USA v. HE et al, 1:22-mj-01137, No. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2022)

Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1
`
`Iÿ0
`
`.<
`
`71
`?1
`
`UO=
`0UOL`=
`
`sÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`<-+,ÿ*:-o
`h9:@ÿ*.<-4ÿ8.7.1.-ÿ*4ÿ4-@1J7.9*:'pÿ*4ÿXÿO<98ÿ98ÿ7ÿ+4929:7Jÿ>*+12-:.ÿ81329..->Iÿ7:>ÿ5J9@<.ÿf13J9+ÿ875-.gIÿ*4ÿ8-+149.gÿ74-ÿ89@:959+7:.ÿ+*:+-4:8E
`¤¥¦§¨©ÿ«¬ÿ¥®¯°ÿ±²¬³´µ´¶¦··®ÿ¯´µ©¸ÿ¹®ÿ¥¦§¨©ÿ«¬ÿ¥®¯°ÿ±²¬ÿ
`XÿÿUÿ+*fgÿ*5ÿ.<98ÿ7ffJ9+7.9*:ÿ-9.<-4ÿ<78ÿ3--:ÿ*4ÿh9JJÿ3-ÿf4*2f.Jgÿ8-4D->ÿ1f*:ÿ7JJÿf74.9-8ÿ.*ÿ.<98ÿ7+.9*:IÿFXÿÿK-4D9+-ÿ98ÿ-i+18->ÿ3gÿjkÿLEKE6Eÿjljmn3oIÿ*4ÿ3g
`ÿÿÿÿ ¡¢ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ'
`)UO=
``=6=Nd=)ÿN0ÿ6Z=`[eKÿRTTN6=
`
`XXÿbÿcb
`
`ÿ
`³¦¶ºÿ»¼»»¬½¼¬»¼ÿ»¼º»¾º½»ÿ¿¼ÀÁ¼¼Á
`#ÿ%ÿ&% !]#$ÿ$%ÿ^ÿ#$&ÿ%#ÿ&% $ÿ
`_$
`)UO=)'
`=;ÿPR`[
`M4**,Jg:
`)N6UO=ÿLQR0ÿOY=ÿQLMZN6ÿ)R6[=OÿKY==O'ÿP=Kÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ0RÿÿÿÿÿÿÿV
`Wÿ X
`2-4->9.<E7457y18>*zE@*D
`ÿÿ ÿFÿÿÿ ÿF
`=CB79JÿU>>4-88'
`Q<*:-ÿ0123-4'
` ÿÿÿÿÿWÿ ÿ H
`M4**,Jg:I0-hP*4,kkrmk
`
`rlk67>27:QJ7S7=78.
`U>>4-88'
`VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
`{|}|~~ÿÿ|
`LEKEU..*4:-gt8R559+-I=)0P
`T942ÿ072-'ÿ
`
`B-4->9.<UEU457
`072-'
`KLMBNOO=)ÿMP'ÿQJ79:.955ÿ)-5-:>7:.ÿ)R?ÿ
`*49S-8ÿ59J9:@ÿ1:>-4ÿ8-7J
`Fÿ"ÿ#Gÿ"

%#Hÿ.<-ÿ8.7.1.-Iÿ4-@1J7.9*:Iÿ*4ÿ*.<-4ÿJ-@7Jÿ37898ÿ.<7.
`((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
`)*+,-.ÿ0123-4
`qLR6YL0Y=-.7JE
`
`B?kkjl
`)7.-ÿ=:.-4->'
`>@-AB7@98.47.-ÿ?1>@-'
`L0NO=)KOUO=KRTUB=`N6U
`((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
`)*+,-.ÿ0123-4ÿ*5ÿ678-ÿ9:ÿ;<9+<ÿ=:.-4->'
`ÿ !
`!"#$ÿ$%ÿ"ÿ

%ÿ%!$ÿ &'
` ÿÿ ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ

`
`
`
`
`
`kmArmArmrr
`rvwCxmrv
`ÿÿÿÿÿ)
`$

%
`nlkuo
`
`

`EC
`CD
`
`
`
`$ÿ&
`
`
`
`C
`
`Hÿ
`$"
`
`
`
`ÿCÿ7@79:8.
`
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`JJ*
`
`
`
`-ÿ5*
`
`
`
`ÿ\N0
`
`
`
`n6
`.<
`
`
`¤
`
`£
`
`Nq
`ÿÿÿÿK
`
`
`s
`
`s
`rr
`
`
`
`
`

`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 2
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 29 PagelD #: 2
`
`DMP:AAS/MAA
`F. #2021R01036
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`COMPLAINT AND
`AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
`OF ARREST WARRANTS
`
`Docket No. 22 MJ 1137
`(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2) and
`1956(a)(2)(A))
`
`Thomas M.Ryder, being duly sworn, deposes andstates that he is a Supervisory
`
`Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, duly appointed according to law and
`
`acting as such.
`
`OBSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING
`
`In or about and between January 2019 andthe present, both dates being
`
`approximate and inclusive, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere, the
`
`defendants GUOCHUN HE,also known as “Dong He”or “Jacky He,” and ZHENG WANG,
`
`also known as “Zen Wang,” together with others, did knowingly, intentionally and corruptly
`
`attempt to obstruct, influence and impede an official proceeding, to wit: a criminal prosecution in
`
`the Eastern District of New Yorkof a global telecommunications company (“Company-1”’)
`
`based in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”).
`
`(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2))
`
`Xx
`
`Xx
`
`- against-
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,SS:
`
`GUOCHUN HE,also known as “Dong He”or
`“Jacky He,” and
`ZHENG WANG,also known as “Zen Wang,”
`
`ÿÿ ÿ
`
`
`ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ 6 ÿ ÿ6ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ !"#$ÿÿ
`ÿ 6ÿ ÿ
`ÿ%&ÿ&'ÿ(#)ÿ*")+"ÿ#ÿ, )" ÿ&-.ÿ)/ÿÿ
` 7ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ,01*2ÿ&-'.ÿ"3ÿ
`ÿ )1*-$ÿ)
`ÿ

ÿ0ÿ8ÿÿ
`4&%ÿ%'ÿ(#)ÿ*")+"ÿ#ÿ,4-"ÿ" '.ÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`9:ÿ
`
`
`ÿ;;ÿ<

91=9

=ÿ"3ÿ
` -5-"3"$#
`ÿ
`><9=9

=9==ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ'ÿÿ
`ÿ
`?)@#ÿ
`ÿ23-/'ÿA-!" ÿ3B(2ÿ#+)/"'ÿ3-C)#-#ÿ"3ÿ#$$-#ÿ$?$ÿ?-ÿ!#ÿÿBC-/D!#)/2ÿ
`C-1!(ÿ -"$ÿ+!$?ÿ$?-ÿ -3-/(ÿEB/-Bÿ)5ÿ"D-#$! $!)"'ÿ3B(2ÿCC)!"$-3ÿ11)/3!" ÿ$)ÿ(+ÿ"3ÿ
`1$!" ÿ#ÿ#B1?
`ÿEÿ ÿÿ 6ÿ %ÿ
`"ÿ)/ÿA)B$ÿ"3ÿA-$+--"ÿ0"B/2ÿ

>ÿ"3ÿ$?-ÿC/-#-"$'ÿA)$?ÿ3$-#ÿA-!" ÿ
`CC/)F!@$-ÿ"3ÿ!"1(B#!D-'ÿ+!$?!"ÿ$?-ÿ#$-/"ÿ !#$/!1$ÿ)5ÿ-+ÿ)/*ÿ"3ÿ-(#-+?-/-'ÿ$?-ÿ
`3-5-"3"$#ÿ%&ÿ&'ÿ(#)ÿ*")+"ÿ#ÿ, )" ÿ&-.ÿ)/ÿ,01*2ÿ&-'.ÿ"3ÿ4&%ÿ%'ÿ
`(#)ÿ*")+"ÿ#ÿ,4-"ÿ" '.ÿ$) -$?-/ÿ+!$?ÿ)$?-/#'ÿ3!3ÿ*")+!" (2'ÿ!"$-"$!)"((2ÿ"3ÿ1)//BC$(2ÿ
`$$-@C$ÿ$)ÿ)A#$/B1$'ÿ!"5(B-"1-ÿ"3ÿ!@C-3-ÿ"ÿ)55!1!(ÿC/)1--3!" 'ÿ$)ÿ+!$ÿÿ1/!@!"(ÿC/)#-1B$!)"ÿ!"ÿ
`$?-ÿ#$-/"ÿ !#$/!1$ÿ)5ÿ-+ÿ)/*ÿ)5ÿÿ ()A(ÿ$-(-1)@@B"!1$!)"#ÿ1)@C"2ÿ9,)@C"2.=ÿ
`A#-3ÿ!"ÿ$?-ÿ -)C(-G#ÿ-CBA(!1ÿ)5ÿ?!"ÿ9, .=
`ÿ
`9!$(-ÿ:'ÿ"!$-3ÿ$$-#ÿ)3-'ÿ-1$!)"ÿ<

91=9

==ÿ
`ÿ
`
`

`MONEY LAUNDERING
`
`In or about November 2021, within the Eastern District of New York and
`
`elsewhere, the defendant GUOCHUN HE,also known as “Dong He”or “Jacky He,” together
`
`with others, did knowingly andintentionally transport, transmit and transfer monetary instruments
`
`and funds, to wit: approximately $41,000 in Bitcoin, from one or more places outside the United
`
`States to and through one or more places inside the United States, with the intent to promote the
`
`carrying on of specified unlawful activity, to wit: obstruction ofjustice, in violation of Title 18,
`
`United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2).
`
`(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A))
`
`MONEY LAUNDERING
`
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 3
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 29 PagelD #: 3
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`

ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿ
`$ÿÿ#!#ÿ
`%&
`ÿ&ÿ$ÿ"ÿÿ'(ÿ&)ÿÿ'* "+ÿ&)ÿ(ÿ
`ÿÿ##ÿ"($+ÿ#ÿ$$+ÿ,ÿÿ#ÿ!ÿ+ÿÿ
`
`#ÿ!#ÿÿ-ÿ,,.$+ÿ/0ÿÿ1 ÿ!ÿÿÿÿ,$ ÿ#ÿÿ
`#ÿ
`2ÿÿ#ÿ(ÿÿÿÿ,$ ÿ#ÿÿ
`#ÿ2ÿÿÿÿÿ,ÿÿ
` +(ÿÿ!ÿ, !#ÿ$!$ÿ +ÿÿ-ÿ ÿ!ÿ3 ÿÿ$ÿ!ÿ4$ÿ5ÿ
`
`#ÿ2ÿ%#ÿ2 ÿ6 7 87 89ÿ
`74$ÿ5ÿ
`#ÿ2ÿ%#ÿ2 ÿ:6;787 87 88ÿ
` ÿ
`

ÿ
` ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿ$ÿ
`ÿ#!#ÿ
`%&
`ÿ&ÿ$ÿ"ÿÿ'(ÿ&)ÿÿ'* "+ÿ&)ÿ(ÿÿÿ
`##ÿ"($+ÿ#ÿ$$+ÿ,ÿÿ#ÿ!ÿ+ÿÿ#ÿ!#ÿ
`ÿ-ÿ,,.$+ÿ/ ÿÿ1 ÿ!ÿÿÿÿ,$ ÿ#ÿÿ
`#ÿ2ÿÿ
`#ÿ(ÿÿÿÿ,$ ÿ#ÿÿ
`#ÿ2ÿÿÿÿÿ,ÿÿ +(ÿ
`ÿ!ÿ, !#ÿ$!$ÿ +ÿÿ-ÿ ÿ!ÿ3 ÿÿ$ÿ!ÿ4$ÿ5ÿ
`#ÿ
`2ÿ%#ÿ2 ÿ6 7 87 89ÿ
`74$ÿ5ÿ
`#ÿ2ÿ%#ÿ2 ÿ:6;787 87 88ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`In or about October 2022, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere,
`
`the defendant GUOCHUN HE,also known as “Dong He”or “Jacky He,” together with others,
`
`did knowingly and intentionally transport, transmit and transfer monetary instruments and funds,
`
`to wit: approximately $20,000 in Bitcoin, from one or more places outside the United States to
`
`and through one or more places inside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying
`
`on of specified unlawful activity, to wit: obstruction ofjustice, in violation of Title 18, United
`
`States Code, Section 1512(c)(2).
`
`(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A))
`
`

`1.
`
`I have been a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
`
`(FBI) since August 2014 and am currently a Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the New
`
`York City Field Office. As a Special Agent, I have investigated numerous matters during the
`
`course of which I have conducted physical surveillance, interviewed witnesses, executed court-
`
`authorized search warrants and used other investigative techniques to secure relevant
`
`information.
`
`Iam familiar with the facts and circumstancesset forth below from my
`
`participation in the investigation, my review ofthe investigative file, and from my review of
`
`reports of other law enforcementofficers involved in the investigation.
`
`I. The Defendants
`
`2.
`
`The defendant GUOCHUN HE,also known as “Dong He”or “Jacky He,”
`
`is a citizen of the PRC. Based on the information set forth below, I assess that HE is an
`
`intelligence officer of the PRC conducting foreign intelligence operations targeting the United
`
`States, on behalf of the PRC governmentand for the benefit of Company-1. The defendant
`
`ZHENG WANG,also known as “Zen Wang,” is a citizen of the PRC whois known to meto be
`
`HE’s co-worker, and whomIassessalso to be an intelligence officer of the PRC conducting
`
`foreign intelligence operations targeting the United States, on behalf of the PRC governmentand
`
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 4
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 4 of 29 PagelD #: 4
`
`The source of your deponent’s information and the groundsfor his belief are as
`
`follows:'
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿÿÿ! ÿ" ÿÿÿ
`#!"$ÿ
`ÿ ÿ%&'ÿ ÿÿ
`

ÿÿ

ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ(ÿ
`) *ÿ+

ÿ! ÿ,
`ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ -ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`
` ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`
` ÿ

`ÿ
`-ÿ ÿ-ÿ.
` ÿ
` /
` 0 ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`1ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ

ÿ
`
`ÿÿÿ-ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿ-ÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ2 ÿ
`%ÿÿ ÿ ÿ34,+54(ÿ56-ÿÿ*ÿÿ72ÿ58ÿ ÿ79
`*

ÿ5-8ÿ
`ÿÿ
`0ÿÿÿ:;+ÿÿ" ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ-ÿÿÿÿ56ÿÿÿ
`
`ÿ
` ÿÿÿ:;+ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿ4 ÿ
`-ÿÿÿÿÿ:;+ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ+

/ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`
`<56(3ÿ= (3-ÿÿ*ÿÿ7<ÿ=-8ÿÿÿ
`0ÿÿÿ:;+ÿÿÿ*ÿÿÿÿÿ
`56ÿ
`/ * -ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ
` ÿÿÿ:;+ÿ
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿ4 ÿ-ÿÿÿÿÿ:;+ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ"
`ÿÿ ÿÿÿ+ÿÿÿÿ ÿ

ÿÿ
`ÿ
`

ÿÿÿ
` ÿ
`ÿÿ -ÿÿÿÿ
` ÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`' Because the purpose of this Complaint is to set forth only those facts necessary to establish
`probable causeto arrest, I have not described all the relevant facts and circumstances of which I
`am aware.
`
`

`ÿ
`ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ

`ÿÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ
`
` !"#ÿ
`below:
`ÿ
`$$ÿ&'(
`ÿ)
`ÿÿ$
`
`ÿ
`ÿ(
`ÿ ÿ

`ÿ
`*ÿÿ

`ÿÿÿ! !ÿ! (
`
`ÿ
`ÿ+(ÿ
`ÿÿ
`)

ÿ"ÿ
`(ÿ (
`ÿÿÿ"!ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ,
`ÿ-ÿÿ

`ÿ
`
`ÿ
` !ÿ !ÿ
`ÿÿ,
`ÿ-ÿÿ

`ÿÿÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ(
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ.ÿ ÿ"ÿ/'ÿ01./23ÿÿ$
`ÿÿ4 (ÿ5656ÿÿ!ÿ
`
`(
`
`ÿÿ
`(
`!
`ÿ ÿÿ(
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ

`ÿÿ,-ÿ.
`ÿ ÿ7(ÿ
`
`ÿÿÿ
`
`ÿ!ÿÿ

`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ
`$$$ÿ8ÿ- ÿÿ9 (ÿÿ$
`
`ÿ
`ÿ(
`ÿ ÿÿ
`

`ÿ
`ÿÿ9 "ÿ ÿ

`(ÿ
` ÿÿ$
`ÿÿÿÿ
`!!
`ÿ ÿ"'
`ÿ ÿÿ)

ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ ! ÿÿÿ(ÿÿ
`ÿÿ"ÿÿ
` !ÿ ÿÿ,-ÿ
`
`ÿ!"ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ0123ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
`!ÿ
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿ"
`ÿ!ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`!ÿ
`"ÿÿÿ ÿ (ÿ
`ÿ
`
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`unsealing of a superseding indictment against Company-1, the U.S. Department of Justice
`
`indicated that the investigation related to Company-1 is ongoing.
`
`Ill.
`
`The Schemeto Obstruct the Investigation and Prosecution of
`Company-1
`
`A. Overview of Conduct
`
`4.
`
`In their capacity as intelligence officers working for the PRC government,
`
`HE and WANGattempted to direct a person they believed they had recruited as an asset who is
`
`employed by a U.S. government law enforcement agency (“GE-1”’) to obtain confidential
`
`information regarding witnesses,trial evidence and potential new charges to be brought against
`
`4
`
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 5
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 5 of 29 PagelD #: 5
`
`for the benefit of Company-1. Photographs of HE and WANG,respectively, are set forth
`
`II. Background Regarding the Investigation and Prosecution of Company-1
`
`3.
`
`Company-1 is a global telecommunications company headquartered in the
`
`PRC which conducts business across the world and in the United States. Company-1 maintains
`
`severalaffiliates in the United States. Company-1 is a defendant in a pending prosecution in
`
`the Eastern District of New York (““EDNY”).
`
`Ina February 2020 press release announcing the
`
`

`5.
`
`HE and WANGfirst cultivated their relationship with GE-1 in or about
`
`February 2017. GE-1 subsequently began working as a double agent for the U.S. government.
`
`Since becoming a double agent, GE-1’s continued contact with HE and WANGoccurred under
`
`the supervision of the FBI. Pursuant to directives from the FBI, GE-1 provided various kinds of
`
`information to HE and WANGattheir request, including purportedly sensitive information about
`
`the U.S. government’s criminal case against Company-1. While acting under the supervision of
`
`the FBI, GE-1 received payment from HE and WANGforthe information he/she had provided,
`
`some of which has purported to contain sensitive, non-public U.S. governmenttrial information.
`
`6.
`
`Asof October 2021, HE and WANGhadprovided GE-1 with paymentof
`
`approximately $14,000, in addition to jewelry worth approximately $600, for purported sensitive
`
`U.S. government information.
`
`Specifically, and unrelated to this matter, GE-1 received: (1) a
`
`Western Union wire for $2,000 in September 2017; (2) $3,000 in cash during an in-person
`
`meeting with HE and WANG;and(3) $9,000 in cash and jewelry in September 2018.
`
`7.
`
`Beginning in or about January 2019, when chargeswere first announced
`
`against Company-1, HE and WANGrepeatedly sought from GE-1 non-public information
`
`regarding the pending criminal prosecution of Company-1, as well as any ongoing investigation
`
`of Company-1, in an effort to interfere with the prosecution and the ongoing investigation.
`
`Beginning in the summerof 2021, HE and WANG’s efforts to interfere with the pending
`
`ÿ
`
`ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ !"""ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ

#ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ%&'ÿ

ÿ(ÿ ÿ ÿ)ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿ
`* ÿ#"+ÿÿ
`ÿ, ÿÿ) -ÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ./ÿ( ÿÿ
`/ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ
`0ÿÿÿ)ÿÿÿ%&'ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ (ÿ

ÿÿ*12ÿÿ3 ÿÿ (ÿ

ÿÿ*12!ÿ
`ÿ (ÿ( ÿ-ÿ

ÿ
`

ÿÿÿÿ%&'ÿÿ ÿ ,!ÿÿ ÿ(ÿ

ÿÿ
`ÿ./ÿ( 0ÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ%ÿÿ ÿÿ (ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ*12!ÿ
`ÿ (ÿ ÿ

