{"id":"court_sdny_443_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":443,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2024-07-23","title":"SDNY ECF 443","summary_zh":"庭审记录——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF 443（2024年7月23日）。记录被告方试图引入受害人简历作为证据、政府检察官基于无关性和《犯罪受害人权利法》提出异议的庭审过程。","summary_en":"Trial transcript—United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF 443 (filed July 23, 2024). Record of trial proceedings where defense attempted to introduce victim's résumé as evidence and prosecutors objected on grounds of irrelevance and potential violation of Crime Victims' Rights Act.","body_en":"O6RBGUO1\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 27, 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\nO6RBGUO1\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\nO6RBGUO1\n1 (Trial resumed; jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: Note your appearances, please.\n3 MR. FINKEL: Ryan Finkel and Justin Horton for the\n4 government. We'll be joined by the rest of the team shortly.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Good morning, your Honor. On behalf of\n6 Mr. Guo, Sabrina Shroff and Scott Schirick. Mr. Kamaraju will\n7 be here shortly.\n8 THE COURT: Is there anything you'd like to bring up\n9 before we start?\n10 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, the government has a few\n11 issues. I think I'll start first with the victim who is on the\n12 stand right now. First, just at the outset, the direct of that\n13 victim was approximately an hour and ten minutes. I think the\n14 cross is so far been about 50 minutes just in terms of what is\n15 left for today. But to get to the heart of the issue, last\n16 night about 11:00 or so, the defense produced an exhibit to us\n17 marked DX7016. Can I provide a copy to the Court?\n18 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n19 MR. FINKEL: This appears to be the victim's résumé,\n20 and a link to a profile that she has online. There is a very\n21 superficial redaction of that profile. There are a number of\n22 reasons I can think about why such an exhibit is improper. The\n23 first is relevance. Maybe that's the simplest way to deal with\n24 it. I can't understand how a victim's résumé is in anyway\n25 relevant to whether or not she was defrauded by Miles Guo. To\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 the extent they're trying to show that she was an auditor or\n2 involved in risk management, those issues were covered, asked\n3 and answered many times yesterday, so that's number one.\n4 Number two, your Honor, is she is a victim, and I\n5 think that this résumé, especially in context of what other\n6 exhibits were introduced yesterday, and the line of questioning\n7 against this victim, which from the government's perspective is\n8 just designed to harass her, violates her rights under the\n9 Crime Victims Rights Act. And, your Honor, there are, of\n10 course, confrontation clause issues that arise when a victim\n11 takes the stand. But citing United States v. Bannister, this\n12 is 2023 WL 2596890. It's a Judge Engelmayer opinion. The\n13 Crime Victim Rights Act requires district courts to implement\n14 procedures to ensure that crime victims are accorded among\n15 other rights the right to be reasonably protected from the\n16 accused, and the right to be treated with fairness and with\n17 respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.\n18 Judge Engelmayer goes onto explain that \"While the\n19 confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees\n20 defendants the right to confront government witnesses\n21 testifying against them, it is not absolute.\" Citing a Supreme\n22 Court case California V. Green. A defendant's rights under the\n23 confrontation clause must yield to accommodate other legitimate\n24 interest, citing a Second Circuit case and a Supreme court\n25 case. For instance, trial courts have \"wide latitude to impose\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 reasonable limits on cross examination based on concerns about,\n2 among other things, harassment, prejudice or witness's safety,\n3 quoting a Second Circuit case, and quoting Federal Rule of\n4 Evidence 611(b). If the government, according to Judge\n5 Engelmayer, provides a reason to \"limit disclosure of\n6 identifying information in open court, the defendant must\n7 demonstrate a particularized need for such disclosure.\"\n8 That case, your Honor, was in the context of a VOSR in\n9 which Judge Engelmayer sealed from the public record a victim's\n10 identity and replaced it with initials. But Judge Engelmayer\n11 in this opinion -- and I have a copy for your Honor if you like\n12 it -- cites to criminal cases, including U.S. v. Maxwell and\n13 other criminal cases where pseudonyms were used. We're not\n14 using a pseudonym here, but nonetheless the Crime Victim Rights\n15 Act does protect victims from harassment and prejudice. But\n16 more to the point, your Honor, there is no proper purpose to\n17 introduce this victim's résumé to make her a target of\n18 harassment and attacks online or in other ways. And so because\n19 it's irrelevant, because it was asked and answered, and her\n20 history was covered yesterday, and because of the Crimes\n21 Victims Rights Act, this exhibit should be excluded.\n22 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, what would the résumé\n23 accomplish that you have not already accomplished by your\n24 detailed questioning of her concerning her credentials and her\n25 work history?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we don't need to introduce\n2 the résumé into evidence. We provided it to the government\n3 because the witness testified that she did not take an\n4 accounting class, and she did not have accounting lessons while\n5 she was a undergraduate student in China. I was considering\n6 crossing her with it and using it for impeachment purposes. So\n7 in an abundance of caution, we sent it to the government.\n8 There would be no scenario under which I would disregard the\n9 Court's ruling and introduce into evidence somebody's address,\n10 so that's not where we're going. Thank you.\n11 THE COURT: So essentially you expect to be asking\n12 here, Isn't is true you took an accounting class in this year?\n13 MS. SHROFF: That was it. I wasn't even sure I was\n14 going to do it, but we decided to go ahead and send it any way.\n15 The document is public. We only found the document on the\n16 internet. It's still up.\n17 THE COURT: My question for you is, do you intend to\n18 use it today to try to refresh her recollection?\n19 MS. SHROFF: No, to impeach her possibly, because she\n20 said, she in fact said, I did not take an accounting class.\n21 THE COURT: Right.\n22 MS. SHROFF: That's the only reason I would ask.\n23 THE COURT: I'm trying to understand what your\n24 question would be. Is it, didn't you upload to the internet a\n25 résumé stating that you had taken accounting. Is that the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 question?\n2 MS. SHROFF: No, your Honor. What I was going to say\n3 is, yesterday you testified you did not take accounting\n4 classes, correct? Let me show you document marked as X. Isn't\n5 it a fact in your résumé you stated otherwise, and point her to\n6 the thing and that would be that. It's just pure impeachment.\n7 I'm not seeking to introduce the document. I'm not really sure\n8 I'm going to do it. It was just a thought.\n9 THE COURT: Mr. Finkel.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Only because it's relevant under Litvak\n11 it was a thought I had. And again, nobody is seeking to\n12 introduce any un-redacted documents or do anything untoward\n13 here. Obviously it's just -- I don't know exactly what\n14 happened why we didn't send it to them redacted. It's been a\n15 long night.\n16 THE COURT: All righty. If it is her plan,\n17 Ms. Shroff's plan to state as she just said, Yesterday you said\n18 you didn't take an accounting class. Isn't it true that on\n19 your résumé you stated that you did take an accounting class.\n20 That's pure impeachment. It's not for the purpose of actually\n21 admitting the résumé. I don't see what would be objectionable\n22 about that.\n23 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I'll have to check the\n24 transcript on that. Candidly, your Honor, I disagree with what\n25 Ms. Shroff is saying that this is all for proper purposes and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 not design for improper purposes. The government's\n2 perspective, your Honor, is that Ms. Shroff is crossing this\n3 witness to embarrass her and harass her. Yesterday she told\n4 your Honor that she was putting those IDs into evidence because\n5 they were going to be chats introduced. There were no chats.\n6 She just wanted to blow up who this person was online, and I\n7 don't think that's appropriate.\n8 THE COURT: So she has to have the opportunity to\n9 confront the witness. It simply would be improper for me to\n10 deny her the opportunity to try to impeach the witness, so I\n11 will permit her to ask the question that I just posed in the\n12 form that I posed. It ends there.\n13 MR. FINKEL: I appreciate that, your Honor, and I\n14 completely understand. And the government's point of view, is,\n15 yes, she's allowed to cross-examine about a witness's\n16 credibility. I agree. The government agrees. We would just\n17 ask in light of what had happened yesterday -- and I'm sure\n18 I'll object -- that Ms. Shroff not harass the witness. That's\n19 all. And I think that our position on that is clear, and I\n20 understand the Court's ruling.\n21 THE COURT: Well, vigorous cross-examination sometimes\n22 involves making a witness feel uncomfortable, and that simply\n23 is a reality of criminal litigation.\n24 MR. FINKEL: I understand.\n25 THE COURT: There is a border of course between\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 vigorous confrontation and crossing over into harassment or\n2 badgering. I have not seen harassment or badgering of this\n3 witness, and so I'm confident that Ms. Shroff will not go\n4 there.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor. I will be happy\n6 to show the government when the moment comes the use of the Ivy\n7 handle and the chats.\n8 THE COURT: What is the second issue?\n9 MR. FINKEL: The second issue, your Honor, and we\n10 raise this because we had a number of back and forth with the\n11 defense via email just trying to get a straightforward answer\n12 to two straightforward questions that has not been provided.\n13 The defense is going to call Maggie Sklar who is their\n14 cryptocurrency expert. We've asked them whether Ms. Sklar\n15 intends to testify about her review of the blockchain or her\n16 review of smart contracts. It's frankly a yes or no question.\n17 If the answer is yes, we're going to file a letter on this\n18 issue because we believe it's beyond the scope of her\n19 disclosure, and we'll brief that, but we don't want to waste\n20 the Court's time and file a letter needlessly. We ask that\n21 question I think three times. We've got circular responses. I\n22 would ask the defense to please inform the government whether\n23 Mr. Sklar intends to testify about her review of the smart\n24 contracts and the blockchain for HCN and HDO.\n25 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff or Mr. Schirick.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, we did indeed have a back\n2 and forth with the government on this issue. We referred the\n3 government repeatedly to Ms. Sklar's expert disclosures, in\n4 particular referred the government specifically to our April\n5 29th disclosure, and even more specifically to Section 22 of\n6 that disclosure which says in relevant part, and I'm quoting,\n7 \"Ms. Sklar will further opine that given HCN and HDO each were\n8 minted using smart contracts which can be seen on the public\n9 ethereum blockchain, and are purchased using fiat currency and\n10 traded. They meet the common market understanding of\n11 cryptocurrency.\" So the two questions Mr. Finkel posed are\n12 answered by that particular disclosures and the other\n13 disclosures that contextualize that statement.\n14 THE COURT: Make it easy for me. What are the\n15 answers? He's asking you a very straightforward question. I\n16 want to hear your answer.\n17 MR. SCHIRICK: The question, your Honor, is will she\n18 testify about having reviewed the smart contracts. The answer\n19 is, she may testify about that, yes, that's within her\n20 disclosure; and that she reviewed the smart contracts on the\n21 publicly available ethereum blockchain.\n22 MR. FINKEL: The answer is yes, and we would have\n23 appreciated just getting that straightforward answer via email\n24 instead of wasting the Court's time this morning. We'll\n25 respond with a letter so the Court can resolve the dispute.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 While we're on the topic of experts and defense case in\n2 general, we requested last night the defense provide what the\n3 government has provided which is a list of the exhibits they\n4 intend to introduce via each witness. We have not received\n5 that. They might have a witness today, Mr. Duran testify. We\n6 don't know what exhibits if any -- excuse me, Mr. Dragon\n7 testify. We don't know what exhibits, if any, they're going to\n8 introduce, and we ask the defense be held to the same standard\n9 the government was held so that the trial is efficient during\n10 the defense case, including that they provide any draft slides\n11 of work product which would be 26.2 material since it's prior\n12 statements of the witness, which we haven't received either.\n13 We have no summaries. We have no demonstratives.\n14 Their 26.2 material talks about demonstrative exhibits. We\n15 haven't seen them. We might have objections to them. We might\n16 not. We might be able to talk to the defense and resolve these\n17 issues without involving your Honor or the jury's time. It\n18 would be appropriate for them to provide this to the\n19 government. We ask the Court to order them to do so.\n20 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, to the extent that the\n21 defense plans to introduce any documents that are not already\n22 in evidence, we will provide that disclosure to the government.\n23 THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Schirick, I did not\n24 completely hear what you said.\n25 MR. SCHIRICK: I said to the extent we plan to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 introduce any documents through the expert testimony that are\n2 not already in evidence, we will of course provide the\n3 disclosure to the government.\n4 THE COURT: They're asking to know specifically what\n5 you intend to introduce, not to hear that there's a body of\n6 evidence that pertains to a particular witness.\n7 MR. SCHIRICK: Maybe I misunderstood, your Honor. I\n8 thought the question was whether we plan to introduce any new\n9 documents. I thought Mr. Finkel was referring to a\n10 demonstrative that we may use with the experts, not documents\n11 that are already in evidence, but perhaps I misunderstood.\n12 THE COURT: My understanding -- and if I'm wrong,\n13 correct me, please, is that they want to know what exhibits\n14 correlate to each witness that you're going to call. Am I\n15 correct?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor. And in particular, any\n17 new exhibits they intend to introduce and the demonstratives.\n18 The demonstratives it says 26.2 material in effect reviewed\n19 demonstrative or demonstrative exhibits. We don't have those.\n20 If they're going to put it in front of the jury even the\n21 demonstrative, they should give to the government.\n22 MR. SCHIRICK: Of course, your Honor. We understood\n23 that. And that's what I understood Mr. Finkel's point to be\n24 was demonstrative or new exhibits, and of course we will\n25 provide that. No decisions have been made with respect to the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 use of demonstratives that would require us to produce them at\n2 this point.\n3 MR. FINKEL: Just so your Honor knows, one of their\n4 experts may testify today. We have not received the\n5 demonstratives. We don't know if they're introducing any\n6 exhibits. If the answer is no new exhibits will be introduced\n7 through this witness, then just tell us, then we know and we\n8 could be more efficient with your Honor's time and the jury's\n9 time. If the answer is maybe, then give us the universe.\n10 We've done that. We've said, here's a body of 30 or so\n11 exhibits or more sometimes. It will be a subset of that. They\n12 haven't done that. And frankly, your Honor, we're at a point\n13 in this trial where efficiency should be the rule of the day,\n14 not tactics and delay and circular answers.\n15 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, if I just may briefly.\n16 First of all, there are no new exhibits. There's no\n17 demonstrative that we plan to use with Mr. Dragon. Obviously\n18 we have continued to work with the experts who are going to be\n19 among the first defense witnesses to testify. And we didn't\n20 want to preclude ourselves from potentially, as of yesterday,\n21 being able to use something should we want to, so we hadn't\n22 made any disclosures to the government. I'm frankly just not\n23 sure what the issue is. Of course we know our obligations and\n24 of course we will disclose them, and we have no intention of\n25 using a new exhibit or a demonstrative with Mr. Dragon.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 THE COURT: All right. Now we know there's nothing new\n2 and no demonstratives.\n3 MR. FINKEL: And that's helpful. And, your Honor,\n4 just moving forward since they have 11 witnesses or so, we\n5 would appreciate the defense works the other way which is,\n6 instead of saying, we don't know what we're going to introduce\n7 so we're not going to tell you anything, tell us what the\n8 government has done. Which is, here is the subset of exhibits\n9 that we might introduce. And if it turns out they're not going\n10 to, that's fine, that would make things more efficient. That's\n11 what the government has done. We also would request -- and I\n12 think they should provide us -- some information as to the\n13 compensation for these experts. That's the government's\n14 request.\n15 MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, with respect to the\n16 compensation disclosure, that's obviously a standard question\n17 that the government is going to ask the witnesses on cross\n18 examination, which the witnesses will answer candidly. The\n19 government only raised this issue with us I believe in the\n20 minutes before we walked into court this morning asking for\n21 some disclosure pre-testimony. We're happy to entertain that,\n22 but the parties haven't had a chance to discuss that yet and\n23 Mr. Finkel is raising this now for the first time with the\n24 Court. So we're happy to discuss that with counsel and arrive\n25 at a mutually agreeable way to go about that.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 MR. FINKEL: We appreciate that.\n2 THE COURT: In a word, this trial for me has been\n3 unprecedented, and I am hoping that as we move towards the\n4 finish line that the attorneys will show a greater degree of\n5 cooperation with each other. All righty. We'll start at 9:30.\n6 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 THE COURT: Counsel, I'd like to remind you that the\n2 interpreters would like you to slow down, especially if you're\n3 reading from a document. Have the jurors come in, please.\n4 THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering.\n5 (Jury present)\n6 THE COURT: Please be seated. Good morning, jurors.\n7 We're going to continue with the cross examination of the\n8 witness.\n9 Ma'am, remember that you're still under oath. You may\n10 inquire.\n11 MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.\n12 WEI CHEN,\n13 CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED\n14 BY MS. SHROFF:\n15 Q. Good morning, Ms. Chen.\n16 A. Good morning.\n17 Q. Ms. Chen, you testified on direct about GTV, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And you testified that you heard Mr. Guo say that the GTV\n20 business had a bright future ahead of it, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And you heard -- and you testified that you watched a video\n23 where he said that GTV was going to have a very powerful\n24 platform, correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 Q. And you said on direct testimony that you heard Mr. Guo say\n2 that he anticipated GTV would be successful, correct?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. And that was going to be very powerful, correct?\n5 A. That is going to be very valuable.\n6 Q. I'm sorry.\n7 A. That it is going to be very valuable.\n8 Q. That it was going to be very valuable. Thank you. And you\n9 also understood Mr. Guo to say that he would be working towards\n10 acquiring software for the platform, correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And that he would do all he could to make it a strong\n13 software platform, correct?\n14 A. Can you repeat that question again.\n15 Q. Sure. And you testified that you heard him say that he\n16 would make it a good platform with good software, correct?\n17 A. Make a good platform with a good software?\n18 Q. Right. He would have people working on the software behind\n19 the platform, correct?\n20 A. He would have the technology infrastructure to build the\n21 platform.\n22 Q. Right. So you heard him say he would get the technology\n23 infrastructure to build the platform, right?\n24 A. That's my understanding.\n25 Q. Okay. And when you say that is your understanding, what\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 exactly is it that you mean?\n2 A. That means I heard him saying that, and I take away that's\n3 a messaging conveyed to me.\n4 Q. And that was your understanding back then, correct?\n5 A. Back in the time when I heard it and decide to make the\n6 investment.\n7 Q. And sitting here today, do you by any chance know if there\n8 was any undertaking of a technological infrastructure?\n9 A. Can you repeat the question again.\n10 Q. Sure. Do you know sitting here today whether Mr. Guo or\n11 anyone at GTV took such steps, do you know?\n12 A. Such steps, what do you mean by that?\n13 Q. Do you know if anyone at GTV was working towards making it\n14 a good platform?\n15 A. I'm not sure.\n16 Q. Now, you also testified that you were influenced by\n17 Mr. Guo's claims of wealth, correct?\n18 A. I testified that I was influenced by him portraying as a\n19 very wealthy person.\n20 Q. Let me ask you a follow-up question. When you say\n21 portraying as, what did you say very --\n22 A. Wealthy person.\n23 Q. Wealthy person, right?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And did you know if in fact at that time he was wealthy?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. From what he said at the video, I thought he was very\n2 wealthy.\n3 Q. My question was whether you independently knew him to be\n4 wealthy?\n5 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. Did you do any research into his wealth?\n8 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, this is with respect to the\n9 Court's ruling discussed after court yesterday. Objection.\n10 THE COURT: Sustained.\n11 Q. What day did the PPM close?\n12 A. PPM?\n13 Q. The private placement, when did it close?\n14 A. I made the investment till I believe June 2nd, 2020. And I\n15 if I remember clearly or correctly, there might be a day off\n16 from whichever June 2nd is. Don't quote me on exact June 2nd,\n17 but around that time. That was my recollection.\n18 Q. Your recollection is it was June 2nd not June 26?\n19 A. It would not be that far, beginning of June.\n20 Q. Let me show you what is marked as Defense Exhibit 7015, and\n21 if I could just make sure it's just shown to the government,\n22 the Court and the witness.\n23 Do you recognize that, Ms. Chen?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. What is it?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. It is a video with Miles Guo claiming bankruptcy.\n2 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we move DX7015 into evidence.\n3 MR. FINKEL: One moment, please. Objection, it's the\n4 defendant's statements.\n5 MS. SHROFF: I'm going to show it for the effect on\n6 her state of mind. I don't know care if it's true.\n7 MR. FINKEL: This is February 2022.\n8 THE COURT: If you'll step up.\n9 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 THE COURT: To show the effect on her state of mind?\n3 MS. SHROFF: He declares bankruptcy. He does so\n4 publicly. She testified that she's influenced in her\n5 investments based on his wealth. After he declares personal\n6 bankruptcy, she continues to invest. That's it. State of\n7 mind, her knowledge that he openly says he's filing personal\n8 bankruptcy.\n9 MR. FINKEL: You can't ask those questions without\n10 introducing the video of the defendant's statement.\n11 MS. SHROFF: Of course I can, but that doesn't mean\n12 that I should or I'm required to. My client is entitled to a\n13 robust defense, and this is admissible for the purpose of which\n14 I stated.\n15 MR. FINKEL: Robust defense does not overtake the\n16 Federal Rules of Evidence, and the defendant's statements are\n17 not admissible by the defendant and that's the purpose. To the\n18 extent there's a dual purpose, which is to say the effect on\n19 the listener, the victim, and also the statements of the\n20 defense, the defendant, then the Court has discretion to decide\n21 how to proceed. The government's point of view is that the\n22 Court should not permit playing a video of the defendant's\n23 statements and allow Ms. Shroff to ask the question about what\n24 effect, if any, Mr. Guo's declaration of bankruptcy had on her\n25 analysis.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 I would also add that the fact that the defendant\n2 declared bankruptcy seems to be suggesting that essentially the\n3 victim should have known better, that she should have known\n4 that Mr. Guo wasn't really rich. And that from the\n5 government's point of view is that it infringes on your Honor's\n6 ruling about the sophistication of victims.\n7 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, other than the fact it is\n8 admissible, I'm not seeking to go as far as the government is\n9 attributing to me. The video is admissible to show how she\n10 went through her process. They went through her process. They\n11 are the ones who focus repeatedly on his wealth, his wealth,\n12 his wealth. I should have some leeway to cross. And the\n13 Federal Rules of Evidence in fact does allow for the admittance\n14 of the video, and of course you can give a limiting\n15 instruction. I have no objection.\n16 MR. FINKEL: It doesn't allow for the admission of the\n17 defendant's statement. That's the government's point of view.\n18 THE COURT: That's my understanding of the law. I'm\n19 not going to permit it. Of course you can question on that\n20 issue.\n21 (Continued on next page)\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 (In open court; jury present)\n2 BY MS. SHROFF:\n3 Q. Ms. Chen on February 15 of 2022, you watched a video,\n4 correct?\n5 A. I knew he filed bankruptcy on February 15, 2022.\n6 Q. My question to you was whether or not you watched a video\n7 on February 15, 2022 where Mr. Miles Guo discussed the fact\n8 that he was filing for bankruptcy?\n9 A. I don't remember if I watch that video specifically you\n10 talk about.\n11 Q. So you remember some of the videos where he spoke, you just\n12 don't remember all of the videos where he spoke?\n13 A. It's been such a long time.\n14 Q. 2022 is after 2017, correct?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. After 2018 and '19, correct?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And your testimony is you don't remember this particular\n19 video, correct?\n20 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n21 THE COURT: Sustained.\n22 Q. Do you recall Mr. Guo's statements that he was declaring\n23 and signing the bankruptcy petition on that very day?\n24 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n25 THE COURT: You may answer.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. Sorry. Can you repeat that question again.\n2 Q. Sure. Do you recall Mr. Guo saying on the video that he\n3 was signing the petition on that day February 15 of 2022?\n4 A. So I think I said I did not remember if I watched that\n5 video specifically that you are referring to, and also I stated\n6 that I knew that Miles Guo filed bankruptcy on February 15,\n7 2022.\n8 Q. Did you read the bankruptcy petition that he signed?\n9 A. I do not think so.\n10 Q. I'm sorry.\n11 A. I don't think so.\n12 Q. Do you know if your husband watched that video?\n13 A. I don't know.\n14 Q. Now let me move to GXVK-5. May I have it brought up for\n15 everyone since it's in evidence.\n16 You recall testifying about this document, Ms. Chen?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And you reviewed this document with Mr. Finkel when you met\n19 with him at the United States Attorney's office, correct?\n20 A. He showed me this document.\n21 Q. Right. And after he showed you the document, did you two\n22 go through it?\n23 A. I did not go through after he show me. I just look at the\n24 document when he showed me.\n25 Q. So you only looked at the first page of the document and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 that was it?\n2 A. He also went through other pages.\n3 Q. Okay. So he reviewed the document with you, correct?\n4 A. That's not correct. My understanding of review is review\n5 the document entirely. If I understand when you say review,\n6 that's the meaning, so I say that's not correct because I did\n7 not review this document with him.\n8 Q. So is it fair to say you did not review the entire document\n9 with him?\n10 A. He showed me the document. When you say review, can you\n11 clarify what does review include?\n12 Q. You tell me what you think review means?\n13 MR. FINKEL: I think that was answered already.\n14 Objection.\n15 THE COURT: Did you read the document word for word?\n16 THE WITNESS: So her question ask me did Mr. Finkel\n17 review this document with me. So my answer to that is, no, he\n18 did not review this document word by word to me.\n19 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n20 Q. How about pages by pages?\n21 A. The answer is no.\n22 Q. How about some pages?\n23 A. Certain pages, yes.\n24 Q. Did you choose the pages or did he choose the pages?\n25 A. He showed me, did you see this page, just ask. As to the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 testimony yesterday he show me a page and ask me about it and\n2 that's it.\n3 Q. And yesterday when he was showing you the pages in the\n4 courtroom, he had shown you those pages before, right?\n5 A. Not all of them.\n6 Q. So you remember what pages you reviewed with him because\n7 you're now able to tell me not all of them, right?\n8 A. I don't remember the pages he showed me, but he showed me\n9 the page and ask me the information. I think some of the\n10 information is not what he reviewed -- not what he showed me\n11 last time when I met with him.\n12 Q. You met with him more than once?\n13 A. I met him more than once, yes.\n14 Q. And did he show you this document more than once?\n15 A. No.\n16 Q. Well, let's see what we can talk about from your testimony\n17 yesterday. Yesterday you testified that you did not consider\n18 the risk factors in the PPM, correct?\n19 MR. FINKEL: Misstates the testimony.\n20 THE COURT: Sustained.\n21 Q. Let's pull it up. You remember talking about the standard\n22 language in this document?\n23 You remember the judge asking you what you meant by\n24 the phrase \"standard language?\" Do you understand that?\n25 THE COURT: You may answer.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. Your question is do I understand that I testify, that is\n2 that your question?\n3 Q. Yes. That is my question in fact.\n4 A. Yeah, I remember I testify that.\n5 Q. And you remember the Court asking you what you meant when\n6 you said that those were standard language, correct?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And your response said, like in a legal document, it often\n9 time would have the language talk about risk. Remember that?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And when you said that, had you an understanding of\n12 standard language in PPMs in other situations?\n13 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n14 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n15 A. No.\n16 Q. And had you ever compare PPM language?\n17 A. No.\n18 Q. So when you said that this was standard language in this\n19 document, you had no basis of comparison, correct?\n20 MR. FINKEL: Objection, goes to the Court's ruling.\n21 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n22 A. That just a way of my expressing how I think those are just\n23 certain terms put in the legal document, and I use standard\n24 language to explaining my understanding of terms in a legal\n25 document.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 Q. Right. But you're testifying under oath today, right?\n2 A. I testify under oath by saying the truth.\n3 Q. Right. And the truth is that you did not ever compare the\n4 language in PPMs with each other, correct?\n5 A. This is the only PPM I have ever seen. I have never had an\n6 opportunity to see a PPM because Miles Guo said this is right\n7 opportunity. I have no opportunity to even see a PPM document.\n8 Q. Well, you have access to Google, right?\n9 A. Everyone have access to Google.\n10 Q. I'm sorry.\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Let me move on and show you page 29 of the PPM. Okay.\n13 Actually, I'm sorry. Page 29 is the last page of the PPM,\n14 right. The entire document is 29 pages long, right?\n15 A. I don't remember. If you say it's 29, it's 29.\n16 Q. It's right there for you to look at.\n17 A. I don't know. Does that matter if it's 29 pages? If you\n18 say it's 29, it's 29.\n19 Q. Okay. Let's try and go to page nine. You see that\n20 document?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And we talked yesterday about the last paragraph, so I\n23 won't go back there, okay. But this, just to give you a\n24 perspective -- and let's go to page ten -- you recall being\n25 shown this document on your direct testimony?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And was this one of the pages that Mr. Finkel and you\n3 reviewed in his office?\n4 A. He showed me this page in his office.\n5 Q. And then he asked you questions about this page, right?\n6 A. Yes, he did.\n7 Q. And he asked you about the two figures split side-by-side,\n8 right?\n9 A. No, he did not.\n10 Q. Well, I'm going to ask you some questions about that. Is\n11 it fair to say, Ms. Chen, that the figure on the left side\n12 shows the ownerships structure before the PPM, and the figure\n13 on the right side shows the ownership structure after PPM,\n14 correct?\n15 A. From what you showing here and you highlight it, yes.\n16 Q. I don't have to highlight it for you if you prefer I not.\n17 THE COURT: Don't testify. Just ask questions.\n18 MS. SHROFF: I wanted to make sure I did what the\n19 witness wanted, your Honor.\n20 Q. And on both sides of the screen, Ms. Chen, it shows Saraca\n21 has an ownership interest in GTV, correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. And on direct Mr. Finkel also asked you -- and we can take\n24 that down and move down on the same page -- about this chart,\n25 correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And he specifically asked you a question about this five\n3 percent, right?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. And he focused you on the word \"other,\" correct?\n6 A. He ask me what my understanding about the other.\n7 Q. And you said that your understanding was that it was some\n8 overhead administrative cost, correct?\n9 A. Yes, I understand it's the HR administrative hiring cost\n10 with the people talents.\n11 Q. And that was just your understanding, right?\n12 A. Yes, because you need talents, the people.\n13 Q. Because of what?\n14 A. You need the talent, talented people.\n15 Q. You need talented people?\n16 A. To develop GTV business, that's my understanding of what's\n17 this other is for, to hiring talented people to grow and\n18 develop GTV business.\n19 Q. Okay. But you would have talented people if you acquired\n20 companies that had talented people working for them, correct?\n21 Like as it says on number one, acquisition of companies to\n22 strengthen and grow GTV. If you acquired a company that had a\n23 lot of talent, that talent would also come in under the\n24 approximate 70 percent, correct?\n25 MR. FINKEL: Objection, form, and calls for\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 speculation.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 Q. Is that your understanding?\n4 THE COURT: Sustained. I sustained the objection. You\n5 don't need to answer.\n6 Q. What is your understanding of acquisition of companies to\n7 strengthen and grow GTV?\n8 A. My understanding is acquire certain software or technology\n9 may have already develop to some extent that you can grow upon\n10 it with talents you're hiring for GTV to make it more\n11 successful.\n12 Q. And what does acquisition of companies mean to you?\n13 A. Acquisition of companies that already develop somewhat\n14 model of software or technologies that are in place.\n15 Q. To develop that technology you need people, right?\n16 A. You would need more than just the people you acquired from\n17 that company. If you make a big business successful for GTV to\n18 have not just the media platform, but also doing the\n19 transaction, you cannot just acquire companies without having\n20 your own people managing the business make it successful.\n21 That's common business sense.\n22 Q. Thank you, Ms. Chen.\n23 Now, if we could go to page 15, please. Do you see\n24 that?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 Q. And you were asked questions about this page as well,\n2 correct?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. You were asked who Mr. Blanton was and Aaron Mitchell was,\n5 correct?\n6 A. I don't think, so but maybe. I don't remember.\n7 Q. And then you see at the bottom it says sponsor and advisor\n8 of GTV Media, correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Could you read the first two lines for me?\n11 A. You talk about the 6.3 sponsor and adviser?\n12 Q. Mm hm.\n13 A. I think I read it, yes. Do you want me to read it again?\n14 Q. Yes, please. I would really appreciate that. Thank you.\n15 A. \"The sponsor and adviser of GTV Media, Mr. Wengui Guo, AKA\n16 Miles Guo, Ho Wan Kwok or Miles Kwok is a billionaire, a\n17 successful businessman and a dissident in China.\"\n18 Q. Keep reading.\n19 A. \"He knows deeply how the Chinese Communist Party CCP\n20 deprives the people of China of human rights, justice, freedom\n21 of speech, freedom of press and freedom of religion. He's\n22 dedicated to overthrow the CCP regime to bring back truth,\n23 freedom and justice to the people of China. Miles Guo is the\n24 key host of the GTV media.\"\n25 Q. This section, it's fair to say describes the billionaire as\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 the sponsor and the key host, correct?\n2 A. That's the word by word in this paragraph.\n3 Q. Thank you, Ms. Chen. You can take that down.\n4 Now, when you read this document, did you recall the\n5 role that Mr. Bannon was going to play in this venture?\n6 Did you focus on Mr. Bannon at all?\n7 A. I know he was listed as the non-executive director and then\n8 that's it.\n9 Q. Did Mr. Bannon's presence as a woman come as a negative for\n10 you to invest in GTV?\n11 MR. FINKEL: Object to the form.\n12 THE COURT: Rephrase that, please.\n13 Q. As a woman were you offended that Steven Bannon was going\n14 to be part of this project?\n15 MR. FINKEL: Same objection.\n16 THE COURT: You may answer.\n17 A. I don't understand this question.\n18 Q. I'll move on. Now, let's go to page 15 of the same\n19 document and moving down to 18 to 19. You were asked questions\n20 yesterday about the risk factors here, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And the document list the risk factors, correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. The document says that the company has no operating\n25 history, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. I did not see it. Where do you see that? You ask me when\n2 I'm reading this document now or asking me about the time when\n3 I was reading this document when I made the investment?\n4 Q. Well, I was asking you about this document when you read it\n5 before you made the investment.\n6 A. Your question is asking me did I read the risk factor\n7 saying it has no operating history?\n8 Q. Yes, ma'am.\n9 A. I don't remember I read that part when I made the\n10 investment back then.\n11 Q. How about did you read that the company's management has\n12 broad discretion in how the company uses the net proceeds of\n13 the sale of common stock?\n14 A. Yes, I remember that a hundred percent exactly.\n15 Q. And could you tell the jury what your understanding is of\n16 net proceeds?\n17 A. My understanding of net proceeds?\n18 Q. Yes, ma'am.\n19 A. My understanding of net proceeds is you will have sales\n20 proceeds or profits that minus the operating cost and then that\n21 equals the net proceed.\n22 Q. And if you included the operating cost, would that be gross\n23 proceeds?\n24 A. If you're including -- I don't know.\n25 Q. Well, let's go to page 25. And on page 25, what does it\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 say in bold, The company does not intend. Could you read that?\n2 A. You are not entitled to receive --\n3 Q. No. No. Just the title.\n4 A. The company does not intend to pay dividends for the\n5 foreseeable future.\n6 Q. And let's go below that where it says, Saraca owns a\n7 controlling interest. Read that part at the bottom.\n8 A. Saraca owns a controlling interest in the company and can\n9 exercise significant control over the company.\n10 Q. And that's on page 25 of 29, correct?\n11 A. It shows on 25 here.\n12 Q. And we can take that down. Now, Ms. Chen, you also\n13 testified about receiving stock certificates reflecting your\n14 GTV shares, correct?\n15 A. I testified that I was able to log in to website to\n16 purchase two papers.\n17 Q. And you purchase them yourself or did your husband purchase\n18 them?\n19 A. We log into account together and I watch him pay for it.\n20 Q. I see. And you talked about that process with Mr. Finkel\n21 when you prepared for your testimony here, right? You talked\n22 to him about that process, right?\n23 A. When you say I talk about the process, meaning I talk about\n24 the process of going to the website and downloading the paper;\n25 is that what you're asking?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 Q. Yes.\n2 A. I think so.\n3 Q. But it was really your husband who went to the website?\n4 You were watching, right?\n5 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. Did Mr. Finkel ask you for a copy of the certificate?\n8 A. No.\n9 Q. Well, let's show you DX60672. Do you recognize that's\n10 document, Ms. Chen?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the defense would move to\n13 admit 60672.\n14 MR. FINKEL: Are there any other pages in this\n15 exhibit?\n16 THE COURT: Are there any additional pages?\n17 MS. SHROFF: We're showing them to the government now.\n18 MR. FINKEL: May I inquire one question.\n19 THE COURT: Yes.\n20 MR. FINKEL: Ms. Chen, did you send this document to\n21 the FBI?\n22 THE WITNESS: I don't remember.\n23 MR. FINKEL: No objection.\n24 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n25 (Defendant's Exhibit 60672 received in evidence)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 BY MS. SHROFF:\n2 Q. And if we could just publish that to the jury.\n3 Ms. Chen, you sent a lot of documents to the FBI,\n4 right?\n5 A. Can you define what is a lot of documents?\n6 Q. You sent a lot of documents?\n7 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n8 THE COURT: She asked if you would define what you\n9 meant by a lot.\n10 Q. I didn't hear that at all so I apologize.\n11 Did you send more than 50 documents?\n12 A. I don't think so.\n13 Q. How about 30?\n14 A. I don't remember if it's -- I don't count. I sent some\n15 documents, yeah.\n16 Q. We can take that down. I'm sorry. I just want to make\n17 sure the jury saw all pages.\n18 Now, yesterday you also testified, did you not, about\n19 the Rule of Law Foundation, correct?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. You testified that you donated $30,735, correct?\n22 A. I don't know if I testified that exact number. I just say\n23 I donated about $30,000.\n24 Q. You recall sitting here today that was three days in a row\n25 September 28, 29 and 30th?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. So can you repeat? What do you mean the three days. Can\n2 you clarify your question.\n3 Q. Sure. You first donated 400, that was your husband who did\n4 the first donation, correct?\n5 A. I want to make it clear, when you say my husband did it, we\n6 jointly did it, but then he's the one who processed it so that\n7 has his name. So I want to make it very clear is we jointly\n8 did it.\n9 Q. Okay.\n10 A. So you can make it clear in the future not just always say\n11 your husband did it.\n12 Q. Your husband did it. You jointly decided; is that\n13 accurate?\n14 A. My husband is the one log in the web. And again, I was\n15 there with him, so we did it together, if you can make that\n16 clear. You cannot always say my husband did it.\n17 Q. But your husband did in fact did it? He logged in and he\n18 paid for it?\n19 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, when you use the word \"did,\"\n20 you need to define for the witness what you meant.\n21 Q. Your husband logged into the website, correct?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. He used his password, correct?\n24 A. I don't know if you need a password to do a donation. You\n25 mean log in the computer or log into the website?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 Q. I mean log into the computer. He logged in, right?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 Q. And he went through the steps of doing the donation,\n4 correct?\n5 A. He go to the website and he went to website and he's the\n6 person process it, yes.\n7 Q. Thank you. And the processing was on September 28, 29 and\n8 30th, three days in a row, correct?\n9 A. I think you're mixing up the time. You're talking about\n10 donation $400 dollars back in 2020, and you also talk about\n11 2022. You're making it very confusing to me. I don't know\n12 what you're asking.\n13 Q. Well, first of all, I'm just going to ask you to slow down\n14 because the interpreter is going to have a lot of trouble, and\n15 let's see if we can start again.\n16 There was a $400 donation in the first instance,\n17 correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. What year was that?\n20 A. I think it's in 2020.\n21 Q. And what year was the $30,000 donation?\n22 A. 2022.\n23 Q. Okay. And the 2022 donation was for $30,000, correct?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And that was three days in a row, 10, 10, 10, September 28,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 September 29 and September 30, correct?\n2 A. I don't remember exactly.\n3 Q. And you thought -- and you told the government that you\n4 would not have made that investment as you call it if you\n5 didn't think that you could get your money back from the Rule\n6 of Law Foundation, do you remember that?\n7 MR. FINKEL: I have a form objection. It's confusing.\n8 THE COURT: You may answer.\n9 A. Sorry. I didn't understand your question. How would my\n10 investment have anything to do with a donation. I didn't quite\n11 understand your question.\n12 Q. Do you recall telling the government that you would never\n13 have donated this money if you didn't think the Rule of Law\n14 Foundation wouldn't give you the money back?\n15 A. I never say that. I don't think so.\n16 Q. Let's show you 3526 at page two. Do you see it on your\n17 screen, ma'am?\n18 A. I saw it on my screen.\n19 Q. Does that refresh your recollection that you used a credit\n20 card to invest $30,735 in Rule of Law. You thought it was an\n21 investment, and you would not have made that investment if you\n22 did not think you would get the money back?\n23 A. I don't recall saying that at all. I think it's maybe\n24 taken down differently.\n25 Q. Thank you. Let's talk about G/Club. Okay. You testified\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 about G/Club yesterday, and you testified that it launched in\n2 October of 2020; is that right?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. And you bought -- you tell me whether it was you who bought\n5 it or your husband who bought it, the G/Club membership in\n6 October of 2020?\n7 A. Let me make it clear, we never bought G/Club membership.\n8 Q. Ma'am, what year did you sign on for a G/Club membership\n9 account?\n10 A. So I think your question ask me is in March 2021 who bought\n11 the G/Club membership. So what I'm responding to you is, your\n12 statement is not correct. We never bought any G/Club\n13 membership.\n14 Q. You can define it in any way you choose, Ms. Chen. There\n15 is something --\n16 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the commentary.\n17 THE COURT: Stick to the questions.\n18 Q. You know something called G/Club?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. Was there something called the G/Club membership?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. What was the G/Club membership?\n23 A. I don't know what is G/Club membership.\n24 Q. Well, you gave money to that institution, right?\n25 A. I gave money to the bank account that is given to me by the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 MOS farm volunteer.\n2 Q. And for what reason did you give them the money?\n3 A. To GTV shares, for additional GTV shares acquisition.\n4 Q. And what website did you go to, to follow through on this\n5 transaction?\n6 A. I follow-up with the MOS farm volunteer confirming that the\n7 money I sent to the bank account be given to me has been\n8 received, and then they send me the confirmation confirming\n9 that the money has been received.\n10 Q. Right. And you said you got a confirmation that the money\n11 had been received by an entity called G/Clubs, correct?\n12 A. The MOS farm discord confirmation just said this is amount.\n13 It's been received.\n14 Q. And received for what?\n15 A. Confirm.\n16 Q. What was the company?\n17 A. You mean the money where I send the money to? What's your\n18 question?\n19 Q. That is my question, what company were you purchasing a\n20 product from?\n21 A. I did not purchase any product from any company. I made it\n22 loud and clear. I send the money to purchase additional GTV\n23 shares.\n24 Q. Let's show you GXVB-24. You testified about this document\n25 yesterday, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- Cross\n1 A. I testified this is a document with instructions provided\n2 to us to complete after we sent the payment to Crane Advisory.\n3 Q. And the document says the purpose is G/Club membership,\n4 correct?\n5 A. I did not see that.\n6 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n7 Q. On the right, right under the word \"purpose\". I don't want\n8 to highlight it for you, but the right column, G/Club\n9 membership purpose, right?\n10 A. That's the instruction given. There's no choices.\n11 Q. Well, the choice is to not fill the document out at all,\n12 right?\n13 MR. FINKEL: Object to the commentary.\n14 MS. SHROFF: It's a question.\n15 THE COURT: So keep it to the questions, Ms. Shroff.\n16 A. I can't answer that question because I have already made\n17 the payment to Crane Advisory. I have no choices of not\n18 signing this document because I already made the payment, so\n19 there's no choices for me no filling out this document. Are\n20 you clear on that?\n21 (Continued on next page)\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 BY MS. SHROFF:\n2 Q. Ms. Chen, you could have called Crane Advisory and asked\n3 for your money back, right, before filling out the document?\n4 A. I'm not as smart as you.\n5 Q. Okay. Well, do you buy things in normal, everyday life?\n6 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n7 THE COURT: All right. So we know she buys things in\n8 normal, everyday life.\n9 Q. You know you can ask or change your mind within a certain\n10 period of time, correct?\n11 A. Let me make it clear. I sent the money to the bank account\n12 that's given to me by the people that I trusted.\n13 MS. SHROFF: I move to strike, your Honor. It's\n14 nonresponsive to the question.\n15 THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Let her complete\n16 her answer.\n17 A. So I sent the money to the bank account that was sent to me\n18 by the person that I trusted. In that situation, do you think\n19 I would call the company to call my money back? And do you\n20 think I would question about the document that was sent to me\n21 afterwards to complete?\n22 Q. Well, you worked 15 years at a bank, right?\n23 A. Yes. So what?\n24 Q. So you know how to ask for a refund, right?\n25 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, I want you to be mindful of my\n2 order regarding the subject matter.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Let me move to 24-T. Let's just put them\n4 up side by side, if we can.\n5 Q. Did you fill out the document based on the form on the left\n6 side or was it your husband?\n7 A. So I'm sitting here and I feel like, are you trying to ask\n8 me am I tricked into signing this document? And if so, I think\n9 yes, I was tricked into signing this document.\n10 Q. That's your position, right? I understand that.\n11 THE COURT: So Ms. Chen, listen to the question and\n12 then give an answer, as opposed to volunteering additional\n13 information that was not asked about.\n14 Go ahead.\n15 Q. Who signed that form for you; was it you or your husband?\n16 A. My husband signed it for me.\n17 Q. And were you there when he signed it?\n18 A. This one, I did not.\n19 Q. And do you know how he sent the form in?\n20 A. So in this situation, he told me he was contacted by MOS\n21 Farm, MOS Farm volunteer to complete a document because we sent\n22 the money to Crane Advisory. In order to complete this\n23 investment, he need to sign this document, he told me that, and\n24 he signed. I don't know what happened there.\n25 Q. Okay. So you don't know how your husband submitted this\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 form. That was my original question.\n2 A. He submitted it to the MOS Farm volunteer. That's who sent\n3 him this document.\n4 Q. Okay. And what did the farm volunteer do as the next step?\n5 A. I don't know. Confirm receipt of the document?\n6 Q. So it's fair to say you do not know what happened between\n7 your husband and the Mountains of Spice Farm volunteer after\n8 the document was submitted, correct?\n9 A. I do not know what the MOS Farm volunteer do after he\n10 received——after they received this document.\n11 Q. My question was: Do you know what the farm volunteer said\n12 to your husband after he had submitted the document? That was\n13 my question.\n14 A. So your question is asking, after my husband sent this\n15 document to MOS Farm volunteer, do I know what the farm, MOS\n16 Farm volunteer responded to my husband; is that your question?\n17 Q. Yes, ma'am, actually, that is my question.\n18 A. I think they confirm receipt of this document.\n19 Q. Okay. Now to actually have this document go through, your\n20 husband had to affirm the terms of the purchase, correct?\n21 A. I don't understand that.\n22 Q. You had to say, yes, this is what I want, correct?\n23 A. I don't know. I don't understand what you're asking.\n24 Q. Did there come a time when your husband was in the process\n25 of activating the G|CLUBS membership? Do you recall that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I think what happened is, Miles said we were going to get a\n2 free G Club membership for the GTV additional shares we are\n3 purchasing. However, we never got the free G Club membership\n4 for the $210,000 we sent to the two accounts that were given to\n5 us. We only got maybe one of them activated, but not the other\n6 four. So if that's what you're asking, that is what's\n7 happening, because the free G Club membership were not\n8 activated.\n9 MS. SHROFF: I move to strike, your Honor. And I\n10 repeat the question.\n11 Q. To purchase——\n12 THE COURT: Overruled.\n13 Q. Let's look at DX 60676, shall we.\n14 Do you recognize that document?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. What is it?\n17 A. This is a document that MOS Farm volunteer told us to send\n18 to G Club to activate our free G Club membership account.\n19 Q. Okay. Let's——all right. You see it up there again?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Your Honor, the defense moves\n22 DX 60676 into evidence.\n23 MR. FINKEL: Could we see the next page, please.\n24 THE COURT: Any additional pages?\n25 MR. FINKEL: Could I just have a moment with\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Ms. Shroff.\n2 (Counsel conferring)\n3 MS. SHROFF: Would you show the government.\n4 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, objection. We might need to\n5 approach.\n6 THE COURT: Okay.\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\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MR. FINKEL: This should be a minor issue.\n3 The only objection the government has to the document\n4 is that it has her husband's name on there. If the defense\n5 redacts that——that's what I pointed out to Ms. Shroff, it's her\n6 husband's email address, do we want to redact it, and\n7 Ms. Shroff didn't really have a verbal response. In any event,\n8 if they can redact it——I'm sure they have the technology to do\n9 that——we have no objection.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I don't think that the email\n11 name is mentioned. It's LivingSocialFixerUpper is the email\n12 address. They didn't——\n13 MR. FINKEL: That's——\n14 MS. SHROFF: I'm not finished, please. We got this\n15 document this way from the government. The government redacted\n16 every email address before. May I just——I just want to be able\n17 to finish this thought, because normally, the redaction would\n18 be, I don't know, if the email address is bobsmith@gmail.com,\n19 you would take out Bob or you would take out Smith or you take\n20 out Bob Smith, but you leave in @gmail.com so at least the jury\n21 knows that somebody was copied on it, so we can say you were\n22 copied on it. The government did not redact this\n23 LivingSocialFixerUpper email address. We had no reason to\n24 think that they would object to it now, and I don't see why we\n25 should have to redact it. But if you want me to redact it,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 one, it doesn't belong to her, it belongs to her husband, two,\n2 it doesn't matter, but it will take me a minute to do it.\n3 THE COURT: So let's do the redaction.\n4 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Do you want to give us a\n5 five-minute break.\n6 THE COURT: Isn't it possible for your helper to do\n7 that?\n8 MS. SHROFF: My helper is having problems with the\n9 thing keeps bopping off. The computer keeps dying, but——\n10 MR. FINKEL: Do you want to go on to something else\n11 while he's doing the redactions?\n12 MS. SHROFF: No, I really don't, but it will take us\n13 two minutes, your Honor.\n14 THE COURT: All right. So we'll have to take a very\n15 brief break.\n16 MR. FINKEL: 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\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: Members of the jury, we're going to take a\n3 five-minute break. I'm going to stick to the five minutes.\n4 Remember, don't discuss the case amongst yourselves; don't\n5 permit others to discuss it in your presence; don't read,\n6 watch, or listen to anything from any source that touches upon\n7 the subject matter of this trial. We will be back in five\n8 minutes.\n9 (Jury not present)\n10 THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step out. Don't discuss\n11 your testimony.\n12 (Witness not present)\n13 (Recess)\n14 THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in.\n15 (Jury present)\n16 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n17 And the witness?\n18 You may continue.\n19 MS. SHROFF: So if we could show her again 60676.\n20 And the defense moves 60676 into evidence.\n21 MR. FINKEL: Can I see the next page, please.\n22 And the last page?\n23 No objection.\n24 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n25 (Defendant's Exhibit 60676 received in evidence)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 BY MS. SHROFF:\n2 Q. So let's see if we can take a look at that, Ms. Chen.\n3 Could you read for us the first line.\n4 A. \"I previously submitted a request on 1/18/2022 to activate\n5 the membership of GC regard order I sent the payment on\n6 3/23/2021.\"\n7 MS. SHROFF: And if we could scroll down to the next\n8 paragraph.\n9 Q. \"Please activate the memberships accordingly.\" Do you see\n10 that line?\n11 A. I don't——oh, okay. Mm-hmm.\n12 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if we could just keep\n13 scrolling down.\n14 Q. And then it gives the G|CLUBS member legal name, correct?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. That's your husband, correct?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Not you, correct?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 MS. SHROFF: And if we could just keep scrolling down.\n21 Keep scrolling down.\n22 If we could just keep going down.\n23 Q. And then it tells you——hold on, please——there's a Ticket\n24 Update Time. Do you see that?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. It says, \"Your request has been updated.\" Correct?\n2 A. Mm-hmm.\n3 Q. And then it gives you an option, \"To add additional\n4 comments, please reply to this email,\" right?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Keep going down.\n7 Q. \"This email is a service from G|CLUBS customer service,\"\n8 correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Okay. And if we could just scroll down.\n11 Q. And that's the end of the document, correct?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. The membership is in your husband's name, correct?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And you shared this document with Mr. —— we can take that\n16 down——with Mr. Finkel, right?\n17 A. The email you just showed me?\n18 Q. Yes.\n19 A. I don't remember so.\n20 Q. Okay. Do you talk to Mr. Finkel——you know what, I'll\n21 withdraw that. I'll come back to it later.\n22 Now is it fair to say that there were several emails\n23 between your husband and G|CLUBS?\n24 A. Several email?\n25 Q. Right. He emailed them more than once?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I think he reached out to the customer services to activate\n2 the free G Club membership that we were given.\n3 Q. Right. And you see the——\n4 MS. SHROFF: Can we bring that document back up.\n5 And if I could just show her, \"In summary.\"\n6 Q. \"In summary, I have remitted,\" what's the dollar amount\n7 there?\n8 A. 100,000.\n9 Q. To cover these G Club orders, correct?\n10 A. This is a standard language.\n11 Q. No. The question is: Do you see the language that says G\n12 Club orders, yes or no?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And then the next line on the next page——on the same page\n15 says, \"Please activate the memberships accordingly,\" correct?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 MS. SHROFF: You can take that down.\n18 Now let's look at GX VB14.\n19 A. So that's a standard language the MOS Farm ask us to put in\n20 the email, as I explained earlier.\n21 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, there was no question before\n22 the witness.\n23 A. Because they asked for that verbiage, so I'm telling you\n24 that's not the verbiage my husband writing there, that's the\n25 verbiage MOS Farm gave us the template, in order to put the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 template in there.\n2 THE COURT: So just carefully listen to the question\n3 and answer only what's being asked.\n4 Go ahead.\n5 MS. SHROFF: Since there was no question pending, I\n6 move to strike the outburst.\n7 THE COURT: It is stricken.\n8 MS. SHROFF: Thank you.\n9 BY MS. SHROFF:\n10 Q. Let's look at GX VB14. You provided this document to\n11 Mr. Finkel, correct?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. And you testified about this document on direct, correct?\n14 A. When you say testify, meaning I said about this document\n15 yesterday?\n16 Q. Yes, ma'am.\n17 A. I honestly don't remember if I did or not.\n18 Q. Okay. The memberships were active until May of 2023,\n19 correct?\n20 A. Sorry. What's your question again?\n21 Q. The memberships——\n22 A. Uh-huh.\n23 Q. ——were active until May of 2023, correct?\n24 A. I don't know where you see that.\n25 Q. It's a question for you.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I don't know.\n2 Q. Okay. Well, let's look. Tier 1. Active. And then it has\n3 an expiration date, correct?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. Okay. Tier 2, Active, and an expiration date, correct?\n6 A. Tier 2? Where do you see that, Tier 2?\n7 Q. I'm sorry. Row 2.\n8 A. Okay.\n9 Q. Okay. And do you see all of them, 1, 2, 3, 4, say Active,\n10 correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay. And they were active as of May '23, until you called\n13 to cancel, correct?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Okay. And you know, sitting here today, that Mr. Guo was\n16 arrested on March 15——you can take that down, Jorge, thank\n17 you——that Mr. Guo was arrested on March 15th of 2023, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 MS. SHROFF: All right. Well, let's show Ms. Chen\n20 GX VB16.\n21 Q. You see that document, ma'am?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Okay. Do you recognize it?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. Okay. And that's Government Exhibit VB16, right? Do you\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 see that corner little stamp over there?\n2 A. Yes.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Okay. The defense moves to admit\n4 Government Exhibit VB16.\n5 MR. FINKEL: Sorry, your Honor. Just one moment.\n6 I don't think a proper foundation has been laid for\n7 this document, which is the witness's statements.\n8 Q. Whose email address is there on the corner?\n9 A. Our joint email address.\n10 Q. Okay. You recognize this gmail account, correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay. Let's scroll down.\n13 Who attached those attachments to the email?\n14 A. We attached it.\n15 Q. Yes. Was it you or your husband?\n16 A. It's our joint email account. I don't remember in this\n17 whether it was me or he attached it.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Okay. I think I laid a foundation and I\n19 move to admit it, your Honor.\n20 MR. FINKEL: I don't think there's a proper foundation\n21 for the witness's statements.\n22 THE COURT: I think there's one additional question\n23 that needs to be asked.\n24 BY MS. SHROFF:\n25 Q. Did you keep your gmail account and send a copy to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Mr. Finkel?\n2 A. Did I keep——\n3 Q. Did you keep this email and then send it to Mr. Finkel?\n4 A. I don't remember what I sent to the government. I'm sorry.\n5 Q. How about to the FBI agent that you emailed?\n6 A. I don't remember. I'm sorry.\n7 Q. But you recognize this to be an email from your and your\n8 husband's joint email account, correct?\n9 A. I recommend——I recognize this document you put in front of\n10 me. That's an email I sent from our joint account to G Club.\n11 Q. Okay. You sent it, right?\n12 A. We sent it together.\n13 MS. SHROFF: Okay. I think I've laid a foundation,\n14 your Honor.\n15 THE COURT: Yes. It is admitted.\n16 (Government's Exhibit VB16 received in evidence)\n17 MS. SHROFF: All right. So let's take a look at it.\n18 And if we could publish it to the jury, please.\n19 Q. Dated May 14, 2023, correct?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. Okay. And it says, \"Hello, I'd like to send the notice of\n22 my membership cancellation and request a refund of the five\n23 membership cards I paid for.\" Correct? Right?\n24 A. You just read it.\n25 Q. Yes. And then you scroll down and then you say, \"I\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 purchased the G|CLUBS membership because it was marketed as an\n2 investment with stock and shares.\" Correct?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. And then you say you did not receive stocks or shares or\n5 any membership benefits. Right?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. It's May of 2023. And then you say it's an investment\n8 fraud, correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And how many years after you first paid for this is this\n11 email sent?\n12 A. You can count. I don't need to answer.\n13 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could you help me out and\n14 direct the witness to answer the question, please.\n15 THE COURT: So if you'll just answer the question\n16 that's before you, please.\n17 A. Okay. Between——because I——I mean, to answer your question,\n18 I sent two payments, right? So which one do you want me to\n19 tell you?\n20 Q. Let's start with the first one. How many years between the\n21 first payment and May 14th of 2023?\n22 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I think this goes to the\n23 Court's ruling, the amount of time.\n24 THE COURT: I'll allow the question.\n25 A. From March 2021 to May 2023, it's a little bit over two\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 years.\n2 MS. SHROFF: All right. Now let's take that down.\n3 And let's go to GX VB12-T.\n4 A. I don't see it show up yet.\n5 Don't look at me. Don't stare at me.\n6 MS. SHROFF: I cannot see. I was literally going to\n7 my table to get my glasses because I cannot see that far.\n8 THE COURT: Okay. So no more testifying. Your job is\n9 to ask the question. Your job is to answer. That's the only\n10 thing that you should be doing, respectively.\n11 BY MS. SHROFF:\n12 Q. Do you see the document now?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. Okay. Do you recognize it?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. Okay. What is it?\n17 A. It's the email communication with the Hamilton Opportunity\n18 Fund.\n19 Q. Okay.\n20 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I just have a minute.\n21 THE COURT: Okay.\n22 THE WITNESS: The document, I don't see it.\n23 THE COURT: There's no question at this time.\n24 THE WITNESS: Okay.\n25 MS. SHROFF: He's pulling it up, your Honor. We're\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 having a little trouble. There you go.\n2 BY MS. SHROFF:\n3 Q. You recall testifying about this document yesterday, right?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. All right. Well, now you testified that you had——did you\n6 fill out this document, by the way, or was it your husband?\n7 A. We filled out the form together.\n8 Q. Okay. And that form is dated June 30, 2021, correct?\n9 A. I think so.\n10 Q. Okay. Well, look at the date up on top. Maybe that will\n11 help you.\n12 A. Yes, I said I think so.\n13 Q. And did you read the numbers 1 through 6, or 7, before you\n14 filled it out?\n15 A. I think so.\n16 Q. Did you fill it out or your husband filled it out?\n17 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n18 THE COURT: Sustained.\n19 Q. Tell me how you jointly fill out one form.\n20 A. So every time when we do this type of form, want to making\n21 sure we are filling out all the information correctly, so it's\n22 either me filling out, my husband sitting next to me checking,\n23 confirming I'm filling out the correct information, or I'm the\n24 one filling out that, he's sitting next to me, confirming that\n25 we're filling out the correct information.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. And who was filling out the information on this one?\n2 A. I don't remember. It was a long time ago.\n3 Q. All right. Well, let's scroll down. And if we could look\n4 at that question there on page 6. Do you see question No. VI?\n5 A. Okay. Yes, mm-hmm.\n6 Q. And the question is: \"Have you participated in the\n7 borrowing from the Himalaya New York Mountains of Spice?\"\n8 Correct?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And you answered no, right?\n11 A. Correct.\n12 Q. And Mr. Guo had in fact done many, many videos saying you\n13 should get into the borrowing from the Himalaya New York plan,\n14 correct?\n15 A. I don't know.\n16 Q. You didn't watch his videos saying that?\n17 A. I don't know how to answer your question. Sorry.\n18 Q. You watched all Miles Guo's videos, right?\n19 A. I don't think I watched all the videos.\n20 Q. You didn't watch all of them, only some of them?\n21 A. He had videos every day. I don't think I can watch it, all\n22 the videos.\n23 Q. Okay. Well, do you recall watching a video about the farm\n24 loan program?\n25 A. I don't remember specific about the farm loan program.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. Do you remember Mr. Guo encouraging you to invest in the\n2 farm loan program?\n3 A. I remember Miles Guo said to get the GTV shares through\n4 borrowing from the farm, participating in the farm loan\n5 program, and that is for people who are not from the Old Chair,\n6 because we already part of Old Chair that we had GTV share, so\n7 we did not do the farm loan borrowing.\n8 Q. Okay. But you had GTV shares from the Old Chair, correct?\n9 A. Yes, but Miles Guo also said participating in the——\n10 Q. Okay.\n11 A. Yes, mm-hmm.\n12 Q. Okay. Nevertheless, you invested, according to you, in G\n13 membership only to get GTV shares, correct?\n14 MR. FINKEL: Mischaracterizes.\n15 THE COURT: Sustained.\n16 Q. And you invested in G Club membership, according to you, to\n17 get the shares, right?\n18 MR. FINKEL: Objection, Judge.\n19 THE COURT: You're repeating the question. She's\n20 already answered this. Move on.\n21 Q. You did not invest in the farm loan program, right?\n22 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n23 THE COURT: Sustained.\n24 Q. Your husband didn't invest in the farm loan program,\n25 correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: It's a different question.\n2 Q. Did your husband invest?\n3 A. You just asked me to read this question, did we answer no,\n4 I said no.\n5 Q. So your husband did not invest.\n6 A. I answered already.\n7 Q. So the answer is no, right?\n8 A. I answered it's a joint form we filled out. It's no.\n9 THE COURT: Okay.\n10 Q. So when Mr. Guo told you to invest in the farm loan\n11 program, you were able to say no to him, right?\n12 A. Because he said to get more GTV shares through the farm\n13 loan program. We already have the GTV shares. My\n14 understanding is for those who do not have the GTV shares, that\n15 are not part of the Old Chair, to invest in the loan program to\n16 get the GTV shares, so that's not applied to us.\n17 Q. Does it say there, doesn't apply to Old Chair?\n18 A. That's from Miles Guo's broadcasting videos. I have\n19 explained to you.\n20 Q. Okay. And when Miles Guo did the broadcasting videos for G\n21 Club membership, did he also say that if you have Old Chair\n22 shares, don't go to G Club?\n23 A. So for that video, I remember clearly that it's for Old\n24 Chair to gain additional GTV shares, that in order to complete\n25 that investment, pay money to the G Club accounts.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. So you'd get additional shares here too, right? If you did\n2 the farm loan program, you'd get additional shares?\n3 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the form. We've been\n4 through this. She's answered why she didn't invest.\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 Q. Let's keep going down. You said no, right?\n7 A. I did not——\n8 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, three times. At least.\n9 THE COURT: Okay. So she's established——\n10 MS. SHROFF: It's okay, your Honor. I'll move on.\n11 THE COURT: She said no, so don't repeat the question\n12 again, and again, and again, once you receive an answer.\n13 Q. All right. Page 6. We're still on page 6. Okay. And\n14 let's look at the next question. This one asked you if you\n15 participated in borrowing from other farms, and you said no,\n16 correct?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's scroll down.\n19 And let's look at page 9 of the document.\n20 Q. Now on page 9, on the top, right, it says, \"As of\n21 September 17, are you planning for an additional investment?\"\n22 Correct? And you answered yes, right?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. What year was this document?\n25 A. This document was from 2021, so——you already asked me, I\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 filled it out on June 30, 2021, at the very beginning.\n2 Q. Okay. Let's scroll down.\n3 Now, Mr. Finkel asked you about 13-2, correct?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. And when you met with him in his office, you went over this\n6 question with him, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. And he specifically asked you whether you or your husband\n9 filled this out, right?\n10 A. I don't remember that.\n11 Q. Did Mr. Finkel ever ask to speak to your husband?\n12 A. I don't think so.\n13 Q. Okay. And there were three options here, correct?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Okay. The first option is, \"Only to purchase G Club card,\n16 without purchase of equities (card annual fee is required).\"\n17 Right?\n18 A. That's the English translation of——\n19 Q. Ma'am, I'm only asking you about the document that's before\n20 you.\n21 A. So what's your question again?\n22 Q. You did not pick the first option, correct?\n23 A. That's correct.\n24 Q. You did not pick the second option, which reads, \"Only for\n25 investment, voluntarily giving up G Club card (no card annual\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 fee is required).\" Correct?\n2 A. Correct.\n3 Q. Okay. And then the third option is the option you picked,\n4 \"To participate in investment through card project,\" correct?\n5 And then it says \"(purchase card and equities),\" correct,\n6 including——\n7 A. That's incorrect. I explained it yesterday. The English\n8 translation was wrong.\n9 Q. Ma'am, listen to my question.\n10 A. But you said is it correct? I said it's incorrect.\n11 THE COURT: So if you'll pose the question.\n12 Q. You picked option number three on this document, \"To\n13 participate in investment through card project (purchase card\n14 and equities), including upgraded card (card annual fee is\n15 required).\" Correct?\n16 A. I select the option of: To participate in investment\n17 through card project (distribute card and equities), including\n18 upgraded card (annual fee is required). I explained yesterday\n19 the translation here is wrong, so I cannot answer your question\n20 being that was correct, because the translation here is wrong.\n21 Q. Are you finished?\n22 THE COURT: All right. So she has stated that she did\n23 not accept the English version here and so that's the answer.\n24 MS. SHROFF: Okay.\n25 Q. You filled out the English version, though, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n2 THE COURT: Overruled.\n3 MR. FINKEL: But——\n4 Q. You filled out the English version, correct?\n5 A. That's incorrect. I filled out the Chinese version.\n6 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Well, let's scroll down.\n7 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, for the record, this is a\n8 translated document that's stipulated to.\n9 MS. SHROFF: That's okay.\n10 THE COURT: There is a translated document so that the\n11 jurors understand. Go ahead.\n12 MS. SHROFF: Keep scrolling down.\n13 Scroll down.\n14 BY MS. SHROFF:\n15 Q. And that's the end, right?\n16 A. Yes, I guess.\n17 Q. Okay. Let's go to the email itself.\n18 You see this email that you sent?\n19 A. It's a Google response. I didn't send email to anyone.\n20 Q. Well, you filled out the form, right?\n21 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n22 Q. You filled out the form and you uploaded it, right?\n23 THE COURT: The question has been posed and the\n24 witness has answered.\n25 Q. And after you did this in the Chinese version of this\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 document, you reviewed it with Mr. Finkel in English, right?\n2 A. I want to make it clear on the word. I did not review this\n3 document with him.\n4 Q. You didn't review this document, the attachments, with\n5 Mr. Finkel?\n6 A. He showed me this document. I did not review because\n7 I——because we just talk about what is review, and review is\n8 every page, line by line. I did not do the review.\n9 MS. SHROFF: Let's go back to page 6, and page 9.\n10 Q. Let's just talk about page 9. You reviewed this page with\n11 him, right?\n12 A. He showed me this page.\n13 Q. Okay. And what did he do after he showed you the page?\n14 A. So he asked me questions.\n15 Q. And you answered them, right?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. Okay. And you didn't have an interpreter present, right,\n18 when you talked to him about this page?\n19 A. So when Mr. Finkel showed me this document, he showed me\n20 the Chinese version that I submitted and then also showed me\n21 the interpretation, the interpretation version as shown up on\n22 the screen here.\n23 Q. Well, it's not interpreted, right? It's translated. It's\n24 a big difference. It's not interpreted.\n25 THE COURT: So the witness is not part of the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 translation or interpretation process and so she cannot testify\n2 about this.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's move on.\n4 Q. Sitting here today, you said to the jury that you filled\n5 out the Mandarin version, correct?\n6 A. Yes, I did.\n7 Q. And when you received this document, did you receive it\n8 both in Mandarin and in English?\n9 A. The answer is no.\n10 Q. You only received it in Mandarin.\n11 A. That is correct.\n12 Q. How about the PPM, did you receive that document both in\n13 Mandarin and in English?\n14 A. I don't remember.\n15 Q. How about the subscription agreement, did you receive that\n16 both in English and in Mandarin?\n17 A. I don't remember.\n18 Q. How about the forms that you signed when you signed up for\n19 the PPM, did you sign those in English or in Mandarin?\n20 A. That's back in 2020. I don't remember.\n21 MS. SHROFF: Okay. We can take that down.\n22 Q. Now you testified about an H Coin offering, correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. And the H Coin initial offering was in November of 2021,\n25 right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And you purchased H Coin, did you not?\n3 A. Did you say did I not?\n4 Q. Did you purchase H Coin?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Okay. And you knew——you're a citizen of the United States,\n7 right?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. And as a citizen of the United States, you're not supposed\n10 to purchase H Coin, correct?\n11 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n12 THE COURT: You may answer.\n13 MR. FINKEL: Calls for——\n14 A. Miles Guo asked us to use the Chinese identity to open H\n15 Coin account.\n16 Q. Miles Guo asked you to do everything. I understand that.\n17 My question to you was——\n18 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Shroff, I've already told\n19 you, do not testify.\n20 Q. It is your testimony today, right, Ms. Chen, that every\n21 single thing you did is what Miles Guo told you to do, correct?\n22 MR. FINKEL: Mischaracterizes.\n23 THE COURT: Sustained. She has never stated that in\n24 her testimony, that Miles Guo told her to do everything. No.\n25 Q. Did Miles Guo tell you to do everything you did in this\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 case?\n2 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the form.\n3 MS. SHROFF: It is a question.\n4 THE COURT: Sustained.\n5 Q. What did Miles Guo tell you to do that you did not do,\n6 according to you?\n7 THE COURT: Sustained.\n8 Q. Did Miles Guo tell you to invest in GTV?\n9 THE COURT: You may answer.\n10 A. Miles Guo promoted the GTV to me.\n11 Q. I'm sorry?\n12 A. He promoted the GTV investment.\n13 Q. Because he was GTV's promoter, correct?\n14 A. Because he owned GTV, in my opinion.\n15 Q. I didn't ask you your opinion of whether he owns GTV,\n16 ma'am.\n17 A. So that's——\n18 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I would just ask that\n19 Ms. Shroff just pose questions and not comment on the answers\n20 that the witness is providing.\n21 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff.\n22 MS. SHROFF: I did ask a question, your Honor.\n23 THE COURT: But you also added a comment that was not\n24 a question. Ask questions.\n25 BY MS. SHROFF:\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. In each of your answers during your direct, you said you\n2 did each thing that Mr. Finkel asked you about because of Miles\n3 Guo's statements in videos, correct?\n4 MR. FINKEL: Mischaracterizes.\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 Q. Your testimony, sitting here today, is you purchased H Coin\n7 because of what Miles Guo said, correct?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Okay. And at the time that Miles Guo told you, according\n10 to you, to purchase H Coin, you were a citizen of the United\n11 States, correct?\n12 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n13 THE COURT: Sustained.\n14 Q. And knowing that you were a citizen of the United States,\n15 you knew that you should not purchase H Coin, correct?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Mischaracterizes, and asked and answered.\n17 THE COURT: You may answer.\n18 A. Miles Guo asked me to use my Chinese identity to open and\n19 purchase H Coin.\n20 Q. And you did that, right?\n21 A. I did it.\n22 Q. And you did it only because Miles Guo asked you, right?\n23 A. I did it because Miles Guo said H Coin would go to the\n24 moon.\n25 Q. Okay. So there are two reasons. You did it because he\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 said it's going to go to the moon and also because he asked you\n2 to use a certain pin, correct?\n3 MR. FINKEL: Object to form.\n4 MS. SHROFF: I'll move on.\n5 Q. Whose credentials did you use to open the account?\n6 A. Sorry. What's your question?\n7 Q. Whose credentials did you use to open the account?\n8 A. I answered. Miles Guo asked me to use my Chinese identity\n9 to open account.\n10 Q. So you used your own Chinese identity to open the account;\n11 is that your testimony?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Which identity did you use?\n14 THE COURT: Sustained.\n15 Q. What document did you use to open the account?\n16 THE COURT: You may answer which document.\n17 A. It's a Chinese ID. I said it already.\n18 Q. Was your Chinese ID still valid?\n19 MR. FINKEL: Object to the relevance.\n20 THE COURT: You may answer.\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And it's still valid today, correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Now you testified about this phrase, \"H Coin to the moon,\"\n25 right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat.\n2 Q. You testified on direct to the phrase \"H Coin to the moon\"?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. Okay. And you told Mr. Finkel that you were impressed by\n5 that phrase, correct? I'll rephrase that for you.\n6 Did Mr. Guo's use of that phrase impact your decision\n7 about H Coin?