During cross-examination, counsel for Purdy repeatedly attacked Ma’s credibility, suggesting that he was looking to “cash in” by filing a complaint with the SEC and that his immunity agreement with the government amounted to a “free pass from getting prosecuted.” (2/13/23 Tr. 2461, 2554.)

Purdy’s attorney further impeached Ma on other topics, including his fabrication of tablet metrics with Desai and his creation of false images for proofs of performance that were sent to clients.

The Rule covered only those consistent statements that were offered to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper motive or influence.

Most notably, Agarwal’s counsel flashed Ma’s immunity agreement with the government before the jury, after reviewing statements that Ma had made in text-message communications with Joyce Chen about his desire to see Shah “go to jail” and Agarwal “deported.” (GX 1025.)

Shah’s response, rather than expressing surprising that there was a significant inventory gap, was to direct Desai (in Ma’s presence) to raise the target for revenue the following year.

As set forth in other filings, after Quinn Emanuel withdrew, Shah retained no fewer than 11 attorneys from four prestigious law firms to represent him.

How did Shah, if he had insufficient funds to hire Quinn Emanuel, not only hire these great lawyers, but have sufficient funds to (1) live in a multi-million- dollar luxury home in Puerto Rico while owning a home in Chicago worth about $10 million and owning a condo in Chicago worth more than $1 million, R. 483 at 3-5; (2) invest $2 million in LEAF VIP, LLC—what appears to be a cannabis investment entity associated with Shah’s long- time employee David Cho—in April 2023 at the end of trial, R. 483 at 8; (3) invest $500,000 in LEAF VIP in October 2022, Id.; (4) spend copious amounts of money on private jets, private yacht charters and fine dining after he was indicted, R. 512 at 24, R. 482 at 51; and (5) attempt to set up multiple six-figure sports gambling accounts after conviction?

Agarwal, for her part, retained lawyers from Larson O’Brien LLP, an elite trial firm in Los Angeles, and Blegen & Garvey, a highly-regarded criminal defense boutique in Chicago.

Though Agarwal could have sold the residences in Austin and/or India or taken out asset-backed loans in order to raise legal fees, she chose not to; she held onto her properties and benefitted from their use and appreciation in value.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5, 10 (2016) (plurality) (holding that “the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel violates the Sixth Amendment”) (emphasis added).

None of his arguments have merit.

$259,390.98 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of a 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale A, VIN# ZFF75VFA0F0208869, owned by Defendant; $47,700 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of a 2000 ERA 427 S/C Cobra, VIN# ERA563, owned by Defendant; $44,400 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of a 1967 Ford Shelby GT500 Replica, VIN# 7T02S299329, owned by Defendant; $15,300 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of a 1965 Ford Shelby GT350 R Replica, VIN# 5T09T165496, owned by Defendant; $35,600 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of a 1963 Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray LS2 Convertible Custom, VIN# 30867S119271, owned by Defendant; $8,000 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of a 1991 California Spider Fiberglass Replica Project, VIN# CA594954, owned by Defendant; $542,998.40 in United States currency representing the sale proceeds from the real property owned by Eclipse Renewables Holdings LLC located at 11150 Applewhite Road, San Antonio, Texas, which was received by the FTC Monitor as a result of the interests of Black Creek Capital Corporation, AMG Capital Management, LLC, and Westfund LLC; $4,111.56 in United States currency representing the sale proceeds of the real property located at 442 NW 1051st Road, Centerville, Missouri 64109, which was received by the FTC Monitor as a result of a promissory note held by Black Creek Capital Corporation; $106,881.69 in United States currency representing the proceeds received by the FTC Monitor from the sale of the real property located at 100 Manning Street, Newark, Ohio, 43055 and 502 Maple Avenue, Newark, Ohio 43055, a recycling plant located in Licking County, Ohio, representing EVAS Investment LLC’s interest; Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 446-2 Filed 05/24/21 Page 5 of 11Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 447 Filed 06/09/21 Page 5 of 11 r.

