郭文贵破产案 · ORDER · ECF #3602

元数据

当事人: 郭文贵 (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo / Ho Wan Kwok)
法院: CTB
案号: 22-50073
ECF #: 3602
类型: ORDER
立案日: 2024-10-01

原始法庭文件为英文，下方为英文全文。

全文

# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**

| ----------------------------------------------------------- x | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | : : Chapter 11 | | : : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | : : (Jointly Administered) | | ------------------------------------------------------- x : : Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05017 : | | : | | : : : | | : : : : : | | : : ------------------------------------------------------- x | | |

# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING TRUSTEE TO SELL MAHWAH MANSION AND ITS CONTENTS, SUBJECT TO ENTRY OF FURTHER ORDERS, INCLUDING AS TO RETENTION OF BROKER, TERMS OF SUCH SALES, AND PARTIES' ENTITLEMENT TO SALE PROCEEDS**

Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the "Trustee") appointed in the

chapter 11 case (the "Chapter 11 Case") of Ho Wan Kwok (the "Debtor"), hereby respectfully

1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202), and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever Debtors is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).

submits this motion (the "Motion"), pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Cival Rules"), as made applicable through Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the "Bankruptcy Rules"), and the Court's *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 47]2 (as modified, the "PI Order")3 entered in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the "Adversary Proceeding"), requesting entry of an order, substantially in the form of the Proposed Order attached hereto as **Exhibit 1** (the "Proposed Order"), authorizing the Trustee to sell (a) the real property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 (the "Mahwah Mansion") and (b) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (the "Contents"), subject to further orders of this Court (i) approving the Trustee's retention of real estate brokers and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate such sales, (ii) authorizing the terms and conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (iii) determining the parties' entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales. In support of the Motion, the Trustee respectfully states the following:

### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**

1. The Defendants' continued violation of their clear obligations under the PI Order and other orders of this Court has put the Trustee in the unsustainable position of having to fund the enormous carrying cost—in the amount of approximately \$300,000 each quarter—of the Mahwah Mansion, even though such property has yet to be determined to be property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (the "Estate"). This significantly prejudices the Trustee because, in the likely event that the Court determines that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents are property of the Estate, the Trustee will have no recourse to recover these carrying costs from the

2 "Adv. ECF No." refers to documents filed in the Adversary Proceeding.

3 Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the PI Order.

Defendants because the Defendants have already told the Court they have no ability to pay such costs.4 Accordingly, the enormous costs of maintaining the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents will serve to reduce the net value ultimately to be realized by the Estate. The only way to reduce this burden is to authorize the Trustee now to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, thereby shortening the period over which such costs will have to be incurred.

2. Defendants will suffer no prejudice from an order authorizing the Trustee to sell these assets now, subject to further orders of the Court concerning the terms of such sales and the parties' respective entitlements to the net sale proceeds. The Defendants have never controlled or occupied the Mahwah Mansion and have no current possessory interest in the mansion, nor is the mansion occupied by anyone else at this time. In fact, in July 2024, the Defendants discontinued paying the maintenance costs after they apparently recognized—following the Debtor's conviction in the Criminal Case—that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents would become either property of the Estate (if the Trustee prevails in this Adversary Proceeding) or subject to the Government's forfeiture proceedings in the Criminal Case. For these reasons, unlike other situations involving real estate, the sale of the Mahwah Mansion will not cause irreparable harm to its purported owner. Moreover, the net cash proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion and personal property located within it will be available to the Defendants if they prevail, and such proceeds are a perfectly acceptable substitute for the assets themselves.

4 The Trustee is also seeking an order in this Adversary Proceeding that Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego, such that all of its property is the Estate's property. If the Court grants this relief, the Trustee will be unable to recover the carrying costs from Taurus Fund for the additional reason that any claim for such costs would necessarily have to be asserted against assets the Estate already owns by virtue of the alter ego ruling. The only scenario in which the Trustee would be able to obtain reimbursement for the carrying costs from the Defendants is in the unlikely event that the Court were to conclude that the Mahwah Mansion is not property of the Estate, in which case the Trustee would have a reimbursement claim secured by the value of the Mahwah Mansion.

3. The relief requested in this Motion is also justified as sanctions for the Defendants' clear and continued violation of this Court's orders.5 Among other things, the PI Order required the Defendants to: (a) not impair, in any way, any asset or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion and any personalty and/or fixture in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion; (b) file proof of insurance for (i) all assets and property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and (ii) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion; and (c) employ the Security Services. The Defendants are in breach of all of these obligations, as they failed to obtain insurance, failed to fund the Security Services, and failed to pay real estate taxes or other charges with respect to the Mahwah Mansion. As noted, the Defendants' actions have forced the Trustee to take on the obligation to pay for the Security Services and other maintenance expenses, including utilities and real estate taxes, to preserve the value of these assets. In addition, as further detailed below, the Defendants are also in clear violation of this Court's order requiring them to (a) explain why they are no longer complying with the PI Order and (b) identify an individual who as the authority to make decisions for the Defendants.

4. Under these circumstances, the Trustee submits that authorizing him now to proceed with a sale of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents is an appropriate form of sanctions for the Defendants' continued noncompliance with this Court's orders. Merely imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendants would not be an effective remedy because the Defendants have taken the position that they do not have the resources to fund the carrying costs in the first place (a dubious position given that the Defendants were perfectly capable of paying such costs until the Debtor was convicted in his criminal trial). That said, if the Defendants were to fund

5 The Trustee previously made clear, and the Court recognized, that he reserved his right to seek relief against the Defendants for their continuing violation of the PI Order and other orders.

the carrying costs for the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, the Trustee would be prepared to stand down and not seek the relief requested in this Motion.

5. To be clear, the Trustee does not seek a blank check to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. To the contrary, the Trustee recognizes that he will need to come back to this Court to retain a broker and/or auctioneer to market and/or facilitate the sale of such assets, as well as for approval of the terms of one or more such sales to prospective buyers. Pending an order determining the parties' entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales, the Trustee will hold such net proceeds in escrow, with all parties' rights thereto fully preserved.6

6. Finally, the Trustee acknowledges that, in theory, an alternative remedy could be authorize him to *market* the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, leaving the question as to his authority to *sell* such assets for another day. However, such alternative relief would be ineffective here, because, absent a grant of authority to sell these assets, no serious broker or prospective buyer would expend time and resources engaging with the Trustee on the sale or sales of such significant assets.

7. In sum, given the Defendants' clear and continuing violation of the PI Order and other orders, the only avenue to mitigating the harm caused by the Defendants' noncompliance is to minimize the period during which the Estate is compelled to pay for the carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents and authorize the Trustee now to commence a sale process. The Trustee therefore respectfully submits that this Motion should be granted.

6 For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee's security interest in the Mahwah Mansion for the amount of Mahwah expenses advance by the Estate in accordance with the Funding Order (as defined below) shall continue in the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion.

## **BACKGROUND**

### **I. Adversary Proceeding**

8. The Mahwah Mansion is one of the largest mansions in the United States, a 21 bedroom, 50,000 square foot, castle-styled private residence with 12.5-acre grounds located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. The Debtor purchased the Mahwah Mansion through Taurus Fund LLC ("Taurus Fund") in December 2021 for \$26.5 million for his personal and family use, employing Taurus Fund and his associates to conceal his ownership of the property.

9. On July 11, 2024, the Trustee commenced this Adversary Proceeding by filing his *Complaint* [Adv. ECF No. 1] (the "Complaint") against Taurus Fund, and Scott Barnett and Taurus Management LLC as trustees of Taurus Fund (together with Taurus Fund, collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking (a) a declaratory judgment that: (i) the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Mahwah Mansion; (ii) the Debtor is the equitable owner of Taurus Fund; and (iii) Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego; and (b) on these respective bases, an order under 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, and 544 requiring turnover to the Estate and delivery to the Trustee of: (i) the Mahwah Mansion and all fixtures and personal property inside the Mahwah Mansion; (ii) any membership interest or other ownership interest in Taurus Fund; and (iii) all Taurus Fund's assets.

10. Together with the Complaint, the Trustee filed his Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 4] (the "PI Motion").

11. On August 1, 2023, the Court entered its *Order Granting in Part* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order* [Adv. ECF No. 17] and, pursuant thereto, on August 14, 2023 held a hearing on the PI Motion, including evidence and argument from the Trustee and the corporate Defendants.

12. On August 24, 2023, the Court entered its PI Order. The PI Order determined, among other things, that it is more likely than not that: (a) the Debtor is the beneficial owner of and controls the Mahwah Mansion (PI Order at p. 16); and (b) Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego and/or is beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor (*id.* at 20). The PI Order further determined "the Mahwah Mansion is being made available to myriad individuals who are members of entities other than Taurus Fund" (*id.* at 10), and that:

> absent a preliminary injunction, Taurus Funds' assets are likely to be damaged and/or dissipated by the Defendants and/or the NFSC, the Whistleblower Movement, and/or the Himalaya "farms" and/or other parties affiliated with the Individual Debtor's interests. Damage to the Mahwah Mansion is particularly concerning given that, as established by Exhibit 10, it is on the National Register of Historic Places and must be maintained and repaired according to applicable standards.

(*Id.* at 11.)

13. In order to preserve the value of the Mahwah Mansion, the PI Order provided, among other things, that access to the Mahwah Mansion shall be restricted and that the Defendants "shall employ [Security Services] for the Mahwah Mansion," which Security Services must:

> (i) log all persons entering and exiting grounds, interior, and all property of the Mahwah Mansion; (ii) supervise visitors to the grounds, interior, and all property of the Mahwah Mansion; (iii) secure and safeguard any and all assets or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and/or any and all any and all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion; and (iv) notify the Defendants and the Trustee of any damage or dissipation of any assets or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and/or any personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion

(*Id.* at 24.)

14. The PI Order required that, on or before 4:00 p.m. on August 28, 2023, the

Defendants file proof of insurance for (i) all assets and property of Taurus Fund, including the

Mahwah Mansion; and (ii) all personalty and/or fixtured in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion ("Proof of Insurance"). (*Id.* at 47.)

15. The Defendants failed to file Proof of Insurance by the deadline set by the Court, nor have they filed any Proof of Insurance since that time. The Trustee understands that the Mahwah Mansion and its contents remain uninsured, which makes the Security Services particularly critical to preserve the value of this property.

16. On August 31, 2023, in light of the Defendants' failure to insure the property, the Court entered its *Order Granting Emergency Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 58] (the "PI Mod. Order"), restricting access to the Mahwah Mansion solely to:

> (a) the Security Services; (b) the Trustee and his representatives and/or professionals; (c) the United States Department of Justice and its employees and representatives; (d) the FBI and its employees and representatives; (e) other federal, New Jersey state, or Mahwah municipal law enforcement agencies and their employees and representatives; (f) any other persons expressly authorized by the Trustee in writing (which can include email); and (g) any other person expressly authorized by the United States District Court for the Southern District for New York or this Court

(PI Mod. Order at 2-3.)

17. The PI Order (as modified by the PI Mod. Order) remains in full force and effect.

## **II. Settlement Agreement with Government and Debtor's Criminal Trial**

18. The United States of America (the "Government") in its criminal case against the Debtor [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the "Criminal Case") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has asserted forfeiture claims, including with respect to the Mahwah Mansion. To avoid risk to the Estate based on the outcome of forfeiture proceedings as to the resources expended prosecuting the Adversary Proceeding and preserving the value of the Mahwah Mansion, the Trustee entered into the *Stipulation Between Chapter 11 Trustee and United States of America* (the "Settlement Agreement") with the Government, which the Court

has authorized and approved in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019. *See Order Approving, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee Regarding Settlement with United States of America* [ECF No. 2849 in Case No. 22-50073] (the "Settlement Order").7

19. The Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, for any "expenses to ensure safekeeping and custody of the [Mahwah Mansion] (including security service at or around the premises)" incurred by the Estate to be paid from the proceeds of the eventual sale of the Mahwah Mansion. (Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 2, 3.) The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Government "shall not oppose . . . any effort by the Trustee to obtain control of and/or sell the [Mahwah Mansion]." (Settlement Agreement ¶ 1.)

20. On July 16, 2024, following the trial (the "Criminal Trial") in the Debtor's Criminal Case, the Debtor was convicted of nine felony counts, *i.e.*, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud in connection with the Farm Loan Program, securities fraud in connection with the Farm Loan program, wire fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, securities fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, and wire fraud in connection with the Himalaya Exchange.

21. During the Criminal Trial, the Government offered extensive evidence that the Debtor, through his agents and network of shell companies, funded the purchase and renovation of the Mahwah Mansion for himself and his family, including (a) causing, through his agents, the transfer of funds to purchase the mansion, (b) selecting furnishings and artwork for the mansion, and (c) directing multi-million-dollar renovations to its floor plan. In addition, Defendant Scott Barnett testified, among other things, that he had accepted the role of managing member of

7 The Settlement Agreement is appended to the Settlement Order.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 10 of 500

Taurus Fund without knowing what Taurus Fund was or what his position entailed, thinking "they just meant [for Mr. Barnett] to manage the property and install the security services." (*See* Criminal Trial Transcript, July 8, 2024, at 5514:5-16, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit 2**.) Mr. Barnett further testified that he became managing member of the Taurus Fund after Aaron Mitchell (the Debtor's personal attorney) asked him to sign some paperwork. Mr. Barnett did not understand what he was signing, and when he later realized "[t]hey put me down as the owner of [Taurus Fund] [it] took me a little bit by surprise . . . ." (*See* Ex. 2 at 5515:5-12, 5516:4-15.)8

### **III. Defendants Violate PI Order by Refusing to Fund Security Services**

22. On July 28, 2024, a representative of Taurus Fund contacted the manager of the Security Services via email erroneously stating that, because of the verdict following the Debtor's Criminal Trial, the "Mahwah Mansion belong[s] to the Gover[n]ment" and further stating that "[s]ince July 29, 2024, the security service costs can [n]o longer be paid."9 This violated the PI Order, which requires the Defendants to employ the Security Services. Although the statement that the Mahwah Mansion belongs to the Government is erroneous, the email conveyed loud and clear the message from the Kwok enterprise that it makes no sense to fund the costs of the Mahwah Mansion because he will not end up occupying it.

23. As discussed at a status conference held in the Adversary Proceeding on July 30, 2024, the Trustee has assured payment of the Security Services and other necessary expenses of the Mahwah Mansion to preserve the value of this asset while the Trustee addresses the

8 In the PI Order, the Court found that Taurus Fund's Articles of Organization had listed its managers and/or managing members as Taurus Management and Mr. Barnett and that Mr. Barnett had signed the articles as "Manager" or "Member." (PI Order at 19.) The Court further found that Mr. Barnett "is or was the … Debtor's chauffeur and bodyguard." (*Id.* at 20.) Mr. Barnett failed to appear at the PI Hearing personally or through counsel. (*Id.* p. 4.)

9 A true and accurate copy of this email is attached hereto as **Exhibit 3**.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 11 of 500

Defendants' violation of the PI Order with the Court. In fact, this Court observed that "if these payments aren't made, then they're going to be in violation of an existing order and they could be subject to sanctions, including jail." (*See* Transcript, July 30, 2024, at 18:18-30, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit 4**; *see also id.* at 19:9-12.) Moreover, the Court warned the Defendants that it "can issue orders that are supplemental to orders that are already in existence in this adversary proceeding." (*Id.* at 30:14-15.)

24. Following this status conference, at which the Defendants' counsel offered no explanation for the email by Taurus Fund's representative and could not assure that the Defendants would fund the Security Services or other expenses (including real estate taxes) of the Mahwah Mansion going forward, the Court ordered:

> [A]t or before 5:00 p.m. on August 1, 2024, the Defendant shall file on the docket of this adversary proceeding a Statement regarding whether the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding including, but not limited to, paying all expenses of the Defendant due and owing to Hawk Eye Security and all real estate taxes due and owing, including those due and owing on August 1, 2024. The Statement shall include the name, home and business addresses, and position of the individual who holds the authority to decide whether the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding and pay all expenses of the Defendant.

Docket Entry Order [Adv. ECF No. 108] (July 30, 2024) (the "Disclosure Order").

25. On August 1, 2024, the Defendants' counsel filed the *Fourth Amended Response re: Preliminary Injunction* [Adv. ECF No. 109] (the "Response to Disclosure Order"), which states that Defendant Taurus Fund will not pay for the Security Services or real estate taxes for the Mahwah Mansion, because Taurus Fund purportedly does not have funds to make such payments. (Response to Disclosure Order at 3.) In that response, counsel also stated that there is no individual associated with Taurus Fund who can make decisions as to compliance with court orders. (*Id.* ("there is no individual affiliated with a Defendant who has the authority to

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 12 of 500

decide 'whether' the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding and pay all expenses of the Defendant").)

26. At this time, the cost of the Security Services is approximately \$14,200 per week, and the cost of the real estate taxes for the Mahwah Mansion is approximately \$70,000 per quarter. In addition, utilities, including electricity, gas, and internet, cost approximately \$6,300 per month. In the aggregate, these expenses alone10 amount to more than \$280,000 per quarter.

# **IV. Trustee's Emergency Motion to Approve Estate Funding to Maintain Mahwah Mansion**

27. On August 5, 2024, the Trustee filed his *(I) Reply to Defendants' Fourth Amended Response re: Preliminary Injunction and (II) Emergency Motion Pursuant to Sections 363(b) and 105(a) of Bankruptcy Code to Approve Estate Funding to Maintain Mahwah Mansion* [Adv. ECF No. 113] (the "Initial Funding Motion"). The Initial Funding Motion discussed why the Response to Disclosure Order did not comply with the Disclosure Order and why the excuses in that response are not credible, and the Initial Funding Motion further requested the Court to approve the Trustee's funding of the expenses of the Mahwah Mansion while the Trustee addresses the Defendants' conduct with the Court.

28. On August 7, 2024, the Trustee filed an amended motion [ECF No. 3381 in Case No. 22-50073] (the "Amended Funding Motion") supplementing and amending the Initial Funding Motion. As detailed in the Amended Funding Motion, the Trustee requested that the Court authorize the Trustee to fund the reasonable and necessary expenses of the Mahwah Mansion, including, without limitation, payment of the Security Services, the utilities, and any real estate taxes owing with respect to the property (the "Mahwah Expenses"), up to the

10 The enumerated expenses do not include other costs that may need to be incurred to maintain the Mahwah Mansion, including pool maintenance and landscaping, or to bring it to a condition necessary to make it suitable for sale.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 13 of 500

maximum amount of three hundred thousand dollars (\$300,000.00) (the "Expenses Cap") until further order of the Court. The Amended Funding Motion further requested that, to the extent the outcome of the Adversary Proceeding does not result in the entry of a judgment confirming that the Mahwah Mansion is property of the Estate (because it is beneficially owned by the Debtor and/or because Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego), the Trustee (for the benefit of the Estate) shall then have a claim against Taurus Fund in the amount of the Mahwah Expenses advanced by the Estate secured by the value of the Mahwah Mansion.

29. Taurus Fund filed a response to the Amended Funding Motion [ECF No. 3392 in Case No. 22-50073], but did not object to the relief requested in the Amended Funding Motion.

30. As counsel for the Trustee made clear at the August 13, 2024 hearing on the Amended Funding Motion, the Trustee reserved its right to seek further relief in regard to the Defendants' violation of the PI Order. (*See* Transcript, Aug. 13, 2024, at 84:23-85:2, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as **Exhibit 5**.) The Court acknowledged that "the trustee is not pressing any issues with the preliminary injunction at this time." *Id.* at 87:13-14.

31. On August 15, 2024, the Court entered an order [ECF No. 3422 in Case No. 22- 50073] (the "Funding Order") granting the relief requested in the Amended Funding Motion. Among other things, the Funding Order confirmed that nothing therein "shall relieve the defendants in the Adversary Proceeding of their obligations under the [PI Order] or the [Disclosure Order], which remain in full force and effect." Funding Order ¶ 5.

### **V. Trustee's Summary Judgment Motion**

32. On September 11, 2024, the Trustee filed its motion for summary judgment in the Adversary Proceeding [Adv. ECF No. 124] (the "Summary Judgment Motion") as well as his related memorandum of law (the "Memo of Law"), the *Declaration of Douglass E. Barron in Support of Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho*

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 14 of 500

*Wan Kwok for Summary Judgment*, and the *Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts*, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.

33. As detailed in the Memo of Law and the related filings, the evidence, including the evidence submitted at the Debtor's criminal trial, establishes that there is no dispute of material fact with respect to the Trustee's claims in the Adversary Proceeding and the Trustee is entitled to a summary judgment ruling that the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor is the equitable owner of Taurus Fund, and Taurus Fund is the Debtor's alter ego. The Trustee's filings detail the evidence uncovered since entry of the PI Order which confirms and strengthens the Trustee's claims against the Defendants.

- 34. For example, as detailed in the Memo of Law and the related filings: - Like all of his other valuable assets, the Debtor hid the Mahwah Mansion under the ostensible ownership of a shell company nominally managed by a trusted confidant—in this case, his bodyguard, Scott Barnett (the purported manager of Taurus Fund and a co-defendant in this Adversary Proceeding). - As revealed by a voicemail the Government presented to the jury during the Criminal Trial, in late November 2021, the Debtor instructed his personal counsel, Aaron Mitchell, to negotiate the purchase of the Mahwah Mansion. Thereafter, through his agents, the Debtor caused funds purportedly belonging to G Club Operations LLC ("G Club") one of the Debtor's *alter egos* and one of the key instruments of his criminal enterprise—to be transferred to Hamilton Opportunity Fund another entity he controlled—to complete the mansion's purchase. - Upon acquiring the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor picked out furnishings and artwork and directed multi-million-dollar renovations to its floor plan, including plans to build a wing for each of himself, his wife, his daughter, and his son. - Until his arrest, the Debtor used the Mahwah Mansion as one of his residences, as shown by his personal belongings found strewn throughout the property, including a large collection of \$10,000 Brioni suits in the master bedroom closet labeled "Brioni for Miles Kwok" on the inside pocket. - During questioning in the Criminal Trial, the Debtor's own counsel referred to the Debtor as the buyer of the mansion. - No evidence has surfaced that Taurus Fund (or anyone else) is the mansion's true beneficial owner. Barnett is the only one who could theoretically provide testimony in support of Taurus Fund, but he offered no testimony in the criminal trial to refute the Debtor's ownership of the Mahwah Mansion. Indeed, he testified that he knew nothing at all about Taurus Fund's assets and business operations. - When asked how he became the manager of Taurus Fund, Barnett admitted he simply signed paperwork that Aaron Mitchell told him to sign, and he was surprised when he later learned of his supposedly prominent role at Taurus Fund. - Like many other individuals in the Debtor's orbit—such as his wife, his son, his daughter, and his daughter's boyfriend, among others—Barnett was a mere puppet for the Debtor who served no purpose other than to hold nominal title to the Debtor's assets.11 - 35. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Summary Judgment Motion has been

set for October 16, 2024. (*See* ECF No. 133.) However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to

wait until the outcome of that matter to proceed with marketing the Mahwah Mansion and the

Contents for sale.

# **RELIEF REQUESTED**

36. By this Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order authorizing the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents for the benefit of the Estate, subject to further orders of this Court (i) approving the Trustee's retention of a real estate broker and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate such sales, (ii) authorizing the terms and

11 No one other than Barnett could credibly provide testimony to support Taurus Fund's position, either. As noted above, Taurus Fund's counsel informed the Court that there is no individual associated with Taurus Fund who can make decisions as to compliance with court orders. This is not surprising given that the real owner and decision-maker of Taurus Fund—the Debtor—is behind bars and will likely be for a long time.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 16 of 500

conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (iii) determining the parties' entitlement to the net proceeds from such sales.12

37. For the avoidance of doubt, pending any order concerning the parties' entitlement to such net sale proceeds, such proceeds shall be held by the Trustee in escrow, with the rights of all parties to such proceeds fully preserved.13

38. The Motion requests an expansion of the injunctive relief granted in the PI Order pursuant to Civil Rule 65, made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7065, given the Defendants' continued non-compliance with the Court's orders.

## **JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY BASIS**

39. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.14 This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.

40. The statutory basis for the relief requested herein is Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable through Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

## **ARGUMENT**

41. The Trustee should be authorized now to conduct a sale of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. While the Trustee recognizes that such relief is perhaps unusual prior to entry

12 Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the PI Order.

13 As noted, the Trustee's security interest in the Mahwah Mansion for the amount of Mahwah expenses advance by the Estate in accordance with the Funding Order shall continue in the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion.

14 While the Defendants have filed a motion to withdraw the reference [Adv. ECF No. 116], this Court retains jurisdiction over this Adversary Proceeding pending a ruling on that motion.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 17 of 500

of summary judgment in favor of the Trustee, the Trustee respectfully submits that such relief is appropriate under the extraordinary circumstances of this case.

42. As an initial matter, the Trustee submits that the relief requested in this Motion should be viewed as supplementing and enforcing the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted by the Court in the PI Order.15 Such supplementation and enforcement is appropriate here given the Defendants' willful and continuing noncompliance with the clear mandates of the PI Order and the Disclosure Order and given the lack of any other effective remedy and/or sanctions to enforce compliance with this Court's orders.

### **I. Relief Sought in Motion Is Appropriate Expansion of PI Order**

43. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish (i) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (ii) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, (iii) the balance of equities is in its favor, and (iv) an injunction is in the public interest. *Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council*, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008); *see also In re Motors Liquidation Co.*, 513 B.R. 467, 479 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). As detailed below, the relief requested in the Motion satisfies each of these requirements.

### A. Trustee Will Likely Succeed on Merits

44. A party seeking injunctive relief need only show a likelihood of success on the merits of at least one of its claims. *In re Homaidan*, 640 B.R. 810 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2022) (citing *3M Co. v. CovCare, Inc.*, 2021 WL 7162292, at \*2 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 7, 2021)). A plaintiff need not show that success is an absolute certainty; he need only make a showing that the

15 As noted above, the Court cautioned Defendants at the July 30, 2024 status conference that it had the authority to issue "orders that are supplemental to order that are already in existence in this adversary proceeding." (July 30, 2024 H'g Tr. at 30:14-15.)

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 18 of 500

probability of his prevailing is better than fifty percent. *Id.* (citing *Home It, Inc. v. Wen*, 2020 WL 353098, at \*5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)).

45. Here, the Court has already determined, for the reasons set forth in the PI Order, that the Trustee is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims against the Defendants. (PI Order at 22.) Since entry of that order, the evidence in support of the Trustee's claims (including evidence introduced in the Debtor's Criminal Trial) has grown considerably, establishing beyond any doubt that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents are property of the Estate.

### B. Debtor's Estate Is Likely to Suffer Irreparable Harm

46. The Estate will likely suffer irreparable harm unless the Trustee is authorized to commence, as soon as possible, the process of selling the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. The carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion are enormous. In light of Defendants' failure to comply with their obligations under the PI Order, the Estate is incurring approximately \$300,000 each quarter to maintain the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents—and this assumes there are no other unforeseen expenses in connection with maintaining these assets (which, as the Court is well aware, remain uninsured). Worse, at this time, the Trustee is incurring these costs with respect to assets that are not property of the Estate—although, as noted, the Trustee submits that such assets will very likely be determined to be property of the Estate. In the interim, however, the Trustee is expending an enormous amount of Estate resources. Only by authorizing the Trustee now to commence a sale process will the Trustee be able to shorten the period over which such costs will be incurred.

47. Moreover, while the Trustee would be able to seek reimbursement of these carrying costs from Taurus Fund in the unlikely event that the Court were to conclude that the Mahwah Mansion is not property of the Estate (with such reimbursement claim secured by the

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 19 of 500

value of the Mahwah Mansion), he will have no ability to recover these costs in the far more likely event that the Trustee prevails in this Adversary Proceeding. Such costs would simply reduce the net proceeds to be realized by the Estate upon a successful sale or sales of such assets.

### C. Balance of Equities Favors Trustee

48. The balance of equities strongly favors granting the requested relief. As shown above, the passage of time will cause irreparable harm to the Estate. On the other hand, there is no prejudice to the Defendants from permitting the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, subject to further order of this Court as to the terms of such sales and the parties' respective entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales. The net cash proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion and personal property located within it will be available to the Defendants if they prevail, and such proceeds are a perfectly acceptable substitute for the assets themselves. As noted, the parties' rights to such net cash proceeds would be fully preserved.

49. Notably, the Defendants have never controlled or occupied the Mahwah Mansion and have no current possessory interest in the mansion, nor is the mansion occupied by anyone else at this time. In fact, in July 2024, the Defendants discontinued paying the maintenance costs after they apparently recognized—following the Debtor's conviction in the Criminal Case—that the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents would become either property of the Estate (if the Trustee prevails in this Adversary Proceeding) or subject to the Government's forfeiture proceedings in the Criminal Case. Thus, unlike other situations involving real estate, the sale of the Mahwah Mansion will not cause irreparable harm to its purported owner.

## D. Public Interest Favors Injunction

50. Finally, the public interest favors expanding the injunction as requested, because doing so will help maximize the net proceeds to be realized from the sale of assets that are very

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 20 of 500

likely to be determined to be property of the Estate, thereby maximizing the recovery by the Debtor's creditors. This objective can only be accomplished by minimizing the period over which the Estate will be forced to incur the enormous carrying costs associated with these assets, which, in turn, requires the Trustee to commence the sale process as soon as possible.

## **II. Requested Relief Is Appropriate as Sanction for Violation of Court Orders**

51. The relief requested in this Motion is also justified as an appropriate form of sanction for the Defendants' clear and continuing violation of the PI Order and the Disclosure Order. As noted, the Trustee previously reserved its right to seek sanctions for the Defendants' violations of these orders, and the Court acknowledged that it had the authority to issue sanctions for such violations.

### A. Defendants Are in Violation of PI Order and Disclosure Order

52. This Court has the express authority to compel compliance with its orders. *See*

*U.S. Lines, Inc. v. GAC Marine Fuels, Ltd. (In re McLean Indus.)*, 68 B.R. 690, 695 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 1986) ("The duty of any court to hear and resolve legal disputes carries with it the power to enforce the order."); *Milner v. Duncklee*, 460 F. Supp. 2d 360, 375 (D. Conn. 2006) ("[A] court has the power, under appropriate circumstances, to enforce its own orders . . . .").

- 53. Among other things, the PI Order required the Defendants to - not impair, in any way, any asset or property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion, and any personalty and/or fixture in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (PI Order at 22-23); - file proof of insurance for (i) all assets and property of Taurus Fund, including the Mahwah Mansion; and (ii) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (*id.* at 23); and - employ the Security Services (*id.* at 24).

54. At this time, the Defendants are in clear breach of the PI Order, having failed to continue to fund the carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion—most notably the Security Services

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 21 of 500

and real estate taxes—thereby forcing the Trustee to pay approximately \$300,000 per quarter to maintain an asset that the Court has not (yet) determined to be property of the Estate.

55. In addition, the Defendants are also in violation of the Disclosure Order. The Defendants' response to that order is evasive, incomplete, and noncompliant. Notably, it fails to explain why the Defendants are no longer complying with the PI Order and does not identify any individual who as the authority to make decisions for the Defendants.

### B. Issuing of Sanctions Is Appropriate

56. A bankruptcy court has the ability under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to "issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code]." 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Pursuant to section 105(a), the Court has the authority to hold a party in contempt, which "inherently include[s] the ability to sanction a party." *In re Dickerson*, No. 08-33071, 2009 WL 4666457, at \*9 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8 2009) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek), 544 F.3d 34, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2008)); *see also In re Chauteaugay Corp.*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990); *In re Ditech Holding Corp.*, No. 19-10412 (JLG); 2021 WL 3716398, at \*7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2021); *In re Bambi*, 492 B.R. 183, 191 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). In addition, Bankruptcy Rule 9020 expressly contemplates that a bankruptcy court may issue an order of contempt under the appropriate circumstances.

57. A party "may be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with a court order if (1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. It need not be established that the violation was willful." *Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Medical Sys. Info. Technologies, Inc.*, 369

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 22 of 500

F.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sanctions for civil contempt "may be imposed both to coerce future compliance with a court order issued for another party's benefit and to 'compensate for any harm that previously resulted' from the noncompliance." *In re 1990's Caterers Ltd. d/b/a Vina de Villa Caterers*, 531 B.R. 309, 319 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting *In re Chief Executive Officers Clubs, Inc.*, 359 B.R. 527, 534 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)). The sanctions a bankruptcy court may impose in response to civil contempt are "many and varied." *In re Vaso Active Pharms.*, Inc., 514 B.R. 416, 423 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014) (citation omitted).

58. Here, the terms of the PI Order and the Disclosure Order are clear and unambiguous. There can also be no serious dispute that the Defendants are in violation of these orders. Nor have the Defendants diligently attempted to comply in any reasonable manner. While the Defendants have asserted that they do not have the resources to comply with the PI Order, *see* Response to Disclosure Order at 3, no explanation has been given as to why resources allegedly dried up only after the Debtor had been convicted in the Criminal Case—instead, the Defendants have placed blame on asset seizures by the Government. Response to Disclosure Order at 2 (contending two affiliates of Taurus Fund, *i.e.*, Hamilton Taurus Fund SP and G Club International Ltd. BVI ("G-Club International"), have had their assets frozen by the Government).) But as the Government's *Superseding Indictment* of the Debtor makes clear, the Government's seizures of cash occurred mostly in September and October of 2022 and at the latest in March 2023—well before the PI Order entered in August 2023 and the funding of the Security Services and other expenses that has occurred in the ensuing year.16 Thus, it is apparent

16 A true and accurate copy of the Superseding Indictment [S.D.N.Y. Case No. 23-cr-118 ECF No. 307] is attached hereto as **Exhibit 6**. The Government's seizure of G-Club International's cash account is described on p. 42 and the seizure of various accounts of "Hamilton" entities is described on pp. 41-44.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 23 of 500

that the Government's seizures are not the real reason the Defendants have terminated funding for the Security Services as required by the PI Order. The reason for such termination is that the Debtor will not occupy the Mahwah Mansion following the guilty verdict in his Criminal Case.

59. Moreover, the Response to Disclosure Order does not disclose the identity of the individual principal who has authority to decide what payments Taurus Fund does or does not make (or otherwise exercises management authority with respect to this entity). The Response instead evasively claims that "there is no individual affiliated with a Defendant who has the authority to decide 'whether' the Defendant will continue to comply with existing orders entered in this adversary proceeding and pay all expenses of the Defendant." (Response to Disclosure Order at 3.)

60. Finally, the Trustee submits that the requested form of sanction (*i.e.*, authorizing the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents) is appropriate under the circumstances. Alternatives, such as imposing monetary sanctions—whether in the amount of the carrying costs or some greater amount—would be utterly pointless under the circumstances, as the Defendants are taking the position that they do not have the resources to fund any such payments in the first place. *If the Defendants did have the ability to fund the carrying costs and agreed to do so, the Trustee would not seek the relief in this Motion.*

61. The only avenue to mitigating the harm caused by the Defendants' noncompliance with the PI Order and the Disclosure Order (namely, forcing the Estate to fund the carrying costs of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents) is to minimize the period during which the Estate is compelled to pay for such costs by authorizing the Trustee to commence a sale process now.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 24 of 500

62. To be clear, the Trustee, in theory, would be content with merely seeking authorization to *market* the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, and leaving the question as to his authority to *sell* such assets for another day. However, such more limited relief would be ineffective here because, absent a grant of authority to sell these assets, no broker or prospective buyer would expend time and resources engaging with the Trustee on any such sale or sales.

63. Finally, as noted, the Trustee is not seeking blanket authority to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents. Any such sale or sales would remain subject to further orders of the Court (a) authorizing the retention of a real estate broker and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate the sale of the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, (b) authorizing the terms and conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (c) determining the parties' entitlement to the net proceeds from such sales. Moreover, the Trustee is not seeking, at this time, authorization to retain a real estate broker and/or auctioneer to market and/or facilitate any such sales.

64. For all these reasons, the Court should grant the relief requested in this Motion as sanctions for Defendants' non-compliance with the PI Order and the Disclosure Order.

### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**

65. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.

### **CONCLUSION**

66. For all these reasons, the Trustee submits that the Court authorize the Trustee to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents, subject to terms of the Proposed Order.

[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank*.]

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order granting

the relief requested herein and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

New Haven, Connecticut

Dated: October 1, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE

By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*

Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com

*and*

G. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 alexbongartz@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com

*and*

Nicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com

*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 26 of | |---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------| | | | 500 | | |

# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**

| : In re: : Chapter 11 : 1 HO WAN KWOK, et al., : Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) : Debtor. : (Jointly Administered) ------------------------------------------------------- x : LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : TAURUS FUND LLC, : SCOTT BARNETT, as trustee of TAURUS : | ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05017 | | | | | | | | | | TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC, as trustee : of TAURUS FUND LLC, : | FUND LLC, and | : | | : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------- x | | |

# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**

The undersigned hereby certifies that the date hereof, the foregoing Motion was electronically filed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the "Chapter 11 Case") and adversary proceeding (the "Adversary Proceeding"). Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the Chapter 11 Case and Adversary Proceeding by operation of the Court's

electronic filing ("CM/ECF") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's

CM/ECF system.

Dated: October 1, 2024 By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*

New Haven, Connecticut Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com

*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*

# **EXHIBIT 1**

**(Proposed Order)**

# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**

| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | | |-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------| | In re: | : : | Chapter 11 | | 1 | : | | | HO WAN KWOK, et al., | : : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | Debtors. | : | (Jointly Administered) | | ----------------------------------------------------------- | : x | |

# **[PROPOSED] ORDER AUTHORIZING TRUSTEE TO SELL MAHWAH MANSION AND ITS CONTENTS, SUBJECT TO ENTRY OF FURTHER ORDERS, INCLUDING AS TO RETENTION OF BROKER, TERMS OF SUCH SALES, AND PARTIES' ENTITLEMENT TO SALE PROCEEDS**

Upon the motion (the "Motion"),2 filed Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the "Trustee") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the "Debtor"), requesting entry of an order, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Cival Rules"), as made applicable through Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the "Bankruptcy Rules"), and the PI Order entered in this Adversary Proceeding, authorizing the Trustee to sell (a) the real property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 (the "Mahwah Mansion") and (b) all personalty and/or fixtures in, on, or at the Mahwah Mansion (the "Contents") for the benefit of the Estate, all as detailed in the Motion; and the Court having found that (a) the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; (b) this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); (c)

1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).

2 Capitalized terms not expressly defined herein adopt the definitions set forth in the Motion.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 30 of 500

venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and (d) good and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given; and no other or further notice being required and the Court having found and determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and it appearing that the relief requested by the Motion, as modified by the terms of this Order is in the best interest of the Debtors' estates and creditors; and upon all of the proceedings had before the Court and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby

### ORDERED THAT:

1. The Motion is GRANTED as set forth herein.

2. The Trustee is authorized to sell the Mahwah Mansion and the Contents subject to the terms of this Order.

3. Any sale or sales of the Mahwah Mansion or the Contents shall be subject to further orders of this Court (a) authorizing the retention of any real estate brokers and/or auctioneers to market and/or facilitate the sale of such assets, (b) authorizing the terms and conditions of such sales to one or more prospective buyers, and (c) determining the parties' entitlements to the net proceeds from such sales.

4. The net proceeds from such sales shall be held in escrow, with all parties' rights as to their entitlement to such proceeds preserved. For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee's security interest in the Mahwah Mansion for the amount of Mahwah Expenses (as defined in the Funding Order) advanced by the Estate shall continue in the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 31 of 500

5. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order shall relieve the Defendants of their obligations under the PI Order or the Disclosure Order, which remain in full force and effect.

6. Nothing in this Order shall modify the terms of the Settlement Order, which remains in full force and effect.

7. The Trustee is authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.

8. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.

9. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.

# **EXHIBIT 2**

**Criminal Trial Transcript, July 8, 2024**

5285 O78VGUO1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 23 Cr. 118 (AT) MILES GUO, Defendant. Trial ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. July 8, 2024 9:00 a.m. Before: HON. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge -and a Jury-APPEARANCES DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MICAH F. FERGENSON RYAN B. FINKEL JUSTIN HORTON JULIANA N. MURRAY Assistant United States Attorneys SABRINA P. SHROFF Attorney for Defendant PRYOR CASHMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU MATTHEW BARKAN JOHN KILGARD ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: E. SCOTT SCHIRICK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 33 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43< |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Also Present: | | 2 | Isabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO | | 3 | Robert Stout, Special Agent, FBI Jorge Salazar, Defense Paralegal | 4 | Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin) Shi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin) | 5 | Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin) Barbara Robertson, Interpreter (Mandarin) | 6 | Tuo Hung, Interpreter (Mandarin) Peter Ginsberg, Attorney for Witness Jianhu Yi | 7 | | | 8 | | | 9 | | | 10 | | | 11 | | | 12 | | | 13 | | | 14 | | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | ;br>500 O78VGUO1 | Page 34 of 5286 | --------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 35 of 5287 500 O78VGUO1 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (Trial resumed; jury not present) | | 2 | THE COURT: Good morning. | | 3 | Please make your appearances. | | 4 | MR. HORTON: Good morning, your Honor. | | 5 | Justin Horton, Micah Fergenson, Juliana Murray, and | | 6 | Ryan Finkel, for the United States. | | 7 | MR. SCHIRICK: Good morning, your Honor. | | 8 | Scott Schirick, Sidhardha Kamaraju, and Matthew | | 9 | Barkan, for the defendant, Mr. Guo, together at counsel's table | | 10 | with Mr. Guo. | | 11 | THE COURT: Please be seated. | | 12 | On June 25, 2024, the parties submitted their proposed | | 13 | revisions and additions to the Court's draft jury charge. | | 14 | Yesterday, July 7, 2024, the government filed a letter | | 15 | requesting additional revisions. I also received a letter from | | 16 | the defense at 12:13 a.m. today. | | 17 | I will address each of the parties' proposed edits in | | 18 | the order they appear in the jury charge that my law clerks | | 19 | have just provided to you. | | 20 | Starting on page 6, in the first paragraph of the | | 21 | burden of proof and presumption of innocence section — this | | 22 | also applies to page 14 in the first paragraph of the summary | | 23 | of indictment section. The government requests that the Court | | 24 | add language stating that the government is not required to | | 25 | prove every allegation in the indictment, but instead only the | | | |

#### 5288 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 36 of 500

elements of the charges. The defense does not oppose the addition of this language. I will add the requested language to the burden-of-proof and presumption-of-innocence section, but I will not repeat it in the summary of the indictment section.

On page 13, in the second paragraph of the section titled "Government as a Party," the government asks that I add the words "United States" to the sentence beginning "This case is important to the government," which I will do.

In the following paragraph, which begins with "The fact that the prosecution," the government requests that I include the following language: "This prosecution was lawfully brought by the United States of America, and the decision to bring this case was in no way influenced by the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party." I do not believe these sentences are necessary. The evidence thus far has not left the jurors with the impression that the prosecution was unlawful or influenced by the CCP.

On page 14, in the first paragraph under 14, summary of the indictment, the government requests that next to the defendant's name, I include that he is also known as Ho Wan Kwok, Guo Wengui, Brother 7, The Principal, and Boss. I will include that Miles Guo is also known as Ho Wan Kwok and Guo Wengui.

In the last paragraph on page 14, which begins with

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

#### 5289 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 37 of 500

"The indictment contains," and on page 15 in the second paragraph, which begins with "In a moment," the defense requests that I include the words "against the defendant" after "12 counts." Because the indictment contains one count against Mr. Je alone, I will include the defense's language.

On page 15, paragraph 1, the government requests that the phrase "lifestyle membership company known as G/CLUBS" be revised to "purported online membership club known as G/CLUBS." The government states that this tracks the language in the indictment. At this point I do not believe that the additional descriptors are necessary and shall simply state "in connection with G/CLUBS."

Page 15 contains a sentence in paragraph 2 stating: "Each count constitutes a separate crime." I grant the defense's request to add the word "alleged" in between "separate" and "crime."

On page 16, in the second paragraph, under "16. Elements of Wire Fraud," in the last full sentence which begins with "Count Nine," the government requests that the phrase "how their membership dues would be used" be revised to the more neutral description "how the money individuals sent to G/CLUBS would be used." I will make this revision.

In the same paragraph, in a subsequent sentence, the government requests that the phrase "how the funds raised would be used" be revised to "how the money sent to the Himalaya 23 24 25

#### 5290 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 38 of 500

Exchange or spent on its credits would be used." The clause beginning with the word "or" is duplicative, so I will state: "How the money sent to the Himalaya Exchange would be used."

On page 17, the third full paragraph, and page 19, paragraphs 5 and 6, the government contends that "willfully" is not an element of the wire fraud statute and requests its omission throughout. As authority, the government cites Judge Oetken's decision in United States v. Middledorf, 18 Cr. 36, as well as an Eastern District of New York case.

But in Middledorf, although Judge Oetken rejected the instruction from the Sand treatise, he still gave a willfulness instruction; other judges in this district have done the same. See United States v. Bankman-Fried, 22 Cr. 673; United States v. Avenatti, 19 Cr. 374; and United States v. Constanzo Recio, 22 Cr. 281. The Second Circuit has not explicitly disavowed the willfulness element. See United States v. Petrossi, 786 F. App'x 286, 289 (2d Cir. 2019).

However, the definition of "willfully" in my first draft of the charge implies that the defendant needed to know that his action was "unlawful" as opposed to, more generally, "wrong." Accordingly, I will amend the definition which appears on page 19 in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the section titled "b. Second Element: Knowledge and Intent to Defraud" to state: "To act 'willfully' means to act voluntarily and with a wrongful purpose. An act is done 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5291 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 39 of 500

knowingly and willfully if it is done purposefully and deliberately." This accords with the more limited instructions that other judges in this district have used, as well as the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556, 567-68 (2d Cir. 2010). 1 2 3 4 5

On page 17, in the first paragraph under "a. First Element: Scheme to Defraud," the defense asks that I state that a scheme or artifice is a "plan to accomplish a fraudulent objective."

The proposed addition of "fraudulent" is incorrect and I will not include it. 10 11

In the last paragraph on page 17, the defense asks in addition to stating that a statement "is fraudulent if it was made with intent to deceive," that I also state that "the intent to deceive must exist at the time the statement was made."

This addition is not necessary because it is redundant and I will not include it. 17 18

On page 17, after the first full paragraph in the section titled "a, First Element: Scheme to Defraud," the government asks that I include a paragraph stating: "It is not necessary that a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise be made prior to a victim's decision to part with money or property; rather, if after having obtained money or property the defendant devises or participates in a fraudulent 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5292 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 40 of 500

scheme to keep that money or property by making a subsequent false or fraudulent representation as to a material fact, that is sufficient to establish the existence of a scheme to defraud."

I do not agree that this instruction is necessary or helpful and will not include it.

On page 17, after the last full paragraph, the defense requests that I include a paragraph stating: "Fraud requires more than simply proof that a promise was made and then not fulfilled. Failing to maintain a promise or to abide by a term in a contract or other document is not by itself fraudulent. Instead, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, at the time they made the statement or promise, never intended to honor. A subsequent decision by a defendant not to abide by the terms of a promise, contract, or document, even one that is willful, cannot be the basis for a conviction."

I do not agree that this instruction is necessary or helpful and will not include it.

On page 18, paragraph 1, the third sentence states: "That means that if you find that a particular sentence was false, you must determine whether that statement was one that a reasonable person might have considered important in making his or her decision."

The defense requests that "might" be changed to

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

21 22 23

#### 5293 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 41 of 500

"would." I will make this change.

After the third "that," the defense also requests that I include the clause "was capable of influencing the decision." The addition of that language would confuse the jury and I will not include it.

On page 18, before the paragraph that begins with "in determining whether a scheme to defraud exists," the defense requests the insertion of a new paragraph that states: "To establish a scheme to defraud, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant contemplated depriving another of money or property. It is not enough that some other person or company could have acquired money or property. To prove the scheme to defraud element, a defendant must have contemplated actual harm would befall victims due to his deception. A scheme to defraud need not be shown by direct evidence, but may be established by the circumstances and facts in the case."

This paragraph duplicates the intent element and I will not include it.

On page 19, in the second-to-last full paragraph, the defense requests that I rephrase the intent to defraud definition as follows: "Put differently, to find specific intent to defraud or fraudulent intent, you must find that the defendant had the intent to cheat or steal money from others at the time the misrepresentation or false promise was made." 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5294 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 42 of 500

I do not believe that this rephrasing adds clarity and will not include it. 1 2

On page 20, the government requests that I include two instructions stating that: One, a defendant's belief that no ultimate harm would result is not a defense to fraud; and that, two, a defendant need not be solely motivated by fraud. I agree that these two instructions offer important clarification and shall include them.

I will state at the end of the second full paragraph on page 20: "Additionally, it is not necessary for the government to prove that the defendant was motivated solely by improper considerations. The defendant may have the required intent to defraud even if the defendant was motivated by other lawful purposes as well."

Also on page 20, in the last paragraph, in the instruction on good faith, I will state: "However, in considering good faith, the fact that a defendant believes, rightly or wrongly, that he will ultimately be able to work things out so that no individual suffers a loss, is no excuse for the real and immediate loss resulting from the defendant's fraudulent conduct."

The government requests the addition of the following language to the no-ultimate-harm instruction, arguing that it is necessary to address testimony about the Himalaya Exchange. They would like me to state: "Nor is it a defense

#### 5295 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 43 of 500

that certain people were offered or received refunds. Whether any of the companies involved continued to operate is also not a defense."

I believe that the no-ultimate-harm instruction is sufficient as is and will not include the proposed language.

The government requests that the Court add the following language at the end of the final paragraph on page 20: "All of that said, you have heard evidence that Miles Guo and certain of the entities in this case had lawyers. A lawyer's involvement with an individual entity or transaction does not itself constitute a defense to any charge in this case. The defense has not claimed and it cannot claim that the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct as charged in the wire fraud counts was lawful because he engaged in such conduct in good faith reliance on the advice of lawyers."

I'm going to add a new section under "V. Final General Instructions," titled "31. Involvement of the Lawyers." The section will read as follows:

"You have heard evidence that the defendant and certain entities were represented by attorneys. A lawyer's involvement with an individual or entity does not make that individual or entity's actions legal."

Following the final paragraph on page 20, the defense requests an additional paragraph stating: "If you find that the defendant was not a knowing and willful participant in the 23 24 25

#### 5296 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 44 of 500

scheme or lacked the required intent to defraud at the time of the operative false statement or false promise, then you should find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt not only the first element, namely, the existence of the scheme to defraud, but also the second element, that the defendant was a knowing participant and acted with specific intent to defraud, then you should proceed to the third element."

I do not agree that this paragraph is necessary and will not include it.

On page 21, in the "Third Element" section, the government asks for a clarification that a wire communication can be made after the relevant funds were obtained. The government requests this specific language: "A wire communication can also include a communication made after an individual's funds were obtained if the communication was designed to lull that person into a false sense of security to postpone his or her complaint to the authorities or to keep the money obtained from the scheme."

I shall include a portion of this language. But I do not believe that the examples cited by the government are necessary. Accordingly, I will state at the end of the second full paragraph on page 21: "A wire communication can also include a communication made after an individual's funds were obtained." 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5297 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 45 of 500

On page 24, the defense asks that I include at the end of the first paragraph in the materiality subsection the following sentence: "Expressions of corporate optimism and puffery are not material."

I reject this addition as confusing and unhelpful to the jury.

On page 24, after the second paragraph in the materiality subsection, the defense requests that I include: "However, you may not assess materiality from the perspective of hindsight, nor is a misrepresentation material simply because it may have been important to an investor."

As to the sentence regarding hindsight, I will instead add the following sentence at the end of the first full paragraph on page 24: "Materiality is judged as of the time the information was disclosed."

The second proposed sentence, which aims to distinguish between importance and materiality, is needlessly confusing and I will not include it. The definition of materiality is sufficient and does not equate materiality with mere importance.

On page 24, in the charge's definition of a security, the defense proposes the addition of a paragraph that provides a separate definition of a security if the government takes the position that the farm loans and G CLUB memberships are themselves securities.

#### 5298 O78VGUO1 I do not understand the government to be taking this 1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 46 of 500

position. Am I correct? 2

MR. HORTON: If I can have one second your Honor. THE COURT: Yes.

(Counsel conferred)

MR. HORTON: That's right, your Honor.

THE COURT: Going to page 25.

In the "in connection with" section, the defense requests the addition of the following paragraph after paragraph 2: "However, the 'in connection with' element is not met simply because an alleged fraud happens to involve the sale of securities; it requires something more. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the deceptive conduct coincided with particular securities sales, and that the deceptive conduct was material to the investors' decision to buy particular securities. If the alleged deceptive conduct did not coincide with the particular sale of the securities, then the 'in connection with' requirement is not satisfied. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

"In addition, if the defendant's alleged misrepresentations did not concern the value, nature, or investment characteristics of the securities, then the 'in connection with' requirement is not satisfied. Moreover, alleged misrepresentations that occurred after a security sale cannot have coincided with such purchase or sale and, therefore, cannot have been material to such sale." 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5299 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 47 of 500

O78VGUO1

I reject the proposed language, first finding that "deceptive conduct coincided with particular securities sales," is only one way of finding that deceptive conduct "touches upon" a securities transaction. The addition of this sentence would be confusing and could limit the definition, when the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have "espoused a broad interpretation" of the phrase "in connection with." Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 (2006). The remainder of the proposed paragraph imports aspects of the materiality inquiry into the "in connection with" definition.

On page 25, in the first paragraph of the "in connection with" section, the government requests the addition of the following sentence: "It is not necessary that any actual securities be sold or delivered so long as purported securities were offered as an inducement to transact, and promises that someone will receive stock in the future constitute a sufficient connection with a purchase or sale of securities."

Based upon this proposed addition, the Court will add the following sentence before the last sentence in the first paragraph: "Nor is it necessary that any security was ever issued or sold." 20 21 22 23

On page 26, in the first paragraph, the defense requests the addition of the following sentence: "Therefore, 24 25

#### 5300 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 48 of 500

however misleading or deceptive a plan may be, it is not fraudulent if it was devised or carried out in good faith. This includes the defendant's honest belief in the truth of the representations made by the defendant."

I will not include this language but, instead, after the first sentence of that paragraph, I will repeat the following definition of "good faith" that I provided earlier in the wire fraud section: "A defendant acts in good faith when he honestly believed at the time that the representations he was making were true, even if they turned out to be inaccurate or false."

Also on page 26, after the first paragraph, the government requests the addition of the following paragraph: "In considering whether a defendant acted in good faith, however, you are instructed that a belief by the defendant — if such belief existed — that ultimately everything would work out so that no investors would lose any money does not necessarily constitute good faith. No amount of honest belief on the part of a defendant that the scheme will ultimately make a profit for the investors will excuse fraudulent actions or false representations by him."

I will not include the proposed language, but will repeat the following instruction that I provided in the wire fraud section: "However, the fact that a defendant believes, rightly or wrongly, that he will ultimately be able to work 22 23 24 25

#### 5301 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 49 of 500

things out so that no individual suffers a loss is no excuse for the real and immediate loss resulting from the defendant's fraudulent conduct."

The government at the end of that same paragraph again requests an instruction regarding lawyers' involvement with the defendant and related entities. Because I have now added the involvement of lawyers instruction, I will not include the instruction here.

On page 34, in the "Second Element: Participation" section at the bottom of the page, at the end of the paragraph that begins with "it is not necessary for the government," the defense asks that I add the following two sentences: "If you find that the defendant did not have a financial interest in the outcome of the scheme, that is also a factor you may properly consider in determining whether or not the defendant was a member of the conspiracy. Ultimately, the defendant's participation in the conspiracy must be established by independent evidence of his own acts or statements."

I will add the following sentence to the end of that paragraph: "Conversely, if you find that the defendant did not have a financial interest in the outcome of the scheme, that is also a factor you may properly consider in determining whether or not the defendant was a member of the conspiracy."

On page 36, paragraph 1, I grant the defense's request to omit the word "also" before "co-conspirators of the 24 25

#### 5302 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 50 of 500

defendant," in the second pull paragraph.

On page 50, the government asks that I refrain from characterizing the RICO count as "complicated," which I will do.

On page 51, in the second paragraph of the subsection titled "a. First Element: Racketeering Enterprise," the defense asks that I delete the sentence: "Of course, proof that the objective of the conspiracy was accomplished, if you find that it was, may be most persuasive evidence or the most persuasive evidence of the existence of the conspiracy."

This is a standard conspiracy instruction that I believe is helpful to the jury, so I will not omit it.

On page 52, in the final two paragraphs, and page 58, paragraph 1 of "i, Enterprise v. Pattern of Racketeering Activity," the defense asks that I specify that "G Enterprise" is a term used by the government, which I will do.

In the final paragraph on page 52, the defense asks that I rephrase the first component of finding a RICO enterprise to state "a common purpose to conduct a racketeering enterprise" instead of only "a common purpose."

I do not agree that that is a correct statement of the law. So that edit is rejected; however, I shall rephrase the last clause to state that: "Then you may find that the first element of a racketeering conspiracy has been satisfied" rather than suggesting that the whole crime has been proven.

#### 5303 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 51 of 500

In that same paragraph, the government asks that I include the phrase "during a substantial period within the time frame charged in the indictment" after "a continuing unit." The charge already includes substantially similar language on page 52 in the first full paragraph on that page, and I do not agree that the additional language is necessary.

On page 55, in the first paragraph under "Fourth Element: Pattern of Racketeering Activity," the defense asks that I move the sentence beginning "The government must prove that the defendant agreed" to earlier in the paragraph. I will do so.

In that same sentence on page 55, the government asks that I clarify that the defendant is also responsible for the acts of agents committed within the scope of their agency.

The government's proposed sentence reads:

"The government must prove that the defendant agreed to participate in the enterprise with the intent that he or another member or members of the conspiracy or their agents commit two or more racketeering acts which I will describe." I believe that this instruction will confuse the jury and I will not add it.

On page 56, in the third full paragraph which begins with "First," the government asks that I give examples of types of racketeering crimes after the underlined sentence. I think that this is helpful and will add the government's suggested 22 23 24 25

#### 5304 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 52 of 500

language to the end of that paragraph.

On page 57, at the start of the second full paragraph, the government asks that I delete the statement that "a substantial period of time is at least two years." I will omit the "two years" language, which although the circuit has never approved a shorter period of time, is not a bright-line rule. However, the government's suggested language is also likely to confuse the jurors. I will follow the model of other RICO conspiracy charges and omit an explanation of "substantial period" in the charge.

The defense asks that I delete the conscious avoidance instruction. This instruction may only be given if there is evidence that, one, the defendant asserts the lack of some specific aspect of knowledge required for conviction; and two, there's evidence that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the fact in dispute and consciously avoided confirming that fact. United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145, 154 (2d Cir. 2000). I find that these requirements have not been met and I will omit the instruction.

The defense asks that I add a "multiple conspiracies" instruction. I will not include such an instruction. The multiple conspiracies charge is designed to assist the jury in determining whether or not a particular charged conspiracy was truly a single conspiracy, not to remind them separately to consider each charged conspiracy. United States v. Aguilar,

#### 5305 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 53 of 500

352 F. App'x 522, 525 (2d Cir. 2009). It appears that the defense wants me to emphasize that the conspiracies charged in Counts One through Four should be considered separately. I believe that a multiple conspiracy instruction would confuse the jury. The charge states on page 15 that the jury "must consider each count of the indictment separately," which I find sufficient. Therefore, I will not add the multiple conspiracies charge.

On page 62, in the "28. Law Enforcement and Government Witnesses" instruction, the defense asks that I add a sentence stating that: "It is perfectly appropriate for defense counsel to attempt to attack the credibility of such a witness on the ground that his or her testimony may be colored by a personal or professional interest in the outcome of the case."

I find that this is duplicative of the existing credibility of witnesses instruction and I will not include it.

The defense asks that I delete the accomplice/cooperating witness testimony, immunized witness, and similar acts instructions as inapplicable. The government does not object and I agree that they should be excluded.

On page 64, the defense asks that I add language to the "nonprosecution agreements" instruction, stating that a witness testifying under an NPA should be closely scrutinized. I will omit the sentence that states: "It may not be

#### 5306 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 54 of 500

used by you in any way for or against the defendant," which I agree may be confusing. And I will add a sentence to the end of that paragraph stating: "Of course, you may consider whether the fact that the witness entered into this agreement affects the credibility of their testimony." 1 2 3 4 5

The defense requests an instruction that "the fact that the charges in this case may have involved large sums of money does not mean that the defendant is held to a greater standard of conduct."

I do not agree that this instruction is necessary or helpful and will not include it. 10 11

The defense also asks for an instruction that the jury may not consider Saraca's settlement with the SEC as evidence of criminal conduct.

Does the government intend to make the argument that the settlement is evidence of criminal conduct? 15 16

(Counsel conferred)

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, the answer is no. It is a relevant fact in the narrative, but the answer to the Court's question is no.

THE COURT: The government asks that the jury be instructed that the defendant has not raised a duress excuse or justification defense. 21 22 23

I don't see that the defense has implied this thus far. Accordingly, I will not give this instruction. 24 25

#### 5307 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 55 of 500

My law clerks have provided you with a copy of the verdict form. 1 2

Finally, in preparation for deliberations, the parties are reminded of my May 7th, 2025 order concerning the provision of exhibits to the jury. For jury deliberations, the parties shall provide a clean laptop containing only the exhibits admitted into evidence. The laptop must be prepared prior to the start of deliberations. And the parties shall also provide the required cables to connect the laptop to the monitor in the jury room.

During summations, if either party believes that there has been a clear misstatement of a fact or misstatement of the law, certainly you may object. And if you feel that a sidebar is necessary, you may request that. But I want to keep that absolutely to a minimum because that interferes with the flow of the attorneys' summation.

I'm now going to go to the issue regarding the testimony of Mr. Dragon.

By letter dated July 2nd, 2024, the government moves to strike a portion of defense expert Raymond Dragon's testimony from earlier that day, ECF No. 389. The government raised two issues. The first issue, which concerned the interpretation of Dragon's testimony concerning "very large investor interest," was resolved by agreement of the parties on July 3rd, 2024. See transcript at page 5032, lines 1 to 17. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5308 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 56 of 500

As to the second issue, I directed the defense to respond to the government's motion by July 5th, 2024.

Mr. Dragon testified that \$200 million of new GTV shares were sold in the GTV private placement. During his testimony, which appears on page 4893 of the transcript, Mr. Dragon stated that Saraca sold some of its own GTV shares as part of the GTV private placement, which resulted in the sale of \$350 million of GTV shares, exceeding the \$200 million of shares initially advertised in the GTV private placement memorandum.

The government contends that Mr. Dragon has no personal knowledge that Saraca was the source of the excess shares; and that this information was not in any of the materials that Dragon disclosed as having reviewed.

By letter dated July 5th, 2024, the defense opposes the government's motion, stating that Mr. Dragon's understanding is based on the GTV private placement memorandum which is in evidence, ECF No. 390. 15 16 17 18

The defense states that because the private placement memorandum discloses Saraca's ownership percentage of GTV as 100 percent, Mr. Dragon reasonably concluded that any excess shares beyond what the GTV private placement initially sought to sell would necessarily come from Saraca's equity holdings. Id. at 1.

I'm satisfied with the defense's explanation of

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

21 22 23

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 57 of 5309 500 O78VGUO1 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Mr. Dragon's testimony, which the government had the | | 2 | opportunity to probe on recross examination. Accordingly, the | | 3 | government's motion to strike is denied. | | 4 | We are missing Juror No. 4 -- oh, I'm sorry, Juror No. | | 5 | 10. She says that she is experiencing nausea and diarrhea; | | 6 | that she consulted a doctor who told her to stay home and take | | 7 | certain medication and rest. | | 8 | How would you like me to handle this? | | 9 | MR. HORTON: If we could have just one moment, your | | 10 | Honor. | | 11 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 12 | (Counsel conferred) | | 13 | MR. HORTON: Thank you, your Honor. | | 14 | Given the number of alternates available, the | | 15 | government proposes that we move forward with the trial. | | 16 | THE COURT: Does the government believe that I have | | 17 | the discretion to substitute the alternate without the consent | | 18 | of the defense? | | 19 | MR. HORTON: Yes. | | 20 | THE COURT: I'll hear from the defense. | | 21 | MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor. | | 22 | First of all, I do believe — and I think this has come | | 23 | up before — that the Court has the discretion to excuse the | | 24 | juror and impanel an alternate, even over the defense's | | 25 | objection. |

#### 5310 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 58 of 500

We recognize that the trial needs to move along, but we do think that it's possible that not giving one of the jurors a sick day, in essence, could constitute an abuse of that discretion, particularly given that we have now reported that Mr. Guo does not intend to testify; and so that, I think, relieves some of the time pressure.

So from our perspective, it is certainly within the Court's discretion to do so if it believes it's appropriate to move it along. We do think that creates a risk.

THE COURT: So although I don't believe that substituting the alternate would be abuse of discretion, I'm having my clerks look at that question in an abundance of caution.

In the meanwhile, I have some questions for Mr. Guo.

So Mr. Kamaraju, you have said that Mr. Guo will not be taking the stand, is that right?

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, that is our belief at this time, your Honor. He's not planning to take the stand. I just want to be clear that he does have the right to change his mind at the end of the defense case, but he does not plan to take the stand.

THE COURT: Okay. So you understand, Mr. Guo, that you have the right to take the stand and testify in your own defense?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. Saturday and Sunday,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 59 of 5311 500 O78VGUO1 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | the attorney Kamaraju and Sabrina has discussed this with me | | 2 | and I made my decision of not testifying. | | 3 | THE COURT: And are you satisfied that your attorneys | | 4 | have spent enough time with you and answered all your questions | | 5 | about their advice concerning whether or not you should | | 6 | testify? | | 7 | THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. | | 8 | THE COURT: And you understand that the decision | | 9 | whether or not to testify is yours, and yours alone? | | 10 | THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. | | 11 | THE COURT: So am I correct that you, on your own, | | 12 | have made the decision that you do not want to testify? | | 13 | THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. | | 14 | THE COURT: All righty. | | 15 | So moving forward, I'm looking for simultaneous | | 16 | translation. | | 17 | Are there any other issues that the parties would like | | 18 | to raise at this time? | | 19 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we did have an issue with the | | 20 | translation. The witness who was on the stand described the | | 21 | experience as having to parse out information as though he were | | 22 | in the middle of a playground and many, many voices were being | | 23 | heard all at the same time. | | 24 | Over the weekend, I did reach out to the interpreters' | | 25 | office to try and resolve this because the witness was -- this | | | |

#### 5312 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 60 of 500

is how exactly how the witness described it, like being on a playground having to parse through many voices.

So I ask the Court to consider allowing consecutive translation for the witnesses, which I think is the norm; but if not, I guess it will have to be what it will have to be. But he did describe the experience that way. And I raised it with the interpreters.

THE COURT: Does the government wish to be heard on this question?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, I think on this point we would defer to the Court. We would note the witness seemed able to answer the questions that were posed during the two and a half hours of direct examination we've had so far.

MS. SHROFF: The witness described the experiences exactly the way I recited it. I then reached out to the interpreters' office.

The reason I called for a side break is because throughout the testimony he kept tugging at one ear and had difficulty with the number of voices going in. So as I understand it, he's not just listening to the English, which he's partially fluent in, then he's listening to one interpreter and at the same time the English voice is continuing. So there's an overlay.

Whether or not he managed to make do for two hours isn't the point. I've just laid out what the witness said, 24 25

#### 5313 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 61 of 500

your Honor, that's all. Thank you. 1

THE COURT: So my strong impression was that he fully understood the questions. He did not protest at that time about the simultaneous translation. There was a point at which he said that there was maybe a problem with one of the earphones, but he also stated that it had been corrected. 2 3 4 5 6

In my 24-plus years on the bench, I've always had simultaneous translation. That is the norm.

Anything further?

MS. MURRAY: Just a few brief points, your Honor.

With respect to the witness who was on the stand at the end of the day Wednesday, the government yesterday received 26.2 materials from the defense which indicated that they met with him this weekend, yesterday, and prepared him.

We would note he's in the middle of his testimony. The Court has advised every witness in this case up to this point that they should not discuss their testimony. The defense team is certainly well aware of that rule, that order by the Court.

And so we just wanted to raise for the Court's attention we don't know the content of that prep, it simply indicated that there was a prep session. But we think it's important to note for the Court. 20 21 22 23

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I have a second? THE COURT: Yes.

#### 5314 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 62 of 500

(Counsel conferred)

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I believe the rule is that if the witness is on direct, he's free to talk to whoever is taking his questioning. In any event, we did not discuss any part of his past testimony. The rule is when he's on cross, I think that's pretty clear. But, in any event, I've conferred and we had no discussion at all with any of his past testimony.

MS. MURRAY: I would just note, your Honor, the government has taken the approach, consistent with the Court's instructions, throughout this entire five-and-a-half-week trial that we have not spoken with any of our witnesses, even if they were on direct testimony. We have taken the Court's request that the witness not discuss their testimony at its word, and we have not prepped witnesses when they have been on direct either over a break or over an evening or over the weekend during the entire trial.

THE COURT: So, Ms. Shroff, are you providing me with a particular rule in the rules of evidence or --

MS. SHROFF: No, I think that's the general rule. But, in any event, we did not discuss his testimony.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm glad to hear that. And I will have my clerks look into that rule. This is the way that I've been doing it.

MS. SHROFF: Just to be extremely clear, we certainly did not give him a copy of his prior testimony. We did not -- 24 25

#### 5315 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 63 of 500

I personally didn't even review it, if that matters to the Court. I did not go back and read the transcript. And I say that to you as an officer of the Court: I did not open it, I did not download it, I didn't do anything with it. 1 2 3 4

THE COURT: All righty.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just based on the 26.2 materials, I don't believe Ms. Shroff met with the witness. Unless the materials omitted the presence of somebody, we believe it was other members of the defense team, but just another note.

One other thing I would like to note for the Court, just with respect to the timing of certain exhibits the defense has produced, the government received exhibits for Leanne Li, who is a witness who is expected to testify, at approximately 1 a.m. on Sunday. Those include a number of exhibits that have Mandarin translations the government has not yet been able to verify.

We're going to have various hearsay objections and relevance objections to those exhibits, which are WhatsApp chats that are clearly hearsay out-of-court statements of Mr. Guo or of the witness that are being offered for their truth, in the government's view. We just wanted to note the timing issue. They produced additional exhibits for Ms. Li at 4 a.m. this morning. And again, she's expected to testify today. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5316 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 64 of 500

THE COURT: All right. So that is what you call sharp practice. You do not produce exhibits so late that -- this is when you expect people to be asleep. 1 2 3

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, there was a problem yesterday. Once the government reached out, we sent them a chart of what we anticipated using. Mr. Schirick and I were together at the office where there was an actual human and computer problem that caused the delay.

THE COURT: What kind of a human and computer problem caused the delay? 9 10

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we just have a sidebar on this? 11 12

THE COURT: I want you to give me the explanation now. MS. SHROFF: The person who was working on it couldn't put it together. The person couldn't put it together and had to take a break and so that delayed it.

THE COURT: Okay. I've told you before that you need to have enough people on your team who are competent in order to handle the trial. You cannot have somebody who falls apart at a crucial moment. You need steady, stable people.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, a large amount of Ms. Li's exhibits are photographs. We've moved Ms. Li down on the testifying chain. She's not likely to take the stand; she's the second to the last witness. 21 22 23 24

THE COURT: All right.

#### 5317 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 65 of 500

| 1 | MS. SHROFF: That's what happened. | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | There was no sharp practices. We did not purposely | | 3 | delay anything. I think you have two lawyers were at the | | 4 | physical location, others were not. And we tried to get the | | 5 | paperwork together. | | 6 | THE COURT: You need to hire competent people. | | 7 | Manhattan is full of them; full of people who are prepared to | | 8 | carry those types of tasks. Don't let this happen again. | | 9 | All righty. I'd like to bring out Alternate No. 1. | | 10 | (Juror present) | | 11 | THE COURT: Good morning, sir. You may sit down. | | 12 | I just wanted to let you know that you are now going | | 13 | to become Juror No. 10. | | 14 | JUROR: Okay. | | 15 | THE COURT: All righty? You may step back inside. | | 16 | (Juror not present) | | 17 | THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in. | | 18 | MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, may I address just one | | 19 | brief other thing before we bring the jury? | | 20 | THE COURT: Why are we having this feedback problem? | | 21 | MR. SCHIRICK: I think that's taken care of it, your | | 22 | Honor. | | 23 | I just wanted to mention a couple of things that are | | 24 | relevant to what we expect to be the defense's final witness, | | 25 | hopefully later this afternoon. | | | |

#### 5318 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 66 of 500

The witness's name is George Higginbotham. And he is a former Department of Justice lawyer who pleaded guilty to engaging in a conspiracy to lobby officials in the Trump Administration on behalf of the PRC government to extradite Mr. Guo. And as part of the agreement to enter into Defense Stip 1, with which I'm sure the Court is familiar, the Fox Hunt stip, the defense agreed not to call several other witnesses who were related to this conspiracy, as well as other Fox Hunt-related witnesses, and only to call Mr. Higginbotham.

We expect Mr. Higginbotham to testify, among other things, that he joined the conspiracy in April of 2017, at the time that he was a lawyer for DOJ; that as part of the conspiracy, Mr. Higginbotham, who lives in Washington, went to the Chinese Embassy in Washington in July of 2017, to meet with the Chinese Ambassador to the United States. He also traveled to China in September of 2017 to meet with several co-conspirators. And he facilitated the transfer of tens of millions of dollars into the United States as part of the conspiracy. Ultimately, he pled guilty to conspiracy in November of 2018 in the District of D.C.

We have not, your Honor, had an opportunity to -- the defense has not had an opportunity to meet with this witness. He is still under a cooperation agreement with the government, with the District of D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office. And his lawyers would not give us access to him, so we have not met

#### 5319 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 67 of 500

with him to prepare him today. And the events at issue date back approximately seven years. I just want to bring that to the Court's attention. 1 2 3

And lastly, as part of Mr. Higginbotham's testimony, the defense will enter a stipulation into evidence between the parties relating to certain recordings of conversations between Mr. Guo and a Chinese government official Liu Yanping. And we will read select portions of those transcripts to the jury at the conclusion of Mr. Higginbotham's testimony. I just wanted the Court to have this for reference in terms of what we expect from Mr. Higginbotham, again, not having had the opportunity to meet with him or prepare him today.

THE COURT: So is there an application?

MR. SCHIRICK: No, your Honor. I just wanted to make the Court aware of those facts.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I may, just with respect to Mr. Higginbotham, since Mr. Schirick brought it up, one component of Mr. Higginbotham's situation, as Mr. Schirick mentioned, is that he had entered into a cooperation agreement with the government. To be clear, he did not enter into that agreement with this office; he entered into that agreement with the Public Integrity Unit and MLARS in D.C.

We have spoken with the defense. We understand they are not going to elicit the fact of his cooperation agreement; 24 25

#### 5320 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 68 of 500

and they are not going to elicit details about his -- things relating to his cooperation with the government on direct; that, in our view, would be inappropriate. They've agreed to that. So that is a component of what we understand to be part of his testimony.

With respect to the timing here -- or, actually, one other point on Mr. Higginbotham.

As Mr. Schirick mentioned, he was a DOJ employee at the time that he participated in the entirely separate conspiracy that they are looking to elicit. We assume that they are not going to highlight that fact. We've discussed that with the Court at length. That would be inappropriate because it would be intended only to suggest that the front table has in any way something to do with the communist party or, again, this separate conspiracy to repatriate Mr. Guo, which we've already stipulated to. It's been introduced into evidence a number of times.

Mr. Doran, their expert, said that that paragraph 7 of Defense Stip 1 adequately summarized the entire case that Mr. Higginbotham was involved with.

We understand his testimony is coming in. We will cross-examine him as appropriate. But that fact has been covered, the fact of that 2017 conduct, which predates any of the charged conduct in this case has been covered. So, again, we assume that the defense won't elicit the fact that he is a

#### 5321 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 69 of 500

DOJ employee and we will object as appropriate.

Another component that the defense said that they would not elicit is his sentence in his case. That relates to, again, his cooperation. So to the extent that he received a minimal sentence for his involvement in, again, the separate conspiracy from 2017, they are not going to bring that out on direct.

And then the last point I would note, Mr. Schirick just indicated that he expects to call Mr. Higginbotham today. That suggests to the government that they expect to get through all of their witnesses today, as he is scheduled to be last.

We may reserve the right at the break this morning to request that they instead call Leanne Li last, in light of the late production of these exhibits, including approximately 44 audio files that they produced at 4 this morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Schirick, you are not going to elicit testimony about the cooperation agreement or about his sentence, right?

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, we have no plans to elicit that testimony on direct; but obviously, depending on what the government's cross is, reserve the right to raise that, should it become necessary.

THE COURT: And you're not going to be implying at any point that the government is being manipulated by the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party; correct? 23 24 25

#### 5322 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 70 of 500

MR. SCHIRICK: No, your Honor. The defense has been clear that we don't plan to make that argument.

I would note, however, that it is a fact — a simple fact — that Mr. Higginbotham was employed by the Department of Justice at the time of the conspiracy and at the time that he had the meetings that I described to the Court earlier today. And, in fact, it is part of the narrative, your Honor, because he was asked to go to those meetings in part because he was an attorney for the Department of Justice.

So while we have no plans to make the argument that, you know, your Honor just described, we would ask for some latitude to be able to elicit the narrative, which is important and is, frankly, just part of the factual landscape here, without placing undue emphasis on it.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, we strenuously, strenuously object to that.

The statement of facts in connection with Mr. Higginbotham's guilty plea in the D.C. case make it very clear that he was not acting in his DOJ capacity when he conducted any of the conduct that was the offense conduct. He made it clear when he went to the embassy in D.C. and when he went to visit the Chinese official in China, that he was not acting in an official capacity. It is entirely improper for the defense to bring that out as part of the narrative of what happened in 2017.

#### 5323 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 71 of 500

1 2

THE COURT: You're saying to bring out his employment. MS. MURRAY: That's correct.

THE COURT: So I'm directing you to not bring out the fact that he was a DOJ employee. I'm directing you to tell him that he may not volunteer that information. Clearly bringing that up is merely a rather clumsy way of trying to link the prosecution in this case with corruption and the Chinese government.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I may make one clarification, because we have had certain discussions with the defense about the protest signs that have been produced into evidence in this case that suggested that the DOJ had been influenced by the CCP.

We don't object to one factual question about whether at the time he had been employed by DOJ, if that's what the defense would like to elicit. We would object to any further questioning that would suggest in any way that his employment had something to do with his offense conduct.

MR. SCHIRICK: And, your Honor, Ms. Murray anticipated where I was going to go. To an extent, the government did open the door on this by showing the jury the signs that Ms. Murray referenced. And I believe we had an understanding with the prosecution team that we would be permitted to do what Ms. Murray just described. Again, that goes to the point that I was attempting to make, your Honor, which is we have no plan 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5324 O78VGUO1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 72 of 500

to unduly emphasize this. But it is a fact that he was employed by DOJ. And you know, as Ms. Murray said, we have an agreement to be able to at least elicit that fact, you know, as part of his direct, again, without unduly emphasizing it or --

THE COURT: Well, is the prosecution asking for some type of a curative instruction?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, not at this time; although subject to how the direct testimony comes in, it might be possible.

As Mr. Schirick said, we've had certain discussions. We don't have an objection. We understand that the view is that the government might have opened the door to this by showing protest signs that Mr. Guo's enterprise had, you know, posted up against the bankruptcy trustee that mentioned DOJ.

A curative instruction might be appropriate. We can discuss that.

But, again, fine with their establishing the fact that he was a DOJ employee. Any further questioning, and just kind of reacting to Mr. Schirick, because we don't intend to push the issue or emphasize, feels a little wishy-washy, so we just wanted to bring it to the Court's attention. If it goes down the path, we might object.

THE COURT: I want the parties to agree on the exact question that's going to be posed regarding this photograph. And I want you to instruct him that he is not to elaborate on 24 25

> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 73 of 5325 500 O78VGUO1 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | his relationship with the Department of Justice. | | 2 | MR. SCHIRICK: Thank you, your Honor. | | 3 | We will speak to the prosecution and agree on the | | 4 | question. | | 5 | Just to be clear, again, I and the defense team do not | | 6 | have access to Mr. Higginbotham. I will do my best to | | 7 | communicate what your Honor has just instructed to his lawyer | | 8 | before he testifies. | | 9 | THE COURT: Anything further? | | 10 | MS. MURRAY: Not from the government. Thank you. | | 11 | THE COURT: All right. | | 12 | Please have the jurors brought out. | | 13 | (Jury present) | | 14 | THE COURT: Please be seated. Good morning, jurors. | | 15 | THE JURY: Good morning. | | 16 | THE COURT: It is 10:07. And I am sorry that I did | | 17 | not bring you out promptly at 9:30. | | 18 | THE INTERPRETER: We need some help here. I'm sorry. | | 19 | Your Honor, the witness is asking to test the device. | | 20 | May we test the device with him now? | | 21 | (Pause) | | 22 | THE COURT: As I was saying, I'm sorry that I didn't | | 23 | get you out promptly at 9:30. There were a couple of issues. | | 24 | One issue is that Juror No. 10 has now been replaced | | 25 | by Alternate No. 1. In addition, I had to discuss some |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 74 of 5326 500 O78VGUO1 Dai - Direct | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | important legal matters with the attorneys. And so I am very | | 2 | mindful that you're waiting. And I don't want to waste your | | 3 | time; I know your time is important, so I apologize. I will | | 4 | try to keep that to a minimum. | | 5 | So now we're going to continue with the direct | | 6 | examination of Mr. Lai Dai. | | 7 | You may inquire. | | 8 | MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor. | | 9 | Your Honor, perhaps the Court would like to remind | | 10 | Mr. Dai he's still under oath. | | 11 | THE COURT: Yes, that is a good idea. | | 12 | Sir, remember that you're still under oath. | | 13 | LAI DAI, | | 14 | called as a witness by the Defendant, | | 15 | having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows: | | 16 | DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued) | | 17 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 18 | Q. Good morning, Mr. Dai. | | 19 | A. Good morning. | | 20 | Q. Mr. Dai, was the functionality of the H Pay app in 2022 the | | 21 | same as that of what we saw in the video and pictures last | | 22 | week? | | 23 | A. Yes, it is the same. | | 24 | THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, I apologize. I'm having | | 25 | a device issue. I cannot hear him very well. Can you give me |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 75 of 5327 500 O78VGUO1 Dai - Direct | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | one second to switch my device? I apologize. I'm so sorry. | | 2 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | 3 | All right. So we're having a failure here of the | | 4 | audio equipment. And we'll take a five-minute break. | | 5 | Remember that you're not allowed to discuss the case | | 6 | amongst yourselves or with anyone else. Don't permit anyone to | | 7 | discuss the case in your presence. Don't read, listen to, or | | 8 | watch anything from any source concerning the subject matter of | | 9 | this case. | | 10 | (Jury not present) | | 11 | THE COURT: We will recommence when the interpreter | | 12 | returns. | | 13 | (Recess) | | 14 | (Continued on next page) | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

5328 O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in. THE LAW CLERK: Jury entering. (Jury present) THE COURT: Please be seated. Remember, sir, that you are still under oath. You may inquire. BY MS. SHROFF: Q. Mr. Dai, was the functionality of H Pay in 2022 the same as we saw in the videos and pictures last week? A. Yes, the same. Q. Was the user experience of the H Pay app in 2022 the same as we saw in those videos and pictures last week? A. Yes, the same. Q. Was the functionality of the Exchange's website in 2022 the same as we saw in the videos last week? A. All functions are the same, however, two functions were restricted. Q. Mr. Dai, please try and answer my question, okay. Whatever restrictions there were is not -- I'll withdraw that, your Honor. Was the experience of the Exchange's website in 2022 the same as those that we saw in the video last week? A. Yes, the same. Q. Mr. Dai, what is the New Federal State of China? A. New Federal State of China, it is to overthrow the CCP, to build the democracy and the Rule of the Law, and it is to build 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 76 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 77 of 5329 500 | |----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct | | 1 | | a new regime in China. | | 2 | Q. | When did you first hear about the New Federal State of | | 3 | China? | | | 4 | A. | The first time it was June 4, 2020. | | 5 | Q. | Where were you when you heard it? | | 6 | A. | I was in Germany. | | 7 | Q. | And how did you hear it? | | 8 | A. | I heard it from Mr. Guo's live stream that day. He was -- | | 9 | | Mr. Guo was with Mr. Steve Bannon in New York and announce the | | 10 | | funding of the New Federal State of China. | | 11 | Q. | Was there anyone else on the broadcast? | | 12 | A. | Yes. | | 13 | Q. | Who? | | 14 | A. | It should be other people who were in the live stream | | 15 | | because there were in the boat on the ocean. | | 16 | Q. | Mr. Dai, if you could listen to my question. | | 17 | | Do you know if anybody else was present at the | | 18 | | broadcast? | | 19 | | MR. HORTON: Objection, asked and answered. | | 20 | | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 21 | Q. | Did anyone else speak about the New Federal State of China? | | 22 | | MR. HORTON: Asked and answered. | | 23 | | MS. SHROFF: He did not answer that question. | | 24 | | THE COURT: You may answer that question. | | 25 | A. | Everyone was discussing the New Federal State of China, a | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 78 of 5330 500 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct | | 1 | lot of news media reported. | | 2 | Q. Who read the declaration of the New Federal State of China? | | 3 | A. Mr. Hao Haidong. | | 4 | Q. And who is that? | | 5 | A. He was a famous soccer player in China. You can say that | | 6 | he was the mister football in China. | | 7 | Q. Was his wife also part of the broadcast? | | 8 | MR. HORTON: Objection. | | 9 | THE COURT: Was there anyone else on the broadcast? | | 10 | Should be. A. I don't recall clearly -- | | 11 | Q. All right. | | 12 | A. -- because it was long. During the broadcast live mainly | | 13 | were Mr. Guo, Steve Bannon and Mr. Hao Haidong. | | 14 | Q. Mr. Dai, did there come a time that you became aware that | | 15 | the New Federal State of China had a base? | | 16 | Yes, I believe the earliest was 2020. A. | | 17 | Q. And what is your understanding of what the base was | | 18 | supposed to be? | | 19 | A. The base will provide for member of New Federal State of | | 20 | China and G/Club member a place for events. They can live | | 21 | there for a period of time like a vacation. They can also host | | 22 | friends of New Federal State of China, famous people, media, | | 23 | senators. | | 24 | MR. HORTON: Objection. Move to strike for hearsay. | | 25 | MS. SHROFF: That's his understanding, your Honor. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 79 of 5331 500 | | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| | | O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct | | | 1 | THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. | | | 2 | A. Also during the time of emergency, this place can provide | | | 3 | help for G/Club members. | | | 4 | Q. Did you learn if in fact a base had been found? | | | 5 | MR. HORTON: Objection, calls for hearsay, your Honor. | | | 6 | He has no personal knowledge. He's describing what he heard | | | 7 | from other people. | | | 8 | THE COURT: If you'll step up, please. | | | 9 | (Continued on next page) | | | 10 | | | | 11 | | | | 12 | | | | 13 | | | | 14 | | | | 15 | | | | 16 | | | | 17 | | | | 18 | | | | 19 | | | | 20 | | | | 21 | | | | 22 | | | | 23 | | | | 24 | | | | 25 | | | | | | |

#### 5332 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 80 of 500

O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: So aside from what he may have heard on a broadcast, did he personally have contact with the location?

MS. SHROFF: I don't believe that would be the testimony, your Honor. But imagine if you're part of a member club, say you're part of the union club or the Harvard club, are you going to really talk to the executive of the Harvard club and each day he's going to call you and say, hey, listen, you know what, I'm going to put this new service in place; but all of you come to the executive meeting, and we'll all sit down and learn about this. And how else does one learn other than by listening to what the membership of the executive committee tells you is a benefit offered by a membership club. That's how you learn. That's the whole point of a membership club. We're not going to the truth of the matter asserted. They can say no such basis existed.

But I note here again, your Honor: One, if you're a member of Netflix, the only way you're going to know what Netflix has to offer next is by looking at the Netflix website, of getting an advertisement, of getting a notification and reading about it. That's the way it work. Netflix's CEO is not calling me to say, hey, you know what, this show is going to stream again tomorrow, make sure you watch. And even that according to them would be hearsay, so how would a member know? THE COURT: Why can't he testify about what he heard

#### 5333 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 81 of

500

O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct

on these broadcasts?

MR. HORTON: Because they're offering it for its truth, your Honor. There's a difference between the Netflix member saying, well, the CEO told me that Netflix does X, Y and Z, and as a member I used this service and this is my experience in using the service. He's not saying he went to the base. He's not saying he experienced it personally. He said I heard from other people what it was. They can call somebody who's at the base, who operated the base, who operated G/Clubs to testify from their personal knowledge, but this witness doesn't have personal knowledge.

THE COURT: So when the prosecution have witnesses on the stand and they asked them about all of the promised services and benefits, it was certainly not for their truth. The prosecution is not claiming that any of these services were offered, but my sense is that your witness is here in order to say that they did exist.

MR. KAMARAJU: I think there's a difference between saying that the statement is being offered in fact for something existing versus the topic is being discussed that it is something that people are addressing. It is something that members understand. It is something even the defendant understands. That's United States v. DiMaria. 18 19 20 21 22 23

THE COURT: You're saying that you're not offering it for the truth? 24 25

#### 5334 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 82 of 500

O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct

MR. KAMARAJU: This is for their understanding, your Honor. Whether they are right or wrong as to whether that was a base or not, it's a question of what they believed, and that's the question. It's an intent case. It's a fraud question. If we're not allowed to introduce evidence of statements, if we're not allowed to introduce evidence of understanding, then the only way that a fraud defendant can ever defend themselves is by taking the stand. Because otherwise, you're never going to be permitted. That's why you have a state of mind hearsay exception. That's why you have a present sense impression. That's why you have all of these exceptions. So we have no problem with any of this testimony with an instruction that says it's not being offered for the truth, which that's the standard way that you deal with a hearsay issue. It is not to preclude the testimony in its entirety. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

THE COURT: Certainly this has come in already through other witnesses, hasn't it?

MR. HORTON: The context matters for the hearsay rule, your Honor. When we bring in something that the defendant or his agents or his co-conspirator says, the rule allows us to admit an opposing parties' statements. What Mr. Kamaraju was just talking about Miles Guo's intent, which we agree is the only intent that matters. This witness can't testify about Miles Guo's intent. The state of mind exception is about the declarant's state of mind, and your Honor we had a pre-trial 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5335 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 83 of

500

O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct argument about this a few weeks ago. This witness cannot testify, I heard this thing from somebody else, and so therefore it's Miles Guo's state of mind. That's not how it works. 1 2 3 4

MR. KAMARAJU: Mr. Horton is correct. The state of mind exception is not specific to the defendant. It's specific to a declarant. With respect to Mr. Guo's intent, it can be corroborated by independent evidence, including the understanding of other people. They're allowed to challenge that weight. They're allowed to challenge whether that's how significant the jury should afford that. Your Honor has already ruled that Mr. Guo's intent corroborated by reasonable -- sorry corroborated to be proven reasonable by objective evidence. The fact that they were being discussed is evidence.

THE COURT: So you're saying that you want to introduce Mr. Guo's statements. I don't understand how you get around the hearsay problem.

MR. KAMARAJU: That's exactly what's in DiMaria, your Honor, and I have a copy of the case which I'll bring up. In DiMaria, the facts of DiMaria were, the defendant was present in a place to buy illegal cigarettes. It was either FBI or DHS agents -- I don't know specifically -- showed up and the defendant said, Why are you guys here? I just came for some cheap cigarettes. And the prosecution move to exclude that

#### 5336 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 84 of

O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct 500

statement on hearsay grounds.

The Court -- the district court agreed with the exclusion on hearsay grounds. The Second Circuit reverse and called it wasn't harmless. Because what they said was, it goes to the state of the mind of the defendant, his then existing belief as to why he was there, which was relevant to the mind. And they also rejected arguments about it being a false exculpatory statement, about the exception swallowing the rule because the hearsay state of mind exception already has a carve out in between. I can hand it up, your Honor. That's the difference. We are allowed to say that Mr. Guo's statement - we're allowed to say that Mr. Guo's intent is proveable by one of Mr. Guo's statements if it is a then existing statement of his mental state. And that's what DiMaria says, and I have it here for your Honor.

MR. HORTON: Ms. Shroff's question wasn't about Mr. Guo's statements. The hearsay that the witness is testifying about wasn't attributed to anybody in particular. This case is about a defendant at a crime scene making a contemporaneous statement that comes in for his then existing -- his then existing state of mind. That's not what is happening here, your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you going to limit it to only Mr. Guo's statements? 23 24 25

MS. SHROFF: Sure.

#### 5337 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 85 of

O78BGUO2 Dai - Direct MR. FERGENSON: That's not permissible. THE COURT: It seems to me that you're arguing they can bring in the defendant's statement? MR. HORTON: My point is that the case they're hinging all this onto a single parallel purpose. Mr. Fergenson wants to supplement what I said. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they just bring in Mr. Guo's statements it's fair game and hearsay and what they're aiming for is not nearly that broad. THE COURT: I remember looking at this case, and I don't recall interpreting it the way that you do, but I am going to take a second look at the case. So let us move onto something while I -- well, my clerks will look at this. MR. KAMARAJU: Would your Honor like the hard copy? THE COURT: That's terrific. Thank you. MR. KAMARAJU: She's almost done at this point. THE COURT: We can always recall the witness if I don't come up with an answer soon enough. MS. SHROFF: That's fine. Whatever you want to do. THE COURT: Okay. (Continued on next page) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 86 of 5338 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (In open court) | | 2 | THE COURT: You may continue. | | 3 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 4 | Mr. Dai, let me show you what is marked not yet in evidence Q. | | 5 | as Government Exhibit VD-6. You could take a look at that | | 6 | document for me, please. | | 7 | MR. HORTON: Your Honor, is there a question pending? | | 8 | A. Yes, I see it. | | 9 | Q. Are you done, Mr. Dai, reading the document? | | 10 | A. Yes, I finish it. | | 11 | Q. Mr. Dai, do you recognize that document? | | 12 | A. Before today, I haven't seen this before. | | 13 | Q. I couldn't hear him? | | 14 | A. Before today I didn't see it. I didn't see it before. | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: I have no further questions at this time | | 16 | pending the Court's ruling. | | 17 | THE COURT: Understood. All righty. Cross | | 18 | examination. | | 19 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | | 20 | BY MR. HORTON: | | 21 | Q. Good morning, Mr. Dai. | | 22 | A. Good morning. | | 23 | Q. You're a supporter of Miles Guo, correct? | | 24 | A. Yes. | | 25 | You found him through his online videos, right? Q. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 87 of 5339 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Yes. | | 2 | Q. And you understood from watching Miles Guo's videos you | | 3 | thought he was a successful business person; isn't that right? | | 4 | A. Yes. | | 5 | Q. And when you met with Mr. Guo's lawyers earlier this year, | | 6 | you told them that you thought Miles Guo had a lot of | | 7 | credibility on investments; isn't that true? | | 8 | To whom I met? A. | | 9 | Q. You met with Mr. Guo's lawyers earlier this year, do you | | 10 | remember that? | | 11 | A. Yes, I told them that I like Mr. Guo's courage and his | | 12 | honesty. | | 13 | THE COURT: Sir, I want you to limit your answer to | | 14 | the question that's being asked. The answer that you just gave | | 15 | was not responsive to the question that was just asked, so I'm | | 16 | going to ask the reporter to read back the question and you | | 17 | answer only the question that's been asked. I'm going to | | 18 | strike the answer. | | 19 | (The record was read) | | 20 | A. Yes, I remember. | | 21 | Q. And you told Mr. Guo's lawyers that you thought Mr. Guo was | | 22 | credible when he spoke about investments, right? | | 23 | A. Yes. | | 24 | Q. You believe Miles Guo when he talks about GTV, don't you? | | 25 | A. You mean he mention GTV investment? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 88 of 5340 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. Yes. When Miles Guo talks about GTV investments, you | | 2 | believe what he's saying, don't you? | | 3 | A. Yes, before my investment, I had not heard about GTV | | 4 | investment by Mr. Guo. | | 5 | Q. But then you heard him talk about it, and ever since you | | 6 | believed what he said; isn't that right? | | 7 | A. No, I didn't hear him mention about GTV investment. I, | | 8 | through the group, the chat group of my fellow fighters, I got | | 9 | that information. | | 10 | Q. Well, but after that, Mr. Dai, didn't you exchange WhatsApp | | 11 | messages with Miles Guo about investing in GTV? | | 12 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the witness testified he did | | 13 | so after the investment. The government should be clear. | | 14 | A. Yes. | | 15 | Q. And after that you watched GTV for five hours a day, that | | 16 | was your testimony, right? | | 17 | A. No, not like that. When I watching the video that was five | | 18 | hours a day, that was before, before I got information about | | 19 | investment. I started -- the information I got from the | | 20 | investment in May, late May 20 something, by then I already | | 21 | watched GTV for over a month. | | 22 | Q. But you heard Miles Guo talk about GTV stocks, for example, | | 23 | in his broadcast, for example, didn't you? | | 24 | A. No. He has not mention anything GTV investment or stocks | | 25 | during his live stream -- |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 89 of 5341 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. Mr. Dai -- | | 2 | A. -- therefore I learn this much later. | | 3 | THE COURT: You need to stop answering. Once you've | | 4 | answered the question that been's asked, you just stop. So if | | | | | 5 | I ask you what is today's date, you tell me today's date, but | | 6 | you don't also tell me what time it is. You understand? Go | | 7 | ahead. | | 8 | Q. Mr. Dai, over the last several years you've watched Miles | | 9 | Guo's live streams, haven't you? | | 10 | Yes. A. | | 11 | Q. And on those live streams you heard Miles Guo talk about | | 12 | G/Club, didn't you? | | 13 | A. Yes. | | 14 | Q. And you heard on those live streams Miles Guo talk about | | 15 | the Himalaya Exchange; isn't that right? | | 16 | Yes. A. | | 17 | Q. Is it your testimony that on those live streams Miles Guo | | 18 | never talked about GTV stocks? | | 19 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, objection. | | 20 | THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Please answer. | | 21 | A. G/Club and Himalaya Exchange were all in 2020, after | | 22 | October of 2020. About GTV investment was from April, and I | | 23 | learned this was May of 2020, so how could I learn about GTV | | 24 | investment by watching the other live stream on the other -- | | 25 | THE COURT: Once again you have not answered the | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 90 of 5342 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | question. I'm going to ask the reporter to read the question | | 2 | back and only answer the question that has been asked. | | 3 | (The record was read) | | 4 | Before my investment, no, he didn't mention that. A. | | 5 | Q. Mr. Dai, my question is, you testified that you've watched | | 6 | Miles Guo's live streams for the last several years. Over that | | 7 | period when you watched his live streams, isn't it true that | | 8 | Miles Guo talked about GTV shares? | | 9 | A. Yes, he did mention that. | | 10 | Q. And you believed everything he said about it, isn't that | | 11 | true? | | 12 | A. Yes. | | 13 | Q. And he talked about other investments as well; isn't that | | 14 | right? | | 15 | A. Yes. | | 16 | Q. And you believed everything he said about those investments | | 17 | as well; isn't that true? | | 18 | A. After I read the document, yes, I believe that. | | 19 | And GTV the "G" in that stands for Guo; isn't that right? Q. | | 20 | A. No. | | 21 | Q. The "G" in G/Clubs, that "G" stands for Guo doesn't it? | | 22 | A. No. | | 23 | Q. And the "G" in G Fashion, that "G" stands for Guo, doesn't | | 24 | it? | | 25 | No. A. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 91 of 5343 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. And the "G" in the G Series investment that Miles Guo | | 2 | talked about in those broadcast, that "G" stands for Guo, | | 3 | doesn't it? | | 4 | A. To me I wouldn't say the G Series, I wouldn't say that. I | | 5 | don't know what it represented. | | 6 | Your testimony, Mr. Dai, is that after investing in GTV and Q. | | 7 | in G/Clubs and in other G Series investments, you don't know | | 8 | what the "G" stands for? | | 9 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. That's not what he said. | | 10 | That misstates his answer completely. | | 11 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 12 | THE WITNESS: May I answer now? | | 13 | THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. | | 14 | A. I know what "G" means. It doesn't mean Guo. It means | | 15 | global. | | 16 | Q. Your testimony is that when Miles Guo promoted GTV, G/Club, | | 17 | G Fashion and the G Series investments that "G" stood for | | 18 | global? | | 19 | MS. SHROFF: Asked and answered. | | 20 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 21 | That's correct, it means global. A. This is very obvious. | | 22 | Can I explain? | | 23 | THE COURT: No. Go ahead. | | 24 | Q. You've heard of Guo Media, Mr. Dai, haven't you? | | 25 | A. Guo Media did you say? I've heard of it. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 92 of 5344 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. And the "Guo" in Guo Media, that refers to Miles Guo, | | 2 | right? | | 3 | A. Or maybe, but he's not what you just mentioned earlier. | | 4 | Q. Mr. Dai, your testimony is that "Guo" in Guo Media only | | 5 | maybe refers to Miles Guo; is that right? | | 6 | A. I don't know. I didn't invest in Guo Media. I have never | | 7 | seen certain documents or explanation or description of what it | | 8 | means. | | 9 | Q. Okay. You heard Miles Guo talk in his broadcast about the | | 10 | Himalaya Exchange; isn't that right? | | 11 | A. Yes. | | 12 | Q. And when Miles Guo said that the Himalaya Exchange is a | | 13 | cryptocurrency exchange, you believe that, right? | | 14 | A. I heard this, but I believe the content is because when I | | 15 | read the relevant information, at that point I couldn't decide | | 16 | it was true or not. | | 17 | Q. Well, you heard Miles Guo talk about the Himalaya Exchange | | 18 | and H Coin and H dollar on his live streams that you watched, | | 19 | didn't you? | | 20 | A. Yes. | | 21 | Q. And when Miles Guo talked about Himalaya Coin or Himalaya | | 22 | Dollar, you believe what he said on his broadcast that you | | 23 | watched, didn't you believe it? | | 24 | A. No, I didn't believe that at the time. I was only | | 25 | interested. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 93 of 5345 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. Mr. Dai, it's your testimony that there were times when you | | 2 | heard Miles Guo talk about the Himalaya Exchange and you did | | 3 | not believe what he was saying? | | 4 | A. Correct. | | 5 | Q. And there were times that Miles Guo talked about GTV and | | 6 | you did not believe what he was saying? | | 7 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor -- | | 8 | A. I had no way to judge. I just heard some interesting | | 9 | information, and then I was waiting to have more information | | 10 | come up in order for me to decide if that's true or should I | | 11 | believe it. | | 12 | Q. You agree with me, don't you, that H Coin is not backed by | | 13 | gold? | | 14 | A. H Coin does not have gold as backup. | | 15 | Q. Right. And when Miles Guo said that it did, was he lying? | | 16 | I don't believe he was lying. A. I was thinking that he was | | 17 | expressing his understanding of H Coin. But obviously in the H | | 18 | Exchange in his white paper, he didn't specify that the H Coin | | 19 | was backed by gold, so I think the H Coin is independent | | 20 | platform so he can do his -- he can decide or design to decide | | 21 | how to do this cryptocurrency. | | 22 | Q. Mr. Dai, you agree with me don't you, that Miles Guo | | 23 | designed H Coin? | | 24 | A. I don't know. | | 25 | MR. HORTON: Ms. Loftus, can we pull up what's in |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 94 of 5346 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | evidence as GX9 and go to page 120. | | 2 | Q. Mr. Dai, the Himalaya Exchange launched on November 1, | | 3 | 2021; isn't that right? | | 4 | A. Yes, the formal launch, yes. | | 5 | Q. On the screen in front of you there's a document called | | 6 | GX9, if you look at the top of this page. Mr. Dai, you see the | | 7 | date September 29, 2021, top left in highlight. | | 8 | Mr. Dai, the question is, do you see the date in the | | 9 | top left corner? | | 10 | Yes, I see it. A. | | 11 | Q. By the way, G News, is your testimony that G news, the "G" | | 12 | doesn't stand for Guo either? | | 13 | A. That obviously is not representing Guo. You can enlarge | | 14 | it. | | 15 | Q. Your testimony is that -- | | 16 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we ask for the document | | 17 | to be enlarged. | | 18 | THE COURT: We haven't heard the question. | | 19 | MS. SHROFF: The witness asked for the document to be | | 20 | enlarged. | | 21 | THE COURT: Absolutely, it should be enlarged. | | 22 | Absolutely. | | 23 | Q. Mr. Dai, the G News -- | | 24 | A. As you can see, the G News -- | | 25 | THE COURT: One moment. You have to wait for the | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 95 of 5347 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | question in order to offer an answer. | | 2 | Q. Mr. Dai, the question is whether your testimony today is | | 3 | that the "G" in G News doesn't stand for Guo neither? | | 4 | A. Does not represent Mr. Guo. | | 5 | Q. You see that this document is entitled highlights of Miles | | 6 | Guo's live broadcast on September 29, 2021. Do you see that? | | 7 | A. Yes, I can see the title. | | 8 | Q. And do you see Mr. Guo in the middle of the screenshot | | 9 | there on the top of the page? | | 10 | Yes, I see it. A. | | 11 | Q. Thank you. | | 12 | MR. HORTON: If you could zoom out, please, Ms. | | 13 | Loftus. | | 14 | Q. Mr. Guo's statement on this date, Mr. Dai, September 29, | | 15 | 2021, that was just a few weeks before the Himalaya Exchange | | 16 | launched; isn't that right? | | 17 | A. I think maybe over a month prior, yes. | | 18 | Q. And Mr. Guo says "The safest virtual coin at the moment is | | 19 | the Himalaya Coin because 20 percent of the value is anchored | | 20 | to gold." Do you see that right there? | | 21 | A. Yes, I see that. | | 22 | Q. So when Mr. Guo said that, that was not true, was it? | | 23 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I have an objection under | | 24 | Federal Rule of Evidence 609, and if I need to elaborate, I'm | | 25 | happy to have a sidebar. 608, I'm sorry. |

| | Case 22-50073 O78BGUO2 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 500 Dai - Cross | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 96 of 5348 | |----|---------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------| | | | | | | | | 1 | | THE COURT: | All right. | Let's have a sidebar. | | | 2 | | | (Continued on next page) | | | | 3 | | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | | 5 | | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | | 7 | | | | | | | 8 | | | | | | | 9 | | | | | | | 10 | | | | | | | 11 | | | | | | | 12 | | | | | | | 13 | | | | | | | 14 | | | | | | | 15 | | | | | | | 16 | | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | | 19 | | | | | | | 20 | | | | | | | 21 | | | | | | | 22 | | | | | | | 23 | | | | | | | 24 | | | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | |

#### 5349 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross (At the sidebar) 1 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 97 of 500

THE COURT: Are you going to tell me about Mr. 608, Mr. Kamaraju? 2 3

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm going to do that with another rule in combination, your Honor. Rule 608 precludes specific instances of conduct being used to attack a witness's testimony. Basically you cannot ask another witness whether somebody lied. And because Mr. Guo's statements are being offered for as an out-of-court declarant, he falls under those same rules.

THE COURT: So aren't you looking to impeach Mr. Guo essentially?

MR. FERGENSON: The question was whether this statement that he just read was true. It doesn't bring up - it's not character evidence under 608.

MR. KAMARAJU: It's 609(b).

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, I admit, I'm confused. This is a fraud case. What's at issue is whether Mr. Guo lied when talking about investments. The witness testified that he watched Mr. Guo's broadcast where he made statements about investments. The witness also testified H Coin was not backed to gold. He agreed with me on that. Mr. Guo said repeatedly H Coin is backed to gold. The question of this fraud case is, that's not true, right?

MR. KAMARAJU: You still can't ask a witness to

#### 5350 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 98 of 500

impeach another witness's credibility in specific instances. Mr. Guo is an out-of-court declarant who can be impeached. It is a fraud case. They are allowed to prove that he lied, but the way you do that is not saying to one witness, did he lie on this instance.

MS. SHROFF: You cannot ask about specific instances. MR. HORTON: It cannot be the case that they can bring in a witness for the purpose of bolstering the credibility of Mr. Guo, talking about materiality pro and con, and then we can't ask that this particular statement wasn't true based on the witness's prior testimony that H Coin was in fact backed by gold.

MS. SHROFF: Actually, the witness testified that he read the white paper and that is what he relied on. He has repeatedly told you that he has not relied on Mr. Guo's video. You ignored all of his answers and you keep pummeling down this video road. And the rule has no exception to a fraud case -- I think the statute is the very clear -- you may not ask about specific instances and ask somebody who is in court whether those are true or false. If the statute says, and by the way, we're making an exception in a fraud case, I would be delighted to hear that.

THE COURT: What's the other rule, Mr. Kamaraju? MR. KAMARAJU: If you give me a second. It's an impeachment of out-of-court declarant statements. I have to 23 24 25

#### 5351 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 99 of 500

remember the rule number. 1

MR. FERGENSON: If I may, your Honor. I think just going back to sort of fundamental building blocks. This is a case about representations made to investors and whether they're true. That's not about -- there's no, like, the entire -- if Mr. Kamaraju was correct, then the government's entire case in chief was improper because we're impeaching an out-of-court declarant, meaning the defendant. Of course in a fraud case you're going to say the things the defendant said are untrue. That's the entire basis for the prosecution. This rule, well it's sort of nuanced, it has no application here. And we're asking the witness if he agrees this representation was not factually true. That's the question pending. The objection should be overruled.

THE COURT: My recollection is the prosecution asked the same question of their witnesses. Why didn't you object then?

MR. KAMARAJU: I did.

THE COURT: Why didn't you bring up the rule then?

MR. KAMARAJU: I did. I did, your Honor, but I do think there is a difference -- and I want to draw this distinction. There's a difference between whether it's in a fraud case or any other case asking a witness for the underlying facts that show the defendant's statement is not true. They are undoubtedly permitted to do that. There's no 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5352 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 100 of 500

bar to that. The point that I'm objecting to is asking the witness his opinion as to whether Mr. Guo lied in a specific instance. That is what the rule bars. This does not hamstring the Southern District of New York from bringing fraud cases in the future, they just have to do it consistent with the rules of evidence.

MR. FERGENSON: That's not the question pending. The question pending is whether that factual representation is true. There's no reason the witness can't answer that, and I don't think Mr. Horton needs to ask, and Miles Guo was knowingly lying when he said that, right? He's not going to ask that. He can just ask was this representation true, which is the question pending, and it should be overruled.

THE COURT: Is there anything further?

MR. KAMARAJU: I just note, I don't think that was the question before. If that's going to be the question, that's a different answer.

THE COURT: My recollection is that that was the question.

MR. KAMARAJU: Just so I understand the ruling, it's not that he can say did Miles Guo lie in that instance. He can say is that factual statement that Miles Guo said is true?

THE COURT: That's what he asked. MR. KAMARAJU: I'm just making sure that I understand the Court going down this road. 23 24 25

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 101 of 5353 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | THE COURT: And you're not objecting to that question? | | 2 | MR. KAMARAJU: I won't continue to. | | 3 | THE COURT: I said you're not objecting to that | | 4 | question? | | 5 | MS. SHROFF: We are. | | 6 | THE COURT: You are? | | 7 | MR. KAMARAJU: To the factual predicate of his | | 8 | understanding if it's true? | | 9 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 10 | MR. KAMARAJU: I don't think I can object to that, | | 11 | your Honor. I've made my objection. | | 12 | THE COURT: Okay. If you can just hold on a second. | | 13 | I just want to talk to my clerk about the other issue. | | 14 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, there was also a whole stream | | 15 | of questions that were asked prior to this one as to whether or | | 16 | not Mr. Guo had lied about specific instances. I didn't | | 17 | interrupt, but those questions are also improper to the extent | | 18 | they talk about specific instances that the witness is being | | 19 | asked about. And the record should be clear, the witness has | | 20 | repeatedly said, he did not rely on the video in determining | | 21 | whether to invest. He said that over and over again. | | 22 | THE COURT: Did you ask questions that contain the | | 23 | word "lie?" | | 24 | MS. SHROFF: Yes. | | 25 | MR. FERGENSON: He did, and they were not objecting | | | |

#### 5354 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 102 of 500

to. We're not going to keep asking those questions. We'll ask about factual representations, which is what was objected to, and I think is not objectionable. 1 2 3

THE COURT: Wait one moment, please.

MS. SHROFF: The question about him lying should be stricken.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. I want to go back to the DiMaria issue. I think that the defense is offering Mr. Guo's statement for the purposes of showing his state of mind. DiMaria is different. It's a different circumstance where the defendant was saying something in the moment, so I'm not going to permit these questions about the location of the club shall we say.

MR. KAMARAJU: Just two points. You asked me previously about what rule I was citing in terms of attacking an out-of-court declarant's credibility. That's rule 806 which says that the declarant's credibility may be attacked if supported by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness, so it is subject to 608's limitations.

And then the other thing I would say about DiMaria, your Honor, is I believe -- I could be wrong, but I believe that that was not admitted as a present sense impression. I believe that was admitted as a state of mind exception because the Court specifically addressed the carve out in that case and

#### 5355 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 103 of 500

the distinguish other Second Circuit cases that had addressed the carve out. So that case is certainly in my reading a state of mind case not a present sense impression case. So I suspect we are going to have this issue come up again, so I just wanted to flag that point because I think we're going to cite it again. 1 2 3 4 5 6

THE COURT: All righty. I'm not going to permit the statement with regard to the location.

MR. KAMARAJU: With this witness or with any questioning? 9 10

THE COURT: With this witness so far. I don't know what the others are going to talk about. They may say they visited the location. I don't know. 11 12 13

MR. KAMARAJU: Understood.

(Continued on next page)

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 104 of 5356 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (In open court) | | 2 | THE COURT: You may continue. | | 3 | MR. HORTON: Thank you, your Honor. | | 4 | BY MR. HORTON: | | 5 | Q. Mr. Dai, just redirecting your attention back to Mr. Guo's | | 6 | statement on the screen. | | 7 | Mr. Guo's statement on September 29, 2021, on G News | | 8 | that the safest virtual coin at the moment is the Himalaya Coin | | 9 | because 20 percent of the value is anchored to gold. That | | 10 | statement was not true, was it? | | 11 | A. You mean compared with the white paper from the H Exchange, | | 12 | whether that's true? If that's the case, that's not true | | 13 | because it's not linked to gold. | | 14 | Q. Right. | | 15 | MR. HORTON: Ms. Loftus, can you scroll down, please | | 16 | to the second paragraph on page 121. And, actually, if you | | 17 | could stop at the bottom of 120. | | 18 | Q. You see the date on the left-hand side October 20, 2021? | | 19 | A. Yes, I see it. | | 20 | Q. And that's just 12 days before the launch of the Himalaya | | 21 | Exchange, correct? | | 22 | A. Yes. | | 23 | Q. And that's Mr. Guo in the middle of the screenshot, isn't | | 24 | it? | | 25 | A. Yes. |

#### 5357 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 105 of 500

| 1 | MR. HORTON: Ms. Loftus, if you could scroll down to | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | the excerpt. It's the second paragraph on this page, and | | 3 | highlight starting at, What is called the next three lines, | | 4 | four lines, please. | | 5 | Q. Mr. Dai, on October 20, 2021, Mr. Guo said, "What is | | 6 | called? I am talking about your H Coins. Brother Seven | | 7 | designed it at that time." | | 8 | Do you agree that Brother Seven is Miles Guo, correct? | | 9 | Yes. A. | | 10 | Q. And so Miles Guo designed H Coin; isn't that right? | | 11 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. Is he asking for his | | 12 | understanding or is he asking what that document states? | | 13 | MR. HORTON: My question, your Honor, to Mr. Dai is -- | | 14 | Q. Mr. Dai, didn't Miles Guo design H Coin? | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. He has no personal knowledge. | | 16 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 17 | A. At this place that says so, but I wasn't sure who was the | | 18 | real designer behind it. | | 19 | Q. Well, was Miles Guo -- is this statement true what Miles | | 20 | Guo said -- | | 21 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 22 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 23 | MS. SHROFF: We discussed this at the sidebar, and he | | 24 | also said he doesn't know. | | 25 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 106 of 5358 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Can you repeat your question because I was interrupted. | | 2 | Q. Is Miles Guo's statement that H Coin has 20 percent gold | | 3 | and it is linked to gold, not the others, clear gold directly. | | 4 | Is that statement true, Mr. Dai? | | 5 | A. This particular sentence he did say that. He did say that | | 6 | sentence, but it's not inconsistent with the white paper from | | 7 | the Himalaya Exchange. | | 8 | Q. Mr. Dai, your testimony is that this statement is not | | 9 | inconsistent with the white paper? | | 10 | That's correct, inconsistent. A. | | 11 | Q. Just so I make sure I understand, Mr. Dai, Mr. Guo's | | 12 | statement on October 20, 2021 that H Coin has 20 percent gold, | | 13 | your testimony is that that is consistent or inconsistent with | | 14 | the white paper? | | 15 | A. Inconsistent. | | 16 | This statement on your screen from Miles Guo is not true, Q. | | 17 | is it? | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, asked and answered. | | 19 | THE COURT: He didn't answer. You can answer now. | | 20 | Q. This statement on your screen from Miles Guo, Mr. Dai, is | | 21 | not true, is it? | | 22 | A. I believe that's his understanding of H Coin. | | 23 | Q. It's not true, is it? | | 24 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, asked and answered. | | 25 | MR. HORTON: He did not answer the question. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 107 of 5359 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: The question was not answered. Sir, | | 2 | answer the question. | | 3 | Q. This statement, Mr. Dai, from Miles Guo is not true, isn't | | | | | 4 | that right? | | 5 | A. The content was not true, but I don't understand -- do you | | 6 | mean to say -- | | 7 | THE COURT: I want you to answer exactly what is being | | 8 | asked. Is there something that you don't understand about the | | 9 | question? | | 10 | THE WITNESS: I understood the question. | | 11 | A. He did say that. But if you ask me whether he said this | | 12 | thing, yes, he did say that. | | 13 | MR. HORTON: Your Honor, the government would move to | | 14 | strike the answer after "the content is not true." | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: He answered the government's question. | | 16 | THE COURT: What comes after the word "true" is | | 17 | stricken. | | 18 | Q. Last week, Mr. Dai, Ms. Shroff ask you some questions. | | 19 | MR. HORTON: We can take this down please, Ms. Loftus. | | 20 | Q. Ms. Shroff ask you some questions about -- last week -- | | 21 | whether buying a G/Club membership would get you GTV stock, do | | 22 | you remember that? | | 23 | A. Yes, I remember. | | 24 | Q. And your testimony last week was that G/Club and GTV seems | | 25 | not to be related at all, do you remember testifying to that? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 108 of 5360 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Yes, I remember. | | | | | 2 | MR. HORTON: Ms. Loftus, can we show Mr. Dai what's in | | 3 | evidence as GX29 at page 113. | | 4 | Q. That's Miles Guo in this screenshot; isn't it, Mr. Dai? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. And it's from July 30, 2021. Do you see the date on the | | 7 | top left? | | 8 | A. Yes, I see it. | | 9 | Q. And it's recorded on GTV, do you see that in the URL? | | 10 | Yes. A. | | 11 | Q. And you watched GTV; isn't that right? | | 12 | A. Yes. | | 13 | MR. HORTON: And, Ms. Loftus, can we scroll down to -- | | 14 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the government hasn't | | 15 | established that the witness has seen this particular video. | | 16 | MR. HORTON: It's in evidence. | | 17 | MS. SHROFF: That's not the question. | | 18 | THE COURT: So I haven't heard a question so I'd like | | 19 | to hear the question. | | 20 | MR. HORTON: If I could have, Ms. Loftus, scroll down | | 21 | to the right part of the document. It's the part that | | 22 | straddles 114 and 115. | | 23 | THE COURT: I'm just realizing that it's 11:33, so | | 24 | it's time for the half hour break. Remember you're not | | 25 | permitted to discuss this case amongst yourselves. Don't | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 109 of 5361 500 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | permit anyone to discuss it in your presence. Don't read, | | 2 | listen to or watch anything from any source that touches on the | | 3 | subject matter of this case. | | 4 | THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting. | | 5 | (Jury not present) | | 6 | THE COURT: Sir, you may step out. Don't discuss your | | 7 | testimony. | | 8 | (Continued on next page) | | 9 | | | 10 | | | 11 | | | 12 | | | 13 | | | 14 | | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

#### 5362 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 110 of 500

1 2

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: You may be seated. Is there anything before we reconvene at noon?

MR. HORTON: Very briefly from the government. Just before the break I didn't have a question pending. I don't believe Ms. Shroff made an objection. There was just an interruption and an assertion from Ms. Shroff. Just ask that she not be permitted to do that. She can make objections. She can wait for the Court's rulings and she can follow them.

THE COURT: So you've been testifying, Ms. Shroff, as opposed to merely making objections. Don't do that.

MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. I do have a matter to raise though. The government is purposely not asking the witness whether or not the document that is being shown is something that this witness ever saw before or ever looked at before or has even viewed before. It is consistently asked - could you sit down, Mr. Horton, so I may finish? Thank you.

THE COURT: Whether someone is standing or sitting is up to me, Ms. Shroff. 18 19

MS. SHROFF: I can't see.

THE COURT: Don't be directing them what to do.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could I ask that the government not stand while I'm speaking cause I can't see. I'm rather short. 22 23 24

THE COURT: Well, I can see you well. There's a space

#### 5363 O78BGUO2 Dai - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 111 of 500

in between Mr. Horton and Mr. Fergenson, so limit yourself to purely legal issues.

MS. SHROFF: I object to the way the government is asking the witness questions. The government is deliberately skipping the step of asking the witness whether or not the witness is ever seen this particular video before, or whether he's even heard it before. And what they're saying is, this is a document in evidence, and now read from it. Now tell me if what you're reading is true. That is what the government is doing, and that is why I have a continuing objection to the manner in which they're asking that question. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, that's what redirect is for. There's no rule that says if a document is in evidence I need to establish some personal relationship from the witness to the document. The witness has also testified that he watched five hours of GTV a day.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, that is exactly what Mr. Schirick did and what -- 18 19

THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, don't speak over me. Mr. Horton has stated the law correctly. If you want to ask him on redirect whether he's looked at a document or video, you can do that. We'll return at noon.

