Miles Trial Day 6 - Court transcript and translation, version 1

Original Court Transcript(原始庭审记录)

565

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

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.

May 30, 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

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

BY: E. SCOTT SCHIRICK

566

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

ALSO PRESENT:

Isabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO

Robert Stout, Special Agent, FBI

Ruben Montilla, Defense Paralegal

Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)

Shi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin)

Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin)

567

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

(Trial resumed; jury not present)

THE COURT: Good morning. Would you make your

appearances, please.

MR. HORTON: Good morning, your Honor. Justin Horton,

Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Fergenson for the

government. We're joined by paralegal Isabel Loftus and Robert

Stout from the FBI.

MR. KAMARAJU: Good morning, your Honor. Sid Kamaraju

and Scott Schirick on behalf of Mr. Guo. My understanding is

Mr. Guo is just in the bathroom.

THE COURT: All right. So we'll wait till he comes

out. Please be seated.

(Defendant present)

THE COURT: So last night the defense submitted a

letter with respect to hearsay exceptions, which deserves a lot

of attention, and I'd like to discuss the three hearsay

exceptions which they mention. I know that the prosecution has

not yet responded to the letter.

So the first exception mentioned is statements that

are offered for their impact on the defendant, and as an

example, defense counsel mentions a conversation concerning

misuse of funds. So we had one witness, Mr. Zhou, who spoke

about a videoconference where the misuse of funds was raised.

How is it that Mr. Guo's statements about the misuse of funds

would have an impact on him?

568

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, just for the record,

Mr. Guo is now here at counsel's table.

The——I think you have to take those two in tandem,

your Honor, the first example we gave and the second example we

gave.

THE COURT: But I want you to stick with the first

example.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay.

THE COURT: Impact on the defendant.

MR. KAMARAJU: Sure. So an example of that, your

Honor, would be, if the defendant said, "Oh, my gosh, I can't

believe the funds were stolen," then that is evidence of the

impact that other people's statements had on him.

THE COURT: Yes. But we're talking about the witness

speaking about Mr. Guo's statements about misuse of funds.

That's what I thought you were getting at.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, my point, your Honor, is, in the

example I just gave, Mr. Guo's statement was made in response

to another party's statement, right, and so it's——his statement

is evidence of the impact that the speaker's statement had on

him. It caused, in that specific example——and again, as we

said in our letter, we're not trying to revisit any of those

rulings, but if it caused Mr. Guo to take an action, right, if

it caused him to make a phone call, right, if it caused him

to——if it caused him to say something or send a direction, that

569

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

is evidence of impact that it had on Mr. Guo.

THE COURT: So I'd like to hear from the government

about that.

MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor.

So the way this typically works, this kind of state of

mind exception, would be——

THE COURT: This is impact on the defendant.

MR. FERGENSON: Correct.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: Which would be someone, an

out-of-court declarant, saying something to the defendant, not

the defendant saying something to other people.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: That's the framework.

THE COURT: The word "impact," it necessarily means

that an individual is the object of something. You are being

impacted by, you are receiving the action.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes. Yes, your Honor. But where I'm

going is that the statement, the defendant's statement can

still be evidence of the impact that someone else's statement

has on him, right? I'm not quibbling with the fact that impact

suggested a third party's acting in a way that is influencing

Mr. Guo. I'm just saying that Mr. Guo's statement can be

evidence of that influence.

MR. FERGENSON: Just briefly, your Honor.

570

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: If that were the rule, or if that were

the exception, it would swallow the rule, because it's hard to

imagine a situation where an actor, the defendant, is not

speaking in response to something. And so if any time he

speaks, it's evidence of his state of mind, then you're

basically disregarding the hearsay rules for anything the

defendant said, because you could always say, well, anything he

said is reflective of his state of mind. That's not the way

the rules of evidence work. It's not how the hearsay rules

work. There are cases like the ones they cited where something

is said to the defendant and that had an effect on the

defendant, or at least the defense is entitled to argue that it

did, and that out-of-court statement comes in. And it's not

the case that any time the defendant spoke, it's a reflection

of his state of mind and it can disregard the hearsay rules to

have the defendant essentially testify without taking the stand

throughout the trial. It's not——it's not an opposing party

statement, like when the government elicits the defendant's

statements, and the hearsay rules preclude them from doing

that. That's——it's kind of Trial 101, your Honor.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, so, first of all, I think DiMaria

addressed that argument that Mr. Fergenson just made, but the

state of mind exception——which is not the one that your Honor

was asking about——but the state of mind exception has a

571

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

carveout built into it, so that's what Mr. Fergenson is talking

about. Your Honor is focused on impact, the impact part of our

letter. My point is simply that if there is a statement made

by the defendant that is being offered for a reason other than

its truth, and so in that case we were using it as an example

of impact, but a statement that evinces his desire to do

something in response to a statement.

THE COURT: No. But we're talking about a witness who

is quoting your client. The witness says, "Mr. Guo said we

should investigate the misuse of funds."

MR. KAMARAJU: Right.

THE COURT: So the question is: How does Mr. Guo's

statement impact himself?

MR. KAMARAJU: But that, I don't think——respectfully,

your Honor, I don't think our formulation is that Mr. Guo's

statement impacts himself. I think our formulation is that

Mr. Guo's statement is evidence of the impact that another

statement had on him. That's not being offered for the truth;

that's being offered for solely the reaction that it caused in

Mr. Guo.

THE COURT: But in this case, your position is that

Mr. Guo indeed wanted to have an investigation carried out

against Sara Wei, and so isn't it being offered for the truth

of the matter asserted, that he's directing that an

investigation be undertaken, and that's part of your defense?

572

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

MR. KAMARAJU: No, your Honor, because that would

fall, in our view, into the second example we gave, which is an

order or direction, and an order or direction is not hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, so we're in the command exception

now. I was in the impact exception. So——

MR. KAMARAJU: Well——I'm sorry, your Honor. My

apologies. I didn't mean to interrupt.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KAMARAJU: No, I was only——I only brought up the

command because your Honor brought up the concept of

investigation of Sara Wei, so that was just the example that we

used in connection with the second prong. So that's why I went

to the command angle of it.

THE COURT: Right. The statement, "I understand that

there may be a misuse of funds and that should be

investigated," that in and of itself is not a command. If he

states, "You should investigate it, you must undertake an

investigation," that is a command.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, that's what we were trying to

elicit was that he did say this should be looked into.

THE COURT: I understand the command exception. I

just don't comprehend the impact exception that you're making

out, and I invite you to submit authority that discusses a

defendant's own statement's impact on himself.

MR. KAMARAJU: I don't think I'll have that authority,

573

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

your Honor, because that's not our——as I think your Honor

knows, because that's not our argument.

THE COURT: Well, your argument is that the

defendant's statement reflects the impact another person's

statement had on him.

MR. KAMARAJU: So maybe I can try to do a clearer

example. And I recognize that is not this case, but I'm just

trying to use what might be a familiar example.

In a——in support of a duress defense, right, a

defendant may be able to say, or you may be able to elicit

testimony from a third-party witness that another party

threatened the defendant unless they took the action that the

government charged them with, right? That could come in as a

state of mind, but it could also come in as an example of

impact. Now the way the defendant's statement in that scenario

might come in is, if the defendant says, "Oh, no, I'm terrified

of that." If they expressed fear, right, that would be

evidence of the impact that the threatener's statement is

having on the defendant. And that's——I mean, that's how you

make out a duress defense, right, in the absence of the

defendant's testimony. So that's an example of a defendant's

statement being an example of the impact that it had on him,

which is our formulation. We're not trying to say that

Mr. Guo's statements impacted himself in some way. I recognize

that that would be circular.

574

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

THE COURT: Okay. So I'll hear from the government

with respect to the defense contention that commands are

exceptions to the hearsay rule. And I will permit you, of

course, to do your own research. I know that you may not have

completed that yet.

MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor. Just as a general

matter, that's correct. I think as everyone recognizes, the

devil is in the details at times. And just to take an example,

the one that we were discussing just a moment ago, your Honor,

a statement like, "This should be investigated," that is close

to a command but not exactly. The command would be,

"Investigate this." But some kind of general pontificating on

"This should be investigated" is not——I don't think that, you

know——we're kind of dealing with these examples on the fly. I

don't think that would fall under the command exception. But

as a general principle, it is correct, you know, Mr. Kamaraju

is correct that commands are not hearsay.

THE COURT: All righty. So I don't recall how, during

Mr. Zhou's testimony, any command was dealt with by myself. I

just don't recall it in the transcript. And so we can go back

and we certainly can alter my ruling to reflect the command

exception to the hearsay rule, but I of course invite you to

review the transcript and identify where that took place.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, that's fine, your Honor. We're

happy to do it. We're happy to identify the places for the

575

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

Court. We truly——we truly intended this to be a prospective

issue simply because we——given the government's hearsay

objections, we expect that this is going to come up over and

over again. So it's not that we're requesting the Court go

back and revise any of its rulings. That witness has been

excused. We're not asking to call him back or anything like

that. Just given what we've seen in the 3500 material, what we

anticipate our cross-examination being, and given the

government's perspective on hearsay, we just wanted to be clear

so that the Court had our position for the record.

THE COURT: All right. So now we go to the state of

mind exception. If you could explain your position on that.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor.

So the state of mind, so obviously, the case we cited,

United States v. DiMaria, the state of mind exception is

triggered when the defendant's statement is offered to prove

their then-existing state of mind. It cannot, just by rule, as

everyone knows, be used to introduce a statement about a

past-remembered belief. So from our perspective, if Mr. Guo

made a statement like——I'll use the DiMaria example again. So

in DiMaria, when the agents came to arrest him, the defendant,

the defendant said, "Why are you guys here? I'm just here to

get some cheap cigarettes." So the Court in that case said

that is indicative of his state of mind for why he thought he

was there.

576

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

THE COURT: For?

MR. KAMARAJU: Why the defendant believes he was

there. That was his state of mind, his present, existing state

of mind for why he was there. So from our perspective, there

could be similar testimony where we could cross-examine a

witness who might make a statement, for example, about Mahwah,

right, and Mr. Guo's belief at the time, during the period of

the conspiracy, about Mahwah and its use. That——and again,

we'd have to see what the testimony is, but that would be an

example of a state of mind exception.

THE COURT: So you're saying that if a witness were on

the stand and the witness states Mr. Guo said the premises is

used for these given purposes, that that statement should come

in to show his state of mind?

MR. KAMARAJU: At the time, your Honor, yes. It

cannot come in——if he tried to say——if we tried to elicit

testimony that said, you know, in 2023 he's reflecting back on

a purchase from 2021, we're not saying that is a state of mind

exception. But for his present, then-existing state of mind,

yes.

THE COURT: I'll hear from the government on that.

MR. FERGENSON: Again, very difficult to deal in the

abstract with this, but we are concerned, as we said at the

outset, that the defense's interpretation of this exception

would swallow the rule such that pretty much anything the

577

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

defendant said ever, they could elicit through, you know——offer

through our witnesses. That's not the way the hearsay

exception works, your Honor. It's very difficult to address it

in the abstract, and we haven't had much time to digest their

letter, but I think there's a real concern that it would——the

exception would swallow the rule.

THE COURT: So I want to understand when a hearsay

statement, an out-of-court statement by Mr. Guo would not be

showing his state of mind. Give me an example of that.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, I mean, first of all, the rule

defines an example of that, right? Which is past

recollections. That's one example, right? But let me put it

this way. What the government's argument basically collapses

to is that the Court should read out the state of mind

exception because they think it's too broad. That's not the

way that works.

THE COURT: Well, the Court is trying to figure out

when the Court should read in the exception.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, I agree, and as I said, your

Honor, it certainly turns on the particular statement. So my

example was one of, during the period of the conspiracy, when

they say renovations are happening, right, if Mr. Guo says, oh,

you know, I like this for the G/CLUBS members or whatever,

first of all, that's relevant, right? And secondly, it shows

his then existing state of mind during a relevant time period,

578

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

not in the past. We're not talking about future action, which

is a separate hearsay exception; we're talking about at that

moment in time, that's what Mr. Guo believes, right? So to me,

trying to determine what is read in——and your Honor is right,

you can't do that in the abstract, but I think the example I

just gave, then it is very clearly then-existing state of mind.

THE COURT: We'll revisit this. We'll revisit this.

And of course the government will have an opportunity to submit

authority on this, and of course I invite you, Mr. Kamaraju, to

submit any further authority to guide the Court.

MR. KAMARAJU: I appreciate that, your Honor, and I'll

certainly try.

THE COURT: Is there anything else before we have the

jurors come in?

MR. KAMARAJU: Not from the defense, your Honor.

MR. FERGENSON: It's not——I don't believe it's

pressing before the jury comes in, your Honor, but the defense

did submit a motion for reconsideration of your Honor's expert

rulings. You know, I think we would ask to have at least until

Monday to file a response to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. FERGENSON: And secondly, just one housekeeping

matter that I will keep short. I don't——I think given the

schedule, we probably won't get to the testimony of Mr. Shamel

Medrano. He's a summary witness of the government, introducing

579

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

a large volume of videos and G News posts. That was the

subject of our letter that your Honor ruled on yesterday. He's

introducing a summary chart that's a little over 200 pages.

And we prepared hard-copy binders for the Court, for the jury,

for defense, and also for the court reporters, that we would——I

don't think we'll get to his testimony today, but wanted to

just alert the Court to that, that, you know, prior to his

testimony, we might want to put those binders underneath the

jurors' chairs or hand them out at the beginning, if that was

all right with your Honor.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. FERGENSON: The one other thing with that

testimony is there's——I will also——there's so many exhibits

that we'll be offering pursuant to stipulations, that we're

grateful for the defense in helping us reach agreement on, that

we were hoping to hand out just a page listing out all the

government exhibits so the court reporter and the Court can

follow along while I read them out, if that is also all right

with your Honor.

THE COURT: Very handy. Thank you.

MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: We are going to have our sidebars on this

side of the bench going forward.

MR. KAMARAJU: That makes sense to us, your Honor.

It's a little close to the witness and the jury otherwise.

580

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1

THE COURT: All right. So we will return at 9:30.

ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, your Honor.

(Recess)

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, if I may just raise something

briefly before the jury comes in.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. HORTON: We were handed a document a moment ago

that we understand the defense intends to offer through

Ms. Maistrello. It is a document that postdates her

employment. We don't think there's any way that she can

authenticate it. It postdates her employment. There's no

author indicated on the document except Golden Spring Ltd. It

appears to be a corporate document.

So setting aside the authentication issue, although

that's, of course, a threshold issue, this is a two-page

statement of the defendant's agent. It's exactly the kind of

hearsay that we've been talking about, and it's clearly offered

for its truth. It's a two-page explanation of the purpose of

the security team at Golden Spring. So we want to bring that

to the Court's attention and object to it.

THE COURT: So is the defense planning to use it to

refresh her recollection?

MR. HORTON: Well, it postdates her employment, and——

THE COURT: Yes, but anything can be used to refresh a

recollection.

581

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

MR. HORTON: Of course. I understand.

THE COURT: That would, of course, be the only reason

that document could be put before the witness, and I know that

Ms. Shroff knows that.

MS. SHROFF: I do know that, your Honor. That is

exactly what I would use the document for. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. All righty. Please have the jurors

brought in.

(Continued on next page)

582

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

(Jury present)

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I believe we're missing one

person.

THE COURT: The witness? Yes, yes, the witness will

also come in.

Good morning, jurors.

THE JURORS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Welcome back. Please be seated.

Good morning. And remember that you're still under

oath.

You may continue with the cross-examination.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

KARIN MAISTRELLO, resumed.

CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. You testified on direct, right, that you were going to

refer to Mr. Guo as Boss through these proceedings, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. And Mr. Guo also went by the name Ho Wan Kwok, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you keep your voice up for me, please.

A. I'll do my best.

583

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Thank you.

And the name Ho Wan Kwok is his Hong Kong name,

correct?

A. Cantonese name.

Q. Right. It's his Cantonese name, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You can just pull that towards you if you want, the

microphone.

A. No, I'm good.

Q. And that's the name that appears on his Hong Kong passport,

correct?

A. I do not remember.

Q. Well, you made travel arrangements for him, right?

A. I did.

Q. You made hotel bookings for him, correct?

A. Not with his name.

Q. I cannot hear you.

THE COURT: All righty. So shall we try the handheld

microphone instead then.

A. Not using his name.

Q. Not using the name Ho Wan Kwok?

A. I never used his name to make reservations.

Q. Okay. And you knew that he had a political asylum in the

name of Ho Wan Kwok, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

584

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. I do not remember the name used.

Q. You knew he had a political asylum application pending,

correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes.

Q. Now it's fair to say, right, that your employee contract

was with Golden Springs, correct?

A. Golden Spring.

Q. And you testified on direct that when you took the job,

your understanding was that Golden Spring was a managed——asset

management company, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the time that you took the job, nobody told you

where those assets came from, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you did not know whether the assets came from the

Middle East, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. I did not know.

Q. And you knew at some point that the assets came from Golden

Spring Hong Kong, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. We covered this

585

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

yesterday.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You told the FBI that you had knowledge that the assets

flowing into Golden Spring New York came from both the Middle

East——

MR. HORTON: Same objection, your Honor.

MS. SHROFF: I hadn't finished question.

THE COURT: Please continue.

Q. ——and from Golden Spring Hong Kong, correct?

MR. HORTON: Same objection, your Honor. This was

covered yesterday.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. Sure. You told the FBI that you were aware that the assets

in Golden Spring New York came from both the Middle East and

Hong Kong, correct?

A. I knew there were transfers from Golden Spring Hong Kong to

Golden Spring New York, yes.

Q. And you also knew that there were transfers from the Middle

East to Golden Spring New York and you told the FBI that,

correct? You remember that?

A. I knew that there were transfers to various companies.

Q. Right. And by transfer, you mean money coming in, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you recall telling the FBI that you were

586

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

perfectly aware that those transfers paid for Mr. Go's personal

and political expenses, correct?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Okay. Well, let me see if I can help you refresh your

recollection.

THE COURT: One moment, please.

Go ahead.

Q. Does that document refresh your recollection?

A. I've never seen this document before.

Q. Let me try it this way.

THE COURT: We're getting a little bit of feedback

here and so——

MS. SHROFF: I know.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q. Ma'am, you recall your meetings with——

THE COURT: All right. We're still getting the

feedback.

All right. Let's try again.

Q. Does this document refresh your recollection?

A. Are you referring to a specific paragraph?

Q. Sure. The paragraph I hope that is now highlighted for

you.

THE COURT: So you're not to read anything out loud.

The question is whether or not the document refreshes your

recollection.

587

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. You can take that down.

Q. And when you started at Golden Spring, Mr. Guo asked you to

research something called DDS attacks; do you remember that?

A. I do.

Q. And what are DDS attacks? Could you tell the jury, please.

A. Those were cyber attacks that, according to Boss, were done

by the CCP to——to his platforms.

Q. And there were also attacks to Golden Spring platforms,

correct?

A. What do you mean by Golden Spring platforms?

Q. I mean emails to Golden Spring.

A. What I was asked to investigate was specifically about Guo

Media, not Golden Spring.

Q. Okay. So you were asked to look into or investigate the

distributed denial of service attacks on Guo Media platforms,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you did that along with the help of a gentleman

named Raj Benraj (ph), correct? Or is it Benraja? I'm not

sure.

A. Raj is his name.

Q. Right. That's his first name, right, and Benraj is his

last name? Do you recall that?

A. No, that is not his last name.

588

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. And there was also an ongoing concern about the email

addresses used by Golden Spring, correct?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. You don't recall William Gertz being on the board and

asking for Proton Mail to be used?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Do you know who William Gertz is?

A. I do.

Q. Who is that?

A. He is a journalist and he was a member of Rule of Law

Society board.

Q. Right. And that's the board that you served on, correct,

Rule of Law Society board, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You had nothing to do with Rule of Law Foundation, correct?

A. I was not on that board, no.

Q. Right. You had no job on that——in that nonprofit, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. So let's just go back to the email system used while

communicating with you as a Golden Spring employee, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. Okay. And do you recall Mr. Gertz, as a board member,

talking to you about which email system to use?

A. I don't remember.

589

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Do you remember getting an email from Mr. Gertz saying that

he felt that Proton Mail was more secure because of the cyber

attacks experienced by both Golden Spring and by Rule of Law

Society?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Ms. Shroff, do not elicit hearsay

testimony.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, it's not going for the truth,

it's simply going to show——

THE COURT: If you're going to make an objection, or

respond to an objection, you need to do it at the sidebar.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. I apologize, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

590

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: So what is the purpose of the question?

MS. SHROFF: Well, your Honor, the government elicited

that Proton Mail was used. I think——I can't remember whose

direct this was on, but Proton Mail was somehow used because

people wanted to maintain secrets. I'm entitled to show that

there were, one, concerns about the cybersecurity at both

Golden Spring and the cybersecurity issues at Rule of Law

Society, that she was aware of the cyber issues, one of the

board members had specifically asked to use Proton Mail to have

secure engagement. The document is not being offered for the

truth. The documents are also email exchanges between her and

the board, maintained in the regular course of business, which

would also be an exception to the hearsay rule. So for those

reasons, I asked her whether or not she had an awareness that

one of her board members wanted to use Proton Mail. And I

asked her if she could recall it, and if she can't recall it,

I'm entitled to refresh her recollection. That's what I was

trying to ask.

MR. HORTON: So we did not elicit testimony about the

purpose, if any, of using Proton Mail. It came in through

Louie Bonsukan, who was a salesperson or a customer

representative at a car dealership in Texas, who testified the

fact of a Proton email address in a document that we discussed

with him. The car dealership certainly doesn't know the

591

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

purpose for which anybody outside of the dealership was using

that Proton email. So that testimony did not come in the way

it was described. Ms. Shroff did elicit that, like,

Ms. Maistrello had heard from Bill Gertz that he wanted to use

Proton Mail. That's in. This further long statement about

Bill Gertz talking at length about the reason he wanted to use

it and Bill Gertz's thoughts and Bill Gertz's statements,

that's hearsay, and that's why it's coming in. It's coming in

to prove the truth of what Bill Gertz, who is not here, was

saying.

MS. SHROFF: It's coming in to show that the

government, when it elicited the fact that purchase of the car

was made through a Proton Mail address, therefore asking the

jury to infer that use of a Proton Mail——and I didn't bring up

Proton Mail questions, I'm almost a hundred percent sure it

came out on this direct somehow——that the jury should infer

that that was a sign of a nefarious transaction. I am not

seeking to introduce what Bill Gertz said because, frankly, the

only thing the man did say is, let's use Proton Mail, which is

the only fact I wanted to bring out and show that one of the

board of directors, who is outside of any influence of Miles

Guo, used Proton Mail. That's the most basic fact I was

seeking to elicit. And again, the email exchanges are all——

THE COURT: I want to go back to your question about

whether she received an email from this individual in which he

592

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

said X. My recollection is that I sustained the objection, and

so that it is not in.

MR. HORTON: I think there was——I may be remembering

this incorrectly. I thought there was a question unrelated to

the email about whether she knew if somebody had used Proton

Mail; just the simple knowledge of whether she knew person X

used Proton Mail. I thought that had come in. I think the

point is not——just to be clear——that the Proton Mail is not

relevant; it's that this is hearsay and it's about Bill Gertz's

purposes.

THE COURT: Yes. I'm excluding his statements. But

also, I think that you're implying that the mere use of Proton

Mail implies something.

MS. SHROFF: No. They implied that to another

witness. I was cleaning it up.

THE COURT: No, they did not. They merely stated that

the dealership received an email from Proton Mail, an

individual using Proton Mail. They did not discuss any of the

qualities of Proton Mail.

MS. SHROFF: Oh, they did not. They just wanted the

jury to infer that something's wrong with using Proton Mail,

which is why with that witness, I had to clarify that he gets a

lot of emails from Proton Mail. But you know what, I'll move

on, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good.

593

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

MS. SHROFF: I do want to note that these emails are

maintained in the regular course of business and they do fall

under the business exception rule to the hearsay.

THE COURT: But you're not allowed to get in hearsay

statements merely because they're inside of a business

document.

MS. SHROFF: That's true, your Honor, but I thought it

was relevant, and it's not hearsay. We've been arguing about

hearsay throughout, and I just wanted to make sure the

government is clear on defense's position that there are other

exceptions to the hearsay rule. But I shall move on. It's not

worth it.

MR. HORTON: If I can briefly respond to the last

thing Ms. Shroff said. If she intends to lay a foundation to

get business records in, she can try to do that. I don't think

that's been done yet. Ms. Maistrello is not a document

custodian. There's some work to be done I think if that's

coming next.

MS. SHROFF: I don't think I need a document custodian

to get a hearsay business record in, but thank you for the

lecture.

THE COURT: Ms. Shroff?

MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor——

THE COURT: The way that you were just speaking was

huffy, and I ask you to please not do that.

594

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

MS. SHROFF: I was huffy, your Honor, but I'm tired,

and I don't think this is a valid objection. The government

knows it falls clearly within the business record rule, and the

government is doing as much as it can to prolong this

testimony. There's no reason for any of this. There really

isn't. The government has done this with every objection here.

They inject other issues that are really not relevant to the

analysis. This is a simple issue. This is——

THE COURT: So I don't agree with your claiming that

this is an exception to the hearsay rule. So let us go back.

And please, please, I want you to be even-tempered.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

595

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

(In open court)

THE COURT: The objection was sustained.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. You were aware of the need to investigate the distributed

denial of services attack, correct?

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. You were asked to investigate the distributed denial of

service attacks, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: I'll allow the answer. Go ahead.

A. Yes.

THE COURT: And Ms. Shroff, you used a term there that

I don't understand. Distributed what?

MS. SHROFF: Distributed denial of service attacks.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

Q. And that's when a platform is cyber-attacked, correct?

A. In my understanding, yes.

Q. And you worked on that issue with a gentleman named Raj

Dhangra, D-H-A-N-G-R-A, correct?

A. Initially, I was alone. He was not hired yet.

Q. Your testimony is that he was not hired when you were

assigned this task?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And that came up when he was hired, correct,

according to you?

596

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. There came a time when he was in fact hired,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And he had a technology background that you did not

have, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And he was employed as a person in the IT department,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he assisted with all IT-related issues, correct? That

was his job, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he's the one who assisted you in investigating that

matter, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you emailed with him while he worked there, correct?

A. I mainly——we mainly spoke. We shared the same office.

Q. All right. Well, let me see if I can refresh your

recollection about emailing with him, okay?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. There was no

failure of recollection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Do you recall emailing him about this specific task at

hand?

597

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. I don't remember.

MS. SHROFF: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you interacted with him on

issues involving the security of cyber systems?

A. We spoke about it.

Q. Okay. And you also spoke to him about the issues of

entrance and security for people entering the building,

correct?

A. I sent an email to him as I did to other employees.

Q. And you emailed about what topic, ma'am?

A. Are you referring to the email I have in my hand right now?

Q. I don't need to. I just was testing your recollection of

the topics you covered with him. You emailed him about

security in the building, correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Well, may I ask that you read that document and see if it

refreshes your recollection.

A. I see the document, and I see that I——

THE COURT: Well, don't say what the document says.

The only question is, does it refresh your recollection.

That's a yes or no question.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

A. It doesn't refresh my recollection, but I——I see what's

written in the email.

598

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Okay. And you were aware that there was a security issue

at the building in which Golden Spring was located, correct?

A. We had——we were told that we had to keep the building

secure.

Q. And you wanted to make sure only authorized people came to

the Golden Spring New York office, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You put in place verification procedures, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You put in place the process whereby each vendor's name

would have to be on a list before they could enter the

building, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You put in place a process so that the vendor's name would

have to be told, the date of the visit would have to be told,

the time of the visit would have to be told, and the reason for

the visit would have to be told, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You put in place the requirement that each vendor have

identification presented before they were allowed into the

building to come to the Golden Spring New York office, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were the person who made yourself responsible for

making sure that the security team and any other party that was

involved was aware of this procedure, correct?

599

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And you were the one who informed the entire team that you

would keep a record of each of these procedures being followed,

correct?

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, the document is not in

evidence.

MS. SHROFF: I'm not asking about the document, your

Honor, most respectfully.

THE COURT: So first, the witness must answer "I don't

recall" before considering a document that may or may not

refresh her recollection. So the procedure is, you're asked a

question; if you say that you don't recall, then she says, is

there something that might refresh your recollection; it is at

that time that you might refer to the document.

Go ahead.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Would you like me to repeat the question, ma'am?

A. Yes, please.

Q. Sure. And do you remember that in the year 2018, while you

were working at Golden Spring, you took on the responsibility

of forwarding this protocol to the security team to make sure

that everyone was aware of the protocol itself?

A. I don't remember doing that.

Q. May I ask if the document that I have handed to you, and if

you look——refreshes your recollection.

600

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Do you now remember that you said you would remain

responsible for forwarding that message of the protocol to the

security team, correct?

A. As I read it on the document, yes.

Q. Okay. And you——

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: So you can't say what the document says.

You can only say if the document refreshes your recollection.

Does it help you to remember what she is asking about? That's

the question. Does the document refresh your recollection?

THE WITNESS: It does not.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. It does not refresh your recollection of what you did in

2018, correct?

A. It does not.

Q. In fact, there are a lot of things you've forgotten about

2018 now, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You've forgotten your interactions with the security team,

correct?

A. I forgot certain things, yes.

Q. And you also forgot your involvement with the security team

vis-à-vis the cyber attack issues, correct?

I'll rephrase that. You've forgotten how you

601

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

interacted with the security teams regarding the entering and

leaving of visitors to the Golden Spring's office, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: So that is a compound question.

MS. SHROFF: You know what, your Honor, I'll move on.

Thank you.

Q. Now on direct, you testified, did you not, about something

called Rule of Law, right? Those were the questions asked of

you yesterday. Do you remember that?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. There's no such thing as Rule of Law, correct?

A. I don't understand the question.

Q. Sure. I'll be happy to try again. There is Rule of Law

Society, correct?

A. There is.

Q. Right. And there is Rule of Law Foundation, correct?

A. There is, correct.

Q. There was no entity simply called Rule of Law, correct?

A. No. We referred to both entities as Rule of Law

collectively.

Q. You referred to that?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. We did.

THE COURT: Was that a question?

602

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

MS. SHROFF: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: You've asked a question. You referred to

them; is that the question?

MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. We did.

Q. Well, let's try that. There was a board for the Rule of

Law Society, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were on that board, right?

A. I was.

Q. There was a Rule of Law Foundation board, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were not on that board, correct?

A. I was not.

Q. Right. So if somebody asked you if you were on the board

of Rule of Law, you would have to say, I'm on the board of Rule

of Law Society, I am not on the board of Rule of Law

Foundation, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Because that would be a truthful answer, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it would be complete, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now the board of Rule of Law Society, in 2018,

603

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

consisted of Steve Bannon, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sasha Gong, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Bill Gertz, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Jennifer Mercurio, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you, right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And it was not Miles Guo who gave you any position

on that board; it was the board that voted to get you that

position, correct?

A. He chose me.

Q. Let's try that. Who told you he chose you?

A. He did.

Q. He told you that he chose you to be on the board; that's

your testimony?

A. It is.

Q. Okay. Did he make an announcement: Welcome to the board

of directors Rule of Law Society, I have appointed you to be on

the board?

A. I don't remember a public announcement.

Q. Okay. Did he send an email?

A. No.

604

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Did he put it on Twitter?

A. He did not.

Q. Did he put it on YouTube?

A. I don't know.

Q. He's a man, according to you, who likes publicity, right?

A. What do you mean about——with publicity?

Q. Okay. According to you, he's the type of man who likes to

be the center of attention, right?

A. He is.

Q. He is. So no grand announcement about him making you a

member of the board? No, right?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Each one of you five people had one vote, correct?

A. In general, you mean?

Q. No. I mean as when you were on the board of the Rule of

Law Society.

A. Oh. Yes.

Q. Okay. I don't mean——that's what I meant. For the Rule of

Law Society, you had one vote, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there were five of you, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. What did it take to be a majority?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember what it took to be a majority for a

605

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

board that you sat on for less than two years?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. You voted against certain requests, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You voted no, correct?

A. Once, yes.

Q. You were never fired from the board, right?

A. I was not.

Q. You were not. You remained on the board until you decided

to quit for medical reasons, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Mr. Guo never called you into his office and said, hey, why

did you vote that way, correct?

A. Not that I remember.

Q. Okay. I just want to make sure. You'd remember something

like that, right?

A. I don't know if I would remember.

Q. You wouldn't remember being fired from a board?

A. I would remember being fired from a board; that, yes.

Q. You'd remember him chastising you, correct, because,

according to you, he was Boss, right?

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. You would remember being chastised by him because,

according to you, he was Boss, right?

A. I would remember.

606

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. And he never chastised you for the way you voted, right?

A. No.

Q. Okay. You testified about a home that he bought in

Connecticut; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that home was bought in February or March of 2020; is

that correct?

A. I don't remember the exact date.

Q. It was bought after you started working there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And before you quit, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. When did you quit?

A. In April of 2020.

Q. April of what?

A. 2020.

Q. And we know from yesterday that your first day on the job

was February 19th, correct?

A. My first day on the job was February 19 of 2018.

Q. What? 2019, right? 2018.

A. 2018.

Q. Right. So that house had to be bought somewhere between

2018 and 2020, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you visit the house?

607

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. Once.

Q. You visited the house once?

A. Yes.

Q. It's huge, right?

A. It's not small.

Q. And there were people in and out of that house doing

broadcasting, correct?

A. When I was there, I didn't see anyone.

Q. When you were there, did you see the office that he had in

the house?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember seeing equipment in the house?

A. I——no.

Q. Do you remember seeing cameras in the house?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember seeing camera lighting in the house?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember seeing background screens in the house?

A. No.

Q. Sitting here today, do you know who paid for all of that

equipment that was in his house?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

Q. Did you know——

MS. SHROFF: I apologize, your Honor. I'll withdraw.

Q. Did you know if there was——even if you didn't see it, you

608

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

knew there was equipment in his house in Connecticut, correct?

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. You testified right now on cross-examination that

you never saw this equipment at his Connecticut home, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you know that he had equipment in his Connecticut home?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Did you know if he had broadcast equipment at the

Sherry-Netherland?

A. Yes.

Q. He did have it, correct?

A. He did.

Q. And he had the same equipment that I recited two minutes

ago, correct?

A. Such as?

Q. I can repeat it if you need me to.

A. Yes, please.

Q. Okay. He had cameras, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Background screens, correct?

A. That I don't remember.

Q. Lighting, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Recording equipment, correct?

A. Yes.

609

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Broadcasting equipment, correct, most particularly this

one?

A. Yes.

Q. All of that was paid for by Golden Spring New York,

correct?

A. No.

Q. It wasn't paid for by Golden Spring, New York?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. Who paid for it, according to you?

A. Saraca.

Q. And who's Saraca?

A. Saraca was a company that paid for media and tech expenses.

Q. And Saraca was the holding company for Golden Springs New

York, right?

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Saraca was the holding company for Golden Spring New York,

correct?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. You don't know William Je managed Saraca?

A. I don't.

Q. You don't know if Saraca had family fund money?

A. I don't.

Q. So you don't know anything about Saraca, but you're sure

Saraca paid the bill.

610

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Compound question.

Q. Do you know anything about Saraca?

A. What I just told you.

Q. Okay. Where did the money into Saraca come from?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. You testified about an office at 800 Fifth Avenue,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it fair to say that that was really an apartment

building, like a makeshift office that was put in place?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. It was a three-bedroom apartment, right?

A. It was a two-bedroom apartment.

Q. Okay. And people were using it as an office, right?

A. We were, yes.

Q. Right. And there came a time when it was just too crammed

and everybody agreed to move, correct?

A. We moved in 2019.

Q. Okay. And you moved to the East 64th building, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Golden Spring relocated there, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the holding company named Saraca also relocated there,

correct?

611

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. I don't know what the official location of Saraca was.

Q. Okay. So you don't know if Saraca relocated to 64th

Street; do I have it right?

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. And you continued to work for Golden Spring at East 64th

Street, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified on direct you worked long hours, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it Golden Spring's practice to have free lunch for

every one of its employees every day of the week?

A. At 800 Fifth, yes.

Q. Okay. That practice continued at 64th, correct?

A. No.

Q. Okay. When you worked long hours, you were given a hotel

room to sleep in the city, correct?

A. When I was working consecutive days, yes.

Q. Okay. They put you up in a hotel, didn't make you drive

back and forth from work, right?

A. I——I could choose.

Q. You could choose, right? And you chose, right?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. Now you testified on direct about how bills were

paid, right?

I'll move on.

612

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

A. How vendors were paid.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. How vendors were paid.

Q. Okay. Fair enough. And do I have it right, the vendor

would need paying and you would go to Yvette, correct?

A. It depended on the amount.

Q. So if it was above a certain amount, you would go to

Yvette; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Okay. And you referred to Yvette as Yanping Wang; is that

right?

A. When I——when I talked about her to my colleagues, then I

would call her Yvette; when I talked to her, I would use her

Chinese name.

Q. Okay. And it was Yvette who decided whether to pay the

vendor or not, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. There were times when you had to get preauthorization from

Yvette before you would undertake an expense from a particular

vendor, correct?

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. Could I just have the witness and

the jury see SM62, please.

Q. You recall testifying about this document on direct?

A. I remember.

613

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Okay. And this document is you seeking someone to sign off

on payment to a particular vendor; is that correct?

A. It's a payment request form.

Q. Right. So if I could just highlight for you the name of

the payee, that would be Apple Inc., correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Apple is at 767 Fifth Avenue, which is right next to

the Sherry-Netherland, right, the FAO Schwarz building,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you could scroll down to the payment amount, it's

$1,217.17. Well, up top it says 17 cents, but here it says 95

cents, correct?

A. 1,117.95.

Q. Small amount, right, relatively?

A. What do you mean by small?

Q. It's a small amount of money. It's $1,117 for three pieces

of equipment from Apple, correct?

A. That's the correct amount, yes.

Q. Okay. You did not have authority to sanction payment on

$1,117, right?

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. Sure. You did not have the authority to allow payment on

$1,117.95, correct?

A. Not with Saraca.

614

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO1 Maistrello - Cross

Q. You had no authority to sanction payment, correct?

A. Not with Saraca.

Q. Your testimony today is, if this bill were going to Golden

Spring, you could have paid the bill?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Asked and

answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Let's see the top of this document, okay?

You see that's where it says Golden Spring New York

Ltd.?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. And let's go to the bottom of that document.

Requested by you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When you filled out the form——go back up, please——you

filled out the requisition to Golden Spring, correct?

A. No. It was crossed out.

(Continued on next page)

615

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. That cross-out is by Max Krasner, is it not?

A. It is.

Q. Right.

That is not your handwriting, right?

A. It's not.

Q. Right.

So when you sought requisition payment on this

particular bill, you filled it out as the payer being Golden

Spring; correct?

A. The original form was a Golden Spring form.

Q. Right.

So you filled out the form asking Golden Spring to pay

that bill because you're not the one who crossed that top part

out, right?

A. I don't remember how it went.

Q. Okay.

MS. SHROFF: Could I scroll down again, please.

Q. "Requested by Karin Maistrello."

Am I pronouncing your name right, ma'am?

A. You are.

Q. Okay. So you requested it; correct?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. And it was approved by Max Krasner; correct?

A. Yes.

616

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Okay. When you filled out the form, you did not request it

yourself and approve it yourself with Golden Spring on top;

correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Okay.

Q. When you submitted the form, there was no Saraca written on

top; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. It's been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. Asked and answered.

Q. Sitting here today, do you remember who these devices were

for?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. And you testified about this gentleman named Max

Krasner; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And Max Krasner also handled payments and bank

accounts for Rule of Law Society; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't handle any money as president or a board

member for Rule of Law Society; correct?

A. I didn't handle, no.

Q. Right. You were never allowed to handle any finances at

Rule of Law Society, right?

A. I would always sit with Max.

617

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. I'm sorry, what did you --

MS. SHROFF: I could not hear her answer. I

apologize, your Honor.

A. I would always sit with Max to check the accounts.

Q. That's not my question.

My question was you were never in charge of the

finances of the Rule of Law Society; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. You can authorize payment on behalf of Rule of Law Society,

right?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. You were a board member and president and you don't

know?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You testified about somebody named Defeng Cao; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You testified that he was may's -- his daughter's

boyfriend; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know, by the way, what work he did while he was

working in China?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember at all if he was trained in security while

618

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

he worked in China?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Asked and

answered.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember if he was employed in China in the security

industry?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Asked and

answered again. She said she didn't remember.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Do you know how he got from China to the United States?

A. By plane.

Q. Under what circumstances, do you remember?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I don't know.

Q. You testified about a man named William Je; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And it was Mr. Je -- am I saying his name correctly? Je,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. He's the one who asked you to take on a position at

ACA Capital; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And on direct you testified that it was Mr. Guo who

619

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

introduced you to Mr. Je; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Guo had nothing to do with that

introduction; in fact, it was Yvette Wang who introduced you to

Mr. Je?

A. No, I'm pretty sure boss introduced me to William.

Q. Okay. Do you remember testifying in a deposition in a

case?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember testifying under oath?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember having a lawyer there?

A. Yes.

Q. And remember giving this testimony while you were under

oath, saying you were introduced to William by Mrs. Wang as a

person of trust and I met him several times.

Do you recall that testimony you gave?

A. I don't.

Q. Okay. Well, let's see if we can show you 3525-001 at page

14.

MS. SHROFF: Could you just go one page back.

Q. Do you see the bottom of that page?

A. I do.

Q. Does that refresh the testimony you gave under oath at a

deposition?

620

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And under oath at a deposition, you said: "I was

introduced to William by Mrs. Wang as a person of trust, and I

met him several times." Correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. This is not

evidence. Not before the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HORTON: It is before the jury, and it's not in

evidence.

THE COURT: Oh, you're saying that this is being shown

to the jurors? This should not be shown to the jurors.

It is not? Do you have a document in front of you?

THE JURY: It was.

THE COURT: All right. So that was an error.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Does that refresh your recollection?

A. Yes.

Q. So you did say that under oath, right?

A. I did.

Q. And that was years earlier than your testimony today;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you already testified you have trouble remembering some

things; correct?

A. Yes.

621

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. And your memory then was better than your memory now;

correct?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. You don't know about that.

A. I don't know when my memory was better.

Q. Okay. So back then you said it was Yvette who introduced

you to William. That we are clear on; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MS. SHROFF: You can take that down. Thank you.

I'm sorry about that.

Q. You also testified about Mr. Je being at the East 64th

Street office; correct?

A. Sometimes he came, yes.

Q. And when he came, he worked off of his laptop and you were

there, right?

A. Most times.

Q. Did you guys share an office?

A. We shared a floor.

Q. My question was did you share an office?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. So you and he sat in the same office; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Mr. Guo never sat in that office with you, right?

It was you and William Je; correct?

622

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. And other people, yes.

Q. Right. But you shared -- Mr. Guo wasn't in that space at

all; correct?

A. He was not.

Q. Okay. And it was William Je who asked you to join the

board of ACA, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you why he wanted you to join the board; isn't

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. He told you he was looking for people to invest; correct?

A. Yes, he was looking for investments in New York and the

states.

Q. He was looking for investors as well, right?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. Okay. So he wanted you to help him find people who would

invest; correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And people who invest are called investors; correct?

A. They are.

Q. Okay. And you sat on that board of ACA until you received

a subpoena; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When you got the subpoena, who did you go talk to

first about the subpoena, do you remember?

623

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that?

A. Daniel Podhaskie.

Q. Right.

You didn't go to Yvette, right?

A. The first person I talked to was Daniel.

Q. You didn't go to Mr. Guo, right?

A. I did not.

Q. Okay. And know one else was present when you discussed

that subpoena with Mr. Podhaskie; correct?

A. Can you repeat the question please?

Q. Sure. No one else was present when you discussed the

subpoena with Mr. Daniel Podhaskie; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And Ms. Wang was not present for that conversation;

correct?

A. She was not.

Q. Okay. And you were free to tell him whatever was on your

mind about that subpoena, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You could have asked Mr. Podhaskie to get you a

lawyer from -- that had never been at the Golden Spring's

office; correct?

A. I could have.

Q. Okay. So you then testified yesterday about being at a

624

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

deposition, you recall that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you were at a deposition; correct?

A. I was.

Q. Okay. And you were deposed, right?

A. I was.

Q. You gave testimony; correct?

A. I did.

Q. You were put under oath; correct?

A. I was.

Q. You were sworn to tell the truth; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

We've been through this.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. And you had a lawyer there, right?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Ms. Wang was not seated next to you during the deposition,

right?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Same objection.

We've been through this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Continued on next page)

625

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

(At sidebar)

THE COURT: So my recollection is that you asked

yesterday whether Ms. Wang was there at the deposition.

MS. SHROFF: Right. But I don't think I ever covered

that there was a lawyer and Ms. Wang was three seats away. I

never covered the scope of what she testified to during the

deposition. I never questioned her on all the acts that

happened after the deposition was over. I never covered any

part of the discussion about the deposition with Miles Guo

about all of this.

I don't think I covered any of that. And I'm pretty

certain I checked last night; but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but

I don't think I covered that.

I think I'm entitled to show that Ms. Wang was not

seated next to her as they implied; that there was a lawyer

seated next to her; Ms. Wang was three seats down. I think I'm

allowed to show all of that.

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, this line of questioning,

which is not just the last several questions, but I think it's

about ten minutes of questions, is needlessly cumulative. It's

going to significantly prolong the trial, particularly if it's

a pace that's continued with the witnesses who are to come.

And we've gone over it again and again and again, and your

Honor has sustained a number of the same kind of objection,

which is that the question is asked and answered, and it's

626

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

followed again by the same questions and the same topic.

THE COURT: So the questioning has been repetitive.

You found every way to ask whether an individual gave sworn

testimony at a deposition, and so it is needless. So if you

would just stick to what is necessary to be more efficient in

the questioning.

MS. SHROFF: I'd be happy to try, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HORTON: Can we ask how much is left of her

cross-examination?

MS. SHROFF: I have no idea. I don't know. I think

30 minutes.

THE COURT: Then take a moment to think about it.

MS. SHROFF: Thirty minutes.

THE COURT: Thirty minutes.

MS. SHROFF: But I'm telling you honestly, I have a

lot of trouble hearing her. It's also adding to my degree of

frustration, but I simply cannot hear her. And I feel

ridiculous asking, I can't hear you, like ten times. I

apologize, your Honor, but I'm having a lot of trouble hearing

her.

THE COURT: Do you need a hearing aid?

MS. SHROFF: I can't have a hearing aid. My deafness

was due to some kind of weird injury. I was seen at Mt. Sinai

Hospital in Brooklyn. They gave me prednisone injections to

627

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

try and recover it. I can't do anything about it. I normally

don't have this struggle. So I apologize, your Honor, I really

do, but I don't --

THE COURT: Do you need a device to amplify what

you're hearing in the ear that works?

MS. SHROFF: I'm only having trouble with this

witness. I haven't had trouble with the other two before. I

will try better, your Honor.

But I really am having trouble hearing her. And I

don't want to keep asking you to repeat. So you see when I'm

craning forward, I'm really trying to see if I can hear better.

So I apologize about that. I am having trouble hearing.

THE COURT: Are you making a request that I --

MS. SHROFF: No, no, no, I'm not --

THE COURT: -- install any additional equipment or

give you an opportunity to have a medical exam or somehow

address the deafness?

MS. SHROFF: No, your Honor, not at all. I'm not

seeking to make a record of any kind. I do not plan to raise

this at any appeal. I'm just telling you why I'm having

trouble hearing her, that's all. It is nothing that I

intend -- I'm not laying the foundation for anything down the

road at all. I'm just trying to explain what's going on,

that's all.

THE COURT: I am going to ask her again to speak up.

628

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

MS. SHROFF: Okay. I just want to be very clear, your

Honor, I'm really not trying to lay a foundation about

anything. I hope that's very clear.

MR. HORTON: Your Honor, we just want to note that

cross has been longer than the direct.

And your Honor is interested in the July 4th target

that was set up in the case, and we have concerns about being

able to hit that at the pace this is going.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we join in that concern.

And we also ask the government that if they could stop

looping, that would also make the trial shorter.

THE COURT: Actually, looping is a more efficient way

actually.

MS. SHROFF: I don't think so. I think it's leading

and I think it's very prejudicial to the defense.

And, you know, defense lawyers have long argued

against looping, your Honor.

THE COURT: So there is a long way and a short way to

do a direct examination. If we take the long way, it prolongs

the trial.

MS. SHROFF: I apologize, your Honor. I always

thought just saying what happened next is shorter than, you

know, When you went to the house and then saw the blue flag,

then tell me what happened next. So I apologize. I will do

better. I will try to move it right along.

629

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

(In open court)

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. At the deposition, your lawyer was seated next to you;

correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer. Go ahead.

A. Yes.

Q. Ms. Wang was seated three seats down; correct?

A. Two.

Q. And she did not speak during the deposition; correct?

A. She did not.

Q. And you testified at the deposition that you were an

Italian citizen; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You testified that you were on a visa in the United States;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it fair to say in 2023, you were still on a visa;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. By that time you had stopped working for Golden Spring;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And by that time you had stopped working with Rule of Law

Society; correct?

630

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. In 2023, you reached out to a lawyer who still worked there

named Victor Cerda; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Relevance.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Yes.

Q. You asked him to help you with your immigration status;

correct?

A. I asked for advice, yes.

Q. He declined; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You testified on direct that after the deposition, you went

to lunch; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You went to lunch with Yvette; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you returned to the office, you testified, right?

A. We did.

Q. And you testified on direct that you, Yvette, went to

Mr. Guo's office; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your testimony was that Yvette told Mr. Guo that you

had done an excellent job; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it fair to say, Ms. Maistrello, that at the deposition,

631

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

you testified that you did not even know why you were there?

You recall giving that testimony at the deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. And according to you, Ms. Wang praised you for testifying

that you had no idea why you were at a deposition; correct?

That's your testimony?

A. She just said that I did well during the deposition.

Q. Okay. And according to you, she praised your -- that you

did well at the deposition, and then she proceeded to call you

a flute; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And isn't it fair to say she has never ever referred to you

as flute; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. She did before.

Q. She did before the deposition, called you flute?

A. She did.

Q. Okay. So long before the deposition she called you a flute

and, according to you, after the deposition she also called you

a flute?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. It's compound.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I don't remember when she did.

Q. You don't remember if it was before the deposition?

632

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You do recall though testifying that you had no idea why

you were being deposed; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. And you testified to that as a person who was sitting on a

particular board; correct?

MR. HORTON: Same objection.

MS. SHROFF: I'll move on, your Honor.

Q. You testified on direct, did you not, about a press

conference on the launch of the Rule of Law Society; correct?

A. Rule of Law Society and foundation.

Q. Well, let's just talk about Rule of Law Society, okay?

Okay. You coordinated the travel for people for that

event; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: The battery is gone. Do we have another

microphone? And would you speak up, please.

MR. HORTON: Objection. Your Honor, we object to the

premise of the question limiting it to the Rule of Law Society.

THE COURT: Well, the questioner has asked the witness

to limit her answers to the Rule of Law Society; and that your

concerns may be addressed on redirect. Go ahead.

Q. You coordinated travel; correct?

633

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. You were the one who actually made the bookings, right?

A. I was not the only person, but yes.

Q. But your job was to make bookings, right? Travel bookings.

A. That was not my job, but I did in that instance.

Q. And you coordinate people's flights; correct?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. And do you remember booking hotel rooms for people?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Cumulative.

MS. SHROFF: I'll move on, your Honor.

Q. Do you recall that part and parcel of your job throughout

the time you were there was to do these kinds of bookings,

right?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. We covered this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Was part and parcel of your job to actually visit the hotel

rooms prior to the guest taking -- starting their stay to

inspect the rooms themselves?

A. Are you referring to a Rule of Law Society job?

Q. Yes.

A. Then the answer is no.

Q. How about for Golden Spring?

A. Yes, but only for boss, not for guests.

Q. Okay. So your testimony is you looked at the hotel rooms

ahead of time, correct, when it was for Mr. Guo; correct?

634

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

MR. HORTON: Objection.

Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes.

Q. And when you went to inspect the rooms, you took a cyber

security team person with you, correct, and a security person

with you; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you have never talked to

Mr. Guo about any finances surrounding the Rule of Law Society?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Mr. Guo never, ever told you he was going to donate a

million dollars as a sponsor of Rule of Law Society; correct?

A. He did during meetings.

Q. Your testimony is he told you that he was going to donate a

million dollars?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Were you at the meetings?

You need to speak up.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Could you tell us who else, according to you, was at this

meeting?

A. People varied, but I remember Steve Bannon being there,

635

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

sometimes William was there, Yvette was there.

Q. So according to you, Mr. Bannon was there — I missed the

second name.

A. William.

Q. William Je, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And Yvette was there. That's your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. So there was no member of the public there; correct?

A. No.

Q. This meeting, according to you, was not broadcast to

anyone; correct?

A. No.

Q. You never heard him say that on Twitter, YouTube, or any

social media; correct?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. You don't remember ever hearing him say that out loud in

public ever; correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Now, you testified about an entity that the government in

its direct referred to as Rule of Law; correct? All the

questions yesterday, do you remember they called it Rule of

Law, right? Do you remember that?

A. I remember discussing the Rule of Law organizations.

Q. Okay. So I just want to be very clear for

636

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

cross-examination that I'm only asking you about the entity you

were involved with, which is Rule of Law Society, okay?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

Mischaracterizes her testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. She has stated that she held

offices within the Rule of Law Society.

MS. SHROFF: Right.

THE COURT: "Involved in" is a mischaracterization of

her testimony.

Q. You're not involved with any operations of Rule of Law

Foundation; correct?

A. I was not.

Q. You were not on the board of Rule of Law Foundation;

correct?

A. I was not.

Q. You were not involved with anything having to do with Rule

of Law Foundation by the board; correct?

A. I was not.

Q. Okay. Rule of Law Society had a following; correct?

A. I think it's fair to say that boss had a following.

Q. Okay. So boss had a following from which Rule of Law

Society benefited. Is that also a fair thing to say?

A. It is.

Q. On direct testimony you talked about the one-year broadcast

anniversary; correct? You remember -- that was an awkward

637

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

question. I apologize.

You remember the broadcast that was done on the

one-year anniversary?

A. I do.

Q. Okay. And that was in November of 2019; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the broadcast was from the East 64th Street office,

right?

A. It was.

Q. That was done on Guo Media; correct?

A. I think it was.

Q. I didn't hear you, I'm sorry?

A. I think it was.

Q. Okay. And you testified that you did nothing for that

fundraiser; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Your testimony is you did not set up travel for

people who were flying into New York for this occasion?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Cumulative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. And according to you, at this fundraiser, Yvette asked you

to move money from Saraca and Golden Spring to show donations

to Rule of Law Society; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you testified to that, that you were told that

638

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

you should do this so that people could see big amounts of

money shown on screen; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were told this by Yvette, correct, according to

you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were told by Yvette that she wanted you to do this

so that she could show large donations to Rule of Law Society;

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you said on direct that you did not want to do that

because the transfers were not real; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified that you considered them to be internal

transfers; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And according to you, Golden Spring giving money to Rule of

Law Society, you would consider that to be an internal

transfer; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So if rule of -- if Golden Spring wanted to donate

to Rule of Law Society, you would object to that as an internal

transfer?

A. No. We were asked to transfer money and then send it back.

Q. But you never sent it back, right?

639

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. I never transferred it in the first place.

Q. Right. And when others transferred it, sitting here today,

you have no evidence that they ever transferred it back;

correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You never checked any books from Golden Springs about this

money transfer; correct?

A. I never checked Golden Spring's books.

Q. Right. And you have no idea if that money was ever

transferred back to Golden Springs; correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember or you don't know?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you know how much money Golden Springs donated to Rule

of Law Society?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know how much money Golden Spring donated to Rule of

Law Foundation?

A. I don't know.

Q. You never checked the books for the Rule of Law Society;

correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Cumulative.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

Q. You also testified on direct that you told Yvette you did

not want to do this, right?

640

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Yvette didn't force you, right?

A. No.

Q. And then it was your testimony yesterday that after you

told her that, Yvette could sense that you were upset; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And according to you, Yvette saw that you were upset and

then still told you that, Don't worry about it, someone else

will do it. Is that what she told you, according to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anyone else come up to you and complain that they were

forced to do something like this?

A. Yes.

Q. Really. Who?

A. Three colleagues.

Q. Three colleagues came up to you and said they complained to

you, is that your testimony?

A. It is.

Q. You didn't testify to that on direct yesterday; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer whether you testified.

A. I don't remember.

Q. And when these three colleagues came up to you and

complained about this, you could have gone to William Je;

641

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

correct?

A. Why would I have gone to William?

Q. Well, isn't he one of the people that you had a good

relationship with?

A. He was not even at the office.

Q. Okay. He has email though, right?

A. He has an email, yes.

Q. Okay. You were on the board at that time; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You could have brought it up at a board meeting; correct?

A. I could have.

Q. You could have emailed any number of people about this;

correct?

A. I could.

Q. You could have emailed Dan Podhaskie; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. It's cumulative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you email anyone about these three colleagues asking --

complaining to you?

MR. HORTON: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. After that event you didn't resign from the board because

you were asked to do something wrong according to you; correct?

A. I did not.

Q. And the three colleagues didn't resign either; correct?

642

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Not all of them were part of the board.

Q. They didn't resign from their job, right?

A. They did not.

Q. Okay. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you had no authority

to transfer any money out of Saraca; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You had no authority to pay any bills with the Saraca

account; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. We covered this.

THE COURT: Sustained. You've gone over this.

Q. The first meeting of the board for Rule of Law Society was

in May of 2019, do you remember that?

A. I don't.

Q. You don't remember the very first meeting in May of 2019?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. The next meeting was on June 27, 2019. Do you recall that

meeting?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you recall a meeting, a special meeting held to discuss

issues raised by the firing of Sasha Gong?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you remember Sasha Gong approaching the Rule of Law

Society's board because she'd been fired for doing the Voice of

America interview with Mr. Guo?

643

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. Sure. Do you remember a special meeting being convened to

discuss Ms. Gong getting fired by Voice of America for doing an

interview with Mr. Guo? Do you recall that?

A. I don't remember a special meeting. I remember her sharing

this fact.

Q. And you don't remember the board voting on her request to

get assistance to sue Voice of America for wrongful firing?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Do you remember August 23rd, 2019, announcement

about a September 3rd, 2019, board meeting? Do you recall

that?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you recall that there was an actual board meeting on

September 3rd of 2019?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you remember that one of the agendas was to review the

budget? Does that help you refresh your recollection?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I think that you've already gone over this

territory, Ms. Shroff.

Q. Do you recall the Rule of Law Society having a proposal —

and you testified to this yesterday — to ship PPE to China;

correct?

A. Yes.

644

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. And you testified that made no sense to you, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you testified that it didn't make any sense to you that

PPE was being sent back to China because China was the one who

was making the N95 masks; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. But the N95 masks are just one part of PPE; correct?

A. I don't understand the question.

Q. There are different kinds of masks, right, during COVID?

A. In general?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when you thought that, you had no knowledge

whether the ordinary person in China had access to an N95 mask;

correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And you had no knowledge if the family members of people

who were in the United States wanted masks sent to their family

members in China; correct?

A. What people?

Q. Dissidents, people who were supporters of Rule of Law

Society.

THE COURT: She can't testify as to what was on the

mind of other people.

Q. You were aware, were you not, that Rule of Law Society was

645

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

supporting dissidents; correct?

A. That was the mission.

Q. And dissidents had family in China; correct?

A. Some may have.

Q. And dissidents in the United States would want their family

members in China to have --

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

Q. -- N95 protection; correct?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You testified on direct, did you not, that it was your

understanding that N95 masks were sent to Mr. Guo's home?

A. Yes.

Q. Which home?

A. The one in Connecticut.

Q. And sitting here today, do you know if Mr. Guo was in his

Connecticut home at any part of the pandemic?

A. In March of 2020, yes.

Q. Okay. And in March of 2020, your testimony is that Mr. Guo

was not on a yacht, but at his home in Connecticut?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. Your testimony is that it is your recollection that in

March of 2020, Mr. Guo, during the pandemic, was at his home in

Connecticut and not on a yacht?

646

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. At least for some part of March of 2020, yes.

Q. What part?

A. I don't remember the exact dates.

Q. You don't know any dates at all; correct?

A. I don't remember the dates.

Q. Right.

Did you have any personal knowledge about who was

staying at the Connecticut home during the pandemic?

A. I can only speak to the first month of the pandemic.

Q. Okay. Do you actually know who was living in that house?

A. I know he was there and his wife was there.

Q. You don't know who else was there; correct?

A. If there were other people, I don't.

Q. They will consult with you as to who was living in their

home, right?

A. No, they would not.

Q. It didn't involve your job, right?

A. No.

Q. During the pandemic, you did not go to the office; correct?

A. We stopped going to the office on March 16.

Q. I'm only asking about you, ma'am. My question to you was

were you going to the office?

A. I stopped going to the office on March 16.

Q. Okay. And, in fact, Yvette went to the office during the

pandemic every single day; correct?

647

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. I don't know. I wasn't there.

Q. Okay. So when you said "we stopped going," you really

meant you stopped going; correct?

A. I meant me and my colleagues.

Q. Well, you don't know if your colleagues stopped going,

right? You don't know if Dan Podhaskie stopped going; correct?

A. I know.

Q. Your testimony is Dan Podhaskie stopped going to the office

during the COVID pandemic?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Cumulative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: I'll move on, your Honor.

Q. You recall discussing with the FBI, did you not, that --

about the shipments of rice and PPE, do you recall testimony

about that -- I mean talking to them about that topic?

A. I do.

Q. And you recall that you told them that you were no longer

at the office, were working from home, and you had no idea what

was being moved; correct?

A. Can you repeat the question, please?

Q. You told the FBI that you were not at the office, you did

not know what was being moved, but that is what you had heard;

correct?

A. What do you mean about something that was being moved?

Q. You didn't see any PPE being moved from the office to

648

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Connecticut; correct? You weren't there, right?

A. I wasn't there physically, no.

Q. Right. You had no personal knowledge. You were simply

repeating what somebody else had told you; correct?

A. That's not correct.

Q. Okay. Well, did you tell the FBI that you were not at the

office and you did not see these moves?

A. I did not see the moves with my eyes as I was not there.

Q. Okay. So you have no personal knowledge. You only know

what somebody told you.

A. I was asked to arrange some of the moves.

Q. You were asked to arrange the moves of PPE?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And how many moves did you arrange?

A. I don't remember.

Q. From where to where?

A. From the office to the home in Connecticut.

Q. What amount?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Sitting here today, do you recall being told to send

PPE to the homes of employees of Golden Spring?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember being asked to send PPE to the homes of

Rule of Law Society people?

A. No, I don't remember.

649

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Do you remember being asked to ship PPE to anyone else?

A. To NYPD.

Q. You sent them to NYPD; correct?

A. I remember boxes being sent to NYPD.

Q. I didn't hear that. Boss is what?

A. I remember boxes of PPE.

Q. Boxes?

A. Of masks being sent to NYPD precincts.

Q. Okay. And you remember boxes being sent to hospitals?

A. I don't.

Q. Okay. And when you testified on direct about these boxes

being sent to the NYPD, you testified that Yvette wanted you to

put Mr. Guo's name on them and you declined; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. The important thing was for the PPE to get to the

NYPD; correct?

A. The important thing for who?

Q. For anybody who needed PPE.

A. I don't understand the question.

Q. Okay. I will move on.

Nobody drafted a letter for you to sign from Mr. Guo

to the NYPD; correct?

A. No.

Q. Nobody forced you to draft such a letter; correct?

A. I was asked to draft it.

650

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. My question was nobody forced you to draft such a letter;

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And you, in fact, never drafted such a letter;

correct?

A. I did not.

Q. Okay. Mr. Guo didn't say, If my name is not on the letter,

don't send the PPE to the NYPD, right?

A. He never said that.

Q. Right.

And NYPD got the PPE, right?

A. I believe they did.

Q. Right.

You sent it, right?

A. I did not.

Q. Exactly. Somebody else sent it because you weren't

physically there, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Now, you testified a great deal about the security

and how you thought it was nonsensical; correct?

A. I testified that it was not needed.

Q. Okay. And when you decided it was not needed, were you

aware that Mr. Guo was visited by ministers from China and

agents of the CCP, were you aware of that?

A. I was aware of a visit in 2017.

651

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. You were aware of a visit in 2017; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that he was visited by agents of the

CCP's ministry of state security; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And they visited him at his home; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And at that time his wife and daughter were still in China;

correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. And at that time, you were aware, were you not, that he was

the main target of CCP's Fox Hunt campaign; correct?

A. I was not working for him at that time yet.

Q. My question was were you aware?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I was not aware.

Q. Were you aware that there was a campaign to coerce Mr. Guo

to return to China?

A. Are you referring to a specific period, a specific year

and --

Q. Were you ever aware of that fact?

A. I was told.

Q. What year was that?

A. 2018.

652

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. And that is when you were working there; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is when he had security; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were aware, were you not, that when he was visited by

the CCP ministries, he was threatened?

MR. HORTON: Objection.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I don't remember being told that.

Q. Do you recall being told that he was at risk of being

kidnapped?

MR. HORTON: Objection. This is hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Please step up.

(Continued on next page)

653

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

(At sidebar)

THE COURT: So I thought the lengthy stipulation

covered this.

MR. HORTON: Yes, your Honor. It's clearly being

elicited to repeat that truth.

The first problem with that I think is that the

witness has established that she doesn't have personal

knowledge of this. So the questions are all, Were you told X

about Y, the goal of getting in the truth of X and Y.

THE COURT: So she at some point learns that he was

being targeted by the CCP, she said that.

MR. HORTON: Right. She said that she was told

certain things. And it seems that they are trying to get the

truth of those things in right here, and doing that by asking,

And what did this other person who's not here tell you, what

was that statement, to say that that statement is true.

THE COURT: So you're objecting on a hearsay ground.

MR. HORTON: I agree it's cumulative with the

stipulation, as your Honor said. But it's also --

THE COURT: No, I didn't say that.

MR. HORTON: Sorry. I wasn't trying to be cute. I

must have misheard you.

THE COURT: No, no, no. That long statement is

something that I'm sure the jury has not completely

assimilated.

654

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

MR. HORTON: Fair enough. I really didn't mean to

suggest anything.

It is eliciting hearsay for the truth of that hearsay.

They are asking, And who did this person — who's not identified

— tell you and what did they say and what were those

statements.

MS. SHROFF: I really do not care at all if it's true

or not. All I want to show is she knew all of this and then

decided that the only reason he had security is because it

sounded better to call them security than to call them

handymen. That is my only point here.

MR. HORTON: So there's testimony in the record

sufficient to allow Ms. Shroff to make a point that she just

said she wants to make. The point of this barrage in these

questions is for the truth of the statements.

THE COURT: Well, you took pands to try to make it

appear that there wasn't a legitimate authentic security

apparatus in place. And so now she's trying to establish that

there was.

MR. HORTON: It is still hearsay. And if she goes and

does the next thing, correct, like we may or may not object to

the way that comes in; but right now we're on this series of

hearsay statements that are coming in for their truth.

MS. SHROFF: It's really not -- go ahead.

MR. KAMARAJU: I was just going to say, the witness

655

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

testified she thought the security was bogus. We're allowed to

elicit that she was told all these facts; that this undercuts

her testimony the security is bogus. That's it.

THE COURT: It is a form of impeachment, so I'm going

to permit it.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

656

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

(In open court)

THE COURT: Go ahead.

(Pending question read)

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. And were you aware that ministers had come to his home from

China and brought with them his wife and daughter?

A. No.

Q. And were you aware that all of these instances were while

Mr. Guo was living at the Sherry-Netherlands?

A. I only know of one instance.

Q. And you've already testified to that; correct?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. Now, let me just go back to my last set of

questions.

Do you recall if Mr. Bannon gave a talk in April of --

April 25th of 2019, at the Regis Hotel? Do you remember that

talk?

A. I -- I don't.

Q. Okay. And do you recall being asked to order a book after

that talk?

A. I don't.

Q. And do you recall when you worked for Golden Spring, you

were part and parcel of the people that Yvette would assign

tasks to regarding purchases; correct?

657

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. You know, I'll do better.

Do you recall Yvette asking you to purchase or put

into place something called the Snack National Proposal? Do

you remember that?

A. Can you repeat the name of the proposal?

Q. Do you remember Yvette asking you to buy snack boxes for

Golden Spring employees to make sure they were healthy?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you remember somebody -- working with somebody

named Tamara Flores; correct?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Yvette chose the snack box and told you to order them;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you ordered them, right?

A. I did.

Q. That was your job, right?

A. I ordered the boxes.

Q. May 29, 2018 is when Max Krasner was onboarded to Golden

Spring; correct? Do you remember that?

A. I don't remember the date.

Q. But you remember when he joined, right?

A. I remember it was 2018.

Q. Right.

658

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

And to onboard him, there were certain steps that you

needed to take; correct?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Okay. Do you recall Yvette asking you to make sure that

you had set up stationery with his name on it?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you remember her asking you to make sure that the floor

lights were moved and his desk was cleaned?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember somebody named Rich Wojcicki,

W-O-J-C-I-C-K-I?

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember booking his travel in 2018?

A. I -- I do, vaguely.

Q. Right.

You remember booking his flights and his hotel;

correct?

A. I believe I booked his flight.

Q. That was part of your job, right?

A. I was asked to do that.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I was asked to do that.

Q. That was part of your job description; correct?

A. It was not part of my job description, but I did it.

Q. There was a deposition in South Carolina; correct?

659

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Remember that?

A. I don't.

Q. Guo v. Lin. Mr. Guo brought an action, a civil action, do

you remember that?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you remember that you made travel arrangements for that

trip?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you remember that a translator was needed at that trip

and you were not the translator taken?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember Una Wilkinson being the translator that was

taken because your Mandarin was not good enough?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Do you remember attending meetings with Jennifer Mercurio?

A. I don't remember attending meetings with her. We were

colleagues.

Q. And Ms. Mercurio was on the board; correct? Actually, I

take that back. She was general counsel and corporate

secretary to Rule of Law Society; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall Ms. Mercurio saying that there would be a

telephonic meeting on September 3rd of 2019; correct? Do you

660

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

remember getting an email about that?

A. I don't.

Q. Do you remember getting an email about Guo Media's

fundraising drive and the budget?

A. I don't.

Q. And do you remember that there came a point when

Ms. Mercurio stated that your role in Rule of Law Society was

limited?

A. I didn't hear the last part.

Q. Was limited. Your role was limited.

A. I don't know that she said that.

Q. Do you recall getting an email saying that you would not be

involved in the operation of Rule of Law Society?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you remember being told that while you were on the

board, you were not involved in the day-to-day operations of

the entity? Do you not recall that?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. All right. Well, let me show you something that might help

you refresh your recollection.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you.

Q. Please don't read it out loud, but I can direct you to the

bottom of the first page.

661

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

MR. HORTON: Is there a question pending?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. SHROFF: I was waiting for the witness to finish

reading, your Honor.

A. I'm done.

Q. Okay. And does that refresh your recollection that you

were informed that you would not be involved in the operation

of Rule of Law?

A. It does not.

Q. It does not refresh your recollection?

A. It doesn't.

Q. Was it your practice to read emails that you were sent?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your practice to respond to emails that were

sent to you; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And if you got an email that said you were going to be left

off an email chain here on forward, is it likely that you would

remember that?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you have two master's

degrees?

A. Yes.

Q. You have one master's in Chinese literature; correct?

662

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. One in linguistics; correct?

A. Applied linguistics, right.

Q. Right.

And before you took the job at Golden Spring, where

did you work?

A. In China.

Q. And after your job at Golden Spring you set up what is

something called Kai Enterprise; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And after that -- you testified yesterday that you

work at Google Search; correct?

A. Google.

Q. Google, right?

Are you a full-time employee at Google?

A. No.

Q. You don't have a desk at Google; correct?

A. No, I work from home.

Q. You do not have full-time employment with them; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. You've done work for the FBI, have you?

A. Through a company; correct.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Through a company.

Q. Okay. So through a company you did freelance work for the

663

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Federal Bureau of Investigations; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And that's the same Federal Bureau of Investigations

that was present during your prep; correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

Q. Is there a different Federal Bureau of Investigations that

you did freelance work for?

A. It was a different unit.

Q. Was a different unit, but it's still the same company, the

FBI; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And if the FBI were to give you a freelance job now,

you would do it; correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

Is it fair to say that you told these prosecutors that

Mr. Guo's ego was the most important thing to Mr. Guo?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said, did you not, to these people, that Mr. Guo

was all about Mr. Guo; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You told them you saw no good in Mr. Guo; correct?

A. That is not correct.

664

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. Really. Okay.

And you said that you could be a character witness

about Mr. Guo, that's what you told this team; correct?

A. No.

Q. You did not tell them that you could be a character witness

about Mr. Guo?

MR. HORTON: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor --

Q. Do you remember saying that?

MR. HORTON: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. May I just have 3525 to refresh

her recollection.

THE COURT: She did not say that she did not recall.

She said no.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, the government objected to

that question as asked and answered.

THE COURT: The answer she gave was no.

Q. You told this team that you felt that they were more on

your side than anything else; correct?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. You did not say that to them when you met with them --

THE COURT: Sustained.

She's already answered the question.

665

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Q. During your meetings with the United States Attorney's

Office — and I mean Mr. Horton, Mr. Finkel, Ms. Murray,

Mr. Fergenson — you made it clear that you did not think well

of Mr. Guo; correct?

A. That's not correct.

Q. You called him a man with an ego; correct?

A. I did.

Q. And a man all about himself; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you think well of people like that, is that your

testimony?

MR. HORTON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Nothing further.

THE COURT: All righty, members of the jury. Even

though it is only 11:23, we'll take our break now and you'll

come back at noon.

Remember that you're not permitted to discuss the case

amongst yourselves. Don't permit anyone to discuss it in your

presence.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: You may step down. And don't discuss your

testimony.

(Witness not present)

THE COURT: You may be seated.

666

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

Is there anything that either party would like to

raise before we break?

MR. FINKEL: Just very briefly, your Honor.

Just for the record, Ms. Maistrello's direct

examination was approximately an hour and 40 minutes, give or

take. The cross-examination has been about three hours and 15

minutes, give or take.

Obviously we've been objecting, and your Honor has

largely sustained sort of questions that just repeat the

answers with some exasperation or "oh, really," which are kind

of argumentative and are delaying the proceedings. We'll

continue to object to those of course.

Just generally, your Honor, the government's estimate

with respect to this trial was based on what we understood to

be reasonable crosses. I think generally the rule of thumb is

about -- it depends on the witness, obviously, but if direct is

an hour, usually cross is around half an hour, sometimes more

sometimes less, sometimes witnesses require a one-to-one. But

from one hour and 42 minutes to three hours and 20 minutes,

it's a lot and I think it's a lot of repeating. So we just

want to make our record on that.

THE COURT: I'm waiting for a response.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I apologize, but I don't

think Mr. Finkel's comments were inviting a response and I

don't have one.

667

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO2 Maistrello - Cross

The cross was the cross. And, you know, Mr. Finkel,

if he thinks my cross was bad, can certainly bring it up at the

2255 proceeding. But I will do my best and I did do my best to

do the cross I wanted to do.

THE COURT: So the only criticism that I heard was

that it was too lengthy because there were repetitive

questions. And there were repetitive questions. And so I'd

like you to eliminate repetitive questions.

MS. SHROFF: I will do my best, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty. We'll break.

(Luncheon recess)

(Continued on next page)

668

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Redirect

AFTERNOON SESSION

12:00 p.m.

(Jury present)

THE COURT: You may be seated.

Redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HORTON:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Maistrello.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. At the end of cross-examination, you were asked some

questions about past work you've done for the FBI, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you do any work for the FBI on this case?

A. No.

Q. Did you do any work for anybody on this case?

A. No.

Q. At a high level, could you describe the past work you've

done for the FBI.

A. It was mainly interpretation, transcription, and

translation.

Q. You were also asked questions about meeting with the

government. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the government tell you what to say in your testimony,

Ms. Maistrello?

669

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Redirect

A. No.

Q. What, if anything, did the government tell you to do when

you testified?

A. The only thing I was told is to be truthful.

Q. And have you done that?

A. I have.

Q. Ms. Maistrello, you testified yesterday that Yvette Wang

asked you in your job interview whether you had any connections

to the CCP. Do you remember that?

A. I do.

THE COURT: Mr. Horton, if you would please bring the

microphone up closer to you.

MR. HORTON: Yes, your Honor.

Q. After Yvette asked you if you had any connections to the

CCP, what was her response when you told her that you knew CCP

members when you were in China?

A. She said, oh, don't worry, I'm a party member too.

Q. And what did you understand Yvette to mean when she said

she was a party member?

A. I understood that she was a member of the party.

Q. And what, if anything, did Miles Guo say about Yvette being

a member of the CCP?

A. We didn't talk about that much, but sometimes he would joke

about it.

Q. And how would he joke about it?

670

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Redirect

A. Well, considering the fact that he was fighting against the

CCP, miles would bring up the joke and say, oh, you know,

Yvette, she's also a party member.

Q. You were asked questions today about whether you remembered

being chastised by Miles Guo. Do you remember those questions?

A. I do.

Q. When, if ever, Ms. Maistrello, did Miles Guo chastise you?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And when, if ever, did Miles Guo chastise your colleagues?

MS. SHROFF: Objection as to which colleagues.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I——I don't remember.

Q. Generally speaking, how did Miles Guo treat the people who

worked for him?

A. It highly depended on his mood, so when he was in a good

mood, he treated people kindly, when he was in a bad mood, then

less kindly.

Q. And what kinds of things would make him in a bad mood?

A. Things that were not being done like he wanted to.

Q. And what would happen when things weren't being done the

way Miles Guo wanted them to be done?

A. When things were done properly, then he was——he was happy.

Q. And what would happen when he was unhappy?

A. He would——he would usually yell.

Q. What kind of things would he say when he yelled?

671

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Redirect

A. That we're stupid, we don't know, we're incompetent.

Q. And how often did that happen?

A. Quite often.

Q. How often, if ever, were people fired by Miles Guo?

A. Very often.

Q. And for what kinds of reasons?

A. Various reasons. Sometimes he didn't like them, sometimes

he didn't like what they looked like or what they were wearing,

what they were doing.

Q. You testified, Ms. Maistrello, that you were involved with

Miles Guo's move to Connecticut in 2020. Do you recall that?

A. I recall that.

Q. And you also testified that there were times you were told

to pay for things when you worked for Miles Guo; is that right?

MS. SHROFF: Objection. She was told. That's not the

testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes.

Q. When, if ever, Ms. Maistrello, were you directed not to pay

for something?

A. It happened several times. Yvette would tell me, we're not

satisfied with this, don't pay this vendor.

Q. How much did that move that you were involved in planning

to Miles Guo's home in Connecticut, how much did it cost?

A. Approximately 100,000.

672

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Redirect

Q. And what, if anything, were you told to do with that

$100,000 bill for the movers?

A. Initially I was——I was told not to pay it, then I was——I

was told to ask for discount.

Q. And why were you told not to pay the $100,000 bill?

MS. SHROFF: I have a hearsay objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What was your reaction when you were told not to pay the

bill?

MS. SHROFF: Objection as to relevance.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I wanted to understand the reasons why I was asked that.

Q. Who told you not to pay that bill?

A. Yvette did.

Q. And what was the reason Yvette gave you for not paying the

hundred-thousand-dollar bill?

MS. SHROFF: Objection to the hearsay.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I was told that they did not a good job——they did not do a

good job, that some items were damaged during the move.

Q. And how did you react to being told to not pay that bill?

A. I knew that nothing was damaged because we had a team on

site supervising the movers, so I didn't really understand why

I was asked to——to do that.

Q. You testified that there were other times you were told not

673

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

to pay for things?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the reason, as you understood it, you were told

not to pay for things?

A. Reasons varied. In general, I was told that we're not

satisfied with this vendor.

MR. HORTON: May I have one moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HORTON: Thank you, your Honor.

Q. Ms. Maistrello, you were asked questions on

cross-examination about whether you knew the source of the

funds for Saraca and Golden Spring. Do you remember that?

A. I do.

Q. What was the source of the funds that paid for N95 masks to

be sent to Miles Guo's home at the beginning of COVID?

A. That was Rule of Law organizations.

Q. And where did Rule of Law get its money from?

A. From donors.

MR. HORTON: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Recross, within the scope?

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Tell us, would you, how does one become a member of the

Chinese Communist Party?

A. You are chosen by the party, so you're being contacted

674

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

directly by the party. It usually happens when you're in

college or university.

Q. Right. And it is the party that chooses the person to

become a member of the CCP, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. To become a member of the CCP, you have to be a Chinese

national, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You have to be chosen by the CCP, and you're normally

chosen at a young age, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection to scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Correct.

Q. And Yvette was chosen as a young child——actually, not

child——as a teenager when she was then chosen to be a student

in a foreign country, correct?

A. I don't know at what age she was chosen.

Q. But you do know that she was chosen to be part of the CCP

and then allowed to study in the Sorbonne, in France, correct?

A. Those two things don't necessarily have a connection. I

know that she studied in France, and I know that she is a party

member.

Q. Right. And according to you, a person could not——actually,

I take that back.

There is no person that is able to say to the CCP, I

675

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

won't join your party, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Isn't it fair to say that one would be at risk of harm if

one did not remain in the CCP party?

MR. HORTON: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Continued on next page)

676

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

(At the sidebar)

MS. SHROFF: They opened this door, your Honor, by

asking if Yvette is a member of the CCP. There is clear

testimony, and this expert——this person would know that once

you are made a party member of the CCP, there's no withdrawing

from the CCP. It's not a free organization where you say

bye-bye, I'm out. Yvette would have had no choice in remaining

a member of the CCP. I'm allowed to explore the misimpression

they have left that she had any connection to the CCP now,

meaning 2018, 2019, 2020, all throughout the indictment. They

decided to do this on recross. I am not being cumulative, I

hope, and it is——sorry.

THE COURT: Why are you bringing out her CCP

membership?

MR. HORTON: It completes the——it was a short

interview. It was a fact that was——that Yvette provided her in

this limited information exchange. That was one of the items.

And there was extensive cross examination about what

Ms. Maistrello did or didn't know about the organization.

MS. SHROFF: I specifically did not touch her being a

member of the CCP. It's all over the 3500 material. I did not

touch it. I did not touch it on cross. There was no reason

for them to bring it up on redirect. They have left this jury

with the impression that this woman now, and while being a

co-conspirator of Miles Guo, was with the CCP, because they

677

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

want to show that Miles Guo kept her employed and was close to

a member of the CCP party person and therefore, he could not be

anti-CCP, okay? They opened this door.

THE COURT: So then I'll let you ask a leading

question or two that gets us to the point where I would expect

her to say, no, you cannot be with the CCP.

MS. SHROFF: I should be able to explore that Yvette

said to her what Yvette's position is, she is no longer

supportive of the CCP, because that's the impression they want

to leave them with.

THE COURT: So then that makes two questions.

MS. SHROFF: Well, it's a little bit longer, your

Honor, because I have to flesh out that——what it takes to get

out of the CCP. Okay. So you can't just say no to the CCP.

Once you're chosen, you have to remain. There's no withdrawal

steps. If you wanted to disavow the CCP, there are no steps to

disavow the CCP.

THE COURT: Okay. That's one question.

MS. SHROFF: And that Yvette made very clear that she

was no longer now a member of the CCP.

THE COURT: Two questions.

MS. SHROFF: Well, that's three, but okay, I will try.

THE COURT: Good.

(Continued on next page)

678

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

(In open court)

MS. SHROFF: May I continue, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Once you're chosen to be a member of the CCP, you are not

allowed to withdraw from the CCP, correct?

A. I don't know whether you're allowed to withdraw. I don't

know the law. I don't know how that works.

Q. When Ms. Wang worked with Mr. Guo, she worked for causes

that were anti-CCP, correct?

A. Not entirely.

Q. Ms. Wang took steps that were supportive of the CCP,

according to you?

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. Sure. Is it your testimony that Yanping Wang took steps

that were supportive of the dictatorship of the Chinese

Communist Party?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So when she worked with Miles Guo, she worked on

causes that were anti-CCP, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, tell me, what do you mean by "not necessarily"?

679

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

A. The job that she was doing was not necessarily anti-CCP.

She was doing her job, but she was not always a political

activist.

Q. Right. She was not a political activist, but she was never

pro-CCP, correct?

A. She was never pro-CCP.

Q. Now you testified on redirect that you and your colleagues

were chastised by Mr. Guo, correct?

A. I said he could be tough.

Q. He yelled, you said, right?

A. He did.

Q. Called you stupid, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Called you incompetent, correct?

A. He did.

Q. He did that often, correct?

A. When he was mad.

Q. Right. And when he walked around, he would just simply

yell, "Disaster, disaster," wherever he went, right?

A. I did not say that.

Q. Okay. I didn't ask you if you said that. I asked you if

you knew if he did that.

A. He did that sometimes.

Q. Right. And when he did that, you were part and parcel of

the people that he was speaking toward, correct?

680

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

A. Sometimes I was, sometimes I wasn't.

Q. Okay. And as a result of that, is that what led you to

quit, or was it your health, or was it both?

A. I quit for health reasons.

Q. Okay. You testified about people he fired, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He never personally fired a single person, correct?

A. He gave directions to fire.

Q. You are aware of a single direction he gave to someone to

get another person fired? You have personal knowledge of that?

A. Yes.

Q. Really. Who?

A. You want to know who he asked to fire, who was fired?

What's your question?

Q. No, I'm asking you who you are aware he told to get fired.

I'm asking about your personal knowledge, not what you heard

from others.

A. He told me to fire some people.

Q. Did you fire them?

A. I did.

Q. You had the authority to fire people.

A. If Boss asked me to, yes.

Q. Okay. Who did you fire?

A. Several people.

Q. Who?

681

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

A. Do you want the names?

Q. Sure.

A. I don't remember the names. I remember the roles.

Q. You don't remember the names of people you fired from a

job?

A. I don't.

Q. Okay. You talked about the move to Connecticut costing a

hundred thousand dollars, correct?

A. Approximately.

Q. Right. You didn't pay that bill, right?

A. I did not.

Q. You had no authority ever to allow any payment, correct?

A. When I was asked to pay, I would pay.

Q. No. When you were asked to pay, you would go to Yvette,

correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Would you clarify your question, please.

Q. When you were asked to pay a bill, you would have to send

the bill to either Max Krasner or Yvette, correct?

THE COURT: Are you referring to all bills?

MS. SHROFF: Yes, all bills.

A. It depended on the amount.

Q. Right. And an amount of a hundred thousand dollars, you

could not pay, correct?

A. That's correct.

682

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

Q. You testified that you were told not to pay a bill because

somebody was unhappy with a vendor, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you do not know sitting here today who that

vendor was, right?

A. I do.

Q. Really? Who was the vendor?

MR. HORTON: Objection to the "really" in the

questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. If you'd leave out the "really."

Q. Who was the vendor?

A. The movers.

Q. What's the name?

A. Moving company. Broadway.

Q. Broadway Movers. Your testimony is Broadway Movers were

not paid; is that your testimony?

A. My testimony is that Broadway Movers were the movers.

Q. Okay. Were they paid?

A. Ultimately, I don't know.

Q. So you don't know if they were ultimately paid. So I'm

assuming you don't know how much it is that they were quibbling

about in terms of destruction of the property that was being

moved, correct?

MR. HORTON: Object to the form of that question, your

Honor.

683

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

THE COURT: Are you asking whether she knows what

discount amount was requested?

MS. SHROFF: Yes.

A. I don't remember.

Q. Wasn't your furniture, right?

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. Sure. The furniture that was being moved was not your

furniture, right?

A. No.

Q. Well, you don't know if the furniture had sentimental

value, correct?

A. I know it did.

Q. So the furniture that was damaged had sentimental value and

that's why there was a conversation about not paying the

vendor; is that your testimony?

A. I know that no furniture was damaged.

Q. Did you inspect it?

A. Personally, I didn't.

Q. Did you see it?

A. I was not there.

Q. In fact, you don't even know what furniture they're talking

about, correct?

A. I do know that.

Q. What furniture was it?

A. I had a pdf document with hundreds of pages of furniture.

684

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

Q. And which of those hundreds of pages of furniture was

damaged; do you recall?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. Fair to say you didn't examine a single piece of

furniture on that hundreds of pages of document, correct?

A. I was not present during the move.

Q. Right. And you just made a value judgment and decided the

vendors should have in fact paid, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. My colleagues who were present at the moves told me that

nothing was damaged.

Q. My question to you was——and let me repeat it——you made a

value judgment without ever inspecting the damaged furniture,

correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

Q. You testified that Rule of Law Society paid for the N95

masks, correct?

A. One of the Rule of Law organizations.

Q. Which one?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember at all which organization, correct?

MR. HORTON: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: All right. So ask the question only once.

685

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Maistrello - Recross

Don't repeat the question.

Q. You don't even remember how much the dollar amount was,

right?

A. I do not.

Q. You met with these prosecutors several times, correct?

A. I did.

Q. And not once did you look up that dollar amount, right?

A. No.

MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: All righty. I assume there's no

re-redirect?

MR. HORTON: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Good. Okay. So you may step out. Thank

you.

(Witness excused)

THE COURT: And the prosecution can call its next

witness.

MR. FERGENSON: The government calls Patrick Chin,

your Honor.

THE LAW CLERK: Please raise your right hand and bring

the mic close to you.

(Witness sworn)

THE LAW CLERK: Please be seated and bring the mic

close to your mouth.

THE COURT: Sir, if you would state your name and

686

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

spell it, and make sure that you speak up.

THE WITNESS: My name is Patrick Chin. Last name is

C-H-I-N.

THE COURT: And your first name.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. P-A-T-R-I-C-K, Patrick.

THE COURT: So I need you to bring the microphone

closer and I need you to speak louder.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: You may inquire.

MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, your Honor.

PATRICK CHIN,

called as a witness by the Government,

having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Chin.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. What state do you live in?

A. I live in Texas.

Q. What do you do for work?

A. I work on semiconductor material.

Q. What kind of work do you do with semiconductor material?

A. We make specialized semiconductor research for various

customers.

Q. Mr. Chin, do you know who Miles Guo is?

687

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How do you know who he is?

A. I ran into his——one of his YouTube videos, I think back in

2017.

Q. Were you ever a follower of Miles Guo?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Did you ever invest in things Miles Guo promoted?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Are you still a follower of Miles Guo today?

A. I am not.

Q. We'll come back to that, Mr. Chin.

Mr. Chin, where were you born?

A. I was born in Taiwan.

Q. And for how long did you live in Taiwan?

A. 24 years, between 1964 to 1988.

Q. And why was your family in Taiwan when you were growing up?

A. Both my parents' families originally were in mainland

China, and they moved to Taiwan after the Communist revolution.

Q. What was the Communist revolution, Mr. Chin?

A. I think after the second war, world war, there was a——a

civil war between Communist party, Chinese Communist Party and

the ruling government, and eventually the Communist party

pushed the previous Republic of China government to Taiwan.

Q. Mr. Chin, why did your parents' families leave mainland

China at the time of the rise of the Communist party, or the

688

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

CCP?

A. Yes. During the revolution, on my father's side, my

grandfather and several uncles were brutally murdered during

the Communism——Communist rise-up, so my father was able to

escape and eventually move to Taiwan.

And on my mother's side, that's a different part of

China. They were also farmers, landowners, and teachers, so

they were also terrorized by the Communist uprising, so they

also moved to Taiwan.

Q. Mr. Chin, are you yourself pro- or anti-CCP?

A. I am anti-CCP.

Q. Why are you anti-CCP?

A. First of all, based on my parents' families' experience and

also growing up in Taiwan in the '60s and '70s, the whole

climate is strongly anti-CCP.

Q. Now where did you move to after growing up in Taiwan,

Mr. Chin?

A. I moved to California to attend grad school in 1988.

THE COURT: Where did you go?

THE WITNESS: School?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: University of California San Diego.

Q. What were you studying at UC San Diego, Mr. Chin?

A. It's electrical engineering department.

Q. And what, if any, degree did you receive from UC San Diego?

689

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. I completed my PhD degree.

Q. Mr. Chin, since coming to the United States in your early

20s, have you lived in this country since then?

A. I've been living and working in the US from 1988 till 2008.

Q. And in 2008, where did you go then?

A. I took a job opportunity in Taiwan and moved to Taiwan.

Q. And how long did you stay in Taiwan then?

A. I spent ten years there.

Q. And after those ten years, where did you move next,

Mr. Chin?

A. I took another job opportunity in 2018——2018, and relocated

back to the US, in Texas.

Q. And have you been here since?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Chin, you mentioned this earlier, but remind us, when

did you first learn about Miles Guo?

A. I ran into his——one of the YouTube videos, and he discussed

an incidence of his interview being cut off by Voice of

America.

Q. You said Voice of America. For the jury, what is Voice of

America, Mr. Chin?

A. My understanding is the Voice of America is a broadcast or

media company. Even growing up in Taiwan, we heard Voice of

America's broadcast in both English and Chinese. We used——I

learned some English listening to Voice of America.

690

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

Q. And you said the video you watched where you learned about

Miles Guo related to Voice of America; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And what did Miles Guo say in that video about what had

happened with Voice of America?

A. Apparently he had an interview with Voice of America but

that interview was cut short on air abruptly, so he——he claims,

in his later video, that it's because Voice of America was

pressurized, pressured, or——by——by the CCP, so he cannot

continue his interview.

Q. And I apologize if you said this already, Mr. Chin, but

approximately what year was it that you watched this video?

A. It's 2017 or 2018, thereabouts.

Q. And what effect, if any, did watching this video and

hearing Miles Guo's claim have on you?

A. To have a live interview cut short like that is——I think

it's a very significant event, and so that seemed to add some

credibility to his claim that Voice of America——Voice of

America may have been influenced.

Q. After watching that initial video, Mr. Chin, how often, if

at all, did you start watching Miles Guo's videos?

A. I started following his YouTube video posts, just tried to

listen more and more what he has to say, and also later

followed his Twitter account.

Q. Did you read G News?

691

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. G News was later platform he——he formed, I think.

Q. And did you read G News ever?

A. I have.

Q. Mr. Chin, did there come a time when you began volunteering

as a Miles Guo supporter?

A. Yeah. There are many followers and——of his videos, and I

think it's at the beginning of the COVID, because there is——it

was really chaotic all over the world, and we——many

followers——he talked about COVID a lot too, and many followers

felt that the information coming out of China and going into

China are very——are not transparent, so many of us, the

followers, basically volunteered that, yes, we can do some

translation of the news from the credible US sources, outside

of China, and send those information back into China.

Q. And Mr. Chin, what kind of volunteer work did you yourself

do?

A. Just translate news articles and the information from, say,

John Hopkins Hospital, related COVID information.

Q. And Mr. Chin, I'll just ask you, just for everyone's

benefit, if you could raise your voice, if you can.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

So Mr. Chin, when you were doing this volunteer

translation work, who, if anyone, were you working with?

A. I have worked with several loosely organized small groups,

692

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

but the later——eventually the bigger group, I spend most of

time with is a person named David.

Q. What was David's last name?

A. At that time we didn't know, but later, we learned that his

last name was Dai, D-A-I.

Q. Where was David located?

A. He apparently was located in UK.

Q. What was David's role in this group?

A. He is presumed the leader of this group.

Q. And the group you were working with, did it have a name?

A. There was a name roughly translate to Fighting Hawk or

Fighting Eagle.

Q. Why was it called Fighting Hawk or Fighting Eagle?

A. I assume because Miles Guo always have an eagle as his logo

on his T-shirt or cap.

Q. Was this group, Mr. Chin, a farm?

A. In the beginning, it was not.

Q. Were you ever a farm member yourself?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Now, Mr. Chin, you testified you began following Miles Guo

on social media and you watched his videos, right?

A. Correct.

Q. What was your impression, if any, of Miles Guo's wealth?

A. He portrayed himself as a very wealthy person.

Q. And why did you have that impression?

693

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. Just by all the setup, his luxury——luxury apartment, yacht,

and the cars, so on, so forth.

Q. What sorts of things, if any, would he say about his

wealth?

A. He claimed that he made his wealth in China doing either

construction or land development and made his money.

Q. And you mentioned his apartment. What, if anything, did he

say about how much his apartment cost?

A. He has mentioned the purchasing process of that apartment

in New York. I——I recall a number like $80 million.

Q. You also mentioned his yacht. What, if anything, did he

say about the quality of his yacht?

A. His yacht is——was shown in his video constantly. It's a

very big yacht, and he has been bragging about the build, the

interior, the exterior of that yacht constantly.

Q. When you would watch him in his broadcasts, what sorts of

clothes would he be wearing, typically?

A. He usually wears very nicely tailored suit, and sometimes

he would be doing exercising, but, yeah, he usually wears nice

suits.

Q. And what, if anything, did Guo say about his clothing?

A. He would also brag that his suits were made by famous

tailor. I don't recall the name.

Q. Mr. Chin, at the time you were following Miles Guo and

watching these videos, did you believe he was very wealthy?

694

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. At the time, yes, I did.

Q. Mr. Chin, are you familiar with the Rule of Law

organizations?

A. Yes.

Q. What were the Rule of Law organizations?

A. At a certain time, Miles——

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

Q. Mr. Chin, what were the Rule of Law organizations? You can

answer that question.

A. At certain time, Miles declared the establishment of

the——establishment of Rule of Law Foundation. His claim was

that he would be using this money to help the

pro——pro-democracy group or people from China, or in China.

Q. What, if anything, did Guo say about donating his own money

to Rule of Law Foundation?

A. I recall he mentioned that his family will donate a large

sum of money to this foundation.

Q. Do you recall how much?

A. I recall a number like 100 million.

Q. Now, Mr. Chin, you said you had the impression he was very

wealthy at this time, right?

A. Yes.

Q. At that time, did you believe Guo could donate a hundred

million dollars to the Rule of Law Foundation?

695

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. At the time, based on his claims, I did believe that.

Q. Did you donate to the Rule of Law Foundation, Mr. Chin?

A. This foundation, over time I made several small donations.

Q. And about how much in total did you donate to the Rule of

Law Foundation?

A. Several hundred dollars, 200-some dollars.

Q. Now in addition to those donations, Mr. Chin, did there

come a time when you invested in certain opportunities promoted

by Miles Guo?

A. Yes. Later, there were two——two claimed investment

opportunities, I did donate.

Q. And approximately when did you donate?

A. When. 20——early 2020.

Q. And do you recall around what month?

A. It's——it should be May; April or May.

Q. Now, Mr. Chin, what opportunities did you invest in?

A. These are two. He claims that he will form a——a platform,

social platform, media platform to——to further broadcast news

to——that is uninfluenced by outside power, to send those news

to China.

Q. What was the name of that platform?

A. It's——it's GTV.

Q. And did you try to invest in GTV?

A. At the time he claimed that GTV is for large investors

only, more than hundred thousand-ish as a minimum. So for

696

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

small——small investors, he created different route to——to

invest.

Q. And Mr. Chin, how much did you invest in GTV?

A. That's $10,000.

Q. And you said that there was a $100,000 limit; is that

right?

A. Yes, he claimed that those are for invited special

investors.

Q. So where did you send your $10,000 investment in GTV?

A. That 10,000, together with other followers, or investors,

were sent to——to an entity called Voice of Guo, Voice of Guo

Media or Voice of Guo. It's a bank account in Arizona.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, could we please show the

witness what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit

VC11.

Q. Mr. Chin, is this the bank information where you sent your

money?

A. Correct.

MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit

VC11.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit VC11 received in evidence)

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, could we please publish.

BY MR. FERGENSON:

697

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Chin, you said this is the bank

account where you sent your $10,000 investment in GTV; is that

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Why did you send your GTV investment to Voice of Guo?

A. It was——well, we were told that small investors cannot

invest directly to GTV, we need to pool our money together

through the VOG, Voice of Guo account.

Q. And who told you to pool money and send it to Voice of Guo?

A. From Miles Guo himself on his videos and also from a lady

named Sara Wei.

Q. Who is Sara Wei?

A. She is one of the early avid supporters of Miles Guo.

Q. And what connection, if any, did she have to Voice of Guo

media?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection.

THE COURT: If you know, you may answer.

A. I received this instruction from Sara's email.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could show just the

witness what's marked as Government Exhibit VC9.

Q. Mr. Chin, is this another document you received from Sara

Wei?

A. Correct.

MR. FERGENSON: The government offers Government

Exhibit VC9.

698

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit VC9 received in evidence)

Q. Mr. Chin, could you please read what's stated at the top of

this document.

A. "Know all men by these——"

Q. Oh, I'm sorry. The bold text at the very top.

A. Okay. Limited Purpose Agency Agreement.

Q. And what was your understanding of what this document was,

Mr. Chin?

A. At the time it is a contract of this investment.

Q. Between you and who?

A. And VOG, Voice of Guo, Sara's account.

Q. And did you sign this document?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ever receive a countersigned copy of this document?

A. I have not.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, we can take that down.

Thank you.

Q. Mr. Chin, what was your understanding of what was supposed

to happen with the $10,000 you sent to VOG?

A. The understanding was this money will be pooled together to

meet the threshold, a hundred thousand, to be able to invest in

GTV.

Q. And why did you want to invest in GTV, Mr. Chin?

699

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. At the time, while busy working on translating documents,

and it was claimed that GTV will become a——a new social

platform, social media platform or media platform, to transfer

information.

Q. And what reasons did you want to invest with your own money

into what you understood GTV would be, Mr. Chin?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. It's being repeatedly claimed that this new social or media

platform will also do well through——through advertisement to

make——make profit.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about the return on

your investment in GTV, Mr. Chin?

A. He threw out very large numbers, many, many volumes of

return.

Q. And at the time when you invested in GTV, did you believe

Miles Guo?

A. At that time I did believe there's a chance of return.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about the risk of the

GTV investment?

A. The risk has been really downplayed, minimal.

Q. And what, if anything, did he say about why that was?

A. Just——just that his claim that this will be a——a——one of

the only media that is not affected by CCP so it will be——the

voice of most Chinese people will be used.

700

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

Q. And at the time did you believe Miles Guo that there was

not a lot of risk in this investment?

A. At the time I did believe that.

Q. Mr. Chin, before 2020, had you participated in stock

investments?

A. Stock, yes.

Q. And in 2020 did you have a financial advisor?

A. I had a financial advisor to my retirement account but not

brokerage account.

Q. Would you describe yourself as a sophisticated investor?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever participated in a private placement?

A. No.

Q. What, if anything, did Guo say about who could participate

in private placements?

A. Private placement. It appeared to be a selective group.

You have to be invited, and you need to make a large sum of

investment. There is a large minimum.

Q. Was it your impression that normally unsophisticated

investors could participate in something like a private

placement?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about who could

typically participate in a private placement?

701

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Mr. Chin, what time limit, if any, was there on your

participating in this private placement?

A. At the time it was——we were told that this opportunity

window was closing up soon so people who wants to participate

need to act quickly, within that month-ish time period,

March——April, May-ish time.

Q. Mr. Chin, had you ever invested in a hedge fund?

A. I have not.

Q. In his broadcasts, what, if anything, did Miles Guo say

about sending GTV investor funds to a hedge fund?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Which broadcasts?

MR. FERGENSON: Any broadcasts.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. He has never mentioned reinvesting to hedge fund.

Q. If you had known that Miles Guo was sending GTV investor

funds to a hedge fund, would you have invested in GTV?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Lack of foundation. We

dealt with this yesterday, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

Q. Mr. Chin, if you had known that Miles Guo was sending GTV

investor funds to a hedge fund, would you have invested in GTV?

A. Most likely, no, because I was pretty simple mind that this

money will be used to build the platform, not reinvest.

702

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

Q. Now, Mr. Chin, what ended up happening to your money sent

to VOG?

A. Because I did not receive any return reply or receipt from

VOG, after asking them couple times through email, I had my

suspicion, and also some other followers who will have left the

group also alarmed me that this may be a scam. So I contacted

my bank, which wired the money to Wells Fargo, and the bank

investor contacted Wells Fargo, and within a couple weeks,

Wells Fargo was able to intercept that wire and return that

$10,000 to me.

Q. So ultimately you received the $10,000 you sent back from

the bank.

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Chin, about how soon after you had sent the money to

VOG did you contact the bank about fraud?

A. Maybe two weeks-ish. No more than a month. Two weeks.

Yes.

Q. Mr. Chin, was this $10,000 transfer to VOG your only Miles

Guo-related investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Did you invest in other Miles Guo opportunities, Mr. Chin?

A. Yes, there was another one called a G dollar.

Q. How much did you invest in G dollar?

A. It's also $10,000.

703

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

Q. And around what time did you invest in G dollar?

A. About the same day or the next day of the——these two

investments were wired——were wired.

Q. At that time, Mr. Chin, what did you understand G dollar to

be?

A. At the time there are——I heard some claims also by Miles

that this money will be used to——to build a cryptocurrency or

purchase precious metals as a foundation of the movement.

Q. When you say precious metals, what sorts of things?

A. Gold. He mentioned that quite often.

Q. Mr. Chin, where did you send your G dollar money?

A. This was sent to a Capital One bank account located in New

York.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, could we please show

marked exhibits to the witness——just the witness——Government

Exhibits VC7 and VC8, please.

Q. Mr. Chin, what are these exhibits?

A. This is wiring instruction the followers get from a web

link.

MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibits

VC7 and 8.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: They are admitted.

(Government's Exhibits VC7 and VC8 received in

evidence)

704

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

MR. FERGENSON: And could we publish, please,

Ms. Loftus.

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Now, Mr. Chin, you said these were wire instructions sent

to followers on a web link; is that right?

A. Correct.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus——

Q. I want to focus you first on the one on the left, Mr. Chin.

MR. FERGENSON: Could we blow that one up, Ms. Loftus.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Chin, at the very top it says G Dollar

Preorder. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the bank account name listed beneath that?

A. Bank account name. That's GTV Media Group.

Q. And do you know, Mr. Chin, why G dollar money was sent to

GTV?

A. At the time this was——I don't think this was clearly

defined because everything was promoted by——both entities were

promoted by——by Miles himself, so it's all related to GTV.

MR. FERGENSON: And you can zoom out, Ms. Loftus.

And if we could zoom on the one on the right.

Q. All right. Now this one says mail the check. Who is the

payee, Mr. Chin?

A. Payee will be GTV Media Group, Inc.

Q. All right. And then do you see the text about halfway or a

705

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

little lower that says tip, how much G dollar will receive? Do

you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there's a chart beneath that. Do you see the

chart, Mr. Chin?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you please explain what's shown in the chart.

A. It appears that you buy more, you get more. You buy——you

pay more than a hundred, you get 120.

MR. FERGENSON: Thank you, Ms. Loftus. We can take

this down for now.

Q. Mr. Chin, at the time you sent your $10,000 for G dollars,

what was happening in the news with respect to cryptocurrency

at that time?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: If you'll step up.

(Continued on next page)

706

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: What was happening in the news?

MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor. It's relevant to the

promotion of cryptocurrencies at the time. The witness is

going to testify that at that time, cryptocurrency was booming

in the news, it was sort of the hot new fad. He's not going to

say those exact words. I'm sort of editorializing a little

bit. I believe the only objection was to form, your Honor, not

relevance.

MR. KAMARAJU: Because it is an improper question to

ask the witness what was happening generally in the news about

any topic, let alone cryptocurrency. If you're asking

particular questions of this witness, maybe——

MR. FERGENSON: I can ask him, what information were

you reading about cryptocurrency.

MR. KAMARAJU: Even that, I don't know what relevance

the promotions of other cryptocurrencies has to this particular

case.

MR. FERGENSON: He's just going to say there was a lot

of information about cryptocurrency and the coin was like, you

know, booming, it was part of why he invested.

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm still not sure——

THE COURT: You can ask him what motivated him to buy

this investment.

MR. FERGENSON: Okay.

707

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

THE COURT: Okay.

(In open court)

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Mr. Chin, in addition to Miles Guo's statements, what, if

anything, motivated you to buy G dollars at that time?

A. Generally to still support this movement and also the claim

of potential return.

Q. Had you ever invested in a cryptocurrency before?

A. I have not.

Q. What, if anything, did Guo say about the risk of investing

in G dollars?

A. Also very much downplayed, basically just referred to

the——to the success of other cryptocurrency, that this will not

fail.

Q. And Mr. Chin, what happened to the money you sent to GTV

for G dollars?

A. Same as the other wire. I didn't receive any receipt. So

when I contacted my bank, I reported both——both wiring, so they

also contacted Capital One Bank, but Capital One Bank said the

money has been deposited or withdrawn so that money was not

returned, at that time.

Q. Did you get any cryptocurrencies for that $10,000?

A. I didn't receive anything.

Q. Did you get a receipt?

708

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

A. No.

Q. Ultimately, Mr. Chin, did you get any refund of that money?

A. Couple years later, through security exchange fair fund,

they eventually returned all the investors some of this money.

Q. You said Securities & Exchange. What are you referring to

there?

A. The SEC.

Q. The SEC?

A. Yes.

Q. The money that was returned to you through the SEC, did you

get a 100 percent refund or less than 100 percent?

A. Everyone received 92 some percent.

Q. Did Miles Guo pay back the missing 8 percent?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Chin, you've discussed reporting to your banks and

trying to reverse your investments. What caused you to have

doubts about your investments?

A. First of all, you don't——I didn't receive any even receipt,

so that's——that's the biggest alarm; and then meanwhile, there

are more and more people who have left the team before I did.

We also talked to each other, and they start to give me warning

that this is probably becoming a scam.

Q. What effect did that have on you?

A. I was——I——I feel all the good intention, not myself, many

people were abused, that we tried to support a pro-democracy

709

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Direct

movement or transparency of information to Chinese people, but

we were scammed.

Q. You said other people warned you. Can you please describe

why you think other people's warnings played a role in your

doubts.

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form and hearsay.

MR. FERGENSON: It's for its effect, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. My feeling right now is, it's like other cult, right? When

you were——when you believe that, you believe the leader and you

cannot ask questions, but then some people who, quote-unquote,

wake up were able to have that effect on me, yeah.

Q. You used the phrase "wake up." Why do you use that phrase,

"wake up"?

A. That's how I feel because after I left the group, I feel

very relieved.

Q. Who was the leader of——who is the ultimate leader of this

group, Mr. Chin?

A. Miles Guo.

Q. Mr. Chin, for people who were still in the group, what, if

anything, did those people say about people who left the group?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: May I?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

710

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

A. Okay. When, in the beginning, there were few people who

left, and they were very quickly labeled as traitor or CCP

spies. At the time it's very shocking, but it seems

believable. But as more and more people left and more and more

people were labeled as CCP, CCP spies, that became not very

reasonable. Yeah. And it is almost against his original

intent of a democracy movement, pro-democracy movement, because

people seems to——people cannot have different voice in the

team, in the group.

Q. Mr. Chin, at the time when you were a believer, what did

you think you were a part of?

A. I tried to focus myself just on the translation job,

collecting news, medical information, and try to translate

that, and I think on a small part, at the small part of a

bigger movement of pro-democracy movement.

Q. Looking back now, what do you think you were actually a

part of?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Right now I believe that was very elaborate scam.

MR. FERGENSON: Could I have a moment, your Honor.

No further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examination.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.

711

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Mr. Chin, since we've been having some problems with the

mic, can you hear me?

A. Yes, I can hear you.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

A. Yes.

Q. So I'd like to start where you started with the

prosecutors, I believe.

You talked about your family moving to Taiwan,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the result of atrocities committed as part of

the Communist revolution in China, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And I believe you said that was because there was

infighting among the Communist party, right?

A. It has been called a civil war.

Q. Okay. A civil war. So a dispute, an internal conflict,

right?

A. Within China, yeah.

Q. And one set of members of the Communist party did not want

to release the other set from their group, right?

A. Can you say that again.

712

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

Q. Sure. Let me try it this way. Very difficult to leave the

Chinese Communist Party, correct?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer. Go ahead.

A. From what I've learned, it seems that way.

Q. Okay. And you said that——and I apologize if I got this

wrong, so please correct me, but you mentioned that there was a

government that moved to Taiwan, correct?

A. The government before 1949 was Republic of China, and that

government right now is in Taiwan.

Q. Okay. So the government that existed in China before 1949

now exists in Taiwan.

A. Correct.

Q. All right. So it's an alternate government to the Chinese

Communist Party that runs mainland China, correct?

A. That becomes the politics.

Q. I'm just asking your understanding, sir.

A. It's current government ruling——controlling or ruling

Taiwan.

Q. Okay. But that government that resides in Taiwan believes

it's the legitimate government of China, right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. He can't

testify to what that government believes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Okay. Let me ask, is that your understanding, sir?

713

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

A. No. Not right now. In the past, probably.

Q. Okay. That's fine.

THE COURT: Who is the leader of the enemy of the

Communist party in the 1940s? What was the name of the leader?

THE WITNESS: That would be Chiang Kai-shek.

THE COURT: And did he go to Taiwan?

THE WITNESS: He went to Taiwan.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Now you mentioned, I believe, that you first came across

Mr. Guo on YouTube; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. That was in 2017, correct?

A. Roughly, yes.

Q. Okay. And the first thing you saw about Mr. Guo was about

a Voice of America interview he had done, right?

A. Not the interview itself. He mentioned, discussing that

interview.

Q. Right. It was a video discussing the Voice of America

interview, correct, just to be clear?

A. Correct.

Q. And you said that he claimed that the Chinese Communist

Party had cut off the interview, right?

A. He claimed that the Voice of America cut it off due to the

714

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

influence of CCP.

Q. Okay. And are you using the word "claimed" because you're

skeptical of that?

A. I couldn't verify that, right?

Q. Okay. Because you have no evidence one way or the other

about that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you have no way of knowing, correct?

A. No.

Q. Not then and not now, right?

A. Right now there actually are more information out, but

again, I cannot verify myself.

Q. Right. So you have no idea if there is an effort by the

Chinese Communist Party to silence Mr. Guo, correct?

MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Now I think you mentioned that——I'm not referring to the

Mr. Guo interview, but previously——you had been able to see

Voice of America in Taiwan, correct?

A. Not see; only listening to shortwave radio.

Q. Okay. Was it difficult to access Voice of America in

Taiwan?

A. Not in Taiwan.

Q. Okay. How about mainland China?

A. Difficult.

715

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

Q. Why is that?

A. I've heard that it's illegal to listen to outside

broadcasts in mainland China.

Q. And when you say outside broadcasts, does that apply to

social media as well?

A. When I grew up, there was no social media. These are just

words, just radio broadcasts.

Q. Okay. So the censorship has been going on for a long time

then, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that was one of the ideas behind G——apologies.

That was one of the ideas behind GTV, according to

your understanding, correct?

A. At the time that it was the claim, yes, and I believed

that.

Q. And that was based on the idea of breaking through

something called "the great firewall of China," correct?

A. I've heard that claim, yes.

Q. What does the phrase "the great firewall of China" mean?

A. My——my——I have limited understanding in that part of the

technology, but generally it's censorship.

Q. Okay. Censorship by who?

A. By CCP.

Q. Okay. And so GTV was intended to break through that?

A. That was the claim.

716

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

Q. Okay. And that claim seemed reasonable to you?

A. At the time I——I believed that.

Q. Okay. Did you have any idea how GTV was going to

accomplish that goal?

A. No. That was never clearly explained.

Q. Okay. So right now I'm not asking what was explained; I'm

just asking whether you had any belief as to how that was going

to happen.

A. No. I wouldn't know, no.

Q. You've met with the prosecutors before, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. On several occasions, right?

A. Remote meeting, yes.

Q. Yeah. Whether remote or in person, you've met with them on

a number of occasions, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And there were FBI agents there, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And there was somebody taking notes, right?

A. In remote meeting, I couldn't tell.

Q. How about the in-person meetings?

A. I did not see them taking notes.

Q. Okay. So you didn't observe anybody taking notes. But

isn't it true that you told the prosecutors that you thought

that GTV could break through the great firewall of China using

717

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

satellite technology?

A. No, I have not said that.

Q. So you never mentioned Starlink to them?

A. No.

Q. And so if there were notes reflecting that, those notes

would be wrong, sir; is that your testimony?

A. Satellite and Starlink, no.

Q. Now when you were talking about the money that you sent to

Ms. Wei, you referred to it as Voice of Guo or Voice of Guo

Media, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Guo Media is a social media company, correct?

A. Guo Media claimed to want to do social media. Social media

platform was never built. It's just a name, Guo Media. That's

my understanding.

Q. So it's your testimony that Guo Media never actually

broadcast anything?

A. No. Guo——

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor. That wasn't

the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Guo Media never broadcast anything. All the broadcast by

Miles or by Sara, I'm not sure Guo Media label was put up there

as Guo Media, but everyone know it came from the same person.

Q. Well, the reason why I asked you is because you testified,

718

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO3 Chin - Cross

I believe, that he claimed that Guo Media was a social media

company, correct?

A. Guo——Guo Media is a social company? My recollection, he

claimed that Guo Media will build a social platform, but that's

that.

Q. Okay. And that's the same claim you say that he made with

respect to GTV, correct?

A. Those names have been used interchangeably by him and

others, was not clearly defined what Guo Media, what GTV. It

was not clearly strictly defined. That's my recollection.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. So when you

invested money in 2020, in May of 2020, did you think you were

investing in Guo Media?

A. At the time the money was sent to Voice of Guo account and

supposedly this will be pooled together to meet the hundred-K

threshold to be able to invest in the——however that is that's

going to be Guo Media, yes.

(Continued on next page)

719

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Okay. So the $10,000 that you sent to Ms. Wei, you

intended for that to be invested in Guo Media, that's your

testimony?

A. That's what we were told, that this money will go where

this money will go.

Q. Okay. Now, we've talked about Ms. Wei for a little bit.

You don't have a very high opinion of her; correct?

A. She was a early strong supporter, seems to be, and later I

stopped listen to her.

Q. You don't think she's very bright, right?

A. That's all personal opinion.

THE WITNESS: Do I have to answer?

THE COURT: Yeah, you can answer whether you think

she's bright or not.

A. I don't think she's highly educated.

Q. In fact, you've told the prosecutors that she is

incompetent; correct?

A. I don't think I told the prosecutors she's incompetent.

She's not -- I cannot recall if I used that word, but --

Q. Okay. Let's put to the side whether you used that specific

word. Did you express to them any word that suggested to them

that you thought she was incompetent?

A. Any word. I don't think I can recall exactly.

Q. Now, sir, during your testimony on direct you repeatedly

720

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

referred to things that you believe Mr. Guo said; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You have never spoken personally with Mr. Guo, right?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Okay. So he didn't say those things to you, right?

A. Not to me personally.

Q. So where did you hear them?

A. Where do I hear?

Q. Where did you hear them?

A. Mostly Twitter and YouTube.

Q. Like Twitter posts or what?

A. Twitter posts.

Q. So like typed-out Twitter posts?

A. Video, mostly video post.

Q. Okay. Which videos?

A. He has post many, many videos.

Q. Okay. Tell me the video where he downplayed the risk of

the GTV investment?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer, if you know.

A. I have them in my record. I cannot name the date right

now, but there are -- there was a video he said that the money

will grow quickly.

Q. What did he say specifically, sir?

A. In one of the video that I can recall, he said the money

721

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

has grown so much in the past few days. And once it's open up

to more investor. This will grow tremendously, very large

numbers.

Q. Okay. In which video did he promise really high returns?

A. In his video, he would be promising hundreds or even more,

higher number for the return.

Q. Which video?

A. Again, the video that have translated for the -- for the

team.

Q. Okay. But the prosecutors didn't ask you about that

specific video, right?

A. While the early email communication I have forwarded a few

links to the investigator.

Q. Okay. But during your testimony in this courtroom, the

prosecutor didn't show you any of those statements, right?

A. During this court, in this --

THE COURT: When the prosecutor was asking you

questions, did he show you videos, just now?

THE WITNESS: Show video, no, no video.

Q. Now, you testified on direct that you believed that -- you

believed Mr. Guo's statements about getting higher returns;

correct?

A. At the time, yes.

Q. Okay. Isn't it true that during your very first meeting

with the prosecutors, you told them that you thought that his

722

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

predictions of returns were ridiculous?

A. He claimed that everyone will be able to own a yacht like

that. That's obviously ridiculous. I didn't believe that.

Q. Okay. So you didn't believe that everybody would be able

to buy a yacht; you thought that was a ridiculous claim, right?

A. At the time that number was ridiculous even to me.

Q. Right. The returns he was predicting in your mind were

ridiculous, right?

A. Those large number were not reasonable.

Q. Okay. And, in fact, you also told the prosecutors that you

didn't have an anticipation of getting a return at all from

your GTV investment, right?

A. At the time my mindset is if there's some return, great; if

there's no return, I donated to a cause.

Q. Right. Because ultimately, the goal of you sending the

money to GTV was to support GTV's mission to break through the

great firewall of China; correct?

A. There was definitely some expectation of some return too.

Q. But didn't you just testify that if you didn't get a

return, okay, you donated to a cause?

MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Now, one of the reasons why it was important -- GTV's

mission was important to you personally is because you still

have family in China; correct?

723

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

A. There are remote family, yeah.

Q. Okay. Now, did you watch a video by Mr. Guo when he

announced the GTV private placement?

A. Announced the private placement. There were many videos at

the time. I don't know exactly which one is announcement. But

at the time I watched many.

Q. How about one on April 20th, 2020, did you watch that?

A. I cannot recall the date exactly.

Q. Do you remember watching any video of his in April of 2020?

A. I don't memorize the date. I may have, but I --

Q. Okay. So when did you first hear about the potential GTV

investment?

A. It's also in that time frame he has been mentioning a

investment opportunity.

Q. When you say "in that time frame," are you talking about

the April time frame?

A. April, even late March, there were -- I recall there were

mentioning of the opportunity.

Q. Okay. And he was mentioning those, you said, in videos

posted online, right?

A. YouTube. Correct.

Q. YouTube.

Is it your testimony that you never saw him discuss a

GTV private placement on a Guo Media platform?

A. I do not know the exact distinction between these two.

724

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

These two names or two entities were not clearly defined. It

was separated in my mind.

Q. Okay. Now, when you were evaluating the GTV investment

that you were going to make, you thought it was a risky

investment; correct?

A. At the time I thought, yes, it's risky.

Q. And you were unsure about making the investment; correct?

A. I had my doubt too, yes.

Q. You didn't contact Mr. Guo and try to address those doubts

with him, right?

A. I have not.

Q. But you did contact somebody to address those doubts,

right?

A. The email I send the money to, yes.

Q. Well, didn't you speak about your concerns with the GTV

investment with somebody who goes by the name Bird?

A. There's a lady with name called JamesBird, not just Bird,

JamesBird.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

So you spoke with JamesBird about your concerns prior

to investing?

A. There were discussions.

Q. I'm just trying to get clear, was that with JamesBird, this

discussion?

A. My understanding is that she also invested. And before the

725

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

investment, there were discussion whether to make the

investment or not.

Q. Okay. Discussions between you and JamesBird, right?

THE COURT: Are you saying Jane Bird?

THE WITNESS: James.

THE COURT: James.

THE WITNESS: Last name Bird, but it's a she.

THE COURT: So is the last name JamesBird?

THE WITNESS: That's her online name.

THE COURT: I see.

THE WITNESS: JamesBird, the one word.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. So I just want to be clear so the record is clear. When

you're referring to discussions, you're talking about

discussions between you and the person who goes by the name

JamesBird?

A. Correct.

Q. And based on those discussions, you then proceeded with

your investment; correct?

A. There are also discussions with a few more people, now I

don't recall the name; but, yes, there was at least one

discussion with JamesBird.

Q. Okay. So you vetted your investment decision with

726

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

JamesBird and a few other people, right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection. Mischaracterizing.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Okay. You discussed your investment decision with

JamesBird and a few other people; correct?

A. There was, yes.

Q. But none of those people were Miles Guo, right?

A. No.

MR. KAMARAJU: May I have just one moment, your Honor?

I'll try to organize a little bit.

Q. Now, around the time that you were making your GTV

investment, you also said that you were doing some translation

work on behalf of the movement; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And so what were you translating exactly?

A. For example, at the time was -- that was COVID, and that a

number of death or infection inside China, outside China. I

mean inside China looks -- from statistic point of view looks

not reasonable.

So one of the job I did was collect the trend of

infection from several different country and make a comparison.

And said that -- explain that for infectious disease,

statistically it unlikely to have a zero or very low flat

infection number, right. Because most other countries have a

certain trend. But the statistics, people can see from China

727

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

was -- looks odd from mathematic point of view, a mathematical

point of view.

Q. So the material that you were translating was health

information that you were trying to help people in China; is

that right?

A. Just to show that be careful what information they are

receiving, to have a second opinion, I guess.

Q. Okay. Because there's only one opinion allowed typically

in China; correct?

A. China is controlled by CCP.

Q. Right. And so it's the CCP's opinion that's allowed,

right?

A. It's a specific for health information or --

Q. Sure, let's stick with that.

A. There seems to be only one published data.

Q. Okay. And you testified on direct that Mr. Guo was also

talking about COVID; correct?

A. He -- he discuss about -- he discuss COVID too, yeah.

Q. And it was -- you translated some of his information about

COVID, right?

A. Most of the information I translated is public information

from the U.S. I collected. Some of his talks I translated to

English may also contain his opinion on COVID.

Q. Okay. So you translated, I think you used the word

"talks." So you translated talks that Mr. Guo gave about COVID

728

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

and about other things, right?

A. About other things. There are COVID and other things;

correct.

Q. Like what other things?

A. The same thing. The corruption in mainland China, how bad

that was, things like that.

Q. Okay. And you thought that was important to get that

information to the people in China, right?

A. Just to -- again to perhaps open up more the information

flow or news flow.

Q. You testified on direct that you were no longer a follower,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. When did you stop becoming -- when did you stop being a

follower?

A. Since I didn't receive any receipt on my -- on my

investment.

Q. Okay. So that was in summer of 2020?

A. Correct. Since I ask investigator to investigate.

Q. I'm sorry, sir, are you finished with your answer?

A. Finished.

Q. Since you stopped being a follower of Mr. Guo, have you

still tracked the information that he puts out?

A. I didn't track his information, no.

Q. Have you been following what's been going on in Mr. Guo's

729

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

life since you stopped being a follower?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So you have no idea if he is still wealthy or not,

right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

A. On YouTube sometimes those video pop up, but I have not

actively tracked or follow or search any of his whereabout.

Q. So you don't know if he still has a yacht, right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. KAMARAJU: I know I've not asked that question

before.

THE COURT: I know. I know. You may answer, sir.

A. The question was?

Q. You don't know if he still has a yacht?

A. I wouldn't know either way. I wasn't following his --

Q. Okay. So I'm not going to go through each thing; I'll just

sum it up. All the luxury items that you talked about seeing

in the videos, remember you testified about that with the

prosecutor?

A. I did not follow, so --

Q. Okay. So you have no idea if he still has any of those

things, right?

A. There are -- there were video that pop up with him in that

apartment or on the yacht. But whether he still own or

730

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Cross

whatnot, I don't know more than -- any more than that.

Q. You testified on direct, sir, that you thought that you

woke up, I think was your word, because you spoke to a couple

of friends who told you it was a scam; is that right?

A. Basically, a few ex-followers who left the group before I

did.

Q. Were any of those ex-followers based in China, sir?

A. There was a friend who was a prior acquaintance. She was

based in China, but she did travel. She was also following

this -- all this Guo's video. She also contacted me separately

and warned me that this doesn't look right to her.

Q. All right. And this friend lives in Beijing; is that

right?

A. I said she travels around overseas as well. I don't know

exactly.

Q. One of the first claims that you said Mr. Guo made was that

he was -- VOA was pressured to take him off the air; correct?

A. That's his claim.

Q. And that happened in 2017, right?

A. I don't know the exact date, but I think that event

happened in 2017.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we please have Exhibit DX

STIP-001, please. Can we go to paragraph 5.

Q. Can you read the first sentence, sir.

MR. KAMARAJU: If you could maybe highlight that for

731

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Redirect

him.

A. "To carry out some of the objectives of Fox Hunt, in 2017,

the PRC government tasked a specially designated group of

operatives ('the group') with discrediting and harassing

individuals, including Mr. Guo, by using interactive computer

services and electronic communication systems."

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. And then can we highlight the

sentence that says "The group's tactics aimed at Mr. Guo." And

go all the way through the end of that sentence.

Q. Can you read that sentence, please.

A. "The group's tactics aimed at Mr. Guo included using

anonymized social media accounts operated by the group and by

pressuring U.S. social media companies to remove Mr. Guo and

U.S.-based associates of Mr. Guo from social media platforms."

Q. Can you read the next sentence, please.

A. "These efforts were part of the PRC government's broader

effort to prevent, disrupt, and harass Mr. Guo's use of social

media and other online platforms to disseminate and discuss

disfavored content."

MR. KAMARAJU: No further questions.

THE COURT: Redirect.

MR. FERGENSON: Yes, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Mr. Chin, you were asked questions about the difference

732

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Redirect

between Guo Media and GTV, do you recall that?

A. Yes, I was asked.

Q. Is the difference between those two things clear to you?

A. At the time it was not very clear; it just all directed by

Miles Guo.

Q. And when you sent $10,000 to VOG, what did you understand

would happen with that money?

A. My understanding based on the claim was that this money

will be pooled together to meet 100,000 threshold to be able to

invest in the -- in the Guo Media.

Q. Was it Guo Media or GTV?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, your Honor. Asked and

answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. And Mr. Chin, just a moment ago you were asked about things

Miles Guo said about being targeted by the CCP. Do you

remember those questions?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Miles Guo say about the return on your GTV

investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Scope.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. He claims again big numbers based on other -- other

existing social media or media companies return.

Q. And what about your G dollar investment, what did he say

733

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Chin - Recross

about the returns on that?

A. He claimed that this -- first of all, this will absorb a

large amount of money. And then based on the -- implying that

based on the other cryptocurrencies' success, this will also be

successful.

Q. At the time when you were a follower, did you believe what

Miles Guo was saying?

A. At the time I did.

Q. And, in fact, Mr. Chin, did you make money or lose money on

these investments?

A. I lost.

Q. Did Miles Guo pay back your losses?

A. He did not.

Q. Are you still a follower of Miles Guo's today?

A. I'm not.

Q. Why not?

A. I think he has scammed, abused, many, many people's good

intention and our energy and the time. We try to do something

good, but we were cheated.

MR. FERGENSON: No further questions.

THE COURT: Recross.

MR. KAMARAJU: Very briefly, your Honor.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. You testified that Miles Guo has not repaid your losses;

734

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Have you ever asked him?

A. I have not.

MR. KAMARAJU: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty, sir. You may step down.

Thank you.

(Witness excused)

THE COURT: And the prosecution may call its next

witness.

MR. FINKEL: Government calls Steele Schottenheimer.

STEELE SCHOTTENHEIMER,

called as a witness by the Government,

having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Hello.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what city do you reside in?

A. Dallas, Texas.

Q. Where do you work?

A. I work at Hayman Capital Management and Conservation Equity

Management.

735

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. What's Conservation Equity Management?

A. Conservation Equity Management is a natural capital and

impact private equity firm.

Q. What does that mean?

A. We invest in environmental strategies in the private

markets, primarily buying raw land.

Q. What's Hayman Capital?

A. Hayman Capital Management is an asset manager based in

Dallas, Texas; it's founded by Kyle Bass in 2005; and

historically it's primarily focused on event-driven hedge

funds.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how is it that you work at two

different entities, Conservation Equity Management and Hayman

Capital?

A. Hayman Capital Management is wholly owned by Kyle Bass; and

Kyle is a primary partner at Conservation Equity Management.

Q. You said that Hayman Capital is an event-driven -- sorry,

what was the term you used?

A. It's a global event-driven hedge fund manager.

Q. What is a hedge fund manager?

A. A hedge fund manager is someone that manages hedge funds.

Hedge funds are pooled vehicles that typically have a

investment mandate or strategy.

Q. And what does it mean that Hayman Capital is event-driven?

A. Event-driven investing has to do with typically some sort

736

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

of catalyst that triggers the thesis or the investment focus.

THE COURT: Can you give us an example or examples?

THE WITNESS: Yes. If you have two -- a company

buying another, that would be an event. If you have two

companies merging, that would be an event. If you have a

country that decides to devalue their currency, that would be

an event.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how long have you been at Hayman

Capital?

A. I have worked at Hayman since April of 2006, so just over

18 years.

Q. What's your title at Hayman Capital?

A. I'm the managing director of investor relations.

Q. How long have you held that role?

A. I've always been in investor relations, but the title of

managing director, roughly the last 15 years.

Q. Can you just briefly describe to the members of the jury

what your general duties and responsibilities are as the

managing director of investor relations?

A. Yes. I am the point person on all current investors, and I

am also the point person for our marketing efforts to potential

investors. I also handle a lot of Kyle's scheduling, as well

as his media appearances.

Q. You mentioned Kyle. What is Kyle Bass's title at Hayman?

A. Kyle Bass is the founder and chief investment officer at

737

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Hayman Capital Management.

Q. I want to focus on the time period of 2020. Around that

time period, Ms. Schottenheimer, what were the types of clients

that Hayman engaged with?

A. Hayman clients at that time were high net worth

individuals, family offices, endowments, and broadly

institutional investors.

Q. What's a family office?

A. A family office is -- it is an investment office that is

dedicated to managing the wealth of a family.

Q. Approximately how many employees does Hayman have?

A. Today?

Q. Today and in 2020, if you could.

A. In 2020, I think it was around eight. Today it's six.

Q. In 2020, what were the approximate amount of assets under

Hayman's management?

A. Around 400 million.

Q. And what does that mean, assets under management?

A. Assets under management is the amount of capital that we

invest on behalf of our investors. We have direct control over

the asset allocation and investment decisions.

Q. As part of your duties, do you also occasionally manage

Kyle Bass's calendar?

A. At times, yes.

Q. Based on your involvement in his scheduling, does Kyle Bass

738

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

make media appearances?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you broadly describe to the members of the jury what

Mr. Bass's profile is, generally speaking, in the financial

industry?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. Do I answer the question.

Q. No.

THE COURT: When I sustain the objection, you don't.

Q. Based on your involvement in Mr. Bass's calendar, does he

make media appearances?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What sort of media appearances does he make?

A. Kyle has done a number of media appearances that would

include CNN International, Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC Asia.

Q. In 2020, before then, how often was Mr. Bass making media

appearances?

A. Say at least once a month, generally.

Q. In 2020 and before then, did Mr. Bass have a public

position regarding the Chinese Communist Party?

A. Yes.

Q. What was it?

739

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Kyle had a negative view on the Chinese Communist Party.

And the -- broadly, the communist -- sorry, the Chinese

economy.

Q. What is your view on the Chinese Communist Party?

A. I also have a negative view.

Q. Why?

A. I have a negative view because I don't agree with not

allowing people to practice their religion and putting them in

concentration camps for doing so.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can any member of the public invest in

a Hayman Capital financial product?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because Hayman Capital -- the funds that Hayman Capital

Management operates relies on a 3(c)(7) exemption, which means

that we could only market and accept capital from qualified

purchasers.

Q. What is the 3(c)(7) exception?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, your Honor.

Can we have a brief sidebar?

THE COURT: Okay.

(Continued on next page)

740

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

(At sidebar)

MR. KAMARAJU: So my objection is that

Ms. Schottenheimer has not been noticed or proffered as an

expert witness on securities regulations; and yet she's being

asked — and I anticipate will continue to be asked — about

interpretations of various aspects of the Investment Advisers

Act and various securities regulations. And that is properly

the province of expert testimony before the Court.

THE COURT: Are you merely asking her about

credentials or qualifications for investing at a certain level?

MR. FINKEL: Yes. And she's not being offered as an

expert; but she's a lay witness in which her job is to evaluate

whether someone can be an investor in Hayman. That's very

relevant to all the conduct here.

THE COURT: Any average financial adviser knows this

is not expert testimony.

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, in Bilzerian, your Honor, United

States v. Bilzerian, the Second Circuit approved the use of

expert testimony to interpret SEC regulations.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. KAMARAJU: I want to make sure that's not where

we're going.

THE COURT: My sense is that we're not going there.

MR. FINKEL: She's not interpreting regulations; she's

explaining her understanding of the requirements to invest in

741

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Hayman Capital, which is very relevant because she evaluated

Mr. Kwok's investment in Hayman Capital GTV investor funds.

And that's her job. So determining whether someone is a

qualified purchaser, an accredited investor speaks to what she

does on a day-to-day basis. She'll be crossed on it and she's

not been certified as an expert by your Honor.

MR. KAMARAJU: But I don't think there's any dispute

as to Mr. Guo's ability to invest in Hayman Capital. The

dispute is whether there is -- whether there were unaccredited

investors allowed to invest in GTV. This witness's

understanding of what an accredited investor, it doesn't

matter.

THE COURT: It's not about GTV, am I correct?

MR. FINKEL: Well, two points in response to that,

your Honor:

First, I believe your Honor ruled in the motions in

limine that we are allowed to introduce the fact of the

unaccredited investor offering with respect to GTV.

With respect to whether this witness is about the GTV

offering, in a part, yes, because the GTV money that was

collected by Mr. Kwok and his co-conspirators was funneled into

the hedge fund that Ms. Schottenheimer works for. And so she's

not going to be interpreting SEC regulations and saying, I

believe this. She's talking about what she does every day.

This is her job.

742

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

THE COURT: But I don't consider this to be expert

testimony and I'm going to permit the questions.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can I just have one clarification?

I'm allowed to then cross-examine her on her

understanding of the differences?

THE COURT: Between what and what?

MR. KAMARAJU: Between a qualified investor, which I

believe he's going to elicit, and a minimum investment

threshold.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay.

(Continued on next page)

743

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

(In open court)

THE COURT: You may continue.

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is a 3(c)(7) objection? Excuse

me. Objection was overruled.

What is a 3(c)(7) exception?

A. A 3(c)(7) exception is something that comes from the '40

Act rule under SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission,

directive. And basically a 3(c) fund -- a 3(c)(7) fund is how

Hayman sets up their hedge funds.

Q. What is a qualified purchaser?

A. For an individual, a qualified purchaser is someone that

has $5 million in marketable securities.

Q. And what about for an entity?

A. For an entity that is not a family limited partnership,

they have to have $25 million in pooled or in net assets.

Q. How, if at all, is the qualified purchaser definition

relevant to your work at Hayman Capital?

A. So because I am in charge of marketing to potential

clients, I have to verify that everyone that I'm speaking to or

providing information about our funds is, in fact, a qualified

purchaser.

Q. What is the term "accredited investor"?

A. An accredited investor is someone that has a million

dollars of net worth, or $300,000 of combined income with their

744

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

spouse, or $200,000 of income as an individual.

Q. Can someone who's an accredited investor, but not a

qualified purchaser, invest in a Hayman product?

A. No, they cannot.

Q. In these thresholds, qualified purchaser, accredited

investor, what entity, if at all, establishes those thresholds?

A. The Securities and Exchange Commission.

Q. And what is your understanding of why those thresholds are

established by the SEC?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Can you please repeat the question.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is the SEC?

A. The Securities and Exchange Commission.

Q. What is your understanding, if any, about why the SEC

establishes these thresholds of accredited investor and

qualified purchaser?

A. To protect individuals that don't have these thresholds

from investing in what's considered to be higher-risk

investment funds.

Q. And the financial products that Hayman offers, are they

high-risk financial products?

A. They are considered to be by the SEC, yes. It's a hedge

fund.

Q. Okay. And in sort of layman's terms, what do you mean by

745

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

"higher risk"?

A. Typically, a hedge fund can invest not just in the stock

market or the bond market, they can participate in lots of

different types of securities, over-the-counter options,

over-the-counter forwards, commodities. It has a very large

bandwidth of the types of financial products that they can --

that a hedge fund can invest in. And these types of products

are considered to be more high risk.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, is part of your job evaluating whether

potential clients are, in fact, qualified purchasers?

A. Yes.

Q. And what does Hayman do, if anything, to validate whether a

potential investor is a qualified purchaser?

A. If I had reverse inquiry that comes into investor relations

at Hayman, I send them what's called a new contact

questionnaire. It is a section out of our subscription booklet

that, you know, asks a couple of background information like

their name, date of birth, phone number, email address, as well

as an accredited investor representation and a qualified

purchaser representation.

So once I have these on file, I know that they have

made the QP rep, and I am able to provide them information on

the funds that Hayman offers.

Q. What's a QP rep, what's that mean?

A. A qualified purchaser representation, meaning --

746

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. Meaning that they, in fact, are an individual that has $5

million in marketable securities.

Q. And what's a reverse inquiry?

A. A reverse inquiry is when someone reaches out to Hayman

inquiring about the different products that we offer.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what work, if any, does Hayman do to

validate or check the representations made by potential

investors claiming they are qualified purchasers?

A. We take the representation as-is. There's no further

checking. It's not required.

Q. What is KYC?

A. Know your customer or know your client.

Q. What does that mean in the context of the work you do at

Hayman?

A. We have what's called anti-money laundering procedures in

place when an investor makes an investment into one of our

funds. And it is basically a grid or a checklist of the

information that we're required to collect and keep on file.

Q. And what sort of information does Hayman collect as part of

its KYC obligations?

A. It's a long list. A lot of it is included in the

subscription document that the investor completes in order to

subscribe to a fund. But on a high level, the name, address,

Social Security number, date of birth, and a copy of a valid

747

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

state-issued driver's license, passport. And we collect this

on behalf of if someone is investing in their name, the

investor. And then if it's an entity, we collect this

information on behalf of the authorized signatory, as well as

the -- any beneficial owners over I think it's 20 percent.

Q. What is AML?

A. Anti-money laundering.

Q. How is that term relevant, if at all, to the work you do at

Hayman?

A. So anti-money laundering is -- we call them AML checks.

And so this falls kind of within the know-your-customer or

know-your-client process. And this AML checklist is actually

what we use as part of the closing process to collect all the

data that we need.

Q. These AML and KYC checks, why, if at all, does Hayman do

them?

A. We are required to.

Q. By whom?

A. The SEC.

Q. What is the term UBO?

A. You said UBL?

Q. UBO. O.

A. UBO.

Q. Have you heard that term before?

A. Ultimate beneficial owner.

748

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. What's an ultimate beneficial owner?

A. An ultimate beneficial owner is who actually owns the

entity.

Q. And how is the concept of an ultimate beneficial owner

relevant, if at all, to your work at Hayman?

A. For AML purposes, we are required to drill down into an

entity, so we have XYZ entity invest. And I need to collect

AML on any individual that owns more than 20 percent of the

entity. And sometimes an entity is owned by an entity, and you

just keep going down until you actually get to an individual;

and so you can do an AML check on that individual.

Q. And why does Hayman go through all those steps about

ultimate beneficial owners?

A. Because we are required to under our AML practices that are

required to by the -- required by the SEC.

MR. FINKEL: Can I have one moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Counsel conferred)

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer I think you used the term "drill down"

on the various ultimate beneficial owners. Can you just

explain to the members of the jury what that means in the

context of your work?

A. Absolutely.

So if there's an entity, we say does anyone or any

entity own more than 20 percent of this entity. And if the

749

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

answer is yes, then we collect. If it's a person -- it's

basically just a grid that goes down. If it's a person, then

we collect the five AML requirements on that person. If it's

an entity, then we would have to go to the next layer. Does

anyone own 20 percent of this entity; is it a person or is it

another entity? And then you just continue to go until you

actually have what we consider an ultimate beneficial owner.

Q. Are you familiar with the concept in your work at Hayman of

parent entities and subsidiaries?

A. Broadly familiar, yes.

Q. And what does that mean?

A. A parent company is the company that owns -- is the -- a

parent company owns subsidiaries.

Q. Does Hayman also inquire with clients who wish to invest in

a Hayman product what the source of the money is that they're

using for an investment?

A. Source of money? No.

Q. What about source of funds?

A. No.

Q. Is a potential investor required to report where the money

came from that they are using to invest in a Hayman financial

product?

A. The specific capital being allocated, no.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, have you ever met an individual known

as Miles Kwok?

750

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know him by any other names?

A. Miles Guo.

Q. Do you see him in the courtroom here today?

A. I do.

Q. Can you point him out and identify --

MR. KAMARAJU: We'll stipulate to identity, your

Honor.

THE COURT: All righty.

Q. When was the first time that you met Miles Kwok?

A. I met Miles Kwok in October of 2018.

Q. And what was the name that you were -- that you understand

Miles Kwok to use at that time?

A. Miles Kwok.

Q. Where did you meet him?

A. I met him in Dallas, Texas, at an airplane hangar.

Q. Who was Miles Kwok with?

A. Miles Kwok was with Steve Bannon and William Je.

Q. At that time, 2018, Ms. Schottenheimer, what was your

understanding of Miles Kwok's relationship with William Je?

A. At that time William Je was introduced to me as Miles's

interpreter for the interview that they were there to conduct.

Q. And what was your understanding of Miles Kwok's

relationship with Steve Bannon at that time?

A. That they were friends.

751

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. Was Kyle Bass also present at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. You mentioned that there was an interview. What do you

mean?

A. So the reason why we were all at the hangar that day in

Dallas was because Kyle was going to interview both Steve

Bannon in a single interview and, in a separate interview,

interview Miles Kwok.

Q. And at that time, Ms. Schottenheimer, in 2018, what was

your understanding of Kyle Bass's relationship with Miles Kwok?

A. That they had been introduced through Steve Bannon and had

a lot of similar views of China, the financial -- China's

financial system, and the communist party of China.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please display what I believe

is in evidence as Government Exhibit 103.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, who is this individual?

A. This is William Je.

MR. FINKEL: And if we can please display for the

witness, witness only, what's been marked for identification as

Government Exhibit 123.

Q. Who is this individual?

A. Steve Bannon.

MR. FINKEL: Government offers 123.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

752

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

(Government's Exhibit 123 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: Publish that, please.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how did Miles Kwok arrive to the

airplane hangar where this interview took place?

A. It was my understanding that he had flown into a separate

FBO.

Q. What's an FBO?

A. I don't know the acronym, but basically there are different

FBOs at the airport. It's basically a different hangar as to

where the airport -- the airplane lands and is stored.

MR. FINKEL: We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.

Q. You mentioned that there is to be an interview that

Mr. Bass was going to conduct. What sort of interview at that

time period did Mr. Bass conduct?

A. So there is a show called -- sorry, there's a group called

Reel Vision. And it is a series -- it's an interview series

that people can subscribe to. And Kyle has a number of

different people that he's -- interviews with a number of

different people, as well as people interviewing him.

Q. And did Mr. Bass, in fact, interview Miles Kwok in this

airplane hangar?

A. He did.

Q. Did you witness that?

A. I did.

MR. FINKEL: If we can display for the witness,

753

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

please, what's been marked for identification as GX 1007-V1.

Apologies. This is Government Exhibit W1007-V1. My fault.

Ms. Loftus, can you scroll through that so

Ms. Schottenheimer can take a look at that.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize this?

A. Yes. This is the Reel Vision interview that was conducted

between -- Kyle Bass interviewed Miles Kwok.

MR. FINKEL: Government offers GX W1007-V1.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit W1007-V1 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: If we can publish that, please,

Ms. Loftus. Bring it back to the beginning. And if we can

please play this, Ms. Loftus.

(Video played)

MR. FINKEL: Pause it there.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, first, who is the individual on the

screen?

A. That is Miles Kwok.

Q. And who is the other individual?

A. Kyle Bass.

Q. There are some terms that Mr. Bass and Mr. Kwok use. First

term they use is something called FX reserves. What is your

understanding of what that means?

A. Foreign exchange reserves is in context of -- just broadly

754

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

is -- foreign exchange reserves is something that a country

keeps on their balance sheet.

Q. And Mr. Kwok uses a term called the M2. What is that?

A. M2 is money in circulation.

Q. And this minute and 50-second clip that we watched,

Ms. Schottenheimer, just generally speaking, what is it that

Mr. Kwok and Mr. Bass are discussing?

A. They are discussing the issues with the China economy.

MR. FINKEL: Can you play from there, please,

Ms. Loftus.

(Video played)

MR. FINKEL: Pause it there, please.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this chart that Mr. Bass

referred to that Mr. Kwok had provided him, Mr. Bass?

A. It's a comparison of the U.S. and Chinese GDP versus

currency supply.

Q. How is that, if at all, relevant to what Mr. Kwok and

Mr. Bass are discussing?

A. That China just grew its currency supply at a massive rate

in order to kind of grow its economy.

Q. This chart, aside from this interview, have you seen it in

other places?

A. Yes. Kyle asked permission from Miles to put it in our --

one of our decks.

Q. Can you explain what you mean by "decks"?

755

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Yes. One of our presentations.

I can't recall exactly which one, but we have an

evolving Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund presentation that

we put in updated charts from time to time. And I recall

having a snapshot at the beginning of this graphic and a

snapshot at the end inserted into the presentation.

Q. So this graphic came from Mr. Kwok, and Mr. Bass used it in

a presentation he made?

A. Correct. Yes.

Q. If I can ask, Ms. Schottenheimer, to point the microphone

directly at your mouth, it's directional, and everyone can hear

you. Thank you.

MR. FINKEL: And Ms. Loftus, we can continue to play

this video.

(Video played)

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, Mr. Bass asked the question: Why does

the Hong Kong dollar have a peg?

What is your understanding of what that means? What

is the Hong Kong dollar peg?

A. The Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar. It's

actually -- it's banded to the U.S. dollar, meaning there's ten

cents of kind of flexibility that it trades within.

Q. What does it mean for a currency to be pegged to another

currency?

756

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Basically, one currency adopts the value of another

currency, and it pegs its currency to that second currency.

Q. Based on your understanding, how does the Hong Kong economy

actually peg its dollar to the U.S. dollar?

A. So there's something called the Hong Kong Monetary

Authority. And the HKMA maintains U.S. dollars and U.S. dollar

assets on its balance sheet in order to maintain the peg to the

U.S. currency.

Q. Approximately how long has this peg been in place?

A. Since October of 1983.

Q. And is this peg still in place today?

A. It is.

Q. And in 2018, when this interview took place,

Ms. Schottenheimer, what was Hayman Capital's view about

whether that peg would persist?

A. Hayman had the view that the Hong Kong peg no longer made

sense and it would cease to exist in some period of time.

Q. And did Hayman Capital offer any financial products around

this time, 2018, based on that thesis?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that financial product called?

A. Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.

MR. FINKEL: We can continue playing from there,

Ms. Loftus.

(Video played)

757

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is your understanding of what

Mr. Kwok is saying is fake versus true?

A. So as you saw from the graphic, China had

disproportionately grown their economy through just by printing

money, putting additional money supply into the economy, so

essentially propping it up. Hong Kong has a real economy

that's essentially tied to the U.S. dollar is the difference, I

think, is what he is referring to.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please display for the witness

what's been marked for identification as GX W1007-V3. Can you

just scrub through that so Ms. Schottenheimer can take a look.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this?

A. This is still the Reel Vision interview between Kyle Bass

and Miles Kwok.

Q. Is it a clip of that interview?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how long was the whole interview?

A. An hour.

MR. FINKEL: The government offers GX W1007-V3.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit W1007-V3 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, after you publish that, if I

could ask you to please roll to the beginning and play it for

758

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

the members of the jury.

(Video played)

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, towards the beginning of that clip,

Mr. Bass said something that this is a big problem; Mr. Kwok

disagrees and says it's not a big problem. What is your

understanding of what they are referring to?

A. I'd have to see the beginning of the clip again.

MR. FINKEL: Can we play the beginning of the clip.

(Video played)

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is your understanding?

A. So Kyle is talking about the dwindling excess reserves that

are supporting the Hong Kong dollar.

The way that it works is when the Hong Kong dollar

trades to $7.75, it is at the strong side of the band. So the

HKMA needs to come in and intervene to keep the Hong Kong

dollar within the band. And so it sells its U.S. dollars to

buy Hong Kong dollars.

Same thing when it trades to the weak side of the

band, just $7.85 Hong Kong dollar per U.S. dollar. So then the

HKMA needs to come in and buy U.S. dollars and -- sorry, buy

Hong Kong dollars and sell U.S. dollars.

And what Kyle is referring to is they have spent 78

percent of their excess reserve; so their ability to maintain

this peg has dwindled from 100 percent down to 38 percent. And

that is what Kyle is talking about.

759

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And Mr. Kwok disagrees with that. And what is his view?

A. His view is that it's just two options. He wants to take a

step back and talk about how Hong Kong has the ability to

become a fake economy just like China. They can lie about

their numbers, they can print their way out of the problem; or

they can show the world that they don't have enough excess

dollars to maintain the peg, which to me kind of goes back to

Kyle's first point.

Q. And if the second option comes to pass that there's not

enough dollars to maintain the peg, what would happen?

A. Likely the market would call out Hong Kong and there would

be a stress to the peg; it would trade outside of the peg and

likely eventually break.

Q. You used the term "band" when you were explaining. Can you

just explain the band?

A. The band. Yes.

The Hong Kong dollar trades within a band to the U.S.

dollar. $7.75 Hong Kong dollar per U.S. dollar, and then the

range goes -- on the other side of that is $7.85. So 7.75 to

7.85 is the Hong Kong band to the U.S. dollar.

Q. You mentioned before that Hayman offers something called

the Hong Kong Opportunities Fund?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe what the Hong Kong Opportunities Fund is.

A. The Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund is a hedge fund

760

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

product that has a specific strategy where it is bearish on the

Hong Kong dollar and it is dedicated to just shorting the Hong

Kong dollar.

Q. So if the peg, the band, were to break, what impact would

that have on an investment in the Hong Kong Opportunity Fund?

A. It would have a positive monetary impact on the Hong

Kong -- the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.

Q. And, Ms. Schottenheimer, broadly speaking, is the Hong Kong

Opportunity Fund a risky investment?

A. Yes.

Q. And why is that?

A. Well, specifically, in Share Class B, which is a dedicated

share class to expressing this trade 100 percent in options,

meaning that if the options expire out of the money, you would

lose 100 percent of your investment.

Q. You mentioned something called share Class B. Does that

have another name?

A. Yes, Share Class B is the Prodigious Series.

Q. When did Hayman start offering as an investment the Hong

Kong Opportunity Fund?

A. Share Class A?

Q. Sure.

A. Okay. The original Hayman -- yes, January of 2017.

Q. And when did Share Class B, the Prodigious Series, become

available?

761

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. The first closing was June of 2020.

MR. FINKEL: We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, did there come a time, if ever, when

Miles Kwok sought to invest in a Hayman product?

A. Yes.

Q. When approximately was that?

A. May of 2020.

Q. And what was your role, if any, in Kwok's sought Hayman

investment?

A. I'm responsible for coordinating and processing the

subscription booklet.

Q. And what investment -- or excuse me. Withdrawn.

What financial product did Kwok invest in?

A. He invested in the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund

Share Class B/Prodigious Series.

Q. And how large was Kwok's investment in the prodigious

series?

A. $100 million.

MR. FINKEL: We can display for the witness what's

been marked for identification as GX HN-26. Just flip through

it so Ms. Schottenheimer can take a look at it. Go back to the

first page, please.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is HN-26?

A. This is an email to William Je from myself on Saturday, May

23rd, 2020, of me sharing the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

762

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Fund prodigious series presentation and a playback link to the

webcast that Kyle had hosted earlier that month.

MR. FINKEL: Government offers HN-26.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit HN-26 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: If we can publish that, please,

Ms. Loftus. And if you can zoom in at the top, please. You

can see the text. Perfect.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, now that the jury can see it, to whom

did you send this email?

A. William Je.

Q. And why did you send this email to William Je?

A. Because Kyle Bass asked me to.

Q. And what's the date of this email?

A. May 23rd, 2020.

Q. And what's the subject?

A. Confidential Playback Details Hayman Hong Kong

Opportunities Fund LP Prodigious Series.

Q. And what is your understanding of why Kyle Bass asked you

to send this email to William Je?

A. Because Miles was interested in potentially investing.

Q. In what product?

A. The Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund Share Class B

Prodigious Series.

763

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And, Ms. Schottenheimer, in this time, May of 2020, what

was your understanding of William Je's role with respect to

Miles Kwok?

A. That he was the head or chief investment officer of Miles'

family office.

Q. By "family office," you mean what?

A. Family office is a dedicated investment office to managing

the wealth of an individual. So this was an office -- this was

a group of people dedicated to managing the wealth of Miles

Kwok.

MR. FINKEL: We can zoom out of that, Ms. Loftus, and

go to the next page of the document, please. Zoom in on that.

Q. What is this a picture of?

A. This is a picture of the leader of the Chinese Communist

Party, Xi Jinping.

Q. And is there a watermark on this Power Point?

A. Yes.

Q. Why is that?

A. Because we track all of the presentations that we send to

potential investors.

Q. And what is the watermark on this particular Power Point?

A. William Je, it's his email address.

MR. FINKEL: You can go, please, to page 34 of this,

Ms. Loftus. Let's go back a page -- or forward a page, excuse

me.

764

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read the first bullet on this

page?

A. "Targeting notional exposure of approximately 200 times

each dollar invested given current pricing as of May 4th,

2020."

Q. And what does that mean?

A. So based on pricing in early May, we were targeting being

able to achieve 200 times exposure for every dollar invested

being short the Hong Kong dollar via the Hong Kong dollar

options that we were purchasing.

Q. And 200 times the dollar investment, can you just explain

that?

A. Correct. If you invest one dollar, you'd be short $200 of

U.S. -- of Hong Kong dollars.

Q. Generally speaking, Ms. Schottenheimer, in your role as

managing director of investor relations, how does Hayman market

this product, the Prodigious Series, to potential investors?

A. We market this as a very high-risk/potential high-return

strategy.

Q. And what is your understanding of why investors invest in

it?

A. There's typically two buckets of investors that are

interested in investing in our Hong Kong product. The first is

a defensive position, meaning they're using this as a hedge for

their broader portfolio. They might have some sort of exposure

765

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

to emerging markets, direct exposure to China, Asia. And this

is a defensive play, meaning they have -- they put a very small

allocation of their overall portfolio into this product to

protect them if the second largest economy were to have a

substantial dislocation.

Q. And what's the offensive play?

A. The offensive play is when an investor understands that

this risk in being priced in the marketplace is -- it's wrong,

that it's way too cheap and that it will be repriced over time.

Q. The fourth bullet, Ms. Schottenheimer, starts "Capital

Exhaustion Strategy."

A. Yes.

Q. Read that and explain to the members of the jury what that

means.

A. Capital exhaustion strategy employs maximum capital

efficiency. So when we offer in this product is -- you can put

a $25,000 minimum to invest in this product and it's very

capital efficient, meaning that every dollar that you invest is

going to provide massive notional exposure. You kind of refer

to that first bullet point of 200 times.

MR. FINKEL: If we can go to the next page, please,

Ms. Loftus. The page after that. Thank you.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is management fee, which I believe

is the fourth row of this line?

A. Yes. There's a onetime management fee when investing in

766

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

the Prodigious Series. And essentially it's a fee to the asset

manager for managing the capital.

Q. And the asset manager here would be who?

A. Hayman Capital Management.

Q. And then I think two rows below that it says lock, two-year

hard lock. What does that mean?

A. Well, the strategy was only -- it's an 18 to two-year --

sorry, it's a 12-month to 24-month strategy. And so the

two-year lock implies that there is no ability to get your

capital out. Once you invest, it's permanently invested in the

fund. There's no -- there's no rights to withdraw your

capital.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can investment in the Prodigious Series

take down the CCP?

A. No.

Q. Can an investment in the Prodigious Series affect the

Chinese economy?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection.

THE COURT: You'll have to step up.

(Continued on next page)

767

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

(At sidebar)

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, should we just send the jury

home?

THE COURT: Yes, I think it's a good idea.

MR. FINKEL: Okay.

(In open court)

THE COURT: Members of the jury, it's 2:45, so it's

time to end for the day.

Remember that you are not permitted to discuss the

case amongst yourselves or with anyone else. Don't permit

anybody to discuss the case with you. Have a good evening and

get back here tomorrow on time. Thank you.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, do you want to excuse the

witness?

THE COURT: Oh, yes. If you'll step down.

Don't discuss your testimony.

(Witness not present)

THE COURT: I'll hear the objection.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor.

So I understand that she was not qualified as a

securities expert, she wasn't noticed. She certainly has not

been noticed as an expert on macroeconomics and the impact that

any particular strategy may have on the broader Chinese

768

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

economy. I don't know if she even has the expertise to opine

on that, given that she's in investor relations; as far as I

know, not an actual economist. And her personal perspective

with respect to whether it would impact the Chinese economy has

no relevance in the case.

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, if the defense wants to

stipulate that the defendant did not believe, excuse me, that

this investment would have any impact on the Chinese economy,

then, yeah, it wouldn't be relevant. I'm not sure exactly what

their point is on that.

MR. KAMARAJU: We're not stipulating to that at all.

But this particular witness's view as to whether that happens

or could happen has no bearing on Mr. Guo's perspective

certainly. But also, again, she is not offered as an expert to

testify about the macroeconomic effects of a particular

strategy. If she wants to talk about that was not Hayman's

intent or that was not her understanding about what Hayman was

trying to do, that's one thing. But to talk about it broadly,

you for sure have a 403 issue at that point. Because now we're

going to have to start talking about all the ways in which it

could, the various economic trends that might apply.

I don't know how we go from this witness testifying

about the process of qualifying Mr. Guo for this investment to

the broader question about what will or will not take down the

CCP or the Chinese economy.

769

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, if the defense, as it

seems to be, is going to assert that Mr. Guo believed that this

investment would take down the CCP, it is certainly relevant

what Ms. Schottenheimer, who is the managing director of

investor relations for this particular financial products, what

her view and Hayman's view is of the impact of this financial

product in fact on whether it can take down the CCP or impact

the broader Chinese economy.

There are two reasons why this is the case: The first

reason, your Honor, is Ms. Schottenheimer is the one who

interacted with William Je about this particular investment.

So certainly Hayman's view and Ms. Schottenheimer's view, her

interactions with Mr. Je are relevant to the jury's

consideration, which appears to be the defense that Mr. Guo

believed this financial product could take down the CCP. If

that's their defense, we have an opportunity to essentially put

in evidence that goes against it. If they want to back off

that and say that that's not their defense or they'll stipulate

it won't affect the Chinese economy, that's fine. If they

don't, they're free to cross-examine her on these issues.

THE COURT: So are you going to elicit testimony that

she discussed this opinion with Mr. Je?

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, she -- I don't know if

that happened is the answer to the Court's question directly.

What I do know is that Ms. Schottenheimer, her job is

770

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

this deck which was sent to Mr. Je, which is a representation

of what Hayman believed this financial product does. I also

know that Ms. Schottenheimer has a view which she explained in

part today about the purpose of this financial product and,

importantly, how Hayman markets it.

Now, Mr. Bass, as has been clear from

Ms. Schottenheimer's testimony and from the video we watched,

has a negative view of the CCP, so does Ms. Schottenheimer.

But they know — because, in fact, it is true — that this

financial investment doesn't impact the CCP. It's a bet. It's

a way to make money or hedge against losing money.

And so if the defense is going to argue that Mr. Guo

in his heart of hearts believed that this financial investment

could take down the CCP, the government, which has the burden,

has the ability to introduce evidence to the contrary. And I

say again, your Honor, that to the extent the defense is not

seeking to make that defense, then yes, this wouldn't be

relevant.

MR. KAMARAJU: So I'd like to make just a couple of

points on it, and I think there are a few distinctions that are

important.

First of all, Ms. Schottenheimer's job as investor

relations is not to design the investment products. She's very

clear about that. The witness who does that is Mr. Bass. What

she does is she communicates with potential investors,

771

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

qualifies them whether they can purchase it, and then takes in

their subscription information. She does not set the

investment policy at all. She does not design it, she's not

the person who creates it, she's not the person who runs the

models for it, she doesn't do any of that. And if Mr. Finkel

asked her if she did any of that on the stand, she would say

no.

Second, in her 3500 material, she makes clear that she

has never spoken with William Je on the phone. So the only

communications that the government has produced to the defense

— and I don't know if they have any others — are ones -- are

email communications, none of which mention

Ms. Schottenheimer's opinion as to whether this could take down

the CCP or not, or Hayman's opinion more broadly.

THE COURT: Is there anything in the deck concerning

their opinion about the impact of this product on the Chinese

economy?

MR. KAMARAJU: He just showed her the deck, your

Honor.

THE COURT: I'm asking him.

MR. KAMARAJU: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were

asking me still, your Honor.

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, yes. I mean, the deck is

about Hayman's view of that the Chinese economy -- this is in

2020, when they sent this deck, that the Chinese economy is

772

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

faltering, and that there's stress that's being put in

particular on the Hong Kong Central Bank. And as a result of

that stress, the peg or the band, as Ms. Schottenheimer

explained it, is going to break.

And what this financial product is designed to do,

which Ms. Schottenheimer may not have designed, but knows how

it works because her job is to market it to investors and

explain it to people. That's what she does. She travels the

world doing that, in fact, so she has knowledge of it. Even if

she wasn't the one in the Excel sheet deciding which swaps to

invest in, she certainly knows how it works.

And so the way that Hayman markets this product and

was marketed through email to William Je and in other ways, is

relevant to the consideration that the jury is going to make,

which apparently is their defense that they haven't disclaimed.

Their defense is apparently Mr. Guo believed that an investment

of $100 million of GTV investor money into Hayman's Hong Kong

Opportunities Fund was a way to fight the CCP, making the

broader point that everything is fine here, ladies and

gentlemen, because all these investors really cared about was

taking down the CCP and that's what this investment was going

to do.

In fact, your Honor, that's not true. And

Ms. Schottenheimer knows it's not true. And she's entitled to

explain that to the jury. It will be for the jury, not for me,

773

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

not for defense counsel, but for the jury to decide whether

Ms. Schottenheimer's view or the defense's view is the correct

view. But they are entitled to evidence on both sides of the

coin.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, first of all, the question

that was asked was not about Hayman's intent or

Ms. Schottenheimer's intent in designing the fund. It was:

Can an investment in this fund take down the CCP, and can it

take down the Chinese economy. There's a distinction between

what the fund decided to do when it designed the products and

what the actual impact in the real world would be.

THE COURT: One second.

Would you agree with me that there's a difference

between making a representation that cryptocurrency is a safe

investment, a legitimate investment, and giving an opinion

about cryptocurrency on the world economy?

MR. FINKEL: Are you asking me, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FINKEL: So, yes. But I think there's a

distinction between that hypothetical — which I agree with your

Honor on — and what's happening here.

And there still hasn't been from the defense any

disclaiming of a defense about Mr. Guo's view. And therefore,

I think Ms. Schottenheimer is entitled to at least — and I can

frame the question this way: Based on her understanding, how

774

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

does this financial product work and what is its effect based

on her understanding. And I am certain that the defense will

cross-examine her on that --

THE COURT: I understand that you'd like to bring out

her opinion, but she's not an economist.

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, it's not her opinion.

It's her understanding. To the extent it's an opinion, it's a

701 opinion based on her perceptions as an employee of Hayman

Capital. And we don't need to introduce, I don't think, your

Honor, because we have a percipient witness, a 702 expert on

the mechanics of this particular investment.

We have a witness who is familiar with how this

product is marketed, how this product works, and has an

understanding of how it works in the broader economy. That

understanding is certainly relevant under Rule 401. There's

not a 403 problem.

How the jury will weigh all this information is up to

the jury. But it passes the threshold test to allow us to

elicit this information, particularly when — which is clear

now, your Honor — the defense is going to argue, probably at

closing, that everything was fine here because this investment

was a way to take down the CCP. They can cross

Ms. Schottenheimer on her lack of credentials, and the jury

will assess what weight, if any, to assign to

Ms. Schottenheimer's understanding of this financial product.

775

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

But as an employee of Hayman, who markets this product

for a living and has worked there for 25 years, her

understanding of what this financial product does is relevant,

is admissible, and the jury should be allowed to consider it.

THE COURT: So any individual who's hawking a

financial product you're saying can give an opinion about the

effect of the product on a given economy?

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, maybe. I'm not talking

about every financial expert or every financial product or

whatever. But in this case, I think, yes, I think

Ms. Schottenheimer is entitled to do that. Because she has

personal knowledge of the facts at issue. Given what their

defense is, it's clearly relevant. We don't need --

THE COURT: I'm not asking about relevancy. I'm

asking whether or not this witness is qualified to offer the

opinion.

MR. FINKEL: So she is under Rule 701. It's a 701

opinion, right, because it's based on her percipient

information, her percipient knowledge.

It would be no different, for example, than someone

who's a lay witness talking about, for example, slang terms

that they've experienced and used. One could also put on a 702

expert to testify about their understanding of terms that they

don't use. But if a witness has a perception that -- has an

opinion rationally based on their perception, which is what

776

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

Ms. Schottenheimer has, it qualifies under 701. And the

financial products here, itself, Ms. Schottenheimer has

knowledge of.

THE COURT: All right. So I'm going to allow you to

brief this this evening. And you'll come back -- what time is

it? So I want the government's brief by 8 and the defense

brief by 10.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, that's totally fine. We'll

do that.

If I can just ask the Court to inquire whether part of

the defense is Mr. Guo believing that an investment in the Hong

Kong Opportunities Fund is a way to take down the CCP.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I thought it was later than it

is. I think I should make that earlier. One second.

I'll have the government's papers due at 6 and then

the defense papers at 8.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

And just in the context of the Court's consideration

and part of the government's arguments, can the Court inquire

of the defense whether one argument they may make is that

Mr. Guo believed that an investment in the Hong Kong

Opportunities Prodigious Series of $100 million was a way to

fight the Chinese government or the Chinese economy or the CCP.

THE COURT: So are you anticipating making that

argument?

777

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer - Direct

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm certainly reserving the right to

make that argument, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can't compel them to divulge their

defense.

MR. FINKEL: Understood. As long as the government

knows so they can respond that it very well may be an argument

made at closing, and it will assimilate that into its briefing.

Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, I know we'll address this

in briefing, but just since 701 is brought up, just to complete

the citation of 701, 701 also says that the proffered lay

opinion needs to be helpful to the understanding --

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

MR. KAMARAJU: 701, if you continue reading it past

the provision that Mr. Finkel read, says that the testimony

also has to be helpful to clearly understanding the witness's

testimony and not based on scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. There is

no universe in which a witness could testify that a particular

economic strategy would destroy a global economy without some

form of specialized knowledge.

THE COURT: Well, I am eager to hear from you.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

(Adjourned to May 31, 2024, at 9 o'clock a.m.)

778

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

INDEX OF EXAMINATION

Examination of: Page

KARIN MAISTRELLO

582Cross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . . .

668Redirect By Mr. Horton . . . . . . . . . . . .

673Recross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . .

PATRICK CHIN

686Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .

711Cross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . . .

731Redirect By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . .

733Recross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . .

STEELE SCHOTTENHEIMER

734Direct By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Received

703 VC7 and VC8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VC9 698 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VC11 696 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HN-26 762 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123 752 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

W1007-V1 753 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

W1007-V3 757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original English Content(英文原文)

565
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
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. 
                                        May 30, 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 
 
ALSTON & BIRD LLP 
     Attorneys for Defendant  
BY:  E. SCOTT SCHIRICK

566
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
ALSO PRESENT:   
Isabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO 
Robert Stout, Special Agent, FBI  
Ruben Montilla, Defense Paralegal 
Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin) 
Shi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin) 
Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin)

567
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
(Trial resumed; jury not present) 
THE COURT:  Good morning.  Would you make your
appearances, please.
MR. HORTON:  Good morning, your Honor.  Justin Horton,
Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Fergenson for the
government.  We're joined by paralegal Isabel Loftus and Robert
Stout from the FBI.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Good morning, your Honor.  Sid Kamaraju
and Scott Schirick on behalf of Mr. Guo.  My understanding is
Mr. Guo is just in the bathroom.
THE COURT:  All right.  So we'll wait till he comes
out.  Please be seated.
(Defendant present)
THE COURT:  So last night the defense submitted a
letter with respect to hearsay exceptions, which deserves a lot
of attention, and I'd like to discuss the three hearsay
exceptions which they mention.  I know that the prosecution has
not yet responded to the letter.
So the first exception mentioned is statements that
are offered for their impact on the defendant, and as an
example, defense counsel mentions a conversation concerning
misuse of funds.  So we had one witness, Mr. Zhou, who spoke
about a videoconference where the misuse of funds was raised.
How is it that Mr. Guo's statements about the misuse of funds
would have an impact on him?

568
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
MR. KAMARAJU:  Your Honor, just for the record,
Mr. Guo is now here at counsel's table.
The——I think you have to take those two in tandem,
your Honor, the first example we gave and the second example we
gave.
THE COURT:  But I want you to stick with the first
example.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Okay.
THE COURT:  Impact on the defendant.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Sure.  So an example of that, your
Honor, would be, if the defendant said, "Oh, my gosh, I can't
believe the funds were stolen," then that is evidence of the
impact that other people's statements had on him.
THE COURT:  Yes.  But we're talking about the witness
speaking about Mr. Guo's statements about misuse of funds.
That's what I thought you were getting at.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, my point, your Honor, is, in the
example I just gave, Mr. Guo's statement was made in response
to another party's statement, right, and so it's——his statement
is evidence of the impact that the speaker's statement had on
him.  It caused, in that specific example——and again, as we
said in our letter, we're not trying to revisit any of those
rulings, but if it caused Mr. Guo to take an action, right, if
it caused him to make a phone call, right, if it caused him
to——if it caused him to say something or send a direction, that

569
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
is evidence of impact that it had on Mr. Guo.
THE COURT:  So I'd like to hear from the government
about that.
MR. FERGENSON:  Yes, your Honor.
So the way this typically works, this kind of state of
mind exception, would be——
THE COURT:  This is impact on the defendant.
MR. FERGENSON:  Correct.
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. FERGENSON:  Which would be someone, an
out-of-court declarant, saying something to the defendant, not
the defendant saying something to other people.
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. FERGENSON:  That's the framework.
THE COURT:  The word "impact," it necessarily means
that an individual is the object of something.  You are being
impacted by, you are receiving the action.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Yes.  Yes, your Honor.  But where I'm
going is that the statement, the defendant's statement can
still be evidence of the impact that someone else's statement
has on him, right?  I'm not quibbling with the fact that impact
suggested a third party's acting in a way that is influencing
Mr. Guo.  I'm just saying that Mr. Guo's statement can be
evidence of that influence.
MR. FERGENSON:  Just briefly, your Honor.

570
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. FERGENSON:  If that were the rule, or if that were
the exception, it would swallow the rule, because it's hard to
imagine a situation where an actor, the defendant, is not
speaking in response to something.  And so if any time he
speaks, it's evidence of his state of mind, then you're
basically disregarding the hearsay rules for anything the
defendant said, because you could always say, well, anything he
said is reflective of his state of mind.  That's not the way
the rules of evidence work.  It's not how the hearsay rules
work.  There are cases like the ones they cited where something
is said to the defendant and that had an effect on the
defendant, or at least the defense is entitled to argue that it
did, and that out-of-court statement comes in.  And it's not
the case that any time the defendant spoke, it's a reflection
of his state of mind and it can disregard the hearsay rules to
have the defendant essentially testify without taking the stand
throughout the trial.  It's not——it's not an opposing party
statement, like when the government elicits the defendant's
statements, and the hearsay rules preclude them from doing
that.  That's——it's kind of Trial 101, your Honor.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, so, first of all, I think DiMaria
addressed that argument that Mr. Fergenson just made, but the
state of mind exception——which is not the one that your Honor
was asking about——but the state of mind exception has a

571
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
carveout built into it, so that's what Mr. Fergenson is talking
about.  Your Honor is focused on impact, the impact part of our
letter.  My point is simply that if there is a statement made
by the defendant that is being offered for a reason other than
its truth, and so in that case we were using it as an example
of impact, but a statement that evinces his desire to do
something in response to a statement.
THE COURT:  No.  But we're talking about a witness who
is quoting your client.  The witness says, "Mr. Guo said we
should investigate the misuse of funds."
MR. KAMARAJU:  Right.
THE COURT:  So the question is:  How does Mr. Guo's
statement impact himself?
MR. KAMARAJU:  But that, I don't think——respectfully,
your Honor, I don't think our formulation is that Mr. Guo's
statement impacts himself.  I think our formulation is that
Mr. Guo's statement is evidence of the impact that another
statement had on him.  That's not being offered for the truth;
that's being offered for solely the reaction that it caused in
Mr. Guo.
THE COURT:  But in this case, your position is that
Mr. Guo indeed wanted to have an investigation carried out
against Sara Wei, and so isn't it being offered for the truth
of the matter asserted, that he's directing that an
investigation be undertaken, and that's part of your defense?

572
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
MR. KAMARAJU:  No, your Honor, because that would
fall, in our view, into the second example we gave, which is an
order or direction, and an order or direction is not hearsay.
THE COURT:  Well, so we're in the command exception
now.  I was in the impact exception.  So——
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well——I'm sorry, your Honor.  My
apologies.  I didn't mean to interrupt.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No, I was only——I only brought up the
command because your Honor brought up the concept of
investigation of Sara Wei, so that was just the example that we
used in connection with the second prong.  So that's why I went
to the command angle of it.
THE COURT:  Right.  The statement, "I understand that
there may be a misuse of funds and that should be
investigated," that in and of itself is not a command.  If he
states, "You should investigate it, you must undertake an
investigation," that is a command.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, that's what we were trying to
elicit was that he did say this should be looked into.
THE COURT:  I understand the command exception.  I
just don't comprehend the impact exception that you're making
out, and I invite you to submit authority that discusses a
defendant's own statement's impact on himself.
MR. KAMARAJU:  I don't think I'll have that authority,

573
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
your Honor, because that's not our——as I think your Honor
knows, because that's not our argument.
THE COURT:  Well, your argument is that the
defendant's statement reflects the impact another person's
statement had on him.
MR. KAMARAJU:  So maybe I can try to do a clearer
example.  And I recognize that is not this case, but I'm just
trying to use what might be a familiar example.
In a——in support of a duress defense, right, a
defendant may be able to say, or you may be able to elicit
testimony from a third-party witness that another party
threatened the defendant unless they took the action that the
government charged them with, right?  That could come in as a
state of mind, but it could also come in as an example of
impact.  Now the way the defendant's statement in that scenario
might come in is, if the defendant says, "Oh, no, I'm terrified
of that."  If they expressed fear, right, that would be
evidence of the impact that the threatener's statement is
having on the defendant.  And that's——I mean, that's how you
make out a duress defense, right, in the absence of the
defendant's testimony.  So that's an example of a defendant's
statement being an example of the impact that it had on him,
which is our formulation.  We're not trying to say that
Mr. Guo's statements impacted himself in some way.  I recognize
that that would be circular.

574
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
THE COURT:  Okay.  So I'll hear from the government
with respect to the defense contention that commands are
exceptions to the hearsay rule.  And I will permit you, of
course, to do your own research.  I know that you may not have
completed that yet.
MR. FERGENSON:  Yes, your Honor.  Just as a general
matter, that's correct.  I think as everyone recognizes, the
devil is in the details at times.  And just to take an example,
the one that we were discussing just a moment ago, your Honor,
a statement like, "This should be investigated," that is close
to a command but not exactly.  The command would be,
"Investigate this."  But some kind of general pontificating on
"This should be investigated" is not——I don't think that, you
know——we're kind of dealing with these examples on the fly.  I
don't think that would fall under the command exception.  But
as a general principle, it is correct, you know, Mr. Kamaraju
is correct that commands are not hearsay.
THE COURT:  All righty.  So I don't recall how, during
Mr. Zhou's testimony, any command was dealt with by myself.  I
just don't recall it in the transcript.  And so we can go back
and we certainly can alter my ruling to reflect the command
exception to the hearsay rule, but I of course invite you to
review the transcript and identify where that took place.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, that's fine, your Honor.  We're
happy to do it.  We're happy to identify the places for the

575
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
Court.  We truly——we truly intended this to be a prospective
issue simply because we——given the government's hearsay
objections, we expect that this is going to come up over and
over again.  So it's not that we're requesting the Court go
back and revise any of its rulings.  That witness has been
excused.  We're not asking to call him back or anything like
that.  Just given what we've seen in the 3500 material, what we
anticipate our cross-examination being, and given the
government's perspective on hearsay, we just wanted to be clear
so that the Court had our position for the record.
THE COURT:  All right.  So now we go to the state of
mind exception.  If you could explain your position on that.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Yes, your Honor.
So the state of mind, so obviously, the case we cited,
United States v. DiMaria, the state of mind exception is
triggered when the defendant's statement is offered to prove
their then-existing state of mind.  It cannot, just by rule, as
everyone knows, be used to introduce a statement about a
past-remembered belief.  So from our perspective, if Mr. Guo
made a statement like——I'll use the DiMaria example again.  So
in DiMaria, when the agents came to arrest him, the defendant,
the defendant said, "Why are you guys here?  I'm just here to
get some cheap cigarettes."  So the Court in that case said
that is indicative of his state of mind for why he thought he
was there.

576
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
THE COURT:  For?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Why the defendant believes he was
there.  That was his state of mind, his present, existing state
of mind for why he was there.  So from our perspective, there
could be similar testimony where we could cross-examine a
witness who might make a statement, for example, about Mahwah,
right, and Mr. Guo's belief at the time, during the period of
the conspiracy, about Mahwah and its use.  That——and again,
we'd have to see what the testimony is, but that would be an
example of a state of mind exception.
THE COURT:  So you're saying that if a witness were on
the stand and the witness states Mr. Guo said the premises is
used for these given purposes, that that statement should come
in to show his state of mind?
MR. KAMARAJU:  At the time, your Honor, yes.  It
cannot come in——if he tried to say——if we tried to elicit
testimony that said, you know, in 2023 he's reflecting back on
a purchase from 2021, we're not saying that is a state of mind
exception.  But for his present, then-existing state of mind,
yes.
THE COURT:  I'll hear from the government on that.
MR. FERGENSON:  Again, very difficult to deal in the
abstract with this, but we are concerned, as we said at the
outset, that the defense's interpretation of this exception
would swallow the rule such that pretty much anything the

577
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
defendant said ever, they could elicit through, you know——offer
through our witnesses.  That's not the way the hearsay
exception works, your Honor.  It's very difficult to address it
in the abstract, and we haven't had much time to digest their
letter, but I think there's a real concern that it would——the
exception would swallow the rule.
THE COURT:  So I want to understand when a hearsay
statement, an out-of-court statement by Mr. Guo would not be
showing his state of mind.  Give me an example of that.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, I mean, first of all, the rule
defines an example of that, right?  Which is past
recollections.  That's one example, right?  But let me put it
this way.  What the government's argument basically collapses
to is that the Court should read out the state of mind
exception because they think it's too broad.  That's not the
way that works.
THE COURT:  Well, the Court is trying to figure out
when the Court should read in the exception.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, I agree, and as I said, your
Honor, it certainly turns on the particular statement.  So my
example was one of, during the period of the conspiracy, when
they say renovations are happening, right, if Mr. Guo says, oh,
you know, I like this for the G/CLUBS members or whatever,
first of all, that's relevant, right?  And secondly, it shows
his then existing state of mind during a relevant time period,

578
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
not in the past.  We're not talking about future action, which
is a separate hearsay exception; we're talking about at that
moment in time, that's what Mr. Guo believes, right?  So to me,
trying to determine what is read in——and your Honor is right,
you can't do that in the abstract, but I think the example I
just gave, then it is very clearly then-existing state of mind.
THE COURT:  We'll revisit this.  We'll revisit this.
And of course the government will have an opportunity to submit
authority on this, and of course I invite you, Mr. Kamaraju, to
submit any further authority to guide the Court.
MR. KAMARAJU:  I appreciate that, your Honor, and I'll
certainly try.
THE COURT:  Is there anything else before we have the
jurors come in?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Not from the defense, your Honor.
MR. FERGENSON:  It's not——I don't believe it's
pressing before the jury comes in, your Honor, but the defense
did submit a motion for reconsideration of your Honor's expert
rulings.  You know, I think we would ask to have at least until
Monday to file a response to that, your Honor.
THE COURT:  That's fine.
MR. FERGENSON:  And secondly, just one housekeeping
matter that I will keep short.  I don't——I think given the
schedule, we probably won't get to the testimony of Mr. Shamel
Medrano.  He's a summary witness of the government, introducing

579
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
a large volume of videos and G News posts.  That was the
subject of our letter that your Honor ruled on yesterday.  He's
introducing a summary chart that's a little over 200 pages.
And we prepared hard-copy binders for the Court, for the jury,
for defense, and also for the court reporters, that we would——I
don't think we'll get to his testimony today, but wanted to
just alert the Court to that, that, you know, prior to his
testimony, we might want to put those binders underneath the
jurors' chairs or hand them out at the beginning, if that was
all right with your Honor.
THE COURT:  That's fine.
MR. FERGENSON:  The one other thing with that
testimony is there's——I will also——there's so many exhibits
that we'll be offering pursuant to stipulations, that we're
grateful for the defense in helping us reach agreement on, that
we were hoping to hand out just a page listing out all the
government exhibits so the court reporter and the Court can
follow along while I read them out, if that is also all right
with your Honor.
THE COURT:  Very handy.  Thank you.
MR. FERGENSON:  Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT:  We are going to have our sidebars on this
side of the bench going forward.
MR. KAMARAJU:  That makes sense to us, your Honor.
It's a little close to the witness and the jury otherwise.

580
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
THE COURT:  All right.  So we will return at 9:30.
ALL COUNSEL:  Thank you, your Honor.
(Recess) 
MR. HORTON:  Your Honor, if I may just raise something
briefly before the jury comes in.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
MR. HORTON:  We were handed a document a moment ago
that we understand the defense intends to offer through
Ms. Maistrello.  It is a document that postdates her
employment.  We don't think there's any way that she can
authenticate it.  It postdates her employment.  There's no
author indicated on the document except Golden Spring Ltd.  It
appears to be a corporate document.
So setting aside the authentication issue, although
that's, of course, a threshold issue, this is a two-page
statement of the defendant's agent.  It's exactly the kind of
hearsay that we've been talking about, and it's clearly offered
for its truth.  It's a two-page explanation of the purpose of
the security team at Golden Spring.  So we want to bring that
to the Court's attention and object to it.
THE COURT:  So is the defense planning to use it to
refresh her recollection?
MR. HORTON:  Well, it postdates her employment, and——
THE COURT:  Yes, but anything can be used to refresh a
recollection.

581
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
MR. HORTON:  Of course.  I understand.
THE COURT:  That would, of course, be the only reason
that document could be put before the witness, and I know that
Ms. Shroff knows that.
MS. SHROFF:  I do know that, your Honor.  That is
exactly what I would use the document for.  Thank you.
THE COURT:  Okay.  All righty.  Please have the jurors
brought in.
(Continued on next page)

582
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
(Jury present) 
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, I believe we're missing one
person.
THE COURT:  The witness?  Yes, yes, the witness will
also come in.
Good morning, jurors.
THE JURORS:  Good morning.
THE COURT:  Welcome back.  Please be seated.
Good morning.  And remember that you're still under
oath.
You may continue with the cross-examination.
MS. SHROFF:  Thank you, your Honor.
 KARIN MAISTRELLO, resumed. 
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED 
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. You testified on direct, right, that you were going to
refer to Mr. Guo as Boss through these proceedings, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. And Mr. Guo also went by the name Ho Wan Kwok, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you keep your voice up for me, please.
A. I'll do my best.

583
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Thank you.
And the name Ho Wan Kwok is his Hong Kong name,
correct?
A. Cantonese name.
Q. Right.  It's his Cantonese name, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You can just pull that towards you if you want, the
microphone.
A. No, I'm good.
Q. And that's the name that appears on his Hong Kong passport,
correct?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Well, you made travel arrangements for him, right?
A. I did.
Q. You made hotel bookings for him, correct?
A. Not with his name.
Q. I cannot hear you.
THE COURT:  All righty.  So shall we try the handheld
microphone instead then.
A. Not using his name.
Q. Not using the name Ho Wan Kwok?
A. I never used his name to make reservations.
Q. Okay.  And you knew that he had a political asylum in the
name of Ho Wan Kwok, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.

584
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. I do not remember the name used.
Q. You knew he had a political asylum application pending,
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, relevance.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. Yes.
Q. Now it's fair to say, right, that your employee contract
was with Golden Springs, correct?
A. Golden Spring.
Q. And you testified on direct that when you took the job,
your understanding was that Golden Spring was a managed——asset
management company, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time that you took the job, nobody told you
where those assets came from, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you did not know whether the assets came from the
Middle East, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. I did not know.
Q. And you knew at some point that the assets came from Golden
Spring Hong Kong, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  We covered this

585
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
yesterday.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. You told the FBI that you had knowledge that the assets
flowing into Golden Spring New York came from both the Middle
East——
MR. HORTON:  Same objection, your Honor.
MS. SHROFF:  I hadn't finished question.
THE COURT:  Please continue.
Q. ——and from Golden Spring Hong Kong, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Same objection, your Honor.  This was
covered yesterday.
THE COURT:  Overruled.
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Sure.  You told the FBI that you were aware that the assets
in Golden Spring New York came from both the Middle East and
Hong Kong, correct?
A. I knew there were transfers from Golden Spring Hong Kong to
Golden Spring New York, yes.
Q. And you also knew that there were transfers from the Middle
East to Golden Spring New York and you told the FBI that,
correct?  You remember that?
A. I knew that there were transfers to various companies.
Q. Right.  And by transfer, you mean money coming in, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.  And you recall telling the FBI that you were

586
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
perfectly aware that those transfers paid for Mr. Go's personal
and political expenses, correct?  
A. I don't remember that.
Q. Okay.  Well, let me see if I can help you refresh your
recollection.
THE COURT:  One moment, please.
Go ahead.
Q. Does that document refresh your recollection?
A. I've never seen this document before.
Q. Let me try it this way.
THE COURT:  We're getting a little bit of feedback
here and so——
MS. SHROFF:  I know.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
Q. Ma'am, you recall your meetings with——
THE COURT:  All right.  We're still getting the
feedback.
All right.  Let's try again.
Q. Does this document refresh your recollection?
A. Are you referring to a specific paragraph?
Q. Sure.  The paragraph I hope that is now highlighted for
you.
THE COURT:  So you're not to read anything out loud.
The question is whether or not the document refreshes your
recollection.

587
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
MS. SHROFF:  Okay.  You can take that down.
Q. And when you started at Golden Spring, Mr. Guo asked you to
research something called DDS attacks; do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. And what are DDS attacks?  Could you tell the jury, please.
A. Those were cyber attacks that, according to Boss, were done
by the CCP to——to his platforms.
Q. And there were also attacks to Golden Spring platforms,
correct?
A. What do you mean by Golden Spring platforms?
Q. I mean emails to Golden Spring.
A. What I was asked to investigate was specifically about Guo
Media, not Golden Spring.
Q. Okay.  So you were asked to look into or investigate the
distributed denial of service attacks on Guo Media platforms,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And you did that along with the help of a gentleman
named Raj Benraj (ph), correct?  Or is it Benraja?  I'm not
sure.
A. Raj is his name.
Q. Right.  That's his first name, right, and Benraj is his
last name?  Do you recall that?
A. No, that is not his last name.

588
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. And there was also an ongoing concern about the email
addresses used by Golden Spring, correct?
A. I don't know about that.
Q. You don't recall William Gertz being on the board and
asking for Proton Mail to be used?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Do you know who William Gertz is?
A. I do.
Q. Who is that?
A. He is a journalist and he was a member of Rule of Law
Society board.
Q. Right.  And that's the board that you served on, correct,
Rule of Law Society board, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You had nothing to do with Rule of Law Foundation, correct?
A. I was not on that board, no.
Q. Right.  You had no job on that——in that nonprofit, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  So let's just go back to the email system used while
communicating with you as a Golden Spring employee, okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Okay.  And do you recall Mr. Gertz, as a board member,
talking to you about which email system to use?
A. I don't remember.

589
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Do you remember getting an email from Mr. Gertz saying that
he felt that Proton Mail was more secure because of the cyber
attacks experienced by both Golden Spring and by Rule of Law
Society?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Hearsay.
THE COURT:  Ms. Shroff, do not elicit hearsay
testimony.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, it's not going for the truth,
it's simply going to show——
THE COURT:  If you're going to make an objection, or
respond to an objection, you need to do it at the sidebar.
MS. SHROFF:  Okay.  I apologize, your Honor.
(Continued on next page)

590
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
(At the sidebar) 
THE COURT:  So what is the purpose of the question?
MS. SHROFF:  Well, your Honor, the government elicited
that Proton Mail was used.  I think——I can't remember whose
direct this was on, but Proton Mail was somehow used because
people wanted to maintain secrets.  I'm entitled to show that
there were, one, concerns about the cybersecurity at both
Golden Spring and the cybersecurity issues at Rule of Law
Society, that she was aware of the cyber issues, one of the
board members had specifically asked to use Proton Mail to have
secure engagement.  The document is not being offered for the
truth.  The documents are also email exchanges between her and
the board, maintained in the regular course of business, which
would also be an exception to the hearsay rule.  So for those
reasons, I asked her whether or not she had an awareness that
one of her board members wanted to use Proton Mail.  And I
asked her if she could recall it, and if she can't recall it,
I'm entitled to refresh her recollection.  That's what I was
trying to ask.
MR. HORTON:  So we did not elicit testimony about the
purpose, if any, of using Proton Mail.  It came in through
Louie Bonsukan, who was a salesperson or a customer
representative at a car dealership in Texas, who testified the
fact of a Proton email address in a document that we discussed
with him.  The car dealership certainly doesn't know the

591
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
purpose for which anybody outside of the dealership was using
that Proton email.  So that testimony did not come in the way
it was described.  Ms. Shroff did elicit that, like,
Ms. Maistrello had heard from Bill Gertz that he wanted to use
Proton Mail.  That's in.  This further long statement about
Bill Gertz talking at length about the reason he wanted to use
it and Bill Gertz's thoughts and Bill Gertz's statements,
that's hearsay, and that's why it's coming in.  It's coming in
to prove the truth of what Bill Gertz, who is not here, was
saying.
MS. SHROFF:  It's coming in to show that the
government, when it elicited the fact that purchase of the car
was made through a Proton Mail address, therefore asking the
jury to infer that use of a Proton Mail——and I didn't bring up
Proton Mail questions, I'm almost a hundred percent sure it
came out on this direct somehow——that the jury should infer
that that was a sign of a nefarious transaction.  I am not
seeking to introduce what Bill Gertz said because, frankly, the
only thing the man did say is, let's use Proton Mail, which is
the only fact I wanted to bring out and show that one of the
board of directors, who is outside of any influence of Miles
Guo, used Proton Mail.  That's the most basic fact I was
seeking to elicit.  And again, the email exchanges are all——
THE COURT:  I want to go back to your question about
whether she received an email from this individual in which he

592
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
said X.  My recollection is that I sustained the objection, and
so that it is not in.
MR. HORTON:  I think there was——I may be remembering
this incorrectly.  I thought there was a question unrelated to
the email about whether she knew if somebody had used Proton
Mail; just the simple knowledge of whether she knew person X
used Proton Mail.  I thought that had come in.  I think the
point is not——just to be clear——that the Proton Mail is not
relevant; it's that this is hearsay and it's about Bill Gertz's
purposes.
THE COURT:  Yes.  I'm excluding his statements.  But
also, I think that you're implying that the mere use of Proton
Mail implies something.
MS. SHROFF:  No.  They implied that to another
witness.  I was cleaning it up.
THE COURT:  No, they did not.  They merely stated that
the dealership received an email from Proton Mail, an
individual using Proton Mail.  They did not discuss any of the
qualities of Proton Mail.
MS. SHROFF:  Oh, they did not.  They just wanted the
jury to infer that something's wrong with using Proton Mail,
which is why with that witness, I had to clarify that he gets a
lot of emails from Proton Mail.  But you know what, I'll move
on, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Good.

593
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
MS. SHROFF:  I do want to note that these emails are
maintained in the regular course of business and they do fall
under the business exception rule to the hearsay.
THE COURT:  But you're not allowed to get in hearsay
statements merely because they're inside of a business
document.
MS. SHROFF:  That's true, your Honor, but I thought it
was relevant, and it's not hearsay.  We've been arguing about
hearsay throughout, and I just wanted to make sure the
government is clear on defense's position that there are other
exceptions to the hearsay rule.  But I shall move on.  It's not
worth it.
MR. HORTON:  If I can briefly respond to the last
thing Ms. Shroff said.  If she intends to lay a foundation to
get business records in, she can try to do that.  I don't think
that's been done yet.  Ms. Maistrello is not a document
custodian.  There's some work to be done I think if that's
coming next.
MS. SHROFF:  I don't think I need a document custodian
to get a hearsay business record in, but thank you for the
lecture.
THE COURT:  Ms. Shroff?
MS. SHROFF:  Yes, your Honor.  Your Honor——
THE COURT:  The way that you were just speaking was
huffy, and I ask you to please not do that.

594
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
MS. SHROFF:  I was huffy, your Honor, but I'm tired,
and I don't think this is a valid objection.  The government
knows it falls clearly within the business record rule, and the
government is doing as much as it can to prolong this
testimony.  There's no reason for any of this.  There really
isn't.  The government has done this with every objection here.
They inject other issues that are really not relevant to the
analysis.  This is a simple issue.  This is——
THE COURT:  So I don't agree with your claiming that
this is an exception to the hearsay rule.  So let us go back.
And please, please, I want you to be even-tempered.
MS. SHROFF:  Thank you, your Honor.
(Continued on next page)

595
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
(In open court) 
THE COURT:  The objection was sustained.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. You were aware of the need to investigate the distributed
denial of services attack, correct?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. You were asked to investigate the distributed denial of
service attacks, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  I'll allow the answer.  Go ahead.
A. Yes.
THE COURT:  And Ms. Shroff, you used a term there that
I don't understand.  Distributed what?
MS. SHROFF:  Distributed denial of service attacks.
THE COURT:  Okay.  Go ahead.
Q. And that's when a platform is cyber-attacked, correct?
A. In my understanding, yes.
Q. And you worked on that issue with a gentleman named Raj
Dhangra, D-H-A-N-G-R-A, correct?
A. Initially, I was alone.  He was not hired yet.
Q. Your testimony is that he was not hired when you were
assigned this task?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  And that came up when he was hired, correct,
according to you?

596
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Sure.  There came a time when he was in fact hired,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And he had a technology background that you did not
have, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he was employed as a person in the IT department,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he assisted with all IT-related issues, correct?  That
was his job, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he's the one who assisted you in investigating that
matter, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you emailed with him while he worked there, correct?
A. I mainly——we mainly spoke.  We shared the same office.
Q. All right.  Well, let me see if I can refresh your
recollection about emailing with him, okay?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  There was no
failure of recollection.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Do you recall emailing him about this specific task at
hand?

597
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. I don't remember.
MS. SHROFF:  May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT:  You may.
Q. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you interacted with him on
issues involving the security of cyber systems?
A. We spoke about it.
Q. Okay.  And you also spoke to him about the issues of
entrance and security for people entering the building,
correct?
A. I sent an email to him as I did to other employees.
Q. And you emailed about what topic, ma'am?
A. Are you referring to the email I have in my hand right now?
Q. I don't need to.  I just was testing your recollection of
the topics you covered with him.  You emailed him about
security in the building, correct?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Well, may I ask that you read that document and see if it
refreshes your recollection.
A. I see the document, and I see that I——
THE COURT:  Well, don't say what the document says.
The only question is, does it refresh your recollection.
That's a yes or no question.
THE WITNESS:  Oh.
A. It doesn't refresh my recollection, but I——I see what's
written in the email.

598
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Okay.  And you were aware that there was a security issue
at the building in which Golden Spring was located, correct?
A. We had——we were told that we had to keep the building
secure.
Q. And you wanted to make sure only authorized people came to
the Golden Spring New York office, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You put in place verification procedures, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You put in place the process whereby each vendor's name
would have to be on a list before they could enter the
building, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You put in place a process so that the vendor's name would
have to be told, the date of the visit would have to be told,
the time of the visit would have to be told, and the reason for
the visit would have to be told, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You put in place the requirement that each vendor have
identification presented before they were allowed into the
building to come to the Golden Spring New York office, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were the person who made yourself responsible for
making sure that the security team and any other party that was
involved was aware of this procedure, correct?

599
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. And you were the one who informed the entire team that you
would keep a record of each of these procedures being followed,
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Your Honor, the document is not in
evidence.
MS. SHROFF:  I'm not asking about the document, your
Honor, most respectfully.
THE COURT:  So first, the witness must answer "I don't
recall" before considering a document that may or may not
refresh her recollection.  So the procedure is, you're asked a
question; if you say that you don't recall, then she says, is
there something that might refresh your recollection; it is at
that time that you might refer to the document.
Go ahead.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. Would you like me to repeat the question, ma'am?
A. Yes, please.
Q. Sure.  And do you remember that in the year 2018, while you
were working at Golden Spring, you took on the responsibility
of forwarding this protocol to the security team to make sure
that everyone was aware of the protocol itself?
A. I don't remember doing that.
Q. May I ask if the document that I have handed to you, and if
you look——refreshes your recollection.

600
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. Do you now remember that you said you would remain
responsible for forwarding that message of the protocol to the
security team, correct?
A. As I read it on the document, yes.
Q. Okay.  And you——
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  So you can't say what the document says.
You can only say if the document refreshes your recollection.
Does it help you to remember what she is asking about?  That's
the question.  Does the document refresh your recollection?
THE WITNESS:  It does not.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. It does not refresh your recollection of what you did in
2018, correct?
A. It does not.
Q. In fact, there are a lot of things you've forgotten about
2018 now, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You've forgotten your interactions with the security team,
correct?
A. I forgot certain things, yes.
Q. And you also forgot your involvement with the security team
vis-à-vis the cyber attack issues, correct?
I'll rephrase that.  You've forgotten how you

601
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
interacted with the security teams regarding the entering and
leaving of visitors to the Golden Spring's office, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  So that is a compound question.
MS. SHROFF:  You know what, your Honor, I'll move on.
Thank you.
Q. Now on direct, you testified, did you not, about something
called Rule of Law, right?  Those were the questions asked of
you yesterday.  Do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. Okay.  There's no such thing as Rule of Law, correct?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Sure.  I'll be happy to try again.  There is Rule of Law
Society, correct?
A. There is.
Q. Right.  And there is Rule of Law Foundation, correct?
A. There is, correct.
Q. There was no entity simply called Rule of Law, correct?
A. No.  We referred to both entities as Rule of Law
collectively.
Q. You referred to that?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Overruled.
A. We did.
THE COURT:  Was that a question?

602
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
MS. SHROFF:  I'm sorry?
THE COURT:  You've asked a question.  You referred to
them; is that the question?
MS. SHROFF:  Yes, your Honor.  Thank you.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. We did.
Q. Well, let's try that.  There was a board for the Rule of
Law Society, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were on that board, right?
A. I was.
Q. There was a Rule of Law Foundation board, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not on that board, correct?
A. I was not.
Q. Right.  So if somebody asked you if you were on the board
of Rule of Law, you would have to say, I'm on the board of Rule
of Law Society, I am not on the board of Rule of Law
Foundation, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Because that would be a truthful answer, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would be complete, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  Now the board of Rule of Law Society, in 2018,

603
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
consisted of Steve Bannon, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Sasha Gong, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Bill Gertz, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Jennifer Mercurio, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you, right?
A. Right.
Q. Okay.  And it was not Miles Guo who gave you any position
on that board; it was the board that voted to get you that
position, correct?
A. He chose me.
Q. Let's try that.  Who told you he chose you?
A. He did.
Q. He told you that he chose you to be on the board; that's
your testimony?
A. It is.
Q. Okay.  Did he make an announcement:  Welcome to the board
of directors Rule of Law Society, I have appointed you to be on
the board?
A. I don't remember a public announcement.
Q. Okay.  Did he send an email?
A. No.

604
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Did he put it on Twitter?
A. He did not.
Q. Did he put it on YouTube?
A. I don't know.
Q. He's a man, according to you, who likes publicity, right?
A. What do you mean about——with publicity?
Q. Okay.  According to you, he's the type of man who likes to
be the center of attention, right?
A. He is.
Q. He is.  So no grand announcement about him making you a
member of the board?  No, right?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Okay.  Each one of you five people had one vote, correct?
A. In general, you mean?
Q. No.  I mean as when you were on the board of the Rule of
Law Society.
A. Oh.  Yes.
Q. Okay.  I don't mean——that's what I meant.  For the Rule of
Law Society, you had one vote, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And there were five of you, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.  What did it take to be a majority?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember what it took to be a majority for a

605
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
board that you sat on for less than two years?  
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  You voted against certain requests, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You voted no, correct?
A. Once, yes.
Q. You were never fired from the board, right?
A. I was not.
Q. You were not.  You remained on the board until you decided
to quit for medical reasons, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Guo never called you into his office and said, hey, why
did you vote that way, correct?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. Okay.  I just want to make sure.  You'd remember something
like that, right?
A. I don't know if I would remember.
Q. You wouldn't remember being fired from a board?
A. I would remember being fired from a board; that, yes.
Q. You'd remember him chastising you, correct, because,
according to you, he was Boss, right?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Sure.  You would remember being chastised by him because,
according to you, he was Boss, right?
A. I would remember.

606
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. And he never chastised you for the way you voted, right?
A. No.
Q. Okay.  You testified about a home that he bought in
Connecticut; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that home was bought in February or March of 2020; is
that correct?
A. I don't remember the exact date.
Q. It was bought after you started working there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And before you quit, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. When did you quit?
A. In April of 2020.
Q. April of what?
A. 2020.
Q. And we know from yesterday that your first day on the job
was February 19th, correct?
A. My first day on the job was February 19 of 2018.
Q. What?  2019, right?  2018.
A. 2018.
Q. Right.  So that house had to be bought somewhere between
2018 and 2020, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And did you visit the house?

607
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Once.
Q. You visited the house once?
A. Yes.
Q. It's huge, right?
A. It's not small.
Q. And there were people in and out of that house doing
broadcasting, correct?
A. When I was there, I didn't see anyone.
Q. When you were there, did you see the office that he had in
the house?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember seeing equipment in the house?
A. I——no.
Q. Do you remember seeing cameras in the house?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember seeing camera lighting in the house?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember seeing background screens in the house?
A. No.
Q. Sitting here today, do you know who paid for all of that
equipment that was in his house?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
Q. Did you know——
MS. SHROFF:  I apologize, your Honor.  I'll withdraw.
Q. Did you know if there was——even if you didn't see it, you

608
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
knew there was equipment in his house in Connecticut, correct?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Sure.  You testified right now on cross-examination that
you never saw this equipment at his Connecticut home, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you know that he had equipment in his Connecticut home?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay.  Did you know if he had broadcast equipment at the
Sherry-Netherland?
A. Yes.
Q. He did have it, correct?
A. He did.
Q. And he had the same equipment that I recited two minutes
ago, correct?
A. Such as?
Q. I can repeat it if you need me to.
A. Yes, please.
Q. Okay.  He had cameras, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Background screens, correct?
A. That I don't remember.
Q. Lighting, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Recording equipment, correct?
A. Yes.

609
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Broadcasting equipment, correct, most particularly this
one?
A. Yes.
Q. All of that was paid for by Golden Spring New York,
correct?
A. No.  
Q. It wasn't paid for by Golden Spring, New York?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. Who paid for it, according to you?
A. Saraca.
Q. And who's Saraca?
A. Saraca was a company that paid for media and tech expenses.
Q. And Saraca was the holding company for Golden Springs New
York, right?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Saraca was the holding company for Golden Spring New York,
correct?
A. I don't know about that.
Q. You don't know William Je managed Saraca?
A. I don't.
Q. You don't know if Saraca had family fund money?
A. I don't.
Q. So you don't know anything about Saraca, but you're sure
Saraca paid the bill.

610
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Compound question.
Q. Do you know anything about Saraca?
A. What I just told you.
Q. Okay.  Where did the money into Saraca come from?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay.  You testified about an office at 800 Fifth Avenue,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it fair to say that that was really an apartment
building, like a makeshift office that was put in place?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  It was a three-bedroom apartment, right?
A. It was a two-bedroom apartment.
Q. Okay.  And people were using it as an office, right?
A. We were, yes.
Q. Right.  And there came a time when it was just too crammed
and everybody agreed to move, correct?
A. We moved in 2019.
Q. Okay.  And you moved to the East 64th building, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Golden Spring relocated there, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the holding company named Saraca also relocated there,
correct?

611
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. I don't know what the official location of Saraca was.
Q. Okay.  So you don't know if Saraca relocated to 64th
Street; do I have it right?
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. And you continued to work for Golden Spring at East 64th
Street, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified on direct you worked long hours, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it Golden Spring's practice to have free lunch for
every one of its employees every day of the week?
A. At 800 Fifth, yes.
Q. Okay.  That practice continued at 64th, correct?
A. No.
Q. Okay.  When you worked long hours, you were given a hotel
room to sleep in the city, correct?
A. When I was working consecutive days, yes.
Q. Okay.  They put you up in a hotel, didn't make you drive
back and forth from work, right?
A. I——I could choose.
Q. You could choose, right?  And you chose, right?
A. I did.
Q. Okay.  Now you testified on direct about how bills were
paid, right?
I'll move on.

612
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
A. How vendors were paid.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. How vendors were paid.
Q. Okay.  Fair enough.  And do I have it right, the vendor
would need paying and you would go to Yvette, correct?
A. It depended on the amount.
Q. So if it was above a certain amount, you would go to
Yvette; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. Okay.  And you referred to Yvette as Yanping Wang; is that
right?
A. When I——when I talked about her to my colleagues, then I
would call her Yvette; when I talked to her, I would use her
Chinese name.
Q. Okay.  And it was Yvette who decided whether to pay the
vendor or not, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There were times when you had to get preauthorization from
Yvette before you would undertake an expense from a particular
vendor, correct?
A. Yes.
MS. SHROFF:  Okay.  Could I just have the witness and
the jury see SM62, please.
Q. You recall testifying about this document on direct?
A. I remember.

613
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Okay.  And this document is you seeking someone to sign off
on payment to a particular vendor; is that correct?
A. It's a payment request form.
Q. Right.  So if I could just highlight for you the name of
the payee, that would be Apple Inc., correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Apple is at 767 Fifth Avenue, which is right next to
the Sherry-Netherland, right, the FAO Schwarz building,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  If you could scroll down to the payment amount, it's
$1,217.17.  Well, up top it says 17 cents, but here it says 95
cents, correct?
A. 1,117.95.
Q. Small amount, right, relatively?
A. What do you mean by small?
Q. It's a small amount of money.  It's $1,117 for three pieces
of equipment from Apple, correct?
A. That's the correct amount, yes.
Q. Okay.  You did not have authority to sanction payment on
$1,117, right?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Sure.  You did not have the authority to allow payment on
$1,117.95, correct?
A. Not with Saraca.

614
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. You had no authority to sanction payment, correct?
A. Not with Saraca.
Q. Your testimony today is, if this bill were going to Golden
Spring, you could have paid the bill?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Asked and
answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Let's see the top of this document, okay?
You see that's where it says Golden Spring New York
Ltd.?
A. I do.
Q. Okay.  And let's go to the bottom of that document.
Requested by you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When you filled out the form——go back up, please——you
filled out the requisition to Golden Spring, correct?
A. No.  It was crossed out.
(Continued on next page)

615
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. That cross-out is by Max Krasner, is it not?
A. It is.
Q. Right.
That is not your handwriting, right? 
A. It's not.
Q. Right.
So when you sought requisition payment on this 
particular bill, you filled it out as the payer being Golden 
Spring; correct? 
A. The original form was a Golden Spring form.
Q. Right.
So you filled out the form asking Golden Spring to pay 
that bill because you're not the one who crossed that top part 
out, right? 
A. I don't remember how it went.
Q. Okay.
MS. SHROFF:  Could I scroll down again, please.
Q. "Requested by Karin Maistrello."  
Am I pronouncing your name right, ma'am? 
A. You are.
Q. Okay.  So you requested it; correct?
A. I did.
Q. Okay.  And it was approved by Max Krasner; correct?
A. Yes.

616
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Okay.  When you filled out the form, you did not request it
yourself and approve it yourself with Golden Spring on top;
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  Okay.
Q. When you submitted the form, there was no Saraca written on
top; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  It's been asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.  Asked and answered.
Q. Sitting here today, do you remember who these devices were
for?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay.  And you testified about this gentleman named Max
Krasner; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And Max Krasner also handled payments and bank
accounts for Rule of Law Society; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't handle any money as president or a board
member for Rule of Law Society; correct?
A. I didn't handle, no.
Q. Right.  You were never allowed to handle any finances at
Rule of Law Society, right?
A. I would always sit with Max.

617
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. I'm sorry, what did you --
MS. SHROFF:  I could not hear her answer.  I
apologize, your Honor.
A. I would always sit with Max to check the accounts.
Q. That's not my question.
My question was you were never in charge of the 
finances of the Rule of Law Society; correct? 
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. You can authorize payment on behalf of Rule of Law Society,
right?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay.  You were a board member and president and you don't
know?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. You testified about somebody named Defeng Cao; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified that he was may's -- his daughter's
boyfriend; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know, by the way, what work he did while he was
working in China?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember at all if he was trained in security while

618
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
he worked in China?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Asked and
answered.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember if he was employed in China in the security
industry?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Asked and
answered again.  She said she didn't remember.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Do you know how he got from China to the United States?
A. By plane.
Q. Under what circumstances, do you remember?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I don't know.
Q. You testified about a man named William Je; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it was Mr. Je -- am I saying his name correctly?  Je,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  He's the one who asked you to take on a position at
ACA Capital; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And on direct you testified that it was Mr. Guo who

619
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
introduced you to Mr. Je; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it true that Mr. Guo had nothing to do with that
introduction; in fact, it was Yvette Wang who introduced you to
Mr. Je?
A. No, I'm pretty sure boss introduced me to William.
Q. Okay.  Do you remember testifying in a deposition in a
case?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember testifying under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember having a lawyer there?
A. Yes.
Q. And remember giving this testimony while you were under
oath, saying you were introduced to William by Mrs. Wang as a
person of trust and I met him several times.
Do you recall that testimony you gave? 
A. I don't.
Q. Okay.  Well, let's see if we can show you 3525-001 at page
14.
MS. SHROFF:  Could you just go one page back.
Q. Do you see the bottom of that page?
A. I do.
Q. Does that refresh the testimony you gave under oath at a
deposition?

620
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. And under oath at a deposition, you said:  "I was
introduced to William by Mrs. Wang as a person of trust, and I
met him several times."  Correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  This is not
evidence.  Not before the jury.
THE COURT:  Overruled.
MR. HORTON:  It is before the jury, and it's not in
evidence.
THE COURT:  Oh, you're saying that this is being shown
to the jurors?  This should not be shown to the jurors.
It is not?  Do you have a document in front of you? 
THE JURY:  It was.
THE COURT:  All right.  So that was an error.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. So you did say that under oath, right?
A. I did.
Q. And that was years earlier than your testimony today;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you already testified you have trouble remembering some
things; correct?
A. Yes.

621
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. And your memory then was better than your memory now;
correct?
A. I don't know about that.
Q. You don't know about that.
A. I don't know when my memory was better.
Q. Okay.  So back then you said it was Yvette who introduced
you to William.  That we are clear on; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MS. SHROFF:  You can take that down.  Thank you.
I'm sorry about that. 
Q. You also testified about Mr. Je being at the East 64th
Street office; correct?
A. Sometimes he came, yes.
Q. And when he came, he worked off of his laptop and you were
there, right?
A. Most times.
Q. Did you guys share an office?
A. We shared a floor.
Q. My question was did you share an office?
A. Yes.
Q. Right.  So you and he sat in the same office; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  Mr. Guo never sat in that office with you, right?
It was you and William Je; correct?

622
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. And other people, yes.
Q. Right.  But you shared -- Mr. Guo wasn't in that space at
all; correct?
A. He was not.
Q. Okay.  And it was William Je who asked you to join the
board of ACA, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he told you why he wanted you to join the board; isn't
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. He told you he was looking for people to invest; correct?
A. Yes, he was looking for investments in New York and the
states.
Q. He was looking for investors as well, right?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Okay.  So he wanted you to help him find people who would
invest; correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And people who invest are called investors; correct?
A. They are.
Q. Okay.  And you sat on that board of ACA until you received
a subpoena; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  When you got the subpoena, who did you go talk to
first about the subpoena, do you remember?

623
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that?
A. Daniel Podhaskie.
Q. Right.
You didn't go to Yvette, right? 
A. The first person I talked to was Daniel.
Q. You didn't go to Mr. Guo, right?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay.  And know one else was present when you discussed
that subpoena with Mr. Podhaskie; correct?
A. Can you repeat the question please?
Q. Sure.  No one else was present when you discussed the
subpoena with Mr. Daniel Podhaskie; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  And Ms. Wang was not present for that conversation;
correct?
A. She was not.
Q. Okay.  And you were free to tell him whatever was on your
mind about that subpoena, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  You could have asked Mr. Podhaskie to get you a
lawyer from -- that had never been at the Golden Spring's
office; correct?
A. I could have.
Q. Okay.  So you then testified yesterday about being at a

624
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
deposition, you recall that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And you were at a deposition; correct?
A. I was.
Q. Okay.  And you were deposed, right?
A. I was.
Q. You gave testimony; correct?
A. I did.
Q. You were put under oath; correct?
A. I was.
Q. You were sworn to tell the truth; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
We've been through this. 
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. And you had a lawyer there, right?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Same objection.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Ms. Wang was not seated next to you during the deposition,
right?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Same objection.
We've been through this. 
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT:  Yes.
(Continued on next page)

625
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
(At sidebar) 
THE COURT:  So my recollection is that you asked
yesterday whether Ms. Wang was there at the deposition.
MS. SHROFF:  Right.  But I don't think I ever covered
that there was a lawyer and Ms. Wang was three seats away.  I
never covered the scope of what she testified to during the
deposition.  I never questioned her on all the acts that
happened after the deposition was over.  I never covered any
part of the discussion about the deposition with Miles Guo
about all of this.
I don't think I covered any of that.  And I'm pretty 
certain I checked last night; but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but 
I don't think I covered that.   
I think I'm entitled to show that Ms. Wang was not 
seated next to her as they implied; that there was a lawyer 
seated next to her; Ms. Wang was three seats down.  I think I'm 
allowed to show all of that. 
MR. HORTON:  Your Honor, this line of questioning,
which is not just the last several questions, but I think it's
about ten minutes of questions, is needlessly cumulative.  It's
going to significantly prolong the trial, particularly if it's
a pace that's continued with the witnesses who are to come.
And we've gone over it again and again and again, and your
Honor has sustained a number of the same kind of objection,
which is that the question is asked and answered, and it's

626
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
followed again by the same questions and the same topic.
THE COURT:  So the questioning has been repetitive.
You found every way to ask whether an individual gave sworn
testimony at a deposition, and so it is needless.  So if you
would just stick to what is necessary to be more efficient in
the questioning.
MS. SHROFF:  I'd be happy to try, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Okay.
MR. HORTON:  Can we ask how much is left of her
cross-examination?
MS. SHROFF:  I have no idea.  I don't know.  I think
30 minutes.
THE COURT:  Then take a moment to think about it.
MS. SHROFF:  Thirty minutes.
THE COURT:  Thirty minutes.
MS. SHROFF:  But I'm telling you honestly, I have a
lot of trouble hearing her.  It's also adding to my degree of
frustration, but I simply cannot hear her.  And I feel
ridiculous asking, I can't hear you, like ten times.  I
apologize, your Honor, but I'm having a lot of trouble hearing
her.
THE COURT:  Do you need a hearing aid?
MS. SHROFF:  I can't have a hearing aid.  My deafness
was due to some kind of weird injury.  I was seen at Mt. Sinai
Hospital in Brooklyn.  They gave me prednisone injections to

627
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
try and recover it.  I can't do anything about it.  I normally
don't have this struggle.  So I apologize, your Honor, I really
do, but I don't --
THE COURT:  Do you need a device to amplify what
you're hearing in the ear that works?
MS. SHROFF:  I'm only having trouble with this
witness.  I haven't had trouble with the other two before.  I
will try better, your Honor.  
But I really am having trouble hearing her.  And I 
don't want to keep asking you to repeat.  So you see when I'm 
craning forward, I'm really trying to see if I can hear better.  
So I apologize about that.  I am having trouble hearing. 
THE COURT:  Are you making a request that I --
MS. SHROFF:  No, no, no, I'm not --
THE COURT:  -- install any additional equipment or
give you an opportunity to have a medical exam or somehow
address the deafness?
MS. SHROFF:  No, your Honor, not at all.  I'm not
seeking to make a record of any kind.  I do not plan to raise
this at any appeal.  I'm just telling you why I'm having
trouble hearing her, that's all.  It is nothing that I
intend -- I'm not laying the foundation for anything down the
road at all.  I'm just trying to explain what's going on,
that's all.
THE COURT:  I am going to ask her again to speak up.

628
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
MS. SHROFF:  Okay.  I just want to be very clear, your
Honor, I'm really not trying to lay a foundation about
anything.  I hope that's very clear.
MR. HORTON:  Your Honor, we just want to note that
cross has been longer than the direct.  
And your Honor is interested in the July 4th target 
that was set up in the case, and we have concerns about being 
able to hit that at the pace this is going. 
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, we join in that concern.  
And we also ask the government that if they could stop 
looping, that would also make the trial shorter.   
THE COURT:  Actually, looping is a more efficient way
actually.
MS. SHROFF:  I don't think so.  I think it's leading
and I think it's very prejudicial to the defense.  
And, you know, defense lawyers have long argued 
against looping, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  So there is a long way and a short way to
do a direct examination.  If we take the long way, it prolongs
the trial.
MS. SHROFF:  I apologize, your Honor.  I always
thought just saying what happened next is shorter than, you
know, When you went to the house and then saw the blue flag,
then tell me what happened next.  So I apologize.  I will do
better.  I will try to move it right along.

629
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
(In open court) 
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. At the deposition, your lawyer was seated next to you;
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may answer.  Go ahead.
A. Yes.
Q. Ms. Wang was seated three seats down; correct?
A. Two.
Q. And she did not speak during the deposition; correct?
A. She did not.
Q. And you testified at the deposition that you were an
Italian citizen; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified that you were on a visa in the United States;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it fair to say in 2023, you were still on a visa;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. By that time you had stopped working for Golden Spring;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And by that time you had stopped working with Rule of Law
Society; correct?

630
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. In 2023, you reached out to a lawyer who still worked there
named Victor Cerda; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Relevance.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. Yes.
Q. You asked him to help you with your immigration status;
correct?
A. I asked for advice, yes.
Q. He declined; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You testified on direct that after the deposition, you went
to lunch; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You went to lunch with Yvette; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you returned to the office, you testified, right?
A. We did.
Q. And you testified on direct that you, Yvette, went to
Mr. Guo's office; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And your testimony was that Yvette told Mr. Guo that you
had done an excellent job; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it fair to say, Ms. Maistrello, that at the deposition,

631
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
you testified that you did not even know why you were there?
You recall giving that testimony at the deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to you, Ms. Wang praised you for testifying
that you had no idea why you were at a deposition; correct?
That's your testimony?
A. She just said that I did well during the deposition.
Q. Okay.  And according to you, she praised your -- that you
did well at the deposition, and then she proceeded to call you
a flute; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn't it fair to say she has never ever referred to you
as flute; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. She did before.
Q. She did before the deposition, called you flute?
A. She did.
Q. Okay.  So long before the deposition she called you a flute
and, according to you, after the deposition she also called you
a flute?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  It's compound.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I don't remember when she did.
Q. You don't remember if it was before the deposition?

632
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. You do recall though testifying that you had no idea why
you were being deposed; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. And you testified to that as a person who was sitting on a
particular board; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Same objection.
MS. SHROFF:  I'll move on, your Honor.
Q. You testified on direct, did you not, about a press
conference on the launch of the Rule of Law Society; correct?
A. Rule of Law Society and foundation.
Q. Well, let's just talk about Rule of Law Society, okay?
Okay.  You coordinated the travel for people for that 
event; correct? 
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  The battery is gone.  Do we have another
microphone?  And would you speak up, please.
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Your Honor, we object to the
premise of the question limiting it to the Rule of Law Society.
THE COURT:  Well, the questioner has asked the witness
to limit her answers to the Rule of Law Society; and that your
concerns may be addressed on redirect.  Go ahead.
Q. You coordinated travel; correct?

633
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. You were the one who actually made the bookings, right?
A. I was not the only person, but yes.
Q. But your job was to make bookings, right?  Travel bookings.
A. That was not my job, but I did in that instance.
Q. And you coordinate people's flights; correct?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. And do you remember booking hotel rooms for people?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Cumulative.
MS. SHROFF:  I'll move on, your Honor.
Q. Do you recall that part and parcel of your job throughout
the time you were there was to do these kinds of bookings,
right?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  We covered this.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Was part and parcel of your job to actually visit the hotel
rooms prior to the guest taking -- starting their stay to
inspect the rooms themselves?
A. Are you referring to a Rule of Law Society job?
Q. Yes.
A. Then the answer is no.
Q. How about for Golden Spring?
A. Yes, but only for boss, not for guests.
Q. Okay.  So your testimony is you looked at the hotel rooms
ahead of time, correct, when it was for Mr. Guo; correct?

634
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  
Asked and answered, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. Yes. 
Q. And when you went to inspect the rooms, you took a cyber
security team person with you, correct, and a security person
with you; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you have never talked to
Mr. Guo about any finances surrounding the Rule of Law Society?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Mr. Guo never, ever told you he was going to donate a
million dollars as a sponsor of Rule of Law Society; correct?
A. He did during meetings.
Q. Your testimony is he told you that he was going to donate a
million dollars?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Were you at the meetings?
You need to speak up. 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. Could you tell us who else, according to you, was at this
meeting?
A. People varied, but I remember Steve Bannon being there,

635
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
sometimes William was there, Yvette was there.
Q. So according to you, Mr. Bannon was there — I missed the
second name.
A. William.
Q. William Je, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And Yvette was there.  That's your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. So there was no member of the public there; correct?
A. No.
Q. This meeting, according to you, was not broadcast to
anyone; correct?
A. No.
Q. You never heard him say that on Twitter, YouTube, or any
social media; correct?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. You don't remember ever hearing him say that out loud in
public ever; correct?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Now, you testified about an entity that the government in
its direct referred to as Rule of Law; correct?  All the
questions yesterday, do you remember they called it Rule of
Law, right?  Do you remember that?
A. I remember discussing the Rule of Law organizations.
Q. Okay.  So I just want to be very clear for

636
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
cross-examination that I'm only asking you about the entity you
were involved with, which is Rule of Law Society, okay?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  
Mischaracterizes her testimony. 
THE COURT:  Sustained.  She has stated that she held
offices within the Rule of Law Society.
MS. SHROFF:  Right.
THE COURT:  "Involved in" is a mischaracterization of
her testimony.
Q. You're not involved with any operations of Rule of Law
Foundation; correct?
A. I was not.
Q. You were not on the board of Rule of Law Foundation;
correct?
A. I was not.
Q. You were not involved with anything having to do with Rule
of Law Foundation by the board; correct?
A. I was not.
Q. Okay.  Rule of Law Society had a following; correct?
A. I think it's fair to say that boss had a following.
Q. Okay.  So boss had a following from which Rule of Law
Society benefited.  Is that also a fair thing to say?
A. It is.
Q. On direct testimony you talked about the one-year broadcast
anniversary; correct?  You remember -- that was an awkward

637
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
question.  I apologize.
You remember the broadcast that was done on the 
one-year anniversary? 
A. I do.
Q. Okay.  And that was in November of 2019; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the broadcast was from the East 64th Street office,
right?
A. It was.
Q. That was done on Guo Media; correct?
A. I think it was.
Q. I didn't hear you, I'm sorry?
A. I think it was.
Q. Okay.  And you testified that you did nothing for that
fundraiser; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  Your testimony is you did not set up travel for
people who were flying into New York for this occasion?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Cumulative, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. And according to you, at this fundraiser, Yvette asked you
to move money from Saraca and Golden Spring to show donations
to Rule of Law Society; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And you testified to that, that you were told that

638
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
you should do this so that people could see big amounts of
money shown on screen; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were told this by Yvette, correct, according to
you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were told by Yvette that she wanted you to do this
so that she could show large donations to Rule of Law Society;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you said on direct that you did not want to do that
because the transfers were not real; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified that you considered them to be internal
transfers; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to you, Golden Spring giving money to Rule of
Law Society, you would consider that to be an internal
transfer; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  So if rule of -- if Golden Spring wanted to donate
to Rule of Law Society, you would object to that as an internal
transfer?
A. No.  We were asked to transfer money and then send it back.
Q. But you never sent it back, right?

639
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. I never transferred it in the first place.
Q. Right.  And when others transferred it, sitting here today,
you have no evidence that they ever transferred it back;
correct?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You never checked any books from Golden Springs about this
money transfer; correct?
A. I never checked Golden Spring's books.
Q. Right.  And you have no idea if that money was ever
transferred back to Golden Springs; correct?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember or you don't know?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you know how much money Golden Springs donated to Rule
of Law Society?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know how much money Golden Spring donated to Rule of
Law Foundation?
A. I don't know.
Q. You never checked the books for the Rule of Law Society;
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Cumulative.
THE COURT:  Asked and answered.
Q. You also testified on direct that you told Yvette you did
not want to do this, right?

640
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. Yvette didn't force you, right?
A. No.
Q. And then it was your testimony yesterday that after you
told her that, Yvette could sense that you were upset; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to you, Yvette saw that you were upset and
then still told you that, Don't worry about it, someone else
will do it.  Is that what she told you, according to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone else come up to you and complain that they were
forced to do something like this?
A. Yes.
Q. Really.  Who?
A. Three colleagues.
Q. Three colleagues came up to you and said they complained to
you, is that your testimony?
A. It is.
Q. You didn't testify to that on direct yesterday; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Overruled.
You may answer whether you testified. 
A. I don't remember.
Q. And when these three colleagues came up to you and
complained about this, you could have gone to William Je;

641
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
correct?
A. Why would I have gone to William?
Q. Well, isn't he one of the people that you had a good
relationship with?
A. He was not even at the office.
Q. Okay.  He has email though, right?
A. He has an email, yes.
Q. Okay.  You were on the board at that time; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You could have brought it up at a board meeting; correct?
A. I could have.
Q. You could have emailed any number of people about this;
correct?
A. I could.
Q. You could have emailed Dan Podhaskie; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  It's cumulative, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Did you email anyone about these three colleagues asking --
complaining to you?
MR. HORTON:  Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. After that event you didn't resign from the board because
you were asked to do something wrong according to you; correct?
A. I did not.
Q. And the three colleagues didn't resign either; correct?

642
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Not all of them were part of the board.
Q. They didn't resign from their job, right?
A. They did not.
Q. Okay.  Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you had no authority
to transfer any money out of Saraca; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You had no authority to pay any bills with the Saraca
account; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  We covered this.
THE COURT:  Sustained.  You've gone over this.
Q. The first meeting of the board for Rule of Law Society was
in May of 2019, do you remember that?
A. I don't.
Q. You don't remember the very first meeting in May of 2019?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. The next meeting was on June 27, 2019.  Do you recall that
meeting?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you recall a meeting, a special meeting held to discuss
issues raised by the firing of Sasha Gong?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember Sasha Gong approaching the Rule of Law
Society's board because she'd been fired for doing the Voice of
America interview with Mr. Guo?

643
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Sure.  Do you remember a special meeting being convened to
discuss Ms. Gong getting fired by Voice of America for doing an
interview with Mr. Guo?  Do you recall that?
A. I don't remember a special meeting.  I remember her sharing
this fact.
Q. And you don't remember the board voting on her request to
get assistance to sue Voice of America for wrongful firing?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Okay.  Do you remember August 23rd, 2019, announcement
about a September 3rd, 2019, board meeting?  Do you recall
that?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you recall that there was an actual board meeting on
September 3rd of 2019?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember that one of the agendas was to review the
budget?  Does that help you refresh your recollection?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  I think that you've already gone over this
territory, Ms. Shroff.
Q. Do you recall the Rule of Law Society having a proposal —
and you testified to this yesterday — to ship PPE to China;
correct?
A. Yes.

644
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. And you testified that made no sense to you, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you testified that it didn't make any sense to you that
PPE was being sent back to China because China was the one who
was making the N95 masks; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. But the N95 masks are just one part of PPE; correct?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. There are different kinds of masks, right, during COVID?
A. In general?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And when you thought that, you had no knowledge
whether the ordinary person in China had access to an N95 mask;
correct?
A. I don't remember.
Q. And you had no knowledge if the family members of people
who were in the United States wanted masks sent to their family
members in China; correct?
A. What people?
Q. Dissidents, people who were supporters of Rule of Law
Society.
THE COURT:  She can't testify as to what was on the
mind of other people.
Q. You were aware, were you not, that Rule of Law Society was

645
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
supporting dissidents; correct?
A. That was the mission.
Q. And dissidents had family in China; correct?
A. Some may have.
Q. And dissidents in the United States would want their family
members in China to have --
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
Q. -- N95 protection; correct?
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. You testified on direct, did you not, that it was your
understanding that N95 masks were sent to Mr. Guo's home?
A. Yes.
Q. Which home?
A. The one in Connecticut.
Q. And sitting here today, do you know if Mr. Guo was in his
Connecticut home at any part of the pandemic?
A. In March of 2020, yes.
Q. Okay.  And in March of 2020, your testimony is that Mr. Guo
was not on a yacht, but at his home in Connecticut?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Your testimony is that it is your recollection that in
March of 2020, Mr. Guo, during the pandemic, was at his home in
Connecticut and not on a yacht?

646
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. At least for some part of March of 2020, yes.
Q. What part?
A. I don't remember the exact dates.
Q. You don't know any dates at all; correct?
A. I don't remember the dates.
Q. Right.
Did you have any personal knowledge about who was 
staying at the Connecticut home during the pandemic? 
A. I can only speak to the first month of the pandemic.
Q. Okay.  Do you actually know who was living in that house?
A. I know he was there and his wife was there.
Q. You don't know who else was there; correct?
A. If there were other people, I don't.
Q. They will consult with you as to who was living in their
home, right?
A. No, they would not.
Q. It didn't involve your job, right?
A. No.
Q. During the pandemic, you did not go to the office; correct?
A. We stopped going to the office on March 16.
Q. I'm only asking about you, ma'am.  My question to you was
were you going to the office?
A. I stopped going to the office on March 16.
Q. Okay.  And, in fact, Yvette went to the office during the
pandemic every single day; correct?

647
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. I don't know.  I wasn't there.
Q. Okay.  So when you said "we stopped going," you really
meant you stopped going; correct?
A. I meant me and my colleagues.
Q. Well, you don't know if your colleagues stopped going,
right?  You don't know if Dan Podhaskie stopped going; correct?
A. I know.
Q. Your testimony is Dan Podhaskie stopped going to the office
during the COVID pandemic?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Cumulative.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  I'll move on, your Honor.
Q. You recall discussing with the FBI, did you not, that --
about the shipments of rice and PPE, do you recall testimony
about that -- I mean talking to them about that topic?
A. I do.
Q. And you recall that you told them that you were no longer
at the office, were working from home, and you had no idea what
was being moved; correct?
A. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q. You told the FBI that you were not at the office, you did
not know what was being moved, but that is what you had heard;
correct?
A. What do you mean about something that was being moved?
Q. You didn't see any PPE being moved from the office to

648
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Connecticut; correct?  You weren't there, right?
A. I wasn't there physically, no.
Q. Right.  You had no personal knowledge.  You were simply
repeating what somebody else had told you; correct?
A. That's not correct.
Q. Okay.  Well, did you tell the FBI that you were not at the
office and you did not see these moves?
A. I did not see the moves with my eyes as I was not there.
Q. Okay.  So you have no personal knowledge.  You only know
what somebody told you.
A. I was asked to arrange some of the moves.
Q. You were asked to arrange the moves of PPE?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And how many moves did you arrange?
A. I don't remember.
Q. From where to where?
A. From the office to the home in Connecticut.
Q. What amount?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Okay.  Sitting here today, do you recall being told to send
PPE to the homes of employees of Golden Spring?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember being asked to send PPE to the homes of
Rule of Law Society people?
A. No, I don't remember.

649
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Do you remember being asked to ship PPE to anyone else?
A. To NYPD.
Q. You sent them to NYPD; correct?
A. I remember boxes being sent to NYPD.
Q. I didn't hear that.  Boss is what?
A. I remember boxes of PPE.
Q. Boxes?
A. Of masks being sent to NYPD precincts.
Q. Okay.  And you remember boxes being sent to hospitals?
A. I don't.
Q. Okay.  And when you testified on direct about these boxes
being sent to the NYPD, you testified that Yvette wanted you to
put Mr. Guo's name on them and you declined; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  The important thing was for the PPE to get to the
NYPD; correct?
A. The important thing for who?
Q. For anybody who needed PPE.
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. Okay.  I will move on.
Nobody drafted a letter for you to sign from Mr. Guo
to the NYPD; correct?
A. No.
Q. Nobody forced you to draft such a letter; correct?
A. I was asked to draft it.

650
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. My question was nobody forced you to draft such a letter;
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  And you, in fact, never drafted such a letter;
correct?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay.  Mr. Guo didn't say, If my name is not on the letter,
don't send the PPE to the NYPD, right?
A. He never said that.
Q. Right.
And NYPD got the PPE, right? 
A. I believe they did.
Q. Right.
You sent it, right? 
A. I did not.
Q. Exactly.  Somebody else sent it because you weren't
physically there, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  Now, you testified a great deal about the security
and how you thought it was nonsensical; correct?
A. I testified that it was not needed.
Q. Okay.  And when you decided it was not needed, were you
aware that Mr. Guo was visited by ministers from China and
agents of the CCP, were you aware of that?
A. I was aware of a visit in 2017.

651
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. You were aware of a visit in 2017; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were aware that he was visited by agents of the
CCP's ministry of state security; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And they visited him at his home; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And at that time his wife and daughter were still in China;
correct?
A. I don't know.
Q. And at that time, you were aware, were you not, that he was
the main target of CCP's Fox Hunt campaign; correct?
A. I was not working for him at that time yet.
Q. My question was were you aware?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I was not aware.
Q. Were you aware that there was a campaign to coerce Mr. Guo
to return to China?
A. Are you referring to a specific period, a specific year
and --
Q. Were you ever aware of that fact?
A. I was told.
Q. What year was that?
A. 2018.

652
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. And that is when you were working there; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is when he had security; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were aware, were you not, that when he was visited by
the CCP ministries, he was threatened?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I don't remember being told that.
Q. Do you recall being told that he was at risk of being
kidnapped?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  This is hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Please step up.
(Continued on next page)

653
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
(At sidebar) 
THE COURT:  So I thought the lengthy stipulation
covered this.
MR. HORTON:  Yes, your Honor.  It's clearly being
elicited to repeat that truth.  
The first problem with that I think is that the 
witness has established that she doesn't have personal 
knowledge of this.  So the questions are all, Were you told X 
about Y, the goal of getting in the truth of X and Y. 
THE COURT:  So she at some point learns that he was
being targeted by the CCP, she said that.
MR. HORTON:  Right.  She said that she was told
certain things.  And it seems that they are trying to get the
truth of those things in right here, and doing that by asking,
And what did this other person who's not here tell you, what
was that statement, to say that that statement is true.
THE COURT:  So you're objecting on a hearsay ground.
MR. HORTON:  I agree it's cumulative with the
stipulation, as your Honor said.  But it's also --
THE COURT:  No, I didn't say that.
MR. HORTON:  Sorry.  I wasn't trying to be cute.  I
must have misheard you.
THE COURT:  No, no, no.  That long statement is
something that I'm sure the jury has not completely
assimilated.

654
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
MR. HORTON:  Fair enough.  I really didn't mean to
suggest anything.
It is eliciting hearsay for the truth of that hearsay.  
They are asking, And who did this person — who's not identified 
— tell you and what did they say and what were those 
statements. 
MS. SHROFF:  I really do not care at all if it's true
or not.  All I want to show is she knew all of this and then
decided that the only reason he had security is because it
sounded better to call them security than to call them
handymen.  That is my only point here.
MR. HORTON:  So there's testimony in the record
sufficient to allow Ms. Shroff to make a point that she just
said she wants to make.  The point of this barrage in these
questions is for the truth of the statements.
THE COURT:  Well, you took pands to try to make it
appear that there wasn't a legitimate authentic security
apparatus in place.  And so now she's trying to establish that
there was.
MR. HORTON:  It is still hearsay.  And if she goes and
does the next thing, correct, like we may or may not object to
the way that comes in; but right now we're on this series of
hearsay statements that are coming in for their truth.
MS. SHROFF:  It's really not -- go ahead.
MR. KAMARAJU:  I was just going to say, the witness

655
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
testified she thought the security was bogus.  We're allowed to
elicit that she was told all these facts; that this undercuts
her testimony the security is bogus.  That's it.
THE COURT:  It is a form of impeachment, so I'm going
to permit it.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Thank you, your Honor.
(Continued on next page)

656
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
(In open court) 
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
(Pending question read) 
THE WITNESS:  I don't remember.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. And were you aware that ministers had come to his home from
China and brought with them his wife and daughter?
A. No.
Q. And were you aware that all of these instances were while
Mr. Guo was living at the Sherry-Netherlands?
A. I only know of one instance.
Q. And you've already testified to that; correct?
A. I did.
Q. Okay.  Now, let me just go back to my last set of
questions.
Do you recall if Mr. Bannon gave a talk in April of -- 
April 25th of 2019, at the Regis Hotel?  Do you remember that 
talk? 
A. I -- I don't.
Q. Okay.  And do you recall being asked to order a book after
that talk?
A. I don't.
Q. And do you recall when you worked for Golden Spring, you
were part and parcel of the people that Yvette would assign
tasks to regarding purchases; correct?

657
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. You know, I'll do better.
Do you recall Yvette asking you to purchase or put
into place something called the Snack National Proposal?  Do
you remember that?
A. Can you repeat the name of the proposal?
Q. Do you remember Yvette asking you to buy snack boxes for
Golden Spring employees to make sure they were healthy?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And you remember somebody -- working with somebody
named Tamara Flores; correct?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Yvette chose the snack box and told you to order them;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you ordered them, right?
A. I did.
Q. That was your job, right?
A. I ordered the boxes.
Q. May 29, 2018 is when Max Krasner was onboarded to Golden
Spring; correct?  Do you remember that?
A. I don't remember the date.
Q. But you remember when he joined, right?
A. I remember it was 2018.
Q. Right.

658
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
And to onboard him, there were certain steps that you 
needed to take; correct? 
A. I don't remember that.
Q. Okay.  Do you recall Yvette asking you to make sure that
you had set up stationery with his name on it?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember her asking you to make sure that the floor
lights were moved and his desk was cleaned?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember somebody named Rich Wojcicki,
W-O-J-C-I-C-K-I?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember booking his travel in 2018?
A. I -- I do, vaguely.
Q. Right.
You remember booking his flights and his hotel; 
correct? 
A. I believe I booked his flight.
Q. That was part of your job, right?
A. I was asked to do that.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I was asked to do that.
Q. That was part of your job description; correct?
A. It was not part of my job description, but I did it.
Q. There was a deposition in South Carolina; correct?

659
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Remember that?
A. I don't.
Q. Guo v. Lin.  Mr. Guo brought an action, a civil action, do
you remember that?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember that you made travel arrangements for that
trip?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember that a translator was needed at that trip
and you were not the translator taken?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember Una Wilkinson being the translator that was
taken because your Mandarin was not good enough?
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Do you remember attending meetings with Jennifer Mercurio?
A. I don't remember attending meetings with her.  We were
colleagues.
Q. And Ms. Mercurio was on the board; correct?  Actually, I
take that back.  She was general counsel and corporate
secretary to Rule of Law Society; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall Ms. Mercurio saying that there would be a
telephonic meeting on September 3rd of 2019; correct?  Do you

660
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
remember getting an email about that?
A. I don't.
Q. Do you remember getting an email about Guo Media's
fundraising drive and the budget?
A. I don't.
Q. And do you remember that there came a point when
Ms. Mercurio stated that your role in Rule of Law Society was
limited?
A. I didn't hear the last part.
Q. Was limited.  Your role was limited.
A. I don't know that she said that.
Q. Do you recall getting an email saying that you would not be
involved in the operation of Rule of Law Society?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you remember being told that while you were on the
board, you were not involved in the day-to-day operations of
the entity?  Do you not recall that?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. All right.  Well, let me show you something that might help
you refresh your recollection.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT:  You may.
MS. SHROFF:  Thank you.
Q. Please don't read it out loud, but I can direct you to the
bottom of the first page.

661
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
MR. HORTON:  Is there a question pending?
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
MS. SHROFF:  I was waiting for the witness to finish
reading, your Honor.
A. I'm done.
Q. Okay.  And does that refresh your recollection that you
were informed that you would not be involved in the operation
of Rule of Law?
A. It does not.
Q. It does not refresh your recollection?
A. It doesn't.
Q. Was it your practice to read emails that you were sent?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was your practice to respond to emails that were
sent to you; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you got an email that said you were going to be left
off an email chain here on forward, is it likely that you would
remember that?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Is it fair to say, ma'am, that you have two master's
degrees?
A. Yes.
Q. You have one master's in Chinese literature; correct?

662
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
A. Yes.
Q. One in linguistics; correct?
A. Applied linguistics, right.
Q. Right.
And before you took the job at Golden Spring, where 
did you work? 
A. In China.
Q. And after your job at Golden Spring you set up what is
something called Kai Enterprise; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  And after that -- you testified yesterday that you
work at Google Search; correct?
A. Google.
Q. Google, right?
Are you a full-time employee at Google? 
A. No.
Q. You don't have a desk at Google; correct?
A. No, I work from home.
Q. You do not have full-time employment with them; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  You've done work for the FBI, have you?
A. Through a company; correct.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Through a company.
Q. Okay.  So through a company you did freelance work for the

663
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Federal Bureau of Investigations; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.  And that's the same Federal Bureau of Investigations
that was present during your prep; correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.  Relevance.
THE COURT:  Overruled.
A. No.
Q. Is there a different Federal Bureau of Investigations that
you did freelance work for?
A. It was a different unit.
Q. Was a different unit, but it's still the same company, the
FBI; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And if the FBI were to give you a freelance job now,
you would do it; correct?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay.  Fair enough.
Is it fair to say that you told these prosecutors that
Mr. Guo's ego was the most important thing to Mr. Guo?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said, did you not, to these people, that Mr. Guo
was all about Mr. Guo; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You told them you saw no good in Mr. Guo; correct?
A. That is not correct.

664
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. Really.  Okay.
And you said that you could be a character witness
about Mr. Guo, that's what you told this team; correct?
A. No.
Q. You did not tell them that you could be a character witness
about Mr. Guo?
MR. HORTON:  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor --
Q. Do you remember saying that?
MR. HORTON:  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  Okay.  May I just have 3525 to refresh
her recollection.
THE COURT:  She did not say that she did not recall.
She said no.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, the government objected to
that question as asked and answered.
THE COURT:  The answer she gave was no.
Q. You told this team that you felt that they were more on
your side than anything else; correct?
A. No, that's not correct.
Q. You did not say that to them when you met with them --
THE COURT:  Sustained.
She's already answered the question.

665
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Q. During your meetings with the United States Attorney's
Office — and I mean Mr. Horton, Mr. Finkel, Ms. Murray,
Mr. Fergenson — you made it clear that you did not think well
of Mr. Guo; correct?
A. That's not correct.
Q. You called him a man with an ego; correct?
A. I did.
Q. And a man all about himself; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you think well of people like that, is that your
testimony?
MR. HORTON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  Nothing further.
THE COURT:  All righty, members of the jury.  Even
though it is only 11:23, we'll take our break now and you'll
come back at noon.
Remember that you're not permitted to discuss the case 
amongst yourselves.  Don't permit anyone to discuss it in your 
presence.   
(Jury not present) 
THE COURT:  You may step down.  And don't discuss your
testimony.
(Witness not present) 
THE COURT:  You may be seated.

666
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
Is there anything that either party would like to 
raise before we break? 
MR. FINKEL:  Just very briefly, your Honor.
Just for the record, Ms. Maistrello's direct 
examination was approximately an hour and 40 minutes, give or 
take.  The cross-examination has been about three hours and 15 
minutes, give or take.   
Obviously we've been objecting, and your Honor has 
largely sustained sort of questions that just repeat the 
answers with some exasperation or "oh, really," which are kind 
of argumentative and are delaying the proceedings.  We'll 
continue to object to those of course.   
Just generally, your Honor, the government's estimate 
with respect to this trial was based on what we understood to 
be reasonable crosses.  I think generally the rule of thumb is 
about -- it depends on the witness, obviously, but if direct is 
an hour, usually cross is around half an hour, sometimes more 
sometimes less, sometimes witnesses require a one-to-one.  But 
from one hour and 42 minutes to three hours and 20 minutes, 
it's a lot and I think it's a lot of repeating.  So we just 
want to make our record on that. 
THE COURT:  I'm waiting for a response.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, I apologize, but I don't
think Mr. Finkel's comments were inviting a response and I
don't have one.

667
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2                 Maistrello - Cross
The cross was the cross.  And, you know, Mr. Finkel, 
if he thinks my cross was bad, can certainly bring it up at the 
2255 proceeding.  But I will do my best and I did do my best to 
do the cross I wanted to do. 
THE COURT:  So the only criticism that I heard was
that it was too lengthy because there were repetitive
questions.  And there were repetitive questions.  And so I'd
like you to eliminate repetitive questions.
MS. SHROFF:  I will do my best, your Honor.
THE COURT:  All righty.  We'll break.
(Luncheon recess) 
(Continued on next page)

668
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Redirect
AFTERNOON SESSION 
12:00 p.m. 
(Jury present) 
THE COURT:  You may be seated.
Redirect.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. HORTON:  
Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Maistrello.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. At the end of cross-examination, you were asked some
questions about past work you've done for the FBI, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you do any work for the FBI on this case?
A. No.
Q. Did you do any work for anybody on this case?
A. No.
Q. At a high level, could you describe the past work you've
done for the FBI.
A. It was mainly interpretation, transcription, and
translation.
Q. You were also asked questions about meeting with the
government.  Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the government tell you what to say in your testimony,
Ms. Maistrello?

669
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Redirect
A. No.
Q. What, if anything, did the government tell you to do when
you testified?
A. The only thing I was told is to be truthful.
Q. And have you done that?
A. I have.
Q. Ms. Maistrello, you testified yesterday that Yvette Wang
asked you in your job interview whether you had any connections
to the CCP.  Do you remember that?
A. I do.
THE COURT:  Mr. Horton, if you would please bring the
microphone up closer to you.
MR. HORTON:  Yes, your Honor.
Q. After Yvette asked you if you had any connections to the
CCP, what was her response when you told her that you knew CCP
members when you were in China?
A. She said, oh, don't worry, I'm a party member too.
Q. And what did you understand Yvette to mean when she said
she was a party member?
A. I understood that she was a member of the party.
Q. And what, if anything, did Miles Guo say about Yvette being
a member of the CCP?
A. We didn't talk about that much, but sometimes he would joke
about it.
Q. And how would he joke about it?

670
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Redirect
A. Well, considering the fact that he was fighting against the
CCP, miles would bring up the joke and say, oh, you know,
Yvette, she's also a party member.
Q. You were asked questions today about whether you remembered
being chastised by Miles Guo.  Do you remember those questions?
A. I do.
Q. When, if ever, Ms. Maistrello, did Miles Guo chastise you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. And when, if ever, did Miles Guo chastise your colleagues?
MS. SHROFF:  Objection as to which colleagues.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I——I don't remember.
Q. Generally speaking, how did Miles Guo treat the people who
worked for him?
A. It highly depended on his mood, so when he was in a good
mood, he treated people kindly, when he was in a bad mood, then
less kindly.
Q. And what kinds of things would make him in a bad mood?
A. Things that were not being done like he wanted to.
Q. And what would happen when things weren't being done the
way Miles Guo wanted them to be done?
A. When things were done properly, then he was——he was happy.
Q. And what would happen when he was unhappy?
A. He would——he would usually yell.
Q. What kind of things would he say when he yelled?

671
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Redirect
A. That we're stupid, we don't know, we're incompetent.
Q. And how often did that happen?  
A. Quite often.
Q. How often, if ever, were people fired by Miles Guo?
A. Very often.
Q. And for what kinds of reasons?
A. Various reasons.  Sometimes he didn't like them, sometimes
he didn't like what they looked like or what they were wearing,
what they were doing.
Q. You testified, Ms. Maistrello, that you were involved with
Miles Guo's move to Connecticut in 2020.  Do you recall that?
A. I recall that.
Q. And you also testified that there were times you were told
to pay for things when you worked for Miles Guo; is that right?
MS. SHROFF:  Objection.  She was told.  That's not the
testimony.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. Yes.
Q. When, if ever, Ms. Maistrello, were you directed not to pay
for something?
A. It happened several times.  Yvette would tell me, we're not
satisfied with this, don't pay this vendor.
Q. How much did that move that you were involved in planning
to Miles Guo's home in Connecticut, how much did it cost?
A. Approximately 100,000.

672
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Redirect
Q. And what, if anything, were you told to do with that
$100,000 bill for the movers?
A. Initially I was——I was told not to pay it, then I was——I
was told to ask for discount.
Q. And why were you told not to pay the $100,000 bill?
MS. SHROFF:  I have a hearsay objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. What was your reaction when you were told not to pay the
bill?
MS. SHROFF:  Objection as to relevance.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I wanted to understand the reasons why I was asked that.
Q. Who told you not to pay that bill?
A. Yvette did.
Q. And what was the reason Yvette gave you for not paying the
hundred-thousand-dollar bill?
MS. SHROFF:  Objection to the hearsay.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. I was told that they did not a good job——they did not do a
good job, that some items were damaged during the move.
Q. And how did you react to being told to not pay that bill?
A. I knew that nothing was damaged because we had a team on
site supervising the movers, so I didn't really understand why
I was asked to——to do that.
Q. You testified that there were other times you were told not

673
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
to pay for things?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the reason, as you understood it, you were told
not to pay for things?
A. Reasons varied.  In general, I was told that we're not
satisfied with this vendor.
MR. HORTON:  May I have one moment, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. HORTON:  Thank you, your Honor.
Q. Ms. Maistrello, you were asked questions on
cross-examination about whether you knew the source of the
funds for Saraca and Golden Spring.  Do you remember that?
A. I do.
Q. What was the source of the funds that paid for N95 masks to
be sent to Miles Guo's home at the beginning of COVID?
A. That was Rule of Law organizations.
Q. And where did Rule of Law get its money from?
A. From donors.
MR. HORTON:  Nothing further.
THE COURT:  Recross, within the scope?
RECROSS EXAMINATION 
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. Tell us, would you, how does one become a member of the
Chinese Communist Party?
A. You are chosen by the party, so you're being contacted

674
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
directly by the party.  It usually happens when you're in
college or university.
Q. Right.  And it is the party that chooses the person to
become a member of the CCP, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. To become a member of the CCP, you have to be a Chinese
national, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You have to be chosen by the CCP, and you're normally
chosen at a young age, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection to scope, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. Correct.
Q. And Yvette was chosen as a young child——actually, not
child——as a teenager when she was then chosen to be a student
in a foreign country, correct?
A. I don't know at what age she was chosen.
Q. But you do know that she was chosen to be part of the CCP
and then allowed to study in the Sorbonne, in France, correct?
A. Those two things don't necessarily have a connection.  I
know that she studied in France, and I know that she is a party
member.
Q. Right.  And according to you, a person could not——actually,
I take that back.
There is no person that is able to say to the CCP, I

675
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
won't join your party, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Beyond the scope.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Isn't it fair to say that one would be at risk of harm if
one did not remain in the CCP party?
MR. HORTON:  Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
MS. SHROFF:  Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT:  Yes.
(Continued on next page)

676
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
(At the sidebar) 
MS. SHROFF:  They opened this door, your Honor, by
asking if Yvette is a member of the CCP.  There is clear
testimony, and this expert——this person would know that once
you are made a party member of the CCP, there's no withdrawing
from the CCP.  It's not a free organization where you say
bye-bye, I'm out.  Yvette would have had no choice in remaining
a member of the CCP.  I'm allowed to explore the misimpression
they have left that she had any connection to the CCP now,
meaning 2018, 2019, 2020, all throughout the indictment.  They
decided to do this on recross.  I am not being cumulative, I
hope, and it is——sorry.
THE COURT:  Why are you bringing out her CCP
membership?
MR. HORTON:  It completes the——it was a short
interview.  It was a fact that was——that Yvette provided her in
this limited information exchange.  That was one of the items.
And there was extensive cross examination about what
Ms. Maistrello did or didn't know about the organization.
MS. SHROFF:  I specifically did not touch her being a
member of the CCP.  It's all over the 3500 material.  I did not
touch it.  I did not touch it on cross.  There was no reason
for them to bring it up on redirect.  They have left this jury
with the impression that this woman now, and while being a
co-conspirator of Miles Guo, was with the CCP, because they

677
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
want to show that Miles Guo kept her employed and was close to
a member of the CCP party person and therefore, he could not be
anti-CCP, okay?  They opened this door.
THE COURT:  So then I'll let you ask a leading
question or two that gets us to the point where I would expect
her to say, no, you cannot be with the CCP.
MS. SHROFF:  I should be able to explore that Yvette
said to her what Yvette's position is, she is no longer
supportive of the CCP, because that's the impression they want
to leave them with.
THE COURT:  So then that makes two questions.
MS. SHROFF:  Well, it's a little bit longer, your
Honor, because I have to flesh out that——what it takes to get
out of the CCP.  Okay.  So you can't just say no to the CCP.
Once you're chosen, you have to remain.  There's no withdrawal
steps.  If you wanted to disavow the CCP, there are no steps to
disavow the CCP.
THE COURT:  Okay.  That's one question.
MS. SHROFF:  And that Yvette made very clear that she
was no longer now a member of the CCP.
THE COURT:  Two questions.
MS. SHROFF:  Well, that's three, but okay, I will try.
THE COURT:  Good.
(Continued on next page)

678
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
(In open court) 
MS. SHROFF:  May I continue, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may.
MS. SHROFF:  Thank you.
BY MS. SHROFF:  
Q. Once you're chosen to be a member of the CCP, you are not
allowed to withdraw from the CCP, correct?
A. I don't know whether you're allowed to withdraw.  I don't
know the law.  I don't know how that works.
Q. When Ms. Wang worked with Mr. Guo, she worked for causes
that were anti-CCP, correct?
A. Not entirely.
Q. Ms. Wang took steps that were supportive of the CCP,
according to you?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Sure.  Is it your testimony that Yanping Wang took steps
that were supportive of the dictatorship of the Chinese
Communist Party?
A. No.
Q. Okay.  So when she worked with Miles Guo, she worked on
causes that were anti-CCP, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well, tell me, what do you mean by "not necessarily"?

679
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
A. The job that she was doing was not necessarily anti-CCP.
She was doing her job, but she was not always a political
activist.
Q. Right.  She was not a political activist, but she was never
pro-CCP, correct?
A. She was never pro-CCP.
Q. Now you testified on redirect that you and your colleagues
were chastised by Mr. Guo, correct?
A. I said he could be tough.
Q. He yelled, you said, right?
A. He did.
Q. Called you stupid, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Called you incompetent, correct?
A. He did.
Q. He did that often, correct?
A. When he was mad.
Q. Right.  And when he walked around, he would just simply
yell, "Disaster, disaster," wherever he went, right?
A. I did not say that.
Q. Okay.  I didn't ask you if you said that.  I asked you if
you knew if he did that.
A. He did that sometimes.
Q. Right.  And when he did that, you were part and parcel of
the people that he was speaking toward, correct?

680
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
A. Sometimes I was, sometimes I wasn't.
Q. Okay.  And as a result of that, is that what led you to
quit, or was it your health, or was it both?
A. I quit for health reasons.
Q. Okay.  You testified about people he fired, right?
A. Yes.
Q. He never personally fired a single person, correct?
A. He gave directions to fire.
Q. You are aware of a single direction he gave to someone to
get another person fired?  You have personal knowledge of that?
A. Yes.
Q. Really.  Who?
A. You want to know who he asked to fire, who was fired?
What's your question?
Q. No, I'm asking you who you are aware he told to get fired.
I'm asking about your personal knowledge, not what you heard
from others.
A. He told me to fire some people.
Q. Did you fire them?
A. I did.
Q. You had the authority to fire people.
A. If Boss asked me to, yes.
Q. Okay.  Who did you fire?
A. Several people.
Q. Who?

681
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
A. Do you want the names?
Q. Sure.
A. I don't remember the names.  I remember the roles.
Q. You don't remember the names of people you fired from a
job?
A. I don't.
Q. Okay.  You talked about the move to Connecticut costing a
hundred thousand dollars, correct?
A. Approximately.
Q. Right.  You didn't pay that bill, right?
A. I did not.
Q. You had no authority ever to allow any payment, correct?
A. When I was asked to pay, I would pay.
Q. No.  When you were asked to pay, you would go to Yvette,
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Argumentative.
THE COURT:  Would you clarify your question, please.
Q. When you were asked to pay a bill, you would have to send
the bill to either Max Krasner or Yvette, correct?
THE COURT:  Are you referring to all bills?
MS. SHROFF:  Yes, all bills.
A. It depended on the amount.
Q. Right.  And an amount of a hundred thousand dollars, you
could not pay, correct?
A. That's correct.

682
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
Q. You testified that you were told not to pay a bill because
somebody was unhappy with a vendor, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And you do not know sitting here today who that
vendor was, right?
A. I do.
Q. Really?  Who was the vendor?
MR. HORTON:  Objection to the "really" in the
questions, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Yes.  If you'd leave out the "really."
Q. Who was the vendor?
A. The movers.
Q. What's the name?
A. Moving company.  Broadway.
Q. Broadway Movers.  Your testimony is Broadway Movers were
not paid; is that your testimony?
A. My testimony is that Broadway Movers were the movers.
Q. Okay.  Were they paid?
A. Ultimately, I don't know.
Q. So you don't know if they were ultimately paid.  So I'm
assuming you don't know how much it is that they were quibbling
about in terms of destruction of the property that was being
moved, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Object to the form of that question, your
Honor.

683
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
THE COURT:  Are you asking whether she knows what
discount amount was requested?
MS. SHROFF:  Yes.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Wasn't your furniture, right?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Sure.  The furniture that was being moved was not your
furniture, right?
A. No.
Q. Well, you don't know if the furniture had sentimental
value, correct?
A. I know it did.
Q. So the furniture that was damaged had sentimental value and
that's why there was a conversation about not paying the
vendor; is that your testimony?
A. I know that no furniture was damaged.
Q. Did you inspect it?
A. Personally, I didn't.
Q. Did you see it?
A. I was not there.
Q. In fact, you don't even know what furniture they're talking
about, correct?
A. I do know that.
Q. What furniture was it?
A. I had a pdf document with hundreds of pages of furniture.

684
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
Q. And which of those hundreds of pages of furniture was
damaged; do you recall?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay.  Fair to say you didn't examine a single piece of
furniture on that hundreds of pages of document, correct?
A. I was not present during the move.
Q. Right.  And you just made a value judgment and decided the
vendors should have in fact paid, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. My colleagues who were present at the moves told me that
nothing was damaged.
Q. My question to you was——and let me repeat it——you made a
value judgment without ever inspecting the damaged furniture,
correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.  Sustained.
Q. You testified that Rule of Law Society paid for the N95
masks, correct?
A. One of the Rule of Law organizations.
Q. Which one?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember at all which organization, correct?
MR. HORTON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  All right.  So ask the question only once.

685
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Maistrello - Recross
Don't repeat the question.
Q. You don't even remember how much the dollar amount was,
right?
A. I do not.
Q. You met with these prosecutors several times, correct?
A. I did.
Q. And not once did you look up that dollar amount, right?
A. No.
MS. SHROFF:  I have nothing further.
THE COURT:  All righty.  I assume there's no
re-redirect?
MR. HORTON:  Nothing further.
THE COURT:  Good.  Okay.  So you may step out.  Thank
you.
(Witness excused) 
THE COURT:  And the prosecution can call its next
witness.
MR. FERGENSON:  The government calls Patrick Chin,
your Honor.
THE LAW CLERK:  Please raise your right hand and bring
the mic close to you.
(Witness sworn) 
THE LAW CLERK:  Please be seated and bring the mic
close to your mouth.
THE COURT:  Sir, if you would state your name and

686
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
spell it, and make sure that you speak up.
THE WITNESS:  My name is Patrick Chin.  Last name is
C-H-I-N.
THE COURT:  And your first name.
THE WITNESS:  Oh, I'm sorry.  P-A-T-R-I-C-K, Patrick.
THE COURT:  So I need you to bring the microphone
closer and I need you to speak louder.
THE WITNESS:  Okay.
THE COURT:  You may inquire.
MR. FERGENSON:  Thank you, your Honor.
 PATRICK CHIN, 
     called as a witness by the Government, 
     having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 
DIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. FERGENSON:  
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Chin.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. What state do you live in?
A. I live in Texas.
Q. What do you do for work?
A. I work on semiconductor material.
Q. What kind of work do you do with semiconductor material?
A. We make specialized semiconductor research for various
customers.
Q. Mr. Chin, do you know who Miles Guo is?

687
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you know who he is?
A. I ran into his——one of his YouTube videos, I think back in
2017.
Q. Were you ever a follower of Miles Guo?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did you ever invest in things Miles Guo promoted?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are you still a follower of Miles Guo today?
A. I am not.
Q. We'll come back to that, Mr. Chin.
Mr. Chin, where were you born?
A. I was born in Taiwan.
Q. And for how long did you live in Taiwan?
A. 24 years, between 1964 to 1988.
Q. And why was your family in Taiwan when you were growing up?
A. Both my parents' families originally were in mainland
China, and they moved to Taiwan after the Communist revolution.
Q. What was the Communist revolution, Mr. Chin?
A. I think after the second war, world war, there was a——a
civil war between Communist party, Chinese Communist Party and
the ruling government, and eventually the Communist party
pushed the previous Republic of China government to Taiwan.
Q. Mr. Chin, why did your parents' families leave mainland
China at the time of the rise of the Communist party, or the

688
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
CCP?
A. Yes.  During the revolution, on my father's side, my
grandfather and several uncles were brutally murdered during
the Communism——Communist rise-up, so my father was able to
escape and eventually move to Taiwan.
And on my mother's side, that's a different part of
China.  They were also farmers, landowners, and teachers, so
they were also terrorized by the Communist uprising, so they
also moved to Taiwan.
Q. Mr. Chin, are you yourself pro- or anti-CCP?
A. I am anti-CCP.
Q. Why are you anti-CCP?
A. First of all, based on my parents' families' experience and
also growing up in Taiwan in the '60s and '70s, the whole
climate is strongly anti-CCP.
Q. Now where did you move to after growing up in Taiwan,
Mr. Chin?
A. I moved to California to attend grad school in 1988.
THE COURT:  Where did you go?
THE WITNESS:  School?
THE COURT:  Yes.
THE WITNESS:  University of California San Diego.
Q. What were you studying at UC San Diego, Mr. Chin?
A. It's electrical engineering department.
Q. And what, if any, degree did you receive from UC San Diego?

689
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. I completed my PhD degree.
Q. Mr. Chin, since coming to the United States in your early
20s, have you lived in this country since then?
A. I've been living and working in the US from 1988 till 2008.
Q. And in 2008, where did you go then?
A. I took a job opportunity in Taiwan and moved to Taiwan.
Q. And how long did you stay in Taiwan then?
A. I spent ten years there.
Q. And after those ten years, where did you move next,
Mr. Chin?
A. I took another job opportunity in 2018——2018, and relocated
back to the US, in Texas.
Q. And have you been here since?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Chin, you mentioned this earlier, but remind us, when
did you first learn about Miles Guo?
A. I ran into his——one of the YouTube videos, and he discussed
an incidence of his interview being cut off by Voice of
America.
Q. You said Voice of America.  For the jury, what is Voice of
America, Mr. Chin?
A. My understanding is the Voice of America is a broadcast or
media company.  Even growing up in Taiwan, we heard Voice of
America's broadcast in both English and Chinese.  We used——I
learned some English listening to Voice of America.

690
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
Q. And you said the video you watched where you learned about
Miles Guo related to Voice of America; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And what did Miles Guo say in that video about what had
happened with Voice of America?
A. Apparently he had an interview with Voice of America but
that interview was cut short on air abruptly, so he——he claims,
in his later video, that it's because Voice of America was
pressurized, pressured, or——by——by the CCP, so he cannot
continue his interview.
Q. And I apologize if you said this already, Mr. Chin, but
approximately what year was it that you watched this video?
A. It's 2017 or 2018, thereabouts.
Q. And what effect, if any, did watching this video and
hearing Miles Guo's claim have on you?
A. To have a live interview cut short like that is——I think
it's a very significant event, and so that seemed to add some
credibility to his claim that Voice of America——Voice of
America may have been influenced.
Q. After watching that initial video, Mr. Chin, how often, if
at all, did you start watching Miles Guo's videos?
A. I started following his YouTube video posts, just tried to
listen more and more what he has to say, and also later
followed his Twitter account.
Q. Did you read G News?

691
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. G News was later platform he——he formed, I think.
Q. And did you read G News ever?
A. I have.
Q. Mr. Chin, did there come a time when you began volunteering
as a Miles Guo supporter?
A. Yeah.  There are many followers and——of his videos, and I
think it's at the beginning of the COVID, because there is——it
was really chaotic all over the world, and we——many
followers——he talked about COVID a lot too, and many followers
felt that the information coming out of China and going into
China are very——are not transparent, so many of us, the
followers, basically volunteered that, yes, we can do some
translation of the news from the credible US sources, outside
of China, and send those information back into China.
Q. And Mr. Chin, what kind of volunteer work did you yourself
do?
A. Just translate news articles and the information from, say,
John Hopkins Hospital, related COVID information.
Q. And Mr. Chin, I'll just ask you, just for everyone's
benefit, if you could raise your voice, if you can.
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.
So Mr. Chin, when you were doing this volunteer
translation work, who, if anyone, were you working with?
A. I have worked with several loosely organized small groups,

692
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
but the later——eventually the bigger group, I spend most of
time with is a person named David.
Q. What was David's last name?
A. At that time we didn't know, but later, we learned that his
last name was Dai, D-A-I.
Q. Where was David located?
A. He apparently was located in UK.
Q. What was David's role in this group?
A. He is presumed the leader of this group.
Q. And the group you were working with, did it have a name?
A. There was a name roughly translate to Fighting Hawk or
Fighting Eagle.
Q. Why was it called Fighting Hawk or Fighting Eagle?
A. I assume because Miles Guo always have an eagle as his logo
on his T-shirt or cap.
Q. Was this group, Mr. Chin, a farm?
A. In the beginning, it was not.
Q. Were you ever a farm member yourself?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Now, Mr. Chin, you testified you began following Miles Guo
on social media and you watched his videos, right?
A. Correct.
Q. What was your impression, if any, of Miles Guo's wealth?
A. He portrayed himself as a very wealthy person.
Q. And why did you have that impression?

693
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. Just by all the setup, his luxury——luxury apartment, yacht,
and the cars, so on, so forth.
Q. What sorts of things, if any, would he say about his
wealth?
A. He claimed that he made his wealth in China doing either
construction or land development and made his money.
Q. And you mentioned his apartment.  What, if anything, did he
say about how much his apartment cost?
A. He has mentioned the purchasing process of that apartment
in New York.  I——I recall a number like $80 million.
Q. You also mentioned his yacht.  What, if anything, did he
say about the quality of his yacht?
A. His yacht is——was shown in his video constantly.  It's a
very big yacht, and he has been bragging about the build, the
interior, the exterior of that yacht constantly.
Q. When you would watch him in his broadcasts, what sorts of
clothes would he be wearing, typically?
A. He usually wears very nicely tailored suit, and sometimes
he would be doing exercising, but, yeah, he usually wears nice
suits.
Q. And what, if anything, did Guo say about his clothing?
A. He would also brag that his suits were made by famous
tailor.  I don't recall the name.
Q. Mr. Chin, at the time you were following Miles Guo and
watching these videos, did you believe he was very wealthy?

694
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. At the time, yes, I did.
Q. Mr. Chin, are you familiar with the Rule of Law
organizations?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the Rule of Law organizations?
A. At a certain time, Miles——
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
Q. Mr. Chin, what were the Rule of Law organizations?  You can
answer that question.
A. At certain time, Miles declared the establishment of
the——establishment of Rule of Law Foundation.  His claim was
that he would be using this money to help the
pro——pro-democracy group or people from China, or in China.
Q. What, if anything, did Guo say about donating his own money
to Rule of Law Foundation?
A. I recall he mentioned that his family will donate a large
sum of money to this foundation.
Q. Do you recall how much?
A. I recall a number like 100 million.
Q. Now, Mr. Chin, you said you had the impression he was very
wealthy at this time, right?  
A. Yes.
Q. At that time, did you believe Guo could donate a hundred
million dollars to the Rule of Law Foundation?

