Miles Trial Day 15 - Court transcript and translation

Original Court Transcript(原始庭审记录)

2176

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

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.

June 12, 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

2177

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

ALSO PRESENT:

Isabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO

Ruben Montilla, Defense Paralegal

Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)

Shi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin)

Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin)

2178

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

(Trial resumed; jury not present)

THE COURT: Good morning. Please make your

appearances.

MS. MURRAY: Good morning, your Honor. Juliana

Murray, Ryan Finkel, Micah Fergenson, and Justin Horton on

behalf of the United States. We're joined by paralegal

specialist Isabel Loftus.

MS. SHROFF: Good morning, your Honor. On behalf of

Mr. Guo, Sabrina Shroff, Mr. Kamaraju, Mr. Schirick, and

Mr. Barkan. And of course Mr. Guo is seated next to me.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Yesterday, defense counsel objected to the

government's questioning of Haitham Khaled about the

truthfulness of statements made by Ana Izquierdo and Limarie

Reyes Molinaris during a G/CLUBS arbitration proceeding.

The defense argues that Mr. Khaled's testimony would

violate Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which prohibits the

use of extrinsic evidence to "prove specific instances of a

witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's

character for truthfulness." Specifically, the defense argues

that Mr. Khaled's testimony as to whether Izquierdo's and

Molinaris's statements were truthful would be inadmissible

extrinsic evidence of specific instances of dishonest acts.

Where "testimony [is] probative only of [a witness's]

general character for truthfulness" it is "inadmissible under

2179

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

Rule 608(b)." United States v. Atherton, 936 F.2d 728, 734 (2d

Cir. 1991); United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 51 (1984).

Here, the government does not offer Mr. Khaled's

testimony solely for the purpose of attacking the character of

Ms. Izquierdo and Ms. Reyes Molinaris.

The government offers his testimony about the

truthfulness of their statements as evidence that G/CLUBS'

agents misrepresented facts in the arbitration in furtherance

of the RICO enterprise.

Accordingly, the objection is overruled.

Are there any other issues that you'd like to raise?

MR. FINKEL: So, your Honor, I think there are a menu

of items for this morning.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FINKEL: If it suits your Honor, I think we could

start with schedule.

THE COURT: All right. If you could just hang on for

a moment.

(Pause)

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor.

So the parties have conferred, and it's the

government's understanding that the defense does not object to

a 30- to 45-minute extension of trial day next week. The

government has given careful thought to how many witnesses it

2180

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

has left in its case, including considering streamlining it

significantly——very significantly, actually——and also giving

thought to what the Court told the jury, which is that this

trial will be over effectively by July 12th, all

in——deliberations, the whole thing. Given the pace of things

and sort of where we are, as we've mentioned, we're behind.

The lengths of crosses, the lengths of directs in some cases,

and just generally some logistical issues with technology,

etc., the government's view is that if it's acceptable to your

Honor, and of course the jury——and that, of course, is going to

carry the day at the end of the day——the government requests

that the Court sit a full day next week to whatever your

Honor's full day would be, whether that's 4 or 4:30. This will

enable the parties and the Court, and most importantly the

jury, to catch up in the sense of filling the time that we're

going to lose on that Wednesday——plus there are additional days

off that are plugged into the schedule, which is what it

is——and allow us to sort of get back on track.

The defense has a defense case. We know that. They

have, as I understand it, at least three experts, a summary

witness——or, sorry——two experts, a summary witness, and

somewhere between three to five fact witnesses; and then, of

course, the defendant could choose to testify about the issues

in this case, and whether he does or doesn't is not a question

we have to resolve today, but we can think about the logistical

2181

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

implications of his decision to testify if he so chooses, which

will obviously extend matters. Then there is the two days——I

see your Honor is about to speak.

THE COURT: Yes. So are you suggesting that next week

one of the days be a full day or all of the days be a full day?

MR. FINKEL: The government's proposal, your Honor,

is, in order to catch up and also account for the Wednesday off

and future days off and the length of the defense case, is that

we sit a full week next week during the four days, so we go to

4 or 4:30, or whatever your Honor normally does on a full-day

trial schedule. This will enable the government to catch up

and get back on track and land the plane, as they say.

THE COURT: Is there something else you wanted to add?

MR. FINKEL: Not on schedule. There are other issues.

I don't know if you want to——

THE COURT: I'll hear from the defense regarding the

schedule.

MR. KAMARAJU: Thank you, your Honor.

As Mr. Finkel mentioned, the defense did agree to

extend the schedule by 30 to 45 minutes because that's what we

understood the government, after its careful review and

considered analysis of its witnesses, had requested from the

Court initially.

THE COURT: If you would speak louder or speak closer

to the microphone.

2182

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

MR. KAMARAJU: Sorry. So we——thank you, Ms. Shroff.

So we had agreed to that based on our understanding

that that was what would be required for the government to

catch up. From our perspective, one of the difficulties that

comes from having a full trial day is that every week of this

trial now, the government's witness list has shifted

dramatically from day to day, midweek and sometimes the day

before witnesses are anticipated to testify. And so for as

long as that continues, it's difficult to see how we can

address, and, frankly, even take into account your Honor's

suggestions about how we can shorten our crosses if we don't

have time to prepare for them and if the government extends it

to a full day every week. So I would ask what has changed,

frankly, in the government's analysis, because it cannot all be

simply due to their anticipation of the estimated length of

cross, your Honor. Their suggestion is that we're days behind.

We've looked at the cross-examinations. They are frequently

around the same time as the direct or less. We understand your

Honor's direction to us to cut out the repetitive questions,

and we will do that and work on our best on that. But this

idea that we, the defense, should be prejudiced in terms of our

preparation given the government's continuous shifting of its

witnesses, when the government controls its schedule, the

government controls which witnesses it wants to call, and the

government, frankly, even controls the issues that need to be

2183

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

addressed——I'll just give your Honor one example of that. I

anticipate later today we are going to have the same witness

testify again as a summary witness, Ms. Espinoza. She

testified last week, I believe it was, or the week before.

We're then going to have another summary witness testify at the

end of trial. I don't know about what, but it appears to be

about very similar topics.

Similarly——Mr. Schirick can address it in a little

more detail when it comes up——we raised the 701 issue with the

government on one of their witnesses, that very possibly could

testify today, on Monday. We heard back at 10:30 last night

that the government intended to file a letter about the issue.

We still haven't seen the letter. I believe they conferred

this morning.

These are all things that could be avoided and are

dragging into the schedule that have nothing to do with the

cross-examination. And I understand we are where we are, your

Honor, but we do have to balance the two things.

And so from our perspective, the 30 to 45 minutes that

the government had asked for, that makes sense, and if they

have difficulty in terms of keeping their commitment, they can

streamline their case. They don't need to call three summary

witnesses to talk about the same thing. They don't need to

call 14 victims to talk about the same thing. So they too can

control the schedule, your Honor.

2184

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

THE COURT: Were you anticipating 14 victims?

MR. KAMARAJU: That's what they noticed to us, your

Honor. I believe it was 14.

MR. FINKEL: No. The direct answer to your Honor's

question is no. And as I mentioned at the outset of my

remarks, the government is considering significant streamlining

of its case. And if I can just respond to a few things that

defense counsel said.

First of all, yesterday we had a, I think, productive

conversation in which the government explained that 30 to 45

minutes is not going to be sufficient, and so defense counsel

knew that the government was contemplating a full week of trial

time for next week. That's number one.

Number two, the summary witness who is going to

testify today and the summary witness who will testify

hopefully next week, depending on the schedule, are talking

about discrete monetary transactions, and the government is

going to show through those summary witnesses how fraud

proceeds were used to purchase Lamborghinis, Ferraris, the

Mahwah mansion, personal effects. As your Honor knows from

prior briefing, there are something around 500 bank accounts

and probably a thousand some-odd transactions. That takes time

to explain and get in. But we are streamlining it.

In terms of victims, I think we have one that should

testify today, if we get there, and then there's probably one

2185

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

more, maybe one after that, but probably just one more.

To respond directly to some of the points that defense

counsel raised, in every trial there are logistical issues that

require some rejiggering of the witnesses for the week. What

has happened at this trial is, Mr. Khaled, for example, was

noticed to testify during the first full week of trial. That

didn't happen because the cross went so long. We then were in

a problem where we had a witness who was flying in from a

foreign country and was only going to be here for a week, and

we had other travel issues with respect to other witnesses.

Mr. Khaled, as it happens, is relatively local and we have

control over his schedule, so we had to move him, okay? There

was another witness who was traveling from Europe over the

weekend, Saturday morning. We were planning to call him first

thing on Monday. After we met with him we decided, you know

what, we want to streamline our case, we don't really need him.

So we took him out, which we thought would help matters, but

had to replace him in the schedule to accommodate scheduling of

other witnesses, including a witness who will probably be

called on Friday but lives in Puerto Rico and won't be here

until today. So we had to put a new witness in. These are

things that happen all the time.

What has also happened, your Honor, is, with respect

to cross, I believe that the cross-examination of Ms. Li, at

the very end of the cross, there was an objection from the

2186

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

government about a series of questions that resulted in a

sidebar. The sidebar lasted somewhere around 10, 15 minutes.

There was an argument of some kind. Your Honor overruled our

objection. We then resumed the testimony and defense counsel

said, "No further questions," and didn't even ask the question

that was the subject of the sidebar. I'm not sure why that

needed——that sidebar needed to happen if our objection was for

a question——on a question that defense counsel didn't even

intend to ask.

Yesterday, during Mr. Khaled's cross-examination, we

spent 15 to 20 minutes on whether Victor Cerda was emailed an

opportunity to join Crane Advisory Group. I don't know why

that's relevant to either his credibility or to Mr. Guo's

involvement in the RICO enterprise, but that's fine. They're

allowed to cross-examine the witnesses.

The bottom line is this——and this is the way the

government is looking at this——your Honor told the jury this

trial will be done by July 12th. I predicted wrongly——your

Honor was right——that we would be on track to finish by

July 4th. I don't think that's going to be the case anymore,

and I'm glad your Honor had the wisdom that I did not. But to

get us done by July 12th, we cannot do——we need additional

time, and what we propose is a full week of the four days.

With Wednesday off, it will enable the jury to catch up in

their lives, to the extent they need to. This is not an

2187

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

imposition. We're all on trial. I think we all want to move

this trial efficiently forward. We will certainly work with

the defense in any way we can to communicate with them, to

advise them of who our witnesses are going to be when changes

are necessary——sometimes things happen——when exhibits change.

We're doing all we can to be efficient. But a 30- to 45-minute

extension, candidly, is not enough.

And we are considering, just so your Honor knows,

cutting witnesses. The government is considering cutting

witnesses that I'm surprised that we're even thinking about it,

but we are thinking about it to streamline the case and, as I

said, to land the plane and meet the deadlines and the end date

that your Honor outlined to the jury. But even with those

cuts, if we just sit an additional 30 to 45 minutes next week,

we're going to end up in late July, given the length of the

defense case, given some witnesses that we have to put on to

prove our case. There are a lot of charges here. It's a

complicated scheme. We have a burden that we have to meet.

And so we'd ask your Honor to please ask the jury if it's okay

with them to sit a full day Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday

next week.

THE COURT: I'll think about it.

MR. KAMARAJU: I just wanted to respond with one

clarification, your Honor.

I believe Mr. Finkel talked about a sidebar at the end

2188

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

of Ms. Li's testimony. I think that was on the translation

issue, not on a government objection.

He also discussed the travel issues that prompted the

government's original request, I believe, to extend the time of

the trial. We accommodated those travel issues, and not only

did both victims——or, sorry, excuse me——both witnesses complete

their testimony in time to take their preplanned travel but we

in fact fit in another witness essentially after that, and we

would have completed that witness if not for a government

objection at the end of the day that prompted a sidebar. So

the defense is certainly cognizant, and has worked with the

government to move that part along. And we simply don't

understand when Mr. Finkel says something like, it will allow

the jury to catch up on their lives, when what he's actually

talking about is taking away two hours from them and having

jurors who could be in Westchester having to leave the

courthouse at 4:30 or 5.

MR. FINKEL: I think the question for the jury, your

Honor, is whether the jury wants the trial to end, as the Court

predicted it would, on July 12th, or whether they want to sit

through the end of the month. And I don't know what's in their

minds, obviously, but that's really the question. And so I

don't think there's a prejudice to sitting an additional hour

and a half each day at trial. We're all here; we're all on

trial. I am sure the defense team is working as hard as the

2189

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

government team, which is basically 24/7, seven days a week,

which is what we've been doing for months now. I'm sure they

have been too. That's the nature of trial practice——in this

district, especially.

The government's view is that in order to meet the

July 12th date, which the Court told the jury about, we need

more time. There are a variety of reasons. We can point

fingers at each other as to who is responsible, but we are

where we are. And so we ask the Court to consider and ask the

jury to sit full days next week.

And we can turn to the other issues, if your Honor

would like.

THE COURT: Yes, if you would, please.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, with respect to Mr. Khaled's

cross-examination, just before we started today, Ms. Shroff

advised me that she would like to question Mr. Khaled about a

recording that the government produced in discovery. It's not

one of the recordings that we introduced in our direct. We

would——I've asked Ms. Shroff the basis for her trying to admit

it. We don't dispute the authenticity, but we do dispute its

admissibility and relevance. It's a Zoom or WebEx recording of

an interview that Mr. Khaled and two others did of a potential

candidate a few years ago. Our understanding is, it's the way

that WebEx or Zoom automatically records sessions, and it

happened to be saved onto his computer. In looking through all

2190

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

of his possessions and giving the government recordings, he

produced that. So we don't see any reason for it to be

introduced. We don't see its relevance. To the extent

Ms. Shroff wants to establish that he recorded other

conversations, she can do so through questions. But it's

hearsay, and there's no basis for it to be admitted into the

case.

THE COURT: What is discussed during the recording?

MS. MURRAY: It's an interview of a candidate for a

position at G/CLUBS. So the interview is conducted by Limarie

Reyes, the CEO; by Alex Hadjicharalambous, the financial

controller; and by Mr. Khaled. One is the interview of the

candidate and the second is the feedback session, internal

feedback session.

THE COURT: So I assume that it concerns the

qualifications for the individual; is that the subject matter?

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

The subject matter is not that limited, your Honor.

First, the only person who seems to have had this recording is

Mr. Khaled. I would like to be able to tell the jury that

Mr. Khaled recorded not just quote-unquote random calls but he

recorded a lot of things just because maybe he's a serial

recorder. I don't know. But that's not important why he

recorded.

The second thing is, the conversation and the

2191

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

interview itself is relevant. Mr. Khaled lies during the

interview. He tells the potential——the applicant that he has

been at Guo for four years, at GTV for four years, which is

false. He also talks about the setting at Guo at that time,

and the other participants who are interviewing the candidate

are very candidly telling the candidate that the office is

chaotic, and they're looking for a person with experience who

can actually deal with chaos. So even if those statements

aren't true, the point is that they were made. It reflects

Mr. Khaled's state of mind. It shows his awareness that this

was a growing company, that everybody was taking steps to make

sure that the holes in the personnel group were being

addressed. Mr. Khaled said that that was not the case, that

all of this was just nonsensical and, you know, he was so

disillusioned. So that makes this conversation relevant. I do

not intend——and I just want to be very clear——in this cross,

unless the witness testifies a particular way, I have no desire

to replay the calls that were played yesterday or to play the

entirety of this call. I asked the government to stipulate to

its authenticity so that we could save time, and I obviously

don't need to have him listen to the entire call, your Honor.

THE COURT: So with respect to what you say is a lie

on the call, you're wanting to use the call to impeach

Mr. Khaled.

MS. SHROFF: Not just to impeach him. Also to show

2192

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

that he had a particular state of mind. That's how he

perceived himself. He sells himself as part of this group, as

having a long relationship with them. He describes the

relationship with them, which is quite contrary to the

relationship he says on direct to the jury that he had

reformulated by that time.

THE COURT: That he had reformulated?

MS. SHROFF: Right. So he says, you know, I started

out at GTV with such enthusiasm and then I became disillusioned

and I thought it was a big scam and it was all a fraud; and

he's participating in a job interview where he says, come on

board, join us, we're the greatest. So I think that that's

part of the reason why the call itself is relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what about the issue of the chaos that

you're describing? How is that pertinent?

MS. SHROFF: Because Mr. Khaled said that, you know,

his first week there was so chaotic, nobody knew what they were

doing, people ignored the problems. Here is an example of not

only was the problem not ignored, they had identified the

problem. The place was new, it was a startup, there was a lot

of chaos, and they're looking for an applicant, they're looking

for a potential employee who can help them with chaos. I

believe that there is an actual interview question put to the

applicant that says: Give us an example of how you would deal

with the chaotic work environment. That's what we are. So

2193

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

there was no lying. There was no hiding anything. This was a

real entity, trying to build a real business, and we should be

allowed to show that.

THE COURT: And how long is it?

MS. SHROFF: I don't know how long it is, but I really

do not mean to——I don't need to play it even more than like a

clip. Even if I don't play the clip at all, I would still seek

its——to be admitted, because part of the reason we admit

everything, your Honor, is not just to show to the jury; we

also admit it because we want to use it at summation. And that

is also, candidly, why we'd like the recording admitted. Not

only the government knows of the existence of this recording,

they've——I mean, I'm sorry that they found out late. We'd

known about it before. And it was always part of our cross.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the defense is trying to

admit this as extrinsic evidence to impeach the witness. It's

improper. First of all, if they were to do that, they would

first need to confront him as to whether he lied, and that

hasn't been established. I don't think that there would be any

basis for that. From what I'm hearing from Ms. Shroff about

why she's seeking to admit it, the statements on the interview

are entirely consistent with his testimony. There were people

who were working at G Club. Ms. Reyes is a participant in the

interview. She became the CEO in April, interim CEO in April

of 2021. So this isn't the first week, when he said it was

2194

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

chaotic and there was no infrastructure. This is further along

in his time when he was working at GTV and G/CLUBS. Yes, it

was consistent with what he said, they were starting to build a

team, but later, his understanding was that it was all just a

money laundering operation, effectively. It also doesn't go to

his state of mind. And the government's view is there's no

basis——no basis——to introduce this audio.

The last point I would make is it's unquestionably

hearsay. There is no question that it's hearsay, and the

government doesn't think that it should come in at all.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, they've, throughout this

case, maintained that the companies are just a sham, whether

it's at point one, point six, or at the end. All throughout,

their whole testimony is——they went through all of this.

Ms. Murray spent five questions asking just about how she

stopped the tape to say, and what do they call these people,

they call these people investors, not members; what did they

do, they did nothing; did they get any benefit, no, they

didn't. Time after time, pause after pause, when that document

is in evidence, the tape is in evidence, and all she had to do

is skip over all of that and just sum up on it. Like Judge

Kaplan says, the document speaks for itself. So for those

reasons, we are allowed to show that this was not in fact a

scam, this was not just a shop front, this was not a money

laundering operation. People were working throughout that time

2195

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

to make it a real entity.

And your Honor, they're the ones who charged the RICO.

They keep calling it a fraud case. It's not a fraud case.

We're allowed to show——in fact, failure of the defense to raise

the issue that it is an actual real business is a 2255 in the

making. I'm entitled to show it was a real business.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, Ms. Shroff can question the

witness about all of these topics. The question here is the

recording, and whether the recording is relevant and

admissible, and it's not. It's an out-of-court statement that

she's proposing to offer for the truth.

I would also note, the government's position in its

case has not been that these companies didn't exist. It's not

that they weren't real. It's that they were put into place

effectively as instrumentalities of a RICO enterprise. There

were real employees. Ms. Reyes, we expect to testify——she was

the CEO——she believed she was operating a legitimate membership

company. But at bottom, the people who were actually in

charge, Mr. Guo and his key co-conspirators, they were the ones

who knew that they had created this shell game in furtherance

of this massive multibillion-dollar fraud.

And another point I'd make, Ms. Shroff said she wants

to introduce it to show that the witness, I think she said,

"recorded all kinds of conversations." Aside from the

recordings that the government has discussed with the witness

2196

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

and the additional recordings from that time period, which were

support to the stipulation, this is the only other recording

we're aware of. As I said, it's our understanding that this is

automatically recorded during a Zoom or WebEx session. You can

press a button and you can record a meeting, and that's how

this came to be. It just happened to be saved onto his

computer. So he provided it to the government.

And lastly, again, your Honor, it's just classic

hearsay.

MS. SHROFF: The only person who pressed the button,

Mr. Khaled. The other people did not press that button.

More importantly, if the government is going to

stipulate that in fact these were real businesses, and they

are, they'll agree that that element of the offense is not met

by the government, we're happy to just skip all of the

testimony as to whether or not this was a proper business and a

functioning business.

And I remind the Court, your Honor, over and over

again Ms. Murray asked him, did G/CLUBS provide any benefits,

did G/CLUBS provide any services. She paused the tape and

said, is there any discussion here about services by G/CLUBS?

No.

THE COURT: I'm going to permit the tape.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you.

THE COURT: Is there anything else?

2197

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

MS. SHROFF: No, your Honor.

Your Honor, is the government——may I just have a

minute.

(Counsel conferring)

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, one more issue.

With respect to the matters that were raised yesterday

with Mr. Khaled and the Court advising him to speak with his

counsel, it's our understanding from his counsel that they had

the opportunity to speak. It's also our understanding that he

intends to respond to any questions that are posed to him. But

we would ask that the defense not be permitted to inquire in

any way into the Court's conversations with the witness

yesterday, including advising him of potential exposure he

might have in answering those questions. That would be 403,

and we firmly believe that the defense cannot inquire into

that.

THE COURT: So I'm sure they don't intend to inquire

about my discussion; isn't that correct?

MS. SHROFF: Of course not, your Honor.

MR. FERGENSON: And, your Honor, I have——apologies, I

think last on the menu——I have one other issue. It relates to

a victim witness the government expects to testify today. And

I just want to at least give some context for the Court. It

may be that we can take it up at the lunch break.

But this is a victim witness who was a member of the

2198

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

Mountains of Spices farm. She did translation volunteer work

for that farm. She was in a chat group——it's either WhatsApp

or Discord chat——with other members, and with, you know, other

volunteers who did translation work. Three or four exhibits

that the government intends to offer through this witness are

documents that were shared in that group. They were shared by

Zhang Yongbing, who, if your Honor recalls, was the attorney

who tried to coerce Ms. Ya Li into signing a false affidavit.

He was a lawyer, and he shared these documents with the group.

She doesn't——she didn't really work on them, but she has copies

of them.

Just to give your Honor a sense of what they are,

they're not——they're not legal——I understand the defense has

said that Mountains of Spices, the New York Farm, intends to

claim privilege on these three exhibits. Just to give your

Honor a sense of what these exhibits are, one is a screenshot

of a conversation between Mr. Guo, William Je, and Sara Wei,

about reconciling the farm loan program wire transfers. It's a

screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation between them. And it

just lists out, you know, sender, date, and dollar amount.

That's one. The other two, I believe, are——two or three are

Excel sheets that show, you know, again, similar information,

just wire transfer information. There's no legal advice at all

in any of these documents. And the government does not think

there's any valid claim of privilege on any of these documents.

2199

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

Just wanted to raise that so that we possibly can avoid any

sidebar during the victim's testimony. We're hoping to,

consistent with Mr. Finkel's statements earlier, streamline

this victim's testimony, you know, to keep things moving at a

good pace.

MR. SCHIRICK: Your Honor, I think Mr. Fergenson is

leaving a few key facts out of his description that are

relevant here to the claim of privilege, and I will just say

that it's my understanding that outside counsel for Mountains

of Spices, who either may be here or will be here shortly——

THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, you need to speak into the

mic.

MS. SHROFF: Sure. I'm sorry. Apologies.

——that counsel for Mountains of Spices, who is either

here or will be here shortly, will assert privilege formally.

So that's number one.

Number two is that, what the defense just learned last

night for the first time, because——

THE COURT: Wouldn't it be Mr. Guo's privilege to

assert?

MS. SHROFF: No, your Honor. This is——so the

communications are communications that take place on a chat, on

a Discord chat——and perhaps another chat, another, you know,

platform chat——that relate to a lawsuit that Mountains of

Spices, which is the New York Farm, brought against Sara Wei,

2200

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

who your Honor may recall was at one point in charge of VOG,

who took in money from the private placement. And Mountains of

Spices' claim was that she stole the funds. And they sued her.

And so the communications that are at issue here, including the

spreadsheets and including the screen chat that Mr. Fergenson

referred to, are communications that are taking place in the

context of that lawsuit.

And even more specifically, your Honor, there is——this

alleged victim has a confidentiality agreement that the

government first produced to us last night. That specifically

says that she is——at the top——and we can certainly show it to

the Court to give the Court more color, but it says at the top

that the translation services that this person is providing are

in connection with that lawsuit. And then it goes on to, you

know——essentially it's a standard NDA that says you'll keep

everything confidential, because she's providing those services

in connection with the lawsuit by Mountains of Spices.

So those are just some additional facts that——to help

give the Court color. Now——

THE COURT: When is it that you expect this issue to

arise?

MR. SCHIRICK: I think we anticipate——and

Mr. Fergenson can speak to this better than I, your Honor, it's

his witness, but I think we anticipate that it will be today,

assuming that we get to this witness. I think she's following

2201

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

Mr. Khaled. She's number two up after Mr. Khaled, if I

understand correctly.

MR. FERGENSON: That's right. It's Khaled,

Ms. Espinoza, and then this victim.

MR. SCHIRICK: So, your Honor, our view is that, look,

Mountains of Spices has asserted privilege. There's certainly

a valid privilege claim here that would need to be dealt with

with respect to these four or so documents. I think we're in

agreement as to what documents this applies to. There are four

of them. And that that issue needs to be resolved certainly

before the government intends to ask the witness about them.

THE COURT: Your position is that these four documents

pertain to the lawsuit.

MR. SCHIRICK: Correct.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. FERGENSON: That doesn't mean they're privileged,

your Honor. They're not legal documents. They're

spreadsheets. And there's a screenshot of a WhatsApp chat, not

with any lawyers. They're not privileged, one, just there.

And the second is, your Honor, this is a victim of Mountains of

Spices. Like she——she was——they had these victims, as your

Honor has heard over and over, sign various agreements. And

that was part of the scheme to defraud. This is not a valid

claim of privilege in any sense. It's not privilege. To the

extent there were any like——to the extent the Court has any

2202

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

concern about maybe there is some privilege here, it's clearly

crime fraud, your Honor. There is no way that the farm loan

program is not subject to the crime fraud exception, and you

don't even need to get there because these are just not

privileged. They're just screenshots of Excel sheets.

THE COURT: What would make those screenshots and

Excel sheets privileged?

MR. SCHIRICK: So the——one of the principal issues as

I understand it in the lawsuit, and certainly outside counsel

for Mountains of Spices knows better than I and may be able to

correct me, but my understanding, your Honor, is one of the

principal issues was, how much money had been stolen. You

know, essentially what the damages were, what Mountains of

Spices damages were and what it proved. And these spreadsheets

appear to be, have been circulated by lawyers in the Discord

chat to, as part of having, you know——and there are——there are

a number of portions of the documents that are in Mandarin, and

so they're circulated to this group as part of the——as part of

the effort on Mountains of Spices side to decide what quantum

of damages to assert and what they can prove.

THE COURT: So this is Mountains of Spices saying what

about the defendant?

MR. SCHIRICK: They're not saying anything about the

defendant, your Honor.

THE COURT: In the action they are asserting claims

2203

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

against the defendant. What are the claims?

MR. SCHIRICK: Sorry. When you——yes, Ms. Wei, yes.

THE COURT: They're claiming that Ms. Wei

misappropriated the funds, correct?

MR. SCHIRICK: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. This is all part of the RICO

enterprise and they come in.

Anything else?

MR. FERGENSON: No, your Honor. Thank you.

MR. SCHIRICK: We have one other issue——I'm sorry,

your Honor——that also relates to a witness that may come up

later today and maybe even——are we confident of that?

Okay. Well, just to preview for your Honor, there is

a——the witness who will follow the victim that we were just

speaking about, Mr. Roberts, who is a representative of a

company called Bitgo, which was an outside vendor of the

Himalaya Exchange, and Mr. Roberts——and the defense sent a

letter on Monday, after we received Mr. Roberts——or notice that

Mr. Roberts would testify this week, letting the prosecution

team know that we believe that what appears to be his

anticipated testimony is actually expert testimony that was not

noticed. It appears that the government plans to have

Mr. Roberts testify about issues like whether or not the

cryptocurrencies at issue were real cryptocurrencies, which

your Honor will remember was the subject of extensive briefing

2204

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1

with respect to the dueling experts that the parties have here.

And so we gave the government notice seeking——well, not so much

notice; we wrote them a letter seeking assurances that they

wouldn't elicit that kind of testimony, which is the proper

subject of expert testimony. And we just heard back for the

first time this morning in the discussion before your Honor

came out that the government takes the position that

Mr. Roberts can speak to those issues. And I don't mean to

mischaracterize——Mr. Horton can correct me if I got that

wrong——but my understanding is that the government's position

is that he can testify to those issues because essentially it

was part of his job when he was at Bitgo to review and do due

diligence and so to the extent that he came to conclusions

about the coins or about the exchange, that he can testify to

that. And again, our view I think——and it's pretty clear——is

that that's actually expert testimony.

THE COURT: Are we expecting Mr. Roberts?

MR. HORTON: No, your Honor, we're not expecting him

today. And in the interest of time, we have a short letter

prepared as to his testimony and why it's admissible.

THE COURT: All right. So we'll revisit that at a

later time.

If you'll have the jurors brought in.

(Jury present)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

2205

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Good morning, jurors.

THE JURORS: Good morning.

THE COURT: So I have some good news, and that is that

next Wednesday we will not be meeting. You'll have next

Wednesday off. But due to circumstances beyond my control and

beyond the control of the parties, we are running late. And

what I do not want to do is to have to extend the trial beyond

the July 12th date that I gave you as the end date for the

trial, and so for next week only, I'm going to make a proposal.

You don't have to answer me now. You can think about it over

the lunch break. But in order to catch up and not have to

extend the trial, I am proposing that for four days next

week——Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday——that we go from 9:30

to 1 p.m., that we have a one-hour break for lunch, and that we

then go from 2 to 5. So think about that. Think about that.

And you'll come back, and we will continue our discussion after

the lunch break.

Mr. Khaled, remember that you're still under oath.

We'll continue with the cross-examination.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

HAITHAM KHALED, resumed.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

2206

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. Mr. Khaled, let me show you what is marked as Defense

Exhibit 60538.

MS. SHROFF: It's just for the witness. Thank you.

Q. Sir, if I could ask you, if you could take a look at the

document.

Do you recognize this, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is it?

A. It's a affidavit.

Q. Whose affidavit?

A. Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund.

Q. Let me try it again. Who signed the affidavit?

A. Who signs the affidavit?

Q. Yes.

A. I signed it.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, at this time the defense

moves Defense Exhibit 60538 into evidence.

THE COURT: No objection?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, objection for the moment. We

don't understand the purpose of this exhibit.

THE COURT: All right. So if you'll step up, please.

(Continued on next page)

2207

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

(At the sidebar)

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, Mr. Khaled makes a statement

under oath in paragraph 5 of the affidavit——I don't think he's

going to find it there, but——essentially saying that he has no

relationship——Crane has no relationship with Mr. Kwok, and he

says that under oath.

THE COURT: So you're going to confront him, you're

going to ask him: Did you say on X date X thing?

MS. SHROFF: No. I'm just going to ask if the

affidavit is signed under oath, if he signed it, and if

paragraph 5 accurately reflects the fact he put down in the

affidavit.

THE COURT: But the purpose is impeachment.

MS. SHROFF: It's also to show his state of mind on

May 17th, when he signed the document.

THE COURT: This is for impeachment. And so you can

confront him, and you'll have to live with his answer if he

says yes.

MS. SHROFF: Okay.

THE COURT: All righty.

(Continued on next page)

2208

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

(In open court)

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Mr. Khaled, you signed an affidavit, correct, in the Pax

litigation?

A. Can you repeat that.

Q. Sure. You signed an affidavit, did you not, and submitted

it as part of the Pax litigation?

A. Yes, I did.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, I ask that the document be

taken down unless and until it's admitted.

THE COURT: It's not being shown to the jurors.

MS. SHROFF: No.

THE WITNESS: But can I see the entire one? There's a

page 1 to 3.

THE COURT: You may look at that. Go ahead.

MS. SHROFF: May I approach, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may.

MS. SHROFF: I just——it might be easier for the

witness to have a hard copy.

THE COURT: Oh, I see what you're saying. That's all

right.

A. Can you repeat your question.

Q. My question was: Do you remember signing an affidavit and

submitting it as part of the Pax litigation?

A. This affidavit, yes.

2209

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. And when you submitted that affidavit, you knew that you

were submitting facts that you were swearing to as truthful,

correct?

A. On actual facts?

Q. Yes.

A. And documents that I had, yes.

Q. Okay. And you had——you recall that the affidavit was

notarized by a notary, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as part of the affidavit, you made certain statements,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the statements that you swore to under oath was

that you had no information demonstrating that the Citibank

account nor any Crane bank account has or has had any funds

belonging to Kwok or any entities that he has a financial

interest in, correct?

A. On paper, yes.

Q. You swore to that under oath, correct?

A. That on paper, yes.

Q. Okay. Could you explain to me what you mean by "on paper."

A. So none of the——the payments that came in that were on

Crane did not have Kwok as a name, as a beneficiary. Kwok's

name was not on it.

Q. Well, but you said that they had no funds belonging to

2210

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Kwok, right? Funds can belong to someone without their name

being on it, correct?

THE COURT: Don't testify.

Q. What did you mean when you said any funds belonging to

Kwok?

A. That his name was on there.

Q. So your affidavit, when you say something belongs to you,

you mean that your name has to be on there.

A. When it comes to funds and the documents that I had, the

statements, correct.

Q. And then you said, "or any entities that he has a financial

interest in," correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And by saying that, did you also mean to say on paper, if

his name appears, or did you actually mean to say what you

wrote and swore to under oath, any entities that he has a

financial interest in?

A. My statement was based on the paper.

THE COURT: What do you mean, based on paper?

THE WITNESS: Based on the actual wires that were in

the account.

THE COURT: Could you explain that more fully.

THE WITNESS: Okay. So there's 1300 wires, transfers

that came into the account, which was at Citibank's account.

So all these payments did not have specifically the name of

2211

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Kwok on them.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Okay. And you said, "I have no information demonstrating

that Citibank account nor any Crane bank account has or had any

funds belonging to Kwok or any entities that he had a financial

interest in," correct?

A. That's what it says, yeah.

Q. And you testified on direct, did you not, Mr. Khaled, that

the wires that you received for G/CLUBS, Mr. Guo had control

over, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And if he had control over them, he had a financial——did

you believe that he had a financial interest in those wires?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you said that he has no financial interest in it,

that was not a truthful statement, correct, according to you?

A. In theory, no.

Q. How about in practice.

A. According to the documents of the account and the wires.

Q. Did the affidavit say, "according to the documents and the

wires——"

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

Q. "——no funds belong——"

THE COURT: Overruled.

2212

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. "——to Mr. Kwok, but I personally believe that he has a

financial interest in all the money coming into G/CLUBS"? Did

you say that in the affidavit?

A. No.

Q. And could you tell the members of the jury the date of the

affidavit.

A. May 17, 2021.

Q. And by May 17, 2021, how many recordings had you made?

A. I don't remember the exact number.

Q. Okay. Let me move on.

Mr. Khaled, between November 23rd of 2020 and May 13th

of 2021, did you move about $108 million?

A. Can you repeat the dates.

Q. November 23rd of 2020 and May 13th of 2021.

A. I might have, yeah.

Q. Let me show you what is marked as Government Exhibits MSS80

and MSS96.

Now while we're pulling those documents up,

Mr. Khaled, do you have any significance attached to the

May 12, 2021, date?

A. Do I have a what?

Q. Do you have any significance attached to May 12, 2021?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Now let me direct you to the bottom right of the

front first page, okay? You see the account number? And I

2213

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

apologize for the quality of the document. You see the account

number, which is 552069134?

A. I see the number, yeah.

Q. Okay. And if you look at page 7 of the same exhibit ending

in 80, do you see the January 26, 2021, transfer of $5,000 to

an account ending in 136, which will be Government Exhibit 96?

Do you see that?

A. Yeah, but can you——can you show me the actual statement, or

no? I can't see the statement.

Q. Does that help you?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Do you see on the top column on the right?

A. Yes.

Q. So if I could highlight that for you just to make your life

easier.

A. Thanks.

Q. Active Asset Account, correct? I can't tell if it's asset

or assets. I apologize. I don't mean to purposely mislead.

On the very top——if you could highlight it for

him——Crane Advisory Group LLC, care of Haitham Khaled, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is the 136 account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's your personal Morgan Stanley account, correct?

A. The one highlighted?

2214

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. No. The one into which this money is going is your

personal Morgan Stanley account, right, which is Exhibit 96,

the document ending in 96? Do you see that transfer?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And you transferred $5,000 into that account,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that is dated January 26, 2021, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now if we go to page 7 of document ending 96, would

you tell the jury where that money came from.

A. The 5,000?

Q. Yes.

A. From the other Morgan Stanley account.

Q. And what is the name on the other Morgan Stanley account?

A. Crane.

Q. And then there is another transfer, if you look at page 30,

of $1 million, correct? We're now back at 80, Government

Exhibit GX MSS80. You see, on page 30, there's a $1 million

transfer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And then another $1 million transfer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. That's exiting the Crane account, correct?

A. Yes.

2215

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. And that money is going where, sir?

A. Account ending 136.

Q. And who is the owner of 136?

A. I am.

Q. It's your personal account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The first transfer is on April 5th of 2021, correct, and

the second transfer is on April 20th?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Now let's go back.

MS. SHROFF: You can take that down, please. Thank

you.

Q. Is it fair to say you also transferred money from the Crane

account to your personal account at Capital One?

A. I need to see it.

Q. You don't remember it?

A. No. There was a lot of transfers.

Q. Do you recall a transfer for $129,000?

A. I need to see it, again.

Q. Let me see if I can show you a document that might refresh

your recollection, okay?

A. Sure.

MS. SHROFF: This is just for the witness and not the

jury, please.

Q. Do you see the third bullet point?

2216

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection of that transfer?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you have a Capital One account?

A. I did.

MS. SHROFF: And could we go to the very top of the

document that is in front of Mr. Khaled.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection about the transfer?

A. No, ma'am.

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

Q. Mr. Khaled, you testified on direct about your fee,

correct? You remember that?

A. Correct.

Q. And you testified on direct that you felt you were entitled

to a $2.7 million fee, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now to earn a 2-million-plus-dollar fee, you would have to

clear more than $100 million, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had not cleared anywhere close to that amount when

you transferred $2 million to your personal account from the

Crane account in April of 2021, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were not entitled to that amount even under a simple

mathematical calculation, correct?

2217

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. What do you mean entitled?

Q. You testified yesterday that you thought you were entitled

to this fee, 2 percent of all the money you cleared, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So mathematically, when you took the $2 million,

even just by math, you were not entitled to it, correct,

because you could only get 2 percent of what you had cleared

and you hadn't cleared that much, right?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: I'm just trying to save time. I'm happy

to go through it step by step. Really, I am.

THE COURT: All righty. Just break the question up.

A. Can you.

Q. You want me to try again, Mr. Khaled?

A. No, can you——

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Can you?

Q. Sure.

A. Repeat?

Q. Sure. You said yesterday that you were going to charge a

2 percent fee, right?

A. It was agreed with Yvette and Mileson, Ana, so it's not me

charging them directly. Go ahead.

Q. Whoever agreed to it, you were charging the fee, right?

2218

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Yvette's not charging the fee, right?

A. Correct.

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

Q. Mileson is not charging the fee, correct?

THE COURT: He has answered yes.

Q. Okay. So I'll move on.

To charge a 2——for you to get $2.7 million as

2 percent of an amount, you would have had to clear more than

100 million; it's just simple math, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And by April 2021, you had not cleared more than

$100 million, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So you just arbitrarily transferred $2.7 million from the

Crane account into your personal account, right?

A. No. I believe the 1 million was transferred back. I think

there was a mistake.

Q. I didn't ask if it was transferred back, sir. I just asked

you, based on the documents I showed you, the $2 million were

transferred into your personal account.

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay.

A. Again, my answer is, that 2 million, a million of it

was——or maybe both——transferred back. I don't remember the

exact transactions back and forth.

2219

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. I'm sure Ms. Murray will clean that up on redirect.

MS. MURRAY: Objection your Honor, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Don't testify.

Q. Sitting here today, your testimony is that the 2 million of

the 2.7 was transferred back? I just want to make sure I get

it right, or we can have the answer read back.

A. I don't remember every transaction.

Q. Okay. So when you agreed with these four prosecutors,

three prosecutors over here to forfeit $2.7 million, you're

really forfeiting money that you never even got, or that you

got and transferred back?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Too many concepts in the

question. You need to break it down.

Q. You agreed to forfeit $2.7 million, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now you're saying that the $2 million that was transferred

into your account was transferred back to G/CLUBS, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection. Mischaracterizes.

THE COURT: Sustained. He said that he could not

recall exact numbers.

Q. Okay. Tell me your approximate number that you think you

transferred back.

A. I can't really answer. I don't——I don't remember.

Q. Was it 1 million?

2220

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. So you transferred some amount back; that's your testimony,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. To G/CLUBS.

A. No, back to the Crane account.

Q. You transferred it back to your Crane account?

A. Correct.

Q. So you kept it, in your Crane account.

A. Went back to the Crane account, and then when the clearing

happened, when we did the clearing, it either——it either went

to G Club or it stayed or became part of the fee.

Q. So then why, if it went back to G Club, did you agree to

forfeit $2.7 million?

A. Again, it went——it went back to Crane and then it was

cleared for G Club.

Q. Okay.

A. And then a fee was earned.

Q. Right. But why did you agree to give it back to the

government if it was lawfully earned?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Asked and

answered.

THE COURT: You can answer. Why did you agree to give

it back to the government, to return the money?

2221

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

Clarification: Why did you agree to forfeit the

money?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, I would just note, we would

ask——

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, she can't testify either.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, I'm simply asking that the

Court note that Mr. Khaled is not obligated to get into any

discussions with his counsel about that topic.

THE COURT: Yes. It's not a question of revealing a

discussion with his counsel. He's just being asked: Why did

you agree to forfeit 2.7 million?

THE WITNESS: It was part of the agreement.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. You met with the government——Ms. Murray, Mr. Finkel,

Mr. Fergenson——on July 26th of 2021 with the FBI, correct?

Remember that?

A. July?

Q. How about on March 31st of 2022?

A. Probably.

Q. Did you tell them, I sent this money back into the Crane

account?

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. You just said you transferred the money back to the Crane

account and some of the money to G/CLUBS. You just testified

to that, right, now?

2222

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: That was not his testimony. He did not

testify that the money transferred from his account went to

G/CLUBS.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm——

THE COURT: He testified that it went from his account

to the Crane account.

