The latest developments in the case of Eastern Profit Corporation Limited v. Strategic Vision U.S. LLC
Plaintiff: EASTERN PROFIT CORPORATION LIMITED
Defendant: STRATEGIC VISION US LLC
Acceptance court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, S.D. NEW YORK
After Eastern Profit Corporation Limited (EASTERN) requested Strategic Vision U.S. LLC (STRATEGIC) to announce the source of its funds for this legal action, STRATEGIC’s lawyers filed a motion in court on November 13, 2020, requesting the rejection of EASTERN’s request. The reasons are as follows:
- The identity of the sponsor of STRATEGIC’s litigation is not relevant to this case;
- Even if the identity of the sponsor of STRATEGIC’s litigation is related to this case under certain conditions, the value of the connection is minimal for this case;
- According to the First Amendment of the Constitution, the identity of the third-party funder is independent and should not be used as evidence by the court.
STRATEGIC further claimed that this case was Mr. Guo Wengui’s act of retaliation against Chinese dissidents, and the funder of the case should be protected by the court in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
First, STRATEGIC indirectly acknowledged the existence of third-party funders and accepted their funding; secondly, the company strongly denied the connection between the third-party funders and the case. Then, as a notorious shell company, how did it win the favor of its funders? Are there any interests shared between them? In the end, STRATEGIC tried to portray Mr. Guo Wengui as a retaliator against Chinese dissidents. This political smear is truly the CCP’s style!
Based on STRATEGIC’s motion submitted to the court seen above, EASTERN made a rebuttal on November 18, 2020, stating: STRATEGIC does not have any business dealings with any person or institution associated with the CCP.
This statement highlights the main element of this case. STRATEGIC refused to answer whether it accepted funding from individuals or entities related to the CCP. This constitutes a conflict between the statement and the behavior, and the reasons cited above are all unreasonable. The core of this case is whether STRATEGIC has received direct or indirect funding from the CCP’s supporters.
In response to the reasons in STRATEGIC‘s motion, EASTERN made the following rebuttal:
- Eastern Plans to Introduce the Broidy and Davis Documents to Show that the U.S. Government (and Broidy, Davis, and the CCP) Consider Guo Wengui a Dissident；
- This Court Has Not Ruled that the Issue of Whether Strategic Is Being Funded By CCP Backers Is Irrelevant；
- The Arguments in Strategic’s Reply Do Not Refute the Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Strategic’s Litigation Funder；
- Having Used Political Affiliation as a Sword, Strategic Cannot Turn Political Affiliation Into a Shield By Invoking the First Amendment.
EASTERN further pointed out that STRATEGIC first tried to transfer its contract fraud into a political case, and then tried to invoke the First Amendment to conceal its litigation funders. Unfortunately, the amendment is no longer applicable in this case at this time.
According to the US Department of Justice, Elliott Broidy and Nickie Mali Lum Davis pleaded guilty in October and August respectively. They all admitted that as foreign agents, they illegally lobbied government officials to abandon the investigation of 1MDB and repatriate a Chinese citizen (Mr. Guo Wengui).
（Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty for Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Chinese Foreign National | OPA | Department of Justice
Nickie Mali Lum Davis Pleads Guilty to Facilitating Back-Channel Lobbying Campaign to Drop 1MDB Investigation and Remove a Foreign National to China）
It can be seen that Mr. Guo Wengui is an important anti-CCP figure who the CCP wants to get rid of, and is by no means the so-called persecutor of dissidents that STRATEGIC says he is. Also, as agents of the Chinese Communist Party, are Broidy and Davis the funders of STRATEGIC in this case? Why does STRATEGIC try to conceal the actual funders it has admitted?
Now, STRATEGIC is trying to link the fraud case to politics and use the First Amendment of the Constitution as protection to avoid the responsibility of revealing its funders behind the scenes. However, according to the “Meese v. Keene” case, in which the Federation of the Supreme Court supported the “Foreign Agent Registration Act” enacted in 1938, several Canadian films were defined as “political propaganda films.” The court required that the sponsors of these films must be disclosed.
This trick of STRATEGIC is self-harm. Will the Southern District Court of New York reject STRATEGIC’s motion in the next step and require it to announce the sponsor? We will wait and see.
1. U.S. Department of Justice case number:
Case 1:18-cv-02185-LJL Document 307-1 Filed 11/18/20
Case 1:18-cv-02185-LJL Document 306 Filed 11/13/20
2. Elliott Broidy Pleads Guilty:
3. Nickie Mali Lum Davis Pleads Guilty:
4. Who is Behind Strategic Vision US LLC: