美国司法部起诉Davis非法游说遣返郭文贵-文件

From 爆料百科
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Doj seal.jpg

事件

2020年8月17日美国司法部廉政科及夏威夷州公诉人办公室,在夏威夷联邦地区法院起诉NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS的案件,其牵涉非法游说图谋遣返郭文贵。

人物

起诉书中签署重要关键人物众多,为方便大家理解解读,将已知对应事件与人物列出在此:

公诉人:美国司法部廉政科及夏威夷州公诉人办公室

起诉法院:夏威夷联邦地区法院

被告人: NICKIE LUM DAVIS 尼基-戴维斯

4e7cc822-4d50-47e9-b273-c6fa2e0e4c18.jpg
代号名称 实际人物
国家B 马来西亚
外国人A 刘特佐
外国人B 令完成(王诚) 不是马来西亚前总理 纳吉布
中共部长A 孙力军
中共国国家主席 习近平
美国司法部长 Jeff Session (杰夫-塞申斯)
A Pras Michel (普拉斯-麦克)
B Elliott Broidy(埃利奥特-布罗迪)
C Robin Rosenzweig(罗宾-罗森茨威格)
D 白宫高级官员 Rick Gates 瑞克-盖茨
E 国家安全委员会高级官员 Reince Priebus 雷恩斯-普里巴斯
F 川普总统的行政助理 H. R. McMaster 赫伯特-麦克马斯特
G 特朗普的政治顾问/前竞选助手 Madeleine Westerhouse 玛德琳-韦斯特豪斯
H Steve Wynn (史帝夫-温)
I John F. Kelly(约翰-凯利,国土安全部秘书)
W 习近平
VM 某位人士的名子缩写,或 Vice Minister缩写?
Wickr 高度保密的网络通讯软件

以上为起诉书文件中指代对象的推测人物。

起诉书文本

英文原文

起诉书英文原版




KENJI M. PRICE #10523 United States Attorney District of Hawaii

KENNETH M. SORENSON Assistant U.S. Attorney Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg. 300 Ala Moan a Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Telephone: (808) 541-2850 Facsimile: (808) 541-2958 Email: ken.sorenson ov COREY R. AMUNDSO Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice

JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief

SEAN F. MULRYNE Deputy Director, Election Crimes NICOLE R. LOCKHART JA 皿 S C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAll ITED STATES OF A 郧 RICA,

Plai ntiff ,

vs.

NICK庄 MALI LUM DAVIS,

Defendant. CR. o. 20-00068 JAO INFORMATION

[18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)]



The United States of America charges:

INTRODUCTION

At all times relevant to this Information:

From no later than March 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, I CK 庄 LUM DAVIS agreed with Persons A and B to act as agents of Foreign National A in exchange for millions of dollars in undisclosed wire transfers originating from foreign accounts associated with Foreign National A. DAVIS specifically agreed to facilitate Person B's lobbying of the President of the United States ("the President"), his Admini stration, and the United States Depa1tment of Justice ("DOJ") to drop the investigation of Foreign National A for his role in the embezzlement of billions of dollars from !Malaysia Development Berhad (" l MDB" ), a strategic investment and development company wholly owned by the Government of Malaysia. As part of their efforts, the defendant and Person B willfully failed to disclose to the Administration and DOJ officials that Person B was acting on behalf of Foreign National A. Ultimately, DAVIS and Persons A and B were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the lMDB investigation dropped. 3. During the same approximate period, DAVIS also agreed with Persons

A and B to aid their efforts to lobby the Administration and the DOJ to arrange for the removal and return of People's Republic of China ("PRC") National A—a dissident of the PRC living in the United States—at the request of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A. Here too, DAVIS and Persons A and B were ultimately unsuccessful. 4. To further the interests of Foreign National A, DAVIS aided Person B in facilitating a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President in

September 2017, in part to allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to raise the resolution of the lMDB matter with the President. 5. DAVIS, Person A, and Person B also met with PRC Minister A in the PRC and agreed that Person B, assisted by DAVIS, would lobby the Administration to return PRC National A to the PRC. DAVIS, Person A, and Person B, for the express purpose of providing PRC Minister A an opportunity to discuss the removal of PRC National A with high-level United States officials, also agreed to and attempted to facilitate meetings between PRC Minister A and top officials at DOJ and the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), during PRC Minister A's visit to the United States in May 2017. Criminal Prohibitions on Actin al or Government

6. The Foreign Agents Registration Act ("FARA"), 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq., was and is a disclosure statute that requires any person acting in the United States as "an agent of a foreign principal" to register with the Attorney General in connection with certain types of activities, such as political or public relations efforts or lobbying on behalf of the foreign principal. Such registrations are made to the National Security Division's Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit ("FARA Unit") within DOJ. It is a crime to knowingly and willfully fail to register, and to make false and misleading statements or material omissions in documents submitted to the FARA Unit under the law's provisions.

7. The purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals. Among other things, a FARA registration reveals the identity of the foreign principal on whose behalf a registrant performs services, the type of services the registrant provides the foreign principal, the source and amount of compensation the registrant receives from the foreign principal, and political campaign contributions made by the registrant while the registrant was acting as an agent of the foreign principal. RELEVANT PARTIES & ENTITIES

8. The defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, was and is a United States citizen, businesswoman , and consultant with personal and business relationships with Persons A and B. 9. Person A was a United States citizen, businessperson , and entertainer with international ties , including ties to Foreign National A. 10. Person B served as Deputy Finance Chair of a national political committee from approximately April 2016 to April 2018. In that capacity, Person B raised large political contributions from donors, organized political fundraising events, and coordinated fundraising strategies with the campaign of a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle. After the election, Person B continued in his role as Deputy Finance Chair and maintained access to, and contact with, high-ranking officials in the Administration of the President, including the President. Over the same period, Person B owned and operated several domestic and international businesses and worked as a political consultant. 11. Foreign National A was a wealthy businessperson living in East Asia who has been charged separately for his role in orchestrating and executing a multi­ billion-dollar embezzlement scheme from lMDB. 12. Company A was a limited liability company formed by Person A to receive wire transfers from Foreign National A to pay Person B for his lobbying efforts. 13. George Higginbotham was an associate of Person A and was a licensed attorney employed by DOJ. On November 20, 2019, Higginbotham pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a one-count Information charging conspiracy to make false statements to a financial institution. 14. Law Firm A was a law firm operated by Person B's spouse, Person C.

15. PRC National A was a dissident of the PRC, living in the United States on a temporary visa. The government of the PRC, including PRC Minister A and the President of the PRC, were seeking the removal of PRC National A from the United States back to the PRC. 16. In late 2016 through 2019, DOJ was actively investigating transactions of Foreign National A allegedly associated with laundered proceeds of the lMDB embezzlement scheme. In July 2016, DOJ filed multiple civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in assets allegedly purchased with 1MDB laundered proceeds. On November 1, 2018, DOJ filed a criminal indictment charging Foreign National A and others with conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from lMDB and conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by paying bribes to various Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials. I. Campaign to Resolve lMDB Civil Forfeiture Cases

A. Person B Agrees to Lobby for Foreign National A for $8 Million Retainer

17. In or about March 2017, DAVIS told Person B that she had a possible client in Malaysia who could "use help with the forfeiture." 18. On or about March 5, 2017, at the request of Person B, DAVIS emailed Person B a copy of a civil forfeiture complaint related to 11\IDB. That same day, DAVIS emailed Person B a Bloomberg article titled "[Foreign National A] Trusts Ask to File Late Claims in Forfeiture Lawsuits," and texted Person B, "Your email has the court filing[.]" Person B responded, "Thx. Will review." DAVIS replied, "Call me when u can- thank you[.]" Person B responded again, "Yes. 5 min[.]" 19. Person A requested that DAVIS send him Person B's biography

describing Person B's relationship with high-level officials in the Administration 6 and photographs of Person B and the President. On or about March 7, 2017, Person B' s assistant, at DAVIS's request , emailed photographs to DAVIS featuring Person B and the President. Person A said that he wanted the photographs so that Person A could highlight Person B' s close access to the Administration. 20. On or about March 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, "Are you in la to meet on the 16th w [Person A] prior to his travel that weekend to Asia?" Person B responded, "I think so. Let' s speak later." Later that same day, DAVIS sent Person B additional text messages to set up the meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS. 21. At the direction of Person B, on or about March 13, 2017, DAVIS forwarded to Person A a "Retainer and Fee Agreement - Litigation Services" between Law Firm A and Foreign National A. The "Retainer and Fee Agreement" stipulated that Foreign National A would pay an $8 million retainer fee upfront, and an additional $75 million success fee if the " matter" was resolved within 180 days, or $50 million if the "matter" was resolved within 365 days. The draft agreement included an Exhibit A explaining that the " matter" referred to the 1MDB forfeiture proceedings. In actuality, Person A, Person B, Law Firm A, DAVIS, and Person C provided no litigation services or legal advice to Foreign National A. The true purpose of the retention agreement was to secure Person B's services to lobby the

Administration and DOJ on Foreign National A' s behalf based on Person B' s political connections. 22. On or about March 13, 2017, Person B met with Person A and DAVIS to discuss Foreign National A and his legal issues. At the meeting, Person A described his relationship with Foreign National A to Person B, and asked if Person B could help with the civil forfeiture cases involving Foreign National A. Person A said he would speak with Foreign National A about the possibility of Person B helping with the civil forfeiture cases. That same day, Person B texted DAVIS in part, "I' m excited about our business prospects." 23. On or about March 15, 2017, in reference to Foreign National A, Person B texted DAVIS, "Anything new on... [Person A' s] Associate ?" That same day, DAVIS responded , " [Person A] mtg in person tomorrow w the ' promoter ' and they hope to travel within the next few week[.]" 24. On or about March 22, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B and his assistant about setting up another meeting among Person B, Person A, and DAVIS. 25. At all relevant tim es, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B were aware of FARA and its prohibition on unregistered representation of foreign principals. 26. Despite their knowledge of the requirement to register as agents of a foreign principal, at no time did DAVIS, Person A, or Person B register with the FARA Unit in DOJ regarding their work as agents of Foreign National A.

B. Person A, Person B, and DAVIS Meet Foreign National A m Bangkok

27. In or about April 2017, Person A asked Person B to travel to Bangkok, Thailand to meet with Foreign National A. Person B said he would go only if he were paid $1 million , and that he wanted to be paid by Person A from " untainted " funds . 28. On or about April 28, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS advising, "I would like the funds to go to [Law Firm A.]" That same day, DAVIS responded, " Ok[.]" 29. On or about April 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding their upcoming meeting with Foreign National A and Person A. Among those text messages , Person B asked in reference to Foreign National A, "Does the principal want us in a particular hotel in either location ?" DAVIS responded , "Call me when u can talk[. ]" 30. On or about April 30, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B' s assistant regarding a flight itinerary for travel to Bangkok. In the email, DAVIS wrote in part: "Please call me if you have questions -- It's 2 one way tickets - since we need to leave from a different country[.] We don't need to worry about hotels yet . . . " 31. On or about May 1, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B and his assistant a link to the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok. That same day, DAVIS emailed Person A telling him to book a room at the Shangri-La Hotel and to send her the confirmation. Person A responded , " [ForeignNational A] is booking our hotel," and later followed 9 up with, "Also send me [Person B's] wire info." DAVIS replied by providing the wire information for an account in the name of Law Firm A. The same day, in response to a question from Person B's assistant about whether she should cancel Person B's hotel room reservation, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant, "Yes all rooms are booked by [Person A] already." 32. On or about May 2, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B stating in part, "Since u land earlier - [Person A] and I will see you at arrivals.... Thanks and bon voyage - here's to the start of an exciting and prosperous adventure!" 33. On or about May 2, 2017, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B arrived in Bangkok. During the trip, DAVIS, Person A, and Person B met with Foreign National A in a hotel suite. Person Band Foreign National A spoke about the lMDB investigation and civil forfeiture actions. Person B agreed to help Foreign National A attempt to resolve the matter. Foreign National A agreed to pay Person Ban $8 million retainer and wanted Person B to contact the Attorney General of the United States to get DOJ to drop the lMDB matter. Person B agreed to lobby the Administration and DOJ for a favorable result for Foreign National A while concealing the fact that he was working on Foreign National A' s behalf. With respect to payment, Person B stated that the money should not come directly from Foreign National A and should be "clean." Foreign National A identified a friend who could pay Person B and others. Person B, Person A, and DAVIS agreed that

the money would first be routed through Person A and then be paid to Person B through Law Firm A. Person B and DAVIS agreed that Person B would pay DAVIS thirty percent of what Person B received. Person A also agreed to pay DAVIS a percentage of the funds that Person A received. Person A told Person Band DAVIS that Person A's friend, Higginbotham , was verifying the legitimacy of the funds. Higginbotham did not actually perform any such review. C. Person A Receives $8.5 Million from Foreign National A; Person B is Paid $6 Million; DAVIS is Paid $1.7 Million

34. Following the meeting with Foreign National A in Thailand , on or about May 8, 2017, Company A received a wire transfer directed by Foreign National A for approximately $2.8 million from an entity in Hong Kong. That same day, Person A obtained a cashier ' s check from the Company A account for $702,000 payable to Law Firm A, which was immediately credited to Law Firm A's account. Person A also made a separate wire transfer of $48,000 to Law Firm A from the Company A account. Also that same day, a third-pa1iy company transferred $250,000 to the Law Firm A account at Person A's direction, bringing the total amount deposited into the Law Firm A account to $1 million. Within several days, approximately $900,000 of the $1 million transferred into the Law Firm A account on May 8, 2017 was transferred from the Law Firm A account to one of Person B's business accounts. 35. On or about May 8, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, "Both wires in [Law Firm A] are from [Person A]. The remaining balance was dropped to your office 20 minutes ago-". DAVIS then added, "702 total cashier check[.]" 36. On or about May 9, 2017, Person A caused Company A to transfer

$250,000 to a company controlled by a family member of DAVIS for the benefit of DAVIS. 37. On or about May 17, 2017, Foreign National A caused an international wire to be sent to Company A from a Hong Kong company. That same day, Person A transferred $3 million from Company A to Law Firm A. 38. On or about May 17, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding the payments from Foreign National A to Person B through Person A and Person B's payment of a percentage to DAVIS. Among the text messages , DAVIS asked, " Did you get it?" Person B responded, "Yes. Sent you Wickr[.] Sending wire to you in morning. " Wickr is a messaging application that allows for end-to-end encryption and content expiration. Person B later added, " Did you get 2nd confirm?" DAVIS responded , "When Asia opens … . Baby steps at least moving forward now." Person B responded , " Yes. Hammer them for the next 2 wires." Person B later added in part, "Assuming second 3 is in and confirmation that last 2 is being sent. Please ask [Person B's assistant]." 39. On or about May 18, 2017, Law Firm A transferred $500,000 to one of Person B's business accounts and $900,000 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. Within approximately one week, Law Firm A transferred an additional $950,000 in two separate transfers to one of Person B' s business accounts.

40. On or about May 25, 2017, Foreign National A caused a third transfer to be made to Company A, this time in the amount of approximately $2.7 million. On or about May 26, 2017, Person A transferred $2 million from Company A to Law Firm A in partial satisfaction of the $8 million retainer to which Person B and Foreign National A agreed in return for Person B's lobbying the Administration and the DOJ to drop the lMDB civil forfeiture cases and any related investigations. That same day, $600,000 was transferred from Law Firm A's account to a business account associated with DAVIS. D. Person B Facilitates Meetings for Malaysian Prime Minister A and Lobbies to Resolve the lMDB Cases

41. On or about May 18, 2017, Person B texted Person D, a political consultant and former campaign aide for the President, and requested that Person D work with the Administration to set up a visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: "Hi [Person D]- Please work on Asian country visit. Date in July." 42. On or about June 5, 2017, Person B texted Person D again regarding the visit for Malaysian Prime Minister A: 'Asian country is very motivated re July meeting. Hoping we can confirm date etc asap."

43. The same day, at the request of Person A, DAVIS sent Person B text messages regarding Foreign National A. Among those messages , DAVIS wrote, based upon information conveyed to her by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, "Please call before u go to bed in ISRAEL if possible... [Foreign National A] keeps calling for news[.]" Person B responded , "Yes. Will call you. I am heading to D.C. Tonight to work on [Foreign National A] and Asian country[.]" 44. On or about June 15, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, "Hey he'd like to speak w you this evening. Are u able?" DAVIS added, "Principal", which was a reference to Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded, "Yes[.]" 45. On or about June 16, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding lMDB and the seizure of jewelry from a person associated with Foreign National A. 46. On or about June 17, 2017, Person Band DAVIS discussed Malaysian Prime Minister A. In or about June 2017, Person B asked the President if he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A. Person B said, and DAVIS believed , that this would please Foreign National A and would allow Malaysian Prime Minister A to attempt to resolve the 1MDB matter. Person B also hoped to secure additional business with the government of Malaysian Prime Minister A and hoped that arranging golf with the President would further his business interests. 47. On or about June 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B a link to an article about the Malaysian Prime Minister A's office criticizing the lMDB forfeiture action in the United States. 48. On or about June 25, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba link to an article about Malaysian Prime Minister A and the 1MDB forfeiture action involving Foreign National A. That same day, Person B responded , " Weird article. What can we do?" DAVIS replied , "Call pls. Got news[ .]" DAVIS followed up stating that she had sent Person B a "What' s app request. " 49. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B sent a text message to a high ranking official in the White House in an effort to arrange a golf outing between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: "Hi [Person E], As I mentioned, POTUS agreed to play a round of golf in DC or Bedminster in late July or early August with [Malaysian Prime Minister A]. Thank you very much for getting back to me with the date. Also a letter went to the state dept. for a meeting some weeks ago." 50. On or about June 30, 2017, Person B sent another text message to Person E regarding the golf outing: "Hope we can speak this morning on [PRC National A] and golf date with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A]." Later that day, Person B followed up with, " [Person E], as discussed, hoping we can get these items completed today. Please call me anytime." 51. On or about July 3, 2017, Person B again texted Person E regarding the golf date for Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President: "Good morning [Person E]. It would be extremely helpful to me if you could confirm the golf date today with POTUS for [Malaysian Prime Minister A.] POTUS told me he is glad to play at Bedminster or DC. After we spoke, I mentioned to [Malaysian Prime Minister A] that he would have the date last week. Thank you very much! Regards, []." Later that day, Person B texted Person E again: " [Person E], I'm following up. Please send me the date and time for the [Malaysian Prime Minister A] golf with POTUS. Thank you!" 52. On or about July 4, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, "Call me asap" and then "Clear your phone - erase messages[.]" 53. On or about July 5, 2017, Person B exchanged messages with Person E regarding the golf outing. Among other messages , Person B texted, "[PersonE], just left you a message. It's been a week. Can you send me the date today? Best, []" Person E responded , "It's with the NSC[.] They coordinate and negotiate - I'm sure it will get done[.]" 54. On or about July 11, 2017, relaying a message from Person A, DAVIS texted Person B, "Wickr[.] It' s 5pm... I think we need to make a move. Date and otherwise. We're getting killed. " These messages referred to confirming a date for Malaysian Prime Minister A to play golf with the President and Foreign National A's displeasure because no date had been confirmed. Relaying urgency from Person A, DAVIS continued, "Please call because we need to strategize - I'm getting inundated[.]" Person B responded, "See wikr[.]" The following day, Person B texted DAVIS, "Send me text on wikr. I'm taking off and need to get to WH[.] Taking off. Need now[.]" DAVIS responded, "Done[.]" Person B responded, "Got it. Thx[.] Trying to get [Person F] to do call asap[.]" Person F was then a high­ ranking official on the National Security Council. 55. On or about July 13, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B, "Please call when u can so we can talk- we gotta handle this so pls pls go to D.C. And sit at WH until u get it. I will keep u company if u worry about being lonely!" 56. On or about July 13, 2017, Person B texted Person E again regarding the golf date: "Hi [Person E], It's been 2 weeks. Checking again on date for golf for [Malaysian Prime Minister A] with POTUS. Can you text me date today? Thank you. Best, [][.]" Person E responded, "I'll check now again[.] These things go through a process -". Person B responded "Thank you!!" Person E replied, "NSC is on it and coordinating[.]" Person B responded , "Can we get date today?" Person E replied, "They're working directly with [Malaysia.] NSC is coordinating a date." 57. On or about July 15, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, "Working on getting meetings for tomorrow."

58. On or about July 17, 2017, conveying urgency expressed by Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DAVIS texted Person B, "[Person E] needs to give u this date now and ask him for update on other thing. We look impotent[.]" This text referred both to setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A and to the matter involving PRC National A. Person B responded , "Agree. Hammering away[.]" 59. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages about setting up a meeting between the President and Malaysian Prime Minister A. Among the messages, relaying information from Person A, DAVIS wrote, "Canu check Wikr[.] Really really need that date. It's been crazy for me all day w this. He's panicking[.]" DAVIS followed up with, " This date is mandatory today- we're getting creamed." According to Person A, Foreign National A was panicking because no meeting had yet been scheduled. Person B responded, "Calling [Person E] now[.]" DAVIS replied in part, "Call everyone so they know u are raging mad[.] Call [Person G] too. We need this today[.]" Person G was an administrative assistant to the President. Person B replied, "Doing it now." 60. On or about July 19, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B in reference to scheduling a date for a meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, "Secondly we need this date bad[.]" Person B responded the following day, "Please bear with me. Getting some info on mtg[.]" 61. On or about July 21, 2017, Person B texted Person E regarding the golf outing: "[Person E], [Malaysia] have heard nothing from NSC. POTUS said he would play golf with Malaysian Prime Minister A in late July or early August. POTUS said he was happy to do it. You said it would be scheduled in a day or two. We're in the 4th week. I know you are busy and procedures apply but I've been more than patient. Instead of being positive, this is now causing me damage. I would truly appreciate it if you could get back to me today with a date. Thank you! []." 62. On or about July 24, 2017, Person B texted Person D, "Received golf date in NJ in Sept. Sat before the UN General Assembly. Finally! Crossed off my list! Thank you also for helping!" Person D responded, " Let' s follow through and make sure the date is confirmed by the NSC. Did he tell you who gave him the date?" Person B replied, "'Thank you!! Fantastic. Given to [Person HJ by [Person E]." 63. On or about July 27, 2017, Person B texted Person D, "Just checked

again with [Malaysia]. Their Amb to US and Foreign Minister have heard nothing. Please check asap. Best, []." Person B followed up with, "Hi [Person DJ- Can you call NSA for me re [Malaysia] receiving official word. Still no contact from NSC to [Malaysia] Amb on meeting. Thank you. Best, []" Person D responded , " [] will call again this morning. Talked to [] briefly yesterday … . Will call shortly." 64. On or about July 29, 2017, relaying information that she received from Person A on behalf of Foreign National A, DAVIS texted Person B in reference to the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President, "They were told 12 sept is mtg. That's day that un general assembly stars- it's a Tuesday???? No golf??" DAVIS immediately followed by texting "Wic 虹 [.]" Person B responded, "May be two mtgs. Amb should ask. Golf at Bedminster on Sat and tues at WH?" 65. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B sent his assistant an email with the subject, "Malaysia Talking Points *Final*," with talking points intended for an upcoming meeting between the Secretary of State of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A. DAVIS received the talking points from Person A-who provided them on behalf of Foreign National A— and relayed them to Person B, knowing that Person B would then provide them to the Secretary of State as background for the meeting. The talking points mentioned, among other things, Person B's ongoing relationship and work with [Malaysia], and identified lMDB as a "[p]riority[.]" The talking points noted the lack of harm caused by IMDB, and specified that "[t]he involvement of US prosecutors has caused unnecessary tension American [sic], and could cause a negative reaction among Malaysians[.]" 66. On or about August 7, 2017, Person B also sent the talking points document to Person D for his review and edits and to obtain details about the timing of a meeting in Malaysia between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: "Hi [Person DJ; When is [Secretary of State] mtg? ; Already 11:00 am Monday in [Malaysia]. Can you expand and send me final version?" Person D responded by sending a revised version of the talking points to Person B and stating , "[]- here is the marked up version I am going to forward to [Secretary of State]'s office. He heads to Bangkok today and then to [Malaysia]. Let me know if you have any other changes. Thanks." 67. Later, on or about August 7, 2017, Person B messaged Person D, "[Secretary of State] is meeting with [Malaysian Prime Minister A] on 8th and deputy PM on 9th. Let's get a plug in my name. They know my name and might not immediately recognize [my company' s] name. Thank you!" Person D responded , " Definitely important to make this connect. It will not likely be part of the formal meetings but will work to get a plug during their conversations." 68. Also on or about August 7, 2017, Person A executed an agreement between another of Person A' s companies and a representative of Foreign National A providing for "Strategic Communications and Crisis Management" in exchange for approximately EUR 8.4 million to be paid on or before August 16, 2017. 69. On or about August 9, 2017, Foreign National A caused a Hong Kong company to transfer approximately $12.8 million to Company A. Person A then transferred $3 million to Law Firm A. Person A also transferred $833,333 to a business account controlled by DAVIS. On or about August 10, 2017, Law Firm A transferred $900,000 to a business account associated with DAVIS. 70. On or about August 10, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding the meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the Secretary of State: "Heard from [Malaysia] that meetings went very well. They were happy with [Secretary of State]. My name was not mentioned- no plu g. ;- … “. 71. On or about August 16, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages to set up a meeting and a phone call. Among the messages, DAVIS wrote, "[PersonA] really wants to see u today if possible since u leave Friday[.]" 72. On or about August 18, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages setting up a phone call. Among the messages , DAVIS wrote, "Call me pls. [Person A] wants to conference in[.]" 73. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted Person D, "Any update on [Malay sia]? Person D responded , " As of now it is going to be in DC. And hard to do golf due to schedule but I am working on it. Might have to go to [Person I] directly on this and use the history of the two of them playing golf." Person B responded , " Yes. If you think it would help I could directly call one of [Person I] deputies or [Person I]. Also need to add time to meetings . I would like to discuss details with you. Please let me know what is best." Person I was then a high-ranking official at the White House. 74. On or about August 21, 2017, DAVIS wired $375,000 in funds she received as a commission from Person A, to Person C, the spouse of Person B. 75. On or about August 24, 2017, Foreign National A directed the transfer of approximately $10 million to Person A' s separate company that had entered into the "Strategic Communications and Crisis Management" agreement with a representative of Foreign National A for EUR 8.4 million. Based on the prevailing exchange rate on August 24, 2017, EUR 8.4 million converted to approximately $10 million. 76. On or about September 11, 2017, DAVIS typed a letter at Person B's direction to be sent from Person B to the President in anticipation of Malaysian Prime Minister A's meeting with the President. The letter included several positive developments in the relationship between Malaysia and the United States. The letter was never provided to the President. 77. On or about September 12, 2017, Malaysian Prime Minister A met with the President at the White House, due in part to the assistance provided by DAVIS for Person B' s efforts to facilitate the meeting. Although Person B contacted high­ ranking officials in the Administration to arrange a golf meeting between the President of the United States and Malaysian Prime Minister A in addition to the official meeting, no golf game between Malaysian Prime Minister A and the President took place.