Approximately $152,241.34 as of April 30, 2021 representing the interest accrued in the FTC Monitor’s money market account ending in 6156 at Pacific Western Bank, which held the liquidated funds from assets of the Defendant;

All right, title and interest in real property located at 3850 N. 107th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, with all improvements, appurtenances, and attachments thereon owned by Westfund LLC;

The notice referenced in the preceding paragraph shall state that the petition shall be for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of the petitioner’s alleged interest in the Substitute Assets, shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury, and shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner’s right, title or interest in the Substitute Assets and any additional facts supporting the petitioner’s claim and the relief sought, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n).

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Substitute Assets, and to amend it as necessary, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e).

344), which ordered the forfeiture to the United States of, inter alia, all right, title and interest of SCOTT TUCKER (the “Defendant”) in the real property located at 2405 W. 114th Street, Leawood, KS 66211, with all improvements, appurtenances, and attachments thereon (the “Specific Property”);

The Preliminary Order of Forfeiture further stated that the United States could, to the extent practicable, provide direct written notice to any person known to have an alleged interest in the Specific Property and as a substitute for published notice as to those persons so notified; Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 443-1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 7Case 1:16-cr-00091-PKC Document 445 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 7

WHEREAS, the Notice of Forfeiture and the intent of the United States to dispose of the Specific Property was posted on an official government internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) beginning on April 24, 2018, for thirty (30) consecutive days, through May 23, 2018, pursuant to Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions and proof of such publication was filed with the Clerk of the Court on February

WHEREAS, on or about June 11, 2018, the Court entered an Order that stayed execution of the forfeiture of the Specific Property, pending the outcome of the Defendant’s appeal of his judgment and conviction.

All right, title, and interest in the Specific Property is hereby forfeited and vested in the United States of America, and shall be disposed of according to law.

Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for a Protective Order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) concerning certain electronic evidence the Government wishes to produce to the defendants.

Specifically, the Government possesses (1) Outcome Health devices used by defendants Rishi Shah, Shradha Agarwal, and Brad Purdy; and (2) Apple iCloud accounts used by defendants Shah, Agarwal, Purdy, and Desai.

Some of these devices and accounts may contain materials protected by one or more parties’ attorney-client privileges.

Having considered the Unopposed Motion and good cause appearing therefor, the Court will enter a protective order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) as follows: The following items and accounts may be produced to the defendants by the Government as identified below without effecting waiver of any defendant’s or any third-party’s attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or other valid legal privilege in this proceeding or any other federal or state proceeding: a. The Apple iCloud account used by defendant Shah, with the exception of the files that hit on the privilege screen, to defendants Agarwal and Purdy; b.

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge

Comes now, SHRADHA AGARWAL,defendant in the above-entitled matter, and by her attorneys, Koren Bell, A. Alexander Lowder, Patrick W. Blegen, and Kelsey Killion, states as follows:

On November 21, 2019, defendant SHRADHA AGARWALwas charged with violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 13843, and 1344.

The superseding indictment included an allegation that certain property is subject to forfeiture; In the event defendant SHRADHA AGARWALis found guilty of the charged offense requiring forfeiture, she has a right to have a jury decide whether certain property belonging to is subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuantto the provisionsof Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence; The verdict of the jury on the forfeiture allegation must be unanimous; Defendant SHRADHA AGARWAL has had an opportunity to discuss this waiver with counsel and she understands that by signing this waiver she relinquishes her right to have a jury consider whether certain property is subject to forfeiture; If a jury is waived, the judge alone will decide whether certain property belonging to defendant SHRADHA AGARWALissubject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(a)(2)(A);

Attorneys for Defendant MORRIS PASQUAL, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, hereby consents to the waiver by the above-named defendant of a jury determination of the forfeiture allegation in the above-entitled matter.

Chief, Fraud Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice By: