TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Martin Kao - held on 2/13/2025, before Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield.… (Dkt. 184)

Summary

A transcript of the February 13, 2025 hearing at 3:45 p.m. in United States v. Martin Kao, No. 21-CR-00061-LEK, in the District of Hawaii, before the Honorable Kenneth J. Mansfield, United States Magistrate Judge. The hearing concerned the plaintiff's motion for an order authorizing application of the defendant's bond deposit to payment of special assessment and restitution. Government counsel Craig Nolan argued that the $2 million was posted on the defendant's behalf and that there was no third-party surety. Philip Miyoshi, representing Ms. Lam, stated that Ms. Lam has a marital interest in those funds. The Court stated that it would unseal ECF 14 as redacted, and the transcriber's certificate is dated June 28, 2025.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
vs. 
 
MARTIN KAO, 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
______________________________ ___
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
) 
)  Case No. 21-CR-00061-LEK 
)  
)  February 13, 2025 
)  3:45 p.m. 
)    
)    
) 
)   
)   
)   
 
 
 
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING 
APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT'S BOND DEPOSIT TO PAYMENT OF SPECIAL 
ASSESSMENT AND RESTITUTION AS TO DEFENDANT MARTIN KAO 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH J. MANSFIELD 
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
For Plaintiff:   
 
 
 
 
 
For Defendant:   
 
 
 
 
For Tiffany Jennifer Lam:   
 
 
 
 
Transcription Service: 
Craig S. Nolan, Esq. 
Sydney Spector, Esq. 
U.S. Attorney's Office 
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, #6-100 
Honolulu, HI  96850 
 
Victor J. Bakke, Esq. 
Topa Financial Center 
700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100 
Honolulu, HI  96813 
 
Philip Miyoshi, Esq. 
Miyoshi & Hironaka, LLLC 
201 Merchant Street, Suite 2240 
Honolulu, HI  96813 
 
Jessica B. Cahill, CER/CET-708 
Maukele Transcribers, LLC 
467 Maukele Place 
Wailuku, Maui, HI  96793 
Telephone: (808)298-8633 
 
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; 
transcript produced by transcription service.
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 1 of 17  PageID.2216

2 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
FEBRUARY 13, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3:45 P.M. 
THE CLERK:  The United States District Court for the 
District of Hawaii, with the Honorable Kenneth J.  Mansfield, 
United States Magistrate Judge, presiding, is now in session.  
The gallery may be seated.   
Criminal case number CR-21-00061LEK, United States of 
America vs Martin Kao.  This case has been called for United 
States' motion hearing.   
Please make your appearance for the record, starting 
with the Government.   
MR. NOLAN:  Good afternoon, Your Honor.  Craig Nolan 
and Sydney Spector for the Government.   
THE COURT:  Good afternoon to both of you.   
MR. BAKKE:  And good afternoon, Your Honor.  Attorney 
Victor Bakke on behalf of Mr. Kao, who's present to my right.   
THE COURT:  All right.  Good afternoon to both of you 
as well.  You folks can be seated.  I did listen to most, if not 
all, of your proceedings upstairs, so I could be sure I knew what 
happened.  Really the very end was what was material to me in 
terms of whether there was an assessment of fine, restitution, or 
penalty and to what degree.   
So I'm aware of what happened there, and I've reread 
the briefs that you folks filed and we discussed briefly last 
time.  So I guess I'd certainly like to hear from both of you as 
to where you, each of you, think we stand today.   
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 2 of 17  PageID.2217

3 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. NOLAN:  Well, I mean, it's our motion, so I'll just 
briefly say -- 
THE COURT:  That's fine.   
MR. NOLAN:  -- we think the law is clear.  He posted $2 
million as required by the Court.  There was no third-party 
surety, and the law is clear that the Government can ask the 
Court for this money, and the Court will give us this money if --
we've got, you know, 12.8 million in restitution that's 
outstanding at this point.  We've got forfeiture.  There's no 
fine as the Court heard.  He owes the Court itself $900 for the 
special assessments.   
So we're way above the 2 million.  We don't think 
there's any defense to the motion.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  When I was rereading the briefs, and 
I think this may be what Mr. Bakke wants to talk to me about, the 
statute says any money belonging to and then deposited by or on 
behalf of the Defendant.  And I read a couple cases about that 
belonging to any third parties.  What argument or what evidence 
does the Government have that the $2 million belongs to the 
Defendant?   
MR. NOLAN:  So first, that the Government -- excuse me 
-- that the Defendant himself was ordered to post $2 million.  
Though his wife may have procured the check from their shared 
account, that is his money, and it was posted on his behalf in 
his name.  The Court has a sealed document that I don't have.   
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 3 of 17  PageID.2218

4 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
THE COURT:  I have it in front of me.   
MR. NOLAN:  Yeah.  So I don't know what that looks 
like, and maybe the Court is willing to enlighten us.  But in any 
event, no matter what the state law here may be on how property 
is treated, and there are millions and millions of dollars out 
there in their joint names, it was posted on his behalf.  There 
was no third-party surety and under the circumstances --  
THE COURT:  And I agree with all of that, but it's the 
belonging to part of the statute that I also have to comply with.   
MR. NOLAN:  It came from his account, and he posted it.   
THE COURT:  What can you tell me about the account?  
Because I don't know anything about the account that it was drawn 
from, if you know.   
MR. NOLAN:  Well, handed here today we have a 
declaration from his wife.  And so according to his wife's 
declaration, she contacted Merrill Lynch to withdraw the funds 
totaling $2 million.  Mr. Kao was, of course, incarcerated at 
that point.  He was detained at FDC.  She requested that Merrill 
Lynch issue $2 million cashier's check from the Merrill Lynch 
account, and it was one of the accounts in both their names.  She 
delivered the check.   
So in any joint account, either owner has full access 
to that money and has full right to that money.  Whatever else 
there may be out there, I don't know if there's a prenup or 
something along those lines, but it's a declaration from his wife 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 4 of 17  PageID.2219

5 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
in support of essentially a motion to intervene and prevent this 
from happening.   
THE COURT:  Was that filed in this case?   
MR. NOLAN:  No. 
THE COURT:  I haven't seen that.   
MR. NOLAN:  No, it was handed to -- 
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. NOLAN:  -- Mr. Bakke and me literally as we walked 
into the courtroom -- 
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. NOLAN:  -- by her attorney.  So it's all new to me.  
But, frankly, it's pretty good proof that the money came from 
their joint account.  And, you know, he -- it's his property.  If 
he wants it, he used it by depositing it here, and he can't make 
it safe by leaving it with the Court.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.   
MR. BAKKE:  I'm sorry, Your Honor.   
THE COURT:  Mr. Bakke?   
THE COURT:  Your Honor, I'm sorry.  First of all, Mr. 
Nolan just referenced to a sealed document.  What -- 
THE COURT:  I believe he's referring to ECF 14, which 
is the affidavit by owner of cash bail that's in the docket.   
MR. BAKKE:  Oh, okay.  I haven't seen it.   
MR. NOLAN:  We haven't seen it, it's sealed.   
THE COURT:  Well, how about, for starters, I'll give it 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 5 of 17  PageID.2220

6 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
to each of you, and we can talk about whether to -- your client 
signed it, Mr. Bakke.  Presumably -- I mean, it was after you 
were involved in the case when he signed it.  I have it in front 
of me.   
MR. BAKKE:  He may not have signed it with me.  He's 
had like --  
THE COURT:  It was during COVID, I recognize that.   
MR. BAKKE:  In fact, then it probably -- I was his 
lawyer at the very beginning --   
THE COURT:  Right.   
MR. BAKKE:  -- for like a couple days. 
THE COURT:  And this is after that.  I checked the 
docket.  This is 14 on the docket.  You were his lawyer when he 
signed this.   
MR. BAKKE:  I was his lawyer when he signed it?   
THE COURT:  I'm almost positive.  I can pull up the 
docket again.   
MR. BAKKE:  Okay.  It's been a couple years, and he's 
had like --   
THE COURT:  Okay.  At a minimum, you need to see this 
document, sir.   
MR. BAKKE:  Yeah, yeah.   
THE COURT:  Take a look.  We'll start with you.  We'll 
take this in baby steps.  If you can give a copy of this to Mr. 
Bakke. 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 6 of 17  PageID.2221

7 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
(Counsel reviews document) 
MR. BAKKE:  According to my client, when he got out, he 
signed this at Attorney Michael Green's office because I was only 
his attorney for, like, a day or two.  (Indiscernible - Mr. Bakke 
standing away from microphone) -- 
THE COURT:  Okay.  But you read what it said.  
MR. BAKKE:  -- until like a year later. 
THE COURT:  Did you read what it says, Mr. Bakke?   
MR. BAKKE:  Oh, I read what it says.  Yeah, my  
client acknowledges --  
THE COURT:  Disavows that?   
MR. BAKKE:  No, no, no, he acknowledges.  That's what 
I'm saying, he just -- 
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. BAKKE:  He signed it with Mr. -- with Attorney 
Michael Green.   
THE COURT:  Sure. 
MR. BAKKE:  I don't have any personal knowledge to 
that.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Okay.  So in light of 
this information, which is what I have about whose money this is, 
what's your argument?   
MR. BAKKE:  You know, having seen that, first of all, 
now for the first time -- 
THE COURT:  That's why I wanted you to see it.   
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 7 of 17  PageID.2222

8 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. BAKKE:  Yeah.  Your Honor, I -- I mean, I think the 
law is fairly clear.  I think the whole issue is that if the 
money is encumbered prior to being posted, then there's a 
legitimate third-party interest that can raise it.  What he can't 
do is encumber it after it's been posted.   
So to make things a little more complicated, today, 
Attorney Philip Miyoshi -- oh, there he is back there. 
THE COURT:  Good afternoon, Mr. Miyoshi.   
MR. BAKKE:  Mr. Miyoshi is behind me.  So he's 
representing Ms. Lam.  So I have not had a chance to read through 
his document that he, I guess, tried to file with the Court.  Me 
and the Prosecutor both just got this.  But I can -- maybe he can 
summarize the position, but really I would have to defer to him.  
I have no knowledge of the marital assets and how that goes 
through.   
But I believe the Court is taking the right analysis, 
which is, who does that money belong to?  And whether or not -- 
if it's jointly owned, does that make it encumbered to the point 
where Ms. Lam, the wife, would have her own ability to, almost 
like an interpleader, come in and fight for the money?   
THE COURT:  Okay.  Mr. Miyoshi.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  Yeah.  Thank you, Your Honor.  And I 
apologize for not making a appearance through the eFiling system.  
I attempted to do that prior to the hearing today.  It wouldn't 
allow me to do that because I wasn't a party to this case.  I 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 8 of 17  PageID.2223

9 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
attempted to file it manually with the Court, but was advised 
that because I'm an attorney, I can only eFile something.  So I 
was left with -- 
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  -- between a rock and a hard place there.  
But, Your Honor, we do represent Ms. Lam in this matter, and I 
did provide both counsel with a memorandum.  I would be happy to 
provide it with you if I could -- I understand that might be a 
little unorthodox and that you might want me to do whatever I can 
to eFile it so you can get it through the proper channels, but I 
do have a copy of this.  But our --  
THE COURT:  Why don't you just file it with us?  I 
think we can do it the old fashioned way.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  May I approach, Your Honor? 
THE COURT:  Yes, please.  And the Government and Mr. 
Bakke have copies?   
MR. MIYOSHI:  I had provided them before the hearing.  
Yeah. 
MR. NOLAN:  We do. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  Just let me -- give me a 
second. 
MR. MIYOSHI:  Sure. 
(Court reviews document) 
THE COURT:  Okay.  I've skimmed the facts section, then 
there's the legal argument, so I'm going to pause and not try to 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 9 of 17  PageID.2224

10 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
digest that on the fly.  But go ahead, Mr. Miyoshi.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  Thank you, Your Honor.  You know, in 
summary -- and, you know, again, I don't want to take up the time 
of the two counsel here, but in summary, you know, our position 
is that Ms. Lam has a marital interest in those funds.  I think 
the law under -- with respect to 28 U.S.C. 2044 is clear.  The 
Government bears the burden of establishing that that money, as 
this Court noted, belongs to the Defendant, so that it could be 
applied to restitution.   
We believe that the evidence shows that Ms. Lam has an 
interest at least in up to $1.5 million of the bond amount 
because of the amount that was in the account at the time she 
withdrew $2 million to pay for Martin's bail.   
And I think, you know, with respect to the law relating 
to marital interests, I think it's pretty clear that under Hawaii 
law, at least, marriages are looked at like -- well, viewed as a 
partnership.  And absent some agreement to the contrary, it's --
when parties contribute equally, whether it's by resources, 
money, time, or other contributions, that it's typically viewed 
50/50.   
And so, we would submit that under 2044, it wouldn't 
apply to the funds that Ms. Lam has in order to (indiscernible).   
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Miyoshi.  I'll 
certainly hear from you, Mr. Nolan.  Here's what I think I should 
do, though, is one, unseal ECF 14, because we're all fighting 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 10 of 17  PageID.2225

11 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
over it, and I think -- is there any objection to me unsealing?  
That's the affidavit of -- by owner of cash bail.  Mr. Bakke, 
your client signed it.   
MR. BAKKE:  No objection, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  And Mr. Nolan, no objection?   
MR. NOLAN:  No objection. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  So we will unseal the affidavit by 
owner of cash bail.  That's ECF 14.  So then everybody has access 
to it, and we can talk about it.   
MR. NOLAN:  So my colleague is just noticing that 
before the Court unseals it, there's a Social Security number on 
there that should be redacted. 
THE COURT:  All right. 
MR. NOLAN:  At least the first five digits.   
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you very much.  So we'll 
figure that out.  We will redact -- we know who we're talking 
about.  We'll redact the whole Social Security number.   
MR. NOLAN:  Sure.  Yeah. 
THE COURT:  We'll black it out.  Anything else on that, 
Mr. Bakke, that you'd like me to -- 
MR. BAKKE:  No, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Occupation, driver's license number, date 
of birth.   
MR. BAKKE:  I mean, whatever the personal identifiers, 
I think, are supposed to be redacted.  Sorry, I didn't look that 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 11 of 17  PageID.2226

12 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
closely at that information.   
THE COURT:  Yeah.  Okay.  Well, redact the Social 
Security number, the date of birth, and the ID number, I'm 
assuming is the driver's license number.  So we'll redact that as 
well.  Let me take a closer look, if there's anything else that 
we should redact.   
MR. NOLAN:  Well, Your Honor probably ought to redact 
the street number on his residential address on the top line.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  And the flip side is a 
receipt.  I don't think there's anything there that is of 
concern.  Mr. Nolan, when you're done, can you hand it over to 
Mr. Bake again?   
MR. NOLAN:  Oh -- 
MR. BAKKE:  Yeah, sorry.  I don't have it in front of 
me.  Yeah, yeah, sorry.  That's why I was going to -- 
THE COURT:  Somehow I've ended up with two copies, and 
you guys are sharing.  
MR. BAKKE:  I was going to say, oh, you can just keep 
it under seal and make us a copy. 
MR. NOLAN:  And you have access to all the copies?   
MR. BAKKE:  Yeah, that's just the receipt.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  So we'll unseal it with those 
redactions.  And then I think I should give the Government a 
chance to file a further brief on this, if it would like.  If it 
doesn't -- I haven't read Mr. Miyoshi's brief.  Like I said, I 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 12 of 17  PageID.2227

13 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
skimmed the factual recitation.  I know what I think Hawaii law 
would be on, like, a shared account between spouses, but I don't 
know that at all.  I tend to start where you ended, Mr. Nolan, 
that either spouse can take out whatever they want from it.  But 
I don't know if I'm right about that.   
So if you want a chance to brief it, I'll give it to 
you.  If you don't -- well, I need to do some reading before I 
rule anyway now. 
MR. NOLAN:  Well, since the Court's going to look at 
it, certainly we'll brief it.  But I will say, somehow counsel 
has bootstrapped this into 1.5 million.  He said there's 3 
million in the account.  Two million came out.  She's entitled to 
half of what was in there.  So she owns 1.5.  And somehow now he 
wants 1.5 of the 2 that's deposited with the Court.   
I think, at best, and I think based on his pleading 
here, his motion, the Court could rule today that 1.5 million 
ought to be turned over and that then the parties can brief and 
contest the remaining 500,000.  That would be based on his 
numbers, with her being entitled to 1.5 of the three.   
THE COURT:  Right.   
MR. NOLAN:  She would be --   
THE COURT:  The money is not going anywhere, right.  So 
I would rather just -- I don't think there's any exigency, Mr. 
Nolan.   
MR. NOLAN:  So the money doesn't go anywhere until he 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 13 of 17  PageID.2228

14 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
reports -- 
THE COURT:  Right.   
MR. NOLAN:  -- on March -- 
MR. BAKKE:  25th.   
MR. NOLAN:  -- 25th.   
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. NOLAN:  Yes.  Or unless he turns himself in 
earlier.   
THE COURT:  Sure.  So how much -- one week, two weeks?  
What would you guys like to --   
MR. NOLAN:  Two weeks, please.   
THE COURT:  Okay.  Two weeks is fine. 
MR. NOLAN:  Thank you.   
THE COURT:  The 27th, February 27th.   
MR. NOLAN:  That works.  Thank you.   
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. BAKKE:  That's a Thursday, right, Your Honor?   
THE COURT:  That's a Thursday.   
MR. BAKKE:  A Thursday. 
THE COURT:  Just the filing then, the filing by the 
Thursday.  And then I'll take a look at it and decide whether I 
want another hearing or whether I could just issue something.   
MR. NOLAN:  Okay.  Thank you.   
THE COURT:  And so, Mr. Bakke, if you would like to 
file -- since I'm giving them another shot, you can review what 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 14 of 17  PageID.2229

15 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Mr. Miyoshi's filed, and if you would like to supplement, you 
can't, too, on the 27th.   
MR. BAKKE:  Yes, Your Honor.  I'm a little confused.  
Is Mr. Miyoshi coming into the case or -- because --   
THE COURT:  Why don't you file a motion to intervene?  
I'm not sure logistically, how to handle this.  I'm just trying 
to get this issue right.   
MR. BAKKE:  I can't -- I can't represent Mr. Kao -- 
THE COURT:  Right.  Against -- 
MR. BAKKE:  -- and Mrs. Kao against each other.   
THE COURT:  Right.  Understood.  Okay.  So if you don't 
want to file anything, you don't have to.   
MR. BAKKE:  Yeah, I --   
THE COURT:  I would like to file what Mr. Miyoshi 
handed us in the case, but I was not thinking -- I was completely 
glossing over those logistics.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  And, Your Honor, I did prepare a notice 
of appearance for the limited purpose of this hearing.  I don't 
know if the Court could accept it or that it would be for me to 
seek.  I did look at the rules.  I didn't really find anything 
that would allow me to, from a rule standpoint, intervene into a 
criminal matter.   
THE COURT:  Right.  And that may be right.  So.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  Looking at that, but I certainly -- the 
Court could allow a special appearance just for purposes of this 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 15 of 17  PageID.2230

16 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
motion.   
THE COURT:  Yeah, I will for purposes of this motion 
only.  And I believe, based on the arguments you're making, your 
client has standing on this issue because she's asserting these 
are her assets.  So I will allow it for that.  And we'll try to 
figure out how to get you formally in the case for limited 
purposes of this motion.   
MR. MIYOSHI:  Is it possible to submit it to the Court? 
THE COURT:  Yeah.  I'll leave them with you.  Okay.  So 
we will do what we can to get those filed.  We're going to unseal 
as redacted ECF 14 and the Government and Mr. Kao, if he would 
like, I don't know that there's anything different he would want 
to say, and I'm not trying to create a conflict, but if he would 
like to file anything else on the 27th, he may.   
MR. BAKKE:  Thank you.   
THE COURT:  And then I will read everything and decide 
whether we need to get together or whether I can just issue an 
order.  Anything further from anybody?   
MR. NOLAN:  No.  Thank you, Your Honor.   
THE COURT:  Okay.   
MR. BAKKE:  No, Your Honor.   
THE COURT:  Thanks.  We'll be in recess.   
THE CLERK:  All rise.  Court stands in recess.   
 
(Proceedings concluded at 4:08 p.m.) 
 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 16 of 17  PageID.2231

17 
 
 
 
 
 
Jessica B. Cahill, CER/CET-708 
 
CERTIFICATE 
 
I, Jessica B. Cahill, court approved transcriber, do hereby 
certify that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §753, the foregoing is a 
complete, true, and correct transcript from the official 
electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-
entitled matter and that the transcript page format is in 
conformance with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of 
the United States. 
 
Dated: June 28, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 184     Filed 07/08/25     Page 17 of 17  PageID.2232

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.hid.154417.184.0.pdf

Size

117,314 bytes

SHA-256

9d079d81edd7b8a9369ba8a476fe788ed7e28b69701b1f616b4de33ccac99a23

Our copy

gov.uscourts.hid.154417.184.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)