Proposed Order — United States of America v. Derrick Taylor, Case No. 22-MJ-665 (Dkt. 4, E.D.N.Y.)

Summary

This filing in United States v. Derrick Taylor, Case No. 22-MJ-665 in the Eastern District of New York, is a proposed order signed s/ James R. Cho, United States Magistrate Judge, and dated June 23, 2022, unsealing the complaint as to Derrick Taylor only and keeping the government's application under seal. The complaint, sworn by FBI Special Agent Edward Tam, charges false statements under Section 1001(a)(2) and obstruction under Sections 1512(c)(1) and 1512(c)(2). It alleges that Taylor, a retired Department of Homeland Security agent working as a private investigator in Irvine, California, obtained personal information about two PRC dissidents for a transnational repression scheme. It also alleges that on or about April 11, 2022 Taylor falsely told FBI Special Agents that passport information came from the Black Dark Web. The complaint's charges are allegations.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 4 of 20 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

AAS/EJD
F. #2021R00184

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROPOSED ORDER
~ against - Case No. 22-MJ-665
DERRICK TAYLOR,
Defendant.

Upon the application of BREON PEACE, United States Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York, by Assistant United States Attorney Emily J. Dean for an order unsealing
the Complaint in the above-captioned matter as to defendant DERRICK TAYLOR, and upon
consideration of the reasons set forth in the application, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the above-captioned Complaint be unsealed as to the defendant
DERRICK TAYLOR,

ORDERED that Exhibit A hereto be filed on the docket so that the Complaint in

the above may be unsealed as to the defendant DERRICK TAYLOR only, and
ORDERED that the application filed by the government be maintained under seal
until further order of the Court.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 23, 2022

s/ James R. Cho

HONORABLE JAMES R. CHO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DMP:AAS/EJD
F. #2021R00184

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- against -
DERRICK TAYLOR,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, SS:

COMPLAINT

(18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 1512(c)(1),
1512(c)(2))

No. 22-MJ-665

EDWARD TAM, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is a Special

Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, duly appointed according to law and acting as

such.

In or about April 2022, within the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere,

the defendant DERRICK TAYLOR did knowingly, intentionally and corruptly attempt to

obstruct, influence and impede an official proceeding, to wit: a Federal Grand Jury

investigation in the Eastern District of New York.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2))
On or about April 11, 2022, within the Eastern District of New York and

elsewhere, the defendant DERRICK TAYLOR did knowingly and willfully make a materially
false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation, in a matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit: the FBI, in that
TAYLOR falsely stated and represented to FBI Special Agents that he had obtained U.S.
passport information of one or more other persons through the “Black Dark Web.”

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2))

The source of your deponent’s information and the grounds for his belief are as
follows:!

1. Iam a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).
Since becoming a Special Agent, I have participated in numerous investigations into organized
criminal activity, during which I have, among other things: (a) conducted physical and
electronic surveillance, (b) reviewed search warrant returns, (c) reviewed and analyzed
recorded conversations and records, and (d) debriefed cooperating witnesses and informants.
I am familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth below from my participation in the
investigation, my review of the investigative file, and reports of other law enforcement officers

involved in the investigation.

l Because the purpose of this Complaint is to set forth only those facts necessary

to establish probable cause to arrest, I have not described all the relevant facts and
circumstances of which I am aware.
PROBABLE CAUSE

I. Introduction

2. On March 9, 2022, the Honorable Marcia Henry, U.S. Magistrate Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, authorized a criminal complaint (the “Transnational
Repression Complaint’) charging Fan “Frank” Liu, Matthew Ziburis, and Qiang “Jason” Sun
with various crimes in connection with a transnational repression scheme targeting dissidents
of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC’’) residing in the United States. (See 22-M5J-
257). The Transnational Repression Complaint discusses, among other items, Liu, Ziburis,
and Sun’s efforts to target two PRC dissidents residing in the United States, who are referred
to in the Transnational Repression Complaint as “Dissident 2” and “Dissident 3.”

3. This Affidavit pertains to attempts to obstruct an investigation into
efforts to obtain personal identifying information of Dissident 2 and Dissident 3 through
confidential law enforcement databases for use in the charged transnational repression scheme.

Il. The Defendants and the Coconspirators

4. DERRICK TAYLOR 1s a retired federal agent with the U.S. Department

of Homeland Security (“DHS”) who is presently employed as a private investigator in Irvine,

California.
6. Coconspirator 1 (“CC-1”) operated a private investigation firm in
Orange County, California.

7. Coconspirator 2 (“CC-2”) is a recently retired Deportations Officer with
the DHS Enforcement and Removal Operations who was stationed in the Los Angeles,
California, metropolitan area. He resides in Long Beach, California.

Ul. Background

A. The Improper Queries of Law Enforcement Databases

8. The investigation has revealed that coconspirators described in the
Transnational Repression Complaint, including Liu, tasked CC-1 with obtaining personal
identifying information of Dissident 2 and Dissident 3, and that CC-1, in turn, retained
TAYLOR to obtain the information. TAYLOR requested that CC-2 provide him with
information about Dissident 2, and then TAYLOR passed information from CC-2 to CC-1.
After CC-2 declined to assist TAYLOR further, TAYLOR obtained information about
Dissident 3 from and passed information from to CC-1.

9. Both iii and CC-2 accessed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“U.S.C.I.S”) Person Centric Query Services (“PCQS”) database to query
information for TAYLOR. PCQS enables users to submit a single query to view all incidents
involving an immigrant or non-immigrant across a variety of DHS and external agency
databases. PCQS produces a consolidated dataset of an individual’s interactions with the
DHS and other government agencies as they interact with the U.S. immigration system. The
PCQS database is marked “For Official Use Only.” When a user attempts to access PCQS,

the user is warned that “Unauthorized or improper use or access of this system may result in
disciplinary action, as well as civil and criminal penalties.” TAYLOR was not a member of
law enforcement when he sent or received the photographs of PCQS described herein.
Dissident 2

10. The investigation has uncovered electronic communications in which
CC-1 tasked TAYLOR with obtaining information about Dissident 2 for Liu, and then
TAYLOR obtained the information from CC-2.

11. In a text conversation on or about July 16, 2021, TAYLOR and CC-1
discussed the cost for obtaining the “immigration status, [and] u.s. custom information” for
Dissident 2. CC-1 then wrote Dissident 2’s name and date of birth and indicated CC-1’s email
account would serve as CC-1’s contact information for TAYLOR.

12. In a text message on or about July 13, 2021, TAYLOR asked CC-?2, “Is
there a quick way that I can check if some guy[’]s departed to China?” In a text exchange on
or about July 16, 2021, TAYLOR then provided CC-2 with Dissident 2’s name and date of
birth and asked for Dissident 2’s “status and passport departure.” The same day, CC-2
responded, “He was admitted into the US until 11/26/2021 with a B2 Visa.” TAYLOR
responded, “Thank you brother! Do you smoke cigars or what’s your favorite tequila[?]’’
CC-2 responded, “I’m good, bro.”

13. Onor about July 19, 2021, TAYLOR emailed CC-1 what appears to be
a photograph of a computer screen containing immigration records for Dissident 2. The

screenshot appears to be of a PCQS database query for Dissident 2’s border crossings. In the

? In an interview with FBI agents on or about June 17, 2022, CC-2 claimed that
TAYLOR only provided names to CC-2 that were potential leads for CC-2’s new immigration
cases.
email, TAYLOR wrote, “He was admitted into the U.S. on a B-2 Visa, which is still valid until
11/26/2021.”

14. Ina subsequent text on July 19, 2021, CC-1 asked TAYLOR to explain
the meaning of several acronyms in the screenshot and asked TAYLOR for “his immigration
custom pictures like last time,” apparently referring to a prior instance in which TAYLOR
provided information to CC-1.?

15. On July 19, 2021, TAYLOR asked CC-2 in a text message, “[C]an you
provide me a pic of the guy, last sent? I have one more will sent info later.” The next day,
CC-2 responded, “Hey Derrick, I don’t think I could assist you anymore cause We’re only
focusing on Agg Fel during this administration. Any cases not in that category I might get
burn for it. Sorry bro.” Based on my training and experience, I assess that the reference to
“focusing on Agg Fel during this administration” refers to efforts by the DHS to prioritize
enforcement efforts against those who have committed aggravated felonies and suggests that
the queries requested by TAYLOR would subject CC-2 to internal scrutiny at DHS. After
TAYLOR asked for another contact who could help with the inquiry, CC-2 responded, “I wish
I could assist more but again I’m too close to retire. Yeah I don’t have anyone at this time.

Sorry bro.” As noted above, CC-2 recently retired as a DHS agent, and I assess that the
messages summarized above reflect CC-2’s understanding that he was engaging in improper
conduct by accessing law enforcement databases on behalf of TAYLOR (“Any cases not in
that category I might get burn for it.”) (“I wish I could assist more but again I’m too close to
retire.”’).

16. ‘It appears that TAYLOR received information about Dissident 2 from
CC-2’s access to the PCQS database. Metadata of other photos from TAYLOR’s iCloud
account reflect a URL for PCQS photographed from a location that matches CC-2’s residence
at the time.

Dissident 3

17. The investigation has uncovered electronic communications in which
TAYLOR and CC-1 discussed CC-1’s request for and receipt from TAYLOR of personal
identifying information of Dissident 3 and Dissident 3’s daughter (the “Daughter’’).

18. Ina text string from October and November 2021, CC-1 asked for and
received from TAYLOR passport photos for Dissident 3 and the Daughter. In the text string,
CC-1 and TAYLOR engaged in a dispute over when CC-1 should submit payment—upon
receipt of the photos or prior to receipt of the photos. Ultimately, CC-1 paid TAYLOR after
receiving the passport photos. In pertinent part, CC-1 and TAYLOR engaged in the following

communications:
DATE FROM COMMUNICATION

10/27/2021 CC-1 Can you get someone passport pictures?

11/10/2021 CC-1 A client is willing to pay $800 for two passports
numbers. Please let me know if you can help.

11/10/2021 TAYLOR What are the full names and information

11/10/2021 CC-1 [Provides names and dates of birth of Dissident 3
and Dissident 3’s daughter]

11/11/2021 CC-1 Client confirmed. Monday is OK. Thanks.

11/12/2021 CC-1 Derek, client is willing to pay more if you can get
them today.
if not, Monday is okay.

11/13/2021 CC-1 Please let me know if you can find owner name
address

11/13/2021 TAYLOR I am with a client, so I will attempt later today
What do you want this info for?

11/13/2021 CC-1 Locate

11/13/2021 TAYLOR What for?

11/13/2021 CC-1 Debt collection

11/15/2021 TAYLOR Call me when you get a chance

11/15/2021 CC-1 [Provides names and dates of birth of Dissident 3
and the Daughter]
Same address
Father daughter

11/15/2021 TAYLOR These date of births do not match in the system!
So, understand that
It will be tomorrow! The name is different

11/15/2021 CC-1 [] is his Chinese name

11/16/2021 TAYLOR All documents are ready!

19. DHS records reflect that, on November 16, 2021, SM ran queries
through one or more restricted government databases in the names of Dissident 3 and the
Daughter.

20. Toll records reveal numerous text communications sent between
P| ’s cell phone and a phone used by TAYLOR during that period. For example, there
were approximately 70 messages on November 10, 2021, 5 messages on November 14, 2021,
14 messages on November 15, 2021, 195 messages on November 16, 2021, and 29 messages

on November 19,2021. The timing of these communications correlates with communications
between CC-1 and TAYLOR in which CC-1 asked for the passport information of Dissident
3 and the Daughter, and TAYLOR provided the information to CC-1.

21. As TAYLOR conveyed the requested information regarding Dissident 3
and the Daughter to CC-1 on November 17, 2021, I assess that the text communications
referenced above between TAYLOR and P| from November 2021 pertained to
P| efforts to obtain information regarding Dissident 3 and Dissident 3’s daughter for
TAYLOR through a restricted government database.

B. TAYLOR’s Communications with CC-1

22. Following the conduct set forth above, CC-1 was approached by law
enforcement and agreed in April 2022 to make consensually recorded calls to TAYLOR. On
April 7, 2022, while acting under the supervision of law enforcement agents, CC-1 participated
in two recorded phone calls with TAYLOR, during which CC-1 stated, in sum and substance,
that he had received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of
New York that requested CC-1 to appear in Brooklyn, New York and provide documents and
information related to passport materials obtained for Dissident 3 and the Daughter.* These
calls were initiated after CC-1 sent a text message to TAYLOR asking to speak.

23. | During these recorded calls, CC-1 asked TAYLOR what he should do.
TAYLOR informed CC-1, in sum and substance, that he should not provide the documents
related to the passport information that TAYLOR had provided to CC-1 and that CC-1 should
not tell anyone that CC-1 and TAYLOR were involved in obtaining the passport information

for Dissident 3 and the Daughter. In the same telephone calls, TAYLOR repeatedly told CC-

4 CC-1 was not actually served with a subpoena but, rather, was making these

statements to TAYLOR at the direction of law enforcement.
10

1, in sum and substance, that TAYLOR could not advise CC-1 or tell CC-1 what to do and that
CC-1 should determine for himself how to respond to the subpoena. Additionally, TAYLOR
acknowledged that he had illegally received the records for Dissident 3 and the Daughter from
an “ICE” (i.e., DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement) employee.

24. During the first call, TAYLOR seemed to grow suspicious of CC-1,
asking CC-1 “do you got me on recorder or something?” TAYLOR then suggested to CC-1
that he had only agreed to procure the information about Dissident 3 and the Daughter because
of his understanding that it pertained to debt collection. In the second call, TAYLOR
suggested to CC-1 that he had agreed to procure the information about the Daughter solely
because of CC-1’s purported request to assist in a missing child investigation. CC-1 denied
to TAYLOR ever suggesting that the request pertained to a missing child investigation.

25. TAYLOR attempted to obstruct the government’s investigation by
advising CC-1 not to provide documents to law enforcement, by suggesting to CC-1 false
reasons why TAYLOR had agreed to procure information for CC-1, and as set forth below, by
falsely stating to law enforcement officers where he had obtained the information about
Dissident 3 and the Daughter.

C. The Law Enforcement Interviews

26. On April 11, 2022, FBI agents approached TAYLOR in Irvine,
California. When the agents administered the candor warning to TAYLOR, they stated in
sum and substance that they knew that TAYLOR understood, as a former federal agent, that
TAYLOR had to be truthful during the interview with the agents because lying to a federal
agent was acrime. TAYLOR acknowledged that he understood. He then indicated, in sum

and substance and in part, that he had obtained the passport information about Dissident 3 and
11

the Daughter that he had provided to CC-1 from a contact who had reportedly found it on the
“Black Dark Web.” Iassess that TAYLOR was likely referencing the “Dark Web,” the World
Wide Web content that exists on darknets, that is, overlay networks that use the Internet but
require specific software, configurations, or authorization to access. TAYLOR further
indicated that he would not provide the name of his contact. TAYLOR then acknowledged
speaking during the previous week with CC-1 about the passport information at issue.
TAYLOR claimed to FBI agents that CC-1 had indicated that the subpoena served upon CC-
1 related to a gang in New York. TAYLOR asked whether the agents were from New York.
TAYLOR’s statement that he had obtained the passport information about Dissident 3 and the
Daughter from a contact who found it on the “Black Dark Web” was false, as TAYLOR

received the information fom ii through i access to a restricted government

database.
14

WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully requests that the defendants)

BE 2c DERRICK TAYLOR be dealt with according to law.

EDWARD TAM
Special Agent

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Sworn to before me this
22nd day of June, 2022

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Eastern District of New York

United States of America

DERRICK TAYLOR ) Case No, 22-MJ-665
)
)
)
)
Defendant
ARREST WARRANT

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay

(name of person to be arrested) DERRICK TAYLOR
who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:

1 Indictment 1 Superseding Indictment Information 0 Superseding Information rf Complaint
1 Probation Violation Petition OF Supervised Release Violation Petition OViolation Notice © Order of the Court

This offense is briefly described as follows:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2) (obstruction of justice)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2) (false statements)

Date: 06/22/2022 af
Issuing officer’s signature
City and state: Brooklyn, New York The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak
Printed name and title
Return
This warrant was received on (date) , and the person was arrested on (date)

at (city and state)

Date:

Arresting officer’s signature

Printed name and title
AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant (Page 2)

This second page contains personal identifiers provided for law-enforcement use only
and therefore should not be filed in court with the executed warrant unless under seal.

(Not for Public Disclosure)

Name of defendant/offender:

Known aliases:

Last known residence:

Prior addresses to which defendant/offender may still have ties:

Last known employment:

Last known telephone numbers:

Place of birth:

Date of birth:

Social Security number:

Height: Weight:
Sex: Race:
Hair: Eyes:

Scars, tattoos, other distinguishing marks:

History of violence, weapons, drug use:

Known family, friends, and other associates (name, relation, address, phone number):

FBI number:

Complete description of auto:

Investigative agency and address:

Name and telephone numbers (office and cell) of pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Date of last contact with pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.482283.4.0.pdf

Size

3,225,464 bytes

SHA-256

f6396998ba798804115b7a8920cf1f9031d2856c1828d3941b71bdd777a9cfe3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.482283.4.0.pdf

Original

archive.org