78. On or about October 6, 2017, Person B met with the President at the White House. Person B represented to Person A, DAVIS, and Foreign National A that he raised the IMDB investigation with the President during the meeting. 79. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B drafted talking points related to lMDB to demonstrate to Foreign National A the efforts that Person B had undertaken on his behalf. Among other things, the talking points provided: " l . We are working with the DoJ to counter the previous Administration' s case against 1MDB in [Malaysia]. I have put a strategy in place to contact parties both at DoJ and the NSC to find a resolution to this issue. 2. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with the assistant attorney general [] who has the oversight for the [] case. She is a [presidential] appointee and can be help ful … . 3. As I informed you earlier, in my discussion with the President , he committed to getting this issue resolved. It is important that I take his lead but will continue to communicate the importance of this issue." Person B greatly exaggerated his efforts regarding the lMDB investigation. 80. On or about January 6, 2018, Person B met with Person A, who asked Person B for a loan. Person A told Person B that Person A' s friend was "checking on" the money they had received from Foreign National A and "helping to keep it clean." II. Campaign to Remove PRC National A from the United States A. Person B Travels to China to Meet with PRC Minister A

81. In or about May 2017, following the trip to Bangkok, Person B agreed to travel to Hong Kong to meet again with Foreign National A. Prior to the trip, DAVIS and Person B discussed that it was important to Foreign National A that PRC National A be deported from the United States. The purpose of the trip to Hong Kong was to meet with Foreign National A and a foreign government official of the PRC to discuss PRC National A. 82. On or about May 15, 2017, DAVIS emailed Person B's assistant regarding travel arrangements and the itinerary for the trip to Hong Kong. The same day, DAVIS also emailed Person Band Person C banking information for DAVIS's company. 83. On or about May 18, 2017, Person A, Person B, and DAVIS traveled to Hong Kong and were transported to Shenzhen, China, where they met with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A in a hotel suite. PRC Minister A spoke to Person B about PRC National A and his alleged crimes and stated that the PRC wanted PRC National A to be returned to the PRC. PRC Minister A asked Person B to use his influence with high-ranking United States government officials to advocate for PRC National A's removal and return to the PRC. PRC Minister A also stated that he would be visiting Washington, D.C. soon and was having trouble scheduling meetings with certain high-ranking United States government officials. B. Person B Lobbies Top U.S. Officials for the Removal of PRC National A

84. On or about May 20, 2017, during the return trip from China, Person B texted DAVIS, "I' ll try to make this a big week for us with [the Attorney General.]" 85. On or about May 21, 2017, Person B texted Person D regarding his meeting with Foreign National A and PRC Minister A: "[PersonD]- Just returned. Huge opportunity. Can we meet Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. at [hotel]? []." 86. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B texted Person D, "I will need to meet with [Attorney General] asap. We will discuss." Person B followed up with, " I am emailing you a memo. We will discuss." Later the same day, Person D responded , "Have a request into [Attorney General] for mtg." 87. On or about May 22, 2017, Person B sent an email to Person D with the subject, "Opportunity for Significantly Increased Law Enforcement Cooperation between US and [the PRC][.]" Person B attached to the email a memorandum from Person B addressed to the Attorney General, intending that Person D would then provide the memorandum to the Attorney General. The content of the memorandum had been provided to Person B by DAVIS, who received it from Person A during the May 2017 trip to China where the content originated from PRC Minister A and Foreign National A. Upon receipt, Person Band Person C revised the memorandum. 88. In the mem orandum, Person B misrepresented the reason for his trip to

China and the circumstances leading to his meeting with PRC Minister A. Person B

concealed his contact with Foreign National A and concealed Foreign National A's role in setting up the meeting between Person B and PRC Minister A. Person B also concealed the $4 million that he had been paid by Foreign National A over the two weeks preceding the meeting in Shenzhen with PRC Minister A. Person B also did not disclose that his lobbying efforts with respect to PRC National A were, at least in part, pursuant to his financial arrangement with Foreign National A and could potentially result in additional payment. 89. In the memorandum, Person B stated, "I was told by [PRC Minister A] that [the PRC] would like to significantly increase bi-lateral cooperation with the US with respect to law enforcement including cyber security." Person B wrote about PRC Minister A's upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., in which PRC Minister A and his delegation planned to meet with several high-ranking United States government officials. Person B advocated for the Attorney General to meet with PRC Minister A. Person B also noted several items that the PRC, according to PRC Minister A, would be willing to do to improve law enforcement relations between the United States and the PRC. Person B then added: According to my conversation with [PRC Minister A], the one request [the PRC] will make is that [PRC National A], who [the PRC] alleges has conspired with others who have been arrested and charged with violations of numerous criminal laws of [the PRC] (including kidnapping and significant financial crimes be deported (his Visa ends within the next month or so) or extradited (Interpol has issued a Red Notice with respect to him which is attached for your reference) as soon as possible from the US to [the PRC] so he can be charged with these

violations and go through regular criminal proceedings in [the PRC] with regard to these allegations.

Person B appended an Interpol Red Notice for PRC National A to the memorandum.

90. On or about May 23, 2017, Person B texted Person D, "Hi [] Is meeting set for tomorrow? Has my memo been sent to [Attorney General] ? Please update Thanks[][.]" Person D responded , " [Person B]- letter was delivered yesterday. Pls see the final version with changes. Working on mtg for tomorrow but shooting for early afternoon. Will call you later today. I am now on redeye tonight so I can get back to DC early." Person B responded , " Great. Thank you[]. Also try to determine if his mtg was set or if we can set for thurs or in Alabama on fri or sat." The following day, on or about May 24, 2017, Person D responded , " [W]aiting to he 扛from DoJ on mtgs - ours and [PRC Minister A]. let me know when you are free and we can meet up to go over other issues. thanks." 91. On or about May 24, 2017, Person D texted Person B, "Just got a call from [Attorney General]'s office and he cannot do tonight. But I got a text back from him directly that said he would call me later." 92. On or about May 25, 2017, Person B texted Person D, "The meetings are at Justice at 10:00 am this morning. Then FBI and DHS tomorrow. Perhaps I could tell my contact to get there 10 min early and a brief meeting could occur. And then have meet with[] one on one to discuss more details. Please try to see [Attorney General] first thing today. Really important that we pull it off. I need to speak with my contact this morning. Thank you. [. ]" Person D responded , "[ ]- working on it. [Attorney General] is not in the office this morning but trying to see what time he is returning. Stand by." Later the same day, Person B texted Person D, "Detail is that the 3 things in my memo are only for [Attorney General]. [PRC Minister A] wants to tell [Attorney General] directly. Mine is legitimate back channel. [PRC Minister A]'s boss wants confirmation that [Attorney eneral] heard the 3 things which really help US[.]" Later that day, Person D responded , "[ ]- actually just got off the phone with [Attorney General]. Not great news. Let me know when you are free to talk. Thanks." 93. On or about May 26, 2017, referencing meetings for PRC Minister A, Person B texted Person D, "10 am head of ICE 11:30 FBI Perhaps a play at DHS would save situation. Fly by [Person I]. The three items can be shared." Person B followed up with, "Please call me" and "I' m trying to do damage control and need to speak with you. Best is pull aside with [Person I]." Person I was a senior official in DHS at the time. 94. On or about May 28, 2017, Person B emailed Person D, "transcribed correspondence to and from [the Attorney General] and [the PRC' s] Ambassador to the US." Person B noted , "I believe there is an excellent opportunity for [the Attorney General] to further US interests. I added comments below. Can we discuss asap? There is another matter of interest that the AG should be made aware of." Later that same day, Person Band Person D exchanged emails to schedule a time to discuss the email and its content. 95. On or about May 30, 2017 , relaying information from PRC Minister A and Person A regarding PRC Minister A's meetings with United States Government officials, DAVIS texted, " Check Wickr- all clear now for meetings[.]" Person B responded , "Yes. All set[.]" DAVIS replied, " He got his Mtgs reinstated[.]" 96. In or about May 2017, DAVIS, at Person A's request , asked Person B to meet with PRC Minister A in Washington , D.C. 97. On or about May 30, 2017, Person B met with PRC Minister A at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Person B also asked Person D if Person D could help PRC Minister A arrange meetings with high-ranking United States government officials. 98. On or about May 31, 2017, Person B texted Person D:

I met with the VM last night. He is on a 4 pm flight back this afternoon. The FBI had him meeting with very low level people and had the person he was to meet with meet with Vietnam instead. His superiors told him to come home unless meeting with [Attorney General] or [Person I]. He is happy meeting with [Person I]..... So far, he has delivered a pregnant woman and the next 2 will be sent shortly. He will accept 60 Chinese Nationals for deportation but only if he has a proper "short meeting". This is a big win for the admin that can be publicized. It is the result of Mara Largo meeting between the two presidents. Please call me and I will tell you more specifics.Thank you. 99. Person D responded , " []-got the info. I will call in a few mins." Person B replied, "If you get the meeting, can we have the political WH liaison meet the VM at DHS? He can mention my name. Also try to get [Person I] to warm up situation. Mention me as well. Thank you! Fingers crossed." 100. On or about May 31, 2017, DAVIS texted Person B with respect to PRC Minister A's purported meeting with Person I, "In principal [Person I] us ok- just a schedule issue?" Person B responded, "Just a short notice scheduling issue. Still might hear in next hour or so. There is no issue with [PRC Minister A]." Person B later continued, "Please pass along my good wishes to the VM. Wait a little while longer." DAVIS responded, "Yes, I'm telling him that." Person B replied, "Tell him I'm telling WH and [Attorney General] what happened." DAVIS then texted, "Isn't [Person I] scheduled to be in Haiti this afternoon?" Person B responded, "Scheduler did not mention this?? Are you sure? Neither did [Attorney General']s people[.]" DAVIS responded, "It's on the DHS website[.] He's there for the afternoon[.] Just spoke to VM and he sounded like he was crying[.]" Person B responded , "Terrible. What a mess. Bottom line not our fault. Normally their Amb would handle. This is a cluster 们 ]ck." DAVIS replied , "Wickr." 101. On or about June 9, 2017, DAVIS texted Person Ba news article titled "[the PRC]-cranks-up-heat-on-exiled tycoon-[PRC National A.]" 102. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged several text messages regarding PRC National A. 103. On or about June 27, 2017, Person B texted Person H's spouse regarding the removal of PRC National A. Person B knew that Person H, an internationally successful businessman and frequent contributor to political campaigns with close access to the President, had immediate access to and influence with the President and could be effective in seeking the removal of PRC National A. Person B texted Person H's spouse, "On another note, I would like to meet with Person H tomorrow morning and on important and sensitive matter. Is there a time tomorrow morning that would be convenient or perhaps for lunch? Looking forward to seeing you at the[] Hotel! Regards, [][.]" Person B later continued: Hi [], [Person H] asked me to send this information to you via text. I have a number of items I will be sending to you regarding the fugitive [PRC National A]. The first is an Interpol red notice.... The highly time sensitive matter is that [PRC National A]'s visa to stay in the US expires on June 30th. It is critically that his new visa application he immediately denied. He must also be placed on the DHS no fly list... . The order would need to come from the very top as [PRC National A] is well connected with former FBI who are on his private security detail. The President of the PRC mention to [the President] at Mar-A-Lago that he would like [PRC National A] returned. [PRC Minister A] met with me and requested help with regard to [PRC National A]. He promised to return certain US citizens held hostage by [the PRC] and would accept a very large number of [the PRC] illegal immigrants for deportation back to [the PRC]. Finally he offered new assistance with regard to North Korea.

104. On or about June 28, 2017, Person B met with Person Hand his spouse at a social gathering. After the meeting, Person B exchanged text messages with Person H's spouse regarding [PRC National A]: "Hi [], it was great to see you and [Person HJ tonight! I just heard from [PRC Minister A] again. He would like to know the status of [PRC National A]'s VISA as time is of the essence. -Was the VISA issued already or did we deny it? Can we confirm that [PRC National A] is on the DHS no fly list? [PRC Minister A] is very concerned that [PRC National A] will flee the US this week. I hope we can confirm and move to deportation. This will be an incredible step for our two countries. [PRC Minister A] says they are grateful for your help." Person H's spouse responded, "This is with the highest levels of the state department and the defense department. They are working on this." 105. On or about June 29, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A's visa application. Person B texted, "Is rejection or acceptance letter already generated?" DAVIS responded, "I have no idea." Person B replied, "Sorry always generated. In others words each applicant eventually re wives a yes or no in writing[?] Sorry receive a yes or no in writing[?]" DAVIS responded, "Yes[.] Check Wickr[.]" 106. On or about June 30, 2017, DAVIS, in reference to their efforts to facilitate the removal of Foreign National Band the potential return ofUnited States citizens held in Country B, texted Person B, "Wickr. You are the man right now. They are going to give you the President' s medal of freedom award after what you will accomplish for this country this July 4th[.]" Person B responded, "I am going to slam until it's done[.]" DAVIS replied, "Let's make sure part 1 happens today. And date for m[.] Don't leave that dude until we do it." Person B responded, "Agree." DAVIS continued, "Let him know - if we get the letter confirming the denial today by close of business (as u need workers to generate that letter) then we will get the 2 Americans home by July 4[.] After other phase 2- we can do the 60 take back[.]" Person B responded, "Sounds good. [Person HJ calling me back shortly. On a call." 107. On or about June 30, 2017, Person Band DAVIS exchanged several text messages about PRC National A. Person B texted, "Heard from [Person HJ. He reiterated to POTUS." Person B followed up with, "Separately, [Person E] texted me that he got tied up but is on top of it." That same date, DAVIS replied, " Can we get proof today about revoke?" DAVIS later specified, "From [Person E]?" 108. On or about July 1, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, "Spoke to [Person E] at length. Call me when you can[.]" Person B did not speak with Person E but had exchanged text messages with him about PRC National A's visa application. Similar to the representations Person B made in the memorandum that he prepared for the Attorney General and his communications with Person H, Person B did not disclose the true nature of his relationship with PRC Minister A to Person E. 109. On or about July 2, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text

messages regarding PRC National A and his visa application. Based on public reporting, DAVIS texted, " There is a call Scheduled for today Sunday with [President of the PRC] about n Korea. He can ask and confirm about package. He can even say he heard from [Person HJ." 110. On or about July 3, 2017, again based on public reporting, DAVIS texted Person B: "(President] leaves D.C. Wednesday for Europe(.]" DAVIS then followed up: "July 5. Scheduled to meet in person w [President of the PRC](.]" 111. On or about July 18, 2017, Person B emailed DAVIS the contact information for Person H. DAVIS connected multiple calls between PRC Minister A and Person Hin furtherance of the lobbying campaign to remove PRC National A. 112. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A and his removal from the United States to the PRC. Among the messages, DAVIS wrote, "Really need confirm it was officially transmitted. At this point - he says no[.]" Person B responded, "Asked 3 different people to follow up[.]" Person B later added, "Called [Person E]. Seeing [Person H] in an hour." 113. On or about July 26, 2017, Person B texted Person H to meet at a hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss PRC National A: "Hi [Person H], I understand from staff that you're in DC, as am I, staying at the [hotel]. Would you like to have a cup of coffee today? Regards, []." Later the same day, Person H's spouse texted Person B, "Hi []. Can you text me the details again of the [the PRC] man you texted previously thank you[.]" Person B responded , "Hi [], You are referring to [PRC National A] or [PRC Minister A]? Best, [][.]" Person H's spouse replied , "[PRC National A]." Person B then resent the message that he previously sent on June 27. 114. On or about July 27, 2017 , Person B and DAVIS exchanged text messages regarding PRC National A. DAVIS texted Person B, "Any word on embassy??" DAVIS later added , " Hey any update about formal notice?" Person B responded , " I' m dealing with people in NSC. Emailing directly. Awaiting response[.]" 115. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS several times.

Among those messages , Person B wrote, "Urgent. Call me. Good news[.]" Person B later added , " im with [Person H]. have break thru opportunity[.]" 116. On or about August 19, 2017, Person B met with Person Hon Person H's yacht. During their time together, Person B asked Person H about the matter involving PRC National A, and Person H suggested that they call the President. Person B and Person H then called the President, asking about PRC National A's status within the United States. 117. On or about September 13, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS, "Please text me asylum article. And other article[.]" That same day, DAVIS texted Person B links to articles about PRC National A. 118. On or about October 2, 2017, Person B texted DAVIS a link to an article about PRC National A. 119. On or about January 5, 2018, Person B texted DAVIS, " Send me more info on [PRC National A] involved in funding Dem politicians, . . . ASAP[.]" COUNT ONE 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. § 612 (Aiding and Abetting & Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal)

120. From in or about no later than May 2017 to at least in or about January 2018, within the District of Hawaii and elsewhere, the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, knowingly and willfully, without registering with the Attorney General as required by law , aided and abetted Person A and Person B in their actions as agents of a foreign principal, to wit: their execution of a back-channel lobbying campaign to resolve the 11\IDB investigation favorably for Foreign National A and to return PRC National A to the PRC, all on behalf of Foreign National A and PRC Minister A and the Government of the PRC. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 22 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 618(a)(l). FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

121. The allegations contained in Count 1 of this Information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). 122. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), upon conviction of Count 1, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 2, and Title 22, United States Code, Sections 612 and 618(a)(l), the defendant, NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, shall forfeit to the United States of America a sum of money representing property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to said violation(s). Notice is further given that, upon conviction, the United States intends to seek a judgment against DAVIS for this sum of money representing the property described in this paragraph. 123. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant: a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; d. has been substantially diminished in value; or e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty,

the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p),as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 246l(c) DATED: August 17, 2020, at Honolulu, Hawaii.


龙乙 /s/k enii M P rice KENn M. PRICE United States Attorney District of Hawaii 护&切"尸仁、 Isl Kenneth M Sorenson KENNETH M. SORENSON Chief, National Security COREY R. AMUNDSON Chief, Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice


Isl John D. Keller JOHN D. KELLER Principal Deputy Chief

SEANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JA郧 S C. MANN Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section









United States v. Nickie Mali DAVIS Information Cr. No.

中文翻译

秘密翻译组版


美国司法部文件(20- cr-0068-LEK)翻译 公诉人: 美国司法部廉政科及夏威夷州公诉人办公室

起诉法院: 夏威夷联邦地区法院

起诉日期:2020 年 8 月 17 日上午 10:23 已在法院备案

文 件 链 接 https://ilind.net/misc%20/2020/lum%20informat ion%20Aug%202020.pdf

KENIT M. PRICE #10523 美国夏威夷地区检察官 COREY R. AMUNDSON 美国司法部廉政科主任 KENNETH M. SORENSON 美国助理检察官

Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg. 300 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Telephone: (808) 541-2850 Facsimile: (808) 541 -2958 Email: [email protected] JOHN D. KELLER 首席副主任

SEAN F. MULRYNE 副总监(选举犯罪办公室)

NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN 廉政科出庭律师


美国联邦地区法院夏威夷辖区


美利坚合众国

原告

vs.

NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS,

被告 ) CR 编码 20-00068 JAO ) ) 刑事犯罪起诉状 ) ) 美国法典第 18 条第 2 节和第 22 条 ) 612 及 618(a)节 ) ) )


The United States of America charges:

引言

1. 与本起诉状有关(的内容如下):

2. 自不迟于 2017 年 3 月到 2018 年 1 月前后期间,NICKIE LUM DAVIS 同意与 A 及 B 一起充当外国人 A 的代理人,以换取来自和外国人 A 有关的 外国账户的数百万美金的秘密电汇款项。DAVIS 特别同意协助 B 游说美国总统(“总统”)及其政府、和美国司法部(“DOJ”或“司法部”)以寻求其放弃对于外国人 A 参与侵吞挪用马来西亚政府全资拥有的战略投资和发展公司(“1MDB”或“壹马基金”)数十亿美元的调查。作为他们运 作努力的一部分,被告和 B 故意不向现任政府及司法部官员披露 B 是外国人 A 的代理人。但最后,DAVIS 和 A 及 B 未能成功促成对壹马基金调查的撤销。

3. 约在同一时期,DAVIS 还同意协助 A 和 B 二人游说现任政府及司法部,系应外国人 A 以及中共部长 A 的要求,安排遣返中华人民共和国 (“中共国”)一位持不同政见人士,即居住在美国的郭文贵先生。同样的,DAVIS 以及A 和 B 的努力也以失败而告终。

4. 为了进一步满足外国人 A 的利益,DAVIS 协助 B,以促成马来西亚总理A 与总统之间在 2017 年 9 月的会晤,部分目的是为了让马来西亚总理A 向总统提出壹马基金案的解决方案。

5. DAVIS、A 和 B 还与中共部长 A 在中共国进行了会面,并同意由 B 在 DAVIS 的协助下游说现任政府,以便将郭文贵先生遣返回中共国。DAVIS、 A 和 B,为了让中共部长 A 能有机会和美国高层官员商讨遣返郭文贵先生的相关事宜,还同意尝试在中共部长A 于 2017 年 5 月访美期间,促成其和司法部及美国国土安全局(“DHS”或“国土安全局”)的高级官员的会 面。

刑法关于担任外国委托人或政府的代理人的禁止性规定

6. 《外国代理人登记法》(“FARA”或“《外国代理人登记法》”), 美国法典第 22 条第 611 节等, 曾是而且现在也是一项要求披露的法规, 即:法规要求任何在美国境内以“一个外国委托人的代理人”身份行事的 个人就某些类型的活动向司法部长登记,这些活动包括政治或公关活动、 或代表外国委托人进行游说。此类登记需在司法部国家安全司的《外国代理人登记法》办公室(“FARA Unit”或“FARA 办公室”)完成。明知 (需要登记)并蓄意不进行登记,以及在向 FARA 办公室提交的文件中作出虚假陈述和误导性陈述或有重大遗漏,都是犯罪行为。

7. 《外国代理人登记法》的目的是为了防止外国委托人变相施加影响。根据该法规进行合规登记,可以让美国政府和美国人民对身为外国委托人 的代理人所作个人声明和活动作出评估。除其他事项之外,根据《外国代 理人登记法》进行登记,可以披露登记人所服务的外国委托人身份、登记人向外国委托人提供的服务类型、登记人从外国委托人处所获报酬的来源和金额、以及登记人在作外国委托人的代理人时所捐赠的各类政治竞选捐款。

本案相关方

8. 被告,NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS, 曾是并仍是美国公民,商人,及与 A 和B 有私人和商业往来的顾问。

9. A 曾是美国公民、商人、及有国际关系(包括其与外国人A 的关系) 的艺人。

10. 约在 2016 年 4 月至 2018 年 4 月期间,B 曾在一个全国性的政 治委员会担任财务副主席。在 2016 年的选举周期中,B 以财务副主席的身份从捐助者那里筹集了大量的政治捐款,组织了政治筹款活动,并参与协 调一位美国总统候选人参选的筹款战略。大选结束后,B 曾继续担任委员会的财务副主席,并与包括总统在内的现任政府高级官员保持接触和联系。在同一时期,B 拥有和经营着几家国内与国际企业,并担任政治顾问。

11. 外国人 A 曾是一位居住在东亚的富商。他因其在策划和执行数十亿美元的壹马基金挪用公款骗局中起到的作用而被单独起诉。

12. A 公司是一家由 A 成立的有限责任公司,该公司接收来自外国人A 支付B 的游说佣金。

13. George Higginbotham 曾是A 的关联方、及司法部聘用的执业律师。2019 年 11 月 20 日,Higginbotham 在美国哥伦比亚特区(联邦)地区法院,就图谋向金融机构作出虚假陈述的单项指控表示认罪。

14. 律师事务所A 是由B 的配偶C 经营的一家律师事务所。

15. 郭文贵先生是一位中共国的异议人士,持临时签证在美国居住。中共国政府,包括中共部长 A 和中共国主席,曾寻求将郭文贵先生从美国遣返回中国。

16. 2016 年底至 2019 年,司法部一直在积极调查外国人 A 涉嫌与壹马基金挪用公款骗局中洗钱所得的相关交易。在 2016 年 7 月,司法部提 起了多起民事财产没收起诉书,要求没收涉嫌用壹马基金洗钱所得购买的、价值数百万美元的资产。2018 年 11 月 1 日,司法部提交了刑事起诉状, 指控外国人 A 和其他人密谋洗钱(自壹马基金挪用的数十亿美元),并因密谋向马来西亚和阿布扎比的多名官员行贿而违反了《海外反腐败法》。

I. 解决壹马基金(lMDB)民事财产没收案件的活动 A.B 同意为外国人A 游说、以获取 8 百万美金的报酬

17. 2017 年 3 月当天或前后,DAVIS 告诉 B,她在马来西亚有个潜在客户可能需要 “在没收 (案件)上获得帮助。”

18. 2017 年 3 月 5 日当天或前后,在 B 的请求下,DAVIS 给B 发了一封电邮,并附上壹马基金民事财产没收起诉状的副本。当天,DAVIS 又通过电邮转发给 B 一篇彭博社文章,标题是“[外国人 A]信托要求在没收诉讼中提出逾期请求”,并向 B 发了条短信:“您的电子邮件中有法院立案文件[。]” B 答复, “谢谢,一会儿看。” DAVIS 回复:“你方便时电话我,谢谢[。]” B 再次回复:“可以,5 分钟给你电话[。]”

19. A 要求 DAVIS 给他发一份 B 的简历以描述其与现任政府高官的关系,并索要一张B 和总统的合影。 2017 年 3 月 7 日左右,B 的助理,经DAVIS 要求,给DAVIS 通过电邮发了一张B 和总统的合影。A 说他想要B 和总统的这些照片,以便他可以强调B 与现任政府有非常近的关系。

20. 2017 年 3 月 8 日当天或前后,DAVIS 发短信给B:“你 16 号会在洛杉矶和A 见面吗?他那个周末会去亚洲旅行。” B 回复: “我想可以,我们稍后谈。” 当天晚些时候,DAVIS 向B 发了另一个短信,安排了 B、A 和DAVIS 的会面。

21. 在 B 的指示下,DAVIS 在 2017 年 3 月 13 日当天或前后给 A 发了一份“《聘用律师和收费协议-诉讼服务》”,该协议的双方是外国人A 和律师事务所 A。该《聘用律师事务所和收费协议》规定,外国人 A 预先支付 800 万美元的聘用费,如果在 180 天内解决了“问题”,则将另外支付 7,500 万美元的成功费,如果在 365 天内解决该“问题”,则另行支付 5,000 万美元的成功费。这份协议草稿含附件 A,该附件解释了什么是 “问题”,即:壹马基金涉及的财产没收诉讼程序。实际上,外国人 A、B 、律师事务所A、DAVIS 和C 没有向外国人A 提供任何诉讼服务或法律咨询服务。聘用协议的真正目的是确保 B(基于 B 的政治关系)可代表外国人A 游说现任政府和司法部。

22. 2017 年 3 月 13 日当天或前后,B 与 A 和 DAVIS 会面,讨论了外国人 A 和他的法律问题。在会上,A 向 B 描述了他与外国人 A 的关系, 并询问 B 是否可以帮助涉及外国人 A 的民事财产没收案件。A 说,他会和外国人A 讨论B 帮助处理民事财产没收案件的可能性。 当天,B 给DAVIS发了短信(部分),“我对我们的业务前景感到兴奋。”

23. 2017 年 3 月 15 日当天或前后,B 给DAVIS 就外国人A 发短信: “... [A]和他的关系人有什么新消息吗?” 当天,DAVIS 回复:“ [A]明天会和“发起人”见面,他们希望在接下来的几周内出门旅行[。]”

24. 2017 年 3 月 22 日当天或前后,DAVIS 向B 及其助理发了电邮,讨论为B、A 和DAVIS 安排另一个会晤。

25. 在所有相关期间,DAVIS、A 和B 都知道 FARA 及该法案有禁止未经登记而代表外国委托人的规定。

26. 尽管他们知道需要登记方可作为外国委托人的代理人,但DAVIS、A 或 B 从未在司法部的 FARA 办公室进行登记,以担任外国人 A 的代理人。

B. A、B 和DAVIS 在泰国和外国人A 会面

27. 2017 年 4 月或前后,A 请 B 前往泰国曼谷与外国人 A 会面。B 表示,他必须提前拿到 100 万美元,否则他不会去泰国,并且他希望 A 要用"干净"的钱支付这笔款项。

28. 2017 年 4 月 28 日当天或前后,B 给 DAVIS 发短信,并建议: “我希望能将这笔钱汇到[律师事务所 A.]。”当天,DAVIS 回答:“好的 [。]”。

29. 2017 年 4 月 29 日当天或前后,B 和 DAVIS 就他们即将与外国人A 和A 的会面交换了短信。在这些短信中,B 提到了外国人 A: 委托人有没有要求在某个特定酒店?” DAVIS 回复:“你方便时给我打电话[。]”

30. 2017 年 4 月 30 日当天或前后,DAVIS 向 B 的助理发送了有关前往曼谷的航班行程的电子邮件。 DAVIS 在电邮中写道(部分):“如果 您有任何问题,请给我打电话 - 这是两张单程票 - 因为我们需要从其他国家/地区离开[。]我们暂时不需要担心酒店 ... ”

31. 2017 年 5 月 1 日当天或前后,DAVIS 通过电邮向 B 及其助理发了曼谷香格里拉大酒店的链接。当天,DAVIS 向 A 发了电邮,让他在香格里拉酒店预订房间并给她发确认。 A 回复:“ [外国人 A]正在给我们订酒店”,后来又说:“请给我[B 的]银行电汇信息。” DAVIS 提供了律师事务所 A 的一个帐户信息用来电汇。当天,DAVIS 回答了 B 的助理关于是否取消 B 的房间预订的问题,DAVIS 给 B 的助理发了电邮:“是的。所有房间[A]已经预定了。”

32. 2017 年 5 月 2 日当天或前后,DAVIS 向 B 发了电邮,其中部分说:“由于您提早到达 - [A],你到了我就和你见面 … 谢谢,一路顺风 - 让我们开始一个令人激动和财源滚滚的冒险吧!”

33. 2017 年 5 月 2 日当天或前后,DAVIS、A 和 B 抵达曼谷。在这 次旅行中,DAVIS、A 和 B 在饭店套房与外国人 A 见了面。B 和外国人 A 谈 到了针对壹马基金的调查和民事财产没收程序。B 同意帮助外国人 A 解决这个问题。外国人 A 同意向 B 支付 800 万美元的聘用金,并希望 B 与美国司法部长联系,要求司法部撤销壹马基金案。B 同意游说现任政府和司法部以取得对外国人 A 有利的结果并同时隐瞒了他代表外国人 A 工作的事实。关于付款,B 说,这笔钱不能直接来自外国人 A,而应是“干净的”。外国人A 找到了一个可以付给B 和其他人的朋友。B、A 和DAVIS 同意首先将 钱通过A 来支付,然后通过律师事务所 A 支付给B。B 和DAVIS 同意,B 将 他的百分之三十汇给DAVIS。A 也同意向DAVIS 支付他收到的部分佣金。 A 告诉DAVIS 和B,A 的朋友Higginbotham 正在验证这笔资金的合法性。 但 实际上,Higginbotham 从未进行该验证。

C. A 从外国人A 处收受 850 万美元;B 收受 600 万美元;DAVIS 收受 170 万美元。

34. 在泰国与外国人 A 会面后,在 2017 年 5 月 8 日当日或前后, 外国人A 指示一家香港公司电汇约 280 万美元给公司 A。同日,A 从公司A 取得了一张金额为70.2 万美元本票,该本票是支付给律师事务所A 的,该本票立即被律师事务所 A 兑现汇入律所账户。A 还从公司 A 的帐户向律师事务所A 单独电汇了 48,000 美元。也是在同一天,一家第三方公司按照A的指示将 25 万美元转入了律师事务所A 的账户,使存入A 律师事务所A 账户的总金额达到了 100 万美元。2017 年 5 月 8 日转入律师事务所 A 账户的 100 万美元在几天之内,约有 90 万美元从律师事务所A 账户转移至B 的一个公司账户中。

35. 2017 年 5 月 8 日当日或前后,DAVIS 给 B 发短信: “ [律师事务所 A]的两笔电汇都是[A]汇过来的。余款已在 20 分钟前放到你办公室 -”。DAVIS 又接着说: “一共有 702 张本票[。]”

36. 2017 年 5 月 9 日当日或前后,A 促使公司 A 将 25 万美元转给 DAVIS 一个家人所控制的公司,受益人是 DAVIS。

37. 2017 年 5 月 17 日当日或前后,外国人 A 促使一家香港公司以国际电汇的形式给公司 A 汇款。 当天,A 以公司A 的名义给律师事务所 A 电汇了 300 万美元。

38. 2017 年 5 月 17 日当日或前后,B 和 DAVIS 交换了短信息,讨 论了外国人 A 通过 A 给 B 汇款、以及 B 把收到的部分款项汇给 DAVIS。其 中,DAVIS 问: “你收到了吗?”的短信。B 回答: “收到了,给你发了Wickr[。]早上给你汇款了。” Wickr 是一个发送短信消息的应用程序,它是端到端加密、且内容到期自动失效。B 随后补充道: “你收到第 2 次确认了吗?” DAVIS 回应道: “当亚洲开始上班的时候 至少现 在正在小步前进。” B 回应: “是的,催催他们,赶紧把后面两笔款项汇过来。” B 后来又补充了(部分内容): “假设第二个3 笔都进来了, 确认最后 2 笔已经发送。请和[B 的助理]确认。”

39. 2017 年 5 月 18 日当日或前后,律师事务所 A 向 B 的一个商业账户转入 50 万美元,向 DAVIS 控制的一个公司账户转入 90 万美元。在大约一周内,律师事务所 A 又分两次向B 的一个公司账户转入 95 万美元。

40. 2017 年 5 月 25 日当日或前后,外国人 A 向公司 A 进行了第三次转账,此次转账金额约为 270 万美元。2017 年 5 月 26 日当日或前后,A 自公司 A 账户向律师事务所 A 转账 200 万美元,以部分满足 B 和外国人 A 商定的 800 万美元聘用费用,以换取 B 游说现任政府和司法部放弃对壹马基金的民事财产没收案和任何相关调查。同一天,60 万美元从A 律师事务所A 的账户转到了与 DAVIS 相关的公司账户。

D. B 为马来西亚总理 A 安排相关会议,并为解决壹马基金案而进行游说。 41. 2017 年 5 月 18 日当日或前后,B 给D(政治顾问、总统的前竞选助手)发短信,要求 D 与现任政府合作、以安排马来西亚总理 A 访美: “嗨[D] - 请安排亚洲国家访问,日期定在 7 月。”

42. 2017 年 6 月 5 日当日或前后,B 就马来西亚总理 A 的访问再次给D 发短信: “亚洲国家对 7 月会晤非常积极,希望我们能尽快确认日期等。”

43. 当天,应 A 的要求,DAVIS 向 B 发送了关于外国人 A 的短信。在这些短信中,DAVIS 根据 A 代表外国人 A 向她提供的信息写道: “如果可能的话,请在你睡觉前给我电话。[外国人 A]一直在打电话询问消息[。]” B 回答说: “是的。我会给你打电话的。我今晚要去(华盛顿) 特区处理[外国人 A]和亚洲国家的事情[。]”

44. 2017 年 6 月 15 日当日或前后,就一条来自A 的短信,DAVIS 给 B 发短信:“嘿,他想在今天晚上和你通话。你有时间吗?” DAVIS 补充说:“委托人”,特指外国人A。同一天,B 回答:“可以[。]”

45. 2017 年 6 月 16 日当日或前后,B 和 DAVIS 交换了短信,讨论了壹马基金和扣押与外国人A 有关联的某人的珠宝事宜。

46. 2017 年 6 月 17 日当日或前后,B 和DAVIS 就马来西亚总理A 进行了讨论。约在 2017 年 6 月或前后,B 问总统是否愿意与马来西亚总理 A 打高尔夫球,B 说,并且 DAVIS 也相信,这样做外国人 A 会高兴,这也可以让马来西亚总理 A 有机会试图解决壹马基金的问题。B 还希望确保与马来西亚总理 A 的政府开展更多的业务,并希望通过安排(马来西亚总理 A)和总统打高尔夫球以促进其商业利益。

47. 大约在 2017 年 6 月 19 日当日或前后,DAVIS 给 B 发了一个链接,链接上有一篇关于马来西亚总理 A 办公室批评美国采取的壹马基金没收程序的新闻。

48. 2017 年 6 月 25 日当日或前后,DAVIS 给 B 发了一条关于马来西亚总理 A 和涉及外国人 A 的壹马基金财产罚没程序的文章链接。同日, B 回复: “奇怪的文章。我们能做什么?” DAVIS 回复: “打电话给我。有消息了[。]” DAVIS 随后表示,她已经向 B 发送了一条 “WhatsApp 请 求。” 49. 2017 年 6 月 29 日当日或前后,B 向白宫的一名高级官员发送了一条短信,试图安排马来西亚总理A 和总统之间的高尔夫活动: “嗨, [E],正如我提到的,总统先生(POTUS)同意 7 月底或 8 月初和[马来西亚总理A]在(华盛顿)特区或(新泽西州)贝德明斯特打一场高尔夫。非常感谢你帮我确认日期。另,几周前还给国务院送了一封要求会面的信。”

50. 2017 年 6 月 30 日当日或前后,B 又向 E 发送了一条关于高尔夫活动的短信: “希望我们能在今天上午就[郭文贵先生]、及[马来西亚总理A]与总统先生(POTUS)的高尔夫会晤进行讨论。”当天晚些时候,B 又发来短信: “[E],按照讨论的内容,希望我们今天能完成这些事情。请随时电话我。”

51. 2017 年 7 月 3 日当日或前后,B 向 E 再次发了短消息,有关马来西亚总理 A 和美国总统打高尔夫球的日期:“早上好[E]。如果你今天可以确认美国总统哪天能和[马来西亚总理 A]打高尔夫,这就给我帮了大忙了。美国总统告诉我,说他很乐意在(新泽西州)贝德敏斯特或首都 (华盛顿)特区打球。我们上次聊过后,我和[马来西亚总理 A]说过,他会在上周得到(确认的)日期。非常感谢你,祝好,[]。”那天晚些时候, B 再次给 E 发信息:“[E],我和你再次确认,请把[马来西亚总理 A]和美国总统打高尔夫球的日子和时间发给我。谢谢!”

52. 2017 年 7 月 4 日当日或前后,DAVIS 向 B 发送了信息,“赶紧电话我,越快越好。”然后说“清理你的手机——删除短信[。]”

53. 2017 年 7 月 5 日当日或前后,B 和 E 交换了关于外出打高尔夫的短信。在众多的短信中,有一条 B 发的信息:“[E],刚刚给你留了言。已经过了一个礼拜了。你今天能发给我那个日期吗?祝好,[]” E 回复道, “现在是国家安全委员会(NSC)在处理这件事[。]他们在协调和商量 - 我相信可以搞定的[。]”

54. 2017 年 7 月 11 日当日或前后,DAVIS 向 B 发短信以转达 A 的消息,“看 Wickr[。]现在是下午 5 点…我想我们需要做出行动了。日期或者其他(无法确认日期),那我们就要死球了。”这些短信指的是确认马来西亚总理 A 和美国总统打高尔夫的日期、以及外国人 A 因未能得到确认日期而非常不满。为了转达 A 十万火急(的态度),DAVIS 继续说, “请电话我,我们要制定策略 - 我要撑不住了[。]” B 回复: “看Wikr[。]” 第二天,B 给 DAVIS 发信息说,“用 Wikr 给我发信息。我马上起飞、要到白宫去。已经开始起飞了,现在就要[。]”DAVIS 回复说: “完成[。]” B 回复:“收到,谢谢[。]正努力让[F]去打电话,越快越好[。]” F 当时是国家安全委员会的高级官员。

55. 2017 年 7 月 13 日当日或前后,DAVIS 向 B 发信息:“你方便的时候请电话我,我们聊聊 - 我们必须要处理这件事,求求你去(华盛顿)特区吧。你就一直坐在白宫直到你拿到(日期)。如果你担心感到孤单的话,我会陪着你!”

56. 2017 年 7 月 13 日当日或前后,B 向 E 再次发了关于打高尔夫日期的短信,:“你好[E],已经过去两周了。我再问问[马来西亚总理 A] 和美国总统打高尔夫的日期。你今天能把日期发给我吗?谢谢。祝好, [][。]”E 回复:“我现在就再去问一下[。]这些事是需要流程的 - ”。 B 回复:“谢谢!”E 回复:“国家安全委员会在处理这事、他们在协调[。]”B 回复:“我们今天可以确认日期了吗?”E 回复说,“他们正在直接和[马来西亚]协调处理。国家安全委员会在协调(各方以确认)日期。”

57. 2017 年 7 月 15 日当日或前后,B 向 DAVIS 发信息说:“正忙着确认明天开会”。

58. 2017 年 7 月 17 日当日或前后,DAVIS 向B 发短信,以传达A 代表外国人 A 发出的紧急催促:“[E]需要现在就给你这个日子,让他告诉你其他事的最新情况。我们看上去很无能[。]”这个短信指的是安排美国总统和马来西亚总理 A 见面、及与郭文贵先生有关的事情。B 回复:“同意。正全力以赴[。]”

59. 2017 年 7 月 18 日当日或前后,B 和 DAVIS 相互发送了几条关 于安排美国总统和马来西亚总理 A 见面的信息。在这些消息中,DAVIS 转 述来自A 的信息并写道,“你能看看Wikr 吗[。]真的真的需要那个日期。 我整天都要应付这个事儿都快疯了。他已经吓尿了[。]”DAVIS 接着写: “今天必须得到这个日期 — 我们要完蛋了。”根据A 所说,外国人 A 当时因为没被安排上会面而惊恐不安。B 回复:“正在给[E]打电话[。]” DAVIS 回答(部分内容):“给每个人打电话,让他们都知道你现在很生 气[。]也给[G]打电话。我们今天必须搞定[。]”G 是美国总统的行政助理。 B 回复:“现在正在办。” 60. 2017 年 7 月 19 日当日或前后,DAVIS 给 B 发短信,内容是安排马来西亚总理 A 和总统会晤:“第二点,我们急需把日期给定下[。]” B 第二天回复:“稍等一下,得到了一些关于会晤事宜的信息[。]”

61. 2017 年 7 月 21 日当日或前后,B 给 E 发了关于高尔夫之行的短信:“[E],[马来西亚]没有从国家安全委员会(NSC)听到任何消息。 总统先生(POTUS)说他会在 7 月月底、或 8 月初和马来西亚总理A 一起打高尔夫。总统先生说,他很高兴(可以和他一起打高尔夫)。你说过,这件事一、两天就可以安排好。我们现在是第四个星期了。我知道,你非常忙、而且有程序上的限制。但我已经开始失去耐心了。我不想过于消极, 但这件事已经给我造成了损害。如果你能在今天给我搞定日期,我将不胜感激。谢谢![]。”

62. 2017 年 7 月 24 日当日或前后,B 发短信给D:“我收到了确认9 月份在新泽西州打高尔夫的日期,是在联合国安理会开会前,终于(搞定了)!我可以把这个从我的工作计划里删掉了!感谢你的帮助!” D 回复:“咱们继续跟踪这个事情,要确保国家安全委员会最后确认这个日期。他告诉你是谁给他的这个日子吗?” B 回复:“感谢!太棒啦!是[E]把日子给[H]的。”

63. 2017 年 7 月 27 日当日或前后,B 发短信给 D:“刚和[马来西亚]再次确认,他们驻美大使和外交部长没收到任何回复。请尽快确认。祝好,[]。” B 又发了一条短信,“[D],你好。你能替我给国家安全委 员会打个电话,问问[马来西亚](是否)收到官方回复的事情,国家安全 委员会还没就开会的事情联系[马来西亚]大使。谢谢。祝好,[]” D 回复: “[]今天早上会打电话。昨天和[]简短交流了一下 …. 一会儿会打电话 的。”

64. 2017 年 7 月 29 日当日或前后,DAVIS 和 B 发短信,以转述 A (代表外国人 A)的信息,关于马来西亚总理 A 和美国总统见面的事情: “通知他们 9 月 12 号见面。那天是联合国大会开会的日子,是个星期二????不打高尔夫了??”DAVIS 立刻回复短信:“上 Wickr[。]” B回复说,“可能要约两个会。大使应该会去问。周六在(新泽西)贝德敏斯特打高尔夫、周二在白宫?”

65. 2017 年 8 月 7 日当日或前后,B 给他的助理发送了题为“马来西亚会谈要点*终稿*”的邮件,邮件包括了为美国国务卿和马来西亚总理A 即将举行的会面而计划的会谈要点。DAVIS 从 A 那里获取了会谈要点(A 代表外国人 A 提供了这些要点)、并转交给了 B,而且知道 B 会把这些会谈要点交给国务卿作为了解会议的背景。这些会谈要点包括了一些事项, 其中提到 B 当前和[马来西亚]的关系与合作,并将壹马基金案识别为“[头等]大事[。]”这些会谈要点指出壹马基金案的危害不大,并且明确指出“美国检察官的介入造成了美方的紧张[原文如此],而且这可能会导致马方的负面反应[。]”

66. 2017 年 8 月 7 日当日或前后,B 还将谈话要点发给 D 审阅并修改,并希望获取有关马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿在马来西亚具体开会时间的详细信息: “你好[D];什么时候和[国务卿]开会?;现在已经是[马来西亚]时间周一上午 11:00。 您可以扩展一下并发给我最终版本吗?” D传回了一份会谈要点的修改版,并回复:“ []-这是我要发给[国务卿]办公室的修订版。他今天飞曼谷,然后会去[马来西亚]。如果您还有其他需要修改的地方,请告诉我。谢谢。”

67. 2017 年8 月7 日当天或前后,稍晚时候,B 发信息给D: “[国务卿]会在 8 号和[马来西亚总理 A]会晤,并在 9 号和副总理会晤。把我的名字放进去,他们知道我(的名字),但可能不会立即认出[我公司]的名字。谢谢!” D 回复: “把你的名字联系进去非常重要,它不太可能是正式会议的一部分,但一定会在谈话中发生作用。”

68. 另,2017 年 8 月 7 日当日或前后,A 用其另一个公司和外国人A 的代表签署了一份协议,以提供“战略沟通和危机管理”,换取约 840 万欧元的报酬,该酬金需在 2017 年 8 月 16 日当日或之前付清。 2017 年 8 月 9 日当日或前后,外国人A 让一香港公司转了约 1,280 万美元给A 公司。A 接着汇了 300 万美元到律师事务所A。A 还汇了 833,333美元到DAVIS 控制的一个公司账户。2017 年 8 月 10 日当天或前后,律师事务所A 给DAVIS 有关联的一个公司账户汇了 90 万美元。 2017 年 8 月 10 日当日或前后,B 给D 发短信,讨论马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿的会议:“据[马来西亚]消息,会开得不错。他们对[国务卿]很满 意。没提我的名字 - 没给联系进去。 ;- ”

69. 2017 年 8 月 9 日当日或前后,外国人 A 让一香港公司转了约1,280 万美元给 A 公司。A 接着汇了 300 万美元到律师事务所 A。A 还汇了 833,333 美元到 DAVIS 控制的一个公司账户。2017 年 8 月 10 日当天或前后,律师事务所A 给 DAVIS 有关联的一个公司账户汇了 90 万美元。 70. 2017 年 8 月 10 日当日或前后,B 给 D 发短信,讨论马来西亚总理 A 与国务卿的会议:“据[马来西亚]消息,会开得不错。他们对[国务卿]很满意。没提我的名字 - 没给联系进去。 ;- ”

71. 2017 年 8 月 16 日当日或前后,B 与 DAVIS 相互发短信,以安排一次见面和一通电话。在这些短信中,DAVIS 写道:“如果可能的话, [A]非常想在今天见你一面,因为你周五就要离开了[。]”

72. 在 2017 年 8 月 18 日当日或前后,B 与 DAVIS 相互发送短信来安排一次(电话)通话。在这些短信中,DAVIS 写道:“请电话我。[A]想要开个会[。]”

73. 2017 年 8 月 19 日当日或前后,B 给 D 发短信:“[马来西亚] 那事有什么进展吗?” D 回复:“现在的消息是在(华盛顿)特区举行。打高尔夫恐怕在时间安排上比较困难,但我还在努力争取。可能这事还得 找[I]才行,他们过去一起打高尔夫,这可以利用一下。” B 回复:“好。如果你觉得这有用的话,我可以给[I]的一个副手或者[I]直接打电话。另 外需要增加会议时间。我要和你探讨详情。请告诉我,哪种方案最好。” I 当时是白宫一位高级官员。

74. 2017 年 8 月 21 日当日或前后,DAVIS 把她从 A 那里获得的佣金分了 37 万 5 千美元、并汇给了 C,也就是 B 的配偶。

75. 2017 年 8 月 24 日当日或前后,外国人 A 指示将约一千万美元汇给了 A 的另外一家公司,该公司与外国人 A 的代表签订了 840 万欧元的“战略通讯与危机处理”协议。根据 2017 年 8 月 24 日的外汇牌价,840 万欧元约折合约一千万美元。

76. 2017 年 9 月 11 日当日或前后,DAVIS 根据 B 的要求写了一封信,B 准备将这封信发给总统,是关于马来西亚总理 A 要与总统的会晤。这封信列举了马来西亚与美国关系的多项积极进展。这封信最终也没有到达总统手里。

77. 2017 年 9 月 12 日当日或前后,马来西亚总理 A 与总统在白宫进行了会面,这次会面的部分原因是 DAVIS 协助 B 以帮助 B 积极促成此次会晤。尽管 B 联系了现任政府的高级官员,以安排总统与马来西亚总理 A 官方会面、打高尔夫,但最终总统与马来西亚总理 A 的高尔夫(会晤)未能成行。 78. 2017 年 10 月 6 日当日或前后,B 与总统在白宫见了面。B 告诉 A、DAVIS 和外国人A,他在和总统的会面中提及了壹马基金调查问题。

79. 2018 年 1 月 5 日当日或前后,B 起草了关于壹马基金的谈话要点,以向外国人 A 展示 B 作为他的代理人所做的努力。这些谈话要点的部分内容有:“1. 我们正与司法部合作以推翻上届政府在对[马来西亚]壹马基金的调查。我已经做了策略性安排,联系司法部和国家安全委员会以解决这个问题。2.我正在与安排和负责[]案的助理司法部长[]见面。她是[总统]任命的,可能会有帮助...。3.正如我之前告诉你的,在我与总统的讨论中,他答应解决这个问题。我需要让总统主导这个事情,但是我会继续给他吹风,告诉他这件事的重要性。” B 极大夸大了他在壹马基金调查案中的作用。

80. 2018 年 1 月 6 日当日或前后,B 和A 见面,A 向B 要求借钱。A 告诉 B:A 的朋友在“查看”他们从外国人 A 那里收到的钱,并“正在帮忙处理以便让这笔钱是干净的。”

II. 驱逐郭文贵先生的活动 A. B 前往中共国会见中华人民共和国部长 A

81. 2017 年 5 月当天或前后,曼谷之行后,B,同意前往香港会见外国人 A。去香港之前,DAVIS 和 B 讨论说,驱逐郭文贵先生对于外国人 A 很重要。香港之行的目的是要会见外国人 A 和中华人民共和国政府官员,以便探讨有关郭文贵先生的事情。

82. 2017 年 5 月 15 日当天或前后,DAVIS 发电邮给 B 的秘书讨论香港之行的旅行计划和行程。当天,DAVIS 还将 DAVIS 的公司银行信息通过电子邮件发送给B 和C。

83. 2017 年 5 月 18 日当天或前后,A、B 和 DAVIS 来到香港,随后进入中共国深圳,他们在深圳的一间酒店套房会见了外国人 A 和中共部长A 中共部长 A(可能是孙立军)与 B 讨论了郭文贵先生及其被控的罪行, 并说明中华人民共和国想要将郭文贵先生遣送回中共国。中共部长 A 请求B 利用其在美国高层官员的影响力促使驱逐郭文贵先生并将其遣返回中共国人民共和国。中共部长 A 还声明,他将很快访问华盛顿特区,但在与美国政府高层官员预约会议时遇到了麻烦。


B. B 游说美国高官以驱逐郭文贵先生 84. 2017 年 5 月 20 日当天或前后,在从中共国返美途中,B 给DAVIS 发短信说:“我会努力和[司法部长]一起,让本周成为对我们而言最不凡的一周。”

85. 2017 年 5 月 21 日当天或前后,B 就其同外国人 A 以及中共部长A(可能是孙立军)的会晤发短信给D:“[D]- 我刚回来。巨大的机遇。咱们是否可以在周一早上 9:30 在[酒店]见一面?” 86. 在 2017 年 5 月 22 日当天或前后,B 给 D 发短信:“我需要尽快和[司法部长]见面。我会和你讨论。” B 随后又写道:“我电邮给你一份备忘录。我们可以讨论。” 当日晚些时候,D 回复:“已请求和[司法部长]开会。”

87. 2017 年 5 月 22 日当天或前后,B 给 D 发了一封题为“美国与[中华人民共和国]之间加强执法合作机会[。]”的电邮。B 在邮件中附上了 B 给司法部长的备忘录,B 的计划是 D 会把备忘录交给司法部长。备忘录的内容是由DAVIS 提供给 B,而DAVIS 是从 A 处拿到的,A 是通过其 2017 年 5 月中共部长 A 和外国人 A 提供的信息而写的备忘录。在收到备忘录后, B 和C 对备忘录进行了修改。

88. 在备忘录中,B 对他去中共国的原由和促使他与中共部长 A 见面的情形做了虚假陈述。而且,B 隐瞒了他与外国人 A 的接触、并隐瞒了外国人 A 在促进 B 与中共部长 A 的会见中所起的作用。除此之外,B 还隐瞒了他在深圳与中共部长 A 见面前的两个多礼拜之前,外国人 A 支付给他的 4 百万美金。同时,B 也没有披露他对(驱逐)郭文贵先生所做的游说努力,至少在一定程度上,根据他与外国人 A 之间的财务安排,这可能会给他带来更多的钱。

89. 在备忘录中,B 写道:“ [中共部长 A]告诉我[中共国]希望大大加强与美国在执法方面的双边合作,包括网络安全。” B 还提到了中共部长 A 近期的华盛顿特区旅行计划,说中共部长 A 及其代表团计划在他们的华盛顿行程中与几位美国政府的高级官员会面。B 提议司法部长与中共部长 A 会面。而且 B 还指出了几件事,说根据中共部长 A 的意思,中共国愿意为改善美中之间的执法关系而做的几件事。然后,B 补充道: 根据我与[中共部长 A]的对话,[中共国]会提出一个请求,尽快将[郭文贵先生],他与其他[中共国]指控的、并且已被逮捕的、及已被控触犯了[中共国]多项刑事法律(包括:绑架和重大金融犯罪)的一些人是同谋,从美国遣返(他的签证将于一 个月前后到期)或引渡(国际刑警已就其发出了红色通知,请见附件)回[中共国],以便对他的这些违法行为提出指控,并就这些指控对其在[中共国]进行常规的刑事诉讼。 B 在备忘录里附上了国际刑警组织关于郭文贵先生的红色通知。

90. 2017 年 5 月 23 日当天或前后,B 发短信给D 说: “你好[], 明天见面开会吗?我的备忘录给[司法部长]了吗? 请告诉我最新情况。谢谢[][。]” D 回复: “[B] .. 信昨天已经送到了。请查看修改后的最终版本。我正在努力以确保明天可以开会,但可能会在明天下午早些时候 (开会)。今天晚些时候我会电话你。我今晚红眼航班,这样我能早点回 (华盛顿)特区。” B 回复: “太棒啦。谢谢你[]。努力确认和他的会议是否能确定,或者我们是否能把会议定在周四、或者周五或周六在阿拉巴马见面。” 第二天,在 2017 年 5 月 24 日当天或前后,D 回复:“我在等司法部给我会议的消息 - 与我们的会议和[与中共部长 A 的]会议。你什么时候有空,我们可以碰一下头,讨论一下其他问题。谢谢。”

91. 2017 年 5 月 24 日当天或前后,D 发短信给 B:“我刚接到[司法部长]办公室来电,司法部长今晚没空。但他亲自给我发了短信说他晚些时候会打电话给我。”

92. 2017 年 5 月 25 日当天或前后,B 发短信给 D 说:“会议今天早上 10:00 在司法部进行。然后明天会在联邦调查局和国土安全部开会。也许我可以让我的联系人提前 10 分钟到,这样可以进行简短的会面。然后再和[]进行一对一的见面讨论更多细节。请尝试在第一时间与[司法部长]见面。我们今天能成功真的很重要。我今天早上需要向我的联系人汇报“谢谢[。]” D 回复说:“[]-正在努力。[司法部长]今天早上没有来办公室,但是让我看看他什么时候会回来。等我消息。” 同一天晚些时候,B 发短信给 D 说: “细节是,我备忘录中提到的 3 件事只能给[司法部长]看。[中共部长 A]想亲自告诉[司法部长]。我这边是合法的后门。[中共部长 A]的老板想要得到确认,[司法部长]已经知道这三件能真正帮助美国的事[。]” 当天晚些时候,D 回复说:“ []...我刚和[司法部长] 通了电话。我有坏消息。请告诉我你什么时候有空,我们需要谈一谈。谢谢。”

93. 2017 年 5 月 26 日当天或前后,有关中共部长 A 预约的会议, B 给D 发送短信, “早上 10 点与移民局局长见面,11:30 与联邦调查局见面,也许去国土安全部表演一下可以挽救局面。跟 I 确认过了。那三件事 可以与其他人分享。” B 随后又发短信: “请给我打电话”, “我正试图将危害控制到最低限度,需要跟你谈谈。最好是可以和 I 聊聊。”I 当时是美国国土安全部的高级官员。

94. 2017 年 5 月 28 日当天或前后,B 给 D 发电邮,摘录了“[司法部长]和[中共国]驻美国大使的来往信件。” B 说:“我认为司法部长有绝好的机会来为美国争取更多的利益。我在下面加了注释。我们可以尽快讨论吗?还有一件事,对于司法部长也是要知道的。”当天晚些时候,B 和D 交换了电子邮件,以安排时间讨论该电子邮件及其内容。

95. 2017 年 5 月 30 日当天或前后,DAVIS 转达了来自中共部长A 和 A 提供的信息,并讨论中共部长A 与美国政府官员见面的问题,DAVIS 发短信:“请查看Wickr - 现在会面的所有障碍都解决了[。]” B 回答,“是的,都安排好了[。]” DAVIS 回信说, “他的会议都被恢复了[。]”

96. 2017 年 5 月或前后,在 A 的要求下,DAVIS 请 B 与中共部长 A 在华盛顿特区见面。

97. 2017 年 5 月 30 日当天或前后,B 与中共部长 A 在华盛顿特区的一家酒店见面。B 也问了D,是否D 可以帮助安排中共部长A 与美国政府高级官员见面。

98. 2017 年 5 月 31 日当天或前后,B 给D 发短信: 我与 VM 昨晚见了面。他今天下午 4 点钟的飞机回来。联邦调查局找了非常低阶的人与他见面,本来与他见面的人去见了越南人。他的领导让他回去,除非他可以见到[司法部长]或者[I]。他很希望见到[I] … 到目前为止,他已经送回了一个孕妇,另两个人也会马上送回来。他愿意接受遣返 60 个中共国公民,前提是他必须要有一个合适的“简短会见”。这将是本届政府的一个胜利,并可以公开宣传。这是两国元首在马阿拉哥庄园见面的成果。请给我打电话,我会告诉你更多的详情。谢谢。

99. D 回复:“[]收到。我过几分钟电你。” B 回复:“如果你能约到会,我们可以安排白宫代表和 VM 在国土安全局见面吗?他可以提我的名字。另外请[I]来暖暖场。也提一下我的名字。谢谢!祈祷。” 100. 2017 年 5 月 31 日当天或前后,DAVIS 给 B 发了短信,提出中 共部长 A 想要与 I 见面,“基本上,[I]和我们都同意,只是具体会议时间安排问题,对吗?” B 回答说 “只是时间紧促,不好安排的问题。可 能需要再等一个小时左右。[中共部长 A]那边没有问题”。B 随后说“请转达我对VM 的问候。请稍等一下。” DAVIS 回复说 “我会向他转达的。” B 说 “告诉他,我会向白宫和[司法部长]说明情况。” DAVIS 回答说 “[I]不是今天下午要去海地吗?” B 说 “安排会议的人没告诉你吗?你确信吗?[司法部长]的人也没有吗[。] ”。DAVIS 说 “国土安全部的网 站说的[。]他今天下午去那里”。刚才和 VM 通了话[,]他听起来像在哭 [。]” B 说 “太可怕了。一团糟。底线是,不是我们的错误。通常情况下,他们的 Amb[大使]会解决。这简直太[乱]了。”DAVIS 说 “Wickr 上说”。

101. 2017 年 6 月 9 日当天或前后,DAVIS 向 B 发了一条短信,推送了标题为“[中共国]火速驱逐大亨[郭文贵先生]”的新闻。

102. 2017 年 6 月 27 日当天或前后,B 和 DAVIS 交换了几条有关郭文贵先生的短信息。

103. 2017 年 6 月 27 日当天或前后,B 给 H 的配偶发送了关于遣返郭文贵先生的短信。B 知道 H 是国际上有名的成功商业人士,他经常给总统的政治选举捐款,与川普总统非常亲近。他可以立即见到总统,并对总 统施加影响,因此他对遣返郭文贵先生是有效的渠道。B 给 H 的配偶发短信:“另,我很希望明天早晨能见到 H,谈一件重要且敏感的事情。明天早上是否有方便的时间或午饭的时候?希望在[]酒店见到你。祝好[][。]” B 随后继续写道:

嗨[],[H]要我把这个信息通过短信发给你。我会发给你关于流亡美国的[郭文贵先生]的几条信息。一,国际刑警红通... 时间高度敏感性的是[郭文贵先生]的护照 6 月 30 日过期。非常关键的是郭的新护照申请会立即被否决。他也一定会被国土安全部列入禁飞名单...这个命令将会来自高层人士,由于 [郭文贵先生]私人安全信息里有经常联系的前联邦调查局雇员。中共国主席习近平(下称习近平)在马阿拉格庄园向[川普 总统]提及,要遣返[郭文贵先生]。中共部长 A(可能是孙立军)和我见面,要求帮助他遣返[郭文贵先生]...他承诺将某些被[中共国]扣为人质的美国公民送回,并将接受大量[中共 国]非法移民回[中共国]。 最后,他提供了有关朝鲜的新援助。 104. 2017 年 6 月 28 日当天或前后,B 与 H 及其配偶在一个社交活动上见了面。见面后,B 与 H 的配偶就[郭文贵先生]的问题交换了短信: “[],你好,很高兴今晚能见到你和[H]!我刚从[中共部长 A]那里收到消息。他想要知道[郭文贵先生]的签证情况,因为时间很关键。 签证已经发了吗,还是我们给他拒签了?能否确认一下[郭文贵先生]已经在国土安全部的禁飞名单上了?[中共部长 A]非常担心[郭文贵先生]会在本周逃离美国。我希望我们可以确认,尽快将他遣返。这将是我们两个国家非凡的一步。[中共部长 A]说他们非常感谢您们的帮助。”H 的配偶回复说, “这件事现在达到了国务院和国防部的最高层。他们正在处理此事。”

105. 2017 年 6 月 29 日前后,B 与 DAVIS 通过互相发信息讨论了有关郭文贵先生签证申请的问题。B 说,“(签证的)拒绝函或接受函是否已经生成了?” DAVIS 回答说,“我不知道。” B 说,“抱歉(我刚刚是问是否)总会生成。换句话说,每个申请人最终都会收到书面的同意或拒绝对吗[?]不好意思,前面拼写错了[。]” DAVIS 回复道:“是的[,]查看 Wickr(的消息)[。]”

106. 2017 年 6 月 30 日前后,DAVIS 在与B 讨论他们协助在国家B 的 外国人 B 和美国公民的遣返可行性时,发信息给 B 说:“上 Wickr。你现 在成了大人物了。在你 7 月 4 日实现了对国家的贡献后,他们将给你颁发总统自由勋章[。]” B 回复说 “我会尽力促成此事[。]” DAVIS 回信说: “我们今天要确保第一部分的实现。还有,跟 m 约会[,]在我们成事之前不要离开那伙计。” B 回答:“同意”。DAVIS 继续说:“让他知道 - 如果我们今天下班前就能得到确认拒签的公函(你得要有人帮着出具该公 函),那么 7 月 4 日的时候我们就可以接两名美国人回国[。]在另外二阶段完成后,我们可以接回 60 人[。]”B 回答说“不错,H 很快会给我打电 话。我正在接电话。”

107. 2017 年 6 月 30 日当天或前后,B 和 DAVIS 互相发送了关于郭文贵先生的几条信息。B 写道,“从[H]那里得知,他已经向总统再次重申。” B 接着说,“另外,[E]给我发信息说他很忙,但很有把握。”同一天,DAVIS 回复,“我们今天可以得到吊销(郭先生合法身份)的证明吗?” DAVIS 随后特别指出,“从[E]那里?” 108. 2017 年 7 月 1 日当天或前后,B 给 DAVIS 发信息:“与[E]进行了详谈。你方便时给我打电话[。]”B 其实没有与 E 通话,但他们互相发送了关于郭文贵先生护照申请的信息。类似于 B 在他为司法部长准备的备忘录以及和 H 沟通中所展示的那样,B 没有向 E 披露他与中共部长 A 之间关系的真正本质。

109. 2017 年 7 月 2 日当天或前后,B 和 DAVIS 互相发送信息讨论了关于郭文贵先生申请签证的情况。基于公开的报告,DAVIS 写道, “今天 (星期天)预定与[中共国国家主席]通话谈朝鲜的事情。他可以询问并确认政治交换的筹码。他甚至可以说他从[H]那里听到的相关信息。”


110. 2017 年 7 月 3 日当天或前后,DAVIS 再次根据公开报道向 B 发送信息:“[川普总统]于周三离开(华盛顿)特区前往欧洲[。]”DAVIS随后跟进到:“预定于 7 月 5 日同[中共国国家主席]会晤[。]”

111. 2017 年 7 月 18 日当天或前后,B 通过电子邮件向DAVIS 发送 H的联络方式。DAVIS 同中共部长 A 以及 H 进行了多次电话沟通,进一步就如何遣返郭文贵先生之事进行商榷。

112. 2017 年 7 月 26 日当天或前后,B 和 DAVIS 通过短信方式就将郭文贵先生从美国遣返回中共国之事进行了沟通。DAVIS 在这些信息中提到,“必须确保是官方传递的(信息)。目前--他的答复是否定的[。]”B回复,“让三个不同的人跟进[。]” B 随后补充,“给[E]打电话了。一个小时后见[H]。”

113. 2017 年 7 月 26 日当天或前后,B 给 H 发信息要在华盛顿特区一个宾馆里见面,讨论郭文贵先生之事宜:“嗨,[H],我从随从人员里 了解到你在(华盛顿)特区,我也在这里,住在[某酒店]。你愿意今天一 起喝杯咖啡吗?祝好[]。” 同一天晚些时候,H 的配偶给B 发信息,“嗨[],你可以再给我发一下之前给我发过的那个[中国人]的详细信息吗?谢谢[。]” B 回复,“嗨[],你指[郭文贵先生]?还是指[中共部长 A]先生? 祝好[][。]” H 的配偶回复,“[郭文贵先生]。” 于是B 再次发送了他6 月 27 日发过的信息。

114. 2017 年 7 月 27 日当天或前后,B 和 DAVIS 互相发送信息讨论了郭文贵先生。DAVIS 给B 发信息,“大使馆回话了吗?” DAVIS 随后补 充,“嘿,有正式通告的新信息吗?” B 回复,“我正与美国国家安全委员会的人接触。直接发邮件。我正在等待回复。”

115. 2017 年 8 月 19 日当天或前后,B 给 DAVIS 发送好几次信息。在这些信息中,B 写道,“紧急。打电话给我。有好消息[。]” B 随后补充说,“我与[H]在一起,有个可以突破的机会[。]”

116. 2017 年 8 月 19 日当天或前后,B 与 H 在 H 的游艇上会面。在其会面期间,B 向H 询问郭文贵先生事宜,H 建议他们致电总统。B 和H 于是同总统通话,询问郭文贵先生在美国身份的事宜。

117. 2017 年 9 月 13 日当天或前后,B 给 DAVIS 发信息:“请将将政治庇护的文件,以及其它文件发给我[。]” 同日,DAVIS 给B 发送了关于郭文贵先生的文件链接。

118. 2017 年 10 月 2 日当天或前后,B 给 DAVIS 发了一个关于郭文贵先生相关的文件的链接。

119. 2018 年 1 月 5 日当天或前后,B 给 DAVIS 发送信息:“请将更多关于[郭文贵先生]资助民主党政客的信息马上发送给我[。]”

控罪 1 美国法典第 18 条第 2 节和美国法典第 22 条第 612 节 (协助和教唆罪以及未注册的外国领导人的代理人) 120. 自不迟于 2017 年 5 月到 2018 年 1 月前后,在夏威夷辖区及其他地区,被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 故意并主动帮助和协助 A 和B 作为 外国领导人的代理人行动,且未依据法律规定向司法部长注册,即:他们 通过暗箱游说来解决壹马基金案(1MDB)调查以偏向外国人 A 并遣返郭文贵先生回中国;他们代表外国人 A 和中共部长 A 以及中华人民共和国政府。违反了美国法典第 18 条第 2 节以及美国法典第 22 条第 612 节以及第618(a)(I)节。

没收指控

121. 根据美国法典第 18 条第 98l(a)(l)(C)节和美国法典第 28 条第 246l(c)节的规定,特此将本刑事起诉书的控罪一中包含的指控重新提出且合并为参考依据,以用于指控没收的目的。

122. 根据美国法典第 18 条第 98l(a)(l)(C)节和美国法典第 28 条第 246l(c)条,一经定罪,违反美国法典第 18 条第 2 节和美国法典第22 条第 612 和 618(a)(l)节,被告NICKIE MALI LUM DAVIS 被美利 坚合众国没收以下财产:涉案的违法收益,包括不动产或个人财产。另外,一经定罪,美国将就这笔款项(本段所述的财产)寻求对DAVIS 不利的判决。

123. 如果上述任何财产,由于被告的任何作为或不作为而导致: a. 在进行尽职调查时无法定位; b. 已转让,出售,或存放于第三方; c. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外; d. 价值已大幅下降; 或 e. 已经与其他难于分割的财产混合在一起,美利坚合众国有权没收替代财产

根据《美国法典》第 21 条第 853(p)节的规定以及美国法典第 28 条第 2461(c)节

立案日期:2020 年 8 月 17 日,在夏威夷檀香山。



公共廉政科科长 美国司法部 Isl Kenji M Price KENn M. PRICE 美国检察官夏威夷辖区 Isl John D . Keller JOHN D. KELLER 首席副总长


Isl Kenneth M Sorenson 国家安全局局长 SEANF.MULRYNE NICOLE R. LOCKHART JAMES C. MANN 审判律师廉政科 美国 v. Nickie Mali DAVIS 信息 Cr.编码

代号批注:


免责:真实名字来源于不同的报告,但我们会根据未来官方文件进行修改。

路德社专业点评

路德社 2020/8/21

路德社2020/8/22 上

路德社2020/8/22 下

路德社2020/8/23 上

路德社2020/8/23 下