Dynasty’s lawyer, Steve Zissou, had no comment on Wednesday.

Mr. Pan, a 46-year-old resident of Mendham, N.J., is no stranger to Mr. Liu, or to power brokers in New York’s Chinese-American community. He has long been closely allied with the United Fujianese of America Association, one of the city’s most prominent groups for the fast-growing Fujianese population, and its leader, Jimmy Cheng.

In the complaint, Mr. Pan, who is also known as Oliver, is quoted as saying that he had funneled large campaign contributions through straw donors to Mr. Liu in previous elections, and, to a much smaller extent, another politician. The other politician is not named in the complaint, which was signed by Donald M. Chu, an F.B.I. agent.

In New York City, campaign finance is closely scrutinized, in part because of the city’s generous matching program, in which up to $6 of public funds are provided to candidates for every $1 raised from individual donors. And in several conversations captured with the hidden video camera, according to the complaint, Mr. Pan explained the nuances and incentives of that matching program.

“Whatever they can raise,” Mr. Pan told the agent in a recorded conversation, “let’s say they can raise a million ... the city or the state will match whatever the, the percentage to that.”

Dressed in a brown sweater and gray slacks, Mr. Pan appeared before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman in Federal District Court in Manhattan shortly before 6 p.m. on Wednesday.

He was charged with one count each of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and attempted wire fraud. Mr. Pan admitted to the F.B.I. in October that he had “illegally funneled the money he received” from the undercover agent to Mr. Liu’s campaign, the complaint said. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. He was released on a $100,000 bond. His lawyer, Julia L. Gatto, declined to comment.

The alleged straw donor scheme, according to the office of the United States attorney, Preet Bharara, was fraudulent in two ways. It allowed for more money to be directly given to the candidate’s campaign by evading the maximum individual contribution limit. And by inflating the sums given directly by donors, it entitled the campaign to claim additional matching public funds fraudulently.