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Okay. What price did Mr. Guo say H Coin would rise to?\n10 A. He said that it would be more valuable than Bitcoin and in\n11 the short term it will be reaching a hundred dollars very soon.\n12 Q. Okay. And how much was Bitcoin valued at that time?\n13 A. I don't remember.\n14 Q. You don't remember, or do you not know?\n15 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained.\n17 Q. Did you know how much Bitcoin was valued at that time?\n18 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n19 THE COURT: Are you asking whether at that time she\n20 knew the value?\n21 MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor.\n22 THE COURT: You may answer.\n23 A. I don't remember exactly how much it is, but it was like a\n24 10,000, like some sort of item like 50,000, or maybe 40,000.\n25 Q. 10,000, 50,000, 40,000, right? Any of those numbers.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. So it's more than——I think it's more than 40,000, yeah,\n2 maybe back then, but I don't remember exactly how much it was\n3 back in that time.\n4 Q. Okay. Did you know back then that Bitcoin fluctuated?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And you talked at length with Mr. Finkel about Mr. Guo's\n7 statements about the gold reserve, correct, on H Coin?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Okay. Do you know if there was in fact a gold reserve?\n10 A. Sorry. Can you repeat?\n11 Q. Do you know in fact if there was actually a gold reserve?\n12 A. I trust what Miles said.\n13 Q. So there was a gold reserve.\n14 A. Are you asking me back then do I——I'm confused with your\n15 question. What are you trying to ask me?\n16 Q. Mr. Guo said there was a gold reserve, correct?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. As far as you know, there was a gold reserve, correct?\n19 A. I trusted what Miles said.\n20 Q. Okay. So there was a gold reserve, right? Because you\n21 trusted him and there was a gold reserve.\n22 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n23 MS. SHROFF: I actually don't have an answer, your\n24 Honor.\n25 THE COURT: Sustained.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. Did you ask anybody on the exchange to see proof of the\n2 gold reserve?\n3 MR. FINKEL: Court's ruling, your Honor. Objection.\n4 THE COURT: Sustained.\n5 Q. Let's talk about the H Coin white paper, shall we. Do you\n6 know what that is?\n7 A. It's a document.\n8 Q. Okay. Where is it found?\n9 A. I don't remember. Somewhere on the Himalaya Exchange\n10 website.\n11 Q. Somewhere in the Himalaya Exchange website?\n12 A. I don't remember, so I think it could be, yeah.\n13 Q. Did you read it?\n14 A. Read it, but I don't remember what's in it.\n15 Q. You purchased over $500,000 worth of H Coin; is that\n16 correct?\n17 A. Sorry. Can you repeat?\n18 Q. You purchased more than $500,000 worth of H Coin, correct?\n19 A. I send more than $500,000 to purchase H Coin.\n20 Q. I'm sorry. Did you say \"I said\"?\n21 A. I send more than 500,000——$500,000 to purchase H Coin.\n22 Q. Okay. And that was over a period of time and not all at\n23 once, correct?\n24 A. Yes. I think between maybe January 2022 to February 2022,\n25 yes, mm-hmm.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. And the first time you did that, you put in $20,000,\n2 correct?\n3 A. I don't remember.\n4 Q. You don't remember a $20,000 purchase?\n5 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. Did you keep a note of how many investments you were making\n8 on H Coin?\n9 A. I'm sorry. I don't.\n10 Q. You don't what?\n11 A. Don't do the thing you just asked me the question.\n12 Q. You don't keep a note of how much you invest.\n13 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n14 THE COURT: Sustained.\n15 Q. Did you keep an Excel sheet?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Cumulative.\n17 THE COURT: Did you keep an Excel sheet?\n18 A. Of what?\n19 Q. Of your investments.\n20 A. Of H Coin? Of what?\n21 Q. Yes, of H Coin. We're talking about H Coin.\n22 A. Like, what do you mean by keep an Excel document of H Coin?\n23 Q. Make a column saying, on this day I invested $20,000 in H\n24 Coin.\n25 A. I don't.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. At your first purchase the H Coin price was 10 cents a\n2 coin, correct? Is that correct?\n3 A. That's not correct.\n4 Q. Okay. Well, you tell me.\n5 A. I think by the time I purchased, it's 4——it's more than $40\n6 or so.\n7 Q. And when you purchased it when it was more than $40 or so,\n8 did you purchase it on the secondary market?\n9 A. When you say secondary market, you talk about buying\n10 market, right?\n11 Q. Mm-hmm.\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Okay. And you decided to purchase at the $40 price point,\n14 correct?\n15 A. I purchased because Miles said it would go to a hundred\n16 dollars very soon.\n17 THE COURT: So the question was whether or not you\n18 purchased at the $40 price point.\n19 THE WITNESS: The question was?\n20 THE COURT: She said: \"And you decided to purchase at\n21 the $40 price point, correct?\"\n22 A. I decided based on the Miles Guo's promise of going to a\n23 hundred dollars, yes.\n24 Q. And there was a time when you purchased at a higher price\n25 point, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And you purchased H Coin after his bankruptcy, correct?\n3 A. I don't think so. I think the time I send in the money is\n4 prior to February 15, 2022.\n5 Q. How about after the SEC litigation or before?\n6 A. What SEC litigation you're referring to?\n7 Q. The SEC litigation you referred to yesterday.\n8 A. The SE——about the GTV that was not proper registered or\n9 something? Is that what——\n10 Q. Exactly.\n11 A. I think that's after that one, mm-hmm.\n12 Q. So your purchase was after that, correct?\n13 A. My purchase is in January 2022, and then I think that that\n14 SEC thing happened before that, yes, mm-hmm.\n15 Q. Okay. So SEC said to this man, you didn't do something\n16 correctly, and you decide to listen to him and buy H Coin,\n17 correct?\n18 MR. FINKEL: Object to form, and the Court's ruling.\n19 THE COURT: Sustained.\n20 Q. How many months after the SEC litigation did you buy H\n21 Coin?\n22 MR. FINKEL: Same objection.\n23 THE COURT: Sustained.\n24 Q. You had an initial allotment of H Coin purchase based on\n25 the 10 cents price, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I was allocated a quota of certain H Coin at 10 cents per\n2 coin, and I paid for it, but I never had those coins.\n3 Q. Can you try, Ms. Chen, to listen to my question, please.\n4 THE COURT: Okay. So I'd like the parties to step up,\n5 please.\n6 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 THE COURT: So Ms. Shroff, you said: \"So SEC said to\n3 this man, you didn't do something correctly, and you decide to\n4 listen to him and buy H Coin, correct?\" That's exactly\n5 crossing the line at this point.\n6 MS. SHROFF: That's the direct that they elicited,\n7 your Honor. I'm not seeking to touch a topic they didn't bring\n8 out. They brought out the SEC litigation. Those were her\n9 words on direct, that he broke some regulatory rules, so I was\n10 literally trying to follow exactly what she had said in her\n11 direct to limit my scope to what was said in the direct, so not\n12 to go beyond that. That is all I was trying to do. Simply a\n13 matter of timing is what I was trying to show; that's it.\n14 THE COURT: No. I think you're trying to show that\n15 despite what would have been an obvious warning that this is an\n16 extremely risky investment, she decided to do it anyway. That\n17 is what I think you're getting at.\n18 MS. SHROFF: I wasn't trying to get at that. I'm\n19 trying to show the timing. And I've repeatedly tried to show\n20 the timing because I put in the timing of the bankruptcy, I put\n21 in the timing of when she did the first allotment and when she\n22 subsequently buys on the secondary market.\n23 THE COURT: So if you want to show timing, then you\n24 ask for dates. You don't say, essentially, the SEC warned you\n25 but you did it anyway. You ask for dates.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: I didn't say SEC warned her. She said\n2 the SEC warned her. She said the SEC made a finding that he\n3 broke the regulatory rules. She testified to that yesterday.\n4 MR. FINKEL: She did not testify to that yesterday.\n5 MS. SHROFF: You are free to reread the transcript.\n6 She said the SEC fined him for breaking some regulatory rules.\n7 That's her testimony.\n8 THE COURT: So what you need to do is ask for dates.\n9 MS. SHROFF: Okay.\n10 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 (In open court)\n2 BY MS. SHROFF:\n3 Q. I'm going to come back to this topic in a minute, but I'm\n4 going to switch gears for a minute and talk to you about your\n5 volunteer work, okay?\n6 Now, Ms. Chen, you wanted to volunteer for the\n7 Mountains of Spice Farm, correct?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. Okay. And you first wanted to volunteer, you said\n10 yesterday, in 2022, correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. That was your testimony yesterday?\n13 A. Mm-hmm.\n14 Q. In fact, you first reached out to volunteer in 2021. Do\n15 you remember that?\n16 A. I remember I joined a group within the MOS Farm and\n17 expressed that, my interest to volunteer.\n18 Q. Well, you didn't just express your interest to volunteer,\n19 you told them why you would be a good volunteer, correct?\n20 A. I——I don't remember. I think they have some specific\n21 things you have to explain to them before I could volunteer,\n22 request that type of thing.\n23 Q. Well, let's see if we can refresh your recollection by\n24 showing you Defense Exhibit No. 7014.\n25 Yesterday you said your first volunteer was in 2022,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 but today you agree it was in 2021, correct?\n2 A. So I said in 2021 I started to express my interest, but I\n3 think my real volunteer work started in March 2022, like truly\n4 doing something that is being——doing the true volunteer, while\n5 I started reaching out to express interest in 2021, and\n6 then——here, end of 2021, yeah.\n7 Q. Let's just go through the chronology together, okay?\n8 In December of 2021, you approached——who did you\n9 approach. Do you remember?\n10 A. I'm sure they were here. It's——\n11 Q. I don't want you to look at the document. I just showed it\n12 to you to refresh your recollection about the date.\n13 MR. FINKEL: Should we take down the document if the\n14 recollection has been refreshed.\n15 THE COURT: You're showing the document now?\n16 MS. SHROFF: Well, the witness had testified——you know\n17 what, I'll come back to the document. I'll come back to the\n18 document.\n19 BY MS. SHROFF:\n20 Q. You now remember, right, that it was in December of 2021,\n21 correct?\n22 A. I think I mentioned to you I expressed interest of doing\n23 the volunteer work.\n24 Q. Okay. And that was about December, early December, right,\n25 by December 9th, maybe?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I did not remember that, but since you just showed me the\n2 document, the date is there, yes.\n3 Q. Okay. And in December 9th, you reached out to a particular\n4 group of Mountains of Spice, correct? Do you remember that?\n5 A. I reached out to a group. I don't know why you say a\n6 particular group.\n7 Q. What's the name of the group?\n8 A. I think that was something related to the finance group.\n9 Q. All right. And you reached out to them and you told them\n10 what your qualifications were, correct?\n11 A. I think that's their requirement before you express\n12 interest, talk about the volunteer work, you like to\n13 participate, they ask you to provide some background so that\n14 they know you, who you are, and see what other volunteer work\n15 that can be there that will be suitable based on your\n16 experiences.\n17 Q. And what was your experiences that were suitable for that\n18 volunteer work?\n19 A. You already said I work in a bank.\n20 Q. Ms. Chen——\n21 A. I work in a bank. I work in a bank.\n22 Q. What else did you tell them? Do you remember?\n23 A. I don't remember.\n24 MS. SHROFF: All right. Well, let's show her again\n25 DX 7014.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. Take a look at the column on the right.\n2 MR. FINKEL: What's the question?\n3 THE COURT: We're waiting for the question.\n4 Q. Are you finished reading, Ms. Chen?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. Okay. Does that refresh your recollection as to what it is\n7 that you told them your qualifications were?\n8 A. Yeah, that is what I said. It gave you a template, you\n9 have to explain your experiences, and that's what I filled out,\n10 based on the template they're giving us.\n11 Q. Where is the template, in this document?\n12 MR. FINKEL: The document is not in evidence.\n13 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Well, let's see.\n14 Q. Is that your handle over there in the corner?\n15 A. My handle?\n16 Q. Yes. Who's there on the photo on the left side?\n17 A. When you say handle——\n18 Q. Who is IvyIvy?\n19 A. That's a nickname I used when I register in the MOS Farm.\n20 Q. And this is all your document, correct?\n21 A. Yeah, this is my communication.\n22 MS. SHROFF: Let's just keep scrolling down.\n23 Scroll down some more.\n24 Q. Do you recognize this document?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's keep scrolling down.\n2 Q. And you recognize page 2 of this document, correct?\n3 A. I don't remember this one.\n4 Q. Okay. Well, let's go down to page 3.\n5 Who is AlWell?\n6 A. That's a nickname my husband used.\n7 Q. Okay. And the page 2, do you recognize who you're talking\n8 about when I say my husband AlWell?\n9 A. I recognize my husband. You mean I recognize my husband\n10 nickname? Yes, mm-hmm.\n11 Q. Okay. And you're on Discord, correct, having these chats?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 MS. SHROFF: Okay. I move DX 7014 into evidence.\n14 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, may I ask a question or two.\n15 THE COURT: Yes, you may.\n16 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION\n17 BY MR. FINKEL:\n18 Q. Ms. Chen, these chats that you had, were they in Mandarin\n19 or in English?\n20 A. In Mandarin.\n21 Q. And this English language on the side, did you write it?\n22 A. No.\n23 Q. Do you know where that's from?\n24 A. I don't know.\n25 Q. Do you know if it's right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 A. I don't know.\n2 MR. FINKEL: We object, and if necessary, a sidebar\n3 may be appropriate.\n4 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I just ask her a few\n5 questions.\n6 THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead and ask a few questions.\n7 BY MS. SHROFF:\n8 Q. You read Mandarin?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. Do you read English?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 MS. SHROFF: We move DX 7014 into evidence.\n13 THE COURT: So the question is whether or not the\n14 translation, in her opinion, accurately reflects what was\n15 written in Mandarin.\n16 MS. SHROFF: I'm happy not to question her about any\n17 of the English language.\n18 MR. FINKEL: Maybe we can approach.\n19 THE COURT: So let's approach.\n20 (Continued on next page)\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MR. FINKEL: There are a few reasons why this is\n3 objectionable. The first is, we received these documents at\n4 9:56 a.m. this morning, which is when this witness was on\n5 stand. There's no stipulated translations for this document at\n6 all. While the parties have had good conversations and have\n7 reached stipulations on most Mandarin-language issues, that has\n8 taken time. The government experts have reviewed their\n9 proposals, their experts have reviewed our proposals, we've\n10 been able to reach an accommodation. The Court has been\n11 consistent throughout this trial that Mandarin language that's\n12 not translated cannot be admitted. We would have preferred to\n13 put in a variety of documents that were in Mandarin that we\n14 ourselves translated, but absent a stip, we didn't do that. So\n15 that's number one is, this is a Mandarin-language document\n16 which she has not had time to review the accuracy of the\n17 English translations, nor could she. As Ms. Shroff in fact\n18 objected yesterday, she's not a 702 witness who is qualified to\n19 render an opinion about whether the English language is correct\n20 from the Mandarin. That's the simplest way to deal with this\n21 document.\n22 Number two, she didn't authenticate page 2. She\n23 doesn't recognize it.\n24 Number three, these are statements of the witness, so\n25 they're hearsay. And they're not inconsistent with anything\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 she has said, so that's not a reason. And to the extent her\n2 memory needs to be refreshed, she can be shown this document.\n3 I didn't object to that. But we can't introduce it as an\n4 exhibit because of the Mandarin language; because it's her\n5 statements and there's no proper basis; three, I don't really\n6 understand the relevance, but maybe there is relevance. So\n7 those are the primary reasons.\n8 THE COURT: Are you looking to impeach her with this?\n9 MS. SHROFF: I was actually looking to put it in as\n10 well, but I will certainly use it to impeach her, number one.\n11 Number two, yesterday, when she testified as to her\n12 translation and her understanding of the Mandarin document, and\n13 again today, her understanding and her position that it wasn't\n14 accurately translated was in fact allowed. Mr. Finkel objected\n15 to my objection, and the Court allowed the testimony to stand\n16 that she was of the opinion that the translation of that\n17 document was incorrect.\n18 MR. FINKEL: That's not correct.\n19 MS. SHROFF: I haven't even finished.\n20 MR. FINKEL: I thought you had.\n21 MS. SHROFF: So the record is just out there. And the\n22 Court actually said she disagrees as to whether or not the\n23 translation is accurate. I think that happened today.\n24 THE COURT: So just going backwards, if they have not\n25 had a chance to have their translators review it, then it\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 cannot come in. You can certainly use it to try to impeach her\n2 by showing it to only her.\n3 MS. SHROFF: Okay.\n4 THE COURT: Okay.\n5 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: You may continue.\n3 BY MS. SHROFF:\n4 Q. In December of 2021, you were on Discord, correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And on Discord, you sought to join the finance group\n7 because you wanted to volunteer in that particular group,\n8 correct?\n9 A. I joined a group——sorry. What's your question? I joined a\n10 group because I want to volunteer?\n11 Q. In the finance group specifically, yes.\n12 A. I joined the group but not because I want to volunteer\n13 specifically in that group. I just joined the group.\n14 Q. Okay. Well, you told the group why you would be a\n15 particularly good person in that group, correct?\n16 A. I explained earlier, they ask you to provide your\n17 background so I provided my background.\n18 Q. Well, you did more than that, right? You told them you\n19 were eager to join the farm's finance department, correct?\n20 A. Where did you see that?\n21 MR. FINKEL: So this——\n22 THE COURT: So——\n23 MS. SHROFF: The document shouldn't be in front of\n24 her.\n25 Q. My question to you is: Do you recall telling them on\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Discord that you were \"eager to join our farm's finance\n2 department to contribute my modest efforts\"? Do you recall\n3 saying that on Discord?\n4 A. I don't remember that.\n5 Q. Let's show you again 7014.\n6 THE COURT: And so you don't have to read from the\n7 document. The only question would be: Does that help you\n8 remember? Does that refresh your recollection?\n9 A. By——I don't remember I said that. I——\n10 Q. Just take a minute and read the document and just the only\n11 question, as the judge said, was——\n12 THE COURT: The Mandarin version, if that is the\n13 language in which she was——\n14 MS. SHROFF: Sure. There you go. It's right there,\n15 on the left column.\n16 A. So you ask me, so I think I said I joined the group, but\n17 not because I want to contribute in that group.\n18 Q. That wasn't the question, Ms. Chen. The question——maybe\n19 the judge can repeat it.\n20 THE COURT: So the question is: Does this help\n21 refresh your recollection as to what you said?\n22 A. And what did I say?\n23 Q. That you were eager to join the farm's finance department,\n24 eager to join.\n25 A. I think, okay, when I say eager to join, it's——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 Q. The question only is whether you said that.\n2 THE COURT: No. The question is whether this document\n3 refreshes her recollection. That's the first question.\n4 A. I don't remember.\n5 Q. Okay. And do you recall then telling them why you would be\n6 particularly suited to the finance department?\n7 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n8 THE COURT: Sustained.\n9 Q. Did you list your skills as to why you would be\n10 particularly suited to the finance department?\n11 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered three times.\n12 THE COURT: Sustained.\n13 MS. SHROFF: I did not ask that question, your Honor.\n14 A. I explained, asked me to——\n15 THE COURT: So the objection is sustained, so don't\n16 answer.\n17 Q. What were the skills that you listed?\n18 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n19 MS. SHROFF: I did not ask that question.\n20 THE COURT: If you have a recollection. Do you\n21 recollect?\n22 THE WITNESS: I don't.\n23 Q. Do you recall saying to them that you had skills in\n24 English, financial management, risk analysis, credit, legal\n25 compliance, auditing, business process organization, certified\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - Cross\n1 public accountant, certified internal auditor, education, MBA,\n2 over ten years of experience at large financial companies in\n3 the U.S.?\n4 MR. FINKEL: Objection, because Ms. Shroff is reading\n5 from a document that is not in evidence.\n6 MS. SHROFF: I'm asking her if she listed those\n7 things.\n8 A. I don't remember. I answered your question——\n9 Q. All right.\n10 A. ——already.\n11 Q. I'll show you again the same document to see if the\n12 document refreshes your recollection as to the last question.\n13 THE COURT: The objection was overruled. Go ahead.\n14 MS. SHROFF: Show her the Mandarin language, please.\n15 A. I don't remember.\n16 Q. Okay. Let's move forward.\n17 Do you recall also on Discord telling——oh, let me go\n18 back to the question. You were talking to——\n19 THE COURT: So it's now 11:30, so we're going to take\n20 our half-hour break.\n21 Members of the jury, remember, don't discuss the case\n22 amongst yourselves or with anyone else. Don't permit anyone to\n23 discuss the case in your presence. Don't read, listen to, or\n24 watch anything that touches on the subject matter of this case.\n25 (Jury not present)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n1 THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step out of the courtroom.\n2 Don't discuss your testimony.\n3 (Witness not present)\n4 THE COURT: Is there anything before we reconvene?\n5 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I'd just like to understand\n6 how much more Ms. Shroff has. She's now had cross-examination\n7 for three hours. Ms. Chen was on direct for an hour and ten\n8 minutes. The government's point of view is most of this is\n9 entirely irrelevant. But it would just be helpful to know,\n10 because we have one more witness. We're trying to figure it\n11 out. We'd like to rest today. We were hoping to rest two days\n12 ago. I don't know if this is a filibuster to prevent the\n13 defense from having to present their case until Tuesday, but\n14 we're way far afield from scope and relevance and a host of\n15 other issues.\n16 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, how much more?\n17 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, this is well within the\n18 scope. Did the Court want me to address that issue or no?\n19 THE COURT: I want you to address the timing.\n20 MS. SHROFF: I think about 45 minutes.\n21 THE COURT: 45 minutes?\n22 MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor.\n23 THE COURT: I'd like you to cut that back.\n24 MS. SHROFF: We tried.\n25 THE COURT: I'd like you to cut it back.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n1 MS. SHROFF: I will definitely try, your Honor.\n2 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, may I just raise one other\n3 issue.\n4 THE COURT: Yes.\n5 MR. FINKEL: Just further to what was discussed at\n6 sidebar, the question that Ms. Shroff posed about the timing of\n7 the SEC settlement and her decision to invest after the SEC\n8 said——as Ms. Shroff put it, in effect, SEC said Mr. Guo did\n9 something wrong, you still decided to invest, there's only one\n10 possible inference to draw from such a question, and that is\n11 that Ms. Shroff is suggesting to the jury that Ms. Chen, who\n12 she has emphasized many times over and over, was involved in\n13 risk management at a bank, Ms. Shroff's point is, Ms. Chen\n14 should have known better. That's the only point to draw,\n15 and——all right. I don't want to——\n16 THE COURT: So the date that I'm referring to is the\n17 date that she decided to make the investment. Ms. Shroff can\n18 raise or whoever is going to do the summation can raise the\n19 date of the SEC warning or statement but not in a question to\n20 the witness are you to raise the SEC issue, just the issue of\n21 when she actually made the investment; in other words, not to\n22 draw the jury's attention to the timing of the SEC's statement\n23 and the timing of her investment.\n24 MR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor. I agree with that. And\n25 the government's concern——and we've articulated this in other\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n1 instances; I think this is the best example of it——is the jury\n2 thinks, or we're concerned the jury might think, and certainly\n3 can be confused to think, that if the victims are negligent or\n4 unsophisticated or didn't do enough research——there was another\n5 question posed: Did you reach out to Himalaya Exchange to ask\n6 if they had gold? Your Honor sustained that. The question in\n7 this trial for this jury is whether Miles Guo had intent to\n8 defraud. The intent and sophistication of the victims is not\n9 relevant. And I really feel, the government feels, that the\n10 jury is confused. And we'd ask your Honor to consider giving\n11 an instruction, which is a correct statement of the law, so\n12 that there will be no confusion and because the defense has\n13 never objected to the fact of that instruction as a practical\n14 statement of the law. We think it's appropriate.\n15 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, under Litvak, I'm entitled to\n16 show what information this witness had access to. I reread\n17 Litvak, I consulted with the person who has a deeper\n18 understanding of it, and I believe the questions I asked were\n19 permissible.\n20 More importantly, this jury does not seem in the least\n21 bit confused. It seems like a very sophisticated, enthralled,\n22 and attention-paying jury.\n23 And finally, your Honor, I am quite certain that the\n24 Court's jury instructions, which will come after, I'm assuming,\n25 a day or two day's break, this witness, we hope, will be a very\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n1 distant memory for all of us.\n2 So for those reasons, your Honor, I do not think any\n3 instruction at this point is needed.\n4 MR. FINKEL: May I respond.\n5 THE COURT: Yes.\n6 MR. FINKEL: So your Honor, after this witness, which\n7 I guess has another 45 minutes, so she'll be on the stand for\n8 four hours, in which she has been crossed extensively about\n9 what she knew, when she knew it, what research she did——and\n10 she's not the first witness to experience this——they're going\n11 to have a defense case, which is going to be filled with\n12 information from the white paper and all kinds of other things,\n13 all to suggest to the jury that they should have known better.\n14 And Ms. Shroff's right. I think the jury is very attentive,\n15 but we don't know what they're thinking about what they need to\n16 decide, and as they're taking this information in, given the\n17 two questions——there were several, but the two in particular\n18 that I referenced——\"Did you call the Himalaya Exchange and ask\n19 if they had gold,\" that's not Litvak. That's suggesting she\n20 should have made a phone call to the Himalaya Exchange and\n21 researched it. And then she did the same thing: And did you\n22 have Google? Do you have Google? And Ms. Chen said: Yes, of\n23 course I have Google. These are suggesting the victim should\n24 have done more. This is not a mix of information. An\n25 instruction here is appropriate.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n1 THE COURT: So I don't know that you're right. If you\n2 can provide some appellate authority that an instruction at\n3 this moment would be appropriate, I would look at it.\n4 We'll start again at noon.\n5 MR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor.\n6 (Recess)\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\nO6RBGUO3\n1 AFTERNOON SESSION\n2 12:06 p.m.\n3 THE COURT: Please be seated. I just received news\n4 that juror number eight just received news that his daughter\n5 has tested positive for Covid. I have sent back a mask which\n6 number eight has put on and we will just proceed from here.\n7 MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, can I just note one thing\n8 since we're talking about jurors. I believe alternate number\n9 four this morning when I was riding up on the elevator\n10 approached me and ask if he could get on the elevator with me.\n11 I said no, why don't you take this one, and I conferred with\n12 government counsel. I don't think there's anything to be done.\n13 I just wanted to let your Honor know.\n14 MR. FINKEL: That's fine from the government's\n15 perspective. Your Honor, the government emailed chambers a\n16 copy of Second Circuit authority regarding the issue we\n17 discussed before the break. Happy to answer any questions if\n18 the Court has any. The government's view is that this case is\n19 on all fours with the situation that is before the Court right\n20 now. In that case the defendant disclaimed a duress defense,\n21 then testimony elicited information about threats. The\n22 government objected on the basis it appears that such threat\n23 information was confusing the jury about the appropriateness of\n24 that information, and the Court mid-trial Judge Rakoff provided\n25 a corrective instruction mid-trial and post-trial. Second\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Circuit affirmed both instructions. We think both are\n2 appropriate here so that the jury is not confused and that the\n3 Court deliver what is unobjectionably a correct statement of\n4 the law. And that's all the Second Circuit would review is\n5 whether the statement your Honor makes is a correct statement\n6 of the law. And based on the responses to the proposed jury\n7 charge, I don't believe that the defense has objected to the\n8 statement in the proposed jury charge that the sophistication\n9 of the jurors is not what is relevant to this trial, and they\n10 are not under any obligation to discover the fraud.\n11 MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, I think, one, there's a\n12 difference between a duress defense, which is obviously a\n13 defense that the defendant has to notify the government and the\n14 Court of before. My understanding is Ms. Shroff's questions\n15 were targeted toward access, towards the access to the\n16 information. And your Honor did rule that sophistication is a\n17 factor that the jury can consider under Litvak. I'm not sure\n18 that any kind of instruction is appropriate now. And I'm not\n19 sure that Peterson actually speaks to the appropriateness of it\n20 in this context.\n21 MR. FINKEL: Not to go down this path again, but\n22 Ms. Shroff ask the witness, Did you call the Himalaya Exchange\n23 and ask them if they had gold? Suggesting did you do research\n24 to determine that there was no gold. She also asked, Did you\n25 know that Miles Guo was told by the SEC that he did an\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 unregistered security offering on this date, and then after\n2 that date you invested again? This is saying that there were\n3 red flags, which there were, there were red flags for this\n4 victim, but there's no reliance. It's a question of Miles\n5 Guo's intent, not their intent, and the jury is confused about\n6 this issue. This Second Circuit authority provides basis for\n7 the Court to provide a mid-trial instruction in such\n8 circumstances. Your Honor noticed this sua sponte and called\n9 for a sidebar in response to Ms. Shroff's question about the\n10 timing of the SEC investment. This is not about access to\n11 information. They have done it through Ms. Chen. They have\n12 done it through other witnesses. They have tried to lay sort\n13 of subtext that the victim should have known.\n14 THE COURT: So I don't agree that it's appropriate to\n15 give the instruction at this time, so let's have the jurors\n16 brought in.\n17 (Continued on next page)\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering.\n2 (Jury present)\n3 THE COURT: Please be seated. Members of the jury,\n4 juror number eight has informed the Court that his daughter was\n5 just diagnosed with Covid, and I directed that he wear a mask,\n6 and so I want all of you to be very mindful of your health as\n7 we go along. And if you should be diagnosed with Covid, I'd\n8 like you to text the three numbers that we will be giving to\n9 you at the break. All righty. You may continue.\n10 BY MS. SHROFF:\n11 Q. Ms. Chen, in early December of 2021, you also on behalf of\n12 your husband asked for the opportunity for him to volunteer,\n13 correct?\n14 A. I don't remember that.\n15 Q. Do you recall -- okay. Let me show you again the same\n16 document to refresh your recollection, 704. And if I could\n17 show her the Mandarin version, please, and the English version\n18 as well, whichever one she picks.\n19 A. I don't remember I did.\n20 Q. Thank you. And did there come a time when both you and\n21 your husband were volunteering for Faith Night, correct?\n22 A. We're not volunteering for Faith Night, no.\n23 Q. You were volunteering in her group, correct?\n24 A. I volunteering MOS farm.\n25 Q. My question was, she ran the finance group, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. I'm not sure.\n2 Q. Well, didn't she tell you that you were welcome?\n3 A. I don't remember.\n4 Q. All right. Let's go back to the document again. Does that\n5 document refresh your recollection that you in fact approached\n6 Faith Night, and she is the one who said you and he are\n7 welcome?\n8 MR. FINKEL: That's not the question that was asked.\n9 MS. SHROFF: I'm happy to rephrase.\n10 Q. Let me try the first question again. Do you recall asking\n11 or directing your Discord chat to Faith Night?\n12 A. I recall I express interest to join a group.\n13 Q. Right. And the group leader at that time was Faith Night,\n14 right?\n15 A. I don't remember.\n16 Q. Well, does that refresh your recollection, the document?\n17 A. I don't remember.\n18 Q. The document that's on the screen?\n19 A. I don't remember.\n20 THE COURT: So if you'll look at the document on the\n21 screen and then say whether or not that refreshes your\n22 recollection.\n23 A. I have look at this document and I said I don't remember.\n24 Q. And you also don't remember whether it was Faith Night who\n25 welcomed you, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n2 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer if you remember\n3 that.\n4 A. I don't remember. There are like different volunteers in\n5 MOS farm. I reach out to someone first and tell us to provide\n6 the template, and then we follow the template and reach out to\n7 another person, so I don't remember who is who.\n8 Q. Sitting here today you do know who Faith Night is, right?\n9 A. I do.\n10 Q. And let's move forward. Did you also know somebody named\n11 Octopus who was in the same finance group in December of 2021?\n12 A. I don't remember.\n13 Q. And in December of 2021, you were aware, were you not, that\n14 Mr. Guo rewarded people who volunteered, correct?\n15 A. I was not aware.\n16 Q. And you were not aware that Mr. Guo had produced videos and\n17 talked about the benefits of volunteering at a farm?\n18 A. I don't think I recall.\n19 Q. There did come a point when they accepted you into the\n20 group, right, in December of 2021?\n21 A. I think so.\n22 Q. And do you remember that was on December 9 of 2021?\n23 A. I don't remember.\n24 Q. And do you remember saying to them that you were happy to\n25 be a volunteer and called it, Our finance group?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. I don't remember.\n2 Q. Do you recall telling them that your husband had experience\n3 in finance and Fintech?\n4 A. I don't remember.\n5 Q. May we show her again the same document.\n6 A. I don't remember.\n7 Q. We can take that down.\n8 And do you recall telling them about his extensive IT\n9 experience?\n10 A. I don't recall.\n11 Q. And this is still in December of 2021, do you recall that\n12 you started volunteering in December? Do you recall that?\n13 A. I don't recall.\n14 Q. Do you recall that in December, on December 20 of 2021, you\n15 stopped volunteering, do you recall that?\n16 A. I don't recall.\n17 Q. Do you recall that your husband also stopped volunteering\n18 on December 20 of 2021?\n19 A. I don't recall.\n20 Q. Now moving onto February of 2022, you were working at that\n21 time, correct?\n22 A. When you say I working, can you help clarify.\n23 Q. Sure. First you were just working as a mother, correct?\n24 A. No, I'm always working.\n25 Q. Mothering is work. I'm asking you. That's work. I'm\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 acknowledging your work.\n2 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the commentary.\n3 MS. SHROFF: I'm trying to answer her question.\n4 THE COURT: Just ask the questions.\n5 Q. You worked at home, correct?\n6 A. No, I always have a job. I don't understand what's your\n7 question. When you say work, can you help me understand. When\n8 you say work as a mom, what does that mean?\n9 Q. You looked after your child. You fed your child. You put\n10 him to bed, he, she, your children. You took care of them,\n11 right?\n12 MR. FINKEL: Relevance objection.\n13 MS. SHROFF: I'm literally trying to do what the\n14 witness asked.\n15 THE COURT: Overruled. What's the question.\n16 A. What's the question?\n17 Q. You had a full-time, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And then you worked at home also, correct?\n20 A. When you say I work at home, meaning I take care of my kids\n21 at home?\n22 Q. Yes, that's work.\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Okay. And that was in February of 2022 as well, correct?\n25 A. That's all the time when I have kids, I do that type of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 job.\n2 Q. And in February 2022, it was Covid time, was it, do you\n3 remember?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. And at that time were you actually physically going to work\n6 at that time during Covid?\n7 A. I work remote.\n8 Q. And how long do you recall working remote?\n9 MR. FINKEL: Relevance objection.\n10 MS. SHROFF: I'll move on, your Honor.\n11 Q. I'll move forward. It's okay. As part of your volunteer\n12 work in 2022, were you a volunteer?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And you testified on direct, right, that you were working\n15 ten hours at volunteering, correct?\n16 A. What do you mean by ten hours?\n17 Q. How many hours did you volunteer?\n18 A. I testify on average I volunteer about 40 hours per week.\n19 Q. So on arrange you -- you know what. I won't repeat it.\n20 And at this time you were also working remotely 40-hour weeks?\n21 A. Yes, that's correct.\n22 Q. And there came a time when you had to submit time sheets\n23 for your volunteer work, right?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. And do you recall sitting here today that you submitted\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 time sheets for 2,390 hours?\n2 A. Me alone?\n3 Q. Yes.\n4 THE COURT: Covering what period?\n5 MS. SHROFF: I didn't hear.\n6 THE COURT: 2,000 hours covering what period of time?\n7 MS. SHROFF: For February.\n8 THE COURT: For February alone?\n9 MS. SHROFF: I'll see how she put it.\n10 Q. You submitted time sheets to Discord, correct?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. And your Discord hours you noted as daily average working\n13 hours were ten, correct?\n14 A. So my testimony talk about an average hours 40 hours\n15 between March 2022 and March 2023, so I work more hours during\n16 the period of March 2022 till September 2022, and less hours\n17 from September 2022 till March 2023. So by the time you say\n18 about ten hours a day, that was during the time that I was\n19 working between March 2022 till September 2022.\n20 Q. Actually it was February of 2022 to October of 2022,\n21 correct?\n22 A. So maybe my recollection has a month off or so, but if you\n23 say that.\n24 Q. To be precise, it's February 26 of 2022 to October 22 of\n25 2022?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. Okay. If you say February 26, 2022, it's close to March,\n2 yeah. It's close to March, yes. So it's a few days off\n3 between you say starting on February 26 versus I say March\n4 2022.\n5 Q. And that's all through Covid, right?\n6 March was Covid, right?\n7 A. Yes.\n8 Q. April was Covid, right?\n9 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the relevance. What are we\n10 doing?\n11 THE COURT: Sustained.\n12 Q. You were working remotely during that time, correct?\n13 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n14 THE COURT: Sustained.\n15 Q. You submitted these time sheets, right?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n17 THE COURT: Sustained.\n18 Q. Who did you submit it to?\n19 A. You said Discord. If that is true, I submit in Discord. I\n20 don't remember who I submitted it to.\n21 Q. And somebody in Discord contacted you about your time\n22 sheets, correct?\n23 A. I don't remember.\n24 Q. They told you these were exaggerated time sheets, correct?\n25 A. Sorry. What's your question?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Q. They said you had inflated your time sheets, correct?\n2 A. I don't recall that.\n3 Q. You don't recall them saying you couldn't possibly have put\n4 in all of those hours?\n5 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n6 THE COURT: Sustained, asked and answered.\n7 Q. You were in fact asked to describe what work you did as a\n8 volunteer, correct?\n9 A. I think so.\n10 Q. Right. And you provided a description, correct?\n11 A. I think so.\n12 Q. And they took issue with your description of the work you\n13 provided, correct?\n14 A. They took an issue with?\n15 Q. They disagreed with you, correct?\n16 A. I don't recall that.\n17 Q. And then did there come a time when you also stopped\n18 volunteering again?\n19 A. There come a time that I stopped volunteering or started\n20 up.\n21 Q. Stopped.\n22 A. I answered, March 2023.\n23 Q. And you stopped because the people in your group pushed\n24 back on your hours, correct?\n25 A. That's incorrect.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Q. So why did you stop?\n2 A. Why did I stop?\n3 Q. Yes.\n4 A. Back then my parents their house were not being doing very\n5 well, so I plan to take a step back and spend more time with\n6 them.\n7 Q. But that was in December of 2021, right?\n8 That's what you told the people on Discord in December\n9 of 2021?\n10 A. That's what I told them in March of 2023.\n11 Q. Let me show you again the same document exhibit. Actually,\n12 I'll move on.\n13 When you decided to stop volunteering, did you tell\n14 anyone over Discord the reason why you stopped?\n15 A. I message Octopus through the Whatsapp chat on March 2023.\n16 Q. But you and Octopus did not get along, correct?\n17 A. I don't understand when you say do not get along? What\n18 does that mean.\n19 Q. Because you and Octopus and you and Faith Night and you and\n20 Fay Fay had a disagreement about how you were calculating your\n21 volunteer hours and how they related to your H Coin allotment,\n22 correct?\n23 MR. FINKEL: Form objection.\n24 A. That's incorrect.\n25 THE COURT: Overruled.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Q. Let's look at your H Coin allotment, okay. You agree with\n2 me that the initial H Coin allotment was based on several\n3 factors, correct?\n4 A. You didn't say what those factors are. You said it's based\n5 on several factors.\n6 Q. You know they were based on several factors, do you know\n7 that or not?\n8 A. Can you tell me those factors so I can answer your question\n9 yes or no?\n10 Q. Sure. One of the factors was the amount of volunteer work\n11 done, correct?\n12 A. So the H Coin allotment was provided before H Coin launched\n13 in November 2021, so the volunteer work calculated is for the\n14 volunteer work done before November 1, 2021. So back then, I\n15 did not even volunteer, so it's not have anything to do with my\n16 H Coin allotment.\n17 Q. We'll get there. I'm just talking about the initial\n18 allotment. Okay. The initial allotment you knew was based on\n19 volunteer work, correct?\n20 A. I did not know.\n21 Q. How about did it depend on how much money you had invested?\n22 A. That's what I know.\n23 Q. And then wasn't it also multiplied by a certain\n24 co-efficient, correct?\n25 There was a formula that they used, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. And the formula was either 0.5, 0.7 or .02, correct?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. And when you were doing the calculation for yourself, there\n5 was a disagreement about your particular calculation, correct?\n6 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n7 THE COURT: Sustained.\n8 MS. SHROFF: I have not even touched the November\n9 portion of this allotment.\n10 THE COURT: You've asked that question generally. Are\n11 you asking it with regard to a specific time?\n12 MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. I'm asking it about the\n13 timeframe that the witness just referred to which was the\n14 pre-period when it was calculated before H Coin was offered.\n15 THE COURT: Okay. You may answer.\n16 A. So what's the question?\n17 Q. There was a disagreement as to your actual calculation,\n18 correct?\n19 A. I have explained in my testimony yesterday, my investment\n20 got miscounted in H Coin allotment.\n21 Q. You believed it was miscounted and they did not agree with\n22 you, correct?\n23 A. When you say they, who are you referring to?\n24 Q. The people who were in charge of allotments, they did not\n25 agree with you, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. Who are in charge of the H Coin allotment?\n2 Q. You tell me.\n3 A. I don't know.\n4 Q. Well, they told you that they disagreed with your\n5 calculation?\n6 A. Who told you they disagree with my calculation?\n7 Q. Ms. Chen --\n8 A. I don't know who she's referring to so I cannot answer her\n9 question. She told me they, but she didn't tell me who is\n10 they.\n11 THE COURT: Ms. Shroff.\n12 Q. You did the calculation at a 0.7 rate, correct?\n13 A. I didn't do the calculation at 07 rate. It was provided to\n14 me at 0.7 rate because I think they said the coin is gone, so I\n15 have no choice of doing the coin. I can only do the fund, and\n16 the fund is 0.7.\n17 Q. They told you specifically that your calculation should\n18 have been at the 0.2 rate, correct?\n19 MR. FINKEL: We've been through this.\n20 THE COURT: You may answer.\n21 A. I don't recall that.\n22 Q. Now, Ms. Chen, you were an active trader on the Himalaya\n23 Exchange; is that correct?\n24 A. I'm not saying I'm active trader, but I do sell and buy\n25 because the price drop so much. So when it kind of get to the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 point it's just so low, I don't know what to do, so I do sell.\n2 Q. You had 90 buy transactions since the opening of your\n3 account, correct?\n4 A. I don't remember that amount.\n5 Q. You made 80 sale transactions, correct?\n6 A. I don't remember.\n7 Q. You were playing on the H Coin market to see if you could\n8 make a profit, correct?\n9 A. That's incorrect.\n10 Q. What did you trade for if not to make a profit?\n11 A. Incur as much as I can.\n12 Q. I'm sorry.\n13 A. Have as much as I can.\n14 Q. Same thing, right?\n15 A. It's different.\n16 Q. All told, you had 80 buys and 90 sales transactions, right?\n17 A. I don't remember.\n18 Q. Well, you have access to your sales and your buys, right?\n19 A. I haven't log in account for a long time.\n20 Q. I didn't ask if you had logged in for a long time. My\n21 question was whether you had access to that information?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. By the way, did you and Mr. Finkel over there access this\n24 information to prepare for your testimony today?\n25 A. No. The answer is no.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Q. Ms. Chen, you testified on direct that you took a second\n2 loan on your home to purchase additional GTV shares, correct?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. That was in December of 2021; is that right?\n5 A. That's incorrect.\n6 Q. Well, you tell me the correct date?\n7 A. I think yesterday I said it's the Crane Advisory. That was\n8 in March of 2021.\n9 Q. You think you took your second home loan in March of 2021?\n10 I just want to get the month right.\n11 MR. FINKEL: Objection. I think it's\n12 mischaracterizing what was just said.\n13 Q. I'll ask the question again. In what month did you take\n14 your second loan on your home to purchase additional GTV\n15 shares?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Objection to form. Year too, right?\n17 THE COURT: Put in the year, please.\n18 Q. 2021?\n19 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the testimony. Ms. Shroff\n20 can ask the question.\n21 MS. SHROFF: You told me to put a year.\n22 THE COURT: So the month and the date that you're\n23 asking about, Ms. Shroff.\n24 MS. SHROFF: I'm asking her what month and date she\n25 took the loan out. I'm asking her the question.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 THE COURT: Okay. You may answer.\n2 A. If I remember correctly, I think it's March 2021.\n3 Q. And at that time in March of 2021, you also owned a\n4 townhouse in Falls Church Virginia, correct?\n5 MR. FINKEL: Objection to the relevance.\n6 THE COURT: Does this have to do with the home equity\n7 loan?\n8 MS. SHROFF: No, this is her other assets.\n9 MR. FINKEL: Highly irrelevant.\n10 THE COURT: Sustained.\n11 Q. But you had other assets, right?\n12 MR. FINKEL: Same objection.\n13 THE COURT: Sustained.\n14 Q. Did you invest in real estate, Ms. Chen?\n15 MR. FINKEL: Same objection.\n16 THE COURT: Sustained.\n17 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we have a sidebar?\n18 MR. FINKEL: I don't think one is needed.\n19 THE COURT: Okay.\n20 (Continued on next page)\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the jury is left with an\n3 impression that she took a second loan on her home. And as a\n4 result of that, there should be some sort of sympathetic\n5 reaction to somebody taking a second loan. The same person can\n6 take a second loan on a home because it seems like a financial\n7 astute thing to do or a financially solvent thing to do. I\n8 think it's fair for the jury to know that she had options, and\n9 she was a investor in real estate. She actually leased out and\n10 rented out these properties. And all told she had nine\n11 properties in the state of Virginia. It simply goes to\n12 takeaway that sympathy factor that the government created by\n13 asking how and why she took a second loan so she could buy GTV\n14 shares.\n15 THE COURT: I think the government is merely\n16 establishing that she used these funds to make a purchase and\n17 that she was defrauded, not that the jury should feel sympathy.\n18 The prosecution is using this for a finding of fraud.\n19 MS. SHROFF: But a second loan on an apartment\n20 wouldn't be irrelevant. It's her money.\n21 THE COURT: The question of how she made the payment\n22 is relevant, but whether or not she has other types of\n23 investment, I don't agree is relevant, so let's move on.\n24 (Continued on next page)\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 (In open court; jury present)\n2 BY MS. SHROFF:\n3 Q. Ms. Chen, on direct examination you recall testifying about\n4 the email you sent about the Hamilton Fund, correct?\n5 A. Sorry. I miss part of the question. Can you repeat.\n6 Q. You testified on direct about emails you sent to\n7 Mr. Fallon, correct?\n8 A. So you mean I emailed Mr. Fallon, right, that's your\n9 question? You said I testified I email Mr. Fallon?\n10 Q. Yes.\n11 A. Yes, I email him.\n12 Q. And you emailed him and your husband also emailed him,\n13 correct?\n14 A. Let me put this way, we emailed Mr. Fallon.\n15 Q. And you testified on direct that Mr. Fallon didn't reply\n16 but sent you to a lawyer, correct?\n17 A. I testify Mr. Fallon didn't respond and then his lawyer\n18 responded.\n19 Q. And the lawyer told you that the funds you were seeking\n20 return of were frozen, correct?\n21 MR. FINKEL: Objection, hearsay.\n22 MS. SHROFF: It's not being offered for the truth.\n23 THE COURT: I'll allow the question.\n24 A. What's the question?\n25 Q. He told you the funds were frozen, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. He told me my money was frozen, yes.\n2 Q. And you disagreed, right?\n3 A. Right.\n4 Q. And you kept emailing that the funds were not frozen,\n5 correct?\n6 A. I explain it.\n7 Q. And they disagreed with you, correct?\n8 A. They saying the same thing, my money was frozen.\n9 Q. And at the same time that you were emailing Mr. Fallon and\n10 his lawyer, you were also emailing the department of justice,\n11 correct?\n12 A. I don't think -- when you say emailing, what do you mean\n13 emailing?\n14 Q. In May of 2023, you were in touch with the United States\n15 Attorney's office, right?\n16 A. I do not think so.\n17 Q. Well, let me see. You don't think you were in touch with\n18 the United States Attorney's office, these prosecutors in May\n19 of 2023?\n20 A. So I follow the website on DOJ where they have a link to\n21 submit victim information, so I filled out information\n22 following that link. And at the same time, they have an email\n23 address that I email them letting them know that I completed\n24 information. In addition, that form does not include a\n25 specific investment item I have, so therefore I'm including\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 that specific investment item in the email that I sent to the\n2 victim mailbox.\n3 Q. And Mr. Finkel works for the department of justice, right?\n4 A. I actually don't know. I guess yes. I don't know.\n5 Q. Who do you think he works for?\n6 A. I don't know.\n7 Q. Do you think he works for Mr. Guo?\n8 A. No.\n9 Q. So who do you think he works for?\n10 A. He works for the government.\n11 Q. Okay. And that's the email address you emailed, right, in\n12 May of 2023, right?\n13 A. I email one that is available on the DOJ website. It's\n14 victim mailbox, specifically just for the victim.\n15 Q. And then after that you followed up by sending emails to\n16 the FBI, right?\n17 A. No, I did not.\n18 Q. Let's show you 3602-26. Does that refresh your\n19 recollection that in June of 2023 you met with FBI D. Marino?\n20 MR. FINKEL: Objection. The question was about May,\n21 not June.\n22 MS. SHROFF: I was off by a month.\n23 Q. June, June of 2023, did you meet with the FBI agent?\n24 A. So you're asking me my recollection, asking me to read this\n25 document?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Q. I'm asking. I'm just asking you if you met with the FBI\n2 Mr. D Marino. Do you remember?\n3 A. Someone reach out to me from FBI and I met them. To answer\n4 your question, I did not email FBI. So I send the email to the\n5 victim mailbox and then FBI reach out to me and schedule the\n6 meeting.\n7 Q. After he reached out to you, you emailed back and forth\n8 with the FBI agent, correct?\n9 A. I don't know when you say email back and forth.\n10 Q. Which FBI did you email yesterday?\n11 A. You just want to know the name?\n12 Q. Yes.\n13 A. I email yesterday, I didn't email any FBI yesterday.\n14 Q. When is the last time you emailed an FBI agent?\n15 A. Don't remember.\n16 Q. Did you text an FBI agent yesterday?\n17 A. You just ask me the name of my FBI agent, right?\n18 Q. Yes.\n19 A. You want me to tell the name now?\n20 Q. Yes.\n21 A. It's Nick.\n22 Q. Nick what, or do you just call him Nick?\n23 A. I just call him Nick.\n24 Q. And this is the same Nick that you met in June of 2023?\n25 A. I met Nick, but I don't remember when I met Nick.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 Q. Let me show you the same document again 3602-26. Does the\n2 top of the document refresh your recollection that you met with\n3 Nick?\n4 A. Yes, I think it's a webex source.\n5 Q. And you've been in touch with Nick all the way consistently\n6 through June of 2023, correct?\n7 A. That's incorrect. I not contact him consistently. I think\n8 I only met him one time, and I don't hear from him for a very\n9 long time. I don't remember when he reach out to me again.\n10 Q. Well, do you remember meeting with him again in early\n11 February of 2024?\n12 A. So you talk about after I met with Nick in June about eight\n13 month later we met again?\n14 Q. Yes, I'm asking you if you remember having Nick as a point\n15 person for you from June of 2023 to today?\n16 You may not have talk to him everyday, but you've\n17 known him for the whole time period, correct?\n18 THE COURT: There's so many questions in there. First\n19 you ask if he was the point person. Why don't you answer that\n20 question.\n21 A. Yes, he's the point person.\n22 Q. You were in contact with him since June of 2023, correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. You had an interview with him and with the prosecutors on\n25 February 4, of this year, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. I don't remember.\n2 Q. February 27, of this year, correct?\n3 A. I don't remember.\n4 Q. April 23, of this year, correct?\n5 A. I don't remember.\n6 Q. May 6, of this year, correct?\n7 A. I don't remember.\n8 Q. May 13, of this year, correct?\n9 A. I don't remember.\n10 Q. June 3, of this year?\n11 A. I don't remember.\n12 Q. June 23, of this year?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. How about yesterday?\n15 A. Yesterday, you mean do I meet with them?\n16 Q. Yes.\n17 A. Briefly right before the court time, yeah, mm hm.\n18 Q. But you met with Mr. Finkel and he showed you documents\n19 yesterday, right?\n20 A. I said I met him briefly.\n21 Q. And during that brief meeting, he showed you documents,\n22 correct?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. And you reviewed the documents with him, right?\n25 A. I did not review the document. He show me the document.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 That's it.\n2 Q. And then he asked you questions about the document, right?\n3 He didn't just show you and that's it. He actually asked you\n4 questions?\n5 A. Yes, I think we only met for ten minutes or so; so, yes,\n6 it's a few questions.\n7 Q. So he asked you about two documents that he showed you,\n8 right?\n9 A. I don't remember how many documents.\n10 Q. And then he asked you questions and you answered them,\n11 correct?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. He took notes, right?\n14 A. I don't think so.\n15 Q. And you met him right in this building, right?\n16 A. Yesterday morning, yes.\n17 Q. And in all of these meetings that you met with him, you\n18 never once told him about Ivy Ivy, correct?\n19 A. That's incorrect. He never ask me about the nickname I use\n20 at the Discord.\n21 Q. You also never told him that you were active on Discord,\n22 correct?\n23 A. He didn't ask me if I am active. He didn't ask me about\n24 the Discord. He didn't even ask me that.\n25 Q. So he didn't ask you and you didn't tell him, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 Q. You didn't voluntarily tell him about Discord, correct?\n4 THE COURT: Sustained.\n5 MS. SHROFF: That's a different question, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. How long did you stay on Discord after you started talking\n8 to the government?\n9 MR. FINKEL: Relevance objection.\n10 THE COURT: You may answer.\n11 A. I don't remember.\n12 Q. You don't remember being active in Discord even until\n13 today?\n14 A. I don't know if I'm still on Discord because I don't -- you\n15 know, Discord. I don't know. I don't know. Seriously, I\n16 don't know.\n17 Q. How many farms do you visit as a visitor on Discord?\n18 A. I don't know.\n19 Q. Ten?\n20 A. I don't know.\n21 Q. Fifteen?\n22 A. I don't know. I answered. I have answered I don't know.\n23 THE COURT: Sustained.\n24 Q. You were a visitor on Discord at the Himalaya New York Rock\n25 farm, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 A. I don't remember.\n2 Q. How about the Nuremberg Justice farm, do you remember being\n3 a visitor on that farm this year?\n4 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n5 A. This year I don't think so.\n6 Q. How about last year?\n7 A. Last year, I don't remember. I don't think so.\n8 Q. How about the Himalaya Melbourne Affina sic) farm?\n9 A. Do you mean last year?\n10 Q. All the way till today, you're still a visitor on that\n11 farm, correct?\n12 A. I don't know.\n13 Q. How about the Himalaya New Zealand farm?\n14 A. I don't know.\n15 Q. How about the Himalaya 77 Engineer farm?\n16 A. I don't know.\n17 Q. How about the Rule of Law Foundation?\n18 A. I don't know.\n19 Q. How about the Rule of Law Society?\n20 A. I don't know.\n21 Q. Ms. Chen, is it fair to say that if Mr. Finkel did not ask\n22 you a question about a specific topic, you did not bring it up?\n23 A. So.\n24 Q. Just yes or no would be great.\n25 A. Can you repeat that question?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 THE COURT: I'll allow the answer.\n2 A. What's the question again?\n3 Q. You testified moments ago that Mr. Finkel did not ask you\n4 about Discord, and therefore you did not discuss that topic,\n5 correct?\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. Were there other topics that he simply didn't ask you about\n8 that you did not volunteer about pertaining to this case?\n9 THE COURT: Sustained.\n10 Q. Did you tell him about the role your husband played in all\n11 of these interactions?\n12 A. I don't remember.\n13 Q. And your husband has never spoken to Mr. Finkel, correct?\n14 A. That's correct.\n15 MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further, your Honor.\n16 THE COURT: Redirect.\n17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION\n18 BY MR. FINKEL:\n19 Q. Ms. Chen, approximately how many meetings have you had with\n20 me?\n21 A. I guess six or eight, between six or eight.\n22 Q. And were those meetings -- how many of those meetings were\n23 online or in person?\n24 A. I think we have two in person and the rest are online.\n25 Q. And during those meetings, did we talk about Harry Potter?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. Did we talk about the New York Jets?\n3 A. No.\n4 Q. What is the general topic of information that we discuss?\n5 A. Mr. Finkel ask a question and I provide answer.\n6 Q. And what were the general topics of information I ask you\n7 questions about?\n8 A. Related to the investments.\n9 Q. Ms. Shroff ask you some questions about trading you may\n10 have done on the Himalaya Exchange. You recall those\n11 questions?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Have you been able to withdraw any real money from the\n14 Himalaya Exchange?\n15 MS. SHROFF: Objection to what is real money.\n16 THE COURT: If you'll define what you consider to be\n17 real money.\n18 Q. Have you been able to withdraw any United States money,\n19 United States dollars from the Himalaya Exchange?\n20 MS. SHROFF: Since from what time period.\n21 Q. Ever?\n22 A. No.\n23 Q. What about pounds, British pounds, have you been able to\n24 withdraw any British pounds?\n25 A. No.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 Q. What about swiss franks?\n2 A. No.\n3 Q. Have you ever been able to withdraw any fiat currency from\n4 the Himalaya Exchange?\n5 A. No.\n6 Q. So those trades you haven't profited any real money from,\n7 correct?\n8 A. That's correct.\n9 Q. If we can pull up VK-5 at page 10.\n10 Ms. Chen, do you remember being asked questions by\n11 Ms. Shroff on cross examination about this page?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. Do you see where it says use of proceeds?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Does it say under use of proceeds invest $100 million into\n16 Hayman Capital?\n17 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I have an objection. I think\n18 the government knows the document speaks for itself.\n19 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n20 A. No, I don't see it.\n21 Q. After reviewing this document, reviewing Miles Guo' videos\n22 online --\n23 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the leading.\n24 THE COURT: I haven't heard a question yet.\n25 Q. After considering the information in this document and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 Miles Guo's videos online, what was your understanding of what\n2 your investment in GTV would be used for?\n3 A. Would be used according to the description of the usage of\n4 the proceeds in this chart.\n5 Q. If you had known that the money you had sent to Miles Guo,\n6 to Saraca, would be used to invest $100 million in a hedge fund\n7 in the name of his son, would you have sent your approximately\n8 $200,000 investment?\n9 A. No.\n10 MS. SHROFF: Objection. It's beyond the scope and\n11 it's been asked and answered.\n12 THE COURT: Overruled.\n13 A. No.\n14 Q. If we can go back to page two I think, Ms. Loftus. Sorry,\n15 page one, page three.\n16 You see that information below it says contact\n17 details?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And there's a Whatsapp text number at the bottom?\n20 A. Yes.\n21 Q. And then there's an address 162 East 164th Street?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. Have you ever been there to the offices that are indicated\n24 on this document?\n25 A. No.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 Q. We can take that down. If we can display for the witness\n2 what's been marked for identification as VB-36.\n3 Do you recognize this, Ms. Chen?\n4 A. Yes.\n5 Q. What is it?\n6 A. This is the Whatsapp chat I spoke to earlier that Miles Guo\n7 sent the GTV investment information including wire instruction\n8 to my husband.\n9 MR. FINKEL: Government offers VB-36.\n10 MS. SHROFF: No objection.\n11 THE COURT: Okay. It is admitted.\n12 (Government's Exhibit VB-36 received in evidence)\n13 BY MR. FINKEL:\n14 Q. Can we publish that, please.\n15 Ms. Chen, is this a Whatsapp chat?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And is it this chat that you and your husband used to\n18 communicate with Miles Guo about the GTV investment?\n19 A. Yes.\n20 Q. And what language did you communicate with Miles Guo in?\n21 A. In Mandarin.\n22 Q. You can take that down.\n23 Do you remember being asked some questions by\n24 Ms. Shroff about the co-efficient that you had to multiply your\n25 prior investments in to make a determination as to how much\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 H Coin you were entitled to through the MOS farm. Do you\n2 remember questioning about that?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. What is your understanding, if anything, sitting here today\n5 why trying to calculate the amount of H Coin you were owed was\n6 so complicated?\n7 A. It's on purpose.\n8 Q. Why do you believe that sitting here today?\n9 A. So that you can never calculate the H Coin each person is\n10 entitled to correctly.\n11 Q. At the time that you were filling out that form, Ms. Chen,\n12 what was your understanding of what the co-efficient even was?\n13 A. I have no idea what it is.\n14 Q. If we could put up VB-16 which is in evidence.\n15 Do you remember being asked questions about this\n16 document by Ms. Shroff?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. Can you read the second paragraph please that begins, I\n19 purchased.\n20 A. \"I purchase the G/Club membership because it was marked as\n21 an investment with stock and shares. However, I never received\n22 any stock or shares, nor did I receive any membership benefits.\n23 Therefore, I think this is an investment fraud. I am sending\n24 this cancellation notice to request a refund.\"\n25 Q. Did you get a refund, Ms. Chen?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 A. No.\n2 Q. Do you still think that it was an investment fraud?\n3 A. Yes.\n4 Q. We can take that down.\n5 Ms. Chen, you were asked some questions about chats\n6 you had with Octopus and someone else on Discord; is that\n7 correct? Do you remember being asked those questions?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. And those chats were in 2021; is that correct?\n10 A. Yes.\n11 Q. And Ms. Shroff was asking you questions about specific\n12 words used in a chat from December 2021; is that right?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And sitting here today, do you remember the specific words\n15 you used in a chat from two and a half years ago?\n16 A. No.\n17 Q. If we can put up what's in evidence as VB-31.\n18 Do you remember being asked questions about the timing\n19 of your investments and your investments in Miles Guo'\n20 investment project?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Do you recognize this document, Ms. Chen?\n23 A. Yes.\n24 Q. Who created this document?\n25 A. I create this document.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 Q. What is reflected on this document?\n2 A. This reflect all the money I give to this fraud.\n3 Q. And so column one reflects the various entities or projects\n4 that you sent money to; is that correct?\n5 A. Yes.\n6 Q. And what does column two reflect?\n7 A. Reflect the payment amount I send each of the fraud\n8 program.\n9 Q. Ms. Chen, sitting here today and reflecting on the money\n10 you sent to these various investment projects, how do you feel\n11 about your decision, the decision you made back then to invest?\n12 A. I feel very regretted. I blame myself that why was I so\n13 stupid to be brainwashed and trusted a fraudster and send all\n14 the money to all the different entities that's all part of a\n15 fraud scheme.\n16 Q. Ms. Chen, sitting here today are you also angry about the\n17 money you lost?\n18 A. It's hard feeling. It's extremely painful, and I don't\n19 know how to describe the feeling. It's hurting a lot.\n20 Q. Ms. Chen, you said just a moment ago that you felt like you\n21 were brainwashed, what are the things that happened to you that\n22 you think caused you to be brainwashed by Miles Guo?\n23 MS. SHROFF: Objection to the form.\n24 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\n25 A. I think it is a messaging, keeping repeating and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Redirect\n1 emphasizing in your mind that make you believe it is true and\n2 make you believe it is true without any doubt. I don't know\n3 how it happened, but unfortunately it happened to me. That\n4 messaging is repeating. It's emphasizing. It's instilling in\n5 my mind, make me trusted every single thing and make me acting\n6 as an idiot back then.\n7 Q. Ms. Chen, when you were a follower of Miles Guo,\n8 approximately how many videos or broadcasts or articles about\n9 Miles Guo did you watch?\n10 A. I don't remember.\n11 Q. Approximately?\n12 A. Approximately hundreds.\n13 Q. And your husband and you watched videos too?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And your husband discussed Miles Guo?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And discussed these investments?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. And the two of you made a decision together to invest in\n20 these investments?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. Would you make the same decision today?\n23 A. Would I make the same decision today?\n24 Q. Sitting here today knowing what you know would you make the\n25 same decision today to invest in these?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 A. Absolutely not.\n2 Q. Why not?\n3 A. Because this is fraud. Everything, every program that\n4 Miles Guo designed, created and promoted including all the\n5 entities here are a fraud.\n6 MR. FINKEL: I have nothing further. Thank you,\n7 Ms. Chen.\n8 THE COURT: Recross.\n9 CROSS-EXAMINATION\n10 BY MS. SHROFF:\n11 Q. Ms. Chen, what is Gettr?\n12 MR. FINKEL: Objection, scope.\n13 MS. SHROFF: She said all of this is a big fraud.\n14 THE COURT: I'll allow the question. Go ahead.\n15 Q. What is Gettr?\n16 A. She made a statement of something I did not say. I said\n17 all the programs.\n18 MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, it's a question for the\n19 witness.\n20 THE COURT: You can answer the question. What is\n21 Gettr.\n22 A. My understanding it's a social media platform.\n23 Q. And it is a social media platform today, correct?\n24 MR. FINKEL: Scope.\n25 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 MR. FINKEL: Also there's like a feedback. I don't\n2 know whose microphone that is.\n3 A. I guess so.\n4 Q. How about G Fashion, what is G Fashion?\n5 THE COURT: Sustained.\n6 MS. SHROFF: She said everything was a fraud.\n7 A. I didn't say that. I say all the money I sent to those.\n8 That's what I'm saying, I did not say that.\n9 THE COURT: Sustained.\n10 Q. G Fashion was an access that you had through G/Club,\n11 correct?\n12 THE COURT: Sustained.\n13 Q. Let's see VB-36. You were shown this video, correct,\n14 Ms. Chen?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. And Mr. Finkel asked you in what language you spoke to\n17 Mr. Guo, correct?\n18 A. Yes.\n19 Q. Mr. Guo speaks terrible English, correct?\n20 A. I don't know.\n21 Q. You never had a conversation with Mr. Guo, correct?\n22 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n23 THE COURT: The question is whether or not she's had a\n24 conversation with Mr. Guo. You may answer.\n25 A. When you say conversation, are you saying have I talked to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 him?\n2 Q. That's a conversation, to talk to someone.\n3 A. I been in meetings with him.\n4 Q. My question is have you ever had a conversation with\n5 Mr. Guo?\n6 A. No. The answer is no.\n7 Q. You were asked questions about the co-efficient, correct?\n8 You can take that down. Jorge. Thank you.\n9 And you told Mr. Finkel and this jury that you thought\n10 the formula used was on purposely complicated so that nobody\n11 can ever calculate their amount. That's what you said, right?\n12 A. That's not what I said.\n13 Q. Well, you tell me what you said.\n14 A. I said the H Coin allotment calculation is based on the\n15 investment, and there's a co-efficient goes with the\n16 investment. There are so many different investment projects\n17 out there. Some of them are still not being -- either being\n18 part of the fair fund distribution or some other reasons that\n19 there's no way to calculate the true benefits of all the\n20 confirmed investment in order to calculate the confirmed H Coin\n21 allocation.\n22 Q. Didn't you say on direct that you thought it was purposely\n23 complicated so that nobody can ever calculate it? Isn't that\n24 what you just said?\n25 A. As I said, yes, that's what I said.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 Q. Okay. So let's try this, this way. You know that there\n2 were audit committees at the farms, right?\n3 MR. FINKEL: Scope objection.\n4 MS. SHROFF: It is part of the co-efficient question\n5 that Mr. Finkel pushed.\n6 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n7 Q. There were audits conducted, correct?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. There were audit committees, correct?\n10 A. I don't know what you mean by audit committees. I know\n11 there are audits.\n12 Q. Weren't you part of the audit committee?\n13 A. No.\n14 Q. You did not check and do audits on whether or not the\n15 H Coin was properly allocated?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n17 THE COURT: Sustained.\n18 Q. Ru Shui was part of the audit committee, correct?\n19 MR. FINKEL: Scope.\n20 A. I don't know if Ru Shui is part of audit, and then I\n21 explain my role. My role is to verify if the H Coin for the\n22 MOS farm members were calculated correctly. And based on my\n23 volunteer experience, I think the design of calculating H Coin\n24 quota is so complicated in the design that complicated for\n25 purposes so that it can never get H Coin calculated or\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 confirmed correctly.\n2 Q. But you calculated it, correct, while you were doing this\n3 evaluation?\n4 A. I say I reverify it, but --\n5 Q. To reverify something, you have to undertake a calculation,\n6 correct?\n7 A. Right.\n8 Q. And you did it as a volunteer, correct?\n9 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, ask Ms. Shroff to allow the\n10 witness to answer the question, and to just pose a question and\n11 just let her answer instead of just.\n12 THE COURT: Go ahead and answer.\n13 Q. You did it as a volunteer, correct, yes or no?\n14 A. What's your question?\n15 Q. You verified as a volunteer, correct, you undertook\n16 verification process as a volunteer, correct?\n17 A. That's incorrect because I verified H Coin, but in H Coin\n18 verification is never ending because there are monies still out\n19 there have not been sent back to Miles Guo; so therefore even\n20 though I verify the coin to the extent, by the time I no longer\n21 volunteer, that coin is not the final coin each person is\n22 entitled to.\n23 Q. That wasn't my question, but okay.\n24 My question to you was, you were part of the\n25 verification process, correct? It's a simple question.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 Q. Ru Shui was part of that process, correct?\n4 THE COURT: Sustained.\n5 Q. Fay Fay was part of that process, correct?\n6 MR. FINKEL: Scope.\n7 MS. SHROFF: Same scope that you opened the door to.\n8 Q. Fay Fay was part of that process, correct?\n9 MR. FINKEL: I don't think I opened that door.\n10 THE COURT: Not to this.\n11 Q. Little Sarah was part of that process, correct?\n12 THE COURT: Sustained.\n13 Q. When Mr. Finkel asked you what co-efficient was used, you\n14 said and I quote, \"you have no idea.\" That was your question\n15 on redirect, right? That was your response. You remember\n16 that?\n17 MR. FINKEL: Mischaracterizes.\n18 MS. SHROFF: I don't think so.\n19 THE COURT: I'll let you answer. Go ahead.\n20 Q. You said you had no idea, correct?\n21 A. I have no idea why design like that. I think it's overly\n22 complicated.\n23 Q. You never told anybody that the whole time that you\n24 volunteered for them, right?\n25 Never once did you say, this is too complicated\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 redesign it, correct?\n2 MR. FINKEL: Relevance.\n3 THE COURT: Sustained.\n4 Q. Did you ever express what you said to the jury now to\n5 anyone at the Mountain of Spice farm?\n6 THE COURT: Sustained.\n7 Q. Let me show you VB-16. You see this, Mr. Finkel asked you\n8 questions about this document?\n9 A. Yes.\n10 Q. And the left-hand side is your and your husband's joint\n11 email address, correct?\n12 A. Yes.\n13 Q. And on the side over there gives you the date of May 14,\n14 correct?\n15 A. Yes.\n16 Q. 2023, right?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. And you wrote this email, correct?\n19 A. We wrote this email.\n20 Q. Right. And you wrote it because you wanted your money\n21 back, correct?\n22 A. We wrote the email to get my money, to ask for refund.\n23 Q. And if you had written, I purchased G/Club membership, and\n24 I have simply changed my mind, you would never get your money\n25 back, right?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 MR. FINKEL: Calls for speculation, irrelevant.\n2 THE COURT: Sustained.\n3 Q. You drafted this because you thought this is the best shot\n4 at you getting your money back, right?\n5 A. I drafted this because I want my money back.\n6 Q. Exactly. And you thought this language would help you get\n7 your money back?\n8 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n9 THE COURT: You may answer.\n10 A. I put this language because that's what I believe is true.\n11 I purchase GTV shares and the G/Club membership was given as\n12 free, so I am just telling the truth here. It was promoted as\n13 GTV share investment. I have gain nothing, so I need my money\n14 back because my money was into the so-called G/Club account.\n15 Q. No, it was sent to G/Club membership account, correct?\n16 MR. FINKEL: That's argumentative.\n17 THE COURT: Sustained.\n18 Q. Where does it say in this email that G/Club was going to be\n19 free?\n20 A. What's your question?\n21 Q. Where in this email do you see that G/Club was meant to be\n22 free? Let's scroll down for you.\n23 You see the word \"free\" anywhere in here? I'll move\n24 on. Let's go to the next document.\n25 MR. FINKEL: I object. It mischaracterizes testimony.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 MS. SHROFF: The document speaks for itself.\n2 Q. The email is dated May 2023?\n3 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n4 THE COURT: Sustained.\n5 Q. When was Mr. Guo arrested?\n6 A. March 2023.\n7 Q. And you sent this after his arrest, correct?\n8 MR. FINKEL: Objection, Court's ruling.\n9 THE COURT: Overruled.\n10 Q. You sent it after his arrest, right?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Let's go to GXVB-31. You talked about the summary chart,\n13 right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Mr. Finkel went over this with you?\n16 A. This is the chart I put together. No one went over with\n17 me.\n18 Q. You never discussed this chart with him when you met him in\n19 his office?\n20 A. There's no need to discuss the chart. It's just an outline\n21 of the payment.\n22 Q. I didn't ask you if it was discussed.\n23 A. I didn't discuss. I didn't discuss.\n24 Q. And you sent this document to him, correct?\n25 A. Yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 Q. And you sent it to your friend Nick at the FBI, correct?\n2 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n3 Q. You sent it to the FBI agent?\n4 THE COURT: Sustained. There's no evidence that\n5 they're friends.\n6 Q. Do you consider him a friend? Do you consider him your\n7 friend?\n8 A. No, he's not someone I know.\n9 Q. But you don't consider him a friend?\n10 MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.\n11 THE COURT: Sustained.\n12 Q. Let's look at this document you created. You created this,\n13 right?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. And you created -- you put all of this information, right?\n16 A. Yes.\n17 Q. And who did you first send this document to?\n18 A. This document I think first I sent -- I don't remember who\n19 I sent this document to. I think I send it to Nick I think,\n20 yes, mm hm.\n21 Q. And you were also asked by Mr. Finkel were you ever able to\n22 get your H Coin investment money back or redeem it for pounds\n23 or yen. You remember that question?\n24 A. Yes.\n25 Q. The first time you ever tried to do that was in May of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 2023, correct?\n2 MR. FINKEL: Objection to relevance.\n3 THE COURT: You may answer.\n4 A. You mean the redemption?\n5 Q. Yep.\n6 A. Yes.\n7 Q. After Mr. Guo's arrest, correct?\n8 A. Yes.\n9 Q. After his indictment, correct?\n10 A. After I realize it's a fraud because I read indictment\n11 document. He's using my money to pay for his luxury item.\n12 Q. After you read it in the indictment, correct?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. And an indictment is nothing but a piece of paper accusing\n15 someone, right?\n16 MR. FINKEL: Objection.\n17 THE COURT: Sustained. Don't ask her for legal\n18 conclusions.\n19 MS. SHROFF: I'm asking for her understanding, your\n20 Honor.\n21 MR. FINKEL: It was sustained is my understanding.\n22 THE COURT: Sustained.\n23 MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further.\n24 MR. FINKEL: Nothing further. Thank you, Ms. Chen.\n25 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step out of the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - Recross\n1 courtroom.\n2 (Witness excused)\n3 THE COURT: Would you approach, please.\n4 (Continued on next page)\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\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 THE COURT: Any further witnesses?\n3 MR. FINKEL: Yes.\n4 THE COURT: I just want to remind you that you need to\n5 address the Geaney matter before the close of your case.\n6 MR. FINKEL: Should we do that now?\n7 THE COURT: You can do it now, yes.\n8 MR. HORTON: I just wanted to put the option of doing\n9 it after the jury is excused so we don't take up the jury's\n10 time.\n11 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.\n12 (Continued on next page)\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 (In open court)\n2 THE COURT: The government may call its next witness.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: The government calls Jessica Volchko.\n4 (Witness sworn)\n5 THE COURT: Please state your name and spell it.\n6 THE WITNESS: Jessica Volchko. J-E-S-S-I-C-A,\n7 V-O-L-C-H-K-O.\n8 THE COURT: Please speak into the microphone so that\n9 you can be heard.\n10 And when the mics are tilted up towards the ceiling,\n11 that is when we get the feedback, so please don't do that.\n12 Go ahead. You may inquire.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.\n14 JESSICA VOLCHKO,\n15 called as a witness by the Government,\n16 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:\n17 DIRECT EXAMINATION\n18 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n19 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Volchko.\n20 A. Good afternoon.\n21 Q. Where do you work?\n22 A. I work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is\n23 also known as the FBI.\n24 Q. What part of the FBI do you work for?\n25 A. I work for the Computer Analysis Response Team, which is\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 also known as CART.\n2 Q. And what is CART?\n3 A. CART is responsible for the collection, preservation, and\n4 analysis of digital evidence.\n5 Q. And what's your position within CART?\n6 A. Digital forensic examiner.\n7 Q. What are some of your duties or responsibilities as a\n8 digital forensic examiner in CART?\n9 A. To receive digital evidence——items such as hard drives,\n10 cellphones, laptops——and extract data from those devices and\n11 then process and analyze the data.\n12 Q. When you say extract data from the devices, what do you\n13 mean by that?\n14 A. I mean we can collect all of the user-generated files or\n15 all the files from a piece of digital evidence and then process\n16 that copy. It's an exact copy of the original item.\n17 Q. What's a 1B number?\n18 A. That is a number that's assigned to an evidence item, so\n19 each evidence item for a case has a unique 1B number.\n20 Q. And what are some examples of evidence items you commonly\n21 deal with in CART?\n22 A. Some of the digital evidence items could be a cellphone, a\n23 laptop, a hard drive, an SD card.\n24 Q. And Ms. Volchko, if you tilt the mic towards your mouth, or\n25 point it towards your mouth, maybe it will help with the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 feedback.\n2 Now, Ms. Volchko, aside from testimony, what\n3 involvement, if any, did you have in this case?\n4 A. Just an administrative role, communicating with the case\n5 agents about the items that they requested to be examined and\n6 then certain timelines, deadlines that we needed to produce\n7 results.\n8 Q. What, if anything, did you do on March 15, 2023?\n9 A. I assisted with the collection of digital evidence at a\n10 search warrant in Mahwah.\n11 Q. What state is that in?\n12 A. New Jersey.\n13 Q. Ms. Volchko, do you recall, or even just a ballpark\n14 recollection of approximately how many devices were seized in\n15 this case?\n16 A. I would say a couple hundred, maybe.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: Okay. Your Honor, at this time——sorry\n18 for the feedback. At this time we'll offer a stipulation\n19 between the parties. It is Government Exhibit Stip 17. And\n20 Ms. Loftus——I assume no objection.\n21 MR. KAMARAJU: No. That's fine.\n22 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Is it admitted, your\n23 Honor?\n24 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n25 (Government's Exhibit Stip 17 received in evidence)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you.\n2 If we could publish that, Ms. Loftus.\n3 All right. So I'll just read the intro to the stip.\n4 It says, It is hereby agreed, in the below chart, the exhibits\n5 listed under column A——and if we could scroll down slightly,\n6 Ms. Loftus. There we go.\n7 In the below chart, the exhibits listed under column A\n8 are electronic devices and/or true and correct photographs of\n9 electronic devices.\n10 Column B lists a description of each electronic device\n11 identified in column A.\n12 Column C lists the location from which each electronic\n13 device listed under column A was recovered or obtained.\n14 And then the below chart, the exhibits listed under\n15 column D are true and accurate copies of data extracted from\n16 the electronic devices described in column B.\n17 And I think, your Honor, just for reference——I don't\n18 need to pull it up and read it right now——there's another\n19 stipulation between the parties that's in evidence. It's\n20 GX Stip 21 that relates to some of the exhibits I'm also about\n21 to offer, and it has translations.\n22 So pursuant to those stipulations, the government is\n23 going to offer the following exhibits: Government Exhibits\n24 1B15D, G, and G-T, and I; 1B16C, 1B18A, A1, A2; 1B69B and B-T,\n25 B-1 through B-18, and their corresponding-Ts; 1B70A and A-1;\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 1B71A-1 to A-6; and 1B71E, F, G, H, and I; 1B89; 1B89J, and J-1\n2 and J-2; 1B91C-38; 1B91B-26, -27, -31 through -33; 1B92B-13;\n3 1B121; 1B121A-M; 1B124, 1B124A, C, E, F, G, H, M, and R; 1B125,\n4 1B125A, and 1B125F through 1B125S; 1B185M; 1B204-13, -47, -48;\n5 1B227A, B, and F; 1B255C and D; and finally, 1B272B. That's\n6 all.\n7 MR. KAMARAJU: No objection pursuant to the parties'\n8 stip, your Honor.\n9 THE COURT: It is admitted.\n10 (Government's Exhibits 1B15D, G, G-T, I; 1B16C, 1B18A,\n11 A1, A2; 1B69B and B-T, B-1 through B-18, and their\n12 corresponding-Ts; 1B70A and A-1; 1B71A-1 to A-6; and 1B71E, F,\n13 G, H, and I; 1B89; 1B89J, and J-1 and J-2; 1B91C-38; 1B91B-26,\n14 -27, -31 through -33; 1B92B-13 received in evidence)\n15 (Government's Exhibits 1B121; 1B121A-M; 1B124, 1B124A,\n16 C, E, F, G, H, M, and R; 1B125, 1B125A, and 1B125F through\n17 1B125S; 1B185M; 1B204-13, -47, -48; 1B227A, B, and F; 1B255C\n18 and D; and 1B272B received in evidence)\n19 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Actually, Ms. Loftus, if\n20 we could go back to Stip 17 just to start.\n21 And your Honor, may I approach to give a copy of the\n22 stips to the witness.\n23 THE COURT: You may.\n24 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you.\n25 Okay. Ms. Loftus, if we could go to——oh, thank you,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 page 4. And if we could zoom on row 4.\n2 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n3 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Volchko, looking at this stipulation,\n4 what type of device was 1B71?\n5 A. A white iPhone XR.\n6 Q. And it references an IMEI. Just briefly, could you explain\n7 what IMEI is.\n8 A. An IMEI is kind of similar to a serial number. It's a\n9 unique number assigned to a cellphone.\n10 Q. And where was this white iPhone recovered?\n11 A. It was recovered from Wang apartment inside a bag in\n12 closet.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: All right. And let's go to,\n14 Ms. Loftus, if we could, show on the left side 1B71I.\n15 And if we could put on the right GX GC276, at page 2.\n16 And Ms. Loftus, if you could zoom on the center email\n17 from Max K. Can you just put that on the right.\n18 Q. Ms. Volchko, looking on the left, what color is that car?\n19 A. It's red.\n20 Q. Do you know the model?\n21 A. I'm not sure.\n22 Q. Do those doors open horizontally or vertically?\n23 A. Looks like up and down, vertically.\n24 Q. And Ms. Volchko, looking at the stipulation that you have,\n25 on the left, is this one of the exhibits from 1B71, the phone\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 from Wang apartment?\n2 A. Yes, according to the stipulation.\n3 MR. FERGENSON: All right. And if we could look at\n4 now on the left, if we could actually pull up Stip 17 again on\n5 the left, please.\n6 And if we could go to page 4 and zoom on row 5.\n7 Q. All right. And now what device is 1B89?\n8 A. 1B89 was a red iPhone 11.\n9 Q. And who was that recovered from?\n10 A. The location was Alex H, pursuant to a search warrant\n11 executed on March 15, 2023.\n12 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could now replace on the\n13 left Government Exhibit 1B89J-2.\n14 Q. Okay. And Ms. Volchko, is this an audio recording from the\n15 phone recovered from Alex H we just looked at?\n16 A. Yes, according to the stipulation.\n17 MR. FERGENSON: And can we play the recording, please.\n18 (Audio played)\n19 Q. All right. Ms. Volchko, I want to go back to 1B71. We\n20 don't need to pull it up. But if you can, could you just\n21 remind us where the phone 1B71 was recovered from.\n22 A. 1B71 was recovered from Wang apartment inside a bag in\n23 closet.\n24 MR. FERGENSON: Okay. Ms. Loftus, let's publish four\n25 exhibits. It's 1B71E, F, G, and H.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 Q. Ms. Volchko, just focusing on the top right, can you read\n2 what it says on that flyer there.\n3 A. \"GTV INVESTORS PROTEST SEC's COLLABORATION WITH CCP.\"\n4 MR. FERGENSON: All right. We can take that down.\n5 And Ms. Loftus, if we could just pull up Stip 17 quickly.\n6 Could we go to page 2. And the third row from the\n7 bottom, if we could zoom on that.\n8 Q. Ms. Volchko, what type of device was 1B124?\n9 A. A white iPhone.\n10 Q. And where was that white iPhone recovered?\n11 A. Sherry apartment (inside a bag).\n12 Q. And the exhibits to the right of that, those are items that\n13 were taken or extracted from that cellphone, correct?\n14 A. That's correct.\n15 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to, Ms. Loftus,\n16 Government Exhibit 1B124.\n17 Q. Let me ask you first, Ms. Volchko, what type of report is\n18 this?\n19 A. This is a preliminary device report of an iPhone.\n20 Q. And what sort of information is on a preliminary device\n21 report?\n22 A. The identifiers that are associated with the device, it\n23 would be a model number, a serial number, a phone number.\n24 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could go to page 2.\n25 Q. Ms. Volchko, directing your attention to where it says User\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 Accounts. What type of information is in that section of a\n2 report like this?\n3 A. Those are user accounts that are extracted from the\n4 cellphone, so it could be from different applications that are\n5 on the cellphone that a user logged into.\n6 MR. FERGENSON: And could we zoom on row 10,\n7 Ms. Loftus.\n8 Q. Can you read what's in row 10, please.\n9 A. Row 10 is a user account associated with Chrome. There's\n10 an email, guomiles@guo.media.\n11 Q. And then what's the website address to the right of that?\n12 A. Http\n13 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could scroll down slightly,\n14 just to row 16.\n15 Q. All right. Can you read what's in row 16, please.\n16 A. Row 16 is a user account associated with Chrome, with an\n17 email wenguiguo@gmail.com.\n18 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could go to row 21. Just\n19 scroll down.\n20 Q. Ms. Volchko, just focusing you on the right-hand side of\n21 these rows, do you see how it says gettr.com?\n22 A. Yes.\n23 Q. And then what does it say to the left of that?\n24 A. Miles.\n25 Q. And then focusing you on row 24 where it says Threema,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 what's the name to the right?\n2 A. Miles Guo.\n3 Q. Do you know what Threema is?\n4 A. It's a messaging application.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: If we could scroll down.\n6 Q. And 29, where it says WhatsApp Business, what's the name?\n7 A. Miles Guo.\n8 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could zoom out and go back\n9 to page 1.\n10 And if we could zoom on Device Name.\n11 May I just have a moment, your Honor?\n12 THE COURT: Yes.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, you could zoom on\n14 the——that's great.\n15 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n16 Q. And focusing on where it says Device Name, what's the\n17 device name?\n18 A. Boss, with a 2 in parentheses.\n19 Q. All right. Now let's go to some of the contents of this\n20 phone. Let's go to 1B124A.\n21 Ms. Volchko, can you read what it says on the sign in\n22 the center.\n23 A. \"SEC AND DOJ ARE KILLERS.\"\n24 Q. Let's go to 1B124G. Can you read in the bottom left, in\n25 the sign being held there, can you read the name listed there.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. Paul Hastings.\n2 Q. Let's go to 1B124F.\n3 Ms. Volchko, can you read the text in the top left.\n4 A. \"Isabelle Despins and Daniel Copeland wedding 2022.10.15.\"\n5 Q. And this photograph was on the Boss phone, the one we were\n6 just looking at, right?\n7 MR. KAMARAJU: Asked and answered, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: Sustained.\n9 Q. Ms. Volchko, do you know who Isabelle Despins is?\n10 A. I do not.\n11 Q. Do you know who Daniel Copeland is?\n12 A. I do not.\n13 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, can we zoom on the, you\n14 know, the right half of this photograph.\n15 Q. Ms. Volchko, the man wearing the white shirt in the middle,\n16 do you know who he is?\n17 A. I do not.\n18 Q. On the left, the young woman circled in red, do you know\n19 who she is?\n20 A. I do not.\n21 Q. On the right, the two young women circled in red, do you\n22 know who they are?\n23 A. I do not.\n24 Q. Do you know who circled them in red in this wedding\n25 photograph?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. I do not.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could pull up on the\n3 left this same photograph, 1B124F, and then on the right,\n4 1B124R.\n5 And if you could zoom, Ms. Loftus, on the picture on\n6 the right, the one we were just looking at, on the man's face,\n7 the one in the white shirt.\n8 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n9 Q. Ms. Volchko, directing your attention to the left, can you\n10 read what it says in the top center. On the left.\n11 A. On the left?\n12 Q. Yes, please.\n13 A. \"Dear all victims from Luc Despins, Paul Hastings, and\n14 O'Melveny. If they have represented your legal cases and have\n15 blackmailed, extorted, or scammed you. NFSC fellow fighters\n16 will spend 10 million (Minimum) to reward those who can provide\n17 us the proof of their:\n18 \"Criminal activities.\n19 \"Illegal bank accounts.\n20 \"Illegal incomes.\n21 \"Scan the code to contact us.\"\n22 Q. And then focusing on the left still, there's a picture of a\n23 man. Can you read the text underneath that picture.\n24 A. \"Luc A. Despins, Partner of Paul Hastings.\"\n25 Q. Do you recognize the image on his forehead?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. I do not.\n2 Q. And Ms. Volchko, directing your attention back to the\n3 stipulation you have. What device did 1B124R come from?\n4 A. A white iPhone seized from Sherry apartment, inside a bag.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: Let's go back to Stip 17, please.\n6 Let's go to page 3, please.\n7 And if we can zoom on the third row from the bottom.\n8 Q. And just focusing you on where it says GX 4, what type of\n9 device was 1B15?\n10 A. A white iPhone 12.\n11 Q. And where was that white iPhone recovered from?\n12 A. Wang apartment (bedside table).\n13 MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, if we could now\n14 publish 1B15G-T, the translation.\n15 Q. Now while this is coming up, what are Notes on an iPhone?\n16 A. Notes is an application where a user can write memos or\n17 save text.\n18 MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, Ms. Loftus. Maybe we can\n19 make it——perfect.\n20 Q. Okay. And what type of information was extracted from\n21 1B15G?\n22 A. A note, content from a note from the phone.\n23 Q. And could you read in the column D, the translation column.\n24 Could you read——I won't make you read all of it, but can you\n25 read some of those lines. You can start from the beginning.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. \"The scheduled farm meetings with Mr. Guo in 2023 (Eastern\n2 Time, subject to confirmation) are as follows:\n3 \"Mifan Group: Wednesday, January 11, 5 p.m. Eastern\n4 Time (using WebEx).\n5 \"Athena: Friday January 13, 7 p.m. Eastern Time.\n6 \"Taiwan Farm: Saturday, January 14, 9 a.m., ET.\"\n7 Q. And Ms. Volchko, I'll ask you now——you can just skip down\n8 to the bottom of the list and read where it begins \"The boss.\"\n9 A. \"The boss just mentioned that no meetings will be scheduled\n10 from the 20th to the 25th. Please check if the times in this\n11 table conflict with any legal meetings.\"\n12 Q. And now focusing you to the column to the right of that\n13 where it says Created Time, what's the created time?\n14 A. Is 3/31/2024 at 8:44 a.m.\n15 Q. And what dates or times can be populated in that field?\n16 A. It appears to be the time that this note was tagged from\n17 the full phone report.\n18 Q. And what does it mean to tag a note in a phone?\n19 A. Items that are tagged from a cellphone report can later be\n20 used to generate a smaller excerpt version of that report.\n21 Q. And directing you to the top left, what does it say there?\n22 A. Tags.\n23 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go back to Stip 17.\n24 We'll go to page 4.\n25 Q. And just on that tagging topic, how commonly are cellphone\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 extractions reviewed?\n2 A. They're often reviewed.\n3 Q. And so let me focus you, Ms. Volchko, on the third row from\n4 the bottom here, with 1B92.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: If you could zoom on that.\n6 Q. All right. And what device is 1B92?\n7 A. An Apple MacBook Pro.\n8 Q. And from whom was that MacBook Pro recovered?\n9 A. Alex H.\n10 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could now publish something\n11 from the MacBook, 1B92B-13.\n12 And if we could zoom on the top half.\n13 Q. Can you read the name on the top left.\n14 A. I'm unsure of the pronunciation, but H-A-O-R-A-N, last name\n15 H-E.\n16 Q. And just focusing you on the top right, starting with\n17 \"Accomplished,\" can you just read those four lines there.\n18 A. \"Accomplished business development manager bringing\n19 five-year track record of success improving sales and growing\n20 company customer base through effective program management,\n21 strategic planning, and team leadership.\"\n22 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could scroll down. If you\n23 could scroll.\n24 Q. Just underneath experience, Ms. Volchko, can you just read\n25 the first two lines underneath experience.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. \"March 2014 to current. Director and shareholder several\n2 property development firms.\"\n3 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could zoom out.\n4 And just zooming on the top left.\n5 Q. What's the email address listed here?\n6 A. Cool_hhr@hotmail.com.\n7 Q. Are you familiar with Proton Mail?\n8 A. I'm aware of what it generally——\n9 Q. I'm sorry. What is Proton Mail?\n10 A. It is a encrypted email. It can be accessed through a web\n11 browser or an application.\n12 Q. And what's your understanding of whether, you know,\n13 government search warrants can get the contents of a Proton\n14 Mail account?\n15 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Speculation.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: Based on her——\n17 THE COURT: If you know.\n18 A. I have never seen a Proton Mail search warrant return.\n19 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, let's just\n20 pull up quickly what's in evidence as GX GC309. And if we can\n21 just zoom on the top email quickly.\n22 Q. And Ms. Volchko, just looking at the very top line, what's\n23 the domain of that email address?\n24 A. Gclubs.com.\n25 Q. And then focusing you still on the header, the very last\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 line of the header, can you read that, under, you know, that\n2 ends in .pdf.\n3 A. YachtContract.pdf.\n4 MR. FERGENSON: And let's now go to page 8, please.\n5 And if we could just zoom on line 9, please.\n6 Q. Do you see at 9, it says, \"Description of the yacht,\" and\n7 then beneath that, there's an entry that says \"Name\"? Can you\n8 read the name?\n9 A. Liberty.\n10 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could zoom out. And if we\n11 can zoom on just the top line, please, of this contract,\n12 like——yeah. Perfect. Thank you.\n13 Q. Do you see in the middle there's a star? Can you read the\n14 text to the right of the star.\n15 A. Seven Star Yacht Transport.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Now, Ms. Loftus, let's put\n17 on the left Stip 17 at page 2, please.\n18 And then on the right Stip 21 at page 2.\n19 And I'll ask you, on the right, can you zoom in on\n20 paragraph 3, please.\n21 And then on the left, can you please zoom in on the\n22 second row from the bottom.\n23 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n24 Q. Okay. Ms. Volchko, focusing you on 1B125, what type of\n25 device was that?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. A blue iPhone.\n2 Q. And where was that blue iPhone recovered?\n3 A. Sherry apartment (inside a bag).\n4 Q. All right. Now focusing you on the stipulation on the\n5 right, can you read paragraph 3.\n6 A. \"GX 1B125F - GX 1B125S, and their subparts (GX 1B125F - I,\n7 etc.) are true and accurate copies of data extracted from\n8 1B125Z. GX 1B125F - GX 1B125S contain a column titled\n9 'Translation,' which contains true and accurate translations of\n10 foreign language text/audio/video from GX 1B125F - GX 1B125S,\n11 and their subparts.\"\n12 MR. FERGENSON: Now, Ms. Loftus, let's now publish\n13 1B125F.\n14 Q. And while we're waiting, Ms. Volchko, in the email we just\n15 looked at, what was the name of the yacht?\n16 A. I believe it was Liberty.\n17 Q. And what was the name of the shipping company?\n18 A. I think it was Seven Star.\n19 Q. All right. Now, Ms. Volchko, focusing you on this exhibit,\n20 what's the date in the top center?\n21 A. September 17, 2021.\n22 Q. And focusing you on the far left column, what's the date\n23 listed there?\n24 A. September 17, 2021.\n25 Q. And then in the From column, are you able to tell what type\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 of chat this is?\n2 A. Based on the phone number, it looks like WhatsApp.\n3 Q. And what is the name listed in the From column?\n4 A. That's the contact name.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Now, Ms. Loftus, if we\n6 could scroll down slightly. This may only be one . . .\n7 Okay. If we could keep scrolling.\n8 Q. All right. Now focusing you on the next text, who is that\n9 text——I'm sorry——or chat message. Who is that one from?\n10 A. I'm sorry. Which one are you referring to?\n11 Q. Just the second column from the left, the first message on\n12 this page, who is that message from?\n13 A. That's the other——the owner of the device.\n14 Q. And what's the name?\n15 A. Miles Guo.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: Okay. Let's go back up.\n17 Q. And Ms. Volchko, if we could read this. I'll read the part\n18 of Gladys and you can read the part of Miles Guo.\n19 A. Okay.\n20 Q. All right. \"So boss, this is the information about the new\n21 boat Max sent to you:\n22 \"The first shipping company is Seven Star, and their\n23 price is $90,000, from Genoa, Italy to Boston (it takes 15\n24 days). The ship will arrive at Boston on October 26. If the\n25 weather is good, then the ship can travel to Connecticut, which\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 will take about 3-4 days, meaning it will arrive in Connecticut\n2 at the end of October.\n3 \"Another shipping company is Peters & May, with a\n4 lower price of about $59,000. The ship will travel to Ft.\n5 Lauderdale, Florida. But it is even farther than Connecticut,\n6 and it will take longer to arrive in Connecticut. Also, it\n7 doesn't have a fixed delivery date. It may arrive in October\n8 or November. Another thing to note, the cost of arranging a\n9 ship to travel from Florida to Connecticut is very high,\n10 because it is far away from Connecticut. It will cost about\n11 15-$20,000 and it will take about 5-6 days.\n12 \"So if you want low risk, and the ship must arrive by\n13 the end of October, we should use the first company, Seven\n14 Star. But if the time can be flexible, we may choose the\n15 second company, Peters & May. It's cheaper.\"\n16 A. \"Max, I'm very annoyed. I agreed with the end of\n17 September, but he scheduled it to the end of October. I'm very\n18 annoyed and very annoyed. OK. Just send it to Seven's house\n19 according to this. It's very annoying.\n20 \"It's the fastest one.\"\n21 Q. And just to pause for a moment, Ms. Volchko, do you see——\n22 MR. FERGENSON: And maybe we can scroll up just so we\n23 can see the column headings.\n24 Q. All right. At the far right column, what's that column\n25 titled?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. Attachments.\n2 MR. FERGENSON: And if we scroll down.\n3 Q. Ms. Volchko, when an audio message is sent in an extracted\n4 WhatsApp chat, how is the audio message extracted from the\n5 phone?\n6 A. It's extracted as an attachment.\n7 MR. FERGENSON: And we'll continue with the dialogue\n8 in a moment, but Ms. Loftus, if we could play GX 1B125F-1.\n9 (Audio played)\n10 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go back to the chat.\n11 It's 1B125G.\n12 Q. Okay. So I'll keep reading Gladys's part.\n13 \"Seven Star gave me a schedule. Our boat can be\n14 loaded on the ship in Italy on October 10 and it will arrive at\n15 Boston on October 26. After that, it will travel to\n16 Connecticut.\"\n17 A. \"[F word] [PH], November 10 again, this is really crazy.\n18 It's the only way. There's no way out. What should we do?\"\n19 MR. FERGENSON: Scroll down. Oh, that's the end.\n20 If we could pull up quickly, Ms. Loftus, Government\n21 Exhibit PRO466 at page 20.\n22 And if you could scroll down slightly.\n23 All right. If you could just zoom on the——yeah, that\n24 paragraph, please.\n25 BY MR. FERGENSON:\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 Q. All right. Can you please read the second sentence here.\n2 A. \"Please allow me to introduce myself again, I am Gladys,\n3 the assistant of Mr. Miles Kwok.\"\n4 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, let's go back\n5 to GX 1B125, the next one. Let's go to G.\n6 Q. All right. And what's the date of this chat excerpt,\n7 Ms. Volchko?\n8 A. September 24, 2021.\n9 Q. And who is this chat between?\n10 A. This appears to be between Gladys and Miles Guo.\n11 Q. Same as the one we just looked at before?\n12 A. That's correct.\n13 Q. Okay. So in this one, the first entry has something in\n14 images. Do you see that?\n15 A. I do.\n16 Q. And the Attachment column is filled out. When someone\n17 sends, you know, a photo message, how is that extracted from a\n18 chat report?\n19 A. It's extracted as an attachment.\n20 MR. FERGENSON: So Ms. Loftus, if we could just pull\n21 up quickly 1B125G-1.\n22 It's actually——Okay. If you have it, Ms. Loftus.\n23 Okay. Thank you, Ms. Loftus. So we can go back to\n24 the report.\n25 And if you want to just zoom on that image we just\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 looked at.\n2 BY MR. FERGENSON:\n3 Q. Can you read the text on that.\n4 A. Liberty.\n5 MR. FERGENSON: And if we could zoom out.\n6 Q. All right. And we can do the dialogue again. If you could\n7 read the Miles Guo part and I'll read the Gladys part.\n8 A. \"We'll see, don't say it now, let's say it by then.\n9 \"This square and upright font, the same font as Lady\n10 May [PH], the square and upright font.\"\n11 Q. \"That's the third one?\"\n12 A. \"The three models, that . . ., that R, that E, and that\n13 non-standard, please be more standard, OK?\"\n14 Q. And are R and E letters in the word Liberty, Ms. Volchko?\n15 A. They are.\n16 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to 1B125I.\n17 And if we could just zoom on the image.\n18 Q. And these are from Gladys. What's the text in these\n19 images?\n20 A. Liberty.\n21 MR. FERGENSON: You can zoom out.\n22 Q. All right. I'll read Gladys.\n23 \"Boss, these are the fonts of the new ship, which one\n24 do you like best? The row on the left is 28cm in height and on\n25 the right 30cm.\"\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 MR. FERGENSON: We can scroll down.\n2 Q. And then it says, \"The one below is just a clearer\n3 version.\"\n4 A. \"This one.\"\n5 MR. FERGENSON: And then can we zoom on the picture\n6 that Miles Guo sends.\n7 Q. And do you see one of these is circled in blue?\n8 A. I do.\n9 MR. FERGENSON: We can zoom out.\n10 Q. And then the question, \"So you like the fourth 28cm high,\n11 right?\"\n12 MR. FERGENSON: All right. We can take that down.\n13 And let's go to Stip 17, at page 4, please. We're\n14 going to look at the bottom row.\n15 Q. All right. What type of device is 1B272?\n16 A. A black iPhone 13.\n17 Q. And where was that recovered?\n18 A. Max Krasner's person, pursuant to a search warrant executed\n19 on March 15, 2023.\n20 Q. And if we can go to 1B272B.\n21 While we're waiting, Ms. Volchko, in March 2020, what\n22 state were you living in?\n23 A. New Jersey.\n24 Q. And around that time how difficult, if at all, was it to\n25 obtain N95 masks?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. I'm not sure what the\n2 relevance is.\n3 THE COURT: I'll allow the question.\n4 A. I recall it being fairly difficult.\n5 Q. If we could——oh, it's still coming up.\n6 MR. FERGENSON: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Loftus.\n7 Q. Ms. Volchko, what type of images are these from 1B272?\n8 A. These appear to be screen captures.\n9 Q. And can you remind us, who was 1B272 recovered from?\n10 A. Max Krasner.\n11 Q. Okay. And focusing on the image, what does it say at the\n12 very top, next to the, you know——well, just at the top,\n13 underneath the time?\n14 A. Mileson.\n15 Q. Do you know who Mileson is?\n16 A. I do not.\n17 Q. All right. So I'll read the white and you can read the\n18 green.\n19 \"Let's do some from Hudson to lamp and lamp to me\n20 before end of the week. Amount 10mm.\"\n21 A. \"So this will be a loan from Hudson NY to lamp?\"\n22 Q. \"What is the source for Hudson?\"\n23 A. \"Loan from ACA.\"\n24 Q. \"Can we do another loan to lamp?\"\n25 A. \"From Hudson?\"\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 Q. \"Yes.\"\n2 A. \"Hi Mileson, GSNY——\"\n3 Q. We can stop there.\n4 Do you know what Hudson is?\n5 A. I do not.\n6 Q. Do you know what Lamp is?\n7 A. I do not.\n8 Q. Do you know what ACA is?\n9 A. I do not.\n10 Q. If we can go to page 2.\n11 All right. Is this another screen capture,\n12 Ms. Volchko, from the same phone?\n13 A. Yes.\n14 Q. All right. If you could read the first two——the green\n15 messages, please.\n16 A. \"Hi Mileson, the 3m has been processed. We should be able\n17 to do the 7m tomorrow. Can you confirm the address on your\n18 account as it doesn't say in the wiring instructions.\"\n19 Q. And we can go to page 3.\n20 And can you read the green text here.\n21 A. \"Promissory Note from Lamp to Hudson Diamond v 5 19\n22 21.docx.\"\n23 Q. And the next?\n24 A. \"Promissory Note from Mileson to Infinity v 5 19 21.docx.\"\n25 Q. And can you read the last screen text there.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. \"I will be processing the gift from Lamp to May for 500,000\n2 now.\"\n3 MR. FERGENSON: Let's go to page 4.\n4 And we can keep scrolling, actually.\n5 You can keep going. Let's scroll to page 6, please.\n6 Q. And can you read the first three green texts.\n7 A. \"Sure I will check.\n8 \"Hudson NY has about 13m in IDB and about 5m in Morgan\n9 Stanley.\n10 \"Lamp signature has 7.3m at the moment.\"\n11 Q. Let's skip down to page 15.\n12 All right. And I'll read the white. The white says,\n13 \"Hi Max, let's do the 10 from Lamp.\"\n14 A. \"Hi Mileson, does it have to be all in one shot?\"\n15 Q. \"Nope. How much are you thinking?\"\n16 A. \"Where do you prefer IDB or Signature?\"\n17 Q. \"Only Signature.\"\n18 Let's go to page 18.\n19 So I had said, \"Only Signature,\" and then it says,\n20 \"They insist, so we need to do 20 before Signature has problem.\n21 Haitham knows.\"\n22 A. \"Ok, currently we have seven in signature, so maybe five\n23 first? We need to send funds back to Signature from IDB which\n24 has five.\"\n25 Q. Do you know who Haitham is, Ms. Volchko?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. I do not.\n2 Q. All right. Let's go now to page 20.\n3 All right. Now what name is listed underneath the\n4 time on this image capture?\n5 A. William Je.\n6 Q. And can you read the first three texts.\n7 A. \"Hi William, attached is a new account for Hudson.\n8 HudsonDiamondNYLLCInternationalWireInstructions.pdf.\"\n9 Q. And then the white says, \"Ok. Please prepare the loan\n10 agreement ASAP. Thanks hi.\"\n11 Let's go now to page 21.\n12 All right. Now what's the name underneath the date in\n13 this screen capture from Max's phone?\n14 A. Yvette W 7.15.20.\n15 Q. All right. And I'll read the white. We can just read the\n16 first two.\n17 \"Hi Max, any updates about the new 15 of IDB?\"\n18 A. \"Hi Yvette, I had shared the info with W and he said he is\n19 working on it. I can follow up with him.\"\n20 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to 22.\n21 Just go to the next page.\n22 One more.\n23 Q. All right. And now the name underneath the time here?\n24 A. Mileson.\n25 Q. All right. And I'll read the white, you can read the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 green.\n2 \"Hi Max, you have the 20mm directors draw ready to\n3 go?\"\n4 A. \"Hi Mileson, I think some is ready but not 20m. The\n5 company doesn't have that much we will need funding first.\"\n6 Q. \"I believe you have 10?\"\n7 A. \"There is 5m in Kearny bank now and about 7m in Signature.\"\n8 Q. \"Ok, 7 will be sent out end of the week, please prepare. I\n9 will fund more after.\"\n10 A. \"Signature is the operating account Haitham says it should\n11 go from Kearny. Will prepare to do a transfer, Kearny.\"\n12 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go back to Stip 17\n13 at page 3, please.\n14 Actually, maybe we can just use the paper.\n15 Q. Ms. Volchko, just focusing you on 1B18 on page 3, towards\n16 the middle of the page, you got it?\n17 A. Yes.\n18 Q. What kind of device is that?\n19 A. It's a mint green iPhone.\n20 Q. And where was it recovered from?\n21 A. 188 East 64th Street, apartment 1601, New York, New York.\n22 Q. And how is that defined?\n23 A. The Wang apartment, kitchen counter.\n24 MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, on the left\n25 side can we pull up 1B18A-1 and on the right 1B18A-2. And\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 those are from the Wang apartment phone, or the one we were\n2 just talking about, 1BA2.\n3 We may need just a moment, your Honor.\n4 Your Honor, unfortunately, Ms. Loftus's computer\n5 crashed so it may be a few minutes. If the Court wanted to\n6 address that matter we had discussed briefly at sidebar, we\n7 could do that now and take a break?\n8 THE COURT: All righty. Members of the jury, we'll\n9 take a very brief pause of a few minutes, and I'll call you\n10 back. Remember, you're not allowed to discuss this case\n11 amongst yourselves. Don't permit anyone to discuss it in your\n12 presence. Don't listen, watch, or read anything having to do\n13 with this matter.\n14 (Continued on next page)\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 (Jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: You may step out. Don't discuss your\n3 testimony.\n4 (Witness not present)\n5 THE COURT: You may be seated.\n6 Is it Mr. Horton who will be addressing this matter?\n7 MR. HORTON: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n9 MR. HORTON: The government makes a formal application\n10 pursuant to Geaney for the admission of co-conspirator\n11 statements and agent statements that have been elicited through\n12 the trial. Your Honor has heard now six weeks of evidence\n13 about the RICO and fraud conspiracies in this case, and how the\n14 defendant Miles Guo operated the conspiracy, both through his\n15 own words——\n16 THE COURT: If you'll get a little closer to the mic,\n17 please.\n18 MR. HORTON: Evidence about how the defendant, Miles\n19 Guo, operated his conspiracy both through his own words on\n20 broadcasts that are in evidence and by directing of agents to\n21 act, and that includes co-conspirators and others who took\n22 direction from Miles Guo and his co-conspirators. Many of\n23 these statements were not offered by the government for their\n24 truth but because they were false, they were lies, and so\n25 they're not hearsay for that reason. Others of these\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 statements were offered for additional nonhearsay purposes.\n2 They were commands to other agents. They were offered for\n3 their effect on witness listeners, for example. To the extent\n4 that the government has offered Guo's and his agents'\n5 statements for their truth, the Court has much more evidence\n6 than it needs to make its Geaney finding. Again, the standard\n7 for that is preponderance, just that it's more likely than not\n8 that a conspiracy existed, that Miles Guo and these declarants,\n9 who I'll walk through in a moment, were all members of that\n10 conspiracy together and the declarants were speaking in\n11 furtherance of that conspiracy when the statements that the\n12 government elicited were made. And of course in making that\n13 determination, the Court ought to consider the hearsay\n14 statements themselves as evidence for the Geaney finding.\n15 So I'll start with——I grouped them for the Court.\n16 Start with the group of the sort of core co-conspirators.\n17 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, the interpreter would\n18 ask the counsel to slow down. I was not able to catch up.\n19 MR. HORTON: I can slow down.\n20 Co-conspirators who are repeat players who\n21 participated in and spoke in furtherance of the conspiracy. So\n22 the Court addressed Yvette Wang early in trial, in view of her\n23 guilty plea to the conspiracy with Miles Guo. Of course there\n24 was extensive additional statements of Ms. Wang elicited\n25 throughout the trial, including that she introduced other\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 co-conspirators to other of the G Enterprise agents in the\n2 case.\n3 One of those is William Je. There was testimony at\n4 the beginning from Karin Maistrello that he was Guo's \"finance\n5 person\" and that he asked Ms. Maistrello, for example, to take\n6 a position at a company that the Court has seen has a critical\n7 role in the case. That's ACA Capital. There was more\n8 testimony from Ms. Schottenheimer about Mr. Je's central role\n9 in the $100 million hedge fund investment with misappropriated\n10 GTV investor funds. And then the Court heard Mr. Je on the\n11 recordings that were introduced through Mr. Khaled and heard\n12 additional testimony. I'll just give one additional example as\n13 Mr. Collins talked about, when he was negotiating with Mr. Je,\n14 how William told him that he and Miles had a long and trusted\n15 relationship with each other.\n16 There's Mileson Guo, the defendant's son. There's\n17 testimony and documents that show his paper ownership of the\n18 Saraca entity and how he's the beneficiary of the $100 million\n19 hedge fund investment made with misappropriated funds. There's\n20 documentary evidence that shows his ownership of the\n21 constituent entities of the Himalaya Exchange, the document\n22 that was shown early in the case recovered from the Greenwich\n23 mansion, which Mr. Je, trustee, holds the shares of these\n24 entities for the benefit of Mileson Guo, which is of course the\n25 series of evidence about the purchase of the Ferrari with\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 investor funds, and there's the discussions on the recordings\n2 through Mr. Khaled where Mileson Guo is talking about the use\n3 of the Crane entity to launder funds and specifically referring\n4 to G Club investor money that came through the Crane entity as\n5 investor money.\n6 There is Mei Guo, the defendant's daughter, and her\n7 personal guarantee on the $37 million transfer from the\n8 Himalaya Exchange in connection with the yacht in connection\n9 with the bankruptcy.\n10 There is Haoran He, who is the paper owner of the\n11 G|CLUBS parent entity.\n12 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Would you spell that.\n13 MR. HORTON: H-A-O-R-A-N, H-E.\n14 THE COURT: Go ahead.\n15 MR. HORTON: He's the paper owner of the G|CLUBS\n16 parent entity. He's a paper owner or director of numerous\n17 other G Enterprise entities that are featured in evidence. The\n18 property——one example, the entity that pays the investor money\n19 over to buy Mileson's Ferrari. And in that capacity, he\n20 communicates with other agents, and also with people outside of\n21 the conspiracy, for the purpose of obscuring the actual\n22 ownership and control of these entities and what their purposes\n23 is.\n24 There's Max Krasner, whose role is somewhat different\n25 from the sort of core group I've just described. He's more in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 the mode of executing tasks than planning and benefiting from\n2 the conspiracy, but he's notable for the breadth of his\n3 involvement and how he links these various parts together.\n4 There was testimony early in trial from Ms. Maistrello, who\n5 worked alongside him, that Max handled lots of payments for\n6 Miles Guo. On the first day of testimony, the Court saw\n7 Mr. Krasner's role in using G|CLUBS investor money to buy the\n8 red Lamborghini that was parked in Mr. Guo's garage in\n9 Greenwich. And there's additional documents to that effect.\n10 And on top of that, the Court has evidence that he was a paper\n11 owner, Max Krasner, or director of various of the G Enterprise\n12 entities. The Rule of Law Foundation, the Hudson Diamond,\n13 Mr. Krasner signed the Saraca paperwork that's instrumental in\n14 that $100 million hedge fund investment. Beyond that, there\n15 was testimony about the Rule of Law Foundation and Society, and\n16 that involves Mr. Krasner, Ms. Maistrello. It also\n17 involved——there was testimony about Steve Bannon's statements,\n18 his actions in furtherance of this conspiracy.\n19 THE COURT: But you're not now asking that I include\n20 Maistrello and Bannon?\n21 MR. HORTON: I was using Maistrello's testimony to\n22 underscore that Steve Bannon is a co-conspirator and that there\n23 were statements that he made in furtherance of the conspiracy.\n24 Early on in trial, there was a video admitted about the Rule of\n25 Law——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 THE COURT: But not Ms. Maistrello.\n2 MR. HORTON: Not Ms. Maistrello.\n3 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.\n4 MR. HORTON: So in that context, there were statements\n5 from Mr. Bannon.\n6 I think the next category is these figurehead\n7 executives, and the Court heard testimony from two of them.\n8 Ms. Reyes, the CEO of G|CLUBS, she makes false statements in\n9 the G|CLUBS arbitration. She puts together paperwork for the\n10 transfers of fraud proceeds at Mr. He's and Yvette Wang's\n11 direction.\n12 I'll just also note that she testified about a\n13 conversation she had with Scott Barnett about the red\n14 Lamborghini, the one that was purchased with investor funds.\n15 So Ms. Reyes testified about a statement Mr. Barnett made about\n16 looking for a warehouse for that car. Mr. Barnett is\n17 unquestionably at least an agent of Mr. Guo. He's described by\n18 both parties as head of security and somebody who acted for and\n19 at the direction of Mr. Guo.\n20 THE COURT: But you're focusing on Limarie Reyes.\n21 MR. HORTON: Yes, and I wanted to just note, because\n22 there are some co-conspirators and agents who make fewer and\n23 smaller appearances in the evidence, and I just wanted to point\n24 out Mr. Barnett is one of them.\n25 Jesse Brown, the CEO of the Himalaya Exchange,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 testified that Mr. Je was the one who was really in control.\n2 He testified about the extent of Miles Guo's influence over the\n3 exchange's operations. Of course Mr. Khaled, who testified\n4 about his role at Crane and the entity that was created as a\n5 sort of adjunct of G|CLUBS for purposes of moving funds and in\n6 an effort to purchase a bank, and of course that was undertaken\n7 in conjunction with William Je, among other of the\n8 co-conspirators mentioned.\n9 At G|CLUBS, moving to this category, there's Alex\n10 Hadjicharalambous, the comptroller for G|CLUBS, who was in\n11 charge of accounting. He reconciled member IDs with funds that\n12 were coming in before they were sent out and used to purchase\n13 goods for the Guo family. He communicated with numerous banks\n14 on behalf of G|CLUBS. And he touched other G Enterprise\n15 entities in his capacity as a paper employee of the G|CLUBS\n16 entity. There's a document that's recovered from Ms. Wang's\n17 apartment, just, for example, that shows him, Alex\n18 Hadjicharalambous, as the operator of the Freedom Media\n19 Ventures email account for that enterprise's, entity's account\n20 to the Himalaya Exchange. Just an illustration of the sort of\n21 breadth of the role that even some of the smaller parts played.\n22 There's Ana Izquierdo, in-house lawyer at G|CLUBS. On\n23 Mr. Khaled's recording, she's giving directions about funds\n24 transfers, including the laundering of fraud proceeds. She met\n25 with Bo Collins, who testified here, was instrumental in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 getting G|CLUBS a bank account at Mercantile, and Ms. Reyes\n2 testified that Ms. Izquierdo got direction from Yvette Wang and\n3 from Victor Cerda on handling the purchase of the Lamborghini\n4 that was found in Mr. Guo's garage.\n5 There are a number of lawyers who were co-conspirators\n6 and whose statements were elicited at trial. Aaron Mitchell, a\n7 long-time lawyer for Guo and the G Enterprise entities. He's a\n8 director himself of GTV. He's a director of Holy City HK\n9 Ventures. Your Honor may recall that it was Ya Li's\n10 involvement or her request to be involved with Holy City that\n11 was part of how Ms. Li became aware of the fraudulent nature of\n12 the enterprise. Ms. Li was asked to sign a bunch of paper for\n13 Holy City, and Mr. Mitchell was a direct——Mr. Mitchell\n14 represented G|CLUBS at the Crane arbitration. His law firm\n15 account holds tens of millions of dollars of fraud proceeds,\n16 including the 47 million transfer from Crane to G|CLUBS. And\n17 he's instrumental, as the Court saw, in Mr. Guo's purchase of\n18 the Mahwah mansion as a residence using investor money.