Nothing in this Order shall be construed to limit the SEC’s or Defendants’ use of documents the SEC obtained from sources other than the Department of Justice.

Defendants, defendants counsel, and authorized persons shall not disclose any notes or records of any kind that they make in relation to the contents of the materials, other than to authorized persons, and all such notes or records are to be treated in the same manner as the original materials.

The materials may be (1) destroyed; (2) returned to the United States; or (3) retained in defense counsel's case file.

The restrictions set forth in this Order do not apply to documents that are or become part of the public court record, including documents that have been received in evidence at other trials, nor do the restrictions in this Order limit defense counsel in the use of discovery materials in judicial proceedings in this case.

Nothing contained in this Order shall preclude any party from applying to this Court for further relief or for modification of any provision hereof.

Please take notice that Fraud Section Assistant Chief William Johnston is no longer

assigned to this case.

By: Respectfully submitted,

Acting United States Attorney s/ Corey Rubenstein Corey Rubenstein Assistant United States Attorney 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 469–6045

Chief, Fraud Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice s/ William Johnston William Johnston Assistant Chief 1400 New York Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20530

The following property is to be applied toward satisfaction of the personal money judgment: a. All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund A, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, approximately $60,000.00 in capital contributions submitted on or around May 31, 2018; b.

Specifically, the following accounts shall be liquidated and distributed as follows: a. All right, title, and interest in Investment Fund A, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, approximately $60,000.00 in capital contributions submitted on or around May 31, 2018; b.

Funds in the amount of $194,616.25 seized on July 8, 2021, and all remaining right, title, and interest in Investment Company C, held in the name of Jumpstart Ventures II, LLC, including, but not limited to, $50,000 in capital contributions submitted on or about January 5, 2017; y.

Following the Court’s disposition of all third party interests, the Court shall, upon the government=s motion, if appropriate, enter a final order of forfeiture as to the subject property which shall vest clear title in the United States of America.

cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; have been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third-party; have been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; have been substantially diminished in value, or have been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;

The CFTC characterizes Walczak’s use of OptionVue as a strategy to ‘stress test’ the Fund’s portfolio, which would prompt him to reduce “risk when one of his stress tests showed that an increase in the S&P of up to 10% would cause a greater than 8% loss to the Fund.” (Pl.’s Mot.

Additionally, defendant notes that his calls with investment advisors repeatedly contained the caveat that (1) losses could not be predicted and (2) the success of his strategy was not assured.

For instance, on a September 15 House Call, Walczak stated the following: What we do with the fund on a daily basis is ... we stress, we aggregate all those [positions] in the models we use to predict what will happen to the portfolio value under different scenarios.

Looking at the same House Calls quoted by CFTC, defendant cites evidence of caveats to his statements of risk management practices.

Without an unequivocal commitment to using this hard cutoff in practice, Walczak’s choice at times to not make trades when an 8% drawdown risk was present is entirely, or at least arguably, consistent with his representations.

In reply, defendants admitted that the underpinning of their claim was inaccurate; in fact, they received the grand jury testimony and the supporting exhibits (to include

By failing to challenge the pretrial restraint of commingled assets, defendants would be unable to satisfy even the first prong of plain error review.

From the indictment and GX 1029, and considering that they made the investments, defendants had ample opportunity to analyze the scope of the protective order and assess the grand jury testimony before trial.

In light of this reality and these sworn statements, Shah can hardly claim that if he had access to restrained, non-traceable portions of those same kinds of investments in 2020, then he would have continued to retain Quinn Emanuel.

If the Court decides to explore this issue at a hearing, with appropriate permissions, the government will seek documents and/or testimony from the investment funds, financial institutions, Rishi Shah, Shradha Agarwal, Baroda Trust, Quinn Emanuel, McGuireWoods, Hueston Hennigan, Vadim Glozman, Blegan & Garvey, and Larson O’Brien.

Pursuant to this Court’s December 1, 2023 Order (Doc. #624) (the “Order”), Mr. Shah submits this memorandum identifying the issues he requests the Court consider at an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Shah’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for a New Trial (Doc. #490) (the “Motion”).

Likewise, Mr. Shah’s prior briefing explains why it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the fees quoted to Mr. Shah by his original counsel of choice were “reasonable.” See Mem.

Moreover, Mr. Shah has already presented evidence that is sufficient for the Court to find that the Government had knowledge that it had restrained untainted assets as early as February 2020 and failed to take any steps to correct that unlawful restraint in the three years that followed.

Mr. Shah therefore requests that the Government be required to produce, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, all documents that bear upon the Government’s knowledge of the restraint of untainted assets, including, without limitation: (1) all communications involving any agent or attorney of the Government relating to the traceability of or source of funding for any of the assets retained by the Protective Order; (2) all communications and documents, including drafts thereof, relating to FBI Forensic Accountant Megan Poelking’s testimony before the Grand Jury and the forfeiture allegation in the Superseding Indictment; (3) all communications with any of the entities affected by the Protective Order relating to the assets covered by the Protective Order, including the value, liquidity, or traceability thereof; and (4) any communications by the Government to any entity directing or discussing the distribution or treatment of funds and/or proceeds of the sale of any assets, whether or not subject to the Protective Order.

However, such witnesses may include, without limitation, Megan Poelking, Matthew Madden, Kyle Hankey, William Johnston, Saurish Appleby-Bhattacharjee, and any other agent or attorney for the Government who has been involved in Mr. Shah’s case.3 III.