(Recess)

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 112 of 5365 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N | | 2 | 12:05 P.M. | | 3 | THE COURT: Please have the jurors brought in. | | 4 | (Jury present) | | 5 | THE COURT: Please be seated. | | 6 | And please continue with your inquiry. | | 7 | MR. HORTON: We're just awaiting the witness, your | | 8 | Honor. | | 9 | (Witness present) | | 10 | THE COURT: Sir, remember that you're still under | | 11 | oath. | | 12 | MR. HORTON: May I inquire? | | 13 | THE COURT: Yes, you may. | | 14 | BY MR. HORTON: | | 15 | Q. Mr. Dai, can you hear me okay? | | 16 | Yes, I can hear you. A. | | 17 | Q. Before the break, I asked you whether you remembered | | 18 | testifying last week that G CLUB and GTV seems not to be | | 19 | related at all. Do you remember that? | | 20 | A. Yes. | | 21 | Q. And if someone were to say that G CLUB and GTV were | | 22 | related, that would not be true, right? | | 23 | A. But for my testimony, I was only talking about my fellow | | 24 | fighters, and I didn't know what else you were talking about, | | 25 | no. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 113 of 5366 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. HORTON: Ms. Loftus, if we could please put up | | 2 | what's in evidence as GX-9 at page 113. | | 3 | Q. Do you see, Mr. Guo? | | 4 | A. I was talking about a private -- sorry. | | 5 | THE COURT: So we don't have any question. So just | | 6 | wait for the question. | | 7 | Q. Do you see Mr. Guo in the screenshot here, Mr. Dai? | | 8 | A. Yes. | | 9 | Q. And do you see this is from GTV? Do you see the URL on the | | 10 | left? | | 11 | A. Yes, I can see. | | 12 | MR. HORTON: Ms. Loftus, can you go down to the bottom | | 13 | of 114 and the top of 115, please. You can scroll down just a | | 14 | few more lines, please. Oh, can we publish it to the jury, | | 15 | please. | | 16 | Can the jury see the screen? | | 17 | Q. This is a statement of Miles Guo on July 30th, 2021. Do | | 18 | you see that, Mr. Dai? Can you see the statement on the | | 19 | screen? | | 20 | A. Yes, I can see. | | 21 | Q. There are still many people asking questions, Miles Guo | | 22 | said, including Brother Long Island. | | 23 | And you know who Brother Long Island is, Mr. Dai? | | 24 | A. Yes, I know who Long Island Brother is. | | 25 | Q. He was the leader of the Himalaya Farm Alliance, right? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 114 of 5367 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Yes. | | 2 | In your answer to my question a moment ago, you referred to Q. | | 3 | fellow fighters, isn't that right? | | 4 | A. Yes. | | 5 | Q. Miles Guo says here in July 2021: There's still many | | 6 | people asking questions, including Brother Long Island. And | | 7 | Kai told me that some of the fellow fighters asked, Will I | | 8 | still get a stock offer when I buy a G CLUB membership. And | | 9 | Miles Guo says 100 percent. Because I said that I have to | | 10 | promise that anyone who buys G CLUB membership before | | 11 | September 17th must be allotted shares, which is exactly the | | 12 | same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use | | 13 | your money to buy G CLUB before September 17, G CLUB and the | | 14 | stock shares. You'll get both. | | 15 | Do you see that, Mr. Dai? | | 16 | A. Yes. | | 17 | Q. And you believe that Miles Guo tells the truth, don't you? | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 19 | Asked and answered several times. | | 20 | THE COURT: I believe so. Sustained. | | 21 | Q. Last week, Mr. Dai, you were shown some screenshots and | | 22 | videos that you recorded before you testified. Do you remember | | 23 | that? | | 24 | A. Yes, I do. | | 25 | Q. And Mr. Guo's lawyers asked you to make those recordings, |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 115 of 5368 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | didn't they? | | 2 | A. I recorded. | | | | | 3 | Q. And you recorded videos for Mr. Guo's lawyers of your H Pay | | 4 | and Himalaya Exchange accounts, isn't that right? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. And earlier today, Ms. Shroff asked if all the features on | | 7 | your account were the same last week as they were in 2022, do | | 8 | you remember that? | | 9 | A. I remember. | | 10 | And you said under oath that two features were different, Q. | | 11 | they were restricted. Do you remember that? | | 12 | A. I remember. | | 13 | Q. And one of those restricted features was redemptions, | | 14 | wasn't it? | | 15 | A. What do you mean by "redemption"? | | 16 | You said that two features were not accessible to you in Q. | | 17 | 2022, one of those features -- | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. That is not what he | | 19 | testified. | | 20 | THE COURT: Overruled. | | 21 | Q. One of those restricted features was redemptions, isn't | | 22 | that true? | | 23 | A. When you say "redemption," do you mean transfer HDO into | | 24 | U.S. dollar to bank account? | | 25 | Q. Exactly right. That was one of the restricted features for |

5369 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross some time, wasn't it? MS. SHROFF: Objection to "some time." THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, the redemption amount went down. Q. Mr. Dai, you have a Twitter account, don't you? MR. HORTON: I'm sorry, if the interpreter could read the answer please. THE COURT: I'm waiting. THE INTERPRETER: Do you want the interpreter reading -- MR. HORTON: Mr. Dai answered it. A. Yes, I do. Q. And you follow some cryptocurrency-related accounts, don't you? A. Yes. Q. And you know that the Himalaya Exchange has a Twitter account, isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Do you know that while you were testifying last Wednesday, the Himalaya Exchange tweeted that its site was down for maintenance? MS. SHROFF: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. A. This maintenance is to accurate and it will end shortly and goes back to normal. It happen a few times before previously. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 116 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 117 of 5370 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | It does not affect usage. | | 2 | Q. Mr. Dai, do you know that the Himalaya Exchange deleted | | 3 | that July 3rd tweet? | | 4 | A. I don't know. | | 5 | Q. In between your testimony last week and your testimony | | 6 | today, there was a break in these proceedings. Do you remember | | 7 | that? | | 8 | THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter repeat. | | 9 | A. Did I rest? I rest. | | 10 | Q. And between your testimony last week and your testimony | | 11 | today, you met again with Miles Guo's lawyers, isn't that | | 12 | right? | | 13 | Yes. A. | | 14 | Q. You met with Ms. Shroff? | | 15 | A. Yes. | | 16 | Q. You met with Mr. Schirick over there? | | 17 | A. Yes. | | 18 | Q. You met with Mr. Barkan, who's not in the room, isn't that | | 19 | right? | | 20 | A. Yes. | | 21 | Q. There are other lawyers for Miles Guo in those meetings, | | 22 | right? | | 23 | A. I have. | | 24 | Q. This was after you started testifying last week, isn't that | | 25 | right? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 118 of 5371 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Cross | |----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | Yes. | | 2 | Q. | And Miles Guo's lawyers gave you advice on how to finish | | 3 | | your testimony, isn't that right? | | 4 | A. | No, they did not give me advice. | | 5 | Q. | Well, they talked to you about your testimony, didn't they? | | 6 | A. | Testimony. They ask me questions; I answered. | | 7 | Q. | They gave you feedback on your answers, didn't they? | | 8 | A. | No, they mention that my voice was low last time. | | | | | | 9 | Q. | Are you aware that today is July 8th, Mr. Dai? | | 10 | A. | I know. | | 11 | Q. | You know that last night the Himalaya Exchange once again | | 12 | | shut down for maintenance? | | 13 | A. | Yes, I know. | | 14 | Q. | You want to help Miles Guo if you can, isn't that right, | | 15 | | Mr. Dai? | | 16 | A. | Yes. | | 17 | Q. | And you flew here from your home in Germany back on | | 18 | | June 28th to try to help Mr. Guo, isn't that true? | | 19 | A. | Yes. | | 20 | Q. | You've been here for almost two weeks now to try to help | | 21 | | Mr. Guo, isn't that right? | | 22 | A. | Yes, ten days. | | 23 | Q. | And this morning, before you resumed your testimony, while | | 24 | | you were sitting in that chair, Mr. Dai, and Miles Guo was | | 25 | | sitting in the seat where he is in right now, Miles Guo looked |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 119 of 5372 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | at you and went like this, and nodded and smiled; isn't that | | 2 | right? | | 3 | A. I did not see. | | 4 | Q. Your testimony under oath, Mr. Dai, is that earlier this | | 5 | morning, before you resumed your testimony, Miles Guo didn't | | 6 | look over to you, standing where he's now sitting, while you | | 7 | sat in that chair, and Miles Guo did not look at you and go | | 8 | like this? | | 9 | A. I saw he smiled at me, but I did not see the hand gesture. | | 10 | You still believe in Miles Guo, don't you, sir? Q. | | 11 | A. Yes, I believe him. | | 12 | MR. HORTON: Your Honor, if I could just have one | | 13 | moment, please. | | 14 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 15 | (Counsel conferred) | | 16 | MR. HORTON: Thank you. We have no further questions. | | 17 | THE COURT: Redirect. | | 18 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION | | 19 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 20 | Q. Mr. Dai, let me show you G-9 that was -- I'm sorry, | | 21 | apparently it's GX CC-9 or Z-9. | | 22 | MS. SHROFF: May I have the first part made bigger for | | 23 | him. | | 24 | Q. Mr. Dai, you were asked questions about what the "G" stands | | 25 | for in G News; correct? By Mr. -- by the government lawyer |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 120 of 5373 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | here? | | 2 | A. Yes. | | 3 | Q. And your answer was interrupted; correct? | | 4 | MR. HORTON: Objection. | | 5 | THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. | | 6 | A. "G" stands for global. | | 7 | Q. Okay. Could I just point out your answer was interrupted | | 8 | and you said it is obvious why the "G" is global. Do you | | 9 | remember saying that? | | 10 | MR. HORTON: Your Honor, objection. First part of the | | 11 | question was Ms. Shroff's testimony. | | 12 | THE COURT: Don't testify. | | 13 | Q. Do you remember saying that it's obvious? | | 14 | A. Yes. | | 15 | Q. And could you tell the jury why it is obvious to you that G | | 16 | News stands for Global News? | | 17 | A. It was obviously from the design of the logo, this was the | | 18 | globe, it was a circle and its symbolic design. | | 19 | MS. SHROFF: All right. So could we just -- | | 20 | A. Obviously represent global. | | 21 | MS. SHROFF: Could I have that blown up, please. | | 22 | Q. Do you see Miles Guo's face in the middle of the G? | | 23 | A. No. | | 24 | MS. SHROFF: Thank you, Jorge. | | 25 | You may take that down. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 121 of 5374 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. Mr. Dai, when did you first hear about GTV? | | 2 | A. Are you referring to the GTV Media platform or the GTV | | 3 | private placement? | | 4 | Q. Let's start with the platform. When did you first learn | | 5 | about the platform? | | 6 | A. April 2020. | | 7 | Q. And how about the private placement? | | 8 | A. Whenever private placement information, that was May 2020. | | 9 | Q. And you remember being asked questions by the government | | 10 | lawyer about you listening to Miles Guo's videos about GTV? | | 11 | A. I do. | | 12 | Q. Do you remember watching each and every one of Miles Guo's | | 13 | videos that mentions the words "GTV"? | | 14 | A. Could you repeat the question? | | 15 | THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter can repeat. | | 16 | I cannot be certain if I remember all of them. A. But if I -- | | 17 | Q. Are you finished, Mr. Dai, or are you still speaking? | | 18 | THE INTERPRETER: Could you repeat your response one | | 19 | more time. | | 20 | MS. SHROFF: I'll rephrase the question. | | 21 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 22 | Q. Mr. Dai, did you watch each and every video that Miles Guo | | 23 | ever made? | | 24 | A. I cannot be certain, but I believe I saw most of it. | | 25 | Q. And before you invested through the private placement, had |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 122 of 5375 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | | you seen each one of his GTV discussions on live broadcasts? | | 2 | A. | Before I finish the private placement, I did not saw | | 3 | | Mr. Guo did the private placement livestream investment. | | 4 | Q. | Did you read the private placement, all the accompanying | | 5 | | documents, in English and in Mandarin? | | 6 | A. | Yes. | | 7 | Q. | Mr. Dai, you were asked questions about the phrase "G | | 8 | | Series," you recall that? | | 9 | A. | Yes. | | 10 | Q. | Before today in court when the government lawyer used the | | 11 | | phrase "G Series," had you ever used that phrase yourself? | | 12 | A. | I don't remember if I used this phrase. | | 13 | Q. | Do you know what he meant when he asked you the question, G | | 14 | | Series? | | 15 | A. | I know what it meant. | | 16 | Q. | You were asked questions about Guo Media, do you remember | | 17 | that? | | | 18 | A. | Yes. | | 19 | Q. | Did you invest in Guo Media? | | 20 | A. | No. | | 21 | Q. | Did you research Guo Media? | | 22 | A. | No. | | 23 | Q. | You were asked questions of the Himalaya Exchange, H Pay, H | | 24 | | Coin and H Dollar; correct? | | 25 | A. | Yes. |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 123 of 5376 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. | And then you were asked questions about what happened to | | 2 | | the exchange while you were actually testifying in court last | | 3 | | week; correct? | | 4 | A. | Yes. | | 5 | Q. | Do they allow you to bring your cell phone into this | | 6 | | building? | | 7 | A. | No. | | 8 | Q. | Do they allow you to bring a computer into this building? | | 9 | A. | No. | | 10 | Q. | Is there any other way for you to check what is going on on | | 11 | | the Himalaya Exchange other than through the internet? | | 12 | A. | No. | | 13 | Q. | When you invested in H Pay, H Coin, H Dollar, and the | | 14 | | Himalaya Exchange, did you read the white paper? | | 15 | A. | Yes, I did. | | 16 | Q. | Have you ever reviewed that white paper with me? | | 17 | A. | No. | | 18 | Q. | Have you reviewed that white paper with any lawyer from | | 19 | | Mr. Guo's legal team? | | 20 | A. | No. | | 21 | Q. | Between July 3rd or whenever it was that you last | | 22 | | testified, and here today, did anyone on the Guo team show you | | 23 | | a single piece of paper? | | 24 | A. | No. | | 25 | Q. | On July 4th, did we tell you to go watch the fireworks and |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 124 of 5377 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | celebrate Independence Day? | | 2 | MR. HORTON: Objection. | | 3 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 4 | A. Yes, they told me that there were fireworks. And I went to | | 5 | the Brooklyn Bridge Park to saw the fireworks. | | 6 | Q. You were asked questions about Mr. Guo designing H Coin; | | 7 | correct? | | 8 | A. Yes. | | 9 | Q. And you said you did not believe that he designed it | | 10 | himself; correct? | | 11 | A. I said I am not certain if he designed it. | | 12 | Q. And do you recall, sitting here today, if Mr. Guo talked | | 13 | about how he had consulted with professionals before the coin | | 14 | was designed? | | 15 | MR. HORTON: Objection. Issue raised at sidebar. | | 16 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 17 | Q. You were asked questions about having a Twitter account; | | 18 | correct? | | 19 | A. Yes. | | 20 | Q. And on your Twitter account you follow Himalaya Exchange; | | 21 | correct? | | 22 | A. Yes, I follow. | | 23 | Q. And do you think that Elon Musk's upgrading of Twitter is | | 24 | any less or more frequent than the ones being done on Himalaya | | 25 | Exchange? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 125 of 5378 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. HORTON: Objection. | | 2 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 3 | Q. You were asked questions about the two restrictions, do you | | 4 | remember that? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. What are these two restrictions that you were talking | | 7 | about? | | 8 | A. Redeem and top out cannot transfer -- cannot transfer U.S. | | 9 | dollar into Himalaya Exchange to purchase. And you want to -- | | 10 | you want to convert the HDO into U.S. dollar, the amount limit | | 11 | went down. | | 12 | Q. And when did the amount limit go down, what year? | | 13 | A. Sometime -- I believe sometime in 2023. | | 14 | Q. So it was better in 2022; correct? | | 15 | MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. | | 16 | The redemption amount was higher -- Q. | | 17 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 18 | Q. The restriction was not in place in 2022; correct? | | 19 | MR. HORTON: Objection. | | 20 | Mischaracterizes the testimony. | | 21 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 22 | Q. In 2022, could you redeem more or less than in 2023? | | 23 | A. More. At that time -- at the time it was \$100,000 limit | | 24 | redemption. | | 25 | Q. And what is it in 2023? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 126 of 5379 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. 5,000. | | 2 | And you were asked questions, were you not, about Q. | | 3 | statements made by Mr. Guo regarding the gold; correct? The | | 4 | gold package; correct? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. Did you take those statements into account while | | 7 | considering your decision in whether or not to purchase H Coin | | 8 | or H Dollar? | | 9 | A. Those statement, that's not, in fact, my investment into | | 10 | Himalaya Exchange. | | 11 | Q. Why not? | | 12 | A. Because I saw one versus one ratio with a U.S. dollar | | 13 | bonding. This ratio was good enough for me. | | 14 | Q. Mr. Dai, you were asked questions about you having flown | | 15 | all the way from Germany to come here to help Mr. Guo; correct? | | 16 | A. Correct. | | 17 | Q. The testimony that you've given here last week and today, | | 18 | has it been truthful? | | 19 | A. Truthful. | | 20 | Q. Has it been complete? | | 21 | A. Complete. You mean did I tell everything? | | 22 | Q. Yes. | | 23 | Yes, all that I know, I disclose. A. | | 24 | Q. And did any one of us tell you how to answer these | | 25 | questions? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 127 of 5380 500 O78VGUO3 Dai - Redirect | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | A. No. | | 2 | Q. And other than me telling you to keep your voice up and | | 3 | annunciate, did I give you any other advice? | | 4 | A. And as a matter of fact, I complained to Ms. Shroff about | | 5 | the headphone device. And she tried to help me resolve this | | 6 | issue. And she wanted me to listen to the question clearly and | | 7 | tell the truth and speak up. | | 8 | Q. Mr. Dai, would you lie for Mr. Guo here today? | | 9 | A. No. | | 10 | Do you have a full-time job today? Q. | | 11 | A. Yes. | | 12 | Q. Do you have a wife and children? | | 13 | MR. HORTON: Objection. Relevance. Scope. | | 14 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further. | | 16 | THE COURT: Recross. | | 17 | MR. HORTON: We have nothing further, your Honor. | | 18 | THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step out of the | | 19 | courtroom. | | 20 | (Witness excused) | | 21 | (Continued on next page) | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 128 of 5381 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | THE COURT: And the defense may call its next witness. | | 2 | MR. KAMARAJU: The defense calls Thomas Bishop, your | | 3 | Honor. | | 4 | THOMAS BISHOP, | | 5 | called as a witness by the Defendant, | | 6 | having been duly sworn, testified as follows: | | 7 | THE COURT: You may inquire. | | 8 | MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor. | | 9 | DIRECT EXAMINATION | | 10 | BY MR. KAMARAJU: | | 11 | Q. Afternoon, Mr. Bishop. | | 12 | A. Afternoon. | | 13 | Sir, where did you go to school? Q. | | 14 | A. I graduated from Penn State University with a bachelor's | | 15 | degree in accounting. | | 16 | Q. And after your time at Penn State, did you work? | | 17 | A. Yes. I was hired by the Internal Revenue Service, criminal | | 18 | investigation division. | | 19 | What is the criminal investigations division of the IRS? Q. | | 20 | A. The IRS criminal investigation division is the criminal | | 21 | enforcement arm of the Internal Revenue Service. | | 22 | Q. And what kind of investigations, generally speaking, did | | 23 | you work on? | | 24 | A. Income tax, money laundering, and currency crimes under the | | 25 | Bank Secrecy Act. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 129 of 5382 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | | | | | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | Q. In your time at the IRS, did you hold any supervisory | | | | | | | 2 | positions? | | | | | | | 3 | A. Yes, I held four. | | | | | | | 4 | Q. Let's just start with the first one. What was the first | | | | | | | 5 | one? | | | | | | | 6 | A. The first one was a supervisory special agent. | | | | | | | 7 | Q. And could you just tell the jury what your general | | | | | | | 8 | responsibilities were in that role? | | | | | | | 9 | A. I supervised the operational day-to-day activities of a | | | | | | | 10 | group of 10 to 12 special agents or criminal investigators in | | | | | | | 11 | their investigations. | | | | | | | 12 | Q. And approximately how long were you in that role? | | | | | | | 13 | A. Approximately six years in that role. | | | | | | | 14 | Q. And after that role came to an end, where did you go next? | | | | | | | 15 | A. I was promoted to a policy position in IRS headquarters | | | | | | | 16 | dealing with offshore banking issues and ensuring consistency | | | | | | | 17 | among that program in the IRS. | | | | | | | 18 | Q. And can you just tell us generally what your | | | | | | | 19 | responsibilities were in that role. | | | | | | | 20 | In that role, it was to ensure consistency and uniformity A. | | | | | | | 21 | in the investigation of foreign offshore bank account-type | | | | | | | 22 | cases. | | | | | | | 23 | Q. And about how long were you in that role? | | | | | | | 24 | A. About 16 months. | | | | | | | 25 | Q. What did you do next? | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 130 of 5383 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | | | | | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | A. I came back to New York, the New York field office, as an | | | | | | | 2 | assistant special agent in charge. | | | | | | | 3 | Q. And could you just describe generally what your | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | responsibilities were there. | | | | | | | 5 | A. Sure. It's an operational role. And you oversee the | | | | | | | 6 | investigative program of four groups -- four to five groups of | | | | | | | 7 | special agents. | | | | | | | 8 | Q. And how long were you in that role for? | | | | | | | 9 | A. About four years. | | | | | | | 10 | What did you work on after that? Q. | | | | | | | 11 | A. I went to headquarters, Washington, D.C., and I was the | | | | | | | 12 | director of international field operations. | | | | | | | 13 | Q. And just give us a general sense of your responsibilities | | | | | | | 14 | there. | | | | | | | 15 | A. In that role, I supervised our foreign posted employees — | | | | | | | 16 | the IRS has special agents posted across the world — along with | | | | | | | 17 | supervising global investigations. | | | | | | | 18 | Q. Can you give the jury an example of a global investigation | | | | | | | 19 | you supervised? | | | | | | | 20 | A. The last one that I did before I retired was the Panama | | | | | | | 21 | Papers. | | | | | | | 22 | Q. Was that a money laundering investigation? | | | | | | | 23 | A. There were components of it, yes. | | | | | | | 24 | Q. Now, how much time did you spend at the IRS in total? | | | | | | | 25 | A. A little bit more than 25 years. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 131 of 5384 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. Did you work anywhere else after that? | | 2 | A. I did. | | 3 | Q. What did you do after? | | 4 | A. I went to work in the forensics practice of Baker Tilly | | 5 | U.S., which is a top ten accounting firm. | | 6 | Q. And what were your responsibilities in that practice? | | 7 | A. In that practice we provided forensic accounting, | | 8 | investigative and litigation support, legal and regulatory | | 9 | compliance services to our clients. | | 10 | Q. And about how long were you at Baker Tilly? | | 11 | A. Four years, a little bit more. | | 12 | Q. And did you work any more after that? | | 13 | A. I did. I went to BDO. | | 14 | Q. What's BDO? | | 15 | A. BDO is another large accounting firm, a little bit bigger | | 16 | than Baker Tilly. I worked in that forensic practice as well. | | 17 | Q. Were your responsibilities at BDO similar to Baker Tilly? | | 18 | A. They were virtually identical. | | 19 | Q. Sir, where do you work now? | | 20 | A. About 18 months ago I started my own firm. | | 21 | Q. And what kind of work generally does your firm do? | | 22 | A. The same type of work I just described. | | 23 | Q. And as a general matter, are there kinds of matters that | | 24 | you consult on? | | 25 | A. Yes. I consult predominantly on white-collar litigation |

| | Case 22-50073 | O78VGUO3 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 500 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Bishop - Direct | Page 132 of | 5385 | |----|---------------|----------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------|------| | 1 | | | | matters, tax controversy and advocacy-type engagements. | | | | | 2 | Q. | | | Have you ever testified at a trial before? | | | | | 3 | A. | | Yes, I have. | | | | | | 4 | Q. | | | Have you testified previously as an expert witness? | | | | | 5 | A. | I have. | | | | | | | 6 | Q. | | | And how about as a summary witness? | | | | | 7 | A. | | Yes, I have. | | | | | | 8 | Q. | | | And have you testified before on behalf of the United | | | | | 9 | | | States government? | | | | | | 10 | A. | I have. | | | | | | | 11 | Q. | | | And how about on behalf of criminal defendants? | | | | | 12 | A. | | Yes, I have. | | | | | | 13 | Q. | | | I'd like to talk about this case. | | | | | 14 | | | | Now, were you retained in this case? | | | | | 15 | A. | | I was retained. | | | | | | 16 | Q. | | Who retained you? | | | | | | 17 | A. | | Mr. Guo's counsel. | | | | | | 18 | Q. | | | And are you compensated for your work? | | | | | 19 | A. | I am. | | | | | | | 20 | Q. | | | How are you compensated? | | | | | 21 | A. | | I'm paid by the hour. | | | | | | 22 | Q. | | | What is your hourly rate? | | | | | 23 | A. | | 425, \$425 per hour. | | | | | | 24 | Q. | | | Now, sir, just generally speaking, can you tell the jury | | | | | 25 | | | | what you were retained to do? | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 133 of 5386 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | In general, I was retained to review bank records and data. | | 2 | Q. | Now, were those bank records provided to you by Mr. Guo's | | 3 | | lawyers? | | 4 | A. | Yes. | | 5 | Q. | And did Mr. Guo's lawyers direct you as to which accounts | | 6 | | to look at? | | 7 | A. | They did. | | 8 | Q. | And did Mr. Guo's lawyers provide feedback on your work? | | 9 | A. | Yes, they did. | | 10 | | MR. KAMARAJU: I'd like to pull up what's already in | | 11 | | evidence, DX 11598, please. | | 12 | Q. | Sir, do you recognize this type of record? | | 13 | A. | Yes. | | 14 | Q. | Generally speaking, how would you describe it? | | 15 | A. | It is an Excel spreadsheet containing transactional bank | | 16 | data. | | | 17 | Q. | Do you know which bank it's a record for? | | 18 | A. | I believe it's FV Bank. | | 19 | Q. | All right. And so let's just go through as an example some | | 20 | | of these columns. | | 21 | | So what's the date column there? | | 22 | A. | Column A is the date. | | 23 | Q. | What's that intended to reflect? | | 24 | A. | The date of the transaction. | | 25 | Q. | All right. | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 134 of 5387 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | | If we go over to column C, what's that intended to | | 2 | | reflect? | | 3 | A. | That is the originating transactor. | | 4 | | MR. KAMARAJU: All right. We could scroll over a | | 5 | | little bit. There's a lot of columns. Let's go over to column | | 6 | | I real quick. | | 7 | Q. | What's column I reflect? | | 8 | A. | Column I reflects the amount of the transaction. | | 9 | Q. | Okay. So if we can go back over, do you see column G, | | 10 | | where it says "payment type"? | | 11 | A. | Yes. | | 12 | Q. | What's that reflect? | | 13 | A. | That reflects the type of transaction. | | 14 | | MR. KAMARAJU: We could scroll over to column T, | | 15 | | please. | | 16 | Q. | What's that reflect? | | 17 | A. | Column T is the beneficiary company name. | | 18 | Q. | What's the beneficiary company? | | 19 | A. | That's the recipient entity account name. | | 20 | Q. | And do you see what's listed in row 2 there? | | 21 | A. | Yes. | | 22 | Q. | Do you know what that is? | | 23 | A. | Row 2, Sharps Pixley, is a gold dealer in London. | | 24 | | MR. KAMARAJU: We could take that down. | | 25 | | Can we pull up what's already in evidence as GX AS-18, |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 135 of 5388 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--| | 1 | please. And we can publish that. Could we go to page 10, | | | | 2 | please. All right. And if we could blow up the paragraph that | | | | 3 | says "Additionally." | | | | 4 | Q. Do you see that, sir? | | | | 5 | A. I do. | | | | 6 | Q. Okay. Would you mind reading that to the jury, please. | | | | 7 | A. Sure. | | | | 8 | "Additionally, a member may make a request to the | | | | 9 | Himalaya Exchange to accept a transfer of Himalaya dollar | | | | 10 | credits in exchange for an equivalent payment in U.S. dollars | | | | 11 | to be paid to the bank account of the member. However, such | | | | 12 | exchanges are at the discretion of the Himalaya Exchange and | | | | 13 | the Himalaya Coin. A new coin issued by Himalaya International | | | | 14 | Financial Group, 'HCN,' or Himalaya Coin, HDO, or any other | | | | 15 | type of asset on account at the Himalaya Exchange or through | | | | 16 | the Himalaya Pay app are references to credits corresponding to | | | | 17 | that asset." | | | | 18 | Q. Thank you, sir. | | | | 19 | MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go to page 12, please. | | | | 20 | Q. All right. Do you see the blown-up language here that | | | | 21 | starts with "The issuer"? | | | | 22 | A. I do. | | | | 23 | Q. Would you mind reading that, please. | | | | 24 | A. "The issuer is not obliged to provide liquidity support and | | | | 25 | the Himalaya Exchange is not obliged to agree to any request | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 136 of 5389 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | from a member to exchange HDO credits for U.S. dollars. And | | 2 | such actions are at the sole discretion of the issuer and the | | 3 | Himalaya Exchange respectively. Members do not have any direct | | 4 | or indirect claim on the issuer or the reserve." | | 5 | Q. Thank you. | | 6 | MR. KAMARAJU: Could we take that down and please go | | 7 | to DX 11431, which is in evidence. | | 8 | (Counsel conferred) | | 9 | Q. Now, sir, I'd like you to take a look at this record. Have | | 10 | you seen it before? | | 11 | A. I have. | | 12 | Q. And is it a summary of bank data? | | 13 | A. Yes, it is. | | 14 | Q. And do you see the date column at the left there? | | 15 | A. Yes, column A. | | 16 | What's the first date there? Q. | | 17 | A. January 12, 2022. | | 18 | MR. KAMARAJU: All right. Can we go down to the last | | 19 | row, please. Sorry, the last row down. | | 20 | Q. All right. And do you see the date listed -- it's actually | | 21 | the third row up, but 62951? | | 22 | A. Yes. | | 23 | Q. All right. What's the date listed there? | | 24 | A. June 21, 2022. | | 25 | MR. KAMARAJU: If we could scroll back up to the top, | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 137 of 5390 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| | | | | | 1 | please. | | | 2 | Q. All right. Now, do you know who the account holder is for | | | 3 | this account, sir? | | | 4 | A. This is a Himalaya bank account. I just don't think the | | | 5 | screen is scrolled up enough. | | | 6 | Q. Thank you. | | | 7 | MR. KAMARAJU: Why don't we take a look at a couple of | | | 8 | specific rows. We look at row 62187, please. | | | 9 | Q. All right. Do you see the date of that? | | | 10 | Yes, it's November 22, 2021. A. | | | 11 | MR. KAMARAJU: Could we scroll over to column H, | | | 12 | please. | | | 13 | Q. All right. And do you see what's listed in the description | | | 14 | there? | | | 15 | A. Yes, it says "client redemption." | | | 16 | MR. KAMARAJU: All right. | | | 17 | Can we go over to column J, please. | | | 18 | Q. All right. And what's listed there? | | | 19 | A. Client redemption. | | | 20 | Q. And do you see an amount column? | | | 21 | A. Yes, I; column I. | | | 22 | Q. And how much is the redemption there? | | | 23 | A. 30,000. | | | 24 | MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Could we go now to row 59802. | | | 25 | Q. Okay. What's the date of that transaction? | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 138 of 5391 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | A. June 17, 2022. | | 2 | MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. And if we can scroll over again | | 3 | to the description column. | | 4 | Q. All right. What's listed there? | | 5 | A. Client redemption. | | 6 | MR. KAMARAJU: And if we could scroll over to column | | 7 | S, please. | | 8 | Q. Who's listed as the beneficiary, once we pull it up for | | 9 | you? | | 10 | The beneficiary first name is Lai. A. I'm presuming that's | | 11 | the way you pronounce it. L-A-I. | | 12 | Q. Do you see the last name, too? | | 13 | A. Yes. It's D-A-I, Dai. | | 14 | Q. Thank you. | | 15 | MR. KAMARAJU: And if we could scroll now to row | | 16 | 62057, please. | | 17 | Q. All right. What's the date of that transaction? | | 18 | A. February 4, 2022. | | 19 | Q. All right. And is that also a client redemption? | | 20 | A. Yes. | | 21 | MR. KAMARAJU: And could we scroll over to the amount | | 22 | column, please. | | 23 | Q. What's the amount of the redemption? | | 24 | A. \$23,468.40. | | 25 | MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. And if we can scroll over now to | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 139 of 5392 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | | the beneficiary columns, columns S and T. | | 2 | Q. | And who's identified as the beneficiary there? | | 3 | A. | Lai Dai. | | 4 | | MR. KAMARAJU: All right. | | 5 | | Could we now go to row 62579. | | 6 | Q. | And what's the date of this transaction, sir? | | 7 | A. | 4/19/2022. | | 8 | Q. | Okay. And is this also a client redemption? | | 9 | A. | Yes. | | 10 | | MR. KAMARAJU: And let's go over to the amount. | | 11 | A. | \$53,261.68. | | 12 | | MR. KAMARAJU: All right. | | 13 | | And can we go to column S and T, please. | | 14 | Q. | And who's listed as the beneficiary? | | 15 | A. | Zhiwei Jia, J-I-A. | | 16 | Q. | All right. | | 17 | | MR. KAMARAJU: And last one, could we go to row 62678, | | 18 | | please. | | 19 | Q. | Okay. What's the date there? | | 20 | A. | 6/28/2022. | | 21 | | MR. KAMARAJU: All right. And let's scroll over to | | 22 | | the -- sorry. Withdrawn. | | 23 | Q. | Is this a client redemption? | | 24 | A. | Yes, it is. | | 25 | | MR. KAMARAJU: And let's look at the amount. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 140 of 5393 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. \$79,890.00. | | 2 | Q. Okay. | | 3 | MR. KAMARAJU: And could we scroll over to column S | | 4 | and T, please. | | 5 | A. The beneficiary first name is Feng, F-E-N-G; beneficiary | | 6 | last name is Tian, T-I-A-N. | | 7 | Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Bishop, did you review the data contained | | 8 | in this exhibit? | | 9 | A. Yes. | | 10 | Did you summarize it in any form? Q. | | 11 | A. Yes. | | 12 | MR. KAMARAJU: I'd like to pull up just for the | | 13 | witness, the parties, and the Court what's been marked as DX | | 14 | Z-02. | | 15 | Q. Sir, do you recognize this document? | | 16 | I do. A. | | 17 | Q. What is it? | | 18 | A. It's a summary bar graph of the data contained in the chart | | 19 | we just saw, the Excel spreadsheet. | | 20 | Q. Is it a fair and accurate summary? | | 21 | A. It is. | | 22 | MR. KAMARAJU: The government offers -- sorry. The | | 23 | defense offers DX Z-02 please. | | 24 | MS. MURRAY: No objection. | | 25 | MR. KAMARAJU: Could we publish it please. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 141 of 5394 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | 2 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX Z-02 received in evidence) | | 3 | Q. So, sir, this is a bar graph of the redemption activity | | 4 | that we looked at? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. Okay. And what's the first month that it starts in? | | 7 | A. November 2021. | | 8 | Q. And across how many months does it continue? | | 9 | A. Continues through June of 2022. | | 10 | Q. Okay. And is June 2022 when the bank records cut off that | | 11 | we looked at? | | 12 | A. Yes. | | 13 | Q. And now just looking at it, approximately what is the high | | 14 | watermark for redemptions in terms of dollar value? | | 15 | A. Roughly \$11 million in December 2021. | | 16 | Q. Okay. And in terms of transactions, what's roughly the | | 17 | high watermark? | | 18 | A. The same month, 561. | | 19 | MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Now, could we go to the next | | 20 | slide, please. | | 21 | Q. So based on your review, sir, during that time period, | | 22 | approximately how many redemption transactions were made to | | 23 | customers? | | 24 | A. 3680. | | 25 | Q. And the total dollar amount was approximately how much? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 142 of 5395 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Slightly more than 64 million. | | 2 | MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to | | 3 | read a stipulation between the parties. | | 4 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | 5 | MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you. | | 6 | This is Defense Exhibit Stip 3. If we could just pull | | 7 | that up. And I'll offer it, your Honor, so that the jury can | | 8 | see it, if that's all right. | | 9 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 10 | (Defendant's Exhibit Stip 3 received in evidence) | | 11 | MR. KAMARAJU: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by | | 12 | the United States of America and Miles Guo, the defendant, that | | 13 | the exhibits listed below in columns B and C were lawfully | | 14 | obtained by the government, and are authentic records of the | | 15 | entity listed in column A, that were made at or near the time, | | 16 | by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge | | 17 | of the matters set forth in the records. Such records were | | 18 | kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, and it | | 19 | was the regular practice of that entity to make the records. | | 20 | And then there are a number of exhibits listed, your | | 21 | Honor, which I can go through or I can just offer them all | | 22 | together, whatever the Court would prefer. | | 23 | THE COURT: You're asking that I admit them all? | | 24 | MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor. | | 25 | THE COURT: They are admitted. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 143 of 5396 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you. | | 2 | No further questions at this time. | | 3 | THE COURT: Cross-examination. | | 4 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor. | | 5 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | | 6 | BY MS. MURRAY: | | 7 | Q. Mr. Bishop, you're testifying as a summary witness today; | | 8 | correct? | | 9 | A. Correct. | | 10 | Q. You haven't set up an account at the Himalaya Exchange, | | 11 | have you? | | 12 | A. No, I have not. | | 13 | Q. You've never logged into an account at the Himalaya | | 14 | Exchange, have you? | | 15 | A. No, I have not. | | 16 | Q. And you've never purchased HDO, right? | | 17 | A. That's correct. | | 18 | Q. You've never purchased HCN? | | 19 | A. That's correct. | | 20 | Q. You only looked at bank records for certain accounts, isn't | | 21 | that right? | | 22 | A. That's correct. | | 23 | And those were the bank records that defense counsel Q. | | 24 | provided to you; correct? | | 25 | A. Yes, yes. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 144 of 5397 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | | | | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | | 1 | Q. And those were bank records for accounts held at FV Bank, | | | | | | 2 | right? | | | | | | 3 | A. Yes. | | | | | | 4 | MS. MURRAY: Now, if we can pull up, Ms. Loftus, DX | | | | | | 5 | Z-02. | | | | | | 6 | Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Bishop, you testified about some | | | | | | 7 | of your background. Do you recall that? | | | | | | 8 | A. Yes. | | | | | | 9 | Q. You said, for example, you worked on money laundering cases | | | | | | 10 | when you were at the IRS CI? | | | | | | 11 | A. Yes. | | | | | | 12 | Q. And a money mule is someone who receives and transfers | | | | | | 13 | criminal proceeds, isn't that right? | | | | | | 14 | A. I agree, yes. | | | | | | 15 | Q. All right. Now we've got DX Z-02 up. | | | | | | 16 | This is a chart that you prepared for your testimony | | | | | | 17 | today; correct? | | | | | | 18 | A. Correct. | | | | | | 19 | Q. DX Z-02 doesn't clearly identify which bank accounts it | | | | | | 20 | summarizes, does it? | | | | | | 21 | A. It summarizes the records at the bottom, which records were | | | | | | 22 | used. | | | | | | 23 | Right. Q. But it doesn't clearly identify what accounts at | | | | | | 24 | which bank it's summarizing, isn't that right? | | | | | | 25 | A. It's what we just went through, yes. | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 145 of 5398 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | | | | |----|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--| | 1 | Q. | Now, the defense didn't give you records for Himalaya | | | | | 2 | Exchange accounts at Mercantile Bank, did they? | | | | | | 3 | A. | For this examination, no, I don't think so. | | | | | 4 | Q. | And the defense didn't give you records for this | | | | | 5 | | examination for Hamilton accounts at Silvergate Bank; correct? | | | | | 6 | A. | I don't recall that bank, no. | | | | | 7 | Q. | The bank records that you reviewed to put together this | | | | | 8 | | chart reflect withdrawals, right? | | | | | 9 | A. | This chart, yes. Client redemptions. | | | | | 10 | Q. | Those bank records also reflect deposits into the bank | | | | | 11 | accounts; correct? | | | | | | 12 | A. | Yes. | | | | | 13 | Q. | And those deposits are not summarized in DX Z-02, right? | | | | | 14 | A. | That's correct. | | | | | 15 | Q. | And DX Z-02 only reflects withdrawals that were categorized | | | | | 16 | | as redemptions; is that correct? | | | | | 17 | A. | Yes. | | | | | 18 | Q. | Now, you didn't choose the title of this slide, did you? | | | | | 19 | A. | This particular -- no, I don't think that's the -- that's | | | | | 20 | | the -- the basis for the chart, the redemptions from the prior | | | | | 21 | | screen. | | | | | 22 | Q. | Well, the defense chose to call this "Himalaya Exchange | | | | | 23 | | Client Redemptions," correct? | | | | | 24 | A. | We did, yes. | | | | | 25 | Q. | The determination of redemption for purposes of your | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 146 of 5399 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | summary chart is based on those wire transaction details we saw | | 2 | in one of the columns; is that right? | | 3 | A. That's what the bank records stated. | | 4 | Q. And you don't have any personal knowledge whether those | | 5 | withdrawals were, in fact, redemptions; correct? | | 6 | A. We know what the bank records said. | | 7 | Q. That was not my question, sir. I asked if you had personal | | 8 | knowledge whether those withdrawals were, in fact, redemptions? | | 9 | MR. KAMARAJU: Asked and answered. | | 10 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 11 | A. Well, can you describe what you mean by "personal | | 12 | knowledge"? | | 13 | Q. Sure. To your understanding, what is a redemption of a | | 14 | Himalaya Exchange account? | | 15 | A. Someone asking for their money back. | | 16 | How is that your understanding? Q. | | 17 | A. That's just through my basis in this case. | | 18 | Q. And what records did you study that described or defined | | 19 | redemption that way? | | 20 | A. These bank records and my collaboration with the defense | | 21 | team. | | 22 | Q. All right. Let's take one of the withdrawals categories | | 23 | categorized as a redemption as an example. | | 24 | MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, if we could pull up DX 11605. | | 25 | Q. While we're waiting for that, Mr. Bishop, do you know |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 147 of 5400 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | what's in all those boxes at the front table? | | 2 | A. I didn't see -- well, no, I don't know. | | 3 | Q. The records that you reviewed to put together your summary | | 4 | chart, was that just the one Excel file that Mr. Kamaraju went | | 5 | through with you? | | 6 | A. No. We looked at the FV Bank records, the statements. | | 7 | Q. Excuse me. Do you remember what the last four digits of | | 8 | the accounts that you looked at were? | | 9 | A. 589 -- I can't remember. 367 -- I had them on the Excel | | 10 | spreadsheet. There were 94 accounts that we've looked at, | | 11 | so -- | | 12 | All right. Q. Now that we have this up, this is a record from | | 13 | FV Bank; correct? | | 14 | A. Mm-hmm. | | 15 | Q. And if we look at this, what is the time period covered in | | 16 | this particular bank record? | | 17 | A. I can see the first date. | | 18 | MS. MURRAY: We can scroll down, Ms. Loftus. | | 19 | A. Go all the way to the bottom. | | 20 | Q. Generally speaking, what month do these records cover? | | 21 | A. April 2022. | | 22 | Q. Okay. | | 23 | MS. MURRAY: And Ms. Loftus, if we could scroll to the | | 24 | right a little bit. Little further, please. And let's go up | | 25 | to the top again. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 148 of 5401 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. In the description column, Mr. Bishop, is that where you | | 2 | went to identify the transactions that you described as | | 3 | redemptions? | | 4 | A. Yes. | | 5 | MS. MURRAY: And Ms. Loftus, if we could just scroll | | 6 | down a little bit until we get one of those client redemption | | 7 | descriptions that Mr. Bishop testified to. There we go. | | 8 | Q. So, for example, Mr. Bishop, row 60, you don't know who | | 9 | populates that transfer ID, do you? | | 10 | A. I know that this came from -- it's my understanding that | | 11 | this came from the bank. | | 12 | Q. Right. But with respect to the wire description, you don't | | 13 | know who populates that transfer ID; is that correct? | | 14 | No. A. | | 15 | Q. You don't know what that information reflects? | | 16 | A. No. | | 17 | Q. You don't know whether that information accurately reflects | | 18 | the purpose of these wires out of the account, do you? | | 19 | A. No. | | 20 | MS. MURRAY: All right. | | 21 | And Ms. Loftus, if we could go back again to DX Z-02, | | 22 | please. | | 23 | Q. Mr. Bishop, there are no withdrawals described as | | 24 | redemptions from August 2021 through October 2021, right? | | 25 | A. Not that we -- not that we located in that spreadsheet, no. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 149 of 5402 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. And to be clear, sir, you looked at the actual bank | | 2 | records; correct? | | 3 | A. Our team did, yes. | | 4 | Q. And you didn't identify any redemptions during that period? | | 5 | A. There might have been one, I believe, that's not captured | | 6 | early on in August for a very small amount of money. | | 7 | Q. So that redemption is not reflected on your summary chart; | | 8 | is that correct? | | 9 | A. No, because it was considered immaterial. | | 10 | Q. You're aware that the Himalaya Exchange didn't officially | | 11 | launch until November 1, 2021, right? | | 12 | A. I'm not aware of when it exactly did that. | | 13 | Q. Are you aware that there were deposits into these FV | | 14 | Himalaya Exchange bank accounts before November 1, 2021? | | 15 | A. Yes. | | 16 | Q. Mr. Bishop, the source documents cited on the bottom right | | 17 | here, this exhibit cites a number of different source documents | | 18 | for the information here; is that correct? | | 19 | A. That's correct. | | 20 | Including about 50 documents in the last section, 6,001 Q. | | 21 | through 6,050, right? | | 22 | A. Correct. | | 23 | Q. None of the information summarized on this chart actually | | 24 | was sourced from those 50 documents; correct? | | 25 | A. You'd have to give me -- I don't know exactly what the |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 150 of 5403 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | numbers are. | | 2 | MS. MURRAY: Okay. Let's pull up Defense Exhibit | | 3 | 6,002, please. | | 4 | Q. This is one of those documents that was cited in that last | | 5 | group of source documents, right? | | 6 | A. 6,002, yes. | | 7 | Q. And this is a page 1 of 1 bank record; correct? | | 8 | A. Correct. | | 9 | Q. There's nothing reflected here about any redemptions, | | 10 | right? | | 11 | A. That's correct. This is also dated 1/1/23. | | 12 | Q. Right. So it's inaccurate to cite this as one of the | | 13 | source documents for your summary chart; correct? | | 14 | A. That was not in the summary chart, no. | | 15 | MS. MURRAY: We could go back to DX Z-02. | | 16 | So looking at the bottom right where it identifies source Q. | | 17 | documents, a number of those documents that are reflected as | | 18 | the source for this chart are not, in fact, the source of any | | 19 | information; correct? | | 20 | A. Again, you'd have to -- the one you had showed me, correct. | | 21 | You'd have to go back through. | | 22 | MS. MURRAY: We can zoom out on that. | | 23 | Q. Now, you established that you didn't have bank records for | | 24 | the FV Bank accounts after June 2022, right? | | 25 | A. I think it's December '22. | | | |

| 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| | Q. Looking at your chart, sir -- | | A. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. June '22. | | Q. So you don't know whether withdrawals as they're defined | | here as redemptions continued, do you? | | A. No, that was the end of the bank records. | | Q. You're aware the government seized more than \$608 million | | in Himalaya Exchange money in October 2022 correct? | | A. I know there was a seizure, just don't know the amounts. | | Q. Did you know that those seizures included money that was | | held at FV Bank accounts that you summarized? | | A. No, I don't. | | You weren't aware that William Je submitted a request to Q. | | withdraw 48 million of his own money from a Himalaya Exchange | | bank account at Mercantile Bank in October 2022, were you? | | A. No. | | Q. You don't know whether those wires that were requested were | | paid out to William Je, do you? | | No. A. | | MS. MURRAY: Ms. Loftus, can you please publish what's | | in evidence as Government Exhibits MER-5 and MER-6 | | side-by-side. | | Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Bishop, you were asked some | | questions about the white paper for the Himalaya Exchange. Do | | you recall those? | | A. Yes. | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 152 of 5405 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. Did you review the entire Himalaya Dollar white paper? | | 2 | A. No. | | 3 | Q. Did you review the entire Himalaya Coin white paper? | | 4 | A. No. | | 5 | Q. What portions, if any, of those did you review in | | 6 | connection with your summary chart? | | 7 | A. The pages from which I read from. | | 8 | Q. All right. So looking on the left here, we'll get it | | 9 | published, this is Government Exhibit MER-6. Do you see that, | | 10 | sir? | | 11 | A. Yes. | | 12 | Q. Have you reviewed these documents in connection with your | | 13 | redemptions summary chart? | | 14 | A. No. | | 15 | Q. Do you recognize what type of document this is from the | | 16 | materials the defense gave you for your redemption summary | | 17 | chart? | | 18 | A. I didn't see these documents. I didn't look at them, no. | | 19 | Q. And you didn't review similar OTC transaction forms for | | 20 | each of the withdrawals reflected on your chart; correct? | | 21 | No, just the bank record. A. | | 22 | Q. You haven't seen any Himalaya Exchange redemption forms at | | 23 | all; correct? | | 24 | A. No. | | 25 | Q. You don't know whether such redemption forms exist for all | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 153 of 5406 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | the withdrawals that are reflected on your chart, isn't that | | 2 | right? | | 3 | A. Like this, what you're showing me here? No. | | 4 | Q. You're not aware of any other visual type of redemption | | 5 | form that exists for the transactions reflected on your chart, | | 6 | right? | | 7 | A. There was a review of Himalaya Exchange computer records. | | 8 | Q. In what format did you review those records? | | 9 | A. They were reviewed in a computer format, on location and | | 10 | site. | | 11 | Q. Do you know whether the defense provided those records to | | 12 | the government? | | 13 | A. I don't know what the defense provided. | | 14 | MS. MURRAY: We can take that down, Ms. Loftus. And | | 15 | we can pull up government Exhibit AS-18. | | 16 | This is the Himalaya Dollar white paper dated January 2022, Q. | | 17 | right, Mr. Bishop? | | 18 | A. I presume so, yes. | | 19 | Q. Well, if we look at the top, that's the date on this; | | 20 | correct? | | 21 | A. Yes, yes. | | 22 | Q. Okay. You're aware the word "redemption" only appears once | | 23 | in this entire white paper; correct? | | 24 | A. No. | | 25 | MS. MURRAY: Let's go to page 33, please, Ms. Loftus. |

| Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 154 of 5407 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Q. This heading is titled "Switzerland," right? | | Yes. A. | | Q. The language in this portion of the white paper relates to | | customers of the exchange who are located in Switzerland; | | correct? | | A. I'd have to read it. | | MS. MURRAY: We could zoom in on the text here, | | Ms. Loftus, just to make it larger. | | Q. Are you aware that this section relating to Switzerland | | customers is the only place where the word "redemption" appears | | in the entire white paper? | | A. If that's what you're telling me, I have no reason not to | | believe you. | | Q. All right. | | MS. MURRAY: And, Ms. Loftus, if we could now go to | | page 10, please. | | Q. This is a portion that Mr. Kamaraju showed you, do you | | recall that? | | A. Yes. | | MS. MURRAY: And if we focus on the paragraph that | | begins with "Additionally." | | Q. This portion of the white paper says: Exchanges of | | Himalaya Dollar credits for U.S. dollars are at the discretion | | of the Himalaya Exchange. Right? | | A. Yes, that's what it says. | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 155 of 5408 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. It further says: The Himalaya Exchange is not obliged to | | 2 | fulfill any such request. Correct? | | | | | 3 | A. Yes. | | 4 | Q. Himalaya Exchange customer withdrawal requests that the | | 5 | Himalaya Exchange denied are not reflected on your summary | | 6 | chart; is that right? | | 7 | A. No. | | 8 | MS. MURRAY: We can take this down, Ms. Loftus. | | 9 | Q. And Mr. Bishop, you don't know where the money that was | | 10 | wired out of the FV Bank accounts as redemptions ultimately | | 11 | went, do you? | | 12 | A. Only to where -- according to the bank records, what | | 13 | accounts it was sent to. | | 14 | Q. You don't know whether it went along to other accounts | | 15 | after making that first transfer, right? | | 16 | A. That's correct. | | 17 | Q. You don't know whether the money that was withdrawn was | | 18 | reinvested into Guo's other investment offerings, do you? | | 19 | A. I do not. | | 20 | MS. MURRAY: May I have a moment, your Honor? | | 21 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | 22 | (Counsel conferred) | | 23 | MS. MURRAY: Nothing further. | | 24 | THE COURT: Redirect. | | 25 | MR. KAMARAJU: Just briefly, your Honor. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 156 of 5409 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Redirect | | | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--| | 1 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION | | | | 2 | BY MR. KAMARAJU: | | | | 3 | Q. Now, Mr. Bishop, you remember being asked some questions on | | | | 4 | cross-examination about whether you could verify whether | | | | 5 | certain transactions were redemptions? | | | | 6 | A. Yes. | | | | 7 | Q. And you were asked about whether you had personal knowledge | | | | 8 | as to whether they were redemptions? | | | | 9 | That's correct. A. | | | | 10 | Q. Do you remember that one of the transactions I asked you | | | | 11 | about on direct was a redemption related to a man named Lai | | | | 12 | Dai? | | | | 13 | A. Yes. | | | | 14 | Q. Are you aware that Lai Dai testified in this courtroom to | | | | 15 | making that redemption? | | | | 16 | A. I know that he testified; I don't know exactly what he | | | | 17 | testified to. | | | | 18 | Q. Okay. You remember another one of the redemptions that I | | | | 19 | asked you about was for a person named Dia Li? | | | | 20 | A. Yes. | | | | 21 | Q. Are you aware that Ya Li testified in this courtroom before | | | | 22 | this jury as to making that redemption? | | | | 23 | A. That's the same answer I'd give you, I don't know. | | | | 24 | Q. Now, do you remember you were asked about slides and the | | | | 25 | sources for slides? Do you remember that? | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 157 of 5410 500 O78VGUO3 Bishop - Recross | |----|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | Yes. | | 2 | Q. | Now, just because you review something, does that mean you | | | | | | 3 | | put it on a slide? | | 4 | A. | No. | | 5 | Q. | You make discretionary choices; correct? | | 6 | A. | Correct. | | 7 | Q. | And you remember you were asked whether you had ever opened | | 8 | | a Himalaya Exchange account? | | 9 | A. | Yes. | | 10 | Q. | And you were asked whether you had ever bought HCN, right? | | 11 | A. | Yes. | | 12 | Q. | And you were asked whether you had ever bought HDO, right? | | 13 | A. | Correct. | | 14 | Q. | You answered no to all those questions, right? | | 15 | A. | Correct. | | 16 | Q. | Mr. Bishop, are you a high-net Chinese individual who's | | 17 | | dedicated to overthrowing the Chinese Community Party? | | 18 | | MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. | | 19 | | This is a summary witness. | | 20 | | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 21 | | MR. KAMARAJU: No further questions. | | 22 | | THE COURT: Any recross? | | 23 | | MS. MURRAY: Yes. | | 24 | | RECROSS EXAMINATION | | 25 | | BY MS. MURRAY: | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 158 of 5411 500 O78VGUO3 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. Mr. Bishop, do you know what else Ya Li testified to during | | 2 | this trial? | | 3 | A. I don't know what she testified or he testified to. | | 4 | MS. MURRAY: Nothing further, your Honor. | | 5 | THE COURT: Sir, you may step out of the courtroom. | | 6 | THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. | | 7 | THE COURT: The defense may call its next witness. | | 8 | (Witness excused) | | 9 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the defense calls Scott | | 10 | Barnett. | | 11 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT, | | 12 | called as a witness by the Defendant, | | 13 | having been duly sworn, testified as follows: | | 14 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor. | | 16 | DIRECT EXAMINATION | | 17 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 18 | Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Barnett. | | 19 | A. Afternoon. | | 20 | Q. Mr. Barnett, could you tell the jury what you do for a | | 21 | living? | | 22 | A. Currently, I am the owner of GS Security Solutions. And I | | 23 | provide executive protection for celebrities, dignitaries, and | | 24 | high-net-worth individuals. | | 25 | Q. What does "GS" stand for? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 O78VGUO3 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 159 of 5412 500 Barnett - Direct | |----|---------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | 1 | A. | | Well, it was supposed to stand for Global Solutions, but | | 2 | that was taken. | | So I guess it just stands for Gerald Scott | | 3 | | | Security really, unfortunately. | | 4 | Q. | | And when did you start your company? | | 5 | A. | | That company was started in June of 2022. | | 6 | | | (Continued on next page) | | 7 | | | | | 8 | | | | | 9 | | | | | 10 | | | | | 11 | | | | | 12 | | | | | 13 | | | | | 14 | | | | | 15 | | | | | 16 | | | | | 17 | | | | | 18 | | | | | 19 | | | | | 20 | | | | | 21 | | | | | 22 | | | | | 23 | | | | | 24 | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 160 of 5413 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 2 | Q. And by what time was it up and running? | | 3 | A. January 2 -- I don't recall the exact dates, January of | | 4 | '23. | | 5 | Q. Mr. Barnett, who provided the funding or the finances to | | 6 | start GS Security? | | 7 | A. HCHK. | | 8 | Q. And how much money did HCHK provide to set up GS Security? | | 9 | A. Originally they provided approximately give or take about | | 10 | 400,000 I believe. | | 11 | Q. And was there additional funding that was provided? | | 12 | A. There was in the beginning, correct. In -- excuse me. I'm | | 13 | sorry. I'm trying to remember the date. In December I think | | 14 | of 2022, they provided monies for insurance, and I believe it | | 15 | was just insurance if I recall, but I have to look back. | | 16 | And did you have any agreement as to this funding? Q. | | 17 | A. Yes. At first we had a verbal agreement. It was going to | | 18 | be a written agreement, but that never came to pass so it stood | | 19 | as a verbal agreement. | | 20 | Q. Mr. Barnett, could you tell the jury why you wanted to set | | 21 | up a separate company called GS Security? | | 22 | A. In order to have proper security for anybody, you really | | 23 | need to have insurance. You have to have -- due to certain | | 24 | liabilities for the client that you're protecting, God forbid | | 25 | something were to happen. If it's just either the client | | | |

5414 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 161 of

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | themselves or any other entity, they're liable. God forbid we | | | | | 2 | had to put our hands on somebody or anything worse than that or | | 3 | even anything minor, any lawsuit would go directly to that | | 4 | company instead of to a properly insured security company. But | | 5 | I guess the real reason is for legal reasons. You legally have | | 6 | to have a license in order to conduct security. | | 7 | Q. Does your company still exist today? | | 8 | A. Yes, it does. | | 9 | Q. And who is your largest client now? | | 10 | A. My largest client is Mei Guo. | | 11 | Q. And who is Mei Guo? | | 12 | A. That's the daughter of Miles Guo. | | 13 | Q. What does your job entail regarding Mei Guo? | | 14 | A. Right now it just entails house security. At first it was | | 15 | for complete protection. But as, I guess, money got tighter, | | 16 | we had to scale back, but now it's basically house security. | | 17 | We just monitor their house and, you know, do canvassing around | | 18 | their house, that kind of stuff. We no longer transport or | | 19 | provide executive protection, personal bodyguard protection for | | 20 | that. | | 21 | Q. And who other than Mei Guo do you protect? | | 22 | A. It varies. We get contracts, very minimal contracts, but I | | 23 | had one for an executive in the city. We did four-hour | | 24 | security detail for them. I've done security for other | | 25 | companies as well. We had one gentleman who needed security |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 162 of 5415 500 | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | | for jewelry, was showing at a, like, a showcase, and that's | | 2 | | really it. | | 3 | Q. | Mr. Barnett, going back to Mei Guo, have you discussed your | | 4 | | testimony with her? | | 5 | A. | No, I have not. | | 6 | Q. | Has she ever asked you about what you would be testifying | | 7 | to? | | | 8 | A. | No, she has not. | | 9 | Q. | Have you ever talked to her about the details of this case? | | 10 | A. | No, I have not. | | 11 | Q. | Have you ever talked to her about the arrest of her father? | | 12 | A. | Yes. | | 13 | Q. | And in discussing that, did you discuss anything that had | | 14 | | to do with your testimony today? | | 15 | A. | No. | | 16 | Q. | And when was the last time you spoke to her about the | | 17 | | arrest of her father? | | 18 | A. | Maybe about a week ago. I think I asked her how her father | | 19 | | was doing. | | 20 | Q. | And other than that, have you had any substantive | | 21 | | discussions with her? | | 22 | A. | Not in regards to this case, no. | | 23 | Q. | Mr. Barnett, did you ever work for Miles Guo? | | 24 | A. | Not directly, no. | | 25 | Q. | So describe for us how you worked for him indirectly? | | | | |

5416 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 163 of

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. I worked for, originally, for a company called Golden | | 2 | Spring. Part of that job was guarding Miles Guo, the company | | 3 | later switched over to -- | | 4 | Q. Let me stop you there. When did you start with Golden | | 5 | Spring? | | 6 | A. October of 2020. | | 7 | Q. And prior to being hired by Golden Spring, did you have | | 8 | experience doing private security? | | 9 | A. Yes. So once I retired from the police department in 2013, | | 10 | I went into security in executive protection. Basically the | | 11 | gentleman that I trained with, we work with celebrities and | | 12 | dignitaries, and I did that for a number of years. And then | | 13 | branched off to another company called pro-protection which was | | 14 | basically for -- | | 15 | THE COURT: Sir, I'd like you to draw the microphone | | 16 | close to you so that everyone can hear you. Speak right into | | 17 | the microphone. | | 18 | And then I went to pro-protection which is a company out in A. | | 19 | Long Island. It was just an easier commute. I got tired of | | 20 | guarding celebrities. That wasn't really something that I | | 21 | enjoyed very much, and then I had applied online. I can't | | 22 | remember where I applied through -- whether it was Indeed, one | | 23 | of those websites -- for a company looking for executive | | 24 | protection. That was -- I don't remember it saying the name of | | 25 | the company, but they were offering a certain salary, so I | | | |

5417 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 164 of

| | 500 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | applied to it. And then I think in October -- well, little | | 2 | before that, beginning of October of 2020 is when they called | | 3 | me for that particular job in regards to Miles. | | 4 | Q. Were you hired at the first try? | | 5 | A. No, I was not. | | 6 | Q. What was the reason why you weren't hired? | | 7 | A. Well, this was a recruiting company. The reason that I was | | 8 | not hired was because of my date of birth, and that it was the | | 9 | year of the boar, and that was found to be -- at least they | | 10 | told me -- it was unlucky, so I was not hired for that reason. | | 11 | Q. And then subsequently were you hired despite being born in | | 12 | the year of the boar? | | 13 | A. I think that was a year prior. So a year later I got a | | 14 | call. I actually didn't apply again. I just received a call, | | 15 | ask if I was still interested in the position. | | 16 | Q. And, Mr. Barnett, prior to this, were you an officer of the | | 17 | NYPD? | | 18 | I was. A. | | 19 | Q. For how long were you an officer of the NYPD? | | 20 | A. From 1997 to 2013. | | 21 | Q. And I won't ask you for all the details, could you just | | 22 | tell us, just summarize very briefly what your experience was | | 23 | as an NYPD officer? | | 24 | I started out as a regular police officer in East Flatbush, A. | | 25 | Brooklyn, spent most of my time there, went to narcotics in | | | |

5418 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 165 of

| | 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Brooklyn North for a while, then went back to the 67. I don't | | 2 | remember what year it was. And then I got my first -- I think | | 3 | I was injured the first time in 2008, and then went back to | | 4 | work. And then again I was injured in 2011, where my shoulder | | 5 | was torn out again after struggling with somebody and the | | 6 | department decided to retire me at that time. | | 7 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did you serve for the United States? | | 8 | A. Yes, ma'am. | | 9 | Q. Where did you serve? | | 10 | A. The U.S. Navy. | | 11 | Q. And for how long? | | 12 | A. I was only in for a year and two months. I fell 20 feet | | 13 | and shattered my wrist, broke a bone in my left leg and my back | | 14 | and they basically retired me at that point. | | 15 | Q. Mr. Barnett, do you have a lawyer? | | 16 | A. Yes, I do. | | 17 | Q. And through your lawyer were you served with a subpoena to | | 18 | testify here today? | | 19 | A. Yes, I was. | | 20 | Q. And was the subpoena from Mr. Kamaraju's office? | | 21 | A. I believe so. | | 22 | Q. And before you were served with the subpoena in this case, | | 23 | had you met with these four prosecutors who are seated at the | | 24 | table here? | | 25 | A. Yes, I did. | | | |

5419 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct Q. And how many times did you meet with these four prosecutors? A. Twice. Q. Did you have phone calls with these four prosecutors? A. Yes, once. Q. Let me show you what is marked as DX60761. Do you recognize this document, and can I show Mr. Barnett the last page of this document as well. A. Yes, I recognize it. MS. SHROFF: Defense moves DX60761 into evidence. MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Is this a document that he authored? MS. SHROFF: He signed it, your Honor. Q. Mr. Barnett, let's look at the last page. Is your signature there? A. Yes. Q. Did you review this document? A. I did with my attorney. Q. And did you also sign it several times, if you look at the right side? A. I signed it in -- it looks like -- I only see one spot where I signed it. Q. Well, let's look at the date on the top. It's dated - look at the date. And you signed it on that date, correct? A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 166 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 167 of 5420 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Q. And you signed it on a second date at the corner, right? | | 2 | A. I don't see where you're pointing to. Where it says | | 3 | 4/11/24? | | 4 | Q. Yes. | | 5 | A. That's correct. | | 6 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the defense moves the | | 7 | document into evidence. | | 8 | MR. FERGENSON: No objection. It's fine. | | 9 | THE COURT: It is admitted. | | 10 | (Defendant's Exhibit 67061 received in evidence) | | 11 | THE COURT: Did you assign a number to that? | | 12 | MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor, DX67061. And may I | | 13 | please publish it to the jury? | | 14 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: Thank you. | | 16 | Mr. Barnett, prior to meeting with these prosecutors, did Q. | | 17 | you review this document with your attorney and sign it? | | 18 | A. Yes, I did. | | 19 | Q. And when you met with the prosecutors, did you tell them | | 20 | the truth? | | 21 | A. Yes, I did. | | 22 | Q. And on April 11, 2024, did you tell the prosecutors that | | 23 | when the Mahwah property was purchased, Mr. Guo told you -- | | 24 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. He could | | 25 | testify. She can't ask him about out-of-court statements. |

5421 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct THE COURT: Sustained. Q. What did you tell the prosecutors on April 11 of 2024? MR. FERGENSON: Objection, it's hearsay. THE COURT: It's hearsay. Q. On April 11, of 2024 -- MR. FERGENSON: Objection. MS. SHROFF: I have not finish the question. Q. -- did the prosecutors ask you your understanding of certain events when you were working for and with Miles Guo? MR. FERGENSON: Objection to relevance. THE COURT: You can answer that question. It's a yes or no answer or I don't know or I don't remember. THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. A. Can you repeat that question. Q. Sure. I'll actually ask you a different question, Mr. Barnett. For the times that you met with the prosecutors, did they ask you questions about what you did for Miles Guo? A. Yes, I believe so, yes. Q. Did they ask you questions about your understanding of certain events? A. Yes. Q. Did they ask you for your understanding about the purchase of Mahwah? A. I believe so. I can't remember exactly what was asked, but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 168 of 500

5422 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct I believe so. Q. Well, let's see if we can refresh your recollection. THE COURT: Keep in mind, sir, that you cannot repeat the statements of others. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. MS. SHROFF: Let's show 006. Could you go down please. MR. FERGENSON: Is there a question pending, your Honor? THE COURT: Ms. Shroff. MS. SHROFF: We're trying to highlight the refresher portion of the document for the witness, and here we go. Q. Does that document -- just the question of whether or not this document refreshes your recollection as to whether or not you told these prosecutors? MR. FERGENSON: Objection, he cannot say that. THE COURT: He said he forgot or that he didn't remember. MS. SHROFF: I'm sorry. Q. Does this document refresh your recollection as to whether or not you were asked questions about why Mr. Miles purchased the Mahwah property? A. Yes. Q. It does? A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 169 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 170 of 5423 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Q. Thank you. You can take that down. | | 2 | Mr. Barnett, let's go to Miles Guo. When was the | | 3 | first time you met Miles Guo? | | 4 | A. It would have -- probably the first time that I met Mr. Guo | | 5 | was at a residence in Connecticut when I was first got hired | | 6 | doing security there. I couldn't give you a exact date. I | | 7 | would assume it was about two weeks, maybe two and a half weeks | | 8 | after I started. | | 9 | Q. And, Mr. Barnett, what was your salary when you started? | | 10 | I believe it was \$100,000 a year. A. | | 11 | Q. And when you started the job, did you know who Miles Guo | | 12 | was? | | 13 | A. No, I had looked it up, did a internet search before I was | | 14 | hired. | | 15 | Q. And did other people work security with you? | | 16 | Yes, they did. A. | | 17 | Q. And who were those people? | | 18 | A. The first gentleman was Greg Burnhart was one of them. The | | 19 | second one was -- we just called him Johnny, and the other one | | 20 | was Henry. I couldn't tell you their last names off the top of | | 21 | my head. | | 22 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did all of them have experience as prior NYPD | | 23 | officers? | | 24 | A. One was ex-correction. I believe that was Johnny. Henry | | 25 | was ex-NYPD, and I believe Greg was ex-Nassau County police | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 171 of 5424 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | department. | | 2 | Q. Mr. Barnett, at that time who did you consider your boss to | | 3 | be? | | 4 | A. Grace Yang was my boss at this time. | | 5 | Q. And if somebody gave you direction, who did you confirm | | 6 | those directions with? | | 7 | A. At that time I would have confirmed something with Grace | | 8 | unless I was directly told either by Mr. Guo in regards to | | 9 | security. But anything that had to do with a direction, that | | 10 | we had to go in or we had to take somebody somewhere, it would | | 11 | have been by Grace at that time. | | 12 | Mr. Barnett, after Covid did your job duties change? Q. | | 13 | A. Yes, it did. | | 14 | Q. Could you tell us how? | | 15 | A. It was more now executive protection where we were driving | | 16 | Mr. Guo to the office at 64th Street in New York, and then | | 17 | either back home or to the residence in Connecticut or the | | 18 | residence in New York City. | | 19 | Q. And how many cars did you use to transport Mr. Guo? | | 20 | A. Two. | | 21 | Q. What were the two cars? | | 22 | A. It depends, but the first car was -- I'm trying to think at | | 23 | that time. | | 24 | Q. It's all right. Did you have a general protocol as to how | | 25 | to transport Mr. Guo? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 172 of 5425 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Mr. Guo was transported in one car. There was one arms | | 2 | security officer with him in the car, and then there was a | | 3 | driver. And then there was a backup car behind that car, and | | 4 | that was an armored Lexus. | | 5 | Q. Mr. Barnett, you testified that you would drive him to East | | 6 | 64th Street; is that correct? | | 7 | A. That's correct. | | 8 | Q. What was at East 64th Street? | | 9 | A. Office building. It was called the Himalaya Exchange I | | 10 | believe. | | 11 | Q. Did you ever hear anyone refer to that building as the | | 12 | townhouse? | | 13 | A. No. | | 14 | Q. Did there come a time when you were promoted to director of | | 15 | security? | | 16 | Yes. A. | | 17 | Q. When was that? | | 18 | A. I believe it was June -- it was after I want to say | | 19 | mid-June of 2021 I believe. | | 20 | Q. And did you get a raise along with that promotion? | | 21 | A. I did. | | 22 | Q. And as part of your promotion, did your job | | 23 | responsibilities shift? | | 24 | A. Yes, they did. | | 25 | Q. Did they expand? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 173 of 5426 500 | | | | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | | | | | 1 | A. Yes. | | | | | | 2 | Q. And as part of -- what was your position then and what was | | | | | | 3 | your job title? | | | | | | 4 | A. My job was overall security of the office building. I | | | | | | 5 | can't remember. I believe at that time we had just -- they had | | | | | | 6 | just moved into 3 Columbus Circle, but I can't be sure of the | | | | | | 7 | date on that. I was responsible for the security of that. | | | | | | 8 | There was security for a small warehouse in Manhattan that I | | | | | | 9 | had to oversee the guard there. I wasn't in charge of anybody | | | | | | 10 | else in there except for the security guard and his executive | | | | | | 11 | protection detail. | | | | | | 12 | Q. Mr. Barnett, let me show you what is marked as GXSB8. | | | | | | 13 | Do you recognize that document? | | | | | | 14 | A. Yes, I do. | | | | | | 15 | Q. What is this document? | | | | | | 16 | That's just the security assessment I did. A. This was prior | | | | | | 17 | to given the role of director of security. | | | | | | 18 | Q. And did you -- what is it? Is it a report? | | | | | | 19 | A. It's just a report stating there were a lot of problems | | | | | | 20 | with the security as it was when I first started. There was a | | | | | | 21 | lack of organization where it -- there was -- there was really | | | | | | 22 | basically a lack of leadership. The person who was my boss at | | | | | | 23 | this time, her name was Grace, had no security experience at | | | | | | 24 | all, and she was not very good at kind of managing security and | | | | | | 25 | managing her other duties. So we were kind of doing things on | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 174 of 5427 500 | | | | | | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | | | | | | 1 | | our own, and it just -- it was a little chaotic. It was not | | | | | | | 2 | | organized security which was what I was use to. | | | | | | | 3 | Q. | Did you send this report -- did you send this document to | | | | | | | 4 | | anyone? | | | | | | | 5 | A. | Yes, I did. | | | | | | | 6 | Q. | To whom? | | | | | | | 7 | A. | I believe I sent it to Grace and I believe I sent it to | | | | | | | 8 | Yvette. | | | | | | | | 9 | Q. | And where did Grace work? | | | | | | | 10 | A. | Grace worked at the office at 64th Street. | | | | | | | 11 | Q. | And what was at 64th Street, what company? | | | | | | | 12 | A. | That was Golden Spring in the beginning. | | | | | | | 13 | Q. | And where did Yvette work? | | | | | | | 14 | A. | The same office. | | | | | | | 15 | Q. | Did Golden Spring keep records like this at part of its | | | | | | | 16 | | business? | | | | | | | 17 | A. | I have no idea. | | | | | | | 18 | | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we move Government Exhibit | | | | | | | 19 | | SB8 into evidence. | | | | | | | 20 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, lack of foundation. | | | | | | | 21 | | THE COURT: Sustained. | | | | | | | 22 | Q. | Did you prepare documents that were security assessments on | | | | | | | 23 | | a regular basis? | | | | | | | 24 | A. | At first there was only one security assessment that I did. | | | | | | | 25 | | After that, I did -- if we had like an event coming up, I would | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

#### 5428 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 175 of

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | do basically a small assessment of what was needed for that | | 2 | event. And then after a while, it just didn't -- I didn't need | | 3 | the security assessment anymore because of the promotion that I | | 4 | received. We started to have a chain of command, so it wasn't | | 5 | really necessary at that time. | | 6 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did you refer to -- let me ask you an easier | | | | | 7 | question. What did you call Mr. Guo? | | 8 | A. Usually for the most part I called him sir. If I was | | 9 | texting with someone, usually it would have been symbolized | | 10 | with the letter "P." If I was talking to Yvette directly, it | | 11 | would have been use the letter "P" and that stood for | | 12 | principal. I've called him boss, usually those three. Most of | | 13 | the time it was sir . | | 14 | Q. Who came up with the word "principal?" | | 15 | A. That I don't know. | | 16 | Q. How about who came up with the word "boss?" | | 17 | A. I don't know if anybody came up with that word. I think it | | 18 | was just common knowledge. Anybody that I would protect or | | 19 | anybody that was above me, I probably would have just called | | 20 | them boss. That may have been something from my earlier days | | 21 | in the police department. It was nothing. | | 22 | Q. So if you were protecting me, you'd call me boss? | | 23 | A. Probably. | | 24 | Mr. Barnett, as part of your security job, did you access Q. | | 25 | different levels of risk? | | | |

5429 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 176 of

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. At times I did, yes. | | 2 | Q. What are the different levels of risk in your opinion? | | 3 | When we first started, I didn't really have much A. | | 4 | assessment. We had over the time. We started to see more and | | 5 | more of different individuals coming, trying to get into the | | 6 | office on 64th Street without any type of authority, so we had | | 7 | most of that problem. We had a few people that would follow in | | 8 | cars when we were driving. You would see one car in particular | | 9 | was like a giant billboard that would drive around the block | | 10 | all the time. | | 11 | Q. Did you consider that to be a serious, medium or low risk | | 12 | threat? | | 13 | A. At that time it was more of a medium threat. I didn't see | | 14 | anything severe. I was more concerned about the people showing | | 15 | up to the office trying to get in. That would have been more | | 16 | of a serious threat. | | 17 | Q. And while you worked there, were there occasions when | | 18 | people just left suspicious packages at the East 64th location? | | 19 | A. I remember one in particular there was one bag that we | | 20 | called the NYPD for. And I think one of my security guys, I | | 21 | think he actually donned a helmet and went out there to look | | 22 | into the bag, but I don't believe there was anything of serious | | 23 | note in it. | | 24 | Do you recall if there were any times when people who were Q. | | 25 | armed tried to get into East 64th Street? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 177 of 5430 500 | | | | | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | | | | | | 1 | A. Not that I know of, no. | | | | | | | 2 | Mr. Barnett, how long did you work for Miles Guo? Q. | | | | | | | 3 | A. I started in October of 2020 and worked for him all the way | | | | | | | 4 | up to, I guess that would be March of 2023. | | | | | | | 5 | Q. And how would you describe him as an employer? | | | | | | | 6 | A. In all honesty, one of the better people that I worked for. | | | | | | | 7 | And the reason I say that is because he's very cordial, very | | | | | | | 8 | courteous, thought about. He seem to care about his security | | | | | | | 9 | detail. You don't see that a lot when you do executive | | | | | | | 10 | protection, especially for high net worth individuals. They | | | | | | | 11 | tend to treat you subpar. I don't know if that's the best word | | | | | | | 12 | to use. He was never like that. He was always very courteous. | | | | | | | 13 | He was a gentleman. | | | | | | | 14 | Q. How did you communicate with him? | | | | | | | 15 | A. Usually we'd have sporadic conversation. It was not | | | | | | | 16 | anything at length. If I had to really talk to him, I would | | | | | | | 17 | have to use someone to translate. | | | | | | | 18 | Q. How was his English? | | | | | | | 19 | A. It was okay. It took me a while to get an ear for it. It | | | | | | | 20 | wasn't great, so it took me a little while to understand what | | | | | | | 21 | he was saying sometime, especially if he was behind me in the | | | | | | | 22 | back seat in the car and I'm in the front. It was hard. | | | | | | | 23 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did you use any sort of apps to communicate | | | | | | | 24 | with Mr. Guo? | | | | | | | 25 | A. Yes, we used WhatsApp. | | | | | |

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 178 of 5431 | |---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------------| |---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------------|

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. And did Mr. Guo have the same number throughout the time | | 2 | that you worked for him, the same phone number? | | 3 | A. No, I don't believe so. | | 4 | Q. And what was your experience with his phone numbers, could | | 5 | you tell the jury? | | 6 | A. Well, Mr. Guo would switch his phones. He would explain | | 7 | that his phones had been hacked by the Chinese government, so | | 8 | he would switch his phone semi-regularly. It wasn't that | | 9 | often, but it was semi-regularly. | | 10 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did there come a time when you learned about | | 11 | something called the New Federal State of China? | | 12 | A. Yes. | | 13 | And what did you understand it to be? Q. | | 14 | A. Basically my understanding of it was that Miles was trying | | 15 | to create a new order for a Chinese people. He wanted to take | | 16 | down basically the Chinese Communist Party based on, you know, | | 17 | different issues. But in regards to the New Federal State of | | 18 | China, that was kind of his -- it's going to be his new | | 19 | foundation for all the Chinese people. | | 20 | Q. Did you believe he was sincere in his efforts? | | 21 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, he can't testify to the | | 22 | sincerity of the defendant. | | 23 | MS. SHROFF: I'm asking about his understanding of | | 24 | what he viewed of Miles Guo, your Honor. | | 25 | THE COURT: You can answer. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 179 of 5432 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Yes, I thought he was sincere about it, yes. | | 2 | Q. Mr. Barnett, do you recall if you provided security for an | | 3 | event at the World Trade Center? | | 4 | A. Yes, I did. | | 5 | Q. What year was that? | | 6 | A. I believe that was June 4 of 2021, don't quote me on the | | 7 | date, but I thought that's what it was. | | 8 | Q. Do you recall who was present there? | | 9 | A. Yes, for the most part I couldn't tell you everybody. | | 10 | That's for sure. | | 11 | Q. And, Mr. Barnett, on June 4 of 2021, did the Mahwah | | 12 | property exist? | | 13 | A. No, not that I know of, no. | | 14 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did your job require you to go to Sherry | | 15 | Netherlands? | | 16 | Yes, it did. A. | | 17 | Q. What was Sherry Netherlands? | | 18 | A. That was a residence, one of the residences that Miles | | 19 | stayed at. | | 20 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did you provide security in that -- is it an | | 21 | apartment building? | | 22 | A. Yes, it is. It's a hotel/apartment building. | | 23 | Q. Did you provide security within that building? | | 24 | A. Sometimes, not all the time. We weren't there 24-7 because | | 25 | they had security downstairs. There was no need for us to stay | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 180 of 5433 500 | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 | Barnett - Direct | | 1 | | there overnight. | | 2 | Q. | Mr. Barnett, and part of your duties or job description was | | 3 | | to drive Mr. Guo, correct? | | 4 | A. | That's correct. | | 5 | Q. | And did there come a time when there were two cars that | | 6 | | were purchased to ensure the security of Mr. Guo? | | 7 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the leading. | | 8 | | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 9 | Q. | Were two cars purchased? | | 10 | | THE COURT: You may answer that question. | | 11 | A. | I don't know which two cars you're referring to. | | 12 | Q. | You tell us which cars were purchased? | | 13 | A. | There's two cars that my company purchased. | | 14 | Q. | Which were those? | | 15 | A. | Two BMWs. | | 16 | Q. | And when was that? | | 17 | A. | I believe that was January of 2023. | | 18 | Q. | Do you know who ordered those two BMWs? | | 19 | A. | Yes, I did. | | 20 | Q. | And who paid for them? | | 21 | A. | Well, it was -- I paid for them out of the funding from | | 22 | HCHK. | | | 23 | Q. | Do you know how much it cost? | | 24 | A. | Each car was -- with tax I believe was about \$165,000. | | 25 | Q. | Were those two BMWs used to transport anyone, any other | | | | |

| Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 181 of 5434 500 | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | people? | | A. Yes, at different times, but for the most part they were | | used to transport Miles. | | Q. And who other than Miles did they transport? | | A. I've transported Yvette in those cars. If we had an event | | we probably would have transported someone from that event, but | | I can't give you an exact name on that. | | Q. How many events do you recall -- I'll withdraw that. | | Was part of your job to transport people back and | | forth from events? | | A. Yes. | | Q. And were these events related to the New Federal State of | | China? | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the leading again, your | | Honor. | | THE COURT: What were the events related to? | | Q. What were these events related to? | | A. The first one that we did was New Federal State of China. | | There was an event for Himalaya Coin. There was another event | | for the -- I believe it was after the purchase of the house in | | Mahwah if I'm not mistaken, and there were a few other events | | here and there, but I couldn't tell you what they were for. | | Q. Mr. Barnett, did Miles Guo know how to drive? | | A. I believe he did. I seen him drive. | | Q. Where did you see him drive? | | |

5435 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct A. I saw him drive once when we were looking at a property. He drove a car around the property, that's about the only time I've seen him drive. Q. Did you ever see him drive on a road? A. Maybe once, but I can't recall when that was. Q. Mr. Barnett, do you recall seeing any motorcycles while you guarded Mr. Guo? MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the leading. Q. Did you see any other vehicles while you were guarding Mr. Guo? A. Yes. Q. What other vehicles did you see? A. I saw motorcycles. There was other cars. There was a Rolls-Royce. There was a Lamborghini. There was a other Mercedes, a van. Q. Let's start with the motorcycle. Do you know what the motorcycles were used for? A. They weren't used. They were -- originally they were going to be purchased to use for -- Q. Could you keep your voice up for me. A. They were going to be used for, originally, for like the - he was doing a lot of music videos, like that kind of stuff. The reason that no one use them was because they were in my name. Q. And why was that a problem for other people to use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 182 of 500

5436 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 183 of

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | something that was in your name? | | 2 | A. The main reason why they were put in my name, not only, was | | 3 | I ask, I was the only one that had a motorcycle license. The | | 4 | problem I had with it was that anybody that wanted to use them | | 5 | didn't have a motorcycle license and it was under my name, and | | 6 | God forbid something were to happen, I would be liable. | | 7 | Q. Did you watch any videos in which these motorcycles | | 8 | features? | | 9 | A. No, because the first video that I was actually privy to | | 10 | was -- didn't have the motorcycle at that time. | | 11 | Q. And were these motorcycles purchased for just use by | | 12 | Mr. Guo or for other people as well? | | 13 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 14 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 15 | A. Originally they were purchased for Mr. Guo from what I | | 16 | remember. | | 17 | Q. And did that ever change? | | 18 | It did. A. So it came to -- I was -- I believe I was | | 19 | approached by Yvette. And I can't remember if Max was there or | | 20 | not. But, anyway, they wanted to rent out the motorcycles, | | 21 | meaning they wanted to have some of the supporters be able to | | 22 | rent these. Not really rent them, but sign them out and use | | 23 | them. And I immediately put a stop to that because, again, | | 24 | they were in my name, and it wasn't a rental service. | | 25 | Q. Where were these motorcycles initially kept? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 184 of 5437 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Initially they were kept in Connecticut. | | 2 | Q. Were they moved? | | 3 | A. Yes, we moved them. I moved them to the house in New | | 4 | Jersey. Scratch that, I believe I drove one of them to the | | 5 | house in New Jersey, and the other ones we had the trailer. | | 6 | Q. So these motorcycles, Mr. Barnett, are they now still in | | 7 | your name? | | 8 | A. I believe one still is according to what an attorney told | | 9 | me the other day. | | 10 | And where is the other one? Q. | | 11 | A. Say again. | | 12 | Q. And whose name is the other one in now? | | 13 | A. I have no idea. I turn those over to Max Krasner. I don't | | 14 | remember what the date was. I want to say it was sometime in | | 15 | 2023, but I couldn't tell you what date that was. | | 16 | You mention a Lamborghini, correct? Q. | | 17 | A. Yes. | | 18 | Q. What was the plan with the Lamborghini? | | 19 | A. I have no idea. At one point I know when they were talking | | 20 | about the motorcycle being rented -- sorry, I keep use the word | | 21 | "rented." It was meant to be signed out, almost like someone | | 22 | wanted to use something. It's the same thing with the | | 23 | Lamborghini. That's the only time I ever heard plans with that | | 24 | Lamborghini. Otherwise, it wasn't really discussed that I know | | 25 | of. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 185 of 5438 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Q. When you say signed out, were you ever given like a | | 2 | sign-out sheet that someone would have to fill out to -- | | 3 | A. That never came to fruition. I was not having that. | | 4 | Q. You were not having that? | | 5 | A. No. | | 6 | Q. Mr. Barnett, do you recall learning anything about a | | 7 | Bugatti? | | 8 | A. I remember hearing about it, but I didn't really have much | | 9 | to do in regards to purchase or anything like that with it. | | 10 | Do you know what it was for, whom it was bought? Q. | | 11 | A. No, I don't. | | 12 | Q. Mr. Barnett, do you have any knowledge of an entity called | | 13 | G/Clubs? | | 14 | A. Yes, I know about it. | | 15 | Q. What is G/Clubs? | | 16 | I can only tell you the way it was explained to me. A. It's | | 17 | basically a club that you paid for, almost like any type of | | 18 | country club or anything, and you receive services for that, | | 19 | whether it be -- I believe it was money off of clothing. I | | 20 | thought there was something about there were trips that you | | 21 | could win or something like that. I don't know the full extent | | 22 | of what it entailed. | | 23 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did you know anything about any boats while | | 24 | you worked for Mr. Guo? | | 25 | A. Yes. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 186 of 5439 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Q. What boats did you know about? | | 2 | A. There was the -- the only boat that I had any dealings with | | 3 | was, I believe it was the Lady May Two, and there was a boat | | 4 | that came later that was called Liberty. | | 5 | Q. What do you recall about the Liberty? | | 6 | A. I don't know much about the purchase of the Liberty. I | | 7 | remember when we it actually arrived, it had massive amounts of | | 8 | problems with it. It was not very seaworthy. And the only | | 9 | reason I know that was from speaking to the captain of the boat | | 10 | at that time. | | 11 | Q. Did the fellow fighters or supporters use the Liberty? | | 12 | A. Yes. | | 13 | Q. When? | | 14 | A. It was different occasions to do broadcasting. I couldn't | | 15 | tell you the dates. | | 16 | Do you know somebody named Prince Li? Q. | | 17 | A. Yes, I do. | | 18 | Q. Who was Prince Li or is Prince Li? | | 19 | A. I don't know his official title. To me he was kind of | | 20 | almost what I would consider like a team lead for the | | 21 | supporters. | | 22 | Q. And did he take the Liberty out with the supporters? | | 23 | A. I believe so, yes. | | 24 | Q. Now, Mr. Barnett, are you familiar with a property called | | 25 | Mahwah? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 187 of 5440 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Yes. | | 2 | Q. Did you ever visit Mahwah? | | 3 | A. Yes, many times. | | 4 | Q. And when was your first visit to Mahwah? | | 5 | A. I don't believe I know the date, but it had to be early of | | 6 | 2022. I don't recall the date. | | 7 | Q. Was that before or after its purchase? | | 8 | A. I went there once before I believe it was purchased. I | | 9 | don't know the date it was actually purchased, but I believe I | | 10 | was there before. | | 11 | Q. Do you recall who you were there with? | | 12 | A. I was there with I believe -- well, I know it was Miles. I | | 13 | thought Yvette was there, and the owner of the Mahwah residence | | 14 | was there. I can't remember his name. | | 15 | Q. Did you ask Mr. Guo if he was going -- | | 16 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the leading, your Honor. | | 17 | MS. SHROFF: It's a question. | | 18 | Q. Did you ask Mr. Guo if he was going to buy that property? | | 19 | A. No, I did not ask him that, no. | | 20 | Q. Did Mr. Guo ever volunteer to you for whom he was buying | | 21 | that property? | | 22 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the hearsay. | | 23 | THE COURT: So, once again, this would be a yes or no | | 24 | or I don't know or I don't recall kind of a question. It's not | | 25 | a question where you repeat what you were told. You | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 188 of 5441 500 | | | | | | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | | | | | | | 1 | understand? | | | | | | | | 2 | THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. | | | | | | | | 3 | THE COURT: Go ahead. | | | | | | | | 4 | A. Yes. | | | | | | | | 5 | Q. Were you surprised when Mr. Guo purchased that property? | | | | | | | | 6 | A. Yes. | | | | | | | | 7 | Q. Why? | | | | | | | | 8 | A. It just didn't seem like his type of property, but that's | | | | | | | | 9 | just my own personal take on it. | | | | | | | | 10 | And why did it not seem like his type of property? Q. | | | | | | | | 11 | A. I always felt that Mr. Guo like properties that had an | | | | | | | | 12 | intense amount of land. This was, in this particular property, | | | | | | | | 13 | even though it was on 12 acres, it was surrounded basically by | | | | | | | | 14 | a neighborhood. It wasn't very easily -- it wasn't easy to | | | | | | | | 15 | secure due to that problem. And for those reasons, it was | | | | | | | | 16 | very, very ornate. It just didn't seem like a property that I | | | | | | | | 17 | felt that something he would purchase. | | | | | | | | 18 | Q. Did Mr. Guo ever tell you whether the property was for him | | | | | | | | 19 | or for someone else? | | | | | | | | 20 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | | | | | | | 21 | THE COURT: Here we go again. This is one of those | | | | | | | | 22 | questions where you can't say what he said. You can say yes, | | | | | | | | 23 | no, I don't recall. I don't know. | | | | | | | | 24 | THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. | | | | | | | | 25 | A. Yes. | | | | | | |

5442 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct Q. Mr. Barnett, were you asked similar questions such as the ones I've just asked you by the government when you met with them during proffer sessions? MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. MS. SHROFF: Not these questions. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. A. I believe so, but I can't remember everything that I was asked. MS. SHROFF: Well, let's show him 006 again. MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, we'll stipulate that we asked him about Mahwah just to speed things along. MS. SHROFF: Are they going to stipulate to what he said back? MR. FERGENSON: No, because it's hearsay. THE COURT: I don't think so. Q. When you met with the government and you were asked these questions, was your lawyer present? A. Yes, he was. Q. And after you answered all of their questions, did they accuse you of not telling the truth? A. Not to me, or at least not to my attorney, not that I know of. Q. And how many times did the government talk to you about these topics? MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 189 of 500

5443 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Mr. Barnett, were you anticipating being a witness at this trial for the United States Attorney's office? MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Were you told by the United States Attorney's office that you would be called as a witness? MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Mr. Barnett, when did I first reach out to you? A. I believe it was after I received a subpoena to testify. Q. I know, but when, this month, last month? A. Last month, right, yeah, June I believe. Q. You remember which week of June? A. No, I don't. I'm sorry. Q. Mr. Barnett, in all the times that you worked for Mr. Guo, did he live at the Mahwah facility? A. No, he did not live there. He stayed there, but he did not live there. Q. What was the longest period of time that he ever stayed there? A. I believe about four or five days at most. Q. And what did he do during those four or five days? A. Mostly he would broadcast for the most part. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Guo's wife at Mahwah? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 190 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 191 of 5444 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Yes. | | 2 | Q. And what was your perception of her at Mahwah? | | 3 | A. In my perception she did not like it very much. | | 4 | Q. And did she look happy while she was there? | | 5 | A. Not that I know of. I didn't think that she looked it | | 6 | there. I couldn't tell you whether she looked happy or not. I | | 7 | got the impression she did not like it. | | 8 | Q. What is your impression based on? | | 9 | A. Just communication between kind of husband and wife. It | | 10 | doesn't really matter what language it is. Sometimes you can | | 11 | just tell. | | 12 | Q. Body language? | | 13 | A. Body language and verbal cues. My wife gives them to me | | 14 | all the time. | | 15 | Q. Sorry about that. | | 16 | Mr. Barnett, did you ever see Mr. Guo's son at Mahwah? | | 17 | A. No. | | 18 | Q. Have you seen Mr. Guo's son in all the time that you've | | 19 | ever worked for him? | | 20 | A. Yes, I saw him one time. | | 21 | Q. What time, in which year? | | 22 | A. It was when I first started in 2020. I believe he was at | | 23 | the residence in Connecticut, but we did not know that he was | | 24 | there. I was actually surprised when I saw him walking up the | | 25 | driveway. I didn't know who he was. |

5445 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 192 of

| | | 500 | | | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--| | | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | | | | 1 | Q. | And after that have you ever seen him at the Connecticut | | | | | 2 | residence? | | | | | | 3 | A. | No. | | | | | 4 | Q. | How about Sherry Netherland? | | | | | 5 | A. | No. | | | | | 6 | Q. | How about Mahwah? | | | | | 7 | A. | No. | | | | | 8 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. | | | | | 9 | | THE COURT: Overruled. | | | | | 10 | Q. | How about at 3CC? | | | | | 11 | | THE COURT: He has stated that he never saw him again. | | | | | 12 | Q. | Did you see Mr. Miles Guo's daughter at these places? | | | | | 13 | A. | I saw his daughter at the house in New Jersey in Mahwah. | | | | | 14 | Q. | And how many days did you see her there for? | | | | | 15 | A. | Not many, maybe she would visit for a day, maybe two at | | | | | 16 | most, but I believe it wasn't more than a day, and she would | | | | | | 17 | | leave. | | | | | 18 | Q. | Do you know somebody name Wayne? | | | | | 19 | A. | Yes, I do. | | | | | 20 | Q. | Who is Wayne? | | | | | 21 | A. | Wayne is the fiancee' of Mei. | | | | | 22 | Q. | Did he live there? | | | | | 23 | A. | No, he did not. | | | | | 24 | Q. | Now, Mr. Barnett, is it fair to say that it's a pretty big | | | | | 25 | | house? | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 193 of 5446 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Yes, it is. | | 2 | Q. Could you describe the house for us? It might be less | | 3 | leading? | | 4 | A. The house sits on 12 acres. It's up on a hill. When you | | 5 | pull around the driveway, as you come up the driveway, there's | | 6 | a security house on the right. As you pull up the gate, you go | | 7 | up a hill. As you go up the hill and you enter on the front of | | 8 | the residence as you walk in, it's just a giant living room. | | 9 | Basically there's a giant living in the front. And then off to | | 10 | the right would have been where the kitchen is, and then off to | | 11 | the left was where there was an office, and then that was the | | 12 | main floor. | | 13 | I'm sorry. Are you asking me what it was like when I | | 14 | first went there or what it's like after some of the renovation | | 15 | were done? | | 16 | Q. I was asking you what it was like when you first went | | 17 | there. I can interrupt you if I may. | | 18 | A. Okay. | | 19 | Q. Mr. Barnett, were there cameras at Mahwah when you first | | 20 | saw it? | | 21 | A. Yes, there were. | | 22 | Q. And as part of your -- did you have a job at Mahwah at some | | 23 | point? | | 24 | A. Yes. So I was task with redoing all the security at | | 25 | Mahwah. The security cameras and the equipment there were very |

5447 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 194 of

| | 500 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | substandard. And for something that size, you really needed to | | 2 | have a complete overhaul of all the security systems, cameras, | | 3 | internet and stuff like that. | | 4 | Q. Mr. Barnett, do you need some water? Do you have water | | 5 | there? | | 6 | A. I don't know. Do I have water here? I'm good. Go ahead. | | 7 | Q. Were you in charge of installing the camera system? | | 8 | A. No, I was not. | | 9 | Q. And did you pick the vendors who would install the camera | | 10 | system? | | 11 | A. Yes, I did. | | 12 | Q. And which vendor did you pick? | | 13 | A. Company was called Prevenitas. | | 14 | Q. Was that a company -- it's fine. | | 15 | How long -- did you supervise the installation of the | | 16 | cameras? | | 17 | A. Some days. I wasn't there everyday, so. | | 18 | Could you tell us what was the rest of your work while you Q. | | 19 | were in charge of Mahwah? | | 20 | A. So at first it was really just doing the security system. | | 21 | Unfortunately what end up happening, the amount of construction | | 22 | that was going on with all the different vendors that were | | 23 | coming in, all my security guys had to keep track of which | | 24 | vendors were coming in. And then we had to worry about who was | | 25 | coming in with those vendors. We had one MS-13 gang member | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 195 of 5448 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | that had to be removed, stuff like that. But for the most part | | 2 | I had left that to another one of my team leads to kind of | | 3 | oversee that. | | 4 | Q. Now, when you -- for how long were you in charge of | | 5 | overseeing things at Mahwah? | | 6 | A. I guess when it first started, I don't remember the date of | | 7 | start. I know it ended in September of 2023 for me. | | 8 | Q. Mr. Barnett, what were the types of things -- was the house | | 9 | in good shape? | | 10 | A. No, it was not. | | 11 | Q. Could you use that mic for me. | | 12 | A. It was not in good shape. | | 13 | Q. Was authority of your job to put it in shape? | | 14 | A. No. My job was to oversee the construction, make sure that | | 15 | the contractors were doing what they're supposed to do, | | 16 | basically just keeping track of the -- make sure nobody was | | 17 | doing anything wrong, more of like a security role than it was | | 18 | overseeing contractors. | | 19 | Q. Mr. Barnett, were there names attributed to different rooms | | 20 | within the facility? | | 21 | A. Yes. | | 22 | Q. What were the names? | | 23 | A. I'd have to look at the map, but the ground floor I don't | | 24 | remember that having a name. The second floor, one side was | | 25 | Miles' wing. The other side was madam's wing, which was | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 196 of 5449 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Miles's wife. And I believe on the third floor one side was | | 2 | for Mei, and the other side was for his son. | | 3 | Q. Were those the names given to the four areas of the two | | 4 | floors? | | 5 | A. I believe so, on the security map they were I believe. | | 6 | Q. Did you have a security map? | | 7 | A. I did, yes. | | 8 | Q. Who created the security map, do you know? | | 9 | A. Prevenitas, they did a security assessment. | | 10 | And they created the map? Q. | | 11 | A. Yes, it was taken off of blueprints, but they created the | | 12 | name on the map, correct. | | 13 | Q. Was there construction done to create more bedrooms on the | | 14 | first floor? | | 15 | A. On the first floor. | | 16 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: What was the nature of the construction on | | 18 | the first floor. | | 19 | Q. Or any floor for that matter while you worked there? Go | | 20 | ahead and tell us. | | 21 | A. There wasn't a whole lot of construction at first. On the | | 22 | first floor, the main floor, most the construction was on the | | 23 | second and third floor I believe. | | 24 | Q. How many bathrooms all told were on the second floor, do | | 25 | you know? | | | |

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct A. There was definitely two. It might have been three, but I know there definitely were two. Q. And did there come a time when there were meetings held at Mahwah? A. Yes. Q. And who was present for those meetings? MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, objection. I think we may need a sidebar. THE COURT: All righty. Step up. (Continued on next page) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 197 of

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct (At the sidebar) MR. FERGENSON: I assume this is post-indictment, post-arrest meetings what you're getting at? MR. KAMARAJU: No. No. It's pre-arrest, pre-indictment. MR. FERGENSON: Sorry. THE COURT: Okay. (Continued on next page) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 198 of

5452 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct (In open court) THE COURT: You may answer. MS. SHROFF: A. Yes. Q. Mr. Barnett, was Miles Guo present for that meeting? A. For that particular meeting I'm thinking of, yes. Q. Who else was there with Miles Guo just generally, try and describe for us who was there? A. The meeting I'm thinking of is more of in the beginning of the residence, but I'm pretty sure there were certain supporters there. And I thought Yvette was there, I'm almost positive, but that's all I can remember. I don't remember who else was there. Q. And during that meeting was there a broadcast that was undertaken? A. There may have been. That I don't recall. Q. Mr. Barnett, do you know which entity bought the property that has been referred to as Mahwah? A. Yes, Taurus Fund purchased the property. Q. Did you have a role at the Taurus Fund? A. I did not have a role at the Taurus Fund. Q. Did you have a signatory role at the Taurus Fund? A. Yes, I did. I was unaware of that; but yes, I did. Q. And what was the signatory role that you had? A. Well, apparently, which I didn't find out until much later, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 199 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 200 of 5453 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | that I was the manager, one of the managers of that, of the | | 2 | fund. | | 3 | Q. Did you sign a document that made you a manager of the | | 4 | Taurus Fund? | | 5 | A. Yes, I did. | | 6 | Q. Did there come a time when that property was to be | | 7 | transferred out of the Taurus Fund into another fund? | | 8 | A. Yes, for my understanding it was to be transferred to HCHK | | 9 | Properties. | | 10 | Mr. Barnett, while you worked at the Mahwah facility, did Q. | | 11 | you do any work with the guard house? | | 12 | A. I'm sorry. | | 13 | Q. Did you have any work done on the guard house? | | 14 | A. Yes. | | 15 | Q. What work did you have done? | | 16 | The guard house was basically, it was gutted. A. We had to | | 17 | create what's called a security operation center inside that | | 18 | house, and then the rest of the house basically was just being | | 19 | redone. The house was in complete disarray. There was mold in | | 20 | it. It was in really bad shape. | | 21 | Q. Could you tell the jury what is a license plate reader? | | 22 | A. A license plate reader is basically a camera that picks up | | 23 | a license plate. If it was a police department, it would | | 24 | actually pick up the license plate and tell you all the | | 25 | information registered to that particular license plate. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 201 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | Civilian wise, you can't do that, so basically it reads the | | 2 | actual license plate, lets you know how many times that license | | 3 | plate's been there. And you can actually, on a computer, you | | 4 | can make it so that if that license plate appears, it will | | 5 | notify you that there is a problem if you don't want that | | 6 | particular car in your area. | | 7 | Q. Did you install a license plate reader in Mahwah? | | 8 | A. It was installed. I didn't personally install it. | | 9 | Q. Do you know when it was installed? | | 10 | A. I believe it was later. I want to say more towards August | | 11 | or September of '23. That I don't know for sure. | | 12 | Q. Mr. Barnett, do you recall that people -- do you know what | | 13 | a non-disclosure agreement is? |

A. Yes, I do. 14

Q. What is it? 15

A. That's basically an agreement stating that whatever you - the gist of it is whatever you see or hear, whatever, it's to be kept confidential. 16 17 18

Q. Did you sign one? 19

A. Not for -- for Mahwah, no, I did not. 20

Q. Did vendors who came to the Mahwah facility sign them? 21

A. Yes, everybody had to sign them. 22

Q. And was there a reason -- did you have an understanding of why there was such a focus on security at Mahwah? 23 24

A. Well, it was just because of basically the size of the 25

5455 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 202 of

| property, and we were more concerned with the safety of the | |-------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I don't know whether it was | | | | | | | | | | Well, let me show you something that | | Could you | | Thank | | | | | | | | | | | | | | And could you tell us what security threat you perceived in | | | | It's just for the witness. If you could just |

5456 O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct (sic). He stated that he had received a call. I don't remember whether it was from Yvette or it was from -- MR. FERGENSON: We object to the hearsay, your Honor. MS. SHROFF: It's not being offered for the truth of the matter. MR. FERGENSON: Really. THE COURT: If he is -- sir, don't repeat anything that was said to you. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. What did you do? A. Basically we had -- I instructed them to take Mrs. Guo and Mei to New Jersey, the New Jersey residence, because I felt like that would be the most secure place if someone was following them. Q. How long did they stay at the secure place in New Jersey? A. I believe a few hours. I don't have an exact time. Q. And then where did you take them back? A. Back to their residence in Connecticut. Q. Mr. Barnett, moving forward to June 2022, was the construction still going on at the Mahwah facility? A. Yes. Q. And how focus -- was it light construction work or heavy construction work? A. It was always heavy construction work going on. Q. Now, Mr. Barnett, sitting here today, do you recall if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 203 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 204 of 5457 500 | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | | around June of 2022, whether there was another meeting at | | 2 | | Mahwah residence that you supervised? | | 3 | A. | I don't recall that. There may have been. I just don't | | 4 | | recall. | | 5 | Q. | Sitting here today, do you recall if there was a Lunar | | 6 | | celebration at Mahwah? | | 7 | A. | Yes. | | 8 | Q. | When was that? | | 9 | A. | I don't know the date of that, but there was, yes. | | 10 | Q. | Could you describe what the celebration looked like over | | 11 | there? | | | 12 | A. | I don't think I was present at that celebration. | | 13 | Q. | Did you provide security for the celebration? | | 14 | A. | Yes. | | 15 | Q. | And what security did you provide? | | 16 | A. | I believe it was security that was already there that would | | 17 | | have been my team lead Tom Carino and who was on duty that day. | | 18 | | THE COURT: Speak into the microphone. | | 19 | A. | Tom Carino and whoever was on duty that day that was | | 20 | | securing the estate. | | 21 | Q. | Mr. Barnett, as part of your job duty for Mr. Guo, did you | | 22 | | scout out properties for him to view? | | 23 | A. | Yes, I scouted out offices and warehouses. | | 24 | Q. | Could you keep your voice up. | | 25 | | You scouted out offices and what? | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 205 of 5458 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | A. Offices and warehouse. | | 2 | Q. What else? | | 3 | A. I scouted out homes as well. | | 4 | Q. Where did you scout out homes? | | 5 | A. Most of the scouting I did, it was online. One was in | | 6 | Arizona. One was in Colorado. I think there was one in Texas | | 7 | as well. | | 8 | Q. And were these properties that you were scouting, can | | 9 | out -- was it your understanding that they were for? | | 10 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 11 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 12 | Q. Describe what directions you -- | | 13 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 14 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 15 | THE COURT: Don't repeat anything that was said to | | 16 | you. | | 17 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we have a sidebar? | | 18 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 19 | (Continued on next page) | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

5459 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 206 of

500

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct

(At the sidebar)

MR. KAMARAJU: I wasn't sure what the basis of the hearsay objection is to a direction from Mr. Guo. Under U.S. v. DiMaria, a direction is not hearsay.

THE COURT: I'm waiting for the direction to be, get me a house for G/Club, something hike that.

MR. KAMARAJU: He didn't even -- she didn't even get a chance to ask the question as to what the direction was.

THE COURT: Anticipating what his answer would be, I sustained an objection. 9 10

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm being slow on this. If the objection is to hearsay, then don't we have to hear what the direction was going to be.

THE COURT: Well, then, the jury would hear that, and that can be a problem. 14 15

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm not sure how we can ever get to it if the direction was for G/Club or for fellow fighters or for anybody else, I don't know how to ask that question I guess is my point.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we have to be candid. We have no idea what his answer is going to be. We didn't have the level of access to Mr. Barnett that the government did. They know what he is going to say. We don't know. We were not allowed to prep these witnesses. 20 21 22 23 24

MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, my understanding is that

#### 5460 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 207 of

500

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct he has prepped with them. I think that's superly incorrect. They also have the 302s. But that aside, I think your Honor is exactly right. There can be mix statements where what is sort of clothed as a command is really an assertion of truth. Meaning, these are for G/Clubs like your Honor's example. That is still hearsay. It isn't permissible. It is a proper objection that the question calls for hearsay because that is like your Honor clearly discerned what is coming.

THE COURT: You want to get out that these potential properties had a certain purpose. That is the reason you're asking these questions? 9 10 11

MR. KAMARAJU: We are entitled to get out that Mr. Guo directed people to look for properties for a certain purpose. That's not hearsay. That's both his state of mind and his direction.

THE COURT: You can ask did you receive directions to look for properties for certain purposes without his naming the purpose.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, maybe I'm not understanding. If part of the hearsay exception is for his state of mind as well as his direction, then I don't understand how the purpose is not appropriate.

THE COURT: You want to get this in for the truth of the matter. That's the reason that I don't buy any other reason. 23 24 25

#### 5461 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 208 of

500

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct

MR. KAMARAJU: That's why I come back to the DiMaria case. He was here to buy cheap cigarettes. That was the intention that was expressed in the statement that the Second Circuit said. So the Second Circuit said, even though there is some argument that that could be viewed as he's really there for the purpose of buying cigarettes, it went to his state of mind. It's the same concept.

THE COURT: So he's acting as a scout, and what exactly did you expect that he would say about what he was thinking about?

MS. SHROFF: He was told to look for properties that were large, that had land attached to them, that had height to them so that there would be dwellings on the top and dwellings below. The point of the properties was to make sure that there was room for everyone to live if they so wanted. The property was such to have zoning that would allow for the building of new structures. And I want to be clear because the government just said that what I said was superly incorrect or something like that.

The defense has had one meeting with his lawyer and him, and we have not had access to him after that because his lawyer has been on vacation in the Poconos and has no phone service, and we have not spoken to somebody who is represented by counsel without them being present. This is what I am surmising would be his answer. More importantly under DiMaria, 20 21 22 23 24 25

#### 5462 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 209 of

500

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct the fact that he has a state of mind and he knows that Miles Guo is looking for property that is of a certain type and for a certain purpose is properly admissible, your Honor.

THE COURT: As a generality, absolutely. Were you given certain criteria with respect to the property? He's going to say yes. Did you apply that criteria when you searched online? He's going to say yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, I'm going to maintain the objection because I think the appropriate solution is a limiting instruction. It's not the exclusion of the testimony. If the Court has concerns that the testimony could be taken by the jury or even argued by defense counsel, then I believe that the proper course is not exclusion. It's a limiting instruction, or an objection by the government if I try to do that in summation.

THE COURT: Are you telling me that in summation you will not be trying to use his testimony about the purpose of the properties for the truth?

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm going to be saying, this is what Miles Guo thought. That's a classic state of mind statement. That's what I'm going to say. You want to know what Miles Guo thought? This is how you know what Miles Guo thought. If Miles Guo was wrong, he was wrong, but that's what he thought. That's what I'm going to say in summation. 19 20 21 22 23 24

MR. FERGENSON: I think your Honor's proposal was

5463 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 210 of

| | 500 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | correct. I think your Honor recognized earlier, this case is | | 2 | in a different universe than the DiMaria case, and it just | | 3 | doesn't have any traction in a case like that. And | | 4 | particularly the context like this, this person is just | | 5 | following orders. The purpose is the effect. It's not what he | | 6 | was told about why, it's what he did. | | 7 | MS. SHROFF: He was told why. | | 8 | THE COURT: He was told why, and so he took certain | | 9 | steps. He put certain words into the search bar when he was | | 10 | looking at these properties. He put it in a certain price. He | | 11 | put in certain criteria concerning use of the property. | | 12 | MS. SHROFF: Right. Is the Court's ruling that I may | | 13 | not inquire into what the purpose of the property was? | | 14 | THE COURT: Correct. | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: And I may not inquire about the specific | | 16 | terms that he put into the search? | | 17 | THE COURT: Correct. | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: And I could not inquire as to what this | | 19 | witness's understanding is of Mr. Guo's state of mind at the | | 20 | time he gave those directives? | | 21 | THE COURT: Correct. | | 22 | MS. SHROFF: So I think that is in conflict with | | 23 | DiMaria. That's our position, your Honor. | | 24 | (Continued on next page) | | 25 | | | | |

5464 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 211 of

| | 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | 1 | (In open court) | | 2 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 3 | Q. Mr. Barnett, were you given certain criteria when you were | | 4 | directed to look for properties, just yes or no? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | And who gave you those directives or directions criteria? Q. | | 7 | A. Miles Guo. | | 8 | Q. And did you, without telling us what they were, did you use | | 9 | that criteria to look for properties? | | 10 | A. Yes, I did. | | 11 | Q. And what properties did you find? | | 12 | A. Again, I found a property in Texas. I found a property -- | | 13 | Q. Could you take a minute and describe for the jury the | | 14 | property that you found in Texas? | | 15 | A. The one that I found in Texas was extremely large property. | | 16 | I believe it was about 600 acres. It was -- I believe it | | 17 | already had an airstrip on it, and I don't recall much about | | 18 | the residence on the property. I just remember it being very | | 19 | large. | | 20 | Q. What other states did you -- did you look for properties | | 21 | in -- that was a bad question, but I think you get it? | | 22 | A. I looked for properties in Arizona as well as Colorado. | | 23 | Q. Tell us about the property that you found in Arizona? | | 24 | A. The properties that I found in Arizona, actually visited | | 25 | that property with Miles Guo. | | | |

| Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 212 of 5465 500 | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct | | Q. I'm sorry. | | A. I visited that property with Miles Guo. | | Q. And could you describe the property for us? | | A. It was a large property. One part of it was up on a hill | | and it cascaded down almost like into a valley and it was in | | Sedona. | | Q. What other state did you look for property in? | | A. Colorado was the other state that I found property. | | Q. Did you look for property in Connecticut? | | I looked at properties in Connecticut. A. I believe that was | | with Mr. Guo though. | | Q. Without telling us what it was, did you have an | | understanding of what the purpose of these properties was? | | A. Yes. | | Q. And from whom did you get that understanding? | | Mr. Guo. A. | | Q. After you found these properties, did you communicate | | information about these properties to others? | | A. Yes. | | Q. To whom? | | THE COURT: All right. It's now 2:30, so we'll take | | our half hour break. Remember that you're not allowed to | | discuss the case amongst yourselves. Don't permit anyone to | | discuss it in your presence. Don't read, listen to or watch | | anything from any source that touches on the subject matter of | | |

O78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct this case. Sir, you can step out. Don't discuss your testimony. THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting. (Jury not present) THE COURT: Please be seated. Is there anything before we return at 3 p.m.? MR. FERGENSON: Not from the government. MS. SHROFF: Not from us, your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. (Recess) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 213 of

5467 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct THE COURT: Please be seated. MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I run to go get the witness? THE COURT: Yes, go ahead. Except, Ms. Shroff? MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: I want to make a ruling before you do that. Can someone else get the witness? MS. SHROFF: Sure. THE COURT: All righty. I have reviewed the transcript and case law. And I will permit the defense to pursue a broader line of questioning, broader than what I had indicated at the sidebar. The defense seeks to ask Scott Barnett what directions he received from Mr. Guo when searching for a property. Mr. Barnett may testify that Mr. Guo told him to look for a property with certain characteristics. Such instructions constitute commands and are, therefore, not hearsay. Oh, would the witness please exit. THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. THE COURT: See United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 586, (2d Cir. 1999). I will permit the defense to elicit the specific criteria that Mr. Guo gave to Mr. Barnett. Mr. Barnett may also testify that Mr. Guo told him why he was seeking a property with those criteria. Although this would not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 214 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 215 of 5468 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | constitute a command, such a statement would be indicative of | | 2 | Guo's "then-existing state of mind, such as motive, intent, or | | 3 | plan" under Rule 803(3). | | 4 | So long as the statement is forward-looking and not | | 5 | backward-looking, it is admissible under the state of mind | | | | | 6 | hearsay exception pursuant to United States v. DiMaria, 727 | | 7 | F.2d, 265, 270-71 (2d Cir. 1984). | | 8 | So now you may bring the witness back. | | 9 | MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor. We'll get him. | | 10 | (Witness present) | | 11 | THE COURT: All righty. | | 12 | Let's have the jurors come in, please. | | 13 | (Jury present) | | 14 | THE COURT: Please be seated. | | 15 | Remember, sir, that you're still under oath. | | 16 | THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. | | 17 | THE COURT: You may continue the inquiry. | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor. | | 19 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 20 | Q. Mr. Barnett, before we broke, we were discussing the | | 21 | criteria you were given when looking for these properties. | | 22 | Do you recall that? | | 23 | A. Yes. | | 24 | Q. And could you tell the jury what criteria you were given | | 25 | while searching for these properties? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 216 of 5469 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. The basic criteria had to be a large -- a large property; | | 2 | had to be able to house numerous people, over 1,000 is really | | 3 | the extent of it; it had to have the capabilities of being able | | 4 | to have -- being able to have numerous houses on it; as well as | | 5 | having access both by vehicle and airplane. | | 6 | Q. And did you look for properties that met that criteria? | | 7 | A. Yes. | | 8 | Q. And Mr. Barnett, did Mr. Guo tell you why it is that he was | | 9 | looking for these types of properties? | | 10 | Yes, he did. A. | | 11 | Q. Why? | | 12 | A. It was explained to me that Mr. Guo felt that the -- best | | 13 | way to put it is the world as we know it was not going to be | | 14 | sustainable with COVID and the vaccines. He felt like that | | 15 | there would be a lot of deaths, there would be a lot of chaos, | | 16 | the world would go into massive turmoil. And he wanted to have | | 17 | places set up for, as he called it, his people, so that they | | 18 | would have places to go when this happened. | | 19 | Q. And who were his people? | | 20 | A. The Chinese people, meaning his supporters. | | 21 | Q. His what? | | 22 | A. Supporters. | | 23 | Q. And did he tell you what other reasons he was looking for | | 24 | these properties? | | 25 | A. Well, primarily it was for that reason. The reason for the |

# 5470 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct access for airplanes and that nature was to be able to go to and from these properties, as well as bring in supplies, you know, as needed. Q. And you mentioned it had to have space for 1,000 people. Did you have an understanding of who these thousand people would be? A. My understanding was -- for the way it was described to me, was over 50,000 supporters. But I don't have exact names or - of who it would be or, you know, which people would go where. Q. Mr. Barnett, you testified about a property that you looked at in Colorado; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And could you describe that property for me. A. It was a large property. I don't recall the acreage. It had already had a runway on it. I believe it was a grass runway, if I remember correctly. It had -- I believe it already had different homes on it, but I'm a little fuzzy about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 217 of 500

the details of the exact property. I just remember it being very large. And I don't know, I remember the price tag being quite big from -- I couldn't tell you exact amount, but it was definitely 200 million, give or take. I don't know the exact amount. 18 19 20 21 22

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could I just have a minute? (Counsel conferred)

Q. Mr. Barnett, did you visit the Colorado property or did you

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 218 of 5471 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | just research it online? | | 2 | A. I just saw it online. I did not visit it. | | 3 | Q. Mr. Barnett, you testified about the property in New | | 4 | Jersey, you remember that? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. Okay. And were you aware of an anticipated purchase of a | | 7 | restaurant also close to that property? | | 8 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 9 | THE COURT: Sustained. Don't lead. | | 10 | Q. Mr. Barnett, were you told to look for the purchase of any | | 11 | other property in Mahwah, New Jersey, the area of Mahwah, New | | 12 | Jersey? | | 13 | A. Yes, I looked at other properties in Mahwah. | | 14 | Q. And what were those properties? | | 15 | A. The properties I looked at was mostly like office space and | | 16 | warehouses. | | 17 | Q. And what else? | | 18 | A. There was one restaurant that I think that -- referring to, | | 19 | but it was -- I don't believe it was for sale. | | 20 | Q. Mr. Barnett, as part of your job description at Mahwah, do | | 21 | you recall purchasing any ready-to-eat meals in large | | 22 | quantities? | | 23 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection to leading. | | 24 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 25 | I personally purchased not in large quantities basic A. |

#### 5472 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 219 of 500

different types of meals to kind of show Mr. Guo, you know, what they were. And then if he had approved those, and it was approved by Yvette, then we would have purchased a bunch of them. We were looking into it, but we never purchased them. Q. And who were you going to purchase them for? A. For the plan that Mr. Guo had already wanted to do in regards to having like different survival areas for the supporters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

THE COURT: What do you mean by "survival areas"?

THE WITNESS: I considered those -- the properties in regards to what he was looking for, was almost like survival areas for what the -- for what his vision was as to what the world was going to become. That's kind of why I call it that.