695
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. At the time, based on his claims, I did believe that.
Q. Did you donate to the Rule of Law Foundation, Mr. Chin?
A. This foundation, over time I made several small donations.
Q. And about how much in total did you donate to the Rule of
Law Foundation?
A. Several hundred dollars, 200-some dollars.
Q. Now in addition to those donations, Mr. Chin, did there
come a time when you invested in certain opportunities promoted
by Miles Guo?
A. Yes.  Later, there were two——two claimed investment
opportunities, I did donate.
Q. And approximately when did you donate?
A. When.  20——early 2020.
Q. And do you recall around what month?
A. It's——it should be May; April or May.
Q. Now, Mr. Chin, what opportunities did you invest in?
A. These are two.  He claims that he will form a——a platform,
social platform, media platform to——to further broadcast news
to——that is uninfluenced by outside power, to send those news
to China.
Q. What was the name of that platform?
A. It's——it's GTV.
Q. And did you try to invest in GTV?
A. At the time he claimed that GTV is for large investors
only, more than hundred thousand-ish as a minimum.  So for

696
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
small——small investors, he created different route to——to
invest.
Q. And Mr. Chin, how much did you invest in GTV?
A. That's $10,000.
Q. And you said that there was a $100,000 limit; is that
right?
A. Yes, he claimed that those are for invited special
investors.  
Q. So where did you send your $10,000 investment in GTV?
A. That 10,000, together with other followers, or investors,
were sent to——to an entity called Voice of Guo, Voice of Guo
Media or Voice of Guo.  It's a bank account in Arizona.
MR. FERGENSON:  Ms. Loftus, could we please show the
witness what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit
VC11.
Q. Mr. Chin, is this the bank information where you sent your
money?
A. Correct.
MR. FERGENSON:  Government offers Government Exhibit
VC11.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  It is admitted.
(Government's Exhibit VC11 received in evidence) 
MR. FERGENSON:  Ms. Loftus, could we please publish.
BY MR. FERGENSON:

697
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
Q. All right.  Now, Mr. Chin, you said this is the bank
account where you sent your $10,000 investment in GTV; is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. Why did you send your GTV investment to Voice of Guo?
A. It was——well, we were told that small investors cannot
invest directly to GTV, we need to pool our money together
through the VOG, Voice of Guo account.
Q. And who told you to pool money and send it to Voice of Guo?
A. From Miles Guo himself on his videos and also from a lady
named Sara Wei.
Q. Who is Sara Wei?
A. She is one of the early avid supporters of Miles Guo.
Q. And what connection, if any, did she have to Voice of Guo
media?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.
THE COURT:  If you know, you may answer.
A. I received this instruction from Sara's email.
MR. FERGENSON:  Ms. Loftus, if we could show just the
witness what's marked as Government Exhibit VC9.
Q. Mr. Chin, is this another document you received from Sara
Wei?
A. Correct.
MR. FERGENSON:  The government offers Government
Exhibit VC9.

698
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  It is admitted.
(Government's Exhibit VC9 received in evidence) 
Q. Mr. Chin, could you please read what's stated at the top of
this document.
A. "Know all men by these——"
Q. Oh, I'm sorry.  The bold text at the very top.
A. Okay.  Limited Purpose Agency Agreement.
Q. And what was your understanding of what this document was,
Mr. Chin?
A. At the time it is a contract of this investment.
Q. Between you and who?
A. And VOG, Voice of Guo, Sara's account.
Q. And did you sign this document?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you ever receive a countersigned copy of this document?
A. I have not.
MR. FERGENSON:  Ms. Loftus, we can take that down.
Thank you.
Q. Mr. Chin, what was your understanding of what was supposed
to happen with the $10,000 you sent to VOG?
A. The understanding was this money will be pooled together to
meet the threshold, a hundred thousand, to be able to invest in
GTV.
Q. And why did you want to invest in GTV, Mr. Chin?

699
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. At the time, while busy working on translating documents,
and it was claimed that GTV will become a——a new social
platform, social media platform or media platform, to transfer
information.
Q. And what reasons did you want to invest with your own money
into what you understood GTV would be, Mr. Chin?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. It's being repeatedly claimed that this new social or media
platform will also do well through——through advertisement to
make——make profit.
Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about the return on
your investment in GTV, Mr. Chin?
A. He threw out very large numbers, many, many volumes of
return.
Q. And at the time when you invested in GTV, did you believe
Miles Guo?
A. At that time I did believe there's a chance of return.
Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about the risk of the
GTV investment?
A. The risk has been really downplayed, minimal.
Q. And what, if anything, did he say about why that was?
A. Just——just that his claim that this will be a——a——one of
the only media that is not affected by CCP so it will be——the
voice of most Chinese people will be used.

700
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
Q. And at the time did you believe Miles Guo that there was
not a lot of risk in this investment?
A. At the time I did believe that.
Q. Mr. Chin, before 2020, had you participated in stock
investments?
A. Stock, yes.
Q. And in 2020 did you have a financial advisor?
A. I had a financial advisor to my retirement account but not
brokerage account.
Q. Would you describe yourself as a sophisticated investor?
A. No.
Q. Had you ever participated in a private placement?
A. No.
Q. What, if anything, did Guo say about who could participate
in private placements?
A. Private placement.  It appeared to be a selective group.
You have to be invited, and you need to make a large sum of
investment.  There is a large minimum.
Q. Was it your impression that normally unsophisticated
investors could participate in something like a private
placement?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about who could
typically participate in a private placement?

701
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Mr. Chin, what time limit, if any, was there on your
participating in this private placement?
A. At the time it was——we were told that this opportunity
window was closing up soon so people who wants to participate
need to act quickly, within that month-ish time period,
March——April, May-ish time.
Q. Mr. Chin, had you ever invested in a hedge fund?
A. I have not.
Q. In his broadcasts, what, if anything, did Miles Guo say
about sending GTV investor funds to a hedge fund?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.  Which broadcasts?
MR. FERGENSON:  Any broadcasts.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. He has never mentioned reinvesting to hedge fund.
Q. If you had known that Miles Guo was sending GTV investor
funds to a hedge fund, would you have invested in GTV?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.  Lack of foundation.  We
dealt with this yesterday, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
Q. Mr. Chin, if you had known that Miles Guo was sending GTV
investor funds to a hedge fund, would you have invested in GTV?
A. Most likely, no, because I was pretty simple mind that this
money will be used to build the platform, not reinvest.

702
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
Q. Now, Mr. Chin, what ended up happening to your money sent
to VOG?
A. Because I did not receive any return reply or receipt from
VOG, after asking them couple times through email, I had my
suspicion, and also some other followers who will have left the
group also alarmed me that this may be a scam.  So I contacted
my bank, which wired the money to Wells Fargo, and the bank
investor contacted Wells Fargo, and within a couple weeks,
Wells Fargo was able to intercept that wire and return that
$10,000 to me.
Q. So ultimately you received the $10,000 you sent back from
the bank.
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Chin, about how soon after you had sent the money to
VOG did you contact the bank about fraud?
A. Maybe two weeks-ish.  No more than a month.  Two weeks.
Yes.
Q. Mr. Chin, was this $10,000 transfer to VOG your only Miles
Guo-related investment?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection to form.
THE COURT:  Overruled.
Q. Did you invest in other Miles Guo opportunities, Mr. Chin?
A. Yes, there was another one called a G dollar.
Q. How much did you invest in G dollar?
A. It's also $10,000.

703
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
Q. And around what time did you invest in G dollar?
A. About the same day or the next day of the——these two
investments were wired——were wired.
Q. At that time, Mr. Chin, what did you understand G dollar to
be?
A. At the time there are——I heard some claims also by Miles
that this money will be used to——to build a cryptocurrency or
purchase precious metals as a foundation of the movement.
Q. When you say precious metals, what sorts of things?
A. Gold.  He mentioned that quite often.  
Q. Mr. Chin, where did you send your G dollar money?
A. This was sent to a Capital One bank account located in New
York.
MR. FERGENSON:  Ms. Loftus, could we please show
marked exhibits to the witness——just the witness——Government
Exhibits VC7 and VC8, please.
Q. Mr. Chin, what are these exhibits?
A. This is wiring instruction the followers get from a web
link.
MR. FERGENSON:  Government offers Government Exhibits
VC7 and 8.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  They are admitted.
(Government's Exhibits VC7 and VC8 received in 
evidence)

704
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
MR. FERGENSON:  And could we publish, please,
Ms. Loftus.
BY MR. FERGENSON:  
Q. Now, Mr. Chin, you said these were wire instructions sent
to followers on a web link; is that right?
A. Correct.
MR. FERGENSON:  Ms. Loftus——
Q. I want to focus you first on the one on the left, Mr. Chin.
MR. FERGENSON:  Could we blow that one up, Ms. Loftus.
Q. All right.  Now, Mr. Chin, at the very top it says G Dollar
Preorder.  Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the bank account name listed beneath that?
A. Bank account name.  That's GTV Media Group.
Q. And do you know, Mr. Chin, why G dollar money was sent to
GTV?
A. At the time this was——I don't think this was clearly
defined because everything was promoted by——both entities were
promoted by——by Miles himself, so it's all related to GTV.
MR. FERGENSON:  And you can zoom out, Ms. Loftus.
And if we could zoom on the one on the right.
Q. All right.  Now this one says mail the check.  Who is the
payee, Mr. Chin?
A. Payee will be GTV Media Group, Inc.
Q. All right.  And then do you see the text about halfway or a

705
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
little lower that says tip, how much G dollar will receive?  Do
you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there's a chart beneath that.  Do you see the
chart, Mr. Chin?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you please explain what's shown in the chart.  
A. It appears that you buy more, you get more.  You buy——you
pay more than a hundred, you get 120.
MR. FERGENSON:  Thank you, Ms. Loftus.  We can take
this down for now.
Q. Mr. Chin, at the time you sent your $10,000 for G dollars,
what was happening in the news with respect to cryptocurrency
at that time?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection to form.
THE COURT:  If you'll step up.
(Continued on next page)

706
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
(At the sidebar) 
THE COURT:  What was happening in the news?
MR. FERGENSON:  Yes, your Honor.  It's relevant to the
promotion of cryptocurrencies at the time.  The witness is
going to testify that at that time, cryptocurrency was booming
in the news, it was sort of the hot new fad.  He's not going to
say those exact words.  I'm sort of editorializing a little
bit.  I believe the only objection was to form, your Honor, not
relevance.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Because it is an improper question to
ask the witness what was happening generally in the news about
any topic, let alone cryptocurrency.  If you're asking
particular questions of this witness, maybe——
MR. FERGENSON:  I can ask him, what information were
you reading about cryptocurrency.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Even that, I don't know what relevance
the promotions of other cryptocurrencies has to this particular
case.
MR. FERGENSON:  He's just going to say there was a lot
of information about cryptocurrency and the coin was like, you
know, booming, it was part of why he invested.
MR. KAMARAJU:  I'm still not sure——
THE COURT:  You can ask him what motivated him to buy
this investment.
MR. FERGENSON:  Okay.

707
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
THE COURT:  Okay.
(In open court) 
THE COURT:  Sustained.
BY MR. FERGENSON:  
Q. Mr. Chin, in addition to Miles Guo's statements, what, if
anything, motivated you to buy G dollars at that time?
A. Generally to still support this movement and also the claim
of potential return.
Q. Had you ever invested in a cryptocurrency before?
A. I have not.
Q. What, if anything, did Guo say about the risk of investing
in G dollars?
A. Also very much downplayed, basically just referred to
the——to the success of other cryptocurrency, that this will not
fail.
Q. And Mr. Chin, what happened to the money you sent to GTV
for G dollars?
A. Same as the other wire.  I didn't receive any receipt.  So
when I contacted my bank, I reported both——both wiring, so they
also contacted Capital One Bank, but Capital One Bank said the
money has been deposited or withdrawn so that money was not
returned, at that time.
Q. Did you get any cryptocurrencies for that $10,000?
A. I didn't receive anything.
Q. Did you get a receipt?

708
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
A. No.
Q. Ultimately, Mr. Chin, did you get any refund of that money?
A. Couple years later, through security exchange fair fund,
they eventually returned all the investors some of this money.
Q. You said Securities & Exchange.  What are you referring to
there?  
A. The SEC.
Q. The SEC?
A. Yes.
Q. The money that was returned to you through the SEC, did you
get a 100 percent refund or less than 100 percent?
A. Everyone received 92 some percent.
Q. Did Miles Guo pay back the missing 8 percent?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Chin, you've discussed reporting to your banks and
trying to reverse your investments.  What caused you to have
doubts about your investments?
A. First of all, you don't——I didn't receive any even receipt,
so that's——that's the biggest alarm; and then meanwhile, there
are more and more people who have left the team before I did.
We also talked to each other, and they start to give me warning
that this is probably becoming a scam.
Q. What effect did that have on you?
A. I was——I——I feel all the good intention, not myself, many
people were abused, that we tried to support a pro-democracy

709
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Direct
movement or transparency of information to Chinese people, but
we were scammed.
Q. You said other people warned you.  Can you please describe
why you think other people's warnings played a role in your
doubts.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection to form and hearsay.
MR. FERGENSON:  It's for its effect, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. My feeling right now is, it's like other cult, right?  When
you were——when you believe that, you believe the leader and you
cannot ask questions, but then some people who, quote-unquote,
wake up were able to have that effect on me, yeah.
Q. You used the phrase "wake up."  Why do you use that phrase,
"wake up"?
A. That's how I feel because after I left the group, I feel
very relieved.
Q. Who was the leader of——who is the ultimate leader of this
group, Mr. Chin?
A. Miles Guo.
Q. Mr. Chin, for people who were still in the group, what, if
anything, did those people say about people who left the group?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
THE WITNESS:  May I?
THE COURT:  Go ahead.

710
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
A. Okay.  When, in the beginning, there were few people who
left, and they were very quickly labeled as traitor or CCP
spies.  At the time it's very shocking, but it seems
believable.  But as more and more people left and more and more
people were labeled as CCP, CCP spies, that became not very
reasonable.  Yeah.  And it is almost against his original
intent of a democracy movement, pro-democracy movement, because
people seems to——people cannot have different voice in the
team, in the group.
Q. Mr. Chin, at the time when you were a believer, what did
you think you were a part of?
A. I tried to focus myself just on the translation job,
collecting news, medical information, and try to translate
that, and I think on a small part, at the small part of a
bigger movement of pro-democracy movement.
Q. Looking back now, what do you think you were actually a
part of?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. Right now I believe that was very elaborate scam.
MR. FERGENSON:  Could I have a moment, your Honor.
No further questions.
THE COURT:  Cross-examination.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Yes.  Thank you, your Honor.

711
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
CROSS EXAMINATION 
BY MR. KAMARAJU:  
Q. Mr. Chin, since we've been having some problems with the
mic, can you hear me?
A. Yes, I can hear you.
Q. Okay.  Thank you.
Good afternoon.
A. Yes.
Q. So I'd like to start where you started with the
prosecutors, I believe.
You talked about your family moving to Taiwan,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the result of atrocities committed as part of
the Communist revolution in China, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you said that was because there was
infighting among the Communist party, right?
A. It has been called a civil war.
Q. Okay.  A civil war.  So a dispute, an internal conflict,
right?
A. Within China, yeah.
Q. And one set of members of the Communist party did not want
to release the other set from their group, right?
A. Can you say that again.

712
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
Q. Sure.  Let me try it this way.  Very difficult to leave the
Chinese Communist Party, correct?
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  You may answer.  Go ahead.
A. From what I've learned, it seems that way.
Q. Okay.  And you said that——and I apologize if I got this
wrong, so please correct me, but you mentioned that there was a
government that moved to Taiwan, correct?
A. The government before 1949 was Republic of China, and that
government right now is in Taiwan.
Q. Okay.  So the government that existed in China before 1949
now exists in Taiwan.
A. Correct.
Q. All right.  So it's an alternate government to the Chinese
Communist Party that runs mainland China, correct?
A. That becomes the politics.
Q. I'm just asking your understanding, sir.
A. It's current government ruling——controlling or ruling
Taiwan.
Q. Okay.  But that government that resides in Taiwan believes
it's the legitimate government of China, right?
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection, your Honor.  He can't
testify to what that government believes.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Okay.  Let me ask, is that your understanding, sir?

713
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
A. No.  Not right now.  In the past, probably.
Q. Okay.  That's fine.
THE COURT:  Who is the leader of the enemy of the
Communist party in the 1940s?  What was the name of the leader?
THE WITNESS:  That would be Chiang Kai-shek.
THE COURT:  And did he go to Taiwan?
THE WITNESS:  He went to Taiwan.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. KAMARAJU:  
Q. Now you mentioned, I believe, that you first came across
Mr. Guo on YouTube; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. That was in 2017, correct?
A. Roughly, yes.
Q. Okay.  And the first thing you saw about Mr. Guo was about
a Voice of America interview he had done, right?
A. Not the interview itself.  He mentioned, discussing that
interview.
Q. Right.  It was a video discussing the Voice of America
interview, correct, just to be clear?
A. Correct.
Q. And you said that he claimed that the Chinese Communist
Party had cut off the interview, right?
A. He claimed that the Voice of America cut it off due to the

714
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
influence of CCP.
Q. Okay.  And are you using the word "claimed" because you're
skeptical of that?
A. I couldn't verify that, right?
Q. Okay.  Because you have no evidence one way or the other
about that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And you have no way of knowing, correct?
A. No.
Q. Not then and not now, right?
A. Right now there actually are more information out, but
again, I cannot verify myself.
Q. Right.  So you have no idea if there is an effort by the
Chinese Communist Party to silence Mr. Guo, correct?
MR. FERGENSON:  Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Now I think you mentioned that——I'm not referring to the
Mr. Guo interview, but previously——you had been able to see
Voice of America in Taiwan, correct?
A. Not see; only listening to shortwave radio.
Q. Okay.  Was it difficult to access Voice of America in
Taiwan?
A. Not in Taiwan.
Q. Okay.  How about mainland China?
A. Difficult.

715
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
Q. Why is that?
A. I've heard that it's illegal to listen to outside
broadcasts in mainland China.
Q. And when you say outside broadcasts, does that apply to
social media as well?
A. When I grew up, there was no social media.  These are just
words, just radio broadcasts.
Q. Okay.  So the censorship has been going on for a long time
then, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  And that was one of the ideas behind G——apologies.
That was one of the ideas behind GTV, according to
your understanding, correct?
A. At the time that it was the claim, yes, and I believed
that.
Q. And that was based on the idea of breaking through
something called "the great firewall of China," correct?
A. I've heard that claim, yes.
Q. What does the phrase "the great firewall of China" mean?
A. My——my——I have limited understanding in that part of the
technology, but generally it's censorship.
Q. Okay.  Censorship by who?
A. By CCP.
Q. Okay.  And so GTV was intended to break through that?
A. That was the claim.

716
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
Q. Okay.  And that claim seemed reasonable to you?
A. At the time I——I believed that.
Q. Okay.  Did you have any idea how GTV was going to
accomplish that goal?
A. No.  That was never clearly explained.
Q. Okay.  So right now I'm not asking what was explained; I'm
just asking whether you had any belief as to how that was going
to happen.
A. No.  I wouldn't know, no.
Q. You've met with the prosecutors before, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  On several occasions, right?
A. Remote meeting, yes.
Q. Yeah.  Whether remote or in person, you've met with them on
a number of occasions, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And there were FBI agents there, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And there was somebody taking notes, right?
A. In remote meeting, I couldn't tell.
Q. How about the in-person meetings?
A. I did not see them taking notes.
Q. Okay.  So you didn't observe anybody taking notes.  But
isn't it true that you told the prosecutors that you thought
that GTV could break through the great firewall of China using

717
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
satellite technology?
A. No, I have not said that.
Q. So you never mentioned Starlink to them?
A. No.
Q. And so if there were notes reflecting that, those notes
would be wrong, sir; is that your testimony?
A. Satellite and Starlink, no.
Q. Now when you were talking about the money that you sent to
Ms. Wei, you referred to it as Voice of Guo or Voice of Guo
Media, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.  Guo Media is a social media company, correct?
A. Guo Media claimed to want to do social media.  Social media
platform was never built.  It's just a name, Guo Media.  That's
my understanding.
Q. So it's your testimony that Guo Media never actually
broadcast anything?
A. No.  Guo——
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection, your Honor.  That wasn't
the testimony.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer.
A. Guo Media never broadcast anything.  All the broadcast by
Miles or by Sara, I'm not sure Guo Media label was put up there
as Guo Media, but everyone know it came from the same person.
Q. Well, the reason why I asked you is because you testified,

718
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3                 Chin - Cross
I believe, that he claimed that Guo Media was a social media
company, correct?
A. Guo——Guo Media is a social company?  My recollection, he
claimed that Guo Media will build a social platform, but that's
that.
Q. Okay.  And that's the same claim you say that he made with
respect to GTV, correct?
A. Those names have been used interchangeably by him and
others, was not clearly defined what Guo Media, what GTV.  It
was not clearly strictly defined.  That's my recollection.
Q. Okay.  I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to interrupt.  So when you
invested money in 2020, in May of 2020, did you think you were
investing in Guo Media?
A. At the time the money was sent to Voice of Guo account and
supposedly this will be pooled together to meet the hundred-K
threshold to be able to invest in the——however that is that's
going to be Guo Media, yes. 
(Continued on next page)

719
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
BY MR. KAMARAJU:  
Q. Okay.  So the $10,000 that you sent to Ms. Wei, you
intended for that to be invested in Guo Media, that's your
testimony?
A. That's what we were told, that this money will go where
this money will go.
Q. Okay.  Now, we've talked about Ms. Wei for a little bit.
You don't have a very high opinion of her; correct?
A. She was a early strong supporter, seems to be, and later I
stopped listen to her.
Q. You don't think she's very bright, right?
A. That's all personal opinion.  
THE WITNESS:  Do I have to answer?
THE COURT:  Yeah, you can answer whether you think
she's bright or not.
A. I don't think she's highly educated.
Q. In fact, you've told the prosecutors that she is
incompetent; correct?
A. I don't think I told the prosecutors she's incompetent.
She's not -- I cannot recall if I used that word, but --
Q. Okay.  Let's put to the side whether you used that specific
word.  Did you express to them any word that suggested to them
that you thought she was incompetent?
A. Any word.  I don't think I can recall exactly.
Q. Now, sir, during your testimony on direct you repeatedly

720
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
referred to things that you believe Mr. Guo said; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You have never spoken personally with Mr. Guo, right?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Okay.  So he didn't say those things to you, right?
A. Not to me personally.
Q. So where did you hear them?
A. Where do I hear?
Q. Where did you hear them?
A. Mostly Twitter and YouTube.
Q. Like Twitter posts or what?  
A. Twitter posts.
Q. So like typed-out Twitter posts?
A. Video, mostly video post.
Q. Okay.  Which videos?
A. He has post many, many videos.
Q. Okay.  Tell me the video where he downplayed the risk of
the GTV investment?
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You may answer, if you know.
A. I have them in my record.  I cannot name the date right
now, but there are -- there was a video he said that the money
will grow quickly.
Q. What did he say specifically, sir?
A. In one of the video that I can recall, he said the money

721
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
has grown so much in the past few days.  And once it's open up
to more investor.  This will grow tremendously, very large
numbers.
Q. Okay.  In which video did he promise really high returns?
A. In his video, he would be promising hundreds or even more,
higher number for the return.
Q. Which video?
A. Again, the video that have translated for the -- for the
team.
Q. Okay.  But the prosecutors didn't ask you about that
specific video, right?
A. While the early email communication I have forwarded a few
links to the investigator.
Q. Okay.  But during your testimony in this courtroom, the
prosecutor didn't show you any of those statements, right?
A. During this court, in this --
THE COURT:  When the prosecutor was asking you
questions, did he show you videos, just now?
THE WITNESS:  Show video, no, no video.
Q. Now, you testified on direct that you believed that -- you
believed Mr. Guo's statements about getting higher returns;
correct?
A. At the time, yes.
Q. Okay.  Isn't it true that during your very first meeting
with the prosecutors, you told them that you thought that his

722
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
predictions of returns were ridiculous?
A. He claimed that everyone will be able to own a yacht like
that.  That's obviously ridiculous.  I didn't believe that.
Q. Okay.  So you didn't believe that everybody would be able
to buy a yacht; you thought that was a ridiculous claim, right?
A. At the time that number was ridiculous even to me.
Q. Right.  The returns he was predicting in your mind were
ridiculous, right?
A. Those large number were not reasonable.
Q. Okay.  And, in fact, you also told the prosecutors that you
didn't have an anticipation of getting a return at all from
your GTV investment, right?
A. At the time my mindset is if there's some return, great; if
there's no return, I donated to a cause.
Q. Right.  Because ultimately, the goal of you sending the
money to GTV was to support GTV's mission to break through the
great firewall of China; correct?
A. There was definitely some expectation of some return too.
Q. But didn't you just testify that if you didn't get a
return, okay, you donated to a cause?
MR. FERGENSON:  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Now, one of the reasons why it was important -- GTV's
mission was important to you personally is because you still
have family in China; correct?

723
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
A. There are remote family, yeah.
Q. Okay.  Now, did you watch a video by Mr. Guo when he
announced the GTV private placement?
A. Announced the private placement.  There were many videos at
the time.  I don't know exactly which one is announcement.  But
at the time I watched many.
Q. How about one on April 20th, 2020, did you watch that?
A. I cannot recall the date exactly.
Q. Do you remember watching any video of his in April of 2020?
A. I don't memorize the date.  I may have, but I --
Q. Okay.  So when did you first hear about the potential GTV
investment?
A. It's also in that time frame he has been mentioning a
investment opportunity.
Q. When you say "in that time frame," are you talking about
the April time frame?
A. April, even late March, there were -- I recall there were
mentioning of the opportunity.
Q. Okay.  And he was mentioning those, you said, in videos
posted online, right?
A. YouTube.  Correct.
Q. YouTube.
Is it your testimony that you never saw him discuss a 
GTV private placement on a Guo Media platform? 
A. I do not know the exact distinction between these two.

724
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
These two names or two entities were not clearly defined.  It
was separated in my mind.
Q. Okay.  Now, when you were evaluating the GTV investment
that you were going to make, you thought it was a risky
investment; correct?
A. At the time I thought, yes, it's risky.
Q. And you were unsure about making the investment; correct?
A. I had my doubt too, yes.
Q. You didn't contact Mr. Guo and try to address those doubts
with him, right?
A. I have not.
Q. But you did contact somebody to address those doubts,
right?
A. The email I send the money to, yes.
Q. Well, didn't you speak about your concerns with the GTV
investment with somebody who goes by the name Bird?
A. There's a lady with name called JamesBird, not just Bird,
JamesBird.
Q. Okay.  Thank you.
So you spoke with JamesBird about your concerns prior 
to investing? 
A. There were discussions.
Q. I'm just trying to get clear, was that with JamesBird, this
discussion?
A. My understanding is that she also invested.  And before the

725
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
investment, there were discussion whether to make the
investment or not.
Q. Okay.  Discussions between you and JamesBird, right?
THE COURT:  Are you saying Jane Bird?
THE WITNESS:  James.
THE COURT:  James.
THE WITNESS:  Last name Bird, but it's a she.
THE COURT:  So is the last name JamesBird?
THE WITNESS:  That's her online name.
THE COURT:  I see.
THE WITNESS:  JamesBird, the one word.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. KAMARAJU:  
Q. So I just want to be clear so the record is clear.  When
you're referring to discussions, you're talking about
discussions between you and the person who goes by the name
JamesBird?
A. Correct.
Q. And based on those discussions, you then proceeded with
your investment; correct?
A. There are also discussions with a few more people, now I
don't recall the name; but, yes, there was at least one
discussion with JamesBird.
Q. Okay.  So you vetted your investment decision with

726
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
JamesBird and a few other people, right?
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection.  Mischaracterizing.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. Okay.  You discussed your investment decision with
JamesBird and a few other people; correct?
A. There was, yes.
Q. But none of those people were Miles Guo, right?
A. No.
MR. KAMARAJU:  May I have just one moment, your Honor?
I'll try to organize a little bit.
Q. Now, around the time that you were making your GTV
investment, you also said that you were doing some translation
work on behalf of the movement; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And so what were you translating exactly?
A. For example, at the time was -- that was COVID, and that a
number of death or infection inside China, outside China.  I
mean inside China looks -- from statistic point of view looks
not reasonable.
So one of the job I did was collect the trend of 
infection from several different country and make a comparison.  
And said that -- explain that for infectious disease, 
statistically it unlikely to have a zero or very low flat 
infection number, right.  Because most other countries have a 
certain trend.  But the statistics, people can see from China

727
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
was -- looks odd from mathematic point of view, a mathematical 
point of view. 
Q. So the material that you were translating was health
information that you were trying to help people in China; is
that right?
A. Just to show that be careful what information they are
receiving, to have a second opinion, I guess.
Q. Okay.  Because there's only one opinion allowed typically
in China; correct?
A. China is controlled by CCP.
Q. Right.  And so it's the CCP's opinion that's allowed,
right?
A. It's a specific for health information or --
Q. Sure, let's stick with that.
A. There seems to be only one published data.
Q. Okay.  And you testified on direct that Mr. Guo was also
talking about COVID; correct?
A. He -- he discuss about -- he discuss COVID too, yeah.
Q. And it was -- you translated some of his information about
COVID, right?
A. Most of the information I translated is public information
from the U.S. I collected.  Some of his talks I translated to
English may also contain his opinion on COVID.
Q. Okay.  So you translated, I think you used the word
"talks."  So you translated talks that Mr. Guo gave about COVID

728
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
and about other things, right?
A. About other things.  There are COVID and other things;
correct.
Q. Like what other things?
A. The same thing.  The corruption in mainland China, how bad
that was, things like that.
Q. Okay.  And you thought that was important to get that
information to the people in China, right?
A. Just to -- again to perhaps open up more the information
flow or news flow.
Q. You testified on direct that you were no longer a follower,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. When did you stop becoming -- when did you stop being a
follower?
A. Since I didn't receive any receipt on my -- on my
investment.
Q. Okay.  So that was in summer of 2020?
A. Correct.  Since I ask investigator to investigate.
Q. I'm sorry, sir, are you finished with your answer?
A. Finished.
Q. Since you stopped being a follower of Mr. Guo, have you
still tracked the information that he puts out?
A. I didn't track his information, no.
Q. Have you been following what's been going on in Mr. Guo's

729
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
life since you stopped being a follower?
A. No.
Q. Okay.  So you have no idea if he is still wealthy or not,
right?
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection.
THE COURT:  Overruled.  You can answer.
A. On YouTube sometimes those video pop up, but I have not
actively tracked or follow or search any of his whereabout.
Q. So you don't know if he still has a yacht, right?
MR. FERGENSON:  Objection.  Asked and answered.
MR. KAMARAJU:  I know I've not asked that question
before.
THE COURT:  I know.  I know.  You may answer, sir.
A. The question was?
Q. You don't know if he still has a yacht?
A. I wouldn't know either way.  I wasn't following his --
Q. Okay.  So I'm not going to go through each thing; I'll just
sum it up.  All the luxury items that you talked about seeing
in the videos, remember you testified about that with the
prosecutor?
A. I did not follow, so --
Q. Okay.  So you have no idea if he still has any of those
things, right?
A. There are -- there were video that pop up with him in that
apartment or on the yacht.  But whether he still own or

730
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Cross
whatnot, I don't know more than -- any more than that.
Q. You testified on direct, sir, that you thought that you
woke up, I think was your word, because you spoke to a couple
of friends who told you it was a scam; is that right?
A. Basically, a few ex-followers who left the group before I
did.
Q. Were any of those ex-followers based in China, sir?
A. There was a friend who was a prior acquaintance.  She was
based in China, but she did travel.  She was also following
this -- all this Guo's video.  She also contacted me separately
and warned me that this doesn't look right to her.
Q. All right.  And this friend lives in Beijing; is that
right?
A. I said she travels around overseas as well.  I don't know
exactly.
Q. One of the first claims that you said Mr. Guo made was that
he was -- VOA was pressured to take him off the air; correct?
A. That's his claim.
Q. And that happened in 2017, right?
A. I don't know the exact date, but I think that event
happened in 2017.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Could we please have Exhibit DX
STIP-001, please.  Can we go to paragraph 5.
Q. Can you read the first sentence, sir.
MR. KAMARAJU:  If you could maybe highlight that for

731
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Redirect
him.
A. "To carry out some of the objectives of Fox Hunt, in 2017,
the PRC government tasked a specially designated group of
operatives ('the group') with discrediting and harassing
individuals, including Mr. Guo, by using interactive computer
services and electronic communication systems."
MR. KAMARAJU:  Okay.  And then can we highlight the
sentence that says "The group's tactics aimed at Mr. Guo."  And
go all the way through the end of that sentence.
Q. Can you read that sentence, please.
A. "The group's tactics aimed at Mr. Guo included using
anonymized social media accounts operated by the group and by
pressuring U.S. social media companies to remove Mr. Guo and
U.S.-based associates of Mr. Guo from social media platforms."
Q. Can you read the next sentence, please.
A. "These efforts were part of the PRC government's broader
effort to prevent, disrupt, and harass Mr. Guo's use of social
media and other online platforms to disseminate and discuss
disfavored content."
MR. KAMARAJU:  No further questions.
THE COURT:  Redirect.
MR. FERGENSON:  Yes, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. FERGENSON:  
Q. Mr. Chin, you were asked questions about the difference

732
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Redirect
between Guo Media and GTV, do you recall that?
A. Yes, I was asked.
Q. Is the difference between those two things clear to you?
A. At the time it was not very clear; it just all directed by
Miles Guo.
Q. And when you sent $10,000 to VOG, what did you understand
would happen with that money?
A. My understanding based on the claim was that this money
will be pooled together to meet 100,000 threshold to be able to
invest in the -- in the Guo Media.
Q. Was it Guo Media or GTV?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection, your Honor.  Asked and
answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. And Mr. Chin, just a moment ago you were asked about things
Miles Guo said about being targeted by the CCP.  Do you
remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Miles Guo say about the return on your GTV
investment?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.  Scope.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. He claims again big numbers based on other -- other
existing social media or media companies return.
Q. And what about your G dollar investment, what did he say

733
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Chin - Recross
about the returns on that?
A. He claimed that this -- first of all, this will absorb a
large amount of money.  And then based on the -- implying that
based on the other cryptocurrencies' success, this will also be
successful.
Q. At the time when you were a follower, did you believe what
Miles Guo was saying?
A. At the time I did.
Q. And, in fact, Mr. Chin, did you make money or lose money on
these investments?
A. I lost.
Q. Did Miles Guo pay back your losses?
A. He did not.
Q. Are you still a follower of Miles Guo's today?
A. I'm not.
Q. Why not?
A. I think he has scammed, abused, many, many people's good
intention and our energy and the time.  We try to do something
good, but we were cheated.
MR. FERGENSON:  No further questions.
THE COURT:  Recross.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Very briefly, your Honor.
RECROSS EXAMINATION 
BY MR. KAMARAJU:  
Q. You testified that Miles Guo has not repaid your losses;

734
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Have you ever asked him?
A. I have not.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT:  All righty, sir.  You may step down.
Thank you. 
(Witness excused) 
THE COURT:  And the prosecution may call its next
witness.
MR. FINKEL:  Government calls Steele Schottenheimer.
 STEELE SCHOTTENHEIMER, 
     called as a witness by the Government, 
     having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 
THE COURT:  You may proceed.
MR. FINKEL:  Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. FINKEL:  
Q. Good afternoon.
A. Hello.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what city do you reside in?
A. Dallas, Texas.
Q. Where do you work?
A. I work at Hayman Capital Management and Conservation Equity
Management.

735
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. What's Conservation Equity Management?
A. Conservation Equity Management is a natural capital and
impact private equity firm.
Q. What does that mean?
A. We invest in environmental strategies in the private
markets, primarily buying raw land.
Q. What's Hayman Capital?
A. Hayman Capital Management is an asset manager based in
Dallas, Texas; it's founded by Kyle Bass in 2005; and
historically it's primarily focused on event-driven hedge
funds.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how is it that you work at two
different entities, Conservation Equity Management and Hayman
Capital?
A. Hayman Capital Management is wholly owned by Kyle Bass; and
Kyle is a primary partner at Conservation Equity Management.
Q. You said that Hayman Capital is an event-driven -- sorry,
what was the term you used?
A. It's a global event-driven hedge fund manager.
Q. What is a hedge fund manager?
A. A hedge fund manager is someone that manages hedge funds.
Hedge funds are pooled vehicles that typically have a
investment mandate or strategy.
Q. And what does it mean that Hayman Capital is event-driven?
A. Event-driven investing has to do with typically some sort

736
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
of catalyst that triggers the thesis or the investment focus.
THE COURT:  Can you give us an example or examples?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.  If you have two -- a company
buying another, that would be an event.  If you have two
companies merging, that would be an event.  If you have a
country that decides to devalue their currency, that would be
an event.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how long have you been at Hayman
Capital?
A. I have worked at Hayman since April of 2006, so just over
18 years.
Q. What's your title at Hayman Capital?
A. I'm the managing director of investor relations.
Q. How long have you held that role?
A. I've always been in investor relations, but the title of
managing director, roughly the last 15 years.
Q. Can you just briefly describe to the members of the jury
what your general duties and responsibilities are as the
managing director of investor relations?
A. Yes.  I am the point person on all current investors, and I
am also the point person for our marketing efforts to potential
investors.  I also handle a lot of Kyle's scheduling, as well
as his media appearances.
Q. You mentioned Kyle.  What is Kyle Bass's title at Hayman?
A. Kyle Bass is the founder and chief investment officer at

737
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Hayman Capital Management.
Q. I want to focus on the time period of 2020.  Around that
time period, Ms. Schottenheimer, what were the types of clients
that Hayman engaged with?
A. Hayman clients at that time were high net worth
individuals, family offices, endowments, and broadly
institutional investors.
Q. What's a family office?
A. A family office is -- it is an investment office that is
dedicated to managing the wealth of a family.
Q. Approximately how many employees does Hayman have?
A. Today?
Q. Today and in 2020, if you could.
A. In 2020, I think it was around eight.  Today it's six.
Q. In 2020, what were the approximate amount of assets under
Hayman's management?
A. Around 400 million.
Q. And what does that mean, assets under management?
A. Assets under management is the amount of capital that we
invest on behalf of our investors.  We have direct control over
the asset allocation and investment decisions.
Q. As part of your duties, do you also occasionally manage
Kyle Bass's calendar?
A. At times, yes.
Q. Based on your involvement in his scheduling, does Kyle Bass

738
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
make media appearances?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you broadly describe to the members of the jury what
Mr. Bass's profile is, generally speaking, in the financial
industry?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection to form.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
A. Do I answer the question.
Q. No.
THE COURT:  When I sustain the objection, you don't.
Q. Based on your involvement in Mr. Bass's calendar, does he
make media appearances?
A. Yes.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  Sustained.
Q. What sort of media appearances does he make?
A. Kyle has done a number of media appearances that would
include CNN International, Bloomberg, CNBC, CNBC Asia.
Q. In 2020, before then, how often was Mr. Bass making media
appearances?
A. Say at least once a month, generally.
Q. In 2020 and before then, did Mr. Bass have a public
position regarding the Chinese Communist Party?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?

739
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
A. Kyle had a negative view on the Chinese Communist Party.
And the -- broadly, the communist -- sorry, the Chinese
economy.
Q. What is your view on the Chinese Communist Party?
A. I also have a negative view.
Q. Why?
A. I have a negative view because I don't agree with not
allowing people to practice their religion and putting them in
concentration camps for doing so.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can any member of the public invest in
a Hayman Capital financial product?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because Hayman Capital -- the funds that Hayman Capital
Management operates relies on a 3(c)(7) exemption, which means
that we could only market and accept capital from qualified
purchasers.
Q. What is the 3(c)(7) exception?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection, your Honor.  
Can we have a brief sidebar? 
THE COURT:  Okay.
(Continued on next page)

740
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
(At sidebar) 
MR. KAMARAJU:  So my objection is that
Ms. Schottenheimer has not been noticed or proffered as an
expert witness on securities regulations; and yet she's being
asked — and I anticipate will continue to be asked — about
interpretations of various aspects of the Investment Advisers
Act and various securities regulations.  And that is properly
the province of expert testimony before the Court.
THE COURT:  Are you merely asking her about
credentials or qualifications for investing at a certain level?
MR. FINKEL:  Yes.  And she's not being offered as an
expert; but she's a lay witness in which her job is to evaluate
whether someone can be an investor in Hayman.  That's very
relevant to all the conduct here.
THE COURT:  Any average financial adviser knows this
is not expert testimony.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Well, in Bilzerian, your Honor, United
States v. Bilzerian, the Second Circuit approved the use of
expert testimony to interpret SEC regulations.
THE COURT:  Sure.
MR. KAMARAJU:  I want to make sure that's not where
we're going.
THE COURT:  My sense is that we're not going there.
MR. FINKEL:  She's not interpreting regulations; she's
explaining her understanding of the requirements to invest in

741
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Hayman Capital, which is very relevant because she evaluated
Mr. Kwok's investment in Hayman Capital GTV investor funds.
And that's her job.  So determining whether someone is a
qualified purchaser, an accredited investor speaks to what she
does on a day-to-day basis.  She'll be crossed on it and she's
not been certified as an expert by your Honor.
MR. KAMARAJU:  But I don't think there's any dispute
as to Mr. Guo's ability to invest in Hayman Capital.  The
dispute is whether there is -- whether there were unaccredited
investors allowed to invest in GTV.  This witness's
understanding of what an accredited investor, it doesn't
matter.
THE COURT:  It's not about GTV, am I correct?
MR. FINKEL:  Well, two points in response to that,
your Honor:  
First, I believe your Honor ruled in the motions in 
limine that we are allowed to introduce the fact of the 
unaccredited investor offering with respect to GTV.   
With respect to whether this witness is about the GTV 
offering, in a part, yes, because the GTV money that was 
collected by Mr. Kwok and his co-conspirators was funneled into 
the hedge fund that Ms. Schottenheimer works for.  And so she's 
not going to be interpreting SEC regulations and saying, I 
believe this.  She's talking about what she does every day.  
This is her job.

742
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
THE COURT:  But I don't consider this to be expert
testimony and I'm going to permit the questions.
MR. FINKEL:  Thank you.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Can I just have one clarification?  
I'm allowed to then cross-examine her on her 
understanding of the differences? 
THE COURT:  Between what and what?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Between a qualified investor, which I
believe he's going to elicit, and a minimum investment
threshold.
THE COURT:  Sure.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Okay.
(Continued on next page)

743
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
(In open court) 
THE COURT:  You may continue.
BY MR. FINKEL:  
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is a 3(c)(7) objection?  Excuse
me.  Objection was overruled.
What is a 3(c)(7) exception? 
A. A 3(c)(7) exception is something that comes from the '40
Act rule under SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission,
directive.  And basically a 3(c) fund -- a 3(c)(7) fund is how
Hayman sets up their hedge funds.
Q. What is a qualified purchaser?
A. For an individual, a qualified purchaser is someone that
has $5 million in marketable securities.
Q. And what about for an entity?
A. For an entity that is not a family limited partnership,
they have to have $25 million in pooled or in net assets.
Q. How, if at all, is the qualified purchaser definition
relevant to your work at Hayman Capital?
A. So because I am in charge of marketing to potential
clients, I have to verify that everyone that I'm speaking to or
providing information about our funds is, in fact, a qualified
purchaser.
Q. What is the term "accredited investor"?
A. An accredited investor is someone that has a million
dollars of net worth, or $300,000 of combined income with their

744
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
spouse, or $200,000 of income as an individual.
Q. Can someone who's an accredited investor, but not a
qualified purchaser, invest in a Hayman product?
A. No, they cannot.
Q. In these thresholds, qualified purchaser, accredited
investor, what entity, if at all, establishes those thresholds?
A. The Securities and Exchange Commission.
Q. And what is your understanding of why those thresholds are
established by the SEC?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.
THE COURT:  You may answer.
A. Can you please repeat the question.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is the SEC?
A. The Securities and Exchange Commission.
Q. What is your understanding, if any, about why the SEC
establishes these thresholds of accredited investor and
qualified purchaser?
A. To protect individuals that don't have these thresholds
from investing in what's considered to be higher-risk
investment funds.
Q. And the financial products that Hayman offers, are they
high-risk financial products?
A. They are considered to be by the SEC, yes.  It's a hedge
fund.
Q. Okay.  And in sort of layman's terms, what do you mean by

745
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
"higher risk"?
A. Typically, a hedge fund can invest not just in the stock
market or the bond market, they can participate in lots of
different types of securities, over-the-counter options,
over-the-counter forwards, commodities.  It has a very large
bandwidth of the types of financial products that they can --
that a hedge fund can invest in.  And these types of products
are considered to be more high risk.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, is part of your job evaluating whether
potential clients are, in fact, qualified purchasers?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does Hayman do, if anything, to validate whether a
potential investor is a qualified purchaser?
A. If I had reverse inquiry that comes into investor relations
at Hayman, I send them what's called a new contact
questionnaire.  It is a section out of our subscription booklet
that, you know, asks a couple of background information like
their name, date of birth, phone number, email address, as well
as an accredited investor representation and a qualified
purchaser representation.
So once I have these on file, I know that they have 
made the QP rep, and I am able to provide them information on 
the funds that Hayman offers. 
Q. What's a QP rep, what's that mean?
A. A qualified purchaser representation, meaning --

746
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. I'm sorry.  Go ahead.
A. Meaning that they, in fact, are an individual that has $5
million in marketable securities.
Q. And what's a reverse inquiry?
A. A reverse inquiry is when someone reaches out to Hayman
inquiring about the different products that we offer.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what work, if any, does Hayman do to
validate or check the representations made by potential
investors claiming they are qualified purchasers?
A. We take the representation as-is.  There's no further
checking.  It's not required.
Q. What is KYC?
A. Know your customer or know your client.
Q. What does that mean in the context of the work you do at
Hayman?
A. We have what's called anti-money laundering procedures in
place when an investor makes an investment into one of our
funds.  And it is basically a grid or a checklist of the
information that we're required to collect and keep on file.
Q. And what sort of information does Hayman collect as part of
its KYC obligations?
A. It's a long list.  A lot of it is included in the
subscription document that the investor completes in order to
subscribe to a fund.  But on a high level, the name, address,
Social Security number, date of birth, and a copy of a valid

747
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
state-issued driver's license, passport.  And we collect this
on behalf of if someone is investing in their name, the
investor.  And then if it's an entity, we collect this
information on behalf of the authorized signatory, as well as
the -- any beneficial owners over I think it's 20 percent.
Q. What is AML?
A. Anti-money laundering.
Q. How is that term relevant, if at all, to the work you do at
Hayman?
A. So anti-money laundering is -- we call them AML checks.
And so this falls kind of within the know-your-customer or
know-your-client process.  And this AML checklist is actually
what we use as part of the closing process to collect all the
data that we need.
Q. These AML and KYC checks, why, if at all, does Hayman do
them?
A. We are required to.
Q. By whom?
A. The SEC.
Q. What is the term UBO?
A. You said UBL?
Q. UBO.  O.
A. UBO.
Q. Have you heard that term before?
A. Ultimate beneficial owner.

748
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. What's an ultimate beneficial owner?
A. An ultimate beneficial owner is who actually owns the
entity.
Q. And how is the concept of an ultimate beneficial owner
relevant, if at all, to your work at Hayman?
A. For AML purposes, we are required to drill down into an
entity, so we have XYZ entity invest.  And I need to collect
AML on any individual that owns more than 20 percent of the
entity.  And sometimes an entity is owned by an entity, and you
just keep going down until you actually get to an individual;
and so you can do an AML check on that individual.
Q. And why does Hayman go through all those steps about
ultimate beneficial owners?
A. Because we are required to under our AML practices that are
required to by the -- required by the SEC.
MR. FINKEL:  Can I have one moment, your Honor?
THE COURT:  Yes.
(Counsel conferred) 
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer I think you used the term "drill down"
on the various ultimate beneficial owners.  Can you just
explain to the members of the jury what that means in the
context of your work?
A. Absolutely.
So if there's an entity, we say does anyone or any 
entity own more than 20 percent of this entity.  And if the

749
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
answer is yes, then we collect.  If it's a person -- it's 
basically just a grid that goes down.  If it's a person, then 
we collect the five AML requirements on that person.  If it's 
an entity, then we would have to go to the next layer.  Does 
anyone own 20 percent of this entity; is it a person or is it 
another entity?  And then you just continue to go until you 
actually have what we consider an ultimate beneficial owner. 
Q. Are you familiar with the concept in your work at Hayman of
parent entities and subsidiaries?
A. Broadly familiar, yes.
Q. And what does that mean?
A. A parent company is the company that owns -- is the -- a
parent company owns subsidiaries.
Q. Does Hayman also inquire with clients who wish to invest in
a Hayman product what the source of the money is that they're
using for an investment?
A. Source of money?  No.
Q. What about source of funds?
A. No.
Q. Is a potential investor required to report where the money
came from that they are using to invest in a Hayman financial
product?
A. The specific capital being allocated, no.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, have you ever met an individual known
as Miles Kwok?

750
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know him by any other names?
A. Miles Guo.
Q. Do you see him in the courtroom here today?
A. I do.
Q. Can you point him out and identify --
MR. KAMARAJU:  We'll stipulate to identity, your
Honor.
THE COURT:  All righty.
Q. When was the first time that you met Miles Kwok?
A. I met Miles Kwok in October of 2018.
Q. And what was the name that you were -- that you understand
Miles Kwok to use at that time?
A. Miles Kwok.
Q. Where did you meet him?
A. I met him in Dallas, Texas, at an airplane hangar.
Q. Who was Miles Kwok with?
A. Miles Kwok was with Steve Bannon and William Je.
Q. At that time, 2018, Ms. Schottenheimer, what was your
understanding of Miles Kwok's relationship with William Je?
A. At that time William Je was introduced to me as Miles's
interpreter for the interview that they were there to conduct.
Q. And what was your understanding of Miles Kwok's
relationship with Steve Bannon at that time?
A. That they were friends.

751
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. Was Kyle Bass also present at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned that there was an interview.  What do you
mean?
A. So the reason why we were all at the hangar that day in
Dallas was because Kyle was going to interview both Steve
Bannon in a single interview and, in a separate interview,
interview Miles Kwok.
Q. And at that time, Ms. Schottenheimer, in 2018, what was
your understanding of Kyle Bass's relationship with Miles Kwok?
A. That they had been introduced through Steve Bannon and had
a lot of similar views of China, the financial -- China's
financial system, and the communist party of China.
MR. FINKEL:  If we can please display what I believe
is in evidence as Government Exhibit 103.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, who is this individual?
A. This is William Je.
MR. FINKEL:  And if we can please display for the
witness, witness only, what's been marked for identification as
Government Exhibit 123.
Q. Who is this individual?
A. Steve Bannon.
MR. FINKEL:  Government offers 123.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  It is admitted.

752
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
(Government's Exhibit 123 received in evidence) 
MR. FINKEL:  Publish that, please.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how did Miles Kwok arrive to the
airplane hangar where this interview took place?
A. It was my understanding that he had flown into a separate
FBO.
Q. What's an FBO?
A. I don't know the acronym, but basically there are different
FBOs at the airport.  It's basically a different hangar as to
where the airport -- the airplane lands and is stored.
MR. FINKEL:  We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.
Q. You mentioned that there is to be an interview that
Mr. Bass was going to conduct.  What sort of interview at that
time period did Mr. Bass conduct?
A. So there is a show called -- sorry, there's a group called
Reel Vision.  And it is a series -- it's an interview series
that people can subscribe to.  And Kyle has a number of
different people that he's -- interviews with a number of
different people, as well as people interviewing him.
Q. And did Mr. Bass, in fact, interview Miles Kwok in this
airplane hangar?
A. He did.
Q. Did you witness that?
A. I did.
MR. FINKEL:  If we can display for the witness,

753
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
please, what's been marked for identification as GX 1007-V1.
Apologies.  This is Government Exhibit W1007-V1.  My fault.
Ms. Loftus, can you scroll through that so 
Ms. Schottenheimer can take a look at that. 
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize this?
A. Yes.  This is the Reel Vision interview that was conducted
between -- Kyle Bass interviewed Miles Kwok.
MR. FINKEL:  Government offers GX W1007-V1.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  It is admitted.
(Government's Exhibit W1007-V1 received in evidence) 
MR. FINKEL:  If we can publish that, please,
Ms. Loftus.  Bring it back to the beginning.  And if we can
please play this, Ms. Loftus.
(Video played) 
MR. FINKEL:  Pause it there.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, first, who is the individual on the
screen?
A. That is Miles Kwok.
Q. And who is the other individual?
A. Kyle Bass.
Q. There are some terms that Mr. Bass and Mr. Kwok use.  First
term they use is something called FX reserves.  What is your
understanding of what that means?
A. Foreign exchange reserves is in context of -- just broadly

754
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
is -- foreign exchange reserves is something that a country
keeps on their balance sheet.
Q. And Mr. Kwok uses a term called the M2.  What is that?
A. M2 is money in circulation.
Q. And this minute and 50-second clip that we watched,
Ms. Schottenheimer, just generally speaking, what is it that
Mr. Kwok and Mr. Bass are discussing?
A. They are discussing the issues with the China economy.
MR. FINKEL:  Can you play from there, please,
Ms. Loftus.
(Video played) 
MR. FINKEL:  Pause it there, please.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this chart that Mr. Bass
referred to that Mr. Kwok had provided him, Mr. Bass?
A. It's a comparison of the U.S. and Chinese GDP versus
currency supply.
Q. How is that, if at all, relevant to what Mr. Kwok and
Mr. Bass are discussing?
A. That China just grew its currency supply at a massive rate
in order to kind of grow its economy.
Q. This chart, aside from this interview, have you seen it in
other places?
A. Yes.  Kyle asked permission from Miles to put it in our --
one of our decks.
Q. Can you explain what you mean by "decks"?

755
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
A. Yes.  One of our presentations.
I can't recall exactly which one, but we have an 
evolving Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund presentation that 
we put in updated charts from time to time.  And I recall 
having a snapshot at the beginning of this graphic and a 
snapshot at the end inserted into the presentation. 
Q. So this graphic came from Mr. Kwok, and Mr. Bass used it in
a presentation he made?
A. Correct.  Yes.
Q. If I can ask, Ms. Schottenheimer, to point the microphone
directly at your mouth, it's directional, and everyone can hear
you.  Thank you.
MR. FINKEL:  And Ms. Loftus, we can continue to play
this video.
(Video played) 
BY MR. FINKEL:  
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, Mr. Bass asked the question:  Why does
the Hong Kong dollar have a peg?  
What is your understanding of what that means?  What 
is the Hong Kong dollar peg? 
A. The Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar.  It's
actually -- it's banded to the U.S. dollar, meaning there's ten
cents of kind of flexibility that it trades within.
Q. What does it mean for a currency to be pegged to another
currency?

756
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
A. Basically, one currency adopts the value of another
currency, and it pegs its currency to that second currency.
Q. Based on your understanding, how does the Hong Kong economy
actually peg its dollar to the U.S. dollar?
A. So there's something called the Hong Kong Monetary
Authority.  And the HKMA maintains U.S. dollars and U.S. dollar
assets on its balance sheet in order to maintain the peg to the
U.S. currency.
Q. Approximately how long has this peg been in place?
A. Since October of 1983.
Q. And is this peg still in place today?
A. It is.
Q. And in 2018, when this interview took place,
Ms. Schottenheimer, what was Hayman Capital's view about
whether that peg would persist?
A. Hayman had the view that the Hong Kong peg no longer made
sense and it would cease to exist in some period of time.
Q. And did Hayman Capital offer any financial products around
this time, 2018, based on that thesis?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that financial product called?
A. Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.
MR. FINKEL:  We can continue playing from there,
Ms. Loftus.
(Video played)

757
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
BY MR. FINKEL:  
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is your understanding of what
Mr. Kwok is saying is fake versus true?
A. So as you saw from the graphic, China had
disproportionately grown their economy through just by printing
money, putting additional money supply into the economy, so
essentially propping it up.  Hong Kong has a real economy
that's essentially tied to the U.S. dollar is the difference, I
think, is what he is referring to.
MR. FINKEL:  If we can please display for the witness
what's been marked for identification as GX W1007-V3.  Can you
just scrub through that so Ms. Schottenheimer can take a look.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this?
A. This is still the Reel Vision interview between Kyle Bass
and Miles Kwok.
Q. Is it a clip of that interview?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how long was the whole interview?
A. An hour.
MR. FINKEL:  The government offers GX W1007-V3.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  It is admitted.
(Government's Exhibit W1007-V3 received in evidence) 
MR. FINKEL:  Ms. Loftus, after you publish that, if I
could ask you to please roll to the beginning and play it for

758
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
the members of the jury.
(Video played) 
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, towards the beginning of that clip,
Mr. Bass said something that this is a big problem; Mr. Kwok
disagrees and says it's not a big problem.  What is your
understanding of what they are referring to?
A. I'd have to see the beginning of the clip again.
MR. FINKEL:  Can we play the beginning of the clip.
(Video played) 
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is your understanding?
A. So Kyle is talking about the dwindling excess reserves that
are supporting the Hong Kong dollar.
The way that it works is when the Hong Kong dollar 
trades to $7.75, it is at the strong side of the band.  So the 
HKMA needs to come in and intervene to keep the Hong Kong 
dollar within the band.  And so it sells its U.S. dollars to 
buy Hong Kong dollars.   
Same thing when it trades to the weak side of the 
band, just $7.85 Hong Kong dollar per U.S. dollar.  So then the 
HKMA needs to come in and buy U.S. dollars and -- sorry, buy 
Hong Kong dollars and sell U.S. dollars.   
And what Kyle is referring to is they have spent 78 
percent of their excess reserve; so their ability to maintain 
this peg has dwindled from 100 percent down to 38 percent.  And 
that is what Kyle is talking about.

759
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. And Mr. Kwok disagrees with that.  And what is his view?
A. His view is that it's just two options.  He wants to take a
step back and talk about how Hong Kong has the ability to
become a fake economy just like China.  They can lie about
their numbers, they can print their way out of the problem; or
they can show the world that they don't have enough excess
dollars to maintain the peg, which to me kind of goes back to
Kyle's first point.
Q. And if the second option comes to pass that there's not
enough dollars to maintain the peg, what would happen?
A. Likely the market would call out Hong Kong and there would
be a stress to the peg; it would trade outside of the peg and
likely eventually break.
Q. You used the term "band" when you were explaining.  Can you
just explain the band?
A. The band.  Yes.
The Hong Kong dollar trades within a band to the U.S. 
dollar.  $7.75 Hong Kong dollar per U.S. dollar, and then the 
range goes -- on the other side of that is $7.85.  So 7.75 to 
7.85 is the Hong Kong band to the U.S. dollar. 
Q. You mentioned before that Hayman offers something called
the Hong Kong Opportunities Fund?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe what the Hong Kong Opportunities Fund is.
A. The Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund is a hedge fund

760
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
product that has a specific strategy where it is bearish on the
Hong Kong dollar and it is dedicated to just shorting the Hong
Kong dollar.
Q. So if the peg, the band, were to break, what impact would
that have on an investment in the Hong Kong Opportunity Fund?
A. It would have a positive monetary impact on the Hong
Kong -- the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.
Q. And, Ms. Schottenheimer, broadly speaking, is the Hong Kong
Opportunity Fund a risky investment?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. Well, specifically, in Share Class B, which is a dedicated
share class to expressing this trade 100 percent in options,
meaning that if the options expire out of the money, you would
lose 100 percent of your investment.
Q. You mentioned something called share Class B.  Does that
have another name?
A. Yes, Share Class B is the Prodigious Series.
Q. When did Hayman start offering as an investment the Hong
Kong Opportunity Fund?
A. Share Class A?
Q. Sure.
A. Okay.  The original Hayman -- yes, January of 2017.
Q. And when did Share Class B, the Prodigious Series, become
available?

761
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
A. The first closing was June of 2020.
MR. FINKEL:  We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, did there come a time, if ever, when
Miles Kwok sought to invest in a Hayman product?
A. Yes.
Q. When approximately was that?
A. May of 2020.
Q. And what was your role, if any, in Kwok's sought Hayman
investment?
A. I'm responsible for coordinating and processing the
subscription booklet.
Q. And what investment -- or excuse me.  Withdrawn.
What financial product did Kwok invest in? 
A. He invested in the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund
Share Class B/Prodigious Series.
Q. And how large was Kwok's investment in the prodigious
series?
A. $100 million.
MR. FINKEL:  We can display for the witness what's
been marked for identification as GX HN-26.  Just flip through
it so Ms. Schottenheimer can take a look at it.  Go back to the
first page, please.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is HN-26?
A. This is an email to William Je from myself on Saturday, May
23rd, 2020, of me sharing the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

762
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Fund prodigious series presentation and a playback link to the
webcast that Kyle had hosted earlier that month.
MR. FINKEL:  Government offers HN-26.
MR. KAMARAJU:  No objection.
THE COURT:  It is admitted.
(Government's Exhibit HN-26 received in evidence) 
MR. FINKEL:  If we can publish that, please,
Ms. Loftus.  And if you can zoom in at the top, please.  You
can see the text.  Perfect.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, now that the jury can see it, to whom
did you send this email?
A. William Je.
Q. And why did you send this email to William Je?
A. Because Kyle Bass asked me to.
Q. And what's the date of this email?
A. May 23rd, 2020.
Q. And what's the subject?
A. Confidential Playback Details Hayman Hong Kong
Opportunities Fund LP Prodigious Series.
Q. And what is your understanding of why Kyle Bass asked you
to send this email to William Je?
A. Because Miles was interested in potentially investing.
Q. In what product?
A. The Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund Share Class B
Prodigious Series.

763
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. And, Ms. Schottenheimer, in this time, May of 2020, what
was your understanding of William Je's role with respect to
Miles Kwok?
A. That he was the head or chief investment officer of Miles'
family office.
Q. By "family office," you mean what?
A. Family office is a dedicated investment office to managing
the wealth of an individual.  So this was an office -- this was
a group of people dedicated to managing the wealth of Miles
Kwok.
MR. FINKEL:  We can zoom out of that, Ms. Loftus, and
go to the next page of the document, please.  Zoom in on that.
Q. What is this a picture of?
A. This is a picture of the leader of the Chinese Communist
Party, Xi Jinping.
Q. And is there a watermark on this Power Point?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because we track all of the presentations that we send to
potential investors.
Q. And what is the watermark on this particular Power Point?
A. William Je, it's his email address.
MR. FINKEL:  You can go, please, to page 34 of this,
Ms. Loftus.  Let's go back a page -- or forward a page, excuse
me.

764
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read the first bullet on this
page?
A. "Targeting notional exposure of approximately 200 times
each dollar invested given current pricing as of May 4th,
2020."
Q. And what does that mean?
A. So based on pricing in early May, we were targeting being
able to achieve 200 times exposure for every dollar invested
being short the Hong Kong dollar via the Hong Kong dollar
options that we were purchasing.
Q. And 200 times the dollar investment, can you just explain
that?
A. Correct.  If you invest one dollar, you'd be short $200 of
U.S. -- of Hong Kong dollars.
Q. Generally speaking, Ms. Schottenheimer, in your role as
managing director of investor relations, how does Hayman market
this product, the Prodigious Series, to potential investors?
A. We market this as a very high-risk/potential high-return
strategy.
Q. And what is your understanding of why investors invest in
it?
A. There's typically two buckets of investors that are
interested in investing in our Hong Kong product.  The first is
a defensive position, meaning they're using this as a hedge for
their broader portfolio.  They might have some sort of exposure

765
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
to emerging markets, direct exposure to China, Asia.  And this
is a defensive play, meaning they have -- they put a very small
allocation of their overall portfolio into this product to
protect them if the second largest economy were to have a
substantial dislocation.
Q. And what's the offensive play?
A. The offensive play is when an investor understands that
this risk in being priced in the marketplace is -- it's wrong,
that it's way too cheap and that it will be repriced over time.
Q. The fourth bullet, Ms. Schottenheimer, starts "Capital
Exhaustion Strategy."
A. Yes.
Q. Read that and explain to the members of the jury what that
means.
A. Capital exhaustion strategy employs maximum capital
efficiency.  So when we offer in this product is -- you can put
a $25,000 minimum to invest in this product and it's very
capital efficient, meaning that every dollar that you invest is
going to provide massive notional exposure.  You kind of refer
to that first bullet point of 200 times.
MR. FINKEL:  If we can go to the next page, please,
Ms. Loftus.  The page after that.  Thank you.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is management fee, which I believe
is the fourth row of this line?
A. Yes.  There's a onetime management fee when investing in

766
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
the Prodigious Series.  And essentially it's a fee to the asset
manager for managing the capital.
Q. And the asset manager here would be who?
A. Hayman Capital Management.
Q. And then I think two rows below that it says lock, two-year
hard lock.  What does that mean?
A. Well, the strategy was only -- it's an 18 to two-year --
sorry, it's a 12-month to 24-month strategy.  And so the
two-year lock implies that there is no ability to get your
capital out.  Once you invest, it's permanently invested in the
fund.  There's no -- there's no rights to withdraw your
capital.
Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can investment in the Prodigious Series
take down the CCP?
A. No.
Q. Can an investment in the Prodigious Series affect the
Chinese economy?
MR. KAMARAJU:  Objection.
THE COURT:  You'll have to step up.
(Continued on next page)

767
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
(At sidebar) 
MR. FINKEL:  Your Honor, should we just send the jury
home?
THE COURT:  Yes, I think it's a good idea.
MR. FINKEL:  Okay.
(In open court) 
THE COURT:  Members of the jury, it's 2:45, so it's
time to end for the day.
Remember that you are not permitted to discuss the 
case amongst yourselves or with anyone else.  Don't permit 
anybody to discuss the case with you.  Have a good evening and 
get back here tomorrow on time.  Thank you. 
(Jury not present) 
THE COURT:  Please be seated.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Your Honor, do you want to excuse the
witness?
THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  If you'll step down.
Don't discuss your testimony.   
(Witness not present) 
THE COURT:  I'll hear the objection.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Yes, your Honor.
So I understand that she was not qualified as a 
securities expert, she wasn't noticed.  She certainly has not 
been noticed as an expert on macroeconomics and the impact that 
any particular strategy may have on the broader Chinese

768
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
economy.  I don't know if she even has the expertise to opine 
on that, given that she's in investor relations; as far as I 
know, not an actual economist.  And her personal perspective 
with respect to whether it would impact the Chinese economy has 
no relevance in the case. 
MR. FINKEL:  So, your Honor, if the defense wants to
stipulate that the defendant did not believe, excuse me, that
this investment would have any impact on the Chinese economy,
then, yeah, it wouldn't be relevant.  I'm not sure exactly what
their point is on that.
MR. KAMARAJU:  We're not stipulating to that at all.
But this particular witness's view as to whether that happens
or could happen has no bearing on Mr. Guo's perspective
certainly.  But also, again, she is not offered as an expert to
testify about the macroeconomic effects of a particular
strategy.  If she wants to talk about that was not Hayman's
intent or that was not her understanding about what Hayman was
trying to do, that's one thing.  But to talk about it broadly,
you for sure have a 403 issue at that point.  Because now we're
going to have to start talking about all the ways in which it
could, the various economic trends that might apply.
I don't know how we go from this witness testifying 
about the process of qualifying Mr. Guo for this investment to 
the broader question about what will or will not take down the 
CCP or the Chinese economy.

769
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
MR. FINKEL:  So, your Honor, if the defense, as it
seems to be, is going to assert that Mr. Guo believed that this
investment would take down the CCP, it is certainly relevant
what Ms. Schottenheimer, who is the managing director of
investor relations for this particular financial products, what
her view and Hayman's view is of the impact of this financial
product in fact on whether it can take down the CCP or impact
the broader Chinese economy.
There are two reasons why this is the case:  The first 
reason, your Honor, is Ms. Schottenheimer is the one who 
interacted with William Je about this particular investment.  
So certainly Hayman's view and Ms. Schottenheimer's view, her 
interactions with Mr. Je are relevant to the jury's 
consideration, which appears to be the defense that Mr. Guo 
believed this financial product could take down the CCP.  If 
that's their defense, we have an opportunity to essentially put 
in evidence that goes against it.  If they want to back off 
that and say that that's not their defense or they'll stipulate 
it won't affect the Chinese economy, that's fine.  If they 
don't, they're free to cross-examine her on these issues. 
THE COURT:  So are you going to elicit testimony that
she discussed this opinion with Mr. Je?
MR. FINKEL:  So, your Honor, she -- I don't know if
that happened is the answer to the Court's question directly.
What I do know is that Ms. Schottenheimer, her job is

770
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
this deck which was sent to Mr. Je, which is a representation 
of what Hayman believed this financial product does.  I also 
know that Ms. Schottenheimer has a view which she explained in 
part today about the purpose of this financial product and, 
importantly, how Hayman markets it.   
Now, Mr. Bass, as has been clear from 
Ms. Schottenheimer's testimony and from the video we watched, 
has a negative view of the CCP, so does Ms. Schottenheimer.  
But they know — because, in fact, it is true — that this 
financial investment doesn't impact the CCP.  It's a bet.  It's 
a way to make money or hedge against losing money.   
And so if the defense is going to argue that Mr. Guo 
in his heart of hearts believed that this financial investment 
could take down the CCP, the government, which has the burden, 
has the ability to introduce evidence to the contrary.  And I 
say again, your Honor, that to the extent the defense is not 
seeking to make that defense, then yes, this wouldn't be 
relevant. 
MR. KAMARAJU:  So I'd like to make just a couple of
points on it, and I think there are a few distinctions that are
important.
First of all, Ms. Schottenheimer's job as investor
relations is not to design the investment products.  She's very
clear about that.  The witness who does that is Mr. Bass.  What
she does is she communicates with potential investors,

771
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
qualifies them whether they can purchase it, and then takes in
their subscription information.  She does not set the
investment policy at all.  She does not design it, she's not
the person who creates it, she's not the person who runs the
models for it, she doesn't do any of that.  And if Mr. Finkel
asked her if she did any of that on the stand, she would say
no.
Second, in her 3500 material, she makes clear that she
has never spoken with William Je on the phone.  So the only
communications that the government has produced to the defense
— and I don't know if they have any others — are ones -- are
email communications, none of which mention
Ms. Schottenheimer's opinion as to whether this could take down
the CCP or not, or Hayman's opinion more broadly.
THE COURT:  Is there anything in the deck concerning
their opinion about the impact of this product on the Chinese
economy?
MR. KAMARAJU:  He just showed her the deck, your
Honor.
THE COURT:  I'm asking him.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought you were
asking me still, your Honor.
MR. FINKEL:  So, your Honor, yes.  I mean, the deck is
about Hayman's view of that the Chinese economy -- this is in
2020, when they sent this deck, that the Chinese economy is

772
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
faltering, and that there's stress that's being put in
particular on the Hong Kong Central Bank.  And as a result of
that stress, the peg or the band, as Ms. Schottenheimer
explained it, is going to break.
And what this financial product is designed to do, 
which Ms. Schottenheimer may not have designed, but knows how 
it works because her job is to market it to investors and 
explain it to people.  That's what she does.  She travels the 
world doing that, in fact, so she has knowledge of it.  Even if 
she wasn't the one in the Excel sheet deciding which swaps to 
invest in, she certainly knows how it works. 
And so the way that Hayman markets this product and
was marketed through email to William Je and in other ways, is
relevant to the consideration that the jury is going to make,
which apparently is their defense that they haven't disclaimed.
Their defense is apparently Mr. Guo believed that an investment
of $100 million of GTV investor money into Hayman's Hong Kong
Opportunities Fund was a way to fight the CCP, making the
broader point that everything is fine here, ladies and
gentlemen, because all these investors really cared about was
taking down the CCP and that's what this investment was going
to do.
In fact, your Honor, that's not true.  And 
Ms. Schottenheimer knows it's not true.  And she's entitled to 
explain that to the jury.  It will be for the jury, not for me,

773
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
not for defense counsel, but for the jury to decide whether 
Ms. Schottenheimer's view or the defense's view is the correct 
view.  But they are entitled to evidence on both sides of the 
coin. 
MR. KAMARAJU:  Your Honor, first of all, the question
that was asked was not about Hayman's intent or
Ms. Schottenheimer's intent in designing the fund.  It was:
Can an investment in this fund take down the CCP, and can it
take down the Chinese economy.  There's a distinction between
what the fund decided to do when it designed the products and
what the actual impact in the real world would be.
THE COURT:  One second.
Would you agree with me that there's a difference 
between making a representation that cryptocurrency is a safe 
investment, a legitimate investment, and giving an opinion 
about cryptocurrency on the world economy? 
MR. FINKEL:  Are you asking me, your Honor?
THE COURT:  Yes.
MR. FINKEL:  So, yes.  But I think there's a
distinction between that hypothetical — which I agree with your
Honor on — and what's happening here.
And there still hasn't been from the defense any 
disclaiming of a defense about Mr. Guo's view.  And therefore, 
I think Ms. Schottenheimer is entitled to at least — and I can 
frame the question this way:  Based on her understanding, how

774
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
does this financial product work and what is its effect based 
on her understanding.  And I am certain that the defense will 
cross-examine her on that -- 
THE COURT:  I understand that you'd like to bring out
her opinion, but she's not an economist.
MR. FINKEL:  So, your Honor, it's not her opinion.
It's her understanding.  To the extent it's an opinion, it's a
701 opinion based on her perceptions as an employee of Hayman
Capital.  And we don't need to introduce, I don't think, your
Honor, because we have a percipient witness, a 702 expert on
the mechanics of this particular investment.
We have a witness who is familiar with how this 
product is marketed, how this product works, and has an 
understanding of how it works in the broader economy.  That 
understanding is certainly relevant under Rule 401.  There's 
not a 403 problem.   
How the jury will weigh all this information is up to 
the jury.  But it passes the threshold test to allow us to 
elicit this information, particularly when — which is clear 
now, your Honor — the defense is going to argue, probably at 
closing, that everything was fine here because this investment 
was a way to take down the CCP.  They can cross 
Ms. Schottenheimer on her lack of credentials, and the jury 
will assess what weight, if any, to assign to 
Ms. Schottenheimer's understanding of this financial product.

775
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
But as an employee of Hayman, who markets this product 
for a living and has worked there for 25 years, her 
understanding of what this financial product does is relevant, 
is admissible, and the jury should be allowed to consider it. 
THE COURT:  So any individual who's hawking a
financial product you're saying can give an opinion about the
effect of the product on a given economy?
MR. FINKEL:  So, your Honor, maybe.  I'm not talking
about every financial expert or every financial product or
whatever.  But in this case, I think, yes, I think
Ms. Schottenheimer is entitled to do that.  Because she has
personal knowledge of the facts at issue.  Given what their
defense is, it's clearly relevant.  We don't need --
THE COURT:  I'm not asking about relevancy.  I'm
asking whether or not this witness is qualified to offer the
opinion.
MR. FINKEL:  So she is under Rule 701.  It's a 701
opinion, right, because it's based on her percipient
information, her percipient knowledge.
It would be no different, for example, than someone 
who's a lay witness talking about, for example, slang terms 
that they've experienced and used.  One could also put on a 702 
expert to testify about their understanding of terms that they 
don't use.  But if a witness has a perception that -- has an 
opinion rationally based on their perception, which is what

776
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
Ms. Schottenheimer has, it qualifies under 701.  And the 
financial products here, itself, Ms. Schottenheimer has 
knowledge of. 
THE COURT:  All right.  So I'm going to allow you to
brief this this evening.  And you'll come back -- what time is
it?  So I want the government's brief by 8 and the defense
brief by 10.
MR. FINKEL:  Your Honor, that's totally fine.  We'll
do that.
If I can just ask the Court to inquire whether part of 
the defense is Mr. Guo believing that an investment in the Hong 
Kong Opportunities Fund is a way to take down the CCP. 
THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  I thought it was later than it
is.  I think I should make that earlier.  One second.
I'll have the government's papers due at 6 and then 
the defense papers at 8. 
MR. FINKEL:  Thank you, your Honor.
And just in the context of the Court's consideration 
and part of the government's arguments, can the Court inquire 
of the defense whether one argument they may make is that 
Mr. Guo believed that an investment in the Hong Kong 
Opportunities Prodigious Series of $100 million was a way to 
fight the Chinese government or the Chinese economy or the CCP. 
THE COURT:  So are you anticipating making that
argument?

777
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4                 Schottenheimer - Direct
MR. KAMARAJU:  I'm certainly reserving the right to
make that argument, your Honor.
THE COURT:  I can't compel them to divulge their
defense.
MR. FINKEL:  Understood.  As long as the government
knows so they can respond that it very well may be an argument
made at closing, and it will assimilate that into its briefing.  
Thank you, your Honor. 
MR. KAMARAJU:  Your Honor, I know we'll address this
in briefing, but just since 701 is brought up, just to complete
the citation of 701, 701 also says that the proffered lay
opinion needs to be helpful to the understanding --
THE COURT:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
MR. KAMARAJU:  701, if you continue reading it past
the provision that Mr. Finkel read, says that the testimony
also has to be helpful to clearly understanding the witness's
testimony and not based on scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.  There is
no universe in which a witness could testify that a particular
economic strategy would destroy a global economy without some
form of specialized knowledge.
THE COURT:  Well, I am eager to hear from you.
MR. FINKEL:  Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KAMARAJU:  Thank you, your Honor.
(Adjourned to May 31, 2024, at 9 o'clock a.m.)

778
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
INDEX OF EXAMINATION 
Examination of:                               Page 
 KARIN MAISTRELLO 
582Cross By Ms. Shroff  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
668Redirect By Mr. Horton . . . . . . . . . . . . 
673Recross By Ms. Shroff  . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 PATRICK CHIN 
686Direct By Mr. Fergenson  . . . . . . . . . . . 
711Cross By Mr. Kamaraju  . . . . . . . . . . . . 
731Redirect By Mr. Fergenson  . . . . . . . . . . 
733Recross By Mr. Kamaraju  . . . . . . . . . . . 
 STEELE SCHOTTENHEIMER 
734Direct By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 
Exhibit No.                                    Received 
703 VC7 and VC8   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 VC9 698  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 VC11 696   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 HN-26 762  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 123 752  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 W1007-V1 753   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 W1007-V3 757   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Translated Text(简体中文翻译)

565
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
美国地方法院 
纽约南区 
--------------------------------------x 
美利坚合众国，                
 
           v. 23 Cr. 118 (AT) 
 
MILES GUO， 
 
               被告。试用     
--------------------------------------x 
                                        纽约，纽约 
                                        2024 年 5 月 30 日 
                                        上午 9:00 
 
之前： 
 
亲爱的。安娜丽莎·托雷斯， 
                                        地区法官 
                                         -还有陪审团- 
 
出场 
 
达米安·威廉姆斯  
     美国检察官 
     纽约南区 
作者：MICAH F. FERGENSON 
     瑞安·B·芬克尔 
     贾斯汀霍顿 
     朱莉安娜·默里 
     美国助理律师 
 
SABRINA P. SHROFF 
     被告律师  
 
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 
     被告律师  
作者：SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU 
     马修·巴尔坎 
 
ALSTON & BIRD LLP 
     被告律师  
作者：E. SCOTT SCHIRICK

566
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
还出席：   
伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯，律师助理专家，USAO 
罗伯特·斯托特，联邦调查局特工  
鲁本·蒙蒂拉，国防律师助理 
黄拓，口译员（普通话） 
石峰，口译员（普通话） 
Yu Mark Tang，口译员（普通话）

567
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
（审判恢复；陪审团不在场） 
法庭：早上好。你会做你的
请露面。
霍顿先生：早上好，法官大人。贾斯汀·霍顿，
瑞安·芬克尔、朱莉安娜·默里、米卡·费根森参加
政府。律师助理伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯和罗伯特也加入了我们的行列
联邦调查局的烈性黑啤酒。
KAMARAJU 先生：早上好，法官大人。Sid Kamaraju
还有代表郭先生的 Scott Schirick。我的理解是
郭先生刚刚在洗手间。
法庭：好吧。所以我们会等到他来
出来。请坐下。
（被告在场）
法庭：所以昨晚辩方提交了一份文件
关于传闻例外情况的信，值得高度重视
值得关注，我想讨论这三则传闻
他们提到的例外情况。我知道检方有
尚未回复这封信。
因此，提到的第一个例外是以下陈述
是根据其对被告的影响而提出的，并作为
例如，辩护律师提到了有关以下内容的谈话
滥用资金。所以我们有一位证人，周先生，他说了话
关于一次筹集滥用资金的视频会议。
郭先生关于滥用资金的言论怎么样
会对他产生影响吗？

568
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
KAMARAJU 先生：法官大人，仅供记录在案，
郭先生现在在律师席上。
那——我想你必须把这两者并驾齐驱，
法官大人，我们举的第一个例子和第二个例子我们
给了。
法庭：但我希望你坚持使用第一个
示例。
KAMARAJU 先生：好吧。
法院：对被告的影响。
KAMARAJU 先生：当然。所以举个例子，你的
荣誉感，如果被告说：“哦，天哪，我不能
相信资金被偷了”，那就是证据
其他人的言论对他的影响。
法院：是的。但是我们说的是证人
谈到郭先生关于滥用资金的言论。
我以为你就是这么想的。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，法官大人，我的意思是，在
我刚才举的例子，郭先生的发言是作为回应
看另一方的声明，对吧，原来如此 —— 他的陈述
这证明了发言者的声明对他产生的影响
他。在那个具体的例子中，它造成了——再说一遍，就像我们一样
我们在信中说，我们不想重温任何一个
裁决，但如果它导致郭先生采取行动，对吧，如果
这让他打了个电话，对吧，如果是他造成的
to——如果这让他说了什么或者发出了指示，那就是

569
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
这证明了它对郭先生的影响。
法庭：所以我想听听政府的来信
关于那个。
FERGENSON 先生：是的，法官大人。
所以这通常是这样运作的，这种状态
心灵异常，会是——
法院：这是对被告的影响。
FERGENSON 先生：没错。
法院：是的。
FERGENSON 先生：那会是某人，一个
庭外申报人，对被告说些什么，不是
被告对其他人说了些什么。
法院：是的。
FERGENSON 先生：这就是框架。
法院：“影响” 一词必然意味着
个人是某物的客体。你正在成为
受影响，您正在收到操作。
KAMARAJU 先生：是的。是的，法官大人。但是我在哪里
那就是陈述，被告的陈述可以
仍然是别人言论影响的证据
他身上有，对吧？我不是在质疑这种影响这一事实
暗示第三方的行为具有影响力
郭先生。我只是说郭先生的说法可以是
这种影响的证据。
FERGENSON 先生：简而言之，法官大人。

570
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
法院：是的。
FERGENSON 先生：如果那是规则，或者如果是这样
例外，它会放弃规则，因为这很难
想象一下演员即被告不在的情况
在回应某件事时说话。所以如果有任何时候他
说话，这是他心态的证据，那你就是
基本上无视任何传闻规则
被告说，因为你可以随时说任何话
赛义德反映了他的心态。那不是办法
证据规则起作用。传闻不是这样规定的
工作。有些像他们引用的案例一样
对被告说，这对被告产生了影响
被告，或者至少辩方有权争辩说
确实如此，而且那份庭外陈述出来了。而且不是
每当被告说话时，这都是一种反映
他的心态，它可以无视传闻规则
让被告基本上不出庭作证
在整个审判过程中。不是 —— 这不是对立方
陈述，比如政府驱逐被告的陈述
陈述，传闻规则禁止他们这样做
那个。那是 —— 有点像试用 101，法官大人。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，所以，首先，我想是 diMaria
解决了费根森先生刚才提出的论点，但是
心态异常——这不是法官大人
我在问——但是心态异常有一个

571
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
其中内置了例外条款，所以费根森先生就是这么说的
关于。法官阁下专注于影响力，即我们的影响力部分
信。我的意思很简单，如果有人发表声明
被告出于以下原因提出的
这是事实，所以在这种情况下，我们以它为例
有影响力，但这句话表明了他的愿望
这是对声明的回应。
法院：不是。但是我们说的是一位目击者
正在引用你的客户的话。目击者说：“郭先生说我们
应调查滥用资金的情况。”
KAMARAJU 先生：对。
法院：所以问题是：郭先生怎么样
言论会影响自己？
KAMARAJU 先生：但是，我不这么认为 —— 恭敬地，
法官大人，我认为我们的表述不是郭先生的
声明会影响自己。我认为我们的表述是这样的
郭先生的陈述证明了另一种说法的影响
有关于他的声明。这不是为了说实话；
这仅仅是针对它引起的反应而提出的
郭先生。
法院：但在本案中，你的立场是
郭先生确实想进行调查
反对 Sara Wei，那不是为了真相而提出的
在这件事中，他断言他在指挥那个
进行调查这是你辩护的一部分？

572
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
KAMARAJU 先生：不，法官大人，因为那会的
在我们看来，我们举的第二个例子是
命令或指示，命令或指示不是传闻。
法庭：嗯，所以我们属于命令例外情况
现在。我遇到了冲击异常。所以——
KAMARAJU 先生：好吧——对不起，法官大人。我的
道歉。我不是故意打断的。
法庭：来吧。
KAMARAJU 先生：不，我只是 —— 我只是提起了
命令是因为你的法官提出了
对 Sara Wei 的调查，所以这只是我们的例子
与第二个插脚一起使用。所以这就是我去的原因
到它的指挥角度。
法院：对。声明，“我明白
可能会滥用资金，应该如此
已调查，” 这本身不是命令。如果他
指出：“你应该调查一下，你必须进行
调查，” 这是一项命令。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，这就是我们想要的
引人注目的是，他确实说应该对此进行调查。
法院：我理解命令的例外情况。我
只是不明白你提出的影响异常
出去，我邀请你提交权限来讨论一个
被告自己的陈述对自己的影响。
KAMARAJU 先生：我想我没有那个权力，

573
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
法官大人，因为那不是我们的——我想你的法官大人
知道，因为那不是我们的论点。
法院：嗯，你的论点是
被告的陈述反映了他人的影响
有关于他的声明。
KAMARAJU 先生：所以也许我可以试着说得更清楚
示例。而且我知道情况并非如此，但我只是
试图用一个可能很熟悉的例子。
在 a——为了支持胁迫辩护，对吧
被告也许能说，或者你能引出
来自第三方证人的证词表明另一方
威胁被告，除非他们采取行动
政府指控他们，对吧？那可能是这样的
心态，但它也可以作为一个例子
影响。现在就像被告在那种情况下的陈述一样
如果被告说：“哦，不，我很害怕，可能会进来
其中。”如果他们表示恐惧，对吧，那就是
威胁者言论产生的影响的证据
对被告施加影响。那是 —— 我的意思是，你就是这样
在没有胁迫的情况下，进行胁迫辩护，对吧
被告的证词。所以这是被告的例子
声明就是它对他的影响的一个例子，
这是我们的公式。我们不是想这么说
郭先生的言论在某种程度上影响了自己。我认出来了
那将是循环的。

574
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
法庭：好吧。所以我会听取政府的来信
关于辩方的论点，即指挥部是
传闻规则的例外情况。而且我会允许你的
当然，自己做研究。我知道你可能没有
还完成了。
FERGENSON 先生：是的，法官大人。就像将军一样
问题，没错。我认为，正如所有人所承认的那样，
有时细节决定成败。举个例子，
法官大人，我们刚才讨论的那个
像 “应该对此进行调查” 这样的说法非常接近
改为命令但不完全是。命令将是，
“调查这个。”但是某种将军在大肆宣传
“这个应该调查” 不是 —— 我不这么认为，你
知道——我们是在即时处理这些例子。我
我认为这不属于命令异常。但是
总的来说，这是正确的，你知道，卡马拉朱先生
命令不是传闻是正确的。
法院：好吧。所以我不记得在这期间是怎么做的
周先生的证词，任何命令都是我自己处理的。我
只是记不起来在笔录里了。这样我们就可以回去了
而且我们当然可以修改我的裁决以反映命令
传闻规则的例外但我当然邀请你参加
查看笔录并确定发生在哪里。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，没关系，法官大人。我们是
很高兴能做到。我们很乐意为您确定地点

575
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
法院。我们确实——我们本来是想让它成为一个前景的
问题仅仅是因为我们——考虑到政府的传闻
异议，我们预计这种情况会结束而且
再说一遍。所以并不是说我们要求法院下台
撤回并修改其任何裁决。那个证人是
原谅。我们不是要给他回电话之类的
那个。只要考虑到我们在 3500 份材料中看到的内容，我们就知道了
预见我们的盘问会发生，并鉴于
政府对传闻的看法，我们只是想说清楚
因此法院将我们的立场记录在案.
法庭：好吧。所以现在我们进入状态
心灵异常。如果你能解释一下你在这方面的立场。
KAMARAJU 先生：是的，法官大人。
所以心态，很明显，我们引用的案例，
美国诉DiMaria案，心态例外是
当被告提供陈述以作证时触发
他们当时存在的心态。它不能仅仅按照规则
众所周知，可以用来介绍一个关于一个的声明
过去记住的信念。所以从我们的角度来看，如果郭先生
发表了这样的声明——我将再次使用 DiMaria 的例子。所以
在迪马里亚，当特工来逮捕他时，被告
被告说：“你们为什么在这里？我来这里就是为了
买点便宜的香烟。”因此，法院在该案中说
这表明了他的心态，也说明了他为什么这么认为
在那里。

576
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
法院：对于？
KAMARAJU 先生：为什么被告认为他是
那里。那是他的心态，他现在、存在的状态
我想他为什么在那里。所以从我们的角度来看，有
可能是类似的证词，我们可以盘问
举例来说，可能作出 Mahwah 陈述的证人，
对，以及郭先生当时的信念，在
阴谋，关于 Mahwah 及其用途。那——再说一遍，
我们必须看看证词是什么，但那将是
心态异常示例。
法庭：所以如果有证人出庭你就是这么说的
看台和证人说郭先生说场地是
用于这些给定目的，该声明应该出现
是为了显示他的心态？
KAMARAJU 先生：当时，法官大人，是的。它
如果他想说的话，我们就无法进来
证词上面写着，你知道，他将在2023年进行反思
从 2021 年开始购买，我们并不是说这是一种心态
例外。但是对于他现在的、当时存在的心态来说
是的。
法院：我会听取政府的意见。
FERGENSON 先生：再说一遍，在这方面很难应付
对此很抽象，但正如我们在上面所说的那样，我们很担心
首先，辩方对这一例外情况的解释
会放弃规则这样几乎任何东西

577
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
被告说永远，他们可以脱颖而出，你知道——报价
通过我们的证人。传闻不是这样
法官大人，例外有效。要解决这个问题非常困难
抽象地说，我们没有太多时间消化他们的
信，但我认为确实有人担心会这样 ——
例外会吞噬规则。
法庭：所以我想知道什么时候是传闻
声明，郭先生的庭外陈述不是
显示他的心态。给我举个例子。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，我的意思是，首先是规则
定义了一个例子，对吧？哪个已经过去了
回忆。这是一个例子，对吧？但是让我说吧
这样。政府的论点基本上是失败的
也就是说，法院应该读出心态
例外，因为他们认为它太宽泛了。那不是
行之有效。
法院：嗯，法院正在努力弄清楚
法院应在何时解读例外情况。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，我同意，正如我所说，你的
法官大人，这无疑是特定声明的依据。所以我的
例子之一是，在阴谋时期，
他们说正在装修，对吧，如果郭先生说，哦，
你知道，我喜欢 G/CLUBS 成员的这个或者什么的，
首先，这很重要，对吧？其次，它表明
他在相关时间段内当时存在的心态，

578
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
过去不是。我们不是在谈论未来的行动，
是另一个传闻例外；我们说的是那个
一瞬间，郭先生就是这么相信的，对吧？所以对我来说，
试图确定读入的内容——法官大人是对的，
你不能抽象地做到这一点，但我认为这个例子我
刚刚给出了，那显然是当时存在的心态。
法院：我们将重新审视这个问题。我们将重新审视这个问题。
当然，政府将有机会提交
这方面的权威，当然，我邀请你，卡马拉朱先生
提交任何进一步的授权来指导法院。
KAMARAJU 先生：我很感激，法官大人，我会的
一定要试试。
法庭：在我们拿到之前还有别的吗
陪审员进来了？
KAMARAJU 先生：不是来自辩方，法官大人。
FERGENSON 先生：不是 —— 我不相信是
法官阁下在陪审团出来之前施压，但是辩方
确实提交了重审法官专家的动议
裁决。你知道，我想我们会要求至少在
法官大人，星期一可以对此做出回应。
法院：没关系。
FERGENSON 先生：其次，只做一次客房清洁
不管怎么样，我会尽量简短。我不知道 —— 我想考虑到
日程安排，我们可能无法听到沙梅尔先生的证词
梅德拉诺。他是政府的简要证人，他介绍

579
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
大量的视频和G新闻帖子。那是
法官大人昨天裁定的我们信的主题。他是
引入了略高于 200 页的摘要图表。
我们还为法庭和陪审团准备了硬拷贝活页夹
为了辩护，也为了法庭记者，我们会这样做的 —— 我
不认为我们今天能听到他的证词但想听取
只要提醒法庭注意这一点，你知道，在他之前
证词，我们可能想把那些活页夹放在下面
陪审员的椅子或者一开始就分发给他们，如果是的话
法官大人一切都好
法院：没关系。
FERGENSON 先生：还有一件事
证词有 —— 我也会 —— 有这么多展品
我们将根据规定提供，我们是
感谢辩方帮助我们就此达成协议
我们本来希望只分发一页列出所有内容
政府出示证物，以便法庭记者和法庭能够
在我读的时候继续关注，如果也没关系的话
法官大人。
法院：非常方便。谢谢。
FERGENSON 先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
法庭：我们将就此设置侧边栏
在替补席旁向前走。
KAMARAJU 先生：法官大人，这对我们来说很有意义。
否则，它离证人和陪审团有点近。

580
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1                 
法庭：好吧。因此，我们将在 9:30 返回。
所有法律顾问：谢谢你，法官大人。
（休会） 
霍顿先生：法官大人，请允许我提出一些问题
在陪审团来之前短暂地。
法庭：来吧。
HORTON 先生：刚才我们收到了一份文件
据我们所知，辩方打算透露这一点
迈斯特雷洛女士。这是一份追溯到她日期的文件
就业。我们认为她不可能做到
对其进行身份验证。它推迟了她的工作时间。没有
作者在文件中指出，金泉有限公司除外
似乎是一份公司文件。
因此，尽管将身份验证问题放在一边
当然，这是一个门槛问题，这是一个两页的内容
被告代理人的陈述。正是那种
我们一直在谈论的传闻，而且显然是有道理的
因为这是真的。这是对目的的长达两页的解释
金泉的保安小组。所以我们想带那个
提请法院注意并提出异议.
法庭：辩方计划用它来做也是如此
刷新她的回忆？
HORTON 先生：嗯，这已经推迟了她的工作时间，而且——
法庭：是的，但任何东西都可以用来刷新
回忆。

581
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
霍顿先生：当然。我明白。
法院：当然，那将是唯一的原因
那份文件可以交给证人，我知道
施罗夫女士知道这一点。
SHROFF 女士：我确实知道，法官大人。那是
正是我要用这个文档的目的。谢谢。
法庭：好吧。好吧。请陪审员来
带来了。
（下一页继续）

582
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
（陪审团出席） 
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我相信我们缺少一个
人。
法庭：证人？是的，是的，证人会
也进来吧。
早上好，陪审员。
陪审员：早上好。
法庭：欢迎回来。请坐下。
早上好。记住你还在地下
誓言。
你可以继续盘问。
SHROFF 女士：谢谢你，法官大人。
 KARIN MAISTRELLO，继续说道。 
盘问仍在继续 
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：早上好。
答：早上好。
问：你直接作证说你要去
通过这些程序称郭先生为老板，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：持续。
问：而且郭先生的名字也叫郭文豪（Ho Wan Kwok），对吗？
答：是的。
问：请你继续为我大声说话吗。
答：我会尽力的。

583
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：谢谢。
而郭宏伟这个名字是他在香港的名字，
正确？
答：广东话的名字。
问：对。这是他的广东话名字，对吧？
答：是的。
问：如果你愿意，你可以把它拉向你，
麦克风。
答：不，我很好。
问：这就是他香港护照上显示的名字，
正确？
答：我不记得了。
问：嗯，你为他安排了旅行，对吧？
答：我做到了。
问：你为他预订了酒店，对吗？
答：不是他的名字。
问：我听不见你的声音。
法院：好吧。那么我们可以试试掌机吗
然后改用麦克风。
答：不用他的名字。
问：没有使用郭浩云郭文贵这个名字？
答：我从来没有用过他的名字来预约。
问：好吧。而且你知道他在那里有政治庇护所
郭宏伟的名字，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。

584
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：我不记得使用的名字了。
问：你知道他的政治庇护申请待处理，
正确？
霍顿先生：反对，相关性。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：是的。
问：现在可以公平地说，对吧，你的员工合同
是金泉的，对吗？
答：金泉。
问：而且你直接作证说，当你接受这份工作时，
你的理解是 Golden Spring 是一种托管资产
管理公司，对吗？
答：是的。
问：在你接受这份工作的时候，没有人告诉过你
这些资产来自哪里，对吗？
答：没错。
问：而且你不知道这些资产是否来自
中东，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：我不知道。
问：而且你在某个时候就知道这些资产来自Golden
春季香港，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。我们报道了这个

585
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
昨天。
法院：持续。
问：你告诉联邦调查局你知道这些资产
流入金泉的纽约来自中间
东方——
霍顿先生：同样的反对意见，法官大人。
SHROFF 女士：我还没问完问题。
法院：请继续。
问：——还有来自香港金泉的，对吗？
霍顿先生：同样的反对意见，法官大人。这是
昨天报道了。
法院：驳回。
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：当然。你告诉联邦调查局你知道这些资产
在金春，纽约既来自中东，又来自中东
香港，对吗？
答：我知道有从香港金泉转机到
纽约金泉酒店，是的。
问：而且你也知道有来自中间的转账
向东到纽约金泉然后你告诉了联邦调查局
正确？你还记得吗？
答：我知道有人向多家公司转账。
问：对。而你所说的转账，是指资金流入，对吗？
答：正确。
问：好吧。你还记得曾告诉联邦调查局你是

586
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
完全知道这些转账支付了高先生的个人费用
还有政治开支，对吗？  
答：我不记得了。
问：好吧。好吧，让我看看我能不能帮你刷新
回忆。
法庭：请稍等片刻。
来吧。
问：那份文件会刷新你的回忆吗？
答：我以前从未见过这份文档。
问：让我用这种方式试试吧。
法院：我们收到了一点反馈
这里等等——
SHROFF 女士：我知道。
法庭：来吧。
问：女士，你回想起与—— 的会面
法庭：好吧。我们还能得到
反馈。
好吧。让我们再试一次。
问：这份文件会刷新你的回忆吗？
答：你指的是特定的段落吗？
问：当然。我希望这个段落现在能突出显示
您。
法庭：所以你不能大声朗读任何东西。
问题在于该文档是否会刷新您的
回忆。

587
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
SHROFF 女士：好吧。你可以把它记下来。
问：当你刚开始在金泉工作时，郭先生让你这样做
研究一种叫做 DDS 攻击的东西；你还记得吗？
答：我知道。
问：那什么是 DDS 攻击？你能不能告诉陪审团。
答：根据Boss的说法，这些网络攻击已经完成
由中共转到他的平台上。
问：还有对金泉平台的攻击，
正确？
答：你所说的金泉平台是什么意思？
问：我的意思是发给 Golden Spring 的电子邮件。
答：我被要求调查的是专门针对郭的
媒体，不是金春。
问：好吧。所以你被要求调查或调查
对郭媒体平台的分布式拒绝服务攻击，
正确？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而你是在一位绅士的帮助下做到的
名叫 Raj Benraj（ph），对吗？还是是 Benraja？我不是
当然。
他的名字是 A. Raj。
问：对。对吧，那是他的名字，而 Benraj 是他的
姓氏？你还记得吗？
答：不，那不是他的姓氏。

588
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：还有人一直对这封电子邮件感到担忧
Golden Spring 使用的地址，对吗？
答：我对此一无所知。
问：你不记得威廉·格兹曾是董事会成员而且
要求使用 Proton Mail？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：持续。
问：你知道威廉·格兹是谁吗？
答：我知道。
问：那是谁？
答：他是一名记者，也是法治组织的成员
社团理事会。
问：对。那是你任职的董事会，没错，
法治协会董事会，对吧？
答：没错。
问：你与法治基金会无关，对吗？
答：我不在那个董事会上，不是。
问：对。你在这方面没有工作 —— 在那个非营利组织，对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。因此，让我们回到当时使用的电子邮件系统
以 Golden Spring 员工的身份与你沟通，好吗？
答：好吧。
问：好吧。你还记得作为董事会成员的格兹先生吗，
和你谈谈要使用哪个电子邮件系统？
答：我不记得了。

589
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：你还记得从 Gertz 先生那里收到一封电子邮件说过这样的话吗
他觉得 Proton Mail 因为网络而更加安全
金泉和法治都遭到袭击
社会？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。传闻。
法庭：施罗夫女士，不要引出传闻
证词。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，这不符合事实，
它只会显示出来——
法庭：如果你要提出异议，或者
回应异议，你需要在侧边栏进行回应。
SHROFF 女士：好吧。对不起，法官大人。
（下一页继续）

590
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
（在侧边栏上） 
法院：那么这个问题的目的是什么？
SHROFF 女士：嗯，法官大人，政府引起了
使用了那个 Proton Mail。我想——我记不起来是谁了
direct 这个开启了，但是不知何故使用了 Proton Mail 是因为
人们想保守秘密。我有权证明这一点
第一，两者都对网络安全感到担忧
Golden Spring 和 Rug of Law 的网络安全问题
社会，她意识到网络问题，其中之一
董事会成员特别要求使用 Proton Mail 来获得
安全参与。该文件不适用于
真相。这些文件也是她和她之间的电子邮件交流
董事会维持正常的业务流程，
也将是传闻规则的例外。所以对于那些人来说
原因，我问她是否意识到这一点
她的一位董事会成员想使用质子邮件。还有我
问她能不能回忆起来，如果记不起来，
我有权刷新她的回忆。我就是这样
想问。
霍顿先生：所以我们没有征求有关证词
使用 Proton Mail 的目的（如果有）。它通过了
曾是销售人员或客户的 Louie Bonsukan
得克萨斯州一家汽车经销商的代表作证
我们讨论过的文件中 Proton 电子邮件地址的事实
和他在一起。汽车经销商当然不知道

591
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
经销商以外的任何人都在使用的目的
那封 Proton 的电子邮件。因此，证词没有妨碍
它被描述了。Shroff 女士确实引出了这一点，比如，
迈斯特雷洛女士从比尔·格茨那里听说他想用
质子邮件。那就进去了。这份更长的声明是关于
比尔·格兹详细谈到了他想使用的原因
还有比尔·格兹的想法和比尔·格兹的陈述，
那是传闻，也是它出现的原因。它要进来了
证明不在场的比尔·格茨的真相
说。
SHROFF 女士：它进来是为了表明
政府，当它得出购买汽车的事实时
是通过 Proton Mail 地址制作的，因此询问
陪审团来推断质子邮件的用法——但我没有提起
Proton Mail 的问题，我几乎百分之百确定
不知何故直接出来了 —— 这是陪审团应该推断出来的
这是一笔邪恶交易的迹象。我不是
想介绍比尔·格茨所说的话，因为，坦率地说，
那个人唯一说的是，让我们使用 Proton Mail，也就是
我唯一想拿出来展示其中一个事实
董事会，谁不受Miles的影响
Guo，使用了 Proton Mail。那是我曾经最基本的事实
试图引出。再说一遍，电子邮件交流都是——
法庭：我想回过头来谈谈你的问题
她是否收到了这个人的电子邮件，其中他

592
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
X. 说：我记得我支持了反对意见，而且
这样它就不在里面了。
HORTON 先生：我想有 —— 我可能记得
这是不正确的。我以为有一个与之无关的问题
关于她是否知道有人使用过 Proton 的电子邮件
邮件；只是她是否认识人 X 的简单知识
使用了 Proton Mail。我还以为是进来了。我觉得
重点不是 Proton Mail 不是 —— 需要明确的是
相关；这是传闻，是关于比尔·格兹的
目的。
法院：是的。我不包括他的陈述。但是
另外，我认为你是在暗示仅使用 Proton
邮件暗示着什么。
SHROFF 女士：没有。他们向另一个人暗示了这一点
证人。我正在清理它。
法院：不，他们没有。他们只是说
经销商收到了一封来自 Proton Mail 的电子邮件，
个人使用 Proton Mail。他们没有讨论任何问题
Proton Mail 的品质。
SHROFF 女士：哦，他们没有。他们只是想要
陪审团推断使用质子邮件有问题，
这就是为什么在那个证人身上，我必须澄清他得到了
来自 Proton Mail 的很多电子邮件。但你知道吗，我会搬家
不是，法官大人。
法院：很好。

593
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
SHROFF 女士：我想指出的是，这些电子邮件是
维持正常的业务流程，但确实会倒下
根据道听途说的业务例外规则。
法庭：但是不允许你进入传闻
声明仅仅因为它们在企业内部
文档。
SHROFF 女士：没错，法官大人，但我这么认为
是相关的，这不是传闻。我们一直在争论
自始至终都是传闻，我只是想确保
政府对国防部的立场很明确，即还有其他立场
传闻规则的例外情况。但我要继续前进。不是
值得。
HORTON 先生：如果我能简要地回应最后一个问题
施罗夫女士说的话。如果她打算为之奠定基础
把业务记录拿出来，她可以试着做。我不这么认为
那已经完成了。Maistrello 女士不是文件
保管人。如果是这样的话，我想还有一些工作要做
接下来是。
SHROFF 女士：我认为我不需要文件保管人
想获得传闻的商业记录，但谢谢你的
讲座。
法庭：施罗夫女士？
SHROFF 女士：是的，法官大人。法官大人——
法庭：你刚才说话的方式是
哈菲，我请你不要那样做。

594
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
SHROFF 女士：法官大人我当时很生气，但我累了，
而且我认为这不是一个有效的反对意见。政府
知道这显然属于业务记录规则，而且
政府正在尽其所能延长这一时间
证词。没有任何理由这样做。真的有
不是。政府在所有人反对的情况下都这样做了。
他们注入了其他与之无关的问题
分析。这是一个简单的问题。这是——
法院：所以我不同意你的说法
这是传闻规则的例外。因此，让我们回过头来吧。
拜托，拜托，我希望你保持冷静。
SHROFF 女士：谢谢你，法官大人。
（下一页继续）

595
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
（在公开法庭上） 
法院：反对意见得到证实。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：你知道需要调查分布式的
拒绝服务攻击，对吗？
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：你被要求调查分布式拒绝
服务攻击，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法庭：我会允许答案的。来吧。
答：是的。
法庭：还有施罗夫女士，你在那里用了一个词
我不明白。分布式什么？
SHROFF 女士：分布式拒绝服务攻击。
法庭：好吧。来吧。
问：那就是平台受到网络攻击的时候，对吗？
答：据我的理解，是的。
问：而且你和一位名叫 Raj 的绅士一起研究了这个问题
Dhangra，D-H-A-N-G-R-A，对吗？
答：起初，我独自一人。他还没有被录用。
问：你的证词是，你那时他没有被录用
分配了这个任务？
答：没错。
问：好吧。那是在他被录用时出现的，对，
根据你的说法？

596
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：你能重复这个问题吗。
问：当然。曾经有一段时间他实际上是被雇用的，
正确？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而且他有你没有的技术背景
有，对吗？
答：没错。
问：而且他曾在 IT 部门工作，
正确？
答：是的。
问：而且他协助解决了所有与 IT 有关的问题，对吗？那个
是他的工作，对吧？
答：是的。
问：而且他是协助你调查这个问题的人
很重要，对吗？
答：是的。
问：他在那里工作的时候你给他发了电子邮件，对吗？
答：我主要是——我们主要是说话。我们共用同一个办公室。
问：好吧。好吧，让我看看能不能刷新你的
回想起和他一起发电子邮件的经历，好吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。没有
记忆失败。
法院：持续。
问：你还记得给他发过关于这个具体任务的电子邮件吗
手？

597
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：我不记得了。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我可以接近吗？
法院：你可以。
问：女士，说你和他进行了互动是否公平
涉及网络系统安全的问题？
答：我们谈过了。
问：好吧。而且你还和他谈了以下问题
进入大楼的人的入口和安全，
正确？
答：我给他发了一封电子邮件，就像给其他员工一样。
问：那你发了关于什么话题的电子邮件，女士？
答：你指的是我现在手中的电子邮件吗？
问：我不需要。我只是在测试你的记忆力
你向他介绍的话题。你给他发了电子邮件
大楼的安全，对吗？
答：我不记得了。
问：好吧，我可以请你阅读那份文件看看是否
刷新你的回忆。
答：我看到了文件，我明白了我——
法庭：嗯，不要说文件中所说的话。
唯一的问题是，它会刷新你的回忆吗。
这是一个 “是” 或 “否” 的问题。
目击者：哦。
答：它无法刷新我的回忆，但我——我明白是什么了
写在电子邮件中。

598
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：好吧。而且你知道存在安全问题
在 Golden Spring 所在的大楼里，对吗？
答：我们有 —— 有人告诉我们必须保留这座建筑
安全。
问：而且你想确保只有经过授权的人员才能进入
金泉纽约办公室，对吗？
答：没错。
问：你制定了验证程序，对吗？
答：是的。
问：你制定了每个供应商名称的流程
他们必须在名单上才能进入
建筑，对吗？
答：没错。
问：你制定了一个流程，这样供应商的名字就是
必须告知，必须告知访问日期，
必须告知访问的时间，以及访问的原因
必须告知访问情况，对吗？
答：是的。
问：你制定了每个供应商的要求
在允许他们进入之前出示的身份证件
大楼是来金泉纽约办公室的，对吗？
答：是的。
问：而你是让自己负责的人
确保安全团队和其他任何一方都是
参与者知道这个程序，对吗？

599
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：而你是那个告诉整个团队你的人
将记录所遵循的每一项程序,
正确？
霍顿先生：法官大人，文件不在里面
证据。
SHROFF 女士：我不是在问这份文件，你的
恭敬地说，荣幸。
法庭：所以首先，证人必须回答 “我不知道
在考虑可能或可能不可能的文件之前 “召回”
刷新她的回忆。所以程序是，你被问一个
问题；如果你说你不记得了，那么她说，是
有一些东西可能会刷新你的回忆；它在
那个时候你可以参考这个文档。
来吧。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：你想让我重复这个问题吗，女士？
答：是的，拜托。
问：当然。你还记得在2018年的时候吗，当你
我们在金泉工作，你承担了责任
将此协议转发给安全团队以确保
每个人都知道协议本身吗？
答：我不记得曾经这样做过。
问：请问我交给你的文件是否，以及是否
你看 —— 刷新你的回忆。

600
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：你现在还记得你说过要留下来吗
负责将协议中的该消息转发到
安全小组，对吗？
答：当我在文件上读到的那样，是的。
问：好吧。还有你——
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法庭：所以你不能说出文件里说什么。
你只能说这份文件是否刷新了你的回忆。
它能帮助你记住她在问什么吗？那是
这个问题。这份文件会刷新你的回忆吗？
证人：不是。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：它不会刷新你对自己所做的事情的回忆
2018 年，对吗？
答：不是。
问：事实上，你忘记了很多事情
现在是 2018 年，对吗？
答：是的。
问：你忘记了与安全团队的互动，
正确？
答：是的，我忘记了某些东西。
问：而且你还忘记了参与安全团队的事
关于网络攻击问题，对吗？
我会改写的。你忘记自己是怎么回事了

601
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
就入境事宜与安全小组进行了互动
把访客留到金泉的办公室，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：所以这是一个复杂的问题。
SHROFF 女士：你知道吗，法官大人，我会继续的。
谢谢。
问：现在你直接就某件事作证了，不是吗
叫法治，对吧？这些是被问到的问题
你昨天。你还记得吗？
答：我知道。
问：好吧。没有法治之类的东西，对吗？
答：我不明白这个问题。
问：当然。我很乐意再试一次。有法治
社会，对吗？
答：有。
问：对。还有法治基金会，对吗？
答：是的，没错。
问：没有一个实体被简单地称为法治，对吗？
答：不是。我们将这两个实体称为法治
集体。
问：你提到过吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：驳回。
答：我们做到了。
法院：这是个问题吗？

602
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
SHROFF 女士：对不起？
法庭：你问了一个问题。你提到
他们；这是问题吗？
SHROFF 女士：是的，法官大人。谢谢。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我们做到了。
问：好吧，让我们试试吧。有一个《规则》委员会
律师协会，对吗？
答：是的。
问：你曾在那个董事会上，对吧？
答：我是。
问：有一个法治基金会的董事会，对吗？
答：是的。
问：你不在那个董事会上，对吗？
答：我不是。
问：对。所以如果有人问你是否在董事会里
在法治方面，你不得不说，我是规则委员会的成员
在律师协会中，我不是法治董事会成员
基金会，对吗？
答：是的。
问：因为那将是一个真实的答案，对吧？
答：是的。
问：那就完成了，对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。现在是法治协会的董事会，在2018年，

603
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
由史蒂夫·班农组成，对吗？
答：是的。
问：Sasha Gong，对吗？
答：是的。
问：比尔·格兹，对吗？
答：是的。
问：还有詹妮弗·默库里奥，对吗？
答：没错。
问：还有你，对吧？
答：对。
问：好吧。而且不是郭迈尔斯给了你任何职位
在那个董事会里；是董事会投票决定让你这样做的
位置，对吗？
答：他选择了我。
问：让我们试试吧。谁告诉你他选择了你？
答：他做到了。
问：他告诉你他选择了你加入董事会；那是
你的证词？
答：确实如此。
问：好吧。他宣布了吗：欢迎加入董事会
在 Rule of Law Society 的董事中，我已经任命你加入
董事会？
答：我不记得有公开声明了。
问：好吧。他发了电子邮件吗？
答：不是。

604
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：他把它放在推特上了吗？
答：他没有。
问：他把它放在 YouTube 上了吗？
答：我不知道。
问：根据你的说法，他是一个喜欢宣传的人，对吧？
答：你所说的——宣传是什么意思？
问：好吧。根据你的说法，他是那种喜欢的人
成为关注的焦点，对吧？
答：他是。
问：他是。所以没有关于他让你成为
董事会成员？不，对吧？
答：我不记得了。
问：好吧。你们五个人各有一票，对吗？
答：总的来说，你的意思是？
问：不是。我的意思是就像你在规则委员会任职时一样
律师协会。
答：哦。是的。
问：好吧。我的意思不是——我就是这个意思。为了法则
律师协会，你有一票，对吧？
答：是的。
问：你们当中有五个，对吧？
答：正确。
问：好吧。需要什么才能获得多数票？
答：我不记得了。
问：你不记得是什么时候才获得多数票

605
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
你坐了不到两年的董事会？  
答：没错。
问：好吧。你对某些请求投了反对票，对吗？
答：是的。
问：你投了反对票，对吗？
答：有一次，是的。
问：你从未被董事会解雇，对吧？
答：我不是。
问：你不是。在你做出决定之前，你一直待在董事会里
出于医疗原因戒烟，对吗？
答：没错。
问：郭先生从来没有叫你到他的办公室说，嘿，为什么
你是这样投票的，对吗？
答：我记不起来了。
问：好吧。我只想确定一下。你会记得一些东西
像这样，对吧？
答：我不知道自己是否会记得。
问：你不记得被董事会开除了吗？
答：我会记得被董事会开除的；是的。
问：你会记得他在责备你，没错，因为，
根据你的说法，他是老板，对吧？
答：你能重复这个问题吗。
问：当然。你会记得被他责备是因为
根据你的说法，他是老板，对吧？
答：我会记得的。

606
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：而且他从来没有因为你的投票方式而责备过你，对吧？
答：不是。
问：好吧。你就他买的房子作证
康涅狄格州；对吗？
答：是的。
问：那套房子是在 2020 年 2 月或 3 月购买的；是
那对吗？
答：我不记得确切的日期了。
问：它是你开始在那里工作之后买的，对吗？
答：是的。
问：在你戒烟之前，对吧？
答：没错。
问：你什么时候辞职的？
答：在 2020 年 4 月。
问：什么四月？
A. 2020。
问：而且我们从昨天起就知道你上班的第一天
是 2 月 19 日，对吗？
答：我工作的第一天是2018年2月19日。
问：什么？2019 年，对吧？2018。
A. 2018 年。
问：对。所以那所房子必须介于两者之间
2018 年和 2020 年，对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。你去过那所房子吗？

607
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：一次。
问：你曾经去过这所房子吗？
答：是的。
问：它很大，对吧？
答：不小。
问：还有人进出那所房子
广播，对吗？
答：当我在那里的时候，我没有看到任何人。
问：当你在那里的时候，你看到他所在的办公室了吗
房子？
答：我不记得了。
问：你记得在房子里看到过设备吗？
答：我——不是。
问：你记得在家里见过摄像机吗？
答：不是。
问：你还记得在房子里看到相机照明吗？
答：不是。
问：你还记得在房子里看到背景屏幕吗？
答：不是。
问：今天坐在这里，你知道谁为所有这些付出了代价吗
他家里有哪些设备？
霍顿先生：反对。
问：你知道吗——
SHROFF 女士：我很抱歉，法官大人。我会撤回的。
问：你知道有没有吗 —— 即使你没看见，你

608
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
我知道他在康涅狄格州的房子里有设备，对吗？
答：你能重复这个问题吗。
问：当然。你现在在盘问中作证说
你从来没有在他在康涅狄格州的家中见过这个设备，对吗？
答：正确。
问：你知道他在康涅狄格州的家里有设备吗？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。你知道他那里有没有广播设备吗
雪莉-荷兰？
答：是的。
问：他确实有，对吗？
答：他做到了。
问：而且他的装备和我两分钟背诵的设备一样
之前，对吗？
答：比如？
问：如果你需要我可以重复一遍。
答：是的，拜托。
问：好吧。他有相机，对吗？
答：是的。
问：背景屏幕，对吗？
答：我记不起来了。
问：照明，对吗？
答：是的。
问：录音设备，对吗？
答：是的。

609
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：广播设备，没错，尤其是这个
一个？
答：是的。
问：所有这些都是由纽约金泉支付的，
正确？
答：不是。  
问：这不是由纽约金泉支付的吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法庭：询问并回答。
问：据你说，谁为此付了钱？
A. 萨拉卡。
问：谁是萨拉卡？
答：Saraca是一家支付媒体和技术费用的公司。
问：而且 Saraca 是 Golden Springs New 的控股公司
约克，对吧？
答：你能重复这个问题吗。
问：萨拉卡是纽约金泉的控股公司，
正确？
答：我对此一无所知。
问：你不知道 William Je 管理萨拉卡吗？
答：我不知道。
问：你不知道萨拉卡是否有家庭资金吗？
答：我不知道。
问：所以你对萨拉卡一无所知，但你确定
萨拉卡付了账单。

610
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：复合问题。
问：你对萨拉卡了解吗？
答：我刚才告诉你的。
问：好吧。进入萨拉卡的钱从哪里来？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。你作证说第五大道800号有一间办公室
正确？
答：是的。
问：可以公平地说那真是一间公寓吗
大楼，比如建成的临时办公室？
答：是的。
问：好吧。那是一套三居室的公寓，对吧？
答：那是一套两居室的公寓。
问：好吧。而且人们把它当作办公室，对吧？
答：是的，我们是。
问：对。而且曾经有一段时间太挤了
而且所有人都同意搬家，对吗？
答：我们在 2019 年搬家。
问：好吧。然后你搬到了东64号楼，对吗？
答：是的。
问：而且 Golden Spring 搬到了那里，对吗？
答：正确。
问：名为萨拉卡的控股公司也搬到了那里，
正确？

611
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
答：我不知道萨拉卡的官方地点在哪里。
问：好吧。所以你不知道萨拉卡是否搬到了第 64 位
Street；我说对不对？
法庭：询问并回答。
问：而且你继续在东64号的金泉工作
街，对吗？
答：是的。
问：而且你直接作证说你工作了很长时间，对吗？
答：是的。
问：免费吃午餐是金泉的惯例吗
它的每位员工一周中的每一天？
答：在 800 Fifth，是的。
问：好吧。这种做法一直持续到第 64 位，对吗？
答：不是。
问：好吧。当你长时间工作时，你会得到一间旅馆
在城市里睡觉的房间，对吗？
答：当我连续工作几天的时候，是的。
问：好吧。他们让你住旅馆，没让你开车
下班来回走动，对吧？
答：我——我可以选择。
问：你可以选择，对吧？然后你选择了，对吧？
答：我做到了。
问：好吧。现在你直接作证说账单是怎么样的
已付款，对吧？
我会继续前进的。

612
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
A. 如何向供应商付款。
问：对不起？
A. 如何向供应商付款。
问：好吧。足够公平。那我说对了吗，供应商
需要付钱然后你会去找伊平，对吗？
答：这取决于金额。
问：因此，如果超过一定金额，你可以去
伊平；是这样吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。而且你称伊平为王延平；是吗
对吧？
答：当我——当我和同事谈起她时，我
会叫她 Yvette；当我和她说话时，我会用她
中文名字。
问：好吧。是伊平决定了是否支付
供应商与否，对吗？
答：是的。
问：有时候你必须获得预授权
Yvette 在你从特定人那里承担费用之前
供应商，对吗？
答：是的。
SHROFF 女士：好吧。我能不能请证人然后
陪审团请看 SM62。
问：你还记得直接就这份文件作证吗？
答：我记得。

613
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：好吧。而这份文件是你在找人签字
在向特定供应商付款时；对吗？
答：这是一份付款申请表。
问：对。所以如果我能为你突出显示这个名字
收款人，那将是苹果公司，对吗？
答：是的。
问：苹果位于第五大道767号，就在旁边
荷兰雪莉，对，粮农组织施瓦茨大楼，
正确？
答：是的。
问：好吧。如果你能向下滚动到付款金额，那就是
1,217.17 美元。好吧，上面写着 17 美分，但这里显示的是 95 美分
美分，对吗？
A. 1,117.95。
问：少量，对吧，相对而言？
答：你所说的小是什么意思？
问：这是一小笔钱。三件售价 1,117 美元
苹果的设备，对吗？
答：这是正确的金额，是的。
问：好吧。你无权批准付款
1,117 美元，对吧？
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：当然。你无权允许在上面付款
1,117.95 美元，对吗？
答：不是 Saraca。

614
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO1 Maistrello-Cross
问：你无权批准付款，对吗？
答：不是 Saraca。
问：你今天的证词是，如果这笔账单要交给戈尔登
春天，你本可以付账单吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。问了还有
回答。
法院：持续。
问：让我们看看这篇文档的顶部，好吗？
你看 Golden Spring New York 就是这么说的
有限公司？
答：我知道。
问：好吧。让我们来看看该文档的底部。
是你要求的，对吗？
答：是的。
问：当你填写表格时——请回去——你
填写了 Golden Spring 的申购单，对吗？
答：不是。它被划掉了。
（下一页继续）

615
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：那个十字架是马克斯·克拉斯纳写的，不是吗？
答：确实如此。
问：对。
那不是你的笔迹，对吧？ 
答：不是。
问：对。
因此，当你为此申请申购款时 
特定的账单，你以付款人的身份填写了 Golden 
春天；对吗？ 
答：最初的形式是金泉表格。
问：对。
所以你填写了表格，让 Golden Spring 付款 
那个法案是因为你不是那个越过顶部的人 
出去，对吧？ 
答：我不记得怎么样了。
问：好吧。
SHROFF 女士：请问我能再向下滚动一遍吗。
问：“由 Karin Maistrello 请求。”  
我说对你的名字吗，女士？ 
答：你是。
问：好吧。所以你要求了；对吗？
答：我做到了。
问：好吧。而且它得到了马克斯·克拉斯纳的批准；对吗？
答：是的。

616
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：好吧。当你填写表格时，你没有要求它
你自己认可，把金泉放在上面；
正确？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：好吧。
问：当你提交表格时，上面没有 Saraca
顶部；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。有人问过这个问题，也有人回答。
法院：持续。询问并回答。
问：今天坐在这里，你还记得这些设备是谁吗
为了？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。然后你为这位名叫马克斯的绅士作证
克拉斯纳；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而且 Max Krasner 还处理付款和银行事务
法治协会的账户；对吗？
答：是的。
问：作为总裁或董事会，你没有处理任何钱
法治协会会员；对吗？
答：我没处理，不是。
问：对。你从来没有被允许处理任何财务事务
法治协会，对吧？
答：我会一直和 Max 坐在一起。

617
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：对不起，你做了什么 —
SHROFF 女士：我听不见她的回答。我
对不起，法官大人。
答：我会一直和 Max 坐在一起查看账目。
问：那不是我的问题。
我的问题是你从来没负责过 
法治协会的财务；对吗？ 
霍顿先生：反对。
法庭：询问并回答。
问：你可以代表法治协会授权付款，
对吧？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。你曾是董事会成员兼总裁，但事实并非如此
知道吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：持续。
问：你作证说过一个叫曹德丰的人；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你作证说他是梅的 —— 他女儿的
男朋友; 对吗？
答：是的。
问：顺便问一下，你知道他在那时做了什么工作吗
在中国工作？
答：我不记得了。
问：你还记得他当时是否接受过安全培训吗

618
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
他在中国工作过？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。问了还有
回答。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：我不记得了。
问：你还记得他有没有在中国受雇从事过保安工作吗
工业？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。问了还有
再次回答。她说她不记得了。
法院：持续。
问：你知道他是怎么从中国到美国的吗？
答：乘飞机。
问：在什么情况下，你还记得吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我不知道。
问：你为一个名叫威廉·杰的人作证；对吗？
答：正确。
问：那是杰先生 —— 我说对他的名字吗？我，
对吧？
答：是的。
问：好吧。他是让你担任职位的人
ACA Capital；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你直接作证说是郭先生

619
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
向你介绍了 Je 先生；对吗？
答：是的。
问：难道郭先生与此无关难道不是真的吗
简介；实际上，是王薇平向你介绍的
余先生？
答：不，我敢肯定 boss 向我介绍了 William。
问：好吧。你还记得在证词中作证吗
案例？
答：是的。
问：你还记得宣誓作证吗？
答：是的。
问：你记得那里有律师吗？
答：是的。
问：还记得在你被关押的时候作过这样的证词
发誓，说你是王太太介绍给威廉的
我和信任的人见过他好几次。
你还记得你提供的证词吗？ 
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。好吧，让我们看看我们能不能在页面上向你展示 3525-001
14。
SHROFF 女士：你能不能往后翻一页。
问：你看到那个页面的底部了吗？
答：我知道。
问：这是否刷新了你在宣誓时提供的证词
沉积？

620
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：在作证时你宣誓说：“我是
王太太以值得信赖的人的身份介绍给威廉，而我
见过他好几次。”对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。这不是
证据。不在陪审团面前。
法院：驳回。
HORTON 先生：已经在陪审团面前了，但不在陪审团面前
证据。
法庭：哦，你是说这个正在上映
给陪审员？不应向陪审员出示此信息。
不是？你面前有文件吗？ 
陪审团：确实如此。
法庭：好吧。所以那是个错误。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：这会刷新你的回忆吗？
答：是的。
问：所以你确实是在宣誓下这么说的，对吧？
答：我做到了。
问：那比你今天的证词早了好几年；
正确？
答：是的。
问：而且你已经作证记不住一些东西了
东西；对吗？
答：是的。

621
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：那时你的记忆力比现在的记忆要好；
正确？
答：我对此一无所知。
问：你对此一无所知。
答：我不知道什么时候我的记忆力好多了。
问：好吧。所以那时你说是伊平介绍的
你去找威廉。我们很清楚；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。
SHROFF 女士：你可以把它记下来。谢谢。
我对此感到抱歉。 
问：你还作证说 Je 先生在东部 64 号
街道办公室；对吗？
答：有时候他会来，是的。
问：当他来的时候，他正在用笔记本电脑工作，而你是
那里，对吧？
答：大多数时候。
问：你们共用办公室吗？
答：我们共用一个楼层。
问：我的问题是你共用一间办公室吗？
答：是的。
问：对。所以你和他坐在同一个办公室里；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。郭先生从来没有和你一起坐在那个办公室里，对吧？
是你和威廉·杰；对吗？

622
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：还有其他人，是的。
问：对。但是你分享了 —— 郭先生不在那个地方
全部；对吗？
答：他不是。
问：好吧。还有 William Je 邀请你加入
ACA 董事会，对吧？
答：是的。
问：然后他告诉你为什么要你加入董事会；不是
对吗？
答：是的。
问：他告诉你他在找人投资；对吗？
答：是的，他在纽约和纽约寻找投资
各州。
问：他也在寻找投资者，对吧？
答：我记不起来了。
问：好吧。所以他想让你帮他找到愿意的人
投资；对吗？
答：我相信如此。
问：投资的人被称为投资者；对吗？
答：他们是。
问：好吧。然后你一直在 ACA 的董事会任职，直到你收到
传票；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。当你接到传票时，你去和谁谈过话了
首先是传票，你还记得吗？

623
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：那是谁？
答：丹尼尔·波德哈斯基。
问：对。
你没去找伊平，对吧？ 
答：我与之交谈的第一个人是丹尼尔。
问：你没去找郭先生，对吧？
答：我没有。
问：好吧。而且知道你讨论的时候还有人在场
那张给 Podhaskie 先生的传票；对吗？
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗？
问：当然。当你讨论这个问题时没有其他人在场
向丹尼尔·波德哈斯基先生发出传票；对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。而且王女士没有出席那次谈话；
正确？
答：她不是。
问：好吧。而且你可以自由地告诉他你身上有什么
介意那张传票，对吧？
答：是的。
问：好吧。你可以让 Podhaskie 先生给你买一个
来自 —— 那从来没有去过金泉的律师
办公室；对吗？
答：我本可以的。
问：好吧。所以你昨天作证说自己在

624
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
证词，你还记得那个证词吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而且你当时在作证；对吗？
答：我是。
问：好吧。而且你被罢免了，对吧？
答：我是。
问：你作证；对吗？
答：我做到了。
问：你宣誓了；对吗？
答：我是。
问：你发誓要说实话；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
我们已经经历过了。 
法庭：询问并回答。
问：而且你那里有律师，对吧？
霍顿先生：反对。同样的反对意见。
法院：持续。
问：在证词期间，王女士没有坐在你旁边，
对吧？
霍顿先生：反对。同样的反对意见。
我们已经经历过了。 
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我可以接近吗？
法院：是的。
（下一页继续）

625
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
（在侧边栏上） 
法庭：所以我记得你问过
昨天王女士是否在证词现场。
SHROFF 女士：对。但我想我从来没有报道过
那边有律师，王女士还有三个座位。我
从来没有报道过她在此期间作证的范围
沉积。我从来没有问过她所有的行为
是在证词结束后发生的。我从来没有报道过任何东西
与郭文亮讨论了关于证词的部分讨论
关于所有这些。
我想我没有报道任何内容。而且我很漂亮 
我肯定昨晚检查过；但如果我错了，我就错了，但是 
我想我没报道过这个问题。   
我想我有权证明王女士不是 
正如他们所暗示的那样坐在她旁边；有律师 
坐在她旁边；王女士向下坐了三个座位。我想我是 
允许显示所有这些。 
霍顿先生：法官大人，这样的提问，
这不只是最后几个问题，但我认为是
大约十分钟的问题，是不必要地累积起来的。它是
会大大延长试用期，特别是如果
对于即将到来的证人来说，这种速度仍在继续。
而且我们已经一次又一次地研究了这个问题，而你的
Honor也遭到了许多同样的反对
那就是问题被问和回答，而且是

626
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
其次是同样的问题和同样的主题。
法庭：因此，讯问是重复的。
你找到了各种方法来询问一个人是否宣誓过
在证词时作证，因此没有必要。所以如果你
只会坚持提高效率所必需的内容
讯问。
SHROFF 女士：我很乐意尝试一下，法官大人。
法庭：好吧。
HORTON 先生：我们能问一下她还剩下多少钱吗
交叉检查？
SHROFF 女士：我不知道。我不知道。我想
30 分钟。
法庭：然后花点时间考虑一下。
SHROFF 女士：三十分钟。
法庭：三十分钟。
SHROFF 女士：但我说实话，我有一个
听她说话很麻烦这也增加了我的学位
沮丧，但我根本听不见她的声音。而且我觉得
问得太荒谬了，大概十次我听不见你的声音。我
抱歉，法官大人，但我听起来很麻烦
她的。
法院：你需要助听器吗？
SHROFF 女士：我没有助听器。我的耳聋
是由于某种奇怪的伤害造成的。我在山上被看见了西奈半岛
布鲁克林的医院。他们给我注射了泼尼松

627
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
尝试将其恢复。我对此无能为力。我通常是
不要有这样的斗争。所以我很抱歉，法官大人，我真的
做，但我没有——
法院：你需要一台设备来放大什么吗
你在耳边听到有效吗？
SHROFF 女士：我只是在这方面遇到了麻烦
目击者。我之前没有遇到过其他两个问题。我
会更好的，法官大人。  
但我真的很难听见她的话。还有我 
不想一直要求你重复。所以你明白我什么时候 
向前看，我真的想看看我能不能听得更好。  
因此，对此我深表歉意。我听不清了。 
法庭：你是在要求我 —
SHROFF 女士：不，不，不是 —
法院：— 安装任何其他设备或
让你有机会进行体检或者不知何故
解决耳聋？
SHROFF 女士：不，法官大人，一点也没有。我不是
试图制作任何形式的记录。我不打算加薪
这在任何上诉中都是如此。我只是想告诉你我为什么有
听不见她的话，仅此而已。我什么都不是
打算 —— 我不是在为任何事情奠定基础
完全是路。我只是想解释发生了什么
仅此而已。
法庭：我要再次请她大声说出来。

628
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
SHROFF 女士：好吧。我只想说得很清楚，你的
法官大人，我真的不是想打下基础
任何东西。我希望这很清楚。
霍顿先生：法官大人，我们只想指出这一点
交叉的时间比直线长。  
而且你的法官对7月4日的目标很感兴趣 
那是在案子里设定的，我们担心会出现 
能够按照现在的速度实现这个目标。 
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我们也有同样的担忧。  
我们还问政府，如果他们能停下来 
循环，这也将缩短审判时间。   
法院：实际上，循环是一种更有效的方法
其实。
SHROFF 女士：我不这么认为。我认为这是领先的
而且我认为这对辩方非常有偏见。  
而且，你知道，辩护律师长期以来一直在争论 
反对循环，法官大人。 
法院：因此，还有很长的路要走
直接做检查。如果我们走很长一段路，它就会延长
审判。
SHROFF 女士：我很抱歉，法官大人。我总是
我以为只是说接下来发生的事情比你还短
知道，当你去房子然后看到蓝旗的时候，
然后告诉我接下来发生了什么。所以我很抱歉。我会做的
更好。我会试着把它向前移动。

629
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
（在公开法庭上） 
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：在作证时，你的律师坐在你旁边；
正确？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：你可以回答。来吧。
答：是的。
问：王女士坐在向下三个座位上；对吗？
答：二。
问：而且她在作证时没有说话；对吗？
答：她没有。
问：而且你在证词中作证说你是
意大利公民；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你作证说你在美国持有签证；
正确？
答：是的。
问：可以公平地说，在2023年，你还持有签证；
正确？
答：是的。
问：那时你已经停止为金泉工作了；
正确？
答：是的。
问：那时你已经停止使用法治了
社会；对吗？

630
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：2023 年，你联系了一位仍在那里工作的律师
叫维克多·塞尔达；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。相关性。
法院：你可以回答。
答：是的。
问：你请他帮你办理移民身份；
正确？
答：我征求了建议，是的。
问：他拒绝了；对吗？
答：没错。
问：你直接作证说在作证之后你去了
去吃午饭；对吗？
答：没错。
问：你去和伊平共进午餐；对吗？
答：是的。
问：然后你回到了办公室，你作证了，对吧？
答：我们做到了。
问：然后你直接作证说，伊平，你去了
郭先生的办公室；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你的证词是伊平告诉郭先生你
做得非常出色；对吗？
答：是的。
问：麦斯特雷洛女士，在作证时，可以公平地说吗？

631
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
你作证说你甚至不知道自己为什么在那里？
你还记得在证词时作过那个证词吗？
答：是的。
问：据你说，王女士称赞你作证
你不知道为什么要出庭作证；对吗？
那是你的证词？
答：她刚才说我在证词期间表现不错。
问：好吧。根据你的说法，她称赞你 —— 那位你
在证词中表现不错然后她开始给你打电话
一把长笛；对吗？
答：是的。
问：说她从来没有提到过你，这难道不公平吗？
像长笛一样；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：你可以回答。
答：她以前做过。
问：她在作证之前就这样做了，叫你长笛？
答：她做到了。
问：好吧。在作证之前很久她就叫你长笛
而且，据你说，证词之后她还给你打了电话
一把长笛？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。这是化合物。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我不记得她什么时候记得了。
问：你不记得是不是在证词之前？

632
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法院：持续。
问：但你确实记得曾作证说自己不知道为什么
你被罢免了；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法庭：询问并回答。
问：你作为一个坐在一辆车上的人作证了这一点
特定的棋盘；对吗？
霍顿先生：同样的反对意见。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我会继续前进的。
问：你直接就媒体作证，不是吗
关于成立法治协会的会议；对吗？
A. 法治协会和基金会。
问：好吧，让我们来谈谈法治协会，好吗？
好吧。你为此协调了人们的旅行 
事件；对吗？ 
霍顿先生：反对。
法庭：电池不见了。我们还有别的吗
麦克风？请你大声说出来。
霍顿先生：反对。法官大人，我们反对
这个问题的前提是将其局限于法治协会。
法庭：嗯，提问者问了证人
限制她对法治协会的回答；而且你的
问题可以在重定向时得到解决。来吧。
问：你协调了旅行；对吗？

633
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：你才是真正预订的人，对吧？
答：我不是唯一的人，但是是的。
问：但是你的工作是预订，对吧？旅行预订。
答：那不是我的工作，但我当时做了。
问：然后你协调人们的航班；对吗？
答：我记不起来了。
问：你还记得为人们预订酒店房间吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。累积。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我会继续前进的。
问：你还记得工作中的那部分内容吗
你在那里的时候就是做这样的预订，
对吧？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。我们对此进行了介绍。
法院：持续。
问：实际去酒店是你工作的重要组成部分
房客入住之前的房间--开始入住至
自己检查房间？
答：你指的是法治协会的工作吗？
问：是的。
答：那么答案是否定的。
问：去金泉怎么样？
答：是的，但仅限老板，不适用于客人。
问：好吧。所以你的证词是你看了酒店房间
提前，没错，是郭先生的时候了；对吗？

634
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
霍顿先生：反对。  
提问并回答，法官大人。 
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：是的。 
问：当你去检查房间时，你上网了
安全小组人员与你同在，正确无误，还有一名保安人员
和你在一起；对吗？
答：是的。
问：女士，说你从未与之交谈过的话公平吗
郭先生有关于法治协会的财务状况吗？
答：我不记得了。
问：郭先生从来没有告诉过你他要捐一个
作为法治协会的赞助商百万美元；对吗？
答：他在会议期间做到了。
问：你的证词是他告诉你他要捐一个
百万美元？
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法庭：你在开会吗？
你需要大声说出来。 
目击者：是的。
法庭：来吧。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：根据你的说法，你能告诉我们还有谁在干这件事吗
会议？
答：人们各不相同，但我记得史蒂夫·班农在场，

635
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
有时候威廉在场，伊平在场。
问：所以根据你的说法，班农先生在场 —— 我错过了
第二个名字。
A. 威廉。
问：William Je，对吧？
答：正确。
问：还有伊平在场。那是你的证词？
答：是的。
问：所以那里没有公众；对吗？
答：不是。
问：据你说，这次会议没有广播给
任何人；对吗？
答：不是。
问：你从未在 Twitter、YouTube 或其他任何地方听过他这么说
社交媒体；对吗？
答：我记不起来了。
问：你记不起来曾经听过他大声说过这样的话
永远公开；对吗？
答：我不记得了。
问：现在，你就政府所在的实体作证
它直接被称为法治；对吗？所有的
昨天的问题，你还记得他们称之为 Rule of 吗
法律，对吧？你还记得吗？
答：我记得曾讨论过法治组织。
问：好吧。所以我只想说得很清楚

636
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
盘问我只是在问你关于你这个实体的情况
我们参与了，那就是法治协会，好吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。  
错误地描述了她的证词。 
法院：持续。她说她持有
法治协会内的办公室。
SHROFF 女士：对。
法院：“参与” 是对以下内容的错误描述
她的证词。
问：你没有参与任何法治行动
基金会；对吗？
答：我不是。
问：你不是法治基金会的董事会成员；
正确？
答：我不是。
问：你没有参与任何与 Rule 有关的事情
董事会写给法律基金会；对吗？
答：我不是。
问：好吧。Rule of Law Society 有追随者；对吗？
答：我认为可以公平地说那个老板有追随者。
问：好吧。所以老板有追随者来自哪个 Rule of Law
社会从中受益。这也是公平的说法吗？
答：确实如此。
问：在直接证词中你谈到了为期一年的广播
周年纪念；对吗？你还记得 —— 那太尴尬了

637
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问题。我很抱歉。
你还记得当时的广播吗 
一周年纪念？ 
答：我知道。
问：好吧。那是在 2019 年 11 月；对吗？
答：是的。
问：而且广播是在东64街的办公室播出的，
对吧？
答：确实如此。
问：这是在 Guo Media 上做的；对吗？
答：我想是的。
问：我没听见你的话，对不起？
答：我想是的。
问：好吧。而且你作证说你没有为此做任何事情
筹款人；对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。你的证词是你没有安排旅行
有哪些人是为了这个机会飞到纽约的？
霍顿先生：反对。累积起来，法官大人。
法庭：询问并回答。
问：根据你的说法，在这次筹款活动中，伊平问过你
从 Saraca 和 Golden Spring 转移资金以示捐款
致法治协会；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。然后你作证说，有人告诉过你

638
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
你应该这样做，这样人们才能看到大量的
屏幕上显示的钱；对吗？
答：是的。
问：据说，伊维特对你说了这句话
你？
答：是的。
问：而且 Yvette 告诉你她想让你这样做
这样她就可以向法治协会捐出巨额捐款;
正确？
答：正确。
问：然后你直接说过你不想那样做
因为转账不是真实的；对吗？
答：是的。
问：而且你作证说你认为他们是内部的
转账；对吗？
答：是的。
问：根据你的说法，Golden Spring 向 Rule of 捐款
律师协会，你会认为这是内部的
转移；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。因此，如果规则是 —— 如果金泉想捐款
对法治协会来说，你会以内部身份对此表示反对
转移？
答：不是。我们被要求转账然后寄回去。
问：但是你从来没有把它寄回去，对吧？

639
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：我一开始从来没有转移过它。
问：对。而当其他人今天坐在这里转移它时，
你没有证据表明他们曾经把它转移回去；
正确？
答：我不记得了。
问：你从来没有看过 Golden Springs 上关于这个问题的任何书籍
汇款；对吗？
答：我从来没有看过 Golden Spring 的书。
问：对。而且你不知道那笔钱是否曾经有
转移回金泉；对吗？
答：我不记得了。
问：你不记得还是不知道？
答：我不记得了。
问：你知道 Golden Springs 向 Rule 捐了多少钱吗
律师协会的？
答：我不知道。
问：你知道 Golden Spring 向 Rule of 捐了多少钱吗
法律基金会？
答：我不知道。
问：你从未查过法治协会的书籍；
正确？
霍顿先生：反对。累积。
法庭：询问并回答。
问：你还直接作证说你告诉了伊维特你做到了
不想这样做，对吧？

640
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：伊平没有强迫你，对吧？
答：不是。
问：然后是你昨天的证词
告诉她了，伊平能感觉到你很沮丧；对吗？
答：是的。
问：根据你的说法，伊平看见你很沮丧而且
然后还跟你说过，别担心，别人
会做的。你说她是这么跟你说的吗？
答：是的。
问：还有其他人来找你抱怨他们是
被迫做这样的事情？
答：是的。
问：真的。谁？
答：三位同事。
问：三个同事来找你说他们向你投诉了
你，这是你的证词吗？
答：确实如此。
问：你昨天没有直接作证；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：驳回。
你可以回答你是否作证。 
答：我不记得了。
问：当这三个同事来找你的时候
抱怨了这个，你本可以去找威廉·杰；

641
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
正确？
答：我为什么要去找威廉？
问：嗯，他不是你玩得不错的人之一吗
与？的关系
答：他甚至不在办公室。
问：好吧。但是他有电子邮件，对吧？
答：是的，他有一封电子邮件。
问：好吧。你当时是董事会成员；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你本可以在董事会会议上提出这个问题；对吗？
答：我本可以的。
问：你本可以就此向任意数量的人发送电子邮件；
正确？
答：我可以。
问：你可以给 Dan Podhaskie 发电子邮件；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。法官大人，这是累积性的。
法院：持续。
问：你有没有给任何人发过关于这三位同事询问的电子邮件——
向你抱怨？
霍顿先生：同样的反对意见，法官大人。
法院：持续。
问：那次活动之后你没有辞去董事会职务，因为
你被要求做错事；对吗？
答：我没有。
问：而且这三位同事也没有辞职；对吗？

642
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：并非所有人都是董事会的一员。
问：他们没有辞职，对吧？
答：他们没有。
问：好吧。夫人，说你没有权限公平吗
将任何钱转出萨拉卡；对吗？
答：没错。
问：你无权向 Saraca 支付任何账单
账户；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。我们对此进行了介绍。
法院：持续。你已经讨论过这个问题了。
问：法治协会董事会的第一次会议是
2019 年 5 月，你还记得吗？
答：我不知道。
问：你不记得2019年5月的第一次见面了吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：持续。
问：下一次会议是在2019年6月27日举行的。你还记得吗
会议？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得一次会议，一次为讨论而举行的特别会议吗
Sasha Gong 被解雇所引发的问题？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得 Sasha Gong 接近法治吗
协会的董事会因为她因为做 Voice of 而被解雇了
美国采访郭先生？

643
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：当然。你还记得召开过一次特别会议吗
讨论宫女士因为做一件事被美国之音解雇
采访郭先生？你还记得吗？
答：我不记得有过特别会议。我记得她分享过
这个事实。
问：而且你不记得董事会曾对她的请求进行过投票
寻求援助以不当解雇罪起诉美国之音？
答：我不记得了。
问：好吧。你还记得 2019 年 8 月 23 日的公告吗
关于 2019 年 9 月 3 日的董事会会议？你还记得吗
那个？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得当时有一次真正的董事会会议吗
2019 年 9 月 3 日？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得其中一个议程是审查吗
预算？这能帮助你刷新回忆吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法庭：我想你已经讨论过这个问题了
领土，施罗夫女士。
问：你还记得法治协会曾经有过提案吗？
你昨天也作证了——向中国运送个人防护装备；
正确？
答：是的。

644
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：而且你作证说这对你来说毫无意义，对吧？
答：没错。
问：而且你作证说这对你来说没有任何意义
个人防护装备之所以被送回中国，是因为中国是中国
正在制作 N95 口罩；对吗？
答：没错。
问：但是 N95 口罩只是个人防护装备的一部分；对吗？
答：我不明白这个问题。
问：在COVID期间有不同种类的口罩，对吗？
答：总的来说？
问：是的。
答：是的。
问：好吧。当你这么想的时候，你一无所知
中国的普通人是否有机会获得N95口罩；
正确？
答：我不记得了。
问：而且你不知道人们的家庭成员是否
在美国的人想把口罩寄给家人
中国会员；对吗？
答：什么人？
问：持不同政见者，支持法治的人
社会。
法庭：她无法就现场发生的事情作证
别人的想法。
问：如果你不知道，你知道法治协会是

645
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
支持持不同政见者；对吗？
答：这就是使命。
问：持不同政见者在中国有家人；对吗？
答：有些人可能有。
问：美国的持不同政见者会想要他们的家人
中国的会员必须——
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
问：— N95 保护；对吗？
法院：持续。
问：你直接作证，不是吗，那是你的
明白 N95 口罩是送到郭先生家里的？
答：是的。
问：哪个家？
答：康涅狄格州的那个。
问：今天坐在这里，你知道郭先生有没有坐在他里面吗
康涅狄格州在疫情的任何部分都有家吗？
答：在2020年3月，是的。
问：好吧。而在 2020 年 3 月，你的证词是郭先生
不是在游艇上，而是在康涅狄格州的家中？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：你的证词是，你的回忆是
2020 年 3 月，在疫情期间，郭先生在他的家中
康涅狄格州而不是在游艇上？

646
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：至少在2020年3月的某个时间里，是的。
问：哪一部分？
答：我不记得确切的日期了。
问：你根本不知道任何日期；对吗？
答：我不记得日期了。
问：对。
你对谁是谁有任何个人了解吗 
疫情期间住在康涅狄格州的家中？ 
答：我只能在疫情的第一个月说话。
问：好吧。你真的知道谁住在那所房子里吗？
答：我知道他在那里，他的妻子也在场。
问：你不知道还有谁在场；对吗？
答：如果还有其他人，我没有。
问：他们会与你协商谁住在他们家里
回家，对吧？
答：不，他们不会。
问：这不涉及你的工作，对吧？
答：不是。
问：在疫情期间，你没有去办公室；对吗？
答：我们在 3 月 16 日停止去办公室了。
问：我只是在问你的情况，女士。我问你的问题是
你要去办公室吗？
答：我在 3 月 16 日停止去办公室了。
问：好吧。而且，实际上，伊平是在那段时间去办公室的
每天都有大流行；对吗？

647
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：我不知道。我没在场。
问：好吧。所以当你说 “我们不走了” 时，你真的
意思是你停止前进了；对吗？
答：我的意思是我和我的同事。
问：嗯，你不知道你的同事们是否停止工作，
对吧？你不知道 Dan Podhaskie 有没有停止前进；对吗？
答：我知道。
问：你的证词是丹·波德哈斯基停止去办公室了
在COVID大流行期间？
霍顿先生：反对。累积。
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我会继续前进的。
问：你记得曾和联邦调查局讨论过，不是吗，那个 —
关于大米和个人防护装备的运输，你还记得证词吗
关于那个 —— 我的意思是和他们谈谈那个话题？
答：我知道。
问：你还记得你告诉过他们你已经不在了
在办公室，我们在家工作，但你不知道是什么
正在移动；对吗？
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗？
问：你告诉联邦调查局你不在办公室，你确实在办公室
不知道在感动什么，但这就是你所听到的；
正确？
答：你对正在移动的东西是什么意思？
问：你没有看到任何个人防护装备从办公室转移到

648
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
康涅狄格州；对吗？你没在场，对吧？
答：我没有亲自到场，不是。
问：对。你没有个人知识。你只是
重复别人告诉你的话；对吗？
答：那不正确。
问：好吧。好吧，你有没有告诉联邦调查局你不在
办公室但你没看到这些动作？
答：我没有用眼睛看见动作，因为我不在场。
问：好吧。所以你没有个人知识。你只知道
有人告诉你的话。
答：我被要求安排一些动作。
问：你被要求安排个人防护装备的搬运？
答：是的。
问：好吧。那你安排了多少动作？
答：我不记得了。
问：从哪里到哪里？
答：从康涅狄格州的办公室到家中。
问：多少金额？
答：我不记得了。
问：好吧。今天坐在这里，你还记得被告知要派人吗
将个人防护装备送到金泉员工家中？
答：我不记得了。
问：你还记得有人要求将个人防护装备送到家中吗
法治协会的人？
答：不，我不记得了。

649
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：你还记得被要求向其他人运送个人防护装备吗？
答：致纽约警察局。
问：你把它们送到了纽约警察局；对吗？
答：我记得有箱子被寄到纽约警察局了。
问：我没听见。老板是什么？
答：我记得装满个人防护装备的箱子。
问：盒子？
答：口罩被送到纽约警察局警局。
问：好吧。你还记得被送到医院的箱子吗？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。当你直接就这些箱子作证时
被派往纽约警察局时你作证说伊维特想让你这样做
把郭先生的名字写在他们身上但你拒绝了；对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。重要的是要让个人防护装备达到
纽约警察局；对吗？
答：对谁来说最重要？
问：适用于任何需要个人防护装备的人。
答：我不明白这个问题。
问：好吧。我会继续前进的。
没人写过郭先生的信给你签字
去纽约警察局；对吗？
答：不是。
问：没有人强迫你起草这样的信；对吗？
答：我被要求起草。

650
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：我的问题是没有人强迫你起草这样的信；
正确？
答：没错。
问：好吧。事实上，你从来没有起草过这样的信；
正确？
答：我没有。
问：好吧。郭先生没说，如果信上没有我的名字，
不要把个人防护装备寄给纽约警察局，对吧？
答：他从来没有这么说过。
问：对。
而且纽约警察局有个人防护装备，对吧？ 
答：我相信他们做到了。
问：对。
是你寄来的，对吧？ 
答：我没有。
问：没错。别人发了因为你不是
身体上在那里，对吧？
答：没错。
问：好吧。现在，你就安全问题作了大量的证词
而且你怎么认为这很荒谬；对吗？
答：我作证说没必要。
问：好吧。当你决定不需要的时候，你是吗
知道中国部长访问了郭先生，
中共特工，你知道吗？
答：我知道2017年有一次来访。

651
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：你知道在 2017 年有一次来访；对吗？
答：是的。
问：而且你知道他被特工探视了
中共的国家安全部；对吗？
答：没错。
问：然后他们在他家里探望了他；对吗？
答：没错。
问：当时他的妻子和女儿还在中国；
正确？
答：我不知道。
问：当时，你知道，不是吗，他是
中共猎狐运动的主要目标；对吗？
答：我当时还没为他工作。
问：我的问题是你知道吗？
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我不知道。
问：你知道有一场胁迫郭先生的运动吗
回到中国？
答：你指的是特定的时期，特定的年份吗
和——
问：你知道这个事实吗？
答：有人告诉我。
问：那是哪一年？
A. 2018 年。

652
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：那是你在那里工作的时候；对吗？
答：是的。
问：那是他有安全保障的时候；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你知道吗，当他被探视时，你已经知道了
中共各部，他受到了威胁？
霍顿先生：反对。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我不记得有人这么说了。
问：你还记得有人告诉过他有危险吗
被绑架？
霍顿先生：反对。这是传闻，法官大人。
法院：请加紧努力。
（下一页继续）

653
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
（在侧边栏上） 
法院：所以我想到了漫长的条款
涵盖了这个。
霍顿先生：是的，法官大人。显然是
被迫重复这个事实。  
我认为这方面的第一个问题是 
证人证实她没有个人信息 
对此的了解。所以问题都是，你被告知了吗 X 
关于 Y，目标是了解 X 和 Y 的真相。 
法庭：所以她在某个时候得知他是
她这样说，成为中共的目标。
霍顿先生：对。她说有人告诉过她
某些东西。看来他们正在努力获得
这里面那些事情的真相，通过询问来做到这一点，
还有另一个不在的人告诉你什么，什么
那是这样的说法，就是说那句话是真的。
法庭：所以你是以传闻为由提出异议的。
霍顿先生：我同意这是累积性的
正如法官大人所说的那样但这也是——
法庭：不，我没那么说。
霍顿先生：对不起。我不是想变得可爱。我
一定听错了你的话。
法院：不，不，不。那句长话是
我敢肯定陪审团还没有完全做到这一点
同化。

654
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
霍顿先生：足够公平。我真的不是故意的
提出任何建议。
这引起了传闻真相的传闻。  
他们在问，这个人是谁干的——谁身份不明 
— 告诉你，他们说了什么，那些是什么 
声明。 
SHROFF 女士：我真的不在乎这是否属实
还是不是。我只想证明她知道这一切然后
认为他有安全的唯一原因是因为它
打电话给他们保安听起来比给他们打电话要好
勤杂工。这是我在这里唯一的观点。
HORTON 先生：所以记录中有证词
足以让施罗夫女士指出她只是
她说她想做。这个弹幕的意义在于这些
问题是为了陈述的真实性。
法庭：嗯，你花了大麻才想成功
似乎没有合法的真实证券
设备到位。所以现在她正在努力确定这一点
有。
霍顿先生：这仍然是传闻。如果她去了
做下一件事，正确，就像我们可能会反对也可能不会反对一样
顺其自然；但现在我们正在讨论这个系列
传闻中的陈述是为了证明他们的真相。
SHROFF 女士：真的不是 —— 来吧。
KAMARAJU 先生：我本来想说的，证人

655
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
作证说她认为保安是假的。我们被允许
说出她被告知了所有这些事实；这削弱了这一点
她的证词保安是虚假的。仅此而已。
法院：这是一种弹劾形式，所以我要去
允许它。
KAMARAJU 先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
（下一页继续）

656
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
（在公开法庭上） 
法庭：来吧。
（待处理问题已读） 
目击者：我不记得了。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：你知道部长们是从他家里来的吗
中国并带来了他的妻子和女儿？
答：不是。
问：你知道所有这些例子都发生在那段时间吗
郭先生住在荷兰雪莉？
答：我只知道一个例子。
问：而且你已经作证了；对吗？
答：我做到了。
问：好吧。现在，让我回到我的最后一组
问题。
你还记得班农先生在四月份发表过一次演讲吗—— 
2019 年 4 月 25 日，在瑞吉斯酒店？你还记得吗 
说话？ 
答：我 —— 我不知道。
问：好吧。你还记得之后被要求订购一本书吗
那个谈话？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得你在 Golden Spring 工作的时候，你吗
是伊维特要指派的人中的一部分
有关购买的任务；对吗？

657
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：你知道，我会做得更好。
你还记得伊平要你买入或看跌吗
制定了名为《全国零食提案》的东西？做
你还记得吗？
答：你能重复一下提案的名称吗？
问：你还记得伊平让你买零食盒吗
金泉员工要确保自己的健康吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而且你还记得有人 —— 和某人一起工作
叫塔玛拉·弗洛雷斯；对吗？
答：我不记得了。
问：Yvette 选择了零食盒并叫你点它们；
正确？
答：是的。
问：然后你订购了它们，对吧？
答：我做到了。
问：那是你的工作，对吧？
答：我订购了盒子。
问：2018 年 5 月 29 日是 Max Krasner 加入 Golden 的时候
春天；对吗？你还记得吗？
答：我不记得日期了。
问：但是你还记得他加入的时候，对吧？
答：我记得那是 2018 年。
问：对。

658
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
为了让他上船，你需要采取某些步骤 
需要服用；对吗？ 
答：我记不起来了。
问：好吧。你还记得伊平要求你确保吗
你设置了写有他名字的信纸？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得她要你确保发言权吗
灯光被移动了他的办公桌也被打扫干净了？
答：我不记得了。
问：你还记得有人叫 Rich Wojcicki 吗，
W-O-J-C-I-C-K-I？
答：是的。
问：你还记得他在 2018 年预订的旅行吗？
答：我 —— 我确实如此，含糊不清。
问：对。
你记得他订过机票和旅馆； 
正确？ 
答：我相信我预订了他的航班。
问：那是你工作的一部分，对吧？
答：我被要求这样做。
问：对不起？
答：我被要求这样做。
问：那是你职位描述的一部分；对吗？
答：这不是我的职位描述的一部分，但我做到了。
问：南卡罗来纳州有证词；对吗？

659
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
还记得吗？
答：我不知道。
Q. Guo 诉林。郭先生提起了诉讼，民事诉讼，do
你还记得吗？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得自己为此做了旅行安排吗
旅行？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得那次旅行需要翻译吗
而且你不是被带走的翻译吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我不记得了。
问：你还记得 Una Wilkinson 曾经是翻译者吗
是因为你的普通话不够好才拿的？
法院：持续。
问：你记得和詹妮弗·默库里奥一起参加过会议吗？
答：我记不起来和她开会了。我们曾是
同事们。
问：而且 Mercurio 女士是董事会成员；对吗？其实，我
把它拿回来。她曾是总法律顾问兼公司总顾问
法治协会秘书；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你还记得默库里奥女士说过会有一个
2019 年 9 月 3 日的电话会议；对吗？你呢

660
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
记得收到过一封关于这个的电子邮件吗？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得收到过一封关于 Guo Media 的邮件吗
筹款活动和预算？
答：我不知道。
问：那你还记得曾经有过什么时候吗
默库里奥女士说，你在法治协会中的角色是
有限？
答：我没听最后一部分。
问：是有限的。你的角色是有限的。
答：我不知道她是这么说的。
问：你还记得收到过一封电子邮件说你不会这样做吗
参与法治协会的运作？
答：我不知道。
问：你还记得当时有人告诉过你吗
董事会，你没有参与其日常运营
实体？你不记得吗？
答：我记不起来了。
问：好吧。好吧，让我给你看一些可能有用的东西
你刷新回忆。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我可以接近吗？
法院：你可以。
SHROFF 女士：谢谢。
问：请不要大声朗读，但我可以引导你去
第一页的底部。

661
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
霍顿先生：有问题要问吗？
法庭：来吧。
SHROFF 女士：我在等证人说完
读书，法官大人。
答：我受够了。
问：好吧。那会不会刷新你的记忆
被告知你不会参与行动
法治的？
答：不是。
问：它不会刷新你的回忆吗？
答：不是。
问：阅读发送给你的电子邮件是你的习惯吗？
答：是的。
问：回复以下电子邮件是你的惯例
发给你的；对吗？
答：没错。
问：如果你收到一封电子邮件说你要离开了
转发此处的电子邮件链，你有可能这样做吗
还记得吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：持续。
问：女士，说你有两个硕士学位公平吗
学位？
答：是的。
问：你有一个中国文学硕士学位；对吗？

662
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
答：是的。
问：语言学中的一个；对吗？
答：应用语言学，对。
问：对。
在你在 Golden Spring 工作之前，在那里 
你工作了吗？ 
答：在中国。
问：在 Golden Spring 工作之后你会设置什么是
叫做 Kai Enterprise 的东西；对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。之后 —— 你昨天作证说你
在谷歌搜索工作；对吗？
答：谷歌。
问：谷歌，对吧？
你是谷歌的全职员工吗？ 
答：不是。
问：你在谷歌没有办公桌；对吗？
答：不，我在家工作。
问：你在他们那里没有全职工作；对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。你已经为联邦调查局工作了，对吗？
答：通过公司；正确。
问：对不起？
答：通过公司。
问：好吧。因此，你通过一家公司为公司做了自由职业

663
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
联邦调查局；对吗？
答：没错。
问：好吧。联邦调查局也是如此
那是在你准备的时候出现的；对吗？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。相关性。
法院：驳回。
答：不是。
问：是否有不同的联邦调查局可以
你为自由职业者工作过？
答：那是一个不同的单位。
问：曾经是一个不同的单位，但它还是同一个公司，
联邦调查局；对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。如果联邦调查局现在给你一份自由职业
你会做的；对吗？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。足够公平。
可以公平地说你告诉这些检察官吗
郭先生的自我对郭先生来说是最重要的？
答：是的。
问：然后你对这些人说，你不是说那个郭先生吗
都是关于郭先生的；对吗？
答：是的。
问：你告诉他们你在郭先生身上看不到任何好处；对吗？
答：这是不正确的。

664
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：真的。好吧。
而且你说你可以成为角色见证人
关于郭先生，你就是这么跟这个团队说的；对吗？
答：不是。
问：你没有告诉他们你可以成为角色证人
关于郭先生？
霍顿先生：问了又回答。
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人——
问：你记得那句话吗？
霍顿先生：问了又回答。
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：好吧。我可以用 3525 来刷新吗
她的回忆。
法庭：她没有说自己不记得了。
她说不。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，政府反对
这个问题已经问过并得到了解答。
法庭：她给出的答案是否定的。
问：你告诉这个团队你觉得他们更喜欢了
你这边比什么都重要；对吗？
答：不，那不正确。
问：当你与他们见面时你没这么说——
法院：持续。
她已经回答了这个问题。

665
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
问：在你与美国检察官会晤期间
办公室——我的意思是霍顿先生、芬克尔先生、默里女士，
费根森先生 —— 你明确表示自己思维不佳
郭先生的；对吗？
答：那不正确。
问：你称他为一个有自我的人；对吗？
答：我做到了。
问：还有一个全神贯注的男人；对吗？
答：没错。
问：你对这样的人想得很好，那是你的
证词？
霍顿先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：没什么好说的。
法院：好吧，陪审团成员。甚至
尽管现在只有 11:23，但我们现在要休息一下然后你会
中午回来。
请记住，你无权讨论此案 
彼此之间。不要允许任何人在你的里面讨论这个问题 
存在。   
（陪审团不在场） 
法院：你可以下台。而且不要讨论你的
证词。
（证人不在场） 
法庭：你可以坐下。

666
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
有任何一方想要的吗 
在我们休息之前加注？ 
芬克尔先生：法官大人，简而言之。
记录在案的是，迈斯特雷洛女士的直言 
考试时间大约为一小时四十分钟，给出或 
拿。盘问已经持续了大约三小时十五分 
分钟，付出或接受。   
显然我们一直在反对，法官大人也是 
基本上是持续的问题，只是重复了 
有些愤怒地回答，或者 “哦，真的”，这很友善 
争论不休，正在拖延诉讼程序。我们会 
当然要继续反对那些。   
总的来说，法官大人，政府的估计 
关于这次审判的依据是我们的理解 
是合理的十字架。我认为总的来说，经验法则是 
关于 —— 这显然取决于证人，但如果是直接的话 
一个小时，通常交叉大约是半个小时，有时更长 
有时更少，有时证人需要一对一。但是 
从一小时四十二分钟到三小时二十分钟 
太多了，我认为重复了很多。所以我们只是 
想在这方面记录下来。 
法庭：我在等待回应。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我很抱歉，但我没有
我认为芬克尔先生的评论值得回应，我
没有。

667
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO2 Maistrello-Cross
十字架就是十字架。而且，你知道，芬克尔先生， 
如果他认为我的十字架坏了肯定能在那里提起 
2255 继续。但是我会尽力而为 
做我想做的十字架。 
法庭：所以我听到的唯一批评是
因为有重复，所以太长了
问题。还有重复的问题。所以我会
像你一样消除重复的问题。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我会尽力的。
法院：好吧。我们会休息的。
（午餐会休会） 
（下一页继续）

668
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-重定向
下午的会议 
下午 12:00 
（陪审团出席） 
法庭：你可以坐下。
重定向。
重定向检查 
作者：霍顿先生：  
问：下午好，迈斯特雷洛女士。
答：下午好。
问：在盘问结束时，有人问你一些
对你过去为联邦调查局所做的工作有疑问，对吧？
答：正确。
问：你为联邦调查局在这起案件上做过任何工作吗？
答：不是。
问：在这个案子上你为任何人做过任何工作吗？
答：不是。
问：总的来说，你能不能描述一下你过去的工作
为联邦调查局做的。
答：主要是口译、转录和
翻译。
问：你还被问到有关与... 会面的问题
政府。你还记得吗？
答：是的。
问：政府有没有告诉你在证词中该说些什么，
迈斯特雷洛女士？

669
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-重定向
答：不是。
问：政府叫你什么时候做什么（如果有的话）
你作证了？
答：我被告知的唯一一件事就是说实话。
问：那你做过吗？
答：我有。
问：迈斯特雷洛女士，你昨天作证说王薇平
在求职面试中问你是否有任何关系
致中共。你还记得吗？
答：我知道。
法庭：霍顿先生，如果你愿意的话请带来
麦克风离你更近。
霍顿先生：是的，法官大人。
问：在 Yvette 问你是否与... 有任何联系之后
CCP，当你告诉她你认识中共时，她的反应是什么
你在中国的时候会员？
答：她说，哦，别担心，我也是党员。
问：那么，当伊维特说话时，你理解她的意思是什么
她是党员？
答：我知道她是党员。
问：那么，郭迈尔斯对伊维特的存在说了什么（如果有的话）
中共的一员？
答：我们没聊那么多，但有时候他会开玩笑
关于它。
问：那他会怎么开玩笑呢？

670
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-重定向
答：好吧，考虑到他在与之作战
中共，迈尔斯会开玩笑说，哦，你知道的，
伊平，她也是党员。
问：今天有人问你是否记得
受到郭文亮的责备。你还记得那些问题吗？
答：我知道。
问：如果有的话，迈斯特雷洛女士，郭文贵何时惩罚过你？
答：我不记得了。
问：如果有的话，郭文贵何时惩罚了你的同事？
SHROFF 女士：对哪些同事持异议。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我——我不记得了。
问：总的来说，郭文贵是如何对待这些人的
为他工作？
答：这在很大程度上取决于他的心情，所以当他过得愉快的时候
心情，当他心情不好的时候他善待别人，然后
不那么友善。
问：什么样的事情会让他心情不好？
答：那些没有像他想做的那样做的事情。
问：当事情没有完成时会发生什么
郭文贵想怎么做？
答：当事情做得好时，他是 —— 他很高兴。
问：当他不开心时会发生什么？
答：他会的 —— 他通常会大喊大叫。
问：他大喊大叫时会说什么样的话？

671
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-重定向
答：我们很愚蠢，我们不知道，我们无能。
问：那这种情况多久发生一次？  
答：经常如此。
问：人们被郭文贵解雇的频率（如果有的话）？
答：很经常。
问：出于什么原因？
答：各种原因。有时候他不喜欢他们，有时候
他不喜欢他们的样子或者他们穿的衣服
他们在做什么。
问：迈斯特雷洛女士，你作证说你参与了
Miles Guo 将于 2020 年移居康涅狄格州。你还记得吗？
答：我记得那个。
问：而且你还作证说有时候有人告诉你
当你为郭文亮工作时付钱；对吗？
SHROFF 女士：反对。有人告诉她。那不是
证词。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：是的。
问：Maistrello 女士在什么时候（如果有的话）被指示不要付款
为了什么？
答：它发生过好几次。伊平会告诉我，我们不是
对此感到满意，不要向该供应商付款。
问：你在策划中参与了多少举措
到 Miles Guo 在康涅狄格州的家中，花了多少钱？
答：大约 10 万个。

672
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-重定向
问：如果有的话，你被告知要用它做什么
搬家者的10万美元账单？
答：起初我是 —— 被告知不要付钱，然后我是 —— 我
被告知要打折。
问：那为什么你被告知不要支付 10 万美元的账单？
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我有传闻异议。
法院：持续。
问：当你被告知不要付钱时，你的反应是什么
账单？
SHROFF 女士：对相关性提出异议。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我想了解为什么有人问我这个问题。
问：谁叫你不要付账单？
答：伊平做到了。
问：那么 Yvette 给你不付钱的原因是什么
十万美元的钞票？
SHROFF 女士：反对传闻。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我被告知他们做得不好，他们做得不好
干得好，一些物品在搬运过程中损坏了。
问：你对被告知不要支付账单有何反应？
答：我知道什么都没有损坏因为我们有队伍在场
现场监督搬家者，所以我真的不明白为什么
我被要求——去做。
问：你作证说有其他时候你被告知不是

673
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
为东西付钱？
答：是的。
问：据你所知，有人告诉你的原因是什么
不为东西付钱？
答：原因各不相同。总的来说，我被告知我们不是
对这个供应商很满意。
霍顿先生：法官大人，请允许我稍等片刻。
法院：是的。
霍顿先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
问：Maistrello 女士，有人问你问题
盘问你是否知道来源
为 Saraca 和 Golden Spring 提供资金。你还记得吗？
答：我知道。
问：购买N95口罩的资金来源是什么
在 COVID 开始时被送到 Miles Guo 的家中？
答：那是法治组织。
问：那么《法治》的资金来自哪里？
答：来自捐助者。
HORTON 先生：没什么好说的。
法院：重审，在范围之内？
再交叉检查 
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：请告诉我们，一个人是如何成为成员的
中国共产党？
答：你是党派选出来的，所以正在联系你

674
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
直接由党来做。它通常发生在你进入的时候
学院或大学。
问：对。而正是党派选择了这样的人
成为中共的一员，对吗？
答：没错。
问：要成为中共的一员，你必须是中国人
全国性的，对吗？
答：没错。
问：你必须被中共选中，而且你通常是
年轻时就选择了，对吗？
霍顿先生：法官大人，反对范围。
法院：你可以回答。
答：正确。
问：而伊平是小时候被选中的——实际上，不是
孩子——当她被选为学生时，她还是个少年
在国外，对吗？
答：我不知道她是在什么年龄被选中的。
问：但是你知道她被选中加入中共了
然后被允许在法国的索邦大学学习，对吗？
答：这两件事不一定有关联。我
我知道她曾在法国学习，我知道她是个派对
成员。
问：对。根据你的说法，一个人不可能——实际上，
我把它拿回来。
没有人能对中共说，我

675
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
不会加入你的派对，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。超出范围。
法院：持续。
问：如果说一个人有遭受伤害的风险，这难道不公平吗
一个人没有留在中共党？
霍顿先生：同样的反对意见，法官大人。
法院：持续。
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，我们可以接近吗？
法院：是的。
（下一页继续）

676
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
（在侧边栏上） 
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，他们打开了这扇门
询问伊平是否是中共成员。很明显
证词，还有这个专家——这个人曾经会知道的
你成了中共党员，没有退出权
来自中共的。你说这不是一个自由的组织
再见，我出局了。伊平本来别无选择的留下来
中共的一员。我可以探索错误的印象
他们说她现在和中共有任何关系，
意思是 2018 年、2019 年、2020 年，贯穿整个起诉过程。他们
决定在 recross 时这样做。我不是累积的，我
希望，确实是——对不起。
法庭：你为什么要带她出中共来
成员资格？
HORTON 先生：它完成了 —— 很短
采访。事实是 —— 是伊平为她提供的
这种有限的信息交流。那是其中一项。
而且对什么进行了广泛的盘问
迈斯特雷洛女士认识或不认识该组织。
SHROFF 女士：我特别没碰她是个
中共党员。到处都是 3500 种材料。我没有
触摸它。我没有在十字架上碰它。没有理由
让他们在重定向时将其提出。他们已经离开了这个陪审团
给人的印象是这个女人现在还是个
郭迈尔斯的同谋曾在中共工作，因为他们

677
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
想证明郭文贵继续雇用她而且差不多
他是中共党员，因此，他不可能成为
反共党，好吗？他们打开了这扇门。
法庭：那我就让你去问一位领导
一两个问题让我们到了我所期望的地步
她要说，不，你不能和中共在一起。
SHROFF 女士：我应该能探索那个 Yvette
对她说伊薇特的位置是什么，她已经不在了
支持中共，因为那是他们想要的印象
留给他们。
法院：那么这就提出了两个问题。
SHROFF 女士：嗯，再长一点，你的
荣誉，因为我必须充实这一点 —— 需要什么才能得到
退出中共。好吧。因此，你不能对中共说不。
一旦你被选中，你必须留下来。没有提款
步骤。如果你想否认中共就没有措施可以
否认中共。
法庭：好吧。这是一个问题。
SHROFF 女士：而且那个伊维特非常清楚地表明了她
现在已经不是中共党员了。
法院：两个问题。
SHROFF 女士：嗯，是三个，但没关系，我会试试的。
法院：很好。
（下一页继续）

678
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
（在公开法庭上） 
SHROFF 女士：法官大人，请允许我继续说下去。
法院：你可以。
SHROFF 女士：谢谢。
作者：SHROFF 女士：  
问：一旦你被选为中共成员，你就不是
被允许退出中共，对吗？
答：我不知道你是否可以提款。我不知道
了解法律。我不知道这是怎么运作的。
问：王女士与郭先生合作时，她为公益事业工作
那是反共产党的，对吗？
答：不完全是。
问：王女士采取了支持中共的措施，
根据你的说法？
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：当然。王延平采取措施是你的证词吗
那些支持中国人的独裁统治
共产党？
答：不是。
问：好吧。因此，当她和郭迈尔斯合作时，她努力工作
是反共产党的原因，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法院：你可以回答。
答：不一定。
问：好吧，告诉我，你所说的 “不一定” 是什么意思？

679
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
答：她所做的工作不一定是反共的。
她在干自己的工作，但她并不总是政治家
活动家。
问：对。她不是政治活动家，但从来都不是
亲中共的，对吗？
答：她从来都不支持中共。
问：现在你在重定向上作证说你和你的同事
被郭先生责备了，对吗？
答：我说过他可能很强硬。
问：你说他大喊大叫，对吧？
答：他做到了。
问：称你为傻瓜，对吗？
答：是的。
问：说你不称职，对吗？
答：他做到了。
问：他经常这样做，对吗？
答：他生气的时候。
问：对。而当他四处走动时，他只会干脆地
无论他走到哪里都要大喊 “灾难，灾难”，对吧？
答：我没那么说。
问：好吧。我没问你是不是这么说的。我问你是否
你知道他是不是那样做的。
答：他有时会那样做。
问：对。当他那样做的时候，你是其中的一部分
他对着的人说话，对吗？

680
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
答：有时候我是，有时候不是。
问：好吧。结果，这就是导致你走向的原因
戒烟，还是你的生命值，还是两者兼而有之？
答：我戒烟是出于健康原因。
问：好吧。你作证说过他解雇的人，对吧？
答：是的。
问：他从来没有亲自解雇过一个人，对吗？
答：他下达了开枪的指示。
问：你知道他给了某人一个方向
让另一个人被解雇？你对此有个人了解吗？
答：是的。
问：真的。谁？
答：你想知道他要求解雇谁，谁被解雇了？
你的问题是什么？
问：不，我在问你知道谁是他要解雇的。
我问的是你的个人知识，不是你听到的
来自其他人。
答：他叫我解雇一些人。
问：你解雇了他们吗？
答：我做到了。
问：你有权解雇人。
答：如果 Boss 让我这么做，是的。
问：好吧。你开枪打了谁？
答：好几个人。
问：谁？

681
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
答：你想要名字吗？
问：当然。
答：我不记得名字了。我记得那些角色。
问：你不记得被解雇的人的名字了
工作？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。你说过搬到康涅狄格州的费用是
十万美元，对吗？
答：大约。
问：对。你没有付账单，对吧？
答：我没有。
问：你从来没有授权任何付款，对吗？
答：当我被要求付款时，我会付款。
问：不是。当你被要求付款时，你会去找伊平，
正确？
霍顿先生：反对。有争议的。
法庭：请你澄清一下你的问题。
问：当你被要求支付账单时，你必须汇款
账单要么交给 Max Krasner 要么给 Yvette，对吗？
法院：你指的是所有账单吗？
SHROFF 女士：是的，所有账单。
答：这取决于金额。
问：对。还有十万美元的金额，你
无法付款，对吗？
答：没错。

682
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
问：你作证说你被告知不要付账单是因为
有人对供应商不满意，对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而且你不知道今天坐在这里那是谁
供应商是，对吧？
答：我愿意。
问：真的吗？谁是供应商？
霍顿先生：反对里面的 “真正”
问题，法官大人。
法院：是的。如果你省略 “真的”。
问：谁是供应商？
答：搬运者。
问：叫什么名字？
A. 搬家公司。百老汇。
问：《百老汇搬家》。你的证词是 Broadway Movers 是
没有付款；那是你的证词吗？
答：我的证词是，百老汇搬家公司是推动者。
问：好吧。他们有报酬吗？
答：归根结底，我不知道。
问：所以你不知道他们最终是否得到了报酬。所以我是
假设你不知道他们在胡说八道
关于对现有财产的破坏
已移动，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对这个问题的形式，你的
荣誉。

683
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
法庭：你是在问她是否知道什么
申请了折扣金额？
SHROFF 女士：是的。
答：我不记得了。
问：不是你的家具，对吧？
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：当然。正在搬运的家具不是你的
家具，对吧？
答：不是。
问：嗯，你不知道这些家具是否有情感
价值，对吗？
答：我知道确实如此。
问：因此，损坏的家具具有情感价值而且
这就是为什么有人谈论不付钱
供应商；这是你的证词吗？
答：我知道没有家具损坏。
问：你检查过了吗？
答：就我个人而言，我没有。
问：你看见了吗？
答：我当时不在场。
问：事实上，你甚至不知道他们在说什么家具
关于，对吗？
答：我确实知道。
问：那是什么家具？
答：我有一份包含数百页家具的 pdf 文档。

684
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
问：那几百页的家具中哪一页是
损坏；你还记得吗？
答：我不知道。
问：好吧。可以公平地说，你没有检查一块
那几百页文件上的家具，对吗？
答：我搬家时不在场。
问：对。而你刚刚做出了价值判断并决定了
供应商实际上应该付款，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。反对，法官大人。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：我当时在场的同事告诉我
什么都没有损坏。
问：我问你的问题是 —— 让我再说一遍 —— 你做了一个
在不检查损坏家具的情况下进行价值判断，
正确？
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法院：持续。持续。
问：你作证说法治协会为N95买了钱
口罩，对吗？
A. 法治组织之一。
问：哪一个？
答：我不记得了。
问：你根本不记得是哪个组织了，对吗？
霍顿先生：反对。询问并回答。
法庭：好吧。因此，只问一次问题。

685
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 Maistrello-Recross
不要重复这个问题。
问：你甚至不记得美元金额是多少，
对吧？
答：我不知道。
问：你曾多次见过这些检察官，对吗？
答：我做到了。
问：而且你从来没有查过那笔钱，对吧？
答：不是。
SHROFF 女士：我没有别的了。
法院：好吧。我想没有
重新重定向？
HORTON 先生：没什么好说的。
法院：很好。好吧。所以你可以走出去。谢谢
您。
（证人原谅） 
法庭：检方可以下次开庭
目击者。
弗根森先生：政府给帕特里克·钦打电话，
法官大人。
法律书记员：请举起右手带来
麦克风离你很近。
（证人宣誓就职） 
法律书记员：请坐下来带上麦克风
靠近你的嘴。
法庭：先生，如果你能说出自己的名字然后

686
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
把它拼出来，并确保你大声说出来。
目击者：我叫帕特里克·钦。姓氏是
C-H-I-N。
法院：还有你的名字。
目击者：哦，对不起。P-A-T-R-I-C-K，帕特里克。
法庭：所以我需要你带麦克风
靠近我需要你大声说话。
目击者：好吧。
法院：你可以询问。
弗根森先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
 帕特里克·钦， 
     被政府传唤为证人， 
     经正式宣誓后, 作证如下: 
直接检查 
作者：费根森先生：  
问：下午好，陈先生。
答：下午好。
问：你住在哪个州？
答：我住在德克萨斯州。
问：你在工作中做什么？
答：我从事半导体材料方面的工作。
问：你用半导体材料做什么工作？
答：我们为各种领域进行专门的半导体研究
顾客。
问：陈先生，你知道郭文贵是谁吗？

687
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：是的，我愿意。
问：你怎么知道他是谁？
答：我看到了他的一个YouTube视频，我回想起来
2017 年。
问：你曾经是郭文贵的追随者吗？
答：是的，我是。
问：你曾经投资过郭文贵推广的东西吗？
答：是的，我做到了。
问：你今天还是郭文贵的追随者吗？
答：我不是。
问：陈先生，我们会回过头来谈这个问题。
陈先生，你在哪里出生？
答：我出生在台湾。
问：那你在台湾生活了多长时间？
答：24 年，从 1964 年到 1988 年。
问：那你长大的时候为什么家人在台湾？
答：我父母的两个家庭最初都在大陆
中国，他们在共产主义革命后移居台湾。
问：什么是共产主义革命，钦先生？
答：我认为在第二次世界大战，即世界大战之后，有一个 ——a
共产党、中国共产党和中国共产党之间的内战
执政的政府，最后是共产党
将前中华民国政府推到台湾。
问：陈先生，你父母的家人为什么离开大陆
共产党崛起时期的中国，或

688
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
中共？
答：是的。革命期间，站在我父亲一边，我的
祖父和几个叔叔在此期间惨遭谋杀
共产主义——共产主义崛起，所以我父亲能够
逃脱并最终移居台湾。
而在我妈妈那边，那是另一回事
中国。他们也是农民、地主和教师，所以
他们还受到共产党起义的恐吓，所以他们
也移居台湾。
问：陈先生，你自己是支持中共还是反中共？
答：我是反共党的。
问：你为什么反共产党？
答：首先，根据我父母的家庭经历和
也是在60年代和70年代在台湾长大的，整个
气候强烈反共产党。
问：现在你在台湾长大后搬到了哪里，
陈先生？
答：我在 1988 年移居加利福尼亚读研究生。
法庭：你去了哪里？
目击者：学校？
法院：是的。
证人：加州大学圣地亚哥分校。
问：陈先生，你在加州大学圣地亚哥分校学习什么？
答：这是电气工程系。
问：那你从加州大学圣地亚哥分校获得了什么学位（如果有的话）？

689
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：我完成了博士学位。
问：陈先生，自从你早些时候来到美国以来
20 多岁，从那以后你生活过这个国家吗？
答：从1988年到2008年，我一直在美国生活和工作。
问：在 2008 年，你去了哪里？
答：我在台湾找了个工作机会然后搬到了台湾。
问：那你当时在台湾呆了多长时间？
答：我在那里呆了十年。
问：在那十年之后，你下一步要去哪里，
陈先生？
答：我在 2018——2018 年又找了一个工作机会，然后搬迁了
回到美国，在德克萨斯州。
问：从那以后你来过这里吗？
答：是的。
问：Chin 先生，你之前提过这个问题，但请提醒我们，什么时候
你是第一次了解郭文辉吗？
答：我看到了他的 —— 其中一段 YouTube 视频，他讨论了
Voice of 切断了他的采访
美国。
问：你说的是美国之音。对于陪审团来说，什么是 “之声”
美国，陈先生？
答：我的理解是美国之音是一个广播或
媒体公司。即使在台湾长大，我们也听过 Voice of
美国的中英双语广播。我们用了——我
听美国之音学了一些英语。

690
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
问：然后你说你看的视频是从中了解到的
郭文贵与美国之音有关；对吗？
答：正确。
问：郭迈尔斯在那段视频中对曾经发生的事情说了什么
美国之音发生了吗？
答：显然他接受了美国之音的采访但是
那次采访突然中断了播出，所以他——他声称，
在他后来的视频中，那是因为美国之音是
受到中共的压力、压力或——施加压力，所以他不能
继续他的采访。
问：钦先生，如果你已经说过了，我很抱歉，但是
你大约在哪一年看过这个视频？
答：现在是 2017 年或 2018 年左右。
问：看这段视频有什么效果（如果有的话）以及
听见 Miles Guo 对你的指控了吗？
答：像这样缩短现场采访时间是——我想
这是一个非常重要的事件，所以这似乎增加了一些东西
他声称美国之音——之音的可信度
美国可能受到了影响。
问：看完最初的视频后，陈先生，多久一次，如果
总之，你开始看 Miles Guo 的视频了吗？
答：我开始关注他在 YouTube 上发布的视频帖子，只是想关注
越来越多地听他要说的话，以后再说
关注了他的推特账户。
问：你读过 G 新闻吗？

691
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：G新闻后来是他的平台——我想是他组建的。
问：你读过 G 新闻吗？
答：我有。
问：Chin 先生，你有没有开始做志愿者
作为 Miles Guo 的支持者？
答：是的。他的视频有很多关注者，还有我
认为现在是 COVID 的开始，因为有——
全世界真的很混乱，而且我们 —— 很多
关注者——他也经常谈论COVID，还有很多关注者
觉得信息从中国传出来然后进入
中国非常 —— 不透明，我们中的许多人，
追随者，基本上是自愿的，是的，我们可以做一些
从外部可靠的美国消息来源翻译的新闻
中国，并将这些信息发送回中国。
问：还有陈先生，你自己做了什么样的志愿者工作
做？
答：只需翻译（比如）中的新闻文章和信息即可
约翰·霍普金斯医院，相关的COVID信息。
问：还有陈先生，我只问你，只为所有人着想
如果你能大声说话，如果可以的话，那就好处。
答：是的。
问：谢谢。
所以 Chin 先生，当你做这个志愿者的时候
翻译工作，你和谁一起工作（如果有的话）？
答：我曾与几个组织松散的小团体合作过，

692
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
但是后来 —— 最终是更大的群体，我花了大部分时间
与一个名叫大卫的人共度时光。
问：大卫的姓氏是什么？
答：当时我们还不知道，但后来，我们得知他的
姓氏 Dai，D-A-I。
问：大卫在哪里？
答：他显然位于英国。
问：大卫在这个小组中扮演了什么角色？
答：据推测他是这个团体的领导人。
问：还有你合作的那个小组，它有名字吗？
答：有一个名字大致翻译成 Fighting Hawk 或
战斗之鹰。
问：为什么它被称为 Fighting Hawk 或 Fighting Eagle？
答：我想是因为 Miles Guo 总是用老鹰作为标志
在他的 T 恤或帽子上
问：陈先生，这个团体是农场吗？
答：一开始，事实并非如此。
问：你自己曾经是农场成员吗？
答：不，我不是。
问：现在，钦先生，你作证说你开始关注郭文辉
在社交媒体上你看了他的视频，对吧？
答：正确。
问：你对 Miles Guo 的财富有什么印象（如果有的话）？
答：他把自己描绘成一个非常富有的人。
问：那你为什么会有这样的印象？

693
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：从所有设置来看，他的奢华——豪华公寓、游艇，
还有汽车，依此类推。
问：他会对自己说些什么（如果有的话）
财富？
答：他声称自己通过两种方式在中国发了大财
建筑或土地开发并赚了钱。
问：你还提到了他的公寓。如果有的话，他做了什么
说说他的公寓要多少钱？
答：他提到了那套公寓的购买过程
在纽约。我——我记得一个大概8000万美元的数字。
问：你还提到了他的游艇。如果有的话，他做了什么
说说他的游艇的质量？
答：他的游艇是 —— 经常出现在他的视频中。这是一个
很大的游艇，他一直在吹牛造型，
内部，不断是那艘游艇的外部。
问：你什么时候会在他的广播中看他，会怎样
他通常会穿的衣服吗？
答：他通常穿着剪裁得很漂亮的西装，有时候
他本来想锻炼身体，但是，是的，他通常穿得漂亮
西装。
问：郭对他的衣服说了什么（如果有的话）？
答：他还会吹牛说自己的西装是名人做的
裁缝。我不记得这个名字了。
问：陈先生，当时你在关注郭文贵和
看着这些视频，你相信他很富有吗？

694
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：当时，是的，我做到了。
问：陈先生，你熟悉法治吗
组织？
答：是的。
问：什么是法治组织？
答：在某个时候，Miles——
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
问：陈先生，什么是法治组织？你可以
回答这个问题。
答：在某个时候，Miles宣布成立
——成立法治基金会。他的主张是
他会用这笔钱来帮助
支持——支持民主的团体或来自中国或中国的人。
问：郭对自己捐钱说了什么（如果有的话）
去法治基金会？
答：我记得他提到他的家人会捐一大笔钱
给这个基金会一笔钱。
问：你记得有多少吗？
答：我记得一个大概有1亿的数字。
问：现在，Chin 先生，你说你的印象是他非常
这个时候很富有，对吧？  
答：是的。
问：当时，你相信郭能捐一百吗
百万美元捐给法治基金会？

695
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：当时，根据他的说法，我确实相信这一点。
问：陈先生，你向法治基金会捐款了吗？
答：这个基金会，随着时间的推移，我做了几笔小额捐款。
问：那你总共向《规则》捐款了多少钱
法律基金会？
答：几百美元，200美元左右。
问：现在，除了这些捐款之外，Chin先生也在那里捐款
是时候你投资了某些推广的机会
作者：郭文豪？
答：是的。后来，有两个——两个声称的投资
机会，我确实捐款了。
问：那你大约是什么时候捐款的？
答：什么时候。20——2020年初。
问：你还记得大约在几月份吗？
答：是——应该是五月；四月或五月。
问：现在，陈先生，你投资了哪些机会？
答：这是两个。他声称自己将组建一个——一个平台，
社交平台、媒体平台——进一步广播新闻
去——那不受外部势力的影响，发送那些消息
到中国。
问：那个平台叫什么名字？
答：是 —— 是 GTV。
问：那你有没有尝试投资GTV？
答：当时他声称GTV是为大型投资者准备的
只有，至少超过十万左右。所以对于

696
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
小投资者——小投资者，他开辟了不同的途径
投资。
问：还有陈先生，你在GTV上投资了多少？
答：那是 10,000 美元。
问：你说有10万美元的上限；是吗
对吧？
答：是的，他声称这些是特邀特别节目
投资者们。  
问：那么你在GTV上投资的1万美元是哪里的？
答：那10,000人，再加上其他追随者或投资者，
被发送到一个名为 “郭之声”、“郭之声” 的实体
媒体或郭之声这是亚利桑那州的一个银行账户。
FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能不能给我看
见证标为政府展品的物品
VC11。
问：Chin 先生，这是你寄来的银行信息吗
钱？
答：正确。
费根森先生：政府提供政府展览
VC11。
KAMARAJU 先生：没人反对。
法院：可以接受。
（收到的政府附录VC11作为证据） 
弗根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，我们能否发表一下。
作者：费根森先生：

697
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
问：好吧。现在，Chin 先生，你说这是银行
您向GTV汇款的1万美元投资的账户；是吗
对吧？
答：正确。
问：你为何将你的GTV投资汇给郭之声？
答：确实如此，有人告诉我们小投资者不能
直接向GTV投资，我们需要汇集资金
通过 VOG、Voice of Guo 账号。
问：谁叫你汇款然后寄给 Voice of Guo？
答：来自郭迈尔斯本人的视频，也来自一位女士
叫莎拉·薇。
问：谁是 Sara Wei？
答：她是郭文贵早期的狂热支持者之一。
问：那她与《郭之声》有什么关系（如果有的话）
媒体？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。
法庭：如果你知道，你可以回答。
答：我从 Sara 的电子邮件中收到了这个指令。
弗根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，如果我们能展示一下
见证被标记为政府展品VC9的内容。
问：Chin 先生，这是你从 Sara 那里收到的另一份文件吗
薇？
答：正确。
费根森先生：政府向政府提议
附录 VC9。

698
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
KAMARAJU 先生：没人反对。
法院：可以接受。
（收到的政府附录VC9作为证据） 
问：Chin 先生，你能否阅读一下顶部的内容
这份文件。
答：“通过这些认识所有人——”
问：哦，对不起。最上方的粗体文字。
答：好吧。有限用途代理协议。
问：那你对这份文件是什么的理解如何，
陈先生？
答：当时是这项投资的合同。
问：在你和谁之间？
答：还有VOG，郭之声，Sara的账号。
问：你签署了这份文件吗？
答：是的，我做到了。
问：你收到过这份文件的会签副本吗？
答：我没有。
弗根森先生：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以把它记下来。
谢谢。
问：Chin 先生，你对应该发生的事情有何理解
你寄给 VOG 的 10,000 美元会发生什么？
答：据了解，这笔钱将汇集到
达到门槛，即十万，才能投资
GTV。
问：陈先生，你为何要投资GTV？

699
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：当时，在忙于翻译文件时，
而且有人声称GTV将成为一个新的社交场所
平台、社交媒体平台或媒体平台，用于转移
信息。
问：那你想用自己的钱投资的原因是什么
变成你所理解的GTV会是什么样子，Chin先生？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。询问并回答。
法院：你可以回答。
答：人们一再声称这种新的社交媒体或媒体
平台也将通过以下方式表现良好：通过广告
获利——获利。
问：郭迈尔斯对回归说了什么（如果有的话）
陈先生，你对GTV的投资？
答：他扔出了很多、很多、很多卷的
返回。
问：当你投资GTV的时候，你相信吗
郭文豪？
答：当时我确实相信有机会回来。
问：郭迈尔斯对这种风险说了什么（如果有的话）
投资GTV？
答：风险确实被低估了，微乎其微。
问：关于为什么会这样，他说了什么（如果有的话）？
答：只是他声称这将是——a——其中之一
唯一不受中共影响的媒体将是——
将使用大多数中国人的声音。

700
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
问：那时你相信郭文贵的存在吗
这项投资的风险不大？
答：当时我确实相信了。
问：陈先生，在2020年之前，你是否参与了股票
投资？
答：股票，是的。
问：在2020年，你有财务顾问吗？
答：我的退休账户有财务顾问，但没有
经纪账户。
问：你会形容自己是一个老练的投资者吗？
答：不是。
问：你曾经参与过私募吗？
答：不是。
问：郭对谁能参与说了什么（如果有的话）
私募中？
A. 私募配售。它似乎是一个选择性群体。
你必须被邀请，而且你需要赚一大笔钱
投资。最低限度很大。
问：你的印象是不是平时不老练
投资者可以参与私募股权之类的活动
放置？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：持续。
问：郭迈尔斯对谁能说了什么（如果有的话）
通常参与私募股权？

701
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。询问并回答。
法院：持续。
问：Chin 先生，你的时限是多少（如果有的话）
参与此次私募配售？
答：当时是——我们被告知这个机会
窗口很快就关门了所以想参与的人
需要在那一个月的时间内迅速采取行动，
三月——四月，五月的时间。
问：陈先生，你曾经投资过对冲基金吗？
答：我没有。
问：郭迈尔斯在他的广播中说了什么（如果有的话）
关于向对冲基金发送GTV投资资金？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。哪些广播？
FERGENSON 先生：任何广播。
法院：你可以回答。
答：他从未提过对冲基金再投资。
问：如果你知道郭文贵要派GTV投资者
资金到对冲基金，你会投资GTV吗？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。缺乏基础。我们
法官阁下，昨天处理了这个问题。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
问：Chin 先生，如果你知道郭文贵在发送 GTV
将资金投资到对冲基金，你会投资GTV吗？
答：很可能，不是，因为我很简单
资金将用于建立平台，而不是再投资。

702
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
问：现在，Chin 先生，你寄来的钱到底怎么了
到 VOG？
答：因为我没有收到任何退货回复或收据
VOG，在通过电子邮件问了他们几次之后，我得到了我的
怀疑，还有其他一些将要离开的追随者
该小组还让我感到震惊，这可能是一个骗局。所以我联系了
我的银行，它把钱汇给了富国银行，还有银行
投资者联系了富国银行，几周之内，
富国银行得以拦截那条电线然后把它还给我
给我 10,000 美元。
问：所以最终你收到了你寄回的 10,000 美元
银行。
答：是的。
问：Chin 先生，关于你汇款多久以后
VOG 你就欺诈问题联系银行了吗？
答：也许是两周左右。不超过一个月。两周。
是的。
问：陈先生，这笔1万美元转账给 VOG 是你唯一的 Miles 吗
国防相关投资？
KAMARAJU 先生：对表格提出异议。
法院：驳回。
问：陈先生，你投资了郭万里行的其他机会吗？
答：是的，还有一个叫做 G 美元。
问：你在 G 美元上投资了多少？
答：也是 10,000 美元。

703
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
问：你大约在什么时候投资了G美元？
答：大约在同一天或第二天——这两个
投资是有线的——是有线的。
问：当时，陈先生，你对G美元有什么理解
是？
答：当时有 —— 我也听过 Miles 的一些说法
这笔钱将用于 —— 建造加密货币或
购买贵金属作为运动的基础。
问：当你说贵金属时，有哪些东西？
答：黄金。他经常提到这一点。  
问：Chin 先生，你把你的 G 美元钱寄到哪里了？
答：这是发送到位于新州的 Capital One 银行账户的
约克。
FERGENSON 先生：Loftus 女士，我们能不能给我看看
向证人标记证物——只是证人——政府
请出示 VC7 和 VC8。
问：陈先生，这些展品是什么？
答：这是关注者从网络上得到的接线指令
链接。
费根森先生：政府提供政府展品
VC7 和 8。
KAMARAJU 先生：没人反对。
法院：他们被接纳了。
（收到的政府展品VC7和VC8 
证据）

704
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
FERGENSON 先生：请问我们能不能发表，
洛夫特斯女士。
作者：费根森先生：  
问：现在，Chin 先生，你说这些是电汇指令
通过网络链接发送给关注者；对吗？
答：正确。
弗根森先生：洛夫特斯女士——
问：Chin 先生，我想先让你聚焦左边的那个。
弗根森先生：我们能不能把那个炸掉，洛夫特斯女士。
问：好吧。现在，陈先生，最上面写着 G Dollar
预购。你看见了吗？
答：是的。
问：下面列出的银行账户名称是什么？
A. 银行账户名。那是 GTV 媒体集团。
问：陈先生，你知道为什么 G 美元汇款到
GTV？
答：当时是这样——我认为这不明显
定义是因为一切都是由——两个实体都是
由 Miles 本人推广，所以这一切都与 GTV 有关。
FERGENSON 先生：而且你可以缩小，洛夫特斯女士。
如果我们能放大右边的那个。
问：好吧。现在这个说是邮寄支票。谁是
收款人，陈先生？
答：收款人将是GTV媒体集团有限公司。
问：好吧。然后你看到一半左右的文字了吗

705
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
再低一点，上面写着小费，G美元会得到多少？做
你看见了吗？
答：是的。
问：然后下面有一张图表。你看见了吗
图表，陈先生？
答：是的，我愿意。
问：你能解释一下图表中显示的内容吗。  
答：看来你买的越多，得到的就越多。你买——你
支付一百以上，你得到 120。
弗根森先生：谢谢你，洛夫特斯女士。我们可以拿
暂时把这个关掉。
问：陈先生，当你用 G 美元汇出 10,000 美元时，
关于加密货币的新闻发生了什么
那时候？
KAMARAJU 先生：对表格提出异议。
法庭：如果你愿意加紧努力。
（下一页继续）

706
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
（在侧边栏上） 
法庭：新闻里发生了什么？
FERGENSON 先生：是的，法官大人。它与
当时推广加密货币。证人是
将证明当时加密货币正在蓬勃发展
在新闻中，这有点像是热门的新时尚。他不会
说出那些确切的话。我有点像社论
位。我相信唯一的反对意见是组建，法官大人，不是
相关性。
KAMARAJU 先生：因为这是个不恰当的问题
询问目击者新闻中到底发生了什么
任何话题，更不用说加密货币了。如果你在问
这个证人的特别问题，也许——
FERGENSON 先生：我可以问他，信息是什么
你在读关于加密货币的文章。
KAMARAJU 先生：即便如此，我也不知道有什么关系
其他加密货币的促销活动尤其如此
案例。
FERGENSON 先生：他只想说有很多
关于加密货币和硬币的信息就像，你
我知道，蓬勃发展，这是他投资的部分原因。
KAMARAJU 先生：我还是不确定——
法庭：你可以问问他是什么促使他购买的
这项投资。
弗根森先生：好吧。

707
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
法庭：好吧。
（在公开法庭上） 
法院：持续。
作者：费根森先生：  
问：陈先生，除了 Miles Guo 的陈述外，如果
有什么促使你当时买G币的动机吗
A. 总体而言，仍然支持这一运动和索赔
潜在回报。
问：你以前投资过加密货币吗？
答：我没有。
问：郭对投资风险说了什么（如果有的话）
以 G 美元计？
答：也被轻描淡写了，基本上只是提到
那——为了其他加密货币的成功，这不会
失败。
问：还有陈先生，你寄给 GTV 的钱怎么了
换成 G 美元？
答：和另一根电线一样。我没有收到任何收据。所以
当我联系我的银行时，我报告了两者——都是电汇，所以他们
还联系了第一资本银行，但第一资本银行表示
钱已经存入或提取了，所以钱没有
当时回来了。
问：你用那1万美元买到了任何加密货币吗？
答：我什么也没收到。
问：你收到收据了吗？

708
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
答：不是。
问：Chin 先生，你最终得到了这笔钱的退款吗？
答：几年后，通过证券交易所公平基金，
他们最终向所有投资者退还了部分资金。
问：你说的是证券交易所。你指的是什么
那里？  
答：美国证券交易委员会。
问：美国证券交易委员会？
答：是的。
问：通过美国证券交易委员会退还给你的钱，是吗
获得 100% 或低于 100% 的退款？
答：每个人都收到了 92% 左右。
问：郭迈尔斯是否还清了失踪的8％？
答：不是。
问：Chin 先生，你已经讨论过向银行举报和
试图撤销你的投资。是什么导致你有
对你的投资有疑问吗？
答：首先，你没有 —— 我没有收到任何收据，
所以那是 —— 这是最大的警报；与此同时，还有
越来越多的人在我之前离开了团队。
我们还互相交谈，他们开始向我发出警告
这可能正在成为骗局。
问：这对你有什么影响？
答：我曾经——我——我感受到了所有的好意，不是我自己，很多
人们受到了虐待，我们试图支持民主

709
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-直接
信息对中国人的流动或透明度，但是
我们被骗了。
问：你说其他人警告过你。你能描述一下吗
为什么你认为别人的警告在你中起了作用
怀疑。
KAMARAJU 先生：对表格和传闻的异议。
FERGENSON 先生：法官大人，这是出于其效果。
法院：你可以回答。
答：我现在的感觉是，就像其他邪教组织一样，对吧？什么时候
你是 —— 当你相信的时候，你相信领导者和你
没法问问题，但是有些人，不加引用，
醒来就能对我产生这种影响，是的。
问：你使用了 “醒醒” 这句话。你为什么要用那句话，
“醒来”？
答：这就是我的感受，因为在我离开小组之后，我的感觉
松了一口气。
问：谁是领导者——谁是这个的终极领导者
小组，陈先生？
答：郭文豪。
问：Chin 先生，对于还在小组中的人来说，会怎样，如果
什么，那些人对离开小组的人说过吗？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
目击者：我可以吗？
法庭：来吧。

710
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
答：好吧。一开始，当时，很少有人这样做
离开了，他们很快就被贴上了叛徒或中共的标签
间谍。当时很令人震惊，但似乎
可信的。但是随着越来越多的人离开，越来越多
人们被贴上了中共的标签，中共的间谍，这变得不太重要了
合理的。是啊。而且这几乎与他的原著背道而驰
民主运动的意图，支持民主的运动，因为
人们好像——人们不可能有不同的声音
团队，在小组中。
问：陈先生，当你还是信徒的时候，做了什么
你以为你是其中的一员吗？
答：我试着把注意力集中在翻译工作上，
收集新闻、医疗信息，并尝试翻译
那个，我想在一小部分，在一小部分
更大规模的民主运动运动。
问：现在回过头来看，你觉得自己到底是个什么样的人
的一部分？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：现在我认为那是一个非常精心策划的骗局。
FERGENSON 先生：法官大人，我能不能稍等片刻。
没有其他问题了。
法院：盘问。
KAMARAJU 先生：是的。谢谢你，法官大人。

711
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
交叉检查 
作者：KAMARAJU 先生：  
问：Chin 先生，因为我们遇到了一些问题
麦克风，你能听见我说话吗？
答：是的，我能听见你的声音。
问：好吧。谢谢。
下午好。
答：是的。
问：所以我想从你开始的地方开始
我相信是检察官。
你说过你的家人搬到台湾，
正确？
答：是的。
问：那是作为其中一部分犯下的暴行造成的
中国的共产主义革命，对吗？
答：是的。
问：而且我相信你说那是因为有
共产党内部的内斗，对吧？
答：它被称为内战。
问：好吧。内战。所以一场争端，一场内部冲突，
对吧？
答：在中国境内，是的。
问：还有一组共产党成员不想要
从他们的小组中释放另一套套装，对吧？
答：你能再说一遍吗。

712
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
问：当然。让我用这种方式试试吧。很难离开
中国共产党，对吗？
费根森先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：你可以回答。来吧。
答：从我学到的情况来看，似乎是这样。
问：好吧。然后你这么说——如果我明白这个我深表歉意
错了，所以请纠正我，但你提到有一个
移居台湾的政府，对吗？
答：1949年之前的政府是中华民国，仅此而已
现在的政府在台湾。
问：好吧。因此，1949年之前在中国存在的政府
现在存在于台湾。
答：正确。
问：好吧。因此，它是中国的替代政府
管理中国大陆的共产党，对吗？
答：这变成了政治。
问：先生，我只是想请你理解。
答：这是目前的政府裁决——控制还是统治
台湾。
问：好吧。但是那个居住在台湾的政府认为
这是中国的合法政府，对吧？
费根森先生：反对，法官大人。他不能
证明政府的信念。
法院：持续。
问：好吧。让我问一下，这是你的理解吗，先生？

713
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
答：不是。现在不行。在过去，很可能。
问：好吧。没关系。
法庭：谁是敌人的领袖
20世纪40年代的共产党？领导者叫什么名字？
目击者：那将是蒋介石。
法庭：那他去台湾了吗？
目击者：他去了台湾。
法庭：来吧。
KAMARAJU 先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
作者：KAMARAJU 先生：  
问：我相信现在你提到过你第一次碰到的
YouTube上的郭先生；对吗？
答：正确。
问：那是在 2017 年，对吗？
答：大致来说，是的。
问：好吧。而你看到的关于郭先生的第一件事是
他接受过美国之音的采访，对吧？
答：不是面试本身。他在讨论这个问题时提到
采访。
问：对。这是一段讨论美国之音的视频
面试，对吧，只是为了清楚起见？
答：正确。
问：你说他声称中国共产党人
派对中断了采访，对吧？
答：他声称美国之音切断了联系，是因为

714
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
中共的影响。
问：好吧。还有你使用 “索赔” 一词是因为你是
对此持怀疑态度？
答：我无法证实，对吧？
问：好吧。因为不管怎样你都没有证据
关于那个，对吧？
答：是的。
问：好吧。而且你没有办法知道，对吗？
答：不是。
问：不是那时也不是现在，对吧？
答：现在实际上有更多的信息出来了，但是
再说一遍，我无法验证自己。
问：对。所以你不知道他们是否在努力
中国共产党要让郭先生保持沉默，对吗？
FERGENSON 先生：法官大人，提问并回答。
法院：持续。
问：现在我想你提过了——我指的不是那个
郭先生采访过，但之前——你本来可以看到
美国之音在台湾，对吗？
答：看不见；只听短波广播。
问：好吧。很难访问美国之音吗
台湾？
答：不在台湾。
问：好吧。中国大陆怎么样？
答：很难。

715
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
问：这是为什么？
答：我听说在外面听是违法的
在中国大陆广播。
问：当你说外部广播时，这是否适用于
社交媒体也是如此？
答：当我长大的时候，没有社交媒体。这些只是
言语，只是电台广播。
问：好吧。因此，审查已经持续了很长时间
那么，对吧？
答：是的。
问：好吧。这是 G——道歉背后的想法之一。
据称，这是GTV背后的想法之一
你的理解，对吗？
答：当时是索赔，是的，我相信
那个。
问：那是基于突破的想法
所谓的 “中国的防火长城”，对吗？
答：是的，我听过这样的说法。
问：“中国的长城防火墙” 一词是什么意思？
答：我的——我的——我对那部分的理解有限
技术，但通常是审查制度。
问：好吧。谁的审查？
答：中共写的。
问：好吧。那么GTV本来是想突破这个局面的？
答：这就是索赔。

716
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
问：好吧。而且这个说法对你来说似乎是合理的？
答：当时我——我相信了。
问：好吧。你知道GTV会怎么样吗
实现这个目标？
答：不是。这从来没有得到明确的解释。
问：好吧。所以我现在不是在问解释了什么；我是
只是问你对事情的进展是否有信心
要发生。
答：不是。我不知道，不是。
问：你以前见过检察官，对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。有好几次，对吧？
答：远程会议，是的。
问：是的。无论是远程还是面对面，您都已经与他们见过面
有好几次，对吗？
答：正确。
问：那里有联邦调查局特工，对吧？
答：正确。
问：还有人在做笔记，对吧？
答：在远程会议中，我无法分辨出来。
问：面对面会议怎么样？
答：我没看到他们在做笔记。
问：好吧。所以你没有观察到有人在做笔记。但是
你告诉检察官你的想法不是真的吗
GTV可以使用以下方法突破中国的防火墙

717
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
卫星技术？
答：不，我没那么说。
问：那么你从来没有向他们提过 Starlink 吗？
答：不是。
问：如果有反映这一点的笔记，那就是那些笔记
会错的，先生；这是你的证词吗？
答：卫星和 Starlink，不是。
问：现在当你谈论你寄给的钱的时候
魏女士，你把它称为 “郭之声” 或 “郭之声”
媒体，对吗？
答：是的。
问：好吧。Guo Media 是一家社交媒体公司，对吗？
答：Guo Media声称想做社交媒体。社交媒体
平台从未建成。这只是一个名字，Guo Media。那是
我的理解。
问：所以你的证词表明 Guo Media 从来没有真正做到过
广播什么？
答：不是。Guo——
费根森先生：反对，法官大人。那不是
证词。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：Guo Media 从来没有播出任何东西。所有广播由
Miles 或者由 Sara 撰写，我不确定 Guo Media 的标签是不是贴在那里
就像 Guo Media 一样，但大家都知道它来自同一个人。
问：嗯，我问你的原因是因为你作证，

718
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5V1GUO3 下巴-十字架
我相信，他声称 Guo Media 是一个社交媒体
公司，对吗？
A.Guo——Guo Media是一家社交公司？我的回忆，他
声称Guo Media将搭建一个社交平台，但这是
那个。
问：好吧。这和你说的和他说的是一样的
尊重 GTV，对吗？
答：这些名字曾被他交替使用
其他，没有明确定义什么是Guo Media，什么GTV。它
没有明确的严格定义。那是我的回忆。
问：好吧。对不起。我不是故意打断的。所以当你
在 2020 年、2020 年 5 月投资了资金，你以为自己是
投资 Guo Media？
答：当时这笔钱已经汇到郭之音账户了
据说这将汇集在一起来满足一百个人
能够投资的门槛——但那是
是的，会成为 Guo Media。 
（下一页继续）

719
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
作者：KAMARAJU 先生：  
问：好吧。所以你寄给魏女士的1万美元，你
本来打算投资于 Guo Media 的，那是你的
证词？
答：这就是我们被告知的，这笔钱将流向何处
这笔钱会流失的。
问：好吧。现在，我们已经谈了魏女士一会儿。
你对她的评价不高；对吗？
答：看来她是早期的坚定支持者，后来我
别再听她说话了
问：你不觉得她很聪明，对吧？
答：这都是个人观点。  
证人：我必须回答吗？
法庭：是的，无论你是否认为，你可以回答
不管她是否聪明。
答：我不认为她受过高等教育。
问：事实上，你已经告诉检察官她是
无能；对吗？
答：我想我没告诉检察官她不称职。
她不是 —— 我记不起来我有没有用过那个词，但是 —
问：好吧。让我们把你是否使用了那个特定的放在一边
字。你有没有向他们表达任何向他们暗示的词语
你以为她不称职？
答：随便说一句话。我想我记不起来确切了。
问：现在，先生，在你在 Direct 作证时你反复作证

720
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
提到了你相信郭先生说的话；对吗？
答：正确。
问：你从未亲自和郭先生交谈过，对吧？
答：不，我没有。
问：好吧。所以他没对你说那些话，对吧？
答：对我个人来说不是。
问：那你在哪里听到他们的声音？
答：我在哪里能听见？
问：你在哪里听见他们的？
答：主要是推特和YouTube。
问：喜欢推特帖子还是什么？  
答：推特上的帖子。
问：那么喜欢打字的 Twitter 帖子吗？
答：视频，主要是视频帖子。
问：好吧。哪些视频？
答：他发布了很多视频。
问：好吧。告诉我他在视频中淡化了风险
GTV的投资？
费根森先生：反对，法官大人。
法院：驳回。如果你知道的话，你可以回答。
答：我的记录里有它们。我无法正确命名日期
现在，但是有 —— 有一段视频他说这笔钱
会迅速增长。
问：先生，他具体说了什么？
答：在我记得的一段视频中，他说了钱

721
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
在过去的几天里增长了很多。而且一旦打开
致更多的投资者。这将大大增长，非常大
数字。
问：好吧。他在哪段视频中承诺了非常高的回报？
答：在他的视频中，他承诺数百甚至更多，
返回的数字更高。
问：哪个视频？
答：再说一遍，为... 翻译过的视频
球队。
问：好吧。但是检察官没有问你这个问题
具体的视频，对吧？
答：虽然早期的电子邮件通信我已经转发了一些
与调查人员的链接。
问：好吧。但是在你在法庭作证时
检察官没有给你看任何陈述，对吧？
A. 在本法庭期间，在这个——
法庭：当检察官问你的时候
问题，他刚才给你看了视频吗？
目击者：显示视频，不，不显示视频。
问：现在，你直接作证说你相信 —— 你
相信郭先生关于获得更高回报的说法；
正确？
答：当时，是的。
问：好吧。在你第一次见面时，这不是真的吗
和检察官在一起，你告诉他们你以为是他的

722
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
对回报的预测太荒谬了？
答：他声称每个人都能拥有一艘游艇，比如
那个。这显然很荒谬。我不相信。
问：好吧。所以你不相信每个人都能做到
买一艘游艇；你以为这是个荒谬的说法，对吧？
答：当时这个数字对我来说也太荒谬了。
问：对。他在你心目中预测的回报是
太荒谬了，对吧？
答：这么大的数字是不合理的。
问：好吧。而且，事实上，你还告诉检察官你
根本没想到会得到退货
你的GTV投资，对吧？
答：当时我的心态是如果有回报，那就太好了；如果
没有回报，我为一项事业捐款。
问：对。因为归根结底，你的目标是发送
给 GTV 的钱是为了支持 GTV 的突破使命
中国的防火墙；对吗？
答：肯定也有一些回报的预期。
问：但是如果你没拿到，你不就是作证吗
回来，好吧，你为某项事业捐款？
FERGENSON 先生：问了又回答。
法院：持续。
问：现在，它之所以重要的原因之一—— GTV
任务对你个人来说很重要是因为你还是
在中国有家人；对吗？

723
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
答：是的，有偏远的家庭。
问：好吧。现在，你有没有看过郭先生的视频
宣布了GTV私募股权？
A. 宣布了私募配售。那里有很多视频
时间。我不知道到底哪个是公告。但是
当时我看了很多。
问：2020 年 4 月 20 日的一部电影怎么样，你看过吗？
答：我记不起确切的日期了。
问：你记得在 2020 年 4 月看过他的视频吗？
答：我不记得日期。我可能有，但是我——
问：好吧。那么你第一次听说潜在的GTV是什么时候
投资？
答：也是在那个时间框架内，他一直在提到
投资机会。
问：当你说 “在那个时间范围内” 时，你是在说什么
四月的时间框架？
答：四月，甚至三月下旬，有 —— 我记得有
提及机会。
问：好吧。你说他在视频中提到了这些
发布在网上，对吧？
答：YouTube正确。
问：YouTube。
是你的证词说你从未见过他讨论一个问题吗 
在Guo Media平台上进行GTV私募配售？ 
答：我不知道这两者之间的确切区别。

724
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
这两个名称或两个实体的定义不明确。它
在我的脑海中是分离的。
问：好吧。现在，当你评估GTV投资时
你打算做的，你认为这很危险
投资；对吗？
答：当时我想，是的，这是有风险的。
问：而且你不确定是否要进行投资；对吗？
答：我也有疑问，是的。
问：你没有联系郭先生并试图解决这些疑问
和他在一起，对吧？
答：我没有。
问：但是你确实联系了某人来解决这些疑问，
对吧？
答：我寄钱的邮箱，是的。
问：嗯，你没说过你对 GTV 的担忧吗
和一个名叫 Bird 的人一起投资？
答：有一位名叫詹姆斯伯德的女士，不只是伯德，
詹姆斯伯德。
问：好吧。谢谢。
所以你之前和詹姆斯伯德谈过你的担忧 
去投资？ 
答：进行了讨论。
问：我只是想弄清楚，是 JamesBird 的吗，这个
讨论？
答：我的理解是她也投资了。而在此之前

725
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
投资，有人讨论是否要做
投资与否。
问：好吧。你和詹姆斯伯德之间的讨论，对吧？
法庭：你说的是简·伯德吗？
证人：詹姆斯。
法庭：詹姆斯。
目击者：姓伯德，但这是她。
法庭：那姓氏是 JamesBird 吗？
证人：那是她的在线名字。
法庭：我明白了。
目击者：詹姆斯伯德，一个字。
法庭：来吧。
KAMARAJU 先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
作者：KAMARAJU 先生：  
问：所以我只想说清楚，这样记录就清楚了。什么时候
你指的是讨论，你在说
你和那个姓名的人之间的讨论
詹姆斯伯德？
答：正确。
问：在这些讨论的基础上，你接着说
你的投资；对吗？
答：还有几个人在讨论，现在我
不记得名字了；但是，是的，至少有一个
与 JamesBird 讨论。
问：好吧。因此，您通过以下方式审查了您的投资决定

726
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
詹姆斯伯德和其他几个人，对吧？
费根森先生：反对。描述错误。
法院：持续。
问：好吧。您与之讨论了您的投资决定
JamesBird 和其他几个人；对吗？
答：有，是的。
问：但是这些人都不是郭文豪，对吧？
答：不是。
KAMARAJU 先生：法官大人，我可以等一会吗？
我会尽量组织一下。
问：现在，大约在你制作 GTV 的时候
投资，你还说你在做翻译
代表该运动工作；对吗？
答：正确。
问：那你到底在翻译什么？
答：例如，当时是 —— 那是 COVID，那是
中国境内、中国境外的死亡或感染人数。我
中国内部的意思——从统计的角度来看
不合理。
所以我做的工作之一就是收集趋势 
来自几个不同国家的感染并进行比较。  
然后这么说——解释一下传染病， 
从统计学上讲，不太可能有零或非常低的持平 
感染数，对。因为大多数其他国家都有 
某种趋势。但是统计数据，人们可以从中国看到

727
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
是 —— 从数学的角度来看看起来很奇怪，是数学 
观点。 
问：所以你翻译的材料是健康
你想帮助中国人民的信息；是
对吗？
答：只是为了表明这一点，请注意它们是什么信息
我猜是收到了，得出第二种意见。
问：好吧。因为通常只允许一个观点
在中国；对吗？
答：中国由中共控制。
问：对。因此，中共的意见是允许的，
对吧？
答：这是专门针对健康信息的或者——
问：当然，让我们坚持下去。
答：似乎只有一个已发布的数据。
问：好吧。而且你直接作证说郭先生也是
谈论 COVID；对吗？
答：他——他在讨论——他也在讨论COVID，是的。
问：那是 —— 你翻译了他的一些信息
COVID，对吧？
答：我翻译的大部分信息都是公共信息
我从美国收集的。我翻译过他的一些演讲
英语中也可能包含他对COVID的看法。
问：好吧。所以你翻译了，我想你用了这个词
“会谈。”所以你翻译了郭先生关于COVID的演讲

728
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
还有其他事情，对吧？
答：关于其他事情。有 COVID 和其他东西；
正确。
问：比如其他什么？
答：同样的事情。中国大陆的腐败，多么糟糕
那是，诸如此类的事情。
问：好吧。而且你认为那样做很重要
向中国人民提供信息，对吧？
答：只是为了 —— 再说一遍，也许是为了打开更多的信息
流量或新闻流。
问：你直接作证说你不再是追随者了，
对吧？
答：正确。
问：你什么时候停止成为了 —— 你什么时候停止成为了
追随者？
答：既然我没有收到任何收据
投资。
问：好吧。那是在 2020 年夏天吗？
答：正确。因为我请调查员去调查
问：对不起，先生，你答完了吗？
答：已完成。
问：自从你不再是郭先生的追随者以来，你有没有
还在追踪他发布的信息吗？
答：我没有追踪他的信息，不是。
问：你一直在关注郭先生的故事吗

729
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
自从你停止追随者以来的生活？
答：不是。
问：好吧。所以你不知道他是否还富有，
对吧？
费根森先生：反对。
法院：驳回。你可以回答。
答：在 YouTube 上有时会弹出这些视频，但我没有
积极追踪、关注或搜查他的任何下落。
问：所以你不知道他是否还有游艇，对吧？
费根森先生：反对。询问并回答。
KAMARAJU 先生：我知道我没问过那个问题
之前。
法院：我知道。我知道。你可以回答，先生。
答：问题是？
问：你不知道他还有游艇吗？
答：无论哪种方式我都不知道。我没关注他——
问：好吧。所以我不会仔细阅读每件事；我只会
总结一下。你说过看到的所有奢侈品
在视频中，记得你曾为此作证
检察官？
答：我没关注，所以——
问：好吧。所以你不知道他还有没有
东西，对吧？
答：有 —— 里面有他弹出的视频
公寓或游艇上。但是不管他还拥有还是

730
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-十字架
诸如此类，我不知道更多 —— 仅此而已。
问：先生，你直接作证说你以为你
醒来了，我想这是你的诺言，因为你和一对情侣说过话
那些告诉你这是个骗局的朋友；对吗？
答：基本上，有几个在我之前离开群组的前关注者
做到了。
问：先生，这些前追随者中有人居住在中国吗？
答：有一位朋友以前是熟人。她是
总部设在中国，但她确实旅行过。她也在关注
这个 —— 所有这些是郭的视频。她还单独联系了我
并警告我这对她来说看起来不对劲。
问：好吧。而这个朋友住在北京；是吗
对吧？
答：我说过她也在海外旅行。我不知道
确切地。
问：你说郭先生最早提出的说法之一是
他是 —— 美国之音被迫让他停播；对吗？
答：这是他的说法。
问：那发生在 2017 年，对吧？
答：我不知道确切的日期，但我认为是那个活动
发生在 2017 年。
KAMARAJU 先生：我们能不能有展品 DX
拜托 STIP-001。我们可以转到第5段吗。
问：你能读懂第一句话吗，先生。
KAMARAJU 先生：如果你能强调一下这个问题

731
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-重定向
他。
答：“为了实现猎狐者的某些目标，在2017年，
中华人民共和国政府委派了一个特别指定的小组
诽谤和骚扰的特工（“团体”）
个人，包括郭先生，使用交互式电脑
服务和电子通信系统。”
KAMARAJU 先生：好吧。然后我们能重点介绍一下吗
这句话写着 “该组织的策略是针对郭先生的”。而且
一直到那句话的结尾。
问：请你读懂那句话吗。
答：“该组织针对郭先生的策略包括使用
该团体运营的匿名社交媒体账户，以及
向美国社交媒体公司施压，要求其罢免郭先生和
来自社交媒体平台的郭先生在美国的同事。”
问：请你读下一句话吗。
答：“这些努力是中华人民共和国政府更广泛努力的一部分
努力防止、破坏和骚扰郭先生使用社交工具
媒体和其他在线平台进行传播和讨论
不受欢迎的内容。”
KAMARAJU 先生：没有其他问题了。
法院：重定向。
FERGENSON 先生：是的，法官大人。
重定向考试 
作者：费根森先生：  
问：Chin 先生，有人问你关于区别的问题

732
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 下巴-重定向
在 Guo Media 和 GTV 之间，你还记得吗？
答：是的，有人问过我。
问：你清楚这两件事之间的区别吗？
答：当时还不太清楚；只是全部由指挥
郭文豪。
问：当你向 VOG 汇款 10,000 美元时，你明白了什么
用那笔钱会发生吗？
答：根据索赔，我的理解是这笔钱
将汇集在一起以达到 100,000 的门槛以便能够
投资 —— 投资于 Guo Media。
问：是 Guo Media 还是 GTV？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对，法官大人。问了还有
回答。
法院：持续。
问：还有陈先生，刚才有人问你一些事情
郭文亮说自己是中共的目标。你呢
还记得那些问题吗？
答：是的。
问：郭迈尔斯对你的 GTV 的回归说了什么
投资？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。范围。
法院：你可以回答。
答：他根据其他 —— 其他 —— 再次声称拥有大数字
现有的社交媒体或媒体公司回归。
问：那你的G美元投资呢，他说了什么

733
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Chin-Recross
那回报怎么样？
答：他声称这个 —— 首先，这将吸收
大量的钱。然后基于 —— 暗示那个
基于其他加密货币的成功，这也将是
成功的。
问：当你还是个追随者的时候，你相信什么吗
郭文亮在说什么？
答：当时我这样做了。
问：而且，事实上，陈先生，你是在赚钱还是亏钱
这些投资？
答：我输了。
问：郭迈尔斯是否还清了你的损失？
答：他没有。
问：你今天还是 Miles Guo 的追随者吗？
答：我不是。
问：为什么不呢？
答：我认为他诈骗、虐待了很多人的利益
意图以及我们的精力和时间。我们试着做点什么
很好，但是我们被骗了。
弗根森先生：没有其他问题了。
法院：重审。
KAMARAJU 先生：非常简短，法官大人。
再交叉检查 
作者：KAMARAJU 先生：  
问：你作证说郭文贵没有偿还你的损失；

734
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
正确？
答：正确。
问：你问过他吗？
答：我没有。
KAMARAJU 先生：没什么好说的，法官大人。
法庭：好吧，先生。你可以下台。
谢谢。 
（证人原谅） 
法庭：检方可能会下次开庭
目击者。
芬克尔先生：政府给斯蒂尔·肖滕海默打电话。
 斯蒂尔·肖滕海默， 
     被政府传唤为证人 
     经正式宣誓后, 作证如下: 
法院：你可以继续前进。
芬克尔先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
直接检查 
作者：芬克尔先生：  
问：下午好。
答：你好。
问：肖滕海默女士，你住在哪个城市？
答：德克萨斯州达拉斯。
问：你在哪里工作？
答：我在海曼资本管理与保护股权公司工作
管理。

735
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：什么是保护权益管理？
答：保护股权管理是一种自然资本
影响私募股权公司。
问：那是什么意思？
答：我们投资于私人环境战略
市场，主要是购买原始土地。
问：什么是海曼资本？
答：海曼资本管理公司是一家资产管理公司，总部设在
得克萨斯州达拉斯；它由凯尔·巴斯于 2005 年创立；以及
从历史上看，它主要侧重于事件驱动的对冲
资金。
问：肖滕海默女士，你两人一起工作怎么样
不同的实体、保护公平管理和海曼
资本？
答：海曼资本管理公司由凯尔·巴斯全资拥有；以及
凯尔是保护股权管理的主要合伙人。
问：你说海曼资本是一个由事件驱动的——对不起，
你用了什么名词？
答：这是一家以事件为导向的全球对冲基金经理。
问：什么是对冲基金经理？
答：对冲基金经理是管理对冲基金的人。
对冲基金是集合工具，通常有
投资授权或策略。
问：海曼资本由事件驱动意味着什么？
答：事件驱动的投资通常与某种形式有关

736
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
触发论文或投资焦点的催化剂。
法院：你能给我们举一个或多个例子吗？
目击者：是的。如果你有两个 —— 一家公司
再买一个，那将是一件大事。如果你有两个
公司合并，那将是一件大事。如果你有一个
决定贬值货币的国家，那就是
一个事件。
问：肖滕海默女士，你在海曼工作多久了
资本？
答：我从 2006 年 4 月起就在海曼工作，所以刚刚结束了
18 年。
问：你在海曼资本的头衔是什么？
答：我是投资者关系的董事总经理。
问：你担任这个职位多久了？
答：我一直从事投资者关系工作，但标题是
董事总经理，大约在过去 15 年里。
问：你能不能向陪审团成员简要描述一下
你的一般职责和责任是什么
投资者关系董事总经理？
答：是的。我是所有当前投资者的关键人物，我
我也是我们挖掘潜力的关键人物
投资者们。我还会处理 Kyle 的很多日程安排
就像他在媒体上的露面一样。
问：你提到了凯尔。凯尔·巴斯在海曼的头衔是什么？
答：凯尔·巴斯是该公司的创始人兼首席投资官

737
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
海曼资本管理。
问：我想重点谈谈2020年的时间段。大约在那附近
时间段，肖滕海默女士，客户的类型是什么
和那个海曼订婚了？
答：当时的海曼客户净资产很高
个人、家族办公室、捐赠基金等
机构投资者。
问：什么是家族办公室？
答：家族办公室是 —— 它是一个投资办公室
致力于管理家庭的财富。
问：海曼大约有多少员工？
答：今天？
问：如果可以的话，今天和2020年。
答：在2020年，我认为大约是八点。今天已经六点了。
问：2020年，以下资产的大致金额是多少
海曼的管理层？
答：大约4亿。
问：那么，管理的资产意味着什么？
答：管理的资产是我们的资本金额
代表我们的投资者投资。我们可以直接控制
资产配置和投资决策。
问：作为职责的一部分，你偶尔还会管理吗
凯尔·巴斯的日历？
答：有时，是的。
问：根据你参与他的日程安排，Kyle Bass 是否

738
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
在媒体上露面？
答：是的。
问：你能否向陪审团成员大致描述一下
总的来说，巴斯先生的简介是财务领域
工业？
KAMARAJU 先生：对表格提出异议。
法院：持续。
答：我能回答这个问题吗。
问：不是。
法院：当我支持异议时，你却不支持。
问：根据你在巴斯先生日历中的参与情况，他会吗
在媒体上露面？
答：是的。
KAMARAJU 先生：问了又回答。
法院：持续。
问：他在媒体上露面了什么？
答：凯尔曾多次在媒体上露面
包括美国有线电视新闻网国际、彭博社、CNBC、CNBC亚洲。
问：在 2020 年，在此之前，巴斯先生制作媒体的频率有多高
出场？
答：通常每个月至少说一次。
问：在 2020 年及之前，巴斯先生有公开露面吗
对中国共产党的立场？
答：是的。
问：那是什么？

739
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
答：凯尔对中国共产党持负面看法。
还有 —— 总的来说，共产主义者 —— 对不起，中国人
经济。
问：你对中国共产党有什么看法？
答：我也有负面看法。
问：为什么？
答：我持负面看法，因为我不同意不是
允许人们信奉自己的宗教并让他们参与其中
这样做的集中营。
问：肖滕海默女士，任何公众都可以投资于
海曼资本的金融产品？
答：不是。
问：为什么不呢？
答：因为海曼资本——海曼资本的基金
管理层依赖于3（c）（7）豁免，这意味着
我们只能推销和接受合格的资本
购买者。
问：3 (c) (7) 例外情况是什么？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对，法官大人。  
我们能给个简短的侧边栏吗？ 
法庭：好吧。
（下一页继续）

740
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
（在侧边栏上） 
KAMARAJU 先生：所以我的反对意见是
Schottenheimer 女士没有被注意或被提议作为
证券监管方面的专家证人；但她却是
问了——我预计还会继续被问到——关于
对投资顾问各个方面的解释
法案和各种证券法规。那是正确的
专家在法庭作证的范围。
法庭：你只是在问她这个问题吗
在一定水平上进行投资的资格或资格？
芬克尔先生：是的。而且她没有被当作
专家；但她是一名非专业证人，她的工作是评估
是否有人可以成为海曼的投资者。那非常
与这里的所有行为有关。
法院：任何普通的财务顾问都知道这一点
不是专家证词。
KAMARAJU 先生：嗯，比尔泽里安，法官大人，曼联
各州诉比尔泽里安案，第二巡回法院批准使用
解释美国证券交易委员会法规的专家证词。
法院：当然。
KAMARAJU 先生：我想确保不在那里
我们要走了。
法庭：我的感觉是我们不会去那里。
芬克尔先生：她不是在解释法规；她是
解释她对投资要求的理解

741
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
海曼资本，这非常重要，因为她评估了
郭先生对海曼资本GTV投资基金的投资。
那是她的工作。因此，确定某人是否是
合格买家，合格投资者对她的看法
每天都在做。她会在上面交叉然后她是
未被荣誉阁下认证为专家。
KAMARAJU 先生：但我认为没有任何争议
至于郭先生投资海曼资本的能力。这个
争议在于是否有 —— 是否有未经认证
投资者可以投资GTV。这个证人的
了解什么是合格投资者，它不是
事情。
法庭：这与 GTV 无关，我说得对吗？
芬克尔先生：嗯，有两点可以回答这个问题，
法官大人：  
首先，我相信法官阁下在议案中作出了裁决 
限制我们被允许介绍这个事实 
与GTV有关的未经认可的投资者发行。   
关于这个证人是否与GTV有关 
在某种程度上，之所以提供，是因为 GTV 的钱是 
由郭先生和他的同谋收集的，被汇入了 
肖滕海默女士工作的对冲基金。所以她是 
我不会解释美国证券交易委员会的法规然后说，我 
相信这个。她说的是她每天都在做什么。  
这是她的工作。

742
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
法庭：但我不认为这是专家
作证然后我就允许提问。
芬克尔先生：谢谢。
KAMARAJU 先生：我能澄清一下吗？  
然后我可以对她进行盘问了 
对差异的理解？ 
法庭：在什么和什么之间？
KAMARAJU 先生：在合格投资者之间，我
相信他会吸引人的，而且要花最少的投资
阈值。
法院：当然。
KAMARAJU 先生：好吧。
（下一页继续）

743
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
（在公开法庭上） 
法庭：你可以继续。
作者：芬克尔先生：  
问：肖滕海默女士，什么是 3 (c) (7) 异议？借口
我。异议被驳回。
什么是 3 (c) (7) 例外？ 
答：3 (c) (7) 异常源于 '40
美国证券交易委员会、证券交易委员会的法案规则，
指令。基本上是3（c）基金——3（c）（7）基金就是这样
海曼设立了他们的对冲基金。
问：什么是合格购买者？
答：对于个人而言，合格的购买者是指符合条件的人
拥有500万美元的有价证券。
问：那对于一个实体来说呢？
答：对于非家族有限合伙企业的实体，
他们必须拥有2500万美元的集合资产或净资产。
问：合格购买者的定义如何（如果有的话）
与你在海曼资本的工作有关吗？
答：所以因为我负责向潜在客户进行营销
客户，我必须确认我正在与之交谈的每个人或者
实际上，提供有关我们资金的信息是合格的
购买者。
问：“合格投资者” 一词是什么？
答：合格投资者是指拥有一百万的人
净资产的美元，或其总收入300,000美元

744
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
配偶，或个人收入20万美元。
问：是合格投资者但不是合格投资者的人可以吗
合格的购买者，投资海曼产品？
答：不，他们不能。
问：在这些阈值中，合格购买者经过认证
投资者，哪个实体（如果有的话）设定了这些门槛？
A. 证券交易委员会。
问：你对这些阈值为何有何理解
由美国证券交易委员会设立？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。
法院：你可以回答。
答：你能重复一下这个问题吗。
问：肖滕海默女士，美国证券交易委员会是什么？
A. 证券交易委员会。
问：你对美国证券交易委员会为何有何理解（如果有的话）
设定合格投资者的这些门槛，
合格的购买者？
答：保护没有这些门槛的个人
来自投资被认为风险较高的东西
投资基金。
问：还有海曼提供的金融产品，它们是吗
高风险金融产品？
答：是的，美国证券交易委员会认为它们是。这是一把对冲
基金。
问：好吧。用外行的话来说，你是什么意思

745
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
“更高的风险”？
答：通常，对冲基金不仅可以投资股票
市场或债券市场，他们可以参与很多
不同类型的证券，场外期权，
场外远期合约、大宗商品。它有一个非常大的
他们可以使用的金融产品类型的带宽——
对冲基金可以投资的。还有这些类型的产品
被认为是更高的风险。
问：肖滕海默女士是你工作的一部分，正在评估是否
实际上，潜在客户是合格的购买者？
答：是的。
问：海曼做了什么（如果有的话）来验证是否
潜在投资者是合格买家吗？
答：如果我对投资者关系进行了反向调查
在海曼，我给他们发了所谓的新联系人
问卷。这是我们订阅手册中的一部分
你知道，这需要一些背景信息，比如
他们的姓名、出生日期、电话号码、电子邮件地址，以及
作为合格的投资者代表和合格者
买方代表。
因此，一旦我将这些存档，我就知道它们有 
成为了 QP 代表，我能够向他们提供以下信息 
海曼提供的资金。 
问：什么是 QP 代表，那是什么意思？
答：合格的买方代表，意思是——

746
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：对不起。来吧。
答：这意味着他们实际上是一个有5美元的个人
百万的有价证券。
问：什么是反向调查？
答：反向调查是指有人向海曼伸出援手
询问我们提供的不同产品。
问：肖滕海默女士，海曼做了哪些工作（如果有的话）
验证或检查潜在客户的陈述
投资者声称他们是合格购买者？
答：我们照原样看待陈述。没有进一步的了
检查。这不是必需的。
问：什么是 KYC？
答：认识你的客户或认识你的客户。
问：在你所做的工作背景下，这意味着什么
海曼？
答：我们有所谓的反洗钱程序
当投资者对我们的一家公司进行投资时
资金。它基本上是一个网格或清单
我们需要收集并存档的信息。
问：作为其中的一部分，海曼收集了什么样的信息
它的 KYC 义务？
答：清单很长。其中很多都包含在
投资者填写的订阅文件，目的是
订阅基金。但从较高的层面来看，姓名、地址，
社会安全号码、出生日期和有效证件的副本

747
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
国家签发的驾照，护照。然后我们收集这个
代表如果有人以自己的名义进行投资，
投资者。然后，如果它是一个实体，我们会收集这些信息
代表授权签字人提供的信息，以及
那个 —— 任何受益所有人我认为都是 20%。
问：什么是反洗钱？
A. 反洗钱。
问：这个术语与你所做的工作有何关系（如果有的话）
海曼？
答：反洗钱就是——我们称之为反洗钱支票。
因此，这在某种程度上属于 “了解你的客户” 或
了解您的客户流程。而这份反洗钱清单实际上是
我们在结算过程中使用什么来收集所有信息
我们需要的数据。
问：这些反洗钱和KYC支票，如果有的话，海曼为什么要这样做
他们？
答：我们必须这样做。
问：谁干的？
答：美国证券交易委员会。
问：UBO这个词是什么？
答：你说了 UBL？
Q. UBO。O。
A. UBO。
问：你以前听过这个词吗？
答：最终受益所有人。

748
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：什么是最终受益所有人？
答：最终受益所有人是实际拥有者
实体。
问：最终受益所有人的概念如何
如果有的话，与你在海曼的工作有关吗？
答：出于反洗钱的目的，我们需要深入研究
实体，所以我们有XYZ实体投资。而且我需要收集
对持有 20% 以上股份的任何个人实施反洗钱
实体。有时一个实体归一个实体所有，而你
一直往下走，直到你真正找到一个人；
这样你就可以对那个人进行反洗钱检查。
问：那么 Hayman 为什么要经历所有这些步骤
最终受益所有者？
答：因为根据我们的反洗钱惯例，我们必须这样做
由 SEC 要求的--要求的。
芬克尔先生：法官大人，我能等一会吗？
法院：是的。
（已聘请律师） 
问：肖滕海默女士我想你使用了 “向下钻研” 一词
关于各种最终受益所有人。你能不能
向陪审团成员解释这意味着什么
你的工作背景？
答：绝对可以。
因此，如果有实体，我们说有人或任何人 
实体拥有该实体 20% 以上的股份。而且，如果

749
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
答案是肯定的，然后我们收集。如果是一个人，那就是 
基本上只是一个向下的网格。如果是一个人，那么 
我们收集对该人的五项反洗钱要求。如果是 
一个实体，那么我们必须进入下一层。确实如此 
任何人拥有该实体 20% 的股份；是个人还是个人 
另一个实体？然后你就继续走直到你 
实际上拥有我们认为的最终受益所有者。 
问：你熟悉海曼工作中的这个概念吗
母公司和子公司？
答：很熟悉，是的。
问：那是什么意思？
答：母公司是拥有 —— 是 —— 的公司
母公司拥有子公司。
问：海曼是否还会询问希望投资的客户
海曼产品钱的来源是什么
用于投资？
答：资金来源？没有。
问：资金来源呢？
答：不是。
问：潜在投资者是否需要报告资金的去向
来自于他们用来投资海曼金融公司
产品？
答：分配的具体资本，不是。
问：肖滕海默女士，你见过一个知名的人吗
像 Miles Kwok 一样？

750
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
答：是的。
问：你还有其他名字认识他吗？
答：郭文豪。
问：你今天在法庭上看到他了吗？
答：我愿意。
问：你能指出他并认出来吗 —
KAMARAJU 先生：我们会规定身份，你的
荣誉。
法院：好吧。
问：你第一次见到郭文贵是什么时候？
答：我在 2018 年 10 月遇见了郭迈尔斯。
问：那你叫什么名字 —— 你能理解
那个时候要用郭文？
A. 郭文豪。
问：你在哪里见到他的？
答：我在德克萨斯州达拉斯的一个飞机库遇见了他。
问：郭文贵和谁在一起？
答：郭文贵和史蒂夫·班农和威廉·杰在一起。
问：当时，也就是 2018 年，肖滕海默女士，你的是什么
理解 Miles Kwok 与 William Je 的关系了吗？
答：当时 William Je 被介绍为 Miles's
为他们在那里进行的采访提供口译员。
问：那你对 Miles Kwok 的理解是什么
当时和史蒂夫·班农的关系？
答：他们是朋友。

751
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：当时凯尔·巴斯也在场吗？
答：是的。
问：你提到有一次采访。你做什么
意思？
答：那天我们都在机库的原因是
达拉斯是因为凯尔要采访两个史蒂夫
班农在一次采访中，在另一次采访中，
采访郭文。
问：当时，肖滕海默女士，在 2018 年，
你对凯尔·巴斯和郭文贵的关系的理解吗？
答：他们是通过史蒂夫·班农介绍的，并有
对中国、金融界有很多相似的看法 —— 中国的看法
金融体系和中国共产党。
芬克尔先生：如果可以的话请展示我的信念
作为政府展品103显而易见。
问：肖滕海默女士，这个人是谁？
答：这是威廉·杰。
FINKEL 先生：如果可以的话请展示一下
证人，仅限证人，标记为供识别的内容
政府展览 123。
问：这个人是谁？
答：史蒂夫·班农。
芬克尔先生:政府的提议123.
KAMARAJU 先生：没有异议。
法院：可以接受。

752
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
（收到的政府证据 123 作为证据） 
芬克尔先生：请把这个发布出来。
问：肖滕海默女士，郭迈尔斯是怎么来的
飞机库这次采访是在哪里进行的？
答：据我所知，他是分开飞的
FBO。
问：什么是 FBO？
答：我不知道首字母缩略词，但基本上有不同
机场的 FBO。它基本上是一个不同的机库
机场在哪里 —— 飞机降落并存放在哪里。
芬克尔先生：我们可以把它记下来，洛夫特斯女士。
问：你提到要接受一次采访
巴斯先生本来要指挥。那是什么样的采访
巴斯先生指挥的时间段？
答：所以有一个节目叫做 —— 对不起，有一个群组叫做
Reel Vision。而且这是一个系列 —— 这是一个采访系列
人们可以订阅。而且 Kyle 有很多
他的不同人物 —— 采访了许多人
不同的人，以及采访他的人。
问：实际上，巴斯先生是否在这篇文章中采访了郭文豪
飞机库？
答：他做到了。
问：你目睹了吗？
答：我做到了。
芬克尔先生：如果我们能为证人展示的话，

753
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
请问标记为 GX 1007-V1 的内容。
道歉。这是政府展览 W1007-V1。我的错。
洛夫特斯女士，你能不能滚动浏览一下 
肖滕海默女士可以看看这个。 
问：肖滕海默女士，你认识这个吗？
答：是的。这是进行的 Reel Vision 采访
之间 —— 凯尔·巴斯采访了郭文豪。
芬克尔先生：政府提供 GX W1007-V1。
KAMARAJU 先生：没有异议。
法院：可以接受。
（收到的政府展品 W1007-V1 作为证据） 
芬克尔先生：如果我们能发布那个，拜托，
洛夫特斯女士。把它带回起点。如果可以的话
请玩这个，洛夫特斯女士。
（视频已播放） 
芬克尔先生：暂停一下。
问：肖滕海默女士，首先，谁是这个人
屏幕？
答：那是 Miles Kwok。
问：另一个人是谁？
答：凯尔·巴斯。
问：巴斯先生和郭先生使用了一些术语。第一
他们使用的术语叫做外汇储备。你是什么
明白这意味着什么吗？
A. 外汇储备的背景是，总体而言

754
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
是 —— 外汇储备就是一个国家
保留在资产负债表上。
问：郭先生使用了一个叫做 M2 的术语。那是什么？
答：M2 是流通中的货币。
问：还有我们看过的这一分 50 秒的片段，
肖滕海默女士，总的来说，那是什么
郭先生和巴斯先生在讨论？
答：他们正在讨论与中国经济有关的问题。
FINKEL 先生：请问你能从那里玩吗，
洛夫特斯女士。
（视频已播放） 
芬克尔先生：请在这里暂停。
问：肖滕海默女士，巴斯先生的这张图表是什么
提到了郭先生给他的，巴斯先生？
答：这是美国和中国国内生产总值的比较
货币供应。
问：如果有的话，这与郭先生和他的内容有什么关系
巴斯先生在讨论吗？
答：中国刚刚大幅增加了货币供应
以促进其经济增长。
问：这张图表，除了这次采访之外，你在里面看过吗
其他地方？
答：是的。Kyle 请求了 Miles 的许可才把它放进我们的——
我们的一副套牌。
问：你能解释一下你所说的 “套牌” 是什么意思吗？

755
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
答：是的。我们的演讲之一。
我记不起来到底是哪一个，但是我们有一个 
不断演变的海曼香港机会基金演示文稿指出 
我们会不时发布更新的图表。而且我记得 
在这张图片的开头有一张快照和 
最后的快照插入到演示文稿中。 
问：所以这张图片来自郭先生，巴斯先生用了这张图片
他做了演讲？
答：正确。是的。
问：肖滕海默女士，我能不能要求对准麦克风
直接对准你的嘴，它是定向的，每个人都能听见
您。谢谢。
FINKEL 先生：还有 Loftus 女士，我们可以继续玩
这个视频。
（视频已播放） 
作者：芬克尔先生：  
问：肖滕海默女士，巴斯先生问了一个问题：为什么
港元有挂钩吗？  
你对这意味着什么有何理解？什么 
与港元挂钩吗？ 
答：港元与美元挂钩。它是
实际上 —— 它是与美元挂钩的，这意味着有十个
它在某种灵活性范围内进行交易。
问：一种货币与另一种货币挂钩意味着什么
货币？

756
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
答：基本上，一种货币采用另一种货币的价值
货币，并将其货币与第二种货币挂钩。
问：根据你的理解，香港经济怎么样
真的把美元和美元挂钩了吗？
答：所以有一种叫做 “香港货币” 的东西
权威。金管局维持美元和美元
资产负债表上的资产，以维持与资产负债表的挂钩
美国货币。
问：这个挂钩已经存在了大约多长时间？
答：自 1983 年 10 月起。
问：这个挂钩今天还存在吗？
答：确实如此。
问：而在2018年，当这次采访进行时，
肖滕海默女士，海曼资本的看法是什么
这种挂钩是否会持续下去？
A. Hayman认为，香港的挂钩汇率已不复存在
理智，它将在一段时间内不复存在。
问：海曼资本是否提供过任何金融产品
这次是 2018 年，是基于那个论点吗？
答：是的。
问：那那个金融产品叫什么？
A. 海曼香港机会基金。
芬克尔先生：我们可以从那里继续玩游戏，
洛夫特斯女士。
（视频已播放）

757
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
作者：芬克尔先生：  
问：肖滕海默女士，你对什么的理解如何
郭先生说的是假的还是真的？
答：所以正如你从图片中看到的那样，中国有
仅靠印刷就不成比例地发展了经济
钱，为经济注入额外的货币供应，所以
本质上是支撑它。香港有实体经济
这本质上与美元挂钩的是区别，我
想想，就是他所指的。
芬克尔先生：如果可以的话请给证人看看
被标记为 GX W1007-V3 的物品。你能不能
只要把它擦干净，这样肖滕海默女士就可以看看。
问：肖滕海默女士，这是什么？
答：这仍然是凯尔·巴斯对 Reel Vision 的采访
还有 Miles Kwok。
问：这是那次采访的片段吗？
答：是的。
问：整个面试大约持续了多长时间？
答：一小时。
芬克尔先生：政府提供 GX W1007-V3。
KAMARAJU 先生：没有异议。
法院：可以接受。
（收到的政府展品 W1007-V3 作为证据） 
芬克尔先生：洛夫特斯女士，在你发表那篇文章之后，如果我
可以请你滚到开头然后玩吧

758
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
陪审团成员。
（视频已播放） 
问：肖滕海默女士，在那段片段的开头，
巴斯先生说这是个大问题；郭先生
不同意并说这不是什么大问题。你是什么
明白他们指的是什么？
答：我得再看片段的开头。
芬克尔先生：我们能播放片段的开头吗。
（视频已播放） 
问：肖滕海默女士，你的理解是什么？
答：因此，凯尔说的是不断减少的超额储备
正在支撑港元。
它的运作方式是当港元兑换 
交易价格为7.75美元，处于强势一边。所以 
金管局需要介入并进行干预以保持香港 
美元在区间内。因此，它把美元卖给 
买港币。   
当它交易到弱势一方时也是如此 
区间，每美元仅为7.85美元港元。所以那么 
金管局需要进来买入美元然后 —— 对不起，买 
港元和卖出美元。   
而凯尔指的是他们花了78美元 
他们超额储备金的百分比；因此他们的维持能力 
这一挂钩比例已从 100% 下降到 38%。而且 
这就是凯尔所说的。

759
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：郭先生不同意这一点。那他的观点是什么？
答：他的观点是这只是两个选择。他想拿一个
退后一步，谈谈香港如何有能力
变成像中国一样的虚假经济体。他们可以撒谎
他们的数字，他们可以打印出解决问题的方法；或者
他们可以向世界表明他们没有足够的剩余量
美元来维持挂钩，对我来说，这可以追溯到
凯尔的第一点。
问：如果第二种选择成为现实，那就不存在了
足够的美元来维持挂钩，会发生什么？
答：市场可能会呼唤香港，而且还会有
给挂钩带来压力；它会在挂钩之外进行交易
可能最终会崩溃。
问：您在解释时使用了 “乐队” 一词。你能不能
解释一下乐队就行了？
答：乐队。是的。
港元兑美国的交易区间在同一区间内。 
美元。每美元兑7.75港元，然后 
区间变动——另一边是7.85美元。所以 7.75 到 
7.85 是港元兑美元的波段。 
问：你之前提到过 Hayman 提供的东西叫做
香港机会基金？
答：是的。
问：你能描述一下什么是香港机会基金吗。
答：海曼香港机会基金是一家对冲基金

760
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
具有特定策略的产品，该产品看跌
港元，它专门用于做空港币
港元。
问：那么，如果这个区间被打破，会产生什么影响
谁投资了香港机会基金？
答：这将对香港产生积极的货币影响
香港-海曼香港机会基金。
问：而且，肖滕海默女士，从广义上讲，是香港
机会基金是一项风险投资？
答：是的。
问：那是为什么？
答：嗯，具体来说，在B类股票中，这是一款专用
股票类别到百分之百地用期权来表达这笔交易，
这意味着如果期权用完了钱，你会
损失百分之百的投资。
问：你提到了一个叫做 B 类股的东西是不是这样
有别的名字吗？
答：是的，B类股票是惊人的系列。
问：海曼何时开始将香港作为投资发行
香港机会基金？
答：A类股票？
问：当然。
答：好吧。最初的海曼——是的，2017年1月。
问：B类股票，即Prodigious系列，是什么时候变成的
可用？

761
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
答：第一次收盘是在2020年6月。
芬克尔先生：我们可以把它记下来，洛夫特斯女士。
问：肖滕海默女士，有过这样的时候吗（如果有的话）
郭文贵想投资海曼产品？
答：是的。
问：那大约是什么时候？
答：2020 年 5 月。
问：那你在 Kwok 的《寻求的海曼》中扮演了什么角色（如果有的话）
投资？
答：我负责协调和处理
订阅手册。
问：还有什么投资——或者对不起。已撤回。
Kwok投资了什么金融产品？ 
答：他投资了海曼香港机会基金
分享B类/精彩系列.
问：郭氏对这笔惊人的投资有多大？
系列？
答：1亿美元。
芬克尔先生：我们可以向证人展示真实情况
已标记为 GX HN-26 以供识别。只需翻阅即可
这样肖滕海默女士就可以看一看。回到
拜托第一页。
问：肖滕海默女士，什么是 HN-26？
答：这是我在 5 月星期六发给 William Je 的一封邮件
2020 年 23 日，我分享了海曼香港的机会

762
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
为精彩的系列演示和指向该系列的回放链接提供资金
凯尔当月早些时候主持的网络直播。
芬克尔先生：政府提供 HN-26。
KAMARAJU 先生：没有异议。
法院：可以接受。
（收到的政府展品 HN-26 作为证据） 
芬克尔先生：如果我们能发布那个，拜托，
洛夫特斯女士。如果你能在顶部放大，请。你
可以看到文字。完美。
问：肖滕海默女士，既然陪审团可以看见，向谁看
你发了这封电子邮件吗？
A. William Je。
问：那你为何把这封邮件发给 William Je？
答：因为凯尔·巴斯要我这么做。
问：那这封电子邮件的日期是什么时候？
答：2020年5月23日。
问：那主题是什么？
A. 机密回放详情海曼香港
机会基金唱片惊人系列.
问：你对凯尔·巴斯问你的原因有何理解
把这封电邮发给 William Je？
答：因为Miles对潜在的投资感兴趣。
问：用什么产品？
A. 海曼香港机会基金股票类别B
精彩系列。

763
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：而且，肖滕海默女士，在这个时候，也就是 2020 年 5 月，什么
你对 William Je 的角色是否理解
郭文豪？
答：他曾是迈尔斯的负责人或首席投资官
家族办公室。
问：你所说的 “家族办公室” 是什么意思？
答：家族办公室是专门管理的投资办公室
个人的财富。所以这是一间办公室 —— 这是
一群致力于管理 Miles 财富的人
Kwok。
芬克尔先生：我们可以缩小这个范围，洛夫特斯女士，而且
请转到文档的下一页。放大一下。
问：这是什么照片？
答：这是中国共产党领导人的照片
党，习近平。
问：这个 Power Point 上有水印吗？
答：是的。
问：这是为什么？
答：因为我们会跟踪发送给的所有演示文稿
潜在的投资者。
问：这个特殊的 Power Point 上的水印是什么？
答：William Je，这是他的电邮地址。
芬克尔先生：请看这篇文章的第 34 页，
洛夫特斯女士。让我们回到一页——或者向前转一页，对不起
我。

764
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
问：肖滕海默女士，你能读懂这方面的第一句话吗
页面？
A. “目标是大约 200 倍的名义曝光量
根据截至5月4日的当前价格，每投资一美元，
2020 年。”
问：那是什么意思？
答：因此，根据5月初的定价，我们的目标是
每投资1美元就能获得200倍的风险敞口
通过港元做空港元
我们正在购买的期权。
问：还有美元投资的200倍，你能解释一下吗
那个？
答：正确。如果你投资一美元，你会缺少200美元
美元-以港元计。
问：总的来说，肖滕海默女士，你的角色是
投资者关系董事总经理，海曼市场怎么样
这个名为 Prodigious 系列的产品，致潜在的投资者？
答：我们将其作为非常高风险/潜在的高回报进行营销
策略。
问：你对投资者投资的原因有何理解
它？
答：通常有两类投资者是
有兴趣投资我们的香港产品。第一个是
防御阵地，这意味着他们正在用它作为对冲工具
他们更广泛的投资组合。他们可能有某种曝光度

765
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
进入新兴市场，直接投资中国、亚洲。还有这个
是一场防守游戏，意思是他们有 —— 他们打的很小
将他们的整体产品组合分配到该产品中
如果第二大经济体要有一个，保护他们
严重错位。
问：那进攻玩法是什么？
答：攻击性游戏是当投资者明白这一点时
这种在市场上定价的风险是 —— 这是错误的，
它太便宜了，而且会随着时间的推移重新定价。
问：第四颗子弹，肖滕海默女士，开头是 “资本”
精疲力尽策略。”
答：是的。
问：读一读然后向陪审团成员解释那是什么
意味着。
A. 资本枯竭策略使用最大限度的资本
效率。因此，当我们提供的这个产品是 —— 你可以把
投资该产品的最低金额为25,000美元，而且非常不错
资本效率，这意味着您投资的每一美元都是
将提供大量的名义曝光度。你有点像是推荐
到第一个要点达到 200 次。
FINKEL 先生：如果我们能转到下一页，
洛夫特斯女士。之后的页面。谢谢。
问：肖滕海默女士，什么是管理费，我相信
是这行的第四行吗？
答：是的。投资时需要一次性管理费

766
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
惊人的系列。从本质上讲，这是对资产的收费
管理资本的经理。
问：而这里的资产经理会是谁？
答：海曼资本管理公司。
问：然后我想在下面两行显示锁定，两年
硬锁。那是什么意思？
答：嗯，这个策略只是 —— 为期 18 到两年 —
抱歉，这是一个 12 个月到 24 个月的策略。所以
两年锁定意味着没有能力获得你的
资本流失。一旦你投资，它就会永久投资于
基金。没有 —— 没有权利撤回你的
资本。
问：肖滕海默女士可以投资 Prodigious 系列
打倒中共？
答：不是。
问：对Prodigious系列的投资会影响吗
中国经济？
KAMARAJU 先生：反对。
法庭：你必须加紧努力。
（下一页继续）

767
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
（在侧边栏上） 
芬克尔先生：法官大人，我们是否应该派出陪审团
家？
法院：是的，我认为这是个好主意。
芬克尔先生：好吧。
（在公开法庭上） 
法庭：陪审团成员，现在是 2:45，所以是
该结束一天了。
请记住，您无权讨论 
彼此之间或与其他人一起举报。不要允许 
有人可以和你讨论这个案子。晚上好 
明天准时回到这里。谢谢。 
（陪审团不在场） 
法庭：请坐下。
KAMARAJU 先生：法官大人，你想原谅吗
证人？
法庭：哦，是的。如果你要下台。
不要讨论你的证词。   
（证人不在场） 
法庭：我会听取异议的。
KAMARAJU 先生：是的，法官大人。
所以我知道她没有资格成为 
证券专家，她没有被注意到。她当然没有 
作为宏观经济学及其影响方面的专家而受到关注 
可能对广大中国人采取任何特定的策略

768
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
经济。我不知道她是否有专业知识可以发表意见 
鉴于她从事投资者关系工作；就我而言 
我知道，不是一个真正的经济学家。还有她的个人观点 
关于它是否会影响中国经济 
与本案无关。 
芬克尔先生：所以，法官大人，如果辩方愿意的话
对不起，规定被告不相信
这项投资将对中国经济产生任何影响，
那么，是的，就不相关了。我不确定到底是什么
他们的观点就在于此。
KAMARAJU 先生：我们根本没有对此做出规定。
但是这个证人对这种情况是否发生的看法
或者可能发生与郭先生的观点无关
当然。但是，再说一遍，她没有被邀请作为专家参加
证实某一特定宏观经济的影响
策略。如果她想谈那不是海曼的
意图或者那不是她对海曼是什么的理解
想做，这是一回事。但从广义上讲，
那时你肯定遇到了 403 问题。因为现在我们
得开始谈论它的所有方式
可以，可能适用的各种经济趋势。
我不知道这个证人作证怎么样 
关于郭先生获得这项投资资格的程序 
更广泛的问题是哪些会或不会摧毁 
中共还是中国经济。

769
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
芬克尔先生：所以，法官大人，如果是辩方的话，照原样
好像是，会断言郭先生相信这个
投资将推翻中共，这当然是相关的
什么 Schottenheimer 女士，她的董事总经理
这种特定金融产品的投资者关系，什么
她和海曼的看法是这笔财务的影响
产品实际上取决于它能否摧毁中共或产生影响
更广泛的中国经济。
之所以出现这种情况，有两个原因：第一 
法官大人，原因是肖滕海默女士是那个人 
就这项特殊的投资与威廉·杰进行了互动。  
当然是海曼的观点和肖滕海默女士的观点，她的 
与余先生的互动与陪审团有关 
考虑，这似乎是郭先生的辩护 
相信这种金融产品可以推翻中共。如果 
那是他们的防御，我们有机会基本上投入 
这与之背道而驰的证据。如果他们想退缩 
然后说那不是他们的辩护否则他们会规定的 
它不会影响中国经济，没关系。如果他们 
不要，他们可以自由地就这些问题盘问她。 
法庭：那么你打算征集证词吗
她和余先生讨论了这个观点？
芬克尔先生：所以，法官大人，她 —— 我不知道是否
发生的那件事直接回答了法院的问题。
我所知道的是，肖滕海默女士，她的工作是

770
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
这副套牌是寄给余先生的，是代表性的 
海曼认为这种金融产品的作用。我也是 
我知道肖滕海默女士的观点她在中解释了这一点 
今天谈谈这个金融产品的用途， 
重要的是，海曼是如何推销它的。   
现在，巴斯先生，从中可以清楚地看出 
从肖滕海默女士的证词和我们观看的视频中 
对中共持负面看法，肖滕海默女士也是如此。  
但是他们知道——因为事实上，这是真的—— 
金融投资不会影响中共。这是一个赌注。它是 
一种赚钱或对冲亏损的方法。   
因此，如果辩方要争辩说郭先生 
在他心里相信这笔金融投资 
可能会推翻负担重担的中共政府， 
有能力提出相反的证据。还有我 
再说一遍，法官大人，只要辩护不行 
想进行这样的防御，那没错，这不是 
相关的。 
KAMARAJU 先生：所以我想只写几个
关于它的观点，我认为有一些区别是
重要。
首先，肖滕海默女士作为投资者的工作
关系不是设计投资产品。她非常
对此很清楚。证人是巴斯先生。什么
她的确是和潜在的投资者沟通，

771
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
使他们有资格购买它，然后接受
他们的订阅信息。她没有设置
完全是投资政策。她不是设计的，她不是
创造它的人，她不是管理它的人
为它做模特，她什么也没做。而且，如果芬克尔先生
问她有没有在看台上做过这样的事，她会说
不。
其次，在她的 3500 份材料中，她明确表示自己
从来没有和威廉·杰通过电话。所以唯一的
政府向国防部发出的通信
— 而且我不知道他们还有没有 —— 是那个 —— 是
电子邮件通信，其中没有提及
肖滕海默女士对这是否可以推翻的看法
不管是不是中共，还是更广泛的海曼的观点。
法庭：牌组里有关于什么的吗
他们对该产品对中国人的影响的看法
经济？
KAMARAJU 先生：他刚给她看了套牌，你的
荣誉。
法庭：我在问他。
KAMARAJU 先生：哦，对不起。我还以为你是
还在问我，法官大人。
芬克尔先生：所以，法官大人，是的。我的意思是，套牌是
关于海曼对中国经济的看法 —— 这是在
2020年，当他们寄出这副套牌时，中国经济是

772
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
步履蹒跚，而且压力很大
特别是关于香港中央银行。而且由于
就像肖滕海默女士那样，那种压力，不管是固定还是不合时宜
解释了一下，快要崩溃了。
以及这种金融产品的设计目的， 
这可能不是肖滕海默女士设计的，但知道怎么做 
它之所以奏效，是因为她的工作是将其推销给投资者 
向人们解释一下。她就是这么做的。她旅行 
事实上，世界是这样做的，所以她对此有所了解。即使 
她不是 Excel 表格中决定换成哪个的人 
投资，她当然知道它是如何运作的。 
因此，海曼销售这种产品的方式以及
是通过电子邮件发送给 William Je 的，并以其他方式推销的
与陪审团将要做出的考虑有关，
这显然是他们没有否认的辩护。
他们的辩护显然是郭先生认为这是一项投资
GTV投资者向海曼的香港提供的1亿美元资金中
机会基金是对抗中共的一种方式，使得
更广泛的观点是这里一切都很好，女士们
先生们，因为所有这些投资者真正关心的是
摧毁中共这就是这项投资的目的
要做。
事实上，法官大人，事实并非如此。而且 
肖滕海默女士知道这不是真的。而且她有权 
向陪审团解释一下。这将是给陪审团的，不是给我的，

773
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
不是由辩护律师而是由陪审团决定是否 
肖滕海默女士的观点或辩方的观点是正确的 
观点。但是他们有权获得双方的证据 
硬币。 
KAMARAJU 先生：法官大人，首先是问题所在
有人问这与海曼的意图无关或
肖滕海默女士设计该基金的意图。那是：
对这个基金的投资能摧毁中共吗？
摧毁中国经济。两者之间有区别
该基金在设计产品时决定做什么，以及
在现实世界中会产生什么实际影响。
法院：一秒钟。
你是否同意我的看法，即有区别 
在陈述加密货币是安全的 
投资、合法投资和发表意见 
关于世界经济中的加密货币？ 
芬克尔先生：法官大人，你在问我吗？
法院：是的。
芬克尔先生：所以，是的。但我觉得有一个
这个假设之间的区别——我同意你的看法
Honor on ——这里发生了什么。
而且防守方还没有 
否认对郭先生观点的辩护。因此， 
我认为肖滕海默女士至少有权这样做 —— 我可以 
这样构思问题：根据她的理解，如何

774
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
该金融产品有效吗？其效果如何 
根据她的理解。而且我确信辩方会的 
就此对她进行盘问—— 
法庭：我知道你想带出来
她的看法，但她不是经济学家。
芬克尔先生：所以，法官大人，这不是她的看法。
这是她的理解。从某种程度上讲，这是一种观点
701 条意见基于她作为海曼雇员的看法
资本。而且我们没必要介绍，我不认为，你的
荣誉，因为我们有一位知情的证人，一位702的专家
这项特殊投资的机制。
我们有一位目击者对此很熟悉 
产品是如何销售的，该产品是如何运作的，并且具有 
了解它在更广泛的经济中是如何运作的。那个 
根据第401条，理解肯定是相关的。有 
不是 403 的问题。   
陪审团将如何权衡所有这些信息取决于 
陪审团。但是它通过了阈值测试，使我们能够 
引出这些信息，尤其是当——这很明显 
现在，法官大人 — 辩方要争论了，可能在 
闭幕，这里一切都很好，因为这项投资 
是推翻中共的一种方式。他们可以穿越 
肖滕海默女士谈她缺乏资格和陪审团 
将评估分配给多少权重（如果有） 
肖滕海默女士对这种金融产品的理解。

775
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
但是作为销售该产品的海曼的员工 
以谋生并在那里工作了25年，她 
了解这种金融产品的作用是相关的， 
是可以受理的，应允许陪审团考虑。 
法庭：所以任何一个在兜售的人
你所说的金融产品可以给出意见
产品对给定经济的影响？
芬克尔先生：所以，法官大人，也许吧。我没说话
关于每位金融专家或每种金融产品或
不管怎样。但在这种情况下，我想，是的，我想
肖滕海默女士有权这样做。因为她有
个人对争议事实的了解。鉴于他们所做的
防御是，这显然是相关的。我们不需要——
法庭：我不是在问相关性。我是
询问该证人是否有资格提供
意见。
芬克尔先生：所以她受第 701 条的约束。是 701
观点，对，因为这是基于她的感知力
信息，她的感知知识。
例如，这和某人没什么不同 
例如，谁是非专业证人在谈论俚语 
他们经历和使用过的。也可以穿上 702 
专家将作证他们对术语的理解 
不要使用。但是，如果证人有这样的感觉 —— 有 
根据他们的看法合理地发表意见，这就是什么

776
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
肖滕海默女士有，符合701以下的资格。还有 
肖滕海默女士这里的金融产品本身就有 
的知识。 
法庭：好吧。所以我会允许你的
今晚简短的然后你会回来的 —— 现在是什么时候
它？所以我想让政府在 8 点之前提交简报，国防部
在 10 之前简短。
芬克尔先生：法官大人，完全没问题。我们会
那样做。
如果我能请法院询问是不是一部分 
辩方是郭先生认为这是在香港的投资 
香港机会基金是打倒中共的一种方式。 
法庭：对不起。我还以为比现在晚了
是。我想我应该早点做。一秒钟。
我会让政府的文件在 6 点到期然后 
8点的辩护文件 
芬克尔先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
而就在法院审理的背景下 
还有政府的部分论点，法院能否询问 
辩方中他们是否可以提出一个论点是 
郭先生认为，在香港的投资 
1亿美元的机会惊人系列是实现这一目标的一种方式 
与中国政府、中国经济或中共作战。 
法庭：那么你预计会这样做吗
争论？

777
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O5UVGUO4 Schottenheimer-Direct
KAMARAJU 先生：我当然保留权利
法官大人，提出这个论点。
法庭：我不能强迫他们透露自己的信息
防御。
芬克尔先生：明白了。只要政府
知道所以他们可以回应说这很可能是一个争论
在闭幕时作出，它将把它纳入其通报中。  
谢谢你，法官大人。 
KAMARAJU 先生：法官大人，我知道我们会解决这个问题的
简而言之，但自从 701 问世以来，刚刚完成
701、701的引文还说，所提供的答案是
意见必须有助于理解——
法庭：对不起，我没听见你说的话。
KAMARAJU 先生：701，如果你继续读过去的话
芬克尔先生读到的条款说，证词
还必须有助于清楚地理解证人的
证词，而不是基于科学、技术或其他证词
规则 702 范围内的专业知识。有
没有一个世界可以让证人作证说特定的
没有某些人的经济战略将摧毁全球经济
专业知识的形式。
法庭：嗯，我很想收到你的来信。
芬克尔先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
KAMARAJU 先生：谢谢你，法官大人。
（延期至2024年5月31日上午9点）

778
          南区记者，P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
考试索引 
考试：页面 
 卡琳·迈斯特雷洛 
582Cross By Shroff 女士。。。。 
668重定向作者：霍顿先生。......... 
673Recross 作者：Shroff 女士。。。。 
 帕特里克·钦 
686Direct 由 Fergenson 先生执导。。。。 
711Cross By Kamaraju 先生。。。。 
731重定向作者：费根森先生。。。。 
733Recross 作者：Kamaraju 先生。。。。 
 斯蒂尔·肖滕海默 
734Direct 作者：芬克尔先生。。。。。 
政府展品 
展品编号已收到 
703 VC7 和 VC8.......... 
 VC9 698........... 
 VC11 696........... 
 HN-26 762.......... 
 123 752........... 
 W1007-V1 753......... 
 W1007-V3 757.........