\n19 There's Victor Cerda, who is a director of the Rule of\n20 Law Foundation. He helps Mr. Khaled stand up Crane as a\n21 vehicle for G|CLUBS-related money laundering. He advises Ana\n22 Izquierdo on G|CLUBS purchase of Mr. Guo's Lamborghini. And he\n23 worked, of course, on the Crane arbitration in which false\n24 statements were used to effect a funds transfer.\n25 There's Alex Lipman, a lawyer for Yvette Wang. After\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 Ms. Wang's arrest, Mr. Lipman conveys a message to Ya Li,\n2 please sign these documents for the Holy City Ventures, as I\n3 mentioned in connection with Mr. Mitchell.\n4 At the Himalaya Exchange, the Court heard statements\n5 made by Priya Patel.\n6 THE COURT: Who?\n7 MR. HORTON: Priya Patel. She featured in the\n8 testimony of Mr. Roberts from Bitgo and from Mr. Brown. She\n9 represented——she was held out as a representative of the\n10 Himalaya Exchange to outside entities, including Bitgo. She\n11 passed on lies to Bitgo about the nature of Miles Guo's\n12 connection with Himalaya Exchange. And Mr. Brown testified\n13 that he understood her to make false statements in internal\n14 meetings when Mr. —— the topic of Mr. Guo's relationship to the\n15 exchange was raised by Mr. Brown. There were also statements\n16 made in documents in which Marios Mamzeris, who was an employee\n17 of Hamilton——\n18 THE COURT: If you could remind me of the spelling.\n19 MR. HORTON: The last name is M-A-M-Z-E-R-I-S.\n20 THE COURT: Did you say Mario?\n21 MR. HORTON: Marios.\n22 THE COURT: Marios? Okay.\n23 MR. HORTON: Yes. So Mr. Brown testified about\n24 discussions he had where Mr. Mamzeris was conveying information\n25 about William Je. There's also the Himalaya Exchange email\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 with Bitgo that came in through Mr. Roberts, where\n2 Mr. Mamzeris, in March of 2023, is making a number of\n3 statements about sort of fundamental characteristics of the\n4 exchange and its coins that are contrary to representations\n5 Mr. Guo is making in public.\n6 And then there are people at the farms. There is\n7 extensive testimony about statements from Long Island David,\n8 Xia Qidong, also in the transcript as Brother Chang Dao. Ya Li\n9 testified that he was the secretary——\n10 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Long Island David, are you\n11 saying he has the same name as this person you just mentioned?\n12 MR. HORTON: That's right.\n13 THE COURT: Okay.\n14 MR. HORTON: So I think the proper name is Qidong,\n15 Q-I-D-O-N-G, and nicknames included Long Island David, Brother\n16 Long Island, and Chang Dao. Ya Li testified referring to him\n17 as Brother Long Island, that he was the Himalaya Alliance\n18 secretary, the sort of umbrella organization that held and\n19 represented all the farms together. And he sent a farm loan\n20 agreement to Ya Li on Mr. Guo's behalf.\n21 He was the leader of the Mountains of Spices Farm.\n22 There was extensive testimony about the role of that particular\n23 farm, the Mountains of Spices Farm. Long Island David signs an\n24 H Coin-related agreement with Ya Li, and he tells Ya Li to\n25 delete the content from her phones after the defendant's\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 arrest.\n2 There is Yongbing Zhang, Z-H-A-N-G.\n3 THE COURT: I'm sorry. You're going to have to spell\n4 that one for me.\n5 MR. HORTON: So it's Y-O-N-G-B-I-N-G, Z-H-A-N-G. Ya\n6 Li testified that Mr. Zhang was a lawyer and Guo supporter who\n7 sent her a farm loan agreement that would have effected a\n8 transfer to an entity called Alpha Global. She also testified\n9 that Mr. Zhang asked her, Ya Li, to sue the bankruptcy trustee\n10 and, in connection with that, to sign a false affidavit, and\n11 then threatened her when she refused to do that.\n12 And then there's two sort of much more peripheral sets\n13 of statements that come in in this farms category. There's a\n14 video where somebody named Fay Fay is speaking alongside Miles\n15 Guo.\n16 THE COURT: You're saying there was an individual by\n17 that name who you're including on this list?\n18 MR. HORTON: That's right. We played a video where\n19 Mr. Guo and Fay Fay are side by side speaking, and it's a video\n20 that promotes the sort of set of post-GTV investment schemes.\n21 And then there's——I'll just spell this one out.\n22 L-A-O-B-A-N Z-H-A-N-G. And Ya Li testified that this\n23 individual directed her to sign a G|CLUBS-related loan writeoff\n24 agreement.\n25 So that's the roster. There was evidence from day one\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 through today of statements made by the people I named in\n2 furtherance of the conspiracy and of course in their capacity\n3 as agents for Mr. Guo. And all of that, we submit, is\n4 admissible under 801(d)(2).\n5 THE COURT: So are you including Mr. Barnett on the\n6 list?\n7 MR. HORTON: That's right.\n8 THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from the defense.\n9 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.\n10 That was quite a list, but first, let me start\n11 with——maybe it's housekeeping.\n12 At page 395, line 9 of the transcript——and I have\n13 copies for your Honor that I can hand up——the government\n14 introduced the statements of David Dai as under the\n15 co-conspirator exception. I did not hear him on Mr. Horton's\n16 list, so we're going to move to strike that testimony.\n17 THE COURT: If they had wanted him on the list——\n18 MR. HORTON: If I could just make two brief additions,\n19 one of which is Mr. Dai, who was the UK Farm leader. He should\n20 have been included on my list. And there was a single or a\n21 small set of statements from Dara Lawall, who is Aaron\n22 Mitchell's wife. We had a sidebar on this issue. She was\n23 quite clearly communicating as an agent of Mr. Guo.\n24 THE COURT: Are there any other people, Mr. Kamaraju,\n25 that you think they left off?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, there are.\n2 THE COURT: Go ahead. Just go one by one.\n3 MR. KAMARAJU: Sure. So at 477, line 2, there is an\n4 unnamed Rule of Law Foundation paralegal who they admitted as a\n5 co-conspirator statement, statement of agent. Do you want to\n6 ask them if they want——\n7 THE COURT: Yes, I do.\n8 MR. HORTON: So that one we had resolved at the\n9 sidebar, your Honor, as a discrete piece of information, but\n10 for the avoidance of doubt, we include that paralegal as an\n11 agent of the G Enterprise entity on our list.\n12 THE COURT: Who else, Mr. Kamaraju?\n13 MR. KAMARAJU: Let's see. There are unnamed Himalaya\n14 Exchange employees who——I'm sorry, I don't have the cite on my\n15 chart, your Honor, but during the testimony of Mr. Brown, there\n16 were unnamed Himalaya Exchange employees who were referred to\n17 as both I think agents and the co-conspirator exception, so I\n18 guess we can hear from Mr. Horton on those as well.\n19 MR. HORTON: So we think there was extensive evidence,\n20 certainly more than a preponderance, that people who were\n21 employed at the Himalaya Exchange and but for Jesse Brown,\n22 those were employees of Hamilton, which was William Je's\n23 entity, were agents of William Je and agents of Miles Guo.\n24 THE COURT: So these are unnamed individuals, and so\n25 you're not asking for them to be on the list.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 MR. HORTON: To the extent they can't be identified by\n2 name, I suppose that's right, but Mr. Brown's testimony was\n3 that he met with people who were Hamilton employees, they\n4 worked for William Je, they worked with Himalaya Exchange, and\n5 we view them as agents.\n6 THE COURT: So unnamed Himalaya Exchange employees\n7 referred to by Mr. Brown.\n8 MR. HORTON: That suffices.\n9 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kamaraju.\n10 MR. KAMARAJU: So maybe we can just start——I think\n11 that's all I have on people they haven't referred to, but I'll\n12 confirm that.\n13 But I think the last description that Mr. Horton gave\n14 actually goes right to the point. The hearsay exception, first\n15 of all, for agency, is a hearsay exception for agents of the\n16 defendant, not agents of a co-defendant. So that's step one.\n17 So everything he says about agents of Mr. Je don't come in\n18 under an agency relationship with Mr. Guo. The only way they\n19 would be able to do that is through a co-conspirator statement.\n20 Second, if they were trying to offer that somebody is\n21 an agent of Mr. Guo's, then under United States v. Rioux, 97\n22 F.3d 648, 660 (2d Cir. 1996), they need to show the existence\n23 of an agency relationship, that the statement was made during\n24 the course of the relationship, and that it relates to a matter\n25 within the scope of the agency. And the Second Circuit has\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 emphasized that that test is very fact-specific. So there can\n2 be agency relationships when there is no employment agreement.\n3 So for example, in Rioux, the Second Circuit dealt with\n4 employees of the sheriff's department and whether they were\n5 agents of the sheriff, and the evidence that the government\n6 offered in that case was that they were, for example, hand\n7 picked by the defendant, that they served at his pleasure, and\n8 that they received their instructions through the defendant\n9 himself, or an employee who served in a position the defendant\n10 created. The government has no evidence, for example, that\n11 Limarie Reyes received any instruction from Mr. Guo. In fact,\n12 her testimony was to the exact opposite. The government also\n13 has no information, no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Guo placed\n14 Ms. Wang at a position in G|CLUBS. There's simply nothing in\n15 the record, and I don't believe Mr. Horton will ever be able to\n16 cite anything in the record, showing how Ms. Wang got the\n17 position that she did with G|CLUBS. That's true, frankly, your\n18 Honor, for every name that's on that list. They have no\n19 evidence to show the nature of the agency relationship. And\n20 from the beginning of this case, your Honor, they have tried to\n21 short-circuit that showing and skip those steps.\n22 So——I apologize, your Honor. I just lost the list for\n23 a second.\n24 But take Priya Patel, for example. They've never\n25 shown any connection between Mr. Guo and Priya Patel. Their\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 entire argument is that she's an agent of Mr. Je and the\n2 Himalaya Exchange. Again, that's not what the agency hearsay\n3 exception is.\n4 So as we go down, the principal issue, I think, your\n5 Honor, with the government's showing is, it essentially has no\n6 limitation. Their showing is somebody worked at one of these\n7 companies and took actions in furtherance of that company's\n8 business heretofore, they are a co-conspirator. They have no\n9 evidence of intent, they have no evidence of agreement, they\n10 have no evidence that they even met or spoke with Mr. Guo in\n11 any of these scenarios.\n12 So the list is long, and I know——\n13 THE COURT: Okay. So it's now 2:42, and you folks are\n14 going to have to do this on papers.\n15 MR. KAMARAJU: Fair enough.\n16 THE COURT: It would be fine for you to go further on\n17 the record, but I think it would be more efficient for you to\n18 do it on papers. And so we're going to need to come up with a\n19 schedule.\n20 MR. KAMARAJU: That's fine, your Honor. I assume\n21 we'll just respond to whenever the government files theirs. So\n22 whatever the Court prefers.\n23 THE COURT: This is going to have to be over the\n24 weekend. When can you get me your papers?\n25 MR. KAMARAJU: And I'm sorry, your Honor. Just for\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 point of clarification, my understanding is that this needs to\n2 be done prior to the government resting their case.\n3 THE COURT: It does. It has to be done before then,\n4 and of course I and my assistants will also have to consult the\n5 record, and so it's quite an undertaking.\n6 MR. KAMARAJU: Yes. That was my assumption as well,\n7 your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: So it looks like, if I'm going to have to\n9 assimilate this, along with my assistants, we will need Sunday\n10 and Monday to do that, so that means the government's papers\n11 tomorrow and defense papers on Saturday.\n12 MR. KAMARAJU: No problem, your Honor.\n13 MR. HORTON: No problem with us. Thank you.\n14 THE COURT: I'm assuming, Mr. Kamaraju, that you don't\n15 feel the need to go further on the record; is that correct?\n16 MR. KAMARAJU: No, your Honor. No need to belabor it\n17 now.\n18 THE COURT: Okay. So from the government, I'm going\n19 to need references to the transcript.\n20 MR. HORTON: Yes, your Honor.\n21 THE COURT: Page and line.\n22 MR. HORTON: Understood.\n23 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So we should bring our\n24 jurors out and let them go.\n25 MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 (Jury present)\n2 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n3 Members of the jury, it's 2:45, and so it's time to\n4 go. Tomorrow you will not be coming in, nor will you be coming\n5 in on Monday. So you have four days off. And you'll return to\n6 court on Tuesday. And on Tuesday and Wednesday, we will have\n7 full days. In addition, once the parties have rested and have\n8 finished presenting evidence——and that means if the defense\n9 chooses to put on a case. They don't have to put on a case.\n10 They're not obligated to do so. But once the evidentiary\n11 portion of the trial is over, we will then have summations.\n12 Rather, we'll first have my instructions, then the summations,\n13 and then we'll go into deliberations. And at that point, once\n14 the evidentiary portion is finished, you will have to stay full\n15 days. So I want you to be prepared for that. I don't know\n16 exactly when that will be, but once it starts, there will be\n17 full days.\n18 All righty. So I wish you a good short break.\n19 Remember that you're not allowed to discuss the case amongst\n20 yourselves, you cannot permit anyone to discuss the case in\n21 your presence, and you're not permitted to read, listen to, or\n22 watch anything, from any source, that touches on the subject\n23 matter of this case.\n24 Have a good weekend.\n25 (Jury not present)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n2 So the instructions I was referring to were the\n3 pre-summation instructions, just so that you understand that\n4 there will be instructions after summations.\n5 MR. FINKEL: Judge Schofield as I understand it, does\n6 it before summations, but thank you, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: Yes. Anything further?\n8 MR. KAMARAJU: Not from the defense, your Honor.\n9 MR. FINKEL: Just one thing. Just to avoid issues and\n10 make sure our presentation of evidence is efficient or the\n11 defense's presentation of evidence is efficient next week, by\n12 when can we expect the defense's exhibits that they intend to\n13 introduce through their witnesses? The government has\n14 generally provided it Saturday by noon. If it narrows or gets\n15 broader, that's fine. We understand things will change. But\n16 it would be helpful to have and I think efficient to have a\n17 good-faith assertion of the exhibits they intend to introduce\n18 by Saturday before noon.\n19 MR. KAMARAJU: Saturday at noon is fine, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: All righty.\n21 MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor. Have a nice\n22 weekend.\n23 THE COURT: Same to you.\n24 MR. KAMARAJU: Have a good weekend, your Honor.\n25 (Adjourned to July 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION\n2 Examination of: Page\n3 WEI CHEN\n4 Cross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . . .4570\n5 Redirect By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . .4685\n6 Cross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . . .4694\n7 JESSICA VOLCHKO\n8 Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .4707\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS\n2 Exhibit No. Received\n3 1B15D, G, G-T, I; 1B16C, 1B18A, A1, A2; . . .4711\n4 1B69B and B-T, B-1 through\n5 B-18, and their\n6 corresponding-Ts; 1B70A and\n7 A-1; 1B71A-1 to A-6; and\n8 1B71E, F, G, H, and I; 1B89;\n9 1B89J, and J-1 and J-2;\n10 1B91C-38; 1B91B-26, -27, -31\n11 through -33; 1B92B-13\n12 1B121; 1B121A-M; 1B124, 1B124A, C, E, . . . .4711\n13 F, G, H, M, and R; 1B125,\n14 1B125A, and 1B125F through\n15 1B125S; 1B185M; 1B204-13, -47,\n16 -48; 1B227A, B, and F; 1B255C\n17 and D; and 1B272B\n18 VB16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4612\n19 Stip 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4709\n20 VB-36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4689\n21 DEFENDANT EXHIBITS\n22 Exhibit No. Received\n23 60672 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4590\n24 60676 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4605\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300","body_zh":"O6RBGUO1\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）,\n\nDefendant.（被告。） 审判\n6 ------------------------------x\nNew York, N.Y.（纽约州纽约市）\n7 2024年6月27日\n上午9:00\n\n审前法官：\n\n10 HON. ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）,\n11 联邦地区法官\n-及陪审团-\n\n出庭人员\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n14 United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\n15 代理人：MICAH F. FERGENSON（米卡·F·弗根森）\nRYAN B. FINKEL（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\n16 JUSTIN HORTON（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJULIANA N. MURRAY（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\n17 Assistant United States Attorneys（联邦助理检察官）\n18 SABRINA P. SHROFF（萨布丽娜·P·施罗夫）\n被告律师\n\nPRYOR CASHMAN LLP（普莱尔·卡什曼律师事务所）\n20 被告律师\n代理人：SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU（西达尔塔·卡玛拉朱）\n21 MATTHEW BARKAN（马修·巴坎）\n22 ALSTON & BIRD LLP（奥斯顿与伯德律师事务所）\n被告律师\n23 代理人：E. SCOTT SCHIRICK（E·斯科特·希里克）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南区速记员专业法团）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 其他在场人员：\nIsabel Loftus（伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯），USAO（联邦检察官办公室）律师助理专家\n2 Robert Stout（罗伯特·斯托特），FBI（联邦调查局）特别法警\nJorge Salazar（豪尔赫·萨拉查），辩方律师助理\n3 Tuo Huang（黄拓），译员（普通话）\nShi Feng（冯实），译员（普通话）\n4 Yu Mark Tang（唐玉马克），译员（普通话）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1（庭审继续；陪审团不在场）\n2 法庭：请登记出庭人员姓名。\n3 芬克尔先生：瑞安·芬克尔和贾斯汀·霍顿代表\n4 政府方。我们团队的其余成员稍后就会到。\n5 施罗夫女士：法官阁下早上好。代表\n6 郭先生出庭的是萨布丽娜·施罗夫和斯科特·希里克。卡玛拉朱先生\n7 稍后就到。\n8 法庭：在开始之前，你们有什么要提出的吗？\n9\n10 芬克尔先生：法官阁下，政府方有几个\n11 问题。我想先从目前正在证人席上的那位被害人\n12 开始。首先，在开端部分，对该\n13 被害人的直接询问大约进行了一小时十分钟。我想\n14 就今天剩余的时间而言，到目前为止反询问大约进行了50分钟。但切入问题的核心，昨天\n15 晚上大约11点左右，辩方向我们提供了一份证据，\n16 标号为DX7016。我可以向法庭提供一份副本吗？\n17 法庭：请提供。\n18 芬克尔先生：这似乎是该被害人的简历，\n19 以及她在网上的个人资料链接。对该个人资料有一处非常\n20 粗浅的隐匿处理。我能想到若干\n21 理由说明为何这样一份证据是不妥当的。\n22 第一个是相关性。也许这是处理\n23 该问题最简单的方式。我无法理解一名被害人的简历在任何方面\n24 与她是否遭到Miles Guo（郭文贵）诈骗具有相关性。至于\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 他们试图表明她曾是审计师或\n2 参与过风险管理，这些问题昨天已经涉及、被询问\n3 且已回答过多次，所以这是第一点。\n4 第二点，法官阁下，她是一名被害人，而且我\n5 认为这份简历，特别是结合昨天提交的其他证据背景，\n6 以及针对该被害人的质问方式，从政府方的角度来看\n7 完全是为了骚扰她，侵犯了她在《Crime Victims Rights Act（犯罪被害人权利法）》下的权利。并且，法官阁下，当被害人\n8 出庭作证时，当然\n9 会产生对质条款方面的问题。但援引United States v. Bannister（美国诉班尼斯特案），\n10 即 2023 WL 2596890。这是Engelmayer（恩格尔迈耶）法官的意见书。\n11 《犯罪被害人权利法》要求地区法院落实\n12 程序以确保犯罪被害人除获得其他权利外，还享有受到合理保护免受\n13 被告伤害的权利，以及受到公正对待且\n14 尊严和隐私受到尊重的权利。\n15\n16 恩格尔迈耶法官进一步阐述道：“虽然\n17 第六修正案的对质条款保障了\n18 被告与指控他们的政府方证人当面对质的权利，\n19 但这并非绝对的权利。”援引最高法院案例California v. Green（加利福尼亚州诉格林案）。被告在\n20 对质条款下的权利必须退让以兼顾其他合法\n21 利益，援引第二巡回法院案及最高法院\n22 案例。例如，一审法院拥有“基于对\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 骚扰、偏见或证人安全等问题的关切，对反询问施加合理限制的广泛裁量权”，\n2 引用第二巡回法院案，并引用《Federal Rule of Evidence（联邦证据规则）》611(b)。根据恩格尔迈耶法官的观点，如果政府方\n3 提出了“在公开法庭上限制披露\n4 身份识别信息”的理由，“被告必须\n5 证明对该等披露存在具体化的必要性”。\n6\n7 法官阁下，该案发生在VOSR（监督释放撤销听证程序）的背景下，\n8 恩格尔迈耶法官在其中将一名被害人的\n9 身份从公开记录中予以封存，并替换为姓名首字母缩写。但恩格尔迈耶法官\n10 在这份意见书中——如果法官阁下需要，我也有一份副本——\n11 援引了刑事案件，包括U.S. v. Maxwell（美国诉麦克斯韦案）\n12 以及其他使用化名的刑事案件。我们在这里没有\n13 使用化名，但即便如此，《犯罪被害人权利法》\n14 确实保护被害人免受骚扰和偏见。但更关键的是，法官阁下，提交\n15 这位被害人的简历以使其成为网上或通过其他方式遭受\n16 骚扰和攻击的目标，没有任何正当目的。因此，\n17 由于该证据不具相关性，由于该问题已被询问且已回答，并且\n18 她的过往经历昨天已被涉及，又因为《犯罪被害人权利法》的规定，\n19 该证据应予排除。\n20 法庭：施罗夫女士，这份简历能起到什么作用，\n21 是您此前就其资历和工作经历对她进行详细询问所\n22 尚未达成的？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，我们不需要将该简历作为证据\n2 提交。我们将其提供给政府方，是因为证人作证说\n3 她在中国读本科期间没有\n4 修读过会计课程，也没有上过会计课。我此前考虑过\n5 用它对她进行反询问并用于弹劾目的。因此\n6 出于极度谨慎起见，我们将其发送给了政府方。\n7 绝不存在任何我会无视\n8 法庭裁定并将某人的地址作为证据提交的情况，\n9 所以那不是我们的意图。谢谢。\n10 法庭：所以实质上您打算问她的是：\n11 你在这一年修读过一门会计课程，这不是事实吗？\n12 施罗夫女士：就是这样。我甚至都不确定我是否\n13 会这么做，但我们还是决定把它发过去。\n14 该文件是公开的。我们只是在互联网上\n15 找到了这份文件。它现在还在网上。\n16 法庭：我的问题是，您今天是否打算\n17 使用它来尝试帮她恢复记忆？\n18 施罗夫女士：不，可能是用于弹劾她，因为她说，\n19 她实际上说了：我没有修读过会计课程。\n20 法庭：好的。\n21 施罗夫女士：这是我唯一会发问的原因。\n22 法庭：我是在试图弄清楚您的问题会是什么。是：\n23 你难道没有在互联网上上传过一份注明自己修读过会计学的\n24 简历吗？是这样的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 问题吗？\n2 施罗夫女士：不，法官阁下。我原本打算说的是，\n3 昨天你作证说你没有修读过\n4 会计课程，对吗？让我给你看一下标为X的文件。你在你的简历中作了不同的陈述，\n5 这难道不是事实吗？然后让她看那项内容，这就行了。这纯粹是弹劾。\n6 我并不寻求将该文件作为证据提交。我也不太确定\n7 我是否会这么做。这只是一种想法。\n8 法庭：芬克尔先生。\n9 施罗夫女士：仅仅是因为根据Litvak（利特瓦克案）它具有相关性，\n10 我才产生了这种想法。并且再次声明，没有人试图\n11 提交任何未经隐匿处理的文件或在这里做出任何不当之举。\n12 显然这只是——我不知道到底是怎么回事，\n13 为什么我们没有隐匿处理后发给他们。昨晚熬了很久。\n14 法庭：好的。如果是她的计划——\n15 施罗夫女士的计划是像她刚才所说的那样陈述：昨天你说\n16 你没有修读过会计课程。而在你的简历上\n17 你注明了你修读过会计课程，这不是事实吗？\n18 那纯粹是弹劾。并不是出于实际将简历\n19 采纳为证据的目的。我看不出这有什么\n20 可反对的。\n21 芬克尔先生：法官阁下，我得核对一下那部分的\n22 庭审记录。坦率地说，法官阁下，对于施罗夫女士所说的\n23 这全都是出于正当目的而非\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 针对不正当目的而设计的说法，我不敢苟同。从政府方的\n2 角度来看，法官阁下，施罗夫女士反询问该\n3 证人是为了让她难堪和骚扰她。昨天她告诉\n4 法官阁下她把那些ID作为证据提交是因为\n5 之后会有聊天记录提交。根本就没有聊天记录。\n6 她只是想在网上曝光这个人的身份，而我\n7 认为这是不适当的。\n8 法庭：所以她必须有机会\n9 与证人对质。如果我剥夺她尝试\n10 弹劾证人的机会，那完全是不恰当的，因此\n11 我将允许她按照我刚才提出的形式提出我刚才提出的问题。\n12 仅此为止。\n13 芬克尔先生：感谢法官阁下，我\n14 完全理解。政府方的观点是，\n15 是的，她被允许就证人的可信度进行反询问。\n16 我同意。政府方同意。我们只是鉴于昨天\n17 发生的事情而请求——并且我肯定会提出反对——\n18 施罗夫女士不要骚扰证人。仅此而已。而且我认为\n19 我们在此问题上的立场是明确的，我也理解法庭的裁定。\n20 法庭：嗯，强有力的反询问有时\n21 会让证人感到不适，这纯粹\n22 是刑事诉讼的现实。\n23 芬克尔先生：我理解。\n24 法庭：当然，在强有力的对质\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 与越界演变为骚扰或纠缠之间存在界限。\n2 我尚未看到对该证人存在骚扰或纠缠的情况，\n3 因此我相信施罗夫女士不会逾越界限。\n4\n5 施罗夫女士：谢谢法官阁下。当时机到来时，\n6 我将很乐意向政府方展示使用Ivy账号的情况和聊天记录。\n7 法庭：第二个问题是什么？\n8 芬克尔先生：第二个问题，法官阁下，我们\n9 提出这个问题是因为我们通过电子邮件与辩方进行了多次沟通，\n10 仅仅是想就两个直截了当的问题得到直截了当的答复，\n11 但对方尚未提供。辩方将传唤Maggie Sklar（玛吉·斯科拉尔），\n12 她是辩方的加密货币专家。我们询问了他们Sklar女士\n13 是否打算就她对区块链的审查或对智能合约的审查作证。\n14 坦白讲，这是一个非此即彼的问题。\n15 如果答案是肯定的，我们打算就此问题提交一份信函，\n16 因为我们认为这超出了她披露的范围，我们将就此提交辩论意见书，\n17 但我们不想浪费法庭的时间无谓地提交信函。我想我们\n18 问了那个问题三次。我们得到的回应总是绕圈子。\n19 我请求辩方明确告知政府方，Sklar女士是否\n20 打算就她对HCN和HDO的智能合约及区块链的审查作证。\n21 法庭：施罗夫女士或希里克先生。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 席里克先生（MR. SCHIRICK）：法官阁下，我们就此问题确实与政府方进行过\n2 来回沟通。我们屡次建议政府方查阅斯克拉尔女士（Ms. Sklar）的专家披露文件，\n3 特别是指引政府方查阅我们4月\n4 29日的披露文件，更具体地说是指该\n5 披露文件第22节，其中相关部分载明，我在此引述：\n6 “斯克拉尔女士将进一步发表意见，鉴于HCN和HDO各自均系\n7 使用智能合约铸造，该等智能合约可在以太坊（ethereum）公有\n8 区块链上查看，且系使用法定货币购买并\n9 交易。它们符合市场对\n10 加密货币的普遍理解。”因此，芬克尔先生（Mr. Finkel）提出的两个问题，\n11 均可由该特定披露文件以及将该陈述置于具体语境下的其他\n12 披露文件予以解答。\n13 法庭（THE COURT）：请把事情简单化。答案到底\n14 是什么？他问的是一个非常直截了当的问题。我\n15 想听你的回答。\n16 席里克先生：法官阁下，问题在于她是否会\n17 就审查过智能合约一事作证。答案\n18 是，她可能会就此作证，是的，这属于她的\n19 披露范围之内；并且她是在公开可用的\n20 以太坊区块链上审查了智能合约。\n21 芬克尔先生：答案是肯定的，如果能通过电子邮件直接获得\n22 这样直截了当的答复，而不是今天早上浪费法庭的\n23 时间，我们将不胜感激。我们将\n24 提交信函予以回复，以便法庭解决争议。\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 既然我们谈到了专家以及辩方整体案情的话题，\n2 我们昨晚要求辩方提供与政府方已提供内容相同的信息，即\n3 他们拟通过每位证人引入的物证清单。我们尚未收到\n4 该清单。他们今天可能有一位证人杜兰先生（Mr. Duran）出庭作证。我们\n5 不知道有什么物证（若有）——抱歉，是德拉贡先生（Mr. Dragon）\n6 出庭作证。我们不知道他们打算引入哪些物证（若有），\n7 我们请求对辩方适用与政府方相同的标准，\n8 以便在辩方案情陈述期间保证庭审效率，\n9 包括要求他们提供属于工作成果的任何幻灯片草稿，由于属于证人先前的\n10 陈述，这些构成联邦刑事诉讼规则第26.2条材料（26.2 material），我们同样尚未收到。\n11 我们没有收到任何摘要。我们没有收到任何直观演示材料（demonstratives）。\n12 他们的26.2条材料提到了演示物证。我们\n13 还没见过。我们可能对此提出异议，也可能\n14 不会。我们或许能与辩方沟通并解决这些\n15 问题，而无需占用法官阁下或陪审团的时间。\n16 他们应当将这些材料提供给\n17 政府方。我们请求法庭命令他们照此执行。\n18 席里克先生：法官阁下，只要辩方计划引入任何尚未\n19 纳为证据的文件，我们就会向政府方提供相应披露。\n20 法庭：抱歉，席里克先生，我没有完全\n21 听清你说的话。\n22 席里克先生：我说的是，只要我们计划通过专家证言引入任何\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 尚未纳为证据的文件，我们当然会向\n2 政府方提供披露。\n3 法庭：他们是在要求明确知道你们打算引入什么，\n4 而不是听说存在涉及某一特定证人的一批\n5 证据。\n6 席里克先生：法官阁下，也许是我误解了。我\n7 以为问题在于我们是否计划引入任何新\n8 文件。我以为芬克尔先生指的是我们可能配合专家使用的\n9 演示材料，而不是已经纳为证据的文件，\n10 但也许我理解有误。\n11 法庭：我的理解——如果我错了，请纠正我——\n12 是他们想知道哪些物证与你们即将传唤的\n13 每位证人相对应。我说得对吗？\n14 芬克尔先生：是的，法官阁下。特别是他们打算引入的任何\n15 新物证以及演示材料。\n16 关于演示材料，其26.2条材料实际上载明已审查\n17 演示物或演示物证。我们手头没有这些。\n18 如果他们要在陪审团面前展示，即使是\n19 演示材料，也应该提供给政府方。\n20 席里克先生：当然，法官阁下。我们明白这一点。\n21 我理解芬克尔先生的意思也就是指\n22 演示材料或新物证，我们当然会\n23 提供。对于演示材料的使用，目前尚未做出任何\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 需要我们在现阶段予以出示的决定。\n2 芬克尔先生：只是向法官阁下说明一下，他们的一位\n3 专家今天可能会作证。我们尚未收到\n4 演示材料。我们不知道他们是否会引入任何\n5 物证。如果答案是不会通过该证人引入任何新物证，\n6 那直接告诉我们即可，这样我们心里有数，也可以\n7 更高效地利用法官阁下和陪审团的\n8 时间。如果答案是可能引入，那就把全部范围提供给我们。\n9 我们就是这样做的。我们曾表示，这是一批约30件或\n10 有时更多的物证，实际使用的将是其中的一个子集。他们\n11 并没有这样做。坦白讲，法官阁下，本案庭审已经到了\n12 应该以效率为第一准则的阶段，\n13 而不应采取诉讼策略、拖延和兜圈子式的回答。\n14 席里克先生：法官阁下，请允许我简短说明几句。\n15 首先，没有任何新物证。我们没有计划对\n16 德拉贡先生使用任何演示材料。显然，\n17 我们一直在与即将作为辩方首批出庭证人的\n18 专家进行沟通工作。我们不想在截至昨天之时，\n19 就断绝我们在确有需要时可能使用某些材料的\n20 可能性，因此我们此前并未向政府方进行任何披露。坦率地说，\n21 我实在不明白争议何在。我们当然清楚自己的义务，\n22 我们当然会进行披露，而且我们无意对\n23 德拉贡先生使用新物证或演示材料。\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 法庭：好的。现在我们知道了，没有新物证，\n2 也没有演示材料。\n3 芬克尔先生：这很有帮助。此外，法官阁下，\n4 鉴于他们有大约11位证人，今后我们希望\n5 辩方能采取另一种做法，即：\n6 不要说“我们不知道要引入什么，所以什么都不告诉你们”，\n7 而是像政府方所做的那样告诉我们。即：这是我们可能\n8 引入的物证子集。如果事实证明他们最终不引入，\n9 也没关系，这样能提高效率。这正是\n10 政府方此前所做的。我们还要求——且我认为\n11 他们应当向我们提供——关于这些专家报酬的\n12 某些信息。这是政府方的要求。\n13 席里克先生：法官阁下，关于报酬披露\n14 一事，这显然是政府方在交叉询问中\n15 会向证人询问的常规问题，\n16 证人自会坦诚回答。我认为政府方\n17 只是在今天早上我们走进法庭前的几分钟，\n18 才向我们提出这一问题，要求在作证前提供披露。\n19 我们乐意考虑此事，但双方尚未有机会就此进行讨论，\n20 芬克尔先生现在是首次向法庭提及此事。\n21 因此我们乐意与对方律师商讨，并达成一个\n22 双方均可接受的解决方式。\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1\n1 芬克尔先生：我们对此表示赞赏。\n2 法庭：总而言之，对我来说，本次庭审是\n3 前所未有的，我希望随着我们走向\n4 终点线，各位律师之间能展现出更大程度的\n5 相互配合。好的。我们9点30分开始。\n6 （续见下一页）\n\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 陈 - 交叉询问\n1 法庭：各位律师，我想提醒你们，\n2 翻译员希望你们放慢语速，特别是当你们\n3 宣读文件内容时。请让陪审员入席。\n4 法规书记官（THE LAW CLERK）：陪审团入庭。\n5 （陪审团在场）\n6 法庭：请就座。各位陪审员，早上好。\n7 我们将继续对证人进行交叉询问。\n8 女士，请记住你仍处于宣誓状态。你可以\n9 开始发问了。\n10 施罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：谢谢法官阁下。\n11 魏陈（WEI CHEN，音译），\n12 继续交叉询问\n13 由施罗夫女士发问：\n14 问：早上好，陈女士。\n15 答：早上好。\n16 问：陈女士，你在主询问中就GTV作了证，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：你作证说你听到郭先生（Mr. Guo）说GTV业务\n19 前景光明，对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：你听到——并且你作证说你看过一段视频，\n22 他在视频中说GTV将拥有一个非常强大的\n23 平台，对吗？\n24 答：是的。\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 陈 - 交叉询问\n1 问：你在主询问证言中说，你听到郭先生说\n2 他预计GTV会取得成功，对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：而且会非常强大，对吗？\n5 答：会非常有价值。\n6 问：抱歉？\n7 答：它会非常有价值。\n8 问：它会非常有价值。谢谢。你\n9 当时也理解郭先生说他将致力于\n10 为该平台采购软件，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：而且他会竭尽所能使其成为一个强大的\n13 软件平台，对吗？\n14 答：你能再重复一遍那个问题吗。\n15 问：当然。你作证说你听到他说他\n16 会用优秀的软件把它打造成一个优秀的平台，对吗？\n17 答：用优秀的软件打造一个优秀的平台？\n18 问：对。他会安排人员在平台背后从事软件开发工作，对吗？\n19 答：他会拥有搭建该平台的技术基础设施。\n20 问：对。所以你听到他说他会获得\n21 搭建该平台的技术基础设施，对吧？\n22 答：那是我的理解。\n23 问：好的。当你说那是你的理解时，\n24 你的确切意思是什么？\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 陈 - 交叉询问\n1 答：那意味着我听到他这么说，我理解那是\n2 传达给我的信息。\n3 问：那也是你当年的理解，对吗？\n4 答：是我听到这些并决定进行投资的\n5 那个时候的理解。\n6 问：今天坐在这里，你是否碰巧知道\n7 当时是否存在任何关于技术基础设施的实际开展举措？\n8 答：你能再重复一遍这个问题吗。\n9 问：当然。今天坐在这里，你是否知道郭先生或\n10 GTV的任何人是否采取了此类措施，你知道吗？\n11 答：此类措施，你指的是什么？\n12 问：你知道GTV是否有人在致力于将其打造成\n13 一个优秀的平台？\n14 答：我不确定。\n15 问：那么，你还作证说你受到了\n16 郭先生财富声称的影响，对吗？\n17 答：我作证说我受到了他将自己塑造成\n18 一个非常富有的人的影响。\n19 问：让我问一个跟进问题。当你说塑造成时，\n20 你说的是非常——\n21 答：富有的人。\n22 问：富有的人，对吧？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：那你当时是否知道他实际上是否富有？\n纽约南区法庭速记公司（SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：从他在视频里所说的来看，我认为他非常\n2 富有。\n3 问：我的问题是你是否独立得知他很\n4 富有？\n5 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：已问且已答。\n6 THE COURT（法庭）：反对成立。\n7 问：你是否对他的财富做过任何调查？\n8 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：法官阁下，这涉及\n9 昨天庭审后讨论的法庭裁定。反对。\n10 THE COURT（法庭）：反对成立。\n11 问：PPM（私募备忘录）是哪一天截止的？\n12 答：PPM？\n13 问：那次私募，是什么时候截止的？\n14 答：我的投资一直持续到我认为是2020年6月2日。而且我——\n15 如果我记得清楚或准确的话，可能与\n16 那个6月2日相差一天。别死扣我说的6月2日准确日期，\n17 但大概就是那个时间。那是我的记忆。\n18 问：你的记忆是6月2日，而不是6月26日？\n19 答：不会差那么远，是在6月初。\n20 问：让我向你出示被标记为被告方证据7015号（Defense Exhibit 7015）的材料，\n21 如果我可以确保这仅出示给政府方、\n22 法庭和证人。\n23 你认得这个吗，陈女士（Ms. Chen）？\n24 答：认得。\n25 问：这是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：这是一段Miles Guo（郭文贵）声称破产的视频。\n2 MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：法官阁下，我们提请将DX7015作为证据采纳。\n3 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：请稍等。反对，这是\n4 被告的陈述。\n5 MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：我出示它是为了证明其\n6 对她心智状态产生的影响。我不在乎它是否属实。\n7 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：这是2022年2月的事。\n8 THE COURT（法庭）：请二位到法官席前来。\n9 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 （在法官席前私下谈话）\n2 THE COURT（法庭）：为了证明对其心智状态的影响？\n3 MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：他宣布破产。他是\n4 公开这样做的。她曾作证说自己的投资\n5 受到其财富的影响。在他宣布个人\n6 破产之后，她继续投资。仅此而已。心智\n7 状态，她知道他公开表示自己正在申请个人\n8 破产。\n9 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：如果不引入包含被告陈述的\n10 视频，你就无法提出这些问题。\n11 MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：我当然可以，但这并不意味着\n12 我应该或被要求这样做。我的当事人有权获得\n13 充分的辩护，且出于我所陈述的目的，\n14 这是具有可采性的。\n15 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：充分辩护不能逾越\n16 《联邦证据规则》（Federal Rules of Evidence），被告的陈述\n17 被告方是不可采纳的，而那正是其目的。在存在\n18 双重目的的情况下，即对听者、受害者\n19 产生的影响，以及辩方、被告的陈述，\n20 那么法庭有自由裁量权来决定\n21 如何推进。政府方的观点是，\n22 法庭不应准许播放包含被告陈述的\n23 视频，并允许施罗夫女士询问郭先生宣布破产对她的\n24 分析产生了什么影响（如果有的话）。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 我还要补充的是，被告宣布破产这一事实\n2 似乎在暗示受害者本质上\n3 本应更清楚，她本应知道\n4 郭先生并不是真的有钱。从\n5 政府方的角度来看，这侵犯了法官阁下\n6 关于受害者成熟程度的裁定。\n7 MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：法官阁下，除了它具有可采性这一事实\n8 之外，我并没有试图达到政府方强加给我的\n9 那种程度。该视频具有可采性，用以说明她\n10 是如何经历这一过程的。他们经历了这个过程。是他们\n11 一再聚焦于他的财富、他的财富、\n12 他的财富。我应该有一定的交叉盘问余地。而且\n13 《联邦证据规则》实际上确实允许采纳\n14 该视频，当然您可以给出限制性\n15 指示。我没有异议。\n16 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：规则不允许采纳\n17 被告的陈述。这是政府方的观点。\n18 THE COURT（法庭）：这是我对法律的理解。我\n19 不会准许采纳。当然你可以在该问题上\n20 进行提问。\n21 （接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 （在公开法庭；陪审团在场）\n2 由MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）继续盘问：\n3 问：陈女士，在2022年2月15日，你看过一段视频，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：我知道他在2022年2月15日申请了破产。\n6 问：我对你的提问是，你是否在\n7 2022年2月15日看过一段Miles Guo先生讨论他正在申请破产这一事实的\n8 视频？\n9 答：我不记得我是否看过你提到的那个特定\n10 视频。\n11 问：所以你记得他讲话的部分视频，只是\n12 不记得他讲话的所有视频？\n13 答：时间已经过去太久了。\n14 问：2022年是在2017年之后，对吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：在2018年和2019年之后，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：而你的证词是你记不得这个特定\n19 视频，对吗？\n20 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：已问且已答。\n21 THE COURT（法庭）：反对成立。\n22 问：你是否记得郭先生声明他就在当天宣布并\n23 签署破产申请书的陈述？\n24 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：已问且已答。\n25 THE COURT（法庭）：你可以回答。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：不好意思。你能再重复一遍那个问题吗。\n2 问：当然。你是否记得郭先生在视频中说\n3 他在2022年2月15日当天签署了申请书？\n4 答：我想我刚才说了我不记得是否看过你所指的\n5 那个特定视频，而且我也陈述了\n6 我知道Miles Guo在2022年2月15日申请了\n7 破产。\n8 问：你读过他签署的破产申请书吗？\n9 答：我认为没有。\n10 问：不好意思？\n11 答：我认为没有。\n12 问：你知道你丈夫是否看了那段视频吗？\n13 答：我不知道。\n14 问：现在让我转向政府证据GXVK-5（GXVK-5）。鉴于它已被作为证据采纳，是否可以将其展示给\n15 所有人看。\n16 陈女士，你记得就这份文件作过证吗？\n17 答：记得。\n18 问：而且你在美国检察官办公室（United States Attorney's office）与芬克尔先生会面时，曾与他一起审阅过这份文件，\n19 对吗？\n20 答：他给我展示过这份文件。\n21 问：对。在他向你展示了这份文件之后，你们二人\n22 是否通读了它？\n23 答：在他展示给我之后我并没有通读。我只是在\n24 他向我展示时看了看这份文件。\n25 问：所以你只看了这份文件的第一页，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 仅此而已？\n2 答：他也翻阅了其他页面。\n3 问：好的。所以他和你一起审阅了这份文件，对吗？\n4 答：那不对。我对审阅的理解是完整审阅\n5 整个文件。如果我没理解错你说审阅的\n6 意思的话，所以我说那不对，因为我没有\n7 和他一起审阅这份文件。\n8 问：那么说你没有同他审阅整份文件，是否\n9 恰当？\n10 答：他给我展示了文件。当你说审阅时，你\n11 能澄清一下审阅包括什么吗？\n12 问：你告诉我你认为审阅是什么意思？\n13 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：我认为这已经回答过了。\n14 反对。\n15 THE COURT（法庭）：你有一字一句地阅读该文件吗？\n16 证人：她的问题是问我芬克尔先生是否\n17 跟我一起审阅了这份文件。所以我对此的回答是，没有，他\n18 没有对我逐字逐句地审阅这份文件。\n19 THE COURT（法庭）：请继续。\n20 问：一页一页看呢？\n21 答：回答是没有。\n22 问：看了某些页呢？\n23 答：某些页面，是的。\n24 问：是你挑选的页面还是他挑选的页面？\n25 答：他向我展示，问你看到这一页了吗，只是问。至于\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 昨天的证词，他向我展示了一页并向我问及相关情况，\n2 仅此而已。\n3 问：昨天当他在法庭上向你展示那些页面时，他\n4 之前曾向你展示过那些页面，对吧？\n5 答：并非全部。\n6 问：所以你记得你同他审阅了哪些页面，因为\n7 你现在能够告诉我并非全部，对吧？\n8 答：我不记得他展示给我的那些页面，但他向我展示了\n9 页面并向我询问了信息。我认为有些\n10 信息不是他审阅过的——不是他上次\n11 我同他会面时展示给我的。\n12 问：你同他会面不止一次？\n13 答：我同他见过不止一次，是的。\n14 问：他向你展示这份文件是否止一次？\n15 答：没有。\n16 问：好吧，让我们看看从你昨天的证词中我们能谈论些什么。\n17 昨天你作证说你没有考虑\n18 PPM中的风险因素，对吗？\n19 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：不实陈述证词。\n20 THE COURT（法庭）：反对成立。\n21 问：让我们调出它。你记得谈到过这份文件中的\n22 标准表述吗？\n23 你记得法官问你所谓\n24 “标准表述”是什么意思吗？你明白吗？\n25 THE COURT（法庭）：你可以回答。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：你的问题是我是否明白我作证的内容，那——\n2 那是你的问题吗？\n3 问：是的。事实上那就是我的问题。\n4 答：是的，我记得我那样作证过。\n5 问：而且你记得法庭询问你说那些是\n6 标准表述时是什么意思，对吗？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：而你的回答说，就像在法律文件中一样，它经常\n9 会有谈论风险的表述。记得吗？\n10 答：记得。\n11 问：当你那样说时，你是否对其他情况下\n12 PPM中的标准表述有所理解？\n13 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：反对。\n14 THE COURT（法庭）：反对无效。你可以回答。\n15 答：没有。\n16 问：你曾对比过PPM的表述吗？\n17 答：没有。\n18 问：所以当你说这是这份文件中的\n19 标准表述时，你没有任何对比依据，对吗？\n20 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：反对，涉及法庭的裁定。\n21 THE COURT（法庭）：反对无效。你可以回答。\n22 答：那只是我表达我认为那些只是\n23 放入法律文件中的某些条款的一种方式，我用标准\n24 表述来解释我对法律文件中条款的理解。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 问：对。但你今天是在宣誓作证，对吧？\n2 答：我宣誓作证说出实情。\n3 问：对。而实情是你从未对比过\n4 多个PPM之间的表述，对吗？\n5 答：这是我唯一见过的PPM。我从未有\n6 机会看到PPM，因为Miles Guo说这是合适\n7 的机会。我根本没有机会看到PPM文件。\n8 问：好吧，你可以使用谷歌（Google），对吧？\n9 答：每个人都可以使用谷歌。\n10 问：不好意思？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：让我继续并向你展示PPM的第29页。好的。\n13 实际上，不好意思。第29页是PPM的最后一页，\n14 对吧。整份文件共有29页长，对吧？\n15 答：我不记得了。如果你说是29页，那就是29页。\n16 问：它就在那里供你查看。\n17 答：我不知道。是不是29页有关系吗？如果\n18 你说是29页，那就是29页。\n19 问：好的。让我们尝试翻到第九页。你看到那份\n20 文件了吗？\n21 答：看到了。\n22 问：我们昨天谈到了最后一段，所以我就\n23 不再回过头去谈了，好吧。但这只是为了给你提供\n24 一个视角——让我们翻到第十页——你记得在你的主询问证词中\n25 被出示过这份文件吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记处）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：这是不是 Finkel（芬克尔）先生和你\n3 在他办公室里一起审阅过的页面之一？\n4 答：他在办公室把这一页展示给我看了。\n5 问：然后他问了你关于这一页的问题，对吗？\n6 答：是的，他问了。\n7 问：他问了你关于左右并排分开的两个图表，\n8 对吗？\n9 答：不，他没问。\n10 问：好，我要问你一些关于这方面的问题。陈女士，\n11 这么说是否准确：左边的图表\n12 显示了 PPM（私募备忘录）之前的股权结构，而右边的\n13 图表显示了 PPM 之后的股权结构，\n14 对吗？\n15 答：从你这里展示并高亮标出的内容来看，是的。\n16 问：如果你不希望我标出，我也可以不给你高亮标出。\n17 法庭：不要作证。只提问。\n18 SHROFF（施罗夫）女士：我想确保我是按证人的\n19 意愿做的，法官阁下。\n20 问：陈女士，在屏幕两侧都显示 Saraca（萨拉卡公司）\n21 拥有 GTV 的股权权益，对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：在直接盘问中，Finkel 先生也问了你——我们可以把\n24 那个撤下，在同一页往下移——关于这个图表，\n25 对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：他特别问了你关于这百分之五\n3 的问题，对吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：他让你关注“其他”这个词，对吗？\n6 答：他问了我对“其他”的理解是什么。\n7 问：你说你的理解是那是某些\n8 经常性行政开支费用，对吗？\n9 答：是的，我的理解是那是招聘人才的\n10 人力资源行政费用。\n11 问：那只是你个人的理解，对吗？\n12 答：是的，因为你需要人才，需要人。\n13 问：因为什么？\n14 答：你需要人才，有才华的人。\n15 问：你需要有才华的人？\n16 答：为了发展 GTV 的业务，这就是我对\n17 这一项“其他”用途的理解，用来招聘有才华的人以壮大和\n18 发展 GTV 的业务。\n19 问：好的。但是如果你收购了拥有优秀人才为其工作的\n20 公司，你也会拥有有才华的人，对吗？\n21 就像第一条写的那样：收购公司以\n22 加强和壮大 GTV。如果你收购了一家拥有大量\n23 人才的公司，那些人才也会归入这\n24 大约百分之七十之内，对吗？\n25 FINKEL 先生：反对，形式问题，并且要求\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 推测。\n2 法庭：反对成立。\n3 问：那是你的理解吗？\n4 法庭：反对成立。我已经支持了反对。你\n5 不需要回答。\n6 问：你对收购公司以加强和壮大 GTV\n7 的理解是什么？\n8 答：我的理解是收购某些可能已经在某种程度上开发好的\n9 软件或技术，你可以借助为 GTV 招聘的人才\n10 在此基础上进行拓展，使其更加\n11 成功。\n12 问：对你来说收购公司意味着什么？\n13 答：收购那些已经开发出某种已有软件模型\n14 或技术的公司。\n15 问：为了开发那项技术，你需要人，对吗？\n16 答：你需要的不仅仅是从那家公司收购来的人。\n17 如果你想让 GTV 做成一门大生意，\n18 不仅拥有媒体平台，还能进行\n19 交易，你不可能光收购公司而没有\n20 自己的管理人员来经营业务并使之成功。\n21 这是商业常识。\n22 问：谢谢你，陈女士。\n23 现在，请翻到第 15 页。你看到\n24 了吗？\n25 答：看到了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 问：关于这一页你也接受了询问，\n2 对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：你被问到了谁是 Blanton（布兰顿）先生以及 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）是谁，\n5 对吗？\n6 答：我觉得没有，但也许有。我不记得了。\n7 问：然后你在底部看到上面写着 GTV Media（GTV 传媒）\n8 的发起人与顾问，对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：你能替我读一下前两行吗？\n11 答：你说的是第 6.3 节发起人与顾问吗？\n12 问：嗯哼。\n13 答：我想我读过了，是的。你想让我再读一遍吗？\n14 问：是的，请读。我将非常感激。谢谢。\n15 答：“GTV Media 的发起人兼顾问，Wengui Guo（郭文贵）先生，又名\n16 Miles Guo、Ho Wan Kwok 或 Miles Kwok，是一位亿万富翁、\n17 成功的商人和中国的异见人士。”\n18 问：继续读。\n19 答：“他深刻了解中国共产党 CCP\n20 如何剥夺中国人民的人权、司法公正、言论\n21 自由、新闻自由和宗教自由。他致力于\n22 推翻 CCP 政权，为中国人民带回真相、\n23 自由和正义。Miles Guo 是 GTV 媒体的\n24 核心主持人。”\n25 问：这一部分，可以公允地说，将这位亿万富翁描述为\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 发起人和核心主持人，对吗？\n2 答：这就是这一段里的原话。\n3 问：谢谢你，陈女士。可以把那个撤下了。\n4 那么，当你阅读这份文件时，你是否记得\n5 Bannon（班农）先生要在这个项目中扮演的角色？\n6 你当时关注过 Bannon 先生吗？\n7 答：我知道他被列为非执行董事，仅此而已。\n8 问：Bannon 先生的存在，作为一名女性，对你\n9 投资 GTV 来说是一个负面因素吗？\n10 FINKEL 先生：反对形式。\n11 法庭：请换个说法。\n12 问：作为一名女性，Steven Bannon（史蒂芬·班农）将\n13 参与这个项目是否让你感到被冒犯？\n14 FINKEL 先生：同前反对。\n15 法庭：你可以回答。\n16 答：我不明白这个问题。\n17 问：我换个问题。现在，让我们翻到同一份文件的第 15 页，\n18 然后移到第 18 到 19 行。昨天你被问到了\n19 关于这里的风险因素的问题，对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：文件列出了风险因素，对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：文件称该公司没有运营\n24 历史，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：我没看到。你在哪里看到的？你是在问我现在\n2 读这份文件时，还是在问我当时\n3 进行投资时读这份文件的情况？\n4 问：嗯，我是在问你在进行投资之前\n5 阅读这份文件时的情况。\n6 答：你的问题是问我是否读到了风险因素\n7 说它没有运营历史？\n8 问：是的，女士。\n9 答：我不记得当时进行投资时\n10 读过那一部分。\n11 问：那关于公司的管理层在公司如何使用\n12 普通股销售的募集净收益方面拥有\n13 广泛的裁量权，你读到了吗？\n14 答：是的，我百分之百记得清清楚楚。\n15 问：你能告诉陪审团你对净收益\n16 的理解是什么吗？\n17 答：我对净收益的理解？\n18 问：是的，女士。\n19 答：我对净收益的理解是，你会有销售\n20 收益或利润，减去运营成本，然后\n21 得出的就是净收益。\n22 问：如果加上运营成本，那会是毛\n23 收益吗？\n24 答：如果加上——我不知道。\n25 问：好，我们看第 25 页。在第 25 页上，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 粗体字写着“公司无意”，你能读一下吗？\n2 答：您无权获得——\n3 问：不。不。只读标题。\n4 答：公司在可预见的未来无意支付股息。\n5 问：我们看这下面写的“Saraca 拥有\n6 控股权益”。读一下底部的那个部分。\n7 答：Saraca 拥有公司的控股权益，并且可以\n8 对公司行使重大控制权。\n9 问：那是在第 25 页（共 29 页），对吗？\n10 答：这里显示是在第 25 页。\n11 问：我们可以把那个撤下了。那么，陈女士，你也\n12 就收到反映你 GTV 股份的股票凭单\n13 作了证，对吗？\n14 答：我作证说我能够登录网站\n15 购买两张纸质凭证。\n16 问：是你自己买的还是你丈夫买的？\n17 答：我们一起登录账户，我看着他付款。\n18 问：明白了。你在准备出庭作证时\n19 和 Finkel 先生谈过那个过程，对吧？你和他\n20 谈过那个过程，对吧？\n21 答：当你说我谈过那个过程，是指我谈过\n22 登录网站并下载凭证的过程吗；\n23 你问的是这个吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 问：是的。\n2 答：我想是的。\n3 问：但实际上是你丈夫上了网站？\n4 你在旁边看，对吧？\n5 FINKEL 先生：已经问过并回答过了。\n6 法庭：反对成立。\n7 问：Finkel 先生向你索要过凭单的副本吗？\n8 答：没有。\n9 问：那么，让我们向你出示物证 DX60672。你能认出\n10 那份文件吗，陈女士？\n11 答：能认出。\n12 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，辩方动议\n13 采纳物证 60672。\n14 FINKEL 先生：这份物证还有\n15 其他页吗？\n16 法庭：还有其他附加页吗？\n17 SHROFF 女士：我们现在正在展示给检方看。\n18 FINKEL 先生：我可以询问一个问题吗。\n19 法庭：可以。\n20 FINKEL 先生：陈女士，你把这份文件发给过\n21 FBI（美国联邦调查局）吗？\n22 证人：我不记得了。\n23 FINKEL 先生：无反对意见。\n24 法庭：予以采纳。\n25 （被告方物证 60672 获准采纳为证据）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 SHROFF 女士提问：\n2 问：请把那个展示给陪审团看。\n3 陈女士，你给 FBI 发送了大量文件，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：你能定义一下什么是大量文件吗？\n6 问：你发送了大量文件？\n7 FINKEL 先生：已经问过并回答过了。\n8 法庭：她问你是否可以定义一下你所说的\n9 “大量”是什么意思。\n10 问：我完全没听到，所以我感到抱歉。\n11 你发送了 50 份以上的文件吗？\n12 答：我不这么认为。\n13 问：那 30 份呢？\n14 答：我不记得是不是——我没数。我发送了\n15 一些文件，是的。\n16 问：我们可以把那个撤下了。抱歉。我只是想确保\n17 陪审团看到了所有页面。\n18 那么，昨天你也作证了，对不对，关于\n19 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：你作证说你捐赠了 $30,735，对吗？\n22 答：我不知道我作证时是否说了那个确切的数字。我只是说\n23 我捐了大约 $30,000。\n24 问：你今天坐在这里能回想起来那是连续三天，\n25 即 9 月 28 日、29 日和 30 日吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：你能重复一下吗？你说三天是什么意思。你能\n2 澄清一下你的问题吗。\n3 问：当然。你先捐了 400，那是你丈夫操作的\n4 第一笔捐赠，对吗？\n5 答：我想澄清一下，当你说是我丈夫操作的时，是我们\n6 共同操作的，只不过是他去操作的流程，所以上面\n7 有他的名字。所以我想非常明确地说明，是我们共同\n8 做的。\n9 问：好的。\n10 答：所以你以后可以明确说明，不要总说\n11 是你丈夫操作的。\n12 问：是你丈夫操作的。你们共同决定的；这样说\n13 准确吗？\n14 答：是我丈夫登录网站操作的。而且我再说一遍，我当时\n15 和他在一起，所以是我们一起做的，希望你能明确这一点。\n16 你不能总是说是我丈夫做的。\n17 问：但确实是你丈夫操作的？是他登录并且\n18 付了款？\n19 法庭：Shroff 女士，当你使用“操作/做”这个词时，\n20 你需要为证人定义你的意思。\n21 问：你丈夫登录了网站，对吗？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：他用了他的密码，对吗？\n24 答：我不知道捐款是否需要密码。你的意思是\n25 登录电脑还是登录网站？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 问：我是指登录电脑。他登录了，对吗？\n2 答：是的。\n3 问：而且他完成了捐款的各个步骤，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：他上网站，他上了网站，他是\n6 办理这件事的人，是的。\n7 问：谢谢。办理时间是在9月28日、29日和\n8 30日，连续三天，对吗？\n9 答：我觉得你把时间搞混了。你一会儿说\n10 2020年捐款400美元的事，一会儿又说\n11 2022年。你把我搞得非常困惑。我不知道\n12 你在问什么。\n13 问：好吧，首先，我想请你慢一点，\n14 因为译员会很吃力，\n15 看看我们能不能重新开始。\n16 最初有一笔400美元的捐款，\n17 对吗？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：那是哪一年？\n20 答：我想是在2020年。\n21 问：那笔30,000美元的捐款是哪一年？\n22 答：2022年。\n23 问：好的。2022年的捐款是30,000美元，对吗？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：而且那是连续三天，10、10、10，9月28日、\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 9月29日和9月30日，对吗？\n2 答：我不确切记得了。\n3 问：而且你当时认为——并且你告诉政府，如果你\n4 不认为自己能从 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）拿回你的钱，\n5 你就不会进行你所称的这项投资，\n6 你记得吗？\n7 FINKEL 先生（芬克尔律师）：我对形式提出异议。这令人困惑。\n8 法庭：你可以回答。\n9 答：抱歉。我没听懂你的问题。我的\n10 投资怎么会和捐款有任何关系。我不太\n11 理解你的问题。\n12 问：你是否记得曾告诉政府，如果你不认为法治基金会\n13 会把钱退还给你，\n14 你绝不会捐这笔钱？\n15 答：我从没这么说过。我不这么认为。\n16 问：让我们给你看第3526号证据第2页。你在\n17 屏幕上看到了吗，女士？\n18 答：我在屏幕上看到了。\n19 问：这是否唤起了你的记忆，即你使用信用卡\n20 向法治投资了30,735美元。你以为那是\n21 一笔投资，而且如果你不认为自己能把钱拿回来，\n22 你绝不会做那笔投资？\n23 答：我根本不记得说过那样的话。我想记录的\n24 可能不太一样。\n25 问：谢谢。我们来谈谈 G/Club。好的。你昨天\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 就 G/Club 作了证，而且你作证说它是在\n2 2020年10月推出的；是这样吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：而且你购买了——请你告诉我，是你买的\n5 还是你丈夫买的，2020年10月的\n6 G/Club 会员资格？\n7 答：我说明确一点，我们从没买过 G/Club 会员资格。\n8 问：女士，你是哪一年注册 G/Club 会员\n9 账户的？\n10 答：所以我想你的问题是问我2021年3月是谁买了\n11 G/Club 会员资格。那么我给你的回答是，你的\n12 说法不正确。我们从没买过任何 G/Club\n13 会员资格。\n14 问：你可以随意定义它，Chen（陈）女士。有\n15 一种东西——\n16 FINKEL 先生：对发表评论提出异议。\n17 法庭：紧扣提问。\n18 问：你知道有一种叫 G/Club 的东西吗？\n19 答：知道。\n20 问：当时有没有叫 G/Club 会员资格的东西？\n21 答：有。\n22 问：G/Club 会员资格是什么？\n23 答：我不知道什么是 G/Club 会员资格。\n24 问：嗯，你给那个机构交了钱，对吧？\n25 答：我把钱汇到了\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 MOS farm（MOS农场）志愿者给我的银行账户。\n2 问：出于什么原因你给他们汇了钱？\n3 答：为了 GTV 股份，为了认购额外的 GTV 股份。\n4 问：你去了哪个网站来跟进这笔\n5 交易？\n6 答：我向 MOS 农场志愿者跟进确认，\n7 确认我汇到提供给我的银行账户的钱是否已被\n8 收到，然后他们给我发送了确认函，确认\n9 钱款已收到。\n10 问：对。而且你说你收到了一份确认函，确认钱款\n11 已被一家名为 G/Clubs 的实体收到，对吗？\n12 答：MOS 农场的 Discord 确认信息只是说这是金额。\n13 已经收到了。\n14 问：因何收到？\n15 答：确认。\n16 问：那是哪家公司？\n17 答：你是说我把钱汇去的那个地方吗？你的\n18 问题是什么？\n19 问：这就是我的问题，你是从哪家公司购买\n20 产品的？\n21 答：我没有从任何公司购买任何产品。我说得\n22 清清楚楚了。我汇款是为了购买额外的 GTV\n23 股份。\n24 问：让我们给你看第 GXVB-24 号证据。你昨天就这份文件\n25 作了证，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO1 Chen- 交叉盘问\n1 答：我作证说，这是在我们向 Crane Advisory（克兰咨询）汇款后\n2 提供给我们要求填写的带有指引的文件。\n3 问：而且文件上说目的是 G/Club 会员资格，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：我没有看到那个。\n6 FINKEL 先生：异议。\n7 问：在右侧，“purpose（目的）”这个词的正下方。我不想\n8 为你标出来，但右边那一栏写着 G/Club\n9 会员资格目的，对吧？\n10 答：那是给出的指示。没有选择余地。\n11 问：嗯，选择就是根本不填写这份文件，\n12 对吧？\n13 FINKEL 先生：对发表评论提出异议。\n14 SHROFF 女士（施罗夫律师）：这是个问题。\n15 法庭：请紧扣提问，Shroff 女士。\n16 答：我无法回答那个问题，因为我已经向\n17 Crane Advisory 付款了。我没有不签署\n18 这份文件的选择，因为我已经付款了，所以\n19 我根本没有不填写这份文件的选择。关于这点你清楚了吗？\n20 （续接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 由 SHROFF 女士继续询问：\n2 问：陈女士，你在填写文件之前，本可以致电 Crane Advisory 要求\n3 退款，对吧？\n4 答：我没有你那么聪明。\n5 问：好吧。那么，你在平常的日常生活中会买东西吗？\n6 FINKEL 先生：异议。\n7 法庭：行了。我们知道她在平常的\n8 日常生活中会买东西。\n9 问：你知道你可以在一定期限内提出要求或改变主意，\n10 对吧？\n11 答：我说明白一点。我把钱汇到了\n12 我信任的人给我的银行账户里。\n13 SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我提请剔除。这\n14 没有正面回答问题。\n15 法庭：异议不成立。异议不成立。让她回答\n16 完整。\n17 答：所以我把钱汇到了我信任的人发给我的\n18 银行账户。在那类情况下，你觉得\n19 我会打电话给公司要求撤回我的钱吗？而且你\n20 觉得我会对事后发给我要求填写的\n21 文件提出质疑吗？\n22 问：嗯，你在一家银行工作了15年，对吧？\n23 答：是的。那又怎样？\n24 问：所以你知道怎么要求退款，对吧？\n25 FINKEL 先生：异议。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 法庭：Shroff 女士，我希望你注意我\n2 关于该主题的命令。\n3 SHROFF 女士：让我转到第24-T号证据。如果可以的话，\n4 我们把它们并排放在一起展示。\n5 问：你是根据左侧的表格填写的该文件，\n6 还是你丈夫填写的？\n7 答：我坐在这里，我感觉，你是想问我\n8 是不是被骗签了这份文件吗？如果是这样，我想\n9 是的，我是被骗签了这份文件。\n10 问：那是你的立场，对吧？我明白。\n11 法庭：陈女士，听清问题，\n12 然后给出回答，而不要主动提供未经询问的\n13 额外信息。\n14 继续吧。\n15 问：是谁替你签署了那份表格；是你还是你丈夫？\n16 答：我丈夫替我签的。\n17 问：他签署时你在场吗？\n18 答：这次我不在场。\n19 问：那你知道他是怎么把表格提交上去的吗？\n20 答：在这种情况下，他告诉我 MOS 农场、\n21 MOS 农场志愿者联系他填写一份文件，因为我们向\n22 Crane Advisory 汇了钱。为了完成这项\n23 投资，他需要签署这份文件，他这么告诉我的，然后\n24 他就签了。我不知道当时具体发生了什么。\n25 问：好的。所以你不知道你丈夫是如何提交这份\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 表格的。那是我最初的问题。\n2 答：他是提交给 MOS 农场志愿者的。就是那个人把这份\n3 文件发给他的。\n4 问：好的。那下一步农场志愿者做了什么？\n5 答：我不知道。确认收到文件？\n6 问：所以可以合理地说，文件提交后，你并不知道\n7 你丈夫与 Mountains of Spice Farm（香草山农场）志愿者之间发生了什么，\n8 对吗？\n9 答：我不知道 MOS 农场志愿者在收到——在他们\n10 收到这份文件之后做了什么。\n11 问：我的问题是：你是否知道在提交文件后，农场志愿者\n12 对你丈夫说了什么？那是\n13 我的问题。\n14 答：所以你的问题是问，在我丈夫把这份文件\n15 发给 MOS 农场志愿者之后，我是否知道农场、MOS\n16 农场志愿者对我丈夫作了什么回复；这是你的问题吗？\n17 问：是的，女士，实际上，这就是我的问题。\n18 答：我想他们确认收到了这份文件。\n19 问：好的。现在为了真正使这份文件生效，你\n20 丈夫必须确认购买条款，对吗？\n21 答：我不明白那个。\n22 问：你们必须表明，是的，这就是我想要的，对吗？\n23 答：我不知道。我不明白你在问什么。\n24 问：有没有那么一个时候，你丈夫正在\n25 激活 G|CLUBS 会员资格？你记得吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 答：我想情况是，Miles（文贵）说过我们认购额外的 GTV 股份\n2 会获得免费的 G Club 会员资格。\n3 然而，就我们汇往提供给我们的那两个账户的\n4 210,000美元而言，我们从未获得免费的 G Club 会员资格。\n5 我们可能只激活了其中一个，但其他\n6 四个没有激活。所以如果那是你想问的，事实就是\n7 这样，因为免费的 G Club 会员资格\n8 没有被激活。\n9 SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我提请剔除。我\n10 重复这个问题。\n11 问：为了购买——\n12 法庭：异议不成立。\n13 问：我们来看看第 DX 60676 号证据，好吗。\n14 你认得那份文件吗？\n15 答：认得。\n16 问：它是什么？\n17 答：这是 MOS 农场志愿者让我们发给\n18 G Club 以激活我们免费的 G Club 会员账户的文件。\n19 问：好的。让我们——行。你又在上面看到了吗？\n20 答：看到了。\n21 SHROFF 女士：好的。法官大人，辩方提请将\n22 第 DX 60676 号证据采纳为证据。\n23 FINKEL 先生：请让我们看下一页。\n24 法庭：还有附加页吗？\n25 FINKEL 先生：我可以和 Shroff 女士\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 沟通片刻吗。\n2 （律师商议）\n3 SHROFF 女士：请出示给政府方看。\n4 FINKEL 先生：法官大人，异议。我们可能需要\n5 靠近法官席。\n6 法庭：好的。\n7 （续接下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 （在法官席前私下谈话）\n2 FINKEL 先生：这应该只是个小问题。\n3 政府方对该文件的唯一异议\n4 是上面有她丈夫的名字。如果辩方\n5 将其涂黑隐去——这就是我向 Shroff（施罗夫）女士指出的，那是她\n6 丈夫的电子邮件地址，我们是否要涂黑隐去，而\n7 施罗夫女士并没有真正给出口头答复。无论如何，\n8 如果他们能将其涂黑隐去——我相信他们有技术能做\n9 到这一点——我们没有异议。\n10 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，我认为并没有提及电子邮件\n11 姓名。电子邮件地址是 LivingSocialFixerUpper。\n12 他们并没有——\n13 FINKEL 先生：那是——\n14 SHROFF 女士：请让我说完。我们从政府方那里拿到这份文件时\n15 就是这个样子的。政府方此前把\n16 每一个电子邮件地址都涂黑隐去了。我可以——我只是想把这个想法\n17 表达完，因为通常情况下，涂黑隐去会是，\n18 我不知道，如果电子邮件地址是 bobsmith@gmail.com，\n19 你会去掉 Bob 或者去掉 Smith，或者去掉\n20 Bob Smith，但会保留 @gmail.com，这样至少陪审团\n21 知道抄送给了某人，这样我们就能说抄送给了你。\n22 政府方并没有涂黑隐去这个\n23 LivingSocialFixerUpper 电子邮件地址。我们没有理由\n24 认为他们现在会对此提出异议，而且我认为我们\n25 没必要非得去涂黑隐去它。但如果您要我涂黑隐去，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 第一，它不属于她，它属于她丈夫；第二，\n2 这无所谓，但我需要一分钟来处理。\n3 法庭：那就做涂黑隐去处理吧。\n4 SHROFF 女士：好的。您能给我们休庭\n5 五分钟吗？\n6 法庭：你的助手不能做这件事吗？\n7 SHROFF 女士：我的助手那边出了点问题，\n8 设备老是跳掉。电脑一直死机，不过——\n9 FINKEL 先生：在他进行涂黑隐去处理的时候，你想先进行其他事项吗？\n10 SHROFF 女士：不，我真的不想，但我们只需要\n11 两分钟，法官阁下。\n12 法庭：好吧。那我们就得进行一次非常\n13 简短的休庭。\n14 FINKEL 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n15 （续下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 （在公开法庭上）\n2 法庭：陪审团成员们，我们要休庭\n3 五分钟。我会严格按五分钟来。\n4 请记住，彼此之间不要讨论案情；不要\n5 允许他人在你们面前讨论；不要阅读、\n6 观看或收听来自任何渠道涉及\n7 本案审理标的的内容。我们将在五分钟后\n8 回来。\n9 （陪审团退庭）\n10 法庭：女士，你可以退席。不要讨论\n11 你的证词。\n12 （证人退席）\n13 （休庭）\n14 法庭：请把陪审员带进来。\n15 （陪审团在场）\n16 法庭：请就坐。\n17 证人呢？\n18 你可以继续。\n19 SHROFF 女士：那么我们能否再次向她出示 60676 号证据。\n20 辩方动议将 60676 号证据采纳为证据。\n21 FINKEL 先生：请让我看下一页。\n22 最后一页呢？\n23 无异议。\n24 法庭：予以采纳。\n25 （被告第 60676 号证据被采纳为证据）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 由 SHROFF 女士发问：\n2 问：那么让我们看一看那份文件，Chen（陈）女士。\n3 你能为我们读一下第一行吗？\n4 答：“我此前曾于 1/18/2022 提交申请，要求激活\n5 关于订单的 GC 会员资格，我于\n6 3/23/2021 汇出了款项。”\n7 SHROFF 女士：我们能否向下滚动到下一\n8 段。\n9 问：“请相应激活会员资格。”你看到\n10 那行字了吗？\n11 答：我没——噢，好的。嗯。\n12 SHROFF 女士：好的。我们能否继续\n13 向下滚动。\n14 问：然后上面给出了 G|CLUBS 会员法定姓名，对吗？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：那是你丈夫，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：不是你，对吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 SHROFF 女士：我们能否继续向下滚动。\n21 继续向下滚动。\n22 我们能否继续往下看。\n23 问：然后上面告诉你——请稍等——有一个工单\n24 更新时间。你看到了吗？\n25 答：看到了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 问：上面写着：“您的请求已更新。”对吗？\n2 答：嗯。\n3 问：然后给出了一个选项：“若要添加其他\n4 留言，请回复此电子邮件，”对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 SHROFF 女士：好的。继续往下看。\n7 问：“本电子邮件是来自 G|CLUBS 客户服务的服务，”\n8 对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 SHROFF 女士：好的。我们能否向下滚动一下。\n11 问：那就是文件的结尾了，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：会员资格是在你丈夫名下，对吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：而且你把这份文件分享给了——我们可以把那个\n16 撤下来了——分享给了 Finkel 先生，对吧？\n17 答：你刚才给我看的电子邮件吗？\n18 问：是的。\n19 答：我不记得是这样。\n20 问：好的。你有跟 Finkel 先生谈过——你知道吗，我\n21 撤回那个问题。我稍后再谈这个。\n22 现在，说你丈夫和 G|CLUBS 之间通了数封电子邮件，\n23 这一说法公允吗？\n24 答：数封电子邮件？\n25 问：对。他给他们发邮件不止一次？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 答：我认为他联系了客户服务，去激活\n2 给我们的免费 G Club 会员资格。\n3 问：对。而且你看到了——\n4 SHROFF 女士：我们能把那份文件重新调出来吗。\n5 我想向她出示“综上所述”这部分。\n6 问：“综上所述，我已汇出，”那里的\n7 金额是多少？\n8 答：100,000。\n9 问：用于支付这些 G Club 订单，对吗？\n10 答：这是标准套话。\n11 问：不。问题是：你看到写着 G Club\n12 订单的措辞了吗，看到了还是没看到？\n13 答：看到了。\n14 问：然后下一页——就在同一页上的下一行\n15 写着：“请相应激活会员资格，”对吗？\n16 答：是的。\n17 SHROFF 女士：你可以把那个撤下来了。\n18 现在让我们看一下政府第 VB14 号证据。\n19 答：正如我之前解释的那样，那是 MOS 农场要求我们在\n20 电子邮件里写的标准套话。\n21 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，当时并没有向证人\n22 提问。\n23 答：因为他们要求用那样的措辞，所以我告诉你\n24 那不是我丈夫在那里写的措辞，那是\n25 MOS 农场给我们的模板，为了把\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 模板放在那里。\n2 法庭：所以请认真听问题，\n3 且只回答所问的内容。\n4 继续。\n5 SHROFF 女士：鉴于当时没有悬而未决的问题，我\n6 动议删除刚才的脱口之言。\n7 法庭：予以删除。\n8 SHROFF 女士：谢谢您。\n9 由 SHROFF 女士发问：\n10 问：让我们看政府第 VB14 号证据。你向 Finkel 先生\n11 提供了这份文件，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：而且你在主询问中就这份文件作了证，对吗？\n14 答：你说的作证，是指我昨天谈到\n15 这份文件吗？\n16 问：是的，女士。\n17 答：我真的不记得我到底做没做过。\n18 问：好的。会员资格一直处于激活有效状态直至 2023 年 5 月，\n19 对吗？\n20 答：抱歉。你的问题又是什么来着？\n21 问：会员资格——\n22 答：嗯。\n23 问：——一直处于激活有效状态直至 2023 年 5 月，对吗？\n24 答：我不知道你在哪里看到的。\n25 问：这是向你提的问题。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 答：我不知道。\n2 问：好的。那我们来看看。第 1 档。激活有效。然后有一个\n3 到期日，对吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：好的。第 2 档，激活有效，以及一个到期日，对吗？\n6 答：第 2 档？你在哪里看到那是第 2 档的？\n7 问：抱歉。第 2 行。\n8 答：好的。\n9 问：好的。你看到它们全部，1、2、3、4，都显示激活有效，\n10 对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：好的。而且截至 23 年 5 月它们一直处于激活有效状态，直到你打电话\n13 要求取消，对吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：好的。而你今天坐在这里也知道，Guo（郭）先生是\n16 在 3 月 15 日被捕的——你可以把那个撤下来了，Jorge，谢谢\n17 你——郭先生是在 2023 年 3 月 15 日被捕的，对吗？\n18 答：是的。\n19 SHROFF 女士：好的。那么让我们向陈女士出示\n20 政府第 VB16 号证据。\n21 问：你看到那份文件了吗，女士？\n22 答：看到了。\n23 问：好的。你能认出它吗？\n24 答：能。\n25 问：好的。那是政府第 VB16 号证据，对吧？你看到\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 角落那里的那个小盖印了吗？\n2 答：看到了。\n3 SHROFF 女士：好的。辩方动议采纳\n4 政府第 VB16 号证据。\n5 FINKEL 先生：抱歉，法官阁下。请稍等片刻。\n6 我认为该文件尚未建立适当的基础事实，\n7 那是证人的陈述。\n8 问：角落那里的电子邮件地址是谁的？\n9 答：我们的共同电子邮件地址。\n10 问：好的。你认得这个 gmail 账户，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：好的。让我们向下滚动。\n13 谁把那些附件附加到电子邮件里的？\n14 答：我们附上去的。\n15 问：是的。是你还是你丈夫？\n16 答：那是我们的共同电子邮件账户。我不记得在这一件里\n17 是我还是他附上去的了。\n18 SHROFF 女士：好的。我认为我已经建立了基础事实，我\n19 动议采纳它，法官阁下。\n20 FINKEL 先生：我认为证人的陈述并没有\n21 适当的基础事实支持。\n22 法庭：我认为还有一个额外的问题\n23 需要问。\n24 由 SHROFF 女士发问：\n25 问：你是否保留了你的 gmail 账户并向 Finkel 先生\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 发送了一份副本？\n2 答：我是否保留了——\n3 问：你是否保留了这封电子邮件然后把它发给了 Finkel 先生？\n4 答：我不记得我向政府方发送了什么。很抱歉。\n5 问：那发给你发过邮件的联邦调查局探员呢？\n6 答：我不记得了。很抱歉。\n7 问：但你认得这是来自你和你\n8 丈夫共同电子邮件账户的一封电子邮件，对吗？\n9 答：我推荐——我认得你放在我面前的\n10 这份文件。那是我从我们共同账户发送给 G Club 的一封电子邮件。\n11 问：好的。是你发送的，对吧？\n12 答：是我们一起发送的。\n13 SHROFF 女士：好的。我认为我已经建立了基础事实，\n14 法官阁下。\n15 法庭：是的。予以采纳。\n16 （政府第 VB16 号证据被采纳为证据）\n17 SHROFF 女士：好的。那我们来看一下它。\n18 能否向陪审团出示公布它，谢谢。\n19 问：日期为 2023 年 5 月 14 日，对吗？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：好的。上面写着：“您好，我想发出取消\n22 我会员资格的通知，并就我付款购买的五张\n23 会员卡申请退款。”对吗？对吧？\n24 答：你刚才读过了。\n25 问：是的。然后你向下滚动，接着你说：“我\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n1 购买 G|CLUBS 会员资格是因为它被作为一项包含股票和股份的投资\n2 来营销推广的。”对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：然后你说你没有收到股票或股份，或\n5 任何会员权益。对吧？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：当时是 2023 年 5 月。然后你说这是一场投资\n8 诈骗，对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：这封电子邮件是在你首次为此付款多少年\n11 之后发出的？\n12 答：你可以算。我不需要回答。\n13 SHROFF 女士：法官阁下，您能否帮我一下，\n14 指令证人回答问题。\n15 法庭：请你回答摆在你面前的\n16 问题。\n17 答：好的。在——之间——因为我——我的意思是，为了回答你的问题，\n18 我付了两次款，对吧？那么你想让我\n19 告诉你哪一次？\n20 问：让我们从第一次开始。在第一次付款和 2023 年 5 月 14 日\n21 之间隔了多少年？\n22 FINKEL 先生：法官阁下，我认为这涉及\n23 法庭关于时间跨度的裁定。\n24 法庭：我准许该提问。\n25 答：从 2021 年 3 月到 2023 年 5 月，是两年多\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen（陈）- 交叉盘问\n1 年。\n2 MS. SHROFF（施罗夫女士）：好的。现在我们把它撤下来。\n3 我们来看 GX VB12-T。\n4 证人：我还没看到显示出来。\n5 别看着我。别盯着我看。\n6 施罗夫女士：我看不清。我刚才其实是要去\n7 我的桌子拿眼镜，因为我看不清那么远。\n8 法庭：好了。不要再发表与作证无关的言论了。你的职责是\n9 提问。你的职责是回答。这是你们各自\n10 唯一应该做的事。\n11 施罗夫女士提问：\n12 问：你现在看到这份文件了吗？\n13 答：看到了。\n14 问：好的。你认得它吗？\n15 答：认得。\n16 问：好的。这是什么？\n17 答：这是与 Hamilton Opportunity Fund（汉密尔顿机会基金）的电子邮件往来沟通\n18 记录。\n19 问：好的。\n20 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，请容我稍等一分钟。\n21 法庭：好的。\n22 证人：那份文件，我看不到了。\n23 法庭：现在还没有提问。\n24 证人：好的。\n25 施罗夫女士：他正在调出文件，法官阁下。我们\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记有限公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 遇到了一点麻烦。好了，出来了。\n2 施罗夫女士继续提问：\n3 问：你记得昨天就这份文件作过证，对吧？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：好的。那么，你刚才作证说你——顺便问一下，这份文件\n6 是你填写的，还是你丈夫填写的？\n7 答：是我们一起填写的表格。\n8 问：好的。该表格的日期是 2021年6月30日，对吗？\n9 答：我想是的。\n10 问：好的。你看一下最上面的日期。也许那会有所\n11 帮助。\n12 答：是的，我说了我想是的。\n13 问：在你填写之前，你阅读了第 1 条至第 6 条或第 7 条的内容吗？\n14 答：我想是的。\n15 问：是你填写的还是你丈夫填写的？\n16 MR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：重复提问（已问已答）。\n17 法庭：异议成立。\n18 问：请告诉我你们是如何共同填写一份表格的。\n19 答：所以每次我们做这种表格时，为了确保\n20 我们填写的所有信息都是正确的，要么是我填写，我丈夫坐在我旁边检查、\n21 确认我填写的信息正确，要么是我负责填写，\n22 他坐在我旁边确认\n23 我们填写的信息是正确的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 问：在这份表格上是谁填写的信息？\n2 答：我不记得了。那是很久以前的事了。\n3 问：好的。那我们往下滚动。如果我们能看一眼\n4 第 6 页上的那个问题。你看到第 VI 号问题了吗？\n5 答：好的。看到了，嗯。\n6 问：问题是：“您是否参与了\n7 从 Himalaya New York Mountains of Spice（喜马拉雅纽约香草山农场）借款的项目？”\n8 对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：你的回答是否，对吧？\n11 答：对。\n12 问：而郭先生事实上发布了非常、非常多的视频，说你们\n13 应该加入喜马拉雅纽约借款计划，\n14 对吗？\n15 答：我不知道。\n16 问：你没有看过他说这些的视频吗？\n17 答：我不知道该怎么回答你的问题。抱歉。\n18 问：你看了 Miles Guo（郭文贵）所有的视频，对吧？\n19 答：我不认为我看了所有的视频。\n20 问：你没有看全部，只看了一部分？\n21 答：他每天都有视频。我不认为我能看全部的\n22 视频。\n23 问：好的。那么，你记得看过关于农场借贷项目的\n24 视频吗？\n25 答：关于农场借贷项目具体的内容我不记得了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 问：你记得郭先生鼓励你投资\n2 农场借贷项目吗？\n3 答：我记得郭文贵说过，通过从农场借款、\n4 参与农场借贷项目来获得 GTV 股份，\n5 那是针对不是 Old Chair（老椅子）的人，\n6 因为我们已经是老椅子的一部分，已经拥有 GTV 股份，所以\n7 我们没有做农场借贷借款。\n8 问：好的。但是你拥有来自老椅子的 GTV 股份，对吗？\n9 答：是的，但郭文贵也说过参与——\n10 问：好的。\n11 答：是的，嗯。\n12 问：好的。尽管如此，根据你自己的说法，你投资\n13 G 会员仅仅是为了获得 GTV 股份，对吗？\n14 芬克尔先生：歪曲事实。\n15 法庭：异议成立。\n16 问：而根据你自己的说法，你投资 G Club 会员资格是为了\n17 获得股份，对吧？\n18 芬克尔先生：反对，法官。\n19 法庭：你在重复问题。她\n20 已经回答过这个问题了。继续下一项。\n21 问：你没有投资农场借贷项目，对吧？\n22 芬克尔先生：重复提问。\n23 法庭：异议成立。\n24 问：你丈夫没有投资农场借贷项目，\n25 对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 施罗夫女士：这是个不同的问题。\n2 问：你丈夫投资了吗？\n3 答：你刚才让我读这个问题，我们是否回答了否，\n4 我说了否。\n5 问：所以你丈夫没有投资。\n6 答：我已经回答过了。\n7 问：所以答案是否，对吧？\n8 答：我回答了这是我们共同填写的表格。是否。\n9 法庭：好的。\n10 问：所以当郭先生叫你投资农场借贷\n11 项目时，你是能够对他说不的，对吧？\n12 答：因为他说通过农场借贷项目\n13 获取更多 GTV 股份。我们已经拥有 GTV 股份了。我的\n14 理解是，针对那些没有 GTV 股份、\n15 不是老椅子成员的人，去投资借贷项目以\n16 获取 GTV 股份，所以这不适用于我们。\n17 问：上面有写不适用于老椅子吗？\n18 答：那是郭文贵在直播视频里说的。我已经\n19 向你解释过了。\n20 问：好的。郭文贵做 G Club 会员资格的\n21 直播视频时，他有没有说过如果你拥有老椅子\n22 股份，就不要加入 G Club？\n23 答：对于那个视频，我清楚地记得那是给老椅子\n24 获得额外 GTV 股份的，为了完成\n25 那项投资，要把钱打到 G Club 的账户。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 问：所以在这里你也会获得额外股份，对吧？如果你参与了\n2 农场借贷项目，你就会获得额外股份？\n3 芬克尔先生：对提问形式提出异议。我们已经讨论过\n4 这个了。她已经回答了她为什么没有投资。\n5 法庭：异议成立。\n6 问：我们继续往下看。你回答了否，对吧？\n7 答：我没有——\n8 芬克尔先生：法官阁下，问了三次了。至少三次。\n9 法庭：好的。既然她已经确认了——\n10 施罗夫女士：没关系，法官阁下。我继续下一项。\n11 法庭：她说了否，所以一旦得到了回答，就不要再\n12 一遍、一遍又一遍地重复同一个问题。\n13 问：好的。第 6 页。我们还在第 6 页。好的。\n14 我们来看下一个问题。这个问题问你是否\n15 参与了从其他农场借款，你的回答是否，\n16 对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 施罗夫女士：好的。我们向下滚动。\n19 我们看一下这份文件的第 9 页。\n20 问：现在在第 9 页顶部，对吧，上面写着：“截至\n21 9月17日，您是否计划进行追加投资？”\n22 对吗？你的回答是是，对吧？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：这份文件是哪一年的？\n25 答：这份文件是 2021 年的，所以——你已经问过我了，我在\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 最开始就说是在 2021年6月30日 填写的。\n2 问：好的。我们向下滚动。\n3 现在，芬克尔先生问了你关于 13-2 的问题，对吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：当你在他的办公室与他见面时，你跟他过了一遍\n6 这个问题，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：他特别问了你这是你填写的还是你丈夫\n9 填写的，对吧？\n10 答：我不记得那个了。\n11 问：芬克尔先生曾要求过和你丈夫谈话吗？\n12 答：我想没有。\n13 问：好的。这里有三个选项，对吗？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：好的。第一个选项是：“仅购买 G Club 卡，\n16 不购买股权（需缴纳卡年费）。”\n17 对吧？\n18 答：那是英文翻译的——\n19 问：女士，我只是在问你摆在你面前的这份文件。\n20 答：那么你的问题具体又是什么？\n21 问：你没有选第一个选项，对吗？\n22 答：对。\n23 问：你没有选第二个选项，该选项写着：“仅用于\n24 投资，自愿放弃 G Club 卡（无需缴纳卡年\n25 费）。”对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 答：对。\n2 问：好的。然后第三个选项就是你勾选的选项，\n3 “通过卡项目参与投资”，对吗？\n4 然后上面写着“（购买卡与股权）”，对吗，\n5 包括——\n6 答：那是不正确的。我昨天解释过了。英文\n7 翻译错了。\n8 问：女士，听我的问题。\n9 答：但你问的是对不对？我说了不正确。\n10 法庭：请你提出问题。\n11 问：你勾选了这份文件上的第三个选项，“通过\n12 卡项目参与投资（购买卡与股权），包括\n13 升级卡（需缴纳卡年费）。”\n14 对吗？\n15 答：我选择的选项是：通过卡项目参与投资\n16 （配卡及股权），包括升级卡\n17 （需缴纳年费）。我昨天解释过了，这里的翻译\n18 是错的，所以我无法回答你的问题说那是对的，\n19 因为这里的翻译是错的。\n20 问：你说完了吗？\n21 法庭：好了。她已经说明了她不认可\n22 这里的英文版本，这就是回答。\n23 施罗夫女士：好的。\n24 问：不过，你填写的是英文版本，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 芬克尔先生：反对。\n2 法庭：异议不成立。\n3 芬克尔先生：但是——\n4 问：你填写的是英文版本，对吗？\n5 答：那不正确。我填写的是中文版本。\n6 施罗夫女士：好的。那我们往下滚动。\n7 芬克尔先生：法官阁下，记录在案的是，这是一份\n8 双方达成约定的翻译文件。\n9 施罗夫女士：没关系。\n10 法庭：有一份翻译文件，以便陪审团\n11 理解。继续吧。\n12 施罗夫女士：继续往下滚。\n13 往下滚。\n14 施罗夫女士继续提问：\n15 问：这就是结尾了，对吧？\n16 答：是的，我想是的。\n17 问：好的。我们来看电子邮件本身。\n18 你看到你发送的这封电子邮件了吗？\n19 答：这是一份 Google 回复。我没有给任何人发电子邮件。\n20 问：好吧，你填了表格，对吧？\n21 芬克尔先生：重复提问。\n22 问：你填了表格并且上传了它，对吧？\n23 法庭：问题已经提出，证人\n24 已经回答了。\n25 问：在你填写完这份文件的中文版本\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉盘问\n1 之后，你和芬克尔先生用英文审阅了它，对吧？\n2 答：我想在用词上澄清一下。我没有和他审阅\n3 这份文件。\n4 问：你没有和芬克尔先生审阅这份文件，\n5 即这些附件吗？\n6 答：他给我看了这份文件。我没有审阅，因为\n7 我——因为我们刚才谈到了什么是审阅，审阅是\n8 每一页、逐行查看。我没有进行审阅。\n9 施罗夫女士：我们回到第 6 页和第 9 页。\n10 问：我们只谈第 9 页。你和他一起审阅了这一页，对吧？\n11 答：他给我看了这一页。\n12 问：好的。他给你看这一页之后做了什么？\n13 答：然后他问了我问题。\n14 问：然后你回答了，对吧？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：好的。当你和他谈论这一页时，并没有口译员\n17 在场，对吧？\n18 答：芬克尔先生给我看这份文件时，他给我看了\n19 我提交的中文版本，然后也给我看了\n20 翻译，即屏幕上显示的\n21 这个翻译版本。\n22 问：嗯，这不是口译，对吧？这是笔译。这\n23 有很大区别。这不是口译。\n24 法庭：证人并不是\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 翻译或口译过程，因此她无法就此作证。\n2\n3 什罗夫女士（MS. SHROFF）：好的。我们继续。\n4 问：今天坐在这里，你对陪审团说你填写的是中文版本，对吗？\n5\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：当你收到这份文件时，你收到的是中文和英文双语版本吗？\n8\n9 答：答案是否定的。\n10 问：你只收到了中文版本。\n11 答：没错。\n12 问：那 PPM（私募集资备忘录）呢，你收到的该文件是中文和英文双语的吗？\n13\n14 答：我不记得了。\n15 问：那认购协议呢，你收到的是英文和中文双语的吗？\n16\n17 答：我不记得了。\n18 问：那你签署 PPM 时所签的表格呢，你签的是英文还是中文的？\n19\n20 答：那是 2020 年的事了。我不记得了。\n21 什罗夫女士：好的。我们可以把那个撤下来了。\n22 问：现在你作证谈到了 H Coin（喜币）发售，对吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：H Coin 的首次发售是在 2021 年 11 月，对吧？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记有限责任公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：你购买了 H Coin，不是吗？\n3 答：你是说我没有买吗？\n4 问：你购买了 H Coin 吗？\n5 答：买了。\n6 问：好的。而且你知道——你是美国公民，对吧？\n7\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：作为美国公民，你不应该购买 H Coin，对吗？\n10\n11 芬克尔先生（MR. FINKEL）：反对。\n12 法庭（THE COURT）：你可以回答。\n13 芬克尔先生：要求证人作出——\n14 答：Miles Guo（郭文贵）让我们用中国身份开立 H Coin 账户。\n15\n16 问：Miles Guo 让你做所有的事。我明白。我的问题是——\n17\n18 法庭：好了。什罗夫女士，我已经告诉过你，不要代为作证。\n19\n20 问：陈女士（Ms. Chen），你今天的证词是，你做的每一件事都是 Miles Guo 让你做的，对吗？\n21\n22 芬克尔先生：歪曲事实。\n23 法庭：反对成立。她在证词中从未这样说过，没说过 Miles Guo 让她做所有的事。没有。\n24\n25 问：在本案中，Miles Guo 是否让你做了你所做的一切？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1\n2 芬克尔先生：反对提问形式。\n3 什罗夫女士：这是一个问题。\n4 法庭：反对成立。\n5 问：据你所说，Miles Guo 让你做过什么你却没有做的事？\n6\n7 法庭：反对成立。\n8 问：Miles Guo 让你投资 GTV 了吗？\n9 法庭：你可以回答。\n10 答：Miles Guo 向我推销了 GTV。\n11 问：你说什么？\n12 答：他推销了 GTV 投资。\n13 问：因为他是 GTV 的推广人，对吗？\n14 答：因为依我看，他拥有 GTV。\n15 问：女士，我没问你关于他是否拥有 GTV 的个人看法。\n16\n17 答：所以那是——\n18 芬克尔先生：法官阁下，我只要求什罗夫女士只提问题，不要对证人提供的回答发表评论。\n19\n20\n21 法庭：什罗夫女士。\n22 什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我确实提出了问题。\n23 法庭：但你也加了一句不是问题的评论。提问题。\n24\n25 什罗夫女士继续质问：\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 问：在你直接询问期间的每个回答中，你都说芬克尔先生问你的每件事，你之所以去做都是因为 Miles Guo 在视频中的言论，对吗？\n2\n3\n4 芬克尔先生：歪曲事实。\n5 法庭：反对成立。\n6 问：你今天坐在这里的证词是，你购买 H Coin 是因为 Miles Guo 所说的话，对吗？\n7\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：好的。在 Miles Guo 据你所说让你购买 H Coin 时，你是美国公民，对吗？\n10\n11\n12 芬克尔先生：已问过并回答过。\n13 法庭：反对成立。\n14 问：明知自己是美国公民，你知道自己不应该购买 H Coin，对吗？\n15\n16 芬克尔先生：歪曲事实，且已问过并回答过。\n17 法庭：你可以回答。\n18 答：Miles Guo 让我用我的中国身份去开户并购买 H Coin。\n19\n20 问：你照做了，对吧？\n21 答：我照做了。\n22 问：你照做仅仅是因为 Miles Guo 要求的，对吧？\n23 答：我照做是因为 Miles Guo 说 H Coin 会涨到月球上去（to the moon）。\n24\n25 问：好的。所以有两个原因。你照做是因为他说它会涨到月球上去，还因为他让你使用某个密码，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1\n2\n3 芬克尔先生：反对提问形式。\n4 什罗夫女士：我问下一个问题。\n5 问：你使用了谁的凭证来开立该账户？\n6 答：抱歉。你的问题是什么？\n7 问：你使用了谁的凭证来开立该账户？\n8 答：我回答过了。Miles Guo 让我用我的中国身份来开户。\n9\n10 问：所以你是用你自己的中国身份开立了账户；这是你的证词吗？\n11\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：你使用了哪种身份？\n14 法庭：反对成立。\n15 问：你使用了什么证件来开户？\n16 法庭：你可以回答使用了什么证件。\n17 答：是一张中国身份证。我已经说过了。\n18 问：你的中国身份证当时仍然有效吗？\n19 芬克尔先生：反对关联性。\n20 法庭：你可以回答。\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：它今天依然有效，对吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：现在你作证谈到了“H Coin to the moon（喜币一飞冲天）”这句话，对吧？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 答：抱歉。你能重复一遍吗。\n2 问：你在直接询问中作证谈到了“H Coin to the moon”这句话？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：好的。而且你告诉芬克尔先生你对那句话印象深刻，对吗？我为你换个说法。\n5 郭先生对那句话的使用是否影响了你关于 H Coin 的决定？\n6\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：好的。郭先生说 H Coin 会涨到什么价格？\n9 答：他说它会比 Bitcoin（比特币）更有价值，而且短期内很快就会达到一百美元。\n10\n11 问：好的。当时 Bitcoin 的价值是多少？\n12 答：我不记得了。\n13 问：你是记不得了，还是不知道？\n14 芬克尔先生：反对。\n15 法庭：反对成立。\n16 问：你当时知道 Bitcoin 的价值是多少吗？\n17 芬克尔先生：已问过并回答过。\n18 法庭：你是问她当时是否知道其价值吗？\n19\n20 什罗夫女士：是的，法官阁下。\n21 法庭：你可以回答。\n22 答：我不确切记得是多少了，但大概是一万，好像五万，或者也许四万左右。\n23\n24 问：一万、五万、四万，对吧？这些数字中的任何一个。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 答：所以超过了——我认为超过了四万，是的，也许在当时是这样，但我不确切记得当时到底是多少了。\n2\n3\n4 问：好的。你当时知道 Bitcoin 价格有波动吗？\n5 答：知道。\n6 问：而且你就郭先生关于黄金储备的言论与芬克尔先生详谈过，对吗，关于 H Coin 的黄金储备？\n7\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：好的。你知道实际上是否存在黄金储备吗？\n10 答：抱歉。你能重复一遍吗？\n11 问：你实际知道到底是否存在黄金储备吗？\n12 答：我相信 Miles 所说的话。\n13 问：所以当时存在黄金储备。\n14 答：你是在问我当时是否——我对你的问题感到困惑。你想问我什么？\n15\n16 问：郭先生说存在黄金储备，对吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：据你所知，当时存在黄金储备，对吗？\n19 答：我相信了 Miles 所说的话。\n20 问：好的。所以当时存在黄金储备，对吧？因为你相信了他，并且当时存在黄金储备。\n21\n22 芬克尔先生：已问过并回答过。\n23 什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我实际上并没有得到回答。\n24\n25 法庭：反对成立。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 问：你有没有向交易所的任何人要求查看黄金储备的证明？\n2\n3 芬克尔先生：已有法庭裁定，法官阁下。反对。\n4 法庭：反对成立。\n5 问：我们来谈谈 H Coin 白皮书，可以吗。你知道那是什么吗？\n6\n7 答：那是一份文件。\n8 问：好的。在哪里可以找到它？\n9 答：我不记得了。在 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）网站的某个地方。\n10\n11 问：在 Himalaya Exchange 网站的某个地方？\n12 答：我不记得了，所以我想可能是的，对。\n13 问：你读过它吗？\n14 答：读过，但我不记得里面的内容了。\n15 问：你购买了价值超过 500,000 美元的 H Coin；是这样吗？\n16\n17 答：抱歉。你能重复一遍吗？\n18 问：你购买了价值超过 500,000 美元的 H Coin，对吗？\n19 答：我汇了超过 500,000 美元去购买 H Coin。\n20 问：抱歉。你刚才说的是“我说（I said）”吗？\n21 答：我汇了（I send）超过 500,000——500,000 美元去购买 H Coin。\n22 问：好的。那是在一段时间内陆续进行的，而不是一次性投入，对吗？\n23\n24 答：是的。我想大概是在 2022 年 1 月到 2022 年 2 月之间，是的，嗯。\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 问：你第一次这样做时，投入了 20,000 美元，对吗？\n2\n3 答：我不记得了。\n4 问：你对一笔 20,000 美元的购买没有印象？\n5 芬克尔先生：已问过并回答过。\n6 法庭：反对成立。\n7 问：你有对自己针对 H Coin 进行了多少次投资做过记录吗？\n8\n9 答：抱歉。我没有。\n10 问：你没有做什么？\n11 答：没有做你刚才问我的那件事。\n12 问：你没有记录自己投资了多少。\n13 芬克尔先生：已问过并回答过。\n14 法庭：反对成立。\n15 问：你记录了 Excel 表格吗？\n16 芬克尔先生：重复多余。\n17 法庭：你记录了 Excel 表格吗？\n18 答：记录什么的表格？\n19 问：你的投资。\n20 答：H Coin 的吗？什么的表格？\n21 问：是的，H Coin 的。我们正在谈论 H Coin。\n22 答：那么，你说的保留一份 H Coin 的 Excel 文件是什么意思？\n23 问：列一栏写着，在这一天我向 H Coin 投资了 20,000 美元。\n24\n25 答：我没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 问：在你第一次购买时，H Coin 的价格是每枚 10 美分，对吗？是这样吗？\n2\n3 答：那不对。\n4 问：好的。好吧，你告诉我。\n5 答：我想在我购买的时候，是 4——超过 40 美元左右。\n6\n7 问：当你在它超过 40 美元左右购买时，你是在二级市场上购买的吗？\n8\n9 答：你说二级市场，指的是买方市场，对吧？\n10\n11 问：嗯。\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：好的。而且你决定在 40 美元的价位购买，对吗？\n14\n15 答：我购买是因为 Miles 说它很快就会涨到一百美元。\n16\n17 法庭：所以问题是你是否在 40 美元的价位购买了。\n18\n19 证人（THE WITNESS）：问题是？\n20 法庭：她说：“而且你决定在 40 美元的价位购买，对吗？”\n21\n22 答：我是根据 Miles Guo 涨到一百美元的承诺作出的决定，是的。\n23\n24 问：而且有一次你是在更高的价位购买的，对吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉质询\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：你在他破产后购买了 H Coin，对吗？\n3 答：我不这么认为。我认为我把钱汇出去的时间是在 2022 年 2 月 15 日之前。\n4\n5 问：在 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）诉讼之后还是之前？\n6 答：你指的是哪起 SEC 诉讼？\n7 问：你昨天提到的那起 SEC 诉讼。\n8 答：SE——关于 GTV 没有进行正规注册还是怎么回事的那个？那是——\n9\n10 问：正是。\n11 答：我认为是在那之后，嗯。\n12 问：所以你的购买是在那之后，对吗？\n13 答：我的购买是在 2022 年 1 月，然后我认为那起 SEC 的事情发生在那之前，是的，嗯。\n14\n15 问：好的。所以 SEC 对这个人说，你做某些事情不合规，而你决定听他的话并购买 H Coin，对吗？\n16\n17\n18 芬克尔先生：反对提问形式，且违反法庭裁定。\n19 法庭：反对成立。\n20 问：在 SEC 诉讼之后多少个月你购买了 H Coin？\n21\n22 芬克尔先生：同上反对理由。\n23 法庭：反对成立。\n24 问：根据 10 美分的价格，你曾获得过 H Coin 的初始认购配额，对吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 答：我被分配了某种喜币（H Coin）的配额，每枚\n2 10美分，我也付了款，但我从未拿到那些币。\n3 问：陈女士（Ms. Chen），请您尽量听清我的问题好吗。\n4 法庭：好的。那么请双方上前，\n5 谢谢。\n6 （续接下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭书记官事务所）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 （在法官席前）\n2 法庭：那么什罗夫女士（Ms. Shroff），你说：“所以 SEC 对\n3 这个人说，你有些事做得很不合规，而你却决定\n4 听他的去买喜币，对吗？”此时这么说完全是\n5 越界了。\n6 什罗夫女士：那是他们在主问中引出的话题，\n7 法官阁下。我并不是想去触碰他们没有提出来的\n8 内容。他们提到了 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的诉讼。那是她在\n9 主问中的原话，说他违反了一些监管规则，所以我\n10 确确实实只是在顺着她在主问中所说的话，\n11 把我的范围限制在主问所谈及的内容，以免\n12 超出那个范围。我仅仅是想这么做而已。我只是想\n13 说明时间线的问题，仅此而已。\n14 法庭：不。我认为你是想说明，\n15 尽管已经有明显的警示表明这是一笔\n16 风险极高的投资，她还是决定照做不误。\n17 我认为这才是你的意图。\n18 什罗夫女士：我并不是那个意思。我是\n19 试图说明时间线。我一再尝试说明\n20 时间线，是因为我列入了破产的时间，我列入了\n21 她首次获得配额的时间，以及她随后\n22 在二级市场买入的时间。\n23 法庭：所以如果你想说明时间线，那你就\n24 去问具体日期。你不要在实质上说，SEC 警告了你，\n25 但你还是照做不误。你要问具体日期。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 什罗夫女士：我没有说 SEC 警告过她。是她说\n2 SEC 警告过她。她说 SEC 作出认定，说他\n3 违反了监管规则。她昨天就是这么作证的。\n4 芬克尔先生（Mr. Finkel）：她昨天没有作过那样的证。\n5 什罗夫女士：你可以随时重读庭审笔录。\n6 她说 SEC 因他违反某些监管规则而对他进行了罚款。\n7 那是她的证词。\n8 法庭：所以你需要做的是询问具体日期。\n9 什罗夫女士：好的。\n10 （续接下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 （在公开法庭上）\n2 由什罗夫女士提问：\n3 问：我稍后会回到这个话题，但我现在要\n4 换个话题，跟您谈谈您的\n5 志愿者工作，好吗？\n6 那么，陈女士，您想过为香草山农场（Mountains of Spice Farm）\n7 做志愿者，对吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：好的。您昨天说，您最初想做志愿者\n10 是在2022年，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：那是您昨天的证词吗？\n13 答：嗯。\n14 问：事实上，您在2021年就首次联系要做志愿者了。您\n15 还记得吗？\n16 答：我记得我加入了香草山农场内的一个群，并\n17 表达了——我有做志愿者的意向。\n18 问：嗯，您不仅仅是表达了做志愿者的意向，\n19 您还告诉了他们为什么您会是一名优秀的志愿者，对吗？\n20 答：我——我不记得了。我想他们有一些具体的要求，\n21 是你在做志愿者之前必须向他们说明的，\n22 诸如此类的要求。\n23 问：好的，那我们向您出示被告第7014号证据（Defense Exhibit No. 7014），\n24 看看能否帮您恢复记忆。\n25 昨天您说您第一次做志愿者是在2022年，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 但今天您承认是在2021年，对吗？\n2 答：所以我是说在2021年我开始表达意向，但我\n3 想我真正的志愿者工作始于2022年3月，比如真正\n4 去做一些事情——去做真正的志愿者，而\n5 我在2021年开始联系表达意向，然后——\n6 就在这里，2021年底，是的。\n7 问：我们一起来梳理一下时间线，好吗？\n8 在2021年12月，您联系了——您联系了谁？您记得吗？\n9 答：我确信这些都在这里。这是——\n10 问：我不希望您看这份文件。我刚才出示给您看只是为了\n11 帮助您恢复关于日期的记忆。\n12 芬克尔先生：如果记忆已经恢复，我们是否应当把文件\n13 收起来？\n14 法庭：你现在正在出示文件吗？\n15 什罗夫女士：嗯，证人刚才作证——这样吧，\n16 我稍后再提这份文件。我稍后再提这份文件。\n17 由什罗夫女士提问：\n18 问：您现在想起来了，对吧，那是在2021年12月，\n19 对吗？\n20 答：我想我跟您提过，我表达了做\n21 志愿者工作的意向。\n22 问：好的。那大概是在12月，12月初，对吧，\n23 大概在12月9日左右？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 答：我不记得了，但既然您刚才给我看了\n2 文件，日期写在上面，是的。\n3 问：好的。在12月9日，您联系了香草山农场的\n4 一个特定小组，对吗？您还记得吗？\n5 答：我联系了一个群。我不知道您为什么说\n6 一个特定的小组。\n7 问：那个群的名字叫什么？\n8 答：我想那是和财务组相关的群。\n9 问：好的。您联系了他们，并告诉了他们\n10 您的资质背景，对吗？\n11 答：我想那是他们的要求，在你表达意向、\n12 谈论志愿者工作、你想参与之前，\n13 他们会要求你提供一些背景信息，以便他们了解你、\n14 知道你是谁，并看看根据您的经历\n15 适合安排哪些其他的\n16 志愿者工作。\n17 问：那么您具备哪些适合那项\n18 志愿者工作的经历呢？\n19 答：您已经说过我在银行工作。\n20 问：陈女士——\n21 答：我在银行工作。我在银行工作。\n22 问：您还告诉了他们什么？您记得吗？\n23 答：我不记得了。\n24 什罗夫女士：好的。那么我们再次向她出示\n25 被告证据 7014（DX 7014）。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 问：请看右边一栏。\n2 芬克尔先生：问题是什么？\n3 法庭：我们正在等问题。\n4 问：您读完了吗，陈女士？\n5 答：读完了。\n6 问：好的。这是否帮您恢复了记忆，想起您\n7 告诉过他们您的资质是什么？\n8 答：是的，那就是我说过的。它给了一个模板，\n9 你必须说明你的经历，而那就是我填写的，\n10 是根据他们给我们的模板填的。\n11 问：模板在哪里，在这份文件里吗？\n12 芬克尔先生：该文件尚未被采纳为证据。\n13 什罗夫女士：好的。那我们来看看。\n14 问：那角上的用户名是您的吗？\n15 答：我的用户名？\n16 问：是的。左边照片上的人是谁？\n17 答：您说的用户名是指——\n18 问：谁是 IvyIvy？\n19 答：那是我在香草山农场注册时用的昵称。\n20 问：而这全是您的文件，对吗？\n21 答：是的，这是我的通讯记录。\n22 什罗夫女士：我们继续往下拉。\n23 再往下翻一些。\n24 问：您认得这份文件吗？\n25 答：认得。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 什罗夫女士：好的。我们继续往下拉。\n2 问：您认得这份文件的第2页，对吗？\n3 答：我不记得这一页了。\n4 问：好的。那我们翻到第3页。\n5 谁是 AlWell？\n6 答：那是我丈夫用的昵称。\n7 问：好的。那么第2页，当我说我丈夫 AlWell 时，\n8 您认得在谈论的是谁吗？\n9 答：我认得我丈夫。您的意思是我认得我丈夫的\n10 昵称？是的，嗯。\n11 问：好的。您是在 Discord 上进行这些聊天的，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 什罗夫女士：好的。我申请将被告证据 7014 采纳为证据。\n14 芬克尔先生：法官阁下，我可以问一两个问题吗？\n15 法庭：可以，请提问。\n16 资格审查询问（VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION）\n17 由芬克尔先生提问：\n18 问：陈女士，您的这些聊天记录是用中文（Mandarin）\n19 还是用英文进行的？\n20 答：用中文。\n21 问：而旁边的这些英文，是您写的吗？\n22 答：不是。\n23 问：您知道那是从哪里来的吗？\n24 答：我不知道。\n25 问：您知道它是否准确吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 答：我不知道。\n2 芬克尔先生：我们表示异议，如有必要，\n3 到法官席前沟通或许较为合适。\n4 什罗夫女士：法官阁下，我可以只问她几个\n5 问题吗？\n6 法庭：可以。去问几个问题吧。\n7 由什罗夫女士提问：\n8 问：您能看懂中文吗？\n9 答：能。\n10 问：您能看懂英文吗？\n11 答：能。\n12 什罗夫女士：我们申请将被告证据 7014 采纳为证据。\n13 法庭：那么问题就在于，依她的意见，该译文\n14 是否准确反映了\n15 中文所写的内容。\n16 什罗夫女士：我很乐意不对她询问任何\n17 有关英文的问题。\n18 芬克尔先生：或许我们可以上前。\n19 法庭：那么请上前。\n20 （续接下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 （在法官席前）\n2 芬克尔先生：对此提出异议有几个理由。\n3 第一个是，我们今天上午9点56分才收到这些文件，\n4 当时这位证人正在\n5 证人席上。这份文件完全没有\n6 双方约定的译文。虽然双方进行过良好的沟通并就\n7 大多数中文问题达成了约定事项，但那也是\n8 花费了时间的。政府方专家审查了他们的\n9 方案，他们的专家审查了我们的方案，我们才\n10 能够达成妥协。法庭在本次庭审中始终\n11 保持一致，即未经翻译的中文材料\n12 不能被采纳为证据。我们本也更倾向于\n13 提交由我们自己翻译的各种中文文件，\n14 但在没有约定的情况下，我们并没有这么做。所以\n15 第一点是，这是一份中文文件，\n16 她没有时间去审查英译文的准确性，\n17 她也无法做到这一点。事实上正如什罗夫女士\n18 昨天提出异议时所说，她并不是一名符合《联邦证据规则》第702条（702）规定的专家证人，无权就\n19 从中文译出的英文是否准确\n20 发表意见。这是处理这份文件最简便的办法。\n21 第二点，她没有对第2页进行真实性鉴真。她\n22 并不认得那一页。\n23 第三点，这些是证人的陈述，所以\n24 属于传闻证据。而且这与她所说的任何话\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 都没有不一致之处，所以这构不成理由。而在需要帮她\n2 恢复记忆的限度内，可以向她出示这份文件。\n3 我对此并未提出异议。但我们不能将其作为\n4 物证引入，因为那是中文；因为那是她自己的\n5 陈述，缺乏正当依据；第三，我其实并不\n6 理解其关联性何在，不过或许有关联性吧。因此，\n7 这些就是主要的理由。\n8 法庭：你是打算用这个来弹劾她的信誉吗？\n9 什罗夫女士：我实际上也打算把它作为证据提交，但我\n10 当然会用它来弹劾她，这是第一点。\n11 第二点，昨天当她就其对中文文件的翻译\n12 和理解作证时，以及\n13 今天再次作证时，她关于文件翻译不准确的\n14 理解和立场实际上是被允许发表的。芬克尔先生反驳了\n15 我的异议，而法庭允许保留该证词，\n16 即她认为那份文件的翻译\n17 是不准确的。\n18 芬克尔先生：事实并非如此。\n19 什罗夫女士：我还没说完呢。\n20 芬克尔先生：我以为你说完了。\n21 什罗夫女士：所以记录就在那里。而且\n22 法庭实际上说过，她对翻译是否准确\n23 持不同意见。我认为这今天确实发生过。\n24 法庭：那么回过头来说，如果他们\n25 还没有机会让他们的翻译人员进行审查，那么该文件\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 盘问\n1 就不能被采纳。你当然可以仅通过向她个人出示该文件\n2 来尝试弹劾她。\n3 什罗夫女士：好的。\n4 法庭：好的。\n5 （续接下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n（在公开法庭上）\n法庭：你可以继续。\n由 Shroff（施罗夫）女士进行询问：\n问：在2021年12月，你使用过 Discord，对吗？\n答：是的。\n问：在 Discord 上，你曾申请加入财务组，因为你想在那个特定的组里做志愿者，对吗？\n答：我加入了一个组——抱歉。你的问题是什么？我加入一个组是因为我想做志愿者？\n问：具体是在财务组，是的。\n答：我加入了那个组，但并不是因为我想专门在那个组里做志愿者。我只是加入了那个组。\n问：好的。那么，你告诉了该组为什么你特别适合在该组工作，对吗？\n答：我之前解释过，他们要求你提供背景信息，所以我提供了我的背景信息。\n问：嗯，你做的不仅如此，对吧？你告诉他们你非常渴望加入农场的财务部，对吗？\n答：你在哪里看到的？\nFinkel（芬克尔）先生：所以这——\n法庭：所以——\nSHROFF 女士：文件不应该放在她面前。\n问：我的问题是：你是否记得在 Discord 上告诉过他们你“渴望加入我们农场的财务部，贡献自己的绵薄之力”？你记得在 Discord 上说过这话吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南方区记录员有限公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n答：我不记得了。\n问：让我们再给你出示一下 7014 号文件。\n法庭：所以你不需要照着文件读。唯一的问题是：这是否有助于你想起来？这能唤起你的记忆吗？\n答：关于——我不记得我说过那个。我——\n问：请花一分钟时间看一下文件，正如法官所说，唯一的问题是——\n法庭：中文版本，如果那是她当时所使用的语言——\nSHROFF 女士：好的。请看。就在那里，左边一栏。\n答：所以你问我，我认为我说过我加入了那个组，但不是因为我想在那个组里做贡献。\n问：那不是刚才的问题，Chen（陈）女士。问题是——也许法官可以重述一下。\n法庭：所以问题是：这是否有助于唤起你对当时所说话语的记忆？\n答：那我说了什么？\n问：说你渴望加入农场的财务部，渴望加入。\n答：我想，好吧，当我说渴望加入时，那是——\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\n问：问题仅仅在于你是否说过那句话。\n法庭：不。问题是这份文件是否能唤起她的记忆。那是第一个问题。\n答：我不记得了。\n问：好的。那你是否记得随后告诉他们为什么你特别适合财务部？\nFINKEL 先生：重复提问。\n法庭：异议成立。\n问：你是否列出了你的技能，以说明为什么你特别适合财务部？\nFINKEL 先生：已经问过并回答过三次了。\n法庭：异议成立。\nSHROFF 女士：法官阁下，我并没有问过那个问题。\n答：我解释了，要求我——\n法庭：所以异议成立，请不要回答。\n问：你列出的技能有哪些？\nFINKEL 先生：重复提问。\nSHROFF 女士：我并没有问过那个问题。\n法庭：如果你有记忆的话。你记得吗？\n证人：我不记得。\n问：你是否记得对他们说过，你具备英语、财务管理、风险分析、信贷、法律合规、审计、业务流程组织方面的技能，是注册会计师、国际注册内部审计师，教育背景为 MBA，在美国大型金融公司拥有超过十年的经验？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2 Chen - 交叉询问\nFINKEL 先生：反对，因为 Shroff 女士正在宣读一份尚未采纳为证据的文件。\nSHROFF 女士：我是在问她是否列出了那些事项。\n答：我不记得了。我已经回答了你的问题——\n问：好的。\n答：——了。\n问：我再次向你出示同一份文件，看看该文件是否能唤起你对上一个问题的记忆。\n法庭：异议已驳回。请继续。\nSHROFF 女士：请给她看中文版本。\n答：我不记得了。\n问：好的。我们继续。\n你是否还记得在 Discord 上告诉——噢，让我回到那个问题。你当时正在与——交谈\n法庭：现在是11:30，我们要休庭半小时。\n陪审团成员们，请记住，切勿在你们之间或与任何其他人讨论本案。切勿允许任何人在你们面前讨论本案。切勿阅读、收听或观看任何涉及本案主题的内容。\n（陪审团退庭）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n法庭：女士，你可以离开法庭了。不要讨论你的证词。\n（证人退庭）\n法庭：在我们重新开庭前还有什么事项吗？\nFINKEL 先生：法官阁下，我只是想了解 Shroff 女士还需要多长时间。她现在的交叉询问已经进行了三个小时。Chen 女士的直接询问只有一小时十分钟。政府方的观点是，其中大部分内容完全无关紧要。但了解一下时间会有所帮助，因为我们还有一名证人。我们正在设法安排。我们希望今天能完成举证。我们本希望在两天前就完成举证。我不知道这是否是一种阻挠策略，以阻止辩方直到周二才必须展示其抗辩主张，但我们在范围和相关性以及许多其他问题上已经严重偏离了。\n法庭：Shroff 女士，还需要多久？\nSHROFF 女士：法官阁下，这完全在范围之内。法庭希望我就该问题作出说明吗，还是不用？\n法庭：我希望你就时间问题作出说明。\nSHROFF 女士：我想大约还需要45分钟。\n法庭：45分钟？\nSHROFF 女士：是的，法官阁下。\n法庭：我希望你把时间缩短。\nSHROFF 女士：我们尽力了。\n法庭：我希望你把它缩减。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\nSHROFF 女士：我一定会努力的，法官阁下。\nFINKEL 先生：法官阁下，我可以再提一个问题吗？\n法庭：可以。\nFINKEL 先生：接着在法官席旁讨论的内容，Shroff 女士提出的关于 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）和解的时机以及她在 SEC 认定之后做出投资决定的问题——正如 Shroff 女士所说，实际上，SEC 认定 Guo（郭）先生做了违法不当的事，你仍然决定投资——从这样一个问题中只能得出一种推论，那就是 Shroff 女士在向陪审团暗示，Chen 女士（她曾多次反复强调其在一家银行从事风险管理工作），Shroff 女士的论点是，Chen 女士本应该更清楚情况。这是唯一能得出的结论，而且——好吧。我不想——\n法庭：所以我指的是她决定进行投资的日期。Shroff 女士或任何将要进行终结辩论的人都可以提出 SEC 警告或声明的日期，但在向证人提问时，你不得提及 SEC 的问题，只能提及她实际进行投资的时间问题；换句话说，不能引起陪审团对 SEC 声明的时机与她投资的时机之间的注意。\nFINKEL 先生：是的，法官阁下。我同意这一点。政府方的担忧——而且我们已经在其他情况下阐明了这一点；我认为这是最好的例子——是陪审团会认为，或者我们担心陪审团可能会认为，而且当然可能会被误导从而认为，如果受害者存在疏忽、不够成熟，或者没有做足够的研究——刚才还提出了另一个问题：你是否联系过 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）询问他们是否有黄金？法官阁下支持了该异议。本案陪审团在本审判中的问题是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）是否具有诈骗故意。受害者的意图和成熟度并不相关。我真的觉得，政府方觉得，陪审团被搞糊涂了。我们请求法官阁下考虑作出一项指示，这是对法律的正确陈述，这样就不会有混淆，并且因为辩方从未对该指示作为法律的实际陈述这一事实提出过异议。我们认为这是恰当的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\nSHROFF 女士：法官阁下，根据 Litvak 案判例，我有权展示该证人可以获取哪些信息。我重新阅读了 Litvak 案，我咨询了对其有更深理解的人，我相信我提出的问题是允许的。\n更重要的是，这届陪审团看起来一点也没有感到困惑。这看起来是一个非常成熟、全神贯注且聚精会神的陪审团。\n最后，法官阁下，我非常确信法庭的陪审团指示将在（我想是一两天后的休庭之后）做出，我们希望，这位证人对我们所有人来说都将是一段遥远的记忆。\n因此，基于这些原因，法官阁下，我认为此时不需要任何指示。\nFINKEL 先生：我可以回应吗？\n法庭：可以。\nFINKEL 先生：法官阁下，在这名证人之后（我想她还有45分钟，这样她将在证人席上呆四个小时，期间她就自己知道什么、何时知道、做了什么研究等问题接受了广泛的交叉询问——而且她不是第一个经历这种情况的证人）——他们将进行辩方举证，其中将充斥着来自白皮书和各种其他事物的信息，所有这些都是为了向陪审团暗示他们本应该更清楚。Shroff 女士是对的。我认为陪审团非常专注，但我们不知道他们在思考自己需要裁决什么，而且当他们接收这些信息时，考虑到这两个问题——有几个问题，但我特别引用的两个问题——“你是否给喜马拉雅交易所打过电话询问他们是否有黄金”，那不是 Litvak 案的范畴。那是在暗示她应该给喜马拉雅交易所打电话并进行调查。然后她又做了同样的事：你使用 Google 吗？你有 Google 吗？Chen 女士说：是的，我当然有 Google。这些都是在暗示受害者本应该做得更多。这并不是信息的综合。在这里作出指示是恰当的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO2\n法庭：我不认为你是对的。如果你能提供一些上诉判例依据证明此时给出指示是恰当的，我会予以考虑。\n我们将在中午十二点重新开庭。\nFINKEL 先生：好的，法官阁下。\n（休庭）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 下午庭审\n2 中午 12:06\n3 法庭：请就座。我刚刚得知\n4 八号陪审员刚收到消息，他的女儿\n5 新冠检测呈阳性。我已经送进去一个口罩，\n6 八号陪审员已经戴上了，我们现在就继续开庭。\n7 KAMARAJU 先生：法官阁下，既然我们谈到了陪审员，\n8 我能否提一件事。我认为四号候补陪审员今天早上\n9 在我乘电梯上楼时\n10 走向我，询问是否能与我共乘同一班电梯。\n11 我说不行，你坐下一班吧，我也与\n12 检方律师协商过了。我认为无需采取任何措施。\n13 我只是想让法官阁下知悉。\n14 FINKEL 先生：从检方的立场来看，这没问题。\n15 法官阁下，检方向法官室电邮发送了一份\n16 关于休庭前我们讨论的问题的 Second Circuit（第二巡回法院）先例。如果\n17 法庭有任何疑问，我很乐意解答。检方的看法是，该案\n18 与法庭目前面临的\n19 情况完全吻合。在该案中，被告放弃了胁迫抗辩，\n20 但随后的证词引出了有关威胁的信息。\n21 检方提出异议，理由是此类威胁\n22 信息似乎使陪审团对该等信息的\n23 适当性产生困惑，而法庭在中途由 Rakoff 法官在\n24 审判中期和审判后均提供了纠正性指示。第二巡回法院\n25 维持了这两项指示。我们认为在此处两者都\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 适用，以免陪审团产生困惑，并确保\n2 法庭作出无可非议的正确法律陈述。\n3 这也是第二巡回法院所审查的全部内容，即\n4 法官阁下所作的陈述是否为对法律的\n5 正确陈述。根据对拟议陪审团指示的答复，\n6 我认为辩方并未对\n7 拟议陪审团指示中的陈述提出异议，即陪审员的\n8 认知水平与本案审判无关，\n9 并且他们没有任何义务去发现欺诈行为。\n10 KAMARAJU 先生：法官阁下，我认为，第一，这与胁迫抗辩有所不同，\n11 胁迫抗辩显然是被告事先必须通知\n12 检方和法庭的抗辩。据我的理解，Shroff 女士的提问\n13 是针对获取渠道，即针对获取\n14 信息的渠道。而法官阁下根据 Litvak 案确曾裁定，认知水平是\n15 陪审团可以考量的一个因素。我不确定\n16 现在给出任何形式的指示是否合适。而且我不确定\n17 Peterson 案在当前语境下是否确实适用于说明其适当性。\n18 FINKEL 先生：我不想重蹈覆辙，但是\n19 Shroff 女士问证人：“你有没有打电话给 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），\n20 问他们是否有黄金？”暗示你是否进行了调查\n21 以确定没有黄金。她还问：“你是否\n22 知道 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）曾告知 Miles Guo（郭文贵）他在该日期进行了\n23 未注册证券发行，而在该日期之后\n24 你又投资了？”这是在表明存在\n25 危险信号——确实存在，对该受害者而言存在危险信号，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 但这里不存在信赖问题。这是关于 Miles\n2 Guo（郭文贵）的意图问题，而非他们的意图，陪审团对\n3 这一问题感到困惑。该第二巡回法院先例为\n4 法庭在此类情况下提供审判中期指示提供了依据。\n5 法官阁下依职权注意到了这一点，并针对 Shroff 女士关于\n6 SEC 投资时间的提问\n7 要求进行席边商议。这与获取信息无关。\n8 他们通过 Chen 女士做到了这一点。他们\n9 通过其他证人做到了这一点。他们试图铺垫某种\n10 受害者本应当知情的潜台词。\n11 法庭：因此我不同意此时适合\n12 给出该指示，请把陪审员\n13 带进来吧。\n14 （续见下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 法庭书记员：陪审团进庭。\n2 （陪审团在场）\n3 法庭：请就座。陪审团成员们，\n4 八号陪审员已告知法庭，他的女儿\n5 刚刚确诊感染新冠，我已指示他佩戴口罩，\n6 因此我希望大家在接下来的审理过程中非常注意自己的健康。\n7 如果你们确诊感染新冠，请给\n8 我们在休庭时提供给你们的三个号码发送短信。\n9 好的。你可以继续了。\n10 由 SHROFF 女士询问：\n11 问：Chen 女士，在 2021 年 12 月初，你也代表\n12 你的丈夫请求让他获得做志愿者的机会，对吗？\n13 答：我不记得了。\n14 问：你是否记得——好的。让我再次向你出示同一份\n15 文件以唤起你的记忆，第 704 号。能否\n16 请向她出示中文版本以及英文版本，\n17 无论她选哪一个。\n18 答：我不记得我这么做过。\n19 问：谢谢。后来是否有一段时间，你和\n20 你的丈夫都在为 Faith Night 做志愿者，对吗？\n21 答：我们没有为 Faith Night 做志愿者，没有。\n22 问：你们是在她的群组里做志愿者，对吗？\n23 答：我在 MOS（摩西）农场做志愿者。\n24 问：我的问题是，她负责财务组，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：我不确定。\n2 问：那么，难道她没有告诉过你欢迎你们吗？\n3 答：我不记得了。\n4 问：好的。让我们再回到该文件。那份\n5 文件是否唤起了你的记忆，即你实际上联系了\n6 Faith Night，并且是她说欢迎你和他？\n7 FINKEL 先生：这并不是刚才提出的问题。\n8 SHROFF 女士：我很乐意重新换个说法。\n9 问：让我再试一次第一个问题。你是否记得向 Faith Night 询问\n10 或在 Discord 上向她发送聊天信息？\n11 答：我记得我表达了加入某个群组的兴趣。\n12 问：对。那时的群组组长是 Faith Night，\n13 对吗？\n14 答：我不记得了。\n15 问：那么，该文件是否唤起了你的记忆？\n16 答：我不记得了。\n17 问：屏幕上的文件？\n18 答：我不记得了。\n19 法庭：请你看一下屏幕上的文件，\n20 然后说明这是否唤起了\n21 你的记忆。\n22 答：我看过这份文件了，我说过我不记得了。\n23 问：你也不记得是否是 Faith Night\n24 欢迎了你们，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 FINKEL 先生：已问且已答。\n2 法庭：异议驳回。如果你记得的话可以回答。\n3 答：我不记得了。MOS 农场里有各种不同的志愿者。\n4 我先联系了某个人，让我们提供模板，\n5 然后我们按照模板又去联系另一个人，\n6 所以我不记得谁是谁。\n7 问：今天坐在这里，你知道 Faith Night 是谁，对吧？\n8 答：我知道。\n9 问：我们继续。你是否还认识一个叫\n10 Octopus 的人，他在 2021 年 12 月也在同一个财务组？\n11 答：我不记得了。\n12 问：在 2021 年 12 月，你知道郭先生会奖励\n13 做志愿者的人，难道不是吗？\n14 答：我不知道。\n15 问：你也不知道郭先生录制过视频并\n16 谈论过在农场做志愿者的好处？\n17 答：我想我不记得了。\n18 问：后来他们确实接纳你加入了\n19 该群组，对吧，在 2021 年 12 月？\n20 答：我想是的。\n21 问：你是否记得那是在 2021 年 12 月 9 日？\n22 答：我不记得了。\n23 问：你是否记得曾对他们说你很高兴\n24 能成为一名志愿者，并称其为“我们的财务组”？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：我不记得了。\n2 问：你是否记得告诉过他们你的丈夫具有\n3 财务和 Fintech（金融科技）方面的经验？\n4 答：我不记得了。\n5 问：我们能否再次向她出示同一份文件。\n6 答：我不记得了。\n7 问：我们可以把文件撤下了。\n8 你是否记得告诉过他们关于他丰富的 IT\n9 经验？\n10 答：我不记得了。\n11 问：这仍然是在 2021 年 12 月，你是否记得\n12 你是在 12 月开始做志愿者的？你记得吗？\n13 答：我不记得了。\n14 问：你是否记得在 12 月，即 2021 年 12 月 20 日，你\n15 停止了做志愿者，你记得吗？\n16 答：我不记得了。\n17 问：你是否记得你的丈夫也是在 2021 年 12 月 20 日\n18 停止做志愿者的？\n19 答：我不记得了。\n20 问：现在转到 2022 年 2 月，你当时在工作，\n21 对吗？\n22 答：当你提到我在工作时，你能否协助澄清一下。\n23 问：当然可以。起初你只是作为母亲在操劳，对吗？\n24 答：不，我一直在工作。\n25 问：做母亲就是工作。我是在问你。那就是工作。我是在\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 认可你的工作。\n2 FINKEL 先生：对发表评论提出异议。\n3 SHROFF 女士：我是在试图回答她的问题。\n4 法庭：只管提问。\n5 问：你在家工作，对吗？\n6 答：不，我一直有份工作。我不明白你的问题\n7 是什么。当你提到工作时，你能帮我理解一下吗。当你\n8 说作为母亲工作时，那是什么意思？\n9 问：你照顾你的孩子。你喂养你的孩子。你哄\n10 他入睡，他、她，你的孩子们。你照看他们，\n11 对吧？\n12 FINKEL 先生：以关联性为由提出异议。\n13 SHROFF 女士：我完全是在按照证人的\n14 要求去做。\n15 法庭：异议驳回。问题是什么。\n16 答：问题是什么？\n17 问：你有一份全职工作，对吗？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：然后你也在家里操劳，对吗？\n20 答：当你提到我在家工作时，是指我在家\n21 照顾孩子吗？\n22 问：是的，那就是工作。\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：好的。在 2022 年 2 月也是如此，对吗？\n25 答：只要我有孩子，我一直都在做那种\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 工作。\n2 问：在 2022 年 2 月，那时是新冠疫情期间，是吗，你\n3 记得吗？\n4 答：是的。\n5 问：在那个时候，在新冠期间你当时实际上有去实地\n6 上班吗？\n7 答：我远程工作。\n8 问：你记得你远程工作了多久？\n9 FINKEL 先生：以关联性为由提出异议。\n10 SHROFF 女士：我问下一个问题，法官阁下。\n11 问：我继续下一个问题。没关系。作为你在 2022 年志愿者\n12 工作的一部分，你当时是志愿者吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：你在直接询问中作证过，对吧，你当时做志愿者工作\n15 十个小时，对吗？\n16 答：你说的十个小时是什么意思？\n17 问：你做志愿服务多少小时？\n18 答：我作证说我平均每周做志愿服务约 40 个小时。\n19 问：所以平均你——算了吧。我不重复了。\n20 在此期间你也是每周远程工作 40 小时吗？\n21 答：是的，没错。\n22 问：后来到了你必须为你所做的志愿工作\n23 提交工时表的时候，对吧？\n24 答：是的。\n25 问：今天坐在这里你是否记得你提交的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 工时表显示为 2,390 小时？\n2 答：仅我一个人？\n3 问：是的。\n4 法庭：涵盖什么期间？\n5 SHROFF 女士：我没听清。\n6 法庭：2,000 个小时涵盖多长时间？\n7 SHROFF 女士：2 月份的。\n8 法庭：仅 2 月份？\n9 SHROFF 女士：我看一下她是怎么填写的。\n10 问：你向 Discord 提交了工时表，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：而在你的 Discord 工时记录中，你注明的日平均工作\n13 小时数是十个小时，对吗？\n14 答：我的证词谈到的是在 2022 年 3 月至 2023 年 3 月期间\n15 平均工作 40 个小时，所以我在 2022 年 3 月\n16 至 2022 年 9 月期间工作的时间较多，而在\n17 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月期间工作的时间较少。所以说到你提到的\n18 每天大约十个小时，那是在我于 2022 年 3 月\n19 至 2022 年 9 月期间工作的时期。\n20 问：实际上是 2022 年 2 月至 2022 年 10 月，\n21 对吗？\n22 答：所以也许我的记忆差了一个月左右，但如果你这么说的话。\n23 问：准确地说，是 2022 年 2 月 26 日至 2022 年 10 月 22 日？\n24 （未完待续）\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：好的。如果您说是2022年2月26日，那很接近3月了，\n2 对。很接近3月，是的。所以您说的从2月26日开始与我说的2022年3月\n3 之间只相差几天。\n4\n5 问：而且那整个期间都在发生新冠疫情（Covid），对吧？\n6 3月处于新冠疫情期间，对吧？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：4月也是新冠疫情期间，对吧？\n9 FINKEL先生（MR. FINKEL）：就相关性提出异议。我们到底在\n10 做什么？\n11 法庭（THE COURT）：异议成立。\n12 问：您在那段时间是远程工作的，对吗？\n13 FINKEL先生：已问且已答。\n14 法庭：异议成立。\n15 问：您提交了这些工时表，对吧？\n16 FINKEL先生：已问且已答。\n17 法庭：异议成立。\n18 问：您提交给谁了？\n19 答：您提到了Discord。如果确实如此，那我是在Discord中提交的。我\n20 不记得我提交给谁了。\n21 问：并且Discord里有人就您的工时表联系了您，\n22 对吗？\n23 答：我不记得了。\n24 问：他们告诉您这些工时表夸大了工时，对吗？\n25 答：抱歉。您的问题是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 问：他们说您虚报了工时表，对吗？\n2 答：我不记得那件事。\n3 问：您不记得他们说过您不可能投入了所有那些时间吗？\n4\n5 FINKEL先生：已问且已答。\n6 法庭：异议成立，已问且已答。\n7 问：您实际上被要求描述您作为志愿者做了什么工作，\n8 对吗？\n9 答：我想是的。\n10 问：对。而且您提供了一份描述，对吗？\n11 答：我想是的。\n12 问：而且他们对您所提供的工作描述提出了异议，\n13 对吗？\n14 答：他们提出了异议？\n15 问：他们不同意您的说法，对吗？\n16 答：我不记得那件事。\n17 问：然后是否到了某个时候，您又再次停止做义工了？\n18\n19 答：到了某个时候我停止做义工还是开始\n20 做。\n21 问：停止。\n22 答：我回答过了，2023年3月。\n23 问：您停止是因为您小组里的人对您的工时提出了反对意见，\n24 对吗？\n25 答：那是错误的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 问：那么您为什么停止了？\n2 答：我为什么停止？\n3 问：是的。\n4 答：当时我父母，他们的身体状况不太好，\n5 所以我打算退一步，花更多时间陪伴\n6 他们。\n7 问：但那是在2021年12月，对吧？\n8 那是您在2021年12月在Discord上告诉那些人的，\n9 对吧？\n10 答：那是我们在2023年3月告诉他们的。\n11 问：让我再向您出示同一份文件物证。其实，\n12 我换个话题。\n13 当您决定停止做义工时，您是否通过Discord向任何人说明了\n14 您停止的原因？\n15 答：我在2023年3月通过Whatsapp聊天给Octopus发了消息。\n16 问：但是您和Octopus相处得并不好，对吗？\n17 答：我不明白您说的相处得不好是什么意思？那\n18 是什么意思。\n19 问：因为您和Octopus、您和Faith Night，以及您和\n20 Fay Fay对于您如何计算义工工时以及这些工时如何与您的H Coin（喜币）分配额度挂钩\n21 产生了分歧，\n22 对吗？\n23 FINKEL先生：就提问形式提出异议。\n24 答：那是错误的。\n25 法庭：异议驳回。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 问：我们来看看您的H Coin分配额度，好的。您同意\n2 最初的H Coin分配额度是基于若干\n3 因素的，对吗？\n4 答：您没有说那些因素是什么。您说了是基于\n5 若干因素。\n6 问：您知道它们是基于若干因素的，您到底知不知道？\n7\n8 答：您能告诉我那些因素以便我用是或否回答您的问题\n9 吗？\n10 问：当然。其中一个因素是所完成的义工工作量，\n11 对吗？\n12 答：H Coin的分配额度是在H Coin于2021年11月推出之前\n13 提供的，所以计算的义工工作是针对2021年11月1日之前\n14 完成的义工工作。而当时我根本就没做义工，\n15 所以这与我的H Coin分配额度没有任何关系。\n16\n17 问：我们会谈到那里的。我只是在谈最初的\n18 分配额度。好的。您知道最初的分配额度是基于\n19 义工工作的，对吗？\n20 答：我不知道。\n21 问：那是否取决于您投资了多少钱？\n22 答：那是我就所知的。\n23 问：然后它是不是还乘以了某个\n24 系数，对吗？\n25 他们使用了一个计算公式，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：是的。\n2 问：而且该公式要么是0.5、0.7要么是.02，对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：当您为自己进行计算时，关于您个人的计算\n5 存在分歧，对吗？\n6 FINKEL先生：已问且已答。\n7 法庭：异议成立。\n8 SHROFF女士（MS. SHROFF）：我根本还没有触及此分配额度中11月份的\n9 部分。\n10 法庭：您是概括性地提问了那个问题。您是在针对\n11 某个特定时间提问吗？\n12 SHROFF女士：是的，法官阁下。我是针对\n13 证人刚才提到的时间段提问，即在提供H Coin之前进行计算的\n14 前期阶段。\n15 法庭：好的。您可以回答。\n16 答：那么问题是什么？\n17 问：关于您的实际计算存在分歧，\n18 对吗？\n19 答：我在昨天的证词中解释过，我的投资\n20 在H Coin分配额度中被算错了。\n21 问：您认为它被算错了，而他们不同意您的看法，\n22 对吗？\n23 答：当您说“他们”时，您指的是谁？\n24 问：负责分配额度的人，他们不同意您的看法，\n25 对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：谁负责H Coin分配额度？\n2 问：您告诉我。\n3 答：我不知道。\n4 问：嗯，他们告诉您他们不同意您的\n5 计算？\n6 答：谁告诉您他们不同意我的计算？\n7 问：Chen女士（Ms. Chen）——\n8 答：我不知道她指的是谁，所以我无法回答她的\n9 问题。她对我说了“他们”，但她没有告诉我“他们”是谁。\n10\n11 法庭：Shroff女士。\n12 问：您是按0.7的费率计算的，对吗？\n13 答：我没有按0.7的费率计算。提供给我的是\n14 0.7的费率，因为我想他们说了币已经没了，所以我\n15 没法选择币。我只能选择基金，而\n16 基金是0.7。\n17 问：他们明确告诉您，您的计算本应\n18 采用0.2的费率，对吗？\n19 FINKEL先生：我们已经过过这个了。\n20 法庭：您可以回答。\n21 答：我不记得那件事。\n22 问：现在，Chen女士，您是Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）上的活跃交易者；\n23 是这样吗？\n24 答：我没说我是活跃交易者，但我确实有买卖，\n25 因为价格跌得太厉害了。所以当它差不多到了\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 极低的点时，我不知道该怎么办，所以我确实卖出了。\n2 问：自开户以来，您有90笔买入交易，\n3 对吗？\n4 答：我不记得那个数量。\n5 问：您进行了80笔卖出交易，对吗？\n6 答：我不记得。\n7 问：您在H Coin市场上操作以看能否\n8 获利，对吗？\n9 答：那是错误的。\n10 问：如果不是为了获利，您交易是为了什么？\n11 答：尽量多拿回一些。\n12 问：抱歉。\n13 答：尽量多保留一些。\n14 问：一回事，对吧？\n15 答：不一样。\n16 问：总共算起来，您有80笔买入和90笔卖出交易，对吧？\n17 答：我不记得。\n18 问：嗯，您可以查阅您的卖出和买入记录，对吧？\n19 答：我很长时间没有登录账户了。\n20 问：我没问您是否很长时间没有登录。我的\n21 问题是您是否能够查阅那些信息？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：顺便问一下，您和那边的Finkel先生是否为了准备您今天的作证而查阅了\n24 这些信息？\n25 答：没有。答案是没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 问：Chen女士，您在直接询问中作证说您抵押房屋借了第二笔贷款\n2 以购买额外的GTV股份，对吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：那是在2021年12月；是这样吗？\n5 答：那是错误的。\n6 问：那么，您告诉我正确的日期？\n7 答：我想昨天我说过那是Crane Advisory（鹤鸣咨询）。那是在\n8 2021年3月。\n9 问：您认为您是在2021年3月办理了第二笔房屋贷款？\n10 我只是想把月份确定下来。\n11 FINKEL先生：异议。我认为这\n12 曲解了刚才的说法。\n13 问：我再问一遍这个问题。您是在哪个月份抵押房屋办理了\n14 第二笔贷款以购买额外的GTV\n15 股份？\n16 FINKEL先生：就提问形式提出异议。也要说明年份，对吧？\n17 法庭：请把年份加上。\n18 问：2021年？\n19 FINKEL先生：就证词提出异议。Shroff女士\n20 可以提出问题。\n21 SHROFF女士：您让我加年份的。\n22 法庭：那么请说明您所询问的月份和具体日期，\n23 Shroff女士。\n24 SHROFF女士：我是在问她是哪个月份和日期\n25 办理的这笔贷款。我是在向她提问。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 法庭：好的。您可以回答。\n2 答：如果我没记错的话，我想是2021年3月。\n3 问：而在当时2021年3月，您还在弗吉尼亚州福尔斯彻奇（Falls Church Virginia）拥有一栋\n4 联排别墅，对吗？\n5 FINKEL先生：就相关性提出异议。\n6 法庭：这与房屋产权抵押\n7 贷款有关吗？\n8 SHROFF女士：无关，这是她的其他资产。\n9 FINKEL先生：极不具相关性。\n10 法庭：异议成立。\n11 问：但您有其他资产，对吧？\n12 FINKEL先生：同上异议。\n13 法庭：异议成立。\n14 问：您投资房地产了吗，Chen女士？\n15 FINKEL先生：同上异议。\n16 法庭：异议成立。\n17 SHROFF女士：法官阁下，我们可以进行法官席边谈话（sidebar）吗？\n18 FINKEL先生：我认为没有必要。\n19 法庭：好的。\n20 （下页继续）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 （在法官席边）\n2 SHROFF女士：法官阁下，陪审团得到了一种\n3 印象，即她抵押自己的房屋办理了第二笔贷款。而\n4 由此产生的结果是，对于办理第二笔贷款的人，应该产生某种\n5 同情反应。同样一个人也可以因为\n6 看起来在财务上精明或在财务上有偿付能力而\n7 抵押房屋办理第二笔贷款。我认为让陪审团知道她是有选择的，并且\n8 她是一名房地产投资者，这是公平的。她实际上出租和\n9 承租了这些房产。总共算来她在\n10 弗吉尼亚州拥有九处房产。这仅仅是为了\n11 消除政府通过询问她如何以及为何办理第二笔贷款以购买GTV\n12 股份所制造的同情因素。\n13\n14 法庭：我认为政府仅仅是\n15 在证明她使用了这些资金进行购买以及\n16 她被欺诈了，而不是陪审团应当感到同情。\n17 控方是在利用这一点来认定欺诈。\n18 SHROFF女士：但是公寓的第二笔贷款并非不相关。\n19 那是她的钱。\n20 法庭：关于她如何支付款项的问题\n21 是相关的，但至于她是否有其他类型的\n22 投资，我不同意其具有相关性，所以我们继续。\n23 （下页继续）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 （在公开法庭进行；陪审团在场）\n2 由 Shroff（施罗夫）女士进行质证：\n3 问：陈女士，在主询问中，你记得曾就\n4 你发送的关于 Hamilton Fund（汉密尔顿基金）的电子邮件作证，对吗？\n5 答：抱歉。我漏听了部分问题。你能重复一下吗？\n6 问：你在主询问中曾就你发给\n7 Fallon（法伦）先生的电子邮件作证，对吗？\n8 答：你的意思是我给法伦先生发了邮件，对吧，这是你的\n9 问题吗？你说我作证说我给法伦先生发过邮件？\n10 问：是的。\n11 答：是的，我给他发过邮件。\n12 问：你给他发了邮件，你丈夫也给他发了邮件，\n13 对吗？\n14 答：这么说吧，我们给法伦先生发了邮件。\n15 问：你在主询问中作证说，法伦先生没有回复，\n16 而是让你去找一位律师，对吗？\n17 答：我作证说，法伦先生没有回复，然后他的律师\n18 回复了。\n19 问：那位律师告诉你，你要求\n20 返还的资金被冻结了，对吗？\n21 Finkel（芬克尔）先生：反对，传闻证据。\n22 施罗夫女士：提出此项并非为了证明其内容的真实性。\n23 法庭：允许提问。\n24 答：问题是什么？\n25 问：他告诉你资金被冻结了，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：他告诉我我的钱被冻结了，是的。\n2 问：而你并不同意，对吧？\n3 答：对。\n4 问：而且你一直发邮件坚称资金没有被冻结，\n5 对吗？\n6 答：我做了解释。\n7 问：而他们不同意你的说法，对吗？\n8 答：他们说法一样，我的钱被冻结了。\n9 问：在给法伦先生及其\n10 律师发邮件的同时，你也在给 Department of Justice（司法部，DOJ）发邮件，\n11 对吗？\n12 答：我不觉得——当你说发邮件时，发邮件是什么意思？\n13 问：在 2023 年 5 月，你与 United States Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）取得了联系，对吧？\n14 答：我不这么认为。\n15 问：嗯，让我看看。你认为自己在 2023 年 5 月\n16 没有与美国联邦检察官办公室，也就是这些检察官取得联系？\n17\n18\n19\n20 答：我是按照司法部网站上的指引，上面有一个\n21 提交受害者信息的链接，所以我顺着该链接填写了信息。同时，上面有一个电子邮箱\n22 地址，我给他们发了邮件，告知他们我已填写完\n23 信息。此外，那张表格没有包含\n24 我持有的一项具体投资项目，因此我把\n25 该具体投资项目包含在我发送给\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 受害者邮箱的邮件中。\n2\n3 问：而芬克尔先生在司法部工作，对吧？\n4 答：其实我不知道。我猜是的。我不知道。\n5 问：你认为他在为谁工作？\n6 答：我不知道。\n7 问：你认为他在为郭先生工作吗？\n8 答：不是。\n9 问：那你认为他在为谁工作？\n10 答：他为政府工作。\n11 问：好的。那就是你在 2023 年 5 月\n12 发送邮件的那个电子邮箱地址，对吧？\n13 答：我发的是司法部网站上提供的一个邮箱。那是\n14 受害者邮箱，专门给受害者使用的。\n15 问：在那之后，你通过向\n16 FBI（联邦调查局）发送电子邮件进行了跟进，对吧？\n17 答：不，我没有。\n18 问：我们向你出示证据 3602-26。这能否唤起你的\n19 记忆，即在 2023 年 6 月，你与联邦调查局的 D. Marino（D·马里诺）见过面？\n20 芬克尔先生：反对。问题问的是 5 月，\n21 不是 6 月。\n22 施罗夫女士：我记错了一个月。\n23 问：6 月，2023 年 6 月，你与联邦调查局特工见过面吗？\n24 答：你是在问我的记忆，还是让我看这份\n25 文件？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 问：我在问。我只是问你是否与联邦调查局的\n2 D·马里诺先生见过面。你记得吗？\n3 答：联邦调查局有人联系了我，我和他们见了面。回答\n4 你的问题，我没有给联邦调查局发过邮件。我是把邮件发到了\n5 受害者邮箱，然后联邦调查局联系了我并安排了\n6 会面。\n7 问：在他联系你之后，你与该联邦调查局特工进行了多封往来邮件沟通，对吗？\n8\n9 答：我不知道你说的往来邮件是什么意思。\n10 问：你昨天给哪位联邦调查局人员发了邮件？\n11 答：你只是想知道名字吗？\n12 问：是的。\n13 答：我昨天发邮件，我昨天没给任何联邦调查局人员发过邮件。\n14 问：你上一次给联邦调查局特工发邮件是什么时候？\n15 答：不记得了。\n16 问：你昨天给联邦调查局特工发短信了吗？\n17 答：你刚才问我我的联邦调查局特工的名字，对吧？\n18 问：是的。\n19 答：你现在要我讲出名字吗？\n20 问：是的。\n21 答：是 Nick（尼克）。\n22 问：尼克什么，还是你就叫他尼克？\n23 答：我就叫他尼克。\n24 问：这就是你在 2023 年 6 月见过的同一个尼克吗？\n25 答：我见过尼克，但我不记得是什么时候见过的尼克。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 问：让我再次向你出示同一份文件 3602-26。该文件\n2 顶部能否唤起你的记忆，即你曾与\n3 尼克见过面？\n4 答：是的，我认为那是一个 Webex 记录来源。\n5 问：而从 2023 年 6 月起你一直与尼克保持着持续联系，对吗？\n6\n7 答：那是不对的。我没有持续联系他。我想\n8 我只见过他一次，之后很长一段时间\n9 我都没有他的消息。我不记得他是何时再次联系我的。\n10 问：那么，你记得在 2024 年 2 月\n11 初再次与他会面吗？\n12 答：所以你指的是在我于 6 月与尼克会面后，大约八\n13 个月后我们再次会面？\n14 问：是的，我在问你是否记得尼克从 2023 年 6 月\n15 至今一直是你的联络人？\n16 你可能不是每天都和他说话，但你在这整个期间\n17 都认识他，对吗？\n18 法庭：里面包含太多问题了。首先\n19 你问他是否是联络人。你为什么不先回答那个\n20 问题。\n21 答：是的，他是联络人。\n22 问：你自 2023 年 6 月起就与他有联系，对吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：在今年 2 月 4 日，你与他以及检察官进行了一次面谈，对吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：我不记得了。\n2 问：今年 2 月 27 日，对吗？\n3 答：我不记得了。\n4 问：今年 4 月 23 日，对吗？\n5 答：我不记得了。\n6 问：今年 5 月 6 日，对吗？\n7 答：我不记得了。\n8 问：今年 5 月 13 日，对吗？\n9 答：我不记得了。\n10 问：今年 6 月 3 日？\n11 答：我不记得了。\n12 问：今年 6 月 23 日？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：那昨天呢？\n15 答：昨天，你的意思是我是否与他们见过面？\n16 问：是的。\n17 答：就在开庭前简短见过，是的，嗯。\n18 问：但你昨天与芬克尔先生见了面，他向你出示了文件，对吧？\n19\n20 答：我说过我简短地见了他。\n21 问：在那次简短会面期间，他向你出示了文件，\n22 对吗？\n23 答：是的。\n24 问：并且你和他一起审阅了这些文件，对吧？\n25 答：我没有审阅文件。他向我出示了文件。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 仅此而已。\n2 问：然后他询问了你关于这些文件的问题，对吧？\n3 他不只是向你出示就完了。他实际上向你提了\n4 问题？\n5 答：是的，我想我们只谈了十分钟左右；所以，是的，\n6 问了几个问题。\n7 问：所以他向你询问了他向你出示的关于两份文件的问题，\n8 对吧？\n9 答：我不记得有多少份文件。\n10 问：然后他问了你问题，你也回答了，\n11 对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：他做了记录，对吧？\n14 答：我不这么认为。\n15 问：而且你就是在本大楼内与他见面的，对吧？\n16 答：昨天早上，是的。\n17 问：而在所有这些你与他见面的过程中，你\n18 从未向他提起过 Ivy Ivy（艾薇·艾薇），对吗？\n19 答：那是不对的。他从没问过我在 Discord（有言）上使用的\n20 昵称。\n21 问：你也从未告诉过他你活跃于 Discord，\n22 对吗？\n23 答：他没问我是否活跃。他没问我关于\n24 Discord 的事。他根本就没问我那个。\n25 问：所以他没有问你，你也没有告诉他，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 芬克尔先生：已问且已答。\n2 法庭：反对成立。\n3 问：你没有主动向他提及 Discord，对吗？\n4 法庭：反对成立。\n5 施罗夫女士：这是个不同的问题，法官阁下。\n6 法庭：反对成立。\n7 问：在你开始与政府交谈之后，你还在 Discord 上停留了多久？\n8\n9 芬克尔先生：关联性反对。\n10 法庭：你可以回答。\n11 答：我不记得了。\n12 问：你不记得自己直到今天都还在 Discord 上保持活跃吗？\n13\n14 答：我不知道我是否还在 Discord 上，因为我不——你\n15 知道的，Discord。我不知道。我不知道。说真的，我\n16 不知道。\n17 问：你作为访客在 Discord 上访问过多少个农场？\n18 答：我不知道。\n19 问：十个？\n20 答：我不知道。\n21 问：十五个？\n22 答：我不知道。我回答了。我已经回答了我不知道。\n23 法庭：反对成立。\n24 问：你是 Himalaya New York Rock（喜马拉雅纽约磐石）农场\n25 在 Discord 上的访客，对吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3\n1 答：我不记得了。\n2 问：那 Nuremberg Justice（纽伦堡正义）农场呢，你记得今年\n3 曾作为访客进入过该农场吗？\n4 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。\n5 答：今年我不这么认为。\n6 问：那去年呢？\n7 答：去年，我不记得了。我不这么认为。\n8 问：那 Himalaya Melbourne Affina（喜马拉雅墨尔本澳喜，原文如此）农场呢？\n9 答：你是说去年吗？\n10 问：一直到今天，你仍是该\n11 农场的访客，对吗？\n12 答：我不知道。\n13 问：那 Himalaya New Zealand（喜马拉雅新西兰）农场呢？\n14 答：我不知道。\n15 问：那 Himalaya 77 Engineer（喜马拉雅77工程）农场呢？\n16 答：我不知道。\n17 问：那 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）呢？\n18 答：我不知道。\n19 问：那 Rule of Law Society（法治社会）呢？\n20 答：我不知道。\n21 问：陈女士，可以这么说吗：如果芬克尔先生没有问\n22 你关于某个特定主题的问题，你就不会主动提及？\n23 答：所以。\n24 问：只要回答是或否就很好。\n25 答：你能重复一下那个问题吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 陈 - 再次主询问\n1 法庭：我准许回答。\n2 答：问题又是什么来着？\n3 问：你刚才作证说芬克尔先生没有问及\n4 你关于 Discord 的事，因此你没有讨论该主题，\n5 对吗？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：是否存在其他他根本没有问及、\n8 而你没有就本案相关事宜主动提供的其他主题？\n9 法庭：反对成立。\n10 问：你是否向他讲述了你丈夫在所有\n11 这些互动中所起的作用？\n12 答：我不记得了。\n13 问：而你的丈夫从未与芬克尔先生交谈过，对吗？\n14 答：对的。\n15 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，我没有其他问题了。\n16 法庭：再次主询问。\n17 再次主询问\n18 由芬克尔先生进行：\n19 问：陈女士，你大约与我进行了多少次\n20 会面？\n21 答：我猜六到八次，在六到八次之间。\n22 问：那么这些会面——其中有多少次是\n23 在线或亲自出席的？\n24 答：我想我们有两次亲自会面，其余都是在线进行的。\n25 问：在那些会面期间，我们谈论过 Harry Potter（哈利·波特）吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 陈 - 再次主询问\n1 答：没有。\n2 问：我们谈论过 New York Jets（纽约喷气机队）吗？\n3 答：没有。\n4 问：我们讨论的信息总体主题是什么？\n5 答：芬克尔先生提问，我提供回答。\n6 问：我向你提问的信息总体主题是什么？\n7\n8 答：与投资相关。\n9 问：施罗夫女士向你询问了一些关于你可能在 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）上\n10 进行过的交易的问题。你记得那些\n11 问题吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：你能否从喜马拉雅交易所\n14 提取出任何真正的钱？\n15 施罗夫女士：反对关于何为真正的钱。\n16 法庭：请你界定一下你认为什么是\n17 真正的钱。\n18 问：你能否从喜马拉雅交易所\n19 提取出任何美国货币、美元？\n20 施罗夫女士：自何时算起。\n21 问：曾经提取出过吗？\n22 答：没有。\n23 问：那么英镑呢，英国英镑，你能否\n24 提取出任何英镑？\n25 答：没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 问：瑞士法郎呢？\n2 答：没有。\n3 问：你是否曾从喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）提取过任何法定货币？\n4\n5 答：没有。\n6 问：所以那些交易你没有从中赚取任何实际的金钱，\n7 对吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：我们能否调出第 10 页的 VK-5。\n10 陈女士（Ms. Chen），你是否记得在交叉询问中被\n11 施罗夫女士（Ms. Shroff）问及关于这一页的问题？\n12 答：记得。\n13 问：你看到写着募集资金用途的地方了吗？\n14 答：看到了。\n15 问：在募集资金用途下面，是否写着向海曼资本（Hayman Capital）\n16 投资 1 亿美元？\n17 施罗夫女士：法官阁下（Your Honor），我反对。我认为\n18 政府方明知文件本身不言自明。\n19 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。\n20 答：没有，我没看到。\n21 问：在审阅这份文件、并在网上观看了郭文贵（Miles Guo）的视频之后——\n22\n23 施罗夫女士：反对诱导性发问。\n24 法庭：我还没听到问题。\n25 问：在考虑了这份文件中的信息以及\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 郭文贵网上的视频之后，你当时理解你对 GTV 的投资\n2 将用于什么？\n3 答：会按照本图表中对募集资金用途的说明\n4 来使用。\n5 问：如果你当时知道你汇给郭文贵、\n6 汇给 Saraca 的钱，会被用于以他儿子的名义向一家对冲基金投资 1 亿美元，\n7 你还会汇出你那笔约\n8 200,000 美元的投资款吗？\n9 答：不会。\n10 施罗夫女士：反对。这超出了范围，而且\n11 属于重复发问。\n12 法庭：反对无效。\n13 答：不会。\n14 问：洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），我想我们可以回到第二页。不好意思，\n15 第一页，第三页。\n16 你看到下方写着联系方式的信息了吗？\n17\n18 答：看到了。\n19 问：底部有一个 Whatsapp 短信号码？\n20 答：是的。\n21 问：然后有一个地址是东 164 街 162 号（162 East 164th Street）？\n22 答：是的。\n23 问：你曾去过本文件上注明的那些办公室吗？\n24\n25 答：没有。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 问：我们可以撤下那个。我们能否向证人出示\n2 标记为供识别用的 VB-36。\n3 陈女士，你认得这个吗？\n4 答：认得。\n5 问：这是什么？\n6 答：这就是我之前说过的 Whatsapp 聊天记录，郭文贵\n7 把包括电汇指引在内的 GTV 投资信息\n8 发给我丈夫。\n9 芬克尔先生（Mr. Finkel）：政府方提呈 VB-36。\n10 施罗夫女士：无异议。\n11 法庭：好的。准予采纳。\n12 （政府方证据 VB-36 获采纳为证据）\n13 由芬克尔先生继续询问：\n14 问：请把那个展示出来。\n15 陈女士，这是一份 Whatsapp 聊天记录吗？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：你和你丈夫就是用这个聊天与郭文贵\n18 沟通关于 GTV 投资的事宜吗？\n19 答：是的。\n20 问：你们是用什么语言与郭文贵沟通的？\n21 答：普通话。\n22 问：你可以把那个撤下了。\n23 你是否记得施罗夫女士曾问过你一些关于系数（co-efficient）的问题，\n24 也就是你必须将之前的投资额乘以该系数，以确定你通过 MOS 农场（MOS farm）\n25 有权获得多少\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 喜币（H Coin）。你还记得关于这方面的询问吗？\n2\n3 答：记得。\n4 问：今天坐在这里，据你理解（如果有的话），为什么试图计算\n5 欠你的喜币金额会如此复杂？\n6\n7 答：这是故意的。\n8 问：今天坐在这里，你为什么会这样认为？\n9 答：这样你就永远无法准确计算出每个人有权获得的喜币数量。\n10\n11 问：陈女士，在你填写那份表格时，\n12 你对所谓的系数到底是什么有何理解？\n13 答：我根本不知道它是什么。\n14 问：我们能否调出已采纳为证据的 VB-16。\n15 你是否记得施罗夫女士曾就这份文件\n16 问过你问题？\n17 答：记得。\n18 问：请读一下以“我购买了”开头的第二段。\n19\n20 答：“我购买了 G/Club 会员资格，因为该项目被标为带有股票和股份的投资。然而，我从未收到\n21 任何股票或股份，也未收到任何会员权益。\n22 因此，我认为这是一场投资欺诈。我发送\n23 本取消通知以要求退款。”\n24 问：陈女士，你拿到退款了吗？\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 答：没有。\n2 问：你现在仍然认为那是一场投资欺诈吗？\n3 答：是的。\n4 问：我们可以把那个撤下了。\n5 陈女士，有人问过你关于你在 Discord 上与 Octopus\n6 以及另一个人聊天的提问；对吗？\n7 你记得被问过那些问题吗？\n8 答：记得。\n9 问：那些聊天记录是在 2021 年；对吗？\n10 答：是的。\n11 问：施罗夫女士当时问你关于 2021 年 12 月的一段聊天中\n12 使用的具体字眼；对吗？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：今天坐在这里，你还记得两年半前在聊天中\n15 使用的具体字眼吗？\n16 答：不记得。\n17 问：我们能否调出已采纳为证据的 VB-31。\n18 你是否记得有人问过你关于你的投资时间\n19 以及你在郭文贵投资项目中的投资问题？\n20\n21 答：记得。\n22 问：陈女士，你认得这份文件吗？\n23 答：认得。\n24 问：这份文件是谁制作的？\n25 答：是我制作的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 问：这份文件反映了什么？\n2 答：这反映了我给这个骗局的所有钱。\n3 问：所以第一栏反映了你汇款给的各个实体\n4 或项目；对吗？\n5 答：是的。\n6 问：第二栏反映了什么？\n7 答：反映了我给每个诈骗项目\n8 支付的金额。\n9 问：陈女士，今天坐在这里，回顾你汇给\n10 这些不同投资项目的钱，你对自己的决定、对你当年做出的投资决定感觉如何？\n11\n12 答：我感到非常后悔。我责怪自己，为什么我当时那么\n13 愚蠢，被洗脑并信任了一个骗子，把所有的钱\n14 都汇给了所有不同的实体，而这些全是诈骗计划的一部分。\n15\n16 问：陈女士，今天坐在这里，你对损失的钱\n17 也感到愤怒吗？\n18 答：心里很难受。这极其痛苦，我不知道\n19 该如何形容这种感觉。伤害太大了。\n20 问：陈女士，你刚才说你觉得自己被洗脑了，\n21 你认为在你身上发生的哪些事情导致你被郭文贵洗脑？\n22\n23 施罗夫女士：反对发问形式。\n24 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。\n25 答：我认为是那种信息传递，一直在你的脑海中不断重复和\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再直接询问\n1 强调，让你相信它是真的，并让你毫无疑问地相信它是真的。\n2 我不知道这是怎么发生的，\n3 但不幸的是它发生在我身上了。那种信息在不断重复。在不断强调。在灌输进\n4 我的脑海，让我相信每一件事，让我当年\n5 表现得像个白痴。\n6\n7 问：陈女士，当你作为郭文贵的追随者时，\n8 你大约观看了多少关于郭文贵的视频、\n9 广播或文章？\n10 答：我不记得了。\n11 问：大约？\n12 答：大约数百个。\n13 问：你和你丈夫也一起看了视频？\n14 答：是的。\n15 问：你丈夫也讨论了郭文贵？\n16 答：是的。\n17 问：并讨论了这些投资？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：你们两人是一起做出投资这些项目的决定的？\n20\n21 答：是的。\n22 问：今天你还会做出同样的决定吗？\n23 答：我今天还会做出同样的决定吗？\n24 问：今天坐在这里，基于你所知道的一切，你今天还会做出\n25 投资这些项目的同样决定吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再交叉询问\n1 答：绝不会。\n2 问：为什么不会？\n3 答：因为这是欺诈。郭文贵设计、创建和推广的一切项目，\n4 每一个项目，包括这里的所有实体，\n5 都是欺诈。\n6 芬克尔先生：我没有其他问题了。谢谢你，\n7 陈女士。\n8 法庭：再交叉询问。\n9 交叉询问\n10 由施罗夫女士进行：\n11 问：陈女士，盖特（Gettr）是什么？\n12 芬克尔先生：反对，超出范围。\n13 施罗夫女士：她说这一切都是一个大骗局。\n14 法庭：我准许提问。继续。\n15 问：盖特是什么？\n16 答：她做出了一句我没说过的陈述。我说的是\n17 所有的项目。\n18 施罗夫女士：法官阁下，这是向证人提出的问题。\n19\n20 法庭：你可以回答这个问题。什么是\n21 盖特。\n22 答：我的理解它是一个社交媒体平台。\n23 问：而且它今天也是一个社交媒体平台，对吗？\n24 芬克尔先生：超出范围。\n25 法庭：反对无效。你可以回答。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再交叉询问\n1 芬克尔先生：而且好像有回音反馈。我不知道\n2 那是谁的麦克风。\n3 答：我想是的。\n4 问：G Fashion 呢，什么是 G Fashion？\n5 法庭：反对成立。\n6 施罗夫女士：她说一切都是欺诈。\n7 答：我没有那样说。我说的是我汇给那些的所有钱。\n8 这就是我所说的，我没有那样说。\n9 法庭：反对成立。\n10 问：G Fashion 是你通过 G/Club 拥有的一项使用权限，\n11 对吗？\n12 法庭：反对成立。\n13 问：我们来看看 VB-36。你被出示过这个视频，对吗，\n14 陈女士？\n15 答：是的。\n16 问：芬克尔先生问了你用什么语言与\n17 郭先生沟通，对吗？\n18 答：是的。\n19 问：郭先生的英语讲得很糟糕，对吗？\n20 答：我不知道。\n21 问：你从未与郭先生进行过交谈，对吗？\n22 芬克尔先生：反对。\n23 法庭：问题是她是否曾与郭先生进行过\n24 交谈。你可以回答。\n25 答：你说交谈的时候，你的意思是我是否曾与他\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再交叉询问\n1 说过话吗？\n2 问：那就是交谈，与某人说话。\n3 答：我曾和他一起开过会。\n4 问：我的问题是你是否曾与郭先生\n5 进行过交谈？\n6 答：没有。答案是没有。\n7 问：有人问过你关于系数的问题，对吗？\n8 你可以把那个撤下了。豪尔赫（Jorge）。谢谢。\n9 而且你告诉芬克尔先生和本陪审团，你认为\n10 所使用的公式是故意弄得复杂，以便没有人\n11 能够计算出他们的金额。你是这么说的，对吧？\n12 答：我不是这么说的。\n13 问：好吧，你告诉我你是怎么说的。\n14 答：我说喜币配额的计算是基于投资额的，\n15 并且伴随投资有一个系数。\n16 外面有那么多不同的投资项目。其中一些仍未——要么是公平基金分配（fair fund distribution）\n17 的一部分，要么出于其他一些原因，\n18 根本无法计算所有已确认投资的真实权益，\n19 以便计算出已确认的喜币\n20 分配额。\n21 问：你刚才在直接询问中难道没说你认为它是故意\n22 搞复杂以便没人能算出来吗？这难道不是你刚才说的吗？\n23\n24 答：正如我所说的，是的，我就是那么说的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 问：好的。那我们这样来试试。你知道各农场有审计委员会，对吧？\n2 芬克尔律师（MR. FINKEL）：超出范围异议。\n3 施罗夫律师（MS. SHROFF）：这是芬克尔律师提出之系数问题的一部分。\n4 法庭：请继续。\n5 问：进行过审计，对吗？\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：有审计委员会，对吗？\n8 答：我不知道你指的审计委员会是什么意思。我知道有审计。\n9 问：你难道不是审计委员会的成员吗？\n10 答：不是。\n11 问：你没有对喜币（H Coin）是否得到适当分配进行核对和审计吗？\n12 芬克尔律师：重复提问（Asked and answered）。\n13 法庭：异议成立。\n14 问：如水（Ru Shui）是审计委员会的成员，对吗？\n15 芬克尔律师：超出范围。\n16 答：我不知道如水是否属于审计人员，那我解释一下我的职责。我的职责是核实MOS农场（MOS farm）成员的喜币计算是否正确。而且根据我的义工经验，我认为计算喜币配额的设计太复杂了，在设计上是有意弄得复杂，以至于永远无法正确计算或\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 确认喜币。\n2 问：但你在做这项评估时，进行了计算，对吗？\n3 答：我说过我重新核实了它，但是——\n4 问：要重新核实某件事，你必须进行计算，对吗？\n5 答：对。\n6 问：而你是作为义工做这件事的，对吗？\n7 芬克尔律师：法官大人，请让施罗夫律师允许证人回答问题，只管提出问题并让她回答，而不是只管打断。\n8 法庭：请继续回答。\n9 问：你是作为义工做的，对吗，是还是不是？\n10 答：你的问题是什么？\n11 问：你是作为义工进行核实的，对吗，你是作为义工承担了核实流程，对吗？\n12 答：那是不正确的，因为我核实了喜币，但是喜币核实是永无止境的，因为还有资金在外面尚未退还给郭文贵（Miles Guo）；因此，尽管我核实了该范围内的币，到我不再做义工的时候，那个币并不是每个人有权获得的最终币额。\n13 问：那不是我的问题，不过好吧。\n14 我问你的是，你参与了核实流程，对吗？这是一个简单的问题。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 芬克尔律师：重复提问。\n2 法庭：异议成立。\n3 问：如水是该流程的一部分，对吗？\n4 法庭：异议成立。\n5 问：飞飞（Fay Fay）是该流程的一部分，对吗？\n6 芬克尔律师：超出范围。\n7 施罗夫律师：和你开启的范围一样。\n8 问：飞飞是该流程的一部分，对吗？\n9 芬克尔律师：我不认为我开启了那个范围。\n10 法庭：没有开启到这方面。\n11 问：小萨拉（Little Sarah）是该流程的一部分，对吗？\n12 法庭：异议成立。\n13 问：当芬克尔律师问你使用了什么系数时，你说，我引述原话，“完全不知道”。那是你在再询问中的回答，对吧？那是你的回应。你记得吗？\n14 芬克尔律师：歪曲证词。\n15 施罗夫律师：我不这么认为。\n16 法庭：我允许你回答。请讲。\n17 问：你说你完全不知道，对吗？\n18 答：我完全不知道为什么会这样设计。我认为它过于复杂了。\n19 问：你在为他们做义工的整个期间，从来没有告诉过任何人这一点，对吧？\n20 你一次也没有说过，这太复杂了，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 重新设计一下吧，对吗？\n2 芬克尔律师：关联性异议。\n3 法庭：异议成立。\n4 问：你是否曾向香草山农场（Mountain of Spice farm）的任何人表达过你现在对陪审团所说的话？\n5 法庭：异议成立。\n6 问：让我向你出示证据 VB-16。你看到了吗，芬克尔律师问过你关于这份文件的问题？\n7 答：是的。\n8 问：左边是你和你丈夫的共同电子邮件地址，对吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：在旁边的位置给出的日期是5月14日，对吗？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：2023年，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：这封电子邮件是你写的，对吗？\n15 答：这封电子邮件是我们写的。\n16 问：对。你写它是因为你想要要回你的钱，对吗？\n17 答：我们写这封电子邮件是为了要回我的钱，请求退款。\n18 问：如果你当时写的是：我购买了G/Club会员资格，而我只是改变了主意，你将永远拿不回你的钱，对吧？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 芬克尔律师：要求推测，无关联性。\n2 法庭：异议成立。\n3 问：你起草这个是因为你认为这是你拿回钱的最佳机会，对吧？\n4 答：我起草这个是因为我想要回我的钱。\n5 问：没错。而且你认为这种措辞会有助于你要回钱？\n6 芬克尔律师：反对。\n7 法庭：你可以回答。\n8 答：我用这种措辞是因为我相信那是真的。我购买了GTV股份，而G/Club会员资格是免费赠送的，所以我在这里说的只是事实。它是作为GTV股份投资进行推销的。我一无所得，所以我需要要回我的钱，因为我的钱进了所谓的G/Club账户。\n9 问：不，它是被汇到了G/Club会员账户，对吗？\n10 芬克尔律师：这是争辩性提问。\n11 法庭：异议成立。\n12 问：这封电子邮件中哪里写了G/Club将是免费的？\n13 答：你的问题是什么？\n14 问：在这封电子邮件中，你哪里看到G/Club本应是免费的？我们为你向下滚动页面。\n15 你在里面的任何地方看到“免费”这个词了吗？我换个问题。我们看下一份文件。\n16 芬克尔律师：我反对。这歪曲了证言。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 施罗夫律师：文件本身能说明一切。\n2 问：该电子邮件的日期是2023年5月？\n3 芬克尔律师：重复提问。\n4 法庭：异议成立。\n5 问：郭先生是什么时候被捕的？\n6 答：2023年3月。\n7 问：而你是在他被捕之后发送此信的，对吗？\n8 芬克尔律师：反对，法庭已有裁决。\n9 法庭：异议驳回。\n10 问：你是在他被捕后发送的，对吧？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：我们看证据 GXVB-31。你谈到过汇总表，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：芬克尔律师和你一起过了一遍这个？\n15 答：这是我自己整理的表格。没有人跟我一起过一遍。\n16 问：你在他办公室见他时，从未和他讨论过这张表格吗？\n17 答：没有必要讨论表格。它只是付款的大纲。\n18 问：我没有问你是否讨论过。\n19 答：我没讨论。我没讨论。\n20 问：而且你把这份文件发给了他，对吗？\n21 答：是的。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 问：而且你把它发给了你在联邦调查局（FBI）的朋友尼克（Nick），对吗？\n2 芬克尔律师：反对。\n3 问：你把它发给了联邦调查局特工？\n4 法庭：异议成立。没有证据表明他们是朋友。\n5 问：你认为他是朋友吗？你认为他是你的朋友吗？\n6 答：不，他不是我认识的人。\n7 问：但你不认为他是朋友？\n8 芬克尔律师：重复提问。\n9 法庭：异议成立。\n10 问：我们来看这份由你制作的文件。这是你制作的，对吧？\n11 答：是的。\n12 问：而且你制作了——你放了所有这些信息，对吧？\n13 答：是的。\n14 问：你最初把这份文件发给谁了？\n15 答：这份文件我想首先我发给了——我不记得我把这份文件发给谁了。我想我发给尼克了，我想是的，嗯哼。\n16 问：芬克尔律师还曾问你，你是否曾能够要回你的喜币投资款或将其赎回换成英镑或日元。你记得那个问题吗？\n17 答：是的。\n18 问：你第一次尝试这样做是在5月\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1 2023年，对吗？\n2 芬克尔律师：关联性异议。\n3 法庭：你可以回答。\n4 答：你是指赎回吗？\n5 问：对。\n6 答：是的。\n7 问：是在郭先生被捕之后，对吗？\n8 答：是的。\n9 问：是在他被起诉之后，对吗？\n10 答：是在我意识到这是诈骗之后，因为我读了起诉书（indictment）文件。他正在用我的钱来支付他的奢侈品。\n11 问：是在你在起诉书中读到之后，对吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：而起诉书不过是一张指控某人的纸，对吧？\n14 芬克尔律师：反对。\n15 法庭：异议成立。不要向她索取法律结论。\n16 施罗夫律师：法官大人，我是在问她的理解。\n17 芬克尔律师：我的理解是异议已成立。\n18 法庭：异议成立。\n19 施罗夫律师：我没有其他问题了。\n20 芬克尔律师：没有其他问题了。谢谢你，陈女士。\n21 法庭：谢谢。你可以退庭了。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6RBGUO3 Chen - 再次再反诘问\n1\n2 （证人退庭）\n3 法庭：请双方到法台前。\n4 （续见下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 （在法台前）\n2 法庭：还有其他证人吗？\n3 芬克尔律师：有的。\n4 法庭：我只是想提醒你，在你的案件辩论结束之前，你需要处理吉尼（Geaney）一事。\n5 芬克尔律师：我们现在就处理吗？\n6 法庭：你们现在可以处理，是的。\n7 霍顿律师（MR. HORTON）：我只是想提出一个选择，即在陪审团离席后再处理，这样我们就不会占用陪审团的时间。\n8 法庭：好的。可以。\n9 （续见下页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 （在公开法庭上）\n2 法庭：政府方可以传唤下一位证人。\n3 弗根森律师（MR. FERGENSON）：政府方传唤杰西卡·沃尔奇科（Jessica Volchko）。\n4 （证人宣誓）\n5 法庭：请说出你的姓名并拼写。\n6 证人：杰西卡·沃尔奇科（Jessica Volchko）。J-E-S-S-I-C-A，V-O-L-C-H-K-O。\n7 法庭：请对着麦克风说话，以便能听清你的声音。\n8 另外，当麦克风向上倾斜朝向天花板时，就会产生啸叫声，所以请不要那样做。\n9 请开始。你可以发问了。\n10 弗根森律师：谢谢，法官大人。\n11 杰西卡·沃尔奇科（JESSICA VOLCHKO），\n12 由政府方传唤作证，\n13 经正式宣誓后，作证如下：\n14 主询问\n15 弗根森律师发问：\n16 问：下午好，沃尔奇科女士。\n17 答：下午好。\n18 问：你在哪里工作？\n19 答：我为联邦调查局（Federal Bureau of Investigation，即 FBI）工作。\n20 问：你在联邦调查局的哪个部门工作？\n21 答：我为计算机分析响应小组（Computer Analysis Response Team，即 CART）工作。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1\n2 问：什么是 CART？\n3 答：CART 负责电子数据的收集、保存和分析。\n4 问：你在 CART 的职务是什么？\n5 答：数字取证检验员。\n6 问：作为 CART 的数字取证检验员，你的部分职责是什么？\n7 答：接收电子数据——如硬盘、手机、笔记本电脑等物品——并从这些设备中提取数据，然后处理和分析这些数据。\n8 问：你说从设备中提取数据时，是什么意思？\n9 答：意思是我们可以收集电子数据中的所有用户生成文件或所有文件，然后处理该副本。它是原始物品的精确副本。\n10 问：什么是 1B 编号？\n11 答：那是分配给物证项的编号，因此案件的每个物证项都有一个唯一的 1B 编号。\n12 问：你在 CART 通常处理的物证项有哪些例子？\n13 答：部分电子数据物证项可能是手机、笔记本电脑、硬盘、SD卡。\n14 问：沃尔奇科女士，如果你把麦克风向你的嘴部倾斜，或者对准你的嘴部，也许会有助于\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 反馈。\n2 那么，Volchko 女士，除了出庭作证外，如果你在\n3 本案中有任何参与，你参与了什么？\n4 答：只是行政层面的角色，与办案\n5 特工就他们要求审查的物品\n6 以及我们需要出具结果的某些时间表、截止日期\n7 进行沟通。\n8 问：在 2023年3月15日，如果你做过什么事的话，你做了什么？\n9 答：我协助在 Mahwah（马哈瓦）执行搜查令时\n10 收集了数字证据。\n11 问：那是在哪个州？\n12 答：New Jersey（新泽西州）。\n13 问：Volchko 女士，你是否记得，或者哪怕只是大致\n14 记得本案中大约查扣了\n15 多少台设备？\n16 答：我大概会说几百台吧。\n17 FERGENSON 先生：好的。法官阁下，此时——抱歉\n18 刚才有啸叫反馈。此时我们将提出一份双方当事人之间的\n19 约定事项。即政府方证据约定事项 17（Government Exhibit Stip 17）。还有\n20 Loftus 女士——我假定没有异议。\n21 KAMARAJU 先生：没有。可以。\n22 FERGENSON 先生：好的。法官阁下，它被采纳为\n23 证据了吗？\n24 法庭：予以采纳。\n25 （政府方证据约定事项 17 已被采纳为证据）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭记录公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 FERGENSON 先生：谢谢。\n2 Loftus 女士，如果我们可以把那份出示一下。\n3 好的。那我先宣读一下该约定事项的引言部分。\n4 上面写道，兹特约定，在下表中，A 列下列出的\n5 证据——Loftus 女士，我们是否能稍微往下拉一点。\n6 好了。\n7 在下表中，A 列下列出的证据\n8 为电子设备和/或电子设备真实且准确的\n9 照片。\n10 B 列列出了 A 列中指明的每台\n11 电子设备的描述。\n12 C 列列出了 A 列下列出的每台电子设备\n13 被提取或获取的地点。\n14 然后在下表中，D 列下列出的\n15 证据为从 B 列所描述的电子设备中\n16 提取的数据的真实且准确的副本。\n17 而且我认为，法官阁下，仅作为参考——我现在\n18 不需要调出来并宣读——双方当事人之间还有另一份\n19 已采纳为证据的约定事项。那是\n20 政府方证据约定事项 21（GX Stip 21），涉及我即将\n21 提出的一些证据，并且它附有翻译件。\n22 因此，依据这些约定事项，政府方\n23 拟提出以下证据：政府方证据\n24 1B15D、G、G-T 和 I；1B16C；1B18A、A1、A2；1B69B 和 B-T、\n25 B-1 至 B-18 及其对应的 T 系列；1B70A 和 A-1；\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 1B71A-1 至 A-6；以及 1B71E、F、G、H 和 I；1B89；1B89J，以及 J-1\n2 和 J-2；1B91C-38；1B91B-26、-27、-31 至 -33；1B92B-13；\n3 1B121；1B121A-M；1B124、1B124A、C、E、F、G、H、M 和 R；1B125、\n4 1B125A，以及 1B125F 至 1B125S；1B185M；1B204-13、-47、-48；\n5 1B227A、B 和 F；1B255C 和 D；最后是 1B272B。就\n6 这些。\n7 KAMARAJU 先生：法官阁下，依据双方当事人的\n8 约定事项，无异议。\n9 法庭：予以采纳。\n10 （政府方证据 1B15D、G、G-T、I；1B16C、1B18A、\n11 A1、A2；1B69B 和 B-T、B-1 至 B-18 及其\n12 对应的 T 系列；1B70A 和 A-1；1B71A-1 至 A-6；以及 1B71E、F、\n13 G、H 和 I；1B89；1B89J，以及 J-1 和 J-2；1B91C-38；1B91B-26、\n14 -27、-31 至 -33；1B92B-13 已被采纳为证据）\n15 （政府方证据 1B121；1B121A-M；1B124、1B124A、\n16 C、E、F、G、H、M 和 R；1B125、1B125A，以及 1B125F 至\n17 1B125S；1B185M；1B204-13、-47、-48；1B227A、B 和 F；1B255C\n18 和 D；以及 1B272B 已被采纳为证据）\n19 FERGENSON 先生：好的。实际上，Loftus 女士，为了\n20 开始，我们能否先回到约定事项 17。\n21 还有法官阁下，我可以走上前去给证人\n22 一份约定事项的副本吗？\n23 法庭：可以。\n24 FERGENSON 先生：谢谢。\n25 好的。Loftus 女士，我们能否翻到——噢，谢谢，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 第 4 页。我们能否放大第 4 行。\n2 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n3 问：好的。现在，Volchko 女士，看这份约定事项，\n4 1B71 是什么类型的设备？\n5 答：一台白色的 iPhone XR。\n6 问：上面提到了一个 IMEI。你能否简要解释一下\n7 什么是 IMEI。\n8 答：IMEI 有点类似于序列号。它是\n9 分配给手机的唯一编号。\n10 问：这台白色 iPhone 是从哪里提取的？\n11 答：它是从 Wang（王）公寓壁橱里的\n12 一个包内提取的。\n13 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，如果可以的话，\n14 我们来看，在左侧显示 1B71I。\n15 我们能否在右侧放上政府方证据 GC276 的第 2 页。\n16 Loftus 女士，你能否放大中间那封\n17 来自 Max K 的电子邮件。你能把它放在右侧吗。\n18 问：Volchko 女士，看左边，那辆车是什么颜色的？\n19 答：是红色的。\n20 问：你知道型号吗？\n21 答：我不确定。\n22 问：那些车门是横向开启还是纵向开启？\n23 答：看起来是上下方向，纵向开启。\n24 问：Volchko 女士，看着你手上的约定事项，\n25 在左边，这是来自 1B71，也就是王公寓的那台手机的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 证据之一吗？\n2 答：是的，根据约定事项。\n3 FERGENSON 先生：好的。现在我们看\n4 左边，请问我们能否在左边实际再次调出约定事项 17。\n5 能否翻到第 4 页并放大第 5 行。\n6 问：好的。现在 1B89 是什么设备？\n7 答：1B89 是一台红色的 iPhone 11。\n8 问：那是从谁那里提取的？\n9 答：地点是 Alex H，依据是 2023年3月15日\n10 执行的一份搜查令。\n11 FERGENSON 先生：我们现在能否在左边换上\n12 政府方证据 1B89J-2。\n13 问：好的。Volchko 女士，这是一段来自我们刚才看的\n14 从 Alex H 处提取的手机的录音吗？\n15 答：是的，根据约定事项。\n16 FERGENSON 先生：请问能播放一下这段录音吗。\n17 （播放音频）\n18 问：好的。Volchko 女士，我想回到 1B71。我们\n19 不需要把它调出来。但如果可以的话，你能否提醒一下\n20 我们，手机 1B71 是从哪里提取的。\n21 答：1B71 是从王公寓壁橱里的\n22 一个包内提取的。\n23 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，让我们出示四份\n24 证据。是 1B71E、F、G 和 H。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 问：Volchko 女士，请关注右上角，你能读一下\n2 那张传单上写了什么吗。\n3 答：“GTV INVESTORS PROTEST SEC's COLLABORATION WITH CCP（GTV 投资者抗议 SEC 与中共勾结）。”\n4 FERGENSON 先生：好的。我们可以撤下来了。\n5 Loftus 女士，我们能否快速调出约定事项 17。\n6 我们能否翻到第 2 页。倒数\n7 第三行，我们能否放大那一行。\n8 问：Volchko 女士，1B124 是什么类型的设备？\n9 答：一台白色的 iPhone。\n10 问：那台白色 iPhone 是从哪里提取的？\n11 答：Sherry 公寓（在一个包内）。\n12 问：它右侧的那些证据，是从那台手机中\n13 提取出来的物品，对吗？\n14 答：对。\n15 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，我们来看\n16 政府方证据 1B124。\n17 问：Volchko 女士，让我先问你，这是\n18 什么类型的报告？\n19 答：这是一份 iPhone 的初步设备报告。\n20 问：初步设备报告上有什么样\n21 的信息？\n22 答：与该设备关联的识别标识，它会是\n23 型号、序列号、电话号码。\n24 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否翻到第 2 页。\n25 问：Volchko 女士，请将注意力转向写着“用户\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 账户（User Accounts）”的地方。像这样的报告中，该部分\n2 包含什么类型的信息？\n3 答：那些是从手机中提取的用户账户，\n4 所以它可能来自手机上用户登录过的\n5 不同应用程序。\n6 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能否放大\n7 第 10 行。\n8 问：请问你能读一下第 10 行的内容吗。\n9 答：第 10 行是与 Chrome 关联的用户账户。有一个\n10 电子邮件，guomiles@guo.media。\n11 问：然后它右边的网址是什么？\n12 答：Http\n13 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否稍微向下滚动，\n14 到第 16 行。\n15 问：好的。请问你能读一下第 16 行的内容吗。\n16 答：第 16 行是与 Chrome 关联的用户账户，\n17 电子邮件为 wenguiguo@gmail.com。\n18 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否看第 21 行。往下\n19 滚动即可。\n20 问：Volchko 女士，请关注这些行的右侧，\n21 你看到上面写着 gettr.com 吗？\n22 答：看到了。\n23 问：然后它左边写着什么？\n24 答：Miles。\n25 问：然后请看第 24 行写着 Threema 的地方，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 右边的名字是什么？\n2 答：Miles Guo。\n3 问：你知道 Threema 是什么吗？\n4 答：它是一款即时通讯应用程序。\n5 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否向下滚动。\n6 问：还有 29，在写着 WhatsApp Business 的地方，名字是什么？\n7 答：Miles Guo。\n8 FERGENSON 先生：我们能否缩小并返回\n9 第 1 页。\n10 我们能否放大“设备名称（Device Name）”。\n11 法官阁下，我可以稍等片刻吗？\n12 法庭：可以。\n13 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，你可以放大\n14 那个——很好。\n15 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n16 问：关注写着设备名称的地方，设备\n17 名称是什么？\n18 答：Boss，后面括号里带个 2。\n19 问：好的。现在我们来看这台手机里的一些内容。我们看 1B124A。\n20 Volchko 女士，你能读一下中间的\n21 标牌上写了什么吗。\n22 答：“SEC AND DOJ ARE KILLERS（SEC 和司法部是杀手）。”\n23 问：我们看 1B124G。你能读一下左下角被举起的\n24 标牌上列出的名字吗。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 答：Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）。\n2 问：我们看 1B124F。\n3 Volchko 女士，你能读一下左上角的文字吗。\n4 答：“Isabelle Despins and Daniel Copeland wedding 2022.10.15（Isabelle Despins 与 Daniel Copeland 婚礼 2022年10月15日）。”\n5 问：这张照片是在我们刚才看的那台 Boss 手机\n6 里，对吧？\n7 KAMARAJU 先生：法官阁下，该问题已经问过并作答了。\n8 法庭：异议成立。\n9 问：Volchko 女士，你知道 Isabelle Despins 是谁吗？\n10 答：我不知道。\n11 问：你知道 Daniel Copeland 是谁吗？\n12 答：我不知道。\n13 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能否放大这张照片\n14 的，你知道，右半部分。\n15 问：Volchko 女士，中间穿白衬衫的男士，\n16 你知道他是谁吗？\n17 答：我不知道。\n18 问：左边被红圈圈出的年轻女子，你知道\n19 她是谁吗？\n20 答：我不知道。\n21 问：右边被红圈圈出的两名年轻女子，\n22 你知道她们是谁吗？\n23 答：我不知道。\n24 问：你知道是谁在这张婚礼照片上\n25 用红圈圈出她们的吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - 主询问\n1 答：我不知道。\n2 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能否在左边\n3 调出同一张照片 1B124F，然后在右边调出\n4 1B124R。\n5 Loftus 女士，如果你能放大右边的图片，\n6 就是我们刚才看的那张，聚焦在那位穿白衬衫的\n7 男士的脸上。\n8 由 FERGENSON 先生继续询问：\n9 问：Volchko 女士，请将注意力转向左边，你能\n10 读出顶部中间写了什么吗。在左边。\n11 答：在左边？\n12 问：是的，请读。\n13 答：“致所有来自 Luc Despins、Paul Hastings 及\n14 O'Melveny（美迈斯律师事务所）的受害者。如果他们代理过您的法律案件并对您\n15 进行过敲诈、勒索或诈骗。NFSC（新中国联邦）战友\n16 将出资 1000 万（最低）奖励那些能够\n17 向我们提供关于他们的以下证据的人：\n18 “犯罪活动。\n19 “非法银行账户。\n20 “非法收入。\n21 “扫码联系我们。”\n22 问：然后仍看左边，有一名男子的\n23 照片。你能读一下该照片下方的文字吗。\n24 答：“Luc A. Despins, Partner of Paul Hastings（Luc A. Despins，普衡律师事务所合伙人）。”\n25 问：你认得他前额上的图像吗？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. 我不知道。\n2 Q. 那么 Volchko 女士，请再次注意你手头上的\n3 协议事实。1B124R 是从什么设备提取的？\n4 A. 从 Sherry（雪莉）公寓搜出的一部白色 iPhone，放在一个包里。\n5 FERGENSON 先生：请让我们回到第 17 项协议事实。\n6 请翻到第 3 页。\n7 能否放大倒数第三行。\n8 Q. 请你关注写有 GX 4 的地方，1B15 是\n9 什么类型的设备？\n10 A. 一部白色 iPhone 12。\n11 Q. 那部白色 iPhone 是从哪里起获的？\n12 A. Wang（王）公寓（床头柜）。\n13 FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，现在能否\n14 公布 1B15G-T，即翻译件。\n15 Q. 在调出文件的同时，iPhone 上的“备忘录”是什么？\n16 A. “备忘录”是一个应用程序，用户可以在其中书写备忘或\n17 保存文本。\n18 FERGENSON 先生：谢谢你，Loftus 女士。也许我们可以\n19 把它——太好了。\n20 Q. 好的。从 1B15G 中提取了\n21 什么类型的信息？\n22 A. 一则备忘录，来自手机备忘录的内容。\n23 Q. 你能读一下 D 列，即翻译列吗。\n24 你能读——我不会让你全部读完，但你能\n25 读其中几行吗。你可以从头开始。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法庭速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. “2023 年排定与郭先生的农场会议（东部\n2 时间，有待确认）如下：\n3 ‘米饭集团：1 月 11 日星期三，东部时间下午 5 点\n4 （使用 WebEx）。\n5 ‘雅典娜：1 月 13 日星期五，东部时间晚上 7 点。\n6 ‘台湾农场：1 月 14 日星期六，美东时间上午 9 点。’”\n7 Q. Volchko 女士，我现在想请你——你可以直接跳到\n8 列表底部，从“老大”那里开始读。\n9 A. “老大刚才提到 20 号到 25 号不安排任何会议。\n10 请核对本表中的时间是否与任何法律会议冲突。”\n11 Q. 现在请看右边一列，\n12 上面写着“创建时间”，创建时间是什么？\n13 A. 是 3/31/2024 上午 8:44。\n14 Q. 该字段中可以填入什么日期或时间？\n15 A. 这似乎是从完整手机报告中标记此备忘录的\n16 时间。\n17 Q. 在手机中标记备忘录是什么意思？\n18 A. 从手机报告中标记的项目，之后可用于\n19 生成该报告的较小节选版本。\n20 Q. 请看左上角，那里写着什么？\n21 A. 标签。\n22 FERGENSON 先生：好的。让我们回到第 17 项协议事实。\n23 我们翻到第 4 页。\n24 Q. 关于标记的话题，手机提取数据的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 审查有多普遍？\n2 A. 经常被审查。\n3 Q. 那么 Volchko 女士，请看这里倒数第三行\n4 关于 1B92 的内容。\n5 FERGENSON 先生：能否放大那一处。\n6 Q. 好的。1B92 是什么设备？\n7 A. 一台 Apple MacBook Pro（苹果笔记本电脑）。\n8 Q. 该 MacBook Pro 是从谁那里起获的？\n9 A. Alex H.。\n10 FERGENSON 先生：我们现在能否公布 MacBook 中的\n11 一份内容，1B92B-13。\n12 能否放 Predict 上半部分。\n13 Q. 你能读一下左上角的名字吗。\n14 A. 我不确定发音，但拼写是 H-A-O-R-A-N，姓氏是\n15 H-E。\n16 Q. 请看右上角，从\n17 “Accomplished”开始，你能读一下那里的四行吗。\n18 A. “卓有成效的业务拓展经理，拥有五年的成功业绩记录，\n19 通过有效的项目管理、战略规划和团队领导，\n20 提升销售额并扩大公司客户群。”\n21 FERGENSON 先生：能否向下滚动。请\n22 滚动一下。\n23 Q. Volchko 女士，就在“经历”正下方，你能否读一下\n24 “经历”下方的头两行。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. “2014 年 3 月至今。数家房地产开发公司的\n2 董事及股东。”\n3 FERGENSON 先生：能否缩小画面。\n4 放大左上角。\n5 Q. 这里列出的电子邮件地址是什么？\n6 A. Cool_hhr@hotmail.com。\n7 Q. 你熟悉 Proton Mail（质子邮箱）吗？\n8 A. 我大致知道它——\n9 Q. 抱歉。什么是 Proton Mail？\n10 A. 这是一种加密电子邮件。可以通过网页浏览器\n11 或应用程序访问。\n12 Q. 据你所知，政府搜查令能否获取\n13 Proton Mail 账户的内容？\n14 KAMARAJU 先生：反对。推测。\n15 FERGENSON 先生：基于她的——\n16 法庭：如果你知道的话。\n17 A. 我从未见过 Proton Mail 的搜查令回执。\n18 FERGENSON 先生：好的。Loftus 女士，让我们快速\n19 调出已作为证据的 GX GC309。能否\n20 快速放大最顶部的电子邮件。\n21 Q. Volchko 女士，请看最上面一行，\n22 该电子邮件地址的域名是什么？\n23 A. Gclubs.com。\n24 Q. 然后请继续看邮件头，邮件头的\n25 最后一行，以 .pdf 结尾的，你能读一下吗。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1\n2\n3 A. YachtContract.pdf。\n4 FERGENSON 先生：现在请翻到第 8 页。\n5 能否放大第 9 行。\n6 Q. 你看到第 9 行写着“游艇描述”，\n7 然后在下面有一个写着“名称”的条目吗？你能\n8 读出这个名称吗？\n9 A. Liberty（自由号）。\n10 FERGENSON 先生：能否缩小画面。能否\n11 放大该合同的最上一行，\n12 就像……对。太好了。谢谢。\n13 Q. 你看到中间有一颗星吗？你能读一下\n14 星号右边的文字吗。\n15 A. Seven Star Yacht Transport（七星游艇运输公司）。\n16 FERGENSON 先生：好的。现在，Loftus 女士，请在左边展示\n17 第 17 项协议事实第 2 页。\n18 然后在右边展示第 21 项协议事实第 2 页。\n19 我想请你在右边放大\n20 第 3 段。\n21 然后在左边，请放大\n22 倒数第二行。\n23 由 FERGENSON 先生继续提问：\n24 Q. 好的。Volchko 女士，请看 1B125，那是\n25 什么类型的设备？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. 一部蓝色 iPhone。\n2 Q. 那部蓝色 iPhone 是从哪里起获的？\n3 A. Sherry 公寓（在一个包里）。\n4 Q. 好的。现在请看右边的协议事实，\n5 你能读一下第 3 段吗。\n6 A. “GX 1B125F 至 GX 1B125S 及其各分项（GX 1B125F - I\n7 等）均系从 1B125Z 提取数据的真实准确副本。\n8 GX 1B125F 至 GX 1B125S 包含一列题为\n9 ‘翻译’的内容，该列包含来自 GX 1B125F 至 GX 1B125S\n10 及其各分项的外语文本/音频/视频的真实准确翻译。”\n11\n12 FERGENSON 先生：现在，Loftus 女士，让我们公布\n13 1B125F。\n14 Q. 在等待的同时，Volchko 女士，在我们刚才看过的\n15 电子邮件中，游艇的名字叫什么？\n16 A. 我记得是 Liberty。\n17 Q. 运输公司的名字叫什么？\n18 A. 我认为是 Seven Star。\n19 Q. 好的。现在，Volchko 女士，请看这份证据，\n20 顶部中间的日期是什么？\n21 A. 2021 年 9 月 17 日。\n22 Q. 请看最左边一列，那里列出的日期\n23 是什么？\n24 A. 2021 年 9 月 17 日。\n25 Q. 然后在“发件人”列中，你能否看出这是什么类型的\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 聊天？\n2 A. 根据电话号码，看起来像是 WhatsApp。\n3 Q. “发件人”列中列出的名字是什么？\n4 A. 那是联系人姓名。\n5 FERGENSON 先生：好的。现在，Loftus 女士，能否\n6 稍微向下滚动。这可能只有一条……\n7 好的。能否继续滚动。\n8 Q. 好的。现在请看下一条短信，那条短信——\n9 抱歉——或聊天消息是谁发的？那是谁发来的？\n10 A. 抱歉。你指的是哪一条？\n11 Q. 就是左起第二列，本页的第一条消息，\n12 那条消息是谁发的？\n13 A. 那是另一方——设备的持有人。\n14 Q. 名字叫什么？\n15 A. Miles Guo（郭文贵）。\n16 FERGENSON 先生：好的。让我们回到上面。\n17 Q. Volchko 女士，我们来读一下这个。我读 Gladys（格拉迪斯）\n18 的部分，你读 Miles Guo 的部分。\n19 A. 好的。\n20 Q. 好的。“老大，这是 Max 发给你的\n21 关于新船的信息：\n22 ‘第一家运输公司是 Seven Star，他们的\n23 报价是 90,000 美元，从意大利热那亚到波士顿（耗时 15\n24 天）。船将于 10 月 26 日抵达波士顿。如果\n25 天气好，船可以前往康涅狄格州，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 这将耗时约 3 至 4 天，这意味着它将于 10 月底\n2 抵达康涅狄格州。\n3 ‘另一家运输公司是 Peters & May，\n4 价格较低，约为 59,000 美元。船将运往佛罗里达州劳德代尔堡。\n5 但那里比康涅狄格州更远，\n6 运抵康涅狄格州需要更长时间。此外，它\n7 没有固定的交付日期。可能在 10 月\n8 或 11 月到达。另一件需要注意的事是，安排\n9 船从佛罗里达州运往康涅狄格州的费用非常高，\n10 因为距离康涅狄格州很远。费用约为\n11 15,000 至 20,000 美元，耗时约 5 至 6 天。\n12 ‘因此，如果您希望低风险，且船只必须在\n13 10 月底前到达，我们应该使用第一家公司 Seven\n14 Star。但如果时间可以灵活，我们可以选择\n15 第二家公司 Peters & May。它更便宜。’”\n16 A. “Max，我很烦。我同意的是 9 月底，\n17 但他排到了 10 月底。我非常烦，\n18 非常烦。行吧。就按这个发到七星家吧。\n19 太烦人了。\n20 ‘这是最快的一家。’”\n21 Q. 先暂停一下，Volchko 女士，你看到——\n22 FERGENSON 先生：也许我们可以向上滚动，以便\n23 能看到列标题。\n24 Q. 好的。最右边那一列，那列的\n25 标题是什么？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 A. 附件。\n2 FERGENSON 先生：如果我们向下滚动。\n3 Q. Volchko 女士，在提取出的 WhatsApp 聊天记录中发送语音消息时，\n4 语音消息是如何从手机中\n5 提取出来的？\n6 A. 它是作为附件提取出来的。\n7 FERGENSON 先生：我们稍后会继续对话内容，\n8 但 Loftus 女士，能否播放 GX 1B125F-1。\n9 （播放音频）\n10 FERGENSON 先生：好的。让我们回到聊天记录。\n11 是 1B125G。\n12 Q. 好的。那我继续读 Gladys 的部分。\n13 “Seven Star 给了我一个时间表。我们的船可以于\n14 10 月 10 日在意大利装船，并将于\n15 10 月 26 日抵达波士顿。之后，它将运往\n16 康涅狄格州。”\n17 A. “［脏话］［发音］，又是 11 月 10 号，这真是疯了。\n18 只能这样了。没办法了。我们该怎么办？”\n19 FERGENSON 先生：向下滚动。哦，到头了。\n20 Loftus 女士，能否快速调出\n21 政府证物 PRO466 第 20 页。\n22 如果你能稍微向下滚动。\n23 好的。如果你能放大……对，就是那一段，\n24 谢谢。\n25 由 FERGENSON 先生继续提问：\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 问：好的。你能读一下这里的第二句话吗？\n2 答：“请允许我再次自我介绍，我是Miles Kwok（郭文贵先生）的助理Gladys。”\n3 费尔根森律师（MR. FERGENSON）：好的。洛夫特斯女士（Ms. Loftus），我们回到政府证物（GX）1B125，下一项。我们看G。\n4 问：好的。这段聊天记录摘录的日期是什么时候，沃尔奇科女士（Ms. Volchko）？\n5 答：2021年9月24日。\n6 问：这是谁和谁之间的聊天？\n7 答：这看起来是Gladys和Miles Guo（郭文贵）之间的。\n8 问：和我们刚才看的一样吗？\n9 答：是的。\n10 问：好的。那么在这份记录中，第一条记录在图片里有一些内容。你看到了吗？\n11 答：看到了。\n12 问：并且“附件”一栏是填写的。当有人发送，你知道的，图片消息时，那是如何从聊天报告中提取出来的？\n13 答：它是作为附件提取出来的。\n14 费尔根森律师：那么洛夫特斯女士，我们能否迅速调出1B125G-1。\n15 实际上是——好的。如果你调出来了，洛夫特斯女士。\n16 好的。谢谢你，洛夫特斯女士。那我们可以回到报告了。\n17 如果你想放大我们刚才看的那个图像的话。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 费尔根森律师继续发问：\n2 问：你能读出上面的文字吗？\n3 答：Liberty（自由）。\n4 费尔根森律师：我们能否缩小画面。\n5 问：好的。我们可以再次朗读这段对话。请你读Miles Guo（郭文贵）的部分，我来读Gladys的部分。\n6 答：“看吧，现在别说，到时候再说。\n7 “这个方正字体，跟Lady May（五月女士号）[同音字标注]一样的字体，方正字体。”\n8 问：“那是第三个吗？”\n9 答：“这三个型号，那个……，那个R，那个E，还有那个不标准的，请更标准一点，好吗？”\n10 问：R和E是单词Liberty中的字母吗，沃尔奇科女士？\n11 答：是的。\n12 费尔根森律师：好的。我们看1B125I。\n13 我们能否放大图像。\n14 问：这些是来自Gladys的。这些图像里的文字是什么？\n15 答：Liberty。\n16 费尔根森律师：你可以缩小画面。\n17 问：好的。我来读Gladys。\n18 “老板，这些是新船的字体，你最喜欢哪一个？左边一排高度是28厘米，右边是30厘米。”\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 费尔根森律师：我们可以向下滚动。\n2 问：然后上面写着，“下面这个只是更清晰的版本。”\n3 答：“这个。”\n4 费尔根森律师：然后我们能否放大Miles Guo（郭文贵）发送的图片。\n5 问：你看到其中一个被蓝圈圈出来了吗？\n6 答：看到了。\n7 费尔根森律师：我们可以缩小画面。\n8 问：然后是问题，“所以你喜欢第四个28厘米高的，对吗？”\n9 费尔根森律师：好的。我们可以把那个撤下来了。\n10 请翻到第17号事实约定书（Stip 17）第4页。我们看最下面一行。\n11 问：好的。1B272是什么类型的设备？\n12 答：一部黑色iPhone 13。\n13 问：那是在哪里起获的？\n14 答：根据2023年3月15日执行的搜查令，在Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）身上起获的。\n15 问：我们能否看1B272B。\n16 在我们等待的时候，沃尔奇科女士，2020年3月时，你住在哪个州？\n17 答：新泽西州。\n18 问：大约在那个时候，获取N95口罩有多困难（如果有困难的话）？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 卡马拉朱律师（MR. KAMARAJU）：反对。我不确定这有什么关联性。\n2 法庭：我准许该提问。\n3 答：我记得相当困难。\n4 问：我们能否——噢，还在加载。\n5 费尔根森律师：好的。谢谢你，洛夫特斯女士。\n6 问：沃尔奇科女士，来自1B272的这些是什么类型的图像？\n7 答：这些看起来是屏幕截图。\n8 问：你能提醒我们一下，1B272是从谁身上起获的吗？\n9 答：Max Krasner。\n10 问：好的。看这个图像，在最顶上，你知道的，在……旁边——嗯，就在顶上，时间下方写着什么？\n11 答：Mileson。\n12 问：你知道Mileson是谁吗？\n13 答：我不知道。\n14 问：好的。那么我来读白色，你可以读绿色。\n15 “我们在本周末之前把一些从Hudson转到lamp，再从lamp转给我。金额1000万。”\n16 答：“所以这将是一笔从Hudson NY给lamp的贷款？”\n17 问：“Hudson的资金来源是什么？”\n18 答：“来自ACA的贷款。”\n19 问：“我们可以给lamp再做一笔贷款吗？”\n20 答：“从Hudson？”\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 问：“是的。”\n2 答：“嗨Mileson，GSNY——”\n3 问：我们可以在这里停下了。\n4 你知道Hudson是什么吗？\n5 答：我不知道。\n6 问：你知道Lamp是什么吗？\n7 答：我不知道。\n8 问：你知道ACA是什么吗？\n9 答：我不知道。\n10 问：我们能否翻到第2页。\n11 好的。沃尔奇科女士，这是来自同一部手机的另一张屏幕截图吗？\n12 答：是的。\n13 问：好的。请你读前两条——绿色的消息。\n14 答：“嗨Mileson，300万已经处理了。我们明天应该能处理700万。你能确认一下你账户上的地址吗，因为电汇指示里没有写。”\n15 问：我们可以翻到第3页。\n16 你能读一下这里的绿色文字吗。\n17 答：“来自Lamp给Hudson Diamond的本票 v 5 19 21.docx。”\n18 问：下一条呢？\n19 答：“来自Mileson给Infinity的本票 v 5 19 21.docx。”\n20 问：你能读一下那里最后的屏幕文字吗。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 答：“我现在将处理从Lamp给May的500,000赠款。”\n2 费尔根森律师：我们翻到第4页。\n3 实际上我们可以继续滚动。\n4 你可以继续。请滚动到第6页。\n5 问：你能读一下前三段绿色文字吗。\n6 答：“好的，我会核对。\n7 “Hudson NY在IDB（以色列贴现银行）有大约1300万，在摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）有大约500万。\n8 “Lamp在Signature（签名银行）目前有730万。”\n9 问：我们跳到第15页。\n10 好的。我来读白色。白色写着，\n11 “嗨Max，我们从Lamp做那1000万吧。”\n12 答：“嗨Mileson，必须一次性完成吗？”\n13 问：“不用。你在考虑多少？”\n14 答：“你偏好哪家，IDB还是Signature？”\n15 问：“只要Signature。”\n16 我们翻到第18页。\n17 那么我说了“只要Signature”，然后上面写着，\n18 “他们坚持，所以我们需要在Signature出问题之前做2000万。Haitham知道。”\n19 答：“好的，目前我们在signature有700万，所以可能先500万？我们需要从有500万的IDB把资金转回Signature。”\n20 问：你知道Haitham是谁吗，沃尔奇科女士？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 答：我不知道。\n2 问：好的。我们现在翻到第20页。\n3 好的。现在在这张截图上的时间下方列出了什么名字？\n4 答：William Je（余建明）。\n5 问：你能读一下前三段文字吗。\n6 答：“嗨William，附件是Hudson的一个新账户。\n7 HudsonDiamondNYLLCInternationalWireInstructions.pdf（HudsonDiamondNY有限责任公司国际电汇指示.pdf）。”\n8 问：然后白色的写着，“好的。请尽快准备贷款协议。谢谢嗨。”\n9 我们现在翻到第21页。\n10 好的。现在在Max手机的这张截图中，日期下方的名字是什么？\n11 答：Yvette W 7.15.20（王雁平 7.15.20）。\n12 问：好的。我来读白色。我们只读前两条即可。\n13 “嗨Max，关于IDB那笔新的1500万有什么最新消息吗？”\n14 答：“嗨Yvette，我已经和W分享了信息，他说他正在处理。我可以跟进他。”\n15 费尔根森律师：好的。我们看22。\n16 就翻到下一页。\n17 再翻一页。\n18 问：好的。现在这里时间下方的名字呢？\n19 答：Mileson。\n20 问：好的。我来读白色，你可以读绿色。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4 Volchko - Direct\n1 “嗨Max，你准备好可以进行那笔2000万的董事提款了吗？”\n2 答：“嗨Mileson，我想有一部分准备好了，但不是2000万。公司没有那么多，我们将需要先注入资金。”\n3 问：“我相信你有1000万？”\n4 答：“现在Kearny bank（卡尼银行）有500万，Signature有大约700万。”\n5 问：“好的，周末会寄出700万，请准备。之后我会注资更多。”\n6 答：“Signature是运营账户，Haitham说应该从Kearny出。将准备进行转账，Kearny。”\n7 费尔根森律师：好的。请回到第17号事实约定书第3页。\n8 实际上，也许我们只用纸质版就行。\n9 问：沃尔奇科女士，请你看第3页靠中间位置的1B18，找到了吗？\n10 答：找到了。\n11 问：那是什么样的设备？\n12 答：是一部薄荷绿色的iPhone。\n13 问：那是在哪里起获的？\n14 答：纽约州纽约市东64街188号1601室。\n15 问：那被定义为什么地方？\n16 答：Wang（王雁平）公寓，厨房台面。\n17 费尔根森律师：好的。洛夫特斯女士，在左侧我们能否调出1B18A-1，在右侧调出1B18A-2。并且\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 那些是来自Wang公寓手机的，或者是我们刚才谈论的那部，1BA2。\n2 我们可能只需要稍等片刻，法官阁下。\n3 法官阁下，遗憾的是，洛夫特斯女士的电脑死机了，所以可能需要几分钟。如果法庭想处理我们刚才在法官席前边会谈中简要讨论的事项，我们现在可以处理并休庭吗？\n4 法庭：好的。陪审团成员们，我们将进行几分钟的非常短暂的暂停，然后我会叫你们回来。请记住，你们不得在彼此之间讨论本案。不要允许任何人在你们面前讨论本案。不要听、看或阅读与本案有关的任何内容。\n5 （接下一页）\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 （陪审团不在场）\n2 法庭：你可以退庭了。不要讨论你的证词。\n3 （证人不在场）\n4 法庭：请就座。\n5 是霍顿先生（Mr. Horton）要处理这件事情吗？\n6 霍顿检察官（MR. HORTON）：是的。谢谢法官阁下。\n7 法庭：请讲。\n8 霍顿检察官：政府依据Geaney案判例正式提出申请，请求采纳通过本案审理引出的共谋者陈述和代理人陈述。法官阁下现在已经听取了六周关于本案中RICO（《反勒索与受贿组织法》）及欺诈共谋的证据，以及被告Miles Guo（郭文贵）如何运作该共谋，既通过他本人的言论——\n9 法庭：请离麦克风近一点。\n10 霍顿检察官：关于被告Miles Guo（郭文贵）如何运作其共谋的证据，既通过他本人在已作为证据的广播中的言论，也通过指挥代理人采取行动，其中包括共谋者以及接受Miles Guo及其共谋者指挥的其他人。政府提出这些陈述中的许多项并非为了证明其真实性，而是因为它们是虚假的，它们是谎言，因此基于该原因它们不是传闻证据。这些中的其他陈述\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n陈述是出于额外的非传闻目的而提出的。\n它们是对其他代理人的指令。例如，提出它们是为了证明其对作为听众的证人所产生的影响。就政府提出郭以及其代理人的陈述是为了证明其真实性而言，法院所掌握的证据远远超出了做出其 Geaney（吉尼裁定）认定所需的证据。再次说明，该项认定的标准是优势证据标准，即只要证明存在共谋、Miles Guo（郭文贵）与我稍后将逐一梳理的这些陈述人都是该共谋的共同成员，且政府所引出的陈述作出时陈述人是在为推进该共谋而发言的可能性大于不成立的可能性即可。当然，在做出这一决定时，法院应当将传闻陈述本身作为作出 Geaney 认定的证据予以考虑。\n因此我先从——我为法庭将他们进行了分组。\n首先从某种核心共谋者群体开始。\n法庭译员：法官阁下，译员请求法律顾问放慢语速。我跟不上了。\nHORTON 先生（霍顿先生）：我可以放慢语速。\n多次参与其中并为推进共谋而发言的共谋者。鉴于 Yvette Wang（王雁平）已就与 Miles Guo 的共谋认罪答辩，法院在审判早期就涉及了她。当然，在整个审理过程中引出了王女士的大量额外陈述，包括她将其他共谋者介绍给了本案中 G Enterprise（G系列企业）的其他代理人。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n其中一人是 William Je（余建明）。在开庭之初 Karin Maistrello（卡琳·麦斯特雷洛）作证称他是郭的“财务主管”，并且例如，他曾要求麦斯特雷洛女士在一家法院已看到在本案中起着关键作用的公司任职。那就是 ACA Capital（ACA资本）。Schottenheimer 女士（肖滕海默女士）提供了更多证词，涉及余先生在利用挪用的 GTV 投资者资金进行 1 亿美元对冲基金投资中所扮演的核心角色。随后，法院在通过 Khaled 先生（哈立德先生）引入的录音中听到了余先生的声音，并听取了其他证词。正如 Collins 先生（柯林斯先生）在谈到他与余先生谈判时所说，我仅再举一个例子，William 当时告诉他，他和 Miles 之间有着长久且互相信任的关系。\n还有 Mileson Guo（郭强），被告人的儿子。有证词和文件显示他在名义上拥有 Saraca（萨拉卡）实体，以及他如何成为利用挪用资金进行 1 亿美元对冲基金投资的受益人。有书证显示他拥有 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的各个组成实体，本案早期展示的那份从 Greenwich（格林威治）豪宅中起获的文件显示，受托人余先生为了 Mileson Guo 的利益持有这些实体的股份，这当然还有一系列关于使用投资者资金购买 Ferrari（法拉利）的证据，并且在通过哈立德先生获得的录音中也有讨论，其中 Mileson Guo 谈到了使用 Crane（鹤实体）实体清洗资金，并明确将通过 Crane 实体进来的 G Club（G俱乐部）投资者资金称为投资者资金。\n还有 Mei Guo（郭美），被告人的女儿，以及她就 Himalaya Exchange 转账 3,700 万美元为破产相关的游艇事宜提供的个人担保。\n还有 Haoran He（何浩然），他是 G|CLUBS（G俱乐部）母公司的名义所有人。\n法庭：对不起。请你拼一下这个名字。\nHORTON 先生：H-A-O-R-A-N，H-E。\n法庭：请继续。\nHORTON 先生：他是 G|CLUBS 母公司的名义所有人。他是证据中所列出的众多其他 G Enterprise 实体的名义所有人或董事。该财产——举个例子，即支付投资者资金以购买 Mileson 的法拉利的实体。以该身份，他与其他代理人以及共谋之外的人员进行沟通，目的是为了掩盖这些实体的实际所有权和控制权及其用途。\n还有 Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳），他的角色与我刚才描述的核心群体有所不同。他更多处于执行任务的模式，而非策划共谋并从中获利，但他参与范围之广以及他如何将这些不同部分连接在一起引人注目。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n在审判早期，与他共事的麦斯特雷洛女士作证称，Max 为 Miles Guo 处理了大量付款。在作证的第一天，法院看到了 Krasner 先生在利用 G|CLUBS 投资者资金购买停放在郭先生位于格林威治的车库里的红色 Lamborghini（兰博基尼）中所扮演的角色。还有具有该等效力的其他文件。除此之外，法院掌握的证据表明，他，Max Krasner，是各个 G Enterprise 实体的名义所有人或董事。Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）、Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石），Krasner 先生签署了 Saraca 的文件，这些文件在进行那笔 1 亿美元的对冲基金投资中起到了关键作用。除此之外，还有关于 Rule of Law Foundation and Society（法治基金与法治协会）的证词，其中涉及 Krasner 先生、麦斯特雷洛女士。其中还涉及——有证词涉及 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）为推进该共谋所作的陈述及其行为。\n法庭：但你现在不是要求我把麦斯特雷洛和班农包括进去吧？\nHORTON 先生：我是在利用麦斯特雷洛的证词来强调 Steve Bannon 是一名共谋者，并且他做出了推进共谋的陈述。在审判初期，采纳了一段关于法治——的视频\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n法庭：但不包括麦斯特雷洛女士。\nHORTON 先生：不包括麦斯特雷洛女士。\n法庭：好的。请继续。\nHORTON 先生：所以在该背景下，有来自班农先生的陈述。\n我认为下一类是这些挂名高管，法院听取了其中两人的证词。Reyes 女士（雷耶斯女士），G|CLUBS 的首席执行官，她在 G|CLUBS 仲裁中作了虚假陈述。在何先生和 Yvette Wang 的指示下，她整理了转移诈骗收益的文件。\n我还想指出的是，她就其与 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴奈特）就红色兰博基尼（即用投资者资金购买的那辆）进行的一次谈话作证。雷耶斯女士就 Barnett 先生作出的关于为该车寻找仓库的陈述作了证。Barnett 先生毫无疑问至少是郭先生的代理人。双方都将他描述为安保主管，以及代表郭先生并在郭先生指示下行事的人。\n法庭：但你现在的重点在 Limarie Reyes（利玛丽·雷耶斯）。\nHORTON 先生：是的，我只是想提一下，因为有些共谋者和代理人在证据中出现的次数较少、篇幅较小，我只是想指出 Barnett 先生就是其中之一。\nJesse Brown（杰西·布朗），Himalaya Exchange 的首席执行官，\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n作证称余先生才是真正掌控大局的人。他作证谈到了 Miles Guo 对该交易所运营的影响程度。当然还有哈立德先生，他作证谈到了他在 Crane 的角色，以及为了转移资金和尝试收购一家银行而作为 G|CLUBS 某种附属机构设立的实体，当然，该事项是与 William Je 以及提及的其他共谋者共同进行的。\n在 G|CLUBS 方面，进入这一类别，有 G|CLUBS 负责会计的主管 Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉哈拉兰布斯）。他在会员 ID 对应的资金汇出并用于为郭氏家族购买物品之前对其进行了核对。他代表 G|CLUBS 与多家银行进行了沟通。并且他以 G|CLUBS 实体的名义雇员身份接触了其他 G Enterprise 实体。仅举一例，从王女士公寓起获的一份文件显示他，Alex Hadjicharalambous，作为 Freedom Media Ventures（自由媒体创投）电子邮件账户的运营者，负责该企业、实体的账户与 Himalaya Exchange 的对接。这只是说明即使某些较小的角色所发挥作用的广度。\n还有 Ana Izquierdo（安娜·伊斯基耶多），G|CLUBS 的内部律师。在哈立德先生的录音中，她正在对资金转移发出指示，包括清洗诈骗收益。她与在此出庭作证的 Bo Collins（博·柯林斯）会面，后者在\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n为 G|CLUBS 在 Mercantile（商业银行）开设银行账户方面发挥了关键作用，并且雷耶斯女士作证称，Izquierdo 女士从 Yvette Wang 和 Victor Cerda（维克多·塞尔达）处获得了关于处理购买在郭先生车库中发现的兰博基尼的指示。\n有几名律师是共谋者，其陈述在审判中被引出。Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），郭及 G Enterprise 实体的长期律师。他本人是 GTV 的董事。他是 Holy City HK Ventures（圣城香港创投）的董事。法官阁下可能还记得，正是 Ya Li（李娅）参与其中或其要求参与 Holy City 的事宜，成为了李女士意识到该企业欺诈性质的部分原因。李女士被要求为 Holy City 签署一堆文件，而 Mitchell 先生是直接——Mitchell 先生在 Crane 仲裁案中代表 G|CLUBS。他的律师事务所账户持有数千万美元的诈骗收益，包括从 Crane 转入 G|CLUBS 的 4,700 万美元转账。正如法院所见，在郭先生使用投资者资金购买 Mahwah（马瓦）豪宅作为住所的过程中，他起到了关键作用。\n还有 Victor Cerda，他是 Rule of Law Foundation 的董事。他帮助哈立德先生设立 Crane，作为与 G|CLUBS 相关的洗钱工具。他为 Ana Izquierdo 就 G|CLUBS 购买郭先生的兰博基尼提供建议。当然，他还参与了 Crane 仲裁案，在其中利用虚假陈述完成了资金转移。\n还有 Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼），Yvette Wang 的律师。在\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n王女士被捕后，Lipman 先生向 Ya Li 转达了一条信息：请签署这些关于 Holy City Ventures 的文件，正如我在谈到 Mitchell 先生时所提及的那样。\n在 Himalaya Exchange 方面，法院听取了 Priya Patel（普里亚·帕特尔）作出的陈述。\n法庭：谁？\nHORTON 先生：Priya Patel。她在来自 Bitgo 的 Roberts 先生（罗伯茨先生）和布朗先生的证词中被提及。她代表——她被作为 Himalaya Exchange 对外实体（包括 Bitgo）的代表。她向 Bitgo 传递了关于 Miles Guo 与 Himalaya Exchange 关联性质的谎言。布朗先生作证称，当布朗先生提出关于郭先生与该交易所的关系这一议题时，据他理解，她在内部会议上作出了虚假陈述。在由 Hamilton（汉密尔顿）的雇员 Marios Mamzeris（马里奥斯·马姆泽里斯）制作的文件中也有陈述——\n法庭：请提醒我一下拼写。\nHORTON 先生：姓氏是 M-A-M-Z-E-R-I-S。\n法庭：你说是 Mario（马里奥）吗？\nHORTON 先生：Marios。\n法庭：Marios？好的。\nHORTON 先生：是的。所以布朗先生就他所进行的讨论作证，在这些讨论中 Mamzeris 先生转达了关于 William Je 的信息。还有 Himalaya Exchange 的电子邮件\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n与Bitgo（比特哥公司）相关陈述，这些陈述是通过Roberts（罗伯茨先生）引入的，其中Mamzeris（马姆泽里斯先生）在2023年3月发表了一系列关于该交易所及其代币基本特征的陈述，这些陈述与Guo（郭先生）在公开场合所作的陈述相矛盾。\n\n然后是各农场的人员。有大量关于Long Island David（长岛哥/长岛大卫）、Xia Qidong（夏奇东，在庭审记录中也被称为长岛哥）陈述的证词。Ya Li（李娅）作证说他是秘书长——\n\n法庭：对不起。长岛大卫，你是说他和刚才提到的这个人是同一个人？\n\n霍顿先生：没错。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n霍顿先生：所以我认为正名是Qidong（奇东），拼作 Q-I-D-O-N-G，化名包括 Long Island David（长岛大卫）、Brother Long Island（长岛哥）以及 Chang Dao（长岛）。李娅作证时称他为长岛哥，说他是喜马拉雅联盟委员会的秘书长，该委员会是将所有农场统合并代表所有农场的伞状组织。并且他代表郭先生向李娅发送了一份农场借款协议。\n\n他是香草山农场的负责人。关于该特定农场即香草山农场的作用，有大量证词。长岛大卫与李娅签署了一份与喜币相关的协议，并在被告被捕后让李娅删除手机中的内容。\n\n还有Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵），拼作 Z-H-A-N-G。\n\n法庭：对不起。这个名字你得给我拼一下。\n\n霍顿先生：拼写是 Y-O-N-G-B-I-N-G，Z-H-A-N-G。李娅作证说张先生是一名律师兼郭的支持者，曾向她发送过一份农场借款协议，该协议本将把资金转给名为Alpha Global（阿尔法全球）的实体。她还作证说，张先生要求她（李娅）起诉破产受托人，并在此关联下签署一份虚假的宣誓书，并在她拒绝照做后对她进行了威胁。\n\n然后在这个农场类别中，还有两组更为外围的陈述。有一段视频，其中一个叫Fay Fay（飞飞）的人与Miles Guo（郭文贵）并排讲话。\n\n法庭：你是说有这么一个名字的人，你要把其列入这份名单？\n\n霍顿先生：没错。我们播放了一段视频，郭先生和飞飞并排讲话，这段视频宣传了后GTV时代的一系列投资项目。\n\n然后是——我把这个拼出来。\n\nL-A-O-B-A-N Z-H-A-N-G（老班长）。李娅作证说，此人指示她签署一份与G|CLUBS相关的借款冲销协议。\n\n这就是名单。从第一天到今天，都有证据表明我提到的人为推进共谋所作的陈述，当然也是以郭先生代理人的身份作出的。我们认为，所有这些依据801(d)(2)均具有可采性。\n\n法庭：那么你是否把Barnett（巴内特先生）包含在名单内？\n\n霍顿先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。我听听辩方的意见。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n\n名单很长，但首先，让我先从——也许是程序性事务开始。\n\n在庭审记录第395页第9行——我有副本可以呈递给法官阁下——政府方根据共谋者例外规则引入了David Dai（戴维·戴/大卫·戴）的陈述。我没有在霍顿先生的名单中听到他的名字，所以我们将动议剔除该证词。\n\n法庭：如果他们原本希望将他列入名单——\n\n霍顿先生：我能否简短做两点补充，其中之一是戴先生，他是英国农场的负责人。他本应被列入我的名单。另外还有Dara Lawall（达拉·拉沃尔）的单项或少量陈述，她是Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）的妻子。我们此前就该问题进行过边翔陈述。她非常明显是作为郭先生的代理人进行沟通的。\n\n法庭：卡马拉朱先生，您认为他们还遗漏了其他人吗？\n\n卡马拉朱先生：是的，还有。\n\n法庭：请讲。逐一说明即可。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：好的。在第477页第2行，有一位未具名的Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）律师助理，他们作为共谋者陈述、代理人陈述将其予以采纳。您是否想问问他们是否要——\n\n法庭：是的，我想问。\n\n霍顿先生：法官阁下，那一项我们已经在边翔陈述中作为单独的一项信息解决了，但为免产生歧义，我们把该律师助理作为G Enterprise（G系列企业）实体的代理人列入名单。\n\n法庭：还有其他人吗，卡马拉朱先生？\n\n卡马拉朱先生：让我想想。还有未具名的Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）员工，他们——抱歉，法官阁下，我的图表上没有具体的出处引用，但在Brown（布朗先生）作证期间，提到了未具名的喜马拉雅交易所员工，我认为他们既被指为代理人，又依据了共谋者例外规则，所以我想我们也可以听听霍顿先生对这些人员的意见。\n\n霍顿先生：我们认为有充分的证据，且必然达到了优势证据标准，表明受雇于喜马拉雅交易所的人员——除了Jesse Brown（杰西·布朗）之外，那些都是Hamilton（汉密尔顿公司，即William Je（余建明）的实体）的雇员——都是余建明的代理人和郭文贵的代理人。\n\n法庭：所以这些是未具名的个人，因此你们并不要求将他们列入名单。\n\n霍顿先生：就他们无法确定具体姓名而言，我想是这样，但布朗先生的证词是他见过汉密尔顿公司的雇员，他们为余建明工作，与喜马拉雅交易所共事，我们视其为代理人。\n\n法庭：所以是布朗先生所提及的未具名喜马拉雅交易所员工。\n\n霍顿先生：这样表述即可。\n\n法庭：请继续，卡马拉朱先生。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：那么也许我们可以先从——我想这就是我所掌握的他们尚未提及的全部人员，但我会再确认一下。\n\n但我认为霍顿先生刚才的最后一番描述其实正好说到了点子上。首先，代理关系的传闻证据例外规则，是针对被告的代理人，而非共同被告的代理人。这是第一步。所以他关于余先生代理人所说的一切，都不能依据与郭先生的代理关系而得以采纳。他们能够这样做的唯一途径是通过共谋者陈述。\n\n其次，如果他们试图主张某人是郭先生的代理人，那么根据 United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 660 (2d Cir. 1996) 案，他们需要证明代理关系的存在、该陈述是在该关系存续期间作出的，并且该陈述与代理权限范围内的事务相关。Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）强调过，该检验标准高度取决于具体案件事实。因此，在没有雇佣协议的情况下也可以存在代理关系。\n\n例如，在Rioux案中，第二巡回法院处理的是治安官部门的雇员以及他们是否属于治安官的代理人，政府方在该案中提供的证据包括：例如，他们是由被告亲自挑选的、他们的任免取决于被告的意愿，并且他们是直接通过被告本人或担任被告所创设职位的雇员处接收指示。然而政府方没有任何证据表明，例如Limarie Reyes（利玛丽·雷耶斯）曾接收过郭先生的任何指示。事实上，她的证词恰恰相反。政府方也没有任何信息、没有任何证据表明郭先生曾安排Wang（王女士）在G|CLUBS任职。记录中根本没有任何内容，而且我相信霍顿先生永远也无法引用记录中的任何内容来证明王女士是如何获得她在G|CLUBS的职位的。坦率地说，法官阁下，名单上的每一个名字都是如此。他们没有证据证明代理关系的性质。而从本案一开始，法官阁下，他们就试图绕过这一举证并跳过这些步骤。\n\n所以——抱歉，法官阁下。我刚才把名单弄丢了一秒钟。\n\n但以Priya Patel（普里亚·帕特尔）为例。他们从未证明过郭先生与普里亚·帕特尔之间有任何关联。他们的全部论点就是她是余先生和喜马拉雅交易所的代理人。再次强调，代理传闻例外规则并不是这个意思。\n\n因此，顺着看下去，法官阁下，我认为政府方举证的主要问题在于，它基本上没有任何限制。他们的证明逻辑是：某人在这些公司之一工作，并为了推进该公司的业务采取了行动，因此他们就是共谋者。他们没有关于主观意图的证据，没有关于协议合意的证据，在所有这些情形中，他们甚至没有任何证据表明这些人曾与郭先生见过面或交谈过。\n\n所以名单很长，而且我知道——\n\n法庭：好的。现在是2点42分，你们各位必须通过书面文书来处理此事了。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：合情合理。\n\n法庭：你们继续记录在庭审记录中也是可以的，但我认为你们用书面文书处理会更有效率。因此我们需要制定一个日程表。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：没问题，法官阁下。我想我们就在政府方提交之后进行答辩即可。一切听从法庭安排。\n\n法庭：这必须在周末期间完成。你们什么时候能把文书交给我？\n\n卡马拉朱先生：抱歉，法官阁下。只是为了澄清一点，我的理解是这需要在政府方完成举证之前完成。\n\n法庭：确实如此。必须在此之前完成，当然我和我的助手们也必须查阅案卷记录，所以这是一项相当艰巨的工作。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：是的。这也是我的预想，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：看来，如果我和我的助手们要消化这些材料，我们需要周日和周一来处理，这就意味着政府方的书面文书明天提交，辩方的文书在周六提交。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：没问题，法官阁下。\n\n霍顿先生：我们这边也没问题。谢谢法官。\n\n法庭：卡马拉朱先生，我想你觉得没有必要在庭审记录中进一步多说了，对吗？\n\n卡马拉朱先生：是的，法官阁下。现在没有必要赘述了。\n\n法庭：好的。那么政府方，我需要你们提供庭审记录的引用出处。\n\n霍顿先生：好的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：页码和行号。\n\n霍顿先生：明白。\n\n法庭：好的。行。那我们把陪审员请出来，让他们退庭离开。\n\n卡马拉朱先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 （陪审团在场）\n2 法庭：请就座。\n3 陪审团成员们，现在是2:45，到了该离开的时间了。\n4 明天你们不用来，周一也不用\n5 来。所以你们有四天的休息时间。你们将在\n6 周二返回法庭。在周二和周三，我们将进行\n7 全天的庭审。此外，一旦各方完成举证并\n8 结束证据出示——这意味着如果辩方\n9 选择进行举证答辩的话。他们不必进行举证答辩。\n10 他们没有义务这么做。但一旦庭审的举证\n11 阶段结束，我们将进行结案陈词。\n12 准确地说，我们将先由我进行陪审团指示，然后进行结案陈词，\n13 接着我们将进入评议阶段。到了那个阶段，一旦\n14 举证阶段结束，你们将必须待满\n15 全天。所以我希望你们对此做好准备。我不知道\n16 具体会在什么时候，但一旦开始，就将是\n17 全天的。\n18 好的。祝你们度过一个愉快的短暂休假。\n19 请记住，你们不得在彼此之间讨论本案，\n20 你们不能允许任何人在你们面前讨论本案，\n21 并且你们不得从任何来源阅读、收听或\n22 观看任何涉及本案主题的\n23 内容。\n24 周末愉快。\n25 （陪审团退庭）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n(212) 805-0300\n\nO6R1GUO4\n1 法庭：请就座。\n2 我刚才指的是结案陈词前的指示，\n3 只是为了让你们明白，在结案陈词之后\n4 还会有指示。\n5 FINKEL 先生（芬克尔先生）：据我了解，Schofield 法官（斯科菲尔德法官）是在\n6 结案陈词前进行指示的，但谢谢您，法官阁下。\n7 法庭：是的。还有其他事项吗？\n8 KAMARAJU 先生（卡马拉朱先生）：辩方没有了，法官阁下。\n9 FINKEL 先生：只有一件事。只是为了避免问题并\n10 确保我们下周的举证出示是高效的，或者说\n11 辩方的举证出示是高效的，我们在\n12 什么时候可以收到辩方打算通过其证人\n13 引入的证据项清单？控方通常\n14 在周六中午前提供。如果范围缩小或扩大，\n15 都没问题。我们理解情况会有所变动。但是\n16 如果能在周六中午前提供一份关于他们打算引入的证据项的\n17 善意声明，将会很有帮助，\n18 而且我认为也会很有效率。\n19 KAMARAJU 先生：周六中午可以，法官阁下。\n20 法庭：好的。\n21 FINKEL 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。祝您\n22 周末愉快。\n23 法庭：你们也一样。\n24 KAMARAJU 先生：周末愉快，法官阁下。\n25 （休庭至 2024年7月2日 上午 9:00）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 询问索引\n2 被询问人： 页码\n3 WEI CHEN（陈巍）\n4 Shroff 女士（施罗夫女士）交叉询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .4570\n5 Finkel 先生再直接询问 . . . . . . . . . . . .4685\n6 Shroff 女士再交叉询问 . . . . . . . . . . . . .4694\n7 JESSICA VOLCHKO（杰西卡·沃尔奇科）\n8 Fergenson 先生（弗根森先生）直接询问 . . . . . . . . . . .4707\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n1 控方证据项\n2 证据编号 采纳页码\n3 1B15D, G, G-T, I; 1B16C, 1B18A, A1, A2; . . .4711\n4 1B69B 及 B-T, B-1 至\n5 B-18, 以及其\n6 对应的-Ts; 1B70A 及\n7 A-1; 1B71A-1 至 A-6; 以及\n8 1B71E, F, G, H, 及 I; 1B89;\n9 1B89J, 及 J-1 与 J-2;\n10 1B91C-38; 1B91B-26, -27, -31\n11 至 -33; 1B92B-13\n12 1B121; 1B121A-M; 1B124, 1B124A, C, E, . . . .4711\n13 F, G, H, M, 及 R; 1B125,\n14 1B125A, 及 1B125F 至\n15 1B125S; 1B185M; 1B204-13, -47,\n16 -48; 1B227A, B, 及 F; 1B255C\n17 及 D; 以及 1B272B\n18 VB16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4612\n19 辩诉协议事实陈述项（Stip）17 . . . . . . . . . . . .4709\n20 VB-36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4689\n21 被告证据项\n22 证据编号 采纳页码\n23 60672 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4590\n24 60676 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4605\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":44521,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:42:43"}