Defence counsel Marc Agnifilo made the following summation in the Roger Ng Chong Hwa fraud trial in New York in relation to the theft of billions of dollars belonging to 1MDB.

I want to start with where the Government left off before lunch. A huge massive crime in Malaysia, front page of newspapers every single day, billions and billions of dollars stolen from a relativity small country of Malaysia and the Government says: Well, maybe that's why Roger — maybe that's why you deleted your emails, because of the fear that you have being a Malaysian in Malaysia and committing this massive crime.

But here's my question to think about: He's an overseas Chinese person. He can move to China. He can stay in China. His boss at Celsius, we know — from what we've been testified to, his boss at Celsius is saying, Come and move to Hong Kong. You can operate Celsius out of Hong Kong. All he needs to do is to go to Hong Kong. If this is really something he's that concerned about, if this is something that he did, if this is something he is guilty of, there is a solution; and it's in his grasp. He can move to Hong Kong and he's out of Malaysia, and he's certainly out of the reach of the United States.

So let's start from that premise. He never leaves. He never leaves Malaysia, the epicenter of this activity. What is the money that is stolen? It's Malaysian money that is stolen. Who is bribed? The prime minister of Malaysia is bribed. He is a Malaysian. He stays in Malaysia. He never leaves. He could have left. And why? Because he's innocent. Because he's innocent. There's only one explanation, and it's because he's innocent. Hwee Bin Lim testified when she was here last week: The truth itself will save him. He doesn't need me to do a thing. Those were her words.

You know a lot more about Roger now than you did when I delivered an opening statement to you, and I'm going to tell you some of the things that you now know about him. You know that he's a Malaysian citizen. You know that he's an overseas Chinese person. That's the way that we've described both Hwee Bin and Roger. You know that he studied in England. He met Hwee Bin when he was in England. She was 19 years old at the time; he was about the same age. And you know things about him. You know that he and Hwee Bin had a child, Victoria, on June the 3rd, 2012. That timing is very, very significant, as we'll get to in a few minutes. And you know that they got together in the early '90s, and that they've been together every day since; 30, 32, whatever it is, that many years later. You know that he lives with his niece despite what Tim Leissner might say about — I don't know, whatever he said: That Roger wants more money, he needs more money. He sent an email with a smiley emoji saying, This is more than my bonus. You firmly see this is a man who lives within his means. He doesn't need to commit a massive, oversized crime to get something that he doesn't already have. He has everything he needs. He had a good job at Goldman Sachs, and he was well paid. He was very well paid. He didn't need more money.

Hwee Bin's family comes from some means. He doesn't need more money. There's nothing about his personalty. There's nothing about his character. There's nothing about his lifestyle that would leave you to believe, Man, this is a guy who's really going to do something drastic, do something criminal, do something reckless because this guy needs more money. There's nothing about Roger Ng that suggests that in the slightest bit. We'll get to some of the other people in this — in this ongoing saga in a little while, and you'll see they're very different, but not Roger.

You know that he lives with his in-laws, okay? A lot of ground covered at this trial about the in-laws. They have an address in Terengganu, but they live with the daughter. I don't know. I mean, I'm under the impression that every once in a while, parents in their seventies and eighties sometimes live with their kids. And sometimes when they live with their kids and their kids are lawyers like Hwee Bin is, like Chee Khan Lim is, Hwee Bin's older brother, sometimes they turn over a lot of responsibility about finances to the kids. I don't think this case is, in any way, unique. I don't think this is a dynamic that's unique to Malaysia or the Far East. I think this is probably something you guys have all seen at one time or another in your daily lives.

So we know that Roger's in-laws live with them because Hwee Bin Lim told us that. We know that Roger left Goldman Sachs in 2014 and he made less money, and Hwee Bin told you why: Because when they had the baby, he didn't want to travel quite so much. He was traveling a lot. That's what Hwee Bin said, he was traveling a lot. And you see that he's traveling a lot. You see because we — the Government made the poster of the three faces around the world, you know, and there's a lot of other travel as well. He travels a lot. He traveled a lot on business. They had a child, a decision was made. He didn't want to travel quite so much.

Now, we know also a lot about Hwee Bin. We know she — you guys can size her up for yourself. And let me just — this is as good a time as any to say this: This is my assessment of the evidence. And to a certain extent, it really doesn't matter because, really, the only assessment of the evidence that matters is your assessment. So if I give you an idea or an assessment or an opinion about the evidence that accords with your opinion, you can adopt it, you can incorporate it into your other opinions. If it doesn't accord with your opinion, you can flat-out reject it, because what's important is what you guys think. My job until 5 o'clock when we stop — and anyone can feel free to raise their hand if I get too close to 5:00, that's fine with me — is basically to give you things that I hope are helpful to you. You have a very important decision to make, a critical decision to make, and it's my job to try to be helpful.

So what do we know about Hwee Bin. And she just testified last week, so I'm not going to go into it in tremendous detail. She studied in London. That's where she met Roger. She became friendly with someone named Siow Sin. It was her close friend at the time, maybe even a best friend at the time. And Siow Sin had someone that Siow Sin referred to as an uncle named Kim — Kim Song. She's also called him Kim Jhun. One is Mandarin, I suppose. And that's who that was. And she met this person on a number of occasions. Okay?

It's the early 1990s. She's young, she's in London. She's smart. She's educated. You can size her up for yourself. She knows her way around money. She knows her way around investments. She's fairly sophisticated in a lot of ways.

And she gets to meet this guy Kim Song, and Kim Song brings some people that he knows from China, and she's impressed. He's affiliated with the China Railway, and she explained to you that's significant because the China Railway is part of the government of China. So this means he's established. This means he's not a fly-by-night guy, he's a serious guy. He's older than she is, and she gets to talking to him. And she meets him socially — all right? — because she knows him for a number of years. And I won't go into all the details because she just testified last week.

Time goes by. It's now 1996. It's six years, about, since she met him. She's been in touch with him throughout. I think she was asked, When was the last time before '96 that you had met him? And she said that was about 1994. Okay? And she meets him at a place called Landmark in Hong Kong. She's with some friends, and Kim Song is with some friends, and they sit down, and they start talking.

Now, she described to you that around that time things were somewhat tumultuous in Asia in terms of finances. I think there is a financial crisis of sorts in parts of Asia but not in China in 1997. So this was the year before that. And she's talking to Kim Song, and she's talking about the possibility of investing in his business in China. And the way she described this to you is that this is not uncommon.

Okay. Now, let's just stop here for a second. We're all sitting here in Brooklyn. Okay? She's overseas Chinese living in Asia; and so, in her experience, it's not uncommon. That's her experience. One of the things that I want to, sort of, like, make you guys sensitive to is why the Government is taking us through all the different ways that the Government feels it can prosecute this crime here, because somebody went over a bridge or because an electrical impulse went underneath the harbor or went through a wire, or whatever. There are things that are happening that are a matter of cultures and of habits and of customs from people who are not here — okay? — from people — in terms of people who are somewhere else. In this case, overseas Chinese people living in the Far East. And what she told you is that this is not an uncommon thing, in her experience. She knows other people who've done this, and she decided she was going to do this. What's the "this"? The "this" is to invest 500,000 British pounds in Kim Song's business. What's Kim Song's business? It's expanded a little bit. Whereas it used to just be China Railway, now it's PetroChina, another very important company. PetroChina is part of the Chinese government. He's getting more and more established. Kim Song has brought other people — other business people from China. They have connections to industry in China, they have connections to Chinese Government in China. And this is an opportunity for her. That's way that she put it to you guys, that this is an opportunity. I'm young. At this point, in 1996, maybe she's 26 years old or so. She's not, you know, as young as she was back in 1990 when she first met Kim Song. She's known him now for six years. She's known him a long time.

She feels confident doing this. She makes the decision, she told you, on her own — before she even spoke to her parents, before she even spoke to Chee Khan, that this is a good idea. This is something that I want to do, and I feel confident in it. And she made the decision. She then told her parents, she then told her older brother. Everybody blessed it, and there's a series of other payments made totaling about half a million British pounds. Okay? And all of this now is in Kim Song's business. And she said that Kim Song would send her yearly, sort of, reports of the number of trades that he did and all this stuff, and everything is going fine.

She has every reason to believe that this is a sound investment. She has every reason to believe she's weathering the Asian financial crisis with having an investment in China. And she told you exactly how it went, she told you what she knew, she told you what she believed, and she told you why she was confident in it. And her confidence paid off. The investment grew. In 2005, though, things — two changes take place. The first change is that Roger starts working with Goldman Sachs and starts working with Tim Leissner. And Hwee Bin said that in 2005, while Leissner wasn't a partner yet, it was apparent that he was on the partner track, he was going to be a partner; and he ends up being a partner of Goldman Sachs the next year.

She said that in the fall of 2005, that there's a restaurant called Yi Shanghai, she said the name of it was, and there's a lunch at Yi Shanghai. The lunch is Roger, it's Hwee Bin, it's Tim Leissner, it's Judy. And Hwee Bin was very clear that Tim and Judy had their two very young children; one of whom, she said, was a toddler and Leissner, kind of, carried her, and the other of whom was in a pram, you know, a carriage, very young, like a baby.

And that's the first time she met — she meets Leissner and Judy. Never met them before. Now, they're in Hong Kong. Judy lives in Hong Kong. At the moment, in 2005, Hwee Bin lives in Hong Kong; Roger and Leissner are working together; and she gets to meet Judy that way. It's followed up by sort of what I'd consider a loose social relationship. Hwee Bin was very clear: I was not friends with Judy, per se. We didn't really hang out all the time, but we had a social relationship and it kind of, you know, stemmed from the gym. They went to the same gym. It stemmed from them meeting for coffee. There's a place called Kobo where they'll go and meet for coffee. They get to know each other in that way.

She gets a call from Kim Song and says — and he says, I have cancer. I have — I have cancer. I'm going to need a transplant, and you need do something with your money.

At this point, it's 48 million in renminbi, which is about 6 million U.S. dollars, okay? The money's in Kim's business in China. And the problem is, it's not easy to get money out of China, as she described. You have to get into a swap or you have to do it some other way. But the money's in China, and she doesn't know quite what to do with the fact that the money is in China. So she talks to a bunch of people in Hong Kong that she knows about this problem: "How am I going to deal with this situation? I have $6 million in a Chinese investment in China."

And one of the people she talks to Judy Chan Leissner, and she's talking to Judy Chan Leissner about this. In the beginning, Judy Chan Leissner says, You know what? I'll hold the money for you. We'll figure out — we'll figure out how to get it back to you, but I'll hold onto it. If you need to get rid of it right away because of Kim's medical condition, I'll hold onto it for you. That's the initial conversation, but that develops into something else.

And what Judy Chan Leissner says is, You know, my family owns a number of businesses. There's vineyards, there are things like that. Now, Hwee Bin says that from being in Hong Kong and the circles she was in in Hong Kong, which obviously involved Judy to a certain extent, you kind of knew — at least she said she kind of knew who Judy's family was. And Judy's family was a prominent family in two important ways: One, from a business perspective and, two, politically. Okay? They were politically important in China, and they were successful from the standpoint of business. She understood they had a number of businesses. They had wastewater treatment plants, they had real estate, and they had a vineyard. They actually had two vineyards.

One of them was called Grace Vineyard. And Judy says to Hwee Bin, You can invest alongside my family. So that is a benefit to Hwee Bin in two different ways: One, she doesn't have to worry about getting the money out of China. The money can stay invested in China. She doesn't have to find some way of getting it out of China. And the other way that it is important is that this is yet another good business opportunity for Hwee Bin.

And Hwee Bin takes — Hwee Bin speaks to Judy and basically puts Judy in touch with Kim. Judy and Kim have discussions, and then Judy sends Hwee Bin — what Hwee Bin described as a two-page acknowledgment. Okay? Now I want to talk about this for a second because — and the Government didn't discuss this a lot in summation, but I just want to sort of throw this out there.

If Hwee Bin was going lie about this — right? — if she was just going to make the whole thing up, she would have said this was a contract, this contract drawn up by lawyers that talked about my exchange rate and my return rate. She would have said all of these things. She would have made it something bigger than it was. But she doesn't say that. She said all it really was was an acknowledgment that Judy acknowledged getting about 48 million renminbi, about $6 million, U.S. dollars, 48 million renminbi from Kim Song and then she had it in Judy's — in Judy's company. Now, she and Judy continue to have sort of a loose social relationship. She and Leissner and Roger continue to have a loose social relationship, and she had complete confidence in this investment. She was very clear that, unlike Kim, Judy did not send her these yearly statements or things like that; but Judy said that based on the growth of her businesses, her family's businesses, Hwee Bin could expect rates of about 25 percent per year, you know, on an ongoing basis. That's a good — that's a good rate of return. Hwee Bin recognizes it's a good rate of return, and she basically kept the money in China in Judy's business. Now, one thing that I think sometimes could get lost in the sauce a little bit is this is not the first time we heard in this case about someone having an investment of exactly this nature. And I want to remind you of something that — Tim Leissner, I'm going to talk about Leissner in a little while, as you can imagine. I am not going to hold him out as a — gosh, I wrote this myself — as someone you should believe when he says that something is true. But one thing about Tim Leissner that you probably also could believe is that when it comes to investments, he's no fool. Okay? So I want to take you through a very short snippet of Leissner's testimony, and I'm looking at Page 2224, Line 6; and I'm just going to read it to you. I'm going to try and make it so you don't have to crane your necks, and I'm not going to do a lot of stuff with this swing set.

So here is the question: "So the question was: What investment did you have in Grace Vineyard?" This is from Tim Leissner. ANSWER: "It's — I believe I had funded about 3 million, sir..." — he called me "sir" a lot — "...back in the early days, maybe 2001 or 2002, something like that, to a real estate project that Judy had and the family had in China. At some point, we swapped." He's using the term "swap." We changed that to a 3 million-dollar — to — that to — that $3 million that was in the real estate project into a stake in Grace Vineyard. I can't tell you that I remember what kind of percentage I got, or we got. Certainly Judy ended up with, I think, about half of Grace Vineyard at some point."

Okay. This is Leissner. So before Hwee Bin ever made an investment in Grace Vineyard, the Government's cooperator had an investment in Grace Vineyard. And then he goes on to say the following — this is now Page 2245.

QUESTION: "The investment, you said you had an investment in Grace Vineyard, right?"

ANSWER: "When I described it, it was the family at the time. It wasn't me personally, per se, but it was the family. So it was really Judy holding it."

QUESTION: "Right. Because you couldn't hold it in your name?"

ANSWER: "That's right."

QUESTION: "Because it — it's a business in Mainland China?"

ANSWER: "That's correct."

Okay. So what Hwee Bin did is nothing different than what Leissner had already done, and the reason it's relevant is because to the extent that Hwee Bin says it's not uncommon to do this, here it is being done by another person that you've all met in this case. So that's — that's how common it is. Leissner did it, he says, in 2001, 2002. Hwee Bin does the same thing in 2005. There's nothing all that novel about it. There's nothing all that suspicious about it. There's nothing all that unusual about it. It seems to be somewhat typical, just from what we've seen in this case alone.

Now, one thing that I want to draw your attention to, since we're on top of Grace Vineyard. There are a number of things — and we're going go through all of them — that make the four payments to Silken Waters/Victoria Square completely different than every other payment in the case. Okay? The Government — when the Government had their face charts up there and they said, you know, you expect — the Defense expects you to believe that the way Roger was treated was different than everybody else.

And the answer is, there's certain objective things that I'm going point out for you that make the four payments to Silken Waters/Victoria Square completely different — completely different than the other payments in the case. And the first thing that I'm going to talk to you — and I'm only talking about this one thing now because I'm talking specifically about Grace Vineyard, is that every one of the Silken payments were Victoria Square payments and none — none of the other payments in the case start with an email from Judy Leissner at her Grace Vineyard address. It's a little thing, but it's not a little thing. And so what I'm going to show you — and this is one of the few times we're going to use our screen today. This is Government

Exhibit 210-01, Page 169.

The whole point of this, is that top — that top line, the line that we have highlighted. Judy Leissner, Grace Vineyard — I'm sorry, jleissner@grace-vineyard..com. Okay. The payments that go to Silken and to Victoria Square start with an email from this email address and none, zero — zero of the other payments do.

So let me show you another one. This is — this next one is Government Exhibit 2297. The same thing. Let me show you GX 210-01, Page 120. This one's from 2013. Same thing.

One last one. 210-01, Page 122. Same thing. Okay?

Seems like a little thing. It's not a little thing. It one of the things — I'm going to go through a whole laundry list of other things that make the four payments to Silken Waters and Victoria Square different, markedly different than the others in the case, because as we know — as we know, Tim Leissner and Judy Leissner use the Capital Place account for a number of things. A lot of what they used it for was to make payments, make what seemed to be illicit payments, to make bribe payments, whatever they may be. Those payments have different attributes, have different qualities. They're or done differently than the four payments that we are saying are absolutely legitimate payments of a debt, and this is the first distinction that I want to make in that regard.

A couple of other things. When the Government was summing up, they discussed why was Leissner involved at all in — in — in the payments — the 2013 payments to Hwee Bin and her family. And the reason is — and you'll remember this from the evidence. There was an issue with the bank account information. It was incorrect. It was just the wrong account name, it was the wrong account number. Judy Chan Leissner's — they were married at the time, and he wasn't married to anyone else at that time, 2012, I don't think, relies on her Goldman Sach's husband to try to solve the problem about the incorrect information in the account, and that's the only reason he's involved. Otherwise, he's not involved.

Now, the truth is Leissner and Judy — you know, they're husband and wife during this period. They have some overlap in terms of what they're doing, but the important thing is when you see the payments that end up going to Hwee Bin and her family, the Silken — the Silken and Victoria payments, they always start from a Grace Vineyard email. And why? Why? I don't know how Judy does her accounting at Grace Vineyard, but she has to capture that payment somehow. That payment, if it's coming out of Grace Vineyard, there has to be some way of capturing that payment and making it something that her accountant at Grace Vineyard can say, oh, this is — this is an outgoing payment from Grace Vineyard. So the way she does it, apparently, is she actually uses the Grace Vineyard address to send the email so that she could give it to her accountant to say, Look, this is a Grace Vineyard payment.

And that's the case. That's the case, also, with the — with the email that the Government showed you in its summation where it says, you know, "for Roger." There's one that says "for Roger." It's an email from Judy to herself. Why would she do that? Well, if you look more closely, it's an email correspondence between Judy and herself, between the Grace Vineyard email address and her personal email address. Again, because — in terms of accounting, Judy has to capture this payment on Grace Vineyard's accounting, and this is the way she does it. So it's actually evidence, I submit to you, that this is a Grace Vineyard debt. The reason it's coming from a Grace Vineyard email, is because it's a Grace Vineyard debt that Judy is paying back to Hwee Bin.

The other thing the Government talked about in its submission today is there's a June 5th email where Roger is getting bank information on June 5th, and they're saying, well, look, that's evidence that this money's for Roger, not for Hwee Bin and her family. But remember what's going on June the 5th. Hwee Bin has a child June 3rd, okay? Hwee Bin has Victoria on June 3rd, 2012, and Hwee Bin told you, didn't get into a lot of detail, it was a — a pregnancy and delivery that had complications, okay? That's what she said. That was her testimony. So here we are two days after she gives birth, and the email is going to Roger, not to Hwee Bin. Why? Because Hwee Bin had a baby two days earlier. So it's not the significant piece of evidence the Government had you believe. It's makes all the sense in the world, given the timing.

We're going to get back to some of the finances here in a minute, but I want to run through the period between 2011 and about 2018. Now, Judy sends initially $26 million, says that she is going to send $26 million. And so there's — there's conversation between Hwee Bin, Chee Khan, the parents, Fanny Khng, and Evelyn Smith, Fanny and Evelyn being the two people from the bank, from UBS. And there's a meeting, apparently, at Hwee Bin's home. Now, why is it at Hwee Bin's home? Because the parents are living there a lot of time. So Chee Khan and Hwee Bin and the parents are all at Hwee Bin's home and Fanny Khng and Evelyn Teah come to the house.

Now, Hwee Bin took you through that one document. I think it's Government Exhibit 3035-A. She said, I've never seen this before. No one asked me to sign it. I didn't sign it. My mother didn't sign it. Nobody's signed it.

It's basically an internal UBS document. And if you look through that one paragraph that we've all looked at many, many times, you know what's on it. Okay? And what I submit is on there are things that are essentially good for Fanny Khng. Let me tell you what I mean. All right? Fanny works at UBS. There's going to be a review process. They're expecting $26 million. The $26 million doesn't come all in one traunch, as you know. There's $17.5 million first, and then there's, you know, a lesser amount of money, and then there's not any more money until 2013. But Fanny Khng, I submit to you, writes everything that's in that statement, and everything in that statement is good for Fanny Khng. It's not necessarily true. It's not necessarily right. It's not necessarily what anybody told her.

Because Hwee Bin was as clear as a bell. She got on this witness stand — and keep in mind, in this equation, one source of information is a sworn witness subject to cross-examination, and the other witness is Fanny Khng. She's not a witness. She's not here. You don't know why she wrote down what she wrote. We have no idea what she was thinking. We have no idea who she is. She's not sworn. She didn't come here. The FBI interviewed her, as we know — my mistake, did not interview her. My mistake. Did not interview her, as we know, and — nor did the FBI interview Evelyn Teah. Okay? So we don't have a lot of insight into that, and that's important.

But what Hwee Bin came here and testified to and subjected herself to cross-examination about is, I told you UBS the money was coming from China. I was very clear. I told them that, everybody there told them that, because that's where the money was coming from.

Now, why did UBS not write that the money was coming from China? I have no idea. I have no idea and neither do you, because Fanny Khng certainly has never taken the witness stand and been subjected to cross-examination to explain, Why did I write what I wrote? You don't know. She's not a witness at this trial. The only witness at this trial testified that she told UBS the money was coming from China.

Now, is there some reason that a bank in Singapore doesn't want to write, The money's coming from China? I don't know. There's no evidence of that in the case. Is there some reason that a bank in Singapore doesn't want to say that there was an investment in China? Well, there's no evidence about that in the case. I don't know. But that's why you can't trust that one way or the other. We don't know why Fanny Khng wrote that, but what she wrote instead — and keep in mind what UBS is. UBS is a Swiss bank. Okay? We know that. Hwee Bin testified to that. UBS is a Swiss bank. If you look through that little paragraph, there's references to other Swiss banks. There's Credit Suisse. Fanny Khng talks about Credit Suisse. She says specifically that Hwee's been chosen — Hwee's been chosen — here UBS over Credit Suisse. And then she mentions another — it's not a small thing — another large Swiss bank, BSI. Kevin Swampillai told you that BSI was one of the ten largest banks in Switzerland. It's not a small bank. It's not a small, insignificant bank. And, perhaps, it is easier, it's less controversial, it's less subject to scrutiny for a Swiss bank to say, Money is coming from another Swiss bank. It might be as simple as that. Maybe that's why she wrote it down, but we don't know because she didn't come here to testify, so we can't ask her. But at the end of the day, what we do know is in that little statement there, there's references to three Swiss banks: UBS, Credit Suisse, and BSI. Is it a coincidence that BSI also plays a role in this case? Sometimes it's just a coincidence. Sometimes that's what it is. But BSI is not a small, insignificant bank, as Kevin Swampillai told you.

Now, the other thing that I want to go through — and I'm not to go through it in tremendous detail because I think you just heard about a lot of this, is one thing I want you to remember about Hwee Bin, is I think she expressed a great command behind all of her decisions, her financial decisions. Why did you create this company? Why did you do this? Why did you do that? She had answers for all of it. She was cross-examined on much of it. She had answers for all of it. And this bit about — about the destroying mail, she had no desire to destroy mail. She didn't want the mail held by this Portcullis Group. She wanted the mail held by the bank. If you remember the actual emails and if you remember the actual phone call, what she wants to know, why aren't you — why — I know you. I know UBS. I know you people. Why aren't you holding the mail? Because Portcullis is holding the mail, and I have to pay them, for one, and she — we've been told that she didn't like paying them and that she found a company that was cheaper that Portcullis and, two, I don't know where my mail is because I don't know who these Portcullis are. So she's not destroying anything because she's hiding something. She doesn't want the pay Portcullis to hold her mail and if someone was going to hold her mail, she'd rather have it be UBS. Those were the questions she was asking. So there's no nefarious intent here for HWee to — I'm sorry, let me — for Hwee Bin to want to destroy — there's just no evidence of that whatsoever.

The other thing the Government said, I think, two or three times in their summation that she was impersonating her mother. I mean, come on. You know, this is — we all take care of our own parents. If our parents are lucky — her parents are lucky. They have children who can help them in their old age. And when you help them with their bank accounts and when they live with you and you help them with their finances, you're not impersonating them. That's not what happened. This is Hwee Bin being a good, educated daughter. She's a lawyer. She's smart. She's sophisticated. It makes all the sense in the world that she would step in and help her parents with their finances. That's all it is. No one is impersonating anybody. No one is hiding behind their mother. That's just silly, and that's inconsistent, I submit, to what you all see in your lives, the lives of your friends, the lives of your family where people take care of their parents in every way, living with them, financially, and every other important way as they grow older.

