{"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":"庭审记录——美国诉Ho Wan Kwok（Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / 郭文贵）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF 439，2024年6月25日。法官Analisa Torres主持庭审，证人Douglas Skalka直接询问继续进行，法庭与陪审团讨论庭审日程安排。","summary_en":"Trial transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF 439, June 25, 2024. Judge Analisa Torres presides; direct examination of witness Douglas Skalka continues; court discusses trial scheduling and hours with jury.","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":"O6PBGUO1\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n2 ------------------------------x\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）,\n\nv. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nMILES GUO（郭文贵/Miles Guo）,\n\n被告。 审理\n6 ------------------------------x\n纽约州纽约市\n7 2024年6月25日\n上午9:00\n\n审理法官：\n\n10 ANALISA TORRES 阁下，\n11 联邦地区法官\n—以及陪审团—\n\n出庭人员\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\n14 纽约南区联邦检察官\n15 代理人：MICAH F. FERGENSON\nRYAN B. FINKEL\n16 JUSTIN HORTON\nJULIANA N. MURRAY\n17 联邦助理检察官\n18 SABRINA P. SHROFF\n被告辩护律师\n\nPRYOR CASHMAN LLP\n20 被告辩护律师\n代理人：SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU\n21 MATTHEW BARKAN\n22 ALSTON & BIRD LLP\n被告辩护律师\n23 代理人：E. SCOTT SCHIRICK\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1 其他出席人员：\nIsabel Loftus，USAO（美国检察官办公室）律师助理专员\n2 Robert Stout，FBI（联邦调查局）特别探员\nJorge Salazar，辩方律师助理\n3 Tuo Huang，口译员（普通话）\nShi Feng，口译员（普通话）\n4 Yu Mark Tang，口译员（普通话）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1 （庭审恢复；陪审团不在场）\n2 法庭：早上好。请出庭人员报到。\n3\n4 FERGENSON 先生：Micah Fergenson、Ryan Finkel、Julie\n5 Murray 和 Justin Horton 代表合众国出庭。\n6 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，早上好。Sabrina Shroff 代表\n7 郭先生出庭。郭先生正站在我的左侧。\n8 法庭：请就坐。双方是否有任何事项\n9 想要提出？\n10 FINKEL 先生：法官阁下，首先有一项小的日程安排\n11 问题。关于证人，经昨晚与辩方协商，\n12 我们正在重新调整证人的出场顺序。排在当前证人\n13 之后的下一位证人在11:45有一个无法更改的\n14 预约。我们认为他作证时间会很短。如果他不能——\n15 他是联邦检察官办公室的律师助理，所以随时可以联系到。\n16 如果我们在11:45前无法完成对他的\n17 反向询问，我们请求让他暂停作证，\n18 我们传唤下一位证人，然后等他返回时，可以在今天晚些时候\n19 或明天再让他回来。希望这对法庭\n20 不构成问题。\n21 法庭：没问题。\n22 FINKEL 先生：还有第二个问题，不知我们\n23 能否在法官席旁讨论。\n24 法庭：好的。我们去更衣室讨论，\n25 因为他们得在这边处理视听设备。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1\n2 （第4069-4072页 封存）\n3 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1 （在更衣室内）\n2 法庭：还有其他事吗？\n3 SHROFF 女士：今天早上我像往常一样走过通道\n4 来法院时，正在就一件不相关的事情\n5 与审前服务官通电话。我听到有人\n6 打招呼。我转过身，是一名陪审员。\n7 该陪审员立刻意识到他们不该打招呼。\n8 他们显得很尴尬。我没有回应，\n9 然后大家就各自走开了。我当时确实在\n10 通电话。我只是想让法庭知悉此事。\n11 FINKEL 先生：是哪一位陪审员？\n12 SHROFF 女士：当时他们两个人在一起。一个是\n13 男士，一个是女士，但真的只有一瞬间。如果我看到\n14 他们，我能认出来。我当时正步行来法院。\n15 我想他们走在我后面，记不太清了。\n16 法庭：那么，只要我提醒陪审员\n17 不得与律师接触，是否就足够了？\n18 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，我觉得这看起来像是我在\n19 告他们状。这事微不足道，以至于我\n20 真的考虑过是否不提，但我出于\n21 极度谨慎才提出来的。当时那名陪审员真的显得很羞愧，\n22 觉得自己不该那么做。他们还做了个手势，就像在说“我为什么要做那件事”。\n23 两个人当时正在交谈。是一个高个子男士\n24 和一位女士。我想她坐在第二排，或者是\n25 第一排。这实在微不足道，真的没什么。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1\n1 FINKEL 先生：政府方面对按照法庭认为合适的\n2 任何方式处理均无异议。这看起来不算什么\n3 问题。我只是请求 Shroff 女士告知政府\n4 是几号陪审员，以便我们知情。除此之外，\n5 我认为没有必要采取额外措施。当然，政府\n6 不反对法官阁下提醒陪审团\n7 作为陪审员的义务和要求。\n8\n9 法庭：如果 Shroff 女士请求我不要提醒，\n10 那我就不提了。\n11 SHROFF 女士：这真的没什么。确实微不足道。\n12 我甚至想过不该提出来，但只是为了谨慎起见。\n13\n14 法庭：好的。\n15 FINKEL 先生：法官阁下，鉴于在更衣室进行的\n16 本次会议第一部分中讨论的内容涉及受害人，\n17 政府请求将本次会议的该部分内容\n18 予以封存。\n19 法庭：准许。好的，谢谢。\n20 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 （在公开法庭）\n2 法庭：请带陪审员入庭。\n3 法官助理：陪审团入庭。\n4 （陪审团在场）\n5 法庭：请就坐。陪审员们，早上好。\n6 我在9:34才请各位入庭，是因为我们的视听设备\n7 出了故障，所以我需要先把它修好。还记得\n8 昨天我问过各位在7月2日和3日能否留到\n9 下午5:00吗？有没有人无法做到？\n10 很好。感谢各位以此方式给予我的配合。\n11 我们现在继续对证人进行直接询问。\n12 证人先生，请记住您仍处于宣誓状态。\n13 证人：是的，法官阁下。\n14 DOUGLAS SKALKA，恢复作证。\n15 直接询问继续\n16 询问人：FERGENSON 先生：\n17 问：早上好，Skalka 先生。\n18 答：早上好。\n19 问：昨天您概括性地解释了支付给您的\n20 费用的流程。您还记得吗？\n21 答：是的，我记得。\n22 问：您能否哪怕只是给出一个大致的估计，即贵所因该破产\n23 业务大约共计获得了多少费用报酬？\n24\n25 答：大约200万美元。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 问：那么您是否同样有一个大概的数字，即 Paul\n2 Hastings（普衡律师事务所/Paul Hastings）因其破产业务获得了多少费用报酬？\n3 答：大约2500万美元。\n4 问：您能否提醒我们，破产财产总共\n5 追回了多少资产？\n6 答：超过一亿美元。\n7 问：Loftus 女士，请调出 1404-B。请往下\n8 滚动，Loftus 女士。\n9 Skalka 先生，您还记得昨天休庭时\n10 我们正在看这份记录吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：该次债权人会议的日期是哪一天？\n13 答：2020年4月6日。\n14 问：仅为了说明背景，这距离破产程序申请提交有多久？\n15\n16 答：在提交申请一个半月之后。\n17 问：那么，Loftus 女士，或许我们可以把下半部分放大，\n18 然后我们直接浏览。\n19 现在我来读提问，Skalka 先生，您可以\n20 读郭先生的回答。\n21 上面写着：“Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治地产有限责任公司）——是的，Greenwich\n22 Land, LLC 除了 373 Taconic Road 之外，是否还拥有任何房地产？\n23 “答：我不知道。\n24 “问：关于位于康涅狄格州科斯科布 Ferncliff 3333 号的房产，您知道任何情况吗——请往下\n25 滚动。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 然后您可以读第二行，Skalka 先生。\n2 “答：是的。现在我想起来了。这也是我妻子的\n3 公司拥有的。\n4 “问：也就是 Greenwich Land？\n5 “答：也许吧。\n6 “问：您知情吗？\n7 “答：我不确定。\n8 “问：您去过 Ferncliff 33 号吗？\n9 “答：去过。\n10 “问：最近去过吗？\n11 “答：没有，最近没有。\n12 “问：您知道 Greenwich Land 是何时购买 Ferncliff 33 号的吗？\n13 “答：我不记得了。\n14 “问：您知道大概花费了多少钱吗？\n15 “答：大概超过100万美元。\n16 “问：137万美元听起来差不多对吗？\n17 “答：我不确定。\n18 “问：大约在2019年9月的购买日期对您来说听起来\n19 差不多对吗？\n20 “答：不确定。\n21 “问：转回 373 Taconic 一会儿，那处房产\n22 是以多少金额购买的？\n23 “答：大概40万到50万。\n24 问：然后上面记录着私人翻译说，不，不，不，\n25 接着官方翻译说，四百万到五百万。抱歉。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1\n2 下一个问题，“如果您知道的话，购买\n3 373 Taconic 的大概时间是？\n4 “答：我不知道。\n5 “问：您是否曾在 Ferncliff 33 号居住过？\n6 “答：没有。\n7 “问：您是否知道目前是否有人居住在那里？\n8 “答：以前有另一位战友，可能，你知道，为了\n9 脱离中国共产党，他曾住在那里。\n10 “问：那是多久以前？\n11 “答：大概一到两年前。\n12 “问：您记得那个人的名字吗？\n13 “答：记得。\n14 “问：叫什么？\n15 “答：Wong Din Gon。\n16 “问：如果您知道的话，目前是否有人住在那里？\n17 “答：我不知道。\n18 “问：谈到 373 Taconic，购买该房产的资金\n19 来自哪里？\n20 “答：我不知道。\n21 “问：您是否知道该房屋是用现金还是贷款融资购买的？\n22\n23 “答：我不知道。\n24 “问：关于 Ferncliff 33 号同样的问题。您知道购买\n25 该房屋的资金来自哪里吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：我听说那是用现金购买的。\n2 “问：您从谁那里听说的？\n3 “答：我不记得了。\n4 “问：您知道那笔钱来自哪里吗？\n5 “答：我不知道。\n6 问：Loftus 女士，我们能否向下滚动。\n7 您知道 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）是什么吗？\n8 “答：Saraca？\n9 “问：Saraca。\n10 “答：Saraca Media Group，我知道。\n11 “问：Saraca Media Group 是什么？\n12 “答：就是 Saraca，是一家公司。\n13 “问：什么类型的公司？\n14 “答：我不确定。\n15 “问：您个人曾与 Saraca 有过任何关系吗？\n16 “答：没有。\n17 “问：关于 Saraca 开展的业务类型，您了解任何情况吗？\n18\n19 “答：我记得他们与 GTV 媒体平台有关联，或者说他们\n20 投资了 GTV 媒体平台。\n21 “问：您是如何得知的？\n22 “答：因为我是拥有该咨询的顾问，\n23 而且我也是 GTV 的主持人，并且这也是脱离共产党的\n24 投入和平台之一。\n25 “问：您刚才说您曾是一名顾问，那是\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 针对 Saraca 还是 GTV？\n2 “答：GTV。\n3 “问：Saraca 是否曾——是否曾与东64街162号\n4 这个地址相关联过？\n5 然后问题被重复了一遍，您可以从\n6 第19行开始读。\n7 “答：我不知道。\n8 “问：那是家族办公室的地址，对吗？\n9 “答：是其中之一。\n10 “问：其他的在哪里？\n11 “答：我不知道。\n12 “问：在纽约市还有其他的吗？\n13 “答：我只是想澄清一下，Golden Spring（源泉公司/Golden Spring）是在这栋162号楼内的\n14 公司之一。\n15 “问：明白了，谢谢。在向您提问期间我们提到了家族\n16 办公室，我只是想明确一下。\n17 当我们谈到家族办公室时，我们指的是位于东64街的那个\n18 地址吗？\n19 “答：是的。\n20 “问：GTV 是否曾与该家族办公室地址\n21 相关联？\n22 “答：我不知道。\n23 “问：谁拥有 Saraca？\n24 “答：我儿子。\n25 “问：从什么时候开始的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：我不知道。\n2 “问：Saraca 目前还存在吗？\n3 “答：我不知道。\n4 “问：你知道有多少——你对 Saraca 的\n5 资产价值有任何了解吗？\n6 “答：我不知道。\n7 “问：你对 Saraca 向 GTV 支付的\n8 款项有任何了解吗？\n9 “答：不，我不知道。\n10 “问：你妻子有没有跟你提起过 Saraca 向 Greenwich Land\n11 支付过任何数百万美元的款项？\n12 “答：我不知道。\n13 “问：你是不知道她有没有告诉过你，还是不知道\n14 这些付款的事？\n15 “答：她从来没跟我说过，我甚至不知道有多少钱。\n16 “问：你认识一家叫 Ziba Limited（Z-I-B-A）的公司吗？\n17 “答：我不知道。\n18 “问：如果我已经问过这个问题，我很抱歉。如果存在的话，\n19 Saraca 和 GTV 之间是什么关系？\n20 “答：Saraca 是 GTV 的投资者。\n21 “问：你知道 Saraca 向 GTV 投资了多少钱吗？\n22 “答：我不知道。\n23 “问：GTV 是什么时候成立的？\n24 “答：2020年，也许是2019年，不太确定。\n25 “问：你知道 Saraca 的任何高级管理人员或董事\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 的姓名吗？\n2 “答：我不知道。\n3 “问：你知道 Yvette Wang（王雁平）是否为 Saraca 的高级管理人员或董事\n4 吗？\n5 “答：我不知道。\n6 “问：你认识一个叫 Hong Chong Wang（王晃宗）的人吗？\n7 “答：认识。\n8 “问：那是谁？\n9 “答：他是我的合伙人，也是脱离共产党的\n10 战友。\n11 “问：他是你的朋友吗？\n12 “答：朋友、战友和合伙人。\n13 “问：合伙人是什么意思？\n14 “答：因为我们有一家商业合作公司。\n15 “问：跟我说说那家公司？\n16 “答：嗯，我不记得那家公司的名字了。它是一家\n17 调查共产党在美国洗钱和\n18 犯罪的公司。\n19 “问：它是一家营利性公司吗？\n20 “答：我不知道。\n21 “问：你不知道？\n22 “答：我不知道。\n23 “问：那家公司叫什么名字？\n24 “答：换成英文我就记不得了。我不记得\n25 名字。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “问：你和 Hong Chong Wang 在这家公司合伙的大致\n2 时间范围是什么时候？\n3 “答：我不记得了。\n4 “问：在过去三年之内吗？\n5 “答：肯定是在三年多以前。\n6 “问：超过十年吗？\n7 “答：没有。\n8 “问：Hong Chong Wang 与 Saraca 曾经有过任何关联吗？\n9 “答：我不知道。\n10 “问：他曾担任过 Saraca 的高级管理人员或董事吗？\n11 “答：我不知道。\n12 “问：GTV 中的 G 代表什么？\n13 “答：God（上帝），the goal（目标），就像 G-O-A-L 里的 G。\n14 “问：英文单词‘goal’？\n15 “答：对，goal 或者 God。\n16 “问：你认识 Hong Chong Wang 多久了？\n17 “答：我不记得了。\n18 “问：超过十年吗？\n19 “答：大概吧。\n20 “问：你今天仍然认为他是朋友吗？\n21 “答：是的。\n22 “问：请稍等一下。今天有很多关于\n23 Golden Spring 为你资助生活费用的问题。\n24 就你的生活费用而言，所有这些钱\n25 都不被期望偿还，这正确吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：是的，确实如此。\n2 “问：所以那些钱并不是任何正式协议的标的，\n3 对吗？\n4 “答：没有协议。\n5 “问：那么那些钱实质上是对你的赠与，\n6 对吗？\n7 “答：是的。\n8 “问：什么是 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）？\n9 “答：那是什​​么意思？\n10 “问：问题是，它是什么？\n11 然后翻译员询问，Rule of Law Foundation，\n12 好的，先生。我们可以稍微往下拉一下。\n13 我希望通过改问这个问题来节省一些时间。\n14 你熟悉 Rule of Law Foundation 吗？\n15 “答：熟悉。\n16 “问：你参与了它的创立吗？\n17 “答：是的。\n18 “问：它成立时你自己有给它捐款吗？\n19 “答：我自己没有。\n20 “问：你是否曾指示任何实体向 Rule of Law\n21 Foundation 捐款？\n22 “答：建议和指示，建议有什么区别。\n23 “问：如果是建议，请告诉我那是个\n24 建议？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “答：我没有指示任何人或命令任何人。我只是经常\n2 建议人们向该基金会捐款。\n3 问：然后私人翻译员说，作为翻译，\n4 我认为如果证人向翻译提问，\n5 翻译应该翻译证人提出的问题，\n6 而不是回答那个问题。翻译员作出了回应。我们\n7 可以往下拉。我们可以继续往下拉。\n8 这里再次显示由 Harbach 先生提问。我开始宣读\n9 下一个问题。\n10 “你曾建议过你的任何家庭成员\n11 向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐款吗？\n12 “答：是的，我确实建议过。\n13 “问：你的任何家庭成员或家族控制的\n14 企业是否曾向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐赠资金？\n15 “答：是的。\n16 “问：多少钱？\n17 “答：就现金而言，有一笔超过100万美元，来自香港、\n18 日本和中国大陆，加在一起应该\n19 超过3000万。\n20 “问：现在只针对在你的建议下由你家人\n21 捐赠的款项，大约是多少\n22 钱？\n23 “答：我不知道细节，出于安全原因，\n24 他们不想让我知道。\n25 “问：你刚才不是说你的家人捐赠了超过\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 100万美元吗？\n2 “答：100万现金是在这里的纽约。\n3 “问：那是什​​么时候？\n4 “答：我不记得了。\n5 “问：原因是否——好吧，让我换个方式问。\n6 你是否向你的家庭成员建议过一个他们\n7 应该向 Rule of Law Foundation 捐款的金额？\n8 “答：我希望他们捐款，越多越好。\n9 “问：那就是你跟他们说的吗？\n10 “答：是的。\n11 “问：你知道该法治——你知道\n12 Rule of Law Foundation 是否与位于第64街的一个家族\n13 办公室地址相关联吗？\n14 “答：知道。\n15 “问：你是否曾在2018年11月向 Rule of\n16 Law Foundation 捐款1亿美元？\n17 翻译员要求重复该问题。问题被\n18 重复了一遍，你可以宣读回答。\n19 “答：没有。在直播中，就像我想，试图在直播节目中\n20 募集资金。\n21 “问：你可以看到私人翻译员说，与证人说的并不\n22 完全一致（听不清）broadcasting（广播）是可以的。Live stream（直播）是可以的。但是 collect money（收钱）——官方翻译员说，asking for donation（请求捐款），对吧。私人\n25 翻译员说，raise（筹集）。然后证人证言\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 继续。你可以从第17行开始。\n2 “答：筹钱，募集捐款。是的，在直播\n3 广播节目中，或者随便什么，你知道的，请求捐款\n4 来——你知道的，筹集资金，筹钱。\n5 “问：我们可以往下拉。\n6 你是否曾承诺向 Rule of Law fund（法治基金）捐款\n7 10亿美元？然后翻译员问你说的是100亿吗。\n8 Harbach 先生说，不，先生，是10亿。回答在第\n9 3行。\n10 “答：我不记得了。我不记得了。\n11 “问：你的意思是你有可能做出过那个承诺？\n12 “答：所以如果我们联合全世界的\n13 组织，我们就能达到那个目标。\n14 “问：明白了。这是个简单的问题。我只是\n15 不知道答案。你自己是否曾经承诺向 Rule of\n16 Law fund 捐款10亿美元？\n17 “答：在过去的五年里，我直播了超过5000\n18 次。有些直播可以长达四五个\n19 小时。我很重记住我说的每一句话。\n20 “问：好吧，我理解这一点，但我只问一个\n21 问题，那就是你是否曾公开、\n22 私下或以任何方式承诺向 Rule of Law\n23 fund 捐款10亿美元。然后更正为 donate（捐赠），该问题的回答在\n24 第24行。\n25 “答：我不记得了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 “问：我再问最后一次。你的意思是说\n2 你有可能做出过这样的承诺，只是你不能确定？\n3 “答：在 Holley 女士面前，我不会说什么都是\n4 可能的，但这是一个非常严肃的问题。现在他们又开始了\n5 这个阴谋。\n6 “问：好吧，这不是三天前你早餐吃了什么\n7 的问题。这是，你有没有承诺捐款10亿美元。\n8 如果答案是你不知道，那也没关系。\n9 往下拉。Baldiga 先生作出了回应。他是谁，\n10 Skalka 先生？\n11 答：他当时是郭先生的破产法律顾问。\n12 问：我们能不能再往下拉一点。我来宣读\n13 问题，第17行。\n14 “所以答案可能是否定的，但你并没有说不是？\n15 你的意思是你记不得了？\n16 “答：我已经说了三次了。我不记得了。\n17 问：你可以在21行继续。\n18 “答：因为在过去的五年里，（听不清）总是\n19 替我做出这样的回答，所以这就是为什么来自\n20 南区法院的法官被你们愚弄了，而你们又\n21 重新开始了。\n22 问：我继续。你可以接着念。\n23 “答：在南区法院我只见了法官20秒。\n24 在这五年里我一句话都没说，而我被\n25 罚款总计约3亿美元，因为那就是他们干的事。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 问：然后请先停一下，Skalka 先生。那大约\n2 3亿美元，是 PAX（太平洋联盟）案件中的金额吗？\n3 答：包括最初判决加上罚款在内的总判决额\n4 大约为2.5亿多美元。\n5 问：那个案件是在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）还是\n6 在州法院？\n7 答：是在 New York Supreme court（纽约州最高法院），那是一个州\n8 法院。\n9 问：我们能不能再稍微往下拉一点。律师之间有\n10 一番争论。然后提问继续。\n11 “在过去两年里，你向 Rule of Law\n12 Foundation 捐过款吗？\n13 “答：我自己，对吗？\n14 “问：是的，先生。\n15 “答：没有。\n16 “问：在过去两年内，你是否曾建议你的任何家人向\n17 Rule of Law Foundation 进行\n18 捐款？\n19 “答：我不记得了。\n20 “问：如果你实际上没有那笔钱，你会向\n21 Rule of Law Foundation 做出捐赠10亿美元的\n22 承诺吗？\n23 并且要求重复一遍。如果你实际上没有那笔钱，你会向\n24 Rule of Law Foundation 做出捐赠10亿美元的\n25 承诺吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka- 直接询问\n1 然后，Skalka 先生，你看第11行，上面写着\n2 官方翻译员，你可以宣读以‘He said’（他说）开头\n3 的那一行。\n4 答：他说你们是——想判处我死刑吗。\n5 问：Skalka 先生，破产程序中有任何死刑\n6 判决吗？\n7 答：据我所知没有。\n8 问：如果我们往下拉，Loftus 女士。这就是该证物\n9 的结尾了。我们可以留在那里。你可以把它撤下了，\n10 Loftus 女士。\n11 那么，Skalka 先生，在我们刚才看的债权人会议\n12 之后，郭先生的案件中是否到了指定破产\n13 信托受托人的时候？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：他大约是什么时候被指定的？\n16 答：他是根据破产法院在2022年6月作出的\n17 命令被指定的。\n18 问：Loftus 女士，请出示政府方证据\n19 VI-194。Loftus 女士，请放大左上角。\n20 Skalka 先生，你认出这里左上角\n21 显示的是谁吗？\n22 答：我认出照片里的这个人。\n23 问：那是谁？\n24 答：那是 chapter 11 trustee（第11章破产信托受托人）。\n25 问：Skalka 先生，你曾是任何抗议活动的针对对象吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 主问\n1 答：我不是。\n2 问：谁是？\n3 KAMARAJU 律师：对提问形式提出异议。\n4 法庭：异议成立。\n5 问：抗议的对象是谁？\n6 KAMARAJU 律师：对提问形式提出异议。这是同一个\n7 问题。\n8 法庭：请您做必要的铺垫。\n9 问：是否存在与 Mr. Kwok（郭先生）破产案相关的\n10 抗议活动？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：那些抗议的对象是谁？\n13 答：Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人是其中部分抗议活动的\n14 对象。\n15 问：如果还有其他人，抗议的对象还有谁？\n16 答：Paul Hastings（普衡）律师事务所是抗议对象。PAX 是\n17 抗议对象，代表 PAX 的律师事务所也是\n18 抗议对象。\n19 问：是否有任何家庭成员？\n20 答：有的，第 11 章受托人的女儿。\n21 问：Skalka 先生，在您 35 年与破产相关的\n22 执业生涯中，此类抗议有多常见？\n23 KAMARAJU 律师：对相关性提出异议。\n24 法庭：你可以回答。\n25 答：这是我见过的第一起出现此类抗议的案件。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 问：我们可以把它撤下来了，Loftus 女士。\n2 Skalka 先生，郭先生的破产程序是否\n3 仍在进行中？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：PAX 是否已根据郭先生的个人担保获得偿还？\n6 答：没有。\n7 问：是否有任何债权人已经获得偿还？\n8 答：破产前债权人（通常称为\n9 申请前债权人）均未获得清偿。破产案件期间的\n10 持续性费用正在得到支付。\n11 FERGENSON 律师：法官大人，请容我稍候片刻。\n12 法庭：请便。\n13 问：Skalka 先生，您提到了 PAX 的律师事务所，那是哪家\n14 律所？\n15 答：O'Melveny & Myers（美迈斯律师事务所）。\n16 FERGENSON 律师：没有其他问题了。\n17 法庭：进行反诘问。\n18 KAMARAJU 律师：谢谢法官大人。\n19 反诘问\n20 由 KAMARAJU 律师进行：\n21 问：早上好。您能再说一下破产\n22 受托人的名字吗？\n23 答：Luc Despins。\n24 问：那么，Fergenson 先生刚才问您，在您过去 35 年的\n25 破产从业中，您是否见过抗议？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 答：我认为问题指的是在破产案件中。是的。\n2 问：个人申请 Chapter 11 破产保护的情况有多常见？\n3 答：不如公司实体那么常见，但\n4 多年来我参与过其中的几起。\n5 问：在您多年来参与过的这几起中，\n6 这些人中是否有人曾成为中国共产党将其遣返\n7 中国的阴谋的对象？\n8 答：没有。\n9 问：他们中是否有人曾成为绑架并将其遣返\n10 中国的阴谋的对象？\n11 答：没有。\n12 问：他们中是否有人曾成为在网络上抹黑\n13 他们的阴谋的对象？让我换个说法。特指被中国共产党\n14 在网络上抹黑？\n15 答：没有。\n16 问：您是否知晓郭先生身上发生过所有\n17 这些事情？\n18 答：我不知晓。\n19 问：所以在为您今天的作证做准备时，\n20 Fergenson 先生并没有和您讨论过这些，对吗？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：我们能否重新调出那张抗议现场的照片。我\n23 想大概是 GXVI-194。您记得 Fergenson 先生问过您一些\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 关于这方面的问题，对吧？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：您是否熟悉“CCP running dog”（中共走狗）这个短语\n4 是什么意思？\n5 答：不熟悉。\n6 问：您在那个标语牌上，是否看到写着\n7 “Take Down the CCP”（消灭中共）的地方？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：您是否理解这是把 Despins 先生与中共\n10 联系在一起？\n11 答：我不确定那个标语牌除了——我就是不知道\n12 它试图传达什么。\n13 问：让我们缩放画面，让我们快速缩小画面。\n14 现在，您看到底部有一个 2.5 亿\n15 美元的数字吗？\n16 答：看到了。\n17 问：您看到上方写着“DOJ（美国司法部）任命的\n18 敲诈勒索者”吗？\n19 答：看到了。\n20 问：在 PAX 和解谈判的背景下，2.5 亿\n21 美元这个数字是否有任何特殊意义？\n22 答：我不知道。我没有参与 PAX 与\n23 郭先生之间的和解谈判。\n24 问：但 Despins 先生参与了，对吧？\n25 答：Despins 先生是代表破产财产的受托人，该财产\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 包括许多债权人，而不仅仅是 PAX。\n2 问：您知晓 PAX 与郭先生的律师之间曾进行过\n3 和解 PAX 主张权利的谈判，对吗？\n4 FERGENSON 律师：已问过并已回答。\n5 法庭：异议成立。\n6 问：Despins 先生与郭先生的律师之间\n7 是否进行过任何解决破产案的和解谈判？\n8 答：在破产程序中曾有一项法院命令的调解，因此\n9 作为该破产法院命令调解的一部分，\n10 曾进行过谈判。\n11 问：Despins 先生是否作为该法院命令调解的一部分提出了要价？\n12 答：调解期间我不在场，所以我认为他提出了，但我\n13 没有出席那些调解会议。\n14 问：据您的理解，那个要价是什么？\n15 答：我不知道。\n16 法庭：Kamaraju 先生，请对着麦克风\n17 讲话。\n18 KAMARAJU 律师：抱歉，法官大人。\n19 问：现在，您看到上面写着“DOJ 任命”。我想在直接询问中\n20 您作证提到了一个叫 Ms. Claiborne（克莱本女士）的人？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：她又是谁？\n23 答：Claiborne 女士是 Office of the United States Trustee（美国联邦破产受托人办公室）的\n24 出庭律师。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 问：那么美国受托人办公室，是属于任何\n2 特定的部门吗？\n3 答：据我的理解，它是司法部的一个\n4 分支机构。\n5 问：受托人办公室向破产法院提出关于\n6 第 11 章受托人的人选建议，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：本案中发生的就是这种情况，对吧？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：所以 Claiborne 女士办公室的人推荐了\n11 Despins 先生，对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：据您所知，Despins 先生是第一个被提出的人选吗？\n14 答：他不是。\n15 问：第一位是谁？\n16 答：我不记得该人的姓名了。\n17 问：您是否了解为何会提出第二位\n18 受托人人选？\n19 答：据我了解，第一位受托人存在利益冲突。\n20 问：作为 Despins 先生选拔的一部分——请容我撤回。\n21 一般而言，是否会对潜在的第 11 章\n22 受托人进行某种审查？\n23 答：据我了解，是会进行一定审查的，\n24 是的。\n25 问：据您了解，该审查包括什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 答：有一个面试过程，美国受托人办公室会联系\n2 他们认为可能符合受托人资格的候选人。\n3 在缩小到少数几位候选人后的某个阶段，据我的理解，\n4 每位候选人在被选中前都会进行一些利益冲突\n5 审查。\n6 问：据您了解，郭先生的破产案中也经历了该程序吗？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：现在，您记得 Fergenson 先生问过您破产案件中\n9 是否存在任何死刑。您记得吗？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：您是否知道根据中国刑法是否存在任何适用的死刑？\n12 FERGENSON 律师：反对。\n13 答：我不知道。\n14 问：现在，在直接询问中您还被问及了一些关于 PAX\n15 诉讼的问题，对吧？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：那么，PAX 是在 2017 年 4 月 18 日对郭先生提起起诉状的，\n18 对吗？\n19 答：是在 2017 年初提起的。我不记得确切日期了。\n20 问：我来看看能否帮您确认一下。请为证人和\n21 各方展示 DX7006 号物证。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 请您自行查看一下。\n2 答：我看到了。\n3 问：所以问题仅在于，查看这份文件是否\n4 唤起了您对 PAX 起诉状提交日期的\n5 记忆？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：该日期是 2017 年 4 月 18 日吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：您知晓那是中国政府对郭先生发布\n10 国际刑警组织红色通缉令的前一天，对吧？\n11 答：我不知晓。\n12 问：您知晓那是郭先生就中国腐败问题接受 Voice of America（美国之音）\n13 直播采访的前一天，对吧？\n14 答：我不知晓。\n15 问：PAX 到底是什么？\n16 答：它是一家出借资金的实体，在此情况下，它向\n17 一家名为 Shiny Times Holdings（耀时控股）的企业出借了资金。\n18 问：关于其名称为 The Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金）这一事实，您是否知道其有何特殊意义？\n19 答：我不知道。\n20 问：您知道其总部设在哪里吗？\n21 答：不知道。\n22 问：您知道其是否侧重于在亚洲的投资？\n23 答：不知道。\n24 问：您没有代表过 PAX 诉讼中的\n25 任何一方，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 答：我没有。\n2 问：所以您对该案件的了解纯粹来自于\n3 查阅该案中提交的文件，对吧？\n4 答：以及在破产程序中听说该案，不过是的。\n5 问：全都是二手信息，对吧？\n6 答：没错。\n7 问：您没有出席过 PAX 诉讼中的任何听证会，\n8 对吧？\n9 答：我没有。\n10 问：您没有以任何方式干预过 PAX 诉讼，\n11 对吗？\n12 答：没错。\n13 问：当 Fergenson 先生向您询问关于\n14 PAX 诉讼的问题时，他和您一起过了一遍他\n15 希望您据以宣读的文件，对吗？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：他也和您一起过了一遍他可能\n18 会问您的问题，对吧？\n19 答：没有具体过。\n20 问：好吧，我并不是说他逐字问了具体问题。\n21 概括而言，他告诉了您他希望您谈论什么，\n22 对吧？\n23 答：没错。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 问：Fergenson 先生向您问了一些关于 PAX 诉讼中一项州法院\n2 命令的问题。您记得吗？\n3 答：我想他问了我好几项州法院命令。\n4 问：让我具体说明一下。我指的是准予简易\n5 判决的那项命令。您记得吗？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：当简易判决命令获准时，那意味着\n8 郭先生实际上有了支付一定金钱的\n9 义务，对吧？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：那笔金额超过了 1 亿美元，对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：而且我想您作证说过 PAX 当时正在寻求就该判决进行\n14 执行索赔，对吧？\n15 答：在该判决作出后，是的。\n16 问：在判决作出后，PAX 正在努力进行\n17 追索，对吧？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：而郭先生没有偿付，对吧？\n20 答：没错。\n21 问：现在，根据您在破产案中的经验，您\n22 知晓郭先生在该案中主张 PAX 受\n23 中共控制，对吧？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：而且事实上，您提到的针对 PAX 的抗议，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 盘问\n1 郭先生也将那些抗议与中共联系在了一起，对吧？\n2 答：我认为那是他的主张。\n3 问：针对受托人的抗议也是如此，对吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：现在，除了将 PAX 与中共挂钩之外，郭先生还\n6 主张受托人破坏了 PAX 与\n7 郭先生律师之间的和解，对吗？\n8 FERGENSON 律师：对提问形式提出异议。\n9 法庭：异议成立。\n10 问：您是否知晓郭先生在该动议中的主张包括\n11 受托人破坏了 PAX 与\n12 郭先生代理律师之间的和解？\n13 FERGENSON 律师：以传闻证据为由提出异议。\n14 法庭：我准许该提问。\n15 答：抱歉。我不记得郭先生曾提交过\n16 与谈判或调解相关的某份具体动议。\n17 这是您的问题吗？\n18 问：在您所知晓的郭先生破产程序中的任何破产申报文件中，\n19 您是否知晓他曾提出指控，称\n20 Despins 先生破坏了 PAX 与\n21 郭先生之间的和解协议？\n22 答：不知晓。\n23 问：那么，在此之前——针对 Despins 先生的抗议始于\n24 2022 年 11 月，对吗？\n25 答：是在 2022 年秋季。我不记得确切的日期或\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 反询问\n1 个月，但那是在 2022 年秋季。\n2 问：大约在那时，您知道 Guo 先生（郭先生）在破产案中提出了一项取消 Despins 先生资格的动议吗？\n3\n4 答：我的记忆是该动议是在抗议之前提出的。\n5 问：当然。这并非完全巧合，但确实是在那之前，对吧？\n6\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：作为该动议的一部分，Guo 先生的律师指控受托人是 CCP（中共）的一员？\n9\n10 FERGENSON 先生：法官阁下，以传闻证据为由提出异议。这不具有可采性。\n11\n12 法庭：我准许提出该问题。\n13 答：您能重新陈述一下这个问题吗。\n14 KAMARAJU 先生：请帮我们重读一遍记录好吗。\n15 （记录已宣读）\n16 答：我不记得有这项指控。\n17 问：让我看看能否帮您回忆一下。请允许我向证人和各方出示——能给我一点时间吗，法官阁下——出示 DX60658，仅供证人和各方查看。\n18\n19 能否请我们为证人滚动浏览一下该文件。其实我们可以撤下来了。抱歉。我们继续。\n20\n21 让我们暂时回到 PAX（太盟）案，好吗。\n22 那么，PAX 案中首先提交了一份初步蔑视法庭裁定，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO1 Skalka - 反询问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：那是一份某种附条件的蔑视法庭裁定？\n3 答：我相信它被称为初步蔑视法庭裁定。\n4 问：不论用什么词，都是先有一份，后来又有一份，对吗？\n5\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：第一份对 Guo 先生处以每天 $500,000 的罚款，直到 Lady May（梅号）游艇被归还至纽约，对吗？\n8\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：那么，如果不服从，Guo 先生面临潜在的刑期，对吗？\n11\n12 答：正式的蔑视法庭裁定中并未提及监禁刑期或额外罚款。我的记忆是，该蔑视法庭裁定给予了 Guo 先生、Kwok 先生（郭先生）60 天的时间将 Lady May 归还到该司法管辖区，之后才会开始征收罚款。\n13\n14 （接下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 由 KAMARAJU 先生进行询问：\n2 问：好的。但是那艘游艇并没有回来，对吧？\n3 答：没有回来。\n4 问：好的。您知道当时游艇在哪里吗？\n5 答：根据诉状显示，该船只或游艇当时在欧洲。\n6\n7 问：好的。您知道 Guo 先生当时是否在欧洲吗？\n8 答：我不知道。\n9 问：好的。当时在纽约就 PAX 诉讼举行了法庭听证会，对吗？\n10\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：您就证据听证会作了证，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：Guo 先生参加了那些听证会，对吧？\n15 答：我认为是的。\n16 问：好的。所以他那些时候不在欧洲，对吧？\n17 答：证据听证会是在 2022 年 2 月。我相信他当时在纽约参加了那场听证会。\n18\n19 问：好的。此时 PAX 也已经获得了一份简易判决裁定，对吗？\n20\n21 答：到 2022 年 2 月时，是的。\n22 问：抱歉。我的意思是第一份蔑视法庭裁定发出的时候。\n23\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：好的。那么 Guo 先生没有使用来自 G|CLUBS（G俱乐部）的任何资金来支付\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 该基础简易判决裁定中的款项，对吧？\n2 答：没有任何资金被用来支付该简易判决。\n3 问：对。所以既没有用 G|CLUBS 的钱，也没有用 GTV 的钱，也没有用 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的钱；没有任何钱，对吧？\n4\n5 答：正确。\n6 问：它一直未得到清偿，对吗？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：在 2022 年初，PAX 申请了最终蔑视法庭裁定，对吧？\n9\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：法院在 11 月 9 日批准了该申请；是这样吗？\n12 答：我相信是 2022 年 2 月 9 日。\n13 问：噢，抱歉。我说错了。谢谢。2 月 9 日，对吧？\n14\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：2022 年。Guo 先生必须支付的总费用/罚款为 $134 million（1.34 亿美元），对吗？\n17\n18 答：是的。\n19 KAMARAJU 先生：请帮我们调出 GX 1413 第 2 页。大家屏幕上都有了吗？好的。请稍等片刻。好的。太好了。谢谢。\n20\n21 问：好的。那么其中的第 2 段写着“指示立即向 PAX 支付款项”，对吗？\n22\n23 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：金额是 $134 million，对吧？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：然后在第 4 段写着，“上述第 2 段所列金额的付款应在本裁定送达并附录入通知后的五个工作日内向 PAX 支付”，对吗？\n4\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：好的。所以 Guo 先生服从的截止日期我认为是 2022 年 2 月 16 日，对吗？\n7\n8 答：我相信是正确的。我的意思是，五个工作日。我没有拿出日历来看，但我相信那中间可能包含周末的一天，所以那可能是准确的。\n9\n10 问：对。对。好吧，让我换种方式说。他在 2022 年 2 月 15 日提交了破产申请书，对吧？\n11\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：那是在他将不得不支付这笔款项的前一天，对吧？\n14\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：而且我想您作证提到过；那中间包含一个周末，对吧？\n17\n18 答：是的，我认为是这样。\n19 问：好的。所以破产法官——抱歉。撤回。州法院法官命令 Guo 先生基本上在一周内支付超过一亿美元，对吧？\n20\n21 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：Guo 先生也没有使用 G|CLUBS 的钱来支付那笔款项，对吧？\n2\n3 答：正确。\n4 问：他没有使用 Himalaya Exchange 的钱来支付，对吧？\n5 答：正确。\n6 问：他没有使用 GTV 的钱来支付，对吧？\n7 答：正确。\n8 问：他没有使用 Rule of Law（法治基金/法治社会）的捐款来支付，对吧？\n9\n10 答：正确。\n11 问：如果违反该蔑视法庭裁定，Guo 先生确实面临潜在的监禁刑期，对吗？\n12\n13 答：据我所知是这样。\n14 问：尽管如此，他仍然没有使用那些资金中的任何一笔来支付该罚款，对吗？\n15\n16 答：正确。\n17 问：相反，Guo 先生申请了破产，对吧？\n18 答：他确实申请了破产，是的。\n19 问：当一个人申请破产时，可以说你必须提供关于你自己的某些信息，对吧？\n20\n21 答：财务信息，是的。\n22 问：对。你必须披露资产和负债，对吧？\n23 答：正确。\n24 问：你必须公开披露你没有足够的资产来偿还负债，对吗？\n25\n26 答：你必须披露你的资产和负债范围。有时它实际上可能显示你能够偿还账单，但可能无法立即偿还，所以——但你需要披露它们。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：您能解释一下您最后一个回答是什么意思吗。\n2 答：你可以披露看起来超过你负债的资产。\n3 问：但它们可能不是流动性的，所以你无法立即付款，对吧？\n4\n5 答：正确。\n6 问：所以有人宣告破产这一事实并不意味着他们无法获得巨额资产，而只是意味着他们在那一刻无法获得流动资产，对吧？\n7\n8 FERGENSON 先生：反对提问形式。\n9 法庭：异议成立。\n10 问：好的。那么，您能否解释一下您刚才在破产申请背景下所说的流动资产与非流动资产之间的区别是什么意思。\n11\n12 答：你可以披露资产——以及资产价值——这些超过了你的负债总额，但在你披露它们时它们可能并不全都是流动性的，这意味着它们可能不全都是现金；它们可能是资产形式，无论是房地产还是投资，这些形式无法——\n13\n14 传译员：抱歉。传译员请求各方放慢语速。谢谢。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 法庭：请放慢语速。\n2 KAMARAJU 先生：好的，法官阁下。\n3 问：请继续。\n4 答：你在一段时间内无法变现这些资产，因此无法支付账单。\n5\n6 问：在本案中，该时间段是一周，对吧？\n7 答：破产的目的通常是给债务人提供支付账单的时间，所以——但你需要披露你资产的全部范围，不论它们是否具有流动性。\n8\n9 问：对。所以我刚才说的是金额——好吧，撤回。我们继续。\n10\n11 那么您熟悉“个人破产”这个词吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：通俗地说，个人破产是指什么？\n14 答：那是指个人而非商业实体或公司实体提出的破产申请。\n15\n16 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。如果可以的话，请帮我们调出已作为证据的 GX 1419。让我们公开出示它。\n17\n18 实际上，抱歉。在我们这样做之前，能否快速翻到 GX 1407。大家能看到吗？好的。太好了。\n19\n20 由 KAMARAJU 先生进行询问：\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：这是 Guo 先生申请破产的申请书，对吗？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：好的。为了确定下来——如果我们能翻到第 7 页——那是他的签名，对吗，电子签名？\n4\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：签署日期是 2022 年 2 月 15 日，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。现在我们能翻到第——抱歉。页面刚才跳了，但我们能翻到——嗯，pdf 顶部 14 页中的第 10 页。这是一张表格，官方 Form 104。\n9\n10 好了。谢谢。现在我们能稍微往下拉一点吗。噢，找不到了。\n11\n12 好的。谢谢。我们能往下滚动一点吗。\n13 由 KAMARAJU 先生进行询问：\n14 问：好的。您看到那里的第 2 项了吗？\n15 答：看到了。\n16 问：好的。那是 Golden Spring（源泉公司），对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：上面写着，“债权的性质是什么？”您能读一下吗？\n19 答：可以。噢。\n20 问：是的，您能读一下上面写的内容吗。\n21 答：“诉讼资助。”\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：披露的该项大约金额是多少？\n2 答：约 $21 million（2100 万美元）。\n3 问：那么这是否反映了 Golden Spring 被列为拥有 $21 million 的未偿债务？\n4\n5 答：这是 Kwok 先生提交的前 20 大债权人名单，Golden Spring 被列为第二大债权人，债权金额为 $21 million。\n6\n7 KAMARAJU 先生：我们能翻到第 13 页吗。\n8 问：好的。您看到那里的第 16 项了吗？\n9 答：看到了。\n10 问：好的。您能读一下债权人的名字吗。\n11 答：Lamp Capital, LLC。\n12 问：那笔债权的性质是什么？\n13 答：诉讼借款。\n14 问：金额是多少？\n15 答：$1 million（100 万美元）。\n16 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。如果可以的话，我们现在请翻到 1419。\n17\n18 问：好的。这是另一份文件——抱歉。您需要稍等片刻吗？好的。这是 Guo 先生的律师在破产案中提交的另一份文件，对吧？\n19\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：全局附注及声明基本上是某种解释性文件？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 答：在本案中，是的。\n2 问：好的。提供了额外细节，对吧？\n3 答：关于这些文件，其中一些我们刚才看过了，即破产附表和财务状况声明书。\n4\n5 问：好的。那么请先从第 4 页开始。我想 Fergenson 先生曾问过您一些关于问题 1b 的问题。您记得吗？\n6\n7 答：记得。\n8 问：如果您往下看——\n9 KAMARAJU 先生：请翻到第 ii 项，Jorge。谢谢。\n10\n11 问：好的。他问过您一些关于该段落的问题，对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：现在您能把第一段读一下吗，拜托。\n14 答：可以。“债务人还可使用位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022（‘该公寓’）的一套公寓。该公寓的合作公寓股份由 Genever Holdings LLC（‘美国 SPV’）持有。该美国 SPV 的成员权益由 Genever Holdings Corporation（‘BVI 公司’）持有。债务人持有该 BVI 公司的全部股权；然而，根据日期为 2015 年 2 月 17 日（‘信托日期’）的信托声明及协议，债务人系为 Bravo 代持该等信托股权\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 Luck Limited（“公寓所有人”）。债务人的儿子拥有\n2 该公寓所有人的股权。在信托设立日或该日前后，\n3 该公寓所有人向美国特殊目的载体（US SPV）提供了购买该公寓\n4 的资金。这些款项来自债务人儿子拥有或\n5 控制的实体，并非来自债务人。”\n6 问：好的。那么，您是否理解所有这些都是在拐弯抹角地\n7 表明郭先生的儿子拥有雪莉荷兰大厦（Sherry-Netherland）\n8 公寓？\n9 答：这就是我对本文件中\n10 所主张内容的理解。\n11 问：对。这就是这里所写的内容，对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：您知道郭先生的儿子购买该公寓时的\n14 购买价格是多少吗？\n15 答：大约——购买价格大约是\n16 6000万美元。\n17 问：好的。我并不打算让您阅读下一段\n18 ，但请您看一眼。\n19 您是否看到下面提到了“面对主要与该住所的\n20 实际受益所有权相关的\n21 多起法庭争议”，然后接着写道\n22 “在 Bravo Luck Limited……与 PAX 之间”？\n23 答：我看到了。\n24 问：好的。所以 PAX 也针对雪莉荷兰大厦公寓\n25 发起了诉讼，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 答：我认为那是关于 Genever 的诉讼，即两家 Genever\n2 实体：Genever Holdings, LLC 和 Genever Corporation。\n3 问：而且该诉讼是在英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands）\n4 发起的，对吗？\n5 答：是的，还有在纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）的诉讼。\n6 问：好的。所以一共有两起，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：而英属维尔京群岛有时被称为 BVI，\n9 对吧？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：好的。BVI 是一个常规的营业地点，对吗？\n12 很多企业都在 BVI，对吧？\n13 答：很多企业在 BVI 注册成立，是的。\n14 问：那是为了各种公司层面的便利和利益，对吧？\n15 答：我的理解是这样。\n16 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。我们翻到下一页。\n17 问：好的。我不会让您通读全部内容，但\n18 关于第 3 题，您看到上面写着：“债务人可使用\n19 汽车，包括豪华汽车和摩托车”吗？\n20 您看到了吗？\n21 答：看到了。\n22 问：然后上面写着：“与此类车辆相关的所有成本和费用\n23 均由家族及\n24 家族控制的企业直接提供”，对吗？\n25 答：上面确实是这么写的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 法庭：请稍等片刻。\n2 KAMARAJU 先生：好的，法官阁下。\n3 法庭：您可以继续。\n4 KAMARAJU 先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n5 请翻到第 6 页。\n6 问：好的。您看到第 17 题了吗？\n7 答：看到了。\n8 问：Fergenson 先生在直接询问中也向您提了\n9 几个关于这方面的问题，对吧？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：那么在您职业生涯中处理过的个人破产法第 11 章（Chapter 11）案件中，\n12 有多少起案件涉及限制令，\n13 有多少起案件涉及被香港高等法院（High Court of Hong Kong）\n14 处以限制令的债务人？\n15 答：除了郭氏破产程序外，没有其他案件。\n16 问：对。他是唯一一个，对吧？\n17 答：在我参与过的案件中是这样。\n18 问：当然。\n19 KAMARAJU 先生：我们可以翻到第 7 页吗。\n20 问：在第 i 段中，您看到上面写着：“2017 年 9 月\n21 和 10 月，中国政府查抄了\n22 Shiny Times 的办事处，并扣押了所有公司会计记录和\n23 许多个人财务记录”吗？您看到了吗？\n24 答：看到了。\n25 问：那么在您处理过的所有那些个人破产法第 11 章案件中，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 有多少起案件的债务人的办事处\n2 曾被中国政府查抄过？\n3 答：这是唯一的案件。\n4 问：好的。根据您的经验，是否可以公平地说郭先生的破产案\n5 相当特殊？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：好的。其特殊的其中一个原因，是因为\n8 郭先生基本上申报自己没有任何资产，对吧？\n9 答：不。我也参与过债务人\n10 披露极少或没有资产的其他案件。\n11 法庭：先生，请对着麦克风发言，\n12 好让大家都能听清。\n13 证人：非常抱歉。对不起。\n14 答：我参与过其他债务人\n15 披露极少或没有资产的破产案件。但是——所以这\n16 本身并不——这本身并不罕见，也不会让它成为一个特殊的案件。\n17 问：好的。有道理。我只是想知道这是否是其中一个\n18 因素。抱歉。我们刚才没听清您的回答。那是其中一个\n19 因素吗？\n20 答：这——是的，这是其中一个因素。\n21 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。请翻到第 11 页。\n22 问：好的。您看到附表 I（Schedule I）了吗？\n23 答：看到了。\n24 问：好的。您看到那句话写着：“债务人\n25 确实接受由家族及家族控制的公司资助的用于\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 住房、家政和日常开销的支持”，对吗？\n2 答：上面确实是这么写的。\n3 问：好的。郭先生接受家族以及家族控制的公司的支持\n4 这一事实，并不会使他\n5 失去申请破产法第 11 章的资格，对吗？\n6 答：对。\n7 问：而且事实上，有一套机制可以驳回不恰当的\n8 破产法第 11 章申请，对吧？\n9 答：有一套机制允许当事人几乎可以出于任何理由\n10 寻求驳回破产案件。当事人可以提出驳回动议\n11 。\n12 问：债权人也可以这样做，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：而 PAX 是本次破产程序中的债权人，对吧？\n15 答：对。\n16 问：所以如果 PAX 想做的话，它本可以提出动议要求驳回破产申请\n17 。\n18 答：PAX 实际上在某个时候确实提出过驳回动议。\n19 问：好的。结果如何？\n20 答：法官在提出指定受托人动议的同时驳回了该申请，\n21 并且法院没有驳回案件，\n22 而是批准了指定受托人的动议。\n23 问：好的。所以指定了 Despins 先生，以代替驳回\n24 破产申请，对吧？\n25 答：对。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 问：您熟悉“信托基金宝贝（trust fund baby）”这个词吗？\n2 FERGENSON 先生：反对，与本案无关联性。\n3 法庭：反对成立。\n4 问：好的。您是否熟悉债务人主要由其家族\n5 资助的其他情况？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：所以这在破产案中并不罕见，对吧？\n8 答：我以前见过。我在其他案件中也见过。\n9 问：您刚才作证说您没有参与和解谈判\n10 或调解会议，对吗？\n11 答：对。\n12 问：那么作为其中的一部分，作为您担任本地律师工作的一部分，\n13 您是否会去熟悉正在法庭上进行的\n14 诉讼程序？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：并且您会提交随附的申请，对吧？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：并且您会说明您所做的工作？\n19 答：我们律所做的工作。\n20 问：对。而且我想您在直接询问中作证说\n21 Despins 先生和他的律所已经收到了大约 2500 万美元\n22 的费用，对吧？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：而且曾经有——撤回。\n25 那些费用是从哪里支付的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 答：从破产程序中迄今为止追回的\n2 追回款中支付。\n3 问：那是一亿多美元，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：对。\n6 问：所以 Despins 先生的费用大约占已追回金额的\n7 25%，对吗？\n8 答：大约。\n9 问：当然。我不是在问具体数字，而是大致比例，\n10 对吧？\n11 您刚才就此作证时，是称之为 314 询问，对吗？\n12 答：341。\n13 问：341。好的。谢谢。所以 341 询问是指债务人必须坐下来回答问题的地方，\n14 对吗？\n15 答：对。那就是债权人会议。341 是《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）\n16 中的一个条款。抱歉用了这么专业的术语，但是——那就是指债权人会议。\n17 问：好的。那么所有债权人都可以参加该会议吗？\n18 答：是的。所有债权人都会收到该会议的通知。\n19 问：好的。所以如果有意愿，他们中的任何人都可以出席并提问，\n20 对吧？\n21 答：对。\n22 问：称之为司法部受托人合适吗？如何形容\n23 Claiborn 女士的职位最恰当？\n24 答：我称她为美国受托人办公室（Office of the U.S. Trustee）的庭审律师，\n25 因此通常被称为美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 问：好的。所以可以公平地说，美国受托人也可以在会上提问\n2 ，对吧？\n3 答：美国受托人办公室实际上负责管理或主持\n4 该会议，所以是的。\n5 问：好的。他们可以就债务人的任何财务状况提问\n6 ，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：他们可以就债务人进行的交易提问\n9 ，对吧？\n10 答：在他们知悉的范围内，是的。\n11 问：当然。他们会询问关于资产和负债的问题，\n12 对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：而债务人必须回答那些问题，对吧？\n15 答：债务人有义务配合破产程序\n16 并如实回答。\n17 问：好的。我想您早些时候看过了其中的几个摘录。\n18 您还记得吗？\n19 答：债权人会议的笔录摘录吗？\n20 问：是的。\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：Fergenson 先生和您做了一点角色扮演，\n23 对吧？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：我不会做那么多，但我打算尝试只做一点点，好吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 答：好的。\n2 KAMARAJU 先生：请调出政府物证 1401A（GX 1401A），\n3 并显示在大家的屏幕上。\n4 好的。我们先翻到笔录的第 51 页。\n5 问：您看到第 11 行了吗？\n6 答：看到了。\n7 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。实际上，我要——是的，\n8 第 11 行就可以。\n9 问：那我来念，然后我们可以跳过所有其他内容，\n10 然后您可以直接看回答，好吗？\n11 答：好的。\n12 问：好的。“郭先生，谁是 Max Krasner？”\n13 然后我想是从第 22 行接下去。那是\n14 Baldiga 先生的回答。\n15 答：“他必须向您核实一下，因为我不会看英文，也记不太清英文名字。\n16 所以单就这个名字，您说了 Max。如果只是 Max 这个名字，我认识 Max。但如果您在后面加上\n17 另一个名字，我就不确定了。我不知道。”\n18 问：“在源幸（Golden Spring）方面，您认识一位 Max 吗？”\n19 答：“是的，我认识。”\n20 问：“Max 在源幸担任什么职务？”\n21 答：“我不知道。”\n22 问：“那么，您认识 Max 吗？”\n23 答：“我不记得了。”\n24 问：“您认识不止一个名叫 Max 的人吗？”\n25 答：“对我来说英文名字很复杂。比如我记不住\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 我律师的姓。如果您在 Max 后面加上别的东西，\n2 我就不知道了。”\n3 问：“郭先生，Max Krasner 这个名字被列为寄往源幸的\n4 邮件的收件人。您知道\n5 这是为什么吗？”\n6 “传译员：请问您说什么？”\n7 “您知道这是为什么吗？”\n8 答：“我只记得源幸有个 Max。我只知道\n9 这一件事。”\n10 问：“Max 在源幸的工作是什么？”\n11 答：“我不确定是什么职务。我（听不清）知道他负责\n12 财务，但我不确定。”\n13 问：“关于财务方面，他在源幸具体做什么？”\n14 答：“我没有参与管理，所以我不知道。”\n15 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。我们能赶快继续看第 54 页吗。\n16 直接往下滚到第 20 行。\n17 停在那里就可以。谢谢。\n18 问：“郭先生，您能使用信用卡或借记卡\n19 吗……”\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 由 Golden Spring（金泉）或通过该公司向您提供的信用卡吗？”\n2 答：“没有。”\n3 问：好的。在郭先生的破产申报材料中，您是否知悉\n4 郭先生披露过任何信用卡债务？\n5 答：我认为他没有。\n6 问：好的。他是否披露过持有任何信用卡？\n7 答：我认为他没有。\n8 问：他唯一披露的财产就是持有一部 iPhone，对吧？\n9 答：他披露了一些衣物，提到了家里养的一只狗，以及\n10 几张尚未兑现的支票。\n11 问：对。博美犬，对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：好的。那么破产债务人没有信用卡的\n14 情况有多常见？\n15 FERGENSON 先生：反对，与本案缺乏关联性。\n16 法庭：你可以回答。\n17 答：我在企业破产程序中见过很多次。\n18 问：当然。那个人破产呢？\n19 答：您说什么？\n20 问：个人破产情况如何？\n21 答：我认为我以前见过，但在个人破产申报中，看到\n22 信用卡债务更为普遍。\n23 问：好的。刚才向您提问了一些关于一份贷款\n24 文件的问题。您记得吗？\n25 答：记得。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。我们能否调出\n2 标记为政府物证 1316 号的文件。\n3 问：您记得在直接询问中就此作过证吗？\n4 答：记得。\n5 问：那么，您唯一一次看到该文件是在\n6 破产案件的背景下，对吗？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：所以签署该文件时您并不在场，对吧？\n9 答：不在场。\n10 问：您不是 Himalaya International Financial Group（喜马拉雅国际金融集团）的\n11 员工，对吗？\n12 答：对。\n13 问：您不是 HK International Funds Investments（香港国际基金投资）的\n14 员工，对吗？\n15 答：对。\n16 问：您个人并不认识 Mei Guo（郭美），对吧？\n17 答：我不认识。\n18 问：除了郭女士之外，您并不认得文件上的其他签名，\n19 对吧？\n20 答：除了郭女士之外都不认得。我在几份文件上见过\n21 她的签名。\n22 问：对。但您从未亲眼见过她签署那些\n23 文件，对吧？\n24 答：对。\n25 问：那么您看到顶部——顶部有一个标签，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 但左上角写着“案件 22-05003”。您看到了吗？\n2 答：看到了。\n3 问：您看到上面写着“文件 84-1”吗？\n4 答：看到了。\n5 问：您知道为什么上面会有这些吗？\n6 答：知道。\n7 问：好的。您能向我们解释一下原因吗？\n8 答：我认为我在直接询问中作证过，当时有一场由 HK International Funds Investments (USA)（香港国际基金投资（美国）），\n9 即通常所称的 HK USA，\n10 所提起的对抗性程序。\n11 对抗性程序是破产程序中的一项诉讼。\n12 这是 HK USA 提起的该项诉讼的案卷编号，\n13 而本文件，即本程序中的这份物证，\n14 是作为该对抗性程序中的一份物证提交的，\n15 这就是当时在对抗性程序中提交该文件时\n16 分配给——该文件的\n17 文件编号。\n18 问：好的。所以该文件现在属于公开记录的一部分，\n19 对吗？\n20 答：是的，它是——再次说明，它是在破产法院\n21 对抗性程序中提交的，属于公开归档文件。\n22 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。我们能否迅速调出\n23 政府物证 1314 号。\n24 问：您记得之前就这份文件作过证，对吧？\n25 答：记得。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：好的。它顶部也有同样的案卷印戳，\n2 对吧？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：所以它也是公开发布归档的，对吧？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：同样地，签署这份文件时您也不在场，\n7 对吧？\n8 答：对。\n9 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。请翻到该文件的\n10 第 4 页。\n11 问：好的。您看到标题为“目的”的章节了吗？您\n12 看到了吗？\n13 答：看到了。\n14 问：您看到那里的第 3.2 条了吗？\n15 答：看到了。\n16 问：好的。请朗读第一句话。\n17 答：“总信贷额度金额将用作就该游艇向法院提供的担保。”\n18 问：好的。那么您对“就该游艇向法院提供的担保”\n19 这句话的理解是什么？\n20 答：根据我对这份文件的阅读，我的理解是这旨在作为针对该地块——\n21 抱歉——针对该游艇的有担保贷款，\n22 并且需要向破产法院披露。\n23 问：好的。为什么需要向破产法院\n24 披露？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 答：因为在发放这笔贷款时，破产法院\n2 正有程序在审理关于 Lady May（梅号）游艇将如何\n3 处理，以及是否允许 PAX 回到\n4 州法院去寻求追回\n5 Lady May 游艇。\n6 法庭：你对“信贷额度”这个词的含义\n7 是怎么理解的？\n8 证人：法官阁下，我认为“信贷额度”在该文件前面已定义为\n9 将由 Himalaya 向借款人\n10 提供的贷款。\n11 问：好的。请看一下下一句话。\n12 答：“借款人在托管账户中保留总信贷额度金额的期限，\n13 将为自本协议签订之日起至游艇返还至\n14 美国之日止的时间段。”\n15 问：好的。那么说这笔信贷额度金额旨在作为游艇返回时的一种保证金，\n16 这种说法是否公允？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：好的。它将被保存在托管账户中，对吧？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：好的。所以这 3700 万并不是用来购买游艇的，对吧？\n21 答：不是。这是向 HK USA 提供的贷款，HK USA 随后打算将其作为——\n22 作为破产法院关于 Lady May 游艇\n23 谈判——和解协议相关的\n24 保证金。\n25 问：对。没有人通过这 3700 万去获取一艘新游艇，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 对吧？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：好的。您知道托管账户中的那 3700 万美元后来怎样了吗？\n4 答：知道。\n5 问：后来怎样了？\n6 答：破产法院就此处提及的对抗性程序\n7 最终认定这 3700 万美元以及 Lady May 游艇\n8 均属于破产财产，并且他们——\n9 这些资金由破产受托人追回并\n10 纳入了破产财产中。\n11 问：好的。所以这 3700 万美元是您之前作证提到的\n12 1 亿美元的一部分？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：因此，在受托人采取该行动之后，这 3700 万美元\n15 无法退还给本案中的出借人，对吧？\n16 答：对。\n17 问：那么所有这些，这整套安排，都向\n18 州法院披露了，对吗？\n19 答：据我所知没有。\n20 问：好的。它向破产法院披露了？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：所以没有人向法院隐瞒这套安排，对吗？\n23 答：对破产法院没有隐瞒。\n24 KAMARAJU 先生：现在我们能否回到 1316 号，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 政府物证 1316 号。\n2 确保大家都拿到了这份文件。\n3 问：好的。您记得这份文件吗？这是补充协议？\n4 答：记得。\n5 问：好的。您作证说过补充协议是对协议的一种\n6 修改，对吧？\n7 答：在本案中，是的。\n8 问：好的。再次确认，签署这份文件时您不在场，\n9 对吧？\n10 答：对。\n11 问：您对签署的具体情况没有任何\n12 亲身知悉，对吧？\n13 答：对。\n14 问：好的。现在您看到第 1.3(a) 条了吗？上面写着：“贷款协议中的\n15 贷款将不再被视为以该游艇作为担保。”\n16 对吗？\n17 答：上面确实是这么写的，是的。\n18 问：好的。所以这样做的效果是，该游艇不再\n19 作为贷款的担保物，对吧？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：您看到这份文件上的日期是 2022 年 4 月 19 日吗？\n22 抱歉。如果我们放大回原样，您会在\n23 顶部看到。\n24 答：它提到了贷款协议的日期为 2022 年 4 月 19 日，\n25 但我认为本文件的日期是 2022 年 4 月 29 日。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：您是对的。谢谢。\n2 答：不客气。\n3 问：所以在那个时候，即 2022 年 4 月 29 日，对该游艇存在多项\n4 不同的主张诉求，对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：PAX 对其提出了主张诉求，对吧？\n7 答：为了执行他们的判决，他们对其提出了诉求，\n8 是的。\n9 问：当然。而且州法院已经对其下达了限制令，\n10 对吧？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：所以就算他们想转让游艇，也无法转让，\n13 对吧？\n14 FERGENSON 先生：反对提问形式。要求推测。\n15 我不清楚这个问题是什么意思。\n16 法庭：你是在要求得出法律结论吗？\n17 KAMARAJU 先生：不是。我只是询问他的\n18 理解。\n19 法庭：我准许提问。\n20 答：HK USA 在当时是有可能转让其在\n21 该财产、该游艇中的产权权益的。\n22 问：好的。但它没有那么做，对吧？\n23 答：它没有。\n24 问：它只是把游艇留在那里，对吧？\n25 答：对。正如我所说，他们提起——HK USA 提起了一起\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 诉讼，实际主张他们是该财产、\n2 该游艇的所有人。\n3 问：对。他们利用了美国法院系统，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：以及随之而来的所有披露，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：所以他们没有搞产权那一套，而是提起了一场诉讼。\n9 答：我不知道他们是否曾计划对产权采取任何行动。\n10 问：很好。因为再次说明，您不是该公司\n11 的一员，对吧？\n12 答：对。\n13 问：您从未就此事与 Mei Guo（郭美）交谈过，对吧？\n14 答：对。\n15 问：您完全不知道她的想法，对吧？\n16 答：对。\n17 问：您听说过 William Je（余建明）吗？\n18 答：我听过这个名字。\n19 问：您是在破产案的背景下听过这个名字？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：好的。他的名字是在什么背景下出现的？\n22 答：只是提到他与 Kwok 先生（郭先生）有关系。\n23 问：好的。但您从未与他交谈过，对吧？\n24 答：对。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 反询问\n1 问：您完全不知道他达成任何贷款的\n2 原因是什么，对吧？\n3 答：对。\n4 问：ACA Capital（阿波罗资本）也是如此，对吧？您对 ACA Capital 的\n5 任何情况都没有亲身知悉？\n6 答：我与 ACA Capital 没有任何关联。\n7 问：Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）也是如此？\n8 答：对。我与 Himalaya Exchange 没有任何关联。\n9 问：您记得 Fergenson 先生问过您关于一份\n10 贷款协议草案的问题，对吧？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：那份草案上面写着 ACA，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：然后在终稿中变成了 Himalaya International\n15 Financial Group，对吧？\n16 答：对。\n17 问：您听说过打印排版错误吗？\n18 FERGENSON 先生：反对。\n19 法庭：反对成立。\n20 KAMARAJU 先生：法官阁下，请给我\n21 一分钟时间。\n22 问：现在您是所谓的当地律师；这样描述\n23 公允吗？\n24 答：是的，也是利益冲突特聘律师。\n25 问：好的。所以 Despins 先生的律师事务所聘请您担任当地律师，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka（斯卡尔卡）- 交叉询问\n\n问：对吗？\n\n答：聘请了我的律所，是的。\n\n问：对，抱歉，是您的律所。您之前作证说，基于该项委托，您的律所大约赚了 200 万美元（$2 million）？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我不是在询问细节，但对您的律所而言，这是一笔大业务、小业务，还是重大委托？\n\n答：我们是一家拥有 40 名律师的律所。我们已经在——我在这家律所执业已有 30 年了。我们接过更大的案子，也接过更小的案子，所以我——\n\n问：好的。所以它不算特别重大，也不算无足轻重。\n\n答：对。\n\n问：您之前曾就受托人——我就称他为 Chapter 11（第 11 章）破产受托人 Mr. Despins（德斯平斯先生），对吧——就 Chapter 11 受托人是如何被选出的——不是被选出——是由 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）推荐的过程作过证，对吧？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：而该推荐是某人被破产法院任命为 Chapter 11 受托人的必要步骤，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：因此，如果某位——如果某人想在 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院）担任 Chapter 11 受托人，他们就需要该推荐，对吧？\n\n答：实际上是由 Office of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）进行的任命，但确实如此。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n受托人办公室任命，但确实如此。\n\n问：好的。抱歉。为了准确起见，我们用那个词。所以要获得任命，他们需要得到美国受托人的批准，对吧，而且对于接下来的康涅狄格区的每一宗破产案件都是如此，对吧？\n\n答：就 Chapter 11 受托人而言，是的。\n\n问：所以，如果德斯平斯先生打算今后继续担任 Chapter 11 受托人，他需要得到美国受托人的批准，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：再说一次，那是 Department of Justice（司法部）下属的一个部门，对吗？\n\n答：据我理解，它是司法部的一个分支机构。\n\n问：那么，您是由德斯平斯先生的律所聘请的，对吗？\n\n答：我们是由德斯平斯先生聘请的。\n\n问：好的。那是他的决定，对吧？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：他今后随时可以决定改聘他人，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：他甚至可以在本案中中途换人，对吧？\n\n答：完全可以。\n\n问：正如您所说，该案仍在进行中，对吧？\n\n答：完全可以。\n\n问：所以如果他愿意，他有机会挑选另一家律所，对吧？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：您知道德斯平斯先生曾多次与检方人员交谈过，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您知道他是否曾与他们交谈过吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：是什么时候有人就您在本案中出庭作证一事与您接洽的？\n\n答：大约两周前。\n\n问：您是否知道在有人与您接洽之前，德斯平斯先生原本是否打算在本案中担任证人？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：作为 Mr. Guo（郭先生）破产程序的一部分，我想您提到过，您和德斯平斯先生已经提起了多起诉讼案件，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我想您说过有 300 多起，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：所有这些诉讼都是为了将资产追回至破产财产中，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。而关于将资产追回至破产财产中，受托人的主张是那些钱实际上属于郭先生，对吧？\n\n答：那些款项属于破产财产，属于——属于 Kwok（郭）破产财产，因此这些资金将用于偿还破产财产的债权人。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n用于支付破产财产的债权人。\n\n问：对。最终，这些资金将用于支付债权人，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：它们将用于偿还他的债权人？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：对吧？而您是用他的钱来偿还他的债权人，对吧？\n\n答：是用我们认为属于破产财产的资金。\n\n问：好的。而那就是他的破产财产。\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：而且破产财产规模越大，可用于支付您律师费的资金就越多，对吧？\n\n答：我的费用在支付前必须获得批准，但如果存在庞大——我并不是按风险代理费（contingency fee）计酬，我是按小时计酬，所以破产财产规模更大并不必然意味着我会拿到更多的钱。\n\n问：不。我的问题是：先生，有资金可供向您支付报酬。\n\n法庭：卡马拉朱先生，请对着麦克风说话。\n\nMR. KAMARAJU（卡马拉朱律师）：抱歉。法官阁下，非常抱歉。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n问：您听到我的问题了吗？\n\n答：听到了。破产财产规模越大，用于支付我律所费用的资金就越多。\n\n问：好的。您之前作证说德斯平斯先生不收取佣金，对吧？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：但他也是一样的情况，对吧？破产财产规模越大，可用于支付他费用的资金就越多，对吧？\n\n答：以及案件的所有其他费用，是的。\n\n问：当然。用于支付所有费用，对吧？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：所以如果他的费用超过了那 2500 万美元（$25 million），就必须从破产财产中出，对吧？\n\n答：这——是的。\n\n问：并且你们提起的许多诉讼，其标的事项都与本案中的指控存在重合，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：嗯——\n\nMR. FERGENSON（费根森律师）：反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：请到法官席前。\n\n（续下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n（在法官席前）\n\n法庭：那么，为什么这会没有关联性？\n\n费根森律师：我们认为根据 Rule 403（《联邦证据规则》第 403 条）应予排除。第一，他并未被指控犯有破产欺诈罪；第二，这远远超出了主诘问的范围；第三，企图通过诋毁破产受托人来诋毁刑事起诉和我们提出的指控是不当的，而且此前就已经就郭先生声称他是 CCP（中共）特工这一事实进行了大量的交叉询问。不能利用破产受托人的诉讼行为及其与我们指控的相似性和重合性，来试图对我们的案件进行某种影射并称其不当。依据 403 条应予排除。\n\n卡马拉朱律师：对不起。我刚才不确定他是否说完了。\n不，我只是提出这个问题，以便就该特定证人展开关于偏见倾向的反诘——\n\n法庭：关于什么的？\n\n卡马拉朱律师：法官阁下，关于偏见倾向的交叉询问，是针对这位特定证人的。这一连串的问题将是：存在重合；您知道政府可以请求暂停您的案件吗？事实上，你们自愿暂停了你们的案件，而你们自愿暂停案件是为了不干扰刑事案件，特别是为了不让郭先生对政府的任何证人进行\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n录取宣誓证言。而他确实这么做了，对吧？并且他们在公开提交的文件中也这么表述了。所以这纯粹是偏见倾向，就像对其他任何人进行交叉询问一样，就像对合作证人进行交叉询问一样，你们采取了所有这些步骤来协助政府，仅此而已。\n\n法庭：偏见倾向的性质是什么？\n\n卡马拉朱律师：偏见倾向的性质在于，破产案持续的时间越长，只要他们继续在该案中工作，他和他的律所就能获得报酬。如果政府暂停该案，对吧，如果政府采取任何行动，那么他就拿不到那些费用了。事情就这么简单。他的费用基本上取决于他们。\n\n费根森律师：法官阁下，是卡马拉朱先生提出动议要求中止破产程序，而不是政府。\n\n卡马拉朱律师：不，不。但是他也提出了中止破产案件的动议。这就是我的观点。我并不是要引出我们提出了中止动议，我要引出的是他也提出了中止动议。\n\n费根森律师：这算什么偏见倾向？\n\n法庭：他现在怎么就成了利害关系人了？\n\n卡马拉朱律师：如果他们在公开文件中声称：我自愿中止这起我们原本可以提起的极其有利可图的案件，因为我不想干扰政府的案件，我也不想让政府的证人被录取宣誓证言；那么这就是一个人、一家律所或一个实体主动提出协助政府，这与如果我持有 3500 material（3500 号材料/《詹克斯法案》材料），里面有合作证人说“听着，我去对同案被告进行秘密录音”是一样的，我就会被允许进行交叉询问，并且质问说“看看这个人愿意付出的所有这些努力”。这与我原本打算对 Mr. Bass（巴斯先生）进行的交叉询问没有太大的不同，而据我所知他现在不会作为证人了。这是同一个道理。这纯粹是偏见倾向。这就是他们为了协助政府愿意做到的程度。\n\n法庭：或者是为了协助他们自己。\n\n卡马拉朱律师：可能两者兼有。是的。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n费根森律师：如果他要提及中止程序的事，那么我认为我们可以在重新主问中询问郭先生是如何申请中止破产程序的。\n\n法庭：好的。我允许提出该问题。\n\n卡马拉朱律师：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（续下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n（在公开法庭）\n\n法庭：您可以继续了。\n\n卡马拉朱律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：您需要将问题重新宣读一遍吗？\n\n卡马拉朱律师：是的，那太好了。\n\n证人：是的。\n\n法庭：请宣读。\n\n（宣读庭审记录）\n\n由卡马拉朱律师继续询问：\n\n问：受托人提起的诉讼之一是针对 G|CLUBS 的，对吗？\n\n答：我认为是的。\n\n问：受托人提起的诉讼之一是针对 ACA 的，对吗？\n\n答：我认为是的。\n\n问：它提起的诉讼之一是针对 Golden State New York 的，对吗？是 Golden Spring New York（金泉纽约）。十分抱歉。\n\n答：是 Golden Spring，是的。\n\n问：GTV 也是同样情况，对吗？\n\n答：我不记得 GTV 是否在诉讼中被列为被告。\n\n问：好的。您是否查阅过本案的起诉书？\n\n答：我不记得我是否阅读了整份起诉书。\n\n问：好的。您读过其中的一部分吗？\n\n答：我认为我读过一部分。\n\n问：好的。您是否记得 G|CLUBS 是本案起诉书的一部分？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n\n本案起诉书的一部分？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：那么您是否知晓政府可以申请暂停破产案件？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：好的。政府可以申请提出动议要求破产案件中止审理，对吧？\n\n答：我认为理论上任何一方当事人都可以提出该动议。\n\n问：当然。所以他们也可以，对吧？\n\n答：如果您是指政府的话，是的。\n\n问：是的。对吧？如果该动议获准，那就意味着在暂停期间，将不再有支付给您的费用了，对吧？\n\n答：如果您指的是我的律所的话？\n\n问：是的，先生。抱歉。您的律所。\n\n答：我不知道破产法院在案件暂停期间会怎么做。即使破产案件被暂停，仍然会有一些行政事务需要处理。\n\n法庭：请对着麦克风说话。\n\n证人：对不起。\n\n答：即使案件从不再进行诉讼的意义上被暂停，仍然会有行政程序需要处理。为了坦率地说仅仅让案件维持下去并保持存续，仍然存在需要履行的义务，即每月必须在案件中提交文件的义务，所以——\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 问：所以可以合理地说，你们的费用会更少？\n2 答：工作量会变少，是的。\n3 问：对。Despins 先生的律所也是如此，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：那么您是否知晓 Despins 先生曾与检方讨论过\n7 暂停诉讼的可能性？\n8 答：我不知晓。\n9 问：后来到了某个时间，您和 Despins 先生提起了一份\n10 所谓的民事 RICO（《反勒索及受贿组织法》）起诉状，对吗？\n11 答：在破产程序中，是的。\n12 问：而且你们起诉了一大群人，对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：那全都是为了替破产财团追回资产，对吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：作为其中的一部分，你们实际上能够获得\n17 三倍赔偿，对吗？\n18 答：其中的一项主张包含三倍赔偿请求，是的。\n19 问：因此，如果你们在那起诉讼中胜诉，那将为破产财团带来\n20 更多的资金，对吗？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：所以甚至比你们提起的其他民事对抗程序还要多，\n23 对吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：再次强调，那将有更多的钱可以用来支付你们\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 律所的费用，对吗？\n2 答：破产财团里会有更多的资金来支付所有费用以及\n3 所有债权人。\n4 问：好的。所以这也包括 Despins 先生的费用，对吗？\n5 答：以及本案中的所有其他专业人员，是的。\n6 问：当然。所有人都能从那场破产案中拿到钱，\n7 对吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 FERGENSON 先生：已问且已答。\n10 法庭：异议成立。\n11 问：而在那起民事 RICO 案件提起后不久，\n12 Despins 先生就请求将其暂停，对吗？\n13 答：破产案件中确实提交了一份动议，要求暂停或\n14 中止该诉讼，是的。\n15 问：好的。而且是你们律所提交了该动议，对吗？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：好的。您在提交前审阅过它吗？\n18 答：审阅过。\n19 问：好的。我认为理所当然的是，您知道作为一名律师，\n20 您必须对法庭坦白，对吗？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：好的。Despins 先生告知破产法院他希望中止 RICO 案件的\n23 原因之一，是为了避免干扰刑事起诉，\n24 对吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 问：特别是，他告知破产法院他希望避免\n2 对政府可能传唤的任何证人进行采录宣誓证词，\n3 对吗？\n4 答：我不记得动议中的那项具体指控了，但\n5 我确实记得有陈述表示——他因为本刑事诉讼程序\n6 而希望暂停该 RICO 案件。\n7 问：好的。让我看看能不能帮您回忆一下。\n8 KAMARAJU 先生：我们能把那个调出来吗。\n9 请仅供证人和各方当事人查看。\n10 问：先生，出现在您屏幕上时请告诉我。谢谢。\n11 好的。您能否先自己浏览一下这一段，\n12 谢谢。\n13 好的。这是否唤起了您的记忆，即其中一个原因\n14 是为了避免在刑事案件中对证人采录宣誓证词\n15 的可能性？\n16 答：是的。这里指的是中止主破产案件中的采录宣誓证词，\n17 而不是与 RICO 案件相关的，这就是为什么我当时——没记起来，\n18 但这里请求的是中止主破产案件中的采录宣誓证词。\n19 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。我们可以看第 26 段吗。\n20 问：好的。看一下那个即可。\n21 现在，如果 RICO 案件被暂停了——\n22 KAMARAJU 先生：我们可以撤下那个了。\n23 问：如果 RICO 案件被暂停，那么在该案中也不会有\n24 任何采录宣誓证词程序，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1 答：对。\n2 问：好的。什么是采录宣誓证词（deposition）？\n3 答：这是一种法庭外的审讯或询问，在证人宣誓下——\n4 宣誓下对其进行询问。\n5 问：如果在 RICO 案件中存在采录宣誓证词程序，\n6 破产受托人的律师将有机会询问他们，\n7 对吧，询问证人？\n8 答：如果是破产受托人的律师发出的宣誓证词采录通知，是的。\n9 问：好的。但即使是郭先生的律师发出了宣誓证词采录\n10 通知，破产受托人的律师难道不会有机会\n11 提问吗？\n12 答：大概会有。\n13 问：对。所以如果是破产受托人发出了宣誓证词采录通知，那么\n14 郭先生的律师也会有机会，对吗？\n15 FERGENSON 先生：法官阁下，我们这是在讨论\n16 假设性问题吗？而且这也超出了范围。\n17 法庭：我允许对此进行一定程度的探究。\n18 KAMARAJU 先生：我马上就问完了，法官阁下。\n19 法庭：请继续。\n20 问：让我把问题简化一下。在进行采录宣誓证词的情况下，\n21 郭先生的律师可能会有机会\n22 询问证人，对吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：如果向证人送达了采录宣誓证词的传票，\n25 这将包括政府打算在本次审判中传唤的证人。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 交叉询问\n1\n2 FERGENSON 先生：反对。要求进行推测。\n3 KAMARAJU 先生：我想把问题问完，\n4 谢谢。\n5 法庭：你还没说完？\n6 KAMARAJU 先生：我现在说完了。\n7 法庭：这确实要求进行推测，因此我\n8 支持该反对意见。\n9 KAMARAJU 先生：好的。\n10 由 KAMARAJU 先生继续询问：\n11 问：在中止令被解除之前，RICO 案件中将不会有\n12 任何采录宣誓证词程序，对吗？\n13 答：对。\n14 问：而那正是 Despins 先生想要的，对吧？\n15 FERGENSON 先生：反对。\n16 法庭：异议成立。\n17 问：那正是 Despins 先生告知破产法院的内容，对吗？\n18 FERGENSON 先生：反对。已问且已答。\n19 法庭：我不知道那个问题是否\n20 已经回答过。你可以回答。\n21 答：这确实包含在我们为 Despins 先生提交的动议中，\n22 是的。\n23 问：而且您知晓那也是检方想要的，对吧？\n24 FERGENSON 先生：反对，法官阁下。他不能这么做。\n25 而且那曲解了证言。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再直接询问\n1 法庭：他不可能知道检方想要什么。\n2 KAMARAJU 先生：没有其他问题了，法官阁下。\n3 FERGENSON 先生：那不是我们想要的。行吧。\n4 法庭：再直接询问。\n5 再直接询问\n6 由 FERGENSON 先生进行：\n7 问：Skalka 先生，就在刚才有人向您提问了\n8 有关破产诉讼程序中止、破产受托人的民事 RICO 案件\n9 中止的问题。您记得吗？\n10 答：记得。\n11 问：您是否知晓，在破产受托人提出该动议之前，\n12 Kwok（郭文贵）先生就曾提出动议要求中止破产程序？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：而且他实际上两次提出动议要求中止破产程序？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：那是郭先生，对吗？\n17 答：对。\n18 问：提出该动议的并不是政府，对吗？\n19 答：对。\n20 法庭：你对“moved（动议/申请）”这个词的理解\n21 是什么含义？\n22 证人：就是提交了一份动议。\n23 法庭：你理解什么是“motion（动议）”？\n24 证人：它是一份诉状，由当事人提交的\n25 文件，在本案中是请求中止债务人的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再直接询问\n1 第 11 章破产程序。\n2 法庭：继续。\n3 FERGENSON 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n4 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n5 问：Skalka 先生，此前在交叉询问中有人向您问起 PAX 诉讼。\n6 您记得那些问题吗？\n7 答：记得。\n8 问：而且有人问您，根据中国法律是否存在\n9 死刑。您记得吗？\n10 答：记得。\n11 问：PAX 诉讼是在哪个法院提起的？\n12 答：New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）。\n13 问：那是在美国吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：当郭先生成为该诉讼的对象时，他在\n16 美国吗？\n17 答：在。\n18 问：审理该诉讼的纽约法院\n19 是否适用纽约州法律？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：它适用中国法律吗？\n22 KAMARAJU 先生：反对。要求得出法律结论。\n23 法庭：异议成立。\n24 问：法官是谁？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再直接询问\n1 答：在 PAX 诉讼中吗？\n2 问：在 PAX 诉讼中。\n3 答：PAX 诉讼中的法官是 Ostrager 法官。\n4 问：据您所知，他是中国共产党党员吗？\n5 KAMARAJU 先生：反对。要求进行推测。\n6 法庭：如果他知道的话。\n7 答：我不知道。\n8 问：他在审理案件时适用纽约州法律吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 KAMARAJU 先生：反对。要求得出法律结论。\n11 法庭：嗯，他可能会适用纽约州法律，也可能会适用其他法律，\n12 这取决于案件中适用什么才是正确的。\n13 FERGENSON 先生：说得对，法官阁下。说得对，\n14 法官阁下。\n15 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n16 问：您还被问及有关 PAX 诉讼提起时间的问题。\n17 您记得吗？\n18 答：记得。\n19 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能否调出辩方\n20 证据 7006。\n21 问：Skalka 先生，这是开启 PAX 诉讼的\n22 起诉状吗？\n23 答：这是——这是起诉状的封面，是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再直接询问\n1 FERGENSON 先生：政府出示辩方\n2 证据 7006。\n3 KAMARAJU 先生：反对，传闻证据。\n4 法庭：起诉状尚未作为证据采纳吗？\n5 FERGENSON 先生：还没有，法官阁下。这是一份辩方\n6 证据。政府正在出示它。\n7 法庭：异议成立。\n8 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，你能展示——\n9 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n10 问：Skalka 先生，您是否记得起诉状中关于在提交\n11 该起诉状之日之前所发生事情的\n12 具体细节？\n13 答：记得。\n14 问：PAX 声称在他们提交该起诉状之前\n15 发生了什么？\n16 KAMARAJU 先生：反对。传闻证据。\n17 法庭：异议成立。\n18 FERGENSON 先生：法官阁下，那我也许需要进行庭外边裁。\n19 法庭：好的。\n20 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再直接询问\n1 （在法官席旁）\n2 FERGENSON 先生：昨天，Kamaraju 先生反对\n3 我问这个问题。我说，交叉询问中是否会有关于暗示\n4 PAX 是作为中国共产党的代理人行事的\n5 事实？Kamaraju 先生说他可能会问日期。他询问了日期，然后他还问：\n6 你是否知晓该日期就是，你知道，中国共产党发布红色通缉令的\n7 前一天？或者你是否知晓那是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）接受美国之音\n8 采访的前一天？所以现在有一种暗示，认为这份起诉状、\n9 这整场诉讼，是配合红色通缉令以及美国之音的采访\n10 而提起的。起诉状本身根本不是这么说的。\n11 它谈到了他们在两年前是如何发出催款函的，他们在 2015 年向\n12 郭先生发出了催款函，他们在 2016 年发出了另一份催款函，\n13 然后在提起本起诉状的一年前，他们在英属维尔京群岛（BVI）\n14 提起了诉讼程序，将作为该笔贷款标的的实体\n15 Shiny Times 公司置于英属维尔京群岛的\n16 清算程序中。如果我们不被允许引出该\n17 事实，就会完全扭曲陪审团对这起诉讼本质的理解，\n18 并将允许他们在法庭终结辩论时以极其\n19 误导人的方式进行总结。而且我理解\n20 Kamaraju 先生在交叉询问中引出这些事情是为了针对\n21 被告的心智状态。那么，政府至少可以\n22 展示郭先生读过并且\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 据称持有这种心智状态，即：噢，这肯定是一起\n2 共产党的阴谋，政府应当被允许证明\n3 该诉状实际指控在诉状提交之日以前\n4 发生了什么。\n5 法庭：你打算如何引出该\n6 证言？\n7 费尔根森律师（MR. FERGENSON）：我认为最简单的方式就是直接\n8 举证提交该诉状，并说明提交它是为了证明其产生的\n9 影响——\n10 法庭：整份文件？\n11 费尔根森律师：是的，直接提交。它有11页。\n12 卡马拉朱律师（MR. KAMARAJU）：记录中没有任何证据表明\n13 郭先生（Mr. Guo）阅读过该诉状。\n14 费尔根森律师：审判长，他提交了答辩状，而且他\n15 作证说他提交了答辩状。\n16 卡马拉朱律师：所以仍然没有证据表明\n17 郭先生阅读了该诉状。律师提交了\n18 答辩状这一事实，并不能作为郭先生阅读了该诉状的证据，\n19 顺便说一句，该诉状是英文的。\n20 其次，费尔根森律师一开始所说的一切，都是他们\n21 想就该诉状进行讨论，以证明曾有\n22 一封催款函，在BVI（英属维尔京群岛）曾有一项诉讼，并且\n23 曾有这些追讨行为。所有这些都纯粹是为了证明其内容的\n24 真实性。\n25 费尔根森律师：这是——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 卡马拉朱律师：所以——抱歉。请让我说完。\n2 费尔根森律师：抱歉。\n3 卡马拉朱律师：所以如果他们举证提交它是为了证明内容的\n4 真实性，那显然属于传闻证据。如果他们提交它是为了证明\n5 心智状态，他们就必须掌握某些证据证明\n6 郭先生阅读过或看过它，这与\n7 审判长先前的裁定是一致的，而如果他们提交它是为了某种\n8 其他目的，那么他们就需要予以确立。但如果他们\n9 真的想深入探讨PAX（太盟）提起该诉讼的动机，那就\n10 传唤PAX的证人。但是，仅仅因为他们担心我们接下来的结案陈词方式\n11 就提交一份传闻证据文件，\n12 并不是证据规则的运作方式。\n13 费尔根森律师：我们不反对审判长\n14 指示陪审团：采纳该文件仅仅是出于其所产生的\n15 影响。\n16 卡马拉朱律师：你们仍然没有他阅读过该文件的证据。\n17 费尔根森律师：这并不是第三方诉讼。\n18 郭先生当时是被告。该诉讼持续了\n19 数年。他曾受到被关进监狱的威胁。他提交了\n20 答辩状。他接受了宣誓录供。该诉状也\n21 送达给了他。\n22 法庭：好的。我准许引入。\n23 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 （在公开法庭上）\n2 费尔根森律师：政府方举证提交被告方\n3 第7006号证据项。\n4 法庭：异议驳回，\n5 该文件予以采纳。\n6 （被告方第7006号证据项被采纳为证据）\n7 卡马拉朱律师：审判长，是否伴随附带限制性指示？\n8\n9 法庭：是的。举证提交该诉状并非用于证明\n10 诉状中所载陈述的真实性，\n11 仅用于证明其对阅读者所产生的影响。\n12 费尔根森律师：谢谢审判长。\n13 洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），麻烦往下滚动一下。\n14 由费尔根森律师：\n15 问：现在，斯卡尔卡先生（Mr. Skalka），请您阅读第1段。\n16 答：“这是一起明确的违约案。郭\n17 浩云（Kwok Ho Wan）——”\n18 问：您可以跳过别名部分。\n19 答：“——一名据报道的亿万富翁，及其控制的实体\n20 从原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（‘PAX LP’，太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）借款数百万美元，\n21 但未能向PAX LP支付具约束力的书面\n22 协议项下所欠的任何\n23 款项。”\n24 费尔根森律师：洛夫特斯女士，麻烦缩小画面。\n25 请往下滚动。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 往下滚动。继续往下滚动。\n2 洛夫特斯女士，继续往下滚动。\n3 请继续。\n4 您可以快一点。\n5 对，继续。\n6 好的。不好意思。请往回向上滚动。\n7 抱歉。\n8 再往上一页。\n9 由费尔根森律师：\n10 问：好的。现在朝底部看，斯卡尔卡先生，您看到\n11 加粗显示的‘PAX LP寻求行使其合同权利\n12 并追讨所欠款项’了吗？\n13 答：我看到了。\n14 问：好的。请阅读第38段。\n15 答：“2015年10月16日，在《和解契据》和\n16 《期权协议》终止且《2011年授信函》\n17 恢复完全效力之后，PAX LP向\n18 个人担保条款中指定的郭在香港的\n19 地址发送了书面催款通知（‘《催款通知》’）。”\n20\n21 问：通常来说，什么是催款通知？\n22 答：它是——在本案中，书面催款通知是一封\n23 要求全额付款、或就某项债务或义务\n24 要求付款的函件。\n25 问：而且据指控这是在2015年发送的，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 答：指控确实是这样的，是的。\n2 问：那大约是在2017年4月最终提起\n3 本诉讼之前一年半左右吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 费尔根森律师：请缩小画面。麻烦向下\n6 滚动。\n7 下一页。\n8 问：请阅读第40段。\n9 答：“郭从未对《催款通知》作出答复。”\n10 问：请阅读第41段。\n11 答：“2016年2月19日，PAX LP向Shiny Times（耀时代）发送了一封信函，\n12 要求支付《2011年授信函》项下到期应付的\n13 82,219,404.08美元（‘《耀时代催款函》’），\n14 该金额代表本金加上计算至《耀时代催款函》\n15 出具之日的年利率\n16 15%的合同利息。”\n17 问：而2016年2月，是在纽约法院最终\n18 提起本诉讼的一年多以前吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 费尔根森律师：麻烦缩小画面。\n21 问：现在请阅读第43段的\n22 第一句。\n23 答：“在Shiny Times未作出答复时，PAX LP于2016年2月29日向\n24 British Virgin Islands（BVI，英属维尔京群岛）的法院提交了一份申请，\n25 申请指定联合清算人\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 以使Shiny Times（一家BVI公司）进入\n2 清算程序。该申请指控：(i)——”\n3 问：可以了，斯卡尔卡先生。\n4 这也是在提起这起纽约州\n5 法院诉讼的一年多以前吗？\n6 答：大约一年。\n7 费尔根森律师：好的。我们可以撤下该文件了。\n8 问：有人问过您关于是否——好吧，撤回该问题。\n9 费尔根森律师：洛夫特斯女士，请调出\n10 政府方第1407号证据项并翻到第7页。\n11 麻烦放大底部区域，第7部分。\n12 问：斯卡尔卡先生，您看到第一句写着：“我已\n13 审查了这份申请书，我谨在受伪证罪处罚的规定下声明：\n14 所提供的信息真实、准确”了吗？\n15 答：看到了。\n16 问：这份文件中有没有针对被CCP（中共）针对的\n17 任何例外情况？\n18 答：没有。\n19 问：如果你是被CCP针对的对象，伪证罪法律难道就\n20 不适用了吗？\n21 卡马拉朱律师：反对。要求证人作出法律\n22 结论。\n23 法庭：反对成立。\n24 问：这份文件是否说明：如果你被CCP针对，\n25 伪证罪法律便不适用？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 卡马拉朱律师：文件自有其文意。\n2 法庭：反对成立。\n3 问：现在，斯卡尔卡先生，关于奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）做出的\n4 简易判决裁定，也有人向您提问了吧？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：而且有人向您询问了G|CLUBS（G俱乐部）为何没有支付\n7 该笔罚款，对吗？\n8 答：对。\n9 问：或者，抱歉，是那项判决。\n10 并且关于蔑视法庭罚款，您也被问到了同样的问题，\n11 对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：有人问您G|CLUBS为何没有支付该笔款项，以及Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）为何没有支付，\n14 对吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：维持PAX诉讼处于中止状态的那笔3700万美元贷款，是由谁借出资金的？具体是哪家实体？\n17 答：Himalaya International Finance or Financial Group（喜马拉雅国际金融集团）。\n18 问：您是否知道该实体与Himalaya Exchange存在关联？\n19\n20 答：我相信存在关联。\n21 问：顺便问一下，您知道为什么郭美（Mei Guo）需要贷款来支付\n22 这笔钱吗？\n23 答：郭女士的律师在破产\n24 程序中曾指控：HK USA（香港美国）唯一的资产就是Lady May号（梅号游艇）。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 问：那您知道为什么郭美没有自己把钱给HK USA，\n2 而是去申请了贷款吗？\n3 答：我不知道。\n4 卡马拉朱律师：反对。要求证人进行推测。\n5 法庭：反对成立。\n6 费尔根森律师：我只是问他知不知道。他\n7 不知道。\n8 问：您知道为什么最初的贷款协议上写的是ACA Capital（阿卡资本）吗？\n9\n10 卡马拉朱律师：同前反对。\n11 答：我不知道。\n12 法庭：反对成立。\n13 问：您知道为什么后来改成了Himalaya International Financial Group吗？\n14\n15 卡马拉朱律师：同前反对。\n16 法庭：反对成立。\n17 问：关于那3700万美元最终去向如何，您也被问到了。\n18 破产法官为何认定它属于破产财产的一部分？\n19\n20 答：法官做出认定：HK USA是\n21 债务人的第二自我（alter ego），因此——做出认定：Lady May号是\n22 郭先生破产财产的财产，且托管账户中的\n23 资金属于郭先生破产财产的财产。\n24 问：有人向您询问了数个关于Department of Justice（司法部）Office of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）的\n25 问题。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO2\n1 法庭：稍等。该休庭了。\n2 费尔根森律师：噢。\n3 法庭：陪审团成员们，请勿在你们之间讨论\n4 本案。请勿允许他人在\n5 你们面前讨论本案。请勿阅读、观看或收听来自\n6 任何涉及本案主题的来源的任何内容。\n7 证人先生，你可以退庭了。不要讨论你的证言。\n8 （陪审团退庭）\n9 （证人退庭）\n10 法庭：请就座。\n11 我们进行法官席旁会议。\n12 （第4162页经法院命令予以密封）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - 再次直接询问\n1 下午庭审\n2 中午12:00\n3 法庭：请带陪审团入庭。\n4 法官助理：陪审团入庭。\n5 （陪审团在庭）\n6 法庭：请就座。证人先生，请记住\n7 你仍在宣誓状态下，你可以继续进行再次直接询问。\n8 费尔根森律师：谢谢。\n9 由费尔根森律师：\n10 问：斯卡尔卡先生，在反询问中，您也被问及了关于\n11 美国受托人办公室以及破产程序的问题，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：该办公室与我的办公室是同一个还是不同的办公室？\n14 答：是不同的。他们的职责是在全国每一个联邦司法管辖区\n15 监督破产的行政管理事务。\n16\n17 问：在反询问中，您还被问及被CCP针对以及\n18 与此相关的问题如何使这次破产变得独一无二。您\n19 记得那些提问吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：而且您说我想这可能是使其变得独一无二的一个因素。那么，使这次破产\n22 变得独一无二的其他因素还有哪些？\n23\n24 答：债务人在其破产财产清册上表明自己实际上几乎没有任何\n25 资产，但却列出了超过3.73亿美元的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - 再次反诘问\n责任。以我作为破产律师的经验来看，这对我来说很不寻常。正如我之前指出的那样，存在与破产案件相关的抗议活动这一事实是极其罕见的。坦率地说，大多数破产案件都相当枯燥。它们是金钱纠纷，因此看到大量债务以及关于如何偿还这些债务的纠纷并不罕见；但通常你不会在破产程序中看到抗议活动，也不会看到破产法院介入提供限制令以及 First Amendment（第一修正案）权利主张。这很不寻常。\nFERGENSON 先生：没有其他问题了。\n法庭：再次反诘问。\nKAMARAJU 先生：谢谢法官阁下，简短问几个问题。\n再次反诘问\n由 KAMARAJU 先生进行：\n问：请给我们看 DX7006 号证物。先生，这是一份起诉状，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：是 PAX 发起的起诉状？\n答：是的。\n问：所以 PAX 决定在里面写什么内容，对吗？\n答：我是这么理解的。\n问：这些都是 PAX 的指控，对吗？\n答：正确。\n问：而你根本无法知道其中的任何内容是否\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - 再次反诘问\n属实，对吗？\n答：我知道它们是指控，而且我知道法院认定了什么。这就是我所了解的。\n问：指控就仅仅是指控，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：Guo 先生（郭文贵）否认了该指控，对吗？\n答：正确。\n问：这份起诉状是在线提交的，对吗？\n答：它是向 New York County（纽约县）书记官以电子方式提交的，但是在线提交，不一定是在互联网上。我想问，你说的“在线”是什么意思？\n问：我们不讨论太专业的细节。当你以电子方式提交文件时，你是通过互联网去提交的，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：请调出 DX Stip 0001 号证物。我们可以往下翻吗。你看到那里的第五段了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：你能读一下第一句吗？\n答：为了在 2017 年执行 Fox Hunt（“猎狐行动”）的部分目标，PRC（中华人民共和国）政府指派了一组特别指定的行动人员（该小组），利用交互式计算机服务和电子通信系统来抹黑和骚扰包括 Guo 先生在内的个人。\n问：我们可以把那个撤下来了。2017 年，那是 PAX 诉讼开始的那一年，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Skalka - 再次反诘问\n答：是的。\n问：我们可以看下一段吗。请读一下第二句好吗？\n答：2017 年 5 月，PRC 政府从 PRC Ministry of State Security（中国国家安全部，简称 MSS）向 United States（美国）派遣了四名未申报的特工，试图促成将 Guo 先生强制遣返回 PRC，作为 Fox Hunt 倡议的一部分。\n问：2017 年 5 月，那是 PAX 提起诉讼后一个月，对吗？\n答：我想是几个月后。我认为诉讼是在 2017 年 2 月提起的。\nKAMARAJU 先生：没有其他问题了。\nFERGENSON 先生：就一个问题。\n再次直接询问\n由 FERGENSON 先生进行：\n问：Skalka 先生，你是中国间谍吗？\n答：不是。\nKAMARAJU 先生：最后一个问题。\n再次反诘问\n由 KAMARAJU 先生进行：\n问：如果你是中国间谍，你会告诉我们吗？\nFERGENSON 先生：法官阁下，这要求证人作推测。\n法庭：你可以退庭了，政府方可以传唤下一位证人。\n（证人退庭）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\nMURRAY 女士：谢谢法官阁下。政府方传唤 Owen Foley。\nOWEN FOLEY，\n由政府方传唤作证，\n经依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n法庭：请陈述你的姓名并拼写出来。\n证人：Owen Foley，名字拼写为 O-W-E-N，姓氏拼写为 F-O-L-E-Y。\n法庭：Foley 先生，请你对着麦克风说话。\n证人：好的，法官阁下。\n法庭：你可以提问了。\nMURRAY 女士：谢谢法官阁下。\n直接询问\n由 MURRAY 女士进行：\n问：下午好，Foley 先生。\n答：下午好。\n问：你在哪里工作？\n答：我在 United States Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）工作。\n问：你在 U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York 的职务是什么？\n答：我是一名律师助理专员。\n问：作为律师助理专员，你的职责是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n答：协助 Assistant United States Attorney（联邦助理检察官）进行证据开示法律程序以及庭审准备。\n问：你在 U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York 担任律师助理有多久了？\n答：大约两年。\n问：除了你今天的作证以及为该证言做准备之外，你是否参与过本案？\n答：我没有，没有参与。\n问：在作证之前，你是否被要求审查一份政府方证物并核实其中信息的准确性？\n答：是的。\n问：你是什么时候被要求审查该汇总图表的？\n答：大约一周前。\n问：你是否审查了该汇总图表的准确性？\n答：审查了。\n问：该汇总图表是否基于大量的记录？\n答：是的。\n问：那些记录是由政府方提供给你的吗？\n答：是的。\n问：大体上说，该汇总图表是基于什么类型的证物？\n答：它们是贷款还款记录。\n问：由谁决定你审查哪些证物以及在该汇总图表中包含哪些信息？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n答：由你决定的。\n问：在审查之后，你是否对汇总图表提出了修正以确保其准确？\n答：是的。\n问：图表是否根据你的修正进行了修改？\n答：修改了。\n问：图表修改之后，现在准确了吗？\n答：是的。\n问：澄清一下，Foley 先生，你是审查了本案中政府方收集的所有证据，还是仅仅审查了汇总图表及其所基于的证物？\n答：仅仅审查了汇总图表及其所基于的证物。\nMURRAY 女士：Loftus 女士，请展示已采纳为证据的 GX Stip 8 号证物。这是双方当事人的一份规定协议。\n这在第二页上写明，双方当事人规定并同意，Government Exhibits（政府方证物）1601 至 1849 是政府方合法取得的，并且是证物表面所指明实体的真实业务记录，这些记录是由了解记录中所载事项的人员在该时间或临近该时间制作的，或者根据该人员传输的信息制作的。此类记录是在定期开展的活动过程中保存的，并且制作这些记录是该实体的常规做法。\nLoftus 女士，请看下一页。GX Stip 8 号证物还\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n表明，本规定协议中列出的政府方证物，包括 Government Exhibit 1601 至 1849，可被采纳为证据。法官阁下，根据 Stip 8 号规定协议，此时政府方提请采纳以下政府方证物。政府方证物 1628、1630、1631、1632、1634、1636、1637、1639、1643、1644 以及 1646。\nSCHIRICK 先生：无异议。\n法庭：予以采纳。\n（政府方证物 1628、1630、1631、1632、1634、1636、1637、1639、1643、1644 和 1646 已采纳为证据）\n由 MURRAY 女士进行：\n问：Loftus 女士，我们可以撤下那个，请为证人展示标为 Government Exhibit Z-13 的文件。\nFoley 先生，你认得你面前的文件吗？\n答：认得。\n问：这是你为今天作证做准备时审查过的汇总图表吗？\n答：是的。\n问：你是否审查了该汇总图表所基于的所有证物？\n答：是的。\n问：这些证物是否在该图表上按证物编号标明？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n答：是的。\n问：根据你的审查，该图表是否准确？\n答：准确。\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，政府方提请采纳 Government Exhibit Z-13。\nSCHIRICK 先生：法官阁下，能否给我稍许时间？\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，我们能否稍等片刻。\n法庭：你们准备好了吗？\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，我们只需要再等片刻。非常感谢。\n法庭：好的。\n问：Foley 先生，请看一下屏幕上的文件。这被标为 Government Exhibit Z-13 以供识别，我也将把它交给辩方律师查看。\n这是你为作证做准备时审查过的汇总图表吗？\n答：是的。\nMURRAY 女士：辩方律师正在审查，之后我将提请采纳。此时，政府方提请采纳 Government Exhibit Z-13。\nSCHIRICK 先生：无异议，法官阁下。\n法庭：予以采纳。\n（政府方证物 Z-13 已采纳为证据）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n由 MURRAY 女士进行：\n问：请向法庭出示公开。\nFoley 先生，看着这张汇总图表，这张图表的标题是什么？\n答：G/Club 贷款协议及精选投资。\n问：大体上说，这份证物 Z-13 中汇总了什么类型的协议？\n答：金额从 100 万美元到 6000 万美元不等的各类贷款。\n问：看这里的第二列，Z-13 上反映的大多数贷款的出借人是谁？\n答：G/Club Operations, LLC。\n问：Foley 先生，你知道 G/Club Operations, LLC 是什么吗？\n答：不知道。\n问：看借款人一列，大多数贷款反映列出的借款人是什么？\n答：其中大部分是 G/Club International Limited。\n问：Foley 先生，你知道 G/Club International Limited 是什么吗？\n答：不知道。\n问：我想看一下该证物中反映的各个不同字段。从最左边一列开始，这里汇总的贷款反映了什么信息？\n答：最左边一列是贷款日期。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n问：然后下一列，那是什么信息？\n答：出借人。\n问：第三列，那标明了什么？\n答：出借人签署人。\n问：看第二行和第三行，是否有——\n法庭：签署人是什么意思？\n证人：在贷款上签字的姓名。\n法庭：请继续。\nMURRAY 女士：谢谢法官阁下。\n问：看第二行和第三行，那里没有列出出借人签署人，你看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：看下一列借款人，那里反映了什么信息？\n答：借款人是基础文件中租赁协议里列出的借款人姓名/名称。\n问：然后下一列，如果有的话，那里反映了哪些个人的姓名？\n答：借款人签署人。\n问：然后接下来的一列标题为资金接收方，那反映了贷款协议中的什么信息？\n答：在贷款协议中被指定为资金接收方的个人或组织的名称。\n问：在接下来的两列中，首先是金额，然后是币种。你能解释一下那里反映了什么信息吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：金额是基础贷款协议上列明的金额，币种是该金额对应的币种。绝大多数是美元。也有英镑（GPB）和瑞士法郎（CHF）的款项。\n\n问：最后，最右侧的一栏，是否反映了支持性文件的政府物证编号？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我们可以先把这个放下来一会儿，Loftus（洛夫特斯）女士。我想先看一份基础贷款协议，Foley（弗利）先生，然后再看图表。洛夫特斯女士，请调出 GXGC-515，并请放大正文部分。弗利先生，这份文件顶部列出的实体名称是什么？\n\n答：Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP。\n\n问：那你知道 Hamilton Digital Assets 是什么吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：这里第一个加粗条目反映了什么信息？\n\n答：转账方是 G/Club Operations LLC。\n\n问：根据这份文件，转入方是什么？\n\n答：G/Club International Limited。\n\n问：基金的名称呢？\n\n答：Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP。\n\n问：现在看转账生效日期，上面列出的日期是什么？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：2021年3月6日。\n\n问：下一个栏目显示了两个不同日期的美元金额。能请你分别读一下吗？\n\n答：第一笔是2021年5月6日的2000万美元，第二笔是2021年5月13日的1500万美元。\n\n问：弗利先生，这份文件上有两处签名，根据横线下方打印的信息，第一处是谁？\n\n答：Haoran He（何浩然）。\n\n问：上面列出的何浩然的头衔是什么？\n\n答：最终实益拥有人（UBO）。\n\n问：那是代表本协议的哪一方？\n\n答：转让方。\n\n问：下一处签名，弗利先生，打印的名字是什么？\n\n答：何浩然。\n\n问：头衔是什么？\n\n答：董事（Director）。\n\n问：那是代表本协议的哪个实体？\n\n答：受让方。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，请在旁边并排调出 Z-13。我们聚焦在 Z-13 的第二行和第三行。哪怕有点重叠也没关系。弗利先生，看这些条目——洛夫特斯女士，有什么办法能把它放大一点吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n看这些条目，Z-13 上这里的第二和第三个条目，是否反映了我们刚才在 GXGC-515 法律协议中看到的信息？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：看这里列出的日期，缩小视图部分中的第一个日期是2021年5月6日，针对该特定条目列出的美元金额是多少？\n\n答：2000万美元。\n\n问：看左边的文件 GXGC-515，我们在贷款协议的哪里能看到该信息？\n\n答：在转账金额下方的第五个加粗部分。\n\n问：关于此处 GX-Z-13 高亮显示的第二行也是同样的问题，该条目列出的日期是什么？\n\n答：2021年5月13日。\n\n问：与该笔转账关联的美元金额是多少？\n\n答：1500万美元。\n\n问：我们在原始文件 GXGC-515 的哪里能看到？\n\n答：在转账金额那一节下方。\n\n问：看 GXZ-13 的这一部分，这里列出的资金接收方当事人——洛夫特斯女士，也许我们可以缩小后再放大，把表头也包含进来。这些条目的资金接收方列为 Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP，我们在左侧的贷款协议中哪里能看到反映的这一信息？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：在写着基金名称的第三个加粗部分下方。\n\n问：然后再看最右侧，弗利先生，针对这两个条目列出的 GX 编号 GXGC-515，这就是我们在屏幕左侧看到的原始文件的政府物证编号吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以撤下 515，保留 Z-13。弗利先生，总的来说，我们刚才进行的这套核对，就是你用来核实 Z-13 中信息准确性的流程吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：弗利先生，我们逐项读一下这个图表上的部分条目。那么从第一个条目开始，那份贷款协议的日期是什么？\n\n答：2021年1月15日。\n\n问：出借人是谁？\n\n答：G/Club Operations, LLC。\n\n问：该笔贷款的借款人是谁？\n\n答：Jovial Century International Limited。\n\n问：代表 Jovial Century International Limited 签署该贷款协议的个人是谁？\n\n答：何浩然。\n\n问：该贷款协议中列明的资金接收方是谁？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：Fiesta Property Developments, LTD。\n\n问：那笔贷款的金额和币种是什么？\n\n答：是1000万英镑（GBP）。\n\n问：你知道 GBP 代表什么吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，能否请调出 GXGC-544。那是该条目的原始文件。如果调不出来，我们就回到 Z-13。能否请放大正文部分，让它稍微大一点。弗利先生，在这份文件的左下方，你是否看到一个图例，说明该汇总图表上的斜体代表什么？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：斜体代表什么？\n\n答：贷款未完全签署签署（not fully executed）。\n\n问：未完全签署是什么意思？\n\n答：缺少一个或多个签名。\n\n问：看这个汇总图表上的条目，贷款文件的签署状态斜体，是否列在最右侧的 GX 列中？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：现在，根据你审查的物证，弗利先生，本汇总图表上反映的完全签署的贷款，其美元及/或其他币种的总金额是多少？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：总额为1.1亿美元和1000万英镑。\n\n问：本图表上反映的未完全签署（缺少一个或两个签名）的贷款总额是多少？\n\n答：1.92亿美元和1000万瑞士法郎（CHF）。\n\n问：你知道 CHF 代表什么吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：看下一个框，弗利先生，本图表上反映的所有贷款合并总计，美元总额是多少，以及英镑和瑞士法郎的额外总额是多少？\n\n答：3.02亿美元、1000万英镑和1000万瑞士法郎。\n\n问：再次聚焦在我们之前查看过 Hamilton Digital Assets 文件的第一笔，或者说第二和第三个条目，洛夫特斯女士，请调出 GXSCB-13 并翻到第二页。请放大正文部分。弗利先生，你以前见过这个吗？\n\n答：没见过。\n\n问：这里左上方列出的实体名称是什么？\n\n答：Hamilton Digital Assets FD SP。\n\n问：看右边，这份政府物证右边显示的文字是什么？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：2021年1月1日至2022年1月18日的美元交易。\n\n问：弗利先生，你读出第二个日期的方式，能否解释一下你为什么那样读？\n\n答：因为它是日、月、年的格式。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，请聚焦在这里的前两行。弗利先生，你看到第一项条目了吗，能读一下交易日期和起息日（value date）吗？\n\n答：交易日期是2021年5月6日，金额是2000万美元。\n\n问：在付款收据——抱歉，在摘要/描述（description）下方列出的是什么？\n\n答：付款收据 G/Club Operations, LLC。\n\n问：弗利先生，第二行也是同样的问题，上面列出的交易日期是什么？\n\n答：2021年5月13日。\n\n问：该特定交易的摘要是什么？\n\n答：付款收据 G/Club Operations, LLC。\n\n问：然后看贷方（credit）一栏，该笔交易的金额是多少？\n\n答：1500万美元。\n\n问：那么请回到 Z-13，洛夫特斯女士。弗利先生，我们刚才在银行记录上看到的信息，是否就是该汇总图表第二行和第三行所反映的相同信息？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：我想和你一起再看另一个例子。我们往下看几行。有一条2021年6月23日的条目。你看到了吗，弗利先生？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：你能读一下该特定交易的出借人以及出借人签署人吗？\n\n答：出借人是 G/Club Operations LLC，出借人签署人是 Limarie Reyes Molinaris。\n\n问：该条目的借款人和借款人签署人是什么？\n\n答：借款人是 G/Club International Limited，借款人签署人是何浩然。\n\n问：为该特定贷款列明的资金接收方是什么？\n\n答：Yieldesta LP。\n\n问：你知道 Yieldesta 是什么吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，请调出政府物证 1639。请翻到下一页。弗利先生看——请放大本页前两项。看第一项，该笔贷款列明的美元金额是多少？\n\n答：300万美元。\n\n问：在第二项下方，你能读一下第一句话，直到“注册地址（registered address）”这些字为止吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n答：借款人拟使用该贷款投资于在美国特拉华州注册且注册地址位于……的 Yieldesta LP（资金接收方）。\n\n问：我们可以缩小。翻到第一页聚焦在顶部。抱歉，是第二页。这份特定贷款协议的生效日期是什么？\n\n答：2021年6月21日。\n\n问：这里列出的出借人实体是？\n\n答：G/Club Operations LLC。\n\n问：这里列出的借款人实体是？\n\n答：G/Club International Limited。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以缩小。最后，弗利先生，Z-13 上有一个条目，如果我们能调出那个，洛夫特斯女士。它在图表下方四分之一处。日期是2021年11月23日。你看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：那笔贷款的出借人和出借人签署人是谁？我们看的是2021年11月23日。\n\n答：出借人是 G/Club Operations LLC，出借人签署人是 Limarie Reyes Molinaris。\n\n问：该笔贷款的借款人及借款人签署人呢？\n\n答：借款人是 G/Club International Limited，借款人签署人是何浩然。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 主问\n\n问：从 G/Club Operations LLC 到 G/Club International Limited 的那笔贷款的美元金额是多少？\n\n答：5000万美元。\n\n问：洛夫特斯女士，请调出政府物证 MER-204 并转到第 135 行。弗利先生，你以前见过这份文件吗？\n\n答：没有，我没见过。\n\n问：本文件第一行顶部有一些列标题。你看到 B 列实体的标题了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：高亮显示的第 135 行列出的实体是什么？\n\n答：G/Club International Limited。\n\n问：列出的日期是什么？\n\n答：2021年12月2日。\n\n问：这反映了什么类型的交易？\n\n答：一笔取款（withdrawal）。\n\n问：那笔取款的美元金额是多少？\n\n答：5000万。\n\n问：谢谢，洛夫特斯女士。我们可以最后再回到 Z-13 一次。弗利先生，在这份物证上有几个标出的星号以及左下角的一些文字。你看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley- 直接询问\n1 问：这些信息是否反映在你审查过的原始贷款\n2 文件中？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：这是否表明其中某些条目\n5 反映了对贷款图表中其他条目的修改？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：Foley 先生，以最后一条为例，\n8 借款人和借款人签署人列为 Quiang Guo（郭强）。你\n9 看到了吗？\n10 答：看到了。\n11 问：你知道那个人是谁吗？\n12 答：我不知道。\n13 MURRAY 女士：法官阁下，能否请稍候片刻。\n14 法庭：可以。\n15 MURRAY 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n16 问：Foley 先生，除了你今天的证词之外，你对本案的\n17 任何事实是否知情？\n18 答：不知情。\n19 问：除了审查汇总图表和基础证据的准确性之外，\n20 你是否参与过政府在本案中的任何调查？\n21\n22 答：没有，我没有参与。\n23 MURRAY 女士：没有其他问题了，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：交叉询问。\n25 交叉询问\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 由 SCHIRICK 先生进行：\n2 问：下午好，Foley 先生。\n3 答：下午好。\n4 问：你作证说你是 U.S. Attorney's office（联邦检察官办公室）的法律助理？\n5\n6 答：对。\n7 问：政府律师大约在一周前才第一次要求你在本案中\n8 作证，对吧？\n9 答：对。\n10 问：在坐在政府席上的这些人要求你作证之前，\n11 你对本案其实一无所知，这样说公允吗？\n12\n13 答：对。\n14 问：并且你没有为坐在政府席上的这些人做过任何\n15 与本案相关的法律助理工作？\n16 答：我没有，没有。\n17 问：而且你没有调查过我们刚才——或者说你刚才\n18 在图表中看过的任何贷款或投资，公允吗？\n19\n20 答：公允。\n21 问：所以实际上你唯一知道的，我认为我们在直接询问中\n22 已经涉及过的，就是政府律师展示给你的内容，\n23 公允吗？\n24 答：对。\n25 问：那么，在你今天在这里作证之前，你与政府律师\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 会面了多少次？\n2 答：两到三次。\n3 问：包括今天早上吗？\n4 答：今天早上没有，没有。\n5 问：昨天呢？\n6 答：可能简短会面过。\n7 问：很好。那么，你几分钟前看过的图表 GXZ-13，\n8 你没有制作该图表，对吧？\n9 答：没有，我没有制作，没有。\n10 问：谁制作的？\n11 答：AUSA（联邦助理检察官）Julie Murray。\n12 问：这篇草稿一共有多少版草稿？\n13 答：在交给我之前有多少版草稿，我不清楚。\n14\n15 问：这个问题问得不妥。据你所知有多少版草稿？\n16 答：三版。\n17 问：并且你只是被要求根据提供给你的信息，\n18 审查图表的准确性，对吧？\n19 答：对。\n20 问：说你只收到了显示在那个图表最右侧一栏中的\n21 文件，这样说公允吗？\n22\n23 答：对。\n24 问：我们能否调出图表简要参考一下。为了向陪审团\n25 说明清楚，我说最右侧一栏中的列时，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 指的是 GX 列，对吧？\n2 答：对。\n3 问：那就是你能接触到的全部内容？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：那么，因此你并没有真正审查过可能与这些贷款相关的\n6 任何其他 G/Club 文件，公允吗？\n7\n8 答：公允，只有最右侧一栏中的项目。\n9 问：例如，你无法接触并审查任何相关的\n10 公司决议？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：或者任何相关的电子邮件往来？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：或者可能解释了任何交易的原因或目的的\n15 任何其他文件，对吧？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：而且你也没有审查过任何银行记录；这样说\n18 也公允吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：为了明确起见，说你没有审查过任何银行记录是准确的吗？\n21\n22 答：只有这里的贷款记录。\n23 问：现在，我们简要回到这里的图表。顶部的\n24 标题写着 G/Club 贷款协议及精选投资，\n25 对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 答：对。\n2 问：以及撤回的精选投资。\n3 本图表标题中提到的“精选投资”，\n4 是由检察官挑选的，对吧？\n5\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：所以据你所知，这并非全部投资，对吧？\n8 答：对此我不知情。\n9 问：无论如何，图表上写的是精选投资？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：我想澄清一件我认为你在直接询问中作证过的事情，\n12 只是为了明确起见。我相信你可能作证说过\n13 你看过的文件是贷款还款记录。\n14 现在我想我们刚刚澄清了你并没有真正看过\n15 任何还款记录，对吧？\n16 答：它们是贷款协议。\n17 问：贷款协议。你没有看银行记录，所以你\n18 不知道是否实际存在与这些贷款协议相关的\n19 任何还款，对吧？\n20 答：对。\n21 问：明确一点，当我们看这个明细表时，我们谈论的\n22 不是还款？\n23 MURRAY 女士：已问且已答。\n24 法庭：异议成立。\n25 问：我继续下一个问题。现在，本图表中列出了两个\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 独立的 G/Club 实体；是这样吗？\n2 答：对。\n3 问：G/Club Operations（G/Club 运营公司）？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：如果我们看贷款人下方的第一行，然后\n6 例如在 2021 年 7 月 26 日的条目上有 G/Club International Limited（G/Club 国际有限公司），对吧？\n7\n8 答：对。\n9 问：那些是不同的实体，对吧？\n10 答：它们的名称不同。\n11 问：据你所知是不同的实体？\n12 MURRAY 女士：已问且已答。\n13 法庭：异议成立。\n14 问：但是，这两个实体的贷款都被放在了\n15 同一个图表里，对吧？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：现在，如果我们能把第一行即 2021 年 1 月\n18 15 日这行突出显示。\n19 除了我们在这里看到的第一行之外，\n20 对于本图表所列 G/Clubs Operations 发放的每一笔贷款，\n21 G/Clubs International 都是借款人；是这样吗？\n22\n23 我希望你花点时间仔细看一下，\n24 确保你理解了。\n25 答：抱歉。你能把问题再重复一遍吗。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 问：当然。我想如果我们把那个往上移，证人就可以\n2 看看这个图表。你能看到图表的\n3 其余部分吗？\n4 答：能。\n5 问：所以问题是，对于 G/Clubs Operations 发放的每一笔贷款，\n6 G/Clubs International 都是借款人吗？\n7 答：是的，没错。\n8 问：据你了解，G/Club International 是 G/Clubs Operations 的\n9 唯一成员吗？\n10 答：对此我不知情。\n11 问：好吧，看看我们能否调出 GX1630。请翻到\n12 第二页。\n13 GX1630 是你在准备该图表时审查过的\n14 文件之一，对吧？\n15 答：对。\n16 问：如果我们能放大顶部写有贷款人和借款人的地方，\n17 如果我们看一下中间鉴于条款（recitals）下方的\n18 鉴于条款（whereas clause）。\n19 你看到顶部写着“鉴于借款人是贷款人的唯一成员”吗？\n20\n21 答：看到了。\n22 问：这是否向你表明，这里的借款人 G/Club International 是\n23 G/Clubs Operations 的唯一成员？\n24 MURRAY 女士：反对，法官阁下，文件本身已说明\n25 一切。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 法庭：异议成立。\n2 问：你看到那里写的了吗？\n3 答：看到了。\n4 问：唯一成员意味着 G/Club International 拥有\n5 G/Club Operations，对吧？\n6 MURRAY 女士：反对，法官阁下。\n7 法庭：异议成立。\n8 SCHIRICK 先生：我是在询问他的理解。他是整理\n9 该图表的人。\n10 MURRAY 女士：法官阁下，这曲解了他的证词。\n11 他核实了图表的准确性。他没有编制它。\n12 这超出了直接询问的范围。\n13 SCHIRICK 先生：我没有定性他的证词。\n14 我是在询问他的理解。\n15 法庭：你明白吗？\n16 证人：我是否明白“借款人是贷款人的唯一成员”是\n17 什么意思？\n18 法庭：这是你的问题吗？\n19 问：我是问他是否明白这意味着 G/Clubs International 作为\n20 唯一成员拥有 G/Clubs Operation，\n21 没有其他成员？\n22 答：我无法核实这一点。\n23 问：你知道在有限责任公司的语境下“成员（member）”是\n24 什么意思吗？\n25 答：在此语境下不知道，不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 问：所以你阅读我们刚才在 GX1630 上审查的内容，\n2 对你来说并不意味着关于这些实体所有权的\n3 任何事情？\n4 MURRAY 女士：已问且已答。\n5 法庭：异议成立。\n6 问：现在，如果我们去看——我跳过这个问题。请调出——\n7 实际上，你知道吗，我们快速处理一下这个。\n8\n9 如果我们能回到 1630 并翻到第二页。\n10 我们要看 GC-544。Foley 先生，这也是\n11 你就该图表审查过的文件之一，对吧？\n12 答：我想是的，是的。\n13 问：这被称为融资协议（facility agreement）。你看到了吗？\n14\n15 答：看到了。\n16 问：这是由三个实体订立的：G/Club Operations、\n17 Jovial Century International Limited（怡世纪国际有限公司）和 Fiesta Property Developments（嘉年华地产开发）。你看到了吗？\n18\n19 答：对。\n20 问：如果我们能向下滚动到第二页当事人下方，我们可以\n21 在这里看到贷款人是 G/Clubs Operations？\n22 答：对。\n23 问：借款人是 Jovial Century International，对吧？\n24 答：对。\n25 问：如果我们在顶部——如果我们再往下一点，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 资金接收方是 Fiesta Property Development，\n2 对吧？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：现在如果我们向下滚动到背景部分，你看到\n5 背景部分了吗？\n6 答：看到了。\n7 问：上面写着，借款人是贷款人的 100%\n8 股东，对吧？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：对你而言这是否意味着作为借款人的 Jovial\n11 是 G/Clubs Operation 的 100% 所有者？\n12 MURRAY 女士：法官阁下，反对。文件本身\n13 已说明一切。\n14 法庭：异议成立。\n15 问：我们继续读这里。下一句话写道，借款人的\n16 最终实益拥有人与资金接收方的相同。\n17 你看到了吗？\n18 答：看到了。\n19 问：你知道最终实益拥有人是什么意思吗？\n20 答：在此语境下不知道。\n21 问：我相信你在直接询问中作证说 He 先生是\n22 其中一个实体的最终实益拥有人？\n23 MURRAY 女士：反对，曲解了他的\n24 证词。\n25 法庭：异议成立。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 交叉询问\n1 问：本图表中列出的各实体之间的关系（如有），\n2 并没有显示在图表中；这样说公允吗？\n3 答：只有贷款人和接收方的关系。\n4 问：那么，换句话说，明确一点，换句话说，在这些实体中的\n5 某个或多个拥有其他实体或在其他实体中享有权益的\n6 范围内，这并没有反映在图表中？\n7\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：贷款协议的条款没有反映在本图表中，\n10 这也是事实吗？\n11 答：是的，没错。\n12 问：现在，如果我们回到图表 GXZ-13。\n13 除了我们刚才审查过其基础协议的本图表中的\n14 第一条记录之外，这样说公允吗，我们刚才审查了\n15 该基础协议？\n16\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：除了该条目和协议之外，本图表没有反映\n19 借款人与资金接收方之间的任何基础协议？\n20\n21 MURRAY 女士：对提问形式提出异议，法官阁下。\n22 法庭：异议成立。\n23 问：除了第一条记录之外，该图表是否反映了\n24 借款人与资金接收方之间的任何关系？\n25 MURRAY 女士：对形式提出异议。我还是不明白这\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n问题所在。\n问：我退一步来说。所以该图表反映了贷款方与借款方之间的关系，对吧，比如它将一个实体定性为贷款方，并将另一个实体定性为借款方？\n答：正确。\n问：它反映的是这两个实体之间的关系？\n默里女士（MS. MURRAY）：反对有关该关系的后续提问。\n法庭（THE COURT）：你可以把问题分开来问。关于将一方定性为贷款方、另一方定性为借款方的问题，他已经回答了“是”。现在你可以问关于关系的问题了。\n问：好的。一列显示某一组实体是贷款方，另一列显示另一组实体是借款方，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：你是否同意我的看法，这意味着该图表就此处列出的交易反映了它们之间关系的性质？\n答：是的。\n问：现在，如果我们看这个图表的右侧，该列中的借款方实体与资金接收方实体之间的关系并未反映在该图表中，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n默里女士：再次对提问形式提出反对。\n法庭：如果你知道，可以回答。\n答：我不确定借款方和资金接收方之间是什么关系。\n问：对。图表中没有说明借款方和资金接收方之间是什么关系？\n默里女士：已提问并已回答。\n法庭：反对成立。\n希里克先生（MR. SCHIRICK）：法官阁下，我只是在澄清证人的回答。仅此而已。\n法庭：你是在把问题问第二遍。你就是在这么做。\n问：例如，从这个图表中你看不到为什么资金接收方——同样，除第一条记录外——为什么资金接收方会收到资金，或者为什么借款方可能与资金接收方进行了交易，对吧？\n默里女士：诱导推测。\n法庭：你可以问他文件上写了什么。这就是你想问的吗？\n希里克先生：法官阁下，我认为我问的就是这个，即是否有人能从图表中看出来。\n法庭：嗯，那是另一个问题。你问的是一个人是否可以将图表解读为某种含义。\n希里克先生：法官阁下，我认为他曾就该图表的制作作证。我只是在问他，作为协助制作该图表的人，能否看出资金接收方和借款方之间的关系是什么。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n默里女士：法官阁下，这再次曲解了福利先生（Mr. Foley）的证词及其角色。图表不是他制作的。\n法庭：图表不是他制作的。\n希里克先生：但他熟悉该图表。\n法庭：是的，仅限于他有限的角色范围内。\n希里克先生：当然。法官阁下，我认为鉴于他在协助制作此图表方面的角色，问他能否看出一些我可能看不出的东西，是合情合理的。\n法庭：嗯，你这是在要求他解读图表。\n希里克先生：作为协助制作该图表的人，作为参与生成该图表的人。\n法庭：是的，他在生成图表过程中发挥了作用。有人要求你解读图表吗？\n证人（THE WITNESS）：没有，只是核实准确性。\n法庭：继续下一个问题。\n希里克先生提问：\n问：说列为借款方的实体与列为接收方的实体之间不存在协议，这样说准确吗，还是你只是不知道？\n答：我不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n问：因此，如果存在规范列为借款方的实体与列为资金接收方的实体之间关系的其他合同，那只是你不知情的事情，对吧？\n答：我只审查了右侧列出的基础证据。\n问：政府方把那些基础证据交给了你，对吧？\n答：正确。\n问：现在我想请你注意图表的第二行和第三行。第二行，如果我们简要标注一下，日期是2021年5月6日，第三行的日期是2021年5月13日？\n答：正确。\n问：在这两行中，贷款方都是 G/Clubs Operations，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：图表中没有注明贷款方签字人，对吧？\n答：正确。\n问：资金接收方是 Hamilton Digital Asset FD SP，对吧？\n答：正确。\n问：第一条记录的金额是2000万？\n答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n问：第二条记录是1500万？\n答：是的。\n问：请调出证据 GXGC-515。如果我们能放大该文件的相关部分。\n现在，这份文件上的任何地方都没有说明这是一笔贷款，对吧？\n答：是的，没有说明。\n问：这里任何地方都没有写借款方，对吧？\n答：是的，没有写。\n问：这里任何地方都没有写贷款方？\n答：没有写。\n问：这是一份指示函（letter of direction），对吧？\n答：正确。\n问：但它被包含在我们看过的标记为贷款的图表中，对吧？\n答：是的，我认为它被标记为贷款和精选投资。\n问：在我们现在看到的这份作为图表基础证据的文件表面上，是否有任何内容表明该交易是一笔贷款？\n默里女士：法官阁下，已提问并已回答。\n希里克先生：我认为我没有问过那个具体问题。\n法庭：先生，你拥有纽约州的执业律师资格吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n证人：没有，我没有。\n法庭：不要问他法律问题。\n问：如果我们能先保留这份文件，但同时调出政府方证据1630并翻到最后一页，如果可以的话，翻到签字页。它可能是倒数第二页。\n现在，这也是包含在图表源文件中的文件之一，即1630？\n答：正确。\n问：你在签字栏上看到写着贷款方 G/Club Operations？\n答：是的。\n问：在另一个签字栏上写着借款方 G/Club International？\n答：是的。\n问：现在，你在另一份证据 GXGC-515 上没有看到类似的字样，对吧？\n答：没有。\n问：我们可以把那个撤下了。谢谢。如果我们能回到图表 GXZ-13。如果我们能翻到日期为2021年7月21日的记录。\n这里将贷款方列为 G/Club Operations。抱歉，是7月21日的记录，不是26日。所以这显示 G/Club Operations 是贷款方，对吧？\n答：正确。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n问：借款方是 G/Club International？\n答：是的。\n问：借款方签字人是何先生（Mr. He）？\n答：是的。\n问：资金接收方是 Himalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司），对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：金额是2500万美元，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：这一行概括了源文件 GXGC-221，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：如果我们能快速查看一下 GXGC-221。如果我们能翻到该 PDF 的第四页，也就是协议的第一页。\n这是 G/Club Operations 与 G/Club International 之间的贷款协议，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：现在，如果我们翻到该文件的倒数第二页，即签字页。\n而且我认为你在主询问中作证说，有些协议没有——撤回。\n你在主询问中作证说，有些协议没有完全签署生效，对吧？\n答：正确。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n问：这是其中之一吗？\n答：是的。\n问：现在，如果我们能回到文件开头的鉴于条款（Whereas clauses），我们可以只关注第二条鉴于条款。\n上面写着：根据本协议的条款，贷款方将向借款方出借2500万美元，对吧？\n答：是的。\n问：上面写着：鉴于出于效率目的并根据借款方的要求，贷款方将代表借款方将贷款收益直接汇给 Himalayan International Clearing（喜马拉雅国际清算）。你看到了吗？\n答：是的。\n问：现在，让我们回到汇总图表 GXZ-13。如果我们向下翻到日期为2021年7月27日的记录。那里有一个小星号。你看到了吗？\n答：是的。\n问：如果我们向下看图表底部的图例，那个星号表示修订。该协议是对2021年7月21日协议的修订？\n答：是的。\n问：我们刚才看过了7月21日的协议，对吧？\n答：正确。\n问：现在让我们看一下7月27日的协议，在我们看协议本身之前，如果我们能调出7月21日的记录和7月27日的记录，一直到21日的记录。\n现在我们仔细看7月21日和7月27日的记录。\n说这两者之间的唯一区别是资金接收方不同，这样说准确吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n答：资金接收方、日期以及基础政府证据编号。\n问：是的。谢谢。你说得对。贷款条款上的唯一区别是资金接收方，对吧？\n法庭：又来了。他不是律师。他不能给你提供法律定义。他不能对这些条款进行定义。\n希里克先生：法官阁下，抱歉。我没有要求他定义条款。我是要求他核实图表中的记录是否只有这些不同。\n法庭：他识字。他可以告诉你图表上有什么。\n问：所以这里的区别是 Yieldesta 是资金接收方，对吧？\n默里女士：已提问并已回答。\n法庭：反对成立。\n问：现在让我们调出基础证据，即 GX1636，如果我们能放大那里的序言陈述部分（recitals），上面写着：鉴于各方于7月21日签订了贷款协议。你看到了吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n答：看到了。\n问：同样，那是我们刚才看过的另一份协议，对吧？\n默里女士：法官阁下，反对。福利先生是一位汇总证人（summary witness），这些文件本身具有证明力（documents speak for themselves）。\n法庭：反对成立。\n问：如果我们向下看最后一条鉴于条款，上面写着：各方希望修订该协议，以授权并指示贷款方将该协议项下的2500万美元贷款收益直接汇给 Yieldesta，而不是 Himalayan International Clearing Limited？\n默里女士：同样的反对理由，法官阁下。\n法庭：我还没听到具体问题。\n希里克先生：我只是要求他确认我读得是否正确。\n默里女士：同样的反对理由。\n法庭：文件本身已说明一切。\n希里克先生：法官阁下，我们可以进行简短的法官席前非公开交流（sidebar）吗？\n法庭：可以。\n（续见下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n\n1 （在法官席旁）\n\n2 席里克先生（MR. SCHIRICK）：法官阁下，最后一个问题只是问证人我读得是否正确。据我理解，即使是对总结性证人，我也被允许询问证人我是否正确朗读了文件。这是图表中的原始文件之一，我正试图表明协议中存在未反映在图表中的变更。如果不能询问证人基础文件是什么，我不知道该如何证明这一点。\n\n11 法庭（THE COURT）：所以图表列出了基础文件？\n\n13 席里克先生：没错，我正在逐一过目这些文件，以表明交易中存在未反映在图表中的变更。这直接关系到图表的完整性和可靠性，我认为这是高度相关的。\n\n18 墨菲女士（MS. MURRAY）：法官阁下，针对“文件本身已说明问题”的持续异议主要是为了效率。这是一名总结性证人。他已作证核实了图表的准确性。我们已经提交了支持图表中各项记录的证据，并且它们已被列出。因此辩方可以去查看那些基础证据。但福利先生（Mr. Foley）只是确认图表本身内容的准确性，从席里克先生所说的内容中，我看不到图表有什么不准确之处。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n\n1 基于这些文件，它准确地反映了文件中的图表。\n\n3 席里克先生：法官阁下，如果我可以回应的话，这正是我的方向，因为我认为图表是不准确的。我能做到这一点并通过证人展示这一点的唯一方法，就是能够就基础文件向证人提问。我理解政府必须在需要提出异议的地方提出异议，但如果不是因为我仅仅试图确立基本事实而不断遭到异议，我现在就已经问完了。\n\n11 法庭：所以他可以读文件的标题。他可以读文件里的内容，但他不能告诉你那是什么意思。\n\n14 席里克先生：我明白。法官阁下已经指出了这一点，而且我认为我在这里所做的并没有超出范围。您可以核对笔录。我根本没有问过关于任何内容意味着什么的问题。我只是请他确认该信息确实在基础文件中。\n\n19 墨菲女士：关于上一个问题中的具体事由，我不清楚席里克先生所说的图表中不准确的信息是指什么。\n\n22 席里克先生：我们还没有完成反询问。我正试图通过证人引出这一点，这是我唯一的办法。\n\n25 墨菲女士：当然，但是举例来说，看看您刚才朗读的序言并要求福利先生确认，您准备说文件中这部分措辞的哪一点在图表本身中是不准确的？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n\n1 席里克先生：一般来说，这次反询问有两个目的。第一是表明存在未包含在图表中的信息，以便我可以向陪审团证明，在该文件四角范围之外可能存在与解释文件内部内容相关的信息。我应该有权这样做。第二是表明图表中存在不准确之处。您刚才提到的并不在——朗读序言并不是为了证明文件不准确，而是为了证明还有其他信息未包含在图表中。这就是那两个目的。\n\n15 法庭：那么图表中没有的其他信息——图表中没有的信息多得很。有整份整份的文件都没在图表中。这就是为什么他是一名总结性证人。\n\n19 席里克先生：法官阁下，如果有——辩方有权主张存在与……相关的其他信息——\n\n22 法庭：看在上帝的份上，你在做结案陈词时再去说那些。如果你想彻底失去陪审团的支持，你就继续这么干。继续吧。继续。\n\n25 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n\n1 （在公开法庭上）\n\n2 法庭：好的。继续。\n\n3 席里克先生：谢谢。\n\n4 问：福利先生，您看到屏幕上高亮显示的文件部分了吗？\n\n6 答：看到了。\n\n7 问：上面写着：“鉴于双方希望修改协议。”您看到了吗？\n\n9 答：看到了。\n\n10 问：现在，我们能否调出 GXGC-221 第 2 页，与 GX-1636 并排显示。现在 GX——实际上，如果可能的话把它们调换一下位置。如果不调换也行。根据我们刚才朗读的段落，是否可以公允地说，日期为 2021年7月27日 的文件和贷款协议取代了日期为 2021年7月21日 的贷款协议？\n\n16 法庭：请稍等。\n\n17 （休顿）\n\n18 法庭：继续。\n\n19 答：公允地说它是对其的修正案。\n\n20 问：所以它变更了先前的协议，对吗，修正案就是这个意思吧？\n\n22 法庭：你这是在要求作出法律结论。\n\n23 席里克先生：法官阁下，他作证说是修正案。\n\n25 法庭：没错。他是在就文件陈述的内容作证。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO3 Foley - 反询问\n\n1 席里克先生继续发问：\n\n3 问：现在，如果我们回到总结图表 GXZ-13，重点看 2021年7月21日 和 7月27日 这两行。这两项记录的金额都是 25000000美元。对吗？\n\n6 答：没错。\n\n7 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Foley - 反询问\n\n1 席里克先生继续发问：\n\n2 问：正如您之前作证的那样，其中一份协议，即后一份协议，变更了前一份协议，对吗？\n\n4 墨菲女士：反对，法官阁下。歪曲证言。\n\n5 法庭：反对成立。\n\n6 问：我相信您作证说过它是修正了前一份协议？\n\n8 席里克先生：我相信那是证人的原话。\n\n10 墨菲女士：是的，法官阁下，但这与变更不同。\n\n12 法庭：“修正”是一个词，“变更”是另一个词。\n\n13 席里克先生：好的。\n\n14 席里克先生继续发问：\n\n15 问：所以后一份协议修正了前一份协议，然而我们在每份协议的金额栏中仍然看到 25000000美元，对吗？\n\n18 答：对。\n\n19 问：好的。那么 GX Z13 底部的总计金额至少被多算（虚增）了 2500万，对吗？\n\n21 答：那——我对此不知情。\n\n22 问：这难道不是重复计算吗？\n\n23 答：我——我无法确认付款是否已经完成。\n\n25 问：对。因为从这个图表中您无法辨别是否存在实际交易，对吗？这仅仅是贷款协议本身，仅仅是纸面文件。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n1 答：这是贷款协议上列明的金额，是的。\n\n4 席里克先生：好的。谢谢。暂时没有其他问题了。\n\n6 墨菲女士：无需再直接询问，法官阁下。\n\n7 法庭：谢谢。您可以退庭了。\n\n8 证人：谢谢。\n\n9 （证人退庭）\n\n10 法庭：你们可以传唤下一位证人了。\n\n11 墨菲女士：谢谢，法官阁下。政府方传唤丹尼尔·科普兰（Daniel Copeland）。\n\n13 （证人宣誓）\n\n14 法庭：请陈述您的姓名并拼写出来。\n\n15 证人：我叫丹尼尔·科普兰。D-A-N-I-E-L，Copeland，C-O-P-E-L-A-N-D。\n\n17 法庭：可以开始询问了。\n\n18 墨菲女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n19 丹尼尔·科普兰（DANIEL COPELAND），由政府方传唤为证人，在依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n\n22 直接询问\n\n23 墨菲女士发问：\n\n24 问：下午好，科普兰先生。\n\n25 答：下午好。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n1 问：请您把麦克风拉到面前，直接对着麦克风说话。\n\n3 答：这样好些吗？\n\n4 问：好多了。谢谢。科普兰先生，您多大了？\n\n6 答：我 29 岁。\n\n7 问：您住在哪里？\n\n8 答：我住在 Massachusetts（马萨诸塞州）的 Cambridge（剑桥）。\n\n9 问：您工作吗？\n\n10 答：是的。\n\n11 问：您的职业是什么？\n\n12 答：我是 MIT（麻省理工学院）的研究员。\n\n13 问：您的教育背景是什么？\n\n14 答：我在 Vanderbilt（范德堡大学）学习机械工程，之后对医疗器械产生兴趣，在 Tufts（塔夫茨大学）获得了医学士（MD）学位，然后刚刚在 MIT 获得了机械工程硕士学位，我现在就在那里工作。\n\n18 问：科普兰先生，您结婚了吗？\n\n19 答：是的。\n\n20 问：您妻子的名字是什么？\n\n21 答：伊莎贝尔·德斯宾斯（Isabelle Despins）。\n\n22 问：德斯宾斯怎么拼写？\n\n23 答：D-E-S-P-I-N-S。\n\n24 问：您妻子工作吗？\n\n25 答：是的。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n1 问：她在哪里工作？\n\n2 答：她在剑桥公立学校系统的 Kennedy-Longfellow School（肯尼迪-朗费罗学校）工作。\n\n4 问：她在该学校的职务是什么？\n\n5 答：她是 SEI 项目，即 Sheltered English Immersion（庇护式英语沉浸课程）的三阶（三年级）教师。\n\n7 问：庇护式英语沉浸课程是什么意思？\n\n8 什罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：就相关性提出反对。\n\n9 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。\n\n10 答：意思是她的学生在家里说另一种语言，他们来她的班级学习数学和其他内容，但主要是学习英语。\n\n13 问：科普兰先生，在 2022-2023 学年，您妻子教几年级？\n\n15 答：三年级。\n\n16 问：你们是什么时候结婚的？\n\n17 答：我们在 2022年10月 结婚。\n\n18 问：您的岳父叫什么名字？\n\n19 答：吕克·德斯宾斯（Luc Despins）。\n\n20 问：吕克·德斯宾斯从事什么工作？\n\n21 答：他是一名破产律师。\n\n22 问：科普兰先生，您今天作证是依据政府方送达给您的传票吗？\n\n24 答：是的。\n\n25 问：科普兰先生，您能描述一下您在马萨诸塞州剑桥的住所吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n1 答：我们住在一个五户住宅楼里，里面有五个单元。我们的单元在一楼——底层。它有点像一个长条形的单元，所以客厅、用餐区、厨房都在一个房间里，正对着街道。\n\n6 问：您的家位于什么样的街区或区域？\n\n7 答：我们住在一个居民区。大多数房子都和我们的类似，是多户住宅。相对较密集；房屋之间的距离最多可能也就 10 到 15 英尺。大多数房子没有前院，房子的正面就紧挨着人行道。\n\n12 问：您是什么时候搬进那所房子的？\n\n13 答：我们在 2022年7月 搬进去的，在我们结婚之前。\n\n14 问：谁和您一起住在那个家里？\n\n15 答：我、我妻子和我们的狗。\n\n16 问：将您的注意力引向 2022 年底，是否有过某些人出现在您马萨诸塞州剑桥家门外的时候？\n\n19 答：是的。\n\n20 问：当时是什么情况？\n\n21 答：在 2022年11月，我们——一些抗议者出现在我们的家门外。我们当时就知道，他们出现在那里与伊莎贝尔父亲的工作有关。然后——是的。\n\n24 问：就您刚才提到的那一点，科普兰先生，伊莎贝尔的父亲吕克·德斯宾斯从事什么样的工作？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n问：他是一名破产律师，但他是作为被政府指定的人员参与一起破产案件的工作。\n\n问：一起与谁相关的破产案件？\n\n答：与一个我在此之前没听说过、但后来查过的人相关，名叫 Miles Guo（郭文贵）。\n\n问：为什么抗议者出现在你家与 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）的工作有关，如果你有这种理解的话？\n\n答：所以在那之后——我认为在他们出现在我们公寓之前，他们曾出现在 Luc 的工作单位和 Luc 的家中，所以我们那时大致明白了他们——这已经形成了一种模式，并且他们出现在那里是因为——向 Luc 及其家人施压，以便让他停止为政府办理这起案件。\n\n默里女士（MS. MURRAY）：Loftus（洛夫特斯）女士，我们能否展示已作为证据呈堂的政府第 VI194 号证据（Government Exhibit VI194）。\n\n问：Copeland（科普兰）先生，你是否认得 VI194 中描绘的任何标语牌？\n\n答：认得。例如，我不能肯定地说这些完全相同的标语牌中有任何一个曾出现在我们屋外，但是——标语牌内的一些图像确实出现在了我们屋外，是的。\n\n问：现在聚焦于左上角的标语牌。\n\n默里女士：洛夫特斯女士，我们能否把那个放大。\n\n问：科普兰先生，你认得这个标语牌上描绘的人吗？\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n答：认得，那是 Isabelle（伊莎贝尔）的父亲 Luc。\n\n问：伊莎贝尔的父亲，也是你的岳父；对吗？\n\n答：也是我的岳父。\n\n默里女士：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以撤下这个了。\n\n问：那么回到 2022 年 11 月的那一天，你能否向陪审团描述一下，如果抗议者有任何举动的话，他们在你家门外做了什么。\n\n答：好的。当时大约有少数几个人，五个人。他们拿着类似于刚才展示的那些标语牌，还有一些旗帜。他们脸上都戴着口罩，还戴着大太阳镜，大多数人戴着帽子。所以他们有点隐蔽身份。他们还在向路过的邻居分发传单，传单上有类似的图像和相关信息。\n\n默里女士：洛夫特斯女士，请向证人出示被标记为政府第 3450 号证据（Government Exhibit 3450）的文件。\n\n问：科普兰先生，你认得政府第 3450 号证据中的图像吗？\n\n答：认得。\n\n问：那是一张关于什么的照片？\n\n答：那是一张被编辑过的照片，显示 Luc 被某种魔鬼形态的形象引诱。是的。\n\n问：聚焦于该照片本身，科普兰先生，你认得这个物件的照片吗？\n\n答：认得。这个——我有这份传单。这是在我家门外分发的传单之一。是我的邻居给我的。\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n分发的传单之一。我的邻居把它给了我。\n\n问：科普兰先生，你拥有的这份在你家外分发过的传单，这照片是你拍的吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，政府提呈政府第 3450 号证据。\n\n什罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：无异议。\n\n法官（THE COURT）：准予采纳。\n\n（政府第 3450 号证据已被采纳为证据）\n\n默里女士：请向法庭公布该证据。\n\n由默里女士询问：\n\n问：那么科普兰先生，现在陪审团能看到了，你能否读出这份传单顶部所写的文字和数字，即在你家门外分发过的传单图像。\n\n答：只读那里的白色大号文字吗？\n\n问：对。\n\n答：“勒索”（Extortion），然后是数字 250000000（2.5 亿），旁边有一个美元符号。\n\n问：而描绘在这个底部左侧的人，正如你所说，我认为是被编辑或篡改过的照片——\n\n什罗夫女士：反对。\n\n问：——那个人看起来是谁？\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n法官：反对无效。\n\n答：好的。那是 Luc Despins 的照片。\n\n问：你是否看到在这张特定照片中，他的额头上有一个图案？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：你认得它吗？\n\n答：认得。\n\n问：那是什么？\n\n答：是锤子与镰刀。\n\n默里女士：好的。洛夫特斯女士，我们可以撤下那个了。\n\n问：现在，科普兰先生，你提到在 2022 年 11 月，抗议者——\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，政府能否直接提问。\n\n法官：有时候为了引出问题需要陈述事实，她现在正在做这件事。\n\n请继续。\n\n默里女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n由默里女士询问：\n\n问：你曾提到 2022 年 11 月的抗议者持有旗帜。你能否描述一下那些旗帜的大致外观。\n\n答：可以。有一面旗帜是蓝色的，上面有黄色的星星，我以前没见过。\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n默里女士：洛夫特斯女士，请公布已作为证据呈堂的政府第 W185 号证据（Government Exhibit W185）。\n\n我们能否放大这张图片的左上角部分。\n\n问：首先，科普兰先生，你以前见过这份证据吗？\n\n答：这整个图表吗？\n\n问：对。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你认得这里左上角蓝框中的图案吗？\n\n答：认得，看起来很像——你知道，这是两年前的事了，但它看起来与我记忆中的那面旗帜很像。\n\n问：字母 NFSC，你知道代表什么吗？\n\n答：知道。\n\n问：代表什么？\n\n答：嗯，答案就在页面上，但代表新中国联邦（New Federal State of China）。但这是这些——抗议者应该所属的组织或运动。\n\n问：在 2022 年 11 月当时，你的理解是这些抗议者附属于 NFSC 吗？\n\n什罗夫女士：反对诱导性提问。\n\n法官：你当时是否理解他们附属于任何特定的运动？\n\n证人（THE WITNESS）：是的。\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n问：如果有的话，是什么运动？\n\n答：我的意思是，在——在这整件事开始之前，我并不知道，但后来我看了类似于 Vice 新闻的报道，所以我不知道那是在他们出现在我家之前还是之后，但我知道，是的，这个运动是存在的。\n\n默里女士：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以撤下那个了。\n\n问：科普兰先生，在 2023 年初，是否到了有人再次来到你家的时候？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：你能否向陪审团描述一下当时发生了什么。\n\n答：好的。那是——我想是 1 月 2 日。所以在 11 月下旬有那么一天，在那一天之后他们就不来了，然后他们出现了，开始经常出现——\n\n什罗夫女士：反对并请求剔除，理由是对向证人提出的问题缺乏针对性。\n\n法官：问题是：你能否描述当时发生了什么。\n\n证人：好的。\n\n答：是的，情况类似于 11 月那天发生的事情。屋子外面也有少数几个人戴着口罩、眼镜、帽子，展示类似的标语牌并分发传单。\n\n问：大约在 2023 年的哪一天开始的？\n\n答：1 月 2 日。\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n问：从 2023 年 1 月 2 日起，你家门外的抗议大约持续了多久？\n\n答：从 1 月 2 日到 1 月 9 日，他们每天都在我家门外，大约在 9 点到 5 点之间。\n\n问：聚焦于 1 月 2 日至 1 月 9 日这段时间，抗议者如果手持或展示了任何东西，是什么？\n\n答：主要是这些海报，或者插在棍子上的标语牌，上面有——有类似的 Luc 戴着恶魔角的图像，或者——或者上面的文字写着，比如，Luc 正在从中国共产党那里拿钱，他正在与他们合作，然后伊莎贝尔通过 Luc 间接从中国共产党获益。\n\n问：你的妻子伊莎贝尔是否参与了 Miles Guo 的破产案件？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你的妻子伊莎贝尔是律师吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：你的妻子伊莎贝尔是否就 Miles Guo 的破产案件与其父亲 Luc Despins 一起工作？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：对于 2023 年 1 月 2 日至 1 月 9 日期间抗议者再次出现在你家门外，你有什么反应（如果有的话）？\n\n答：是的，这——这相当令人不安，出于很多原因。你知道，我们——是的，这是——刚搬到这个社区，我们\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n并不真正，你知道，知道他们对我们的邻居说了什么，或者我们的邻居会怎么看待他们，而我们现在也仍不太清楚。当时是——我们会把百叶窗拉下来，因为我们的——我们的——我们房子的大部分从街上就能直接看进来。你知道，我早上在家工作，所以知道有——比如有人在我工作时站在外面，这有点令人不安。我认为这对我妻子的影响甚至比对我的影响大得多。所以，是的，这非常令人不安，非常困扰。是的。\n\n问：抗议者来到你家门外时，身上是否携带了任何设备？\n\n答：是的，他们会——他们会在我们家门外进行直播，所以这也是我们一直想拉下百叶窗的一个重要原因，因为他们会类似于给我们录像。如果不拉上，他们就会拍下我们在家里走动的画面。所以——是的。\n\n问：如果让你有任何感受的话，这让你感觉如何？\n\n答：是的，我的意思是，这绝对感觉是对——对某种隐私的侵犯，而且我们也会在网上听到他们关于 Luc 以及顺带关于伊莎贝尔所说的话，所以，你知道，伊莎贝尔担心可能与该团体有松散关联或有关联的人会真正相信这些东西，并且，你知道，试图闯入我们的房子，或者——或者跟踪她去上班，或者——或者，是的，跟踪她。\n\n问：科普兰先生，你提到了 1 月 9 日。在 2023 年 1 月 9 日之后发生了什么（如果有的话）？\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n\n答：是的。所以伊莎贝尔会——伊莎贝尔上班很早，所以她出门——在他们来的时候她已经形成了一个规律，她会——她的学校 7 点开始上课。\n\n什罗夫女士：法官阁下，反对。问题是在 1 月 9 日之后发生了什么，而不是伊莎贝尔在单位的作息时间。\n\n法官：反对无效。你可以继续。\n\n答：所以她会在他们晚上 9 点——早上 9 点出现之前离开，然后她会在学校工作到比平时更晚，以便在他们已经离开后（通常在下午 5 点左右）才回来。所以我的作息是，我早上在家工作，但那天早上我接到了她的电话，我猜大约是在——\n\n什罗夫女士：就传闻证据提出反对。法官阁下，我们可以走近法台吗。\n\n法官：可以。\n\n（根据法庭命令，第 4223-4227 页已封存）\n\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 （在公开法庭进行）\n2 法庭：你可以继续。\n3 默里女士（MS. MURRAY）：谢谢法官阁下。\n4 由默里女士询问：\n5 问：科普兰先生（Mr. Copeland），再次提请您注意 2023 年 1 月 10 日这一天，\n6 您能否继续告诉陪审团那天发生了什么。\n7 答：好的。伊莎贝尔（Isabelle）在——你知道的，在早上 7 点前就出门去学校了，\n8 到了学校之后，大约——我接到了她的电话，\n9 大约 9 点左右，是的，她显然心烦意乱，告诉我\n10 他们出现在了她的学校。\n11 问：根据您的观察，您能否描述一下她在通电话时的状态。\n12 什罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：他并没有观察她。他是通过电话联系的。\n13 法庭：所以他可以描述通过她说话的方式所获得的印象。\n14 默里女士：谢谢法官阁下。\n15 答：是的，所以她显然心烦意乱，带着哭腔，\n16 话都说不大清楚。这可以说是她——可以说是她\n17 最大的担忧，就是这会影响到她的学校群体，以及\n18 她的——是的。\n19 法庭：因此，你的证言仅限于\n20 你观察到的情况，而不是她所表达的言词或她内心的想法。\n21 证人：明白了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 法庭：请继续。\n2 问：针对那个电话，您做了些什么（如果有的话）？\n3 答：是的，所以我立刻出发去了她的学校，学校在剑桥（Cambridge）。\n4 问：那天，也就是 2023 年 1 月 10 日，您到达学校时看到了什么（如果有的话）？\n5 答：因为她的学校骑自行车很快就能到，所以我就——我骑着自行车去，\n6 在前往学校后门的途中，我看到了——你\n7 会路过学校正门，我看到了抗议者所在的位置，\n8 然后我去了学校后门，一名教职工让我进了门，\n9 接着带我去了校长办公室，伊莎贝尔就在那里。\n10 问：当您到达校长办公室时，伊莎贝尔当时的状态如何？\n11 答：是的。她仍然——你知道，她仍然非常恐慌，\n12 非常难过，真的就是，你知道的，一直在哭，\n13 情绪很不安，完全被恐惧所笼罩，担心\n14 这意味着什么，并且——\n15 法庭：不要谈论她的想法。\n16 你只需要谈论你观察到的情况。例如，如果你看到\n17 有人在笑，你可以说他们看起来很高兴。\n18 证人：明白了。\n19 答：所以她看起来相当痛苦难受。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 问：根据您那天到达学校的情况，从学校正面能看到那些抗议者吗？\n2 答：可以。或者从我到达的地方能看到吗？我是从后门到的，\n3 但我后来——是的，从位于学校正面的校长办公室往外看，\n4 你能——你能看到他们。\n5 问：那天您是否有跟警察交谈的时候？\n6 答：有的。当我到达时，警察也在那里，\n7 剑桥警察局（Cambridge Police）。\n8 问：您向警方报告了什么（如果有的话）？\n9 答：我想当时我们还没有——嗯，当他们来我们家时我们告诉过警方，\n10 所以警方巡逻车开过去的频率变高了一些，\n11 但在当时他们能做的事情也不多。然后，\n12 你知道的，在学校的抗议者手里拿着类似那种\n13 带有恶魔、血手印或血迹飞溅画面的图画标语牌，\n14 所以我们跟他们谈论了，这是否被允许在公立学校门前展示，\n15 是否有针对诸如向学童展示具象图像等行为的规定。\n16 什罗夫女士：法官阁下，所有这些都是传闻证据。\n17 法庭：所以——\n18 什罗夫女士：我提出删除动议（move to strike）。\n19 法庭：——你不能讲别人说了什么。\n20 你可以谈论你们讨论的大致话题。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 例如，我可以谈我和我丈夫讨论了早餐的事。\n2 但我不能说，他说他想要香肠、吐司和鸡蛋。你明白吗？\n3 证人：明白了。\n4 法庭：请继续。\n5 答：所以我们讨论了他们出现在那里是否合适或是否合法。\n6 问：在学校那次会面之后，您那天还做了什么（如果有的话）？\n7 答：所以——剑桥警察局在我们问他们时，\n8 他们不知道——他们说他们不知道。这是个相当罕见的——\n9 什罗夫女士：反对。属于传闻。提请删除。\n10 法庭：你不能转述任何人的原话，好吗？\n11 那些话予以删除。\n12 答：所以我们去了剑桥法院，也就是管辖剑桥所在区域的法院。\n13 问：您在那里做了什么（如果有的话）？\n14 答：我们——我们其实不知道有什么机制可以防止这种事情发生，所以——\n15 什罗夫女士：请证人直接回答他做了什么的问题。\n16 默里女士：法官阁下——\n17 什罗夫女士：心路历程与本案无关。\n18 法庭：具有关联性。在解释他做了什么方面具有关联性。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 请继续。\n2 答：所以他们建议的机制或者比较接近的——\n3 法庭：好的。不要谈论他们建议了什么。\n4 证人：好的，抱歉。\n5 问：您做了什么？您具体做了什么？\n6 答：我们申请了反骚扰保护令（harassment protection order）。\n7 问：针对谁申请的？\n8 答：我们本想针对实际出现的那些人申请，\n9 但我们没有任何人的名字，而这是申请反骚扰保护令的必要条件，\n10 所以我们就针对 Miles Guo（郭文贵）申请了，因为这是我们唯一知道的名字。\n11 问：为什么针对发生在家中及伊莎贝尔学校的抗议活动，\n12 您会在限制令（restraining order）上列上 Miles Guo 的名字（如果有原因的话）？\n13 答：我们知道伊莎贝尔的父亲正在经手针对他的案件，\n14 而且这是过去曾经使用过的策略，\n15 这是我们唯一掌握的能够填在反骚扰保护令上的名字。\n16 问：科普兰先生，您后来是否有撤回该限制令？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：大约是在什么时候？\n19 答：当天晚些时候。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 问：为什么您会采取这一举措（如果有原因的话）？\n2 答：我们很快意识到，这对于阻止并非我们所列人员的抗议者不会产生效果，\n3 所以我们——我们就告知他们撤回了该申请。\n4 问：据您所知，Miles Guo 本人是否曾出现在您家门外抗议？\n5 答：没有。\n6 问：据您所知，他本人是否曾出现在伊莎贝尔的学校门外抗议？\n7 答：没有。\n8 问：在 2023 年 1 月 10 日之后，抗议活动是否仍在继续？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：在哪些地方？\n11 答：工作日期间他们会出现在她的学校，\n12 周末则会出现在我们家。\n13 问：他们大约在您家或伊莎贝尔学校门外持续抗议了多久？\n14 答：持续了几个星期。\n15 问：在那段时间里，您在人身安全方面采取了哪些措施（如果有的话）？\n16 答：在 11 月份，伊莎贝尔乘坐了由 Luc（吕克）的公司雇用的专车服务往返学校。\n17 那持续了一周。\n18 到了 1 月份，剑桥警方注意到了此事，所以他们\n19 来到了学校，尤其是在第一周左右，当时他们还在弄清楚\n20 发生了什么，然后——我被指示将家里现有的任何武器带到我的卧室里，\n21 所以我在卧室里放了一根棒球棍。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 问：具体放在哪里——\n2 答：在我的衣橱里。\n3 问：您把那根棒球棍存放在什么位置（如果有具体位置的话）？\n4 答：我把它放在床边附近的衣橱里。\n5 问：据您所知，在 2023 年 1 月 10 日抗议者到达伊莎贝尔的学校后，\n6 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）是否停止了经手 Miles Guo 破产案的工作？\n7 答：他没有停止工作。\n8 问：科普兰先生，您能否描述一下在您家和伊莎贝尔学校门外的这些抗议活动对您产生的影响。\n9 答：好的。这让人极度不安。是的，极其令人不安，\n10 而且感觉——在与法院系统打交道时，\n11 看到似乎没有任何机制可以——能够提供帮助，这在某种程度上——\n12 什罗夫女士：反对。这与他的感受无关。\n13 法庭：反对无效。你可以继续。\n14 答：——让我在这种处境下感到有些无能为力，\n15 所以，是的，当时是那样——\n16 问：科普兰先生，抗议者中是否有人对您或伊莎贝尔进行过肢体冲突？\n17 答：没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 直接询问\n1 问：抗议者中是否有人直接向您或伊莎贝尔说过话？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：在 2023 年 1 月和 2 月的那几个星期里，\n4 您是否感到他们出现在您家门外对您的安全构成了某种威胁？\n5 答：在某种程度上，是的。\n6 问：您能解释一下为什么吗。\n7 答：我是说，我并不真正清楚这些人能做出什么事来，\n8 也不清楚他们是否真的相信所宣扬的那些言论，\n9 而且我们不知道——你知道的，他们把我们的地址发到了网上，\n10 所以我们不知道是否还会有其他与此有关或无关的人找上门来。\n11 是的，我过去曾读到过别人与他们发生口角冲突的报道，\n12 所以，是的，令人不安，确实如此。\n13 问：后来抗议者是否不再前往您家或伊莎贝尔的学校？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：大约是在什么时候？\n16 答：在 1 月 10 日之后的几周——我不确切记得具体日期。\n17 问：您知道他们为什么停止前去吗？\n18 答：不知道，我不知道原因。\n19 问：科普兰先生，除了我们之前讨论过的限制令之外，\n20 您是否曾针对 Miles Guo 采取过任何其他行动？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：没有。\n2 问：您或您的妻子是否曾试图绑架 Miles Guo？\n3 答：没有。\n4 问：您是否曾试图代表中国共产党将他遣返回中国？\n5 答：没有。\n6 问：您现在是否是、或曾经是否是中国共产党的代理人？\n7 答：不是。\n8 默里女士：法官阁下，请允许我稍等片刻。\n9 法庭：可以。\n10 默里女士：没有其他问题了。谢谢。\n11 法庭：开始交叉询问（Cross-examination）。\n12 什罗夫女士：谢谢法官阁下。\n13 交叉询问\n14 由什罗夫女士询问：\n15 问：下午好，科普兰先生。\n16 答：下午好。\n17 问：科普兰先生，您在直接证言中提到，您是依据传票（subpoena）出庭作证的，对吗？\n18 答：对。\n19 问：是谁向您送达了传票？请您说话声音大一点。\n20 答：是政府向我送达了传票。那是——\n21 问：请您说话声音大一点。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：政府。\n2 问：如何送达的？\n3 答：我想是通过 Luc 的律所雇用的律师。\n4 问：请再说一遍？\n5 答：通过 Luc 的律所雇用的律师。\n6 问：Luc，是指您的岳父？\n7 答：我想是他的律所。\n8 问：他的律所。他的律所是哪家？\n9 答：普衡律师事务所（Paul Hastings）。\n10 问：普衡律师事务所为您聘请了律师？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：所以这里的默里女士向普衡为您聘请的律师送达了传票；是这样吗？\n13 答：据我理解，是的。\n14 问：您是如何收到传票的？\n15 答：不好意思？\n16 问：您是如何拿到传票的？\n17 答：通过这位律师。\n18 问：以什么方式？比如，他是通过电子邮件发给您的，还是邮寄给您的？\n19 答：噢。电子邮件。\n20 问：好的。在您收到电子邮件发送的传票后，您做了什么？\n21 让我换一个问题吧，先稍等一下。传票上的答复日期（return date）是哪一天？\n22 答：我不知道。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 问：你读过传票吗？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：你拆开过它吗？\n4 答：没有。\n5 问：你就是直接去见了 Murray（默里）女士，对吗？\n6 答：不对。那不准确。我见的是这位律师，当时是他\n7 代表我。\n8 问：好的。然后是那位律师和你一起去见了默里女士，\n9 还是分开进行的？\n10 答：抱歉。你能再说一遍吗？\n11 问：当然。你见过了这位律师，对吧？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：你没有给这位律师付钱，对吧？\n14 答：就我个人而言，没有。\n15 问：好的。然后这位律师——别告诉我给出的法律意见是\n16 什么。然后这位律师让你联系上了默里女士；是\n17 这样吗？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：当你见默里女士时，那位律师在场吗？\n20 答：在场。\n21 问：好的。你们在哪里见面的？\n22 答：在 Zoom 或 Teams 或类似的软件上。视频方式。\n23 问：好的。所以传票并没有告诉你必须来\n24 见她，对吧？传票要求你出庭，\n25 对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：是的，听起来是这样。\n2 问：对。但你决定了去见她，\n3 对吧？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：你没有义务去见她，对吧？\n6 答：我想是没错的，是的。\n7 问：对。你本可以只对传票作出答复，来\n8 作证然后离开，对吧？\n9 答：是的，我本可以那样做。\n10 问：你和她见过几次面？\n11 答：两次。\n12 问：两次都是在 Zoom 上，还是一次线下一次\n13 在 Zoom 上？\n14 答：两次都在 Zoom 上，然后我想今天我们握了手，\n15 但也就仅此而已。\n16 问：好的。那么你第一次在 Zoom 上见她时，\n17 会面持续了多久？\n18 答：两小时。\n19 问：第二次在 Zoom 上见面是几次？\n20 答：是多久？\n21 问：是的。\n22 答：一小时。\n23 问：一小时。好的。可以公平地说，对吧，\n24 政府方是你在出庭作证前唯一见过的人，\n25 对吧？你没有见过我，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：我没有见过你。\n2 问：好的。当你和默里女士交谈时，她对你\n3 说的内容做了记录吗？\n4 答：我不知道。\n5 问：好的。她问了你问题，对吗？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：而且你把刚才对陪审团讲的故事讲给了她，\n8 对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：你做笔记了吗？\n11 答：做了。\n12 问：你做了笔记。\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：你把笔记给默里女士了吗？\n15 答：我想那些只是后勤事务类的，就是我需要在哪里\n16 以及何时，所以——\n17 问：好的。她给过你几次后勤安排？\n18 答：我想它们有了一点变化从——所以随着它们发生变化。\n19 大概两次吧，也许。我不知道。\n20 问：她是怎样联系上你的，她给你打电话还是发短信？\n21 答：我们只通过 Zoom 链接见过面。她从未给我发送任何\n22 其他——要么是通过电子邮件或者——但主要\n23 只是 Zoom 链接之类。\n24 问：你是怎么知道今天来这里的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：Luc（卢克）律所雇佣的那位律师大致处理了\n2 最后一刻的后勤安排，所以告诉我在哪里见他以及\n3 如何进入这栋大楼，诸如此类的事。\n4 问：好的。当你见默里女士时，你基本上把\n5 现在向陪审团作证的全部内容都告诉了她，\n6 对吗？\n7 答：是的，差不多是。\n8 SHROFF（施罗夫）女士：现在让我们看看是否可以直接调到，\n9 Jorge（霍尔赫）——法官阁下，我可以请稍候一秒钟吗。\n10 问：如果我可以向你出示政府方在你\n11 主问证言期间向你出示的第 3450 号证物。\n12 政府方给你看过这张照片，对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：这是你给默里女士的照片吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：好的。而且你之前一直把那张照片保存在家里，\n17 对吧？\n18 答：我有那份——那份小册子。\n19 问：好的。你知道顶部的部分写了什么吗，\n20 我们无法辨读的那部分？\n21 答：黄色部分的吗？不，我不知道。\n22 问：是的。黄色部分。\n23 答：不知道，我没有把它背下来，不知道。\n24 问：好的。那边的白色部分写了什么？\n25 你也记不得了，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：你在看哪里？\n2 问：在底部。你看到那个小角落了吗？\n3 答：在框里吗？\n4 问：是的。\n5 答：是的，我不知道上面写了什么，不知道。\n6 问：好的。而且你作证说这就是那份小册子，\n7 它——是由你的邻居给你的吗？这就是你\n8 在主问时所说的吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：当邻居给你时，他是同情\n11 你的困境的，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：他为你感到难过？\n14 答：是她，但是的。\n15 问：对。从发生这些抗议时起到现在，\n16 你一直住在同一个——你可以把那个撤下去了，霍尔赫，\n17 麻烦了——你一直住在同一个街区？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：基本上你的邻居们一直都支持你，\n20 对吗？\n21 答：我们认识的、并且就此事交谈过以及做过\n22 解释的那些邻居，是的。\n23 问：那远比我们在纽约做到的多。我们不跟\n24 任何人说话。\n25 但与你交谈过的那些邻居，他们一直很\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 支持，对吧？是吗？\n2 答：跟我交谈过的人，是的。\n3 问：好的。在你住在那里期间，\n4 抗议活动发生在你家对面；是这样吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：他们不是与你家在同一条街上，对吧？\n7 答：他们在同一条街上。他们在街道的\n8 另一侧。\n9 问：对。所以这是你的房子，他们在这里，对吧？\n10 答：如果你——如果那是街道的话，那么是的。\n11 问：好的。\n12 答：那是一条单向单车道的街道。\n13 问：好的。你作证说这发生在十一月，\n14 对吧？\n15 答：他们第一次出现是在十一月。\n16 问：那是冬季月份，对吗？\n17 答：严格来说，不是。\n18 问：严格来说不是？十一月不是冬天？\n19 答：是秋天。\n20 问：好的。一月呢？\n21 答：那是冬天。\n22 问：十二月呢？\n23 答：大部分是秋天。\n24 问：好的。等等。十二月也是秋天？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 问：我一直以来都全搞错了。\n2 好的。所以你看到了戴口罩的人，对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：你看到了戴帽子的人，对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：而且这些人从未接近过你，对吗？\n7 答：他们在我家门外，但除此以外从未\n8 接近过我。\n9 问：我没听清你说什么。抱歉。\n10 答：噢，他们在我家门外；他们从未接近过我。\n11 问：对。\n12 答：比如，如果我走出去，他们不会朝我走过来。\n13 问：对。所以你能够去杂货店，做\n14 你自己的事；他们从未走向你，对吧？\n15 答：正确。\n16 问：他们从未伤害过你，对吗？\n17 答：身体上，没有，绝对没有。\n18 问：没有。而且他们也从未威胁要伤害你，对吗？\n19 答：没有直接威胁，没有。\n20 问：好吧，告诉我他们是如何间接威胁要伤害你的。\n21 答：我的意思是，他们举着写有我\n22 妻子名字的血淋淋标语，所以这有点——\n23 问：好吧，血淋淋标语上的名字，我没有看到上面\n24 有你妻子的名字。\n25 答：上面有她的名字。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 问：所以我们先把它放到一边，因为我们稍后\n2 会谈到这个，好吗？\n3 答：好的。\n4 问：但是没有写有你名字的血淋淋标语，对吧？\n5 答：我的名字，没有。\n6 问：而且血淋淋的标语在身体上伤害不到你，对吗？\n7 答：这是正确的。\n8 问：而且他们绝不会在身体上威胁你，对吗？\n9 答：那是正确的，是的。\n10 问：好的。当他们有针对你妻子的血淋淋标语时，你的\n11 妻子不幸地与 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）联系在一起，对吗？\n12 答：她是他的女儿。\n13 问：对。所以标语没有写任何仅针对\n14 你妻子的具体内容，她是与她父亲联系在一起的，对吧？上面写着\n15 Isabelle Despins（伊莎贝尔·德斯平斯），卢克之女，从卢克·德斯平斯处获益，\n16 对吗？\n17 答：他们会写类似像，伊莎贝尔·德斯平斯，你并\n18 不无辜，还带有血手印之类的。\n19 问：好的。等一下。\n20 所以上面有她的姓氏，对吧？而她依然保留着她的\n21 姓氏，也就是她父亲的姓氏，对吗？\n22 答：正确。是的。\n23 问：好的。而你和你妻子，我推测，在这些事发生的\n24 整个期间都住在一起，对吗，对吧？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 问：今天坐在这里，你可以告诉陪审团，没有任何人\n2 在身体上威胁过你妻子，对吗？\n3 答：没有任何人在身体上——没有任何人在言语上或身体上\n4 当面威胁过她，那是正确的。\n5 问：好的。好的。你碰巧知道在那里的\n6 抗议者的年龄吗？你能看出来吗？\n7 答：那我只能靠猜了。\n8 问：对。你记得一位总是\n9 前来抗议的个子偏矮的老太太吗？\n10 答：我不记得任何具体的人。他们戴着那种\n11 刻意去标识化、遮挡住他们面部的\n12 口罩。\n13 问：而这是在 2020 年十一月？\n14 答：2020 年十一月的一天，其余在隔年一月。\n15 问：好的。在 2020 年十一月的那一天，你\n16 报警了吗？\n17 默里女士：反对，法官阁下。单纯是\n18 歪曲了他作证的日期。\n19 问：抱歉。你告诉我日期，先生。我给忘了。\n20 谨表歉意。\n21 答：我想记录的是 11 月 20 日。\n22 问：11 月 20 日？\n23 默里女士：只是关于年份。\n24 问：哪一年？\n25 答：2022 年。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 问：不好意思。2022 年 11 月 20 日。你报警\n2 了吗？\n3 答：我想报了。\n4 问：你报了，对吧？\n5 答：我想是的。我——我不是百分之百确定，\n6 但大概是的。\n7 问：警察没有让他们离开，对吧？\n8 答：没有。\n9 问：警察，他们有给你一个为什么不\n10 让他们离开的理由吗？\n11 答：当时有——\n12 默里女士：反对。要求传闻证据。\n13 法庭：反对成立。\n14 问：你对于警察为什么没有让他们离开有何看法？\n15 你对于警察为什么没有让他们离开有所了解吗？\n16 默里女士：同样的反对，法官阁下，只要\n17 其要求提供传闻证据。\n18 法庭：如果你有的了解是\n19 独立于警察向你解释的内容之外的。\n20 答：是的，我的意思是，警察解释了——好吧，他们解释了\n21 这一点，但——在他们解释之前，我不知道\n22 规定是什么。\n23 问：好的。但是警察来了，又把抗议者留在了那里，\n24 对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 交叉询问\n1 答：是的，那是正确的。\n2 问：然后他们最终回家了，对吧？\n3 答：抗议者吗？\n4 问：是的。好吧，警察也回去了，但抗议者肯定\n5 回去了。\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：然后我们在你的主问中大量谈到了\n8 一月份的抗议活动，对吗？\n9 答：取决于你觉得多少算大量，但我想是的，没错。\n10 问：好的。在一月份你也报警了，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：而且警察出警了，对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：事实上，他们对你相当积极配合；他们会为你做\n15 驾车巡逻，对吗？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：他们想确保你是安全的，对吗？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：你住在一个警察确实能积极响应的\n20 好街区，对吧？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：好的。当警察开车巡逻经过时，他们驱散\n23 人群了吗？\n24 答：没有。\n25 问：没有，对吧？是还是不是？抱歉。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 盘问\n1 默里女士（MS. MURRAY）：问过且已答过。\n2 施罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：我听不见他说话，所以——\n3 答：没有。\n4 问：好的。所以人群当时仍在那里，但警察\n5 也为了保护你在那里，对吗？\n6 答：他们不是24小时全天候在那里，但他们——是的，\n7 他们接了电话，是的。\n8 问：好的。而且你作证说这些人当时在外面，并且\n9 他们带了一些设备，对吗？\n10 答：设备指的是一台相机，是的。\n11 问：好的。它只是像一台相机，还是像一整套装置，比如\n12 摄像机以及随之而来的所有附属设备？\n13 答：他们带了三脚架。\n14 问：他们带了三脚架，对吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：而且你从未看到任何来自你家庭住宅的内容被发布\n17 在互联网上，对吗？\n18 答：不，那不是真的。\n19 问：你确实看到了你家内部被发布在\n20 互联网上？\n21 答：我看到了——抗议者视角下的我们家\n22 被发布在互联网上。\n23 问：不，不。那是你家外立面的景象，对吗？\n24 默里女士：反对，法官阁下。问过且已\n25 答过。\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 盘问\n1 施罗夫女士：我没有问过那个。\n2 问：该视频是否是你家外立面的景象。\n3 这是我的问题。\n4 答：是的，是我家外面，是的。\n5 问：而且没有人拍下你家狗的照片并发布在\n6 互联网上，对吗？\n7 答：到那时我们已经没有养狗了。\n8 问：好的。而且在整个期间，这些抗议者\n9 仍被——叫什么来着，剑桥警察局（Cambridge Police）、波士顿警察局（Boston Police）、灯塔山警察局（Beacon Hill Police）？\n10 允许留在那里？\n11 到底是哪一个？\n12 答：剑桥警察局。等等。抱歉。不过刚才的问题是什么？\n13 我是在回答那一部分问题。刚才问题的\n14 第一部分是什么，他们被允许留在那里？\n15 问：对。\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：他们没有被开罚单，对吗？\n18 答：没有。\n19 问：他们没有被命令驱散，对吗？\n20 默里女士：反对，法官阁下。他不可能知情。\n21 法庭：嗯，他可能目睹过他们被\n22 开罚单。他也可能目睹过警察驱赶他们。\n23 答：据我所知没有。\n24 问：你作证说壁橱里放着一根棒球棒，对吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 盘问\n1 问：从不需要使用那根棒球棒，对吗？\n2 答：不是为了住宅自卫而用。\n3 施罗夫女士：好的。能给我一秒钟吗。\n4 法庭：请继续。\n5 问：让我向你展示被标记为被告方证据70777号的文件。\n6 我只向你和政府律师出示，可以吗？\n7 还有法庭。\n8 你看到这张照片了吗？\n9 答：看到了。\n10 问：这些就是当时在你家外面的抗议者吗？\n11 你认得这张照片吗？\n12 答：我不认得这张照片。我认得这张照片的\n13 拍摄背景。\n14 问：背景是什么？\n15 答：背景是我家外面。\n16 问：你家外面，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，我们提议将此采纳为\n19 证据。\n20 默里女士：没有反对意见。\n21 法庭：准予采纳。\n22 （被告方证据70777号已被采纳为证据）\n23 问：这些人就是当时在你家外面抗议的\n24 人吗？\n25 答：我从未见过我家外面有人是不戴\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 盘问\n1 大墨镜的。我个人从未见过——这张照片\n2 不一样，所以他们看起来不一定像我家外面的\n3 那些人，或者他们看起来不像当时在我家外面时的\n4 那些人。\n5 施罗夫女士：好的。稍等一分钟。我只是想确保\n6 陪审团拿到了这张照片。\n7 问：好的。最左边的那个男人，对吗？\n8 答：好的。\n9 问：那边那个微笑的家伙？\n10 答：我看到他了。\n11 问：戴眼镜的那个？没戴口罩，对吗？\n12 答：是的，确实如此。\n13 问：好的。那边戴帽子的女士呢，没戴口罩？\n14 答：她没有戴口罩。\n15 问：好的。穿那件黄色外套的女士呢；她\n16 戴着新冠口罩，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：还有旁边的那个男人？是吗？没戴口罩？\n19 答：是的，没戴口罩，对的，正确。\n20 问：这些就是经常出现的四五个人，\n21 对吗？\n22 答：抱歉？\n23 默里女士：反对。问过且已答过。另外我\n24 不确定她指的是哪些人。\n25 法庭：问题是什么？\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 盘问\n1 施罗夫女士：没关系。\n2 问：你确实认出这是在你房子外面，对吗？\n3 答：这是在外——这是在我房子外面，是的。\n4 施罗夫女士：好的。我们可以把那个撤下了。\n5 问：现在，你作证谈到了你申请的\n6 这份保护令，对吗？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：而且你获得了该保护令，对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：该保护令是针对 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：好的。这份保护令基本上只是——你\n13 来告诉我，对吧——规定 Miles Guo 必须离你\n14 若干英尺远，对吗？保护令是这么——\n15 答：我不确定。我认为——那似乎合情合理。我不太\n16 确定具体的——什么规则——围绕它的规则是什么。\n17 问：好的。\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：它是签发给你的，对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：你为什么还要费事撤销它？\n22 答：在与执法部门沟通后，确定\n23 这对我们的处境没有帮助。\n24 问：好的。但为什么还要费事撤销它？它就在那里。谁\n25 在乎呢？\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 盘问\n1 默里女士：问过且已答过，法官阁下。\n2 法庭：反对成立。\n3 问：我问你：你为什么撤销它？\n4 答：是的，我们不希望它被送达，因为我们不想\n5 陷入一场无济于事的法律争斗。\n6 问：好的。而且 Guo 先生从未作出回应，对吗？\n7 答：没有。\n8 问：他从未靠近过你身旁任何距离之内，对吗？\n9 答：据我所知没有。\n10 问：好的。而且自 2023年1月10日 以来，你家\n11 再也没有抗议了？\n12 答：那不正确。\n13 问：在 2023年1月 之后还有抗议？\n14 答：持续了几个星期，所以可能——\n15 问：不，不。我是指在 2023年1月 整个月之后。\n16 16.\n17 答：可能会延续到二月份，但在那之后，没有了。\n18 问：在那之后，没有了，对吗？\n19 答：是的，在那个时期之后。\n20 问：好的。所以你在主询问中说它在一月份停止了，现在\n21 你不确定，它可能延续到了二月份；这就是你\n22 现在所说的吗？\n23 默里女士：法官阁下，反对。这\n24 歪曲了他的证词。\n25 法庭：反对成立。\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次主询问\n1 问：好的。你告诉我。\n2 答：它始于 1月2日，他们每天都在那里，直到\n3 1月9日，然后他们开始周末去我们家，\n4 工作日去学校。\n5 问：好的。然后什么时候停止的？\n6 答：在 1月10日 之后几周，所以——\n7 问：你没有记录它什么时候停止的？\n8 答：没有。\n9 问：这件极度令人不安的事，你却没有记录它何时\n10 停止。\n11 默里女士：问过且已答过。\n12 法庭：反对成立。\n13 施罗夫女士：我没有其他问题了。\n14 法庭：再次主询问？\n15 默里女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n16 如果我可以请辩方展示辩方\n17 证据70777号。我将不胜感激。\n18 再次主询问\n19 由默里女士主持：\n20 问：Copeland 先生，有人问了你一些问题——\n21 施罗夫女士：哦，我手头没有。你有吗？\n22 问：在盘问中有人问了你一些关于\n23 这张照片的问题。你记得那些问题吗？\n24 答：大致记得，是的。\n25 问：施罗夫女士问了你关于左边那个高兴的抗议者的问题。\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次主询问\n1 你记得那些问题吗？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：在抗议者出现在你家外面的那\n4 几周里，你是否曾——请保持展示那个，谢谢——你\n5 是否曾见过任何抗议者微笑？\n6 答：没有。\n7 问：如果我们聚焦在这些标语牌的底部，在每个标语牌上的\n8 血手印旁边的\n9 那些字是什么？\n10 答：上面写着：“Isabelle Despins 你并不清白。”\n11 问：如果构成威胁的话，在你家外面的抗议者\n12 手持包含血手印和你妻子名字的\n13 这些标语牌这一事实，是如何构成威胁的？\n14 答：这是如何构成威胁的？\n15 问：是的。如果有的话，这对你来说是如何感到具有威胁性的？\n16 答：嗯，这正在互联网上进行直播，所以即使\n17 这里的抗议者是和平抗议，其他人也有可能\n18 相信 Isabelle 以某种方式\n19 卷入其中，或者相信这些东西、这些标语牌所\n20 说的内容，并试图伤害我们或者——或者，你知道的，制造，你\n21 知道——是的。是的。\n22 默里女士：我们可以把那个撤下了。非常\n23 感谢。\n24 问：Copeland 先生，根据你的观察，如果有的话，\n25 这些标语牌是如何影响你妻子的？\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次主询问\n1 答：极其巨大。她是个——有点——嗯，稍微有点更\n2 紧绷——\n3 施罗夫女士：反对。\n4 默里女士：这些是他的观察，法官阁下。\n5 施罗夫女士：反对。\n6 法庭：你可以描述你对她的\n7 观察。请继续。\n8 答：好的。在观察她的八年多时间里，\n9 她一直是一个高度紧张的人。她真的很关心\n10 ——我见证了她对学校社区的奉献。\n11 我看到了她有多么在乎——\n12 施罗夫女士：反对。请求删除记录。\n13 答：——在乎她的工作。\n14 法庭：反对无效。你可以继续。\n15 答：我看到了那是多么——多么有压力——是的，我看到了这对她有多\n16 艰难。我看到她真的很关心她的孩子们，\n17 保护他们的安全，确保学校对他们来说是一个安全的环境，\n18 让他们在学校感到安心，\n19 和她在一起感到安心，我看到了关于——关于她\n20 可能在其中一些孩子的生活中造成额外创伤的想法\n21 对她产生了多么负面的影响。\n22 问：Copeland 先生，在盘问中有人问了你\n23 一些关于撤销针对 Guo 先生的限制令的\n24 问题。你记得那些问题吗？\n25 答：是的。是的。\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次盘问\n1 问：在寻求针对 Miles Guo 的限制令方面，\n2 你有何顾虑（如果有的话）？\n3 答：我担心我们会陷入某种法律纠纷，而那\n4 将是毫无意义的，而且，你知道的，耗费时间且——且\n5 毫无成果，所以不值得这样做。\n6 默里女士：请允许我稍等片刻，法官阁下。\n7 法庭：可以。\n8 默里女士：谢谢你，Copeland 先生。没有\n9 进一步的问题了。\n10 法庭：再次盘问？\n11 施罗夫女士：请把照片重新展示出来。\n12 再次盘问\n13 由施罗夫女士主持：\n14 问：默里女士——你需要稍等片刻吗，Copeland 先生，还是你\n15 感觉还好？\n16 答：我很好。\n17 问：好的。默里女士刚才问了你关于这张\n18 特定照片的问题，对吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：而且她问你是否见过任何微笑的抗议者，\n21 对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：Copeland 先生，说你当时并不是特别\n24 想与他们有任何眼神接触，这说法很公允，对吧？\n25 答：是的，我认为确实如此。\nSouthern District Reporters, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次盘问\n1 问：对。他们在抗议，你不想让他们\n2 抗议，对吗？\n3 答：我不想让他们在我们家外面或我\n4 妻子的学校外面抗议。\n5 问：没错。没错。这很麻烦，对吧？\n6 答：“很麻烦”是一种说法。我会用另一种方式\n7 来表述。\n8 问：很吓人，对吧？\n9 默里女士（MS. MURRAY）：法官大人，请允许她让证人\n10 说完他的回答。\n11 法庭：好的。请说完你的回答。\n12 答：是的，很吓人。\n13 问：很吓人，对吧？所以你不会想跟他们\n14 有眼神接触，对吧？\n15 法庭：已问过并已回答。\n16 问：所以你不会知道有没有人在笑或没在\n17 笑，对吗？\n18 答：我从未见过他们笑，也没见过任何人的脸。每当\n19 我看过去时，他们都戴着口罩。\n20 问：每当你望过去时，他们都戴着口罩；这是\n21 你的记忆？\n22 答：是的，这是我的记忆，是的。\n23 什罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：好的。现在你可以把那个撤下来了。\n24 等等。其实，就放在上面吧。\n25 问：默里女士刚才也问了你关于这些言辞\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次盘问\n1 给你带来什么感受的问题，对吗？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：好的。而且这些言辞没有任何一句是令人愉快的，对吗？\n4 答：是的，没有，我认为这是令人不安的言辞。\n5 问：对。而且警方也知晓这种令人不安的\n6 言辞，对吗？\n7 答：可能吧。他们当时正开车经过，所以我猜是的。\n8 问：而且他们继续允许抗议进行，对吧？\n9 答：是的。\n10 什罗夫女士：好的。我们可以把那个撤下来了。\n11 问：现在默里女士问了你关于你妻子的问题，\n12 对吗？\n13 答：我想是的。我想是的，没错。\n14 问：其中一个问题，或者说你给出的其中一个回答\n15 是，她深深担忧她学校里的\n16 孩子们，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：她在一家公立学校教书，对吗？\n19 答：她仍然在公立学校教书，同一所学校。\n20 问：对。那基本上是一个 ESL 班，对吧，英语作为\n21 第二语言的班级？\n22 答：她的教室是一个 ESL 班。她的学校也有一个普通的\n23 公立学校部分，那是——\n24 问：好的。那么可以说学校对她是支持的，\n25 对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次盘问\n1 默里女士：反对，法官大人。超出范围。\n2 法庭：反对成立。\n3 什罗夫女士：她问到了她的反应以及他\n4 观察到了什么。这在范围之内。\n5 法庭：不在关于学校做了什么的范围之内。\n6 问：你的妻子是否感到得到了学校的支持？\n7 默里女士：反对，法官大人。\n8 什罗夫女士：这在范围之内。\n9 法庭：反对成立。他可以描述他\n10 观察到的情况。\n11 问：好的。你是否观察到校长支持\n12 你的妻子？\n13 答：在 1 月 10 日那天，我想是的。其他时候，她有，\n14 你知道的——她处理事情的方式会与\n15 学校处理的方式不同，但是——\n16 问：我听不清你说的话。我很抱歉。不过没关系。\n17 你是否观察到其他老师支持\n18 你的妻子？\n19 答：没有，我没有——我的意思是，我是从我妻子那里听说的，但我没有\n20 亲眼观察到。\n21 问：好的。你作证说明了抗议持续的时间长短，\n22 对吗？你作证说明了具体日期，对吗？\n23 答：是的，据我所知，是的。\n24 问：对。那个日期是特指你家，还是说\n25 坐在这里的你今天知道同样的持续时间也适用于\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4 Copeland - 再次盘问\n1 学校附近的抗议？\n2 默里女士：反对，仅针对提问形式。\n3 法庭：反对成立。\n4 问：你知道他们在学校外面抗议了多久吗？\n5 答：我认为是在——在上课日期间，在 1 月 10 日之后的\n6 几个星期。\n7 问：在 1 月 10 日之后，对吧？\n8 答：从 1 月 10 日开始持续了几个星期。\n9 问：好的。而且是在二月之前结束的，对吗？\n10 默里女士：反对。已问过并已回答。\n11 法庭：反对成立。\n12 什罗夫女士：我问的是学校，不是\n13 家里。\n14 法庭：现在是 2:29。\n15 什罗夫女士：我还有最后两个问题，法官大人。\n16 法庭：请继续。\n17 由什罗夫女士提问：\n18 问：当你取得针对 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的保护令时，你\n19 是否曾向他送达？\n20 默里女士：已问过并已回答，法官大人。\n21 什罗夫女士：没有。我没有问过他是否被送达。\n22 法庭：你亲自向他送达了吗？\n23 证人：没有。\n24 问：所以郭先生甚至都不知道保护令的存在，\n25 对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4\n1 默里女士：反对。\n2 法庭：他无法谈及郭先生具有什么\n3 知情情况。\n4 问：自从你获得保护令或撤销\n5 保护令以来，郭先生从未与你进行过任何诉讼，\n6 对吗？\n7 答：对。\n8 问：他从未起诉过你，对吗？\n9 默里女士：已问过并已回答。\n10 法庭：反对成立。\n11 问：他从未起诉过你的妻子，对吗？\n12 答：对。\n13 什罗夫女士：好的。非常感谢你。\n14 默里女士：没有其他问题了。谢谢。\n15 法庭：谢谢你，先生。你可以退庭了。\n16 （证人退庭）\n17 法庭：现在到了我们休庭的时间了。我们将在\n18 半小时后重新开庭。请记住，你们不得\n19 彼此谈论本案，也不得允许任何人在你们\n20 面前谈论本案。不要阅读、收听或观看\n21 任何与本案有关的内容。\n22 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO4\n1 （陪审团不在场）\n2 法庭：请就座。\n3 还有其他事宜吗？\n4 默里女士：检方没有了。\n5 什罗夫女士：没有了，法官大人。谢谢。\n6 芬克尔先生（MR. FINKEL）：只是，辩方通知了我们关于\n7 我们在法官席旁商议的问题。\n8 双方达成了和解共识。\n9 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n10 （休庭）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 法庭：请陪审员进庭。\n2 法庭书记员：陪审团进庭。\n3 （陪审团在场）\n4 法庭：请就座，请传唤下一位\n5 证人。\n6 芬克尔先生：好的，法官大人。检方传唤\n7 Stephen Johnson（斯蒂芬·约翰逊）。\n8 STEPHEN JOHNSON（斯蒂芬·约翰逊），\n9 由检方传唤作为证人，\n10 经依法宣誓后，作证如下：\n11 法庭：请说出你的姓名并拼读。\n12 证人：Stephen Johnson，S-T-E-P-H-E-N，\n13 J-O-H-N-S-O-N。\n14 法庭：请就座并对着麦克风\n15 发言。你可以开始发问了。\n16 直接询问\n17 由芬克尔先生提问：\n18 问：下午好，约翰逊先生。\n19 答：你好。\n20 问：你在哪里工作？\n21 答：Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）。\n22 问：什么是证券交易委员会？\n23 答：它是一个保护投资者并调查证券欺诈违规行为的\n24 政府机构。\n25 问：它独立于司法部吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：你在 SEC（证券交易委员会）的职务是什么？\n3 答：部门主管。\n4 问：能否请你为陪审团成员概括性地\n5 简要描述一下你作为 SEC 部门主管的职责？\n6 答：我负责主管纽约地区办公室的一组调查员，\n7 我自己也参与调查工作。\n8 问：约翰逊先生，请你把麦克风\n9 对准你的嘴巴。你可以随意把它移到这边来。\n10 法庭：这里的音响效果不好。你\n11 必须直接对着它说话。\n12 芬克尔先生：法官大人，我可以走上前去吗？\n13 法庭：可以。\n14 芬克尔先生：我正走向证人，递交一个\n15 已被标记为 GX-37 的 U 盘。\n16 法官大人，我陈述该 U 盘包含\n17 以下 GXSM 系列的检方证据：11、12、17 至\n18 21、62、73、88、96、126 至 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 至 299 以及 310。\n22 问：约翰逊先生，你认得我刚刚递给你的\n23 U 盘吗？\n24 答：认得。\n25 问：你是怎么认出来的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：上面有我签的姓名首字母缩写。\n2 问：你审查过那个 U 盘里的内容吗？\n3 答：我审查过。\n4 问：里面有什么？\n5 答：有 56 个文件，属于 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）为应答\n6 传票向证券交易委员会提交的\n7 一批材料的一部分。\n8 芬克尔先生：法官大人，此时检方请求\n9 提出 SM 系列中的 SM 证据：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 至 299。\n13 希里克先生（MR. SCHIRICK）：反对，法官大人。我们能否进行\n14 简短的法官席旁商议？\n15 法庭：好的。\n16 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 （在法官席旁）\n2 希里克先生：法官大人，我们的理解是，\n3 这位来自 SEC 的证人将就 SEC 是如何\n4 收到这些文件作证。它们是 Saraca 提交的文件，所以\n5 我认为这位证人无法对基础文件的\n6 真实性进行鉴真。他可以证明——他\n7 可以就 SEC 收到了这些文件这一事实作证。\n8 但是至于对基础文件本身的真实性进行鉴真，\n9 他毫不知情。\n10 法庭：那么他检查过这些文件吗？换句话说，\n11 他是接收端的人员吗？\n12 希里克先生：他说他审查了 U 盘。\n13 法庭：请继续。\n14 芬克尔先生：我很乐意做进一步的\n15 铺垫说明。我预计这位证人将会作证的内容——这样我们\n16 就可以在法官席旁解决这些问题——是他审查了\n17 SEC 对这些材料的存储记录。他将这些材料与\n18 Saraca 律师的附随函进行了核对，\n19 确认了贝茨编号（Bates stamping）与 Saraca 律师的附随函相符。他\n20 审查了 U 盘上的每一个文件，并\n21 与 SEC 系统中存储的文件进行了比对，能够\n22 根据他对 SEC 文件处理规程的了解确认\n23 这些文件全部由 Saraca 提交。\n24 我也可以告知法庭，这些文件都是费用\n25 报销单。事实上，法官大人，这是一份费用报销单，它\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 类似于但不完全等同于在该 U 盘上能找到的\n2 其他费用报销单。这份文件此前已作为证据\n3 在针对 Karin Maistrello（卡琳·麦斯特雷洛）的审理中被采纳。Karin\n4 Maistrello 在作证期间讨论了这是一种她大体上熟悉的付款单表格，由\n5 Saraca 和 Golden Spring（金泉）使用。U 盘上的\n6 文件是具有类似签名、类似\n7 身份识别信息以及 Saraca Golden Spring 名称的类似文件。此外，\n8 在该 U 盘上还有另外两份文件，\n9 我们正寻求将其作为证据采纳，那是来自 Hayman（海曼）的文件。\n10 法庭可能还记得，Hayman 收到了\n11 来自 Saraca Media 的投资。在 U 盘上的\n12 这两份文件是 Saraca 签署的、\n13 Yvette Wang（王雁平）签署的、Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）签署的以\n14 敲定 Saraca 投资协议的最终签署文件。还有一封\n15 Haynes and Boone（海恩斯与布恩律师事务所）发给 Saraca 询问“这笔钱是\n16 从哪里来的”信函。因此那些文件已经由 Steele\n17 Schottenheimer（斯蒂尔·肖滕海默）作为证据提交。她根据 Hayman\n18 所拥有的材料将它们作为证据提交，并且它们与 Saraca 提交给 SEC 的材料相符。法官大人，换言之，\n19 有多项迹象\n20 表明该 U 盘上文件的真实性，这足以允许\n21 一名理性的陪审员认定这些\n22 文件是真实的。\n23 希里克先生：法官大人，我认为这里\n24 存在两个问题。一个是真实性问题，以及维持\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 异议，理由是该证人无法对背后的\n2 Saraca 基础文件进行鉴真。基于其\n3 知情范围，该证人最多只能说这些文件是由\n4 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）收到的。如果政府方想把这个事实\n5 作为证据采纳，那没问题。但至于基础文件本身，他无法\n6 对背后的 Saraca 基础文件进行鉴真。\n7 法庭：我认为他们只是想让他\n8 说这些是 SEC 收到的文件，对吗？\n9 FINKEL 先生：完全正确。\n10 法庭：好的。就这样。继续吧。\n11 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 （在公开法庭审理中）\n2 FINKEL 先生：政府方再次提出\n3 提交证据项的请求。\n4 法庭：请先问几个基础性的\n5 问题。\n6 由 FINKEL 先生提问：\n7 问：Johnson 先生，您怎么知道那些材料是\n8 由 Saraca 向 SEC 提供的？\n9 答：我们在发出传票时，里面包含有关\n10 如何交回文件以及采用何种格式的说明，所有人都被\n11 指示将文件交回到集中提交部门\n12 即 CPU（Centralized Production Unit，集中提交部门），这是 SEC 内部负责接收所有\n13 文件的部门。他们会将文件加载到我们称为\n14 Case Point 的电子证据开示平台中，每一份提交的\n15 文件都会按照案件编号、提交方\n16 以及提交日期加载进去。\n17 问：您做了什么来确认那个 USB 上提供的文件\n18 是由 Saraca 提交的？如果您采取了步骤，您采取了什么步骤\n19 来确认它是在 SEC 系统中的？\n20 答：我打开了这个 U 盘里的文件，并在\n21 另一台显示器上根据贝茨编号（Bates number）在 Case Point\n22 系统中打开了相同的文件。\n23 问：那您打开了那个 USB 盘里的每一份文件吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：您把 USB 盘里的每一份文件都与什么进行了比对？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1\n2 答：页数、页面标题以及贝茨编号。\n3\n4 问：那么这些贝茨编号在 SEC 系统中是与哪个实体\n5 关联的？\n6 答：Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）。\n7 FINKEL 先生：政府方再次申请提交我之前\n8 列出的文件。\n9 SCHIRICK 先生：同前异议，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：准予采纳。\n11 （政府方证据项 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 至 SM-299 获采纳\n16 为证据）\n17 由 FINKEL 先生提问：\n18 问：Johnson 先生，您能否向陪审团说明什么是\n19 传票？\n20 答：传票是我们调查过程中发出的\n21 获取信息的请求。\n22 问：您个人参与了针对 Saraca 的\n23 调查吗？\n24 答：没有。\n25 问：您个人参与了针对\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的调查吗？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：或者针对 GTV 的调查？\n4 答：没有。\n5 问：或者针对 G Coins（G币）的调查？\n6 答：没有。\n7 问：除了您今天的作证以及您所做的准备工作\n8 （包括您刚才描述的审查）之外，您在本案中还有其他\n9 参与吗？\n10 答：没有。\n11 问：我们能否调出 GXSM-77。这是 Saraca 提交的\n12 文件之一吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：您看到顶部写着 Saraca Media Group, Inc. 付款\n15 申请表吗？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：然后下方写着收款人名称，Voice of Guo\n18 Media, Inc.（文贵之声媒体公司）。您看到了吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：付款金额是多少？\n21 答：7875。\n22 问：旁边有两个字母，您看到顶部的两个\n23 字母了吗？\n24 答：MK。\n25 问：您知道 MK 代表什么吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：不知道。\n2 问：我们能翻到下一页吗。\n3 Johnson 先生，我是不是可以这样理解，这份文件是附在\n4 付款申请表后面的？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：您能读一下写着 Voice of Guo Media 的支票图像\n7 下方写的内容吗？\n8 答：可以。「Max，你好，委托人已聘请了新的开发人员来\n9 开发 G News，他们急需支付 7875 美元\n10 。能否通过以下方式支付：汇款路线号码（Routing number）\n11 为……」\n12 问：那些您不用读了。\n13 您知道委托人是谁吗？\n14 答：不知道。\n15 问：Loftus 女士，如果我们可以翻到下一页，以及再后面\n16 的一页。\n17 在写着「谢谢，他们今天能发合同过来吗」的下方，\n18 您能读一下写了什么吗？\n19 答：「不行，还在谈判中，但委托人想今天\n20 付款。我们可以先付款而无需合同。谢谢。」\n21 问：我们可以把这个撤下，如果可以的话请放上 SM283。\n22 Johnson 先生，这份来自 Saraca Media Group 的特定\n23 付款申请表的收款人是谁？\n24 答：Yvette Wang（王雁平）。\n25 问：您知道她是谁吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：不知道。\n2 问：支付给 Yvette Wang 的总金额是多少？\n3 答：$30,906.56。\n4 问：我们能否翻到 SM-296。这份文件的收款人是谁？\n5 答：Ya Li（李亚）。\n6 问：金额是多少？\n7 答：$2,850。\n8 问：我们能否翻到下一页。\n9 您看到左上角的日期了吗？\n10 答：看到了。\n11 问：日期是哪一天？\n12 答：2020年4月27日。\n13 问：您可以把那个撤下，如果可以的话请放上 SM-178。\n14 在这份 Saraca Media Group 付款申请\n15 表中，Johnson 先生，收款人是谁？\n16 答：Max Krasner。\n17 问：您知道那是谁吗？\n18 答：不知道。\n19 问：支付给 Max Krasner 的金额是多少？\n20 答：$30,906.56。\n21 问：请调出 SM-73。这份文件上的\n22 收款人是谁？\n23 答：Aaron Mitchell。\n24 问：该费用的日期是哪一天？\n25 答：6/3/2020。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 问：根据这份文件，应付给 Aaron Mitchell 的\n2 金额是多少？\n3 答：$30,906.56。\n4 问：您是否以某种方式知晓这些款项\n5 最终是否实际支付了？\n6 答：我不知道。