Case 22-3091, Document 85-1, 03/08/2024, 3613999, Page2 of 24 federal funds bribery, honest services wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit these two crimes—on the ground that the indictment failed to allege an explicit quid pro quo between Benjamin and his campaign donor.

Prior to trial, Benjamin moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the government had not sufficiently alleged an explicit quid pro quo, as required to sustain a charge of bribery against a public official in connection with campaign contributions.

Gerald Migdol, a real estate developer in Benjamin’s district, had previously made contributions to Benjamin’s campaign for state senator, and Benjamin had attended events associated with Migdol’s non-profit organization, Friends of Public Case 22-3091, Document 85-1, 03/08/2024, 3613999, Page4 of 24 School Harlem (“FPSH”).

Nevertheless, both parties proceed on the assumption that the quid pro quo requirement applicable to Hobbs Act extortion “under color of official right” also applies to federal funds bribery and honest services wire fraud.

As we read McCormick, the explicitness requirement is satisfied so long as the terms of the quid pro quo are clear and unambiguous.”); United States v. Inzunza, 638 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An official may be convicted without evidence equivalent to a statement such as: ‘Thank you for the $10,000 campaign contribution.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.

The Court has received and reviewed the parties' March 24, 2025 submissions.

Exhibits A through E may be filed under seal via ECF.

Due to conflicts on the Court's calendar, the conference scheduled for March 27, 2025 is hereby ADJOURNED to April 7, 2025 at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.

United States Magistrate Judge

The Court wishes to raise the following issues for the parties’ consideration,to be discussed at the upcoming status conference and oral argument, set for April 9, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 14D: 1.

After deliberation regarding potential plaintiffs to be tried, and in consideration ofthe parties’ submissions, the Court s inclined to select three individual plaintiffs to be tried beginning September 8, 2025, but wishes to obtain the adviceofthe parties at the status conference before making a prior selection.

Specifically, the Court proposes to select (1) Abulgasim Abdalla, with alternates Hamdan Abakar and Ambrose Martin Ulau, (2) Entesar Osman Kashef, with alternates Esalmeldin Abdelaziz and Fatima Abdelrahman; and (3) Nicolas Lukudu, with alternates Turjuman Adam and Isaac Ali.

The Court proposes that if a plaintiffselected for trial settles, one ofthat plaintiff's designated alternates will take their place.

Case 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW Document 663_Filed 04/02/25 Page 2 of 2 > Yow to deal with illiterate class members who have opted in but not completed a questionnaire.

and BNP PARIBAS US

The motion of Cyril V. Smith for admission to practicepro hac vice in the above-captioned action is granted.

CassdL6GCOB222AKKHWW Ddoanranh66522 AiikeoQBf2025 PRagerzcpiz2 IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.

Dated: United States District Judge

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.

In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(6), the district judge has referred certain issues arising in connection with the proposed orders of restitution to me for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to disposition.

The parties must appear for a status and scheduling conference on March 27, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.

In advance of the conference, and no later than March 24, 2025, the parties must submit a joint letter that includes:

The Government's most recent proposed schedule of former Archegos employee victims, with proposed restitution amounts and a brief description of how those amounts were computed; The Government's most recent schedule of former Archegos employees excluded from the victim list, with a brief description of the reason(s) for each exclusion; The parties' respective proposals (presented succinctly, without argument) for determining which former Archegos employees are "victims" for purposes of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(A)(a)(2); and The parties' respective proposals (presented succinctly, without argument) for determining how much restitution each is entitled to.