One of the things that Hwee Bin was very clear about is that in 2018, Hwee Bin starts talking to the Malaysian police. Okay? These are the police in Malaysia. She said she went down a lot. I don't know if she said 20, 30 times. She went down without a lawyer. All right? The Government asked, Well, aren't you a lawyer? She's a corporate lawyer. She's not a even a practicing lawyer. She's not a criminal defense lawyer. She is not a criminal practitioner. She goes down alone because she has nothing to fear. Now, why are the Malaysian police interested in Hwee Bin? It's very clear. Now, we've never walked away from this fact a day in our lives during this trial. There is no question that, in fact, 1MDB money trickled down, trickled down, trickled down and went to Capital Place and went into these accounts. We never said anything different than that, and we admitted that in our opening statement. So it makes all the sense in the world that the Malaysian police would want to speak to Hwee Bin. But who do they want to talk to? They want to talk to Hwee Bin. They don't want to speak to Roger. Roger spoke to them early, early on, 2015, or whatever. In 2018, who are they talking to? They're talking to Hwee Bin. Why? Because Hwee Bin has control of the money and the Malaysian police obviously want to know what's going on. And Hwee Bin testified to this, and this is a very important part of the trial evidence and of her testimony. She said that she had conversations with the Malaysian police about getting these records from Judy. Okay? And there's going to be — there's going to be a two-page acknowledgment, okay, from 2005 where Judy says: I got 48 million renminbi from Tim. And then there's going to be other things. There's going to be bank records. There's going to be accounting. There's going to be some objective evidence in China, okay, of this money. All right?

So Judy asks the Malaysian police, can — Hwee Bin asks the Malaysian police, can I speak to Judy? Can I speak to Tim? And the Malaysian police said, yeah, because she asked permission, okay? And then she tries to reach Judy. Judy's giving her the cold shoulder, as she testified to. And she has conversations with Tim. And she had several conversations with Tim, according to her testimony, about trying to get these documents, okay? And at no time, she testified, did Tim say, you know, wait. You know there's no documents because he came up with a cover story in 2016. You know, that's not testimony. You know there's no documents because, you know, you know where that money is. That's not what Tim says, according to Hwee Bin's testimony. Tim said, yeah, I'll see what I can do. You know, but nothing happened. I mean, nothing happened. Tim doesn't produce any documents. He never gives any documents. You know, he doesn't give them over. And so Hwee Bin continues to deal with the Malaysian police without the benefit of these documents.

Now, what Wee Bin doesn't know is literally on the other side of the world, at the moment, Tim Leissner is speaking with the FBI. It's now June of 2018. We heard about circumstances surrounding Leissner's arrest, if you want to call it that, where he gets to keep his briefcase and he gets to use his phone. I don't know what kind of arrest that is, but that was the particular arrest that Tim Leissner experienced. He had documents, he said. He had a folder in his Tumi briefcase when he was arrested. That was his word, I was arrested. No one looked in it. That was his testimony. No one looked in his briefcase, no one looked for his documents. He testified that two days later, he was using his telephone. Never spent the night in jail, spent the night at a hotel, spent another night at a hotel, spent another night at a hotel, never saw the inside of a prison; and he hopes that he never will. But on the other side of the world from Malaysia, you had Tim Leissner speaking to the FBI.

Now, the Government didn't even touch on this in their summation, and they can talk about anything they want, just like I can talk about anything I want that deals with the evidence. And you certainly are free to know this, the things that we each talk about and the things that we don't talk about.

So let's talk about Tim Leissner for a second. It's been awhile since he testified so let's talk about him. And here's the important thing — and I'm not going to belabor this because you all heard him, just like I did. Okay? I suppose, under the right circumstances, any of us could lie, right? Something's really on the line, there's a matter of your kids, your parents, your brother, your sister, anybody could lie, right? But not like him. He's, I submit to you, one of a kind. He's rare. There aren't a lot of Tim Leissners in the world, and he just happens to be the centerpiece of the Government's case in this one. Now, he lies to everyone. He lies to his wives, he lies to his kids, he lies about his kids. He will lie, if it suits his interests, that his own children were in a car accident. Think about that. He's lying in a fake email correspondence because he created a fake email address for his then-wife, Judy Chan Leissner, to have bogus communications with Kimora Lee Simmons; and because it served Leissner's interests, Leissner actually lied that his children with Judy were in a car accident and were injured. He goes that far.

But he goes further than that. He creates the fake email address, and he keeps this going for years. This — this is lying on — on a rare level. This is not everyday lying, to want to manipulate — and that's what it is — to want to control, to want to dominate a situation between your then-wife, Judy Chan Leissner, and your soon-to-be second wife while also married to the first one, Kimora Lee Simmons, to create a bogus email address so that Kimora Lee Simmons thinks that she's friends with Tim's ex-wife, Judy. She's not his ex-wife, they're still married.

But in addition to that — and Leissner even shows Kimora Lee Simmons a bogus divorce certificate to further lie to her. And think for a second, what must lead up to that? What must Kimora be saying? You know, I think you're still married. I think you're married. I think you're — no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Look, here's a document. Look, here's a document. I'm divorced. All right? It's a lifetime of lies. When you're married to two women at the same time and neither of them know it, every time you leave the house, it's a lie. Every time you say where you're going, it's a lie. Every time where you say where you've been, it's a lie. It's not a lie here, it's not a lie there, it's a lifetime of lying.

And here's the important part for how, I think, you have to evaluate his testimony in this case: It's a decision he intelligently and willfully made to say, you know what? I am going to do this because I want to do it. I want to be married to her because I want the trust. I want her to trust me the way a wife trusts a husband. And I want to be married to her because I want her to trust me the way a wife trusts a husband. You don't get a lot of trust when you're just a boyfriend. And you have five girlfriends? Nobody trusts you. You can't even really lie then because nobody trusts you. But you're a husband now, she trusts me the way a wife trusts a husband, and so does she. And you know what? I can lie my way through it. I got this covered. I'm so good at lying, I'm not afraid of this. I can lie my way right through this. They're not going to know what's coming, because I'm that good of a liar.

And the fact that he thinks he can pull it off and then he does for a long time, resorting to fake emails to do so, is one in a million. Maybe even more than a million.

So this is who Tim Leissner is. This is who Tim Leissner was before he ever darkened the doorstep of the FBI. That's who he was.

So does he change? Now, let's remember Tim Leissner's testimony. Sat right there, told you: I changed. I changed. I lied a lot in my life, but I'm not lying anymore. I have certainly told my share of lies, but my lying has stopped.

He's probably told that to a thousand people, and now he's told it to a thousand and 18 people because he's told it to you. And it's always a lie. It's a lie every time he says it. It's been a lie. It was a lie the first time he said it and it was a lie the one thousandth time he said it. But that's what he says. That's his shtick. That's a liars last resort. Yeah, I've lied a lot, but I stopped, and I'm sure a lot of people believe him in their lives. I'm sure a lot of people believe him. Afseneh. Remember Afseneh? He's married to Afseneh when he's married to Judy. Direct testimony. It was on direct examination. I got divorced from Afseneh. She consented. Okay? Cross-examination. You went to the Dominican Republic behind her back. Think about who he is. He marries — he's married to Afseneh, he marries Judy without telling Afseneh, and then he runs to the Dominican Republic to get divorced behind Afseneh's back. That is rare. That is not normal every day lying. That is lying on a different level, okay? So when you guys are trying to figure out, did he really change his ways? Is he really different now? He has said that his whole life, and he didn't change his ways, and he didn't change his ways now, and he didn't change his ways when he went to the FBI because he admitted to you — like — that's, like, a good thing? I admitted that I went to the FBI and lied, so now you should believe me. What did he lie about? He told you what he lied about. He falsely implicated Roger, the man on trial. He told you: I falsely implicated Roger. I said that Roger did things that I knew Roger didn't do, and that's terrible.

You know who he also falsely implicated because he told you? The mother of his children. Judy. He goes into the FBI — I mean, think about this. Think about this. You go into the FBI, you say that the — your ex-wife, the mother of your children engaged in criminal activity that you know she didn't engage in to make her situation worse, to make her more guilty, to make her falsely guilty in the eyes of the FBI, you finish, and you walk out? Are you kidding me? And then you come back and you do it again? It wasn't one time. We took him through it. He did it over and over and over. It wasn't until something happened that stopped him. And you know what it was? It was emails and text messages. And so he never stopped lying, ever, and he didn't stop lying in this courtroom, and I will take you through some of that too. He started lying smart. What he realized is, huh, I can't lie about stuff if there might be an email because then I'll get caught, so I'm not going to do that anymore, because that's how he got caught on the Roger and Hwee Bin lies — I'm sorry, on the Roger and Judy lies. He didn't have some crisis of conscience and say, oh, wow, I have to stop lying. He just got caught because he lied about things where there are emails, and so all he did is he started getting smart. He lied smart. And by the time he came to this courtroom, he had been lying to some of the people sitting at this table for over three and a half years, and he lied to you during his testimony.

Now, one thing I want to say, everyone keeps — the Government keeps saying, you have to scrutinize Tim Leissner's testimony, you have to scrutinize Tim Leissner's testimony. Does really anyone seem like they're really scrutinizing Tim Leissner's testimony? They're just letting him testify. He's just getting up here and he's testifying. And the truth is, there is no other evidence that connects Roger Ng with guilt, okay? Now, once you accept — once you accept that Roger is a Goldman Sachs banker and he's going to work on the deals — so you are going to see emails of him working on deals because he's a Goldman Sachs banker. You are going to see him going places because he's a Goldman Sachs banker. You are going to see him talking to Andy Tai, and you're going to see him talking to his boss. Let's not lose sight of the fact for a second, Tim Leissner is that man's boss. It's his boss, okay. You are going to see him talking to Leissner. You are going to see him talking to all these different people. Why? Because he's a Goldman Sachs banker, so that doesn't mean anything. That's not corroboration, you know?

And I've told you from the first minute we all spoke that $35 million came from Capital Place into Silken Waters and Victoria Square, so once you take those two things out, what does Leissner give you? Leissner gives you intent.

Roger and I discussed this. Roger and I had this, you know, dirty conversation with Low. Roger and I knew that everybody was getting paid. That's what you have Leissner doing. And you know what? There's no — zero, zero, zero, zero corroboration of that. Not a single thing. The real blood and guts of this case, you know, that it's a bribery case and that Roger is charged with bribery and money laundering, there's no — zero evidence independent of Leissner for that at all. There's not a dirty email. There's not a bad email. Roger is not on a bad email. There's not a bad text message, and we know there are bad text messages in this case because you saw them. You saw Leissner's text messages with Low where Low is basically treating Leissner like he's — I don't know.

I mean, it's — it's — Leissner doesn't seem like he's a Goldman Sachs partner and the head of Asia at Goldman Sachs with the way Low is treating him. Did you pay so-and-so? Did you pay so-and-so? You know, paying, paying, paying. You know, Leissner and his text messages with Low are as implicating evidence as you're going to see anywhere unless you're actually a baker. If you are a baker and you actually do make cakes, then I guess they're explainable. But since no one here makes case, these are clearly conversations about bribes. And they exist. They're here in the real world. You saw them. One after the next after the next. You see Leissner and Low talking about, you know, let's try and — we have Madam Cakes. What's that? Madam Cakes is a reference to the prime minister's wife and payments. This is a good cake deal. You know, it's one thing after the next. So these things do exist. They do exist, because you have seen them. They just don't exist with Roger, okay? Because Roger is not involved. So there's no emails — zero; there's no bad text messages — zero; and, as we discussed, there are no phone calls. There's no phone calls.

You heard from the evidence that at the direction of the FBI, Leissner made phone calls. Leissner called Jho Low. Leissner called Hwee Bin twice. Leissner never called Roger. Now, Leissner offered you an explanation. I submit the explanation is a lie, and I'm going to tell you exactly why. He says: I spoke to the FBI about it, and Low — I didn't call Roger because we were concerned his phone was compromised.

Okay. There are two people in every conversation. There's Leissner, and there's an FBI agent. Where is the FBI agent? If that crime — if that conversation took place — there's no evidence of it. They know how to call FBI agents. They called a bunch of them. There's no evidence of it. Do you know why? Because Leissner is making that up. Leissner is lying about that. He's lying because he can't admit — for whatever reason, he has a hard time admitting the truth about a lot of things, and he's lying about that, but what you do know, you know there's no calls — no calls with Roger. And Hwee Bin told you that at one point when she was on a video call with Leissner, she showed Leissner that Roger was with her. Nothing. No conversations with Roger. No evidence. No evidence. Aside from Leissner, no evidence that Roger did anything wrong.

All right. Let's talk about 2009 to 2012 and the role of Jho Low.

Here's the important part, okay? In 2009, there's no doubt — and I think I told you this in my opening — that Roger is instrumental in bringing — trying to bring Jho Low into the bank, okay? No question. This is three years before all the mishegoss is going to start with Project Magnolia in 2012. So there's nothing going on in 2009, Low is not nearly the controversial figure he would end up being, and Roger is absolutely trying to bring him into the bank.

