Miles Trial Day 7 - Court transcript and translation

Original Court Transcript(原始庭审记录)

779

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

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 31, 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

780

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

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)

781

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

(Trial resumed; jury not present)

THE COURT: Good morning.

Please make your appearances.

MR. FINKEL: Good morning, your Honor.

Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Fergenson, Justin

Horton, who is on his way up — and feedback, sorry — for the

government. We're joined by Isabel Loftus, who is a paralegal

in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and Special Agent Robert Stout

of the FBI.

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

and Sabrina Shroff, on behalf of Mr. Guo. And Mr. Guo is here

with us at counsel table.

MS. SHROFF: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Yesterday the Court heard testimony from Steele

Schottenheimer, the managing director for investor relations at

Hayman Capital Management. The government seeks to elicit from

Ms. Schottenheimer testimony as to whether an investment in

Hayman Capital's Hong Kong Opportunities Fund could "have a

negative impact on the Chinese Communist Party," and be a means

to "fight the CCP," or whether such an investment is merely "a

bet on how the macroeconomic environment will perform." That

was from the government's letter at ECF No. 369.

Under Rule 701, a lay witness may offer opinion

testimony only to the extent that it is rationally based on the

782

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

witness's perception, helpful to clearly understand the

witness's testimony or to determine a fact in issue, and not

based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge

within the scope of Rule 702.

The parties have found some common ground in their

letters.

The government argues that based on her personal

experience as a Hayman Capital managing director,

Ms. Schottenheimer "should be permitted to testify that Hayman

does not represent that investing in something like the Hayman

Hong Kong Opportunity Fund would help bring about the event

that is being bid on." Government letter at 4.

The defense agrees that Ms. Schottenheimer "can

testify about whether she marketed the fund as a tool to take

down the CCP." Defendant's letter at 4, ECF No. 370.

Testimony about how Hayman marketed the Hong Kong

Opportunity Fund to Guo does not require Ms. Schottenheimer to

offer an opinion. Accordingly, Ms. Schottenheimer may testify

as to how she marketed the fund in promotional material, such

as the slide deck which was admitted into evidence, and in

conversations with the defendant and other relevant

individuals. The government may elicit, for example, that

Hayman advertised the fund merely as a bet on the performance

of the Hong Kong dollar. These representations would be

relevant to the defendant's state of mind in deciding whether

783

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

to invest in the fund.

However, I will not permit the government to ask

Ms. Schottenheimer to speculate about whether an investment in

the fund would have a negative impact on the Chinese Communist

Party. That question asks for an opinion that goes beyond her

work at Hayman Capital; it asks her to opine on whether a short

position on a foreign currency could have an impact on a

foreign government. This is beyond the ken of a person with

industry experience like Ms. Schottenheimer. It is also far

less relevant than marketing-related evidence because it does

not directly bear on the defendant's state of mind.

Accordingly, the government shall not elicit general

testimony about the impact of the fund on the broader economy.

I'm told that we're still waiting for one of the

jurors because the Lexington Avenue subway line apparently is

stuck. There may be some sort of a crisis related to someone

on the tracks.

Is there anything else that you'd like to raise?

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

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I just want to make sure I

don't run afoul of the Court's ruling. I plan to ask

Ms. Schottenheimer, consistent with what I understand the

ruling to be, about marketing and how the HHKOF was represented

to investors. I believe I can also ask her what the HHKOF is a

bet on, which is to say what it is. And that, in large part,

784

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

has come in.

I think she can also testify about her personal

observations about whether, after the HHKOF was made available

to the public in 2017, the CCP has fallen. She has personal

observations of that; that is not expert testimony. I just

want to make sure all that is in accord with your Honor's

ruling.

And with respect to the sort of -- whether the opinion

about -- if it even is an opinion, about the impact of the bet

on the CCP, your Honor, in some sense I think -- this is what

I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to get this with

Ms. Schottenheimer is if you bet on the Met game, right, and

the Mets win — which I hope they do, but they don't a lot — you

make money. But betting on the Met game doesn't make the Mets

win or lose, right; it's just a bet on an outcome. And I think

that concept, which she knows based on her personal knowledge —

not based on any studies she's done, not based on any work

she's done as an expert or anything like that, she's not an

expert, she's just an employee of the company — those sorts of

questions about investing and betting, frankly, because that's

what the investment is, I don't think that runs afoul of your

Honor's ruling and I just want to ensure that I don't do that.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

So I think the testimony that Mr. Finkel is trying to

elicit or that he refers to at the end is actually precisely

785

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

expert testimony. And we submitted an example of that from a

trial that was held here in this courthouse, United States v.

Phillips, which was about a market manipulation theory related

to the South African rand. And the government submitted an

expert disclosure concerning an expert witness that they

intended to call talking about the influence of trading

patterns on the underlying currency, how it would impact it,

and how ultimately that would affect the economy in South

Africa. So the idea that Ms. Schottenheimer can sort of

facilely say, Well, if you're just making a bet on the

currency, it's not going to affect anything underlying, it's

nothing more than a way to backdoor in the prior testimony that

your Honor has just excluded.

With respect to whether she can testify as to whether

the CCP has fallen, first of all, I'm not sure what her

personal observations about that fact are relevant to, but I'm

also not sure that she has the knowledge base to say one way or

the other whether the CCP has been damaged or harmed or hurt in

any way. The fund is still working.

So to me, what Mr. Finkel has sort of advocated for is

just another way to backdoor into the same opinions that your

Honor has now just precluded.

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, the difference between

Ms. Schottenheimer and the Phillips case is Ms. Schottenheimer

has personal experience, personal knowledge. She's a

786

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

percipient witness. She works at Hayman Capital.

The expert the government sought to introduce at

Phillips is none of those things. He looked at the evidence

and made an assessment about the evidence.

Ms. Schottenheimer would be testifying not about her

opinion, but about her personal observations, her percipient

knowledge of events, how the trade works. She tells people

about that. That's her job. And so I think that's an

important distinction between what defense counsel is

discussing and what Ms. Schottenheimer would testify about.

THE COURT: So I understand the questions that you'd

like to elicit. Would this investment have an impact on the

government and did it have an impact or did the government fall

as a result of this investment. Am I correct?

MR. FINKEL: That is one question, your Honor.

I think another question, which I can't envision how

it's in any way 701 or 702, is what is the size of the HHKOF,

right, which is the total position that the HHKOF has taken

over time. She knows that from her work. That's not an expert

analysis; that's her knowledge.

THE COURT: That's a matter of fact.

MR. FINKEL: Exactly.

And so that's all I'm saying, your Honor. Just to be

clear, I'm not trying to relitigate your Honor's ruling, the

Court's ruling. I just want to be -- I just don't want to have

787

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

sidebars and make sure I stay within the lanes that your Honor

established. And that's what I intend to do, is elicit facts

about what she knows, what she's seen, what she's experienced,

and then she'll be free to be crossed on it.

THE COURT: So asking about the size of the position

is fine. But asking whether this investment would have an

impact on the Chinese economy, that is prohibited. And asking

whether it did cause an impact or cause the Chinese Communist

Party to fall, that is also prohibited.

MR. FINKEL: Understood, your Honor.

Okay. Understood.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. KAMARAJU: Not from us, your Honor.

MR. FINKEL: Just two things.

Defense counsel and the government have discussed I'm

going to provide Ms. Schottenheimer a binder; it has a number

of documents in it. We've identified the documents for defense

counsel. As at least to one of those documents, the defense is

going to ask for a limiting instruction because it's an email

that Kyle Bass sent to William Je; and it's being offered for

the effect on William Je, not for its truth. The Government

has no objection to such an instruction. And I guess we can

ask for it when that document comes up.

MR. KAMARAJU: That's fine with us, your Honor.

MR. FINKEL: And then last piece, your Honor, and just

788

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1

in an abundance of caution, I know the Court instructed the

jury about this during preliminary instructions. The

government would just request that in the sort of daily

admonishment to the jurors not to discuss the case, your Honor

also tell them not to do research on the case or follow any

news about it. I know that's sort of already out there, but

the government would appreciate if your Honor would do that

from time to time.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you.

THE COURT: I'd like the government to provide me with

hard copies of the stipulations, please.

MR. FINKEL: Absolutely. They are being printed now,

your Honor, and we'll have them shortly.

(Recess)

THE COURT: I'm told that all the jurors are now here.

Is there something, Mr. Kamaraju, that you wanted to

put on the record?

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, it's very minor. I've already

spoken with the government about it.

I just wanted the Court to be aware that when one of

the jurors arrived, they accidentally wandered into the room

that the defense team is using. They saw us, expressed

surprised, turned around, and walked away. Nobody said

anything to the juror, but I just wanted the Court to know.

789

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

I've spoken with the government; I don't think there's anything

to be done about it.

THE COURT: All righty, then.

Please have the jurors come in.

MR. FINKEL: Should the witness take the stand?

THE COURT: And the witness should take the stand,

yes.

(Jury present)

THE COURT: Please be seated. Good morning, jurors.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: We're going to continue with the direct

examination of Ms. Schottenheimer.

And I remind you that you're still under oath.

You may inquire.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

STEELE SCHOTTENHEIMER,

called as a witness by the Government,

having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you were speaking yesterday a bit about

the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund. Is there a shorthand

name that Hayman uses for the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

790

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Fund?

A. HHKOF.

Q. And how do you spell that?

A. H-H-K-O-F.

Q. So if I refer to it as the HHKOF, you'll understand I'm

referring to the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Finkel, I'm going to need you to come

closer to the microphone.

MR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor.

Q. When an investor invests in the HHKOF Share Class A, what

event needs to happen for that investment to pay off, for the

bet to win?

A. There would need to be a devaluation or a stress to the

Hong Kong dollar.

Q. And how significant of a devaluation or stress to the Hong

Kong dollar would be required for a bet on the HHKOF to pay

off?

A. Even one cent outside of the band, the fund would be

technically in the money. But the more drastic the devaluation

or stress, the more money the fund would make.

Q. So if the peg breaks, the Hong Kong dollar/U.S. dollar peg

breaks, would the HHKOF pay off?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: One moment.

791

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Can you explain in very simple terms how this works?

THE WITNESS: Yes. So the Hayman Hong Kong

Opportunities Fund is short the Hong Kong dollar. And so the

Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar. And so if the

Hong Kong dollar were to devalue against the U.S. dollar, then

our fund would make money.

THE COURT: But what do you mean by "short"?

THE WITNESS: You can be long a currency and you can

be short a currency; meaning you can be positioned to make

money on the long side if the currency were to strengthen, and

you could make money on the short side, being short the

currency, if the currency were to go down in value.

THE COURT: Can you give an example using numbers.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

So the Hayman Hong Kong -- sorry the Hong Kong dollar,

for example, the weak side of the band is seven spot 85, $7.85

per Hong Kong dollar to the U.S. dollar.

If the Hong Kong dollar were to devalue to 10 Hong

Kong dollars to U.S. dollars, even though it's increasing, it's

actually devaluing because it takes more Hong Kong dollars to

make a U.S. dollar. So if you were to be short the Hong Kong

dollar and it were to trade outside the band $7.85 Hong Kong

dollars per U.S. dollars, then you would make the delta or the

difference between 7 spot 85 and $10.

Q. Thank you.

792

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

So if someone is shorting a currency, the bet they're

making is anticipating the currency will drop in value?

A. Drop in value versus another currency. In the case of the

Hong Kong dollar, because it is pegged to the U.S. dollar, that

is the metric.

Q. So if the Hong Kong dollar drops outside of the band, if

the peg breaks, the value of the Hong Kong dollar would drop

and the HHKOF would pay off; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, that was Share Class A. Let's talk about Share Class

B, the Prodigious Series.

What event, if any, needs to occur for Share Class B,

the Prodigious Series, for that bet to pay off?

A. It's the outcome -- the input, meaning the devaluation of

the Hong Kong dollar, it's the same. It was just more -- the

exposure in Share Class B is more significant, so the outcome

is more severe.

Q. So, again, if the band or peg breaks, then Share Class B

would pay off?

A. Correct.

Q. Since the --

A. Breaks to the weak side.

Q. Since the HHKOF has been offered for sale, has the peg

broken?

A. No, it has not.

793

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And when Hayman markets this HHKOF investment to investors,

what you just explained, how the bet will pay off, is that

consistent with Hayman's marketing materials?

A. Yes.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. FINKEL: Handing Ms. Schottenheimer a binder with

a variety of documents, including the following: GX HN-26, 29,

35, 41, 57, 59, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 82, 86, 98, 124, 168, 193,

208, 220, 221, 222, 223.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you flip through the binder and let

me know if you recognize the documents inside of it.

MR. FINKEL: For the record, those numbers are all "GX

HN" prefixes.

A. I have flipped through the binder.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, have you seen that binder before?

A. Yes.

Q. And how do you recognize that you've seen it before?

A. I reviewed this binder a couple days ago when I was with

the assistant U.S. Attorney office.

Q. And who asked you to review the contents of that binder?

A. You did.

Q. And who picked the contents of that binder?

A. I believe you did.

Q. And what, just at a very high level, is in that binder?

794

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. It's email correspondence between myself and William Je,

email correspondence between William Je and Kyle, email

correspondence between Steve Bannon and Kyle.

There's different versions of the Saraca subscription

booklet subscribing to the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.

There's a Hamilton subscription booklet in here as well.

There's also some wire details, evidence of wires that

have occurred; as well as the side letter between Saraca,

Hamilton, and the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, the emails that you sent or

received, are those fair and accurate copies of emails you sent

or received?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is Global Relay?

A. Global Relay is a third-party service that Hayman Capital

Management uses to capture required emails and store them for

up to five years.

Q. And why does Hayman store its emails for up to five years?

A. We are required to by the Securities and Exchange

Commission.

Q. And with respect to the emails that you mentioned that

you're not on, what steps, if any, did you take concerning

those documents in the Global Relay system?

A. I connected with Hayman's chief compliance officer, Stu

Smith. We set up a Teams call so I could view his screen. I

795

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

do not have access as investor relations to the Global Relay;

however, he does as the chief compliance officer. And so he

logged into Global Relay and searched for these specific

emails, and I was able to verify that they were sent to

Hayman's server and captured by Global Relay.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, at this time the government

offers GX HN-26, 29, 35, 41, 57, 59, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 82,

86, 98, 124, 168, 193, 208, 220, 221, 222, and 223.

THE COURT: No objection?

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection to their admission, your

Honor, subject to the Court giving a limiting instruction with

respect to G HN-208 at the appropriate time.

THE COURT: All right. So you'll indicate when that

happens.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

(Government's Exhibits HN-26, HN-29, HN-35, HN-41,

HN-57, HN-59, HN-69, HN-70, HN-71, HN-79, HN-80, HN-82, HN-86,

HN-98, HN-124, HN-168, HN-193, HN-208, HN-220, HN-221, HN-222,

HN-223 received in evidence)

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, how long has the HHKOF been offered to

the marketplace for?

A. January of 2017.

796

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And since that time, has the Hong Kong dollar peg broken?

A. It has not.

Q. Is the peg still in place today?

A. The band is still in place today, yes.

MR. FINKEL: Okay. If we can pull up, please, what's

in evidence as Government Exhibit HN-29.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this document?

A. This is an email that I sent to all prospective investors

that had indicated an interest in participating in the Hayman

Hong Kong Opportunities onshore fund for Share Class B, the

Prodigious Series. I sent it on Sunday, May 24th. We had just

received the offering documents from outside counsel, and I was

distributing it to all interested parties.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you said onshore. Can you explain to

the jury what you mean by "onshore"?

A. So the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund has two feeder

funds: An onshore feeder fund for taxable U.S. investors, and

an offshore feeder fund for U.S. tax-exempt investors and

offshore investors. These are, I guess, kind of tax -- it's so

investors, you know, get the appropriate tax documentation when

they invest in our fund.

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, can you zoom out of that and

zoom in on the top of the document, please.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize this email address?

A. Yes.

797

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And whose email address is that?

A. William Je.

Q. Could you read the email address, please.

A. William.je@acacap.com.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, why did you send this documentation

about the Hong Kong Opportunities Fund Share Class B, the

Prodigious Series, to Mr. Je?

A. At that point I was under the impression that William was

interested in reviewing both the onshore and the offshore

offering documents for the fund.

MR. FINKEL: You can zoom out of that, please,

Ms. Loftus, and go to page 3 of this document.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this, page 3 of HN-29?

A. This is our AML or anti-money laundering information grid.

Q. And the second row says: Private corporation/limited

liability companies. Can you explain to the jury the purpose

of that row on this document?

A. Yes. We have all different types of limited partners that

come and invest in our fund in all different types of

structures. Sometimes it's as an individual, sometimes it's as

a limited partnership, sometimes it's as an LLC. And the row

that you're inquiring about is -- you said the LLC?

Q. Private corporation/limited liability companies, is that --

A. Yes, yes, private corporation and limited liabilities, yes.

Q. In the second checkmark it says: Beneficial owners, 25

798

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

percent or more interest, see CIP requirements.

What does that mean?

A. So we are required to do a look-through of the entity to

understand who the beneficial owner of the entity is.

MR. FINKEL: Go to page 5 of this document, please,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, do you see where it says "ultimate

beneficial owner" above that chart?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you read what that says?

A. "Where no beneficial ownership information is provided, it

will be assumed no beneficial owner holds 25 percent or more of

the assets of the entity. In cases where the investing entity

is performing AML due diligence on the underlying beneficial

owner, an eligible introducer letter or equivalent

certification letter can be provided in lieu of providing the

details above."

MR. FINKEL: Can we zoom out of that, please,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. The chart below that, what is that for?

A. Those are four of the five -- that's outlining four of the

five items that we are required to collect on any beneficial

owner owning more than 25 percent of any entity.

Q. And what is an ultimate beneficial owner?

A. It's the person who owns the entity.

799

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

MR. FINKEL: If we can go, please, to page 9 of this

document. Can you zoom in at number 10, Ms. Loftus, please.

Right there is fine.

Q. Here, underneath where it says payment and a Citibank bank

account, what's that?

A. That is the account -- that is the banking account for

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund. This is where

investors send their capital, that they're subscribing to the

entity.

Q. And so if an investor wants to invest in the onshore fund,

they send their money to a Citibank account which ends in 9681;

is that right?

A. That is correct.

MR. FINKEL: We can go, please, to page 44.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this part of the documents for?

A. This is the accredited investor status. So we are required

for anyone who is subscribing to the fund to get verification

that they are, in fact, an accredited investor.

MR. FINKEL: And if we can please go to the next

page -- or, sorry, page 46.

Q. At the bottom it says "qualified purchaser status." What's

that?

A. This section of the document?

Q. Yes.

A. This section of the document is where we're collecting the

800

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

qualified purchaser representation from the investor. As

discussed yesterday, all of our investors are required to be

qualified purchasers.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is a sub doc?

A. A subscription document is the legal paperwork that an

investor completes in order to subscribe to our vehicle.

Q. And this document that we're looking at with the jury, is

that a sub doc?

A. Yes.

Q. For what?

A. The Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund.

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, we can take that down. And

if we can display for the witness, please, HN-33, just the

witness.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this document?

A. This is a text message from Kyle Bass to myself.

Q. And the top text message, who is that text message from?

A. The top text message is, I believe, a cut-and-paste from

William to Kyle that he is then cut and paste to myself,

explaining what entities are investing in the Hong Kong fund.

MR. FINKEL: Government offers HN-33.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit HN-33 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: Publish that, please.

801

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, now that the jury can see it, can you

read that first text message, which was the cut-and-paste from

William Je?

A. Correct.

"Because of tight timing, the entities to invest into

your fund onshore U.S., Saraca Media Group Incorporated.

Number two, offshore: Hamilton Investment Management Limited.

We can fill in all the details later. Thanks."

Q. And what do you say in response to that?

A. I'm asking Kyle if the text message is from William.

Q. And what is Kyle's response to you after you ask if it's

from William?

A. "Steele, these are the two entities that William and Miles

will be investing through."

Q. And what is your understanding of who "Miles" refers to?

A. Miles Kwok.

Q. At this time, on May 26, 2020, when you received this text

message, what was your understanding of what Saraca Media

Group, Inc. was?

A. I had no understanding. It was just the name of an entity.

Q. In your work at Hayman, is it unusual for an individual to

invest in a Hayman financial product through an entity as

opposed to their own individual self?

A. Not unusual.

Q. And why is that?

802

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Because a lot of wealthy individuals use entities for their

family limited partnerships, for their business purposes. It's

just their preference.

Q. So here it says Saraca Media Group, Inc. Did you have an

understanding at this time, May 2020, whether Saraca Media

Group, Inc. was a media company?

A. No, I did not.

Q. What was your understanding about what Saraca Media Group

did at this time?

A. Just at this pinpoint with the text message? I hadn't

considered it. I was looking to collect the names to get

checks with our external counsel to see if they could help

enlist the side letter.

MR. FINKEL: We can go, please, to HN-35, which is in

evidence. 35, please, Ms. Loftus. You can scroll down,

please, to page 2. And if you can zoom in on that email on

Tuesday, May 26.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, this email that you sent to William Je,

copying Mr. Bass, what is the purpose of this email?

A. Now that I had the names of the entities investing, I was

formally requesting to William the AML and FATCA compliance

requirements for them to invest in the fund.

Q. And what was your understanding of why there was an onshore

investment entity and an offshore investment entity at this

time in May of 2020?

803

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. At this time I was unclear of that.

Q. Go ahead.

A. Outside of one being a taxable entity and the other one

being a nontaxable entity.

Q. And which was the nontaxable entity?

A. Hamilton Investment Management Limited.

MR. FINKEL: We can zoom out of that, please. We can

go to the first page.

Q. Can you read the top email that you sent, please, on May

28th, 2020.

A. Sorry, could you repeat the question please.

Q. Sure. Can you read this email that you sent to William Je

on May 28, 2020?

A. "Hi, William. We are looking to have all wires and

documents in by Friday, June 5th. Thank you for the below

confirmation -- sorry. Thank you for the confirmation below.

I will have the side letter to you shortly."

Q. What does "side letter" mean?

A. A side letter is a legal document that a lot of large

investors require. They are terms outside of the offering

materials.

Q. And was there a side letter for the Saraca/Miles Kwok

investment?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the nature of the side letter for the

804

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Saraca/Miles Kwok investment?

A. From a high level, they were requesting three terms outside

of the offering documents for the fund. The first was they

wanted a reduced management fee, from two percent to one

percent; they wanted a hurdle on the performance fee, meaning I

believe it was something in the magnitude of they were going to

make 25 times their money before we would start charging a

performance fee; and then the third is they had requested a

transparency clause, meaning they were going to require

additional reporting outside of our typical reporting to

investors.

Q. All right. Let's walk through that.

You said there is a reduction in the, is it,

management fee?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to the jury what that means.

A. So for the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund Share Class

B, there's a onetime two percent management fee taken upon --

at closing. And so if you were to invest $100 in this share

class, the management fee for Hayman to manage this capital

would be $2 at the time of closing. So in the case of Saraca

and Hamilton's investment, it would only be one dollar.

Q. So the reduction in the fee, is that beneficial to Saraca

and Miles Kwok or to Hayman?

A. A reduction in the management fee would be beneficial to

805

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

the investor requesting it, because they are only paying a

dollar instead of $2.

Q. And can you describe to the jury, please, what the

reduction in the performance fee means?

A. So Hayman collects a performance fee. The performance fee

for the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund is first you get

your initial capital back. So if you invest $100, you get $100

back.

Then, on the next $100 that is made — let's say the

trade works out in our favor — we collect 15 cents of every

dollar, and you get 85 cents of every dollar, up until 100

percent net return to you as the investor. So you've made, you

know, $200 and we've -- or sorry, you've made $2 and we've

collected 15 cents at this point.

Then anything above 100 percent net return to you, we

split those dollars 80 to you, 20 to us.

Q. What did the Miles Kwok/Saraca investment seek instead?

A. They were looking for -- to make 25 times their money. So

if they were to invest a dollar, they would get that dollar

back plus $25. And then anything above that we would split the

20/80; 80 to them, 20 to us.

Q. And so the terms that Miles Kwok and Saraca requested, are

they beneficial to Miles Kwok and Saraca or to Hayman?

A. Beneficial to Miles Kwok and Saraca.

Q. At this time, Ms. Schottenheimer, May 2020, what was your

806

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

understanding of the amounts of money that Miles Kwok and

Saraca sought to invest in the Prodigious Series?

A. Originally, it was flagged to me 50, 51 million, including

Hamilton. And then at some point when we received the sub

docs, it was 100 million from Saraca.

Q. The last point with respect to the side letter,

Ms. Schottenheimer, you mentioned was transparency. Can you

explain to the members of the jury, please, what that means.

A. So we have typical exposure reporting to investors on a

monthly basis. We kind of quantify for them, you know, that

you are 200 times short the Hong Kong dollar or you're 196

times short the Hong Kong dollar. In Share Class B, it doesn't

vary month-to-month until the options expire.

But in the case of Saraca, they actually wanted

position-level detail, which we gave them, because there was no

withdrawal rights in this fund. And so once we were fully

positioned, we were comfortable giving them position-level

detail, which is what the side letter said.

Q. Can you break that down for us, please, what you mean by

position-level detail and because this was a fully invested

financial product.

A. Right. So typically, you know, again, we just tell you

your exposure, your short X amount to Hong Kong dollar. They

were actually looking for position-level detail, meaning the

actual description of the option. You know, you are short 200

807

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

million, you know, dollars worth of an option that expires on X

date.

Q. So they wanted detail about the underlying financial

transactions that --

A. Correct. The actual positions that they hold, when they

expired, the notional value of each of them. Because, again,

you don't just go out and buy a single option for a whole

tranche; you are trading with multiple dealers and getting the

best pricing possible every night that you're in the

marketplace. So you could have dozens of line items or dozens

of very similar options, and they were wanting to see that

level of detail.

Q. And this level of detail pertains to financial

transactions; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And these are transactions -- these are trades that Hayman

makes to put in place a bet that if the peg breaks on the weak

side, the bet pays off; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And did Hayman ultimately agree to the reduction in

administrator fee, performance fee, and these transparency

rights for Miles Kwok and Saraca?

A. Reduction in management fee, yes. The reduction in the

incentive fee, yes. And the transparency rights.

Q. Who asked for those, by the way?

808

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. This was something, to my knowledge, that William

negotiated with Kyle.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, with respect to Saraca Media Group,

Inc., what, if any, due diligence did Hayman perform on that

entity?

A. Regarding their subscription document?

Q. Yes.

A. So when Saraca subscribed to Hayman, there was a thorough

review of the subscription document by myself, another person

that works with me in investor relations, and our third-party

administrator. And there was some time spent kind of

reconciling the answers and then inquiring back to William

regarding some things that did not align.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, through that process, what did

Hayman learn about who, if anyone, was the ultimate beneficial

owner of Saraca Media Group?

A. So Saraca Media Group represented that there was only a

single person that owned the entire entity. And they put forth

that that individual was Miles Kwok's son.

MR. FINKEL: Can you please display what's in evidence

as GX HN-82.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this?

A. This is a copy of a valid passport at the time of Miles

Kwok's son.

Q. And what's his legal name? If you could read it or spell

809

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

it for the jury, please.

A. His last name is Guo, and his first name is spelled

Q-I-A-N-G.

Q. And why does Hayman collect this passport copy?

A. It is required as part of our AML practices on any and all

beneficial owners more than 25 percent.

Q. And based on the representations made by Saraca, were there

any other owners of Saraca Media Group?

A. Not based on their subscription booklet.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, if the Prodigious Series

investment, $100 million investment, that Saraca invested in

paid off, ultimately, who would collect the gain?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Saraca Media Group would collect the wire, and the ultimate

beneficial owner of Saraca is Miles's son.

Q. So he would collect the gain?

A. Through the entity, yes.

Q. Did Miles Kwok go through an AML check?

A. He did not.

Q. Why not?

A. Because he was not listed on the subscription booklet as an

authorized signatory and ultimate beneficial owner or a

controlling interest person.

Q. In your work, does the term "principal" and "agent" have a

810

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

particular meaning?

A. Not in the context of a subscription booklet.

Q. In the context of what?

A. Can you please repeat the question?

Q. What is a principal?

A. What is a principal? Someone that is the primary person

on -- in some capacity.

Q. And, Ms. Schottenheimer, if your understanding that it was

Miles Kwok who was investing the Saraca -- making the Saraca

investment, but Miles Kwok's son was the ultimate beneficial

owner, can you explain to the jury whether that would be

unusual or why there was no work done on Miles Kwok AML?

MR. KAMARAJU: Object to the form.

THE COURT: If you would break that down, please.

MR. FINKEL: Certainly.

Q. You testified earlier that your understanding was Miles

Kwok was making the Saraca investment; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Why then -- let me ask it this way: The fact that his son

was the ultimate beneficial owner of Saraca, but you understood

it was Miles Kwok's money, can you explain what impact, if any,

that had on your thinking when doing due diligence?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: So take it in small bites.

MR. FINKEL: Sure.

811

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. The fact that Miles Kwok's son was the ultimate beneficial

owner of Saraca, as opposed to Miles Kwok, what impact, if any,

did that have on your thinking as you were working through the

due diligence of this particular investment?

A. I didn't find it --

MR. KAMARAJU: Same objection.

THE COURT: You understood Miles Kwok to be making the

investment?

THE WITNESS: I understood that it was Miles Kwok

family office that was interested in making the investment.

THE COURT: You can ask the next question.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you.

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. What do you mean by Miles Kwok's family office?

A. Previously it had been represented to me that William Je

was the head or ran Miles Kwok's family office. And so when

William Je was interested in reviewing our presentation, our

playback webcast in reviewing offering documents, I took that

to mean that Miles Kwok's family office, the capital that

William ran on his behalf, was interested in the Hayman Hong

Kong Opportunities Fund.

Q. And that Miles Kwok's son was the ultimate beneficial owner

of Saraca, as opposed to Miles Kwok, what impact did that have

on your thinking about the investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: Same objection.

812

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. It had very little impact on my thinking because it is

typical for family offices to have members of the family be the

beneficial owners of the entities that they invest in.

MR. FINKEL: If we can look at what's in evidence as

GX HN-41. If we can zoom in, please, Ms. Loftus, on the top

email.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read this email from William Je

to you on May 31st, 2020?

A. Yes.

"Dear Steele, thanks. Please see attached the revised

side letter. Please ignore the previous one. As discussed

with Kyle earlier, in the interest of time, the funds may be

transferred to your bank account from a different company from

that of the registered investor. Thanks and regards, William."

Q. What was your understanding of what Mr. Je meant "the funds

may be transferred to your bank account from a company

different from that of the registered investor"?

A. So the registered investor was Saraca. Saraca had filled

out the sub docs. Saraca was subscribing to the Hayman Hong

Kong Opportunities Fund. However, in this email, he's

highlighting that the funds might be wired from a different

account other than Saraca -- or different entity other than

Saraca.

Q. And is that okay?

813

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. No, it is not.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we wouldn't have had AML on the company that is

sending the wire.

MR. FINKEL: We can zoom out of that, please,

Ms. Loftus. And if we can zoom in on the third email, May

29th.

Q. Can you read this email from William Je to you on May 29th,

2020?

A. "Dear Steele, please see attached our comments of the side

letter. We will have one onshore and one offshore vehicle.

The onshore one will invest 100 million, and the offshore will

invest one million. The address of the onshore vehicle is 162

East 64th Street, New York, New York, 10065, United States.

Thanks and regards, William."

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you testified that the 100 million was

from Saraca. What was your understanding of what the $1

million was from at this time in May of 2020?

A. At this time I believe that I recognized that the 100

million was coming from Miles Kwok's family office, and the

million dollars was coming from William Je personally.

Q. What is AML?

A. Anti-money laundering.

MR. FINKEL: You can zoom out of that, please, and

display for the witness what's been marked for identification

814

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

as HN-43. And if you can zoom in this so Ms. Schottenheimer

can just take a look at it.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, just at a high level, what document is

this? What kind of document is this?

A. This is an email from me to William providing an update

kind of on our side, where we are with the side letter

negotiations, the timing of the closing.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, the government offers HN-43.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit HN-43 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: And if we can publish that, please.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, can you highlight or zoom in

on the last paragraph, "Lastly."

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Can you read that, please, Ms. Schottenheimer.

A. "Lastly, the wire needs to come from an account in Saraca

Media Group's name. We understand that due to tight timing,

this might not be possible. As a solution, you can change the

entity making the initial investment to match the wire, and we

can transfer and assign the interest to Saraca Media Group as

of June 8th, the day of the closing. We will need to do full

AML on both entities."

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you please explain to the members

815

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

of the jury what you were conveying to Mr. Je about his request

to send the money from a different account.

A. So as I've previously described, we are under strict AML

guidance and requirements. Thus, you cannot subscribe to one

of our funds in a, you know, investor A name and send a wire

from investor B's account. They have to match.

So I am providing a solution to Mr. Je. If he can't

send a wire from Saraca's account to match the subscription

books -- subscription booklet provided, I am suggesting that

whatever account has the capital to fund the investment,

actually make the investment. So then we would do full AML on

that entity. And then after we have closed on, you know,

investor B making this investment, if all of the checks are in

place, then we could do something called a transfer and

assignment, meaning we could transfer and assign the interest

of investor B to Saraca as of the date of the closing. But

that would be post facto, after investor B, entity B, had gone

through all the AML checks.

Q. And when you say investor B would have to go through all

the AML checks, you mean filling out the subscription

documents, providing ultimate beneficial owner information,

that sort of thing?

A. Yes.

Q. And what ultimately happened? Did they change the name of

the entity or what happened?

816

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. They kept the Saraca subscription booklets in place and

they sent a wire from a Saraca account.

MR. FINKEL: We can take that down.

And if we can pull up, please, what's in evidence as

Government Exhibit GX HN-57.

Q. By the way, Ms. Schottenheimer, this period at the end of

May into June 2020, when you were facilitating this

Saraca/Miles Kwok investment, can you describe to the members

of the jury the pace of that deal.

A. There was a lot going on at that time. There was a lot of

interest in this new Prodigious Series. It was a reverse

inquiry from one of our largest investor from our flagship

fund. And, you know, we introduced this new product to our

current investor base.

We closed the initial B1 tranche closing on June 1st;

and so coinciding with me closing that 172 interested investors

that subscribed on June 1st, I was then also coordinating this

between Kyle and William, the Saraca and Hamilton Investment.

Q. And so as the managing director of investor relations, the

time you were interacting with William Je about the

Saraca/Miles Kwok investment, were you also handling other

potential investors and managing those investments?

A. Correct, like close to 200.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, this document is dated June 3rd, 2020,

and it's from William Je to you. Could you please read to the

817

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO1 Schottenheimer - Direct

jury the first email from Mr. Je.

A. "Saraca will subscribe USD 100 million, and Hamilton will

subscribe USD one million in this batch. Please see the

attached signature pages of the onshore Saraca fund document

you sent earlier and the relevant KYC documents for your

review. Please confirm all is in order and we will arrange

remittance. The offshore Hamilton documents will follow."

(Continued on next page)

818

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, at a high level, what is attached

to this email?

A. These are the subscription documents for Saraca to invest

in Hayman Hong Kong Opportunity Onshore Fund Share Class B.

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, could we go to page 4 of this

document, please.

Stop right there.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this page?

A. This is the signature page to the subscription booklet.

Q. And who signed for Saraca Media Group, Inc.?

A. Yanping Wang.

Q. With what title?

A. President.

Q. What does it say next to Total Requested Capital

Contributions?

A. $100 million.

Q. And what does that mean, total requested capital

contributions, layman's terms?

A. The amount that they're subscribing or investing in the

fund.

Q. At this time, June 3, 2020, did you know who Yanping Wang

is?

A. I did not.

MR. FINKEL: Could we go to page 6, Ms. Loftus.

819

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this page, Investor Profile?

A. This is a page of the subscription booklet that collects

information on the investor.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, underneath the Capital Contribution,

100 million, or two lines below it, what does it say?

A. Two lines below the Capital Contribution?

Q. Yes, ma'am.

A. "Briefly identify the subscriber's primary source of

wealth."

Q. And why does Hayman collect that information?

A. This is an AML requirement.

Q. And what information is provided by Saraca about their

primary source of wealth?

A. On their first pass of the subscription document, it was

left blank.

Q. And is that acceptable for Hayman's purposes?

A. No.

Q. And below that, Entity Investors, it says there's a

registered office address in Delaware and a principal place of

business on 64th Street in Manhattan. What's the difference

between a registered office address and a principal place of

business address?

A. Principal place is of business is where——is the primary

place where the majority of the business of this entity takes

place. The registered office is where the entity was formed

820

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

and registered.

MR. FINKEL: Could we go to page 8, please,

Ms. Loftus.

Actually, page 7. Sorry.

Q. The bottom, or the second line of page 7,

Ms. Schottenheimer, it says, "Total number of equity/capital/or

beneficial owners of the investor." What does that mean?

A. So this is an entity, and we are trying to understand how

many individuals own this entity.

Q. And what's the information provided?

A. That there is one owner of this entity.

Q. And which entity is this?

A. Saraca Media Group, Incorporated.

Q. And at this time what was your understanding of who the one

entity or owner of this Saraca Media Group was?

A. Miles Kwok Sun.

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, we can go to page 8 now,

please. Sorry about that.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is the information that is being

provided on page 8 of HN57?

A. We need authorized contacts to know who is authorized to

receive information regarding this investment, and there is a

primary contact and a secondary contact listed.

Q. And who is the primary contact?

A. Yanping Wang.

821

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And who is the secondary contact?

A. Max Krasner.

Q. And at this time, Ms. Schottenheimer, did you know who Max

Krasner was?

A. I did not.

Q. In your work at Hayman, is it unusual to see contacts that

are different than your understanding of who is the family

office investing in a project?

MR. KAMARAJU: Object to form.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. There's an industry term called segregation of duties, and

this is a best in practice kind of governance over kind of

institutional practices, and so it is very common that the

person making the investment decisions is different than the

authorized signatory on the account, and that is, you

know——there's additional contacts receiving information of

the——of the investment.

MR. FINKEL: We can go to page 11, please, Ms. Loftus.

Q. It says here the authorized signatory is Yanping Wang.

Similar question: Is it unusual to see an individual as an

authorized signatory who is different than the ultimate

beneficial owner in the family office?

A. This is not unusual.

Q. Why not?

A. Like I previously said, this is segregation of duties.

822

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

This is kind of more eyes watching the investment, watching

over what's going on, and this is very typical for

institutional quality investments.

MR. FINKEL: If we can go page 29, please, Ms. Loftus.

Sorry. Page 46. Excuse me.

If we can go to page 49.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, what is this document, page 49 of HN57?

A. This is a valid government-issued ID. It's a passport of

Yanping Wang's passport.

Q. And why is it something that Hayman collected?

A. As the authorized signatory of Saraca Media Group, we were

required to collect this document as part of our AML check.

MR. FINKEL: Could we go to the next page, please,

Ms. Loftus.

If we can go to page 53.

You can take that down.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, given that the source of wealth

information was left blank, what, if anything, did you convey

to Mr. Je about that?

A. There was a number of blanks within the subdoc that I

needed complete and so I requested to him to complete the

outstanding information.

MR. FINKEL: If we can pull up, please, HN69.

Q. Now separate from the Saraca investment, was Hayman also

collecting materials for the Hamilton investment?

823

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Yes.

Q. And what is this document, HN69?

A. This is the subscription packet that Hamilton is submitting

for processing for subscription to Hayman Hong Kong

Opportunities Offshore Fund.

Q. And was Hamilton going to get the same side letter

agreement that Saraca got?

A. Yes, it was negotiated simultaneously.

MR. FINKEL: If we can pull up, please, Ms. Loftus

HN71.

If we can zoom in on the top email, please.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, this document HN71 is dated June 4,

2020. Can you review it and let the members of the jury know

the purpose of you sending this email to Mr. Je.

A. Mr. Je had requested countersigned, or counterexecuted

subscription——subscription booklets for both Saraca and

Hamilton. This is sometimes a practice that in order to——for a

bank to send a wire, they want to see that there's an actual

agreement or deal in place for the fund that they're

subscribing. There was a handful of outstanding questions on

the Saraca document, but none that were AML related, and so we

were comfortable signing the subscription booklet with just

a——a handful of outstanding questions to be made.

Q. But when Hayman had signed the subscription booklet, had

Saraca provided information about the source of funds?

824

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Yes, they had.

MR. FINKEL: Could we go to page 31 of this document,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. And can you read, Ms. Schottenheimer, what's below "Briefly

identify the subscriber's primary source of wealth."

A. Selling shares of a subsidiary.

Q. And at this time, do you have any idea what that meant?

A. Not specifically.

MR. FINKEL: You can take that down.

And if we can go to HN79, which is in evidence.

And can you zoom in on the bottom email, please,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read this email dated June 5,

2020, from you to William Je.

A. Hi William. I am pleased to report we have received the

$100 million wire from Saraca. Please advise on Hamilton's

wire at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Q. And did in fact Hayman receive a hundred million dollars

from Saraca?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Hayman later receive the million dollars from

Hamilton?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, why were you interacting with William Je about

the Saraca investment instead of Miles Kwok?

825

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. It was my understanding that he ran Mr. Kwok's investment

portfolio.

Q. And is that unusual for you to interface with people who

work for someone who runs——who owns a family office?

A. Not unusual at all.

MR. FINKEL: Okay. If we can please display what's in

evidence as HN80.

You can zoom in on the top, please.

Q. And who is this email from?

A. Steve Bannon.

Q. And who is it addressed to?

A. Kyle Bass.

Q. And can you read what it says.

A. "Congrats on miles deal. He thinks u r biggest superstar

in finance."

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, at this time the government

would like to read a stipulation.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. FINKEL: This is GX Stip 13.

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the United

States of America and Miles Guo, the defendant, that,

GX SW101-GX SW150 are emails and their attachments, if any,

that were sent or received by the account steve@arc-ent.com on

the dates indicated on the face of the exhibit.

And that stipulation is signed by the parties.

826

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

And at this time, Ms. Loftus, if we could display for

the witness what's been marked as GX SW107.

THE COURT: So you're looking to have that admitted.

MR. FINKEL: Parts of it, yes.

THE COURT: So is it going to be one by one that

you'll——

MR. FINKEL: We're going seek to admit two of the

documents at this time.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FINKEL: As soon as I find them.

Your Honor, at this time the government offers GX

SW107.

THE COURT: It is admitted without objection.

MR. KAMARAJU: No objection, your Honor.

(Government's Exhibit SW107 received in evidence)

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer——

MR. FINKEL: Actually, Ms. Loftus, can you publish

that, please.