THE COURT: So in case there were some crisis, is that what you're saying? 14 15

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Mr. Barnett, let me show you what is Defense Exhibit 60678A. Do you recognize this document?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it? 22

A. I believe it's one of the properties that we were looking at. 23 24

Q. And where is this property located, do you recall?

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 220 of 5473 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. I believe that one was in Arizona. | | 2 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the defense moves DX 60678A | | 3 | into evidence. | | 4 | MR. FERGENSON: May we briefly voir dire, your Honor? | | 5 | THE COURT: You may. | | 6 | MR. FERGENSON: Who prepared this document? | | 7 | THE WITNESS: I have no idea. | | 8 | MR. FERGENSON: We object. | | 9 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 10 | Q. Do you recognize the document regardless of who prepared | | 11 | it? | | 12 | I recognize the property from seeing it before, but I never A. | | 13 | visited the property, nor did I pick out that property myself. | | 14 | MS. SHROFF: Okay. Let's scroll down. Scroll down. | | 15 | And keep going. | | 16 | Q. Do you recall reviewing this property for purchase by | | 17 | Mr. Guo for fellow supporters? | | 18 | Yes, that I remember. A. I remember that specific picture | | 19 | that you're showing now. | | 20 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we move again to have the | | 21 | document admitted. | | 22 | THE COURT: Are you saying that it consists of only | | 23 | those two pages that he just identified? | | 24 | MS. SHROFF: No, no, it's a larger document. I'm | | 25 | happy to have him scroll through it to see if he recognizes the |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 221 of 5474 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | entire document. | | 2 | THE COURT: He would need to do that before it's | | 3 | admitted. | | 4 | MS. SHROFF: Okay. Can you keep scrolling down, | | 5 | please, Jorge. Keep scrolling down. | | 6 | Q. Do you recognize that document now, Mr. Barnett? | | 7 | A. Yes, I do. | | 8 | MS. SHROFF: Okay. The defense moves to admit it into | | 9 | evidence. | | 10 | THE COURT: I just don't know how far you've gotten | | 11 | through the document. There's some photographs. I don't know | | 12 | if there's written language. | | 13 | Q. Do you recognize the document as it's unfolding before you? | | 14 | A. I do recognize it. I can't tell you that I recognize every | | 15 | single picture, but I do recognize the document. | | 16 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we renew the motion to admit | | 17 | the document into evidence. | | 18 | THE COURT: Was that the full document? | | 19 | MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. | | 20 | THE COURT: And do you recognize the full document? | | 21 | THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I recognize some of the | | 22 | photos in that document. I can't tell you that I recognize all | | 23 | the photos. | | 24 | THE COURT: What percentage do you recognize? | | 25 | THE WITNESS: It's definitely over 50 percent, your | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 222 of 5475 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Honor. | | 2 | THE COURT: I'll admit it. Go ahead. | | 3 | (Defendant's Exhibit DX 60678A received in evidence) | | 4 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor -- | | 5 | Q. Is this the property that you scouted, Mr. Barnett? | | 6 | A. It's one of the properties that was shown to me. I did not | | 7 | find this property personally. | | 8 | MS. SHROFF: And may we publish it to the jury, | | 9 | please. We can just keep scrolling, please. | | 10 | Q. Mr. Barnett, sitting here today, do you recall sending this | | 11 | brochure to someone? | | 12 | A. I believe I sent this to Yvette. I know -- I know it was | | 13 | shown to Miles, and also I think it was sent to Anthony | | 14 | Dibatista. | | 15 | Q. Mr. Barnett, was zoning one of the criterias that you were | | 16 | asked to consider when looking for properties? | | 17 | A. Meaning what? I don't know what that -- | | 18 | Q. Whether property was zoned for a single dwelling or | | 19 | multiple dwellings? | | 20 | No, it had to be -- some of the properties had to be A. | | 21 | multiple dwellings, but there was always -- if it was just | | 22 | regular like land, straight land, then there would have to | | 23 | be -- there wasn't any zoning consideration at the time, it was | | 24 | more of showing the property. And then it would have to be | | 25 | zoned for multiple -- multiple homes on the property. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 223 of 5476 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. Mr. Barnett, were you present -- let me try it a different | | 2 | way. | | 3 | MS. SHROFF: You can take that down for me. | | 4 | Thank you. | | 5 | Q. Mr. Barnett, were you aware of something called the Rule of | | 6 | Law Foundation? | | 7 | A. Yes, I was aware of it. | | 8 | Q. And as part of your security experience, were you asked to | | 9 | respond to protests undertaken by the Rule of Law Foundation | | 10 | supporters? | | 11 | A. I didn't respond to -- well, I responded to one protest, | | 12 | and that was in Grand Central Station. I responded to that. | | 13 | Q. And who contacted you? | | 14 | A. I believe it was the -- the MTA police. I can't remember | | 15 | the -- I can't remember his name off the top of my head, but | | 16 | I -- be honest with you, I can't remember how he got my phone | | 17 | number. But he had called me and asked me to come down to | | 18 | speak with the protesters. | | 19 | Q. And did you do that? | | 20 | A. Yes, I did. | | 21 | Q. And what did you do as a result of being down there? | | 22 | A. Basically, alls I did was I talked to, I believe it was, | | 23 | Prince Li at the time; explained to him, you know, about | | 24 | following the rules of whatever the police department required. | | 25 | And then after that, I spoke with -- I left a business card |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 224 of 5477 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | | | | | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--| | 1 | with the two police officers that were in the train station, | | | | | | 2 | and then spoke to the deputy after. I believe it was on the | | | | | | 3 | phone; I don't recall it being in person. And he asked me, you | | | | | | 4 | know -- I said, If they don't follow the rules then, they're | | | | | | 5 | subject to be either summonsed or arrested. It's just the way | | | | | | 6 | it is. | | | | | | 7 | Q. Mr. Barnett, you testified about having been employed for | | | | | | 8 | Mr. Guo for more than a year; correct? | | | | | | 9 | A. Yes. | | | | | | 10 | And during that time, did you see him interact with fellow Q. | | | | | | 11 | supporters? | | | | | | 12 | A. Yes. | | | | | | 13 | Q. And what is your impression of his attitude towards the | | | | | | 14 | fellow supporters? | | | | | | 15 | A. My impression of it is he loved them very much. He was -- | | | | | | 16 | he was always talking to them. They were like his primary | | | | | | 17 | concern. | | | | | | 18 | Q. Mr. Barnett, on the Mahwah property, there is a part that | | | | | | 19 | is called the gazebo; is that correct? | | | | | | 20 | A. There is a gazebo on the property; correct. | | | | | | 21 | Q. And were there plans to do something with the area that is | | | | | | 22 | the gazebo? | | | | | | 23 | A. There may have been. I don't know what those plans were. | | | | | | 24 | Q. Do you recall at all what the plans were for that area? | | | | | | 25 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. He just said he doesn't | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 225 of 5478 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | know. | | 2 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 3 | Q. Do you recall if there was ever a plan to have a | | 4 | spaceship -- | | 5 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 6 | THE COURT: Sustained. Don't lead. | | 7 | Q. Do you recall of any other plans that you were aware of for | | 8 | the building at Mahwah? | | 9 | A. I'm sorry? | | 10 | Were you aware of any other plans for -- that were going to Q. | | 11 | be put in place at Mahwah? | | 12 | A. Yes, I was aware of other plans. | | 13 | Q. What were they? | | 14 | A. The only -- the only plan -- other plan that I'm aware of | | 15 | was the -- the changing of a kitchen for the office space that | | 16 | was going to be created on the first floor. | | 17 | Q. How about the outside area of Mahwah, were you aware of any | | 18 | other plans? | | 19 | A. No, not in regards to the gazebo, I wasn't aware of that | | 20 | plan. I don't know when that plan was initiated because I was | | 21 | out -- I left Mahwah in late August/early September. | | 22 | Q. Were there drones at Mahwah? | | 23 | A. No, there was an anti-drone system. There were no drones | | 24 | at Mahwah. | | 25 | Q. Okay. What was the anti-drone system at Mahwah? |

#### 5479 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Direct Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 226 of 500

| 1 | A. Basically, the anti-drone system was a system that was | | | | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--| | 2 | installed on the roof of the house in Mahwah. And its | | | | | | 3 | capabilities were that it can detect a drone, a launch of any | | | | | | 4 | drone, I want to say about 15 to 20 miles out. As soon as a | | | | | | 5 | drone is launched, it will tell you exactly what that drone is, | | | | | | 6 | what its capabilities were, where the person who was actually | | | | | | 7 | flying the drone was standing. And that's really the main -- | | | | | | 8 | its main capabilities. There was supposed to be a camera that | | | | | | 9 | would actually zoom into the location of that drone, but it was | | | | | | 10 | never -- it was never installed. | | | | | | 11 | Q. Mr. Barnett, did you install this anti-drone equipment? | | | | | | 12 | A. No, I did not. | | | | | | 13 | Q. Was it already there when you got there? | | | | | | 14 | A. No, it was not. | | | | | | 15 | Q. Do you know who installed it? | | | | | | 16 | A. It was contracted through Prevenitas. They hired a company | | | | | | 17 | that installed it. I don't recall the name of it. I'd have to | | | | | | 18 | see the paperwork for it. | | | | | | 19 | Q. Mr. Barnett, sitting here today, do you have any doubt | | | | | | 20 | about the fealty Mr. Guo felt for his fellow supporters? | | | | | | 21 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. | | | | | | 22 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | | | | | 23 | MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further. | | | | | | 24 | THE COURT: Cross-examination. | | | | | | 25 | MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor. | | | | | | | | | | | |

| Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 227 of 5480 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | CROSS-EXAMINATION | | | | | | | BY MR. FERGENSON: | | | | | | | Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Barnett. | | | | | | | A. Afternoon. | | | | | | | Q. You were Miles Guo's head of security, right? | | | | | | | A. That's correct. | | | | | | | Q. You were -- in layman's terms, you were a bodyguard for | | | | | | | Miles Guo? | | | | | | | A. Yes, that's correct. | | | | | | | Q. You called him at times the principal, right? | | | | | | | Yes. A. | | | | | | | Q. And at times you called him boss, right? | | | | | | | A. Correct. | | | | | | | Q. Starting in October 2020, you were paid by Golden Spring, | | | | | | | right? | | | | | | | A. That's correct. | | | | | | | You understood that that was Miles Guo's money; correct? Q. | | | | | | | A. No, I didn't understand that at that time, no, sir. | | | | | | | Q. And you thought other people were paying for Miles Guo's | | | | | | | bodyguard? | | | | | | | A. I wouldn't have had knowledge of that. It was basically | | | | | | | hired by a company to do security services for an individual, | | | | | | | so I wouldn't have access to whoever funded that. | | | | | | | Q. And then after Golden Spring, Lamp Capital paid you; | | | | | | | correct? | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 228 of 5481 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | Yes, that was switched from Golden Spring to Lamp Capital. | | 2 | | I don't remember the date though when that was done. | | 3 | Q. | And Lamp Capital was another Guo family company, right? | | 4 | A. | That I had no knowledge of. We only received a couple of | | 5 | | paychecks from Lamp Capital, and I never really asked about why | | 6 | | the switch was done. | | 7 | Q. | And fair to say you don't even know what Lamp Capital was, | | 8 | right? | | | 9 | A. | I honestly have no idea what Lamp Capital was. | | 10 | Q. | But you know you got money from it; correct? | | 11 | A. | That's correct. | | 12 | Q. | And then after that, HCHK paid you, right? | | 13 | A. | Yes, I believe it was HCHK Technologies; and then later, | | 14 | | HCHK Properties, something like that. | | 15 | Q. | And HCHK, those companies were run by Guo and Yvette? | | 16 | A. | Yes. So my immediate boss was Yvette, that's who I | | 17 | | reported to. At that time that's pretty much her and Anthony | | 18 | | are who I reported to every day. | | 19 | Q. | And HCHK had offices at Columbus Circle? | | 20 | A. | Correct. | | 21 | Q. | Guo had an office in HCHK's floor? | | 22 | A. | Right. | | 23 | Q. | And Yvette had an office on HCHK's floor? | | 24 | A. | Yes, she did. | | 25 | Q. | They were on opposite sides of the floor, right? |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 229 of 5482 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | No, I believe -- I believe Yvette's office -- I guess that | | 2 | | was later on. So initially, yes. And then eventually Yvette | | 3 | | had moved up to an upper floor. | | 4 | Q. | And Guo and Yvette, they were together a lot, right? | | 5 | A. | Yes. | | 6 | | MS. SHROFF: Objection to what is a lot. | | 7 | | THE COURT: You can ask him to gauge. | | 8 | Q. | They were together every week, right? | | 9 | A. | Yes, to my knowledge, when I was with them, yes. | | 10 | Q. | Fair to say they worked closely together? | | 11 | A. | Yes. | | 12 | Q. | And now after -- withdrawn. | | 13 | | There came a point where you started your own company; | | 14 | | correct? | | 15 | A. | That's correct. | | 16 | Q. | Its name was -- tell me if I have this right. Was it GS | | 17 | | Security Solution? | | 18 | A. | That's correct. It's called GS Security Solutions. | | 19 | Q. | And you started that company with the help of Guo and | | 20 | | Yvette, right? | | 21 | A. | Well, I started that company with the permission of Yvette. | | 22 | | Miles didn't really have any say in that. I never had a | | 23 | | discussion with him in regards to that company; was with | | 24 | | Yvette, Max Krasner and Anthony Dibatista is who I discussed | | 25 | | that with. | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 230 of 5483 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | 1 | Q. | And Yvette approved the plan for -- | | 2 | A. | That's correct. | | 3 | Q. | For that company. | | 4 | | And Anthony Dibatista, you also discussed that plan | | 5 | | with him, right? | | 6 | A. | I did. | | 7 | Q. | Max Krasner, he had access to your company's books, right? | | 8 | A. | Yes, he did. | | 9 | Q. | And he was kind of a finance guy for the Guo family | | 10 | | companies, fair to say? | | 11 | A. | Yes, he -- when I first met Max, he was the finance guy for | | 12 | | Golden Spring. | | 13 | Q. | Max called Miles Guo boss, right? | | 14 | A. | I believe so. | | 15 | Q. | And Anthony called Miles Guo boss, right? | | 16 | A. | Yes, I believe so. | | 17 | Q. | And Yvette called Miles Guo the principal, right? | | 18 | A. | Well, the only term she used with me was the P. She never | | 19 | | used the full term "principal," just so you know. | | 20 | Q. | You understood -- | | 21 | A. | That's correct. | | 22 | Q. | -- that that meant principal; correct? | | 23 | A. | Yes. | | 24 | Q. | And they weren't the only employees who called Miles Guo | | 25 | | boss, right? | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 231 of 5484 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. No, a lot of people called him boss. | | 2 | Q. And they weren't the only employees -- Yvette wasn't the | | 3 | only employee -- you and Yvette weren't the only employees who | | 4 | called him the principal, right? | | 5 | A. That I don't know. I don't -- that wasn't a common term. | | 6 | It was a term that me and Yvette used with each other. I | | 7 | don't -- I don't remember -- I don't know if it was used with | | 8 | my other team members, but I know it was used between me and | | 9 | Yvette. I don't remember anybody else calling him the | | 10 | principal, but they may have, but I don't recall that. | | 11 | Q. But you and your team members also referred to him as | | 12 | principal or P, right? | | 13 | A. Yeah. Most of the time it would have been boss, but I | | 14 | referred to him as P with Yvette all the time. | | 15 | Q. Now, after you started your company, your company received | | 16 | money from HCHK, right? | | 17 | A. Correct. | | 18 | Q. And HCHK sent your company money on multiple occasions, | | 19 | right? | | 20 | A. For payroll until it was fully -- fully switched over. So | | 21 | there was an agreement in regards to how the company was going | | 22 | to be run and what services that I would be giving and getting | | 23 | in return. | | 24 | Q. And in December 2022, your company received \$50,000 from | | 25 | HCHK Property Management? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 232 of 5485 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | A. That's correct. | | 2 | Q. And in January 2023, your company received \$400,000 from | | 3 | HCHK, right? | | 4 | A. That's correct. | | 5 | Q. In February 2023, your company received \$200,000 from HCHK, | | 6 | right? | | 7 | A. That's correct. | | 8 | Q. So sir, in the three months leading up to Miles Guo's | | 9 | arrest, your company received \$650,000 from HCHK; correct? | | 10 | A. Correct. | | 11 | Q. And that was after Miles Guo had declared bankruptcy; | | 12 | correct? | | 13 | A. I didn't know Miles Guo had declared bankruptcy. | | 14 | Q. He never told you that? | | 15 | A. No, he did not. | | 16 | Sir, didn't you take him -- Q. | | 17 | MS. SHROFF: Objection as to hearsay that the | | 18 | government is seeking to elicit. | | 19 | MR. FERGENSON: He's an opposing party, your Honor. | | 20 | THE COURT: Overruled. | | 21 | Q. Didn't you take him to court proceedings in Connecticut in | | 22 | connection with bankruptcy? | | 23 | A. I did. That's correct. | | 24 | Q. So what did you think he was going there for? | | 25 | A. I didn't know it was in regards to anything that was |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 233 of 5486 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | current, meaning HCHK. I had no knowledge of that. | | 2 | Q. But you knew he had declared bankruptcy because you took | | 3 | him to court -- | | 4 | A. From a previous company, that's correct. | | 5 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could Mr. -- | | 6 | THE COURT: Just allow him to answer. | | 7 | MS. SHROFF: Thank you. | | 8 | Q. But you understood that it was Miles Guo -- Miles Guo had | | 9 | declared bankruptcy; correct? | | 10 | A. My understanding is the company declared bankruptcy. I | | 11 | don't know if it was Miles Guo personally. But I did take him | | 12 | to court, that's correct. | | 13 | Q. Was it Miles Guo who told you that the company declared | | 14 | bankruptcy? | | 15 | No. A. | | 16 | Q. Did he ever tell you that he himself had declared | | 17 | bankruptcy in early 2022? | | 18 | A. Not that I remember, not personally. | | 19 | Q. Now, Mr. Barnett, since Miles Guo's arrest, you've | | 20 | continued working for the Guo family, right? | | 21 | That's correct. A. | | 22 | Q. You still work for the Guo family, right? | | 23 | A. Yes, I do. | | 24 | Q. Miles Guo's daughter is your client? | | 25 | A. That's correct. |

| Page 234 of 5487 | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | And that's just -- you know, before Miles Guo's arrest, he | | | | The companies also. | | The whole -- the whole entity was the most important company. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Now, since Miles Guo's arrest, you've received money sent | | | | I mean, meaning my invoices, how they are | | | | Well, individuals who are not your actual clients have sent | | | | | | | | | | invoice to Mei, and then she has whatever, pays the invoice. | | And since Miles Guo's arrest, you've received monies sent | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 235 of 5488 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | by companies who are not your actual clients; correct? | | 2 | A. I'm unaware of who is actually sending the money; I just | | 3 | know it does arrive in my bank. I don't have an exact name of | | 4 | each person or how Mei sends the money. | | 5 | THE COURT: But the question is whether those | | 6 | individuals or entities are actually your clients. | | 7 | THE WITNESS: No, they are not my clients. Mei Guo is | | 8 | my client. | | 9 | Q. And sir, on May 4th, 2023, your company received \$152,000 | | 10 | approximately from an individual named Jingrui Sun, right? | | 11 | A. Yeah, I did receive that money. I couldn't tell you if | | 12 | that's who it was from, but I did receive that money. | | 13 | Q. And the next month, on June 12, 2023, your company received | | 14 | over \$25,000 from a company called HGA Property Operation LLC, | | 15 | right? | | 16 | Yes. A. | | 17 | Q. And that same month, on the next day, on June 13, 2023, | | 18 | your company received an incoming wire of \$105,000 from an | | 19 | individual named Shengxu Wang; correct? | | 20 | A. I did receive that money. Again, I don't know who those | | 21 | were from. Those are all invoices for securities services. | | 22 | Q. And, sir, you work for the NYPD, right? | | 23 | A. Yes, sir. | | 24 | Q. And you know a money mule is someone who receives and | | 25 | transfers fraud proceeds, right? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 236 of 5489 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 2 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 3 | A. Yes. Provides services for that money. It's not -- I | | 4 | don't just get money; I provide service for that, sir. | | 5 | Q. No, no, I'm talking about money mules. | | 6 | A. Oh, in general. I thought you were calling me one. I'm | | 7 | sorry. | | 8 | Q. No, no. But you're aware that that's what a money mule is, | | 9 | right? | | 10 | Yes. A. | | 11 | Q. And on July 6, 2023, your company received over \$107,000 | | 12 | from an individual named Xuehong Zhang; correct? | | 13 | A. I did receive that money, yes, sir. | | 14 | Q. And then on September 5th, 2023, your company received over | | 15 | \$49,000 from an individual named Desheng Yin; correct? | | 16 | Again, I received that money. A. | | 17 | Q. And then the next month, on October 30, 2023, your company | | 18 | received \$10,000 from that same entity, HGA Property | | 19 | Operations; correct? | | 20 | A. That's correct. That was for an invoice for legal fees; | | 21 | correct. | | 22 | Q. And then after that, the next month, on November 10, 2023, | | 23 | your company received over \$55,000 from a wire that was from an | | 24 | individual named Yu Xuanlin; correct? | | 25 | A. That's correct. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 237 of 5490 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. And that was transferred through the Overseas Chinese | | 2 | Banking Corporation Ltd. in Singapore; correct? | | 3 | A. I assume so. You know better than I would. | | 4 | Q. And then the next month, on December 7th, 2023, your | | 5 | company received another \$55,000, approximately, from that same | | 6 | individual; correct? | | 7 | A. Yes, I received that money for invoices; correct. | | 8 | Q. And then coming into this year, on January 16th, your | | 9 | company received — again from this same individual — over | | 10 | \$55,000; correct? | | 11 | A. Correct. | | 12 | Q. And then the next day, on January 17th, your company | | 13 | received \$55,000 from a different individual, Wei Lai; correct? | | 14 | THE COURT: Counsel, please step up. | | 15 | (Continued on next page) | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 238 of 5491 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | | 1 | (At sidebar) | | 2 | THE COURT: So I need to protect him from | | 3 | self-incrimination. Is his lawyer here? | | 4 | MR. FERGENSON: I'm not sure, your Honor. | | 5 | MS. SHROFF: No, he's not, your Honor. We told him | | 6 | that he was going to testify today. And his lawyer is away, as | | 7 | best as I can tell. But he's had somebody in -- who can step | | 8 | in. But I'm happy to take a break and call. | | 9 | But I think the government knows about all of this and | | 10 | the government never asked him any of these questions when they | | 11 | proffered him several, several times. | | 12 | THE COURT: Have you asked these questions of him | | 13 | beforehand? | | 14 | MR. FERGENSON: No. | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: No, they didn't ask. | | 16 | MR. FERGENSON: He's not our witness, your Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: No, no, no. I just don't know whether or | | 18 | not you've had any contact with him. | | 19 | I think I need to take a little recess and talk to | | 20 | him. | | 21 | MS. SHROFF: Sure. | | 22 | (Continued on next page) | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 239 of 5492 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (In open court) | | 2 | THE COURT: Members of the jury, we're going to take a | | 3 | brief break. I will call you back in a few minutes. | | 4 | (Jury not present) | | 5 | THE COURT: Please be seated. | | 6 | Sir, you have been asked a series of questions | | 7 | concerning an inflow of a considerable amount of money into | | 8 | your account. I am concerned that you may be answering these | | 9 | questions without the proper advice of an attorney. | | 10 | THE WITNESS: Okay. | | 11 | THE COURT: And so I want you to know that you have | | 12 | the right to not answer these questions and you have the right | | 13 | to consult an attorney. Do you have somebody who is on call? | | 14 | THE WITNESS: I do have someone I can call. | | 15 | THE COURT: All righty. I'd like you to take a break | | 16 | and to make a call and to express to your attorney my concern | | 17 | about this line of questioning. | | 18 | THE WITNESS: Okay. | | 19 | THE COURT: And then ask for his or her advice about | | 20 | whether you should continue to answer questions about the | | 21 | subject matter. | | 22 | THE WITNESS: Okay. | | 23 | THE COURT: All righty? | | 24 | THE WITNESS: Yup. | | 25 | THE COURT: Okay. | | | |

#### 5493 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 240 of 500

So go ahead and we will wait for you to come back. He'll have to get his phone. In the meantime, we can call another witness. You may go downstairs. And just when you're finished, come back and -- MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we just confer with him about if he can use -- if he knows the phone number, he can certainly use one of our phones. That's the only thing I was going to offer. THE COURT: Or maybe the name of the attorney can be put into Google and you can find that phone number. MS. SHROFF: I do have his attorney's name. I'm happy to get in touch with the attorney and hand over the phone to Mr. Barnett. I'll just give him my phone so he can call his attorney after I give him the number. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Fergenson? MR. FERGENSON: That's fine, your Honor. We also have the cell phone number of his attorney. MS. SHROFF: That attorney is not around today, that particular attorney. We'll figure it out, your Honor. But I'm just going to give him the number of the contact attorney and let him call him. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SHROFF: Okay. THE COURT: And in the meantime, I'd like you to call 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 241 of 5494 500 O78VGUO5 Barnett - Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | another witness. Is there somebody at the ready? | | 2 | MR. KAMARAJU: We do have someone. I just want to | | 3 | swap out with Ms. Shroff. | | 4 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 5 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, Mr. Barnett is on the phone | | 6 | with his counsel. Would the Court prefer to just give him five | | 7 | minutes or should we start and interrupt again? | | 8 | THE COURT: I want to get as much in as possible. So | | 9 | if we could have your next witness. | | 10 | MS. SHROFF: She's right here. | | 11 | THE COURT: All righty. If you'll come to the stand, | | 12 | please. And if you'll have the jurors brought in. | | 13 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could we ask for a standby | | 14 | interpreter for Ms. Li? | | 15 | She has requested a standby interpreter. She has | | 16 | English and Mandarin fluency of -- | | 17 | THE COURT: One second. | | 18 | The answer is yes on the standby interpreter. | | 19 | You can have the jurors brought in, please. | | 20 | (Jury present) | | 21 | THE COURT: Please be seated. | | 22 | Members of the jury, in the interest of efficiency, I | | 23 | have decided that, for logistical reasons, we're going to take | | 24 | the testimony of another witness. | | 25 | You may swear the witness. |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 242 of 5495 500 O78VGUO5 Leanne Li - Direct | | | | | | | |----|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | | LEANNE LI, | | | | | | | | 2 | called as a witness by the Defendant, | | | | | | | | | 3 | having been duly sworn, testified as follows: | | | | | | | | | 4 | | THE COURT: All right. You can make the inquiry. | | | | | | | | 5 | DIRECT EXAMINATION | | | | | | | | | 6 | | BY MS. SHROFF: | | | | | | | | 7 | Q. | Good afternoon, Ms. Li. | | | | | | | | 8 | A. | Good afternoon. | | | | | | | | 9 | Q. | Ms. Li, where were you born? | | | | | | | | 10 | A. | I was born in China. | | | | | | | | 11 | Q. | And how long did you live in China? | | | | | | | | 12 | A. | Until I was 11, 12 years old. | | | | | | | | 13 | Q. | And where in China did you live? | | | | | | | | 14 | A. | I lived in Beijing. | | | | | | | | 15 | Q. | And in Beijing, did you attend elementary school? | | | | | | | | 16 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | 17 | Q. | What school did you go to? | | | | | | | | 18 | A. | I don't remember the name. | | | | | | | | 19 | Q. | Ms. Li, did there come a time when you left China? | | | | | | | | 20 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | 21 | Q. | And how old were you when you left? | | | | | | | | 22 | A. | Eleven or 12 years old. | | | | | | | | 23 | Q. | And with whom did you leave China? | | | | | | | | 24 | A. | My parents. | | | | | | | | 25 | Q. | Do you recall what year that was? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 243 of 5496 500 O78VGUO5 Leanne Li - Direct | | | | | | | | | |----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | A. | 2001 or 2002, around that time. | | | | | | | | | | 2 | Q. | Ms. Li, after you left China, where did you move to? | | | | | | | | | | 3 | A. | I moved to Vancouver, Canada. | | | | | | | | | | 4 | Q. | And did your parents move with you? | | | | | | | | | | 5 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | | 6 | Q. | Did you attend school in Vancouver? | | | | | | | | | | 7 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | | 8 | Q. | Where did you go to school? | | | | | | | | | | 9 | A. | Fairview. | | | | | | | | | | 10 | Q. | And did you attend college? | | | | | | | | | | 11 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | | 12 | Q. | Where did you go to college? | | | | | | | | | | 13 | A. | I went to University of Ottawa. | | | | | | | | | | 14 | Q. | And did you graduate from University of Ottawa? | | | | | | | | | | 15 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | | 16 | Q. | And with what degree did you graduate? | | | | | | | | | | 17 | A. | Business degree. | | | | | | | | | | 18 | Q. | Did you attend any other schooling after you graduated from | | | | | | | | | | 19 | | the University of Ottawa? | | | | | | | | | | 20 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | | 21 | Q. | Where did you go to school? | | | | | | | | | | 22 | A. | UBC. | | | | | | | | | | 23 | Q. | What is UBC? | | | | | | | | | | 24 | A. | Sorry. Let me clarify that, okay. So it's University | | | | | | | | | | 25 | | British Columbia. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 244 of 5497 500 O78VGUO5 Leanne Li - Direct | | | | | | | | |----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | Q. | And what did you study there? | | | | | | | | | 2 | A. | Real estate. | | | | | | | | | 3 | Q. | And for how long did you study real estate? | | | | | | | | | 4 | A. | For a year. | | | | | | | | | 5 | Q. | And as a result of those studies, did you get a license? | | | | | | | | | 6 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | 7 | Q. | And what are you licensed to do? | | | | | | | | | 8 | A. | To become a Realtor agent. | | | | | | | | | 9 | Q. | And were you, in fact, working as a Realtor agent in | | | | | | | | | 10 | | Canada? | | | | | | | | | 11 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | 12 | Q. | We'll come back to that. But first let me ask you, Ms. Li, | | | | | | | | | 13 | | are you currently employed? | | | | | | | | | 14 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | | 15 | Q. | And who do you work for now? | | | | | | | | | 16 | A. | I work for Heran Hao. | | | | | | | | | 17 | Q. | Ms. Li, what company do you work for? | | | | | | | | | 18 | A. | I work for G Fashion. | | | | | | | | | 19 | Q. | And G Fashion what? | | | | | | | | | 20 | A. | I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. | | | | | | | | | 21 | Q. | Okay. Where do you live now? | | | | | | | | | 22 | A. | I live in Milan. | | | | | | | | | 23 | Q. | Milan as in what country? | | | | | | | | | 24 | A. | Italy. | | | | | | | | | 25 | Q. | And what is your title right now? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 245 of 5498 500 O78VGUO5 Leanne Li - Direct | | | | | | | | | |----|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | A. | CEO. | | | | | | | | | | 2 | Q. | CEO of what? | | | | | | | | | | 3 | A. | Of G Fashion. | | | | | | | | | | 4 | Q. | Ms. Li, when did you first hear of Miles Guo? | | | | | | | | | | 5 | A. | In 2017. | | | | | | | | | | 6 | Q. | And where did you first hear of Miles Guo? | | | | | | | | | | 7 | A. | I heard him on YouTube. | | | | | | | | | | 8 | Q. | And could you describe what kind of program was it on | | | | | | | | | | 9 | | YouTube where you first saw him. | | | | | | | | | | 10 | A. | I'm sorry, can you rephrase that? | | | | | | | | | | 11 | Q. | Sure. | | | | | | | | | | 12 | | On YouTube, was it a live broadcast or a replay? | | | | | | | | | | 13 | A. | At that time it was a replay, I think. | | | | | | | | | | 14 | Q. | And do you recall sitting here today when you heard that | | | | | | | | | | 15 | | replay what it is that Mr. Guo was talking about? | | | | | | | | | | 16 | A. | He was talking about corruptions of the CCP and -- and let | | | | | | | | | | 17 | | me think. And CCP was using BGY strategies to the future is | | | | | | | | | | 18 | | the west. And he was talking about the love scandals between | | | | | | | | | | 19 | | the high-rank Chinese government officials with -- yes, with | | | | | | | | | | 20 | | all the celebrities in China. | | | | | | | | | | 21 | Q. | So let's break that down, Ms. Li. | | | | | | | | | | 22 | | What is BGY? | | | | | | | | | | 23 | A. | BG -- | | | | | | | | | | 24 | Q. | Could you see if you can adjust the mic so you don't have | | | | | | | | | | 25 | | blowback. | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 246 of 5499 500 O78VGUO5 Leanne Li - Direct | | | | | | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | 1 | A. Is it better now? | | | | | | | 2 | Q. I think so. | | | | | | | 3 | A. Okay. So B represented blue, means networking, monitoring, | | | | | | | 4 | and controlling. So the Chinese government say they can | | | | | | | 5 | manipulate the social medias and work towards to their favor. | | | | | | | 6 | BG -- BGY -- okay. G means gold, represent gold. So | | | | | | | 7 | they're using -- they are using money to bribe all the | | | | | | | 8 | political -- political figures and influencing people around | | | | | | | 9 | the world so that these people -- so will do whatever they are | | | | | | | 10 | asking for. | | | | | | | 11 | And BG -- Y stands for yellow. So they are using | | | | | | | 12 | sexually bribing the political figures and also the influential | | | | | | | 13 | people. And after that, they use that videos or message to | | | | | | | 14 | blackmail them so that these people will -- will listen to | | | | | | | 15 | whatever they're asking them to do. | | | | | | | 16 | (Continued on next page) | | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | | | 19 | | | | | | | | 20 | | | | | | | | 21 | | | | | | | | 22 | | | | | | | | 23 | | | | | | | | 24 | | | | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | 500 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 247 of | 5500 | |----|----|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----|---------------------------|-------------|---------| | | | O78BGUO6 | | | | Leanne Li - Direct | | | | 1 | | | BY MS. SHROFF: | | | | | | | 2 | Q. | | And then you said -- I had a little trouble there. | | | | | Ms. Li, | | 3 | | | were you trying to say they were "infiltrating" the media; is | | | | | | | 4 | | that the word? | | | | | | | | 5 | A. | | Yes, correct. | | | | | | | 6 | Q. | | Now, Ms. Li, have you ever met Miles Guo in person? | | | | | | | 7 | A. | No. | | | | | | | | 8 | Q. | | Is this the first time you're seeing Miles Guo in person? | | | | | | | 9 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | 10 | Q. | | And after seeing Miles Guo in the 2017 YouTube, did you | | | | | | | 11 | | | continue to watch broadcasting by Mr. Guo? | | | | | | | 12 | A. | Yes. | | | | | | | | 13 | Q. | | And for how many years did you watch the broadcast, from | | | | | | | 14 | | | what year to what year? | | | | | | | 15 | A. | | From 2017 to 2020, first half of year. | | | | | | | 16 | Q. | | First half of 2020? | | | | | | | 17 | A. | Correct. | | | | | | | | 18 | Q. | | Why did you stop watching after the first half of 2020? | | | | | | | 19 | A. | | Because I went to LA to work for G Fashion. | | | | | | | 20 | Q. | | And what did that have to do with you stopping to watch | | | | | | | 21 | | videos? | | | | | | | | 22 | A. | | Because I was so busy, I do not have time to watch his live | | | | | | | 23 | | broadcast. | | | | | | | | 24 | Q. | | Ms. Li, did there come a time after 2017 when you were | | | | | | | 25 | | | contacted by Miles Guo? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 248 of 5501 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct | | 1 | A. Yes. | | 2 | Q. When was that, do you remember? | | 3 | A. I think it was 2018. | | 4 | Q. And how did Mr. Guo contact you? | | 5 | A. He contact me through Guo Media. | | 6 | Q. Through what? | | 7 | A. Guo Media. | | 8 | Q. And could you explain how that came about? | | 9 | A. What do you mean by that? I'm sorry. Can you rephrase | | 10 | your question again? | | 11 | Q. So did he call you through Guo media? | | 12 | Did he DM you? | | 13 | How did the contact happen? | | 14 | A. So he send me a direct message on Guo Media. | | 15 | Q. And what is a direct message? | | 16 | A. He said hi. | | 17 | Q. No, what is it? I understand what his direct message was. | | 18 | My question is, what is a direct message? | | 19 | A. Direct message is private chat, so he send me a message | | 20 | through private chat. | | 21 | Q. Okay. And were you active on Guo Media at that time? | | 22 | A. Yes. | | 23 | Q. And do you know -- could you describe Guo Media for the | | 24 | jury? | | 25 | A. Okay. Guo media was social platform like a Twitter, like a |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 249 of 5502 500 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct | | 1 | app that people can exchange information, upload videos. | | 2 | Q. Did you have an account on Guo Media? | | 3 | A. Yes. | | 4 | Q. And what language was Guo Media available in or in what | | 5 | language was Guo Media available? | | 6 | A. I think it was Chinese and English. | | 7 | Q. And which language did you use? | | 8 | A. I use English. | | 9 | Q. And why did you use the English version of the app? | | 10 | Because that was the default mode. A. | | 11 | Q. Because that was the what? | | 12 | A. The default mode. | | 13 | Q. The default mode? | | 14 | A. Yes. | | 15 | Q. Ms. Li, are you fluent in both English and Mandarin? | | 16 | Well, I don't know how to say that because I was born in A. | | 17 | China, study until 11, 12, and then afterwards I move to | | 18 | Canada. I speak English. Now living Italy, I'm learning | | 19 | Italian right now, so my language system is all messed up. So. | | 20 | Q. Okay. Ms. Li, what did you use -- what did you primarily | | 21 | use Guo media for? | | 22 | A. I was use to upload the videos that I made. | | 23 | Q. And what videos did you make, videos yourself? | | 24 | A. Yes. | | 25 | Q. Of what? | | | |

#### 5503 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 250 of

| | 500 O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. I translate some parts of Mr. Guo's live broadcast, and I | | 2 | add the subtitle, English and Chinese subtitle on video club. | | 3 | Hold on, Ms. Li. Q. | | 4 | When you just testified that you made videos, you | | 5 | don't mean you made videos. Let me try this again. They | | 6 | weren't videos about you that you made, correct? | | 7 | A. Sorry. I don't understand your question. | | 8 | Q. The videos that you made, describe the process of how you | | 9 | made these videos? | | 10 | A. Okay. So I will watch Mr. Guo's live broadcast. After I | | 11 | finish his live broadcast, I will pick, myself, the most | | 12 | important part, or the part I think the western people need to | | 13 | know, the whole world need to know. So I would download those | | 14 | part, only that part, and then afterwards I add the subtitle, | | 15 | English subtitle, so people can able to understand. | | 16 | Q. And after you did that, did you upload the video? | | 17 | A. Yes, I upload the video. | | 18 | To where? Q. | | 19 | A. To Guo Media. | | 20 | Q. Did somebody ask you to do this or did you do this by | | 21 | yourself? | | 22 | A. I did it by myself. | | 23 | Q. And why? | | 24 | Because I think whatever what Mr. Miles said, you know, it A. | | 25 | is very important for people to know these things are really | | | |

5504 O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct happening in China, and then they try to infiltrate the west. So I think the western people need to know about this. This is very important. Q. Did you post these translated videos on any other social media other than Guo Media? A. YouTube. Q. As a result of posting of these videos, Ms. Li, did anything happen to your own account on Guo Media? A. Can you ask that question again? Q. Sure. After you posted these videos, did you gain followers on your account? MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. She's testifying. THE COURT: I'll allow the question. Go ahead. A. Yes. Q. How many followers did you have? A. I don't remember. MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we have one quick sidebar? THE COURT: Yes. (Continued on next page) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 251 of 500

O78BGUO6 Leanne Li - Direct (At the sidebar) MS. SHROFF: I just receive Mr. Barnett is squared away, and he has some work whatever issues. I don't know if you wanted to finish -- THE COURT: Yes, we can finish with him. We'll bring him back. MS. SHROFF: We don't even have to leave the jury. THE COURT: No. We'll just leave them in place. Sure. (Continued on next page) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 252 of

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 253 of 5506 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (In open court) | | 2 | THE COURT: Members of the jury, we are going to go | | 3 | back to the prior witness now. You can go out of the | | 4 | courtroom. Don't discuss your testimony. | | 5 | THE WITNESS: Okay. | | 6 | THE COURT: We're going to go back to the cross | | 7 | examination of Mr. Barnett. | | 8 | (Witness entered the courtroom) | | 9 | THE COURT: And, sir, remember that you're still under | | 10 | oath. | | 11 | THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. | | 12 | | | 13 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT, | | 14 | CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED | | 15 | BY MR. FERGENSON: | | 16 | Q. Mr. Barnett, when we broke we were talking about certain | | 17 | payments your company had received. Do you recall that? | | 18 | Yes, I do. A. | | 19 | Q. It's a fact, sir, that you've received at least over | | 20 | \$500,000 from individuals or companies who are not your actual | | 21 | clients, right? | | 22 | A. That's correct. | | 23 | Q. And you said you provided services for that money, right? | | 24 | A. That's correct, I provided security services for all that | | 25 | money. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 254 of 5507 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. But you didn't provide services to those people who sent | | 2 | you that money, right? | | 3 | A. No, sir. | | 4 | You provided those services to Miles Guo's daughter, right? Q. | | 5 | A. That's correct. | | 6 | Q. And then you sent Miles Guo daughter's invoices, right? | | 7 | A. That's correct. | | 8 | Q. And then these other people whom you don't even know sent | | 9 | you hundreds of thousands of dollars, right? | | 10 | A. Yes, sir. | | 11 | Q. Now, the Guo family has helped pay for your lawyers as | | 12 | well, right? | | 13 | A. No, I had to do a Go Fund Me for that. | | 14 | Q. Before the Go Fund Me, sir, didn't you ask Mei Guo for help | | 15 | paying for your bankruptcy lawyers? | | 16 | A. I did. That's correct. | | 17 | Q. And you needed a lawyer because you got sued for the money | | 18 | your company had received from HCHK, right? | | 19 | That's correct. A. | | 20 | Q. You were sued by the U.S. bankruptcy trustee in Miles Guo's | | 21 | bankruptcy? | | 22 | A. That's correct. | | 23 | Q. And you talked to Victor Cerda about that, right? | | 24 | A. Yes, I did. | | 25 | Victor Cerda is a lawyer for the Guo family, right? Q. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 255 of 5508 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Yes. | | 2 | Q. And you knew Cerda from your work for the Guo family, | | 3 | correct? | | 4 | A. Yes. | | 5 | And Victor Cerda helped you find the bankruptcy lawyer who Q. | | 6 | represented you in that proceeding, right? | | 7 | A. I believe Mei Guo found that attorney for me. I'm not sure | | 8 | who found that attorney. | | 9 | Q. And Victor Cerda help pay for that attorney? | | 10 | A. Originally for the initial \$10,000 that I invoiced for, | | 11 | that was from Victor, correct, his law firm. | | 12 | Q. And Victor Cerda helped pay for your criminal lawyers too, | | 13 | right? | | 14 | A. I think in the beginning, I believe so. | | 15 | Q. And Victor Cerda asked that you talk to Miles Guo's defense | | 16 | lawyers, right? | | 17 | A. I don't recall that. | | 18 | Q. And you did talk to Miles Guo's defense lawyers, right? | | 19 | A. I did in the very, very beginning, but I don't think Victor | | 20 | ask me to do that. I don't recall that, but I remember having | | 21 | that conversation in New Jersey. | | 22 | Q. And Victor Cerda also wanted you to testify in this trial, | | 23 | right? | | 24 | A. Yes, I believe he did, correct. | | 25 | Q. And you did that too, right? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 256 of 5509 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | A. I was subpoena to. I said, if you want me to testify, you | | 2 | have to subpoena me. | | 3 | Q. And you mention a Go Fund Me a few moments ago, right? | | 4 | That's correct. A. | | 5 | Q. Victor Cerda help you set up your Go Fund Me, right? | | 6 | A. Well, I set up my own Go Fund Me, and I shared it with him, | | 7 | correct? | | 8 | Q. You did that because he was going to help you get donations | | 9 | to that Go Fund Me? | | 10 | A. I had hoped so, correct? | | 11 | Q. That was your understanding, right? | | 12 | A. That's why I sent it to him, yes. | | 13 | Q. You understood that Victor Cerda was going to send your Go | | 14 | Fund me to a guy name Long Island David, right? | | 15 | A. That I didn't have that conversation with him. I didn't | | 16 | know who he sent it to. | | 17 | Q. You knew he was going to send it to Miles Guo's supporters, | | 18 | right? | | 19 | That's correct, yes. A. | | 20 | Q. And, in fact, it was sent to Miles Guo's supporters, right? | | 21 | A. Yes. | | 22 | Q. And you raised tens of thousands of dollars in your Go Fund | | 23 | Me from them, right? | | 24 | A. That's correct, all spent on attorneys. | | 25 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, could the government please | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 257 of 5510 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | | let Mr. Barnett finish. | | 2 | | THE COURT: So permit him to answer before the next | | 3 | | question. | | 4 | Q. | You don't know who those people are either, right? | | 5 | A. | I don't recognize the names on there, I do not. | | 6 | Q. | But you know they sent you money, right? | | 7 | A. | Of course. I get a thing from Go Fund Me that shows who | | 8 | | sent money. | | 9 | Q. | Now, Mr. Barnett, you testified about various large | | 10 | | properties that you looked at in person or online, right? | | 11 | A. | That's correct. | | 12 | Q. | Now, nobody actually bought those properties, right? | | 13 | A. | Nope. | | 14 | Q. | And when you were looking at those properties, Miles Guo | | 15 | | had already purchased Mahwah, right? | | 16 | A. | Yes, this was after Mahwah. | | 17 | Q. | And you went on at least one trip, correct? | | 18 | A. | Trip? | | 19 | Q. | Like you went in person to one of the properties, correct? | | 20 | A. | That's correct. | | 21 | Q. | And was part of that trip a vacation for the Guo family? | | 22 | A. | It was a vacation/business trip. Any trip that we went on | | 23 | | regarding Miles was always really 80 percent of his business, | | 24 | | but the family did come along on that trip, correct. | | 25 | Q. | You and Miles Guo were on that trip, right? | | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 258 of 5511 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | 1 | A. | Yes. | | 2 | Q. | And other of your security team were on that trip, right? | | 3 | A. | That's correct, the whole security team. | | 4 | Q. | And Gladys Chow went on that trip? | | 5 | A. | Yes, she did. | | 6 | Q. | And Gladys Chow was Miles Guo's translator, right? | | 7 | A. | Yeah, she translated for me. I don't know if that was her | | 8 | | exact title, but she did translate. | | 9 | Q. | Her formal company she worked for was HCHK, right? | | 10 | A. | Yes. | | 11 | Q. | In terms of what she actually did, she was Miles Guo's | | 12 | | personal translator, right? | | 13 | | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 14 | | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 15 | A. | Yes, she translated. That's correct. | | 16 | Q. | And she was also performing kind of personal assistant type | | 17 | | task as well, right? | | 18 | A. | That's correct. | | 19 | Q. | And in addition to you, security guys, Gladys Chow, Miles | | 20 | | Guo's wife went on that trip, right? | | 21 | A. | On that trip, yes. | | 22 | Q. | And Miles Guo's daughter's fiancee' went on that trip, | | 23 | | right? | | 24 | A. | I don't remember him being on that particular trip. | | 25 | Q. | Wayne Cao is -- | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 259 of 5512 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | I don't remember him being there, but I can't say that he | | 2 | | wasn't. I'm trying to remember who went on that trip. Sorry. | | 3 | | I went on a few trips. I'm just trying to remember what trip | | 4 | | that was. | | 5 | Q. | Just on Mei Guo's fiancee', that's Defeng Cao, right? | | 6 | A. | Yes. | | 7 | Q. | He also goes by Wayne Cao? | | 8 | A. | I call him Wayne, correct. | | 9 | Q. | And after looking at that property in person, nobody bought | | 10 | | it, right? | | 11 | A. | No. | | 12 | Q. | Now, it wasn't just large properties that you looked at as | | 13 | | part of your work for Miles Guo, right? | | 14 | A. | That's correct. | | 15 | Q. | You also looked at penthouse apartments in Manhattan, | | 16 | | correct? | | 17 | A. | Yes, that's correct. | | 18 | Q. | They were worth tens of millions of dollars, correct? | | 19 | A. | I guess. | | 20 | Q. | Some of them only had four bedrooms, correct? | | 21 | A. | Yes. The one that I went on, yes, that's correct. | | 22 | Q. | And there are four people in Miles Guo's immediate family, | | 23 | | correct? | | 24 | A. | As far as I know, correct. | | 25 | Q. | There's Miles Guo, right? There's Miles Guo's wife, right? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 260 of 5513 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. Yeah, as far as I know that's correct. | | 2 | Q. And then there's Miles Guo's son, right? | | 3 | A. Yes. | | 4 | Q. And then there's Miles Guo's daughter? | | 5 | A. That's correct. | | 6 | Q. Now, those penthouse apartments, they weren't purchased | | 7 | either, right? | | 8 | A. No, not that I know of. | | 9 | Q. What was purchased was a property earlier in Mahwah, New | | 10 | Jersey, right? | | 11 | That's correct. A. | | 12 | Q. And you had a role with that property, fair to say? | | 13 | A. Yes. | | 14 | Q. And you discussed that role with Yvette, right? | | 15 | A. That's correct. | | 16 | Q. And you discussed Taurus Fund with Yvette, right? | | 17 | I didn't discuss Taurus Fund with Yvette, but I did discuss A. | | 18 | if we had like an invoice, it would go to Yvette. | | 19 | MR. FERGENSON: If we could pull up, Ms. Loftus, | | 20 | what's in evidence and publish it GX Buck 1234. | | 21 | Q. Sir, you know what Taurus Fund LLC is, right? | | 22 | A. Do I know that they purchase the house in New Jersey, | | 23 | that's correct. | | 24 | Q. And the entity held title to the Mahwah mansion, it was | | 25 | Taurus Fund LLC? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 261 of 5514 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. That's correct. | | 2 | MS. SHROFF: Is he showing something? | | 3 | MR. FERGENSON: It's being fulled up. | | 4 | Q. And while we're waiting, I'll just ask a few questions. | | 5 | You were one of the managing members of Taurus Fund, | | 6 | LLC? | | 7 | A. So, on paper they had me down as a manager. That wasn't my | | 8 | idea of what my job role was. So when they ask me to be a | | 9 | manager, I just thought they just meant to manage the property | | 10 | and install the security services. It wasn't to manage Taurus | | 11 | Fund because I would have no experience, nor would I undertake | | 12 | something like that. | | 13 | Q. Did you know what Taurus Fund was? | | 14 | A. No, I just assume it was a company. | | 15 | Q. But you were given paperwork by Aaron Mitchell to sign? | | 16 | Yes. A. | | 17 | Q. And Aaron Mitchell was another lawyer for the Guo family, | | 18 | right? | | 19 | A. Yes, he was. | | 20 | Q. He was close with the Guo family, right? | | 21 | A. Yes. | | 22 | Q. Fair to say he was a trusted person in the inner circle? | | 23 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 24 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 25 | A. I don't have an answer for you on that. | | | |

#### 5515 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 262 of 500

| | O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: I need for you to speak into the | | 2 | microphone so everyone can hear you. | | 3 | A. He was friendly with them. I don't know how close he was. | | 4 | I wasn't that close with Aaron, so I don't know. | | 5 | Q. And you signed the paperwork that Aaron Mitchell gave you, | | 6 | right? | | 7 | A. I did. | | 8 | Q. And you thought the paperwork made you some kind of | | 9 | property manager, right? | | 10 | A. So when I signed it, I didn't really understand. I just | | 11 | thought it meant to manage the property, and I didn't really | | 12 | understand the whole ins and outs of it until later on. | | 13 | Q. And, Mr. Barnett, we got the document up now. Do you see | | 14 | towards the middle of the page it says on the right, it says | | 15 | entity name? | | 16 | A. Yes, I do. | | 17 | Q. And it says Taurus Fund LLC to the right of that? | | 18 | Yep. A. | | 19 | Q. If we could go to page three, please. Why don't we zoom on | | 20 | the boxes four, five and six. You see on number six it says | | 21 | name and address of each manager or managing members? | | 22 | A. Yes. | | 23 | Q. And number two is Scott Barnett, that's you, right? | | 24 | A. That's correct. | | 25 | Q. Do you live in Las Vegas, Nevada? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 263 of 5516 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | A. No, I do not. | | 2 | Q. Is that your correct address? | | 3 | A. No, it is not. | | 4 | Q. Now, you didn't think you were actually the owner of the | | 5 | Taurus Fund LLC, correct? | | 6 | A. No, I did not. | | 7 | Q. You learned what the paperwork you signed actually meant | | 8 | after filing bankruptcy, right? | | 9 | After I showed it to my attorney, he explained it to me. A. | | 10 | Q. And that was when you got sued in the bankruptcy, right? | | 11 | A. That's correct. They put me down as the owner of it which | | 12 | took me a little bit by surprise, correct. | | 13 | Q. Because that's not true, sir, you're not the actual owner | | 14 | of the Mahwah mansion, right? | | 15 | A. No, I'm not. | | 16 | MR. FERGENSON: And we can take that down, Ms. Loftus. | | 17 | Q. That wasn't your house, right? | | 18 | A. No. | | 19 | Q. But you did take Miles Guo there, correct? | | 20 | A. Yes, I did take him there. | | 21 | Q. And he was there two to three times a week? | | 22 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, misstates testimony. | | 23 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 24 | A. I took him there. I don't think it was two or three times | | 25 | a week, maybe in the beginning when it first started. Other | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 264 of 5517 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | than that, it was sporadic. And I wasn't with him everyday so | | 2 | I don't have an actual accounting of how many times he was | | 3 | there. | | 4 | Q. Sure. You didn't have a bedroom there? | | 5 | A. No, I did not. | | 6 | Q. Miles Guo had a bedroom there, right? | | 7 | A. Yes, on the second floor. | | 8 | Q. And Miles Guo's wife had a bedroom there? | | 9 | A. That's correct. | | 10 | Miles Guo's son had a bedroom there? Q. | | 11 | A. Yes. | | 12 | Q. Miles Guo's daughter had a bedroom there? | | 13 | A. That's correct. | | 14 | Q. Miles Guo daughter's fiancee' had a bedroom there? | | 15 | A. That I don't know. | | 16 | And, in fact, the Guo family did not just have bedrooms Q. | | 17 | there; is that correct? | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, what's the question. | | 19 | Q. The question was, the Guo family didn't just have bedrooms | | 20 | at Mahwah mansion, correct? | | 21 | MS. SHROFF: Objection to form. | | 22 | THE COURT: You can answer. Did they have something | | 23 | in addition to bedrooms. | | 24 | A. I don't understand the question. I know what you're | | 25 | asking, but I don't know what you're referring to. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 265 of 5518 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. Let me rephrase. These weren't just bedrooms. They were | | 2 | whole wings, correct? | | 3 | A. That's correct. | | 4 | Q. They were multi-rooms portions of this mansion were just | | 5 | for -- | | 6 | A. Yes, one side like the -- I don't know what direction that | | 7 | is, but if you walk into the right, one side was Miles' area. | | 8 | The other side was the miss's area. That's correct. | | 9 | And you didn't keep a set of Brioni suits at Mahwah Q. | | 10 | mansion, correct? | | 11 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 12 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 13 | A. If you're asking if I kept them personally? | | 14 | Q. Yes, sir. | | 15 | A. No. | | 16 | Q. Do you own a whole set of Brioni suits? | | 17 | A. I own Brioni suits, but they're from the Real Real, so | | 18 | they're used. I can't afford Brioni suits, sir. | | 19 | Q. But Miles Guo kept a whole set of Brioni suits at the | | 20 | Mahwah mansion, correct? | | 21 | A. I don't know. | | 22 | Q. And, sir, you didn't pick the renovation to those wings, | | 23 | correct? | | 24 | A. I did not, no. | | 25 | Q. Miles Guo was the one who designed that, correct? |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 266 of 5519 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 2 | THE COURT: You may answer if you know. | | 3 | A. I don't know. I don't know if he was the only one that | | 4 | picked. I don't know. | | 5 | Q. He had a role in designing them? | | 6 | A. Yes, he did. | | 7 | Q. In fact, you walked through sort of the wing with Miles Guo | | 8 | at a time, correct? | | 9 | A. Yes, I have. | | 10 | Q. And there were also renovations just not to bedrooms, but | | 11 | to closets, correct? | | 12 | A. That's correct. | | 13 | Q. And Miles Guo picked the renovations done to his closet, | | 14 | right? | | 15 | A. I believe so, but I can't confirm that. | | 16 | MS. SHROFF: Could you keep your voice up, | | 17 | Mr. Barnett. I missed what you said after I believe so. | | 18 | A. I said I believe so. I can't confirm that. I believe so. | | 19 | Q. And you didn't pick out the beds that were in the Guo | | 20 | family's bedroom? | | 21 | A. No, I did not. | | 22 | Q. Miles Guo did that, right? | | 23 | A. That I don't know cause I didn't have anything to do with | | 24 | that part of the construction. | | 25 | Q. Do you know if the Guo family more generally picked out the | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 267 of 5520 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | beds in their bedrooms? | | 2 | A. I don't know. | | 3 | Q. You didn't pick out the furnishing in their bedroom, right? | | 4 | A. No, I did not. | | 5 | Q. Miles Guo did that, correct? | | 6 | Again, I don't know. A. I didn't have -- I wasn't privy to | | 7 | that part of it. Unless we went to a specific store and he | | 8 | pick something out, then I could confirm that, but I wasn't | | 9 | with him when they were picking out anything in regards to | | 10 | bedroom furniture or I wasn't privy to that. | | 11 | Q. Now, you did know though that that wing when you took -- I | | 12 | think you said it was to the right? | | 13 | A. That's correct. | | 14 | Q. The wing to the right was Miles Guo's wing? | | 15 | A. That's right, on the second floor, correct. | | 16 | Q. And you knew that because you were helping him with that | | 17 | property, correct? | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 19 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 20 | A. As part of the construction plans then, yes, I knew that. | | 21 | You became aware that there was a bankruptcy proceeding, Q. | | 22 | correct? | | 23 | A. In regards to HCHK? | | 24 | Q. Involving Miles Guo at least. | | 25 | A. Yes. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 268 of 5521 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. Are you aware that Miles Guo did not mention this mansion | | 2 | in Mahwah in his bankruptcy filings at all? | | 3 | A. No, I did not. | | 4 | Q. Are you aware that he didn't mention any of the money spent | | 5 | on the renovations at this mansion? | | 6 | A. No. | | 7 | Q. Are you aware he didn't mention any of the \$35,000 beds | | 8 | bought for this mansion? | | 9 | No, I did not. A. | | 10 | Q. Are you aware he didn't mention any of the furniture, the | | 11 | hundreds of thousands of dollars in furniture or millions | | 12 | bought for this mansion? | | 13 | A. No, I did not have knowledge. | | 14 | Q. Are you aware he didn't mention -- | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I think Mr. Barnett has no | | 16 | knowledge of what Mr. Miles Guo mentioned in his bankruptcy. | | 17 | THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, I have said to you in the past | | 18 | that you are not to testify. If you want to make an objection, | | 19 | make an objection. | | 20 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, your Honor, cumulative. | | 21 | THE COURT: Overruled. you may answer. | | 22 | Q. Are you aware he didn't disclose the millions or thousands | | 23 | at least of dollars spent on artwork for this mansion where his | | 24 | family had wings? | | 25 | A. No, I'm not aware of that. |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 269 of 5522 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. | Now, the money that went to Mahwah it was passed through a | | 2 | | woman named Amy Buck, correct? | | 3 | A. | That's correct. | | 4 | Q. | It was pass through her attorney -- | | 5 | | MS. SHROFF: Objection to the form of the question as | | 6 | | to pass through. It's inappropriate, your Honor. | | 7 | | THE COURT: Well, if you could be more specific. | | 8 | Q. | Amy Buck was paying the expenses for the Mahwah mansion, | | 9 | | correct? | | 10 | A. | That's who I sent the invoices to, correct. | | 11 | Q. | She was paying it through her attorney trust account, | | 12 | | correct? | | 13 | A. | Yes, I believe so, yes. | | 14 | Q. | Now, you testified on direct about a man name Sean or Sean | | 15 | Jing? | | | 16 | A. | Yes. | | 17 | Q. | And Sean Jing you said worked for HCHK, right? | | 18 | A. | I believe so, yes. | | 19 | Q. | That was the company that he worked for, correct? | | 20 | A. | I believe so. | | 21 | Q. | Same company that you believe Gladys Chow formally worked | | 22 | for? | | | 23 | A. | That's correct. | | 24 | Q. | Sean Jing was another personal assistant to the Guo family, | | 25 | right? | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 270 of 5523 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. I don't -- he was at one time. I think when -- are you | | 2 | asking in regards to Mahwah? | | 3 | Q. Well, he performed kind of personal assistant type task for | | 4 | the Guo family? | | 5 | A. Yes, he did. | | 6 | Q. And he also acted as a property manager for the mansion in | | 7 | Mahwah, right? | | 8 | A. Yes. | | 9 | Q. And in the personal assistant type work, he did things for | | 10 | Miles Guo, right? | | 11 | A. That I don't know. I know he did assistant stuff, but I | | 12 | don't know what jobs he did or didn't do. | | 13 | Q. And he did things for the Guo family more generally, | | 14 | correct? | | 15 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, he just said he answered the | | 16 | question. | | 17 | Q. One was to Miles Guo. This is the Guo family more | | 18 | generally. | | 19 | THE COURT: So you may answer the question. | | 20 | A. Sorry. Can you ask that again. | | 21 | Q. Of course. Sean Jing, he performed -- he did things for | | 22 | the Guo family more generally? | | 23 | A. Yes. | | 24 | Q. There were other people who did personal assistant type | | 25 | work for the Guo family, correct? | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 271 of 5524 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | | MS. SHROFF: Form. | | 2 | | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 3 | A. | Yes. | | 4 | Q. | One of them was named Hank, right? | | 5 | A. | Yes. | | 6 | Q. | He had a Chinese name, but in English he went by Hank, | | 7 | | right? | | 8 | A. | I don't know his Chinese name. | | 9 | Q. | And another one was named Jason, right? | | 10 | A. | Yes. | | 11 | Q. | And you describe them before as kind of like indentures | | 12 | | servants, right? | | 13 | | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 14 | | THE COURT: Overruled. | | 15 | Q. | You described them before as kind of like indenture | | 16 | | servants, right? | | 17 | A. | That's how I classified it as more of a joking manner. | | 18 | | That's how I classified it, sorry. | | 19 | Q. | You said that, right? | | 20 | A. | I did. | | 21 | Q. | And they did whatever personal stuff the family needed, | | 22 | | right? | | 23 | A. | Yes, I believe so. | | 24 | Q. | They did shopping? | | 25 | A. | Yes. | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 272 of 5525 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. | They did cooking? | | 2 | A. | Yes. | | 3 | Q. | They chauffeured the family around? | | 4 | A. | Yes, sometimes, yes. | | 5 | Q. | And they would buy things the family wanted, right? | | 6 | A. | I guess. I wouldn't be privy to what they bought for the | | 7 | | family except for groceries. | | 8 | Q. | Now, at times Miles Guo had you buy things for him, right? | | 9 | A. | Me personally, sir? Yeah, if it was mostly like anything, | | 10 | | like, if he needed a pair of I-pods for your ears, but | | 11 | | nothing -- anything of real expense I had to ask. | | 12 | Q. | He had you buy motorcycles for him, right? | | 13 | A. | Yes, they had me buy motorcycles. No, they didn't have me | | 14 | | buy it. They ask. | | 15 | Q. | And you did that, right? | | 16 | A. | I did. | | 17 | Q. | How many was it, four or five? | | 18 | A. | I believe in the end it was five. | | 19 | Q. | And each one cost a few tens of thousands of dollars? | | 20 | A. | They varied in price. | | 21 | Q. | And the motorcycles were in your name, right? | | 22 | A. | Yes, they were. | | 23 | Q. | But those were not really your motorcycles? | | 24 | A. | No, they were not. | | 25 | Q. | You weren't the real owner of those motorcycles, correct? | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 273 of 5526 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. No, I wasn't. | | 2 | Q. Miles Guo asked you to do this after he filed for | | | | | 3 | bankruptcy, correct? | | 4 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, your Honor, assumes facts not | | 5 | in evidence. | | 6 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 7 | A. I don't know. I don't know when as far as a bankruptcy and | | 8 | when they ask, I don't know. | | 9 | Q. You testified on direct that at a certain point Yvette | | 10 | wanted you to rent them to supporters? | | 11 | A. We had a discussion about it, that's correct. | | 12 | Q. And that was in late 2022, right? | | 13 | A. I believe so. | | 14 | Q. Were you aware that shortly before that the United States | | 15 | had seized hundreds of millions of dollars from the entities | | 16 | associated with Miles Guo? | | 17 | A. No, I was not. | | 18 | Q. Did Guo ever say that the department of justice had just | | 19 | done that? | | 20 | A. No. | | 21 | Q. Did Yvette ever say that the department of justice had just | | 22 | done that before she had this conversation about renting out | | 23 | these assets? | | 24 | A. No. | | 25 | MR. FERGENSON: If we could pull up, Ms. Loftus, |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 274 of 5527 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | what's in evidence as Government Exhibit WA26. Ms. Loftus, why | | 2 | don't we just zoom in on the bottom half, please. | | 3 | Q. Now, sir, this list several vehicles. Do you see the | | 4 | pictures of the vehicles? | | 5 | A. I do. | | 6 | Q. Some of them are the motorcycles you purchased, correct? | | 7 | A. Yes, that's correct, the two at the top there. | | 8 | For instance, the Ducati, in the bankruptcy proceedings Q. | | 9 | when that came up, you didn't even know that was still in your | | 10 | name, right? | | 11 | A. I did not. | | 12 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, your Honor. I think we've | | 13 | established what his knowledge basis is about the bankruptcy. | | 14 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | 15 | A. I did not. | | 16 | Q. You didn't know that that was still in your name, correct? | | 17 | A. I did not, correct. | | 18 | Q. And if we could zoom out. | | 19 | Now, the person listed under owner, do you see that in | | 20 | the second to right column? | | 21 | A. Barely. | | 22 | Q. We can blow it up. You see that says owner? | | 23 | A. Yep. | | 24 | Q. And then in the person listed there is Defeng Cao, correct? | | 25 | A. Correct. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 275 of 5528 500 | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| | | O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | | | 1 | Q. He wasn't the actual owner of these motorcycles either, | | | 2 | correct? | | | 3 | MS. SHROFF: Objection to form. | | | 4 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | | 5 | A. I was the original owner. I don't know who the second | | | 6 | owner of those motorcycle was or became. | | | 7 | Q. If we can just scroll down. Let's zoom on the Lamborghini. | | | 8 | Mr. Barnett, you see under the owner column for the | | | 9 | Lamborghini it says Defeng Cao. You see that? | | | 10 | A. That's correct. | | | 11 | Q. And there's an address for 373 Taconic Road in Greenwich | | | 12 | Connecticut. You see that? | | | 13 | A. Yes. | | | 14 | Q. That was one of the Guo family homes, correct? | | | 15 | A. That's where I currently do security, yes. | | | 16 | Q. And do you see in the notes column it says G/Club | | | 17 | International LTD? | | | 18 | A. Yes. | | | 19 | Q. Do you know why it says that? | | | 20 | A. I have no idea. | | | 21 | Q. You also testified in your discussions with Yvette about | | | 22 | signing out certain of the assets to supporters they mention | | | 23 | the Lamborghini too? | | | 24 | A. That was mentioned, correct. | | | 25 | Q. In discussing the Lamborghini, did Yvette say that the | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 276 of 5529 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | United States government had just seized hundreds of millions | | 2 | of dollars from G/Clubs? | | 3 | A. No, she did not. | | 4 | MR. FERGENSON: If we can go to Government Exhibit | | 5 | WA27, if we can zoom on the text here. | | 6 | Q. Mr. Barnett, you see how in the notes column you're listed | | 7 | as Scott Barnett driver? | | 8 | A. Yes, that's correct. I see that. | | 9 | And then under owner it says HCHK Technologies for the Q. | | 10 | first two? | | 11 | A. That's correct. | | 12 | Q. And in the bottom two it says GS Security Solutions, right? | | 13 | A. That's correct. | | 14 | Q. GS Security Solutions that's your company, right? | | 15 | A. That's correct. | | 16 | Q. These are the BMWs that you purchased, correct? | | 17 | A. Yes. | | 18 | Q. And you purchased them with money from HCHK Technologies, | | 19 | correct? | | 20 | A. I did. | | 21 | Q. And that was in January of 2023, right? | | 22 | A. Correct. | | 23 | Q. That's nearly a year after Miles Guo had declared | | 24 | bankruptcy, right? | | 25 | A. Apparently. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 277 of 5530 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, assumes knowledge that this | | 2 | witness has disclaimed. | | 3 | THE COURT: Do you know what year he declared | | 4 | bankruptcy? | | 5 | THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, I do not. | | 6 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 7 | Q. Sir, you used money from HCHK to buy those BMWs, right? | | 8 | A. That's correct. The money was apart of the startup | | 9 | agreement, that's correct. | | 10 | MR. FERGENSON: Now, we can take that down, | | 11 | Ms. Loftus. | | 12 | Q. You also had a role in managing a yacht, correct? | | 13 | A. No. | | 14 | You received emails from the Liberty yacht captain, right? Q. | | 15 | A. Yes, that's correct. That was in regards to repairs that | | 16 | were being done because I guess Max Krasner was inundated with | | 17 | whatever he was doing and couldn't keep up with the constant | | 18 | emails from the captain, so Yvette ask me to join in on that to | | 19 | make sure that the repairs were getting done. | | 20 | Now, your attorneys produced some of those emails to the Q. | | 21 | government, right? | | 22 | A. Yes. | | 23 | Q. Max Krasner who you just mention, he also received those | | 24 | emails, right? | | 25 | A. Yes, as far as I know. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 278 of 5531 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. Sir, you didn't work for G/Club, right? | | 2 | A. No, I did not. | | 3 | Q. Max Krasner, he didn't work for G/Club either, right? | | 4 | A. I have no idea. | | 5 | MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, can we show the witness | | 6 | what's marked as Government Exhibit SB212. | | 7 | THE COURT: Mr. Fergenson. | | 8 | MR. FERGENSON: I'm waiting for an exhibit, your | | 9 | Honor. It's okay, your Honor. I'll just move on. | | 10 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 11 | MR. FERGENSON: Thank you for the indulgence. | | 12 | Q. Sir, you also talked a bit about Miles Guo's supporters on | | 13 | direct, right? | | 14 | A. Yes. | | 15 | Q. And sometimes the supporters would go to 3 Columbus Circle, | | 16 | right? | | 17 | A. Yes. | | 18 | Q. They would listen to Miles Guo talk? | | 19 | A. Yes. | | 20 | Q. They would clap for him? | | 21 | A. Yes. | | 22 | Q. Fair to say they idolized him? | | 23 | A. Yes. | | 24 | Q. They would ask him to hold babies, right? | | 25 | A. I've seen that. I don't know if they asked or not. It | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 279 of 5532 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | would have been in Chinese. I wouldn't have understood. | | 2 | MS. SHROFF: What you did say. | | 3 | A. I've seen him hold people's babies. I don't know if they | | 4 | asked or not. They were speaking in Chinese, so I don't know. | | 5 | Q. Sometimes they would bring their children with them to 3 | | 6 | Columbus Circle? | | 7 | A. Yes, I've seen that. | | 8 | Q. And they would bring their children and give those children | | 9 | an I-pad, right? | | 10 | Yes, I've seen that. A. | | 11 | Q. And then those supporters would just work all day, right? | | 12 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 13 | THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. | | 14 | A. I wasn't there all day, but, yes, they worked. | | 15 | Q. And these supporters when they were working, they didn't | | 16 | listen to other workers, right? | | 17 | MS. SHROFF: Objection as to form. | | 18 | THE COURT: Well, it's impossible for him to say | | 19 | whether others were listening. He can't perceive that. | | 20 | MR. FERGENSON: I can rephrase, your Honor. | | 21 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 22 | Q. You're aware of instances -- withdrawn. | | 23 | Your impression, Mr. Barnett, being in 3 Columbus | | 24 | Circle when this was happening was that these supporters didn't | | 25 | always listen to other workers, correct? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 280 of 5533 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. I can't speak for other workers, but I have seen instances | | 2 | where if there was issues with other workers, I had spoken with | | 3 | other workers in regards to it. | | 4 | Q. And these supporters, they always listen to Miles Guo, | | 5 | right? | | 6 | A. Again, all the conversation were in Chinese. I could tell | | 7 | you that they did listen to him, but I can't tell you what was | | 8 | said. | | 9 | Q. And, look, your impression was that this stuff with the | | 10 | supporters was weird, fair to say? | | 11 | MS. SHROFF: Objection. | | 12 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 13 | A. Weird, I guess -- I don't know if I'd use the word "weird." | | 14 | I guess it was just different for me because I've never seen it | | 15 | before. Usually I would say that with like celebrities where | | 16 | people were kind of in awe of a celebrity. That's kind of the | | 17 | impression I got from it. | | 18 | Q. Sir, you testified about how Miles Guo was one of the | | 19 | better people you been a bodyguard for, right? | | 20 | A. That's correct. | | 21 | Q. You like him, right? | | 22 | A. I like him very much. | | 23 | Q. And you testified about how you thought he was sincere with | | 24 | the stuff he was doing with the NFSC, right? | | 25 | A. That's correct. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 281 of 5534 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett- Cross | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| | | | | | 1 | Q. Sir, you didn't watch his live broadcast in Mandarin, | | | 2 | correct? | | | 3 | A. No, I did not. | | | 4 | Q. You didn't follow him online, correct? | | | 5 | A. No, I did not. | | | 6 | Q. You didn't invest in any of those investment projects, did | | | 7 | you? | | | 8 | A. No, I did not. | | | 9 | Q. You didn't send companies affiliated with Miles Guo your | | | 10 | personal money, correct? | | | 11 | A. No, sir. | | | 12 | Q. You didn't send him your retirement money, correct? | | | 13 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, asked and answered. | | | 14 | THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. | | | 15 | A. No, I did not. | | | 16 | Q. You didn't send him money you had borrowed from your home | | | 17 | equity, correct? | | | 18 | MS. SHROFF: Objection, asked and answered. | | | 19 | THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. | | | 20 | A. No, I did not. | | | 21 | Q. You didn't send him your families' money, correct? | | | 22 | A. No, sir, I did not. | | | 23 | And it's true, sir, that actually you got money from Q. | | | 24 | working for Miles Guo, right? | | | 25 | A. Meaning for services, sir? I don't know what you're | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 282 of 5535 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | asking. | | 2 | Q. We talked about all the money you got paid earlier? | | 3 | A. For services, correct. | | 4 | MS. SHROFF: Objection to the form, your Honor. | | 5 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 6 | MR. FERGENSON: May I just have a moment, your Honor? | | 7 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 8 | Sir, you didn't lose money after sending it to Miles Guo, Q. | | 9 | correct? | | 10 | A. I'm sorry. | | 11 | MS. SHROFF: Assumes facts that are clearly not | | 12 | verified. | | 13 | THE COURT: He stated he did not send money. | | 14 | Sustained. | | 15 | MR. FERGENSON: Nothing further, your Honor. | | 16 | THE COURT: Redirect. | | 17 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION | | 18 | BY MS. SHROFF: | | 19 | Q. Mr. Barnett, good afternoon again. | | 20 | A. Hello. | | 21 | Q. Mr. Barnett, for how many years did you honorably serve the | | 22 | People of the City Of New York as an NYPD officer? | | 23 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 24 | THE COURT: It's all right. How long did you serve as | | 25 | a police officer. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 283 of 5536 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. For 17 and a half years, ma'am. | | 2 | Q. And for 17 years did you testify on behalf of the City of | | 3 | New York or the State of New York? | | 4 | A. Yes, I have testified. | | 5 | Q. Did you take an oath as you've taken here today? | | 6 | A. Yes, I have. | | 7 | Q. Have you ever lied under oath? | | 8 | A. No. | | 9 | Q. Today did you ever lie under oath? | | 10 | A. No, ma'am. | | 11 | Q. And would you lie under oath for Miles Guo? | | 12 | A. No, ma'am. | | 13 | Q. Would you lie for Miles Guo because he had HCHK send you | | 14 | \$15,000 or \$30,000 or \$650,000 or 600 and a million dollars? | | 15 | MR. FERGENSON: Argumentive. | | 16 | THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. | | 17 | A. No, ma'am, I would not. | | 18 | Q. Mr. Barnett, you got money for the work you did for Mei | | 19 | Guo, correct? | | 20 | That's correct. A. | | 21 | Q. I'm not going to go through all of the iterations, but you | | 22 | got that money into a bank account, correct? | | 23 | A. That's correct, my company's bank account. | | 24 | Q. And the company's bank account is at a real bank, right? | | 25 | A. Chase Bank, that's correct. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 284 of 5537 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. | And Chase bank has never flagged your account, correct? | | 2 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. | | 3 | | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 4 | A. | No, they have not. | | 5 | Q. | These are wire transfers, correct? | | 6 | A. | Yes, ma'am. | | 7 | Q. | And do you know who these people were that wired the money? | | 8 | A. | I do not. | | 9 | Q. | Do you know if they were Mei Guo's uncles? | | 10 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 11 | | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 12 | | MR. FERGENSON: He said he doesn't know, your Honor. | | 13 | Q. | Were they her uncles? | | 14 | A. | I don't know. | | 15 | Q. | Were they her family in China? | | 16 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection again, asked and answered. | | 17 | | Same question. | | 18 | | THE COURT: You can answer. | | 19 | A. | I don't know. | | 20 | Q. | You were asked about a person name Jian Wu Zhang, correct? | | 21 | A. | I believe so, yes. | | 22 | Q. | Do you know if he's related to Mei Guo? | | 23 | A. | I don't. | | 24 | Q. | You were asked about a transfer of a \$105, 000 by Su Zu | | 25 | | Wang, correct? | | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 285 of 5538 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | 1 | A. | Yes, I believe so. | | 2 | Q. | Do you know if Su Zu Wang is related to Mei Guo? | | 3 | A. | I don't know. | | 4 | Q. | You were asked about a \$107,000 transferred again by | | 5 | | Mr. Zhang, correct? | | 6 | A. | Yes, I believe so. | | 7 | Q. | Do you know that Mr. Zhang is related to Mei Guo? | | 8 | A. | I don't know. | | 9 | Q. | Do you know who Desheng Yin is? | | 10 | A. | I do not. | | 11 | Q. | Do you know if Desheng Yin is related to Mei Guo? | | 12 | A. | I do not. | | 13 | Q. | You were asked about some money that came from Singapore, | | 14 | | correct? | | 15 | A. | Yeah. | | 16 | Q. | Do you know if Mei Guo has a uncle, aunt or cousin in | | 17 | Singapore? | | | 18 | A. | I don't know. | | 19 | Q. | You were asked many questions about a man name Victor | | 20 | | Cerda, correct? | | 21 | A. | Yes. | | 22 | Q. | Did Mr. Cerda assist you when you needed a lawyer? | | 23 | A. | Yes, he did. | | 24 | Q. | Did he give you a referral? | | 25 | A. | I don't know if he gave me the referral or it came from | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 286 of 5539 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Mei. I don't recall who gave me the referral. | | 2 | Q. Did Mr. Cerda ever tell you, I'll give you the money if you | | 3 | testify for Miles Guo? | | 4 | A. No, he did not. | | 5 | Q. Did Mr. Cerda tell you I'll give you the money if you talk | | 6 | to Ms. Shroff? | | 7 | A. No, he did not. | | 8 | Q. Did Mr. Cerda tell you, I'll only give you the money if you | | 9 | talk to Ms. Shroff and not talk to the government? | | 10 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection. | | 11 | THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. | | 12 | A. No, he did not. | | 13 | Q. Did Mr. Cerda attach any strings to the help he gave you? | | 14 | A. No, he did not. | | 15 | Q. You were asked questions about a criminal lawyer that you | | 16 | hired or you were helped hire, correct? | | 17 | A. I hired a criminal lawyer, that's correct. | | 18 | Q. Who chose that criminal lawyer? | | 19 | A. I did. | | 20 | Q. Let me rephrase that. I apologize. I should know better. | | 21 | Criminal defense lawyer, who chose him? | | 22 | A. I did. | | 23 | Q. Did Mr. Cerda have anything to do with him? | | 24 | A. Not in picking him out, no. | | 25 | Q. Did I have anything to do with him? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 287 of 5540 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | A. | No. | | 2 | Q. | Did any of Mr. Guo's lawyers have anything to do with the | | 3 | | lawyer you chose? | | 4 | A. | No, it did not. | | 5 | Q. | You were asked about a Go Fund Me page, correct, | | 6 | | Mr. Barnett? | | 7 | A. | Yes, that's correct. | | 8 | Q. | Why did you need a Go Fund Me page? | | 9 | A. | Because the lawyers that I've had to retain were requesting | | 10 | | their money, and I had nowhere else to turn to get the money. | | 11 | | I don't have that kind of money personally. | | 12 | Q. | Victor Cerda didn't give you that money, correct? | | 13 | A. | No, he did not. | | 14 | Q. | Mei Guo didn't give you that money, correct? | | 15 | A. | No, she did not. | | 16 | Q. | Wayne Cao didn't give you that money, correct? | | 17 | A. | No. | | 18 | Q. | Yvette Wang didn't you give that money, correct? | | 19 | A. | No. | | 20 | Q. | Miles Guo didn't give you that money, correct? | | 21 | A. | No, he didn't. | | 22 | Q. | By the way the money that you got all those wire transfers | | 23 | | that the government asked you about, you declared that on your | | 24 | | income tax, correct? | | 25 | A. | Yes. |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 288 of 5541 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. And you declared the Go Fund Me money on your income tax, | | 2 | correct? | | 3 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, relevance and scope. | | 4 | THE COURT: You may answer. | | 5 | A. Not on this year tax. It would be next year tax that would | | 6 | be claimed on. | | 7 | Q. Now, you were asked many questions about other properties | | 8 | in New York City that you saw, correct? | | 9 | A. Yes. | | 10 | Q. And one of the properties that they asked you about was a | | 11 | penthouse that had four bedrooms, correct? | | 12 | A. Yes. | | 13 | Q. Did you know if Mr. Guo's son has been here in the year of | | 14 | 2024? | | 15 | A. I have no idea. | | 16 | Q. When was the last time you saw his son? | | 17 | A. The only time that I ever met him was in 2020, and I think | | 18 | it was October or November. I couldn't tell you what month it | | 19 | was. | | 20 | Q. Is it fair to say, sir, other than that one time you have | | 21 | never seen Mr. Mileson in this country? | | 22 | I never seen him except that one time. A. | | 23 | Q. These four bedroom penthouses, do you know the reason why | | 24 | it wasn't purchased? | | 25 | A. I don't. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 289 of 5542 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | Q. You were asked questions about Aaron Mitchell, correct? | | 2 | A. Yes. | | 3 | Q. Did you ever observe Aaron Mitchell and Miles Guo have a | | 4 | conversation? | | 5 | A. Yes. | | 6 | Q. Did they seem to understand each other without an | | 7 | interpreter? | | 8 | A. I don't know. I wasn't privy to the conversation. I | | 9 | witness them talking, but I couldn't tell you what the | | 10 | conversation was, nor what it was about. | | 11 | Q. Now, you were asked questions about the Taurus Fund, | | 12 | correct? | | 13 | A. Yes. | | 14 | Was your signature on the Taurus Fund forged? Q. | | 15 | A. No, it was not. | | 16 | Q. Did you sign it without understanding what the role was? | | 17 | A. Yes, I did. | | 18 | Q. You were asked questions, were not you not, Mr. Barnett, | | 19 | about Brioni suits, correct? | | 20 | Yes. A. | | 21 | Q. Do you know how many suits Mrs. Miles Guo owns? | | 22 | A. I don't. | | 23 | Q. Do you know how many suits there are at the Sherry | | 24 | Netherlands? | | 25 | A. I do not. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 290 of 5543 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. | Do you know how many there are in Connecticut? | | 2 | A. | No, ma'am, I don't. | | 3 | Q. | For all you know, the suits at Mahwah are one third of the | | 4 | | suits he owns, you just don't know, correct? | | 5 | A. | I don't know. | | 6 | Q. | At Mahwah did he broadcast from there? | | 7 | A. | Yes, he did. | | 8 | Q. | Did he wear the same suit for every broadcast? | | 9 | A. | I didn't watch the broadcast. I can't answer that. I | | 10 | | don't know. | | 11 | Q. | You were asked many, many questions about Mr. Guo's | | 12 | | bankruptcy, correct? | | 13 | A. | Yes. | | 14 | Q. | Did you know when he declared bankruptcy? | | 15 | A. | I did not know. | | 16 | Q. | Do you know if he declared bankruptcy? | | 17 | A. | I didn't know. No, I don't. | | 18 | Q. | Do you know sitting here today what he did or did not | | 19 | | disclose in his bankruptcy petition? | | 20 | A. | No, I don't know that. | | 21 | Q. | Do you know if he consulted a lawyer who decided what to | | 22 | | put in the petition? | | 23 | A. | I don't know. No, I don't. | | 24 | Q. | You were asked questions about Sean Jing, Hank and Jason, | | 25 | | correct? | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 291 of 5544 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | A. That's correct. | | 2 | Q. And the government said that you called them indentured | | 3 | servants, correct? | | 4 | A. That's correct. | | 5 | Q. And you said you were joking when you said that, correct? | | 6 | A. I said I was using it as a joke, but, um, they did serve | | 7 | the family. That's correct. | | 8 | Q. Let's talk about this. Did you see Miles Guo interact with | | 9 | Hank? | | 10 | A. I've seen it, yes. | | 11 | Q. How would you describe that interaction? | | 12 | A. More family -- the best way to describe is family like, but | | 13 | he was a -- he was basically someone who did a lot of the work. | | 14 | He's a very hard worker. | | 15 | Q. Do you know sitting here today if Hank and Miles left China | | 16 | together when he left? | | 17 | A. I have no idea. | | 18 | Q. Do you know if they escaped China together? | | 19 | MR. FERGENSON: He just said he doesn't know, your | | 20 | Honor. | | 21 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 22 | Q. Do you know if they were in Hong Kong together? | | 23 | A. I don't. | | 24 | Q. Do you know if they came from Hong Kong to the United | | 25 | States together? | | | |

| | | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 292 of 5545 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | 1 | A. | I don't know. | | 2 | Q. | Do you know how much Mr. Miles has supported Hank? | | 3 | A. | I don't. | | 4 | Q. | Do you know if he supports Hank's wife? | | 5 | A. | I don't know. | | 6 | Q. | Do you know if he supports Hank's child? | | 7 | A. | I don't know. | | 8 | Q. | You were asked several questions about motorcycles, | | 9 | | correct? | | 10 | A. | Yes. | | 11 | Q. | Lamborghini, correct? | | 12 | A. | Yes. | | 13 | Q. | And then you were told or you were asked whether or not you | | 14 | | were aware of DOJ's seizing assets, correct? | | 15 | A. | That's correct. | | 16 | Q. | Do you know when the DOJ seized any asset of Mr. Guo's? | | 17 | A. | No, I don't. | | 18 | Q. | So you would have no way to place your conversation with | | 19 | | Yvette about renting these instrumentalities versus the DOJ's | | 20 | | seizure, correct? | | 21 | A. | Yes, correct. | | 22 | Q. | You don't know if the conversation was months before the | | 23 | | seizure, correct? | | 24 | | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, asked and answered. | | 25 | | THE COURT: Sustained. | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 293 of 5546 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Q. You simply don't know, correct? | | 2 | MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. | | 3 | THE COURT: Sustained. | | 4 | Q. You were asked question after question about incidents and | | 5 | the seizure, correct? | | 6 | A. Yes. | | 7 | Q. You have no knowledge of the timeline between the two, | | 8 | correct? | | 9 | MR. FERGENSON: Objection, asked and answered. | | 10 | MS. SHROFF: I could go through each of the | | 11 | instrumentalities. It will just take us a lot longer. | | 12 | MR. FERGENSON: He said he doesn't know. | | 13 | Q. Okay. Do you know any correlation of the renting of the | | 14 | motorcycle and the seizure by DOJ? | | 15 | A. No, I don't. | | 16 | How about renting the Lamborghini and the seizure of DOJ? Q. | | 17 | THE COURT: All righty. It's 5:00. | | 18 | MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, may I have a very brief | | 19 | moment before you dismiss the jury, very brief. | | 20 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 21 | (Continued on next page) | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 294 of 5547 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (At the sidebar) | | 2 | MR. FERGENSON: I'm having a child tomorrow. If | | 3 | there's anyway I would be able to finish this witness today, | | 4 | I'll do very brief recross. I have very limited questions, if | | 5 | there is anyway we can finish the witness. | | 6 | THE COURT: How long do you have? | | 7 | MS. SHROFF: Since he objected, quite a bit. | | 8 | THE COURT: Oh God, this is terrible. | | 9 | MS. SHROFF: Nobody comes before the client. Sorry. | | 10 | THE COURT: Do you know when the baby is suppose to | | 11 | come? | | 12 | MR. FERGENSON: It's a scheduled C-section. You have | | 13 | to leave at nine to be there. | | 14 | MS. SHROFF: I'm sure one of his colleagues can step | | 15 | in. | | 16 | MR. FERGENSON: It's fine, your Honor, if Ms. Shroff | | 17 | is not going to accommodate. We'll sort it out. | | 18 | THE COURT: I'm so happy for you. | | 19 | (Continued on next page) | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 295 of 5548 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | 1 | (In open court) | | 2 | THE COURT: Members of the jury, it's time to stop our | | 3 | work. We'll continue tomorrow morning as usual. Remember that | | 4 | you're not allowed to discuss the case amongst yourselves or | | 5 | with anyone else. Don't permit anyone to discuss the case in | | 6 | your presence. Don't listen to, watch, or read anything from | | 7 | any source about this trial. Have a good evening. | | 8 | THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting. | | 9 | (Jury not present) | | 10 | THE COURT: Please be seated. Sir, you may step out. | | 11 | (Witness temporarily excused) | | 12 | (Continued on next page) | | 13 | | | 14 | | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 296 of 5549 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | (Jury not present) | | 2 | THE COURT: So how much more do we have on the defense | | 3 | case? | | 4 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we have Ms. Li, and I think | | 5 | we have one last witness after that and then we're done. | | 6 | THE COURT: How long do you think all of that will | | 7 | take? | | 8 | MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm hoping that the direct | | 9 | will be no more than an hour, hour and a half. I'm hoping | | 10 | shorter. | | 11 | THE COURT: You're saying total? | | 12 | MS. SHROFF: I don't know the second witness. He's | | 13 | not mine, your Honor. Sorry. | | 14 | MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, the final witness I would | | 15 | expect to be maybe an hour on direct. | | 16 | THE COURT: So it's not looking like we will have the | | 17 | prosecution sum up tomorrow. Okay. Well, I hope that you can | | 18 | be efficient so that we can get this done. | | 19 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I may, one proposal. We | | 20 | had the chance to speak with the defense on timing and on | | 21 | summations. I think the parties are in agreement that, | | 22 | assuming the timing is what we expect, which is the defense | | 23 | will rest tomorrow assuming that Mr. Guo does not testify as | | 24 | they've indicated, we would do summation on Wednesday, but | | 25 | perhaps we could take some of the time tomorrow afternoon with | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 297 of 5550 500 O78BGUO6 Barnett - Redirect | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | the jury for the Court to instruct them just on the law part of | | 2 | the instructions so we don't waste too much time in the | | 3 | afternoon. | | 4 | THE COURT: You mean the substantive instruction? | | 5 | MS. MURRAY: Correct. | | 6 | THE COURT: I think that's a great idea. You both | | 7 | agree to that? | | 8 | MR. KAMARAJU: That's fine, your Honor. | | 9 | THE COURT: Sure. Absolutely. | | 10 | MR. KAMARAJU: I think -- and you'll correct me -- I | | 11 | think part of your Honor's instruction turns on deliberation | | 12 | specifically, so that might just come after summations, but all | | 13 | the substantive legal stuff would be out of the way. | | 14 | THE COURT: So I just want to get a letter from you as | | 15 | to from what section to what section you'd like me to charge | | 16 | the jury. | | 17 | MR. KAMARAJU: Absolutely, your Honor. That proposal | | 18 | is generally fine with us. | | 19 | THE COURT: Okay. Have a good evening. | | 20 | (Adjourned to July 9, 2024 at 9 a.m.) | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |

#### 5551 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 298 of

500

| | INDEX OF EXAMINATION | | | | |--|----------------------|--|--|--| | | | | | |

| 2 | Examination of: Page | |----|--------------------------------| | 3 | LAI DAI | | 4 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5326 | | 5 | Cross By Mr. Horton .5338 | | 6 | Redirect By Ms. Shroff5372 | | 7 | THOMAS BISHOP | | 8 | Direct By Mr. Kamaraju5381 | | 9 | Cross By Ms. Murray .5396 | | 10 | Redirect By Mr. Kamaraju5409 | | 11 | Recross By Ms. Murray .5410 | | 12 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT | | 13 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5411 | | 14 | Cross By Mr. Fergenson5480 | | 15 | LEANNE LI | | 16 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5495 | | 17 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT | | 18 | Cross By Mr. Fergenson5506 | | 19 | Redirect By Ms. Shroff5535 | | 20 | DEFENDANT EXHIBITS | | 21 | Exhibit No. Received | | 22 | 67061 .5420 | | 23 | DX 60678A .5475 | | 24 | DX Z-02 .5394 | | 25 | Stip 3 .5395 |

# **EXHIBIT 3**

**Email dated July 28, 2024**

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 300 of 500

**From:** [Song, Luyi](mailto:luyisong@paulhastings.com) **To:** [Song, Luyi](mailto:luyisong@paulhastings.com) **Subject:** FW: [EXT] Re: Urgent : Mahwah Mansion issues **Date:** Monday, September 30, 2024 11:32:03 AM

Begin forwarded message:

Hello Luc, Can you take a phone call? Thank you ,Franco DiPaolo Hawk Eye Security 201. 259. 6340 On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 8: 26 PM Johnson Qi<johnsonfalcon7@ gmail. com> wrote: Dear Franco, Hope you are well. The case about this Mansion has

**From:** Franco DiPaolo [<hawkeyeservices1540@gmail.com](mailto:hawkeyeservices1540@gmail.com)> **Date:** July 29, 2024 at 2:46:36 AM GMT+2 **To:** "Despins, Luc A." [<lucdespins@paulhastings.com](mailto:lucdespins@paulhastings.com)> **Subject: [EXT] Re: Urgent : Mahwah Mansion issues**

**This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender** You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report [Suspicious](http)

Hello Luc,

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Can you take a phone call?

Thank you , Franco DiPaolo Hawk Eye Security 201.259.6340

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 8:26 PM Johnson Qi [<johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com](mailto:johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com)> wrote:

Dear Franco,

Hope you are well.

The case about this Mansion has already been a verdict.

On July 16, 2024. The criminal trial conclude. The Mahwah Mansion belong to the Goverment.

See transcript announcement in Documnet 395 of case 1:23-cr-00118-AT on US Court of Southern District of New York.

From that date, this property has been handed over to the US Department of Justice Attorney's office, Southern District of New York.

The previous Owner of this Mansion No need to pay anything more.

Lawyer is communicating with the Court and the Trustee for further follows-ups.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 301 of 500

So that reason,

Since July 29 ,2024. the security service costs can No longer be paid.

The last invoive 07282024 was made by ACH wire tranfer and will arrive on Tuesday. Please check.

Thanks for your understanding!

# **EXHIBIT 4**

**July 30, 2024 Hearing Transcript**

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05005 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . GREENWICH LAND, LLC, . et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, et al., . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05017 (JAM) Plaintiffs, . . v. . . TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05007 (JAM) Plaintiff, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY . Brien McMahon Federal Building COMPANY, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendant . . Tuesday, July 30, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:39 p.m. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 303 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 304 of | | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--| | | | | 500 | 2 | | | | | | | | | | 1 | APPEARANCES: | | | | | | 2 | For the Chapter 11 Trustee: | | Patrick Linsey, Esquire | | | | 3 | | | NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street | | | | 4 | | | 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | | | 5 | | | -and- | | | | 6 | | | Luc A. Despins, Esquire | | | | 7 | | | PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue | | | | 8 | | | New York, New York 10166 | | | | 9 | | | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire | | | | 10 | | | 2050 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 | | | | 11 | For Taurus Fund LLC, | | | | | | 12 | Taurus Fund Management, and Scott Barnett: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire | | | | | 13 | | | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE, LLP 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor | | | | 14 | | | Fifth Floor New York, New York 10017 | | | | 15 | | | | | | | 16 | | | TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING | | | | 17 | BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | | 19 | (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) | | | | | | 20 | Audio Operator: | | Electronically recorded | | | | 21 | Transcription Company: | | Reliable | | | | 22 | | | The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 | | | | 23 | | | Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 | | | | 24 | | | Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com | | | | 25 | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 305 of

| | | 500 | 3 | |----------|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---| | 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | | | 2 3 | For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund: | Annecca H. Smith, Esquire ROBINSON & COLE, LLP | | | 4 | | 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 | | | 5 | | -and- | | | 6 | | Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP | | | 7 | | Times Square Tower 7 Times Square | | | 8 | | New York, New York 10036 | | | 9 | For Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land, LLC | Austin D. Kim, Esquire | | | 10 11 | | Christopher J. Major, Esquire MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP 125 Park Avenue | | | 12 | | 7th Floor New York, New York 10017 | | | 13 | For Genever Holdings: | Michael T. McCormack, Esquire O'SULLIVAN MCCORMACK JENSEN | | | 14 | | & BLISS, P.C. 180 Glastonbury Boulevard | | | 15 | | Suite 210 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 | | | 16 | For AIG Property | | | | 17 18 | Casualty Company: | Michael P. Thompson, Esquire GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 95 Glastonbury Boulevard | | | 19 | | Suite 206 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 | | | 20 | | -and- | | | 21 | | John O'Connor, Esquire | | | 22 | | John J. Kavanagh, Esquire STEPTOE, LLP | | | 23 | | 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | | | 24 | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | |

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 1: Luc A. Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. Adversary Case no. 23-05017 (JAM) Status Conference 7 Matter No. 2: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Greenwich Land, LLC, et al. Adversary Case No. 23-05005 (JAM) Status Conference 30 Matter No. 3: Genever Holdings, LLC v AIG Property Casualty Company Adversary Case No. 23-05007 (JAM) Status Conference 46 Transcriptionist's' Certificate 52 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 306 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 307 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:39 p.m.) THE CLERK: Thank you. Case Number 23-5005 Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee v Greenwich Land, LLC, et al., and 23-5017, Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Stuart Sarnoff at O'Melveny on behalf of creditor PAX. I don't expect that I'll be speaking, but I'm attending. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Connecticut counsel for creditor PAX with the same

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 caveat as Mr. Sarnoff, that I don't expect speaking today. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major from Meister Seelig & Fein, on behalf of Ms. Hing Chi Ngok in the 23-05005 adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KIM: Afternoon, Your Honor. Austin Kim, also from Meister Seelig & Fein, representing Ms. Hing Chi Ngok and Defendant Greenwich Land. THE COURT: I don't see you, Attorney Kim. Are you on video? MR. KIM: Dialed in, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Conway? MR. CONWAY: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Conway on behalf of Taurus Fund, LLC, Taurus Fund Management LLC, and Scott Barnett. THE COURT: All right. The matters -- I think that is everyone's appearance, by the way. Am I -- did I miss anyone? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So the two matters on for a status conference at 1:30 today are the adversary proceeding against Greenwich Land and the adversary proceeding against Taurus Fund. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 308 of 500

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, Trustee Despins, how would you like to proceed? MR. DESPINS: I think, Your Honor, we should start with Taurus Fund and then I'll pass the baton to Mr. Bassett. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Nick? MR. BASSETT: Okay, I'm sorry. The status conference on Taurus Fund? THE COURT: Yes, why don't we proceed with the Taurus Fund status conference first. MR. BASSETT: Absolutely, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. So, Your Honor, and I'll -- and I think the trustee, I thought he was suggesting that he was going to address the Court on this topic, I will certainly let him chime in. As to Taurus Fund, the reason for the status conference, as set forth in our status conference request, is that we found out, I believe it was two nights ago now, through a letter or actually an email that was forwarded to us by the security company for the mansion, which as you know, this Court had under the revised preliminary injunction order, put in place and required the security company to be present and to monitor you know, the Mahwah Mansion premises, monitor people who are coming and going, all the things of Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 309 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 310 of 500

1 2 that nature, to make sure that this potentially very, very valuable asset of the estate is protected.

3 4 5 6 7 8 We received a note indicating that Taurus Fund was no longer going to continue to pay the fees or the costs of that security firm. The note indicated that the reason for the determination to discontinue payment is that in light of the debtor's conviction, they believe they no longer had an interest in the property; again, that's what the note said.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 We immediately responded. Obviously this, is of great concern and, you know, assured the security company that we would make sure the, you know, that the, that they were paid and that their services are not discontinued. We also have had, since then, a further conversation with Attorney Conway about other issues, for example, what about ongoing maintenance costs for the property. Certainly, our impression from the note that we received was that the decision to discontinue paying the security firm was not isolated and that that would apply to all costs. So there's maintenance, there's utilities, there's taxes. There's, I think, a \$70,000 tax bill coming due on August 1st. All of that, in our mind, is potentially in jeopardy.

22 23 24 25 So we have had an initial call with Attorney Conway yesterday, where he, I think, indicated -- and I'll let him speak for himself -- I think he indicated that he was still gathering information. But the reason for the status

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 311 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 conference is really to apprise the Court of this development which is inconsistent with the preliminary injunction order that's in place, to let the Court know that we believe the estate has to step in, and, you know, immediately begin paying for the security firm is Taurus Fund is not going to do it, and also to, you know, address other issues that are important to the preservation of value of this property going forward.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So that's the update, Your Honor. Again, from our perspective, the main thing was to make sure the Court is aware that the estate, in our view, has to step in and start covering these costs, but I'll leave it there and let the trustee add anything he would like to add and then, obviously, I'm happy to answer any questions or to respond to any comments that Mr. Conway may offer.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, good afternoon. The cost of the security is \$14,200 a week and as Mr. Bassett mentioned, there's a seventy-five or \$77,000 tax bill coming due August 1st. And, obviously, the estate cannot be in a position where it's funding an entity that claims that we don't own. You know, it's okay for us to fund it if we own it, but not when we're in limbo.

23 24 25 So, you know, obviously, Mr. Conway will express Taurus Fund's view, but my view is that if that's going to be the game, then we need to go, and we're ready to go relief

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 312 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with regard to summary judgment on that property, given what has been said about the property and how it was purchased and all that in the criminal trial, but I'll let Mr. Conway address whether they're actually going to start paying again or whatever the plan is. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Conway? (No verbal response) THE COURT: You're on mute. MR. DESPINS: Mike, you're on mute. THE COURT: There you go. MR. CONWAY: Thank you. Rookie mistake, Your Honor. I was copied on the note that went out Sunday night to the security company and it said that there was a finding that the house had been forfeited to the government and, therefore, there was no ownership apparently left. I asked -- this came from the manager that had been hired by Taurus Fund. After I spoke with Mr. Bassett, I reached out to the manager -- actually, I think I reached out to him, I probably talked to him after I spoke with Mr. Bassett and said, Why would you send such an email? And he said, Well, the Court found that the house was forfeited; that's their understanding.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 313 of 500

1 2 3 4 And I said, Well, you need to get back in touch with the client and the person who has the purse strings and find out whether we're still paying, because the house hasn't been forfeited.

5 6 And he said, Well, I don't understand. I read that it was forfeited.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 So that's where we left it. I'm still waiting for other information. There was a miscommunication and, you know, obviously, (indiscernible) read the proceedings differently and as Mr. Despins points out, we've been funding 14,000 and change every week for some time now with no access to the property, mind you. So, you know, there's certainly no dispute on our part that it's important, given the fact that there's property, personal property in the property, which belongs to our client, mind you, and we want that protected. But we also do believe that there is a little bit of injustice here that our client is unable to use its own property and is expected to maintain the costs of the trustee in protecting that property.

20 21 22 23 So -- and I'm just responding to the comments that there's some inequity here of the estate having to pay for anything. Right now, the estate is the reason why our client can't use its own property.

24 25 So, that said, I wish I had more information, Your Honor. All I have is that our client's manager, I think,

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 erroneously sent an email saying that we no longer own the property, because it's been forfeited to the government, and that's where we stand. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? The concept that a manager, the loan-level person who is actually in charge of paying the bill went on his own made that determination is interesting, but, you know, I have serious doubt about that. And the reason his client can't use the property is because the client is in jail; that's why he can't use the property. That's a (indiscernible) of the state of facts. So, I don't get it. THE COURT: Say that again. I missed the second thing you said, Trustee Despins. MR. DESPINS: The reason -- you said the client can't use the property. The reason the client cannot use the property is because the client is in jail. Mr. Kwok is the owner of the property. He can't use the property because he's in jail, the same way he can't use the (indiscernible) property or The Sherry-Netherland. So, in any event, the point is, I think that what's happening here is -- we'll hear a little more about this in Greenwich Land -- is that they're holding up the purchase. They understand what's going on with Mr. Kwok and Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 314 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 315 of 500

1 2 3 I think that this is not an action that somehow a manager, on his own, made the decision, decided to cut off their funding. Somebody else decided that (indiscernible).

The point I'm making --

5 6 7 MR. CONWAY: I don't know if Your Honor wants me to respond to any of that, but none of it was based on fact; it's all Mr. Despins' opinion and it's all inaccurate.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And, frankly, I don't represent Mr. Kwok. When we got involved in this case, I had to ask them who Mr. Kwok was. I had no idea who he was. We're talking about Taurus Fund LLC and to this day, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that anybody under Taurus Fund LLC owns the property and, in fact, in my recent conversation yesterday, I was told, oh, well, there was evidence at the criminal trial that Taurus Fund was trying to lease a portion of the property to the wife of Mr. Kwok. If that's not evidence that he doesn't own it, I'm not sure what it, because why would he lease -- THE COURT: Well, we don't need to worry about all that because none of it is in the record, okay.

20 21 22 23 24 MR. CONWAY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: What we do need to worry about is -- MR. CONWAY: And I would just ask that Mr. Despins be reminded that neither of us should be making assertions based on evidence that's not in the record.

THE COURT: Well, let's talk a minute, first of

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 316 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all, Mister -- Attorney Conway. You've talked -- I think I've asked you more than once who is your client and who are you getting direction from. I don't think I've ever gotten an answer to that question, but you obviously talked to somebody yesterday about something. I still don't know who your client is and who you take direction from. But the email -- and it wasn't a note; it was an email, according to what I've seen that was filed on the docket of this case -- is saying that the house was forfeited. It's not a house, but the mansion was forfeited to the government. There's no information that I can see on the docket of this case or this adversary proceeding that would support that conclusion by this person named -- hold on a second -- the email came from -- MR. CONWAY: Qi Yong, Your Honor. THE COURT: What? MR. CONWAY: His name is Qi Yong; he's the manager. THE COURT: Okay. So what did he base his belief on, because there's nothing that I've seen that would say that anything's been forfeited to the government. So where does that come from? There has to be some basis for that belief and I don't see anything that would support that belief.

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Did he show you anything -- MR. CONWAY: It's an incorrect belief. THE COURT: -- that would support that belief? MR. CONWAY: No. I did speak with him, as I mentioned, Your Honor, and he told me -- I asked him, Where did you get that belief? He said he read it in the paper. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that seems somewhat extreme to then say, We're not going to pay anything, because of that, without talking to you. You're his lawyer, right? You're the lawyer for Taurus Fund and he is the manager of Taurus Fund. That seems somewhat extreme, don't you think? MR. CONWAY: Well, it seemed inappropriate to me and I let him know that. THE COURT: Okay. Good. All right. So, then, you've let him know it's inappropriate, number one. Number two, did you ask him about this last invoice that was paid where there was going to be an ACH transfer that was going to be received today according to his email? I don't know for what services that covers. Does that cover just last week or does it cover beyond that? I don't know what the invoice is for, so it's a little difficult to understand what's been paid to the security company, okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 317 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 318 of 500

| | 16 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, they were payments | | 2 | through Monday at midnight; meaning, Monday at midnight or | | 3 | Sunday night, midnight, and then, so that's why I received a | | 4 | call from this gentleman saying, We're pulling out, you know, | | 5 | we're getting paid until Sunday night. | | 6 | And I had to tell him, Don't do that. I'll cover | | 7 | what needs to be covered until further notice. So, it was | | 8 | until Sunday night that just passed. | | 9 | THE COURT: All right. Well, his -- the email | | 10 | from a person who's name is Johnson Qi -- K -- Q-i, is that | | 11 | who you're talking about, Attorney Conway? | | 12 | MR. CONWAY: His name is Qi Yong in his email. I | | 13 | guess whoever reads these uses the name "Johnson," but his | | 14 | name is Qi Yong, Y-o-n-g. | | 15 | THE COURT: His first name is Q-i? | | 16 | MR. CONWAY: Q-i Y-o-n-g. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. Q-i, is his first name and his | | 18 | last name is Y-o-u -- say it again, please. I'm sorry. | | 19 | MR. CONWAY: Y-o-n-g. | | 20 | THE COURT: Y-o-n-g. | | 21 | Who sent an email from an email address: | | 22 | Johnsonfalcon7@gmail.com to hi -- to Hawkeye Security, to | | 23 | Franco at Hawkeye Security at 8:26 p.m. on Sunday, July 28th, | | 24 | okay. | | 25 | So, what you're saying is -- I believe what you're | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 319 of 500

1 2 3 saying is that that's a mistake. He acted erroneously, and that the payments are going to continue to be made to pay the security.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Is that what you're saying, Attorney Conway? MR. CONWAY: That's what I asked him to find out. I haven't heard back yet. He expressed a concern about the ability to make the payments going forward, given the fact that he thought that the -- Your Honor, I can't speak to his state of mind, but he acted as if I was telling him an indirect fact when I told him that this house had not been forfeited. It was as if he didn't believe me.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 So I've asked him to confirm for me, you know, what, if anything, we can expect going forward, with respect to payments. At the same time, I conferred with Mr. Bassett and agree with Mr. Bassett that, you know, if we don't have money coming in, you know, we think it's important to either protect the personal property within the house there, or move it someplace elsewhere it can be protected.

19 20 21 The house, itself, obviously, isn't going to be stolen and, frankly, it's not being used. It hasn't been used since Your Honor put the order in effect.

22 23 24 So there are ways to try to fix the problem, but right now, I'm not sure what to tell you, other than I'm waiting for information.

THE COURT: And when do you expect to have this

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information? MR. CONWAY: I have no expectations, Your Honor, other than I've asked for it. I've been -- I will continue to push as hard as I can to get information as quickly as I can say. That's all I can say. THE COURT: Where's Mr. Johnson located or Mr. Yong, where is he located? MR. CONWAY: I believe he's -- the reason he was hired is because he lives somewhere near the property. THE COURT: Who hired him? MR. CONWAY: Taurus Fund. THE COURT: Who at Taurus Fund made that decision? MR. CONWAY: Well, I can't tell for sure, but the contract is signed by David Fallon. You know, if there was somebody else that helped David Fallon, I can't tell you that. It's a fund, so -- but David Fallon is the one who formally engaged him. THE COURT: Okay. Well, if these payments aren't made, then they're going to be in violation of an existing order and they could be subject to sanctions, including jail. Do they understand that? MR. CONWAY: I got it. THE COURT: I think you need to make sure that you communicate that to them. I mean, this is a very odd situation, Attorney Conway, and I'm hearing you say you don't Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 320 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 321 of 500

| 1 | know when you're going to get a response. | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | I understand you didn't cause the issue, but the | | 3 | problem is that's not an acceptable answer. This is an | | 4 | asset. Whether you agree or not, this is subject to an order | | 5 | of this Court, with regard to this being an asset of the | | 6 | estate. And I understand if you don't agree -- that's fine; | | 7 | I'm not quarrelling with that at all -- but the status is, | | 8 | right now, that this property is subject to an order of this | | 9 | Court and if your client isn't going to abide by that, then | | 10 | they're going to be subject to sanctions, which could | | 11 | include, you know, possible jail if they're not going to pay | | 12 | what they're ordered to pay. | | 13 | I mean, we've been through this before; this isn't | | 14 | new. I don't mean about payment, but what I'm saying is, | | 15 | this is the order. Whether they like it or not, it's the | | 16 | order, and to somehow cause a commotion by saying it's | | 17 | been -- he believes, because he read in the paper that -- and | | 18 | he didn't talk to anybody and he just sends an email saying, | | 19 | We're not going to pay you anymore, that doesn't sound like a | | 20 | thing that -- that doesn't sound like an action that a | | 21 | manager would take, exercising reasonable business judgment, | | 22 | to me. | | 23 | And that's your client. Your client is what your | | 24 | client is. So I think you need to -- we need to have an | | 25 | answer, not "I don't know when." And I'm not -- I'm saying | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 322 of 500

1 2 3 to you, I understand that what you said to me, but you need to have an answer to that question. I'm going -- I will have an answer by tomorrow or Thursday.

4 5 6 7 8 9 We've been through this on "there's no insurance"; we've already been through this. I mean, this isn't going to work. You represent this client. If I have to have an order bringing your client into court to explain to me what is going on and from whom they're getting their authority, I will do so and that can be as soon as tomorrow or Thursday.

10 11 12 13 14 15 So I don't know how you want to proceed, but that this is -- you know, you're saying it's incorrect; well, then, they've got to pay. So I need to know that they're going to pay, otherwise, they're going to be in this courtroom tomorrow or Thursday and I'll have the United States Marshals go get them, Mr. Fallon and Mr. Yong.

16 17 18 So I don't know if you want to have a conversation with your client this afternoon, but I would certainly suggest that you do.

19 20 MR. CONWAY: I will do my best, Your Honor, as I've been doing so far.

21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, I need their addresses. I need to know where they are so I can send the U.S. Marshals to where they need to go to get these people to come into court, and you need -- you have an address for them, you have to. So I need that information.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 323 of 500

| 1 | MR. CONWAY: Okay. Well, do you want me to give | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | that to you now, because I don't have that now? I've given | | 3 | that information to the trustee, so the trustee can give it | | 4 | to you just as easily as I can. | | 5 | THE COURT: Yeah, but they're your clients -- | | 6 | MR. DESPINS: I'm not sure that -- | | 7 | THE COURT: -- Mr. Conway. They're your clients. | | 8 | MR. CONWAY: Excuse me? | | 9 | THE COURT: They're your clients. | | 10 | MR. CONWAY: They're my clients, Your Honor, but | | 11 | remember, what we're doing here today is a status conference. | | 12 | This was not a motion. This was not a hearing on contempt. | | 13 | This is not something that I even had time to -- | | 14 | THE COURT: Mr. Conway -- | | 15 | MR. CONWAY: -- I just got out of court, Your | | 16 | Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: Mr. Conway -- there's already orders | | 18 | in place -- | | 19 | MR. CONWAY: Yes, there are, Your Honor. | | 20 | THE COURT: -- that your client needs to abide by. | | 21 | And if they're not abiding by them, then I will take whatever | | 22 | action I think is appropriate. | | 23 | MR. CONWAY: That's fine, Your Honor. And you | | 24 | have the -- you're the judge. | | 25 | THE COURT: This is a valuable lesson. As we all | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 324 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know, we already had this whole thing about insurance. We went through this many, many, many months ago. If your clients are going to assert that they are not going to pay and you don't have an answer that they actually are going to pay, then I will do what I think is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. So -- MR. CONWAY: Well, all we can do, Your Honor, is find out. Right now, all we have is counsel coming to you asking for a status conference before anybody had time to figure out what was going on. So if you'll give me the benefit of the doubt and let me try and reach my client, then I can report back. But, Your Honor -- THE COURT: I think I just suggested that to you. I'm not suggesting I'm not -- MR. CONWAY: Okay. And I'm hearing you, Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- giving you the opportunity -- MR. CONWAY: -- loud and clear. THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Conway. Let me finish my statement, please. I didn't suggest that you didn't have the opportunity to contact you client; in fact, I said, I think you better call them this afternoon. That's exactly what I said, so I don't know what your argument is. You need to get

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an answer. MR. CONWAY: I'm not sure -- okay, my point only is, Your Honor, I hear you and I'm going to do what you asked. THE COURT: Okay, good. Because I need an answer. I need to know whether or not they're going to make these payments, including the real estate taxes. This is not -- you know, this is a bankruptcy estate, Mr. Conway -- and I'm not suggesting you think anything to the contrary -- however, the Court has to make sure that the assets of the bankruptcy estate, and unless and until they're not, if you win on appeal and all those other things, are secure. And if payments aren't going to be made by your client, who's bound by an existing order to do so, then appropriate steps will be taken. We can't -- this isn't a situation where we have 21 days to file a response; that's not going to happen. There's already an existing order in place and that existing order needs to be complied with, and if it's not going to be complied with, I need it in writing that it's not going to be custom replied with and why, and who provided you with the authority to say that. Because you represent a corporate entity, you have -- there has to be somebody with authority; that's how it works, we all know that. So, Trustee Despins and Attorney Conway, I think Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 325 of 500

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 326 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what we need to do is establish a time frame by which Attorney Conway is going to get back to the Court on this issue. Right now, supposedly, the security has been paid through Sunday night. Trustee Despins, that's what you're telling me? MR. DESPINS: That's correct. Your Honor, I become liable from Monday. THE COURT: And that's the normal course; they pay at the end of each week? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: So the week of July 29th through August 3rd would be paid on August 3rd? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that's 14,000-some-odd dollars. I don't need to know the exact amount, but that's what you're telling me, correct? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: And those amounts have been paid, without interruption, during the course of this adversary proceeding, correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Have real estate taxes been paid at all during the course of this adversary proceeding? MR. DESPINS: Real estate taxes have been paid, but as I said, there's a payment of seventy-five or \$77,000

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coming due on August 1st. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: But to date, the other payments -- THE COURT: I'm just asking, have there been real estate payments made to date -- MR. DESPINS: Yes -- THE COURT: -- by Taurus Fund with regard to this house? MR. DESPINS: -- yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And do you have -- MR. DESPINS: I don't know who made the payments, but payments were made. THE COURT: Okay. Do you happen to know the approximate amount? I mean, is this -- does New Jersey work as a two times a year you pay the taxes and they're \$75,000 twice a year or how does it work? MR. DESPINS: I don't recall precisely, but I thought there were two payments in 2024 already made, much smaller, and now I'm really speculating, but I thought they were in 20,000 range. Mr. Bassett may have (indiscernible) who listed that. So it's -- so I think some payments were made in 2024. I think there were two payments, in the fifteen-totwenty-thousand-dollar range, but I -- this is where I'm a little bit -- you know, I can't be that precise. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 327 of 500

| 1 | Mr. Bassett? | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | MR. BASSETT: Actually, yeah, the records that | | 3 | looking at, I mean, they're just publicly available, you | | 4 | know, county records, they actually show that two payments of | | 5 | approximately \$69,000 were made this year; one on May 1st, | | 6 | 2024, and another on February 21st, 2024. There was also | | 7 | payments of approximately \$70,000 made in, you know, November | | 8 | of 2023 and August of 2023, May of 2023, February of 2023. | | 9 | So, Your Honor, it looks like there are quarterly payments | | 10 | due of approximately \$70,000 each. | | 11 | THE COURT: Right. It sounds like quarterly | | 12 | payments, that's right. | | 13 | So they've been made through May of 2024, | | 14 | according to the records you're looking at, Attorney Bassett? | | 15 | MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. | | 16 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | 17 | So, Attorney Conway and Trustee Despins, there's | | 18 | two ways we can go. You can come up and tell me what works | | 19 | for both of you on agreement or I can tell you when, Attorney | | 20 | Conway, you need to file some kind of document, or we can | | 21 | have another status conference and you can tell me. | | 22 | But I'm telling you right now, I need to know if | | 23 | these payments are going to be made to the security company | | 24 | and the real estate taxes and that Taurus Fund has told you, | | 25 | through an authorized representative, whomever that is -- and | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 329 of 500

I want to know who it is -- that they are going to be made. And if they're not going to be made and the decision is that they're not going to be made, then I want to know what representative of Taurus Fund has decided not to comply with the order and not to meet its obligations as a business, as an entity, and then I will bring that person into court and they will be subject to an examination.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 So, how do you want to proceed? Do you two want to talk after this or do you want me to set a date right now? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, as much as we'd like to talk to Mr. Conway, who's a real gentleman, the issue is a pretty simple one: they'll make the payment or not make the payment. There should be a date by which they report to the Court that they will or will not make the payment. That date should be pretty short, like Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., something like that.

17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Okay. I will do that with the understanding that if you and Mr. Conway come to some agreement or he provides something satisfactory to you in the meantime --

MR. DESPINS: Sure.

22 23 THE COURT: -- then there won't be a need to file something.

24 25 MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. Thank you. THE COURT: So I will set the time frame for

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 330 of 500

| 1 | Mr. Conway to report to you -- well, maybe he's going to -- | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | actually, it's going to be something filed on the docket, | | 3 | much like -- didn't we do that with regard to the insurance, | | 4 | the fact that there was no insurance on the property, wasn't | | 5 | it filed on the docket of the case -- | | 6 | MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. | | 7 | THE COURT: -- of the adversary, I should say? | | 8 | MR. DESPINS: Yes. | | 9 | THE COURT: Then, by noon -- I'm going to say | | 10 | by 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1st, Attorney Conway -- | | 11 | MR. DESPINS: That's Thursday, Your Honor. | | 12 | THE COURT: What did I just say, Tuesday? I'm | | 13 | sorry. | | 14 | MR. DESPINS: Tuesday. | | 15 | THE COURT: I'm sorry. | | 16 | By 11:00 a.m. -- | | 17 | MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, if I may? | | 18 | THE COURT: Yes? | | 19 | MR. CONWAY: If I may have until 5:00? I'm in | | 20 | court in Texas on Thursday, so it would be very helpful to me | | 21 | to have until 5:00. | | 22 | THE COURT: I'll give you until 5:00 -- | | 23 | MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 24 | THE COURT: -- till 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, | | 25 | August 1st, you'll have to file something on the docket of | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 331 of 500

| 1 | this adversary proceeding that indicates that the Taurus Fund | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | will make all payments, due and owing, with regard to the | | 3 | property, including, but not limited to the weekly security | | 4 | services payment and the real estate taxes, and you will tell | | 5 | me who provided you with that authority, their name and their | | 6 | address, where they can be served and/or the United States | | 7 | Marshals Service can come, bring them into this court, or you | | 8 | can -- and/or you can say that you're not going -- that | | 9 | Taurus Fund is not going to make the payments and the same | | 10 | information will be necessary. | | 11 | Who is the person that was authorized to make that | | 12 | decision on behalf of Taurus Fund and what is their -- where | | 13 | is the address that they are located, both home and business | | 14 | addresses, so that they can be served and the United States | | 15 | Marshals can bring them into this court. | | 16 | Are there any questions, with regard to that? | | 17 | MR. CONWAY: No, Your Honor. | | 18 | I would just point out that my not objecting on | | 19 | the record doesn't mean that I waive the right to state that | | 20 | I don't believe that's an appropriate remedy for a | | 21 | corporation who decides that they can't do something or can | | 22 | do something. It's just, with that said, I don't know if | | 23 | it's an appropriate time to raise objections. | | 24 | THE COURT: I think it's completely appropriate | | 25 | for you to raise your objection, but that's overruled. |

| 1 | MR. CONWAY: Well, then, for the record, Your | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | Honor, I object to the idea that a marshal can go out and | | 3 | arrest an officer of a corporation simply because the | | 4 | corporation makes the determination it can or can't do | | 5 | something. I don't know what the determination -- | | 6 | THE COURT: I didn't say anything about arrest, | | 7 | Attorney Conway; I never used that word. | | 8 | MR. CONWAY: Well, having a marshal go out and put | | 9 | somebody in whatever they have to put them in to drag them | | 10 | into court, sounds like an arrest. | | 11 | THE COURT: Well, we'll see. We see how you do | | 12 | and what you file by the -- I never used the word; that's | | 13 | your word, so you can figure out how you want to interpret | | 14 | that. I can issue orders that are supplemental to orders | | 15 | that are already in existence in this adversary proceeding. | | 16 | All right. So I think that concludes the Taurus | | 17 | Fund status conference; is that correct? | | 18 | MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. | | 19 | THE COURT: All right. So then, let's move to -- | | 20 | thank you, Attorney Conway. You do not need to stay, but | | 21 | you're welcome to if you'd like to. | | 22 | MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 23 | THE COURT: Then let's move to the Greenwich Land | | 24 | status conference, please. | | 25 | MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. Again, Nick | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 333 of 500

1 2 Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee, for the record.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 So, Your Honor, again, this is -- the general background here is set forth in the request for the status conference that we filed on the docket of the adversary proceeding. In short, this relates to the motion for stay pending appeal that the Defendants have filed with Your Honor. Your Honor has entered a scheduling order that sets the trustee's objection deadline for, I believe, August 6th, and I believe there's a hearing currently scheduled for August 20th or the 22nd, one of those two dates. I apologize.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 We -- it's the 20th -- we, last Monday, so eight days ago, served very narrow discovery requests, and we had also previewed to counsel that we would be serving such discovery requests before we did, we served discovery requests on the 22nd and, again, they were very narrow. We had six requests for documents. We also sought a limited deposition.

20 21 22 23 24 25 The information that we're seeking, we believe, is directly relevant to the request for the stay. We're seeking information that we need an order to test the various assertions that Defendants are making in their motion to evaluate the factors, including prejudice to, alleged prejudice to the Defendants, potential harm to the estate, et

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 334 of 500

1 2 cetera, that the Court needs to evaluate when considering a stay motion.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In brief, if I can just summarize, quickly, the six requests? So, Your Honor, we're asking for, first, copies of any documents related to bills, invoices, upkeep - and this is kind of a common refrain, you know, going back to the status conference we just had on the Taurus Fund to understand what types of payments are due to maintain the property, whether it be taxes, utilities, et cetera, and documentation showing whether those things are being paid, and if so, from what source; obviously, that's critically necessary to know if the property is going to be maintained if the stay that's being requested is granted.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 We also have asked for bank statements so that we can evaluate, you know, where the source of these funds are coming and also see if there's been any dissipation of Greenwich Land assets, i.e., funds in bank accounts, either before or after the Court's summary judgment ruling, which obviously would be highly relevant to prejudice to the estate in the event of a stay.

21 22 23 24 25 We're also seeking documents concerning the Defendant -- the debtor's wife's -- I'm sorry -- her alleged ownership of personal property and other assets located in the house, because that's been one of the issues that has arisen on the motion for stay; the assertion being that there

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 335 of 500

1 2 3 would be prejudice if we tried to sell the house with its contents because some of those contents allegedly belong to Ms. Ngok, so we sought documents on that issue.

4 5 6 7 8 We've also sought documents related to any movement of property to or from the mansion; again, it goes to whether or not the property that's located there is truly owned by the Defendant. It also goes to the potential dissipation of assets.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And then, lastly, Your Honor, we sought copies of insurance policies and related documents, such as any appraisals, that would help us understand the value of the house; obviously, insurance is critical. We also want to understand what the land is worth versus what the house and the developments on the land are worth; all of that is essentially relevant to, not only the request for the stay, but also to the extent that the Court were to entertain the stay request, the appropriate level of bond that would be required to ensure that the estate is fully protected for the duration of any stay.

20 21 22 23 24 25 So, Your Honor, that's the narrow discovery we sought. We also want to ask Ms. Ngok questions in a deposition about those narrow topics. We sent the discovery requests, as I said, on the 22nd; eight days ago. Immediately, in that same email, which is attached to our status conference request, offered to meet and confer. We

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 336 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 didn't hear anything. I followed up two days later with Attorney Major and said, Just following up, we are obviously under a tight timeline here. We need this information. I'm happy to meet and confer. Again, didn't hear back. We then, had no choice but to file a status conference request on Friday and now, here we are.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 We still have not had an opportunity to meet and confer. We still have not been assured that any discovery is being provided. Again, we don't see how we can go forward at a hearing upon, you know, at which the Defendants bear the burden to seek a stay if we are unable to test their assertions and fully understand, based on, you know, some underlying documentation and testimony, et cetera, as to the, you know, the facts relevant to the various considerations that the Court must take into account in evaluating their motion.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 So, Your Honor, again, the purpose of the conference today, we would ask the Court is to make clear what we think we are entitled to already, which is responses to our discovery. I'm obviously happy to hear from counsel to the Defendants and I'm happy to answer any questions, but that's kind of the description of the purpose of the conference today, Your Honor.

24 25 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, before we go there, if I may, just two minutes?

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 337 of 500

THE COURT: Go ahead.

2 3 4 5 MR. DESPINS: I've always had doubts about this, but I think now it's pretty clear: there's no insurance on that house. And I'm really -- well, I'll just say it's bankruptcy malpractice for me not to raise this.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 You know, this is a six million, \$7 million asset with no insurance -- I hope Mr. Major will correct me, but I don't think he can -- and my point is they're dead on arrival on the stay hearing. So we're going to spend a lot of money preparing for this, but if they know -- and I guarantee they will not pay the taxes due on August 1st, because it's not - they don't have insurance and they know they're dead on arrival at a stay hearing because -- and I don't want to presume what Your Honor will do -- but I know from prior cases, as you mentioned, insurance is number one always, and they can't get insurance now; they're uninsurable.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, to me, that's changed the circumstances. You gracefully gave them more time for a stay hearing, et cetera, et cetera, but if we had known that there is no insurance on that property, I'm not sure it would have played out that way. So we ask the discovery issues that Mr. Bassett raised and (indiscernible) address that, but I really wanted to address the issue of no insurance. And I question the idea of going to a full stay evidentiary hearing when they're going to show up with no insurance for that property. Thank

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 338 of 500

| 1 | you, Your Honor. | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | 3 | Attorney Major? | | 4 | MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 5 | I think for a variety of reasons, including my | | 6 | client's condition, that I agree with -- and I'm saying this | | 7 | without prejudice to my client's rights and arguments and | | 8 | where this all may go -- but I agree with the trustee that | | 9 | perhaps we should not be going through the stay litigation. | | 10 | And I'd like an opportunity, if the Court will give it to me, | | 11 | and if the trustee will oblige, if I could try to convince | | 12 | the trustee through private negotiation over the next couple | | 13 | of days, to come to some resolution of the stay litigation | | 14 | that would balance his concerns and I think help my client, | | 15 | given the condition that she's in. | | 16 | And so, I don't want to say too much more than | | 17 | that in terms of, you know, where I want to try to take this. | | 18 | I would love if we could do it with a mediator. I don't | | 19 | think there's sufficient time, but I'd like to have a little | | 20 | bit of time with an audience on behalf of the trustee, | | 21 | whether it be one of his lawyers or himself -- whatever his | | 22 | team can accommodate -- to see if we could reach some form of | | 23 | a resolution of the stay motion. I think we can, but I'd | | 24 | like to have that opportunity if I could. | | 25 | MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, I would say the | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 339 of 500

1 2 same thing I said to Mr. Conway. Mr. Major is a gentleman. He's in an awful position, unfortunately.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And for the trustee to accept the concept that somebody who has been found not to be the owner would stay in the house that's uninsured, they're not paying taxes, Your Honor, they're pulling (indiscernible). They know that as a result of the criminal conviction, the game is over. That's why they're stopping to pay at Taurus, because they know they will lose Taurus, regardless if they lose it to me or to the government; they will lose it and the same thing for this house.

12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Major has no argument on the stay. He knows that. He's trying to do the best for his client, and I respect that, but if something happened to that property on my watch and I allowed this to happen, somebody would say, You should have your head examined, trustee, for having allowed that.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I don't want to sound like a horrible person. I understand what he's saying, but we're dealing with a criminal enterprise. That's not -- you remember, this whole thing was a criminal enterprise and in that context, where there's no insurance, there should be zero tolerance in your court. And I really feel bad about putting you, Your Honor, on the spot like this, but we just cannot allow this to go on; it's too dangerous and they know it's too dangerous.

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 340 of | |---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------| | | | 500 | | |

MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. MAJOR: So, the Court set -- and this was, you

4 5 6 7 8 9 know, a schedule that the trustee asked to be moved -- but upon the consent motion that trustee filed, the Court set a deadline of this coming Friday, August 2nd, for my client to file a statement regarding property insurance and taxes. And so only after that order was entered did the trustee seek to unilaterally move that date through the discovery request.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 What I'm proposing is a negotiation this week that does not alter the timeline that the Court set, with input from the trustee. And I don't think that it is too much to ask for, under the circumstances, for the trustee to negotiate with us during that window. We're already -- our client is already under an obligation to file on Friday, that information.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And so -- and we've reached out to the trustee, albeit, shortly before the hearing, because I just recently met with the client yet again and, you know, went to proceed on this path and that's why I reached out to the trustee today and started that process. And I understand it's got to be done very quickly and we're prepared to do that. And that's -- I don't think we should deviate from the original schedule, with the exception that I'm going to do my best to try to reach some consensual resolution of the stay

Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 341 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 litigation. THE COURT: So just, Attorney Major, so I understand -- I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to make sure that I do. So you would like to have discussions, ongoing discussions with the trustee this week to try to resolve the issue of a motion for stay pending appeal without having to deal with discovery issues and the actual hearing on the stay pending appeal; is that what you're saying? MR. MAJOR: So, Your Honor, the hearing on the stay is set for August 20th. THE COURT: Right. MR. MAJOR: The discovery issues, you know, I think would be necessary to resolve if that hearing is going forward. Well, what I'm suggesting is that we discuss resolving the stay motion so that there wouldn't be a hearing. THE COURT: Right. MR. MAJOR: I understand, for sure, not just from what you've said today during this status conference, but from what the trustee has said to me during phone calls, that some of what's in their discovery requests would have to be part of some resolution of the stay litigation. And so I think that that is something that we understand in terms of information that the trustee is going to want as part of any

# 40 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 342 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sort of a resolution of the stay litigation. And, again, I'm saying this without prejudice to the arguments in our stay motion and so forth, but I just - again, being with my client, I think it's in her best interests, given her physical condition, that I work something out with the trustee, and maybe it's not possible, but I'd like to try. THE COURT: All right. So let's -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, consensually -- THE COURT: Hold on a second, Trustee Despins. So let's assume that you both agree that that makes sense to have a conversation between now and Friday; let's just make that assumption. And then let's also assume you don't work anything out. You still have to file something on the docket of this adversary proceeding on Friday as to whether or not there's insurance and taxes have been paid; do you understand that? MR. MAJOR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And you're not asking for that date to change? MR. MAJOR: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Because it can't. I don't see any way that that can change unless there's an agreement with the trustee. Okay. I think that's what I -- that's all I'm

41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to say for now. Attorney -- Trustee Despins, were you going to respond to Attorney Major? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, consensually, I'm always happy to talk to people, but the insurance is a deal-breaker. I cannot -- you can overrule me, and if that's your determination, that's perfectly fine -- but I cannot consensually agree that it's okay to have somebody who's been found not to own the house to live in the house without insurance. So, I'm happy to talk, but I don't want to mislead anyone about what's going to happen. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, if I may? The only other observation I would make is that if we were to proceed down this path of trying to have discussions this week while keeping in place the deadline for counsel to file proof of insurance and other information on the docket, the other issue, of course, we run into if we don't have a resolution is we would, then, still, as counsel noted, need responses to the discovery. So I think at that juncture, we would maybe have some wiggle room with the objection deadline of the 6th and a hearing date of the 20th to potentially move out our objection deadline to allow for discovery to take place, you know, next week in advance of that. But I think we would have to deal with that issue of the timing and sequencing Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 343 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 344 of 500

| 1 | under the current schedule, Your Honor. | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | THE COURT: I understand. | | 3 | So what are we -- how are we concluding this today | | 4 | as far as there is an order in place, ECF 147, that extended | | 5 | out the deadlines, including the deadline for the Greenwich | | 6 | parties to file the insurance and taxes notice to August 2nd, | | 7 | which is Friday. I just asked Attorney Major that he knows | | 8 | he's got to file that, even if there isn't an agreement with | | 9 | the trustee. | | 10 | If there is an agreement with the trustee, I don't | | 11 | know what it's going to be, so you all will have to figure | | 12 | that out. | | 13 | But Attorney Major, I know I heard you clearly. | | 14 | I've asked you the question on the record. You understand | | 15 | you have to file it. | | 16 | If you don't -- if you do not file anything on | | 17 | August 2nd, then, you know, we'll see where things go. If | | 18 | there isn't an agreement and the trustee is requesting -- | | 19 | well, already has requested discovery, under the | | 20 | circumstances of this specific adversary proceeding and the | | 21 | circumstances of the larger Chapter 11 cases, I think the | | 22 | discovery is warranted and I, you know, do not see any reason | | 23 | why it shouldn't be complied with. | | 24 | I understand what you're saying about your | | 25 | client's health; obviously, we don't know anything about | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 345 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 that, other than what you've said, and I'm not suggesting you have to prove anything at this point in time, but you, as - you're in -- you have to decide how that's going to go after conversations with your client. If there isn't some resolution, I haven't been persuaded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure somehow do not support discovery in this situation, and so that's how I see things from the Court's standpoint right now.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, thank you for those comments. You know, my only point is let's assume that they file something saying there's no insurance and they haven't paid taxes. There needs -- well, they need -- there should be a mechanism to shortcut this because the costs involved - and I need to retain an expert, I've already found a (indiscernible) guy -- having a full-blown hearing on this when we know, I think, that the outcome without any insurance and without the taxes being paid, we know what the outcome is. So I'm not asking you to rule on that today, but I think we may come back to Your Honor very soon to say that there should be -- this hearing should not go forward. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: If that is --

THE COURT: I understand that clearly.

25 MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 346 of 500

| 1 | THE COURT: We'll see what gets filed on Friday. | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 3 | THE COURT: And if there isn't insurance and taxes | | 4 | aren't being paid, then we'll probably be having another | | 5 | status conference Monday or Tuesday of next week, because | | 6 | we -- it can't be -- I mean, Attorney Major, you were here | | 7 | before. I'm not saying anything you haven't already heard. | | 8 | There can't be an asset, whether you agree it's an asset or | | 9 | not, that is uninsured. It is not -- the Bankruptcy Code | | 10 | even references that as a basis for a debtor who had sought | | 11 | affirmative relief not to be in the Bankruptcy Court before. | | 12 | We all know what happened. The debtor sought | | 13 | affirmative relief, but the trustee was appointed. | | 14 | So that's where things stand. So, from the | | 15 | Court's perspective, I'm not sure there's anything else we | | 16 | can do in connection with this adversary proceeding this | | 17 | afternoon. We will see what happens. | | 18 | I encourage you to talk. I have no idea whether | | 19 | it will produce anything, but I obviously encourage you to | | 20 | talk. There isn't a lot of time, obviously, between now and | | 21 | Friday, so, obviously -- and, I mean, I don't need to say it, | | 22 | but I will -- I'll be not happy to hear that the | | 23 | conversations start at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, if that's when | | 24 | the conversation starts. I understand that everybody has a | | 25 | lot of things to deal with, and I'm not suggesting anything | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 347 of 500

1 2 to the contrary, but this is a critical issue in this adversary proceeding.

3 4 5 6 And I understand that you, Attorney Major, would like a stay pending appeal, and you're absolutely entitled to seek that, but you have burdens associated with that, as well, as does the trustee. You both do.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So we need to handle it appropriately under the Federal Rules, applicable Federal Rules in this situation. So we will see what happens on Friday and depending upon what is or is not filed, we will take the next step. And if that means the trustee requests on, you know, which you could do, too, Attorney Major, either one of you could request a status conference over the weekend. I mean, it's not likely that it'll be held on the weekend, but it would be held on Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

16 17 18 19 20 So, does anyone have any questions? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Major, is there anything else that you want to add this afternoon while we're here? MR. MAJOR: Not at this time, Your Honor. Thank

21 you for the time.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

23 24 That concludes the status conference in the Greenwich Land, adversary 23-05005.

Attorney Major, obviously, you are not required to

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stay -- we have another conference in another matter -- but you are welcome to stay if you would like to; that's your choice. MR. MAJOR: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll leave. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. So, now, I'll have the -- I think the people for the 2 o'clock status conference are in the waiting room. THE CLERK: Yes, they are here. THE COURT: You can go ahead and bring them in, please, and then we'll call that matter. Thank you. THE CLERK: Thank you. (Pause) THE CLERK: I think that's it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And, Your Honor, this is in the AIG matter? THE CLERK: Case Number 23-5007, Genever Holdings LLC v AIG Property Casualty Company. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I'm not appearing. I'm not -- this is Genever, so I'm really appearing just to monitor, but I am not really appearing. I'm not -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, go ahead and appear Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 348 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 349 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 47 | | 1 | anyway and we'll go from there, okay? | | 2 | MR. DESPINS: Okay. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 | | 3 | Trustee, in the Kwok case. Thank you, Your Honor. | | 4 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | 5 | MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, Your Honor -- | | 6 | THE COURT: Go ahead, Attorney McCormack. Go | | 7 | ahead. | | 8 | MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. On | | 9 | behalf of Genever Holdings, LLC, I am Michael McCormack from | | 10 | O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss. | | 11 | THE COURT: Good afternoon. | | 12 | MR. O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John | | 13 | O'Connor and John Kavanagh from Steptoe, LLP, for AIG, and | | 14 | Michael Thompson, our Connecticut counsel, is present, as | | 15 | well. | | 16 | THE COURT: Good afternoon to all of you. | | 17 | UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. | | 18 | THE COURT: All right. I looked at the joint | | 19 | response that was filed in connection with the status | | 20 | conference order and I understand the parties' positions, | | 21 | obviously. It wasn't clear to me whether the parties were | | 22 | going to be going forward with discovery, given the fact that | | 23 | the pretrial order had just been amended, I think, maybe two | | 24 | days before the order entered in the main case, staying | | 25 | matters. So, obviously, that's what happened. |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 350 of 500

| 1 | But now we're going to proceed, so I want to know | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | what the parties' plan is, with regard to -- if you've had a | | 3 | discussion, and what your plan is with regard to discovery. | | 4 | MR. O'CONNOR: Your Honor, this is John O'Connor | | 5 | for AIG. | | 6 | I think at this point, we've had discussions, but | | 7 | we've agreed that we need to discuss a revised pretrial | | 8 | schedule, now that the deposition stay is over. I would | | 9 | think, and we worked cooperatively with Genever's counsel on | | 10 | these things, I would think that we could get together, | | 11 | hammer out a proposed, a revised order and submit it to the | | 12 | Court. I don't know if Mr. McCormack agrees or disagrees | | 13 | with that, but that's how I see it. | | 14 | THE COURT: Attorney McCormack? | | 15 | MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you, Your Honor, and good | | 16 | afternoon. | | 17 | I don't disagree with Attorney O'Connor's | | 18 | statements. We're happy to have discussions about an amended | | 19 | pretrial form. I just will stay, though, that I think as we | | 20 | indicated in our motion for summary judgment, we don't | | 21 | believe that additional discovery is necessary to the pending | | 22 | motion for summary judgment. The discovery that would be | | 23 | necessary relates to damages and the other claims in the | | 24 | amended complaint that are not before the Court on the | | 25 | summary judgment motion. |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 351 of 500

| 1 | MR. O'CONNOR: And Your Honor is aware that our | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | view is that there is appropriate discovery going towards the | | 3 | summary judgment motion. But I think we are all in agreement | | 4 | that there is some discovery that needs to be taken and we | | 5 | should work out that schedule and submit it to the Court. | | 6 | THE COURT: Well, I'd like -- and I appreciate the | | 7 | comments of both counsel -- I'd like the discovery schedule | | 8 | to be the same time frame as the schedule that you all agreed | | 9 | to when you amended the pretrial order back in March. So I | | 10 | think the time frame should be the same and, you know, just | | 11 | change the dates and I think we need to move forward. | | 12 | Whether or not I -- as you know, the motion for |

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 summary judgment is under advisement. I will decide what, if anything, I will do while you can proceed with discovery with regard to that motion for summary judgment. But I would like the pretrial order to be presented to the Court by next Friday, August 9th, and I'd like the dates to be the same time frames that were in this existing, first-amended pretrial order, just with different dates.

20 21 Does that make sense to everyone or does anyone have any questions?

22 23 24 25 MR. O'CONNOR: It makes sense to AIG, Your Honor. And I don't think anybody proposed that there was going to be a lengthy -- nobody is going to suggest a year of discovery, let's put it that way.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 352 of 500

| 1 | THE COURT: That's fine, thank you. | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | MR. MCCORMACK: I agree, Your Honor. | | 3 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, both. | | 4 | So, again, I dragged you in here because I wasn't | | 5 | sure what the status was. You've told me in your joint | | 6 | report, and I appreciate that, and now we just need to have | | 7 | that, what will be a second-amended pretrial order enter -- | | 8 | submitted to the Court by August 9th. And whether I see it | | 9 | on August 9th or the next week, it'll enter shortly | | 10 | thereafter, unless there's some concern, which I doubt there | | 11 | will be, that the Court has with regard to the pretrial | | 12 | order. | | 13 | Is there anything else we should discuss this | | 14 | afternoon? | | 15 | MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing from the Plaintiff, Your | | 16 | Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: All right. Sorry to have -- | | 18 | MR. O'CONNOR: Nothing -- | | 19 | MR. DESPINS: Not from the -- | | 20 | THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry, Trustee Despins. Go | | 21 | ahead. | | 22 | MR. DESPINS: No, I was just going to say, not | | 23 | from our perspective, and then thank you to the Court for | | 24 | making yourself available on all of these status conferences; | | 25 | I really appreciate it, thank you. | | | |

51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. And I, again, I'm sorry for all of you on this adversary that you had to wait. The other status conferences went a little longer than anticipated. But as I noted to people last week, at least you didn't have to be here when there was no air-conditioning in our building, so that's kind of helpful for all of you, hopefully. (Laughter) UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: That was my thought, Your Honor, that at least we were (indiscernible). Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you all very much. That concludes today's hearings, so Court is adjourned. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. THE CLERK: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:46 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 353 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 354 of | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------| | | 500 | 52 | | 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | 6 | | | | 7 | /s/ William J. Garling | August 1, 2024 | | 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | 10 | For Reliable | | | 11 | | | | 12 | | | | 13 | | | | 14 | | | | 15 | | | | 16 | | | | 17 | | | | 18 | | | | 19 | | | | 20 | | | | 21 | | | | 22 | | | | 23 | | | | 24 | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | |

# **EXHIBIT 5**

**August 13, 2024 Hearing Transcript**

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC and . Adversary Proceeding LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . No. 23-05002 (JAM) TRUSTEE, . . Plaintiff, . . v. . . HO WAN KWOK, HING CHI NGOK, . QIANG GUO, AND MEI GUO, . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, et al., . Adversary Proceeding . No. 23-05017 (JAM) Plaintiffs, . . v. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendants. . . Tuesday, August 13, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:12 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE (Continued) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 356 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 357 of | |----|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | | | 500 | 2 | | | | | | | | 1 | APPEARANCES: | | | | | 2 | For the Chapter 11 Trustee: | | Patrick Linsey, Esquire | | | 3 | | | NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street | | | 4 | | | 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | | 5 | | | -and- | | | 6 | | | Luc A. Despins, Esquire | | | 7 | | | Shlomo Maza, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP | | | 8 | | | 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 | | | 9 | | | Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire | | | 10 | | | 2050 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 | | | 11 | | | | | | 12 | For the U.S. Trustee: | | Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE | | | 13 | | | The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 | | | 14 | | | New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | | 15 | | | | | | 16 | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | 19 | (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) | | | | | 20 | Audio Operator: | | Electronically recorded | | | 21 | Transcription Company: | | Reliable The Nemours Building | | | 22 | | | 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 | | | 23 | | | Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com | | | 24 | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, | | | | | 25 | | | transcript produced by transcription service. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 358 of

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund: Annecca H. Smith, Esquire ROBINSON & COLE, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 -and- Stuart M. Sarnoff, Esquire O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 For the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors: Kristin B. Mayhew, Esquire PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 850 Main Street 8th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601 For G Club Operations, Weddle Law PLLC, FFP BVI Limited, Ogier, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511 For Yankwitt, LLP; Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer, LLP; Brune Law, P.C.; and Petrillo Klein + Boxer, LLP: Anthony J. Proscia, Esquire KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, LLP 40 Exchange Place 20th Floor New York, New York 10005 500

Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 359 of

| | | 500 | 4 | |----|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---| | 1 | APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): | | | | 2 | For Meta | | | | 3 | Platforms, Inc., and Apple, Inc.: | Jin Yan, Esquire | | | 4 | | ARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP 1717 K Street NW Washington DC 20006 | | | 5 | For Hing Chi Ngok and | | | | 6 | Greenwich Land, LLC | Austin D. Kim, Esquire MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN, LLP | | | 7 | | 125 Park Avenue 7th Floor | | | 8 | | New York, New York 10017 | | | 9 | For Morvillo Abramowitz Grand | | | | 10 | Iason & Anello, P.C: | Rowena A. Moffett, Esquire BRENNER, SALTZMAN & WALLMAN, LLP | | | 11 | | 271 Whitney Avenue New Haven, Connecticut 06511 | | | 12 | | | | | 13 | | | | | 14 | | | | | 15 | | | | | 16 | | | | | 17 | | | | | 18 | | | | | 19 | | | | | 20 | | | | | 21 | | | | | 22 | | | | | 23 | | | | | 24 | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al. Main Case no. 22-050073 (JAM) Matter No. 1: Motion to Extend Time to Extend Deadline to File Avoidance Actions (First Supplemental Motion) to 02/15/2025 (RE: 3329) 14 Court's Ruling: 80 Matter No. 2: Amended Emergency Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363(b), for Entry of Order Authorizing Trustee to Fund Maintenance of Mahwah Mansion and for Related Relief (RE: 3381) 81 Court's Ruling: 86 Genever Holdings LLC and Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Ho Wan Kwok, Hing Chi Ngok, Qiang Guo, and Mei Guo Adversary Case No. 23-05002 (JAM) Matter No. 3: Pretrial Conference Hearing 89 Court's Ruling: 90 Luc A. Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. Adversary Case No. 23-05017 (JAM) Matter No. 4: Status Conference 90 Court's Ruling: 94 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 360 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 361 of | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | | 500 | 6 | | 1 | INDEX | | | 2 | | | | 3 | WITNESSES CALLED BY THE TRUSTEE: | PAGE | | 4 | LUC A. DESPINS | | | 5 | Direct examination by Mr. Bassett | 18 | | 6 | Cross-examination by Mr. Yan | 30 | | 7 | Cross-examination by Mr. Sklarz | 34 | | 8 | | | | 9 | Transcriptionist's Certificate | 96 | | 10 | | | | 11 | | | | 12 | | | | 13 | | | | 14 | | | | 15 | | | | 16 | | | | 17 | | | | 18 | | | | 19 | | | | 20 | | | | 21 | | | | 22 | | | | 23 | | | | 24 | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | |

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:12 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok; Adversary 23-50002, Genever Holdings, LLC, et al. v Kwok, et al., and Adversary 23-05017 Despins, et al., v Taurus Fund LLC, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. Trustee Despins? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Is he frozen? Maybe. THE CLERK: No. THE COURT: Okay. They can't hear me? Apparently, they can't hear me. THE CLERK: Trustee Despins? (No verbal response) THE CLERK: Oh, you know what? I'm sorry, I'll call him. I'm sorry, Judge. THE COURT: So I think we have to start all over again, because I don't think that was recording or anyone could hear us. THE CLERK: Yes. Case Number -- the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is now in session after recess. Judge -- the Honorable Julie Manning is presiding. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 362 of 500

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. There are matters on the calendar beginning at 1:00 p.m., so I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok; Adversary 23-05002, Genever Holdings, LLC, et al. v Kwok, et al.; and Adversary 23-05017, Despins, et al. v Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. THE COURT: Good afternoon. I'm going to take appearances to the record. We are on remote. This was supposed to be a remote hearing, which was not evidentiary. Whether it will be or not, we will see, because I don't conduct evidentiary hearings remotely. But when everyone notes their appearance, I'd like to make sure that whoever is noting their appearance, notes whether they have actually filed a notice of appearance in the case or in the adversary proceeding, because if you have not done so, you will need to do so. So, in any event, we will start with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. MAZA: Good afternoon, Shlomo Maza of Paul Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 363 of 500

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hastings, as well. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir. I couldn't hear what you said. Let's go back to the gentleman who just spoke, please. MR. MAZA: Shlomo Maza with Paul Hastings for the trustee, as well. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAZA: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sorry, I could not hear you. I apologize. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert Pepe & Monteith for the trustee, and trustee's counsel do have appearances entered. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of creditor PAX in the main case. I'm not sure if I filed a notice of appearance in the adversary proceeding that's under discussion today, but I don't expect to be participating. THE COURT: Thank you. I don't think you need a file a notice in the adversary proceeding unless you choose to, but you do need to Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 364 of 500

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have an appearance in the main case, which you already do and have for some time, so thank you. MR. SARNOFF: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith of Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel to creditor PAX. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Creditors Committee. I have an appearance in the main case, but I do not believe we have an appearance in the adversary proceeding. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz of Green & Sklarz, for certain objecting parties. I have an appearance in the main case, as well as the applicable adversaries where some of the objections were filed. Also online is my associate Michelle Antao. I don't recall if she has an appearance, and she won't be arguing. But if she doesn't, we'll get an appearance for her in the main case. I'll also note that my client, one of my clients, Justin Weddle of Weddle Law is also viewing proceedings; he is a party to one of the adversaries, or his law firm is a party to one of the adversaries. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. There is no hearing in the adversary proceedings Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 365 of 500

| Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 366 of 500 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 11 | | today, though, just so the record is clear. | | MR. SKLARZ: Understood, Your Honor. | | MR. YAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jin Yan on | | behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc. and Apple, Inc. We do have | | appearances on in the adversary cases. I don't recall if we | | have appearances in the main bankruptcy case. | | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | MR. PROSCIA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Anthony | | Proscia from Kaufman Dolowich. We represent four law firms | | in the related adversary proceedings. We will not be | | speaking; we're just monitoring for the today. | | THE COURT: What related adversary proceeding are | | you speaking of, Counsel? | | MR. PROSCIA: Sure. It's the adversary | | proceedings against Yankwitt, against Ganfer Shore, against | | Brune Law, and against Petrillo Klein. | | THE COURT: You're going to have to spell every | | one of those, Counsel. Our record is only kept by audio and | | if the person who, then, creates the transcript can't | | understand -- and that's not your fault. It's not your | | fault; it's just the way it is -- you know, then there's a | | lot of blanks in the transcript. So I'm going to ask you, if | | you would, please, spell all the names of the Defendants you | | just named in adversary proceedings. | | MR. PROSCIA: Sure, Your Honor. | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 367 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The first law firm is Yankwitt, which Y-a-n-k-w-it-t. The second law firm is Ganfer Shore, G-a-n-f-e-r S-h-or-e. The third law firm is Brune Law, B-r-u-n-e. The fourth one is Petrillo Klein, P-e-t-r-i-l-l-o K-l-e-i-n. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. KIM: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Austin Kim from Meister Seelig & Fein, and we have an appearance in both, the main proceeding and adversary proceeding on behalf of the Greenwich Land Defendants, that's Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land, LLC. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. MOFFETT: Your Honor, Rowena Moffett from Brenner Saltzman & Wallman. I represent another of the adversary Defendants, a law firm called Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, spelled M-o-r-v-i-l-l-o A-b-r-a-m-o-wi-t-z G-r-a-n-d I-a-s-o-n & A-n-e-l-l-o, P.C. THE COURT: Thank you. Have I taken everyone's appearance for the record, then? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. The first -- I'm not sure, Trustee Despins, how you want to proceed, but I would just note that the matters on the calendar today, the first two matters, the first motion -- first supplemental motion to extend deadline and the amended emergency motion authorizing

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 368 of 500

| 1 | funding, were filed in the main case, as they should be, | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | because that's relief that's related to the estate as a | | 3 | whole. The two final matters on the calendar are really with | | 4 | regard to a pretrial conference in a specific adversary | | 5 | proceeding, 23-05002, and then a request for a status | | 6 | conference in another adversary proceeding, 23-05017. | | 7 | Trustee Despins, I do not know how you intend to proceeding, | | 8 | but I will hear from you with regard to your intentions. | | 9 | MR. DESPINS: Yes, and first, a clarification. I | | 10 | thought we also had a motion in with Mahwah adversary | | 11 | proceeding to authorize us to spend money to maintain, maybe | | 12 | even you covered that, but there's a hearing on that today, I | | 13 | believe to authorize us to spend money to pay taxes and | | 14 | security services and all of that, I believe. That should be | | 15 | on the agenda for today. | | 16 | THE COURT: You may be correct about that. I'll | | 17 | take a look at that. | | 18 | MR. DESPINS: Okay. | | 19 | THE COURT: I see what you're saying. You filed | | 20 | an emergency motion that we -- yes, I understand what you're | | 21 | saying. Okay. I'll take a look while you're speaking. | | 22 | MR. DESPINS: But, in any event, Your Honor, I | | 23 | think that given the number of people on the phone that are | | 24 | here for the, what I refer to as the August 15th extension | | 25 | motion, it probably makes sense to cover that first so that |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 369 of 500

| 1 | the people are free to stay on for the rest, but at least | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | they don't have to; otherwise, they'll have to stay on for | | 3 | everything and there'll be nothing productive and | | 4 | (indiscernible). So, I would recommend starting with the | | 5 | August 15th extension motion. | | 6 | THE COURT: Go right ahead, which is just for the | | 7 | record, ECF 3329. | | 8 | MR. DESPINS: Mr. Bassett is handling that motion, | | 9 | Your Honor. | | 10 | THE COURT: Mr. Bassett, you're on -- there you | | 11 | go -- you were on mute, but please proceed. | | 12 | MR. BASSETT: My apologies. | | 13 | Good afternoon, Your Honor. Again, for the | | 14 | record, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the | | 15 | Chapter 11 Trustee. | | 16 | To address Your Honor's question at the outset, we | | 17 | did intend, obviously, with the Court's permission, to have a | | 18 | very limited evidentiary presentation today and it is | | 19 | certainly our apologies for assuming we would be able to do | | 20 | that via Zoom. I think the reason we had proceeded in that | | 21 | manner is because at the hearing on this motion that occurred | | 22 | in February, it was done remotely and we did have the trustee | | 23 | provide some testimony. | | 24 | I realize now in thinking back on that particular | | 25 | hearing, that I think we did that one remotely due to | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 370 of 500

1 2 3 unanticipated weather issues. So maybe there was an exception made to the Court's general policy in that instance.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Be that as it may, Your Honor, again, obviously, we're at the Court's mercy, but subject to your permission, we did intend to have the trustee present limited testimony. I think most of the record that we would rely on in support of the motion is the record indicates, which we would ask the Court to take judicial notice, so I don't think the evidentiary presentation would be long, but that was our intention, Your Honor.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: Well, the only reason I raise the issue is because there's going -- if Trustee Despins testifies, then there's going to be five different lawyers that are going to cross-examine him, is that what we're going to do, because there's a number of objections filed to this motion, so I would assume all those lawyers are going to want to cross-examine him.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: I can't speak for him, Your Honor. I would note that I think each of those parties, or at least some of those parties, reserved the right expressly in their objections to cross-examine the trustee to the extent he testified. I don't know if they intend to or not. As I said, the testimony will be limited. I would expect 10 or so minutes, which I would hope you would cabin

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 371 of 500

1 2 and eliminate the scope of their cross, but, again, I can't speak for the opposing parties' counsel.

3 4 THE COURT: I understand you can't speak for them; I'm not suggesting you should.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 But I'm saying I am virtually certain that they're going to want to cross-examine him, so then we're going to have direct examination and cross-examination remotely and the courtroom deputy has to then swear the parties in remotely. The courtroom deputy is not on a camera. You know, there are issues with that; that's why I don't do that unless it's determined in advance and there's a reason for it. Because, as you know, the Federal Rules of Evidence still require in-court hearings for testimony.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In any event, if that's how we're going to proceed, we'll see how we do, but I do think that, you know, it is necessary to understand that there's no reason why if testimony and exhibits are going to be introduced, why parties can't be here in the courtroom or work out an arrangement in advance so the Court is aware of what's happening. And that's what I would say with regard to that. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. I will take the blame for not having dealt with this appropriately in advance. THE COURT: All right. Well, let's see how things proceed, so go right ahead.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 372 of 500

| Are you calling Trustee Despins as a witness right | |------------------------------------------------------------------| | now? | | MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, we would. I think | | the ladies of the jury Calloway to proceed would be for us to | | complete our limited evidentiary presentation, which really | | will only consist of the trustee testifying and the Court | | can, obviously, take notice of other filings in the record, | | which we refer to in our papers and they refer to, again, in | | argument, but it's really just the trustee taking the stand, | | which I think would be the appropriate way to proceed right | | now. | | THE COURT: Okay. Given what I've stated for the | | record, the courtroom deputy does not have a camera, so I am | | going to have to say for the record that I am sitting next to | | the courtroom deputy. I can see her. She is going to swear | | in the witness, Trustee Despins, and then we will have to go | | from there, okay. | | So I'm going to ask -- Trustee Despins, are ready | | to be sworn in? | | MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. | | THE COURT: Okay. So as if we can pretend we're | | in the courtroom and, Attorney Bassett just called you to the | | witness stand. So, now, we need to turn this over to the | | courtroom deputy, whose duty it is to swear in the witness. | | THE CLERK: Thank you. | | |

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney Despins, please raise your right hand. THE COURT: We can't see your right hand, Trustee Despins. We need to see it. MR. DESPINS: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: The other way. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE CLERK: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Hold on a second. I don't know why that's not -- okay. That's my right hand. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE CLERK: Okay. LUC A. DESPINS, TRUSTEE'S WITNESS, SWORN THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: State your name and address for the record, your business address, of course. THE WITNESS: Luc Despins, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Bassett, you may proceed. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BASSETT: Q Trustee Despins, you understand we are here today on the trustee's motion to extend avoidance action deadlines; is that right? Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 373 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 374 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 19 | | 1 | A I do. | | 2 | Q Now, this is the second motion, such motion you have | | 3 | filed in this case; is that right? | | 4 | A That's correct. | | 5 | Q Now, do you recall, Trustee Despins, testifying at the | | 6 | hearing on the first motion, which I believe was on | | 7 | February 13th of this year? | | 8 | A Yes, I do. | | 9 | Q And have you reviewed that testimony, again, in | | 10 | anticipation of your testimony today? | | 11 | A Yes, I have. | | 12 | Q Was that testimony that you gave them, Trustee Despins, | | 13 | true and accurate to the best of your recollection? | | 14 | A It was. | | 15 | Q Okay. So what I'd like to do today is just briefly ask | | 16 | some questions about events that have happened and transpired | | 17 | since you last testified in February of 2024. | | 18 | Now, Trustee Despins, can you just generally describe | | 19 | what you have been doing in your investigation in this | | 20 | Chapter 11 case since we've last had that hearing in February | | 21 | of this year? | | 22 | A A number of things. First, continuing to review | | 23 | documents we have received, analyzing them, bank account | | 24 | statements, et cetera, with the help of Kroll. Then, we also | | 25 | sought what we call "follow-up 2004 discovery" for a limited | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 375 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 20 | | 1 | number of parties to advance our investigation. | | 2 | Q Okay. When you say Rule 2004 discovery, how many | | 3 | additional Rule 2004 motions that you recall, have you filed | | 4 | since the hearing in February? | | 5 | A Four. | | 6 | Q And do you know how many additional parties, or | | 7 | discovery targets, if you will, that those motions covered? | | 8 | A 47. | | 9 | Q And do you have a general sense of approximately how | | 10 | many documents were obtained through those Rule 2004 motions | | 11 | from those parties? | | 12 | A Just from those parties with the new 2004, around 700 | | 13 | documents. | | 14 | Q Okay. Now, in addition to the 2004 discovery that you | | 15 | just described, have you and your team obtained additional | | 16 | documents by other means or from other sources? | | 17 | A Yes. The first source is pursuing the existing 2004, | | 18 | the ones that were existing before (indiscernible) to obtain | | 19 | more information from the targets of that investigation. | | 20 | Nobody ever produces all of their documents on the | | 21 | first go-around, so we have to pursue this case. It was | | 22 | mostly Mr. Linsey's firm that did this. So that was one | | 23 | source of a very voluminous source of documents that we | | 24 | received. | | 25 | In addition to that, we obtained access to documents |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 376 of 500

| 1 | that were in a warehouse in Jersey and, also, they were | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | iPhones and the like, computers, in that facility that we | | 3 | obtained and we analyzed. So that's, generally, the | | 4 | additional work that was done in terms of obtaining | | 5 | documents. | | 6 | Q And do you have a ballpark sense of the volume of | | 7 | documents that we're talking about when you pull together | | 8 | these additional sources with the 2004 discovery that you | | 9 | described? | | 10 | A Well, putting aside the 700 documents that exist for | | 11 | the new -- for 2004, there would be in excess of 20,000 | | 12 | documents from the sources I've described, which is the | | 13 | previous, the initially previously granted 2004, the New | | 14 | Jersey warehouse, and the computers, and the iPhones that we | | 15 | found in that facility. | | 16 | Q Now, what is your team, if anything, doing with this | | 17 | documents as you receive them? | | 18 | A Well, not to go into a lot of details, but, basically, | | 19 | we have a software program that allows us to search by name, | | 20 | so they're downloaded to that so everyone can actually search | | 21 | a specific term. Then, they're also given, that access is | | 22 | given to the Kroll team so they can also look at that, and | | 23 | that gives them a lead as to new bank accounts and the like. | | 24 | So there's a whole process that goes on, that's still | | 25 | ongoing, as to those documents. | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 377 of 500

| 1 | Q So you mentioned Kroll and their bank account analysis, | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | which was a topic that came up at the hearing in February. | | 3 | Can you talk more about the additional work, any | | 4 | additional discoveries that the Kroll team has made, with | | 5 | respect to bank accounts since February? | | 6 | A Yeah, as I described when I testified, you know, these | | 7 | bank accounts, they're really almost the only key documents | | 8 | we have, or at least documents that we're sure of their | | 9 | authenticity because they come from banks. And every time | | 10 | you look at a bank account, there's dozens, if not hundreds | | 11 | of transfers that lead you to other bank accounts, and that's | | 12 | what Kroll does. | | 13 | So what they did is that through this additional | | 14 | discovery that Mr. Linsey's firm produced, we're able to -- | | 15 | they were able to identify 200 additional bank accounts that | | 16 | they started analyzing and are still analyzing at this stage. | | 17 | Q And do you have a ballpark sense at all as to how many | | 18 | transfers within those accounts have been analyzed? | | 19 | A Not precisely. It's thousands and thousands, but I | | 20 | would hesitate to give a precise number. | | 21 | Q And how long does it take Kroll to go through this sort | | 22 | of exercise? | | 23 | MR. SKLARZ: Objection; hearsay. | | 24 | He's asking what somebody else is not in court is | | 25 | doing. | | | |

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the trustee -- THE COURT: So, hold on a second. Attorney Sklarz, I didn't hear you, so you're going to have to do that again. MR. SKLARZ: I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's not your fault. MR. SKLARZ: Objection. THE COURT: That's not your fault. I'm just saying that's one of the downsides to remote, right. I can't hear you when you start to talk, so I'm going to ask you to do that again, please. MR. SKLARZ: Fair enough, Your Honor. My objection is on account of hearsay. The trustee is testifying about what Kroll, who is a party not in court today, is doing, so it's hearsay. THE COURT: Do you have a responses, Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- yes, Your Honor. I don't understand how the question calls for hearsay. The trustee has retained Kroll as his advisor in this case; he's testified about that at length, including at the last hearing. The trustee, obviously, has firsthand knowledge of how long it has taken Kroll, at his direction, to perform certain tasks. MR. SKLARZ: That is classic hearsay. Kroll isn't Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 378 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 379 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 24 | | 1 | here. | | 2 | THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection, | | 3 | but give the testimony whatever weight I think is | | 4 | appropriate. | | 5 | So please continue. | | 6 | BY MR. BASSETT: | | 7 | Q So approximately how long, Trustee Despins, does it | | 8 | take Kroll to perform the type of bank account analysis that | | 9 | you just described? | | 10 | A It's impossible to give a precise, you know, number of | | 11 | days answer to that because it depends on how many transfers | | 12 | are in the accounts. But as to those 200, there are still -- | | 13 | that analysis is still ongoing, because as I said, every | | 14 | account opens the door to another account and that analysis | | 15 | is still ongoing. It's not the same degree that it was going | | 16 | on, let's say, in January or February, but it's still | | 17 | ongoing, as we speak. | | 18 | Q Now, Trustee Despins, you're aware that the debtors' | | 19 | criminal trial has taken place in the United States District | | 20 | Court for the Southern District of New York, correct? | | 21 | A Correct, yes. | | 22 | Q And do you recall, approximately, when that trial | | 23 | started? | | 24 | A In late May; May 22nd, something along those lines. | | 25 | Q And, approximately, when it concluded? | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 380 of | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 500 25 | | 1 | A In mid-July; July 16th or 17th. | | 2 | Q And did your team monitor that trial as it was | | 3 | transpiring? | | 4 | A Yes, we did, either through attendance when there were | | 5 | key witnesses that could be key to our case and we wanted to | | 6 | gauge their credibility as a witness or by reading | | 7 | transcripts when they were routine witnesses like FBI | | 8 | testimony where, like, we didn't need to be there for that. | | 9 | Q And so how, if at all, was the criminal trial relevant | | 10 | to your investigation in this case? | | 11 | A Incredibly relevant. As I said, testified before, the | | 12 | government has better tools than we do. They have all sorts | | 13 | of ways of getting information. | | 14 | And what could be learned through that trial, | | 15 | basically, is it just opened up a whole new dimension as to a | | 16 | number of the things that we've been analyzing. | | 17 | Q And do you know, Trustee Despins, approximately how | | 18 | many witnesses there were in the criminal trial altogether? | | 19 | A The government had over 30 and the Defendant has | | 20 | something like 8 or 10. Not more than 10. | | 21 | Q And do you have a ballpark sense for how many exhibits | | 22 | were introduced into evidence during the criminal trial? | | 23 | A There's thousands. My memory was 2900 and something, | | 24 | so thousands of exhibits. | | 25 | Q And do you have access to those exhibits? |

Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 381 of 500

| 1 | A No. | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | Before trial begins, in theory, when the government | | 3 | uses an exhibit, it's supposed to post them promptly, but as | | 4 | of today, there's still hundreds of exhibits that have not | | 5 | been downloaded so that we can have access to them. So we | | 6 | did not have access to them before -- most of them. Some of | | 7 | them we did, but most of them, we did not have access. Since | | 8 | they were posted, we've had access, but that's not the | | 9 | complete list. There's hundreds of exhibits that, for some | | 10 | reason, have not been posted yet. Of course, we've been | | 11 | following up with the government to make sure they do post | | 12 | them promptly. | | 13 | Q And what is your team doing with the exhibits from the | | 14 | criminal trial, if they are able to access them? | | 15 | A Same routine as putting this on our software database, | | 16 | giving it to Kroll, because there are references to bank | | 17 | accounts. There's actually analysis of bank transfers in | | 18 | government exhibits. So we're feeding all of that to them so | | 19 | they can update their analysis. | | 20 | Q Now, Trustee Despins, are you aware that this Court | | 21 | entered an order staying certain litigation and certain | | 22 | litigation activities, including depositions, during the | | 23 | pendency of the criminal trial? | | 24 | A Yes, I am. | | 25 | Q How, if at all, did that stay impact your investigation | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 382 of 500

| 1 | progress over the last few months? | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | A Well, there was an absolute prohibition on depositions | | 3 | during that time period, so -- obviously, there are a number | | 4 | of witnesses that we were about to depose that, in fact, were | | 5 | potentially going to be testifying at the criminal trial and, | | 6 | therefore, we could not depose until, you know, last week or | | 7 | something like that. So, clearly, it had a major impact on | | 8 | our ability to depose the key witnesses. | | 9 | Q Now, that stay was granted, pursuant to a motion that | | 10 | you filed; is that right? | | 11 | A That's correct. | | 12 | Q Why did you file that motion? | | 13 | A Two reasons. The first one is that the debtor was | | 14 | filing a renewed motion before the criminal court to stay the | | 15 | entire bankruptcy case, so, obviously, we did not want that | | 16 | to happen; that would have been a disaster and, therefore, | | 17 | that was part of the reason. But the other part of the | | 18 | reason is that the witnesses that we were scheduling for | | 19 | depositions were saying, Hey, I'm going to be a witness or, | | 20 | I'm talking with the Government, and I will complain to them | | 21 | that you're trying to depose us. And, of course, the impact | | 22 | of that would have -- could have been that the government | | 23 | would have said, Well, actually, we think the bankruptcy case | | 24 | should be stayed completely. | | 25 | And that's why we filed this motion, which was kind of |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 383 of 500

| 1 | (indiscernible), in attempt that we were still able to get | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | documents, but no depositions, so that we would not interfere | | 3 | with the criminal trial or the witnesses that could or have | | 4 | appeared at the criminal trial. | | 5 | Q Now, since February 15th of 2024, have you filed any | | 6 | additional avoidance actions? | | 7 | A Yes. | | 8 | Q Approximately how many? | | 9 | A We filed four, but we're about to file, or we're in the | | 10 | process -- they're just appearing on the docket today -- of | | 11 | filing an additional 30 or so. | | 12 | Q And how are you deciding when to file these complaints? | | 13 | A As soon as we're ready to file them, in the sense that | | 14 | we have enough information to file them and we've verified | | 15 | all the information to the best of our ability. We're not | | 16 | holding anything back. We're filing all the ones that we can | | 17 | right now and that's how we have decided, if we have enough | | 18 | information. That process is led mostly by Mr. Linsey's | | 19 | firm, but, you know, I'm involved with reviewing the | | 20 | complaints. But, basically, we file them when we have enough | | 21 | information to go ahead. | | 22 | Q Trustee Despins, you testified in February about some | | 23 | of the obstruction that had occurred at the hands of the | | 24 | debtor and others in this case, do you recall that testimony? | | 25 | A Yes. | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 384 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q Now, that obstruction that you talked about then, has that continued to affect your investigation in your view? A Sure, because as I said, the only reliable source we have are bank accounts, but that doesn't show you the full picture; it just shows you transfers. We have no books and records. You know, the debtor testified many times he didn't have an iPhone. And now, of course, we know he had an iPhone, because that came out in the criminal trial; he had many iPhones, but with data. And, obviously, the inability to have books and records to tie all of this makes this case, I would say, unprecedented in terms of the amount of work that needs to be done to tie everything together. MR. BASSETT: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone wish to cross-examine Trustee Despins? MR. YAN: Your Honor, I have just a few questions for Trustee Despins. THE COURT: Okay. Would you just -- I can see you, but would you please state your name for the record, again, and who you represent, because, again, as I said at the beginning of the hearing, we only have audio for our

23 24 transcripts, so it would be helpful to make the record as clear as possible. Thank you.

MR. YAN: Sure. My name is Jin Yan, J-i-n, last

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 name, Y-a-n. I represent Apple, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. YAN: Q Trustee Despins -- THE COURT: Go right ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't mean -- MR. YAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- to speak over you. I apologize. But you may proceed. MR. YAN: Thank you, Your Honor. BY MR. YAN: Q Trustee Despins, you testified earlier that you issued four new 2004 (indiscernible) targeting 47 parties. Did I state that correctly? A That's correct. Q Was Apple one of those targets? A I don't recall. Q Do you recall if Meta was one of those targets? A I don't recall. Q What actions have you taken, specifically, to investigate additional avoidance claims against Apple or Meta? A There's -- they're part of, meaning that we searched, generally, for all transfers through these bank accounts that Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 385 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 386 of 500

| 1 | we keep getting these 200 additional bank accounts, so if | | | | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--| | 2 | Meta or Apple appears in there, we're going to pursue that. | | | | | | 3 | So that's part of the analysis. | | | | | | 4 | But we don't go -- our analysis is not Defendants | | | | | | 5 | targeted, in the sense that we are looking for transfers, | | | | | | 6 | because we have this running clock that we're trying to | | | | | | 7 | comply with and, therefore, we're looking at all transfers. | | | | | | 8 | And if it happens that Meta or Apple is on that list, | | | | | | 9 | then we will chase that. | | | | | | 10 | Q Trustee Despins, you're aware that you've already sued | | | | | | 11 | Apple, correct? | | | | | | 12 | A Correct. | | | | | | 13 | Q And you're also aware that you've already sued Meta, | | | | | | 14 | right? | | | | | | 15 | A Correct. | | | | | | 16 | Q Have you identified any additional claims, other than | | | | | | 17 | the ones in your current lawsuit against Meta? | | | | | | 18 | A There are some smaller claims that we found, but not -- | | | | | | 19 | nothing material, you know, in the thousands of dollars, not | | | | | | 20 | in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, at this time, | | | | | | 21 | the answer would be, no, nothing material. | | | | | | 22 | Q What about against Apple? | | | | | | 23 | A Same answer. | | | | | | 24 | Q And you said the additional claims that you found that | | | | | | 25 | are not material, are those already asserted in the claims in | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 387 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 32 | | 1 | the lawsuit that's been brought? | | 2 | A I don't think so. I think these would be added to | | 3 | that, but, again, not in -- it wouldn't move the dial in a | | | | | 4 | material way. | | 5 | Q Do you intend to serve those claims against Apple or | | 6 | Meta? | | 7 | A I need to talk to counsel about that. You know, | | 8 | (indiscernible) litigation, so I need to confer with them to | | 9 | decide whether it's worth doing that. | | 10 | Q Okay. And when did you identify those additional | | 11 | claims that are not part of the existing lawsuits? | | 12 | A I don't know when. Obviously after February 15th, but | | 13 | when between February 15th and now, I couldn't say. | | 14 | Q Can you explain why you haven't sought to amend your | | 15 | existing lawsuit to add those claims? | | 16 | A Because Apple and Meta is not the only thing we're | | 17 | focusing on. We're focusing on, you know, more than 300 | | 18 | Defendants and now we're adding another 50 or so and 30, plus | | 19 | another potential 20, so that's 50. So, we -- I understand | | 20 | from your perspective, you're concerned about those two only, | | 21 | but there are a lot of balls in the air and we go to the most | | 22 | material and the most critical aspects first. | | 23 | And that's why I said I'm aware of additional | | 24 | transfers, but I don't think they move the dial and certainly | | 25 | not in the way that we would put everything to the side and | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 388 of 500

| | 33 | | | | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--| | 1 | amend to add the, at this time, to amend to add these amounts | | | | | 2 | that are not material. | | | | | 3 | If we find something that's really material, then we | | | | | 4 | would, obviously, amend it as quickly as we can. So there's | | | | | 5 | no strategy vis-a-vis, Apple or Meta; it's a global strategy | | | | | 6 | of dealing with hundreds of Defendants and we go to the most | | | | | 7 | pressing, you know, because there's a limited number of hours | | | | | 8 | in the day. | | | | | 9 | MR. YAN: I have no further questions. | | | | | 10 | Thank you, Trustee Despins. | | | | | 11 | THE COURT: Thank you. | | | | | 12 | Does anyone else wish to cross-examine Trustee | | | | | 13 | Despins? | | | | | 14 | MR. SKLARZ: Yes, Your Honor. | | | | | 15 | THE COURT: Attorney Sklarz, will you just, again, | | | | | 16 | state your name for the record and who you represent, because | | | | | 17 | we need that for the record, please. Thank you. | | | | | 18 | MR. SKLARZ: Yes, Jeffrey Sklarz and for purposes | | | | | 19 | of this hearing, my clients are G Club; FFP (BVI) Limited, | | | | | 20 | which is sued in Adversary Proceeding 24-506 -- 5056; | | | | | 21 | Ogier, 24 -- sued in Adversary 24-05012; Pillsbury Winthrop | | | | | 22 | Shaw Pittman, sued in Adversary 24-05014; and Weddle Law, | | | | | 23 | sued in Adversary 24-05188. | | | | | 24 | // | | | | | 25 | // | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 389 of 500 | | | | | | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--| | | 34 | | | | | | | 1 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | | | | | | | 2 | BY MR. SKLARZ: | | | | | | | 3 | Q Trustee Despins, you indicated that you received | | | | | | | 4 | additional information, which, much like the proverbial | | | | | | | 5 | Russian nesting doll, every time you open one layer, you get | | | | | | | 6 | more and more. | | | | | | | 7 | Is that fair to say? | | | | | | | 8 | A As a general characterization, yes. | | | | | | | 9 | Q Okay. So to the extent you continue to get more and | | | | | | | 10 | more information, are you indicating there's a possibility | | | | | | | 11 | that your investigation could go on, effectively, in | | | | | | | 12 | perpetuity for years and years and years? | | | | | | | 13 | A No, at one point, we need to, you know, wrap up this | | | | | | | 14 | case and move on to other things in our lives and that's the | | | | | | | 15 | intent here. From our point of view, we're not at that stage | | | | | | | 16 | yet, but, clearly, the goal is to get to that stage so that | | | | | | | 17 | we can move on. We have to balance that desire of leaving | | | | | | | 18 | potential targets, you know, without a claim, so, that's, | | | | | | | 19 | really, the balancing act there. | | | | | | | 20 | Q And you also indicated earlier, I believe, that you had | | | | | | | 21 | moved to stay your own pursuit of cases based on the criminal | | | | | | | 22 | proceeding. | | | | | | | 23 | Did I understand that correctly? | | | | | | | 24 | A No, we did that in the past. | | | | | | | 25 | Q You did that in the past? | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 | Filed 10/01/24 500 | Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 | Page 390 of | | | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--|--| | | | | | 35 | | | | 1 | A Yes. | | | | | | | 2 | Q | | And there were pending discovery examinations, I | | | | | 3 | | | | | | | | 4 | believe you said, that were stayed as a result of your motion, correct? | | | | | | | 5 | A Correct. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6 | Q | | And some of those folks you were going to take exams of | | | | | 7 | | | were witnesses in the criminal proceeding, correct? | | | | | 8 | A | | I said witnesses or could have been witnesses so, the | | | | | 9 | government had to decide to use them. | | | Now, they would be in | | | | 10 | one of those two categories. | | | | | | | 11 | Q Okay. | | So, you -- and no one opposed your motion to | | | | | 12 | stay; is that the testimony? | | | | | | | 13 | A | | I don't think anybody did; that's right. | | | | | 14 | Q | | So you self-stayed cases for your own reasons; that's | | | | | 15 | fair to say? | | | | | | | 16 | A No. | | | | | | | 17 | Q | | You self-stayed the case for other people's reasons? | | | | | 18 | A | | No, we filed a motion, but it was not in a vacuum; it's | | | | | 19 | not just for our own reasons. | | | | | | | 20 | | | It's that because we were attempting to depose people | | | | | 21 | | | who said, Wait a minute, I'm a witness or I've been asked to | | | | | 22 | | | be a witness in a criminal trial and they were going to | | | | | 23 | | | complain about it, what we were trying to do, to the DOJ, | | | | | 24 | | | that's when we decided we needed to halt this during the | | | | | 25 | duration of the trial. | | So, we did that on our own, but it | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 391 of 500 | | | | | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--| | | 36 | | | | | | 1 | was taking into account a number of factors, including not | | | | | | 2 | interfering with a criminal proceeding. | | | | | | 3 | Q Have you coordinated witness testimony with the | | | | | | 4 | government? | | | | | | 5 | A Never. | | | | | | 6 | MR. BASSETT: Objection; irrelevant. | | | | | | 7 | THE COURT: Sustained. So we'll strike that from | | | | | | 8 | the record, that answer. | | | | | | 9 | BY MR. SKLARZ: | | | | | | 10 | Q In terms of my clients who've objected today, G Club, | | | | | | 11 | FFP, Ogier, Pillsbury Winthrop, and Weddle Law, they were all | | | | | | 12 | sued prior to the February extension order; is that correct? | | | | | | 13 | A Well, I know about G Club for sure, on both, on alter | | | | | | 14 | ego and what we would call a precautionary transfer | | | | | | 15 | complaint. Ogier, I know, as well. Pillsbury, yes. | | | | | | 16 | The other entity you mentioned, I'm sorry, I don't recall | | | | | | 17 | them. | | | | | | 18 | Q Okay. With respect to all of those entities, are there | | | | | | 19 | any other claims you discovered between February and today | | | | | | 20 | that you're intending to bring? | | | | | | 21 | A I want to be careful, because, remember, as to G Club, | | | | | | 22 | our first cause of action is to seek alter-ego or alter | | | | | | 23 | (indiscernible) ruling. The fraudulent transfer would only | | | | | | 24 | be if we don't succeed in that and, therefore, there has been | | | | | | 25 | no focus on the fraudulent transfer claims against G Club, | | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 392 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 because we first want to try to obtain a ruling of alter-ego. So, you know, I cannot say that there's not more in terms of fraudulent transfer, because that's not our focus against G Club. As to the other entities, I really hesitate in giving you a definite answer, because there's 280 Defendants, so I don't know each one of them. But nothing comes to mind in terms of, oh, there's another (indiscernible) against

9 10 (indiscernible) or something like that. Nothing comes to mind along those lines.

11 12 13 14 15 Q So as you sit here today, you're not aware of any additional claims that could be brought -- let's put G Club aside and we'll go through it one by one -- as you sit here today, you're not aware of any additional claims that could be brought against FFP?

16 17 18 A Against, there's 280 Defendants, so I can't -- I don't know, so I hesitate to give you an answer that there's definitely not. I (indiscernible).

19 20 21 22 Q So, the question, again, as to Ogier, as you sit here today, are you aware of any additional claims against Ogier? A None that are material or that have been brought to my attention.

23 24 25 I want to be clear, there's -- you know, Mr. Linsey's firm is running that process, generally, and so they may be reviewing and finding additional transfers and they don't

38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bring every dollar to my attention until it's time to file an amended complaint. So I have not been approached by them to file an amended complaint at this time against (indiscernible). THE COURT: Attorney Sklarz, before you continue, I just want to make sure that the record is clear. The two parties you just asked about, the first was FFP; is that correct? MR. SKLARZ: Correct, Your Honor. Yes. THE COURT: And the second was Ogier; is that correct? MR. SKLARZ: Ogier is O-g-i-e-r. THE COURT: Okay. That's -- we do need to do that, unfortunately, for the record, so I may have to ask you to -- I mean, now that you've said those two, that's very helpful. MR. SKLARZ: Sure. THE COURT: If you talk about other Defendants that you represent, I would ask you to please spell their names for the record. MR. SKLARZ: No problem, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q So the next Defendant would be Pillsbury Winthrop, P-il-l-s-b-u-r-y W-i-n-t-h-r-o-p. It's a New York law firm. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 393 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 394 of 500

| 1 | Are you aware of any additional claims against | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | Pillsbury? | | 3 | A Again, I -- what I'm aware of is nobody has asked me to | | 4 | sign off on an amended complaint being filed. That's the | | 5 | best information I can give you at this stage. | | 6 | Q With respect to Weddle Law, W-e-d-d-l-e, are you aware | | 7 | of any additional claims against Weddle Law? | | 8 | A I would give you the same answer; there's no current | | 9 | plan, to my knowledge, to file an amended complaint asserting | | 10 | additional claims. | | 11 | Q Thank you. | | 12 | Now, you mentioned the debtor, post-February has | | 13 | continued to obstruct your getting books and records. | | 14 | Is that -- did I understand your testimony correctly? | | 15 | A I think the question that was asked was whether the | | 16 | obstruction by the debtor affected us, continued to affect us | | 17 | post-February and the answer was yes. | | 18 | Q Okay. So let's break it down a little bit. | | 19 | Has the debtor obstructed you in your investigation | | 20 | since the February extension order came out? | | 21 | A Well, every day that they're not producing their books | | 22 | and records, they're obstructing us; that's one way of | | 23 | looking at it. | | 24 | Q What -- | | 25 | A Not when -- sorry. | | | |

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 395 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 40 | | 1 | Q What precisely has the debtor himself done? He's been | | 2 | sitting in jail, correct? | | 3 | A Correct. | | 4 | Q What has he done since the February extension order, | | 5 | which, just for reference, is dated -- it's ECF 2921 -- | | 6 | dated, February 15, 2024. What, since February 15th, 2024, | | 7 | has the debtor done to obstruct your investigation, other | | 8 | than not cooperating when you asked him to? | | 9 | A He's continued to fail to produce his books and | | 10 | records. | | 11 | Q Okay. Now, you have obtained various books and | | 12 | records, correct, related to debtor entities? | | 13 | Strike that question. Let me ask again. | | 14 | You have obtained various books and records from both, | | 15 | the debtor and entities that you claim are controlled by the | | 16 | debtor; is that fair to say? | | 17 | A No, I wouldn't say that there's any books and records | | 18 | from the debtor and as to other entities, what qualifies as | | 19 | books and records is unclear. We did obtain business | | 20 | documents from other entities, yes. | | 21 | Q So, for example, with respect to -- there were a number | | 22 | of entities that have the letters HGHK preceding them, you | | 23 | obtained books and records from certain HK -- HGHK entities, | | 24 | like HGHK Technologies; is that correct? | | 25 | A I hesitate to say books and records. We obtained |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 396 of 500

| 1 | | documentation from them showing transactions. Whether these | |----|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | | were really accurate, complete books and records, I could not | | 3 | say. | I actually would not say that. | | 4 | Q | Okay. There was a gentleman, a receiver appointed in | | 5 | | an action by the name of Hofmeister, H-o-f-m-e-i-s-t-e-r, do | | 6 | you remember him? | | | 7 | A | Yes, I do. | | 8 | Q | And there was a settlement entered into, whereby he | | 9 | | turned over or gave access to you, with respect to the | | 10 | | entities that he was appointed receiver over, do you recall | | 11 | that? | | | 12 | A | He gave me access to what? | | 13 | Q | I'm asking, did he give you access to information? | | 14 | A | He gave us access to information that he had received, | | 15 | yes. | | | 16 | Q | Okay. And you entered into a settlement that was | | 17 | | approved by this Court with Mr. Hofmeister; is that right? | | 18 | A | That's correct. | | 19 | Q | What did you get from Mr. Hofmeister? | | 20 | A | A series of documents purporting to show some | | 21 | | transfers, some payments, but I don't think there were | | 22 | | balance sheets. Nothing that was pass muster, in terms of a | | 23 | | true accounting. | | 24 | Q | And -- | | 25 | A | We got what he got from Mr. Kwok's associates. He | | | | |

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't prepare any books and records. He just gave us what they gave him. Q So Mr. Kwok's associates turned over information to Mr. Hofmeister, who then turned it over to you? A They gave some information, yes, that's correct. Yes. Q And did Mr. Hofmeister obstruct your investigation? A Sorry, did he obstruct our investigation? No. Q Let me just have a moment. (Pause) MR. SKLARZ: Thank you, Trustee. I don't have further questions at this time. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to cross-examine Trustee Despins? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, Attorney Bassett, do you have any redirect? MR. BASSETT: No redirect, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Trustee Despins. Your testimony is concluded. You're excused as a witness. (Witness excused) THE COURT: I know you're going to continue to be at the hearing, but you're excused as a witness. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 397 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 398 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 43 | | 1 | MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 2 | THE COURT: Thank you. | | 3 | Attorney Bassett, did you wish to proceed, | | 4 | continue? | | 5 | MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor, thank you. | | 6 | THE COURT: You're welcome. | | 7 | MR. BASSETT: Again, for the record, Nick Bassett | | 8 | from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. | | 9 | Your Honor, that -- in addition, as I said before, | | 10 | in addition to Trustee Despins' testimony, we believe that | | 11 | the record generally in this Chapter 11 case and the related | | 12 | adversary proceedings is highly relevant to the motion before | | 13 | the Court today, as it was to the motion before the Court | | 14 | back in February and the Court can, then, you know, take | | 15 | judicial notice of that docket and of that record. | | 16 | So, you know, coupling the record before -- | | 17 | coupling the record in this case with Trustee Despins' | | 18 | testimony, that concludes our evidence in support of the | | 19 | motion. And with that, I would propose proceeding to | | 20 | argument. I'm happy to do that, Your Honor. | | 21 | THE COURT: Go right ahead. | | 22 | MR. BASSETT: Thank you very much. | | 23 | So, Your Honor, I'll try to be brief in my | | 24 | remarks, because I don't think there is really any new ground | | 25 | to cover that we did not already cover when we had the | | | |

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 399 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 hearing back in February on the first motion to extend the trustee's time to file avoidance actions. The Court, in that order, which was issued on February 15th, 2024, and is at ECF 2921, the Court reached two main conclusions. First, it granted the trustee's request for an extension of his deadline to file avoidance actions from February 15th, 2024, through August 15th, 2024, under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b). Second, the Court determined in that order that it disagreed and denied the trustee's requests for equitable tolling on the statute of limitations deadline; however, it expressly did so without prejudice to the trustee's ability to raise equitable tolling in response to any argument that a particular adversary Defendant may raise as to the statute of limitations in the future.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor, there is no reason, based on either the passage of time, the intervening facts and circumstances that have occurred since February, or anything in the objections that the Court has received, that would militate in favor of any other outcome that's different from what the Court already concluded back in February. I do want to emphasize that the trustee absolutely intends to argue equitable tolling at the appropriate time if a Defendant raises a statute of limitations issue in an adversary proceeding, but we respect the Court's ruling as to that and will reserve all rights accordingly.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 400 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Your Honor, I'll spend the balance of my time just responding to the particular arguments that certain of the objecting parties have raised. Again, in my view, there is nothing new. I think the arguments generally fall into two buckets. The first is the objecting parties reiterate arguments they made previously that the Court should not be able to use Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b) to extend the deadline for filing avoidance actions. And then the second argument is one that's really based on the factual record, with parties taxes the position that nothing has occurred or that there were no facts in the record that would justify extending the deadline to file avoidance actions further.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On the first of those arguments, on 9006(b), Your Honor, again, I think it's already been decided. The Court carefully analyzed this issue and the relevant case law in its first extension order. The Court, after conducting that analysis, ultimately concluded correctly that limitations periods are generally not substantive and, therefore, the Court has the power to use Rule 9006(b) to extend the limitations period set forth in 546(a), based on principles of equity.

23 24 25 In reaching that decision, the Court expressly considered and declined to follow contrary case law, including, specifically, Judge Tancredi's decision in the In

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 401 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 re Walnut Hill case, which the objecting parties continue to rely upon. The Court also specifically noted in his decision, which granted the trustee's request to extend the deadline for filing avoidance actions to August 15th, 2024, that, (indiscernible) for the order, but which date may be further extended upon notice and a hearing, and that's why we're here today, Your Honor, to have a further hearing on extending that deadline through February of 2015 [sic].

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Everything the Court decided in its prior order on this issue, Your Honor, remains correct today and it should not be disturbed. The only argument that certain of the objecting parties attempt to characterize as a new argument is an argument based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Purdue Pharma case, but nothing about that decision, Your Honor, impacts the Court's analysis.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In Purdue, the Supreme Court concluded that bankruptcy courts -- the Bankruptcy Court in that case could not prove the nonconsensual, third-party release because Congress had not authorized such releases under the Bankruptcy Code and it undeniably would have affected the substantive rights of parties who held claims against other parties. It's important to note, and there's an entire section of the Court's opinion at the end where the Court is very clear to caution the narrowness of its holding.

And the Court said, quote, "As important as the

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 402 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 question we decide today are the ones we do not decide." The Court then concluded, quote, "Consigning ourselves to the question presented, we hold only that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants."

8 9 10 11 So, Your Honor, the decision to the issue before the Court today obviously does not involve nonconsensual third-party releases and, therefore, in our view, Purdue has no bearing on the Court's decision.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Now, to the extent and notwithstanding the Court's very careful attempt to clarify the narrowness of its holding, Purdue can be said to stand for broader principles. At most, I would submit it could stand for the proposition that bankruptcy courts are not allowed to use their equitable powers in a way that affects substantive rights in a manner that is inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code.

19 20 21 22 23 And, again, the Court addressed this issue and already decided it, and we make this point in our reply brief, the point being that the statute of limitations here are not substantive, therefore, the Court is not modifying substantive rights.

24 25 Now, if the Defendants' broad ruling of Purdue are correct, the implications of that would be far broader than

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 403 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 they suggest, because as I read their objection, they're effectively saying that a Court could never use equitable powers to effect statutes of limitation, would that would apply to equitable tolling, as well. That also applies outside of the bankruptcy context.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I don't think there's any possible reasonable reading of the Purdue case, which could be said that -- where the Supreme Court could have been said to have intended to do away with equitable tolling of statutes of limitations, like, that's a far too broad reading of that decision and I think that it certainly was not intended to be -- that it was not intended to have that effect.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, aside from the 9006(b) arguments and the Purdue overlay, as I'll call it, the only other argument that the objectors really make is that, in their view, the circumstances don't justify an extension of time. Your Honor, I would submit based on the testimony that the trustee gave today, based on the record in this case, and based on the testimony that he gave back in February, the record amply supports the limited, further extension that the trustee is seeking.

22 23 24 25 And you can tell from the cross-examination today one of the points that the objectors are making is that, Well, this obstruction, this all occurred at the beginning of the case and the debtor has been in prison. He hasn't been

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 404 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 actively obstructing the trustee's investigation since, but that's just not true, because the obstruction that occurred and the unique and extraordinary cases of this case are that we have a debtor and we have an individual associated with the debtor who has never cooperated with the trustee's investigation. They've never provided the books and records that ordinarily should be provided in any case. That continues to impede the trustee's investigation. All the issues arising out of that lack of cooperation does not magically disappear after February 15th of this year, Your Honor.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And the trustee testified about the diligent efforts that he is continuing to undertake. He testified about thousands of documents that his team has received from 2004 investigations, from a warehouse belonging to Golden Spring that his team obtained access to, to the thousands of exhibits in a criminal trial, all of which he does not even have access to yet. He talked about his team's process for going through those documents as diligently as they can.

20 21 22 23 24 The trustee also talked about his monitoring of the criminal trial more generally and the relevance that has to his investigation. He talked about the bank account analysis being undertaken by Kroll, which was the subject of extensive testimony back in February.

Your Honor, all of that is ongoing. All of it

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 405 of 500

1 2 takes time. All of it continues to be affected by the unique and extraordinary circumstances of this case.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The last point I will address, Your Honor, as to the trustee's diligence with his investigation is the argument that (indiscernible) surrounding the motion to stay the bankruptcy case. Your Honor, that was a motion that the trustee presented. You heard from him today the reasons why it was filed. The Court granted that motion. In doing so, I'd submit that the Court found that that motion was in the best interests of the estate. Other parties, including the objectors who are here today, had the opportunity to object to that if they thought it was not appropriate.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 And, again, Your Honor, the trustee had very good reasons for doing that. The potential consequences of not proceeding in that manner would have been to fight with the debtor about a global stay of the bankruptcy case, which would have been a disaster if the trustee had been unable to continue to do any of his work during the pendency of the criminal trial, that would have been a disaster and, therefore, he made the recent decision to file that motion and it was granted by the Court.

22 23 24 25 The last argument I'll briefly address, Your Honor, is the argument by Meta and Apple, where they say that, again, there's no evidence that they, themselves, are done anything to obstruct the trustee's investigation. And

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 406 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 on that, Your Honor, I would just simply point the Court to the decision already issued in the first extension order at paragraph 14, where the Court said, quote, "The bankruptcy case presents a rather different (indiscernible) on equitable tolling and the typical situation, it would have been debtors' conduct, rather than the Defendants' conduct, which invokes equitable tolling. In some senses, this is unfair to the Defendant."

9 10 11 And the Court cited cases in support of that, including the Fundamental Long Term Care case from the Middle District of Florida Bankruptcy Court, cited in this opinion.

12 13 14 15 16 17 So, Your Honor, the point is not whether a particular individual, avoidance action Defendant obstructed the trustee's investigation; it is whether or not there has been an obstruction, generally, that has prevented the trustee from being able to complete his investigation within the time that ordinarily exists under the Bankruptcy Code.

18 19 20 21 22 So, Your Honor, for all those reasons, we would respectfully request that the Court grant an extension of the deadline to file avoidance actions by another six months through February 15th, 2025. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you.

23 24 25 And who wishes to go, to proceed first with their objection? We have counsel for -- we have Attorney Yan, Attorney Sklarz. Is anyone else going to be making an

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 argument, in objection to the motion? MR. KIM: Your Honor, there's also an objection filed by the Greenwich Land Defendants, so I'll reserve until the end and if the -- THE COURT: Oh, yes. MR. KIM: -- and if Mr. Yan and Mr. Sklarz cover all the ground, then I have no need to retread. THE COURT: Thank you, Attorney Kim. I just missed -- I misplaced your objection for a second, there. I apologize. All right. So, Attorney Sklarz, Attorney Yan, who would like to proceed first? MR. SKLARZ: By all means, go ahead, Attorney Yan. MR. YAN: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. As Your Honor noted in her prior order granting the trustee's requested extension, an (indiscernible) concern under Rule 9006(b) is prejudice to the Defendant. Now, I'll say that we disagree with the Court's analysis, but I don't think we need to retread on 9006(b) arguments. Here, we have a case where we're differently situated from some of the other Defendants that are going to be Defendants and potential Defendants that might be affected by the order that the trustee's asking the Court to enter. And we're differently situated because Meta and Apple have Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 407 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 408 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 53 | | 1 | already been sued; they were sued before the prior extension | | 2 | that was granted. And in those cases, we have spent the | | 3 | money and expense to move to dismiss and filed a number of | | 4 | other things. | | 5 | And so, we're differently situated than those | | 6 | people who don't even though that they're targets and haven't | | 7 | had to do anything yet. | | 8 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible.) | | 9 | MR. YAN: I'm sorry, go ahead. | | 10 | The other thing is kind of related to that is, | | 11 | here, we've come before the Court and we've objected to it | | 12 | and I don't see how we're differently situated from some of | | 13 | the other Defendants or parties that have been carved out of | | 14 | the last order, such as UBS and Sotheby's, who also filed | | 15 | objections and were carved out. | | 16 | Here, as you've heard the trustee say, he has | | 17 | identified potential, additional claims against Meta and | | 18 | Apple that he says are non-material, but it's been six | | 19 | months. He filed it before the last extension and he hasn't | | 20 | done anything with those claims. We don't know. He hasn't | | 21 | said whether he needs additional time beyond the six-month | | 22 | extension already, another six months to file anything | | 23 | additional against Apple. | | 24 | And there's a fundamental fairness point where the | | 25 | trustee gets to reserve all of his arguments, with respect to | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 409 of 500

54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 equitable tolling and all of the (indiscernible) arguments and on top of that, he gets this order saying, Yeah, he can timely file in another six months; whereas, we are prejudiced because we can't make that argument anymore after this order. And so why does he get belts-and-suspenders and we, who have done nothing wrong, we get cut off at the knees, with respect to our arguments relating to why the trustee's claims are time-barred. And so for those reasons we would just ask that -- THE COURT: Wait. May I stop you just right there for one second so I make sure I understand your argument? MR. YAN: Sure. THE COURT: When you say you get cut off at the knees on his equitable tolling argument, is that the point that you're making, Counsel? I just want to make sure I understand. MR. YAN: Not the equitable tolling argument. I'm just saying he gets to make his equitable - if we -- if he makes an equitable tolling argument -- we'll get to that -- I don't think the order affects that, but he will already have an advantage in that he can wave the order around and say, If we make an argument that his claims are time-barred, he can say, Well, look, I have an order from the judge saying that that argument no longer flies, with respect

to you.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 410 of 500

THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's true. MR. YAN: So, I'm just --

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: I don't think that's what the order says. So maybe I need you to point me in that direction, because I believe what the order says is that there's an extension of time granted under these very specific and unusual circumstances of these complex, consolidated, administratively consolidated Chapter 11 cases and adversary proceedings and that I was not going to prospectively order that the trustee can assert equitable tolling. I believe the order says that the trustee can assert equitable tolling when someone raises it in a motion

13 14 15 to dismiss or another pleading. And so I don't see how that cuts you off at the knees at all, so I would like to make sure I'm not missing your point.

16 17 18 MR. YAN: Sure. I guess my point, Your Honor, is why does he need that? He can always make an equitable tolling argument because his rights are preserved.

19 20 21 22 23 24 THE COURT: What does he need what, though; I didn't give him what he wanted, so I don't know what you're -- I guess that's what I'm struggling with. I didn't give him what he wanted in the original order. I didn't say that he prospectively has the right to assert equitable tolling; I didn't say that.

I said that under the cases that all the parties

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 411 of 500

| 1 | cited, the application of equitable tolling does not come | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | into play or does not become an issue unless and until it's | | 3 | raised in connection with a motion to dismiss the case | | 4 | because the statute of limitations has passed. That's what | | 5 | the order says. | | 6 | MR. YAN: Understood. Understood, Your Honor. | | 7 | And my point is, why does he need more than that? | | 8 | He can -- that argument is preserved. If he can make that -- | | 9 | THE COURT: I don't know that he does need more | | 10 | than that. | | 11 | MR. YAN: That's my point, Your Honor, why does he | | 12 | need this additional order? | | 13 | THE COURT: Well, that's time. Time is different | | 14 | from equitable tolling, Counsel. He's asking for additional | | 15 | time. | | 16 | I didn't -- he's asking for an additional time to | | 17 | commence causes of action, okay. I didn't hear Attorney | | 18 | Bassett -- but maybe I missed it and that's why I'm stopping | | 19 | to ask these questions -- I didn't hear Attorney Bassett, and | | 20 | I don't think I read in the papers, but maybe I'm -- you | | 21 | know, I could have missed it, because as you can, I'm sure, | | 22 | appreciate, there are a lot of papers filed in this case and | | 23 | in the adversary proceedings, but I didn't hear Attorney | | 24 | Bassett ask me to prospectively order from this point forward | | 25 | that equitable tolling, the trustee is entitled to assert |

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. I didn't hear him. Attorney Bassett, did you ask me to do that, because if you did, I missed it. MR. BASSETT: I did not, Your Honor; in fact, the Court has already ruled on that issue. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So, that's my question to you, Attorney Yan. The only issue that I see and is right now in the papers is, the trustee is asking for an extension of time to commence causes of action. I've ruled on the issue of equitable tolling. So I'm a little confused as to your statement that somehow you've been -- and I apologize -- I think the words were that you're cut off at the knees. I don't see how you are. So, please explain to me. I don't want you to not tell me. I'm just not sure that I understand your argument. MR. YAN: Sure, Your Honor. And I think this -- let me go back to the argument. I think the point I was really trying to make is we're differently situated because he doesn't need more time; he's already asserted claims against us, so I don't think it's equitable for him to get additional time to add on to claims that he's already asserted against us. THE COURT: Well, don't you think the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will address that? If he tries to Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 412 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 413 of 500

| 1 | add on claims or bring a new cause of action, you can do | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | whatever you need to do, if he even does that. | | 3 | And I think you asked him -- and I understand why | | 4 | you did -- were there any additional claims against Apple and | | 5 | metal -- Meta, excuse me -- and his answer was "not material | | 6 | claims that he could think of" and that was the answer I | | 7 | heard. | | 8 | But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will deal | | 9 | with it one way or another; either he'll move to amend the | | 10 | complaint that was, as you already admitted, was filed before | | 11 | the expiration of the statute under the applicable statutes | | 12 | or he'll file a new cause of action. And in either case, | | 13 | you're going to either oppose the motion to amend or you're | | 14 | going to move to dismiss. And that's how the Federal Rules | | 15 | of Civil Procedure work, right? | | 16 | I mean, I guess I'm a little confused by your | | 17 | argument, because you -- I agree with you, though, that you | | 18 | are differently situated insofar as your clients were sued | | 19 | before any applicable statute ran. So, from that | | 20 | perspective, I think whatever happens, happens and the | | 21 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will -- do apply and you and | | 22 | the trustee will assert whatever arguments you have under the | | 23 | applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and then the | | 24 | Court will address those accordingly. | | 25 | MR. YAN: I think that makes sense if he's going | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 414 of 500

to assert them in the same case. What we're concerned about, and what we didn't see in the papers or hear from the trustee is that they intend to assert civil litigation. So, eight months down the line, does he intend to file a new claim against us? We don't know, and so we want to preserve our right to object to that.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Well, I think you vaccinate right. I don't see how you would -- my prior order does preserve that right for you, in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but it says that the trustee is not entitled to prospective, equitable tolling and that issue will come up, if at all, when a party raises and files a motion to dismiss, asserting that a statute of limitations has passed.

MR. YAN: Understood, Your Honor.

15 16 17 18 THE COURT: So, I don't see how your right isn't preserved. But that doesn't mean I'm right, Counsel; I'm just telling you, that's the Court's perspective. You can do with that what you feel is appropriate.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But the prior order was very -- I tried to be very clear in a very short amount of time to say that the trustee's right to bring causes of action was extended because I felt and I found and held that Rule 9006 did not bar that extension because those statutes were statutes of repose, which did not affect substantive rights of parties. And I found that, based upon many things, including the

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 415 of 500

| 1 | Supreme Court case of Young, in which Justice Scalia, writing | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | for the majority, said that those statutes are not | | 3 | substantive statutes; they don't affect substantive rights. | | 4 | So, in any event, what I'm saying to you is, I | | 5 | understand what you're saying, but I believe you are | | 6 | protected. You may think otherwise, and I completely respect | | 7 | that, but that is the reason why I proceed -- the decision | | 8 | says what it says. | | 9 | MR. YAN: Understood, Your Honor. | | 10 | THE COURT: I didn't foreclose on any Defendant | | 11 | from asserting that there was some kind of statute of | | 12 | limitations issue. | | 13 | MR. YAN: Understood, Your Honor. | | 14 | And then that, perhaps, is the issue where we | | 15 | didn't see that level of protection that you just | | 16 | articulated, which is why we asked to just be carved out from | | 17 | the ambit of the order. | | 18 | THE COURT: So, what you're saying is you would | | 19 | like me to rule -- and I just want to make sure -- with | | 20 | regard to Apple and Meta that if there's an extension | | 21 | granted, it doesn't apply to them? | | 22 | MR. YAN: That's correct, Your Honor. | | 23 | THE COURT: Well, if I agreed with you, which I | | 24 | don't know that I will, but I would not agree with you with | | 25 | regard to the existing causes of action being amended. Now, | | | |

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 416 of 500

61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that doesn't mean you couldn't oppose amendment, but, obviously, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for amendments to an existing cause of action. They allow to it up until after trial. So, with regard to that issue, the only issue that I think, then, I would decide with regard to Meta and Apple are whether Meta and Apple are carved out from any new causes of action. That's what I would decide. MR. YAN: I think your articulation is exactly right, Your Honor. I agree with that. THE COURT: Okay. Great. I appreciate that. I didn't mean to cut you off, so if there's more that you want to argue, please do. I just wanted to be -- I wanted to make sure I understood what you were arguing. MR. YAN: No, we appreciate that, Your Honor, and that's all that I have. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Sklarz, did you wish to proceed next? MR. SKLARZ: Yes, please, Your Honor. Your Honor, in nearly 40 years of an unbroken line of cases, running from Northern Pipeline to Granfinanciera to Stern to Purdue, cited just a few months ago, our Supreme Court has held that unless the Bankruptcy Code clearly permits relief, Bankruptcy Courts cannot fashion substantive relief based on either gap-fillers or a lack of Congress

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 417 of 500

1 saying that they can't be done.

2 3 4 5 6 7 So in Purdue, there's nothing in 1123 that says Bankruptcy Courts can't authorize nonconsensual third-party releases. But the Supreme Court was still clear that they're not allowed because of the Code silence and allowing such relief would countermand specific provisions of the Code, namely, Section 1141 and the discharge provisions.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Here, and, certainly in light of Your Honor's ruling, Purdue came out afterward, but in light of Purdue, and analyzed against that backdrop, the applicable section that provides the statute of limitations, Section 546, says it's two years. It is silent on whether you can or cannot extend it. There's nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that says you can extend it or you can't extend it.

15 16 17 18 19 So the trustee looks to Rule 9006 and refers to what they're requesting under 9006, listed on page 5 of their reply brief -- I'm sorry, paragraph 5 of their reply brief as a "equitable extension." This is definitely not an equitable extension.

20 21 22 23 24 25 As Your Honor just discussed with Attorney Yan, equity, as to statutes of limitation, we know of three main extending doctrines of statutes of limitations: equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment, and the discovery rule. What this is, very specifically, is the use of a rule, not a statute, but we'll just say a provision, not a

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 418 of 500

warns against.

common law provision, not something that exists in the equitable ether, but a written rule that has general application to extend a statute of limitations, 546, that have a specific statement. So this is precisely what Purdue

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Again, the dissent in Purdue makes exactly the same observations as the trustee. Over 40 times, the dissent refers to equitable relief or some variance of the word "equity" and their argument is the releases and the settlement payments solve those problems and ensure fair and equitable recovery for the opioid victims. It's certainly a good argument, but it wasn't the majority.

13 14 15 The majority says otherwise. It says, faced with so many marks against its interpretation of the law, plan proponents in the dissent resort to a policy argument.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 That is exactly what occurs here. It's a policy argument saying that because of all these other things, other than what is written down, that the statute can be extended. The trustee's request for an equitable extension has to fail for exactly the reasons stated in Purdue. The Code provides absolutely no mechanism for a prospective extension of a written-down statutes of limitations.

23 24 25 And I think in light of Purdue and now specific it was, it's important that I briefly just turn to three of the Court's main holdings in the February ruling. I don't want

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 419 of 500

| 1 | to -- Your Honor ruled and I just -- I think in the context | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | of Purdue, it's a little bit different. So the three main | | 3 | rulings as to why, as I understand it, Your Honor ruled | | 4 | that 9006 applies is the Rules Enabling Act doesn't apply to | | 5 | stop 9006 from applying because of traditional principles of | | 6 | equity. In light of Purdue, it is unclear. So that's number | | 7 | one. Number two, statutes of limitations are procedural, and | | 8 | that's subject to the Bankruptcy Rules. And third, the | | 9 | statutes of limitations provisions of the Code come into | | 10 | existence, only once a Title 11 case is filed. | | 11 | Turning back -- let me expand on that a little | | 12 | bit. So, turning back to the Rules Enabling Act question. | | 13 | Essentially, the Rules Enabling Act and the jurisprudence | | 14 | thereunder says, as long as there isn't something specific | | 15 | that says you can't -- you can't do it, you can apply this -- | | 16 | you can apply traditional tolling doctrines. Traditional | | 17 | tolling doctrines, as we discussed, are equitable tolling, | | 18 | discovery rule, and fraudulent concealment. | | 19 | Using Rule 9006 to prospectively extend the | | 20 | statute, in other words, as Your Honor explained, an | | 21 | extension of time to commence causes of action are different | | 22 | than equitable tolling. I agree 100 percent. This has | | 23 | nothing to do with equity. | | 24 | This has to do with, can you graft on an extension | | 25 | provision that is written nowhere in the Code by gap-filling |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 420 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 with the Rules? In light of Purdue, is it unclear how an arguably equitable approach can be applied to pull gap-filler from the Rules and apply here. There's no argument that there's a right to equitable tolling at this time; that argument has been reserved, as we just discussed. There's no argument that there's been a prospective, fraudulent concealment, or discovery rule violations, or some other traditional, common law tolling doctrine.

9 10 The trustee cites 9006. He doesn't cite equity to support his 9006 argument.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Turning to the question of whether statutes of limitations are procedural or substantive. I apologize, I don't -- so, first, we cite -- and I'll just refer to the G Club brief, because that's in the main case. The arguments that we submitted in our briefing in the four adversaries are essentially the same, just the structure is a little bit different.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 On page 6 of G Club, we cite to the Second Circuit's ruling in Enterprise Mortgage, which explains that substantive and procedural for how the rights affect somebody in the case is a different analysis than whether something is substantive or procedural for choice of law purposes, which is where that substantive, procedural analysis comes from. We briefed this in our case.

And then Enterprise Mortgage, the Second Circuit

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 421 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 explains that procedural versus substantive, you have to look at it through the eyes of the Defendant. So, here, the Defendant, my clients, or anybody else who hasn't been sued or who doesn't even know they're going to be sued -- perhaps anybody else in the room, we don't know -- the -- from their eyes, the two years has passed. So they -- to them, to that unsued party as of today, they're -- that is a substantive, not a procedural right under Enterprise Mortgage.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 And then we also cite the case of Aetna Life - and the citation there is 391 F.3d 401, and that's on page, mainly on page 6 of our brief in G Club -- that case applied the Sarbanes-Oxley (indiscernible) was -- looking at the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but it also references a Supreme Court case of Landgraf and it explains that the resurrection of previously time-barred claims has an impermissible, retroactive effect extending the statute of limitations retroactively, increasing the Defendant's liability for past conduct.

19 20 21 22 23 24 Now, there, there was a law -- the question was whether the law was retroactively applied. Here, the law can't be retroactively applied. There's been no change in the law. What there is, is a gap-filler provision, 9006, to extend the statute of limitations prospectively. If Congress can't do it with an act and not make

25 it specific, we can't do it otherwise. That is exactly what Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 422 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Purdue says. Finally, whether 546 is subject to tolling because it doesn't come into existence until it's a Title 11 case is filed; again, under that the Court has ruled. Your Honor applied IDB (phonetic) over Butcher, but again, I think we need to view those cases now in light of Purdue. And it appears in my view that the Purdue case says that is not the analysis, that the Butcher analysis should be applied. And we cited -- THE COURT: But the Purdue case doesn't say anywhere in it that the Butcher analysis should be applied -- MR. SKLARZ: Oh, no, no, no, no. THE COURT: -- and, in fact, in Butcher, all the courts in Butcher in the circuit in Butcher don't follow Butcher. If Purdue says that, please tell me, because I don't believe that it says anything at all about Butcher. It never mentions it. MR. SKLARZ: Oh, I agree, Purdue doesn't cite Butcher. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: What it does is apply a similar analysis, which is textual. You read the text. The text is clear. The text applies. And then we cited additional cases in our brief in that regard, more than we cited in the previous brief, using

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other provisions of the Code. I'm sorry, Your Honor? THE COURT: No, I don't have anything. Go ahead. MR. SKLARZ: Okay. So -- if I may just have one moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. SKLARZ: I just need to check if I have anything else. (Pause) MR. SKLARZ: Just turning briefly to the factual argument justification. Regardless of whether Your Honor agrees with me or agrees with the trustee, I think we can all agree prospectively extending statutes of limitations is very unusual. It's already been done once in this case. Your Honor found, as Your Honor noted, on very specific facts that that extraordinary relief was probative. If Your Honor disagrees with me on the Purdue argument and the arguments we've set forth, I still believe that they cannot meet the burden Your Honor imposed upon them under Your Honor's February ruling. There's no longer extraordinary that Mr. Kwok did or did not do anything; in fact, on examination, we know a lot of information has been turned over. It may not have been turned over as quickly as the trustee had hoped, but that is not some kind of obstruction. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 423 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 424 of 500

1 2 3 4 For example, the trustee said the government hasn't turned over the information. Is that obstruction by the government, of not turning over information? Of course not.

5 6 7 On cross-examination, the trustee indicated that more information occurs daily. That is true in almost every financial fraud investigation.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 There were -- Your Honor found extraordinary facts the first time. We have to look at what's occurred since then. And we have not heard anything today that is of the nature of extraordinary. There was no further protesting or other actions that Mr. Kwok's retainers took. There was no lack of funds, which was the major reason the last time around, to toll the statute.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: Well, I just want to stop you there. I don't even think there was any mention of protesting in the prior ruling and I'm not sure that there was any mention of a lack of funds, other than that was an argument made by the objecting parties that somehow that should persuade the Court that the trustee didn't act diligently because he didn't have funds to retain a forensic accountant.

22 23 24 25 So, just to be clear, when you say the factual basis and that the trustee can't meet its burden, the argument about the protesting, I don't even think that was mentioned. I could be wrong, though; it could have been

70 Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 425 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mentioned in the order. MR. SKLARZ: I -- THE COURT: But with regard to the funding, the lack of funding, that was a claim that was raised by the objecting parties to try to establish for the Court or persuade the Court that the trustee did not act diligently and I found just the opposite, in fact. I found that it was clear to the Court that the trustee has been more than reasonably diligent. So I don't think the argument about funds and/or protesting is persuasive. MR. SKLARZ: And that's my -- I'm not saying it is; what I'm saying is those facts do not exist today. And I recall Kwok's examining the trustee on the lack of funds. What he indicated, as I recall, and we could do back to the record, is that he did not hire a forensic accountant because his firm didn't want to share payments pari passu with the forensic accountant, so he deferred hiring. But we make -- THE COURT: No, that wasn't the testimony at all; in fact, the testimony was that he didn't hire the accountant because the forensic accountant wanted to be paid -- MR. SKLARZ: Right. THE COURT: -- and there weren't funds in the estate to pay the forensic accountant and the forensic

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 426 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accountant didn't want to take the risk that the forensic accountant would have to share with all the other administrative claimants in an insolvent estate. That was - that's my recollection of the testimony. MR. SKLARZ: I suppose I have a different recollection, but -- THE COURT: Oh, you could be right, but I'm just saying that's my recollection. MR. SKLARZ: -- it probably doesn't matter. It's written down for a reason -- THE COURT: Right. MR. SKLARZ: -- and my point is it's not terribly relevant right now. What the trustee presented today was, I have a lot of work to do and it's hard and there's lots of it. And I have great sympathy that there is a lot of work to do, but what we're talking about is meeting the standards Your Honor set in the ruling, which is extraordinary circumstances. I guess the first time is if it happened. The second time is a coincidence. If we get to a third time, perhaps that's a mode of operation. I don't know when extraordinary stops becoming extraordinary. But, certainly, we're -- I'm not sure why we're now adding a full year under the trustee's motion to what Congress said should be the statute of limitations of two years.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 427 of 500

| 1 | So I don't think that even if Your Honor reaches | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | the factual issue, it rises to the level of extraordinary as | | 3 | Your Honor ruled in your prior (indiscernible). | | 4 | But, Your Honor, I'm happy to answer any | | 5 | questions; otherwise, that concludes my presentation. | | 6 | THE COURT: Thank you. I do not have any | | 7 | questions at the moment, Attorney Sklarz, thank you. | | 8 | Attorney Kim, did you wish to be heard? | | 9 | MR. KIM: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 10 | Austin Kim for the Greenwich Land Defendants. | | 11 | Just a few finer points to pick up on what Attorney Yan had | | 12 | mentioned. You know, what's -- from our position, what's | | 13 | going on here is the trustee is seeking to obtain the relief | | 14 | of equitable tolling without having to seek it, one, and | | 15 | then, two, with equitable tolling is done on a case-by-case | | 16 | basis, because it is factually dependent, what the trustee is | | 17 | seeking is an omnibus order that sort of avoids the trustee | | 18 | having to establish on a case-by-case basis, why they should | | 19 | effectively obtain the relief of equitable tolling. | | 20 | So, with equitable tolling, you know, it's a case | | 21 | by-case, fact-specific analysis. What the trustee is seeking | | 22 | is essentially a six-month equitable toll the first time | | 23 | around and now they're seeking a second, six-month equitable | | 24 | toll the second time around, based, essentially, on the same | | 25 | facts. |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 428 of 500

| 1 | And so, you know, the constitute did provide some | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | testimony as to what, you know, additional efforts have been | | 3 | made since February, but the bulk of what the trustee has put | | 4 | forth as to why an additional six months is necessary are | | 5 | facts that existed a year ago, or facts that already existed | | 6 | six months ago. So, I'm not here to doubt the diligence of | | 7 | the trustee in, you know, the efforts made to do the | | 8 | investigation, but it's not just confined to the trustee's | | 9 | diligence; it's the, so what? What has come out since | | 10 | February that is so extraordinary that the Court should | | 11 | exercise its discretion to grant to extend the statute of | | 12 | limitations by another 25 percent on an omnibus basis without | | 13 | the trustee demonstrating what's new. | | | |

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Vague statements of, Well, we have received 400 documents or 700 documents or 20,000 documents, that's great, but so what, right? We don't know when these documents were received, you know, where the progress is, and I just think it's inequitable to allow the trustee to continue to, on a piecemeal basis, obtain equitable tolling relief across the board and as to, you know, frankly, parties that are not here or who haven't been named yet or based on some speculation that there could be something there.

23 24 25 So, on that basis, we do stand by our initial objection that, you know, we do disagree with the Court's prior ruling that, you know, the statute of limitations, 546,

## Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 429 of 500

1 2 can be extended for the same reasons that my prior colleagues have mentioned, and we rest there.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Bassett, do you have any reply?

MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor, briefly.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 So, I'll start by responding to some of Attorney Sklarz's arguments, which I think almost exclusively for the first half of his presentation focused on the Purdue case. And, look, I understand, Your Honor, the inclination to cease upon a high-profile ruling of the Supreme Court and sort of turn that into something significant to this motion, but I really just do not think it is.

13 14 15 16 17 18 Purdue could not be a more different case than this case, as much as Attorney Sklarz tries to characterize it otherwise. Purdue dealt with giving a discharge to a nondebtor; an issue that's fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code and I would submit (indiscernible) whether one talks about these issues.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In this case, the Court has been asked to extend the statute of limitations, which it has found is procedural, non-substantive. There should not be a wider gulf between those scenarios, Purdue on the one hand and what the Court is confronted with in the context of this motion. That also needs to be considered in the context of what the Supreme Court specifically said about the narrowness of its decision.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 430 of 500

1 2 3 It was very careful to say that it was talking about thirdparty releases and their permissibility on a nonconsensual scenario in that case.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And what I think Attorney Sklarz did not say, because he could not say, or maybe he will come back and argue this down the line if we do have a dispute about equitable tolling, but if you take his argument to its logical extension, he's basically saying the Supreme Court, in a Purdue decision about nonconsensual third-party releases intended to say that equitable tolling of a statute of limitation as set forth in a statute of Congress is never permissible. That's the logical extension of what he's saying. He talks about the dissent and the equitable arguments that the Supreme Court's majority did not consider. That's essentially where he is taking that argument. And I submit there is no logical reading of the Purdue decision that could be read that broadly, Your Honor.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, as to the facts -- and just to round out, Your Honor, the 9006(b) and all the legal arguments surrounding whether or not the Court has the authority to extend the deadline, nothing else is new. The Court's analysis, its decision was correct. No intervening cases have been issued. There's no other reason as to why that analysis should be revisited and, therefore, we would ask that the same order, again, be entered.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 431 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 As to the factual arguments that the parties have raised, Attorney Sklarz, as to the (indiscernible) Attorney Kim, I believe, as well, had -- I think the way Attorney Sklarz characterized it is the circumstances of this case are, quote, no longer extraordinary.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Your Honor, I'm not sure what that means. The circumstances of this case are either extraordinary or they are not and I don't think anyone could, with a straight face, take the position that this case is anything but incredibly extraordinary based on the level of obstruction the trustee has faced from the beginning of the case, based on the fact that this is a debtor who purported to file bankruptcy in this case with, I think, 3,000 or some odd dollars in cash to his name, despite having lived the life of a billionaire. He's had to peel back every layer of the onion to try to figure out where the shell companies, where these assets were really held and whose names are they nominally held. Where are the bank accounts and other transactions located that explain the true nature of the debtors' financial affairs?

20 21 22 23 24 25 The debtor has never cooperated. He never provided books and records and that continues to affect the trustee's investigation today. This case is, and always has been extraordinary. That did not stop on February 15th. The fallacy in the objectors' arguments is that all the obstruction, all the unique circumstances of this case

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 432 of 500

1 2 3 necessarily could have been overcome in the six months that have occurred since February 15th until now, but as the trustee has testified, that just hasn't been the case.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And the inquiry, Your Honor, for extending the statute of limitations in the context of the order that the Court issued is whether the trustee has been diligent. And Your Honor found that he has been. I think the testimony today only demonstrates that that diligence has continued. The trustee has said that he's filing complaints as soon as he possibly can. He and his team are diligently working to pursue additional 2004 targets. They are viewing documents from the criminal case: twenty-plus-thousand documents that the trustee and his team are going through. The Kroll team is continuing to analyze bank accounts, all of which should have been provided if they were -- if this were a normal case where the debtor is cooperating, he'd provide access to his books and records.

18 19 20 21 22 23 But the trustee is continuing to do all of those things. He's testified clearly that he's been diligent in his efforts and, Your Honor, I think that factual record, again, together with the context of this case from the beginning, amply supports the further extension that the trustee is seeking.

24 25 Subject to any questions the Court may have, I don't have any further remarks at this time. Thank you, Your

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 433 of 500 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 78 | | 1 | Honor. | | 2 | THE COURT: Thank you. I do not have any | | 3 | questions. | | 4 | Anything further, Attorney Yan? Attorney Sklarz? | | 5 | Or -- did I lose everybody? Oh, no, Attorney Sklarz is still | | 6 | there. Or Attorney Kim, that you'd like to state for the | | 7 | record? | | 8 | MR. SKLARZ: Only, Your Honor, I don't know if you | | 9 | want me to submit -- I don't know that it's necessary, but I | | 10 | certainly will -- of any of the prior transcripts references | | 11 | that we discussed during my argument related to what the | | 12 | trustee was doing back at the inception of the case. | | 13 | THE COURT: That is not necessary, from my | | 14 | perspective, thank you. | | 15 | MR. SKLARZ: And just very briefly, I never made | | 16 | the argument that Purdue removes equitable tolling; to the | | 17 | contrary, I said that the trustee's argument is not equitable | | 18 | in nature. It's made on the basis of a rule and doesn't | | 19 | invoke the Court's equitable, true equitable jurisdiction, | | 20 | which would be invoked through common law doctrines, such as | | 21 | equitable tolling. So, I just want to make sure that that is | | 22 | clear. | | 23 | Thank you, Your Honor. | | 24 | THE COURT: Thank you. | | 25 | Anyone else wish to be heard any further? | | | |

| Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 434 of 500 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 79 | | MR. KIM: Your Honor, I would just be remiss | | (indiscernible) to mention one point -- | | THE COURT: Attorney Kim, I'm just going to stop | | you for a second, just so it's clear that it's you that's | | speaking. | | So, Attorney Kim, you go right ahead. | | MR. KIM: Yes, Austin Kim for the Greenwich Land | | Defendants. I apologize, Your Honor. | | THE COURT: No, that's okay. | | MR. KIM: Austin Kim for the Greenwich Land | | Defendants. | | The one last point that I wanted to raise is that | | the bulk of what the trustee has presented are vague claims | | of obstruction or of concealment, but those are precisely why | | the equitable doctrines of equitable tolling or fraudulent | | concealment, those doctrines already exist. So the trustee | | is totally protected if, for example, some of the 700 | | documents or whatever documents do uncover some basis for an | | additional adversary proceeding after the 15th of August. So | | the trustee does not need the Court's additional order, | | basically granting him a six-month reprieve from having to | | justify an equitable toll for any particular case because | | they have it for every case, brought or not brought. | | So, we would just say that as a matter of equity | | to the objectors and for individuals who are not yet here, | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 435 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 that there's no need for the trustee to get the additional sort of protection of not having to establish their burden based on some claim of obstruction, because that same argument that was raised in February is the same argument being raised today. I mean, it'll probably be raised against next February.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 At a certain point -- I'm not saying this case is going to last forever -- but at a certain point, I think the two-year statute of limitations was made for a particular reason. They've already received a 25 percent extension. Now, they're seeking a 50 percent extension. At a certain point, you know, I think that the Court should hold the trustee to its tasks and let him know, Hey, you already have these rights if you can show that that was, in fact, observe instruction that caused a delay and having the information to bring the adversary proceeding, instead of prospectively saying, Well, you know, we think there's obstruction and we're looking at information and Kroll is spending some time digging around.

20 21 22 I think it's insufficient to justify a cause basis for essentially granting them equitable tolling on an omnibus basis, and that's all I have, Your Honor.

23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. With regard to the motion for extension of time, the first supplemental motion to extend

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 436 of 500

| 1 | deadline to file avoidance actions, ECF 3329, I will take the | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | matter under advisement and rule accordingly. | | 3 | Thank you all very much. | | 4 | Now, we'll move to the mentioned emergency motion | | 5 | for order authorizing funding to maintain the Mahwah Mansion. | | 6 | And parties who were here on the first matter, if | | 7 | you do not want to stay, you are absolutely excused, but | | 8 | you're also welcome to stay throughout the entire hearing. | | 9 | Thank you. | | 10 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 11 | MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll be | | 12 | addressing the amended emergency motion. This is Patrick | | 13 | Linsey for the Chapter 11 Trustee. | | 14 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 15 | MR. LINSEY: The amended emergency motion was | | 16 | filed in the main case, but addresses facts that are at issue | | 17 | in the Taurus Fund LLC adversary proceeding 23-5017. That | | 18 | adversary proceeding was filed against Taurus Fund and its | | 19 | co-defendants involving a \$26-and-a-half-million mansion in | | 20 | Mahwah New Jersey, which the debtor purchased in December | | 21 | of 2021. | | 22 | Since the Court entered a preliminary injunction | | 23 | in that adversary proceeding and until the debtors' criminal | | 24 | trial, the Defendants have been funding security and other | | 25 | expenses for the Mahwah Mansion. These expenses are | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 437 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 substantial. The Mahwah Mansion is approximately 50,000 square feet in interior size and has approximately 12 and a half acres of grounds. The cost of the security services for the Mahwah Mansion is approximately \$14,200 a week. The cost of the real estate taxes for the property, which the Defendants have also been funding, is approximately \$70,000 per quarter.

8 9 10 11 12 The trustee expects there will be other expenses, as well (indiscernible) and the like. It's important for the value of the Mahwah Mansion to be preserved for the benefit of the estate, hence the trustee's motion requesting authority under the Bankruptcy Code to fund these expenses.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Court has already found in its ruling on the preliminary injunction that it is administer likely than not that the debtor is the beneficial owner of and controls the Mahwah Mansion. The Court also noted in the preliminary injunction that for a period of time, the debtor had made the Mahwah Mansion available to other individuals and entities, such that it was frequented by third parties. This highlights the importance that security be maintained in light of the threat of damage by people who had previously frequented the property.

23 24 25 The preliminary injunction, as the Court is aware, requires that the Defendants employ the security services. Following the debtors' criminal trial, Taurus Fund informed

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 438 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the manager of the security services that Taurus Fund would no longer be providing funding. While the trustee believes that Taurus Fund is violating a preliminary injunction, it is important that the value of this property is preserved in light of the trustee's expectation that through the adversary proceeding, the mansion will be confirmed by judgment of the Court to be property of the estate.

8 9 10 11 12 In fact, from the evidence from the debtors' criminal trial, the trustee's case that this is property of the estate is even stronger now than it was when the Court entered the preliminary injunction order and made those findings there.

13 14 15 16 17 One additional thing I neglected to mention, what we know from proceedings in the Mahwah adversary proceeding is that the Mahwah Mansion is presently not insured, which, again, is further reason that measures need to be taken to ensure that the property is secured.

18 19 20 21 22 23 The trustee's motion requests authority under Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to use property of the estate to pay expenses of the Mahwah Mansion up to a cap of \$300,000. We're seeking this relief because we don't yet have that judgment saying this is property of the estate. The trustee is hopeful that the \$300,000 cap will

24 25 provide adequate funding for any expenses over the period of time necessary to obtain judgment as to ownership of the

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 439 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 property. To the extent the cap requires adjustment, there's a mechanism built into the proposed order to do that. To be clear and for the purpose of the record, we're filing a 363(b) motion because the property is not, by the Court's ruling yet, property of the estate; however, once that ruling enters, the trustee understands that we would no longer need to be under the relief sought in this order under 363(b), because at that point, the payments to maintain the property would be ordinary course. The motion also provides that the trustee does not obtain judgment in the adversary proceeding to the extent that, or to the effect, rather, that the Mahwah Mansion is property of the estate, that the estate will then have a claim against Taurus Fund in the amount of the expenses advanced to be secured by the value of the Mahwah Mansion. This is because right now, Taurus Fund is obligated under the preliminary injunction to be funding expenses. It's not doing so. And under a hypothetical scenario, just to be clear, we don't think it's going to come to pass, but under a hypothetical scenario where the estate's claims do not prevail, Taurus Fund would have been unjustly enriched by the estate's funding of these expenses. The trustee would also note that the relief he is

24 25 seeking does not reveal the Defendants of their obligations under the preliminary injunction; again, this motion is one

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 440 of 500

1 2 3 4 5 of practicality. Your Honor can enter further orders and we may proceed with further orders in regards to those matters, but from a practical perspective, the trustee has an obligation to preserve the value for the estate and that's what we're doing by this motion.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yesterday, Taurus Fund filed a response to the motion consenting to the relief requested by the trustee, as provided in the proposed order that's at ECF 3392. Since filing the motion, the trustee has consulted with counsel for the United States Trustee, who suggested that terms in the proposed order that rely on incorporated definition be expressly defined in the proposed order and the trustee agrees that makes sense.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So what the trustee would propose to do, to the extent the Court is inclined to grant the motion, is that we submit a revised proposed order that expressly defines the capitalized terms for which definitions are incorporated. That we note that the Taurus Fund filed a response saying that it does not object to the relief sought in the order. And that we say, explicitly, that there was a hearing today. We can submit that order -- the trustee can submit that order, certainly, by tomorrow, if not by later today,

24 25 Defendants and the U.S. Trustee CCed, in the Court would prefer we submit it otherwise.

and can send it to the courtroom deputy with the Mahwah

85

86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Court may have. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at this time, thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on this motion? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn, do you agree with what Attorney Linsey said, with regard to the proposed order? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. And the U.S. Trustee has no objection to the motion. THE COURT: Okay. I have looked at the proposed order -- does anybody else wish to be heard? I'm sorry, I don't want to cut anyone off? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. I had looked at the proposed order and I understand that you're going to be making some changes, Attorney Linsey, assuming I'm going to grant the motion. I think the changes that you've just stated are fine. I find that no one has filed any written objection to your motion. The Taurus Fund did file something yesterday, I belief it was yesterday, that says they do not object to the motion, but they object to certain language in what it Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 441 of 500

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 442 of 500

1 2 believes is a mischaracterization of the Taurus Fund's behavior set forth in the motion.

| 3 | I think under the very specific circumstances of | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 4 | this case and the issues related to the Mahwah Mansion that | | 5 | have been brought to the Court's attention, both in the main | | 6 | case and in the adversary proceeding that the trustee has | | 7 | commenced against the Taurus Fund and related Defendants, | | 8 | that the relief sought is reasonable and necessary under the | | 9 | circumstances. We've gone through the issues in the | | 10 | adversary proceeding, including the fact that there is no | | 11 | insurance at the property and that the security firm was | | 12 | retained as part of a preliminary injunction order. I know | | 13 | that the trustee is not pressing any issues with the | | 14 | preliminary injunction at this time. | | 15 | For all those reasons, the amended motion for | | 16 | order is granted and, Attorney Linsey, you'll have the order | | 17 | in by tomorrow or the next day? I just need to give a date | | 18 | to the Clerk's Office so that they will be on the lookout for | | 19 | it. | | 20 | MR. LINSEY: We'll have it in by tomorrow, Your | | 21 | Honor. |

THE COURT: Thank you.

23 24 25 And you can just submit it to the courtroom deputy email box for Bridgeport. You do not need to docket it on the case docket.

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 443 of 500

| 1 | So the motion is granted and the revised proposed | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | order will be submitted on or before August 14th. | | 3 | MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 4 | THE COURT: Thank you. | | 5 | Now, with regard to the two -- now, Trustee | | 6 | Despins, I forget now, and I apologize. I think I've been | | 7 | sitting here for a few hours, but you had said something at | | 8 | the beginning that you thought there was something that | | 9 | needed to be on the calendar and now I can't recall what that | | 10 | was, because this was the Mahwah Mansion issue. | | 11 | Was there something else? | | 12 | MR. DESPINS: Well, no. There's the status | | 13 | conference on -- | | 14 | THE COURT: Right, the status conference. Yeah, | | 15 | that's fair. | | 16 | MR. DESPINS: -- the scheduling. | | 17 | THE COURT: That's the fourth matter on the | | 18 | calendar. | | 19 | There are two other -- the status conference was | | 20 | granted; it is on the calendar. | | 21 | But let's just take a moment with regard to the | | 22 | Genever adversary proceeding versus Kwok; that's been | | 23 | continued a few times before, but it was not continued today. | | 24 | MR. DESPINS: Yeah. | | 25 | THE COURT: Did you anticipate oh did you plan to | | | |

89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go forward with this matter? MR. DESPINS: No, we dropped the ball, Your Honor, on that. We should have extended that, as well. So we'll make sure that that happens. So, that should not go forward. We apologize for that. THE COURT: That's fine. So you're going to be filing a motion to set a new -- to adjourn the pretrial conference to a new date in the future? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So we're just going to note that the conference was held, but that the Plaintiff will be submitting, I suppose, a motion or something -- will be submitting -- what did you file last time, was it an actual motion? I think it might have been, yeah, a motion to -- MR. DESPINS: A consent, yeah. THE COURT: -- adjourn hearing upon consent. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: So I think you'll be submitting another motion and suggest an adjourned pretrial conference date, okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. So the pretrial conference Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 444 of 500

# 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 was held, but it will be adjourned, again, to a date to be determined, okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So the last matter on the calendar is the status conference, so go right -- in the - with regard to the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding. So go right ahead, Trustee Despins. Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 445 of 500

8 9 MR. DESPINS: Mr. Bassett will handle that, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay.

11 12 MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, yes, again, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Your Honor, it's a bit of an odd situation to be in for a status conference. We, as the Court will recall, we outlined this in our request for the status conference, the order saying various litigation, including the Mahwah adversary proceeding provided that upon the conclusion of the criminal trial, the debtor could file a notice indicating his intent to resume the adversary proceeding, following which the parties had seven days to confer about a proposed schedule.

22 23 24 25 We sent our proposed schedule to Attorney Conway, counsel for the Defendants. He confirmed receipt, but did not give us his position on the schedule. We followed up with him prior to the seven-day deadline to request a status

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 446 of 500

1 2 3 conference and still did not hear anything, so we then requested the status conference. We've still not heard from him.

4 5 6 7 8 All we have heard is that he sent a response to the other motion that we just finished discussing, stating that he was occupied today and, therefore, would not be attending the hearing. So we are having a status conference with only one of the parties present.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 From the trustee's perspective, Your Honor, our intent, which we have expressed to the Defendants' counsel is to move forward with summary judgment in the adversary proceeding as expeditiously as possible. We have undertaken some discovery. We have also very intently followed the criminal trial and gathered additional information from that trial that we would intend to use in support of summary judgment. We see no delay in moving ahead in that -- we see no reason to delay moving ahead in that direction and we've received no opposition, no response at all, from counsel to the Defendants.

20 21 22 23 24 25 So, that's what we intend to do. I think what we had said in the, in what we filed that requested the status conference, Your Honor, that we had anticipated filing our motion by the 19th and then giving the Defendants two weeks to respond and then we'd reply in a week. I think what we may do, and we can submit a proposed scheduling order, but

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 447 of 500

| 1 | out of respect for colleagues on me team that are working on | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | that motion, we may need a couple of extra days, so I think | | 3 | we would just propose a schedule that says we will file the | | 4 | motion and there'll be a 14-day response deadline and then | | 5 | a 7-day reply deadline. | | 6 | That's how we intend to proceed -- | | 7 | THE COURT: No, I think were usually give a 21-day | | 8 | response deadline, though, on motions; that's the District | | 9 | Court's Local Rule. | | 10 | MR. BASSETT: That's fine, Your Honor. | | 11 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 12 | MR. BASSETT: We had proposed to Defense counsel | | 13 | moving quickly under the circumstances, given the funding and | | 14 | other issues, but we're happy to do 21 days. | | 15 | The only other point I wanted to make, just so the | | 16 | Court is aware, although we did not hear back from counsel | | 17 | regarding our request for, regarding our proposed schedule, | | 18 | we did get notice that they filed a motion to withdraw the | | 19 | reference -- | | 20 | THE COURT: Yeah, I saw that. | | 21 | MR. BASSETT: -- Friday night. | | 22 | THE COURT: And it's been transmitted to the | | 23 | District Court. I think it might have been transmitted | | 24 | today. | | 25 | MR. BASSETT: Correct, Your Honor. | | | |

# Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 448 of 500

| 1 | Okay. I just wanted to make sure the Court was | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | aware of that. And, obviously, in our view, if there's | | 3 | summary judgment briefing before Your Honor and that leads to | | 4 | the decision that would be reviewed by the Appellate Court, | | 5 | in any event, so we'll deal with the motion to withdraw the | | 6 | reference as we need to, but we don't see that as, you know, | | 7 | creating any issue with respect to how we proceed before Your | | 8 | Honor. | | 9 | THE COURT: I understand. Mr. Conway may | | 10 | disagree, but I'm sure we'll do that in his papers or not. | | 11 | So we'll see how things proceed. | | 12 | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? Luc Despins, | | 13 | Chapter 11 Trustee. | | 14 | On the 21 days, can we -- because I have the | | 15 | feeling that we're not going to hear from Mr. Conway again. | | 16 | I could be wrong, but -- | | 17 | THE COURT: You can ask for the time to be | | 18 | shortened; yes, in your scheduling, you can ask for that. | | 19 | MR. DESPINS: Or that if he intends to file | | 20 | something, then he should have his 21 days, but if he's not | | 21 | going to do it, I don't want to wait 21 days for nothing. | | 22 | THE COURT: Well, I -- | | 23 | MR. DESPINS: So I can't promise -- | | 24 | THE COURT: Under the District Court Local Rules | | 25 | it's 21 days so, if you want a shorter time, you'll have to |

94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ask for it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Bassett, is there anything else, then, we can do this afternoon with regard to this status conference? MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. Thank you very much. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not going to schedule another status conference at this point. You will just take whatever action you think is appropriate, including, as you mentioned, the likelihood of proceeding forward with summary judgment, okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then, with regard to -- we have now addressed everything that is on today's calendar, but as we often do at the end of hearings when there are several matters, I ask the trustee or any parties, are there any other issues that the parties wish to discuss with the Court? MR. DESPINS: The only point, Your Honor -- thank you, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee -- is that we may need, and I don't know that yet, assistance in terms of getting title to Greenwich Land transferred in my name as trustee; to put insurance on, I need to have an insurable interest. We're working on that, the technical aspects of that, but we Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 449 of 500

95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may need, like, a court order that directs, you know, like, the Town (indiscernible) or something like that, but we hope to avoid all of that. And we are working on a stipulation with the Greenwich Land Defendants where, I think everything has been agreed to, where there'll be a transfer of possession on August 20th. So, if anything happens, it will need to be between now and August 20th, but hopefully, we won't. We'll just be submitting to Your Honor a stipulated or a consent order. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else -- MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: -- wish to be heard on any matters this afternoon? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Well, thank you, all. That concludes today's hearings and those were the last matters on today's calendar, so Court is adjourned. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE CLERK: Court is adjourned. Excuse me. (Proceedings concluded at 3:24 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 450 of 500

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 3602 Filed 10/01/24 Entered 10/01/24 09:51:43 Page 451 of | | | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|--| | | 500 | 96 | | | 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | | | | 5 | knowledge and ability. | | | | 6 | | | | | 7 | /s/ William J. Garling August 19, 2024 | | | | 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | 10 | For Reliable | | | | 11 | | | | | 12 | | | | | 13 | | | | | 14 | | | | | 15 | | | | | 16 | | | | | 17 | | | | | 18 | | | | | 19 | | | | | 20 | | | | | 21 | | | | | 22 | | | | | 23 | | | | | 24 | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

## **EXHIBIT 6**

**Superseding Indictment**

- - - -

| Bescription | Percentage of Proceeds | |---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Acquisition of companies to strengthen and grow GILV | Approximate 70% | | Upgrade of GTV technology and security | Approximate 10% | | Marketing | Approximate 8% | | Working capital | Approximate 7% | | Other | Approximate 5% | | Total | 100% |

- - - - -