Now, keep in mind something — this was all brought out in Leissner's testimony — I asked Leissner: Do you remember getting an email at the end of 2008, okay, that TIA — the state of Terengganu was going to start a sovereign wealth fund — the Terengganu Investment Authority. He says yes, and he got an email and Roger got an email from someone else at Goldman Sachs, and the email basically said there's this opportunity — try and chase this down, okay? So the point is, Roger is not choosing Low. Roger is not going out to win over Low to try and, you know, bring in Low's business. Roger is doing his job. He gets an email that TIA — that Terengganu is starting this sovereign wealth fund. Run it down. Go run it down. So he does what he's told, and he goes to run it down. And he meets with Low. He tries to bring Low into the bank. And the point is, every single time Roger meets with Low, he logs it into the system the way he's supposed to. He's not hiding Low. If he meets with Low — there's a calendar entry, "meeting with Low." You know, there are all these different reports that Goldman Sachs does. When you are in investment banking — when you are in investment banking, it's important to keep track of the people outside of Goldman who you are meeting, and he does it right every single time. Every time he meets with Low, "I'm meeting with Low." I have a calendar entry, "I'm meeting with Low." He never says it's anybody else. He never says it's Mohamed Badawy Husseiny, for instance. If he's meeting with Low, he says he's meeting with Low each and every time. So he's doing nothing other than his job. He's going out trying to win this business, and he's doing it the way that Goldman Sachs wants him to do it to keep track of these things so that they know who he's seeing.

There are different other projects. There's the TIA project where Goldman Sachs got paid a million dollars. If you remember, TIA, kind of, beat them on the fee. It was supposed to be $2 million, but it was only a million dollars. So this is not like a super — I mean, a million dollars is a lot of money to everybody in the world probably other than Goldman Sachs. You know, it's not a huge Goldman Sachs deal, and Roger is running down on all these things. Roger refers to Low by name in the emails. His business Jynwell, whatever — whatever the company is — he says that every single time.

Now, I want to talk for a second about something that probably has come up time and time again, and that's the red flag summary, and I don't know if you guys can all see it. It's pretty — it's pretty far away.

Can you guys all see that in the back? Or is it — no? All right. You know what I'll do? I'm going to read parts of it to you.

Okay. The part that's most relevant is seven. So let's look at the whole thing. So, first, it's called a red flag summary. So this is not a positive — this is not a positive part of the PowerPoint for Jho Low. This is a red flag summary, and the red flag summary — there's only one person's name that you are going to find in this red flag summary, and that's Roger, and this is March of 2010. So let's look at the whole thing. Number 7 is the important part. Negative feedback from Asia-based GS employees, okay? When briefed on the details of the client's claims — stop right there.

Obviously, Low is saying certain things to the bank: I'm Jho Low. Here's my deal. Here's where I get my money from. Here's how much money I have. Here's how I've made my money. Whatever those claims are. — comma, Roger Ng advised caution in accepting the claims at face value.

Okay. He doesn't know. He doesn't know for sure. He doesn't know Low like that. He doesn't really know Low at all other than someone who he's met, you know, a dozen times, 20 times, whatever it is. He doesn't know him. And what I mean by "know him," he doesn't know, like, where his money really comes from. He doesn't know how much money he has. Does he have 10 million, you know, 100 million, 300 million? He doesn't know those kinds of things — things that Goldman Sachs would want to know, but he advises caution. Be cautious. Be cautious in accepting these claims at face value.

Then there's something that's not necessarily unique to Low. It says: Roger accepted that some Malaysian families construct opaque structures to ensure discretion. He did not find the individual's claims to be credible and recommended requiring very specific verification of all claims.

Here he goes to the next level. What he's saying here is I — I, myself — I don't find the individual's claims to be credible. What else can he say? What more can he do than to say, you're asking what I believe? I don't really believe him. I don't know, but I don't really believe those claims are credible. What else can he say? I mean, what more — without — without knowing, what more can he say? Now, keep in mind one thing — and I think — I can't remember which witness testified to this — this information all flows one way. Meaning that Roger is essentially like a witness here. You know what I'm saying?

Who's Jho Low? He's this, he's this, he's this, he's this. That information doesn't flow back from BIG or from the compliance divisions back to Roger. Roger doesn't get the benefit of all their research. He's just giving information. Then the last sentence. We've talked about this a lot: Roger had not heard of the individual apart from meeting him on a single occasion when he was present at a meeting with the king of Malaysia.

Let me offer an explanation for this, okay? Goldman is trying to figure out, does Low really know the king? How well does Low know the king? So that's why the king is in that sentence because Roger did meet Low one time with the king. He's not saying he only met Low one time ever. He's saying: I met Low one time with the king. Why is that the only sensible interpretation of this? Because Roger is on record 20 times by this point. This is on record in a way that — absolutely accessible to compliance. Compliance can check this. He knows compliance can check this. He knows he met Low 20 times. He's not going to say I only met him once. Why would he say that? How would he know the answers to the other questions? It doesn't make sense.

Now for him to say, "I don't believe him, I only met him once, but I don't believe him," he's not saying that. He's saying: I met him once with the king, because the king — they want to know who Low knows. Who is Low connected to. We know he has some connection to the king, and a logical question would be, what is his connection to the king, and Roger says: I met him once with the king. That's what that is and nothing more than that. It makes no sense for Roger to tank low — which is basically what he's doing — to tank low in the other parts of this report and say I don't believe him, and then say I only met him once, when it's readily provable he didn't just meet him once. It's ridiculous to say he only met him once. He met him 20 times by this point, and every single one of the 20 times is logged properly into the Goldman Sachs system exactly the way he's supposed to do it. So this whole thing is a nothing burger. He's not lying. This is Roger telling the truth. This is Roger being helpful to Goldman Sachs. This is Roger telling the people at Goldman Sachs who have to make the decision on Low information they actually need that would be useful to them to say, be careful, check him out. If you are asking me if I believe him, I don't, okay? That's what this says and nothing more.

And this goes to very high levels of compliance — it goes to someone in Court Golumbic, it goes to heads of different compliance divisions — so Roger is on record. There's no other single person on the business side of things that is on record as being critical of Low. You don't see — Leissner is not on this. Leissner is not on the red flag summary. No one else is on the red flag summary. One person. Goldman Sachs has 40,000 people. One person is on record by name saying, I don't believe him. Check him out. Check him out hard. It's Roger. That's the only one.

Next year, 2011, Kazakh Gold — the Government talked about this in their summation as well. If you remember, Kazakh Gold Jynwell — Low's company, Jynwell, was in a consortium with other companies looking to buy this company, and there's confusion as to what the role that Jynwell had was, because remember something — and this is very important — remember something that Stephen O'Flaherty testified to? Stephen O'Flaherty said: Low wasn't completely toxic to us. We didn't have a "no Low under any circumstances" policy. We could handle Low if he had a minor role and if there were no ostensible payments to him, okay? So that was O'Flaherty's testimony.

Now, here, with Kazakh Gold. Everyone is trying to find out what is Low's role in this deal, and the one who gets right to it who gives the information that's helpful is, again, Roger. And he says, quote, Jynwell is driving the fund-raising process.

We know that's an important quote because Gilbert Chan quotes Roger — quotes — takes Roger's words, "Jynwell is driving the fund-raising process," bumps that up to Stephen O'Flaherty, and they end up not going forward with the deal, and they don't go forward with the deal specifically because of what Roger said. No one else. Leissner didn't say it. Toby Watson didn't say it. Andy Tai didn't say it. None of the other 40,000 employees of Goldman Sachs said it. He said it. He said it in 2010. He said it again in 2011. And that is him being helpful. That is him being accurate. That is him being a good Goldman Sachs employee.

And let me just, at this point, note for the record, there is not a single Goldman Sachs employee — I want to touch on this again — there's not a single one who came in here and said a remotely bad thing about Roger Ng. Not one. Not one. They could find all the compliance people — most of the compliance people never even heard of him. Never even heard of him. Do you know Roger Ng? Nope. Stephen O'Flaherty. Did you ever speak to him? Nope. Have a phone call with him? Nope. Have a meeting with him? Nope. I mean, they can't even find a compliance person who knows him because he didn't — he didn't do anything wrong in Goldman Sachs eyes. The Government is making this stuff up. They're making this up to try to convince you that he must — there must be something. You know, if he can use personal emails, if he's going to do these things that he's not supposed to do, you know, he must have a proclivity to commit international bribery of world leaders. That's their argument. But if you are talking about actual people from Goldman Sachs where he worked in compliance, not one has a remotely bad thing to say about him.

All right. January 2012. January 2012 is when things change, okay? It's when things change between Low and Roger, and it's when things really change between Low and Leissner, okay? Up until 2012 — and 2012 is when the crimes start, and that's important, because before then, yeah, Roger knows Low — Roger goes to Vegas and declares that he has $14,000 in currency. You know, not everybody does that. He does it because he's a boy scout. You know, he says, yep, I have $14,000 in foreign currency, and he declares it, and he gambles in Vegas. You know, big deal. Big deal. You know, it's not — it's not a crime; it doesn't mean that you are going to bribe world leaders.

So let's get to 2012.

In 2012, Leissner hits 2012 like a man on fire, all right? Now, Roger is out of the office in the beginning of 2012 because he had a bike accident, okay? He had a serious bike accident. His best friend — you know, Tim Leissner didn't seem to remember it that well, but Andy Tai remembered that he was out of the office — and what do you see Leissner doing? Leissner is talking with Lazar. Leissner is interviewing with Lazard in the early part of January 2012, and Leissner is trying to put a deal together. See, this is different than what happened in 2009 with TIA where Leissner and Roger got an email, hey, go run down TIA, because this is Leissner putting a deal together; and he's putting a deal together with Ananda Krishnan, who is selling a power company; and with 1MDB, who is going to one day buy Ananda Krishnan's power company; and Leissner is having a bunch of meetings, many of them without Roger. January 12th, for instance — we go back to TEEMS and all these things we went through the trial. January 12th. Leissner has three meetings on January 12th. He meets with Shahrol, okay, who is the CEO of 1MDB; he meets with — he meets with Ananda Krishnan, who is his long-term customer — client, rather — and I think Hwee Bin even said part of the reason she had faith in the investment is that Leissner was very close to Ananda Krishnan, and people in Malaysia viewed him as his, like, you know, informal godson or something like that.

So he's close to Krishnan. He's been close to Krishnan since 2002. He worked with Krishnan for the Maxis IPO and a second IPO that Krishnan's companies have done. So by the time of 2012, he's been close to Krishnan for ten years. So he meets with Shahrol, the CEO of 1MDB; with Krishnan; and with Nazir Razak, the prime minister's brother. This is just Leissner, and this is just one day. This is January 12th. One day he has three meetings. January 18th, Leissner meets with Low, okay? So now he's met with Low. And then on January 19th he meets with Krishnan again. Okay. So in this seven-day period, he has five important meetings. Why? Because he met with the buyer of 1MDB; he met with the seller, Ananda Krishnan; and he met with Low, who is sort of the person in the middle who is going to make all of this happen. And so what does he do after having these five meetings in seven days? He calls someone named Jeffrey Rosen at Lazard. He doesn't call Goldman. Goldman knows nothing about it yet. As of January 19th, Goldman doesn't even know this business opportunity exists because Leissner is shopping this to Lazard because Leissner told you he's thinking about leaving Goldman and going to Lazard, so he's shopping this to Lazard.

Then something happens that I submit to you is very, very significant. In January, Leissner goes to London. Doesn't breathe a word of this on his direct testimony. Not a word. During his direct testimony, he's talking about a meeting in London — the February meeting — a meeting in London. He goes to London in January, and you know what he does when he — and who is in London? Who do we know who has an apartment in London? Low has an apartment in London. After he leaves London, he sends Jeffrey Rosen an email. And he says: 1MDB wants to meet right away. Goes to London. Right after the London meeting, 1MDB wants to meet right away. And then he says to Jeffrey Rosen in the email: The prime minister wants to use Lazard for this deal.

And I asked him — don't you remember — I asked him, I said, was that true? He says no. I said, you just made that up? He said, yeah, he just made it up. The prime minister didn't say to meet Lazard, but this is Leissner being Leissner. Leissner can't help himself. You know, he wants to juice it up. He wants to juice it up a little more. So he says: Hey, Lazard, the prime minister wants you guys. It's not true. It's a lie. But what is true is that Leissner is working this thing hard for Lazard to do — Lazard to do — before it ever gets to Goldman. For whatever reason, it doesn't work out with Lazard. I think — I asked Leissner on cross: You know, did something happen that caused you to realize Lazard is not right for this? He said that's basically right. And then he goes to Goldman later in January and says: We need to do an emergency conflict check to do this BIG deal.

The other thing that's interesting is while he's talking to Lazard about this deal, he's also talking about Sheikh Mansour, so where would he start getting Sheikh Mansour from? He's getting it from Low. So this is Leissner and Low. This is January. This is not February. This is January. A meeting that Leissner would have you believe he has no recollection of at all.

Do you remember, I said, can you tell us one thing? Tell us one thing that you did in London in January. I don't remember a thing.

He goes to London in January, comes out of that meeting a house on fire saying 1MDB wants to do this deal right away, start talking about Sheikh Mansour. He can't tell you one thing. He can't tell you one thing that he does in London in January. That's not an accident. He uses I don't recall strategically. It's very effective. Because if you want someone to concentrate on only one of three things, like let's say for instance you had three meetings in London. Let's say for instance you had one in January, you had one in February and you had one in April, but you don't want anyone to concentrate on the one in January and April, what you can do — and it's remarkably effective — is "I don't remember anything about January, I don't remember anything about April."

But that February meeting, let me tell you what Jho Low's doorknob was like; let me tell you what his front door was like; let me tell you about where people were sitting. I'll talk about February, because all I want you to guys to focus on is February. But I don't remember anything about January, nothing. You can't get a single detail out of me. That is a lie. Of course he remembers. Of course he remembers.

Do you remember there are were times I asked him, just talk about this deal, and he would talk about things that happened ten years ago in incredible detail, here are the people involved in the deal, here is what they did, here is what they said. He has a great command over detail.

You should not accept that he doesn't remember a single thing about his trip to London in January because it's a lie. It's a strategic lie. He doesn't want you to know what happened there.

But we know. We know. He comes out of that meeting talking about I spoke with 1MDB, and talking about Sheikh Mansour.

Let's get to the London meeting that he does remember, the February London meeting.

The February London meeting. This was a meeting London in February, there is no question. We never denied that for a second. At this meeting was Roger, Low, Leissner, Jasmine Loo and Terence Geh. Not Nick Faisal, Terence Geh. Let's get to the important part of the London meeting.

Leissner says that at this London meeting there was this talk of Low's, I'm going to bribe all these world leaders and not only am I going to tell you about it, I'm going to make a chart. I'm going to give you six reasonless why none of that happened.

Reason number one, common sense. Jho Low really is going to fill a room with people and say, welcome everyone to One Stratosphere. I want to tell you guys who I'm going to bribe. Because it's really important to me, Jho Low, that you all know precisely who I'm going to bribe. So I'm going to tell each and every one of you who I'm going to bribe. Not only am I going to tell you, because I heard somewhere that people's recollections are better when you tell them something and then show them a visual, and had I been better at the tech maybe I'd do a PowerPoint to you but I can't do a PowerPoint so I'll make a chart. So sit back all of you who don't really need to know any of this information, and listen to all of the people I'll one day bribe. Because there is some of the world leaders of your countries so you should know who I'm going to bribe.

He then takes them through chapter and verse. He takes out a piece of paper, as Leissner says, he writes the Malaysian people on the left side, all the Malaysians that Low is going to bribe on the left side. He goes down the list. All the people from Abu Dhabi who is he's going to bribe on the right side. That's ridiculous. That's the last thing Jho Low did.

Why, why does Roger, Tim, all these other people need to know who Jho Low is going to bribe? And not them, it's February. The bribes don't start until the fall, until the summer and the fall. Why in the world would Jho Low do that? He didn't do it. And he didn't do it because it's preposterous. Jho Low is many things; he's not stupid.

And he would not basically share with the room to make an international bribery announcement. Thank you for all to coming to London to hear my international bribery announcement. Here are all the people I'm going to bribe because you should know.

Next thing, you know he's not going to tell Leissner because Leissner said something very important in his testimony. Leissner said that even while Leissner was paying the bribes, even while he was paying the bribes, he didn't know who he was bribing. Do you remember that part of the testimony? So if Leissner is not told — Leissner says send this money to Spring Elite at this bank. Leissner is not told who that is. And Leissner told us specifically, Low didn't tell me, Low didn't tell me who I was actually bribing. I'm the one sending the money and I don't know who I'm bribing. If that's the case, why is Low going to tell

Leissner eight months ahead of time here who is all who were' going to bribe. He wouldn't. He doesn't want Leissner to know who he's bribing. If he wanted Leissner to know who he is bribing, he would have told Leissner at the very moment that Leissner was bribing that person. But he didn't. And he didn't because he doesn't want Leissner to know.

Roger. Does he want Roger to know? I submit to you he does not want Roger to know. Because of two things, we put them both up here.

The first is what we talked about before, Roger, Roger told on — put it this way, Roger told on Low. Low knows that. Low knows that Roger said things about Low to compliance that Low doesn't like.

How do we know that Low knows? Because in 2014 Low says that he knows. Low says, I think Roger screwed up and maybe the Swiss chap too. Low then says, both now no longer at GS, so you should say they simply submitted crap. Leissner said, yes, they definitely did, but I will get there. Leissner talks about once he's chairman things will change.

What does Low know? Low knows in 2014 that Roger is to blame. Roger is to blame for Low not being a private wealth client in 2010. So why in God's green earth of all the people that Low can have in his apartment when he's going to talk about bribing everybody in Abu Dhabi and Malaysia would he have Roger there? The same guy who sunk his private wealth management client application two years earlier. It makes no sense. It didn't happen.

Also, Leissner can't keep straight who he was meeting. He says that Nik Faisal at the meeting. Nik Faisal is not at the meeting. Terence Geh is at the meeting. He has it wrong. Is it a minor thing? Is it a major thing? He swears to you these are the people at the meeting. He has the people at the meeting incorrect.

Next thing, the first time he mentions the chart is April 21, 2021. International world leader bribery chart that Low makes. April 21, 2021 is six weeks before the third anniversary of Leissner cooperating. He's been a cooperator almost three years, three full years, three full years, six weeks short of three years. Bribery chart, for the first time, it's ridiculous.

The other thing is that it's rendered impossible by other evidence. I'm not going to read the whole thing to you, but, if you remember Leissner testifies that after the meeting they all go for dinner in Chinatown. And they go in vans and they take their time and then they walk back. And then they go to Leissner's apartment and then Roger goes off to Roger's apartment.

None of that happened. We know that none of that happened because Roger checks out of his hotel at 6:17 p.m., Roger is out of his hotel. Low is talking about dinner, he's at the end of the — Leissner is talking about dinner at the end of the evening. He's certainly leading you to believe that they are not leaving London that night. He goes to his hotel. Leissner doesn't mention running off for a flight. Leissner doesn't mention I need to get a taxi and rush to London Heathrow to fly back to Asia to take an international flight. Leissner doesn't mention Roger is running off for a flight. It's the exact opposite.

It's this meandering they are talking about how happy they are that they are going to get all of this money. It's preposterous. It didn't happen. It's false. He's making the whole thing up.

There was no talk about bribery at the London meeting. There was no chart of bribery at the London meeting. He and Roger didn't walk around London after dinner talking about how happy we are.

Remember his testimony, he almost revels in this, in the story. Roger was just so happy that he was going to finally get paid. None of it happened. It's dead false. It's a dead false lie. It's not a misrecollection. He doesn't think it might have happened. He's just flat out lying.

Abu Dhabi. Leissner goes to Abu Dhabi nine times. The Government put their faces around the world chart only had the first meeting, the March 3rd and 4th meeting. Leissner goes nine times to Abu Dhabi. Roger goes two times, the same number of times as Andy Tai. Roger goes two times. Some other people go two, more, I don't know how many times Vella. Leissner goes nine times. Nine times. He. Doesn't have a great command, Leissner, about what happened each individual time. Except he does say that Roger was present when Low gave Leissner an envelope that had in it a letter from the Prime Minister of Malaysia that Leissner had to deliver to — depends when you ask — Sheikh Mansour or Khadem Al Qubaisi, his story changes. He says that Roger was there, and that Jasmine Loo was there.

Now, that could not be the March 3rd meeting. Roger was there March 3rd and Roger wasn't there again until April 10. So could it have been either of those two meetings? I submit to you, it cannot be.

The reason it cannot be is because Government's Exhibit 2252 is — we'll put it on the Elmo. From Deal Rainman to Mohamed Husseiny. It says from Deal Rainman, who we understand to be Low: Please provide name and contact via BBM for delivery person. Thank you. Then it says March 2012 letter to his Highness Sheikh Mansour Al Nayan from His Excellency Prime Minister of Malaysia PNC. Then the letter itself, which you've seen a few times. It's the letter that we looked at. The point is, this is from March 7. So March 7 there is an e-mail from Low to Mohamed Al-Husseiny saying please provide the name and contact by BBM for the delivery person. This letter is about to be delivered from a delivery person. It doesn't say from Leissner. We wouldn't need Leissner's contact information for a delivery person.

This couldn't have happened on the third because there would be no reason if the letter was delivered on the third to have an e-mail dated March 7 to have it delivered by delivery person.

And we know it can't be April 10 because by then the letter has been delivered. And by then Leissner is already lying to Goldman Sachs and to Stephen O'Flaherty that he hand-delivered the letter to Sheikh Mansour. So what happened?

Here is the reason it's important. It's not important because you're ever going to be able to figure it out. It's important because you're never going to figure it out. If you had can't figure this out, you can't trust Leissner on anything.

So I want to use this example as something that while Leissner testified about it, you will have no confidence whatsoever as to what happened as a matter of fact. Let's go through the history of this.

Leissner tells people at Goldman Sachs I hand-delivered the letter to Sheikh Mansour himself. That's what he tells Stephen O'Flaherty. He tells other people that's his story. I hand-delivered it to Sheikh Mansour himself. He gets up at trial and said that didn't happen; I lied about that part. I actually hand-delivered the letter to Khadem Al-Qubaisi at his house. I went to his house. How did you get there? I got driven by Mohamed Al-Hussein. Now Mohamed Al-Hussein is somehow Qubaisi's Lyft driver or something, but that's how he says. What kind of car? I have no idea. Tell us one thing about the front of Qubaisi's house? No.

You guys can size this up any way you would like. But I submit to you, that Leissner was not at Qubaisi's house. He had no good answers. He didn't know if it was near water or not near water. He didn't know the first thing about it. He's making the whole thing up.

At one point in the middle of his description he says Jasmine Loo might have been there. After saying that me and Khadem Qubaisi and Mohamed Al-Husseiny went in car, just the three of us, then he decides maybe Jasmine Loo is there. The point to all of this is, if you can't trust him, on something that's a pretty, discreet, simple straightforward event, like whether or not you went to someone's house, you can't trust him on anything.

And since you have no idea, I submit, you can't possibly know. You don't know. You know he didn't deliver to Sheikh Mansour because that's what he says now. Did he bring it to Qubaisi? Did he bring it to Husseiny? Did he do it at all? Now we see an e-mail where Low is saying give it to a delivery person. You can't trust him on that. You can't trust him on anything.

Run out to Los Angeles. There is a meeting in Los Angeles on March 25. There is not a lot to say about it. The Government pointed it out. It was supposed to be in New York then changed to L.A. The important part about it is that Roger is at the part of that in L.A. He does not go to New York to meet Ananda Krishnan. Krishnan I think at one point is supposed to go to New York then changed to L.A.; but Krishnan never left New York. So the important meeting between Low and Leissner and Krishnan is in New York. Roger is not there.

April 1st, 2012. Leissner is in London. TEEMS says he's in London. Leissner said he's having a meeting with Husseiny in London. Here we are again, another meeting less than a week after London — yes, less than a week after L.A. and he's in London with Husseiny?

What can you tell us about that meeting? I don't remember anything about it. Nothing. This is right in the middle of Magnolia.

Now we have a second meeting in London, this one with Husseiny, and Leissner tells you he can't remember a single thing about it? It doesn't make any sense. It's not believable. It's not believable because he's not being honest with you. He is taking refuge in "I don't remember," because if he doesn't remember there is nothing else you can do. There is nothing else you can do. It's a brick wall. It is the brick wall of feigned lack of recollection. I submit to you, he does remember. I submit to you, he's there for a reason. And I submit to you, that he's telling you he doesn't remember for a reason. We just don't know what it is. Because he's not being honest about it. Two meetings in London, he doesn't remember either one.

April 4. April 4 is the Capital committee meeting. The reason April 4 is important is that the Government is saying that Tim Leissner lied at the meeting and that it's Roger's fault. That Leissner, their witness, the guy getting the deal — that we'll talk about in a little while — Leissner, their witness, lied at the meeting. And it's Roger's fault. Because Roger didn't say anything.

What did Leissner lie about? And Stephen O'Flaherty is just as clear as a bell on the question he himself asked, which is the only question that he says he himself asked. So let's read that part of Stephen O'Flaherty's testimony. It's page 3067 at line ten.

Question: Do you recall with any specificity what you asked?

Answer: I asked about why he was present at the meeting with Sheikh Mansour. I made the point that the head of our Middle East office had never managed to meet Sheikh Mansour and asked what role Jho Low is playing there.

Question: And how did Leissner respond, if in fact he responded at all?

Answer: He was irritated.

Said Jho Low wasn't present at the meeting. That Jho Low had come to Abu Dhabi with a letter from the Prime Minister of Malaysia Razak, which he handed to Tim Leissner but wasn't present at the meeting that then followed with Sheikh Mansour. Okay. That's it. He does not talk about anything general about is Jho Low involved; is Jho Low there; is there someone called Jho Low; is Jho Low involved in the deal. He asks this question and he's the one asking it. Now, would Roger have any idea what a truthful answer to this question is? He has no idea. There is no suggestion that Roger was with Leissner in any meeting with Sheikh Mansour. There probably was never a meeting between Leissner and Sheikh Mansour. So there is no way that Roger is going to know the difference one way or the other.

The entire premise of this whole thing that we've come back to in this trial over and over and over is utterly faulting. Because Roger isn't there. This is something Leissner is doing on his own. We'll never know the truth as to what he's doing. The one person who certainly doesn't know the truth is Roger. He has no idea. This is something that Leissner is doing on his own.

So to the extent that anyone comes up here and tells you somehow there was a general question asked about is Low involved in the deal and Leissner lied about it, that wasn't the question. O'Flaherty tells you clear as a bell what the question was.

And it's also worth noting this, Stephen O'Flaherty worked at MI6 British intelligence for 20 years. He's like James Bond's boss. And Low lies to him and his staff, as he points out, and says he met Sheikh Mansour. And Stephen O'Flaherty gets on the witness stand, as you sit here today do you think that Low met Sheikh Mansour. He says yes. And Leissner doesn't think he's a good liar? Leissner is a great liar. And if there is any doubt — keep in mind that ten years after the lie, that someone who worked at MI6 for 20 years still thinks it's true. He still thinks it's true, that's how good a liar Tim Leissner is.

(Court takes 5 minutes break)

Finishing up on Project Magnolia. On April 16, 2012, Roger and Andy Tai are in Asia. And Andy Tai e-mails to Leissner and says he hears that a number of people are going to Abu Dhabi to help on the deal, and he asked Leissner: Do you want me and Roger to come? And Leissner responds: No need, chief. He doesn't want them there. Then oddly, Leissner puts both Andy Tai and Roger in his TEEMS as being in Abu Dhabi even though they are not there.

He then e-mails, quote, "Somewhere I saw a contribution or guarantee fee no longer contemplated. Please delete." This goes back to — the deal was sort of changing overtime. Sometimes there was this contemplation of a guarantee fee and options and sometimes not. And it changes overtime. Here we see Leissner on April 16 saying that that is no longer contemplated and to take it out of the deal.

April 21 — we're going to be very efficient for the next 54 minutes — there is a meeting in the Taste of Paradise. This is the one that Kevin Swampilai testified about. There is a couple of important takeaways. We're not going to get into all of it.

Swampilai said that there was an e-mail that he and others from the bank received from Lisa Tan, who was their compliance person who said basically, listen, you can go to this meeting and you can listen, but you can't talk, you can't share any information because we represent Aabar, that's our client. And Aabar hasn't given us any authorization to speak at this meeting.

Here is the important takeaway, if we go back, Swampilai tells us that Low had a relationship with Yak Yew Chee, another banker at BSI. He said that even goes back as far as Low's father, that Low's father had a relationship with Yak Yew Chee. And when Yak Yew Chee was in Coutts, managed the dad's money. So this goes way back.

So the deals are — I took Leissner through this, I'll do it quickly: Project Friendship, where Mubadala, which is a sovereign, and Jynwel, which is Low's company, are going to be buying a Four Seasons resort in Abu Dhabi. Something called Project Midori. Midori involves buying land in Iskandar. There is Project X-Men, which is Jynwel and SRC, which is like the 1MDB subsidiary and Aabar buying a Brazilian mining company Vale.

There is JBIC, which is 1MDB trying to raise $2 billion from a guarantee with the Japanese bank. There is La Perla, where Jynwel and Aabar are going to buy the fashion company La Perla. There is Coastal, where Jynwel and Aabar are going to buy a Canadian gas exploration company called Coastal. There is China Investment Corp. We see this in the chat, CIC.

And keep in mind the conversation that Swampilai said that he and Low were having. Low is very interested in these fiduciary funds. These ways of basically you can kind of structure things where it's in the name of another entity. And he was very also concerned in learning about bank secrecy and how all that worked. What we see in this meeting is Low — again, this is a very important theme — I submit to you that what you see in this case as a whole is that Low, for Low, everything is on a need-to-know basis. He's not going to give out gratuitous information.

He's not going to tell Leissner anything unless Leissner needs to know. He's not going to tell Roger anything because Roger is not involved. But what we see from this meeting is that Low is using bank secrecy, using Singapore bank secrecy, using Swiss bank secrecy to keep everything segmented so the BSI people can't talk, literally can't talk, because of bank secrecy about what they know about Aabar and the money coming to Aabar. They can't discuss that with Goldman because they would be violating bank secrecy. But who knows? Low knows.

So Low knows everything. Low knows that at the end of the day he's going to steal over $500 million out of 1MDB right after Project Magnolia closes and send that money to the Aabar SPV account at BSI. But there is no indication that anyone at Goldman knows that; certainly Leissner didn't testify that he knew that. There is no indication that Roger knew that.

That's because Low is making sure that Low knows everything. Low knows what 1MDB is going to do. Low knows what Aabar going to do. Low knows what BSI is going to do. And he keeps everyone segmented out.

The takeaway from this April 21 meeting at Taste of Paradise is that Aabar doesn't give any information. As you know, Swampilai said Leissner was — they were expecting Leissner to give a presentation. Leissner didn't really say much of anything, kind of basically said BSI, you're on your own. If you have an issue with your due diligence and your compliance, you guys do it. We're not going to help with you that. He says that Roger never said a word. So the take away from this is that — and there is no indication other than Leissner's say-so that Roger and Leissner and Low ever met. Certainly Swampilai doesn't know anything like that, doesn't say anything like that. This is one of the many times we have to take Leissner's word, which is something that I submit you really can't do.

At the end of the day what you see is that there is an agreement reached between 1MDB and Aabar basically for money to go from 1MDB to Aabar; seemingly, for all intents and purposes, without anyone from Goldman Sachs knowing. The only one that knows that is Low. That's how Low pulls off the core theft, that he does it kind of in secret with Yak Yew Chee.

I think it's worth noting that not even Swampilai, and I asked him the question, he said he had no idea. There is no reason to really question that answer. Not even Swampilai knew anything about how the money was going to go from 1MDB to Aabar, and Swampilai was working at BSI. That's because Low kept it very close. He kept it very tight. That's the only way he could pull this off. He didn't get to be Jho Low, for good, bad and indifferent, by being loose with his mouth. He kept information very tight. And not even all the bankers at BSI knew what Low was up to. Seemingly Yak Yew Chee knew, at least that seems to be the case. Swampilai testified that he didn't know. No reason to not believe it. And there is no reason to think that anybody outside of the bank would have known what Low had in mind. Maximus. Very little to say on Maximus. Roger had almost nothing to do with Maximus. I think the Government put out information that he was asked to come, he came to the dinner after it closed. I'm not sure what kind of evidence that is that he worked on the deal. There is not a lot of e-mail traffic with Roger on the deal. He didn't have much to do with the deal.He had even less to do with Project Catalyze, which is the one after.

Now, I submit to you that on the day that Low sends $35 million to Capital Place, that date being June 11, that's when the money leaves, that was basically Leissner signing on for what ends up being a new job with Low. Certainly Low would have noticed that Leissner was helpful with getting Project Magnolia to the finish line, but the evidence shows that Low has ideas for Leissner to work for him on an ongoing basis. So let's breakdown very, very quickly the different things that Leissner is doing for Low for that money.

In 2012 and early 2013, there are eight separate deals that Leissner works on with Low. Most of them are Goldman Sachs deals. Being more to the point, that Low is not out of the bank for all purposes.

So the deals are — I took Leissner through this, I'll do it quickly: Project Friendship, where Mubadala, which is a sovereign, and Jynwel, which is Low's company, are going to be buying a Four Seasons resort in Abu Dhabi. Something Project Midori. Midori involves buying land in Iskandar. There is Project X-Men, which is Jynwel and SRC, which is like the 1MDB subsidiary and Aabar buying a Brazilian mining company Vale.

There is JBIC, which is 1MDB trying to raise $2 billion from a guarantee with the Japanese bank. There is La Perla, where Jynwel and Aabar are going to buy the fashion company La Perla. There is Coastal, where Jynwel and Aabar are going to buy a Canadian gas exploration company called Coastal. There is China Investment Corp. We see this in the chat, CIC. Leissner explained — this is interesting I want to focus on this a little more than the others — this would be a $10 billion raise for 1MDB with a guarantee being provided by a bank from China, Bank CIC, the China Investment Corp. What Low says of this, is this is a good cookie deal. In the chat he says: This is a good cookie deal. What he's saying is this is a big money deal. We can pay bribes out of this deal. One of the things that I think is an interesting — I don't know if it's here or there — but it seems like what Leissner and Low are doing after 2012, and Roger is nowhere to be seen for any of this, and Leissner said that, all these different deals that Leissner is working on with Low after June 2012, after Low sent Leissner the $35 million, all of those deals have nothing to do with Roger. They are all profitable or potentially profitable for Low. And it's Leissner basically using his Goldman Sachs connections and his experience and his wherewith all to try to bring Low into these deals.

One of the things that they are trying to do, it seems, always on the look-out to make have extra money to make these cookie deals. I submit to you, part of what Leissner and Low are doing is they have these politicians almost on retainer. It's not necessarily a kickback for this or a kickback for that; it's really just them having them on retainer. Because that's how Low is going to conduct his business. That's how he's going to continue to do what he does. It's the oldest trick in the book, he's greasing all these politicians. But he's not necessarily greasing them in regard to this deal. You help me on this so you get this; you help me, so you get this. He's just greasing them generally. He might need them in the future.

Low is a dynamic and corrupt businessman. So he's right, he will need politicians in the future. So what we see in the chats about this China Investment Corp. Deal is that it doesn't end up turning out, they don't raise any money. But Low is trying to use this to raise money basically just to have money to pay the politicians, which is why he called it a cookie deal. The last one is Brazen Sky. I'll talk about it for a minute. Brazen Sky came up during Swampilai's testimony. And basically Brazen Sky is the cover up for the money being syphoned out of 1MDB. If you think about it, 1MDB is a public fund and can be audited, accountants will look at it. They just arranged for $577 million — Low and his people — to come out of 1MDB. Someone is going to notice that. At some point it will be audited and someone will say, wait a minute, where is the $577 million?

What happens with Brazen Sky is that 1MDB owns these two drill ships. I don't know what the drill ships are actually worth, but Leissner arranged through Lazar to get a valuation — he testified to this — to get a valuation of the drill ships. But the drill ship valuation didn't come along as they wanted. So now Swampilai testifies that he has a conversation with Terence Geh, and basically it's Swampilai's job to tell KPMG, the 1MDB auditors, that really what is just two drill ships is other assets as well, that it's liquid. It's not just two drill ships, there is cash, there is other liquid assets.

Swampilai was clear as a bell, it was a lie. It wasn't true that the only assets that 1MDB had at the time are these two drill ships, which are not liquid, you have to sell the drill ships to get money for the drill ships. So it's all a lie to the auditors.

There is a meeting that takes place in June of 2012 and Leissner is at the meeting with Low. And Swampilai is there with Yak Yew Chee and some others. And that's the issue of the day.

So the point here is that there are certain things that have to be done. It's not that these deals end and you never hear from them again. Theft has fingerprints. Theft is going to be found. And it can be found by the auditors. So the Brazen Sky meeting — and Roger has nothing to do with Brazen Sky, Roger has nothing do with the other eight deals I went through — is a way to cover up the fact that 1MDB is missing over half a billion dollars.

I want to talk about a quick several-day period in early November 2012.

November 1st, Vella, Leissner, Jasmine Loo, Low, and Roger are all in Hong Kong. This is the day that Leissner e-mails to Vella: Please don't tell Roger about our meeting with the friend. Okay.

Here is what you're starting to see. Now that we're further along, it's 2012. Roger is just out. Roger is out. Roger was closer to Low in '09, in '10, a little bit in '11, but by 2012 Roger is out. The reason Roger is out in 2012 is because that's when the crime starts. That's really when the crime starts. The person who is very much in in 2012 is Leissner. Leissner and Low are in all these deals. Leissner is getting Low and Mohamed Al-Husseiny to meet with Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs at the time. Roger is playing no role in that. When you look at what Leissner is doing in 2012, he's doing all these individual deals for Low, the ones I went through, he's getting Low and Al-Husseiny Facetime with the Goldman Sachs chief. Then he starts actually laundering Low's money and making payments.

November 2 there is a meeting at the Mandarin Oriental in Hong Kong, Leissner, Dan Swift, Toby Watson, John Dunne, Cyrus Shey, Jasmine, all in the TEEMS. Again, no Roger. This brings us to Low's birthday, November 3rd, 2012.

Here is why it matters. It matters first and foremost because Leissner just flat out lied about it. Roger is not there. Roger is not in Las Vegas on November 3rd. You know that from a host of reasons.

You know that because of United States Boarder Protection records that we discussed. You know that through the TEEMS records. You know that Roger was in Singapore in Kuala Lumpur at that time. But Leissner swears he's there. And I want to take you briefly just through Leissner's testimony, because knowing that Roger is not there, I want you to hear in Leissner's words what he testified to.

Page 1891, and the question is.

Question: You're sure, you're absolutely 100 percent positive he was in Las Vegas, Nevada, for sure, at Low's party?

Answer: Yes, sir.

Question: 100 percent?

Answer: As sure as I can be, yes.

Question: As sure as you can be of anything?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Yes?

Answer: Yes.

Page 1894.

Question: But you're telling us sure as you are

sure of anything that you saw Roger in Las Vegas?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And you have specific recollections of things that you saw him do in Las Vegas?

Answer: Yes. I remember seeing him in the lobby of the hotel.

Page 1895.

Question: But you saw Roger there?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Absolutely positive?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Did you speak to him?

Answer: Yes.

Page 1899.

Question: Do you remember that you and Roger met in the lobby of the hotel along with Jasmine Loo and Terence Geh?

Answer: I believe so, yes.

Question: So Terence Geh was there too?

Answer: I don't remember him in the lobby but I remember him at the party.

Page 1901.

Question: Did Roger stay after the party? Did Roger stay at the party after you left?

Answer: I believe so. Yes, sir, I remember that.

Question: Did Roger stay after the party? Did Roger stay after the party after you left?

Answer: I believe so, yes. Yes, I remember them.

It's all a lie. He's just flat out lying. Here's why it matters. It matters because as Mr. Cohen testified — the party planning guy — this was the blow out of all blow outs. This is Low. Low is making money, we all know, because we see it going to his bank account. It's his birthday and this is his big-time birthday bash.

The way that Leissner uses false intimacy to get what he wants; Low uses friendship. If you're Low's friend, if you're really in, you're going to be at Low's birthday party on November 3rd in Las Vegas. If you're not really in and you're not Low's friend, you're not there. It's not just a birthday party. It is the defining of event of who is with Low and who is not with Low.

How many times did Leissner say to you over and over and over, Roger, Roger was Low's guy. Roger was Low's connection. Roger was the covered banker and had the relationship with Low. Leissner cannot afford for Roger to not be at Low's birthday party, because it cuts against everything he swore to you was true over and over and over. So what does he do? He does what he does every time, he lies. And this is one of those lies you can get caught on. This is like when he lied and it was in an e-mail. When he lied and got caught by a text. He lied and he got caught by U.S. Border Protection records. He lied and he got caught by TEEMS records. But it's a lie. He was as sure, as sure as he is of anything. Remember those words. When you go back into the jury room and you guys get the case, you ask yourself, can I rely on a single thing that Leissner says. He said under oath: I am as sure as I've ever been of anything that he was there. And he is not.

One of the important things to remember, and you see this in the evidence, the real co-conspirators are in for the long hall. You see Leissner and you see Jasmine Loo, for instance. You see a chat between the two of them on August 28, 2014. And Jasmine Loo writes: Friend, friend asked for Sheikh Mansour's letter to Najib. She asked Mr. Leissner. Leissner has it. They have conversations about that Leissner is doing a bad job managing Goldman Sachs. And Jasmine Loo is saying, you have to manage Goldman Sachs better. This is part of Leissner's job. This is what Leissner is getting paid for. Low is not just giving Leissner money for no reason. Leissner is earning that money. And part of what Leissner is doing to earn the money is he's supposed to be managing Goldman Sachs. And the problem at the time is that Goldman Sachs is asking questions of 1MDB because 1MDB is not doing what it's supposed to do in regard to its bonds. It's falling behind in its interest. It's not doing the types of disclosures it's supposed to do about its bonds. Goldman Sachs is noticing. And Goldman Sachs is asking questions.

And here's Jasmine Loo saying to Leissner: Hey, back your people off. You know, Goldman Sachs is asking too many questions, you have to manage these guys. You know, and that is what Leissner is getting. You know, and what you see — and this is 2014. This is October of 2014. You know, Magnolia closed in May of 2012. This is now a year and a half later and you have Leissner still working hard, still earning his money, you know, and trying to manage Goldman Sachs in addition to doing all the other things for Low.

Roger leaves Goldman Sachs in 2014 and Leissner's criminal activity really just kind of goes to another level. I'm not saying it's because Roger left, but that's — temporally that's kind of how it worked. He writes a letter to the chairman of Banque Havilland. I'm not going to belabor this; you guys probably remember this. Low was having a hard time finding a bank that would take him because of all the press and he was thinking about buying a bank, and one of the banks that they were thinking about buying is Banque Havilland. So Leissner uses Goldman Sachs letterhead to write a letter to Banque Havilland basically saying that the Low family has $1.8 billion in assets, the assets are all clean, Goldman Sachs has done due diligence as to the anti money laundering and antiterrorist funding and there's no concern with either money laundering or antiterrorist funding because Goldman Sachs had done that research. It's all false. Okay? It's Leissner lying for Low and lying for Low about matters, you know, of consequence when you're talking about things like that.

And this is what ends up being Leissner's undoing. This letter that he wrote on Goldman letterhead ends up being found about a year later and he ends up getting fired. But before he's fired, he does something else. He forges the signatures of Hwee Bin's older brother, Chee Khang, Roger's brother-in-law and at the time he's trying to get a loan from a bank called C1 and he's trying to basically leverage his yacht. He's using his yacht to get this loan. And Leissner, on his own, decides it would be a good idea for me to get a lawyer's letter that says all the assets that I have, so he does that. And he signs Chee Khang's name and he signs Chee Khang's name without Chee Khang's knowledge.

But if you remember his testimony on this, and it's worth remembering, I asked him: Did you forge Chee Khang's name? And he says: Quite possibly, or something along those lines. He doesn't say yes, he doesn't say no; he says something like possibly. Now, an honest answer to that is yes, I forged his name. If he wanted to be honest with you, that's what he would say. But he does what he always does and he doesn't want to admit it. He can't deny it because it's true, so he says yes, possibly I forged the name of a lawyer, I forged the name of Roger's brother-in-law. The other question I asked him is: Why did Chee Khang send you a million dollars? He didn't remember. I mean, is that believable? It's not believable. It's the same way he doesn't remember being in London. It's the same way he doesn't — all the times, all the times he said something and I said didn't you say something different to the FBI and shown a report or shown a handwritten page of paper: I don't remember. How many times did he do that? 50? 60? 70? How many times? You said this to the FBI, didn't you? I don't remember. Because "I don't remember" stops the inquiry. It's false because, I submit to you, he does remember. Every single thing that he said he didn't remember to, I submit to you, he very much remembers and it's part of his strategy.

And his strategy only works if you let it work. If you see it for what it is, I submit, and what it is is a lie, then it doesn't work. If you see it as, you know, poor guy, he was asked so many questions, he can't remember all of them, then it worked. And it shouldn't work because it's false. Okay. Cover story. Leissner talked about a cover story, that there was a cover story in 2017 — 2016. That there was a cover story because law enforcement was approaching and Hwee Bin and Roger and Leissner and Master Pang were all together and this cover story was concocted. First of all, Hwee Bin testified. Hwee Bin flew in from Malaysia and she testified, and not a single question was asked of her about the cover story, none. Hwee Bin was asked a lot of questions. She was asked if those were her parents on the lazy river with the yawning gondolier. She was asked if her parents have a different address than Terengganu. A lot of questions, no questions about that. Okay? Because there's nothing to ask about that, because Leissner is making it up yet again. This is just Leissner on his own. Here we had a live witness, she came, she told you what it was, and that is the end of the cover story once and for all.

Very quickly, meeting with Low in October of 2017. Leissner and Low are in Hong Kong in 2017 and this is where Low is basically saying: I have hired Chris Christie. Chris Christie is close with President Trump. There are talks, there's settlement talks going on. Low said that he met Jared Kushner in China. Okay? And Low basically says to Leissner: If you stay with me, you know, we're going to settle this. It's not going to be a criminal prosecution. We're going to settle this, you know, if you stay with me. Importantly, you know, Roger is there, they never — they never had a second one with Roger, Roger is not part of any of these meetings. And, I submit to you, it's significant that Roger isn't there, because they're not worried about Roger. And they're not worried about Roger because they know Roger has nothing to do with this. They know Roger can't provide information against them. They're not worried about Roger being a witness. So at these meetings, at this meeting where we're going to, you know, stick together and going to stick together and get through this, you don't need Roger there. You don't have to have a meeting with Roger there because Leissner knows and Low knows Roger is not a danger. You don't need to bring Roger into the fold because Roger is not involved. So let Roger do whatever it is that Roger does, but we don't need him to be part of the fold because he doesn't know anything, he can't hurt us and he's not part of what we've been doing.

Midas, real quick. And I'm really going to finish in 25 minutes. All right. This is now 2016, 2017. Leissner knows that law enforcement is coming closer and he is not going to go down without keeping his 150-, 160-, $170 million. And so he comes up with an inogenous and diabolical plan. And he creates a number of companies: Khaleesi, Midas Commodities, Midas Commodity Agents, Keyway Pride, and a host of others. And what he basically does is he says — and this is a fast thing — he says that a Kuwaiti Shaikh — okay? A Kuwaiti Shaikh gave him $165 million, 145 million Euro. And I want to read you his testimony and then kind of like use that as our baseline.

It's at page 2291:

Question: Now, you said on direct that you said that the money came from a Kuwaiti Shaikh named Shaikh Al-Sabah, right?

Answer: That's correct again.

Question: But you know that the money was actually Jho Low's money?

Answer: Sir, I don't ever have independent verification of it. However, certain parts of the money were to be disbursed on Jho's directions.

Question: Have you ever met Shaikh Al-Sabah?

Answer: No.

Question: And did you really believe that a Kuwaiti Shaikh that you never met would have these dealings involving 145 million Euro with you?

Answer: Well, yes, I had my suspicions, of course,

and speculation that it would be Jho's money. But when you asked me if it was his, all I can do is speculate as I sit here. Did I believe it? Yes. Yes, possibly so. Now, that's his answer. That was his answer under oath. What's the actual answer? Of course it's Low's money. He says I'm speculating. Of course it's Low's money. I mean, does he really expect us to believe that a Kuwaiti Shaikh gave him 145 million Euro? I mean, it's like somewhere between Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy except it's a Kuwaiti Shaikh and he's giving away $165 million. It's preposterous. It didn't happen. It didn't happen that way. So why doesn't he just get out here and say of course it was Low's money? Why is he still playing games even at his own testimony? And I submit to you it's because he just can't do it. His mouth doesn't let him actually just say the truth, so he has to keep it cloudy: I'm speculating, I don't really know. But of course it's Low's money. And one of the reasons you know it's Low's money is that $49 million of it goes to pay a 1MDB bond interest payment. Now, I don't know that Shaikh Al-Sabah would have any interest in using 50 million of his dollars to pay a 1MDB bond payment, but Jho Low does. So this is Low's money. And so what he's doing in 2016 and 2017 — and part of the point of this is that, you know, once a coconspirator, always a coconspirator. There's no such thing as a cameo coconspirator. Here, I'm here, I'm going to collect my 35 million, I'm now done. I earned my 35 million, I'm not going to do another thing. That is not what you see in the evidence. If you're in, you're in for the long haul. If you're in in 2012, you're in in 2017. If you're in in 2012, you're in the whole way. And that's what Leissner is showing us, he's in the whole way. Because here we are 2016, 2017, he's still laundering Low's money. He's still laundering Low's money and paying 1MDB bond interest payments. Because these deals don't just end when they close, they keep going.
 
The co conspirators have to maintain the fraud. They have to maintain the theft. They can't let it blow up. If an interest payment is due, you have to pay it. And if you have to pay it, you need the money to pay it. And this is how they're going about doing it. There's no Kuwaiti Shaikh. That's preposterous. This is Low's money and he's laundering Low's money as late as 2017.

2018. May 2018, he goes to Lichtenstein. Okay? He goes there with Kimora Lee Simmons in 2018. Why is he in Lichtenstein in 2018? They have super good bank secrecy. And he's going to store $150 million, $150 million in a trust in a Lichtenstein bank to get as far from the United States as possible. This is May of 2018. This is three weeks before he gets arrested. All right? So he's in Lichtenstein. The other thing he's doing in May of 2018, he's renewing his Brazilian passport. He's renewing his Brazilian passport because he's having an affair with his Brazilian nanny. Now, that came out right in the beginning of his testimony. It might have gone right over your heads, but he said it. And what he's saying is that he and Kimora had a Brazilian nanny named Maria and he's having an affair with his Brazilian nanny Maria who takes care of Kimora's kids. Okay? Now, put that aside. The important part of this is he texts with Maria: I think Brazil would be a good place for me. Darn right. You know what? He's a Brazilian citizen. He is a citizen of Germany and he is a citizen of Brazil. It is now May of 2018. Less than a month before he gets arrested, he's trying to put his money in a Lichtenstein trust to keep it away from everyone and he is making real plans — real plans — to go to Brazil and live as a Brazilian citizen in Brazil.

But none of that turns out because he gets arrested. He gets arrested and he realizes he has an opportunity to do what he does best. He might not do so well as a fugitive living in Brazil. It's probably a hard life. And there's no reason to believe Tim Leissner is all that tough. But you know what he's good at? He's good at lying. And just like he can handle being married to two women at the same time, he can handle this process. He can handle this process with the FBI, he can handle this process like a champ. He can handle this process and close the deal. He can handle this process, close the deal and win. And he's in this to win this. And that's what he's about.

Along the way he steals over a million dollars, $1.25 million from Roger. Steals it. He didn't borrow it. Roger didn't give it to him. He stole it. You know how we know he stole it? We know he stole it because when the money's coming over, he writes to Osman Erlap: The 500,000 should be in by tomorrow, my bank told me. Sender will be coming for my accountant Roger Ng. Please look out for it. His accountant? He is leading everyone to believe that is his money and his money is being sent by his accountant, Roger Ng. He is flat out stealing that money.

Now, he didn't admit it on the stand, no one made him admit it on the stand. He gets to say, well, I was going to pay it back. No one ever asked me for the money. No one ever asked you for the money? Roger has no idea about this e-mail. You're doing this behind his back. You're stealing his money. That was your business partner in Celsius and you're just flat out stealing his money and hoping that no one notices, hoping that you can just pawn it off, you know, as a loan, pawn it off as maybe a gift. But he stole that money. Make no mistake.

And Hwee Bin Lim told you, she asked him: Where are our shares? Where are our shares? And he put it off and put it off. Yeah, you'll get it in October. I'll transfer the shares in October. He stole that money flat out. He did not have to plead guilty to it, he didn't have to admit it, he stole it. And you know he stole it because you know that e-mail. And you should absolutely conclude, 100 percent, he stole it. He can deny it all he wants, just like he denies everything else, it doesn't change the fact. And that's not all. There's another million dollars incentive and he stole that, too. And you know what he did with all of it? That's all the money he was sending to Lichtenstein. He's not giving it to Roger. You want to give it to Roger? Give it to Roger. You know where he is. He doesn't want to give it to Roger. He never wants to give it to Roger.

And when he was testifying, we did the math on the Celsius shares. $1.25 million back then would be over $50 million today. $50 million. That would be Roger Ng's money, real money. That would be his actual money. And it's been stolen.

So if you need to look for a motive, why would Leissner get here and testify falsely against Roger Ng of all people? There's a heck of a reason. One, he wants to avoid jail, a place he's never seen. And two, you know what, I don't want to pay back $50 million or $1.25 million or $2 million. I don't want to pay any of it back. So I'm going to come in here with my motive, my crystal-clear, razor-sharp motive and testify falsely against Roger Ng, and that's why he's here. That's why he's here. And that's why he doubles down and doubles down and doubles down.

He's not here to give you facts. He is here to win. He is here to close this deal, to walk out of here without getting a day of jail time, to get Roger convicted, and to make sure that he gets to keep his money. And the government's like oh, well, you forfeited that money. He forfeited Roger's money. He forfeited Roger's money. He's getting credit for Roger's money.

I want to talk about venue for a second. You guys have to decide venue, not — this isn't — this is one of the things you guys have to decide. The elements of the crimes are decided beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay? It's a much higher standard. Venue is decided by a preponderance of the evidence. It's your decision. If you guys decide that no part of the crime happened in the Eastern District of New York, then you find that venue here is inappropriate. It's a jury's decision. The Judge will give you instructions on venue. You should follow the instructions just like you do all the instructions, but at the end of the day you have to decide two things: One, did some act in furtherance of the crime happen in the Eastern District of New York? And the Eastern District of New York is Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island and then the waters, you know, sort of in between. Okay? That's what the Eastern District of New York is.

And that's why we had that testimony of, you know, where do the phone lines go and did Leissner go over a bridge when he went from here to there, because you actually have to decide if this is a proper place to have this trial. It's your decision. And it's a proper place to have the trial if some act in furtherance — if the defendant, if Mr. Ng, committed some act in furtherance of the crime. Okay? You all listen to the Judge's instructions, but it's a decision you guys make. Or if someone else committed an act that's in furtherance of the crime, is it foreseeable to Roger? Okay? Roger, as you know, lives in Malaysia. Do you really think he has the vaguest idea what bridges go between New Jersey and New York or the Bronx and New York or where the cables go that the electronic impulses travel on? I mean, you know, the old adage, it's like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. I mean, does this seem right? Does this seem fair?

I mean, venue is a real thing. And it's something that you guys have to find. It's not imposed on you. Just because we're here doesn't mean this is the right place to be. You have to decide venue by a preponderance of the evidence based on the Judge's instructions and you have to be the ones that find that some act in furtherance of the crime took place in the Eastern District of New York by Roger. And if it was by one of the other coconspirators, whether it was foreseeable to Roger.

So, venue is not something just to gloss over; you guys have to actually find it. And if you find it's appropriate, then you go on to consider the other elements of the crimes charged. If you find venue is inappropriate, you have to find him not guilty, because he's not supposed to be here.

All right. I want to talk about why the four payments to the Silken Waters/Victoria Square accounts are different than the other payments in the case.

The first is, there's no bogus agreement attached to them. Okay? This is very, very important. All right? So when Leissner was testifying, for instance, about the Midas payments, he said all of those payments were accompanied by false agreements, agreements that said, you know, this company is giving money to this company because they're involved in some business deal or, you know, one is buying steel from another. It's false. It's a way of basically having a written signed document so if the bank says hey, what's up with this transaction, you have a written signed document. Okay? And what you see in the case across the board is the larger transactions have written documents with them. But here we have a $17.5 million transaction, the first one, no written documents. No written documents, why? Now, remember what Leissner said. Leissner said this was all Low's decision. The one who decided that there should be written documents was Low, all right? And Low provided the documents.

So you don't see it on the payments from Capital Place to Silken Waters/Victoria Square for two reasons. One, Low's not involved. Low's not involved. If Low was involved, you would see written documents for the larger payments. So the first is that Low is not involved. Second, is that there's nothing wrong with the payments. The payments are fine. The payments are repayments for a debt. The payments aren't bribe payments, you know, to some public official or a kickback or anything like that. The payments are fine. So as a result, you never, not one time in all of the four payments, you never see a bogus written contract accompanying the payments.

Second, there's never an e-mail or a text that Low is directing the payment. Okay? So for the others, remember sometimes we'd see like four of them or three of them in one e-mail and there would be an e-mail from Low or one of Low's people to Leissner's — you know, usually his capital advisor's e-mail address? Pay — you know, pay Springbrook, pay such and such, pay such and such. Leissner is being directed by Low or one of Low's people to make the payment, you know, and then Leissner makes the payment. Leissner doesn't make the payments on his own. It's not his money, you know, at least that part of it. But with the Silken Waters/Victoria Square, you never, ever, ever, not one time, you never see an e-mail or text message from Low saying hey Leissner, you know, hey Judy, whoever, pay this, you know, pay the money to Silken Waters/Victoria Square. You never see the Low component. And that's critical because this is all driven by Low. And when Low is in charge and when Low is directing the payment, you see something. You know, you see something, whether it be an e-mail, whether it be a text message, whether it be something. You don't see it in the four that go to Silken Waters/Victoria Square.

The timing also doesn't make sense in terms of the payment. Roger doesn't do any work on Catalyze, yet two of the payments come after Catalyze. There's no rhyme or reason to — you're just sort of seeing — you know, you're seeing the 35 million as the initial payment.

And let's keep this in mind because this, I think, is very important. All right? What's the total debt that Judy owes Hwee Bin? $35 million. What does Judy pay Hwee Bin at the end of all this? $35.1 million. What's the first payment that goes from Capital Place to Silken Waters? $35 million. Okay? Is that a coincidence? I don't think it's a coincidence.

I think what happened is this. Based on the fact that it's $35 million both times, Leissner must have said to Low — there's no other explanation — my wife owes a debt of $35 million. And that's why that payment is made, because it makes no other sense otherwise. Now, Leissner doesn't pass — Leissner doesn't allow the whole $35 million to pass on, they do half. So what essentially happens is Leissner takes half and Judy takes half. Leissner wants to kind of like, you know, keep some of the money. But it's too much of a coincidence that the debt that's owed is $35 million and that the first payment is $35 million. That can't just be a coincidence.

Now, we don't know because we don't know what Judy and Leissner discussed and we certainly don't know what Leissner and Low discussed, but you can't help but notice that the number is the same, that at the end of all four payments, the total is $35.1 million and that the first payment is $35 million. And that's what Hwee Bin said she figured she would be owed. I think it was on 220 million RMB, roughly translated to about $35 million.

So again, it's a certain amount of speculation because we don't know the actual discussion that took place, but the number is certainly the same and that would indicate exactly what we've been saying all along, that this is payback of the debt, you know, Hwee Bin and her family's debt because the first payment is 35 million and, at the end of all of it, it's 35.1 million.

I have five minutes and I am going to end in five minutes.

All right. Other things that make this payment — these payments different.

There's never any e-mail sent to Roger from the capital advisors that wind up. That's just not an e-mail address that Leissner used with Roger. Also, the 35 million, what conceivable thing could Roger have done to earn $35 million? It doesn't make any sense. Jasmine Loo, who is a government official and who is in this thing for years and years and years and years, got $12.6 million. Okay? She made this possible. Without Jasmine Loo, this doesn't happen. She is the person at 1MDB who makes this happen. She's also — now, I know Leissner denied it, but, you know, he also told the FBI that he had dates with her. I don't know if the word "dates" means — you know, he said he uses the word "dates" differently than we use dates. Tell you what, he used dates; dates means dates. You know, so I don't know what their relationship is, but Jasmine Loo only got $12.6 million.

Terence Geh, critical, right in the middle of the 1MDB stuff, critical government official, member of 1MDB gets $2 million. What does Roger do? What has Roger done to get $35 million? It just makes no sense. It's so out of line with all of the other things.

Jerome Lee, another government official, $1.7 million. It just makes no sense. It's too much money. And it's $35 million because that's the debt. Roger didn't earn $35 million. Roger is not involved in this at all. But the fact that it's $35 million, just it doesn't make sense from a common sense perspective when you see what other people got. Also, if Roger was involved in this, wouldn't he be the one paying all the Malaysians? Remember when the government pointed out all these different 1MDB people are in Roger's phone contacts? He knows them all. I mean, if he and Leissner were in this together, Leissner would not be the one bearing the risk. Leissner would not be the one doing this with his wife. He would have Roger, his underling, the person he can boss around, pay these bribes, especially when so many of the bribe recipients are Malaysian, just like Roger. The only explanation for Leissner being the one to pay all these bribes to all of these different Malaysian people whom Roger knows well is that Roger is not involved. Because if Roger was involved, you could bet your bottom dollar, Roger would be paying those bribes and not Leissner.

So Tim Leissner admitted that — I think Mr. Van Dorn said that Leissner got $72 million out of this and his forfeiture was $43 million. And I think we had confronted Leissner with a number that was closer to $89 million and Leissner forfeited $43 million. What's the extra money for? Why does he get to keep his Beverly Hills house? Why does he get to keep all the other money? They're investments. They're investments in something called Genetic Finance, $2 million; he gets to keep it. Something called Friendsurance; he gets to keep it. His $25 million Beverly Hills home, he gets to keep it. He gets to keep the balance between 89 million and $43 million? And crime doesn't pay? Crime certainly pays.

Here's the bottom line. The government caught the person responsible for this, and the person responsible is Tim Leissner. And Tim Leissner, being comfortable with lying, knowing he can go into this and lie, decided to go into this and lie. And so far, he has done nothing but win. But he's not believable. Bottom line, he's just not believable. And bottom line, there's just no other evidence that Roger did anything. No one from Goldman Sachs came in here — in my opening statement, I said the only person who would implicate Roger Ng in criminal activity is Tim Leissner and that has turned out to be true. Of the 40,000 people in Goldman Sachs, the government couldn't find one of them to say you, you violated our accounting policies, you did this, you did this. This is all the government coming after the fact and saying Roger did these things that violated Goldman internal policies, no one from Goldman. Goldman didn't go to the government. The government went to Goldman. And Roger is basically the fall guy for this whole thing. And Leissner is looking to close the biggest deal of his life.

In closing — and I know people have to go and we're going to end in three minutes. In closing, as Hwee Bin said, Roger has been away from Hwee Bin and his child for three and a half years. It's time for him to go home. He didn't do any of these things. And he's trusted an American jury with his fate, and he should. And we've had a trial and you've heard the evidence and I'm asking you to find him not guilty on each of the three counts.

And I thank you for your time and your dedication. And you've all extended yourselves and I want you to know we've all noticed and we appreciate it. Thank you.

Read also:
Prosecution tells jury to follow the money, return guilty verdict as Roger Ng and co-conspirators stole billions of dollars from people of Malaysia