And could you flip through that quickly.

We can go to the top.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, who is this email from, or what email

address?

A. Steve@arc-ent.com.

Q. And who is it to?

827

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Jack Bannon and Sean Bannon.

Q. And what's attached to it, the name of the attachment?

A. Saraca-Bannon Consulting Agreement Version 4 Clean, Word

doc.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, have you seen this document before?

A. No.

MR. FINKEL: Could we go to the next page. Oh, sorry,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, can you please read the text of this

email.

A. "Jack print out 2 copies of this agreement for me."

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer——

MR. FINKEL: Can you go to the next page, please.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read the top in bold.

A. This Consulting Agreement is made effective as of

October 1, 2019 (the "Effective Date") by and between Saraca

Media Group, Inc., a company incorporated in the state of

Delaware ("Guo Media" or "the Company") and Bannon Strategic

Advisors, Inc. (the "Consultant") (individually, a "Party,"

collectively, "the Parties"). In consideration of the mutual

covenants set forth and upon other good and valuable

consideration, the parties agree as follows.

MR. FINKEL: Ms. Loftus, can you scroll down to

paragraph 4.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read paragraph 4.

828

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. As full compensation for the services and rights granted to

the Company in this agreement, Company agrees to pay one——pay

consultant an annual fee of USD $1 million (the consulting

fee), paid quarterly (i.e., every three months) in the amount

of USD 250,000 and payable in advance, which consulting fee is

fully earned on the date hereof. The first USD 250,000 shall

be due on signing of this agreement. Consultant shall be

entitled to reimburse for any company prepaid costs and

expenses incurred in connection with the services rendered

under this agreement.

MR. FINKEL: And if we can pull up, please, for the

witness GX SW108.

And at this time the government offers GX SW108.

THE COURT: Without objection?

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm just waiting for it to come up on

the screen, your Honor.

No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit SW108 received in evidence)

MR. FINKEL: Could we publish that, please,

Ms. Loftus.

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, have you seen this document before?

A. No.

Q. Can you read the bottom of it; it says on October 1, 2019?

829

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. At 1:17 p.m.?

Q. Yes.

A. "Jack print out 2 copies of this agreement for me."

Q. And who sent that?

A. Steve Bannon.

MR. FINKEL: Okay. If we can scroll to the top,

please, Ms. Loftus.

Q. And this email from Sean Bannon to Jack Bannon copying

Steve Bannon, Ms. Schottenheimer, can you read the text of it.

A. "Two copies of Guo contract in envelope along with a

contract Grace needs your wet signature on."

MR. FINKEL: We can take that down.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, for Saraca, ultimately did the AML

KYC checks go through?

A. Yes.

MR. FINKEL: If you can please display what's in

evidence as GX HN220.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize this sort of email?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. It is an email from the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

Fund's third-party administrator SEI. SEI sets up all

authorized contacts on their portal for access to the

investor-level documents available, such as tax documents like

a K1 or the monthly capital statements.

830

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. And who was this email sent to?

A. The authorized signatory and contact on the Saraca account,

Yvette Wang.

MR. FINKEL: Take that down, please.

And if we can please pull up what's in evidence as

HN124.

Q. Do you recognize this document, Ms. Schottenheimer?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to the jury what HN124 is.

A. It's an email between William and I. I had received a

strange email from a strange email address asking that, need to

verify that if "Karl" Bass was one of the directors of Saraca

Media Group. So I cut and paste this strange email that I've

got, had received, to William, and I say, Hi William, I am

going to ignore the below unless otherwise directed by you. In

which he responds, Please ignore the email as most of these are

scams. Thanks.

MR. FINKEL: We can take that down.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, I want to direct your attention to

July 13, 2020. What, if anything, happened with respect to the

Saraca investment on that date?

A. Hayman received a call from outside counsel, our lawyer,

that they had received a letter from the SEC for a

documentation request regarding Saraca's investment in the

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.

831

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. What was the name of that attorney?

A. Kit Addleman.

Q. And what firm does Ms. Addleman work at?

A. Haynes and Boone.

Q. And how is it that you remember that particular date,

July 13, 2020?

A. It was my mom's 70th birthday and I was supposed to cook

dinner.

Q. Did you cook her dinner?

A. At like 9 p.m.

Q. Why was it so delayed?

A. There was a lot of calls, internally at Hayman and with

external counsel.

Q. About what general topic matter?

A. About Saraca's investment in the Hayman fund and this

document request that we had received.

Q. And what sort of documents was the SEC requesting from

Hayman?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did they request any documents?

A. They requested a number of documents.

Q. What kind of documents did the SEC request?

A. The ones that I had to run point on gathering was the

subscription documents.

Q. Subscription documents for——of what?

832

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Of Saraca investing in the Hong Kong fund, AML that went

along with it.

Q. And upon receiving this request for documents from the SEC,

after that, what, if any, steps did Hayman take as a result of

this notification?

A. At this point we were being advised by external counsel and

they were running point on the process, but as a next step, my

recollection was that we segregated the Saraca investment in

its own tranche so it wasn't commingled with any other

investors, so Saraca stayed in B2 and the other investors we

moved out to different tranches, and then we, from there,

had——$30 million of the hundred million had been invested in

options shorting the Hong Kong dollar, and then we had roughly

7 million——$70 million that was still in cash, and we kind of

segregated these two buckets of the Saraca investment because

it had been brought to our attention that 70 million of the

hundred million was potentially not from Saraca.

Q. Did Hayman's attorneys contact Saraca?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes.

MR. FINKEL: If we can display what's in evidence as

HN168.

If you can zoom in at the top through the Kit

833

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Addleman. Yup.

Q. What is the date of this email, Ms. Schottenheimer?

A. Wednesday, July 15th.

Q. What is the text of it?

A. Please see the attached letter requiring your prompt

attention. Thank you, Kit Addleman.

Q. And who, if anyone, did Ms. Addleman send this email to?

A. William Je, Max K, Yvette Wang, aaron@lmesq.com.

MR. FINKEL: Zoom out of that, and let's go to the

next page, please.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, what was your understanding of why

Ms. Addleman sent this letter to William Je, Max Krasner,

Yvette Wang, and Aaron Mitchell?

A. We were under——we were trying to understand where the

source of funds came for for the Saraca investment, and we were

trying to understand what to do with the investment going

forward.

Q. Can you read the first paragraph of this letter.

A. Haynes and Boone, LLP represents Hayman Capital Management

and Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund. We have been

contacted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission related

to an investigation of a securities offering by GTV Media Group

entitled in the matter of G Coins (NY-10256). As a result we

require your immediate attention and additional information.

Q. And at this time, Ms. Schottenheimer, July 15, 2020, what

834

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

was your understanding of what GTV Media Group was?

A. It was an entity run and operated by Miles Kwok.

Q. And what was your understanding of what G Coins was?

A. It was an offering that GTV was——it was a private placement

offering that GTV Media Group offered, presented.

Q. What's a private placement?

A. A private placement is a private fund that is not offered

on an exchange.

Q. Can you read the next paragraph.

A. As the general partner to the fund and in the performance

of its continuing due diligence and compliance with the

securities laws, Hayman requires your response to the

following:

Q. Can you read the first question.

A. What was the source of capital used by Saraca Media Group

to invest in the fund?

Q. Can you read the next question.

A. The fund's subscription agreement contemplated——sorry——the

fund's subscription agreement completed on behalf of Saraca

listed the company's primary source of wealth as selling shares

of subsidiary. What subsidiary is this statement referring to,

when were the shares of the subsidiary acquired, and when were

the shares sold?

Q. Could you read the next one.

A. If the proceeds were derived from a securities offering,

835

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

did the offering documents disclose the use of proceeds to

include an investment in the fund or in any similar private

vehicle? If yes, please provide a copy of the disclosure

document.

Q. Can you read the next one.

A. Was any of the money raised in GTV's primary offering of

shares used to fund Saraca's investment in the fund?

Q. And the next one?

A. For the primary offering funds raised by GTV, into what

banks were the proceeds deposited and what was the balance in

those accounts as of July 9, 2020?

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, did anyone from Saraca Media respond to

these questions?

A. No.

Q. The third question, it says: "If the proceeds were derived

from a securities offering, did the offering documents disclose

the use of proceeds to include an investment in the fund or in

any similar private fund vehicle?"

What is your understanding of what offering documents

means?

A. Well, a private placement is something that an investor

subscribes to, and you have to offer them the interest or the

option to invest in the fund, so there would be offering

documents just like we have offering documents for the Hayman

Hong Kong Opportunities Fund.

836

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

MR. FINKEL: Can you zoom out, Ms. Loftus, and go to

the next page, please.

Q. Can you read the second sentence of the first paragraph.

A. Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter. If

you have questions regarding this request, please contact me at

this email address and phone number below.

Q. And above that, it says, "However, to remain an investor in

the fund, we require responses to the above questions by 9 a.m.

Central Time on Friday, July 17"?

A. Yes.

Q. Were those responses provided?

A. They were not.

Q. Did Hayman receive any response after dispatching this

letter?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection, your Honor.

MR. FINKEL: I can rephrase.

Q. What, if any, response did Hayman receive after dispatching

this letter?

A. No formal responses to this letter.

Q. What about informal responses?

A. It's my understanding that Kyle and William had connected

over the phone.

Q. And what is your understanding of what that communication

was?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection. Hearsay.

837

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

THE COURT: If you'll step up, please.

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: So for what purpose are you eliciting

these out-of-court statements?

MR. FINKEL: So there are two points to it. One, your

Honor, it's a statement of William Je, which is a

co-conspirator statement; and second, it's being offered to

show the effect on the listener, which here is

Ms. Schottenheimer, because it informs what she and others at

Hayman subsequently did with respect to the Saraca investment.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

(Continued on next page)

838

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

(In open court)

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Can you please repeat the question.

Q. What was your understanding of what was conveyed to

Mr. Bass by Mr. Je?

A. That there was a misunderstanding, there might have been

some money borrowed but they were going to put it back, and to

keep investing the money, and they wanted to stay invested in

the Hayman Capital Hong Kong Fund.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. The Hayman Capital Hong Kong Fund.

Q. Was that explanation sufficient for Hayman?

A. No.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please display what's in

evidence as HN193.

If you can zoom in on this.

Q. This is a document from——this is an email from William Je

to Kyle Bass; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. July 24, 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you read what William Je told Mr. Bass.

A. Dear Kyle, How are you? Saraca has asked me to inform you

that their investments into your fund is valid and approved by

your fund previously. Saraca does not agree for any refund of

839

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

the money to Saraca or your fund may need to bear any

consequences of such refund including any economic

consequences. Thanks and best regards, William.

Q. Was Hayman contemplating ejecting Saraca from the HHKOF at

this time?

A. Yes.

Q. Why was that?

A. Because it had been brought to our attention that the funds

for the investment might not have come from Saraca.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please pull up what's in

evidence as HN221.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize this document?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain to the jury what this email is.

A. This is our lawyer, Kit Addleman, sending notice to Saraca

and its counsel that Hayman, as the general partner of the

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund, is exercising its

right to make a mandatory withdrawal of $70 million of the

investment made by Saraca Media Group.

Q. And what does that mean, if you can explain to the jury, of

a mandatory withdrawal of 70 million?

A. The GP of the fund, the general partner of the fund,

reserves the right to exercise its ability to do a mandatory

withdrawal for——of an investor.

Q. And what's mandatory withdrawal?

840

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. Forcing them to——it's a forced redemption to return the

capital of an investor's money.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please display what's in

evidence as HN208.

And your Honor, this is the document that requires the

instruction.

THE COURT: All right. So the document that you're

about to see——if you'll just enlarge it for me——is an email

from Kyle Bass to William Je. It's not being offered for the

truth of what is being stated in the email, it's being offered

merely for its effect on the recipient.

You may proceed.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, is this an email that you reviewed

before it was sent?

A. Yes.

Q. And why did you do that?

A. I think it was a team effort to review the accuracy of this

email before Kyle sent it to William.

Q. And what's the date of this email?

A. August 22nd of 2020.

Q. And prior to this email being sent by Mr. Bass to Mr. Je,

aside from that phone conversation you mentioned, had Hayman or

its attorneys received any responses to the questions that

841

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Ms. Addleman had posed about the source of the funds for the

hundred-million-dollar Saraca investment?

A. No response.

Q. Can you read this document, please.

A. Me?

Q. Yes.

A. Sorry. Yes. William, given the unfortunate government

investigations that surround Saraca's investment with the

Hayman Hong Kong Fund, I am writing today to inquire about your

signature on the attached document, sent to you and the Saraca

team on July 31st. Since we first received notice of the

investigations in mid-July, our lawyers have been in frequent

contact with federal authorities regarding this investment and

have spoken repeatedly with counsel to Saraca and GTV. Based

on those discussions, through which Hayman learned information

regarding the source of funds for some of Saraca's investment

in the fund (and which had not been previously disclosed),

Hayman was compelled to act responsibly and redeem 70 million

of Saraca's initial $100 million investment. Hayman will not

be collecting any management fees from the entire $100 million

investment. As we stated in the letter, we will retain our

actual legal fees incurred in this matter. In our last phone

conversation on August 3rd, you confirmed that you would have

the attached letter signed and returned to me promptly. To

this day, I have not received your signature on the document.

842

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Please have it executed and send it to me as soon as possible.

Q. Pause right there.

And so in that piece of the letter to William Je, it

says that Hayman was compelled to act responsibly and redeem

70 million of Saraca's initial $100 million investment. What

does that mean, redeem?

A. So this is the mandatory withdrawal that Hayman exercised,

or the GP of the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund exercised.

And so in our——in speaking with federal authorities and counsel

for Saraca and GTV, it became evident that this $70 million was

not from in fact Saraca, as repped to us in the subscription

document, and so therefore, we were wanting to divest the

amount from the fund and put it in an escrow account, until

further instruction.

Q. And if you can keep reading.

A. The next item to be addressed relates to the remaining

30 million (part of the 100) initially invested into the Hayman

Hong Kong fund. In order to allow Saraca to remain invested in

the fund, Hayman needs to receive a representation from you and

Saraca's lawyers regarding the specific source of this money

(beyond what was initially provided stated in the subscription

documents) and that this money is not tainted in any way,

including that it does not represent assets from the GTV

offering but that it is a bona fide investment made by Saraca

and Miles.

843

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. Pause right there.

Now where it says a bona fide investment made by

Saraca and Miles, what does Miles mean?

A. Miles Kwok.

Q. Keep going.

A. Moreover, we expect you or your lawyers to confirm that the

source of this portion of Saraca's investment has been

discussed with the federal authorities and that they have no

objection to the continuation of that portion of the investment

being managed in the fund. We have been asking for

clarification regarding this information since July 15th,

(letter from counsel also attached) and need the information

and representations from you or your lawyers by the end of next

week for us to continue managing this investment on Saraca's

behalf.

Q. Keep going.

A. Please discuss this with Miles and respond to me as soon as

possible. We need resolution on the remaining 30 million

investment by August 28th. I will be available to you at any

time you wish to speak about this and I would like to find a

resolution that everyone (including the US government

prosecutors) agrees upon.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, did the federal authorities direct

Hayman to send this email?

A. No.

844

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. Okay. Did Hayman receive a response to this email?

A. No.

Q. Did Saraca provide a representation from itself or its

lawyers regarding the specific source of money?

A. No.

Q. Was there any representation made that the money invested

in the Hong Kong Opportunities Fund was not tainted in any way?

A. No.

Q. Was there any representation made that that money was not

from assets from a GTV offering?

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. Was there any representation made by Saraca or its counsel

that the $100 million investment in the Hong Kong Opportunities

Fund Prodigious Series was a bona fide investment made by

Saraca and Miles Kwok?

A. No.

MR. FINKEL: You can zoom out of that and go to the

next page.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recall what documents were

attached to this email?

A. The letter Kit Addleman sent on July 15th inquiring about

the source of funds of the Saraca Media Group investment and

also the withdrawal notice that she had sent on July 31st as

well.

Q. And what's the withdrawal notice mean?

845

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

A. That was the letter that we sent to Saraca notifying them

of the mandatory withdrawal of the $70 million.

MR. FINKEL: Okay. You can take that down,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. Now, Ms. Schottenheimer, the 30 million that was left

because it was already invested in options, what happened to

that 30 million?

A. To clarify, the 30 million——

Q. Let me ask the question this way: Saraca made a $100

million investment in the Prodigious Series. What happened to

that $100 million?

A. 70 of that was segregated and we moved it into a feeder

fund account until an agreed-upon escrow account was put in

place. The remaining 30 million, to our knowledge, was

not——was potentially a bona fide investment. We had no

evidence otherwise. And so we kept it invested in the fund

through September-October time frame of 2021.

Q. And what happened to the value of that $30 million?

A. Well, because it is a capital exhaustion fund, as marketed

in the presentation, and it is an options-based strategy, the

value of the options, as they became closer to the expiration

date, declined dramatically, so that $30 million investment,

when it was put to work back in kind of June of 2020, you know,

15 months later, when we liquidated it in the marketplace, it

was worth about $380,000.

846

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. So how much money was lost, approximately?

A. Approximately $29.6 million.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, when an investor invested in the

Prodigious Series, if they want to pull their money out six

months after investing or 12 months after investing, are they

allowed to do that?

A. No, they're not. There's no withdrawal rights for the

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund's Share Class B.

Q. And the 70 million that was segregated, what ultimately

happened to that money?

A. It sat in our feeder account, the Onshore feeder account,

for about a year, and in July of 2021, all interested parties

did not object to it going to a escrow account in the name of

Saraca's lawyers. It was an account in Saraca's lawyers' name.

Q. When you say interested parties, who is that?

A. The government authorities involved——DOJ, SEC——and then

Saraca's lawyers didn't object to it, so Saraca.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please display what's in

evidence as Government Exhibits 222 and——sorry, excuse

me——HN222 and HN223.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize these documents, HN222

and 223?

A. Yes.

Q. What are they?

A. These are wire confirmations.

847

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Direct

Q. For what?

A. The one on the left is a wire confirmation from July 7th

from the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund wiring

money from its account to a JPMorgan account in the name of

Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Associates.

Q. What's the amount of that wire?

A. $69,331,019.48.

Q. And what is your understanding of what Morvillo is?

A. This is——it's my understanding that this is Saraca's

counsel at the time of the wire.

Q. And Ms. Schottenheimer, do you know what happened, if

anything, to that $69.3 million after Hayman sent it to

Morvillo's escrow account?

A. I do not.

Q. And the right, the document on the right, HN223, what is

that?

A. This is a second wire from Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

Onshore Fund dated October 15th. The wire is coming from our

Onshore feeder——is coming from our Onshore feeder account,

being sent to a JPMorgan account in the name of Morvillo

Abramowitz Grand Iason & Associates. It's in the amount of

$382,558.58.

Q. And do you know what happened to that $382,000 after Hayman

transferred it to the Morvillo account?

A. I do not.

848

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And this $382,000 and change, does that represent what was

remaining of the 30 million?

A. That's, correct, the liquidation of the 30 million.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you mentioned a moment ago that once

money is invested in the Prodigious Series, it can't be

withdrawn by an investor. Why is that?

A. Because of the——it's an industry term. It's called faded

decay of the option, meaning that this is an options-based

strategy and there is dramatic——or dramatic loss of the value

of the option immediately after investment, and so this is a

buy-and-hold strategy. You invest an amount that you are

comfortable with losing, if the Hong Kong dollar does not trade

outside of the weak side of the band within the time horizon of

these options. So for every tranche that closes, we have a

target date that all the options expire.

Q. What do you mean by "comfortable with losing"?

A. This is a very high-risk, potentially high-reward strategy,

and it is very plausible that all of the options could expire

worthless, and the Hong Kong dollar, this 40-year peg stays

within the band during the duration of your investment, and so

all investors need to be prepared to lose whatever amount they

are investing 'cause this is——this is to be used as a hedge to

their overall portfolio or a small kind of opportunistic

potentially repricing of these——this risk.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, Ms. Schottenheimer. No

849

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

further questions at this time.

THE COURT: Cross-examination.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. So you have now been with Hayman in one form or the other

for almost 20 years, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You started as an intern in 2005, correct?

A. I started as an intern at Legg Mason but under Kyle in

2005.

Q. Got it. And then you started at Hayman the following year?

A. April of 2006, yes.

Q. Okay. And you mentioned Kyle. That's Kyle Bass, right?

A. Yes, Kyle Bass.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Bass is Hayman's chief investment officer,

right?

A. Founder and chief investment officer.

Q. All right. So fair to say he decides sort of the ultimate

investment strategies for the fund?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified I think on direct that Hayman is

regulated by the SEC, correct?

850

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. At the time in question, June of 2020, Hayman was a

registered investment advisor with the Securities and Exchange

Commission.

Q. Okay. And that's subsequently changed, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And I believe——let's just focus on the time in question for

right now. You testified that at that time Hayman could only

take in money from certain kinds of investors, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Qualified purchasers, basically, right?

A. Yes. We only offered 3(c)(7) funds at the time.

Q. And the definition of a qualified investor that you gave on

direct, it's fair to say it's basically about income level or

assets that the investor has?

A. Specifically for qualified purchaser, it's $5 million in

marketable securities.

Q. Okay. And an accredited investor is a similar concept,

right?

A. Correct, a similar threshold but lower.

Q. Got it. You just need more——less in assets, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now Hayman also has, for some of its funds, at least, a

minimum investment amount, right?

A. Yes, a stated minimum, yes.

Q. So for the Prodigious fund I think that was around $25,000,

851

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

right?

A. For the Onshore feeder fund, yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you. You're going to have to explain onshore

and offshore to me in a little bit, but for right now, Onshore

fund, right?

And so is it fair to say that there's a distinction

between the accredited investor standard and the minimum

investment, investment standard, right?

A. So we don't manage any (3)(c)(1) funds or accredited funds.

Q. Okay. Well, let's do it with the qualified purchaser, all

right?

A. Correct.

Q. There's a distinction between the qualified purchaser and

the minimum investment amount, right?

A. Correct. Those are two separate things.

Q. Right. The qualified purchaser is about the qualities of

the investor, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And the minimum investment amount is about the qualities of

the investment, right? Amount, basically.

MR. FINKEL: Object to form.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. So the minimum——the minimum amount threshold is

about the amount of the investment, right?

852

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Yes, it's set by the GP.

Q. And the minimum investment amount can be in some

circumstances waived, right?

A. Yes.

Q. But the qualified purchaser threshold, that cannot be

waived, right?

A. Unless you are a knowledgeable employee.

Q. Right.

A. That works for Hayman. So it's one of the——it's one of the

things, but yes, for external investor, there is no exceptions

for being a qualified purchaser.

Q. Got it. And I think you testified on direct that the way

Hayman learned that somebody is a qualified purchaser is

through a representation by the potential investor, right?

A. If it's someone that comes in as a reverse inquiry that we

don't know, that is the case, yes. If it's the University of

Chicago, I can look up that they manage 9 billion under assets

under their website, then no.

Q. Right. But that verification that you mentioned, that's

not required of Hayman, right?

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Yeah, sure. Hayman——I'll rephrase it. Maybe it will be

better.

Hayman is not required to confirm the accuracy of a

qualified purchaser representation, correct?

853

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Once the representation is made, we do not look at——we're

not required to look at bank statements or any further

verification.

Q. Okay. And so that's the same with Saraca, just like any

other investor, right?

A. Pertaining to the subdocs?

Q. Yeah, at the time it was making the investment.

A. Yeah, we take the reps on the subdocs as is.

Q. So as part of your——I'm going to call it the qualification

process, is that all right, just to——

A. Okay.

Q. So as part of the qualification process for Saraca, Hayman

never had to ask for any bank account statements, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Never any sort of net worth statements, right?

A. Correct.

Q. No list of assets, right?

A. Not required.

Q. Okay. And it's not required, so you didn't ask Mr. Je for

any of that stuff, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that was true from the time that you first got the

qualified purchaser representation from Mr. Je all the way

through when the money came in, right?

A. Can you please repeat the question.

854

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. Sure. I'm just trying to get at that period of time

between when——

A. Did you say a number of days?

Q. Yeah, just a few days, whatever it was, right?

A. Right.

Q. But that period, whenever the qualified purchaser

representation was made and the wire came in, there was no

point in that period where you asked for the Saraca bank

statements or any confirmation, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you're not required to, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And now you testified earlier that you recognize Mr. Guo in

the courtroom, correct?

A. I believe I was not able to answer that question, to my

recollection.

Q. That's fine. You met him first in Texas, right?

A. I've met Mr. —— yes, I met Miles one time in Texas.

Q. All right. He was pleasant to you when you met him?

A. Very pleasant.

Q. Down to earth?

A. Very.

Q. And he was there to do an interview with Mr. Bass, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if that interview was preplanned?

855

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Yes. The Reel Vision team was there recording, and it was

planned.

Q. Okay. And it happened in an airport hangar, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now it happened in an airport hangar because there were

security concerns, right?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you know why it happened in the hangar?

A. Not specifically, no.

Q. And that interview happened, right? It was a Reel Vision

interview?

A. It did.

Q. And you were there for the whole interview?

A. I was.

Q. And you were asked on direct to interpret what——some things

that Mr. Bass and Mr. Guo were talking about, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. The prosecutor played some clips and asked you what

you thought——

A. Of the final interview, yes, that was aired.

Just for clarification, there was a full filming team

there and I was out of the frame and so I couldn't hear live

every single word that was said in the interview. I watched

the interview post facto once it was actually published.

Q. Oh, I got it. So you were able to sort of see the complete

856

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

interview after it was released, is that——

A. Yes, correct.

Q. Okay. Got it. And those were the clips that Mr. Finkel

was asking you to interpret, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now it's fair to say that during that interview

Mr. Guo wasn't exactly fluent in English, right?

A. Correct. He brought an interpreter with him.

Q. Right. He even made a joke about trying to use something

he called "Chinglish," right?

MR. FINKEL: Objection.

THE COURT: You may answer if you know.

A. I don't recall that joke.

Q. You said he brought a translator. That was Mr. Je, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And Mr. Je did step in to translate from time to time,

right?

A. That is my recollection, yes.

Q. And you testified on direct that despite the language

barrier, they were discussing certain aspects of the Chinese

economy, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was a graph that was displayed during the

interview; do you remember that?

A. Yes.

857

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And you testified that Mr. Guo's team supplied that graph,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was it on Mr. Guo's team that supplied that graph?

A. The graph was supplied to Kyle and so I——I don't know.

Q. Okay. So you don't have any personal knowledge that

Mr. Guo's team submitted it to Mr. Bass, right?

A. Correct.

Q. But you did testify that subsequent to that, Hayman

actually included that graph in one of its presentations,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's an investor presentation, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So Hayman was comfortable enough with the information in

the graph to disclose it to its potential investors, right?

A. Yes, with the source of Guo Media.

Q. So you listed the source was Guo Media, right?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. Okay. But if you had thought the numbers were totally

bogus, you wouldn't have sent them out to your investors,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now you also testified that Hayman engages in——I think you

described it as an event-driven investment strategy, right?

858

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Global event-driven investing, yes.

Q. Okay. And I think in response to the Court's question, you

gave an example of devaluing currency, right?

A. That would be a catalyst or an event, yes.

Q. So is it fair to say that it's basically making an

investment around something the fund considers to be a

significant event?

A. I don't know if the word "significant" is always

appropriate, but just an event.

Q. Okay. An event that the fund thinks is worth trading

around, right?

A. When you say fund, what fund are you speaking of?

Q. I'm talking about Hayman.

A. Hayman, yeah. So if we have a——could you please repeat the

question.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we have it read back, please, or

I'll get it wrong.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

(Record read)

A. So we would invest in securities that we tied to an

event-driven thesis, yes.

Q. Okay. So the underlying event, that could be in the US or

it could be abroad, right? Hayman does both?

A. It had a global focus. We have a global focus.

Q. But Hayman has made——has made investments based on events

859

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

in the United States, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So for example, in 2008, Hayman made an investment based on

the subprime mortgage market, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And so in essence, you made an investment that the market

would go down, right?

A. Yes.

MR. FINKEL: Object to the relevance and scope.

THE COURT: Could you step up, please.

(Continued on next page)

860

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: Why are you asking about subprime

mortgages in 2008?

MR. KAMARAJU: Oh, I'm just trying to establish——I was

just trying to help explain what an event-driven investment

thesis is, which is they're playing against the Hong Kong

dollar. I have no more questions about this. I don't intend

to delve any further into the 2008 subprime mortgages. That

was it.

THE COURT: All right. I'll allow the question.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, if I may.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FINKEL: I think defense counsel has gone far

enough. The 2008 investment was an investment that there would

be a housing crisis, which is to say that Hayman profited when

there was a housing crisis. 2008 is about 12 years before the

events that are relevant here, and it's already been elicited

that they made domestic investments. That's relevant, and I

didn't object to that question. To go any further into the

investment in the housing market, it appears, your Honor, it's

designed in part to portray Hayman in a negative light because

they invested in the housing crisis, which is irrelevant, so I

would ask the objection be sustained. What needs to be

elicited has already been elicited, and we shouldn't go any

further because it has no proper purpose before the jury.

861

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

THE COURT: I don't agree. I think that it is

appropriate to give an example of a past investment. So the

objection is overruled.

(Continued on next page)

862

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

(In open court)

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

MR. KAMARAJU: Would you mind just reading back the

question, please.

(Record read)

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Now on direct you spent some time talking about something

called the Prodigious Fund, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And without getting too granular at the moment, sort

of the event that was triggering for the Prodigious Fund was

some activity related to the Hong Kong dollar; fair enough?

A. Yes.

Q. And specifically, the idea is that the peg between the Hong

Kong dollar and the US dollar would break at some point, right?

A. On the weak side, yes.

Q. Right. On the weak side, because if it breaks the other

way, the fund loses money, right?

A. Correct.

Q. So you testified on direct, I believe, that there's

something called the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Sometimes called——

A. HKMA.

Q. Yes. Thank you. And it has a role to play in maintaining

863

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

the peg, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So it maintains US dollars reserves, right?

A. It holds US dollar——US dollars on its balance sheet, yes.

Q. Okay. And if I understood your testimony——please correct

me if I have it wrong, but——the HKMA can use those reserves to

step in to keep the peg in place, right?

A. The excess reserves, yes.

Q. Okay. And the whole concept of the peg is to keep the Hong

Kong dollar tied to a band with the US dollar, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think you testified that if the HKMA ran out of its

excess reserves, then that could lead the peg to break, right?

A. Likely.

Q. It likely would lead it to break, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember testifying on direct that Mr. Bass

expressed the opinion in the Reel Vision interview that the

HKMA had already spent 78 percent of its excess reserves?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think you testified further that if the peg broke,

then——and I believe this is your phrase——the market would call

out Hong Kong, right?

A. So the market could call out Hong Kong prior to the Hong

Kong Monetary Authority actually running out of reserves, in

864

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

anticipation that they would.

Q. Right. So basically the fear that they might could cause

the market to call out Hong Kong.

A. Could cause the Hong Kong dollar to trade outside of the

band, even prior to the HKMA running out of——officially running

out of reserves.

Q. Got it. And just to try to put it in layman's terms,

right, the phrase "call out the market," that's another way of

saying there would be a loss of confidence in the Hong Kong

economy, right?

A. In the Hong Kong dollar pegged to the US dollar is where

the loss of confidence would be.

Q. Fair enough. Fair enough. So just to be clear for the

record, the loss of confidence would be specific to the Hong

Kong dollar in this instance.

A. Hong Kong dollar's ability to maintain the peg.

Q. And I think on direct you testified that Hayman's view was

that the peg no longer made sense when they——when——I think you

were using the phrase HHKOF, right? When HHKOF was started,

Hayman's view was that the peg didn't make sense anymore,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that at some point in the future, it would break,

right?

A. That it would likely break, yes.

865

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. Okay. That's the investment thesis; fair enough?

A. Correct. Or more broadly, that the option——the optionality

is just mispriced; it's too cheap.

Q. Right. And I'm not an expert, so I'm going to try, but

basically that it makes financial or economic sense to buy the

option at that price, right?

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I just object to the

commentary. It should just be questions to the witness.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Can you please repeat the question.

Q. Sure. That at that point in time, it made economic sense

to buy the option at that price.

A. It would depend on what your investment objectives are,

what kind of exposures you have in your portfolio, but as a

event-driven, a global event-driven investor, it made sense for

Kyle and the Hayman vehicles to invest in this strategy, in

this misprice strategy.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, I don't know if you

intended to break for lunch now or you want me to keep going.

It's up to you.

THE COURT: It's 11:29 and we will have our break.

Remember that you're not allowed to discuss the case amongst

yourself or with anyone else. Don't permit anyone to discuss

the case in your presence. Also remember that you're not

permitted to do any research about the case by any means, and

866

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO2 Schottenheimer - Cross

you're not permitted to read any news coverage of the case. So

be ready to walk back into the courtroom at noon.

THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting.

THE COURT: And you may step down. Remember not to

discuss the case.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: Do the parties have anything before we

return at noon?

Oh, the witness needs to step out.

MR. FINKEL: The government does not.

MR. KAMARAJU: Nor do we, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Luncheon recess)

867

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

12:00 P.M.

THE COURT: Please have the witness brought back and

the jury brought in.

(Jury present)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

And please remember that you're under oath.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: You may continue the cross-examination.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Now, Ms. Schottenheimer, I think when we broke off, we were

talking about the peg, right?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, do you know why it's called a peg?

A. So technically, the Hong Kong dollar is banded to the

United States dollar. I don't know where the term --

THE COURT: One moment, please.

MR. KAMARAJU: Sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: If you would ask the question again,

please.

MR. KAMARAJU: Absolutely.

Q. So I think the question you were responding to is do you

know why it's called a peg?

A. My response was the Hong Kong dollar is banded to the U.S.

868

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

dollar, which means it trades within a band, not a peg. And I

don't know the origination of the term "peg."

Q. Okay. But it's commonly referred to — and you on direct

were talking about it — as a peg, right? That's the phrase

that we're using?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And before we broke, we were talking about the peg

potentially breaking, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Hayman had a view that the peg would break at some

point in the future, right? Or could break at some point in

the future?

A. Break to the weak side, yes.

Q. Okay. But Hayman's view wasn't that that break would

happen immediately, right?

A. The timing of the decoupling of a 40-year peg is tough.

Q. Right. So, for example, in June 2020, the prodigious fund

closed, right?

A. It had its first closing June of 2020.

Q. Okay. So that was the first closing?

A. The first closing was June 1.

Q. Hayman wasn't anticipating that the peg was going to break

by July 4th of 2020, right?

A. It's hard for me to recall that many years ago, but I do

know that tranche one and tranche two, the initial closings of

869

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

June 1 and June 8th, were buying options that expired at the

end of 2021. So we were kind of giving ourselves roughly like

a year and a half runway.

Q. Okay. And do you mind just -- you used a term there,

"options" and "runway." Would you mind just explaining how

those two concepts go together?

A. Yes. In the Prodigious Series, we were purchasing options

on the Hong Kong dollar outside of the band. So basically,

it's a call option on the U.S. dollar and a put option on the

Hong Kong dollar, meaning we were long the U.S. dollar and

short the Hong Kong dollar. They were struck at seven spot --

the option price was struck at $7.85, so meaning the option

would be in the money or triggered once the Hong Kong dollar

traded outside of the band on the weak side. So seven spot 86,

seven spot 87, all of a sudden, that option is in the money.

And the term "runway" is me -- in my words is that we

were giving ourselves 18 months, roughly, or 17 -- I guess,

sorry, 19 months of time for this thesis to play out with the

options that we were buying for tranches B1 and B2.

Q. And in very, sort of, general terms, the thesis envisioned

this being sort of a gradual process, right?

How about this -- let me withdraw that question and

try a different one.

A. Okay.

Q. The thesis envisioned that this could be a process that

870

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

would play out over some time?

A. I recall how the trade was set up with this 19-month

duration. And I recall us wanting to get the money invested in

the options in a careful and timely manner. I can't exactly

recall the specific question that you're asking. We wanted to

be set up and positioned sooner rather than later so we could

be fully invested to capture any potential move in the Hong

Kong dollar.

Q. Got it.

All right. Let me try it a different way. Let me ask

a better question.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we bring up what I believe is in

evidence GX HN-27, please. And can we just go to page 2.

Q. All right. So I believe you testified about it on direct,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. This is the prodigious fund deck, is that fair to say?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So and by "deck" we just mean presentation,

right?

A. This is the initial investor presentation from May of 2020;

correct.

Q. This is what would be sent out to investors to give them

some sense of what the fund was about?

A. In May of 2020, there was iterations and updates along the

871

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

way.

Q. Sure. And just sticking to May of 2020, to this version

for the moment.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we go to page 35, please.

Q. All right. Do you see the second bullet there that says

"targeting effective average duration of portfolio of roughly

12 to 14 months"?

A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean?

A. This is referencing the average option expiry of this

initial kind of portfolio or closing. So when you're buying

options at different periods of time, it wasn't that we could

just overnight put all the money to work in a single option.

So as you're buying options over the course of June,

July, and maybe August, I think that this is kind of

under-promising, in hopes that we can over deliver an effective

duration of 12 to 14 months. I'm trying to recall if we were

buying all one-year options. I think that's right.

Okay. If I could just --

Q. Take your time.

A. -- start over.

Q. Take your time. Go ahead.

A. We were focused on buying one-year options for the Share

Class B. And so when we purchased options in June, they would

expire June of the following year; and we would purchase

872

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

options in July, they would expire July the following year; and

August and so on.

And I think that we would hold back some of the cash

in order to purchase some options in December of 2020 for the

last expiration to be December of 2021. So the goal was to put

the exposure on with all of the options expiring by December of

2021. And the effective duration of the portfolio, meaning the

average duration of the length of the options at any given

time, would be between 12 and 14 months of coverage or exposure

to the trade.

Q. Got it.

So is it fair to say then that Hayman wouldn't know if

it was right about this particular tranche until December 2021?

A. Correct. Because with a goal of purchasing options that

didn't expire through the end of December of 2021, we wouldn't

have been completely wrong until we knew if all of the options

expired worthless or not.

Q. So even if you lost money during that time period, the

investment thesis wouldn't have been proven wrong at that

point, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And I think you testified on direct that the strategy was a

12-to-24-month window or something in that range, right?

A. So, yeah. It depends on the timing that we have these

tranche closings; but, yes, it's between kind of --

873

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

historically, it's been 12 to 24 months as the duration of

these tranches.

Q. And, in fact, the HHKOF is still in existence, right?

A. Both Share Class A and Share Class B has -- Share Class B

still has tranches.

Q. So Hayman is still using the same investment thesis or a

similar one at least today?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let's flip back to page 2 of this, if you don't

mind, please.

All right. So who's depicted here again?

A. This is the leader of the communist party of China. His

name is Xi Jinping.

Q. Thank you. Sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.

What is he doing?

A. He is blowing the flowers -- the pedals of the flower

that's on the Hong Kong flag.

Q. Okay. And this is in the material that's being marketed to

potential investors, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we go to page 29, please.

Q. What's the title of this slide?

A. "When investors last worried about Chinese law in Hong

Kong."

Q. And what does this slide depict?

874

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. This slide depicts a fairly substantial devaluation in the

Hong Kong dollar primarily from 1981 to 1983.

Q. Got it.

And what is the title intended to convey?

A. I believe around 1983, Britain announced that they were

going to -- Britain had -- Hong Kong was a territory of

Britain, for lack of a better term. And Britain was announcing

that they were going to hand back Hong Kong to China, I think

it was in like 19 -- in -- Britain was no longer under UK law

effective 1997. And I think there was an announcement to that

effect sometime in the early '80s, that at some point it was

going to go back to China.

So when investors last worried about Chinese law in

Hong Kong is around the time of this announcement, and that's

around the time that the peg was put in place, to stabilize the

currency, to the best of my recollection.

Q. Fair enough.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go to page 26, please.

Q. Can you just read the title of that slide?

A. "Beijing liaison office draws line in sand in Hong Kong on

5/2/20."

Q. And then could you read that first bullet point.

A. "Saturday, Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong warned

that the city would have no future if radical anti-government

protests return to chaos and violence at the time requiring

875

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

unity to fight the coronavirus crisis."

Q. And what is this bullet intended to convey to investors?

A. Given that this presentation is three years old and we no

longer have this in our deck, it's unclear to me.

Q. Okay.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we go to page 31, please.

Q. Do you see the title "Pegs are meant to be

broken-Argentina," right?

A. Yes.

Q. So what's the purpose of including this slide in the deck?

A. I can't recall.

Q. Okay. The purpose of the deck was to give some flavor of

the investment to potential investors, right?

A. It was our body of work, our research in conveying our

thesis to investors.

Q. Right.

And you wanted to show the investors there was some

evidence for why the thesis might work, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Right.

You wanted to substantiate the idea in investors'

minds, right?

A. I would describe it as we wanted to present our

well-researched thesis.

Q. Right. You wanted to make sure they understood it wasn't

876

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

like a half-baked investment thesis, right?

A. That it was a thoughtful thesis.

Q. And this slide depicts a time when another country's peg

was broken, right?

A. Sitting up here today, I can't recall what Argentina is

pegged to; and so it's hard for me to discuss this slide.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Let's go to page 34, please.

Q. So what's depicted here?

A. This is a Dragon crunching down on Hong Kong, and an

umbrella that says "democracy" across it. This is China

clamping down on Hong Kong's system of democracy.

Q. And is there any significance to the fact that the umbrella

is yellow?

A. Not to me, no.

Q. Now, in addition to this presentation, investors would also

receive something called a prospectus, right?

A. Generally, yes. We call it a confidential -- we call it a

private placement agreement.

Q. Okay. We can call it that. Like a PPM?

A. PPM.

Q. PPM? Okay. We'll use that.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we bring up Government Exhibit

29, please. Thank you.

Q. All right. So let's just start on page 1. And I think you

testified about this on direct.

877

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. So this is the email -- you sent this email; correct?

A. I did.

Q. You were sending it to potential investors, right?

A. That it indicated interest in the Share Class B closing.

Q. And one of the documents that you sent was the PPM for the

HHKOF, right?

A. Yes, confidential offering memorandum.

Q. Got it.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we go to page 197 of the PDF,

please.

Q. All right. So this is what we're referring to as the PPM;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Or if the proper term is confidential offering, I'm

happy --

A. Some funds call it a PPM. This one is obviously a

confidential offering memorandum.

Q. Okay. So this memorandum is intended to convey more

detailed information about the potential investment to

investors, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So it's got a number of different sections to it, right?

A. It does.

Q. And there's a lot of work that goes into putting together

878

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

one of these documents, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So you get -- Mr. Bass contributes input to it, right?

A. This particular offering memorandum, I can't say that he

had input in it, no.

Q. Okay. Let's divorce it from this particular one for a

second. Just the process at Hayman.

A. Yup.

Q. Can you tell me -- you're putting together a new tranche.

What's the process for preparing a confidential memorandum

offering?

A. So it's at the fund level. So this was in existence prior

to the Prodigious Series closing for the -- initially on

June 1. So the initial Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund

confidential memorandum was put in place January of 2017; it

was amended for the kind of additional Share Class B, and

that's why it's from May of 2020.

We had a previous fund called the -- we had a previous

fund that was a currency-specific fund that we kind of used the

basis of that fund for the Hong Kong strategy. And there was a

number of people that provided input and helped the lawyers

pull the draft together. I can't attest to whether Kyle was

involved in that process or not.

Q. Okay. That's fair enough.

There are a number of Hayman people involved?

879

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Correct.

Q. There were lawyers involved?

A. Investment professionals.

Q. Got it. Okay.

So all of them worked together to put together a

confidential offering memorandum, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there's a lot of different topics covered in one of

these; correct?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: So, for example, can we go to page 198.

Q. So this is titled "Partnership Directory," right.

What's the partnership directory?

A. I think it's naming all of the different kind of parties

involved and third-party representation on behalf of the

partnership.

Q. Got it.

And I think on direct you testified about having an

administrator named SEI; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. So that's the entity that's reflected here?

A. That's our third-party administrator reflected as the

administrator.

Q. Got it.

And you see two headings down there's something called

880

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

auditor?

A. Yes.

Q. And there's a company listed there?

A. Deloitte & Touche.

Q. Okay. What's an auditor?

A. An auditor is a third-party service that comes in and

audits the fund on a yearly basis. They provide audited

financials on behalf of the partnership to its underlying

investors.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go to page 224, please.

Q. All right. So this section is titled "Investment Program,"

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there's something entitled "Investment Objective

and Strategy"?

A. Yes.

Q. What's this section -- just generally, what's this section

intended to convey?

A. This is describing the thesis of the fund.

Q. Okay. So the investment strategy basically?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

And the purpose here is to give a more detailed

explanation to the investors and what's happening, right?

A. As part of the offering, yes.

881

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go to page 235, please.

Q. And you see the title "Certain Risk Factors"?

A. Yes.

Q. What's this section intended to convey?

A. Outlining the risk factors of investing in the fund.

Q. And the first risk factor, it looks like it says market and

risk investment risks, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a particular type of risk?

Let me withdraw and ask it this way: This is one

bucket of risk that the PPM would convey?

A. Is outlining, yes.

Q. And there are specific risks of investing in securities in

east Asian countries outlined here, right? That's the second

bolded.

A. Yes, that is in there.

Q. Okay. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to read

through the whole thing. But this is just, generally speaking,

targeting risks of investing in securities in east Asia?

A. This is highlighting that Asia is potentially riskier than

U.S. or other developed countries.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we show just the witness, the

parties, and the Court GX SM-08.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize that document?

MR. KAMARAJU: Sorry. Could we go back to the first

882

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

page.

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. This is a supplement to the confidential offering

memorandum specific to the Prodigious Series or Class B.

Q. Okay. So it's fair to say this is an addendum to sort of

the document we were looking at just before?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Let me get it right this time. The

defense offers Government Exhibit SM-08.

MR. FINKEL: Could I ask defense counsel a question?

THE COURT: Okay.

(Counsel conferred)

MR. FINKEL: Objection.

THE COURT: If you'll step up, please.

(Continued on next page)

883

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

(At sidebar)

THE COURT: Does this addendum concern the defendant's

investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: It's the same fund, your Honor. It's

just a supplement covering it.

My only intention in showing it is showing that there

is a supplement and it's basically the same as the one that

came before it.

THE COURT: So what's the problem?

MR. FINKEL: The question I asked defense counsel was,

Who saw it? And his answer was, I don't know. And therefore,

I don't see its relevance. Because if the point of introducing

this document is to show the effect on Mr. Guo or Mr. Je, then

there is no effect if it wasn't seen by anybody.

He's certainly free to ask the questions they are a

supplement, that's fine. But introducing a document in

evidence that may or may not have been seen by the defendant

has no relevant purpose.

THE COURT: It was made available to them, I assume,

based upon her testimony, that she hands out these documents

before an investor invests.

MR. FINKEL: That may be. But I asked counsel whether

anyone of relevance had seen it, he said no. That was the

reason for my objection.

MR. KAMARAJU: No, I said I don't know, because I

884

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

haven't asked the witness the question. But it's just

simply -- it's just completing the record. It's a document

that they make available. I'm not going to make an argument

that Mr. Guo specifically saw this document. Just completing

the --

THE COURT: That's fine. The objection is overruled.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. FINKEL: There's not even a -- understood.

THE COURT: Are you challenging the authenticity of

it?

MR. FINKEL: I'm not challenging authenticity, your

Honor. I was going to add an additional argument my colleague

said. And as I started speaking, I heard your Honor rule, and

so I'm not saying anything further. I apologize.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Continued on next page)

885

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

(In open court)

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Government's Exhibit SM-08 received in evidence)

MR. KAMARAJU: So could we publish this for the jury,

please.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. So this document -- you've testified about supplements

before, right? Sorry, let me be more specific. Supplements to

PPMs; correct?

A. I don't recall that. I mean, this document right here is a

supplement to the PPM.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

This one is a supplement to the prodigious fund PPM?

A. The PPM that you showed me earlier was for the whole Hong

Kong fund.

Q. Okay.

A. I mean for the whole Hong Kong -- I believe what you showed

me was an onshore confidential memorandum.

Q. Okay.

A. What you're showing me right now is the supplement to the

offshore Hayman Hong Kong memorandum.

Q. Okay.

A. So this is not technically the supplement to what you --

Q. No, I got that.

A. Okay.

886

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. I understand. Because Hayman has got two different ways in

which you can invest, right?

A. There's an onshore feeder fund and an offshore feeder fund.

Q. Got it.

And they both have -- they may have different

requirements, right?

A. Different representations. If you're a non -- if you're a

non -- if you're a tax-exempt U.S. or an offshore individual in

the offshore fund.

Q. Right. Because if you invest through the onshore, you have

to pay U.S. taxes?

A. Yeah, you receive a K-1.

Q. And that K-1 goes not just to the investor, but also to the

IRS, right?

A. I don't know.

MR. KAMARAJU: We can take that down.

Q. So you first met Mr. Je in Dallas in 2018; correct?

A. William Je?

Q. Yes.

A. I met him in Dallas in October of 2018.

Q. Okay. And you had no further communications with him until

May of 2020, right?

A. He came through the office and met with Kyle. I was not

part of the meeting, but he was reintroduced to me on his way

out.

887

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. When was that?

A. Sometime between October 2018 and May of 2020. I can't

exactly recall.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

Was it closer to when you initially met him or closer

to May 2020?

A. I honestly can't recall.

Q. Okay. You weren't part of the meeting though, right?

A. I wasn't part of the meeting.

Q. So you don't know what was discussed. Other than that time

that he came to the office, you didn't have any other contact

with him, right?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Okay. So during that period you didn't send him any

information about the Hong Kong fund, right?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. And the first time you heard that Mr. Je had any interest

in investing was from Mr. Bass, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that was in May 2020, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we bring up what's in evidence as

Government Exhibit HN-27, please.

Q. All right. And you sent this email after Mr. Bass told you

about his conversation with Mr. Je; correct?

888

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the sent time there?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. It says it was sent at almost 1 a.m. on Saturday,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that's when it was actually sent?

A. It was my understanding that William was in London, so

potentially it could have been 1 a.m. London time. I don't

think I sent it U.S. time 1 a.m., but potentially I work some

strange hours sometimes, but I don't recall.

Q. Well, you did testify that there was some urgency to this

investment, right?

A. Yes, that's probably why I sent it on a Saturday.

Q. Right. And can you explain why there was urgency?

A. The genesis of Share Class B of the Hong Kong fund came

from a reverse inquiry from an existing investor, actually the

largest investor in our flagship fund. And they wanted

expedited closing of June 1.

Q. So fair to say that the window for the money coming in was

closing pretty quickly at this point, right?

A. To participate in the first closing, yes. The timing had

been previously set by a separate investor.

Q. Now, Mr. Bass was pretty eager to get this investment done

as well, right?

889

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. I would say that Kyle was sensitive to the timing because

the current pricing in the marketplace was -- had a good risk

return to it.

THE COURT: Could you explain what you mean by

"reverse inquiry"?

THE WITNESS: Yes. One of our current investors had

asked us if they could do a capital exhaustion vehicle. So it

was at a request by one of our investors to create a separate

share class that was capital exhaustion or put 100 percent of

the capital into the options-based strategy.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. So there was a market reason for Mr. Bass to be eager to

get this done, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then also one of the fund's large investors

wanted to get this done quickly, right?

A. It's a separate fund, our flagship fund; but, yes, it was

at their request.

Q. Okay. And then Mr. Je comes along and says Saraca would

like to invest $100 million, right?

A. I think the initial conversation was that it wasn't

necessarily Saraca, but that Miles would have interest in this

new structure of the Hong Kong thesis.

Q. Okay. But the investment was really large, right?

890

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. The Saraca investment?

Q. Yeah, the proposed investment, it was big?

A. $100 million investment is a large investment.

Q. Right.

MR. KAMARAJU: Bless you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Q. It would generate significant fees for the fund, right?

A. If the Hong Kong dollar had a substantial devaluation, it

would create substantial fees to the firm.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we go to Government Exhibit HN-27,

which I think is this one. Can we go to page 37, please.

Q. All right. I think you walked through this on direct a

little bit. But you see the place where it says "management

fee"?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So the management fee gets paid to Hayman regardless

of whether the investment thesis works out or not, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. It's basically once the investment comes in, the management

fee is owed, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's not -- it's the investor paying Hayman, right?

A. To manage the capital.

Q. Right. And that's standard practice in the hedge fund

industry, right?

891

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. That's not unusual for Hayman or anyone else; a management

fee is standard, right?

A. Standard hedge fund fees, yes.

Q. And so $100 million investment at two percent would have

been $2 million right up front, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then I think what you're referring to is if the bet

paid off, the fund might stand to make substantially more than

that, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's the performance allocation that's referred to

here, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, at that time in 2020, I believe you testified on

direct that Hayman had approximately $400 million under

management, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's its AUM, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And, in fact, specifically going into the closing of the

prodigious fund, that April/May period, it was approximately

$400 million, right?

A. It might have been a little less, like 300 and some.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go to Government Exhibit

892

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

HN-29, please.

THE COURT: Are you speaking of total assets under

management?

THE WITNESS: Across the entire firm, going into 2020,

it was 400; midway through the year, like May time frame, I

believe it was 300 and change.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go to Government Exhibit 29,

please. Can we just go to -- first, let's just stay here for a

second.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. All right. Do you see the attachments there,

Ms. Schottenheimer? And I'm specifically looking at the one

that's the second from the last.

A. Form ADV?

Q. Yeah. Do you see that one?

A. Yup.

Q. Do you know what a form ADV is?

A. Yes. It's a filing required by firms that are registered

with the SEC as a registered investment adviser.

MR. KAMARAJU: And could we go to page 315 of this

document.

Q. All right. Is this the form ADV brochure?

A. Yes, as of March 30.

Q. So this is the last one filed before the prodigious fund --

before that June 1 prodigious fund closing, right?

893

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. I understand this to be an annual filing.

Q. Okay.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we go to page 318, please.

Q. All right. And so at the top there you see it says item 4,

advisory business? Can you just read the last sentence of that

paragraph, please.

A. "As of December 31, 2019, Hayman managed approximately 432

million in assets under management on a discretionary basis on

behalf of its clients."

Q. Okay. So by the time we get to like spring of 2020, that

number has gone down a little bit, right?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Q. Okay. So $100 million could be anywhere -- could be north

of 25 percent of the assets that the fund had under management

at that time, right?

A. We had had a closing on June 1 of close to $40 million.

But, yes, somewhere around 20 percent of assets under

management.

Q. A big chunk.

A. A minority.

Q. Sure. Sure. But the next biggest investor had put in, I

think, 30 or $40 million, right?

A. Specifically to the Hong Kong fund?

Q. Yeah.

A. I think it was around 50 at the time.

894

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. Okay. So this would be almost twice that investment,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's fair to say that when the checks got larger,

Mr. Bass's involvement got more significant?

A. In what regard?

Q. Well, for example, if there were particularly

high-net-worth individuals who were planning to invest,

Mr. Bass might have more face-to-face -- withdrawn. Mr. Bass

might have more contact with them, right?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. But it happened from time to time, right?

MR. FINKEL: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. So in this case, Mr. Bass is the one who told you about

Mr. Je; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Bass had direct communications with Mr. Je, to your

knowledge, right?

A. That is my understanding.

Q. And he spoke to him on the phone, right?

A. That was my understanding.

Q. You didn't speak to Mr. Je on the phone, right?

A. I did not.

Q. And there were times when Mr. Je may be slow to respond to

895

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

some of your inquiries, right?

A. My specific inquiries?

Q. Or the fund's inquiries.

Well, let's say your inquiries. Let's stick to yours,

your inquiries.

A. I specifically remember after Mr. Je had requested the side

letter, I had reached out to him a couple of times asking for

the names of the entities that were investing so I could clear

it for conflict with my third-party counsel. That is the only

time that I recall Mr. Je -- me having to follow up multiple

times to get a response.

Q. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

A. But it was within a matter of days.

Q. Okay. Did Mr. Bass also try to follow up with Mr. Je then?

A. Yes. I had enlisted Kyle, The next time you talk to

William, we need these names to clear them for conflict.

Q. Because Mr. Bass had a clearer pipeline to Mr. Je, right?

A. It was just whoever talked to him first was hopefully going

to collect the names so we could clear them for conflict.

Q. Now, it was Mr. Bass who originally gave you the names of

the companies that were going to invest, right?

A. Via text.

Q. Right. And we looked at that text on direct, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we pull up Government Exhibit

896

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

HN-33.

Q. This is that text message, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you see at the top it says "because of the tight

timing"?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you understand that to be a reference to?

A. At one point they were trying to invest as of June 1, along

with the other reverse inquiry investor from our flagship fund.

Q. And this text was sent on May 26th, right?

A. Ahead of the June 1 closing. At some point it became

evident that they weren't going to make that cutoff, and so we

set a date around their preferred timing.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. And can we scroll down a little

bit.

Q. So then you tell Mr. Bass that you're going to send William

the AML requirements, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how does he respond?

A. "Okay. Let's fast-track everything. Thank you. Remember,

he's asleep now. He won't get back -- so you won't get it back

until tomorrow."

Q. What did you understand Mr. Bass to mean when he said

"let's fast-track everything"?

A. In response to me requesting the AML requirements, that we

897

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

wanted to get the AML in to have that approved ahead of time so

that wouldn't slow down their ability to invest.

Q. It's true, right, that sometimes the AML process can take

some time, right?

A. Depending the complexity of the entity investing, yes.

Q. Right. I think on direct you described a process of

drilling down, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So drilling down can be simple sometimes, right?

A. Can be very simple.

Q. And sometimes can be very complicated, right?

A. Can be very complicated.

Q. So what makes drilling down particularly complicated?

A. When an entity is owned by entities.

Q. I'm sorry, could you explain what you mean by that?

A. When an entity is not owned by a person, it's owned by

additional entities, separate entities. So you could have

entity A that's owned by entity B, C, D, and you have to keep

drilling into the different entities until you find an actual

person to do AML on.

Q. Got it.

Because you need the specific person in order to run

them through AML, right?

A. Correct. Anyone who owns more than 20 percent of an entity

is considered a beneficial owner and needs to have an AML

898

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

check.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we go back to Government Exhibit

HN-37 for a second.

All right. It's not in? Take it down for the jury.

I'm sorry, I thought you put it in. Can I just show it to the

witness, the Court, and the parties.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recognize this document?

A. One second.

Q. Oh, yeah, please. Take your time.

A. Yes. I'm familiar with this email.

Q. Okay. So it's an email chain, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it starts with emails between you and Mr. Je, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Bass is copied on those underlying emails, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the time period of these emails is around May 29, 2020,

right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it concerns a side letter that Mr. Je was seeking;

correct?

A. Correct.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. The defense would offer

Government Exhibit HN-37.

MR. FINKEL: Objection. Hearsay.

899

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

THE COURT: Step up please.

(At sidebar)

THE COURT: So the first email from Mr. Je to

Ms. Schottenheimer concerns the terms they were negotiating;

correct?

MR. KAMARAJU: Yeah. My only purpose in introducing

the email is to show that Mr. Bass asked Ms. Schottenheimer to

call him about the side letter. I'm not introducing it for the

truth of any of the underlying materials, just to say that

Mr. Bass asked Ms. Schottenheimer to call, which is basically

one of the exceptions that we had talked about yesterday, I

believe, an instruction or a direction.

MR. FINKEL: He's certainly free to ask the question,

Did Mr. Bass contact you via phone to discuss whatever, or in

response to an inquiry from Mr. Je. But defense can't put in

documents for declarants for Mr. Bass and Ms. Schottenheimer

and Mr. Je. We object on that basis.

It's not being offered -- every time there's a hearsay

objection, I understand. Obviously, as Mr. Fergenson mentioned

yesterday, the devil is in the details on all these things.

There's an explanation that it's for the state of mind or to

show, in fact, that all these things.

We disagree with that in this particular case. I

don't object to the question, Did you speak with Mr. Bass on

the phone in response to an inquiry from Mr. Je? That's fine.

900

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

But the document is hearsay and the government objects.

MR. KAMARAJU: On what basis is the document hearsay?

MR. FINKEL: It's a third-party declarant who's not

testifying. And it's also a statement by a co-conspirator

which they can't offer under the rules. That's the basis.

THE COURT: So you have William Je to

Ms. Schottenheimer, then Ms. Schottenheimer to Kyle Bass.

Certainly she can authenticate her email.

MR. KAMARAJU: And I'm only intending to ask her about

the top email. And I think they've already introduced emails

about this very topic between Ms. Schottenheimer and Mr. Je.

So we're not --

THE COURT: You're not seeking to introduce the first

email from Mr. Je?

MR. KAMARAJU: I think you need that just to explain

what the phone call was about. You know, I mean, I can

certainly confuse the witness, offer an active version of it,

and just have her not know what the substance of the phone call

is. But we're not offering it for the terms that are being

negotiated. I'm going to ask her that question.

But all I'm really asking for is that setting up that

Mr. Bass asked Ms. Schottenheimer to call him about the subject

of the terms that Mr. Je wanted to negotiate. That's not

offered for the truth, your Honor. And until the government

can articulate an actual basis -- hearsay basis for it, there's

901

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

no hearsay objection.

MR. FINKEL: So there is a hearsay objection.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. I thought it went from Je

to Schottenheimer, Schottenheimer to Bass.

MR. KAMARAJU: So it goes Je to Schottenheimer, then

Schottenheimer forwards the email to Bass and says Je wants

this. And Kyle Bass responds, Call me.

So I'm not introducing it for the truth of what Je

wants. I'll ask her that question, right. All I'm introducing

it for is the idea that Kyle Bass says to her -- she goes to

Kyle Bass and says, you know, This is what he wants. And Kyle

Bass says, Call me and I'll explain it, which is a nonhearsay

use.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, if I may, what they want this

in for clearly is for what Je is saying. Because otherwise the

question would be very appropriately put: Did you speak with

Mr. Bass about what Je wanted? That's a -- if I can please

finish.

MR. KAMARAJU: I haven't said anything.

MR. FINKEL: That's an appropriate question.

They are trying to introduce a document to get into

the record Je's statements which the defense can't do. That is

hearsay. I understand they have a view that it's not being

offered for the truth; but merely saying so does not make it

so.

902

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

The government believes -- it's an authentic document.

There's no dispute of authenticity. I'm not disputing

authenticity. I'm disputing hearsay. On that basis, the

objection, respectfully, should be sustained and we should move

on and pose the question.

THE COURT: You're saying that it comes in as a

command from Mr. Bass?

MR. KAMARAJU: I'm saying it comes in as a request

from Mr. Bass to call me. It's just that simple.

If your Honor wants to put a limiting instruction with

it to say they can't consider the underlying things, whatever

motivation Mr. Finkel is ascribing to, I am telling you that my

only purpose, my only set of questions is to say: Mr. Bass

asked you to call him when you contacted him about this, right?

MR. FINKEL: So why not just ask that question?

MR. KAMARAJU: Because I'm allowed to set it up, Ryan.

I'm not limited to asking questions.

THE COURT: So the elimination of the Je to

Schottenheimer email is acceptable to you?

MR. KAMARAJU: If you want. I mean, I think she

needs -- I think she needs the subject line because otherwise

she's not going to know what the email is about; she's not

going to know what the subject is.

But if you want to redact -- first of all, this is a

government exhibit that was produced to us in this way. So we

903

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

didn't -- this is not a defense exhibit.

But second, if that is the concern, I just want to

make sure that it is recognizable for the witness so that she

understands what it is. But I don't -- the fact that the

government is unable to articulate a reason why our hearsay

objection -- our hearsay argument isn't valid other than saying

that's not really what they want to do, your Honor, it's not

enough that you should reject the objection.

THE COURT: I think we established yesterday that

commands don't constitute hearsay.

MS. SHROFF: Exactly.

THE COURT: But the Je portion of it is hearsay.

MR. KAMARAJU: Sure. Which your Honor can easily

solve by just saying don't consider the bottom part of the

email for the truth.

MR. FINKEL: I think it should be redacted. They can

zoom in on the portion of the email that your Honor is going to

admit. They can prepare a redacted version of the document.

MR. KAMARAJU: But why do we need to redact it?

MR. FINKEL: Because it's hearsay.

THE COURT: What does the subject matter say?

MR. KAMARAJU: It just says -- it says side letter is

the subject line. And then he's talking about the terms of the

side letter.

THE COURT: Okay. So if she can testify that Mr. Bass

904

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

wanted her to call, I have no problem with admitting that

portion of the email without the William Je portion.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. So how would your Honor like me

to handle it right now? Should I just focus on the top

portion?

MR. FINKEL: If I may.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FINKEL: Part of the reason the defense has said

that they need the letter is because she doesn't know the

subject matter and she doesn't know this. Let's see what she

knows; maybe she remembers. That's number one.

So if there's a failure of recollection, this can be

used to refresh. That's number two.

The third is based on your Honor's ruling, they should

just blow up — they certainly have the technology; if not, we

can do it — the top portion of the email and introduce that

piece of the exhibit and then they'll redact the rest.

MR. KAMARAJU: I should get both pieces. I should get

Ms. Schottenheimer's email to Mr. Bass --

THE COURT: Yes, I agree.

MR. KAMARAJU: -- and I should get Mr. Bass's

response.

THE COURT: That's fine.

Okay. That's how we'll go forward.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

905

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

(In open court)

(Government's Exhibit HN-37 received in evidence)

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, may I publish this portion

that's on the screen?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Thank you.

Could we publish it for the jury, please.

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. Okay. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you see your email to

Mr. Bass there at the bottom?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you see the subject is "Side Letter," right?

A. Correct.

Q. What is that a reference to?

A. That's in reference to the side letter that William Je had

requested on behalf of the entities he was directing to invest

in the Hong Kong fund.

Q. And where you refer to terms with a minimum of a one

million investment, what does that mean?

A. To my recollection, there was a version of the side letter

that they were requesting the terms subject to a million

dollars minimum investment.

Q. So they were asking for favorable terms on the $1 million

portion of the investment?

A. It's hard for me to perfectly recall without the draft of

906

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

the side letter, but it was my understanding that they were

asking for these terms in connection with a million-dollar

investment.

Q. Okay. And it would be unusual normally for a

million-dollar investment to be able to get any kind of side

letter, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Why did you reach out to Mr. Bass about this?

A. He was negotiating the side letter directly with William.

Q. And was it your view that it was pretty aggressive to ask

for a side letter in connection with a million-dollar

investment?

A. I think I understood that there was some sort of

miscommunication. At this point, I don't know, May 29th, if it

had been represented to me that there was also a $50 million

investment in the mix as well; and that the wording, I think,

was just improperly outlined on the initial draft of the side

letter.

Q. Okay. And then how does Mr. Bass respond?

A. "Call me on this. I will explain."

Q. Did you speak with Mr. Bass about it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the outcome of that conversation?

A. He explained that William Je wanted to invest a million

dollars personally in addition to the capital that was coming

907

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

from Miles Kwok's family office, but it would be a separate

entity.

Q. And so --

A. The resolution --

Q. Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.

A. The resolution was because they were affiliated entities,

our external counsel was comfortable drafting the side letter

with a $51 million minimum. And I think, to the best of my

recollection, that is what went into the final version of the

side letter.

Q. Was it 51 million or was it a 101 million that went into

the side letter?

A. At one point I thought it was $51 million -- at some point

it went from 50 million from Saraca to 100. But I believe in

the final side letter I thought it was 51.

Q. Okay. Now, when we looked at the text message you

mentioned starting -- sorry. You mentioned starting anti-money

laundering checks with Mr. Je, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you testified on direct about what anti-money

laundering checks are. They are part of the KYC process,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And "KYC" stands for know your customer, right?

A. Yes.

908

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And you testified on direct that the SEC requires you to do

those kinds of checks, right?

A. Yes, it's all -- yeah, yes.

Q. And there are other government agencies that also have

checks that are part of the KYC process, right?

A. It's, yeah, broadly, I think, financial institutions have

to engage in KYC with any of their customers.

Q. And they have to check the entities against various U.S.

government lists, for example, right?

A. Yes. I'm really only familiar with our process.

Q. Okay. Well, tell me your process.

A. We collect the required documentation outlined on the AML

grid. We use SCI as our third-party administrator. And we

have outsourced the AML function to our third-party

administrator. They have a team that runs AML for our funds.

Q. Got it.

And are you aware what checks they run?

A. Generally, they check the names and details of all of the

required persons to have AML, beneficial owners, authorized

signatories, and controlling persons against a world check

database that checks against OFAC and a number of other broadly

kind of terrorist list or kind of persona non grata list. And

they do this at the time of investment and on a monthly basis.

And they provide a report to us saying that there's no hit.

We've never had a hit, so no hits on a monthly basis for each

909

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

of our funds.

Q. And, sorry, you mentioned OFAC. What is that?

A. I can't -- I don't know the acronym.

Q. That's okay. Just generally --

A. It's a list of terrorists. Not just terrorists, but people

that you cannot do business with.

Q. And so that's -- checking against the OFAC list is one of

the parts of the AML, right?

A. That is outsourced, yes, yeah.

Q. Thank you.

Now, you testified on direct about something you

called an AML grid, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And part of the AML grid is a list of questions for the

investor to answer, right?

A. It depends on -- a lot of the AML is baked into the

questionnaire within the sub doc. The AML grid shows a list of

the documents that you need to provide and the information that

you need to provide on the ultimate beneficial owner,

controlling persons, and I think that's it.

MR. KAMARAJU: Just one second.

Q. Now, you testified on direct that there was a time when

Mr. Je told you that money would need to come from a different

entity, right?

A. Yes.

910

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And that was -- from your perspective, that might have been

an AML problem, right?

A. It was.

Q. And Mr. Je ultimately resolved that problem, right?

A. The money came in from an account from Saraca.

Q. Right. And so that fixed the AML concern that you had,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, sorry, I forgot to ask the question before, but just

going back to the side letter quickly, it's not unusual for

larger investors to get side letters, right?

A. Not unusual.

Q. And the terms of those side letters and what -- withdrawn.

What Hayman is willing to agree to in a side letter is

based in part on the economics of the investment, right?

A. I don't understand the question. Can you please repeat it?

Q. Sure.

If an investor is asking for particular terms, right?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. One of the factors that would go into Hayman's decision as

to whether to accept those terms is the size of the investment,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in the subscription packet, right, one of the

questions is source of wealth, right?

911

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the subscription packet did not always have a source

of wealth question in it, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. That was added over the last few years, right?

A. Few years from 2020, yes.

Q. I'm sorry, you said yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you testified that at first, the Saraca form was

missing the source of wealth information, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's also not unusual, right?

A. It is typical for there to be corrections in a sub doc.

For that question to be skipped, it's been skipped before, but

I don't think it's a regular occurrence.

Q. Right. You had other investors who have been -- who have

failed to fill that in, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've had investors who were confused about what that

question was seeking, right?

MR. FINKEL: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Well, you personally have dealt with investors who have

been confused about that, right?

MR. FINKEL: Same objection.

912

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

THE COURT: Sustained.

Can't speak to what other people are thinking.

Q. You personally have had other investors express confusion

to you about that question?

MR. FINKEL: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Can we go to Government Exhibit

HN-51.

(Counsel conferred)

Q. Do you recognize this?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. The defense offers Government Exhibit HN-51.

MR. FINKEL: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit HN-51 received in evidence)

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we publish that, please.

Q. All right. So this is the -- you see where it says

"briefly identify subscribers," right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So this is the specific source of wealth question

for the Saraca subscription package; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what's listed there is selling shares of subsidiary,

right?

A. Yes.

913

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. Now, nothing in that description raised a red flag for you,

right?

A. Correct. It looks like a liquidation event to me.

Q. And you didn't ask for any additional information about it

at the time, right?

A. Nor did SCI.

Q. Well, that was going to be my next question. You passed it

along to SCI for them to review it, right?

A. I did.

Q. They didn't come back with any follow-up questions about

it, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And they are the AML experts, right?

A. We rely on their expertise.

Q. That's what you pay them for, right?

A. Correct.

MR. KAMARAJU: Now, can we pull up Government Exhibit

HN-57, please. And we can publish this to jury.

Q. All right. Now, this is an email from Mr. Je to you,

right?

A. At the top?

Q. Yeah, at the top.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it's cc'ing Mr. Bass, right?

A. Yes.

914

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And there are a number of attachments to it, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And these are documents that you required or Hayman

required for the Saraca investment to go through, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: So can we go to page 7. Maybe let's go

to the page before that. Thank you.

Q. So you testified on direct about this, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you see the primary contact there?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the email address listed for the primary contact?

A. Yvettew@gtv.org.

Q. Now, while this subscription agreement documentation was

being collected, Kyle Bass was discussing being a director of

GTV; correct?

MR. FINKEL: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Were you aware that during this period when the

subscription documentation was being collected, Kyle Bass was

having discussions about being a director at GTV?

A. No.

Q. GTV is a subsidiary of Saraca, right?

A. I don't know.

MR. KAMARAJU: Pull that down for a second.

915

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

And can we go to page 39.

Q. Do you see an email address listed there, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Same email address, right?

A. Yes.

MR. KAMARAJU: May I just have one moment, your Honor.

(Counsel conferred)

Q. Did you ever become aware that Mr. Bass was trying to

become a GTV director?

MR. FINKEL: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could we pull up Government Exhibit

HN-168. 168. Not in? Okay. Can we go to the attachment,

please.

Q. Now, you remember you testified about this on direct,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And there's a list of questions that you testified

to, right, in this letter?

A. The bullets, yes.

Q. Now, Hayman never asked any of these questions prior to

accepting the Saraca investment; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. This only was prompted by the SEC's inquiry, right?

A. Yes.

916

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And Hayman at the time relied on the SEC's approval to do

business, right?

A. In what context?

Q. Well, you testified that they are a registered investment

adviser, right?

A. Hayman at the time was a registered investment adviser with

the SEC, so they are our governing body.

Q. Right. So they could -- I don't know if it's the right

term, but they could deregister you, right?

A. Yes, potentially. I'm not really clear on that, but yeah.

Q. But you didn't think there was anything wrong with Saraca's

original response; correct?

MR. FINKEL: Objection to the form. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Can you please repeat the question.

Q. Sure.

MR. KAMARAJU: Can we read it back, please.

(Record read)

A. Saraca's initial -- Saraca's response in the subscription

document regarding the source of wealth was sufficient to --

for the AML requirement to subscribe to the Hayman Hong Kong

Opportunities Fund.

Q. Okay. And you testified on direct that you had discussions

with Mr. Bass about the SEC's inquiry, right?

A. Yes.

917

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. Do you recall Mr. Bass ever criticizing the SEC's inquiry?

A. I can't recall any comments at this time.

Q. Was he happy about the SEC's inquiry?

MR. FINKEL: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. He was not happy.

Q. He was upset about it, right?

A. About the inquiry?

Q. Yeah.

A. I think he was upset about being lied to by where the funds

were coming from.

Q. Sure. And he wouldn't be happy about the SEC investigating

either, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And did you hear him express his unhappiness about it?

A. I just can't recall a specific conversation about it.

Q. Now, on direct, Mr. Finkel asked you whether HHKOF

involved, his phrase was a bet against the Hong Kong dollar,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Hayman isn't a casino, right?

A. No.

Q. Not a sports book, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Hayman doesn't make bets; it makes investments, right?

918

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Correct.

Q. And he asked you about Mr. Kwok making an investment in

Hayman, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He asked you about Mr. Kwok sending $100 million to Hayman,

right?

A. I can't recall if it was Mr. Kwok specifically or

Mr. Kwok's family office or -- but, yes, generally, Mr. Kwok.

Q. Okay. And today he asked you questions about the

Saraca/Kwok investment, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. Okay. Mr. Kwok never made an investment in Hayman, right?

A. Personally, no.

Q. His name doesn't show up in a single investment at Hayman,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Not as Ho Wan Kwok, right?

A. What are you asking? I apologize.

Q. I'm saying there's no Hayman investment in the name of Ho

Wan Kwok, right?

A. Sorry. Can you spell it?

Q. Sure. H-O, space, W-A-N, space K-W-O-K.

A. Correct.

Q. There's no investment in the names of Miles Kwok, right?

A. Correct.

919

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. There's no investment in the name of Miles Guo, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know that because if there was an investment in

Mr. Guo's name, you'd have done an AML on him, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's true if the investment was in his own name,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's true if he even owned just 20 percent of the

company that made the investment, right?

A. Yes.

Q. But based on the documentation, you did not think it was

necessary to do any AML on Mr. Guo, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And in either circumstance, you would have to do the

drill-down process that you were talking about, right?

A. If he'd invested in an entity that he owned or invested in

his name?

Q. Yes.

A. Would there have been AML checks either way.

Q. Now, the investment was in the name of a company owned by

Mr. Guo's son, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did a -- I think you testified on direct you did a

thorough review of that file, right?

920

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5VVGUO3 Schottenheimer - Cross

A. Of the subscription agreement?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. And you thought that this investment was coming in through

Mr. Kwok's family office, right?

A. Yes.

Q. It's not unusual for a family office to involve multiple

members of the family, right?

A. Not unusual.

Q. Right? The investments can be on behalf of different

family members, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Doesn't always have to be the father, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And it's not unusual for people to involve their children

in their family office, right?

A. Very common.

Q. But the fact that an investment is made by one of Mr. Guo's

relatives does not make it Mr. Guo's investment, right?

A. It was my understanding that the wealth amassed was, in

fact, Mr. Miles Kwok's.

(Continued on next page)

921

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Cross

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. But you didn't do any AML check on him, right?

A. We weren't required to.

Q. You didn't do any due diligence on him, right?

A. Meaning?

Q. Well, you testified on direct about the phrase "due

diligence," so whatever meaning you gave it, same one.

A. There was no formal AML done on Mr. Kwok, Mr. Miles Kwok.

Q. Which you would have had to do if you thought that this

investment was his, right?

A. If he was listed as a beneficial owner and authorized

signatory or controlling persons, but given the reps provided

by Saraca Media, that was not the case.

Q. I'm sorry. Your testimony is that you thought that the

money was his but you didn't need to figure out whether the

entities were; is that right?

MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Now Saraca came through the Onshore fund, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Which means that they would get a K1, right?

A. They had a tax ID with the United States and they would get

a K1.

Q. Now you testified that you only met Mr. Guo once, right?

A. Correct.

922

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Cross

Q. And in this courtroom is the first time you've seen him

since 2018, right?

A. Yes.

Q. But you met with the prosecutors several times, right?

A. Yes.

Q. More than five times?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you met with them just a couple hours before your

testimony started yesterday, right?

A. Briefly.

Q. Over the lunch break?

A. Yes.

Q. Just downstairs in this building, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And at all of those meetings, you discussed your testimony

with them, right?

A. In meetings, I answered questions truthfully.

Q. Right. They asked you questions, you gave them answers,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in anticipation of your testimony, they told you what

questions they anticipated asking you here today, right?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. They showed you the documents that they were going to show

you, right?

923

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

A. They showed me documents, yes.

Q. They asked you questions about those documents, right?

A. They asked questions.

Q. They showed you those emails that we looked at, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now in none of those emails do you refer to it as the Kwok

investment, right?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Right. That was Mr. Finkel's choice of words, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's his description, not yours, right?

A. I've described the investment and spoke to the investment

however——whatever word choice I've——I've used. Miles family

office, primarily called it Saraca, by the actual name of the

entity that invested.

Q. So you don't recall him asking you questions about the Kwok

investment and you describing it that way?

MR. FINKEL: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you would agree with me, right, it's

not accurate to call it the Kwok investment, right?

A. At the time of May of 2020 and June of 2020, I thought of

it as Miles Kwok's investment from his family office.

Q. So you just didn't follow the procedures that you would

need to if you did that, right?

924

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

A. Not correct.

MR. KAMARAJU: No further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Redirect?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, did you follow the procedures that

you're required to follow when conducting the facilitation of

the Saraca $100 million investment?

A. Yes.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, during the meetings you had with the

government, what did the government tell you to do when you

testified?

A. Tell the truth.

Q. Is the Prodigious Series offered to the general public?

A. No.

Q. Is it offered to qualified purchasers?

A. Select qualified purchasers.

Q. And why is the Prodigious Series only offered to qualified

purchasers, select qualified purchasers?

A. Because we rely on a 3(c)(7) exemption, and in order to

maintain that exemption, we have to make sure that we are only

marketing to sophisticated investors with a net worth of——or

investable assets of $5 million or more.

Q. And why is the Prodigious Series only marketed to

sophisticated investors?

925

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

A. Because of how we have the fund structured; it's a 3(c)(7)

fund.

Q. You mentioned something on cross-examination about multiple

closing dates. Can you explain to the jury what that means.

A. So for the share Class B or Prodigious Series, that the

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund, because it is 100 percent

options based and a capital exhaustion strategy, there's no

money in or no money out, once we have a closing, we have to

have a series of closings in order to take in new capital, so

to date we've closed B1 through B12.

Q. So the Saraca investment, the 100 million investment, what

was the closing date of that?

A. June 8th.

Q. And was there a June 1 closing?

A. There was.

Q. And so why was there a second closing on June 8?

A. It's my understanding that that timing was too tight for

them.

Q. Too tight for whom?

A. Too tight for Saraca to participate.

MR. FINKEL: Would you bring up what's in evidence as

HN57 at page 7, I believe.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, do you recall this document?

A. Yes.

Q. It says, "Total number of equity/capital/or beneficial

926

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

owners of the Investor"?

A. Yes.

Q. Why does Hayman request that information?

A. So we can understand how many beneficial owners are and who

we need to collect AML on.

Q. And so if this number was two, how would that impact, if at

all, the way you performed diligence on this particular

investment?

A. Well, it would be dependent on what was provided to us. If

each beneficial owner owned 50 percent, then we would do AML

checks on both, but if one owned 90 percent and the other owned

10 percent, we'd only be required to do AML checks on the

individual that owned the 90 percent, or more than 20 percent.

Q. But this question isn't a question about who owns

20 percent or more, or is it a question about total number of

beneficial owners?

A. This is about total number.

MR. KAMARAJU: I object to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. So this representation is that there's just one investor

for the Saraca investment, correct?

A. Who owns a hundred percent of Saraca, correct.

Q. And that's who, based on the documents?

A. Miles Kwok's son.

MR. FINKEL: If we can bring up, please, HN51.

927

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

And if we can zoom in at the top.

Q. You were asked some questions about this document on cross;

is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so it says on there, "Briefly identify the subscriber's

primary source of wealth." It says, "Selling shares of

subsidiary," correct?

A. Yes.

Q. If Hayman had known that Saraca's source of wealth were GTV

investors who were not told that they were investing in the

HHKOF, would you have accepted Saraca's investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, if you had known in early June of 2020

that this statement "Selling shares of subsidiary" was a lie,

would you have accepted Saraca's investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. If you had known that this statement "Selling shares of

subsidiary" was untrue, would you have accepted Saraca's

investment?

MR. KAMARAJU: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, I thought this was consistent

with——could we approach.

928

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

THE COURT: Yes.

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: So my recollection is that I permitted

hypotheticals to the victim, not to a company like this.

MR. KAMARAJU: That's right, your Honor, because it

goes to materiality.

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, the Second Circuit has

now adopted what I think is commonly referred to as the

conversions theory. What that means is that, in a wire fraud

context, the crime can be completed based on any action in

furtherance of the scheme that is a misrepresentation.

Therefore, the government would argue, in part, that part of

the scheme was maintained by this lie. In addition, your

Honor, government also charged the——the last count of the

indictment, which statute is escaping me right now——yeah, the

1957 charge, which is the illegal use of funds, which is use of

funds derived from a crime, the fact that they're lying to

Hayman about where the funds came from is evidence of relevance

to that particular charge in and of itself. So my

understanding, your Honor——forgive me if I misinterpreted the

Court's prior ruling; that's why I asked the question because I

thought it was consistent——I think it is relevant because it

shows that had they told the truth, the entire way the scheme

would have unfolded would have unfolded differently; it would

have failed.

929

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

THE COURT: So my recollection is that you were

speaking about the individual victim investors in your motion.

That's my recollection. Am I wrong about that?

MR. FINKEL: I think you're right. But separate and

apart from that, I still think this is a permissible

hypothetical question for the reasons I just identified.

MR. KAMARAJU: There is no authority to asking a

hypothetical question to a nonvictim.

THE COURT: I'm sustaining the objection.

MR. FERGENSON: Just a final point on the conversion

theory point, your Honor? Materiality is an element if that

material misrep was made to a victim or to someone else, and

that's Second Circuit law. You don't have to make the material

misrep to a victim.

THE COURT: Why didn't you bring it up in your papers

then?

MS. SHROFF: Exactly.

MR. FERGENSON: We thought——

MR. KAMARAJU: Seems like that's the answer to me.

MS. SHROFF: That answers the question right there.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

930

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

(In open court)

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you were asked some questions on

cross-examination——

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm sorry.

MR. KAMARAJU: My apologies, your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

Q. Ms. Schottenheimer, you were asked some questions on

cross-examination about at the time that Hayman received this

representation, whether you asked any additional questions

about selling shares of subsidiaries; is that correct?

A. No further questions were asked at the time of processing

the subdoc.

Q. But after the subdoc was processed, did Hayman and its

lawyers ask questions about the source of wealth?

A. About the source of wealth and the source of funds.

MR. FINKEL: If we can please pull up what's

been——what's in evidence as HN168, and go to the second page.

Q. And this document, these were some of the questions that

were asked to Saraca about the source of wealth, correct?

A. Source of wealth and source of funds.

Q. What's the difference between the two?

A. Source of wealth is how you created your money to be a

931

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Redirect

qualified purchaser; the source of funds is what funded your

investment into the vehicle.

Q. And the third bullet, it says: If the proceeds were

derived from a securities offering, did the offering documents

disclose the use of funds to include an investment in the fund,

meaning Hayman, or in any similar private fund vehicle? If

yes, please provide a copy of the disclosure statement. Did I

read that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Saraca ever provide offering documents in response to

this question?

A. No, they did not.

Q. Did Saraca provide any additional information to suggest

that they disclosed that the use of proceeds from a securities

offering would be used in Hayman?

A. No, they did not.

MR. FINKEL: If we can pull up HN208.

Q. This exhibit is another example of Hayman seeking

additional information about the investment?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Saraca ever respond to this?

A. They did not.

Q. And so in the second paragraph, the underlying text says:

In order to allow Saraca to remain invested in the fund, Hayman

needs to receive a representation from you and Saraca's lawyers

932

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Recross

regarding the specific source of this money (beyond what was

initially provided stated in the subscription documents) and

that this money is not tainted in any way, including that it

does not represent assets from the GTV offering, but that it is

a bona fide investment made by Saraca and Miles. Is that what

it says?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Hayman ever receive response to this?

A. We did not.

MR. FINKEL: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Recross?

MR. KAMARAJU: Just briefly, your Honor.

MR. KAMARAJU: Could I have 168, please.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. KAMARAJU:

Q. So Ms. Schottenheimer, the date of this email is July 15,

2020, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the SEC had already contacted Hayman by this point,

right?

A. The 13th of July.

Q. Right. Right. And Mr. Finkel just asked you a number of

questions about whether you ever received a response, whether

Hayman received a response, right?

A. A formal response.

933

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Recross

Q. Right. Now sitting here today, you don't know what Mr. Je

and Saraca were doing during this period, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You don't know if they were consulting with lawyers, right?

MR. FINKEL: Objection. The Court ruled on that.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Okay. You testified during direct that Saraca had lawyers,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't know if they were discussing the matter with the

SEC directly, right?

A. I would not have been privy to those conversations so I——I

don't know.

Q. Right. But you testified on direct that at some point you

wired the money back, right, some portion of it?

A. We wired money to an escrow account.

Q. Okay. An escrow account that was held by who?

A. It's my understanding they were Saraca's lawyers.

Q. Okay. And you did that with the blessing of the SEC,

right?

A. With no objections from the SEC or the DOJ.

Q. Or Saraca, for that matter, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And then you also testified that you liquidated the

$30 million position at some point, right?

934

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Schottenheimer - Recross

A. Yes.

Q. And that was 15 months later, right?

A. Would have been maybe late September, early October of

2021; 15 months, yup.

Q. And the SEC knew that that $30 million was there, right?

MR. FINKEL: Objection.

THE COURT: She cannot testify as to what the SEC

knew.

Q. The SEC had asked Hayman about that $30 million before,

right?

A. I was not a part of any of the direct conversations with

the SEC.

Q. But on direct you testified that when that $30 million was

ultimately liquidated, it was done with the consent of the SEC,

right?

A. It was my understanding at the time that there was no

objection from any of the parties, from——from the SEC.

Q. Okay. And on direct you said——I don't remember the exact

term, but——any of the interested parties, right?

A. Regarding the 70 million or the 30 million?

Q. 30 million.

A. I don't recall saying that about the 30 million.

Q. Okay. Anyone object to you liquidating the $30 million

position?

A. Not to my knowledge.

935

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

Q. You never heard Saraca object to it?

A. At the time?

Q. At the time it was liquidated.

A. I don't know.

MR. KAMARAJU: No further questions, your Honor.

MR. FINKEL: One question, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Redirect examination.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FINKEL:

Q. Months later, when the SEC became involved, as you were

just asked about, at that time did anyone from Saraca respond

to the questions that Kit Addleman had asked and provide

documentation about the source of funds and source of wealth?

MR. KAMARAJU: Objection to form.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. There were no responses that I'm aware of.

MR. FINKEL: Nothing further. Thank you.

THE COURT: Any re-recross?

MR. KAMARAJU: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step out.

(Witness excused)

THE COURT: And the government may call its next

witness.

MR. FERGENSON: The government calls Kimberly

Espinoza.

936

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

THE LAW CLERK: Please raise your right hand.

(Witness sworn)

THE LAW CLERK: Please speak directly into the

microphone and hold it close to you, and you may be seated.

THE COURT: State your name and spell it.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Name and what?

THE COURT: State your name and spell it.

THE WITNESS: Kimberly Espinoza. K-I-M-B-E-R-L-Y,

E-S-P-I-N-O-Z-A.

THE COURT: You may inquire.

MR. FERGENSON: I'm sorry, your Honor. May I just

have one moment to talk with defense counsel.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, with apologies, may we

have a very brief sidebar.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Continued on next page)

937

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

(At the sidebar)

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, we just noticed a few

minutes before Mr. Fergenson stood up to speak that the

stipulation that covers the bank records that this witness is

going to put in was——there was a scrivener's error and we're

short one document, so we just wanted to put on the record the

defense will just stip to that coming in on the record even

though it's not in the stip. We just wanted to do that before

he started.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. SCHIRICK: So the defense stips to GX JPM121.

MR. FERGENSON: Great. Thank you. Thank you, your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Continued on next page)

938

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

(In open court)

KIMBERLY ESPINOZA,

called as a witness by the Government,

having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Espinoza.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Where do you work?

A. At the FBI.

Q. What's your position at the FBI?

A. I'm a forensic accountant.

Q. And what are some of your duties or responsibilities as a

forensic accountant at the FBI?

A. I review and analyze financial information, mostly bank

records.

Q. And how long have you been doing that work?

A. For 16 years.

Q. Now, Ms. Espinoza, besides your testimony today and your

preparation for that testimony, did you have any involvement in

this case?

A. I did not.

Q. In advance of your testimony, were you asked to review

certain government exhibits and summarize the information in

them?

939

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Did you prepare or help prepare and review for accuracy

some summary charts?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Are those charts based on voluminous records?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. What type or types of exhibits are the charts based on?

A. Bank records.

Q. Now who decided which exhibits you reviewed and what

information to include on the charts?

A. The prosecutors did.

Q. Am I one of those prosecutors?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you provided the opportunity to make revisions to the

charts to make sure they were accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make revisions to the charts?

A. I did.

Q. And after you revised the charts, are they now all

accurate?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And Ms. Espinoza, just to be clear, did you review all the

evidence gathered in this case or just the charts and the

exhibits those charts are based on?

A. Just the charts and exhibits that it's based on.

940

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, at this time the

government offers a stipulation agreed to between the parties

that's marked as Government Exhibit Stip, S-T-I-P, 14.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit Stip 14 received in evidence)

MR. FERGENSON: And I'll just read the stipulation, at

least part of it.

It is hereby agreed between the parties that the

below-listed exhibits were lawfully obtained by the government

and are authentic records of the entity listed in Column A that

were made at or near the time by, or from information

transmitted by, a person with knowledge of the matters set

forth in the records; such records were kept in the course of a

regularly conducted activity; and it was the regular practice

of that entity to make the records.

And the government will offer——actually, Ms. Loftus,

if you want to scroll to page 5.

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Ms. Espinoza, do you see under column A, there's an entry

towards the middle, it says JPMorgan Chase Bank?

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, if you want to scroll

up to page 3.

Q. And at the top, in column A, Ms. Espinoza, do you see

there's an entity named Citibank, N.A.?

941

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. So the government will now

offer Government Exhibits CIT14 and CIT47. The government also

offers Government Exhibits JPM118 through 121.

MR. SCHIRICK: No objection.

THE COURT: They are admitted.

(Government's Exhibits CIT14, CIT47, JPM118-JPM121

received in evidence)

MR. FERGENSON: Now, Ms. Loftus, if we could show just

the witness now what's marked as Government Exhibit Z1.

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Ms. Espinoza, what is this?

A. These are the exhibits that I reviewed and maintained.

Q. These are the charts you helped review?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you review all the exhibits that this chart is based

on?

A. Yes.

Q. And is this——are these charts accurate?

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: Government offers Government Exhibit

Z1.

MR. SCHIRICK: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Government's Exhibit Z1 received in evidence)

942

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

MR. FERGENSON: Could we please publish, Ms. Loftus.

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Now, Ms. Espinoza, generally speaking, what do these charts

show?

A. These charts show an analysis of mainly two bank accounts

for Saraca Media Group, so it's going to show all the incoming

money and all the outcoming money from those two accounts.

Q. Now looking just at this first chart here, please explain

what we're looking at on this slide.

A. This is one of the bank accounts that I reviewed. The

account title is Saraca Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar.

It's a Chase account ending in 5601. And as of April 1, 2020,

the beginning balance in the account was $206,133.

Q. Now Saraca Media Group Inc., do you know what that is?

A. I do not.

Q. It also has a name d/b/a Himalaya Dollar. What's d/b/a?

A. Doing business as.

Q. Do you know what Himalaya Dollar is?

A. I do not.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Now let's go to the next

page, Ms. Loftus, please.

Q. Ms. Espinoza, could you read the title of this slide,

please.

A. Chase 5601: Signature Cards. And they're dated July 24,

2018, and May 21, 2020.

943

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

Q. Chase 5601, is that the same account on the first slide we

looked at?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. What's a signature card?

A. Signature card is a document provided by the bank. It

gives all the account information, like the account title, the

number, when the account was opened, and then also the signer

on the account.

Q. What's an account signer?

A. It's the person who's authorized to use the bank account.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could zoom in on the

left signature card first.

All right. Now, Ms. Espinoza, just focusing you first

on the top left here, what's the account title?

A. Saraca Media Group Inc.

Q. And beneath that, there's a business address, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now focusing you on the top right, it lists an account

number. What are the last four listed there?

A. 5601.

Q. And beneath that, a couple lines, it says Date Opened.

What was the date this account was opened?

A. July 24, 2018.

Q. And focusing you towards the bottom of what's blown up

here, who is the signatory on this account?

944

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. Yanping Wang.

Q. Do you know who that is?

A. I do not.

Q. What was her title?

A. Acting secretary.

Q. And what's the date she signed this?

A. July 24, 2018.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Ms. Loftus, if we could

zoom in on the right signature page.

Q. The one on the left was 2018, right? What's the date of

the one on the right?

A. May 21, 2020.

Q. Okay. Now focusing you again on the top left, what's the

account title?

A. Saraca Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar.

Q. And focusing you on the right, what are the last four?

A. 5601.

Q. So same account, there's now a d/b/a on the account title?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And again, on the signature page, who's the

signatory on this account?

A. Yanping Wang.

Q. What's her title?

A. President.

Q. And what was the date she signed this?

945

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. May 21, 2020.

Q. So Ms. Espinoza, throughout this account for the exhibits

you looked at, the authorized person was Yanping Wang.

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to the third

page, Ms. Loftus.

Q. All right. Now are we just back at the first page that we

had looked at originally?

A. Yes.

Q. And on April 1, 2020, what's the beginning balance in the

Saraca 5601 account?

A. $206,133.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to the next

slide, Ms. Loftus, please.

Q. Okay. Now Ms. Espinoza, please explain what we're looking

at on this slide.

A. This is showing, for the same Saraca account, 5601, from

April 1, 2020, through April 30, 2020, there are deposits

totaling $32,543,535, and it consists of 291 deposit

transactions. And they have references such as "GTV," "Stock,"

"Investment," and "Capital."

Q. There's some bracketed text at the bottom that says

"including misspellings and similar text." What does that

mean?

A. Some of the references or the memos had some misspellings,

946

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

and then additional words added to the front or the back.

Q. And I should have asked, when it says with references to,

what do you mean by reference?

A. A lot of the transactions were wire transfers, and so a

reference is similar to like a memo on a check, where you could

put——the sender could put a reason for why they are sending the

money.

MR. FERGENSON: Let's go to the next slide, please,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. Ms. Espinoza, please explain what we're looking at on this

slide.

A. These are four examples of those wire transfer deposits

that I was just speaking about, so there's two of them that are

occurring on April 24th, one on May 1st, and one on May 12th,

and the amounts are to the right, 300,000, 200,000, etc. And

then highlighted is the memos or references that I was just

referring to. So the top one says GTV Investment, the next one

says Investment Share Capital, the next one says Attention to

Mr. Miles Guo, and the last one says For GTV Stock.

Q. And are these all the reference lines or just some

examples?

A. Just some examples.

Q. Do you know what GTV is?

A. I do not.

MR. FERGENSON: Let's go to the next slide, please,

947

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

Ms. Loftus.

Q. Okay. Now what's shown on this slide now, Ms. Espinoza?

A. So this is the same Saraca account ending in 5601, so after

those deposits, for that one month, on April 30th, the ending

balance in the account is $32,474,168.

MR. FERGENSON: And let's go to the next slide,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. All right. Now what's shown here, Ms. Espinoza?

A. This is showing, for the same account, the Chase 5601, from

May 1, 2020, through May 29, 2020, there were deposits totaling

$291,554,689, it consisted of 2,446 deposit transactions, and

again, there were references to "GTV," "Stock," "Investment,"

"Private Placement," "Capital."

MR. FERGENSON: Let's go to the next slide, please,

Ms. Loftus.

Q. All right. So Ms. Espinoza, after those additional

incoming deposits referencing things like stock or private

placement, how much money is in the 5601 account now?

A. As of May 29, 2020, the ending balance is $313,213,772.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, please go to the next

slide.

Q. How much money was in this account as of June 3, 2020?

A. $928,401.

Q. And actually, I should ask, what was the balance on the

account the day before that?

948

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. 324,778,316.

Q. So approximately how much money left this account on

June 3rd?

A. About 323 to $324 million.

Q. Okay. Let's look at those transactions.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could go to the next

slide, please.

You could scroll up. Thank you.

Q. All right. Ms. Espinoza, what's shown on this slide?

A. So this is that account, the Saraca Chase 5601 account. On

the top left, it's showing the same ending balance of

324 million, approximately, on June 2nd; and then this is

showing the outgoing transactions on June 3rd. So the three

red highlights are transfers to a checking account ending in

2038. So there's one transaction for a hundred million

dollars, another for $20 million, and another for $5 million.

MR. FERGENSON: And——thank you, Ms. Loftus.

Q. So Ms. Espinoza, focusing you on the 2038 there, what does

the 2038 mean?

A. Those are the last four digits of a bank account.

Q. And are you able to tell whether that bank account was also

at Chase or at another bank?

A. It's at Chase.

Q. And approximately how much in total was transferred to that

account on June 3rd?

949

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. $125 million.

Q. Okay. I want to focus on those transactions.

MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, if we could go to the

next slide, please.

Q. All right. So what new information is on this slide,

Ms. Espinoza?

A. So this is adding that 2038 Chase Bank account. Looking at

the bank records for that account, the account title is Saraca

Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar, and the account was

opened on June 3, 2020, which is the date of the transfers. So

as of that date, the beginning balance was $0.

Q. So both of these accounts are in the name of Saraca Media

Group d/b/a Himalaya Dollar, right?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. All right. Let's——and they're both at the same bank,

correct?

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, go to the next page,

please.

Q. All right. Now what's shown on this page, Ms. Espinoza?

A. This is the Chase Saraca account ending in 2038. This is

the signature card for that account.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we could just blow up

the——I don't know——top 2/3, make it a little easier to read.

Q. Now what was the date of the $125 million in transfers to

950

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

this account that we were looking at?

A. June 3, 2020.

Q. And what date was this account opened?

A. June 3, 2020.

Q. And who is the signatory on this account?

A. Yanping Wang.

Q. And what was her title?

A. President.

Q. What date did she sign this?

A. June 3, 2020.

Q. All the same date.

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to the next

slide, please.

Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Espinoza, you testified there were three

transfers on this date, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What's shown on this slide?

A. This is the first transfer, so it was a hundred million,

20 million, and 5 million, so this is the first transfer of a

hundred million dollars, which occurred at 3:17 p.m. on June 3,

2020.

Q. And this is the first transfer.

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Chronologically, is this the first transfer?

951

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: Okay. Let's go to the next slide,

please.

Q. What are we looking at here, Ms. Espinoza?

A. These are the account details provided by the bank for that

$100 million transaction on June 3, 2020.

Q. And let me focus you first on the top left, so the bold

text. What's the date and time listed there?

A. June 3, 2020, 3:17 p.m.

Q. And to the right of, you know——to the right of that, it

says, Transferpmtadd. What does it say to the right of that?

A. Yvettewang2018.

Q. Now there's text highlighted in red, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that text?

A. That is a memo, similar to a reference, and it states "GTV

Private Placement Fund."

Q. Do you know what the GTV private placement is,

Ms. Espinoza?

A. I do not.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go to the next

slide, please, Ms. Loftus.

Q. Okay. Now what's shown on this slide, Ms. Espinoza?

A. So this is what was shown previously. The 100——towards the

top, Saraca transfer of $100 million to another Saraca account

952

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

on June 3, 2020, and then there's $100 million transfer two

days later, on June 5, 2020, to Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

at Citibank.

Q. And what are the last four digits of that Hayman Hong Kong

Opportunities bank account?

A. 9681.

Q. And Ms. Espinoza, I should ask, in the bottom center here,

there's a yellow box that list things like GX JPM119. What

does that show?

A. Those are the government exhibits that I looked at in order

to obtain the information on the chart.

Q. All right. Now I should also ask, do you know what Hayman

Hong Kong Opportunities Fund is?

A. I do not.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. Let's go the next slide,

please, Ms. Loftus.

Q. Okay. What's the new information in this slide,

Ms. Espinoza?

A. It's showing the tree——sorry——the three transfers between

Saraca. So there was one for $100 million at 3:17 p.m.,

another for $20 million at 3:18 p.m., and then another for

$5 million at 4:06 p.m., all on June 3, 2020.

MR. FERGENSON: And then——and Ms. Loftus, if we could,

maybe we can blow up the top right box.

Q. Okay. So $125 million goes to this account on June 3rd

953

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Direct

from the, you know, the box on the left, right?

A. Right. Correct.

Q. Why is the balance $138,200,000?

A. There is an additional amount that came from another

account.

Q. And there's an asterisk here, right?

A. Yes, and there's——

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, if we zoom out. And maybe

we can blow up the yellow box down there.

Q. And could you please read the asterisk.

A. On June 3, 2020, Saraca Media Group JPMC account ending in

8656 transferred 13.2 million to Saraca Media Group JPMC

account ending in 2038.

Q. So another Saraca account transferred money to the 2038

account?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was about $13 million?

A. Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: Let's go to the next slide, please.

Q. All right. Now what's new on this slide?

A. This slide just totals those three transactions, so it

shows 125 million at the top between the two Saraca accounts.

MR. FERGENSON: And Ms. Loftus, let's go to the next

page, please.

Q. And what's new here, Ms. Espinoza?

954

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

A. So on June 3, 2020, there's also a $200 million transfer

between Saraca Media Group, the Chase account ending in 5601,

$200 million that's transferred at 6:12 p.m. on June 3, 2020 to

GTV Media Group Inc. d/b/a 7-Coin at Citibank.

Q. Now this d/b/a 7-Coin, do you know what 7-Coin is?

A. I do not.

MR. FERGENSON: All right. So could we please go to

the next slide, Ms. Loftus.

Q. What's new here, Ms. Espinoza?

A. There's an additional transfer from the Saraca Media Group

Chase account ending in 2038 for $38 million on June 9, 2020,

to GTV Media Group Inc. d/b/a 7-Coin.

Q. All right. So of the money that went into these two Saraca

accounts, approximately how much went to GTV Media Group Inc.?

A. $238 million.

Q. Where did the remaining $100 million go?

A. Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities.

MR. FERGENSON: May I have a moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FERGENSON: No further questions. Thank you.

THE COURT: Cross-examination?

MR. SCHIRICK: Thanks, your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. SCHIRICK:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Espinoza.

955

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

A. Good afternoon.

Q. When did the government lawyers first ask you to testify in

this case?

A. About two to three weeks ago.

Q. You didn't know anything about the case before the

prosecutors reached out to you?

A. I heard of the name GTV Media, but I don't know any further

information other than that.

Q. Okay. But you didn't have any substantive information, you

just heard it from somewhere.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Had you ever heard of the name Miles Guo before the

government reached out to you?

A. I heard of that name as well.

Q. But again, just because you had heard it from office talk,

right, you didn't know anything about him?

A. Yeah, I don't know anything about him.

Q. You weren't part of the FBI's investigative team in this

matter?

A. Just for the testimony I gave today.

Q. But the investigative team.

A. No, I'm not.

Q. And you weren't part of the prosecution team.

A. No.

Q. And you didn't investigate any of the money transfers that

956

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

you just testified to a moment ago. Putting the emphasis on

investigation. Did you investigate any of those transfers that

you testified to?

A. No, I didn't investigate.

Q. In fact, you haven't really had any involvement in this

case, I believe, as you testified to on direct, apart from

prepping for your testimony here today and then giving

testimony; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So really the only thing that you know about this case is

what the government has told you, right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. It's not what was told to me. I actually reviewed a lot of

bank records in order to perform the analysis.

Q. Fair enough. So the only thing that you know about this

case is what the government has told you or told you to read;

is that correct?

A. Well, what the government has provided to me, but yes.

Q. Fair enough. So the only things that you know are what the

government has told you or provided to you.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you met with the prosecutors before today?

A. I have.

Q. How many times?

957

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

A. It was two phone calls and one in-person meeting.

Q. Okay. And do you remember when the first time was?

A. Approximately two to three weeks ago.

Q. Okay. So it's fair to say that you've been involved in

this case for no more than two to three weeks.

A. Correct.

Q. And you're trained as a forensic accountant, correct?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Okay. And where did you go to school?

A. Queens College.

Q. And then did you work somewhere before you joined the FBI?

A. I did.

Q. And where was that?

A. I worked at the New York State Attorney General's Office

and I worked for a company called RGL Forensics.

MR. SCHIRICK: Okay. All right. If we could please

pull up Government Exhibit Z1.

Q. And you just testified to this chart a moment ago when you

were talking to Mr. Fergenson, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And can you tell me who created the first draft of

this chart?

A. So there were various versions of the exhibits. I was

given version 5. I know the FBI agents and other forensic

accountant, the prosecutors worked together in putting some of

958

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

these together.

Q. Okay. So the first——the first version of this document was

put together by someone other than you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And it sounds like perhaps the first five versions of this

document were put together by someone other than you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And it sounds like there were multiple members of the

government team, including lawyers, who helped put it together

before you reviewed this document; is that correct, to your

understanding?

A. Before I reviewed it, yes.

Q. And perhaps multiple other agents who contributed to the

first five drafts of this before you saw it, to your

understanding?

A. Before I saw the original, I just want to make that clear,

and not the final version, yes.

Q. Understood. Before you saw any draft of this document,

multiple other people had input to it before it was presented

to you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And after you were presented with the first draft, you and

the government lawyers talked about this exhibit, right?

A. I'm sorry. Me and who?

Q. The folks sitting here at counsel's table for the

959

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

government.

A. No. Actually, I spoke with the agents and another forensic

accountant about it.

Q. Okay. So you spoke to other agents and another forensic

accountant for the FBI before you spoke to government lawyers?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Did a time come when you spoke to the government

lawyers about this chart?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when was that?

A. Last Saturday.

Q. Okay. And did they make suggested revisions to the chart

when you spoke to them?

A. No, I actually made suggested revisions to the charts.

Q. Okay. So, understood. Is it fair to say that the chart

was created and mostly completed before you had an opportunity

to comment to it?

A. It was mostly completed and then I made edits to it.

Q. Right. But your edits were relatively small in relation to

the work that had been done before it was presented to you,

right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. I don't know. I feel like it's relative. They were

important to me, the changes that I made. I changed an account

960

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

number, changed some amounts, so——

Q. Understood. You didn't go into PowerPoint and create this

document, though, right?

A. I went into PowerPoint and edited the document.

Q. And edited it, right?

A. Correct.

Q. It was presented to you as mostly complete, as you said

before, by the time you got to it.

A. Yes, a different version.

Q. Fair enough. I'd like to just talk briefly about the chart

and some of the information underlying the chart. Is it fair

to say that the chart focuses on a period of time April through

June of 2020?

A. April through June 3rd——well, June 9, 2020.

Q. Fair enough. I was going to just use the months for ease.

So April to June 2020.

A. Sure.

Q. Roughly.

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Okay. And you testified that you reviewed the underlying

bank records for your testimony here today?

A. Yes.

Q. And you reviewed the underlying bank records that are

cited, as Mr. Fergenson pointed out, in the summary chart?

A. Yes.

961

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. Okay. And did you review any Saraca bank records from

JPMorgan that predated April 2020?

A. No.

Q. And did you review any JPMorgan bank records for Saraca

that postdated June 2020?

A. I don't believe so. I think it ended at June.

Q. Okay. So you have no idea, right, whether the bank account

at JPMorgan held by Saraca held substantial funds either before

or after the time period that you focused on, right?

A. Yeah, I just knew the beginning balance as of April.

Q. Okay. Apart from the Chase accounts that you looked at in

connection with helping to edit this chart, how many bank

accounts did Saraca have in the United States?

A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. Apart from the bank accounts that you looked at in

connection with helping to edit this chart, do you know how

many other bank accounts Saraca had in the United States?

A. No. I only focused on the Chase accounts that I reviewed.

Q. Okay. And what about foreign bank accounts; didn't look at

any foreign bank accounts for Saraca, correct?

A. I was not provided with that, no.

Q. Okay. So at bottom, no information other than the

information you were provided with by the government is

reflected in this chart, right?

A. Correct.

962

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. All right. Let's just go back to the chart briefly. I'd

like to just take you through it and review a few of the

slides, if that's all right.

Overall, is it fair to say that we're talking

about——this chart, that is, is talking about money that came

into Saraca from the sale of GTV shares?

A. I do not know. This is money that came into Saraca. I'm

just showing the incoming money and the outgoing money.

Q. Okay. So you don't know that Saraca sold shares that it

held in GTV and that after selling that a portion of——

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You testified on direct about a private placement; is that

right?

A. That was——

Q. About your knowledge of a private placement?

A. That was one of the memos on the checks.

Q. Okay. Do you know when the private placement began?

A. I don't know anything about a private placement.

Q. All right. Let's just walk through the chart.

I'm going to first just focus on the first nine pages

of Government Exhibit Z-1. Which should be in front of

everyone.

If we look at page 1, is it fair to say that this just

shows the opening balance of this first JPMorgan account on

963

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

April 1, 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then on page 2, this just shows who has

signature authority for that account?

A. Yes.

Q. And it looks like that signature authority was updated in

May of 2020?

A. Yes.

Q. And focusing on the——

MR. SCHIRICK: Yeah, if you could just blow that back

up. Thank you.

And also blow up the same line on the left-hand side

of the screen. The left-hand signature card. Thank you.

Q. And can you see here that, as you covered on direct, it's

the same individual is listed as the signatory to this account,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Yanping Wang?

A. Yes.

Q. And it looks here as though she's just changed positions at

the company, right?

A. Yeah, it's a different title.

Q. So does that sort of explain why she might have updated the

signature card?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

964

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Do you have any understanding as to why one might update a

signature card on a bank account?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Okay. And if we turn to page 3, this is just the same as

page 1, right? No difference?

A. Correct.

Q. So it's sort of a dupe, right?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. So it's a dupe, it's duplicative, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then turning to pages 4, 5, and 6——first of all,

take page 4, on this slide, it just shows how much money came

into this bank account in April 2020. That's it, really.

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Well, there's a lot of details here, but yeah, it shows the

32 approximate million that came in in April.

Q. Right. Overall, that's just——that's what it's here for;

it's intended to show how much came in in April, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then on page 5, this is just a little bit more

detail on the same thing, right?

A. Yes.

965

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. Okay. And then on page 6, this just shows the balance at

the end of April, right?

A. It does.

Q. Okay. Now let's take pages 7, 8, and 9.

Pages 7, 8, and 9 are really just the same thing that

we've looked at for pages 4, 5, and 6, but this time it's for

May of 2020, right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that pages 1 through 9 of this

19-page chart just show money coming into Saraca's JPM

accounts?

MR. FERGENSON: Object to form.

THE COURT: It's overruled. You can answer.

A. Yeah, I mean, it shows all the deposits that came into the

account. It's very simplified in that it's——yeah, it's showing

the incoming money into the account, but there's a lot of

detail behind it.

Q. I understand there's more detail in the chart. My question

is: Don't pages 1-9 just show money coming into this account?

MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.

Q. For April——

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. All right. Now let's look at pages 10-14.

Page 10 here is something of a cover sheet that just

shows what's detailed in the following pages; is that correct?

966

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

A. Well, it shows the three transactions which we are about to

go over.

Q. Right. And——

A. And the following pages.

Q. Sure. And maybe it would be helpful——I'm sorry. We should

have just scrolled forward for you so you could see what was

coming up next.

MR. SCHIRICK: Maybe go one more. And one more.

Q. Did you have an opportunity to look at that?

A. Yeah, I mean, there's some additional information there,

like the signature card, but yeah, it is showing there's

$100 million transfer, which is one of the three transfers.

Q. Right. Okay.

MR. SCHIRICK: So if we go back up to page 10. So

this——I'm sorry. Let's move now to page 11.

Q. So this shows the opening of a new account at Chase by

Saraca; is that right?

A. Yes, the box to the right shows that.

Q. And it's in the exact same name as the other account; is

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Saraca Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar, right?

A. Yes.

MR. SCHIRICK: Okay. Let's flip to page 12.

Q. Now page 12 just shows who has signature authority for this

967

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

new Chase account, right?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And it's the same person who had signatory authority for

the first Chase accounts, right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And in fact, it's the——reflects the same title for Ms. Wang

as the most updated signature card for the first account,

right?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Okay. We can go back to page 2 if you want. But do you

recall that?

A. I believe so, yeah.

Q. Okay. All right. Now let's just focus a little bit on

what happened on June 3rd.

MR. SCHIRICK: If we can go back to page 10.

Q. So I believe you testified on direct that these

transactions on June 3rd reflected outgoing transfers. Do you

recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Aren't these just online transfers from one account

at JP Morgan to another account at JPMorgan?

A. Yeah, those three that are highlighted are online transfers

to another checking.

Q. Right. So it's just moving money from one of Saraca's

accounts and working it into another one of Saraca's accounts

968

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

within JPMorgan, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so there's nothing going out of the bank, right?

A. Not at that point yet, but eventually, yes.

Q. Fair enough. This is the one we're focusing on now. These

three transactions, nothing going out of the bank, right?

A. I'm not sure what you mean by that, because they are coming

out of the 5601 to go to the 2038 account.

Q. Understood. My question is: There are no transfers

leaving JPMorgan Chase, right?

A. The overall bank?

Q. Correct.

A. No.

Q. Okay. These are purely internal transfers within JPMorgan,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't this the same thing as when I go into my online

account to move funds from a savings account to a checking

account?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes. It's a transfer.

Q. Right. It's the same thing, right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

969

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. Okay. So these are sister accounts within the same bank,

held by the same company.

MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the characterization.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. They are the same bank account names at the same bank with

different account numbers.

Q. Okay. So this——these don't——these three transactions we're

looking at on slide 10 don't reflect wire transfers, right?

A. I mean, it's a transfer.

Q. You're aware of the difference between a transfer and a

wire transfer, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. A wire transfer, am I right, is an outbound transaction

from a bank outside of the bank?

A. Yes, but these are still transfers in between the accounts.

Q. So my question——so if I was unclear, my question is: These

are not wire transfers, the three transactions we're looking on

on slide 10, that are highlighted.

MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHIRICK: I'm not sure I got an answer to that

question, your Honor.

Q. Are these ACH transfers?

A. These are online transfers.

Q. So is that no, they're not ACH transfers?

970

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

A. That is how JPMorgan Chase characterizes them, as online

transfers.

MR. SCHIRICK: Okay. Can we please pull up Government

Exhibit JPM119.

At 48.

And if we could please just zoom in on the top of the

document, the transfers that are——yup, there we go. If you

just move it up a little bit, please, to highlight the——thank

you.

BY MR. SCHIRICK:

Q. So can you see this document?

A. Yes.

Q. And doesn't this reflect——I'm sorry. Withdrawn.

Are these——is this document among the documents that

are the source for the information that's in the chart?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay. And these are among the documents that you looked at

as part of editing the chart?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you can see here that all three transfers are

characterized as online transfer to checking?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Does that make it clear to you that these are purely

internal transfers within JPMorgan?

MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.

971

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHIRICK: Okay. If we could go back to the

summary chart. Page 14, please.

Q. So this particular slide shows some additional detail on

that internal transfer at Chase, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you testified to that on direct, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, in this internal transfer, what's written in the

memo section when this money gets zapped from one account to

another?

A. GTV Private Placement Fund.

Q. Right. Do you agree with me that that's an accurate

description of the funds, or you don't know?

A. An accurate description? That is the description provided

by the bank. And the bank records are accurate, to my

knowledge.

Q. Okay. So you don't have any reason to believe that this

was an inaccurate description of the funds that were

transferred internally at JPMorgan?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So the transfer is made from one account at JPMorgan

to another account; the source of the funds is totally

transparent as between those two accounts, right?

A. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

972

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. Well, there can't be any question, when money is moved

purely from one account at a bank to another account at a bank,

where the money came from, right?

A. Yeah, no, it says which account it came from and which

account it went to, if that's what you're stating.

Q. So the source of the funds is transparent, right?

A. It's——it's in the details, yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And the nature of the funds is described

in this memo line that we're looking at on page 14 of this

document, right?

A. I don't know about the nature of the funds. That is the

memo that is inputted by the person that made the transfer.

Q. So if we look at the balance of the chart beginning with

page 15, would you agree with me that the remaining pages of

the chart show what actual money flows out of Saraca's bank

account?

A. Yes, the remaining charts show outgoing money.

Q. Okay.

A. From Saraca.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. From Saraca.

Q. Thank you. And would you agree with me that there are two

main flows of money out of Saraca's bank account?

A. There are two entities that received the money, but there

are several——it consists of several transactions.

973

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. So my question is: Are there two principal flows in, in

two directions of the money?

A. Well, the flows would be the arrows to me, and so there is

one, two, three——there's like four arrows and the end chart.

Q. Is it fair to say that between June 3rd and June 9th,

$238 million from Saraca are moved to GTV Media Group?

A. Could you go through the last exhibit, the last slide.

Q. Sure.

A. And could you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. Is it fair to say that between June 3rd and

June 9th, $238 million go from Saraca to GTV Media Group?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Okay. And is it also true that on June 5th, there is a

flow of funds from Saraca to Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities

Fund, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's in the amount of $100 million, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when the money that leaves JPMorgan and goes to

Hayman, that money comes from an account at JPMorgan that is

titled identically to the first account at JPMorgan, right?

A. Yes, they're both Saraca accounts.

Q. Okay. And the account signatory on this account, Ms. Wang,

is exactly the same as on the first account.

A. Of the Saraca account, yes.

974

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Q. So no less information is available to Hayman in this

transfer than if the funds had simply come from the first

account, right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Ms. Espinoza, nothing about the funds coming from this

second account at JPMorgan concealed anything; is that right?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Does this flow of funds obscure the source of funds in any

way?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, if I could just have a

moment.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, may I approach.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHIRICK: Oh, no, I meant just approach the

witness, your Honor, not a sidebar.

Your Honor, it turns out we need a sidebar.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Continued on next page)

975

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

(At the sidebar)

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, I would like to mark this

as Defense Summary Exhibit 1, and we would show it to the

witness as our only summary chart of the flow of funds that

essentially summarizes what's in her summary chart. And the

government objects.

THE COURT: Objects?

MR. SCHIRICK: Yes.

THE COURT: How come?

MR. FERGENSON: They didn't——this was the first we

heard they were marking it as an exhibit. They wanted to show

it to her and ask her if it's accurate. There's no failure of

recollection. It's not being used to refresh. If they're

trying to offer it as a summary exhibit, I guess they can ask

her if it's accurate, but we'll see what she says. If she says

this is accurate, then they can seek to offer it, I guess.

MR. SCHIRICK: That's my point, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. So on that prior issue of

hypotheticals to Ms. Schottenheimer, if the prosecution plans

to ask, say, for example, Mr. Bass or some other witness in

this category this type of hypothetical, I'd like you to

provide me with the authority.

MR. FINKEL: Understood. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

976

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

(In open court)

MR. SCHIRICK: May I approach the witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. SCHIRICK: I'm handing the witness a copy of

what's been marked as Defense Summary Exhibit 1.

BY MR. SCHIRICK:

Q. Just take a moment to review that.

Ms. Espinoza, have you had an opportunity to review

what's been marked as Defense Summary Exhibit No. 1?

A. Yes.

Q. Does this describe the flow of funds that is also described

in the summary exhibit that the government asked you about on

direct?

A. Well, it removes some of the flow of funds and some of the

transfers.

Q. Well, it certainly removes some of the detail, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Would you agree for me that the net effect of the transfers

is the same in this exhibit as in the exhibit that the

government introduced?

A. The outgoing totals——I don't know about net effect, but the

outgoing totals to GTV Media and to Hayman are the same

amounts.

Q. Okay. That's a better formulation, so I will adopt your

formulation.

977

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

Are the outgoing totals, the net amounts that go to

Hayman and GTV correct in this exhibit?

A. Yes. The outgoing amounts are the same amounts.

MR. SCHIRICK: Okay. Your Honor, the defense offers

this exhibit into evidence.

MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, may I have voir dire for a

moment.

THE COURT: You may.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Ms. Espinoza, is that summary chart an accurate summary of

the final summary of GX Z1, the summary chart you testified to?

A. No, it's taking out a lot of the details and some of the

transfers.

MR. FERGENSON: The government objects, your Honor.

THE COURT: So are you seeking to admit it for the

limited purpose that the witness has stated?

MR. SCHIRICK: Correct, your Honor. We're not

offering it——clearly it doesn't have the detail that the

government's exhibit has, but the witness has testified that

the net amount of the flows in the exhibit that we've offered

is correct.

MR. FERGENSON: We object, because the witness just

testified it's not an accurate summary of the summary that's in

evidence, your Honor.

978

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Cross

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, my summary doesn't need to

be an accurate version of their summary. I'm allowed to have

my own summary. The defense can have its own summary.

THE COURT: So is your question whether or not this

chart shows the net outflow; is that the question?

MR. SCHIRICK: Correct. The witness has testified

that the amount of outflows from the JPMorgan account to Hayman

on one hand and to GTV on the other hand are correct, are

accurate in that exhibit, and we offer it for that purpose.

THE COURT: All righty. It is admitted then.

MR. SCHIRICK: Thank you, your Honor.

(Defendant's Exhibit Summary 1 received in evidence)

MR. SCHIRICK: We have only——because we just handwrote

that, we have only one copy. We will provide additional copies

to the Court. Can we publish it.

THE COURT: It's 2:44.

MR. SCHIRICK: Thank you, your Honor. We're finishing

up momentarily.

BY MR. SCHIRICK:

Q. So Ms. Espinoza, does this chart——again, does this

accurately summarize the flow of funds at issue in the chart

that the government introduced?

A. It shows the correct amounts that went to GTV Media and to

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities, but again, it leaves out a lot

of the details about the transactions.

979

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4 Espinoza - Redirect

Q. Understood. But this is really pretty simple, isn't it, at

the end of the day?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. She's answered the question.

MR. SCHIRICK: Thank you, your Honor. No further

questions.

MR. FERGENSON: I have two questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty.

MR. FERGENSON: Ms. Loftus, can we put up GX Z1.

GX Z1, at 19, please.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Ms. Espinoza, is there more information on this chart than

the handwritten one the defense just showed you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this chart accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it have all the relevant information?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. You were also asked a question about how the $100 million

transfer from Saraca to another Saraca account had the memo

line GTV Private Placement Fund. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Focusing you on the $100 million transfer from Saraca to

Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities, did you review any records that

980

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4

showed a memo line of GTV Private Placement Fund?

MR. SCHIRICK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. I don't recall the wire details for that transaction.

MR. FERGENSON: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty. Let me——recross?

MR. SCHIRICK: Briefly, your Honor.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. SCHIRICK:

Q. You just testified, Ms. Espinoza, that you didn't review

any wire details for that internal JPMorgan transfer, correct?

MR. FERGENSON: Objection, your Honor,

mischaracterizing.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHIRICK: I believe she used the word "wire,"

your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Was the internal transfer at JPMorgan a wire?

MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHIRICK: No further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: All righty. Nothing further.

MR. FERGENSON: Correct.

(Witness excused)

THE COURT: Members of the jury, it's 2:46. Time to

981

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O5V1GUO4

go. I just want to remind you that you're not allowed to

discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else. You

can't permit anyone to discuss the case in your presence. In

addition, you're not allowed to research anything about the

case. It's very tempting, now that you've heard some witness

testimony, to want to go to Google or the library or any other

source to do some research. You cannot research anything

related to the case, and you cannot listen to any media reports

about the case from any source.

Have a good weekend. I look forward to welcoming you

back on Monday, promptly at 9:30.

THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: You may be seated.

Is there anything before we reconvene on Monday?

MR. FERGENSON: Not from the government, your Honor.

MS. SHROFF: No, your Honor, not for the defense.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Have a good weekend.

(Adjourned to June 3, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.)

982

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

INDEX OF EXAMINATION

Examination of

Pag

STEELE SCHOTTENHEIMER

789Direct By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . . .

849Cross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . . .

924Redirect By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . .

932Recross By Mr. Kamaraju . . . . . . . . . . .

935Redirect By Mr. Finkel . . . . . . . . . . . .

KIMBERLY ESPINOZA

938Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .

954Cross By Mr. Schirick . . . . . . . . . . . .

979Redirect By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . .

980Recross By Mr. Schirick . . . . . . . . . . .

983

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Received

795 HN-26, HN-29, HN-35, HN-41, . . . . . . . . .

HN-57, HN-59, HN-69, HN-70,

HN-71, HN-79, HN-80, HN-82,

HN-86, HN-98, HN-124, HN-168,

HN-193, HN-208, HN-220,

HN-221, HN-222, HN-223

941 CIT14, CIT47, JPM118-JPM121 . . . . . . . .

Z1 941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SM-08 885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stip 14 940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HN-33 800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HN-37 905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HN-43 814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HN-51 912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SW107 826 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SW108 828 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DEFENDANT EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Received

Summary 1 978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Translated Text(简体中文翻译)

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第1/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
 
 
美国 纽约南区 联邦地方法院 
 ------------------------------------------x 
美国政府,
控方    23 Cr. 118 (AT)  
 
郭文贵, 
                            辩方
 ------------------------------------------x 
纽约,纽约州  
2024 年 5 月 31 日  
上午 9:00  
 
审理法官:阿纳利萨·托雷斯法官, 
 主审法官 
-及陪审团  
                                                                        
出席人员  
 
 
DAMIAN WILLIAMS 
              纽约南区联邦检察官  
代表:      MICAH F. FERGENSON  
                 RYAN B. FINKEL  
JUSTIN HORTON  
JULIANA N. MURRAY  
助理联邦检察官

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第2/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
SABRINA P. SHROFF  
被告人律师  
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP  
被告人律师  
代表:       SIDHARDHA 卡马拉珠  
               MATTHEW BARKAN  
ALSTON & BIRD LLP  
               被告人律师  
代表: E. SCOTT SCHIRICK  
 
其他在场人员:  
Isabel Loftus,联邦检察官办公室律师助理  
Robert Stout,联邦调查局特工  
Ruben Montilla,被告方律师助理  
Tuo Huang,译员(普通话)  
Shi Feng,译员(普通话)  
Yu Mark Tang,译员(普通话)

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第3/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
(庭审继续；陪审团不在场） 
法官说：早上好。 
请各位报上姓名。 
检方律师芬克说：早上好，法官大人。Ryan Finkel、Juliana Murray、Micah 
Fergenson、Justin  Horton，他正在上来——反馈，对不起——代表政府。我们还有来自美国检
察官办公室的助理律师 Isabel 洛夫特斯和联邦调查局特工 Robert Stout。 
辩方律师卡马拉珠说：早上好，法官大人。西德·卡马拉珠和萨布丽娜·施洛夫，
代表郭先生。郭先生在律师席与我们在一起。 
施洛夫女士说：早上好，法官大人。 
法官说：请坐下。 
昨天，法院听取了海曼资本管理公司投资者关系总监 Steele  Schottenheimer 的
证词。政府希望从肖腾海默女士那里获得的证词是，投资于海曼资本的香港机会基金是否会“对
中国共产党产生负面影响”，并成为“打击中共的手段”，或者这种投资仅仅是“对宏观经济环境表
现的赌注”。这是政府在 ECF第 369号文件中的来信内容。 
根据规则 701，普通证人只能在以下情况下提供意见证词：基于证人的感知，
是合理的，有助于清楚理解证人的证词或确定有争议的事实，且不基于规则 702范围内的科
学、技术或其他专业知识。双方在信件中找到了一些共同点。 
政府认为，根据她作为海曼资本总监的个人经验，肖腾海默女士“应该被允许作
证，说明海曼并不认为投资于海曼香港机会基金会带来所预期的事件”。政府在来信第 4页中提
到。 
辩方同意肖腾海默女士“可以作证说明她是否将基金作为推翻中共的工具进行推
销”。被告在 ECF第 370号文件第 4页的信件中提到。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第4/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
关于海曼如何向郭推销香港机会基金的证词并不需要肖腾海默女士提供意见。
因此，肖腾海默女士可以就她在宣传材料中如何推销该基金作证，例如已被接纳为证据的幻灯
片，并在与被告及其他相关个人的对话中。政府可以举证说明，例如海曼仅将该基金宣传为对港
币表现的赌注。这些陈述对于被告决定是否投资该基金的心态是相关的。 
然而，我不允许政府要求肖腾海默女士推测投资该基金是否会对中国共产党产
生负面影响。这个问题要求提供的意见超出了她在海曼资本的工作范围；它要求她对外币空头头
寸对外国政府的影响作出判断。这超出了像肖腾海默女士这样的行业经验者的知识范围。它也比
与市场营销相关的证据相关性低得多，因为它不直接影响被告的心态。 
因此，政府不得引出关于该基金对更广泛经济影响的一般性证词。 
据悉，由于莱克星顿大道地铁线卡住，我们仍在等待一名陪审员。这可能与有
人在轨道上的危机有关。 
还有其他要提出的问题吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有���法官大人。 
芬克律师说：法官大人，我只是想确保我不会违反法院的裁决。我计划问肖腾
海默女士，关于市场营销以及 HHKOF如何向投资者宣传。我相信我也可以问她 HHKOF 是什么
赌注，即它的实际含义。这在很大程度上已经出现了。 
我认为她还可以就她的个人观察作证，在 HHKOF 于 2017年向公众开放后，中
共是否倒台。她对此有个人观察，这不是专家证词。我只是想确保所有这些都符合法官大人的裁
决。 
至于是否关于赌注对中共的影响，即使它是一个意见，我认为——这是我试图
弄清楚如何通过肖腾海默女士来获得这个答案的——如果你赌的是一场 Mets比赛，而 Mets赢
了——我希望他们赢，但他们经常输——你赚钱。但赌一场 Mets比赛不会让 Mets赢或输；这
只是对结果的赌注。我认为这个概念，她根据她的个人知识知道的——不是基于她做过的任何研
究，不是基于她作为专家所做的任何工作，她不是专家，她只是公司的一名员工——关于投资和

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第5/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
赌博的这些问题，坦率地说，因为这就是投资，我认为这不会违反法官大人的裁决，我只是想确
保我不会这样做。 
卡马拉珠律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
我认为律师卡马拉珠试图引出的证词，或者他提到的最后的证词，实际上正是
专家证词。我们提交了一个例子，是在这个法院进行的 United States v. Phillips案件中，这是
一个与南非兰特市场操纵理论相关的案件。政府提交了一份专家披露，涉及他们打算召集的专家
证人，讨论交易模式对基础货币的影响，以及最终如何影响南非经济。所以肖腾海默女士简单地
说，嗯，如果你只是对货币进行赌注，它不会影响任何基础的东西，这只不过是另一种方式来回
避法官大人刚刚排除的先前证词。 
至于她是否可以作证中共是否倒台，首先，我不确定她对这一事实的个人观察
与什么相关，但我也不确定她是否有足够的知识基础来判断中共是否受到损害或伤害。基金仍在
运作。 
对我来说，律师卡马拉珠所倡导的只不过是另一种方式来回避法官大人现在刚
刚排除的意见。 
芬克律师说：法官大人，肖腾海默女士与 Phillips案中的专家不同，肖腾海默女
士有个人经验，个人知识。她是一个感知证人。她在海曼资本工作。 
政府在 Phillips案中试图引入的专家不具备这些条件。他查看了证据，并对证据
进行了评估。 
肖腾海默女士将不会作证她的意见，而是关于她的个人观察，她对事件的感知
知识，交易是如何运作的。她告诉人们这些。这是她的工作。所以我认为这是辩护律师所讨论的
与肖腾海默女士将作证内容之间的重要区别。 
法官说：所以我理解您要引出的那些问题。这项投资会对政府产生影响吗？它
是否对政府产生了影响，或者这项投资是否导致政府垮台。我理解吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第6/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：这是一个问题，法官大人。 
我认为另一个问题，我无法设想它如何涉及 701或 702，是 HHKOF 的规模是
什么，即 HHKOF随着时间的推移所占的总头寸。她从她的工作中知道这些。这不是专家分析；
这是她的知识。 
法官说：这是事实问题。 
芬克律师说：确实如此。 
所以这就是我所说的，法官大人。只是为了明确，我不是在重新辩论法官大人
的裁决，法院的裁决。我只是想确保我不会有旁听，并确保我遵守法官大人设定的范围。这就是
我的意图，引出她知道的、她看到的、她经历的事实，然后她可以在这些问题上被交叉质询。 
法官说：所以问头寸的规模是可以的。但是问这项投资是否会对中国经济产生
影响，这是禁止的。问它是否造成影响或导致中共垮台，这也是禁止的。 
芬克律师说：明白，法官大人。 
好的，明白。 
法官说：还有其他问题吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有，法官大人。 
芬克律师说：只有两件事。 
辩护律师和政府已经讨论过，我会给肖腾海默女士一个文件夹；里面有一些文
件。我们已经向辩护律师确认了这些文件。至少其中一份文件，辩方会要求一份限制指示，因为
这是凯尔巴斯发给余建明的一封电子邮件；它是为了对余建明产生影响，而不是为了其真实性。
政府对此类指示没有异议。我想当该文件出现时我们可以提出这个要求。 
卡马拉珠律师说：这对我们来说可以，法官大人。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第7/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：最后一件事，法官大人，为了慎重起见，我知道法院在初步指示
期间已经指示了陪审团。政府只是请求在对陪审员的日常警告中，法官大人也告诉他们不要对案
件进行研究或跟随任何新闻。我知道这已经被提到，但政府希望法官大人不时这样做。 
法官说：好的。 
芬克律师说：谢谢。 
法官说：请政府向我提供纸质版的协议书。 
芬克律师说：当然可以。它们正在打印，法官大人，我们很快就会有。 
（休庭） 
法官说：我被告知所有陪审员现在都到了。卡马拉珠先生，您是否有想要记录
的事情？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的，非常小。我已经和政府讨论过了。 
我只是想让法院知道，当其中一位陪审员到达时，他们意外走进了辩护团队使
用的房间。他们看到了我们，表示惊讶，然后转身离开。没有人对陪审员说话，但我只是想让法
院知道。 
法官说：好的。 
请让陪审员进来。 
芬克律师说：证人应该上证人席吗？ 
法官说：证人应该上证人席，是的。 
（陪审团在场） 
法官说：请坐下。早上好，陪审员们。 
陪审团：早上好。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第8/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官说：我们将继续对肖腾海默女士的直接询问。 
我提醒你们，你们仍在宣誓之下。 
你可以询问了。 
芬克律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
Steele  Schottenheimer,  
作为政府证人， 
已宣誓，作如下证言：(宣誓） 
 由检方芬克律师提问： 
问：早上好。 
答：早上好。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您昨天谈到了一些关于海曼香港机会基金的事情。海曼对海曼香港机会基金
是否有一个简短的名称？ 
答：HHKOF。 
问：您能拼写一下吗？ 
答：H-H-K-O-F。 
问：那么如果我提到 HHKOF，您会明白我指的是海曼香港机会基金吗？ 
答：是的。 
法官说：芬克律师，我需要您靠近麦克风。 
芬克律师说：好的，法官大人。 
问：当投资者投资 HHKOF A股时，需要发生什么事件才能使该投资获利，即赌注成功？ 
答：需要港币贬值或受到压力。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第9/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：港币需要贬值或受到多大的压力，赌注在 HHKOF 上才能获利？ 
答：只要港币超出区间一分，该基金就会在技术上获利。但是贬值或压力越大，基金赚的钱就越
多。 
问：所以如果脱钩，即港币或美元脱钩，HHKOF 会获利吗？ 
答：是的。 
法官说：请稍等。 
您能用非常简单的术语解释一下这如何运作吗？ 
证人说：好的。海曼香港机会基金做空港币。所以港币挂钩美元。如果港币相
对于美元贬值，那么我们的基金就会赚钱。 
法官说：“做空”是什么意思？ 
证人说：您可以做多一种货币，也可以做空一种货币；也就是说，如果货币升
值，您可以做多赚钱；如果货币贬值，您可以做空赚钱。 
法官说：您能用数字举个例子吗？ 
证人说：当然可以。例如，港币的区间弱侧是 7.85，即 1 美元兑 7.85 港币。如
果港币贬值到 10 港币兑 1 美元，尽管数字在增加，但实际上是贬值了，因为需要更多的港币才
能兑换 1 美元。所以如果您做空港币，并且它交易在区间之外，即 1 美元兑 7.85 港币，您就会
赚取 7.85 和 10之间的差额。 
检方律师说：谢谢。 
所以如果有人做空一种货币，他们的赌注是预期该货币会贬值？ 
答：相对于另一种货币贬值。以港币为例，因为它挂钩美元，这就是衡量标准。 
问：所以如果港币跌出区间，如果脱钩，港币的价值会下降，而 HHKOF 会获利，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第10/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：对。 
问：那是 A类股份。我们来谈谈B类股份，Prodigious 系列。对于 B类股份，Prodigious 系
列，需要发生什么事件才能使该赌注获利？ 
答：输入，即港币贬值，结果是一样的。只是 B类股份的敞口更大，所以结果更严重。 
问：所以，相同情况， 如果区间或脱钩，那么 B类股份会获利吗？ 
答：对。 
问：自 HHKOF开始销售以来，脱钩了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：在海曼向投资者推销 HHKOF时，您刚才解释的赌注如何获利，是否与海曼的营销材料一
致？ 
答：是的。 
芬克律师说：法官大人，我可以靠近证人吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
芬克律师说：给肖腾海默女士一本包含各种文件的文件夹，包括以下内容：GX 
HN-26, 29, 35, 41, 57, 59, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 82, 86, 98, 124, 168, 193, 208, 220, 221, 222, 
223。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能翻阅一下文件夹并告诉我您是否认得里面的文件吗？ 
芬克律师说：为了记录，这些编号前缀都是“GX HN”。 
答：我已经翻阅了文件夹。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您以前见过这个文件夹吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第11/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：您是如何认出您见过它的？ 
答：我几天前在助理美国检察官办公室审阅了这个文件夹。 
问：是谁要求您审阅这个文件夹的内容的？ 
答：是您。 
问：是谁挑选了这个文件夹的内容？ 
答：我相信是您。 
问：这个文件夹里大致有什么内容？ 
答：这是我与余建明之间的电子邮件往来，余建明与凯尔之间的电子邮件往来，史蒂夫·班农与
凯尔之间的电子邮件往来。还有不同版本的 Saraca认购手册，用于认购海曼香港机会基金。这
里也有一本 Hamilton认购手册。还有一些汇款详情，证明已发生的汇款；以及 Saraca、
Hamilton 和海曼香港机会基金之间的附带协议。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您发送或接收的电子邮件，它们是您发送或接收的电子邮件的真实准确的副
本吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：什么是 Global Relay？ 
答：Global Relay 是海曼资本管理公司用来捕获并存储必需电子邮件长达五年的第三方服务。 
问：海曼为什么要将其电子邮件保存长达五年？ 
答：我们是由证券交易委员会要求的。 
问：对于您提到的您不在其上的电子邮件，您采取了哪些步骤，若有的话，以获取这些文件在
Global Relay 系统中的内容？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第12/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我与海曼的首席合规官 Stu Smith进行了联系。我们设置了一个 Teams电话会议，以便我
可以查看他的屏幕。我作为投资者关系人员无法访问 Global Relay；但是他作为首席合规官有访
问权限。所以他登录到 Global Relay，搜索这些特定的电子邮件，我能够验证它们已发送到海曼
的服务器并被 Global Relay捕获。 
芬克律师说：法官大人，此时政府提供 GX HN-26, 29, 35, 41, 57, 59, 69, 70, 
71, 79, 80, 82, 86, 98, 124, 168, 193, 208, 220, 221, 222 和 223。 
法官说：没有异议吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有异议，法官大人，前提是法院在适当时机对 GX HN-208
给予限制性指示。 
法官说：好的。当那发生时，您会指出。 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的，法官大人。 
法官说：好的。继续。 
芬克律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
（政府证据以上被接受到证据集） 
由检方芬克律师进行询问： 
问：肖腾海默女士，HHKOF提供给市场多久了？ 
答：2017年 1 月。 
问：自那时以来，港币脱钩了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：今天挂钩仍然存在吗？ 
答：今天仍然在区间内，所以是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第13/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：好的。请拉出作为政府证据 HN-29 的文件。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是什么文件？ 
答：这是我发给所有有兴趣参与海曼香港机会基金 B类股份著名系列的潜在投资者的电子邮
件。我在 5 月 24 日星期天发出。我们刚刚从外部律师那里收到招股说明书，我正在将其分发给
所有感兴趣的方。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您说的是“岸上”。您能向陪审团解释一下“岸上”是什么意思吗？ 
答：海曼香港机会基金有两个引导基金：一个是针对美国纳税投资者的岸上引导基金，另一个是
针对美国免税投资者和离岸投资者的离岸引导基金。这些是为了使投资者在投资我们的基金时获
得适当的税务文件。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，请缩小它，并放大文件顶部。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您认得这个电子邮件地址吗？ 
答：认得。 
问：那是谁的电子邮件地址？ 
答：余建明。 
问：您能读一下这个电子邮件地址吗？ 
答：[email protected]。 
问：肖腾海默女士，为什么您要将关于香港机会基金 B类股份著名系列的文件发送给余建明？ 
答：当时我认为余建明有兴趣查看该基金的岸上和离岸招股说明书。 
芬克律师说：请缩小它，洛夫特斯女士，并转到该文件的第 3页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是 HN-29 的第 3页吗？ 
答：这是我们的反洗钱信息表。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第14/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：第二行写着：私人公司或有限责任公司。您能向陪审团解释这行在文件中的作用吗？ 
答：是的。我们有各种类型的有限合伙人以不同的结构来投资我们的基金。有时是个人，有时是
有限合伙，有时是有限责任公司。您询问的那行是——您说的是有限责任公司吗？ 
问：私人公司或有限责任公司，是吗？ 
答：是的，是的，私人公司和有限责任公司，是的。 
问：第二个勾选框里写着：实际所有者，持有 25%或更多股份，见 CIP要求。这是什么意思？ 
答：所以我们需要透过实体来了解谁是实体的实际所有者。 
芬克律师说：请转到该文件的第 5页，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您看到上方写着“最终受益人”了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：您能读一下那段文字吗？ 
答：“如果没有提供受益所有权信息，将假定没有受益者持有实体资产的 25%或更多。在投资实
体对实际受益者进行反洗钱尽职调查的情况下，可以提供合格引荐人信函或等同的认证信函，以
代替上述详细信息。” 
芬克律师说：我们可以把这个缩小吗，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：下面的图表是用来做什么的？ 
答：这是我们需要收集的五项中四项，关于任何拥有 25%以上实体的受益者的项目。 
问：什么是最终受益者？ 
答：是拥有该实体的人。 
芬克律师说：我们可以翻到这个文件的第 9页吗？请放大第 10项，洛夫特斯女
士。就这样。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第15/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：这里，在写着“付款和花旗银行账户”下面的是什么？ 
答：这是海曼香港机会岸上基金的银行账户。这是投资者汇入资金的地方，他们认购该实体。 
问：所以，如果投资者想投资于岸上基金，他们会把钱汇到一个以 9681结尾的花旗银行账户，
对吗？ 
答：对的。 
芬克律师说：我们可以翻到第 44页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这部分文件是用来做什么的？ 
答：这是认证投资者状态。所以我们需要对任何认购基金的人进行验证，确保他们实际上是认证
投资者。 
芬克律师说：请翻到下一页——抱歉，第 46 页。 
问：底部写着“合格购买者状态”。那是什么意思？ 
答：这部分文件是我们从投资者那里收集合格购买者认证的地方。正如昨天讨论的，我们所有的
投资者都需要是合格购买者。 
问：肖腾海默女士，什么是“认购文件”？ 
答：认购文件是投资者为了认购我们的工具而完成的法律文件。 
问：我们和陪审团一起看的这个文件是认购文件吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：是用于什么的？ 
答：海曼香港机会岸上基金。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以把这个拿下来吗？请为证人展示 HN-
33，只给证人看。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第16/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是什么文件？ 
答：这是凯尔·巴斯发给我的短信。 
问：顶部的短信是谁发的？ 
答：顶部的短信是我认为是从余建明到凯尔，然后他再复制粘贴给我的，解释哪些实体正在投资
香港基金。 
芬克律师说：政府提供 HN-33。 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有异议。 
法官说：准许。 
（政府证据 HN-33 被接受） 
芬克律师说：请公布。 
问：肖腾海默女士，现在陪审团可以看到了，您能读一下第一个短信内容吗，这是从余建明复制
粘贴的？ 
答：正确。以下为短信阅读：“由于时间紧迫，将投资于你们岸上基金的实体有：Saraca媒体集
团有限公司。第二，离岸：Hamilton 投资管理有限公司。我们可以稍后填补所有细节。谢谢。” 
阅读完毕。 
问：您对此的回应是什么？ 
答：我在问凯尔这个短信是否来自余建明。 
问：在您问这个是否来自余建明之后，凯尔的回应是什么？ 
答：“史蒂尔，这就是余建明和 Miles将通过的两个实体。” 
问：您对“Miles”指的是谁有什么理解？ 
答：郭文贵。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第17/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：在 2020 年 5 月 26日，您收到这个短信时，您对 Saraca媒体集团有限公司是什么有什么
理解？ 
答：我没有理解。这只是一个实体的名称。 
问：在您在海曼的工作中，个人通过实体而不是个人身份投资海曼的金融产品是否不寻常？ 
答：不寻常。 
问：为什么？ 
答：因为很多富有的个人使用实体进行家庭有限合伙或商业目的。这只是他们的偏好。 
问：这里提到 Saraca媒体集团有限公司。您在 2020 年 5 月时是否理解 Saraca媒体集团有限
公司是一家媒体公司？ 
答：没有，我没有。 
问：在这个时候，您对 Saraca媒体集团的业务有什么理解？ 
答：就在这个短信时刻？我没有考虑它。我只是收集名称以与我们的外部律师核对，看看他们是
否可以帮助起草附带协议。 
芬克律师说：请展示 HN-35，这已经是证据了。35，请，洛夫特斯女士。请向
下滚动到第 2页。请放大 5 月 26日的那封邮件。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您发送给余建明，并抄送给凯尔的这封邮件的目的是什么？ 
答：既然我有了投资实体的名称，我正式请求余建明提供反洗钱和财务报告和审计合规要求，以
便他们能够投资该基金。 
问：在 2020 年 5 月时，您对为何有一个岸上投资实体和一个离岸投资实体有什么理解？ 
答：当时我对此不清楚。 
问：请继续。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第18/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：除了一个是应税实体，另一个是免税实体。 
问：哪个是免税实体？ 
答：Hamilton 投资管理有限公司。 
芬克律师说：请缩小这个。我们可以翻到第一页。 
问：您能读一下您在 2020 年 5 月 28 日发给余建明的邮件吗？ 
答：“嗨，余建明。我们希望所有汇款和文件能在 6月 5 日星期五之前完成。谢谢您的确认。我
会很快给您附带协议。” 
问：“附带协议”是什么意思？ 
答：附带协议是一种法律文件，很多大投资者需要。它们是超出招股说明书的条款。 
问：Saraca或郭文贵的投资是否有附带协议？ 
答：有的。 
问：Saraca或郭文贵投资的附带协议的性质是什么？ 
答：从高层次来看，他们要求三项超出招股说明书的条款。首先是他们希望管理费从 2%降到
1%；他们希望在绩效费上设立一个门槛，即他们必须赚到 25倍的投资金额之后我们才会开始
收取绩效费；第三，他们要求透明度条款，意味着他们需要额外的报告，超出我们通常提供给投
资者的报告。 
问：好的。让我们来详细谈谈。您说有一个管理费的减少，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：您能向陪审团解释一下这是什么意思吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第19/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：所以对于海曼香港机会基金 B类股份，有一次性 2%的管理费在交易完成时收取。所以如果
您投资 100 美元在这个股份类，海曼管理这笔资金的管理费将在交易完成时收取 2 美元。所以
在 Saraca 和 Hamilton 的投资中，管理费将仅为 1 美元。 
问：管理费的减少对 Saraca 和郭文贵有利还是海曼有利？ 
答：管理费的减少对请求它的投资者有利，因为他们只需支付 1 美元而不是 2 美元。 
问：您能向陪审团描述一下绩效费的减少意味着什么吗？ 
答：海曼收取绩效费。海曼香港机会基金的绩效费是首先您拿回您的初始资本。所以如果您投资
100 美元，您会拿回 100 美元。然后，在接下来的 100 美元收益中——假设交易对我们有利—
—我们收取每赚 1 美元的 15 美分，您得到 85 美分，直到您作为投资者获得 100%的净回报为
止。所以您赚了 200 美元，而我们收取了 15 美分。然后任何超过 100%的净回报，我们按 80
或 20分配；您得到 80，我们得到 20。 
问：郭文贵或 Saraca 的投资要求了什么？ 
答：他们希望赚 25倍的投资金额。所以如果他们投资 1 美元，他们会拿回 1 美元加上 25 美
元。然后任何超过这个的部分我们按 20或 80分配；他们得到 80，我们得到 20。 
问：所以郭文贵和 Saraca要求的条款对他们有利还是对海曼有利？ 
答：对郭文贵和 Saraca 有利。 
问：在 2020 年 5 月，肖腾海默女士，您对郭文贵和 Saraca 希望在著名系列中投资的金额有什
么理解？ 
答：最初，他们告诉我包括 Hamilton 在内大约 5千，5千 1百万美元。然后在我们收到认购文
件时是 Saraca 的 1亿美元。 
问：关于附带协议的最后一点，肖腾海默女士，您提到了透明度。您能向陪审团解释一下这是什
么意思吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第20/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我们每月向投资者报告典型的敞口情况。我们为他们量化，您做空港币 200倍或者 196
倍。在 B类股份中，这不会每月变化，直到期权到期。但在 Saraca 的情况下，他们实际上想要
头寸级别的细节，我们给了他们，因为这个基金没有提款权。一旦我们完全持仓，我们就愿意给
他们头寸级别的细节，这就是附带协议所述的内容。 
问：您能为我们分解一下，您所说的头寸级别的细节以及这是一个完全投资的金融产品是什么意
思。 
答：对。通常，我们只是告诉您敞口情况，您做空港币多少。他们实际上想要头寸级别的细节，
即期权的实际描述。您做空 2亿美元的期权，到期日是某某日期。 
问：所以他们想要了解基础金融交易的细节，对吗？ 
答：对。实际持有的头寸，它们的到期日，每个头寸的名义价值。因为您不是只去购买一个单一
的期权来覆盖整个批次；您是在与多个交易商进行交易，并在市场中每晚获得最好的价格。所以
您可能有数十个条目或数十个非常相似的期权，他们希望看到这种级别的细节。 
问：这种细节涉及金融交易，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：这些交易是海曼进行的，以建立一个赌注，即如果挂钩在弱侧断裂，赌注就会获利，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：最终海曼是否同意了郭文贵和 Saraca 在管理费、绩效费和这些透明度权利上的减免？ 
答：管理费的减免，是的。绩效费的减免，是的。透明度权利减免。 
问：顺便问一下，谁要求这些？ 
答：据我所知，这是余建明与凯尔谈判的。 
问：肖腾海默女士，关于 Saraca媒体集团有限公司，海曼对该实体进行了哪些尽职调查？ 
答：关于他们的认购文件？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第21/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：是的。 
答：当 Saraca认购海曼时，我和另一位在投资者关系部门与我共事的人，以及我们的第三方管
理员，对认购文件进行了彻底的审查。我们花了一些时间对答案进行核对，然后向余建明询问一
些不一致的地方。 
问：肖腾海默女士，通过这个过程，海曼了解到谁是 Saraca媒体集团的最终受益者吗？ 
答：Saraca媒体集团声称只有一个人拥有整个实体。他们提出该个人是郭文贵的儿子。 
芬克律师说：请展示已作为证据的 GX HN-82。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是什么？ 
答：这是当时郭文贵儿子的有效护照副本。 
问：他的法定姓名是什么？请您为陪审团读出来或拼出来。 
答：他的姓是郭，名拼写为 Q-I-A-N-G。 
问：海曼为什么收集这份护照副本？ 
答：这是我们反洗钱实践的一部分，针对任何和所有超过 25%的受益者。 
问：根据 Saraca 的陈述，Saraca媒体集团还有其他所有者吗？ 
答：根据他们的认购手册，没有。 
问：肖腾海默女士，如果 Saraca 投资的著名系列 1亿美元投资获利，最终谁会收取收益？ 
卡马拉珠律师：反对此提问方式。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：Saraca媒体集团会收到电汇，Saraca 的最终受益者是郭的儿子。 
问：所以他会通过该实体收取收益？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第22/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：郭文贵是否通过了反洗钱检查？ 
答：没有。 
问：为什么没有？ 
答：因为他在认购手册上没有列为授权签字人和最终受益者或控股人。 
问：在您的工作中，“委托人”和“代理人”有特定含义吗？ 
答：在认购手册中没有。 
问：在什么背景下？ 
答：你能再重复一下问题吗？ 
问：什么是委托人？ 
答：什么是委托人？某种程度上的主要人员。 
问：肖腾海默女士，如果您认为是郭文贵在进行 Saraca 的投资，但郭文贵的儿子是最终受益
者，您能否向陪审团解释这是否不寻常，或者为什么没有对郭文贵进行反洗钱工作？ 
卡马拉珠律师：反对此提问方式。 
法官说：请将问题分解。 
芬克律师说：当然。 
问：您早些时候作证说您认为是郭文贵在进行 Saraca 的投资，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：那么为什么——我换个方式问：事实上他的儿子是 Saraca 的最终受益者，但您认为是郭文
贵的钱，您能解释一下这对您的尽职调查有何影响吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第23/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
卡马拉珠律师：反对此提问方式。 
法官说：请分成小部分来问。 
芬克律师说：好的。 
问：事实上郭文贵的儿子是 Saraca 的最终受益者，而不是郭文贵，这对您在进行此项投资的尽
职调查时有何影响？ 
答：我没有发现—— 
卡马拉珠律师：同样反对。 
法官说：您理解为是郭文贵在进行投资？ 
证人说：我理解为这是郭文贵的家族办公室有兴趣进行投资。 
法官说：你可以问下一个问题。 
芬克律师说：谢谢。 
问：您所说的郭文贵的家族办公室是什么意思？ 
答：以前曾向我表示余建明是郭文贵家族办公室的负责人或管理者。所以当余建明有兴趣审查我
们的演示文稿、回放网络直播并审查招股说明书时，我认为这是指郭文贵的家族办公室，即余建
明代表他管理的资本，有兴趣投资海曼香港机会基金。 
问：而郭文贵的儿子是 Saraca 的最终受益者，而不是郭文贵，这对您对该投资的看法有何影
响？ 
卡马拉珠律师：同样反对。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：这对我的看法影响很小，因为家族办公室通常会有家庭成员作为他们投资的实体的受益者。 
芬克律师说：我们可以看看作为证据的 GX HN-41。请放大顶部的电子邮件，洛夫特斯女士。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第24/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能读一下余建明在 2020 年 5 月 31 日发给您的这封电子邮件吗？ 
答：可以。“亲爱的史蒂尔，谢谢。请查看附件中的修订版附带协议。请忽略之前的那个。正如
早些时候与凯尔讨论的，为了节省时间，资金可能会从与注册投资者不同的公司转入您的银行账
户。谢谢并致敬，余建明。” 
问：您对余建明所说的“资金可能会从与注册投资者不同的公司转入您的银行账户”是什么意思有
什么理解？ 
答：注册投资者是 Saraca。Saraca填写了认购文件。Saraca 在认购海曼香港机会基金。然
而，在这封电子邮件中，他强调资金可能会从一个不同于 Saraca 的账户或不同于 Saraca 的实
体汇入。 
问：这样可以吗？ 
答：不行。 
问：为什么不行？ 
答：因为我们不会对发送电汇的公司进行反洗钱检查。 
芬克律师说：请缩小这个，洛夫特斯女士。请放大 5 月 29 日的第三封电子邮
件。 
问：您能读一下余建明在 2020 年 5 月 29 日发给您的这封电子邮件吗？ 
答：“亲爱的史蒂尔，请查看我们对附带协议的评论。我们将有一个岸上和一个离岸载体。岸上
投资 100万美元，离岸投资 100万美元。岸上载体的地址是 162 East 64th Street, New York, 
New York, 10065, United States。谢谢并致敬，余建明。” 
问：肖腾海默女士，您说过 100万美元来自 Saraca。您对 2020 年 5 月的 100万美元有什么理
解？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第25/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：当时我认为我意识到 100万美元是来自郭文贵的家族办公室，但 100万美元是来自余建明
个人。 
问：什么是 AML？ 
答：反洗钱。 
芬克律师说：请缩小这个，并展示标记为 HN-43 的文件。请放大以便肖腾海默
女士查看。 
问：肖腾海默女士，简单地说，这是什么文件？这是什么类型的文件？ 
答：这是我发给余建明的电子邮件，提供了我们这边关于附带协议谈判的最新情况以及交易完成
时间的更新。 
芬克律师说：法官大人，政府提供 HN-43。 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有异议。 
法官说：准许。 
（政府证据 HN-43 被接受） 
芬克律师说：请公布这个。 
法官说：继续。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，请突出显示或放大最后一段，“最后”。 
问：请您读一下，肖腾海默女士。 
答：“最后，电汇需要来自 Saraca媒体集团的账户。我们理解由于时间紧迫，这可能不可能。
作为解决方案，您可以更改初始投资的实体以匹配电汇，然后我们可以在 6月 8 日交易完成当
天将权益转让给 Saraca媒体集团。我们需要对两个实体进行全面的反洗钱检查。”

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第26/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能向陪审团解释一下，您对余建明要求从不同账户汇款的请求所传达的内
容吗？ 
答：正如我之前描述的，我们受严格的反洗钱指导和要求。因此，您不能以投资者 A 的名义认
购我们的基金，然后从投资者 B的账户汇款。它们必须匹配。所以我向余建明提供了一个解决
方案。如果他不能从 Saraca 的账户汇款以匹配提供的认购手册，我建议实际拥有资本的账户进
行投资。然后我们会对该实体进行全面的反洗钱检查。然后在我们交易完成之后，如果所有的检
查都到位，我们可以进行所谓的转让和分配，即我们可以在交易完成当天将投资者 B的权益转
让和分配给 Saraca。但那是在投资者 B，实体 B经过所有反洗钱检查之后的事。 
问：当您说投资者 B需要经过所有的反洗钱检查时，您指的是填写认购文件，提供最终受益者
信息之类的吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：最终发生了什么？他们更改了实体的名称还是发生了什么？ 
答：他们保留了 Saraca 的认购手册，并从 Saraca账户发送了电汇。 
芬克律师说：我们可以把这个拿下来。 
请展示作为政府证据的 GX HN-57。 
问：顺便问一下，肖腾海默女士，在 2020 年 5 月底到 6月期间，当您在协助 Saraca或郭文贵
的投资时，您能向陪审团描述一下那段时间的节奏吗？ 
答：那段时间发生了很多事情。很多人对这个新著名系列很感兴趣。这是我们旗舰基金的最大投
资者之一的反向询问。然后，我们向现有的投资者群体介绍了这个新产品。 
我们在 6月 1 日完成了初始B1批次的交易；所以在我于 6月 1 日交易完成那
172个感兴趣的投资者的同时，我也在协调凯尔和余建明、Saraca 和 Hamilton 投资之间的事
情。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第27/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：作为投资者关系的总监，在您与余建明讨论 Saraca或郭文贵投资的同时，您是否也在处理
其他潜在投资者并管理那些投资？ 
答：是的，接近 200个。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这份文件日期是 2020 年 6月 3 日，是余建明发给您的。您能为陪审团读一
下余建明的第一封电子邮件吗？ 
答：“Saraca将认购 1亿美元，Hamilton将在这一批中认购 100万美元。请查看您之前发送的
岸上 Saraca 基金文件的签名页和相关的 KYC 文件。请确认一切正常，我们将安排汇款。离岸
Hamilton 的文件将随后提供。” 
（下页继续） 
 
 
 
 
 
继续由检方律师 FINKEL询问： 
问：肖腾海默女士，总体上，这封电子邮件的附件是什么？ 
答：这些是 Saraca 投资海曼香港机会岸上基金 B类股份的认购文件。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，请翻到这个文件的第 4页。停在那里。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是什么页面？ 
答：这是认购手册的签名页。 
问：谁代表 Saraca媒体集团有限公司签署的？ 
答：王雁平。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第28/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：职务是什么？ 
答：总裁。 
问：总认购资本贡献旁边写的是什么？ 
答：1亿美元。 
问：总认购资本贡献是什么意思，用通俗的话来说？ 
答：他们认购或投资于基金的金额。 
问：在这个时间，2020 年 6月 3 日，您知道王雁平是谁吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以翻到第 6页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是什么页面，投资者简介？ 
答：这是认购手册中的一页，用来收集投资者的信息。 
问：肖腾海默女士，在资本贡献 1亿美元下方，两行之下写的是什么？ 
答：资本贡献两行下方？ 
问：是的，女士。 
答：“简要说明认购者的主要财富来源。” 
问：海曼为什么要收集这些信息？ 
答：这是反洗钱要求。 
问：Saraca 关于他们的主要财富来源提供了什么信息？ 
答：在他们的认购文件初次提交时，这一项是空白的。 
问：这对于海曼的目的来说可以接受吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第29/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：不可以。 
问：在下方，实体投资者一栏，写有特拉华州的注册办公地址和曼哈顿 64街的主要营业地点地
址。注册办公地址和主要营业地点地址有什么区别？ 
答：主要营业地点是这个实体的大多数业务进行的主要地点。注册办公地址是该实体成立和注册
的地方。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以翻到第 8页，其实是第 7页，抱歉。 
问：第 7页底部或第二行，肖腾海默女士，写的是“投资者的股权或资本或或受益人的总数”。这
是什么意思？ 
答：这是一个实体，我们试图了解有多少个人拥有这个实体。 
问：提供了什么信息？ 
答：这个实体有一个所有者。 
问：这个实体是什么？ 
答：Saraca媒体集团有限公司。 
问：在这个时间，您对谁是 Saraca媒体集团的唯一所有者有什么理解？ 
答：郭文贵的儿子。 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，现在可以翻到第 8页，对不起。 
问：肖腾海默女士，第 8页 HN57 提供的信息是什么？ 
答：我们需要授权联系人以了解谁有权接收有关此投资的信息，并列出了一个主要联系人和一个
次要联系人。 
问：谁是主要联系人？ 
答：王雁平。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第30/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：谁是次要联系人？ 
答：Max Krasner 
问：在这个时间，肖腾海默女士，您知道 Max Krasner 是谁吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：在您在海曼的工作中，看到与您对谁在家族办公室投资项目的理解不同的��系人是否不寻
常？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对此提问方式。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：有一个行业术语叫做职责分离，这是一个最佳实践治理，这样的机构实践中非常普遍，投资
决策者和账户上的授权签字人是不同的人，并且，有额外的联系人接收有关投资的信息。 
芬克律师说：我们可以翻到第 11页，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：这里说授权签字人是王雁平。类似的问题是，你看到与家族办公室的最终受益者不同的个人
作为授权签字人是否不寻常？ 
答：这并不不寻常。 
问：为什么不？ 
答：正如我之前所说，这是职责分离。这是更多的人监督投资，监督发生的事情，对于机构有质
量的投资来说是非常典型的。 
芬克律师说：如果我们能翻到第 29页，对不起，第 46 页。抱歉。我们翻到第
49页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，第 49页 HN57 这是什么文件？ 
答：这是一个有效的政府签发的身份证明，是王雁平的护照。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第31/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：为什么海曼会收集这个？ 
答：作为 Saraca媒体集团的授权签字人，我们需要收集这个文件作为反洗钱检查的一部分。 
芬克律师说：我们可以翻到下一页吗，洛夫特斯女士。我们翻到第 53页。您可以把这个拿下来
了。 
问：肖腾海默女士，由于财富来源信息留空，您向余建明传达了什么？ 
答：在认购文件中有许多空白项需要填写，所以我要求他完成未完成的信息。 
芬克律师说：我们可以展示 HN69吗？ 
问：除了 Saraca 的投资，海曼还在收集 Hamilton 的投资材料吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：HN69这是什么文件？ 
答：这是 Hamilton提交的认购包，用于处理认购海曼香港机会离岸基金。 
问：Hamilton 会获得与 Saraca相同的附带协议吗？ 
答：是的，这两者是同时谈判的。 
芬克律师说：我们可以展示 HN71吗，洛夫特斯女士？我们放大电子邮件的上面。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这份 HN71 文件日期是 2020 年 6月 4 日。您能看一下并告诉陪审团您发送
给余建明这封邮件的目的是什么吗？ 
答：余建明要求对 Saraca 和 Hamilton 的认购文件进行对签。这有时是一种做法，为了让银行
发送电汇，他们希望看到有一个实际的协议或交易存在。Saraca 文件中有一些未解决的问题，
但没有与反洗钱相关的问题，所以我们在这些问题上签署了认购手册。 
问：但是当海曼签署认购手册时，Saraca提供了关于资金来源的信息吗？ 
答：是的，他们提供了。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第32/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：我们可以翻到这个文件的第 31页，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能读一下“简要说明认购者的主要财富来源”下面的内容吗？ 
答：出售子公司的股份。 
问：在这个时间，您知道这是什么意思吗？ 
答：不具体知道。 
芬克律师说：你可以把这个拿下来。我们可以展示 HN79，这是证据。我们放大底部的电子邮
件，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能读一下这封 2020 年 6月 5 日您发给余建明的电子邮件吗？ 
答：嗨，余建明。我很高兴地报告我们已经收到 Saraca 的 1亿美元电汇。请尽早告知 Hamilton
的电汇情况。谢谢。 
问：事实上，海曼是否收到了 Saraca 的一亿美元？ 
答：是的。 
问：海曼后来是否收到了 Hamilton 的一百万美元？ 
答：是的。 
问：顺便问一下，为什么您是与余建明而不是郭文贵讨论 Saraca 的投资？ 
答：我的理解是他管理郭先生的投资组合。 
问：与管理家族办公室的人打交道是否不寻常？ 
答：一点也不。 
芬克律师说：好的。我们可以展示作为证据的 HN80吗？请放大顶部。 
问：这封邮件是谁发的？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第33/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：史蒂夫班农。 
问：是发给谁的？ 
答：凯尔巴斯。 
问：您能读一下上面写的内容吗？ 
答：“祝贺完成郭先生的交易。他认为你是金融界的超级明星。” 
芬克律师说：法官大人，此时政府想要宣读一项协议。 
法官说：请继续。 
芬克律师说：这是 GX Stip 13。兹由美国和被告郭文贵同意并规定，GX 
SW101到 GX SW150 证据是通过 [email protected]账户发送或接收的电子邮件及其附件，
电子邮件上的日期即为证据上的日期。该协议由双方签署。现在，洛夫特斯女士，我们可以展示
标记为 GX SW107的文件。 
法官说：所以你是想让它被接纳。 
芬克律师说：其中的部分，是的。 
法官说：那么你是一个一个地让它被接纳？ 
芬克律师说：我们此时打算提供其中的两个文件。 
法官说：好的。 
芬克律师说：只要我找到它们。法官大人，现在政府提供 GX SW107。 
法官说：没有异议，它被接纳。 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有异议，法官大人。 
（政府证据 SW107被接纳到证据集） 
继续由检方律师 FINKEL询问：

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第34/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：肖腾海默女士—— 
芬克律师说：实际上，洛夫特斯女士，您能展示那个文件吗。您快速翻看一
下。我们可以回到顶部。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这封邮件是谁发的，或是什么邮件地址？ 
答：[email protected]  
问：发给谁的？ 
问：Jack Bannon 和 Sean Bannon。 
问：附件的名称是什么？ 
答：Saraca-Bannon 咨询协议第 4 版 清洁，Word 文档。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您以前见过这份文件吗？ 
答：没有。 
芬克律师说：我们可以翻到下一页吗？哦，对不起，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能读一下这封电子邮件的文本吗？ 
答：“Jack这份协议打印两份给我。” 
问：肖腾海默女士—— 
芬克律师说：您能翻到下一页吗，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能读一下顶部的粗体字吗？ 
答：本咨询协议自 2019 年 10 月 1 日（“生效日期”）起生效，由 Saraca媒体公司（一家在特拉
华州注册成立的公司）（“郭媒体”或“公司”）和 班农战略咨询公司（“顾问”）（单独称为“当事
方”，合称“当事方”）签订。考虑到所述的相互契约以及其他良好和有价值的对价，当事方达成如
下协议。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第35/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：洛夫特斯女士，您能翻到第 4 段吗？ 
问：肖腾海默女士，您能读一下第 4 段吗？ 
答：作为公司在本协议中授予服务和权利的全部补偿，公司同意支付顾问年度费用 100 万美元
（咨询费），每季度支付一次（即每三个月）25 万美元，并预付，该咨询费在本协议签订之日
即完全赚取。首笔 25 万美元将在签署本协议时支付。顾问有权报销因履行本协议下的服务而产
生的任何公司预付费用和开支。 
芬克律师说：如果我们可以展示给证人 GX SW108。政府提供 GX SW108。 
法官说：没有异议吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：我在等它显示在屏幕上，法官大人。。。。没有异议，法官
大人。 
法官说：它被接纳。 
（政府证据 SW108 被接纳到证据集） 
芬克律师说：我们可以发布那个吗，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您以前见过这份文件吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：您能读一下底部写的内容吗？2019 年 10 月 1 日？ 
答：下午 1:17？ 
问：是的。 
答：“Jack 打印出这份协议的两份给我。” 
问：是谁发送的？ 
答：史蒂夫班农。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第36/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：好的。如果我们可以翻到顶部，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：这封邮件是 Sean Bannon 发给 Jack Bannon 抄送 史蒂夫班农 的，肖腾海默女士，您能读
一下文本内容吗？ 
答：“两份郭合同在信封里，还有一份合同 Grace 需要您的亲笔签名。” 
芬克律师说：我们可以把这个拿下来。 
问：肖腾海默女士，对于 Saraca，最终反洗钱 KYC 检查通过了吗？ 
答：是的。 
芬克律师说：如果你能展示作为证据的 GX HN220。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您认得这类电子邮件吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这是什么？ 
答：这是海曼香港机会基金的第三方管理员 Sei 的电子邮件。Sei 在他们的门户网站上设置所有
授权联系人，以便访问投资者级别的文件，如 K1 税务文件或月度资本声明。 
问：这封邮件是发给谁的？ 
答：Saraca 账户的授权签字人和联系人，王雁平。 
芬克律师说：请把它拿下来。 
如果我们可以展示作为证据的 HN124。 
问：肖腾海默女士，您认得这份文件吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：您能向陪审团解释一下 HN124 是什么吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第37/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：这是我与余建明之间的电子邮件。我收到了一封奇怪的电子邮件，询问卡尔巴斯是否是 
Saraca媒体集团 的董事之一。所以我将这封奇怪的电子邮件复制粘贴给余建明，并说，嗨，余
建明，除非您另有指示，否则我会忽略以下内容。他回复说，请忽略这封电子邮件，因为大多数
是骗局。谢谢。 
芬克律师说：我们可以把它拿下来。 
问：肖腾海默女士，我想把您的注意力转向 2020 年 7 月 13 日。关于 Saraca 的投资在那天发
生了什么？ 
答：海曼收到外部律师的电话，我们的律师说收到了一封来自 SEC 的信，要求提供关于 
Saraca 在海曼香港机会基金投资的文件。 
问：那位律师的名字是什么？ 
答：Kit Addleman。 
问：Addleman 女士在哪个公司工作？ 
答：海博律师事务所。 
问：您为什么记得特别是 2020 年 7 月 13 日这一天？ 
答：那是我妈妈的 70 岁生日，我本来要做晚餐。 
问：您做了晚餐吗？ 
答：晚上 9 点左右。 
问：为什么这么晚？ 
答：海曼内部和外部律师有很多电话。 
问：关于什么一般话题？ 
答：关于 Saraca 在海曼基金的投资以及我们收到的文件请求。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第38/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：SEC 向海曼请求了哪些类型的文件？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对此提问方式，法官大人。 
法官说：他们请求了任何文件吗？ 
答：他们请求了很多文件。 
问：SEC 请求了哪些类型的文件？ 
答：我必须负责收集的文件是认购文件。 
问：认购文件的——什么的？ 
问：Saraca 在投资香港基金、反洗钱方面采取了什么步骤？ 
答：在收到 SEC 的文件请求后，海曼采取了什么步骤？ 
答：在这时候我们由外部法律顾问提供建议，他们负责这个过程，但我记得的下一步是，我们将
Saraca 的投资分离到它自己的部分，因此它不会与其他投资者混合，所以 Saraca保持在 B2，
而其他投资者我们移动到不同的部分，然后我们从那里，1000万美元中的 3000万已经投资在
做空港币的期权上，然后我们大约还有 7000万仍然是现金，我们将 Saraca 的这两部分投资分
开，因为有人告诉我们，这 7000万中的一部分可能不是来自 Saraca。 
问：海曼的律师联系了 Saraca吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对，问题形式不正确。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：是的。 
芬克律师说：我们可以显示已作为证据的 HN168。如果您能将顶部过了 Kit Addleman部分放
大。是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第39/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：这封邮件的日期是什么，肖腾海默女士？ 
答：7月 15 日，星期三。 
问：它的内容是什么？ 
答：请参见附件中的信件，需您立即关注。谢谢，Kit Addleman。 
问：Addleman 女士将这封邮件发送给了谁？ 
答：余建明、Max K、王雁平、[email protected]  
芬克律师说：放大，接下来请看下一页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，Addleman 女士为什么将这封信发送给余建明、Max Krasner、王雁平和
Aaron Mitchell？ 
答：我们正在试图了解 Saraca 投资的资金来源，并试图了解如何处理这一投资。 
问：你能读一下这封信的第一段吗？ 
答：海博律师事务所代表海曼资本管理和海曼香港机会岸上基金。我们已收到美国证券交易委员
会关于 GTV媒体集团证券发行的调查联系，该调查标题为 G币案（NY-10256）。因此，我们
需要您立即关注并提供额外的信息。 
问：在此时，2020 年 7月 15 日，肖腾海默女士，你对 GTV媒体集团的了解是什么？ 
答：这是由郭文贵经营和管理的一个实体。 
问：你对 G币的了解是什么？ 
答：这是 GTV发起的一个私募发行。 
问：什么是私募发行？ 
答：私募发行是一种不在交易所上市的私人基金。 
问：你能读一下下一段吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第40/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：作为基金普通合伙人，在履行其持续尽职调查和遵守证券法律的过程中，海曼需要您回答以
下问题： 
问：你能读一下第一个问题吗？ 
答：Saraca媒体集团用于投资基金的资本来源是什么？ 
问：读一下下一个问题。 
答：基金认购协议中提到 Saraca列出的公司主要财富来源是出售子公司的股份。这个声明指的
是哪个子公司，这些股份何时被收购，何时被出售？ 
问：你能读一下下一个问题吗？ 
答：如果收益来自证券发行，发行文件中是否披露了收益的使用包括投资于基金或任何类似的私
人投资工具？如果是，请提供披露文件的副本。 
问：你能读一下下一个问题吗？ 
答：GTV主要股票发行筹集的资金中是否有任何用于资助 Saraca 对基金的投资？ 
问：下一个呢？ 
答：对于 GTV通过主要发行筹集的资金，这些资金存入了哪些银行，截至 2020 年 7月 9 日这
些账户的余额是多少？ 
问：肖腾海默女士，Saraca 媒体有没有回应这些问题？ 
答：没有。 
问：第三个问题提到：如果收益来自证券发行，发行文件中是否披露了收益的使用包括投资于基
金或任何类似的私人投资工具？你对发行文件是什么意思有何了解？ 
答：私募发行是投资者认购的，需要向他们提供投资基金的选择，所以会有发行文件，就像我们
为海曼香港机会岸上基金提供发行文件一样。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第41/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：请放大，Addleman 女士，请转到下一页。 
问：你能读一下第一段的第二句话吗？ 
答：谢谢您对这件事的及时协助。如果您对这一请求有疑问，请通过下面的电子邮件地址和电话
号码联系我。 
问：上面写着，"然而，要继续作为基金的投资者，我们需要在 7月 17日星期五中部时间上午 9
点之前回答上述问题。" 
答：是的。 
问：这些回答被提供了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：海曼在发送这封信后有没有收到任何回复？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对，法官大人。 
芬克律师说：我可以重新提问。 
问：在发送这封信后，海曼是否收到了任何回应？ 
答：没有对这封信的正式回应。 
问：非正式的回应呢？ 
答：据我所知，凯尔和余建明通过电话联系了。 
问：你对这次沟通的理解是什么？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对。传闻证据。 
法官说：请上前一步。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅有法官、双方律师）

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第42/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官说：你提取这些庭外陈述的目的是什么？ 
芬克律师说：所以有两个重点。一，余建明的陈述是共谋者的陈述；第二，它
是为了显示听者的影响，在这里是肖腾海默女士，因为它会影响她和海曼的其他人随后对
Saraca 投资的处理。 
法官说：反对无效。 
(下页继续) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(在公开法庭) 
法官说：驳回。你可以回答。 
答：你能再重复一遍问题吗？ 
问：你对卡马拉珠律师说余建明告诉巴斯什么的理解是什么？ 
答：有一个误会，可能有一些钱是借来的，但他们会把它放回去，并继续投资海曼资本香港基
金。 
问：对不起？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第43/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：海曼资本香港基金。 
问：这个解释对海曼来说足够吗？ 
答：不够。 
芬克律师说：我们可以展示作为证据的 HN193吗？ 
如果你能放大这个。 
问：这是——这是余建明发给凯尔·巴斯的电子邮件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：2020 年 7月 24 日？ 
答：是的。 
问：你能读一下余建明告诉凯尔·巴斯的内容吗？ 
答：亲爱的凯尔，你好吗？Saraca要求我通知你，他们对你们基金的投资是有效的，并且之前
已经获得了你们基金的批准。Saraca 不同意任何退款，否则你们的基金可能需要承担这种退款
的任何后果，包括任何经济后果。谢谢和最好的问候，余建明。 
问：海曼当时是否在考虑将 Saraca 从 HHKOF 中排除？ 
答：是的。 
问：为什么？ 
答：因为有人告诉我们，这笔投资的资金可能不是来自 Saraca。 
芬克律师说：我们可以展示作为证据的 HN221吗？ 
问：肖腾海默女士，你认识这个文件吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第44/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你能向陪审团解释一下这封电子邮件是什么吗？ 
答：这是我们的律师 Kit Addleman发送给 Saraca 及其律师的通知，海曼作为海曼香港机会岸
上基金的普通合伙人，正在行使其强制撤资的权利，撤回 Saraca媒体集团的 7000万美元投
资。 
问：你能向陪审团解释一下什么是强制撤资吗？ 
答：强制赎回投资者的资金。 
芬克律师说：我们可以展示作为证据的 HN208吗？ 
法官说：好。那么你们即将看到的这份文件——你能放大一下吗——是凯尔·巴
斯发给余建明的电子邮件。它不是为了证明电子邮件中所述内容的真实性，而只是为了它对接收
者的影响。 
你可以继续。 
芬克律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
问：肖腾海默女士，这是一封你在发送前审核过的电子邮件吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你为什么这样做？ 
答：我认为这是一个团队合作，在凯尔发送给余建明之前审核这封电子邮件的准确性。 
问：这封电子邮件的日期是什么时候？ 
答：2020 年 8 月 22 日。 
问：在凯尔·巴斯发送这封电子邮件给余建明之前，除了你提到的那次电话交谈外，海曼或其律
师是否收到过 Kit Addleman提出的关于 Saraca 投资的资金来源问题的任何答复？ 
答：没有答复。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第45/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你能读一下这份文件吗？ 
答：我？ 
问：是的。 
答：对不起。是的。余建明，由于涉及 Saraca 投资于海曼香港基金的不幸的政府调查，我今天
写信询问你对附带文件的签字，这是在 7月 31 日发送给你和 Saraca 团队的。自从我们在七月
中旬首次收到有关这笔投资的调查通知以来，我们的律师一直在与联邦当局就此事进行频繁联
系，并多次与 Saraca 和 GTV的律师沟通。基于这些讨论，海曼了解到部分 Saraca 投资资金的
来源（之前未披露），海曼被迫负责任地赎回 Saraca最初的 1亿美元投资中的 7000万美元。
海曼不会从整个 1亿美元投资中收取任何管理费。正如我们在信中所述，我们将保留在此过程
中产生的实际法律费用。在我们 8 月 3 日的最后一次电话交谈中，你确认会立即将签署的文件
返回给我。至今，我还没有收到你的签名。请尽快签署并发送给我。 
问：停在这里。 
在这封信的这部分中，余建明说海曼被迫负责任地赎回 Saraca最初的 1亿美元投资中的 7000
万美元。这是什么意思，赎回？ 
答：这就是我们行使的强制撤资，或海曼香港机会基金的普通合伙人行使的权利。在与联邦当局
和 Saraca 及 GTV的律师沟通中，显然这 7000万美元并不是 Saraca 在认购文件中声称的资金
来源。因此，我们想要从基金中撤出这笔金额并将其存入托管账户，等待进一步的指示。 
问：你可以继续读。 
答：接下来要解决的问题是有关 Saraca最初投资于海曼香港基金的 1亿美元中的 3000万美
元。为了让 Saraca 继续投资于基金，海曼需要你和 Saraca 的律师提供关于这笔资金具体来源
的声明（超出最初在认购文件中提供的内容），并且确认这笔资金没有任何问题，包括不代表
GTV发行的资产，而是 Saraca 和郭文贵做出的合法投资。 
问：停在这里。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第46/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
在这里说到由 Saraca 和 Miles做出的合法投资，Miles 是什么意思？ 
答：郭文贵。 
问：继续。 
答：此外，我们希望你或你的律师确认这部分 Saraca 投资资金的来源已经与联邦当局讨论过，
并且他们不反对这部分投资继续由基金管理。自 7月 15 日以来，我们一直在询问这些信息（律
师的信也附上了），需要你或你的律师在下周末之前提供信息和声明，以便我们继续代表
Saraca 管理这笔投资。 
问：继续。 
答：请与郭文贵讨论并尽快回复我。我们需要在 8 月 28 日之前解决剩余的 3000万美元投资问
题。我随时可以与你讨论此事，我希望找到一个所有人（包括美国政府检察官）都同意的解决方
案。 
问：肖腾海默女士，联邦当局是否指示海曼发送这封电子邮件？ 
答：没有。 
问：海曼收到这封电子邮件的回复了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：Saraca 是否提供了自己或其律师关于资金具体来源的声明？ 
答：没有。 
问：是否有任何声明确认投资于海曼香港机会基金的资金没有任何问题？ 
答：没有。 
问：是否有任何声明确认这笔资金不是来自 GTV发行的资产？ 
答：据我所知，没有。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第47/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：Saraca或其律师是否做出任何声明，确认对著名系列的 1亿美元投资是由 Saraca 和郭文
贵做出的合法投资？ 
答：没有。 
芬克律师说：你可以缩小它并转到下一页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，你记得哪些文件是附在这封电子邮件上的？ 
答：Kit Addleman 在 7月 15 日发送的信件，询问 Saraca媒体集团投资资金的来源，还有她在
7月 31 日发送的撤资通知。 
问：撤资通知是什么意思？ 
答：那是我们发送给 Saraca 的信，通知他们强制撤资 7000万美元。 
芬克律师说：好的。你可以把它拿下来，洛夫特斯女士。 
问：肖腾海默女士，剩下的 3000万美元，因为它已经投资于期权，最终发生了什么？ 
答：为了澄清，那 3000万美元—— 
问：让我这样问：Saraca 在著名系列中投资了 1亿美元。那 1亿美元发生了什么？ 
答：其中的 7000万美元被隔离，我们将其转移到一个支线基金账户，直到建立了一个所有相关
方同意的托管账户。剩下的 3000万美元，据我们所知，可能是合法的投资。我们没有任何证据
表明相反。因此，我们在 2020 年 6月将其投入工作，到 2021 年 9 月至 10 月的时间范围内清
算。 
问：那 3000万美元的价值发生了什么变化？ 
答：因为这是一个资本耗尽基金，如在演示文稿中所述，这是一个基于期权的策略，随着期权到
期日的临近，期权的价值大幅下降，所以那 3000万美元的投资，在 2020 年 6月投入使用后，
15个月后，当我们在市场上清算它时，它只值大约 38万美元。 
问：大约损失了多少钱？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第48/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：大约 2960万美元。 
问：肖腾海默女士，当投资者投资于著名系列时，如果他们在投资六个月后或十二个月后想要提
取资金，他们可以这样做吗？ 
答：不，他们不能。海曼香港机会基金 B类股份没有提款权。 
问：被隔离的 7000万美元最终发生了什么？ 
答：它在我们的支线账户中——岸上支线账户中，存放了一年左右，在 2021 年 7月，所有相关
方没有反对将其转入以 Saraca 律师名义开的托管账户。 
问：当你说相关方时，那是谁？ 
答：涉及的政府当局——司法部，证券交易委员会——然后 Saraca 的律师没有反对，所以就是
Saraca。 
芬克律师说：如果我们可以展示作为证据的政府展品 222 和——对不起，请原
谅——HN222 和 HN223。 
问：肖腾海默女士，你认得这些文件吗，HN222 和 223？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些是什么？ 
答：这些是电汇确认书。 
问：为了什么？ 
答：左边的是 7月 7日的电汇确认书，海曼香港机会岸上基金从其账户向摩根大通账户汇款，
该账户名为 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason 联合律师事务所。 
问：这笔电汇的金额是多少？ 
答：6千 9百 33万 1千零壹拾玖点四八美元。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第49/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你对 Morvillo 的理解是什么？ 
答：据我所知，这是 Saraca当时的律师。 
问：肖腾海默女士，你知道海曼将 6930万美元汇入 Morvillo 的托管账户后，发生了什么吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：右边的文件，HN223，那是什么？ 
答：这是第二笔电汇，日期是 10 月 15 日，来自海曼香港机会岸上基金。电汇来自我们的岸上
支线账户，被发送到摩根大通账户，账户名为 Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason 联合律师事务
所。金额为 3十 8万 2千 5百 5十 8点五八美元。 
问：你知道海曼将 38.2万美元转入 Morvillo账户后，发生了什么吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：这 38.2万美元是否代表了剩余的 3000万美元？ 
答：是的，正确，是 3000万美元的清算。 
问：肖腾海默女士，你刚才提到，一旦资金投资于著名系列，投资者不能提取资金。为什么？ 
答：因为——这是一个行业术语，叫做期权的衰减，意思是这是一个基于期权的策略，期权的价
值在投资后立即大幅损失，所以这是一个买入并持有的策略。你投资的金额是你愿意承受损失
的，如果港币在这些期权的时间范围内没有在弱方范围之外交易。因此，对于每个关闭的批次，
我们有一个目标日期，所有期权都到期。 
问：“愿意承受损失”是什么意思？ 
答：这是一个高风险、高回报的策略，非常可能所有期权都可能到期而一文不值，港币在你投资
期间的 40 年固定汇率范围内保持不变，因此所有投资者都需要准备好承受他们所投资的金额，
因为这是为了对冲他们的整体投资组合或小额的机会主义风险重新定价。 
芬克律师说：谢谢你，肖腾海默女士。目前没有其他问题。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第50/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官说：交叉询问。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。谢谢，法官大人。 
由辩方律师卡马拉珠交叉询问： 
问：早上好。 
答：早上好。 
问：所以你在海曼以这样或那样的形式工作已经有将近 20 年了，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你在 2005 年开始做实习生，对吗？ 
答：我在 2005 年在美盛集团实习，但在凯尔手下。 
问：明白了，然后你在第二年开始在海曼工作？ 
答：是的，2006年 4 月。 
问：好的。你提到凯尔，是凯尔·巴斯，对吗？ 
答：是的，凯尔·巴斯。 
问：好的。巴斯先生是海曼的首席投资官，对吗？ 
答：创始人兼首席投资官。 
问：所以可以说他决定了基金的最终投资策略，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你在直接询问中提到海曼受美国证券交易委员会（SEC）监管，对吗？ 
答：在 2020 年 6月的事件中，海曼是美国证券交易委员会注册的投资顾问。 
问：好的，这之后有变化，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：我认为——让我们暂时专注于当时的情况。你提到那时海曼只能接受某些类型的投资者的
钱，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：基本上是合格的购买者，对吗？ 
答：是的。当时我们只提供 3(c)(7)基金。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第51/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你在直接询问中给出的合格投资者定义，基本上是关于投资者的收入水平或资产，对吗？ 
答：具体来说，合格购买者需要有 500万美元的可交易证券。 
问：好的，合格投资者也是类似的概念，对吗？ 
答：正确，类似的门槛但较低。 
问：明白了。只需要较少的资产，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：现在海曼的一些基金至少有一个最低投资金额，对吗？ 
答：是的，有一个声明的最低限额。 
问：所以对于著名基金来说，我认为大约是 25000 美元，对吗？ 
答：对于在岸联接基金，是的。 
问：好的，谢谢。你得向我解释在岸和离岸，但目前是说在岸基金，对吗？所以可以说合格投资
者标准和最低投资标准之间有区别，对吗？ 
答：我们不管理任何(3)(c)(1)基金或合格投资者基金。 
问：好的。那我们就说合格购买者，好吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：合格购买者和最低投资额之间有区别，对吗？ 
答：正确，那是两个独立的东西。 
问：对。合格购买者是关于投资者的资质，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：而最低投资额是关于投资的资质，对吗？基本上是金额。 
芬克律师说：反对此提问方式。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。最低——最低金额门槛是关于投资金额的，对吗？ 
答：是的，由普通合伙人设定。 
问：在某些情况下，最低投资金额可以被豁免，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第52/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：但合格购买者门槛不能被豁免，对吗？ 
答：除非你是知情员工。 
问：对。 
答：在海曼工作。所以这是其中之一，但对于外部投资者，没有例外，必须是合格购买者。 
问：明白了。我想你在直接询问中提到，海曼通过潜在投资者的陈述来了解他们是否是合格购买
者，对吗？ 
答：如果是我们不认识的反向调查进来的人，是的。如果是芝加哥大学，我可以在他们网站上查
到他们管理 90亿美元的资产，那就不需要。 
问：对。但你提到的验证，海曼没有义务这么做，对吗？ 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：好的，我重新措辞。也许会更好。海曼不需要确认合格购买者声明的准确性，对吗？ 
答：一旦声明作出，我们不需要查看银行对账单或进一步的验证。 
问：好的。所以对 Saraca 来说，也和其他任何投资者一样，对吗？ 
答：关于附属文件吗？ 
问：是的，在做出投资时。 
答：是的，我们接受附属文件上的声明。 
问：所以作为你们的——我称之为资格认证过程，可以吗？ 
答：好的。 
问：所以在 Saraca 的资格认证过程中，海曼从未要求任何银行账户对账单，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：从未要求任何净资产声明，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：没有资产清单，对吗？ 
答：不需要。 
问：好的，不需要，所以你没有向余先生索要任何这些东西，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第53/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：正确。 
问：从你第一次获得余先生的合格购买者声明到资金到账的整个过程中都是这样，对吗？ 
答：你能再重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。我只是想了解在这段时间内—— 
答：你是说几天吗？ 
问：是的，无论是几天，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：但在这个期间，从合格购买者陈述作出到资金到账之间的任何时间，你都没有要求 Saraca
的银行对账单或任何确认，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你不需要这样做，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你之前提到你在法庭上认出郭先生，对吗？ 
答：据我的记忆，我没有能够回答这个问题。 
问：没关系。你第一次在德克萨斯州见到他，对吗？ 
答：我见过郭先生——是的，我在德克萨斯见过一次郭文贵。 
问：好的。他见到你时很友好吗？ 
答：非常友好。 
问：平易近人吗？ 
答：非常。 
问：他是去和巴斯先生做一个采访，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你知道那个采访是预先安排好的吗？ 
答：是的。Reel Vision 团队在那里录制，是计划好的。 
问：好的。是在机场机库里进行的，对吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第54/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：因为有安全问题，所以在机库里进行，对吗？ 
答：据我所知，不是。 
问：你知道为什么在机库里进行吗？ 
答：具体原因我不清楚。 
问：那个采访发生了，对吗？是一个 Reel Vision采访？ 
答：是的。 
问：你在整个采访过程中都在场吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在直接询问中，他们请你解释了一些巴斯先生和郭先生谈论的事情，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：对。检察官播放了一些片段，问你对那些片段的看法，对吗？ 
答：是的，最终播出的采访。为了澄清，有一个完整的拍摄团队，我在镜头外，所以不是采访中
所说的每一个字我都能听到。我是在采访发布后观看的。 
问：哦，明白了。所以你是在采访发布后才看到完整的采访，对吗？ 
答：是的，正确。 
问：好的。那些片段是芬克律师请你解释的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。那么可以说在那个采访中，郭先生的英语不是很流利，对吗？ 
答：正确。他带了一位翻译。 
问：对。他甚至开玩笑说试图使用他称之为“中式英语”的东西，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。 
法官说：如果你知道的话可以回答。 
答：我不记得那个笑话。 
问：你说他带了一位翻译。那是余先生，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：而余先生确实在时不时地地进行翻译，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第55/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：和我记忆的一样，对的。 
问：你在直接询问中提到，尽管有语言障碍，他们还是讨论了一些中国经济的某些方面，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在采访中显示了一张图表，你记得吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你说那张图表是郭先生的团队提供的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：是谁在郭先生的团队中提供了那张图表？ 
答：图表是提供给凯尔的，所以我——我不知道。 
问：好的。所以你没有任何个人知识表明是郭先生的团队提交给巴斯先生的，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：但是你确实提到，之后海曼确实在其演示文稿中包含了那张图表，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：那是一个投资者演示文稿，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以海曼对图表中的信息足够放心，向其潜在投资者披露，对吗？ 
答：是的，注明了来源是郭媒体。 
问：所以你列出的来源是郭媒体，对吗？ 
答：这是我的记忆。 
问：好的。但如果你认为这些数字完全是假的，你不会发给你的投资者，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你还提到海曼从事的是—— 
我认为你称之为事件驱动的投资策略，对吗？ 
答：全球事件驱动投资，是的。 
问：好的。我认为在回答法官的问题时，你给了一个货币贬值的例子，对吗？ 
答：那会是一个催化剂或事件，是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第56/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：那么可以说，基本上是围绕基金认为是重大事件的东西进行投资，对吗？ 
答：我不知道“重大”这个词是否总是合适，但就是一个事件。 
问：好的。基金认为值得围绕进行交易的事件，对吗？ 
答：你说的基金是指哪个基金？ 
问：我是指海曼。 
答：海曼，是的。所以如果我们有——你能重复一下问题吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以重读一下吗，否则我会说错。 
法官说：继续。 
（记录重读） 
答：所以我们会投资与事件驱动题材相关的证券，是的。 
问：好的。所以对应的事件可能发生在美国也可能在国外，海曼都做，对吗？ 
答：它关注全球。我们关注全球。 
问：但是海曼也曾基于美国的事件进行投资，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：例如，2008 年，海曼基于次贷市场进行了一次投资，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：本质上，你是认为市场会下跌，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
芬克律师说：反对相关性和范围�� 
法官说：请上前一步。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师听到） 
法官说：你为什么问 2008 年次贷危机的事？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：哦，我只是想解释一下什么是事件驱动的投资理论，他们现
在在针对港币进行操作。我没有更多关于这个问题的问题，也不打算深入探讨 2008 年的次贷危
机。这就是全部。 
法官说：好的，我允许这个问题。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第57/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：法官，如果可以的话。 
法官说：请说。 
芬克律师说：我认为辩方律师已经问得够多了。2008 年的投资是基于会发生住
房危机的预期，也就是说海曼在住房危机中获利。2008 年的事件离当前相关事件已经有 12 年
了，他们已经提到他们进行了国内投资，这很相关，我没有反对那个问题。继续深入探讨住房市
场的投资显然是为了把海曼描绘成负面的形象，因为他们在住房危机中投资，这与本案无关，所
以我请求维持反对意见。需要提及的已经提到了，不应该再进一步探讨，因为这对陪审团没有任
何适当的作用。 
法官说：我不同意。我认为给出过去投资的例子是合适的。所以反对无效。 
（继续下一页） 
（在公开法庭） 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
卡马拉珠律师说：你介意把问题重读一下吗？ 
（记录重读） 
卡马拉珠律师说：在直接询问中，你花了一些时间谈论著名基金，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。目前不深入细节，触发著名基金的事件与港币有关，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：具体来说，港币与美元的挂钩会在某个时候断开，对吗？ 
答：在弱方，是的。 
问：对。在弱方，因为如果挂钩断开，基金会亏钱，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：我记得你在直接询问中提到过香港金融管理局，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：有时称为—— 
答：HKMA。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第58/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：是的，谢谢。它在维持挂钩方面起作用，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以它保持美元储备，对吗？ 
答：它在资产负债表上持有美元，是的。 
问：好的。如果我理解你的证词——请纠正我是否错了，但——香港金融管理局可以使用这些储
备来维持挂钩，对吗？ 
答：超额储备，是的。 
问：好的。挂钩的整个概念是将港币与美元绑定在一个范围内，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：我记得你提到，如果香港金融管理局用完了它的超额储备，那么这可能导致挂钩断开，对
吗？ 
答：有可能。 
问：很可能会导致挂钩断开，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你记得在直接询问中提到巴斯先生在 Reel Vision采访中表达了 HKMA已经花掉 78%的超
额储备的观点吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：我记得你还提到，如果挂钩断开——我相信这是你的措辞——市场会“揭穿”香港，对吗？ 
答：市场可能在香港金融管理局实际上用完储备之前就揭穿香港，预期他们会用完。 
问：对。所以基本上对他们可能会用完的恐惧会导致市场揭穿香港。 
答：可能导致港币在挂钩范围之外交易，即使在 HKMA 正式用完储备之前。 
问：明白了。试着用通俗的说法解释，“揭穿市场”是说对香港经济失去信心，对吗？ 
答：对港币与美元挂钩的信心丧失。 
问：对。对。所以为了记录清楚，这里的信心丧失是特指港币的。 
答：港币维持挂钩的能力。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第59/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：我记得你在直接询问中提到海曼的观点是，当 HHKOF（海曼香港机会基金）成立时，挂钩
已经不再有意义，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：在未来的某个时候，它会断开，对吗？ 
答：很可能会断开，是的。 
问：好的。这就是投资理论，对吗？ 
答：正确。或者更广泛地说，期权的定价是错误的，太便宜了。 
问：对。我不是专家，我会试着说，但基本上是在那个价格买入期权是有经济意义的，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：法官，我反对评论。应该只是对证人的提问。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：你能再重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。在那个时间点上，以那个价格买入期权是有经济意义的。 
答：这取决于你的投资目标是什么，你的投资组合中有什么样的风险敞口，但
作为一个事件驱动、全球事件驱动的投资者，这对凯尔和海曼的投资工具来说，是有意义的投资
策略，是一个错误定价的策略。 
卡马拉珠律师说：法官，我不知道你是否打算现在休息午餐还是让我继续。这
由你决定。 
法官说：现在是 11:29，我们将休息。记住你们不允许在自己之间或与任何人讨
论此案。不要允许任何人在你们面前讨论此案。还要记住，不允许通过任何方式对案件进行任何
研究，不允许阅读任何关于此案的新闻报道。中午准备好回到法庭。 
书记员：陪审团退庭。 
法官说：你可以下去。记住不要讨论案件。 
证人说：是的，法官大人。 
（陪审团不在场） 
法官说：在我们中午回来之前，双方还有什么事吗？哦，证人需要出去。 
芬克律师说：政府没有。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第60/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们也没有，法官大人。 
法官说：好的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：谢谢。 
法官说：好的。 
（午餐休息） 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
下午环节 
 12:00 P.M. 
法官说：请把证人带回来，陪审团也请进来。 
（陪审团在场） 
法官说：请坐。请记住你仍在宣誓之下。 
证人说：是的。 
法官说：你可以继续交叉询问。 
卡马拉珠律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
卡马拉珠律师说：肖腾海默女士，我想当我们暂停时，我们在谈论港币挂钩，
对吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第61/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：顺便问一下，你知道为什么叫做“挂钩”吗？ 
答：技术上讲，港币是与美元绑定的。我不知道这个词的起源—— 
法官说：请稍等。 
卡马拉珠律师说：对不起，法官大人。 
法官说：请再问一遍问题。 
卡马拉珠律师说：当然。 
问：我想你刚才回答的是你知道为什么叫做“挂钩”吗？ 
答：我的回答是港币与美元绑定，这意味着它在一个范围内交易，而不是挂钩。我不知道“挂钩”
这个词的起源。 
问：好的。但它通常被称为——而你在直接询问中也谈到了——挂钩，对吗？这是我们使用的词
语？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。在我们暂停之前，我们在讨论挂钩可能断开，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：现在，海曼认为挂钩会在未来某个时间点断开，对吗？或者可能会在未来某个时间点断开？ 
答：断开到弱方，是的。 
问：好的。但海曼的观点不是说这个断开会立即发生，对吗？ 
答：对于一个 40 年的挂钩，脱钩时间很难预测。 
问：对。例如，2020 年 6月，著名基金关闭，对吗？ 
答：它在 2020 年 6月首次关闭。 
问：好的，那是第一次关闭？ 
答：第一次关闭是在 6月 1 日。 
问：海曼并没有预期挂钩会在 2020 年 7月 4 日前断开，对吗？ 
答：那是很多年前的事情，我很难回忆，但我知道第一批和第二批次的初次关闭是在 2020 年 6
月 1 日和 6月 8 日，我们购买的期权在 2021 年底到期。所以我们大概给了自己大约一年半的时
间。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第62/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：好的。你介意解释一下你刚才用的“期权”和“跑道”这两个概念是如何结合的吗？ 
答：好的。在著名系列中，我们购买了港币在范围外的期权。基本上，这是一个美元的看涨期权
和港币的看跌期权，意味着我们做多美元，做空港币。期权价格是 7.85 美元，意味着一旦港币
在弱方交易范围外，这个期权就会生效或触发。所以 7.86美元、7.87美元，突然间，那个期权
就生效了。“跑道”这个词在我看来是我们给了自己大约 18个月，或者说 17 个月——抱歉，大约
19个月的时间，让这个理论通过我们为 B1 和 B2批次购买的期权来实现。 
问：大致而言，这个理论设想这是一个逐渐的过程，对吗？让我换个问题。 
答：好的。 
问：这个理论设想这可能是一个需要一段时间才能实现的过程？ 
答：我记得这个交易是设定了 19个月的期限。我记得我们想要在小心和及时的方式下将资金投
资于期权中。我不太能准确回忆你具体的问题。我们希望尽早设立并定位好，以便能完全投资，
以捕捉港币的任何潜在波动。 
问：明白了。让我换个方式问。让我问一个更好的问题。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们能调取一个东西吗，我相信应该是在证据 GX HN-27
中，请翻到第 2页。 
问：我相信你在直接询问中提到过这个，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这是著名基金的资料，是这样说吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。所谓的“资料”就是指演示，对吗？ 
答：这是 2020 年 5 月的初始投资者演示；正确。 
问：这是发给投资者，让他们了解基金的一些情况的？ 
答：在 2020 年 5 月，有一些迭代和更新。 
问：当然。暂时只说 2020 年 5 月的这个版本。 
卡马拉珠律师说：请翻到第 35页。 
问：你看到第二个要点写着“目标是大约 12到 14个月的平均有效期限”吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第63/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：这是什么意思？ 
答：这是指初始投资组合或关闭期权的平均到期时间。所以当你在不同时间段购买期权时，我们
不能在一夜之间把所有的钱都用在一个期权上。所以在 6月、7月和可能 8 月购买期权时，我认
为这是低估了，以希望我们能超额完成 12到 14个月的有效期限。我试图回忆我们是否在购买
一年的期权。我认为是对的。好的。让我重新开始。 
问：慢慢来。继续。 
答：我们专注于为 B类股份购买一年期的期权。所以当我们在 6月购买期权时，它们会在下一
年的 6月到期；我们在 7月购买期权，它们会在下一年的 7月到期；8 月也是如此。我认为我们
会保留一些现金，以便在 2020 年 12 月购买一些期权，最后的到期时间是 2021 年 12 月。目标
是让所有期权在 2021 年 12 月到期。投资组合的有效期限，即任何时候期权的平均期限，会在
12到 14个月之间。 
问：明白了。所以可以说海曼直到 2021 年 12 月才知道这个特定批次是否正确？ 
答：正确。因为目标是购买在 2021 年 12 月底到期的期权，我们直到知道所有期权是否一文不
值之前，都不能完全知道是否错了。 
问：所以即使在那段时间内亏了钱，投资理论在那时也不会被证明是错的，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：我记得你在直接询问中提到策略的时间窗口是 12到 24个月或类似范围，对吗？ 
答：是的。这取决于我们这些批次关闭的时间；但，历史上，这些批次的期限是 12到 24个
月。 
问：事实上，HHKOF现在仍然存在，对吗？ 
答：A股和 B类股份都有——B类股份仍然有批次。 
问：所以海曼今天仍然在使用相同或至少类似的投资理论？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。如果你不介意，我们回到第 2页。 
问：这里再次描绘的是谁？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第64/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：这是中国共产党领导人。他叫习近平。 
问：谢谢。对不起，我不是故意打断你。他在做什么？ 
答：他在吹散香港旗上的花瓣。 
问：好的。这是在向潜在投资者宣传的材料中，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：请翻到第 29页。 
问：这张幻灯片的标题是什么？ 
答：“投资者上一次担心香港的中国法律时。” 
问：这张幻灯片描绘了什么？ 
答：这张幻灯片描绘了港币在 1981 年至 1983 年间的相当大的贬值。 
问：明白了。这个标题的目的是传达什么？ 
答：我相信大约在 1983 年，英国���布他们将——香港曾是英国的领土，缺乏更好的术语。英国
宣布他们将在 1997年左右将香港交还给中国。我认为在 80 年代初期有一个这样的宣布，即某
个时候它将回归中国。所以当投资者最后一次担心香港的中国法律是在这个宣布期间，大约在这
个时间，挂钩被引入，以稳定货币，这是我最好的记忆。 
问：明白了。 
卡马拉珠律师说：请翻到第 26 页。 
问：你能读一下这张幻灯片的标题吗？ 
答：“北京联络办公室在 2020 年 5 月 2 日划下界线。” 
问：你能读一下第一个要点吗？ 
答：“星期六，北京的香港联络办公室警告说，如果激进的反政府抗议活动再次带来混乱和暴
力，这个城市将没有未来，当时需要团结一致对抗冠状病毒危机。” 
问：这个要点的目的是向投资者传达什么？ 
答：鉴于这个演示文稿已经有三年了，我们不再在我们的资料中使用它，所以我不太清楚。 
问：好的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：请翻到第 31页。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第65/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你看到标题“挂钩是为了打破——阿根廷”吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在资料中包含这个幻灯片的目的是什么？ 
答：我记不起来了。 
问：好的。这份资料的目的是给潜在投资者一些投资的感觉，对吗？ 
答：这是我们的研究成果，向投资者传达我们的理论。 
问：对。你想向投资者展示一些为什么这个理论可能有效的证据，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：对。你想让投资者确信这不是一个半成品的投资理论，对吗？ 
答：这是一个经过深思熟虑的理论。 
问：这个幻灯片描绘了另一个国家的挂钩被打破的时间，对吗？ 
答：今天在这里，我不记得阿根廷挂钩的是谁，所以很难讨论这个幻灯片。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。请翻到第 34页。 
问：这里描绘了什么？ 
答：这是一条龙咬住香港，一把伞上写着“民主”。这是中国在打压香港的民主制度。 
问：伞是黄色的有什么意义吗？ 
答：对我来说没有。 
问：除了这个演示文稿，投资者还会收到一个叫做招股说明书的东西，对吗？ 
答：一般是的。我们称之为保密——我们称之为私募协议。 
问：好的。我们可以叫它那样。像 PPM？ 
答：PPM。 
问：PPM？好的，我们用这个。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们能调出政府证物 29吗？谢谢。 
问：好的。让我们从第一页开始。我想你在直接询问中提到过这个。 
答：是的。 
问：所以这是你发送的电子邮件，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第66/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：你是发送给潜在投资者的，对吗？ 
答：是的，表明他们对 B类股份结算感兴趣。 
问：你发送的文件之一是 HHKOF 的 PPM，对吗？ 
答：是的，保密发行备忘录。 
问：明白了。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下 PDF 的第 197 页吗？ 
问：好的。所以这是我们称之为 PPM 的文件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：或者如果正确的术语是保密发行，我也可以—— 
答：有些基金称之为 PPM。这显然是一个保密发行备忘录。 
问：好的。所以这个备忘录是为了向投资者传达更多关于潜在投资的信息，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以它包含了多个不同的部分，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：编制这样的文件需要大量的工作，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：巴斯先生也对其进行了贡献，对吗？ 
答：对于这个特定的发行备忘录，我不能说他有参与。 
问：好的。我们暂时不谈这个特定的备忘录。只是谈谈在海曼的流程。 
答：好的。 
问：你能告诉我——你在编制一个新的批次。编写保密发行备忘录的流程是什么？ 
答：所以这是在基金层面进行的。这是在著名系列关闭之前存在的——最初在 6月 1 日关闭。
因此，最初的香港机会在岸基金保密备忘录是在 2017年 1 月设立的；它为额外的 B类股份进行
了修订，这就是为什么它是 2020 年 5 月的。我们之前有一个基金是一个特定货币的基金，我们

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第67/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
以那个基金为基础做了香港策略。有很多人提供了意见并帮助律师整理草案。我不能证明凯尔是
否参与了这个过程。 
问：好的。那就行了。有很多海曼的人参与了？ 
答：是的。 
问：有律师参与吗？ 
答：投资专业人士。 
问：明白了。好的。所以他们一起工作编写了保密发行备忘录，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些文件涵盖了很多不同的话题，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：例如，我们可以看一下第 198页吗？ 
问：这个标题是“合伙目录”，对吗？什么是合伙目录？ 
答：我认为它是列出所有参与的不同各方和代表合伙的第三方。 
问：明白了。我记得你在直接询问中提到有一个名为 SEI 的管理员，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以这是反映在这里的实体？ 
答：这是我们作为管理员的第三方管理员。 
问：明白了。你看到两个标题下有一个叫审计师的？ 
答：是的。 
问：那里列出了一家公司吗？ 
答：德勤。 
问：什么是审计师？ 
答：审计师是一种第三方服务，每年对基金进行审计。他们代表合伙企业向其基础投资者提供审
计财务报告。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下第 224页吗？ 
问：好的。这部分的标题是“投资计划”，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第68/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：然后有一个标题是“投资目标和策略”？ 
答：是的。 
问：这一部分的内容——一般来说，这部分是用来传达什么的？ 
答：这是在描述基金的投资理论。 
问：好的。所以基本上是投资策略？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。目的是向投资者更详细地解释正在发生的事情，对吗？ 
答：作为发行的一部分，是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下第 235页吗？ 
问：你看到标题“某些风险因素”吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这一部分是用来传达什么的？ 
答：概述投资基金的风险因素。 
问：第一个风险因素，好像是说市场和投资风险，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这是一种特定类型的风险吗？让我撤回并这样问：这是 PPM传达的风险之一吗？ 
答：是的，概述了。 
问：这里概述了投资东亚国家证券的具体风险，对吗？这是第二个加粗部分。 
答：是的，这是其中之一。 
问：好的。别担心，我不会让你读完整个内容。但一般来说，这是针对投资东亚证券的风险？ 
答：这强调了亚洲可能比美国或其他发达国家风险更高。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以只给证人、各方和法庭展示 GX SM-08吗？ 
问：肖腾海默女士，你认得这个文件吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：抱歉。我们可以回到第一页吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第69/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：这是什么？ 
答：这是著名系列或 B类股份的保密发行备忘录的补充。 
问：好的。因此，可以说这是我们之前看到的文件的补充内容？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：让我这次把话说清楚。辩方提出政府证据 SM-08。 
芬克律师说：我可以问辩方律师一个问题吗？ 
法官说：好的。 
（律师商议） 
芬克律师说：反对。 
法官说：请上前。 
（继续下一页） 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师听到） 
法官说：这个附录与被告的投资有关吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：是同一个基金，法官大人。这只是一个补充，涵盖了它。我
展示它的唯一目的是表明有一个补充，它基本上与之前的文件相同。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第70/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官说：那么问题是什么？ 
芬克律师说：我问辩方律师的问题是，谁看过这个文件？他的回答是，我不知
道。因此，我看不出它的相关性。如果引入这个文件的目的是为了显示对郭先生或余先生的影
响，那么如果没有人看到它，就没有影响。当然，他可以问问题，证明这是一个补充，这没问
题。但引入一个可能被被告看到也可能没被看到的文件没有相关的目的。 
法官说：根据她的证词，我假设这些文件在投资前是提供给他们的。 
芬克律师说：也许是这样。但我问过律师是否有任何相关人士看过，他说没
有。这就是我反对的原因。 
卡马拉珠律师说：不，我说我不知道，因为我还没问过证人这个问题。但这只
是——这只是完成记录。这是他们提供的文件。我不会说郭先生具体看过这个文件。只是完成记
录—— 
法官说：那好。反对无效。 
卡马拉珠律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
芬克律师说：甚至没有——明白了。 
法官说：你质疑它的真实性吗？ 
芬克律师说：我不质疑真实性，法官大人。我正准备补充我的同事说的话。当
我开始说话时，我听到了法官的裁定，所以我没有再说什么。我道歉。 
法官说：好的。 
（继续下一页） 
 
（在公开法庭） 
法官说：反对无效。 
（政府证据 SM-08 被接纳为证据） 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以将其展示给陪审团吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：这个文件——你之前有提到过补充文件，对吗？对不起，让
我更具体一点。PPM 的补充文件，对吗？ 
答：我不记得了。我是说，这个文件就是 PPM 的补充。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第71/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：好的。这个是著名基金 PPM 的补充文件？ 
答：你之前给我看的 PPM 是整个香港基金的。 
问：好的。 
答：我的意思是整个香港——我相信你给我看的是在岸保密备忘录。 
问：好的。 
答：你现在给我看的这是离岸海曼香港备忘录的补充。 
问：好的。 
答：所以这不是严格意义上的补充，对你所说的—— 
问：我明白了。 
答：好的。 
问：我明白。因为海曼有两种不同的投资方式，对吗？ 
答：有一个在岸联接基金和一个离岸联接基金。 
问：明白了。 
它们可能有不同的要求，对吗？ 
答：不同的陈述。如果你是非——如果你是非——如果你是免税的美国或离岸个人投资于离岸基
金。 
问：对。因为如果你通过在岸投资，你需要缴纳美国税款？ 
答：是的，你会收到 K-1 表。 
问：那个 K-1 表不仅发给投资者，也发给美国国税局，对吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以撤下这个文件。 
问：你第一次见到余先生是在 2018 年的达拉斯，对吗？ 
答：余建明？ 
问：是的。 
答：我在 2018 年 10 月在达拉斯见过他。 
问：好的。从那以后直到 2020 年 5 月你没有再与他有过联系，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第72/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：他来办公室见过凯尔。我没有参加会议，但在他离开时再次介绍给我。 
问：那是什么时候？ 
答：在 2018 年 10 月到 2020 年 5 月之间的某个时候。我不能确切记得。 
问：好的。那是在你最初见到他的时候还是更接近 2020 年 5 月？ 
答：我真的记不清了。 
问：好的。但你没有参加那个会议，对吗？ 
答：我没有参加那个会议。 
问：所以你不知道会议讨论了什么。除了他来办公室那次之外，你没有与他有过其他接触，对吗？ 
答：据我所记得没有。 
问：好的。所以在那段时间里你没有向他发送任何关于香港基金的信息，对吗？ 
答：据我记得没有。 
问：你第一次听说余先生有投资兴趣是从巴斯先生那里，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：那是在 2020 年 5 月，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以调出作为政府证据 HN-27的文件吗？ 
问：好的。你在巴斯先生告诉你与余先生的谈话后发送了这封电子邮件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你看到发送时间了吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。上面��着是在星期六凌晨 1点发送的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你认为这是实际发送的时间吗？ 
答：我认为余建明在伦敦，所以可能是伦敦时间凌晨 1 点。我不认为是美国时间凌晨 1 点发送
的，但可能有时我会在奇怪的时间工作，但我不记得了。 
问：嗯，你确实说过这次投资有些紧迫，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第73/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的，这可能就是为什么我在星期六发送的原因。 
问：对。你能解释一下为什么会有紧迫性吗？ 
答：香港基金B类股份的起源来自一个现有投资者的反向询问，实际上是我们旗舰基金中最大的
投资者。他们希望在 6月 1 日快速完成交易。 
问：所以可以说此时资金到账的窗口正在迅速关闭，对吗？ 
答：要参与第一次结算，是的。时间是由另一位投资者之前设定的。 
问：巴斯先生也很急于完成这次投资，对吗？ 
答：我会说凯尔对时间很敏感，因为当前市场定价有一个很好的风险回报。 
法官说：你能解释一下“反向询问”是什么意思吗？ 
证人说：是的。我们的一位现有投资者问我们是否可以做一个资本耗尽的工具。所以这是应一位
投资者的要求创建一个资本耗尽或将 100%资本投入期权策略的独立股类别。 
法官说：继续。 
卡马拉珠律师说：所以巴斯先生急于完成这笔交易是有市场原因的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。而且基金的一大投资者也希望尽快完成这笔交易，对吗？ 
答：这是一个独立的基金，我们的旗舰基金；但，是的，这是他们的要求。 
问：好的。然后余先生出现说 Saraca想投资 1亿美元，对吗？ 
答：我认为最初的谈话并不一定是 Saraca，但郭文贵对这个新的香港理论结构有兴趣。 
问：好的。但这笔投资真的很大，对吗？ 
答：Saraca 的投资吗？ 
问：是的，提议的投资，它很大？ 
答：1亿美元的投资是一个很大的投资。 
问：对。 
卡马拉珠律师说：祝你健康。 
法官说：谢谢。 
问：这会为基金带来可观的费用，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第74/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：如果港币大幅贬值，这会为公司带来可观的费用。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下政府证据 HN-27，我认为就是这个。我们可
以看第 37 页吗？ 
问：好的。我想你在直接询问中提到过这一点。但你看到上面写着“管理费”吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。无论投资理论是否成功，管理费都会支付给海曼，对吗？ 
答：那是对的。 
问：基本上，一旦投资进来，管理费就应支付，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：而且是投资者支付给海曼，对吗？ 
答：是的，管理资本。 
问：对。这在对冲基金行业是标准做法，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这对海曼或其他任何人来说都不寻常；管理费是标准的，对吗？ 
答：标准的对冲基金费用，是的。 
问：所以 1亿美元的投资按 2%计算，会有 200万美元的管理费，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：然后我想你所指的是如果赌注成功了，基金可能会赚得更多，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：那就是这里提到的业绩分成，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在 2020 年那时，我相信你在直接询问中提到海曼管理着大约 4亿美元的资产，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：那是其管理的资产规模，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：事实上，进入著名基金的结算期，在 4 月或 5 月期间，大约是 4亿美元，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第75/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：可能少一点，像 3亿多一点。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下政府证据 HN-29吗？ 
法官说：你是指总管理资产吗？ 
证人说：整个公司，在 2020 年初是 4亿；年中，像 5 月左右，我相信是 3亿多
一点。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下政府证据 29 吗？首先，让我们在这里停一下。 
卡马拉珠律师问：好的。肖腾海默女士，你看到附件了吗？我特别指的是倒数
第二个。 
答：ADV表？ 
问：是的。你看到那个了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：你知道 ADV表是什么吗？ 
答：知道。这是 SEC注册投资顾问公司需要提交的文件。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看这个文件的第 315页吗？ 
问：好的。这是 ADV表手册吗？ 
答：是的，截至 3 月 30 日。 
问：所以这是在著名基金 6月 1 日结算前提交的最后一份 ADV表，对吗？ 
答：我理解这是年度提交的文件。 
问：好的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看第 318页吗？ 
问：好的。你看到顶部写着项目 4，顾问业务吗？你能读一下那段的最后一句话吗？ 
答：“截至 2019 年 12 月 31 日，海曼管理约 4.32亿美元的资产，代表其客户以全权委托方式管
理。” 
问：好的。所以到 2020 年春天，这个数字有所下降，对吗？ 
答：据我记忆，是的。 
问：好的。所以 1亿美元可能占基金管理资产的 25%以上，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第76/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我们在 6月 1 日结算了近 4000万美元。但，是的，大约占管理资产的 20%左右。 
问：相当大的一部分。 
答：少数。 
问：当然。当然。但下一个最大的投资者投入了大约 3000万到 4000万美元，对吗？ 
答：专门针对香港基金？ 
问：是的。 
答：我记得当时大约是 5000万。 
问：好的。所以这几乎是那笔投资的两倍，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：可以说，当金额变大时，巴斯先生的参与就更重要了？ 
答：在什么方面？ 
问：比如，如果有特别高净值的个人计划投资，巴斯先生可能会有更多的面对面交流——。巴斯
先生可能会有更多的接触，对吗？ 
答：不一定。 
问：但有时会发生，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。已经回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：在这个案例中，巴斯先生是告诉你余先生的事情的人，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：据你所知，巴斯先生与余先生有直接的沟通，对吗？ 
答：这是我的理解。 
问：他通过电话与他交谈，对吗？ 
答：这是我的理解。 
问：你没有通过电话与余先生交谈，对吗？ 
答：我没有。 
问：有时余先生对你的一些询问回应较慢，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第77/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：针对我个人的询问？ 
问：或者基金的询问。好吧，我们说你的询问。我们先说你的询问。 
答：我特别记得在余先生要求附属文件后，我曾多次联系他，询问投资实体的名称，以便与我的
第三方律师进行冲突审查。这是我记得唯一一次我需要多次跟进才能得到回应。 
问：哦，抱歉，我不是故意打断你。 
答：但这是在几天内。 
问：好的。那时巴斯先生也试图跟进余先生吗？ 
答：是的。我让凯尔下次与余建明通话时，我们需要这些名称以进行冲突审查。 
问：因为巴斯先生与余先生有更直接的联系，对吗？ 
答：只是希望先与他交谈的人能够收集名称，以便我们进行冲突审查。 
问：最初是巴斯先生给了你将要投资的公司的名称，对吗？ 
答：通过短信。 
问：对。我们在直接询问中看过那条短信，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以调出政府证据 HN-33吗？ 
问：这是那条短信，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你看到顶部写着“因为时间紧迫”吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你理解这是什么意思？ 
答：有一次他们试图在 6月 1 日与我们旗舰基金的另一位反向询问投资者一起投资。 
问：这条短信是 5 月 26日发送的，对吗？ 
答：在 6月 1 日结算前。某个时候显然他们不会赶上这个截止日期，所以我们设定了一个他们首
选的时间。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。我们可以往下滚动一点。 
问：然后你告诉巴斯先生你会发送反洗钱要求给余建明，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第78/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：他怎么回应？ 
答：“好的。让我们加快一切进程。谢谢。记住，他现在在睡觉。所以你不会马上收到回复，直
到明天。” 
问：你理解巴斯先生说“让我们加快一切进程”是什么意思？ 
答：在我要求反洗钱要求的回应中，我们希望提前批准反洗钱要求，以免延误他们的投资。 
问：有时反洗钱过程可能会花一些时间，对吗？ 
答：根据投资实体的复杂程度，是的。 
问：对。我记得你在直接询问中描述过一个深入调查的过程，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以深入调查有时很简单，对吗？ 
答：有时很简单。 
问：有时可能会非常复杂，对吗？ 
答：可能会非常复杂。 
问：那么是什么使深入调查特别复杂？ 
答：当一个实体由多个实体拥有时。 
问：对不起，你能解释一下你的意思吗？ 
答：当一个实体不是由个人拥有，而是由其他独立实体拥有时。所以你可能有 A 实体由 B、C、
D实体拥有，你必须深入调查这些不同的实体，直到找到一个实际的人来进行反洗钱检查。 
问：明白了。因为你需要具体的人来进行反洗钱检查，对吗？ 
答：正确。任何拥有实体超过 20%的人都被视为受益所有人，需要进行反洗钱检查。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以回到政府证据 HN-37一下吗？ 
好的。还没有进入证据？那就撤下陪审团。我抱歉，我以为你已经提交了。我可以只展示给证人、
法庭和各方吗？ 
问：肖腾海默女士，你认得这个文件吗？ 
答：一秒钟。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第79/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：哦，是的，请慢慢来。 
答：是的。我熟悉这封邮件。 
问：好的。这是一封邮件链，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：它以你和余先生之间的邮件开始，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：巴斯先生在这些邮件中抄送了，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些邮件的时间大约在 2020 年 5 月 29 日，对吗？ 
答：是的，先生。 
问：它涉及余先生寻求的附属文件，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。辩方提出政府证据 HN-37。 
芬克律师说：反对。传闻证据。 
法官说：请上前一步。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师听到） 
法官说：所以余先生发给肖腾海默女士的第一封邮件涉及他们在谈判的条款，
对吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的。我引入邮件的唯一目的是展示巴斯先生让肖腾海默女
士打电话给他讨论附属文件。我不是为了证明任何底层材料的真实性，只是说巴斯先生让肖腾海
默女士打电话，这是我们昨天谈到的例外之一，我相信，是一个指示或方向。 
芬克律师说：他当然可以问问题，比如巴斯先生是否通过电话联系你讨论什么，
或者回应余先生的询问。但辩方不能引入巴斯先生、肖腾海默女士和余先生的声明的文件。我们
基于这个理由反对。这不是为了——每次有传闻证据反对，我理解。显然，正如费尔根森先生昨
天提到的，这些事情的细节是关键。有解释说这是为了展示心态或事实，但在这个特定案例中我

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第80/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
们不同意。我不反对问题，例如你是否在回应余先生的询问时通过电话与巴斯先生交谈。这没问
题。但这个文件是传闻证据，政府反对。 
卡马拉珠律师说：这个文件传闻证据的依据是什么？ 
芬克律师说：这是一个没有作证的第三方声明。也是共谋者的声明，根据规则
他们不能引入。这是依据。 
法官说：所以你有余先生发给肖腾海默女士，然后肖腾海默女士发给凯尔·巴斯。
她当然可以认证她的电子邮件。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我只打算问她顶部的电子邮件。我认为他们已经引入了关于
这个主题的肖腾海默女士和余先生之间的电子邮件。所以我们不—— 
法官说：你不打算引入余先生的第一封电子邮件？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：我认为你需要那个只是为了解释电话的内容。你知道，我可
以当然混淆证人，提供一个活跃的版本，让她不知道电话的实质内容。但我们不是为了谈判的条
款而引入。我会问她那个问题。但我真正要问的是巴斯 
 先生让肖腾海默女士打电话讨论余先生想要谈判的条款。这不是为了证明真实性，法官大人。
在政府能够提出实际的——传闻证据的依据之前，没有传闻证据反对。 
芬克律师说：所以这是一个传闻证据反对。 
法官说：等一下。我以为是从余到 Schottenheimer，再从 Schottenheimer 到巴
斯。 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的，余发给 Schottenheimer，然后 Schottenheimer 转发给
巴斯并说余想要这个。凯尔·巴斯回应说，给我打电话。所以我不是为了证明余想要什么。我会
问她那个问题。我引入它的唯一目的是，凯尔·巴斯对她说——她去找凯尔·巴斯并说，这就是他
想要的。凯尔·巴斯说，打电话给我，我会解释的，这是一个非传闻用途。 
芬克律师说：法官，如果可以，我认为他们想要这个文件的原因显然是为了余
所说的内容。否则，问题会很适当地是：你是否与巴斯先生谈论过余想要的内容？那是一个——
如果我能说完。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我什么也没说。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第81/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：那是一个适当的问题。他们试图引入一个文件来记录余的陈述，
这是辩方不能做的。这是传闻证据。我理解他们的观点是它不是为了证明真实性；但仅仅这么说
并不能成立。政府认为——这是一个真实的文件。真实性没有争议。我不质疑真实性，我质疑传
闻证据。基于这一点，反对意见应该得到支持，我们应该继续提问。 
法官说：你是说这是巴斯先生的一个命令？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：我是说这是巴斯先生的一个请求，打电话给我。就是这么简
单。如果法官想附加一个限制性指示，说明他们不能考虑底层内容，无论芬克律师所指的动机是
什么，我告诉你，我唯一的目的，我唯一的问题是：巴斯先生在你联系他时让你打电话给他，对
吗？ 
芬克律师说：那为什么不直接问那个问题？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：因为我可以设置场景，瑞安。我不仅限于问问题。 
法官说：所以去掉余到 Schottenheimer 的电子邮件对你来说可以接受吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：如果你愿意。我认为她需要——她需要主题行，否则她不会
知道邮件的内容；她不会知道主题是什么。但如果你想删减——首先，这是政府提交给我们的证
据。所以我们没有——这不是辩方的证据。但其次，如果这是担忧，我只是想确保证人能够识别
它，以便她了解它是什么。但我不认为政府无法说明我们的传闻证据反对的理由，只是说这不是
他们想做的，法官大人，这还不够，不应接受反对。 
法官说：我认为我们昨天确定了命令不构成传闻证据。 
SHROFF 律师说：完全正确。 
法官说：但余的部分是传闻证据。 
卡马拉珠律师说：当然。法官可以很容易地解决这个问题，只需说不要考虑邮
件底部的内容。 
芬克律师说：我认为应该删减。他们可以放大邮件的部分，法官大人将承认那
部分。他们可以准备一个删减版本的文件。 
卡马拉珠律师说：但为什么我们需要删减它？ 
芬克律师说：因为这是传闻证据。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第82/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官说：主题内容是什么？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：只是——它说的是附属文件是主题行。然后他在谈论附属文
件的条款。 
法官说：好的。如果她可以证实巴斯先生让她打电话，我不介意承认那部分电
子邮件，而不包括余建明的部分。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。那么法官你希望我现在怎么处理？我应该只关注顶部
部分吗？ 
芬克律师说：如果我可以。 
法官说：请说。 
芬克律师说：辩方说他们需要邮件是因为她不知道主题内容，也不知道这是什
么。让我们看看她记得什么；也许她记得。这是第一点。所以如果记忆失败，可以用这个来刷新
记忆。这是第二点。第三是基于法官的裁定，他们应该只放大电子邮件的顶部部分并引入那部分
证据，然后删减其余部分。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我应该得到两个部分。我应该得到肖腾海默女士发给巴斯先
生的邮件—— 
法官说：是的，我同意。 
卡马拉珠律师说：——我应该得到巴斯先生的回应。 
法官说：那没问题。好的。这就是我们将要进行的方式。 
卡马拉珠律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
  
（在公开法庭） 
（政府证据 HN-37被接纳为证据） 
卡马拉珠律师说：法官，我可以展示屏幕上的部分内容吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的，谢谢。我们可以展示给陪审团吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师问：好的。肖腾海默女士，你看到底部你发给巴斯先生的邮件了
吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第83/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：看到了。 
问：你看到主题是“附属文件”，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：那指的是什么？ 
答：那是指余建明代表他所指导的投资实体请求的附属文件。 
问：你提到的最低一百万投资条款是什么意思？ 
答：据我记得，有一个版本的附属文件是他们请求的最低一百万美元投资条款。 
问：所以他们在要求对一百万美元部分的投资给予优惠条款？ 
答：没有附属文件的草案我很难完全记得，但据我理解，他们在请求这些条款与一百万美元的投
资有关。 
问：好的。通常一百万美元的投资要求附属文件是不寻常的，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你为什么联系巴斯先生？ 
答：他在直接与余建明谈判附属文件。 
问：你认为在一百万美元投资相关的附属文件要求是相当激进的，对吗？ 
答：我认为这是某种误解。在这个时候，我不知道，5 月 29 日，是否向我表示也有五千万美元
的投资在进行；我认为附属文件初稿的措辞只是错误地概述了。 
问：好的。然后巴斯先生怎么回应？ 
答：“给我打电话。我会解释。” 
问：你和巴斯先生谈了吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：谈话结果是什么？ 
答：他解释说，余建明想个人投资一百万美元，此外还有来自郭文贵家族办公室的资本，但这是
一个独立的实体。 
问：所以——

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第84/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：解决方案是因为他们是关联实体，我们的外部律师对起草最低五千一百万美元附属文件感到
满意。据我所记得，这就是最终附属文件的内容。 
问：是五千一百万还是一亿一百万进入了附属文件？ 
答：有一次我以为是五千一百万——某个时候它从 Saraca 的五千万变成了一亿。但我相信在最
终的附属文件中我以为是五千一百万。 
问：好的。现在，当我们看短信时，你提到开始与余先生进行反洗钱检查，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。你在直接询问中作证说反洗钱检查是 KYC流程的一部分，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：“KYC”代表认识你的客户，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你在直接询问中作证说 SEC要求你进行这些检查，对吗？ 
答：是的，是的。 
问：还有其他政府机构也有 KYC流程的一部分检查，对吗？ 
答：是的，我认为金融机构必须对任何客户进行 KYC。 
问：他们必须将实体与各种美国政府名单进行核对，例如，对吗？ 
答：是的。我只熟悉我们的流程。 
问：好的。那么告诉我你的流程。 
答：我们收集反洗钱网格上列出的所需文件。我们使用SCI作为我们的第三方管理员。我们将反
洗钱功能外包给我们的第三方管理员。他们有一个团队为我们的基金运行反洗钱。 
问：明白了。你知道他们运行哪些检查吗？ 
答：通常，他们会检查所有需要进行反洗钱的人，包括受益所有人、授权签字人和控制人姓名和
详细信息与全球检查数据库，这些数据库会检查 OFAC 和许多其他广泛的恐怖分子名单或不受
欢迎的人物名单。他们在投资时和每月都会进行检查，并向我们提供报告说没有命中。我们从未
有过命中，每月都没有命中我们的任何基金。 
问：对不起，你提到了 OFAC。那是什么？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第85/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我不知道那个缩写。 
问：没关系。大致上—— 
答：这是一个恐怖分子名单。不仅仅是恐怖分子，还有你不能与之做生意的人。 
问：所以检查 OFAC 名单是反洗钱的一部分，对吗？ 
答：那是外包的，是的。 
问：谢谢。现在，你在直接询问中提到你称之为反洗钱网格的东西，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：反洗钱网格的一部分是投资者需要回答的问题列表，对吗？ 
答：这取决于——很多反洗钱都融入了附属文件中的问卷中。反洗钱网格显示了你需要提供的文
件列表和你需要提供的关于最终受益所有人、控制人的信息，我认为就是这些。 
卡马拉珠律师说：请稍等一下。 
问：现在，你在直接询问中作证说有一次余先生告诉你钱需要从不同的实体来，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
 问：那从你的角度来看，可能是一个反洗钱问题，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：余先生最终解决了那个问题，对吗？ 
答：资金从 Saraca 的账户进来了。 
问：对。所以那解决了你所担心的反洗钱问题，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：抱歉，我之前忘了问，但快速回到附属文件，较大的投资者获得附属文件并不罕见，对吗？ 
答：不罕见。 
问：那些附属文件的条款以及——撤回。海曼愿意在附属文件中同意的内容部分取决于投资的经
济效益，对吗？ 
答：我不理解这个问题。你能重复一下吗？ 
问：当然。如果一个投资者要求特定条款，对吗？ 
答：嗯嗯。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第86/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：海曼是否接受这些条款的因素之一是投资的规模，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在认购包中，有一个问题是财富来源，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：认购包并不总是有财富来源问题的，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：那是最近几年添加的，对吗？ 
答：从 2020 年开始的几年内，是的。 
问：对不起，你说是吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。你作证说最初 Saraca 的表格缺少财富来源信息，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这也不罕见，对吗？ 
答：在附属文件中有修改是典型的。那个问题被跳过了，以前也有过，但我不认为这是经常发生
的。 
问：对。你有其他投资者没有填写那个问题，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你有投资者对那个问题的意图感到困惑，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。推测。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你个人处理过对那个问题感到困惑的投资者吗？ 
芬克律师说：同样反对。 
法官说：反对有效。不能说其他人在想什么。 
问：你个人是否有其他投资者向你表达过对那个问题的困惑？ 
芬克律师说：同样反对。 
法官说：反对有效。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第87/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。我们可以看一下政府证据 HN-51吗？ 
（律师商议） 
问：你认得这个吗？ 
答：认得。 
问：好的。辩方提出政府证据 HN-51。 
芬克律师说：没有反对。 
法官说：接纳。 
（政府证据 HN-51 被接纳为证据） 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以展示吗？ 
问：好的。你看到这里写着“简要说明订户”，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。这是 Saraca认购包中特定的财富来源问题，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这里列出的是“出售子公司股份”，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这描述中没有什么让你警觉的，对吗？ 
答：正确。这对我来说像是一个清算事件。 
问：你当时没有要求更多的关于它的信息，对吗？ 
答：SCI也没有。 
问：那是我下一个问题。你将其传递给 SCI让他们审查，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：他们没有回来提出任何跟进问题，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：他们是反洗钱专家，对吗？ 
答：我们依赖他们的专业知识。 
问：这就是你们付钱给他们的原因，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第88/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：正确。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下政府证据 HN-57 吗？我们可以展示给陪审团
吗？ 
问：好的。这是一封余先生发给你的邮件，对吗？ 
答：在顶部？ 
问：是的，在顶部。 
答：是的。 
问：抄送了巴斯先生，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：有许多附件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些是你或海曼要求的，为了 Saraca 的投资顺利进行的文件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看第 7页吗？也许我们看前一页。谢谢。 
问：你在直接询问中作证过这件事，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你看到主要联系人了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：主要联系人的电子邮件地址是什么？ 
答：[email protected]  
问：在收集这些认购协议文件期间，凯尔·巴斯正在讨论成为 GTV的董事，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你是否知道在收集认购文件期间，凯尔·巴斯在讨论成为 GTV的董事？ 
答：不知道。 
问：GTV是 Saraca 的子公司，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第89/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我不知道。 
卡马拉珠律师说：稍等一下。我们可以看第 39页吗？ 
问：你看到那里列出的电子邮件地址，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：同样的电子邮件地址，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
卡马拉珠律师说：法官，可以请稍等片刻吗？ 
（律师商议） 
问：你是否曾知道巴斯先生试图成为 GTV的董事？ 
芬克律师说：反对。已经回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以看一下政府证据 HN-168吗？168号。没有吗？我们
可以看附件吗？ 
问：你记得你在直接询问中作证过这件事，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。这里有你作证过的问题列表，对吗，在这封信中？ 
答：是的，项目符号。 
问：海曼在接受 Saraca 投资之前从未询问过这些问题，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：这只是由 SEC 的调查引起的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：当时海曼依赖 SEC 的批准来开展业务，对吗？ 
答：在什么背景下？ 
问：你作证说他们是注册投资顾问，对吗？ 
答：海曼当时是 SEC注册的投资顾问，所以他们是我们的监管机构。 
问：对。所以他们可以——我不知道这是否正确术语，但他们可以取消你的注册，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第90/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的，可能。我不是很清楚，但对。 
问：但你认为 Saraca 的原始回应没有任何问题，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对，形式不明确。 
法官说：反对无效。 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。卡马拉珠律师说：我们可以重读一下吗？ 
（记录重读） 
答：Saraca 在认购文件中关于财富来源的初始回应足以满足反洗钱要求，以认购海曼香港机会
基金。 
问：好的。你在直接询问中作证你与巴斯先生讨论过 SEC 的调查，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你记得巴斯先生曾批评过 SEC 的调查吗？ 
答：我不记得当时的任何评论。 
问：他对 SEC 的调查感到满意吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。已经回答过。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：他不满意。 
问：他对此感到不满，对吗？ 
答：关于调查？ 
问：是的。 
答：我认为他对资金来源的欺骗感到不满。 
问：当然。他对 SEC 的调查也不会满意，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你听过他表达对它的不满吗？ 
答：我只是记不清具体的对话。 
问：现在，在直接询问中，芬克律师问你是否 HHKOF涉及，他的说法是对港币的赌注，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第91/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：海曼不是赌场，对吗？ 
答：不是。 
问：不是体育博彩，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：海曼不做赌注；它进行投资，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：他问过你郭先生是否在海曼投资过，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：他问你郭先生是否向海曼汇过 1亿美元，对吗？ 
答：我记不清是否是郭先生本人还是郭先生的家族办公室或其他，但一般来说，是的，郭先生。 
问：好的。今天他问你关于 Saraca或郭的投资，对吗？ 
答：我相信是的。 
问：好的。郭先生从未在海曼投资过，对吗？ 
答：个人没有。 
问：他的名字没有出现在海曼的任何投资中，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：没有以郭浩云的名字出现，对吗？ 
答：你在问什么？抱歉。 
问：我是说没有以郭浩云的名字在海曼进行投资，对吗？ 
答：抱歉。你能拼一下吗？ 
问：当然。H-O，空格，W-A-N，空格，K-W-O-K。 
答：正确。 
问：没有以郭文贵的名字投资，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你知道这一点，因为如果有郭先生名下的投资，你会对他进行反洗钱检查，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第92/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：如果投资在他自己的名字下，这是正确的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：即使他仅拥有公司 20%的股份，也是如此，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：但根据文件，你认为没有必要对郭先生进行反洗钱检查，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：在任何情况下，你都需要进行你所说的深入调查过程，对吗？ 
答：如果他投资了一个他拥有的实体或以他自己的名字投资？ 
问：是的。 
答：两种情况下都会有反洗钱检查。 
问：投资是以郭先生儿子拥有的公司的名义进行的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：我想你在直接询问中作证你对那个文件进行了详细审查，对吗？ 
问：这是指认购协议吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你认为这笔投资是通过郭先生的家族办公室进来的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：家族办公室涉及多个家庭成员并不罕见，对吗？ 
答：不罕见。 
问：对吗？投资可以代表不同的家庭成员，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：不一定总是父亲，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：涉及子女在家族办公室里也不罕见，对吗？ 
答：非常常见。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第93/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：但一个投资是由郭先生的亲戚进行的，并不代表是郭先生的投资，对吗？ 
答：据我理解，积累的财富实际上是郭文贵先生的。 
卡马拉珠律师问：但你没有对他进行反洗钱检查，对吗？ 
答：我们没有必要这么做。 
问：你没有对他进行尽职调查，对吗？ 
答：意思是？ 
问：嗯，你在直接询问中提到过“尽职调查”这个词，所以无论你当时赋予它什么意义，现在也是
一样的。 
答：没有对郭文贵先生进行正式的反洗钱检查。 
问：如果你认为这笔投资是他的，你就需要进行反洗钱检查，对吗？ 
答：如果他被列为受益所有人、授权签字人或控制人，但根据 Saraca 媒体提供的陈述，并不是
这样。 
问：对不起。你的证词是你认为这笔钱是他的，但你不需要弄清楚这些实体是否也是他的；对吗？ 
芬克律师说：已经问过并回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：Saraca 通过在岸基金投资，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这意味着他们会收到 K1 表，对吗？ 
答：他们有美国的税号，他们会收到 K1 表。 
问：你作证说你只见过郭先生一次，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：在这个法庭上是你自 2018 年以来第一次见到他，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：但你和检察官见过几次面，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：超过五次？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第94/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：事实上，你在昨天开始作证前几小时刚和他们见过面，对吗？ 
答：简短见面。 
问：午休时？ 
答：是的。 
问：就在这个大楼的楼下，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在所有这些会议上，你都讨论了你的证词，对吗？ 
答：在会议上，我如实回答问题。 
问：对。他们问你问题，你给出答案，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：为了你的证词，他们告诉你他们预计会问你哪些问题，对吗？ 
答：不一定。 
问：他们展示了要给你看的文件，对吗？ 
答：他们展示了文件，是的。 
问：他们问你关于那些文件的问题，对吗？ 
答：他们问了问题。 
问：他们展示了我们看过的那些电子邮件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在这些电子邮件中你没有称之为郭先生的投资，对吗？ 
答：我不相信。 
问：对。这是芬克律师的措辞选择，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这是他的描述，不是你的，对吗？ 
答：我描述了投资并讲述了投资，无论我使用了什么措辞。主要是称之为 Saraca，实际投资实
体的名称。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第95/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：所以你不记得他问你关于郭先生投资的问题并你这样描述？ 
芬克律师说：已经问过并回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：肖腾海默女士，你会同意我的说法，对吧，称之为郭先生的投资并不准确，
对吗？ 
答：在 2020 年 5 月和 2020 年 6月，我认为这是郭文贵先生通过他的家族办公室的投资。 
问：所以你没有按照程序处理这些，对吗？ 
答：不对。 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有更多问题了，法官大人。 
法官说：再次定向审问？ 
由检方律师 FINKEL重新进行直接询问： 
问：肖腾海默女士，你在进行 Saraca1亿美元投资的协调时，是否遵循了要求的程序？ 
答：是的。 
问：肖腾海默女士，在你与政府会面期间，政府告诉你作证时该怎么做？ 
答：讲真话。 
问：著名系列基金是向公众开放的吗？ 
答：不是。 
问：它是向合格购买者开放的吗？ 
答：特定的合格购买者。 
问：为什么著名系列基金只向特定的合格购买者开放？ 
答：因为我们依靠 3(c)(7)豁免，并且为了保持该豁免，我们必须确保我们只向净资产或可投资
资产超过 500万美元的成熟投资者营销。 
问：为什么著名系列基金只向成熟投资者营销？ 
答：因为我们的基金结构是 3(c)(7)基金。 
问：你在交叉询问中提到过多次结算日期。你能向陪审团解释一下这是什么意思吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第96/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：对于 B 类股份或著名系列基金，即海曼香港机会基金，因为它是 100%基于期权和资本耗尽
策略，一旦我们有一个结算，就必须进行一系列结算以接收新资本，到目前为止我们已经结算了
B1到 B12。 
问：Saraca 投资，1亿美元的投资，结算日期是什么时候？ 
答：6月 8 日。 
问：6月 1 日有结算吗？ 
答：有的。 
问：为什么 6月 8 日有第二次结算？ 
答：据我所知，时间对他们来说太紧张了。 
问：对谁来说太紧张？ 
答：对 Saraca 来说太紧张了。 
芬克律师说：我们可以看一下作为证据的 HN57的第7页吗？我相信是第7页。 
问：肖腾海默女士，你记得这个文件吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：上面写着，“投资者的股权或资本或受益所有人的总数”？ 
答：是的。 
问：为什么海曼要求这些信息？ 
答：这样我们可以了解有多少受益所有人，以及我们需要对谁进行反洗钱检查。 
问：如果这个数字是两个，这会如何影响你对这项特定投资的尽职调查？ 
答：这取决于提供给我们的是什么。如果每个受益所有人拥有 50%，那么我们会对两者进行反
洗钱检查，但如果一个拥有 90%，另一个拥有 10%，我们只需要对拥有 90%或超过 20%的人进
行反洗钱检查。 
问：但这个问题不是关于谁拥有 20%或更多的问题，而是关于受益所有人的总数问题，对吗？ 
答：这是关于总数的问题。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我反对此提问方式。 
法官说：反对无效。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第97/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：所以这个陈述是说 Saraca 投资只有一个投资者，对吗？ 
答：拥有 100%的 Saraca 的人，正确。 
问：根据文件，那是谁？ 
答：郭文贵的儿子。 
芬克律师说：我们可以看一下 HN51吗？我们可以放大顶部部分吗？ 
问：你在交叉询问中被问到这个文件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：上面写着，“简要说明认购者的主要财富来源”。上面写着，“出售子公司股份”，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：如果海曼知道Saraca 的财富来源是 GTV投资者，而这些投资者不知道他们在投资海曼香港
机会基金，你会接受 Saraca 的投资吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对此提问方式，法官大人。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：肖腾海默女士，如果你在 2020 年 6 月初知道这个陈述“出售子公司股份”是谎言，你会接受
Saraca 的投资吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：同样反对。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：如果你知道这个陈述“出售子公司股份”是不真实的，你会接受 Saraca 的投资吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：同样反对。 
法官说：反对有效。 
芬克律师说：法官，我认为这与一致性有关——我们可以上前一步吗？ 
法官说：好的。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师听到） 
法官说：据我记得，我允许对受害者提问假设性问题，但不对像这样的公司提
问。 
卡马拉珠律师说：对的，法官大人，因为这涉及到实质性。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第98/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
芬克律师说：所以，法官大人，第二巡回法院现在已经采纳了我认为通常被称
为转换理论的观点。也就是说，在电信诈骗的背景下，犯罪可以通过任何进一步实施该计划的虚
假陈述来完成。因此，政府部分认为，这个谎言是计划的一部分。此外，法官大人，政府还指控
了——起诉书的最后一项指控，我现在想不起来具体的法条——对，1957 条款，是非法使用犯
罪所得资金，这意味着对海曼撒谎关于资金来源本身就是相关的证据。因此，我的理解是，法官
大人——如果我误解了法院之前的裁定，请原谅；这就是我提问的原因，因为我认为这是一致的
——我认为这是相关的，因为它显示了如果他们说了实话，整个计划的展开方式会不同；它会失
败。 
法官说：所以我的记忆是你在你的动议中提到的是个人受害投资者。那是我的
记忆。我错了吗？ 
芬克律师说：我认为你是对的。但除此之外，我仍然认为这是一个允许的假设
性问题，基于我刚才提到的原因。 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有权威允许向非受害者提问假设性问题。 
法官说：我维持反对意见。 
检方律师 FERGENSON 说：关于转换理论的最后一点，法官大人？实质性是一
个要素，如果这个实质性的虚假陈述是对受害者或其他人做出的，这是第二巡回法院的法律。你
不必对受害者做出实质性的虚假陈述。 
法官说：那你为什么不在你的文件中提出这个问题？ 
SHROFF 律师说：确实。 
检方律师 FERGENSON 说：我们认为—— 
卡马拉珠律师说：看起来这就是答案。 
SHROFF 律师说：这就是问题的答案。 
法官说：我将维持反对意见。 
卡马拉珠律师说：谢谢你，法官大人。 
  
（在公开法庭） 
法官说：反对有效。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第99/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：肖腾海默女士，你在交叉询问中被问到在海曼收到这一陈述时，你是否询问了有关出售子公
司股份的更多问题；对吗？ 
答：在处理认购文件时没有进一步的问题。 
问：但在认购文件处理后，海曼及其律师是否询问了财富来源的问题？ 
答：关于财富来源和资金来源。 
芬克律师说：我们可以看一下作为证据的 HN168，并转到第二页。 
问：这份文件中，有一些问题是问 Saraca 的财富来源，对吗？ 
答：财富来源和资金来源。 
问：两者之间有什么区别？ 
答：财富来源是你如何创造财富以成为合格购买者；资金来源是你投资于该基金的资金来源。 
问：第三个项目符号中写道：“如果收益来自证券发行，发行文件是否披露了资金的使用包括投
资于基金，即海曼，或任何类似的私募基金？如果是，请提供披露声明的副本。”我读对了吗？ 
答：对。 
问：Saraca 是否曾提供文件来回应这个问题？ 
答：没有，他们没有。 
问：Saraca 是否提供了任何额外的信息表明他们披露了证券发行的收益将用于投资海曼？ 
答：没有，他们没有。 
芬克律师说：我们可以看一下 HN208。 
问：这个展品是海曼寻求关于投资的额外信息的另一个例子吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：Saraca 是否曾回应过这个问题？ 
答：没有。 
问：在第二段中，文字写道：“为了让 Saraca 继续投资于基金，海曼需要收到你和 Saraca 的律
师关于这笔资金具体来源的陈述（超出最初提供的认购文件中所述）并且这笔资金没有任何污点，
包括它不代表 GTV发行的资产，而是 Saraca 和郭文贵先生的真实投资。”是这样写的吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第100/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：海曼是否曾收到对此的回应？ 
答：我们没有收到。 
芬克律师说：没有更多问题。 
法官说：再交叉询问吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：只是简短的，法官大人。 
卡马拉珠律师说：可以看一下 HN168吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师再次交叉询问： 
问：肖腾海默女士，这封邮件的日期是 2020 年 7月 15 日，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：此时 SEC已经联系了海曼，对吗？ 
答：7月 13 日。 
问：对，对。芬克律师刚刚问你是否曾收到回应，海曼是否曾收到回应，对吗？ 
答：正式回应。 
问：对。现在坐在这里的你不知道余先生和 Saraca 在这期间在做什么，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：你不知道他们是否在咨询律师，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。法院对此有裁决。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：好的。你在直接询问中作证说 Saraca 有律师，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你不知道他们是否直接与 SEC讨论这个问题，对吗？ 
答：我不会知道这些对话，所以我——我不知道。 
问：对。但你在直接询问中作证说在某个时候你将钱返还了，对吗，部分资金？ 
答：我们将钱转入了托管账户。 
问：好的。托管账户由谁持有？ 
答：据我所知，他们是 Saraca 的律师。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第101/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：好的。你在 SEC 的许可下这么做的，对吗？ 
答：SEC或 DOJ没有反对。 
问：Saraca也没有反对，对吗？ 
答：正确。 
问：然后你也作证说你在某个时候清算了 3000万美元的头寸，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：那是在 15个月之后，对吗？ 
答：可能是 2021 年 9 月底或 10 月初；15个月，没错。 
问：SEC知道那 3000万美元在那里，对吗？ 
芬克律师说：反对。 
法官说：她不能作证 SEC知道什么。 
问：SEC之前询问过海曼关于那 3000万美元的事情，对吗？ 
答：我没有参与与 SEC 的任何直接对话。 
问：但在直接询问中你作证说最终清算那 3000万美元时，是在 SEC 的同意下进行的，对吗？ 
答：据我当时的理解，没有任何一方，包括——包括 SEC 反对。 
问：在直接询问中你说——我不记得确切的词，但——任何相关方，对吗？ 
答：关于 7000万还是 3000万？ 
问：3000万。 
答：我不记得关于 3000万的具体说法。 
问：任何人反对你清算那 3000万美元的头寸吗？ 
答：据我所知没有。 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有更多问题了，法官大人。 
芬克律师说：只有一个问题，法官大人。 
法官说：好的。 
检方律师律师卡马拉珠重定向询问：

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第102/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：几个月后，当 SEC 介入时，正如刚刚问到的那样，那时 Saraca 的任何人是否回应了 Kit 
Addleman提出的问题并提供了关于资金来源和财富来源的文件？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：反对此提问方式。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：据我所知，没有回应。 
芬克律师说：没有其他问题了，谢谢。 
法官说：还有再交叉询问吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：没有，法官大人。 
法官说：你可以退席了。 
（证人退席） 
法官说：政府可以传唤其下一位证人。   
费根森律师：政府传唤金伯利·埃斯皮诺萨。   
书记员：请举起右手。   
（证人宣誓）   
书记员：请直接对着麦克风说话并靠近一点，你可以就坐了。   
法官说：请说出你的名字并拼写。   
证人：对不起，名字和什么？   
法官说：请说出你的名字并拼写。   
证人：金伯利·埃斯皮诺萨，K-I-M-B-E-R-L-Y，E-S-P-I-N-O-Z-A。   
法官说：你可以提问了。   
费根森律师：抱歉,法官阁下。请给我一点时间与辩护律师交谈。  
法官说：可以。   
费根森律师：法官，很抱歉，我们可以稍微在一旁谈一下吗？   
法官说：可以。   
（下一页继续）

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第103/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
 
 
 
 
 
 
（在法官席旁讨论）   
希里克律师：法官，我们刚才注意到，在费根森律师站起来讲话前几分钟，我
们发现包含本证人将要提交的银行记录的协议中有一个笔误，少了一份文件，所以我们只是想在
记录中说明，辩方将同意将其纳入记录，即使它不在协议中。我们只是想在他开始前说明这一
点。   
法官说：可以。   
希里克律师：辩方同意 GX JPM121。   
费根森律师：太好了。谢谢。谢谢你，法官。   
法官说：好的。   
（下一页继续） 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
（在公开法庭上）   
金伯利·埃斯皮诺萨， 
作为政府的证人，被正式宣誓并作如下证词：   
由律师卡马拉珠律师询问

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第104/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：下午好，埃斯皮诺萨女士。   
答：下午好。   
问：你在哪里工作？   
答：在联邦调查局（FBI）。   
问：你在 FBI 的职位是什么？   
答：我是法证会计师。   
问：作为 FBI 的法证会计师，你的一些职责或责任是什么？   
答：我审查和分析财务信息，主要是银行记录。   
问：你从事这项工作多久了？   
答：16年。   
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，除了今天的证词和你为此证词所做的准备之外，你是否参与过这个案件？   
答：没有。   
问：在你的证词之前，是否有人要求你审查某些政府证据并总结其中的信息？   
答：是的。   
问：你是否准备或帮助准备并审查了一些摘要图表的准确性？   
答：是的。   
问：这些图表是基于大量记录吗？   
答：是的。   
问：这些图表是基于什么类型的证据？   
答：银行记录。   
问：现在，谁决定你审查哪些证据以及在图表中包含哪些信息？   
答：检察官们决定的。   
问：我是那些检察官之一吗？   
答：是的。   
问：你是否有机会对图表进行修改以确保它们的准确性？   
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第105/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你进行了修改吗？   
答：是的。   
问：在你修改之后，这些图表现在都准确了吗？   
答：是的。   
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，为了明确起见，你是否审查了本案收集的所有证据，还是仅仅审查了图表
和这些图表所依据的证据？   
答：仅仅是图表和这些图表所依据的证据。   
费根森律师：法官阁下,目前政府方面提出一份双方商定的证据协议,该协议被标
记为政府证据协议第 14号。  
法官说：被接受。   
（政府证据协议第 14号被接受为证据）   
费根森律师：我将朗读这份证据协议的一部分内容。   
双方在此同意,下列展示的证据资料是政府方通过合法途径获得的,并且是第 A栏
所列实体在当时或接近当时制作的真实记录;这些记录是由��记录内容有知情的人员制作或根据
有知情人员提供的信息制作的;这些记录是在正常业务活动过程中形成的;并且制作这些记录是该
实体的正常惯例。 
费根森律师：洛夫特斯女士，如果你能滚动到第 5页。   
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，你在 A栏中间看到一个条目，上面写着摩根大通银行吗？   
答：是的。   
费根森律师：洛夫特斯 女士，如果你能滚动到第 3页。   
问：在 A栏顶部，埃斯皮诺萨女士，你看到有一个名为花旗银行的实体吗？ 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：好的。政府现在提供政府证据 CIT14 和 CIT47。政府还提供政府
证据 JPM118 至 JPM121。 
希里克律师：没有异议。 
法官说：准予接受。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第106/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
（政府证据 CIT14、CIT47、JPM118-JPM121 被接纳为证据） 
费根森律师：现在，洛夫图斯女士，我们能不能只给证人展示标记为政府证据 
Z1 的东西。 
由律师卡马拉珠询问： 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，这是什么？ 
答：这些是我审查和维护的证据。 
问：这些是您帮助审查的图表吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：您审查了所有作为这个图表基础的证据吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些图表准确吗？ 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：政府提交政府证据 Z1。 
希里克律师：没有异议。 
法官说：准予接受。 
（政府证据 Z1 被接纳为证据） 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，我们能不能公布一下。 
由律师卡马拉珠询问： 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，一般来说，这些图表显示了什么？ 
答：这些图表显示了主要针对 Saraca 媒体集团的两个银行账户的分析，展示了这两个账户的所
有进账和出账。 
问：现在只看第一个图表，请解释一下我们在这张幻灯片上看到的是什么。 
答：这是我审查的银行账户之一，账户名称是 Saraca Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya 
Dollar。这是一个 Chase 账户，尾号是 5601。截至 2020 年 4 月 1 日，该账户的初始余额是 
206,133 美元。 
问：您知道 Saraca Media Group Inc. 是什么吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第107/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我不知道。 
问：它还使用 d/b/a Himalaya Dollar 这个名称。d/b/a 是什么意思？ 
答：Doing business as（以...名义经营）。 
问：您知道 Himalaya Dollar 是什么吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
费根森律师：好的。洛夫图斯女士，我们翻到下一页。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，您能读一下这张幻灯片的标题吗？ 
答：Chase 5601：签名卡。日期是 2018 年 7 月 24 日和 2020 年 5 月 21 日。 
问：Chase 5601，是我们在第一张幻灯片上看到的那个账户吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：什么是签名卡？ 
答：签名卡是银行提供的文件。它包含所有账户信息，如账户名称、号码、开户时间，还有账户
签字人。 
问：什么是账户签字人？ 
答：是有权使用银行账户的人。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，先放大左边的签字卡。 
好的。埃斯皮诺萨女士，首先请注意左上角的内容，账户名称是什么？ 
答：Saraca Media Group Inc. 
问：在下面有一个营业地址，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：现在请看右上角，列出了一个账户号码，最后四位是什么？ 
答：5601。 
问：在下面几行中有开户日期，这个账户的开户日期是什么时候？ 
答：2018 年 7 月 24 日。 
问：请注意放大的底部，谁是这个账户的签字人？ 
答：王雁平。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第108/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：您知道那是谁吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：她的职位是什么？ 
答：代理秘书。 
问：她签署这份文件的日期是什么时候？ 
答：2018 年 7 月 24 日。 
费根森律师：好的。洛夫图斯女士，请放大右边的签字页。 
问：左边的签字卡是 2018 年的，对吗？右边的签字卡日期是什么时候？ 
答：2020 年 5 月 21 日。 
问：好的。现在再次注意左上角，账户名称是什么？ 
答：Saraca Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar。 
问：注意右上角，最后四位是什么？ 
答：5601。 
问：所以是同一个账户，现在账户名称上有了 d/b/a，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。在签字页上，谁是这个账户的签字人？ 
答：王雁平。 
问：她的职位是什么？ 
答：总裁。 
问：她签署这份文件的日期是什么时候？ 
答：2020 年 5 月 21 日。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，您审查的证据中，这个账户的授权人一直是王雁平吗？ 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：好的。洛夫图斯女士，翻到第三页。 
问：好的。我们回到了最初看的第一页吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第109/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：2020 年 4 月 1 日，Saraca 5601 账户的初始余额是多少？ 
答：206,133 美元。 
费根森律师：好的。请翻到下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：好的。埃斯皮诺萨女士，请解释一下我们在这张幻灯片上看到的是什么。 
答：这是显示同一 Saraca 账户（5601 账户），从 2020 年 4 月 1 日到 2020 年 4 月 30 日的存
款总额为 32,543,535 美元，包括 291 笔存款交易。这些交易的参考信息包括 "GTV"、
"Stock"、"Investment" 和 "Capital"。 
问：底部括号中的文字“包括拼写错误和相似的文本”是什么意思？ 
答：一些参考信息或备注中有拼写错误，或者在前后加了一些额外的词。 
问：我应该问，当说到参考信息时，您指的是什么？ 
答：很多交易是电汇，参考信息类似于支票上的备注，发件人可以写上汇款的原因。 
费根森律师：请翻到下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，请解释一下我们在这张幻灯片上看到的是什么。 
答：这是刚才提到的电汇存款的四个例子，两个发生在 4 月 24 日，一个在 5 月 1 日，一个在 5 
月 12 日，金额分别在右边，30 万、20 万等等。标出的部分是我刚才提到的备注或参考信息。
最上面一个写的是 GTV 投资，下面一个写的是投资股份资本，再下面一个写的是注意郭文贵先
生，最后一个写的是 GTV 股票。 
问：这些是所有的参考信息还是只是一些例子？ 
答：只是一些例子。 
问：您知道 GTV 是什么吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
费根森律师：请翻到下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：好的。埃斯皮诺萨女士，这张幻灯片显示的是什么？ 
答：这是同一个 Saraca 账户（5601 账户），所以在那些存款之后，在 2020 年 4 月 30 日，账
户余额是 32,474,168 美元。 
费根森律师：请翻到下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第110/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：好的。埃斯皮诺萨女士，这张幻灯片显示的是什么？ 
答：这显示了同一个账户（Chase 5601），从 2020 年 5 月 1 日到 2020 年 5 月 29 日的存款总
额为 291,554,689 美元，包括 2,446 笔存款交易，同样有 "GTV"、"Stock"、"Investment"、
"Private Placement"、"Capital" 的参考信息。 
费根森律师：请翻到下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：好的。埃斯皮诺萨女士，在这些额外的存款参考信息如股票或私募后，5601 账户中有多少
钱？ 
答：截至 2020 年 5 月 29 日，账户余额为 313,213,772 美元。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，请翻到下一张幻灯片。 
问：截至 2020 年 6 月 3 日，这个账户中有多少钱？ 
答：928,401 美元。 
问：实际上，我应该问一下，前一天账户的余额是多少？ 
答：324,778,316 美元。 
问：那么在 6 月 3 日这一天，大约有多少钱离开了这个账户？ 
答：大约三亿两千三百万美元到三亿两千四百万美元。 
问：好的。我们来看这些交易。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，请翻到下一张幻灯片。 
您可以向上滚动。谢谢。 
问：好的。埃斯皮诺萨女士，这张幻灯片显示的是什么？ 
答：这是那个账户（Saraca Chase 5601 账户）。左上角显示的是 6 月 2 日的余额，大约是 
3.24 亿美元；右侧显示的是 6 月 3 日的出账交易。红色标出的三笔交易是转账到一个尾号为 
2038 的支票账户。一笔交易金额为 1 亿美元，另一笔为 2 千万美元，还有一笔为 5 百万美元。 
费根森律师：谢谢，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，请注意 2038，这是什么？ 
答：这是银行账户的最后四位数字。 
问：您能确定这个银行账户是否也在 Chase，或者在其他银行吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第111/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：在 Chase。 
问：6 月 3 日转到那个账户的总金额大约是多少？ 
答：1.25亿美元。 
问：好的，我想关注这些交易。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，我们可以看下一张幻灯片吗？ 
问：好的，那么这张幻灯片上有什么新信息，埃斯皮诺萨女士？ 
答：这添加了 2038号的 Chase银行账户。根据该账户的银行记录，账户名称是 Saraca Media 
Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar，账户开设于 2020 年 6月 3 日，也就是转账日期。因此，在
那一天，账户的初始余额为 0。 
问：所以这两个账户的名称都是 Saraca Media Group d/b/a Himalaya Dollar，对吗？ 
答：是的，没错。 
问：好的，它们都在同一家银行，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，请看下一页。 
问：好的，现在这页上显示了什么，埃斯皮诺萨女士？ 
答：这是以 2038结尾的 Chase Saraca账户的签名卡。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，能不能放大一下——我不知道——上面三分之
二，让它更容易阅读。 
问：我们之前看到的那笔 1.25亿美元的转账日期是什么时候？ 
答：2020 年 6月 3 日。 
问：这个账户是什么时候开的？ 
答：2020 年 6月 3 日。 
问：谁是这个账户的签字人？ 
答：Yanping Wang。 
问：她的职务是什么？ 
答：总裁。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第112/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：她是什么时候签的？ 
答：2020 年 6月 3 日。 
问：都是同一天。 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：好的，请看下一张幻灯片。 
问：好的，埃斯皮诺萨女士，你之前提到当天有三笔转账，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这张幻灯片上显示的是什么？ 
答：这是第一笔转账，总共有一亿、两千万和五百万，这是第一笔一亿美元的转账，发生在
2020 年 6月 3 日下午 3:17。 
问：这是第一笔转账吗？ 
答：对不起？ 
问：按时间顺序，这是第一笔转账吗？ 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：好的，我们看下一张幻灯片。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，我们现在看到的是什么？ 
答：这些是银行提供的 2020 年 6月 3 日那笔 1亿美元交易的账户详情。 
问：让我先把你的注意力集中在左上角，加粗的文字。日期和时间是什么？ 
答：2020 年 6月 3 日下午 3:17。 
问：在这右边——你知道——在这右边，写着 Transferpmtadd。右边写的是什么？ 
答：Yvettewang2018。 
问：现在有红色标注的文字，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：那些文字是什么？ 
答：那是一条备注，类似于参考，上面写着“GTV Private Placement Fund”。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，你知道 GTV私募基金是什么吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第113/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我不知道。 
费根森律师：好的，我们看下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：好的，这张幻灯片上显示了什么，埃斯皮诺萨女士？ 
答：这显示了之前提到的内容。上面是 2020 年 6月 3 日 Saraca向另一个 Saraca账户转账 1
亿美元，然后两天后的 2020 年 6月 5 日向 Citibank 的海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities账户转账
1亿美元。 
问：海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities银行账户的最后四位数字是什么？ 
答：9681。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，我应该问，在这里中间底部，有一个黄色的框，列出了像 GX JPM119这
样的东西。这表示什么？ 
答：那些是我查看过的政府证据，以获取图表上的信息。 
问：好的，我还应该问，你知道海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities Fund是什么吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
费根森律师：好的，我们看下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：好的，埃斯皮诺萨女士，这张幻灯片上有什么新信息？ 
答：这显示了 Saraca之间的三笔转账。2020 年 6月 3 日下午 3:17有一笔 1亿美元的转账，下
午 3:18 有一笔 2000万美元的转账，下午 4:06有一笔 500万美元的转账。 
费根森律师：然后——洛夫图斯女士，如果可以的话，也许我们可以放大右上
角的框。 
问：好的，所以在 6月 3 日有 1.25亿美元转入这个账户，从左边的框里，对吗？ 
答：对，正确。 
问：为什么余额是 1.382亿美元？ 
答：还有一笔来自另一个账户的额外金额。 
问：这里有个星号，对吗？ 
答：是的，并且——

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第114/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，如果我们缩小一下。然后也许我们可以放大下面
的黄色框。 
问：请你读一下星号的内容。 
答：在 2020 年 6月 3 日，Saraca Media Group JPMC账户（尾号 8656）向 Saraca Media 
Group JPMC账户（尾号 2038）转账 1320万美元。 
问：所以另一个 Saraca账户向 2038账户转账了钱？ 
答：是的。 
问：大约是 1300万美元？ 
答：是的。 
费根森律师：让我们看下一张幻灯片。 
问：好，这张幻灯片上有什么新信息？ 
答：这张幻灯片只是汇总了这三笔交易，所以它显示了两笔 Saraca账户之间的 1.25亿美元。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，请看下一页。 
问：这里有什么新信息，埃斯皮诺萨女士？ 
答：所以在 2020 年 6月 3 日，还有一笔 2亿美元的转账，从 Saraca Media Group的 Chase
账户（尾号 5601）在 2020 年 6月 3 日下午 6:12转账到 GTV Media Group Inc. d/b/a 7-Coin 在
Citibank 的账户。 
问：现在这个 d/b/a 7-Coin，你知道 7-Coin 是什么吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
费根森律师：好吧，那么我们请看下一张幻灯片，洛夫图斯女士。 
问：这里有什么新信息，埃斯皮诺萨女士？ 
答：从 Saraca Media Group Chase账户（尾号 2038）在 2020 年 6月 9 日还有一笔 3800万美
元的转账，转到了 GTV Media Group Inc. d/b/a 7-Coin。 
问：好的，所以这些钱进入了这两个 Saraca账户，大约有多少转到了 GTV Media Group Inc.？ 
答：2.38亿美元。 
问：剩下的 1亿美元去了哪里？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第115/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities。 
费根森律师：法官阁下,请给我一些时间。 
法官：可以。 
费根森律师：没有其他问题了。谢谢。 
法官：交叉询问？ 
舒里克律师：谢谢，法官大人。 
交叉询问 
由辩方律师舒里克询问： 
问：下午好，埃斯皮诺萨女士。 
答：下午好。 
问：政府律师第一次请你在此案中作证是什么时候？ 
答：大约两到三周前。 
问：在检察官联系你之前，你对这个案件一无所知吗？ 
答：我听说过 GTV Media这个名字，但除此之外我不知道任何进一步的信息。 
问：好的，但你没有任何实质性的信息，只是从某处听说过它。 
答：是的。 
问：好的，你以前听说过 Miles Guo这个名字吗？ 
答：我也听说过这个名字。 
问：但同样的，只是因为你从办公室谈话中听说过，你对他一无所知，对吗？ 
答：是的，我对他一无所知。 
问：你不是 FBI 在此案调查团队的一员吗？ 
答：仅仅是为了我今天作证的内容。 
问：但是调查团队。 
答：不，我不是。 
问：你也不是检方团队的一员。 
答：不是。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第116/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：你没有调查过你刚才作证的那些资金转移。强调一下，调查。你调查过你作证的那些转账
吗？ 
答：没有，我没有调查。 
问：事实上，正如你在直接询问中所作的证词所说，除了准备今天的证词和作证之外，你实际上
没有参与这个案件，是吗？ 
答：那是对的。 
问：所以你对这个案件的了解，实际上都是政府告诉你的，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：这不是告诉我的内容。我实际上审查了很多银行记录以进行分析。 
问：公平的说，关于这个案件，你知道的唯一的事情就是政府告诉你的或者让你阅读的，对吗？ 
答：嗯，是政府提供给我的，对，是的。 
问：公平的说，关于这个案件，你知道的唯一的事情就是政府告诉你的或者提供给你的。 
答：是的。 
问：你之前见过检察官吗？ 
答：见过。 
问：多少次？ 
答：有两次电话会议和一次面对面的会议。 
问：好的，你记得第一次是什么时候吗？ 
答：大约两到三周前。 
问：好的，所以公平的说，你参与这个案件不超过两到三周。 
答：正确。 
问：你受过法务会计的训练，对吗？ 
答：是的，我受过。 
问：好的，你在哪里上的学？ 
答：皇后学院。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第117/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：然后你在加入 FBI之前在什么地方工作过吗？ 
答：我在纽约州总检察长办公室工作过，也在一家叫 RGL Forensics 的公司工作过。 
舒里克律师：好的。请我们出示政府证据 Z1。 
问：你刚才在与费根森律师交谈时刚刚作证了这张图表，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，你能告诉我这张图表的初稿是谁创建的吗？ 
答：有很多版本的证据。我被给的是第 5版。我知道 FBI 特工和其他法务会计师，检察官们一
起合作，制作了一些这些证据。 
问：好的，所以这份文件的第一个版本是由你以外的某人制作的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：听起来，可能这个文件的前五个版本都是由你以外的某人制作的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：听起来，在你审阅这个文件之前，政府团队的多名成员，包括律师，都参与了它的制作，对
吗，据你所知？ 
答：在我审阅之前，是的。 
问：据你所知，在你看到这个文件的第一个版本之前，有多名特工对其进行了贡献？ 
答：在我看到原始版本之前，我想明确这一点，不是最终版本，是的。 
问：明白。在你看到这个文件的任何草稿之前，其他多人对其进行了输入，然后才呈现给你，对
吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在你看到了第一个草稿之后，你和政府律师讨论了这个证据，对吗？ 
答：对不起。我和谁？ 
问：政府这边坐在律师席上的人。 
答：不，实际上，我与特工和另一位法务会计师讨论过。 
问：好的，所以在你和政府律师讨论之前，你先和其他特工和另一位 FBI 的法务会计师讨论
过？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第118/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：对。 
问：好的，后来你和政府律师讨论过这张图表吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，那是什么时候？ 
答：上周六。 
问：好的，他们在你讨论时对图表提出了修改建议吗？ 
答：不，实际上是我对图表提出了修改建议。 
问：好的，理解。可以公平地说，这张图表是在你有机会评论之前已经创建并大部分完成了的，
对吗？ 
答：它大部分完成了，然后我对它进行了修改。 
问：对，但相对于在你得到它之前所做的工作来说，你的修改相对较小，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：我不知道。我觉得这是相对的。我做的修改对我来说很重要。我更改了一个账号，修改了一
些金额，所以—— 
问：理解。你没有进入PowerPoint创建这个文件，对吗？ 
答：我进入PowerPoint并编辑了这个文件。 
问：并编辑了它，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在你看到它时，它已经大部分完成了，正如你之前说的。 
答：是的，不同的版本。 
问：明白。我想简要谈谈这张图表和图表底层的一些信息。可以说，这张图表主要关注的是
2020 年 4 月至 6月这一时期吗？ 
答：2020 年 4 月至 6月 3 日——好吧，2020 年 6月 9 日。 
问：明白。我只是为了方便起见，使用月份。所以 2020 年 4 月至 6月。 
答：好的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第119/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：大致上。 
答：嗯。 
问：好的，你作证说你审查了你的证词所基于的银行记录？ 
答：是的。 
问：你审查了汇总图表中引用的底层银行记录，就像费根森律师指出的那样？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，你有没有查看过 2020 年 4 月之前的摩根的 Saraca银行记录？ 
答：没有。 
问：你有没有查看过 2020 年 6月之后的摩根的 Saraca银行记录？ 
答：我不认为有。我想它们截止到 6月。 
问：好的，所以你不知道 Saraca 在你关注的时间段之前或之后在摩根的银行账户里是否持有大
量资金，对吗？ 
答：是的，我只知道截至 4 月的期初余额。 
问：好的，除了你在编辑这张图表时查看的 Chase账户之外，Saraca 在美国有多少个银行账
户？ 
答：对不起，你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。除了你在编辑这张图表时查看的银行账户之外，你知道 Saraca 在美国有多少个银行
账户吗？ 
答：不知道。我只关注了我查看的 Chase账户。 
问：好的，那外国银行账户呢？你没有查看任何 Saraca 的外国银行账户，对吗？ 
答：我没有被提供这方面的信息，不是。 
问：好的，所以归根结底，除了政府提供给你的信息之外，没有其他信息体现在这张图表中，对
吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。让我们回到图表上来。我想带你回顾一些幻灯片，可以吗？ 
总体来说，这张图表是否可以说显示是从 GTV股份销售中进入 Saraca 的资金？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第120/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：我不知道。这是进入 Saraca 的资金。我只是在展示进出账的资金。 
问：好的，所以你不知道 Saraca 出售了它持有的 GTV股份，然后在出售后的一部分—— 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对有效。 
问：你在直接询问中提到了一次私募，是吗？ 
答：那是—— 
问：关于你对私募的了解？ 
答：那是支票备忘录中的一项。 
问：好的，你知道私募是什么时候开始的吗？ 
答：我对私募一无所知。 
问：好的，让我们走一遍图表。 
我首先只关注政府证据 Z-1 的前九页。应该在每个人面前。 
如果我们看第一页，这只是显示了 2020 年 4 月 1 日这个摩根账户的期初余额，是吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，然后在第二页，这只是显示了谁有这个账户的签字权？ 
答：是的。 
问：看起来这个签字权在 2020 年 5 月进行了更新？ 
答：是的。 
问：专注于—— 
舒里克律师：是的，如果你能放大一下。谢谢。 
同时放大屏幕左侧的同一行。左边的签字卡。谢谢。 
问：你能看到这里，正如你在直接询问中提到的，同一个人被列为这个账户的签字人，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：王雁平？ 
答：是的。 
问：看起来她只是换了公司里的职位，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第121/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的，是不同的头衔。 
问：这是否解释了为什么她可能会更新签字卡？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对有效。 
问：你对为什么有人会更新银行账户的签字卡有任何了解吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对有效。 
问：好的，如果我们翻到第 3页，这与第 1页一样，对吗？没有区别？ 
答：正确。 
问：所以这是重复的，对吗？ 
答：对不起？ 
问：所以这是重复的，是重复的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，然后翻到第 4、5、6 页——首先，看看第 4页，这张幻灯片只是显示了 2020 年 4
月进入这个银行账户的金额。就是这样。 
费根森律师：反对，法官大人。 
法官：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：这里有很多细节，但对，它显示了 4 月大约 3200万的进账。 
问：对，总的来说，这就是它的用途；它的目的是显示 4 月的进账金额，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，然后在第 5页，这只是同一件事情的更多细节，���吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，那么在第 6页，这只是显示了 4 月底的余额，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，现在让我们来看第 7、8 和 9页。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第122/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
第 7、8 和 9页实际上只是我们在第 4、5 和 6 页上看到的相同内容，但这次是针对 2020 年 5
月的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的，那么可以说这 19页图表的第 1到第 9页只是显示了进入 Saraca 的 JPM账户的钱，
对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：是的，我的意思是，它显示了账户的所有存款。这是非常简化的——是的，它显示了进入账
户的钱，但它背后有很多细节。 
问：我理解图表中有更多的细节。我的问题是：第 1到第 9页只是显示了进入这个账户的钱，
对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对，已经问过并回答过了。 
法官：反对有效。 
问：好的，现在让我们来看第 10到 14页。第 10页在这里是一种封面页，只是显示了后面几页
的详细内容，对吗？ 
答：它显示了我们即将讨论的三笔交易。 
问：对。然后—— 
答：以及后面的几页。 
问：当然。也许有帮助的是——对不起。我们应该向前滚动一下，让你看到接下来是什么。 
舒里克律师：也许再向前滚动一页。再一页。 
问：你有机会看到了吗？ 
答：是的，我的意思是，这里有一些额外的信息，比如签名卡，但对，它显示了 1亿美元的转
账，这是三笔转账之一。 
问：对。好的。 
舒里克律师：那么如果我们回到第 10页。所以这——对不起。现在让我们转到
第 11页。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第123/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：所以这显示了 Saraca 在 Chase开设的新账户，是吗？ 
答：是的，右边的框显示了这一点。 
问：它与其他账户的名称完全相同，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：Saraca Media Group Inc. d/b/a Himalaya Dollar，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
舒里克律师：好的。让我们翻到第 12页。 
问：现在第 12页只是显示谁拥有这个新 Chase账户的签字权，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这与第一个 Chase账户的签字权人是同一个人，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：实际上，它反映了王女士在第一个账户的最新签名卡上的头衔，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。如果你想回到第 2页也可以。你记得吗？ 
答：我相信是的。 
问：好的。现在让我们关注一下 6月 3 日发生的事情。 
舒里克律师：如果我们能回到第 10页。 
问：我相信你在直接询问中作证说，这些 6月 3 日的交易反映了外出的转账。你记得吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，这些只是从摩根的一个账户转到另一个摩根账户的在线转账，对吗？ 
答：是的，那三笔突出显示的交易是转到另一个支票账户的在线转账。 
问：对。所以这只是把钱从 Saraca 的一个账户转到另一个 Saraca 的账户，都是在摩根同一个
银行，对吗？ 
答：对的。 
问：所以没有钱离开银行，对吗？ 
答：那时还没有，但最终是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第124/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
问：公平的说，我们现在关注的是这些交易。这三笔交易，没有钱离开银行，对吗？ 
答：我不确定你的意思，因为它们是从 5601账户转到 2038账户的。 
问：明白了。我的问题是：没有转账离开摩根大通银行，对吗？ 
答：整个银行来说，没有。 
问：这些只是摩根内部的转账，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这与我登录我的在线账户，把钱从储蓄账户转到支票账户是一样的，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：是的。是转账。 
问：对，是一样的，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对无效。 
问：好的。所以这些是同一家银行内部的姐妹账户，由同一家公司持有。 
费根森律师：反对这个描述。 
法官：反对无效。 
答：它们是同一家银行的同一账户名，但账户号码不同。 
问：好的。所以我们在第 10页看到的这三笔交易不反映电汇转账，对吗？ 
答：我指的是转账。 
问：你知道转账和电汇转账的区别，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：电汇转账，我的理解是，从银行到银行之外的交易。 
答：是的，但这些仍然是在账户之间的转账。 
问：所以我的问题——如果我说得不清楚，我的问题是：这些不是电汇转账，我们在第 10页上
看到的这三笔突出显示的交易。 
费根森律师：问过并回答过了。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第125/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官：反对有效。 
舒里克律师：法官大人，我不确定我是否得到了这个问题的答案。 
问：这些是 ACH转账吗？ 
答：这些是在线转账。 
问：所以这不是 ACH转账吗？ 
答：这就是摩根大通所描述的，在线转账。 
舒里克律师：好的。我们能不能调出政府证据 JPM119。 
第 48页。 
如果我们能放大文件顶部的转账记录——是的，我们放大这里。如果你能再往
上移动一点，突出显示——谢谢。 
问：你能看到这份文件吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这不反映——对不起。撤回。 
这些文件是图表信息的来源之一吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，这些是你编辑图表时查看的文件之一吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，你可以看到这里的三笔转账都被标为在线转账到支票账户，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。这是否清楚表明这些只是摩根内部的转账？ 
费根森律师：问过并回答过了。 
法官：反对有效。 
舒里克律师：好的。如果我们能回到总结图表。请到第 14页。 
问：所以这个特定的幻灯片显示了在 Chase内部转账的一些额外细节，对吗？ 
答：对的。 
问：你在直接询问中作证过这一点，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第126/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：是的。 
问：再问一次，在这次内部转账中，当资金从一个账户转到另一个账户时，备忘录栏里写了什
么？ 
答：GTV私募基金。 
问：对。你认为这是对资金的准确描述吗，或者你不知道？ 
答：准确的描述？这是银行提供的描述。根据我的了解，银行记录是准确的。 
问：好的。所以你没有任何理由认为这是对在摩根内部转账的资金的不准确描述，对吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：好的。所以这笔转账是从摩根的一个账户转到另一个账户；资金的来源在这两个账户之间是
完全透明的，对吗？ 
答：我不确定你的意思。 
问：嗯，当钱纯粹从一个银行账户转到另一个银行账户时，资金的来源没有任何疑问，对吗？ 
答：是的，没有疑问，它显示了资金来自哪个账户，转到了哪个账户，如果这就是你要说的。 
问：所以资金的来源是透明的，对吗？ 
答：是的——它在细节里，是透明的。 
问：好的，谢谢。那么资金的性质在我们现在看到的这个文件第 14页的备忘录栏中有所描述，
对吗？ 
答：我不知道资金的性质。这是由进行转账的人输入的备忘录。 
问：那么如果我们从第 15页开始看这个图表的余额，你同意我说图表的剩余部分显示了
Saraca银行账户实际流出的资金吗？ 
答：是的，剩余的图表显示了外流的资金。 
问：好的。 
答：从 Saraca流出的资金。 
问：对不起。 
答：从 Saraca流出的。 
问：谢谢。你同意我说的，Saraca银行账户有两条主要的资金流出方向吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第127/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
答：有两个实体收到了资金，但由几笔交易组成。 
问：我的问题是：是否有两个主要的资金流向？ 
答：嗯，对我来说，流向是箭头，所以有一、二、三——大约四个箭头和终点图表。 
问：可以说在 6月 3 日至 6月 9 日期间，两亿三千八百万美元从 Saraca转移到了 GTV Media 
Group吗？ 
答：你能看一下最后一个证据，最后一张幻灯片吗？ 
问：当然。 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。在 6月 3 日至 6月 9 日期间，2两亿三千八百万美元从 Saraca转移到了 GTV 
Media Group，对吗？ 
答：是的，这是正确的。 
问：好的，还可以说在 6月 5 日，有一笔资金从 Saraca转移到海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities 
Fund，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：金额是 1亿美元，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的，当从摩根转出的资金转到海曼时，资金来自于摩根的一个账户，该账户的名称与第一
个摩根账户完全相同，对吗？ 
答：是的，它们都是 Saraca账户。 
问：好的，账户签署人是王女士，与第一个账户的签署人完全相同。 
答：是的，都是 Saraca账户。 
问：那么，对于海曼来说，这笔转账的资金信息并不比资金直接来自第一个账户少，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对，法官大人。 
法官：反对有效。 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，从摩根第二个账户转出的资金并没有隐藏任何信息，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对，法官大人。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第128/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官：反对有效。 
问：这种资金流动是否以任何方式掩盖了资金的来源？ 
费根森律师：反对，法官大人。 
法官：反对有效。 
舒里克律师：法官大人，请给我一些时间。 
法官：可以。 
舒里克律师：法官大人，我可以上前吗？ 
法官：可以。 
舒里克律师：哦，不，我的意思是，我可以接近证人，不是到旁边谈。 
法官：好的。 
（在旁边谈） 
舒里克律师：法官大人，我想将此标记为辩方摘要证据 1，我们将其展示给证
人，作为我们唯一的资金流摘要图表，本质上总结了她的摘要图表中的内容。政府反对。 
法官：反对？ 
舒里克律师：是的。 
法官：为什么？ 
费根森律师：他们没有——这是我们第一次听说他们要将它标记为证物。他们
想向她出示它,并询问它是否准确。这并非是记忆失误的情况,也不是用于帮助回忆。如果他们想
将它作为总结性证物提出,我想他们可以问她它是否准确。但我们会看她怎么说。如果她说这是
准确的，那么他们可以尝试提出。 
舒里克律师：这就是我的观点，法官大人。 
法官：好的，那么关于肖腾海默女士的假设问题，如果检方计划问，例如，巴
斯先生或此类其他证人这种类型的假设，我希望你们提供我相关的法律依据。 
芬克律师：明白了，谢谢，法官大人。 
法官：好的。 
（在公开法庭）

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第129/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
舒里克律师：法官大人，我可以接近证人吗？ 
法官：可以。 
舒里克律师：我将把标记为辩方摘要证据 1 的文件交给证人。 
（转向证人） 
问：请稍等片刻审阅一下。 
埃斯皮诺萨女士，你是否有机会审阅标记为辩方摘要证据 1 的文件？ 
答：是的。 
问：这个文件描述的资金流动是否与政府在直接询问中提到的摘要证据中描述的资金流动相同？ 
答：嗯，它删除了一些资金流动和一些转账。 
问：嗯，它确实删除了一些细节，对吗？ 
答：是的，它确实删除了一些细节。 
问：你同意我说的，转账的净效果在这个证据中与政府引入的证据中是相同的吗？ 
答：外流的总金额——我不知道净效果，但外流到 GTV Media 和海曼的总金额是相同的。 
问：好的，这是一个更好的表述，所以我会采用你的表述。 
这些外流的总金额，在这个证据中到海曼和 GTV的净金额是正确的吗？ 
答：是的，外流的金额是相同的。 
舒里克律师：好的，法官大人，辩方将此证据提交为证据。 
费根森律师：法官大人，我可以进行质询吗？ 
法官：可以。 
质询 
由律师卡马拉珠询问： 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，这个摘要图表是对你在直接询问中作证的 GX Z1 的最终摘要的准确总结
吗？ 
答：不，它删除了很多细节和一些转账。 
费根森律师：法官大人，政府反对。 
法官：所以你是否想要承认它作为证人所述的有限目的？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第130/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
舒里克律师：是的，法官大人。我们并不提出——显然它没有政府证据的详细
信息，但证人已经作证说我们提供的证据中资金流动的净金额是正确的。 
费根森律师：我们反对，因为证人刚刚作证说这不是证据中摘要的准确总结，
法官大人。 
舒里克律师：法官大人，我的摘要不需要是他们摘要的准确版本。我可以有自
己的摘要。辩方可以有自己的摘要。 
法官：所以你的问题是这个图表是否显示了净流出；这是问题吗？ 
舒里克律师：正确。证人已经作证说，摩根账户中流出到海曼和 GTV的资金金
额在我们提供的证据中是正确的，我们提供这个证据是为了这个目的。 
法官：好的，那么承认它。 
舒里克律师：谢谢，法官大人。 
（被告的摘要证据 1 被接受为证据） 
舒里克律师：因为我们刚刚手写了这个证据，我们只有一份副本。我们会向法
院提供额外的副本。我们可以公开它吗？ 
法官：现在是下午 2点 44分。 
舒里克律师：谢谢，法官大人。我们很快就结束。 
由辩方律师舒里克询问： 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，这个图表——再次问一下，这是否准确总结了政府引入的图表中涉及的资
金流动？ 
答：它显示了流向 GTV Media 和海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities 的正确金额，但它遗漏了很多
关于交易的细节。 
问：明白。但最终这其实很简单，不是吗？ 
费根森律师：反对。 
法官：反对有效。她已经回答了这个问题。 
舒里克律师：谢谢，法官大人。没有更多问题了。 
费根森律师：法官大人，我有两个问题。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第131/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官：好的。 
费根森律师：洛夫图斯女士，我们可以放上 GX Z1吗？ 
请放 GX Z1 的第 19页。 
重新直接询问 
由律师卡马拉珠询问： 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，这个图表上的信息是否比刚才辩方给你看的手写版本更多？ 
答：是的。 
问：这个图表准确吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：它包含所有相关信息吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你还被问到关于 Saraca账户之间的 1亿美元转账备忘录栏中的“GTV Private Placement 
Fund”。你记得吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：将你关注的焦点放在从 Saraca到海曼 Hong Kong Opportunities 的 1亿美元转账上，你有
没有审查过任何显示“GTV Private Placement Fund”备忘录栏的记录？ 
舒里克律师：反对。 
法官：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：我不记得该交易的电汇详情。 
费根森律师：没有更多问题了，法官大人。 
法官：好的。再交叉询问？ 
舒里克律师：简短的，法官大人。 
再交叉询问 
由辩方律师舒里克询问： 
问：埃斯皮诺萨女士，你刚才作证说你没有审查过关于摩根内部转账的电汇详情，对吗？ 
费根森律师：反对，法官大人，误导。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】             
O5VVGUO1  2024-5-31 庭审记录    第132/132⻚ 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
法官：反对有效。 
舒里克律师：我相信她用了“电汇”这个词，法官大人。 
法官：反对有效。 
问：摩根内部转账是电汇吗？ 
费根森律师：已问答。 
法官：反对有效。 
舒里克律师：没有更多问题了，法官大人。 
法官：好的。没有其他问题了。 
费根森律师：没有其他问题了。 
（证人退庭） 
法官: 陪审团成员们,现在是下午 2:46了,是时候下班了。我想再次提醒你们,不允
许你们之间或与任何其他人讨论这个案件。你们也不能让任何人在你们面前讨论这个案件。此
外,你们不能对这个案件进行任何研究。现在你们已经听取了一些证人证词,很容易被诱惑去谷歌
或图书馆或任何其他渠道进行一些研究,但你们不能对这个案件的任何相关内容进行研究,也不能
收听任何媒体对这个案件的报道。 
祝周末愉快。我期待周一 9:30准时欢迎你们回来。 
法警: 陪审团现已退场。 
(陪审团离场) 
法官: 你们可以坐下了。在周一恢复开庭前,还有什么其他事项吗? 
费根森律师: 没有了,陪审团主席。 
施洛夫律师: 辩护方也没有,谢谢您,陪审团主席。 
法官: 祝周末愉快。 
(休庭至 2024 年 6月 3 日上午 9点)

Still improving the pages, send suggestions to [email protected]