.\n25 MS. MURRAY: Sure, but looking at, for example, the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 recitals that you just read and asking Mr. Foley to confirm,\n2 what part of that language from the document are you going to\n3 say is inaccurate in the chart itself?\n4 MR. SCHIRICK: There are two purposes in this cross,\n5 right, generally speaking. One is to show that there is\n6 information that is not in the chart so that I can demonstrate\n7 to the jury that there will be information outside of the four\n8 corners of that document that may be relevant to interpreting\n9 what's inside the document. I should be entitled to do that.\n10 The second is to show that there are inaccuracies in the chart.\n11 What you're just referring to is not in -- reading the recitals\n12 was not to show that the document was inaccurate. It was to\n13 show that there was other information that was not in the\n14 chart. So those are the two purposes.\n15 THE COURT: So the other information that's not in the\n16 chart, there's plenty of information that's not in the chart.\n17 There are whole documents that are not in the chart. That's\n18 why he's a summary witness.\n19 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, if there is -- the defense\n20 is entitled to argue that there is other information that's\n21 relevant to --\n22 THE COURT: You do that at summation for goodness\n23 sake. If you want to lose the jury completely, keep it up. Go\n24 ahead. Go ahead.\n25 (Continued on next page)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: All righty. Go ahead.\n3 MR. SCHIRICK: Thank you.\n4 Q. Do you see, Mr. Foley, the portion of the document that's\n5 highlighted on your screen there?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And it says, Whereas the parties wish to amend the\n8 agreement. Do you see that?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Now, if we can just please pull up GXGC-221, page two, side\n11 by side with GX-1636. Now GX -- actually, if it's possible to\n12 switch these. If not, that's fine.\n13 Is it fair to say based on the passage that we just\n14 read that the document and loan agreement dated July 27, 2021\n15 replaced the loan agreement dated July 21, 2021?\n16 THE COURT: One moment, please.\n17 (Pause).\n18 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n19 A. It's fair to say it's an amendment to.\n20 Q. And so it changed the previous agreement, right, that's\n21 what amendment means?\n22 THE COURT: You're asking for a legal conclusion.\n23 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, he testified it's an\n24 amendment.\n25 THE COURT: That's right. He's testifying to what the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - Cross\n1 document states.\n2 BY MR. SCHIRICK:\n3 Q. Now, if we go back to the summary chart GXZ-13 and we focus\n4 on the two lines July 21 and July 27, 2021. Now both of those\n5 entries are for $25 million. Is that right?\n6 A. That is correct.\n7 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6P1GUO4 Foley - Cross\n1 BY MR. SCHIRICK:\n2 Q. And one of those agreements, the later agreement, changed\n3 the earlier agreement, right, as you testified before?\n4 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Mischaracterizes.\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 Q. I believe you testified that it amended the earlier\n7 agreement?\n8 MR. SCHIRICK: Those were the witness's words, I\n9 believe.\n10 MS. MURRAY: Yes, your Honor, which is different than\n11 changed.\n12 THE COURT: Amended is one word, changed is another.\n13 MR. SCHIRICK: Okay.\n14 BY MR. SCHIRICK:\n15 Q. So the later agreement amended the earlier agreement, yet\n16 we still have $25 million in the amount column for each\n17 agreement, right?\n18 A. Correct.\n19 Q. Okay. So that total calculation at the bottom of GX Z13 is\n20 overstated by at least 25 million then, correct?\n21 A. That I——I have no knowledge of.\n22 Q. Isn't this double-counting?\n23 A. I——I have no way to confirm whether or not the payments\n24 went through.\n25 Q. Right. Because you can't tell from this chart whether\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 there were actual transactions, right? This is just the loan\n2 agreements themselves, just the paper.\n3 A. This was the amount listed on the loan agreement, yes.\n4 MR. SCHIRICK: Okay. Thank you. No further questions\n5 at this time.\n6 MS. MURRAY: No redirect, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step out.\n8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.\n9 (Witness excused)\n10 THE COURT: You may call your next witness.\n11 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor. The government\n12 calls Daniel Copeland.\n13 (Witness sworn)\n14 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it.\n15 THE WITNESS: My name is Daniel Copeland.\n16 D-A-N-I-E-L, Copeland, C-O-P-E-L-A-N-D.\n17 THE COURT: You may inquire.\n18 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n19 DANIEL COPELAND,\n20 called as a witness by the Government,\n21 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n22 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n23 BY MS. MURRAY:\n24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Copeland.\n25 A. Good afternoon.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. If I could ask you to pull the microphone in front of you\n2 and speak directly into it, please.\n3 A. Is that better?\n4 Q. That's better. Thank you.\n5 Mr. Copeland, how old are you?\n6 A. I am 29.\n7 Q. Where do you live?\n8 A. I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts.\n9 Q. Do you work?\n10 A. I do.\n11 Q. What is your profession?\n12 A. I'm a researcher at MIT.\n13 Q. What is your educational background?\n14 A. I studied mechanical engineering at Vanderbilt, became\n15 interested in medical devices, got a MD at Tufts, and then just\n16 received a master's in mechanical engineering at MIT, where I'm\n17 working now.\n18 Q. Mr. Copeland, are you married?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. What is your wife's name?\n21 A. Isabelle Despins.\n22 Q. How do you spell Despins?\n23 A. D-E-S-P-I-N-S.\n24 Q. Does your wife work?\n25 A. She does.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. Where does she work?\n2 A. She works at Cambridge Public Schools, Kennedy-Longfellow\n3 School.\n4 Q. And what is her role at that school?\n5 A. She is a third grade teacher in the SEI program, which is\n6 Sheltered English Immersion.\n7 Q. What does Sheltered English Immersion mean?\n8 MS. SHROFF: Objection as to relevance.\n9 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n10 A. It means that her students speak a different language at\n11 home, and they come to her class to learn math and other things\n12 but primarily to learn English.\n13 Q. And Mr. Copeland, in the 2022-2023 school year, what grade\n14 did your wife teach?\n15 A. Third grade.\n16 Q. When did you get married?\n17 A. I got married in October of 2022.\n18 Q. What is your father-in-law's name?\n19 A. Luc Despins.\n20 Q. What does Luc Despins do for work?\n21 A. He is a bankruptcy lawyer.\n22 Q. Mr. Copeland, are you testifying today pursuant to a\n23 subpoena that you were served by the government?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. Mr. Copeland, can you describe your home in Cambridge,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Massachusetts.\n2 A. So we live in a five-family home, so there's five units.\n3 Our unit is on the first——on the ground floor. It's kind of\n4 a——a long unit, so all of the living room, dining area, kitchen\n5 are all in one room that faces right onto the street.\n6 Q. What type of neighborhood or area is your home located in?\n7 A. We live in a residential neighborhood. Most houses are\n8 kind of similar to ours, multifamily homes. Relatively dense;\n9 maybe 10, 15 feet max between houses. And most houses don't\n10 have front yards, they're just right on the sidewalk, the front\n11 of the house.\n12 Q. When did you move into that home?\n13 A. We moved in July of 2022, before we got married.\n14 Q. And who lives in that home with you?\n15 A. Me, my wife, and our dog.\n16 Q. Directing your attention to late 2022, did there come a\n17 time when individuals appeared outside of your home in\n18 Cambridge, Massachusetts?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. What were the circumstances?\n21 A. So in November of 2022, we——some protestors showed up\n22 outside of our home. We knew at that point that they were\n23 there related to Isabelle's dad's work. And——yeah.\n24 Q. To that point you just made, Mr. Copeland, what type of\n25 work did Isabelle's dad, Luc Despins do?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 A. He is a bankruptcy lawyer, but he was working appointed by\n2 the government on a bankruptcy case.\n3 Q. A bankruptcy case related to whom?\n4 A. To a guy who I had not heard of before then but then had\n5 looked up named Miles Guo.\n6 Q. And why, if at all, is it your understanding that the\n7 protestors who showed up at your house related to Luc Despins's\n8 work?\n9 A. So after——I think prior to them showing up at our\n10 apartment, they'd showed up at Luc's work and Luc's house, so\n11 we had kind of understood by then that they——that this has been\n12 a pattern and that they were there because——to put pressure on\n13 Luc and his family in order to stop working on this case for\n14 the government.\n15 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, can we please put up what's\n16 in evidence as Government Exhibit VI194.\n17 Q. Mr. Copeland, do you recognize any of the signs that are\n18 depicted in VI194?\n19 A. Yeah. I can't say for sure that any of these exact signs\n20 were outside of our house, for example, but the——some images\n21 within the signs were definitely outside of our house, yeah.\n22 Q. And focusing on the top left sign.\n23 MS. MURRAY: If we could zoom in on that, Ms. Loftus.\n24 Q. Do you recognize the individual depicted on this sign,\n25 Mr. Copeland?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 A. Yes, that is Isabelle's dad, Luc.\n2 Q. Isabelle's dad and your father-in-law; is that correct?\n3 A. And my father-in-law.\n4 MS. MURRAY: We can take this down, Ms. Loftus.\n5 Q. So turning back to that day in November of 2022, can you\n6 describe for the jury what, if anything, the protestors were\n7 doing outside of your home.\n8 A. Yeah. So there was about a handful, five people. They had\n9 signs similar to the ones that was just shown, and some flags.\n10 And they were all wearing masks over their faces and then large\n11 sunglasses and most wearing hats. So they were kind of\n12 incognito. And they were handing out pamphlets that were\n13 similar——had similar images and related messages to our\n14 neighbors that were walking by.\n15 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if you could please show the\n16 witness what's been marked as Government Exhibit 3450.\n17 Q. Mr. Copeland, do you recognize the image in Government\n18 Exhibit 3450?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. What is that a photograph of?\n21 A. It is an edited photograph of Luc being seduced by some\n22 devil-type form. Yeah.\n23 Q. Focusing on the photograph itself, Mr. Copeland, do you\n24 recognize the photograph of this item?\n25 A. Yeah. This——so I have this pamphlet. It was one of the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 ones being distributed outside my home. My neighbor gave it to\n2 me.\n3 Q. And did you take this photograph, Mr. Copeland, of the\n4 pamphlet that you have that had been distributed outside of\n5 your home?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the government offers\n8 Government Exhibit 3450.\n9 MS. SHROFF: No objection.\n10 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n11 (Government's Exhibit 3450 received in evidence)\n12 MS. MURRAY: Could we publish that, please.\n13 BY MS. MURRAY:\n14 Q. So Mr. Copeland, now that the jury can see it, can you read\n15 the text that's written and the numbers on the top of this\n16 pamphlet, the image of the pamphlet that had been handed out\n17 outside of your home.\n18 A. Just the large white text there?\n19 Q. Correct.\n20 A. Extortion, and then the number 250 million, with a dollar\n21 sign next to it.\n22 Q. And the individual who's depicted on the bottom left of\n23 this, as you said, I think edited or manipulated photo——\n24 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n25 Q. ——who does that appear to be?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 THE COURT: Overruled.\n2 A. Okay. That is a photo of Luc Despins.\n3 Q. Do you see the image that is on his forehead in this\n4 particular photo?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Do you recognize it?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. What is it?\n9 A. It's a hammer and sickle.\n10 MS. MURRAY: All right. Ms. Loftus, we can take that\n11 down.\n12 Q. Now, Mr. Copeland, you mentioned that in November of 2022,\n13 the protestors——\n14 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could the government just ask\n15 a question.\n16 THE COURT: So sometimes facts need to be stated in\n17 order to lead up to the question, and that's what she's doing\n18 here.\n19 Would you go ahead.\n20 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n21 BY MS. MURRAY:\n22 Q. You'd mentioned that the protestors in November 2022 had\n23 flags. Can you describe the general appearance of those flags.\n24 A. Yes. There was one flag that was blue and had yellow stars\n25 on it that I had not seen prior.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could please publish\n2 what's in evidence as Government Exhibit W185.\n3 If we could zoom in on the top left portion of this\n4 image.\n5 Q. First of all, Mr. Copeland, have you ever seen this exhibit\n6 before?\n7 A. This whole graphic?\n8 Q. Correct.\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. Do you recognize the image that's in the blue box on the\n11 top left here?\n12 A. Yeah, that looks similar——you know, this was two years ago,\n13 but it looks similar to the flag that I remember.\n14 Q. And the letters NFSC, do you know what that stands for?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. What does it stand for?\n17 A. Well, the answer is on the page, but the New Federal State\n18 of China. But it's the organization, or movement, that\n19 these——that the protestors were supposed to be a part of.\n20 Q. Was that your understanding at the time, in November 2022,\n21 that the protestors were affiliated with the NFSC?\n22 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the leading.\n23 THE COURT: Did you understand that they were\n24 affiliated with any particular movement?\n25 THE WITNESS: Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. What movement, if any?\n2 A. I mean, before——before this whole thing started, I did not\n3 know, but then I watched like a Vice news article, so I don't\n4 know if that was before or after they showed up at my house,\n5 but I knew that, yeah, this movement existed.\n6 MS. MURRAY: We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n7 Q. Mr. Copeland, did there come a time in early 2023 when\n8 individuals came to your home again?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Can you describe for the jury what happened then.\n11 A. Yeah. So it was a——I think January 2nd. So there was that\n12 one day in November, late November, and then they stopped\n13 coming after that one day, and then they showed up, started\n14 showing up regularly——\n15 MS. SHROFF: Objection and move to strike as\n16 nonresponsive to the question posed to the witness.\n17 THE COURT: The question was: Can you describe what\n18 happened then.\n19 THE WITNESS: Okay.\n20 A. Yeah, it was a similar situation to what happened on that\n21 day in November. There was also a handful of people outside of\n22 the home wearing masks, glasses, hats, and displaying similar\n23 signs and handing out pamphlets.\n24 Q. And on what date in 2023, approximately, did that begin?\n25 A. January 2nd.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. And approximately how long did the protest continue from\n2 January 2, 2023, outside of your home?\n3 A. They were there every day outside my home between around 9\n4 to 5, from January 2nd to January 9th.\n5 Q. Focusing on that time period, January 2nd to January 9th,\n6 what, if anything, were the protestors holding or displaying?\n7 A. Mostly these posters or, on sticks, signs, that were——had\n8 similar images of Luc wearing devil horns or——or text on them\n9 saying, like, Luc was getting money from the Chinese Communist\n10 Party and that he was working with them, and that then that\n11 Isabelle was kind of indirectly benefiting from the Chinese\n12 Communist Party through Luc.\n13 Q. Did your wife Isabelle have any participation in the\n14 bankruptcy case of Miles Guo?\n15 A. No.\n16 Q. Is your wife Isabelle an attorney?\n17 A. No.\n18 Q. Does your wife Isabelle work with her father Luc Despins in\n19 connection with the bankruptcy case of Miles Guo?\n20 A. No.\n21 Q. What was your reaction, if any, to the protestors\n22 reappearing outside of your house between January 2nd and\n23 January 9th of 2023?\n24 A. Yeah, it was——it was pretty unsettling, for many reasons.\n25 You know, we were——yeah, it's——new to the neighborhood, we\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 didn't really, you know, know what they were saying to our\n2 neighbors or what our neighbors would think of them, and we\n3 still don't really know. It was——we'd, like, put our blinds\n4 down because our——our——most of our house is just kind of\n5 straight visible from the street. You know, I work from home\n6 in the mornings, so it was kind of unsettling to know that\n7 there were, like, people standing outside while I was working.\n8 I think it affected my wife a lot more than even me. So, yeah,\n9 it was very unsettling, very disturbing. Yeah.\n10 Q. Did the protestors have any equipment with them when they\n11 came outside of your home?\n12 A. Yeah, they would——they would livestream from outside our\n13 home, so that was a big reason we wanted to keep the blinds\n14 down all the time is because they would kind of like videotape\n15 us. If not, they'd be videotaping us moving around our home.\n16 So——yeah.\n17 Q. How, if at all, did that make you feel?\n18 A. Yeah, I mean, it felt definitely like a violation of——of\n19 kind of privacy, and we also would hear about things that they\n20 were saying about Luc and then as, by extension, Isabelle\n21 online, and so, you know, Isabelle was concerned that someone\n22 maybe loosely affiliated or affiliated with the group would\n23 really believe this stuff and, you know, try and break into our\n24 house or——or follow her to work or——or, yeah, follow her.\n25 Q. Mr. Copeland, you mentioned January 9th. What, if\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 anything, happened after January 9, 2023?\n2 A. Yeah. So Isabelle would——Isabelle's work starts early so\n3 she leaves——she had a routine down when they were coming that\n4 she would——her school starts at 7.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Objection, your Honor. The question was\n6 what happened after January 9th, not what Isabelle's schedule\n7 is at work.\n8 THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.\n9 A. So she would leave before they showed up at 9 p.m.——9 a.m.,\n10 and then she would work later at school than she normally does\n11 so that she would get back after they'd already left, usually\n12 around 5 p.m. So my schedule was, I'd be working from home in\n13 the morning, but that morning I got a call from her, I guess\n14 around——\n15 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the hearsay. And your\n16 Honor, may we just approach.\n17 THE COURT: All right.\n18 (PAGES 4223-4227 SEALED by order of the Court)\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: You may continue.\n3 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n4 BY MS. MURRAY:\n5 Q. Mr. Copeland, directing your attention again to January 10,\n6 2023, can you continue to tell the jury what happened that day.\n7 A. Yeah. So Isabelle left for school before, you know, before\n8 7 a.m., got to school, and then I got a call around——from her,\n9 around 9, and, yeah, she was clearly distraught, and told me\n10 that they had shown up at her school.\n11 Q. Can you describe how she seemed during that call, from your\n12 observations.\n13 MS. SHROFF: He wasn't observing her. He was on the\n14 phone.\n15 THE COURT: So he can describe his impressions that he\n16 got through the way she spoke.\n17 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n18 A. Yeah, so she was clearly distraught, in tears, having\n19 trouble getting words out. This was kind of her——kind of her\n20 biggest fear, that this would affect her school community, and\n21 her——yeah.\n22 THE COURT: So you'll just limit your testimony to\n23 what you observed, not words that she communicated or thoughts\n24 that she had.\n25 THE WITNESS: Got it.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n2 Q. What, if anything, did you do in response to that phone\n3 call?\n4 A. Yeah, so I left immediately to go to her school, which is\n5 in Cambridge.\n6 Q. What, if anything, did you see when you arrived at the\n7 school that day, January 10, 2023?\n8 A. So her school is a short bike ride away, so I——I rode my\n9 bike, and on the way to the back of the school, I saw the——you\n10 pass by the front of the school, and I saw where the protestors\n11 were, and then I went to the back of the school where I was let\n12 in by one of the staff and then brought to the principal's\n13 office where Isabelle was——was.\n14 Q. And when you arrived in the principal's office, how did\n15 Isabelle seem at that time?\n16 A. Yeah. She was still——she was still, you know, really\n17 panicked, really upset, just really, you know, crying and\n18 unsettled and just kind of overcome with fear and worry about\n19 what this would mean and——\n20 THE COURT: So don't talk about what her thoughts\n21 were. You can just talk about what you observed. If you see\n22 somebody who is laughing, you can say they seemed happy, for\n23 example.\n24 THE WITNESS: Gotcha.\n25 A. So she seemed pretty miserable.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. And based on your arriving at the school on that day, were\n2 the protestors visible from the front of the school?\n3 A. Yeah. Or from where I arrived? I arrived from the back,\n4 but I then——yeah, out from the principal's office, which is in\n5 the front of the school, you could——you could see them.\n6 Q. Did there come a time that day when you spoke with the\n7 police?\n8 A. Yeah. When I arrived, the police were there as well,\n9 Cambridge Police.\n10 Q. And what, if anything, did you report to the police?\n11 A. So I think at this point we hadn't——well, we'd told the\n12 police when they were coming to our house and so the police\n13 drove by on their rounds kind of more frequently, but at that\n14 time there was not much more they could do. And then, you\n15 know, the——so the protestors at the school had similar kind of\n16 graphic signs with, you know, the devil on it or bloody\n17 handprints or blood splatter, so we were kind of talking with\n18 them, if this is allowed to be shown in front of a public\n19 school, is there rules against, like, graphic images and\n20 displaying graphic images to schoolchildren.\n21 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, all of this is hearsay.\n22 THE COURT: So——\n23 MS. SHROFF: I move to strike.\n24 THE COURT: ——you can't talk about what other people\n25 said. You can talk about the general topic that you discussed.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 So for example, I could say I had a discussion with my husband\n2 about breakfast. But I can't say, he said, I want sausage and\n3 toast and eggs. You understand?\n4 THE WITNESS: Yeah.\n5 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n6 A. So we had a discussion about whether or not it was okay for\n7 or legal for them to be there.\n8 Q. After that meeting at the school, what, if anything, did\n9 you do that day?\n10 A. So——so the Cambridge Police, when we asked them that, they\n11 didn't know——they said they didn't know. This is a pretty\n12 unusual——\n13 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Hearsay. Move to strike.\n14 THE COURT: So you can't say the words of anybody,\n15 okay? Those words are stricken.\n16 A. So we went to the Cambridge courthouse or the courthouse\n17 that is——that——whose district Cambridge is in.\n18 Q. What did you do there, if anything?\n19 A. We——so we didn't really know what mechanisms there were to\n20 prevent this kind of thing, so——\n21 MS. SHROFF: If the witness could just answer the\n22 question as to what he did.\n23 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor——\n24 MS. SHROFF: The thought process is not relevant.\n25 THE COURT: It is relevant. It is relevant in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 explaining what he did.\n2 Go ahead.\n3 A. So the mechanism that they suggested or that was close——\n4 THE COURT: Okay. So don't talk about what they\n5 suggested.\n6 THE WITNESS: Yeah, sorry.\n7 Q. What did you do? What did you do?\n8 A. We applied for a harassment protection order.\n9 Q. Against whom?\n10 A. We wanted to apply for one against the actual people that\n11 showed up, but we didn't have anyone's names and that was a\n12 requirement for the harassment protection order, so we applied\n13 for it against Miles Guo, which was the only name we had.\n14 Q. And why, if at all, did you list Miles Guo under the\n15 restraining order relating to the protests at your home and at\n16 Isabelle's school?\n17 A. We knew that Isabelle's dad was working this case against\n18 him and that this was the tactic that had been employed in the\n19 past, and it was the only name that we had that we could put\n20 down for the harassment protection order.\n21 Q. Now, Mr. Copeland, did there come a time when you retracted\n22 that restraining order?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Around when was that?\n25 A. Later that evening.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. And why, if at all, did you take that step?\n2 A. We quickly realized that it was not going to be effective\n3 for or stopping protestors that were not actually the person we\n4 listed, so we——we just told them to rescind it.\n5 Q. To your knowledge did Miles Guo himself ever show up to\n6 protest outside of your home?\n7 A. No.\n8 Q. To your knowledge did he ever show up himself to protest\n9 outside of Isabelle's school?\n10 A. No.\n11 Q. After January 10, 2023, did the protests continue?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Where?\n14 A. So during the week they would show up at her school, and\n15 then on the weekends they would show up at our house.\n16 Q. For approximately how long did they continue to protest\n17 outside of either your home or Isabelle's school?\n18 A. For a few weeks.\n19 Q. What steps, if any, did you take regarding your physical\n20 safety during that time?\n21 A. In November, Isabelle had a car service come hired by Luc's\n22 company to take her to and from school. That was for a week.\n23 In January, the Cambridge Police were aware so they\n24 showed up at the school, and definitely, especially during the\n25 first week or so, when they were kind of figuring out what was\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 happening, and then——so I was instructed to bring any kind of\n2 weapons I had into my bedroom, so I had a baseball bat in my\n3 bedroom.\n4 Q. And where——\n5 A. In my closet.\n6 Q. And where, if anywhere, did you maintain that baseball bat?\n7 A. I put it in my closet near my bed.\n8 Q. To your knowledge did Luc Despins stop working on the Miles\n9 Guo bankruptcy case after the protestors arrived at Isabelle's\n10 school on January 10, 2023?\n11 A. He did not stop working.\n12 Q. Mr. Copeland, can you describe the effect on you of these\n13 protests outside of your home and Isabelle's school.\n14 A. Yeah. It was extremely unsettling. Yeah, it was extremely\n15 unsettling, and it felt——also the——dealing with the court\n16 system and seeing that there was kind of no mechanism to——that\n17 would help was kind of——\n18 MS. SHROFF: Objection. That is not relevant to how\n19 he was feeling.\n20 THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.\n21 A. ——made me feel kind of powerless in the situation, so,\n22 yeah, that was——\n23 Q. Mr. Copeland, did any of the protestors ever physically\n24 confront you or Isabelle?\n25 A. No.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Direct\n1 Q. Did any of the protestors ever speak directly to you or\n2 Isabelle?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. Did you feel that your safety was threatened in any way by\n5 their presence outside of your home during those weeks in\n6 January and February of 2023?\n7 A. To some degree, yes.\n8 Q. And can you explain why.\n9 A. I mean, I didn't really know what these people were capable\n10 of, whether or not they really believed what was being said,\n11 and we didn't know, you know, they had put our address online\n12 so we didn't know if someone else was going to show up that was\n13 affiliated or not affiliated with this. And yeah, I had read\n14 things in the past where people had gotten into altercations\n15 with them, so, yes, unsettling, yeah.\n16 Q. Did there come a time when the protestors stopped coming\n17 either to your home or Isabelle's school?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Around when was that?\n20 A. A few weeks——I'm not exactly sure what date——after\n21 January 10th.\n22 Q. Do you know why they stopped coming?\n23 A. No, I don't know why.\n24 Q. Mr. Copeland, have you ever taken any action against Miles\n25 Guo, other than the restraining order we discussed earlier?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. Have you or your wife ever attempted to kidnap Miles Guo?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. Have you ever attempted to repatriate him to China on\n5 behalf of the Chinese Communist Party?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. Are you now or have you ever been an agent of the Chinese\n8 Communist Party?\n9 A. No.\n10 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, may I have a moment.\n11 THE COURT: You may.\n12 MS. MURRAY: Nothing further. Thank you.\n13 THE COURT: Cross-examination.\n14 MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.\n15 CROSS EXAMINATION\n16 BY MS. SHROFF:\n17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Copeland.\n18 A. Good afternoon.\n19 Q. Mr. Copeland, you're testifying pursuant to a subpoena\n20 here, you said on your direct testimony, correct?\n21 A. Correct.\n22 Q. Who served you the subpoena? And could you keep your voice\n23 up for me, please.\n24 A. The government served me the subpoena. Is that——\n25 Q. Could you keep your voice up for me, please.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. The government.\n2 Q. How?\n3 A. Through a lawyer that Luc's firm hired, I think.\n4 Q. Excuse me?\n5 A. Through a lawyer that Luc's firm hired.\n6 Q. Luc, meaning your father-in-law?\n7 A. His firm, I think.\n8 Q. His firm. What is his firm?\n9 A. Paul Hastings.\n10 Q. Paul Hastings hired a lawyer for you?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. So Ms. Murray here served a subpoena on Paul Hastings'\n13 hired lawyer for you; is that right?\n14 A. That's my understanding, yeah.\n15 Q. How did you get it?\n16 A. Sorry?\n17 Q. How did you get the subpoena?\n18 A. Through this lawyer.\n19 Q. How? Like, did he email it to you, mail it to you?\n20 A. Oh. Email.\n21 Q. Okay. And then after you got the emailed subpoena, what\n22 did you do?\n23 Let me try a different question, okay, just for a\n24 second. What was the return date on the subpoena?\n25 A. I don't know.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 Q. Did you read the subpoena?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Did you open it?\n4 A. No.\n5 Q. You just went and met with Ms. Murray, right?\n6 A. No. That's not accurate. I met with this lawyer, who was\n7 representing me.\n8 Q. Okay. And then that lawyer and you met with Ms. Murray\n9 together or did that come around separately?\n10 A. Sorry. Can you say one more time?\n11 Q. Sure. You met with this lawyer, right?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. You weren't paying for this lawyer, right?\n14 A. Me personally, no.\n15 Q. Okay. And then this lawyer——don't tell me what the advice\n16 was. And this lawyer then put you in touch with Ms. Murray; is\n17 that right?\n18 A. Yeah.\n19 Q. And when you met with Ms. Murray, was that lawyer there?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Okay. And where did you meet?\n22 A. On Zoom or Teams or something like that. Video.\n23 Q. Okay. So the subpoena didn't tell you that you had to come\n24 meet with her, right? The subpoena asked you to come to court,\n25 right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. Yeah, that sounds right.\n2 Q. Right. But you decided you were going to meet with her,\n3 right?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. You had no obligation to meet with her, right?\n6 A. I think that's correct, yeah.\n7 Q. Right. You could have just answered the subpoena, come and\n8 testified and left, right?\n9 A. Yes, I could have done that.\n10 Q. How many times did you meet with her?\n11 A. Two times.\n12 Q. And both times on Zoom or one time in person and one time\n13 on Zoom?\n14 A. Two times on Zoom, and then I guess today, we shook hands,\n15 but that was it.\n16 Q. Okay. So the first time that you met with her on Zoom, how\n17 long was the meeting?\n18 A. It was two hours.\n19 Q. And the second time you met on Zoom was how many times?\n20 A. Was how long?\n21 Q. Yeah.\n22 A. One hour.\n23 Q. One hour. Okay. And it's fair to say, right, that the\n24 government is the only people you've met with before you\n25 testified here, right? You didn't meet with me, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. I did not meet with you.\n2 Q. Okay. And when you spoke with Ms. Murray, she was taking\n3 notes of what you were saying?\n4 A. I don't know.\n5 Q. Okay. She asked you questions, correct?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And you told her the story that you told the jury now,\n8 correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Did you take notes?\n11 A. Yeah.\n12 Q. You took notes.\n13 A. Yeah.\n14 Q. Did you give the notes to Ms. Murray?\n15 A. I think they were just like logistics, just where I needed\n16 to be and when, so——\n17 Q. Okay. And how many times did she give you the logistics?\n18 A. I think they changed a little bit from——so as they changed.\n19 Probably twice, maybe. I don't know.\n20 Q. How did she get in touch with you, she called you or texted\n21 you?\n22 A. We only met through the Zoom link. She never sent me any\n23 other——it would have been either through email or——but mostly\n24 just the Zoom links, like.\n25 Q. How did you know to come here today?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. The lawyer that was hired by Luc's firm kind of handled the\n2 last-minute logistics so told me where to meet him and then how\n3 to get into the building, stuff like that.\n4 Q. Okay. And when you met with Ms. Murray, you told her\n5 basically everything you now testified to before the jury,\n6 correct?\n7 A. Yeah, just about.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Now let's just see if we could just go\n9 to, Jorge——may I just ask for, one second, your Honor.\n10 Q. If I could just show you 3450 that the government showed\n11 you during your direct testimony.\n12 The government showed you this photograph, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And it's a photograph that you gave to Ms. Murray?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Okay. And you had maintained that photograph at your home,\n17 right?\n18 A. I had the——the pamphlet.\n19 Q. Okay. And do you know what the top part of it said, the\n20 part that we cannot read?\n21 A. In yellow? No, I don't.\n22 Q. Yeah. The yellow part.\n23 A. No, I don't have it memorized, no.\n24 Q. Okay. And what does the part over there in the white say?\n25 You don't remember that either, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. Where are you looking?\n2 Q. At the bottom. You see that little corner?\n3 A. In the box?\n4 Q. Yeah.\n5 A. Yeah, I don't know what that said, no.\n6 Q. Okay. And you testified that this is the pamphlet\n7 that——was it given to you by your neighbor? Is that what you\n8 said on direct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And when the neighbor gave it to you, he was sympathetic to\n11 your plight, correct?\n12 A. Yeah.\n13 Q. He felt bad for you?\n14 A. She, but yes.\n15 Q. Right. And since the time of these protests until now,\n16 you've lived in the same——you can take that down, Jorge,\n17 please——you lived in the same neighborhood?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And basically your neighbors have been supportive of you,\n20 correct?\n21 A. The ones we know and talked to about it and have explained\n22 it to, yes.\n23 Q. That's far more than what we do in New York. We don't talk\n24 to anyone.\n25 But the neighbors that you talked to, they've been\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 supportive, right? Yes?\n2 A. The ones I've talked to, yeah.\n3 Q. Okay. And during the time that you lived there, the\n4 protests were across from your house; is that right?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. They were not on the same street as your house, right?\n7 A. They were on the same street. They're on the opposite side\n8 of the street.\n9 Q. Right. So this is your house, they are here, right?\n10 A. If you're——if that's the street, then yeah.\n11 Q. Okay.\n12 A. It's a one-way, one-lane street.\n13 Q. Okay. And you testified that this happened in November,\n14 right?\n15 A. The first time they showed up was in November.\n16 Q. It's a winter month, correct?\n17 A. Technically, no.\n18 Q. Technically, no? November is not winter?\n19 A. It's fall.\n20 Q. Okay. How about January?\n21 A. That's winter.\n22 Q. How about December?\n23 A. Most of it's fall.\n24 Q. Okay. Wait. December is also fall?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 Q. I've been doing it all wrong.\n2 Okay. So you saw people with masks, correct?\n3 A. Yeah.\n4 Q. You saw people with hats, correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And these people never approached you, correct?\n7 A. They were outside my house but never approached me beyond\n8 that.\n9 Q. I couldn't hear you. I apologize.\n10 A. Oh, they were outside my house; they never approached me.\n11 Q. Right.\n12 A. Like, if I walked out, they wouldn't walk up to me.\n13 Q. Right. So you were able to go to the grocery store, do\n14 your thing; they never came up to you, right?\n15 A. Correct.\n16 Q. They never hurt you, correct?\n17 A. Physically, no, definitely not.\n18 Q. No. And they never threatened to hurt you either, correct?\n19 A. Not directly, no.\n20 Q. Well, tell me how they threatened to hurt you indirectly.\n21 A. I mean, they were holding up, like, bloody signs with my\n22 wife's name on them, so that was kind of——\n23 Q. Well, the name on the bloody signs, I didn't see your\n24 wife's name on them.\n25 A. Her name was on them.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 Q. So let's just put that aside because we'll talk about that\n2 in a minute, okay?\n3 A. Okay.\n4 Q. But there were no bloody signs with your name on it, right?\n5 A. My name, no.\n6 Q. And the bloody signs wouldn't physically hurt you, correct?\n7 A. That is correct.\n8 Q. And they never would threaten you physically, correct?\n9 A. That is correct, yeah.\n10 Q. Okay. And when they had bloody signs about your wife, your\n11 wife unfortunately was linked to Luc Despins, correct?\n12 A. She's his daughter.\n13 Q. Right. So the sign didn't say anything specific just about\n14 your wife, she was linked to her father, right? It said\n15 Isabelle Despins, daughter of Luc, benefiting from Luc Despins,\n16 correct?\n17 A. They would say stuff like, Isabelle Despins, you are not\n18 innocent, with like bloody handprints.\n19 Q. Okay. One second.\n20 So it had her last name, right? And she still has her\n21 last name which is also her father's last name, correct?\n22 A. Correct. Yeah.\n23 Q. Okay. And you and your wife, I'm assuming, lived together\n24 the whole time, correct, of this happening, right?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 Q. And sitting here today, you can tell the jury that nobody\n2 physically threatened your wife, correct?\n3 A. No one physically——no one verbally or physically threatened\n4 her in person, that is correct.\n5 Q. Okay. All right. Do you by any chance know the age of the\n6 protestors that were there? Could you tell?\n7 A. I'd be guessing.\n8 Q. Right. Do you remember a rather short old lady that always\n9 came protesting?\n10 A. I don't remember any individual. They were wearing kind of\n11 masks that intentionally de-identified them, blocked their\n12 faces.\n13 Q. And this was in November of 2020?\n14 A. One day in November of 2020, the rest in January.\n15 Q. Okay. And on that one day in November of 2020, did you\n16 call the police?\n17 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Just\n18 mischaracterizes the date that he testified to.\n19 Q. I'm sorry. You tell me the date, sir. I've forgotten. My\n20 apologies.\n21 A. I think it was down as November 20th.\n22 Q. November 20th?\n23 MS. MURRAY: Just with respect to the year.\n24 Q. Which year?\n25 A. 2022.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 Q. Sorry about that. November 20, 2022. Did you call the\n2 police?\n3 A. I think so.\n4 Q. You did, right?\n5 A. I think so. I——I'm not a hundred percent sure about that,\n6 but probably, yes.\n7 Q. The police didn't make them move, right?\n8 A. No.\n9 Q. The police, did they give you a reason why they wouldn't\n10 make them move?\n11 A. There was——\n12 MS. MURRAY: Objection. Calls for hearsay.\n13 THE COURT: Sustained.\n14 Q. Do you have an impression as to why the police didn't make\n15 them move? Do you have an understanding as to why the police\n16 didn't make them move?\n17 MS. MURRAY: Same objection, your Honor, to the extent\n18 it calls for hearsay.\n19 THE COURT: If you have an understanding that is\n20 independent of what the police explained to you.\n21 A. Yeah, I mean, the police explained——well, they explained\n22 it, but——prior to them explaining it, I did not know what the\n23 rules were.\n24 Q. Okay. But the police came and left the protestors there,\n25 correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 A. Yes, that's correct.\n2 Q. And then they eventually went home, right?\n3 A. The protestors?\n4 Q. Yeah. Well, the police did too, but definitely the\n5 protestors.\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And then we talked a lot on your direct about the protests\n8 in January, correct?\n9 A. Depends what you think a lot is, but I think so, yes.\n10 Q. Okay. And in January you also called the police, correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And the police responded, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. In fact, they were pretty responsive to you; they would do\n15 drive-bys for you, correct?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. They wanted to make sure you were safe, correct?\n18 A. Yeah.\n19 Q. You live in a nice part of the neighborhood where the\n20 police are actually responsive, right?\n21 A. Yeah.\n22 Q. Okay. And when the police drove by, did they disperse the\n23 crowds?\n24 A. No.\n25 Q. No, right? Yes or no? I'm sorry.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n2 MS. SHROFF: I can't hear him, so——\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. Okay. So the crowds were still there but the police were\n5 also there for your protection, right?\n6 A. They weren't there around the clock, but they were——yeah,\n7 they picked up the phone, yeah.\n8 Q. Okay. And you testified that these people were outside and\n9 they had some equipment, correct?\n10 A. Equipment being a camera, yes.\n11 Q. Okay. It was just like a camera or like a whole unit, like\n12 a video and all the accoutrements that follow?\n13 A. They had a tripod.\n14 Q. They had a tripod, right?\n15 A. Yeah.\n16 Q. And you never saw anything from your family home published\n17 on the internet, right?\n18 A. No, that's not true.\n19 Q. You did see the inside of your home published on the\n20 internet?\n21 A. I saw the——our home from the vantage point of the\n22 protestors published on the internet.\n23 Q. No, no. That's the outside facade of your home, right?\n24 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Asked and\n25 answered.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: I did not ask that.\n2 Q. Whether the video was of the outside facade of your home.\n3 That's the question.\n4 A. Yeah, it was the outside of my home, yeah.\n5 Q. And nobody took a photo of your dog and posted it on the\n6 internet, right?\n7 A. We didn't have a dog by that point.\n8 Q. Okay. And throughout this time, these protestors were\n9 still allowed to be there by the——what is it called, the\n10 Cambridge Police, the Boston Police, the Beacon Hill Police?\n11 Which one is it?\n12 A. Cambridge Police. Wait. Sorry. What was the question,\n13 though? I was answering that part of the question. What was\n14 the first part of the question, they were allowed to be there?\n15 Q. Right.\n16 A. Yeah.\n17 Q. They weren't ticketed, correct?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. They weren't told to disperse, correct?\n20 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. He wouldn't know.\n21 THE COURT: Well, he might have observed them being\n22 ticketed. He might have observed the police shooing them away.\n23 A. Not to my knowledge.\n24 Q. You testified having a baseball bat in the closet, correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 Q. Never had to use that baseball bat, right?\n2 A. Not for home defense.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Can you give me one second.\n4 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n5 Q. Let me show you what is marked as Defense Exhibit 70777.\n6 I'm only going to show it to you and government counsel, okay?\n7 And the Court.\n8 Do you see this photograph?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Were these the protestors that were outside your home?\n11 Do you recognize this photograph?\n12 A. I don't recognize this photograph. I recognize the setting\n13 of the photograph.\n14 Q. What's the setting?\n15 A. The setting is the outside of my home.\n16 Q. Outside your home, right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we move to admit this into\n19 evidence.\n20 MS. MURRAY: No objection.\n21 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n22 (Defendant's Exhibit 70777 received in evidence)\n23 Q. Are these the people that were protesting outside your\n24 home?\n25 A. I never saw a person outside my home that wasn't wearing\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 big sunglasses. Personally never saw——this picture is\n2 different, so they don't look like the people necessarily\n3 outside my home, or they don't look like the people looked like\n4 when they were outside my home.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Okay. One minute. I just want to make\n6 sure the jury has the photograph.\n7 Q. Okay. The man on the very left, right?\n8 A. Okay.\n9 Q. The smiling guy over there?\n10 A. I see him.\n11 Q. With the glasses? No mask, right?\n12 A. Yeah, that's true.\n13 Q. Okay. How about the lady over there with the hat, no mask?\n14 A. She is not wearing a mask.\n15 Q. Okay. How about the lady in that yellow coat; she's\n16 wearing a COVID mask, right?\n17 A. Yeah.\n18 Q. And the man next to that? Yes? No mask?\n19 A. Yeah, no mask, right, correct.\n20 Q. And these are the four or five people that would show up,\n21 right?\n22 A. Sorry?\n23 MS. MURRAY: Objection. Asked and answered. Also I'm\n24 not sure what people she's referring to.\n25 THE COURT: What is the question?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: It's okay.\n2 Q. You do recognize this to be outside of your house, right?\n3 A. This is outside——this is outside my house, yes.\n4 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down.\n5 Q. Now you testified about this protective order that you\n6 applied for, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And you were granted the protective order, right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And the protective order was against Miles Guo?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay. And it's a protective order that just basically——you\n13 tell me, right——said that Miles Guo had to stay X number of\n14 feet away from you, right? Is that what the protective order——\n15 A. I'm not sure. I think——that seems reasonable. I'm not\n16 really sure what was——what rules——the rules were around it.\n17 Q. Okay.\n18 A. Yeah.\n19 Q. It was issued to you, right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Why did you bother rescinding it?\n22 A. After talking to law enforcement, it was determined that\n23 this would not be helpful with our situation.\n24 Q. Okay. But why bother rescinding it? It's there. Who\n25 cares?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Cross\n1 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered, your Honor.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 Q. I asked you: Why did you rescind it?\n4 A. Yeah, we didn't want it to get sent because we didn't want\n5 to enter some legal battle that wasn't going to help.\n6 Q. Okay. And Mr. Guo never responded, right?\n7 A. No.\n8 Q. He was never within any feet of you, right?\n9 A. Not to my knowledge.\n10 Q. Okay. And since January 10th of 2023, you've had no more\n11 protests at your home?\n12 A. That's not correct.\n13 Q. There have been protests after January of 2023?\n14 A. It was on for a few weeks so probably——\n15 Q. No, no. I mean after the complete month of January of\n16 2023.\n17 A. It might have went into February, but after that, no.\n18 Q. After that, no, right?\n19 A. Yes, after that period.\n20 Q. Okay. So on direct you said it stopped in January, now\n21 you're not sure, it could have gone into February; is that what\n22 you're saying?\n23 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, objection. It\n24 mischaracterizes his testimony.\n25 THE COURT: Sustained.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Redirect\n1 Q. Okay. You tell me.\n2 A. It started in January 2nd, they were there every day until\n3 January 9th, then they started to go weekends at our home and\n4 weekdays at the school.\n5 Q. Okay. And then when did it stop?\n6 A. A few weeks after January 10th, so——\n7 Q. You didn't keep track of when it stopped?\n8 A. No.\n9 Q. This very unsettling thing, you did not keep track of when\n10 it stopped.\n11 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n12 THE COURT: Sustained.\n13 MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further.\n14 THE COURT: Redirect?\n15 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n16 If I could ask the defense to put up Defense\n17 Exhibit 70777. I'd appreciate it.\n18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION\n19 BY MS. MURRAY:\n20 Q. Mr. Copeland, you were asked some questions——\n21 MS. SHROFF: Oh, I don't have it. Do you have it?\n22 Q. You were asked some questions on cross-examination about\n23 this photo. Do you recall those?\n24 A. Generally, yes.\n25 Q. Ms. Shroff asked you about the happy protestor on the left.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Redirect\n1 Do you recall those questions?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. During the weeks that protestors showed up outside of your\n4 home, did you ever——can you please keep that up, thank you——did\n5 you ever see any of the protestors smiling?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. If we could focus on the bottom of these signs, what are\n8 the words that are near the bloody handprints on each of these\n9 three signs?\n10 A. It says: \"Isabelle Despins You Are Not Innocent.\"\n11 Q. How, if at all, was the fact that the protestors outside of\n12 your home were holding these signs that included the bloody\n13 handprints and your wife's name, how was that a threat?\n14 A. How was that a threat?\n15 Q. Yes. How, if at all, did that feel threatening to you?\n16 A. Well, this is being livestreamed on the internet, so even\n17 if the people here were peacefully protesting, it's possible\n18 that other people would believe that Isabelle was somehow\n19 involved or would believe what these things, these signs are\n20 saying, and try and harm us or——or, you know, make, you\n21 know——yeah. Yeah.\n22 MS. MURRAY: And we can take that down. Thank you\n23 very much.\n24 Q. Mr. Copeland, based on your observations, how, if at all,\n25 did these signs impact your wife?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Redirect\n1 A. Tremendously. She's a——kind of a——well, a little bit more\n2 tight——\n3 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n4 MS. MURRAY: These are his observations, your Honor.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Objection.\n6 THE COURT: So you can describe your observations of\n7 her. Go ahead.\n8 A. All right. Over the eight plus years I have observed her,\n9 she has been a very high-strung person. She really cares\n10 about——I've witnessed her dedication to her school community.\n11 I've seen how much she cares——\n12 MS. SHROFF: Objection. Move to strike.\n13 A. ——about her job.\n14 THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.\n15 A. And I saw how——how stressful——yeah, I saw how hard it was\n16 on her. I have seen that she really cares about her kids and\n17 keeping them safe and making sure school is a safe environment\n18 for them and that they feel comfortable at school and\n19 comfortable with her, and I saw how the idea that——that she\n20 could be causing additional trauma in some of these kids' lives\n21 was negatively impacting her.\n22 Q. Mr. Copeland, you were asked some questions on\n23 cross-examination about having rescinded the restraining order\n24 against Mr. Guo. Do you remember those questions?\n25 A. Yeah. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Recross\n1 Q. What concerns, if any, did you have in pursuing a\n2 restraining order against Miles Guo?\n3 A. I was concerned that we would enter some legal dispute that\n4 would be pointless and, you know, time-consuming and——and\n5 fruitless, so it was not worth it.\n6 MS. MURRAY: May I have a moment, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: Yes.\n8 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Copeland. Nothing\n9 further.\n10 THE COURT: Recross?\n11 MS. SHROFF: Would you put the photo back up.\n12 RECROSS EXAMINATION\n13 BY MS. SHROFF:\n14 Q. Ms. Murray——do you need a moment, Mr. Copeland, or are you\n15 okay?\n16 A. I'm good.\n17 Q. Okay. So Ms. Murray asked you questions about this\n18 particular photograph, right?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. And she asked you if you'd seen any smiling protestors,\n21 correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Mr. Copeland, isn't it fair to say that you didn't\n24 particularly want to make any eye contact with them, right?\n25 A. Yes, I would say that's true.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Recross\n1 Q. Right. They were protesting, you didn't want them\n2 protesting, right?\n3 A. I did not want them protesting outside of our house or my\n4 wife's school.\n5 Q. Exactly. Exactly. It's a hassle, right?\n6 A. A hassle is one way of putting it. I would put it another\n7 way.\n8 Q. Scary, right?\n9 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if she could let the witness\n10 finish his answer.\n11 THE COURT: Okay. Please finish your answer.\n12 A. Yeah, scary.\n13 Q. Scary, right? So you wouldn't want to make eye contact\n14 with them, right?\n15 THE COURT: Asked and answered.\n16 Q. So you wouldn't know if somebody was smiling or not\n17 smiling, correct?\n18 A. I never saw them smile or saw someone's face. They were\n19 wearing masks whenever I looked.\n20 Q. They were all wearing masks whenever you looked; that's\n21 your recollection?\n22 A. Yeah, that's my recollection, yes.\n23 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Now you can take that down.\n24 Wait. Actually, leave it up here.\n25 Q. Ms. Murray also asked you questions about how this language\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Recross\n1 made you feel, correct?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. Okay. And none of the language is pleasant, correct?\n4 A. Yeah, no, I would say this is unsettling language.\n5 Q. Right. And the police were aware of this unsettling\n6 language, correct?\n7 A. Probably. They were driving by, so I would guess yes.\n8 Q. And they continued to allow the protests, right?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down.\n11 Q. Now Ms. Murray asked you questions about your wife,\n12 correct?\n13 A. I believe so. I believe so, yes.\n14 Q. And one of the questions, or one of the answers that you\n15 gave was that she was deeply concerned about the kids at her\n16 school, correct?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. She taught at a public school, correct?\n19 A. She teaches at a public school still, same school.\n20 Q. Right. And it's basically an ESL class, right, English as\n21 a foreign language class?\n22 A. Her classroom is an ESL class. Her school has a general\n23 public school as well that's——\n24 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that the school was supportive\n25 of her?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Recross\n1 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Beyond the scope.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 MS. SHROFF: She asked about her reaction and what he\n4 observed. That's within the scope.\n5 THE COURT: Not about what the school did.\n6 Q. Did your wife feel supported by the school?\n7 MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.\n8 MS. SHROFF: That's within the scope.\n9 THE COURT: Sustained. He can describe what he\n10 observed.\n11 Q. Okay. Did you observe the principal being supportive of\n12 your wife?\n13 A. On January 10th, I would say yes. Other times, she had,\n14 you know——she would have handled things differently than how\n15 the school handled it, but——\n16 Q. I cannot hear you. I'm sorry. But that's okay.\n17 Did you observe the other teachers being supportive of\n18 your wife?\n19 A. No, I didn't——I mean, I heard it from my wife but I didn't\n20 observe it.\n21 Q. Okay. And you testified about the length of the protests,\n22 correct? You testified about the dates, correct?\n23 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge, yes.\n24 Q. Right. And was that date specific to your home or do you,\n25 sitting here today, know that that same length applied to the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - Recross\n1 protests near the school?\n2 MS. MURRAY: Objection, just to form.\n3 THE COURT: Sustained.\n4 Q. Do you know how long they protested outside the school?\n5 A. I think it was a few weeks after——during the school day,\n6 after January 10th.\n7 Q. After January 10th, right?\n8 A. Starting on January 10th for a few weeks.\n9 Q. Okay. And it ended before February, correct?\n10 MS. MURRAY: Objection. Asked and answered.\n11 THE COURT: Sustained.\n12 MS. SHROFF: I'm asking about the school, not the\n13 home.\n14 THE COURT: It's 2:29.\n15 MS. SHROFF: I have two more questions, your Honor.\n16 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n17 BY MS. SHROFF:\n18 Q. When you got the protective order against Miles Guo, did\n19 you even serve him?\n20 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered, your Honor.\n21 MS. SHROFF: No. I did not ask if he was served.\n22 THE COURT: Did you personally serve him?\n23 THE WITNESS: No.\n24 Q. So Mr. Guo didn't even have knowledge of the protective\n25 order, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4\n1 MS. MURRAY: Objection.\n2 THE COURT: He cannot speak to what knowledge Mr. Guo\n3 had.\n4 Q. And since you got the protective order or rescinded the\n5 protective order, Mr. Guo has not engaged in any litigation\n6 with you, correct?\n7 A. Correct.\n8 Q. He's never sued you, correct?\n9 MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.\n10 THE COURT: Sustained.\n11 Q. He's never sued your wife, correct?\n12 A. Correct.\n13 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Thank you very much.\n14 MS. MURRAY: Nothing further. Thank you.\n15 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step out.\n16 (Witness excused)\n17 THE COURT: And it's time for our break. We'll\n18 reconvene in half an hour. Remember that you're not allowed to\n19 talk amongst yourselves about the case or permit anyone to talk\n20 about the case in your presence. Don't read, listen, or watch\n21 anything having to do with this case.\n22 (Continued on next page)\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4\n1 (Jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: You may be seated.\n3 Is there anything further?\n4 MS. MURRAY: Nothing from the government.\n5 MS. SHROFF: No, your Honor. Thank you.\n6 MR. FINKEL: Just, we were notified by the defense\n7 with respect to the issue we talked about at sidebar. The\n8 parties reached an accommodation.\n9 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n10 (Recess)\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\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 THE COURT: Let's have the jurors brought in.\n2 THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering.\n3 (Jury present)\n4 THE COURT: Please be seated, and please call the next\n5 witness.\n6 MR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor. The government calls\n7 Stephen Johnson.\n8 STEPHEN JOHNSON,\n9 called as a witness by the Government,\n10 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n11 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it.\n12 THE WITNESS: Stephen Johnson, S-T-E-P-H-E-N,\n13 J-O-H-N-S-O-N.\n14 THE COURT: You may be seated and speak into the\n15 microphone. You may inquire.\n16 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n17 BY MR. FINKEL:\n18 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson.\n19 A. Hello.\n20 Q. Where do you work?\n21 A. Securities and Exchange Commission.\n22 Q. What is the Securities and Exchange Commission?\n23 A. It's a government agency that protects investors and\n24 investigates violations of securities fraud.\n25 Q. And is it independent from the department of justice?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. What is your title with the SEC?\n3 A. Branch chief.\n4 Q. Could you just briefly describe at a high level for the\n5 members of the jury what you do as a branch chief for the SEC?\n6 A. I supervise a group of investigators in the New York\n7 regional office and I also participate in investigations.\n8 Q. Mr. Johnson, I'm going to ask you to point the microphone\n9 at your mouth. You can feel free to move it this way.\n10 THE COURT: The acoustics are not good in here. You\n11 have to speak right into it.\n12 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, may I approach?\n13 THE COURT: You may.\n14 MR. FINKEL: I'm approaching the witness with a USB\n15 drive which is been marked as GX-37.\n16 Your Honor, I represent that USB drive contains the\n17 following government exhibits in the GXSM series, 11, 12, 17 to\n18 21, 62, 73, 88, 96, 126 to 130, 133, 147, 149, 151, 155, 156,\n19 159, 170, 176, 178, 180, 181, 183, 187, 189, 191, 201, 205,\n20 206, 208, 210, 217, 218, 224, 226, 227, 233, 235, 237, 252,\n21 264, 277, 283, 284, 287, 296 through 299 and 310.\n22 Q. Mr. Johnson, do you recognize the USB drive I just handed\n23 you.\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. How do you recognize it?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. I initialed it.\n2 Q. Have you reviewed the contents of that USB drive?\n3 A. I have.\n4 Q. What's on it?\n5 A. 56 files that were part of a production from Saraca Media\n6 Group to the Securities and Exchange Commission in answer to a\n7 subpoena.\n8 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, at this time the government\n9 offers SM in the SM series, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 73, 96,\n10 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 147, 149, 151, 155, 156, 159, 170,\n11 176, 178, 181, 210, 217, 218, 224, 226, 235, 252, 277, 283, 296\n12 through 299.\n13 MR. SCHIRICK: Objection, your Honor. Can we have a\n14 brief sidebar, please.\n15 THE COURT: Okay.\n16 (Continued on next page)\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MR. SCHIRICK: Our understanding, your Honor, is that\n3 this witness from the SEC is going to testify about how the SEC\n4 received these documents. They're a production from Saraca, so\n5 I don't believe that this witness can authenticate the\n6 underlying documents. He can authenticate the fact that -- he\n7 can testify to the fact that the SEC received these documents.\n8 But as to authenticating the underlying documents themselves,\n9 he has no knowledge.\n10 THE COURT: So has he inspected the documents? In\n11 other words, was he on the receiving end?\n12 MR. SCHIRICK: He said he reviewed the thumb drive.\n13 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n14 MR. FINKEL: I'm happy to lay an additional\n15 foundation. What I expect this witness will testify to, so we\n16 can solve these issues at sidebar, is that he reviewed the\n17 SEC's storage of these materials. He compared them to the\n18 cover letters from the Saraca attorneys, verified the Bate\n19 stamping match those cover letters from Saraca's attorneys. He\n20 reviewed each and every file that was on the USB drive and\n21 compared it to what was stored on the SEC system, was able to\n22 confirm based on his knowledge of the SEC document handling\n23 protocol that these documents were all produced by Saraca.\n24 These documents, I can also tell the Court, are expense\n25 reports. In fact, your Honor this is an expense report which\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 is similar to, but not exactly like, the other expense reports\n2 that would be found on this USB drive. This document was\n3 admitted into evidence already for Karin Maistrello. Karin\n4 Maistrello discussed during her testimony how this was a\n5 payment form that she was generally familiar with used by\n6 Saraca and Golden Spring. The documents that are on the USB\n7 drive are similar documents with similar signatures, similar\n8 identifying information, and the name Saraca Golden Spring. In\n9 addition, there are two other documents on that USB drive which\n10 we are seeking to admit which are documents from Hayman.\n11 As the Court may recall, Hayman received the\n12 investment from Saraca Media. The two documents that are on\n13 the USB drive are the final signed documents that Saraca\n14 signed, that Yvette Wang signed, that Max Krasner signed to\n15 finalize the Saraca investment agreement. And the letter that\n16 Haynes and Boone sent to Saraca to say, where is this money\n17 from. So those documents are already in evidence from Steele\n18 Schottenheimer. She put them into evidence from what Hayman\n19 has, and they match what Saraca produced to the SEC. This is\n20 another way of saying, your Honor, that there are multiple\n21 indications suggesting the authenticity of the documents on\n22 that USB which allow a reasonable juror to find that the\n23 documents are authentic.\n24 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, I think there's two issues\n25 here. One is the authenticity issue, and the maintaining\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 objection that this witness cannot authenticate underlying\n2 Saraca documents. The most this witness can do based on his\n3 knowledge is to say that those documents were received by the\n4 SEC. Now if that's a fact that's the government wants to get\n5 in, that's fine. But as to the underlying documents, he can't\n6 authenticate the underlying Saraca documents.\n7 THE COURT: I think that they're only trying to get\n8 him to say those are what the SEC received, correct?\n9 MR. FINKEL: That's exactly right.\n10 THE COURT: All righty. That's it. Let go.\n11 (Continued on next page)\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 (In open court)\n2 MR. FINKEL: The government renews its request to\n3 submit the exhibits.\n4 THE COURT: If you could ask a few foundational\n5 questions, please.\n6 BY MR. FINKEL:\n7 Q. Mr. Johnson, how do you know that those materials were\n8 produced by Saraca to the SEC?\n9 A. So when we issue a subpoena, it contains instructions on\n10 how to return the documents and in what format, and everyone's\n11 instructed to return documents to a centralized production unit\n12 or CPU which is a department in the SEC that takes in all of\n13 the documents. They get the documents loaded into our\n14 eDiscovery platform called Case Point and every document that's\n15 produced is loaded in by the matter number, the producing party\n16 and the date produced.\n17 Q. What did you do to understand that the documents produced\n18 on that USB were produced by Saraca? What steps did you take,\n19 if any, that it was in the SEC system?\n20 A. I opened the documents in here on this thumb drive, and on\n21 another monitor I opened up the same document in the Case Point\n22 system by Bates number.\n23 Q. And did you open every document that was on that USB drive?\n24 A. I did.\n25 Q. And what did you compare each and every document to that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 was on the USB drive?\n2 A. The number of pages, the title of the page and the Bates\n3 number.\n4 Q. And the Bates numbers, what entity were they associated\n5 with in the SEC systems?\n6 A. Saraca Media Group.\n7 MR. FINKEL: Government renews offering the documents\n8 I outlined before.\n9 MR. SCHIRICK: Same objection, your Honor.\n10 THE COURT: They're admitted.\n11 (Government's Exhibits SM-11, SM-12, SM-17, SM-18,\n12 SM-19, SM-21, SM-73, SM-96, SM-126, SM-127, SM-129, SM-130,\n13 SM-133, SM-147, SM-149, SM-151, SM-155, SM-156, SM-159, SM-170,\n14 SM-176, SM-178, SM-181, SM-210, SM-217, SM-218, SM-224, SM-226,\n15 SM-235, SM-252, SM-277, SM-283, SM-296 through SM-299 received\n16 in evidence)\n17 BY MR. FINKEL:\n18 Q. Mr. Johnson, can you describe to the jury what is a\n19 subpoena?\n20 A. A subpoena is a request for information that we send out in\n21 the course of an investigation.\n22 Q. And were you apart of an investigation concerning Saraca\n23 personally?\n24 A. No.\n25 Q. Were you personally apart of an investigation concerning\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Miles Guo?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Or GTV?\n4 A. No.\n5 Q. Or G Coins?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. Aside from your testimony today and the preparation you did\n8 including the review you just described, did you have any other\n9 involvement in this case?\n10 A. No.\n11 Q. Can we pull up GXSM-77. Is this one of the documents that\n12 Saraca produced?\n13 A. It is.\n14 Q. You see at the top it says Saraca Media Group, Inc. payment\n15 request form?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And then below that is says name of payee, Voice of Guo\n18 Media, Inc. You see that?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. What's the payment amount?\n21 A. 7875.\n22 Q. There are two letters next to that, do you see the two\n23 letters at the top?\n24 A. MK.\n25 Q. Do you know what MK stands for?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. Can we go to the next page.\n3 Am I correct, Mr. Johnson, this document was attached\n4 to the payment request form?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And can you read what that says underneath the image of the\n7 check that says Voice of Guo Media?\n8 A. Yes. Hi, Max, the principal has engaged new developers to\n9 develop the G News and they urgently need to pay 7875 U.S.\n10 dollars. Could you pay through the followings: Routing number\n11 is.\n12 Q. You don't have to read those.\n13 Do you know who the principal is?\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. If we can go to the next page, Ms. Loftus, and the page\n16 after that.\n17 Below where it says thanks can they send contract\n18 today, can you read what it says?\n19 A. No, still negotiating, but the principal wants to pay\n20 today. We could pay without contract first. Thanks.\n21 Q. We can take that down if we could put up SM283.\n22 Mr. Johnson, who is the payee for this particular\n23 payment request form from Saraca Media Group?\n24 A. Yvette Wang.\n25 Q. Do you know who she is?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. And what's the total payment amount to Yvette Wang?\n3 A. $30,906.56.\n4 Q. If we can go to SM-296. Who's the payee of this document?\n5 A. Ya Li.\n6 Q. And how much is the amount?\n7 A. $2,850.\n8 Q. And if we can go to the next page.\n9 Do you see the date in the top left?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. What's the date?\n12 A. April 27, 2020.\n13 Q. You can take that down, if we could put up SM-178.\n14 And here in this Saraca Media Group payment request\n15 form, Mr. Johnson, who is the payee?\n16 A. Max Krasner.\n17 Q. Do you know who that is?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. What's the amount that Max Krasner was paid?\n20 A. $30,906.56.\n21 Q. We can put up SM-73 please. Who is the payee on this\n22 document?\n23 A. Aaron Mitchell.\n24 Q. What's the date of the expense?\n25 A. 6/3/2020.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Q. And how much is the amount that Aaron Mitchell was due to\n2 be paid on this document?\n3 A. $30,906.56.\n4 Q. And do you know one way or another whether these amounts\n5 were actually paid?\n6 A. I don't.\n7 Q. If we can please go to SM-235.\n8 And what's the name of the payee for this document?\n9 A. New England Home Inspections.\n10 Q. How much is the payment amount?\n11 A. $1,750.\n12 Q. Can you read purpose of expense right sort of in the middle\n13 of your screen?\n14 A. Building Inspection.\n15 Q. For?\n16 A. For Greenwich Land, 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich,\n17 Connecticut.\n18 Q. You ever been there, 373 Taconic?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Ms. Loftus, can you zoom in on the bottom. There's a\n21 little asterisk. Can you read that asterisk Mr. Johnson?\n22 A. Payment request form must be approved by the chief\n23 operating officer Yvette and/or director of operations Melissa.\n24 Q. You can take that down, and if we can put up SM-151.\n25 Who's the payee for this one?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. Greenwich Land, LLC.\n2 Q. Do you know what that entity is?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. What's the amount?\n5 A. $2 million.\n6 Q. If we can go to SM-147.\n7 What's the name of the payee listed on this one?\n8 A. Go Daddy.\n9 Q. What's the amount?\n10 A. $149.97.\n11 Q. Do you see the Bates number on the bottom right of the\n12 screen?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. What's the last four digit?\n15 A. 1320.\n16 Q. Could we go to the next page, please.\n17 What's the last four digit of the Bates number on this\n18 one.\n19 A. 1321.\n20 Q. Can you read this email that's attached?\n21 A. Good morning, Max. Attach please find invoice number 4900\n22 for the balance due for the completion of the fence. The\n23 remaining balance of $2,846.26 will be due when the painting is\n24 finish. Please kindly remit payment at your earliest\n25 convenience. Thanks very much, Bobby.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Q. What does it say under Bobby?\n2 A. Connecticut Fence and Landscaping, LLC, 16 Valmar Drive,\n3 New Milford, Connecticut.\n4 Q. Do you know if Greenwich is in Connecticut?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could pull up SM-126.\n7 Can you read the purpose of this expense, please?\n8 A. G level.org domain for G Fashion.\n9 Q. If we can pull up SM-133.\n10 What's the date of this expense on the lower right?\n11 A. January 30, 2020.\n12 Q. Can you read the itemize expense description right in the\n13 center?\n14 A. Multiple hosting roll society.org security email essr.\n15 Q. What does it say under expense account?\n16 A. ROL, rolf.\n17 Q. Do you know what the Rule of Law Society has to do with\n18 Saraca Media Group?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. Can we pull up SM-176.\n21 You see at the top where it says Saraca, sir?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Can you make out what's crossed out underneath it?\n24 A. Looks like Golden Spring New York, LTD.\n25 Q. Do you know what relationship it is between Golden Spring\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 and Saraca?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Take that down and put up SM-156, please.\n4 What's the name of this payee?\n5 A. Hermes of Paris.\n6 Q. What's the amount?\n7 A. $24,000.\n8 Q. And what are the names at the bottom of the document here?\n9 A. Max Krasner, Yvette Wang.\n10 Q. Can you go to the next page, please, Ms. Loftus. Can you\n11 zoom in at the top of that receipt please.\n12 Can you read the top of that receipt, please?\n13 A. Hermes of Paris HOP Greenwich, 289 Greenwich Avenue,\n14 Greenwich Connecticut.\n15 Q. What's the name under the customer information?\n16 A. Yanping Wang.\n17 Q. Can you zoom out of that, please. You can look at 210.\n18 What's the payee for this document?\n19 A. G Fashion Media Group, Inc.\n20 Q. How much was this payment request form for?\n21 A. $200,000.\n22 Q. Now, if we can look at SM-11.\n23 Mr. Johnson, is this one of the documents that Saraca\n24 Media produced to the SEC?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Q. Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund, LP. You see\n2 that?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. Do you know what that is?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. If we can Ms. Loftus go to 26 pages in approximately.\n7 Can you read what it says at the top?\n8 A. Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund, LP, investor\n9 profile. Investor name Saraca Media Group, Inc. Capital\n10 contribution $100 million. Investor type, beneficial holder.\n11 Briefly identify the subscriber's primary source of wealth.\n12 Selling shares of subsidiary.\n13 Q. If you can go back, Ms. Loftus, two pages.\n14 And who according to this document signed as\n15 president?\n16 A. Yanping Wang.\n17 Q. And what's the total requested capital contribution at the\n18 bottom?\n19 A. $100 million.\n20 Q. Requested closing date?\n21 A. June 8, 2020.\n22 Q. If we could put up, please, Ms. Loftus, SM-12.\n23 Mr. Johnson, is this another document that Saraca\n24 Media Group produced to the SEC in response to a subpoena?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Q. And who according to this letter dated July 15, 2020, whose\n2 attention was this letter sent?\n3 A. William Je, Max Krasner, Yvette Wang and Aaron Mitchell.\n4 Q. Can you read the second paragraph as the general partner?\n5 A. As the general partner to the fund in the performance of\n6 its continuing diligence and compliance with the securities\n7 laws, Hayman requires a response to the following: What was\n8 the source of capital used by Saraca Media Group, Inc., Saraca\n9 to invest in the group.\n10 Q. Do you know if Saraca ever answered that question?\n11 A. On the previous slide.\n12 Q. Can you read the third bullet, please?\n13 A. If the proceeds were derived from securities offering, did\n14 the offering documents disclose the use of proceeds to include\n15 investment in the fund or in any similar private fund vehicle.\n16 If yes, please provide a copy of the disclosure agreement.\n17 Q. Do you know if the disclosure agreement was provided to any\n18 of these?\n19 A. No.\n20 Q. What's the date of this document?\n21 A. July 15, 2020.\n22 Q. Ms. Loftus, you could pull up SM-11 again at page 24.\n23 What's the date here?\n24 A. June 3, 2020.\n25 Q. So this is before the letter that we just looked at as\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 SM-12?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, at this time the government\n4 offers a stipulation. At this time the government offers a\n5 stipulation between the parties which is GX Stip 19.\n6 MR. SCHIRICK: No objection.\n7 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n8 (Government's Exhibit GX Stip 19 received in evidence)\n9 MR. FINKEL: I'll read it. It is hereby stipulated\n10 and agreed by the United States of America, and Miles Guo the\n11 defendant, that an employee of the US Securities and Exchange\n12 commission, the SEC, would testify as follows:\n13 One, the SEC is an independent federal agency whose\n14 mission is, among other things, to protect investors maintain\n15 fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital\n16 formation.\n17 Two, following an SEC investigation, on July 28, 2021,\n18 Saraca Media Group Inc., Saraca, agreed to a settlement with\n19 the SEC concerning civil administrative allegations by the SEC\n20 that Saraca, GTV Media Group, GTV, and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.\n21 VOG, conducted an unregistered securities offering through the\n22 GTV private placement. The consent settlement was memorialized\n23 into a written agreement, the settlement agreement, which was\n24 signed by Yanping Wang on behalf of Saraca. Pursuant to the\n25 settlement agreement, Saraca, GTV and VOG have sent to the SEC\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 $455,211,346.39 related to the GTV private placement, including\n2 $69,713.578.06 from Saraca's investment in Hayman Capital\n3 Management, which was transmitted from the escrow account of\n4 Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Anello, PC, to the SEC. As\n5 of the date of this stipulation, Saraca and GTV together on a\n6 joint and several basis owe an additional $31,488,392.52 to the\n7 SEC, and VOG owes an additional $45,000, $45,324 to the SEC.\n8 The SEC established a fair fund to distribute the\n9 collected money to individuals and entities who had invested in\n10 the GTV stock offering and the G Coins, G Dollars offerings.\n11 After hiring an administrator to manage the distribution\n12 process, notifying investors and collecting verification\n13 information from investors, distribution to investors began on\n14 September 26, 2022. Through the fair fund, the SEC has\n15 distributed approximately $365,040,744.90 to approximately\n16 4,835 investors throughout the world, including at least 31\n17 investors in the Southern District of New York. The fair fund\n18 distribution process is ongoing.\n19 As part of the consent settlement with the SEC,\n20 Saraca, GTV, and VOG neither admitted nor denied the SEC's\n21 civil administrative allegations. The settlement agreement\n22 concerned allegations regarding an unregistered securities\n23 offering and did not allege any fraud by Saraca, GTV or VOG.\n24 The settlement agreement did not include any allegations of or\n25 conclusions as to criminal conduct. This stipulation may be\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 received into evidence as an exhibit at trial, and it is signed\n2 dated June 21st and signed by the parties.\n3 Your Honor, at this time pursuant to GX Stip 8, the\n4 government offers from GXPRO series the following exhibits:\n5 545, 544, 541, 539, 537, 535, 534, 533, 531, 526, 525, 523,\n6 522, 521, 520, 508, 504, 488, 478, 477, 476, 473, 466, 467,\n7 473, 474, 486, 489, 492, 494, 496, 498, 499, 506, 508, 509.\n8 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor if I can just have one\n9 moment.\n10 THE COURT: Yes.\n11 MR. SCHIRICK: No objection.\n12 THE COURT: They're admitted.\n13 (Government's Exhibits PRO-545, PRO-544, PRO-541,\n14 PRO-539, PRO-537, PRO-535, PRO-534, PRO-533, PRO-531, PRO-526,\n15 PRO-525, PRO-523, PRO-522, PRO-521, PRO-520, PRO-508, PRO-504,\n16 PRO-488, PRO-478, PRO-477, PRO-476, PRO-473, PRO-466, PRO-467,\n17 PRO-473, PRO-474, PRO-486, PRO-489, PRO-492, PRO-494, PRO-496,\n18 PRO-498, PRO-499, PRO-506, PRO-508, PRO-0509.\n19 BY MR. FINKEL:\n20 Q. Mr. Johnson, do you know what Promemoria is?\n21 A. No.\n22 Q. If we can pull what's in evidence as pro466. If you can\n23 please go to page 19, Ms. Loftus, excuse me, page 20. If you\n24 can zoom in on the bottom, please, Ms. Loftus.\n25 You see at the top, Mr. Johnson, it says Gladys Chow?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And her email ends at HCHK Tech?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. You don't know who she is?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. Can you read the text of the body of this email starting\n7 Hi, Paolo.\n8 A. Hi, Paolo and Davide. Hope you both had a wonderful\n9 Thanksgiving and staying safe under the current circumstance.\n10 It has been almost a year since we last talked about the bronze\n11 statute. Please allow me to introduce myself again. I am\n12 Gladys the assistant of Mr. Miles Kwok. I was using\n13 GladysSC@GSNYUS.com, and this is my new email address that I\n14 will be using moving forward.\n15 I am writing today mainly to relay a message. There\n16 is an upcoming project in New York, and we would like to buy\n17 some furniture from Promemoria, both in-stock items and newly\n18 designed items. Mr. Guo would like to see if Davide would be\n19 able to come to New York for a meeting. He would like to\n20 discuss with Davide in person to let him know about the vision\n21 and see what could be achieved. Please let me know what your\n22 thoughts are. Thank you very much. Regards, Gladys Chow.\n23 Q. We can scroll up a bit, Ms. Loftus.\n24 And what's the date of this email?\n25 A. December 2, 2021.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Q. Can you just read the first sentence below Dear Gladys?\n2 A. Very nice to hear that Mr. Miles Kwok and you are all fine\n3 and healthy despite this crazy time due to COVID-19.\n4 Q. Who's this email from?\n5 A. Paolo.\n6 Q. We can scroll up, please, Ms. Loftus.\n7 And can you read the response from Gladys Chow\n8 beginning this project?\n9 A. This project is taking place in a mansion in Mahwah, New\n10 Jersey. The client would like to design three walk-in closet.\n11 Below is the link for the three rooms. They're all labeled\n12 accordingly.\n13 Q. That's fine. Thank you. And if we can scroll up a bit\n14 please, Ms. Loftus.\n15 Do you see right here in February 2022 from Gladys\n16 Chow right below thank you. Can you read that?\n17 A. Given the confidentiality of this project, could you please\n18 sign the attached NDA and return it to me. I will send over\n19 the floor plan shortly. Thank you.\n20 Q. If we can scroll up a bit, Ms. Loftus. We're going to\n21 about page 10.\n22 And so here it says, Hi, Paolo, here are the links for\n23 the current design plan. Can you read what it says below link?\n24 A. Kitchen cinema walk-in closet 01 Mrs.\n25 Q. And below the next link?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. Closet 02, daughter; closet 03 son; closet 04, Mr.\n2 Q. Can you read the next sentence?\n3 A. The clients do like the layouts of each rooms. The main\n4 thing is to be changed is the furniture.\n5 Q. And below that it says, below is the client's comment on\n6 the current plan. Do you see that?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. Then it says cinema, do you see that?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Can you read what it says page six?\n11 A. Seats layout, he prefer all six single chairs.\n12 Q. What's the heading below cinema?\n13 A. Mrs closet 01.\n14 Q. Can you scroll down, Ms. Loftus.\n15 What's the heading below Mrs. closet?\n16 A. Daughter 02, sons 03, Mr. 04 closets.\n17 Q. If we can scroll up please, Ms. Loftus.\n18 Can you read from Gladys Chow, it says hi Paolo, and\n19 can you read what it says below that.\n20 A. Thank you for getting back to me. That sounds great.\n21 Would it be helpful if you visit the New Jersey property and\n22 take a look of all the rooms that need to be developed. Also\n23 is there any traveling cost incurred on us for this trip.\n24 Regards.\n25 Q. Can we scroll up please, Ms. Loftus. This is also from\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 Gladys Chow, can you read where it says below Hi Paolo the site\n2 address.\n3 A. I am checking with the design firm to see --\n4 Q. Sorry, Mr. Johnson, if you can read from the site address\n5 the third line.\n6 A. The site address is 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah New\n7 Jersey.\n8 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, can we have another\n9 sidebar, please?\n10 THE COURT: Yes.\n11 (Continued on next page)\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, these documents, the\n3 Promemoria documents relate to a design fit out by a designer.\n4 This witness has absolutely no knowledge of these documents.\n5 They have nothing to do with the SEC, nothing to do with the\n6 SEC settlement, nothing to do with what Saraca produced to the\n7 SEC. Instead he's just being used to read these documents out\n8 loud to the jury.\n9 THE COURT: One second. Weren't these produced to the\n10 SEC?\n11 MR. SCHIRICK: No.\n12 THE COURT: So how do they come in?\n13 MR. FINKEL: These documents are in pursuant to a\n14 stipulation.\n15 MR. SCHIRICK: That's a completely different issue.\n16 It has nothing to with the SEC.\n17 THE COURT: If you stipulated that they be admitted,\n18 they're admitted, period.\n19 MR. SCHIRICK: Of course. Understood, your Honor. My\n20 point is that they have nothing to do with this witness, and\n21 the government specifically is using this witness to read these\n22 documents aloud. And my understanding is they're in evidence,\n23 the government can argue from them of whatever they want to\n24 argue from them. And given frankly the premium and the\n25 emphasis that has been put on saving time and being efficient,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 I'm not sure why this SEC witness is reading from documents\n2 that were produced by a decorator. He has no knowledge or\n3 anything to do with this.\n4 MR. FINKEL: I'm happy to ask the witness if he knows\n5 anything or any involvement in the Mahwah property. The\n6 government will stipulate that he doesn't. We are actually\n7 being efficient by using one witness, killing two birds in one\n8 stone as they say. There are only a few of these documents.\n9 These are documents that the jury should see, and the\n10 government wants to present them as part of its case. The use\n11 of the Mahwah residence is a key issue. We've heard much about\n12 the secret base that Mr. Guo allegedly intended it for. These\n13 documents show it was not a secret base. He was designing it\n14 for his family, so these are documents we want the jury to see.\n15 Could we put a paralegal on the stand to do this instead, I\n16 suppose we could. We thought it'd be efficient by using this\n17 witness. I have no problem asking the question to draw out the\n18 point that Mr. Schirick would like to be drawn out.\n19 MR. SCHIRICK: That's one point. The other point is,\n20 it is an efficiency point. The government has gotten these\n21 documents. We stipulated to them. The government can argue\n22 from the document. We don't need to sit here to read the\n23 documents.\n24 THE COURT: Well, they do have the right to have a\n25 witness read the documents, and it's just now going to be a\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 question of which witness. We either sit here and deal with\n2 him or someone else.\n3 MR. SCHIRICK: Understood, your Honor. But the\n4 alternative would be the documents are in evidence. The\n5 government could close on it. It was the same point that was\n6 made at sidebar to me not that long ago.\n7 MR. FINKEL: You had the whole white paper.\n8 MR. SCHIRICK: I had the opportunity to read it.\n9 THE COURT: In your case, you had shown sections of\n10 the white paper. You also showed sections of that chart, and\n11 you had people read from those documents.\n12 MR. SCHIRICK: Yes, I was referring to the witness\n13 earlier today, the summary witness, but that's fine. Certainly\n14 again if we're talking about efficiency here to have the SEC\n15 witness read from a bunch of decorators documents, that doesn't\n16 seem like the most efficient thing, but I just wanted to point\n17 that out.\n18 THE COURT: So how much more of this do you have?\n19 MR. FINKEL: Maybe a couple of these documents.\n20 However, even though they're just documents, these are very\n21 important documents.\n22 THE COURT: I'm just trying to understand how much\n23 more do we have to endure.\n24 MR. FINKEL: In fact, we're being very efficient. We\n25 were originally going to call Paolo Sozzi who is the individual\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 who interacted with Gladys Chow. We cut that witness to be\n2 efficient. This is the trade in our view instead of having\n3 Paolo Sozzi testify for an hour, maybe cross for a time of\n4 choosing by the defense, we're just going to read a few\n5 documents. I don't have many, maybe three or four.\n6 THE COURT: Time wise?\n7 MR. FINKEL: For the rest of this witness?\n8 THE COURT: Yes.\n9 MR. FINKEL: Fifteen-ish minutes, 20 minutes.\n10 THE COURT: That's not so bad. Very good.\n11 (Continued on next page)\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: Sir, if you're reading from a document,\n3 don't read too fast because we have interpreters who need to\n4 translate as you're reading.\n5 BY MR. FINKEL:\n6 Q. Mr. Johnson, does the SEC have anything to do with 675\n7 Ramapo Road in Mahwah, New Jersey?\n8 A. I don't know.\n9 Q. Can we scroll up. Can you read the last line of this email\n10 from Gladys Chow to Paolo beginning, May I know?\n11 A. May I know if you would be available after visiting the New\n12 Jersey house. The client would like to meet with you in the\n13 New York office after that.\n14 Q. Scroll up, please, Ms. Loftus, if you can zoom out of that\n15 so we can see the full email, please.\n16 Do you see the email, Thank you, Paolo, and it says\n17 the client will be available?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Can you read that?\n20 A. Thank you, Paolo. The client will be available after 1\n21 p.m. on Wednesday so we can go straight from New Jersey, 675\n22 Ramapo Valley Road to the office after the site visit.\n23 Q. That's fine. Thank you.\n24 At the first page, Ms. Loftus, can you zoom in at the\n25 top, the very top. Do you see where it says Taurus Fund, LLC?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. Do you know what that is?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. If we can pull up pro531, please.\n5 Do you see where it says, here are some more comments\n6 from the clients regarding the drawings?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. What does it say as number one?\n9 A. Daughter's closet.\n10 Q. And what does it say as number five?\n11 A. Mrs. closet and son's closet.\n12 Q. We can go to the next page, please. This is from Gladys\n13 Chow on Monday December 1, 2022. Can you read where it says,\n14 Also the client is unable to go?\n15 A. Also the client is unable to go to the city this week.\n16 Could you meet him in Greenwich, Connecticut instead.\n17 Q. Keep going. Keep reading, please.\n18 A. The address 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, New York. Please\n19 let me know at 12:15 Thursday 3 p.m. will work for you. If\n20 not, we could move things around.\n21 Q. That's fine. Thank you. If we could pull up pro-536. If\n22 we can go to the third page.\n23 Here it says, Hi, Paolo. Thank you for the info. The\n24 client would like to order the following, and there's some\n25 information. And it says please deliver the table to the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 following addresses. Do you see that?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. 675 Ramapo, 337 Taconic and 3 Columbus Circle. Is that\n4 correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. If we could pull up pro-477. Can you read the sentence\n7 under Hi Paolo?\n8 A. The client would like to convert the family lounge into a\n9 new kitchen and would like Promemoria to design as well.\n10 Attached are the floor plan for the new kitchen and pictures of\n11 how the room looks like now. Please let me know if there are\n12 any questions. Thank you.\n13 Q. You see at the top left it says kitchen floor plan pdf?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. If we can pull up pro-3478. You see on the lower right\n16 side sort of in the bubble, can you read that? It says new\n17 kitchen there. On the left side of the document, what does\n18 that say?\n19 A. Crocker residence Mahwah New Jersey, Crocker residence\n20 Mahwah, New Jersey.\n21 Q. If we can pull up pro486 at page 17.\n22 Can you read that email from Gladys Chow?\n23 A. Hi Paolo, for the contract could you please remove all the\n24 addresses of the property and the contract will be entered\n25 between Promemoria and HCHK Property Management, Inc. Thank\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- Direct\n1 you.\n2 Q. We could pull up pro-506. Can you read, this is November\n3 5, 2022, here are the clients comments. Can you read them?\n4 A. Spa room put on hold for now until further notice. Son's\n5 closet need lighter and warmer color wood for all furniture.\n6 Need chandelier design for the room. Thank you very much.\n7 Q. If we could pull up pro-541. Can you read below where it\n8 says thank you, Paolo.\n9 A. This defective one is the purple colored one You can see it\n10 to Mahwah, New Jersey location. Regards.\n11 Q. If we can pull up 534. What's at the top it says RE, New\n12 Jersey. Do you see that?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. Can you read that?\n15 A. RE, New Jersey project, updated info.\n16 Q. And then it says, Hi, Paolo, may I know if all the design\n17 plans are read for the client to review or not. Did I read\n18 that right?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. If we could pull up please 508. It says, Hi, paolo, here\n21 are the clients comments on the cinema. Can you read what it\n22 says for chairs?\n23 A. Remove two chairs in the front row and at the armrest. Can\n24 the team add more storage spaces for like phones, keys, etc.\n25 Q. What does it say for ceiling?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - Cross\n1 A. Add stars throughout the ceiling. Can use the velvet from\n2 the wall as the main material. Client likes the soft furry\n3 touch.\n4 Q. What does it say for screen?\n5 A. Makes it as big as possible please, fully utilize the wall.\n6 Q. And what about overall vibe?\n7 A. Good, but if it could be more futuristic likes in the\n8 universe it would be even better.\n9 Q. Last one, pro-523. Let's try pro-522. We'll do 476. What\n10 does it say on the lower right?\n11 A. Crocker residence, Mahwah, New Jersey.\n12 Q. Can we zoom out of that, please. Can you zoom in the whole\n13 panel of the left. What does that say in the center in red?\n14 A. Madams closet.\n15 Q. Do you know who the madam is?\n16 A. No.\n17 MR. FINKEL: Nothing further.\n18 CROSS-EXAMINATION\n19 BY MR. SCHIRICK:\n20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson. Just a few questions. Do you\n21 know anything about the building located in Mahwah, New Jersey\n22 that you were just asked to read about?\n23 A. No.\n24 Q. Do you know anything about a company called Promemoria?\n25 A. I don't.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - Cross\n1 Q. Do you know anything about a building called Crocker\n2 mansion?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. Do you know anything about a renovation project related at\n5 that property?\n6 A. No.\n7 Q. Do you have any information or knowledge about what use was\n8 made of that property?\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. Do you have any knowledge or information about who used it?\n11 A. No.\n12 Q. Do you have any idea why Mr. Finkel had you read all those\n13 documents when you know nothing about it?\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. Now, you testified on direct about the SEC's mission,\n16 right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And I believe you said that among other things the SEC\n19 investigates securities fraud; is that right?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Now, isn't it true that the SEC also investigates potential\n22 issues with securities laws that have nothing to do with fraud?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. And if we could just please bring up GX Stip 19. You\n25 remember that Mr. Finkel read this stipulation a bit earlier to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - Cross\n1 you just a few minutes ago?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. And this is as you understand it an agreement stipulation\n4 and agreement between the defense and the government as to\n5 certain facts; is that fair?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. And if we could just go to page paragraph five. And this\n8 says as part of the consent settlement with the SEC,\n9 Mr. Johnson, are you familiar with consent settlements?\n10 A. Not particularly.\n11 Q. Fair enough. As part of the consent settlement with the\n12 SEC, Saraca, GTV and VOG neither admitted nor denied the SEC\n13 civil administrative allegations. The settlement agreement\n14 concerned allegations regarding an unregistered securities\n15 offering and did not allege any fraud by Saraca, GTV or VOG.\n16 The settlement agreement did not include any allegations or\n17 conclusions as to criminal conduct. Did I read that correctly?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 MR. SCHIRICK: Thank you. No further questions.\n20 MR. FINKEL: Nothing further.\n21 THE COURT: You may step out, and the government may\n22 call its next witness.\n23 (Witness excused)\n24 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor. The government\n25 calls Paul Hinton. Your Honor, we understand that Mr. Kamaraju\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - Cross\n1 is going to be handling the next witness, and we discussed with\n2 defense and we request maybe a five to ten-minute break before\n3 the next witness comes on.\n4 THE COURT: All righty.\n5 MS. MURRAY: And just for the record to discuss a\n6 stipulation that's relevant to Mr. Hinton's testimony.\n7 THE COURT: So you're seeking the break at this time?\n8 MS. MURRAY: Not for the day.\n9 THE COURT: Not for the day. Ten-minute break at this\n10 time.\n11 MS. MURRAY: Yes, thank you.\n12 THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll take a\n13 ten-minute break. Remember you're not permitted to discuss the\n14 case amongst yourselves. Don't\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 (Recess)\n2 THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in.\n3 (Jury present)\n4 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n5 And you may call your witness again.\n6 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor. The government\n7 calls Paul Hinton.\n8 (Witness sworn)\n9 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it, and\n10 speak into the microphone.\n11 THE WITNESS: Paul Hinton. P-A-U-L, H-I-N-T-O-N.\n12 THE COURT: All right. Sir, you're going to have to\n13 do better than that. I need for you to speak up.\n14 THE WITNESS: I will.\n15 THE COURT: Good. Go ahead.\n16 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n17 PAUL HINTON,\n18 called as a witness by the Government,\n19 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n20 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n21 BY MS. MURRAY:\n22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hinton.\n23 A. Good afternoon.\n24 Q. And if you could actually pull the microphone directly in\n25 front of you, that would help. The acoustics are not great.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Could you please describe your educational background.\n2 A. I have an undergraduate degree from Oxford University in\n3 England and a master's degree from Harvard Kennedy School of\n4 Government.\n5 Q. What subject matter is your undergraduate degree?\n6 A. It's an engineering science degree.\n7 Q. And what is the subject matter of your master's degree?\n8 A. It's a public policy degree that covers statistics,\n9 economics, and finance.\n10 Q. Are you currently employed?\n11 A. I am.\n12 Q. Where do you work?\n13 A. I work at the Brattle Group.\n14 Q. What is the Brattle Group?\n15 A. The Brattle Group is an economic consulting firm that\n16 provides expert testimony in a range of settings, including\n17 litigation and arbitration.\n18 Q. How long have you been with the Brattle Group?\n19 A. Over ten years.\n20 Q. Mr. Hinton, if I refer to the Brattle Group as Brattle,\n21 will you understand what I'm referring to?\n22 A. I will.\n23 Q. Where did you work prior to Brattle?\n24 A. Prior to Brattle, I worked at another similar economic\n25 consulting firm for 18 years.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. What is your title at Brattle?\n2 A. I'm a principal.\n3 Q. What generally are your duties and responsibilities as a\n4 principal at Brattle?\n5 A. Well, other than the professional development of staff, I\n6 lead projects where I am either the expert who is going to\n7 testify or I'm supporting another expert who is going to\n8 testify.\n9 Q. Do you yourself conduct financial analysis in the course of\n10 your work at Brattle?\n11 A. I do.\n12 Q. Have you testified in financial cases in the past?\n13 A. I have.\n14 Q. Has that testimony been on both the defense side and on the\n15 side of the plaintiff or the government?\n16 A. It has.\n17 Q. Has that testimony included expert testimony and summary\n18 witness testimony?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. And Mr. Hinton, did there come a time when the government\n21 contacted Brattle regarding this case?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Around when was that?\n24 A. It was around the——March or the summer last year.\n25 Q. What, if anything, did the government ask Brattle to do\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 with respect to this case?\n2 A. At that time they said they expected to have a large volume\n3 of financial records that they wanted us to review and\n4 summarize.\n5 Q. Did the government in fact engage Brattle to provide\n6 litigative services on this case?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. During approximately what time period has Brattle conducted\n9 those services on this case?\n10 A. Well, we officially started summer last year, but started\n11 working more intensively at the beginning of this year.\n12 Q. And is Brattle engaged with the government pursuant to a\n13 contract relating to its work on this case?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. What is the approximate dollar amount that Brattle has\n16 billed or will be paid for its work on this case?\n17 A. About $2 million.\n18 Q. Does that include analysis that has been conducted prior to\n19 your testimony today?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Does that also include bills for your testimony here today?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Mr. Hinton, what was the scope of work of the project that\n24 the government engaged Brattle to do in this case?\n25 A. Well, initially in the contract, it was——there were some\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 work streams that were contemplated that included looking at\n2 data from devices and, as I said, reviewing bank records,\n3 amongst other things.\n4 Q. Focusing in turn on some of the work that Brattle has done,\n5 did there come a time when the government provided certain\n6 agreements and corporate documents to Brattle in this case?\n7 A. It did.\n8 Q. Generally speaking, what type of agreements or documents\n9 were those?\n10 A. They were a range of different types of documents. Many of\n11 them were service contracts; others were documents indicating\n12 loan agreements or investment amounts.\n13 Q. In addition to those corporate agreements or documents, did\n14 the government provide Brattle with other types of records or\n15 exhibits in this case?\n16 A. Yes, bank records.\n17 Q. And what approximate volume of bank records did the\n18 government provide to Brattle in this case?\n19 A. Well, there were thousands of——of documents in the form of\n20 pdfs and Excel files representing over 200,000 transactions.\n21 Q. What, if anything, did the government engage Brattle to do\n22 with respect to those bank records?\n23 A. Well, initially it was just to identify what the documents\n24 were that were in the production and which entities they\n25 related to and which bank accounts.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could please pull up\n2 for the witness what's been marked for identification as\n3 Government Exhibit Z27.\n4 Q. Mr. Hinton, do you recognize this exhibit?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Did you review it in advance of your testimony?\n7 A. I did.\n8 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the government offers\n9 Government Exhibit Z27.\n10 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection, your Honor.\n11 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n12 (Government's Exhibit Z27 received in evidence)\n13 MS. MURRAY: If we could publish, please.\n14 BY MS. MURRAY:\n15 Q. Mr. Hinton, can you describe for the jury what information\n16 is reflected on this page of Government Exhibit Z27, as it\n17 relates to Brattle's work with respect to the bank records in\n18 this case.\n19 A. Yes. This just summarizes the volume of materials that we\n20 identified and then later the subset of those records that we\n21 processed to extract information.\n22 Q. And when you say Processed Accounts in the first column,\n23 what does that mean with respect to work that Brattle did?\n24 A. Well, by processed, I mean, we had to take each of these\n25 various bank documents that included financial transactions and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 extract the relevant transaction details from them and put them\n2 into an Excel spreadsheet.\n3 Q. Looking at the last row here, Mr. Hinton, Number of Banks,\n4 approximately how many unique banks did the government provide\n5 records from in this case?\n6 A. Well, we identified 72 different banks in the overall\n7 document production that we were sent.\n8 Q. For those 72 banks, the records from those banks, can you\n9 describe for the jury how, if at all, the format of the bank\n10 records differed.\n11 A. Well, some of——yeah, some of the bank records were just\n12 ordinary bank statements that are very similar to the type of\n13 bank statement that any individual would have from their bank,\n14 and those would be pdfs, and they usually have the summary of\n15 the monthly activity at the top and then you show all the\n16 transactions and the balance. But there were a lot of other\n17 types of documents too. One other common format was a record\n18 of what's called wire transactions, and those are transactions\n19 that occur between banks, and those records could come in the\n20 form of, you know, detailed statements that were pdfs but they\n21 could also come in the form of a spreadsheet where there were\n22 many columns of data that described different features of each\n23 of the wire transfers. There were also, in some statements,\n24 images of checks, so just the canceled checks or the checks\n25 after they had been processed and received at a bank. And\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 there were other miscellaneous bank records also.\n2 Q. And looking again at the first column, Processed Accounts,\n3 approximately how many files of bank documents did Brattle\n4 process in the course of its work on this case?\n5 A. So over 2,000. So 2,173.\n6 Q. And looking at the next item there, Number of Entities,\n7 those bank records were in the names of approximately how many\n8 different entities or individuals?\n9 A. Well, there were about 100——well, 119 different entities\n10 for whom we processed bank records.\n11 Q. And those 119 entities for the processed accounts, how many\n12 bank accounts did those represent?\n13 A. There were 450 bank accounts for the 219 [sic] entities.\n14 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could go to the next\n15 slide, please.\n16 Q. Mr. Hinton, can you describe for the jury, first of all,\n17 who provided the categories that are reflected on this slide.\n18 A. The government.\n19 Q. And did the government inform or advise Brattle what\n20 entities to place within each of these categories?\n21 A. Yes, they did.\n22 Q. And that was a determination made by the government; is\n23 that correct?\n24 A. That's correct.\n25 Q. So looking here, and this is Identified Accounts. Can you\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 just explain the difference between Identified Accounts and\n2 Processed Accounts.\n3 A. Yes. The——initially we received a large volume of\n4 documents, and we had to identify what those documents were,\n5 which entities were named in them, which banks, and which of\n6 them were actually documents that contained financial\n7 transaction information, so that was the identification phase,\n8 and the government later indicated which of those identified\n9 bank records they wanted us to process.\n10 Q. And reading across this slide, first of all, with respect\n11 to the Rule of Law category, do you have any independent\n12 understanding of what the Rule of Law is?\n13 A. No.\n14 Q. How many identified accounts were there for Rule of Law?\n15 A. 20.\n16 Q. Looking next, GTV/VOG, do you have any independent\n17 knowledge of what GTV is?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. Or VOG?\n20 A. No.\n21 Q. How many identified bank accounts were there that went into\n22 the government's category of GTV or VOG?\n23 A. We identified 49.\n24 Q. And then Farms, aside from the common understanding of the\n25 word, do you know what Farms means in the context of this case?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. Did the government provide that category and identify what\n3 entities or individuals fell within that category?\n4 A. It did.\n5 Q. And how many identified bank accounts were there under the\n6 Farms category?\n7 A. 85.\n8 Q. Looking now at G|CLUBS and Crane, first, do you have any\n9 independent knowledge of G|CLUBS?\n10 A. No.\n11 Q. Do you have any independent knowledge of what Crane is?\n12 A. No.\n13 Q. How many identified bank accounts fell within the\n14 government's category of G|CLUBS or Crane?\n15 A. 82.\n16 Q. And finally, Mr. Hinton, Himalaya Exchange, do you know\n17 what the Himalaya Exchange is?\n18 A. No.\n19 Q. How many identified bank accounts fell within that\n20 category?\n21 A. 27.\n22 MS. MURRAY: If we could go to the next slide, please,\n23 Ms. Loftus.\n24 Actually, let's go back one for a moment.\n25 Q. Mr. Hinton, can you explain the process by which Brattle\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 extracted data from the bank records that the government\n2 provided.\n3 A. Certainly. Well, there were two different processes——one\n4 for data that was already in a spreadsheet and a different\n5 process for the——the documents that came as pdfs, so the pdfs\n6 had to be OCR'd, so the optical character recognition run, so\n7 that the fields of information could be copied from those\n8 documents, and then computer programs were used to extract\n9 those fields of information and put them into a spreadsheet.\n10 So at that point we had two——we had all the records in\n11 spreadsheet form and we then just had to organize the fields of\n12 information for each account so that they were formatted in a\n13 consistent way across all the banks and all the accounts.\n14 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, can we take this down,\n15 please, and let's put up for the witness only Government\n16 Exhibit Z28.\n17 Q. Mr. Hinton, do you recognize Exhibit Z28?\n18 A. I do.\n19 Q. At a high level, what information does it reflect?\n20 A. It lists all the bank——banks down the left-hand side, and\n21 then in the columns, there's a count of the number of different\n22 bank accounts that——that we identified that are associated with\n23 each of the categories that were on the prior chart. I think\n24 there are also a couple of other categories on this particular\n25 chart, but the point here is that it dem——it records the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 breakdown or the composition of all the bank accounts that we\n2 identified that were classified into all the categories the\n3 government gave us.\n4 Q. And Mr. Hinton, did you review Government Exhibit Z28 in\n5 advance of your testimony today?\n6 A. I did.\n7 Q. Did you confirm that the information contained within this\n8 summary chart is accurate?\n9 A. I did.\n10 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the government offers Z28.\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n12 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n13 (Government's Exhibit Z28 received in evidence)\n14 MS. MURRAY: Could we please publish.\n15 Q. All right. Mr. Hinton, now that the jury can see it——it's\n16 a bit small. We'll zoom in on various portions.\n17 MS. MURRAY: First, Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom in on\n18 the top portion, to include the first few rows but all of the\n19 column titles as well.\n20 Q. So Mr. Hinton, looking across this document, the first few\n21 columns, those reflect the categories that we just saw on the\n22 prior slide; is that correct?\n23 A. Yes, that's correct.\n24 Q. And those are categories that the government defined and\n25 provided to Brattle?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. It did.\n2 Q. Looking at the column titled ACA Capital, Hamilton (William\n3 Je), what information, generally speaking, did the government\n4 define for that category?\n5 A. It identified specific entities that should be categorized\n6 in that category, and those included entities ACA Capital and\n7 Hamilton.\n8 Q. And do you know who William Je is personally?\n9 A. No.\n10 Q. Do you have any independent knowledge of ACA Capital or\n11 Hamilton?\n12 A. No.\n13 Q. Looking at the next column, it's indicating Family Members\n14 with an asterisk. Do you see that?\n15 A. I do.\n16 Q. And the final column, Family Offices with two asterisks.\n17 Do you see that?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom out of this\n20 and go to the bottom, please, of this page. And zoom in on the\n21 bottom left portion.\n22 Q. Mr. Hinton, for purposes of this summary chart, how is the\n23 Family category defined, the government's Family category?\n24 A. It is defined to include all accounts for Mei Guo, Qiang\n25 Guo, William Je, and Sing Ting Rong.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. And do you know who any of those individuals is,\n2 Mr. Hinton——Mei Guo, Qiang Guo, William Je, or Sing Ting Rong?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. And then Family Offices category that the government\n5 provided, Mr. Hinton, what entities is that defined to include?\n6 A. The government told us to include the entities Lamp\n7 Capital, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond, Lexington Property, and\n8 Greenwich Land.\n9 Q. And same question with respect to those entities. Do you\n10 have any understanding or knowledge of those entities?\n11 A. No.\n12 MS. MURRAY: All right. Let's zoom out again,\n13 Ms. Loftus. And if we could kind of zoom in on the top half of\n14 the chart or so.\n15 Q. I just want to take a few examples here, Mr. Hinton.\n16 Looking, for example, at Bank of America, which is the second\n17 row, if you could just read across for the jury and read the\n18 number of identified accounts and the relevant category that\n19 those accounts fell under.\n20 A. Yes. We identified bank account records for Bank of\n21 America accounts. For Rule of Law, there were four; in the\n22 Farms category, there were 11; in the GTV/VOG category, there\n23 were four; there were eight for Family Members; and that came\n24 to a total of 27.\n25 Q. Taking another example here, let's look at JPMC, or\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 JPMorgan Chase, and read across the row the bank accounts that\n2 were identified for the various categories where there were\n3 accounts.\n4 A. Yes. For JPMorgan Chase there were 25 Farms accounts; 10\n5 GTV/VOG accounts; five G|CLUBS/Crane accounts; and five Family\n6 Office accounts; for a total of 45 different accounts.\n7 MS. MURRAY: Let's zoom out of that, please,\n8 Ms. Loftus.\n9 And if we could zoom in now on the bottom portion of\n10 this, down to the end.\n11 Q. Taking just one more example, Mr. Hinton, Silvergate Bank,\n12 if you could read across there.\n13 MS. MURRAY: And Ms. Loftus, maybe we could scroll up\n14 for a moment for Mr. Hinton so he can see which column that is.\n15 Q. There were 27 identified accounts in which category at\n16 Silvergate Bank?\n17 A. It's the ACA Capital, Hamilton column that has 27\n18 Silvergate Bank accounts.\n19 Q. And just looking at the totals here, Mr. Hinton, what was\n20 the total number of identified accounts for these various\n21 categories that are reflected on this chart?\n22 A. 422 different accounts.\n23 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Ms. Loftus. We can take that\n24 down.\n25 Your Honor, at this time the government would like to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 offer various exhibits pursuant to stipulations between the\n2 parties.\n3 First, Ms. Loftus, if we could please pull up Stip 8,\n4 which is already admitted and in evidence.\n5 Pursuant to Stip 8, the government offers the\n6 following exhibits, which are reflected in parts of column B:\n7 Government Exhibits GX BR300-GX BR356;\n8 GX 3200-GX 3202; GX 3210-GX 3213; GX 3214; GX 3204-GX 3207;\n9 GX BR900-GX BR931; GX2001-GX 2717; and GX BR1001-GX BR1031.\n10 The government offers those exhibits pursuant to this stip.\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n12 THE COURT: They're admitted.\n13 (Government's Exhibits BR300-BR356; 3200-3202;\n14 3210-3213; 3214; 3204-3207; BR900-BR931; 2001-2717;\n15 BR1001-BR1031 received in evidence)\n16 MS. MURRAY: All right. Ms. Loftus, if you could\n17 please now pull up GX Stip 14. Again, this is a stipulation\n18 between the parties that has been admitted.\n19 Your Honor, in the interest of time and everyone's\n20 attention, I'll just reference the government exhibits that are\n21 cited in this stipulation and offer them pursuant to the\n22 stipulation. This stipulation indicates that the parties have\n23 agreed that the government exhibits listed in column B were\n24 lawfully obtained by the government, they're authentic records\n25 of the entity listed in column A, they were made at or near the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 time by, or information transmitted by a person with knowledge,\n2 they were kept in the regular course, and it was the regular\n3 practice of the entity to make the records. The government\n4 exhibits listed in column B are bank records from producing\n5 parties that are banks. Pursuant to this stipulation, the\n6 government offers all of the government exhibits listed in\n7 column B.\n8 THE COURT: They're admitted.\n9 (Government's Exhibits Column B of Stip 14 received in\n10 evidence)\n11 MS. MURRAY: Finally, your Honor, the government would\n12 offer at this time Government Exhibit Stip 22 for admission.\n13 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n14 (Government's Exhibit Stip 22 received in evidence)\n15 MS. MURRAY: And pursuant to Government Exhibit\n16 Stip 22, the government offers the following additional bank\n17 records.\n18 Government Exhibit Stip 22 is a stipulation between\n19 the parties agreeing that the Government Exhibits cited in\n20 column B are records maintained in the course of the regular\n21 business of the entities listed in column A, which are banks\n22 that are producing parties. Pursuant to Government Exhibit\n23 Stip 22, the government offers all of the government exhibits\n24 cited in column B of Stip 22.\n25 THE COURT: They are admitted.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 (Government's Exhibits Column B of Stip 22 received in\n2 evidence)\n3 MS. MURRAY: Thank you. We can take that down,\n4 Ms. Loftus.\n5 So if we could go back now, please, to GX Z27.\n6 And let's go to slide 3.\n7 BY MS. MURRAY:\n8 Q. Mr. Hinton, can you describe for the jury what is reflected\n9 on this summary chart.\n10 A. This chart lists the names of the entities that were\n11 classified as Family Office entities and the number of\n12 processed bank accounts for each.\n13 Q. And to be clear, the processed bank accounts, is it correct\n14 that those are accounts that Brattle extracted the data from——\n15 A. That's correct.\n16 Q. ——bank records?\n17 A. That's correct.\n18 Q. All right. And we could go——actually, let's look at this\n19 for a moment.\n20 How many processed bank accounts were there for Lamp\n21 Capital, LLC?\n22 A. 25.\n23 Q. What about for Greenwich Land, LLC?\n24 A. Three.\n25 Q. So in total for these five Family Office entities under the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 government's category, how many processed bank accounts were\n2 there?\n3 A. 52.\n4 MS. MURRAY: Let's go to the next slide, please,\n5 Ms. Loftus.\n6 And if we could scroll up a bit.\n7 And just zoom so we can see the full summary chart.\n8 Q. Mr. Hinton, generally speaking, what information is\n9 reflected on this slide?\n10 A. This is a similar chart that lists all the processed\n11 accounts for the individual entities that were categorized in\n12 the Farm group.\n13 Q. And those were categories that the government provided; is\n14 that correct?\n15 A. That is correct.\n16 Q. And is it correct that this summary chart lists only\n17 processed accounts for the Farm entities that are listed here?\n18 A. Yes, just those for which we extracted data.\n19 MS. MURRAY: If we could scroll down a bit,\n20 Ms. Loftus.\n21 Q. For those Farm accounts for which Brattle extracted data,\n22 how many accounts were there?\n23 A. 55.\n24 Q. And looking at the fourth row here, what is the name of\n25 that Farm entity?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. Maywind Trading, LLC.\n2 MS. MURRAY: We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.\n3 Q. Now, Mr. Hinton, you mentioned that in addition to bank\n4 accounts, Brattle also received loan agreements and other\n5 documents from the government; is that correct?\n6 A. That's correct.\n7 Q. Did the government ask Brattle to conduct a certain\n8 analysis of some of those agreements?\n9 A. It did.\n10 Q. Did that include a summary analysis of Maywind Trading, LLC\n11 loan agreements?\n12 A. It did.\n13 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could please go to\n14 Government Exhibit Z29, just for the witness for the moment.\n15 Q. Mr. Hinton, do you recognize Z29?\n16 A. I do.\n17 Q. At a high level, what is it?\n18 A. It's the first page of a long list of all of the loan\n19 agreements that we identified for Maywind Trading, LLC, which\n20 was——and it's labeled here Phoenix Farm.\n21 Q. And did you review this exhibit in advance of your\n22 testimony today?\n23 A. I did.\n24 Q. Is the information in Z29 accurate?\n25 A. It is.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the government offers\n2 Government Exhibit Z29.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n4 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n5 (Government's Exhibit Z29 received in evidence)\n6 MS. MURRAY: Can we please publish, Ms. Loftus.\n7 BY MS. MURRAY:\n8 Q. Can you read the title, now that the jury can see it, of\n9 this exhibit, please, Mr. Hinton.\n10 A. It says Phoenix Farm, and in brackets it says Maywind\n11 Trading LLC, Loan Agreements.\n12 Q. Do you know what the Phoenix Farm is, Mr. Hinton?\n13 A. I do not.\n14 Q. Now looking at this summary chart that's contained within\n15 this exhibit, the farthest-right column, what information is\n16 reflected there under the column titled GX?\n17 A. Those were all the Government Exhibit numbers that\n18 correspond to the loan agreements.\n19 MS. MURRAY: If we could focus on the top portion,\n20 Ms. Loftus, before the table.\n21 Q. Mr. Hinton, how many Maywind Trading, LLC or Phoenix Farm\n22 loan agreements did Brattle identify in the materials the\n23 government provided?\n24 A. We identified 686 distinct loan agreements.\n25 Q. Did Brattle evaluate or analyze those loan agreements to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 determine whether they were signed?\n2 A. We did.\n3 Q. How many of those 686 loan agreements were signed by the\n4 borrower, or the Phoenix Farm (Maywind Trading LLC)?\n5 A. None of them had a signature for the borrower.\n6 Q. And how many of those 686 loan agreements were signed by\n7 the lender, or the individuals who were the counterparties to\n8 those agreements?\n9 A. They were all signed.\n10 MS. MURRAY: All right. If we could zoom out of that,\n11 please.\n12 I just want to look at one or two examples, if we\n13 could.\n14 Ms. Loftus, let's go down, please, to——thank you.\n15 Actually, let's go one more page down.\n16 And——perfect.\n17 Q. So looking at one of the entries for December 3, 2020,\n18 Mr. Hinton, do you see that the amount is listed as Not\n19 Applicable on this summary chart?\n20 A. There are some entries that say NA, that's correct.\n21 MS. MURRAY: If we could go to that source exhibit,\n22 Ms. Loftus.\n23 So this is December 3, 2020. That's Government\n24 Exhibit 2502, which is in evidence.\n25 If we could focus on the top portion here, Ms. Loftus.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. Mr. Hinton, what is listed for the borrower on this loan\n2 agreement?\n3 A. It says Phoenix Farm, and in brackets, it says Maywind\n4 Trading, LLC.\n5 Q. And who is listed as the lender?\n6 A. The lender is listed as Cai Yanting. Excuse my\n7 pronunciation.\n8 Q. There's a certain field that's called Lender's Phoenix Farm\n9 Code. Do you see that?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. What information is reflected there?\n12 A. It's just an alphanumeric code.\n13 Q. And can you read that, please.\n14 A. FH1-1560.\n15 Q. And this loan agreement is dated. What is the date?\n16 A. It's dated December 3, 2020.\n17 Q. Under Section 1, Terms, can you read (a) Use of Proceeds.\n18 A. It says, \"The loan proceeds advanced under this agreement\n19 is for the general working capital purposes of the borrower.\"\n20 Q. Looking at item (b) Loan Amount, what loan amount is\n21 reflected on this agreement?\n22 A. Well, there's a little blank space in the sentence that is\n23 empty in this particular agreement.\n24 Q. What is the interest rate that's reflected here under 1(c)?\n25 A. 3 percent per annum.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. Payable when?\n2 A. It is payable in full on the final maturity date.\n3 Q. And then (d), Final Maturity Date, what's reflected there?\n4 A. \"The final maturity date is 36 months after the effective\n5 date.\"\n6 MS. MURRAY: If we could zoom out of this, please,\n7 Ms. Loftus.\n8 And let's go down a few pages.\n9 Q. So there are initials on the bottom, Mr. Hinton. Do you\n10 see that? Oh.\n11 A. I see that there are some typed——three letters are typed at\n12 the bottom of each page, which appear to be——well, they——the\n13 first two of which match——match the first name and the last\n14 name of the lender.\n15 MS. MURRAY: All right. Let's keep going through the\n16 next few pages, please, Ms. Loftus.\n17 Q. On this page, Mr. Hinton, does it appear that this document\n18 is signed?\n19 A. Yeah, in the signature area of the agreement, there are\n20 some Chinese characters.\n21 Q. And that's for which party to this agreement?\n22 A. It's for the——for Cai Yanting, who is the lender.\n23 Q. Is there a signature on the line that is associated with\n24 Phoenix Farm (Maywind Trading, LLC)?\n25 A. No. The line is blank.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. And Mr. Hinton, this is signed even though there's no loan\n2 amount listed; is that correct?\n3 A. That's correct.\n4 MS. MURRAY: If we can go back, Ms. Loftus, to\n5 Government Exhibit Z29. Thank you.\n6 And if we could go to the last page, please.\n7 Q. Mr. Hinton, for the 686 Phoenix Farm loan agreements that\n8 are reflected in this summary chart, what is the cumulative\n9 dollar amount associated with those loan agreements?\n10 A. The sum of the loan amounts for these agreements is\n11 $23,158,757.\n12 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Ms. Loftus. We can take that\n13 down now.\n14 Q. Mr. Hinton, since the government engaged Brattle in\n15 connection with this case, has the government provided guidance\n16 to Brattle regarding the analysis that it was requesting?\n17 A. Yes, it has.\n18 Q. Did that include calls and meetings to discuss Brattle's\n19 findings and to provide, for example, categories of information\n20 for Brattle to characterize certain records?\n21 A. It did.\n22 Q. Did the government provide edits or other feedback to\n23 Brattle regarding its analysis and findings?\n24 A. It did.\n25 Q. Does Brattle's work product, including the exhibits we've\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 looked at so far today, reflect certain of the government's\n2 feedback and instruction?\n3 A. They do.\n4 Q. Now, Mr. Hinton, besides the analysis you've been\n5 describing that Brattle performed in this case, your testimony\n6 today, and your preparation for that testimony, did you have\n7 any involvement in this case?\n8 A. I did.\n9 Q. What was the degree of your involvement in this case,\n10 besides the analysis you described, your testimony today, and\n11 your preparation for that testimony?\n12 A. Could you repeat the question.\n13 Q. Sure. What was your involvement in this case besides the\n14 analysis that Brattle performed, your testimony today, and your\n15 preparation for the testimony?\n16 A. Well, that was——those are the main elements of——those are\n17 the elements of——of my work. I performed——I supervised the\n18 staff to perform the analysis, I prepared for testimony, and\n19 I'm delivering the testimony today. That was the scope of our\n20 engagement.\n21 Q. And Mr. Hinton, did you review all of the evidence that the\n22 government has collected in this case or did you just review\n23 the records and exhibits that the government provided to\n24 Brattle?\n25 A. Only the documents that were provided to Brattle.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. Did Brattle have any role in determining what exhibits or\n2 records the government would provide to Brattle?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. And you mentioned the process of extracting data from the\n5 bank records that the government provided. How, if at all, did\n6 Brattle catalog or categorize that extracted data?\n7 A. Well, we used the——the category——the categorizations that\n8 we discussed earlier to identify not just the bank accounts but\n9 the individual transactions based on which entities were\n10 involved and what category they were in, and then as I've\n11 mentioned before, we——we took the transaction data from each of\n12 the different sources and organized them into a single database\n13 so that they could be looked at together.\n14 Q. And what was your role, if any, with respect to that\n15 database that contained the bank——the extracted bank record\n16 data?\n17 A. Well, I designed the database structure and I supervised\n18 and directed the work to——along the way to populate it.\n19 Q. At a high level, can you describe for the jury how that\n20 database operated.\n21 A. Well, it was really——it's a more secure way of organizing\n22 the hundreds of different bank account records, sets of\n23 records, than just keeping them in a spreadsheet, so it enabled\n24 us to organize all the different banks' transaction records in\n25 the same format and also capture the categories that the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 government had given us and associate it with every single\n2 transaction along with the reference numbers telling us which\n3 document they came from.\n4 Q. And when you say the reference numbers reflecting the\n5 document, did those documents link to identified government\n6 exhibits in this case?\n7 A. Yes, that means that every single transaction, of which\n8 there are over 200,000 in the database, can be linked back to a\n9 source document that is a GX——has a GX number in this case.\n10 Q. And in preparing for your testimony today, Mr. Hinton, did\n11 you review and verify the accuracy of the various summary\n12 charts we've looked at so far?\n13 A. I did.\n14 Q. And did you do that in part by going to the database that\n15 Brattle maintained of bank records?\n16 A. Yes. In fact, the individual transactions represented on\n17 each chart were taken from the database, and I was able to then\n18 identify which government exhibit the data came from and look\n19 at the underlying source document to verify the data.\n20 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, can we please put up what's\n21 been marked for identification as Government Exhibit Z26.\n22 And that's just for the witness.\n23 And if we could scroll through a few pages.\n24 Q. Mr. Hinton, do you recognize Z26?\n25 A. I do.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. Did you assist in preparing Government Exhibit Z26?\n2 A. I did.\n3 Q. Does Z26 contain a summary of certain bank records that\n4 Brattle reviewed in connection with this case?\n5 A. Yes, reviewed and processed.\n6 MS. MURRAY: And if we could go to the last page,\n7 please, Ms. Loftus.\n8 Q. Looking at the last page of this presentation, does this\n9 reflect the government exhibits that are the source documents\n10 that support the data contained within Z26?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Have you reviewed the information in Z26 and the source\n13 documents cited on this slide, Mr. Hinton?\n14 A. I have.\n15 Q. Have you confirmed the information is accurate?\n16 A. I have.\n17 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the government offers\n18 Government Exhibit Z26.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.\n20 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n21 (Government's Exhibit Z26 received in evidence)\n22 MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could go to the first\n23 slide, please, and publish to the jury.\n24 BY MS. MURRAY:\n25 Q. Mr. Hinton, what is the title of Government Exhibit Z26?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. Bank Record Summaries.\n2 Q. Excellent.\n3 MS. MURRAY: Let's go to the next slide, please.\n4 Q. What information, generally, is reflected on this chart,\n5 Mr. Hinton?\n6 A. Well, this is the result of summing up the value of all the\n7 transactions in the database, so that's all the transactions we\n8 processed and categorized according to the categories that the\n9 government gave us for GTV, Farms, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya.\n10 Q. And the top of this chart, Mr. Hinton, says Sources of\n11 Funds. Did the government provide Brattle with instruction\n12 regarding how and whether to categorize certain transactions as\n13 Sources of Funds?\n14 A. It did.\n15 Q. Focusing on, for example, G|CLUBS, what was some of the\n16 instruction that the government provided to Brattle regarding\n17 what type of transactions should be tagged or categorized as\n18 Sources of Funds that flow through to G|CLUBS?\n19 A. So these are transactions that come from individuals, not\n20 from entities, and only those individuals who aren't associated\n21 with——in some way with any of the——the entities that are listed\n22 on the chart.\n23 Q. What, if anything, did the government direct Brattle with\n24 respect to the dollar amounts of transactions that should be\n25 included within G|CLUBS Sources of Funds?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. So for certain accounts there were——we observed there were\n2 amounts in round numbers of 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, and\n3 50,000, and the government instructed us that any transactions\n4 for those amounts, plus or minus a hundred dollars, from\n5 individuals, should be classified——or even if they weren't from\n6 identified individuals, those amounts should be classified as\n7 Sources of Funds.\n8 Q. Did the government explain to you why it instructed Brattle\n9 to tag transactions in those amounts as Sources of Funds for\n10 G|CLUBS?\n11 A. No.\n12 Q. Do you have any independent understanding why the\n13 government gave that instruction?\n14 A. No.\n15 Q. What discretion, if any, did Brattle have in deviating from\n16 the government's definition of Sources of Funds for purposes of\n17 this summary analysis?\n18 A. We did not have any discretion.\n19 Q. Reading along the amounts here, what is the sum dollar\n20 amount reflected in this summary exhibit of Sources of Funds\n21 that flowed through to the government's category of GTV or VOG?\n22 A. $411 million.\n23 Q. What about the Farms?\n24 A. $110 million.\n25 Q. And what amount went through to G|CLUBS?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. $240 million.\n2 Q. And finally, what amount went through to the Himalaya\n3 Exchange?\n4 A. $517 million.\n5 Q. And that's for a combined total of what amount, as\n6 reflected here for purposes of this summary?\n7 A. $1.3 billion.\n8 MS. MURRAY: And Ms. Loftus, we can go to the next\n9 slide.\n10 Q. Looking at the top of this, Mr. Hinton, what is the title\n11 of this slide?\n12 A. The title is GTV/VOG: Overview.\n13 Q. And is that one of the categories that the government\n14 defined for Brattle?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Looking at the Sources of Funds here, there are three\n17 entities listed, kind of at the bottom of the slide. Do you\n18 see those?\n19 A. I do.\n20 Q. Under those entities, there are parentheticals and there\n21 are some letters and numbers. What information, if any, does\n22 that reflect?\n23 A. The numbers and letters represent particular bank accounts.\n24 Q. And so the letters, what about the bank accounts do the\n25 letters reflect?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 A. So the number——the letters are just an acronym or shorthand\n2 for the name of the bank. So BOA stands for Bank of America.\n3 Q. And then the numbers that are listed throughout these\n4 slides for different bank accounts, what portion, if any, of\n5 the relevant account number are those?\n6 A. Those are the last four digits of the bank account number.\n7 Q. So looking at this overview slide, how much money from the\n8 Sources of Funds that were identified went to Voice of Guo\n9 Media, Inc., between April 20, 2020, and October 13, 2020?\n10 A. 72 million——72.9 million went into the two——the Bank of\n11 America and Wells Fargo bank——Voice of Guo Media accounts on\n12 this chart.\n13 Q. And looking in the middle, how much went into those two\n14 JPMorgan accounts held in the name of Saraca Media Group, Inc.?\n15 A. 286.9 million.\n16 Q. And on the right, how much went into the Capital One and\n17 the JPMorgan bank accounts held in the name of GTV Media Group,\n18 Inc.?\n19 A. 29.6 million.\n20 Q. And over what time period did that 29.6 million go into the\n21 GTV Media Group, Inc.'s bank account?\n22 A. Between May 11, 2020, and June 12, 2020, that those amounts\n23 went into the two bank accounts shown there.\n24 MS. MURRAY: All right. Ms. Loftus, the next slide,\n25 please.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. Mr. Hinton, what is the title of this slide?\n2 A. This slide is titled GTV/VOG: Select Flows.\n3 Q. Generally speaking, at a high level, what does this summary\n4 chart or summary slide reflect?\n5 A. It shows the dollar——aggregate dollar amount of flows of\n6 funds between particular bank accounts over certain time\n7 periods.\n8 Q. And Mr. Hinton, who selected which bank account to include\n9 on this summary flow slide?\n10 A. The government.\n11 Q. If we could just follow through a few examples.\n12 Looking at the second arrow on the top left from\n13 Sources of Funds going to the Wells Fargo bank account in the\n14 name of Voice of Guo Media, Inc., what is the dollar amount\n15 that goes to that account from Sources of Funds?\n16 A. $46.3 million.\n17 Q. And then looking at the next select flow from that account,\n18 where does $15 million in the form of a cashier check go from\n19 that account?\n20 A. It goes from Wells Fargo to JPMorgan at Saraca Media Group.\n21 Q. And from that JPMorgan account ending in 5601, where then\n22 do we see a flow of $125.5 million going?\n23 A. To Saraca Media Group at JPMorgan 2038.\n24 Q. And over what time period?\n25 A. From June the 3rd to June 10th.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n1 Q. Of what year?\n2 A. 2020.\n3 Q. And then let's look at the outflows from that Saraca Media\n4 Group, Inc. account, the JPMorgan 2038.\n5 First, on the left, what do we see going straight down\n6 on June 5, 2020?\n7 A. There's a transfer of 100 million on June 5th to Hayman\n8 Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.\n9 Q. Mr. Hinton, do you know what the Hayman Hong Kong\n10 Opportunities Fund is?\n11 A. I do not.\n12 Q. All right. And then let's look at another outflow from\n13 that JPMorgan 2038 account, over——going to the right on\n14 June 9th of 2020. What amount do we see listed there?\n15 A. $38 million on June 9, 2020.\n16 Q. Now looking down the center of this slide, Mr. Hinton, just\n17 briefly, can you follow through the Sources of Funds that go\n18 down the center of the slide directly to the Saraca Media\n19 JPMorgan account ending in 5601 and then on through to the GTV\n20 Media account at Citibank ending in 6691.\n21 A. Yes. Starting in February, on the 22nd, of 2019, over the\n22 following year and a half or so, there's 275.9 million in funds\n23 from Sources of Funds, as they've so been defined, into Saraca\n24 Media Group's JPMorgan account ending in 5601. Then on June 3,\n25 2000 [sic], there's a 200 million transfer from that Saraca\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6\n1 Media Group account to GTV Media Group, at Citigroup account\n2 6691.\n3 Q. And just to be clear, Mr. Hinton, what year was that, the\n4 June 3rd transaction of 200 million from Saraca at JPM to GTV\n5 at Citi?\n6 A. In 2020.\n7 Q. If we can go to the next——actually, stay on this slide for\n8 a moment, please.\n9 Looking at the far right, Mr. Hinton, do you see a\n10 name that's in the far right bottom box? There's a company\n11 name and a PNC?\n12 A. I do.\n13 Q. What is that name?\n14 A. Lawall & Mitchell.\n15 Q. Do you know what Lawall & Mitchell is?\n16 A. I know that it's a law firm.\n17 THE COURT: All righty. We need to stop because it's\n18 5:00.\n19 Members of the jury, don't discuss the case amongst\n20 yourselves or with anyone else. Don't permit anyone to discuss\n21 the case in your presence. Don't read, watch, or listen to\n22 anything from any source having to do with the subject matter\n23 of this trial. Have a good evening.\n24 (Jury not present)\n25 THE COURT: Sir, you may step out.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6\n1 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.\n2 THE COURT: Don't discuss your testimony.\n3 THE WITNESS: I will not.\n4 (Witness not present)\n5 THE COURT: You may be seated.\n6 Is there anything further before we break?\n7 MR. KAMARAJU: Not from the defense, your Honor.\n8 MR. FINKEL: Just a scheduling update from the\n9 government.\n10 After Mr. Hinton, the government believes it has two\n11 witnesses left. After those two witnesses, the government\n12 would like to play a handful of videos or show a few documents\n13 that the jury has not yet seen but are already in evidence, and\n14 I just want to make sure that's okay with the Court that we\n15 don't have a witness on the stand for that?\n16 THE COURT: If they're in evidence, that's fine.\n17 MR. FINKEL: Okay. We'll plan to do that.\n18 Just for the Court's knowledge and for defense\n19 counsel's knowledge, after Mr. Hinton, who approximately has 30\n20 to 45 minutes left on direct, the direct of the two remaining\n21 witnesses, one is probably just north of an hour and then the\n22 last witness we would estimate as around 90 minutes, depending\n23 on how quick the technology moves. It's mostly cellphone\n24 extractions, text messages, things like that.\n25 So that's sort of where the government is in its case.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6\n1 I just wanted the Court to be aware of that. So we expect to\n2 rest tomorrow, assuming crosses are not voluminous.\n3 Outside of that, your Honor, absent any questions, the\n4 government is just inquiring about the week of July 8th. With\n5 the understanding now we're sitting full days on July 2nd and\n6 3rd, on July 8th, if things move at the clip that the defense\n7 has predicted and the government certainly hopes, I think we'll\n8 be in jury addresses and deliberations. Is the Court planning\n9 to sit a full day for——I know for deliberations, your Honor\n10 said it would. Is the same for jury deliberations? In other\n11 words——sorry. I apologize. I'm a little tired. Is the week\n12 of July 8th going to be a full 9-to-5 week as well?\n13 THE COURT: So for summations and deliberations, we\n14 will sit a full day.\n15 MR. FINKEL: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you, your\n16 Honor.\n17 THE COURT: Have a good evening.\n18 MR. KAMARAJU: You too, your Honor.\n19 MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.\n20 (Adjourned to June 26, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.) permit\n21 anyone to discuss the case in your presence. Don't read, watch\n22 or listen to anything that touches on the subject of this case.\n23 THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting.\n24 (Recess)\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION\n2 Examination of: Page\n3 DOUGLAS SKALKA\n4 Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .4075\n5 Cross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . . .4092\n6 Redirect By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . .4148\n7 Recross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . .4163\n8 Redirect By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . .4165\n9 Recross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . .4165\n10 OWEN FOLEY\n11 Direct By Ms. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . .4166\n12 Cross By Mr. Schirick . . . . . . . . . . . .4184\n13 DANIEL COPELAND\n14 Direct By Ms. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . .4210\n15 Cross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . . .4236\n16 Redirect By Ms. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . .4255\n17 Recross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . .4258\n18 STEPHEN JOHNSON\n19 Direct By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . . .4265\n20 Cross By Mr. Schirick . . . . . . . . . . . .4297\n21 PAUL HINTON\n22 Direct By Ms. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . .4301\n23 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS\n24 Exhibit No. Received\n25 1628, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1634, 1636, . . . . .4169\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 1637, 1639, 1643, 1644, and\n2 1646\n3 SM-11, SM-12, SM-17, SM-18, SM-19, . . . . .4272\n4 SM-21, SM-73, SM-96, SM-126,\n5 SM-127, SM-129, SM-130,\n6 SM-133, SM-147, SM-149,\n7 SM-151, SM-155, SM-156,\n8 SM-159, SM-170, SM-176,\n9 SM-178, SM-181, SM-210,\n10 SM-217, SM-218, SM-224,\n11 SM-226, SM-235, SM-252,\n12 SM-277, SM-283, SM-296 through\n13 SM-299\n14 [Exhibits]*[received] . . . . . . . . . . . .4284\n15 BR300-BR356; 3200-3202; 3210-3213; . . . . .4316\n16 3214; 3204-3207; BR900-BR931;\n17 2001-2717; BR1001-BR1031\n18 Column B of Stip 14 . . . . . . . . . . . .4317\n19 Column B of Stip 22 . . . . . . . . . . . .4318\n20 Z-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4170\n21 GX Stip 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4282\n22 Stip 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317\n23 Z26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4329\n24 Z27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4306\n25 Z28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4312\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 Z29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4321\n2 3450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4216\n3 DEFENDANT EXHIBITS\n4 Exhibit No. Received\n5 7006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4155\n6 70777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4251\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","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":57050,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-23","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:52:33"}