To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 2 of 64 201942.90 22:03:19 (GM) 139243255 Fro Caplan INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, ARKANSAS ‘CIRCUIT CLERK GREG WALLIS FILED FOR RECORDBY CARMEN OUNCAN 0.0. DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2019 TIME: 08:02:05 Appendix 1To: Ciruit Court Arkansas Page 3 of 64 2018-12'30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan GRANTED WITH MODIFICATIONS “ THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LOUIS DUCHESNEAU; JOEL CAPLAN; MARC ARONOFF; RICARDO ALEXANDER GOMEZ; DAVID A. KUPIDLOWSKI; DIANE T. KUPIDLOWSKI; NATALIE VERMETTE; LUCIE DESILETS; SYLVAIN BOISCLAIR; THOMAS PAUL; ALAIN PERACCA; KIMBERLY FRANKLIN; and JAMES FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of his minor sons, P.F.and V.F., Plaintiffs, v. C.A. No. 11226-ML ADVANCED BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. SOUTHPAW CREDIT OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LP, Plaintiff, v, C.A. No. 9542-ML ADVANCED BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant. PROPOSED ORDERTo: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 4 of 64 2018-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and Consolidation, and any response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED, and: 1. Defendant Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. (“ABAT”) is in contempt of the Court’s August 25, 2015 Order granting Plaintifis’ motion for default judgment; 2. Plaintiffs are awarded their attorneys’ fees. and costs, including fees and costs to be incurred in connection with the enforcement of this Court’s orders; 3. Plaintiffs are awarded the option of putting their shares to ABAT at $27.50 per share; and 4, The above-captioned actions are consolidated into a single action to proceed on the same schedule as entered by the Court on August 25, 2015 in Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund LP v. Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc., Del. Ch., CA. No. 9542-ML. The consolidated action shall proceed under the following caption:1 Ueun Coun mines rage DOF ed 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan IN RE: ADVANCED BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, Consolidated INC. LITIGATION C.A. No. 9542-ML si Abigail M. LeGrow Master in Chancery#8. wucun Count Aransas Hage 6 or 64 2019-42-20 22:03:19 (GMT) File & Serve ansaction 1D: Current Date: Case Number: Case Name: DE Court of Chancery Civil Action Matti-Case 57968536 ct 08, 2015 Muli-Case Muli-Case 14192343255 From: Joe! Caplan Js) Judge LeGrow, Abigail+0. Larcun Court arkansas Hage / of 64 2019-42.30 22:03:19 (GMT) 114132343255 From: Joe! Caplan Appendix 21 Sun wuul minaiias rage © oF ba 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan ‘The Honorable Senator Rubi United state Senate ‘Washington, Dc 20510 Joel caplan 2030 South Ocean Drive Apt #81 Hallandale, #1 33009 September 7, 2018 bear staff-neaber of Honorable Senator Rubio, T_would Tike to set up a meeting with Senator aubio either in Florida or ashington 0.¢. Regarding the Epllowing ‘case. which ‘was "$10,000,000 electric bike chinese Stack Frauds Like, hundreds OF ovhesee these” cases "are unsettled “and. remain’ gpen with thgusands “GF shareholders “fhe one, oyna fat justice. Please see the following letter for wore etal Sincerely, Soet Captin Dans $a eons Beinajoeleyahao.com e0909e00c0e000000000000000000000000000000 Dear Senator Rubio, ce: President Trump, Honorable Coleen HeHahon and respected Staffronbers, E cannot commend you enough on your recent article in the washington Post to introduce legislation to nd "The rina vusie" ™ * ne=to-gn-rho-china-hust alinnrEes core ee Ercan Tota ADO Pan encom gea Siok Slraatee soraolders uta toss sore chan ten years of savings Jn these frauds, 1 hope and oray handréds oP chousands of other’ american Navestote wi¥i ave Che Sevets eaten ees see, Py but that the hundreds of chinese biltignaires and Government agents will See tase st will eitinseety’ te fo_aihein, Benefit ta ‘work’ with, the SEC "te pay “aff the dovens’ OF Us Court” Judgenentes Ue eure Receiverships and court-ordered "put-options® Yo restore trust, As you have stated so, clearly, if china wants to cone t9 the US to raise capital they should follow our [ules and ‘when found ‘guiity ot financial crimes. or ‘Praudulent” accounting, ‘the responssbie pereses should pay the just penalities to those Tike we and “thousands OF others thay have beer narmes be ches ENCkS nd Shenanigans Serine Air SBE" SSAPYOM, In, the Osaware Cour of Chancery. In ths, case. the Chinase SBanuatcated with the shareholders agnine’ Whe’ bfaeese” Soult" of” eneuy me grape TPS and never Go RLES Enahae FM gs sete tod cup cara, Ue nad ee! asming fo Boat icabig 50, that ‘they could sel1 stock) was actually bankrupt snd" could not pay anytiing, Wot just usted om absurd'but a complete abuse of our systen of laws 2 * E would, Tike to aeet with you if possible to share my Court Documents and stary. and to eaphasize the fora nay these, conparies by and Tange pave tayes"to the The TRS ard the Us ready n Gratis that were fictious."" they really” just bribed the Us: treasury by doing stock offersngs ‘and’ Gren tansca Fictetaus acacuncing’ using that money to\pay taxes and WePense sttotneys with stores money, A,federal pudge, her Honoralile coVleen wowahon said this iq an open hearing regarding wy statements in Goure Ta the Soichern Stscetce of now vere an betenbet 35, SoH) onus Mea kg £25804 09 818 Right. And it 48 cospoundad ny ene fect thee thie Se happening lth 2 lasge vee." So when thee munber $225 allison 2 woltiplded ay 10 oF Ze, is 38» bine BIE court: Fe 4 inceresting, mecause 1£ vnat you ace talking aboot Le 2 eideapsesd phencaenon Geecinentel to the. United states econeayy te copht” to be af Iotoleet. to weaconn nt eae ToERIAG OH che policy aun of rete den fac chivae coma iis broas-bases, widespread phonokenon bppentag. ober a0 st fe ge bunt, and alt the snvasenene roa che Bolted Staten ence tein reanecript Deceaber 8, 2013, page't6) 50, as you know in addition to the 68 6i11ion dollars in property theft, various chinese business Beqgons! with cover fron the Comunist chinese government also Caused “nvestaeat oases OF over 353d SitTion dotiars in the China sustie resuteing ietossas of fens oF billion ef Uellare fo aserieats10; Cwreut Cour Arkansas Page 9 of 64 2018-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan EE ust end and hopefully the biT1 will take form that will result in sone compensation to defrauded Shareholders such a ayself = T Vist of 17 the chinese Reverse werger Frauds 4s avaTable here. asap: //stonthechinahustle,ara’ T have included a few atrarchoents to this Texter By QBr, Cour, audgenene from the Delaware Court of Chancery is attatched (9542-voMR), a put-option for 527, S0/sfare' cian eato) ” ‘ aoe 2 av, final levcer to audge sewahon after trying xp stop this Fraud in Southern Oisteict Court of new Tork ear" dares curs BHO staring Shen gre0C8s a Bobet BeIUEE one of the Receivers Reports indicating that a coxpany that had been profitable to the tune of 55,000,000 was ‘now suddenly "solvent with cover: from the Chinese. governsent 4) POF of this Vetter Yay G-d Almighty and his son and our fine laws and senators 1ike you bring justice to American, all the Rateed-aneriGany and prevent future debactas such as erie etal Sincerely Joe! captan Pasha" tona 2030 south ocean orive 7 Hallandate, £1 33003 Beingjeelyahco-comTo: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 10 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan EFiled: Dec 10 2019 12:33P| Transaction ID 64509416 Case No. 2017-0848-AGB EXHIBIT A+0. Wurcun Coun Amensas Hage 11 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan GRANTED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PETER E. DEUTSCH, Plaintiff, v. C.A.No, 8014-VCL 2ST DIGITAL NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER WHEREAS, on December 11, 2012, the Court entered a Final Order (the “Final Order”) (DLL 13) requising ZST Digital Networks, Inc. (°ZSTN” or the “Company”) to (i) provide Plaintiff Peter E. Deutsch (the “Plaintift”) with certain books and records, and (ii) reimburse Plaintiff his attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action; WHEREAS, ZSTN thereafter failed to comply with any terms of the Final Order and, as a result, on January 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt (D.L 16); WHEREAS, ZSTN failed to respond to the Motion for Contempt: and; on-March 20; 2013, the Court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Contempt (the “Contempt Order”) (D.1. 22), which (i) granted Plaintiff the right to “put” his shares in ZSTN stock for $8.21 per share; (ii) ordered ZSTN to pay Plaintiff's fees and costs in connection with the Motion for Contempt, and fees and costs to be incurred in connection with the enforcement of the Court’s orders; and (iii) granted Plaintiff's request for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 322 for the purpose of enforcing the Court’s orders; and WHEREAS, on or about March 25, 2013, Plaintiff exercised his “put” option, and to date ZSTN has failed to pay Plaintiff the required consideration for his shares of ZSTN stock 1955 oni-w025354,)Tor Circuit Court Arkansas Page 12.0f 64 2019-12-30 2:03:19 (GMT) 14132343258 From: Joel Caplan NOW, THEREFORE, IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER: Pursuant to 8 Del C. § 322, Robert W. Seiden, Esq. is hereby appointed Receiver of the Company with the powers and duties specified in this Order. 2. ACCEPTANCE AND TERM OF APPOINTMENT: The Receiver shall submit to the Court a written acceptance of this appointment. The Receiver shall serve at the pleasure of the Court, and the provisions of this Order shall remain in effect pending further Order of the Court. 3. PURPOSES OF APPOINTMENT: GENERAL POWERS: The Receiver shall take all actions he deems appropriate to obtain ZSTN’s compliance with the following orders of this Court (i) the Final Order, (i) the Contempt Order, (iil) this Order, and (iv) such other and further orders the Court may enter in this action. Without limiting the foregoing, the Receiver shall take all appropriate action to ensure ZSTN’s compliance with its obligation to reimburse Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and expenses and ZSTN’s obligation to pay Plaintiff $8.21 for each ZSTN share for which the Plaintiff seeks redemption. The Receiver shall have all powers generally available to a receiver appointed pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 291, unless any such power would be inconsistent with a specific provision of this Order, in which case this Order shall govern. Upon the acceptance of this appointment, the Receiver shall have full authority and control over the property and/or assets of the Company, of whatever kind and wherever located, in the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China or elsewhere. This includes, without limitation, authority to seize, deal in or dispose of any property of the Company. The Receiver shall have full and unrestricted access to all books and records of the Company, in whatever mode maintained and wherever located, in the United £955.01- 0025354} oe10; Cireut Court Arkansas Page 13 of 64 2018.12.30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan States of America, the People’s Republic of China or elsewhere. The Receiver may assert sole control over any present bank or other accounts of the Company and/or establish signature authority over such accounts as the Receiver deems appropriate. The Receiver shall have the Power to commence, continue, join in, and/or control any action, suit or proceeding, of any kind ‘or nature, in the name of the Company or otherwise, including without limitation proceedings to prevent or avoid transactions of any kind or nature that may hinder the Company's compliance with this Court’s orders, ‘The Receiver is authorized, in his sole discretion, to enlist the help of the employees or agents of the Company. The directors, officers, employees, and agents of the Company shall cooperate with the Receiver in the performance of his duties. The Receiver is authorized, in his sole discretion, to enlist the help of agents, employees or representatives of the governments of the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China, or any other nation, or of any regional or local governments therein, or of any other regulatory body. ‘The Receiver shall have the authority, but shall not be required, to petition this Court for instructions at any time or from time to time, 4. AUTHORITY TO RETAIN ADVISORS: The Receiver is authorized to retain fone or more experts or advisors, including financial advisors, professional sales agencies, accountants, atfomeys, brokers, and other professionals as the Receiver deems necessary in carrying out his duties. Without limiting the foregoing, the Receiver is specifically authorized to retain as counsel Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP and Landis Rath & Cobb LLP. 5. COMPENSATION OP THE RECEIVER AND ANY PROFESSIONALS: The, Company shall pay the compensation and expenses of the Receiver at his customary hourly rate All professionals retained by the Receiver shall submit invoices to the Receiver. The Receiver shall petition the Court on « monthly basis, or at such other interval as the Court may direct, for 985. po1-wannsass,) -3-To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 14 of 64 2018-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan approval of the fees and expenses incurred by the Receiver and his advisors. All fees and expenses approved by the Court shall be paid promptly by the Company. Payment of the fees and expenses of the Receiver and any experts or advisors retained by the Receiver shall have Priority over all other obligations, payments or distributions of the Company. Upon any failure by the Company to pay fees and expenses duly approved by the Court, the Receiver shall have full authority and control over the property and/or assets of the Company, of whatever kind and wherever located, for the purposes of satisfying the payment of such fees and expenses. The Receiver may seek further relief from the Court with respect to any non-payment of expenses. 6 AUTHORITY TO ACT: The Receiver is authorized to act through and in the name of the Company to carry out his duties. ‘The Receiver is authorized to execute and deliver (or cause to be executed and delivered) any document in the name of the Company, including but not limited to contracts, deeds, other documents of title, and regulatory, administrative and governmental filings. 7. WAIVER OF DUTIES AND BOND: MONTHLY REPORTS: The provisions of Court of Chancery Rules 149-168, pertaining to the duties of a receiver and/or trustee, are hereby waived. The Receiver shall not be required to post a bond, In lieu of these provisions, the Receiver shall provide interim reports to the Court at monthly intervals from the date of this Order. Such monthly reports shall include a statement of (j) the Receiver’s activities during the preceding month; (ii) a statement of the fees and expenses for which the Receiver seeks payment that were incurred during the preceding month; and (iii) suich other information as the Receiver deems appropriate or as the Court may direct. 8. COOPERATION: The appointment of the Receiver hereunder is binding upon the directors, officers, employees, agents and stockholders of the Company, who shall cooperate {955 o01-Wwon2sast) 4.10; Citcul Cour Arkansas Page 15 of 64 2019-12-30 22:08:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From; Joe! Caplan with the Receiver in the performance of his duties. Neither the Company, nor person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the Company, nor any director, officer, employee, “agent, stockholder or ereditor of the Company shall institute any proceeding in any forum other than this Court challenging any action, recommendation or decision by the Receiver. 9. EXCULPATION, INDEMNIFICATION, AND ADVANCEMENT: — The Receiver, and anyone acting on his behalf, shall have no liability to the Company, its stockholders or any’ other person for actions taken in good faith pursuant to this Order. The Receiver shall be entitled to all protection, limitation from liability, and immunity available at Jaw or in equity to a court-appointed Receiver including, without limitation, all protection, limitation from liability, and immunity to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. Expenses, including atlorneys” fees, incurred by the Receiver in defending any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action, suit, or proceeding arising by reason of or in connection with the Receiver’s designation as Receiver for the Company, or in the performance of his duties hereunder, shall be paid by the Company in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit, or proceeding subject to the repayment of such amount if it shall ultimately be determined by this Court that the Receiver is not permitted to be indemnified by the Company under applicable Delaware law. 10. OBJECTIONS TO AND REVI ’S INTERIM ACTIONS, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW: All actions of the Receiver shall be presumed to have been made on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that such actions taken appropriate to ensure ZSTN’s compliance with this Court’s orders, All interim actions shall be subject to review and reversal by the Court only upon a showing that the Receiver abused his discretion. (988. onn-wonesase,) 3.To: Circult Court Arkansas Page 16 of 64 2019-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joel Caplan 11, JURISDICTION. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to interpret, construe and enforce this Order and any such other or further orders of this Court. The Honorable J. Travis Laster 955 001-10025354,)To: Circult Cour Arkansas Page 17 of 64 2019-12.30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joel Caplan ‘This document | Court: DE Court of Chancery Civil Action Judge: J Travis Laster File & Serve ‘Transaction ID: 51355780 Current Date: Mar 28, 2013 Case Number: 8014-VCL_ Case Name: CLOSED Deutsch, Peter E vs ZST Digital Netwarks Ine Court Authorizer: Laster, | Travis Js] Judge Laster, J Travis l19, ica oun Aransas Hage 18 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14192343255 From: Joe! Caplan Transaction ID 64509416 Case No. 2017-0849-AGB EXHIBIT B10; Lireut Coun Arkansas Page 19 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan Pte EFiled: Jan 07 2019 10:05AMEST. Transaction 1D 62827025 fj) Case No. 8014-VCL une: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE a PETER E. DEUTSCH, Plainti C.A.No. 8014-VCL v ZST DIGITAL NETWORKS, INC, Defendants. ORDER HOLDING BO ZHONG AND LIN ZHONG IN CONTEMPT AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF ARREST WARRANTS AS COERCIVE SANCTION 1, ZST Digital Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation. The plaintiff owns a significant block of its shares. When the plaintiff filed this action seeking books and records, the Company failed to appear and defaulted, Judgment was‘entered against it, When the plaintiff sought to enforce the judgment, the Company failed to comply, and the court held the Company in contempt, 2. Asa coercive sanction for the Company’s contempt, the court appointed a receiver with the authority to cause the Company to comply with the judgment, For more than five yeats, the receiver attempted to carry out his charge and cause the Company to comply. The receiver has expended significant amounts of time and money in that effort, As part of that effort, the receiver has obtained additional orders from this court imposing further sanctions for contempt against the Company. 3. After the coercive sanctions against the Company proved ineffective, the receiver moved to hold Bo Zhong and Lin Zhong in contempt, They are senior officers with the Company, and the receiver has established that they controlled the Company at :To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 20 of 64 2018-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From’ Joel Caplan the time of the events giving rise to this dispute and continued to do so throughout the course of the recciver’s efforts to obtain compliance with this court’s orders. The receiver moved for the issuance of bench warrants calling for the Zhongs’ arrest as a coercive sanction to induce them to cause the Company to comply with this court's orders. 4. In amemorandum opinion dated June 14, 2018, the court held that the record supported the issuance of bench warrants calling for the Zhongs’ arrest. The opinion further held that the Zhongs had been given a sufficient opportunity to brief and argue the receiver’s motion to satisfy their due process rights. That said, because the orders in question had not identified the Zhongs by name and imposed broad mandates, the opinion gave the Zhongs “one final opportunity to comply with the court's orders and avoid the issuance of bench warrants . . . .” Deutsch v. ZST Digital Networks, Ine., 2018 WL 3005822, at *14 (Del. Ch. June 14, 2018), 5. This court’s order dated June 25, 2018, directed the Zhongs to take, or cause the Company to take, specific actions by August 31 to address the Company's contempt, Neither the Zhongs nor the Company made any attempt to comply with the order. 6. On September 9, 2018, the receiver renewed his application for a finding of contempt against the Zhongs and the issuance of bench warrants as a coercive sanction ‘The Zhongs argued in response that they could not perform the actions that the order required. To support this argument, Bo Zhong submitted an affidavit declaring that he has not exercised control over the Company since June 2013, when the plaintiff purportedly : obtained orders from a Chinese court that Bo Zhong says removed him from control. He19. Cucun Court Aransas age 21 oF 64 2019-12-30 22.03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan further averred that his employees sold the assets of the Company and that he has no access to the Company’s accounts or instrumentalities of ownership 7. These averments contradict the record previously developed in this case. Outside of Bo Zhong’s affidavit, there is no evidence that the plaintiff or the receiver ever were able to assert actual control over the Company. The problem throughout this litigation has been that despite this court's orders and additional orders issued by other courts, the receiver has been unable to assert actual control over the Company and its assets. Instead, the Zhongs have continued to exercise actual control, Chinese government records indicate that Bo Zhong was the legal representative of the Company's operating subsidiary until July 12, 2016. During 2016, Bo Zhong engaged in scttlement negotiations with the receiver, evidencing his continuing control over the Company. 8. Both the opinion and the order stated that if either of the Zhongs requested an evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion, then the person making the request would be required to appear in person and provide live testimony subject to cross-examination, Bo Zhong has requested an evidentiary hearing, but he asked to appear via videoconference Decause he purportedly cannot leave China “due to health issues.” Dkt. 235 Aff. §27. He has not specified his health issues. Moreover, his counsel cited a different purported reason, claiming that Bo Zhong cannot leave China “on advice from Chinese authorities.” Dkt, 235 14; see id. AME. ¥ 25. These statements are conclusory, contradictory, and lack credibility. Bo Zhong never previously argued that he could not leave China, and Lin Zhong has never : made is argument,10: Gwreur Cour Arkansas Page 22 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan 9. The Zhongs are in contempt of this court’s orders. Writs of civil capias in the form attached as Exhibits A and B shall issue for the arrest of Bo Zhong and Lin Zhong. 10. The receiver has asked that the Zhongs be listed as fugitives in the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System, the National Crime Information Center database, and the INTERPOL Criminal Information System. The Zhongs contend that these databases are not intended to include persons who are subject to warrants for civil contempt, The Chancellor recently issued a writ of civil capias under similar circumstances and directed that its subject be listed as a fugitive on the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System and the National Crime Information Center database. See Glick v. KF Pecksland LLC, C.A. No. 12624-CB (Del. Ch. Sep. 19, 2018) (ORDER). This order follows the same course. If the agencies who oversee the databases conclude that the Zhongs should not be listed, then the court will consider an application to modify this order. 11. Accordingly, the receiver shall submit the writs of civil capias for the Zhongs to the agencies who maintain the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System, the National Crime Information Center database, and the INTERPOL Criminal Information System. The receiver shall take all steps necessary to have the Zhongs listed on those databases, wary: 7, 2019To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 23 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343258 From: Joe! CaplanTo: Citeuit Court Arkansas Page 24 of 64 2018-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, CIVIL CAPIAS TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE, OR PEACE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE; WE COMMAND that you take the below-named person and safely keep hinvber_ and bring binv/her before Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Court of ‘Chancery at New Castle County, Delaware. Name:__Zhong.__ sre BO : LAST. 7 FIRST. MI Last Known, Address: Zhengzhou Weiterke"'échnology Holdings Go. Ltd), Tongbai Roii ‘ a ‘No-206, Court 2.\Floor'3, Zhoneyuan District, Zhengzhou City. ince; 450007-China =: ie Date of Birth: ___Aug. 10,1950 _ Race: Asian Sex:____M. Court Tracking #: By Order of the Judge: Vice-Chancellor J. Travis Laster___ Dated: Issued for Failure to Appear for Trial Motion, Deposition__ ‘ Hearing Rule to Show Cause By Court Order This capiasis to be returned to the Court of Chancery, _~---Vice Chancellor. Travis Laster SSE Se SS Prothonotary ="0. Wircun Cour Aransas Hage 2 or 64 2019-42-90 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joo! Caplan10. Cucun Cour Arkansas Hage 26 of 64 2018-12.0 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CIVIL. CAPIAS TO ANY SUERIFF, CONSTABLE, OR PEACE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WE COMMAND that you take the below-named person and safely keep hinyher and bring him/her before Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery at ‘New Castle County, Delaware Name:. Zhong Lin__ LAST FIRST MI : iengzhou Weierke Technolopy Holdings Co. Ltd.,"Tonabai Re No_206, Court 2, Floor 3, Zhongyuan District,. Zhengzhou City, Henan Province, 450007 China ‘Last Known Address: Date of Birth: ___Oct, 25,1980 Racer Asian Sex: Me Court Tracking #:; By Order of the Judge: Issued for Failure to Appear for Trial Motion _ Deposition Rule to Show Cause__X By Court Order _ Hearing, ‘This capias is to be retumed to the Court of Chancery, Vice Chancellor J, Travis Laster, Prothonotary Deputy10; Circut Cour Arkansas Page 27 of 64 2018-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan EFiled: Dec 10 2019 2 sPNERF Transaction ID 64509416 j2;/é.0")"\ Case No, 2017-0849-AG8 | EXHIBIT C10. Circum Court Arkansas Hage 2b of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joel Caplan SOUTHPAW CREDIT OPPORTUNITY GRANTED WITH MO! 294 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MASTER FUND LP, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No: 9542-ML ADVANCED BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. ORDER GRANTING MPT PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR CO! WHEREAS, plaintiff Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. (“Southpaw” or “Plaintiff") commenced the above-captioned action pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 to compel Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. (“ABAT”, “Defendant” or the “Company”) to tum over its books and records certain books and records (the “220 Action”); WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, this Court issued its Final Report in the 220 Action; the Final Report was confirmed by Chancellor Bouchard on March 16, 2015; WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015 this Court entered an order (the “Production Order”) requiring ABAT to produce copies of ABAT’s annual financial information for 2011-2014 and quarterly financial information for all fourTo: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 29 of 64 2018.12.30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joel Caplan quarters of 2014 for the following categories of books and records: (a) revenue; (b) income before tax; (c) net income; (d) earnings per share; (e) cash and cash equivalents; (f) total assets; (g) current asset figures; (h) current liability figures; and (j) stockholder equity (collectively, the “Required Information”); WHEREAS, ABAT has failed to produce any of the Required Information to Southpaw, in violation of the Production Order; WHEREAS, Plaintiff subsequently moved this Court to hold ABAT in contempt for failing to comply with the Production Order; WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt (the “Motion”) sought the following relief: (i) the appointment of a receiver pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 322; ii) an option to “put” its shares in ABAT at fair market value; and, (iii) an award of attorneys’ fees and costs; WHEREAS, Plaintifi’s Motion is GRANTED; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23" day of July, 2015 as follows: PUT OPTION 1. Plaintiff is granted the option to “put” its shares in ABAT at fair market value, to be determined at a hearing (the “Valuation Hearing”); and 2. The Valuation Hearing shall take place on Tuesday, October 6, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. at the Court of Chancery in Wilmington, Delaware; andTo: Circuit Court Arkanses Page 30 of 64 2019-1230 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255. From: Joe! Caplan 3. Plaintiff's report setting forth what it submits to be the fair market value of its ABAT shares (the “Valuation Report”) shall be filed with the Court and served on ABAT by no later than August 25, 2015; and 4. — ABAT’s response to the Valuation Report shall be filed with the Court and served on ABAT by no later than September 22, 2015; and 5. If no response to the Valuation Report is filed, the Court may, at its discretion, grant the fair market value sought by the Plaintiff without the need for the Valuation Hearing; and ATTORNEYS’ COSTS AND FEES * 6 ABAT is required to pay Plaintiff's fees and costs in connection with the Motion and costs to be incurred in connection with enforcement of the Court’s orders. Plaintiffs counsel shall submit a fee affidavit within five (5) days entry hereof for the current costs and fees incurred; and APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, 7. The Court hereby appoints a receiver (the “Receiver”) pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 322 for the purpose of enforcing ABATs compliance with this Court's orders; a) APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER: Pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 322, Robert W. Seiden, Esquire, is hereby appointed Receiver of the Company with the powers and duties specified in this Order.Jo: Gwreurt Court Arkansas Page 31 of 64 2019-42-20 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joo! Caplan b) ACCEPTANCE AND TERM OF APPOINTMENT: The Receiver shall submit to the Court a written acceptance of this appointment. The Receiver shall serve at the pleasure of the Court, and the provisions of this Order shall remain in effect pending further Order of the Court. c) | PURPOSES OF APPOINTMENT; GENERAL POWERS: The Receiver shall take all actions he deems appropriate to obtain ABAT’s compliance with the following orders of this Court (i) the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt, and (ii) such other and further orders the Court may enter in this action. Without limiting the foregoing, the Receiver shall take all appropriate action to ensure ABAT’s compliance with its obligation to reimburse Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and expenses and ABAT’s obligation to pay Plaintiff fair market value, to be determined at a hearing held before ‘this Court, as set forth above, for each ABAT share for which the Plaintiff seeks redemption. The Receiver shall have all powers generally available to a receiver appointed pursuant to 8 Del. C. §§ 291 & 322, unless any such power would be inconsistent with a specific provision of this Order, in which case this Order shall govern. Upon the acceptance of this appointment, the Receiver shall have full authority and control over the property and/or assets of the Company, of whatever kind and wherever located, in the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China or elsewhere. This includes, without limitation, authority to seize, deal inTo: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 32 of 64 2018-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan or dispose of any property of the Company. The Receiver shall have full and unrestricted access to all books and records of the Company, in whatever mode maintained and wherever located, in the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China or elsewhere. The Receiver may assert sole control over any present bank or other accounts of the Company and/or establish signature authority over such accounts as the Receiver deems appropriate. The Receiver shall have the power to commence, continue, join in, and/or control any action, suit or proceeding, of any kind or nature, in the name of the Company or otherwise, including without limitation proceedings to prevent or avoid transactions of any kind or nature that may hinder the Company’s compliance with this Court’s orders. The Receiver is authorized, in his sole discretion, to enlist the help of the employees or agents of the Company. The directors, officers, employees, and agents of the Company shall cooperate with the Receiver in the performance of his duties. The Receiver is authorized, in his sole discretion, to enlist the help of agents, employees or representatives of the governments of the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China, or any other nation, or of any regional or local governments therein, or of any other regulatory body. The Receiver shall have the authority, but shall not be required, to petition this Court for instructions at any time or from time to time.40; Cireutt Court Arkansas Page 33 of 64 2019-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14122343255 From: Joel Caplan The Receiver is authorized to exercise all power and authority that ABAT possesses with respect to its wholly owned subsidiaries by virtue of its ownership of those entities, including but not limited to: (i) exercising voting rights associated with shares or equity interests in such wholly owned subsidiaries and; (ii) utilizing such voting power to replace members of the boards of directors or similar governing body of such subsidiaries. With respect to entities that ate indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, the Receiver is authorized to exercise all power and authority that the Company possesses over its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries by virme of its ownership of intervening entities, including but not limited to: (i) causing any wholly owned subsidiary or indirect wholly owned subsidiary to exercise voting rights associated with share or equity interest in a lower-tier subsidiary; and (ii) utilizing such voting power to replace members of the board of directors or similar governing body of the lower-tier subsidiary. The Receiver is authorized to exercise all power and authority that the Company would have to seek judicial relief with respect to its wholly owned subsidiaries or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, including but not limited to petitioning for a Court-appointed receiver or similar official for such entities40: Cireutt Court Arkansas Page 34 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 1413234258 From: Joel Caplan With respect to any non-wholly owned subsidiary, the Receiver is authorized to exercise any rights that the Company may have by virtue of its ownership of shares or other equity interest in such non-wholly owned subsidiary. 4) AUTHORITY TO RETAIN ADVISORS: The Receiver is authorized to retain one or more experts or advisors, including financial advisors, professional sales agencies, accountants, attorneys, brokers, and other professionals as the Receiver deems necessary in carrying out his duties. Without limiting the foregoing, the Receiver is specifically authorized to retain as counsel Elliott Greenleaf. °) COMPENSATION OF THE RECEIVER AND ANY PROFESSIONALS: The Company shall pay the compensation and expenses of the Receiver at his customary hourly rate. All professionals retained by the Receiver shall submit invoices to the Receiver. The Receiver shall petition the Court on a quarterly basis, or at such other interval as the Court may direct, for approval of the fees and expenses incurred by the Receiver and his advisors. All fees and expenses approved by the Court shall be paid promptly by the Company. Payment of the fees and expenses of the Receiver and any experts or advisors retained by the Receiver shall have priority over all other obligations, payments or distributions of the Company. Upon any failure by the Company to pay fees and expenses duly approved by the Court, the Receiver shall have full authority and10; Circut Gour Arkansas Page 35 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan control over the property and/or assets of the Company, of whatever kind and wherever located, for the purposes of satisfying the payment of such fees and expenses. The Receiver may seek further relief from the Court with respect to any non-payment of expenses. AUTHORITY TO ACT: The Receiver is authorized to act through and in the name of the Company to carry out his duties. ‘The Receiver is authorized to execute and deliver (or cause to be executed and delivered) any document in the name of the Company, including but not limited to contracts, deeds, other documents of title, and regulatory, administrative and governmental filings 2) WAIVER OF DUTIES AND BOND: MONTHLY REPORTS: The provisions of Court of Chancery Rules: 149-168, pertaining to the duties of a receiver and/or trustee, are hereby waived. The Receiver shall not be required to post a bond. In lieu of these provisions, the Receiver shall provide interim reports to the Court at monthly intervals from the date of this Order. Such monthly reports shall include a statement of (i) the Receiver’s activities during the preceding month; (ii) a statement of the fees and expenses for which the Receiver seeks payment that were incurred during the preceding month; and (iii) such other information as the Receiver deems appropriate or as the Court may direct.To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 36 of 64 2018-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343285 From: Joel Caplan h) COOPERATION: The appointment of the Receiver hereunder is binding upon the directors, officers, employees, agents and stockholders of the Company, who shall cooperate with the Receiver in the performance of his duties. Neither the Company, nor person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the Company, nor any director, officer, employee, agent, stockholder or creditor of the Company shall institute any proceeding in any forum other than this Court challenging any action, recommendation or decision by the Receiver. i) EXCULPATION INDEMNIFICATION. AND ADVANCEMENT: The Receiver, and anyone acting on his behalf, shall have no liability to the Company, its stockholders or any other person for actions taken in good faith pursuant to this Order. The Receiver shall be entitled to all protection, limitation from liability, and immunity available at law or in equity to a court- appointed Receiver including, without limitation, all protection, limitation from liability, and immunity to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. Expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by the Receiver in defending any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action, suit, or proceeding arising by reason of or in connection with the Receiver’s designation as Receiver for the Company, or in the performance of his duties hereunder, shall be paid by the Company in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit, or proceeding subject to the repayment ofTo: Cireult Cour Arkansas Page 37 of 64 2018-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 114132343255 From: Joel Caplan such amount if it shall ultimately be determined by this Court that the Receiver is not permitted to be indemnified by the Company under applicable Delaware law. id OBJECTIONS TO AND REVIEW OF _RECEIVER’S INTERIM ACTIONS, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW: All actions of the Receiver shall be presumed to have been made on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that such actions taken appropriate to ensure ABAT’s compliance with this Court’s orders. All interim actions shall be subject to review and reversal by the Court only upon a showing that the Receiver abused his discretion. k) — JURISDICTION The Court shall retain jurisdiction to interpret, construe and enforce this Order and any such other or further orders of this Court. NOTICE 8. Plaintiff shall serve ABAT-with a copy of this Order by email and by hand delivery t) ABAT’s registered agent for service of process within three (3) business days from the date of this Order.To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 38 of 64 2019-12.30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan EFFECTIVENESS OF RECEIVER’S AUTHORITY 9. The Receiver’s authority shall not take effect until ten (10) days from the date of this Order. (si Abigail M. LeGrow Master in Chancery1m SVU muna Page 28 OF og 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan Se ibe court a rr Court: DE Court of Chancery Civil Action Judge: Abigail LeGrow File & Serve ‘Transaction ID: 57278415 Current Date: Jul 23, 2015 Case Number: 9542-ML, Case Name: CONF ORDER Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund LP vs Advanced Battery Technologies Inc ‘s/ Judge LeGrow, Abigail10: Lircult Court ArKansas Hage 40 of 64 2019-12-90 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Capian EXHIBIT D |tpss//abenews go.com/Blotter/us-investors-lose-bilions-alleged-chinese-stock-schemes/story?id=18164787 US Officials: China Refuses to Help Stop Investment Scams U.S. inuestos ose lions in alleged chinese stock echeres ‘American oseBilionsin¢hietslovestmentraude Siemens taco abs il ae aan Sen, 9,2013 ~~ The Chinese government snubbed. U.S. request for hep in racking dove on a string of alleged investment frauds that have enst Americans ilions, outgoing Securtes and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro told ABC News ‘Thelack of cooperation has stymied efforts to recoup investat lasses, she sid n one ofthe largest sores of alleged financial rims in recent meinory ~- one that has gone largely unnoticed by most Americans “The consequence isis very much more dificult for us to prove ovr eases,” Schapiro said in one of be final interviews before leavin the post, which wil be broadest tonight as part of an ABC News investigation airing on "Werld News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.” ‘WATCH Nighine'reprt.on alles Chinas nsestment ans, ‘More than 100 China-based companics have now been devised, have let the NASDAQ and New York stock exchanges, have been denied listing, or have withdrawn application, all folwsing allegations of fraud or accounting regularities, the ABC News investigation found Notevery Chinese eompany was implicated — many continue to thrive. But experts estimate that Americans ~ everyone from small investors to hedge-fund titans ~ have los tens of billions of dollars i the suspect Chinese investments. Prosecutors inthe Bernie ‘Madoff case slulated that his investors Jos aboot $20 blion in is decades-long Poni scheme. ‘Schapiro said the SEC opened 40 cases azainst Chinese fms during her tenure, financial schemes she described as “bearen” and "extraordinary" Schapiro, who stepped down in December, sid tht when she asked Chinese View Premier Wang Qishan for help during a trip to Belling in July her requests were rebuted. “We haven yet achieved a level of eooperation that makes it possible for us to get access to Chinese companies the way we need,” ‘Shapiro said. "We wl fight hard to try to secure recovery for U.S. investors, But it's harder when we don't have the cooperation of the foreign goverment." ‘The wave of cases is unique because the China-base companies were listed on U.S, stock exchanges, where investors were expecting, corporate financial information to be transparent, accurate and verified. In case after ease, Schapiro sig, questions emerged about themumbers coming fom China [NASDAQ CEO Robert Greifeld wrote letter to ABC News in response to questions about the issue, saying the exchange bas taken a series of "decisive" step aimed at protecting investors and removing "bad actors” fom the stings. “We have taken prompt, appropriate action to protet investors and the market,” Greifeld sad, ‘ABAD: Letter Prom NASDAO CEO Rabart Greifeld to ARCNaws (POF) Later, when ABC News approuched NASDAQ officials to address questions on camera about how eo many allegedly fraudulent ‘companies came tobe listed inthe first place, reporters wer escorted of of NASDAQ propery‘0: Cireutt Court Arkansas’ Page 41 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 1413234325 From: Joe! Capian Experts tell ABC News the frauds were fueled bya burst of interest among U.S. investor in putting money behind the Chinese industrial boo Companies were able to exaggerate apd in some cases fabricate their earnings reports, hiding behind an opaque Chinese financial system that made it difficult for auditing firms to verify the number, Many ofthe companies were located in ral parts of China ‘where it could be diffe to verify that factories were actually producing the goods they had been describing to investors on glossy brochures and in presentations at lavish conferences, "in 2009, everbody wanted tobe in oni, sad Dan David, vice preset of Geofnvesting, LLC, a frm that monitored the Asian ‘investment mz. “Then we started to see reports from people on these comptes that said that there were sccountingettors and ‘material misepresentations. And then t stated to grow fiom thee that there was outright fraud: David told ABC News thot collectively, the epidemic of China-basad frauds has grown into ane of the most cnstly crime sprees in bistory ions, Tens ofbilions in just pure, outsght {aud} he said. "They raised money here, tok it, Rept the money.” Among the most notable cases was one involving Puda Cool a rural Chinese coal company that is alleged to have sold off its coal rine without ever tling invostors Another company accused of fraud is China Integrated Energy, @ supposed tobe prodvcing fuel at maximum capacity of100,000 tons year, Jon Carnes, a so-called short seller, whose investment strategy involves profiting when the valu ofa company goes down, began to question the company’s production reports in 2010 and. secided to send investigators with a camera to sve what realy was occurring where the plant was located, in the emote city of ‘Tongchwan. Theresultng time-lapse video appears to show an almost dormant plant, where only st tanker trucks stopped toil up cover the course of our months ge Chinese energy fm, one of whose biodiesel plants was During that period, I ound that they produced, essentially, nothing," Carmes said Carnes report sparked a frenzied response in the U.S. as investors began to question the profit statements from the company ‘The company responded by condueting ai intormal investigation. "While some issues remain as to production at the Company's Tongchuan biodiese facility and while the investigation revealed the ned to strengthen internal controls and take similar measures, the primary substance of al other allegations has been proven groundless,” the company’s report sid, J the aftermath of Carnes's ‘eport, the company’s auditor resigned and NASDAQ moved to remove its listing from the exchange. ‘As fraud cases involving China-based firms began to mount over the past three yeas, the SEC began issuing warning leters to investors about te risks involved. And the two major US, stock exchanges began taking steps to address what had clearly emerged asa problom, For several years, NASDAQ, NYSE and the exchange't owns that was known asthe AMEX had all bon allowing Chines. companies to be listed through a process called a “reverse merger that was quicker than the more traitonal appraach of an initial publi offering, The fits would merge with durmant companies that had already attained an SEC registration, speeding up the path to sting std on a stock exchange. Offical with une New York Stock Exchange noted that the vetting of Chinese frms was the responsibility of multiple parties. “Its ‘easy to focus in on the exchanges, but there's a food chain involved her,” an NYSE offical told ABC News. Whe a compa is, it {involves law firms and bankers and regubsors. Then you have the acounting fms, who are really xitcal to this process. When we lista company you need those audited and verified financials. Thats what weall depend on.” Both exchanges hvesince adopted a seasoning period for new listings, forcing applicants to provide full ear of audited financials before they could radeon the market. In response to written questions from ABC News, NASDAQ CEO Greifeld sid the seasoning period was one of “a numberof decisive ‘and fir steps theo n 2010, onee the markets began sexing evidence of problem,10; Circurt Court Arkansas. Hage 42 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan ‘The NASDAQ imposed more stringent qualifing criteria for companies using “reverse mergers” to get listed, Greifeld said. It equited isting companies to reconcile their SEC reports with tax filings and verify their eashbalanees, It hired an outside ‘investigative frm to lookinto the background of applicants for listings and had an internal team investigate allegations of financial rmistatements oF favd. "nthe ast two years, the efforts of our team has dec led tothe delisting of over 40 Chinese companies where there wasevidence of fraud, financial mistatement, or other failures to satisfy oar listing rules," Greifeld said in his letter to ABC News. “The results speak for themselves." By theme some of the precautionary steps tock eect tthe U.S. exchanges, a great deal of money bd aleady been lst. Even some wellknown names i the investment world were reported tobe vietins, The hedge fund run by John Paulkon — who is ‘est known for predicting the collapse of the housing, market — was reported to hve lst $468 milion on an investment in Sino Forest, 9 company ised on a Canadtan exchange that was accused of exaggerating is timber holdings. Stare Internationel Co. a firm ran by former American International Group CEO Mauris "Hank" Greenber, sed China Medial'xpress Holding lc. after he suid he was decuved by the company’s misleading financial statements. He bad invested about 8135 milion in the company. Both ‘companies disputed the allegations against them, bat lot their stock exchange listings after fraud allegations surfaced. Most victims were not Wall Street movers and shakers but small investors who held stock in China-besed companies thréugh ~ etsonal investment accounts, mutual funds or pension funds. Al Smith, 65, the manager of @ track stop in Boise Idaho, told ABC "Newse lost much of his retirement savings ~- about $60,000 ~- when he took a chance on Pada Coal a stoek he sai he found while _esarching investment information about Chinese companies. ‘We was on vacation when allegations surface thatthe coal company’s CEO had sod off the coal mine without telling investors. By thetime Smith got bock to his computer to sel of his shares trading in the stock had halted His money was fone. ABCNews went to Pudo Coa! heudquarters to attempt to speak with the company’s chairman, Ming Zhao, bat his assistant old the ‘eporters that be hod not been inthe offic in weeks, and they di not know when he would return. The SEC has also been pursuing ‘Zhao, bathas never recived reply, Schapiro sd. She said Americans have litdelegal recourse ~ Americans eaot sue companies {in Chinese courts and poople ike Zhao remain beyond the reach ofthe American justice system, “Lthink ts astounding that. ating rally happens to this person over ther,” Smith said "I don understand that prt. Ureally ont” ‘Smiths lawyer, Rob Prongay, who is overseingslasuit against Pudo Coal, sad he believes a numberof entities filed his cin. "Ulmately, there are a variety of people responsible fr the harm investors have suffered as a result of investing in what turned out to be fraudulent Chinese companies,” Prongay said. "In our views, the auditors, underwriters and directors, are also lable for what ‘coured and we are attempting to maximize any potential recovery for the damage investors” Calls tothe Chinese Embassy in Washington and emails sent to Ming Zhao'sattomey in Being were not returned. Schapiro sod she to iar ten te way ofa response from the Chinese government. ‘Wet working hard withthe Chinese government to try to sceure their cooperstion for our enforcement investigations," she sid "But we're not going to walt for their cooperation. Weare going to proceed and have proceeded to brig eases against mere than 40 ‘individuals and entities for fraud on US. investors fom Chinese companies. ‘ABC News producer Karson Yiu contributed fo this report from China. Start Johnson contributed tothe reporting on this tory aso intern inthe ABCNews imustigarive unt tn Washington, D.Cage 43 ot 64 2019-12-30 22:08:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplen 11671 CONGRESS eS’ § 1731 ‘To amen the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to require the Publie Company Accounting Oversight Board to maintain a list of certain foreign issuers, and for other purposes, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 5, 2019 Mr. Reo (for himself, Mr. Menenpeg, Mr. Corton, and Mrs. Guia ‘BMAND) introduecd the following bills whieh was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housig, and Urban Affairs A BILL To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Aet of 2002 to require the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to maintain a list of certain foreign issuers, and for other purposes 1 Be tt enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assombled, 3. SECTION 1, SHORT TITLE. ‘This Act may be cited as the “Ensuring Quality In- formation and Transpareney for Abroad-Based Listings 4 5 6 onour Exchanges Act” or the “EQUITABLE Act” 7 SEC. 2, DEFINITIONS. 8 In this Act—1. Circuit Court Arkansas Hage 44 of 64 2019-12.30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132342255 From: Joe! Capian 3 1 (1) the term “applicable foreign issuer” means 2 a foreign issuer— 3 (A) that is required to file a covered form; 4 and 5 (B) for which, during the period covered 6 by the filing deseribed in subparagraph (A), a 7 covered foreign public accounting firm has pre- 8 pared an audit report for the issuer; 9 (2) the term “audit report” has the meaning 10 —_given the term in section 2(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley IL Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201(a)); 12 (3) the term “Board” means the Public Com- 13 pany Accounting Oversight Board; 4 (4) the term “Commission” means the Seeuri- 15 es and Exchange Commission; 16 (5) the term “covered foreign publie accounting 7 firm” means a foreign public accounting firm that 18 the Board is unable to inspeet or investigate under 19 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201 et 20 seq.) because of a position taken by an authority 2 outside of the United States; 2 (6) the term “covered form’— 23 (A) means— +8171 18,Page 45 of 64 2019-12-90 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan won Sowers urn ul 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25, 3 (i) the form described in section ' 249.310 of tifle 17, Code of Federal Regu- lations, or any suecessor regulation; and (ii) the form deseribed in section 249.220f of title 17, Code of Federal Reg- ulations, or any suecessor regulation; and (B) ineludes a form that— (i) is the equivalent of, or substan- tially similar to, the form deseribed in clause (3) or (ii) of subparagraph (A); and (ii) a foreign issuer files with the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or rules issued under that. Act; (7) the term “covered jurisdiction” means the foreign jurisdiction in which the position described in paragraph (5) is taken with respect to a covered foreign public accounting firm that prepares an audit report for an applicable foreign issuer; (8) the term “exchange” has the meaning given the term in section 8(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a(a)); (9) the.term “foreign issuer” has the meaning given the term in section 240.3b-4 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation; +s 172118To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 46 of 64 2019-12-20 22103:18 (GMT) 114132343255 From: Joo! Caplan 4 L (10) the term “foreign publie accounting firm’? 2 has the meaning given the term in section 106(g) of 3 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 4 7216(g)); ) 5 (11) the term “national securities exchange” 6 means an exchange that is registered with the Com- 7 mission under section 6 of the Seeurities Exchange 8 Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f); and 9 (12) the term “public accounting firm” has the 10 meaning given the term in section 2(a) of the Sar- u banes-Osley Act of 2002 (15 U.8.C. 7201(a)). 12. SEC. 8. DISCLOSURE. 13 (a) Lisr or CeR?aIN FPorwIGN Issuers AND Coy- 14 BRED FoREIGN PeBLIC ACCOUNTING FurMs.— 1S (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall main- 16 tain a publicly available list of— 7 (A) each foreign issuer, an audit report of 18 which— 19 (i) is prepared by a foreign public ae- 20 counting finn; and 21 (ii) the Board is not able to inspect or 22 investigate because of a position taken by 23 an authority that is outside of the United 24 States; “S171 1510, Circue Cour Arkansas Hage 4/ of 64 2019-42-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joel Caplan 5 1 (B) each covered foreign public accounting 2 firm that has prepared an audit report. identi- 3 fied under subparagraph (A); and 4 (C) the jurisdiction in which each covered 3 foreign public accounting firm identified under 6 subparagraph (B) is organized or operating. 7 (2) Roe oF THe BOARD.—Not less frequently 8 than anmually, the Board shall provide to the Com- 9 mission the information that is required for the 10 Commission to carry out paragraph (1). u (b) ANNUAL Report DiscLostre.— 12 (1) Discposurz.—Each applicable foreign 13 issuer shall disclose in each covered form filed by the 14 applicable foreign issuer— 15 (A) that, during the period covered by eov- 16 ered form, a covered foreign publie accounting 7 firm has prepared an andit report for the 18 issuer; 19 (B) the percentage of the shares of the 20 issuer owned by governmental entities in the 21 foreign jurisdiction in which the issuer is ineor 22 porated or otherwise organized; 23 (C) whether governmental entities in a cov- 24 ered jurisdiction with respect to any covered 25 foreign publie accounting firm that has pre- +8131 18Tot Circuit Court Arkansas Page 48 of 64 2018-12-30 22:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan 6 1 pared an audit report for the issuer during the 2 period covered by the form have a controlling fi- 3 nancial interest with respect to the issuer; and 4 (D) the name of any official of the Chinese 5 Communist Party who is a member of the 6 board of directors of the issuer or the operating a entity with respect to the issuer. 8 (2) Uppare or RULES.—Not later than 270 9 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and 10 after providing the opportunity for public notice and u comment, the Commission shall make any amend- 12 ments to the rales of the Commission that are re- 13 quired as a result of the requirements of this sub- 14 section. 1S (3) Evrective DATE.—This subsection shall 16 take effeet on the date on which the Commission 7 completes the amendments required under para- 18 graph (2) 19 (c) Discostxe By Broxers aND DuaLers.—See- 20 tion 15(n) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 21 U.S.C. 780(n)) is amended— 22 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking “Commission 23 may issue” and all that follows through the period 24 at the end and inserting the following: “Commis- 25 sion— ss1711810; LircuK Cour Armansas Page 49 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:18 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan a “(A) shall issue rules that require a broker 2 and a dealer to disclose, with respect to any ad- 3 viee, analysis, or report of the broker or dealer 4 to a retail investor regarding the securities of a 5 foreign issuer, whether a eovered foreign publie 6 accounting firm has prepared an audit report 7 for the foreign issuer; and 8 “(B) in addition to the rules required 9 under subparagraph (A), may issue rales desig- 10 nating documents or information that shall be u provided hy a broker or dealer to a retail inves- 2 tor before the purchase of an investment prod- 13 uct or serviee by the retail investor.”; and 14 (2) by adding at the end the following: 15 “(4) DEPINITIONS—In this subsection, the 16 terms ‘audit: report’, ‘covered foreign public account- 7 ing firm’, and ‘foreign issuer’ have the meanings 18 given the terms in section 2 of the EQUITABLE 19 Act.” 20 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE LISTING OF CERTAIN 21 FIRMS ON NATIONAL SECURITIES EX- 22 CHANGES, 23 (a) IN GBNERAL.—Section 6(b) of the Securities Ex- 24 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f(b)) is amended by ada- 25. ing at the end the following: ss,14, wicun Coun Arkansas Hage 50 of 64 2018-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan 8 L “(11)(A) The rules of the exchange prohibit the 2 initial listing, after the date of enactment of this 3 paragraph, of any security of an issuer for which a 4 covered foreign public accounting firm has prepared 5* an audit report. 6 “(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be eon- 7 strued to prevent an exchange from listing a seeurity 8 on the exchange on or after the date of enactment 9 of this paragraph if that security was listed on the 10 exchange or a national securities exchange before IL the date of enactment: of this paragraph. 12 “(C) In this paragraph, the terms ‘audit report” 13 and ‘covered foreign publie accounting firm’ have the 14 meanings given the terms in section 2 of the EQUI- 15 TABLE Act. 16 “(12)(A) The rales of the exchange prohibit the 17 isting of any si curity of a foreign issuer that, begin- 18 ning in 2025, has heen identified under section 19 3(a)(1)(A) of the EQUITABLE Act in 3 consecutive 20 years. _ “(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be eon- 22 strued to prevent an exchange from listing a seeurity 23° of a foreign issuer described in that subparagraph 24 beginning on the date on which the issuer submits 25 to the Commission an audit report for the issuer. +S 173118To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page $1 of 64 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan 9 1 that is prepared by a registered publie accounting 2 firm that the Publie Company Accounting Oversight 3 Board has inspeeted, or is able to inspect, under see- 4 tion 104 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 5 U.S. 7214). 6 “(C) In this paragraph— 7 “(i) the terms ‘audit report? and ‘reg- 8 istered public accounting firm’ have the mean- 9 ings given the terms in section 2(a) of the Sar- 10 banes-Osley Aet of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201(a)); i and 12 “(ii) the terms “covered foreign public ac- 13, counting firm’ and ‘foreign issuer’ have the 14 meanings given the terms in section 2 of the Is EQUITABLE Act.” 16 (b) Rutes— 7 (1) ProposaLs.—Not later than 90 days after 18 the date of enactment of this Act, each national se- 19 euities exchange shall, in accordance with section 20 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 2 U.S.C. 78s(b)) and any rales preseribed by the Com- 22 mission under that section, file with the Commission 23 any proposed change to the rules of the exchange 24 that is required as a result of the amendments made 25 dy this seetion +s 172118,To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 52 of 64 2019-12.30 22:03:19 (GMT) . 14132343255 Fromm: Joe! Caplan 10 1 (2) Apoprion.—Not later than 1 year after the 2 date of enactment of this Act, each national seeuri- 3 ties exchange shall have each proposed change’ de- 4 seribed in paragraph (1) approved by the Commis- sion. ° “817118EXHIBIT F CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS WITNESS STATEMENT IS PROVIDED ON THE STRICT. UNDERSTANDING THAT ITS CONTENTS AND THE IDENTITY OF ITS MAKER ARE TREATED CONFIDENTIALLY WITNESS STATEMENT oF VIKTOR MIKOLAJOVICH SHOKIN 1, Viktor Shokin, holding passport of Ukrainian citizen TT!10010. issued by TUM-2 of Shevchenkivskyi DD ofthe MIA of Ukraine in Kiev, residing at flat 31, 14 Yaroslavov val, of Kyiv, state as follows: - 1, Imake this statement at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash (“DF”). for use in legal proceedings in Austria. I do so entirely voluntarily and without any threat or inducement, Sam a former General Prosecutor of the Republic of Ukraine. | worked in the general prosecutor's office of Ukraine from May 1980 to 3 April 2016, at different times. 1 ‘was Deputy Prosecutor of Ukraine on three separate occasions, from 2002 to 2003; ‘from 2005 to 2007; and from 2014 to 2015. | was General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 10 February 2015 to 03 April 2016. | was dismissed from the position of General Prosecutor in the circumstances that | set out below. 3. In this witness statement I explain that during the period in which ! worked as General Prosecutor of Ukraine: (a) DF ennounced publicly that he would return to Ukraine to address the employers of Ukraine on 2 December 2015, to launch his Plan for the Modernization of Ukraine; (b) US Vice President Joe Biden. who represented the US in its relations with Ukraine, together with Poroshenko and others in Ukraine such as the Minister 1 Cmca Guu Anais rage D3 or 64 2019-12-30 22:03:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan40: Cireuit Court Arkansas. of Internal Affairs, Avakov, took steps ai Ukraine. They resorted to extreme and desperate measures to do this. Indeed (e) Therefore, itis clear to me. that certain US IS Vice-President Joe Biden, directly (4) DF did not travel to Ukrain. Vice Preside President Poroshenko on 6 December and addressed the Rada on 8 December. ed at preventing DF’s return to {) {found out from speeches given by the Minister ofthe Internal Affairs. ‘Avakov, which were published in the media that the internal affairs authorities had been investigating three criminal eases, under which criminal charges could have been brought against DF. The media went con to report that if DF returned to the Ukraine he could have been detained and arrested. However. this was merely @ pretext to take further action aimed at stopping DF from coming to Ukraine: ii) Then Avakov stated in the media that DF would be arrested and prosecuted in Ukraine on US charges. that this was allegedly possible under Ukrainian law and that US state officials at the time had requested this action; However, | can testify that as General Prosecutor | did not receive any evidence oF materials from anyone to support DF's involvement in criminality: iv) It transpired that the actions above did not deter DF from returning, and so the Ukrainian government organised and endorsed a unit of ia of the Azov battalion, to threaten DF by posting ultra-right mil pictures of military-clad and armed members of the unit. wearing ‘masks and patrolling the airport in waiting for DF to arrive; ¥) Inaddition, the media also reported that Ukraine had closed its airspace to private jets. administration, in particular the U! imenipulated the political leadership of Ukraine on false pretexts. in order to as they were so concerned about him prevent DF from returning to Ukraine, re-establishing public life there, 2 officials from President Obama's nt Joe Biden did, where he met with Page 54 of 64 2019-12-30 2:08:19 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joel Cé rom: Joe! Caplan | | | | | { | |5. The General Prosecutor of Ukr rage 29 0 04 2019-12-90 22:03:19 (GMT) (©) Ifthe US Presidential Administration had indeed wanted to prosecute DF, the correct legal procedure should have been followed. DF should have been subjected to the official procedure of criminal prosecution upon his arrival in Ukraine, on the basis of materials officially provided by the USA, and a detailed analysis of all the evidence and relevant legal provisions, in full compliance with Ukrainian law. In the absence of sufficient evidence he would have either been acquitted or the eriminal proceedings would have been terminated. Consequently, all allegations against him would have been cleared. However, instead of this, state officials from the US Presidential Administration, who had substantial influence on the entire law-enforcement system of Ukraine (my own dismissal being evidence of such influence ~ see below). did not take any actions in regards to bringing criminal charges against DF in Ukraine, Therefore. | believe that having realised that they could not ‘mount a sustainable prosecution in Ukraine, and following their recent loss in respect of the extradition case in Austria they took active steps in order to block his return to Ukraine. (f) Had DF arrived in Ukraine, there was a real possibility of an attempt being made on his life, whether on orders or unilaterally by.sn extremist “serving his country’. And I hereby confirm that as General Prosecutor. | would never have permitted DF to be’ det ed for political reasons, especially as 1 know for @ fact that there were no criminal grounds on which to detain and prosecute him. (g) This instance of interference in Ukraine’s affairs by US officials to achieve US ‘objectives (barring DF’s return to public life in Ukraine) was closely followed by another instance of interference, namely forcing Poroshenko to dismiss me because my actions as General Prosecutor did not suit the interests of the US Vice-President Biden and the persons connected to I now set out the details. is appointed to office by the President of Ukraine with the consent of the Verkhovna Rada (‘the Rada’. ic. parliament). 1 was accordingly appointed during the presidency of President Poroshenko by 318 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan | | | | | I | | | |rage 20 or 64 2019-12-90 22:03:18 (GMT) votes of members of the Ukrainian Parliament, which constituted a constitutional majority. Whilst occupying this post I was staunchly politically unaffiliated. ‘The circumstances of my dismissal were that | tendered my resignation to the Rada at the request of President Poroshenko. Poroshenko asked me to resign due to pressure from the US Presidential administration, in particular from Joe Biden, who was the US Vice-President. Biden was threatening to withhold USD$ | billion in subsidies to Ukraine until { was removed from office. After! yielded to the President's request and submitted my voluntary resignation, Poroshenko commented about it in the media, He said that I had carried out a colossal amount of work as General Prosecutor, which is something none of my predecessors had been able to do, especially with regards to my work on reforming the different bodies of the prosecutor's office, on creating the Specialised Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office. which enabled the National Anti- Corruption Bureau of Ukraine to conduct legal work. and on creating self-governing prosecution authorities. The official reason put forward for my dismissal was that | had allegedly failed to secure the publie's trust. Poroshenko and other state officals. including representatives of the US presidential administration, had never previously had any complaints about my work, however. There were no grievances against me or any allegations that had | Committed any corruption-related (or, indeed any other) criminal offenses. Biden never stated anything of the kind either. Furthermore, all sanctions in respect of Yanukovich and his supporters remained in force and were not lifted whilst | occupied the post. Moreover, these sanctions were extended. The truth is that Iwas forced out because | was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings (“Burisma”), a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. | assume Burisma, which was connected with gas extraction, had the support of the US Vice- President Joe Biden because his son was on the Board of Directors. On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation. Therefore, | was forced to leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration. In my conversations with Poroshenko at the ti he was emphatic 4 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan t | i | | i | | | | 1 | i | | i | | |To: Circuit Court Arkansas Page 57 of 64 2019-12-30 22:36:39 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma, When I did not, he sald that the US (via Biden) were refusing to release the USDS | billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign. 10, When Poroshenko asked me to resign. the way that he put it to me was that he was aking it for the good of our country, and that | should agree. also as an act of pati ism. | agreed to tender my resignation on this basis. 11. Afler my dismissal Joe Biden made a public statement. saying ~ even bragging ~ that he had me fired. This is when it became clear thatthe real reason for my dismissal was in that company, which my actions regarding in Burisma and Biden's personal interes was demonstrated by the following: 1) itwas Biden's order and wish that { be removed from office. not Poroshenko's decision; b) the reason was because it was precisely the state officials from the US administration of President Obama ~ and Joe Biden in particular - who were telling the heads of the Ukraine law-enforcement system how to investigate ‘and whom to investigate, including members of the Yanukovych regime team. | was not complying with their wil.(in respect of Zlochevsky, in particular who was a minister under Yanukovich) so I had to be removed from office; ©) it was not Poroshenko being patriotic, it was Poroshenko submitting to the demands of state officials from the US administration of President Obama for reasons of political economy and the personal interests of the US Vice President Biden, amongst others. 12. When | found out about the actual reason for my dismissal from Biden's statement. | went to the courts and asked for recognition that | had been forced to submit my ‘voluntary’ resignation (and therefore that my dismissal be declared unlawful). | was refused to have my case examined on its merits due to the fact that | had supposedly missed the deadlines for applying to the courts. When ! had exhausted all domestic legal remedies, | petitioned the ECLHR, on the basis that my fundamental rights had been broached and that my dismissal was politically motivated and therefore unlawful. 1 See, Lenv and Crime.com, “Biden Reportedly “Bragged" About the Firing of a Prosecutor Who Was. Investigating His Son's Firm’, 2 April 2019, available ot: bps: lawanderinne.co high-profile biden aperedth-bragyed-about-ile-Firins-oFa-prasseulor-ho-way-insestialinyshis-sonse ira 5To: Circut Court Arkansas Page 58 of 64 2019-12-30 22:36:39 (GMT) 13. DF won his extradition case in Austri at first instance, on 30 April 2015, while I was General Prosecutor of Ukraine. This was widely reported in the media at the time. It was also subsequently reported that hi tended to come back to Ukraine, in order to ‘address the General Assembly of the Federation of Employers of Ukraine (“FEU”) on 2 December 2015. He was the head of the FEU. 14. Itwas public knowledge that in March 2015, DF and the FEU established a body called the Agency for the Modernization of Ukraine to develop a comprehensive plan for the economic revival of Ukraine, involving massive investment into Ukraine. It was called the Plan for the Modernization of Ukraine, and it was also public knowledge thet it was to be presented specifically by DF at the FEU event on 2 December 2015?, 15. During this period | was present in meetings with Poroshenko. as were the heads of other law-enforcement authorities of Ukraine, in which the matter of barring DF from returning to Ukraine was discussed, although | was not specifically addressed on the issue. 16, Based on the outcome of these meetings, | believe that the initiative and main ‘motivation an barring DF from returning to Ukraine was coming mostly from state officials of the US administration, especially from Biden. 17. This was not a secret, Everyone knew it and it was in the media that state officials from. the US Administration of President Obama stood behind the intense and aggressive warnings to DF not to return. For example, one article on 3 December 2015 had the title “A Ukrainian oligarch’s foiled homecoming. The U.S. and the government in Kiev want Dmytro Firtash behind bars”. It said that: “Avakov announced on Sunday that, after consulting with U.S. officials. he instructed Ukrainian police to detain Finash should he attempt to enter Ukraine” (emphasis supplied) 18. Biden, Poroshenko and Avakoy were determined 10 prevent DF from coming to Ukraine; they were absolutely resolute. The media was used to deliver # very strong ‘message, loud and clear, to DF not to come to Ukraine. Photos of armed paramilitaries waiting for DF were taken and posted on the internet (including on Avakov's Facebook 2 See for example: hut en.dmitrfinash,com netivily aencs_ for the moderni7etion of ukraine », See Politico, “A Ukrainian oligarchs foiled homecoming”. 12 March 2015. Wlos/ wo politleo.cwarticle firash-poroshenko-ukraine-oligarchs-corruptio 6 14132343255 From: Joel CaplanTo: Circuit Cour Arkansas Page 59 of 64 2019-42-30 22:36:39 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Ca 0 « 5 1 Capk rom: Joel Caplan page), and the Ukrainian airspace was closed at the end of November, in order to prevent DF coming to Ukraine. Andriy Biletsky, commander of Ukraine's uationalist Azov Battalion, said that his sh themselves if government forces failed to do ‘armed men waiting at Kiev's Borispol volunteer fighters would arrest Fit so. He later posted a Facebook photo of airport, | | 19. For example, the media reported: t t 20, Back then, at a press conference 1, as the General Prosecutor, was asked about how 1 would treat Firtash upon his return to Ukraine. Knowing that there were no criminal cases against him in my office and knowing thet the situation was the same in other offices as well, | replied that | would greet him with « bunch of flowers, and suggested that he contact Avakov in this regard. As the General Prosecutor and an Honoured Legal Professional of Ukraine, | knew that there were only two legal scenarios in which DF could be detained in Ukraine. The first is that Ukraine would prosecute DF for crimes committed ii Ukraine; the second was for DF to be prosecuted in Ukraine on the basis of allegations and materials handed over to us by the US. n law, DF could not be extradited because he is a national of Ukraine 21. Under Ukra and we do not extradite cur nationals, However, Ukrainian nationals can be prosecuted for crimes committed in another country on the basis of the materials provided by this country. 22, Avakoy stated publicly to the media that if DF arrived in Kiev, he would be detained and prosecuted. But the truth is that there was no evidence that DF had committed any Grimes in Ukrairie’ Avakoy later adfnitted as much publicly. 23. Had there been any evidence of criminality by DF in Ukraine, the General Prosecutor's Office would haye been awa‘e of itThere was no such evidence, Regarding the charges, the MVD. (Ministry of Internal Airs) spokesman, tated 6n 26 November that: ie ‘not have any criminal proceedings in which riasi js nained as a suspect though there isa case relating © See Politico, "A 12° March 2015, nups:/huws,politicojewarticle fn\ircult Court Arkansas Page 60 of 64 2019-12-30 22:36:39 (GMT) to the Ostchem group of companies in which he has been summoned to be interviewed as a witness", 24. Once it was admitted that there was no basis on which to arrest DF for crimes committed in Ukraine, the US offi ls and the Interior Ministry of Ukraine switched to the US charges. Thus, on 29 November 2015. the MVD issued a s rement with the title: “Dmitry Firtash will be detained on his arival on request from US Department of Justice”® (my emphasis) 25. According to this press statement, Minister Avakov said that Ukraine had offered to {ake over the criminal proceedings against DF instigated in the US and to prosecute hhim on those charges in Ukraine. As | say. Ukraine's law allows for this. However, our law does not allow him to be detained for 40 days as a Ukrainian national. 26. On the same day, Avakov wrote on his Facebook page that DF would be detained on arrival following an application from the US Department of Justice and that the relevant consultations with the US had already been concluded’ 27. Itis my testimony that as the General Prosecutor. | was not provided with any evidence Proving DF's guilt in committing any crimes either in Ukraine or other countries. including the US. | know for a fact that under Ukrainian law, when a foreign state (here the US) seeks criminal prosecution of an individual in circumstances where there has Not yet been a verdict of that person (such as in DF"s case —he was wanted in Austria ‘n order to be tried), the responsible body for receiving and dealing with such requests 's the General Prosecutor's Office. Where there has been a criminal verdict. it is the Ministry of Justice. 28. As there had been no verdict in DF"s case, it was the exclusive competence of the General Prosecutor's Office to receive any request for a erimi | prosecution of DF, 4s well as all underlying evidence to support a criminal prosecution. As | have said, no such evidence was provided, notwithstanding the fact that every measure had * See Ukrainska Pravda, “Ukraine has closed its skies to charter Nights 28 November 2015, hy: wu.y.pravde.com.ia pews-2015 11 28 7090854 “See Ministry of tnvernal Affairs of Ukraine, “Dmitry Fitash Will Be Detsined On His Arrival in Ukraine On “Request From the US Ministyy of Justice”, 29. November "2015, Jur. nou, sov.sala/publish aticle/1 7315894 * Uerainsko Pravda, “Avakov: Firtash will be detained immediately on November 2015, hitp:!"www.pravds.com.un/us news 2015.1) because of Firtash?", is arrival in Ukraine”, 29 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan10; Cireurt Court Arkansas Page 61 of 64 29. 30. a 2018-12.30 22:36:39 (GMT) supposedly been taken to detain OF upon arrival in Ukraine. Ukraine was going to DF if he arrived to Ukraine. {reat lengths to show its readiness to immediately det | can speculate that had DF arrived, he could have been detained under Ukrainian law at that time for up to 72 hours if there were grounds for suspecting that he had committed a crime on the territory of Ukraine. Of course, as | have said, there were no such grounds in DF"s case, Further, | would never have allowed the General Prosecutor's Office to be used for pol ical purposes of unfounded criminal prosecution of a person, so my office would not have allowed or assisted in detaining or prosecuting DF, either on Ukrainian or American charges, in the absence of sufficient credible evidence that such a crime or crimes had been committed. 1 would add that all the actions and statements made by the then state officials from the US presidential administration, as well as the administration of Ukraine, were not aimed at DF’s criminal prosecution, but at preventing his return to Ukraine. If they were interested in his eriminal prosecution, they would have, on the contrary. created an environment in the media that would have made DF want to return to Ukraine and facilitated his arrival and criminal prosecution, ‘Therefore, in my opinion, the threat of DF's detention and criminal. prosecution in Ukraine was the reason why he did not return to Ukraine. The actions committed by state officials from the US presidential administration during Obarna’s presidency and state officials of Ukraine in order to bar DF's return to Ukraine had nothing to do with Fs actual criminal prosecution. The true reasons for these actions, in my opinion, emerge from the following facts: 8, DF was going to retum to Kyiv in order to re-enter public life in Ukraine and present his development plan for stronger Ukraine; b. F's arrival in Ukraine would have forced the US to produce sufficient evidence for DF's criminal prosecution on the US charges, but I (as General Prosecutor) never received any such evidence. 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplanwi eee eer rnuiieas Pays ue UF OH 4u19- 12-30 42:36:39 (GMT) 14132343255 Fromm Joe! Caplan 32. Joe Biden was visiting Ukraine frequently at that time. He came again in December 2015, He met President Poroshenko on Sunday 6 December and addressed the Rada ‘on Tuesday 8 December’. 33, Lam asked whether it was possible that there would have been a risk to DF"s life he had not cancelled his return and arrived in Ukraine in late 2015. My answer is — potentially yes! 34, Based on my experience, as well as on my reading of the situation. this could have happened either as # result of an order to assassinate DF. asa result ofthe actions taken by @ person with an extremist agenda, or a result of somebody's political order. In I relation to DF, the message via the media could effectively have been seen as a license b ‘ to“step up” and demonstrate the so-called “fake love” for the motherland by removing fi cone of the most influential people in Ukraine (he controlled some of the media, as well as enterprises underpinning major business sectors in Ukraine). | would like to draw i attention to what | have said above about the images of armed extremists in camouflage i | uniform and the images that could have given @ message to the same ultra-right : | nationalist individuals set against Russia as # country with which DF had actively I i cooperated back in the day on business matters (Rosukrenergo). i | ‘i i f 35. In my opinion, the initiator of the prevention of DF's return to Ukraine was the US a Vice President Biden, It was precisely on his initiative that Poroshenko and Avakoy | i created psychological conditions for barring DF's return to Ukraine, ' | i 36, They had to do everything to prevent DF coming back to Ukraine. As there were no | charges brought in Ukraine on allegations of crimes supposedly committed in Ukraine i ft the only possible reason to detain him beyond the initial permitted 72 hours was, in fact, the existence of credible evidence that he had committed crimes abroad, which could give rise to a verdict. | repeat that no such evidence was forwarded by the US. IFit had, as General Prosecutor | would have been aware of it For example, see RFI, “Biden visits Kiev to calm Ukrainian fears over Russia relations thaw". 7 December 2015, hitpvlen.f freurope/20151207-us-vive-president-vi concerns. 10ewe Suu minal Faye 02 OF OF 2019-12-30 22:36:39 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan en by Biden as.¢ US overseer inka we that DF ‘was charged on the US charges, but at creating conditions for preventing his return to Ukraine. 38. The events relating to DF and Biden in 2015 reveal the extent of the US administration's interference with Ukrainian domestic affairs and the eagemess to exercise control with the aim of advancing US interests. An example confirming such interference is me being forced to resign from my role as General Prosecutor solely on the demands of the US Vice President, Joe Biden. because | refused to cease my probe into Burigma (in which Biden hed significant interests), and because | would never have agreed to a politically motivated, unfounded criminal prosecution, i i f 39. Ihave never met DF in person and my interests have never crossed with his. However, the steps taken by the state officials from the US presidential administration-during Obama's presidency towards both of us demonstrate similar methods of isolating and removing people who do not serve their interests. This could be regarded as one line of actions committed by state officials in respect of people thet had caught their attention. Thave given this statement orally in Russian. | have carefully read Ukrainian and Russian translation and confirm that itis entirely true to the best of my knowledge and belief. In case of disagresment between the Ukrainian and Russian languages, preference is given : to Russian language. 1 am willing to attend court and testify on these matters before the Austrian authorities, [Signature] Shokin VN." [QR Code} HHX525925 City Ky- | | | | | | | | | i i STATEMENT OF TRUTH | | | f i i t [ | | i i |To: Cireuit Court Arkansas Page 64 of 64 2019-12.20 22:36:39 (GMT) 14132343255 From: Joe! Caplan Facts mentioned at this statement have not béen verified by the notary. -yiv, Ukraine the fourth of September two thousand nineteen, 1 Kh.V. Hornyak, a Private Notary of the Kyiv City Notary District, hereby certify the genuine signature of Shokin Viktor Mykol The identity and legal capacity of Shokin Viktor Mykolayovych, who signed the document, have been verified, Herewith I certify that translation of the text from Ukrainian to Russian is true 7 and made by myself. i Enteted in the Register under No. 768,769 i Fee paid pursuant to Article 31 of the Law of Ukraine "On Notaries". Private Notary: [signature] [seal of the Notary] Heit nepexnad auxonano Horo, neperradavew Xuerournyexor 6.0. This translation is made by qualified translaror Bogdana Khmeln Micro Kuts, Yxpaina vetseptoro sepeca asi Tuea4i aen'stHaausToro Pony. Ocody nepexnanave ncranoaneuaciinipsnanyict Sie Tpusaranit nerapiye A, Topuak X.B., npusatnnit Kotapiye Kuipeskoro mictKoro’ koTapianbHoro oxpyry, sacsinyyio cnpasxuicts nigaucy nepernanaya, Xmenbuuubkor Boras Onetccanzpinin, sx spo6teno y soit npreyrHocti. layovych made in my presence. Kh.V. Hornyak nicbixauito nepenipeno KO, 31 3Y allpo norapiaty ' i _ X.B. Popusic