\n7 问：请转到 SM-235。\n8 这份文件列出的收款人姓名是什么？\n9 答：New England Home Inspections（新英格兰房屋检验公司）。\n10 问：付款金额是多少？\n11 答：$1,750。\n12 问：您能读一下屏幕中间靠中位置的支出用途\n13 吗？\n14 答：房屋检验。\n15 问：针对哪里？\n16 答：针对 Greenwich Land，373 Taconic Road, Greenwich,\n17 Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路373号）。\n18 问：您去过那里吗，Taconic 路 373 号？\n19 答：没有。\n20 问：Loftus 女士，您能放大底部吗。那里有\n21 一个小星号。Johnson 先生，您能读一下那个星号后面的内容吗？\n22 答：付款申请表必须经首席运营官\n23 Yvette 及/或运营总监 Melissa 批准。\n24 问：您可以把那个撤下，如果可以的话请调出 SM-151。\n25 这一份的收款人是谁？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治地产有限责任公司）。\n2 问：您知道那个实体是什么吗？\n3 答：不知道。\n4 问：金额是多少？\n5 答：$2 million。\n6 问：我们能否翻到 SM-147。\n7 这一份上面列出的收款人名称是什么？\n8 答：Go Daddy。\n9 问：金额是多少？\n10 答：$149.97。\n11 问：您看到屏幕右下角的贝茨编号了\n12 吗？\n13 答：看到了。\n14 问：后四位数字是什么？\n15 答：1320。\n16 问：请翻到下一页。\n17 这一页上的贝茨编号后四位\n18 是什么。\n19 答：1321。\n20 问：您能读一下附上的这封电子邮件吗？\n21 答：「Max，早上好。随信附上发票编号 4900，\n22 涉及完成栅栏安装的到期尾款。\n23 剩余的 $2,846.26 尾款将在粉刷\n24 完毕后到期。请在您方便时尽早汇付款项。\n25 非常感谢，Bobby。」\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 问：Bobby 下面写了什么？\n2 答：Connecticut Fence and Landscaping, LLC（康涅狄格栅栏与园艺有限责任公司），16 Valmar Drive,\n3 New Milford, Connecticut。\n4 问：您知道 Greenwich（格林威治）是否在康涅狄格州吗？\n5 答：知道。\n6 问：Loftus 女士，我们能否调出 SM-126。\n7 请读一下这笔支出的用途好吗？\n8 答：用于 G Fashion 的 G level.org 域名。\n9 问：我们能否调出 SM-133。\n10 右下角这笔支出的日期是哪一天？\n11 答：2020年1月30日。\n12 问：您能读一下正中间的分项支出描述\n13 吗？\n14 答：多个托管 roll society.org 安全电子邮件 essr。\n15 问：支出账户下方写了什么？\n16 答：ROL, rolf。\n17 问：您知道 Rule of Law Society（法治社会）与\n18 Saraca Media Group 有什么关系吗？\n19 答：不知道。\n20 问：我们能调出 SM-176 吗。\n21 先生，您看到顶部写着 Saraca 的地方了吗？\n22 答：看到了。\n23 问：您能辨认出下面被划掉的内容是什么吗？\n24 答：看起来像 Golden Spring New York, LTD.（源泉纽约有限公司）。\n25 问：您知道 Golden Spring 与\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 Saraca 之间是什么关系吗？\n2 答：不知道。\n3 问：把那个撤下，请调出 SM-156。\n4 这位收款人的名字是什么？\n5 答：Hermes of Paris（巴黎爱马仕）。\n6 问：金额是多少？\n7 答：$24,000。\n8 问：这份文件底部的名字是什么？\n9 答：Max Krasner, Yvette Wang。\n10 问：Loftus 女士，请翻到下一页。请放大\n11 那张收据的顶部。\n12 请读一下那张收据的顶部好吗？\n13 答：Hermes of Paris HOP Greenwich, 289 Greenwich Avenue,\n14 Greenwich Connecticut。\n15 问：客户信息下方的姓名是什么？\n16 答：Yanping Wang（王雁平）。\n17 问：请把画面缩小。您可以看 210。\n18 这份文件的收款人是谁？\n19 答：G Fashion Media Group, Inc.\n20 问：这份付款申请表的金额是多少？\n21 答：$200,000。\n22 问：现在，如果我们看 SM-11。\n23 Johnson 先生，这是 Saraca\n24 Media 向 SEC 提供的文件之一吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 问：Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund, LP（海曼香港机会在岸基金有限合伙）。您看到\n2 了吗？\n3 答：看到了。\n4 问：您知道那是什么吗？\n5 答：不知道。\n6 问：Loftus 女士，我们能否往后翻大约 26 页。\n7 您能读一下顶部写的内容吗？\n8 答：Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund, LP 投资者\n9 概况。投资者名称 Saraca Media Group, Inc.。出资\n10 金额 $100 million。投资者类型，受益所有人。\n11 简要说明认购人的主要财富来源。\n12 出售子公司的股份。\n13 问：Loftus 女士，请往前翻两页。\n14 根据这份文件，是谁作为\n15 总裁签署的？\n16 答：Yanping Wang。\n17 问：底部的请求出资总额\n18 是多少？\n19 答：$100 million。\n20 问：请求的交割日期是哪一天？\n21 答：2020年6月8日。\n22 问：Loftus 女士，请调出 SM-12。\n23 Johnson 先生，这是 Saraca\n24 Media Group 为响应传票向 SEC 提供的另一份文件吗？\n25 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 问：根据这封日期为 2020年7月15日 的信函，这封信是寄给谁受阅的？\n2 答：William Je（余建明）、Max Krasner、Yvette Wang（王雁平）以及 Aaron Mitchell。\n3 问：你能读一下作为普通合伙人的第二段吗？\n4 答：作为基金的普通合伙人，在履行其持续尽职调查及遵守证券法规定的过程中，Hayman（海曼资本）要求就以下问题作出答复：Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司，简称 Saraca）用于投资该集团的资金来源是什么。\n5 问：你知道 Saraca 是否回答过这个问题吗？\n6 答：在上一张幻灯片上。\n7 问：请读一下第三个圆点项目好吗？\n8 答：如果收益来自证券发行，发行文件是否披露了收益用途包括对该基金或任何类似私募投资基金实体的投资。如果是，请提供披露协议的副本。\n9 问：你知道披露协议是否提供给了这些人中的任何一位吗？\n10 答：不知道。\n11 问：这份文件的日期是哪一天？\n12 答：2020年7月15日。\n13 问：Loftus 女士，请你再次调出 SM-11 第 24 页。这里的日期是哪一天？\n14 答：2020年6月3日。\n15 问：所以这在我们刚才看过的作为 SM-12 的信函之前？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 SM-12？\n2 答：是的。\n3 FINKEL 先生：法官阁下，此时政府提出一项规定协议。此时政府提出一份双方之间的规定协议，即政府证据 GX Stip 19。\n4 SCHIRICK 先生：无异议。\n5 法庭：准予采纳。\n6 （政府物证 GX Stip 19 被采纳为证据）\n7 FINKEL 先生：我来宣读。United States of America（美利坚合众国）与被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）特此达成规定并同意，US Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，简称 SEC）的一名雇员将作证如下：\n8 第一，SEC 是一个独立的联邦机构，其使命除其他事项外，包括保护投资者、维持公平、有序和高效的市场，并促进资本形成。\n9 第二，在 SEC 进行调查后，于 2021年7月28日，Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca）就 SEC 提起的民事行政指控与 SEC 达成和解，该指控称 Saraca、GTV Media Group（GTV传媒集团，简称 GTV）以及 Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭文贵之声媒体公司，简称 VOG）通过 GTV 私募进行了未注册的证券发行。该同意和解被记录在一份书面协议中，即和解协议，该协议由 Yanping Wang（王雁平）代表 Saraca 签署。根据和解协议，Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 已向 SEC 汇出\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 与 GTV 私募相关的 455,211,346.39 美元，其中包括 Saraca 对 Hayman Capital Management（海曼资本管理公司）投资中的 69,713,578.06 美元，该款项是从 Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Anello, PC 律师事务所的托管账户转交至 SEC 的。截至本规定协议签署之日，Saraca 和 GTV 共同并按连带责任基础尚欠 SEC 额外的 31,488,392.52 美元，VOG 尚欠 SEC 额外的 45,000 美元即 45,324 美元。\n2 SEC 设立了一个公平基金（Fair Fund），以将收取的资金分配给投资于 GTV 股票发行以及 G Coins（G币）、G Dollars（G美元）发行的个人和实体。\n3 在聘请管理人负责管理分配流程、通知投资者并向投资者收集核验信息后，向投资者的分配于 2022年9月26日 开始。通过公平基金，SEC 已向全球约 4,835 名投资者分配了约 365,040,744.90 美元，其中包括 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的至少 31 名投资者。公平基金分配流程目前仍在进行中。\n4 作为与 SEC 达成的同意和解的一部分，Saraca、GTV 和 VOG 既未承认也未否认 SEC 的民事行政指控。该和解协议涉及关于未注册证券发行的指控，并未指控 Saraca、GTV 或 VOG 存在任何欺诈行为。该和解协议不包含任何关于犯罪行为的指控或结论。本规定协议可作为庭审物证被采纳为证据，其签署日期为 6月21日，并由各方签字。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 法官阁下，此时根据 GX Stip 8，政府从 GXPRO 系列中提出以下物证：545、544、541、539、537、535、534、533、531、526、525、523、522、521、520、508、504、488、478、477、476、473、466、467、473、474、486、489、492、494、496、498、499、506、508、509。\n2 SCHIRICK 先生：法官阁下，请容我稍候片刻。\n3 法庭：可以。\n4 SCHIRICK 先生：无异议。\n5 法庭：准予采纳。\n6 （政府物证 PRO-545、PRO-544、PRO-541、PRO-539、PRO-537、PRO-535、PRO-534、PRO-533、PRO-531、PRO-526、PRO-525、PRO-523、PRO-522、PRO-521、PRO-520、PRO-508、PRO-504、PRO-488、PRO-478、PRO-477、PRO-476、PRO-473、PRO-466、PRO-467、PRO-473、PRO-474、PRO-486、PRO-489、PRO-492、PRO-494、PRO-496、PRO-498、PRO-499、PRO-506、PRO-508、PRO-0509 被采纳为证据）\n7 由 FINKEL 先生进行询问：\n8 问：Johnson 先生，你知道 Promemoria 是什么吗？\n9 答：不知道。\n10 问：请调出已采纳为证据的 pro466。Loftus 女士，如果你能转到第 19 页，不好意思，第 20 页。Loftus 女士，请在底部放大显示。\n11 Johnson 先生，你看到最上面写着 Gladys Chow 吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：看到了。\n2 问：她的电子邮件后缀是 HCHK Tech？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：你不知道她是谁？\n5 答：不知道。\n6 问：你能读一下这封电子邮件正文从“嗨，Paolo”开始的内容吗？\n7 答：嗨，Paolo 和 Davide。希望你们二位度过了一个愉快的感恩节，并在当前情况下保持平安。自我们上次讨论铜像以来已经过去了将近一年。请允许我再次做个自我介绍。我是 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）先生的助理 Gladys。我之前使用的邮箱是 GladysSC@GSNYUS.com，这是我今后将要使用的新邮箱地址。\n8 我今天写信主要是为了传达一个口信。纽约有一个即将开展的项目，我们想从 Promemoria 购买一些家具，包括现货商品和新设计的款式。郭先生想了解 Davide 是否能够来纽约开个会。他希望与 Davide 当面讨论，让他了解构想并看看能实现什么。请让我知道你们的想法。非常感谢。顺祝商祺，Gladys Chow。\n9 问：Loftus 女士，我们可以稍微往上翻一点。\n10 这封电子邮件的日期是哪一天？\n11 答：2021年12月2日。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 问：你能读一下“亲爱的 Gladys”下面的第一句话吗？\n2 答：非常高兴得知尽管由于 COVID-19 导致了这段疯狂的时期，Miles Kwok 先生和你都安好健康。\n3 问：这封邮件是谁发来的？\n4 答：Paolo。\n5 问：Loftus 女士，请往上翻一下。\n6 你能读一下 Gladys Chow 从“这个项目”开始的回复吗？\n7 答：这个项目是在 New Jersey（新泽西州）Mahwah（马瓦）的一处豪宅中进行。客户想要设计三个步入式衣帽间。以下是这三个房间的链接。它们均已作相应标注。\n8 问：可以了。谢谢。Loftus 女士，请稍微往上翻一点。\n9 你看到这里 2022年2月 Gladys Chow 发来的内容紧接在“谢谢”正下方了吗。你能读一下吗？\n10 答：鉴于本项目的保密性，能否请您签署随附的保密协议（NDA）并回传给我。我稍后会发送平面图。谢谢。\n11 问：Loftus 女士，如果我们能往上翻一点。我们转到大概第 10 页。\n12 这里写着：“嗨，Paolo，这是当前设计方案的链接。”你能读一下链接下面写的内容吗？\n13 答：厨房 影院 步入式衣帽间 01 夫人\n14 问：下一个链接下面呢？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 答：衣帽间 02，女儿；衣帽间 03 儿子；衣帽间 04，先生。\n2 问：你能读一下下一句话吗？\n3 答：客户确实喜欢每个房间的布局。主要需要改动的是家具。\n4 问：在那下方写着：“以下是客户对当前方案的意见。”你看到了吗？\n5 答：看到了。\n6 问：然后上面写着“影院”，你看到了吗？\n7 答：看到了。\n8 问：你能读一下第六页写的内容吗？\n9 答：座椅布局，他倾向于全部采用六张单人椅。\n10 问：影院下方的标题是什么？\n11 答：夫人衣帽间 01。\n12 问：Loftus 女士，请向下翻。\n13 夫人衣帽间下方的标题是什么？\n14 答：女儿 02、儿子 03、先生 04 衣帽间。\n15 问：Loftus 女士，请往上翻。\n16 你能读一下 Gladys Chow 发的内容吗，上面写着“嗨 Paolo”，你能读一下那下面写的内容吗。\n17 答：感谢您的回复。听起来太棒了。如果您能前往新泽西的物业并查看所有需要开发的房间，是否会有所帮助。此外，这次行程是否会让我们承担任何差旅费用。顺祝商祺。\n18 问：Loftus 女士，请往上翻一下。这也是来自\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 Gladys Chow，你能读一下在“嗨 Paolo”下方写着现场地址的地方吗。\n2 答：我正在向设计公司核实以确认——\n3 问：抱歉，Johnson 先生，请你从第三行的现场地址开始读。\n4 答：现场地址是 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah New Jersey。\n5 SCHIRICK 先生：法官阁下，我们能再进行一次法官席侧商谈吗？\n6 法庭：可以。\n7 （续见下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n1 （在法官席侧）\n2 SCHIRICK 先生：法官阁下，这些文件，Promemoria 的文件是关于设计师的设计装修的。这名证人对这些文件完全不知情。它们与 SEC 毫无关系，与 SEC 和解毫无关系，与 Saraca 向 SEC 提供的内容毫无关系。相反，他只是被用来向陪审团大声宣读这些文件。\n3 法庭：等一下。这些不是提供给 SEC 的吗？\n4 SCHIRICK 先生：不是。\n5 法庭：那它们是怎么被采纳进来的？\n6 FINKEL 先生：这些文件是根据一项规定协议采纳的。\n7 SCHIRICK 先生：那是完全不同的两码事。这与 SEC 毫无关系。\n8 法庭：如果你方已达成规定准予采纳它们，那它们就是被采纳了，就这么简单。\n9 SCHIRICK 先生：当然。明白，法官阁下。我的要点是它们与这名证人毫无关系，而政府明确在利用这名证人大声朗读这些文件。我的理解是它们已被采纳为证据，政府可以根据它们提出任何他们想要提出的论点。坦率地说，鉴于对节省时间和提高效率所给予的高度重视和强调，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n我不确定为什么这名 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）证人要宣读由一名装修设计师出具的文件。他对这方面毫无所知，也与此没有任何关系。\nFINKEL 先生：我很乐意询问证人是否知晓或参与了位于 Mahwah（马哈瓦）的房产。政府方愿意做出事实承认（stipulate）他并不知情。实际上我们使用一名证人是为了提高效率，正如人们常说的一石二鸟。这些文件只有几份。这些是陪审团应当看到的文件，而政府方希望将其作为其举证案件的一部分呈交。马哈瓦住所的用途是一个关键问题。关于郭先生据称打算将其用作秘密基地的说法，我们已经听到了很多。这些文件表明那并不是秘密基地。他是在为他的家人进行设计，因此这些是我们希望陪审团看到的文件。我们是否可以安排一名律师助理出庭来做这件事，我想也是可以的。我们认为使用这名证人会很有效率。我完全可以提出问题来引出 Schirick 先生希望引出的要点。\nSCHIRICK 先生：这是其一。另一点在于，这是一个效率问题。政府方已经获得了这些文件。我们已经对它们达成了事实承认。政府方可以直接基于文件进行论证。我们不需要坐在这里读这些文件。\n法庭：嗯，他们确实有权让证人宣读文件，现在只是由哪位证人来读的问题。我们要么坐在这里听他读，要么换别人。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n听他读还是听其他人读。\nSCHIRICK 先生：明白了，法官阁下。但另一种替代方案是这些文件已经在证据之中了。政府方可以在总结陈词中据此进行论述。就在不久之前在法官席旁（sidebar）私下交谈时也是对我提出了同样的观点。\nFINKEL 先生：你当时拿了整份白皮书。\nSCHIRICK 先生：我有机会去读它。\n法庭：在你们的案情呈现中，你们出示了白皮书的若干部分。你们还出示了那份图表的若干部分，并且你们让人员宣读了那些文件。\nSCHIRICK 先生：是的，我指的是今天早些时候的那位证人，即总结性证人，不过没关系。当然，如果在此谈论效率的话，让 SEC 证人宣读一堆装修设计师的文件，这看起来并不是最高效的做法，但我只是想指出这一点。\n法庭：那么你还有多少这样的内容？\nFINKEL 先生：大概还有两三份这样的文件。然而，尽管它们只是文件，但这些是非常重要的文件。\n法庭：我只是想弄清楚我们还要忍受多久。\nFINKEL 先生：事实上，我们已经非常高效了。我们原计划传唤 Paolo Sozzi（保罗·索齐），也就是与 Gladys Chow（周清）进行互动的个人。为了提高效率，我们取消了传唤该证人。在我们看来这就是权衡取舍——与其让保罗·索齐作证一小时，再由辩方自行决定交叉询问的时间，我们现在只是宣读几份文件。我手头的不多，大概三四份。\n法庭：时间方面呢？\nFINKEL 先生：就这名证人剩下的时间而言吗？\n法庭：是的。\nFINKEL 先生：大约 15 分钟到 20 分钟。\n法庭：那还不算太糟。很好。\n（接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n（在公开庭审中）\n法庭：先生，如果你在宣读文件，请不要读得太快，因为我们有翻译员需要在你宣读时进行翻译。\n由 FINKEL 先生继续直接询问：\n问：Johnson 先生，SEC 与位于新泽西州马哈瓦的 675 Ramapo Road（拉马波路 675 号）有任何关系吗？\n答：我不知道。\n问：我们能向上滚动一下吗。你能宣读一下 Gladys Chow 发给 Paolo 的这封电子邮件的最后一行吗，开头是“我可以了解一下吗（May I know）”？\n答：我可以了解一下您在查看完新泽西的房子后是否有空吗。客户希望在那之后在纽约办公室与您会面。\n问：Loftus 女士，请向上滚动，如果您能把那部分缩小一下，以便我们能看到完整的电子邮件，谢谢。\n你看到那封写着“谢谢你，Paolo，上面写着客户将会有空”的电子邮件了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：你能读一下吗？\n答：谢谢你，Paolo。客户将在周三下午 1 点后有空，因此我们在实地查看后可以直接从新泽西州拉马波山谷路 675 号前往办公室。\n问：好的。谢谢。\n在第一页上，Loftus 女士，您能在顶部、最顶端进行放大吗。您看到写着 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司）的地方了吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n答：看到了。\n问：你知道那是什么吗？\n答：不知道。\n问：请调出 pro531。\n你看到上面写着“以下是客户关于图纸的更多意见”的地方了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：第一项写的是什么？\n答：女儿的衣帽间。\n问：第五项写的是什么？\n答：太太的衣帽间和儿子的衣帽间。\n问：请翻到下一页。这是 Gladys Chow 于 2022 年 12 月 1 日星期一发出的。你能宣读一下写着“此外客户无法前往”的地方吗？\n答：此外客户本周无法前往市区。您能否改为在康涅狄格州 Greenwich（格林威治）与他会面。\n问：继续。请继续读。\n答：地址是 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, New York（纽约州格林威治塔科尼克路 373 号）。请告知我周四下午 3 点是否方便。如果不方便，我们可以调整时间。\n问：好的。谢谢。请调出 pro-536。请翻到第三页。\n这里写着：你好，Paolo。感谢提供信息。客户希望订购以下物品，接着有一些信息。上面写着请将桌子运送到以下地址。你看到了吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n以下地址。你看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：拉马波 675 号、塔科尼克 337 号和哥伦布圆环 3 号。对吗？\n答：对。\n问：请调出 pro-477。你能读一下“Hi Paolo”下面的那句话吗？\n答：客户希望将家庭休息室改建为新厨房，并希望 Promemoria（普罗梅莫里亚）一并进行设计。随信附上新厨房的平面图以及该房间目前样貌的照片。如有任何疑问请告知。谢谢。\n问：你看到左上角写着“厨房平面图 pdf”吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：请调出 pro-3478。你看到右下方类似气泡里的内容了吗，你能读一下吗？上面写着“新厨房”。在文件的左侧，写着什么？\n答：新泽西州马哈瓦克罗克住所，新泽西州马哈瓦克罗克住所。\n问：请调出 pro486 第 17 页。\n你能读一下 Gladys Chow 发来的那封电子邮件吗？\n答：你好 Paolo，关于合同，能否请您删除所有房产地址，合同将由 Promemoria 与 HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK 房产管理公司）签署。谢谢。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson- 直接询问\n谢谢。\n问：请调出 pro-506。你能读一下吗，这是 2022 年 11 月 5 日，以下是客户的意见。你能读一下吗？\n答：水疗室暂时搁置，直至另行通知。儿子的衣帽间所有家具都需要使用更浅、更温暖颜色的木材。房间需要吊灯设计。非常感谢。\n问：请调出 pro-541。你能读一下“谢谢你，Paolo”下方的内容吗。\n答：这件有瑕疵的是紫色的。你可以将其寄往新泽西州马哈瓦的地址。顺祝商祺。\n问：请调出 534。顶部写着“关于，新泽西”的是什么内容。你看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：你能读一下吗？\n答：关于，新泽西项目，更新信息。\n问：然后上面写着：你好，Paolo，请问所有的设计方案是否都已经准备好供客户审阅。我读得对吗？\n答：对。\n问：请调出 508。上面写着：你好，paolo，以下是客户关于影音室的意见。你能读一下关于椅子的部分写了什么吗？\n答：在前排以及扶手处移除两把椅子。团队能否增加更多诸如放置手机、钥匙等物品的储物空间。\n问：关于天花板写了什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - 交叉询问\n答：在整个天花板上添加星星。可以使用墙面上的天鹅绒作为主要材料。客户喜欢柔软毛茸茸的触感。\n问：关于屏幕写了什么？\n答：请尽量做大，充分利用整面墙。\n问：整体氛围呢？\n答：很好，但如果能更具未来感，像置身于宇宙中一样，那就更好了。\n问：最后一份，pro-523。我们试试 pro-522。我们看 476。右下方写着什么？\n答：新泽西州马哈瓦克罗克住所。\n问：我们能缩小一下吗，谢谢。您能把左边的整个面板放大吗。中间红色的字写着什么？\n答：太太的衣帽间。\n问：你知道那位太太是谁吗？\n答：不知道。\nFINKEL 先生：没有其他问题了。\n交叉询问\n由 SCHIRICK 先生进行：\n问：下午好，Johnson 先生。就几个问题。关于刚才让您宣读的位于新泽西州马哈瓦的建筑，您了解任何情况吗？\n答：不了解。\n问：您对一家名为 Promemoria 的公司了解任何情况吗？\n答：我不了解。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - 交叉询问\n问：您对一座名为 Crocker mansion（克罗克庄园）的建筑了解任何情况吗？\n答：不了解。\n问：您对与该处房产相关的翻新项目了解任何情况吗？\n答：不了解。\n问：关于该处房产被作何用途，您有任何信息或知情吗？\n答：没有。\n问：关于是谁在使用它，您有任何知情或信息吗？\n答：没有。\n问：在您对此一无所知的情况下，您知道 Finkel 先生为什么让您宣读所有那些文件吗？\n答：不知道。\n问：现在，您在直接询问中作证陈述了 SEC 的职责使命，对吗？\n答：对。\n问：并且我想您说过，SEC 调查的内容包括证券欺诈等，是这样吗？\n答：是的。\n问：那么，SEC 是否也会调查与欺诈完全无关的证券法潜在问题，这不是事实吗？\n答：是的。\n问：如果我们能调出 GX Stip 19。您记得 Finkel 先生刚才几分钟前向您宣读过这份事实承认协议（stipulation）吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - 交叉询问\n刚才几分钟前？\n答：记得。\n问：据您的理解，这是辩方与政府方就某些事实达成的一致承认和协议；这样说公允吗？\n答：公允。\n问：如果我们能看第 5 段。这里写着，作为与 SEC 达成的同意和解（consent settlement）的一部分，Johnson 先生，您熟悉同意和解吗？\n答：不是特别熟悉。\n问：明白了。作为与 SEC 达成的同意和解的一部分，Saraca（萨拉卡）、GTV 以及 VOG 对 SEC 的民事行政指控既未承认也未否认。该和解协议涉及关于未经注册的证券发行的指控，并未指控萨拉卡、GTV 或 VOG 存在任何欺诈行为。该和解协议不包含任何关于刑事犯罪行为的指控或结论。我读得准确吗？\n答：准确。\nSCHIRICK 先生：谢谢。没有其他问题了。\nFINKEL 先生：没有其他问题。\n法庭：您可以退庭了，政府方可以传唤下一位证人。\n（证人退庭）\nMURRAY 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。政府方传唤 Paul Hinton（保罗·欣顿）。法官阁下，我们了解到 Kamaraju 先生\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6PBGUO5 Johnson - 盘问\n1 将由他人负责下一位证人，我们已与\n2 辩方进行了讨论，并请求在下一位证人出庭之前\n3 进行大约五到十分钟的休庭。\n4 法庭：好的。\n5 默里女士（MS. MURRAY）：仅为了记录在案，需要讨论一项\n6 与欣顿先生（Mr. Hinton）的证词相关的约定事项。\n7 法庭：所以你们是请求此时休庭？\n8 默里女士：不是今日休庭。\n9 法庭：不是今日休庭。此时休庭\n10 十分钟。\n11 默里女士：是的，谢谢您。\n12 法庭：陪审团成员们，我们将\n13 休庭十分钟。请记住，不得\n14 相互讨论本案。不要\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 （休庭）\n2 法庭：请将陪审员们带进来。\n3 （陪审团到庭）\n4 法庭：请就座。\n5 你们可以再次传唤你们的证人。\n6 默里女士：谢谢法官阁下。政府方\n7 传唤保罗·欣顿（Paul Hinton）。\n8 （证人宣誓）\n9 法庭：请说出您的姓名并拼写出来，请\n10 对着麦克风讲话。\n11 证人：保罗·欣顿（Paul Hinton）。P-A-U-L，H-I-N-T-O-N。\n12 法庭：好的。先生，您的声音必须\n13 比刚才更大一些。我需要您大声说话。\n14 证人：好的。\n15 法庭：很好。请继续。\n16 默里女士：谢谢法官阁下。\n17 保罗·欣顿（PAUL HINTON），\n18 由政府方传唤作证，\n19 经正式宣誓后，作证如下：\n20 直接主问\n21 由默里女士进行：\n22 问：下午好，欣顿先生。\n23 答：下午好。\n24 问：如果您能把麦克风直接拉到\n25 您的正前方，那会有所帮助。这里的音响效果不太好。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 能否请您描述一下您的教育背景。\n2 答：我拥有英国牛津大学（Oxford University）的\n3 学士学位，以及哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院（Harvard Kennedy School of Government）的\n4 硕士学位。\n5 问：您的学士学位是什么专业方向？\n6 答：是工程科学学位。\n7 问：那么您的硕士学位的专业方向是什么？\n8 答：是公共政策学位，涵盖统计学、\n9 经济学和金融学。\n10 问：您目前受雇工作吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：您在哪里工作？\n13 答：我在百诺咨询集团（Brattle Group）工作。\n14 问：什么是百诺咨询集团？\n15 答：百诺咨询集团是一家经济咨询公司，\n16 在诉讼和仲裁等一系列场合\n17 提供专家证人证词。\n18 问：您在百诺咨询集团工作多久了？\n19 答：超过十年。\n20 问：欣顿先生，如果我将百诺咨询集团简称为“百诺（Brattle）”，\n21 您能明白我指的是什么吗？\n22 答：明白。\n23 问：在加入百诺之前您在哪里工作？\n24 答：在加入百诺之前，我在另一家类似的经济\n25 咨询公司工作了18年。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 问：您在百诺的头衔是什么？\n2 答：我是一名董事（principal）。\n3 问：作为百诺的董事，您一般的职责和责任是什么？\n4 答：嗯，除了员工的专业发展之外，我\n5 领导一些项目，在这些项目中，我本人要么是出庭\n6 作证的专家，要么是为另一位出庭\n7 作证的专家提供支持。\n8\n9 问：在百诺的工作过程中，您本人是否进行财务分析？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：您过去是否曾在财务案件中出庭作证？\n12 答：作证过。\n13 问：该等作证是否既代表辩方，也代表\n14 原告方或政府方？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：该等证词是否包括专家证人证词和总结性\n17 证人证词？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：欣顿先生，政府方是否有与百诺\n20 就本案进行联系的时候？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：大约是在什么时候？\n23 答：大约是在——去年的三月或夏季左右。\n24 问：如果政府方有提出要求的话，政府方要求百诺就本案\n25 做些什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1\n2 答：当时他们表示，他们预计会有大量的\n3 财务记录，希望我们予以审查和\n4 汇总。\n5 问：政府方实际上是否聘请了百诺为本案\n6 提供诉讼支持服务？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：百诺大约是在什么时间段内为本案\n9 提供这些服务的？\n10 答：嗯，我们是去年夏天正式开始的，但\n11 从今年年初开始工作更为密集。\n12 问：百诺是否根据一份与其在本案中工作相关的\n13 合同受聘于政府方？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：百诺就其在本案中的工作已经开具账单或将获得支付的\n16 大致金额是多少？\n17 答：大约200万美元。\n18 问：这是否包括在您今天作证之前\n19 所进行的分析工作？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：这是否也包括您今天在此作证的费用账单？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：欣顿先生，政府方在本案中聘请百诺开展项目的\n24 工作范围是什么？\n25 答：嗯，最初在合同中，是——当时考虑了\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 几个工作流，包括查看\n2 来自设备的数据，以及正如我所说的，审查银行记录，\n3 等等。\n4 问：依次重点来看百诺所做的一些工作，\n5 政府方在本案中是否有向百诺提供某些\n6 协议和公司文件的时候？\n7 答：有的。\n8 问：一般而言，那些是何种类型的协议或文件？\n9 答：它们是一系列不同类型的文件。其中许多\n10 是服务合同；其他则是显示\n11 贷款协议或投资金额的文件。\n12 问：除了那些公司协议或文件之外，政府方\n13 在本案中是否还向百诺提供了其他类型的记录或\n14 证物？\n15 答：是的，银行记录。\n16 问：政府方在本案中向百诺提供的银行记录\n17 大致数量是多少？\n18 答：嗯，有数以千计的——以PDF和Excel文件形式存在的\n19 文件，代表着超过200,000笔交易。\n20 问：如果有的话，政府方聘请百诺针对\n21 那些银行记录做些什么？\n22 答：嗯，最初只是识别证据开示（production）中\n23 都有哪些文件、它们涉及哪些实体\n24 以及哪些银行账户。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 默里女士：洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），能否请我们为证人\n2 调出已被标记为供辨认的\n3 政府方证物Z27。\n4 问：欣顿先生，您认得这份证物吗？\n5 答：认得。\n6 问：您在作证之前是否审查过它？\n7 答：审查过。\n8 默里女士：法官阁下，政府方提呈\n9 政府方证物Z27。\n10 卡马拉朱先生（MR. KAMARAJU）：无异议，法官阁下。\n11 法庭：予以采纳。\n12 （政府方证物Z27被采纳为证据）\n13 默里女士：请向法庭展示。\n14 由默里女士继续主问：\n15 问：欣顿先生，您能否向陪审团说明政府方证物Z27本页上\n16 反映了什么信息，因为这涉及\n17 百诺在本案中针对银行记录所做的工作。\n18 答：可以。这只是汇总了我们识别出的\n19 材料数量，以及随后我们为了提取信息\n20 而处理的那些记录的子集。\n21 问：当您在第一列提到“已处理账户（Processed Accounts）”时，\n22 涉及百诺所做的工作，那是什么意思？\n23 答：嗯，所谓已处理，我的意思是，我们必须获取包含财务交易的\n24 各种银行文件中的每一份，并\n25 从中提取相关的交易明细，将它们\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 录入Excel电子表格中。\n2 问：看一下这里的最后一行，欣顿先生，“银行数量（Number of Banks）”，\n3 政府方在本案中提供的记录大约来自\n4 多少家不同的银行？\n5 答：嗯，在发送给我们的全部开示文件中，\n6 我们识别出了72家不同的银行。\n7 问：对于这72家银行，来自这些银行的记录，\n8 您能否向陪审团描述一下银行记录的格式\n9 是否存在差异，若有，是如何不同的。\n10 答：嗯，有一些——是的，有些银行记录只是\n11 普通的银行对账单，与任何个人\n12 会从其银行收到的那种银行对账单非常相似，\n13 那些是对账单PDF，它们顶部通常有月度活动的\n14 汇总，然后显示所有的\n15 交易和余额。但也有很多其他\n16 类型的文件。另一种常见的格式是所谓的电汇交易（wire transactions）记录，\n17 这些是银行之间发生的\n18 交易，那些记录可以采用\n19 详细对账单PDF的形式，但它们\n20 也可以采用电子表格的形式，其中有\n21 许多列数据描述了每笔\n22 电汇的不同特征。在某些对账单中，\n23 还有支票图像，也就是已结清支票（canceled checks），或者是支票\n24 经银行处理并接收后的图像。并且\n25 还有其他各类杂项银行记录。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1\n2 问：再次看第一列“已处理账户”，百诺在\n3 本案的工作过程中大约处理了多少份\n4 银行文件档案？\n5 答：超过2,000份。具体是2,173份。\n6 问：看那里的下一项，“实体数量（Number of Entities）”，\n7 那些银行记录是以大约多少个\n8 不同的实体或个人的名义开设的？\n9 答：嗯，我们为其处理银行记录的\n10 实体大约有100个——具体是119个不同的实体。\n11 问：对于已处理账户，那119个实体\n12 代表了多少个银行账户？\n13 答：这219个[原文如此]实体对应有450个银行账户。\n14 默里女士：洛夫特斯女士，请翻到下一页\n15 幻灯片。\n16 问：欣顿先生，首先，您能否向陪审团说明，\n17 本幻灯片上反映的类别是由谁提供的。\n18 答：政府方。\n19 问：政府方是否通知或指示百诺应将哪些实体\n20 归入这些类别中的每一个？\n21 答：是的，他们指示了。\n22 问：那是政府方做出的决定；\n23 是这样吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：那么看这里，这是“已识别账户（Identified Accounts）”。您能否\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接主问\n1 解释一下“已识别账户”与\n2 “已处理账户”之间的区别。\n3 答：可以。最初我们收到了大量的\n4 文件，我们必须识别那些文件是什么、\n5 其中列名了哪些实体、哪些银行，以及其中哪些\n6 确实是包含财务交易信息的\n7 文件，所以那是识别阶段，\n8 随后政府方指明了他们希望我们处理\n9 那些已识别银行记录中的哪些记录。\n10 问：横向看这张幻灯片，首先，关于\n11 “法治（Rule of Law）”这一类别，您对何为“法治”\n12 是否有任何独立的了解？\n13 答：没有。\n14 问：“法治”项下有多少个已识别账户？\n15 答：20个。\n16 问：看下一项，“GTV/VOG”，您对何为GTV\n17 是否有任何独立的了解？\n18 答：没有。\n19 问：或者VOG？\n20 答：没有。\n21 问：归入政府方GTV或VOG类别的\n22 已识别银行账户有多少个？\n23 答：我们识别出了49个。\n24 问：然后是“农场（Farms）”，除了该词的\n25 通常理解之外，您是否知晓在本案语境下“农场”指什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton（欣顿） - Direct（主问讯）\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：政府是否提供了该类别，并指明了哪些实体或个人属于该类别？\n\n答：提供了。\n\n问：在 Farms（农场）类别下，有多少个已识别的银行账户？\n\n答：85个。\n\n问：现在看 G|CLUBS 和 Crane（克莱恩），首先，您对 G|CLUBS 有任何独立了解吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您对 Crane 是什么有任何独立了解吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：有多少个已识别的银行账户属于政府划定的 G|CLUBS 或 Crane 类别？\n\n答：82个。\n\n问：最后，欣顿先生，Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），您知道喜马拉雅交易所是什么吗？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：有多少个已识别的银行账户属于该类别？\n\n答：27个。\n\n默里检察官（MS. MURRAY）：Loftus（洛夫图斯）女士，请放下一张幻灯片。\n实际上，请先退回上一张。\n\n问：欣顿先生，您能否解释一下 Brattle（布拉特尔咨询公司）从政府提供的银行记录中提取数据的过程？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n1 提取政府提供的银行记录中的数据。\n\n答：当然可以。嗯，有两个不同的处理过程——一个是针对已经是电子表格形式的数据，另一个不同的过程是针对以 PDF 格式提供的文件，因此必须对 PDF 进行 OCR 处理，也就是运行光学字符识别，以便从这些文件中复制信息字段，然后使用计算机程序提取这些信息字段并将它们放入电子表格中。因此，在那个阶段我们拥有了两——我们以电子表格形式拥有了所有记录，然后我们只需要整理每个账户的信息字段，使它们在所有银行和所有账户之间以一致的方式进行格式化。\n\n默里检察官：洛夫图斯女士，请撤下这份文件，并请仅向证人出示 Government Exhibit Z28（政府物证 Z28）。\n\n问：欣顿先生，您认得物证 Z28 吗？\n\n答：认得。\n\n问：从宏观层面来看，它反映了什么信息？\n\n答：它在左侧列出了所有银行，然后在各列中，统计了我们识别出的与先前图表上各个类别相关联的不同银行账户的数量。我认为在这个特定图表上还有另外几个类别，但这里的要点是它记——它记录了我们识别出的、被归入政府提供给我们的所有类别中的所有银行账户的明细或构成。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n1 记录了我们识别出的、被分类到政府提供给我们的所有类别中的所有银行账户的明细或构成。\n\n问：欣顿先生，在您今天作证之前，您是否审阅了政府物证 Z28？\n\n答：审阅了。\n\n问：您是否确认此汇总图表中包含的信息是准确的？\n\n答：确认了。\n\n默里检察官：法官阁下，政府提请采纳 Z28。\n\nKAMARAJU（卡马拉朱）律师：无异议。\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：予以采纳。\n\n（政府物证 Z28 被采纳为证据）\n\n默里检察官：请向陪审团展示。\n\n问：好的。欣顿先生，现在陪审团可以看到它了——字体有点小。我们将放大各个部分。\n\n默里检察官：首先，洛夫图斯女士，请放大顶部区域，包含前几行以及所有的列标题。\n\n问：欣顿先生，纵观这份文件，前几列反映了我们刚才在上一张幻灯片上看到的类别；对吗？\n\n答：是的，对的。\n\n问：这些是政府定义并提供给 Brattle 的类别吗？\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：看标题为 ACA Capital（ACA资本）、Hamilton（汉密尔顿）（William Je（余建明））那一列，总的来说，政府对该类别定义了什么信息？\n\n答：它确定了应归入该类别的具体实体，其中包括 ACA Capital 和 Hamilton 等实体。\n\n问：您个人认识余建明是谁吗？\n\n答：不认识。\n\n问：您对 ACA Capital 或 Hamilton 有任何独立的了解吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：看下一列，标有带星号的 Family Members（家族成员）。您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：最后一列是带两个星号的 Family Offices（家族办公室）。您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n默里检察官：洛夫图斯女士，请缩小画面并转到该页底部。然后放大左下角部分。\n\n问：欣顿先生，就本汇总图表而言，政府的 Family（家族）类别是如何定义的？\n\n答：它被定义为包括 Mei Guo（郭美）、Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（余建明）和 Sing Ting Rong（容星廷）的所有账户。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n问：欣顿先生，您认识这些人中的任何一位吗——郭美、郭强、余建明或容星廷？\n\n答：不认识。\n\n问：然后是政府提供的 Family Offices（家族办公室）类别，欣顿先生，该类别被定义为包含哪些实体？\n\n答：政府告知我们要包含 Lamp Capital（灯塔资本）、Golden Spring（金泉）、Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）、Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）和 Greenwich Land（格林威治土地）这些实体。\n\n问：关于这些实体也是同样的问题。您对这些实体有任何了解或认知吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n默里检察官：好的。洛夫图斯女士，请再次缩小画面。如果可以的话，请大致放大图表的上半部分。\n\n问：欣顿先生，我想在这里举几个例子。例如看第二行的 Bank of America（美国银行），如果您能为陪审团横向朗读一下识别出的账户数量以及这些账户所属的相关类别。\n\n答：好的。我们识别出了美国银行账户的银行账户记录。对于 Rule of Law（法治），有4个；在 Farms（农场）类别中，有11个；在 GTV/VOG 类别中，有4个；家族成员有8个；总计为27个。\n\n问：再看另一个例子，让我们看一下 JPMC 即\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n1 JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通），并横向朗读在有账户的各个类别中所识别出的银行账户。\n\n答：好的。对于摩根大通，有25个农场账户；10个 GTV/VOG 账户；5个 G|CLUBS/Crane 账户；以及5个家族办公室账户；总共45个不同的账户。\n\n默里检察官：洛夫图斯女士，请缩小画面。\n现在请放大底部区域，一直到末尾。\n\n问：欣顿先生，再举最后一个例子，Silvergate Bank（银门银行），请横向朗读那一行。\n\n默里检察官：洛夫图斯女士，也许可以为欣顿先生向上滚动一下，以便他能看清是哪一列。\n\n问：在银门银行，属于哪个类别的已识别账户有27个？\n\n答：是 ACA Capital, Hamilton 这一列有27个银门银行账户。\n\n问：欣顿先生，看这里的总计，本图表所反映的这些不同类别已识别账户的总数是多少？\n\n答：422个不同的账户。\n\n默里检察官：谢谢您，洛夫图斯女士。我们可以撤下该图表了。\n法官阁下，此时政府希望根据双方当事人之间的约定事项提请采纳若干物证。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n1 根据双方当事人之间的约定事项提请采纳若干物证。\n\n首先，洛夫图斯女士，请调出 Stip 8（约定事项 8），该事项已被采纳并作为证据记录在案。\n\n根据约定事项 8，政府提请采纳以下物证，这些物证反映在 B 栏的部分内容中：\n政府物证 GX BR300至GX BR356；\nGX 3200至GX 3202；GX 3210至GX 3213；GX 3214；GX 3204至GX 3207；\nGX BR900至GX BR931；GX2001至GX 2717；以及 GX BR1001至GX BR1031。\n政府根据本约定事项提请采纳这些物证。\n\n卡马拉朱律师：无异议。\n\n法庭：予以采纳。\n\n（政府物证 BR300-BR356；3200-3202；3210-3213；3214；3204-3207；BR900-BR931；2001-2717；BR1001-BR1031 被采纳为证据）\n\n默里检察官：好的。洛夫图斯女士，请调出 GX Stip 14。同样，这是双方当事人之间已获采纳的约定事项。\n\n法官阁下，为了节省时间和大家的注意力，我仅提及本约定事项中引用的政府物证，并根据该约定事项提请采纳它们。本约定事项表明，双方当事人一致同意 B 栏中列出的政府物证系政府依法获取，属于 A 栏中列出实体的真实记录，系由知情人在相关时间或其前后制作、或由知情人传递信息制作，系在常规业务过程中保存，且制作此类记录属于该实体的常规业务做法。政府\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n1 制作记录的时间或其前后由知情人制作或由知情人传递信息，记录是在常规业务过程中保存的，且制作这些记录是该实体的常规做法。B 栏中列出的政府物证是来自作为提供方的各家银行的银行记录。根据本约定事项，政府提请采纳 B 栏中列出的所有政府物证。\n\n法庭：予以采纳。\n\n（约定事项 14 中 B 栏的政府物证被采纳为证据）\n\n默里检察官：最后，法官阁下，政府此时提请采纳 Government Exhibit Stip 22（政府物证约定事项 22）。\n\n法庭：予以采纳。\n\n（政府物证约定事项 22 被采纳为证据）\n\n默里检察官：根据政府物证约定事项 22，政府提请采纳以下补充银行记录。\n\n政府物证约定事项 22 是双方当事人之间的一项约定，同意 B 栏中引用的政府物证是 A 栏中列出的各实体（即作为提供方的各家银行）在正常业务过程中保存的记录。根据政府物证约定事项 22，政府提请采纳约定事项 22 中 B 栏引用的所有政府物证。\n\n法庭：予以采纳。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - Direct\n\n（约定事项 22 中 B 栏的政府物证被采纳为证据）\n\n默里检察官：谢谢。我们可以撤下该文件了，洛夫图斯女士。\n现在请回到 GX Z27。\n请翻到第3张幻灯片。\n\n默里检察官继续发问：\n\n问：欣顿先生，您能否向陪审团说明这份汇总图表反映了什么内容。\n\n答：该图表列出了被归类为家族办公室实体的实体名称，以及每个实体经处理的银行账户数量。\n\n问：明确一下，经处理的银行账户，是否确为 Brattle 从中提取数据的账户——\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：——银行记录？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。我们可以看——实际上，让我们看一下这个。\nLamp Capital, LLC 有多少个经处理的银行账户？\n\n答：25个。\n\n问：Greenwich Land, LLC 呢？\n\n答：3个。\n\n问：因此，属于该类别的这5个家族办公室实体总共有\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 政府分类中，有多少个经过处理的银行账户？\n2\n3 答：52个。\n4 默里（Murray）检察官：请切换到下一张幻灯片，\n5 洛夫特斯（Loftus）女士。\n6 如果可以的话，往上滚动一点。\n7 放大一些，以便我们能看到完整的汇总图表。\n8 问：Hinton（欣顿）先生，概括而言，这张幻灯片上\n9 反映了什么信息？\n10 答：这是一张类似的图表，列出了分类在\n11 农场（Farm）组中的各个实体所有经过处理的\n12 账户。\n13 问：那些分类是政府提供的；对吗？\n14\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：这张汇总图表是否仅列出了此处列出的\n17 农场实体的已处理账户，对吗？\n18 答：是的，仅包含我们提取了数据的那些。\n19 默里检察官：请往下滚动一点，\n20 洛夫特斯女士。\n21 问：对于 Brattle 提取了数据的那些农场账户，\n22 一共有多少个账户？\n23 答：55个。\n24 问：看这里的第四行，那个农场实体的\n25 名称是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 答：Maywind Trading, LLC（美风贸易有限责任公司）。\n2 默里检察官：可以撤下那张了，洛夫特斯女士。\n3 问：那么，欣顿先生，您提到除了银行账户\n4 之外，Brattle 还从政府收到了贷款协议和\n5 其他文件；对吗？\n6 答：对。\n7 问：政府是否要求 Brattle 对其中部分协议进行\n8 某项分析？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：那是否包括对 Maywind Trading, LLC\n11 贷款协议的汇总分析？\n12 答：是的。\n13 默里检察官：洛夫特斯女士，请出示\n14 政府物证 Z29，暂时只给证人看。\n15 问：欣顿先生，您认得 Z29 吗？\n16 答：认得。\n17 问：总体而言，这是什么？\n18 答：这是我们为 Maywind Trading, LLC 查明的所有\n19 贷款协议长清单的第一页，该公司曾是——此处标记为\n20 凤凰农场（Phoenix Farm）。\n21 问：在您今天作证之前，您是否审阅了该物证？\n22\n23 答：审阅了。\n24 问：Z29 中的信息准确吗？\n25 答：准确。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 默里检察官：法官阁下，政府提请采纳\n2 政府物证 Z29。\n3 卡马拉朱（Kamaraju）律师：无异议。\n4 法庭：准予采纳。\n5 （政府物证 Z29 被采纳为证据）\n6 默里检察官：洛夫特斯女士，请向陪审团公开展示。\n7 默里检察官继续询问：\n8 问：欣顿先生，既然陪审团现在能看到了，请您读一下\n9 该物证的标题。\n10 答：上面写着 Phoenix Farm，括号里写着 Maywind\n11 Trading LLC, Loan Agreements（贷款协议）。\n12 问：欣顿先生，您知道凤凰农场是什么吗？\n13 答：我不知道。\n14 问：现在看该物证中包含的这张汇总图表，\n15 最右侧的一列，在标题为 GX 的列下方\n16 反映了什么信息？\n17 答：那些是与各份贷款协议相对应的\n18 所有政府物证编号。\n19 默里检察官：洛夫特斯女士，在看表格之前，\n20 能否聚焦在顶部区域。\n21 问：欣顿先生，在政府提供的材料中，Brattle 一共查明了\n22 多少份 Maywind Trading, LLC 或凤凰农场的\n23 贷款协议？\n24 答：我们查明了 686 份不同的贷款协议。\n25 问：Brattle 是否评估或分析了那些贷款协议，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 以确定它们是否已签署？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：在那 686 份贷款协议中，有多少份由借款人\n4 即凤凰农场（Maywind Trading LLC）签署？\n5 答：没有任何一份有借款人的签名。\n6 问：在那 686 份贷款协议中，有多少份由出借人\n7 即作为这些协议交易对手的个人\n8 签署？\n9 答：全部都签署了。\n10 默里检察官：好的。请把那个缩小一点。\n11\n12 如果可以的话，我只想看一两个例子。\n13\n14 洛夫特斯女士，请往下翻到——谢谢。\n15 实际上，再往下翻一页。\n16 然后——太好了。\n17 问：看 2020年12月3日 的其中一项记录，\n18 欣顿先生，您是否看到在这张汇总图表上金额列为\n19 “不适用（Not Applicable）”？\n20 答：确实有一些记录显示为 NA（不适用），是的。\n21 默里检察官：洛夫特斯女士，请转到该原始物证。\n22\n23 这是 2020年12月3日 的记录。即已采纳为证据的\n24 政府物证 2502。\n25 洛夫特斯女士，请聚焦在顶端部分。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 问：欣顿先生，这份贷款协议上列明的借款人\n2 是谁？\n3 答：写着 Phoenix Farm，括号里写着 Maywind\n4 Trading, LLC。\n5 问：列出的出借人是谁？\n6 答：列出的出借人是 Cai Yanting。请原谅我的\n7 发音。\n8 问：有一个栏目叫作“出借人凤凰农场代码（Lender's Phoenix Farm Code）”。\n9 您看到了吗？\n10 答：看到了。\n11 问：那里反映了什么信息？\n12 答：只是一个字母数字代码。\n13 问：请您读一下。\n14 答：FH1-1560。\n15 问：这份贷款协议是有日期的。日期是什么？\n16 答：日期是 2020年12月3日。\n17 问：在第 1 条“条款（Terms）”下，您能读一下 (a)“款项用途（Use of Proceeds）”吗？\n18 答：上面写着：“根据本协议预付的贷款收益\n19 用于借款人的一般营运资金用途。”\n20 问：看 (b) 项“贷款金额（Loan Amount）”，本协议上\n21 反映的贷款金额是多少？\n22 答：嗯，句子里有一小处空白，\n23 在这份具体协议中是空着的。\n24 问：此处 1(c) 项下反映的利率是多少？\n25 答：年利率 3%。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 问：何时支付？\n2 答：在最终到期日全额支付。\n3 问：然后 (d) 项“最终到期日（Final Maturity Date）”，上面反映了什么？\n4 答：“最终到期日为生效日后 36 个月。”\n5\n6 默里检察官：洛夫特斯女士，请将此页面缩小。\n7\n8 我们往下翻几页。\n9 问：欣顿先生，底部有签名缩写。您看到了吗？\n10 噢。\n11 答：我看到每页底部都打印了——打印了三个字母，\n12 看起来像是——嗯，它们——前两个字母与出借人的\n13 名和姓——名和姓相符。\n14\n15 默里检察官：好的。洛夫特斯女士，请继续翻过接下来的\n16 几页。\n17 问：欣顿先生，在这一页上，这份文件看起来\n18 是否已签署？\n19 答：是的，在协议的签名区域，有一些\n20 中文字符。\n21 问：那是本协议的哪一方签署的？\n22 答：是——是出借人 Cai Yanting 签署的。\n23 问：与凤凰农场（Maywind Trading, LLC）关联的\n24 签名线上是否有签名？\n25 答：没有。该横线处是空白的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 问：欣顿先生，尽管没有列出贷款金额，\n2 这份协议依然签署了；对吗？\n3 答：对。\n4 默里检察官：洛夫特斯女士，请回到\n5 政府物证 Z29。谢谢。\n6 请翻到最后一页。\n7 问：欣顿先生，对于这张汇总图表中所反映的 686 份\n8 凤凰农场贷款协议，与这些贷款协议相关的\n9 累计金额是多少？\n10 答：这些协议的贷款金额总和为\n11 $23,158,757。\n12 默里检察官：谢谢，洛夫特斯女士。我们现在可以撤下\n13 该图表了。\n14 问：欣顿先生，自政府就本案聘请 Brattle 以来，\n15 政府是否曾就其所要求的分析向 Brattle\n16 提供指导？\n17 答：是的，提供过。\n18 问：那是否包括通过电话和会议讨论 Brattle 的\n19 调查发现，并例如提供信息分类以便 Brattle\n20 对某些记录进行定性归类？\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：政府是否就 Brattle 的分析和发现向其\n23 提供修改意见或其他反馈？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：Brattle 的工作成果，包括我们今天目前看过的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 物证，是否反映了政府的某些\n2 反馈和指示？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：那么，欣顿先生，除了您一直在描述的 Brattle 在本案中\n5 执行的分析、您今天的证词以及您为该证词所作的\n6 准备之外，您是否还参与了\n7 本案的其他工作？\n8 答：参与了。\n9 问：除了您描述的分析、您今天的证词以及您为\n10 该证词所作的准备之外，您在本案中的\n11 参与程度如何？\n12 答：您能重复一下这个问题吗？\n13 问：好的。除了 Brattle 进行的分析、您今天的证词以及\n14 您为证词所作的准备之外，您在本案中还参与了\n15 什么？\n16 答：嗯，那是——那些是我工作的主要部分——那些是\n17 我工作的——组成部分。我进行了——我监督了\n18 员工执行分析，我进行了作证准备，而且\n19 我今天正在出庭作证。这就是我们受聘的\n20 工作范围。\n21 问：欣顿先生，您是审阅了政府在本案中收集的\n22 全部证据，还是仅审阅了政府提供给\n23 Brattle 的记录和物证？\n24\n25 答：仅审阅了提供给 Brattle 的文件。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n1 问：在确定政府向 Brattle 提供哪些物证或\n2 记录方面，Brattle 是否参与了任何决定？\n3 答：没有。\n4 问：您提到了从政府提供的银行记录中提取\n5 数据的过程。如果有的话，Brattle 是如何对提取的数据\n6 进行编目或分类的？\n7 答：嗯，我们使用了之前讨论过的——类别——分类方法，\n8 不仅识别银行账户，还根据涉及哪些实体\n9 及其处于何种类别来识别各个\n10 交易，然后正如我之前提到的，我们——我们从\n11 每个不同来源提取交易数据，并将它们组织整理进一个\n12 单一数据库中，以便可以集中进行查看。\n13\n14 问：如果有的话，您在包含已提取银行记录\n15 数据的该数据库方面承担了什么职责？\n16\n17 答：嗯，我设计了数据库结构，并在此过程中全程\n18 监督和指导了数据录入工作。\n19 问：概括而言，您能向陪审团描述一下该数据库\n20 是如何运作的吗？\n21 答：嗯，相比于直接保存在电子表格中，这实际上——这是一种\n22 组织整理数百份不同银行账户记录和成套记录\n23 的更安全的方式，因此它使我们能够将\n24 所有不同银行的交易记录以相同的格式组织起来，\n25 并且还能记录下政府所提供的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n政府向我们提供的数据，并将其与每一笔交易以及告知我们其来源文件的参考编号关联起来。\n问：当您说反映文件的参考编号时，这些文件是否与本案中已标明的政府物证相关联？\n答：是的，这意味着数据库中超过200,000笔的每一笔交易，都可以追溯回一份源文件，即本案中具有GX编号的物证。\n问：Hinton（欣顿）先生，在准备您今天的证词时，您是否审查并核实了我们迄今为止看过的各份汇总图表的准确性？\n答：我核实了。\n问：您是否部分通过查阅Brattle（布拉托集团）维护的银行记录数据库来完成这一工作的？\n答：是的。事实上，每张图表上所体现的单笔交易都是从该数据库中提取的，然后我能够确定这些数据来自哪份政府物证，并查看底层源文件以核对数据。\nMURRAY（默里）检察官：Loftus（洛夫特斯）女士，能否请我们展示已被标记为待确认的政府物证Z26。\n这仅供证人查看。\n如果我们能翻阅几页的话。\n问：Hinton先生，您认得Z26吗？\n答：我认得。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n问：您是否协助准备了政府物证Z26？\n答：是的。\n问：Z26是否包含Brattle就本案所审查的某些银行记录的汇总？\n答：是的，进行了审查和处理。\nMURRAY检察官：Loftus女士，请翻到最后一页。\n问：看这篇演示文稿的最后一页，这是否反映了支持Z26所含数据的作为源文件的政府物证？\n答：是的。\n问：Hinton先生，您是否审查了Z26中的信息以及此幻灯片上引用的源文件？\n答：我审查了。\n问：您是否确认该信息准确无误？\n答：我确认了。\nMURRAY检察官：法官阁下，政府方提请采纳政府物证Z26。\nKAMARAJU（卡马拉朱）律师：无异议。\n法庭：予以采纳。\n（政府物证Z26被采纳为证据）\nMURRAY检察官：Loftus女士，请翻到第一张幻灯片，并向陪审团出示。\n由MURRAY检察官继续询问：\n问：Hinton先生，政府物证Z26的标题是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n答：银行记录汇总。\n问：很好。\nMURRAY检察官：请翻到下一张幻灯片。\n问：Hinton先生，这张图表大体上反映了什么信息？\n答：嗯，这是对数据库中所有交易价值进行汇总的结果，也就是我们根据政府给出的GTV、Farms（农场）、G|CLUBS和Himalaya（喜马拉雅）等类别所处理和分类的所有交易。\n问：Hinton先生，此图表顶部写着“资金来源”。政府是否就如何以及是否将某些交易归类为“资金来源”向Brattle提供了指示？\n答：提供了。\n问：例如针对G|CLUBS，政府就应将何种类型的交易标记或归类为流入G|CLUBS的“资金来源”，向Brattle提供了哪些指示？\n答：这些是来自个人的交易，不是来自实体的，且仅限那些未以某种方式与图表上列出的任何实体存在关联的个人。\n问：如果有的话，关于应计入G|CLUBS资金来源的交易金额，政府对Brattle作出了何种指示？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n答：对于某些账户，存在——我们观察到存在10,000、20,000、30,000、40,000和50,000的整数金额，政府指示我们，来自个人的上述金额（正负100美元以内）的任何交易，都应归类为——或者即使它们并非来自已明确身份的个人，这些金额也应归类为资金来源。\n问：政府是否向您解释过为何指示Brattle将这些金额的交易标记为G|CLUBS的资金来源？\n答：没有。\n问：对于政府为何作出该指示，您是否有任何独立的理解？\n答：没有。\n问：如果有的话，出于本次汇总分析的目的，Brattle在偏离政府对“资金来源”的定义方面拥有多大的自由裁量权？\n答：我们没有任何自由裁量权。\n问：对照这里的金额，在这份汇总物证中，流入政府所设定的GTV或VOG类别的资金来源总金额是多少？\n答：4.11亿美元。\n问：农场呢？\n答：1.1亿美元。\n问：流入G|CLUBS的金额是多少？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n答：2.4亿美元。\n问：最后，流入Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的金额是多少？\n答：5.17亿美元。\n问：出于本次汇总的目的，此处反映的合计总额是多少？\n答：13亿美元。\nMURRAY检察官：Loftus女士，我们可以翻到下一张幻灯片。\n问：Hinton先生，看这张幻灯片的顶部，它的标题是什么？\n答：标题是“GTV/VOG：概述”。\n问：这是政府为Brattle定义的类别之一吗？\n答：是的。\n问：看这里的资金来源，在幻灯片底部大致列出了三个实体。您看到了吗？\n答：看到了。\n问：在这些实体下方，有括号，并有一些字母和数字。如果有的话，这反映了什么信息？\n答：这些数字和字母代表特定的银行账户。\n问：关于银行账户，这些字母反映了什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n答：这些数字——这些字母只是银行名称的首字母缩写或简称。比如BOA代表Bank of America（美国银行）。\n问：贯穿这些幻灯片针对不同银行账户列出的数字，是相关账号的哪一部分（如果有的话）？\n答：那些是银行账号的最后四位数字。\n问：看这张概述幻灯片，在2020年4月20日至2020年10月13日期间，已确定的资金来源中有多少款项流向了Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体传播有限公司）？\n答：7200万——7290万美元进入了本图表上的两个——美国银行和Wells Fargo（富国银行）的Voice of Guo Media账户。\n问：看中间部分，有多少款项进入了以Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团有限公司）名义开设的那两个JPMorgan（摩根大通）账户？\n答：2.869亿美元。\n问：看右侧，有多少款项进入了以GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团有限公司）名义开设的Capital One（第一资本）和摩根大通银行账户？\n答：2960万美元。\n问：这2960万美元是在多长的时间段内进入GTV Media Group, Inc.的银行账户的？\n答：在2020年5月11日至2020年6月12日期间，这些款项进入了那里显示的两个银行账户。\nMURRAY检察官：好的。Loftus女士，请翻到下一张幻灯片。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n问：Hinton先生，这张幻灯片的标题是什么？\n答：这张幻灯片的标题是“GTV/VOG：特定流向”。\n问：一般而言，从宏观层面看，这张汇总图表或汇总幻灯片反映了什么？\n答：它显示了特定时间段内特定银行账户之间资金流动的美元——累计美元金额。\n问：Hinton先生，是谁选定将哪些银行账户纳入此汇总流向幻灯片的？\n答：政府。\n问：我们可否看几个示例。\n看左上方从资金来源流向以Voice of Guo Media, Inc.名义开设的富国银行账户的第二个箭头，从资金来源流向该账户的美元金额是多少？\n答：4630万美元。\n问：然后再看该账户的下一个特定流向，以本票形式从该账户流出的1500万美元去了哪里？\n答：它从富国银行流向了Saraca Media Group在摩根大通的账户。\n问：从尾号为5601的摩根大通账户，我们接着看到一笔1.255亿美元的款项流向哪里？\n答：流向Saraca Media Group在摩根大通尾号为2038的账户。\n问：在什么时间段内？\n答：从6月3日到6月10日。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6 Hinton - 直接询问\n问：哪一年？\n答：2020年。\n问：接下来我们看看从Saraca Media Group, Inc.在摩根大通尾号为2038的账户流出的款项。\n首先，在左侧，我们在2020年6月5日看到正下方流出的是什么？\n答：在6月5日有一笔1亿美元的转账转至Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund（海曼香港机会基金）。\n问：Hinton先生，您知道Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund是什么吗？\n答：我不知道。\n问：好的。然后我们来看摩根大通2038账户的另一笔流出，在2020年6月9日流向右侧。我们看到那里列出的金额是多少？\n答：2020年6月9日的3800万美元。\n问：现在看这张幻灯片的正中央，Hinton先生，简要地，您能否梳理一下穿过幻灯片中央直接流向Saraca Media在摩根大通尾号为5601的账户、然后进一步流向GTV Media在Citibank（花旗银行）尾号为6691的账户的资金来源。\n答：可以。从2019年2月22日开始，在此后大约一年半的时间里，有2.759亿美元按既定定义的资金来源款项，进入了Saraca Media Group在摩根大通尾号为5601的账户。随后在2000年[原文如此]6月3日，有一笔2亿美元的转账从该Saraca\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6P1GUO6\nMedia Group账户转至GTV Media Group在Citigroup（花旗集团）尾号为6691的账户。\n问：Hinton先生，为了明确起见，从Saraca在摩根大通的账户向GTV在花旗的账户转账2亿美元的那笔6月3日的交易是哪一年？\n答：在2020年。\n问：我们能不能翻到下一张——实际上，请在这张幻灯片上停留片刻。\n看最右侧，Hinton先生，您看到最右下角方框里的名称了吗？有一个公司名称和一个PNC？\n答：看到了。\n问：那个名称是什么？\n答：Lawall & Mitchell。\n问：您知道Lawall & Mitchell是什么吗？\n答：我知道那是一家律师事务所。\n法庭：好的。我们得暂停了，因为现在是5点整。\n陪审团成员们，请勿相互讨论案情，也勿与任何其他人讨论。请勿允许任何人在你们面前讨论本案。请勿阅读、观看或收听来自任何渠道的与本次审判标的事项有关的任何内容。祝各位度过一个愉快的傍晚。\n（陪审团退庭）\n法庭：先生，您可以退庭了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n证人：好的。谢谢。\n法庭：不要讨论你的证言。\n证人：我不会讨论的。\n（证人退庭）\n法庭：请就座。\n在休庭前还有其他事项吗？\nKAMARAJU 律师（卡马拉朱）：辩方没有了，法官阁下。\nFINKEL 律师（芬克尔）：检方仅汇报一下日程更新。\n在 Hinton 先生（辛顿）之后，检方认为还剩两名证人。在这两名证人之后，检方想播放几个视频或出示几份陪审团尚未见过但已采纳为证据的文件，我只是想确认一下法庭是否同意我们在没有证人出庭作证的情况下进行这一环节？\n法庭：如果它们已作为证据采纳，那没问题。\nFINKEL 律师：好的。我们打算照此安排。\n仅供法庭和辩护律师知悉，在 Hinton 先生（其主询问大约还剩 30 至 45 分钟）之后，其余两名证人的主询问，一名可能刚过一小时，最后一名证人我们预计大约需要 90 分钟，具体取决于技术操作的速度。主要是手机提取数据、短信之类的内容。\n这就是检方案件审理目前的大致进展情况。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南区速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\n我只是想让法庭了解这一点。因此，假设反询问内容不多，我们预计明天完成举证。\n除此之外，法官阁下，如果没有其他疑问，检方只是想询问一下 7 月 8 日那一周的情况。据目前的理解，我们将在 7 月 2 日和 3 日进行全天审理；到了 7 月 8 日，如果进展速度如辩方所预测以及检方所期望的那样，我认为我们将进入陪审团结案陈词和评议阶段。法庭是否计划进行全天的——我知道对于评议，法官阁下说过会全天进行。对于陪审团评议也是如此吗？换句话说——抱歉。我道歉。我有点累了。7 月 8 日那一周也会是朝九晚五的全天工作周吗？\n法庭：因此对于终结辩论和评议，我们将进行全天审理。\nFINKEL 律师：好的。这很有帮助。谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：祝大家度过一个愉快的夜晚。\nKAMARAJU 律师：您也是，法官阁下。\nMURRAY 律师（默里）：谢谢法官阁下。\n（休庭至 2024 年 6 月 26 日上午 9:00）允许任何人在您面前讨论本案。不要阅读、观看或收听任何涉及本案主题的内容。\n法庭书记员：陪审团退庭。\n（休庭）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n询问索引\n询问对象： 页码\nDOUGLAS SKALKA（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡）\nFergenson 律师（弗根森）进行主询问 . . . . . . . . . . .4075\nKamaraju 律师进行反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4092\nFergenson 律师进行再主询问 . . . . . . . . . .4148\nKamaraju 律师进行再反询问 . . . . . . . . . . .4163\nFergenson 律师进行再主询问 . . . . . . . . . .4165\nKamaraju 律师进行再反询问 . . . . . . . . . . .4165\nOWEN FOLEY（欧文·弗利）\nMurray 律师进行主询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .4166\nSchirick 律师（希里克）进行反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4184\nDANIEL COPELAND（丹尼尔·科普兰）\nMurray 律师进行主询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .4210\nShroff 律师（施罗夫）进行反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4236\nMurray 律师进行再主询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4255\nShroff 律师进行再反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4258\nSTEPHEN JOHNSON（斯蒂芬·约翰逊）\nFinkel 律师进行主询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .4265\nSchirick 律师进行反询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4297\nPAUL HINTON（保罗·辛顿）\nMurray 律师进行主询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .4301\n政府物证\n物证编号 采纳\n1628, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1634, 1636, . . . . .4169\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1637, 1639, 1643, 1644, 以及\n1646\nSM-11, SM-12, SM-17, SM-18, SM-19, . . . . .4272\nSM-21, SM-73, SM-96, SM-126,\nSM-127, SM-129, SM-130,\nSM-133, SM-147, SM-149,\nSM-151, SM-155, SM-156,\nSM-159, SM-170, SM-176,\nSM-178, SM-181, SM-210,\nSM-217, SM-218, SM-224,\nSM-226, SM-235, SM-252,\nSM-277, SM-283, SM-296 至\nSM-299\n[物证]*[采纳] . . . . . . . . . . . .4284\nBR300-BR356; 3200-3202; 3210-3213; . . . . .4316\n3214; 3204-3207; BR900-BR931;\n2001-2717; BR1001-BR1031\n协议事项 14 的 B 栏 . . . . . . . . . . . .4317\n协议事项 22 的 B 栏 . . . . . . . . . . . .4318\nZ-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4170\n政府物证协议事项 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4282\n协议事项 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4317\nZ26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4329\nZ27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4306\nZ28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4312\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nZ29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4321\n3450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4216\n被告物证\n物证编号 采纳\n7006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4155\n70777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4251\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":57050,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:51:04"}