MS. SHROFF: He said some went to the Crane account,

some went back to G/CLUBS.

THE COURT: That was not his testimony.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Could you clarify where that 2.7 million went back,

according to you?

A. The 2 million?

Q. Yes.

A. Not the 2.7.

Q. The $2.7 million.

THE COURT: All right. So I understood you to be

asking about the $2 million. So now you're asking about the

2.7 million?

MS. SHROFF: I'll break it up, your Honor.

Q. The 2 million, you said you transferred it back, correct?

A. I transferred——it was——it was transferred back to the Crane

account.

Q. All 2 million.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, objection. It

2223

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

mischaracterizes. He said he doesn't recall the specific

transaction.

MS. SHROFF: It's a question.

THE COURT: Where did you transfer the $2 million,

from your account to where?

THE WITNESS: It either stayed in that account——I

don't remember if it——the entire amount stayed in that personal

account or transferred back——most of it transferred back to

Crane, as an error.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Did you tell Ms. Murray that when you met with her on

March 31st?

A. I don't think I was asked.

Q. Did you tell her that when you met with her on May 12th of

2022?

A. No.

Q. How about on June 27th of 2022, did you tell her that?

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. July 7, 2022, you met with her again. Did you tell her

then?

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. November 2, 2022, you met with her then. Did you tell her

then?

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. January 10, 2023, did you tell her then?

2224

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6C1GUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. I don't remember, no.

Q. March 7, 2024, did you tell her then?

A. No.

Q. March 8, 2024, did you tell her then?

A. I don't remember.

Q. March 14, 2024, did you tell her then?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. 403.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. March 25, 2024, when you met with her, did you tell her

then?

A. Tell her that I made an error wiring money back and forth?

Q. Anything to say or show that this money went back to where

you said it went back to.

Let me try it this way: There is a digital record of

money going back and forth from accounts, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever tell her there's a digital record, here it is?

A. I believe statements were presented.

(Continued on next page)

2225

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. I asked you if you presented any statements to her showing

any transfer from your personal account into the Crane account

after April of 2021?

A. My entire discovery was sent through the lawyers, so I

don't see --

Q. Okay. Is it fair to say up until all through these dates

you and Ms. Murray never discussed that topic, correct?

A. The topic of transfers?

Q. Yes. Transfers back from your personal account to the

Crane account that you've testified to now under oath?

THE COURT: What dates are you asking about?

MS. SHROFF: All the dates that I just recited, your

Honor. I didn't want to repeat them.

A. The dates of the transfers, like exact transfers one by

one.

Q. Yes, exact transfers one by one.

A. One by one, I don't -- I really don't remember one by one.

Q. How about as a group?

A. What do you mean as a group?

Q. I ask you if you remember them as a group?

A. I don't remember specific transfers, no.

Q. How about on March 31 of 2024, did you discuss this issue

with her then?

A. I don't remember, no.

2226

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. You met with her on May 7th, correct, of 2024?

A. I don't remember the exact dates.

Q. May 20, 2024?

A. Again, I don't remember exact dates.

Q. May 27, 2024? You met with Ms. Murray May 27, 2024,

correct?

A. I don't remember exact dates.

Q. May 29, 2024?

A. Could have. I don't know.

Q. June 1, 2024?

A. Might have been.

Q. June 6 you sent her emails, correct?

A. I might have, yeah.

Q. June 6 you met with her again, correct?

Do you recall telling her I transferred these monies

back out of my personal account?

A. Again, I want to clarify. The money came to my account.

It transferred to --

Q. Can you just use your mic for me because I have trouble.

A. The money came into the account and then transferred back

to Crane.

Q. Well, it didn't come into your account, right? You had to

transfer it?

A. It transferred from Crane to the personal account, and then

return to Crane.

2227

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Did you ever tell her that?

In the 19 times you met with her, did you ever tell

her that?

A. No.

Q. And the money didn't just move from the Crane account into

your personal account, right, only you can release funds from

the Crane account, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor, compound.

THE COURT: He testified that he made the transfer,

that it wasn't a spontaneous transfer.

Q. Could you tell me, sir, what is a non-spontaneous transfer?

THE COURT: I'm characterizing.

MS. SHROFF: Oh, I apologize.

THE COURT: He said that he made the transfer.

Q. June 8, 2024, you met with Ms. Murray, correct?

A. Could have, yeah.

Q. Never told her about this transfer, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

MS. SHROFF: I did not ask about June 8th.

THE COURT: Why don't you just go through all the

dates, name the dates and ask him whether he stated that he

made the transfer on any of those dates.

Q. June 6, June 8, June 9, June 10, and today is June 12.

That's just last week?

A. No.

2228

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. What money did you use to buy your seven properties if you

sent this money back to Crane?

A. From the two percent.

Q. Excuse me.

A. I bought those properties from the two percent fee.

Q. The two percent fee which is included in the two million we

just talked about?

A. No, that's what I was trying to clarify.

Q. Okay. Go ahead.

A. So money went back. And then when it was cleared, I took

the fee from the cleared amount.

Q. Oh, so you sent it back. Then you waited to clear the two

percent amount, and then you used that money to buy properties.

That's your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. You've reviewed your bank records, correct, to prepare for

your testimony here?

A. Yes.

Q. There's no such document that you reviewed, correct, that

shows these transfers?

A. What do you mean?

Q. There's no bank account that shows any transfer from your

personal account into the Crane account, correct?

It only shows transfers from your Crane account into

your personal account?

2229

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

MS. MURRAY: Objection to testifying.

MS. SHROFF: It's a question.

THE COURT: You may answer whether or not there are

documents showing a transfer from your account to the Crane

account.

A. The ones that she showed me here?

THE COURT: No, whether there exist any documents that

show that.

A. Could be, yeah. A statement, yeah.

Q. It could be?

A. No, no, there's a statement.

Q. There is a statement that you -- did you show that

statement to Ms. Murray?

A. Again, everything was produced.

Q. You reviewed a lot of documents with Ms. Murray to prepare

for your testimony here, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You never reviewed any documents with me, right?

A. No.

Q. Is it your testimony under oath that you reviewed such a

document with Ms. Murray?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You worked out a payment facilitation agreement, correct?

A. Can you be more specific.

2230

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. No. Did you work out a payment facilitation agreement with

G/Club?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you worked out payment facilitation agreements with

anyone else?

A. No.

Q. You listened to several recordings yesterday, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Each one of those recordings was made by you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And on those recordings -- and I'm hoping I don't -- I take

that back.

You testified that you heard and listened to different

people giving you different options for the way money could be

moved out of the Crane account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You testified you are on the recordings discussing the need

to do a Know Your Customer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's one of the reasons you gave on the recordings as

to why you could not move the money out of the Crane account

because according to you, you had not yet finished Know Your

Customer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you've been a banker for how long, ten years, a decade;

2231

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

is that right?

A. Approximately.

Q. And you know, sir, that it is the bank that receives money

that does KYC, correct?

A. They do KYC, correct.

Q. Right. In fact, if they hadn't done a KYC, there would be

no money in your Crane account, correct?

It would have been one big zero?

A. Correct.

Q. And, in fact, the only reason you were able to transfer

money out of your Crane account into your personal account was

because KYC had been done, correct?

A. No, that's not accurate.

Q. Really. How did you open your Crane personal account?

Was KYC done when you opened the personal account?

A. At Morgan Stanley?

Q. Morgan Stanley, Citibank, anywhere. Each time you open an

account, the bank does a KYC, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Banks --

A. But the money that was in Morgan Stanley came into Citibank

and Capital One to Crane's account. And then when it went to

Morgan Stanley, it went from Crane's account, so not the 1300

people.

Q. You finished?

2232

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. Yeah.

Q. The money that came into the Crane account, the banking

institution did the KYC, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Not you?

A. No.

Q. Not Crane?

A. For the money that came in, Crane did not do it.

Q. By that you mean KYC, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Let me go back to the recordings.

On the recordings people suggested to you the

different ways you could get the money out of the Crane

account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. One option presented to you was to simply send the money

back to the original sender, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You did not do that?

A. I did for a few wires.

Q. How many?

A. Don't remember. There was a number of returns.

Q. I'll come back to a specific recording later, but your

testimony is you don't remember how much, correct?

A. Returned?

2233

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Right.

A. I don't remember exactly, no.

Q. A second option presented to you, correct, was for you to

simply close down the Crane account, right?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. You don't remember Ms. Wang telling you that you should

just simply close the Crane account?

If you close the Crane account, she informed you, you

would just stop receiving funds, correct?

A. I don't remember that, no.

Q. In fact, she told you that in a call that you recorded on

April 30th, correct?

A. Again, I don't remember that.

Q. All right.

MS. SHROFF: May I have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection, sir, that on April 30

of 2021, Ms. Wang told you Crane should just like close down

the account instead of receiving further funds, correct?

A. I don't know this word she's talking, if she's talking to

me.

Q. Well, you're on the call, right? You have the whole

transcript in front of you.

A. No, you only have the -- can I see?

Q. There you go. Let us know when you want to shift the page,

2234

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

page two, page three. Take your time?

A. Okay. What page was that message?

Q. Nine.

A. Can you go to page nine.

Q. Could somebody highlight it for him?

THE COURT: Sir, the question was whether you remember

her having said something to you. You said that you did not.

And now the question is, do the documents in front of you

refresh your recollection as to whether or not she said that.

It's not a question of whether or not something is stated in

the document. It's a question of whether looking at the

document causes you to recollect that she made the statement.

A. No, not to me.

Q. You were on the call?

A. Yes.

Q. You recorded the call?

A. Correct.

Q. You reviewed transcription of those calls and gave

corrections to Ms. Murray?

A. I reviewed the transcripts, yeah.

Q. Made corrections and gave them to Ms. Murray?

A. What do you mean?

Q. You read the transcription?

A. Okay.

Q. You made some corrections and you emailed the corrections

2235

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

to Ms. Julie Murray who is sitting here with the ponytail,

correct?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor --

MS. SHROFF: I'm trying to identify.

MS. MURRAY: -- I will stipulate I'm wearing a

ponytail.

THE COURT: The ponytail. Go ahead.

Q. You told her, right, the corrections?

A. No, these transcripts were not prepared by me.

Q. I never said they were prepared by you, sir. I asked you

A. Did I review them, yes.

Q. You made corrections, and you sent them to Ms. Murray,

correct? You're on this call, right?

THE COURT: Allow him to answer the question. Did you

make corrections?

THE WITNESS: Corrections on these? Like words or

something?

THE COURT: Did you read it and decide that something

was correct or incorrect?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you send corrections to Ms. Murray?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

Q. Can someone pull up the 3500 material June 6, 2024.

Sir, there's a document on the screen for you?

2236

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection that you in fact sent

Ms. Murray changes that you thought were appropriate on the

transcription?

A. Yes.

Q. And you sent them on June 6 of 2024, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Going back to the document I was showing you before which

is the April 30th call. Does that refresh your recollection or

not?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You can take that down.

In more than one call Ms. Wang suggested to you to

stop receiving funds and close down the Crane account, correct?

A. Again, it wasn't addressed to me.

Q. Who owned Crane?

A. On paper, I owned it, yeah. I owned it.

Q. So who else could close down the Crane account?

A. The messages that she's saying, it's not addressed to me.

It's addressed to the other people on the call, Mileson. She's

talking to him directly.

Q. But Mileson can't close the Crane account, correct?

A. He can't.

Q. Miles Guo can't close that Crane account, correct?

2237

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. No.

Q. Only you can close the Crane account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In fact, only you could transfer the money out of the Crane

account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. All these recordings are because you won't transfer the

money, correct?

A. Not just for that purpose, no.

Q. But one of the purposes is because you won't transfer the

money, correct?

A. One of the purposes, yeah.

Q. Right. And Mileson couldn't force you to move the money,

correct?

A. Definitely was putting pressure, yeah.

Q. I didn't hear that.

A. Definitely was putting pressure.

Q. Oh, definitely. We heard about the pressure. My question

is --

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Don't testify, Ms. Shroff. Don't testify.

Q. Did he get you to move the money?

I'm asking about Mileson now. Yes or no, did he get

you to move the money?

A. Yes.

2238

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. You moved the money out of Crane into G/Club as Mileson

wanted you to?

A. Without KYC, I did not, no. Without a package, I did not.

Q. You never moved that money when Mileson asked you to,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. He pressured you according to you and you still never moved

the money, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. According to you, Mr. Guo pressured you, correct, Miles Guo

sitting right there?

A. Yes.

Q. You never moved the money, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Ms. Wang pressured you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You never moved the money, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. William Je pressured you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You never moved the money?

A. The large sum, no.

Q. Any sum. You never moved the money that they were asking

you to move, correct?

A. The hundred million, no.

2239

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Haoran He asked you to move the money, correct?

A. No, that's not correct. Haoran He never reached out.

Q. Ana Izquierdo asked you to move the money. You didn't move

the money, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, regardless of whether Ms. Wang made the suggestion or

not, you could have always closed the bank account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Best way not to get money into an account is to close an

account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Had you closed the Crane account, there would have been no

more wire transfers into that account, correct?

A. Yes, but it had balances.

Q. I didn't ask you about the balances.

My question to you was, sir, had you closed the

account, you would have received no more wire transfers,

correct?

A. I would have never received wires.

Q. The larger the balance in the Crane account, the larger

your two percent fee, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Another option presented to you was for you to simply

return the money to G/Clubs, correct?

A. Return the money to G/Club?

2240

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Right.

A. To send it to -- yeah, to send it.

Q. Right. That was an option for you. I'm not sure if you're

done. I'm confused, sir. I'm asking you?

A. I'm done.

Q. You didn't do that, correct?

THE COURT: By "that" what are you referring to?

Q. Sending the money to G/Club?

A. Money was sent to G/Club.

Q. All the money?

A. Less expenses which is a two percent.

Q. You never sent that to G/Clubs, correct?

A. Less money transferred, less money returned. Money was

returned to some senders that sent the money. They requested

the money to be returned back, so not all the money that came

in went to G/Club.

Q. How much did you get sued for by the G/Clubs?

What was the dollar amount?

A. I think it was like four something.

Q. Four something?

A. Yeah, or three something. I'm not sure.

Q. Three what?

A. Three million. I don't have the exact amount.

Q. In the arbitration how much money were you sued for to

return to G/Clubs?

2241

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. I don't remember.

Q. 56 million?

A. The initial arbitration, yes.

Q. You had 56 million that you didn't transfer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were told one option would be to transfer that 56

million to Hamilton. You didn't take that option either,

correct?

A. I don't recall that, no.

Q. You were given the option to transfer the 56 million to

Himalaya Exchange. You didn't do that either, correct?

A. Again, I don't remember that.

Q. One of the other options was not to return the money to the

original sender, but to return the money to the person in the

middle who had sent the money, and you didn't like that option

either, correct?

A. No, that was not suggested.

Q. And in each one of these recorded calls that you heard

yesterday, you kept talking about an escrow agreement, correct?

A. It was mentioned, yeah, escrow agreement.

Q. You mentioned the escrow agreement, correct?

A. Could have been mentioned, yeah.

Q. You're not licensed to act as an escrow agent in the state

of New York, correct?

A. We did get a license.

2242

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. I did not ask you that. I'm asking you if you are

registered, sir, on the website at the department of finance as

an escrow agent?

A. Yeah, my attorneys did register Crane as an escrow agent,

as a money servicing business.

Q. I didn't ask you about a money servicing business, sir. I

asked you if you were registered as an escrow agent?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Ms. Shroff is

arguing with the witness.

THE COURT: Sustained. He answered.

Q. Sir, do you think that an escrow agent is the same thing as

a money transmitter?

A. I relied on the attorneys, and they set up a money

servicing business license in order to act as an escrow.

Q. Sir, my question to you was, your understanding as a banker

of ten years, is it your understanding that an escrow agent is

the same thing as a money transmitter?

A. I don't know that.

Q. During the time that you were recording these calls, right,

you were at the same time concomitantly trying to work out a

PFA with G/Clubs, right?

A. That was one of the solutions, yeah.

Q. I could not hear you.

A. That was one of the solutions that the lawyers and myself

came up with.

2243

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: What is PFA?

MS. SHROFF: It's the agreement that he entered into,

the payment facilitation agreement.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q. You hired lawyers so that you could get the agreement,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You wanted the agreement, correct?

A. All parties wanted the agreement.

Q. My question to you, sir, did you want the agreement?

A. All parties wanted the agreement.

Q. You signed that agreement on May 12 of 2021, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And even after you signed that agreement, you refused to

transfer the money, correct?

A. Not before a KYC plus indemnity package was received.

Q. Right. According to you Crane was going to do KYC even

though the bank had already done it?

A. They were going to verify the indemnity form. It was

multiple pages that needed to be completed.

Q. Okay. So it was not KYC, it was the indemnity form?

A. It was a package.

Q. It was a package. Okay.

And at that time you were told, right that the people

who had applied for G/Club membership were getting annoyed that

2244

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

they didn't have their membership?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. You were told by Ana Izquierdo, were you not, that

membership could not issue until payment had cleared, correct?

A. Unless they finish consolidation, yeah. Until Ana and the

team of G/Club does consolidation.

Q. Well, actually until you release the money. I'll move on.

Let me show you what is marked as Defense Exhibit

60539. You recognize this document?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. It's an email.

Q. About what?

A. Subject line is notice of termination.

Q. Termination of what?

A. Payment facilitation agreement.

Q. The same one we've been talking about all this time, right?

A. The payment facilitation agreement.

Q. The one we've been talking about, correct?

A. The payment facilitation agreement.

Q. The payment facilitation is between you and G/Clubs, right,

Crane and G/Clubs, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And who is Todd Kulkin?

A. Attorney.

2245

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. For whom?

A. Crane.

Q. That's you, right?

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we ask that the Court allow

us to introduce into evidence DX-60539.

MS. MURRAY: Just one question to voir dire?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. MURRAY: Mr. Khaled, do you know who ask Limarie

Reyes to send this notice of termination to you?

THE WITNESS: It's being sent to Alex at G/Club.

MS. MURRAY: No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Defendant's Exhibit 60539 received in evidence)

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Whoever it's sent to, it's telling you Crane's terminated,

correct.

MS. SHROFF: Oh, I'm sorry. May I have the jury also

take a look, please.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. May I pose my question, sir? Are you done reading?

A. Go ahead.

Q. They're terminating the contract with Crane, correct?

A. Are you talking about the email that's going to Alex?

2246

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. I cannot hear you.

A. Are you talking about the email going to Alex?

Q. I'm talking about the notice of termination addressed to

the Mr. Todd Kulkin at Warren Law Group at 112 West 34th

Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York, 10120, your lawyers?

A. Yes, they're asking to terminate the escrow agreement.

Q. Terminate what?

A. The escrow agreement.

Q. Well, it's a payment facilitation agreement.

A. The payment facilitation agreement.

Q. Your lawyers are on the email chain, correct?

A. From Limarie, yes.

Q. And it's addressed to your attorney, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And it is dated June 30, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you read this before, right?

A. Yes.

Q. They were terminating Crane's agreement with G/Club?

A. Correct.

Q. You can take that down, please. Thank you.

Let me show you DX-60540. Let me ask you, sir, while

we're waiting for the document to be brought up.

Did you want the contract with Crane to be terminated?

A. I'm sorry.

2247

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Did you want the contract with Crane to be terminated?

A. Yes.

Q. You did?

A. Yeah. At this time, yeah.

Q. Which time?

A. July, yes.

Q. You wanted it terminated?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, asked and answered.

MS. SHROFF: I'm simply trying to understand what he's

saying, your Honor. You could instruct him to keep his voice

up.

THE COURT: Speak into the microphone, please.

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you to take a look at 60540. If you could just

show him page two, page three, page four, and you see there the

document is signed?

A. Yes.

Q. By whom?

A. Chris Warren.

Q. Who is that?

A. My attorney.

Q. Your attorney, correct?

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, at this time I move 60540

into evidence.

2248

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor, hearsay,

relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'll move forward now. May

we be heard later at a sidebar?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. Now, your lawyers reached out to the lawyers for G/Club and

asked them not to terminate the agreement, correct?

A. They were working with each other.

Q. I didn't ask you if they were working with each other. My

question to you sir, was, did your lawyer Chris Warren, did you

call him Chris or Christopher so I get it right?

A. Chris.

Q. Did Chris Warren reach out to G/Club and say, please, don't

terminate the payment facilitation agreement, correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

A. I don't know. They were discussing working with each

other.

Q. He's your lawyer, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. He's working at your say, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. He's doing what you're asking him to do, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

2249

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: Don't repeat the question.

MS. SHROFF: I'm waiting for a response, your Honor.

THE COURT: He answered yes to the question of whether

the lawyer was acting at the witness's say.

MS. SHROFF: Okay.

Q. And you through your lawyer asked G/Clubs to withdraw their

June 30, 2021 notice of termination, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You asked them to work with you so that you could find a

way to refund any remuneration, correct?

A. Again, they were working with each other. The back and

forth was a negotiation.

Q. Did the negotiations result in G/Clubs not terminating

Crane?

A. No.

Q. G/Clubs terminated Crane period, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You offered to work with them, correct? Do you recall

that?

A. No.

Q. Well, let's show you 60540 so that will refresh your

recollection, defense exhibit. Let's go to page three.

Does this refresh your recollection that you offered

to return the money that was in the Crane account to the G/Club

account without doing KYC?

2250

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. The question that

Ms. Shroff was trying to refresh a recollection on was, You

offered to work with them, correct?

THE COURT: That is correct. The objection is

sustained.

Q. Did you offer to work with them by suggesting to them that

you would no longer do KYC?

THE COURT: All right. That question was answered.

He said he didn't remember. So the question now is whether or

not the document before the witness refreshes his recollection

as to whether or not he said that or did that.

MS. SHROFF: That's where I thought I was, your Honor.

I apologize, but I'm happy to highlight the fourth paragraph on

the document. That's not the correct paragraph. It's the

benefits paragraph.

Q. In an effort to work with them, you suggested certain

benefits that would flow from Crane to G/Clubs if they kept the

contract, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, is Ms. Shroff seeking to

refresh his recollection on this point? It's not clear.

THE COURT: Is this a refreshing question or a new

question?

MS. SHROFF: It's the same question. I was just

trying to highlight it for him.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection?

2251

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: The question is does this document help

you to remember.

A. From this document, I remember they wanted the money to be

transferred to G/Club without anything, without any KYC,

without any information.

Q. They meaning Crane, correct?

A. No, G/Club.

Q. And you also recall, do you not, that your lawyers offered

to return all the money to the original senders, correct, from

this document?

THE COURT: The question is do you recall that, not

whether the document says that.

A. I do recall.

Q. And that was one of the compromises Crane offered to

G/Club, correct?

A. To return funds?

Q. Yes.

A. To the original, yes.

Q. And that was something you had firmly rejected during the

recordings, correct?

A. That's not true.

Q. Okay. In the recordings that option was suggested to you,

and you had never taken it, correct, to return the 56 million

back to the owners, correct?

A. No. There was discussion to return the full amount of

2252

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

G/Club money to the owners and close G/Club Puerto Rico. That

money was for G/Club that was at G/Club.

Q. But you had not taken that option to return it to the

sender, correct?

A. I didn't have charge of the G/Club account.

Q. You had charge of the Crane account?

A. I had charge of the Crane account, correct.

Q. And the option presented to you was to return the money in

the Crane account to the people who had sent it to the Crane

account, correct?

A. Again, that option was for G/Clubs money.

Q. So you now had through your lawyer suggested that keep the

payment facilitation agreement with Crane, and we will return

the money as you ask before, correct?

A. As another option, yeah.

Q. They turned you down, correct?

A. They said they don't want to return the money, no.

Q. They said they didn't want to do business with Crane,

correct?

A. No. This termination is to ask, again, to transfer money to

G/Club, whatever is left not cleared to G/Club's account. So

it wasn't just termination.

Q. It was G/Club's telling Crane, we are done. We are not

doing business with you, period, correct?

A. And requesting the money to be transferred to G/Club's

2253

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

account.

Q. Exactly.

A. Without any information.

Q. Exactly. And they were done with you, correct?

A. Again, they wanted to transfer the money.

Q. Could you hear the question?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. They were done with you, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Why did you go to arbitration by the way?

A. Why did I go?

Q. Yeah.

A. I had to.

Q. You had to because G/Club wouldn't do business with you

anymore, correct?

A. I had to because G/Club was requesting the money, 50

million.

Q. G/Club said we're not working with you anymore, period?

A. Cause I wasn't transferring the money.

Q. Whatever the reason, sir, they refused to work with you,

correct?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Asked and answered. Move on.

Q. You went to arbitration, correct?

2254

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. Correct.

Q. You were ordered to return that 56 million back to G/Clubs,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You gave all the recordings that you had here to the three

arbitrators, and they told you to return the 56 million back to

G/Club?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, compound.

THE COURT: Did you give the recordings to the

arbitrator?

THE WITNESS: My lawyers might have, yeah.

THE COURT: Well, answer what you know, not what

possibly happened.

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

Q. You went to the arbitration, right?

A. I did not, no.

Q. You didn't go to the arbitration hearings?

A. Which one?

Q. Any arbitration hearing.

A. The first one, no.

Q. You didn't go to the first one at all; is that your

testimony?

A. The first one?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't recall, no.

2255

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. You don't recall or no?

A. It was a video or a meeting. No, I wasn't.

Q. You didn't go?

A. I don't think so.

Q. So your company's account was being terminated. You did

not go to the arbitration?

A. My attorneys went.

Q. Right. But you didn't go?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: I just want to be clear.

THE COURT: You asked him whether he went. He

answered. Move on.

Q. You went to the second proceeding; is that your testimony?

A. Yes, I attended that.

Q. And at that proceeding, there was still the same

recordings, correct?

A. Again, I don't remember what recordings they gave them.

Q. Okay. Do you remember any recordings?

A. Do I remember any recordings?

Q. Yes. Any of the recordings that were here in this trial,

do you recall them being part of the arbitration?

A. Any?

Q. Yes, any.

A. Maybe one or two, yeah.

2256

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Maybe one or two?

THE COURT: So I don't want you to guess at it. I

want you to state what you know.

A. At least one, yeah.

Q. You had $56 million plus a two percent fee at stake in the

arbitration. Is that fair to say?

A. Can you repeat your question.

Q. Sure. You had $56 million and a two percent fee at stake

in the arbitration, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The arbitration could go your way or the arbitration could

go G/Club's way, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Fair to say you were an interested party in the

arbitration?

A. Not for the 56 million, no.

Q. You were not interested in the 56 million?

A. Not at all.

Q. Because that's not the amount that would generate the two

percent fee. You were not at all interested in that, that's

your testimony?

A. I was not interested in keeping the 56 million, no.

Q. On what money were you earning that two percent fee?

A. At that point?

Q. I didn't ask you about that point, sir.

2257

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. Still, I'm talking. At that point --

THE COURT: Please allow him to answer.

MS. SHROFF: I think he's mis-answering the question.

That's my problem. I just want to make sure the question is

clear.

THE COURT: Repeat your question.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

Q. On what dollar amount is the two percent fee imposed by

Crane calculated?

A. On the cleared amount.

Q. And how much had you cleared?

A. At that time it was about 97 million.

Q. And that 97 million was cleared from the Crane account,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. The larger the amount in the Crane account, the larger the

amount you clear, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And the larger the amount you clear, the larger your fee,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. As part of the negotiations that your lawyers, as you put

it, discussed with G/Clubs to keep the payment facilitation

account, Crane suggested that if the account did not remain in

place, you would send the funds to the state of New York's

2258

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

unclaimed fund office, correct?

A. Might have been mentioned, yeah.

Q. And they still did not keep the payment facilitation

agreement with you, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, it was G/Club that filed the notice of arbitration,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. There were three arbitrators, correct?

A. I don't recall the exact number.

Q. The arbitrators found no risk of money laundering, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Can we discuss

this either at sidebar or perhaps when there's a break for the

jury.

THE COURT: Sustained. If you'll approach, please.

(Continued on next page)

2259

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

(At the sidebar)

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the arbitrators' decision is

considering information that is not the same as the information

at this trial. The severe risk of prejudice in confusing the

jury to suggest that any of the findings of the arbitration

panel and any of the evidence considered by them in an entirely

separate manner would go to in some way the question that I

think Ms. Shroff is seeking to introduce it for, which is to

imply that G/Club is a legitimate business, and that in fact a

judicial panel found that. It's different evidence than this

jury is considering. It's extremely prejudicial. It should

not come in.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, isn't that the exact same

thing that the government is seeking to do by asking this

witness whether or not it was his impression that Ana Izquierdo

or Limarie Reyes lied during the arbitration proceeding, and

that is why the arbitrator found for G/Clubs. That is

literally exactly what they're seeking to do. And I'm simply

asking what he understood the arbitrators to find. It is

literally exactly the same thing. She's trying to show that

the arbitration only resulted in this result because G/Club's

people lied. I'm trying to show that the arbitrators had more

information than just a lie.

THE COURT: She's not brought up the arbitration. She

has not said that the arbitrators made a finding based upon

2260

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

lies stated by those two women. That's not her argument. It's

entirely inappropriate for you to try to get out of this

witness the legal conclusions of the arbitrators, and so I will

not allow that.

MS. SHROFF: I understand that, your Honor. It's not

a legal conclusion. It's the arbitration award that he as the

owner of Crane was told of.

THE COURT: That he was told to pay over a certain

amount of money, that's one thing. It's another thing to say

that the arbitrators concluded that there was no money

laundering. That's completely different.

MS. SHROFF: It was a finding.

THE COURT: No. No findings.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, again to go back to what

Ms. Murray is going to seek to elicit on redirect is exactly

that. She's trying to show that the only -- otherwise, what is

the relevance of his impression that Ana lied or Limarie lied?

It is only to show that the lie led the arbitrator to a certain

decision. That's the logical conclusion. Otherwise, why is it

even relevant?

THE COURT: The arbitrators considered much more

evidence than the testimony of these two witnesses.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, in any event, I don't intend

to elicit that testimony from Mr. Khaled with respect to those

two witnesses, so it's a moot point. And we completely agree

2261

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

that the arbitrator's judicial finding, the decision should not

come in. And depending how the questioning goes, we may at the

end of the trial ask for a jury instruction to that effect so

that they know what weight to give it, if any, but we agree

with your Honor that it should not come in.

THE COURT: And you're not seeking to elicit testimony

about the findings from any other witness, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. You're not going to go there.

We're going to go until noon.

MS. SHROFF: That's fine. I still have one more

question, one more issue. I'm not really clear what the hearsay

objection is to the letter sent by Crane to G/Club.

THE COURT: How is it that he can authenticate a

letter that he is not the author of?

MS. SHROFF: He can say I can't authenticate it, but

he helped his lawyer prepare it. Their objection was hearsay,

your Honor.

MS. MURRAY: It was several bases.

MR. KAMARAJU: Hearsay and relevance to not

authenticate.

MS. SHROFF: This is a document kept in the regular

course of business. It is a document sent by a law firm to an

entity G/Clubs. G/Clubs maintains documents in the regular

course of business.

2262

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: He's not a G/Club maintainer of documents.

MS. SHROFF: Sure. But he knows -- and of course his

lawyer is his agent that what's good for the goose is good for

the gander. The lawyer is his agent, and therefore that

document comes in.

MS. MURRAY: Agent applies a party-opponent ruling.

This is an out-of-court statement. And your Honor's already

ruled on the objection. She sustained it.

MS. SHROFF: I actually did say, Ms. Murray, and the

record will show, that I wasn't going to pursue it then, that I

would wait until a break cause I didn't want to hold up the

proceedings.

MS. MURRAY: I believe you said you wanted to take up

the issue again at sidebar, but the judge did sustain the

objection on the basis that we raised.

MS. SHROFF: Judge, I did not want --

THE COURT: She did reserve argument on the letter, so

I just permitted her to do that.

MS. MURRAY: I guess our question would be what the

relevance is, and then again we emphasize that it's hearsay.

MR. KAMARAJU: It's not being offered for the truth,

your Honor. There's no argument that's coming from that letter

that says, because this chart describes the way the PFA is

structured; therefore, that is the way the PFA is structured.

The entire purpose of offering the letter is to complete the

2263

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

story in response to what happened to the termination notice.

This witness just said that he intends that he didn't

care about having the contract terminated. His lawyer sent a

letter saying, actually, please don't terminate it. In fact in

the letter he says, we intend to keep taking our fee. So

there's nothing about it that's being offered to say the facts

within it are offered for the truth. And if your Honor wants

to instruct the jury about that, we don't have any objection,

but that is the relevance of it. The relevance of it is, they

brought up the arbitration in the first place. These are the

events leading up to the arbitration. Frankly, I'm hard

pressed to see how it's not relevance if the arbitration is

relevant in the first place.

MS. SHROFF: We didn't raise the arbitration. The

government did.

MS. MURRAY: Just a couple of responses. First of

all, it is not his statements. Mr. Kamaraju said it's his

statements about what Crane intended to do or not. He did not

offer the letter. It's an out-of-court statement of a

different declarant.

THE COURT: Are you not challenging authentication?

MS. MURRAY: Of the letter?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. MURRAY: There's no foundation for authentication

right now.

2264

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: So that is my first question. How does he

authenticate a letter from someone else?

MR. KAMARAJU: If he recognizes it, your Honor, at the

time it was sent, he could authenticate it. That happens all

the time, right. Just like you can authenticate a document that

you are not the author of if you reviewed it prior to it being

sent. We didn't get to that -- and maybe if your Honor wants,

we can ask those questions, but we didn't get to that because

their objection was hearsay and relevance, neither one of which

are relevant. We can try to lay the foundation on

authentication, but we didn't understand that was the

objection.

MS. SHROFF: It is also kind of surprising that the

government would object to the authenticity of a document sent

by the Warren Law Group to G/Clubs in a document which they

received as part of their discovery, not just from G/Clubs, but

also from the Warren Law Group.

THE COURT: But they're not offering it.

MS. MURRAY: We're saying this witness cannot

authenticate it. He's not copied anywhere on the document or on

the forwarding chain above.

MR. KAMARAJU: We don't know until we ask the

question.

THE COURT: Then we have the issue of hearsay.

MS. SHROFF: It's not hearsay. We're not offering it

2265

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

for -- I don't want to repeat what Mr. Kamaraju said, but I'm

happy to have him repeat it.

THE COURT: What does the letter say?

MS. SHROFF: The letter says, please don't terminate

us. Can I go grab it?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you.

THE COURT: So what does the letter say?

MR. KAMARAJU: The letter, I have a copy. The letter

basically outlines reasons why G/Club should not terminate the

PFA, and explains Crane's position; for example, why the PFA

does not grant them the ability to terminate. To borrow one of

the government's phrases, we're not offering it for the truth.

We're in fact offering it for its falsity, which is a position

the government has taken regularly with respect to why

something is not hearsay. None of this is something that we're

going to say is true.

We're not going to say, for example, that this diagram

shows the way that the money is going to go. We don't agree

that these are benefits to G/Clubs. That's a false statement.

In our minds this document has nothing to do with a hearsay

purpose. All it is doing is for a non-hearsay purpose of

completing the story, which is something the Second Circuit has

repeated over and over again. It's not a hearsay issue. And

noting that contrary to what this witness said, he was actually

2266

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

trying to hang onto the PFA so that he could continue to earn

millions of dollars in fees. That's the purpose of the

introduction of the letter. There's now a single line in here

that's being offered for the truth.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, there are exceptions to the

hearsay rule. This is a lengthy letter. They're saying both

that it's to complete the story and then to impeach him.

There's nothing to impeach. He said that his lawyers were

engaged with G/Clubs on these very issues. He said that if

more money came into or maintained in the Crane account, his

fee would be larger. He said all of that. There's no

impeachment from this letter. It's entirely improper to bring

this in. Of course they want to argue and bring it in for its

truth. Otherwise there is no reason to try to introduce it. I

heard no basis for it.

MR. KAMARAJU: He testified that he wanted to hang

onto the agreement. I'm sorry. He testified that he did not

care about retaining the PFA at this time, specifically in July

of 2021.

MS. SHROFF: He actually said I wanted to terminate it

at this time. And I asked him at what time, and he said he

didn't care. He wanted it terminated.

THE COURT: I just don't recall that testimony. I

have to go back to look at the transcript. In the meantime,

we'll not deal with the letter. I want a copy of the letter

2267

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

and we'll continue with other questions.

(Continued on next page)

2268

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

(In open court)

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm requesting to skip ahead.

Q. Mr. Khaled, you testified on direct, did you not, that the

recordings that were played here were a random selection by

you, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, mischaracterizes his

testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Your testimony was, there wasn't really a science behind

it. It was just random calls that are related to the transfer

and request of transfer and what we were doing with this money,

just management calls that I can record. That was your

testimony, correct?

A. Can you repeat the last part.

Q. It was just random calls?

THE COURT: It's a confusing question because it's not

clear whether you're asking whether the recordings played here

were randomly selected or whether when he made recordings, he

did it randomly. If could you clarify that.

Q. Do you remember testifying yesterday, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall being asked this question and giving this

answer. This is yesterday's transcript at 2003, lines nine to

13. How, if at all, did you select which calls to record.

2269

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Answer, there wasn't really a science behind it. It was just

random calls that are related to the transfer and request of

transfer and what we were doing with this money, just

management calls that I can record.

Do you recall being asked that question and giving

that answer?

A. Yes.

Q. And the statement above that these were just random calls

is not entirely true, correct?

A. What do you mean?

Q. You decided which calls to record, correct?

A. Correct, I decided.

Q. And you decided what calls not to record, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You decided when to start the recordings, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you decided when to stop the recording, correct?

A. Most of the calls stopped when the conversation ended and

everybody said good-bye.

Q. Let's look at Government Exhibit 411, and I'm not going to

play the whole thing, just the last 20 seconds or so.

(Media played)

Q. She's mid-sentence, correct, Ana is?

A. Yeah.

Q. The recording stops, correct?

2270

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. It's a glitch.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. It did not stop. It continued. Is there a pause? I don't

know.

Q. Could we play it again for him.

THE COURT: Is there a question as to whether or not

the recording ends there?

MS. SHROFF: Yes. That was my question.

THE COURT: Does the government concede that the

recording ended there?

MS. MURRAY: Yes, your Honor. That's the end of the

audio recording.

Q. So Ana is mid-sentence, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Recording stops, correct?

A. I guess, yeah.

Q. You're the only one doing the recording, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Let's go to Government Exhibit 417. I'm not going to play

it, but you recall that conversation. This is the one that you

testified to yesterday where you testified that Yvette threw

the remote at the TV?

A. You could play it.

Q. Okay. Do you recall the part of that conversation, I think

it's at --

2271

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

(Media played)

Q. You recall this recording?

A. Yes.

Q. And you recall during this recording, while they're finding

the correct portion, you recall Ms. Wang saying that before any

money is moved, the issue should be sent to the board, correct?

You recall that?

A. Yeah, in the transcript.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. In the transcript, yes.

Q. And the transcript is of the recording, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you reviewed that transcript for accuracy because

Ms. Murray made sure to ask you to review it, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your honor. The portion I

believe Ms. Shroff is talking about is in Mandarin, and we

established that Mr. Khaled doesn't speak Mandarin.

MS. SHROFF: That's not the portion I was asking

about.

THE COURT: You had been referring to Ms. Wang's

statements. Now what are you referring to?

MS. SHROFF: I'm still referring to Ms. Wang's

statements. That is why I don't understand the objection.

THE COURT: So statements that were made in English?

MS. SHROFF: Yes. I'm just trying to point him to

2272

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

where rather than go through the entire recording being

replayed.

THE COURT: So which statements do you claim were made

in English?

Q. Ms. Wang speaks in English to you, correct, in this call?

A. In this call, yeah.

Q. And she says, does she not, that the issue should be

presented to the board, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection. Can we go to the actual part

of the document or the part of the recording that Ms. Shroff is

talking about.

THE COURT: Would you direct us to that portion where

she allegedly said that.

MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor. If I could just have a

minute. Your Honor, it will take us a minute to find it.

THE COURT: Perhaps you could ask other questions.

Q. Do you recall a discussion of Mr. He in this call?

A. Who are you referring to Mr. He?

Q. You know a person name Mr. He?

A. Haoran He?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't believe that he was on this call, no.

MS. MURRAY: We would object. That portion is in

Mandarin.

MS. SHROFF: I have the transcript. It's 417.

2273

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. Do you have the transcript in front of you, sir, your

transcript binder from yesterday, page 22?

THE COURT: Of which call?

MS. SHROFF: 417-T, page 22.

A. I'm sorry. I don't have 417 here.

THE COURT: At the beginning.

Q. There you go. It's on the screen for you, sir.

THE COURT: So you're on page 22?

Q. You see Ms. Wang suggesting that you definitely need to

inform board of directors about this. Mr. He saying, you

definitely need to inform the board of directors about this,

correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: So where is Mr. He on page 22?

MS. SHROFF: Y-U.

MS. MURRAY: That's Mr. William Je, J-E.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. William Je is speaking.

A. Totally different people.

Q. That's fine. Sorry. By bad. It's William Je, correct?

MS. MURRAY: If I may just note for the record, your

Honor, our objection. Italics indicate Mandarin. That's noted

on the first page. We listened to this yesterday. That's

consistent. All of the questions that Ms. Shroff is asking

about right now are portions that were in Mandarin.

2274

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

MS. SHROFF: That's correct. That's why I'm asking

them through the translation which is now in evidence at page

22.

THE COURT: And the part that you're referring to is

Mr. Yu, who is also Mr. Je. Is that correct?

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. William Je, right. You see that?

A. I see it.

Q. You were shown exactly this translation and this

transcription yesterday, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you have Yvette saying, correct, I have sent you all

the G/Club company documents. You can find them. It should

still -- Mr. Je himself, it should be himself?

MS. MURRAY: Objection to the characterization that

the witness has that saying anything.

THE COURT: So you're saying that Yvette made the

statement. Is that right?

MS. SHROFF: I'm saying what's on the document.

THE COURT: So next to the word "Yvette" we have a

statement. That's not the witness's statement. It's Yvette's

statement, correct?

MS. SHROFF: Yes, it's Yvette's statement to

Mr. Khaled who is on the call.

MS. MURRAY: It's in Mandarin, your Honor.

2275

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: There are a number of people on the call.

MS. SHROFF: Yes, absolutely. And the document is in

evidence stating all the people that are on the call, so if I

could go back.

A. She's talking to me in Mandarin?

Q. Could you go back to page 21.

And according to that transcript, because it's in

italics, Yvette is speaking in Mandarin according to you,

correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection to "according to you."

THE COURT: So the transcript says that words in

italics are in Mandarin, so it's according to the transcript.

Q. Okay. It's in Mandarin, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And if you keep scrolling to the document, correct. This

is the translation of what Yvette is saying on the call,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And Yvette is speaking in Chinese, correct, I mean in

Mandarin, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And she and Mr. Miles Guo are speaking, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you're on the call, correct?

A. Yes.

2276

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. And according to you, I just want to be clear, you don't

understand anything of what is going on during this call that

you record?

MS. MURRAY: That's a mischaracterization.

THE COURT: So do you understand Mandarin?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you understand when they were speaking

Mandarin during the phone call?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Please continue.

Q. And after the phone call was over, did you discuss this

interaction with anyone?

A. With Alex.

Q. And other than with Alex, did you discuss it with anyone

else?

A. No.

Q. How about with Ms. Wang?

A. No.

Q. And you've now reviewed in preparation for your testimony

here the translation of this recording, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And in the translation there's no indication that Miles Guo

says during this call there is no reason to go to the board,

correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, speaks for itself.

2277

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: Sustained as to what it does not say. Are

you asking the witness to review the entire transcript to

search whether Mr. Guo made a certain statement or did not?

MS. SHROFF: Yes, I believe I am, actually. And I

think he's reviewed this transcript several times.

THE COURT: Well, we'd have to give him an opportunity

now to review unless he has a recollection. Do you have a

recollection of whether Mr. Guo made that statement?

THE WITNESS: No.

MS. SHROFF: I'm happy to come back to that question

after the lunch break, and perhaps the witness can review it

through his lunch break.

THE COURT: No. The witness is not required to review

documents during the lunch break.

MS. SHROFF: I said perhaps. I'm happy to wait here.

It's up to the Court.

THE COURT: So is it your testimony that you do not

recall whether Mr. Guo made the statement?

THE WITNESS: I don't.

THE COURT: You do not. Go ahead.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. After this call, do you know if William Je's suggestion was

in fact followed?

A. No.

Q. Do you know if Yvette Wang's solution to go to the board

2278

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

was in fact followed?

A. Again, no.

Q. You'd agree with me, would you not, that this was quite a

tumultuous conversation, correct?

A. What do you mean by that?

Q. It was a heated conversation, correct?

A. At the end, yeah.

Q. And there were parts of it that you didn't understand,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. It involved you as well? The conversation involved you,

correct?

A. Not pertaining to G/Club, no.

Q. Were you a disinterested party in the conversation?

A. Yeah, they were discussing G/Clubs, transfers on G/Clubs

accounts.

Q. Did that involve you?

A. No.

Q. So then why did you remain on the call?

A. They ask me to get on the call.

Q. And why did you record it if it didn't involve you?

A. I was in it. I didn't know what's going to be discussed.

Q. Okay. You didn't know what was going to be discussed, but

you nevertheless recorded it?

A. Yes.

2279

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. And after you recorded it, you had no curiosity to find out

what was said?

A. No.

Q. Now, yesterday you testified, right, about your first week

at Saraca, remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified that was during the pandemic? You

started during the pandemic, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you also testified that there were very few people at

the East 64th Street office, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at that same time you were still working for Citibank,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had an online presence for both jobs, correct?

A. I had what?

Q. You had an online presence for both jobs, correct?

A. What do you mean by that?

Q. Well, you had to go to work at Citibank through zoom,

correct?

A. No, my job description was not like that.

Q. Well, I'm only asking because it was the pandemic, sir.

A. I understand, but that wasn't -- online presence, that

wasn't required, no.

2280

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. What was Citibank expecting you to do for the seven hours

you worked for them?

A. During that time we were dealing with the PPP.

Q. For Citibank?

A. For Citibank, yeah. We were trying to help small

businesses get their money for the pandemic, so all hands on

deck was for that.

Q. Okay. But that was your job, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was until October 30 when you resigned, correct?

A. October 1st I think I resigned.

Q. Well, are you sure it's October 1st?

A. I'm not really sure it's October 1st. I think it's in the

beginning of October.

Q. Did you review that fact with Ms. Murray when you met with

her?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember the day you resigned of your job of four

years?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. To work at Citibank, you have to log in, correct?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. How do you access an account without logging in?

A. Again, I was on the relationship side, so my job required

2281

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

me to speak to customers.

Q. Send emails?

A. Yes.

Q. To send an email, do you have to log into the Citibank

network?

A. Correct.

Q. You can't use your Gmail to do Citibank work, right?

A. You could send an email from the phone.

Q. You could send an email through the phone, that is true,

but only through your Citibank email account, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So you had to log into your Citibank accounts, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's fair to say, right, for the time you were

double-billing so to speak, you didn't want to Citibank to find

out you were working at Saraca, correct?

A. No.

Q. That's not fair to say?

A. I didn't want them to find out.

Q. So you had to juggle two employers at the same time,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So on the days that you went to East 64th Street, how did

you do Citibank work?

A. On the phone and on the laptop.

2282

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Q. On whose phone?

A. My phone.

Q. Which phone?

A. My phone.

Q. Was that your personal phone? Was that the phone given by

Citibank, or was that the phone given to you by Saraca?

A. No, there's an app that is for the Citibank email on my

personal phone.

Q. So you used the Citibank app to take Citibank calls?

A. Emails, like emails. What specific is your question?

Q. My question is what happened when a Citibank client called

you? How did you handle that?

A. I would answer.

Q. What happens if you were in a meeting with Mr. Guo or with

Ms. Wang or with Alex H?

A. I would call back.

Q. You would call back?

A. Yeah.

Q. So you made judgment calls as to which was more important,

the Citibank question or the Saraca question?

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Sure. If a Citibank client called you while you were in

the middle of a Saraca meeting, how did you prioritize?

A. If I'm in a meeting, I would call back the client.

Q. And if you were on a call with a Citibank client and Yvette

2283

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

Wang called you or Miles Guo called you, you would prioritize

Citibank, finish the call, and then go to Miles Guo?

A. Might have, yeah.

Q. You just don't know, correct?

A. It depends.

Q. And you kept no time sheets, right, for Citibank?

A. I wasn't required to.

Q. I understand. But you were doing two jobs all at the same

time, right?

A. Correct, but there was no time sheets. There's no

requirements of certain time I have to report and leave in

either work.

Q. Right. There were no requirements on you at all, right,

that's why you were able to do this, charge two people at the

same time?

MS. MURRAY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

A. So, again, I didn't have a time sheet for both. So there

wasn't a requirement of 40 hours at a certain job and 40 hours

at a certain job from nine to five or that schedule. So there

was no time sheet if that's what you're asking.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, that wasn't my question.

THE COURT: There was a two part question about

whether there were any requirements, and then there was a

question about whether he could double-bill.

2284

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

MS. SHROFF: Right.

THE COURT: So he's answered whether there were

requirements, so now you can answer whether you could

double-bill.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Because there were no time requirements?

A. I wasn't billing. It's not a bill. It's wage.

Q. You're cashing a check, right?

A. Yes.

Q. For what?

A. For work.

Q. Right. So I'm asking you, how you did 14 hours of work in

a seven day, day?

A. Like I said, it wasn't hourly, so I fulfilled both jobs

requirements. I attended all my meetings that needed to be

attended when I was requested.

Q. You attended all of your meetings. So if Citibank had a

meeting at the same time Saraca had a meeting, you attended

both meetings?

MS. MURRAY: Objection. That's not his testimony.

THE COURT: You can answer.

A. It never happened where there's two meetings at the same

time.

Q. Now, when you resigned from Citibank. You were terminated

pending an investigation, correct?

2285

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

A. I resigned. Resigning is before -- you can't be terminated

after resigning. I don't understand you.

Q. Well, you resigned, correct?

A. Okay.

Q. Citibank had to accept your resignation, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Citibank had to decide whether if you were resigning in

good standing, correct?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Well, they had to decide whether to give you your pension

at Citibank, correct?

Let me ask you this way. If Citibank found out that

you had been working on the side for a company that Citibank

had closed its accounts, do you think Citibank would have given

you your pension?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Calls for

speculation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Citibank has a policy, right, after a person resigns to

either accept or not accept a resignation?

A. I wouldn't know that.

Q. You wouldn't know that?

A. No, I don't.

Q. How did you resign?

A. I sent an email to my manager giving him -- sent an email

2286

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

to my manager.

Q. You sent an email to your manager, and did Citibank

respond?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you recall if they told you that you were terminated

pending an investigation?

A. No.

Q. You don't recall?

A. No.

Q. Sir, did you have an exit interview with Citibank?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall ever disclosing to Citibank that while you

were working at Citibank you were also working at Saraca?

A. No.

THE COURT: One moment, please.

(Pause)

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q. Now, you testified on direct, right, that in your first

week at Saraca, you were tackling the issue with Citibank and

trying to find an account for Saraca and GTV, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And what do you mean when you say tackling the issue with

Citibank?

A. I was still trying to find out what's the status of the

account and how Yvette is going to receive the checks of the

2287

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO2 Khaled - Cross

balance that was stuck at Citibank.

Q. At City, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And who at City were you dealing with then?

A. James Song.

(Continued on next page)

2288

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. James Song, correct? So James Song was a colleague of

yours, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And did James Song understand that you were calling him as

an employee of Saraca or did he think you were trying to

resolve the issue of these bank accounts as an employee of

Citibank?

A. So——

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: You can answer.

A. So when I started in August——

Q. Started where?

A. At Saraca, the accounts were already closed.

Q. Okay.

A. So what I meant tackling the issue of Citibank is receiving

the checks and opening up a new account for them.

Q. Okay. So you were now no longer talking to James Song, as

you said a minute ago.

A. Not in regards to the account, no.

Q. Okay. So let me just go back to your testimony from

yesterday, okay? You said you were tackling the issue with

Citibank. Could you tell me with whom at Citibank you were

tackling this issue.

A. So I was dealing with Aaron to make sure that we received

2289

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

smaller checks or——

Q. Who's Aaron?

A. Aaron Mitchell, the——

Q. Aaron Mitchell is not at Citibank.

A. Yeah, correct.

Q. Right. My question to you is——

MS. MURRAY: Objection. It mischaracterizes his

testimony.

THE COURT: So allow him to finish.

You were saying.

A. So I was getting checks from Aaron, and these are the

Citibank proceeds of the checks that was blocked. That's what

I meant.

Q. You said tackling the issue with Citibank, correct?

THE COURT: What did you mean by that, when you said

tackling the issue with Citibank?

THE WITNESS: The money that was now blocked at

Citibank and closed, and they have checks in place. I believe

the checks were issued before August 1st.

Q. The checks were still with Citibank?

A. I don't remember.

Q. The money was still with Citibank?

A. I——I really don't remember. I don't remember, no.

Q. You don't remember.

A. No.

2290

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Asked and

answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. And were you attending meetings with people at Citibank to

get those checks cleared?

A. No.

Q. Did you have phone calls with Citibank about getting those

checks cleared?

A. No.

Q. Didn't Ms. Wang tell you, call your old bank and ask them

why these checks aren't cleared, you used to work there,

correct?

A. That's——again, that's before August 1st.

Q. Before August 1st or not, when Ms. Wang told you that——

A. No, it's a big——

Q. ——she was under the assumption that you had left Citibank,

correct?

A. No.

Q. She thought you were still working at Citibank?

A. She knew I was still working at Citibank, yeah. Can I see

the text dates? Do you have dates?

Q. What was your first week at Saraca? What was your first

week? What was the date?

A. I believe August 1st.

Q. So August 1st, you had told Ms. Wang that you were doing

2291

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

two jobs; that's your testimony today?

A. So she asked me if, when——if I——if I had resigned in July,

when I accepted the offer, and when I could start. She asked

me to start as soon as possible.

MS. SHROFF: I move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. Okay. So what's your question again?

MS. SHROFF: Could you read him the question back,

please.

(Record read)

A. No. August 1st, she——I didn't tell her, no.

Q. Okay. So in your first week, Ms. Wang is talking to you

about the blocked checks at Citibank, correct?

A. She was asking me to find another bank, yeah.

Q. She was asking you about the blocked checks, correct?

A. I don't recall.

Q. How much money was in those checks blocked by Citibank?

A. 200 million.

Q. She wanted that 200 million unblocked; is that fair to say?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: You can answer that question.

A. I'm sure she did, yeah.

Q. And isn't the whole point of hiring an ex-Citibank employee

so that they can help figure out how to block the 2 million

being kept by Citibank?

2292

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You were hired for your experience at Citibank, right?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. He doesn't know.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you make any effort to get those $2 million back from

Citibank?

A. I wasn't——I wasn't in charge of that. All I did was get

updates from John——from James.

Q. You got updates. And when you got those updates, did you

tell him, hey, buddy, I'm working at Saraca now, let's have a

drink?

A. I don't remember.

Q. I'm sorry. I misspoke. It wasn't 2 million, it was

200 million that was with Citibank, right?

A. I believe so, yeah, it was 200 million.

Q. Now you just testified that you were trying to find other

banks. Is that what you testified to? I don't want to get it

wrong. You tell me. What else were you doing during your

first week?

A. Getting situated, email, figuring out the phone, payroll;

and one of the things was, they needed a new bank account.

Q. Well, you weren't doing payroll, right?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. You weren't doing payroll there, right?

2293

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. No, no, setting up my payroll, so I could get paid.

Q. Okay. So that took the whole week, or is that part of the

week?

A. I don't remember exactly. No.

Q. Okay. And you were trying to look for other banks now,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And G/CLUBS, you remember it had launched in October

of 2020, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you wanted to find different banks for G/CLUBS to do

business; is that fair?

A. No.

Q. And you contacted——you tell me. Which banks did you

contact?

A. So I was trying to open an account for Saraca and GTV.

Q. Right. But where?

A. I believe the Bank of Princeton and Signature.

Q. Well, how did you identify the Bank of Princeton and

Signature?

A. What do you mean?

Q. I'm sorry?

A. What do you mean?

Q. Well, there are many banks, right? How did you land on

Bank of Princeton and Signature Bank?

2294

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. I had contacts.

Q. Okay.

A. In both banks.

Q. Okay. So you reached out to your contacts, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you reached out to your contacts through your GTV or

Saraca email address, correct?

A. Or personal. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. And then you talked to people at Bank of Princeton

and at Signature Bank, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And this was in August, correct?

A. I believe so, yeah.

Q. Well, that's your first week there, right?

A. August, yeah, was my first week.

Q. Right. So when you were talking to Bank of Princeton and

telling them you wanted to open these bank accounts, you put

yourself out there as a Saraca employee, correct?

A. I might have, yeah.

Q. You might have?

A. Yeah, I don't——I don't remember how I started the email, or

message or whatever.

Q. So sitting here today, you don't know if you told Bank of

Princeton, hey, I'm working at Citibank, I'm trying to have

this client Saraca open a bank account at Bank of Princeton, or

2295

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

whether you told Bank of Princeton, I now work for Saraca, I

want to open a bank account with you?

MS. MURRAY: Objection. Asked and answered.

MS. SHROFF: I don't think I asked any question about

Bank of Princeton.

THE COURT: Did you hold yourself out as being

employed by one entity or another?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall, like, in that——in that——

THE COURT: All righty. We're going to stop at this

time for our lunch. You'll return at 12:30. Remember not to

discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else. Don't

permit anyone to discuss the case in your presence. But I also

want you to consider the proposal that I made for the four days

of next week. Wednesday you're off, and I'm asking whether you

can come in at 9:30 and go until 1:00, with a full hour break

until 2, and then to go from 2 to 5. And don't watch, listen,

or read anything about anything having to do with this case.

(Continued on next page)

2296

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: Sir, you may step out. Don't discuss your

testimony.

(Witness not present)

THE COURT: I'd like to get a copy of the letter in

question.

MR. KAMARAJU: I have it here, your Honor. I'm just

going to hand it up.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

It is the contention of the defense that this letter

dated July 11, 2021, from Warren Law Group to Limarie Reyes

Molinaris is not being offered for the truth of the matter

asserted; is that your position?

MS. SHROFF: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And your position is that it's being

offered for what purpose?

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm going to let Mr. Kamaraju

handle this because I stepped out from the sidebar so I don't

want to repeat, if that's okay with the Court.

MR. KAMARAJU: The letter is being offered for two

purposes, your Honor. One is to complete the narrative with

respect to the events that lead up to the arbitration, which

the government elicited; and second, to impeach the witness's

testimony that he claimed that he did not want to remain in the

PFA as of this time.

2297

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

THE COURT: Does the government wish to add anything?

MS. MURRAY: Yes, your Honor. On the point of

completing the narrative, you can't just say that something

completes the narrative to get it in. And to establish that

this completes the narrative is offering it for its truth, it

simply is, which is not permissible.

And separately, with respect to the alleged

impeachment, the witness did not deny that the letter says what

it says. He also didn't deny that his counsel was engaged in

discussions regarding a PFA. There's simply nothing in this

letter——which the witness did not write and which he was not

copied on, did not receive——that goes to anything that he said

on the stand, and certainly doesn't impeach anything he said.

THE COURT: So I understand the defense to be saying

that he said during testimony——I don't recall this——that he was

not interested in the PFA continuing at the time that this

letter was written; am I correct?

MR. KAMARAJU: That is my recollection of the

testimony, Judge, yes.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor——

MS. MURRAY: This is——

MR. KAMARAJU: Also——sorry.

MS. MURRAY: This is about issues that his counsel had

about what was going on with effectively a contract dispute.

It's not the question that they posed to the witness, which was

2298

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

what he wanted or didn't want. He answered that question.

This is an entirely separate thing that relates to legal

negotiations between two parties.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, Ms. Sharonda has agreed to

look at her transcript and give me the page number during the

lunch break. I'd be happy to send an email to the Court and

copy the government on it.

THE COURT: And you're claiming that this statement

was made by the witness when?

MS. SHROFF: I think he testified to it this morning.

THE COURT: This morning?

MR. KAMARAJU: It was this morning, your Honor. This

is the first time the letter came up was this morning, through

Ms. Shroff's cross. He said that he was——at that point he

wanted to get out of the PFA, which is the legal contract that

is being discussed in this letter, not some distinct contract.

Ms. Shroff asked him specifically at this time——I'm

paraphrasing the question, we'll have the transcript, but——at

this time, and he said July 2021, which is the period of the

letter. He also testified that the lawyers were acting at his

direction. In fact, he testified to that I believe in response

to Ms. Shroff's question and I believe the Court's question.

THE COURT: So it's your position that the letter

contradicts his statement because it indicates a desire on his

part to continue with the PFA.

2299

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor.

MS. MURRAY: And your Honor, it's not his statement.

He made a statement under——when he was testifying. That's his

statement about what he wanted or didn't want. This is a legal

negotiation as reflected in a document between two parties.

He's not a party to it. If it were proper impeachment, they

wouldn't have to say that it's being offered to complete the

narrative. The fact that they're saying it's offered to

complete the narrative of the timeline of what's happening in

the negotiations regarding the PFA is offering it for its

truth. It is not permissible.

THE COURT: And why do you think they're offering it

for its truth?

MS. MURRAY: Because they're trying to back this

document into the case, your Honor, so they can use it for

other purposes.

THE COURT: What other purposes do you think they want

to use it for?

MS. MURRAY: I don't know. I anticipate that they

want to use it in their argument at closing. I think they're

going to point to different aspects of this document, including

different statements that it makes about G/CLUBS and G/CLUBS

operations, the benefits to G/CLUBS of the PFA, either

continuing the PFA or canceling it.

MR. KAMARAJU: No, your Honor.

2300

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

THE COURT: So exactly what portions of the letter do

you want to come out and for what specific purpose?

MR. KAMARAJU: We want the letter to come out to say

your lawyers responded to the termination notice with this

letter, and the letter indicated that you, Crane, his company,

wanted to remain in the PFA at the time of July 2021. We don't

agree that any of the contentions in that letter are true.

THE COURT: So is there a portion of the letter which

expresses the desire of Crane to remain in the PFA?

MR. KAMARAJU: Well, yeah. For example, your Honor, I

think even the benefits to G/CLUBS from remaining in the PFA,

we don't think that those are true, but we think that's an

attempt to convince G/CLUBS to remain in the PFA.

MS. MURRAY: That's a matter of interpretation.

MR. KAMARAJU: Which the jury can do.

MS. MURRAY: They're not answering the Court's

question.

THE COURT: These lawyers are very capable of stating

whether or not they're urging the other side to cancel the

agreement.

MR. KAMARAJU: Yes, your Honor, and I think if your

Honor looks at the letter, it is very apparent that these

skilled lawyers directly were trying to entice G/CLUBS not to

terminate the agreement. That's the entire purpose of the

letter is a response to the termination notice. It is not a

2301

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

response that says, yes, we agree to be terminated. It is a

response that says, do not terminate this for X, Y, and Z

reasons. We are not going to argue to the jury that X, Y, and

Z reasons were accurate; in fact, that's the opposite of our

argument. It's for the same reason——when the government says,

we're putting in this document for the falsity of it, that's

not hearsay, it's the same concept.

MS. MURRAY: It's simply not impeachment, your Honor.

You asked Mr. Kamaraju which portion of the letter he was going

to point to to impeach the witness and he responded with two

statements that——or two facts that he was seeking to elicit as

supposed impeachment. And first of all, he can ask those

questions without reference to this letter, without seeking to

introduce this four-page letter. And in any event, the

sections that he's pointing to or the paragraph he's pointing

to is not proper impeachment. There's no basis for

impeachment. This witness has not denied anything that's

reflected in the letter, and even if he did, this is not the

way to impeach him.

THE COURT: All righty. I'm going to look at the

letter. We'll come back at 12:30.

MS. MURRAY: And your Honor, just for timing purposes,

it's been two and a half hours so far on cross this morning. I

would just ask how much longer Ms. Shroff has.

THE COURT: Ms. Shroff?

2302

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1

MR. HORTON: Well, your Honor, I'm going to play the

video that he——one of the calls, because they want the call

played. I don't know. Honestly, I'm a little discombobulated.

I don't know. Maybe an hour?

THE COURT: So I want you to be efficient in your

asking of the questions.

We'll meet again at 12:30.

(Luncheon recess)

2303

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

AFTERNOON SESSION

12:50 p.m.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

I'm going to have the witness step out.

(Witness not present)

THE COURT: So first of all, the government raised the

issue that there was an arbitration, and what was established

on direct was that G/CLUBS made a claim against Crane for

certain monies and ultimately there was a decision in favor of

G/CLUBS after the testimony of Reyes Molinaris and Izquierdo.

I've reviewed the testimony of the witness from

yesterday, and I'm calling your attention to Ms. Shroff's

questions that start, "Did you want the contract with Crane to

be terminated?" to exactly, "They never were done with you,

correct?" and his answers to those two questions, as well as

everything that came in between. And I believe that the jury

is left with the impression that the witness and Crane were

trying to distance themselves from their relationship with

G/CLUBS, but the letter contradicts that. It shows that Crane

was trying to keep this relationship alive. And I'm going to

allow it to come in to the extent that it can be authenticated.

So let's bring the witness back.

(Witness present)

THE COURT: And if you'll have the jurors brought in,

2304

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

please.

(Jury present)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Members of the jury, I had intended on calling you

back in at 12:30, but something arose that is not the fault of

the parties or myself, and so I apologize for the delay.

You may continue with your questioning.

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Sir, you're familiar with G/CLUBS, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were never asked, as part of your job description,

to design any website for G/CLUBS, correct?

A. Me personally design?

Q. Yes.

A. I had different tasks, so might have been to review the G

Club website, yeah.

Q. You were not on the designing team of the website, correct?

A. Designing team?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. You were not on the marketing team for G/CLUBS, correct?

A. No, not officially.

Q. You were not unofficially any part of the marketing for

G/CLUBS, correct?

2305

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. I was involved with a few items, a few tasks.

Q. What items? Name an item that you marketed for G Club.

A. Like, for example, the G Summit.

Q. Okay. You marketed the G Summit?

A. Not marketed, but looked at it, looked at the location.

Q. Which location?

A. Where they were going to have the G Summit.

Q. Which location did you look at?

A. A hotel in Puerto Rico.

Q. So you went to visit a hotel in Puerto Rico as a possible

site for the G Summit?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What other things did you do for G/CLUBS marketing?

A. Just, like I said, minor tasks. That was part of the job,

minor tasks to help——that Yvette used to ask me for, for help,

on the G/CLUBS side.

Q. And were you involved at all in G Fashion?

A. Just on the finance side.

Q. You did not play any role in designing the G Fashion

website, correct?

A. Maybe the checkout, the checkout process online.

Q. You helped——

A. They needed——yeah, they needed——they needed somebody to

help them create a merchant.

Q. So you helped them create a merchant for G Fashion?

2306

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. I was trying to find them a merchant processor.

Q. And did you find them one?

A. It was very difficult. I don't——I don't recall if they

were approved by someone.

MS. SHROFF: I move to strike.

Q. My question was: Sir, did you find them one?

THE COURT: Sustained. It's stricken. Just answer

the question.

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Did you find them one?

A. I found, yeah.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I did.

Q. And who was that?

A. I don't recall the name.

Q. Okay. Did you help organize events for G/CLUBS?

A. Like I said, just location.

Q. Did you help organize a raffle for a car?

A. Not directly, no.

Q. Did you play any role in the actual provision of services

to G/CLUBS?

A. No.

Q. Now you testified on direct about G/CLUBS's banking issues,

correct?

A. Correct.

2307

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. Accounts were being closed down, you testified, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And some of the accounts were closed down because there

were hits from OFAC, correct?

A. Some accounts, yeah.

Q. And what does OFAC stand for?

A. Office of Foreign Asset Control.

Q. And is it fair to say that OFAC has a list of people that

are subject to sanctions?

A. Can you repeat the question.

Q. Is it fair to say that OFAC maintains a list of people that

are subject to sanctions, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And banks do not want to do business with people who are on

the OFAC list, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And there were wires that came in that were flagged as

coming from people who were on the OFAC list but they really

weren't, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And in those instances what you and Alex H did is you

substantiated that the people who had sent the money were not

on the OFAC list, correct?

A. We asked for ID, a date of birth, correct.

Q. So that you could tell the bank that these people were not

2308

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

in fact on OFAC, correct?

A. So we could provide it to the bank and then make a

determination.

Q. And you did that, right? You collected IDs, passport

photos, or other IDs and you sent them to the bank, correct?

A. Alex did. He was in charge of G/CLUBS.

Q. He copied you on the emails, correct?

A. He might have.

Q. And he forwarded you emails, too, correct, about this

matter?

A. Again, he might have.

Q. Let me show you what is marked as Defense Exhibit 31189.

Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it an email sent to you?

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, at this time the defense

moves Defense Exhibit into evidence. I'm sorry. I lost my

number there. But 31189.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. MURRAY: Yes, objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Step up.

(Continued on next page)

2309

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: So this is an email from the witness to

Alex H in which the witness states that there's some personal

identifying information for several individuals. You're

objecting on the basis of hearsay?

MS. MURRAY: Yes, your Honor. It's being offered for

the truth that the people are on an OFAC list and that that's

the relevance of why the defendant, or the witness——excuse

me——is sending it to other people. It clearly doesn't fall

under any exception. It doesn't go to his state of mind.

Completing the narrative is not a hearsay exception, to the

extent the defense intends to argue that that's the basis for

introducing it. There's no proper basis to introduce it.

MS. SHROFF: We're simply showing that this was a

topic that was discussed. We do not have any——

THE COURT: He's testified that it's a topic

discussed. And so——

MS. SHROFF: And that the information flowed from Alex

H, who was in charge of G/CLUBS, to Mr. Khaled, who was in

charge of banking, and it flowed from him to the bank. We have

no interest in saying whether these people were or were not on

the OFAC list, and we don't intend to argue whether or not each

one of these individuals were on the OFAC list. The only thing

we're trying to show is that there were people that——that were

alleged to have been on the OFAC list, they sent the

2310

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

information along to show that they weren't with their bona

fides.

THE COURT: I thought it was an email from the witness

to Alex H. Am I wrong? Is it Alex H to the witness?

MS. SHROFF: There's two. It's from Alex H to this

gentleman. He received it because he's been in charge of

banking. And then he sends the email forward.

MS. MURRAY: All of the facts that Ms. Shroff said

have already been established through testimony. It's hearsay

within hearsay, the witness is responding to Alex H. And

clearly, contrary to the representations, they are trying to

use this for its truth, or at least it will confuse the jury,

whether it's being introduced for its truth, and the Court has

an obligation to keep it out, particularly where there's no

hearsay exception to offer it.

MR. KAMARAJU: First of all, the Court doesn't have an

obligation to keep out evidence that's admissible.

Two, to the extent they continue to say that we are

making representations that aren't true, there's a transcript.

They are free to object during summation and your Honor can

rule.

But the third thing I will say is, is that there is no

rule of evidence that says because a witness has testified to

something, that the party is not allowed to offer additional

evidence corroborating it. That's why the government——

2311

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: How about cumulative evidence?

MR. KAMARAJU: It's one email, your Honor. I can't

see how one email is——

THE COURT: I'm not going to let it in.

MR. KAMARAJU: Okay.

(Continued on next page)

2312

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

(In open court)

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Alex H provided you with biographical data for people,

correct, that were allegedly on the OFAC list?

A. What do you mean by that, biographical?

Q. Passport, ID.

A. Passport.

Q. And you would forward that to the bank, correct?

A. Either me or Alex, yeah.

Q. And that was part of your normal job duties there, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. By the way, do you know if Miles Guo was on the OFAC list?

A. Not for sure, no.

Q. You worked for Miles Guo, you said, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't learn whether or not Miles Guo was on the

OFAC list?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you know there was an Interpol Red Notice for Miles

Guo?

A. Again, no.

Q. Now as part of your job duties, you participated in job

interviews to hire people, correct?

A. Some, yeah.

2313

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. You interviewed a person named Miguel Rivera, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were part of an interview team, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You recorded that interview, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that was a Zoom interview, correct?

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, at this time I move DX 60535

into evidence.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Defendant's Exhibit 60535 received in evidence)

Q. So if I could just play for you, I think it's 18.

While they're setting up, you remember this job

interview, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And who are the participants in the Zoom meeting?

A. It was me, Miguel who was being interviewed, I believe

Ross, Alex, and Maya.

Q. And who's Maya?

A. Maya was my assistant and worked for the group as well.

Q. And who paid for her work? Who paid her checks?

A. I believe Lexington.

Q. You believe Lexington?

A. Yeah. Everybody got paid——I don't know how she got paid.

2314

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. My question was not how much she got paid, sir.

A. I don't know how she got paid. I didn't do payroll. Go

ahead.

Q. You go.

A. No, you go.

Q. You don't know who paid her, correct?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

(Audio played)

MS. SHROFF: We can stop there.

Q. Do you recognize that voice?

A. That's me.

Q. And you remember the statement that was just played,

correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you in fact know the people behind G/CLUBS for four

years at that time?

A. I was referring to Yvette.

Q. You were referring to one individual?

A. I was referring to Yvette.

Q. Okay. So your testimony is when you said that you knew

people behind G/CLUBS for four years, you were only referring

to Yvette Wang.

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. Could we go to the next clip,

2315

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

please.

(Audio played)

MS. SHROFF: You can stop there.

Q. Do you recognize the voice, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Whose voice is that?

A. Ross.

Q. Where did Ross work?

A. When I first met him, the Rule of Law.

Q. My question was: During this recording, where does Ross

work?

A. I couldn't tell you. It was the Rule of Law.

Q. Your testimony is that Ross worked for Rule of Law during

this time?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

Q. I'll withdraw that. And he is participate——I withdraw it.

Sorry.

And he was participating in this interview with you,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. He's talking about this person Miguel Rivera's experience

bringing order to chaos, correct?

A. That's what he said.

Q. And he's interviewing somebody to come join G/CLUBS so that

there can be order to chaos, correct?

2316

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. I don't know what he meant in that.

Q. Did you talk to him before you started the interview to

prepare for the interview of Mr. Rivera?

A. I don't remember if there was an official preparation for

an interview.

Q. How about an unofficial preparation?

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. How about an ad hoc preparation?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's go.

Q. For what position was Mr. Rivera being interviewed?

A. I believe finance.

Q. In what company?

A. G Club Puerto Rico.

Q. Thank you.

MS. SHROFF: May I have the next clip, please.

(Audio played)

MS. SHROFF: We can stop there.

Q. Whose voice is that, sir?

A. That's mine.

Q. And is it fair to say that Mr. Miles Guo had no awareness

that you were interviewing Miguel Rivera?

MS. MURRAY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. He cannot speak about what

Mr. Guo was or was not aware of.

2317

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. Did you tell Mr. Guo that you were participating in an

interview for Miguel Rivera?

A. No, not directly.

Q. How did you tell him indirectly?

A. Maybe through Yvette.

Q. Maybe?

A. Maybe Yvette told him. I don't know.

Q. You don't know, correct?

A. I don't.

Q. You're just speculating when you say maybe Yvette told him.

A. Maybe, yeah, maybe Yvette told him.

Q. It's a speculation on your part, correct?

A. I don't know if Yvette told him.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Would you step up, please.

(Continued on next page)

2318

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: This witness has trouble with big words,

words like "admonition" and "speculation," and so I ask that

you speak in a simpler way so that he can answer the questions

efficiently.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. I'm sorry. I did not——okay.

(Continued on next page)

2319

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

(In open court)

THE COURT: You may continue.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Sir, you're just guessing that Yvette told Mr. Guo,

correct?

A. Again, I'm not sure if she told him.

Q. Okay. And when you were speaking on the clip that we just

played to you, you were participating in an interview for this

person to have a job at G/CLUBS, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now on direct you testified, did you not, that there came a

point when you used the money to——money taken from Crane to buy

certain properties for yourself and your wife, correct?

A. I used the money to invest in properties.

Q. Okay. And how did you invest in these properties? Did you

purchase them?

A. I purchased them, yeah.

Q. Okay. And how many properties did you purchase?

A. Total of seven.

Q. And a total of seven properties. Were they all in Florida?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they all multidwelling homes with swimming pools?

A. No.

Q. Okay. And how many of them were multidwelling homes with

swimming pools?

2320

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. What do you mean, multidwelling? Single-family, what do

you mean exactly?

Q. I withdraw the question.

These were homes that had more than one bedroom,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And they had other amenities in the apartment, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were trying to run these properties as Airbnbs,

correct?

A. Three of them.

Q. Okay. And you testified on direct that you put these

properties in your wife's name, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you remember saying on your direct that you did that

"because of any lawsuit or anything might happen to me, the

properties are in someone else's name that I trust," correct?

A. I think that's my testimony, but can I——

Q. And you then testified that you thought some harm could

come to you, some physical harm, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And what year were these properties bought, sir; do you

remember?

A. '21 and '22.

Q. In 2021 you were still working at East 64th Street,

2321

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

correct?

A. Not the entire year.

Q. Okay. But for part of 2021 you were still working there,

correct?

A. Yeah, until July.

Q. Okay. So you went in and out of East 64th Street, so at

that time you weren't scared that anything could happen to you,

correct?

A. Not until the dispute happened, no.

Q. Okay. So before the dispute happened and you bought these

properties, you still put them in your wife's name, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. In fact, you put these properties in your wife's name

because you were in bankruptcy, and if you put them in your

name, the trustee would seize them; isn't that the truth?

A. No.

Q. So what would happen if you put the properties in your

name? What do you think the trustee would do with that?

MS. MURRAY: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did you have an obligation to report purchase of property

to the trustee in bankruptcy?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

A. No.

2322

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. You don't know your obligations to your bankruptcy trustee?

A. Well, at that time it's a Chapter 13 reconstruction of

debt, so the entire debt was scheduled to be paid through that

Chapter 13.

Q. Right. And you had to give the——

A. I don't——

Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. I don't believe——I don't know if I needed to let them know.

Q. You didn't need to give them a list of your assets?

A. That's before.

Q. That's——

A. That's when you apply.

Q. That's when you apply.

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Not when you have a payment obligation.

A. Again, I don't know.

Q. You're still under an obligation, sitting here right now,

right, to the bankruptcy trustee to pay?

A. Yeah, I have two payments for $8,000, I think.

Q. Right. And you still have to make those payments, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And isn't it true that you're supposed to give them a list

of your assets so they can make sure that the payment schedule

is set properly?

MS. MURRAY: Objection. Asked and answered.

2323

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Who is Roman Yagudaev?

MS. SHROFF: Let me spell that for you, Madam court

reporter. R-O-M-A-N, Y-A-G-U-D-A-E-V.

A. He was a friend of mine and a partner.

Q. And when you described him to others while you were working

at GTV, you called him just a contact, correct?

A. I don't——I don't know what I called him.

Q. How about when you testified on the 10th, and you testified

on direct that he was "just a contact"?

MS. SHROFF: Can we pull up that transcript for him,

please.

Q. Do you recall giving that testimony?

A. Do you want me to read it?

Q. I just want to make sure it comports with your

recollection.

A. Yeah, it says "and a friend that I knew."

Q. Right. That's who he was, right?

A. So——yeah.

Q. Okay. And you used——how do you pronounce his name so I

don't get it wrong? Is it Yagudaev, Yagudaev?

A. How would you——how do you say it?

Q. Okay. I'll refer to him as Roman, okay?

A. Okay. That's easier.

Q. Okay. And you introduced Roman to people at G/CLUBS so

2324

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

that he could help provide services, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You introduced him because according to you, he had

immigration contacts and experience, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you wanted to employ him or have GTV——G/CLUBS employ

him so that he could help people get a passport in Antigua,

correct?

A. Yeah, Yvette was interested in employing him, correct.

Q. Right. And Yvette, Ms. Wang, interviewed him, correct, or

talked to you about him, correct?

A. She had spoken to him directly.

Q. And she declined to utilize his services, correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. In fact, she told you that they already had people in

Antigua who could perform the same services, correct?

A. No. She never said that.

Q. And she sent you a text telling you to contact them

directly in Antigua, correct?

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Now with this gentleman Roman, you started another

company all of your own, correct?

A. Can you be more specific.

Q. Sure. You and he formed a company called Royalton,

correct?

2325

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Royal?

Q. Royalton.

A. No.

Q. You didn't?

A. Royal.

Q. Royal? Just Royal?

A. I think Royal Asset Group, something like that.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Royal Asset Group. I'm not sure the exact name.

Q. Okay. But the two of you opened it together, correct?

A. I think there was a third person, and a fourth. There was

like I think four people.

Q. Is it still in existence now?

A. Yeah. No activity.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. It was no activity whatsoever.

Q. Okay. You also started another company, right, called

Kanji Capital Group, correct?

A. That was started when I was still working for the group.

Q. Which group?

A. For Guo and Yvette.

Q. And you pitched Kanji Capital Group as a possible private

equity to Ms. Wang, correct?

A. That's what she wanted me to create.

Q. Could you——

2326

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

MS. SHROFF: I would just move to strike, your Honor,

and ask him to please answer the question.

THE COURT: You can answer the question. Your answer

is stricken.

Please read back the question.

(Record read)

A. She asked me to create it.

Q. Your testimony is Ms. Wang asked you to create a company

for her in June of 2021?

A. It was before June '21.

Q. When before June of 2021?

A. We started talking about this in February.

Q. Okay. And when did you culminate it, according to you?

A. You mean when it was created?

Q. I'm sorry. I take that back.

You created a brochure of the company, correct?

A. Possible.

Q. Do you recall it or no?

THE COURT: So don't say what's possible. Say whether

or not.

A. I don't remember.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

A. What's your question?

Q. You created a pamphlet or a brochure promoting the Kanji

2327

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Private Equity Capital, correct?

THE COURT: The question is whether or not this

document refreshes your recollection as to whether you did so.

A. I didn't physically create it, but I'm familiar definitely

with Kanji Capital Group. I said I didn't physically create

this, but I am familiar with Kanji.

Q. Well, how are you familiar with Kanji?

A. It's a——I own it, with——I own it with a partner.

Q. Who's the partner?

A. Stephen Lawandy.

Q. Who is Stephen Lawandy?

A. He was initially hired by G/CLUBS and the G group.

Q. But who is he to you?

A. I worked with him before. We——we belonged to the same

banking group.

Q. You helped Stephen Lawandy get a job at G Club?

A. I introduced him to Yvette.

Q. You introduced him to Yvette, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you and Stephen Lawandy together made this

company, correct?

A. We were asked to, yeah.

Q. Excuse me?

A. We were asked to create this company.

Q. Okay. But you created it, right?

2328

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. I said we were asked to create it by Yvette, this company.

Q. Okay. But you created it, then, right?

A. We asked——yes.

Q. Okay. And you sent it around, correct?

A. What do you mean?

Q. Who did you send that document to?

A. I don't remember.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. May I take it back from him.

Q. And you wanted this private equity company to be supported

by whom?

MS. MURRAY: Objection to relevance.

THE COURT: I'll allow the question.

A. What do you mean supported?

Q. Who was going to fund it?

A. It was going to have investors.

Q. And who were the investors to be?

A. When the company was created, it was going to be promoted

and——it was going to be from the network of Yvette.

Q. And this was in June of 2021, correct?

A. No. Like I said, we started working on this project in

February.

Q. Right. And when did the project come to like a final

conclusion? You started in February. When did it come to a

conclusion?

A. It continued, but, again, we never had any success with it.

2329

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. Okay. But my question is: When did it come to a

conclusion and you sent it to Yvette?

A. What do you mean conclusion, like created the company?

Q. Yeah.

A. So we started in February. By the time it was created in

Cayman, it was like probably June——May, June, something like

that.

Q. And in May or June, you sent it to Yvette, right?

A. Again, I don't remember sending this exact document to

Yvette.

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

recollection.

A. Just an attachment. I don't know if that's——this is it.

Q. My question was, does that refresh your recollection that

the Kanji pdf was sent to Yvette on June 21st of 2021? Does

that document refresh your recollection?

A. Again, it's a pdf. I don't know if this is it.

THE COURT: So the question is whether or not looking

at that document actually causes you to remember that this

happened.

THE WITNESS: That I've sent the pdf? Yes, I've sent

the pdf to Yvette regarding Kanji.

Q. And you recall, sitting here today, that the pdf regarding

Kanji that you sent to Yvette was sent on June 27th of 2021,

correct?

2330

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Correct.

Q. Shortly after that, on July 11th, you were told that Crane

wanted to terminate their contract with you, correct?

A. Correct.

MS. SHROFF: Could I show just the witness DX 60540.

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. Would you prefer a hard copy, sir, or should we just flip

it for you on the machine?

A. No. Can you get me one?

Q. Hard copy?

A. Please.

Q. Sure.

A. Okay.

Q. That's the termination agreement; that's the notice of

termination, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you recognize it to be so, correct?

A. That's the response.

Q. It's the response to the notice of termination, correct?

A. Yeah, a response to the notice of termination.

Q. And you recognize it to be so, correct?

A. Yes, and from Chris Warren.

Q. Thank you.

MS. SHROFF: I move DX 60540 into evidence.

MS. MURRAY: May I have voir dire?

2331

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

THE COURT: You may.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MS. MURRAY:

Q. Mr. Khaled, did you write this document?

A. No.

Q. Did you see this document in or around the time that it was

sent in July of 2021?

A. I don't remember if Warren Law Group sent it to me or not.

Q. Do you know whether this is a fair and accurate copy of a

letter that Chris Warren sent to Limarie Reyes on July 9th of

2021?

A. No, I would not know.

MS. MURRAY: We object, your Honor.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Does the document have a letterhead on top, sir?

A. It does.

Q. What's the little painting, the photo over there?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Okay. Who's Christopher Warren?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, I'm laying a foundation for

the document.

THE COURT: You've already asked who Christopher

Warren was.

2332

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

MS. SHROFF: I meant on the letterhead. I don't mean

in general; I just meant on the letterhead.

THE COURT: So he's not reading from the document

because the document has not yet been authenticated.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Who was Todd Kulkin?

A. Who is Todd Kulkin?

Q. Right.

A. He was my attorney.

Q. And did your attorney in fact send a response to the G Club

notice of termination?

A. He might have, yeah.

Q. And that's this document, right?

A. This looks like it.

Q. Thank you.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, we renew our application to

have the document admitted into evidence.

MS. MURRAY: Same objection, but nothing further on

that point.

THE COURT: I'm going to admit the document.

(Defendant's Exhibit 60540 received in evidence)

MS. SHROFF: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. You can set that aside.

Now, Mr. Khaled, on March 8th of 2023, you signed a

2333

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

nonprosecution agreement with these three lawyers, correct?

A. Can you repeat the date?

Q. March 8th. Do you recall the date of your nonprosecution

agreement? Maybe I have the wrong date. Let me check.

I do have the right date. March 8th of 2023. Do you

recall that?

A. Yeah. I'm not sure what the exact date of the——the

signature.

Q. Okay. And you testified on direct that you were approached

by the FBI and you did not immediately speak to them, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were approached on July 26th of 2021, correct?

A. No.

Q. Okay. You tell me when you were approached.

A. November of 2021.

Q. You were approached by the FBI on November——in November of

2021?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And when was the first time you spoke to the

prosecution after that?

A. April of 2022.

Q. Are you sure it wasn't May of 2022? I'm sorry.

A. I'm not sure. April or May.

Q. Okay. In November when the FBI approached you, you

declined to speak to them, correct? You said you had a lawyer

2334

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

and you did not want to talk to them; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And between then and the first time that you spoke to them

on May 12th of 2022, you took stock of the fact that you had

stolen $2.7 million, correct?

A. I didn't steal 2.7 million.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I didn't steal 2.7 million.

Q. How much did you steal?

A. I didn't steal.

Q. You didn't steal anything at all?

A. No.

Q. And you're just returning the money because you didn't

steal it?

A. What returning money?

Q. The forfeiture. If you didn't steal it, why are you

forfeiting it?

A. I'm returning it based on the agreement that we have.

Q. But the agreement is based on things you did, right?

Well, you know what, let's talk about the things you

did.

You told them that you did wrong by opening bank

accounts that were associated with Mr. Guo from July 2020 to

July 2021, correct?

A. Correct.

2335

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. And they agreed to not prosecute you for that, correct?

A. That's what the agreement says.

Q. They agreed not to prosecute you because you told them that

you had engaged in financial transactions to hide funds and

that was between July 2020 and July 2021, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And then you told them that you had induced people to

invest money in entities, and they told you they wouldn't

prosecute you for that either, correct?

A. Induced? Can you repeat that.

THE COURT: Ms. Shroff.

MS. SHROFF: I'm reading the agreement itself, your

Honor. That's why——I'm happy to rephrase.

A. Can I——

Q. You told them, correct, that you did wrong things to have

people invest and that was illegal, and they said, okay, we'll

not prosecute you for that, correct?

A. That's not what the agreement says. It's fraud, a fraud

scheme.

Q. You tell me what the agreement says.

A. It was regarding a fraud scheme.

Q. Okay. You told them you ran an unlicensed money service

from October 2020 to July 2021, and they agreed to not

prosecute you for that, correct?

A. Again, the agreement has that in——in——regarding operating a

2336

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

nonlicensed money servicing company.

Q. Right. But you testified on cross today that you were a

licensed remitter, right?

A. We had a license, yeah.

Q. Say it again?

A. Yes, we did have a license.

Q. So why did you ask the government to give you coverage for

something that was perfectly legal?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. Misstates his

testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. What unlicensed money services are they giving you coverage

for?

MS. MURRAY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Your nonprosecution agreement says that they won't

prosecute you for operating an unlicensed money services

business from October 2020 to July 2021, correct?

A. If that's what it says, yeah.

Q. What do you understand that to mean?

A. In terms of what exactly?

Q. In terms of your nonprosecution agreement.

A. What's your question?

Q. My question is: What is your understanding of the

highlighted language, which is your nonprosecution agreement?

2337

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Operating an unlicensed money services business from in or

about October '20 through in or about July 2021.

Q. Right. And what's the unlicensed money services business

you ran?

A. Crane.

Q. That's the unlicensed money services business you ran? I

withdraw that.

You testified, though, on direct that you had a

license, right, to be a money services/business services

remitter?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So why do you need coverage?

A. In case my lawyer did not have it a hundred percent.

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor, to the extent that

this goes into any——

MS. SHROFF: I have not asked anything about his

lawyer.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Could you take a look at page 1 of this document for me.

THE COURT: I just want to remind all the attorneys to

speak into the microphone so that the interpreters can hear

you.

A. Yes, I'm here.

Q. Do you recognize this document?

A. Yes.

2338

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. Okay. This is your nonprosecution agreement?

A. Correct.

Q. It's addressed to your lawyer?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's signed by you?

A. Yes.

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, at this time I move the

document into evidence.

MS. MURRAY: No objection.

THE COURT: It is admitted.

(Defendant's Exhibit 60529 received in evidence)

MS. SHROFF: May I have the jury view it, if they

would wish.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Now as part of your coverage, right——and if I could just go

back to the same page as before——the government agreed to not

prosecute you for other crimes you'd committed, correct?

MS. SHROFF: If I could just make that larger for the

jury and for the witness, please. Thank you.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the things that they gave you coverage for is

(v). Do you see that over there?

MS. SHROFF: And if we could just highlight that for

him.

2339

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. "The provision of materially false information concerning

his," meaning you, "personal expenses to a financial

institution in or about 2016," correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You did not know Miles Guo in 2016?

A. No.

Q. And you didn't know Ms. Wang in 2016, correct?

A. No.

Q. What was the lie you told the bank?

A. I wanted to get a home modification for my house.

MS. SHROFF: I move to strike.

Q. My question was, please: What was the lie?

THE COURT: Did you finish your answer?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

THE COURT: Okay. So please allow him to answer.

A. So I was doing a home modification for my house, and I

provided them with incorrect personal expenses.

Q. You called them incorrect?

A. Yes. And——

Q. So by incorrect, do you mean it was like by mistake?

A. No, no. Not accurate information, about my expenses. I

inflated my expenses.

Q. You inflated your expenses.

A. Correct.

Q. And you gave it to a financial institution.

2340

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And in 2016 were you working for a financial institution?

A. Yes.

Q. Which one?

A. Citibank.

Q. Did you lie to Citibank and inflate it with Citibank or

with some other bank?

A. No, for my home modification, my home loan.

Q. Okay. Who was the home loan with?

A. I think it was Wells Fargo.

Q. So you lied to one bank, Wells Fargo, while working for

another bank, Citibank?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let's look at No. (vi). And that was in 2010 now,

right? That's about 15 years ago. Or 14. I'm sorry. My math

is bad. Right? You lied then also in 2010.

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Then you wrote bad checks all through 2014 and '15,

seven different times, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the dollar amount, by the way, on all these

bounced checks?

A. I don't——I don't remember exactly.

Q. Okay. And (v), (vi), and (vii) happened long before you

met Yvette Wang and Miles Guo, correct?

2341

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Correct.

Q. You said a minute ago that you did not recall the dollar

amount for the checks; is that your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me show you 3500-166 at page 3.

MS. SHROFF: Just the witness, please.

Q. Do you see what's on your screen, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And does that help you in refreshing your recollection as

to the dollar amount of these six and seven checks that you

bounced?

A. I don't remember exactly, but that's——that's what I——that's

what I said.

Q. What did you say?

A. 10 to 20,000.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, objection. This is

refreshing his recollection. If he's read it, we can take it

down and he can speak to whether the document refreshed.

THE COURT: So if you don't recall something and then

a document is offered to you to see whether that helps you

remember, don't read from the document. Just say whether or

not it helps you remember.

THE WITNESS: Doesn't remember——doesn't help me

remember exactly that amount.

BY MS. SHROFF:

2342

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

Q. Does it help you remember approximately how much it was,

each check?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. You have no recollection of the dollar amounts? I withdraw

it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. MURRAY: Objection.

MS. SHROFF: You can take that down.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Now let's go back to your nonprosecution agreement.

Under this agreement, do you have any criminal

liability for failure to file taxes?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And the government, through this nonprosecution agreement,

gave you a way out from filing——from avoiding tax prosecution,

correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection.

THE COURT: You have to step up. I——

(Continued on next page)

2343

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

(At the sidebar)

THE COURT: So I don't know what the nonprosecution

agreement says.

MS. MURRAY: The objection is to the form. The

government gave a way out of having to do something? It's an

improper form of the question. She can ask what the document

says. The document speaks for itself.

MS. SHROFF: They did give him a way out. They said

you can file your taxes in an amended form and you won't go to

jail for failure to file taxes. That's the way out.

MS. MURRAY: That is not reflected in the documents.

There was no "or you will go to jail if you don't file your

taxes." It's impermissible and improper.

MS. SHROFF: That's common knowledge, you'll go to

jail.

THE COURT: Does the government agree that if X and

then Y; that's the way you frame the question.

MS. SHROFF: Okay, sure.

(Continued on next page)

2344

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

(In open court)

MS. SHROFF: Could we put the nonprosecution back up.

And if I could go to page 1.

And page 1, if I could just have the first full

paragraph.

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. And these are the——No. (i) to No. (viii) is all the

coverage the United States government gave you, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And by the United States government, I mean Ms. Murray,

Mr. Finkel, and Mr. Fergenson here, and of course Mr. Horton,

who's not here, correct?

A. Who?

Q. The four prosecutors, correct?

A. The three prosecutors that I see. I don't know——I don't

know the other person.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't remember him.

Q. Okay. And who is it signed by on the bottom?

No, no, on the top. The United States Attorney's

Office. Three signed there, right?

A. Damian Williams?

Q. No. And underneath is the signature, correct?

2345

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6BBGUO1 Khaled - Cross

A. Yes, the three.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. And let's go to page 2.

Actually, let's go back to page 1 at the bottom.

Q. You see the paragraph that says, "Moreover, if Khaled"?

You see that paragraph?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that tells you, does it not, that any testimony

or information that you give, right, will be used against him

in any criminal tax prosecution, correct? It says no testimony

or other information given by you will be used against you in

any criminal tax prosecution. Do you see that?

A. It says "will be used against" you, "against him."

(Continued on next page)

2346

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Cross

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. Say it again.

A. It says, Will be used.

Q. No testimony or other information given by him. So nothing

you say to them will be used against you in a criminal tax

prosecution. Is that your understanding?

A. It says, Will be used against him.

Q. It says, No testimony or other evidence given by you will

be -- none of it will be used against you?

A. Okay.

Q. Let's look at the next page. They give you a solution to

your tax problems in the first paragraph?

MS. MURRAY: There's personal identifying information

on this page. We would just ask that it not be displayed.

THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, counsel. Can you repeat.

MS. MURRAY: There's personal identifiable information

on this page. We ask that it not be displayed to the gallery.

MS. SHROFF: It's public information in the

bankruptcy. It's not personal.

THE COURT: Not the personal identifying information.

That should not be displayed.

MS. SHROFF: There's no personal identifying

information.

MS. MURRAY: There are addresses in the second

paragraph, your Honor. That's what we're referring to.

2347

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Cross

MS. SHROFF: Your Honor, may we approach again?

THE COURT: I see a reference to an individual and I

see addresses.

MS. SHROFF: Those addresses are the Airbnb properties

that were turned over in the forfeiture. It's not his personal

home.

THE COURT: Is it the addresses that you are seeking

to have redacted?

MS. MURRAY: Yes, your Honor. It's not relevant that

they're not the place that he lives. They're places that he is

associated with and owns, and it's identifiable information.

It just shouldn't be in the public record in front of the jury

and the gallery.

MR. KAMARAJU: Your Honor, they're going to appear in

a forfeiture order at some point.

THE COURT: These are the properties that were bought

by the witness with the $2.7 million?

MS. SHROFF: Exactly.

THE COURT: That can remain in there. Go ahead.

Q. Could the jury see page two of four, and could you make it

larger for them.

So this agreement also allows you to file amended tax

returns from 2009 to 2011, correct?

A. Correct?

Q. And the next paragraph, if I could have that blown up, are

2348

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Cross

all the properties you bought with that $2.7 million, and that

you were going to use for Airbnb and other investments,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had to forfeit all of these properties to the

prosecution, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. How many properties do you count by the way?

A. Seven.

Q. Thank you. And the agreement also requires for you to

return to the government the net equity value of your interest

in the properties or the full sum of $2.7 million, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. We can take it down, please.

What it does not make you return is the salary you

earned while working at Citibank, correct, when you were also

working at G/Clubs, right, or Saraca, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. It does not require you to return to them the wages you

were paid while you worked for Saraca, correct?

A. No.

Q. I'm correct, right? You didn't have to give your wages

back?

A. I did not have to give my wages back, no.

Q. And in return for this non-prosecution agreement, you

2349

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

testified yesterday your obligation is to tell the truth,

correct?

A. My obligation is to tell the truth, yes.

Q. And yesterday you testified on direct that it is you who

decides whether or not you're being truthful, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So it is your understanding that if you decided that the

statements you've made to the prosecutors when you met with

them 19 times and the statements that you made in court are

truthful, all of the charges against you will never come to a

criminal charge, correct?

A. Correct, that's what the agreement says.

Q. And only you get to decide if you're being truthful, right?

A. Correct.

MS. SHROFF: Okay. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Redirect.

MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MURRAY:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Khaled.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. We can start with the non-prosecution agreement if we could

put that up again. That's Defense Exhibit 60529.

You were asked some questions about your

non-prosecution agreement on cross examination just now. Do

2350

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your attorney sign your non-prosecution agreement?

A. Yes.

Q. Who spoke to the government on your behalf regarding the

terms of the non-prosecution agreement?

A. My attorney James.

Q. I want to focus on the first paragraph, the first three

Roman numerals of what we just looked at, and this is with

respect to coverage under this agreement.

Under this agreement if you comply with the

obligations under the agreement, the government agrees not to

prosecute you for Roman Numeral One, Your participation in a

scheme from in or about July 2020 through in or about July

2021, whereby, you Khaled, agrees with others to make, and

yourself made, material misrepresentations to financial

institutions for the purpose of opening and maintaining bank

accounts for entities associated with Miles Guo into which

fraudulent proceeds were deposited. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And the second Roman numeral which provides you coverage,

provides you coverage for the following conduct: Your

participation in a scheme from in or about July 2020 through in

or about July 2021, whereby you agreed with others to engage

in, and yourself engaged in, financial transactions designed to

2351

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

conceal that certain funds were the proceeds of fraud. Do you

see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the third Roman numeral regarding coverage here

provides coverage for your participation in a scheme from in or

about July 2020, through in or about July 2021, whereby others

made material misrepresentations to induce individuals to

invest money in Miles Guo related entities, some of which money

you received. Do you see that?

A. Correct, yes, I do.

Q. And, Mr. Khaled, that reflects conduct that you actually

engaged in during that time period, July 2020 through July

2021, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That includes the lies to banks that you've testified about

in the last few days?

A. Yes.

Q. And those lies were made in part in order to maintain bank

accounts; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. After the government offered you a non-prosecution

agreement, did you discuss it with your attorney?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is a yes or no question, Mr. Khaled. Did your

attorney provide you advice about the terms of the

2352

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

non-prosecution agreement?

A. Yes.

Q. After receiving that advice from your attorney, did you

accept the non-prosecution agreement?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, on cross examination you were asked some questions

about our meetings. Do you recall those?

A. About what, our meetings?

Q. Our meetings.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall the exact dates that we met on approximately

19 prior occasions?

A. Not the exact dates.

Q. Do you recall every detail of those meetings that we had?

A. Not every detail.

Q. Do you recall, for example, whether I was wearing a

ponytail at each of those 19 meetings?

MS. SHROFF: Objection. I don't think that is a

relevant thing to remember. You might want to remember some

other thing, but I don't think a ponytail would count.

THE COURT: You opened the door to the ponytail.

MS. SHROFF: I did, but it's not a memorable one, your

Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. No, I don't.

2353

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

Q. During those meetings, did the government ask you questions

about the transfers of money into and out of Crane's bank

accounts?

A. Specifically, I don't remember.

MS. SHROFF: I'm sorry. I did not hear that.

A. I said specifically I don't remember.

Q. Generally speaking did the government ask you questions

during those meetings?

A. General questions, yes.

Q. Did those questions relate to, among other things, your

work at Crane?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you answer the government's questions truthfully?

A. Yes.

Q. By the end of May of 2021, had Crane cleared at least

approximately a hundred million dollars of G/Club's funds?

A. Yes.

Q. And had you transferred more than approximately two million

of those Crane funds to yourself to bank accounts that you

held?

A. Yes.

Q. And did that two million or more dollars represent the two

percent fee that you were entitled to under the PFA for the

cleared funds?

A. Yes.

2354

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

THE COURT: One moment. What do you mean by cleared,

when you say the funds are cleared?

THE WITNESS: That means we had a package reviewed,

the KYC package and an indemnity package from the sender, and

the names have been cleared, the payment has been seen,

confirmed, and that's considered a cleared payment.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MS. MURRAY: Thank you, your Honor.

Q. And did you agree to forfeit the two million or more that

you had taken of those funds to the government as proceeds of

the crimes that you had committed?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you were asked questions about an affidavit that you

submitted in a specific Alliance case. Do you recall those

questions?

A. Yes.

Q. And the date of that affidavit was May 17 of 2021. Do you

recall that?

A. Can I see it again?

MS. MURRAY: Ms. Shroff, do you have a copy of that?

May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

A. The date is May 17.

Q. And in that affidavit you were asked questions about -- I

believe it's paragraph five -- regarding Miles Guo's financial

2355

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

interest in certain monies or entities. Do you recall those

questions?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said that Miles Guo did not have a financial

interest on paper. Do you recall that?

A. Correct.

Q. What did you mean by on paper?

A. On the formation documents and on the wires that came in,

his name was not a sender. And when we were going to send the

money to the entities, his name was not on the paper for

G/Club.

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, I'd like to move to admit

Government Exhibit 411 and 411-T. Sorry. Those are in so I

might have the wrong number. Just a moment, 413 and 413-T

pursuant to the stipulation, and the audio was authenticated by

Mr. Khaled on Monday.

THE COURT: They are admitted.

(Government's Exhibits 413 and 413-T received in

evidence)

BY MS. MURRAY:

Q. Ms. Loftus, if we could pull up 413 and 413-T at page

seven, please. If we could play 413 from approximately three

minutes and 15 seconds and zoom in on the transcript. The jury

doesn't have this transcript in their binders.

(Media played)

2356

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

Q. Can you pause, Ms. Loftus.

Mr. Khaled, in that portion of this call which was

dated May 12, 2021, you referenced a Pacific subpoena. What

was that a reference to?

A. I believe this one.

Q. In the recording that we just listened to?

A. The same subpoena.

Q. And the affidavit that you testified about on cross

examination, was that an affidavit that you submitted in

response to a subpoena you received in the Pacific Alliance

litigation?

A. Yes.

Q. And looking down in this transcript a bit, what did you

mean in the last paragraph here, you could read the first

sentence and explain what you meant by that?

A. We definitely have to paper out. That we have to put it in

writing that the money is not -- don't belong to you or

Mileson.

Q. Is it correct that the money in fact belonged to an entity

and not to Miles Guo or Mileson personally?

A. Correct.

Q. And is that consistent with the sworn statement of

paragraph five of your Pacific Alliance affidavit?

A. Correct.

Q. We can take that down, Ms. Loftus.

2357

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

On cross examination you were played portions of a

recording of an interview of a potential candidate for G/Clubs.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. When you made the statements about potential candidate

about the types of work that G/Clubs was doing or the nature of

the position, who were you working for at that time?

A. At that time I had already established Crane, so I was

working on Crane and Saraca.

Q. And who, if anyone, was an individual you reported to in

the course of that employment?

A. Yvette.

Q. You were also asked questions about the time period when

you worked at both Saraca and Citibank, do you recall those

questions?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you mislead each of your employers during that time as

to the status of your employment with the other company?

A. No, they never -- like they didn't ask me.

Q. But when you were working at Saraca and still working at

Citibank, did you deliberately not tell Saraca that you had

Citibank employment?

A. I wasn't worried about Saraca.

Q. How about Citibank. When you were still employed at

Citibank, did you deliberately omit from Citibank the fact that

2358

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

you had accepted employment at Saraca?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell the government about that fact that you had

dual employment in violation of your employment contracts when

you met with the government?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was before you were offered a non-prosecution

agreement, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were asked questions about your bankruptcy on cross

examination. Do you recall those?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you organize protests of any of the bankruptcy

administrators in your case?

A. Protest?

Q. Correct.

A. No.

Q. Did you direct protest of any of the bankruptcy

administrators' children or ex-spouses?

A. No.

MS. SHROFF: Objection, your Honor. It's beyond the

scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may continue.

Q. You were asked questions about the ownership of Crane. Do

you recall those?

2359

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

A. Yes.

Q. Who had ownership of Crane on paper or on the documents?

A. I did.

Q. Who did you report to regarding Crane-related business

decisions?

A. Yvette.

Q. Who, if anyone, was involved in establishing Crane?

A. Yvette, and I believe Victor wanted to join it.

Q. And if Yvette had instructed you to add someone to Crane as

an employee, how would you have responded, if at all?

MS. SHROFF: Objection.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. I would have done it.

Q. Now, you were asked questions about various of the

recordings that we had listened to on your direct testimony in

this case. Do you recall those questions?

A. Yes.

Q. You were asked about how one of those call recording ended

in the middle of a sentence. Do you recall that?

A. I recall that, yeah.

Q. Ms. Loftus, can we please pull up Government Exhibit 417

and 417-T. And these are in the jury's binders if they would

like to follow along.

We're going to start around page 24 of the transcript,

please. I don't have the exact timestamp. It will be two

2360

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

minutes before the end of the recording. Perfect.

(Media played)

Q. You can pause, Ms. Loftus. Mr. Khaled, the person who's

indicated in this recording transcript as Yu, who do you

understand that person to be based on your participation in

this call?

A. William Je.

Q. Thank you. We can continue.

(Media played)

Q. Mr. Khaled, does this recording end in the middle of a

sentence?

A. No.

Q. Does it end at the end of the call or meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And who was yelling at the end of this meeting?

A. Miles Guo.

Q. You were asked on cross examination about the portions of

that recording excerpt we just listened to and read relating to

a reference to a board of directors. Do you recall those

questions?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. At the time of this meeting in 2021, you didn't speak

Mandarin; is that correct?

A. No.

Q. Or understand Mandarin?

2361

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

A. No.

Q. And Alex Hadjicharalambous, did he speak Mandarin at the

time?

A. No.

Q. Or understand it?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. And in listening to those portions of this recording, the

Mandarin language that was spoken, were you able to determine

what topics the speakers were discussing, setting aside the

translations, just the actual --

MS. SHROFF: Objection to the testifying.

THE COURT: Overruled. Continue.

Q. Just focusing on the audio, were you able to understand

what the topics were at the time?

A. No.

Q. And sitting here today having now reviewed translations of

portions of the various calls and meetings that had been

conducted in Mandarin, and knowing what was said at that time,

how do you feel sitting here today about what was discussed in

Mandarin during those meetings?

MS. SHROFF: Objection. What is the relevance of

these meetings?

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Can you repeat the question one more time, please.

Q. Sure. And I'll break it down just a bit. At the time of

2362

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Redirect

these calls and meetings that you recorded, certain portions of

the conversations took place in Mandarin, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that time you didn't understand what was being

discussed during the Mandarin portions, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And no one translated them for you at the time or told you

what was discussed?

A. No.

Q. Now having had the benefit of the translations of the

portions of the calls and meetings and having reviewed them,

how do you feel about what was being discussed in Mandarin

during those calls and meetings?

MS. SHROFF: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Secret planning of movement of money and putting us all in

front of it.

Q. And what do you mean by that, putting us all in front of

it?

A. Alex was signer on that account, a signer on loan

documents. I was a signer on a bank account, and they just

used the names, use the accounts, and there was definitely a

plan and a structure behind all that that we were not privy to.

MS. MURRAY: If I may have a moment, your Honor.

Nothing further.

2363

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Recross

THE COURT: Recross.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. You were played this call again now call, 417, correct? If

I could just pull the transcript for him. It will be on your

screen over there and also for the jury. You recorded this

call in April of 2021, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Where did you keep the call?

A. On my phone.

Q. You recorded it for a purpose, right?

A. It wasn't a plan purpose, no.

Q. You recorded it for no reason?

A. Again, I was trying to keep records.

Q. And you wanted to know what you were keeping a record of,

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. This is in a foreign language, the recording, correct?

A. It's a what?

Q. It's in a foreign language, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You never used Google translate to figure out what they

were talking about?

A. I was interested in the last one, last piece.

Q. Whatever piece you were interested in, sir. My only

2364

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Recross

question is whether you used a simple app called Google

Translate to figure out what they're talking about to determine

if it in fact would even help you?

A. Help me with what, no.

Q. Whatever the reason was that you recorded it?

A. No.

Q. You didn't listen to at all? That's your testimony, right?

A. What do you mean listen to it?

Q. You made the recording, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You discussed it with Ms. Murray, whether she had a

ponytail that day or not, you discussed this recording with

her, right?

A. After the fact, yeah. When we started meeting, yes.

Q. When you discussed it with her, she had this translation

for you, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You discussed this with her almost more than a year after

you recorded it, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You saved this recording for all that time, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You gave this very recording to your lawyers so that they

could give it to the arbitrator, correct?

A. Correct.

2365

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Recross

Q. This recording was played in the arbitration, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. If you know.

A. I don't remember.

Q. The English version of this document was introduced into

evidence at the arbitration where you were physically present,

correct, and I remind you you're under oath?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, per our discussion at sidebar,

your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. I don't remember.

Q. This was one of the main pieces of evidence in the

arbitration?

MS. MURRAY: Same objection.

Q. Let me try it a different way. You gave this recording to

your lawyer, right?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Does your lawyer speak Mandarin?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know if your lawyer speaks Mandarin?

MS. MURRAY: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Sitting here today your testimony is that you had no idea

what this recording said in English before you met with

2366

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Recross

Ms. Murray?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, mischaracterizes his

testimony.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow the question.

A. Again, I don't remember.

Q. You testified that this call ended, and that's what ended

the recording, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. With every recording you made, you and only you had the

option of letting the recording continue or ending the

recording, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You testified now that you thought during this conversation

that there was secret planning, correct?

A. Sitting now here, yes.

Q. Sitting here now, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And sitting here now your interest are completely aligned

with the U.S. Attorney's office, correct?

A. I don't know what their interest are.

Q. You don't know what their interest are?

A. No.

Q. You don't know what a prosecutor's interest is?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you meet with me?

2367

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Recross

A. No.

Q. Did you sit down with me 19 times and review any

recordings?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, your Honor. We've covered all

this.

MS. SHROFF: I don't think so.

THE COURT: We don't know yet whether the witness met

with Ms. Shroff.

A. No.

Q. How about Mr. Kamaraju over here, met with him?

A. Who? No.

Q. How about that young man over here Mr. Kilguard, met with

him?

A. No.

Q. The only person you ever talked to is Ms. Murray, correct?

A. That's not correct.

Q. Her team?

A. Plus others.

Q. Nineteen times?

A. Correct.

Q. Hours at a time?

A. Correct.

MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further.

MS. MURRAY: Just one question on re-redirect your,

Honor.

2368

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Khaled - Recross

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MURRAY:

Q. Mr. Khaled, do you know what happened to the $46 million or

so that Crane transferred to Lawall & Mitchell, Aaron Mitchell,

do you know what happened to that money after you transferred

it to Lawall & Mitchell?

A. No.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. SHROFF:

Q. It wasn't your money to know anything about, correct?

A. Excuse me.

Q. It was none of your business what happened with that 46

million, correct? It wasn't your money?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. Right. And no matter what Yvette told you, or no matter

what Miles Guo told you, or no matter what William Je told you,

or no matter what Haoran He told you, until the arbitrator

ruled, you would not let go of that money, correct?

MS. MURRAY: Objection, scope, form.

THE COURT: Sustained on the scope issue.

MS. SHROFF: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step out.

(Witness excused)

THE COURT: You may call your next witness.

MR. FERGENSON: The government calls Minin Wu.

2369

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

MININ WU,

called as a witness by the Government,

having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

THE COURT: Please be seated, and state your name and

spell it, and put the microphone close to your mouth.

THE WITNESS: My first name is M-I-N-I-N. My last

name is W-U.

THE COURT: And if you would say your name.

THE WITNESS: My name is Minin Wu.

THE COURT: You may inquire.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. FERGENSON:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Wu.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. I'll ask you just if you can try to speak directly into the

mic and keep your voice up, and for the court reporter just try

and talk slowly. Okay?

A. Okay.

Q. What state do you live in?

A. New Jersey.

Q. What do you do for work?

A. Right now just at home.

Q. And what was your last job outside of the home?

A. Macy's.

Q. Were you ever a follower of Miles Guo?

2370

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

A. Yes.

Q. Are you still a follower of Miles Guo?

A. No.

Q. Looking around the courtroom, do you see Miles Guo here

today?

A. Yes.

MR. SCHIRICK: We'll stipulate, your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

Q. Ms. Wu, you said you live in New Jersey now, where were you

born?

A. China.

Q. When did you come to the United States?

A. 2001.

Q. Why did you come to the United States?

A. Follow my husband.

Q. Did there come a time when you became interested in Chinese

politics?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain to the jury what caused you to become

interested in Chinese politics?

A. My family history and my mother and father's illness and

death.

Q. When your parents were ill and passed away, where were

they?

A. China.

2371

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

Q. And what about their experience being ill in China caused

you to become interested in Chinese politics?

A. They died from over treatment. They all died from over

treatment, and the journey just full of cheating, money and

power, so miserable.

Q. Ms. Wu, when did you first learn about Miles Guo?

A. Around 2018.

Q. And how did you learn about him?

A. I watch his YouTube video.

Q. And what did you see in that video?

A. He just stood on the terrace of that 18th floor of the

hotel and said something about the CCP, CCP did a lot of bad

things. CCP just kind of evil.

Q. Before watching that video, had you heard of Miles Guo?

A. No.

Q. You said this video was 2018, right?

A. I think so.

Q. In that year and 2019, how often, if at all, were you

watching Guo's videos?

A. Not that lot about Miles Guo's video. Actually, a lot

about Yading Gao's Luna press. In that program Luna introduce

a lot of things about Miles Guo and people around him also

their activities.

Q. By 2020, how often, if at all, were you watching Guo's

videos?

2372

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

A. 2020, around 2020 I think I watched from two times a week

to everyday.

Q. Ms. Wu, what, if anything, did Miles Guo says about his

wealth?

A. He said he was rich, very rich, billionaire.

Q. What, if anything, did he say about his apartment, the one

you saw the video in?

A. He said apartment so expensive, but you couldn't get into

that hotel, that apartment, just because if you are rich. You

also need great social network to introduce you into.

Q. What, if anything, did he say about his clothes?

A. Clothes? Browny.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. The brand is browny, a lot of suits from his brand. Also

he said just couture type, not retail type.

Q. What, if anything, did he say about the things he ate?

A. Some thing like strawberry. Once he said strawberry $5 or

$10 each. Also some seafood from public sea, and he said some

of them almost it's extinct.

Q. Ms. Wu, are you familiar with the Rule of Law Foundation?

A. I heard about that. I know it.

Q. What was that?

A. It should be a foundation established for the new China.

Q. And around when was it established?

A. I think should be 2029, sorry 2019.

2373

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

Q. And who established it to your understanding?

A. Miles Guo and Steve Bannon.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about donating his

money or his family's money to the Rule of Law?

A. He said hundred millions.

Q. Now, Ms. Wu, you said he had talked about how rich he was?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you believe Miles Guo could donate a hundred million

dollars to the Rule of Law?

A. Yes, at that time, yes.

Q. Did you donate to the Rule of Law?

A. Yes.

Q. About how many times and how much in total?

A. I think should be six times, total should be $1200.

Q. If Miles Guo had not donated a hundred million dollars to

the Rule of Law, would that have been important to you?

MR. SCHIRICK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. He lied.

Q. Ms. Wu, did there come a time when you tried to purchase

GTV shares?

A. I invested in VOG.

Q. And approximately when was that?

2374

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

A. May 2020.

Q. Approximately how much did you invest through VOG?

A. 14,000.

Q. And where did you send your $14,000?

A. VOG, Sara's account.

Q. Did you send it in one transfer or more than one?

A. More than one.

Q. Why did you send it in more than one?

A. I tried to send just in one transfer, but the bank just

denied it.

Q. Were you told why the bank was rejecting your transfer?

A. I did it online, so I didn't get any information about the

deny.

Q. Ms. Wu, do you recall what the name on the account was that

you used to the send the $14,000 to VOG?

MR. SCHIRICK: Objection, her account or the

destination account.

Q. Your account, the account you used?

A. I used several ones, my own name, joint account, and one of

my company's account.

Q. What was the name of that company?

A. Wonder Invest, LLC.

Q. What is Wonder Invest, LLC, Ms. Wu?

A. Actually this, I have this bank account a long time. My

husband created it very long time ago. Later he just gave this

2375

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

to me to play.

Q. Ms. Wu, why did you send the money to VOG bank accounts?

A. For GTV stock.

Q. And why did you think you would get GTV stock by sending

this money to VOG?

A. Miles Guo said so. He said if you have money over hundred

thousand dollars, then just go to him. If you have less money,

just go to Sara.

Q. Why did you want to get shares of GTV?

A. Miles Guo said that GTV should be the foundation of the new

China later. You cannot imagine how great it will be, how

profitable it will be.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about GTV investor

profits?

A. He said that many times, every time the number would be

higher than the previous one. I just remember first maybe 17

times, and then I remember 100 times, then I didn't pay

attention.

Q. At the time did you believe your investment would be very

profitable?

A. I think maybe 10 times possible. I think maybe 100 times a

little not that feasible.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about the value of

GTV?

A. I remember 20 billion.

2376

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

Q. Ms. Wu, what, if anything, did Miles Guo say about private

placements?

A. He said this private placement would be the only chance for

us common people to have in our life. He did a lot to get this

chance for us.

Q. Had you participated in private placements before?

A. No.

Q. And, Ms. Wu, what, if any, personal guarantee did Guo make

about the GTV investment?

A. Can you repeat.

Q. What, if any, guarantees did Miles Guo make about the GTV

investment?

A. He said he guarantee all our principals.

Q. And you said he talked about how rich he was, did you

believe him when he said that?

A. At that time, yes.

Q. Ms. Wu, what, if anything, did Miles Guo say about sending

GTV investor funds to a hedge fund?

A. I never heard about that.

Q. Have you ever invested in a hedge fund yourself?

A. No.

Q. If you had known that Miles Guo was sending GTV investor

funds to a hedge fund, would you have invested?

MR. SCHIRICK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

2377

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

A. No.

Q. Ms. Wu, did you ultimately get a refund of your GTV

investment?

A. I got some refund from SEC.

Q. Did you get a hundred percent or less than a hundred

percent refund?

A. Around 92 percent.

Q. Did Miles Guo pay back the missing eight percent?

A. No.

Q. Ms. Wu, were you a member of a farm?

A. Once, yes.

Q. And actually, Ms. Wu, just one moment first.

To go back to the SEC refund, what's your

understanding of why you got money back from the SEC?

A. This investment is illegal, so it was under the supervision

of the SEC. The SEC just refund it all investors.

Q. And when did you receive your refund back?

A. 2023, I don't remember the month.

Q. Ms. Wu, in order to get that refund from the SEC, what, if

anything, did you have to do?

A. The SEC send email to me and just said something about the

refund and fair fund they set up for this refund process. I

needed to fill the form, to give them my wire transfer

statements also agreement about the VOG, then submit the form.

I think just this. I don't remember others.

2378

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

Q. Ms. Wu, now you said you were a member of a farm, right?

A. Was.

Q. You were. Which farm were you a member of?

A. MOS.

Q. MOS. What does MOS stand for?

A. Mountain of Spice.

Q. And when did you join Mountains of Spice or MOS?

A. June or July 2020.

Q. Where was MOS based?

A. NYC.

Q. Who led the MOS farm?

A. At that time Xia Qidong.

Q. And for the court reporter's benefit, could you spell that,

Ms. Wu?

A. X-I-A, Q-I-D-O-N-G.

Q. What other names, if any, did Xia Qidong go by?

A. Changdao or Chang Dao Wengui.

Q. Who did that mean?

A. Changdao means Long Island. Wengui means great brother.

Q. Ms. Wu, what's your understanding of how Changdao became

the leader of the MOS farm?

A. Miles Guo chose him.

Q. And how do you know that?

A. He said so.

Q. When you say he, who said that?

2379

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

A. Miles Guo.

Q. And where did he say that?

A. In his video.

Q. To your understanding who chose all the farm leaders?

A. Miles Guo.

Q. Who did you understand to give them instructions?

A. Miles Guo.

Q. Now, Ms. Wu, what, if any, volunteer work did you do for

the MOS farm?

A. Translation.

Q. What was the farm loan program?

A. We members lend money to the farm to get the GTV stock.

Q. Why did you understand that lending money to the farm would

get you GTV stock?

A. He said so.

Q. When you say he said so, who are you talking about?

A. Miles Guo.

Q. What, if anything, did Miles Guo say about why you had to

use loans instead of just investing in GTV?

A. He said for that GTV private placement already finish,

already ended, so he created another chance for us to invest in

this GTV stock. He call this step to equity.

THE COURT: One moment.

(Pause)

THE COURT: We're going to have to stop at this point.

2380

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

You can step out, but do not discuss your testimony. You'll

return tomorrow. 9:29 you'll be in the chair.

(Witness temporarily excused)

THE COURT: Members of the jury, earlier I asked you

whether next week on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday you

could come between 9:30 and five, with an understanding that

there's a lunch break between one and two in order that we not

have to prolong the trial. Is there anybody who cannot do

that?

JUROR: We have a request if that's okay.

THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

JUROR: Instead of having one, one-hour-lunch for a

number of reasons, we're asking if we can break it up until two

half hour, one at 11:30 and one at 2:00.

THE COURT: We can have two breaks. I'm not sure if

I'm going to do it exactly when you're mentioned it, but I will

space it out.

JUROR: Some of us can't be here seated for that long.

THE COURT: Understood. All righty then. That brings

our work to a close. Remember that you're not allowed to

discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else. Don't

permit anyone to discuss the case in your presence. Don't

listen to, watch, or read anything from any source about

anything having to do with the subject matter of this trial.

Have a good evening.

2381

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

O6CBGUO4 Minin Wu- Direct

THE LAW CLERK: Jury exiting.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: Is there anything before we close?

MS. MURRAY: Nothing from the government. Thank you.

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

THE COURT: Have a good evening. Thank you.

(Adjourned to June 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.)

2382

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300

INDEX OF EXAMINATION

Examination of: Page

HAITHAM KHALED

2205Cross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2349Redirect By Ms. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . .

2363Recross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . .

2368Redirect By Ms. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . .

2368Recross By Ms. Shroff . . . . . . . . . . . .

MININ WU

2369Direct By Mr. Fergenson . . . . . . . . . . .

GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Received

2355 413 and 413-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DEFENDANT EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Received

60529 2338 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60535 2313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60539 2245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60540 2332 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Translated Text(简体中文翻译)

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 1 / 127页 
美国纽约南区法院 
-------------------------------------------------------x 
美国政府
控方    23 Cr. 118 (AT) 
郭文贵 
辩方
-------------------------------------------------------x 
                  纽约州纽约市， 
                 2024 年 6 月 12 日 
                 上午 9:00 
  
庭前： 
                                                    尊敬的安纳丽莎-托雷斯法官大人， 
                           地区法官 
                -及陪审团- 
                                                              出庭律师：  
达米安-威廉姆斯 
        纽约南区美国联邦检察官 
代表：迈卡·F·费根森 
        瑞安·B·芬克 
        贾斯廷·霍顿 
        朱莉 Ana·N·莫里 
        助理美国检察官 
萨布丽娜·P·施洛夫 
        被告律师 
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 
        被告律师 
代表：西德哈达·卡马拉珠

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 2 / 127页 
        马修·巴肯 
  
ALSTON & BIRD LLP 
        被告律师 
代表：E·斯科特·舒里克 
 
 
出席人员： 
伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯，法律助理，美国检察官办公室 
鲁本·蒙蒂利亚，辩方律师助理 
黄拓，普通话翻译 
石峰，普通话翻译 
唐玉马克，普通话翻译

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 3 / 127页 
（审判继续；陪审团未在场） 
法官说：早上好，请通报一下出庭情况。 
莫里律师说：早上好，法官大人。代表美国方面出庭的有朱莉 Ana·莫里、瑞
安·芬克、迈卡·费根森和贾斯汀·霍顿。我们还有助理律师伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯在场。 
施洛夫律师说：早上好，法官大人。代表郭先生出庭的是萨布丽娜·施洛夫、卡马
拉珠、舒里克和巴肯。当然，郭先生也坐在我旁边。 
法官说：请坐。昨天，辩护律师对政府质询海瑟姆·哈立德关于 Ana Izquierdo 和
Limarie Reyes Molinaris 在 G-Clubs 仲裁程序中所作陈述的真实性提出异议。辩护律师
认为，哈立德先生的证词将违反联邦证据规则 608(b)，该规则禁止使用外部证据来“证明
特定实例的证人行为，以攻击或支持证人的真实性格”。具体而言，辩护律师认为，哈立
德先生关于 Izquierdo多和莫利纳里斯陈述真实性的证词将是不允许的外部证据，涉及具
体的不诚实行为实例。根据美国诉 Atherton案，936 F.2d 728, 734 (第二巡回法院 1991
年)和美国诉 Abel案，469 U.S. 45, 51 (1984 年)，如果证词仅对证人的一般真实性格具
有证明意义，则根据规则 608(b)是不允许的。 
在本案中，政府并非仅为攻击 Ana Izquierdo女士和 Reyes Molinaris女士的性格
而提供哈立德先生的证词。政府提供他的证词，旨在证明 G-Clubs 的代理人在仲裁中为
了 RICO集团而歪曲事实。因此，异议被驳回。还有其他问题需要提出吗？ 
芬克律师说：法官大人，我认为今天上午有几项议程。 
法官说：好的。 
芬克律师说：如果法官大人同意，我们可以从时间安排开始。 
法官说：好，请稍等片刻。 
（停顿） 
法官说：继续。 
芬克律师说：谢谢，法官大人。双方已经商议过，政府理解为辩方不反对下周审
判日延长 30到 45分钟。政府已经仔细考虑了剩余的证人数量，包括大幅精简——实际上
是非常明显的精简——并且考虑到法官告诉陪审团的情况，即整个审判将在 7 月 12 日之
前结束，包括审议和所有环节。鉴于当前的进展以及我们所处的阶段，如我们所提到的，
我们落后了。一些交叉质询和直接质询的时间较长，以及一些技术上的后勤问题等，总体
来说，政府认为如果法官大人和陪审团——当然，最终还是取决于陪审团的意见——政府
请求法庭下周进行全天审理，无论法官大人的全天是到 4点还是 4点半。再加上日程中插

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 4 / 127页 
入的一些之前定好的额外休息日，这样做将使各方和法庭，特别是陪审团，能够赶上我们
将在那个星期三失去的时间。这样的话能让我们重新回到正轨。辩方有辩护证据。据我们
了解，他们至少有三位专家证人，一位总结证人——或者，抱歉——两位专家证人，一位
总结证人，以及三到五位事实证人；当然，被告可能会选择就本案问题作证，他是否作证
不是我们今天要解决的问题，但我们可以考虑他选择作证的决定在后勤上的影响，这显然
会延长审判时间。然后还有两天——我看到法官大人要说话�� 
法官说：是的。你们是建议下周有一天是全天还是所有天都是全天？ 
芬克律师说：政府的提议是，为了赶上进度并考虑到周三和未来的休息日以及辩
方案件的长度，下周四天我们都全天工作，到 4点或 4点半，或者是法官大人平时全天庭
审的时间。这将使政府能够赶上进度并回到正轨，就像他们所说的那样。 
法官说：你还有其他要补充的吗？ 
芬克律师说：关于时间安排没有。还有其他问题。我不知道您是否想—— 
法官说：我会听听辩方对时间安排的意见。 
卡拉马珠律师说：谢谢，法官大人。正如芬克律师提到的，辩方确实同意将时间
延长 30到 45分钟，因为这是我们理解的政府在仔细审查并考虑其证人的情况下最初向法
庭提出的请求。 
法官说：请大声一点或靠近麦克风说话。  
卡拉马珠律师说：抱歉。那么我们——谢谢，施洛夫女士。我们同意，因为我们
认为这就是政府所需的时间来赶上进度。从我们的角度来看，每天的完整庭审有一个困难
之处是，这次审判的每一周，政府的证人名单每天都发生了很大的变化，有时甚至是在预
计证人作证的前一天。因此，只要这种情况继续下去，我们就很难处理，坦率地说，如果
我们没有时间准备，而政府每周都将庭审延长到全天，我们也很难考虑法官大人给我们的
关于缩短交叉询问的建议。 
所以我想问，坦率地说，政府的分析中有了哪些变化，因为这种情况不可能仅仅
是因为他们预期的交叉询问的时间长度。他们的建议是我们已经落后了几天。我们查看了
交叉询问时间，它们通常与直接询问的时间差不多或更少。我们理解法官大人对我们的指
示，要求我们去掉重复的问题，我们会尽力做到这一点。但这个想法是，我们，辩方，会
在准备方面受到不利影响，因为政府不断变更其证人，当政府控制着时间表，政府控制着
想要传唤的证人，政府，坦率地说，甚至控制需要解决的问题——我给法官大人举一个例
子。我预计今天晚些时候我们将有相同的证人再次作为总结证人作证，埃斯皮诺扎女士。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 5 / 127页 
她上周或前周已经作证了。我相信她会在庭审结束时作为另一个总结证人作证。我不知道
关于什么，但似乎是关于非常相似的话题。 
同样——舒里克律师可以在问题出现时更详细地说明——我们在周一向政府提出
了关于他们的一位证人的 701问题，这位证人很可能今天作证。昨晚 10:30 我们收到政府
打算就此问题提交一封信的通知。我们仍然没有看到这封信。我相信他们今天早上进行了
协商。这些都是可以避免的事情，正在拖延时间安排，与交叉询问无关。我理解我们现在
的情况，但我们确实需要平衡这两件事。因此，从我们的角度来看，政府要求的 30到 45
分钟是合理的，如果他们在履行承诺方面遇到困难，他们可以简化他们的案件。他们不需
要传唤三个总结证人来谈论同样的事情。他们不需要传唤 14 名受害者来谈论同样的事情。
所以他们也可以控制时间安排，法官大人。  
法官说：你们预期有 14名受害者吗？ 
卡拉马珠律师说：这是他们通知我们的，法官大人。我相信是 14名。 
芬克律师说：不。直接回答法官大人的问题是否定的。如我在发言开始时提到的，
政府正在考虑对其案件进行重大简化。让我回应一下辩护律师说的一些事情。首先，昨天
我们进行了，我认为是富有成效的对话，政府解释说 30到 45分钟是不够的，因此辩护律
师知道政府在考虑下周整个星期的庭审时间。这是第一点。第二点，今天将作证的总结证
人和希望下周作证的总结证人，将讨论不同的货币交易，政府将通过这些总结证人展示诈
骗所得如何被用于购买兰博基尼、法拉利、马瓦豪宅和个人物品。正如法官大人从之前的
简报中知道的那样，大约有500个银行账户和可能一千多笔交易。解释这些并将其纳入证
据需要时间。但我们正在简化。就受害者而言，如果我们能到那一步的话，我认为今天应
该就有一名作证。 
然后可能还有一名，或许再多一名，但大概只有一名。直接回应辩护律师提出的
一些问题，在每个审判中，都有一些后勤问题需要对一周的证人进行一些调整。在这次审
判中，哈立德先生，作为例子来说，被通知在第一次完整的审判周作证。这没有发生，因
为交叉询问时间太长了。然后我们遇到了一个问题，有一位证人从外国飞来，只能在这里
待一个星期，我们还有其他证人的旅行问题。哈立德先生，恰好是本地人，我们可以控制
他的时间安排，所以我们不得不调整他的时间表。还有一位证人周末从欧洲旅行，周六早
上到达。我们计划周一一早传唤他。在与他会面后我们决定，我们想简化我们的案件，我
们不是真的需要他。所以我们把他去掉了，这本来是为了帮助解决问题，但为了适应其他

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 6 / 127页 
证人的时间安排，我们不得不在时间表中替换他，包括一名可能在周五传唤的证人，但他
住在波多黎各，直到今天才到达。所以我们不得不安排一名新证人。这些事情经常发生。 
还有一件事，法官大人，关于交叉询问，我相信在对李女士的交叉询问的最后，政府对一
系列问题提出了异议，导致了一个边栏会议。边栏会议大约持续了 10到 15分钟。有某种
争论。法官大人驳回了我们的反对意见。然后我们继续作证，辩护律师说，“没有进一步
的问题”，甚至没有问到那个导致边栏会议的问题。我不确定如果我们的反对意见针对的
是一个辩护律师甚至没有打算提问的问题，那为什么会需要那个边栏会议。昨天，在哈立
德先生的交叉询问期间，我们花了 15 到 20 分钟讨论 Victor Cerda 是否收到邀请加入
Crane咨询集团的邮件。我不知道这与他的可信度或郭先生在 RICO集团中的参与有何关
系，但这没关系，他们有权交叉询问证人。最重要的是——这是政府的看法——法官大人
告诉陪审团这个审判将在 7 月 12 日之前结束。我错误地预测了——法官大人是对的——
我们将在 7月 4 日之前按计划完成。我不认为那还会是事实，我很高兴法官大人有我没有
的智慧。但是要在 7 月 12 日之前完成，我们需要额外的时间，我们的建议是下周四天全
天工作。周三休息，这将使陪审员有时间处理他们的生活所需的事情。这不是一个强制的
要求。我们都在进行庭审中。我认为我们都希望高效地推进这个审判。我们当然会尽一切
努力与辩方合作，与他们沟通，告知他们当我们需要更换证人时会有哪些证人——有时会
发生变化——证物会更换。我们正在尽我们所能提高效率。但坦率地说，30到 45 分钟的
延长是不够的。 
我们正在考虑，法官大人，请您知道，削减证人。政府正在考虑削减证人，我对
此感到惊讶，但我们正在考虑这样做以简化案件，正如我所说的，以达到目的并满足法官
大人向陪审团概述的截止日期和结束日期。但是即使有这些削减，如果我们下周仅增加
30到 45 分钟，我们将在 7月下旬结束，考虑到辩方案件的长度，考虑到我们必须提出一
些证人以证明我们的案件。这有很多指控，这是一个复杂的局。我们有一个必须满足的负
担。因此我们请求法官大人询问陪审团是否可以下周周一、周二、周四、周五全天开庭。 
法官说：我会考虑的。 
卡拉马珠律师说：法官大人，我想补充一个澄清。我相信芬克律师提到在李女士
作证结束时的边栏会议。我认为那是关于翻译问题，而不是政府的反对意见。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 7 / 127页 
他还提到了导致政府最初请求延长庭审时间的旅行问题。我们配合了解决了那些
旅行问题，不仅两名受害者——或者说，抱歉，两个证人及时完成了他们的证词以进行他
们预定的旅行，我们实际上还在那之后还有时间引入了另一位证人，并且如果不是因为政
府在当天结束时提出反对并引发边栏会议的话，我们本可以完成那位证人的证词。所以辩
方当然意识到这些问题，并且已经与政府合作推进了这一部分。而且我们只是无法理解芬
克律师所说的，“这将使陪审员有时间处理他们的生活”，而实际上他指的是从他们那里拿
走两个小时，让本可以在威彻斯特的陪审员不得不在 4:30或 5点离开法庭。 
芬克律师说：我认为对陪审员的问题是，法官大人，陪审员是否希望审判在法官
预测的 7 月 12 日结束，还是希望继续到月底。我显然不知道他们心里的想法，但这确实
是问题的关键。所以我不认为在庭审期间每天额外增加一个半小时会有什么不利影响。我
们都在这里，我们都在庭审中。我确信辩护团队像政府团队一样努力工作，基本上是全天
候，每天 24 小时，每周 7 天，我们已经这样做几个月了。我相信他们也是。这就是庭审
实践的性质——特别是在这个区。 
政府的观点是，为了满足法庭告诉陪审团的 7 月 12 日的日期，我们需要更多的时间。有
很多原因。我们可以互相指责谁负责，但我们现在的情况就是这样。因此我们请求法庭考
虑并询问陪审团下周是否可以全天庭审。我们可以转向其他问题，如果法官大人愿意的话。 
法官说：是的，请讲。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，关于哈立德先生的交叉询问，在今天开始之前，施洛夫
女士告知我她想要询问哈立德先生关于政府在发现过程中提供的一段录音。这不是我们在
直接询问中引入的录音之一。我问施洛夫女士她试图引入它的依据是什么。我们不质疑录
音的真实性，但我们质疑其可采性和相关性。这是一段 Zoom 或 WebEx 录音，是哈立德
先生和其他两个人几年前对一名候选人的面试录音。我们的理解是，这是 Zoom 或
WebEx 自动记录会议的方式，恰好保存到了他的电脑中。在查看他的所有物品并向政府
提供录音时，他交出了这段录音。所以我们认为没有理由引入它。我们认为它没有相关性。
如果施洛夫女士想证明他录制了其他对话，她可以通过提问来做到。但这是传闻，没有理
由将其作为证据。 
法官说：录音中讨论了什么？ 
莫里律师说：这是对一名候选人的面试，由 G-Clubs 的 CEO Limarie Reyes、财
务总监 Alex Hadjicharalambous 和哈立德先生进行。一段是对候选人的面试，另一段是
内部反馈会议。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 8 / 127页 
法官说：我认为这涉及到个人的资格问题，这是主题吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：谢谢，法官大人。主题不仅仅如此，法官大人。首先，唯一似乎
拥有这段录音的人是哈立德先生。我想告诉陪审团的是，哈立德先生不仅录制了所谓的随
机通话，他录制了很多事情，也许他是一个惯性录音者。我不知道。但他为什么录音并不
重要。 
第二，谈话和面试本身是相关的。哈立德先生在面试中撒谎。他告诉候选人他在
郭公司工作了四年，在 GTV 工作了四年，这是假的。他还谈到了当时郭公司的情况，面
试候选人的其他参与者非常坦率地告诉候选人办公室是混乱的，他们在寻找一个有经验的
人来应对这种混乱。所以即使这些陈述不是真的，关键是这些话被说出来了。它反映了哈
立德先生的心态。它显示了他对这个公司的认识，这是一家成长中的公司，大家都在采取
措施解决人事团队中的漏洞。哈立德先生说事实并非如此，所有这些都是无稽之谈，他感
到非常失望。所以这使得这次谈话具有相关性。我不打算——我只是想非常明确——在这
次交叉询问中，除非证人以特定方式作证，否则我不打算重播昨天播放的通话或播放这次
通话的全部内容。我要求政府承认其真实性以节省时间，我显然不需要让他听完整个通
话，法官大人。 
法官说：关于你所说的通话中的谎言，你想用这段通话来质疑哈立德先生的可信
度。 
施洛夫律师说：不仅是质疑他的可信度。还要显示他当时的特定心态。这是他如
何看待自己的。他将自己作为这个团队的一部分，描述他与他们的长期关系。这与他在直
接询问中对陪审团描述的那种关系完全相反。 
法官说：他已经重新表述过了吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：对。所以他最初说，我在 GTV时充满热情，但后来变得幻灭，觉
得这是一场大骗局，都是欺诈；然后他参与了一次面试，他在面试中说，来加入我们吧，
我们是最棒的。所以我认为这就是这段录音本身相关的部分原因，法官大人。 
法官说：那你提到的混乱问题呢？这怎么相关？ 
施洛夫律师说：因为哈立德先生说，他在那里的第一周非常混乱，没有人知道他
们在做什么，人们忽视了问题。而这段录音显示，不仅问题没有被忽视，他们还识别出了
问题。公司是新的，是一家初创公司，有很多混乱，他们在寻找一名候选人，寻找一个能
帮助他们应对混乱的员工。我相信有一个面试问题是这样问候选人的：请给我们一个你如

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 9 / 127页 
何处理混乱工作环境的例子。这就是我们公司。所以没有撒谎，没有隐瞒任何事情。这是
一个真正的实体，试图建立一个真正的业务，我们应该被允许展示这一点。 
法官说：这段录音有多长？ 
施洛夫律师说：我不知道有多长，但我真的不打算——我不需要播放超过一个片
段。即使我不播放任何片段，我仍然会寻求将其——采纳为证据，因为部分原因我们采纳
了一切，法官大人，不仅仅是为了展示给陪审团，还因为我们想在总结时使用它，所以我
们想采纳它。这也是��们想要录音被采纳的原因。政府不仅知道这段录音的存在，我的意
思是，很抱歉他们发现得晚了。我们之前就知道了。而且它一直是我们交叉询问的一部分。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，辩护方试图引入这段录音作为外部证据来质疑证人的可
信度，这是不适当的。首先，如果他们要这么做，他们需要先质问他是否撒谎，而这还没
有被确定。我不认为有任何依据。从施洛夫女士所说的她为何寻求引入它的理由来看，面
试中的陈述完全与他的证词一致。确实有人在 G-Clubs 工作。Reyes 女士是面试的参与
者之一，她在 2021 年 4 月成为临时CEO。所以这不是他所说的第一周，当时一切都很混
乱，没有基础设施。这是在他在 GTV 和 G-Clubs 工作较久之后的事情。是的，这与他说
的情况一致，他们开始建立团队，但后来，他的理解是这实际上只是一个洗钱操作。此外，
这也与他的心态无关。政府的观点是，没有理由——没有理由——引入这段录音。 
最后一点，我要说的是，这毫无疑问是传闻。毫无疑问这是传闻，政府认为它根本不应该
被引入。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，在整个案件过程中，他们坚持认为这些公司只是幌子，
无论是在某个时间点，还是在结束时。整个过程中，他们的全部证词是——他们经历了所
有这些。莫里律师花了五个问题询问只是为了暂停录音说，他们称这些人为投资者，不是
会员；他们做了什么，没有做什么；他们得到了什么好处，没有。他们一次又一次地暂停，
当那个文件作为证据时，录音作为证据时，她只需要跳过所有这些并总结它。就像卡普兰
法官说的，文件本身说明了一切。因此，基于这些原因，我们可以展示这实际上不是骗局，
这不仅仅是一个门面，这不是一个洗钱操作。人们在那段时间里一直在努力使其成为一个
真正的实体。 
而法官大人，他们指控了 RICO。他们一直称这是一个欺诈案件。这不是一个欺
诈案件。我们被允许展示——实际上，辩方未能提出这是一个实际的真实业务问题，这是
在制造一个 2255的问题。我有权展示这是一项真正的业务。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 10 / 127页 
莫里律师说：法官大人，施洛夫律师可以向证人提问所有这些话题。这里的问题
是录音是否相关和可接受，它不是。她打算为了证明真实性而提供这份庭外陈述。我还要
指出，政府在此案中的立场不是这些公司不存在，而是它们实际上作为 RICO集团的工具
而被建立。确实有真实的员工。我们期望 Reyes女士作证——她是 CEO——她认为自己
在运营一个合法的会员公司。但实际上，真正负责的人是郭先生和他的关键共谋者，他们
知道他们为了这个大规模的数十亿美元的欺诈建立了这个空壳游戏。 
另一个我要提的点是，施洛夫律师说她想引入这个录音来证明证人录了各种各样
的对话。除了政府与证人讨论的录音以及那段时间的其他录音，这些录音支持了协议，这
是我们知道的唯一的其他录音。如我所说，据我们了解，这是在 Zoom 或 WebEx 会议期
间自动录制的。你可以按一个按钮录制会议，这就是它的来历。它碰巧被保存到了他的电
脑上，所以他提供给了政府。最后，法官大人，这只是典型的传闻。 
施洛夫律师说：唯一按按钮的人是哈立德先生。其他人没有按那个按钮。更重要
的是，如果政府愿意承认这些确实是合法的企业，并且他们同意这一点，我们很乐意跳过
所有关于这是否是一个合法和正常运营的企业的证词。而且我提醒法庭，法官大人，一遍
又一遍地，莫里律师问他，G-Clubs 是否提供了任何福利，G-Clubs 是否提供了任何服务。
她暂停录音并说，这里有没有关于 G-Clubs服务的讨论？没有。 
法官说：我将允许播放录音。 
施洛夫律师说：谢谢。 
法官说：还有什么吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：没有，法官大人。法官大人，政府——我可以稍等一下吗？ 
（律师讨论） 
莫里律师说：法官大人，还有一个问题。关于昨天与哈立德先生和法庭的对话，
并建议他与他的律师交谈，据我们从他的律师那里了解，他们有机会交谈。我们还了解他
打算回应任何向他提出的问题。但我们请求防止辩方询问任何关于法庭昨天与证人的对话，
包括提醒他回答这些问题可能会带来的潜在风险。这属于 403条款，我们坚信辩方不能对
此进行询问。 
法官说：我确信他们不打算询问我的讨论，对吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：当然不会，法官大人。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 11 / 127页 
费根森律师说：法官大人，我有——抱歉，我想这是最后一个问题。我还有一个
问题。它涉及到政府今天预计将作证的一位受害者证人。我只是想至少给法庭一些背景。
也许我们可以在午休时处理。 
但这是一个曾经是香草山农场成员的受害者证人。她为该农场做翻译志愿工作。
她在一个聊天群组——要么是 WhatsApp，要么是 Discord 聊天——与其他成员和其他做
翻译工作的志愿者在一起。政府打算通过这个证人提供的三四个证据是她在这个群组中分
享的文件。文件是由张勇兵分享的，如果法官大人记得，他是那个试图强迫李雅女士签署
虚假宣誓书的律师。他是一名律师，并在群组中分享了这些文件。她没有真正处理这些文
件，但她有这些文件的副本。 
为了让法官大人了解这些文件是什么，它们不是——它们不是法律文件——我理
解辩方说香草山农场，纽约农场，打算对这三份证据主张特权。为了让法官大人了解这些
证据是什么，其中一个是郭先生、余建明和魏丽红之间关于调和农场贷款计划电汇的对话
截图。这是他们之间的WhatsApp对话截图。它只列出了发送者、日期和金额。这是一个。
另两个，我相信是——两三个 Excel 表格，再次显示了类似的信息，只是电汇信息。这些
文件中完全没有法律建议。政府不认为这些文件有任何有效的特权主张。只是想提出这一
点，以便我们可能避免在受害者作证期间进行任何边栏会议。我们希望，按照芬克律师早
些时候的陈述，简化这位受害者的证词，以保持良好的进展速度。 
舒里克律师说：法官大人，我认为费根森律师在描述中遗漏了一些关键事实，这
些事实与特权主张有关，我只想说，我的理解是香草山的外部律师，可能已经在这里或者
很快会在这里—— 
口译员说：律师，您需要对着麦克风讲话。 
施洛夫律师说：好的，对不起，抱歉。——香草山的律师，可能已经在这里或者
很快会在这里，将正式主张特权。这是第一点。第二点是，辩方昨晚第一次了解到的，因
为—— 
法官说：这不是应该由郭先生来主张特权吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：不，法官大人。这是——这些通信是在一个聊天群组，一个
Discord 聊天群组——也许是另一个聊天群组，另一个平台的聊天群组——中进行的，涉
及到香草山，也就是纽约农场，对魏丽红提起的诉讼，法官大人可能还记得，她曾经负责
VOG，接受了私募资金。香草山声称她偷了资金，并对她提起了诉讼。所以这里涉及的
通信，包括电子表格和费根森律师提到的屏幕聊天，都是在那个诉讼背景下进行的通信。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 12 / 127页 
更具体地说，法官大人，这位所谓的受害者与政府昨晚首次向我们提供的保密协议有关。
保密协议明确指出她是——在顶部——我们当然可以向法庭展示更多细节，但它在顶部明
确指出，这个人提供的翻译服务是与那个诉讼有关的。然后它继续说，基本上这是一个标
准的 NDA，规定她将保密，因为她在为香草山的诉讼提供这些服务。这些只是一些补充
的事实，可以帮助法庭更好地了解情况。现在—— 
法官说：你们预计这个问题什么时候会出现？ 
舒里克律师说：我认为我们预计——费根森律师可以比我更好地解释，法官大人，
这是他的证人，但假设我们能轮到这个证人，我认为我们今天就会出现这个问题。如果我
理解正确的话，她在哈立德之后，是哈立德之后的第二个。 
费根森律师说：没错。是哈立德、埃斯皮诺扎女士，然后是这个受害者。 
舒里克律师说：所以，法官大人，我们的观点是，香草山已经主张特权。关于这
四个左右的文件，肯定有一个有效的特权主张。我认为我们对这些文件的适用范围是一致
的。有四个文件。而且在政府打算询问证人之前，这个问题肯定需要解决。 
法官说：你们的立场是这四个文件与诉讼有关。 
舒里克律师说：正确。 
法官说：继续。 
费根森律师说：这并不意味着它们是特权文件，法官大人。它们不是法律文件。
它们是电子表格。而且还有一个WhatsApp聊天的截图，不是与任何律师的聊天。首先，
它们不是特权文件。其次，法官大人，这是香草山的受害者。正如法官大人反复听到的，
他们让这些受害者签署各种协议。这是诈骗计划的一部分。这在任何意义上都不是有效的
特权主张。它们不是特权文件。如果法庭担心这里可能存在某种特权，这显然是欺诈犯罪，
法官大人。农场贷款计划肯定属于欺诈犯罪，你甚至不需要讨论这个问题，因为这些文件
根本不是特权文件。它们只是 Excel 表格的截图。 
法官说：这些截图和 Excel 表格怎么就成为了特权文件？ 
舒里克律师说：我理解的这个诉讼中的一个主要问题，当然香草山的外部律师比
我更了解，可能能够纠正我，但我的理解，法官大人，是其中一个主要问题是，被偷了多
少钱。基本上就是损失的问题，香草山的损失是什么，这就是这些文件所要证明的。这些
电子表格似乎是在 Discord 聊天中由律师们传播的。这些文件中有许多部分是中文的，所
以它们被转到这个群组，作为香草山方面努力的一部分，它将决定香草山要主张的损害赔
偿数量和他们能证明什么。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 13 / 127页 
法官说：那么这是香草山在说被告的什么吗？ 
舒里克律师说：他们没有说关于被告的任何事情，法官大人。 
法官说：在诉讼中，他们在对被告提出主张。他们的主张是什么？ 
舒里克律师说：抱歉，当你说——是的，对魏女士，没错。 
法官说：他们声称魏女士挪用了资金，对吗？ 
舒里克律师说：对的。 
法官说：好的。这都是 RICO 集团的一部分，它们可以作为证据。还有什么其他
问题吗？ 
费根森律师说：没有了，法官大人，谢谢。 
舒里克律师说：我们还有一个问题——对不起，法官大人——也与今天可能出现
的另一位证人有关，也许甚至——我们确定要怎么做吗？好的。只是为了让法官大人提前
有个了解，有一位证人将在刚才讨论的受害者之后出场，罗伯茨先生，他是名为 Bitgo 的
公司的代表，Bitgo 是喜马拉雅交易所的外部供应商。而且辩方在收到罗伯茨先生的通知
后——罗伯茨先生将本周作证的通知——我们在周一发送了一封信通知检方，我们认为他
的预期证词实际上是专家证词，但并没有提前告知。看起来政府计划让罗伯茨先生作证关
于加密货币的问题，例如本案中的加密货币到底是不是真的加密货币，而法官大人一定记
得这些是双方专家争执不下的主题。 
所以我们给政府发了通知——嗯，通知并不多；我们写信给政府希望他们保证不
会引出那种证词，这实际上应该是在专家作证时才出现的。而且我们刚刚在今天早上法官
大人出庭前的讨论中第一次听到政府的立场是，罗伯茨先生可以谈论这些问题。我不想歪
曲事实——如果我说错了，霍顿先生可以纠正我——但我的理解是政府的立场是他可以就
这些问题作证，因为在他在 Bitgo 工作时，审查和尽职调查是他工作的一个部分，因此他
可以作证关于他对这些加密货币或交易所的结论。再一次，我们的观点是——我认为这是
非常明确的——这是专家证词。 
法官说：我们预计罗伯茨先生什么时候作证？ 
霍顿律师：不，法官大人，我们预计他今天不会出庭。为了节省时间，我们准备了一封简
短的信，说明他的证词和为什么这些证词是可采纳的。 
法官说：好的。那我们稍后再讨论这个问题。请让陪审员进来。 
（陪审团到场） 
法官说：请坐。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 14 / 127页 
  
早上好，陪审员们。 
陪审员们说：早上好。 
法官说：我有一些好消息，下周三我们不上庭。你们下周三可以休息一天。但是
由于超出我和各方控制的情况，我们进展缓慢。我不想将审判延长到我给你们的 7 月 12
日的结束日期，所以我提议下周只有四天——周一、周二、周四、周五——从上午 9:30
到下午 1点，我们休息一个小时，然后从下午 2点到5点继续。所以请考虑一下。你们可
以在午休时考虑一下。回来后，我们将在午休后继续讨论。哈立德先生，请记住你仍然在
宣誓下。我们将继续交叉询问。 
施洛夫律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
哈立德继续作证。 
施洛夫律师继续交叉询问： 
问：早上好。 
答：早上好。 
问：哈立德先生，让我给你看标记为辩方证物 60538 的文件。 
施洛夫律师说：这只是给证人看的，谢谢。 
问：先生，如果可以的话，请你看一下这个文件。你认得这个文件吗，先生？ 
答：是的。 
问：这是什么？ 
答：这是一份宣誓书。 
问：是谁的宣誓书？ 
答：太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金。 
问：让我再问一遍。谁签署了这份宣誓书？ 
答：谁��署了这份宣誓书？ 
问：是的。 
答：我签署的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，辩方此时提议将辩方证物 60538作为证据。 
法官说：没有异议吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 15 / 127页 
莫里律师说：法官大人，目前反对。我们不理解此证物的目的。 
法官说：好的。那么请你们过来一下。 
 
（边栏讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场） 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，哈立德先生在宣誓书的第 5 段中作出声明——我认为
他不会在那里找到，但——基本上说他以及 Crane 与郭先生没有关系，他在宣誓下这样
说。 
法官说：所以你要质问他，你会问他：你在某天说了某事吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：不。我只是要问这份宣誓书是否在宣誓下签署的，是否是他签的，
第 5段是否准确反映了他在宣誓书中写下的事实。 
法官说：但目的是质疑其可信度。 
施洛夫律师说：这也是为了展示他在 5月 17日签署文件时的心态。 
法官说：这是为了质疑其可信度。所以你可以质问他，如果他说是，你就得接受
他的回答。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。 
法官说：好的。 
  
（回到公开法庭） 
施洛夫律师继续问： 
问：哈立德先生，你在 Pax 诉讼中签署了一份宣誓书，对吗？ 
答：你能重复一下吗？ 
问：当然。你签署了一份宣誓书，对吗，并作为 Pax 诉讼的一部分提交？ 
答：是的，我签了。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，我请求在文件被接纳之前将其取下。 
法官说：没有展示给陪审员。 
施洛夫律师说：没有。 
证人说：但是我能看整个文件吗？有 1到 3页。 
法官说：你可以看。继续。 
施洛夫律师说：我可以上前吗，法官大人。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 16 / 127页 
法官说：可以。 
施洛夫律师说：我只是——让证人有一份纸质的副本可能更方便。 
法官说：哦，我明白你的意思。可以。 
答：你能重复一下你的问题吗。 
问：我的问题是：你记得签署并提交了一份宣誓书作为 Pax 诉讼的一部分吗？ 
答：这份宣誓书，是的。 
问：当你提交那份宣誓书时，你知道你是在提交你宣誓为真相的事实，对吗？ 
答：关于实际的事实？ 
问：是的。 
答：以及我拥有的文件，是的。 
问：好的。你记得那份宣誓书是由公证员公证的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：作为宣誓书的一部分，你做了一些声明，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：其中一个你在宣誓下的声明是，你没有信息表明花旗银行账户或任何 Crane 银行账
户有或曾有资金属于郭先生或他有经济利益的实体，对吗？ 
答：在文件上，是的。 
问：你在宣誓下做的这样一个声明，对吗？ 
答：在文件上，是的。 
问：好的。你能解释一下你说的“在文件上”是什么意思吗？ 
答：所以任何进入 Crane 的付款都没有以郭的名字作为受益人。郭的名字不在上面。 
问：但是你说它们没有属于郭的资金，对吗？ 
资金可以属于某人而没有他们的名字在上面，对吗？ 
法官说：不要作证。 
问：你说任何属于郭的资金时是什么意思？ 
答：即他的名字在上面的话。 
问：所以你的宣誓书中，当你说某物属于你时，你的意思是你的名字必须在上面。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 17 / 127页 
答：当涉及资金和我拥有的文件时，是的，我是这样说的。 
问：然后你说“或他有经济利益的任何实体”，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你这样说时，你的意思也是说在文件上，如果他的名字出现，还是你实际上是想说你
在宣誓下写下并宣誓的内容，他有经济利益的任何实体？ 
答：我的声明是基于文件的。 
法官说：你说基于文件是什么意思？ 
证人说：基于账户中的实际电汇。 
法官说：你能更详细地解释一下吗？ 
证人说：好的。所以有 1300 笔电汇转账进入该账户，即花旗银行的账户。这些
付款中都没有具体提到郭的名字。 
法官说：继续。 
施洛夫律师继续问： 
问：好的。你说，“我没有任何信息证明花旗银行账户或任何 Crane 银行账户有或曾有属
于郭或他有经济利益的实体的资金”，对吗？ 
答：文件上是这么写的，是的。 
问：你在直接询问中作证，哈立德先生，你收到的用于 G-Clubs 的电汇，郭先生有控制
权，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：如果他有控制权，你认为他对这些电汇有经济利益，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以当你说他没有经济利益时，那并不是真实的陈述，对吗，根据你的说法？ 
答：理论上，不是。 
问：那实际情况呢？ 
答：根据账户和电汇的文件。 
问：宣誓书上是否写道，“根据文件和电汇——” 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 18 / 127页 
问：“——没有资金属于——” 
法官说：反对无效。 
问：“——（没有资金属于）郭先生，但我个人认为他对进入G-Clubs 的所有资金
都有经济利益”？你在宣誓书中这样说了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你能告诉陪审团宣誓书的日期吗？ 
答：2021 年 5月 17日。 
问：到 2021 年 5月 17日，你录制了多少次录音？ 
答：我不记得确切的数量。 
问：好的。让我们继续。哈立德先生，在 2020 年 11 月 23 日至 2021 年 5月 13 日期间，
你转移了大约 1.08亿美元吗？ 
答：你能重复一下日期吗？ 
问：2020 年 11 月 23 日至 2021 年 5月 13 日。 
答：我可能有，是的。 
问：让我给你看标记为政府证物 MSS80 和 MSS96 的文件。在我们调出这些文件时，哈
立德先生，5月 12 日这个日期对你有任何重要意义吗？ 
答：你问什么？ 
问：5月 12 日这个日期对你有任何重要意义吗？ 
答：我不确定。 
问：好的。让我引导你看第一页右下角，好吗？你看到账户号码了吗？抱歉，文件的质量
不好。你看到账户号码 552069134吗？ 
答：我看到了，是的。 
问：好的。如果你看同一证物的第 7页，以 80结尾的，你看到 2021 年 1 月 26 日转账的
5000 美元到一个 136结尾的账户，这是政府证物 96。你看到了吗？ 
答：是的，但你能——你能给我看实际的对账单吗？我看不到对账单。 
问：这有帮助吗？ 
答：嗯嗯。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 19 / 127页 
问：你看到右上角的那一列了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：让我为你突出显示一下以方便你查看。 
答：谢谢。 
问：活跃资产账户，对吗？我不确定是单数资产还是复数资产。我道歉，不是故意误导。
最上面——如果你能为他突出显示——Crane 咨询集团有限责任公司，托管人Haitham 哈
立德，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：那是 136账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：那是你的个人摩根士丹利账户，对吗？ 
答：突出显示的那个？ 
问：不。转入这笔钱的是你的个人摩根士丹利账户，对吗？即证物 96，文件 96结尾的那
个。你看到了那个转账吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：好的。你转了 5000 美元到那个账户，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。日期是 2021 年 1 月 26 日，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。现在我们到 96结尾文件的第 7页，你能告诉陪审团这笔钱从哪里来的吗？ 
答：那 5000？ 
问：是的。 
答：从另一个摩根士丹利账户。 
问：另一个摩根士丹利账户的名字是什么？ 
答：Crane。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 20 / 127页 
问：然后还有另一个转账，如果你看第 30页，100万美元，对吗？我们现在回到 80，政
府证物 GX MSS80。你看到，第 30页，有一笔 100万美元的转账，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：然后还有另一笔 100万美元的转账，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：那是从 Crane账户转出的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些钱去了哪里，先生？ 
答：账户末尾是 136。 
问：136账户的所有者是谁？ 
答：是我。 
问：那是你的个人账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：第一次转账是 2021 年 4 月 5日，对吗，第二次转账是 4 月 20 日？ 
答：是的。 
问：谢谢。现在让我们回到前面。 
施洛夫律师说：你可以把那个（证据）拿下去了，谢谢。 
问：你也从 Crane账户转账到你在第一資本公司的个人账户，对吗？ 
答：我需要看看。 
问：你不记得了吗？ 
答：不记得了。有很多转账。 
问：你记得一笔 129,000 美元的转账吗？ 
答：我需要再看看。 
问：让我看看我是否能给你展示一个文件来刷新你的记忆，好吗？ 
答：好的。 
施洛夫律师说：这只是给证人看的，不是给陪审团的。 
问：你看到第三个要点了吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 21 / 127页 
答：看到了。 
问：这是否刷新了你对那次转账的记忆？ 
答：没有。 
问：好的。你有一个第一資本公司账户吗？ 
答：有。 
施洛夫律师说：我们能看一下哈立德先生面前文件的最上方吗？ 
问：这是否刷新了你对那次转账的记忆？ 
答：没有，女士。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。你可以把那个拿下去了。 
问：哈立德先生，你在直接询问中谈到了你的费用，对吗？你记得吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你在直接询问中作证说你认为你应得 270万美元的费用，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：现在要赚取超过 200万美元的费用，你需要清算超过 1亿美元，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：而当你在 2021 年 4 月从 Crane账户转移 200万美元到你的个人账户时，你还没有清
算接近那个金额，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：即使是简单的数学计算，你也没有权利获得那个金额，对吗？ 
答：你说的权利是什么意思？ 
问：你昨天作证说你认为你应得这笔费用，是你清算的所有资金的 2%，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。那么算数上，当你拿到那200万美元时，即使从数学上看，你也没有权利获得
它，对吗？因为你只能获得你清算金额的 2%，而你还没有清算那么多，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。复合问题。 
法官说：反对有效。 
施洛夫律师说：我只是想节省时间。我愿意一步一步地问。真的，我愿意。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 22 / 127页 
法官说：好的。把问题分开来问。 
答：你可以。 
问：你想让我再试一次吗，哈立德先生？ 
答：不，你可以—— 
问：抱歉？ 
答：你可以吗？ 
问：当然。 
答：重复一下？ 
问：当然。你昨天说你要收取 2%的费用，对吗？ 
答：这是与王雁平、郭强、Ana 达成的协议，所以不是我直接向他们收费。请讲。 
问：不管是谁同意的，你在收取费用，对吗？王雁平没有收取费用，对吗？ 
答：对。 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
问：郭强没有收取费用，对吗？ 
法官说：他已经回答了是。 
问：好的。那么我继续。你要收取 2%的费用，意味着你要获得 270万美元，你必须清算
超过 1亿美元，这只是简单的数学，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。到 2021 年 4 月为止，你还有超过 1亿美元没有清算，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：所以你只是任意地从 Crane账户转移了 270万美元到你的个人账户，对吗？ 
答：不。我相信 100万美元被转回了。我认为那是一个错误。 
问：我没有问它是否被转回，先生。我只是问你，根据我给你展示的文件，那200万美元
被转到了你的个人账户。 
答：是的。 
问：好的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 23 / 127页 
答：再次，我的回答是，那 200 万美元，其中 100 万，或者可能全部，都被转回了。我
不记得确切的来回交易。 
问：我相信莫里律师会在重新询问时澄清这一点。 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人，反对。 
法官说：反对有效，不要提供证词。 
问：坐在这里，你的证词是 270 万中的 200 万被转回了吗？我只是想确认一下，或者我
们可以让记录员读一下答案。 
答：我不记得每一笔交易了。 
问：好的。那么当你同意这三位检察官放弃270万美元时，你实际上是在放弃你从未得到
过的钱，还是你得到了又转回去的钱？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：反对有效。问题中包含了太多概念。你需要分开来问。 
问：你同意放弃 270万美元，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：现在你说 200万美元被转回到你的账户，是转回到 G-Clubs，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对。误述证词。 
法官说：反对有效。他说他不记得确切的数字。 
问：好的。告诉我你认为你转回的大约数字。 
答：我真的无法回答。我不记得了。 
问：是 100万吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：所以你转回了一些金额，这是你的证词，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：转回到 G-Clubs。 
答：不，转回到 Crane账户。 
问：你转回到你的 Crane账户？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 24 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：所以你保留在你的 Crane账户里了。 
答：回到 Crane 账户，然后当清算发生时，当我们进行清算时，它要么——要么去了 G-
Clubs，要么留着或成为费用的一部分。 
问：那么如果它回到 G-Clubs，为什么你同意放弃 270万美元？ 
答：再说一遍，它回到了 Crane账户，然后被清算给 G-Clubs。 
问：好的。 
答：然后赚取了费用。 
问：对。但如果它合法赚取了，你为什么同意把它还给政府？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。已问并已答。 
法官说：你可以回答。你为什么同意把钱还给政府，退还这笔钱？ 
澄清一下：你为什么同意放弃这笔钱？ 
莫里律师说：法官大人，我想提一下，我们请求—— 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，她也不能提供证词。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，我只是请求法庭注意，哈立德先生没有义务就该话题与
他的律师进行任何讨论。 
法官说：是的。这不是透露他与律师的讨论的问题。他只是被问到：你为什么同
意放弃 270万美元？ 
证人说：这是协议的一部分。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：你在 2021 年 7 月 26 日与政府——莫里律师、芬克律师、费根森律师——和 FBI 见
面，对吗？记得吗？ 
答：7月？ 
问：2022 年 3 月 31 日怎么样？ 
答：可能。 
问：你告诉他们，你把这笔钱转回到 Crane账户了吗？ 
答：我不明白你的问题。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 25 / 127页 
问：你刚才说你把钱转回到Crane账户，并把一些钱转回到G-Clubs。你刚才作了这个证
词，对吗？ 
法官说：那不是他的证词。他没有作证说从他的账户转出的钱转到 G-Clubs。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我—— 
法官说：他作证说钱从他的账户转回到 Crane账户。 
施洛夫律师说：他说一些转到 Crane账户，一些转回到 G-Clubs。 
法官说：那不是他的证词。 
施洛夫律师继续问： 
问：你能澄清一下，根据你的说法，那 270万美元是转到哪里去的吗？ 
答：2百万美元？ 
问：是的。 
答：不是 270万。 
问：270万美元。 
法官说：好的。我理解你在问 2百万美元。所以现在你在问 270万美元？ 
施洛夫律师说：我会分开来问，法官大人。 
问：2百万，你说你把它转回去了，对吗？ 
答：我转回去了——是——转回到 Crane账户。 
问：全部 2百万。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，反对。这是误述。他说他不记得具体的交易。 
施洛夫律师说：这是个问题。 
法官说：你把那 200万美元从你的账户转到了哪里？ 
证人说：它要么留在那个账户里——我不记得是否——整个金额留在那个个人账
户里或转回去了——大部分转回到 Crane账户，作为一个错误。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：你在 3 月 31 日与莫里律师见面时告诉她这些了吗？ 
答：我不认为有人问过我。 
问：你在 2022 年 5月 12 日与她见面时告诉她了吗？ 
答：没有。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 26 / 127页 
问：2022 年 6 月 27日，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：再次，我不记得了。 
问：2022 年 7月 7日，你再次与她见面。你告诉她了吗？ 
答：再次，我不记得了。 
问：2022 年 11 月 2 日，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：再次，我不记得了。 
问：2023 年 1 月 10 日，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：不记得了，没有。 
问：2024 年 3 月 7日，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：2024 年 3 月 8 日，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：不记得了。 
问：2024 年 3 月 14 日，你告诉她了吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。403条。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：再次，我不记得了。 
问：2024 年 3 月 25日你与她见面时，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：告诉她我在转账时犯了错误吗？ 
问：有任何东西可以证明这笔钱回到了你所说的地方吗？让我换种方式问：账户之间的钱
来回转账有数字记录，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你有没有告诉她有数字记录，在这里？ 
答：我相信账单被提供了。  
由辩方施洛夫律师继续问： 
问：我问你是否向她提供了任何账单，显示你在 2021 年 4 月之后从你的个人账户转账到
Crane账户？ 
答：我所有的发现都是通过律师发送的，所以我没有看到——

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 27 / 127页 
问：好的。可以说在所有这些日期中，你和莫里律师从未讨论过这个话题，对吗？ 
答：转账的话题吗？ 
问：是的。从你的个人账户转账回 Crane账户的话题，你现在在宣誓下作证的内容？ 
法官说：你问的是什么日期？ 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我刚才列举的所有日期。我不想重复它们。 
答：转账的日期，比如逐一的确切转账日期。 
问：是的，逐一的确切转账日期。 
答：逐一，我不——我真的不记得逐一。 
问：那作为一组呢？ 
答：你是什么意思，作为一组？ 
问：我问你是否记得它们作为一组？ 
答：我不记得具体的转账，不。 
问：那 2024 年 3 月 31 日，你讨论过这个问题吗？ 
答：我不记得了，没有。 
问：你在 2024 年 5月 7日与她见面，对吗？ 
答：我不记得确切的日期。 
问：2024 年 5月 20 日呢？ 
答：再次，我不记得确切的日期。 
问：2024 年 5月 27日？你在 2024 年 5月 27日与莫里律师见面，对吗？ 
答：我不记得确切的日期。 
问：2024 年 5月 29 日呢？ 
答：可能有。我不知道。 
问：2024 年 6 月 1 日呢？ 
答：可能有。 
问：你在 6 月 6 日给她发了邮件，对吗？ 
答：可能有，是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 28 / 127页 
问：你在 6 月 6 日再次与她见面，对吗？你记得告诉她我把这些钱从我的个人账户转出
了，对吗？ 
答：再次，我想澄清一下。这笔钱进了我的账户，然后转回到了—— 
问：你能用麦克风吗，因为我听不清楚。 
答：钱进了账户，然后转回到了 Crane账户。 
问：好吧，它不是进了你的账户，对吗？你得转账？ 
答：它从 Crane账户转到个人账户，然后再返回到 Crane账户。 
问：你告诉她了吗？在你与她见面的 19次中，你告诉她了吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：这笔钱不仅仅是从 Crane 账户转到你的个人账户，对吗，只有你能从 Crane 账户中
释放资金，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人，复合问题。 
法官说：他作证说是他进行的转账，这不是一个自发的转账。 
问：你能告诉我，先生，什么是非自发转账？ 
法官说：我是这样表述的。 
施洛夫律师说：哦，对不起。 
法官说：他说他进行了转账。 
问：2024 年 6 月 8 日，你与莫里律师见面，对吧？ 
答：可能见过，是的。 
问：你从未告诉她这个转账，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：已经问过并回答过了。 
施洛夫律师说：我没有问过 6 月 8 日。 
法官说：为什么不把所有日期列出来，然后问他是否在这些日期中任何一天提到
过他进行了转账。 
问：6 月 6 日，6 月 8 日，6 月 9 日，6 月 10 日，今天是 6 月 12 日。这就是上周的日期？ 
答：不。 
问：如果你把这笔钱寄回给 Crane，你用什么钱买了你的七处房产？ 
答：从那 2%的费用。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 29 / 127页 
问：对不起？ 
答：我用那 2%的费用买了那些房产。 
问：你说的 2%的费用包含在我们刚才谈论的那 200万美元里吗？ 
答：不，这正是我想澄清的地方。 
问：好的，请继续。 
答：所以钱回去了。然后当它被清算后，我从清算金额中取了费用。 
问：哦，所以你把钱寄回去。然后你等待清算 2%的金额，然后你用那笔钱买房产。这是
你的证词吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你查看过你的银行记录，对吧，以准备你的证词？ 
答：是的。 
问：你查看的记录中没有显示这些转账的文件，对吗？ 
答：你是什么意思？ 
问：没有银行账户显示任何从你的个人账户转账到 Crane 账户的记录，对吗？只显示从
Crane账户转账到你的个人账户？ 
莫里律师说：反对，带有引导性。 
施洛夫律师说：这是一个问题。 
法官说：你可以回答是否存在显示从你的账户到 Crane账户的转账文件。 
答：她在这里给我看的那些吗？ 
法官说：不，是否存在任何文件显示这一点。 
答：可能有，是的。一份声明，是的。 
问：可能有？ 
答：不，不，有一份声明。 
问：有一份声明，你——你是否向莫里律师展示过那份声明？ 
答：再说一次，所有东西都被提交了。 
问：你与莫里律师一起查看了很多文件，以准备你的证词，对吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 30 / 127页 
问：你从未与我一起查看任何文件，对吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你是否在宣誓下作证你与莫里律师一起查看了这样的文件？ 
莫里律师说：已经问过并回答过了。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你曾经达成过付款便利协议，对吗？ 
答：你能更具体一点吗？ 
问：没有。你是否与 G-Clubs 达成了付款便利协议？ 
答：是的。 
问：你是否与其他人达成过付款便利协议？ 
答：没有。 
问：你昨天听了几段录音，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：那些录音都是你录的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在那些录音中——我希望我不会——我收回这句话。你作证说你听到并听取了不同的
人给你的关于如何将资金从 Crane账户转移出去的不同选项，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你作证说你在录音中讨论了进行了解你的客户（KYC）的必要性，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：而且这就是你在录音中提到的原因之一，说明你为什么不能把资金从 Crane
账户转移出去，因为据你所说，你还没有完成“了解你的客户”（KYC）程序，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你做银行业务多久了，十年了，对吧？ 
答：大约是。 
问：先生，你知道，是接收资金的银行进行“了解你的客户”（KYC）程序，对吗？ 
答：他们进行了 KYC，对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 31 / 127页 
问：对。事实上，如果他们没有进行 KYC，你的 Crane 账户中就不会有钱，对吗？它会
是一个大大的零？ 
答：对。 
问：而事实上，你能够将钱从 Crane 账户转到你的个人账户的唯一原因是因为已经进行
了 KYC程序，对吗？ 
答：不，那不准确。 
问：真的吗。你是如何开立你的 Crane 个人账户的？开立个人账户时是否进行了 KYC 程
序？ 
答：在摩根士丹利？ 
问：摩根士丹利，花旗银行，任何地方。每次你开设账户时，银行都会进行 KYC，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：银行—— 
答：但是存入摩根士丹利的资金进入了花旗银行和第一资本银行的 Crane 账户。然后当
资金进入摩根士丹利时，是从 Crane账户转出的，所以不是那 1300个人。 
问：你说完了吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：进入 Crane账户的资金，银行机构进行了 KYC，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：不是你做的？ 
答：不是。 
问：不是 Crane做的？ 
答：对于进入的资金，Crane没有做。 
问：你指的是 KYC，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：让我回到录音。在录音中，人们向你建议了不同的方式，你可以将钱从 Crane 账户
中取出，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 32 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：其中一个选项是简单地将钱退回给原始发送者，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你没有这么做？ 
答：我做了几笔退回。 
问：多少笔？ 
答：不记得了。有几笔退回。 
问：我稍后会回到一个具体的录音，但你的证词是你不记得有多少笔，对吗？ 
答：退回的？ 
问：对。 
答：我不记得确切的数量，不。 
问：第二个选项是你可以简单地关闭 Crane账户，对吧？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：你不记得王女士告诉你应该直接关闭 Crane 账户吗？如果你关闭 Crane 账户，她告
诉你，你就会停止接收资金，对吗？ 
答：我不记得了，不。 
问：事实上，她在你于 4 月 30 日录制的一个电话中告诉过你，对吗？ 
答：再次说明，我不记得了。 
问：好的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我可以稍等一下吗？ 
法官说：继续。 
问：这是否让你想起了，先生，在 2021 年 4 月 30 日，王女士告诉你，Crane 应该直接
关闭账户，而不是继续接收资金，对吗？ 
答：我不知道她在说什么，如果她在跟我说话的话。 
问：你在电话里，对吗？你面前有完整的记录。 
答：不，你只有——我可以看看吗？ 
问：给你。需要翻页时告诉我们，第二页，第三页。请慢慢来？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 33 / 127页 
答：好的。那条信息在哪一页？ 
问：第九页。 
答：你能转到第九页吗。 
问：有人能给他标记一下吗？ 
法官说：先生，问题是你是否记得她对你说过什么。你说你不记得了。现在的问
题是，摆在你面前的文件是否让你想起她是否说过那句话。问题不在于文件中是否有写到，
而在于看了文件后是否让你想起她曾经说过那句话。 
答：没有，不是对我说的。 
问：你在电话里吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你录制了电话？ 
答：对。 
问：你查看了那些通话的文字记录并向莫里律师提出了修改意见，对吗？ 
答：我查看了记录，是的。 
问：你做了修改并把修改意见给了莫里律师，对吗？ 
答：你是什么意思？ 
问：你读过文字记录？ 
答：是的。 
问：你做了一些修改并通过电子邮件把修改意见发给了这里坐着的扎着马尾辫的朱莉·莫
里律师，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：法官大人—— 
施洛夫律师说：我试图确认。 
莫里律师说：——我可以证实我扎着马尾辫。 
法官说：马尾辫。继续。 
问：你告诉她了，对吗，修改意见？ 
答：不，这些记录不是我准备的。 
问：我从未说过它们是你准备的，先生。我问你——

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 34 / 127页 
答：我是否查看了它们，是的。 
问：你做了修改，并把修改意见发给了莫里律师，对吗？你在这个通话里，对吗？ 
法官说：让他回答问题。你做了修改吗？ 
证人说：对这些修改？比如说词什么的？ 
法官说：你是否读过并决定某些内容是正确的还是不正确的？ 
证人说：是的。 
法官说：你是否把修改意见发给了莫里律师？ 
证人说：我不记得了。 
问：有人可以调出 2024 年 6 月 6 日的 3500材料吗？先生，屏幕上有一份文件给你看。 
答：是的。 
问：这是否让你想起你确实向莫里律师发送了你认为适当的文字记录修改？ 
答：是的。 
问：你在 2024 年 6 月 6 日发送的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：回到我之前给你看的文件，也就是 4 月 30 日的通话记录。它是否让你想起来了？ 
莫里律师说：法官大人，已经问过并回答过了。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你可以把它放下。在不止一次的电话中，王女士建议你停止接收资金并关闭Crane账
户，对吗？ 
答：再次说明，这不是对我说的。 
问：谁拥有 Crane？ 
答：在纸面上，我拥有它，是的。我拥有它。 
问：那么谁还能关闭 Crane账户？ 
答：她说的信息，不是对我说的。是对电话中的其他人，郭强。她直接和他说话。 
问：但是郭强不能关闭 Crane账户，对吗？ 
答：他不能。 
问：郭文贵不能关闭那个 Crane账户，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 35 / 127页 
答：不能。 
问：只有你能关闭 Crane账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：事实上，只有你能将钱从 Crane账户转出，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：所有这些录音是因为你不愿意转账，对吗？ 
答：不只是为了这个目的，不。 
问：但其中一个目的是因为你不愿意转账，对吗？ 
答：这是其中一个目的，是的。 
问：对。郭强不能强迫你转账，对吗？ 
答：他确实在施加压力，是的。 
问：我没听到。 
答：他确实在施加压力。 
问：哦，确实。我们听说了压力。我的问题是—— 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：请不要作证，施洛夫律师。请不要作证。 
问：他让你转账了吗？我现在问的是郭强。他让你转账了吗？是或不是？ 
答：是的。 
问：你按照郭强的要求把钱从 Crane账户转到了 G-Clubs吗？ 
答：没有 KYC，我没有。没有一整套资料，我没有。 
问：当郭强要求你转账时，你从未转账，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：根据你的说法他给你施加了压力，但你仍然没有转账，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：根据你的说法，郭文贵给你施加了压力，对吗，坐在那里的郭文贵？ 
答：是的。 
问：你从未转账，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 36 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：王女士给你施加了压力，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你从未转账，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：余建明给你施加了压力，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你从未转账？ 
答：大额资金，没有。 
问：任何金额。你从未转账他们要求你转的钱，对吗？ 
答：那一亿，没有。 
问：何浩然让你转钱，对吗？ 
答：不，不对。何浩然从未联系过我。 
问：Ana Izquierdo让你转钱。你没有转钱，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：无论王女士是否提出建议，你都可以随时关闭银行账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：不让账户接收资金的最佳方法是关闭账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：如果你关闭了 Crane账户，就不会有更多电汇转入那个账户，对吗？ 
答：是的，但是它有余额。 
问：我没问你余额。我的问题是，先生，如果你关闭了账户，你就不会再接收电汇了，对
吗？ 
答：我不会再接收电汇。 
问：Crane账户中的余额越大，你的 2%费用越多，对吗？ 
答：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 37 / 127页 
问：另一个给你的选项是简单地把钱退还给 G-Clubs，对吗？ 
答：把钱退还给 G-Clubs吗？ 
问：对。 
答：把钱汇到——对，把钱汇出去。 
问：对。那是一个选项。我不确定你是否完成了。我有点困惑，先生。我在问你？ 
答：我完成了。 
问：你没有那样做，对吗？ 
法官说：“那样做”你指的是什么？ 
问：把钱汇给 G-Clubs？ 
答：钱是汇给 G-Clubs 的。 
问：所有的钱？ 
答：扣除费用，也就是 2%的费用。 
问：你从未把那笔钱寄给 G-Clubs，对吗？ 
答：转移的钱少了，退回的钱也少了。部分汇款人要求退还他们的钱，所以并不是所有进
入的钱都转到了 G-Clubs。 
问：G-Clubs起诉你的金额是多少？多少美金？ 
答：我想大概是四百多。 
问：四百多？ 
答：是的，或者三百多。我不确定。 
问：三百什么？ 
答：三百万。我没有确切的金额。 
问：在仲裁中，你被要求退还给 G-Clubs 的金额是多少？ 
 答：我不记得了。 
问：5600万？ 
答：最初的仲裁，是的。 
问：你有 5600万没有转账，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 38 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：有人告诉你一个选项是把这 5600万转给汉密尔顿。你也没有选择这个选项，对吗？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：你被提供了一个选项是把 5600万转给喜马拉雅交易所。你也没有这样做，对吗？ 
答：还是的，我不记得了。 
问：另一个选项不是将钱退还给原始发送者，而是退还给中间发送者，你也不喜欢这个选
项，对吗？ 
答：不，没有人建议这样做。 
问：在你昨天听到的每个录音中，你一直在谈论一个托管协议，对吗？ 
答：是的，提到了托管协议。 
问：你提到托管协议，对吗？ 
答：可能提到过，是的。 
问：你在纽约州没有获得托管代理的执照，对吗？ 
答：我们确实获得了一个执照。 
 问：我没有问你这个。我在问你是否在财政部门的网站上注册为托管代理？ 
答：是的，我的律师确实注册了 Crane为托管代理，作为一个资金服务业务。 
问：我没有问你资金服务业务，先生。我问你是否注册为托管代理？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。施洛夫律师在与证人争论。 
法官说：反对有效。他已经回答了。 
问：先生，你认为托管代理与资金传输者是一样的吗？ 
答：我依赖律师，他们设立了一个资金服务业务执照以便作为托管代理。 
问：先生，我的问题是，作为一个有十年经验的银行家，你认为托管代理与资金转移者是
一样的吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：在你录制这些电话时，你同时试图与 G-Clubs 达成一个 PFA，对吗？ 
答：那是解决方案之一，是的。 
问：我听不清你说的话。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 39 / 127页 
答：那是律师和我自己提出的解决方案之一。 
法官说：PFA 是什么？ 
施洛夫律师说：这是他签订的协议，付款便利协议。 
法官说：继续。 
问：你聘请律师是为了获得协议，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你想要这个协议，对吗？ 
答：各方都想要这个协议。 
问：先生，我问你，你想要这个协议吗？ 
答：各方都想要这个协议。 
问：你在 2021 年 5月 12 日签署了该协议，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：即使在你签署了该协议之后，你还是拒绝转账，对吗？ 
答：在收到 KYC加上一揽子赔偿之前没有。 
问：对。根据你的说法，Crane要进行 KYC，尽管银行已经做了 KYC？ 
答：他们将验证赔偿表格。这是需要完成的多页文件。 
问：好的。所以不是 KYC，而是赔偿表格？ 
答：是一揽子包。 
问：是一个一揽子包。好的。在那时你被告知，这些人没有他们的会员资格？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：Ana Izquierdo 是否告诉你，会员资格不能发布，直到付款清算完毕，对吗？ 
答：除非他们完成合并，是的。直到 Ana 和 G-Clubs 的团队完成合并。 
问：实际上，直到你释放资金。我继续。让我给你看看标记为辩方证物 60539 的文件。
你认得这份文件吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这是什么？ 
答：这是一封电子邮件。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 40 / 127页 
问：关于什么的？ 
答：主题是终止通知。 
问：终止什么？ 
答：付款便利协议。 
问：就是我们一直在谈论的那个，对吗？ 
答：付款便利协议。 
问：我们一直在谈论的那个，对吗？ 
答：付款便利协议。 
问：付款便利协议是你和 G-Clubs之间的，对吗，Crane 和 G-Clubs，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：托德·库尔金是谁？ 
答：律师。 
问：为谁服务？ 
答：Crane。 
问：那就是你，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我们请求法庭允许我们将 DX-60539引入证据。 
莫里律师说：只问一个问题以确认资格？ 
法官说：请讲。 
莫里律师说：哈立德先生，你知道是谁要求 Limarie Reyes 向你发送这份终止通
知吗？ 
证人说：它是发给 G-Clubs 的 Alex。 
莫里律师说：没有异议，法官大人。 
法官说：准许。 
（辩方证物 60539 被接纳为证据） 
问：不管它寄给谁，它告诉你 Crane 被终止了，对吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：哦，对不起。请陪审团也看看。 
法官说：继续。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 41 / 127页 
问：我可以提问吗，先生？你看完了吗？ 
答：继续吧。 
问：他们在终止与 Crane 的合同，对吗？ 
答：你是说发给 Alex 的电子邮件吗？ 
 问：我听不清你说的话。 
答：你是说发给 Alex 的电子邮件吗？ 
问：我说的是发给托德·库尔金先生的终止通知，他在沃伦律师事务所，地址是纽约西 34
街 112号 17楼，你的律师？ 
答：是的，他们要求终止托管协议。 
问：终止什么？ 
答：托管协议。 
问：实际上是付款便利协议。 
答：付款便利协议。 
问：你的律师在电子邮件链中，对吗？ 
答：从 Limarie发来的，是的。 
问：是发给你的律师的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：日期是 6 月 30 日，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你之前读过这封邮件，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：他们在终止 Crane与 G-Clubs 的协议，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你可以把它放下了，谢谢。让我给你看看 DX-60540。先生，在我们等待文件调出来
时问你。 
 问：你希望与 Crane 的合���被终止吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 42 / 127页 
答：对不起。 
问：你希望与 Crane 的合同被终止吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你希望吗？ 
答：是的。在那时，是的。 
问：什么时候？ 
答：七月，是的。 
问：你希望它被终止？ 
莫里律师说：反对，已经问过并回答过了。 
施洛夫律师说：我只是试图理解他的话，法官大人。您可以指示他大声说话。 
法官说：请对着麦克风说话。 
答：好的。 
问：让我请你看看 60540。你能看看第二页，第三页，第四页，看到那里文件签名了吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：由谁签名？ 
答：Chris Warren。 
问：那是谁？ 
答：我的律师。 
问：你的律师，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，此时我请求将 60540作为证据。  
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人，传闻，不相关。 
法官说：反对有效。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我现在继续。稍后可以边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方
律师在场听取我们的意见吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
问：现在，你的律师联系了 G-Clubs 的律师，要求他们不要终止协议，对吗？ 
答：他们在合作。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 43 / 127页 
问：我没有问你他们是否在合作。先生，我的问题是，你的律师 Chris Warren，你称他为
克里斯还是克里斯托弗？ 
答：克里斯。 
问：Chris Warren 联系了 G-Clubs并说，请不要终止付款便利协议，对吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：你不知道？ 
答：我不知道。他们在讨论彼此合作的事。 
问：他是你的律师，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：他在按你的指示工作，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：他在做你让他做的事，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：不要重复问题。 
施洛夫律师说：我在等待回答，法官大人。 
法官说：他已经回答了律师是否在按证人的指示工作的问题，答案是“是”。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。 
问：你通过你的律师要求 G-Clubs撤回他们 2021 年 6 月 30 日的终止通知，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你要求他们与你合作，以便找到退还任何报酬的方法，对吗？ 
答：再次说明，他们在合作，来回是一个谈判过程。 
问：谈判结果是 G-Clubs没有终止 Crane，对吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：G-Clubs终止了 Crane 的协议，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你提出与他们合作，对吗？你记得吗？ 
答：不记得。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 44 / 127页 
问：好吧，让我们看看辩方证物 60540，这会让你想起来。我们看看第三页。这个文件是
否让你想起你提议在不进行 KYC 的情况下合作？ 
 莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。施洛夫律师试图让他回忆的问题是：“你提出与
他们合作，对吗？” 
法官说：对的，反对有效。 
问：你是否提议与他们合作，建议你不再进行 KYC？ 
法官说：好吧，这个问题已经回答了。他说他不记得。所以现在的问题是面前的
文件是否让他想起他是否说过或做过那件事。 
施洛夫律师说：我以为我在那，法官大人。我道歉，但我愿意在文件上突出第四
段。那不是正确的段落，是“福利”段落。 
问：为了与他们合作，你建议某些利益会从Crane流向G-Clubs，如果他们保留合同，对
吗？ 
莫里律师说：法官大人，施洛夫律师是在试图让他回忆这一点吗？不清楚。 
法官说：这是一个回忆的问题还是一个新问题？ 
施洛夫律师说：这是同一个问题。我只是试图给他强调一下。 
问：这个文件是否让你想起来了？ 
法官说：问题是这个文件是否帮助你记起来。 
答：从这个文件来看，我记得他们想要钱转到G-Clubs，不需要任何东西，不需要KYC，
不需要任何信息。 
问：“他们”是指 Crane，对吗？ 
答：不，G-Clubs。 
问：你还记得吗，你的律师提议将所有钱退还给原始发送者，对吗，从这个文件中？ 
法官说：问题是你是否记得，而不是文件是否这么说。 
答：我记得。 
问：那是 Crane向 G-Clubs提出的妥协之一，对吗？ 
答：退还资金？ 
问：对。 
答：退还给原始发送者，是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 45 / 127页 
问：那是你在录音中坚决拒绝的事情，对吗？ 
答：那不是真的。 
问：好的。在录音中，这个选项被提出来了，但你从未采取它，对吗，把 5600 万退还给
所有者，对吗？ 
答：不。曾经讨论过把 G-Clubs 的全部资金退还给所有者并关闭 G-Clubs 波多黎各的账
户。 
 那笔钱是 G-Clubs 的在 G-Club 里。 
问：但是你没有采取那个选项把钱退还给发送者，对吗？ 
答：我没有管理 G-Clubs 的账户。 
问：你管理 Crane 的账户？ 
答：我管理 Crane 的账户，对。 
问：给你提出的选项是把 Crane账户里的钱退还给把钱发送到 Crane账户的人，对吗？ 
答：再次说明，那选项是针对 G-Clubs 的钱。 
问：所以你通过你的律师提出建议，保留与 Crane 的付款便利协议，并如之前所要求的
那样退还款项，对吗？ 
答：作为另一个选项，是的。 
问：他们拒绝了你，对吗？ 
答：他们说不想退钱，不。 
问：他们说不想再和 Crane做生意，对吗？ 
答：不。这次终止是再次要求把未清算的钱转到 G-Clubs 的账户。所以不只是终止。 
问：G-Clubs 告诉 Crane，我们结束了。我们不再跟你做生意了，结束，对吗？ 
答：并且要求把钱转到 G-Clubs 的账户。 
问：正是这样。 
答：没有任何信息。 
问：正是这样。他们和你结束了，对吗？ 
答：再次说明，他们想要转账。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 46 / 127页 
问：你听清楚问题了吗？ 
答：是的，我听清楚了。 
问：他们和你结束了，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：顺便问一下，你为什么去仲裁？ 
答：为什么我要去？ 
问：是的。 
答：我不得不去。 
问：你不得不去是因为 G-Clubs不再和你做生意了，对吗？ 
答：我不得不去是因为 G-Clubs要求这笔钱，5000万。 
问：G-Clubs 说我们不再和你合作了，对吗？ 
答：因为我没有转账。 
问：无论原因是什么，先生，他们拒绝和你合作，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：问过并回答过了。 
法官说：问过并回答过了。继续。 
问：你去了仲裁，对吗？ 
 答：对。 
问：仲裁命令你将这 5600万退还给 G-Clubs，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你把所有的录音都提供给了三个仲裁员，他们命令你把 5600万退还给 G-Clubs？ 
莫里律师说：反对，问题复杂。 
法官说：你是否把录音提供给了仲裁员？ 
证人说：我的律师可能提供了，是的。 
法官说：只回答你知道的，不是可能发生的。 
证人说：我不知道。 
问：你去了仲裁，对吗？ 
答：我没有去。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 47 / 127页 
问：你没有去仲裁听证会？ 
答：哪一个？ 
问：任何仲裁听证会。 
答：第一次，没有。 
问：你完全没有去第一次听证会；这是你的证词吗？ 
答：第一次？ 
问：是的。 
答：我不记得了，不。 
 问：你不记得还是没有？ 
答：是视频会议还是面对面会议。不，我没有去。 
问：你没有去？ 
答：我不认为我去了。 
问：所以你公司的账户被关闭了，你没有去仲裁？ 
答：我的律师去了。 
问：对。但你没有去？ 
莫里律师说：问过并回答过了。 
法官说：反对有效。 
施洛夫律师说：我只是想弄清楚。 
法官说：你问过他是否去了。他回答了。继续。 
问：你去了第二次听证会；这是你的证词吗？ 
答：是的，我参加了。 
问：在那次听证会上，还是有相同的录音，对吗？ 
答：再次说明，我不记得他们提供了哪些录音。 
问：好的。你记得任何录音吗？ 
答：我记得任何录音吗？ 
问：是的。任何在这次审判中的录音，你记得它们是仲裁的一部分吗？ 
答：任何？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 48 / 127页 
问：是的，任何。 
答：也许一两个，是的。 
  问：也许一两个？ 
法官说：我不想让你猜。我想要你陈述你知道的。 
证人说：至少一个，是的。 
问：你在仲裁中有 5600万加上 2%的费用待决。这是正确的说法吗？ 
答：你能重复你的问题吗？ 
问：当然。你在仲裁中有 5600万和 2%的费用待决，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：仲裁可能对你有利，也可能对 G-Clubs 有利，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：可以说你在仲裁中是一个有利益相关的一方，对吗？ 
答：不是为了那 5600万，不是。 
问：你对那 5600万不感兴趣？ 
答：一点也不。 
问：因为那不是会产生 2%费用的金额。你对那一点也不感兴趣，这是你的证词吗？ 
答：我对保留那 5600万不感兴趣，不。 
问：你在那笔钱上赚取了 2%的费用，对吗？ 
答：在那时？ 
问：我没问你在那时候，先生。 
答：我还是会说，在那时—— 
法官说：请让他回答。 
施洛夫律师说：我认为他回答错了问题。这是我的问题所在。我只是想确保问题
清楚。 
法官说：重复你的问题。 
施洛夫律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
问：Crane收取的 2%费用是基于多少金额计算的？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 49 / 127页 
答：基于清算金额。 
问：你清算了多少？ 
答：当时大约是 9700万。 
问：这 9700万是从 Crane账户清算的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：Crane账户里的金额越大，你清算的金额就越大，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你清算的金额越大，你的费用就越高，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：作为你律师与你所说的 G-Clubs讨论保留付款便利账户的谈判的一部分，Crane建议
如果账户不保留，你会将资金发送到纽约州的无人认领资金办公室，对吗？ 
答：可能提到过，是的。 
问：他们仍然没有与你保留付款便利协议，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：是 G-Clubs提出仲裁通知的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：有三位仲裁员，对吗？ 
答：我不记得确切的数量。 
问：仲裁员发现没有洗钱风险，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。我们可以边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场
或陪审团休息时讨论这个问题吗。 
法官说：反对有效。请上前。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场） 
莫里律师说：法官大人，仲裁员的决定是基于与本次审判不同的信息。暗示仲裁
小组的任何发现和他们以完全不同的方式考虑的任何证据会对施洛夫律师试图引入的问题
产生影响，这会严重混淆陪审团，让他们认为G-Clubs 是一个合法的业务，并且事实上一
个司法小组发现了这一点。这是不同的证据，可能会产生极大的偏见，不应该被引入。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 50 / 127页 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，这不正是政府试图通过询问这个证人是否认为 Ana 
Izquierdo或 Limarie Reyes 在仲裁过程中撒谎来做的事情吗？这就是他们试图做的事
情。我只是询问他理解的仲裁员的发现。这完全是同一件事情。她试图表明仲裁结果是因
为 G-Clubs 的人撒了谎。我试图表明仲裁员有更多的信息而不仅仅是谎言。 
法官说：她没有提到仲裁。她没有说仲裁员基于那两名女性的谎言作出了决定。
这不是她的论点。你试图从这个证人那里获取仲裁员的法律结论，这是完全不合适的，我
不会允许。 
施洛夫律师说：我明白，法官大人。这不是法律结论。这是他作为 Crane 所有者
被告知的仲裁裁决。 
法官说：他被告知支付一定金额，这是一回事。另一回事是说仲裁员得出没有洗
钱的结论。这完全不同。 
施洛夫律师说：这是一个发现。 
法官说：不，没有发现。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，再次回到莫里律师在重定向时试图引出的问题，正是
这个。她试图表明唯一的——否则，证人对 Ana或 Limarie撒谎的印象有什么相关性呢？
它只是为了表明谎言导致了仲裁员的某个决定。这是合乎逻辑的结论。否则，为什么这甚
至是相关的？ 
法官说：仲裁员考虑了比这两位证人的证词更多的证据。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，无论如何，我不打算从哈立德先生那里引出关于这两位
证人的证词，所以这是一个无关紧要的问题。我们完全同意仲裁员的司法裁决不应该被引
入。 
根据提问的情况，我们可能会在审判结束时要求给陪审团指示，让他们知道应该给予这部
分证据的权重，如果有的话，但我们同意法官大人的意见，这不应该被引入。 
法官说：你也不打算从任何其他证人那里引出关于裁决的证词，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：对的。 
法官说：好吧。我们会进行到中午。 
施洛夫律师说：可以的。我还有一个问题，一个问题没有解决。我不太清楚反对
克兰寄给 G-Clubs 的信件的传闻反对理由是什么。 
法官说：他怎么能认证一封他不是作者的信件呢？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 51 / 127页 
施洛夫律师说：他可以说他不能认证，但他协助他的律师准备了它。他们的反对
理由是传闻，法官大人。 
莫里律师说：有几个理由。 
卡拉马珠律师说：传闻和相关性，以及不能认证。 
施洛夫律师说：这是在正常业务过程中保存的文件。它是由律师事务所寄给 G-
Clubs 的文件。G-Clubs 在正常业务过程中保存文件。 
  
法官说：他不是 G-Clubs 文件的保管者。 
施洛夫律师说：当然。但是他知道——而且他的律师是他的代理人，什么适用于
鹅就适用于鸭。律师是他的代理人，因此该文件可以被引入。 
莫里律师说：代理人适用于对方当事人规则。这是一个庭外陈述。而法官大人已
经对反对意见做出了裁定。她维持了反对。 
施洛夫律师说：实际上我说过，莫里律师，记录会显示，我当时不打算继续追问，
我会等到休息时间，因为我不想耽误诉讼进程。 
莫里律师说：我相信你说过你想边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场再次讨论
这个问题，但法官大人已经基于我们提出的理由维持了反对。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我不想—— 
法官说：她确实保留了对信件的争论权，所以我允许她这样做。 
莫里律师说：我们的疑问是它的相关性是什么，然后再次强调它是传闻。 
卡拉马珠律师说：这不是为了证明真实性而提供的，法官大人。这封信没有任何
说法描述了 PFA 的结构；因此，这就是 PFA 的结构。提供这封信的全部目的是为了补充
关于终止通知的故事。 
这位证人刚刚说他不在乎合同被终止。他的律师寄了一封信说，我们打算继续收
取我们的费用。因此，这封信的内容并不是为了证明其中的事实是真实的。如果法官大人
想指示陪审团，我们没有异议，但这就是它的相关性。其相关性在于，他们首先提到了仲
裁。这些是导致仲裁的事件。坦率地说，如果仲裁本身是相关的，我很难理解这怎么会不
相关。 
施洛夫律师说：我们没有提出仲裁。是政府提出的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 52 / 127页 
莫里律师说：仅仅几个回应。首先，这不是他的陈述。卡拉马珠律师说这是他关
于 Crane 打算做什么或不做什么的陈述。他没有提供信件。这是一个不同陈述人的庭外
陈述。 
法官说：你不质疑认证吗？ 
莫里律师说：质疑信件的认证吗？ 
法官说：对。 
莫里律师说：目前没有认证的基础。 
法官说：所以这是我的第一个问题。他如何认证别人的信件？ 
卡拉马珠律师说：如果他认得这封信，法官大人，在它被发送时他可以认证。这
种情况经常发生，对吧。就像你可以认证你不是作者的文件，如果你在发送前查看过它一
样。我们没有问到这一点——也许如果法官大人愿意，我们可以问这些问题，但我们没有
问到，因为他们的反对理由是传闻和相关性，这两者都不相关。我们可以尝试为认证奠定
基础，但我们没有理解这是反对的理由。 
施洛夫律师说：政府对沃伦律师事务所寄给 G-Clubs 的文件真实性提出异议也有
点令人惊讶，这是他们在发现过程中收到的文件，不仅从 G-Clubs，还有从沃伦律师事务
所。 
法官说：但他们没有提供它。 
莫里律师说：我们说的是这个证人不能认证。他在文件上或上面的邮件转发链中
没有被抄送。 
卡拉马珠律师说：在我们问问题之前我们不知道。 
法官说：然后我们有传闻问题。 
施洛夫律师说：这不是传闻。我们不是为了——我不想重复卡拉马珠律师所说的
话，但我很乐意让他重复。 
法官说：信上说了什么？ 
施洛夫律师说：信上说，请不要终止我们。我可以去拿吗？ 
法官说：好的。 
施洛夫律师说：谢谢。 
法官说：那么信上说了什么？ 
卡拉马珠律师说：信上，我有一份副本。信基本上概述了 G-Clubs不应终止 PFA
的原因，并解释了 Crane 的立场；例如，为什么 PFA 不授予他们终止的权利。借用政府

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 53 / 127页 
的一个说法，我们不是为了证明其真实性而提供它。事实上，我们是为了证明其虚假性，
这个立场政府经常采取，以说明某些东西不是传闻。这些内容我们不会说是真实的。例如，
我们不会说这张图显示了资金的去向。我们不同意这些对 G-Clubs 有利， 这些错误的陈
述，在我们看来，这份文件与传闻目的无关。它只是为了完成一个非传闻的目的，第二巡
回法院已经反复提到。它不是传闻问题。并与这位证人说的相反，他实际上试图保住
PFA，以便他可以继续赚取数百万美元的费用。这是引入信件的目的。这里没有一句话是
为了证明其真实性而提供的。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，有传闻规则的例外情况。这是一封冗长的信件。他们说
这既是为了完成故事也是为了质疑他。没有什么可以质疑的。他说他的律师在这些问题上
与 G-Clubs 接触。他说如果有更多的钱进入或保持在 Crane 账户中，他的费用会更高。
他说了所有这些。这封信没有任何质疑。这完全不合适引入。当然他们想要争辩并引入它
的真实性。否则就没有理由试图引入它。我听不到任何依据。 
卡拉马珠律师说：他作证说他想保留协议。对不起。他作证说他在 2021 年 7 月
不关心保留 PFA。 
施洛夫律师说：他实际上说我在那时想终止它。我问他在什么时候，他说他不在
乎。他想终止它。 
法官说：我不记得那个证词。我必须回去看看记录。在此期间，我们不处理信件。
我想要一份信的副本， 
我们将继续其他问题。 
（在公开法庭） 
法官说：继续。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我请求跳到前面。 
问：哈立德先生，你在直接提问中作证时说，这里播放的录音是你随机选择的，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，误述他的证词。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你的证词是，没有真正的科学依据。这只是一些与转账和转账请求相关的随机电话，
以及我们在处理这笔钱时的管理电话，我可以录音。这是你的证词，对吗？ 
答：你能重复最后部分吗？ 
问：只是一些随机的电话？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 54 / 127页 
法官说：这个问题有些混乱，因为不清楚你是问播放的录音是否是随机选择的，
还是他录音时是随机进行的。你能澄清一下吗？ 
问：先生，你记得昨天作证吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你记得被问到这个问题并给出了这个答案吗？这是昨天的记录，2003 页，第九到第
十三行。你是如何选择要录的电话的。 
回答，没有真正的科学依据。这只是一些与转账和转账请求相关的随机电话，以
及我们在处理这笔钱时的管理电话，我可以录音。你记得被问到这个问题并给出了这个答
案吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：上面这句话“这些只是随机电话”并不完全正确，对吗？ 
答：你是什么意思？ 
问：你决定录哪些电话，对吗？ 
答：对，我决定。 
问：你决定不录哪些电话，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你决定什么时候开始录音，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你决定什么时候停止录音，对吗？ 
答：大多数电话在谈话结束时自动停止，大家说再见的时候。 
问：我们来看政府证物 411，我不会播放全部，只播放最后 20秒左右。（播放媒
体） 
问：她在说话中途，对吗？是 Ana，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：录音停止了，对吗？ 
答：这是个故障。 
问：对不起。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 55 / 127页 
答：它没有停止。它继续了。是有暂停吗？我不知道。 
问：我们可以再播放一遍给他听。 
法官说：这个录音是否在那里结束了，有争议吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：是的。这是我的问题。 
法官说：政府是否承认录音在那里结束了？ 
莫里律师说：是的，法官大人。那是音频录音的结束。 
问：所以 Ana 在说话中途，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：录音停止了，对吗？ 
答：我想是的。 
问：你是唯一一个录音的人，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：我们来看政府证物 417。我不会播放它，但你记得那次对话。你昨天作证时提到王雁
平把遥控器扔向电视机的那次对话，对吗？ 
答：你可以播放它。 
问：好的。你记得那次对话的一部分，我认为是在—— 
（播放媒体） 
问：你记得这个录音吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你记得在这个录音中，当他们找到正确的部分时，你记得王女士说在任何资金转移之
前，问题应该提交给董事会，对吗？你记得吗？ 
答：是的，在记录中。 
问：对不起。 
答：在记录中，是的。 
问：记录是录音的文字记录，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你查看了那个记录的准确性，因为莫里律师确保你去查看了，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 56 / 127页 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。我认为施洛夫律师提到的部分是中文，而我们已
经确定哈立德先生不懂中文。 
施洛夫律师说：那不是我在问的部分。 
法官说：你之前提到的是王女士的陈述。现在你指的是什么？ 
施洛夫律师说：我仍然指的是王女士的陈述。这就是为什么我不理解反对的原因。 
法官说：那么你说的陈述是用英语说的吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：是的。我只是想指给他看，而不是重放整个录音。 
法官说：那么你认为是用英语说的陈述是哪句？ 
问：王女士在这个电话中对你说英语，对吗？ 
答：在这个电话中，是的。 
问：她说，这个问题应该提交给董事会，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对。我们可以看看施洛夫律师所说的文件或录音的实际部分吗？ 
法官说：你能指引我们到她据称说那句话的部分吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：好的，法官大人。请给我一分钟时间。法官大人，找到需要一些
时间。 
法官说：也许你可以问其他问题。 
问：你记得在这个电话中讨论过何先生吗？ 
答：你指的是哪个何先生？ 
问：你知道一个叫何先生的人吗？ 
答：何浩然？ 
问：是的。 
答：我不认为他在这个电话中，不。 
莫里律师说：我们反对。那部分是中文的。 
施洛夫律师说：我有文字记录。是 417。 
问：你面前有昨天的文字记录吗，先生？在你的记录本中，第 22页？ 
法官说：是哪一通电话？ 
施洛夫律师说：417-T，第 22页。 
答：对不起。我这里没有 417。 
法官说：在开始的地方。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 57 / 127页 
问：你看。屏幕上有，先生。 
法官说：所以你在第 22页？ 
问：你看到王女士建议你肯定需要通知董事会了吗？何先生说，你肯定需要通知董事会，
对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：第 22页上何先生在哪里？ 
施洛夫律师说：Y-U。 
莫里律师说：那是余建明，J-E。 
施洛夫律师问：是余建明在说话。 
答：完全不同的人。 
问：好的，抱歉。是余建明，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：如果我可以在记录中指出，法官大人，我们的反对。斜体字表示中
文。这在第一页上注明了。我们昨天听了。这是一致的。施洛夫律师现在提问的所有问题
都是中文部分。 
 施洛夫律师说：对。这就是为什么我通过现在作为证据的第 22页的翻译来问。 
法官说：你提到的部分是于先生，也就是余建明。对吗？ 
施洛夫律师问：是余建明，对吗？你看到了吗？ 
答：我看到了。 
问：昨天向你展示了这个翻译和文字记录，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你看到王雁平说，对，我已经把所有 G-Clubs 公司的文件发给你了。你可以找到它
们。应该还是——余建明本人，他自己？ 
莫里律师说：反对，反对证人的陈述。 
法官说：你是说这是王雁平的陈述。对吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：我在说文件上的内容。 
法官说：所以在“王雁平”这个词旁边有一句话。这不是证人的陈述。是王雁平的
陈述，对吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：对，是王雁平对哈立德先生在电话中说的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 58 / 127页 
莫里律师说：这是用中文说的，法官大人。 
法官说：电话中有很多人。 
施洛夫律师说：对，完全正确。文件作为证据说明了电话中的所有人，所以如果
我可以回到前面。 
答：她是在用中文跟我说话？ 
问：你能回到第 21页。根据文字记录，因为是斜体字，王雁平在说中文，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对“根据你”。 
法官说：文字记录显示斜体字是中文，所以是根据文字记录。 
问：好的，是中文，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问��如果你继续浏览文件，这就是王雁平在电话中所说的翻译，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：王雁平是在说中文，对吗，我的意思是普通话，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：她和郭文贵在说话，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你在电话中，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：根据你的说法，我只是想弄清楚，你在录音的电话中完全不理解正在发生的事情？ 
莫里律师说：这是误述。 
法官说：你会说中文吗？ 
证人说：不会，法官大人。 
法官说：在电话中他们说普通话时你能听懂吗？ 
证人说：不能，法官大人。 
法官说：请继续。 
问：在电话结束后，你和任何人讨论过这次互动吗？ 
答：和 Alex讨论过。 
问：除了 Alex，你还和其他人讨论过吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 59 / 127页 
答：没有。 
问：和王女士讨论过吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你为了准备在这里的证词，已经查看过这段录音的翻译，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在翻译中没有显示郭文贵在这个电话中说过不需要向董事会报告，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，证据本身说明。 
法官说：反对有效，关于它没有说什么的问题。你是要求证人查看整个记录以搜
索郭文贵是否做过某个陈述吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：是的，我确实是这么认为的。而且我认为他已经多次查看过这个
记录。 
法官说：那么我们现在必须给他机会查看，除非他有记忆。你是否记得郭文贵是
否做过那个陈述？ 
证人说：不记得。 
施洛夫律师说：我很乐意在午餐休息后回到这个问题，或许证人可以在午餐休息
期间查看。 
法官说：不，证人不要求在午餐休息期间查看文件。 
施洛夫律师说：我只是说或许。我很乐意在这里等。这取决于法庭。 
法官说：那么你的证词是你不记得郭文贵是否做过那个陈述？ 
证人说：不记得。 
法官说：你不记得。继续。 
问：在这个电话之后，你知道余建明的建议是否被采纳了吗？ 
答：不知道。 
问：你知道王雁平建议的去董事会的解决方案是否被采纳了吗？ 
 答：还是不知道。 
问：你同意这是一次相当激烈的对话，对吗？ 
答：你这话是什么意思？ 
问：这是一次激烈的对话，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 60 / 127页 
答：在最后，是的。 
问：而其中有些部分你不理解，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：这次对话也涉及到你，对吗？ 
答：与 G-Clubs无关，不。 
问：你在这次对话中是个无关紧要的旁观者吗？ 
答：是的，他们在讨论 G-Clubs 的转账。 
问：那与你有关吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：那你为什么留在电话中？ 
答：他们让我参与电话。 
问：如果这与你无关，为什么要录音？ 
答：我在电话中。我不知道会讨论什么。 
问：好的。你不知道会讨论什么，但你还是录了音？ 
答：是的。 
问：录制完之后，你对内容完全没有好奇吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：昨天你作证说到你在 Saraca 的第一周，还记得吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你说那是在疫情期间？你是在疫情期间开始工作的，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：你还说到东 64街办公室当时人很少，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：那时候你还在为花旗银行工作，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：你在这两个工作上都有在线到场，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 61 / 127页 
答：你什么意思？ 
问：你要通过 Zoom 在花旗银行上班，对吧？ 
答：不，我的工作描述不是那样的。 
问：我只是问，因为那是疫情期间，先生。 
答：我理解，但那不是……在线上班，不需要。 
问：花旗银行期望你在那七小时里做什么？ 
答：那时候我们在处理 PPP。 
问：为花旗银行？ 
答：是的，为花旗银行。我们在帮助小企业获得疫情资金，所以全体动员。 
问：好的，但那是你的工作，对吧？ 
答：是的。 
问：直到你在 10 月 30 日辞职，对吧？ 
答：我记得我是在 10 月 1 日辞职的。 
问：你确定是 10 月 1 日吗？ 
答：我不太确定是 10 月 1 日。我记得是在 10 月初。 
问：你和莫里女士会面时有复习过这个事实吗？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：你不记得你辞职的日期吗？这是你工作了四年的工作。 
莫里律师说：抗议，这个问题已经回答过了，法官大人。 
法官说：抗议有效。 
问：在花旗银行工作，你必须登录，对吧？ 
答：不一定。 
问：不登录怎么访问账户？ 
答：我在客户关系部门，我的工作需要与客户交谈。 
问：发邮件？ 
答：是的。 
问：发邮件需要登录花旗银行的网络吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 62 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：你不能用 Gmail做花旗银行的工作，对吧？ 
答：你可以用手机发邮件。 
问：可以用手机发邮件，但只能通过你的花旗银行邮箱，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：所以你必须登录你的花旗银行账户，对吧？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以可以说，你在所谓的双重计费期间，不希望花旗银行知道你在为 Saraca工作，
对吧？ 
答：不。 
问：那不公平吗？ 
答：我不希望他们知道。 
问：所以你要同时应对两个雇主的工作，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：那你去东 64街的时候怎么做花旗银行的工作？ 
答：用手机和笔记本电脑。 
问：用谁的手机？ 
答：我的手机。 
问：哪部手机？ 
答：我的手机。 
问：是你的私人手机？是花旗银行给的手机，还是 Saraca给的手机？ 
答：不，有一个应用程序是花旗银行邮件的，在我的私人手机上。 
问：所以你用花旗银行的应用程序接花旗银行的电话？ 
答：邮件，像是邮件。你的具体问题是什么？ 
问：我的问题是，当花旗银行的客户打电话给你时，你是怎么处理的？ 
答：我会接听。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 63 / 127页 
问：如果你正在与郭先生或王女士或 Alex H开会，怎么办？ 
答：我会回电。 
问：你会回电？ 
答：是的。 
问：所以你会判断哪个更重要，是花旗银行的问题还是 Saraca 的问题？ 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：当然。如果花旗银行的客户在你与 Saraca开会时打电话给你，你会怎么优先处理？ 
答：如果我在开会，我会回电给客户。 
问：如果你在与花旗银行客户通话，而王雁平或郭文贵打电话给你，你会优先处理花旗银
行的通话，然后再处理郭文贵的电话？ 
答：可能吧。 
问：你不确定，对吗？ 
答：看情况。 
问：你没有为花旗银行记时间表，对吗？ 
答：我不需要记。 
问：我理解。但你同时做两份工作，对吧？ 
答：对，但没有时间表。我不需要在任何一份工作上报到或离开。 
问：对。对你没有任何要求，对吧，这就是你能同时为两家公司工作的原因？ 
莫里律师说：反对。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：所以，我没有两份工作的时间表。因此没有九点到五点的工作时间表。如果你问的是
这个时间表的话。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，这不是我的问题。 
法官说：这是一个关于是否有要求的问题，然后是一个关于是否可以双重计费的
问题。 
施洛夫律师说：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 64 / 127页 
法官说：他已经回答了是否有要求的问题，现在你可以回答是否可以双重计费的
问题。 
施洛夫律师说： 
问：因为没有时间要求？ 
答：我没有计费。这不是计费。这是工资。 
问：你在兑现支票，对吧？ 
答：是的。 
问：为了什么？ 
答：为了工作。 
问：对。所以我问你，你是如何在一天内完成 14小时的工作的？ 
答：就像我说的，这不是按小时计算的，所以我完成了两份工作的要求。我参加了所有需
要参加的会议。 
问：你参加了所有的会议。如果花旗银行的会议和 Saraca 的会议时间冲突，你参加了两
个会议？ 
莫里律师说：反对。这不是他的证词。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：从来没有发生过两个会议同时进行的情况。 
问：你从花旗银行辞职时，你是因为调查而被解雇的，对吗？ 
答：我辞职了。辞职是在解雇之前。你不能在辞职后被解雇。我不明白你说什么。 
问：你辞职了，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：花旗银行必须接受你的辞职，对吧？ 
答：对。 
问：花旗银行必须决定你是否以良好的声誉辞职，对吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：好。花旗银行必须决定是否给予你的养老金，对吧？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 65 / 127页 
问：让我这样问。如果花旗银行发现你在为一家花旗银行关闭账户的公司工作，你认为花
旗银行会给你养老金吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。这是猜测，没有个人知识。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：花旗银行有一项政策，对吧，人在辞职后要么接受要么不接受辞职？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：你不知道？ 
答：对，我不知道。 
问：你是怎么辞职的？ 
答：我给我的经理发了邮件。 
问：你给你的经理发了邮件，花旗银行有回应吗？ 
答：有。 
问：你记得他们有没有告诉你，你因调查而被解雇？ 
答：没有。 
问：你不记得了？ 
答：不记得。 
问：先生，你有和花旗银行的离职面谈吗？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：你记得有没有向花旗银行透露，在你为花旗银行工作时，你也在为 Saraca工作？ 
答：没有。 
法官说：稍等一下。 
（暂停） 
法官说：继续。 
问：你在直接询问中作证说，在你在 Saraca 的第一周，你在处理花旗银行的问题并试图
为 Saraca 和 GTV找到一个账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：当你说处理花旗银行的问题时是什么意思？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 66 / 127页 
答：我还在试图了解账户的状态，王雁平如何收到被困在花旗银行的余额支票。 
问：在花旗银行，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：那时你在花旗银行处理的是谁？ 
答：James Song 
施洛夫律师说： 
问：James Song，对吧？所以 James Song是你的同事，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：James Song是否理解你是以 Saraca 员工的身份联系他，还是他认为你是以花旗银
行员工的身份在解决这些银行账户的问题？ 
答：所以—— 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：所以当我在八月份开始—— 
问：开始在哪里？ 
答：在 Saraca，账户已经关闭了。 
问：好的。 
答：所以我说处理花旗银行的问题是指接收支票并为他们开设一个新账户。 
问：好的。所以你刚才说的不再是和 James Song谈论账户的事情了。 
答：不是关于账户的，不是。 
问：好的。让我回到你昨天的证词，可以吗？你说你在处理花旗银行的问题。你能告诉我
你在花旗银行和谁一起处理这个问题吗？ 
答：所以我在和 Aaron 联系，确保我们收到小额支票或者—— 
问：Aaron 是谁？ 
答：Aaron Mitchell—— 
问：Aaron Mitchell不在花旗银行。 
答：是的，正确。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 67 / 127页 
问：对。我的问题是—— 
莫里律师说：反对。这曲解了他的证词。 
法官说：让他回答完。 
你刚才在说。 
答：所以我从 Aaron那里得到支票，这些是花旗银行的被阻止支票的收益。这就是我说
的。 
问：你说处理花旗银行的问题，对吗？ 
法官说：当你说处理花旗银行的问题时，你是什么意思？ 
证人说：被阻止并关闭的花旗银行账户的钱，他们有支票。我相信这些支票是在
8 月 1 日之前签发的。 
问：支票还在花旗银行吗？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：钱还在花旗银行吗？ 
答：我——我真的不记得了。我不记得，不。 
问：你不记得。 
答：不记得。 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。已经问过并回答过了。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你有没有和花旗银行的人开会，解决这些支票的问题？ 
答：没有。 
问：你有没有打电话给花旗银行，解决这些支票的问题？ 
答：没有。 
问：王女士没有告诉你，打电话给你的前银行，问他们为什么这些支票没有清算，你曾经
在那里工作过对不对？ 
答：那——那是在 8 月 1 日之前。 
问：不管是 8 月 1 日之前还是之后，当王女士告诉你时—— 
答：不，这是一个大——

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 68 / 127页 
问：——她以为你已经离开花旗银行了，对吗？ 
答：不。 
问：她认为你还在花旗银行工作？ 
答：她知道我还在花旗银行工作。你能让我看一下短信的日期吗？你有日期吗？ 
问：你在 Saraca 的第一周是什么时候？具体日期是什么？ 
答：我相信是 8 月 1 日。 
问：所以 8 月 1 日，你告诉王女士你在做两份工作；这是你今天的证词吗？ 
答：所以她问我是否在七月辞职，当我接受工作邀约，我什么时候可以开始。她让我尽快
开始。 
施洛夫律师说：我提议删除这段话。 
法官说：反对有效。 
答：好的。你的问题是什么？ 
施洛夫律师说：请读一下他的问题。 
（记录读出） 
答：不。8 月 1 日，她——我没有告诉她，不。 
问：好的。所以在你的第一周，王女士在和你谈论花旗银行的支票被冻结了，对吗？ 
答：她让我找另一家银行，是的。 
问：她在问你关于被冻结的支票，对吗？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：那些被花旗银行阻止的支票里有多少钱？ 
答：2亿美元。 
问：她想解冻那 2亿美元；这样说对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：你可以回答这个问题。 
答：我确定她想，是的。 
问：雇用前花旗银行员工的主要目的是为了他们可以帮助解决被花旗银行扣押的 2亿美
元，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 69 / 127页 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你是因为在花旗银行的经验而被雇用的，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。他不知道。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你是否做了任何努力，想从花旗银行拿回那 2亿美元？ 
答：我没有——我没有负责这个。我只是从 John——从 James那里得到更新。 
问：你得到更新。当你得到这些更新时，你有没有告诉他，嘿，伙计，我现在在 Saraca
工作了，我们一起喝一杯吧？ 
答：我不记得了。 
问：对不起。我说错了，不是 2百万，是 2亿美元在花旗银行，对吗？ 
答：我相信是的，是 2亿美元。 
问：现在你刚才作证说你在试图寻找其他银行。这是你的证词吗？我不想弄错。你告诉
我。你在第一周还做了什么？ 
答：安顿下来，邮件，弄清楚电话，工资；其中一件事是，他们需要一个新银行账户。 
问：好。你不是在做工资单，对吗？ 
答：对不起？ 
问：你不是在那里做工资单，对吗？ 
答：不，不，是设置我的工资单，这样我才能拿到工资。 
问：好的。这花了整个星期，还是只是部分时间？ 
答：我不记得具体的时间。不。 
问：好的。你在试图寻找其他银行，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。你还记得 G-Clubs 是在 2020 年 10 月启动的吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你想为 G-Clubs找到不同的银行做生意；这样说对吗？ 
答：不。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 70 / 127页 
问：你联系了——你告诉我。你联系了哪些银行？ 
答：我在试图为 Saraca 和 GTV开设账户。 
问：对。但在哪里？ 
答：我相信是普林斯顿银行和签名银行。 
问：你是怎么确定普林斯顿银行和签名银行的？ 
答：什么意思？ 
问：对不起？ 
答：什么意思？ 
问：有很多银行，对吧？你是怎么选择普林斯顿银行和签名银行的？ 
答：我有联系。 
问：好的。 
答：在这两家银行都有联系。 
问：好的。所以你联系了你的联系人，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你通过 GTV或 Saraca 的电子邮件地址联系了你的联系人，对吗？ 
答：或者是私人邮箱。我不确定。 
问：好的。然后你和普林斯顿银行和签名银行的人谈过，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：这是在八月份，对吗？ 
答：我相信是的。 
问：那是你在那里的第一周，对吗？ 
答：八月份，是的，那是我的第一周。 
问：对。所以当你和普林斯顿银行谈论开设这些银行账户时，你是以 Saraca 员工的身份
介绍自己的，对吗？ 
答：可能是吧。 
问：你不确定？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 71 / 127页 
答：对，我不记得我是怎么开始的邮件，或者信息什么的。 
问：那么现在坐在这里，你不知道你是告诉普林斯顿银行，你在花旗银行工作，试图让我
的客户 Saraca 在普林斯顿银行开账户，还是告诉普林斯顿银行，我现在在 Saraca工
作，我想在你们银行开账户？ 
莫里律师说：反对。已经问过并回答过了。 
施洛夫律师说：我认为我没有问过关于普林斯顿银行的问题。 
法官说：你是以一个实体的员工身份自我介绍的吗？ 
证人说：我不记得，在那 
法官说：好。我们现在要暂停午餐时间。你们将在 12:30回来。记住不要在自己
之间或与任何人讨论这个案子。不要让任何人在你们面前讨论这个案子。同时我也希望你
们考虑我提出的下周四天的建议。周三你们休息，我想知道你们是否可以在 9:30到 1:00
之间来上班，中间有一个小时的休息时间到 2:00，然后从 2:00到 5:00。不要观看、收听
或阅读任何与此案有关的任何内容。 
（陪审团不在场） 
法官说：先生，你可以出去。不要讨论你的证词。 
（证人不在场） 
法官说：我想要一份相关信件的副本。 
卡马拉珠律师说：我这里有，法官大人。我马上递上来。 
法官说：请坐。 
辩方声称，这封 2021 年 7月 11 日由Warren 法律集团写给 Limarie Reyes Molinaris 的
这封信并不是为了证明所声称事项的真实性，这是你的立场吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：是的，法官大人。 
法官说：那么你的立场是它被提出的目的是什么？ 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我让卡马拉珠先生来处理这个问题，因为我从旁听席
出来了，不想重复，如果法院允许的话。 
卡马拉珠律师说：这封信被提出有两个目的，法官大人。一是为了完成有关导致仲裁事件
的叙述，政府提及了这一点；二是为了反驳证人的证词，他声称此时此刻他不想继续留在 
PFA。 
法官说：政府有什么要补充的吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 72 / 127页 
莫里律师说：是的，法官大人。关于完成叙述这一点，你不能仅仅说某物完成了
叙述就能让它成立。要证明这完成了叙述就是为了证明其真实性，这是不允许的。 
另外，关于所谓的反驳，证人并没有否认信中所说的内容。他也没有否认他的律师在进行
关于 PFA 的讨论。信中没有任何内容——这封信不是他写的，他也没有被抄送，也没有
收到——能与他在证人席上的发言有关，当然也无法反驳他所说的任何内容。 
法官说：所以我理解辩方的意思是他在证词中说——我不记得了——在这封信写
的时候他不想继续留在 PFA中；我理解正确吗？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：这是我对证词的记忆，法官大人，是的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人—— 
莫里律师说：这是—— 
卡马拉珠律师说：还有——对不起。 
莫里律师说：这是关于他律师对正在进行的合同争议的看法。这不是他们对证人
提出的问题，他回答了那个问题。这完全是一个与双方之间的法律谈判有关的事情。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，Sharonda女士同意在午休时查看她的记录并给我页
面编号。我很乐意给法院发一封电子邮件，并抄送给政府。 
法官说：你声称这是证人何时做出的声明？ 
施洛夫律师说：我认为他今天早上作证了。 
法官说：今天早上？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：是今天早上，法官大人。今天早上通过施洛夫律师的交叉询问首次提到
这封信。他说在那个时候他想要退出 PFA，这是这封信中讨论的法律合同，不是其他的
合同。施洛夫律师特别问他在那个时间点——我在概述问题，我们有记录——在那个时间
点，他说 2021 年 7月，也就是信件的时间。他还作证说律师是按照他的指示行事的。实
际上，他是在回答施洛夫律师的问题时说的，我相信也回答了法院的问题。 
法官说：所以你的立场是这封信与他的声明相矛盾，因为它表明他在 2021 年 7
月时希望继续留在 PFA中。 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的，法官大人。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，这不是他的声明。他在作证时做了一个声明。这是他关
于自己想要或不想要什么的声明。这是一份法律谈判文件，反映了双方之间的谈判。他不

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 73 / 127页 
是其中的一方。如果这是适当的反驳，他们就不需要说这是为了完成叙述。事实上，他们
说这是为了完成关于 PFA谈判时间线的叙述，就是为了证明其真实性。这是不允许的。 
法官说：你为什么认为他们是为了证明其真实性而提出的？ 
莫里律师说：因为他们试图将这份文件引入案件，以便他们可以在其他目的上使
用它。 
法官说：你认为他们想在其他目的上使用它是为了什么？ 
莫里律师说：我不知道。我预计他们会在结案陈词中使用它。我认为他们会指出
这份文件的不同方面，包括关于 G-Clubs 和 G-Clubs运作的不同陈述，继续 PFA或取消
PFA 对 G-Clubs 的好处。 
卡马拉珠律师说：不，法官大人。 
法官说：那么你们具体想要这封信的哪些部分出示，出示的具体目的是什么？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：我们希望这封信出示，表明你的律师对终止通知的回应，并表明 Crane
和他的公司在 2021 年 7月时希望留在 PFA中。我们不同意信中任何内容的真实性。 
法官说：信中是否有部分表达了 Crane希望留在 PFA中的愿望？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的。例如，法官大人，我认为即使是关于 G-Clubs 继续留在 PFA中
的好处，我们也不认为这些是真的，但我们认为这是试图说服 G-Clubs 继续留在 PFA中
的尝试。 
莫里律师说：这是解释的问题。 
卡马拉珠律师说：陪审团可以做出解释。 
莫里律师说：他们没有回答法院的问题。 
法官说：这些律师非常有能力说明他们是否在敦促对方取消协议。 
卡马拉珠律师说：是的，法官大人，我认为如果法官看这封信，很明显这些熟练的律师直
接试图诱使 G-Clubs不要终止协议。这封信的整个目的是对终止通知的回应。它不是一
个说是的，我们同意被终止的回应。这是一个说不要因为 X、Y 和 Z原因终止的回应。我
们不会向陪审团争辩 X、Y 和 Z原因是准确的；事实上，这与我们的论点相反。这是同样
的原因——当政府说，我们提出这份文件是为了证明其虚假性时，这不是传闻，同样的概
念。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 74 / 127页 
莫里律师说：这根本不是反驳，法官大人。你问卡马拉珠先生，他要指出信的哪
些部分来反驳证人，他回答了两个声明——或两个他试图作为所谓反驳提出的事实。首
先，他可以在不参考这封信的情况下提出这些问题，不需要引入这封四页的信。无论如
何，他指出的段落不是适当的反驳。没有反驳的依据。这个证人没有否认信中反映的任何
内容，即使他否认了，这也不是反驳他的方式。 
法官说：好的。我会看这封信。我们 12:30回来。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，只是为了时间安排考虑，今天早上交叉询问已经进行了
两个半小时。我只想问施洛夫律师还需要多长时间。 
法官说：施洛夫律师？ 
霍顿律师：法官大人，我要播放他——其中一个通话的视频，因为他们想要播放通话。我
不知道。老实说，我有点混乱。我不知道。也许一个小时？ 
法官说：我希望你在提问时高效。 
我们 12:30再见。 
（午休）

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 75 / 127页 
下午庭审 
时间：12点 
 
（陪审团不在场） 
法官说：请坐。 
我要请证人出去。 
（证人不在场） 
法官说：首先，政府提到有一个仲裁问题，并且在直接询问中确立了 G-Clubs 对
Crane提出了某些金钱索赔，最终在 Reyes Molinaris 和 Izquierdo 的证词之后，裁决对
G-Clubs 有利。我回顾了昨天证人的证词，并提请注意施洛夫律师的问题，从“你希望终
止与 Crane 的合同吗？”到“他们从来没有和你终结，对吗？”以及他对这两个问题的回
答，还有中间的所有内容。我认为陪审团留下的印象是证人和 Crane试图与 G-Clubs保
持距离，但这封信与此相矛盾。它显示 Crane试图保持这段关系。因此，只要这封信能
被认证，我将允许它作为证据。 
让证人回来。 
（证人在场） 
法官说：请让陪审员进来。 
（陪审团在场） 
法官说：请坐。 
各位陪审员，我原本打算在 12:30叫你们回来，但发生了一些事情，不是各方或我本人
的过错，所以我为延迟道歉。 
你可以继续提问了。 
施洛���律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
施洛夫律师提问： 
问：先生，你熟悉 G-Clubs，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：作为你的工作职责的一部分，你从未被要求设计任何 G-Clubs 的网站，对吗？ 
答：我个人设计吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 76 / 127页 
问：是的。 
答：我有不同的任务，所以可能会是审查 G-Clubs网站。 
问：你不是网站设计团队的一员，对吗？ 
答：设计团队？ 
问：是的。 
答：不是。 
问：你不是 G-Clubs 的营销团队成员，对吗？ 
答：不是，正式来说不是。 
问：你非正式地也不是 G-Clubs营销的任何一部分，对吗？ 
答：我参与了一些项目，一些任务。 
问：什么项目？说一个你为 G-Clubs营销的项目。 
答：比如说，G 峰会。 
问：好的。你为 G 峰会做了营销？ 
答：不是营销，而是看了，看了地点。 
问：哪个地点？ 
答：他们将举办 G 峰会的地点。 
问：你看了哪个地点？ 
答：波多黎各的一家酒店。 
问：所以你去波多黎各的酒店考察了 G 峰会的可能场地？ 
答：是的。 
问：你还为 G-Clubs 的营销做了什么？ 
答：就像我说的，小任务。这是工作的一部分，小任务帮助——彦平曾经请我帮忙，关于
G-Clubs 的事情。 
问：你参与了 G Fashion吗？ 
答：只是财务方面。 
问：你在设计 G Fashion网站上没有扮演任何角色，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 77 / 127页 
答：可能是结账，在线结账流程。 
问：你帮助—— 
答：他们需要——是的，他们需要——他们需要有人帮助他们创建一个商家。 
问：所以你帮助他们为 G Fashion创建了一个商家？ 
答：我在试图为他们找到一个商户处理器。 
问：你找到了吗？ 
答：很难。我不记得他们是否得到了批准。 
施洛夫律师说：我申请删除这段话。 
问：我的问题是：先生，你找到了吗？ 
法官说：反对有效。这段被删除。请直接回答问题。 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：你找到了吗？ 
答：我找到了，是的。 
问：对不起？ 
答：我找到了。 
问：是谁？ 
答：我不记得名字了。 
问：好的。你帮助组织了 G-Clubs 的活动吗？ 
答：就像我说的，只是地点。 
问：你帮忙组织了一次汽车抽奖活动吗？ 
答：不，没直接参与。 
问：你在为 G-Clubs实际提供服务方面有任何角色吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你在直接询问中作证说 G-Clubs 有银行问题，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你作证说有些账户被关闭了，对吗？ 
答：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 78 / 127页 
问：有些账户被关闭是因为受到 OFAC 的打击，对吗？ 
答：有些账户，是的。 
问：OFAC 代表什么？ 
答：外国资产控制办公室。 
问：可以说，OFAC 有一份受到制裁的人的名单，对吗？ 
答：你能重复一下问题吗？ 
问：可以说，OFAC维护一份受到制裁的人的名单，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：银行不想与在 OFAC名单上的人做生意，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：有些汇款被标记为来自 OFAC名单上的人，但实际上不是，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在这些情况下，你和 Alex H所做的是证明这些汇款人不在 OFAC名单上，对吗？ 
答：我们要求提供身份证明、出生日期，正确。 
问：所以你可以告诉银行这些人实际上不在 OFAC名单上，对吗？ 
答：所以我们可以提供给银行，然后做出决定。 
问：你这么做了，对吧？你收集了身份证、护照照片或其他身份证明，并发送给银行，对
吗？ 
答：Alex做的。他负责 G-Clubs。 
问：他在邮件中抄送了你，对吗？ 
答：他可能有。 
问：他也转发了关于这个问题的邮件给你，对吗？ 
答：再次，他可能有。 
问：让我给你看标记为辩方证据 31189 的文件。 
问：你认得这个文件吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 79 / 127页 
问：这是发给你的邮件吗？ 
答：是的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，此时辩方提出将辩方证据编号 31189作为证据。我刚
刚忘了编号。但就是 31189。 
法官说：有异议吗？ 
莫里律师说：有，反对，传闻。 
法官说：请上前。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场） 
法官说：这是证人发给 Alex H 的邮件，其中证人说明了几个人的个人身份信息。
你以传闻为理由反对？ 
莫里律师说：是的，法官大人。这是为了证明这些人是否在 OFAC名单上，这就
是被告，或证人，抱歉，发送给其他人的相关性。显然，这不属于任何例外情况。它与他
的心理状态无关。完成叙述不是传闻例外，如果辩方打算以此为理由引入它。这没有正当
理由。 
施洛夫律师说：我们只是表明这是一个讨论的话题。我们没有任何—— 
法官说：他已经作证说这是一个讨论的话题。所以—— 
施洛夫律师说：而且信息从负责 G-Clubs 的 Alex H流向负责银行业务的哈立德
先生，然后他将信息发送给银行。我们没有兴趣说明这些人是否在 OFAC名单上，也不
打算讨论这些人是否在 OFAC名单上。我们只是想表明有些人被指称在 OFAC名单上，
他们发送这些信息是为了表明他们并没有恶意。 
法官说：我以为这是证人发给 Alex H 的邮件。我错了吗？是 Alex H发给证人的
吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：有两封。一封是 Alex H发给这位先生的。他收到了，因为他负责
银行业务。然后他转发了邮件。 
莫里律师说：施洛夫律师所说的所有事实已经通过证词确立。这是双重传闻，证
人在回应 Alex H。显然，违背了陈述，他们试图利用它来证明其真实性，或者至少会混
淆陪审团，不管是否为证明其真实性引入，法院有义务排除它，特别是在没有传闻例外的
情况下。 
卡马拉珠律师说：首先，法院没有义务排除可接受的证据。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 80 / 127页 
其次，如果他们继续说我们做了不真实的陈述，是有记录的。他们可以在总结时反对，法
官大人可以裁决。 
但我要说的第三点是，没有证据规则说因为证人作证了某件事，另一方不能提供更多证据
来支持它。这就是为什么政府—— 
法官说：那累积证据呢？ 
卡马拉珠律师说：这是一个邮件，法官大人。我看不出一个邮件怎么会—— 
法官说：我不允许它作为证据。 
卡马拉珠律师说：好的。 
（回到公开法庭上） 
施洛夫律师提问： 
问：Alex H向你提供了据称在 OFAC名单上的人的个人信息，对吗？ 
答：你说的个人信息是什么意思？ 
问：护照，身份证。 
答：护照。 
问：然后你会将这些信息转发给银行，对吗？ 
答：要么是我，要么是 Alex，是的。 
问：这也是你正常工作职责的一部分，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：顺便问一下，你知道郭文贵是否在 OFAC名单上吗？ 
答：不确定。 
问：你说你为郭文贵工作，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你没弄清楚郭文贵是否在 OFAC名单上？ 
莫里律师说：法官大人，这个问题已经问过并回答过了。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你知道郭文贵有一份国际刑警红色通缉令吗？ 
答：不知道。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 81 / 127页 
问：作为你工作职责的一部分，你参与了招聘面试，对吗？ 
答：有些是的。 
问：你面试过一个叫 Miguel Rivera 的人，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你是面试团队的一部分，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你录制了那次面试，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：那是一次 Zoom 面试，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，此时我提出将辩方证据 60535 作为证据。 
法官说：准许。 
（辩方证据 60535收为证据） 
问：我能为你播放一下吗？我认为是 18号。 
当他们设置时，你还记得这次工作面试吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：Zoom会议的参与者有哪些？ 
答：是我，Miguel 被面试的人，我相信还有 Ross，Alex 和 Maya。 
问：Maya 是谁？ 
答：Maya 是我的助理，也为这个团队工作。 
问：谁支付她的工作报酬？谁支付她的工资？ 
答：我相信是 Lexington。 
问：你相信是 Lexington？ 
答：是的。每个人都有报酬——我不知道她是怎么拿到工资的。 
问：我的问题不是她拿了多少钱，先生。 
答：我不知道她是怎么拿到工资的。我不负责工资。请继续。 
问：你继续。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 82 / 127页 
答：不，你继续。 
问：你不知道谁支付了她的工资，对吗？ 
答：不知道。 
问：好的。 
（播放音频） 
施洛夫律师说：我们可以停在这里。 
问：你认得这个声音吗？ 
答：是我。 
问：你记得刚才播放的陈述吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你当时真的认识 G-Clubs背后的人四年了吗？ 
答：我指的是彦平。 
问：你指的是一个人？ 
答：我指的是彦平。 
问：好的。所以你的证词是，当你说你认识 G-Clubs背后的人四年时，你只是在指王彦
平。 
答：是的。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。我们可以播放下一个片段吗？ 
（播放音频） 
施洛夫律师说：你可以停在这里。 
问：先生，你认得这个声音吗？ 
答：认得。 
问：那是谁的声音？ 
答：Ross。 
问：Ross 在哪里工作？ 
答：当我第一次见到他时，是在法治基金。 
问：我的问题是：在这个录音期间，Ross 在哪里工作？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 83 / 127页 
答：我不清楚。应该是在法治基金。 
问：你的证词是 Ross 在那段时间为法治基金工作？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
问：我撤回这个问题。他正在参与这次面试，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：他在谈论 Miguel Rivera 在混乱中带来秩序的经验，对吗？ 
答：他是这么说的。 
问：他在面试一个人来加入 G-Clubs，以便在混乱中带来秩序，对吗？ 
答：我不知道他是什么意思。 
问：在你开始面试 Rivera 先生之前，你有没有和他谈论准备这次面试？ 
答：我不记得有没有正式的面试准备。 
问：那非正式的准备呢？ 
答：我还是不记得。 
问：那临时的准备呢？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。 
法官说：反对有效。继续。 
问：Rivera 先生在面试什么职位？ 
答：我相信是财务方面的。 
问：在哪家公司？ 
答：G-Clubs Puerto Rico。 
问：谢谢。 
施洛夫律师说：请播放下一个片段。 
（播放音频） 
施洛夫律师说：我们可以停在这里。 
问：先生，那是谁的声音？ 
答：是我的。 
问：可以说，郭文贵并不知道你在面试 Miguel Rivera，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 84 / 127页 
莫里律师说：反对。 
法官说：反对有效。他不能说郭文贵知道或不知道。 
问：你告诉过郭先生你在参与面试 Miguel Rivera吗？ 
答：没有，没直接告诉他。 
问：你是如何间接告诉他的？ 
答：可能通过彦平。 
问：可能？ 
答：可能是彦平告诉他的。我不知道。 
问：你不知道，对吗？ 
答：不知道。 
问：你说可能是彦平告诉他的，这是猜测，对吗？ 
答：可能是的，可能是彦平告诉他的。 
问：这是你的猜测，对吗？ 
答：我不知道彦平是否告诉了他。 
问：好的。 
法官说：请上前。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场） 
法官说：这位证人在使用“大词”时有困难，比如“告诫”和“猜测”，所以我希望你用
更简单的语言，这样他可以更有效地回答问题。 
施洛夫律师说：好的，对不起。我没有——好的。 
（回到公开法庭上） 
法官说：你可以继续。 
施洛夫律师提问： 
问：先生，你只是猜测是彦平告诉了郭先生，对吗？ 
答：再说一次，我不确定她是否告诉了他。 
问：好的。刚才播放的片段中，你正在参与面试这个人在 G-Clubs工作的职位，对吗？ 
答：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 85 / 127页 
问：在直接询问中，你作证说到有一次你用从 Crane得到的钱为你和你的妻子购买了某
些房产，对吗？ 
答：我用了那些钱投资房产。 
问：好的。你是如何投资这些房产的？你购买了吗？ 
答：我购买了，是的。 
问：好的。你购买了多少房产？ 
答：总共七处。 
问：总共七处房产。它们都在佛罗里达州吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：它们都是带游泳池的多户住宅吗？ 
答：不是。 
问：好的。有多少是带游泳池的多户住宅？ 
答：你指的是多户住宅？单户住宅，你具体是什么意思？ 
问：我撤回这个问题。 
这些房子都有不止一个卧室，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：它们的公寓里还有其他设施，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你试图将这些房产作为 Airbnb 出租，对吗？ 
答：其中三处。 
问：好的。在直接询问中你作证说你将这些房产登记在你妻子的名下，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你记得在直接询问中你说这样做是“因为可能会有诉讼或其他事情发生在我身上，这
些房产在我信任的其他人的名下”，对吗？ 
答：我想这是我的证词，但我可以 —— 
问：然后你作证说你认为自己可能会受到某种伤害，某种身体伤害，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 86 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：先生，这些房产是在哪一年购买的；你记得吗？ 
答：在 2021 年和 2022 年。 
问：2021 年你还在东 64街工作，对吗？ 
答：不是一整年。 
问：好的。但在 2021 年的某些时候你还在那里工作，对吗？ 
答：是的，直到七月。 
问：好的。所以你来回于东 64街，那时你并不害怕会发生什么事，对吗？ 
答：在争执发生之前没有。 
问：好的。所以在争执发生之前，你购买了这些房产，并且你仍然把它们登记在你妻子的
名下，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：实际上你把这些房产登记在你妻子的名下，因为你在破产，如果你登记在自己名下，
受托人会没收它们；这不是事实吗？ 
答：不是。 
问：如果你把这些房产登记在自己名下，会发生什么事？你认为受托人会怎么处理？ 
莫里律师说：反对。这需要猜测。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你有没有义务向破产受托人报告房产购买情况？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：你不知道？ 
答：不知道。 
问：你不知道自己对破产受托人的义务？ 
答：嗯，那时候是第 13章债务重组，所以整个债务计划通过第 13章支付。 
问：对。你必须给—— 
答：我不—— 
问：对不起。继续。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 87 / 127页 
答：我不认为——我不知道是否需要让他们知道。 
问：你不需要向他们提供资产清单吗？ 
答：那是在之前。 
问：那是—— 
答：那是在申请时。 
问：那是在申请时。 
答：嗯。 
问：当你在有支付义务不用吗。 
答：再说一次，我不知道。 
问：坐在这里的你现在仍然又义务支付给破产受托人有义务，对吗？ 
答：是的，我有两个 8000 美元的付款。 
问：对。你仍然需要进行这些付款，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：事实上，你应该给他们提供资产清单，以便他们确保支付计划正确吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对。这个问题已经问过并回答过了。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：Roman Yagudaev是谁？ 
施洛夫律师说：让我拼写一下，法庭记录员女士。R-O-M-A-N，Y-A-G-U-D-A-E-
V。 
答：他是我的朋友和合伙人。 
问：当你在 GTV 工作时向其他人介绍他时，你称他只是一个联系人，对吗？ 
答：我不——我不知道我当时怎么称呼他的。 
问：你在 10 日直接问询时作证说他是“只是一个联系人”，对吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：我们可以调出他的证词吗？ 
问：你记得作过这样的证词吗？ 
答：你要我读吗？ 
问：我只是想确保与你的记忆一致。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 88 / 127页 
答：是的，上面写着“和一个我认识的朋友”。 
问：对。这就是他，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。你怎么发音他的名字，这样我不会弄错？是 Yagudaev，Yagudaev？ 
答：你会怎么——你会怎么说？ 
问：好的。我称他为 Roman，可以吗？ 
答：好的。这更简单。 
问：好的。你介绍 Roman给 G-Clubs 的人，让他提供服务，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你介绍他是因为据你所说，他有移民方面的联系和经验，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你希望雇用他或让 GTV——G-Clubs雇用他，以便他能帮助人们在安提瓜获得护
照，对吗？ 
答：是的，王雁平有兴趣雇用他，对。 
问：对。王雁平，王女士，面试过他，对吗，或和你谈论过他，对吗？ 
答：她曾直接和他说过话。 
问：她拒绝使用他的服务，对吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：事实上，她告诉你他们在安提瓜已经有能够提供相同服务的人，对吗？ 
答：不。她从未说过。 
问：她发短信让你直接联系安提瓜的那些人，对吗？ 
答：再一次，我不记得了。 
问：好的。和这位 Roman 先生一起，你们另开了一家公司，对吗？ 
答：你能具体一点吗？ 
问：当然。你和他成立了一家公司，叫 Royalton，对吗？ 
答：Royal？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 89 / 127页 
问：Royalton。 
答：不。 
问：你没有？ 
答：Royal。 
问：Royal？只是 Royal？ 
答：我想是 Royal Asset Group，类似这样的名字。 
问：对不起？ 
答：Royal Asset Group。我不确定确切的名字。 
问：好的。但是你们两个一起开的，对吗？ 
答：我想还有第三个人，第四个人。大概有四个人。 
问：它现在还存在吗？ 
答：是的。没有活动。 
问：对不起？ 
答：完全没有活动。 
问：好的。你还开了另一家公司，对吗，叫Kanji Capital Group，对吗？ 
答：那是在我还在为团队工作时开的。 
问：哪个团队？ 
答：为郭和王雁平工作时。 
问：你把 Kanji Capital Group作为一个可能的私人股本公司推销给王女士，对吗？ 
答：那是她让我创建的。 
问：你能不能—— 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我申请删除并请他回答问题。 
法官说：你可以回答问题。你的回答已被删除。 
请重读问题。 
（记录读出） 
答：她让我去创建它。 
问：你的证词是王女士在 2021 年 6 月让你为她创建一家公司？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 90 / 127页 
答：是在 2021 年 6 月之前。 
问：2021 年 6 月之前的什么时候？ 
答：我们在二月份开始谈这个。 
问：好的。据你所说，什么时候完成的？ 
答：你是说什么时候创建的吗？ 
问：对不起。我收回这个问题。 
你创建了公司的宣传册，对吗？ 
答：可能。 
问：你记得吗？ 
法官说：不要说可能。说是否。 
答：我不记得了。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。法官大人，我可以上前吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
答：你的问题是什么？ 
问：你创建了一个宣传 Kanji Private Equity Capital 的宣传册，对吗？ 
法官说：问题是问这份文件是否能唤起你的记忆，是否做过这件事。 
答：我没有亲手创建它，但我肯定熟悉Kanji资本集团。我说我没有亲手创建它，但我熟
悉Kanji。 
问：那么，你是怎么熟悉Kanji 的？ 
答：它是——我和——我和合伙人一起拥有它。 
问：合伙人是谁？ 
答：Stephen Lawandy 
问：谁是 Stephen Lawandy 
答：他最初被 G-Clubs 和 G 集团雇佣 
问：但是对于你来说，他是谁？ 
答：我之前与他共事过。我们供职于同一家银行。 
问：你帮助 Stephen Lawandy 在 G-Clubs找到工作吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 91 / 127页 
答：我把他介绍给了王雁平。 
问：你把他介绍给王雁平，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。你和 Stephen Lawandy 一起成立了这家公司，对吗？ 
答：我们被要求成立的，是的。 
问：对不起？ 
答：我们被要求创建这家公司。 
问：好的。但你们创建了，对吗？ 
答：我说我们是被王雁平要求去创建的这家公司 
问：好的。你们创建了，对吗？ 
答：我们要求-是的。 
问：你把那个文件发送出去了？ 
答：你的意思是什么？ 
问：你把文件发送给谁了？ 
答：我不记得了。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。我可以拿回来吗。 
问：你希望这家私人股本公司由谁来支持？ 
莫里律师说：反对，无关联性。 
法官说：允许提问。 
答：你说的支持是指什么？ 
问：谁会为它提供资金？ 
答：它会有投资者。 
问：投资者会是谁？ 
答：公司成立后会进行推广——它会从王雁平的网络中获取资金。 
问：这是在 2021 年 6 月，对吗？ 
答：不。就像我说的，我们在二月份开始这个项目。 
问：对。这个项目什么时候结束的？你二月份开始的。什么时候结束的？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 92 / 127页 
答：它继续存在的，但我们从未取得成功。 
问：好的。但我的问题是：它什么时候结束，你什么时候把它发给王雁平的？ 
答：你是说结束，像是创建公司吗？ 
问：是的。 
答：所以我们在二月份开始。到在开曼群岛注册成立时，大概是六月——五月、六月，类
似这样的时间。 
问：在五月或六月，你把它发给王雁平，对吗？ 
答：再说一次，我不记得是否将这份文件发给了王雁平。 
问：好的。让我看看能否刷新你的记忆。 
答：只是一份附件。我不知道这是不是——就是它。 
问：我的问题是，这份文件是否刷新了你的记忆，Kanji 的 PDF 文件在 2021 年 6 月 21
日发给了王雁平？这份文件能否刷新你的记忆？ 
答：再说一次，这是一份 PDF。我不知道这是不是它。 
法官说：问题是，看这份文件是否真的让你记起了这件事。 
证人说：我发过这份 PDF吗？是的，我发过关于 Kanji 的 PDF给王雁平。 
问：坐在这里的你还记得你发给王雁平的关于 Kanji 的 PDF 是在 2021 年 6 月 27日发出
的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在那之后不久，7月 11 日，你被告知 Crane想终止与你的合同，对吗？ 
答：对。 
施洛夫律师说：我能给证人看一下 DX 60540吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
问：先生，你喜欢纸质版的，还是我们在机器上翻页给你看？ 
答：不，你能给我一份吗？ 
问：纸质版吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：当然。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 93 / 127页 
答：好的。 
问：这是终止协议；这是终止通知，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你认可这是终止通知，对吗？ 
答：那是我的回答。 
问：这是对终止通知的回答，对吗？ 
答：是的，是对终止通知的回答。 
问：你认可这是你的回答，对吗？ 
答：是的，这是来自于 Chris Warren。 
问：谢谢。 
施洛夫律师说：我申请将 DX 60540作为证据。 
莫里律师说：我可以进行预审质询吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
莫里律师进行预审质询： 
问：哈立德先生，这是你写的这份文件吗？ 
答：不是。 
问：你在 2021 年 7月或前后这份文件发出时见过这份文件吗？ 
答：我不记得Warren 法律集团是否把它发给我。 
问：你知道这是否是 Chris Warren 在 2021 年 7月 9 日写给 Limarie Reyes 的信件的真
实准确的副本吗？ 
答：不，我不知道。 
莫里律师说：我们反对，法官大人。 
施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：先生，这份文件上有信头吗？ 
答：有。 
问：上面的小图片是什么？ 
答：我不知道。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 94 / 127页 
问：好的。Christopher Warren 是谁？ 
莫里律师说：问过并回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我在为这份文件建立基础。 
法官说：你已经问过 Christopher Warren 是谁了。 
施洛夫律师说：我是指信件的信头，我不是问一般意义上的，我只是问信头上的 
法官说：他没有阅读该文档，因为该文档尚未经过验证。 
施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：Todd Kulkin 是谁？ 
答：Todd Kulkin 是谁？ 
问：对。 
答：他是我的律师。 
问：你的律师实际上是否对 G-Clubs 的终止通知作出了回应？ 
答：可能有。 
问：就是这份文件，对吗？ 
答：看起来是的。 
问：谢谢。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我们再次申请将文件作为证据。 
莫里律师说：同样的反对，但没有进一步的问题。 
法官说：我准许将文件作为证据。 
（辩方证据 60540作为证据接收） 
施洛夫律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：你可以把它放在一边。 
问：哈立德先生，在 2023 年 3 月 8 日，你和这三位律师签署了一份不起诉协议，对吗？ 
答：你能重复一下日期吗？ 
问：3 月 8 日。你记得你的不起诉协议的日期吗？也许我记错了日期。让我查一下。 
问：我没记错日期。2023 年 3 月 8 日。你记得吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 95 / 127页 
答：是的。我不确定签署的确切日期。 
问：好的。你在直接询问中作证说，FBI接触你时你没有立即与他们交谈，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：他们在 2021 年 7月 26 日接触你，对吗？ 
答：不对。 
问：好的。你告诉我他们是什么时候接触你的。 
答：2021 年 11 月。 
问：FBI 在 2021 年 11 月接触了你？ 
答：对。 
问：好的。那之后你第一次与检察官交谈是什么时候？ 
答：2022 年 4 月。 
问：你确定不是 2022 年 5月吗？对不起。 
答：我不确定。是四月或五月。 
问：好的。你在十一月 FBI接触你时，拒绝与他们交谈，对吗？你说你有律师，不想和
他们谈话，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在那之后到你第一次在 2022 年 5月 12 日与他们交谈期间，你意识到你偷了 270万
美元，对吗？ 
答：我没有偷 270万美元。 
问：对不起？ 
答：我没有偷 270万美元。 
问：你偷了多少钱？ 
答：我没有偷。 
问：你一点都没偷吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你只是退回钱，因为你没偷钱吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 96 / 127页 
答：什么退还的钱？ 
问：没收的。如果你没偷，为什么要被没收？ 
答：我是根据我们达成的协议退还的。 
问：但协议是基于你所做的事情，对吧？ 
好吧，你知道吗，让我们谈谈你做的事情。你告诉他们你在 2020 年 7月到 2021 年 7月
期间，开设了与郭先生有关的银行账户，这是错误的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：他们同意不为此起诉你，对吗？ 
答：协议是这么说的。 
问：他们同意不为此起诉你，因为你告诉他们你进行了金融交易以隐藏资金，这是在
2020 年 7月到 2021 年 7月之间，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：然后你告诉他们你诱使人们投资实体，他们告诉你他们也不会为此起诉你，对吗？ 
答：诱使？你能重复一下吗？ 
法官说：施洛夫律师。 
施洛夫律师说：我在读协议本身，法官大人。这就是为什么——我很乐意重新表
述。 
答：我能—— 
问：你告诉他们，对吗，你做了不法的事情让人们投资，这是非法的，他们说，好，我们
不会为此起诉你，对吗？ 
答：协议不是这么说的。是关于一个欺诈骗局。 
问：你告诉我协议怎么说的。 
答：是关于一个欺诈骗局。 
问：好的。你告诉他们你从 2020 年 10 月到 2021 年 7月经营了一家无牌照的金融服务
公司，他们同意不为此起诉你，对吗？ 
答：再说一次，协议中包含了这个内容——关于经营无牌照的金融服务公司。 
问：对。但是你今天在交叉询问中作证说你是一个有执照的汇款人，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 97 / 127页 
答：我们有执照，是的。 
问：再说一遍？ 
答：是的，我们确实有执照。 
问：那为什么你要求政府为你提供对完全合法的事情的保护呢？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官。这曲解了他的证词。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：他们为你提供保护的无执照货币服务是什么？ 
莫里律师说：反对。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你的不诉讼协议说他们不会因为你在 2020 年 10 月至 2021 年 7月期间经营无执照
的货币服务业务而起诉你，对吗？ 
答：如果协议上是这么写的，是的。 
问：你对这意味着什么有什么理解？ 
答：具体指什么？ 
问：关于你的不诉讼协议。 
答：你的问题是什么？ 
问：我的问题是：你对突出显示的词句的理解是什么，也就是你的不诉讼协议？ 
答：经营无执照的货币服务业务，大约从 2020 年 10 月到大约 2021 年 7月。 
问：对。那么你经营的无执照货币服务业务是什么？ 
答：Crane。 
问：这是你经营的无执照货币服务业务吗？我收回这个问题。 
你在直接询问中作证说你有执照，对吗，可以作为货币服务/商业服务汇款人？ 
答：正确。 
问：好的。那么为什么你需要保护？ 
答：以防我的律师没有百分之百确认。 
莫里律师说：反对，法官，如果这涉及任何—— 
施洛夫律师说：我没有问任何关于他律师的问题。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 98 / 127页 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你能帮我看一下这份文件的第一页吗。 
法官说：我只是想提醒所有律师要对着麦克风说话，这样口译员才能听到你们的
声音。 
答：是的，我在这里。 
问：你认得这份文件吗？ 
答：认得。 
问：好的。这是你的不起诉协议吗？ 
答：对。 
问：是寄给你的律师的，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：是你签署的吗？ 
答：是的。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，此时我申请将这份文件作为证据。 
莫里律师说：没有异议。 
法官说：采纳证据。 
（辩方证据 60529作为证据接收） 
施洛夫律师说：我可以让陪审团查看吗，如果他们愿意的话。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：作为你的保护的一部分，对吧——如果我可以回到之前的页面——政府同意不对你犯
下的其他罪行起诉你，对吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：如果我可以将它放大给陪审团和证人看，谢谢。 
问：对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：他们给你保护的其中一项是第（v）条。你看到那里了吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：如果我们可以为他突出显示。 
问：“提供关于他个人开支的虚假信息给金融机构，时间在 2016 年前后”，对吗？ 
答：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 99 / 127页 
问：好的。你在 2016 年不认识郭文贵，对吗？ 
答：不认识。 
问：你在 2016 年不认识王女士，对吗？ 
答：不认识。 
问：你对银行撒了什么谎？ 
答：我想要对我的房子进行贷款修改。 
施洛夫律师说：我申请删除这段。 
问：我的问题是，请问：你撒了什么谎？ 
法官说：你回答完了吗？ 
证人说：没有。 
法官说：好的。请让他回答。 
答：所以我在对我的房子进行贷款修改时，提供了不正确的个人开支信息。 
问：你说的是不正确？ 
答：是的。而且—— 
问：所以“不正确”是指错误吗？ 
答：不，不。不是准确的信息，关于我的开支。我夸大了我的开支。 
问：你夸大了你的开支。 
答：对。 
问：你把它交给了一家金融机构。 
答：是的。 
问：在 2016 年，你在一家金融机构工作吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：是哪一家？ 
答：花旗银行。 
问：你是对花旗银行撒谎并夸大了，还是对其他银行撒谎？ 
答：不，是关于我的房屋贷款修改。 
问：好的。房屋贷款是哪家银行的？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 100 / 127页 
答：我认为是富国银行。 
问：所以你在为另一家银行——花旗银行工作时，对富国银行撒了谎？ 
答：是的。 
问：好的。我们来看第（vi）条。那是在 2010 年，对吗？大约 15年前。或者 14
年。对不起。我的数学不好。对吧？你在 2010 年也撒了谎。 
答：对。 
问：好的。然后你在 2014 年和 2015年期间写了坏账支票，总共七次，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：顺便问一下，这些跳票支票的金额是多少？ 
答：我不——我不记得确切的金额。 
问：好的。那么(v)、(vi)和(vii)发生在你认识王雁平和郭文贵之前很久，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你刚才说你不记得支票的金额；这是你的证词吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：让我给你看一下 3500-166 的第 3页。 
施洛夫律师说：只给证人看。 
问：先生，你看见屏幕上的内容了吗？ 
答：看见了。 
问：这有助于你回忆这些六七张跳票支票的金额吗？ 
答：我不记得确切金额，但那是——那是我说的。 
问：你说了什么？ 
答：1万到 2万美元。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，反对。这是在刷新他的记忆。如果他已经读了，我们可
以拿下来，他可以说文件是否刷新了他的记忆。 
法官说：所以如果你不记得某件事，然后给你看一份文件，看看是否能帮助你记
起，不要读文件。只需说它是否能帮助你记起。 
证人说：不记得——它不能帮助我记起确切的金额。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问：

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 101 / 127页 
问：它能帮助你记起每张支票的大致金额吗？ 
答：不，女士。 
问：你完全不记得金额？我撤回这个问题。 
法官说：反对有效。 
莫里律师说：反对。 
施洛夫律师说：你可以把它拿下来了。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：现在让我们回到你的不起诉协议。 
根据这份协议，你对未申报税款是否有刑事责任？ 
答：是的。 
问：通过这份不起诉协议，政府给了你一个避免税务起诉的途径，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对。 
法官说：请上前。 
（边栏会议讨论，仅法官和双方律师在场） 
法官说：我不知道不起诉协议说了什么。 
莫里律师说：反对是针对问题的形式。政府给了一个避免做某事的途径？这是不
合适的提问方式。她可以问文件说了什么。文件本身会说明。 
施洛夫律师说：他们确实给了他一个途径。他们说你可以修改申报你的税款，这
样你就不会因为未申报税款而入狱。这就是途径。 
莫里律师说：文件中没有反映这一点。没有“如果你不申报税款你就会入狱”的内
容。这是不允许和不合适的。 
施洛夫律师说：这是常识，你不申报税款会入狱。 
法官说：政府是否同意如果 X那么 Y；你可以这样提问。 
施洛夫律师说：好的，当然。 
（回到公开法庭） 
施洛夫律师说：我们可以把不起诉协议放回去吗？如果我可以先看第 1页。 
让我们看第 1页的第一个完整段落。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：这些是美国政府给你的所有保护条款，从第(i)条到第(viii)条，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 102 / 127页 
答：对。 
问：我指的美国政府是指莫里女士、芬克先生、费根森先生和不在场的霍顿先生，对吗？ 
答：谁？ 
问：这四位检察官，对吗？ 
答：我看到的是三位检察官。我不认识——不认识另一个人。 
问：好的。 
答：我不记得 
问：好的 
答：我不记得他了。 
问：好的。谁在底部签了字？不，不，是在上面。美国检察官办公室。那里有三个人签了
字，对吗？ 
答：达米安·威廉姆斯？ 
问：不。下面有签名，对吗？ 
答：是的，三个人。 
施洛夫律师说：好的。我们看第 2页。 
实际上，让我们回到第 1页的底部。 
问：你看到“此外，如果哈立德”那段了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：好的。那这是否告诉你，你提供的任何证词或信息，都会在任何刑事税务起诉中对他
不利，对吗？上面写着，你提供的任何证词或其他信息都不会在任何刑事税务起诉中对你
不利。你看到了吗？ 
答：上面写的是“将被用来对付”你，“对付他”。 
由辩方施洛夫律师继续提问： 
问：再说一遍。 
答：上面写的是，将被用来。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 103 / 127页 
问：没有他提供的证词或其他信息会被用来对付你。因此，你对他们说的任何话都不会在
刑事税务起诉中对你不利。这是你的理解吗？ 
答：上面写的是，将被用来对付他。 
问：上面写的是，没有任何你给出的证词或其他证据会用来——没有一个会用来对付你？ 
答：好的。 
问：我们看下一页。第一段，他们给你提供了税务问题的解决方案？ 
莫里律师说：这一页上有个人身份信息。我们要求不要展示。 
法庭书记员：对不起，律师。你能重复一遍吗？ 
莫里律师说：这一页上有个人身份信息。我们要求不要展示给观众。 
施洛夫律师说：这是破产中的公共信息。不是个人信息。 
法官说：不要展示个人身份信息。那不应该被显示。 
施洛夫律师说：没有个人身份信息。 
莫里律师说：第二段有地址，法官大人。我们指的是这些。 
施洛夫律师说：法官大人，我们可以再上前吗？ 
法官说：我看到提到了一个人名，还看到了一些地址。 
施洛夫律师说：那些地址是通过没收程序转交的 Airbnb房产，不是他的个人住
宅。 
法官说：你们想要涂掉��是这些地址吗？ 
莫里律师说：是的，法官大人。虽然这些地方不是他居住的地方，但它们是与他
相关并且他拥有的房产，这些是可识别的信息。不应该在陪审团和旁听席面前的公共记录
中出现。 
卡马拉珠律师说：法官大人，它们在某个时候会出现在没收令中。 
法官说：这些是证人用 270万美元购买的房产吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：确实如此。 
法官说：那就可以保留。继续。 
问：陪审团能看到四页中的第二页吗？你能把它放大一些给他们看吗？所以这个协议还允
许你提交 2009 年至 2011 年的修正税表，对吗？ 
答：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 104 / 127页 
问：下一段，如果可以放大，都是你用那 270万美元购买的房产，并且你打算用来做
Airbnb 和其他投资的房产，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你必须将所有这些房产没收给检察机关，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：顺便问一下，你数了多少处房产？ 
答：七处。 
问：谢谢。这份协议还要求你向政府返还你在这些房产中的净权益价值，或总额 270万
美元，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：我们可以把它拿下来了。它不要求你返还在花旗银行工作期间获得的工资，对吗？那
时你也在 G-Clubs或 Saraca工作，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：它不要求你返还在 Saraca工作期间获得的工资，对吗？ 
答：不。 
问：我说的对吗？你不需要返还工资？ 
答：我不需要返还工资，不。 
问：作为这份不起诉协议的回报，你昨天作证说你的义务是说实话，对吗？ 
答：我的义务是说实话，是的。 
问：昨天你在直接询问中作证说，决定你是否在说实话的是你自己，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：所以你的理解是，如果你认为你在与检察官见面的 19次中以及在法庭上所说的话是
真实的，那么所有对你的指控都不会成为刑事指控，对吗？ 
答：对，这就是协议的内容。 
问：只有你自己决定你是否在说实话，对吗？ 
答：对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 105 / 127页 
施洛夫律师说：好的。我没有其他问题了。 
法官说：重新询问。 
莫里律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
由检方莫里律师重新询问： 
问：下午好，哈立德先生。 
答：下午好。 
问：我们可以再看一下不起诉协议吗？那是辩方证据 60529。 
你刚才在交叉询问中被问到一些关于你不起诉协议的问题。你还记得吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你的律师签了你的不起诉协议吗？ 
答：签了。 
问：谁代表你与政府讨论了不起诉协议的条款？ 
答：我的律师 James。 
问：我想重点关注我们刚刚看到的第一段的前三个罗马数字部分，这是关于本协议的保
障。 
根据本协议，如果你遵守协议中的义务，政府同意不因以下事项起诉你：罗马数
字一，从大约 2020 年 7月到大约 2021 年 7月期间，你参与了一个计划，在该计划中，
你卡莱德与其他人达成协议，自己也向金融机构做出了重大虚假陈述，以开设和维护与郭
文贵相关的实体的银行账户，这些账户中存入了欺诈所得。你看到了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：以及提供保障的第二项，保障你以下行为：你从大约 2020 年 7月到大约 2021 年 7
月参与的一个计划，在该计划中，你与其他人达成协议，并亲自参与了旨在隐瞒某些资金
是欺诈所得的金融交易。你看到了吗？ 
答：看到了。 
问：以及关于保障的第三项，保障你从大约 2020 年 7月到大约 2021 年 7月期间参与的
一个计划，在该计划中，其他人做出了重大虚假陈述，以诱使个人向与郭文贵相关的实体
投资，其中的一部分资金由你接收。你看到了吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 106 / 127页 
答：对，看到了。 
问：哈立德先生，这反映了你在 2020 年 7月到 2021 年 7月期间实际从事的行为，对
吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这包括你在过去几天作证时提到的对银行的谎言吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：这些谎言部分是为了维持银行账户，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在政府向你提供不起诉协议后，你与律师讨论了吗？ 
答：讨论了。 
问：哈立德先生，这是一个是或否的问题。你的律师是否就不起诉协议的条款向你提供了
建议？ 
答：是的。 
问：在收到律师的建议后，你接受了不起诉协议吗？ 
答：接受了。 
问：在交叉询问中你被问到一些关于我们会议的问题。你还记得吗？ 
答：关于什么，我们的会议？ 
问：我们的会议。 
答：记得。 
问：你记得我们大约有 19次会议的确切日期吗？ 
答：不记得确切日期。 
问：你记得我们在那些会议上的所有细节吗？ 
答：不记得所有细节。 
问：你记得每次会议上我是否扎了马尾吗？ 
施洛夫律师说：反对。我认为这不是一个值得记住的事情。你可能想记住其他事
情，但我认为马尾不算。 
法官说：你开启了关于马尾的话题。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 107 / 127页 
施洛夫律师说：我确实开启了，但这不是一个值得记住的事情，法官大人。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：不，我不记得。 
问：在那些会议上，政府有没有问你关于 Crane银行账户进出款项的问题？ 
答：具体的，我不记得。 
施洛夫律师说：对不起。我没听清。 
答：我说具体的，我不记得。 
问：一般来说，政府在那些会议上有没有问你问题？ 
答：一般的问题，是的。 
问：那些问题是否涉及你在 Crane 的工作？ 
答：是的。 
问：你是否如实回答了政府的问题？ 
答：是的。 
问：到 2021 年 5月底，Crane清算了至少约 1亿美元的 G-Clubs资金，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你是否将超过 200万美元的 Crane资金转入你自己的银行账户？ 
答：是的。 
问：这 200万美元或更多代表你根据 PFA协议应得的清算资金的 2%费用吗？ 
答：是的。 
法官说：稍等一下。你说资金已清算时是什么意思？ 
证人说：这意味着我们已经审核了一套文件，包括了解客户(KYC)的文件和发件
人的保证文件，姓名已经过核查，付款已确认，这被视为清算付款。 
法官说：继续。 
莫里律师说：谢谢，法官大人。 
问：你同意将你从这些资金中拿走的两百万或更多金额作为你所犯罪行的收益，没收给政
府，对吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 108 / 127页 
问：你被问到关于你在某个特定的联盟案件中提交的宣誓书的问题。你还记得那些问题
吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：那份宣誓书的日期是 2021 年 5月 17日。你还记得吗？ 
答：我可以再看一遍吗？ 
莫里律师说：施洛夫律师，你有那份文件吗？法官大人，我可以上前吗？ 
法官说：可以。 
答：日期是 5月 17日。 
问：在那份宣誓书中，你被问到——我相信是第五段——关于郭文贵在某些资金或实体中
的财务利益。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你说郭文贵在纸面上没有财务利益。你还记得吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你说的“纸面上”是什么意思？ 
答：在形成文件和收到的电汇中，他的名字不是发件人。当我们要将钱汇给这些实体时，
他的名字在 G-Clubs 的文件上没有出现。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，我想提交政府展品 411 和 411-T。对不起，它们已经提
交了，我可能搞错了。稍等一下，是 413 和 413-T，根据协议提交，并且录音在周一由
哈立德先生认证。 
法官说：它们被接纳为证据。 
（政府证物 413 和 413-T 被接纳为证据） 
由检方莫里律师继续提问： 
莫里律师说：洛夫特斯女士，如果我们可以拉出 413 和 413-T 的第七页。如果我
们可以从大约三分十五秒开始播放 413，并放大转录文本。陪审团的文件夹里没有这个转
录文本。 
（播放媒体） 
问：洛夫特斯女士（检方助理），请暂停一下。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 109 / 127页 
哈立德先生，在这段 2021 年 5月 12 日的通话中，你提到了一个 Pacific 传票。那是什么
意思？ 
答：我相信就是这个。 
问：在我们刚刚听到的录音中？ 
答：同一个传票。 
问：你在交叉询问中提到的宣誓书，是你在回应太平洋联盟诉讼中收到的传票时提交的宣
誓书吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在这份记录中往下看一点，你在这里最后一段中是什么意思？你可以读一下第一句并
解释你指的是什么吗？ 
答：我们肯定要把它书面化。我们必须把钱不属于你或郭强写下来。 
问：钱实际上属于一个实体，而不是郭文贵或郭强个人，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：这与你在太平联盟宣誓书第五段中的声明一致吗？ 
答：一致。 
莫里律师说：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以把它拿下来了。 
在交叉询问中，播放了 G-Clubs 的一个潜在候选人面试的部分录音。你还记得吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：当你对这个潜在候选人说 G-Clubs 的工作类型或职位性质时，你当时是为谁工作？ 
答：那时我已经建立了 Crane，所以我在 Crane 和 Saraca工作。 
问：在那段时间，你向谁报告工作情况？ 
答：王雁平。 
问：你还被问到同时在 Saraca 和花旗银行工作的时间段。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：在那段时间里，你是否对每个雇主隐瞒了你在另一家公司工作的事实？ 
答：不，他们从未问我。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 110 / 127页 
问：但当你在 Saraca工作时，你是否刻意不告诉 Saraca你还在花旗银行工作？ 
答：我不担心 Saraca。 
问：那花旗银行呢？当你仍然在花旗银行工作时，你是否故意不告诉花旗银行你接受了
Saraca 的工作？ 
答：是的。 
问：你在与政府会面时是否告诉他们你在违反雇佣合同的情况下同时受雇于两家公司？ 
答：是的。 
问：那是在你获得不起诉协议之前，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在交叉询问中你被问到关于你的破产问题。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你是否组织过针对你的破产管理人的抗议？ 
答：抗议？ 
问：对。 
答：没有。 
问：你是否指示过抗议你的破产管理人的孩子或前配偶？ 
答：没有。 
施洛夫律师说：反对，法官大人。这超出了范围。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以继续。 
问：你被问到关于 Crane 的所有权问题。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：在文件上或文书上谁拥有 Crane 的所有权？ 
答：是我。 
问：你在 Crane相关的业务决策中向谁报告？ 
答：王雁平。 
问：如果有的话，谁参与了创建 Crane 公司？ 
答：王雁平，我相信Victor 也想加入。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 111 / 127页 
问：如果王雁平指示你将某人添加为 Crane 的员工，你会如何回应，如果你会回应的
话？ 
施洛夫律师说：反对。 
法官说：你可以回答。 
答：我会照做。 
问：你被问到我们在直接询问中听过的各种录音。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：你被问到其中一个电话录音在一句话中间结束。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。 
问：洛夫特斯女士，我们可以请你调出政府的证物 417和 417-T吗？如果陪审团想跟着
一起看，这些在他们的文件夹里。 
我们将从记录的第 24页左右开始。我没有确切的时间戳。这将是录音结束前的两分钟。
完美。 
（播放媒体） 
问：洛夫特斯女士，可以暂停一下。哈立德先生，在这个录音转录文本中标注为余的人，
你根据你参与这个电话的情况，认为他是谁？ 
答：余建明。 
问：谢谢。我们可以继续。 
（播放媒体） 
问：哈立德先生，这个录音是否在一句话中间结束？ 
答：没有。 
问：它是否在电话或会议结束时结束？ 
答：是的。 
问：在这个会议结束时是谁在喊叫？ 
答：郭文贵。 
问：你在交叉询问中被问到关于录音摘录中提到的董事会的部分。你还记得那些问题吗？ 
答：记得。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 112 / 127页 
问：在 2021 年这个会议期间，你不会说普通话，对吗？ 
答：不会。 
问：你也不懂普通话，对吗？ 
答：不懂。 
问：Alex Hadjicharalambous 当时会说普通话吗？ 
答：不会。 
问：也不懂普通话吗？ 
答：我认为不会。 
问：在听这些录音的过程中，对于讲普通话的部分，你能够理解当时讲话者讨论的话题
吗，撇开翻译，单单是实际的—— 
施洛夫律师说：反对证人作证。 
法官说：���对无效。继续。 
问：仅仅专注于音频，你能在当时理解讨论的话题吗？ 
答：不能。 
问：现在坐在这里，回顾翻译后的部分电话和会议内容，并知道当时说了什么，你对当时
在这些会议上用普通话讨论的内容有什么感觉？ 
施洛夫律师说：反对。这些会议的相关性是什么？ 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：能再重复一遍问题吗？ 
问：当然。我会稍微分解一下。在你录音的这些电话和会议中，某些部分的对话是用普通
话进行的，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：在那时你不理解普通话部分讨论的内容，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：当时没有人给你翻译或告诉你讨论了什么？ 
答：没有。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 113 / 127页 
问：现在有了这些电话和会议的翻译，并且审阅了这些内容，你对当时在电话和会议中用
普通话讨论的内容有什么感觉？ 
施洛夫律师说：同样的反对。 
法官说：反对无效。 
答：秘密计划转移资金，把我们所有人都推到前面。 
问：你说的把我们所有人推到前面是什么意思？ 
答：Alex 是账户签字人，是贷款文件的签字人。我是银行账户的签字人，他们只是使用
这些名字，使用这些账户，显然背后有一个局和结构，我们对此一无所知。 
莫里律师说：法官大人，可以允许我稍微休息一下吗？ 
法官说：允许。 
莫里律师说：没有进一步的问题了。 
法官说：交叉复询。 
由辩方律师施洛夫女士交叉复询： 
问：你刚才再次播放了这个电话，417，对吗？请把转录文本拉出来。它会出现在你的屏
幕上，也会在陪审团的屏幕上。你在 2021 年 4 月录制了这个电话，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你把这个电话录在哪里？ 
答：在我的手机上。 
问：你录音是为了一个目的，对吗？ 
答：没有一个明确的目的，不是。 
问：你没有原因地录音？ 
答：我只是想保留记录。 
问：你想知道你在保留什么记录，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：这个录音是外语录音，对吗？ 
答：什么？ 
问：这是外语录音，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 114 / 127页 
答：是的。 
问：你从未使用谷歌翻译来弄清楚他们在说什么吗？ 
答：我只对最后一段感兴趣。 
问：无论你对哪段感兴趣，先生。我的问题只是你是否使用了一个简单的应用程序，如谷
歌翻译，来弄清楚他们在说什么，以确定它是否对你有帮助？ 
答：对什么有帮助，不。 
问：无论你录音的原因是什么。我的问题是你是否使用了谷歌翻译来弄清楚他们在说什
么？ 
答：没有。 
问：你根本没听过录音？这是你的证词，对吗？ 
答：你是什么意思，听录音？ 
问：你做了录音，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你与莫里律师讨论过这段录音，不管她那天有没有扎马尾辫，你们讨论过这段录音，
对吗？ 
答：在事后，我们开始会面时，讨论过。 
问：当你与她讨论时，她有这份翻译文本，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你在录音一年多后与她讨论过这段录音，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你一直保存这段录音，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你把这段录音给了你的律师，以便他们可以把它交给仲裁员，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：这段录音在仲裁中播放过，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 115 / 127页 
法官说：反对无效。如果你知道的话。 
答：我不记得了。 
问：这份文件的英文版在你亲自出席的仲裁中被提交为证据，对吗？我提醒你，
你在宣誓之下？莫里律师说：反对，根据我们在法庭旁讨论的内容，法官大人。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：我不记得了。 
问：这是仲裁中的主要证据之一吗？ 
莫里律师说：同样的反对。 
问：让我换一种方式问。你把这段录音给了你的律师，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：问题已经回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：你的律师会说普通话吗？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：你不知道你的律师会不会说普通话？ 
莫里律师说：问题已经回答过。 
法官说：反对有效。 
问：今天你在这里作证时，你说在见到莫里律师之前你不知道这段录音的英文内容，对
吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，曲解了他的证词。 
法官说：我会允许这个问题。 
答：我还是不记得。 
问：你作证说这通电话结束了，录音也因此结束，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：在你录制的每段录音中，只有你可以选择继续录音或结束录音，对吗？ 
答：对。 
问：你现在作证说你认为在这次谈话中有秘密计划，对吗？ 
答：现在坐在这里，是的。 
问：现在坐在这里，对吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 116 / 127页 
答：是的。 
问：现在坐在这里，你的利益完全与美国检察官办公室一致，对吗？ 
答：我不知道他们的利益是什么。 
问：你不知道他们的利益是什么？ 
答：不知道。 
问：你不知道检察官的利益是什么？ 
答：我不知道。 
问：你见过我吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你有没有和我坐下来一共 19次审查过任何录音？ 
莫里律师说：反对，法官大人。我们已经讨论过这些了。 
施洛夫律师说：我不这么认为。 
法官说：我们还不知道证人是否见过施洛夫律师。 
答：没有。 
问：那你见过卡马拉珠律师吗？他就在这里。 
答：谁？没有。 
问：那你见过那个年轻人，基尔加德律师吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你唯一谈过的人就是莫里律师，对吗？ 
答：不对。 
问：她的团队？ 
答：还有其他人。 
问：19次？ 
答：对。 
问：每次多个小时？ 
答：对。 
施洛夫律师说：我没有其他问题了。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 117 / 127页 
莫里律师说：法官大人，我在重定向审问时只有一个问题。 
重定向审问 
由检方律师莫里律师进行 
问：哈立德先生，你知道克兰转给罗尔和米切尔，亚伦·米切尔的约 4600万美元发生了
什么吗？你知道这些钱在转给罗尔和米切尔之后发生了什么吗？ 
答：不知道。 
再交叉询问 
由辩方律师施洛夫女士进行 
问：这不是你的钱，对吗？ 
答：对不起。 
问：这些钱与你无关，对吗？这不是你的钱？ 
答：对，不是。 
问：对。不管王雁平告诉你什么，还是郭文贵告诉你什么，或者余建明告诉你什么，还是
何浩然告诉你什么，直到仲裁员做出裁决，你都不会放开这笔钱，对吗？ 
莫里律师说：反对，范围，形式。 
法官说：因范围问题反对有效。 
施洛夫律师说：我没有其他问题了。 
法官说：谢谢你，先生。你可以退席了。 
（证人退席） 
法官说：你可以传召下一个证人。 
费根森律师说：政府传召吴敏然。 
吴敏然，政府传召的证人，在宣誓后作证如下： 
法官说：请坐下，说出你的名字并拼写出来，把麦克风靠近嘴巴。 
证人说：我的名字是 M-I-N-R-A-N。我姓W-U。 
法官说：请说出你的名字。 
证人说：我的名字是吴敏然。 
法官说：你可以提问。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 118 / 127页 
直接询问 
由检方费根森律师提问： 
问：下午好，吴女士。 
答：下午好。 
问：请尽量直接对着麦克风说话，提高音量，为了法庭记录员，请尽量慢慢说。可以吗？ 
答：好的。 
问：你住在哪个州？ 
答：新泽西州。 
问：你做什么工作？ 
答：现在在家。 
问：你最后一份在家的工作是什么？ 
答：梅西百货。 
问：你曾经是郭文贵的追随者吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你现在还是郭文贵的追随者吗？ 
答：不是。 
问：看看法庭周围，你今天在这里看到郭文贵了吗？ 
答：是的。 
舒里克律师说：我们承认，法官大人。 
法官说：很好。 
问：吴女士，你说你现在住在新泽西州，你出生在哪里？ 
答：中国。 
问：你什么时候来到美国？ 
答：2001 年。 
问：你为什么来到美国？ 
答：跟随我丈夫。 
问：有没有什么时候你对中国政治产生了兴趣？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 119 / 127页 
答：有。 
问：你能向陪审团解释一下是什么让你对中国政治产生兴趣吗？ 
答：我的家庭历史和我母亲和父亲的疾病和去世。 
问：当你父母生病和去世时，他们在哪里？ 
答：中国。 
问：他们在中国生病期间的经历是什么让你对中国政治产生了兴趣？ 
答：他们因为过度治疗而去世。他们都因为过度治疗去世，这个过程充满了欺骗，金钱和
权力，非常痛苦。 
问：吴女士，你什么时候第一次听说郭文贵的？ 
答：大约在 2018 年。 
问：你是怎么听说他的？ 
答：我看了他的视频。 
问：你在视频中看到了什么？ 
答：他站在酒店 18层的露台上，说了一些关于中国共产党的事情，称中国共产党做了很
多坏事，中国共产党很邪恶。 
问：在看那个视频之前，你听说过郭文贵吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：你说这个视频是在 2018 年，对吗？ 
答：我想是的。 
问：在那一年和 2019 年期间，你多长时间看一次郭文贵的视频？ 
答：不常看郭文贵的视频，其实很多是看高雅丁的 Luna新闻。在那个节目里，Luna介
绍了很多关于郭文贵和他周围人的事情以及他们的活动。 
问：到 2020 年时，你多长时间看一次郭文贵的视频？ 
答：2020 年，大概 2020 年，我想我从每周看两次变成每天都看。 
问：吴女士，郭文贵说了什么关于他的财富的事情吗？ 
答：他说他很有钱，非常有钱，是个亿万富翁。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 120 / 127页 
问：他说了什么关于他公寓的事情，你在视频里看到的那个公寓？ 
答：他说公寓很贵，但你不能只因为有钱就进入那个酒店，那个公寓。你还需要有很好的
社交网络来介绍你进去。 
问：他说了什么关于他穿的衣服？ 
答：衣服？Browny。 
问：对不起。 
答：品牌是 Browny，很多西装是他的品牌。他还说这些都是定制的，不是零售的。 
问：他说了什么关于他吃的东西？ 
答：像是草莓。有一次他说草莓每个 5美元或 10 美元。还有一些从公海捕捞的海鲜，他
说有些几乎濒临灭绝。 
问：吴女士，你熟悉法治基金吗？ 
答：听说过，知道。 
问：那是什么？ 
答：应该是为了新中国建立的基金会。 
问：大约什么时候建立的？ 
答：我想应该是 2029 年，抱歉是 2019 年。 
问：据你了解，谁创立了它？ 
答：郭文贵和史蒂夫班农。 
问：郭文贵说过什么关于捐赠他或他家人的钱给法治基金的事情吗？ 
答：他说数亿美元。 
问：吴女士，你说过他谈论过他有多富有，对吗？ 
答：是的。 
问：你相信郭文贵可以捐赠一亿美元给法治基金吗？ 
答：是的，当时是的。 
问：你捐赠过给法治基金吗？ 
答：是的。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 121 / 127页 
问：大约捐了几次，总共捐了多少？ 
答：我想应该是六次，总共是 1200 美元。 
问：如果郭文贵没有捐赠一亿美元给法治基金，对你来说重要吗？ 
舒里克律师说：反对。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：是的。 
问：为什么？ 
答：他撒谎了。 
问：吴女士，是否有一段时间你尝试购买 GTV的股票？ 
答：我投资了 VOG。 
问：大约是什么时候？ 
答：2020 年 5月。 
问：你通过 VOG投资了大约多少钱？ 
答：14,000 美元。 
问：你把 14000 美元寄到哪里了？ 
答：VOG，Sara 的账户。 
问：你是一笔转账还是多笔转账？ 
答：多笔。 
问：为什么要多笔转账？ 
答：我尝试只做一次转账，但银行拒绝了。 
问：银行告诉你为什么拒绝转账吗？ 
答：我是在线操作的，所以没有收到任何关于拒绝的信息。 
问：吴女士，你记得你用来将 14000 美元汇到 VOG 的账户名称吗？ 
舒里克律师说：反对，她的账户还是目标账户？ 
问：你的账户，你用的账户？ 
答：我用了几个账户，我自己的名字，联名账户，还有一个公司的账户。 
问：那个公司的名字是什么？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 122 / 127页 
答：Wonder Invest, 有限责任公司。 
问：吴��士，Wonder Invest, 有限责任公司是什么？ 
答：实际上这个，我有这个银行账户很久了。很久以前我丈夫创建了这个公司。后来他把
这个公司交给我操作。 
问：吴女士，你为什么把钱汇到 VOG银行账户？ 
答：为了 GTV的股票。 
问：你为什么认为汇钱给VOG就能得到 GTV的股票？ 
答：郭文贵说的。他说如果你有超过 10万美元的钱，就去找他。如果钱少于这个数目，
就找 Sara。 
问：你为什么想要获得 GTV的股票？ 
答：郭文贵说 GTV将是未来新中国的基础。你无法想象它会有多伟大，多有利润。 
问：郭文贵说过什么关于 GTV投资者利润的事情吗？ 
答：他说过很多次，每次的数字都比上一次高。我记得第一次可能是 17倍，然后我记得
是 100倍，后来我就没再关注了。 
问：当时你相信你的投资会非常有利可图吗？ 
答：我认为 10倍是有可能的。我觉得 100倍可能有点不切实际。 
问：郭文贵说过什么关于 GTV价值的事情吗？ 
答：我记得是 200亿。 
问：吴女士，郭文贵说过什么关于私募的事情吗？ 
答：他说这次私募是我们普通人一生中唯一的机会。为了给我们争取到这个机会他做了很
多。 
问：你以前参与过私募吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：吴女士，郭文贵对 GTV投资做出了什么个人保证吗？ 
答：你能重复一下吗？ 
问：郭文贵对 GTV投资做出了什么保证吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 123 / 127页 
答：他说他保证我们所有的本金。 
问：你说他谈论过他有多富有，当时你相信他吗？ 
答：当时相信。 
问：吴女士，郭文贵说过什么关于将 GTV投资者资金投到对冲基金的事情吗？ 
答：我从未听说过。 
问：你自己投资过对冲基金吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：如果你知道郭文贵将 GTV投资者的资金投到对冲基金，你会投资吗？ 
舒里克律师说：反对。 
法官说：反对无效。你可以回答。 
答：不会。 
问：吴女士，你最终拿回了你的 GTV投资吗？ 
答：我从 SEC那里拿回了一些退款。 
问：你是拿回了百分之百还是少于百分之百的退款？ 
答：大约 92%。 
问：郭文贵还清了剩下的 8%吗？ 
答：没有。 
问：吴女士，你曾经是一个农场的成员吗？ 
答：曾经是的。 
问：实际上，吴女士，请稍等一下。回到 SEC退款的问题，你对为什么从 SEC拿回退
款有何了解？ 
答：这项投资是非法的，所以在 SEC 的监督下。SEC退还了所有投资者的钱。 
问：你什么时候收到退款的？ 
答：2023 年，我不记得月份了。 
问：吴女士，为了从 SEC拿到退款，你需要做什么吗？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 124 / 127页 
答：SEC给我发了邮件，说了一些关于退款和他们为退款过程设立的公平基金的事情。
我需要填写表格，提供我的电汇单据和关于 VOG 的协议，然后提交表格。我想就这些。
我不记得其他的了。 
问：吴女士，你刚才说你是一个农场的成员，对吗？ 
答：是的，曾经是。 
问：你曾经是是哪个农场的成员？ 
答：MOS。 
问：MOS。MOS 代表什么？ 
答：香草山（Mountain of Spice）。 
问：你什么时候加入香草山或 MOS 的？ 
答：2020 年六月或七月。 
问：MOS 的基地在哪里？ 
答：纽约市。 
问：谁领导 MOS农场？ 
答：当时是夏启东。 
问：请你拼一下这个名字，吴女士，好让法庭记录员记录？ 
答：X-I-A，Q-I-D-O-N-G。 
问：夏启东还用过什么其他名字吗？ 
答：长岛或长岛伟哥。 
问：那是什么意思？ 
答：长岛是指 Long Island。伟哥是指伟大的兄弟。 
问：吴女士，你对长岛是如何成为 MOS农场的领导有何了解？ 
答：郭文贵选择了他。 
问：你怎么知道的？ 
答：他说的。 
问：当你说他说的时候，指的是谁？

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 125 / 127页 
答：郭文贵。 
问：他在哪里说的？ 
答：在他的视频里。 
问：据你了解，谁选择了所有的农场领导？ 
答：郭文贵。 
问：你理解是谁给他们指示的？ 
答：郭文贵。 
问：吴女士，你在 MOS农场做过什么志愿工作吗？ 
答：翻译。 
问：什么是农场贷款计划？ 
答：我们成员借钱给农场，以获得 GTV的股票。 
问：你为什么认为借钱给农场会让你获得 GTV的股票？ 
答：他说的。 
问：当你说他说的，你在说谁？ 
答：郭文贵。 
问：郭文贵说过什么关于为什么你必须用贷款而不是直接投资 GTV的事情？ 
答：他说 GTV的私募已经结束了，所以他为我们创造了另一个投资 GTV股票的机会。
这是获得 GTV股票的第一步。 
法官说：稍等一下。 
（暂停） 
法官说：我们现在得停下来。 
你可以出去，但不要讨论你的证词。你明天会回来。9:29你会在座位上。 
（证人暂时退席） 
法官说：各位陪审员，早些时候我问过你们，下周一、二、四和五，你们能否在
9:30到 5:00之间来，这样我们就不需要延长审判。有没有人不能做到这一点？ 
陪审员：如果可以，我们有一个请求。 
法官说：好的。可以。

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 126 / 127页 
陪审员：多种原因吧，我们请求能否把一个小时的午餐时间分成两个半小时的休息，一个
在 11:30，一个在 2:00。 
法官说：我们可以有两次休息。我不确定是否会完全按照你提到的时间，但我会
把它们分开。 
陪审员：我们中有些人坐不了很长时间。 
法官说：明白。好的。那么今天的工作就到此为止。记住，你们不能在自己之间
或与其他人讨论这个案件。不要允许任何人在你们面前讨论这个案件。不要听、看或读任
何关于本次审判主题的任何来源的信息。祝你们晚上愉快。 
法务助理：陪审团退场。 
（陪审团不在场） 
法官说：在我们结束之前，还有什么事情吗？ 
莫里律师说：政府没有其他事情。谢谢。 
舒里克律师说：辩方也没有，法官大人。 
法官说：祝你们晚上愉快。谢谢。 
 
（休庭至 2024 年 6 月 13 日，上午 9:00）

【中文翻译 仅供参考】       
O6BBGUO1  2024-6-12 庭审记录    第 127 / 127页 
审问目录 
审问对象： 页面 
海瑟姆·哈立德 
施洛夫律师交叉询问 2205 
莫里律师重定向询问 2349 
施洛夫律师再交叉询问 2363 
莫里律师重定向询问 2368 
施洛夫律师再交叉询问 2368 
吴敏然 
费根森律师直接询问 2369 
政府证物 
证物编号 收到 
413 和 413-T 2355 
被告证物 
证物编号 收到 
60529 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2338 
60535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2313 
60539 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2245 
60540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2332

Still improving the pages, send suggestions to [email protected]