ÿÿÿ%&'ÿ

ÿÿ

ÿ4ÿÿ (!ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ)ÿÿ ÿÿÿ(!ÿ
`ÿ./ÿ( ÿ ÿ

ÿÿÿ
` ÿÿ&ÿ

ÿ5 ÿ#"#!ÿÿÿ%&'ÿÿ (ÿ
`ÿ)ÿ ÿ

ÿ
` ÿ6!"""!ÿÿÿÿ) ÿ) ÿ ÿ ""!ÿ

ÿ ÿ(ÿ
`./ÿ( ÿ

ÿÿ/

!ÿÿ ÿÿÿ !ÿ
`ÿ (7ÿ89ÿÿ
`% ÿ.ÿ) ÿ

ÿ#!"""ÿÿ/ ÿ#"+:ÿ8#9ÿ;!"""ÿÿÿ ÿÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ)ÿÿÿ%&':ÿÿ8;9ÿ<!"""ÿÿÿÿ) ÿÿ/ ÿ#"=ÿÿÿÿ
`+ÿÿ1ÿÿ ÿÿ> ÿ#"<!ÿ)ÿ ÿ) ÿ

ÿÿ
`ÿ
`!ÿÿÿ%&'ÿ ÿÿ

ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ
` ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿ
`!ÿÿ)ÿÿ ÿÿ(ÿ
`

ÿ
`!ÿÿÿ

ÿÿ

ÿ)ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ(ÿÿ
`1ÿÿÿ ÿ

ÿ#"#!ÿÿÿ%&'0ÿ

ÿÿ

ÿ)ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`#ÿ ÿ

ÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ)ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ
`

ÿ
`!ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`0ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ

ÿ1ÿ ÿÿ
`
`0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`2 Certain references to conduct by GE-1 are to conduct by law enforcementagentsacting on
`behalf of GE-1, such as communications sent on GE-1’s behalf and receipt of Bitcoin payment on
`GE-1’s behalf.
`
`ÿ
`
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 6
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 6 of 29 PagelD #: 6
`
`Company-1 for the purpose of obstructing justice. HE paid GE-1 approximately $61,000 for
`
`such information.”
`
`

`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 7 of 29 PagelD #: 7
`
`criminal prosecution and ongoing investigation related to Company-1 escalated.
`
`In or about
`
`September 2021, HE tasked GE-1 with providing information about meetings that GE-1 was
`
`purportedly having with membersof the prosecution team at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
`
`EDNY to strategize for the jury trial in the prosecution of Company-1.
`
`In October 2021, in
`
`response to HE’s request for documents and records from the prosecution team, GE-1 passed to
`
`HEa single page documentthat appearedto beclassified as “SECRET”andthat purported to
`
`discuss a potential plan to charge and arrest two current Company-1 principals residing in the
`
`PRC. GE-1 falsely indicated to HE and WANGthathe/she surreptitiously photographed the
`
`document during a meeting with federal prosecutors. The document, if authentic, could be used
`
`by Company-1 to obstruct the ongoing criminal prosecution and governmentinvestigation.*
`
`HE paid GE-1 approximately $41,000 in Bitcoin for that single page.
`
`In December 2021, after
`
`the document was passed to HE,in discussions concerning the document, HE informed GE-1
`
`that Company-1 “demanded to communicate with [GE-1] directly” but that HE had “refusedit”
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`

ÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ
`
` ÿÿÿ

ÿ!ÿ"#ÿ
`ÿ$ÿÿ

ÿ#ÿ!ÿ"

ÿ
`
`
` ÿ#ÿ"#ÿ

ÿ$ÿ# ÿ
`

ÿ ÿÿ# ÿ%ÿ& '

ÿ($$ ÿ$ÿ
`)*+ÿÿ

, ÿ$ÿ# ÿ-ÿ ÿÿ# ÿ
`

ÿ$ÿ
`ÿÿÿ( ÿÿÿ
`

ÿÿ'

ÿ .

ÿ$ÿ

ÿÿ

ÿ$ÿ# ÿ
`

ÿ ÿ!ÿ
`

ÿÿ
`ÿÿ

ÿ
` ÿ ÿ#ÿ
`
` ÿÿ ÿ

$ ÿ

ÿ/0123ÿÿ#ÿ
`
` ÿÿ
`
`

ÿÿ
` ÿ
` ÿÿ # ÿÿ

ÿ"ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`
`

ÿÿ# ÿ
`40ÿÿ!ÿ$

ÿ ÿÿÿÿ5&*!ÿ#ÿ# 6

# ÿ

ÿ
`#
`# ÿ# ÿ
` ÿÿÿ ÿ"#ÿ$ ÿ
`

ÿÿ1# ÿ ÿ$ÿ# ÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ

ÿ# ÿÿ ÿ
`

ÿÿ ÿ

7ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ!ÿ
`
`8 ÿ97ÿÿ: ÿ$ÿ#ÿ

ÿ
` ÿÿÿ) ÿÿ$ ÿ
`# ÿ ÿ"

ÿ
`

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿ# ÿ ÿÿ$ ÿ!ÿ
`#ÿ
`ÿ/ ÿÿ ÿ"#ÿ;!<ÿ 2ÿÿ#ÿÿ#ÿ/ $

ÿ2ÿ
`

ÿ/'

ÿÿ

2=ÿ
`>ÿÿÿ

ÿ"#ÿÿÿ5&*!ÿ!ÿ#

ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`#

6# ÿ " ÿÿ 8
` ÿ#ÿ# ÿ

ÿ# 6

# ÿ
`

ÿ" ÿ ÿ

# ÿ"#ÿ
`ÿ
`3ÿ@ ÿ

$ ÿÿ# ÿ/012ÿ ÿ$ÿ

ÿ"#ÿ#,ÿ" ÿ ÿ
` 8
` ÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿ# ÿ ÿ

ÿ$ÿ# ÿ% ÿ

ÿ
`7ÿ1# ÿ"ÿ

ÿÿ#

ÿ$$ÿ#ÿ!ÿ ÿÿ
`

ÿÿÿÿ5&*!ÿ
`" ÿ ÿ
`
` ÿÿ# ÿ ÿ$ÿ
`
`

ÿ$ÿ#

ÿÿ" ÿ # ÿ
` ÿ$ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ# ÿ
`

ÿ$ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ

$ ÿ

ÿ
`/012ÿÿA# ÿ# ÿ$ÿ

ÿ$#ÿ "ÿ#ÿ"

ÿ
` ÿÿ!ÿÿÿÿ
`5&*!ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿÿ# ÿ

ÿ ÿÿ
`# ÿ
`

ÿ$ÿ
`ÿ
`=ÿ%

ÿ# "

ÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿ " ÿ!ÿÿÿ5&*!ÿ

ÿ$#ÿ "ÿ
`" ÿ ÿ

ÿÿ
` ÿ

ÿ
`ÿÿ& ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`

` ÿÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`4 The two documentsdescribed in this affidavit that GE-1 obtained and passed to HE and WANG
`were actually prepared by the governmentfor purposesofthis investigation and were neither
`taken from any documentrelated to the prosecution of Company-1 nor actually classified as
`“SECRET.” Furthermore, the information set forth below that was provided by GE-1 to HE and
`WANGdoesnotaccurately recount actual meetings, communications or other strategy related to
`the prosecution of Company-1.
`
`ÿ
`
`because“it’s too dangerous.”°
`
`8.
`
`In communications with HE and WANG,GE-1 has repeatedly indicated
`
`his/her knowledge and expectation that the materials he/she passed would be shared with
`
`3 Material classified at the “SECRET”level, if disclosed without authorization, would be
`expected to cause serious damageto the national security of the United States.
`
`> Unless otherwise noted, all communications between GE-1, HE and WANGsetforth below
`were made using an encrypted messaging program. All messages include original grammar,
`spelling and punctuation.
`
`

`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 8
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 8 of 29 PagelD #: 8
`
`Company-1, and HE and WANGneverdenied that the materials they received from GE-1 would
`
`be shared with Company-1.
`
`In fact, regarding the purportedly classified page they received
`
`from GE-1 regarding Company-1, HE explained, “[Company-1] didn’t give mespecifically
`
`feedback nowyet [about the document], but they are obviously interested in it, and my boss and
`
`they need further information.” After receiving the document, HE and WANGrequested
`
`information regarding cooperating witnesses working with the U.S. governmentin the
`
`ÿ
`
`

ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ
`!ÿÿ"ÿ

ÿ# #ÿÿ ÿ ÿ#ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ# #ÿ
`

ÿÿ$

ÿ%&
`'ÿ (ÿ#ÿÿ ÿ
` )ÿÿ ÿ& ÿÿ '

ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ!*ÿÿÿ#ÿÿ

ÿÿ ÿÿ+ ÿ
`ÿ# #ÿ#ÿÿ)#ÿÿÿ,!-!ÿ#ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`!ÿ
`.!ÿ0ÿ1 ÿ2ÿ-)ÿ"ÿ3# #ÿÿ4ÿÿ
`ÿ
`5!ÿÿ0ÿ (ÿÿÿÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ# #ÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ #ÿÿÿ ÿ6 ÿ785

ÿ ÿÿ#ÿ
`
`ÿ ÿ#ÿ
`!9ÿÿ:ÿÿ ÿ2 ÿ

ÿ785

ÿÿ ÿÿÿ
` ÿ##ÿ
`ÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ#ÿ#ÿÿ
` )ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ#!ÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ$# ÿÿ
`#ÿ#;ÿÿ&';ÿ1ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ <ÿ
`ÿ&
`';ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ<ÿ1ÿ ÿÿ)ÿÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿ<ÿ
`ÿ&';ÿ !ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿ <ÿ
`ÿ&
`';ÿ"ÿ ÿ (ÿ)ÿÿ ÿ$ÿ !ÿ
`ÿ&';ÿÿ ÿ)ÿÿ$ÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿ$!ÿ=ÿÿÿ ÿ"ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ)ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ!ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`9ÿ"ÿÿ ÿ6 ÿ785

ÿ
`ÿÿÿ#ÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ

ÿÿÿ ÿ
`

ÿÿ
`ÿÿ#ÿÿ !ÿÿÿ ;ÿ%ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`#ÿ"ÿÿ ÿÿ !*ÿ
` ÿ
`
`® In or about January 2019, GE-1 sent a message to HE in which GE-1 stated, in sum and
`substance, that GE-1 was having financial difficulties. HE responded: “let me see if there are
`something I can do for you.”
`
`ÿ
`
`prosecution of Company-1.
`
`B. The Defendants First Seek Information Regarding the Prosecution of Company-1
`
`9.
`
`The defendants’ first efforts to obtain non-public information regarding
`
`the prosecution of Company-1 from GE-1 began in or about January 2019, shortly after charges
`
`were unsealed against Company-1.° On or about February 1, 2019, several daysafter the
`
`indictment charging Company-1 wasfirst unsealed, HE sent GE-1 a message containing two
`
`hyperlinks to public newsarticles about the charges. HE and GE-1 then exchanged the
`
`following messages:
`
`[HE]: Do you havetimeto use a public phone call me in this two days?
`
`[GE-1]: What do you mean by a public phone? Do you mean like a pay phone on
`the street?
`
`[HE]: yeah. the pay phoneonthestreet. is it convience for you?
`
`[GE-1]: I really don’t know if they exist anymore.
`
`[HE]: can you checkit exist or not tomorrow.ifstill exist. just tell me andI will
`tell you the phone numberthat we can makea phonecall in suitable time.
`
`

`10.
`
`Several days later, on or about February 4, 2019, GE-1 spoke with WANG
`
`using a public phone kiosk. During the call, WANGexpressedinterest in GE-1 obtaining non-
`
`public information about the prosecution of Company-1. During the conversation, WANG
`
`expressed interest in finding out information regarding “the U.S. side” of the charges against
`
`Company-1. When GE-1 indicated that he/she lacked direct access to such information,
`
`WANGsuggested that he/she consult with a “friend” or “maybe, you know, you know in your
`
`own ways maybe[unintelligible] you see you have the-the wayto find.”
`
`11.
`
`On or about February 14, 2020, several days after a superseding
`
`indictment charging Company-1 was unsealed, HE wrote GE-1: “And you know,yesterday, the
`
`US departmentofjustice make a new lawsuit just aim to [Company-1], can you talk about this
`
`with your ex-college [colleague] who work for department ofjustice? Evidencees, next
`
`measures, or communication .. .
`
`, anything about this are good, Thank you very much,”using an
`
`abbreviation for Company-1. When GE-1 responded that GE-1 did not know what the
`
`abbreviation meant, HE explained he wasreferring to Company-1. HE also wrote: “You can
`
`learn something about this case from Internet before start” and that “[t]he latest lawsuit yesterday
`
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 9
`Case 1:22-mj-01137-RER Document1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 9 of 29 PagelD #: 9
`
`ÿ
` ÿÿ
`

ÿ ÿ

`ÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ !ÿ"#$ÿ
` %ÿÿ

&ÿ!ÿ ÿÿ'
` %ÿ!ÿ&

ÿ"#$ÿ(
` ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ %ÿ
`

&ÿ )
`* ÿÿ!ÿ
`& ÿ)ÿ+* ÿÿ'
` %ÿ!ÿ&
` ÿ"#$ÿ
`(
` ÿ
`ÿ ÿ) %ÿÿ )
`* ÿ
`%
` %ÿ,!ÿ-ÿ .ÿ)ÿ!ÿ&!
`%ÿ% ÿ
`+* ÿÿ"!ÿ ÿ & ÿ!ÿ!/!ÿ

& ÿ
`&ÿ&&ÿÿ&!ÿ )
`* ÿ
`"#$ÿ%% ÿ!ÿ!/!ÿ&

ÿ !ÿÿ,)
` .ÿ
`ÿ,*ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ*ÿ0

1ÿÿÿÿ! ÿ!!ÿÿÿ) .ÿÿÿ
` ÿÿ2ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ ÿÿ
`

ÿ ÿ)
`ÿÿ
` %ÿ
` &*ÿ&!
`% %ÿ+* ÿÿ

ÿ3ÿ
`ÿ 4ÿ,# ÿÿÿ
` ÿ!ÿ
`-ÿ
`*ÿ)ÿ5 &ÿ*ÿÿÿ

ÿ5ÿ *ÿÿ0+* 1ÿ&ÿÿ

ÿÿ! ÿ
` !ÿ
`ÿ(&

%ÿ0&

%1ÿ!ÿ
`ÿ)
`ÿ
`*ÿ)ÿ5 &6ÿ &ÿ(ÿ
`
`*
`ÿ
`ÿ&** & ÿÿÿÿÿ! %ÿÿ! ÿ
`ÿ% ÿ7!ÿÿ
`ÿ*&!.ÿ %ÿÿ
`
` ÿ)
`ÿ+* ÿÿ"!ÿ ÿ
` ÿ!ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ!ÿ!ÿ
`
` ÿ*ÿ3ÿ(

ÿ!ÿÿ
`)
`
` %ÿÿ+* ÿÿ3ÿ

ÿ
`4ÿ,8ÿ&ÿ
`

`ÿ*! %ÿÿ! ÿ&ÿ)
`*ÿ9
`ÿ)
`ÿ
`.ÿ ÿ!ÿ,01!ÿ

ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ* ÿÿ)
`

ÿ&
`ÿ)ÿ:
`

ÿ$8.ÿ
` ÿÿ2ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ ;ÿÿ3ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ)

%ÿÿÿÿ )ÿ
`!
`ÿ! ÿÿÿ
`%
`ÿ ÿ

& %ÿ&)

ÿ )
`* ÿ
`%
` %ÿ!ÿ&ÿ% ÿ
`+* 4ÿ,ÿ
`ÿ)
` ÿ ÿÿ%ÿ! %ÿÿ 6.ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿ!ÿ!/!ÿ! ÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿ3ÿ
` ÿ,ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ!

ÿ ÿ %ÿ)
`ÿ
`ÿ)
`!
`ÿ
` )
`* .ÿÿ <ÿÿ9ÿ
`ÿÿ#%ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ3ÿ %ÿ)
`ÿ
`& ÿÿ
`!ÿ )
`* ÿÿ%!
`4ÿ,9ÿ!
`ÿ! %ÿ& ) &ÿ!ÿ

ÿÿ!

)

ÿÿÿ6.ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`is made by federal court of Brooklyn NY.”
`
`12.
`
`On or about February 17, 2020, HE wrote to GE-1, following up to see if
`
`there had been any progress in locating confidential information regarding the case against
`
`Company-1: “So, dear friend, did you get anything aboutit?” GE-1 responded that he/she had
`
`not been at work yet. HE responded,“take it easy, happy holiday, and waiting for your further
`
`information.”
`
`13.
`
`—Inor about August 2021, GE-1 wrote to HE asking for direction about
`
`what information to gather: “Is there anything specific that would be helpful to know about?”
`
`

`ÿ
`ÿ
`

ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ
`

ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿ

ÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿ !!""" ÿ!ÿ ÿ !ÿ# ÿÿ#!#ÿ# ÿ
`
` !ÿ # ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ "ÿÿ
`"ÿ%ÿ&! ÿ'ÿ ÿ( ÿ)!
` ÿ ÿ(#ÿÿ&*ÿ+ # ÿ
`,"ÿÿ)ÿÿ! ÿ !ÿ-.-ÿ/ ÿ!

ÿ!
`ÿÿ! ÿ ÿ0ÿ1 ÿ
`
`
` ÿ1ÿ
`
`ÿ !ÿÿ&*ÿ # ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ! ÿ ÿ ÿ
`

"ÿÿ
`)ÿ ÿÿ! ÿ#ÿ/ ÿ ÿÿ #ÿ!
` ÿ!
`ÿÿ&*ÿ
` # ÿ
`ÿ# ÿ1ÿÿ!
` ÿ ÿ# ÿ1ÿ ÿ
`!
` ÿ ÿ! #
` ÿ# ÿ ÿ
`

"ÿÿ/ ÿ

ÿ# ÿ0ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ!
` ÿ0ÿ1 ÿ ÿ1 ÿ
`

ÿ ÿ ÿ
`

ÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ23*/ÿ4ÿÿ ÿ

ÿ1ÿ ÿÿ!
` ÿ1ÿ
`

"ÿÿ% ÿÿ
`#

ÿÿ5ÿ ÿÿ!
` ÿ1 ÿ !ÿ ÿÿ ÿ
`

"ÿÿ6#ÿ !ÿÿ
`ÿ !ÿ# ÿ1ÿ! ÿÿ 4 #ÿ !ÿ1ÿÿ!ÿ1 ÿ 1ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ#ÿ!
` ÿ1 ÿÿ 4 ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ ÿ1 ÿ 4ÿ
`

`ÿ1ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ
`ÿ1ÿ1"ÿÿ
`7"ÿÿ(ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ1ÿ'
`ÿ8ÿ-.-ÿ ÿ'
`ÿ9ÿ-.-ÿ/
`ÿ ÿÿ5# ÿ
` "ÿÿ)

ÿ/ ÿ1 ÿ ÿÿ ÿ)ÿÿ)ÿ
` ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`4 ÿ ÿÿ ÿ# ÿ1ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`

"ÿÿ* ÿ
`ÿÿ):
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ4 4"ÿÿÿ ;ÿ(<ÿ1 ÿ! ÿ

=ÿÿ/ ÿ ;ÿ(ÿ
`
`):ÿÿ1 ÿ)ÿ# ÿ "ÿÿ)ÿÿ
` ÿ

ÿ1 ÿ
`ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿÿ)!ÿ ÿÿÿ

ÿ
`#!#ÿ)ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ!ÿ ÿÿÿÿ;ÿ4

ÿ ÿÿÿ "ÿ
`9"ÿÿ(ÿ ÿ ÿ'
`ÿ,ÿ-.-ÿÿ1 ÿ ÿ/ ;ÿ 1ÿ ÿ

ÿ
`1 ÿ !ÿ
`

ÿÿ&ÿ

ÿ!ÿ
` ÿ
` !ÿÿ/ ÿ ;ÿ)ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`C. The Defendants Seek and Obtain Information to Obstruct the EDNY Prosecution
`
`
`
`14._—sIn the fall of 2021, GE-1 falsely informed the defendants that he/she was
`
`meeting with members of the EDNYprosecution team to prepare for trial against Company-1.
`
`In response, the defendants directed GE-1 to seek non-public information from the EDNY
`
`prosecution

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

Up-to-date information for this case.
Email alerts whenever there is an update.
Full text search for other cases.
Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases